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.

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.

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.

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

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  

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.”

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?

MRC Announces Third Annual Bulldog Award Winners: Hanson, Shapiro, Dillon, Zito, Schweizer, Akiva and Prager

With our third annual Bulldog Awards in six categories announced today, the Media Research Center is honoring conservatives in the media who truly deserve accolades yet will never receive them from the news media establishment. The winners of the MRC’s 2024 Bulldog Awards: Victor Davis Hanson, Ben Shapiro, Seth Dillon, Salena Zito, Peter Schweizer, Kassy Akiva and Dennis Prager. The biggest journalism awards, the Pulitzer Prizes, were announced on Monday, May 6. Inevitably, they honored journalists who pushed liberal agenda topics. (See the bottom of this post for some examples.) In announcing this year’s winners, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell III said: “Like everything else the left controls, major journalism awards are rigged to reward people who advance their most radical agenda priorities. If you want to win a Pulitzer, write about 'climate change' or 'systemic racism' or 'reproductive health' or promote ‘Russian collusion.’ If you want to win a Bulldog Award, tell the truth. This year's winners are great American truth-tellers.” Bozell added, “I applaud Victor’s wise insights, Ben’s savage podcasts, Seth’s mockery of the left and defense of free speech, Salena giving voice to Middle-America, Peter’s damning investigations, Kassy’s war coverage and exposing anti-Semitism and Dennis’s can’t-miss radio show and work at PragerU. Congratulations to this year’s winners!” Previous: 2022 and 2023 Bulldog winners Details on the seven winners of the MRC’s 2024 Bulldog Awards announced Tuesday, May 7: ♦ 2024 MRC Bulldog Award for Lifetime Achievement: Victor Davis Hanson The leading conservative thinker and author of our age, Victor Davis Hanson has for decades offered wise guidance on a wide range of issues, providing intellectual fuel for conservatives battling the latest liberal schemes to undermine traditional American values.   A man of many skills and passions, he’s a farmer, university professor, historian and prolific author. In 2007, President George W. Bush awarded him the National Humanities Medal. He’s written or edited 25 books, and is probably best known for his 2002 treatise, ‘Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power.’ His latest book, the much-anticipated ‘The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation,’ is being published this week. For years his articles were must-reads in the pages of National Review. Today, cable news viewers who are privileged to catch one of his appearances always come away with a broader and deeper understanding of the issue at hand. He’s now the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, where his focus is on classics and military history. He also teaches in the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University.     ♦ 2024 MRC Bulldog Award for Outstanding Podcast: Ben Shapiro Ben Shapiro is a super-star of podcasters, his popular podcast rightly touted as “the hardest hitting, most insightful, and savagely irreverent conservative podcast on the web.” In a sign of his popularity and desire of so many to hear his takes on the latest news, radio stations across the country air his daily podcast as a radio show. A whole generation of young conservatives considers Shapiro an inspiration and point to him when asked who is the conservative voice they trust the most. He is also a leading speaker on college campuses where he’s willing to confront liberal assumptions and “woke” students on the most contentious issues. Shapiro’s podcast and radio show are part of a much larger media empire he has been a key player in building. He’s the founding editor-in-chief and editor emeritus of The Daily Wire, a profitable media company producing a wide-array of original products which push conservative values into the wider hostile culture, including a popular news web site, video shows and audio productions, and a pioneering move into original production documentaries and entertainment films from a conservative perspective.   ♦ 2024 MRC Bulldog Award for Outstanding Social Media Personality: Seth Dillon Seth Dillon, a battler for free speech and producer of much-needed mockery of cancel culture, has been CEO of The Babylon Bee since 2018. He’s grown the site into a national treasure, a compelling daily creator of articles and videos decimating, through satire, the Left and “woke” culture. Dillon observes that “jokes are funny because of their proximity to the truth” and “the problem now isn’t that our satire is too close to reality, it’s that reality is too close to satire.” As “Your Trusted Source for Christian News Satire,” the Babylon Bee drives liberals crazy as conservatives laugh at how the site skewers liberals with their own hypocrisy. So-called “fact check” and social media sites have embarrassed themselves by deplatforming and canceling Dillon and the Babylon Bee for supposed disinformation, unable to recognize satire or tolerate any ridicule of themselves. In on the joke, the X page for the Babylon Bee, restored by new X owner Elon Musk, dubs itself: “Fake news you can trust.” Indeed it is. ♦ 2024 MRC Bulldog Award for Outstanding Columnist: Salena Zito Salena Zito is the “Middle America”-whisperer, relaying the views and passions of the heartland to those on the coasts. As she best explains herself: “In my estimation, there is no patch of geography in this country that is the ‘middle of nowhere.’ This is America; everywhere is the middle of somewhere.” Based in Western Pennsylvania, she joined the Washington Examiner in 2016 as a political reporter and columnist, just in time to chronicle Donald Trump’s popularity in her region. Her columns also appear in the New York Post and she appears as a guest on the Fox News Channel and Newsmax. In 2018, she co-authored, ‘The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics.’ Amongst her unique 2023 column takes: “Community colleges and trade schools are largely void of Israel-Hamas protests”; “What the ‘Great Trucking Recession’ is warning us about the economy”; “The general store that cultivated a community one Friday at a time”; “Faith groups come together in Youngstown to ‘Stop the Violence’”; “Democrats abandon the blue-collar worker in favor of ‘social justice’ warriors” and “Mike Rowe is on a mission to reverse the ‘unspeakable stupidity’ of devaluing work.” ♦ 2024 MRC Bulldog Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism: Peter Schweizer Anyone who watches the Fox News Channel or Newsmax knows Peter Schweizer as the go-to expert on all things China, particularly of late, the Chinese payment scandals involving Joe and Hunter Biden. But he’s first and foremost a driven investigative book author, uncovering topics ignored by the liberal media. An impressive eight of his books have made it onto the New York Times’ best-seller list. He hit #1 earlier this year with his latest, ‘Blood Money: Why the Powerful Turn a Blind Eye While China Kills Americans.’ Previous ground-breaking books include 2022’s ‘Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win’; in 2018, ‘Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends’; and in 2015, ‘Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.’   An earlier book, ‘Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison,’ was so compelling that even the liberals at CBS’s 60 Minutes considered it worth featuring on their program. He conducts his investigative journalism through the Florida-based Government Accountability Institute, which he founded in 2012 “to investigate and expose crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental corruption or malfeasance.” ♦ 2024 MRC Bulldog Award for Outstanding Blogger: Kassy Akiva A reporter and video journalist for The Daily Wire since October of 2023 after serving as a digital journalist for FoxNews.com, Kassy Akiva is a dedicated chronicler of the excesses of the left. Since October 7 and the start of the Israel/Hamas War, Akiva has been a force in covering the anti-Semitism festering on college campuses across the country. Since she calls Boston home, she has been able to shine a spotlight on the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred at Harvard in particular which contributed to national pressure on the university’s president, Claudine Gay, to resign. (“‘Can’t Fool Me’: Arab-Speaking Israeli Slams Rashida Tlaib For Lie About ‘From the River To The Sea’ Chant” and “‘Harvard Does Not Have Our Back’: Rabbi Slams University At Hanukkah Event Attended By Claudine Gay”). Akiva’s fearless reporting on the war even took her halfway around the world to the combat zone itself. While in Israel, she visited the Kfar Aza kibbutz to witness firsthand the carnage and evil Hamas terrorists unleashed on Israeli civilians. She also scored an exclusive with a Thai man who survived Hamas’s attack and who was able to identify his captured roommate on surveillance video from the Al Shifa hospital. (“EXCLUSIVE: Survivor of Hamas Attack Identifies Hostage From Al Shifa Hospital Footage As His Roommate”). She got the journalism itch earlier, taking the initiative, while still in college, to create the Lone Conservative, a blog to empower conservative students outnumbered on leftist campuses.   ♦ 2024 MRC Bulldog Award for Outstanding Radio Talk Show Host: Dennis Prager Radio talk show host, podcaster, author, columnist and business pioneer, Dennis Prager’s work ethic is the envy of many. Prager got his start in radio in 1982 at KABC in Los Angeles. He’s had a national show on the Salem Radio network since 2009 and now can also be watched via a simulcast on the Salem News Channel video streaming service. His noontime ET national radio show delivers sober takes on the news of the day, which Prager uses to launch deeper expositions on the conservative principles that inform his political stands based on ethical monotheism. He’s genuinely interested in the perspectives of his callers, engaging them in informative exchanges. Beyond radio, in 2009 he founded Prager University (PragerU), “the most viewed conservative video site in the world, with one billion views a year, more than half by people under the age of 35.” PragerU’s videos, with “the best ideas from the best minds distilled into five focused minutes,” extend the reach of conservative values to new audiences, particularly inquisitive high school and college-age students.   2024 Pulitzer Prizes. As noted above, the biggest journalism awards were announced on May 6. Inevitably, they honored journalists who pushed liberal agenda topics. Examples: > The New Yorker earned the “explanatory reporting” Pulitzer for “a searing indictment of our legal system’s reliance on the felony murder charge and its disparate consequences, often devastating for communities of color.” > The Washington Post won in “national reporting” for “its sobering examination of the AR 15 semiautomatic rifle which forced readers to reckon with the horrors wrought by the weapon often used for mass shootings.” > ProPublica was awarded the “public service” prize for trying to discredit conservative Supreme Court justices, particularly Clarence Thomas. The friendly framing from the Pulitzer board praised the “groundbreaking and ambitious reporting that pierced the thick wall of secrecy surrounding the Supreme Court to reveal how a small group of politically influential billionaires wooed justices with lavish gifts and travel.” > 2023 MRC Bulldog Award winners > 2023 MRC Bulldog Award for Lifetime Achievement: Brit Hume > 2022 MRC Bulldog Award winners > 2022 MRC Bulldog Award for Lifetime Achievement: Cal Thomas  

Miraculous Gun Jam Saves Pastor During Pennsylvania Church Service

Psalm 23:4 reads, "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me." And that verse has never rung more true than this past Sunday when, during a church service in Braddock, Pennsylvania, a man pulled a gun on the pastor mid-sermon and pulled the trigger. In what can only be a sign of the Lord’s protection, the gun miraculously jammed, saving the pastor's life. The gunman, Bernard Polite, entered Jesus’ Dwelling Place Church on Sunday morning during Pastor Glenn Germany’s weekly address. Polite walked to the altar, pulled out his gun and aimed it directly at Germany.  “I was like, this is not happening,” Germany recalled, according to CBSNews. But when Polite pulled the trigger, no shot was fired thanks to his jammed gun. “Only God stopped and jammed this gun,” Germany said. Miracle! A pastor survives shooting attempt after handgun jams and doesn’t fire.pic.twitter.com/YIKwSliq3h — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 6, 2024 The whole incident was caught on video, which showed church Deacon Clarence McCallister leaping up and tackling Polite to the ground while Pastor Germany worked to get the gun out of Polite’s hands. Germany called McCallister a “hero” and said they were able to keep Polite “subdued until police arrived” to take him into custody. Related: Tennessee Bill Allows Teachers to Possess Concealed Handguns in Class The pastor also indicated that what brought him to tears the most was that his 14-year-old daughter was sitting in the pews while this whole situation played out.  “I still had to be strong, because I had to be strong for her, but I couldn't take it, and just seeing her, that's the part that's hard for me to digest," he said. Germany, in speaking with police, noted that Polite “was just dealing with spirits” and he “came in and wanted to shoot somebody.” Germany confessed that he believed Polite was suffering with a form of mental illness and noted that he had “voices in his mind,” CBS News wrote. Germany, being the man of faith that he is, said he has already forgiven Polite after the gunman apologized to him.  The pastor hopes to use the story to stress that mental illness is real and to point to the ultimate protector: God. Follow us on Twitter/X: How Columbia University Would Advertise If They Were Honest Don't worry; this ad is satire, even if everything we said here is true. pic.twitter.com/dpqScHiODl — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 1, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Demonstrations Today Not Like the 1960s

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

Gay Group Calls on Hollywood to Have Even MORE Gay Characters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCLUSIVE: Unearthed Emails Show Legacy Media Cozying Up to Disgraced Censorship Group

FIRST ON MRC: Never-before-seen emails reveal how several legacy media outlets closely aligned themselves with a disgraced censorship entity, accused of leading the censorship of Republicans and conservatives on social media. Documents reviewed by MRC Free Speech America indicate that certain leftist, legacy media outlets — including The Washington Post, The Guardian, ABC News, NBC News, Vice and others — collaborated closely with the anti-free speech Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), a now-defunct consortium of researchers and universities with ties to government agencies and embroiled in censorship controversies. Stanford University’s Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), along with the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, led the effort to launch the EIP.  Tellingly, the EIP was created “at the request of” the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and “worked directly with” the DHS and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center to “monitor and censor Americans’ online speech” before the 2020 elections, according to the House Judiciary Committee. In response to these emails, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) called on the federal government to defund the massive web of anti-free speech entities, infamously known as the Censorship Industrial Complex. “We’ve obtained the secret reports showing how the Election Integrity Partnership worked closely with Big Tech to censor thousands of Americans,” Jordan said. “Other documents confirm that the EIP was created ‘at the request of’ the federal government. In other words, Big Tech, Big Academia, and Big Government teamed up to censor Americans before the 2020 election.” The emails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request investigation by government watchdog Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT), suggest that the legacy media blindly relied on the EIP to reinforce their anti-free speech narratives. “It’s disappointing and, frankly, a little frightening that media outlets have taken up full membership in the Censorship Industrial Complex,” PPT President Michael Chamberlain told MRC Free Speech America. Little has been reported or known about the extent of the media’s involvement with the disgraced censorship group — at least until now. The Washington Post Calls Anti-Free Speech Researchers ‘My Fave People’ In one instance, Elizabeth Dwoskin, a Silicon Valley correspondent for The Washington Post, referred to EIP leader Alex Stamos, a former chief security officer at Facebook, and Stanford researcher Renée DiResta, as her “fave people” in an email dated April 1, 2022. According to the email, Dwoskin contacted EIP to propose “a potentially powerful collaboration” concerning alleged “disinfo” in the 2022 midterm elections.  The proposed collaboration, dubbed "The Megaphone Project," aimed to track individuals who raised questions about the 2020 elections and whether they still had platforms in the 2022 midterm elections. “What platforms are they using? Do they still have the megaphones they had in 2020? What are they saying in the run-up to 2022?” Dwoskin asked Stamos and DiResta.  Whether “The Megaphone Project” was initiated remains unknown. However, the proposal raises concerns about the impartiality of The Post's reporter, said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. “It is sickening that The Post sought to create a hit list against people who simply wanted to exercise their free speech rights,” Schneider said. “In the past, leftists have also done the same thing. Did The Post ever produce a similar blacklist? We doubt it. This only proves the legacy media are nothing but arms of the Democrat Party.” Dwoskin did not immediately respond to MRC Free Speech America’s request for comment. ABC News Mourns Rise of Parler: ‘Will We Ever Stop Misinformation?’ In another instance showcasing how legacy media outlets leaned on EIP to promote their anti-free speech agenda, ABC News reporter Laura Romero emailed professor and EIP mastermind Kate Starbird on Nov. 11, 2020, seeking comment regarding Parler, a pro-free speech platform. Rather than simply requesting Starbird's expert analysis on Parler, Romero, in a 257-word email, voiced her concerns that while Facebook and Twitter were cracking down on the “Big Lie,” Parler allowed Americans to freely express their views on the 2020 election. “Is this a cat and mouse chase?” Romero asked Starbird, alluding to Big Tech’s crackdown on free speech. The ABC News reporter pondered, “Will we ever stop misinformation from spreading?” without specifying who the “we” in her email referred to. In the same email, Romero suggested that she preferred “to hop on the phone to discuss this,” citing her busy schedule. Tellingly, Romero did not promptly respond to MRC’s repeated requests for comments or clarification. Romero ultimately published an ABC News article on Nov. 17, 2020, headlined: “‘Free speech’ social media platform Parler is a hit among Trump supporters, but experts say it won't last.” In the article, Romero accused Parler of disseminating “misinformation.” She supported her anti-free speech assertions by citing “experts.” Did The Guardian Rely on EIP for Legal Advice Following Project Veritas Threat? Amid a legal dispute between media activist group Project Veritas and EIP, attorneys representing then-Project Veritas President James O’Keefe filed a complaint against The Guardian. The newspaper had previously covered an EIP blog that labeled O’Keefe as a “repeat spreader” of “election misinformation” a year prior. Faced with a potential legal challenge regarding its coverage of O’Keefe, Eline Gordts, a West Coast editor at The Guardian, reached out to EIP, apparently seeking guidance on how to respond to Project Veritas. Project Veritas had initiated a lawsuit against EIP over an EIP blog published on Sept. 29, 2020 (and later covered by The Guardian). “O'Keefe's lawyers mention that they have filed litigation against EIP for defamatory content,” Gordts wrote to EIP researcher DiResta and Communications Director Michael Grass.  Gordts added, “As we're crafting our response, it would be very helpful to get a sense of your thinking around his allegations, what exactly they are suiting [sic] over and whether Project Veritas is suing or James O'Keefe.” Later in the email, she asked to “discuss this over the phone." In response, Stamos confirmed that Project Veritas had initiated legal action against EIP. He then offered Gordts access to EIP’s attorneys and provided communications advice for further comment. In response, Stamos confirmed that Project Veritas had initiated legal action against EIP. He then offered Gordts access to EIP’s attorneys, deferring to them for further comment. In statements to MRC, The Guardian spokesperson Matt Mittenthal vehemently denied that the newspaper had reached out to EIP for potential advice.  “An editor for the Guardian contacted the Election Integrity Partnership to verify Project Veritas's claim that it had sued EIP, a fact that could have bearing on our own reporting,” he claimed in an email on Wednesday. “Any suggestion of ‘coordination’ would be a gross mischaracterization of an editor doing her job.” Mittenthal said that Project Veritas did not threaten to sue The Guardian for its reporting of the EIP blog. He clarified that Gordst did not engage with EIP’s attorneys past Stamos’s comment. MRC’s Schneider said that such a coordination would have been highly unusual for a media outlet. “Not only did the media peddle EIP’s work blindly, but they seemed to be so entangled with EIP that they even wanted to secretly coordinate their dissembling in the courthouse. Their corruption does not end with election interference. It might also include obstruction of justice.” VICE News and The Post Ask: First Amendment Worse Than Russian ‘Disinformation’? One of the accusations raised by House Republicans against the EIP and its government ties is that the EIP conflated constitutionally-protected speech with alleged foreign “disinformation,” occasionally prioritizing the targeting of Americans’ free speech. VICE and The Post suggested that Americans’ ability to freely speak posed a greater threat to the nation than foreign interference. In September 2020, Vice commissioned a “big/special” election documentary with HBO, as indicated by Graham Brookie, an aide at The Atlantic Council’s Digital Foreign Research Lab (also part of the EIP, according to House Republicans). In an email to Starbird, Brookie forwarded a note, purportedly from Vice News, that stated, “While foreign interference is continuing in similar fashion to 2016, the primary issue is domestic misinformation.” It isn’t immediately clear whether such a documentary was ever videotaped or finalized. Not to be outdone by Vice, The Post's Dwoskin (mentioned earlier in this report) reached out to EIP about a briefing related to the 2020 election. In the email dated Nov. 4, 2020, Dwoskin posed the highly cynical question of whether Trump declaring himself winner was “a bigger test for the platforms than Russian disinfo, in terms of protecting threats to democracy?” On the same day, Dwoskin published a write-up for The Post headlined “Trump’s early victory declarations test tech giants’ mettle in policing threats to the election.” In it, she used a quote from Stamos to accuse Big Tech platforms of failing to act against so-called “repeat offenders” of “misinformation.” Neither Brookie, Vice nor Dwoskin immediately responded to MRC’s request for comment. NBC News to EIP: ‘Why YouTube Isn’t Adjusting’ In an email to Starbird, NBC News Correspondent Jake Ward whined about YouTube's alleged reluctance to follow the lead of other major Big Tech platforms in censoring Americans in the days leading up to the 2020 election. The subject line of Ward’s email, dated Oct. 26, 2020, read, “Why YouTube Isn't Adjusting.” Ward sought to interview Starbird to gain a “big-picture” perspective on how YouTube “handles itself.” Ward declared his intent to write a story on YouTube. “I'm putting a story together about why it is that YouTube has adjusted so little of how it handles misinformation as compared to Twitter and FB,” he wrote, extending an invitation to continue the conversation on Zoom. Ward, who has since left NBC News, did not immediately respond to MRC's request for comment. Ward’s concerns seemingly prompted action from YouTube, as the platform undertook a significant purge of content that allegedly violated the platform’s COVID-19 policies, resulting in the removal of over 500,000 videos. YouTube also moved to ban former President Donald Trump’s account for over three years, a decision ultimately reversed in March 2023. Despite Ward’s assertions about YouTube’s perceived inaction on censorship, its parent company, Google, faced scrutiny nearly four years later, following the release of an MRC Free Speech America report. The MRC report revealed that the tech giant intervened in U.S. elections at least 41 times, every time in favor of the most left-wing candidates. EIP to Fox News: No, Thank You? In contrast to EIP’s engagement with other media outlets, the organization appears to have been less receptive to a Fox News reporter’s inquiry about an EIP fact check of a Project Veritas video on alleged voter fraud. In an email dated Oct. 5, 2020, Fox News reporter Audrey Conklin reached out to Dr. Joe Bak-Coleman, one of the authors of an EIP blog that targeted Project Veritas. Such a blog was at the center of a now-settled lawsuit between Project Veritas and EIP. Bak-Coleman forwarded the email to Starbird and Stamos seeking advice. “Thoughts on how/if I should respond? My instinct is to just ignore it but I figured better to ask y'all,” Bak-Coleman wrote that same day. Starbird advised against responding, warning, “I wouldn't respond. I'm curious as to why they reached out to you and not Alex or me. Something to chat about at our next meeting.” Bak-Coleman chose not to respond to Conklin. Instead, Stamos intervened, stating, “I believe our post speaks for itself and we are going to decline further comment.” Legacy Media, Enemies of Free Speech? Reacting to these revelations, PPT’s Chamberlain criticized the legacy media’s role in endorsing EIP’s controversial work and, even worse, failing to uphold the principles of the First Amendment. “I’m old enough to remember when they would be the staunchest defenders of free speech, the First Amendment, and the search for truth,” Chamberlain told MRC. “Now it appears that instead of defending those principles they are more interested in defending the narratives they advance and defending themselves against upstarts and alternative outlets.” Chamberlain concluded with a sobering assessment: “There's profit and prestige in being an approved information gatekeeper.” But not all hope is gone, as Jordan and the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are calling for legislation to defund these censorship-tied tools. “Our investigation continues but it’s clear that Congress must pass legislation that ends the censorship-industrial complex in all its forms, including the EIP,” Jordan told MRC. 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.

Tit for Tat? Apple Censors US Social Media Apps at Request of Chinese Gov’t After TikTok Ultimatum

Did Apple just help China retaliate against America’s possible TikTok ban? Apple has long invested heavily in Chinese markets, and, based on a recent report, the company is willing to exercise censorship to maintain those markets. Bloomberg reportedon April 18 that Apple Inc. had removed at least four social media services from its Chinese App Store, including two Meta-owned apps. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which Bloomberg called “one of the world’s most rigid internet censorship regimes,” demanded that Apple remove the apps over alleged “national security” concerns. Apple complied just after President Joe Biden signed a bill forcing TikTok to either relinquish its Chinese communist government ties or leave the country. The process of both bans have been ongoing, however. Bloomberg explained, “The orders come on the heels of a cleanup program Chinese regulators initiated in 2023 that was expected to remove many defunct or unregistered apps from domestic iOS and Android stores.” Mobile app developers were reportedly required to complete registration with the CCP by the end of March or be forced to cease operating. The censored apps are Meta’s Threads and WhatsApp, along with Signal and Telegram. In a statement obtained by Bloomberg, Apple claimed that it disagreed with the CCP’s demands but had to follow them. “We are obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree. The Cyberspace Administration of China ordered the removal of these apps from the China storefront based on their national security concerns,” Apple stated, per Bloomberg. “These apps remain available for download on all other storefronts where they appear.” The dictatorial CCP’s “Great Firewall” has long banned foreign social media apps, including Facebook and Twitter (now X). Asia-Pacific news site The Diplomat, noted that Chinese users can be sentenced to years in prison for criticizing CCP officials. American companies’ operations in Communist China continue to be controversial, as do the operations of Chinese companies in America. President Joe Biden signed a bill a week ago that gives TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance a choice between selling TikTok or having the popular app banned. The CCP owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in ByteDance, and multiple reports claim Chinese employees have access to U.S. TikTok user data, raising national security concerns.  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.

7 Times Big Tech Censored Content Exposing Radical Islamic Extremism

Big Tech has not only run cover for leftists, but, over the years, it has censored content exposing radical Islamic extremism. From 2018 to April 2024, individuals discussing or providing evidence on radical Islam have found themselves facing various forms of censorship on Big Tech platforms. These include financial censorship, deleted content and locked accounts. From communist Chinese government-tied TikTok to Google, Meta, PayPal and Amazon, below are seven examples of Big Tech censoring information on radical Islamic extremism and its destructive aftermath. Instagram and TikTok targeted videos exposing Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, atrocities.Soon after the devastating Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians triggered an ongoing conflict, actor Nathaniel Buzolic accused Meta-owned Instagram and communist Chinese government-tied TikTok of censoring content that served to shield radical Islamic extremism. Buzolic told Fox News that Instagram shut down his account no fewer than three different times for videos about the Hamas atrocities. He also said TikTok accused him of spreading “false information” and took down a video the actor shared of a child being kidnapped in Gaza. TikTok actually even boasted about removing 500,000 videos related to the Hamas-Israel war. Buzolic, who is strongly pro-Israel, insisted that “pro-Palestinian propaganda” cleverly manipulates Big Tech platforms. TikTok’s parent company is ByteDance, in which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) controls a board seat and maintains a financial stake. Google’s chatbot downplayed evidence of radical Islamic terrorists raping Israeli women. MRC Free Speech America exclusively caught Google’s biased artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, Gemini, whitewashing the sexual violence carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7. When asked about documented evidence of Hamas rape of Israelis during the heinous terror attack, Gemini pontificated, “Some people believe that these allegations are credible, while others believe that they are politically motivated.” A Google spokesperson subsequently confessedGemini gave the wrong response and needed to be fixed, stating, “Gemini got this wrong and missed the mark on this important and sensitive topic.” Facebook censored show for exposing threat of radical Islamic terrorism in the U.S. Meta-owned Facebook censored Front Page Magazine Editor and Glazov Gang show host Jamie Glazov’s account in April over an interview headlined “Oct. 7 Coming to the USA?” Glazov and his guests talked about reports that terrorists have infiltrated America due to the border crisis. In contrast to this censorship, Meta’s Oversight Board issued a 2023 decisionthat the term “shaheed” or martyr, often used by Muslims to refer to individuals killed while engaging in terrorism, was usually protected by freedom of expression. But Glazov, according to Front Page Magazine, was accused of violating “community standards” and threatening “the security of people on Facebook.” YouTube removed a video of the 9/11 radical Islamic terrorism attacks on the 20-year anniversary. Google-owned YouTube removeda video posted on Sept. 11, 2021 by ACT for America associate Emma Blair. The videodisplayed footage from the 2001 terror attacks on the United States, along with archived audio recordings of people trapped both in the Twin Towers and on the hijacked planes. In a notice to Blair, YouTube claimed that the video violated its violent criminal organizations policy, though the platform added it wouldn’t be levying a strike against her channel. YouTube later reversed its decision, and restored the video to Blair's channel. Amazon de-listed a book on alleged subversive radical Islamic extremist activity. In Sept. 2023, Amazon removed RealClear Investigations reporter Paul Sperry's 2008 book titled “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington.” Users who click the link that formerly led to his book, are met with a notice reading, “Sorry we couldn't find that page[.] Try searching or go to Amazon's home page.” Sperry decried the censorship on X (formerly Twitter), saying, “Amazon has secretly de-listed my bestselling book, 'Infiltration' (exposing how Saudi Embassy set up terror fronts and mosques around the Beltway) after I broke stories about the conflicts and biases of the Nat'l Editor & Fact Checker of the Wash Post, owned by AMAZON.”  PayPal and GoFundMe financially censored a website focused on reporting radical Islamic terrorism. PayPal shut down the account for Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch in 2018, Spencer told MRC Free Speech America. “PayPal banned Jihad Watch in 2018 but reinstated us after a public outcry,” Spencer stated. He suggested that this was only one of multiple instances of Big Tech censorship against the site, however. GoFundMe also censored Jihad Watch, banning the site from utilizing its services. Spencer further detailed that other platforms, including Amazon, Google, Patreon, Facebook and Twitter, have also censored the website. Front Page Magazine says Google restricted its advertising revenue over a report on a Muslim terrorist attack. Front Page recently reported that Google Ads censored the magazine when it rejected the outlet’s application to use the Google AdSense advertising program. The tech giant reportedly accused Front Page of “dangerous or derogatory content,” according to a March 2024 FrontPage Magazine report. The outlet reported that one of the articles Google objected to was a 2021 piece, “Remember The San Bernardino Fourteen,” which provided details about a devastating and deadly 2015 terror attack in California. The article also argued that the terrorists’ radical Islamic beliefs were a key factor in driving the attack.

FLASHBACK: Lib Reporters Championed ’06 Illegal Immigrant Protests

Eighteen years ago this week, the liberal networks donated their airwaves to the cause of protesters seeking to kill a bill which would have increased the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. The May 1, 2006 protests were part of a wave of activism that spring sponsored by left-wing groups aimed at derailing GOP efforts to curb illegal immigration — even as polls at the time showed four out of five Americans (81%) thought illegal immigration was “out of control.” [For perspective: in 2006, there were a total of 1,089,096 encounters with illegal immigrants at all U.S. borders, according to government statistics. Under Joe Biden, those numbers were nearly three times higher last year (2023): a whopping 3,201,144 encounters. So what was regarded as “out of control” 18 years ago would today seem like great progress.] We’ll never know if today’s situation would be significantly better if Congress had succeeded in passing new enforcement mechanisms in 2006. Back then, the networks helped immigration activists thwart these conservative proposals, with fawning and emotionally-charged coverage of these political marches — “people draping themselves in the American dream,” as one over-the-top morning host anchor enthused. That spring, network correspondents invariably expressed admiration for the large size of the protests — as if a few hundred thousands of participants rendered the cause genuinely popular in a nation of 300 million. “[The immigration issue] erupted this weekend in mass demonstrations that matched the biggest of the civil rights movement or the Vietnam War,” CBS weekend anchor Mika Brzezinski enthused on March 26. “Over the past several days, a protest movement has been born, erupting with a startling air of spontaneity in mass demonstrations,” ABC’s Terry Moran cheered the next day on Nightline. “You could hear the anger about the proposal before Congress that would criminalize illegal or undocumented immigrants and make it a felony to help them in any way.” Three weeks later, another round of protests earned more free airtime. “Across the country today, hundreds of thousands of people came out in support of millions of undocumented workers,” ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas touted on the April 10 World News Tonight. The tone was unquestionably sympathetic. “They are not American citizens yet, but they want to be. And from every corner of America, immigrants took to the streets today to ask for new immigration laws,” CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer applauded that same night. “Not since the protests of the Vietnam era has there been anything quite like it.” Newspapers conveyed the same spin. “A Banner Day on the Mall,” declared the Washington Post the next morning, while USA Today heralded: “Historic rallies voice a ‘dream.” On CBS’s The Early Show, co-host Harry Smith was giddy. “These demonstrations in all these cities across the country, hundreds of thousands of people, American flags unfurled, people draping themselves in the American dream....People literally all over the country walking away from their jobs to stand in the street and say, ‘I count for something,’” he beamed. The biggest event came on May 1, and the networks supplied blanket coverage of the heavily-promoted event. “From coast to coast, from North to South, they wanted us to know what America would be like without them, and so millions of immigrants missed work, skipped school and marched in the streets,” CBS’s Schieffer explained on the Evening News. Over on World News Tonight, ABC’s Vargas called it “an economic show of force by America’s illegal immigrants....They wanted to show America just how much the country and the economy depend on undocumented workers.” “In Philadelphia today, huge crowds converged on the Liberty Bell. In Milwaukee, a massive march on the shores of Lake Michigan,” Terry Moran exulted on ABC’s Nightline. “Hundreds of thousands of workers, their families and supporters, took over the city streets today in a massive demonstration of sheer numerical power. It was breathtaking....” The next morning on NBC’s Today, co-host Katie Couric chirped that the events were “shades of the early days of the civil rights movement.” Reporter Kevin Tibbles kept up the theme: “These people vow to continue their push for immigration reform, so those who critics call ‘illegals’ can continue to call America home.” If there was any confusion about the political motivations at play, CBS carved out some airtime for a soon-to-be-famous Democratic Senator who had attached himself to the cause. “Unlike last month’s wave of demonstrations, politicians didn’t simply take notice. Today, many showed up,” correspondent Byron Pitts saluted on the May 1 Evening News. Viewers then saw Pitts with then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who wagged his finger at Americans who thought immigration laws should be enforced. “We’ve been engaging in hypocrisy in this country. We don’t mind these folks mowing our lawns, or looking after our children, or serving us at restaurants, as long as they don’t actually ask for any rights in return.” The MRC’s Tim Graham studied the broadcast network coverage that spring, documenting the gross imbalance. “Advocates of opening a wider path to citizenship were almost twice as likely to speak in news stories as advocates for stricter immigration control,” he discovered. Out of 830 soundbites, Graham found 504 (61%) advocated amnesty, vs. 257 (31%) who wanted tighter border controls. (The rest were neutral.) Graham also found the networks essentially ignored topics that might harm the cause. Out of 309 stories (from March 25 through May 31, 2006), only six “mentioned studies that illegal aliens cost more to governments than they provide in tax dollars.” Similarly, only six stories mentioned crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and “no story in the study period mentioned the problem of Latino criminal gangs” infiltrating the United States. Fast forward to 2024, and today’s utterly unrestrained immigration — and the Biden administration’s obvious tolerance of it — is the top reason voters oppose the President’s re-election this year. It would be ironic if today’s pro-immigration Democrats are booted as a delayed reaction to the liberal media’s assistance in short-circuiting attempts at tougher enforcement a generation ago. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                          

PBS Sympathizes With Pro-Hamas Camping Protesters at Columbia: ‘Free Speech’

Tuesday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour took a deep-dive look at the anti-Jewish, pro-Hamas protesters camped out at Columbia University, with some “protesters” spewing eliminationist rhetoric at Israel and telling Jewish students to “go back to Poland.” One girl stood in front of a group of Jewish counter protesters holding a sign that read “Al Qassam’s next targets.” (Al Qassam is the military wing of Hamas.) Yet anchor Geoff Bennett’s intro was disconcertingly mild, ignoring all the disgusting details of the pro-Hamas demonstrators, while predominantly portraying them as victims of an over-aggressive college administration. Whatever actual goals the protests may have (divestment by the universities from Israel companies, perhaps) weren’t mentioned. Bennett: College campuses in several parts of the country are struggling tonight with just where to draw the line between allowing protests and free speech and preventing antisemitism and intimidation….Police said they were called in by university officials, who said protesters breached barricades and behaved in a -- quote -- "disruptive and antagonizing manner." Some faculty disputed that characterization by the school…. Hundreds of students have turned out for protests. On Thursday, [Columbia’s president] Shafik called the New York Police Department to break up tent encampments, and more than 100 protesters were arrested. Many students and faculty felt Shafik's crackdown has been excessively harsh in squelching free speech. Bennett put the genuine threat to Jewish students in passive terms, noting “but some students, Jewish students, in particular, as well as some alumni and faculty, say there's too much hostility on campus, leading some to feel threatened for their safety.” After quotes from a concerned non-Jewish student and the Anti-Defamation League, he pivoted: Bennett: But protesters say the crackdown is not justified. Aya Lyon-Sereno is a sophomore at Barnard College, which is part of Columbia, majoring in urban studies. She's Jewish. Aya Lyon-Sereno, Student, Barnard College: Barnard students have been evicted from dorms they're paying for, have been given 15 minutes to gather any belongings and are not allowed to eat in any dining halls, are not allowed to, like, use their meal plans and have been really, really criminalized. (A shame PBS didn’t cover such unfair practices by colleges during the COVID hysteria, when they were kicking out students out of housing they’d paid for, for the crime of…grocery shopping.) He brought Irene Mulvey into the studio, president of the (hard-left) American Association of University Professors, who delivered hypocritical talking points about defending freedom of expression on campus. Yet Mulvey signed an open letter at the height of the Black Lives Matter hysteria voicing concerns about “microaggressions” on campus. But now violent threats against Jews are part of “free speech.” Mulvey called them “peaceful protesters,” and pompously lamented “we saw the suppression of speech and silencing of voices because somebody might not like what they're saying. And that is a real danger in a democracy.” When Bennett asked, “How should a university balance the expression of free speech and student safety?” Mulvey was dismissive: “There's genuine -- there's harassment and antisemitism has, is not new, it's not the first time hate speech has reared its ugly head on campus. There are policies in place to deal with these kinds of things. And that's where we should go, policies that ensure due process for the students. And then what we're seeing instead is new policies being drafted on time, manner and place of protest….” Bennett followed up strongly: Well, thinking about this from the perspective of Jewish students who say they feel intimidated. If there is a climate of harassment on campus, isn’t the administration morally compelled and also compelled by law, by Title IX, to address it and shut it down? Mulvey said in times like these, “….you have to err on the side of free and open inquiry. There -- hate speech, antisemitism has no place on campus or anywhere and there are policies to deal with that. But in higher education, our primary focus should be academic freedom, free speech, and -- free speech and associational rights for students.” Bennett then went to Dr. Andrew Marks at Columbia University, who quibbled with a couple of Mulvey’s false assertions and noted examples of anti-Semitism on campus, but also praised Columbia’s president and said things were quieting down. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/23/24 7:03:29 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: College campuses in several parts of the country are struggling tonight with just where to draw the line between allowing protests and free speech and preventing antisemitism and intimidation. As the school year nears its end, Columbia University announced it would stay on a hybrid schedule until the end of the spring semester next week. And students were arrested at New York University last night. Police arrested more than 100 people at NYU, as the turmoil that has roiled Columbia over the past week spreads to other schools. Protester: It's a really, really outrageous crackdown by the university to allow the police to arrest students on our own campus. Geoff Bennett: Police said they were called in by University officials, who said protesters breached barricades and behaved in a — quote — "disruptive and antagonizing manner." Some faculty disputed that characterization by the school. It came as a wave of pro-Palestinian protests and encampments have spread in the past week since Columbia University President Minouche Shafik testified before a congressional committee about antisemitism on campus. Many are students, but not all are from the respective school where they are protesting. Earlier in the day, at least 60 people were arrested at Yale. There have been similar protests at Emerson, MIT, Boston University, the University of Michigan, and the University of California. Protesters: Free, free, free Palestine! Geoff Bennett: Columbia has been the flash point for a week now. Hundreds of students have turned out for protests. On Thursday, Shafik called the New York Police Department to break up tent encampments, and more than 100 protesters were arrested. Many students and faculty felt Shafik's crackdown has been excessively harsh in squelching free speech. Protesters: The people united will never be defeated! Geoff Bennett: But some students, Jewish students, in particular, as well as some alumni and faculty, say there's too much hostility on campus, leading some to feel threatened for their safety. Michael D'Agostino is a junior at the engineering school. He's not Jewish, but says he's watched what's happened too often. Michael D’Agostino, Student, Columbia University: The campus, honestly, it's full of a lot of hate and disagreement. And it's honestly just sad to see. It seems a pretty awful thing said to not only practicing Jews, but, I mean, people that are ethnically Jewish, simply for wearing like a Star of David.   Geoff Bennett: The Anti-Defamation League posted a video, contending it had become too dangerous as well. Man: Two individuals threw a rock at my head, hit me right in the face. I'm calling public safety. NYPD, where are you? Geoff Bennett: But protesters say the crackdown is not justified. Aya Lyon-Sereno is a sophomore at Barnard College, which is part of Columbia, majoring in urban studies. She's Jewish. Aya Lyon-Sereno, Student, Barnard College: Barnard students have been evicted from dorms they're paying for, have been given 15 minutes to gather any belongings and are not allowed to eat in any dining halls, are not allowed to, like, use their meal plans and have been really, really criminalized. Geoff Bennett: She also said the administration's approach has backfired. Aya Lyon-Sereno: The atmosphere on campus has been really tense, and I and many other students attribute that to the administration's actions, that people are feeling like it's tense on campus, people are feeling unsafe because there's a ton of cops in riot gear here. Geoff Bennett: For his part, President Biden also criticized many of the protests yesterday. Joe Biden, President of the United States: I condemn the antisemitic protests. I also condemn those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians. Geoff Bennett: And, today, before he went into court, former President Donald Trump blamed President Biden. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: What's going on at the college level, at the colleges, the Columbia, NYU and others, is a disgrace. And it's a — it's really on Biden. He has the wrong signal. He's got the wrong tone. He's got the wrong words. Geoff Bennett: The situation is also starting to affect the commencement season. The University of Southern California canceled all outside speakers, it says, out of concern for public. That followed a much-criticized decision to cancel the remarks of valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim student, over unspecified safety concerns. While Columbia University's administration has faced criticism for how it's handled the events and the arrest of students, concerns remain about the safety of Jewish staff and students on campus. We will get both of these perspectives first from Irene Mulvey, President Of The American Association of University Professors. She spent 37 years teaching mathematics at Fairfield University before retiring. Dr. Mulvey, thank you for being with us. And we should say that members of the Columbia University chapter of your organization are expected to move to censure the university president for her decision to call in the NYPD last week to arrest demonstrators. Why? Why is that warranted, in your view? Irene Mulvey, President, American Association of University Professors: Well, I think the idea of calling in police in riot gear on peaceful protesters protesting outside is a remarkably disproportionate and wrong-ended response to the events we're seeing on campus, because higher education is founded on listening, learning, discussion, debate, free and open inquiry. We challenge students to challenge their most deeply held beliefs in order to justify them to themselves and to others. Our goal is communication in service of understanding. Instead, we saw the suppression of speech and silencing of voices because somebody might not like what they're saying. And that is a real danger in a democracy. Geoff Bennett: Well, how should a university balance the expression of free speech and student safety? Irene Mulvey: There's genuine — there's — harassment and antisemitism has — is not new. It's not the first time hate speech has reared its ugly head on campus. There are policies in place to deal with these kinds of things. And that's where we should go, policies that ensure due process for the students. And then what we're seeing instead is new policies being drafted on time, manner and place of protest. So, your protest has to be over in a roped-off area in a tiny space on campus. This is suppression of speech. So the idea of, if you're suppressing speech in order to keep students safe, that's a false choice. You can do both. Geoff Bennett: Well, thinking about this from the perspective of Jewish students who say they feel intimidated, if there is a climate of harassment on campus, isn't the administration morally compelled and also compelled by law, by Title IX, to address it and shut it down? Irene Mulvey: The institution is required to allow for the most free and open expression, while also ensuring that conversations are civil and dialogue is respectful. But in situations like this, these are — people have extremely strong positions, and these are polarizing times, that debates are heated and messy. And so you have to err on the side of free and open inquiry. There — hate speech, antisemitism has no place on campus or anywhere and there are policies to deal with that. But in higher education, our primary focus should be academic freedom, free speech, and — free speech and associational rights for students. Geoff Bennett: As protests spread to other campuses, what lessons could other college administrators, university administrators take away from what's transpired at Columbia? Irene Mulvey: They could think about creative ways to respond. They could think about ways to encourage communication and dialogue in open forums across their campus and engaging all students, so that all students have an opportunity to hear other points of view, to understand other points of view, to question other points of view. They should figure out creative ways to respond, because what happened at NYU and Columbia is completely unacceptable. The silencing of speech in a democracy because somebody doesn't like it, this is a real danger. Geoff Bennett: Irene Mulvey is president of the American Association of University Professors. Thank you for your insights. Irene Mulvey: Thank you. Geoff Bennett: Let's turn now to Dr. Andrew Marks. He's the chair of the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University. Thank you for being with us. Dr. Andrew R. Marks, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics Chair, Columbia University: Thanks for having me. Geoff Bennett: So how do you feel about Dr. Shafik's handling of the ongoing demonstrations at Columbia? And what do you make of this view that the old policies in place to deal with student demonstrations were sufficient? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: I think she's doing the best that she can. I think that her heart is in the right place. I think it's an incredibly difficult situation and there are no easy answers. The university, Columbia University, has had policies in place which I think are capable of dealing with this situation if they're able to be enforced. Geoff Bennett: Have you witnessed incidents of antisemitism on campus? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Yes, I have. I have seen antisemitic slurs being hurled at Jewish students. And it's been very painful to watch. I have seen antisemitic hate language written on the college walk in the middle of campus and posters hanging that have been very offensive. Geoff Bennett: What more should Columbia be doing? What more could Columbia be doing to make Jewish students feel safer? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Well, I think Columbia has already done quite a lot and taken steps. And my personal observation is that, over the last several days, the hate speech has been toned down on campus. The problem is that, as you know, Columbia's campus is in the middle of New York City. And when you leave campus either — in either direction, there's a tremendous amount of antisemitic hate speech being hurled at students and faculty from people outside the campus. Geoff Bennett: When it comes to what's happening on campus, how should a university balance student safety and student expression? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Well, I think that students should be allowed to protest, absolutely. And I think that the limit has to be on hate speech. So I think that, as long as the protests are civil and respectful of other members of the community, that needs to be protected and encouraged. When it drifts over to hate speech, then it becomes offensive and I think threatening to the Jewish community at the university. Geoff Bennett: What do you think is informing and influencing Dr. Shafik's response to these ongoing protests? Dr. Andrew R. Marks: Again, she's been in an incredibly difficult situation. And I wanted to clarify a couple of things I heard your previous speaker say. First of all, there — the actions taken against students had nothing to do with the content of their speech, except when it comes to hate speech, of course, but in terms of what they were protesting. It really had to do with them breaking the existing rules of the university. And President Shafik is responsible for the safety of all students. And she took an action, which I was not in favor of, bringing in the police. I wanted to negotiate or talk to the students some more before that. But she did that because she felt it was necessary to preserve the safety of the Jewish community on the campus and other people on campus. I was one of the people in the Senate Executive Committee that helped write the event policy. And it's important to note that that was done in complete collaboration and working very closely with students. And while no policy is perfect, we tried to come up with one that was fair. Your previous speaker mentioned that we were limiting protests to tiny parts of campus. That's not accurate. There were designated areas and times and place, which is common for all university campuses. And had the students adhered to those guidelines, things would have gone much differently.

Elon Musk Called Out NPR And PBS As 'State-Affiliated': They Freaked

Uri Berliner's expose of the ideological unanimity at NPR reminds the Republican half of America that they send their taxpayer dollars to Washington to have their viewpoints excluded or ridiculed as "far right" hate.  Back there in the Stone Age of 2023, Elon Musk, he of X that is formerly Twitter, antagonized NPR and PBS because - ready? Musk had made some changes to “state-affiliated” media designations, applying the term to both of those outlets. They're state-funded, but not state-affiliated? While stripping the designation from media outlets tied to governments like those of Russia and Iran, Musk had the nerve - the nerve! - to apply it to, among others, America’s NPR and PBS along with the UK’s BBC and Canada’s CBC. This is in the news a year later after CNN’s Oliver Darcy, now the man behind CNN’s Reliable Sources, talks of life after X, and looks back at his decision to remove his CNN newsletter from X in July of 2023. To recall the start of this media kerfuffle, see these headlines.   First, this one in April of 2023 from NPR:  NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as 'state-affiliated media’ The story reported:  NPR will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official Twitter feeds, becoming the first major news organization to go silent on the social media platform. In explaining its decision, NPR cited Twitter's decision to first label the network "state-affiliated media," the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries. Then there was this from the UK Guardian in 2023:  PBS quits Twitter after being labeled ‘government-funded media’ Broadcaster leaves platform a day after NPR’s exit over concerns labels undermine credibility as independent news outlets That story reported:  In a statement to USA Today, Jason Phelps of PBS said the broadcaster’s staffers stopped using the organization’s Twitter account after learning that the platform had relabeled them. Phelps said PBS had “no plans to resume at this time” but added that the organization was ‘continuing to monitor the ever-changing situation closely’. Here at NewsBusters, reporter Luis Cornelio lasered in on this squabble in May of 2023.  Uh, Oh! NPR Gets Triggered Over Elon Musk — Again Cornelio’s story reported:  Musk initially slapped NPR’s Twitter account with a “state-affiliated” label, a move that triggered a wave of leftist condemnation, with even Biden White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre vouching for NPR’s reporting. NPR President and CEO John Lansing ridiculously pouted that he was “disturbed” by the label. “We were disturbed to see last night that Twitter has labeled NPR as 'state-affiliated media,' a description that, per Twitter's own guidelines, does not apply to NPR,” Lansing claimed. Musk later changed NPR’s label to “government-funded media.” But NPR was apparently so triggered, it eventually left the platform. Musk mocked NPR’s exit from Twitter in a series of tweets last month, including a short post saying “Defund @NPR." Both PBS and NPR tried to wriggle off Musk’s “state affiliated” description by whining, essentially: “But we don’t take that much money!” Ahhhh. The Western Journal to the clarification rescue. The WJ investigated, headlining:  Fact-Check: How Much of PBS, NPR Revenue Comes from Government Funding? And what did the WJ fact check reveal? This:    So, just how much money does NPR get from government or government-affiliated sources? As noted above, NPR says only 1 percent of its annual budget comes from federal sources. But according to its own numbers, the broadcaster gets a lot more from government sources than it lets on.    For fiscal year 2020, for instance, the broadcaster’s affiliate stations received 8 percent of their revenue from federal appropriations via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They also got 10 percent from colleges and universities — which themselves are publicly funded — and another 5 percent from federal, state and local governments. That is 23 percent, not 1 percent.” As Musk pointed out, WJ says NPR also states on its website that…  federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR. For its part, PBS gets even more from government or government-affiliated sources. That “even more” amount would be that:…  ….the TV broadcaster says it gets 15 percent of its revenue from the federal government, 13 percent from state governments, 3 percent from local governments, and 8 percent from universities. That’s a total of 39 percent. All of which is to say, Musk has been 100% correct to describe PBS and NPR as “state affiliated” - because they both are. For a fact they receive dollars from the government. According to that Guardian article , a PBS spokesman laughably said that: Twitter’s simplistic label leaves the inaccurate impression that PBS is wholly funded by the federal government. Hello? Needless to say, whether “wholly funded” or “partially funded” or accepting a dollar of government money, PBS is still taking government tax dollars to stay afloat. But, as discussed in this space with the recent, much publicized resignation of longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner, the network exists in a liberal bubble, no dissent allowed.  There was an easy and obvious way for NPR and PBS to answer Musk’s criticism and get out from under his “state-affiliated” designation once and for all. That would be: Stop taking money from the government. Period. Stop taking any money from any government apparatus. Period. Make the “P” in NPR and PBS stand not for “Public” - aka taking government funds - but rather “P” as in “Private.” As in “National Private Radio” and “Private Broadcasting Service.” All of which would make NPR and PBS a genuine private sector competitor with the rest of the American private sector free market in the world of television and radio broadcasting. Would that happen? Of course not. Again, as Uri Berliner documents, the network exists in a liberal bubble. Not even Elon Musk can get through it. They want to challenge Elon Musk - but not like that.  The bottom line? Elon Musk was right. Both PBS and NPR take government funding. They still do. And, one can reasonably suspect, neither has any intention of stopping. 

NPR: Baby Sleep Training ‘Sacrifices Our Babies' Well-Being on Altar of Capitalism’

Greg Rosalsky of National Public Radio’s podcast “Planet Money” (which aims to explain the economy to listeners) has returned back from “lengthy parental leave” smitten by leftist social media rants, as shown in Monday’s segment “Sleep training: Life preserver for parents or "symptom of capitalism"?” No surprise, given the woke lunacy that has taken over taxpayer-supported NPR. ….Now that I'm a working parent, I want to take just one brief moment to complain on behalf of all of us. Like millions of parents before me, I've discovered it's hard to be productive when you're sleep deprived. He explained the concept of "sleep training," a “euphemism for the most infamous and controversial method: Cry It Out. Basically, you put your baby in a crib or bassinet in a separate room and don't come back until the morning. If they cry, so be it. The idea is they will learn to self-soothe and become good sleepers.…" Facebook and other companies have begun "subsidizing the cost of sleep training coaching for their workers." But then Rosalsky, who worked in the Obama White House, went off on a bizarre tangent, triggered by a stray political comment. For example, my wife was targeted with a post from a baby sleep consultancy called Taking Cara Babies that marketed their services to us (and our employers)….. It seemed pretty innocuous. But the most liked comment was the following: "Wish we had actual parental leave like the rest of the modern world so we weren't forced to sleep train and get back to work like good little capitalists." It turns out this sentiment can be found across the internet….There's a large community of parents who disparage sleep training -- and, in particular, any form of cry it out -- as basically a cruel practice that sacrifices our babies' well-being on the altar of capitalism. He went on, quoting comment after comment, before reining it in slightly. Whole Mother Therapy, which provides online therapy to parents, for example, argues on their blog that "Sleep training is a symptom of capitalism -- it cuts parents off from the natural attachment and nurturance that is essential for infant and baby development." "Sleep training is breaking your child's mind and nervous system to fit into the productivity model capitalism requires," tweeted an X user named HR. But is not wanting to be really sleep deprived only driven by economic concerns? If I had the luxury of not working, I probably would still want to be well-slept. And aren't there a whole bunch of countries that have capitalist economies -- but, at the same time, robust safety nets -- that give parents greater opportunity to stay home and be sleep-deprived without having to go into work? I'll let you be the judge. His concluding snark made no sense: As for us, we've pursued a strategy that you might call sleep training lite. Basically, when our baby cries in the night, we either feed him if it's been a while since he's eaten or we hold his hand and sing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star to him while he stays in his crib. Honestly, it worked really well between months 4 and 7. But recently, he started teething, and... well, we're both really tired. Take that, capitalism. Public-funded radio: Come for the sleep tips, stay for the socialism? PS: Christopher Rufo used this story to mock an NPR reporter being all about "factual news" on the website: This NPR employee wants you to believe that NPR is a home for unbiased, factual news, but the first story on the homepage is: "Sleep training: A life preserver for parents or a 'symptom of capitalism'?" Everyone knows NPR is biased, except NPR employees who are paid to deny it. https://t.co/zUZbTc92K7 — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 23, 2024

The Most Disturbing Part of It

The Big Ten, the Pac-12, and the Ivy League are overrun with antisemitic students protesting in favor of Hamas. They claim they support Palestinians, but “Globalize the intifada” and “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” are explicit genocidal slogans of Hamas. Democrats insist words mean things. These words mean the students are terrorist sympathizers. Some of the protestors are chanting “Death to America.” At least one Columbia University student screamed at Jewish students, “The seventh of October is going to be every day for you!” Jewish students have been pushed off campuses, harassed, attacked, and silenced. The protestors say it is about Israel and “Zionism” but attack any Jewish student without first asking the student’s views on Israel and Zionism. The protests are not organic. They are organized by several antisemitic groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine. That organization claims, “Resistance comes in all forms -- armed struggle, general strikes, and popular demonstrations. All of it is legitimate, and all of it is necessary.” Nationwide, these college kids did not all spontaneously run to their local REI and buy tents. There were organizers and organizations advancing the funds, coordinating and getting ready for action. It is no coincidence the protests really took on a life of their own on April 20. That is Hitler’s birthday. The kids who would otherwise be getting stoned instead decided to stone some Jews. But one aspect of this has been more disturbing than everything else we have seen. And what we have seen has been disturbing enough. The antisemites have harassed Jewish students. They have antagonized Jewish professors. They have assaulted Jews. They have stormed into events organized by Jews to chase out the speakers and harass the attendees. At Columbia, one blond-haired white girl with a keffiyeh covering her face stood in front of a group of Jewish students who were waving Israeli and American flags. The girl held a sign with an arrow pointing to the students that read “Al-Qasam’s Next Target.” Al-Qasam is the military wing of Hamas that orchestrated the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre. Around Yale and Columbia, students have chanted for Al-Qasam to target Tel Aviv, kill more Jews and otherwise commit violence. But that was not the most disturbing thing to happen. The most disturbing thing was a video of a Jewish student approaching the protestors with a microphone and camera asking the white American kids if Hamas should release the remaining Israeli hostages. Many of the protestors refused to answer, but of those who did, every last one of them said, “No.” The video came out the day Hamas released a proof-of-life video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin. Goldberg-Polin had attended the music concert for peace on Oct. 7. He and others went into a bomb shelter to escape Hamas, which began throwing grenades in. Goldberg-Polin and a friend started throwing the grenades back. The friend died. Goldberg-Polin lost his hand. Hamas took him hostage. White, privileged American kids think Hamas can keep him. Now the protestors have trotted out Jewish students who are protesting to claim the protests are not really antisemitic. On social media, Black trans-conservative (a progressive who identifies as a conservative) Candace Owens has been on a tweet storm defending the Nazis. A Black defender of the Nazis no more absolves the Nazis of their racism than a few ethnically Jewish rubes absolve the protestors of their vile antisemitism. Every barbarous regime depends on useful idiots for cover. Queers for Palestine would be thrown off buildings in Palestine if they ever went there. The white, blond Americans chanting “Globalize the intifada” would be shot. Hamas killed Vivian Silver. The 74-year-old Canadian lived in Israel championing the Palestinian cause. What we are witnessing on American college campuses is evil. It has infected college campuses across America. Only the Southeastern Conference has seemingly remained untouched along with most of the Atlantic Coast Conference. Those concerned about the rise of antisemitism should look to those schools for future workers and the rest of us need to understand something -- too many academic institutions have become breeding grounds for evil.

Media Ignore Liberty University's Massive Pro-Israel Rally

Hundreds of pro-Hamas protests have erupted at college campuses throughout the country in the months since the terrorist group attacked innocent Israeli citizens on October 7. And the media have been consistent in reporting on anti-Israeli voices and outcries as a way of encouraging more students and protestors to act the same This week, as contrast, the private Christian school Liberty University held a massive prayer vigil for the people of Israel - and the media couldn’t care less. It’s obvious where they stand in this debate. Liberty University held its event on the campus’ Academic Lawn on Wednesday night, where a huge crowd of students stood together to pray, worship, and read the Bible. Here’s what Liberty’s chancellor told Fox News Digital: While so many campuses are erupting in anger, hatred and violence; it is refreshing to see the students at Liberty University reflecting the love of Christ as we are commanded to do by Scripture. Jesus clearly tells us to love, and it is so telling that in higher education today, it seems as if some of the only places where love is being displayed are from the campuses of Christian universities like Liberty University. “We do this because Christ is King and today He is seated at the right hand of the Father!” - @jonathanfalwell I’m eternally grateful for the leadership at @LibertyU and their constant commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Truth of God’s Word! pic.twitter.com/8ojMqJf4FC — Jesse Hughes ✝️🇺🇸 (@JesseHughesNC) April 26, 2024 The students at Liberty University stand in stark contrast to students at other schools. Recently we’ve seen pro-Palestine terrorism apologists praise Hamas and advocate in every way shape and form against innocent Israeli lives. including threatening Jewish students on American campuses. On April 23, a group of young protestors shouted in support of Hamas rockets being fired on Israeli citizens, chanting, “Al-Qasam you make us proud, take another settler out," before screaming."Tell Hamas we love you, we support your rockets too!” Student-led demonstrators at Columbia University called for the murder of innocent Jewish students while other students from the school danced around with red strings as a form of “solidarity” with Palestinians. One of the Columbia protest leaders said during a live-streamed school meeting back in January that “Zionists don’t deserve to live," and that he'll kill them if he has to. Related: Anti-Jew Protests Engulf American Schools, and It's Not Surprising At All The violence at these schools has also not gone unnoticed. The University of Southern California even canceled the official commencement portion of their graduation amid the violence concerns. MRCTV’s Managing Editor Brittany Hughes released an episode of The Brittany Hughes Show this week with more in-depth analysis the anti-Israeli hate and called all these acts part of “seeing the destruction of America in real time.” While all this is happening, the media are incredibly partial in their reporting. They said nothing about Liberty’s prayer vigil for Israel, but are covering everything under the sun when it comes to universities proclaiming their support of Palestine and Hamas. Yet, the media are not necessarily condemning the violence, rather just amplifying the voices. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left's Broken Moral Compass Whether it's shoving prosthetic breasts in the faces of children or barking at strangers for attention, the left has their heads screwed on backwards. pic.twitter.com/K10xekDnBp — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 23, 2024  

Dan Schneider on Facebook Election Interference: '98% of the Firepower Is Directed to Conservatives'

MRC Free Speech Vice President Dan Schneider went after Facebook for not only repeatedly engaging in election interference but also for relentlessly censoring conservatives.  During the April 24 edition of WJLA-TV’s The National Desk, Schneider hammered this point again. “Basically, 98% of the firepower is directed to conservatives,” he said. “There are instances where Facebook has taken down liberals. But typically, those liberals are either in opposition to Joe Biden, you know, like RFK Jr., or else they were in opposition to Facebook itself.” The April 23 MRC Special Report by MRC Assistant Editor Gabriela Pariseau and Schneider compiled 39 examples of Facebook interfering in American elections. As Schneider mentioned, the vast majority of these cases targeted conservatives, repeatedly censoring Republican candidates for U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races across the country.  READ IT: 39 Times Facebook Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 Schneider alluded to this point in reference to Facebook’s censorship of criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of the fall of the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. Schneider suggested that in this case Facebook was “trying to help Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the same time.” Facebook censorship of the left largely targeted the opponents of Democrats in power. For example, Facebook acted against supporters of then-Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016; and against Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in this election cycle.   The Daily Wire host Michael Knowles also addressed the “really good” MRC Special Report on the April 25 edition of The Michael Knowles Show. After reading examples from the report, Knowles agreed with its assessment of Facebook censorship and Schneider’s point about Facebook protecting the liberal establishment.  “Facebook censored Bernie Sanders—then, you know something of a real challenge to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president—just censored him outright, censored conservative topics and news,” Knowles said. “We experienced this, I saw this part really first hand, and it not only hurt conservatives, it hurt any opponent to the liberal establishment, including Bernie Sanders.”  .@theMRC is giving us the goods! According to their new study, Facebook has interfered in elections 39 times since 2008. Power doesn't go away. When we limit what governments and candidates can do, power goes to private corporations and super PACs. pic.twitter.com/iO1mGOjZqB — The Michael Knowles Show (@MKnowlesShow) April 25, 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 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.

Top Ten Egregious Reasons to DEFUND NPR

Anyone who spends time reading about NPR on NewsBusters is going to roll their eyes when NPR executives blather about how they believe in "viewpoint diversity" and "inclusion" of important voices. It's readily apparent on a daily basis that NPR is a sandbox for left-wingers, polishing Democrats and punishing Republicans, touting liberal journalists as heroic and conservative journalists as a pox on the First Amendment. Coming up with a list of ten egregious examples to advocate for separating NPR from the taxpayers is difficult, because there are many more examples than just ten. We decided to limit it to the Trump era, since that's roughly how long Uri Berliner was complaining inside NPR. Anti-Patriotic Song. On July 4, 2018, NPR's All Things Considered ripped a classic Irving Berlin song under the headline “For 'God Bless America,' A Long Gestation And Venomous Backlash.” NPR reported that leftist folksinger Woody Guthrie thought it was "a whitewash of everything wrong in America" and that it’s “annoyed many” people (NPR staffers and audience members, surely) "who hear it as a tune of syrupy nationalism and trivialized faith." Pro-Marxism. On February 24, 2023, NPR On The Media host Brooke Gladstone touted The Communist Manifesto: "like Hamlet’s ghost, the Manifesto is both impossible and imperative in its call for action.” It’s a “stalwart text…it’s stirring! It scans!” For the oppressed, it’s “music for their dreams.” Her Marx-interpreting guest China Mieville said true communism has never been tried, and “If you see this new sadistic hard right as an inevitable feature of capitalism, then the stakes of moving beyond capitalism become ever more urgent.” Pro-Chinese Communism. On October 1, 2018, NPR’s Morning Edition celebrated the 70th anniversary of the communist takeover of China. Co-host Ailsa Chang was in Beijing to gush. “It's communist in name, but it is not the party of the proletariat; it's the party of state capitalism. And it's a party that promised to lift people out of poverty, which, you know, to be -- truth be told, it has done a spectacular job of.” Chang interviewed a young woman who said China was doing great, that “we know the leader would make steady, wise choice, unlike (laughter) the United States.” Pro-Looting. 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. The rioters who smash windows and take items from stores, she says, are engaging in a powerful tactic that questions the justice of ‘law and order,’ and the distribution of property and wealth in an unequal society.” Pro-Rioting. 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 explained: “You talk about these clashes as rebellions -- and quite pointedly, not as riots. It's a very meaningful choice. It really kind of shapes how the reader perceives these clashes.” Kurtlzeben proclaimed “It’s an excellent book!” Pro-Sabotage. 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.” The movie’s a fictional take on the Andreas Malm book of the same name – “the most compelling argument I’ve read for eco-sabotage,” proclaimed Powers. He praised the movie for treating the saboteurs not as villains or “parody radicals,” but as “ordinary people whose reasons we can sympathize with.” Pro-Abortion Audio. On November 3, 2022, NPR’s Morning Edition featured reporter Kate Wells at an abortion clinic in Detroit, and they actually aired audio of an abortion of an 11-week-old baby. The abortionist told the woman,“you’re going to hear this machine turn on now, okay? It makes a loud noise.” NPR’s website warned some “may find it disturbing.” The doctor advises the patient to breathe during the killing. When the baby is dead, an assistant tells the woman, “Don’t you ever tell yourself that you can’t do something.” Anti-“Fox Monster.” On 2021, NPR’s On The Media devoted an hour to what they called “Slaying the Fox Monster.” Host Bob Garfield said “we're discussing how the marketplace might force Fox News Channel into responsible behavior or even into financial catastrophe." (In 2022, NPR also promoted Fox-deplatforming activist Nandimi Jammi, who quipped “you can’t chop off Fox News’s head in a day.”) Treasonous Mitch? On NPR’s Fresh Air on October 1, 2018, host Terry Gross discussed emerging claims on Trump-Russia collusion, and she imagined Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell might be treasonous: “If it can be proven that McConnell knew that Russia was trying to interfere in our election and influence the outcome of it and then tried to cover it up, to deny that it was happening, is that treason? Is that, like, legally treason?” Washington Post reporter Greg Miller wouldn’t bite. Hunter Laptop Deniers. The most egregious example is NPR's red-hot loathing of Biden scandals. On October 20, 2020, NPR “Public Editor” Kelly McBride tweeted,  "Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story?" She 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 story as a “politically driven event.” Today, McBride’s tweet remains, but the link to her newsletter doesn’t work. Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter➡️ https://t.co/CJesPgmGvo pic.twitter.com/jAi7PnpbZf — NPR Public Editor (@NPRpubliceditor) October 22, 2020

Seven Brand New Biden Gaffes ABC, CBS, NBC Are Hiding

The Biden gaffes keep coming and the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) keep ignoring them.  If Donald Trump or any Republican president was committing mistakes at the rate Biden is, you can bet network reporters and anchors would jam their broadcasts with their bloopers, but it’s not so for President Joe Biden.  In just the past week, he’s insulted Jews, middle-class Americans, and caused a minor international incident with his bumbling statements.  The following are seven brand new Biden blunders the networks have refused to cover:   Biden Reads Instructions Off Teleprompter: “Four More Years, Pause”          On April 24, FoxNews.com reported:  President Biden seemed to suffer a verbal slip-up during a speech at a trade union conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. Biden, reading off a teleprompter, appeared to incorporate script instructions in the middle of his speech, resulting in an awkward applause line. The moment came during a section of his remarks straight out of a campaign stump speech. “I see an America where we defend democracy, not diminish it. I see an America, where we protect freedoms, not take them away,” Biden said. “I see an economy that grows a lot in the bottom up where the wealthy pay their fair share, so we can have child care, paid leave and so much more, and still reduce the federal deficit and increase economic folks. “Imagine what we could do next. Four more years, pause,” he said before laughing. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: PENDING   Biden Claims Uncle Was Eaten By “Cannibals” in New Guinea, Sparks International Incident         On April 22, the New York Times reported:  Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea has hit back at President Biden’s suggestion that his uncle, a U.S. serviceman whose plane went down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of New Guinea during World War II, had been eaten by cannibals there. “President Biden’s remarks may have been a slip of the tongue; however, my country does not deserve to be labeled as such,” Mr. Marape said in a statement provided to news organizations including The Associated Press and Reuters. Twice last week, Mr. Biden suggested without evidence that his uncle had been eaten by cannibals. “He got shot down in New Guinea, and they never found the body because there used to be — there were a lot of cannibals, for real, in that part of New Guinea,” Mr. Biden said of his uncle during an address on steel and aluminum tariffs in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. Papua New Guinea has become an important strategic partner of the United States in the region. Mr. Marape has twice visited the White House. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. Mr. Biden’s description of his uncle’s death does not match military records. Ambrose Finnegan, a brother of Mr. Biden’s mother, was a passenger in an aircraft that “for unknown reasons” had to ditch in the Pacific Ocean off the northern coast of New Guinea on May 14, 1944, according to the Pentagon’s Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency. Both of the plane’s engines failed at low altitude. There is no indication the aircraft was shot down. Mr. Finnegan and two other men “failed to emerge from the sinking wreck and were lost in the crash,” the Pentagon records state. “One crew member survived and was rescued by a passing barge. An aerial search the next day found no trace of the missing aircraft or the lost crew members.” Mr. Biden made a similar suggestion that his uncle had been cannibalized when he visited a war memorial bearing Mr. Finnegan’s name in his childhood hometown, Scranton, part of a three-day campaign swing through the key battleground state of Pennsylvania. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden Urges Americans to “Choose Freedom Over Democracy”      On April 19, FoxNews.com reported:  Critics of President Biden slammed him on social media for making a puzzling statement encouraging voters to “choose freedom over democracy” by re-electing him to the presidency. Conservatives expressed confusion over Biden’s message, and others insisted it was yet another gaffe showing his cognitive decline.  Biden made the claim while accepting the formal presidential endorsement of the Kennedy family in Pennsylvania on Thursday. During the political rally, half a dozen Kennedy family members appeared alongside President Biden to publicly back him over Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is running as an independent candidate for president in 2024. Kennedy Jr.’s own sister Kerry Kennedy spoke at the event, stating, “President Biden has been a champion for all the rights and freedoms that my father and uncles stood for.” After being introduced by the Kennedys, Biden addressed the crowd. Toward the end of his speech, he asked, “Are you ready to choose unity over division? Dignity over demolition? Truth over lies? Are you ready to choose freedom over democracy? Because that's America.” The last stanza turned heads with its seemingly contradictory message.  Author and Canary CEO Dan K. Eberhart commented, “He’s fine. Everything’s fine. Biden is definitely not in severe mental decline. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden Mixes Up Israeli City With One in Gaza: “Don’t Move on Haifa”        On April 18, the New York Post reported:  President Biden on Tuesday confused the Israeli port city of Haifa with the last refuge for civilians in the Gaza Strip — Rafah — in a stunning blunder.  The 81-year-old president made the gaffe when asked in a one-on-one interview with Nexstar Media’s Reshad Hudson about his plan to win back pro-Palestinian voters in the wake of Israel’s war against Hamas.  “I’ve been meeting with them, number one,” Biden said. “Number two, I made it clear that we have to vastly increase the amount of food, water, healthcare going into Gaza.” “And I made it clear to Israelis – don’t move on Haifa,” he added, apparently meaning to say Rafah. … Haifa, Israel’s third-largest city and a popular tourist destination, is more than 100 miles north of Rafah.  Numerous social media users mocked Biden over the gaffe.  “I think Israel should accommodate Biden’s demand not to attack Haifa,” former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman wrote on X. “Think there’s strong likelihood Israel refrains from hitting Haifa,” former New York state Assemblyman Dov Hikind similarly tweeted, calling the error, “seriously embarrassing.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden Falsely Claims He Never Earned $400,000 In His Lifetime On April 19, CNN.com reported:  In Scranton, Biden repeated his regular promise that nobody making less than $400,000 per year will pay even a cent more in taxes under his proposals. He then added, “I hope you’re all able to make $400,000. I never did.” Facts First: Biden’s “I never did” claim is false. In fact, his presidential salary is $400,000 per year; the joint tax filings of President Biden and first lady Jill Biden showed $619,976 in income last year, $579,514 in 2022 and $610,702 in 2021. In addition, Biden earned millions in 2017 and 2018, when, during his time as a private citizen following his vice presidency, he and Jill Biden signed a lucrative book deal and he delivered paid speeches. The Bidens’ joint tax filings showed a total of about $11 million in 2017 income and about $4.6 million in 2018 income. Biden, who was a US senator for 36 years prior to his vice presidency, did regularly earn less than $400,000 per year before 2017. As PolitiFact has previously noted, the Bidens’ joint filings reported less than $400,000 in income in each year from 1998 through 2016 except for 2013, when they were just over $407,000. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden Gets Basic Demographics Wrong On China  On April 19, CNN.com reported:  In a Wednesday speech in Pittsburgh that was focused on US steel competition with China, Biden said, “I always say to my colleagues — when I meet other world leaders, I say, ‘Would you trade places with China? Would you trade places with their problems?’ They’ve got a population that is more people in retirement than working.” Facts First: The claim that China has more retired people than working people is false. Fuxian Yi, a University of Wisconsin-Madison senior scientist who is an expert on Chinese demographics, called Biden’s claim “overstated and premature.” China reported having more than 740 million employed people at the end of 2023, while it also reported having just shy of 297 million people age 60 or above that year. (Sixty is the normal retirement-benefits age for Chinese men; it’s 50 to 55 for women depending on the nature of their jobs.) And some of the 60-plus population is still working.  Yi noted that China’s ratio of working people to seniors is shrinking as the country’s population ages. But Biden’s claim that the number of retirees already exceeds the number of people working is clearly not correct, even if you apply the usual dose of skepticism to official Chinese data. “It’s certainly the direction they’re heading, but still an exaggeration,” Derek Scissors, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank who is an expert on the Chinese economy, said of Biden’s claim. Biden made a similar claim in 2021, which CNN fact-checked as false at the time. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden Has His “Very Fine People On Both Sides” Moment      On April 22, FoxNews.com reported:   President Biden’s latest comment on antisemitic protests on college campuses is being called his “very fine people on both sides” moment by some on social media. Following the president’s Earth Day comments at Prince William Forest Park in Virginia, reporters caught up with Biden and asked for a comment on anti-Israel protests occurring across multiple universities at the time. “Do you condemn the antisemitic protests on college campuses?” Biden was asked. “I condemn the antisemitic protests. That’s why I have set up a program to deal with that. I also condemn those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians,” he said. Equating the antisemitic protests with people who “don’t understand” the Palestinians ignited several comments accusing Biden of echoing Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” Charlottesville comment from 2017. “This sure sounds like he’s ACTUALLY saying there are very fine people on both sides,” OutKick founder Clay Travis remarked. “Very fine people on both sides,” RedState writer Bonchie agreed. American Spectator writer Nate Hochman noted, “I’m old enough to remember when ‘good people on both sides’ was evil and racist.” The Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway wrote, “President Biden says there are good people on both sides of October 7.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. (It should be noted that CBS and NBC both briefly reported Biden’s comments, but NEVER indicated they represented any kind of miscue. ABC failed to even mention Biden’s remarks.) The following are the relevant transcripts: CBS  Evening News  April 22, 2024 [13 seconds] CORRESPONDENT MEG OLIVER: Late this afternoon president Biden denounced anti-semitism. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I condemn the anti-semitic protests, that’s why I have set up a program to deal with that. I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on and the Palestinians. … CBS CBS Mornings April 23, 2024 [12 seconds] CORRESPONDENT MEG OLIVER: President Biden yesterday condemned the anti-semitic comments directed towards Jewish students but added that he also condemned anyone who doesn’t realize what Palestinians are going through. Gayle?  CO-HOST GAYLE KING: Meg, thank you. … NBC Nightly News April 22, 2024  [17 seconds] ANCHOR LESTER HOLT: And Erin tonight, the White House is weighing in on all this.  CORRESPONDENT ERIN MCLAUGHLIN: That’s right, Lester. Tonight President Biden saying he condemns both anti-semitic protests and those who, quote, “don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.” Lester? HOLT: Erin McLaughlin tonight. Thank you.

This Platform Targeted Libs of TikTok; Turned Blind Eye to Terrorist Organizations: Report

Slack, a workplace communications provider, used its terms of service to push an ideological agenda and sabotage conservative customers, a new report alleged. On April 24, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation released a new report written by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accusing Big Tech companies like Slack of weaponizing ambiguous terms of service to target their ideological adversaries, including prominent voices like Libs of TikTok, 12x All-American swimmer Riley Gaines and podcast host Matt Walsh.  As the Ranking Member of the @SenateCommerce Committee, one of my top priorities is holding Big Tech accountable. Recently, my team and I complied a report detailing how Big Tech giants are wielding their terms of service against conservatives and conservative causes. In this… pic.twitter.com/LBTmLQN9MI — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) April 24, 2024 According to the report, Slack claimed that Libs of TikTok’s workspace violated its Acceptable Use Policy. Slack’s internal review of the account claimed that Libs of TikTok violated its terms of service by allegedly “encouraging hate against LGBTQ+ individuals, and enabling or encouraging threats against children’s hospitals, libraries, and various LGBTQ+ communities.” Slack’s team also proclaimed that the purpose of Libs of TikTok’s account was to “incite hatred.” One of the posts that got Libs of TikTok booted was a tweet merely reporting on Boston Children’s Hospital offering “‘gender affirming hysterectomies’ for young girls.”  The post was entirely accurate and corroborated by a March 2022 MDPI study, which refers to the Center for Gender Surgery at Boston Children’s Hospital as “the first pediatric center in the United States to offer gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals over 15 years old and genital surgeries for those over 17 years of age.”  Related: Babylon Bee CEO Says Slack CANCELED Libs of TikTok Account, Gave Vague Explanation Why Other purportedly offending posts were flyers advertising drag queen shows for all ages.  One post read, “An LGBT youth group is holding a drag show happy hour for all ages at a bar in Woodland, CA. They encourage kids to tip the drag queens.” There were no additional comments or personal opinions expressed in the post.  The report said that on Feb. 24, 2023, Slack used the internal investigation as a pretext for suspending Libs of TikTok’s workspace. In addition, the report highlighted that Slack platforms many other organizations that have advocated for, or even participated in, blatant violence and other alleged illegal activity. For instance, Antifa has its own Slack workspace and is yet to be suspended despite the group’s frequent participation in acts of arson and terrorism, according to the report.  During the George Floyd Riots of 2020, Antifa members and other leftist militants seized a six-block neighborhood in Seattle’s East Precinct, dubbed the CHAZ or “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” The armed occupation resulted in the death by shooting of a 16-year-old boy and another 14-year-old boy being critically injured. Another communist group, the Stop Cop City movement, is also still platformed on Slack. The group was formed to impede by force the construction of a new training facility for cops and firefighters in Atlanta. On March 6, 2023, the Atlanta Police Department announced the arrest of 23 militants on charges of domestic terrorism after the rioters allegedly threw bricks, rocks and Molotov cocktails at police officers.    Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Networks Praise Pro-Hamas ‘Solidarity Movement’ Spreading, Promote BDS

The three major American broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were out in force Wednesday morning as all three of them took to praising the pro-Hamas extremists taking over college campuses across the country. Ignoring the raging antisemitism that was on full display and captured on videos circulating on social media, they praised the “solidary movement” that was spreading to more campuses. They also promoted the so-called “boycott, divest, and sanctions” movement, omitting its anti-Semitic roots. “Pro-Palestinian protests have spread across university campuses from coast to coast. Columbia here at the center of this solidarity movement,” ABC correspondent Stephanie Ramos boasted on Good Morning America. In something of a skeptical tone, Ramos seemed to cast doubt on Jewish students who felt unsafe and threatened by the pro-Hamas crowd that was literally calling for Jewish blood: “Columbia University offering virtual learning for the last week of class after some Jewish students said they felt unsafe on campus…” Noting that it’s been 200 days since the start of the war, Ramos cheered that pro-Hamas rallies were “spreading” with “protesters digging in” across the country. She also promoted their anti-Semitic demands of divestment. “Protesters demanding colleges divest from companies they say profit from ties with Israel,” she said.     Over on CBS Mornings, they abdicated the moral high ground they occupied on Tuesday when they called out the antisemitism. On Wednesday, correspondent Nancy Chen promoted divestment as “one of the most crucial components [of their demands]”: PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER 1: Our first demand is complete divestment from anything related to Israeli settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide. CHEN: The words apartheid and genocide are loaded but the idea of divestment is a refrain echoed over and over by protesters we spoke to on campus. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER 2: Financial divestment, financial transparency. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER 3: Is financial divestment from any companies that profit off of Israeli apartheid. After noting that Columbia students “remained defiant,” Chen hyped: “From coast to coast, California to Massachusetts, demonstrations expressing anger over Israel's bombardment of Gaza.” Correspondent Erin McLaughlin was back on NBC’s Today to cheer Columbia University for capitulating to the pro-terrorist mob. “Now, it seems the deadline has extended; as this morning university spokesperson telling NBC News they'll be in talks with students for the next 48 hours. And we're hearing they made progress,” she touted. She too was excited by how the anti-Semitic crowds were taking over other campuses. “Columbia's encampment inspiring protesters at at least 15 other universities, including at Cal Poly Humboldt where dozens occupied a campus building and at the University of Minnesota where nine were detained trespassing. Students at NYU walking out of class Tuesday,” she said, omitting the violence at CPH. What none of them dared to show was the video of Columbia students chanting for the murder of Jews. In a video shown on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper on Tuesday, the pro-Hamas students were clearly heard chanting: “Al-Qassam you make us proud, take another settler out!" and "Hamas we love you! We support your rockets too!"   This morning, @ErinNBCNews suggested there were no chants or acts of antisemitism at Columbia University. You should watch this Erin: "Al-Qassam you make us proud, take another settler out!" "Hamas we love you. We support your rockets too!" pic.twitter.com/KHnXKaLUh1 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 23, 2024   The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America April 24, 2024 7:10:11 a.m. Eastern (…) STEPHANIE RAMOS: Pro-Palestinian protests have spread across university campuses from coast to coast. Columbia here at the center of this solidarity movement. [Cuts back to live] This morning, images showing protests turning violent at Cal Poly Humboldt. Police struggling to control hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrators on the college campus. The school, now closed today. This comes on the heels of demonstrations across the country. NYU ramping up security with a new barricade after clashes with police. Columbia University offering virtual learning for the last week of class after some Jewish students said they felt unsafe on campus, like Aiden Hunter who tells us he understands why people are protesting. AIDEN HUNTER: I don't mean to diminish that. But I'd say the majority of my friend, especially my Jewish friends, feel a sense of insecurity at this time. RAMOS: It's been more than 200 days since the start of the Israel/Hamas War prompting pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, which are spreading. Protesters demanding colleges divest from companies they say profit from ties with Israel. MIRYAM ALWAN (Pro-Hamas protester): We’re not planning on packing up and going home. Because people in Palestine are going through so much worse. RAMOS: Protesters digging in from Berkeley to the University of Michigan to the University of Minnesota, where police took down tents and made arrests. (…) CBS Mornings April 24, 2024 7:02:54 a.m. Eastern (…) NANCY CHEN: Outside of Columbia University's campus, demonstrators continue to rally. After the school's administration warned students on campus to dismantle their camps or face consequences, some were seen breaking them down, while others remained defiant. From coast to coast, California to Massachusetts, demonstrations expressing anger over Israel's bombardment of Gaza. (…) CHEN: Earlier in the day at Columbia, protesters reiterated their demands including an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. And one of the most crucial components – cutting off any financial interest connected to Israel. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER 1: Our first demand is complete divestment from anything related to Israeli settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide. CHEN: The words apartheid and genocide are loaded but the idea of divestment is a refrain echoed over and over by protesters we spoke to on campus. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER 2: Financial divestment, financial transparency. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER 3: Is financial divestment from any companies that profit off of Israeli apartheid. (…) NBC’s Today April 24, 2024 7:07:26 a.m. Eastern (…) ERIN MCLAUGHLIN: It appears the situation here at the university is changing by the hour. Now, originally the university had called for the student encampment to be taken down overnight. Now, it seems the deadline has extended as this morning university spokesperson telling NBC News they'll be in talks with students for the next 48 hours. And we're hearing they made progress. [Cuts to video] This morning, Columbia University – a flash point in the nationwide unrest at college campuses across the country – reporting progress in negotiations with pro-Palestinian protesters who’ve been encamped on campus since last week. A Columbia spokesperson telling NBC News this morning, students have committed to dismantling and removing a significant number of tents and have agreed to prohibit discriminatory or harassing language. The school has been flaring with unrest with a growing pressure on its president Minouche Shafik, amidst allegations that the university is not doing enough to de-escalate tensions or adequately protect the safety of Jewish students. (…) MCLAUGHLIN: Columbia's encampment inspiring protesters at at least 15 other universities, including at Cal Poly Humboldt where dozens occupied a campus building and at the University of Minnesota where nine were detained trespassing. Students at NYU walking out of class Tuesday. (…)

Kimmel Mocks Red States For Book Bans, Cites Books Banned By The Left

Tuesday was World Book Day and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel celebrated by bringing a quintet of librarians together to tell Republicans to “shut the [bleep] up” over their supposed book bans. The only problem was that the books Kimmel and his new friends highlighted, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird, are regularly targeted by race-obsessed progressives. Kimmel began by declaring, “It’s also World Book Day today or as the state of Florida calls it, Bonfire Day.” After a digression into the demise of the phone book and the Yellow Pages, Kimmel continued, “All jokes aside, this World Book Day is a weird one. There are at least 100 bills in various red states, three of which have become law already, threatening librarians with prison for the crime of lending books. Books that aren't government-approved. Which to me, not only is this the opposite of what our country's supposed to be about, it's completely nuts. We're going to throw librarians in jail for loaning out Huckleberry Finn. This is not what they signed up for. I think it's disgusting and wrong and anti-American.”     Schools that target Huckleberry Finn generally do so under the guise that the book contains the N-word and therefore removing the book from the curriculum is needed “to protect the dignity of our students.”  Kimmel then played a sketch the show put together of five librarians reacting to Kimmel’s anti-red state diatribe. The librarians informed viewers that they are “not groomers,” “not sex fiends,” “not pornographers,” and “not Satanists.” One lamented, “Some people want to make us criminals,” while another declared, “It's not meth. It's Judy Blume.” They wondered why Republicans want to “make books the enemy” and “make knowledge the enemy.” Three of them responded that conservatives should “shut the [bleep] up.” In a post-credit scene, one added, “You can have To Kill A Mockingbird when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! Or you can check it out.” Like Huckleberry Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird is targeted by blue school districts for its unsettling, but historically accurate language, while also being attacked for the alleged white savior complex of its protagonist. Meanwhile, Kimmel’s monologue and the corresponding skit from the librarians were just another case of Jimmy Kimmel Live! not sufficiently checking their facts. Here is a transcript for the April 23 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 4/23/2024 11:46 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL:  It’s also World Book Day today or as the state of Florida calls it, Bonfire Day. … All jokes aside, this World Book Day is a weird one. There are at least 100 bills in various red states, three of which have become law already, threatening librarians with prison for the crime of lending books. Books that aren't government-approved. Which to me, not only is this the opposite of what our country's supposed to be about, it's completely nuts. We're going to throw librarians in jail for loaning out Huckleberry Finn. This is not what they signed up for. I think it's disgusting and wrong and anti-American. But don't take it from me, take it from these real-life librarians. MALE LIBRARIAN: I'm a librarian. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: I'm a librarian. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: I've been a librarian for 26 years. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 3: We're librarians. MALE LIBRARIAN: Masters of the library sciences. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Not groomers. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: Not sex fiends. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: Not pornographers. MALE LIBRARIAN: We're the people who hand out library cards. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: We do story times. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: We put away the books you guys leave out on the tables instead of putting them on the reshelf cart. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: The clearly labeled reshelf cart. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: You can read that, right? MALE LIBRARIAN: We're not the deep state. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: We're not Satanists. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: We're librarians. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 3: But some people want to make us criminals. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: Put us in jail. MALE LIBRARIAN: I would not do well in jail. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: It's not meth. It's Judy Blume. MALE LIBRARIAN: Judy effing Bloom. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Judy effing Bloom. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: Fine us thousands of dollars? FEMALE LIBRARIAN 3: Like we have thousands of dollars. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Make books the enemy? MALE LIBRARIAN: Make knowledge the enemy? FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: And you know what we say to this? ALL: Shh! FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Shut the [bleep] up! FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: Shut the [bleep] up. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: Please shut the [bleep] up. MALE LIBRARIAN: What's wrong with you? NARRATOR: Paid for by Americans Against Americans Against Librarians. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: You can have To Kill A Mockingbird when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! Or you can check it out.

NEED A HANKY? Taylor Lorenz Ugly Cries Over Neutral Meta Policy Because It Affects Lefties Too

The Washington Post’s in-house cry-bully Taylor Lorenz apparently only seems to care about Big Tech when its policies affect leftists’ ability to spread their off-the-rails agitprop all over the social media landscape.  Meta announced Feb. 9 that it would be limiting all political content recommended writ large to its user bases on Instagram and Threads. This apparently struck a nerve with Lorenz, who jumped on the news with a Feb. 10 piece of her own lambasting the move as “angering some news creators” who were “gearing up for a crucial election year.” Talk about projection.  Lorenz is apparently still miffed, as her Apr. 10 piece regurgitated the bellyaching of leftist “content creators” pleading for Meta and its subsidiary Instagram in an open letter to “reverse” course, despite it being a neutral policy that affects everyone, both left and right-leaning content creators. The letter was spearheaded by the radical LGBTQ group GLAAD — a drag-queen-shows-for-kids apologist organization — and the anti-free speech leftist group Accountable Tech, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party, which Lorenz failed to disclose.  In 2023, Accountable Tech was “beefing up its team with former Democratic staffers to combat what they call an undermining of the information ecosystem and democracy ahead of next year's elections,” reported Axios at the time.  Accountable Tech’s co-founder, Jesse Lehrich, was a foreign policy spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign. The group’s current chief of staff, Robbie Dornbush, served on then-candidate Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. Accountable Tech’s communications director Bianca Recto previously worked for the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in addition to the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 2020 presidential campaign.  Lorenz didn’t bother letting readers know about any of this, but perhaps that’s because in Lorenz’s world, targeting right-leaning content is OK, but a neutral policy that even remotely affects left-leaning content is a foul ball. Hypocrisy much? Lorenz whined that Meta’s new apolitical policy (no pun intended) “alarmed users who post about social issues, including LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, racial inequality and disability.” According to Lorenz, so-called “Independent” journalists and content creators “say they’ve struggled to reach their audiences in recent weeks since the change was rolled out.” Conveniently, nowhere does Lorenz mention that Meta’s new policy affects all sides of the political spectrum, not just the woke, social justice warriors she’s mourning about.  Is Lorenz going to take issue with Meta in light of MRC Free Speech America’s latest study showing that Facebook interfered in U.S. elections to the overwhelming benefit of leftist candidates at least 39 times since 2008? Doubtful. But Lorenz did manage to complain in her April 10 screed that LGBTQ creators were potentially going to be inhibited from promoting sex changes for children. Yes, she actually wrote that: LGBTQ creators have been particularly concerned by the limitations because they were imposed as some states were placing restrictions on medical treatments for transgender youths. It’s a wonder how many more buckets of lefty crocodile tears Lorenz is going to cry before she starts treading water.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.    

STATE PROPAGANDA: ABC Wishcasts Abortion Driving A Biden Florida Win

Among the major broadcast network evening newscasts, ABC’s is often the likeliest to go into over-the-top campaign propaganda for Democrats holding power. Case in point, ABC Whirled News Tonight’s coverage of President Joe Biden’s Florida speech on abortion. Watch as anchor David Muir and Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce being a heavy dose of hopium to their abortion coverage:  DAVID MUIR: We turn now to President Biden tonight, hoping to put the state of Florida back in play this November. Tonight, the president's major abortion rights speech in Florida, with that state's new six-week abortion ban just days now from going into effect. Mary Bruce in Florida. MARY BRUCE: President Biden today traveling to Florida, just days before the state's strict new abortion law goes into effect. Banning the procedure at just six weeks, when many women don't even know they're pregnant. JOE BIDEN: There's one person responsible for this nightmare, and he's acknowledged, and he brags about it, Donald Trump. BRUCE: It's Biden's first major campaign speech on abortion, an issue he’s putting at the center of his re-election bid. Disney-owned ABC got into the dream business with this report, and I will respectfully remind you all that a dream is a wish your heart makes. Or in this instance, a wish Muir and Bruce make- the idea that abortion will help Biden carry Florida. The report was laden with what our friend Curtis Houck calls Team Biden apple-polishing. There was tons of that, for sure, crammed into 2 minutes and 11 seconds. After the usual Biden talking point-parroting, Bruce trots out someone from out of state to talk about how abortion is on the ballot. And then Bruce proves the dangers of being an Acela type parachuting into a state to talk local politics. She closes out her report by saying: BRUCE: And Florida is one of 14 states where abortion could be on the ballot in November The Biden campaign hoping that could put this state in play for them. They know every time the issue's been on the ballot, even in red states, abortion rights have won. In fact, an abortion question is on the Florida ballot in November. Not “could be”. Bruce might have known this had she read about it on ABC News dot com. A little more reading would’ve yielded the fact that recreational marijuana is also on the ballot, and that Florida Republicans have in the past won elections where there are also liberal ballot questions before the voters. Consider the sparse attendance at Biden’s Florida events where he was hyping abortion despite abortion already being on the ballot. Abortion isn’t the driver that Bruce and Muir are telling viewers it is.  But, alas, those apples aren’t going to polish themselves. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn now to President Biden tonight, hoping to put the state of Florida back in play this November. Tonight, the president's major abortion rights speech in Florida, with that state's new six-week abortion ban just days now from going into effect. Mary Bruce in Florida. MARY BRUCE: President Biden today traveling to Florida, just days before the state's strict new abortion law goes into effect. Banning the procedure at just six weeks, when many women don't even know they're pregnant. JOE BIDEN: There's one person responsible for this nightmare, and he's acknowledged, and he brags about it, Donald Trump. BRUCE: It's Biden's first major campaign speech on abortion, an issue he’s putting at the center of his re-election bid. Florida one of 21 states to ban or severely restrict abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump boasts of appointing three of the justices who struck Roe down. DONALD TRUMP: We broke Roe v. Wade, and we did something that nobody thought was possible. We gave it back to the states. And the states are working very brilliantly. BRUCE: Today, Biden calling Trump out. BIDEN: Individual state laws are working, in his words, brilliantly. Brilliantly. It's a six-week ban in Florida, it's really brilliant, isn't it? Even before women know they're pregnant. Is that brilliant? BRUCE: Biden is counting on the issue to energize voters, especially women. He was introduced today by Kaitlyn Joshua of Louisiana. She was almost 12 weeks pregnant when she suffered a miscarriage. When she showed up at the hospital bleeding, doctors refused to treat her, afraid of running afoul of Louisiana’s near-total abortion ban. KAITLYN JOSHUA: Another hospital basically just told me they would send me home with prayers, but were not able to medically diagnose miscarriage. BRUCE: They said they would send you home with prayers… JOSHUA: Correct. BRUCE: …but couldn't give you medical advice? JOSHUA: That's correct. BRUCE: Her message to women tonight -- JOSHUA: Abortion is absolutely on the ballot this year. If this is not a topic that you think is going to touch you or doesn't touch you currently. It absolutely will. BRUCE: And Florida is one of 14 states where abortion could be on the ballot in November The Biden campaign hoping that could put this state in play for them. They know every time the issue's been on the ballot, even in red states, abortion rights have won. David. MUIR: Mary Bruce, traveling with the president in Florida. Mary, thank you.  

WHAT? Threats Against Jews Disappear From Pro-Hamas Protest Coverage

The evening network newscasts are barely into their second weeknight covering the violent, pro-Hamas protests outside Columbia University and throughout college campuses across the nation, and there is already a discernible shift in their coverage. Direct threats against Jewish students have all but disappeared from coverage. In place of the threats and violence, we get a lot more militancy across the dial. Case in point and most emblematic is this snippet to close out CBS’s coverage of the protests: NANCY CHEN: From coast-to-coast, campus to campus, protests are growing louder in solidarity. Students are also joining in at UC Berkeley. MALAK AFANEH: Quite frankly, I think it's important that people start to align themselves with the Palestinian resistance. CHEN: Here at Columbia University, the seventh day of protests. Demonstrators want the school to divest from all business that supports Israel. STUDENT: I think it's time to divest from those weapons manufacturing and re-divest(sic) them into other important things. CHEN: They are also demanding amnesty for all students who have been punished.  Is the goal to stay here until those demands are met? STUDENT: Yes. CHEN: And as you can see behind me, demonstrators both on and off campus are still demanding to be heard. Meanwhile, there are growing calls for the university's president to resign. ABC and NBC were not that much better.  Somebody got to the media, plain and simple. Just yesterday, newscasts were reporting on the young girl that stood in front of a group of Jewish counter protesters while holding a sign that read “Al Qassam’s next targets”. Today, those very real, tangible, and unresolved threats hung in the air as each of the networks reported nearly exclusively from the protesters’ perspective. It would appear, judging from the coverage, that the media is inching towards a left-consensus position from which to cover the protests- that is, as Pro-Hamas as possible. What Jews were featured tonight were there only to discuss unspecified “discomfort”- not narrate getting poked in the eye with a Palestinian flag or having “go back to Poland” yelled at them. And in ABC’s case, immediately had that concern followed up with by a Jewish protester’s perspective: AIDEN HUNTER: I don't mean to diminish that, but I'd say the majority of my friends, especially Jewish friends, feel a sense of insecurity at this time. STEPHANIE RAMOS: But among the pro-Palestinian protesters here are also some Jewish-Americans, like professor Alex Wolf. ALEX WOLF: Anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are not the same thing. And that is one thing to have beliefs -- beliefs of the Jewish religion, and it's another thing to support the policies and actions of the Israeli state. NBC’s Erin McLaughlin went off on a weird tangent as she described “a new flashpoint between free speech and hate speech.”  MCLAUGHLIN: The university said many of the protesters were not affiliated with the school, and that they'd witnessed disorderly, disruptive and antagonizing behavior, pointing to intimidating chants and several antisemitic incidents reported. The days of protests following congressional testimony from Columbia's president, creating a new flash point between free speech and hate speech.  What does that even mean? There is only “speech”. Far from protecting Jewish students by keeping their stories away from the gaze of the viewing public, this increasingly pro-Hamas coverage actually puts them at risk.  Click “expand” to view the transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective network evening newscasts on Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: DAVID MUIR: We turn now to the violent scenes breaking out at campus protests across this country over the war in Gaza. Dramatic images tonight. Mass protests at Columbia, NYU, M.I.T., Yale, the University of Minnesota, Berkeley, and several more campuses. At NYU, New York City's mayor blaming outside agitators for tossing bottles and chairs at officers. At Cal Poly Humboldt in northern California, protestors clashing with police in riot gear trying to get them to leave. ABC’s Stephanie Ramos at Columbia tonight on the scenes playing out across this country. STEPHANIE RAMOS: Tonight, these images show protests turning violent, as police struggle to control students at Cal Poly Humboldt. Demonstrations spreading from coast to coast. Protesters facing off with police in riot gear. Using furniture to barricade themselves inside this academic building, as officers with shields try to move in. One protester bashing police with an empty water jug. It comes after more than 150 students and faculty were arrested at NYU overnight, when police moved in to clear pro-Palestinian protesters who refused to move. The crowd then marching to Police headquarters. New York's Mayor Eric Adams blaming outside agitators for a violent turn in campus protests. Pointing to this video he says shows bottles and chairs thrown at officers. ERIC ADAMS: People who peacefully protest for an issue, they’re not throwing bottles and chairs. The chair dented the helmet. Can you imagine if he didn't have the helmet on? RAMOS: Today, NYU ramping up security with a new barricade. Protesters are now digging in. From Berkeley, to the University of Michigan, to Minneapolis, where police today took down tents and made arrests. Colleges struggling under a new wave of solidarity protests inspired by the movement at Columbia University. The encampment here at Columbia University is at the center of this campus. Demonstrators are studying and sleeping here, all while workers try to set all of this up for graduation just three weeks away. Protesters are demanding colleges divest from companies they say profit from ties to Israel. MARYAM ALWAN: We're not planning on packing up and going home. We are here because people in Palestine are going through so much worse. RAMOS: Columbia offering virtual learning for the last week of classes, after some Jewish students said they felt unsafe on campus. Like Aiden Hunter, who tells us he understands why people are protesting. AIDEN HUNTER: I don't mean to diminish that, but I'd say the majority of my friends, especially Jewish friends, feel a sense of insecurity at this time. RAMOS: But among the pro-Palestinian protesters here are also some Jewish-Americans, like professor Alex Wolf. ALEX WOLF: Anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are not the same thing. And that is one thing to have beliefs -- beliefs of the Jewish religion, and it's another thing to support the policies and actions of the Israeli state. RAMOS: Columbia University says they are still in talks with protesters, adding, “that work continues in good faith.” David. MUIR: Stephanie Ramos again tonight. Steph, thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS: MAURICE DUBOIS: Now to those escalating clashes and threats of violence on college campuses. Protests are growing as more students across the country are staging demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza. CBS's Nancy Chen tonight on what protesters are demanding. PROTESTERS: We are not afraid of you! NANCY CHEN: Pro-Palestinian demonstrators clashed with police at Cal Poly Humboldt in northern California, after a group of students used chairs and other furniture to barricade themselves inside one of the school’s main buildings. At NYU, NYPD officers in riot gear cleared out a pro-Palestinian encampment last night after students defied the university's order to leave PROTESTER: We want to see an acknowledgment from our university that there is a genocide happening. NYPD: Leave now or you will be arrested for trespassing. CHEN: 120 people were arrested. PROTESTERS: Free Palestine! Free Palestine!  STUDENT: If you’re going to host a protest, you should host it in a spot that is not so busy and dependent upon students' classes. CHEN: Today, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said students who protest peacefully are not the problem. ERIC ADAMS: We can't have outside agitators come in and be destructive to our city. There was- someone wanted something to happen at that protest at NYU that police officers didn't respond to. CHEN: From coast-to-coast, campus to campus, protests are growing louder in solidarity. Students are also joining in at UC Berkeley. MALAK AFANEH: Quite frankly, I think it's important that people start to align themselves with the Palestinian resistance. CHEN: Here at Columbia University, the seventh day of protests. Demonstrators want the school to divest from all business that supports Israel. STUDENT: I think it's time to divest from those weapons manufacturing and re-divest(sic) them into other important things. CHEN: They are also demanding amnesty for all students who have been punished.  Is the goal to stay here until those demands are met? STUDENT: Yes. CHEN: And as you can see behind me, demonstrators both on and off campus are still demanding to be heard. Meanwhile, there are growing calls for the university's president to resign. Maurice. DUBOIS: And no real end in sight tonight. Nancy Chen at Columbia University in New York. Thank you. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: LESTER HOLT: Tonight's other top story, the growing number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations and people being arrested on America's college campuses from coast-to-coast. And there’s concerns over antisemitic rhetoric. Erin McLaughlin now with late developments for us. PROTESTERS: Shame on you, shame on you! ERIN MCLAUGHLIN: Clashes and arrests from the streets of New York to the University of Minnesota to Cal Poly Humboldt. As more universities crack down on pro-Palestinian protests citing safety concerns and antisemitic rhetoric. Pro-Palestinian encampments now across more than a dozen campuses as students call for universities to divest from companies connected to Israel. PROTESTER: We're paying a lot of tuition to be here. We want to know where our money is going. We want to know where the investments are going as students. MCLAUGHLIN: Overnight at New York University, police say 120 protesters were taken away in zip ties. 116 were released with summons for trespass, including assistant professor Zach Samalin.  Did you have the opportunity to leave? ZACH SAMALIN: I did have the opportunity to leave, yes. But what I did instead was I linked arms with my colleagues on the faculty of New York University in order to protect our students from the police. MCLAUGHLIN: The university said many of the protesters were not affiliated with the school, and that they'd witnessed disorderly, disruptive and antagonizing behavior, pointing to intimidating chants and several antisemitic incidents reported. The days of protests following congressional testimony from Columbia's president, creating a new flash point between free speech and hate speech.  Why do you believe they stopped this protest? SAMALIN: NYU has been engaged in a campaign of repressing pro-Palestinian speech for six months, seven months. That is- I'm unequivocal about that. MCLAUGHLIN: Students insisting the protest was peaceful. Today with the NYU business school barricaded… PROTESTERS: The people! United! Will never be defeated! CHEN: Students gather in nearby Washington Square Park. STUDENT: It's really frustrating because they say they're for free speech and they say they're for academic freedom. MCLAUGHLIN: At nearby Columbia University, classes are being offered online the rest of the year. The pro-Palestinian encampment still standing following last week's mass arrests. HAGAR CHEMALI: It's not safe. MCLAUGHLIN: Associate professor Hagar Chemali says the university needs to do more for Jewish students to feel safe. CHEMALI: It shouldn't be that we have to shut down classes and go virtual and force us to stay home and encourage Jewish students to stay home because the protesters have created an unsafe environment. It should be the other way around. MCLAUGHLIN: Meanwhile, U.S. House Republicans demanding Columbia's president resign immediately for failing to crack down.  HOLT: And Erin joining us live now from New York, where demonstrations are taking place. Erin, the House Speaker will visit nearby Columbia University tomorrow. MCLAUGHLIN: That's right, Lester. According to his office, House Speaker Mike Johnson will meet with Jewish students on the Columbia University campus tomorrow. He’s expected to hold a press conference after that. Lester.  HOLT: Erin McLaughlin in New York, thank you.  

NYT Reporter Stuns CNN's Goldberg by Spinning for Anti-Semitic Protesters

On Tuesday's CNN This Morning, while right-leaning contributor Jonah Goldberg was condemning the anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas rhetoric used by far-left protesters on college campuses, New York Times reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro got snippy as she jumped in to cut him off and argue against the use of police against anti-Israel protesters harassing Jewish students. After host Kasie Hunt had just interviewed Congressman Josh Gottheimer -- a Jewish moderate Democrat from New Jersey -- about his visit to Columbia University and his calls for the university administration to protect Jewish students, she then went to Goldberg to begin a panel discussion. The right-leaning CNN contributor and Fox News alum complained: Look, I think the anti-Semitism stuff, particularly at Passover, is a big issue. It's a legitimate issue to talk about. It's a serious issue, and I think there's a lot of anti-Semitic stuff going on out there. But when you're saying you're Hamas, when you're praising Hamas, when you're praising Hezbollah, when you're saying you're going to globalize the intifada --     Garcia-Navarro took exception to his commentary and jumped in to interrupt: GARCIA-NAVARRO: Excuse me, I'm so sorry. GOLDBERG: Yeah? GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm sorry, but everyone is -- GOLDBERG: I'm going to finish my point. It means you're pro-terrorist. If you are celebrating Hamas, you are pro-terrorist. After declaring that she was "not disputing" that part of his analysis, she then spun for left-wing student organizers who did not act to stop anti-Semitic rhetoric at their demonstration by recalling that left-wing Jews had also protested against Israel: "Yeah, but what I'm saying is there are selective quotes that are being taken not from students themselves -- in the encampments in Columbia, they have said this -- there are Jewish students who are actually part of this." As Goldberg reacted with a befuddled facial expression, the Times journalist added: "And I just would say more broadly, when people are calling for action -- like Representative Gottheimer -- what are they actually calling for? You already had police go on --" Hunt jumped in to inject: "Well, hold on. If there are -- if the people in those encampments -- whether they're Columbia students or not -- if the university can clear them from that encampment, that is something the university can do." Garcia-Navarro continued: But they've already put -- let me just say how we got here. Columbia chose to bring police to clear the encampment that inflamed the situation to where you're now seeing these protests spread to Yale, to New York University, and beyond. I am -- many people have said that the action of bringing police into a group of people who are already feeling that they are sort of representative of the oppressed -- who are inspired by what happened with George Floyd in 2020 and seeing what is happening in Gaza, that that has really only acted as a catalyst here. And so I wonder at the wisdom of bringing in the armed police into what is essentially a university campus. Goldberg was visibly taken aback as the two went back and forth again: GOLDBERG: I question the wisdom of having a double standard that says it's okay to shout hateful pro-terrorist things at Jews, but you can't --you have to have total -- GARCIA-NAVARRO: No one is endorsing that. GOLDBERG (after looking shocked): A lot of people are endorsing that. A lot of people aren't -- GARCIA-NAVARRO: Not here. GOLDBERG: -- condemning it. Yeah. A lot of people aren't condemning it, and I -- look, I agree with you. Universities and the Democratic party and the left have a huge problem trying to figure out how to cut this Gordian knot that they've created for themselves. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN This Morning April 23, 2024 6:55 a.m. Eastern (after interview with Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) (a moderate Democrat) about anti-Semitic protests on college campuses) KASIE HUNT: Just how troubling is this? And how did we get to this point? JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Gosh, you got an hour? HUNT: We have six minutes. GOLDBERG: I think there's a long tradition of campus protests in this country that goes back to before the founding. It has gotten much more intense whereas schools -- they consider part of your academic college experience to be protesters. And I think that sort of encouragement gives a lot of administrators a blind eye to when these things go off the rails. Look, I think the anti-Semitism stuff, particularly at Passover, is a big issue. It's a legitimate issue to talk about. It's a serious issue, and I think there's a lot of anti-Semitic stuff going on out there. But when you're saying you're Hamas, when you're praising Hamas, when you're praising Hezbollah, when you're saying you're going to globalize the intifada -- LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO,  NEW YORK TIMES JOURNALIST/CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Excuse me, I'm so sorry. GOLDBERG: Yeah? GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm sorry, but everyone is -- GOLDBERG: I'm going to finish my point. It means you're pro-terrorist. If you are celebrating Hamas, you are pro-terrorist. GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm not disputing that. GOLDBERG: Okay, that's my point. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, but what I'm saying is there are selective quotes that are being taken not from students themselves -- in the encampments in Columbia, they have said this -- there are Jewish students who are actually part of this. And they are being used -- (Jonah Goldberg displays a confused facial expression) -- wait, let me -- let me -- GOLDBERG: You didn't let me finish my point -- GARCIA-NAVARRO: That's true. GOLDBERG: -- but go ahead. GARCIA-NAVARRO: And I just would say more broadly, when people are calling for action -- like Representative Gottheimer -- what are they actually calling for? You already had police go on -- KASIE HUNT: Well, hold on. If there are -- if the people in those encampments -- whether they're Columbia students or not -- if the university can clear them from that encampment, that is something the university can do. GARCIA-NAVARRO: But they've already put -- let me just say how we got here. Columbia chose to bring police to clear the encampment that inflamed the situation to where you're now seeing these protests spread to Yale, to New York University, and beyond. I am -- many people have said that the action of bringing police into a group of people who are already feeling that they are sort of representative of the oppressed -- who are inspired by what happened with George Floyd in 2020 and seeing what is happening in Gaza, that that has really only acted as a catalyst here. And so I wonder at the wisdom of bringing in the armed police into what is essentially a university campus. There have, you know, to try to be (inaudible) GOLDBERG: I question the wisdom of having a double standard that says it's okay to shout hateful pro-terrorist things at Jews, but you can't --you have to have total -- GARCIA-NAVARRO: No one is endorsing that. GOLDBERG: A lot of people are endorsing that. A lot of people aren't -- GARCIA-NAVARRO: Not here. GOLDBERG: -- condemning it. Yeah. A lot of people aren't condemning it, and I -- look, I agree with you. Universities and the Democratic party and the left have a huge problem trying to figure out how to cut this Gordian knot that they've created for themselves. But that doesn't mean I have to sort of condone or not call out. I spent -- I got a lot of scars from calling out horrible statements on the right over the last 10 years. I call out anti-Semitism and bigotry all the time on the right. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Of course. GOLDBERG: I don't hear a lot of that from the sort of Squad adjacent type people calling out this stuff on the left. HUNT: So John Fetterman had put out a tweet yesterday saying, like, "We are very close to Charlottesville for some of this stuff." Do you agree with that? GOLDBERG: I think the comparison can go too far, but I think Joe Biden's statement yesterday where he basically -- basically did "there are good people on both sides" kind of thing, was not the kind of moral clarity. The written statement was pretty good, but, look, Democrats have a huge problem here because there's a big chunk of Biden's coalition that does not like to hear criticism of any of this, you know, anti-Israel stuff, and they don't know how to get out of it.

Just Join the Biden Campaign: ABC’s Bruce Celebrates Biden Celebrating Baby-Killing

Another day, another act of Biden campaign propaganda. As we’ve seen day after day, ABC’s Good Morning America openly and unapologetically ate out of the hand of the Biden press office with a full report on the regime’s preferred topic of the day. On Tuesday, it was chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce cheering Biden traveling to Florida to celebrate murdering children in the womb. A simple perusing of the NewsBusters tag for Bruce would show she’s a diamond-level frequent rider of the Biden train.     Co-host Robin Roberts did her part as well setting the table: “And now, this morning, President Biden taking his message about a woman’s right to choose to Florida exactly one week before the state’s new law outlawing most abortions goes into effect.” Even the chyron served its purpose: “New This Morning; President Biden Heading to Florida; States’s New Abortion Ban Takes Effect in One Week”. Bruce giddily boasted of “the Biden campaign...trying to seize this moment, blasting new abortion restrictions across the country” and huffing that “Donald Trump did this as he boasts of appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe.” Ignoring the fact that Florida is increasingly a fervently red state, Bruce added: “Now, in Tampa today, President Biden will hold his first major campaign on the issue, one week before Florida is set to ban most abortions after six weeks before most women even know that they are pregnant.” After pointing out “Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the charge on this issue” before Tuesday’s visit, the brisk, 56-second segment wound down with her waving pom-poms for Biden as “a staunch defender of the abortion access” amid “a complicated evolution on the issue” since he’s “a Catholic.” Challenge for Mary Bruce: Please be objective and keep yourself from getting weak knees over your liberal handlers. Impossible. Right to the end, she shilled in claiming abortion would define the election: “[T]he campaign knows this is going to be a defining issue for this campaign and they’re eager to put it front and center, Robin.” To see the relevant transcript from April 23, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 23, 2023 7:15 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; President Biden Heading to Florida; States’s New Abortion Ban Takes Effect in One Week] ROBIN ROBERTS: And now, this morning, President Biden taking his message about a woman’s right to choose to Florida exactly one week before the state’s new law outlawing most abortions goes into effect. Our chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce will be traveling today with the President. Good morning, Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning, Robin. Well, the Biden campaign is trying to seize this moment, blasting new abortion restrictions across the country, urging Donald Trump did this as he boasts of appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe. Now, in Tampa today, President Biden will hold his first major campaign on the issue, one week before Florida is set to ban most abortions after six weeks before most women even know that they are pregnant. Now, so far Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the charge on this issue. The President, of course, is a staunch defender of the abortion access, but, as a Catholic, he’s had a complicated evolution on the issue, but the campaign knows this is going to be a defining issue for this campaign and they’re eager to put it front and center, Robin. ROBERTS: Alright, Mary, thank you. And safe travels today.

ABC Tries to Brush Aside Evidence of Antisemitism at Columbia University

While NBC was busy trying to discredit Jewish students who were victims of anti-Semitic attacks and threats caught on camera at Columbia University on Tuesday, ABC’s Good Morning America thought they could get by without admitting there was antisemitism coming from the pro-Hamas crowd. Instead, correspondent Stephanie Ramos simply said Jewish students “don’t feel safe” with no explanation as to why. Instead of focusing on the anti-Semitic attacks and rhetoric that caused classes at Columbia’s main campus to go virtual for the rest of the year, Ramos huffed about university administrators who allowed an increased police presence on campus and the crackdown on trespassers: RAMOS: Security heightened at Columbia University where student protesters pitched tents at the center of campus. The encampments still in place this morning. Classes there going virtual Monday. University president Minouche Shafik authorized the NYPD to make arrests last week. MIKE GERBER (NYPD deputy commissioner, legal matters): They informed us they had students who were trespassing. They asked us to come on to campus and we did. RAMOS: Demonstrators demanding institutions divest from companies with ties to Israel.     At those gatherings, far-left, pro-Hamas students chanted anti-Semitic slogans like “Go back to Poland” and held up signs calling for Jewish student counter-protesters to be killed. But instead of showing the ABC audience the far-left’s hatred of Jews, she highlighted one of the students arrested: RAMOS: Columbia PhD student Linnea Norton tells us she was one of the arrested and just wants her voice to be heard. LINNEA NORTON: We were all just sitting cross-legged together in a circle and then the NYPD came in and arrested us one by one. Immediately zip-tied us with our hands behind our backs. Ramos did note that “Many Jewish students telling us they don't feel safe on campus,” and interviewed one who explained: “It's not only mentally exhausting. I found these past few days it's been like physically affecting me. And I got told that an Israeli flag is a Nazi flag.” But that didn’t do justice to show how dangerous the situation actually was. Over on CBS Mornings, correspondent Meg Oliver showed a video of the “go back to Poland” chant. “Like near Columbia University where some demonstrators chanted anti-Semitic slogans. In one video, a protester can be seen holding a sign near Jewish students that reads ‘Al-Qasam’s [sic] next targets.’ A-Qassam is Hamas’s military arm,” she added. “Columbia announced that, to ensure safety, most classes on its main campus will be hybrid for the rest of the semester. It has also more than doubled security after a recent series of anti-Semitic incidents,” Oliver reported. At the end of her report, Ramos concluded by noting that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft (an alum of Columbia) was “reconsidering his support for the university” without noting it was in regard to the antisemitism. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America April 23, 2024 7:04:39 a.m. Eastern (…) STEPHANIE RAMOS: Security heightened at Columbia University where student protesters pitched tents at the center of campus. The encampments still in place this morning. Classes there going virtual Monday. University president Minouche Shafik authorized the NYPD to make arrests last week. MIKE GERBER (NYPD deputy commissioner, legal matters): They informed us they had students who were trespassing. They asked us to come on to campus and we did. RAMOS: Demonstrators demanding institutions divest from companies with ties to Israel. Columbia PhD student Linnea Norton tells us she was one of the arrested and just wants her voice to be heard. LINNEA NORTON: We were all just sitting cross legged together in a circle and then the NYPD came in and arrested us one by one. Immediately zip tied us with our hands behind our backs. RAMOS: Tensions have been mounting at universities since the Israel/Hamas conflict began last October. Many Jewish students telling us they don't feel safe on campus. How has this hit you, the demonstrations over the last couple of days? UNNAMED JEWISH STUDENT: It's not only mentally exhausting. I found these past few days it's been like physically affecting me. And I got told that an Israeli flag is a Nazi flag. (…)

Stewart Mocks MSNBC, Tapper For Obsessing Over Trump Trial

The media is obsessed with Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial to such a degree that even Jon Stewart can’t help but mock them. On Monday’s edition of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, Stewart ridiculed the media for their priorities, with MSNBC and CNN’s Jake Tapper bearing extra scrutiny. Of course, it is not the first time the media has obsessed over something Trump-related, as Stewart recalled, “This trial will obviously be a test of the fairness of the American legal system. But it's also a test of the media's ability to cover Donald Trump in a responsible way, a task they have acknowledged they have performed poorly in the past.”   Jon Stewart mocked the media's (particularly MSNBC's) obsession with Trump's trial "it's also a test of the media's ability to cover Donald Trump in a responsible way, a task they have acknowledged they have performed poorly in the past." (1/?) pic.twitter.com/u6UESghJpk — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 23, 2024   Stewart then played a montage of several MSNBC and CNN personalities lamenting media coverage of Trump. John Heilemann claimed it was “irresponsible” to “give Donald Trump hours and hours of free air time,” while Audie Cornish claimed, “All of us have learned some very valuable lessons from the last couple of years in delineating what's significant, what's important.” After the montage, Stewart returned to introduce another series of clips, “So brave. Well done. And I think for this trial, we will see the seeds of that introspection bear fruit. Or we will learn that learning curves are for pussies.” With the exception of one clip from a local news analyst, it was exclusively MSNBC. It included multiple claims that we are witnessing “the trial of the century” and the return of the classic, “The legal walls, closing in around Donald Trump.” The trial is obviously newsworthy, but Stewart suggested, “Perhaps if we limit the coverage to the issues at hand, and try not to create an all-encompassing spectacle of the most banal of details, perhaps that would help.” That cued yet another montage of Tapper and local news reporters following Trump’s motorcade. The last reporter waxed poetic as she claimed Trump was “arriving at this intersection of American history with defiance.”     An exasperated Stewart wondered, “Seriously, are we going to follow this guy to court every [bleep] day? Are you trying to make this O.J.? It's not even a chase! He's commuting. So, the media's first attempt, the very first attempt on the first day at self-control failed. And I'm sorry to say that it didn't -- I'm sorry, hold on, we're getting breaking news.” In the next clip, Tapper was interrupting his guest, “I'm sorry to interrupt, I've just-- one second. I apologize. We're just showing the first image of Donald Trump from inside the courtroom. It's a still photograph that we're showing there. Just want to make sure our viewers know what they're looking at.” Stewart wasn’t convinced viewers needed this information, “Yes, for our viewers who are just waking up from a 30-year coma, this is what Donald Trump has looked like every day for the past 30 years.” Later, after skewering MSNBC for interviewing a dismissed juror who almost saw Trump, Stewart teed up another clip of Tapper, “Anyway, coming up, more of our three-part interview with a guy who nearly saw Donald Trump in the courtroom. So, we have a photograph—it’s freaking me out, that picture— we have a photograph, we have eyewitness accounts, but do we have anything in a pastel?” Tapper marveled about “A courtroom sketch that we're getting in right now. I'm looking at the courtroom sketch and Mr. Trump looks like he is glowering [jump cut] I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a glower or just a glance [jump cut] I don't know how this -- it's art. It's not necessarily -- it's artistic journalism, but it's not a photograph.”     Stewart then turned to Tapper’s colleague, Erin Burnett, “Why are you showing it to us? It is a sketch… Well, I guess we'll never know. Unless! We could talk to the person who drew the sketch! But do we have the time? Nothing but!” Burnett was shown conversing with sketch artist Christine Cornell, “I want to show one of your sketches today. We're going through some of them, but this one, it appears in this one that his eyes are closed. What was happening here?” Cornell didn’t have the profound answer Burnett was looking for, “My apologies, ma'am. I was sitting 50 feet away. I was having such a struggle to try and get those eyeballs in.” If that's not a metaphor for media coverage of Trump's legal battles, then nothing is. Here is a transcript for the April 22 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/22/2024 11:02 PM ET JON STEWART: This trial will obviously be a test of the fairness of the American legal system. But it's also a test of the media's ability to cover Donald Trump in a responsible way, a task they have acknowledged they have performed poorly in the past. NICOLLE WALLACE: I think to the degree that the media had lessons to learn in '16, they seemed to have been learned. JOHN HEILEMANN: It was irresponsible for cable news networks to give Donald Trump hours and hours of free air time. BRIAN STELTER: Way too much speculation and liberal wishful thinking in attempts to connect dots that did not connect. RACHEL MADDOW: It's the media's responsibility to not get distracted. NICHOLAS KRISTOF: I think we were much too busy chasing after shiny objects. AUDIE CORNISH: All of us have learned some very valuable lessons from the last couple of years in delineating what's significant, what's important. STEWART: So brave. Well done. And I think for this trial, we will see the seeds of that introspection bear fruit. Or we will learn that learning curves are for pussies. WALLACE: Here we go. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It's on, it's happening, history will be made. ALEX WITT: Shaping up to be the trial of the century. FEMALE LOCAL NEWS ANALYST: Maybe the trial of the century. CHRIS HAYES: The trial of the century. WALLACE: What just might be the trial of the century. KATIE PHANG: The taxman is here, Donald Trump. AYMAN MOHYELDIN: He will finally be forced to face the music. CHRIS JANSING: The legal walls, closing in around Donald Trump. ANTHONY COLEY: The legal walls are starting to close in on Donald Trump. STEWART: Yes, this time, Mr. Bond, it truly is your doom! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to leave this room. Obviously, when I leave, I'm not going to press the button that opens all the doors and dismantles the killing machine I've established. Don't follow me, Mr. Bond. Perhaps if we limit the coverage to the issues at hand, and try not to create an all-encompassing spectacle of the most banal of details, perhaps that would help. JAKE TAPPER: You're looking at live pictures in New York City of Donald Trump's motorcade. MALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER: It's about a 20-minute drive between Trump Tower and the court building. FEMALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER: Trump leaving Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. MALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER 2: They're now making their way across town along 57th Street. [jump cut] They just crossed Park Avenue making their way up towards Lexington Avenue. BRETT TOLMAN: He's heading down the FDR. RANJI SINHA: To the Manhattan courthouse on Chambers Street. FEMALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER 3: Arriving at this intersection of American history with defiance. STEWART: Arriving at the intersection of American history with defiance. The brilliant juxtaposing of the gravitas of the moment with simple traffic terms was... [Chef's kiss] "He arrived at the intersection of American history, where he put a quarter in the parking meter of destiny. Leaving the car, looking to avoid stepping in the urine puddle of jurisprudence."  Seriously, are we going to follow this guy to court every [bleep] day? Are you trying to make this O.J.? It's not even a chase! He's commuting. So, the media's first attempt, the very first attempt on the first day at self-control failed. And I'm sorry to say that it didn't -- I'm sorry, hold on, we're getting breaking news. WILLIAM BRENNAN: You know, he wanted to get a jury seated. So we had a lady – JAKE TAPPER: Will, I'm sorry to interrupt, I've just-- one second. I apologize. We're just showing the first image of Donald Trump from inside the courtroom. BRENNAN: Okay. TAPPER: It's a still photograph that we're showing there. Just want to make sure our viewers know what they're looking at. STEWART: Yes, for our viewers who are just waking up from a 30-year coma, this is what Donald Trump has looked like every day for the past 30 years. … STEWART: Anyway, coming up, more of our three-part interview with a guy who nearly saw Donald Trump in the courtroom. So, we have a photograph—it’s freaking me out, that picture— we have a photograph, we have eyewitness accounts, but do we have anything in a pastel? TAPPER: A courtroom sketch that we're getting in right now. I'm looking at the courtroom sketch and Mr. Trump looks like he is glowering [jump cut] I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a glower or just a glance [jump cut] I don't know how this -- it's art. It's not necessarily -- it's artistic journalism, but it's not a photograph. STEWART: Why are you showing it to us? It is a sketch. Why would anyone analyze a sketch like it was—it’d be like looking at The Last Supper and going, "Would you say Jesus looks sad here? What do you think? It's because of Judas? What if we interview one of the waiters at one of the tables from, like, a different section of the restaurant who maybe actually didn't see him? But you know, we got time to kill."  Well, I guess we'll never know. Unless! We could talk to the person who drew the sketch! But do we have the time? Nothing but! ERIN BURNETT: Christine Cornell was in the courtroom today, the official sketch artist [jump cut] I want to show one of your sketches today. We're going through some of them, but this one, it appears in this one that his eyes are closed. What was happening here? CHRISTINE CORNELL: My apologies, ma'am. I was sitting 50 feet away. I was having such a struggle to try and get those eyeballs in. STEWART: Damn it, woman! Does Donald Trump have eyeballs or no, ma'am? Does he or no? You were in the room! Tell me! Or I will not come to your trinket shop in Newport!

NBC Tries to Discredit Jewish Victims of Antisemitism at Columbia University

In recent days, the pro-Hamas gatherings at university campuses across the country have grown more violent and more brazen with their anti-Semitic rhetoric; causing Jewish students to feel unsafe and universities to advise them to stay away as they shift to virtual learning. But despite all the videos of these incidents, the Tuesday edition of NBC’s Today (via correspondent Erin McLaughlin) worked hard in an apparent attempt to discredit the Jewish students who were trying to get the world’s attention and expose the far-left. At the top of her report, McLaughlin lamented that police were cracking down on violent pro-Hamas riots. “Overnight, a tense scene at New York University after pro-Palestinian protesters were forced to leave a campus plaza. NYPD moving in with riot gear, police breaking down encampments as a sea of protesters marched through the city streets,” she mourned. McLaughlin actively tried to discredit the accounts of Jewish students who witnessed the crowds chant anti-Semitic slogans, and were assaulted and chased from pro-Israel protests: MCLAUGHLIN: Students like Andrew Stein who said he was on campus late Saturday night for a pro-Israel counter-protest, but left terrified by an angry mob. ANDREW STEIN: They started say in Arabic: “Hamas, Hamas our beloved please bomb Tel Aviv.” MCLAUGHLIN: Stein says this video shows him being followed off campus. STEIN: Me and my friend had water poured – physically poured in our face. MCLAUGHLIN: At the pro-Palestinian encampment in the heart of the university, heated confrontations. UNNAMED FEMALE STUDENT: “Go back to Poland” is not anti-Zionism, it’s anti-Semitism and that’s what was said.     She tried to contradict them with claims from the pro-Hamas side who, as she put it, “say they have no knowledge any antisemitism on campus Saturday night.” “Anyone who makes any thread to any Jewish student, we oppose you, we do not associate with you,” a pro-Hamas student told her. It was the same student who was confronted about the “go back to Poland” chant in the block quote above (included in the embedded video). While McLaughlin wanted to suggest there was no evidence of the antisemitism, over on CBS Mornings, correspondent Meg Oliver showed a video of the “go back to Poland” chant. “Like near Columbia University where some demonstrators chanted anti-Semitic slogans. In one video, a protester can be seen holding a sign near Jewish students that reads ‘Al-Qasam’s [sic] next targets.’ A-Qassam is Hamas’s military arm,” she added. “Columbia announced that, to ensure safety, most classes on its main campus will be hybrid for the rest of the semester. It has also more than doubled security after a recent series of anti-Semitic incidents,” Oliver reported. While McLaughlin was trying to discredit and ignore the violence and anti-Semitic incidents caught on camera, she was more concerned about Islamophobia: “Meanwhile at Rutgers University on Monday, a 24-year-old man was charged with a federal hate crime for allegedly breaking into that university's Islamic center during the Eid celebrations earlier in the month.” “Many are left wondering if this will continue to spread,” she feared. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NBC’s Today April 23, 2024 7:04:16 a.m. Eastern (…) ERIN MCLAUGHLIN: Overnight, a tense scene at New York University after pro-Palestinian protesters were forced to leave a campus plaza. NYPD moving in with riot gear, police breaking down encampments as a sea of protesters marched through the city streets. It comes as tensions flair at Columbia University, now entering its seventh-consecutive day of pro-Palestinian protests; with the school announcing main campus classes will be hybrid until the end of the semester, stating “safety is our highest priority” after the university president's call to “de-escalate the rancor.” A massive NYPD presence was around the campus as a growing number of Jewish students report feeling unsafe. Students like Andrew Stein who said he was on campus late Saturday night for a pro-Israel counter protest, but left terrified by an angry mob. ANDREW STEIN: They started say in Arabic: “Hamas, Hamas our beloved please bomb Tel Aviv.” MCLAUGHLIN: Stein says this video shows him being followed off campus. STEIN: Me and my friend had water poured – physically poured in our face. MCLAUGHLIN: At the pro-Palestinian encampment in the heart of the university, heated confrontations. UNNAMED FEMALE STUDENT: “Go back to Poland” is not anti-Zionism, it’s anti-Semitism and that’s what was said. MCLAUGHLIN: The pro-Palestinian students we spoke to say they have no knowledge any antisemitism on campus Saturday night. SHERIF (Columbia University Student): Anyone who makes any thread to any Jewish student, we oppose you, we do not associate with you. MCLAUGHLIN: Patriots owner and Jewish alum Robert Kraft, a major donor, announcing he is pulling his support until corrective action is taken. (…) 7:06:26 a.m. Eastern MCLAUGHLIN: Meanwhile at Rutgers University on Monday, a 24-year-old man was charged with a federal hate crime for allegedly breaking into that university's Islamic center during the Eid celebrations earlier in the month. Many are left wondering if this will continue to spread. CBS Mornings April 23, 2024 7:08:05 a.m. Eastern (…) MEG OLIVER: The mood on campus is tense. Columbia announced that, to ensure safety, most classes on its main campus will be hybrid for the rest of the semester. It has also more than doubled security after a recent series of anti-Semitic incidents. But on many campuses, police trying to contain the demonstrations have been met with resistance. [Cuts to video] [Video of pro-Hama rioters beating police] A chaotic scene at Cal Ploy Humboldt in northern California as police in riot gear clashed with pro-Palestinian protesters. And at New York University last night, the NYPD broke up a pro-Palestinian encampment. The demonstrations have spread to campuses across the country with Palestinian supporters angry over Israel's war in Gaza and many Jewish students expressing fear after incidents of anti-Semitism. [Video of pro-Hamas man yelling “Go back to Poland”] Like near Columbia University where some demonstrators chanted anti-Semitic slogans. In one video, a protester can be seen holding a sign near Jewish students that reads “Al-Qasam’s [sic] next targets.” A-Qassam is Hamas’s military arm. UNNAMED JEWISH STUDENT: Jewish students are petrified to go onto campus. (…)

PBS News Show Defends 'The Unhoused' From 'Punitive' Laws Banning Street Camping

Sunday’s edition of PBS News Weekend spent 13 minutes out of its allotted 25 taking the loose liberal attitude toward homelessness (“the unhoused”) as a Supreme Court case looms. PBS found yet another liberal, an assistant public health professor at Cornell University, to make its preferred ideological case in the first segment, arguing an Oregon law limiting homeless camping in public spaces punishes people for being on the streets. JOHN YANG: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether laws limiting homeless encampments in public places are unconstitutional because they punish people for being homeless. The case is about laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 40,000 in the state’s southwest corner, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come. CHARLEY WILLISON, Cornell University: ….cities generally use much more punitive policies, these criminalization approaches that are at the heart of Johnson vs. Grants Pass to effectively punish people who are experiencing homelessness for behaviors that are associated with the realities of homelessness. Now, importantly, the use of these punitive policies actually facilitate cycles of homelessness and does not effectively end homelessness…. (Willison would throw in another “punitive” description before she was done.) Asked about Florida’s new camping ban, she responded similarly: “So these camping bans and other broadly punitive responses again, where we see people who are experiencing homelessness being either fined through civil penalties or criminalized through criminal penalties for realities associated with homelessness….” She responded to Yang’s question about a new California law to provide more drug treatment with liberal fantasizing, with no opposing views from Yang: ….For example, having more accountability, where cities are required to spend a certain proportion of their budgets on housing will likely help improve the situation and require cities to engage in these evidence-based policies which are far more effective. The anchor transitioned directly to a field report from Montana, with reporter Joe Lesar of Montana PBS speaking to Steve and Belinda Ankney, “[who] have been living in their trailer on the streets of Bozeman for the past three years.” Lesar admitted “Both have struggled with addiction” and Belinda has been previously jailed, which she blamed on “not getting the right help, not being on the right meds.” Lesar: To tackle this growing issue, Bozeman recently implemented a new ordinance limiting camping in the same spot to 30 days with an option for filing for an extension. There are rules about keeping camps clean, and after three warnings $25 civil penalties will be issued…. The reporter at least provided some anecdotes from citizens helping pay for homeless upkeep, with the head of an environmental consulting firm noting he’d suffered thefts on his company’s property and the harassment of an employee. But he ended with the view of a hand-wringing social worker and a lecture from the trailer-living denizen: Heather Grenier, Human Resources Development Council: Just general sentiment that everyone deserves the safe warm place to sleep is that doesn’t really resonate with everyone anymore. Steve Ankney: “….there are good people in Bozeman, just the ugly overshadows the good so bad.” The segment ended with a graphic of a federal government statistic claiming a 551% increase in “individuals experiencing chronic patterns of homelessness” from 2007 to 2023, which is a bit vague. When even the liberal Washington Post editorial page admits “There is no constitutional right to pitch your tent on the sidewalk” -- the kind of common-sense argument absent from PBS -- it’s clear that taxpayer-supported outlets like PBS and National Public Radio are pitched far to the left of the average American taxpayer who is involuntarily supporting them. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular, and taxpayers like you. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 4/21/2024 7:12:56 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether laws limiting homeless encampments in public places are unconstitutional because they punish people for being homeless. The case is about laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 40,000 in the state southwest corner, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come. Charley Willison teaches public health at Cornell University. She`s the author of "Ungoverned and Out of Sight: Public Health and the Political Crisis of Homelessness in the United States." Charley, in the filings for this case Grants Pass as well there these laws are about public health and public safety. The two homeless people who have brought this case say it`s really about pushing homeless people out of the -- out of Grants Pass getting them to move on to go someplace else. What`s your take on that? CHARLEY WILLISON, Cornell University: This is such an important question. And what this case is really getting at is a deep tension that American cities face when thinking about how to respond to homelessness across the country, but especially in West Coast cities that have very limited shelter capacity, and are also in the midst of a housing crisis. And these two tensions that I`d like to emphasize are that cities generally use much more punitive policies these criminalization approaches that are at the heart of Johnson versus Grants Pass to effectively punish people who are experiencing homelessness for behaviors that are associated with the realities of homelessness. Now, importantly, the use of these punitive policies actually facilitate cycles of homelessness and does not effectively end homelessness. While the alternative addressing homelessness through the use of more housing, as well as housing paired with access to social and medical services, does successfully end homelessness. However, we have seen cities across the United States have much less emphasis on the use of housing and supportive services compared to these punitive policies that are at the heart of this case. JOHN YANG: But at the same time, these camping bans are really spreading just this spring. Governor DeSantis and Florida signed a ban statewide banning camping in public places. But you say this really doesn`t help homelessness is it, does it hurt it? CHARLEY WILLISON: So these camping bans and other broadly punitive responses again, where we see people who are experiencing homelessness being either find through civil penalties or criminalized through criminal penalties for realities associated with homelessness, whether it is sleeping in public sitting down in public eating public, things like this do actually promote cycles of homelessness. Now, the Florida law that is in question is a ban on camping. However, it is also using an interim solution where there are temporary shelters and that will hopefully be used, as opposed to criminalizing people. So banning camping as opposed to incarcerating people, or finding people directing people into temporary shelters, which appear to be sanctioned camping sites. JOHN YANG: What about the ballot proposal that narrowly passed earlier this year in California that directs counties to spend more money on housing programs and drug treatment programs? Will that help? Will that make a difference? CHARLEY WILLISON: Proposition one in California, which passed just about a month ago, this raises the issue of the housing crisis itself, and the need for West Coast cities in particular, but especially cities across the United States, to engage in more housing based solutions, which are the only solution that effectively successfully ends homelessness. Across the country having these investments and in California, especially where there are by far very limited or far more limited shelter and housing opportunities compared to other East Coast cities. For example, having more accountability, where cities are required to spend a certain proportion of their budgets on housing will likely help improve the situation and require cities to engage in these evidence based policies which are far more effective. JOHN YANG: From your perspective, what`s the public health issue or what`s the public health effect implications of homelessness? CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many, many grave public health effects of homelessness. If we think about homelessness, in general, people experiencing homelessness, whether it is short term or long term face group far greater morbidity and mortality compared to the general population. And this is both in the short term and the long term. For example, we know that people who are experiencing sheltered homelessness, so this is when they don`t have to sleep outside, they have a place to go their mortality rates are about three times higher than the general population. Whereas people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness, which is the population that is at the heart of this court case, have mortality rates are about 10 times higher than the general population. So when we`re thinking about population health and homelessness is absolutely a public health problem because of the grave and dire consequences for people and their health in these ways. JOHN YANG: In your view, what`s at stake in this case? CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many things at stake in this case, but I would say probably the most important thing is again, going back to this tension, where cities have placed a lot of very robust resources in these punitive responses to homelessness. Now, if they are allowed to continue to do this, the question will be whether or not cities will be incentivized to create these alternative solutions using housing paired with social medical services, which we know actually successfully ends homelessness. However, if the court rules in favor of Johnson, we I think this is a very big opportunity for cities to engage in these evidence based solutions and make investments especially in West Coast cities, where they have not previously done so, so that we may actually successfully reduce and end homelessness. JOHN YANG: Charley Willison of Cornell University. Thank you very much. CHARLEY WILLISON: Thank you so much. JOHN YANG: In some cities with growing numbers of homeless people, the issue goes beyond encampments and public places. They`re also coping with more people living in cars and RVs parked on city streets. Montana PBS`s Joe Lesar reports on how city leaders in Bozeman Montana are dealing with the tensions arising from this more visible display of homelessness. STEVEN ANKNEY, Bozeman resident: Terry, oh, man, you got to have thick skin out here. BELINDA ANKNEY, Bozeman resident: Oh, we got the windows broke out. Not went up there. It`s just completely gone. STEVEN ANKNEY: Yeah, that one`s had the BB come through there. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Steve and Belinda Ankney, have been living in their trailer on the streets of Bozeman for the past three years. STEVEN ANKNEY: We take plates around or if people are having a hard time and they`re not eating, they`ll stop by and ask if we can help her anyway. JOE LESAR (voice-over): The rising cost of living has only compounded issues they I`ve been facing for years.   BELINDA ANKNEY: I was raised with the drugs. I was raised with the alcohol. That`s all I knew. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Both have struggled with addiction. Belinda works full time at a restaurant. But health issues made worse by inconsistent access to care have affected Steven`s ability to work. BELINDA ANKNEY: One of the biggest misconceptions is that we want to be here that we`re not trying to get out. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Belinda`s legal troubles out another barrier to securing housing. BELINDA ANKNEY: Yeah, the mental health issues. The drug issues the in and out of incarceration not getting the right help not being on the right meds, you know, just as (inaudible). JOE LESAR (voice-over): Urban camping as it`s been named, has increased by 200 percent in the last two years, according to city officials. It`s a growing issue. It`s increasingly dividing Bozeman. WOMAN: If Bozeman is too expensive to live in, choose another place to live. MAN: But it feels more like a warzone with all these housing crises and no solutions to anything. MAN: Bozeman doesn`t owe anybody anything. MAN: I`ve never seen or been in a city where there`s so much conflict over how this homelessness thing. JOE LESAR (voice-over): To tackle this growing issue, Bozeman recently implemented a new ordinance limiting camping in the same spot to 30 days with an option for filing for an extension. There are rules about keeping camps clean, and after three warnings $25 civil penalties will be issued. If unsanitary conditions continue, the city can clear camp 72 hours after giving notice. But some are criticizing city leaders for putting too much of a burden on the unhoused. Others feel they`re being too lenient. Mayor Terry Cunningham says the rules about where camping will be allowed will help make the situation more manageable. MAYOR TERRY CUNNINGHAM, Bozeman, Montana: You can`t be parked in front of a business, you can`t be parked in front of a school, childcare facility, residence, et cetera. So narrowing the areas that it is acceptable to camp in front of is important so we can get some level of predictability and control. JOE LESAR (voice-over): But many camps are already in compliance with those rules. A group of businesses are suing the city alleging that it is refusing to enforce existing laws within the homeless encampments. Andrew Hinnenkamp runs one of the businesses involved in the lawsuit. ANDREW HINNENKAMP, Principal, Modulus Corporation: Early on, we had some thefts of services on the property. We had a little bit of a harassment interaction with an employee and one of the individuals. TERRY CUNNINGHAM: homelessness has always been on the radar. This with urban camping RV`s, more cars. This is a recent phenomenon. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Because of the generators, new model cars and TV antennas, there`s a sentiment in Bozeman that people are choosing to camp in order to save money on housing. City officials acknowledged that some people are doing that and will be asked to move on. But figuring out who those people are comes with challenges. TERRY CUNNINGHAM: One of the difficulties is having the discussion and saying why are you currently homeless? We -- they are not required to provide us with that information and often are uncomfortable answering those types of questions. JOE LESAR (voice-over): The population of people experiencing homelessness in Bozeman has increased by 50 percent since 2020. In the groups providing services to this growing population have struggled to meet the demand. HEATHER GRENIER, President, Human Resources Development Council: As a result of COVID there was this big uptick in demand and there was this outpouring of support. And now that outpouring of support has dropped off, but the demand has stayed up at this level and the resources are very insufficient to meet the need. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Heather Grenier, who runs the nonprofit Human Resource Development Council, says her organization`s caseload is at capacity. And there are not many alternatives available. HEATHER GRENIER: It`s remarkably difficult because there`s no pathway for us to help them. There`s no housing. There`s no rental assistance to help them get into housing. And even if there were a housing unit, there`s no transitional housing. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Usage of HRDC overnight shelter has nearly doubled since 2019. Some of that needs should be eased when they`re new 24/7 shelter opens, but that`s not expected until next year. Grenier believes this newer, more visible form of homelessness has caused a shift in attitudes around Bozeman. HEATHER GRENIER: Just general sentiment that everyone deserves the safe warm place to sleep is that doesn`t really resonate with everyone anymore. BELINDA ANKNEY: Are we out? Are we out for it? STEVEN ANKNEY: No. I`ve seen not. I don`t know. BELINDA ANKNEY: OK. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Cost between a lack of services and a frustrated community, are people like Steven and Belinda? STEVEN ANKNEY: There are good people in Bozeman there. Yeah. It`s just the ugly overshadows the good so bad. This is what it`s about. We are having me struggles and we are having these problems. But as soon as we get through them, we are going to be okay. We are going to get to the other side. JOE LESAR (voice-over): Yeah. For PBS News Weekend, I`m Joe Lesar in Bozeman, Montana.

WATCH: The Absurd Reason This Senator Claims Elon Musk ‘Should Be in Jail’

Elon Musk has been targeted by yet another authoritarian government for his company X’s reluctance to censor political content.  In an April 23 interview with Sky News, Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie appeared to threaten Elon Musk over his well-known advocacy for free speech and the way his company X handles political content on its platform, specifically X’s refusal to censor videos of recent attacks in Australia, contradicting the orders of the country’s eSafety commission.  Lambie engaged in a vitriolic spree against the tech mogul and considerably blackened his character. “So when it comes to the tech billionaire, like I’ve already said, I think he’s a social media nob with no social conscience,” Lambie said. “He has absolutely no social conscience.” The senator then proceeded to issue explicit threats against Musk, advocating for him to be imprisoned. “Someone like that should be in jail, and the key be thrown away,” Lambie asserted. “That bloke should not have a right to be out there on his own ideology platform and creating hatred, you know, showing all this stuff out there to our kids and all the rest.” Australian politicians want to shut down X and imprison Elon Musk because free speech is a danger to their fragile democracy that’s run by fragile, pathetic people. You couldn’t make this up. pic.twitter.com/mEBLqMtO6f — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) April 23, 2024 In another interview, Lambie made her threats even more explicit and suggested that the  Australian government should introduce new rules to target X. “And quite frankly, the bloke [sic] should be jailed, and the sooner we can bring rules in or do something about these sorts of game-playing with their social media, the better off we’re going to be.” Lambie did not immediately respond to MRC Free Speech America’s request for comment. She is not the first Australian political figure to try to criticize the tech mogul for protecting the free expression of X users. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has also taken issue with X’s handling of what he terms “misinformation” and “disinformation.” “By and large, people responded appropriately to the calls by the [eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant],” Albanese recently commented. “They stand, I think … I find it extraordinary that X chose not to comply and trying to argue their case.” Albanese appeared to rationalize his stance against the rights of X users by arguing that it was simply the will of Australians. “We know, I think, overwhelmingly Australians want misinformation and disinformation to stop,” he said.  The controversy comes after X was ordered by Grant on April 16 to take down two videos of stabbings.  One video depicted a bishop and a priest being stabbed during a live-streamed mass, and the other video showed a knife-wielding assailant killing six at a mall. X refused to comply with the request because its Global Government Affairs team argued that the request was not within the scope of Australian law nor did the videos violate X’s own policies.  As reported by Time Magazine, the orders required X to make the videos inaccessible even to users outside Australia or face a fine of $785,000 AUD (about $500,000 USD).               Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

UPDATE: SEE IT! Cruz Offers Thoughts on ‘Major Legislation’ Against TikTok

Editor’s Note (4/23/24): This article has been edited to include Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) exclusive comments to MRC Free Speech America regarding House Republicans’ legislation protecting Americans from potential communist Chinese influence. A Republican senator spoke against Chinese influence on a major social media platform. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hailed House Republicans for passing a provision seeking to force TikTok’s infamous parent company, ByteDance, to divest its social media platform ownership. “Everyone appears to be very concerned about what the Chinese Communist government is doing with TikTok,” Cruz told MRC Free Speech America in exclusive comments on Monday evening. “I support what the House accomplished when it comes to TikTok, which is forcing China to divest TikTok and I think if and when that bill comes to the Senate, I expect that the Senate will agree,” the Texas senator added. Speaking on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures on Sunday, hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Cruz had called the bill “very important” and “a major step forward” to protect Americans from Chinese propaganda and potential espionage. “I have deep, deep concerns about TikTok, controlled by the Chinese communist government,” Cruz told Bartiromo, voicing his support for the TikTok ultimatum bill.  The Texas senator accused the Chinese communist government of exploiting TikTok for the “surveillance and espionage of American citizens.”  Expanding on his concerns, Cruz added: “They use it right now, aggressively, to push propaganda, anti-America propaganda, to our young people.” Flashback! WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz Blasts TikTok as Communist Chinese Gov’t ‘Espionage’ Tool Cruz’s comments came a day after the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a massive $95 billion foreign aid package. The package includes a provision that gives the president the authority to compel ByteDance to divest its ownership of TikTok or else face a ban in the United States. The bill is set to be passed by the Senate on Tuesday. President Joe Biden is also expected to sign the bill into law. The bill gives ByteDance 270 days to sell its ownership. “This bill is a major step forward in that it forces China to divest of TikTok,” Cruz added, echoing the sentiments of the Media Research Center, which came in support of the initial TikTok bill in March. You May Also Like: ‘Consistent from the Start’: Bozell Says TikTok Must Divest from Communist Chinese Gov’t “It is absolutely correct and necessary for TikTok to divest itself of any control from the communist Chinese government in China if it wants to do business in the United States,” said MRC President and Founder Brent Bozell in a video statement.  “I support this bill. I support reining in TikTok. I support stopping the communist Chinese from influencing the United States subversively,” Bozell added.  In response to the ultimatum, TikTok has deployed a multi-million dollar marketing campaign in a failed attempt to persuade lawmakers against backing the legislation.  Related: TikTok’s Last-Ditch Effort Amid US Ban: Recruiting Nuns, Veterans and Ranchers Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

CNN's Zakaria Nudges Michael Douglas to Tout Biden's Brain: ‘He’s Sharp As A Tack!’

On Sunday's CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS brought on 79-year-old actor Michael Douglas to plug his new Benjamin Franklin movie on Apple TV+. Zakaria nudged Douglas, a liberal Democrat, to vouch for Biden's mental acuity. From what he's heard, Douglas says Biden's "as sharp as a tack." Isn't that what all the Democrats say off the talking-points list?    ZAKARIA: So you and Biden are about the same age. Are you one of those people who wished he had, bowed out and let the field choose somebody else? How do you think about that? DOUGLAS: Well, I think that I walk a little similar to him. And the people that I’ve talked to and everybody that I have, say he’s sharp as a tack! He’s fine. We all have an issue with memories as we get older, we forget names. He’s overcome a stutter in his life. But let’s just say that his entire cabinet, including his vice president, everybody in his cabinet would be more than happy to work with him again in the next term. I cannot say that about the other candidate running because nobody in his cabinet from 2016 wants to be involved with him. Can we be sure that nobody in Trump's first-term cabinet would come back? Fact-checkers? It's obviously much easier to be in Biden's cabinet when no one at CNN is trying to get you removed for being a Trump selection (and trying to ruin your post-Trump career on top).  Zakaria then "went there" to where voters have concerns, that Biden won't be sharp as tack in 2026, or 2027. This answer may not have been what he wanted:   ZAKARIA: Do you -- do you think when you -- you know, everyone says, yes, he is OK now, but -- you know, what's it going to be like the next four or five years? But you're -- you're going to work for the next four or five years. You're not retiring. DOUGLAS: Well, I'm not. However, I will say we did Franklin in 2022. And after 165 days of shooting, for seven months, I haven't worked since. So, I took '23 off and we're going into '24. And I must say I'm enjoying the time off. And I think he'll be fine. Thank you very much. In the first half of the interview, Douglas talked about his reading of philosophy and his "Jewish roots," but Zakaria didn't have any questions about the Islamists vs. Israel or anti-Semitism on campus. This was more like a Larry King celebrity interview.

FLASHBACK: Media Seized on Elián Saga to Vilify Anti-Communists

Twenty-four years ago tomorrow (April 22, 2000), Attorney General Janet Reno ordered gun-toting immigration officers to snatch six-year-old Elián Gonzalez from his Miami home in preparation for his return to communist Cuba after a lengthy diplomatic dispute. Five months earlier, Elián was brought by his mother and her boyfriend in their attempt to flee Cuba by sea, hoping for a new life in the United States. Their boat lost power and sank, and Elián’s mother drowned along with most of the other passengers. The U.S. Coast Guard  brought him to Florida after he was found floating in an inner tube on November 25, 1999; the youngster was then sent to live with relatives in Miami, just as he would have if his mother had successfully completed her escape. From the beginning, liberal journalists insisted there was nothing superior about living in the United States vs. the communist dictatorship in Cuba. On his December 6, 1999 Upfront program, for example, CNBC’s Geraldo Rivera argued the only problem was that Castro’s tyranny was “unpopular” with Americans. “You can hate Castro and hate his government,” Rivera lobbied, but then “every time you have an unpopular government that we object to, children can be snatched from that country....It’s just unconscionable....It’s politics, it stinks.” During ABC’s round-the-clock New Year’s coverage on December 31, 1999, correspondent Cynthia McFadden in Havana related how in a visit to a Cuban school, the children “talked about... their fear of the United States... because it was a place where they kidnap children — a direct reference, of course to Elián Gonzalez.” Of course, there was no hint that the children McFadden spoke with were merely repeating the propaganda line fed to them by the government. By April, it was obvious that the Clinton administration was going to find a way to send Elián back to the nation his mother fled. Journalists claimed that life in Castro’s Cuba might be better than life in America. “Elián might expect a nurturing life in Cuba, sheltered from the crime and social breakdown that would be part of his upbringing in Miami,” Newsweek’s Brook Larmer and John Leland argued in their magazine’s April 17, 2000 issue. “The boy will nestle again in a more peaceable society that treasures its children.” “To be a poor child in Cuba may in many instances be better than being a poor child in Miami, and I’m not going to condemn their lifestyle so gratuitously,” their Newsweek colleague Eleanor Clift pronounced on the April 8 McLaughlin Group. Pressed, Clift later doubled down, telling FNC’s Bill O’Reilly on May 1: “I can understand why a rational, loving father can believe that his child will be protected in a state where he doesn’t have to worry about going to school and being shot at, where drugs are not a big problem, where he has access to free medical care and where the literacy rate, I believe, is higher than this country’s.” In an April 20 interview with Vice President Al Gore’s wife, Tipper, CNN host Larry King echoed the Castro regime’s anti-American talking points: “One of the things that Elián Gonzalez’s father said, that I guess would be hard to argue with, that his boy’s safer in a school in Havana than in a school in Miami. He would not be shot in a school in Havana. Good point?” To her credit, Tipper Gore disagreed: “Well, I think that’s a, that’s a bit of a harsh point....” As they peddled the idea that life under communism was grand, journalists also took nasty swipes at the anti-communist Cuban community in Miami. “Some suggested over the weekend that it’s wrong to expect Elián Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. They were talking about Miami....Another writer this weekend called it ‘an out of control banana republic within America,’” NBC’s Katie Couric jabbed as she opened the April 3 Today. “In Miami, it’s impossible to overestimate how everything here is colored by a hatred of communism and Fidel Castro,” ABC’s John Quinones relayed the next day on World News Tonight. “It’s a community with very little tolerance for those who might disagree.” “The ‘banana republic’ label sticking to Miami in the final throes of the Elián Gonzalez crisis is a source of snide humor for most Americans. But many younger Cuban-Americans are getting tired of the hard-line anti-Castro operatives who have helped manufacture that stereotype,” Time’s Tim Padgett echoed in his magazine’s April 17 edition. The New York Times suggested it was old-fashioned to have a negative opinion of communist dictatorships. “Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans,” the newspaper screamed in an April 11 headline. On CBS’s The Early Show (April 14) , co-host Bryant Gumbel offered this slanted question to his network’s Cuba expert, Pamela Falk: “Cuban-Americans, Ms. Falk, have been quick to point fingers at Castro for exploiting the little boy. Are their actions any less reprehensible?” Then on the Saturday before Easter, immigration officers raided the home of Elián’s Miami relatives to begin the process of returning the child to Cuba. Anchoring live coverage that morning (April 22), CBS anchor Dan Rather praised Janet Reno for ordering the assault: “In the end it worked. The child was gotten out safely.” Rather also took the opportunity to vouch for the Cuban dictator’s good intentions: “There is no question that Castro feels a very deep and abiding connection to those Cubans who are still in Cuba....There’s little doubt in my mind that Fidel Castro was sincere when he said, ‘listen, we really want this child back here.’” The heavy-handedness of the raid, typified by the picture of a fearful Elián being confronted by an armed immigration officer, was actually saluted by some in the press. “I gotta confess, that now-famous picture of a U.S. marshal in Miami pointing an automatic weapon toward Donato Dalrymple [the man holding Elián in the picture] and ordering him in the name of the U.S. government to turn over Elián Gonzalez warmed my heart,” New York Times columnist Tom Friedman cheered in his April 25 column headlined “Reno for President.” According to Time’s Michael Duffy, the only valid criticism of Attorney General Janet Reno is that she waited too long to send in the soldiers. “I think any raid where no shots are fired and no one is hurt is a success,” Duffy affirmed on the April 28 edition of PBS’s Washington Week in Review. “I think where Reno is to blame is not that she should have talked longer or kept the negotiations going, but that she should have cut them off much sooner....She just should have stopped it earlier.” Meanwhile, NBC’s Avila continued to reject the idea that Cuba was oppressed by communism. “The one thing that I’ve learned about Cubans in the many times that I have visited here in the last few years, is that it is mostly a nationalistic country, not primarily a communist country,” he naively insisted on MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning four days after the raid (April 26). After two months living with his father as court challenges concluded, Elian and his father returned to Cuba in late June, 2000. The media continued to present the communist indoctrination that awaited him as normal. “The school system in Cuba teaches that communism is the way to succeed in life and it is the best system. Is that deprogramming or is that national heritage?” NBC’s Jim Avila wondered on CNBC’s Upfront Tonight on June 27. “Elián will almost certainly rejoin the Pioneers as almost all Cuban children do. It’s very much like the Cub Scouts, camping trips and all, but with a socialist flavor and a revolutionary spin,” NBC’s Keith Morrison exclaimed on the June 28 Dateline. All of that “education” has certainly had an impact: In March 2023, Elián Gonzalez was “elected” to Cuban National Assembly — which means he was selected by the communist party to run unopposed in his district. “At 29, he is a show pony for Cuba, just as many exiles feared,” the Miami Herald noted in a March 27 editorial. “The fight to claim Elián Gonzalez and give him a life in America was the last great battle between Castro, U.S. ‘imperialism’ and Miami exiles. And the dictator won.” With a lot of help from a compliant news media. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                          

Thanks to One Dissenter, the Mask Drops at NPR

Without a doubt, many readers here at NewsBusters were mega-dittos fans of the late, great Rush Limbaugh. In today’s media world perhaps you listen to conservative talk radio hosts Sean Hannity or Rush’s successors Clay Travis and Buck Sexton, or Glenn Beck or Jesse Kelly. Or, indeed someone else, perhaps a local conservative host in your area. But whomever you listen to from that list of conservative talkers, they all have one thing in common: their shows have sponsors from the private sector.  And in no instance are those sponsors the American taxpayer. To a show, those sponsors are from the private sector, all busy selling their product (like Optima Tax Relief). This is, of course, not true with National Public Radio. NPR is funded in part, whether you like it or not, by you. The American taxpayer. And it is no coincidence that the government-supported radio has a seriously liberal bent. God bless America and free speech. But the decidedly obvious problem is that you are paying the bill - and the money is lifted right out of your wallet automatically, giving you absolutely zero choice in paying for what has morphed into left-wing propaganda radio. Imagine taxpayer dollars going to subsidize Limbaugh or Levin. You don't have to wonder whether the Left would find that a horrible expenditure of tax dollars to promote one side of the fence. Which makes the saga of longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner considerably interesting. A longtime editor at NPR, Berliner penned a lengthy article which not only startlingly admits to the problem but criticizes his bosses and colleagues for producing news every day from the liberal bubble. Over at a site titled, yes, The Free Press, Berliner titled his piece this way:  I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. Let’s dip into some of the things this longtime NPR editor says. First of all, Berliner describes himself, saying:  You know the stereotype of the NPR listener: an EV-driving, Wordle-playing, tote bag–carrying coastal elite. It doesn’t precisely describe me, but it’s not far off. I’m Sarah Lawrence–educated, was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother, I drive a Subaru, and Spotify says my listening habits are most similar to people in Berkeley.  I fit the NPR mold. I’ll cop to that. Then he goes on to say:   By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.  An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. And how did this happen? Berliner goes on - but of course - this way, saying:  Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency. Berliner keeps going, listing notable stories from the last several years and the way they were handled by the decidedly left-wing NPR staff. Trump-Russia collusion hoax? That was “catnip” and NPR took their guidance from the man Sean Hannity calls “the congenital liar (Rep.) Adam Schiff.” The New York Post pre-2020 election scoop about Hunter Biden’s decidedly scandalous laptop? Says Berliner:  The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump. The reality that the Covid pandemic came out of a lab leak in Wuhan, China?  The lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately, dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory. Anthony Fauci and former NIH head Francis Collins, representing the public health establishment, were its most notable critics. And that was enough for NPR. We became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists.  But that wasn’t the case. Berliner keeps on going to give examples making his devastating case of left-wing bias at NPR.  When George Floyd died, he writes that the message from the top of NPR was that.  America’s infestation with systemic racism was loud and clear: it was a given. Our mission was to change it. NPR, it was made clear, was all about diversity - diversity of skin color and gender. Berliner writes:  But what’s notable is the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.  And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity. Now. Having spoken truth to power, you get one guess as to the newest headline about Mr. Berliner, this one from CBS: “NPR suspends editor who accused the network of liberal bias” And within a matter of hours, that headline was followed by this one at the New York Post. It read:  NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns after bombshell expose reveals network’s pervasive left-wing bias The Post story reported:  NPR correspondent Uri Berliner, who was suspended without pay after calling out the radio broadcaster’s rampant liberal bias, resigned on Wednesday — and took a parting shot at the network’s controversial CEO. 'I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years,' Berliner wrote on his X social media account on Wednesday. 'I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism.' Berliner added that he 'cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.' The “new CEO” of NPR that Berliner refers to is one Katherine Maher. And it took a bare blink of the eye for Maher to be revealed in past tweets as the personification of the Trump-hating, far-left mindset that consumes NPR. So there you have it. You, the American taxpayer, are paying for NPR and its left-wing bias. And if you are working at NPR and protest that bias, you will be suspended without pay and then made so uncomfortable you are forced to resign. The real problem? This is but one example of a journalistic outlet pretending to “just the facts” reporting. The fact that taxpayers have to pay for it is particularly insulting to Americans. And that is something that Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn is determined to change, sponsoring legislation to defund NPR. While over in the House the same move is being led by Indiana Congressman Jim Banks. But make no mistake, there are plenty of so-called journalism outlets out there that pretend to straight-up reporting when, in fact, just like NPR, their newsrooms are under the iron-fisted control of left-wing activists. And viewpoint diversity, as is true at NPR, is not to be tolerated. At NPR, thanks to Uri Berliner -- at the cost of his job -- the mask of journalistic independence and objectivity has finally dropped. It's about time someone from the inside told the ugly truth about it.

Meacham Declares It 'A Patriotic Duty' To Vote For Biden

Presidential historian and frequent MSNBC talking head Jon Meacham traveled to HBO and Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday to wax poetic about “there is a patriotic duty” to vote for Joe Biden and that any Republican who votes for Donald Trump needs to stop and heed the words of George Washington. Maher began by reporting, “Bill Barr says he's voting for Trump. He said, ‘I think it's my duty to pick the person that I would think would do the least harm to the country. The real danger to democracy is the progressive agenda. Trump may be playing Russian roulette, but a continuation of Biden is national suicide.’ I think this is sincere. I don't think he's posturing. I think this is what a good part of this country believes. Discuss.”   “There’s a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason: Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. Present Biden is a patriot” – Jon Meacham on #RealTime pic.twitter.com/TSj3BmLNh6 — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) April 20, 2024   Meacham’s schtick is to wrap himself in the Constitution, which he immediately did, “It is what part of the country believes. It’s also-- a good part of the country is wrong about that, as a rational matter. Now, politics and rationality are not complete bedfellows, which is part of the reason for the Constitution, is that we’re going to give reason a chance to stand against passion.” He further argued that “I believe, and I say it with care, that's become evident -- to me anyway -- that there is a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason: patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It's not just an allegiance to your own kind. That's nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot, and I'm lucky, in that I don't have particular policy passions, particular issues. I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order.” Meacham’s claims to not have “policy passions” says more about him than it does the people he’s criticizing. For them, policy questions can be moral ones, but Meacham put himself atop the moral pedestal, “Donald Trump is self-evidently not and I would say to my Republican friends -- and I live in Tennessee, so that's redundant -- that it is in fact a moral question and I was disappointed by what Barr said, you know, he was-- he got religion for a little while.”     Later, Meacham addressed those conservatives who may not like Trump, but who are also repulsed by Biden and told them to get over it because George Washington would demand it, “Well, what if—you know, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas as we used to say. You know, but this is what we have, and to me, the interesting thing about the Republican Party is, if you are, in fact, going to put partisanship, as your central organizing principle, if reflexive partisanship is the most important thing -- I would argue that you need to read George Washington's farewell address, you need to read the Founders that otherwise, you know, they love.” It’s not officially a Jon Meacham segment until he invokes Abraham Lincoln and this time Meacham used him to shame Barr: The idea that President Biden is leading us to national suicide. I'm not sure what he's talking about, but Lincoln used that image in his first major speech in the 1830s. He said if we have a fall, it's not going to be from a foreign foe: It's going to be from someone internally rising up and mastering those passions and those passions about partisanship, that's what is ruining us. The guy who admits to not having strong policy preferences should refrain from judging other people’s beliefs because at least they have beliefs. Here is a transcript of the April 19 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 4/19/2024 10:23 PM ET BILL MAHER: However, now Bill Barr says he's voting for Trump. He said, "I think it's my duty to pick the person that I would think would do the least harm to the country. The real danger to democracy is the progressive agenda. Trump may be playing Russian Roulette, but a continuation of Biden is national suicide." I think this is sincere. I don't think he's posturing. I think this is what a good part of this country believes. Discuss.  JON MEACHAM: It is what part of the country believes. It’s also-- a good part of the country is wrong about that, as a rational matter. Now, politics and rationality are not complete bedfellows, which is part of the reason for the Constitution, is that we’re going to give reason a chance to stand against passion. What Barr is doing, and what so many—I sometimes think of them as the Peter Millar Republicans, right, these are Republicans who are not full MAGA people, they’re [unintelligible] types who don't want Democrats picking judges or setting tax rates.  They talked themselves into this twice. In '16 and in '20 and then came the December and January of 2020 and 2021 and that point, I believe, and I say it with care, that's become evident -- to me anyway -- that there is a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason. Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It's not just an allegiance to your own kind. That's nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot and I'm lucky, in that I don't have particular policy passions, particular issues. I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not and I would say to my Republican friends -- and I live in Tennessee, so that's redundant -- that it is in fact a moral question and I was disappointed by what Barr said, you know, he was-- he got religion for a little while. There is a line in Tom Sawyer where Twain says that an evangelist comes through town who was so good that even Huck Finn was saved until Tuesday. You know, Bill Barr was saved until Tuesday. JANE FURGUSON: I wonder, I mean, I do wonder, again, we’re talking as though this were an inevitability that it would be these two. I mean, more moderate conservatives who perhaps feel a little bit more homeless in the Republican Party might have been tempted to cross over in the voter base and they have now been presented with this choice, where it, you know, was never an inevitability that it would be these men and what if there’d been a different option within the Democratic Party? MEACHAM: Well, what if—you know, if ifs ands or buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas as we used to say. You know, but this is what we have and to me, the interesting thing about the Republican Party is, if you are, in fact, going to put partisanship, as your central organizing principle, if reflexive partisanship is the most important thing -- I would argue that you need to read George Washington's farewell address, you need to read the Founders that otherwise, you know, they love. You know, they love the Founders when they can move it around to agree with them. It's very clear that if party spirit became the organizing principle, that, that was going to be fatal to the Constitution, and it's very interesting when Barr said it's “suicide.” The idea that President Biden is leading us to national suicide. I'm not sure what he's talking about, but Lincoln used that image in his first major speech in the 1830s. He said if we have a fall, it's not going to be from a foreign foe: It's going to be from someone internally rising up and mastering those passions and those passions about partisanship, that's what is ruining us.

WATCH: Babylon Bee CEO Explains Why Experts Should NEVER Be Censors

The CEO of a popular satire site summed up exactly why no expert should ever have the ability to determine what free speech is allowed. Private experts, Big Tech employees and government officials alike have all appointed themselves arbiters of what speech should be censored and what speech will be allowed. This anti-constitutional attitude is also totally out of touch with a basic fact, one which The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon highlighted as a “knock-down argument” against censorship: experts can be wrong. Because of this fact, “dissent must not only be allowed, but encouraged,” Dillon posted on X (formerly Twitter) on April 17. Dillon included a clip of his 2023 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee besides his written comment. “Whenever we learn that censorship has blocked something true (like the Hunter Biden laptop story), we always hear the same excuse: ‘We censored it based on what we knew at the time,’” he wrote. But, according to Dillon, “This is not a defense of censorship. In fact, it's a knock-down argument against it.” Media Research Center poll data previously illustrated that censorship of the Hunter Biden scandal swayed the 2020 presidential election in then-candidate Joe Biden’s favor. Related: ‘A Knock-Down Argument’: Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon Calls Out Hypocritical COVID-19 Censorship Dillon explained further, “If knowledge changes over time, then the last thing we should ever do is pretend it doesn't by preemptively shutting down the debate.” He concluded, “If it's even possible that the ‘experts’ and authorities are wrong — and we know they often are — then dissent must not only be allowed, but encouraged.” The X post also included a clip of Dillon, responding to a question about censors’ objectivity during the 2023 congressional hearing.  In it, Dillon referred to censors’ supposed credibility as a “pretty good joke” and added, “In the whole fact-checking apparatus … there’s unbelievable hubris in the whole project. You know, this idea, especially when we’re talking about medical information too, I often hear people going back say, ‘Well, it was based on what we knew at the time.’” Again, Dillon emphasized, this simply highlights that one’s knowledge can alter over time. He then stated the “knock-down argument” against censorship which he also wrote in his post. Indeed, America has a First Amendment to protect free speech and open debate. You May Also Like: WATCH: Babylon Bee CEO Calls Censorship ‘The Issue for Our Time’ The Babylon Bee is a member of the Free Speech Alliance. 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.

First on MRC: Soros-Funded Groups Created Google Anti-Israel Demonstration

First on MRC Business: A vicious anti-Israel group that occupied Google until their arrests was created by two organizations that Soros poured massive amounts of money into.  No Tech for Apartheid, a tech worker campaign that frequently accuses Israel of “genocide,” occupied the Sunnyvale, California-based office of Google Cloud’s CEO for the crime of doing business with Israelis. No Tech for Apartheid refers to itself as a project of the anti-Israel groups Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and MPower Change. Strikingly, Soros’ Open Society Foundations’ gave at least $525,000 to JVP between 2017 and 2022, while also giving $350,000 to JVP Action, an affiliated 501(c)(4) “sister organization” of JVP. Soros gave at least $2,205,555 to MPower Change from its founding in 2016 to 2022.  In response to the protests demanding that Google cancel a $1.22 billion contract with the Israeli government, the tech giant fired 28 of the participants. The footage of the protests and the arrests has gone viral on social media. No Tech for Apartheid posted an absurd thread on X, referring to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian as “genocide profiteers.” BREAKING: Google employees were arrested after occupying their boss's office for more than 8 hours to demand that the company sever ties with Israel. WATCH: pic.twitter.com/W4WQO8NNgH — Kassy Akiva (@KassyDillon) April 17, 2024 No Tech for Apartheid does not list any staffers. However, MPower Change does claim No Tech for Apartheid as one of their “campaigns” on their website. Anti-Israel radical Granate Kim, a former employee of JVP, is MPower Change’s current Campaign Director.  Radical anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour is the executive director and co-founder of MPower Change. Sarsour is famous for her radical hatred of Israel. According to the Committee For Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, Sarsour strongly opposes the existence of Israel. Sarsour is a supporter of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement to impoverish, isolate and destroy Israel, the homeland of the Jewish People. Both Sarsour and MPower Change promote a radical anti-law enforcement agenda and viciously smear both American law enforcement and Israel as collaborating oppressive forces.  MPower Change Action demonstrated this agenda not only by supporting “defunding” and “abolishing” the police but by endorsing two Soros-funded radical leftist prosecutors for reelection in 2023: Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano and Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti.  The other organization involved in No Tech for Apartheid’s creation, JVP, is also a vicious opponent of Israel. This was evident on JVP’s frequently asked questions page, where the organization makes several disturbing statements. For example, JVP not only refers to Israel’s efforts to end Hamas terrorism and rescue the hostages as a “genocide,” but also argues that Hamas attacks are justified so long as they have military targets: “An occupied people have a right to resist, including the use of force. But the targeting of civilians is not permitted.”  JVP also refers to itself as “anti-Zionist.” JVP admits that they initially avoided this label as it "closed off conversation in the Jewish community," before ultimately caving to “Palestinian partners.” While admitting that they are in a “struggle against Zionism,” JVP defines the term to make clear what they are fighting against: “Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism, and is the primary ideology that drove the establishment of Israel.” In other words, Soros is funding a group opposed to the existence of Israel.  This organization also unequivocally supports the BDS movement, not just for Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, but for all of Israel. JVP compares their fight to demonize Israel to the American Civil Rights movement and the fight against the slave trade. Furthermore, JVP backs a Palestinian “right of return” that would threaten Israel’s existence as a Jewish State. Every one of these awful details can be found on their FAQ page.  Soros has a long track record of funding radical anti-Israel groups like MPower Change and JVP. After last year’s brutal terrorist attack on Israel, MRC President Brent Bozell and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider called Soros out for giving $550,000 to Pro-Hamas groups between 2017 and 2022 alone.  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 Soros’ comments and funding of anti-Israel causes.

NewsGuard Maintains NPR’s Perfect Rating Despite Berliner's Suspension, Resignation

Last week, now-former NPR business editor Uri Berliner drew the ire of the station’s new, far-left CEO after he called out NPR for allowing the liberal worldview to dominate the newsroom. Berliner’s act of journalistic integrity ultimately cost him his job; he was suspended and ultimately resigned. But despite NPR’s retaliation against a whistleblower and others coming forward to corroborate Berliner’s claims, left-wing media rating organization NewsGuard maintained NPR’s perfect 100/100 rating. In his essay for The Free Press, Berliner exposed NPR as a factory churning out content that catered to the liberal worldview: “There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line.” Earlier this week, Berliner was suspended without pay by the station under the guise of it being punishment for publishing something with another outlet without getting permission first (as if NPR would have allowed him to publish something critical out them to begin with). NPR did give permission for Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep to publish a Substack defending the station and attacking his long-time colleague. Berliner subsequently resigned; posting his resignation letter on X. “I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years,” he wrote. “I don’t support calls to defund NPR. I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.”   My resignation letter to NPR CEO @krmaher pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK — Uri Berliner (@uberliner) April 17, 2024   Despite NPR seeking retribution against one of their journalists for publically blowing the whistle on how they were allowing their liberal bias to poison their newsroom, thus forcing said journalist to publically resign, NewsGuard has so far maintained NPR’s perfect 100/100 rating. Berliner’s criticisms of NPR weren’t business or employment-related (such as pay or working conditions) and had everything to do with the politics influencing the news product the organization was putting out. And thus, was an issue NewsGuard should’ve been taking seriously, especially considering that Berliner was getting support from other former NPR staffers. At this point, a lack of action by NewsGuard to downgrade NPR’s score appeared to be in defiance of the facts and in opposition to the support Berliner was receiving from many right-wingers. As MRC Associate Editor for Business & Free Speech America Joseph Vazquez noted in the 2023 study of NewsGuard’s rankings, the point of the whole system was for it to be used as a “cudgel” against right-leaning news organizations: NewsGuard wields its ratings as a cudgel, attempting to scare away advertisers from doing business with media and organizations that have been accused of promoting so-called “misinformation” or wrongthink on a whole host of issues like abortion, climate change, COVID-19 and elections. In so doing, NewsGuard effectively strips media outlets with which it disagrees of their ad money, slowly bleeding out their coffers. NewsGuard can reluctantly downgrade legacy liberal media outlets when they have terrible reporting held up under their nose. They recently downgraded The New York Times after the Media Research Center called them out multiple times. They need to do the same now with NPR.

Bias Revealed? Guess Where the Trump Jurors Get Their News From

Five Trump jurors reportedly get their news from a tech giant notorious for its leftist bias. Fox News released information April 17 on the seven jurors chosen for former President Donald Trump’s supposed “hush money” criminal trial in New York. Answers provided by the jurors reveal five of them receive their news from Google News, which media ratings firm AllSides describes as “lean left.” Two of the jurors also find news on TikTok, the communist Chinese government-tied app currently under scrutiny as a national security risk. While Fox noted that the jurors were asked questions about their opinion of Trump, they do not seem to have been screened for other types of bias. AllSides, based on independent review and community feedback, rates Google News “lean left” and explains that 63 percent of the tech giant’s news feed sources are leftist. AllSides has apparently not rated TikTok’s news bias, but the app, which is owned by Chinese ByteDance, is certainly concerning from a national security standpoint. The U.S. House recently advanced legislation to force TikTok’s separation from ByteDance. This came not long before a Fortune interview of former employees revealed disturbingly close China ties from TikTok. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent ByteDance. MRC Free Speech America rated TikTok one of the top Big Tech censors of 2023. Google might not have direct CCP ties, but its anti-freedom, biased record raises concerns. MRC Free Speech America did a series of bombshell studies exposing Google search results bias in favor of Democrats and against Republicans before the 2022 and 2024 elections. President Joe Biden was among the Democrat candidates favored, while Trump’s website was consistently suppressed. Most recently, a comprehensive MRC study exposed a whopping 41 times Google interfered in U.S. elections since 2008. Such blatant bias against Trump and other Republicans and Democrats reinforces the argument that Google News is biased and unreliable. It is therefore concerning that five jurors in Trump’s trial source their news from Google. Soros-tied Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg revived the charges against Trump of alleged “hush money” payments to a porn star despite evidence against the alleged crimes. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Planned Parenthood Annual Report Celebrates Uptick in Baby Killing

This is nothing to celebrate. The abortion mill, Planned Parenthood, just released its 2022-2023 annual report. America’s largest abortion business proudly announced that it performed five percent more abortions in the last fiscal year than in the year prior. The report titled “Above & Beyond” started out with a nasty gram from Planned Parenthood’s CEO/President and the Board Chair. It’s been nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court took away our right to control our own bodies and lives by overturning Roe v. Wade. Since then, more than 20 states have banned some or all abortions. Before that, the COVID-19 pandemic upended our health care system and ended far too many lives. For the health care providers and staff at Planned Parenthood’s nearly 600 health centers across the country, these have been the most trying of times. OK drama! In huge font on page seven, the group wrote that across its locations, it conducted 392,715 abortions … and those are only the reported ones. “For Planned Parenthood health center staff, this was a year of moving mountains: finding appointments in other states and the resources to get patients there, building as much capacity as possible for abortion appointments, fulfilling increased demand in some places for birth control, and much more,” the authors wrote. Planned Parenthood also raved about all the people it “helped” by paying for abortions and travel costs for abortions outside of a patient's residing state. Obviously the group considered abortion, the brutal destruction of innocent life, to be part of “health care.” MRCTV reported on Planned Parenthood’s report from last year titled “Relentless” where the company boasted about the 375,155 children it killed via abortion. This year’s pro-abort annual report facilitated a shared heartbreak by many pro-lifers across the country.  “Planned Parenthood has released their latest annual report. They performed 5% more abortions relative to the previous year. Combine this with skyrocketing rates for abortion pill orders and understand that abortion is far from over after Roe v. Wade. We must abolish abortion," The Sentinel’s Ben Zeisloft wrote on X. LifeNews.com noted that while abortions went up this last year,  prenatal services declined more that 67%. “These numbers are proof that Planned Parenthood is an abortion business, not a women’s health care clinic,” the group reported. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America noted how the report proves that Planned Parenthood abortions are the 4th leading cause of death in America and that “Pregnant women sold abortions 97% of the time at Planned Parenthood; one third of revenue comes from taxpayers.” The report showed devastating numbers and was a heartbreaking glimpse into how pro-abort places like Planned Parenthood celebrate the death of babies.

MRC President Bozell to Patrick Bet-David: Google Is Picking Winners and Losers

Google is picking “winners and losers” in U.S. elections, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell told podcaster and entrepreneur Patrick Bet-David on Wednesday. Bozell joined Bet-David’s blockbuster PBD Podcast to explain how Big Tech companies—particularly Google, one of the largest corporations in America—are interfering with U.S. elections to help the most left-wing candidates. The PBD Podcast has 1.7 million followers. “You've got a real problem with Big Tech—in that Big Tech is not playing by the same rules,” Bozell said in the Wednesday morning interview, spanning nearly 40 minutes. “Corporations can't be involved in political action at the federal level. Yet, you've got Big Tech that is picking winners and losers in elections, and when they do it the way they're doing it, it becomes a very serious threat to democracy itself.” Shortly thereafter, Bet-David asked Bozell about an MRC bombshell report that found at least 41 times Google meddled in American elections to help the most left-wing candidate since 2008, coinciding with the rise to power of former President Barack Obama. Read the Bombshell Report: 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 Explaining one of the report’s findings, Bozell recounted: “An example: Rick Santorum. There was a smear bomb put out on Rick Santorum. It was really, really ugly. It was vicious in the personal attack on him.” Bozell’s remarks referred to what was also known as a “Google bomb,” which occurred when some users manipulated Google’s algorithms to associate certain websites with detrimental terms. When Santorum approached Google, the tech giant did not dismantle the “bomb.” Yet, the company glaringly took swift action when the Obama White House’s website was affected by a similar smear. Later in his remarks, Bozell highlighted the high-profile censorship of two Democrats in past presidential elections. According to the MRC report, Google censored twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who unsuccessfully challenged President Joe Biden in the 2024 Democratic primary. In every instance, Google appeared to help the most left-wing candidates. “They picked winners and losers in that, and they loved Hillary Clinton in 2016,” Bozell stated, referring to Google's shift from censoring Clinton in 2008 to supporting Clinton in 2016. “They didn't love her she ran in 2008, I guess it was, against Obama Obama. Obama was their guy.” Related: Mum! Google Fails to Respond to Bozell’s Challenge, Does Not Refute Election Interference Earlier in the podcast, Bozell also highlighted a separate bombshell report that unveiled Google had manipulated its search results to bury the campaign sites of Republican candidates in 10 of 12 key Senate races ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. “What Google did deliberately was to put the Republicans at the bottom of page one or in the case of seven of the 12 Republican candidates for the Senate in these most contested races they put them on page two,” Bozell continued. “Less than 1% of the public ever goes to page two that's right so that's deliberate interference in a senate campaign where you're keeping information from the public or burying it so far deep they'll never go looking for it.” Flashback! Google CAUGHT Manipulating Search, Buries GOP Campaign Sites in 83% of Top Senate Races During his conversation with Bet-David, Bozell discussed more than just the MRC report on Google's interference in elections. He also touched on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which some judges have infamously interpreted as providing broad liability protections to social media platforms.  Additionally, Bozell mentioned the MRC's exclusive CensorTrack.org database, which documents cases of Big Tech censorship. Citing CensorTrack.org, Bozell told Bet-David that in January 2022, YouTube censored the PBD Podcast over the publication of an interview with Dr. Robert Malone, one of the largest critics of global governments’ COVID-19 policies and mandates. 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.

Column: NPR Morning Star Steve Inskeep Lamely Swats at Their Suspended Dissident

National Public Radio senior editor Uri Berliner has been suspended for his unauthorized critique of the insular liberal bias of his network. NPR star and Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep took to his Substack blog to slam Berliner’s article as “filled with errors and omissions.” “His colleagues have had a rich dialogue about his mistakes,” Inskeep crowed, and dropped the bomb that it was “an article that discredited itself.” For example, Inskeep declared an error in that Berliner found in D.C. voter records that NPR had 87 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans. When he was asked about Berliner at the San Antonio Book Festival, he says he told them “I am a prominent member of the newsroom in Washington. If Uri told the truth, then I could only be a registered Democrat. I held up my voter registration showing I am registered with ‘no party’. Some in the crowd gasped. Uri had misled them.” Berliner didn't address if anyone was registered as “no party.” He did write there were zero Republicans. Did Inskeep refute that? No. Several NPR veterans harrumphed they registered as “no party,” just as left-wing journalists will tell pollsters they are “independents.” Inskeep wrote, “While it’s widely believed that most mainstream journalists are Democrats, I’ve had colleagues that I was pretty sure are conservative (I don’t ask).” That rebuts Berliner how? When Inskeep challenged Berliner personally on his claim that the editing process was “frictionless,” he said Berliner acknowledged they have newsroom debates, but “the real test is what we broadcast or publish.” Inskeep leaves out what Berliner wrote about – that they put out a lot of stories on “supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies.” Anyone who listens to NPR programs gets an earful of those. You have to laugh when Inskeep’s best defense is “everybody else did it, too.” He admits NPR did not report on the Hunter Biden laptop, but Berliner “leaves out the context: Other organizations also held off on the story because of doubts about the laptop’s authenticity. It wasn’t confirmed until much later.”   Now who’s engaged in “omissions”? NPR not only refused to report on the laptop, their top news executive Terence Samuel openly boasted “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.” That implies they weren’t going to touch this story, like it was a decaying rat corpse in the gutter. Samuel signaled the same contempt on the horribly named evening newscast All Things Considered in June of 2021, suggesting to anchor Mary Louise Kelly they should seek the "whole truth," but exclude the liars: “It's not a matter of representing just opposite voices, but more voices and excluding the voices that are just pure disinformation.” After those “other organizations” confirmed the laptop contents were real, nothing changed. Kelly brought on Samuel in 2023 to proclaim Trump would not be allowed to speak on NPR live as he was indicted because he was such a liar, but Kelly (as in 2021) didn’t bring up Hunter’s laptop. But the most ridiculous line in Inskeep’s critique is claiming Berliner advocates “viewpoint diversity,” but he didn’t embrace it in his article, which spurred all his “errors and omissions.” If NPR is so committed to viewpoint diversity, would Inskeep agree to debate Berliner on air at NPR for an hour or two? Probably not. NPR hasn’t said one word on air about Berliner’s complaint.

Networks Ignore Anti-Energy President, Blame Middle East for High Gas Prices, Inflation

ABC News Live and CBS Mornings absurdly ignored the impact of President Joe Biden’s anti-energy policies. At the same time, they blamed turmoil in the Middle East for present and even future energy prices. The hosts of the April 15 editions of ABC News Live and CBS Mornings tiptoed around the elephant in the room, pointing to the fallout of the Israel-Hamas war and the recent Iranian attack on Israel as the alleged culprit for current and future gas prices. Yet, these shows entirely failed to mention Biden’s major role in the fueling of such a major increase. ABC News Correspondent Alexis Christoforous cited a source claiming that gas prices have been rising just at the chance of turmoil in the Middle East. “Analysts say the risk of escalating warfare in the Middle East has already been factored into this year's roughly 20% rise in crude oil prices,” she claimed. ABC News went on to tie future gas prices to a potential Israeli response to Iran’s recent attack. Christoforous said, “Now, what happens next with oil and the stock market largely on Israel's response to the attack.” On CBS Mornings, CBS News Business Analyst Jill Schlesinger blamed not only high gas prices but also inflation generally on conflicts in the Middle East. “That is a lot to do with what has been going on in the Middle East since October 7th,” Schlesinger said of high oil prices. She went on to make the same argument as Christoforous that an Israeli response to Iran’s attack could make things worse for the American consumer.  Neither ABC nor CBS explored any other reasons why the gas price has skyrocketed from $2.42 a gallon in Jan. 2021 (when Biden took office) to $3.54 in March (before Iran’s recent attack).  If ABC and Christoforous want to consider things that have been “factored into” this year’s high gas prices, they might consider Biden’s Jan. 26 “pause” on liquified natural gas projects. During a CNBC interview following this decision, American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers pointed out that Biden had consistently reduced drilling on public lands even before this decision. Sommers said the Biden administration was “sowing the seeds for an energy crisis in the future because we're not making those investments here in the United States.” Biden infamously revealed the limitations of his energy agenda during the 2023 agenda. Despite hampering new drilling at every step, the president had the chutzpah to criticize the oil industry for insufficient investment in future production. Biden mentioned industry fears that the left would ultimately shut down any production they invested in, before uttered a statement that did nothing to assuage such fears. “We’re going to need oil for at least another decade,” Biden said, before looking about in apparent confusion, as Congress laughed at him.  This president looks squarely at the problem before persisting with his destructive policies that discourage investment and harm American energy production. Viewers won’t hear this on CBS or ABC.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at 818-460-7477, CBS News at 212-975-3247 and NBC News at 212-664-6192 and demand they hold Biden and his cronies accountable for attempting to restrict fossil fuel production and Americans’ choices.

FrontPage Magazine Doubles Down Against Big Tech Giants: ‘We Won’t Censor Ourselves’

One outlet is accusing Big Tech, especially Facebook, of silencing the truth about radical Islamic terrorism. Daniel Greenfield, a journalism fellow for FrontPage Magazine’s David Horowitz Freedom Center, announced on April 15, “[W]e won’t censor ourselves for Big Tech cash.” He noted that Google, Twitter and Facebook (owned by Meta) have all censored individuals connected with the outlet, with Facebook being the latest culprit. Most recently, Greenfield wrote, Google AdSense demonetized FrontPage and Facebook disabled the account of FrontPage Editor Jamie Glazov for discussing Islamic terrorism. Google continues to censor the magazine financially for a previous report about a San Bernardino terrorist attack, which FrontPage refuses to remove. More recently, Greenfield explained, Facebook disabled Glazov’s account over an interview headlined  “Oct. 7 Coming to the USA?” Facebook reportedly asserted that the interview, which discussed accused terrorists crossing into America through the open southern border, violated “community standards” and threatened “the security of people on Facebook.” Greenfield referred to a 2023 decision from Meta’s Oversight Board that the term “shaheed” or martyr, used by Muslims to refer to jihadis killed while engaging in terrorism, was protected by freedom of expression. In fact, according to Greenfield, pro-terrorist groups and jihadis have used Facebook without censorship over the years. He cited a 2021 report from Israel-based newspaper Israel Hayom on Facebook refusing to address terrorism-inciting content. Previous to that, in 2016, terror victims sued Facebook, accusing it of complicity in inciting terrorism, Greenfield added. More recently, one Israeli family found out about their grandmother’s death on Oct. 7, 2023, after Hamas posted a video of her gruesome death to Facebook. “Telling the story of the barbarous Hamas atrocities of Oct 7 got Jamie Glazov banned, but one of the little told stories of that day is how Islamic terrorists had used Facebook to taunt and terrorize the families of their victims,” Greenfield insisted. Greenfield wrote that he has been suspended by Facebook and Twitter. Individuals including Glazov, David Horowitz, JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer, and FrontPage contributor Raymond Ibrahim have all been censored for discussing Islamic radicalism, Greenfield reported. PayPal, Twitter, Google and Facebook censored the anti-terrorism content, despite hosting pro-terrorist content from others. 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.

ABC, NBC OMIT SCOTUS’ Refusal To Halt Idaho Ban On Child Mutilation

The United States Supreme Court today lifted an injunction against Idaho’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors, which includes cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries. The removal of the injunction allows Idaho to begin enforcing the law immediately. Only one of the major corporate networks even pretended to cover the story on their evening newscast. I say “pretend” because CBS gave us a whole 13 seconds on the ruling itself. Here it is, in its entirety as aired on CBS Evening News:  NORAH O’DONNELL: Now to some breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is allowing Idaho to largely enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender children under 18, while lawsuits over the law go forward. Justice Clarence Thomas was not in court today, and did not participate remotely in arguments. There was no explanation given for his absence.  This tiniest of briefs, about 21 seconds total, was the entirety of coverage across the corporate network dial. And 8 of those seconds were dedicated to baseless speculation over the health of Justice Clarence Thomas. The report makes no effort to clue the viewer in on what these treatments might entail for children, or any of the rationale behind why the duly elected legislature of the state of Idaho banned these irreversible “treatments” in the first place. In the absence of any meaningful information, it is as if the report were little more than a narrative device for anchor Norah O’Donnell to utter “gender-affirming care” and “transgender minors”. Even so, this milquetoast brief is 21 seconds more than ABC or NBC were able to muster for the ruling.  Taxpayer-funded PBS NewsHour, not to be outdone by CBS, packed as many pro-trans agenda talking points into its 22 seconds: GEOFF BENNETT: In a separate ruling, the justices decided to allow Idaho to enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. The order lets the state put in place a 2023 law that means doctors could face up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or such services to minors. Opponents have warned that the law could increase suicide rates among teens. To be crystal clear, the “such” in “such services” is “surgical”, per the statute. In fairness, Bennett isn’t alone in trying to paper over the surgical components of “gender-affirming care”. Per the American Pravda’s writeup of the ruling: WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth while lawsuits over the law proceed, reversing lower courts. The justices’ order Monday allows the state to put in a place a 2023 law that subjects physicians to up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or other gender-affirming care to people under age 18.  One thing is clear: the media prefer to talk about these irreversible therapies in such opaque terms as “gender-affirming care”, and will do anything to avoid talking about kids’ body parts being chopped off or about irreversible changes brought about by hormonal treatments. But they can’t omit this part of the equation forever, especially as these treatments continue to be exposed for what they really are: child mutilation.  

NBC Wonders: Why the ‘Average Person’ Doesn’t Understand the Climate Crisis?

Open contempt for average people and attempts at influencing the election. That’s what was on display during NBC’s Today 3rd Hour last Friday when the co-anchors sat down with far-left climate alarmist Al Gore. They huffed about how “the average person just doesn't get it” when it came to the so-called climate crisis. They also urged him to speak about how crucial the upcoming presidential election was for battling climate change. Obviously, they couldn’t get into the topic of climate change without first having co-anchors Dylan Dreyer, Craig Melvin, and Sheinelle Jones shower Gore with obnoxious gooey praise: DREYER: We're back now with a special edition of Today Climate, joined by one of the world's most prominent voices on this crisis. MELVIN: And one of the earliest as well, I would add. For eight years, Al Gore served, of course, as vice president of these United States. And after leaving office, his work to educate people about the climate crisis was featured in the Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. JONES: His advocacy earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Now, he's organization The Climate Reality Project is training thousands of climate leaders this weekend here in New York. It was soon followed up with Melvin lamenting “the average person” and their seeming lack of understanding about the so-called “climate crisis.”     After they noted Gore was in New York “to train leaders and advocates” and commended those people for how they “get it,” Melvin seemed to suggest the “average person” just couldn’t understand. “Do you think that the average person in this country understands the urgency of the crisis?” he wondered. “Is that an area where you see that we made some headway? Or do you still think that the average person just doesn't get it yet?” Gore said he felt that “most people” understand and that “mother nature is the most persuasive” in getting them to understand. He then went on a brief unhinged rant about how “the extra heat energy” being trapped by pollution each day equaled “750,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day.” “Wow!” Jones exclaimed while not asking for any evidence for such a wild claim. “It’s hard to wrap my head around a number that big,” Gore added. Pivoting to the fast-approaching presidential election, Dreyer wanted to know it how the results “will impact where we're at with climate change right now? Not just here but around the world.” Initially, Gore bragged that the outcome didn’t matter because, “in some ways, what you might call a big wheel moving in the right direction that's kind of unstoppable.” But seemingly realizing that his answer didn’t carry enough hysteria that would lead people to get out and vote, he changed his tune: “Those trends are going to continue. But it’s not enough. So, the outcome of these elections in the U.S. and elsewhere in The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NBC’s Today 3rd Hour April 12, 2024 9:20:47 a.m. Eastern DYLAN DREYER: We're back now with a special edition of Today Climate, joined by one of the world's most prominent voices on this crisis. CRAIG MELVIN: And one of the earliest as well, I would add. For eight years, Al Gore served, of course, as vice president of these United States. And after leaving office, his work to educate people about the climate crisis was featured in the Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. SHEINELLE JONES: His advocacy earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Now, he's organization The Climate Reality Project is training thousands of climate leaders this weekend here in New York. (…) 9:23:16 a.m. Eastern MELVIN: Mr. Vice president, again, you are here to train leaders and advocates. Obviously, they get it. Do you think that the average person in this country understands the urgency of the crisis? Is that an area where you see that we made some headway? Or do you still think that the average person just doesn't get it yet? AL GORE: Well, I think most people do. And mother nature is the most persuasive – the voice on all of this. I mean, you guys talk every day on the weather news about these extreme events. We were talking about it this morning. MELVIN: Right. GORE: We're still put 162 million tons of manmade heat trapping pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere that surrounds the Earth every single day. It builds up – it lingers there for about 100 years, molecule-for-molecule. And the total amount now traps as much extra heat energy every day as would be released by 750,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day. JONES: Wow! GORE: It’s hard to wrap my head around a number that big. (…) 9:25:03 a.m. Eastern DREYER: So, with the presidential election, you know, less than seven months away, how do you think the outcome of that, whatever happens, will impact where we're at with climate change right now? Not just here but around the world. GORE: Well, I think in some ways there’s, in some ways, what you might call a big wheel moving in the right direction that's kind of unstoppable. What I mean by that is, if you look at all the new electricity generation installed worldwide last year, 87 percent of it was renewables. It’s the cheapest electricity in the history of the world. One in five vehicles are electric now and it will rise rapidly. Those trends are going to continue. But it’s not enough. So, the outcome of these elections in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world this year really will make a difference. (…)

RFK Jr Illuminates Some Startling Details about Biden and Big Tech’s Collusion

Presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave the game away on how the Biden White House used fear and intimidation to push social media censorship. Kennedy Jr. appeared on the April 14 episode of Dave Rubin’s The Rubin Report. During the podcast, Kennedy elucidated more on his heated interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, in which he categorized President Joe Biden as a worse threat to democracy than former President Donald Trump, much to the astonishment of the CNN host.  Kennedy used this appearance with Rubin to further justify his claims on CNN by categorizing Biden’s anti-free speech actions as a unique, unprecedented betrayal of the American identity, and that, unlike Trump, Biden has been proven to have engaged in anti-democratic activity.  Further elaborating on his CNN remarks, Kennedy said that “President Biden did something no other president in history, and a court has found this. There’s no court that’s found that President Trump tried to steal the election, tried to derail the election, or tried to start an insurrection. There may be plenty of evidence that he did that. There’s no court that has found that. But there is a court that had found that President Biden was censoring his opponents.” Kennedy is referring to a preliminary injunction issued by a district court judge against the Biden administration’s censorship operation. The judge concluded that the Biden administration had indeed threatened social media companies and ordered that certain government entities and members of the Biden administration cease threatening or directing social media companies to censor. RFK JR discusses extralegal methods Biden Administration uses to censor political opponents. Kennedy defends his comments from CNN interview with Erin Burnett and continues to argue that Biden is worse for democracy than Trump. Kennedy also talks about how the White House was… pic.twitter.com/nOk892ZJwM — Count of Monte Cristo (@MonteCristo1837) April 15, 2024 Kennedy then went on to explain some of Biden’s censorship activities in more detail and exposed how the operation worked. “The president had leverage to make these companies comply, which is they were threatening to pull antitrust laws, but also to pull Section 230 immunity,” Kennedy said. “Section 230 of the Communications Act is the section that makes Facebook and, you know, the platforms immune from defamation suits.” According to Kennedy, without Section 230, social media companies would practically cease to exist, and he categorized its repeal as an “existential” threat to these platforms.  “The White House was threatening these platforms that if you don’t censor RFK and other people, that we’re gonna go after your Section 230 immunity, and that is existential for them, so of course they complied,” he said. Earlier in the episode, Kennedy had warned Rubin that this kind of unconstitutional activity by the incumbent president was unlikely to stop.  “Biden has three billion dollars that he’s gonna have, according to the New York Times, for this campaign, probably double any campaign in history,” Kennedy said. “But he’s not gonna use that money to amplify his voice. He’s gonna use it to try to get Trump off the ballot, to try and get me off the ballot, to try and make sure he doesn't have anyone running, and it’s ironic because the Democrats are all lambasting Vladimir Putin because he won 81 percent of the vote because he didn't have any opponents.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable. 

The NPR-Listening ‘Elite 1%’

Consider this proposition: “Suppose that your favorite candidate loses a close election. However, people on the campaign know that they can win by cheating without being caught. Would you rather have your candidate win by cheating or lose by playing fair?” Just 7% of Americans said, “Win by cheating.” This is from a startling new Scott Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen then put this question to those the pollster calls “the elite 1%.” They make over $150,000 per year, have a postgraduate degree, live in densely populated areas, and give President Joe Biden an 82% approval rating. Why poll this group? Rasmussen said: “A heavy concentration of them went to one of 12 elite schools. ... [H]alf the policy positions in government, half the corporate board positions in America, are held by people who went to one of these dozen schools.” Thirty-five percent of this group said they would rather their candidate win by cheating than lose by playing fair. It gets worse. Rasmussen put the question to a subset of this elite 1%, whom the pollster calls the “politically obsessed,” defined as those who talk about politics every day. Among this group, the number who would rather win by cheating jumps to 69%. Rasmussen said: “Most Americans think we don’t have enough individual freedom. Among the elite 1%, about half say, ‘No, we’ve got too much freedom.’ And among that politically obsessed group, about 7 out of 10 say, “There’s too much individual freedom in America.” As for why they think this way, Rasmussen said: “... part of the reason is because they trust government. In America, it’s been 50 years since most voters trusted the government to do the right thing most of the time. But among the elite 1%, 70% trust the government. ... They really believe that if they could just make the decisions and get us out of the way, we would be a lot better off.” This brings us to National Public Radio, whose mostly white listeners consist of the more affluent and those more likely to have college and postgraduate degrees. (Let us reserve for another time the question of why, in an information overload internet world full of radio and television channels, podcasts, numerous news outlets, etc., we still  have taxpayer-supported public television and radio.) Now this elite 1% absolutely, positively loves NPR. Uri Berliner, senior business editor and reporter, is a 25-year NPR veteran. He insists NPR “lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.” In a strikingly candid article, Berliner writes: “It’s true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding. “In recent years, however, that has changed. Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different: the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population. ... “By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals. ... “At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff. “Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports. “But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming. “It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. ... What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection.” Who is listening to NPR? Berliner says: “Our news audience doesn’t come close to reflecting America. It’s overwhelmingly white and progressive, and clustered around coastal cities and college towns.” You know, kind of like the elite 1%.

STUDY: At Least 90% of TV News Fails to Call Trump Prosecutors ‘Democrats’

Barring a last-minute hiccup, today a Democratic prosecutor — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — will begin his unprecedented criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s certain presidential nominee in November’s general election. Despite the obvious political implications of such a prosecution, a new study of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage shows at least 90% of their coverage failed to inform viewers that Bragg and the other elected Democrats going after Trump are “Democrats.” It’s as if the networks prefer to disingenuously portray the indictments and civil lawsuits as the work of nonpartisan career prosecutors, rather than as partisan attempts to use the court system to hobble the electoral prospects of the country’s top Republican. For this study, our analysts reviewed all broadcast evening news coverage from January 1, 2023 through April 10, 2024. Here’s a rundown of how the networks are failing to adequately disclose the partisanship of the three elected Democrats prosecuting Trump: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis; and New York Attorney General Letitia James. ■ Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg: Bragg attained his current post after he ran and won as a Democrat in the November 2021 general election. During his campaign, Bragg all but promised to use his office to pursue the former President — to hold him “accountable,” as Bragg not-so-subtly put it as he vied with other Democrats for the coveted nomination. And Bragg isn’t just a mainstream Democrat — he’s clearly on the far left (“progressive”) wing of the party. A New York Times “fact check” last March grudgingly documented the links between Bragg and left-wing billionaire George Soros as “real but overstated....Mr. Soros donated to a liberal group that endorses progressive prosecutors and supports efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system — in line with causes that he has publicly supported for years. That group used a significant portion of the money to support Mr. Bragg in his 2021 campaign.” In other words, Bragg is exactly the sort of ideological prosecutor the Soros squad pushed in big cities across America a few years ago, with damaging results for the people who live in those jurisdictions. In spite of this, since Bragg zeroed in on Trump early last year, the Big Three evening newscasts have rarely mentioned his undisputed partisanship. ABC’s World News Tonight has aired 56 stories discussing Bragg’s “hush money” case against Trump, yet sharp-eared viewers only once heard that Bragg was a Democrat — on February 26, 2024, when correspondent Aaron Katersky relayed how “a spokesman for Trump... called Bragg ‘another deranged Democrat prosecutor.’” That’s still better than the CBS Evening News, which aired 48 stories discussing Bragg’s case, none of which revealed that the District Attorney is a Democrat. NBC Nightly News was the most informative on this score, informing viewers that Bragg is a Democrat in 16 out of 59 stories, or about 27% of the time — still barely one-fourth of stories. Add it all up, and the Big Three only labeled Bragg as a Democrat 17 times out of 163 stories, which means Bragg’s partisanship was omitted from nearly 90% of evening news stories about his election-season indictments of the former President. ■ New York Attorney General Letitia James: Twice elected as an anti-Trump Democrat (in 2018 and 2022), James showed her ambition for higher office when she briefly challenged incumbent Kathy Hochul for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2021. After two months, she dropped that campaign in favor of a second term as the state’s Attorney General. “There are a number of important investigations and cases that are underway, and I intend to finish the job,” James explained. That same day, she stepped up her investigation of the Trump businesses that led to the unprecedented $355 million civil judgment against the former President, now being appealed. In other words, James seems to have concluded she needed to win a judicial victory against Trump to make herself more popular among Democratic voters. Yet on ABC, CBS and NBC, there’s been even less discussion of James’s blunt partisanship than of Bragg’s. Through April 10, ABC’s World News Tonight has aired 44 stories mentioning James’s suit against Trump and his businesses, yet only one — back on November 6 — identified the state Attorney General as a “Democrat,” in a fleeting on-screen graphic that was shown for less than two seconds. Similarly, the CBS Evening News produced 35 stories that discussed James’s civil case, but only once did viewers learn about James’s partisanship. As with ABC, the information was disclosed in an on-screen graphic, as the March 24, 2024 Sunday night newscast briefly showed a Trump campaign message demanding that “Insane radical Democrat AG Letitia James” keep her “FILTHY HANDS OFF OF TRUMP TOWER.” Compared to its competitors, NBC Nightly News was again the most informative. The newscast discussed the civil case in 26 stories, seven of which (27%) mentioned James’s party affiliation. Yet that means the vast majority of stories (73%) omitted this important information. The final tally: As of April 10, the Big Three have aired 105 stories about the civil case against Trump, but only nine mentioned that the official who brought the charges, Letitia James, is a partisan Democrat — leaving this crucial fact out of 93% of network stories. ■ Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis: As with Bragg and James, Willis’s partisanship is not in dispute. She ran and won as a Democrat in 2020, and she is running for re-election this fall as a Democrat. This spring, during a misconduct hearing into her affair with a lead prosecutor, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported “prominent Democrats” in Georgia were “rallying around” Willis, hoping to keep her from being removed from the Trump case. Nonetheless, while ABC’s World News Tonight (60) and the CBS Evening News (39) have aired a combined 99 stories mentioning Willis’s prosecution of Trump, none — ZERO — have told their viewers that the District Attorney is a partisan Democrat. For its part, the NBC Nightly News mentioned Willis was a Democrat eight times out of 50 stories — omitting this fact from the remaining 84% of its coverage. Add it all up, and out of 149 evening news stories about the Georgia election case against Trump, a scant five percent revealed that Willis was a Democrat, vs. 95% that kept viewers in the dark. +++++ From the beginning of these cases, journalists have had a choice in how they frame these various legal challenges to Donald Trump: Democrats vs. a Republican (i.e., a partisan food fight), or nonpartisan law enforcement vs. an accused lawbreaker. Clearly, the editorial choices made by these broadcast networks shows they are framing these cases as the actions of nonpartisan law enforcement officials — all of whom just happen to be Democrats. But if it were a leading Democrat who had been placed under the legal microscope by a trio of elected Republicans, does anyone think that the media would be so reluctant to even mention the partisanship of the prosecutors? Of course not.

'Special Treatment'? Politico Legal Editor Claims Legal System Is Too Nice to Trump

If anybody has any doubt about the extreme liberal bias of Politico, an article they published on Friday should resolve that matter. Their legal editor, James Romoser, attempted to portray the legal system as being too nice to Donald Trump.  The diatribe was headlined: "How Donald Trump Gets Special Treatment in the Legal System." ...He lies about his cases. He vilifies the judges overseeing them — and then vilifies their wives and daughters, too. ...As Trump prepares to begin his first criminal trial on Monday in New York, the tolerance of his tirades is perhaps the most glaring sign of the judicial system’s Trump exceptionalism. But it’s far from the only example. Over the past year, in ways large and small, in criminal cases and civil ones, Trump has consistently been given more freedom and more privileges than virtually any other defendant in his shoes. Romoser's fraud kicked into high gear when he invoked the name of New York Attorney General Tish James who campaigned for her office on a blatant platform of going after Trump: "New York Attorney General Tish James won a $454 million civil judgment against him for perpetrating years of corporate fraud." Although James told Rachel Maddow she had no vendetta against Trump, her own words prove her to be a flat-out liar. Something that the venomous Romoser avoided since it completely undermines his ridiculous premise about Trump somehow getting special treatment from the legal system: It is hard to believe this is being allowed in the United States… she has been waiting for this moment her entire life. pic.twitter.com/3w3lLgN8WO — Eric Trump (@EricTrump) November 6, 2023 So far gone is Romoser's hatred of Trump that he even expressed outrage at the appeals court which lowered his bond set by Judge Arthur Engoron in the New York (victimless) civil fraud case from nearly a half billion dollars to $175 million. But after Trump complained to a New York appeals court, a panel of judges intervened with an unexpected 11th-hour reprieve, issuing a terse, unexplained order that sharply reduced the bond amount that Trump had to post while he appeals the verdict. The decision ensured that Trump wouldn’t have to start selling off assets and that James couldn’t start seizing them. Although Romoser went on to whine about Trump using his Fulton County, Georgia mugshot as a "fundraising tool" he carefully avoided any mention of the district attorney in that case, Fani Willis, currently under investigation for corruption. Ironically, although the subtitle of one of the sections in the Romoser diatribe was "A fusillade of vitriol," he launched into "a fusillade of of vitriol" against any judge who displayed any sense of fairness in the midst of the politically weaponized lawfare launched against him. A few examples: ...Cannon’s deference to Trump has carried over into the post-indictment phase of the case. She has raised the eyebrows of plenty of legal experts — and stoked the frustrations of prosecutors — by issuing confusing rulings on some pretrial matters while leaving others unresolved for long stretches. Most significantly, her plodding pace has cast a pall of uncertainty over the trial schedule — another delay that benefits Trump. ...But with Cannon, some experts detect a more sinister motive: If Trump is elected, many believe she would be on his short list for a Supreme Court appointment. Despite all the media hype, the Bragg case is so weak that even the fairly liberal Vox mocked it as dubious in "The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained." ...Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law. ...The felony statute requires Bragg to prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a crime. Bragg has evidence that Trump acted to cover up a federal crime, but it is not clear that Bragg is allowed to point to a federal crime in order to charge Trump under the New York state law. ...There’s also one more twist here. The statute of limitations for the felony version of the false records crime is five years, while the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor version is only two years. Trump’s final payment to Cohen occurred in December 2017, which was more than five years ago.

WATCH: Pro-Censorship Advocate Goes After Section 230 Over Undefined ‘Harmful Content’

A radical proponent of censorship received the opportunity to advise Congress on Big Tech and liability. She told Congress that protections for social media platforms should depend on their willingness to remove content.  Dr. Mary Anne Franks, the author of the Cult of the Constitution, Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech, repeatedly advised members of Congress that tech platforms should be stripped of liability protections if they do not remove content she does not approve of. During an April 11 Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing, Franks lamented: “While some groups may be enjoying free speech under the Section 230 status quo, especially billionaires, white supremacists, conspiracy mongers, this freedom is not shared equally across society.” No free speech advocates were invited as witnesses to counter her radical views.  In response to a question from Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), Franks offered a disturbing answer, saying that a social media platform’s immunity should be dependent on its approach to “harmful content.” Franks claimed, “There needs to be a limitation on this kind of immunity, if it’s going to be given at all, under C1, it’s got to be given to those kind of social media companies and platforms that are not soliciting, encouraging or profiting from or being deliberately indifferent to what they know is harmful content.” [Emphasis added] Franks repeated this point to Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL), adding, “You cannot be profiting from harmful content and I think it also means you cannot be an indifferent bystander.” During the hearing, Franks did not list what she considers “harmful content.” However, she has a long track record of statements and publications demonstrating her opposition to free speech. Franks not only wrote the Cult of the Constitution but also submitted a letter to the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack titled “Social Media and the Weaponization of Free Speech.” According to Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor and George Washington University Law School professor, Franks wants to “gut the First and Second Amendments” to the Constitution. Turley cited Frank’s rewrite of the First Amendment to prioritize equity over freedom of speech as well as her wholesale replacement of the right to bear arms with a right to abortion.  Here is her proposal for an improved First Amendment in full:  “Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons. Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice.” [EMPHASIS ADDED] Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, here is your expert witness.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency on WEF partnerships, 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.

Will NewsGuard Demote NPR’s Perfect Rating After Revelations of Liberal Bias?

On Tuesday, National Public Radio business editor Uri Berliner blew the whistle on the station’s “assembly line” of liberally biased reporting, which he said was being cranked out “one story after another” framed with the leftist worldview. The expose put NPR under the microscope and put a serious blemish on the organization. But the question now is: will that blemish finally force media-scoring agency NewsGuard to downgrade NPR’s perfect 100/100 rating? In his essay entitled “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust,” Berliner explained: “There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line.” Berliner appeared on NewsNation with host Chris Cuomo Tuesday night and described the current company culture as “a much narrower kind of niche thinking, a group think that's really clustered around various selective progressive views that don’t – they don't allow enough air and enough spaciousness to consider all kinds of perspectives.” That certainly didn’t sound like the type of environment that would be conducive to fair, objective, and unbiased reporting. Especially if their default framing for reporting was that Republican policies were considered a “dire threat” to the country. But as of the publication of this piece, NewsGuard still had NPR rated at perfect 100/100. As MRC Associate Editor for Business & Free Speech America Joseph Vazquez recently reported, NewsGuard can reluctantly downgrade legacy liberal media outlets when they have terrible reporting held up under their nose. NewsGuard was seemingly forced to recently downgrade The New York Times from a perfect 100 to 87.5/100 after the Media Research Center repeatedly called out The Times’ shoddy reporting and NewsGuard’s refusal to act on it. As Vazquez noted in the 2023 study of NewsGuard’s rankings, the point of the whole system was for it to be used as a “cudgel” against right-leaning news organizations: NewsGuard wields its ratings as a cudgel, attempting to scare away advertisers from doing business with media and organizations that have been accused of promoting so-called “misinformation” or wrongthink on a whole host of issues like abortion, climate change, COVID-19 and elections. In so doing, NewsGuard effectively strips media outlets with which it disagrees of their ad money, slowly bleeding out their coffers. This time, the calls were coming from inside the preverbal house with a 25-year NPR veteran being the one to cry foul. Berliner also told Cuomo he was getting – while not public – internal support from some of his NPR colleagues. And a recent Times article noted Berliner was getting backup from former NPR ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin. The article also reported that internal pushback to Berliner rejected calls for ideological diversity in the newsroom: “In one group, several staff members disputed Mr. Berliner’s points about a lack of ideological diversity and said efforts to recruit more people of color would make NPR’s journalism better.” Clearly, NPR was not deserving of a 100/100 rating. So, how will NewsGuard react?

Column: 'Public' Radio Isn't Dedicated to the Masses

Is National Public Radio fair and balanced? Do they care what you think? NPR has a “Public Editor” to monitor listener complaints and concerns, but as we all know, the majority of their listeners are going to complain they’re not “progressive” enough. In 2021, Public Editor Kelly McBride appeared on Brian Stelter’s CNN podcast to praise NPR’s decision to allow their journalists to go to (leftist) public protests so they can “bring their full humanity to work with them.” When Stelter asked about NPR’s critics, McBride dismissed any conservative complaints about a leftist tilt because they are not “genuinely interested in improving NPR.” McBride claimed her job was to coach NPR “to achieve its own internally stated goals. It doesn’t help to be magnifying disingenuous criticism.” To balance NPR is to harm NPR? NPR senior editor Uri Berliner wrote a bombshell expose for the Free Press website, chronicling NPR’s blatant bias on subjects from Russian collusion conspiracy theories to the Hunter Biden laptop. NPR didn’t report negatively on Donald Trump, they sought to “damage or topple Trump’s presidency.” Is McBride going to find that this internally stated criticism isn’t worth considering? NPR media reporter David Folkenflik countered with an official word salad from NPR chief news executive Edith Chapin rejecting Berliner’s critique: "We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "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." “Inclusion” of conservative viewpoints is something NPR refuses to do. Folkenflik has been an NPR media reporter since 2004, and he has never interviewed me or anyone else at the Media Research Center for one of his reports on media performance, including in his multitude of hostile stories on Fox News.  But Folkenflik recently filed several stories from fervently anti-Israel leftists at The Intercept complaining that The New York Times was too pro-Israel in reporting about sexual assaults committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023. You can complain from the Left that Hamas is presented as too violent, but you can’t complain from the right that Republicans are painted as Jim Crow racists or fascists. CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy wasn’t as calm as Folkenflik. He hated this Berliner critique from the start. In his April 9 newsletter, he skeptically stated the idea that NPR is "supposedly embracing" a progressive view, and Berliner "felt more aligned with the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal than NPR." So Darcy wants to deny NPR's identity is on the Left, and then he signals that it is. Darcy expressed disgust that “Fox News quickly pounced” on the article, and it may lead to a “Jim Jordan type” to hold an oversight hearing on NPR tilt. Horrors! On April 10, Darcy was at it again. Berliner's expose on NPR is "nothing short but a massive gift to the right," whose top priority is "vilifying the news media." This is weird coming from Darcy, who routinely vilifies Fox News as fake news and argues it should be deplatformed by cable companies. Freedom of speech does not mean “freedom of reach,” Darcy and Stelter have argued. On a daily basis, taxpayer-funded NPR is nothing short of a massive gift to the Left, pumping out progressive propaganda to over 1,000 stations.  Because it has “public” in its branding, too many Americans still think it’s a service to everyone…. and not just to the Democrats who insure the millions keep flowing.

MSNBC Compares Netanyahu to Serbian War Criminal, Claim ‘Genocide’

Last evening on The ReidOut, MSNBC host Joy Reid and her guest, author Peter Maass, compared the war in Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the genocidal Yugoslav Wars and Serbian war criminal Slobodan Milošević. Maass, a journalist who covered the war in Bosnia, described how the media reports he has been reading about Gaza sound very similar to what he witnessed in the 1990s. Reid opened the interview with the question, “Why do you say that it is genocide?” To which Maass quickly specified that he thinks the amount of evidence surrounding this issue “should be investigated by war crimes prosecutors for possible genocide charges,” which was very different from, “I believe this is a genocide.”     To further push the “Israel is committing genocide” narrative, Reid named Slobodan Milošević, the former Serbian president convicted of war crimes, and compared him to the Israeli PM, Netanyahu: “Do you think that because he is the person that is prolonging this and doesn't seem to want to stop it, could Benjamin Netanyahu wind up in a position like Mr. Karadžić, like Mr. Milošević, and actually charged…” For context, in the Yugoslav Wars, Milošević was indicted for sixty-six counts of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Kosovo. Groups of Serbs, Jews, Muslims, and Croats were ethnically cleansed from these areas in series of horrific war crimes. In contrast, the war in Gaza started because Hamas, an anti-Israel Palestinian terrorist group, attacked Israel in an attempt to ethnically cleanse the area and replace it with the Islamic Brotherhood. Hamas should be compared to Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, and Ratko Mladić, not Israel. Not only did Reid compare Netanyahu to a genocidal political leader, but she also claimed that Netanyahu has “prolonged” the war by refusing to ceasefire. So far, nearly every multilateral ceasefire proposition has been agreed to by Israel and refused by Hamas. Recently, Hamas announced that they wouldn’t be able to turn over 40 of the hostages they took because they were already dead. During the interview, Maass was reluctant to confirm that he thought Israel was committing genocide. “Is it genocide? It’s complicated.” Instead, he referred to what he’s seen on the media, apparently unaware that the statistics that the mainstream media uses are from Hamas-controlled organizations. “I saw genocide happen in front of my eyes. Now, what I'm seeing happening in front of my eyes in the way that you are, and others are, because foreign reporters aren’t allowed into Gaza by Israel, is disturbingly evocative,” he demurred. Adding: “All of these kinds of incidents that I saw before and that we’ve seen in other military situations and other genocides we have seen there…What counts is really what war crimes prosecutors, war crime judges might decide. And that’s kinda what I think needs to happen.” To call for an investigation into Israel’s methods of war was one thing, to compare it to the ethnic cleansers of the Yugoslav Wars was another. Earlier in the interview, Maass mentioned that his great-grandfather, while not a Zionist, helped Jewish people be relocated out of Russia and into what was then called Palestine. Reid and Maass attempted to use this example to explain how Zionism was wrong and peace could be attained between the groups if the state of Israel did not exist. Yet, this conversation completely ignored how Hamas’s goal was to remove the same people that Maass’s family helped put in Israel. Hamas does not want to live in peace with Jewish people. It does not support religious freedom and removing the state of Israel will not satisfy them. Like the ethnic cleanser, Milošević, Hamas wants to eradicate the people of Israel, not just the nation. Maass has also been indirectly supporting this narrative on CNN and other major liberal media.   Veteran war correspondent @maassp argues that international courts should examine whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. What’s the legal standard? And is the evidence there? Plus how he responds to accusations that the suggestion is “blood libel” pic.twitter.com/nGrnsP0XTU — Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) April 10, 2024   Read the full transcript here: The ReidOut 4/11/24 7:55:23-7:59:44 (...) JOY REID: You have covered wars, including in Bosnia. And so, you have something to compare it to. Why do you call—Because it’s very controversial among a lot of people to call what is happening in Gaza genocide. Not everyone likes to hear that. Why do you say that it is genocide? PETER MAASS:  Well, I say, I was very specific about that. I mean, I said that there is, like, a lot of evidence indicating that this is genocide and it should be investigated by war crimes prosecutors for possible genocide charges. And indeed, the international court of justice is looking into that now. There are other venues, international criminal court, that could also do the same. And the reason that I said that is because when I covered the war in Bosnia, I also covered military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan where I saw a lot of violence. But in Bosnia, in particular, I saw people shot by snipers. I saw civilian homes get bombed from the hills by the Serbs who were besieging Sarajevo. Aid shipments halted. Water, electricity, cut off. Visited the main hospital in Sarajevo. It would get bombed. I knew people there who were killed. I wrote about it at the time. And all of these things that I saw in Sarajevo, in Bosnia when I was reporting there in the 1990s, which was a long time ago, were very similar to what I have been seeing, what we all have been seeing in Gaza. And, in the case of Bosnia, there were war crimes trials and there are a number of people who are in prison now on atrocities, convictions, on genocide— REID: Slobodan Milošević. MAASS: He died while awaiting trial, but Radovan Karadžić, who was the Bosnia Serb political leader, Ratko Mladić  the Bosnian Serb military leader, they are in prison for the rest of their lives on charges that include genocide. I was covering, I saw genocide happen in front of my eyes. Now, what I'm seeing happening in front of my eyes in the way that you are, and others are, because foreign reporters aren’t allowed into Gaza by Israel, is disturbingly evocative. All of these kinds of incidents that I saw before and that we’ve seen in other military situations and other genocides we have seen there. Is it genocide? It’s complicated. REID: Yeah, it’s a legal question. MAASS: It’s very difficult. We can talk about it forever, but our opinions don't count. What counts is really what war crimes prosecutors, war crime judges might decide. And that’s kinda what I think needs to happen. REID: The things we’ve heard, you write about the grandmother who’s holding her six-year-old grandson's hand and is, you know, shot by a sniper. We’ve seen on social media, Israeli soldiers, IDF soldiers, uploading images of themselves looting, taking things from Palestinian homes. We’ve seen mosques blown up, schools blown up. The deliberate destruction Al-Shifa and other hospitals. Is that the kinda thing—And I think the most egregious, or maybe not the most egregious, the most shocking thing people are seeing now is the mass starvation. That’s the kind of thing you’re saying deserves an investigation. MAASS: Yeah. And, I mean, the number of children in particular who have been killed, more than 13,000 children, this is a number that really isn’t disputed by anybody of any reputation. More than 13,000 children have been killed in six months in Gaza by Israeli bombs or Israeli bullets, et cetera. And, when I was covering the war in Bosnia, and I mean this was a four- yearlong war. There was something around the order of 6- or 7,000 children killed over the course of four years. This is six months. And it’s just, it’s shocking. It’s hard to kill, I think, that many people, that many children without making mistakes that are not random. REID: Yeah. Do you think that because he is the person that is prolonging this and doesn't seem to want to stop it, could Benjamin Netanyahu wind up in a position like Mr. Karadžić, like Mr. Milošević, and actually charged, is in theory, is that something you can even, it boggles the mind to think about it, is it something you could see happening? MAASS: It boggles the mind to think about it, but if you asked me in 1992, ’93, ’94, ’95, could I ever envisioned Slobodan Milošević extradited to a war crimes tribunal, in the hay, by his own people. Same for Radovan Karadžić, same for Ratko Mladić, I would have said “I don't know what you're smoking.” And it is kind of unimaginable now. What’s less unimaginable is the possibility of actual war crimes charges being filed against him, and IDF generals and others. It’s always possible. There are war crimes trials, you know, happening, you know, today, eh, with respect to many conflicts.

REVEALED: Biden Team Pressures Snopes, USA Today Into More Favorable Spin

Every White House team seeks to pressure the media into more favorable coverage. It's only natural to discover Team Biden can have their way in influencing liberal operations to edit things they've already posted. But it usually happens on the "down low," where there's no proven connection. Thomas Catenacci at FoxNews.com reported on Thursday that Snopes.com changed a rating on of their fact checks from "Mixture" to "False" in an article headlined "Is Biden Administration Banning Gas Stoves Over Climate Change Concerns?" Nur Ibrahim of Snopes noted Richard Trumka Jr., a member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), said such a ban was "on the table." "This is a hidden hazard," Trumka told Bloomberg at the time. "Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned." A month earlier, Trumka said regulating gas stoves needs to be a priority "whether it's drastically reducing emissions or banning gas stoves entirely" because of their climate and health impacts, CBS News reported. But Snopes, which originally gave its "mixture" rating as a result of Trumka's statements, changed the rating to "false," stating the CPSC is "not currently considering a ban on gas stoves." Snopes' updated article included additional comments from the CPSC and downplayed Trumka's earlier statement. However, Snopes only altered its article after pressure from the CPSC to do so, according to emails exchanged between CPSC and White House communications officials and obtained by watchdog group Functional Government Initiative (FGI) through an information request. "Sent over tough letter to this writer yesterday when the initial claim was rated as 'mixed,'" CPSC communications director Pamela Rucker Springs wrote in an email to White House assistant press secretary Michael Kikukawa Jan. 11, 2023, linking to the updated Snopes fact check. Kikukawa responded enthusiastically, saying the alteration would be "so helpful going forward." Snopes then tweeted it was "simply false" to presume that they changed it due to CPSC "pressure." It's obvious that they received an angry call, and then changed it. They just hope nobody connects the dots.  Jason Cohen at the Daily Caller (who interned with us) reported earlier that USA Today altered a Monday headline on Donald Trump’s current abortion stance after the Biden’s campaign blasted the outlet’s coverage. Trump said on Monday that states should craft their own abortion laws, which many, including USA Today, interpreted as opposition to a federal ban on killing the unborn. But the Biden campaign pressured the media with predictions Trump would end up signing a national ban.  “Trump kept his word to overturn Roe in his last term, and he will not rest until he has banned abortion across the entire country. Period,” Biden campaign Deputy Communications Director Brooke Goren said on the call. “We all know this and the coverage needs to reflect it.” These are the same people who are enraged when Republicans point out they support abortion at any time for any reason up until birth across America.  USA Today’s initial headline on David Jackson's report was “‘The will of the people’: Trump opposes national abortion ban; says states should decide.” Goren called that “particularly egregiously false.”  About two hours after the conference call, it was changed to “Donald Trump says states should decide abortion policy, avoids talk of a national ban” — without noting the change with an editor’s note. Mediaite first reported the change. “Our mission is to report the facts as accurately as possible,” a USA Today spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “As part of our routine editorial process with breaking news, headline updates are not uncommon. In this instance, the headline was updated to more precisely reflect the story.” Updates aren't uncommon. What's uncommon is learning how Team Biden pressures "more precise reflections." This is about a partisan pro-abortion prediction of what Trump would do, not a fact. 

WHOOPS! MSNBC Interrupts Clyburn’s Bidenomics Defense with Bad Economic News

National Co-Chair for the 2024 Biden Presidential Campaign Rep. Jim Clyburn wasn’t expected to be blindsided by bad news in friendly territory.  During the April 10 edition of Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski had to cut off Clyburn’s rosy message about the state of the Biden economy to get an update from reality. Clyburn complained about “disinformation” and “misrepresentation” on social media in his uninformed response to a question about the Biden economy. Then, after seemingly nervously beginning her statement with “I’ll validate that,” Brzezinski covered the breaking news: “The consumer price index increased at a faster than expected pace last month, a signal that inflation remains stubbornly high.”  To make matters worse, Clyburn had to sit through a segment of CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin discussing this horrible news. Sorkin speculated that “they’re throwing a party in Mar-a-Lago.” Sorkin added, “The truth is that right now inflation has now moved in the opposite direction. So, it’s going to be harder for the administration to make the argument around this inflation trendline,” before opening the spigot with further bad news, “[F]rankly, mortgage rates are not going to be coming down, credit card rates are not going to be coming down.”  Sorkin went on, suggesting that “It has been a shock, and I think a surprise for many just how hot this number has turned out to be.”  Few were more surprised than Clyburn.  However, Clyburn’s humiliation was not just the result of bad timing. It was well deserved. His Bidenomics talking points were obviously false even before the March numbers made them look even more ridiculous.  Brzezinski had asked Clyburn about struggling Americans who feel “gaslit” while showing a graphic that gave former President Donald Trump a 9.3 percent advantage with key undecided voters (Undecided voters in PA, MI and WI on the topic: “Better for you and your family’s finances”).  Clyburn started off weak, telling Brzezinski that “401ks are not about people’s everyday lives,” before following up with an statement favorably comparing current inflation to inflation earlier in Biden’s presidency. Clyburn confidently told Brzezinski that the “inflation rates are down and people’s incomes are up.”  Later, Clyburn would add, “Although we see the prices at the stores costing more money, people are in fact earning greater incomes.”  Morning Joe and Sorkin made Clyburn’s inflation point look outrageous, but his point on wages isn’t true either. Real wages have gone down under Biden. American median weekly real earnings have declined from $373 in the first quarter of 2021 to $371 in the fourth quarter of 2023.  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.

Amanpour Compares Pro-Lifers To Iran And The Taliban

PBS/CNN’s Christiane Amanpour joined CBS’s Stephen Colbert for her second late night comedy show appearance of the week on the Wednesday installment of The Late Show. The duo freaked out over the possibility of a second Donald Trump term and that the rest of the democratic world is similarly freaked out and over the same issues, such as American pro-lifers allegedly being comparable to Iran and the Taliban. Amanpour informed Colbert that the rest of the world is “watching your election very, very closely because that is really preoccupying them. Having had a collective nervous breakdown the last time. They are trying to proof themselves against—” Colbert then interrupted to ask, “So, the world freaked out as much as some of us did?”     Amanpour qualified her remarks, “As much as some of you did. Some of the world. I mean, there were parts of the world that didn't freak out. Mostly the autocratic parts of the world.” The duo then listed off several people who allegedly would be comfortable with another Trump win, including Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman. Colbert followed up by declaring that “the idea of a second Trump presidency makes Americans fearful. What specifically, I assume the world is freaked out about the second possibility.” Naturally, Amanpour agreed, but instead of immediately diving into foreign affairs, she claimed the rest of the world is alarmed by American pro-lifers, “Well yeah, I mean look, you’ve just been talking about something freaking out Americans, which is this Arizona law from pre-Civil War and that is being really looked at especially in democracies where there are codified women's rights and human rights. France, for instance. On International Women's Day, March 8, actually signed into law a constitutional amendment to guarantee a woman's right to make choices about her own body.” If an American state legislature passed legislation with identical language as France’s amendment, Amanpour would claim it was a radical, right-wing denial of women’s rights because the limit in that law is 14 weeks. Amanpour continued, insisting that you either support abortion or you oppose human rights, “This was sort of a demonstration of will by, you know, a country that's very supportive of your revolution, to show that this is universal human rights and that women actually need to be treated like adults and whether it's Afghanistan, Iran, or the United States, a bunch of grumpy old man shouldn't be making essential decisions.” While Amanpour didn’t explicitly say “Taliban,” considering the Taliban runs Afghanistan, it should be obvious who she is talking about. The Iran and Taliban analogy isn’t new for both Amanpour and Colbert. Hillary Clinton used the analogy in a softball December 2022 interview with Amanpour, while Colbert used it in a March 2023 rant against the Supreme Court. Here is a transcript for the April 10 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/11/2024 12:05 AM ET CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: In the world, they are watching your election very, very closely because that is really preoccupying them. STEPHEN COLBERT: So, they— AMANPOUR: Having had a collective nervous breakdown the last time. They are trying to proof themselves against— STEPHEN COLBERT: I guess, I really didn’t take that into account all the time. So, the world freaked out— AMANPOUR: Yes. COLBERT:  —   As much as some of us did? AMANPOUR: As much as some of you did. Some of the world. I mean, there were parts of the world that didn't freak out. Mostly the autocratic parts of the world.” Yeah.  COLBERT: Your Orbans. Yeah, yeah. AMANPOUR: Your Putins, your Xis, your Orbans. Those people. COLBERT: Your Erdogans. Those people. Okay. AMANPOUR: Your, you know, MBSes COLBERT: The idea of a second Trump presidency makes Americans fearful. What specifically, I assume the world is freaked out about the second possibility. Okay. AMANPOUR: Well yeah, I mean look, you’ve just been talking about something freaking out Americans, which is this Arizona law— COLBERT: Yeah. AMANPOUR:  —   from pre-Civil War— COLBERT: Yup. AMANPOUR: —   and that is being really looked at especially in democracies where there are codified women's rights and human rights. France, for instance. On International Women's Day, March 8, actually signed into law a constitutional amendment to guarantee a woman's right to make choices about her own body. Abortion and other— COLBERT: Do many countries have that?  AMANPOUR: Not necessarily, no, they don't. This was sort of a demonstration of will by, you know, a country that's very supportive of your revolution, to show that this is universal human rights and that women actually need to be treated like adults and whether it's Afghanistan, Iran, or the United States, a bunch of grumpy old man shouldn't be making essential decisions. 

Say Their Names! ABC/CBS/NBC Skip Victims Killed By Illegals 

On Monday, House leaders will send articles of impeachment to the Senate to begin a trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who was the first cabinet member to be impeached by the House in over 100 years.  A letter sent to Sen. Majority Leader Charles Schumer in March, House Speaker Mike Johnson and 11 Republican impeachment managers charged: “Throughout his tenure” Mayorkas “has repeatedly lied to Congress and the American people about the scope of the [border] crisis and his role in it. His unlawful actions are responsible for the historic crisis that has devastated communities throughout our country.” During this “historic crisis” many innocent lives have been taken by illegal immigrants — some of whom were deported but let back in during the Biden administration. These are tragedies that have gone largely untold by the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) broadcast networks. With the exception of Laken Riley — who President Joe Biden infamously called “Lincoln” during the State of the Union address — the networks have mostly refused to tell their audiences about the horrendous murders committed by so-called “undocumented immigrants.”  The following are six of the most horrific cases of innocent victims killed by illegal immigrants during the Biden administration of which only one was covered (Ruby Garcia) but only because the networks used it to criticize Trump.    VICTIM: RUBY GARCIA     On April 1, 2024 West Michigan’s Fox17online.com reported:  Brandon Ortiz-Vite, the man accused of killing 25-year-old Ruby Garcia in a shooting on 131, entered the United States illegally as a child, according to ICE. Ortiz-Vite, a 25-year-old native of Mexico, received approval for deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. Ortiz-Vite's status under DACA expired May 10, 2019. He was arrested on local charges Aug. 30, 2020, and deemed to be inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as INA. According to court records, Ortiz-Vite was arrested in Grand Rapids for driving while intoxicated and for a suspended license. He was arrested by Enforcement and Removal Operations, or ERO, in Detroit on Aug. 31, 2020, and served notice to appear, according to ICE. Ortiz-Vite was ordered to be removed by an immigration judge with the Justice Department's Executive Office of Immigration Review on Sept. 24, 2020. Ortiz-Vite was removed to Mexico on Sept. 29, 2020 . It is not known when Ortiz-Vite re-entered the United States “without inspection by an immigration official,” ICE said in a statement. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: Total time = 2 minutes, 18 seconds. NBC: 1 minute, 46 seconds; ABC: 32 seconds; CBS: 0 seconds. ABC and NBC briefly covered Garcia but only did so to knock Trump. ABC correspondent Rachel Scott’s April 5 Good Morning America report was typical of the coverage:   RACHEL SCOTT: The former president drilling in on what he’s calling migrant crimes, pointing to the death of 25-year-old Ruby Garcia, who officials say was killed by an undocumented immigrant who she had a relationship with.  DONALD TRUMP: They said she had the most contagious laughter and when she walked into a room she lit up that room and I have heard that from so many people I spoke to, some of her family.  SCOTT: But the family of the victim telling a local Grand Rapids station that never happened.    VICTIM: JEREMY POOU CACERES     On February 28, 2024, FoxNews.com reported: The Salvadoran illegal migrant arrested in the fatal shooting of a 2-year-old in Maryland had previously been released twice from jail despite ICE requesting he be deported on both occasions.  Nilson Trejo-Granados, 25, was arrested Monday and charged with first- and second-degree murder in the Feb. 8 shooting death of Jeremy Poou Caceres while the child was out walking with his 17-year-old mother. The child was caught in the crossfire of a shootout between two groups during a drug dispute, police said.  According to charges reviewed by The Washington Post, Trejo-Granados is not accused of firing the weapon that killed Caceres, but he is alleged to have been in a car with a group of people connected to the shootout. Trejo-Granados had been arrested twice before the incident and was cut loose in both cases even though ICE wanted him held for deportation since he was in the country illegally. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   VICTIM: LIZBETH MEDINA     On February 8, 2024 the New York Post reported:  A Texas grand jury has indicted the illegal immigrant suspect in a 16-year-old girl’s brutal killing on capital murder charges. The indictment obtained by Fox News Digital says Rafael Govea Romero, 23, intentionally caused Lizbeth Medina’s death while in the course of attempting to commit a burglary, robbery or sexual assault. The document also alleges Romero killed Medina by causing the teenager’s “head to strike a firm surface,” “striking” her head “with a hard object” and “repeatedly stabbing or cutting” her “with a sharp object or edged weapon.” “It’s very disturbing to me,” Lizbeth’s mother, Jacqueline Medina, told Fox News Digital of the indictment, adding she thinks the grand jury handed down the capital murder charge because of “all the evidence and all the other details” in the case. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   VICTIM: AIDEN CLARK     On August 28, 2023 Breitbart reported:  An illegal alien, released into the United States in 2022 after arriving at the nation’s southern border, is now charged with killing 11-year-old Aiden Clark after crashing into a school bus filled with children in Clark County, Ohio. On Monday, 35-year-old illegal alien Hermanio Joseph of Haiti appeared in Clark County Municipal Court where his bond was kept at $100,000 following charges of aggravated vehicular homicide. According to prosecutors, on August 22, Joseph was driving a Honda Odyssey minivan when he hit a Northwestern Local Schools bus that was full of children. The bus, as a result of the crash, flipped and 11-year-old Aiden Clark was ejected from the bus. That Tuesday marked the first day of school for Aiden. … An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesman confirmed to Breitbart News that Joseph is a citizen of Haiti and had arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in August 2022. From there, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Joseph a Notice to Appear (NTA) in federal immigration court and released him into the U.S. interior where he ultimately ended up in Ohio. National Immigration Center for Enforcement (NICE) advisory board member John Fabbricatore told Breitbart News that President Joe Biden’s expansive Catch and Release network at the border is ultimately responsible. “The Biden administration’s ‘welcome and release’ agenda continues to put our communities at risk,” Fabbricatore, a former senior ICE official, said. “Their goal is to let in as many poorly vetted illegal aliens as possible, often without proper GPS tracking or scheduled court appearances. When will this administration put public safety first, or is mass migration more important?” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   VICTIM: LEAH GOMEZ     On April 2, 2024 Breitbart reported:  22-year-old Leah Gomez….was shot to death with an AR-15 in front of her 1-year-old daughter in May 2023 in Grand Rapids. In February, a jury found Luis Bernal Sosa, a 27-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, guilty of murdering Gomez. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   VICTIM: MARIA GONZALEZ     On August 27, 2023 FoxNews.com reported:  The Texas suspect who is accused of murdering and sexually assaulting 11-year-old Maria Gonzalez was denied bail last week. Juan Carlos Garcia-Rodriguez, 18, was arrested in Shreveport, Louisiana and charged with capital murder on August 19. His bail request was rejected during a Thursday court appearance, according to FOX 26 Houston. FOX 26 reported that Garcia-Rodriguez illegally entered the United States from Guatemala earlier this year, but was allowed to stay in the country via a sponsor in Louisiana. Maria’s father Carmelo reported that the last contact he had with his daughter was when she sent him a WhatsApp message on August 12 about someone knocking on their door. “I told her, ‘Don’t open the door, because I am arriving at work,’ and she responded, ‘I am in my bed,’” Carmelo said to FOX 26. The father arrived home at around 2:30 p.m. and told police that he found his daughter’s body under her bed. Her remains were put in a plastic bag and a laundry bag before being placed in a laundry basket under a bed. “Unfortunately, they left her under the bed in a plastic bag. They left my poor daughter,” the grieving father told FOX 26. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. The question has to be asked. If ABC, CBS and NBC weren’t so in the tank for the Biden administration, would these innocent victims of the border crisis get their names mentioned on the networks?