NB Blog Feed

RARE: CNN Airs Criticism Of The Basis For The Bragg Case Against Trump

The Regime Media has promoted, covered, and obsessed over the Bragg prosecution of Donald Trump in New York City- the so-called “hush money” trial. And they have done so, continuously. But tonight, CNN takes the extraordinary step of airing the case against the indictment. Watch as Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman lays out the case, as aired on CNN NewsNight With Abby Phillip on Wednesday, August 24th, 2024 (click “expand”): ABBY PHILLIP: Professor, you say- see, three red flags with this case. What are they? JED HANDELSMAN SHUGERMAN: Well the three red flags are: first, that there has- there's no reported case. I've checked the records of state cases. There's no state case that shows a state prosecutor using the Federal Election Campaign Act, which is the- really the crime that the prosecutors are alleging here. A federal election violation, a federal campaign filing violation as the basis, either directly or indirectly, for any crime. So that is a first example of what's unprecedented here, and there- this is not just a coincidence. There are good reasons why a federal prosecutor has complete control to the exclusion of the states for enforcing something as complicated as the Federal Election Campaign Act. That's the first one.  The second problem is that there is no example of this statute that relies on an intent to defraud being such a broad general public. The idea that one would be defrauding the general public or voters. There's no precedent for using it for election interference.  And the final problem is the use of this statute. But basically what the business filing violation is, a misdemeanor with intent to defraud, it becomes a felony only if the prosecutors can show an intent to commit or conceal another crime. The Trump lawyers pointed out, made an argument that- in New York, there is a problem with trying to use the filing. The mis filing to upgrade it to a felony, relying on another jurisdiction. And the Manhattan DA could only point to two examples, neither of which is a judicial interpretation. So it's an untested theory. Those two cases, one was a guilty plea and one was jury instruction. Neither one counts as a judge hearing an argument and ruling on it. So those are examples of how this case, three examples of how it's unte- based on untested legal theories and on unprecedented applications. Shugerman is the author of an op-ed recently published in The New York Times, subtly titled: I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake. In criticizing the case as a selective prosecution, Shugerman writes: Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law. This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America — and promote bipartisan reforms of our partisan prosecutorial system. Nevertheless, prosecutors should have some latitude to develop their case during trial, and maybe they will be more careful and precise about the underlying crime, fraud and the jurisdictional questions. Mr. Trump has received sufficient notice of the charges, and he can raise his arguments on appeal. One important principle of “our Federalism,” in the Supreme Court’s terms, is abstention, that federal courts should generally allow state trials to proceed first and wait to hear challenges later. This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court. If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days — and perhaps win — in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all. It should be noted that Shugerman is no Trump fan. During the segment he claimed to have never voted for a Republican, and criticized Trump’s description of the Bragg prosecution as “election interference”- citing the Biden Department of Justice’s refusal to bring the case forth.  Abby Phillip questioned Shugerman’s theories, then had her legal panel do likewise. Shugerman held his own and then some. The panel was an extremely rare break from the hysterical “walls are closing in” coverage that the media have given this matter to date. Will there be more of it? Given the ease with which Shugerman made his case, I’m not so sure.

NB Blog Feed

OF COURSE: CBS’s O’Donnell Asks ‘Progressive’ Pope Francis Obligatory Climate Question

CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell delivered this evening’s newscast from Rome, and her interview with Pope Francis featured heavily within the newscast. But if the early tease is any indication, O’Donnell devoted the interview to the reheating of the media’s same old talking points regarding the Catholic Church. Case in point: the media love Francis on climate change, and often hail him as a “progressive”.  Watch as O’Donnell does both of these things: NORAH O’DONNELL: Francis is also the first pontiff to make climate change a priority. In 2015, to make an important point, images of the environment were projected onto St. Peter's Basilica, the dome designed in the mid-16th Century by Michelangelo. What do you say to the deniers of climate change? POPE FRANCIS: There are people who are foolish, and foolish even if you show them research, they don't believe it. Why? Because they don't understand the situation or because of their interest. But climate change exists. O’DONNELL: His progressive style has made him popular worldwide, with millions coming here to St. Peter's Square to catch a glimpse of the Holy Father. OF COURSE O’Donnell asked the question and CBS aired it, given Francis’ proclivities and economic orthodoxies, as well as the fact that “Earth Day” was observed earlier this week. The questions with answers reflecting that the Pope is still a Catholic, such as on abortion and marriage, will have to wait for the full broadcast three and half weeks from now. The interview opens with O’Donnell trying to bait the Pope into calling Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza a “genocide”, an invitation to attack Israel that Francis appears to resist based on the footage aired tonight. The Pope then takes another question on Gaza and redirects it towards Ukraine.  After some conversation on children comes the climate question, which Francis answers in a manner that temporarily delights the left. O’Donnell goes on to hail the Pope’s “progressive style” and implied subsequent  popularity, before citing data suggesting that Church membership in the U.S. is declining. The full interview will air in three and a half weeks and feature O’Donnell running the Pope through the entire leftwing policy pupu platter. Very predictably so. Click “expand” to view the  transcript of the interview fragment as aired on the CBS Evening News on Wednesday, April 24th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: Oh, my goodness. Bongiorno, Your Holiness. What an honor. So wonderful to meet you.  POPE FRANCIS: Lovely to meet you.  O’DONNELL: Love to meet you. Yes. Thank you so much for doing this.  We met Pope Francis today at Casa Santa Marta, the guest house where the pontiff lives, instead of the lavish papal palace. At 87 years old, he may have trouble walking, but he had no difficulty sitting down with us for an hour long conversation. How is your health? POPE FRANCIS: My health is good. O’DONNELL: In nearly every address… POPE FRANCIS: …who suffers so much from the war…  O’DONNELL: The pope often calls for peace. He condemned Hamas' October 7th attack, but has also called on Israel to use restraint.  There are now pictures of starving children coming out of Gaza. What about those that call that a genocide? POPE FRANCIS: Genocide. Every afternoon at 7:00 P.M., I call Gaza to the parish. There are about 600 people there, and they tell me what’s going on. It's very hard. Very, very hard. Food goes in, but they have to fight for it. It's very hard. O’DONNELL: I know you call for peace. You have called for a ceasefire in many of your sermons. Can you help negotiate peace? POPE FRANCIS: I can pray. I do. I pray a lot. O’DONNELL: During World Children's Day, which is the end of May, the U.N. says over a million people will be facing famine in Gaza. Many of them children. What can be done? POPE FRANCIS: Not only Gaza. We should think about Ukraine. Those kids don't know how to smile. I tell them something, but they forgot how to smile. And this is very hard when a child forgets to smile. That's really very serious. Very serious. O’DONNELL: Do you have a message for Vladimir Putin when it comes to Ukraine? POPE FRANCIS: Please. Countries at war, all of them. Stop the war. Look to negotiate. Look for peace. A negotiated peace is better than a war without end. O’DONNELL: His Most Holy Father is considered one of the most influential people in the world. Leading nearly 1.4 billion Catholics. He is the first pope from the Americas, the first Jesuit, and will host the Vatican's first World Children's Day next month. I love that you take the kids in the Popemobile with you and bring them up to the Apostolic Palace when you say a prayer. Why do you do that? POPE FRANCIS: Children always bear a message. They bear a message and it is a way for us to have a younger heart. O’DONNELL: Francis is also the first pontiff to make climate change a priority. In 2015, to make an important point, images of the environment were projected onto St. Peter's Basilica, the dome designed in the mid-16th Century by Michelangelo. What do you say to the deniers of climate change? POPE FRANCIS: There are people who are foolish, and foolish even if you show them research, they don't believe it. Why? Because they don't understand the situation or because of their interest. But climate change exists. O’DONNELL: His progressive style has made him popular worldwide, with millions coming here to St. Peter's Square to catch a glimpse of the Holy Father. MARY BENNETT: It has made us emotional, just being here, going into St. Peter's Basilica, going into the Sistine Chapel, just tears coming into our eyes because we are actually, you can feel the spirit. O’DONNELL: Sophia and Aaron came with their family from San Diego, California. How did it make you feel when he came out the window? SOPHIA: It made me feel good, like butterflies in my stomach. O’DONNELL: Still, the number of Catholics in America is dwindling. In the U.S., only 20% of adults identify as Catholic, and that is down from 24% in 2007.  I wonder if you could speak to those who don't go to Mass anymore, or maybe don't see a place for themselves in the Catholic church. POPE FRANCIS: I would say there is always a place, always. If, in this parish, the priest doesn't seem welcoming, I understand, but go and look. There is always a place. Do not run away from the Church. The Church is very big. It's more than a temple. It's more. You shouldn't run away from it. O’DONNELL: We also asked the Pope about the migrant crisis, gay rights, women's role in the church, and whether he’s thinking about retirement. We'll have that and much more on "60 minutes" on Sunday, May 19th, and then, a prime time special on Monday, May 20th, right here on CBS.  

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Pretending the Trump Prosecutors Are Nonpartisans

ABC and CBS almost completely refuse to identify Trump's elected Democrat prosecutors -- Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Fani Willis -- as Democrats, and certainly not Democrats elected on a promise to get Trump. NBC dabbles with the D. For example, elected Democrat Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney of Manhattan, was described as a Democrat in 16 of 59 evening-news stories on NBC programs. But CBS never did in 48 Bragg stories. On ABC, there were 56 stories, but 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.’” He's only described as a Democrat when they can make it sound like a wild Trump accusation. Elected Democrat Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York state, NBC mentioned her Democrat-ness in seven of 26 stories. But ABC’s World News Tonight has aired 44 stories mentioning James’s civil suit against Trump and his businesses, yet only one -- back in November -- showed the word "Democrat" in a fleeting on-screen graphic that was shown for less than two seconds. CBS also had one citation (in 35 stories), but only on screen: 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.” Elected Democrat Fani Willis, the District Attorney of Fulton County (Atlanta), Georgia drew 60 stories on ABC’s World News Tonight (60) and 39 stories on the CBS Evening News, and ZERO out of 99 mentioned she was a Democrat. NBC were the "rampant" labelers at eight out of 50 stories (meaning they skipped it in 84 percent of stories. Longtime MRC Director of Research Rich Noyes (now freelancing from Connecticut) was at MRC headquarters to explain his latest study numbers (ending right before the Trump trial in Manhattan began) and projects it into this election year. He noted that while the networks liked to point out that Kenneth Starr was a "Republican independent counsel," he was never elected, but had served as Solicitor General under the first President Bush. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

NB Blog Feed

WATCH: Schneider, Solomon Discuss ‘Most Comprehensive’ Report on Facebook’s Election Interference

MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider addressed over a decade of rampant Facebook election interference in a conversation with Just the News founder John Solomon.  During the April 24 edition of Just the News, No Noise, Schneider went after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg and Facebook for 39 instances of election interference between 2008 and 2024. “Facebook has engaged in censorship over and over and over,” Schneider said in response to an MRC Special Report. The report demonstrated a pattern of Facebook censoring free speech, including silencing criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of the fall of the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi and muzzling Republican candidates for office during the 2022 midterm elections.  Solomon praised the “extraordinary detail” of the study and called it the “most comprehensive review of Facebook’s interventions.” In response to a question from co-host Amanda Head, Schneider pointed out that these 39 instances are just the tip of the iceberg of Facebook censorship, but emphasized that they are serious, carefully researched examples of Facebook putting its thumb on the electoral scale.  Schneider said, “Well of course there are thousands of instances of Facebook censoring people, the great bulk of them are conservatives. But these are the 39 times that we've found where it's clear that they were meddling in the election, that they were trying to sway the election.”  The MRC Free Speech America vice president went on to refer to a video exposing insane bias within Facebook staff. “And we've got quotes from their own internal staff saying, “‘Yeah, you know the CEO, he may claim that that it's a free speech platform but we are not going to allow Trump to win the election again.’ That kind of language is being used internally,” said Schneider. Expanding on his remarks, Schneider added: “Mark Zuckerberg has said to us, to us conservatives that the people of Facebook … don't understand who conservatives are or what we believe.’ They only understand the will to power and to use their company to try to promote, you know, the next president of the United States. 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.

NB Blog Feed

CNN Analyst Demands Colleges ‘Allow Space’ for Anti-Semitic Rallies

Anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas rallies have been spreading like hateful wildfire across American universities, with encampments spouting up in UT Austin and Harvard on Wednesday. And on CNN News Central that afternoon, Harvard professor and former Obama DHS official Juliette Kayyem demanded that universities like hers “allow space” for those mini-Nuremberg rallies. “And I'm pretty clear about this,” Kayyem declared. She demanded that schools “allow space for students to protest” in favor of Hamas. Essentially her defense of the students was ‘kid will be kids.’ “This should not be a shock to anyone with teenagers or young, young adult children. They have strong feelings and they’re passionate,” she argued. Coddling the anti-Semites, Kayyem said they needed to be given “off ramps” before the schools cracked down on any violent rhetoric or other misconduct. As if the students didn’t agree to a Student Code of Conduct when they joined the school, she huffed: “You've got to give students rules about what they are and are not allowed to do. And maybe this happened at USC, but they have to be clear about, ‘Yes, you can protest. No, you can't block a building and this is what's going to happen if you block the building.’” She did admit that at some point the schools might need to consider when to get police involved. “I mean in other words, these kids who are violating these rules these students then have some sort of punishment and whether you need the police or something less than that is each college and university’s decision,” she said.     But a few minutes later, Kayyem proved herself to be a hypocrite and declared schools “cannot” get the police involved at all. She whined they were “terrifying students" who were just "expressing their dismay with the war”: What are the rules of engagement? We cannot put police officers, especially non-university police officers, as we've seen in some of these jurisdictions, just out there fully armed, terrifying students who are maybe they just viewed themselves as just expressing their dismay with the war or their criticisms of the Biden administration. That wasn’t the only way Kayyem was a hypocrite on the issue. In 2022, she opposed the Canadian “Freedom Convoy” that was protesting their county’s COVID restrictions by blocking critical roads. She lashed out at them and demanded authorities “slash the tires” of their semi-trucks. “Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks,” she wrote. “The notion that these are rational people that will change if asked is long gone,” she sneered in a follow-up post. “This disruption is an irrational gang and, again, we should stop being so nice.” Kayyem also used to have a hair-trigger when it came to antisemitism. In 2019, she accused former New York City Mayor Ruby Giuliani of “antisemitism” when he called out Democratic Party dark-money donor George Soros. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN News Central April 24, 2024 3:10:55 p.m. Eastern (…) JULIETTE KAYYEM: And so, colleges and universities have to do three things. And I'm pretty clear about this. One, is they do have to allow space for students to protest. I said you've got to give them an outlet. The students are allowed to protest. This should not be a shock to anyone with teenagers or young, young adult children. They have strong feelings and they’re passionate. Because if you just immediately go to arrest, it's going to cause I think some of the what we're seeing on air which is nothing's happening. And then lots is happening. You want to give students space as long as you're protecting students who want to go to classes, Jewish students, if they’re targeted. The second is you have to have off ramps. You have to, in terms of these colleges and universities you've got to give students rules about what they are and are not allowed to do. And maybe this happened at USC, but they have to be clear about, “Yes, you can protest. No, you can't block a building and this is what's going to happen if you block the building.” And then third is, of course, then exert your outcomes, right? I mean in other words, these kids who are violating these rules these students then have some sort of punishment and whether you need the police or something less than that is each college and university’s decision. (…) 3:14:13 p.m. Eastern KAYYEM: What are the rules of engagement? We cannot put police officers especially non-university police officers, as we've seen in some of these jurisdictions, just out there fully armed, terrifying students who are maybe they just viewed themselves as just expressing their dismay with the war or their criticisms of the Biden administration. So, what are the rules of engagement? The second is, is there – is there a reach out as we're seeing in some of these colleges and universities to these student organizations to engage them on what is and is not appropriate activity? In other words, we don't have to treat the protesters as enemies. They just disagree with the institution or they disagree with the government. And that can help de-escalate as well. And then third, is the punishment that we're talking about. If someone is violent, if someone is threatening students, if someone ought not to be there and is exacerbating the tensions. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Election Year Pandering: Nets Spend 22 Mins Peddling Biden Propaganda to Voters

On Wednesday, ABC, CBS, and NBC combined for a whopping 22 minutes and 18 seconds on their lead morning shows playing Baghdad Bobs and Barbies, touting the Biden regime as dedicated to the American people with segments on their fight to ban non-complete clauses in the workplace, cracking down on airlines slow-walking refunds when things go wrong, expanding overtime rules, and letting women murder their babies at will. When including its third-hour, NBC’s Today came out on top with 10 minutes and 55 seconds. It started with the Biden administration fighting to ensure baby murder remains easily accessible in Idaho. Co-host Hoda Kotb touted the “blockbuster” Supreme Court arguments “concerning reproductive rights, raising the legal and political stakes headed into the November election.” Senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson hyped the case as part of an issue that will have “enormous” “stakes” on the outcome of the election. She eagerly adopted the Biden administration’s framing and even referred to an expecting mother as “a pregnant patient”. She at least gave a soundbite to the great Roger Severino with our friends at the Heritage Foundation (click “expand”): JACKSON: The question: whether a federal law guaranteeing emergency care for patients overrides an Idaho law banning most abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The Biden administration saying that federal law should take precedence, arguing Idaho’s law requires doctors to wait until the health of a pregnant patient gets worse before performing an abortion. But Idaho’s attorney general, in a statement, accuses the administration of showing a “reckless disregard for Idaho’s right to protect life.” SEVERINO: The Biden administration has twisted this law. [SCREEN WIPE] They’re trying to use federal executive power when the law does not support it. This is beyond the breaking point and I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will rein them back in. JACKSON: And with Idaho allowed to enforce the near total abortion ban for now, many OBGYNs are leaving the state, including Dr. Lauren Miller, who moved her practice to Colorado. She says Idaho’s law has created a dilemma for doctors. (....) JACKSON: The legal fight raising political stakes heading into the November upcoming election with voters in 11 states likely to decide abortion rights on ballot measures this fall. President Biden, in Florida Tuesday, slamming that state’s six-week abortion ban set to go into effect six days from now and blaming his predecessor. The show went next to the daily messaging from the Department of Transportation. Co-host Savannah Guthrie touted the “big news regarding air travel” with co-host Craig Melvin adding “it could affect folks in a good way.” Longtime transportation correspondent Tom Costello even explicitly said he’d be providing “the bullet points coming from the Biden administration” about their desire to have airlines “provid[e] compensation quickly to passengers who are owed money from an airline and if that passenger declines other alternative transportation needs or credits” that’ll be “cutting through all of the clutter and making it very clear what the rules are for every airline.” Costello and Melvin then focused on the other piece with fee transparency, the latest step in Biden’s ongoing obsession with ending so-called junk fees. In the 3rd Hour of Today, Costello returned for more banter and praising the regime for these crackdowns. ABC’s Good Morning America came next with six minutes and 33 seconds over four segments.  Like NBC, they began with abortion. Congressional correspondent Rachel Scott passed along the Biden Justice Department’s arguments and stomped on a single sentence provided to the opposition, which led into a nauseating love letter voiced by chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce (click “expand”): SCOTT: And the stakes here are high. This is the first time that the Supreme Court is considering the scope of a state’s abortion ban since Roe vs. Wade was overturned. At the center of the case is Idaho. The state bans abortions in nearly all cases. It does include a narrow exception to save the life of the mother. But the Justice Department is arguing that, even in states where abortion is banned under federal health care law, hospitals are still required to terminate pregnancy if the patient’s life or health is at serious risk. The Justice Department is pointing to a law from decades ago before Roe vs. Wade was overturned that was originally created to ensure patients who do not have insurance are turned away from hospitals. Anti-abortion rights advocates argue that the Biden administration is misusing this law to try to justify abortions. On the other side, though, we have talked to doctors and patients who told us they are caught in a web of confusing laws. Some doctors have told us they have questioned whether or not their patient is sick enough before they can even provide life saving care. And doctors, of course, face serious penalties, loss of license, fines, and, in some cases, even prison time. And, all of this is playing out in the back drop of an election year where the Biden administration is hoping to use this to energize voters ahead of a very critical, George. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Rachel, on that point, President Biden is targeting Donald Trump over abortion rights, blasting him yesterday at a Florida campaign event over a six week abortion ban going into effect in the state next week. [BIDEN CLIP] (....) BRUCE: Well, President Biden is eager to put the issue of abortion front and center in this campaign. As you heard there, he is trying to make Donald Trump own this, blaming him for the new restrictions and bans that we are seeing across the country. Yesterday, in that speech in Florida, the president’s first major campaign address on this issue, by our count at least a dozen times the President argued Trump should be held accountable and is to blame for us. Now, Donald Trump has bragged about overturning Roe vs. Wade, appointing the three justices who helped strike it down. And since then, 21 states have now enacted tough new restrictions and bans. The former President, though, said this should be up to the states. He says they are handling it brilliantly. President Biden, obviously, strongly disagrees. He says Trump has to be held accountable and he is hoping this issue will drive voters to the polls in November. He is well aware that every time this issue has been on the ballot since Roe was struck down, abortion rights have won. Bruce’s North Korean-state-run-media behavior went right into ABC’s airlines segment. Co-host Robin Roberts proclaimed that “[t]he Biden administration [is] taking action this morning to protect airline consumers” with “[n]ew rules that mandate automatic refunds.” “This is a major change from the Department of Transportation. And, again, it affects your money,” said transportation correspondent Gio Benitez at the start of his report. In the second hour, ABC made sure to reiterate all the supposedly great things a President running for a second term has done for Americans. This time, correspondent Elizabeth Schulze held up a vote by the Biden Federal Trade Commission “that could make it easier for workers to quit their jobs”. “The FTC voting to ban non-compete agreements, which prevent workers from switching jobs to work for a rival company. The nationwide ban means workers applying for a new job wouldn’t be forced to sign a non-compete and almost all existing non-compete clauses would be voided,” she added. For good measure, Schulze also shared a Biden Labor Department initiative that’ll be “a major expansion of overtime” which, starting in July, will see the salary threshold of workers eligible for overtime rise to $44,000 ahead of a $60,000 ceiling in January. CBS Mornings clocked in third with a still-strong four minutes and 50 seconds of stenography. After a segment about the Senate passing the bill to force TikTok to be sold from its Chinese parent company (or be banned in the U.S.), co-host Tony Dokoupil brought up the airlines and FTC stories as other examples of “words turning into action in Washington” with “[s]ome big changes there that could have an effect on millions of Americans”. Transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave and senior tech correspondent Jo Ling Kent came next doubling as regime mouthpieces (click “expand”): VAN CLEAVE: The next time you run into travel troubles, you could be eligible for a cash refund. These new Department of Transportation rules that will be going into effect say you can get a refund for a canceled flight, but if you’re delayed more than three hours for a domestic flight or more than six hours internationally, you can also get a refund if you choose not to fly. Also, bag fees must be refunded if a checked bag is significantly delayed, and refund must be given if any services you paid for aren’t provided like broken wi-fi. Airlines are also required now to disclose what fees they charge up front for things like a checked bag, a carry-on bag, a cancel or change fee. Now, most airlines in the U.S. already do that. These new rules will be phased in over the next 12 months[.] (....) KENT: [T]he Federal Trade Commission wants to make it easier for you to get a new job. It plans on banning non-compete clauses, and those are the parts of employer contracts that bar workers across industries from leaving for a competitor or starting a competing business. Now, some saying non-competes help employers protect their trade secrets and allow them to invest in training for employees without fear of losing them, while others argue the clauses are overly restrictive on the workers. The FTC says its ban would translate to $524 more each year for the average worker, yield as many as 29,000 more patents, and create at least 8,500 new businesses. But, of course, this is not set in stone yet. The U.S. Chamber of commerce called the ban an unlawful power grab and said it would sue the FTC to block it. CBS conveniently and immediately pivoted to abortion, but longtime Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford kept it straight (as usual). While she said “the Biden administration is challenging Idaho’s pretty strict restrictions with a really creative legal argument”, she also gave two soundbites to Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) to defend his state’s pro-life law. To see the relevant transcripts from April 24, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

US Gives TikTok an Ultimatum: Sell or Wave American Market Goodbye

TikTok might be on its way out of America if it does not separate from its ties to the communist Chinese government. After House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-AL) maneuvered to include a TikTok ultimatum in a bipartisan foreign aid package, President Joe Biden signed H.R.815 Wednesday. The foreign aid spending bill forces TikTok’s  Chinese-controlled parent company, ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok, or risk being banned from the U.S. The legislation also penalizes app stores and web hosting services that carry foreign adversary-controlled apps or websites to American users barring divestiture. The law applies not just to Chinese-controlled apps, but also to those controlled by Russia, Iran and North Korea. TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States. We at the MRC have been consistent from the beginning. TikTok is a national security threat. @BrentBozell pic.twitter.com/FfSh1futU3 — Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 12, 2024 The new law empowers Biden to effectively block TikTok from doing business in the U.S. if ByteDance does not sell it to a company not based out of the forenamed countries.  The legislation gives TikTok nine months to decide whether or not to divest, which ends notably just after the 2024 presidential election. Biden, who endorsed the TikTok provision, can even grant an additional three-month grace period. Biden, however, will have to do more than sign a bill to prove he is serious about banning TikTok. As MRC has repeatedly noted, the president has actively used TikTok for his 2024 presidential campaign. To date, he has posted 149 TikTok videos even though he issued an executive order two years ago barring federal employees from using the app on government-issued devices. 🚨 @SpeakerJohnson won a victory for America's security, but now our Commander-in-Chief needs to abide by both the spirit and the letter of the law. President Biden has signed into law the bill requiring TikTok to separate itself from its masters at the Chinese Communist Party,… — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 24, 2024 “Biden wants to have it both ways,” MRC wrote in a statement. “He wants to run out in front of the parade to eliminate a serious security threat from America’s biggest adversary while simultaneously using TikTok in a lame attempt to lure back voters who have grown tired of his failed policies.” When legislation targeting foreign adversary apps was first introduced by the House, in March, MRC President Brent Bozell came out in support of the bill. “It is absolutely correct and necessary for TikTok to divest itself of any control from the communist Chinese government in China if it wants to do business in the United States,” he said. While the bill puts great emphasis on national security concerns associated with the communist Chinese government-tied TikTok app, some Republicans and free speech advocates fear that it could be abused in ways that may hinder freedom of speech with regard to other platforms. The law will fine violating app stores and web hosting services $5,000 per user for violations of the provision. X owner Elon Musk and Reps. Thomas Massie (R- WV) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have voiced concern that if the legislation is abused, it could lead to more online censorship. In an interview with Newsmax’s First Edition, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider addressed similar concerns about government overreach and abuse. He said critics were “right to be concerned especially with Biden sitting there in the white house with all the 25-year-olds who are pulling the strings and moving his mouth and lips.” Schneider added, however, that “under our constitution, the president is the one who controls our foreign policy and right now China is such a threat to America that they are actively infiltrating America both with troops and with data, scouring the internet for all our information. They are working aggressively to control us and TikTok is their number one tool and it’s got to be stopped.   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.

NB Blog Feed

Norberg: Sweden’s ‘Socialism,’ the Loneliness ‘Epidemic,’ Degrowth, & Other Myths

Capitalism and racism go together? I hear it all the time. “Racism is intricately linked to capitalism,” says famous Marxist Angela Davis. “It’s a mistake to assume that we can combat racism by leaving capitalism in place.” “Anti-racist” activist Ibram X. Kendi says, “In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” This is just silly. In my new video, Swedish historian Johan Norberg explains how free markets discourage racism. Capitalists make a profit by serving their customers. The more customers they please, the more money they might make. It hurts the bottom line to exclude any groups. “Look around the world,” says Norberg, “The least racist societies with the fewest expressions of racist attitudes are the most capitalist countries.” Norberg’s new book, “The Capitalist Manifesto,” highlights a Journal of Institutional Economics study that found a correlation between economic freedom and “tolerance of ethnic groups.” “Capitalism,” he says, “Is the first economic system where you only get rich by opening up opportunities for others. It pays to be colorblind. It pays to be open to willing customers and workers who could enrich your company no matter what religion or race. ... It doesn’t mean that every person will be colorblind. There will always be idiots. But in capitalism, it’s costly to be an idiot.” He reminds us that in the Jim Crow South, businesses fought racism, because the rules denied them customers. “It’s often forgotten that owners of buses, railways, streetcars in the American South didn’t really segregate systematically until the late 19th century,” says Norberg. “It was probably not because they were less racist than others in the South, but they were capitalists. They wanted money, they wanted clients, and they didn’t want to engage in some sort of costly and brutal policing business in segregating buses.” Even when segregation was mandated, some streetcar companies refused to comply. For several years after Jim Crow laws passed, Black customers sat wherever they wanted. Norberg adds, “Those owners of public transport, they fought those discriminatory laws because they imposed a terrible cost. ... They tried to bypass them secretly and fight them in courts. They were often fined. Some were threatened with imprisonment.” The streetcar company in Mobile, Alabama, only obeyed Jim Crow laws after their conductors began to get arrested and fined. Those business owners may have been racist -- I can’t know -- but they fought segregation. “We got Jim Crow laws,” says Norberg, “Because free markets weren’t willing to discriminate.” Capitalists cared about green -- not black or white. Free markets all over the world coordinate and cooperate. Many don’t know of each other’s existence, and if they did meet, they might not get along. But they work together in search of profit. It’s odd that socialists now call capitalism racist, when the opposite is more often true. The Soviet Union invited African students to study science in major cities. But “Soviet citizens often treated the Africans in their midst with disdain and hostility,” New Lines Magazine describes. Russian children’s books portrayed Blacks in animalistic ways. Name-calling was common. Today, China and Cuba claim to have “zero-tolerance” for racism, but during the Covid pandemic, authorities forcibly tested Blacks and ordered strict isolation. Landlords evicted African tenants. Businesses often refused to serve them. In Cuba, Castro insisted he would eliminate racism. But “Racism persists,” reports France 24, saying it’s “banned by law,” but “alive on the streets ... In local jargon, a white woman with a black boyfriend is ... ‘holding back the race.’” Cuba’s government is still instituting programs to “combat racism.” It’s capitalism that makes people less racist.

NB Blog Feed

Tennessee Bill Allows Teachers to Possess Concealed Handguns in Class

A year after transgender Audrey Hale entered and shot innocent people at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville, the Tennessee legislature passed a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns at school to protect their students and themselves. In a 68-28 vote on Tuesday, Tennessee legislators voted in favor of HB 1202/SB 1321, which allows some teachers and staff to carry concealed handguns on public school grounds. The bill also indicates that parents and other teachers won't know which staff members have possession of a handgun.  All but four Republicans supported the bill and all Democrats voted against it, but it still passed with flying colors. Armed teachers will go through intense training in order to be allowed to carry concealed handguns in their classrooms and around their school if Tennessee Governor Bill Lee (R) doesn’t veto it when it reaches his desk (Lee has reportedly never vetoed a bill). Additionally, the school district’s director of schools, the school principal and the chief of the area’s law enforcement agency must sign off on each staff member’s authority to carry a gun. As The Tennessean noted, staff would also be required to pass criminal and mental health background checks prior to gaining the authority to carry a gun on school grounds. This bill comes at a time when six families are still heartbroken after their loved ones were shot dead when Audrey Hale entered the Christian school and ruthlessly took their lives. While the bill has the potential to stop a school shooter like Hale, it faced criticism and pushback.  Some critics insisted it would lead to “unintended consequences,” like a teacher accidentally leaving the gun unattended for a “student to find” or that it is a “bad disaster and tragedy waiting to happen,” The Tennessean reported. Other critics insisted that Tennessee schools should just rely on School Resource Officers (SROs) to be armed and protect the school, but realistically SROs can’t possibly protect hundreds of students at one time, not to mention “nearly 600 schools do not have an SRO in place” due to staffing issues, The Tennessean added. Bill sponsor, State Rep. Ryan Williams (R-Dist. 42), noted that the bill doesn’t force anyone to carry a gun at school but opens up the option in the case that approved personnel do want to - it simply requires that school personnel consider allowing qualified and approved carriers to possess a gun on school grounds.  Williams hopes that this, as well as the fact that it won’t be publicized which teachers and staff are carrying, will serve as a deterrent from violent people who seek to shoot up schools.    Opponents of the bill called it “absolutely insane” and said that they “think it’s a parent’s job to know if their child is being put at risk by having someone in the classroom with a firearm that another child could find, that could be discharged and actually harm them or other kids.” Others held signs outside the State House saying things like “SHAME” and “1 Kid > All the guns.” Other opponents staged a “die in” where they laid on the floor of the house building and later screamed like lunatics once it was passed.  On the other hand, supporters thought similarly to Williams and those who voted for the passing of the bill. Here’s what Vigilant News reported:  And here we find the disconnect that anti-gun advocates don’t grasp:  They seem to believe that the mere presence of a gun will automatically trigger violence, as if it has magical powers to attract and inspire evil.  In reality, the problem is evil people, not “evil” objects.  There’s nothing stopping a bad person from acquiring and using a firearm for terrible purposes at any place of their choosing.  Gun free zones only prevent good people from carrying. Tennessee would become at least the 30th state that allows some teachers to carry firearms, if passed, but time will tell. Whether the bill becomes law or doesn't, it seems like there’s going to be some people on both sides who are not satisfied.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

Politico Exposes Media's Anti-Trump Legal Echo Chamber's Meetings

Cable news has often been described as an echo chamber, but a Tuesday report from Politico’s Ankush Khardori provided evidence that cable news legal analysts regularly meet up to discuss what talking points they should bring with them when they are on the air. Khardori begins, “As the Jan. 6 committee was working on its bombshell investigation into the Capitol riot and President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the last election, committee staffers took some time out of their seemingly 24-hour jobs one day in 2022 to brief a group of lawyers and legal pundits on a Zoom call.” He further notes, “The group’s gathering was not a one-time event, but in fact an installment in an exclusive weekly digital salon, whose existence has not been previously reported, for prominent legal analysts and progressive and conservative anti-Trump lawyers and pundits. Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.” The meetings resemble cable news itself, “Some group members wouldn’t describe themselves with any partisan or ideological lean, but most are united by their dislike of Trump.” Khardori further reports that former Obama official and Trump Impeachment 1.0 lawyer Norman Eisen hosts the group. Other regulars include a who’s who of anti-Trump media figures and famous liberal law professors such as Bill Kristol, Laurence Tribe, John Dean, George Conway, Andrew Weissmann, Jeffrey Toobin, Harry Litman, Barbara McQuade, Joyce White Vance, Jennifer Rubin, Mary McCord, Karen Agnifilo, Elliot Williams, Ryan Goodman, Renato Mariotti, Asha Rangappa, Shan Wu, and Norman Ornstein. Apparently, multiple people thought it was a good idea to welcome Toobin to a Zoom call. Apart from the regulars, “Sometimes there is a special guest,” Khardori adds, “like the Jan. 6 committee staffers (who recalled briefing the group). One Friday last May, after E. Jean Carroll defeated Trump in the first of her two defamation cases to go to trial, her lawyer Roberta Kaplan joined as a guest to talk for roughly half an hour about her strategy for beating Trump in court. Another time, J. Michael Luttig, a conservative legal scholar and former judge who helped lead the public campaign to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment, showed up to make his case.” Khardori does note later on that CNN’s Elie Honig once challenged Luttig on his arguments and Khardori himself notes that echo chambers tend to make their members look foolish, “The conversations, though, could also spread dubious analysis, or perhaps lead to wish-casting. The effort to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment never really had a chance, but many commentators — including some who participate in the calls — publicly argued otherwise.” Additionally, Khardori recalled, “As I was reporting this story, I learned that some members of the group were understandably anxious about its publication. Trump has claimed that there is a legal conspiracy against him, and there is a risk that news of a group such as this could give Trump and his allies an attractive target.” The people present on these Zoom calls may portray themselves as a bunch of law nerds bouncing ideas off of each other, but the end results look like a group of people who agree with each other about how awesome they are and who then go on air and tell their audiences what they want to hear.

NB Blog Feed

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. (…)

NB Blog Feed

SCOTUS Hears Idaho Defense of Life Act Opening Statements, Activists Respond

On Wednesday, April 24, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the Idaho Attorney General’s office insisting that the Biden administration acted unlawfully when it sued the state of Idaho in an attempt to allow emergency room doctors to violate state law and conduct illegal abortions. Many pro-lifers and pro-aborts showed up in Washington D.C. outside the court and users online put their two cents in as well. After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the state of Idaho enacted the Defense of Life Act to protect women and unborn children in the state and ensure that abortions don’t take place unless absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother. Shortly after the ruling, the Biden administration sued the state and cited the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The administration used a radical interpretation of EMTALA in order to mandate abortion and force Idaho emergency room doctors to perform illegal and unnecessary abortions. While EMTALA, passed in 1986, was designed to help uninsured people receive emergency care, including care for pregnant women and their “unborn child[ren],” the Biden Administration has convinced pro-aborts that Idaho’s law won't help pregnant women in emergency situations. Obviously, that’s a lie.  After some blocks and overrules, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, with help from the Alliance Defending Freedom and Cooper & Kirk law firm, facilitated the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about how the Biden Administration is “continuing to manipulate EMTALA to override Idaho’s law and force emergency room doctors to take vulnerable lives.” At its core, Idaho’s “law is consistent with EMTALA because it limits only elective abortions,” Washington Examiner reported. Yet, the pro-aborts have been manipulated into believing the Biden administration’s new interpretation, which would allow for abortions even when not absolutely medically necessary. Wednesday was that day and many pro-lifers and pro-aborts showed up to hear. A group of protestors laid on the floor with white sheets covered in red paint to look like blood draped over them. Behind them stood people with signs that read “Without EMTALA, women in Idaho will die.” The signs were all the same except the state listed was different on each one. They were created by the Women’s March which, in an email encouraging pro-aborts to show up at SCOTUS, insisted that “anti-abortion extremists want to exclude pregnant people from this protection and force doctors to turn away patients suffering emergency pregnancy complications.” The Supreme Court is hearing a case today on whether ER physicians in Idaho can provide abortions in emergency situations despite the state’s near-total ban, which has narrow exceptions The question before the justices: Does federal law (EMTALA) preempt the state’s ban? pic.twitter.com/UdgmzOkpoH — Oriana González (@OrianaBeLike) April 24, 2024 The thing is, if an abortion is absolutely necessary to save the life of a mother, it’s perfectly legal in Idaho to do so. The state is simply arguing that if abortions aren’t absolutely necessary, then they shouldn’t be done. It’s that simple. A group from the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising held signs that said “Expose & Shut Down the Abortion Industrial Complex NOW!” and yelled “Pro-choice is a lie, babies never choose to die.” Members were also spotted holding signs that said “We need free birth not more abortion” which was a stark difference from the pro-abort signs that read “Abortion is health care,” “Abortion is our right” and “Abortions save lives!” Over on X, Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life wrote, “Today, we see that abortion is both FEDERAL & STATE. Biden’s team is trying to force abortion into Emergency Rooms and Idaho fights to protect the lives of both mother and preborn child." LifeNews.com wrote, “Every state with an abortion ban allows emergency medical care for pregnant women, including Idaho.” The pro-aborts continued spewing lies, insisting that if the Supreme Court allowed Idaho to protect life, that pregnant women wouldn’t be helped in emergency situations. One user insisted that Idaho was treating women as second class citizens and that they may “end up disabled or harmed in the name of being pro-life” if they need medical attention while pregnant. The thing is, even with the federal law of EMTALA, which was set up to protect life, Idaho can still follow through with its state's decision to protect life at all costs and at all points and only conduct abortions when absolutely necessary. But, leave it to our current administration to lie and purposely cause a divide. To conclude, Washington Examiner summed up our administration’s goals well: The lawsuit involving Idaho now before the Supreme Court shows the extent of the Biden administration’s unhealthy obsession with abortion, even if it means spreading misinformation and lies about women’s health. It also shows that the underlying motive for the litigation is not about women’s health because Idaho and all other states already protect the lives of pregnant women. The Biden administration’s ultimate goal is to mandate abortion.

NB Blog Feed

MRC’s Brent Bozell with Levin on Staggering Facebook Election Interference: ‘It’s Systematic’

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell called out yet another Big Tech company for interfering in U.S. elections — and he has the receipts to prove it. During a Tuesday interview with nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin on The Mark Levin Show, Bozell lambasted Facebook following an MRC Special Report detailing how the Meta-owned social media platform interfered in U.S. elections 39 times since 2008.  Bozell minced no words in his response to the MRC findings, stating, “We looked at Facebook since 2008. We found 39 examples of Facebook directly interfering with political campaigns.” Bozell said, “This is, it’s systematic. … These Big Tech companies have got to stop interfering.” The MRC president referred to a bombshell report published by MRC Free Speech America on Monday. READ IT: 39 Times Facebook Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 The report found that while Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has publicly embraced the First Amendment and the freedom of expression, his companies’ censorship acts have directly interfered with the democratic process in American elections.  The evidence shows that while censorship was not exclusively directed toward Republicans, a large proportion of it was aimed at non-Democrat candidates, ultimately reaching its height in the lead-up to, and shortly after, the 2020 election. “In 2020, [Facebook] censured Trump ads; Trump super PAC ads; Hunter Biden suppression is what exploded in 2020; and then you have the anti-COVID posts, which were all taken down,” Bozell told Levin.  Tellingly, Facebook censored Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), then a Democratic presidential candidate, for launching an ad “calling for breaking up Big Tech companies,” Bozell added, before saying in jest, “I love it.” The censorship was vast and rampant, Bozell continued. “They also removed an anti-Antifa ad that was run by [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). In 2021, they officially suspended Donald Trump from their platform.” The MRC report on Facebook’s election interference comes just weeks after it published a similar report on Google's election interference tactics. The Google report found at least 41 times the tech giant used its power to interfere in U.S. elections. Related: 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 “Their algorithms are being tinkered with so that they can advance the left in America. … Google has the power to define what is and what isn’t truth,” Bozell said of Google at the time. You May Also Like: MRC President Bozell Details Startling Reality About Google: It Has ‘Power to Define’ Truth 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.

NB Blog Feed

NPR CEO Disses 'Distraction' of Bias Complaints, 'Bad Faith' Criticism of Her Tweets

Wall Street Journal media reporter Alexandra Bruell secured an interview with new NPR CEO Katherine Maher, and naturally, she discovered NPR doesn't want anyone focusing on the "distraction" of leftist tilt. They don't want anyone disturbing their "mandate" of taking taxpayer money from Republicans and whacking them with it. The headline defined it:  NPR Chief Defends Coverage, Accuses Critics of ‘Bad Faith Distortion’ of Her Views Katherine Maher said controversy stemming from an editor’s essay criticizing the radio network has been a distraction Bruell offered a sort of "poor thing" spin in how Maher's tenure had a rocky start with the Uri Berliner expose and conservative Christopher Rufo's unearthing of her woke tweets before joining NPR:  Critics have scrutinized her political views and seized on past comments she made on everything from the First Amendment to misinformation to the idea that written history is tilted toward the worldview of white men.  “All of this frankly is a bit of a distraction relative to the transformation our organization needs to undergo in order to best serve our mandate,” Maher said in an interview. Which "mandate" is that? We aren't told. She said NPR should be open to criticism...but clearly, she prefers internal conversations, not objections from, you know, the "public" when it comes to public radio. “We have robust conversations across the organization, including in response to the article,” she said. “Clear and well-reasoned pieces” from reviewers, like a write-up from NPR’s public editor and Poynter executive Kelly McBride that examined coverage of Israel and Gaza, have “found that our journalism is really solid,” Maher said. Citing McBride is especially perfect, since McBride went on Brian Stelter's podcast and divided NPR critics as supporters (liberals) and "bad faith" critics (conservatives). McBride sounds less like a Public Editor (working on behalf of the audience) and more like a Public Cheerleader (working on behalf of company morale). Maher's rah-rah memo to staff (posted on NPR's website) attacking Berliner for criticizing staffers for "who they are" instead of their on-air propaganda wasn't enough:  Days after Maher sent a note to staff addressing Berliner’s essay, NPR employees wrote to her urging stronger support for employees and asking her to call out factual inaccuracies in the piece “Without true leadership, resentment and discontent are festering among your staff,” the staffers wrote.  In a statement, Berliner said, “I wish that the company would have addressed and taken seriously some of the points I made.” If NPR wants to foster a broad range of views, “suspending and then rebuking a staffer is not the best way to go about it,” he said. The Journal reporter somehow didn't get any reaction from Rufo about all the Maher tweets about "cis-White mobility privilege" and so on. Maher tried to suggest her personal opinions are set aside in her professional life:  “There are many professions in which you set aside your own personal perspectives in order to lead in public service, and that is exactly how I have always led organizations and will continue to lead NPR,” she said. But Maher's attack on Berliner for his complaints about wokeness and "affinity groups" in the newsroom surely reflect her publicly-aired personal wokeness. Maher said their internal research shows people see NPR as “accurate and intellectual,” she said. “We want to be able to speak to folks as though they were our neighbors and speak to folks as though they were our friends.” That's not the way conservatives hear it on the radio.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

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.    

NB Blog Feed

Column: Anti-Censorship Group PEN America Canceled by Pro-Hamas Authors

The leftist “free expression” group PEN America collided with a brick wall of radicals who don’t like anyone who expresses a sympathetic view of Israel after the Hamas slaughter of October 7. Their literary awards ceremony had to be cancelled due to a substantial withdrawal of authors striking a “pro-Palestinian” pose. If you disagree with that view? You’re “complicit” in genocide. Agree with the mob, or you favor mass murder. Their view is so obviously correct that they cannot understand how anyone could possibly disagree with it. “We refuse to gild the reputation of an organization that runs interference for an administration aiding and abetting genocide with our tax dollars,” a group of nominees wrote in an April 17 letter addressed to PEN America leaders. “And we refuse to take part in anything that will serve to overshadow PEN’s complicity in normalizing genocide.” Of 61 authors and translators nominated for a book prize this year, 28 declined. For the most prestigious book prize — the PEN/Jean Stein award, which comes with $75,000 — nine of 10 finalists dropped out. The fiasco will continue. PEN America’s annual World Voices Festival has also been hemorrhaging participants. Activists want heads to roll. “The fact is that Israel is leading a genocide of the Palestinian people. PEN’s perpetuation of false equivalences, their equivocation and normalizing, is indeed a betrayal.” PEN America replied: “The current war in Gaza is horrific. But we cannot agree that the answer to its wrenching dilemmas and consequences lies in a shutting down of conversation and the closing down of viewpoints.” This furor underlines what conservatives have been saying about PEN’s self-righteous “book ban” posture. They’re not “anti-censorship.” They’re promoting a leftist revolution in literature and libraries. What the Left wants is a system where the "experts" — educators and librarians — select all the books, and the "nonexperts" — parents — shut up and accept them. So it’s amazing to see the Left eating its own over who can position themselves with moral authority as the most “pro-Palestinian.”  Free expression is nowhere to be found. The Washington Post reported many of the withdrawing activists objected to a January event where author Randa Jarrar was physically removed after she screamed incessantly during a PEN-sponsored discussion of American comedian Moshe Kasher’s memoir Subculture Vulture, which featured Israel-supporting actress and Jeopardy host Mayim Bialik. Protesters were the censors: “Jarrar and other protesters from the group Writers Against the War on Gaza were shouting, through a loudspeaker, the names of Palestinian writers killed in Gaza.” The group tweeted video, complaining: “With delusional liberal aplomb, PEN America claims objectivity while platforming genocidal Zionists and silencing Palestinians.” As usual with the radicals, “objectivity” or "bothsidesism” is painted as evil, and anyone speaking in support of Israel is automatically a maniacal Zionist who must be deplatformed. The Post story ended with a quote from novelist (and former Andrew Cuomo speechwriter) Camonghne Felix: “We cannot hope to change every institution, but we hope that by changing ourselves what we will accept, that the organizations will have no choice but to bend towards us.” The notion of free expression is going to crumble when the leftist “negotiating” position is “no choice but to bend.”

NB Blog Feed

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.  

NB Blog Feed

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.  

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

Marc Morano on Biden Energy Agenda: 'Exact Opposite of Anything in the Interest of American National Security'

Climate Depot founder Marc Morano spoke out against President Joe Biden’s decisions to slow down American energy production while potentially easing energy sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. On the April 22 edition of Fox Business’ The Evening Edit, anchor Elizabeth MacDonald told Morano that a recent foreign aid bill passed by Congress includes “fine print” suggesting that Biden doesn’t have to enforce sanctions on Iranian oil. “What do you think of that fine print there?” MacDonald asked. Morano responded by blasting the administration for putting Americans last. “The fine print is just, I hate to say it, ‘Screw America,’ once again from this administration, especially on energy. They begged Venezuela, the Middle East for more and more oil, at the same time restricting our domestic energy,” Morano said. “When you look at what he's trying to do, you have to wonder, this is the exact opposite of anything in the interest of the United States national security.”  Morano went on to say that these awful decisions would have to come from people blinded by an “ideology that believes shutting down American energy … somehow benefits the world.” Later in the interview, MacDonald played a clip of Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) making a similar point about Biden’s Alaska drilling restrictions on the April 21 edition of CBS News’s Face the Nation.  “This president won't sanction the Iranian oil and gas regime … but he has no problem sanctioning Alaska,” Sullivan decried. The senator pointed out the extent of Biden’s anti-energy push in his state: “This administration has issued 63 executive orders and executive actions singularly focused on Alaska to shut our state down.” Sullivan added that this decision would not only hurt Alaskans who benefit from the industry but would also hurt all Americans. Beyond Biden “putting off limits thirteen million acres of land in Alaska” for oil drilling—as MacDonald said—he has also halted future liquified natural gas projects. Additionally, Biden reversed a number of former President Donald Trump’s pro-energy policies shortly after taking office. Among other things, Biden rescinded the approval of the Keystone pipeline and put restrictions on the use of public land for energy extraction. He has been critical of the oil and gas sector for allegedly not making new investments while simultaneously demonstrating his leftist intent to phase out the industry through his actions and statements.  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.

NB Blog Feed

New German Law Says Parents Can Change Child's Gender, Fines for ‘Deadnaming’

It seems progressives in Germany may have had too much beer before deciding on this recent law, because no sober-minded individual should’ve voted yes for this! Earlier this month, the German Parliament, Bundestag, passed a policy that would enable parents to change the gender on their child's birth certificate if the kid isn’t satisfied with their biological sex at birth, and enforce fines for any citizens who "deadname" or "misgender" other civilians. The Self-Determination Act (SBGG) is an extreme policy that caters to delusion and desire over fact and truth. As Reduxx reported, parents can alter the sex on a child’s birth certificate once the child turns five, if there is “mutual consent” between the parent and said five-year-old. Here’s more from Reduxx’s report: According to a description of the bill on the Bundestag's official website, the Self-Determination Act was designed "to implement a core idea of ​​the Basic Law, the protection of gender identity, by giving people the opportunity to change their gender entry and first name without discrimination." It continues that following a change, a one-year "blocking period" will apply where no further changes are allowed, though a person may change their name and sex once again after the year passes. Additionally, if a child is at least 14 years old, they can change their sex and name themselves, but need parental consent. Since that may cause roadblocks for some kids, the parliament will allow a family court to “decide based on the best interests of the child,” so the parent’s decision could be overruled. Related: Exposing Fake Breasts to Children, Barking for Attention & Genderseasons The new law is set to replace the 1980 law which required "trans" people to provide a local court with two separate “expert reports” that indicated to “a high degree of probability” that the individual was not going to go back and forth and revert to his or her original gender identity. Apparently people complained that the original law made the name and sex changing process too cumbersome and lengthy, hence the updated and easier path.  Not The Bee summed it up well when writing: There's no way to parody this. They're really writing it into law that you can choose your baby's sex at birth. And of course this has nothing to do with normal sane people who assign their children the correct sex at birth. It's the crazies who want to immediately throw their boy in a dress, or their girl in a "chick magnet" shirt as some sort of sick and twisted science experiment. This law is literally written to protect insane people who are hell bent on creating sociopath children. The same decision by Bundestag declared that a fine of up to €10,000 (about $10,625) would be leveled against anybody who uses a transgender person's “deadname” (the name they were born with) or "misgenders" them.  This is absolutely flabbergasting. I hope and pray nothing like this comes over to the States, because I know leftist loonies over here would be ALL over it. Follow us on Twitter/X: Things That Need To Be Said: Our Congress Does Not Represent Us Those elected to represent us are overwhelmingly serving against the interests of the American people. pic.twitter.com/tNH61Was1J — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 22, 2024  

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

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. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Exposing Fake Breasts to Children, Barking for Attention & Genderseasons

Welcome to Woke of the Weak where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. This week we took a look at how far from normal the left is.  We started out by watching a drag queen shimmy his prosthetic breasts in the face of a toddler, another drag queen didn’t shimmy as much but made sure to shake his hips and drop it low for a different young child. A transgender was invited to a queer prom to secretly talk to kids about queerness and started his announcement with “hey guys, gals and nonbinary pals.” Speaking of queer kids, a furry and a purple-haired freak at a college bent down to smell, lick or taste something out of another furry’s booty while others with intense black eyeliner barked as a form of protest. A man in pink booty shorts and a crop top, was spotted leaving the women’s restroom at the University of Tampa and a different transgender posted a video of his reaction to getting his lower bits tamed and groomed before his bottom surgery. Why he thought that was appropriate to post on the internet, I will never know. Next we saw a pink-haired individual explain that there’s something called “genderseason” which is supposedly a gender identity that is linked with a season. It represents someone who may identify as a female in the springtime, a male in the summer, neither in the fall and both in the winter...whatever. As a final nod to the strange behavior of the left, climate activists sang and chanted in long red robes with white painted faces and red gloves at what looked like some sort of church. I’m sure their little skit really helped stop climate change.

NB Blog Feed

Foreign Policy Splits the Parties

In 2024, foreign policy doesn’t pit Republicans against Democrats so much as it pits Republicans against Republicans and Democrats against Democrats. For Joe Biden’s party, Israel is the fault line, with Democrats split between supporters of the Jewish State and those of Palestinian sympathies. For the party of Donald Trump, the internal conflict is over Ukraine, and the bitterness of the battle risks costing Mike Johnson his speakership. These crises in the Middle East and on NATO’s frontier are catalysts for tensions that have been growing in both parties’ coalitions since the end of the Cold War. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world, by far; what obligations does that impose on us for using our power to promote our values? And what are those values anyway? The anti-colonialist left thinks America is too wicked to do good on the world stage. The anti-interventionist right thinks the world is too unlike us to benefit from our crusading — which instead only undermines what makes us special and strong at home. The more internationalist right, on the other hand, sees greater danger to our institutions and way of life arising from insufficient engagement with a dangerous world, which will turn away from our values and interests if we don’t actively promote them. That requires, they say, supporting friends and allies around the globe and confronting hostile states, ultimately, if necessary, with military force, and by every means short of that in the meantime. The interventionist left, for its part, has the same confidence in government’s ability to improve the world outside our borders as it has in the competence of government at home. And if engaging with the world erodes American distinctiveness, as some on the right fear, that’s a benefit rather than a drawback as far as these progressives are concerned. These are basic dispositions. They’re complicated by several hard realities that can’t be avoided no matter what one’s ideal policy might be — external threats, for one thing, and the limits of America’s unprecedented but not unlimited wealth and power for another, as well as the limits of national morale and political will in support of any long-term project. There are serious debates to be had both on the left and the right. Yet on the left, as is typical for that side of politics, protest often takes the place of serious discussion, especially on college campuses. To judge by social media, one might think the right can’t have an adult conversation about foreign policy, either. But an event I recently moderated suggests that conservatives can grapple intelligently with their differences. The University of Texas at Austin held a debate — organized by UT’s Civitas Institute and my employer, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute — on the proposition “Resolved: America’s Defense of Ukraine Is Vital to Upholding the Liberal International Order,” with National Review’s Noah Rothman affirming the proposition and former Trump administration national security official Michael Anton opposing it. Although Rothman and Anton didn’t come to a meeting of minds by the end of the debate, each made points that arguably worked in the other’s favor. After an audience member asked Rothman how his fears of further Russian aggressions beyond Ukraine differed from Vietnam-era “domino theory,” Anton added that Singapore’s leader Lee Kuan Yew was reputed to have said that America really won the Vietnam War. How so? The resolve America showed in fighting the war signaled to the wider Indo-Pacific region that Communism could not expand easily and without resistance, even if Washington proved unable to save South Vietnam. That message fortified the willingness of other states to resist Communism, including Singapore. I asked Anton if this lesson applied to Ukraine. Would it mean that even if American support wasn’t enough to defeat Russia, the heightened cost of Putin’s war would still discourage further depredations by Moscow — or anyone else — and strengthen other nations’ inclinations to resist them? Anton wasn’t convinced the precedent would apply in today’s circumstances. Nevertheless, in sharing Lee’s opinion, he helpfully complicated the debate. In turn Rothman acknowledged that his support for Ukraine did not extend to sending American troops to fight for Kyiv, even if Anton proved correct in his contention that nothing less than that would secure victory for Ukraine. Rothman believed, however, that supporting Ukraine was the best way to keep America out of a European conflict, as Russian success would foment chaos on NATO’s borders and weaken the alliance architecture that kept Europe at peace. There were no concessions on either side, yet the debate showed how conservatives with starkly different views could compare them productively. It also showed a college campus can still hold a mature debate, not just another protest. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

NB Blog Feed

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!

NB Blog Feed

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. (…)

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

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.  

NB Blog Feed

The Empires Begin to Strike Back

With all that is occurring in our political and cultural life, there are signs some Americans have had enough. Google recently fired 28 employees from its New York and Sunnyvale, California, offices for protesting the company’s cloud-computing contract with Israel. The reason given by the company’s vice president for global security, Chris Rackow, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, was that the sacked employees “took over office spaces, defaced our property and physically impeded the work of other Googlers,” violating company policies. They apparently aren’t familiar with this sage advice: don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Another optimistic sign. Columbia University decided they had enough of protesters disrupting the campus and shouting antisemitic, anti-Israel and pro-Hamas slogans. Police were called and arrested 108 protesters who had set up shanty-like tent camps on school property. Columbia President Minouche Shafik said the occupiers posed a “clear and present danger to the substantial functioning of the University.” The definition of “student” ought to bring some humility to these don’t-know-it-alls: “ a person formally engaged in learning.” For too long and in too many places – and not only on many college campuses – adults have ceded their leadership responsibilities to teenagers and twenty-somethings, too many of whom regurgitate what they have been told by leftist professors and friends on social media. At Columbia, at least three tenured professors dispense propaganda about the history of the Middle East. The New York Post identified them: “ Joseph Massad, a professor of modern Arab politics and history, has faced widespread calls to be fired ever since he referred to the Oct. 7 attack inflicted by Hamas terrorists (on Israel) as ‘awesome.’” Mohamed Abdou, who is described on Columbia’s website as “a North African-Egyptian Muslim anarchist interdisciplinary activist-scholar of Indigenous, Black, critical race and Islamic studies, as well as gender, sexuality, abolition and decolonization.” Abdou declared on social media, “Yes, I’m with Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.” There is also Hamad Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies. The Post reports Dabashi “has come under fire in recent years for a slew of controversial social media posts, including a since-deleted one in which he blamed Israel for every “dirty” problem in the world: “Every dirty treacherous ugly and pernicious happening in the world just wait for a few days and the ugly name ‘Israel’ will pop up in the atrocities,’ Dabashi wrote in a 2018 Facebook post, cited by the Jewish Journal.” There are likely more professors with views like these at Columbia and elsewhere, but you get the picture. It may be a generalization, but too many young people have been treated as though they were the font of all wisdom while older, wiser, and more experienced people have been sidelined and their views silenced. Few speak of responsibility or accountability for actions once deemed illegal, immoral, impractical, uninformed, duped and just plain stupid. Students who take out big loans to learn propaganda and worthless subjects at too many universities now expect those loans to be forgiven at taxpayer expense. When I flunked out after my freshman year at American University in Washington, my father said he wasn’t going to pay the bills anymore. When I went back a year later and paid my own way a remarkable thing happened. My grades went up because I was now invested in my education and had to take responsibility for the outcome. I also paid back my student loan. Let’s hope that others follow the lead of Columbia’s president and Google management and we stop wet nursing kids who for too long have demonstrated their ignorance and in some cases denounced America while reaping its benefits.

NB Blog Feed

Liberal Media, Soros-Funded Group Attack Ted Cruz for....Hosting a Podcast

For years, the liberal media have constantly lost their noodles over the alleged, supposed crime that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a walking campaign violation for co-hosting a hit podcast that’s been three years running, Verdict With Ted Cruz. Originally launched during the first Trump impeachment with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles, the show continues to publish episodes three times a week alongside longtime conservative talk show host and commentator Ben Ferguson. The liberal media helped set the table with a litany of sites coincidentally publishing nearly identical stories. Here’s the headline from one of two stories by the tools at the Daily Beast: “The Ugly Truth Behind Ted Cruz’s Super PAC Podcast”. And Newsweek — which has an unhealthy obsession with the junior senator from Texas — had not one but two stories waving pomp pomps about said complaint. Here was the headline for one of them: “Ted Cruz Faces Second Investigation in Less Than a Year”. Expand the scope and there was everyone from local and state media (the Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Texas Monthly, Texas Tribune, and Laredo Morning Times to name a few) to liberal gadflys at Business Insider, The New Republic, Raw Story, and Rolling Stone. As for the complaint, National Review’s James Lynch wrote last week that, along with the constant liberal belly-aching, “[l]eft-wing legal and advocacy groups are targeting” him for alleged “campaign finance issues” just so conveniently as the general election between Cruz and Congressman Colin Allred (D-TX) begins in earnest. Lynch explained that “[t]he Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and End Citizens United, two left-leaning watchdog groups, filed a complaint last week with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Cruz of campaign finance violations by putting podcast ad revenue towards a pro-Cruz super PAC.” “The complaint demands the FEC investigate the situation and accuses Cruz of violating campaign finance laws prohibiting corporations from contributing directly to campaigns,” he added. With some help from the Capital Research Center, Lynch revealed to what’s probably no surprise to you, NewsBusters readers, that said groups are funded by none other than George Soros: Left-wing foundations such as the Sandler Foundation, Ford Foundation, McArthur Foundation, and George Soros’ Foundation to Promote Open Society have bankrolled the Campaign Legal Center, according to Influence Watch, a project by watchdog think tank Capital Research Center. “Campaign Legal Center is a Soros-funded left-wing attack group, and its 501(c)(4) arm was a puppet of Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced ex-crypto-billionaire who gave Democrats almost as much cash as Soros. End Citizens United is little better than a scam PAC and endorses Democratic candidates. In short, Sen. Cruz is lucky in his enemies, because these groups disgrace themselves when they pretend to be nonpartisan watchdogs,” Capital Research Center President Scott Walter told National Review. CLC has repeatedly targeted Cruz with ethics complaints, and each time the complaints have been rebuked. In 2022, CLC filed an ethics complaint to the Senate ethics committee accusing him of improperly accepting a gift from iHeart media. The Senate Ethics Committee shot down the CLC complaint. A Cruz spokesman called it “bewildering to see...lazy attacks during an election year”, particularly on something he does “for free”. Cruz himself spoke to Houston-area CBS affiliate KHOU about this nonsense and tore into these leftist “front groups” looking to engage in election interference (click “expand”): There are two groups that file these complaints. And they’re both Democrat front groups. So what they do every election cycle is they file complaints against Republicans. And that’s what they exist to do—create news stories that are just attack vehicles. It’s interesting because these same groups previously filed a complaint...about my podcast...The Senate Ethics Committee dismissed it and said that [my podcast] is entirely consistent with law...I’m very proud of my Podcast...Verdict with Ted Cruz. I do it three days a week, and we have nearly a million people across Texas and across the country who tune in. The reason that I do the podcast is to tell Texans and Americans what’s happening in Washington...I do it because much of the media refuses to report the news fairly. And so people are turning to podcasts to understand what’s really going on...The podcast is something I’m very proud of. I think it’s integral to my job as a Senator to talk to Texans about what is happening in the U.S. Senate that affects the state of Texas and to talk to Texans about the threats that they are facing, whether from open borders, releasing criminals, or Iran getting billions of dollars from the Biden administration—all of which are topics that I have discussed at great length on the podcast.

NB Blog Feed

Hard to Believe: Google Spreads Climate Propaganda on Earth Day

Leftist Google displayed its search engine bias yet again on “Earth Day” with a specialized logo and promotion of climate alarmist propaganda. Users going to Google’s search engine on April 22 noticed a doodle specially designed for Earth Day. Clicking on the doodle brought up biased information on alleged “climate change progress” and “climate justice.” This aligns with Google’s previous history of censoring content that doesn’t support a climate hysteria narrative. Below the sponsored sites Google provides, the tech giant proudly explains its doodle. “Happy Earth Day 2024! Today's annual Earth Day Doodle features the planet's natural beauty and biodiversity and reminds us of the importance of protecting it for future generations,” Google enthused. Google then promoted outlets and organizations including left-leaning USA Today, Wikipedia and the anti-free speech United Nations. MRC Free Speech America researchers found the top, sponsored search result in this Google search engine Earth Day tribute to be from Global Human Rights on “Climate justice definition.” The organization insanely claimed “Climate change is an existential threat to humanity” and “a leading cause of human rights violations.” You May Also Like: CNN Virtue Signals to Save Planet by Releasing Hysterical Letter: ‘To My Son, Born in the Climate Crisis’ Google has censored content in the past to enforce this leftist narrative on climate. For instance, in 2021, Google and its YouTube video platform banned advertising on so-called climate “misinformation.”  YouTube has also censored and fact-checked climate content, including putting context labels on 2024 GOP and Democrat presidential candidates’ videos, particularly Vivek Ramaswamy. Junk Science’s Steve Milloy highlighted the hypocrisy of such climate virtue-signaling on Earth Day, “The green agenda has focused on total control of society through the climate hoax and not at all about the environment we live in.” 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.

NB Blog Feed

39 Times Facebook Interfered in US Elections Since 2008

If Facebook, the company, had a personal Facebook profile, its “relationship status” with free speech would say, “It’s complicated.” The platform, however, has consistently courted election interference efforts. MRC Free Speech America researchers compiled 39 times Facebook was caught interfering in U.S. elections since 2008. The platform’s record of election-interfering censorship began in 2012, reached a crescendo in 2020 and has begun fading somewhat in the early stages of the 2024 electoral cycle. All the while, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly made pro-free speech comments including during his famous 2019 speech at Georgetown University. “We can either continue to stand for free expression understanding its messiness but believing that the long journey towards greater progress requires confronting ideas that challenge us. Or we can decide that the cost is simply too great,” said Zuckerberg. “I'm here today because I believe that we must continue to stand for free expression.” He has similarly called politically-motivated censorship “dangerous” and said that Facebook and other social media platforms should not be acting as the “arbiter of truth.” And yet, from 2012 through 2024, Facebook has vacillated between a hands-off approach to free speech online and repeated election interference through policy changes and outright censorship of political candidates and ideas. Below are some of the highlights of MRC’s findings. In 2012, Facebook suspended a Veteran PAC for a meme drawing attention to the attack on Benghazi. Just over a week before the 2012 presidential election, Facebook suspended the account of Special Operations Speaks, a veteran-led PAC. The group had posted a meme reminding its followers that Navy SEALs were denied backup during the tragic terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The meme showed pictures of then-President Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden along with the words “Obama called on the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called on Obama THEY GOT DENIED,” Breitbart News reported. Facebook removed the post, which it claimed “violate[d] Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,” according to screenshots Breitbart News included in its reporting. The page administrator proceeded to repost the meme, which was subsequently also removed. After Breitbart News ran the story, then-Facebook Manager Andrew Noyes responded to the accusation denying all fault. “I assure you that removing the image was not an act of censorship on our part. This was an error and we apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused,” he reportedly wrote.  In 2016, Facebook censored then-Democratic Party candidate for president Bernie Sanders and “conservative topics” and news. Facebook used to have a trending section on its website that included trending news manually curated by contractors. Several of the curators who worked for Facebook in 2014 and 2015 told Gizmodo the articles that appeared in Facebook’s Trending News section often depended on the biases of the curator and what Facebook wanted to be trending at the time. “Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” a former curator who asked to remain anonymous said. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.” Stories about then-presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) were also reportedly excluded. Facebook’s anti-spam algorithm also flagged many different Facebook groups, including six groups created for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) supporters, in the Democratic Party primary race against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  In 2018, Facebook censored multiple candidates for Congress and state legislatures. Facebook removed ads for Sen. (then-Rep.) Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) and Michigan state Senate Republican candidate Aric Nesbitt. The platform additionally censored an ad promoting border security paid for by then-President Donald Trump. Similarly, the platform reportedly removed a video promoting an AR-15 giveaway that Senate candidate Austin Petersen (R-MO) was conducting on his own website. In 2020, censorship on Facebook exploded.  The platform censored posts and ads from then-sitting President Donald Trump at least four times and took down seven political ads paid for by the political right. One of these ad campaigns Facebook killed just over a month before the election. The ad reportedly pointed out the incongruence between Democrats’ open borders and COVID-19 lockdown policies. The Washington Post reported at the time, “There were more than 30 versions of the ad running on the social network, according to Facebook’s ad transparency library. It had gathered between 200,000 and 250,000 impressions.” Other candidates impacted by censorship included Rep. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Florida candidate and activist Laura Loomer (R) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).  2020 election interference came to a head, however, when the platform censored the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden report documenting the Biden family’s financial scandals and then ultimately placed an indefinite suspension on then-sitting President Trump’s accounts shortly into 2021. In 2022, Facebook censored multiple gubernatorial candidates and candidates for U.S. Congress. The platform censored Rep. (then candidate) Rich McCormick (R-GA), Virginia GOP congressional candidate Jarome Bell, Tennessee GOP congressional candidate Robby Starbuck, and Missouri GOP U.S. Senate candidate Eric Greitens. In McCormick’s case, the congressman made an ad criticizing President Joe Biden’s “disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.” Facebook removed the ad for violating its “'Disruptive Content' policy," McCormick wrote in a Facebook post. The platform similarly censored Arizona, Alabama and Texas Republican gubernatorial candidates Kari Lake, Governor Kay Ivey and Chad Prather respectively. In the case of Lake, she said her Instagram account was restricted for 24 hours after “posting photos of Arizona and Arizonans.” In 2024, Facebook and Instagram are limiting users’ access to political content. Meta already began limiting its distribution of political content in 2022 but has continued to lean into that in the lead-up to the 2024 election. In February, Meta announced that Instagram and Threads (a new social media platform owned by Meta) will no longer recommend political content by default, but users can opt in to having such content promoted to them. “If you decide to follow accounts that post political content, we don’t want to get between you and their posts, but we also don’t want to proactively recommend political content from accounts you don’t follow,” Instagram wrote in a blog. “So we’re extending our existing approach to how we treat political content – we won’t proactively recommend content about politics on recommendation surfaces across Instagram and Threads.” Although the move sounds harmless, it makes it more difficult for those who produce political content to grow their page and for more viewers to decide for themselves whether or not they want to follow that content. The platform has also censored GOP presidential candidate Larry Elder, Democrat-turned-Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.   Recommendations House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) should direct relevant committees and committee chairmen to investigate Facebook for interfering in elections. State legislatures should ensure that Big Tech cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. State attorneys general and state secretaries of state should take appropriate action to enforce state election laws as it relates to Facebook’s election interference.  In the spirit of openness and transparency, Facebook should establish a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to address the election interference and censorship issues outlined in this report.   You can read the full study here.  

NB Blog Feed

Reid Claims Columbia Hamas Protests Are 'Singing About Peace'

MSNBC’s Joy Reid pulled out the head in the sand strategy for Monday’s edition of The ReidOut when discussing anti-Semitism being prevalent at Columbia University. During an interview with Rev. Mark Thompson and Maryam Alwan of Columbia’s chapter of Students for Justine in Palestine, Reid claimed she simply “didn’t hear it.” Addressing Thompson, Reid claimed that things at Columbia are fine, “I saw, Mark, these students singing and singing about peace and singing salaam, singing words of peace. So, it just didn't square with what I was even hearing on television and television commentators saying was shrieking anti-Semitism, I didn't hear it.”     Perhaps Reid wasn’t looking because a rabbi has advised Jewish students to avoid campus and return home. As for Thompson, whose MSNBC chyron labels him as a “social justice activist,” he also wanted to act as if the majority of demonstrators are simply peace activists, “No, I was there yesterday, and it was very peaceful and very moving. The-- one of the institutions affiliated with Columbia, of course, is Union Theological Seminary and the Union students held a Sunday worship service and served communion there on campus, even to those beyond the gates who couldn't get in. So, this betrays the imagery of there being violent rhetoric spewed.” Thompson conceded that “I do have a colleague whose daughter is a freshman at Barnard and she has faced some harassment, but as Maryam said, these are outliers and in the movement, we’ve always had –” Reid interrupted to add, “It happened at Black Lives Matter rallies,” as Thompson continued, “So, that’s—but, in general, it’s not a good idea to generalize what is going on. These are peaceful and non-violent demonstrations.” Meanwhile, Reid generalizes about people all the time. Almost every show is the same: conservatives are racists, sexists, religious weirdos, and Trump cultists. She does not get to claim that those who want Hamas to survive to possibly commit another October 7 get to disassociate themselves with Hamas supporters who hold signs reading “Al-Qasam's Next Targets” while pointing to Jewish counter-protestors or over 100 professors who want to “recontextualize” October 7 and frame it as a “military response.” Turning her attention to Alwan, Reid wondered, “What do you make of leaders of your school seeming, I guess, to appease maybe members of Congress that have been all over your president and want her to resign, calling the NYPD on you all?” Naturally, Alwan decided to portray herself as the victim, “It feels like it's been a McCarthyite campaign to try to equate our peaceful protest, calling them to divest from violence, and they are calling us violent instead. It was horrifying to be carried out in zip ties when we were just, you know, peacefully calling for an end to the violence.” Reid, claimed she didn’t see any anti-Semitism at Columbia, yet by referencing BDS, Alwan proved it was right there at her desk. Here is a transcript for the April 22 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 4/22/2024 7:50 PM ET JOY REID: I saw, Mark, these students singing and singing about peace and singing salaam, singing words of peace. So, it just didn't square with what I was even hearing on television and television commentators saying was shrieking anti-Semitism, I didn't hear it. MARK THOMPSON: No, I was there yesterday, and it was very peaceful and very moving. The-- one of the institutions affiliated with Columbia, of course, is Union Theological Seminary and the Union students held a Sunday worship service and served communion there on campus, even to those beyond the gates who couldn't get in. So, this betrays the imagery of there being violent rhetoric spewed. I will say this, I do have a colleague whose daughter is a freshman at Barnard and she has faced some harassment, but as Maryam said, these are outliers and in the movement, we’ve always had – REID: It happened at Black Lives Matter rallies. THOMPSON: You’ve got provocateurs.  REID: Yeah. THOMPSON: So, that’s—but, in general, it’s not a good idea to generalize what is going on. These are peaceful and non-violent demonstrations. REID: Let me, what do you make of leaders of your school seeming, I guess, to appease maybe members of Congress that have been all over your president and want her to resign, calling the NYPD on you all? MARYAM ALWAN: It feels like it's been a McCarthyite campaign to try to equate our peaceful protest, calling them to divest from violence, and they are calling us violent instead. It was horrifying to be carried out in zip ties when we were just, you know, peacefully calling for an end to the violence.

NB Blog Feed

'No Evidence'! Dana Bash Yells at Gov. Kristi Noem Over Who's Behind the Trump Trial

Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) saddled up for another fight against CNN host Dana Bash on Sunday’s State of the Union. Two years ago, Bash pushed Noem around, insisting she support an abortion for a raped 10-year-old girl in Chicago. Noem kept attacking the rapist. On Sunday, the combat resumed over the Trump trial in Manhattan. Bash kept pressing Noem about how she couldn’t possibly support Trump if he was convicted, and pulled out the usual “No Evidence” fussing when Noem attacked the Bidens. BASH: Prosecutors allege Donald Trump falsified business records to hide hush money payments weeks before the 2016 election. As I mentioned, he violated both state, tax and federal campaign finance laws. So, are you saying that, even if that's true, he shouldn't have been charged and that he's above the law? NOEM: What I'm saying is that these prosecutors are using someone as -- whose testimony has been proven to be a liar. Michael Cohen has lied before Congress multiple times. That's their main witness. I would say that he certainly is not someone who can be trusted to do the right thing during this jury trial. They're also using a woman's testimony [Stormy Daniels] who signed a letter saying that this affair did not happen, that she has testified in the past that this never occurred. And so now they're going forward with a case built on that and saying that, because Donald Trump paid his legal bills, that now he can be prosecuted for something that even the person that alleged it happened is saying did not happen. Noem added: "When I'm walking around this state and talking to people, talking to people across the country, they don't even know which trial this is. They're like, I don't remember which one this isn't about. Is this the one they're coming after him for this or this?" Where Bash really got agitated and wouldn't let Noem finish a sentence is when the governor said "the Democrats and the activists are using this trial to derail him, to keep him in court, instead of out talking to Americans about what their real concerns are." She then interpreted that more narrowly as if only Biden was trying to derail Trump, when all the Democrats are, including the entire staff of CNN. NOEM:  And their real concerns are their everyday lives. They need a leader in the White House who gets up every day and puts them first and doesn't raise their taxes, doesn't overregulate them, take away their freedoms and give all our money to other countries, instead of making sure that we're taking care of America first and keeping us safe and secure. BASH: I just want to say for the record there's absolutely no evidence that President Biden is involved in this. This is the case that is being brought in the state of New York by the Manhattan DA. NOEM: And that's what I think is remarkable, is that, if you look at President Biden and what he's done and what his son has done, and the fact that... BASH: That has nothing... NOEM: ... they are not being prosecuted for some of their crimes... BASH: That -- OK, that has -- that has nothing to do with this. NOEM: ... that they have committed, it's really kind of unprecedented. BASH: That has nothing to do with this. Bash finished with this: "But kind of big picture, Governor, if Donald Trump is convicted in this trial, will you still support him in November?" PS: After Noem, Bash questioned Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.) and she was still on a "no evidence" kick as she typically pressed the Democrat from the left, that Biden was too weak in attacking Trump:  We, of course, have seen the split screen that we're going to continue to see, President Biden campaigning, former President Trump in court. Biden is deliberately avoiding talking about Trump's legal issues on the trail because he doesn't want to play into the claims that he's orchestrating the political prosecution, which I guess I should say again that there's no evidence of. But just as a political strategic matter, do you think ignoring it is a mistake, or should Biden be reminding voters at every turn that the Republican nominee is currently on -- involved in a criminal trial? 

NB Blog Feed

CBS Manages Story On Sticker Shock With No Mention of Inflation, Biden

There is a reason we call them Regime Media: their propensity to file stories that protect President Joe Biden from any scrutiny whatsoever, and absolve him from responsibility over the present-day calamities. Case in point: the latest CBS Weekend News report on high car and insurance prices. Watch as anchor Jericka Duncan introduces correspondent Jeff Nguyen’s report, wherein she assures viewers that Nguyen will explain why car prices are so doggone high:  JERICKA DUNCAN: Drivers are facing the worst sticker shock in a generation. Take used car prices. They now average $25,600. That's nearly 25% higher than five years ago. From loans to insurance, costs are soaring at every turn. In tonight's "Weekend journal" CBS's Jeff Nguyen in Los Angeles explains some of the reasons why. Alas, Nguyen didn’t really explain the reasons why. Instead, viewers were offered numbers as reasons. For example: JEFF NGUYEN: Last month the average price of a new car was just under $47,000. And the average new car payment was north of $700. Also in March, the average interest rate for a new car loan was more than 7%. Used, nearly 12%. Yes, but WHY are average new car prices under 47,000? Was there anything that happened over the past few years that might have affected the cost of raw materials? Say, disruptions in the supply chain and INFLATION? It’s inscrutable. Nguyen offers no answers.  Likewise, WHY are interest rates higher than they were previously? Why did the Fed raise rates over the past few years? What unmentionable phenomenon were they trying to curtail by raising rates? Might this thing that Nguyen refuses to mention rhyme with schminflation? Maybe? Yes? Really, Nguyen manages to burn 2-plus minutes without saying much. The profiled lesbian couple balks at a new $85,000 car and ends up buying two used cars. The insurance expert proffers that rates are higher because the cost of fixing a bumper increased tenfold due to all the sensors and whatnot. The dealership owner seems hopeful that incentives are coming back. But there is no WHY in all of that. Nguyen never gives it up, even as he closes his report by mentioning that repossessions are up and citing high prices and interest rates as the primary culprits. But we know the game Nguyen has been playing all along: The Floor is Hot Lava, but with mentioning Biden, inflation, and Bidenomics instead of touching the floor. This is how the media, in full Protect the Precious mode, manage to pull off a report on high prices and interest rates without ever mentioning inflation, or the president whose policies aggravated inflation and forced Fed rate increases. The title Regime Media is well-earned here. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on CBS Weekend News on Sunday, April 21st, 2024: JERICKA DUNCAN: Drivers are facing the worst sticker shock in a generation. Take used car prices. They now average $25,600. That's nearly 25% higher than five years ago. From loans to insurance, costs are soaring at every turn. In tonight's "Weekend journal" CBS's Jeff Nguyen in Los Angeles explains some of the reasons why. KAREN HOOD: Here we go. MARISSA HOOD: What do you think? KAREN HOOD: There you go. JEFF NGUYEN: Karen and Marissa Hood and baby Noah have been looking for a new car since January, only to find sticker shock. KAREN HOOD: Now you're looking at the payments and it's just kind of crazy. NGUYEN: Last month the average price of a new car was just under $47,000. And the average new car payment was north of $700. Also in March, the average interest rate for a new car loan was more than 7%. Used, nearly 12%. As for finding something affordable -- IVAN DRURY: 20,000 vehicles, dead. If you want a $20,000 vehicle, you're buying a used car. NGUYEN: What will it take for prices to turn around? DRURY: In the end, if consumers don't buy, prices will go down. NGUYEN: Things may be turning around. Beau Boeckmann owns a car dealership group in Los Angeles where inventory has been sitting longer. BEAU BOECKMANN: Now we’re getting incentives back. Most of our interest rates are between 2.9% and 0%. NGUYEN: But then there’s the cost of insurance. The latest Consumer Price Index shows a 22% increase over last year. Safety features, do they affect insurance rates? JANET RUIZ: There's backup cameras, there's sensors. All these things cost quite a bit more to repair, so a bumper went from being a $1,000 repair to maybe a $10, $20,000 repair. NGUYEN: The Hoods recently purchased a used Tesla. They're looking to add a three-year-old Ford Explorer, priced at $40,000. MARISSA HOOD: We were looking at new cars and we realized that we could get two used cars. NGUYEN: The New York Fed says auto loan delinquencies are at their highest level since 2008, because of higher prices and ballooning interest rates. Jeff Nguyen, CBS News, Los Angeles.  

NB Blog Feed

ABC World News Tonight SUPPRESSED Biden’s ‘Very Fine People’ Moment

All three major broadcast networks covered the ongoing violent antisemitic campus protests during their evening newscasts. Only one, ABC, omitted President Joe Biden’s statements granting moral equivalency both to the antisemitic protesters and to those who oppose them- his own “very fine people” moment. Here are the remarks in question, as aired on the CBS Evening News- the only network to actually air them: MEG OLIVER: Late this afternoon, President Biden denounced antisemitism. JOE BIDEN: I condemn the antisemitic protests, that’s why I’ve set up a program to deal with that. I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.  NBC Nightly News, for their part, did not directly air Biden’s remarks but ended their otherwise very balanced report with a recitation of Biden’s statements by correspondent Erin McLaughlin: HOLT: And Erin, tonight the White House is weighing in on all this. MCLAUGHLIN: That's right, Lester. Tonight, President Biden saying he condemns both antisemitic protests and those who, quote, don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians. NBC’s report was the most extensive in featuring the concerns of Jewish students, a welcome correction from their weekend reporting. CBS, after not reporting on the protests at all during the weekend, corrected the course.  This brings us back to ABC. Not only was their report on the protests the most ambiguous, but offered one glaring factual inaccuracy. The protests, contrary to what anchor David Muir said in his lead-in to Stephanie Ramos’ report, are NOT about the war in Gaza but about forcing Columbia and other universities to divest from Israel. It’s BDS on steroids. And, here again, ABC emerges as the network likeliest to air a story in a light most favorable to President Joe Biden- He Who Must Be Protected. By condemning “those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians”, Biden granted moral equivalency to the antisemitic protesters.  In a bizarro way, Biden gave a “very fine people on both sides” statement. This is all the more ironic given Biden’s performative condemnations of statements issued by former President Donald Trump in the wake of Charlottesville- which was also the caucus belli for Biden’s 2020 candidacy. In the coming days, expect the media to settle on ye olde “Republicans Pounce” or some variant thereof as they try to help Biden spin out of this. Contrary to media reports, Biden didn’t just condemn antisemitism. He bothsidesed it with terrorist sympathy.  Click “expand” to view transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective evening newscasts on Monday, April 22nd, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: DAVID MUIR: Tonight, here in New York City, Columbia University increasing security as pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally against the Israel-Hamas war. The school switching to remote classes, and tonight, protests now spreading to campuses across the U.S. ABC's Stephanie Ramos at Columbia tonight. STEPHANIE RAMOS: Tonight, college campuses scrambling to handle a growing pro-Palestinian protest movement. Columbia University is stepping up campus security and moving classes online. The school's president saying, "We need a reset to de-escalate the rancor." But today, fresh arrests and tensions boiling over on the first night of Passover. This Israeli assistant professor confronting university officials over being denied access to the main lawn, as school officials tried to separate protesters. SHAI DAVIDAI: I am a professor here. I have every right to be everywhere on campus. You cannot let people that support Hamas on campus and me, a professor, not go on campus. Let me in now. RAMOS: It comes after a campus rabbi urged students to stay home, saying the school and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students' safety. New York Mayor Eric Adams saying he is horrified and disgusted with antisemitism spewed at and around Columbia's campus. Pointing to videos circulating online, showing a woman in front of pro-Israel protesters with a sign reading: "Al-Qasam's next targets," a reference to Hamas' military wing. SHIRA: Made me sick hearing the things they were saying and doing. So, over this holiday, I kind of just want to try to avoid it as best as I can, for my own safety. RAMOS: Many pro-Palestinian protesters insist their movement is peaceful. MOHAMMAD KHALIL: Violence has no place on this movement. And we regret some of the incidents that has happened that were actually unassociated with this movement. RAMOS: The protests calling for colleges to divest from companies with ties to Israel now spreading to other campuses. Today, at least 45 people arrested at Yale university. At NYU, a standoff with police, after protesters were told to vacate a campus plaza.  Back here at Columbia University, students are still waiting to hear when they can return to in-person classes. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who visited the campus today, calling on people to find their humanity and have conversations so they can understand different points of view. David? MUIR: Stephanie Ramos reporting from Columbia for us again tonight. Stephanie, thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS: MAURICE DUBOIS: Now to those escalating protests on college campuses across the country. The president of Columbia University in New York taking the extraordinary step of moving classes online due to safety concerns for Jewish students. The White House condemning the unrest, calling it blatantly antisemitic and dangerous. CBS's Meg Oliver reports. MEG OLIVER: Tension and concerns about safety continue to embroil Columbia University. With classes remote only, some Jewish students and faculty save the environment has only escalated. STUDENT: The jewish students are petrified to go to campus. OLIVER: For the past six days, hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, including Jewish students, have occupied the school’s quad, demanding the school divest from companies funding Israel. PROTESTER: Antisemitism is a huge problem in the United States, but anti-Zionism and antisemitism are two different things. MEG OLIVER: Late this afternoon, President Biden denounced antisemitism. JOE BIDEN: I condemn the antisemitic protests, that’s why I’ve set up a program to deal with that. I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.  OLIVER: The protests have spread to multiple universities including the University of Michigan, MIT, NYU, and Emerson College in Boston. About 60 people have been arrested at Yale since the start of the protest. Orthodox Jew Sahar Tartak, the editor-in-chief of the Yale Free Press, says demonstrators surrounded her on campus while she was reporting over the weekend. SAHAR TARTAK: So they started taunting me and giving me their middle finger and yelling in my face, and until one of them waved his Palestinian flag in my face and then jabbed me with it in my left eye. OLIVER: With Passover starting at sundown, Columbia has more than doubled its security presence. The NYPD has also stepped up controls outside and for the foreseeable future, only students and staff are allowed on campus after scanning their ids. Maurice. DUBOIS: Okay. Meg Oliver, thank you. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: LESTER HOLT: Pro-Palestinian protests spreading to more college campuses across America tonight, prompting new restrictions and more arrests. Classes moving online at one major campus amid rising concerns over safety. Erin McLaughlin has late developments. ERIN MCLAUGHLIN: Tonight, tension across major American college campuses. NYPD: If you do not leave, you will be arrested. MCLAUGHLIN: Students setting up encampments from the University of North Carolina to M.I.T. Harvard's Yard closed until Friday. All of it as fury over the Israel-Hamas war boils over. Students expressing fear for their personal safety and concern for antisemitic hate speech. Raising new questions about the line between hate speech and the First Amendment. STUDENT: We're asking for the school to call for a cease-fire in Gaza. MCLAUGHLIN: This morning, police say at least 45 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested at Yale University for violating Yale's policies and instructions. Police say they were later released. In a statement, the university adding that Yale does not tolerate behavior that threatened, harassed or intimidated others. Meanwhile, at Columbia today's classes were online only, with the university's president calling for a reset to de-escalate the rancor, while also adding more than 100 safety personnel to campus after more than 100 protesters were arrested last week. But with videos like this… PROTESTER: WE ARE HAMAS! MCLAUGHLIN: …emerging online, and another showing a young woman holding a sign pointing in the direction of Jewish students saying "Al Qassam's next targets”, Hamas's military wing, students Andrew Stein and Elisha Baker say they don't feel safe. ANDREW STEIN: It was the most terrified I've probably been in my entire life. MCLAUGHLIN: On Saturday night, Stein says he was on campus for a pro-Israel counterprotest when this happened. You see him in the white sweatshirt filming as a group of pro-Palestinian protesters yell expletives against Israel. STEIN: They started saying in Arabic, “Hamas, Hamas, our beloved, please bomb Tel Aviv” and then they started saying “we're coming for you, those Zionists on this campus, like, get off campus”. MCLAUGHLIN: Stein alleges the situation escalated. STEIN: Me and my friend had water poured in our face. My friend was actually abused in the middle of campus. MCLAUGHLIN: On campus Monday, faculty from Barnard and Columbia came out in support of the pro-Palestinian students who were arrested and suspended last week. PROTESTER: We're calling for divestment. We're calling for a cease-fire. MCLAUGHLIN: Students inside the encampment told NBC News they were unaware of any physical or verbal threats toward students on Saturday Night. PROTESTER: Anyone who makes any threat to any Jewish student, we oppose you. We do not associate with you. MCLAUGHLIN: Meanwhile, at Rutgers University, police announcing a man has been charged with a federal hate crime for breaking into the university's center for Islamic life and destroying property earlier this month. Tonight, on college campuses across the country, students saying they don't feel safe. HOLT: And Erin, tonight the White House is weighing in on all this. MCLAUGHLIN: That's right, Lester. Tonight, President Biden saying he condemns both antisemitic protests and those who, quote, don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians. Lester? HOLT: Erin Mclaughlin tonight, thank you.  

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Hillary Clinton Says Trump Wants to 'Kill His Opposition'

As pro-Biden media outlets argue that Donald Trump's criticism of his legal adversaries is endangering lives, Hillary Clinton claimed on a podcast that Trump would like to "kill his opposition," and the media find that's not dangerously suggestive. Democrats (like congressional candidate Nate McMurray in New York) tweeting "Die MAGA Die" shouldn't be questioned. On a podcast with her old lawyer Marc Elias, Hillary said "Trump was like, you know, just gaga over Putin because Putin does what Trump would like to do: Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition, drive journalists and others into exile, rule without any check or balance."  Where are the so-called "independent fact-checkers"? Because if we used the typical Daniel Dale/Politifact standard, you’d expect them to say there’s no evidence Donald Trump ever said “I’d love to kill my opposition like Putin does, but nobody will let me.”  Maybe the media would get upset if a Republican tweeted "Die Hamas Die." That wouldn't be "mostly peaceful protest."  On the Left today, Hamas is viewed as more virtuous than people wearing red MAGA hats. On the Left, the American conservative is always the most evil enemy. No one on the Left is really an enemy, not compared to the domestic extremists on the right wing. Meanwhile, the Meet the Press gang gang was a little happy on Sunday. Steve Kornacki announced Donald Trump does lead Joe Biden 46% to 44% in the latest NBC News poll, but the margin decreased from five points to two, and Trump is down two points when they add Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other third-party candidates.  Even so, Andrea Mitchell was worrying out loud that "the problem for Joe Biden and the Democrats" is Trump's trial is "crowding out everything else." Biden can't tout his steel tariffs or his student-loan "relief" handouts (going against democratic norms to buy Democrat votes). As if the media can't help but overshadow Biden with all the Trump-trial obsession?  Over on ABC, Politico's Jonathan Martin sounded a different note of panic: "I think if the election's about Trump, Biden's got a lot better chance." (That's the media's rationale for wall-to-wall coverage.) "Right now, Biden's problem is this election is about Joe Biden." Martin's lecturing the voters that they're focused on the wrong guy. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

NB Blog Feed

Washington Examiner’s ‘Liberal Media Scream’ With the MRC’s Assessment

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2023. > For 2021 and 2022, for all of 2020. For all of 2019. For all of  2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)   ■ New on April 22: Liberal Media Scream: Historian Meacham says ‘patriotism’ demands Biden win See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ April 15: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ April 8: Liberal Media Scream: Joy Reid wants prison, not airport, named for Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream revealed again just how easy it is to make cable TV hosts suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” go nuts. With Congress on Easter break, there wasn’t much Capitol Hill news last week. So when a report was posted about a GOP proposal to rename Dulles International Airport after former President Donald Trump, MSBNC turned all its guns on the idea. On the ReidOut, host Joy Reid said it was bad enough that the “worst” airport in America is named after Eisenhower-era Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. “Let’s make it worse” by naming it for Trump, she said. Instead, she suggested that Trump’s name be put on a Miami prison, a reference to the legal cases he faces, one in Florida. She and her guests, including Ali Velshi and Fordham University professor Christina Greer, piled on. Greer even bashed Washington’s national airport being renamed after former President Ronald Reagan. Reid said, “Yeah, I just call it ‘DCA.'” From Friday’s The ReidOut on MSNBC: JOY REID: Let’s talk a little about this idea of renaming Dulles. Now, Dulles is not the best airport — it might be the worst airport in America. The Republicans are like, “Let’s name it after Donald Trump.” I love the fact that it’s named after one of the most diabolical secretaries of state who destroyed Iran and a bunch of Central America. ALI VELSHI: But let’s make that worse. REID: Let’s make it worse. Also, the Democrats have said, “Instead, let’s name a prison after Trump.” Thoughts? Thoughts? Thoughts? Name a prison in Miami? VELSHI: That is a fantastic idea. … REID: I think this is a great opportunity for the nerds at the table just to talk about Allen Dulles and also his brother — it was John Foster Dulles, I think, and Allen Dulles, and both of them were involved in destroying Guatemala and Iran. VELSHI: Yeah. REID: So I feel like that’s important, and that’s given me the opportunity, so, thank you, Republicans. CHRISTINA GREER: Well, I mean, we’ve — they’ve already renamed National, Reagan, which I refuse to call it. REID: Yeah, I just call it “DCA.“ Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Glad something about Trump made them laugh, a brief break from the usual full hour of irrational anger at any mention of anything Trump. Naturally, Reid couldn’t hide how her contempt for Republicans goes way beyond just Trump. It’s a disdain so deep she’s still mad about Ronald Reagan getting an airport named for him and the foreign policy of a president who left office more than 60 years ago.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 1: Liberal Media Scream: Top editor joins CNN host in ripping MAGA with their ‘truth’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a rare but deserved five-screamer in which the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer joins with a CNN host to condemn former President Donald Trump and his MAGA followers. Appearing on CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt, editor Chris Quinn explained why he wrote a weekend letter to readers about the paper’s anti-Trump coverage. He said, “These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you.” Quinn added, “This was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing.” Hunt said, “You said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, ‘Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.’ And just before that you write, ‘This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.'” “And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen.” From today’s CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt: KASIE HUNT: How to cover former President Donald Trump is — quite literally — one of the hardest, thorniest questions facing us as journalists. It is something that I think about quite literally every single day when I wake up to join all of you. And it is especially true in the wake of Jan. 6, which affected me both personally and professionally in addition to, of course, having enormous implications for our democracy. This is why this all stood out to me. The Cleveland Plain Dealer decided they wanted to address this with their readers head-on over the weekend. The editor, Chris Quinn, writes this: “The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information. The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.” And joining me now is Chris Quinn. He is the editor of the Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com. Chris, thank you so much for being here. It’s an honor to have you. CHRIS QUINN: Good morning. HUNT: So I loved how you approached this because you started with your readers — with the people who write to you about this. Many of them, of course, are supporters of Donald Trump. And you write some of them are more thoughtful than others, shall I say. But this is something that I have wrestled with because there are so many people in the country who support Donald Trump and many of them have reasons for doing that that have to do with the circumstances that they face. We don’t want to lose empathy for those people. We don’t want to not speak to those people. To be, you know, advocates and helpful in terms of providing those people with information. But you sat down and you grappled with this question, and you tried to explain why you’re doing what you’re doing in the way that you’re doing it. Can you explain a little bit more of that to all of us right now? QUINN: Yeah. This was a very challenging piece to write. It actually took me almost six months to get my thoughts together. I get two kinds of correspondence from Trump supporters and one is not nice. It’s very condescending and sneering. And I kind of chalk that up to people who had felt left out of society. Donald Trump gave them a club to participate in. And there’s nothing I can say or do to help them understand what we’re doing. But the other half write me with great courtesy and implore me for an explanation. They say, “You are dismissing a large segment of the country when you say that Donald Trump is the monster you describe him as and I don’t see him that way. What do you say to me?” These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you. So this was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing. HUNT: Yeah. I will just say I think that the decline in our local media is a crisis for many, many reasons, but not least is that you, as a local paper, have a level of trust with people in your communities that is simply not possible to establish when you are a national news organization. And I think that really comes through in this piece that you wrote. And you said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, “Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.” And just before that you write, “This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.” And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen. Was it that that really was the thing that underscored this the most to you as well? QUINN: Yeah. And look, it’s heartbreaking what you’re seeing today. I come from a state where we’ve had senators like George Voinovich and John Glenn — people who would never have stood by during these recent years and allowed what’s happened to happen. And today, we have J.D. Vance and we might have Bernie Moreno, whose claim to fame is they want to be puppets for Donald Trump. And it’s not what we should be about. And that’s why I referenced that New Yorker piece in what I wrote because the New Yorker had a book review that looked back and said the reason Hitler came to the fore wasn’t because a bunch of people went and voted to have a fascist leader. It was because the people in government, in trying to get power for themselves, appeased him and that allowed him to rise. That’s what we have going on. Everybody knows what the truth is. The people in Congress were there. They were under threat from it. But for expedience, they’re denying it happened. HUNT: Do you think that those people who are looking to enable Donald Trump, as you say, what is the — their level of culpability here? I mean, obviously, you talk about Trump, himself, and his, the actions that he takes and his role in trying to hang on to power. But these enablers, I mean, what responsibility do they bear? QUINN: I think they have full responsibility. I think journalists who veer from the truth are going to end up having full responsibility. Look, we’re a regional newsroom and we’re doing well. We’re actually one of the local newsrooms that’s kind of figured it out and we’re thriving and we’re not in any danger of going away. But we have our limited influence. And so, we’re doing what we can. We’re, you know, we ask ourselves what’s the right thing to do here? The right thing to do is to call this out, not to say there’s two sides to Donald Trump. There aren’t two sides to Donald Trump. Anybody who has been watching and trying to discern what the truth is here knows that this guy tried to destroy our entire system of government and will do so again. Somebody has to say it. I wish people like Dave Joyce, a congressman from Ohio who’s a good guy, would stand up and just denounce it. Because if you started to have a few people of good conscience do that, maybe we could stop this wave, which is frightening beyond belief. HUNT: Well, I’m very grateful that you took the time to join us today, Chris, and I do commend reading this column. I will again say this is something I think about literally every single day because we do want to be a resource, a place for people who want to support Donald Trump or who feel dissatisfied with the system in their own lives. I just had to make sure that those ears are continuing to be open to us is a challenge that I grapple with every day. And I really appreciated reading this. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “With his smug moral superiority, Quinn encapsulates everything that’s wrong with modern journalism. He’s decided what ‘the truth’ is and his readers better get on board. No wonder fewer and fewer are buying local newspapers. They’ve become just as insulting to their readers as the national media have been for decades. Incredulous that anyone could see Trump as a better president than Biden.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 25: Liberal Media Scream: Condescending ‘Really?’ to Rubio’s wish to be Trump VP (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream reveals just how deep the disrespect for former President Donald Trump goes in the press, especially with those who have created a profitable side gig writing and talking about him. In just one word, ABC’s Jonathan Karl heaved up a sanctimonious putdown of Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) when the topic of the likely 2024 GOP presidential nominee’s pick for running mate was raised. Rubio has said he would be honored to get the nod, as have about a dozen other leading Republicans. What’s more, Rubio would likely help Trump add to his coalition to create a potentially winning ticket. But all Karl had to say was, “Really?” It didn’t end there. As Rubio explained the problems President Joe Biden dumped on America, Karl couldn’t help but complain, “You’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden?” Rubio affirmed, “Absolutely I am.” Here’s the exchange on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: JON KARL: There was some reporting this week that you are possibly under consideration to be Donald Trump’s running mate. I don’t put a lot of stock in this reporting right now. We’re early. But you said it would be “an honor” to be offered a spot on his ticket. Really? SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Yeah, I think anyone who is offered the opportunity to serve this country as vice president should be honored by the opportunity to do it if you are in public service. I’m in the Senate because I want to serve the country. Being vice president is an important way to serve the country. But I’ve also been clear. I’ve never talked to Donald Trump. I’ve never talked to anybody on his team or family or inner circle about vice president. That’s a decision he’s going to make. He has plenty of really good people to pick from. KARL: I mean, the reason why I asked is, I mean, look what happened to the last guy. I mean, a mob stormed the Capitol, literally calling to hang Mike Pence, and Trump defended those chants of “hang Mike Pence.” RUBIO: I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer. It was more prosperous. We had relations, for example, in a part of the world that I care about called the Western Hemisphere that were very strong. We had a lot of good things done there. I think the country and the world was a better place when he was president, and I would love to see him return to the White House in comparison to the guy who’s there now, Joe Biden, who’s been a disaster economically. Look at the world. Every single day, we wake up to a new crisis, to a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over. Afghanistan’s gone down. Ukraine has been invaded. Now the Philippines and the Chinese are on the verge of something bad happening every single day. Not to mention the threats to Taiwan. And we have this blowup in Haiti going on in our very own hemisphere. We wake up every single day, terrorist attacks, 9 million people across the border. That’s what matters to me. KARL: But, I mean, you’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden? RUBIO: Absolutely I am. Absolutely I’m suggesting it’s happening because of Biden. He’s president and his weakness and his — KARL: It’s because of Biden that Russia invaded Ukraine? RUBIO: Absolutely. KARL: It’s because of Biden that Haiti? RUBIO: Absolutely. I mean Putin is sitting there, saying these guys can’t even stand up to the Taliban and they have to fly people hanging off the wings of these airplanes. Now is the time to go. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How arrogant and condescending for a broadcast network TV host to scoff at a U.S. senator for saying he’d be ‘honored’ to serve as the vice presidential candidate of his party. And then, to act astonished over a common Republican talking point about President Biden’s foreign policy failures shows Karl is little more than a liberal political operative in the guise of a journalist who is incredulous that anyone could see Trump as a better president than Biden.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 18: Liberal Media Scream: ‘Bloodbath’ is what media are doing to Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream focuses on the media and President Joe Biden’s distortion of former President Donald Trump’s warning of an economic “bloodbath” if he’s not returned to the White House to stop China’s dumping of autos in the U.S. under Biden. The media, and now the Biden campaign, pulled the word out of a long Trump explanation at an Ohio political rally of auto sales to make it sound like he was calling for a civil war if he’s not elected. It’s very similar to what the media did after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots and spelled out how they’d treat a President Trump if given a chance. Leading that fake rant over the weekend was ABC and a guest on This Week, New York magazine’s Susan Glasser, formerly with the liberal-left Washington Post and Politico. Without any sign of embarrassment for distorting Trump’s words, Glasser ranted on about how threatening Trump is. In office, Trump did assail reporters for their “fake news” and overwhelming bias but also was the most accessible and talkative president during his one term. He followed an Obama-Biden administration that was condemned by journalists for avoiding reporters and using technology to go around the media. Susan Glasser on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: “Donald Trump, it seems to me, it’s very hard eight years into this. We still struggle with how to cover him as journalists, but in a way, the unhinged, rambling rants that you see from the former president of the United States are baked in, and I think, in a way, we are all desensitized and inured to the extraordinary, remarkable and very at times un-American and threatening things that the former president is saying. “I’m not saying it’s easy to understand how to cover it, but I think we have to cover it when the former president, who’s already incited violence among his followers, says that there’s going to be a bloodbath after the election if he does not win. He is telling us what he is going to do. … I’m sorry. I just have to say something. Like Donald Trump is attacking, in a broad-brush sense, the basic pillars of American democracy. Period. Full stop. If that’s not news to you. It’s not about tariffs. That’s not the reason why millions of Americans are supporting Donald Trump. Let’s be real about that.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Yes, after eight years of constant hyperventilating by journalists, over supposed outrageous comments from Donald Trump, many have become ‘inured,’ but it’s not journalists. It’s the public to the media’s never-ending scare-mongering about Trump bringing an end to ‘the basic pillars of American democracy.’ Glasser’s answer: Double down and get more journalists to be even more aggressive in denouncing Trump. Good luck with that, convincing anyone who has already tuned out such vitriol.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 11: Liberal Media Scream: Hollywood freaks over Trump (Washington Examiner post) Hollywood’s awards season has finally ended and in perfectly normal election-year fashion: Tinseltown freaking out over former President Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House. Oscars host Jimmy Kimmel got a retort from Trump after he blasted the former president and his Republican allies. Kimmel responded, “Well, thank you, President Trump. Thank you for watching. I’m surprised you’re still — isn’t it past your jail time?” But his shruggable performance was far outdone by the angry venting of actor Robert De Niro, who stepped up his attacks on Trump. On Friday, De Niro pleased Bill Maher’s audience by blasting Trump. “Vote for Trump and you’ll get the nightmare. Vote for Biden and it will be back to normalcy,” he began. To laughter and applause from Maher’s Los Angeles studio audience, De Niro marveled at how anyone could support Trump. He called the poll-leading former president “a total monster” who will install a “dictatorship.” More insults followed: “sociopathic, psychopathic, malignant narcissist,” as well as an “idiot” and “clown.” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO: ROBERT DE NIRO: The bottom line is: It’s Biden vs. Trump. We want to live in a world that we want to live in and enjoy living in or live in a nightmare? Vote for Trump and you’ll get the nightmare. Vote for Biden and it will be back to normalcy. … The guy is a total monster, and anybody, I don’t understand it. I guess they get behind the kind of logic: They want to f*** with people, screw them because they’re unhappy about something. He’s such a mean, nasty, hateful person. I’d never play him as an actor because I can’t see any good in him — nothing, nothing at all, nothing redeemable in him. Whoever the people are who want to vote for him, and they look like intelligent people around there, for some reason, it can’t be, it cannot be. If he wins the election, you won’t be on the show anymore. He’ll come looking for me. They’ll be things that happened that none of us can imagine. That’s what happens in that kind of a dictatorship — which is what he says. Let’s believe him. Take him at his word. He’s a sociopathic, psychopathic, malignant narcissist. He is a dangerous person … the people who somehow think he’s going to be the answer to their prayers, whatever those are. BILL MAHER: Did you know him as fellow New Yorkers? DE NIRO: Never wanted to know him. MAHER: Never wanted to, you must have crossed — DE NIRO: He was an idiot. He was a clown. He was a clown in New York. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Rants like this from pretentious Hollywood celebrities probably drive more to vote for Trump than dissuade anyone from supporting him. How many care about the all-too-predictable left-wing political views of lefties in Hollywood who always denounce the Republican candidate and advocate for the Democratic one? Not anyone who is drawn to Trump.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 4: Liberal Media Scream: Media role is reeducating you on greatness of Bidenomics (Washington Examiner post) President Joe Biden has apparently realized that pitching “Bidenomics” is a loser politically, but his White House forgot to tell its media echo chamber. According to an Issues & Insights report, Biden has “ditched” the term, with the report noting Biden and his White House used the term 59 times last July. By last month, it got a mention just 10 times. That makes sense since most polls show that the public viewed the term negatively because they feel that the economy is poor and that prices are unjustifiably high. But the well-paid Washington media thinks the public is stupid and needs to be reeducated on just how great Bidenomics is for them. For example, this week’s Liberal Media Scream features longtime editor and columnist Margaret Sullivan telling fellow anti-Trumper Christiane Amanpour that it’s up to them to make sure people understand the consequences of their wrong-headedness. “You know,” Sullivan said on Amanpour’s show, “people think that the economy is not doing well. You know, do our public service mission, which is to make sure, as sure as we can, that we have an informed electorate. Whose fault is that? Well, it’s partly the fault of the media. And I think that that ought to be rectified.” From Saturday’s The Amanpour Hour on CNN CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: The horse race and an age-old dilemma. Why the obsession over Biden’s age misses the point. MARGARET SULLIVAN, GUARDIAN: I wonder whether people are as aware of Trump’s authoritarian plans as they are of Biden’s age. AMANPOUR: My next guest says enough is enough with the media’s hyperbolic herd mentality coverage of Biden’s age and competency. Critic, columnist, and academic Margaret Sullivan urges us to get real about the issues because this election is about much more than, quote, “chasing clicks.” SULLIVAN: I think that the leaders of major American news organizations should have front and center in their minds, and be communicating to their staffs, that this is an extremely consequential election and we should be doing our public service role that it’s not so much about chasing the latest clicks and the latest horse race coverage but rather to make sure that we’re getting the stakes of the race across to people. You know, people think that the economy is not doing well. You know, do our public service mission, which is to make sure, as sure as we can, that we have an informed electorate. Whose fault is that? Well, it’s partly the fault of the media. And I think that that ought to be rectified. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What Margaret Sullivan advocates is exactly why the media have lost all credibility and trust for most Americans. She’s decided Trump is too dangerous to be president, so journalists should throw away all standards of journalism by openly joining Team Biden to convince voters of Biden’s virtues while downplaying his negatives. And then journalists wonder why they are seen in such low esteem when they are little more than Democratic Party operatives.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 26: Liberal Media Scream: Trump Derangement Syndrome flies off the charts (Washington Examiner post) The media have been on a rantfest lately, warning that former President Donald Trump will end democracy and execute his enemies. Just consider what Bob Costas said over the weekend. “You have to be in the throes of some sort of toxic delusion in a toxic cult to believe that Donald Trump has ever been, in any sense, emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, or ethically fit to be president of the United States,” he said. But that’s nothing compared to our Liberal Media Scream focus on Tom Schaller, the author of White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy, who went further to attack the half of the nation that has supported Trump over the years. White rural voters, he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski, “are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay geodemographic group in the country. … They’re the most conspiracist group: QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birthism.” And that’s just the start of his five scream rant. From Monday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: As we barrel toward a likely rematch of the 2020 election, one candidate continues to have a hold over white rural voters. But it’s not Joe Biden, seen here as a boy on the right side of your screen, who went to public school, is the son of a used car salesman, and was born to a middle-class family in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Instead, it is Trump, here on the left side, a private school-educated son of a New York City real estate tycoon who became a millionaire at 8 years old and didn’t have to serve because he claimed he had bone spurs in his little feet. So, why is it that Trump appeals so much to a group he couldn’t be more different from? Joining us now, professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Tom Schaller, and journalist and opinion writer Paul Waldman. Their new book out tomorrow is entitled, White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy. Tom, I’ll start with you. Why are white rural voters a threat to democracy at this point? You would think, as we pointed out, looking at Joe Biden’s background and Donald Trump’s, that the opposite would be true. TOM SCHALLER: “We lay out the fourfold interconnected threat that white rural voters pose to the country. First of all, we show 30 polls and national studies that demonstrate this. So we provide the receipts in Chapter 6. They are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay geodemographic group in the country. “Second, they’re the most conspiracist group: QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birthism. Third, anti-democratic sentiments. They don’t believe in an independent press — free speech. They’re most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally without checks from Congress or the courts or the bureaucracy. They’re also the most strongly white nationalist and white Christian nationalists. And fourth, they’re most likely to excuse or justify violence as acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse… “I think this is the disconnect, right? They’d rather channel their rage. I think what a lot of white rural Americans have decided is that their economic fortunes are decided by globalization and frankly, late-stage capitalism, which is eating up all the mom and pop stores and taking away the extractive industries, in coal and farming and so forth, so they might as well vote on their culture issues, they might as well vote on God, guns, and religion because they feel like neither party is going to deliver any material benefit. “They’re not going to reverse the closure of rural pharmacies and rural hospitals and rural healthcare facilities, which are disappearing not because of communism and not because of socialism but because of capitalism, right? Rural pharmacies and hospitals are closing because they’re not moneymakers, and unless they’re part of a regional chain, they’re disappearing. So Trump comes in and says, let’s just hate on cities, let’s just hate on minorities, let’s hate on immigrants, and at least they can deliver on that. And so they’re not even voting in their material interest anymore, and that’s causing a further decay and decline of rural communities.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “So, if a class of voters prefers a candidate you don’t like, it couldn’t be that they just have a differing opinion with which you can respectfully disagree. No, you must impugn and demean them to discredit their irrational preference for the candidate you condescendingly have decided is not in their best interest. And since this makes MSNBC viewers feel superior, you get a welcoming platform on the left-wing cable channel’s morning show.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 19: Liberal Media Scream: Colbert says Trump ‘going to prison’ better than sex (Washington Examiner post) Remember when late-night comedy shows were funny instead of being populated by left-wing lecturers? Case in point in our weekly Liberal Media Scream is Late Show host Stephen Colbert. Along with many people last week, he watched the televised testimony of Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis and her explanation of her affair with an attorney she put in charge of the election case against former President Donald Trump. “How good was this sex? Good enough to risk democracy over?” he asked in his monologue. Colbert then added, “You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that, my friends — is what they call a real happy ending.” From Thursday’s Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS:     STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, I don’t know who’s telling the truth here yet, but I will say exchanging business cards isn’t exactly a meet cute. The movie’s not called When Harry Networked with Sally. Now, at one point, Willis had had enough and really laid into opposing counsel. FANI WILLIS: You’re confused; you think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. COLBERT: Damn straight. Yeah. That’s right. That’s right. Here’s the thing. Yes, it’s true Donald Trump and his associates are on trial in this, one of the most important cases in the history of our republic. So, and, I’ve just got one follow-up question here: Given that if you are removed from the prosecution, it could delay this trial until after the election: How good was the sex? Good enough to risk democracy over? Because I’ve never had sex that good. You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that, my friends — is what they call the real happy ending. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Liberals love to complain that Donald Trump has broken many norms, but prominent entertainment media figures like Colbert have destroyed late-night TV. It was a comedy refuge from hard-edged politics, but Colbert is using his show to advance left-wing talking points and push his hate of Trump and conservatives in the guise of comedy. It’s not funny, and a legend like Johnny Carson, whose political jokes were light-hearted and chided both sides, is rolling over in his grave.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 12: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC host laughably says press against Biden (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream has LOL written all over it. Imagine any cable news show host claiming that the media has a negative bias against President Joe Biden. LOL, right? That’s what happened on Sunday’s Meet the Press when MSNBC host Jen Psaki said the media showed its bias when it simply repeated what the nearly 400-page report from special counsel Robert Hur said about the president’s foggy mind. Psaki, who was Biden’s first White House press secretary, complained that the media should be attacking former President Donald Trump, not her former boss. “If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now, you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered, given all of the things” Trump has said and done, she said. From the roundtable on Sunday’s Meet the Press: JEN PSAKI: If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now, you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered, given all of the things that have happened this week, including, and I know you asked Chris Christie about this, the fact that Donald Trump yesterday suggested that Vladimir Putin should have free rein in attacking NATO allies, and what do we see is wall-to-wall coverage of whether a guy who is four years older than his opponent is too old to be president. KRISTEN WELKER: And we are going to get to NATO. Go ahead. BRENDAN BUCK, former spokesman to ex-speaker Paul Ryan: Part of that job, to bring that to the front is, it’s the president’s job to bring that out and attack his opponent. I mean, the president is not taking the opportunity on Super Bowl Sunday. He’s not taking, really, any opportunities. And we hear, time and again — PSAKI: First of all, that’s not true. It’s not being covered. He has traveled just as much as Donald Trump, as Barack Obama. It is hard to break through the cloud of Donald Trump in this media environment. That is true. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “A media hostile to a liberal cause or Democratic politician is such a novelty that liberal political operatives like Jen Psaki just can’t comprehend it. After three-plus years of sycophantic coverage of Joe Biden, he gets a few days of negative coverage, and she lashes out at the media for daring to briefly act as real journalists. Welcome to the world endured every day for decades by conservatives and Republicans.”   Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 5: Liberal Media Scream: Kristen Welker likes to lecture Republicans, too (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a look at new Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker’s treatment of Republican leaders. And surprise — not — she continues to be just as biased as former host Chuck Todd. First, she lectured House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on the border bill released by the Senate on Sunday. “You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters, to the people who put you in office, to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing?” she said. Then, she passed along the Democratic talking point that after three years of aggressively enacting open border policies, “Joe Biden said he would shut down the border.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: KRISTEN WELKER: You have been calling for legislative change to actually deal with this problem. You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters, to the people who put you in office, to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Kristen, we did that. We did that nine months ago. And since we passed our measure in the House to solve this problem, and the reason we had to do it is because we saw that President Biden was not fulfilling his obligation under the law. That’s why it is such a failure of leadership, but we did our part. And by the way, since then, in the nine months since that bill sat on [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s desk, collecting dust, 1.8 million illegals have been allowed into this country, welcomed into the country, sent around the nation into every community — communities near everyone listening and watching this morning. And that is a catastrophe, and the American people know it, and that’s part of the reason that Joe Biden has the lowest approval rating of any president facing reelection. WELKER: Even former President Trump, though, called for legislative change on this issue. You have one of the slimmest majorities in the House in history. Don’t you have to compromise to get something done? What you passed in the House can’t pass in the Senate, Mr. Speaker. You know that. JOHNSON: We are willing to work. We are willing to work with the Senate. I am not disclosing that, and I’ve been very consistent for the hundred days that I’ve had the gavel. We are willing to work, but they have to be serious about it. If you only do a few of those components, you are not going to solve the problem, and Kristen, that is not a Republican talking point. That’s what the sheriffs at the border, the Border Patrol agents, the deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, a 33-year veteran of the agency, told us. He said that it’s as though we’re administering an open fire hydrant. He said, “I don’t need more buckets,” like the president has proposed. I need to stop the flow, and we know how to do that, but Joe Biden is unwilling to do it. WELKER: Let me ask you about your decision, and by the way, Joe Biden said he would shut down the border. He’s calling for more funding. He’s calling for you to pass this legislation. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “A perfect example of a so-called journalist serving as an advocate for Washington’s media-political establishment, demanding a recalcitrant conservative get in line and adopt the approved narrative.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 29, 2024: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ January 22, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Washington Post’s Rubin wants Trump ‘fascists’ reeducated (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features popular Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin doubling down on her Never Trump campaign. Appearing on the MSNBC weekend show Velshi exactly a year from Inauguration Day, the onetime conservative opinion writer said that the masses appearing at former President Donald Trump’s rallies “are part of a fascist cult.” And, she added, “they’re impervious to any kind of data, any kind of information. But what you have to do, if you care about democracy, is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans, they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump.” Rubin on MSNBC’s Velshi on Saturday: “Why it’s perhaps important to go to one of these rallies is to understand why he does have supporters. These people are part of a fascist cult. And let’s be honest, there are a lot of them. But a lot of them doesn’t mean that they are behaving logically or rationally. To the contrary, we’ve seen in other fascist regimes that millions of people, sometimes even a majority of the country, becomes intoxicated with an authoritarian figure, and these people are utterly irrational. If you speak to some of them, they will spit back these bizarro conspiracy theories. They actually believe in all of the mumbo-jumbo that he tells them. “So I think it would be a wake-up call about what these people are about, and, no, we’re not going to convince people who are part of the cult to switch. As you say, they’re impervious to any kind of data, any kind of information. But what you have to do, if you care about democracy, is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans, they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump. And I think that’s the job between now and November, and that’s the challenge for the Biden administration.” Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How condescending of Rubin to be so comfortable denigrating supporters of a presidential candidate she despises with one of the most vile insults. Just because she hates Trump doesn’t make those going to his rallies, the very embodiment of democracy in action, ‘fascists.’ Whatever happened to liberals wanting to expand participation in the democratic process?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 15, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Mika all in to help Biden’s reelection (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, fawning over first lady Jill Biden in a sign of where the cable network stands before the 2024 presidential primary season begins. With easy questions quizzing Biden about her favorite emoji to dismissing chants of “Let’s go Brandon” that still follow the president, Brzezinski put on an able defense of the Biden White House. Among the questions posed to the first lady was this: “The division in this country, the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think, ugh, maybe we bow out?” The questions were part of Brzezinski’s Know Your Value “movement.” Our partners at the Media Research Center highlighted these from last Thursday’s show and today’s event at the White House: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You’ve been married to President Joe Biden for 46 years. There have been Senate races, three presidential campaigns, eight years of your husband serving as vice president. Unthinkable personal loss and challenge, and now democracy is on the ballot. What do you think when you hear people say, “Well, I just can’t vote for Joe Biden this election?” What is it that they may not know about him at this point, especially when the alternative seems to want to change this nation so radically? BRZEZINSKI: Potentially another four years in the White House. With everything you do here, does yet another one give you any pause thinking of, like, the personal health and well-being for both of you? The division in this country, the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think, ugh, maybe we bow out? BRZEZINSKI: How have you been coping personally with the onslaught of accusations against your husband and your family, including and especially Hunter, the focus of a House Oversight Committee hearing holding, holding him in contempt, obsessing over him, showing pictures of him during vulnerable moments in his battle with addiction on the floor of the House. This would crush any family. BRZEZINSKI: What do you think when you hear Trump Republicans calling it “Biden crime family” or one congresswoman, “The Biden crime family sold out America,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, “He’s a liar, he’s mentally incompetent,” and let’s not even talk about what “Let’s go Brandon” means. But you have U.S. senators holding signs that say that. ….BRZEZINSKI: Your favorite emoji? JILL BIDEN: Oh, my gosh. The turquoise heart. BRZEZINSKI: Turquoise heart? BIDEN: Yeah. BRZEZINSKI: I don’t have the turquoise heart on my phone. What does that mean? BIDEN: It’s like the beach. It’s calm. BRZEZINSKI: Oh, I like that. BIDEN: Color of the sea. BRZEZINSKI: Do I type out turquoise heart? Comfort food? BIDEN: Oh, french fries. BRZEZINSKI: Umm. Yeah, yeah. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Mika Brzezinski is all in on the reelection of Joe Biden. First lady Jill Biden picked well in selecting Brzezinski to interview her, confident she wouldn’t be challenged as they both could commiserate with how awful Trump is and how mean Republicans are to her family, topped by letting her tout the turquoise heart emoji. How informative.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 8, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos judges Trump an insurrectionist, unqualified for 2024 (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a five-screamer featuring an ABC host and former Clinton handler acting as judge, jury, and executioner of former President Donald Trump and his effort to remain on the 2024 primary ballots and let voters, not partisan state officials, decide his fate. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, on his Sunday show This Week, was quizzing his panel about the campaigns in some states to declare Trump ineligible for election because an official decided that the former president triggered a 14th Amendment ban on insurrectionists. On his show, which occurred the day after the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, one of his panelists suggested the Supreme Court will decide Trump is guilty but that it will be up to Congress and not the states to erase the GOP front-runner’s name from the ballots. “If you say he engaged in insurrection,” Stephanopoulos said, “I don’t see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and say he’s qualified to run for office.” Panelist Donna Brazile, an influential liberal and former acting Democratic Party chairwoman, told her host, “I totally agree with you, George.” From the roundtable on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah, what’s your guess on what the court does here? SARAH ISGUR, SENIOR EDITOR OF THE DISPATCH: I think you’ll have the Supreme Court hold that he is not disqualified from being on the ballot. They’ll overturn the Colorado Supreme Court. STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is, how will they do it though? ISGUR: Correct. I think they’ll say that, in fact, the 14th Amendment makes clear it’s up to Congress. If Congress can requalify someone by a two-thirds vote, there’s no timeline on that. Which means that, you know, as one of the amicus briefs has pointed out, it’s really supposed to be post-elections about holding office, not running for office. And so I think they’ll say it’s really Congress’s job. The states can’t make up their own standard. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it more likely than not? Et cetera. What’s interesting to me will be whether or not the Supreme Court goes out of their way in order to get those three, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson votes, in saying, “Yes, it was an insurrection, and yes, he engaged in it, but it’s up to Congress.” STEPHANOPOULOS: I don’t see how they can do that, Donna Brazile. If you say he engaged in insurrection, was the question I asked Nancy Pelosi, I don’t see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and say he’s qualified to run for office. DONNA BRAZILE: I totally agree with you, George. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Another example of how Stephanopoulos remains a Democratic partisan first, a journalist a distant second. No true journalist would weigh in with a definitive conclusion on what the Supreme Court should do weeks before a ruling on such a contentious issue which divides Americans. Stephanopoulos has clearly put himself in the camp with those who want to deny the public’s ability to vote for whomever they prefer. So much for saving democracy from Trump when you want to subvert the process.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ December 25, 2023 and January 1, 2024: No Liberal Media Screams these weeks.   ■ December 18, 2023: Liberal Media Scream: Scaremonger Scarborough: Trump will ‘execute’ foes, crush ‘American experiment’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough’s latest anti-Trump ranting. The host, whose earlier claim that former President Donald Trump will “execute” foes should he be reelected won the Media Research Center’s “Worst Quote of the Year,” said on Monday that Trump would destroy America’s democracy, too. “A year from now, it could be over, the American experiment at an end one year from now,” Scarborough said in comments we graded a rare five out of five “liberal media screams.” His comments are clearly what the latest Rasmussen Reports survey was tapping into when it found that more voters than ever believe the left bias in the media has reached a new high. The comments also raise a question about what scaremongering liberal media figures will be saying in 11 months if Trump is on the verge of beating President Joe Biden. Scarborough on Monday’s Morning Joe in a discussion with Politico’s Jonathan Lemire: “One year from now, it could be over. American democracy could be over. Donald Trump, one year from now, could win. He’s told us what he is going to do. When I say American democracy is going to be over, I haven’t said this. Donald Trump is the guy who said it. He is the one talking about executing generals that are not loyal enough to him, a guy that’s talking about terminating the Constitution if it gets in the way of his power. He’s the guy that’s talking about taking off news networks he disagrees with. He’s the one talking about prosecuting and putting in jail people who disagree with him. He’s the one saying that. “So, a year from now, it could be over, the American experiment at an end one year from now. So, let me ask you, with that being the case and with Joe Biden’s poll numbers getting worse, why is the White House going around singing, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’? Because that’s basically what they’re saying. Why does Joe Biden still have all of his campaign people inside the White House? When are they going to go out and start working on the campaign — not of his lifetime, of our lifetime? When are they going to start acting like American democracy is on the line and stop telling everybody to not worry?” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Saying day after day after day the same over the top ‘the sky is falling’ warning to try to scare his viewers about Trump ending democracy is doing nothing but making Scarborough look every bit as unhinged as he wants people to see Trump. It may be catnip for MSNBC viewers, but Scarborough has become a parody of someone stuck inside a Trump Derangement Syndrome whirlwind unable to make cogent criticisms.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ December 11: Liberal Media Scream: PBS runs interference for Biden over Hunter scandals (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the efforts of Public TV and a Washington Post columnist to deflect the latest criminal indictment of first son Hunter Biden away from President Joe Biden. Following the tax charges filed by the Justice Department against Hunter Biden, the PBS NewsHour was eager to tell viewers on Friday that it saw no connection to the president. Anchor Geoff Bennett started with the “context” that Hunter Biden “does not work in the White House for his father in the way that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did. And the indictment does not in any way implicate President Joe Biden.” PBS guest Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post also ran block for Biden. “For Republicans to try to make a connection between Hunter Biden and trying to say that, 'Well, if you’re going to go after Trump, well, why shouldn’t we go after Biden?' these are two completely different cases,” he lectured. From Friday’s PBS NewsHour: GEOFF BENNETT: So, let’s start with the latest legal trouble facing Hunter Biden, with the important context that Hunter Biden’s a private citizen. He is not seeking, nor has he ever held, public office. He does not work in the White House for his father in the way that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did. And the indictment does not in any way implicate President Joe Biden. And yet this will certainly add to the problems, the political problems, facing this White House, as House Republicans, Jonathan, zero in on Hunter Biden’s business dealings as part of their own investigations. JONATHAN CAPEHART: As part of their own investigations that have been going on for years now, and they’ve been using the president’s son, the president’s troubled son, to try to sully the president. And so far, they’ve come up with nothing, even though, next week, apparently, they’re going to be voting on, you know, to authorize an impeachment inquiry, trying to make connections that aren’t there. Look, when you read the indictment, when you hear about the indictment, it’s bad. I mean, it’s not good. It’s not good at all. But we’re talking about someone, as you — I’m glad you put that proper context there. He’s an adult. He has not held office. He’s not sought office. He’s not working for his father. The only thing is, is that he — his father is president of the United States. He’s being held accountable. And I take — I agree with [Hunter Biden’s lawyer] Abbe Lowell that, if his last name weren’t Biden, he probably wouldn’t even have these charges. They would have worked it out. But he’s facing the consequences, and he’s going through the legal avenues that are afforded to him. And for Republicans to try to make a connection between Hunter Biden and trying to say that, 'Well, if you’re going to go after Trump, well, why shouldn’t we go after Biden?' these are two completely different cases. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “You can almost feel through the screen how uncomfortable the PBS team was to even cover this story, but they realized they had to at least mention it, so they poured on the caveats so their audience wouldn’t be burdened with any information that might hurt their perception of President Biden. It’s the exact opposite tack they take with Donald Trump, where any allegations around him are amplified and discussed ad nauseam.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ December 4: Liberal Media Scream: Media eagerly team with Liz Cheney to undermine Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the remarkable teaming of the media with conservative Republican former Rep. Liz Cheney to stop former President Donald Trump’s 2024 bid. Repeating her success in winning Democrats to her cause after the Jan. 6 riots and in her No. 2 role on the House Jan. 6 panel, the media have eagerly opened its best shows for her to talk about her new book and campaign against Trump. The media have helped to promote her book and provided top platforms, notably on CBS Sunday Morning, where she warned that “one of the things we see today is sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.” In interviewing her about Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning, John Dickerson offered the perfect set-up question: “If a person is a member of Congress and they have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, can they defend the Constitution and also endorse Donald Trump?” Cheney replied: “You can’t be for Donald Trump and for the Constitution. You have to choose.” The media's focus on the book has helped it into the No. 1 spot on Amazon on Monday, a day before it is released. From Sunday’s CBS News Sunday Morning: JOHN DICKERSON: After losing her 2022 Republican primary, Cheney traded the U.S. Capitol dome for the Thomas Jefferson-designed rotunda at the University of Virginia, where she has been lecturing on politics and writing a new book, Oath and Honor. Let me ask you about that oath. If a person is a member of Congress and they have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, can they defend the Constitution and also endorse Donald Trump? LIZ CHENEY: No. It’s inconsistent. DICKERSON: So, they’re breaking with their oath by saying they would like him to be the next president? CHENEY: In my view, you know, fundamentally, there is a choice to be made. You can’t both be for Donald Trump and for the Constitution. You have to choose. DICKERSON: It’s a lot of people who are choosing Donald Trump. CHENEY: Yeah, it is. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Usually, to earn such a laudatory CBS News segment for your book, it must be published by CBS-owned Simon & Schuster. But Dickerson and CBS are so enthralled with her quest to destroy Trump and anyone Trump-adjacent that despite having Little, Brown and Company as her publisher, they went into full promotion mode, cuing up her talking points with no pushback.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ November 27: Liberal Media Scream: Post reporter says ‘sources’ fret public’s lack of credit for Biden ‘successes’ (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream, we have the latest example of a journalist inside the Beltway concerned that President Joe Biden just isn’t getting the credit he deserves for "Bidenomics," the Middle East crisis, or pretty much anything else. Despite two years of polling that shows the public doesn’t buy the White House spin that their life is better under the Democratic administration, the Washington Post’s Leigh Ann Caldwell on Sunday’s Meet the Press cited “my sources” complaining that Biden is getting treated like the no-respect funnyman Rodney Dangerfield. “My sources are saying President Biden doesn’t get a lot of credit, not only on this, but on a whole host of things,” she said in addressing the hostage releases over the weekend. But maybe there's hope, she added, that Biden will get the credit she says he deserves if his team just sells it better. "They have a lot of work to do to once again, like I said, try to get credit for the successes that he’s had over the past two years which he keeps on getting blamed for everything bad that’s happened." From Sunday’s Meet the Press: KRISTEN WELKER: Leigh Ann, I want to start with you. This is a huge test for President Biden. And obviously now, the pressure’s on to release the Americans. How is this playing for him politically, do you think? LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: Well, obviously it’ll be great if Americans are released with those hostages. But my sources are saying that President Biden also doesn’t get a lot of credit for his successes, not only on this, but on a whole host of things. So that does concern Democrats on Capitol Hill.... Yeah, Bidenomics has really been, become a negative word, especially among Democrats, because it’s not working. I was texting with some Democratic members of Congress last night just trying to get a read over the holiday weekend, what they’re hearing at home and what people are saying, and these members said that it is just not looking good for President Biden politically out there, that he would probably lose some swing states if the election were held today. So they have a lot of work to do to once again, like I said, try to get credit for the successes that he’s had over the past two years which he keeps on getting blamed for everything bad that’s happened. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Caldwell maintained Democrats ‘have a lot of work to do to once again, like I said, try to get credit for the successes’ President Biden has ‘had over the past two years,’ but she’s clearly just as invested as any liberal Democrat in advancing that narrative to help Biden. And in that interest, she reflects much of the press corps which want to influence the outcome, as proven by how complaints that Biden isn’t getting the credit he supposedly deserves have become a common media theme.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ November 20: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Jonathan Karl says he wrote book to warn voters away from Trump (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream, we feature the latest example of the legacy media going from self-appointed instant fact-checkers on former President Donald Trump to out-and-out enemies. The choice is ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who admitted that he wrote his latest book on Trump to warn America about him. Asked on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS why Trump is leading the Republican nomination contest, Karl said that “superficially” there’s “a sense” that things were better during the Trump presidency. And, he added of his just-released Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party, “that’s why I wrote this book.” He explained that “if people are going to go into this next election thinking about that, they also need to be thinking, not just about what Trump was, but what he is now and what he is proposing and planning to do, what a second Trump administration would look like. And I don’t think people have come to terms with that at all.” Karl on Thursday’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS: “I think part of what’s happened is people look back. There’s anxiety in the country. People have economic anxiety. There’s discontent with Joe Biden and I think there’s some superficially a sense like ‘Look, if we could only go back to four years ago, the world was relatively at peace, inflation was low, everything was —’ I think there is some of that and that’s why I wrote this book because if people are going to go into this next election thinking about that, they also need to be thinking, not just about what Trump was, but what he is now and what he is proposing and planning to do, what a second Trump administration would look like. And I don’t think people have come to terms with that at all.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Karl’s quest is the very definition of improper political advocacy by a journalist. His job is to report the news in an impartial manner, not jump into the fray when a candidate he hates gets popular, and write a book to convince voters they are making a bad choice. How could any Trump supporter, or any Republican, ever trust his reporting when they know he has a personal interest in directing the outcome?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ November 13: Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s Hunt says no room for ‘happy and sunny’ in GOP (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream, we feature the latest CNN absurdity, a blanket declaration that there is no place for happiness in the Republican Party. The claim came today from CNN’s Kasie Hunt, who was giving her early morning assessment on the decision by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) to drop out of the 2024 presidential race, joining former Vice President Mike Pence on the sidelines. “There’s just no appetite in the Republican base right now for someone who’s happy and sunny,” she said, citing her election night sources. Of course, many pollsters would suggest that there is just no appetite in the Republican base for anybody other than former President Donald Trump, and GOP voters seem to be pretty happy with that. Hunt, CNN’s chief national affairs analyst, on Monday’s CNN This Morning: “The noteworthy thing to me about this — I mean, look, I think it was pretty clear that Tim Scott’s campaign never took off the way, frankly, a lot of people in Washington thought that it might. He had, you know, all the ingredients to be really successful in the traditional Republican Party. He had a lot of backing. Honestly, he wasn’t public about it, but a lot of the people who have been working against Donald Trump for more traditional candidates like Mitt Romney were working on his operation trying to figure out how they could make that happen. “But when I talked to sources, and I did a lot of this on election night last week, they keep saying to me that there’s just no appetite in the Republican base right now for someone who’s happy and sunny. They’re angry. The base is angry. And that’s a big part of why Donald Trump has had such a durable lead in this race because he campaigns in a much different way. Tim Scott tried to be the kind of ‘Morning in America’ Republican candidate, and it’s just not what people are into. So, you know, it does make sense. He saw the writing on the wall, especially about the fourth debate, and here we are.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “None of the GOP presidential candidates are coming close to Trump, so why the particular argument Tim Scott failed because he’s a ‘happy warrior’ and the electorate is motivated by anger? Trump fans would contend his rallies are peppered with funny lines and upbeat messaging about the basis for his movement, Make America Great Again, which in itself is a happy and aspirational quest for a return to the best of America.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ November 6: Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s Zakaria says Biden better on border than Trump (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream we feature the zaniest pro-White House spin yet on the historic border crisis caused by President Joe Biden’s policies. While big city “sanctuary” mayors are crying uncle because the president’s policies are dumping in thousands of illegal immigrants without providing any money or help with housing, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria somehow thinks that the White House is handling the crisis well. Biden is “actually not doing a bad job,” he said on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher. For proof, he cited the deportation of illegal immigrants, ignoring the enormous crowds of migrants waved into the U.S. every day and the high number of those who slip in undetected. Zakaria on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO: “Biden’s actually not doing a bad job, they have deported more people — if you think that’s right and I do because you want a system of laws, right? They have deported more people under the Biden administration than Trump did. They’ve been harder line. The problem for Biden is, and this is a problem for Democrats, you can’t take credit for it because then you’re going to outrage, the progressive wing is going to go nuts. And so, even the things he does, it’s like stealth enforcement. You can’t talk about it.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The only reason the Biden administration deported anyone was because of the Trump-imposed Title 42 to deal with COVID, which stayed in place for more than two years of his administration until he ended it in May. In the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2.4 million people crossed the southern border, the highest number since records started being kept in 1960, and that was the third straight record year, all under Biden.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ October 30: Liberal Media Scream: Speaker Johnson takes compare him to KKK and mass shooter (Washington Examiner post) We could see this coming from miles away. For this week’s Liberal Media Scream, we feature the predictably sad reaction of the press to the unanimous Republican vote to confirm soft-spoken Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) as the 56th House speaker last week. Outlet after outlet tried to portray the Bible-toting Johnson as out of touch with America, instead comparing him to a KKK leader. It’s surprising liberal media outlets didn’t identify him with his middle name, James Michael Johnson, like mass killers. Even on CNN, analyst Gloria Borger conceded that the media was trying too hard to demonize the little-known lawmaker. It is “hard to demonize” him, she said, explaining, “He’s not the devil incarnate.” But Bill Maher and his crew didn’t get the memo. First, on his Friday show, Scott Galloway, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, said to audience applause, “The reason this guy is speaker is none of us have the time to read his resume and realize he’s David Duke-lite.” Maher pushed back on that characterization, but he offered his own invective, calling Johnson “a religious nut” before raising last week’s mass shooter of 18 in Maine: “Apparently he heard voices, and I thought, ‘Is he that different than Mike Johnson?’” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO and Max: SCOTT GALLOWAY: The whole point here is that we separate church and state, that we believe in the peaceful transfer of power, and the reason this guy is speaker is none of us have the time to read his resume and realize he’s David Duke-lite. BILL MAHER: Well, we do now. I don’t know if he’s David Duke-lite — I read today he has an adopted black son. I don’t think David Duke would do that, but he is a religious nut. .... MAHER: When you’re this much of a religious fanatic, there is no room for real democracy. That’s not what you believe in. He said it today: Look in the Bible — that’s my worldview. I was reading about this horrible shooting in Maine. We don’t know much about the guy yet, but apparently he heard voices, and I thought, ‘Is he that different than Mike Johnson?’ I mean, degree, yes, but it’s thinner than you think. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What hypocrisy. You can’t decry how Donald Trump and MAGA have lowered discourse in America and undermined respect for democracy and then smear the incoming speaker of the House as no different than a racist Klan leader or a mass murderer. The comparisons are ridiculous and should be beneath anyone who considers themselves a serious political analyst.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ October 23: Liberal Media Scream: Morning Joe warns of Trump retaliation just short of firing squads (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC host Joe Scarborough speculating on a second Trump White House, ranting that it will be one retaliation after another for slights he’s felt over the past eight years, starting with the media and courts. On his show this morning, Scarborough compared Trump to hard-line Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. “He’s wiped out the judiciary, he’s wiped out the free press,” Scarborough charged. There was no mention, of course, of how Trump made history as president with his appointments to federal courts, including three of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices, or that he was among the most accessible presidents in recent memory despite his verbal hits on the press. But at least he offered that Trump won’t line up his enemies and shoot them. Scarborough’s ruminations came during an interview with the Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, who just wrote an article titled “Netanyahu’s Attack on Democracy Left Israel Unprepared.” Joe Scarborough on Monday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC: “I always tell people, if you want to see what Donald Trump is going to do if he gets reelected, don’t think about him lining up people against the wall and having them shot." “Just see what [Viktor] Orban has done in Hungary where he’s bragged about having illiberal democracy, and he’s wiped out the judiciary, he’s wiped out the free press. And Anne [Applebaum], I suppose, that’s probably what Donald Trump will look for as a blueprint if he gets elected again.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Left-wing paranoia perfectly encapsulated by Joe Scarborough. No matter how bad you think a second Trump presidency would be for the nation, the idea that just because he makes derogatory remarks about judges, prosecutors, and journalists means he wants to ‘wipe out’ the judiciary and free press, is ridiculous. And even if he were so inclined, the U.S. political system would never allow it, leaving Scarborough’s warning as little more than baseless scaremongering.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ October 16: Liberal Media Scream: CBS anchor scoffs, ‘Indictment’ of Biden? (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the hypocrisy and bewildering ignorance of the media’s coverage of the classified documents cases both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump face. On the hypocrisy front, consider all the hours of TV coverage Trump received for his handling of documents compared to Biden. Also, consider how much time the networks gave the extraordinary two days of questions Biden faced last weekend from the prosecutor: just 48 seconds. Then watch as CBS Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan appears astonished that Biden’s case and charges are similar to Trump’s and that a House Republican chairman would even suggest that they should be handled the same way. “Indictment?” she interjected when her guest, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said, “President Biden needs the same consequence that they pursue with President Trump.” From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: You were talking about classified documents mishandled by the current president, and you said that when it came to Biden and Trump, they’re both equally egregious with equal classification issues. This past week, President Biden was interviewed by special counsel Robert Hur. Will there be legal consequences? Will your committee do anything to act on this? I mean, what exactly do you mean equally egregious? REP. MIKE TURNER: Well, when you look at the documents, both the classification level and the subject matter, both sides, Trump and Biden's documents, if they had been released in the public or gotten into the hands of nefarious parties, would be damaging to the United States national security. When I look at those documents, there are documents on both sides, equally egregious, that would have negative consequences to our means, methods, techniques, and our allies. Now, in this instance, I think President Biden needs the same consequence that they pursue with President Trump. The actions are the same. And in this instance, if you notice— BRENNAN: Indictment? TURNER: You’re getting leak after leak after leak on the Trump documents. You’re hearing nothing on the Biden documents. So you’re continuing to see the inequality that comes out of the Justice Department as there’s silence on the other side with respect to Biden’s. And by the way, he was a serial classified document hoarder. I reviewed documents that were from all the time that he’s been in government. This really is a very serious breach by President Biden. BRENNAN: Just to be clear here, though, are you saying that President Biden had top secret and TS/SCI classification level documents in his personal home? TURNER: That’s public already, Margaret, so I’m not confirming something that people don’t already know. That is correct. BRENNAN: OK. So I think you’re saying that he should be indicted when you say treated the same? TURNER: I think they need to be treated exactly the same. Now, they’re continuing their investigation with President Biden. I don’t think if President Biden in the end has been found to violate the law, and I believe from what I’ve seen that he has, that he should be treated any differently than Donald Trump. Why would he? Just because he’s president or because he’s a Democrat? And that’s how the Department of Justice has been acting. They need to be treated the same. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Brennan’s naivete about President Biden’s potential very serious misdeeds and seeming surprise that a veteran congressman would suggest he deserves to get treated just as harshly as former President Trump, reflects the larger disinterest in Biden’s behavior by the Trump-obsessed press corps. Indeed, special counsel Robert Hur interviewed Biden over two days last week, yet the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts offered a measly 48 seconds of coverage in total.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ October 9: Liberal Media Scream: CBS touts waitress jobs as sign Bidenomics works (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the transparent effort by the media to prop up Bidenomics at a time when most people believe costs and expenses under President Joe Biden are way too high. CBS led the way over the weekend when Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan said that a jobs report showing restaurant jobs up was proof Biden’s claims are right. She cited it to counter claims from 2024 Republican presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) that the economy is not doing enough for people. “That seems to undercut your argument that the economy’s broken,” Brennan said. Scott slapped down that logic. He said, “Well, all you have to do is talk to the average American family and ask them what they feel — how they feel about Bidenomics. The answer is very simple. We’ve lost over $5,000 of spending power since January of 2021. We should always celebrate the creation of jobs, but we should never forget that we went 52 consecutive paychecks — 52 consecutive paychecks — with a loss of spending power.” From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: On Friday, we spoke with Republican senator and presidential candidate Tim Scott from his home state of South Carolina. Our conversation began on the economy and the surprisingly robust September jobs report. BRENNAN TO SEN. TIM SCOTT: Friday's jobs numbers shattered expectations. It showed some economic momentum. In fact, restaurant hospitality hiring is back to pre-pandemic levels. That seems to undercut your argument that the economy’s broken. SCOTT: Well, all you have to do is talk to the average American family and ask them what they feel — how they feel about Bidenomics. The answer is very simple. We’ve lost over $5,000 of spending power since January of 2021. We should always celebrate the creation of jobs, but we should never forget that we went 52 consecutive paychecks — 52 consecutive paychecks — with a loss of spending power. BRENNAN: And you blame political leadership, not the Federal Reserve? SCOTT: Well, if you think about the fact that over the last, I guess, year and a half, we’ve seen 16% inflation since Joe Biden’s taken office, which led to 11 consecutive rate increases, that downward pressure on our economy certainly created cracks and fissures throughout the economy. That was caused by Joe Biden’s lack of leadership and understanding of how to create jobs in America. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Brennan put Democratic talking point spin ahead of reality in getting so excited about a jobs report largely built on gains in part-time employment and government jobs. Her priority was to undermine Scott’s very persuasive argument that Bidenomics is a disaster, something recognized by the vast majority of people outside of the media elite.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ October 2: Liberal Media Scream: MAGA just racists, says MSNBC regular (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the continued smearing of MAGA by MSNBC, this time including the broken-record claim that supporters of former President Donald Trump are racists. Ignoring Trump’s support among black people, his friendships with notable African Americans, and his appointments of black people to top jobs during his administration, MSNBC let legal correspondent Elie Mystal rant that Trump is running for president again “on white grievance” and adding that “without racism, Trump is just dumber Chris Christie, all right?” From Sunday night’s The Mehdi Hasan Show on MSNBC: MEHDI HASAN: When you watch Donald Trump talking about “dampening the forest floor,” and then you look at polls that show him neck and neck with Biden or maybe in the lead by 10 points or 5 points over Biden, do you put your head in your hair in your hands? ELIE MYSTAL: Look, Mehdi, not really. There is a recent poll, a study out of the University of Chicago that said the biggest indicator of whether or not you support Trump is whether or not you believe racism has been defeated, right? Whether or not you believe systemic racism doesn’t exist, whether or not you believe that what white people face more racism than people of color. Trump’s running on white grievance. It’s how he’s always been. It’s what he’s always done. And I feel like reducing it to racism always makes certain kinds of Democrats squeamish. We want there to be a bigger answer. We want to believe maybe Republicans actually think you should “dampen the forests.” We want to believe there is a reason. There’s nothing there there. All it is is white grievance. Without racism, Trump is just dumber Chris Christie, all right? And so, that is why he is where he is because he plays into the racism of his fans. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How convenient it must be to be so comfortable dismissing the political choice of a large portion of the public by tarring them all as a bunch of racists. Saves time on having to actually address what failures of your side the top candidate on the other side is fulfilling. But stay in your bubble, Mr. Mystal, and you may very well be surprised when those polls, showing Trump beating Biden, come true.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ September 25: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ September 18: Liberal Media Scream: Meet the Press’s Kristen Welker debuts as Chuck Todd clone (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the debut of Kristen Welker as host of NBC’s Meet the Press. But other than a new face, there was no change from the lefty bias of the declining show’s MC. To help Welker's first episode, former President Donald Trump agreed to appear. In return, he faced the usual liberal fact-checking interruptions, especially when answering questions about abortion. Several times, Welker tried to quiet Trump’s charge that Democrats favor abortion right up to birth. “Democrats aren't saying that. Democrats are not saying that,” she said. Her performance won failing grades from conservatives, who weren’t expecting a big shift from the bias of former host Chuck Todd. Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway was first out with an analysis headlined, "NBC’s Kristen Welker Lied Repeatedly About Democrats’ Extreme Abortion Position." “Kristen Welker brazenly and repeatedly lied in a bizarre, conspiracy-laden debate with former President Donald Trump on Sunday,” she wrote, adding, “Welker interrupted her own pre-taped debate with the president to insert her own ‘fact checks’ that were false or were not responsive to actual claims Trump made.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: DONALD TRUMP: Roe v. Wade. For 52 years, people, including Democrats, wanted it to go back to states so that states could make it right. Roe v. Wade, I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated and put back to the states. Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time. They had no rights at all because the radical people on this are really the Democrats that say after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, and even after birth, you’re allowed to terminate the baby. KRISTEN WELKER: Democrats aren't saying that. Democrats are not saying that. Does it bother you, though, that women say their lives are being put at risk? Do you feel you bear any responsibility because, as you say, you are responsible for having Roe v. Wade overturned? TRUMP: What’s going to happen? It’s an issue that’s been going on for a long time. It’s a very polarizing issue. Because of what's been done and because of the fact we brought it back to the states, we're going to have people come together on this issue. They're gonna determine the time because nobody wants to see five, six, seven, eight, nine months. Nobody wants to see abortions when you have a baby in the womb. I said with Hillary Clinton when we had the debate, I made a statement: Rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, you're allowed to do that, and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. WELKER: Again, no one is arguing for that, that's not a part of anyone's platform, Mr. President. TRUMP: The Democrats are able to kill the baby after birth, and nobody wants that. WELKER: Democrats don’t want that, either. Kevin Tober, news analyst for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Kristen Welker either never read the 2020 Democratic platform or she's purposefully trying to gaslight her viewers in the guise of a ‘fact check’ of Trump. The current platform of the Democratic Party poses no limits on abortions. Instead of pointing this fact out, Welker decided to scold Trump for telling the truth, which apparently isn't allowed on NBC. If this is what we can expect from Welker as the new moderator of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd might as well have stayed on as the moderator. Different anchor, same liberal media bias.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ September 11: Liberal Media Scream: Chuck Todd puts self among the greats (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the departure of one of our favorite representatives of bias, Chuck Todd, the outgoing host of NBC’s Meet the Press. Signing off from his daily and Sunday shows, Todd said he hoped he helped educate viewers on the issues of the day and that he would now turn more to nuance and bridging divides. As he looks to his future as the network’s political analyst, he said he would follow the paths of two of the network’s past greats, David Brinkley and Tim Russert. “I will continue, of course, to be a big part of NBC’s political coverage because, as Tom Brokaw said to me, ‘Look, some networks do some things well, but nobody does politics like NBC.’ And he was referring back all the way to David Brinkley. And that is sort of the tradition I’ve always said, from Brinkley to Russert, and that’s the stuff I want to carry on,” Todd said. His final comments on both shows are in this clip: Todd, at the end of Friday’s daily Meet the Press NOW on the NBC News NOW streaming channel: “On my first day on the job on Meet the Press, I was handed an audience survey of Sunday show viewers. The No. 1 reason why folks decided to tune into any Sunday show, the No. 1 reason: to get educated. It wasn’t to find out if their side was winning or losing. They just wanted to know.” “It’s that education piece I’m hanging my hat on for the rest of my professional life because one thing we all lament lately is the lack of knowledge and nuance in our politics. That’s a vacuum I hope to continue to fill, whether in a traditional news platform or other venues —documentaries, docudramas, or even too-close-to-the-truth fiction.” “I’ll continue to be a big part of NBC News political coverage because no one in this business covers politics as well as NBC. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you down the road.” Todd, wrapping up Meet the Press on NBC on Sunday morning: “So, for nearly a decade, I’ve had the honor of helping to explain America to Washington and Washington to America, as Kristen [Welker] just quoted me about. And it’s that education piece that I’m hanging my hat on for the rest of my professional life. One thing we will lament — we all lament lately — is the lack of knowledge and nuance in our politics and citizenship. That’s a vacuum I hope to continue to fill, whether in our continued news coverage here at NBC or via other venues, like docuseries and docudramas, focused on bridging our divides, piercing these political bubbles. And I will continue, of course, to be a big part of NBC’s political coverage because, as Tom Brokaw said to me, ‘Look, some networks do some things well, but nobody does politics like NBC.’ And he was referring back all the way to David Brinkley. And that is sort of the tradition I’ve always said, from Brinkley to Russert, and that’s the stuff I want to carry on.” “So that’s all for today. Thanks for watching and for so many years of loyalty to me and to this show. I’m happy to say my colleague, Kristen Welker, is going to be here next week because it doesn’t matter who sits in this chair. If it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Todd, pretentious to the end. In all his years hosting Meet the Press, he never showed much interest in bringing ‘nuance’ to his liberal agenda or ‘bridging’ divides or ‘piercing ... political bubbles,’ to say nothing of never matching the journalism of David Brinkley or Tim Russert. I watched David Brinkley and Tim Russert. Chuck Todd is no David Brinkley or Tim Russert.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ September 4: Liberal Media Scream: Biden’s coverage ‘tougher than he deserves’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the classic attitude of the Washington press corps toward Democratic presidents that originally got us working with the Media Research Center to highlight out-of-touch newsies. It is the complaint that the press is too tough when, in fact, they have barely scratched the surface of what some critics believe to be a corrupt presidential operation dating back to President Joe Biden’s days as vice president under former President Barack Obama. NBC’s Meet the Press featured Franklin Foer, an Atlantic writer who just released a bestselling book on the president titled The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future. Foer told moderator Chuck Todd that “Trump caused the media to become so emotional, to get so engaged in covering all the high drama.” And with Biden, he said, there has been a "desire on the part of the press to reassert its standards of objectivity.” But, he added, Biden has continued to complain about his press, just like every other president. “He has been covered probably tougher than he deserves,” Foer said. That line prompted our partner Brent Baker, the Media Research Center's vice president of research and publications, to grade it five out of five screams. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: CHUCK TODD: You write: “Biden considered his poor approval rating a failure of the media, which someone neglected to note all the ways in which his administration was superior to Trump’s. It was also a failure of his own White House to effectively communicate. He complained that there weren’t enough surrogates on television defending him.” I’m shocked to find out that a White House believes they have a communications problem, not a substance problem. FRANKLIN FOER: Right. So I think that Biden has — of course, every president who suffers an upside-down approval rating is going to moan about the media, and I think that there is some truth to it in his case where Trump caused the media to become so emotional, to get so engaged in covering all of the high drama. And I think, with the Biden administration, there’s been this desire on the part of the press to reassert its standards of objectivity. So I think, on certain measures, he’s probably right. He has been covered probably tougher than he deserves. But it also — TODD: There’s no curve? He’s not being graded on a curve? FOER: No. TODD: No. Baker explains our weekly pick: “To channel what President Biden would say, ‘not a joke.’ Foer was seemingly quite serious. But it’s a ludicrous assessment to anyone but the most enthused Biden sycophants or Democratic partisans. To contend that Biden is the subject of media ‘objectivity’ and has received ‘tougher’ coverage than he ‘deserves,’ does not pass the laugh test.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ August 28: Liberal Media Scream: Dour Dana bashes Ramaswamy over KKK reference (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features CNN anchor Dana Bash repeatedly beating GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s comparison of liberal "Squad" member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) to "a modern grand wizard of the KKK." Over more than five minutes, the anchor harangued Ramaswamy, who said he made the comparison to spark a debate over the lawmaker’s suggestion that candidates of color should be in lockstep with liberals. After four minutes of her bashing, an exasperated Ramaswamy said: “Dana, I think you’re doing, with due respect, what many in the media do, picking on some fringe comment in the context of a broader context that I was offering in a speech, avoiding the meat of the issue.” Here’s a sampling from CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday: DANA BASH: You took issue with comments from Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). She reportedly said, quote, “we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice.” About that, you said, “These are the words of the modern grand wizards of the modern KKK.” You know, I’m sure, the KKK was responsible for more than a century’s worth of horrific lynchings, rapes, murders of black people. How in any way are the views you’re talking about comparable to the views and atrocities committed by the KKK?” VIVEK RAMASWAMY: What I said is: The grand wizards of the KKK would be proud of what they would hear her say, because there’s nothing more racist than saying that your skin color predicts something about the content of your viewpoints or your ideas. BASH: No, you didn’t just say that. You didn’t just say that they would be proud. You said, “These are the words of the modern grand wizards of the modern KKK.” RAMASWAMY: It is the same spirit. You’re right about that, Dana. I think it is the same spirit to say that I can look at you and, based on just your skin color, that I know something about the content of your character, that I know something about the content of the viewpoints you’re allowed to express. .... BASH: But can you have an intellectually honest conversation when you accuse her of being a grand wizard of the KKK? Can you have that intellectually honest discussion with that kind of rhetoric? .... BASH: If you want to have an intellectual question, do you think that maybe comparing her to the grand wizard and the notion of what she said to being a modern leader of the KKK was maybe a step too far, or you stand by what you said? .... BASH: What I did was explain to our viewers that you were asked a question and you took it to a point where you called a sitting member of Congress who is black, who was having discussions about race, calling her the modern grand wizard of the KKK. And I’m just not sure how that’s open and honest discussion.         Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Bash’s constant harping was not good television. Ramaswamy explained his point and she should have moved on. But she so vehemently disagreed with him that she wouldn’t let go. In doing so, she helped prove Ramaswamy’s point about the elite who won’t countenance any contrary views on race relations, not even from the target of a racist attack.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ August 21: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ August 14: Liberal Media Scream: Media rage at MAGA ‘alternative reality’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest example of the sputtering anger Washington journalists have at the support former President Donald Trump has from his MAGA millions. Appearing Sunday on ABC’s This Week, Susan Glasser, Washington reporter for the New Yorker and a veteran of the Washington Post and Politico, coughed up a word salad to the storyline that a growing list of indictments is good for Trump while the building criminal focus on first son Hunter Biden is bad for President Joe Biden. From the roundtable on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: Susan Glasser: “Part of this is the incredible distortion field where we are all somehow living in Donald Trump’s alternate reality, right? We are talking about, ‘Well, it’s a great benefit to him,’ according to, you know, the big story in the New York Times today that he’s been indicted criminally, what, three times — and it looks like a fourth coming up this week — because we’re living in this warped distortion field of a Republican primary in which Donald Trump is stampeding? It’s a minority of a minority in the country, and so then, you have something like these series of abortion rights referenda in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision. “And you realize that in this country, even in deep-red states, there are solid majorities that don’t think, you know, Donald Trump should be the president again, who defeated him in the popular vote in 2016 and in 2020, who support, by actually record numbers, abortion rights, and yet we live in this world where it’s somehow good that Donald Trump is a criminal defendant but somehow bad electorally for the president that his son is being investigated for something, that as far as we know, does not directly concern Joe Biden.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What an incredible lack of inquisitiveness for a journalist. Glasser is living in her own ‘alternate reality,’ one inhabited by virtually all of her Washington press corps colleagues who are enraged by everything Trump but have put on blinders when it comes to President Joe Biden. They don’t want to give legitimacy to anything which could harm Biden’s reelection fortunes.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ August 7: Liberal Media Scream: Joy Behar would exile Trump to Saudi Arabia (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the ladies of The View jumping to a whole new level of "Trump derangement syndrome" following the third criminal indictment of former President Donald Trump. Led by Trump Hater in Chief Joy Behar, they talked up a plea deal that prosecutor Jack Smith could offer that sends the former president away for good — but not jail. Instead, and due to concerns that the Secret Service might not allow a former president to live in a jail cell if he’s convicted, Behar suggested exile in Saudi Arabia. “Wouldn’t that be good?” she said to some audience laughter. “I don’t even care if he goes to jail. I don’t have it in my heart to punish the guy. I just want him to go away and stop ruining my country." From Thursday’s The View on ABC: JOY BEHAR: "Well, what about making a deal? What about, Sunny, if he makes a deal with [special counsel Jack] Smith?" SUNNY HOSTIN: "Without jail time?" BEHAR: "Without jail, and he says, “I’m going away and moving to Saudi Arabia”? Wouldn’t that be good? Just go away. We don’t — I don’t even care if he goes to jail. I don’t have it in my heart to punish the guy. I just want him to go away and stop ruining my country." HOSTIN: "I think there are certain prosecutors that would offer him a plea agreement without time if he would agree to never run for public office again anywhere." BEHAR: "And go away. I don’t want to even see him in the Enquirer." Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Presumably, The View does not air in Saudi Arabia, so this idea might have some appeal to Trump — and many of us — who wouldn’t mind never again hearing Joy Behar’s voice, but I’d recommend flipping this and exiling the entire crew of The View to Saudi Arabia so none of us have to hear their discombobulated daily rantings.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 31: Liberal Media Scream: Chuck Todd still trying to downplay Hunter Biden scandals (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a Sunday network public affairs show host that President Joe Biden and his cronies are really going to miss when he finally leaves his perch. It’s NBC Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, of course, playing “D” on the Hunter Biden scandals exploding in the news today. On his Sunday show and while interviewing yet another Democratic politician, he sounded almost apologetic for having to address the first son who is facing tax and gun charges and has been linked to bribery allegations along with his father. Said Todd to his guest, Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Biden’s home state of Delaware, “Republicans are gonna accuse” the president of misdeeds, “they’re going to make the accusation, whether they have the evidence or not,” because they “have an information ecosystem that helps amplify it.” Todd recently announced that he was leaving his show in September to become the network's "long form" political analyst. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: CHUCK TODD: Let me start with the Hunter Biden situation and I understand that, you know, you believe this is all being emphasized due to politics, the Republican — the House Republicans are doing. Let me ask you this, do you think it would behoove the president for him to come out and say, “Hey, I had no business dealings with my son. My son’s issues are my son’s issues”? Do you think he needs to say that more directly because there’s a lot of people that believe something else happened here? SEN. CHRIS COONS: Let’s be clear about that point, Chuck. There’s been a five-year investigation. Five years by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney. This investigation started during the Trump administration and they’ve come forward with not one shred of evidence tying President Biden to any of this. I am encouraged that, in sharp contrast to President Trump, you’ve just detailed his mountain of legal problems where President Trump is fighting, and pushing back and obstructing, Hunter Biden’s come forward, taken responsibility, paid his late taxes. As you just discussed with Chuck Rosenberg, I think the hiccup in the Delaware District Courthouse will get ironed out pretty quickly and I don’t think President Biden needs to say anything more than he has. TODD: House Republicans are gonna accuse him. They’re going to make the accusation — COONS: They’re going [to] accuse him of all sorts of stuff. TODD: — whether they have the evidence or not. COONS: Correct. TODD: The question — and they may have an information ecosystem that helps amplify it to a point where you don’t think he needs to just — “Hey, despite what you hear, just so you know, I don’t do business with my son or my brother"? COONS: I think he’s been perfectly clear. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “If only Chuck Todd had shown such reluctance to promote accusations against President Trump about ‘Russian collusion’ made by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and others, which turned out to be baseless, when they were on his program. We’d be in a whole different political-media environment. But no, Todd is only upset by publicity for revelations that may hurt the Democratic president, not the Republican one. And he wonders why so many see him as more of a liberal political operative than any kind of respectable journalist.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 24: Liberal Media Scream: CBS pushes for Hunter Biden media cover-up (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest example of how the networks are covering up the escalating Hunter Biden sex, gun, drugs, and taxes scandal. Not only have most ignored the scandal going all the way back to dissing reports on the first son’s laptop full of dirty deeds, but now some in the media are urging the GOP to “move on.” Exhibit A is CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan, who this weekend said the plea deal Hunter Biden has cut should be the trigger for Republicans to end their investigation into the president’s son. Her guest, former federal prosecutor and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, dismissed her question. “No, I wouldn’t, Margaret, and here’s why. The conduct here by the U.S. attorney in Delaware and by the Justice Department just can’t be justified,” he said. She also rolled out the standard Democratic talking point to make her case: “You know that the U.S. attorney in Delaware was appointed by former President Trump.” It’s typical for senators to suggest prosecutors in their state and U.S. Attorney David Weiss was endorsed by Delaware’s two Democratic senators at the time. From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: There are so many legal issues in this campaign, and I want to ask you about one involving the president’s son Hunter Biden who’s going to appear in court this week to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and will enter into an agreement that could avert conviction on a gun-related charge. The deal has infuriated many congressional Republicans, who were holding their own hearings, and I wonder after this plea happens if you would advise your party to move on? CHRIS CHRISTIE: No, I wouldn’t, Margaret, and here’s why. The conduct here by the U.S. attorney in Delaware and by the Justice Department just can’t be justified. It doesn’t take five years, Margaret. As you mentioned, I was the U.S. attorney in the fifth-largest office in the country for seven years during the Bush administration. It does not take five years to investigate two misdemeanor tax counts and to dismiss a gun charge, and we need to know what they were investigating and why these are the charges they concluded to. This is not just any person. This is the son of the president of the United States. And while justice needs to be equal, it needs to be equal, and it doesn’t appear to me that this is the way to do it. And I would say one thing on the gun charge. I mean, this is a case where Democrats yell and scream for more new gun laws in the country, and yet you hear no Democrat yelling about the fact that Hunter Biden intentionally lied on his gun permit application, mishandled the gun after he received it with a false permit application, and faces absolutely no penalty. Guess what? The guy who sponsored that law was his father, Sen. Joe Biden, and that charge carries a 10-year sentence, Margaret. We need to explain — they need to explain to the public why that was done. So no, I don't think it’s time to move on. BRENNAN: And you know that the U.S. attorney in Delaware was appointed by former President Trump. CHRISTIE: Incompetent, Margaret. It doesn’t matter, Margaret. It doesn’t matter whether you’re appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, if your work appears to be incompetent and inexplicable, you need to explain it so we can have confidence in our justice system, and I don’t care whether Mr. Weiss is a Republican or a Democrat. He owes the American people an explanation. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “It takes a lot of chutzpah for Brennan to suggest Republicans ‘move on’ from a topic the broadcast news networks and much of the rest of the news media have done all they can to avoid in their quest to protect President Biden. Numerous revelations about Hunter and his dad have gone unreported, or get one story on one night, and then nothing more. What kind of ‘journalist’ pushes for cover-up and suppression over pressing for more coverage three days after two IRS whistleblowers detailed federal efforts to benefit Hunter and not pursue leads which could hurt the president?” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 17: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ July 10: Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s Zakaria tells Biden, 'You've been a great president' (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a rare one-on-one interview of President Joe Biden and a hint of what it takes to get a sit-down with him. In the case of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, the payback came in a phrase of praise: “You've been a great president.” The line was part of a long setup on his Sunday show to a question about some Democrats calling for Biden to step aside. From Fareed Zakaria GPS: Zakaria to Biden: “You've often said when people ask you about your age, just watch me. And I think a lot of people do watch you and are impressed, and they think you've been a great president. You've brought the economy back. You've restored relations with the world. But many of these people do say, and these are hardened supporters of yours, the next thing he should do is step aside and let another generation of Democrats take the baton.” Kevin Tober, a news analyst & staff writer at the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters, explains our weekly pick: “Zakaria displayed a masterclass in professional gaslighting Sunday when he told Biden that ‘a lot of people’ watch him and are ‘impressed.’ In reality, even many Democrats have expressed their concern about Biden's age and cognitive decline. Kissing Biden's ring is not ‘facts first’ despite what CNN wants you to think.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 3: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ June 26: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC historian declares GOP hopefuls insurrectionists (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream highlights the latest example of the conventional liberal media’s view that all Republicans are deplorable and, thus, dismissible. MSNBC “historian” Jon Meacham, an author and former Newsweek Washington bureau chief, wrote off the large and historically diverse collection of Republican presidential candidates as insurrectionists and seditionists because all have been supportive at times of former President Donald Trump. “We have a pretty clear choice in this political season. We can choose a constitutionalist, a party that has been pretty faithful to the Constitution, which is the party of the incumbent president, or we can favor a party that has been shockingly but persistently supportive of an insurrectionist or a seditionist,” he said on Friday’s Morning Joe show. “It’s not simple, but it is straightforward. That’s the choice before the country,” said Meacham, who punctuated his analysis with declarations of “right?!” From Friday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC: JOE SCARBOROUGH: We were talking about the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court who, again, out of control, running roughshod over the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans. And now, we have this president, again, unprecedented, but here we are moving towards, I believe, I think, the most serious charges and the one that I think historians are going to be grappling with long after we are all gone. That is a president charged with conspiracy to commit sedition against the United States of America. JON MEACHAM: You’re right, historians will be wrestling with it as we all do all the time. I think citizens have to wrestle with it now, right? This is, it’s so central, and I just really believe that we have a pretty clear choice in this political season. We can choose a constitutionalist, a party that has been pretty faithful to the Constitution, which is the party of the incumbent president, or we can favor a party that has been shockingly but persistently supportive of an insurrectionist or a seditionist. That’s not a sentence we would have said about Eisenhower and Stevenson, right? That was not something that a lot of people grew up with. But it’s pretty vital. And yet that's the question: Is any policy so important that you would want to favor someone that you think is a vehicle for that policy, even if they don’t and have self-evidently tried to trash the Constitution of the United States? And we could go on, but that’s really kind of it. You know, it’s pretty basic. Do you want a constitutionalist or an insurrectionist? Then we get into the, ‘But, but, but, taxes and judges.’ If we don’t have a Constitution, taxes and judges aren’t going to matter at all. That’s where we are, remarkably, right now. Again, we could go on, but I think it’s a fundamental question. People often say, you know, it’s simple. It’s not simple, but it is straightforward. That’s the choice before the country. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Meacham, in all his haughty glory, sees it as his role to declare every candidate in one party illegitimate presidential contenders because most of them refrain from denouncing the one candidate he really hates. Yet Meacham and Scarborough wonder why conservatives don’t heed their advice when they show such disdain for the choices made by those who don’t share their left-wing worldview.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ June 19: Liberal Media Scream: CNN begs ‘older’ white people to step aside, give values up (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features one of CNN’s liberal big shots decrying “older” white people in Southern states for trying to maintain values and traditions instead of giving up to the “new demography.” Ron Brownstein, a CNN political analyst and Atlantic editor, argued it is longtime residents who are trying to impose their values in states such as Texas, not the other way around. The discussion came Monday when CNN This Morning devoted a segment to how those in red states are “imposing” their values on the rest of the nation. Not considered by the panel: how those in red states see themselves as simply pushing back at the imposition of left-wing LGBT Pride values that CNN euphemistically described as “inclusion.” From CNN This Morning: RON BROWNSTEIN: The attempt to kind of impose the values, and to force companies to toe the line of the values of one segment of society, really puts them in a hard place and, ultimately, they have to decide whether they’re going to embrace this changing, inclusive America, or whether they’re going to back down in the face of this kind of pressure. CO-HOST ERICA HILL: This is going to feel like a rhetorical question, but I mean it very seriously, as from both a political and a business standpoint, as you’re looking at this, right, inclusion is good for business. How and where is exclusion good for business or for politics when you’re narrowing your pool? BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, it’s very different between the red states and the blue and purple states. In the red states, you have Republican coalitions that are running state government with an electoral coalition that is fundamentally rooted in the parts of the state that are not changing, that are basically nonurban, older white voters. And they are using that to impose the values of that coalition on changing places before the new demography maybe changes the political balance in a place like Texas. So you see half the country moving in this direction. And these boycotts are kind of the business flank of that same effort that in many ways is attempting to reverse what has been six decades of nationalizing more rights and creating common rights that are available in every state. I mean, we are moving back toward a pre-1960s world where your basic civil liberties depended much more on your ZIP code. And I think, look, that in some places, like the period before the Civil War, no institution was equally credible on both sides of the sectional divide. And these companies, much as they want to stay out of it, ultimately have to decide: Are they going to embrace the changing America, or are they going to embrace this effort to, in effect, “Make America Great Again” by going back to older rules and older values? Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “In being so concerned about conservatives ‘imposing’ their values on blue America, Brownstein is oblivious to how red-state America sees itself just pushing back against the Left’s values being pushed on them. But to Brownstein and CNN, the liberal blue America world is all that matters.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ June 12: Liberal Media Scream: New host Charles Barkley calls CNN ‘the Titanic’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features something we don’t hear often — a CNN host who admits the cable network is in serious trouble. In this case, it is an incoming host and former NBA great Charles Barkley who is teaming up with CBS Mornings co-host Gayle King for a CNN prime-time show. The show was mapped out by fired CNN chief Chris Licht, who said at the time that the show would begin in the fall. Barkley is apparently a bit concerned about what he’s getting into. Talking hockey with NHL Hall of Famer Wayne Gretzky, Barkley said, “Apparently, with this new talk show, I’m jumping on the Titanic.” From the Saturday night NHL on TNT pregame Face Off show: WAYNE GRETZKY: You don’t need to go take that news job. You can come on our show. You know more about hockey than we do. You don’t have to travel out of Atlanta. CHARLES BARKLEY: Apparently, with this new talk show, I’m jumping on the Titanic. So it’s not — everybody keeps saying “abort,” “abort,” “abort!” So, you know what, I’m looking forward to it. Gayle is awesome. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The truth stumbles out spontaneously in the oddest of places. Barkley didn’t see that comment coming from Gretzky, so he blurted out the first thing he thought, which is the truth about the decline of CNN, before recovering with the more acceptable public stance of looking forward to the show. One suspects he’s having some second thoughts about agreeing to join CNN programming.” Rating for telling the truth: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ June 5: Liberal Media Scream: Chuck Todd says he’s a ‘real political journalist’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream turns the spotlight to NBC’s Chuck Todd, who portrayed himself as a journalistic martyr in announcing that he will step down as host of Meet the Press later this year. “Being a real political journalist isn’t about building a brand. It's about reporting what’s happening and explaining why it’s happening and letting the public absorb the facts,” he bragged Sunday. “I take the attacks from partisans as compliments, and I take the compliments from partisans with a grain of salt,” said Todd, a favorite target of the Secrets' weekly Liberal Media Scream. NBC said that Kristen Welker, NBC News's co-chief White House correspondent, will succeed him in what is a well-worn path to hosting Sunday public affairs shows. Todd, on Sunday’s Meet the Press: “I’ll be honest, though. I leave feeling concerned about this moment in history but reassured by the standards we've set here. We didn’t tolerate propagandists, and this network and program never will. But it doesn't mean sticking your head in the sand either. If you ignore reality, you’ll miss the big story. Being a real political journalist isn’t about building a brand. It's about reporting what’s happening and explaining why it’s happening and letting the public absorb the facts. If you do this job seeking popularity, you are doing this job incorrectly. “I take the attacks from partisans as compliments, and I take the compliments from partisans with a grain of salt. The goal of this and every Meet the Press episode is to do all of the following in one informative hour: Make you mad, make you think, shake your head in disapproval, and nod your head in approval. If you do all of that in one hour of this show, we’ve done our jobs. So, again, this isn’t goodbye. But know this: No matter who sits in this chair, if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.” Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Arrogant until the end. No acknowledgment from Todd that he just might be biased in favor of the Left and against conservatives. Instead, he played the martyr card, portraying himself as the target of misguided criticism which only proves his integrity.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   May 29: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   May 22: Liberal Media Scream: NBC’s Chuck Todd says only tax cheats oppose more IRS agents (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream shows exactly the difference between small-government conservatives and big-government liberals. Imagine wanting 87,000 more Internal Revenue Service agents. Well, that’s not only what NBC Meet the Press host Chuck Todd said, but he sneered at those who don’t want them as likely tax cheats. On his Sunday show, he took on the GOP plan to roll back the Biden administration’s request and said, “I have never understood the resistance of extra IRA agents — unless you knowingly cheat on your taxes.” His guest, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), replied, “That’s salacious and you know that.” Donalds said that “when you have that many more agents, it’s not to go after the rich. It’s to go after the middle class.” Todd stood by his view that the honest have nothing to fear from more enforcement. “So if you’re paying what you are supposed to pay, then you should have nothing to fear,” he said. The exchange on Sunday’s Meet the Press: CHUCK TODD: But there’s one more thing House Republicans are asking for, which is they want fewer IRS agents. They want fewer attempts to try to properly get tax receipts into the federal government’s coffers. I have never understood the resistance of extra IRS agents — unless you knowingly cheat on your taxes. REP. BYRON DONALDS: First of all, that’s salacious and you know that. Most Americans, by far, pay their taxes, and they do it honorably. What House Republicans, and frankly the Republican Party, is concerned about is having IRS agents go after middle-class families and small business owners. When you have that many more agents, it’s not to go after the rich. It’s to go after the middle class. That’s what it's for. TODD: So if you’re paying what you are supposed to pay, then you should have nothing to fear. DONALDS: You would make the assumption that IRS audits are up, that they’re putting out more liens on the American people. That’s not true. That data is not there. All Joe Biden is trying to do is find every possible nickel out of every couch from every American to pay for his radical spending. Why would we do that? Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How ridiculous. More people in any job that involves tracking the activities of others means at least some of those in their purview will get harassed. After all, the additional staff has to justify their existence. By Todd’s logic, minority communities have nothing to fear from dozens more police officers on patrol since only criminals have any reason to ‘fear’ more cops. But that’s not the view of Black Lives Matter activists. Yet, Todd and the media would never take on that premise.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   May 15: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ May 8: Liberal Media Scream: Even if Trump loses, Washington Post editor sees America’s ‘dissolution’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream demonstrates that anti-Trumpers have jumped off the deep end eight months before the first primary and caucus vote is cast in the 2024 race. We feature Washington Post columnist and editor-at-large Robert Kagan, who has long criticized former President Donald Trump, once dubbing him a “Frankenstein monster.” In his latest expression of "Trump derangement syndrome," he talked about Trump running again and how it will ruin the nation. But in this case, Trump doesn’t win but loses and claims fraud. The result: America ends. “At that point, I think we face a very serious possibility of dissolution of the United States and secession,” the neoconservative Never Trumper said on the First Look podcast hosted by the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart. It even seemed too much for the host, who called Kagan’s take “a pretty apocalyptic view, and I’m laughing to keep from crying.” From Friday’s First Look on Washington Post Live: ROBERT KAGAN: If you look ahead a year, I think it’s very hard. I really don’t think most Americans — even attentive Americans — have really focused on the fact that a year from now, Donald Trump is going to be the strongest person in the country in some respects. Certainly, he’s going to dominate the Republican Party. At that point, he will be accumulating votes, which in this country is the ultimate certification of legitimacy. And so I think he’s going to be in an incredibly powerful position. He’s going to make it clear to his supporters that if he loses, it can only be as a result of fraud. And therefore, I think the entire Republican Party is going to, if Trump loses, say that the election was fraudulent. And at that point, I think we face a very serious possibility of dissolution of the United States and secession. I know that that sounds extreme, but secession has been pretty common, what used to be a very common activity or at least, you know, in the first hundred years of our republic, and our country hasn’t changed that much. So, I think that’s what we’re looking at in the 2024 scenario right now. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Danielle [Allen], do you share? I mean, that’s a pretty apocalyptic view, and I’m laughing to keep from crying, Bob, but— KAGAN: For the first thing in the morning. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The ultimate in 'Trump derangement syndrome' scaremongering. It’s not good enough for former President Donald Trump to lose. Per Kagan, even if Trump loses, we’ll get an apocalyptic outcome. So, the only way for the U.S. to survive as a nation is for Trump to not even run. For someone who sees Trump as a destroyer of democracy, Kagan isn’t very confident in the strength of our democratic institutions.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ May 1: Liberal Media Scream: Todd cues up Mayorkas to tout Biden as ‘incredibly sharp’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream shows how the Washington political/media machine works when it comes to a matter both sides just don’t want to address fully, such as reports President Joe Biden doesn’t have the mental capacity or stamina to run for reelection or serve out a second term. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd cued up Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to champion Biden as fully fit for reelection. Todd: “Is he up for a second term?” Mayorkas: “100%. Incredibly sharp, incredibly probing, incredible command of the details, probing on the details.” Todd’s follow-up: “You have full confidence he can serve a second term?” Mayorkas repeated his 100% line, and then Todd wrapped up the segment without ever challenging the upbeat assurances from Mayorkas. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: CHUCK TODD: You’re in Cabinet meetings. There’s a lot of questions about President Biden and his ability to serve in a second term. You see him up close, face-to-face. What say you? Is he up, is he up for a second term? ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Oh, Chuck, 100%. Incredibly sharp, incredibly probing, incredible command of the details, probing on the details, asking tough questions. Absolutely. I’m incredibly proud to serve in his administration. I am incredibly proud of the work that we have done across the board — TODD: You have full confidence he can serve a second term? MAYORKAS: 100%. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “It’s the obtuse leading the blind. Everyone knows Joe Biden is as ‘incredibly smart’ as the border is secure, as Mayorkas has repeatedly assured. All but a few Biden sycophants know neither is true, yet Todd let Mayorkas get away with the laugh line.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 24: Liberal Media Scream: Government-funded PBS has Biden scandal, gaffe-free (Washington Examiner post) If ever there was an example that Twitter had it right when the social media giant slapped “government-funded” and “state-affiliated” on PBS and NPR, consider our Mainstream Media Scream example this week featuring politically delusional contributors David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart. Imagine a conservative calling President Joe Biden a strong speaker who is gaffe- and scandal-free, ignoring his refusal to meet with the media, his weekly mistaken mumbles, and the investigations into the family finances or the historic crisis on the border. Well, roll the tape from the Friday PBS NewsHour. There you will see Brooks cheering Biden’s reelection plans and saying that the president “gave a strong State of the Union,” and adding that “there hasn’t been any obvious gaffes, big scandals or anything like that.” From Friday’s PBS NewsHour: GEOFF BENNETT, ANCHOR: President Biden’s allies say the fact that he’s facing only token primary opposition from author Marianne Williamson and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. really is a show of strength for him. DAVID BROOKS: Oh, for sure. I mean, there’s — in the polling, there’s still a lot of Democrats who think he should not run, but that’s mostly an age issue, not an ideology issue. But the midterm election sort of silenced all that. And he’s been looking strong. He gave a strong State of the Union. There hasn’t been any obvious gaffes, big scandals or anything like that. And so there’s nothing — or, even ideologically, I’d say, over the two years so far, two and a bit, that he’s pretty well massaged the center-left fights that happen in the Democratic Party by doing things that some people, the centrists like, and some things that people on the Left like. And so there’s no natural home for an opposition candidate, and everyone’s united by Donald Trump. And so, you know, I think what’s interesting about him, he’s been sounding pretty candidate-y for six months now. He’s been talking like, 'I really want to go after Trump.' And he’s been doing it. You know, I think what has to concern the White House a little is they’ve had improving inflation, a lot of good domestic policy achievements, Republicans have staked out some pretty extreme ground on a lot of issues. And if you look at the polls, it’s still reasonably close. His approvals are still in 46s. And it could be that we’re just in an extremely partisan, divided country, an extremely cynical country, where, on the national level, nobody — and this is global — no national leader gets popular anymore. No national leader gets to 55, because there’s so much cynicism across the Western world. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How surreal to visit the world of PBS News, where Joe Biden is ‘strong,’ has had ‘a lot of good domestic policy achievements’ and hasn’t had any ‘obvious gaffes’ or scandals. Biden is a ‘gaffe’ machine! As for scandals, hello Hunter Biden and Chinese money going to the Biden family, to say nothing of the ongoing scandal of the out-of-control border. Just because PBS ignores Biden’s confusion and malfeasance doesn’t mean he’s good at his job. But to PBS, this is analysis from the ‘conservative’ house analyst. No wonder conservative taxpayers are so annoyed about having to fund PBS.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 17: Liberal Media Scream: ABC pundit says Republicans are the bossy ones (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features an ABC News pundit ripping Republicans for pushing people around. Jane Coaston, once with the New York Times, cited abortion in claiming Republicans are America’s busybodies, ignoring how the Democrats are engaged in a wide-ranging effort to force the country to accept electric cars, gas stoves, and kiddie transgender operations. “I think the most important political priority for any political party is to not be the people telling people what to do,” she said. Thankfully, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was sitting next to her on ABC’s This Week. He countered, “Democrats are going to have a hard time making that case when you look at public education and what their position is, which is, us and the teachers’ unions know what to tell your children and where they should go to school and how they should be taught.” From the roundtable on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: JANE COASTON: I think the most important political priority for any political party is to not be the people telling people what to do. For the last five years, we’ve heard from Republicans, especially even during COVID, about how freedom was going to reign and that they were just going to let people make decisions for themselves. They want to be the cool mom of politics. Well, that era has ended. And I think that there’s a specific type of libertarianism that is very popular in America. Unlike the Libertarian Party. But there’s a specific type of, don’t tell me what to do, let me make my decisions. Let me make my decisions for my family, that is very politically profitable. And I think that if Democrats are able to say that we are the party that says you can make these decisions, you can make decisions for your family, your family can make decisions for themselves, I think that that will be politically profitable. And I think that for Republicans, it’s going to be challenging to try to sound simultaneously like cool mom and the Moral Majority that so many of us grew up with. CHRIS CHRISTIE: Well, the Democratic Party is all for that on abortion, but they are against it when it comes to public education. When it comes to public education, people shouldn’t be able to make their own decisions, you shouldn't be able to have the ability to have your child go to parochial school if you can’t afford it, or to go to a charter school if they’re not available in your town. Or to be able to decide what your children should be able to learn about sexuality and at what age they should learn that. So the Democrats are going to have a hard time making that case when you look at public education and what their position is, which is us and the teachers’ unions know what to tell your children and where they should go to school and how they should be taught. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What a total lack of self-awareness. If you really think ‘the most important political priority for any political party is to not be the people telling people what to do,’ how can you be a Democrat, as Coaston obviously is, since telling people what to do is the fundamental passion of modern Democrats on everything from the kind of car you can drive to the type of stove you can put in your kitchen? As the famous line goes, where Democrats can be substituted for liberals, liberals don’t care what you do as long as it’s mandatory.’” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 10: Liberal Media Scream: Liberals can’t handle the truth (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the news industry’s knee-jerk reaction to the expulsion of two Tennessee Democrats from the legislature for violating floor rules in aggressively demanding gun control. MSNBC political pundit Jon Meacham gets our spotlight for his rambling tie-in of abortion, gender, guns, and, of course, former President Donald Trump to the ouster of state Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson last week. “These things are connected,” Meacham said in dismissing Republicans and blaming Trump in the latest example of the media’s Trump derangement syndrome. “It’s a reminder that what Trump has represented, which is this showmanship, this, ‘We’re going to own the libs,’ is actually of enormous real-world consequence, right? His reality show, which is about his attention and his fundraising and his ego and his narcissism, has an impact on how people live and how the vulnerable live.” Our curator, Media Research Center’s Vice President Brent Baker, gave a rare five out of five “scream” rating and said the meandering performance showed that liberals can’t handle the truth. “The Republicans in control of the Tennessee legislature were following the very rules of the state constitution in expelling the two Democrats, the kind of orderly process Meacham advocated but can’t accept when it reminds him of Trump-like wrath,” Baker said in his analysis. Meacham on Monday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC: I can’t help, just because of where I’m sitting in Nashville, to bring this up as well. You know, 14 days ago, the children, the teachers, the adults who were murdered at the Covenant School were getting ready for school at this hour. And I bring it up because there are — there’s the issue of reproductive health, there’s the issue of a wildly and, if I may, weirdly expansive view of the Second Amendment, there’s an anti-democratic, lowercase “D” movement because we have a supermajority here. Because Republicans can expel two members, they did. And these things are connected. It’s a reminder — and imagine a world where we haven’t even mentioned the indictment of a former president and the potential indictments coming — it’s a reminder that what Trump has represented, which is this showmanship, this, “We’re going to own the libs,” is actually of enormous real-world consequence, right? His reality show, which is about his attention and his fundraising and his ego and his narcissism, has an impact on how people live and how the vulnerable live. And people who are vulnerable who don’t even know they’re vulnerable because they’re 9 years old and they’re going to school. And so, the right wing — and, Joe, you alluded to it, you grew up around this, you were elected — the right wing needs to be a fully functioning part of a two-party constitutional system. And they can believe what they want to believe about reproduction and about guns, and that’s all what they’re supposed to do. Then you take it to the people. And when you take it to the people, you then obey the result because that’s what we do. That’s what separates us from chaos. Think about what the Right is doing here. They’re doing two things: They’re pushing, arguably, too far on these important issues, and then if they get a result they don’t like, they storm a capital, or they throw people out of a legislature. Seems to me you can have the first, but you can’t have the second, and if you insist on having both, then you are not part of this conversation, and we need a conversation that has people of good faith, whether you agree with them or not. These are difficult issues, right? I mean, the definition of life and the Roe system. This isn’t easy. There are people of enormous goodwill, enormous goodwill, who differ from lots of folks that we’re talking to and about. But you take it to the system, you take it to the Constitution, and if there’s a decision, you respect it, and if the decision goes the other way, you work within channels. You don’t throw people out of legislative bodies. Baker explains our weekly pick: “A classic example of Trump derangement syndrome, though this time in a droll and low-key manner, yet still an instance of how liberals in the media see everything through a Trump prism. The Republicans in control of the Tennessee legislature were following the very rules of the state constitution in expelling the two Democrats, the kind of orderly process Meacham advocated but can’t accept when it reminds him of Trump-like wrath.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 3: Liberal Media Scream: 60 Minutes’ hate list against Marjorie Taylor Greene (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the acid 60 Minutes interview of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene by Lesley Stahl. In it, the Georgia Republican pushed back hard against Stahl’s trolling interview that included a hater’s list of nasty comments thrown at the lawmaker ever since she first ran for the North Georgia House seat. For her reporting project, Stahl went on social media to “look up” some of the comments. She read them to Greene, who shrugged, “Looks like the average troll in my Twitter feed, so I don’t really care.” There was no mention in the televised story of the times Greene has been swatted in several cases where she was worried about becoming a so-called “death by police” victim. Stahl also couldn’t resist the standard liberal media mantra on the necessity of raising taxes. On the debt ceiling, Stahl asked, “Would you be willing to vote for compromise? In other words, raise some taxes?” Greene replied: “I don’t think we have a revenue problem in Washington. We have a spending problem.” Stahl sneered, “That’s glib. That’s glib.” From Sunday’s 60 Minutes on CBS: LESLEY STAHL: We looked up some words that have been said about you. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: OK. STAHL: “Crazy,” “Q-clown,” “Looney Tune,” “unhinged,” “moron.” Pretty ugly stuff. GREENE: Looks like the average troll in my Twitter feed, so I don’t really care. STAHL: You’re used to it? GREENE: I don’t let name-calling bother me or offend me. I just don’t. ..... STAHL: Would you be willing to vote for compromise? In other words, raise some taxes? GREENE: I don’t think we have a revenue problem in Washington. We have a spending problem. STAHL: You know something? That’s glib. That’s glib. That, what does that mean? The two sides have to come together and hammer it out. GREENE: Cut spending. STAHL: Both sides. GREENE: Both sides need to cut spending. STAHL: Where do you want to cut it? GREENE: COVID bailout money and a lot of green energy spending. STAHL: But are you willing to let us go into default? GREENE: No. I’ve always said I wouldn’t do that. STAHL: So, would you compromise? GREENE: It depends. STAHL: On taxes? You won’t. GREENE: No, I’m not raising taxes. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The 60 Minutes story was unremarkable in many ways as Stahl painted, as you’d expect from the establishment media, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as a crazy far-right extremist. But Stahl showed how she and CBS News consider the congresswoman first and foremost to be an impediment to their consistent demand that taxes must be raised. In that respect, to CBS she’s just as awful as any conservative who prefers cutting spending to raising taxes.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 27: Liberal Media Scream: Jon Stewart says America all talk on ending discrimination (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features liberal activist Jon Stewart claiming that efforts in America to embrace the diversity, equity, and inclusion movement are just an inch deep, a “salve” to make people feel good. On CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, the former host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central lumped critical race theory in with DEI and said that despite all the hand-wringing by many to change society’s views on discrimination, it’s mostly just talk. He pointed to the National Football League as an example. The NFL has the so-called Rooney Rule, which requests that teams interview minorities when a top job comes open, nothing more. “So here’s what we are going to do,” Stewart said. “We’re going to have to talk to one black guy. ‘Are we good? I think we’re good.’” Jon Stewart on Sunday’s Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN: By the way, all these diversity initiatives and CRT and all those other things are only there because we refuse to actually fix the real problem. The diversity and equity initiatives are a salve. They are to pacify and mollify because we won’t actually do the real thing. We won’t actually dismantle the vestiges of all the systemic racism and all the systemic classism and all the systemic gender issues. We won’t actually dismantle that. But what we will do is you can have an office in the building. And every few months, we’re going to have to sit and listen to you talk for, like, an hour. “And so we’re good, right?” Like, it’s a country that won’t face — I’ll explain it like, OK, the NFL, right? You know the Rooney Rule? The Rooney Rule in the NFL is because there are so few African American coaches, you have to at least interview, like, one of them. So that’s the rule now, instead of it’s the thing you put in place instead of looking at the owner’s box, and realizing, oh, right, that’s just the legacy of the economic segregation that’s been in our country since its founding. So we’re never going to deal with that. So here’s what we are going to do. A diversity and equity initiative, we’re going to have to talk to one black guy. “Are we good? I think we’re good.” But that’s what I’m, what I’m trying to say is we don’t — the thing that they’re pointing at is the thing that’s in place because we won’t do the actual thing. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “To conservatives, DEI is undermining the American ideal of equal opportunity and replacing it with forced equal outcomes that exacerbate racial tensions. Stewart put himself clearly on the Left, contending DEI doesn’t go far enough but complaining it’s ‘in place because we won’t do the actual thing.’ Yet he never explains what that ‘actual thing’ would entail.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 20: Liberal Media Scream: Joy Reid coddles reporter fired for hostility to DeSantis (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream turns to the case of an Axios reporter who was fired for describing as “propaganda” a news release dished out by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Instead of backing Axios in her interview with the reporter, MSNBC’s liberal host Joy Reid blamed DeSantis and gave the reporter a chance to blast Axios and claim that the likely Republican presidential candidate bullied Axios into action. Reid said, “There is a bullying aspect and a lot of trolling" of those who work for DeSantis. The Tampa-based journalist Ben Montgomery said on Reid’s show, “I feel like what Axios did to me has a chilling effect on the entire news media.” Here’s what happened, according to the New York Post: “Journalist Ben Montgomery was fired from the news outlet [Axios] after a staffer in the state Department of Education tweeted out a screenshot of him telling the department’s press office over email, ‘This is propaganda, not a press release’ in reply to a release that highlighted the GOP governor hosting a roundtable on ‘Exposing the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Scam in Higher Education.’” Oh, and of course, he's thinking of cashing in with a book. From the March 16 episode of The ReidOut on MSNBC: BEN MONTGOMERY: So we have the Florida Department of Education, that’s kind of engaged in, in my view, campaigning for DeSantis for 2024 presidential campaign. So what they are doing is weaponizing these emails that we sometimes send and trying to make us look like lefty activists when really we’re just interested in them serving the people and being true public service and doing the right kind of work that the taxpayers are paying them for. JOY REID: There is a bullying aspect and a lot of trolling. They do a lot of Twitter trolling. They tried to bully my dear friend and colleague Andrea Mitchell for asking a question not even to DeSantis, to the vice president, Kamala Harris. Did you experience, before this, any kind of bullying behavior from the DeSantis camp? BEN MONTGOMERY: Look, I mostly write about fluffy kind of things. I cover the news, of course. I’ve been an investigative reporter for a long time but not with this administration. By and large I have not had the opportunity to really do any kind of depth, in-depth reporting on a DeSantis administration. I’m not a person that they should be afraid of, I don’t think. I’m not writing about them every day. I’m not digging deep, in other words. So yeah, but this was propaganda and it was a waste of my time. That’s ultimately what I was saying to them. It’s wasting my time and it’s done in a clear vein of propaganda. This is objectionably propaganda. And I read the whole thing because I give them the benefit of the doubt because they work for the people of Florida. And I want to do right by my readers. And so when this wastes my time and it’s just propaganda, I feel like I have a right to say so. And I feel like what Axios did to me has a chilling effect on the entire news media. It’s a very sad thing. REID: Oh, it 100% does! It does show that bullying works. And that sends a message to every other journalist. You put up a sort of fun tweet after this all happened saying that you made a quiche. What are your next plans? MONTGOMERY: I was talking to my agent today about whether there was a book in this, and maybe there is. Maybe it’s time that somebody isn’t afraid to stand up to DeSantis, write a true biography of him. So I might be the guy to do that. We’ll see. REID: Yeah, good luck, he has his military records, people have lots and lots of questions. Maybe you can pull it off. Ben Montgomery, thank you man. Really appreciate you being here, and best of luck in whatever you do next. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Montgomery’s attitude betrayed as true what the DeSantis staff saw; he is, despite his denial, a ‘lefty activist,’ just one that a media outlet, in a rarity, held accountable. Reid, of course, saw it all through the prism of her hatred for all things DeSantis and thus treated him as the victim instead of as the one who violated the trust of his readers.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 13: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC wants baseball out of Florida over DeSantis (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a new call from an MSNBC anchor for baseball to pull spring training out of Florida over some of the recent social policy moves by likely 2024 presidential candidate and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. Anchor Lindsey Reiser compared Florida under DeSantis to the days of Jim Crow as she featured Washington Post sports writer Kevin Blackistone, who had just published a column urging Major League Baseball to respond to “Ron DeSantis’s culture wars.” She said: “You outlined Major League Baseball’s move out of Florida for spring training in yesteryear — late ‘40s, a state with some of the harshest Jim Crow laws as the league was introducing black players to the league.” He responded that MLB has already shown a hand, moving the 2021 All-Star Game out of Georgia over voting reform laws that turned out to be a nonfactor in last year’s elections that saw record numbers of people at the polls. Baseball, he said, “should express if it has some uncomfortableness with the things that are going on in the DeSantis campaign, in the way that he’s run the state of Florida, and in some of the other legislation that has been passed there that they should speak out.” From MSNBC Reports in the 10 a.m. ET hour, on Friday: LINDSEY REISER: Back in DeSantis’s home state, his fellow Republicans are pretty busy this week with lawmakers introducing three new bills that would expand on legislation that critics call the "Don’t Say Gay Law," another that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and a proposal to require bloggers who write about Florida politics to register with the state. This all comes just over a month after Gov. DeSantis's decision to block AP African American Studies from Florida schools, but as Florida sees all kinds of controversy over those proposals, it’s also in the middle of a spring tradition with 15 Major League Baseball teams currently holding spring training and the league and players facing growing calls to speak out against those bills. Joining me right now, ESPN panelist and sports commentary writer for the Washington Post, Kevin Blackistone. He’s out with a new piece called “Baseball can no longer ignore Ron DeSantis’s culture wars.” Kevin, thanks for being with us. I want to talk to you about the piece. You outlined Major League Baseball’s move out of Florida for spring training in yesteryear — late ‘40s, a state with some of the harshest Jim Crow laws as the league was introducing black players to the league. In 1947, again, Jackie Robinson joining the Brooklyn Dodgers, his team moving spring training to Havana, Cuba. That same year, the Cleveland Indians, the New York Giants moved spring training to Tucson. KEVIN BLACKISTONE: So baseball reacted, right, and they started to depart from, or certain teams did, from Florida. And that really began the tradition of the Cactus League in Arizona. So that is the through line to what is going on now. And baseball has in the very recent past, right, in 2021, they moved the All-Star Game out of the state of Georgia in protest to some of the election laws that a lot of people in the state of Georgia felt were burdensome on black voters in particular and other people of color and people who were marginalized in that state. So I just think that, you know, baseball has spoken out on these issues before, and I think it should express if it has some uncomfortableness with the things that are going on in the DeSantis campaign, in the way that he’s run the state of Florida, and in some of the other legislation that has been passed there that they should speak out. You know, we talked about — and I know this network has — about the review of books for youth in the public schools in the state of Florida and some of those that have not yet been allowed back on the shelves. One of those books happens to be a book about Jackie Robinson, so think about the irony of that. They also temporarily suspended the distribution of books about Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron, two of the great black stars of baseball. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What an incredibly insidious historic precedent to cite, the Democratic Party’s century of enforcing segregation, as a rationale now for punishing the people of Florida over a disagreement with policies pushed by the Republican DeSantis. Nothing DeSantis has ever advocated comes close to the kind of racist, inhumane policies Florida enforced in the 1940s.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 6: Liberal Media Scream: Whoopi cheers erasing history she’s ‘not in tune with’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a feud on the Left about “woke” history rewriting between Bill Maher and Whoopi Goldberg. The initial focus is Maher’s defense on CNN of former President Abraham Lincoln, who ended slavery, and an apparent reference to the Washington, D.C., Emancipation Memorial that featured what many believe is a thankful former slave at his feet. “Abraham Lincoln was not a controversial figure among liberals. We liked him. Now they take his name off schools and tear down his statues. Really, Lincoln isn't good enough for you?” said Maher on CNN. Enter Goldberg, a critic of the statue, who slammed the woke movement, claiming she and other black people have always been “woke” to undercurrents of racism. “And this idea of woke, I'll say it again: Most of y'all were asleep,” she said on The View, drawing a look from co-host Joy Behar. From ABC’s The View on Thursday: WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Maher also had some criticism for the other side of the aisle, claiming the Left lost the definition of the term "woke." Huh? OK. Take a look. BILL MAHER: Democrats sometimes can take it too far. You know, I would categorize liberal as different than woke. Woke, which started out as a good thing, alert to injustice — who could be against that? But it became sort of an eye roll because they love diversity except of ideas. Abraham Lincoln was not a controversial figure among liberals. We liked him. Now they take his name off schools and tear down his statues. Really, Lincoln isn’t good enough for you? WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Well, that statue was not good enough. Because it showed a slave down at Lincoln’s feet. And if we’re tearing down statues that are really not in tune with where we are as a nation, or at least where we were a couple of months ago, yeah, you got to take it down. That’s why they removed stuff. That’s why people are moving stuff around. And this idea of woke, I’m going to say it again: Most of y’all were asleep. JOY BEHAR: Who are you speaking to? GOLDBERG: I’m talking to all those folks that use that word “woke” all the time. Y’all were asleep. We were never asleep. We had to stay awake watching you. So, you woke up and you thought, “Oh, my God, there’s lots of women running amok doing things they’re not supposed to be doing and drag queens everywhere and oh, my God, people of color!” You know, you always talk about the snowflakes — look in the mirror. Y’all can’t seem to handle anything. You can’t seem to handle competition from Democrats to Republicans. You can’t seem to handle the discussions of why people feel the way they do. Your idea is to get rid of everything. So, stop calling us snowflakes. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “One wonders if Goldberg will be so pleased when the calls come to take down statues of Martin Luther King and remove his name from roads and schools. After all, like her argument with Lincoln, ‘he’s really not in tune with where we are as a nation’ since, by 2023 standards, he was homophobic and transphobic.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 27: Liberal Media Scream: Hollywood says banning filming plastic bottles will save the world (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is going a little off beat to highlight a new Hollywood claim that movie studios and actors are saving the world and the environment with an honor system to ban plastic bottles “on camera.” It came from Fran Drescher, the president of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the star of The Nanny, a hit sitcom in the 1990s, as she addressed the SAG Awards show last night. To a smattering of applause, Drescher said that Hollywood’s effort to stop showing plastic on camera was the industry’s biggest effort “to save the planet since World War II.” Drescher, during the SAG Awards carried live Sunday night on Netflix’s channel on YouTube, said: “I am very proud to say that SAG-AFTRA and MPAA has forged Green Council, the biggest joint effort of stars and studios to save the planet since World War II. Mission No. 1: an honor system to eliminate single-use plastic on camera, behind the scenes, and leverage star power to challenge audiences around the world to do the same. You may notice this year on your tables, they’re all glass bottles.” Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Nothing better encapsulates out-of-touch Hollywood celebrities than the hubris displayed by Drescher to describe actors not using single-use plastic on camera as key to the greatest effort ‘to save the planet since World War II.’ That’s ludicrous, and even her own union members realized that, hence the very minimal applause in the room. Many viewers watching at home were likely laughing at her absurdity. Perhaps she should be a little more concerned about her members demanding on-set trailers and private jets.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 20: Liberal Media Scream: The View hits ‘Ron DeSaster,’ would ‘ban the alphabet’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the hosts of ABC’s The View and their escalating screeching about Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and his efforts to have public school lessons conform with state law and what Sunshine State parents want. Instead of a level-headed discussion about his efforts, the hosts attacked DeSantis as a right-wing social warrior who liberal Republican and never-Trumper Ana Navarro dubbed “Ron DeSaster.” The name-calling included unhinged charges that the governor is so anti-education that he would “ban the alphabet.” The ranting followed moves by DeSantis to question a new College Board Advanced Placement class on black history. He and some other governors are concerned the liberal class plan teaches critical race theory and other lessons banned in the state. “I think he’s going to ban the alphabet. Holy hell,” said Navarro. From ABC’s The View on Thursday, Feb. 16: ANA NAVARRO: What this is all about getting on Fox News. What this is all about is fanning the flames of grievance, of white grievance. What this is all about is manufacturing culture wars that do not exist so that he can come out like William Wallace, the guy in Braveheart — “Freedom!” Listen, I live in Florida. I live under Gov. Ron DeSaster! SUNNY HOSTIN: You got to move, Ana. NAVARRO: Every day, I wake up and wonder what he’s going to be. What’s the flavor du jour today? What’s he going to be against today? He’s against AP He’s against DEI — diversity, equity, and inclusion. He’s against [environmental, social, and governance] this week. He’s against electric stoves. HOSTIN: Don’t say gay. NAVARRO: He’s against LGBTQ. I think he’s going to ban the alphabet. Holy hell. JOY BEHAR: These people, these fascists out there like DeSantis, they think that we’re just going to sit back and let them do whatever they want. No, we’re not. We’ve seen this movie before. OK? Those of us who lived in the '60s and '70s, we saw this movie. There were many, many fascist tactics coming down the pike from Nixon and the rest of these fascists; that’s what they are. And we protested and we protested, and we ended a war that was illegal. And we did stuff. And it’s happening again. That’s the good news. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The unhinged reaction to Ron DeSantis says something about who the left is most afraid of running for president. The stars of The View can’t have an honest discussion about his policies and ideas, so they rant and rave and call him a ‘fascist’ and make other ridiculous accusations. It may entertain liberal viewers, but it should be embarrassing to ABC News, which produces the daily gabfest.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 13: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos demands GOP investigate Trump family (Washington Examiner post) Armed only with a Washington Post story about Saudi links to Kushner and Trump, Stephanopoulos asked Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the panel, “Will you be investigating that as well?” Comer called for strict ethics disclosure laws, which Democrats have resisted, but that wasn’t good enough for the media star and former Clinton White House aide. “To be clear,” he said, “you believe that this should apply to Kushner and Trump as well as the Bidens at this point?” The exchange on Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you more about your oversight responsibilities. You made it clear you are going to be looking at Hunter Biden and his financial entanglements with foreign countries including China. I want to put up a front-page story from the Washington Post this morning detailing Jared Kushner’s ties to the Saudis. “After helping the prince's rise, Trump and Kushner benefit from Saudi funds.” A $2 billion investment in Kushner’s funds from the Saudis. We know the president, former President Trump, has also received funds related to the Saudi golf tour. Sen. Ron Wyden says these entanglements deserve investigation. Will you be investigating that as well? REP. JAMES COMER: I think everything’s on the table. Look, we’re investigating Joe Biden. We know that Joe Biden said during the presidential campaign that he had no knowledge of his son’s business interests. He wasn’t involved. He didn’t benefit from them. We have evidence that would suggest otherwise, and this is very concerning. ... The Democrats complained about Kushner’s foreign dealings. Republicans are certainly complaining about the entire Biden family’s foreign business dealings. We need to know what is allowable and what isn’t allowable. We need to have strict ethics laws, and we need to significantly increase the disclosure laws in America. So I think this investigation is going to be very important to fix a problem before it gets out of hand. STEPHANOPOULOS: But to be clear, you believe that this should apply to Kushner and Trump as well as the Bidens at this point? COMER: I believe that when we talk about passing legislation to set a line as to where you can be with relatives of high-ranking government officials with respect to doing business with adversaries overseas, then it would apply to everyone. We need to fix this before it gets worse in the next administration. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “If only the Washington press corps were as eager over the years to jump on stories about Hunter and Joe Biden getting money out of China as they have consistently been to promote every new allegation against anyone in Donald Trump’s orbit. It’s almost as if Stephanopoulos is trying to deflect from Joe Biden, to apply his own version of ‘both-siderism’ to undermine the impact of Congressman Comer’s upcoming hearings on the Bidens.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 6: Liberal Media Scream: Reporters beg for Biden to get ‘credit’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream shows how desperate some in the media are for President Joe Biden to get “credit” for his efforts at a time when polls show that 62% do not believe the Democrat has accomplished much. The top cheerleader is NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell who said on Meet the Press that the president isn’t getting the thanks he deserves. “He’s not getting credit for the economy, and should be,” she told host Chuck Todd. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: ANDREA MITCHELL: And he’s not getting credit for the economy, and should be. Look at it, you know, I think the danger of recession is receding. It’s not altogether gone. We see a big jobs market. It’s a problem for Jay Powell [chairman of the Federal Reserve] because now they do have to keep tightening. But, you know, wage growth is moderating. CHUCK TODD: I tell you, people don’t– MITCHELL: Layoffs are only in a few sectors, they’re not universal. TODD: There's no doubt– AMY WALTER: Manufacturing is building. TODD: –but people still feel like this economy’s just not– MITCHELL: That’s right, because inflation’s stable. TODD: It still feels wobbly. CORNELL BELCHER: Mid-summer, mid-summer – let’s, let’s check in on that. TODD: That’s fair. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How nice it must be to be a Democratic president so you have leading members of the Washington press corps spinning talking points in your favor, days before your big speech, about how you ‘should be’ getting more credit. Mitchell’s contentions about Biden’s record are better suited for someone from the White House press office than someone who is supposed to be a dispassionate journalist.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 30: Liberal Media Scream: Hammer time: Speaker McCarthy pounds media bias and double standards (Washington Examiner post) Last week, for example, when a reporter didn’t like McCarthy’s answer to a question, the speaker said: “Let me be very clear and respectful to you. You asked me a question. When I answer it, it's the answer to your question. You don't get to determine whether I answer your question or not, OK?” Then, on Face the Nation, he bristled when host Margaret Brennan criticized his appointment of “election deniers” to committee posts. Noting that she didn’t complain when Democratic deniers of former President Donald Trump’s election got good committee seats, he said, “If you want to hold Republicans to that equation, why don’t you also hold Democrats?” From Sunday’s interview on CBS’s Face the Nation: Margaret Brennan: I want to ask you about some of the makeup of your caucus. Speaker Kevin McCarthy: Yes. Brennan: According to CBS records, 70% of the House GOP members denied the results of the 2020 election. You put many of them on very key committees: Intelligence, Homeland Security, Oversight. Why are you elevating people who are denying reality like that? McCarthy: Well, if you look to the Democrats, their ranking member [Jamie] Raskin had the same thing, denied Trump or Bush was in there. Bennie Thompson — Brennan: Did you see those numbers we just put up there? Seventy percent! McCarthy: Did you also be fair and equal where you looked at Raskin did the same thing, Bennie Thompson, whose a ranking member and was a chair? These individuals were chair of the Democratic Party. Brennan: I’m asking you, as leader of Kevin McCarthy’s House, why you made these choices? These were your choices. McCarthy: Yeah, they're my choices, but they’re the conference choices. But I’m also asking you when you look to see just Republicans — Democrats have done the same thing. So maybe it’s not denying. Maybe it’s the only opportunity they have to have a question about what went on during the election. So if you want to hold Republicans to that equation, why don’t you also hold Democrats? Why don’t you hold Jamie Raskin? Why don’t you hold Bennie Thompson? When Democrats had appointed them to be chair, I never once heard you ask Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat that question when they were in power, in the majority. When they questioned — Brennan: You’re talking about things going back to 2000, which was a time, I didn’t have this show back then, which is why I’m asking you now about your leadership. McCarthy: No, no! They were in power last Congress. So why — Brennan: You’re talking about questions from the 2000 election. McCarthy: You’re asking me about questions that happened to another Congress. Brennan: About these choices you just made, just made. This is your Congress. McCarthy: These are members who just got elected by their constituents, and we put them into committees. And I’m proud to do it. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “It’s always refreshing to see a politician push back against a liberal media storyline the journalist presumes is beyond questioning, especially when the journalist is someone so oblivious as Brennan is to her bias.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS (CHEERS).   ■ January 23: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Joy Reid says DeSantis likes only ‘happy slaves’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream highlights the latest cable TV attack on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s war on woke policies in what is likely to become a regular media pattern as the top Republican rival of former President Donald Trump steps closer to a 2024 bid. The attack came from MSNBC’s Joy Reid, enraged that DeSantis scuttled a pilot AP black course in state schools. But it’s not that simple, despite her spin. According to the DeSantis administration, the new course offered by College Board violates Florida's new anti-"woke" law because it is favorable to critical race theory. “As submitted, the course is a vehicle for a political agenda and leaves large, ambiguous gaps that can be filled with additional ideological material, which we will not allow,” said Bryan Griffin, the governor’s press secretary. “As Governor DeSantis has stated, our classrooms will be a place for education, not indoctrination." Reid, however, smeared DeSantis as a racist for his administration’s actions. “I’m not saying Ron DeSantis is racist, but to quote [former Tallahassee Mayor] Andrew Gillum, I think the racists might think he’s racist.” She added that DeSantis wants only happy history taught in schools, “the history of slavery as happy slaves, good slave masters.” Plus, watch as she twists the other AP history classes taught in Florida as she bashes the “book-banning wannabe president.” From Thursday’s The ReidOut on MSNBC: Joy Reid: The [Stop Woke Act] is aimed at eradicating the teaching of history, gender identity, and sexual orientation in favor of curriculum that centers and lionizes people who look like Ron DeSantis. Just take a look at what AP courses are deemed educationally valuable in the state of Florida per the book-banning wannabe president. European history, of course. Along with courses on the history and language of Italy, where DeSantis’s family hails from, Germany, and Japan, which happened to be the Axis countries the U.S. fought during World War II. Now, whether Ron would consider fascist Italy to have been a bad guy in that war, well, that’s up for debate. ... So, what DeSantis is essentially saying is that the only valuable Advanced Placement class for a Florida student are classes that are about Europe or the other Axis countries. That’s it. African-American studies is not deemed valuable, and it’s not that he’s saying you can’t teach black history, but here’s the evidence. It’s how you teach black history that he’s got a problem with. DeSantis, when he was a high school history teacher — this is the quote from one of his former students. He was a high school history teacher at a private school in Georgia. ‘Mr. DeSantis was mean to me and hostile toward me,’ said Miss Pompey, who graduated in 2003. ‘Not aggressively but passively because I was black.’ She recalled DeSantis teaching, this is the important part, Civil War history in a way that sounded to her like an attempt to justify slavery. So, when I add that to the fact he’s going after the National Hockey League because they dare to recruit nonblack people, essentially saying you may recruit white people and continue to keep a very white league white, but you may not try to recruit minorities. You know, I’m not saying Ron DeSantis is racist, but to quote Andrew Gillum, I think the racists might think he’s racist. ... It’s the Daughters of the American Revolution, the pro-Confederate groups who insisted that we can only teach the history of slavery as happy slaves, good slave masters. If you’re doing that, I promise you an AP class that taught that, that slavery was good, because it seemed at least per his former students, Dr. [Steve] Gallon [member of the Miami-Dale school board] that he wanted to teach history of slavery as sort of gallant slave owners who were kind to their happy slaves. He’s cool with that. And if the AP course said that, he’d be fine with it. I also think that you’ve seen the revelation of what this is really about. A guy named Stanley Kurtz claims he read the story, that he read the curriculum, and he said, ‘The larger danger here is that these courses, if they’re approved, will see the college board devise AP courses in women's studies, gender studies, transgender studies, Latino studies, environmental studies, a full panoply of polarized studies that have Balkanized and politicized higher education.’ Dr. Gallon, in your view, is this an attempt to shut down the teaching of not just black history but any history but the Hallmark card of white and European history? Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Reid’s vitriol shows DeSantis must be succeeding in making inroads to undercut institutions, such as the education establishment, as vehicles for liberal indoctrination of students. So, DeSantis must be discredited with over-the-top invective before he gains any traction in a presidential race. But Reid’s hatred toward him will only elevate the admiration for him amongst conservatives and many independent voters.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 16, 2023: Liberal Media Scream: In Chuck Todd’s ‘facts,’ Sen. Ron Johnson sees bias (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream raises an interesting question in today’s partisan Washington. Why do Republicans talk to liberal journalists if they know that they are going to be insulted? That was the case Sunday on Chuck Todd’s Meet the Press when Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WY) appeared, knowing he was holding the short end of the stick no matter what he said. Johnson even said so: “This is pretty obvious to anybody watching this, is you don’t invite me on to interview me. You invite me on to argue with me.” The host, of course, was having none of it. In between his favorite authority openings of “Look” and “So,” he got the last insult in when he said, “You can go back on your partisan cable cocoon and talk about media bias all you want. I understand it’s part of your identity.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press: CHUCK TODD: I’ll take it at your word that you’re ethically bothered by Hunter Biden. I’m curious, though. You seem to have a pattern. SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Are you not? Are you not? TODD: I’m a journalist. I have to deal in facts. I deal in facts, so senator, my question to you is, I have skepticism of both parties. I sit here with skepticism of a lot of people’s work. JOHNSON: So do I. TODD: And I’m curious, are you — were you at all concerned — your Senate Democrats want to investigate Jared Kushner’s loan from the Qatari government when he was working in the government, negotiating many things in the Middle East? Are you not concerned about that? I say that because it seems to me if you’re concerned about what Hunter Biden did, you should be equally outraged about what Jared Kushner did. JOHNSON: I’m concerned about getting the truth. I don’t target individuals — TODD: You don’t? You’re targeting Hunter Biden multiple times on this show, senator. You’re targeting an individual. JOHNSON: Chuck, you know, part of the problem, and this is pretty obvious to anybody watching this is, you don’t invite me on to interview me. You invite me on to argue with me. I’m just trying to lay out the facts that certainly Sen. Grassley and I uncovered. They were suppressed. They were censored. They interfered in the 2020 election. Conservatives understand that. Unfortunately, liberals in the media don’t. And that’s part of the reasons our politics are inflamed is we do not have an unbiased media. We don’t. It’s unfortunate. I’m all for a free press, and it needs to be more unbiased. TODD: Senator, look — go to partisan — Senator, look, we’re trying to do issues here and facts. Look, you can go back on your partisan cable cocoon and talk about media bias all you want. I understand it’s part of your identity. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Chuck Todd, in all his obnoxious glory. Kudos to Sen. Ron Johnson for taking on Todd’s obvious bias and hostility to the concerns of conservatives, even if he is obvious to his own ‘cocoon.’ Pot meet kettle.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 9, 2023: Liberal Media Scream: James Comer nails Chuck Todd’s biased views (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is the first proof that there is a new sheriff in town, a House GOP majority that is eager to point out the biased and often hypocritical views in the media. In our spotlight is Rep. James Comer (R-KY), incoming chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, invited on to Chuck Todd’s NBC Sunday show, Meet the Press. He faced the typically biased questions and views of the host, such as when Todd suggested the GOP would be holding votes on legislation it knows President Joe Biden won’t sign, as if Democrats never held “show” votes. Todd also sneered at Comer’s investigation agenda, suggesting it was just political theater. But instead of taking it, the lawmaker pushed right back, calling out the biased media. When Todd dismissed Republican plans to hold votes on term limits and a balanced budget as “show votes,” Comer countered, “A lot of times, as you know, Chuck, you have to take bills through numerous sessions of Congress before they finally become law.” And when Todd hit GOP plans to probe the Biden administration as “more partisan than professional,” Comer said, “I think the only people that see this as a partisan investigation are the media and the hardcore Democrats.” And for good measure, he added, “Are you kidding me!” Two of the exchanges from Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: CHUCK TODD: I‘m curious, those two things you mention, those are show votes. They’re not going to pass. They have no chance of passing. Some of them might need to be constitutional amendments, and you know how arduous that process is. What’s the point of passing a bill that basically, you get to put a press release out on, but it doesn’t get enacted? REP. JAMES COMER: A lot of times, as you know, Chuck, you have to take bills through numerous sessions of Congress before they finally become law. TODD: Let me ask you this. You’re going to do a lot of oversight. You’re going to have a lot of subpoenas. Many people look at what you’re doing, and they see that it looks more partisan than professional. Tell me how you’re going to try to departisanize an investigation? Or do you expect it to be partisan? COMER: Well, with all due respect, Chuck, I disagree with that. I think the only people that see this as a partisan investigation are the media and the hardcore Democrats. Look, at the same moment that the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee released Donald Trump’s taxes, they then moments later turned around and said, “Comer’s investigation of the Biden family influence peddling is a revenge hearing.” I mean, are you kidding me? Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Comer is off to a great start, recognizing the news media are his enemy just as much as Democrats. It was refreshing to hear an elevated Republican leader take on Todd for his multiple hypocrisies, suddenly concerned, now that Republicans are in charge in the House, about the partisanship of an investigation and the futility of votes on two conservative agenda items that will embarrass Democrats. As if Democrats have never had ‘show votes,’ to put Republicans in a bad light, which most journalists found admirable.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS (CHEERS.)   ■ January 2, 2023: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC calls GOP the party of il Duce (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC doing its best to become the network of the crackpot Left, talking itself into irrelevance for just about everyone else. Not satisfied with its record of attacking Republicans and conservatives as MAGA crazies, the cable channel rolled out a host and guest who dismissed the party as fascists. And not just simple fascists such as World War II-era Italian leader Benito Mussolini. How about “neo-fascist,” “proto-fascist,” and “semi-fascist?” Now that’s got to hurt. The name-calling came Saturday when Mehdi Hasan hosted Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley on Velshi on MSNBC. Stanley, who authored a book titled How Fascism Works, warned, “I think ‘semi-fascism,’ ‘fascism,’ ‘neo-fascism,’ these are accurate descriptions. We need to drop talk of populism, drop these misleading descriptions that hide what we’re actually facing.” From Saturday’s Velshi: MEHDI HASAN: Jason, the GOP is back in power again, at least in the House of Representatives, which means there will be a fair bit of normalizing of them again by the media. In your view, is it fair to describe the modern GOP as ‘neo-fascist’ or ‘proto-fascist’ or, to quote Joe Biden on the MAGA movement, ‘semi-fascist?’ JASON STANLEY, Yale University: There’s certainly within the modern GOP, as the scapegoating of LGBT citizens demonstrates, a fascist movement rising. We — and, to talk about this as some kind of European thing is a confusion since fascism is Jim Crow with a foreign accent. So we have a native, we have multiple native far-right extremist movements: Christian Nationalism, we’ve got, sort of, heritage of Jim Crow. We’ve got an anti-democratic business establishment. And this is a structure, a grouping, that’s going to bring people to vote for an authoritarian party. And that’s what we have, that’s what the modern GOP is increasingly looking like — as Ruth [NYU history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat] said, an anti-democratic party. I think ‘semi-fascism,’ ‘fascism,’ ‘neo-fascism,’ these are accurate descriptions. We need to drop talk of populism, drop these misleading descriptions that hide what we’re actually facing. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Quite the multiple-choice, a range which says more about the narrow thinking of MSNBC hosts and guests trying to discredit Republicans than it does about anything to fear from Republicans. Hasan dreads ‘normalizing’ Republicans because it’s a lot easier to demonize them than to take on and seriously address views with which you disagree.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   > Liberal Media Screams for 2021 and 2022 > For all of 2020. > For all of 2019. > For all of 2018. > For July through December 2017. > For January through June 2017. > For July through December 2016. > For January through June 2016. > For July to December 2015.  

NB Blog Feed

PBS Host Smears Republicans as ‘Influenced By Russia’ and Neo-Nazis

PBS likes to pretend they have a conservative host on staff, but Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover is anything but. Between being married to Democratic congressional candidate John Avlon (also a former Republican for CNN) and her Monday comments on CNN News Central, Hoover proved it. And in those comments, she lashed out at one sitting Republican member of Congress and a famous YouTuber looking to unseat a Republican incumbent from the right. Joining CNN host Kate Bolduan to speak about the House passing massive foreign aid packages and the fallout, Hoover lashed out at Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) over her threat to remove Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) from that position: HOOVER: Look, he didn't get it done to his point. And then to this question of whether Marjorie Taylor Greene is actually going to pull the trigger on this motion to vacate the threat. BOLDUAN: What’s the threat? What's the lingering threat do, do you think? HOOVER: Well look, she wants to have power and she's a chaos organizer. I mean, that's that's her end game. I mean, she just wanted to have power and be relevant. But Hoover’s criticisms went too far when she claimed that Greene was “not here for public the policy” but rather “she's being influenced by Russia.” Without evidence, she asserted, “perhaps there's an argument there.”     With the topic shifted to Republicans who opposed Greene, Bolduan wanted to talk about embattled Republican incumbent Tony Gonzalez of Texas who was forced into a runoff against popular gun YouTuber Brandan Herrera. Hoover parroted a lie that Herrera was a “neo-Nazi”: BOLDUAN: I'm wondering what the fight looks like. What's the “stand up and fight” look like from this, he [Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-TX)] was suggesting kind of the more moderate Republicans who are serving in the House in an election year. What does that look like now in the six months to? HOOVER: Well look, for Tony Gonzales, he's got he has a primary – a runoff election coming in several weeks against a Trump-endorsed neo-Nazi. He might – Meanwhile, he’s in the largest segment of the border. I mean, the only fight he cares about is the border question. Not only was Herrera not endorsed by former President Trump, but one of the Gonzalez campaign talking points was that Herrera had mocked Trump’s youngest son Barron (which was false) in an apparent effort to get support from Trump voters. And while Hoover was trying to suggest a Trump endorsement of Herrera meant Gonzalez was ‘the good one’ in the race, Gonzalez was endorsed by Trump in the 2020 election. On Hoover’s accusations of Herrera being a “neo-Nazi,” fact-checks of that claim came back as disinformation. That accusation stems from dishonest claims about his YouTube content. In addition to Gun Meme Reviews and gun safety videos, Herrera also makes videos that examine guns through a historical lens to talk about their manual of arms and what role their country of origin designed them for. As part of that series, he’s reviewed a lot of firearms from WWII (you can probably see where this is going) and showed images of soldiers using their weapons as B-roll footage. In addition to highlighting guns used by American, British, and Soviet forces, he’s covered guns used by the Germans. Essentially, Herrera has been accused of using “Nazi images” in his videos in the same context that would allow the accusation to be leveled against the History Channel. Hoover’s antics on CNN were another reason to defund PBS. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN News Central April 22, 2024 7:54:54 a.m. Eastern (…) JIM MESSINA: And now we're saying to the rest of the world, look America can walk and chew a little gum at the same time. KATE BOLDUAN: But what does it look like? I mean, it's like really gross, gross gum. [Laughter] MARGARET HOOVER: Well, the sausage making is never pretty, Kate. Look, he didn't get it done to his point. And then to this question of whether Marjorie Taylor Greene is actually going to pull the trigger on this motion to vacate the threat. BOLDUAN: What’s the threat? What's the lingering threat do, do you think? HOOVER: Well look, she wants to have power and she's a chaos organizer. I mean, that's that's her end game. I mean, she just wanted to have power and be relevant. She's not here for public the policy, although to the extent that she's being influenced by Russia to influence their public policy, perhaps there's an argument there. (…) 7:56:53 a.m. Eastern BOLDUAN: I'm wondering what the fight looks like. What's the “stand up and fight” look like from this, he [Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-TX)] was suggesting kind of the more moderate Republicans who are serving in the House in an election year. What does that look like now in the six months to? HOOVER: Well look, for Tony Gonzales, he's got he has a primary – a runoff election coming in several weeks against a Trump-endorsed neo-Nazi. He might – Meanwhile, he’s in the largest segment of the border. I mean, the only fight he cares about is the border question. (…)

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

NYT Ignores Soros Influence in Coverage of Biden State Dep’t Sanctions on IDF

Yet another Soros-funded group just got caught trying to drive a wedge into the American-Israeli alliance, but The New York Times didn’t find any space to mention it in a news report.  In an April 20 article, The New York Times covered potential U.S. State Department sanctions on the Israel Defense Forces’s Netzah Yehuda Battalion. In a post on X the next day, research institute NGO Monitor addressed crucial information ignored by The Times, blaming these possible sanctions on a “coordinated campaign” by the Soros-funded program Democracy for the Arab World Now founded by murdered Washington Post journalist and former Muslim Brotherhood member Jamal Khashoggi. DAWN Executive Director Sarah Leah Whitson boasted that the program had worked hard to bring these sanctions about in a post on X. She also went after Secretary of State Antony Blinken for not acting sooner, saying that her organization “Submitted Leahy sanctions requests for 2 of the Israeli units that ⁦@SecBlinken has putzed and punted on.” Key employees of this organization have celebrated the decision on Al Jazeera and during an X space.  In a post on the program’s Instagram account, Democracy for the Arab World Now pushed for Secretary Blinken to “Sanction Israeli security forces implicated in gross violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearance, torture, and rape, under the Leahy Law amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act.” According to online records reviewed by MRC Business, Soros gave $525,000 to Democracy for the Arab World Now between 2020 and 2022, the year it was founded. Democracy for the Arab World Now is a program of the Dawn Foundation, which Soros gave $275,000 to in 2021. Furthermore, in their frequently asked questions section, Democracy for the Arab World Now tells users who wish to donate anonymously, “You can donate to the MENA Now Fund of the Tides Foundation, which will then transfer the donation to DAWN without revealing your identity.” According to the Open Society Foundations’ website, Soros has given at least $15,013,960 to the Tides Foundation and $14 million to the Tides Center from 2016 to 2022. Additionally, Soros gave over  $34 million to Tides Advocacy from 2017 to 2022. The Times didn’t mention Democracy in the Arab World Now, the Dawn Foundation or Soros’ contributions to either organization. This is particularly astonishing as The Times specifically mentioned the law that the Soros-funded project was lobbying for the IDF to be sanctioned under. “The possible imposition of sanctions against the Netzah Yehuda and other battalions would come under the so-called 1997 Leahy Law, which bans foreign military units accused of human rights violations from receiving U.S. aid or training,” The Times reported. This major omission occurred in the same paper that infamously, and without ironclad evidence, accused the IDF of bombing Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds. This ultimately led to The Times posting an apology note admitting that the paper relied too heavily on the terrorist group Hamas. After repeated MRC reports calling out The Times and NewsGuard’s ratings of the leftist rag, the biased website ratings firm NewsGuard dropped The Times’s perfect rating to 87.5 on account of this flub.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 800-698-4637 and demand they report on Soros’s funding of anti-Israel causes.

NB Blog Feed

CNN Virtue Signals to Save Planet by Releasing Hysterical Letter: ‘To My Son, Born in the Climate Crisis’

CNN once again exposed that it is in fact an activist organization masquerading as a news outlet with a sappy piece on the “climate crisis.” On April 22, CNN celebrated “Earth Day” with an editorial piece from chief climate correspondent Bill Weir. The piece is formatted as a letter to Weir’s four-year-old son. Within the first sentence, Weir’s language quickly devolves into hysterics about mass extinctions and the usual doomsday predictions. For some context, Weir has a history as a natural observer, particularly of waterfowl. He used this critical expertise at then-President Barack Obama’s Second Inauguration, an event so momentous and ponderous that even the seagulls were “awed” according to Weir as if in the presence of a Saint Francis or the Infant Christ.   “This is your fourth Earth Day, and so much has happened in your little lifespan that what started as an annual record of anger and regret has grown into a book full of hopeful solutions,” Weir began in his letter, in what sounds like an excerpt from a Greta Thunberg speech.  The exaggeration continued.  “There are still dark days to be sure, and since you love animals so much, I can’t bring myself to explain just how many of your favorites are on extinction’s brink,” Weir said, persisting in his overblown tirade.  But not to worry, Weir found a way to deal with the lingering dread of a world still chock full of plastic straws and gas-powered stoves: Mister Rogers.     “When disasters strike, I remember the advice of Mister Rogers, who taught me that every time there is a scary event on TV, ‘Look for the helpers. There are always helpers,’” Weir said, dispelling the inevitable sense of helplessness and abject fear that has no doubt gripped the reader when they ponder the sheer cruelty of the rapacious Colombian cattle rancher. The rancher is a beast who hacks away at the sacred heart of Mother Earth in order to make a pittance to feed his starving family.  Weir went on to describe these heartless capitalists, exploiting the land to eat and take up Earth’s precious resources. He described the difficulty of local conservationists like Rosamira Guillen in getting the cooperation for conservation efforts from these villains.  “But to connect enough fragmented habitat for the gene pool to thrive, she would need land,” Weir detailed. “And the cooperation of cattle ranchers who do not share her love for toy-sized primates.”  Guillen further expounded on the difficulty of dealing with such a rabble.  “‘In a country like Colombia, where there’s so many challenges, people don’t realize that if you screw up the forest we’re all going to be screwed,’" she allegedly said, lamenting the ignorance of such people.  Despite such grimness and despicable evil, Weir ended with a message of hope for his son, cursed to be born in such a time of unremitting woe.  “Still, River, when days get dark, and I feel the need to look for helpers, I sometimes flash to the series of fortunate events that gave almost 1,000 acres of forest to the titis – and I imagine all the spots that need similar love,” Weir advised.  And in case this wasn’t enough incentive to put down that burger and go vegan, CNN also helpfully included an editorial note.  “Rolex’s Perpetual Planet Initiative has partnered with CNN to drive awareness and education around key sustainability issues and inspire positive action,” the note informed. 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.  

NB Blog Feed

MRC, Bozell Petition FCC Not to Create a ‘Special Soros Shortcut’

The Media Research Center wants the Federal Communications Commission to know: “The Communications Act does not contain a special Soros shortcut.” Today, the Media Research Center (MRC) and its president, Brent Bozell, filed a formal petition to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) requesting that the agency not fast-track George Soros’ scheme to take over radio behemoth Audacy, which owns the second largest number of broadcast radio stations in the country. Leftist activist billionaire George Soros and his company Soros Fund Management have pushed for the FCC to approve their assignment applications to become the largest shareholder in Audacy. The Communications Act, however, requires the FCC first perform a “public interest” analysis before approving such an acquisition, particularly in a case like this one, where foreign ownership interests are involved. However, Soros has asked the FCC to disregard this congressionally-mandated procedure, saying the commission should use its byzantine “special warrant” process to sidestep proper review. Soros Fund Management, made a move to spend $400 million to acquire 40 percent of Audacy’s shares, insisting that the “special warrant” process is necessary as Audacy has recently filed for bankruptcy. However, as Bozell stated succinctly on behalf of the MRC in the FCC petition, “The Soros filings fail to demonstrate that in this case any interest in the reasonably efficient emergence from bankruptcy cannot be accommodated while also assessing the foreign ownership interests at the same time.”   Bozell pointed out that rather than being motivated by necessity, Soros groups are simply pushing to disregard the congressionally-mandated rules. Bozell explained: “[I]t appears that the Soros groups are simply trying to create an entirely new process or rule [to] … get special treatment when it comes to the [Communications Act] process.” The New York Post previously reported that Soros’ attempted takeover of Audacy may mean the left-wing billionaire “was buying the stake to exert influence on public opinion in the months leading up to the 2024 presidential election.” Between 2016 and 2020, Soros gave over $130 million to other media organizations in order to push his left-wing agenda. He has also given extensively to the International Fact-Checking Network, which coordinates censorship efforts between various left-wing outlets such as The Washington Post and Meta platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp). MRC Vice President for Free Speech America Dan Schneider cautioned that FCC commissioners sympathetic to Soros’ agenda might try to disregard the law to fast-track the Audacy acquisition.  Schneider warned: “Right now, the Democrats on the Commission are trying to grease the skids to allow George Soros and his son Alex to buy skads of radio stations all across America…right before the election. I don’t think that’s coincidental.”  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

NB Blog Feed

CBS Frets ‘Apparently Anti-Semitic Incidents’ at Columbia Marred ‘Peaceful Protests’

CBS broke the ice Monday (after a footnote last week then silence) on the rampant anti-Semitism and terrorist sympathizing at Columbia University by pro-Hamas elements of the student body and like-minded fiends, but they went full-blown ‘fiery but mostly peaceful’ as CBS Mornings co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King fretted the “apparently anti-Semitic incidents” overshadowed “peaceful protests”. CBS only spent 49 seconds in an extended news brief delivered by King, which began innocently enough: “Back here in New York, Columbia University has moved all classes on line today as pro-Palestinian demonstrations continue on and near the campus.”     King then did her best impression of CNN’s Omar Jimenez and MSNBC’s Ali Velshi: “Although there have been peaceful protests, a series of apparently anti-Semitic incidents near campus prompted one rabbi at the school to call for all Jewish students to leave. However, Jewish groups on campus pushed back on that saying students should stay.” After reading an excerpt of a statement from White House social media troll Andrew Bates, King acknowledged Monday night marks the start of Passover and noted the heat Columbia’s president received from “both sides of the aisle...last week about anti-Semitism on college campuses”. Even the chyron was harsher as it stated without a qualifer that “Anti-Semitic Incidents Occur[red] Amid Pro-Palestinian Demonstrations”. In the “Eye Opener”, co-host Nate Burleson also downplayed the anti-Semitism: “Protests lead to charges of anti-Semitism on the campus of Columbia University as a crackdown fails to stop the demonstrations.” In both cases, Burleson and King certainly wouldn’t have been as muted if those calling for harming Jews were uttered by middle-aged or elderly white males like in Charlottesville. ABC continued its coverage with a 67-second segment on Good Morning America, starting with vague allusions by co-host Robin Roberts of “security concerns...at Columbia University amid the Israel/Hamas war.” World News Now/America This Morning co-host Rhiannon Ally spoke of “growing concern about safety at the school, as protests stemming from that Israel/Hamas war intensify” and the remote learning day following “a fifth day yesterday of Columbia pro-Palestine students protesting.” The so-called protests, she explained, have merely been aimed at having Columbia “divest its stocks, funds, and endowments from companies that they say profit from Israel’s violation of international law and Palestinian human rights.” Ally never explained what the threats were to Jewish students, omitting shouts wanting an “intifada”, praising Hamas fighters Al-Qassam, calling for the restoration of Palestine (i.e. an ethnic cleansing of Jews), demanding Tel Aviv be burned to the ground, telling Jewish students to “go back to Poland”, or praising the “martyrs” who died slaughtering Jews on October 7. NBC’s Today had the most time with a two-minute-and-49 second segment. After warning in a tease of “crisis on campus”, co-host Hoda Kotb downplayed the scene with more esoteric descriptions of “[p]ro-Palestinian protesters have been demonstrating on campus for days”. Correspondent Erin McLaughin provided a little bit more detail (click “expand”): MCLAUGHLIN: Last week, more than 100 protesters were arrested on campus and now a rabbi is urging Jewish students to return home as soon as possible citing concerns over their safety and classes today are happening virtually. All of this ahead of Passover, the Jewish holiday, which begins at sundown tonight. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTERS: We will free Palestine! MCLAUGHLIN: This morning, as demonstrations continue on university campuses, New York’s Columbia University announcing all classes will be held virtually today. University president Minouche Shafik issuing a statement saying “we need a reset...to deescalate the rancor” and the university announcing it is adding more security on campus, including 111 additional safety personnel. The move comes as a rabbi at Columbia is urging students to “return home as soon as possible.” Rabbi Eli Buechler. in a letter to Jewish students this weekend, going on to say, “no one should have to endure this level of hatred, let alone at school.” PRO-HAMAS PROTESTERS: In-ti-fada! MCLAUGHLIN: The campus tense amid demonstrations denouncing the Israel-Hamas war. New York Mayor Adams condemning video such as this, which he says shows a young woman with a sign pointing to Jewish students saying, Al Qassem’s next targets. Adams also pointing to one incident last week: a demonstrator chanting, “we are Hamas”. Shafik saying in her statement, “tensions have been exploited and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia”. BAUM: As a Jew, I no longer feel welcome, I no longer feel safe on campus, and I no longer feel like I belong. SONYA POZNANSKY: To be honest, no, I think my safety has definitely been compromised in a lot of ways over the last few days. McLaughlin concluded her report with press releases from the Columbia president and the White House, but proceeded them with some serious belly-aching from Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine: Last night in a press release, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine expressed frustration over, “inflammatory individuals who do not represent us”, adding the group rejects “any form of hate or bigotry.” To see the relevant transcripts from April 22, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

Networks Decry House Passing Bill to Protect America from China, TikTok

The liberal broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC finally found something they disapproved of amid all the foreign aid packages passed by the House over the weekend: a bill that aimed to protect Americans from the influence of Chinese propaganda. During their Monday morning newscasts, each of the big three threw their own hissy fits about the bill that could “ban” TikTok in the U.S. if their China-owned parent company didn’t sell it off. And again, they omitted the TikTok users threatening to kill lawmakers. “Meanwhile, a sweeping national security funding package that will provide aid to Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan as well also includes a possible ban on the popular app TikTok,” NBC Today co-anchor Craig Melvin announced at the top of the segment. “The social media platform could disappear from app stores nationwide unless its Chinese parent company sells it.” Lauding how the Chinese propaganda and spy app had “become engrained in American culture,” NBC correspondent Emilie Ikeda began her report by touting how “some TikTok users using their platform as a call to action hoping to save the app…” She fretted: “This morning, the fate of TikTok in a race against the clock. The House passing a bill that would force the app's Chinese parent company Byte Dance to sell the platform within a year to a new owner, up from the original six months, or face a national ban of the widely popular social media app with 170 million American users.”     Instead of mentioning how the app was responsible for harmful trends such as eating Tide Pods, cooking chicken in Nyquil, and promoting the writings of terrorist Osama Bin Laden, Ikeda blamed the bill for the “escalated” tensions between the U.S. and China. “On Friday, Apple said China ordered the company to remove Meta’s WhatsApp and Threads from its app store there,” she blamed U.S. lawmakers. Over on ABC’s Good Morning America, correspondent Janai Norman mourned that the “clock could be ticking” for the “170 million users and countless of those who rely on TikTok for their livelihood now concerned their financial security could be at risk.” Norman did throw those upset by the bill a lifeline. She cheered that if the bill became law it would be immediately challenged in court: NORMAN: The Senate is expected to take up the legislation tomorrow, and if passed, President Biden has already indicated he will quickly sign it into law. But, not so fast! Experts say don't expect the app go away any time soon. KATIE NOTOPOULOS (Business Insider, senior correspondent): It's not like the app is going to delete off your phone right away. It could be months. It could be years of wading through regulatory and legal hurdles to actually get this done. CBS Mornings was dry in their reporting on the matter since they tucked the TikTok news into the end of a larger report about the foreign aid packages. “It has huge bipartisan support, but now that it is part of this foreign aid bill, it could move more quickly than the similar bill passed in March,” correspondent Scott MacFarlane warned. None of the networks mentioned that members of Congress received death threats after TikTok told users to contact their representatives. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America April 22, 2024 7:31:58 a.m. Eastern ROBIN ROBERTS: Michael, the new fallout for TikTok after the House passed a bill over the weekend that could potentially ban the popular social media app within a year. Janai Norman is here with what this could mean for content creators and the more than 170 million users. Good morning, Janai. JANAI NORMAN: Good morning, Robin. 170 million users and countless of those who rely on TikTok for their livelihood now concerned their financial security could be at risk. But for lawmaker, the concerns they say are about data security and personal information about all those millions of users. [Cuts to video] NORMAN: This morning the clock could be ticking for popular app, TikTok. TIKTOK USER: Breaking news right now, the House of Representatives has officially passed another TikTok ban. NORMAN: Over the weekend, the House of Representatives passing legislation that could see the app banned in the U.S. if Chinese owner Byte Dance doesn't sell within a year. KATIE NOTOPOULOS (Business Insider, senior correspondent): The two options are sell to a U.S. owner or cease operating in the U.S. NORMAN: An unprecedented move that sparked serious concerns for some content creators. (…) NORMAN: The Senate is expected to take up the legislation tomorrow, and if passed, President Biden has already indicated he will quickly sign it into law. But, not so fast! Experts say don't expect the app go away any time soon. NOTOPOULOS: It's not like the app is going to delete off your phone right away. It could be months. It could be years of wading through regulatory and legal hurdles to actually get this done. [Cuts back to live] NORMAN: Right.  And so for now, TikTok is not for sale but if and when that bill passes, it would likely kick off a lengthy legal battle. So, Robin, Michael and George’s dance video on TikTok, good shape. NBC’s Today April 22, 2024 8:04:24 a.m. Eastern CRAIG MELVIN: Meanwhile, a sweeping national security funding package that will provide aid to Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan as well also includes a possible ban on the popular app TikTok. The social media platform could disappear from app stores nationwide unless its Chinese parent company sells it. NBC's Emilie Ikeda is here with more on this. Emilie, good morning. EMILIE IKEDA: Hey, there. Good morning to you. This is likely the closest the U.S. has come to banning TikTok with Congress lumping the measure in the foreign aid bill, which is headed to a Senate that’s eager to send funding to our allies. Now, some TikTok users using their platform as a call to action hoping to save the app that’s become engrained in American culture. [Cuts to video] This morning, the fate of TikTok in a race against the clock. The House passing a bill that would force the app's Chinese parent company Byte Dance to sell the platform within a year to a new owner, up from the original six months, or face a national ban of the widely popular social media app with 170 million American users. (…) IKEDA: The vote passing with the resounding 360 to 58, but online, some are rallying against the ban. (…) IKEDA: Urging their followers to take action. (…) [Cuts back to live] IKEDA: And TikTok is already banned on federal government devices. And even the potential for a forced TikTok sale may have escalated the U.S.'s tense relationship with China. On Friday, Apple said China ordered the company to remove Meta’s WhatsApp and Threads from its app store there.

NB Blog Feed

NYT’s Annie Karni Pouts Over Speaker Johnson Doing ‘What Passes for Brave in Today’s GOP’

Congressional correspondent Annie Karni got snarky against Republicans (and, perhaps, some of her fellow reporters?) in Sunday’s New York Times, after House Speaker Mike Johnson received some backhanded praise from some quarters of the media/Democratic alliance for pushing a military aid bill for Ukraine through: “Mike Johnson, Like Pence, Does What Passes for Brave in Today’s GOP: His Job.” The accolades directed at Speaker Mike Johnson in recent days for finally defying the right wing of his party and allowing an aid bill for Ukraine to move through the House might have seemed a tad excessive. After all, a speaker’s entire job is to move legislation through the House, and as Saturday’s vote to pass the bill demonstrated, the Ukraine measure had overwhelming support. But Mr. Johnson’s feat was not so different from that of another embattled Republican who faced a difficult choice under immense pressure from hard-right Republicans and was saluted as a hero for simply doing his job: former Vice President Mike Pence. When Mr. Pence refused former President Donald J. Trump’s demands that he overturn the 2020 election results as he presided over the electoral vote count by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 -- even as an angry mob with baseball bats and pepper spray invaded the Capitol and chanted “hang Mike Pence” -- the normally unremarkable act of performing the duties in a vice president’s job description was hailed as courageous. Mr. Pence and now Mr. Johnson represent the most high-profile examples of a stark political reality: In today’s Republican Party, subsumed by Mr. Trump, taking the norm-preserving, consensus-driven path can spell the end of your political career. Karni brought her paper’s hostile labeling pattern with her. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pence, both mild-mannered, extremely conservative evangelical Christians who have put their faith at the center of their politics, occupy a similar space in their party. They have both gone through contortions to accommodate Mr. Trump and the forces he unleashed in their party, which in turn have ultimately come after them….Mr. Pence has been offering Mr. Johnson private encouragement in recent weeks, as he faced growing discontent from the far right. Karni saved space for Ukraine president and media hero Zelensky praising Johnson “for the decision that keeps history on the right track,” but instantly pivoted with “Not everyone was eager to pile on the kudos,” citing a Democrat who aired criticism precisely like Karni’s. “I’m so glad Republicans finally realize the gravity of the situation and the urgency with which we must act,” Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said on Friday as the House was about to take a vote to clear the way for the bill. “But you don’t get an award around here for doing your damn job.” Karni got the scoop from The View’s allegedly Republican co-host. Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former top aide in the Trump administration, was lukewarm, at best, in her praise for Mr. Johnson, who she noted had dithered for months before moving ahead on Ukraine aid, even though it was clear there was a broad consensus that the aid was critical. “It’s remarkable that this is being viewed as a brave or heroic move -- simply putting a bill on the House floor for a vote that has bipartisan support to pass,” she said. “In the period of time that Johnson waffled over whether to even allow a vote on it or not, Ukraine lost ground and Ukrainians were killed by Russians.” Alyssa Farah served with Trump for almost his entire term, and then quickly became a high-paid host on The View. Why is she the "bravery" judge? But the Times just did a puff piece on her.  Even after Johnson did what the Democrats (who waved Ukrainian flags on the House floor) wanted, Karni didn’t pause from her petulance. Even after his impassioned comments, he hesitated before releasing the text of the bills, prompting Democrats to worry that his indecision and desire to appeal to the far right would again win out.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

Doocy SLAMS KJP Over Biden’s Latest Tall Tale: ‘Where Did the Cannibalism Come From?’

In case you missed it from Friday, Fox’s Peter Doocy clashed with the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre during the White House press briefing when Doocy called out the President for falsely claiming his uncle not only died during World War II, but was cannibalized in Papua New Guinea by blood-thirsty natives. Jean-Pierre ducked, attacking Doocy and invoking the dubious “suckers” and “losers” tall tale about Donald Trump from The Atlantic. Doocy respectfully cut to the case: “Why is President Biden saying that his Uncle Bosie was eaten by cannibals?”     Jean-Pierre complained she already “answered this question yesterday” and “your network” even played “clips....about me answering this question” before claiming Doocy saw for himself if he was on the trip to Scranton that Biden “had an emotional and, um, I think a symbolic moment” in taking “an opportunity, as President, to honor his uncle’s service in uniform.” “He had an opportunity...to speak to the bravery of his uncle and not just his uncle, but many U.S. service members that put their lives on the line on behalf of this country,” she added, with his uncle Ambrose Finneagan serving as an example “for honoring our sacred commitment to equip those — we stand — we sent to war and take care of them and their families when they come home.” She then made it about Trump [A]s he iterated, the last thing American veterans are — or the last thing Americans should be called or suckers and losers and — and that is — those types of words should not come from a commander in chief, as we have in the past. And we should actually be lifting up our American veterans and honoring them and that’s what you saw from this President. Doocy said he felt the same about how veterans should be treated and that “Second Lieutenant Ambrose J. Finnegan was a war hero, but the Pentagon says, for unknown reasons, the plane was forced to ditch in the ocean and both engines failed at low out — altitude.” He then ripped Biden for why then did he have to lie when his uncle was already a war hero: “Why is President Biden saying he was shot down? There’s no evidence of that. And why is he saying that his uncle was eaten by cannibals? That’s a bad way to go.” Instead of conceding Biden lied or moving on, Jean-Pierre attacked Doocy by alleging he’s disrespectful of the dead: “[W]e should not make jokes about this.” Doocy clapped back before letting Jean-Pierre drone on: “[I]t’s not. The President — Biden said with his own lips he was eaten by cannibals.” “[N]o, no, I mean, your — your last line. It’s — it’s for a laugh. It’s for a funny — funny statement and he takes this very seriously. His uncle who served and protected this country lost his life serving and that should matter,” Jean-Pierre whined. After she again deflected to Trump, Doocy tried one last time: “Where did the cannibalism come from?” Jean-Pierre punted one last time, alleging Doocy “miss[ed] the point” and not recognizing Biden “lifts up American veterans” and “our U.S. service members.” Doocy’s first question concerned the anti-Semitic, far-left terrorist sympathizers at Columbia University as a follow up to CNN’s Priscilla Alverez (click “expand”): ALVAREZ: More than 100 people protesting the war in Gaza were cleared off the Columbia University campus yesterday and arrested. Is the President aware of these arrests? And what is his message to these protesters? JEAN-PIERRE: So, just let me say at the top because I have to be mindful here. As you know, there is a — a — an investigation currently being led by the Department of Education. It’s an ongoing civil rights investigation of Columbia University, so I won’t speak to specifics about the protest here. There’s a couple things I do want to say — is that — is that we know this is a deeply painful moment for many communities impacted by this conflict. The President and our administration continues to speak out enforcely [sic] — forcefully condemn anti-Semitism and our administration is implementing the first ever national strategy to counter anti-Semitism. In recent months, we’ve seen a shocking rise in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, in anti-Arab hate in the U.S. And around the world. He has also been clear that hate has no place in America, whether it is based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or any other form of hate, which is why there is no place for discrimination on college campuses or anywhere, anywhere in America. The President also believes that free speech debate and nondiscrimination on college campuses are important American values. When students are subject to hostile environments because of their faith or ethnicity, schools must act. Students must be safe to learn, and that’s where we stand on that one. [TO DOOCY] Go ahead. DOOCY: And to just follow up on the protest. I get you don’t want to go into specifics, but what does the President think about young people in America, saying things like “we are all Hamas” and “long live Hamas”? JEAN-PIERRE: Can —  I will say — look, this is a President that has been, uh, since he’s been in office, and the reason why he ran has been very clear about what he witnessed in Charlottesville. Let’s not forget what we saw the anti-Semitism, the bigotry, the hate that we saw in the streets of Charlottesville, which, as I just stated, was one of the reasons that he decided to run. And no president has taken more action to combat anti-Semitism than this President. And so you know, in our national strategy, we made clear that, when Jews are targeted because of their beliefs, because of their identity, or when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hate — hatred, that is anti Semitism, and that is completely, completely unacceptable. In contrast, the reporter who sat in the NPR seat hit from the left, giving oxygen to the notion that cracking down on these thugs are “threat to speech or assembly”. Speaking of softballs, the AP’s Darlene Superville brought up gas prices and lobbed a softball that ran counter to the actual questions Fox Business’s Ed Lawrence asked a few days earlier: Average gasoline prices have raised about 20 cents a gallon in the past month. Oil production — domestic oil production is down slightly from its recent peak and now we have the situation in the Middle East. How concerned is the administration about the combination of all of those things? To see the relevant transcript from the April 19 briefing (including a softball from The Washington Post about Biden being “a student of history”), click here.

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Blames TN Gun Laws for Shooting -- But Gunman Came from Illinois

On this past weekend's The Saturday Show, MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart teamed up with anti-gun activist Dr. Jonathan Metzl to spread misinformation about the effects of gun laws as the two discussed his book on the 25th anniversary of the Columbine school shootings. As the discussion turned to the 2018 attack on a Nashville Waffle House by 29-year-old Travis Reinking, Dr. Metzl reflexively blamed Tennessee's "pathologically loose gun laws" without divulging that the gunman had only somewhat recently moved into Tennessee from the blue state of Illinois. He soon complained about Tennessee expanding gun rights since the shooting: And so, instead, what we've seen is a dramatic expansion in every kind of law that led to the shooting. People can carry guns without permits now. We're arming teachers, long guns to people with 18 and older, so we have this total disconnect between what people know we need as a society to keep our country safe and what the political process in its gerrymandered state right now is delivering which is, unfortunately, more of these horrific mass shootings.     It was not mentioned that Illinois police had confiscated several guns from Reinking after he showed signs of schizophrenia, but then gave them to his father who then returned them to his son later. One of those firearms was used in the Nashville attack after the gunman moved to the state. Reinking's father was also convicted in connection with giving his son's firearms back to him. Capehart played the race card by hinting at the far-left liberal trope that the cops allowed Reinking to live because of he was white. "Dr. Metzl, a question occurs to me when we showed the Waffle House shooter. Was he taken alive after that -- that manhunt?" he played coy. Metzl obliged. Then, without offering any evidence that other racial groups are treated differently, Metzl claimed that the Waffle House gunman was allowed to keep his guns because he is white: Not only was he taken alive, what I show is there were five or six incidents before the shooting. He tried to jump the fence at the White House -- he came to the attention of the FBI -- he jumped naked into a pool and jumped out and shook his gun at people -- and so part of the story I ask in the book is, "What does it take to disarm a white man in America?" That's really the story of the book. And it turns out it's very hard because the laws -- the system -- people see a white man as a patriot. And, yes, he was taken alive after the shooting. He was not killed. Back in February, Metzl made another appearance on the same show to promote his book, and, on that occasion, spread misinformation blaming the loosening of gun laws in Missouri around 2008 for an increase in homicides in that state: Missouri had these pretty reasonable gun laws. I mean, there's a long history of gun ownership ... but until about 2008, believe it or not, you know, people would go to get a permit at the sheriff's office. ... And then they started overturning all the gun laws, overturning everything -- guns in parks, guns in bars, persons -- in 2021, made it almost a crime to even have cities mandate their own gun laws or enact federal -- any federal laws -- and what I saw was not just a rise in all kinds of gun injury and death gun, suicide gun, homicide -- all these things went up.     But, in fact, homicides in Missouri did not see a sustained increase until after 2014 when the Ferguson effect led to a surge in crime after the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri -- coinciding with a crime surge that was also seen across the country. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC's The Saturday Show April 20, 2024 6:52 p.m. Eastern JONATHAN CAPEHART: Dr. Metzl, your book takes a deep dive into the 2018 Waffle House shooting and how these mass shooters reveal a lot about the issues on race and mental health we continue to face in our country. Can you expand on that? Dr. JONATHAN METZL, AUTHOR OF WHAT WE'VE BECOME: Yeah, my book, What We've Become, really takes a deep dive into that 2018 Waffle House shooting. It was a shooting where a naked white shooter went into a Waffle House in a part of Nashville where it was 2:30 in the morning full of young adults of color celebrating after the clubs closed. And it was many things -- it was a mental ill mass shooting -- it was a race shooting -- it was a sign of what happens in a state like Tennessee with our pathologically loose gun laws. In many ways, it's the same thing (similar to the Columbine school shootings from 25 years ago). Our town came together and said, "Enough is enough -- we're going to -- we're going to turn course -- this has shown us the worst of humanity, and now let's turn course." I want to say there are a lot of people who are building from the horror of that moment -- people running for office. The mother of one of the victims of that shooting, Shaundelle Brooks, is running for state office in Tennessee. So there are many things that come out of the aftermath of the horror, but, again and again, it was a similar story, which was the people demanded some kind of action, but because Tennessee is a supermajority state, there was no pressure. Nobody was going to get pushed out of office or voted out of office. And so, instead, what we've seen is a dramatic expansion in every kind of law that led to the shooting. People can carry guns without permits now. We're arming teachers, long guns to people with 18 and older, so we have this total disconnect between what people know we need as a society to keep our country safe and what the political process in its gerrymandered state right now is delivering which is, unfortunately, more of these horrific mass shootings. CAPEHART: Dr. Metzl, question occurs to me when we showed the Waffle House shooter. Was he taken alive after that -- that manhunt? Dr. METZL: Yeah, that's kind of the story I tell in the book. Not only was he taken alive, what I show is there were five or six incidents before the shooting. He tried to jump the fence at the White House -- he came to the attention of the FBI -- he jumped naked into a pool and jumped out and shook his gun at people -- and so part of the story I ask in the book is, "What does it take to disarm a white man in America?" That's really the story of the book. And it turns out it's very hard because the laws -- the system -- people see a white man as a patriot. And, yes, he was taken alive after the shooting. He was not killed. CAPEHART: Dr. Jonathan Metzl, as always, thank you very much for coming -- for coming to the show. (...) MSNBC's The Saturday Show February 17, 2024 6:46 p.m. Eastern JONATHAN CAPEHART: You wrote -- you focus on three states. One was Missouri Missouri's lax gun laws and what those lax gun laws did to Missouri. Real quickly, talk about that. Dr. JONATHAN METZL, AUTHOR OF WHAT WE'VE BECOME: Well, I'm from Missouri -- I grew up in Kansas City -- my brothers and my dad were at the Super Bowl, you know. And so Kansas City is kind of home, and I know from this and from my own research that Missouri had these pretty reasonable gun laws. I mean, there's a long history of gun ownership -- of hunting -- of people caring about the 2nd Amendment -- but until about 2008, believe it or not, you know, people would go to get a permit at the sheriff's office. I interview people in my research -- it took about three seconds to get that. Nobody cared. And then they started overturning all the gun laws, overturning everything -- guns in parks, guns in bars, persons -- in 2021, made it almost a crime to even have cities mandate their own gun laws or enact federal -- any federal laws -- and what I saw was not just a rise in all kinds of gun injury and death gun, suicide gun, homicide -- all these things went up. But the bigger issue for me was that it was the end of a kind of particular public space that people stopped congregating in places like Swope Park -- this park in the middle of the town -- and the public pools -- because everybody was so worried that they were going to get shot. And so there was injury and death, but there was also the end -- I mean, for me in Missouri, there was a Super Bowl parade pretty much every day -- it just never got on the news. But people -- it wasn't weird to go in a public space with people who were different than you. And that's what these gun -- these loose gun laws killed, was the sense of camaraderie and civic engagement. CAPEHART: The name of the book is What We've Become: Living and Dying in a Country of Arms

NB Blog Feed

NPR's 'Domestic Extremism' Reporter: Trump Could Cause Violence Against Jurors

One way the leftist media want to add juice to the Trump trial is to suggest the jurors will be threatened by Trump outbursts in court or on social media. On Friday’s All Things Considered, they brought in “NPR domestic extremism correspondent Odette Yousef” to spread the conspiracy theory that Trump messages will lead to violence. They really should be blunter, and just call her the Far Right warning correspondent. AILSA CHANG: Odette, you've looked at what it can mean to serve on a jury for a Trump trial, like the safety concerns, the repercussions personally. Tell us what you're finding. YOUSEF: So, Ailsa, the challenge here is that, you know, jurors need to feel that their privacy and safety are not at risk when they serve. But the court also needs to maintain some transparency to court proceedings so that there's public faith in the process. And finding that sweet spot is challenging, and it's been especially hard in the Trump trials. And that's because Donald Trump owns a social media platform, Ailsa. And so, you know, we've seen this pattern, a correlation, where, when he posts criticism about specific people or processes, what follows are threats. And this has already been happening in this case. Judge Merchan's own daughter has been at the receiving end of harassment. And I've spoken to some people, including a former juror on a trial involving a Trump affiliate, who've been just stunned that there haven't been more protective measures set up at the outset of this trial, given what's happened in the past. Notice the vagueness around “Merchan’s daughter,” who could be a minor, for all we know. NPR hasn’t mentioned Loren Merchan on air, and the only thing the shows up in NPR’s search engine is an online AP dispatch that underlines she’s a professional Democrat: Loren Merchan is president of Authentic Campaigns, which has collected at least $70 million in payments from Democratic candidates and causes since she helped found the company in 2018, records show. The firm's past clients include President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Senate Majority PAC, a big-spending political committee affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Senate Majority PAC has paid Authentic Campaigns $15.2 million, according to campaign finance disclosures. Even AP tries to claim it’s a “daisy chain of innuendoes” to connect the judge to the daughter. Yousef then turned to former Obama aide and CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem (but just like Merchan, NPR launders out the Democrat background).  YOUSEF: She's a former national security official. She says at this point, courts should be expecting Trump to complain about the proceedings and that some of his followers may respond in violent ways. JULIETTE KAYYEM: It feels like we're sort of sleepwalking into 2024. It's just our democratic institutions that used to have these norms, but, well, those norms no longer are holding. And we have to accept that and prepare with the expectation that violence or the threat of violence is going to be part of our democratic processes, at least for the short term. Yesterday, I joined @NPR All Things Considered to discuss with Odette Yousef how we seem to be "sleepwalking" in 2024 as Trump continues with intimidation and threats of violence. How to keep jurors safe? Assume they are not. https://t.co/xpkCfP32Sy — Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) April 20, 2024 This is how pro-Biden news outlets are "setting the table" for the trial. That Trump will inspire violence by objecting to the partisanship on display (including in the press). This is the media trying to create a "gag order" through intimidation: CHANG: Well, I am curious, Odette -- if these so-called norms don't seem to be holding right now, how are you seeing that play out? YOUSEF: You know, there was a policy paper, Ailsa, released earlier this year by the National Conference of State Court Administrators that identified juror safety and well-being among the top issues that need to be addressed these days. And that's not just for the Trump trials. You know, someone with the organization mentioned the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Derek Chauvin's trial... CHANG: Yeah. YOUSEF: ...Trials of people in Trump's orbit. We are in a moment now in the U.S. where norms have shifted. People who are civically involved, whether it be in trials, in election administration, on school boards, you name it, are now increasingly targeted with violence or the threat of violence. And that's a reality that won't reverse itself overnight, and it chills democratic participation. So people who can should be thinking about safety of these people in ways they may not have had to consider before.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Weekend News OMITS Latest Violent Campus Antisemitism

Weekend reporting of the latest round of anti-semitic protests, at Columbia University and elsewhere, yielded a mixed bag. ABC tried to bring balance to their reporting, NBC tilted heavily in favor of the protesters, and another, CBS, decided it was best not to report on the protests at all. Here’s how ABC World News Tonight opened Sunday’s newscast: LINSEY DAVIS: As we come on the air, New York authorities are issuing a warning ahead of Passover. Officials say the holiday, which begins tomorrow, may serve as a catalyst for extremist groups and individuals to commit acts of violence against Jewish faith-based communities. This comes as tensions are rising at Columbia University here in New York over the Israel-Hamas war. More than 100 people have been arrested in recent days. A rabbi at the school confirms to ABC News that he strongly recommended to Jewish students that they go home and not return to campus because of what he calls extreme anti-semitism at the school. A New York congresswoman is calling for the university's president to resign. And tonight, The White House is condemning calls for violence against Jewish students. Linsey Davis’s frame was most representative of the report, which mentioned the call for Jewish students to go home, and the NYPD’s warning of further violence to potentially coincide with the Passover holiday. ABC here is further reinforcing Columbia’s stated commitment to ensuring the safety of its Jewish students. NBC’s report was the mirror opposite, very heavily favoring the protesters. Here’s how correspondent George Solis began his report: GEORGE SOLIS: In New York City, just outside the Gates of Columbia University, massive protests filling the streets. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations appearing to grow on this fourth day since students set up an encampment on campus that led police in riot gear to make more than 100 arrests at the request of the university president earlier this week. Students tell us despite the risk of suspension, having their I.D. badges turned off and losing access to housing here on campus, they've re-established this encampment demanding the university divest from Israel. Solis’ report would go on to equate these protesters with those who protested the Vietnam War. And other than the one Jewish student featured, it was all protesters: from the organizers, to featuring imagery of flyers created by the pro-Hamas Students for Justice for Palestine, which hailed the barbaric attacks of October 7th as “a historic win for the Palestinian resistance”. This was too much, apparently, for CBS- which found themselves unable to break away from such pressing matters as Taylor Swift’s latest album and Earth Day propaganda, and therefore unable to cover an anti-semitism (and tangentially anti-Americanism) currently festering at our universities. Click “expand” to view the transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective weekend newscasts: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT  SUNDAY, APRIL 21st, 2024: LINSEY DAVIS: As we come on the air, New York authorities are issuing a warning ahead of Passover. Officials say the holiday, which begins tomorrow, may serve as a catalyst for extremist groups and individuals to commit acts of violence against Jewish faith-based communities. This comes as tensions are rising at Columbia University here in New York over the Israel-Hamas war. More than 100 people have been arrested in recent days. A rabbi at the school confirms to ABC News that he strongly recommended to Jewish students that they go home and not return to campus because of what he calls extreme anti-semitism at the school. A New York congresswoman is calling for the university's president to resign. And tonight, The White House is condemning calls for violence against Jewish students. ABC's Reena Roy leads us off. REENA ROY: Tonight, the NYPD issuing an alarming warning on the eve of Passover. Saying in a bulletin obtained by ABC News, that “extremist groups may view the holiday as an opportunity to perpetrate acts of violence or intimidation against Jewish faith-based communities”. Though the document cites no specific threats, it adds: "Jewish people and institutions continue to be the target of violent attacks, targeted harassment, hate crimes, and threats, especially since the onset of the Israel-Hamas war." It comes after a rabbi associated with New York City's Columbia University told Jewish students to go home this week, following pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus. Writing today in an email, "Columbia University's Public Safety and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students' safety." Those protests began after the school's president was grilled on Capitol Hill about anti-semitism on campus. U.S. REP. KEVIN KILEY: There's evidence of anti-semitism among professors on your faculty? MINOUCHE SHAFIK: We have seen some cases and there have been consequences. ROY: More than 100 demonstrators arrested on campus Thursday. The White House saying the Department of Education has launched an investigation into the incident. KARINE JEAN_PIERRE: When students are subject to hostile environments because of their faith or ethnicity, schools must act. Students must be safe to learn. ROY: And Linsey, tonight, Columbia is responding, saying that they are listening to concerns of Jewish students and providing them with additional support. Adding that students do have the right to protest, but not to disrupt campus life or intimidate others. Linsey. DAVIS: And students at several universities are now planning rallies in support of those Columbia protesters. Reena, thank you. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS SATURDAY, APRIL 20th, 2024: JOSE DIAZ-BALART: Protests are expanding to college campuses around the country over Israel's war in Gaza. And heightened tensions at Columbia University tonight, just days after police were called in to clear out a protest encampment on campus. George Solis is there.  [ Chants ] GEORGE SOLIS: In New York City, just outside the Gates of Columbia University, massive protests filling the streets. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations appearing to grow on this fourth day since students set up an encampment on campus that led police in riot gear to make more than 100 arrests at the request of the university president earlier this week. Students tell us despite the risk of suspension, having their I.D. badges turned off and losing access to housing here on campus, they've re-established this encampment demanding the university divest from Israel. STUDENT: I was one of the students arrested, suspended by the university. All of these students know the risk, and they're showing up because they understand that in our numbers we have greater safety. SOLIS: For some, the ongoing protests have led to discomfort even being on campus. (JEWISH) STUDENT: They feel the campus is so toxic, so unwelcoming to Jewish students and people who diverge from this line.  [ Chants ] SOLIS: And demonstrations are now spreading. Overnight, hundreds of Yale students camped outside a dinner for the university president to protest the school's investment in military weapon manufacturers. At UNC-Chapel hill, students set up their own encampment in solidarity with the Columbia students who were arrested this week. All as the national pro-Palestinian student group is calling for action on campuses nationwide.  [ Chants ]  Universities have a long history of political demonstration. Columbia famously seeing buildings overtaken in 1968 by anti-Vietnam war demonstrators. STUDENTS: Revolution! SOLIS: Tonight's protest on campus and out in the streets, once again making their stance known on a war raging overseas. STUDENT ORGANIZER: It's been six months and the protests have only been getting bigger. And it says so much about the hope of this movement. DIAZ-BALART: George Solis joins us from outside Columbia University. George, what is the police presence there like tonight? SOLIS: Yeah, Jose, there's a large police presence here on the periphery of the campus. You can see it right behind me where protests are still growing strong at this hour. What's unclear tonight is if police are going to go back on campus to disperse the groups of students gathered there tonight. Jose. DIAZ-BALART: George Solis in New York. Thank you.  

NB Blog Feed

Politico’s J-Mart Laments: ‘If The Election’s About Biden, Trump’s Gonna Win’

Behold the latest installment of media types fretting over the current course of the presidential election. In this instance, Politico Senior Political Columnist Jonathan Martin lamenting that the current trajectory of the election, a referendum on President Joe Biden, augurs the reelection of former President Donald Trump on this week’s installment of ABC This Week. Watch as J-Mart and host Jon Karl discuss the election’s current trajectory, as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, April 21st, 2024: REINCE PREIBUS: In 2016, it was 24/7 lousy press, good press, everything in between, Donald Trump. If you look at the press, 90% of it's about Trump, and he -- he went through the last three weeks with five rallies a day, and turned out one of the biggest upsets in modern history. When it's all about Trump, he's winning. JONATHAN MARTIN: Yes. So I disagree with that. JON KARL: FiveThirtyEight average has shown a bit of a movement towards Biden. MARTIN: I think the opposite is true. I think if the election is about Biden… (CROSSTALK)  MARTIN: …Trump’s gonna win. I think if the election’s about Trump, Biden's got a lot better chance. And right now Biden's problem is: this election is about Joe Biden. KARL: Yeah… MARTIN: I mean, that’s the challenge, right? KARL: Those are the kind of numbers that make Biden very nervous. So… MARTIN: And Michigan… KARL: …so, how does The White House feel… MARTIN: And Michigan’s the most ominous number there. Former RNC Chair Reince Priebus begins this segment by schooling the panel as to the effects of trying to drown Trump in free press, as was the case in 2016 when the media gave him over $5 billion in free media. And there are certainly many parallels with 2016 at play in the current cycle. This time, the endless Trump cycle centers around the various prosecutions against him in state and federal courts. But the polling that This Week’s panel was looking at seems to indicate that the negative coverage is not working out. And this is where Jonathan Martin comes in and very plainly argues the case for the media to make the election about Donald Trump. The media NEED the election to be about Trump, otherwise Biden becomes the purest victim of his calamitous record.  But polling shows that the public’s attention is fixed on other things such as the economy, inflation, and immigration- issues where Trump has consistently outperformed Biden. Polling further suggests that the media’s J6 fixations have very little resonance beyond the elite Acela bubble.  Indeed, as Jonathan Martin notes, “Biden's problem is: this election is about Joe Biden.” Part of the story of the upcoming days is going to be centered around the media’s efforts to make the opposite come true. Just as in 2016.  

NB Blog Feed

Washington Post Portrays Twitter-Hating Brazilian Judge as Disinformation Hero

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes is enraged that X (which will forever still be known as Twitter) allows the free flow of information because he labels some of it "disinformation" which he cannot tolerate. Therefore de Moraes has demanded that Twitter remove a number of accounts. In the old obedient days of Twitter when the management treated "disinformation" (which is mostly information contrary to liberal views) to be one of the great sins of our world, they would have immediately acceded to the request. However  the new owner, Elon Musk, refused to take down the accounts which should make him a free speech hero. But in Friday's paper,  but to the Washington Post found the real hero in this matter is the authoritarian Brazilian Supreme Court Justice. The Washington Post's no longer surprising support of censorship appeared on Thursday in "Having remade Twitter, Elon Musk takes his speech fight global" by the team of Elizabeth Dwoskin, Terrence McCoy and Marina Dias. On one side, there’s Alexandre de Moraes, one of the world’s most aggressive prosecutors of disinformation. In recent years, as right-wing Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters questioned the integrity of Brazil’s elections, Moraes was granted expanded powers to fight false claims online. As head of the country’s top elections court, he has issued arrest warrants against dozens of figures and demanded that social media companies take down scores of accounts. Then there’s Musk, the combative tech billionaire who, since taking over Twitter, has loosened the platform’s restrictions on hateful content and allowed misinformation to flood the platform in the name of free speech. Their opposing worldviews exploded into public view this month, when Musk announced he would no longer countenance judicial orders from Moraes, who he said was breaking Brazilian law, and threatened to shutter the platform, now called X, in one of its most active markets. Moraes, in response, said he was adding Musk as a target in his ongoing criminal investigation into political groups accused of using false information to attack democracy. So guess who the Post castigates in this dispute? Since declaring his independence from Moraes’s orders, Musk has met with Argentine President Javier Milei at a Tesla factory in Texas, been invited to a live online appearance with Bolsonaro and said he will meet soon with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. All are populists bolstered by online armies that have been accused of spreading disinformation. ...Musk’s politics form “a connective tissue between these far-right figures and movements,” said Emerson Brooking, a disinformation researcher with the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council. “He is globalizing America’s culture wars.” The Post failed to note that the leftwing Atlantic Council is a think tank funded by George Soros which hyped the idea for the Biden Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board. Ironic since by their rules, the failure to mention this could be considered... disinformation. See how that works? In stark contrast with their scary-music notes on Musk, the Post tone towards the censorship enforcing Brazilian justice is quite benign. Musk remains a target of Moraes’s investigation, according to a Supreme Court official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under rules set by the court. That probe goes beyond X’s content moderation policies into whether Musk is part of an organized threat to the country’s democracy. ...For more than a year leading up to the 2022 election, a polarizing choice between Bolsonaro and leftist former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Bolsonaristas pushed doubts about electronic voting systems in a strategy that mirrored Donald Trump’s unfounded accusations in 2020. Before the vote, Moraes sought an expanded interpretation of the election court’s authority to investigate, censor and prosecute people suspected of undermining public institutions. The Supreme Court granted him the power to order the immediate removal of problematic content — and fine or suspend companies that did not comply. Finally we have a member of the Soros-funded Atlantic Council whining about what he perceives as America, due largely to Musk, backing off a bit from censorship. The country, said Brooking of the Atlantic Council, could become an important cause for right-wing groups worldwide, including in the United States in an election year in which tech companies have largely retreated from policing misinformation.

NB Blog Feed

‘THE TRUMP STORY’: NBC's Andrea Mitchell Frets Trump’s NYC Trial Is Crowding Biden Out

During the weekly panel discussion on NBC’s Meet The Press, Chief Foreign Correspondent Andrea Mitchell fretted about the trial of former President Donald Trump overshadowing everything President Joe Biden is doing on the campaign trail, to the point of referring to the present media environment as “The Trump Story”. Watch as Mitchell compares the current Trump cycle crowding Biden to the 2016 news environment crowding Hillary Clinton, as aired on NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday, April 21st, 2024:     KRISTEN WELKER: Pick up on that point, because this is all going- against the backdrop of Donald Trump in court for his first criminal trial this week. ANDREA MITCHELL: The fact is, we don't know how that is going to play. Up until now, these legal cases have only helped him fund-raising, made him- you know, tell people he’s the victim, energized his base. And so, he’s risen in the polls with every indictment. Now we’re going to see him really powerless. The judge has been very effective, and how they handle the gag order is yet to be seen. While Joe Biden is campaigning. The problem for Joe Biden and the Democrats is, it’s- Trump is crowding out -- the trial is crowding out everything else. WELKER:  Mm-hmm. MITCHELL:  So Joe Biden goes out and does policy things. The steel tariffs in Pennsylvania. Everything else that he’s doing- student loans, he’s breaking through a little bit. But everything else is crowded out. And it's The Trump Story. And that's what happened in 2016 to Hillary Clinton. And that could be replicated this year. I think it's really -- I think- the enthusiasm issue and the young voter issue is critical. And as long as this war in Gaza goes on, this is going to be a problem with young voters. Because they have an offramp. That offramp is RFK, Jr. And I know your poll shows that RFK, Jr. would hurt Trump more than Biden, hypothetically. And it's very early in polling, you know, to say who would-- But I think The White House -- I know The White House is more afraid of him.  WELKER: It’s jittery. MITCHELL: His family certainly is, because it was very hard for those siblings to come out and do that. They all did it because they think he really hurts them- Joe Biden- more than Donald Trump.  Mitchell’s comparisons of the current Trump cycle to 2016 betray a fundamental lack of self-awareness. Donald Trump earned over $5 billion in free media throughout that cycle, largely because the media believed he’d be the easiest opponent en route to Hillary Clinton’s coronation. Mitchell’s portrayal of Clinton here is as a victim of history, and not as the failed beneficiary of the campaign to drown Trump in free media. This tracks with current coverage of President Biden as the purest victim of the calamities of the present day. Fast forward to 2024, and Mitchell fretting that the orchestrated effort to weaponize state and federal government against Trump, so as to secure a felony conviction against him ahead of the presidential election, is once and again overwhelming the news cycle and “crowding out” the Democrat that was supposed to benefit from these weaponized trials.  The focus then shifts to the presence of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on multiple state ballots as an “offramp” for young voters disaffected over Biden’s handling of Gaza. Welker’s characterization of the Biden White House as “jittery’ is notable. Also notable is Mitchell’s inadvertent depiction of RFK’s candidacy as hurtful to the Kennedy family. If they really feel it hurts them, then it wasn’t so hard for them to come out and do the thing for Joe Biden. Mitchell stepped all over herself in that one sentence.  More importantly, Mitchell revealed the extent to which the media- as Biden’s Praetorian Guard- are worried about the effects of current events on the election. 

NB Blog Feed

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.                          

NB Blog Feed

CNN's Jake Tapper Brings In 'Fact Checker' Daniel Dale to Knock Trump's Opinions

CNN's resident "fact checker" Daniel Dale usually shows his face on air when CNN wants to attack Donald Trump. On Thursday's The Lead with Jake Tapper, Dale confessed that Trump's statements during jury selection were mostly just opinion, but he mocked the "false conspiracy theory" that President Biden had something to do with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's prosecution, even though an Associate Attorney General joined Bragg's team.  JAKE TAPPER: Daniel, we just heard a little speech from Mr. Trump. What did you make of it? Did he say anything that was not true? DANIEL DALE: He did. I mean, it was mostly uncheckable, subjective opinion, but he did say a few things that weren’t quite right at very least. So he repeated his false conspiracy theory that essentially that Joe Biden is behind this case, which was brought by a locally elected [Democrat!] district attorney. He said Biden is behind it. He has his top people working with the DAs office to make sure everything goes right. There is no basis for that. That appears to be a reference to a former Justice Department official who went to work for the DA’s office. But there’s no sign that was anything but his own employment decision. In fact, this former official, Matthew Colangelo, had previously been a colleague of DA Bragg, so he rejoined his old colleague. At least CNN is mentioning Colangelo in passing. If this were a Trump Justice Department official arriving on a Biden prosecution, it would be a major scandal of partisanship. CNN would be aggressively digging for anonymous insiders to decry this plot. Then the Canadian Trump-basher turned to the usual "no evidence" claims on the Biden impeachment inquiry: DALE: He also claimed that Joe Biden is a crooked president should be on trial. I think that’s mostly opinion, but I think it’s worth noting, Jake, that we’ve had this extended Republican House investigation impeachment inquiry, no evidence of impeachable offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors, let alone criminal offenses. And then I should note, as you did briefly, that, you know, he read this big pile of documents of articles citing headlines denouncing the case. I googled some of them as he was speaking, so he read one — talking about the whopping outrage in Trump’s indictment. Well, that’s harsh criticism. Where was it from? A Fox News column. He mentioned the Daily Caller, another right wing publication. I googled another headline from the right wing National Review he mentioned. So there are some liberal scholars, legal experts, publications who have raised questions about this case. But that pile he showed was largely his usual friends, the usual suspects praising Trump, defending Trump in the conservative media. Dale (and Tapper) weren't going to mention CNN's own legal analyst Elie Honig isn't impressed with Bragg's effort. This was for left-wing consumption, as in this headline at Mediaite: "CNN’s Daniel Dale Torpedoes Trump’s Attack On Biden — Rips Quoting ‘Usual Suspects’ Like Fox In Courthouse Rant."

NB Blog Feed

PBS 'Washington Week' Gang Hails Speaker Johnson Finding His 'Inner Reagan' on Ukraine

The latest, foreign-policy-facing episode of Washington Week with The Atlantic found the weekly journalistic roundtable quite comfortable with both American hard and soft power -- as long as President Biden and the Democrats hold the reins. Jeffrey Goldberg, moderator of Washington Week and editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, was joined by Eugene Daniels of Politico, Seung Min Kim of the Associated Press, Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal, and Graeme Wood of The Atlantic. There was a scattering of hostile labeling, with three “far right” labels foisted on Republicans, including a "very raucous far right." PBS doesn't find "far left" for Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib. But most striking was the panel’s praise for previously mocked House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for finding his (yes) “inner Reagan.” Now that the press has decided defending Ukraine against Putin’s Russia is vital, the 40th president’s reputation has shifted from warmonger to responsible internationalist. Atlantic journalist Graeme Wood particularly loved Speaker Johnson finally “getting a grip on reality” on Ukraine, which in media terms meant Johnson turning away from his “hard-right” flank toward sweet reason – boosted by Democrats in Congress, who saved his speaker position -- by pushing an additional $60 billion in spending for military aid to Ukraine. Goldberg set up a clip of Johnson arguing for military aid to Ukraine, even mentioning an "axis of evil" (remember those?) consisting of China, Iran, and Russia, but this time to media approval. When asked by host Goldberg whether what we’re seeing is “the true Mike Johnson,” Wood responded thusly. Wood: I don’t know if it’s the true Mike Johnson. But having just been in Poland about a week ago, it seems to most polls and there are some parts of the world where the stakes are very high with these issues, that it’s a person, Mike Johnson, getting a grip on reality. I mean, Poles are seeing this as, arming Ukraine means stopping Kiev from falling and then stopping Russia from getting to the Polish border, which by the way, it’s been there before. Knowing how public television has traditionally treated Ronald Reagan’s presidency, this exchange registered as ironic: Jeffrey Goldberg: ….Vivian, let’s add onto that. Has Johnson found his inner Reagan? And is he strong enough to withstand what might be coming from the isolationist wing? Vivian Salama: I think he would love to believe that he’s found his inner Reagan. Goldberg: I mean, every Republican wants to find their inner Reagan, right? And did the Democrats backing this package show their "inner Reagan" as well? Later there was “optimism” Israeli’s embattled Netanyahu was listening to the wisdom of the American president and refraining from major countermeasures after Iran fired drones and missiles into Israel. Goldberg: So, that brings me to this question about President Biden and his relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. It seems like there’s been a little bit of a reset in their relationship. And by that, I mean it seems as if Netanyahu is actually listening a bit to Joe Biden now, or is that -- am I over-indexing? Wood: Yes, you might be a little bit too optimistic. But, you know, the hope was that during these last weeks, so much has changed, so much of the narrative could have changed, and it was a frozen and very bad narrative for a number of reasons in the Gaza War. But what can Netanyahu make of this? I mean, there are many Israelis who wish he would just disappear. But the next best thing would be for something in the frozen conflict, in the frozen situation to move…. Wood later admitted he wasn’t a Netanyahu fan: "We’ve got to understand, too, what type of pressure Netanyahu was under. I’ll speak with a rare note of sympathy with Bibi here, because if your country is attacked with 300 drones and ballistic missiles and you do nothing, I don’t think there’s any country that would allow an attack like that to go completely unanswered…." Journalists are certainly more confident of projecting American might during Democratic administrations. Exporting United States military might to Ukraine and putting the diplomatic squeeze on an ally are now admirable traits. Strange days! This sudden new respect for American military power was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular, and taxpayers like you. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic 4/19/24 8:02:01 p.m. (ET) Jeffrey Goldberg: So, it seems that Mike Johnson, the unlikeliest speaker in recent memory, even Washington reporters who know everything admit that they hadn't heard of him before his selection, might not be falling off the tightrope quite yet. The far right of his party has predictably turned on him, but Donald Trump hasn't, so far at least, and neither have the Democrats. Is Marjorie Taylor Greene inadvertently bringing back bipartisanship? I'll talk about this and the consequences for Ukraine and Israel funding with Eugene Daniels, a White House correspondent and co-author of Politico's playbook, Seung Min Kim is a White House reporter with the Associated Press, Vivian Salama is a national politics reporter for The Wall Street Journal, and Graeme Wood is my colleague and a staff writer at The Atlantic. Welcome, all. Seung Min, you're in the hot seat. Just came from the White House. So, the House is poised to pass this $95 billion foreign aid package finally, and if the speaker gets this done, it's going to be with the help of the Democrats obviously, and his right most members, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, who may or may not be, for further discussion, the most powerful person on the Hill. They're pretty livid. So, what are the chances that Johnson gets this done, and in so doing, also subverts his speakership? Seung Min Kim, White House Reporter, The Associated Press: The chances, on the one hand, the chances are good that the foreign aid package will pass the House tomorrow. On a procedural vote earlier today, you had 316 votes. That is far past the majority, helped with a lot of Democrats, like you said, and a significant portion of Republicans as well. And, you know, that will have to go back to the Senate, and then to the president's desk for it to be signed. But the real question is what happens to Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership position. What's been really interesting over the last couple of days is that it's not just Marjorie Taylor Greene anymore who's threatening to oust him from his speakership. The numbers, slowly, they are growing. You have two more House Republicans now on the record saying they would support him that what we call a motion to vacate, that maneuver, that mechanism that allows one person to oust a speaker. And why that matters -- Jeffrey Goldberg: The mechanism that was fatal to Kevin McCarthy. Seung Min Kim: Definitely, yes, that mechanism. And what's critical here is that the margins in the House are so narrow after there's one person leaving the house after this week and he will have just a one seat majority. That is almost untenable for any speaker to navigate, much less someone who is inexperienced and has a very raucous far right portion of the conference like Mike Johnson does. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. But I want to show you a chart from -- just to look at this. These are the last Republican speakers, and you see that it's not a job that lasts forever these days. Mike Johnson is at 178 days and counting. I'm not asking Eugene for you to predict the future, although can you predict the future? Daniels, White House Correspondent, Politico: No, not yet. I'm learning. Jeffrey Goldberg: All right. I mean, what are the chances that he finds himself in really dire straits? And what are the chances that Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, comes in to save him? Eugene Daniels: That's the key to this, right? That the chances of whether or not he gets saved, it's all up to Hakeem Jeffries. If Hakeem Jeffries signals either in front of cameras or behind the scenes to Democrats that, hey, I will let you not come, you can leave, we want you to protect and defend him, Mike Johnson, in any kind of vote, then they will do that. Jeffrey Goldberg: What's the Democratic interest in keeping Johnson in power? Eugene Daniels: The reason that they are, the people that are interested in it, is, one, they're worried about who would come next, right? If Marjorie Taylor Greene, if you're not far right enough for her, people are worried about who's coming next. And also, he's doing something that Kevin McCarthy did not do. He's acting in good faith with the Democrats at this point, right? The way that he's negotiating and trying to get these bills to the floor is something that they wanted from Kevin McCarthy. He would not do. Also, Kevin McCarthy was kind of bad mouthing Democrats on air a day after. They saved his bill, and so they were upset about that. They said, you know, we're not saving you, you're on your own. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Eugene Daniels: So, they're not getting that from Johnson. Jeffrey Goldberg: Johnson is kind of cool, understated approach is working. Eugene Daniels: It's working. It's working. Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes. Vivian, do you have any thoughts on, on whether he can maneuver this Ukraine bill to passage and maintain his job? Vivian Salama, National Politics Reporter, The Wall Street Journal: It's looking increasingly likely that he will get the Ukraine bill over the finish line. Now, whether or not he maintains his job is another story. Remember, Ukraine was at one point a largely bipartisan issue. Most people in Congress on both sides of the aisle supported some sort of U.S. aid package. However, it has become increasingly a political flashpoint. And there is one person that has driven a lot of that rhetoric, and that is Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, where he made it increasingly become a political issue, where he would say, why are we giving billions of dollars to Ukraine? You know, the country is falling apart. We have problems at the border. And so that has grown. And we've seen then the hardliners in the Republican Party pushing back on Ukraine aid. And that's where we are. It is not a substantive issue here. It is a political issue. And now you see Donald Trump coming along and saying, well, okay, we can give them aid in the form of a loan and everything has changed suddenly. Jeffrey Goldberg: I want to get to Trump. Before we get to Trump, I want to -- so NewsHour's Amna Nawaz earlier this week interviewed President Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and he made his feelings about all of this quite clear. Listen to this one segment. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President: We wanted another way to get this money last year, but for today, it doesn't matter. We need to survive and we need to defend our people. And that's why your decision, the ball is on your field, yes? Please, just make decision. Jeffrey Goldberg: So, I'm not, I'm not saying that what I'm going to play you now is a direct consequence of PBS' global reach, but, Speaker Johnson causation, correlation, we can have that debate later, but Zelenskyy's plea, it seems as if, you know, that kind of thinking that Zelenskyy is talking about there kind of moved Speaker Johnson. Listen to this. This is kind of an extended riff by Johnson on Ukraine, in which he sounds like an old style Reagan Republican. Listen, listen to this. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. I really do. I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we've gotten. I believe Xi and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil. I think they're in coordination on this. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys. My son is going to begin in the Naval Academy this fall. This is a live fire exercise for me, as it is so many American families. This is not a game. It's not a joke. We can't play politics with this. And I'm willing to take personal risk for that, because we have to do the right thing, and history will judge us. Jeffrey Goldberg: Graeme, this is pretty remarkable given where Johnson was in the sort of Trumpian quasi isolationist framework. Are we seeing something very unusual? Is this the true Mike Johnson? Graeme Wood, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: I don't know if it's the true Mike Johnson. But having just been in Poland about a week ago, it seems to most Poles and there're some parts of the world where the stakes are very high with these issues, that it's a person, Mike Johnson, getting a grip on reality. I mean, polls are seeing this as arming Ukraine means stopping Kyiv from falling, and then stopping Russia from getting to the Polish border, which, by the way, it's been there before. So it's a matter of someone who -- you know, maybe he has to satisfy Marjorie Taylor Greene, maybe not. These are political questions that are, that are unfamiliar to parts of the world where they're wondering about their future independence and prosperity. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. I would love as an exercise to try to explain Marjorie Taylor Greene's politics to the prime minister of Poland, but that we'll do that on another show. But, Vivian, come, come, let's add onto that. Has Johnson found his inner Reagan? And is he strong enough to withstand what might be coming from the isolationist wing? Vivian Salama: I think he would love to believe that he's found his inner Reagan. Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, every Republican wants to find their inner Reagan, right? Yes. Vivian Salama: And one of the things that I've heard a lot from folks on the Hill is that a lot of this is he's driven by faith, that he believes because of his faith that it is imperative upon the United States, it's incumbent upon the United States to help allies, including the Ukrainians who are on the frontline of this war, whether or not -- Jeffrey Goldberg: So, why did we wait so long? Vivian Salama: Well, that's just the issue. There's so much political headwind and it's taken so much time for the party to sort of coalesce around this concept that we have to do this. And it was -- as a standalone issue, I don't know if Ukraine aid would have passed, but we're lumping it in with other issues, support for Israel, support for Taiwan. And so it pads it with those issues that do have more bipartisan support at the moment and can sort of get through the house a lot quicker. Also remember there was a lot of pushback on border security that Republicans wanted to basically get a win by adding border security and linking it to Ukraine aid. And that is largely what slowed down the passage of this. And so this has been a major issue. Eugene Daniels: It's his faith, but there's also like a practical aspect of this. He said, I believe the intel, he gets a lot more access to information as speaker than he did as a kind of a rank and file backbencher in the House. So, he is getting information that he wasn't getting before. This is not the Mike Johnson that many of us did not know when you -- a few months ago, right? Jeffrey Goldberg: Wait, I want to study that sentence. This is not the Mike Johnson that they didn't know. Eugene Daniels: He's somebody we used to know. We know someone else. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Eugene Daniels: But like that is such a bit of integral part of understanding this change in him. He's in leadership. And there's a different way that you have to operate. His kind of dragging his feet, in my estimation, has always been -- he does have to make it look like he's not being pushed by Democrats to do anything. And a lot has changed in the months leading up to this. Jeffrey Goldberg: Talk about that from the White House perspective. I mean, obviously, he's in leadership. He's getting intel. Now, obviously, if you're in the paranoid nether regions of American politics, you think, oh, then he's like being influenced by the deep state. But what he's getting is real time intelligence about the Ukrainian struggles, right? Is this part of -- I mean, obviously, statutorily, you know, the speaker has to be involved in a lot of this, but is the White House cultivating Mike Johnson in a kind of way. Seung Min Kim: Right. I mean, that was a huge part of the White House's strategy when it came to persuading Mike Johnson on the need for additional Ukraine aid. If you recall literally the day after he was elected speaker, they brought him to the situation room right away. This is where he met Jake Sullivan. He met other national security officials. He met President Biden and spoke to him briefly for the first time. And he was exposed to the kind of information that he did not have as a rank and file member. He was then brought up for multiple meetings. He and National Security Committee chairman had regular briefings recently, obviously had multiple conversations. And that was part of the administration's strategy to convince him and give them real time, concrete information to try to persuade him that this is real, that his is a problem. And what's been fascinating to watch when it comes to Mike Johnson is that you do see an evolution of someone understanding that you can't behave the way as a rank and file member than you would as a leader, and not only as a leader of a House Republican conference, but a leader as a Speaker of the House. Which is why you can go from someone who voted against Ukraine aid like Mike Johnson did to someone who was shepherding it through at the risk of his own job. Vivian Salama: It wasn't just, by the way, the administration who's been lobbying him. Foreign leaders have been lining up to see Mike Johnson. I interviewed the Polish president just this week who had been in to see him a few weeks ago. And one by one, they'd all been going in saying, you do not understand what this threat means. Europe could fall. The Ukrainians have no more ammunition. We are literally at the brink. And I think over time they have managed to get to him, especially people like President Duda of Poland, who's very persuasive. He's also an ally of Trump's and then speaks sort of that language. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. He's a kind of a populist. Vivian Salama: He's considered right wing. And he appeals both to Trump. He did see Trump as well this week. But he also met with Mike Johnson. Others have as well. And so, progressively, over time, I think those European leaders and parliamentarians, you know, foreign ministers, you name it, they have managed to really get to him and make him understand the stakes here. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Graeme, this is the actual sort of largest question or most important question. What does this -- if this aid, and, obviously, it's a big package, Israel, Taiwan, but if this aid is freed up for Ukraine, tell us what that means on the battlefield. Graeme Wood: Yes. So, these briefings are very sobering for one reason, which is anything could happen between now and the end of the year. And that could mean the collapse of the Ukrainian frontline. The collapse of the Ukrainian frontline could mean the end of Ukraine as the state that we know it as. And once that happens, then that line starts moving and the political calculations of Europe change completely. So, I think some of the conversations that can happen in Washington can be about, okay, maybe we lose Ukraine. But a complete geo strategic reset that could happen with the collapse of a frontline in Ukraine is an extremely sobering thought. And that's why I think it's been so urgent that these conversations happen with -- Jeffrey Goldberg: So, you think it's plausible that it's not just that Russia will solidify its position in Crimea and in the east. You think that without U.S. resupply, the frontline could actually collapse and Russia could do what it couldn't do two years ago? Graeme Wood: Yes, that is plausible. It seems like right now the line could be frozen. But, you know, the way these things happen is slowly, slowly than all at once. Jeffrey Goldberg: Like Afghanistan. Graeme Wood: Yes. Things can happen so quickly that it would be pretty urgent to at least keep the line where it is. Now, having a plan for it to actually resolve the war, of course, is what everyone would want. But the disaster, the catastrophe that would happen, if the line really collapsed, would be unthinkable. Jeffrey Goldberg: Part of that catastrophe would be that Russia would then be in a better position to threaten actual NATO allies, and then we are required, by treaty, to come to their defense, as opposed to Ukraine, which is not in NATO.

NB Blog Feed

So Sad! Brian Stelter, Post Reporter Can't Get Press Credentials from Trump Campaign

Charlotte Klein at Vanity Fair was upset that the Trump campaign is “cutting off access” to reporters who are extremely hostile to Trump, including Brian Stelter (also of Vanity Fair) and Washington Post reporter Isaac Arnsdorf, whose new book is titled Finish What We Started: The MAGA Movement’s Ground War to End Democracy. Klein protested the book “has been praised by two such members of that movement, Steve Bannon and John Fredericks, both of whom had Arnsdorf on their shows and recommended the book to their audiences.” That’s bizarre. By contrast, the Trump campaign took exception to the “End Democracy” hype. Since February, Arnsdorf has not been permitted to enter campaign events as credentialed media. That doesn’t mean he can’t cover events. He just has to sit where regular folks do. Klein lamented "that requires getting to rallies much earlier, which could be a deal breaker for some journalists given their busy schedules." Cry a river. “Nobody has been denied any access to our events,” Cheung said in a statement. “If reporters want to cover our events but are unable to secure a coveted press badge, they are more than welcome to apply for general admission tickets in order to experience our events." Arnsdorf declined to comment on the situation, but a Post spokesperson said the paper “will continue to fairly, accurately and independently report on the presidential campaign.” They don’t sound fair, accurate, or independent. They sound like Democrat operatives. He's not alone: In recent weeks, the campaign has taken similar punitive measures against other reporters, according to multiple sources familiar with the moves. An Axios reporter had their credentials approved for an event and then revoked the same day, following the publication of a story about the Trump-led Republican National Committee’s struggles in swing states. (An Axios spokesperson declined to comment.) At least one other Post reporter was temporarily denied press credentials to multiple events after accurately reporting on Trump’s public statements. Most recently, Brian Stelter, a special correspondent for Vanity Fair, was denied press access to Trump’s rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania  This is true and I know it firsthand — I applied for press credentials for Trump's most recent rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania and was rejected https://t.co/CpUHMb2WHy — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) April 19, 2024 Klein conceded that the Trump campaign’s press engagement has even earned it praise. Some reporters have said they have in certain ways been easier to deal with than Joe Biden’s campaign, according to The New Yorker’s Clare Malone, who recently wrote a piece about Trump spokesman Steven Cheung headlined, “The Face of Donald Trump’s Deceptively Savvy Media Strategy.” Still, some hostile reporters are still "unnerved by the retaliatory behavior" and what will happen next. “This is the calm before the storm. Once there’s a press plane with 30 to 40 reporters flying around all the time, that’ll be when they’ll really have to deal with it,” the first political reporter told me. “Negative stories will be coming thick and fast and they haven’t had to deal with this since 2016; in 2020 they just had the White House pool. It’s only gonna get worse, I think.”

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Travels To Britain To Attack Trump As 'Misogynistic, Racist'

As the presidential election kicks into high gear, CBS Saturday Morning hit the road to seek the opinions of a group of people who will have zero impact on the results: the British, and more specifically, Brits who think Donald Trump is a racist and a misogynist. Michelle Miller kicked off the segment by reporting that “as Donald Trump has emerged as the likely Republican presidential nominee, Europe is increasingly watching with trepidation. The head of NATO says Trump is weakening the alliance, as president, Trump bristled at NATO allies, and now as a candidate has said he'd encourage Russia to do what it wants to a NATO country that isn't meeting its defense spending benchmarks. Holly Williams looks at how Europe and the U.K. are preparing for the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”     Miller was probably referring to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s February remarks where he warned that not explicitly promising to come to a NATO member’s aid weakens the alliance, but Miller was also cherry-picking. Stoltenberg has also repeatedly praised Trump’s ability to get the Europeans to increase their defense budgets while rebutting the hysterical claims from Trump’s critics that his election would be catastrophic for NATO. As for Williams’s pre-recorded man on the street segment, it began with a woman claiming that “he needs to be civilized. You know, you don’t, mob rule shouldn't be allowed to do things like that.” In a voiceover, Williams claimed that “in Europe, a second Trump presidency is viewed by many with fear and loathing.” A second woman claimed of a second Trump term, “I think it will be absolutely horrendous. I think it will be dreadful,” while a third asked, “Why would anybody else vote for him again?” Meanwhile, a man asserted, “He just seems to be relatively misogynistic, racist, and anti-immigration on the whole, which isn't great.” Williams replied, “So, not a fan?” and the man affirmed that he was “not a fan.” Williams also recalled that “according to a recent poll, over 70 percent of people in the U.K. have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.” If viewers were hoping for a similar segment full of Israeli men and women on the street discussing their U.S. presidential preferences, CBS was not going to give it to them. Here is a transcript for the April 20 show: CBS Saturday Morning 4/20/2024 8:17 AM ET MICHELLE MILLER: As Donald Trump has emerged as the likely Republican presidential nominee, Europe is increasingly watching with trepidation. The head of NATO says Trump is weakening the alliance, as president, Trump bristled at NATO allies, and now as a candidate has said he'd encourage Russia to do what it wants to a NATO country that isn't meeting its defense spending benchmarks. Holly Williams looks at how Europe and the U.K. are preparing for the possibility of a second Trump presidency. WOMAN: He needs to be civilized. You know, you don’t, mob rule shouldn't be allowed to do things like that. HOLLY WILLIAMS: In Europe a second Trump presidency is viewed by many with fear and loathing. WOMAN 2: I think it will be absolutely horrendous. I think it will be dreadful. WOMAN 3: With money, [unintelligible], everything, just, why would anybody else vote for him again? MAN: He just seems to be relatively misogynistic, racist, and anti-immigration on the whole, which isn't great. WILLIAMS: So, not a fan? MAN: Not a fan. WILLIAMS: According to a recent poll, over 70 percent of people in the U.K. have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.

NB Blog Feed

John Cleese on Cancel Culture: An ‘Organized … Totalitarian’ Movement

John Cleese is the master of both silly walks and sublime comedy takes. The Monty Python veteran is as feisty as ever at 84, slashing those attempting to crush comedy that breaks any kind of so-called rule. Cleese opened up to FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff about free speech, “The Life of Brian” and much more in a revealing chat. FIRE stands for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group that often does what the ACLU once did – stands up for free speech. The comic legend recalled the reaction his 1979 film “The Life of Brian” and today’s Cancel Culture movement.      The former expressed itself in walkouts and furious letters tied to the rebellious comedy. Now? “It’s not just protest. It’s trying to get people fired,” Cleese said, calling the Cancel Culture movement both “organized” and “totalitarian” in nature. It also stifles debate. To prove it, he brought up how he tried, in vain, to invite 14 “extreme woke” experts to expound on Lukianoff’s book, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” on Cleese’s “The Dinosaur Show” program. All 14 refused. “One said, ‘the very fact that you’re going to discuss it is the problem,'” Cleese recalled. “In other words, ‘we have a set of ideas and if you don’t agree with us on everything you hate us and we’re gonna try to get you fired. Crazy.”     Cancel Culture doesn’t just get innocent people fired. It makes them less funny. The same applies to any artistic endeavor. “The enemy of creativity is interruption,” Cleese told Lukianoff. “And interruptions can come from inside as well as outside. And if the moment you think of something you think, ‘ooh will that offend someone,’ you’ve interrupted yourself and it will stop the creative flow.” Cleese shared a personal perspective on free speech and how it opened up his world over the decades. “All moments in my life that have been important in forming my personality came when I suddenly had a realization that something I believed wasn’t the case,” he said. “You can’t do that if the people around you are saying you can’t think like that.” Cleese holds out hope that Cancel Culture and the efforts to squelch speech won’t win in the end. He’s still not sure we’ve turned any corner on the woke movement, though. “A lot of people are very frightened of getting fired, and that’s awful, getting fired,” he said. “There’s good and bad in all of us, and the moment you think you’re more perfect than you are, then that’s trouble … That’s why all this virtue signaling is so foolish now … they also need to know they have a nasty streak too.”

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

Hopelessly Woke NPR Places Trigger Warning on Declaration of Independence

The hopeless wokeness of tax-funded National Public Radio has been confirmed by NPR senior business editor Uri Berliner, who started shockwaves with his Free Press essay “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust” providing chapter and verse of how NPR had been take over fully by the left, and as a result blowing several major stories like Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, and dismissing the coronavirus lab leak theory. For his whistleblowing efforts, the veteran journalist Berliner was suspended from NPR for five days before resigning. Demonstrating the totality of NPR bias, new chief executive Katherine Maher is in the spotlight after a series of bizarre tweets resurfaced in which she sounds like an Artificial Intelligence parody of a leftist media elitist, such as when she excused looting during the summer 2020 riots. Berliner targeted Maher directly on X: "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." One example of anti-American wokeness is the “editor’s note” NPR staff felt obliged to place on archived stories about its on-air reading every Independence Day of the Declaration of Independence in full, an honorable tradition apparently now consigned to the ash-heap of history. Yes, one of America’s founding documents now requires a trigger warning, in the view of partially government funded radio (hat tip: Masks are bad, actually on X): Editor's note on July 8, 2022: This story quotes the U.S. Declaration of Independence -- a document that contains offensive language about Native Americans, including a racial slur. The transcripts of previous years of the annual reading now include the warning, relating to the Declaration’s reference to the “merciless Indian savages” purportedly whipped up by King George III of England to wage “domestic insurrections” on the rebellious colonists. NewsBusters previously explored how NPR host Leila Fadel in 2022 preened about NPR’s “break with tradition” in no longer reading the document on air, so as to explore “what equality means” instead, with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep and two liberal Harvard professors. Four days later, perhaps after an internal “struggle session,” the sad editor’s note appeared.

NB Blog Feed

PBS Mourns 'Far-Right' Influence on GOP While Encouraging Far-Left

It was a foreign policy-heavy edition of PBS NewsHour’s weekly Friday news recap segment with New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart. Together with host William Brangham, the duo would claim that the “far-right” threatens to throw the GOP into chaos for its opposition to Ukraine aid, but not only did the far-left not receive any labeling for opposing Israel aid, but it also received encouragement to keep up the protesting. Republicans and Ukraine were first up on the agenda and Brangham began by declaring, “Democrats helped Speaker [Mike] Johnson get a foreign aid package over a key hurdle, but he still faces backlash from far-right members in his own conference.”     Later, he asked Brooks if Democrats would save Johnson from a motion to vacate, “I mean, Lisa [Desjardins] was just reporting that she's got some off-the-record scuttlebutt that Johnson was offered some — if you bring these, we will protect you if it comes to that. Do you think that will actually materialize? Brooks replied that he hoped they would, “It absolutely should, because when Johnson got the speakership, he had to make concessions to the further right. He had to put some of those people on the Rules Committee, which determines what comes up to a vote.” He further added “And so I think it's very much in the Democrats interest to say, Johnson's our best shot right now at having a reasonable Congress for the rest of— the rest of this year. I'm looking at Chip Roy, who's on the Rules Committee, who voted against the Ukraine aid and who's one of the — I would say, one of the smartest people in House, and — but certainly on that far-right faction, one of the smartest people, I'm looking to see which way he goes.” Brooks concluded by arguing that Democrats cannot claim that Ukraine aid is of vital importance and then put their political interests first, “Because I think he would carry a lot of votes, and that could threaten him. But if the Democrats don't hold up Johnson, I think they would be betraying the House, betraying the kind of thing that was accomplished today. And I think it would just be a gross mistake. While some Republicans voted no on the rule because of Ukraine, some Democrats voted no because of Israel, but PBS doesn’t bring out terms such as “far-left” for them. Instead, Capehart offered up some words of encouragement, “But I would say to the people who are protesting and the young people who are upset, and all of the folks who are upset at the president and the administration for what they're doing, I keep thinking about the thing that President Obama used to say to criminal justice activists and others who were put — who were really upset with him for not doing lots — more things on criminal justice or racial issues.” Capehart also claimed that Democrats can work with their extremists, “And he would say to them, ‘I need you to keep protesting on the outside, because that puts pressure on me on the inside to get something done' and I think that is what's happening.’” Brangham agreed, “Which is famously what LBJ was being told by MLK, which is that he told him, keep the fire under my feet and thus I will deliver for you.” Even Brooks was wishy-washy on the far-left. While not using ideological labeling, he did admit there are “hate-filled and bigoted” people at the Columbia protests, for example, but he respects the people who are “who are honestly appalled by what's going on there.” Here is a transcript for the April 19 show: PBS NewsHour 4/19/2024 7:32 PM ET  WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As Lisa just reported, Democrats helped Speaker Johnson get a foreign aid package over a key hurdle, but he still faces backlash from far-right members in his own conference. …  I mean, Lisa was just reporting that she's got some off-the-record scuttlebutt that Johnson was offered some — if you bring these, we will protect you if it comes to that. Do you think that will actually materialize? DAVID BROOKS:  It absolutely should, because when Johnson got the speakership, he had to make concessions to the further right. He had to put some of those people on the Rules Committee, which determines what comes up to a vote. And so if I'm a Democrat, I'm thinking, well, the Republicans still do have the majority. So if it's not going to be Johnson, it's going to be somebody else. And it's going to be somebody else who makes even more concessions to the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world, and that will make my life worse as a Democrat. And so I think it's very much in the Democrats interest to say, Johnson's our best shot right now at having a reasonable Congress for the rest of the rest of this year. I'm looking at Chip Roy, who's on the Rules Committee, who voted against the Ukraine aid and who's one of the — I would say, one of the smartest people in House, and — but certainly on that far-right faction, one of the smartest people, I'm looking to see which way he goes. Because I think he would carry a lot of votes, and that could threaten him. But if the Democrats don't hold up Johnson, I think they would be betraying the House, betraying the kind of thing that was accomplished today. And I think it would just be a gross mistake. … JONATHAN CAPEHART: But I would say to the people who are protesting and the young people who are upset, and all of the folks who are upset at the president and the administration for what they're doing, I keep thinking about the thing that President Obama used to say to criminal justice activists and others who were put — who were really upset with him for not doing lots — more things on criminal justice or racial issues. And he would say to them, “I need you to keep protesting on the outside, because that puts pressure on me on the inside to get something done” and I think that is what's happening. BRANGHAM: Which is famously what LBJ was being told by MLK, which is that he told him, keep the fire under my feet and thus I will deliver for you. CAPHEART: Right.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: A Fervent Obsession with Trump Trial Jury Selection

The Manhattan trial of Donald Trump on "hush money" charges drew hundreds of minutes of TV obsession this week. The pro-Biden media is now enjoying talking about a “split screen” of Trump stuck in court on trial, President Biden on the campaign trail. ABC morning host Michael Strahan reported on Trump “test[ing] the patience of the judge while President Biden hits the campaign trails in a battleground state.” Meanwhile, the impeachment of Homeland Security Mayorkas was briefly covered and derided as a partisan stunt. George Stephanopoulos called it a "partisan" impeachment, unlike his salesmanship for the Trump impeachments.  Managing Editor Curtis Houck has the details and clips. Reporters from ABC's Mary Bruce to CBS's Nancy Cordes helpfully spun for Biden's campaign stops in Pennsylvania, where Biden said he's a Scranton guy who understands the middle class, while Trump is a clueless rich guy working for the rich guys. This split screen is exactly what the Democrats want -- Trump pinned in the courtroom, Biden making weird clips in Wawa that are carefully staged to sell he's "with it." The music and lyrics suggest Trump has engaged in "hush money" payments to a porn star and is now caught in a "criminal fraud" trial, while Biden is the honest guy searching out the common man. It's not "news," it's messaging. They can't find time to cover Biden making bizarre gaffes like his implication that his Uncle Ambrose was eaten by cannibals when his plane crashed in World War II. Rich Noyes posted a study on NewsBusters on Monday showing that ABC, CBS, and NBC usually avoid mentioning that Trump's prosecutors (like Alvin Bragg in this case, or Letitia James and Fani Willis in others) are elected Democrats seeking to build their brand by "getting Trump." NBC occasionally mentions the "D," but ABC and CBS seem allergic to it. Overall, 90 percent of stories have no party label. Instead, they just show Trump complaining it's "rigged," as that's an unfounded complaint about public-spirited nonpartisans who hold powerful people accountable. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

NB Blog Feed

PBS’s Pathetic O.J. Simpson Take: Outrage Over Racism, Not Denial of Justice

PBS recruited the late football star and (acquitted) double murderer O.J. Simpson into the American race wars. On the April 11 PBS NewsHour had an odd take on the death of Simpson, whose televised trial captivated America 30 years ago, bringing in Dave Zirin, sports editor for the aging hard-left magazine The Nation. Together, he and NewsHour reporter William Brangham used the famous trial not as an example of justice denied, but to portray America as a historic haven of anti-black racism. Reporter William Brangham took us down that bloody memory lane before pivoting to the racial import of the trial. O.J. Simpson's trial and his initial acquittal was an enormous moment of reckoning for many, exposing another stark racial fissure in America, in particular, the chasm between how black and white Americans saw the police and the justice system. The trial also underscored glaring issues in how we view domestic violence, interracial marriage and the growing culture of media celebrity. The NewsHour’s expert source was the sports editor for the hard-left magazine The Nation, who in a series of repellent columns since October 7 condemned Israel but not Hamas for war crimes. He used the Simpson case as a ready means to condemn America as racist, even though the case itself featured a black man acquitted of a murder charge of which he was almost surely guilty. There certainly would be no condemnation of the majority-black jury acquitting a black football star of a crime he almost certainly committed. BRANGHAM: Dave Zirin wrote about all of this in a piece in The Nation today titled: "O.J. Simpson was a Rorschach test for America." And he joins me now. Dave Zirin, great to see you again on the NewsHour. You write in your piece -- quote -- "If anyone had illusions that the United States was in fact united, the O.J. Simpson trial and subsequent verdict quickly put an end to that." Remind us what the country experienced that day when that not guilty verdict came down. DAVE ZIRIN: ….it exposed that when it comes to the United States of America, there really is nothing united about it. White people experience particularly the criminal justice system and police one way, and black people experience it in a different way. And out of that, you get a white opinion out of the O.J. Simpson verdict that this was one of the great injustices of the 20th century, that someone just got away literally with a double homicide. And then, on the other side, in black America, there was an overwhelming belief that the police were corrupt, that O.J. Simpson was railroaded, and that the entire situation stank so much of racism and tainted testimony that there is no way there should have been a conviction…. Brangham acceded to Zirin’s left-wing viewpoint: "And yet, as you also document in your piece, that, for so many black Americans, this happening in Los Angeles, coming a couple of years after Rodney King and all of the revelations of racism in the L.A. Police Department, just seemed like, as you're saying, the culmination, this sort of apex of racial animosity towards black people." Zirin naturally agreed, bringing up the then-recent Rodney King beating and verdict. Then Brangham chided O.J. Simpson, not for his crimes, both proven and alleged, but for having “sort of steadfastly refused to talk about what it was like to be a black man in America” before his trial. This strange segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/11/24 7:15:01 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: O.J. Simpson, whose murder trial captivated international attention for months, died yesterday of cancer. His case dominated headlines during the '90s and was a prime example of people's fascination with celebrity and crime. But the trial was about much more than that, highlighting major fissures in America and one whose legacy is still discussed some decades later. William Brangham has our look. William Brangham: He was a football Hall of Famer, one of the greatest running backs of his generation, who suffered a precipitous fall from grace. O.J. Simpson's legacy would forever be tarnished by the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. They were repeatedly stabbed to death at her Los Angeles home two years after the Simpsons divorced. O.J. Simpson was charged in their killings after blood was found in his home and on his car. Millions of Americans sat glued to their televisions, watching as Simpson fled in a white Ford Bronco on the Southern California freeway. Police trailed him for 60 miles. He was eventually arrested and put on trial. The country was similarly riveted by the nine-month-long televised proceedings, transfixed by the grisly details, allegations of domestic violence, and what would become iconic closing arguments. Johnnie Cochran, Former Attorney For O.J. Simpson: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. William Brangham: It would eventually be dubbed the trial of the century. Christopher Darden, Prosecutor: He was also one hell of a great football player, but he's still a murderer. William Brangham: The case also further exposed the racism inside the Los Angeles police force. All along, Simpson maintained his innocence, and he was ultimately acquitted. Woman: We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of penal code section 187. William Brangham: Two years later, a civil suit filed by the victims' families found Simpson liable for their deaths. His assets were seized, and he was ordered to pay over $33 million in damages. They were never fully paid. It was all a stark contrast to his younger days. Hailed as one of the nation's top athletes, in the 1960s, Simpson was a decorated football star, an all-American at the University of Southern California. He was awarded the Heisman Trophy in 1968. And the next year, he was the number one draft pick, taken by the Buffalo Bills, where he went on to play nine seasons and was a five-time All-Pro. Simpson parlayed his fame and trademark charm into a successful career on screen, most famously as the pitchman for Hertz rental cars in the 1970s. He went on to act on TV and in movies, like in the late 80s slapstick "The Naked Gun." Well after the murder trials, Simpson had another run-in with the law. He was convicted of armed robbery and other felonies and served nine years in prison for stealing sports memorabilia in Las Vegas. He claimed the goods had originally been stolen from him. O.J. Simpson, Former NFL Player: I have done my time. I'd just like to get back to my family and friends. And, believe it or not, I do have some real friends. William Brangham: Simpson's family said he died Wednesday after battling prostate cancer. O.J. Simpson was 76 years old. O.J. Simpson's trial and his initial acquittal was an enormous moment of reckoning for many, exposing another stark racial fissure in America, in particular, the chasm between how Black and white Americans saw the police and the justice system. The trial also underscored glaring issues in how we view domestic violence, interracial marriage and the growing culture of media celebrity. Dave Zirin wrote about all of this in a piece in "The Nation" today titled: "O.J. Simpson was a Rorschach test for America." And he joins me now. Dave Zirin, great to see you again on the "NewsHour." You write in your piece — quote — "If anyone had illusions that the United States was in fact united, the O.J. Simpson trial and subsequent verdict quickly put an end to that." Remind us what the country experienced that day when that not guilty verdict came down. Dave Zirin, "The Nation": Wow, I remember it like it was yesterday. That's how powerful a moment it was in the American psyche. And what it revealed is that this country could have one common experience, watching this trial, and draw entirely different conclusions from it. And it exposed that when it comes to the United States of America, there really is nothing united about it. White people experience particularly the criminal justice system and police one way, and Black people experience it in a different way. And out of that, you get a white opinion out of the O.J. Simpson verdict that this was one of the great injustices of the 20th century, that someone just got away literally with a double homicide. And then, on the other side, in Black America, there was an overwhelming belief that the police were corrupt, that O.J. Simpson was railroaded, and that the entire situation stank so much of racism and tainted testimony that there is no way there should have been a conviction. And so, therefore, the jury's decision was just. So, what it really revealed was that you can have a common experience, but, then, at the end of the day it's viewed an entirely different ways based upon the color of your skin. William Brangham: Going back to that issue of how a lot of white Americans saw it, you write how O.J. being acquitted, to many, seemed like this is an example of a rich celebrity being able to buy and assemble this dream team that gets him past all of this evidence and gets him acquitted. Do you think that is how a lot of people saw that? Dave Zirin: Oh, at the time, the discussion about O.J.'s ability to hire this incredible dream team of attorneys led by the legendary Johnnie Cochran, not to mention people like F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, a group of people who everybody knew in legal circles coming together, people said at the time, a lot of people, this is not justice. Even Chris Rock had a line in his stand-up act that said, if O.J. Wasn't a rich celebrity with these lawyers, he'd be known as or Orenthal, the white lady killer. And that was a stark statement. But it was once something that was widely seen in the culture that, wow, if O.J. is found innocent, it'll be because he hired the best that money could buy. William Brangham: And yet, as you also document in your piece, that, for so many Black Americans, this happening in Los Angeles, coming a couple of years after Rodney King and all of the revelations of racism in the L.A. Police Department, just seemed like, as you're saying, the culmination, this sort of apex of racial animosity towards Black people. Dave Zirin: Absolutely. I mean, and the police chief, the former police chief by 1995, Daryl Gates, there was a very militarized approach to policing in what were called anti-gang initiatives in the Black community. And that led to a great deal of violence and a great deal of mistrust, which is why, after the Rodney King beating, nobody in L.A. really saw it as just a Rodney King story, but as emblematic of how Black people and brown people were treated by Daryl Gates' police department. And that's just in 1992. So the city is actually still rebuilding by 1994, when the trial begins. And so it's not like it was some distant memory. It was part of a continuum for many people of a racist and out-of-control police department. And then when there were revelations in the trial of legitimate police misconduct, that only sealed the deal for a lot of folks who thought to themselves, I'm not sure if O.J. Simpson can get a fair trial in the city and county of Los Angeles. William Brangham: Right. And this all comes, as you also write that it's ironic, in a way, that O.J. Simpson was the vehicle through which we start to even see this in its sharpest form, because, all throughout his career, he sort of steadfastly refused to talk about what it was like to be a Black man in America. Dave Zirin: Yes, O.J. consciously positioned himself commercially as somebody who would be different from civil rights figures at the intersection of sports and Black politics, people like Jim Brown, for example. O.J. Simpson was not going to be that. He was not going to be somebody who raised a fist on the medal stand at any ceremony. He was going to be O.J. Simpson. Like he liked to say to reporters very famously: "I'm not Black. I'm O.J." And positioning himself commercially that way meant that there was a great distance between O.J. Simpson and the Black community. But as was said quite often in 1995, when O.J. was arrested and put on trial, that was when he and a lot of other people discovered that he was, in fact, a Black man in the United States. William Brangham: Dave Zirin of "The Nation," always great to talk to you. Thank you so much for talking with us. Dave Zirin: Thank you for having me.

NB Blog Feed

NBC's Alba Wrongly Hints Columbine Mass Shooters Bought Guns Legally

In a few appearances on Thursday afternoon, NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba helped spread misinformation about there being a link between gun shows and school shootings as she promoted President Joe Biden's latest push to require unlicensed gun dealers to do background checks on buyers. MSNBC afternoon host Chris Jansing set up a segment on the issue and asked Alba to explain how the President's move was to "fill a loophole." "And, Chris, we know all too well there are horrible stories about shooters who maybe were denied the ability to purchase a gun at a sporting goods store, but then they were able to go online and buy one because it was an unauthorized retailer," she proclaimed. What she refused to meantion was that firearms purchased online needed to be delivered to licenced firearms dealers, whereupon pick up, the purchaser would have a background check conducted.     Then, even though the gunman who attacked a school in Uvalde, Texas, in 2022 passed a background check to buy his gun, Alba misleadingly made it sound like the new background checks requirement was somehow relevant to this case as she continued: "So this is really the Biden White House trying to curb that, and it's something that specifically became a huge movement and moment for the White House to try to accomplish after the horrific school shooting in Uvalde. So this was something that the President vowed to do." A bit later, Alba misleadingly suggested a background check requirement might have prevented the school shootings at Columbine 25 years ago: And, again, Chris, we're talking about just next week it's going to be the 25th anniversary of the Columbine shooting, and those shooters were able to get those guns, again, through this unauthorized process which is known as the "gun show loophole." So it just really is a stark reminder of for how many years this has been such an issue. And the Biden administration says this is a step forward. Alba then made a couple of appearances on Hallie Jackson's show on NBCNOW and made similar claims about the Columbine attackers. About 5:32 p.m. Eastern, she asserted: And when you look at the two shooters in that case, they were able to purchase weapons because of the so-called "gun show loophole," and that means that even if maybe they went to try to get those guns from a sporting goods store or from a retailer, and maybe they would have been stopped there because they would have had to undergo a background check, then they were still able to go and get them from an unauthorized retailer which right now really is a sort of shadow market that exists online. It exists at these sort of flea markets. It exists at these sort of gun shows.     But, in fact, the two Columbine gunmen acquired their guns through circumstances that were already illegal. Both the individuals who supplied them with firearms knew that the gunmen were underage and intentionally bought the firearms for them, which meant it was an illegal straw purchase. Mark Manes was sentenced to six years in prison while Robyn Anderson, who provided two guns through an illegal straw purchase at a gun show, was not charged by prosecutors after she cooperated in the investigation. Transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC's Chris Jansing Reports April 11, 2024 2:05 p.m. Eastern CHRIS JANSING: Now to Washington where the White House just approved the biggest expansion of gun background checks in decades. NBC's White House correspondent Monica Alba is following this for us. Monica, this is intended -- this rule -- to fill a loophole. Tell us about that. MONICA ALBA, NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Exactly, Chris. This is known as the so-called "gun show loophole." So while some retailers and stores that sell arms do have to do background checks, there is really this market for people who can sell guns out of their home or online who don't have to meet those requirements. So this new rule put in effect by the Biden administration which would start in about a month or so would effectively force anyone who is doing that to conduct a background check. And, Chris, we know all too well there are horrible stories about shooters who maybe were denied the ability to purchase a gun at a sporting goods store, but then they were able to go online and buy one because it was an unauthorized retailer. So this is really the Biden White House trying to curb that, and it's something that specifically became a huge movement and moment for the White House to try to accomplish after the horrific school shooting in Uvalde. So this was something that the President vowed to do. And remember that when they were able to pass the bipartisan gun safety law that went into effect in 2022, this was a part of it. They said it's going to take some time to actually make this rule effective so that we can see now what's going to start to happen in the coming weeks. Now, it's possible this could face some legal challenges, but the administration believes that they can cite the 2022 law as a reason to uphold it. And, again, Chris, we're talking about just next week it's going to be the 25th anniversary of the Columbine shooting, and those shooters were able to get those guns, again, through this unauthorized process which is known as the "gun show loophole." So it just really is a stark reminder of for how many years this has been such an issue. And the Biden administration says this is a step forward. It's something that they did pledge to do, but that they would like to do a lot more when it comes to gun violence prevention. And, of course, that's part of the President's pledge to also ban assault weapons which he has not been able to do so far in this Congress.  (...) NBCNOW's Hallie Jackson NOW April 11, 2024 5:31 p.m. Eastern HALLIE JACKSON: Back here to Washington now, and the Biden administration tonight taking steps to make the biggest expansion in decades to federal background checks for buying guns. The Department of Justice submitting this nearly 500-page set of regulations that makes sellers -- that would make sellers run background checks on a potential buyer's criminal and mental health history. Now, here's why it's such a big deal. It could mean the end of a controversial so-called the "gun show loophole" which basically lets unlicensed private sellers in some states legally sell guns at gun shows, out of their houses, and through online platforms without putting buyers through the background check system. The new rules come from legislation that Congress passed back in June 2022 after the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where 21 people were killed. Just this year -- just this year, rather, we've already seen more than 100 mass shootings -- each year before that, hundreds more. Monica Alba is joining us now. Big, big push here for the Biden administration to sort of regulate the so-called shadow market that's been growing fast. Talk us through it. MONICA ALBA, NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Exactly, Hallie, and it's so tragic when you think about mass shootings. The anniversary next week of Columbine is going to be here -- 25 years since that deadly shooting. And when you look at the two shooters in that case, they were able to purchase weapons because of the so-called "gun show loophole," and that means that even if maybe they went to try to get those guns from a sporting goods store or from a retailer, and maybe they would have been stopped there because they would have had to undergo a background check, then they were still able to go and get them from an unauthorized retailer which right now really is a sort of shadow market that exists online. It exists at these sort of flea markets. It exists at these sort of gun shows. So this new rule which takes effect in about a month from now from the Biden administration would effectively tell these thousands or so who  are selling these kinds of firearms that you do have to be federally licensed, and you do have to conduct background checks on anybody who is attempting to purchase these kinds of weapons. Now, this did come directly from the 2022 bipartisan gun safety law that the President was able to put into action, but he needed the DOJ to actually work on this rule specifically, but it was a major priority, and they feel like this will help. They do feel like there have been cases where specifically people have been denied the purchase of weapons in background checks, so if they can expand that to create a wider net, that that will all be incredibly helpful here.

NB Blog Feed

‘She Ought to Resign’: Hawley Targets Biden Cabinet Official Amid Stock Scandal

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) called for Biden administration Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to resign following a testy Senate hearing.  During the April 17 edition of Fox News’s Hannity, Hawley told host Sean Hannity, that Granholm lied to Congress and cannot be trusted to regulate American energy. “She did lie to Congress, what she said Sean, is that she sold all of her shares, that she didn't own any stock in companies she regulates — not true,” Hawley told Hannity, after being asked about Granholm’s stock scandal. “She later then… came back and said, ‘Oops, oops, I made a mistake I owned a bunch of stock, in a bunch of companies including Ford,’ who the Energy Department obviously regulates and oversees,” Hawley stated.  Expanding on his remarks, Hawley added: “And she now expects us to buy that. Listen, it is a fact, Sean, an independent watchdog has found that she violated the law nine separate times and yet here she is still running the Energy Department, still trading stocks.”  Hawley went on to call for her resignation, exclaiming, “I don't believe a word she says, she ought to resign. It is a disgrace that she is sitting there making money on the stock market off companies that she regulates when she’s supposed to be making energy safe and cheap for the American people.”  During the April 16 hearing when Hawley confronted Granholm, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) questioned Granholm on whether the Biden administration supports the radical goal of reaching “net zero,” or drastically reducing carbon emissions. American energy, transportation, agriculture and construction depend heavily on fossil fuels such as oil and coal and fossil fuel products such as plastic and artificial fertilizer. Lee also drew an admission from Granholm that the Biden Administration is anti-energy. When Lee asked her if the Biden administration supports making the country net-zero, Granholm admitted that the Biden administration supports a transition to net-zero. Days later, Granholm crowed in a post on X about a 20-state project to “accelerate America’s net-zero transition by 2050.”  Lee also grilled Granholm on the absurdity of running away from cheap sources of energy like coal, while energy demand is rapidly increasing. After mentioning how developments such as new data centers lead to rising demand, Lee said, “Demand is soaring and it’s soaring at the same time when the premature retirement of coal-fired power generation units is happening. And it's happening without replacement dispatchable generation capabilities.” [SEE MORE: Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm Dodges Question] 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.

NB Blog Feed

WILD: ABC’s Moran Blames ‘Gravitational Pull of the Trump Melodrama’ for Self-Immolation

Friday afternoon featured one of the more disturbing incidents one will ever see on live TV as, amid rolling coverage on cable news and streaming platforms of the Trump trial brought by far-left Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, a man lit himself on fire in the so-called protest space outside the New York City courthouse. On ABC News Live, longtime network correspondent Terry Moran invoked January 6 and repeatedly implied without evidence Trump and “the gravitational pull of the...melodrama” around him drove a disturbed person to harm themselves.     Investigative reporter Olivia Rubin was discussing the breaking news that a full jury had been selected for the trial ahead of Monday’s opening statements when a commotion broke out nearby with the man’s self-immolation. After a shaken Rubin narrated the scene, Moran jumped in and, instead of stopping after coaching her along and reassuring her she was doing great, he put his foot in his mouth: “Let me just ask. It seems then, that the gravitational pull of the Trump melodrama that has gripped the nation since he came down the escalator has now, it appears, resulted in someone coming to that where protesters have gathered and lit himself on fire.” Rubin politely but strongly pushed back on the veteran correspondent: “Well, we’ll have to see exactly what, you know, it ends up being. I think we all have been in scenarios where happens. Information unfolds later and it’s not exactly what we thought first. But certainly, there appears to have been some sort of demonstration...just outside of the courthouse.” Rubin then continued to narrate the scene as the fire was extinguished and the man was placed on a stretcher. A few minutes later, Moran complimented Rubin for the “real smart caution” and acknowledged “[t]hat’s a big courthouse” with “a lot of cases going on.” Just like before, Moran could have stopped there and stuck to what was known. Alas, Moran couldn’t help himself and chalked this up to possibly an example of how “the Trump era” caused “feelings” to run “very, very high right across the political spectrum”.     He even invoked the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021: Political violence has resulted from those high feelings, obviously, at the United States Capitol most — most intensely. But, as Olivia says, we don’t know right now and having covered a lot of trials, a lot of courthouses, it — there is a tremendous amount of misery that goes through the courthouse as human misery, people having the worst day of their lives, the worst experience of their lives, murder trials, people going bankrupt, divorce, child, all kinds of things that can send people into the depths of anguish. We don’t know why this man set himself on fire, but there it was in that park, once again, where the protests have been occurring. Protests we can expect continue. It’s an awful situation. Moran couldn’t stop falling on his face. Yet again, he correctly said “caution is fully justified” about what led this person to take this sad step and “there have been a lot of people on the streets who have mental issues,” but tripled down on the blame-Trump route. Along with arguing Trump coming “down that escalator in 2015 to announce his presidential campaign” had “changed American politics, raised it to a pitch of intensity,” Moran fretted “the — the style, the rhetoric, and the policies that — that he proposed is so different, so inspiring to some, so infuriating to others, that we are now as polarized the country as we ever have been.”     “And the emotions around politics are ratcheted up to something that we haven’t seen at least since the 1960s in this country, where there was, you know, a good deal of unrest and turmoil,” he added. Eventually, he conceded that what we do know was “something awful has happened, something truly horrific and one has to — one has to have to pray for that for the person who is drawn to that extreme and has done that”. To see the relevant transcript from April 19, click “expand.” ABC News Live April 19, 2024 1:41 p.m. Eastern TERRY MORAN: Let me just ask. It seems then, that the gravitational pull of the Trump melodrama that has gripped the nation since he came down the escalator has now, it appears, resulted in someone coming to that where protesters have gathered and lit himself on fire. OLIVIA RUBIN: Well, we’ll have to see exactly what, you know, it ends up being. I think we all have been in scenarios where happens. Information unfolds later and it’s not exactly what we thought first. But certainly there appears to have been some sort of demonstration, potentially, just outside of the courthouse, if it’s unrelated, potentially, they’re bringing out a stretcher now that they have and they are lifting the man who is severely burned, Terry, and putting him onto the stretcher. They are bundling the ropes around him and it does seem like all of the fire is out now. I can’t see any flames and we could see the flames from where we were standing before and they are carrying him out on stretcher. (....) 1:42 p.m. Eastern MORAN: Olivia offering, a real smart caution. That’s a big courthouse. A lot of cases going on in there. Obviously, in our justice system, there are plenty of issues and plenty of personal issues that people can get caught up in the justice system, that can — that can break them. And so, we don’t know that this incident police now apparently from our Aaron Katersky that a man lit himself on fire in the courthouse — just outside the courthouse where the trial of Donald Trump is going in the square with protesters, pro-Trump anti-Trump have been gathering. So, that is a ground that has seen some protest activity. But this — this incident, a man lighting himself on fire in front of that courthouse. Now, obviously, the Trump era has had feelings running very, very high right across the political spectrum. Political violence has resulted from those high feelings, obviously, at the United States Capitol most — most intensely. But, as Olivia says, we don’t know right now and having covered a lot of trials, a lot of courthouses, it — there is a tremendous amount of misery that goes through the courthouse as human misery, people having the worst day of their lives, the worst experience of their lives, murder trials, people going bankrupt, divorce, child, all kinds of things that can send people into the depths of anguish. We don’t know why this man set himself on fire, but there it was in that park, once again, where the protests have been occurring. Protests we can expect continue. It’s an awful situation. (....) 1:47 p.m. Eastern MORAN: Alright, once again, that — that caution is fully justified, Aaron. That — that whatever we it may be, we don’t know yet. And courthouses and that one in particular, as you say there, there have been a lot people on the streets who have mental issues and gather there sometimes and there are a lot of things that happen in courthouses that can stress people to the point of breakdown. We don’t know what is going on, except that, as Olivia Rubin has pointed out, there was a man taken away in a stretcher, badly burned. (....) 1:50 p.m. Eastern MORAN: But the Trump era, which is what we have been living in since he came down that escalator in 2015 to announce his presidential campaign and changed American politics, raised it to a pitch of intensity, the — the style, the rhetoric, and the policies that — that he proposed is so different, so inspiring to some, so infuriating to others, that we are now as polarized the country as we ever have been. And the emotions around politics are ratcheted up to something that we haven’t seen at least since the 1960s in this country, where there was, you know, a good deal of unrest and turmoil. But once again, just to underline, it does seem, from Olivia’s reporting, from what we have as well, that a man has set himself on fire in the park outside the courthouse where the hush money criminal trial of Donald Trump has been underway. The completed jury selection today and we don’t know if it’s this incident, this man setting himself fire is related to what was going on in the — in the courtroom where Donald Trump was sitting, watching the completion of jury selection or if this is someone with other issues — either in the courts or just in life — but clearly something awful has happened, something truly horrific and one has to — one has to have to pray for that for the person who is drawn to that extreme and has done that and is taken away. Police were on and very quickly put it and put the fire out on him. As Olivia saw and reported, and he was taken away in an ambulance to a hospital where he will get care.

NB Blog Feed

Morning Joe Hails Colleges Cracking Down on Pro-Hamas Protesters!

On Thursday, Morning Joe treated us to surprising praise for Speaker Mike Johnson -- albeit regarding his support for aid to Ukraine, something dear to Joe Scarborough. Friday brought another surprise: tough talk about the pro-Hamas protesters wreaking havoc on American campuses, and praise for university administrators taking action to curb their excesses. Thus, Joe Scarborough condemned students occupying the offices of college presidents, even suggesting that any president who tolerates that should "seek employment elsewhere." At one point, Scarborough even called protesters who blocked graduation speakers "brats." Willie Geist spoke positively about the chancellor of his alma mater, Vanderbilt, who actually expelled three students who had occupied his office. New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters has written an article on the matter: "Colleges Warn Student Demonstrators: Enough." As a panelist on Morning Joe, he criticized protesters at the University of Michigan, his alma mater, who had marred what was supposed to be a joyful event for outstanding students. He also acknowledged that college administrators have been slow in dealing with these problems. He cited the Trump years during which speakers who were conservative, or affiliated with Trump, were often canceled or shouted down.  President Biden is reported to be "obsessed" with Morning Joe, so much so that he has made Scarborough a frequent phone buddy and informal adviser. But if Biden tuned in on Friday, he couldn't have been thrilled with the panel's take. Biden's already under pressure from the Pro-Hamas/River to the Sea wing of the Democrat party.  And now even the liberal media is starting to call for crackdowns on those protesters? Oy vey! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe  4/19/24 6:47 am EDT WILLIE GEIST: So Joe, yesterday, you saw another case, several in recent weeks, where heads of school, chancellors, administrators, have said, there is a line now between free speech. We've allowed you to protest, we've allowed you to go to certain places. We've opened dialogues on our  campus, given you a place to have these debates.  But when it comes to harassment of Jewish students, when it comes to interrupting the operations of, say, a class, or a speaker, or people moving through the campus, we're now saying, you can't do that anymore. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, exactly. Whether you're talking about the, the interruption of the functioning of the Golden Gate Bridge, or the normal functioning of Columbia University, you know, it's, it's too much. It's too much. You can have free speech without, again, stopping the normal functioning of these institutions.  . . .  And so, I'm glad the president of Columbia University has stepped forward. You know, some people may call allowing students to take over president's offices at Columbia in the 1960s a storied tradition. I don't. I call that anarchy. Like, if you're a president of the university and you're letting students take over your office, maybe, maybe you should seek employment elsewhere.  Because I guarantee you there are a lot of parents that send their children to schools who don't want students running the place. They'd like grown-ups to run the place. And it looks like that's what's happening in Columbia. GEIST: Yeah. I'll speak for -- you know, I went to Vanderbilt University. They've had a lot of this on their campus in recent weeks. And a group of students a couple of weeks ago pushed their way into Kirkland Hall, where the chancellor's office is. They pushed aside an unarmed security guard, they sat there for 20 hours doing exactly what you're talking about, Joe. And Chancellor Diermeier, who runs Vanderbilt, ultimately said, okay, you're all suspended. And then one by one, reviewed their cases and expelled three of the students. SCARBOROUGH: Good! GEIST: And said, we've given you a place to have free speech. We've given you a place to protest. We've given you a place to voice your opinion. We've created symposiums where both sides of this discussion can be heard. You didn't participate in that, but you broke into our office and sat here. So now, three of you are no longer students of Vanderbilt University. And that was one of the first schools, actually, to do that, and I think you've seen more if it now since then.  Jeremy Peters, the national reporter for the New York Times is writing about this. He's got new reporting on how those administrators are now responding to a surge in anti-Israel protests on campus. Also with us, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt. His group is out with new data on antisemitic incidents in the United States in the last year. Good morning to you both. Jeremy, I'll begin with you. It does seem to have been, just within the last couple of weeks even, a bit of a change in the approach that some, not all, that some leaders of campuses, of universities across the country, are taking with these protests. What did you find in your reporting? JEREMY PETERS: That's exactly right, Willie. Schools have had enough. And Vanderbilt issued what are believed to be the first expulsions of student protesters related to demonstrations stemming from the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel.And from Vanderbilt to NYU, to Columbia, to the University of Michigan, to Pomona, schools are saying, basically, look, this is not about free speech. You have a right to speak up. You have a right to demonstrate. What you don't have is a right to harass and disrupt. And that's what's really been impeding these universities core mission, which is to educate your students. And you can't have an environment that is constantly disrupted, where students are subject to harassment, where they're spit upon, where they're yelled at.  Where graduation ceremonies, or like the incident I wrote about at my alma mater, the University of Michigan, this honors convocation that was supposed to be this kind of lovely, celebratory moment where kids who were the highest-achieving students are honored. Their parents and grandparents are there. And shat happened? It got disrupted and had to be shut down early because of pro-Palestinian protesters were standing up and shouting down speakers and unfurling banners. And this is something I think universities have been slow to acknowledge. I mean, remember during the Trump years, universities really became this, this cauldron of protest activity, where this kind of overly censorious culture developed. Where if there was a speaker who was conservative, or aligned with Trump, instead of letting that person speak, a lot of times the speach would be canceled out of fear for the safety of that speaker. Or people would interrupt the speaker. And now, you know, I think universities are saying, we didn't do enough to rein that in, but now they are. SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, the thing is, that's happened over the past couple of years. But this has been a problem for a long time. I'll just say it, brats who are protesting when, say, Christine Lagarde tries to speak at a graduation, or Condi Rice tries to speak at a graduation, or I think even Christine Todd Whitman one time was canceled from speaking at the graduation!  I gotta say, you're either the adult running the campus, or you're the child, that is incapable of controlling students. The students are there to learn. That means IIall the students are there to learn. Not just students who decide this one issue is the most important issue to them. And I certainly understand, if Gaza is the most important issue, especially to Palestinian students in America. But it goes well beyond that. You can't shut down an entire campus.Your right to free speech doesn't mean your right to impinge upon everybody else's free speech and their ability to unction in a university setting.

NB Blog Feed

WashPost Promotes NPR Staffers Loathing Critics of Their 'Legendary' Network

The Washington Post is covering NPR’s Uri Berliner controversy – now that he’s resigned. The front of Thursday’s Style section ran a story by media reporter Elahe Izadi with the usual framing of “conservative activists” vs. “public radio network.” As if this isn’t “right versus left.” This was the online headline: Turmoil at NPR after editor rips network for political bias The public-radio network is being targeted by conservative activists over the essay, which many staffers say is misleading and inaccurate. Izadi and the Post suggested that your critique is self-discrediting if it can be cited by conservatives. On its face, it seemed to confirm the worst suspicions held by NPR’s critics on the right: that the legendary media organization had an ideological, progressive agenda that dictates its journalism. [Imagine that!] The Free Press is an online publication started by journalist Bari Weiss, whose own resignation from the New York Times in 2020 was used by conservative politicians as evidence that the Times stifled certain ideas and ideologies… Izadi’s story was stuffed with NPR reporters and executives huffing that they’re not putting out a slanted left-wing product. They’re an “independent” outlet doing “fact-based reporting.” Disagree with that? It’s a “bad-faith” argument. The liberal bubble is thick. Several prominent NPR journalists countered that impression. “We have strong, heated editorial debates every day to try and get the most appropriate language and nuanced reporting in a landscape that is divisive and difficult to work in as a journalist,” Leila Fadel, host of Morning Edition, told The Post. “Media and free independent press are often under attack for the fact-based reporting that we do.” She called Berliner’s essay “a bad-faith effort” and a “factually inaccurate take on our work that was filled with omissions to back his arguments.” "Errors and omissions" are a constant NPR-employee talking point, as in Steve Inskeep's blazing attack on Substack. Izadi didn’t come to conservative critics for rebuttal – like ask Leila about her puffball interview with Liz Cheney, promoting her claim that the current Republican Party is a "danger to the country." But it grew worse: Ayesha Rascoe went for guilt by association, that any conservative critique of NPR is responsible for encouraging anonymous numbskulls on the internet: No news organization is above reproach, Weekend Edition host Ayesha Rascoe told The Post, but someone should not “be able to tear down an entire organization’s work without any sort of response or context provided, or pushback.” There are many legitimate critiques to make of NPR’s coverage, she added, “but the way this has been done — it’s to invalidate all the work NPR does.” …Rascoe, who, as a Black woman host for NPR, says she’s no stranger to online vitriol, but one message after Berliner’s essay labeled her as a “DEI hire” who has “never read a book in her life.” “What stung about this one was it came on the basis of a supposed colleague’s op-ed,” whose words were “being used as fodder to attack me,” Rascoe said. “And my concern is not about me, but all the younger journalists who don’t have the platform I have and who will be attacked and their integrity questioned simply on the basis of who they are.” Izadi's piece read like a long list of internal NPR complaints without any inkling of what all liberals know: NPR is a left-wing sandbox. It's "public," but it's owned by the Left. Berliner betrayed his colleagues by assailing its "legendary" status. 

NB Blog Feed

Navarro Defends Menendez, Blames Wife, Argues ‘Costco Sells Gold Bars’

Faux-conservative ABC News co-host Ana Navarro was back to defending her close friend Democratic Senator Bob Menendez (NJ) from credible allegations of corruption on Friday’s edition of The View. Despite insisting she doesn’t “excuse him,” she was quite busy blaming Menendez’s wife for getting him into the situation that he was in, and seemingly tried to suggest he might have bought the gold bars hidden in his suit pockets at Costco. She also praised Democratic senators for not forcing him out of office. At least Navarro started off by acknowledging she was not going to be operating with honesty and good faith on the issue. “And look, and every time we talk about this I always want to start by saying, I think I'm biased. I try to be objective but I've known Bob Menendez for almost 30 years. I’ve worked with him on countless issues, Cuba, Nicaragua, immigration, Central American free trade,” she admitted. She immediately followed up by going after the credible allegations against him. “This Menendez that I read about here just does not jive, does not square away with the man I've known for all of this time. It's hard for me to understand all of these facts,” she decried. One might argue that she admitted to possibly facilitating some of Menendez’s alleged corruption when she bragged: “I’ve went to him with 100 issues with very rich clients, he never ever did anything like this.”     Throughout the segment, Navarro tried to blame Menendez’s wife and argued that she and his other friends didn’t know who the woman was before he married her: NAVARRO: And I will say this last thing, a lot of his friends, including me, when he saw this case, thought this is not the Bob we know. Who is this woman and how has this happened? I mean, she suddenly showed up like in the middle of COVID saying that she didn't know he was a senator. SARA HAINES: At IHOP. NAVARRO: At an IHOP. “And I did tell you the first time I read about this case, I think this woman -- I think Bob was completely smitten, enamored. He was a lone wolf for a long time. This happened during COVID,” she defended him. Navarro went on to praise Democratic senators for not forcing her friend out of office, citing the “reservoir of goodwill” Menendez had with them: And I think part of the reason that he hasn't been made to resign, that Schumer haven't forced it, his colleagues haven't forced it, is because there is a reservoir of goodwill towards him and respect towards him that there wasn’t toward like a George Santos, for example. And also I think it's because he's up for re-election now this November. And so, it's not like he's got another four years to serve, right? And the case is coming up -- is coming up now. On the flip side, she lashed out at Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman (D) for daring to demand her friend resign. “The difference with John Fetterman is that John Fetterman is new in the Senate. And so, he probably doesn't have the collegiality and friendship and history with Menendez that most of the others do,” she chided. Near the end of the segment, Navarro inexplicably proclaimed: “I read that Costco sells gold bars and they're sold out.” It was unclear if she was suggesting that Menendez bought the gold bars at Costco or that gold bars were readily available thus it didn’t matter. Costco does not sell the 1-kilo bricks stamped “Swiss Bank Corporation” that Menendez squirreled away. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 19, 2024 11:03:27 a.m. Eastern (…) ANA NAVARRO: His trial begins in a couple of weeks, I think, in two or three weeks. And look, and every time we talk about this I always want to start by saying, I think I'm biased. I try to be objective but I've known Bob Menendez for almost 30 years. I’ve worked with him on countless issues, Cuba, Nicaragua, immigration, Central American free trade. This Menendez that I read about here just does not jive, does not square away with the man I've known for all of this time. It's hard for me to understand all of these facts. I’ve went to him with 100 issues with very rich clients, he never ever did anything like this. And I will say this, and I don't excuse him, I don't justify him because Bob is one of the smartest people in Congress. It is a low bar but he really is one of the smartest people that I know, that I've worked with Congress. I think there needs to be more regulation of family members lobbying because it's not just Bob Menendez's wife, it's siblings, it's spouses, it's all of this thing. And they do have an advantage that other people don't have and a lot of lobbying firms have them on the firm and they don't even work. They don't even show up. It’s just have the names. The people of New Jersey are going to have a say on this. Bob has not said if he’s running again? JOY BEHAR: Is he running again? NAVARRO: He's not running as a Democrat. He hasn't said if he's running as an independent. And I will say this last thing, a lot of his friends, including me, when he saw this case, thought this is not the Bob we know. Who is this woman and how has this happened? I mean, she suddenly showed up like in the middle of COVID saying that she didn't know he was a senator. SARA HAINES: At IHOP. NAVARRO: At an IHOP. (…) 11:07:06 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He’d been charged previously and he did get off. HAINES: In 2015. FARAH GRIFFIN: He already had very similar charges that he was able to get by before he ever met the woman, so the fact that similar activity is taking place -- HAINES: She needs to be there too. NAVARRO (interrupting): I’m actually very familiar with that first case. I knew both of them. I knew Dr. Melden because he was always with Bob. And, I mean, Bob’s a guy who's been in my house. I've been at his mom's funeral. I know him very well. And I think part of the reason that he hasn't been made to resign, that Schumer haven't forced it, his colleagues haven't forced it, is because there is a reservoir of goodwill towards him and respect towards him that there wasn’t toward like a George Santos, for example. And also I think it's because he's up for re-election now this November. And so, it's not like he's got another four years to serve, right? And the case is coming up -- is coming up now. This case to me feels different than the first case. And I did tell you the first time I read about this case, I think this woman -- I think Bob was completely smitten, enamored. He was a lone wolf for a long time. This happened during COVID. Again, I don't excuse him. He is a smart guy. He should have known better. He's not something stupid gullible ingenue. SUNNY HOSTIN: The gold bars are a giveaway, right? [Crosstalk] HAINES: First time, shame on you; second time it's shame on me. In 2015, there was a close enough trial. If he’s coming back knowing, “Oh my gosh, I almost got caught” and he is so smart, dabbling in what he is dabbling in is dangerous and almost felt like he feels he was above it. NAVARRO: It seems to me gold bars for a gold digger. FARAH GRIFFIN: There are Democratic senator who’ve called for his resignation. HAINES: Fetterman. FARAH GRIFFIN: Including John Fetterman. So, I think the senator who served multiple times should stand on his own two feet, not blame the woman. NAVARRO: The difference with John Fetterman is that John Fetterman is new in the Senate. And so, he probably doesn't have the collegiality and friendship and history with Menendez that most of the others do. FARAH GRIFFIN: But that often blinds judgment. HAINES: Gold bars and you’re hiding them in your suit pockets and you’re giving your wife a car and they have text messages. I’d say, collegiality aside, you've crossed over. FARAH GRIFFIN: That's where the good old boys club gets in the way. It’s like, “oh, we like him. He’s such a such a nice guy.” Well, if he's committing crimes it doesn't really matter. NAVARRO: Which is why I tell you I feel like I know that I'm biased. I like the guy and I keep hoping against hope there is some reasonable explanation. I hope -- Listen, I hope the truth comes out. You know, I read -- I read that Costco sells gold bars and they're sold out. HOSTIN: Really?! NAVARRO: Yes! HAINES: You can buy gold bars? HOSTIN: I don't know about some gold bars from Costco. (…)

NB Blog Feed

WHAT GAFFES? Networks OMIT Biden Claim of Uncle Being Eaten By Cannibals

We regret to inform you that the Regime Media has done it again. None of the evening network newscasts covered President Joe Biden’s latest gaffe, wherein he claimed that his uncle was eaten by cannibals after crashing his military aircraft over Papua New Guinea during World War II while trying to attack former President Donald Trump. Below is the statement in its full context, as aired on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on Wednesday, April 17th, 2024 (click "expand" to view transcript): JOE BIDEN: …and, when D-Day occurred, the next day, on Monday all four of my mother's brothers went down and volunteered to join the military. And four of them -- three of them made it. One was 4F- couldn't go. And, uh… Ambrose Finnegan- we called him Uncle Bosie- he was shot down. He was Army Air Corps. Before there was an Air Force. He flew single-engine planes. Reconnaissance flights over New Guinea.  He volunteered if someone couldn't make it. He got shot down in an area where there were a lot of cannibals. In New Guinea. At the time. They never recovered his body, but the government went back when I went down there and they checked and found parts of the plane and the like. And what I was thinking about when I was standing there was when Trump refused to go up to the memorial for veterans in Paris. And he said they were a bunch of suckers and losers. To me, that is such a disqualifying assertion made by a president. Suckers and losers. Guys who saved civilization in the 1940s. Suckers and losers. And I just wanted to go and- we have a tradition in our family that my grandfather started. When you visit a gravesite of a family member, it’s going to sound strange to you, but- you say three Hail Marys. That's what I was doing at the site. My grand- my uncle, Ambrose Finnegan, Uncle- Uncle Bosie, was a hell of a guy from what I- I never met him, obviously. But I just wanted to see where he was memorialized. The gaffe in and of itself is Biden Normal at this point, but was notable enough to warrant fact-checks by both Politifact (“highly unlikely”) and Snopes (“False”). Snopes cited the AP’s own verification, which in turn cited the DoD’s POW/MIA Accounting Agency:  According to the Pentagon’s Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Biden’s uncle, known by the family as “Bosie,” died on May 14, 1944, while a passenger on an Army Air Forces plane that, “for unknown reasons,” was forced to ditch in the Pacific Ocean off the northern coast of New Guinea. “Both engines failed at low altitude, and the aircraft’s nose hit the water hard,” the agency states in its listing of Finnegan. “Three men failed to emerge from the sinking wreck and were lost in the crash.” In the face of such evidence the White House was left with little choice than to pretend Biden didn’t say what he said on national TV. White House spokesman Andrew Bates did not address the discrepancy between the agency’s records and Biden’s account when he issued a statement on the matter. “President Biden is proud of his uncle’s service in uniform,“ Bates said, adding Finnegan ”lost his life when the military aircraft he was on crashed in the Pacific after taking off near New Guinea.” Biden “highlighted his uncle’s story as he made the case for honoring our ‘sacred commitment ... to equip those we send to war and take care of them and their families when they come home,’ and as he reiterated that the last thing American veterans are is ‘suckers’ or ‘losers.’” None of this, or any mention whatsoever of a widely-debunked statement made by the President of the United States, made it to any of the three network evening newscasts. Even more galling is the realization, when viewing the video in its broader context, that poor old Uncle Bosie was just a narrative bridge on which Biden got to what he really wanted to do, which was to hit Trump on the equally dubious “suckers and losers”. Instead, viewers got an earful on such vital issues of the day as, for example, Caitlin Clark’s salary.   On the one hand you have media omissions of actual statements made by Joe Biden, and on the other, you have outright fabrications based on partial statements stripped of their context when uttered by Donald Trump, such as the routine “Trump called immigrants animals” whenever Trump addresses MS-13 or other violent criminal aliens such as the killers of Laken Riley, for example.  The title of “Regime Media” is well-earned here, and we note the media’s descent into terminal institutional corruption over just a few short cycles: going from “what about your gaffes?” to simply, “what gaffes?” 

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

CNN Doesn't Challenge Iranian FM On His Embassy Hypocrisy

CNN’s Erin Burnett sat down with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian on Thursday's OutFront show to discuss the situation in the Middle East. During their conversation, Burnett did not call out Amir-Abdollahian for bear hugging the Vienna Convention, while Iran has violated it repeatedly over the past several decades. Iran has spun its failed attack as large enough to send a message, but restrained enough to avoid a regional war, while warning that if Israel responded, it would respond more harshly, leading Burnett to ask, “So when you say the response will be at a maximum level, you also, I know, have warned Israel against crossing what you have used the words, quote-unquote, 'red lines.' What are those red lines, and what is a maximum level? You used, what, more than 300 drones, cruise missiles in that attack? What would escalate from there for you? What is a maximum level above that?”     By the end of the night, Burnett’s interview would mostly be out of date as Israel responded, but despite all of Tehran’s fiery rhetoric warning about such a response, it appears content to pretend it didn’t happen. As for Amir-Abdollahian’s response, he declared that “Well, the red lines that they crossed, the red line that Israel crossed was the attack upon the embassy building of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus, Syria. And during that attack, seven official military advisers carrying out a fight against terrorism were martyred through a missile attack of the regime of Israel. Vienna Conventions recognized -- Vienna Conventions were not respected, so red lines were crossed by the Israeli regime.” Amir-Abdollahian’s would continue to ramble off what turned out to be empty threats and would repeatedly justify Iran’s attack as a legitimate defense after Israel violated its sovereignty by targeting its embassy. While Burnett had no way of knowing for sure at the time that Amir-Abdollahian’s was bluffing, she did have a way of knowing recent history. Throughout the interview, Burnett would question him about escalation or the failed nature of Saturday’s salvo, but she never once brought up his hypocrisy. Donald Trump didn’t just wake up one day and decide to strike Qasem Soleimani, he did it in response to Iranian proxies attacking the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. On Friday, only one day before Iran’s reckless attack, the highest criminal court in Argentina ruled that Iran was responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. In 2011, there was the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Somehow, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States managed to respond by not spastically bombing Iran and somehow, Amir-Abdollahian was not questioned about it. Here is a transcript for the April 18 show: CNN Erin Burnett OutFront 4/18/2024 7:39 PM ET ERIN BURNETT: So when you say the response will be at a maximum level, you also, I know, have warned Israel against crossing what you have used the words, quote-unquote, "red lines." What are those red lines, and what is a maximum level? You used, what, more than 300 drones, cruise missiles in that attack. What would escalate from there for you? What is a maximum level above that? HOSSEIN AMIR-ABDOLLAHIAN (through translator): Well, the red lines that they crossed, the red line that Israel crossed, was the attack upon the embassy building of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus, Syria. And during that attack, seven official military advisers carrying out a fight against terrorism were martyred through a missile attack of the regime of Israel. Vienna Conventions recognized -- Vienna Conventions were not respected, so red lines were crossed by the Israeli regime. However, in our attack, within the framework of legitimate defense, why do we call it carried out at a minimum? Because it was geared towards two military targets, one the Innova Team Air Base and the other one an intelligence and information centers from which attacks took place on our building. We did not target economic and financial centers, civilian centers, only the two locations from which F-35 aircraft were flown, took off from there, and targeted the embassy building in the Golan. This was our minimum response. But in case of a repeated adventure-seeking and adventurism of the Israeli regime, what will our maximum response be? I can only say that it will be carried out at a maximum level, and it will be regretful for them. The details have been planned by the armed forces of my country. However, I do hope that Israel does not commit a grave error in calculus.

NB Blog Feed

Column: Do Celebrities Have Deeper Liberal Thoughts?

When Laura Ingraham wrote her book Shut Up and Sing in 2003, the Left didn’t read the book as much as overreact to the title. The title implied something important. While celebrities gain a “platform” they feel compelled to use, do their opinions reflect any expertise? Or is fame more important than logic? Celebrities often lead with emotion, and expect to cause an emotional reaction. They don’t expect “independent fact-checkers” to examine their emotions. Exhibit A is an April 15 interview of Hillary Clinton on The Kelly Clarkson Show. Pop singer Clarkson brought up an Arizona judge ruling that an abortion ban originally passed in 1864 could stand. "Did you ever think in your lifetime we would see that happen?" Clarkson asked. "It's just insane to me the thinking that went on in 1864. It's a very different world. We know a lot more now. We are going backwards." Hillary agreed: “It is horrifying in every way.” She said “there’s a cruelty to it.” No one gets to suggest that maybe there’s something cruel or horrifying about ripping apart the body of an unborn baby. Clarkson said she was hospitalized both times she was pregnant. "I literally asked God, this is a real thing, to just take me and my son in the hospital for the second time, because I was like, 'It's the worst thing,'" she said, growing emotional. “It was my decision, and I’m so glad I did it. I love my babies, but to make someone... You don’t realize how hard it is. The fact that you would take that away from someone, that can literally kill them. The fact that if they’re raped by their family member and they have to — it’s just like insane to me.” Emotion dominates, realities don’t intrude. Pregnancy from rape (especially from a family member) is uncommon. The abortion lobbyists always play up the rare cases, but the dead baby is the “solution” in every deadly “choice.” On the same day, MSNBC host Jen Psaki played a preview of an upcoming interview with singer John Legend, who thinks his opinions match his stage name. Psaki was touting the man’s robotic repetition of every MSNBC and CNN pundit spinning against Trump. “He is part of a two-tiered system of justice but not the way he thinks he is,” proclaimed Legend. “He is getting way more concessions than the average criminal defendant would get. He is getting delays, he's got access to all kinds of lawyers that are filing this and filing that, delaying every trial, and most people don't have access to that kind of lawyering, don’t have access to the kind of concessions the justice system will provide to you if you can afford it.” Of course, Trump is a wealthy man who can afford a team of lawyers. So did O.J. Simpson. All of that resolutely ignores Trump is not “the average criminal defendant.” He’s a former president and the presumptive Republican nominee for president. I think we can guess in advance Psaki the Biden Press Secretary didn’t ask this crooner how many of these Trump prosecutions would be proceeding if Trump retired from politics in 2017, or why Trump was indicted for things when Biden wasn’t (like possessing classified documents).    Celebrities can echo progressive pundits like Joyce Vance or Van Jones, but somehow their proclamations are especially deep thoughts. We love how they sing, so their political views resonate with a crackle. They are not smarter than the average voter, but they can expect no one will disturb their emanations with any fraction of opposition. Call it celebrity privilege.

NB Blog Feed

The Network Newscasts Cheer As The Kennedys Come To Biden’s Rescue

Each of the network evening newscasts delighted in reporting that the Camelot Cavalry, if you will, had come to the aid of President Joe Biden in Philadelphia. The Kennedy family joined Biden on stage to denounce their brother who is also running for president. The rationale is that doing so, festooning Biden’s podium with Kennedys, will somehow deter Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign. Here’s how NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez reported it: GABE GUTIERREZ: Responding to his family's endorsement of his opponent today, RFK, Jr. posted on social media: "we are divided in our opinions but united in our love for each other”. The environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist first ran as a Democrat. Now, Kennedy's independent campaign is polling above 10% in a few key swing states where Biden is also trailing Trump. Democrats are aggressively attacking third-party candidates like Kennedy, whom they view as a threat to President Biden's re-election, people involved tell NBC News.  This is why Biden needed help from the Kennedy clan- and it isn’t just Bobby Jr.’s polling in swing states but his getting on the ballot in Michigan that makes people nervous. You’ll recall that Michigan is where Biden was embarrassed with a significant number of “Uncommitted” votes during the Democrat primary due to his handling of the war in Gaza. Gutierrez didn’t actually report about the Michigan ballot, but CBS’s Weijia Jiang and ABC’s Mary Bruce did, respectively. But that bit of newsmaking was lost among the Kennedy sycophancy and Biden apple-polishing. Generally speaking, these reports shared common themes, to wit: RFK, Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, his family- the mythical Kennedy family- denounces him, and they do so to Defend Democracy, fully aware of What Is At Stake.   Consider this exchange between Mary Bruce and RFK daughter Kerry Kennedy: MARY BRUCE: I asked his sister Kerry Kennedy if her brother realizes the difference he could make in a close race.  Do you think your brother understands how high those stakes are? KERRY KENNEDY: You know, look. I think his understanding is not the point here. The point is the understanding of voters, and that's who really needs to understand that your vote counts. BRUCE: What do you say to someone who knows your family, knows your father and what he stood for, your uncle, but is supporting your brother because of that legacy? KERRY KENNEDY: Yeah, I'd say look closely at that legacy. Think about who Bobby Kennedy was, who my father was. This is what the Regime Media is reduced to- egging on sibling rivalry in order to Protect the Precious. Weijia Jiang was no better, closing out her report with this weird take: WEIJIA JIANG: Today, Kennedy tweeted about his family's decision saying, "I am pleased they are politically active, it’s a family tradition. He added they are divided in opinions but united in their love for each other, though there was clearly no love lost today in Philadelphia. Expect more evocations of the Kennedy legacies now that the not-Bobby Jr. portions of the family have endorsed Joe Biden, and as Bobby Jr. continues to gain ballot access. Having first ignored him when he ran as a Democrat, the Regime Media will now aid efforts to destroy him.  Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective newscasts on Thursday, April 18th, 2024: NBC NIGHTLY NEWS LESTER HOLT: Let's turn to the 2024 presidential campaign. Today prominent members of the Kennedy family endorsed President Biden even though Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running against him. Gabe Gutierrez reports. GABE GUTIERREZ: Today, with his opponent stuck in court, President Biden on the attack in battleground Pennsylvania. JOE BIDEN: The 2024 election is about two fundamentally different visions for America. DonalD Trump's vision is one of anger, hate, revenge, and retribution. GUTIERREZ: The campaign touting the endorsement of 15 Kennedy family members even though one of their own, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Is running against him as an independent. KERRY KENNEDY: The best way forward for America is to re-elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to four more years. GUTIERREZ: Responding to his family's endorsement of his opponent today, RFK, Jr. posted on social media: "we are divided in our opinions but united in our love for each other”. The environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist first ran as a Democrat. Now, Kennedy's independent campaign is polling above 10% in a few key swing states where Biden is also trailing Trump. Democrats are aggressively attacking third-party candidates like Kennedy, whom they view as a threat to President Biden's re-election, people involved tell NBC News. Though it's not clear which candidate, President Biden or former President Trump, would lose more votes to RFK, Jr. Kennedy told NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard this in February: ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: I hope to drive equal numbers from both of them. I think at this point I'm probably drawing more from President Trump. GUTIERREZ: A source familiar with the Biden campaign’s planning says the Kennedy family endorsement was months in the making. Notably, they didn’t mention RFK, Jr’s name once at today’s event. Lester. HOLT: Gabe Gutierrez, thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS NORAH O’DONNELL: Now to the 2024 presidential election and "America Decides." President Biden's campaign is increasingly concerned that the independent bid of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who promotes conspiracies, could hurt Biden's reelection efforts. So Biden appeared with Kennedy's family, who has denounced their brother's views and his candidacy. CBS's Weijia Jiang with news from the campaign trail. WEIJIA JIANG: At a Biden campaign event in Philadelphia… KERRY KENNEDY: The Kennedy family endorses Joe Biden for president. [Cheers and applause] JIANG: 15 members of the Kennedy family, a political dynasty, threw support behind President Biden instead of their own relative, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. JOE BIDEN: I don't want to become emotional but what an incredible honor. To have the support of the Kennedy family. JIANG: RFK Jr.’s sister, Kerry Kennedy, did not mention him by name, but she insisted the race is just between Biden and Donald Trump. KERRY KENNEDY: A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for our democracy and our decency. JIANG: RFK Jr. has sparked controversy with claims like vaccines cause autism in children, but his family's public endorsement of Biden signals how seriously Democrats are taking his run. So far, Kennedy has secured a spot on the ballot in Utah and Michigan. The Kennedy campaign and its supporters claim they have enough signatures to appear on nearly a dozen other states, including key battlegrounds. Donald Trump says RFK Jr. will be a spoiler for Biden. DONALD TRUMP: I do believe that RFK Jr. will do very well, and I do believe he is going to take a lot of votes away from Crooked Joe Biden. JIANG: Former Massachusetts congressman Joe Kennedy II said he would encourage his brother to drop out. JOE KENNEDY II: We cannot do anything that in any way strips even one vote from President Biden. JIANG: Today, Kennedy tweeted about his family's decision saying, "I am pleased they are politically active, it’s a family tradition. He added they are divided in opinions but united in their love for each other, though there was clearly no love lost today in Philadelphia. Norah. O’DONNELL: Weijia Jiang. Thank you. ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT DAVID MUIR: We turn now to the race for president. Tonight, more than a dozen members of the Kennedy family have now endorsed President Biden, speaking out publicly today about their own brother, RFK Jr., who is running for president. They are concerned that their brother could take votes from Joe Biden, with the Kennedy name, in this very close election. RFK Jr. maintains he's no spoiler. Here's Mary Bruce. MARY BRUCE: Tonight in Pennsylvania, members of the Kennedy family, including brothers and sisters of presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., throwing their support behind President Biden, concerned RFK Jr. will hand the White House back to Donald Trump. KERRY KENNEDY: That's right. The Kennedy family endorses Joe Biden for president BRUCE: The Kennedys worried RFK Jr. Will use his family name to win support from some Democrats in a tight race where every vote will count. KERRY KENNEDY: We want to make crystal clear our feeling that the best way forward for America is to re-elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to four more years. BRUCE: Biden, who recently welcomed the family to the White House, has called RFK Jr.'s father his political hero. His bust sits in the Oval Office. BIDEN: Mom and dad, I hope you're listening. What an incredible honor. BRUCE: RFK Jr., who has famously embraced conspiracy theories about vaccines, insists he's no spoiler. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: We know what President Trump and President Biden are going to do if they win this election. They are going to do exactly what they did before. Does anybody here want more of the same? AUDIENCE: NOOOOOOOO! BRUCE: I asked his sister Kerry Kennedy if her brother realizes the difference he could make in a close race.  Do you think your brother understands how high those stakes are? KERRY KENNEDY: You know, look. I think his understanding is not the point here. The point is the understanding of voters, and that's who really needs to understand that your vote counts. BRUCE: What do you say to someone who knows your family, knows your father and what he stood for, your uncle, but is supporting your brother because of that legacy? KERRY KENNEDY: Yeah, I'd say look closely at that legacy. Think about who Bobby Kennedy was, who my father was. BRUCE: (UNINT)...of Robert F. Kennedy arguing that President Biden would carry on the family legacy better than her own brother, well aware that if people vote for RFK Jr. based on the family name, it could sway this race. And polling has shown that when his name is in the mix, it does make a difference. And tonight, we have learned that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will now also be on the ballot in the key state of Michigan, David. MUIR: All right, Mary Bruce with us again tonight. Mary, thank you.  

NB Blog Feed

OJ Simpson Is Dead — Ron and Nicole Are Unavailable for Comment

As to the double murder case against O.J. Simpson, there was so much evidence that his guilt was obvious. This evidence included, but was not limited to, blood at the crime scene and on and in Simpson’s white Bronco; a bloody glove found at the crime scene and a matching glove found at Simpson’s home; a knit cap, with hair that resembled that of Simpson, found at the crime scene; footprints matching Simpson’s foot size found at the crime scene; blood found in Simpson’s home; blood on socks found in Simpson’s home; and the limo driver, scheduled to pick up Simpson on the night of the murder, buzzed Simpson’s intercom and got no response. There was other evidence, including the infamous low-speed Bronco chase, not used against Simpson. Evidence was not used either because the prosecution elected not to use it, the judge refused to allow it, or certain things, like Simpson taking and flunking a polygraph, were inadmissible. One piece of evidence not used was testimony from a witness named Jill Shively. On the night of June 12, 1994, Shively saw a white Bronco driving quickly and recklessly from near the scene of the crime and around the time of the crime. The driver of the Bronco nearly hit Shively’s car. When she learned about the murders, she called the police, described what happened, gave them the Bronco’s license plate and identified the driver as Simpson. One would consider this a crucial piece of evidence placing Simpson near the crime scene on the night of the murders. Why did the prosecution choose not to use this eyewitness? Shively sold her story for $5,000 to one of the tabloids. Lead prosec utor Marcia Clark believed this tainted Shively’s credibility, and Clark decided against putting her on the stand to face cross-examination. Besides, the prosecution reasoned, there is so much evidence pointing to Simpson’s guilt, why bother with an iffy witness? Simpson, without a lawyer present, was interviewed by the police the day after the murders. The detectives saw cuts on Simpson’s hands. Simpson claimed he sustained them “when I was rushing to get out of my house,” but in his pretrial deposition he claimed the cuts came from a glass he broke in anger when he heard about the death of his ex-wife. The jury consisted of eight blacks. Given the jury’s unwillingness to apply reason and common sense, none of the evidence really mattered. Years after the trial, one of the jurors, a black woman named Carrie Bess, in an interview admitted she ignored the evidence. Interviewer: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit O.J. because of Rodney King? Bess: Yes. Interviewer: You do? Bess: Yes. Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way? Bess: Oh, probably 90% of them. Interviewer: 90%. Did you feel that way? Bess: Yes. Interviewer: That was payback. Bess: Uh-huh. Interviewer: Do you think that’s right? After that question, Bess just put up her hands and shrugged. During the trial, an inner-city New Jersey high school teacher wrote an article called “Race, O.J., and My Kids.” It was published in a center-left magazine called The New Republic: “No more than four of my 110 students (most of whom are black) think O.J. Simpson is definitely guilty and few are willing to admit the possibility that he might be. This faith in Simpson is strongest among black girls. ... “One student suggested that Ron Goldman killed Nicole before killing himself and then throwing away the knife. Another believes the dog did it. Shenia suggested that Al Cowlings, Simpson’s best buddy, did it. Bryant believes the killer is O.J.’s son. Philip blames ‘that (gay) dude who wants to marry O.J.’; that would be Kato Kaelin, Simpson’s houseguest. ... “Jon, a bright student, had his own scenario: O.J. was shaving and cut himself. Kato took the blood from the shaving cut, brought it to the crime scene and dumped it.” What can one say other than this? O.J. Simpson has died. Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were unavailable for comment.

NB Blog Feed

ABC News Refuses to Ask Granholm About Corruption Allegations, Ties to EV Companies

Earlier this week, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was grilled in a Senate hearing about allegations of corruption after it was discovered that she had financial ties to some of the very electric vehicle companies she was tasked with regulating and forcing Americans to eventually buy. But none of that was addressed by ABC News in an interview conducted by The View cast on Thursday. Instead, America was treated to questions about how energy companies read meters, how stupid Trump voters were, and when she was running for president. The first question out of the gate came from co-host Sara Haines, which only served to promote next week’s Earth Day celebrations and to give Granholm the opportunity to lecture about how to shrink their “carbon footprint”: And as we're all gearing up to celebrate Earth Day, from your perspective, what is the single most important thing people watching – watching this right now can do to fight climate change and reduce or lower our own carbon footprint? Granholm also used the question to promote the electric vehicles she had a financial stake in, before divesting in response to conservative media scrutiny and an ethics complaint being filed. At no point did she receive any questions – let alone serious ones – about her financial ties or allegations of corruption and ethics violation. Instead, moderator Whoopi Goldberg asked about EVs in “the projects” and people without homes to charge them.     Goldberg also wanted Granholm to explain how her electricity company can read her meter: People are getting … electric bills that are insane and I don't understand how you can – Because I watch these guys. And they come and look at the little thing going around then they read the number. How do you know $300 is on there? How do you know to charge me that? Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin was as useless as ever since she didn’t grill Granholm either. Instead, she teed up the Secretary to blame the rise in gas prices on something other than President Biden. “Gas prices. They’re are somewhat on the rise, but they did go down significantly…What is the administration doing to lower those prices, and should we be worried about the conflict in the Middle East contributing?” she clownishly wondered. For her part, co-host Joy Behar proclaimed President Biden “cares about his grandchildren” because he was “working very hard” to stop climate change, while former President Trump “couldn’t care less about his grandchildren” because he wanted to “drill, drill, drill” and pointed out that off-shore wind turbines were harming whales. She panicked that “a new Washington Post poll shows that nearly half of Republicans now believe Trump that climate change is a hoax,” and wanted Granholm to answer: “How do we convince these people to start believing the truth?!” Behar also asked one of the final questions, pushing Granholm to run for president. “Jennifer, when are you going to run for president?” she quipped. The View’s refusal to hold Granholm to account was important to call out because the show is under the ABC News umbrella. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 18, 2024 11:32:45 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Welcome back. Our ABC news series, The Power of Us: People, Climate, and Our Future is kicking off just in time for next week's Earth Day and joining us now to weigh in on hot topics from rising temperatures and gas prices to how we can all do our part to save the planet, please welcome U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. [Applause] SECY. JENNIFER GRANHOLM (Department of Energy): Thank you so much. GOLDBERG: Welcome. Sara. SARA HAINES: Madam secretary, thanks for joining us. GRANHOLM: Yes, of course. HAINES: And as we're all gearing up to celebrate Earth Day, from your perspective, what is the single most important thing people watching – watching this right now can do to fight climate change and reduce or lower our own carbon footprint? (…) 11:35:02 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: What if you live in the projects? What if you don't have a home, what do you – (…) 11:36:48 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: Okay, so while President Biden who cares about his grandchildren – GRANHOLM: Yes. BEHAR: -- is working very hard on this as you just pointed out, he has record climate investments, former president -- can't even say it, former p – p – p[resident] Trump he says he would be a dictator on day one and drill, drill, drill! You know, he couldn't care less about his grandchildren and he spreads conspiracy theories that wind turbines are killing whales and causing cancer. But here's the problem that makes me nuts. A new Washington Post poll shows that nearly half of Republicans now believe Trump that climate change is a hoax. How much more evidence do these people need when they see what goes on with hurricanes, et cetera, how do we convince these people to start believing the truth?! (…) 11:39:47 a.m. Eastern GRANHOLM: Whoopi, you don’t look convinced. GOLDBERG: I am convinced but I do have questions, because people are getting bills, energy bills. HOSTIN: Electric bills. GOLDBERG: Electric bills that are insane and I don't understand how you can – Because I watch these guys. And they come and look at the little thing going around then they read the number. How do you know $300 is on there? [Laughter] How do you know to charge me that? HOSTIN: Good point! (…) 11:40:10 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: More specifically, I did want to ask, Madam Secretary, gas prices. They’re are somewhat on the rise, but they did go down significantly. We’re seeing them rise a bit. Former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain had encouraged the President to focus on pocketbook issues to voters. What is the administration doing to lower those prices, and should we be worried about the conflict in the Middle East contributing? GRANHOLM: Yeah, we should and thank you for raising that. (…) 11:41:22 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: Jennifer, when are you going to run for president? GRANHOLM: Oh, my lord. What were you saying? HOSTIN: Shouldn't gas companies be better corporate citizens and lower the prices and stop gouging the American people?! (…)

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

All Talk No Game? Musk Caves After Pledging to Protect Free Speech

Tech mogul Elon Musk has folded in his so-called defense of free speech in his recent battle with a Brazilian court. On Monday, Musk's attorneys informed Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes that social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) will comply with all of the censorship demands targeting accounts accused of spreading misinformation, according to Reuters. "As already communicated to the federal police, X Brasil informs that all orders issued by this Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court will continue to be fully complied with by X Corp," Musk’s legal counsel reportedly wrote in the letter addressed to Moraes. Musk’s compliance marks a stark departure from his vehement threats to ignore the orders. “We are lifting all restrictions,” Musk declared on April 6, accusing the Moraes of threatening X with fines and imprisonment. “As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit.” Related: UPDATE: Are You Paying Attention? Brazil Escalates Major Free Speech Assault The battle between X and de Moraes stems from an inquiry by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court that centers on the spread of what the government deemed to be misinformation amid federal elections. In court rulings, Moraes accused X of allowing some popular Brazil-based users to spread so-called misinformation. In turn, he demanded Musk censor them. In court decisions, Moraes accused X of being a major driver of alleged misinformation and demanded Musk censor these users. Amid Musk’s initial refusal to comply with such demands, Moraes threatened to impose daily fines of $20,000 for each account not banned. Last week, the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court declined to respond to MRC’s request for comment on Musk’s refusal to comply with the orders. Instead, a court spokesperson directed MRC to a criminal referral directing the county’s attorney general to investigate Musk for potential obstruction of justice. Before Monday, Musk had hurled scathing comments at the Brazilian assault against its citizens’ free speech. “The severity of the censorship and the degree to which Brazil’s own laws are being broken, to the detriment of their own people, is the worst of any country in the world in which this platform operates,” he wrote on April 10. Hours earlier that same day, Musk declared that X respected the Brazilian laws but said the company “must refuse” to comply with orders that break the law. His remarks likely refer to earlier characterizations of Morae’s orders as lacking legitimate legal basis.  𝕏 respects the laws of Brazil and all countries in which we operate. When given an order to break the law, we must refuse. https://t.co/vLuFUP9gN8 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 10, 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.

NB Blog Feed

‘What’s Their Mission?’ MRC’s Stephanie Hamill and Lara Trump Shred NPR Over Liberal Bias Bombshell

Media Research Center (MRC) contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on “The Right View Podcast” with host Lara Trump and The Post Millennial’s Libby Emmons on Tuesday to discuss the growing scandal at NPR, among other topics.  Uri Berliner, a senior editor for the public radio giant, resigned Wednesday after being suspended without pay after he publicly accused the broadcaster of left-wing bias. My resignation letter to NPR CEO @krmaher pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK — Uri Berliner (@uberliner) April 17, 2024 During the segment, Trump read a few lines from a message that was sent by NPR's President and CEO Katherine Maher to staff that was shared online. In the message, Maher defended NPR’s "mission.”  NPR's service to this aspirational mission was called in question this week, in two distinct ways. The first was a critique of the quality of our editorial process and the integrity of our journalists. The second was a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are. Asking a question about whether we're living up to our mission should always be fair game: after all, journalism is nothing if not hard questions. Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.  "What’s the mission?" said Trump. "If the mission is to thwart Donald Trump’s presidency, prevent him from becoming president again, and really just carry water for the Democratic Party, I guess they are right on message and right on mission."  WATCH: 

NB Blog Feed

'They're the Commies!' ABC News Claims GOP 'In the Bed' With Russia

On Thursday, ABC News moderators Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar took to The View to spew disinformation about Republicans on national television during an election year. The lies included accusations of being “afraid of history,” being communist and “in the bed” with Russia, and wanting to make women property again. Goldberg lashed out at “these little snowflaky people” and, without evidence, accused them of being “the ones that are afraid of information. They're the ones who are afraid of history.” “It's not us,” she sneered. “It's y'all. Y'all are afraid that what's happening is happening without you and it shouldn't be, but you're letting it happen. You're letting all of these decisions be made without you being taken seriously! No one is taking you people seriously! And you should be worried about it.” She was followed up by Behar, who seemingly longed for the return of the House Un-American Activities Committee of the Cold War era to “ruin” the lives of ALL Republicans by having them “blacklisted” from society: BEHAR: Why are they in the bed with the Russians? I mean, we grew up in a time when if you were pro-Russian in any way you were hauled before the UAC Committee and your life was ruined and you were blacklisted. Now all of a sudden these people are all about the Russians. HOSTIN: Trump. BEHAR: I know, but why are Americans accepting that all of a sudden?     “They call the Democrats commies, they’re the commies!” she decried. As usual, faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin was absolutely useless and refused to push back on any of the false accusations her friends were leveling without evidence. Further, Goldberg asserted it was “hard to figure [Republicans] out” and suggested “they’ve forgotten that we, the people, make the decisions about what goes on in this country” as if Republicans were not elected by the people. Without evidence, Goldberg went on to insist that Republicans were trying to turn back the clock to make women property again: I was listening to a book today, just talking about women's rights in the early part of this century, and, you know, women could do nothing. You had to be married or you didn't exist. Why would you want to go back to that? Why are we allowing -- This is the thing, I don't understand why we didn't get angrier sooner – and I know people are angry now because I hear it – but why are we going backwards in a way that is not good for the economy, it's not good for the country? What made Goldberg’s claim even more ridiculous, was that she said she was learning about women’s rights “in the early part of this century.” We’re almost a quarter of the through the 21st century, which meant she was living in the past and didn’t know what century it was. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 18, 2024 11:07:20 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: You know what's offensive to me? SUNNY HOSTIN: What, Whoopi? GOLDBERG: I don't – These little snowflaky people, they're the people who said, you know, ‘Oh, you can't take it, huh? You can't take the heat?’ I'm discovering that most of the folks on the other side are the snowflakes, they're the ones that are afraid of information. They're the ones who are afraid of history. It's not us. It's y'all. Y'all are afraid that what's happening is happening without you and it shouldn't be, but you're letting it happen. You're letting all of these decisions be made without you being taken seriously! No one is taking you people seriously! And you should be worried about it. JOY BEHAR: Why are they in the bed with the Russians? I mean, we grew up in a time when if you were pro-Russian in any way you were hauled before the UAC Committee and your life was ruined and you were blacklisted. Now all of a sudden these people are all about the Russians. HOSTIN: Trump. BEHAR: I know, but why are Americans accepting that all of a sudden? They call the Democrats commies, they’re the commies! (…) 11:08:50 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: You know why it's so hard to figure the other side out? Because they’ve forgotten that we, the people, make the decisions about what goes on in this country. And every time they try to usurp it – You know. I was listening to a book today, just talking about women's rights in the early part of this century, and, you know, women could do nothing. You had to be married or you didn't exist. Why would you want to go back to that? Why are we allowing -- This is the thing, I don't understand why we didn't get angrier sooner – and I know people are angry now because I hear it – but why are we going backwards in a way that is not good for the economy, it's not good for the country? (…)

NB Blog Feed

'Credit Where Due'—Scarborough Lauds Reaganesque Speaker Johnson On Ukraine

"Hear hear! Good on him. Credit where credit is due, and credit is definitely due with Speaker Johnson."  -- Joe Scarborough It's often said that it can be a kiss of death for a politician to be praised by a political opponent.  But that adage might not hold true in the case of Joe Scarborough's praise of Speaker Mike Johnson. Because on today's Morning Joe, Scarborough lauded Johnson not for agreeing with some liberal icon, but for upholding the principles of . . . Ronald Reagan. Scarborough's commending of Johnson came in the context of the Speaker's advocacy of aid for Ukraine.  And in doing so, Johnson described himself as a Reagan Republican, a believer in peace through strength, wanting to send a message to adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and seeing the US as the greatest country in the world. Marjorie Taylor Greene and others will find a way to criticize Johnson's statement, but it's a tricky needle to thread. Does a Republican really want to speak out against Ronald Reagan? Note: Speaking of Johnson's stance, Scarborough called himself a Baptist, and thus as someone who embraces conversions. He even quoted from the Just As I Am hymn.The irony was lost on Scarborough that he's had quite the conversion himself. Going from being a hardcore pro-life, pro-Second Amendment congressman from Florida's conservative panhandle, to decrying the overturning of Roe and beating the drums for more gun control.  Scarborough's conversion has been so complete that he's become a Biden phone buddy and informal adviser. Just as you were, Joe Scarborough: please! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 4/18/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: In a few minutes, Willie, we're going to be talking about Speaker Johnson and Ukraine. I must say, he has had a conversion. You know, it's, it's like A Christmas Carol. That the ghost of the Republican party past came to visit him in the middle of the night and said to him, [imitates voice of Ronald Reagan] "Well," and he said,"Yes, sir." MIKA BRZEZINSKI: No, I think -- SCARBOROUGH: No, listen. What do I say about conversions? MIKA: I'll take 'em. SCARBOROUGH: I'm a Baptist. MIKA: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: We love deathbed conversions, we love midlife conversions. You want to convert? Just as I am, and waiting not, to cleanse my soul of one dark spot. Well, okay, we'll take Speaker Johnson, who sounds like Ronald Reagan. And I will say, in defense of some of the leaders in that House GOP, like some of those leaders that run important committees. It sounds like they're actually concerned about China, Iran, and Russia! WILLIE GEIST: And this might literally be a political deathbed conversion for Mike Johnson, as the threats to his job continue from that faction. But Joe, Speaker Johnson invoked Ronald Reagan's name -- SCARBOROUGH: Hear, hear. GEIST: -- finally said it out loud. It's something we've been talking about for months now on this show: the party of Ronald Reagan turning its back on Ukraine in a fight against Russia.  Speaker Johnson said yesterday, "I am a child of the '80s. I am a child of the Reagan era. We have to do what's right here. We have to give Ukraine what it needs." Where was that over the last couple of months? Unclear. But he's come around. The question will be, have enoug hother Republicans come around to that position to clear this funding and get it to Ukraine? Perhaps as early as Saturday night, when Speaker Johnson says there will be a vote. MIKA: Hope to see Democrats step up. SCARBOROUGH: Maybe he'll go to the floor. MIKA: No. SCARBOROUGH: Maybe he'll say -- MIKA: Listen -- SCARBOROUGH: MTG, tear down that wall! I mean, there's so many options now. MIKA: Yeah, there's a lot to say. SCARBOROUGH: He can borrow so much from Ronald Reagan. . . .  MIKAL And despite the threats from his Republican colleagues, Johnson is pushing forward. MIKE JOHNSON [speaking with Jake Tapper on CNN]: We're going to stand for freedom and make sure that Vladimir Putin doesn't March through Europe. We're an exceptional nation. We're the greatest nation on the planet, and we have to act like it. And we have to project to Putin and Xi and Iran and North Korea and anybody else that we will defend freedom. It doesn't mean boots on the ground. We're not the world's policemen, but we're going to do the right thing. And I think the Congress is going to take an important stand here. JAKE TAPPER: Are you going to have to rely on Democrats to pass the rule in order to bring these bills to the floor, and also the legislation itself? JOHNSON: Well, I hope not. I hope our Republican colleagues will stand together, stick together on this. I think we understand, look, I'm a child of the '80s. I regard myself as a Reagan Republican. I understand the concept of maintaining peace through strength. That's one of our guiding principles. It's a really important philosophy. And it's a big part of our party and our world view. And I think here is an opportunity to make that stand at a really critical time in world history. SCARBOROUGH: I mean, this is like a movie for me. I went to sleep last night, and we were living in the age of Trump. And I woke up this morning, and now we're in the age of Reagan again. Listen to this. Peace through strength. Huh. MIKA: That sounds good. SCARBOROUGH: And you knowm, a couple days ago, I kind of got heated up about how Republicans hate on America so much. I was talking about how horrible America is. And I said America is the greatest country in the world. And they need to start saying it. Well, the Speaker said, "We're the greatest nation in the world." Good on him. Like, we don't hear this from Republicans.  We certainly don't hear that we have to actually fund people who are fighting against Russian aggression much these days. Except from, again, those responsible leaders, whether you're talking about the chairman of the intel committee or the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, people who are actually talking like grown-ups. But I've got to say, give credit where credit is due, and credit is definitely due with Speaker Johnson talking like a Reagan Republican, talking about the need to protect freedom in this fight between western democracy and what's going on in Russia.  

NB Blog Feed

Editor’s Pick: National Review’s Geraghty Takes Blowtorch to NPR Over Berliner Debacle

Writing Thursday morning over at National Review in the Morning Jolt newsletter, senior writer Jim Geraghty went postal on taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) over its handling of now-former senior business editor Uri Berliner’s bombshell essay for The Free Press meticulously dismantling NPR for its decades of liberal media bias. Geraghty (correctly) stated it’s been “refreshingly honest” to see how “NPR responded to the revelations and accusations of 25-year veteran Uri Berliner” with “biased, one-sided, arrogant, and dismissive” condemnations of Berliner because “that’s exactly how NPR likes it” sinc ethey “didn’t get this way accidentally; this is what it wants to be.” He acknowledged anyone who’s “been around long enough” has “seen this sort of journalistic story-cycle before” in which some sort of hubbub breaks out at a liberal media heavyweight, they claim to be sorrowful and have “strayed from its original mission to report the news”....and then nothing happens. He went back through a slew of examples as way of saying “[t]here’s something a bit refreshing, if depressing, about the way NPR responded to” Berliner: You can think back to Dan Rather and CBS News, or Eason Jordan and CNN, or Stephen Glass at the New Republic. Or, more recently, the staff panic and outrage that ousted James Bennet from the editorial page at the New York Times. Heck, you could go back to Janet Cooke and the Washington Post, or all the way back to Walter Duranty’s work for the New York Times in the Soviet Union, echoing the propaganda of Stalin. “This time at NPR, there is no rubbing of the chin, furrowed brows, or begrudging concession that the critic has a point, and that they must do better. Nope, NPR’s management thinks they’re doing a terrific job, and they don’t see any reason to change. In their minds, the true villain of this story is Berliner,” he added with “former colleagues are similarly indignant that anybody could possibly doubt the quality of the work that they’re doing.” After winding through NPR’s heavily slanted coverage of the coronavirus pandemic and the Hunter Biden laptop, Geraghty observed “NPR management” has clearly decided that, lacking any fear of cajoles from Republicans to defund them, they could treat Berliner’s concerns “the same way” they “treated the counterevidence for the Trump–Russia collusion narrative, or the Hunter Biden laptop, or the evidence pointing to a lab leak.” To read Geraghty’s full story, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Ruhle Claims High Gas Prices Are a Russo-Saudi Plot to Elect Trump

With gas prices on the rise, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle did what comes naturally to her: defending President Joe Biden. On Wednesday’s The 11th Hour Ruhle not only claimed that Biden has nothing to do with high gas prices, but he is being undermined by the Russians and the Saudis who are trying to get Donald Trump elected. Ruhle kicked off the segment by declaring, “We know that inflation is driving Americans crazy. If you are unsure, just call your mother. For many, it is their biggest complaint right now and because President Biden is in the White House, he gets the blame. But over the last few months, one thing he has been pointing to is low gas prices. But unfortunately, if you look closer, recently, they have been steadily and quietly going up. Now, this is a common thing going into the summer. More people drive more. It pushes up demand. That is normal. But there are other reasons as well. Ones that might be more deliberate, even political. Like Saudi Arabia and Russia continuing to cut oil production until June and remember when production is down, prices go up.”     After one of her guests, Bulwark podcaster Tim Miller, also defended Biden by citing record levels of oil production, Ruhle turned to her other guest, former Bernie Sanders adviser Chuck Rocha, and asked, “Chuck, what do you think? These prices are not the fault of President Biden. Tim just laid it out, we’ve got the highest oil production in U.S. history and some overseas oil producers who would sure like to help DJT.” Even if one grants Ruhle’s premise that Russia and Saudi Arabia are trying to get Trump elected (as opposed to Moscow cutting production to raise the price of oil to fund its war machine), Biden has not done anything to respond. In fact, he has done the opposite. It is now more expensive to get a drilling lease on federal lands thanks to last week’s new regulations that changed the royalty rate for the first time in a century. As for Rocha, he naturally lamented that people will blame Biden “even if he has nothing to do and OPEC and Russia and all of these things have to do—they’re going to blame Joe Biden and the other side knows it.” Ruhle’s claim that the Russians and the Saudis are trying to get Trump elected with their oil policies is not even original. In October 2022, Ruhle’s colleague Ali Velshi theorized that Moscow and Riyadh conspired to raise gas prices to help Republicans in that year’s midterms. Here is a transcript for the April 17 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 4/17/2024 11:33 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: We know that inflation is driving Americans crazy. If you are unsure, just call your mother. For many, it is their biggest complaint right now and because President Biden is in the White House, he gets the blame. But over the last few months, one thing he has been pointing to is low gas prices. But unfortunately, if you look closer, recently, they have been steadily and quietly going up. Now, this is a common thing going into the summer. More people drive more. It pushes up demand. That is normal. But there are other reasons as well. Ones that might be more deliberate, even political. Like Saudi Arabia and Russia continuing to cut oil production until June and remember when production is down, prices go up.  … Chuck, what do you think? These prices are not the fault of President Biden. Tim just laid it out, we’ve got the highest oil production in U.S. history and some overseas oil producers who would sure like to help DJT. CHUCK ROCHA: Let me be clear that the Republicans know how to use this and will use this against Joe Biden. One of the most brilliant, small political things I saw done that was very, very powerful, last year, when I went to the pump, there was a sticker of Joe Biden with a finger pointing “I did that.” They were sticking it on gasoline pumps saying he’s the reason the gas pump was so high.  When I do focus groups all around the country, I'm still one of those old school political consultants who work on campaigns every single day, people talk about gas and groceries because no matter who you are, almost everybody in America, every week, has to buy gas and groceries and to your point, Steph, when it goes up just a little bit, they will blame the person in charge even if he has nothing to do and OPEC and Russia and all of these things have to do—they’re going to blame Joe Biden and the other side knows it.

NB Blog Feed

Biden’s Kill Switch: The Growing Threat of Government Control of Your Car

Soon the government might shut down your car. President Joe Biden’s new infrastructure gives bureaucrats that power. You probably didn’t hear about that because when media covered it, few mentioned the requirement that by 2026, every American car must “monitor” the driver, determine if he is impaired and, if so, “limit vehicle operation.” Rep. Thomas Massie objected, complaining that the law makes government “judge, jury and executioner on such a fundamental right!” Congress approved the law anyway. A USA Today “fact check” told readers, don’t worry, “There’s no kill switch in Biden’s bill.” “They didn’t read it, because it’s there!” says automotive engineer and former vintage race car driver Lauren Fix in my new video. The clause is buried under Section 24220 of the law. USA Today’s “fact” check didn’t lie, exactly. It acknowledged that the law requires “new cars to have technology that identifies if a driver is impaired and prevents operation.” Apparently, they just didn’t like the term “kill switch.” But it is a kill switch. Mothers Against Drunk Driving wants that. I say to Fix, “It would save lives.” “Are you willing to give up every bit of control of your life?” she asks. “Once you give that up, you have no more freedom. This computer decides you can’t drive your vehicle. Great. Unless someone’s having a heart attack and trying to get to the hospital.” The kill switch is just one of several ways the government proposes to control how we drive. California lawmakers want new cars to have a speed governor that prevents you from going more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. That would reduce speeding. But not being able to speed is dangerous, too, says Fix. If “something’s coming at you, you have to make an adjustment.” New cars will have a special button on the dash. If you suddenly need to speed and manage to find the button when trying to drive out of some bad situation, and it lets you speed for 15 seconds. For all these new safety devices to work, cars need to spy on drivers. Before I researched this, I didn’t realize that they already do. The Mozilla Foundation reports that car makers “Collect things like your age, gender, ethnicity, driver’s license number, your purchase history and tendencies.” Nissan and Kia “collect information about your sex life.” How? Cars aim video cameras at passengers. Other devices listen to conversations and intercept text messages. Then, says Mozilla, 76% of the car companies “sell your data.” “I just bought a new car,” I say to Fix. “Nobody told me about this.” “Oh, it’s there,” she replies. “Buy a new car, you get that really long document. ... The small print says, ‘We’re collecting your data. We know everything you’re doing in your car, and we own (the data). There’s nothing you can do about it.’” Finally, Biden’s infrastructure bill also includes a pilot program to tax you based on how far we drive. “A mileage charge seems fair,” I say to Fix. “You pay for your damage to the road.” “Correct,” she replies. “But when you start allowing them to do this, they could say, ‘We don’t want you to buy a firearm.’ ... ‘We don’t want you to go to that destination. So we’re not going to let you start your car.’ It’s about control.” I push back. “They’re not controlling me.” “They can,” she replies. “Wait until you get a bill for your carbon footprint. ‘You’re at your maximum for carbon credits. We’re not going to let you drive today! Take the train. Take the electric bus.’” “This is paranoia,” I suggest. “Maybe,” says Fix. “But so far, everything that I’ve said about these things, each step keeps coming through.”

NB Blog Feed

Colbert, Goodwin Fret Voting and Women's Rights 'Are Now Being Denied'

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin traveled to CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Wednesday to promote her new book, which is part history, part memoir about her and her late husband’s experiences in the 1960s. For Goodwin and Colbert, the main takeaway was that the achievements of the 60s, such as civil rights, are currently under threat. Goodwin’s husband Dick was an adviser to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson as well as Sen. Robert Kennedy, and she recalled to Colbert an episode of Johnson swimming naked in the White House swimming pool, “They get to the White House pool and Lyndon Johnson, naked, is swimming in the pool, up and down, paddling up and down the pool… he says, ‘come on in, boys’ and of course they have no bathing suits, so they strip. So, all of a sudden, three people are paddling around the pool and while they’re doing that, they hang onto the edge, and Johnson comes forth with a vision of what he wants that will eventually become the Great Society. It was incredible. Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, immigration reform, civil rights, voting rights, NPR, PBS. It was amazing. Amazing.”     Of all the times to compare NPR to civil rights and voting rights, this is a particularly strange one. Colbert, however, was more interested in doom-mongering about Republicans: Okay, so, there is the achievements of LBJ and the Great Society. For that matter, the New Frontier or for that matter, the New Deal, and though so many of them are actively being attempted to be dismantled right now, with some success, including the Voting Rights Act, what do you think, first of all, your husband, Dick, and as you reflect, what would you say is being lost in the dismantling of that vision? Because it was at a very important time, a time of great change in the United States and not everybody likes the changes that happened, but what do you think is being lost?? Goodwin not only agreed that voting rights are under siege, even though they aren’t, she added some further lamentations: But what was so important about the 1960s and I would love young people to remember what it was like because young people felt power then by the conviction they can make a difference in what that meant was that tens of thousands of people were marching for civil rights, for ending segregation, for the voting rights, which is now being denied, for women's rights, which are now being denied, for gay rights, which are now being denied. The only way we are going to get them back is not by looking for heroes, not looking for leaders. We have to do it ourselves and you young people are so important in that goal.  Nobody’s civil or voting rights are being taken away. Some people simply believe that civil rights should extended to everyone, even the unborn. Here is a transcript for the April 17-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/18/2024 12:29 PM ET DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:  They get to the White House pool and Lyndon Johnson, naked, is swimming in the pool, up and down, paddling up and down the pool. STEPHEN COLBERT: Was this normal? Would this happen a lot? GOODWIN: Yeah, it happened a lot. Wherever he was with his office and so they’re swimming and they’re standing there with their business suits on in their ties and he says, "come on in, boys" and of course they have no bathing suits, so they strip. So, all of a sudden, three people are paddling around the pool and while they’re doing that, they hang onto the edge, and Johnson comes forth with a vision of what he wants that will eventually become the Great Society. It was incredible. Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, immigration reform, civil rights, voting rights, NPR, PBS. It was amazing. Amazing. STEPHEN COLBERT: Okay, so, there is the achievements of LBJ and the Great Society. For that matter, the New Frontier or for that matter, the New Deal, and though so many of them are actively being attempted to be dismantled right now, with some success, including the Voting Rights Act, what do you think, first of all, your husband, Dick, and as you reflect, what would you say is being lost in the dismantling of that vision? Because it was at a very important time, a time of great change in the United States and not everybody likes the changes that happened, but what do you think is being lost? GOODWIN: But what was so important about the 1960s and I would love young people to remember what it was like because young people felt power then by the conviction they can make a difference in what that meant was that tens of thousands of people were marching for civil rights, for ending segregation, for the voting rights, which is now being denied, for women's rights, which are now being denied, for gay rights, which are now being denied. The only way we are going to get them back is not by looking for heroes, not looking for leaders. We have to do it ourselves and you young people are so important in that goal.  There’s something, you know, I was young in the 60s. It was a great feeling. I was at that March on Washington on August 28, 1963, Dick was there too, but we didn't meet because there 250,000 other people there. I wish I'd met him then, but nonetheless you felt -- I was carrying a sign “Catholics and Jews and Protestants unite for civil rights” and I felt like something was larger than myself and I hope that young people today can get that feeling, but we’re going to depend on you to march and demonstrate and protest because something bad is happening in our country and you can make it right. I really believe that.

NB Blog Feed

'Family Guy' Mocks Jesus After Evangelical Refuses to Have Sex with Brian the Dog

Fox's Family Guy has been mocking Christianity since the early years of the show. Last night's episode turned Jesus into a vulgar comedian who mocks His mother's virginity. In the episode, "Faith No More," Brian goes back in time to erase Christianity from existence after an attractive Evangelical Christian woman refuses to have sex with him.  After being rejected by a veterinary nurse who is an Evangelical Christian, Brian comes home and rants to Stewie about Christianity.  Brian: Christianity sucks. It's stupid, arbitrary nonsense.  Stewie: You're horny and she wouldn't have sex with you.  Brian: No. And I did everything right. I even researched abortion clinics in case the condom broke.  Stewie: Yeah, no, I know. It's in your Twitter bio.  Brian: Fine, but look around. So much of the division and hatred in today's society comes from Christianity. And it's so hypocritical. I mean, they all vote for Trump, even though he's divorced.  Stewie: That's all you've got on Trump?  Brian: Christianity is also anti-science, anti-freedom--  Stewie: Come on, it's not all bad. I mean, I have a Swarthy Men of Nazareth advent calendar with doors opening for all 25 days. Talk about the "Stars" of Bethlehem, hey, Bri?  Brian: Whatever. Christianity is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. Or the world.  Stewie: Well, perhaps. But it's been around for 2,000 years, so it's not like there's anything you can do about it. Well, I'm going to bed. I'll leave you to watch John Oliver and agree with yourself.  Brian: Good. Love John Oliver. He's a louder Jon Stewart.  John Oliver voice: Blimey, guv'na. Republicans are bollocks.  Brian: God, the British are smart. But, man, if only could get rid of Christianity. If only I could go back in time.  For all the blasphemy, this scene admittedly nails the selfishness of an abortion-loving leftist angry at a woman for not sleeping with him, while also accurately mocking John Oliver. Brian hops into a time machine in Stewie's bedroom and travels to 30 AD in search of Jesus. He hopes to prevent Christ from accomplishing His mission on Earth. He asks some men on the street if they know Jesus. "Jesus Christ, you mean the guy who showed his weiner on a dare at camp?" one of the men replies. Brian finds Jesus and learns that the Son of God really wants to be a stand-up comedian instead of the Messiah. God the Father is portrayed as a controlling jerk. The dog convinces Jesus to reject his Father's plans and do stand-up instead. Jesus' stand up routine includes sex jokes and also mocks the Virgin Mary. Jesus: So, my dad's God. [Crowd cheering] Thank you, thank you. And growing up, he taught me all about carpentry. Yeah. Uh, I guess he thought teenage boys should spend more time rubbing wood. [Crowd laughs] And my mom's a virgin. That's fun. Uh, yeah, when I was a teenager, I had to give her the talk.  Vulgarity is par for the course in any Family Guy episode involving Christianity. Past examples include sexualizing the Last Supper and calling God a "dick." This episode is in line with the series' regular obsession with degrading Christ. When Brian and Stewie return to the present day, they learn Christianity no longer exists and everyone is Jewish. Brian is happy until sundown when the family shuts off their electronics and prepares to walk to the synagogue. Upset about Jewish religious rules, Brian and Stewie go back to the time machine. Stewie bribes Moses to not receive the Ten Commandments.  The world is then devoid of religion. History shows that a world that rejects God morphs into Hell on Earth, but not in Seth MacFarlane's world. "Finally, a world with no religion, no prejudices, no irrationalities. Just science-based reason," Brian declares. Then God shows up as a delivery man and angrily beats up Brian and Stewie until they bring religion back. In the end, a bruised and battered Stewie and Brian are seen singing in church. Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane is a vocal atheist. His series often uses religion, particularly Christianity, as a punching bag. "Faith No More" was just the latest example and will likely not be the last.

NB Blog Feed

PBS: AZ Abortion Ban Dates to When Slavery Was Legal and Only White Men Could Vote

PBS took another bite out of the surprise decision that recently emerged out of Arizona’s Supreme Court, on the Saturday edition of PBS News Weekend, anchor John Yang really loaded the ideological dice in his introduction: “The near-total abortion ban that the Arizona Supreme Court revived this week dates back to when Arizona wasn’t a state yet, when slavery was legal, and when only white men had the vote. Many Republican officeholders and candidate scrambled to distance themselves from the law.” Yang introduced PBS’s version of a Republican guest: “Barrett Marson is a Republican strategist based in Arizona….it’s a swing state in the presidential election. You got a toss-up Senate race, and you got a couple of congressional contests that are going to be very close. How is this, what happened this week, the Supreme Court decision, going to affect those races?” Barrett Marson: ….I think last week, we were a lean-Trump state. And I think this week, we’re a lean-Biden state. I think Kari Lake is on the wrong end of this issue. And, in fact, you know, I think a lot of Republicans who have quite frankly championed this kind of thing for what two generations are finding themselves, at least in Arizona, on the wrong side of how voters feel about this issue. Yang: Have the Democrats picked up on this? Are they pressing this? Marson: I mean, that is what they are doing. 24/7. And rightly so, I mean, look, right now, you know, again, a week ago, I would have said the border and immigration and the economy and inflation, were absolutely not only the top two issues, but they were very much Republican issues. And now, I think abortion is the number one and prevailing issue. It is the issue that will take the oxygen out of the room for any other issue…. Yang likened the Republican Party’s current status on the abortion issue to being “sort of like the dog that caught the car? They don`t know what to do with it now?” Marson again flashed pro-choice credentials: "[Arizona] will have an initiative on the ballot most likely, and that would allow abortion up to 24 weeks. And I think that will pass maybe now with 60-plus percent of the vote if, especially if it is a choice between zero abortions, and maybe something a little bit too far to the left but better something that’s legal than nothing." When asked about Florida’s upcoming ballot initiative to preserve the abortion option, Marson embraced the idea of young people voting for Democrats: Marson: Well Florida has been trending Republican, for sure. But again, this ballot initiative has the chance, both in Arizona and Florida, to bring out so many young people, so many first-time voters, and we don’t know whether they will stick around, you know, come out for the abortion initiative, but stick around for Joe Biden and Ruben Gallego and, you know, and Senate candidates and House candidates down the ballot. Certainly they’re going to come out for the abortion initiative, and it’ll be up to the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to convince them to stick around and vote for them as well. Last month Marson appeared on the NewsHour also to suggest moderate voters like himself could vote for Biden, which makes him PBS’s ideal “Republican strategist.” This pro-abortion segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsWeekend 4/13/24 7:05:51 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: The near total abortion ban that the Arizona Supreme Court revived this week dates back to when Arizona wasn`t a state yet, when slavery was legal, and when only white men had the vote, many Republican officeholders and candidate scrambled to distance themselves from the law. It underscores some of the political consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court`s decision to strike down the constitutional right to seek an abortion and leave it up to the states to decide whether to regulate it. Barrett Marson is a Republican strategist based in Arizona. And before we get going, Mr. Marson, something we should make clear to the viewers. You`re not working for any candidates on the ballot this fall. BARRETT MARSON, Republican strategist: No, I am not. And thanks a lot for having me on, John. JOHN YANG: Thanks. In Arizona, it`s a swing state in the presidential election. You got a toss-up Senate race, and you got a couple of congressional contests that are going to be very close. How is this what happened this week, the Supreme Court decision going to affect those races? BARRETT MARSON: Well, I think you said it all in that sentence there except for that was what was last week. This week now, I don`t know if the Senate race is a toss-up anymore. I don`t know. You know, I think last week, we were a lien Trumps state. And I think this week, we`re a lien Biden state. I think Kari Lake is on the wrong end of this issue. And, in fact, you know, I think a lot of Republicans who have quite frankly championed this kind of thing for what two generations are finding themselves, at least in Arizona, on the wrong side of how voters feel about this issue. JOHN YANG: Have the Democrats picked up on this? Are they pressing this? BARRETT MARSON: I mean, that is what they are doing. 24/7. And rightly so I mean, look, right now, you know, again, a week ago, I would have said the border and immigration and the economy and inflation, were absolutely not only the top two issues, but they were very much Republican issues. And now, I think abortion is the number one and prevailing issue. It is the issue that will take the oxygen out of the room for any other issue. So you will see abortion be front and center in every time Democrats open their mouths on the campaign stump, and Republicans right now just don`t have an answer for that. JOHN YANG: You mentioned Kari Lake, she`s running for Senate this time, two years ago, when she was running for governor, she called this a great law. And you`ve also mentioned other candidates and officeholders, who have been championing this law or this idea and now have to deal with it, how should they deal with it? How can they deal with it? BARRETT MARSON: Well, look, it`s been dogma in the Republican Party for, you know, again, two generations, three generations. So I think, frankly, just own it. You know, talk about why you are pro-life, talk about the benefits, talk about the need, maybe for more of a social safety net, but talk about the benefits of being pro-life, because there is no really running away. And they`re, you know, otherwise, just like Kari Lake, you look like a massive flip flopper. And you know, two years ago, she called this the model for other states. And now she`s talking about she`s pro-choice. So, you know, I think you should just a Republican candidate should just own this. They`ve been wanting to do this for a couple generations. They`ve done it, celebrate it and embrace it. JOHN YANG: To that point, you also mentioned this has been Republican dogma. They got it. They got what they wanted when they were when Roe was overturned. Is this sort of like the dog that caught the car? They don`t know what to do with it now? BARRETT MARSON: Well, it is certainly an Arizona where the electorate is at least willing to have some sort of legal abortion, whether it is we will have an initiative on the ballot most likely, and that would allow abortion up to 24 weeks. And I think that will pass maybe now with 60 plus percent of the vote if especially if it is a choice between zero abortions, and maybe something a little bit too far to the left but better something that`s legal than nothing. JOHN YANG: Florida, of course, finds itself in a similar situation their Supreme Court cleared the way for a six-week band to take effect at the beginning of May. They`ve got are likely to have a constitutional ballot initiative on their ballot as well. Is it going to have the same effect there? Or do you think it`s different? BARRETT MARSON: Well, you know, Florida is a, you know, has been trending Republican, for sure. But again, this ballot initiative has the chance, both in Arizona and Florida, to bring out so many young people, so many first time voters, and we don`t know whether they will stick around, you know, come out for the abortion initiative, but stick around for Joe Biden and Ruben Gallego and, you know, and Senate candidates and House candidates down the ballot. Certainly they`re going to come out for the abortion initiative, and it`ll be up to the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to convince them to stick around and vote for them as well. JOHN YANG: Republican strategist Barrett Marson, thank you very much. BARRETT MARSON: Thank you.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Evening News Frets Over Caitlin Clark’s Rookie Pay

The CBS Evening News has now entered into the national discussion over the disparity in pay between the NBA and the WNBA, bringing advocacy to the discussion of whether female athletes are automatically entitled to the same compensation as their male counterparts while ignoring market dynamics.  Here is that report in its entirety, as aired on the CBS Evening News on Wednesday, April 17th, 2024 (click “expand” to view full transcript): NORAH O’DONNELL: Basketball sensation Caitlin Clark has taken the women's game to new heights, but becoming the WNBA's top draft pick has brought attention to the pay disparity with the NBA. CBS's Jericka Duncan reports Clark held her first press conference today, where she talked about how the league can narrow the gap. CAITLIN CLARK: This is a dream come true, like these are the moments you dream of.  JERICKA DUNCAN: This could also be the moment the WNBA and women's professional sports has been waiting for.  CLARK: I think the more eyeballs you can get on this league, you know, the better off this world is going to be.  CATHY ENGLEBERT: The Indiana Fever select Caitlin Clark.  DUNCAN: It was a ratings record when nearly 2.5 million people tuned in to watch as former Iowa guard Caitlin Clark was drafted by the Indiana Fever.   When you look at the amount of revenue that the NBA is getting, they could move some of that money to the WNBA to invest. A.J. ROSS: $76,000 is not enough for someone you are looking to be the face of the league going forward. No other professional sports league would do something like that, and it's a shame. DUNCAN: The 22-year-old’s endorsement deals in college were worth more than $3 million. She'll now get a base salary as a rookie capped at $76,535. Last year's NBA number one draft pick, Victor Wembanyama, earned over $12 million. But the revenue from both leagues is not comparable. Last season, the WNBA brought in a reported $200 million…  SPORTSCASTER: Ooh, look at this!  DUNCAN: …while the NBA took in an estimated $10 billion. Clark's popularity could spark a change, enabling the player to get more revenue in their collective bargaining agreements and TV broadcast contracts. Both are up for renewal this year.  CLARK: Obviously the new media rights deal, that can be negotiated, can be life changing for a lot of players in this league.  DUNCAN: Which could be a welcome slam-dunk for everyone. Jericka Duncan, CBS News, New York. It seems that the folks at the CBS Evening News could have benefitted from reading the related explainer on CBS News dot com, which dispels a lot of the pay gap propaganda swirling around this latest WNBA draft. Today I learned, for example, that the WNBA regular season comprises fewer than half the games played by the NBA. 40 games to 82. Then there is the revenue disparity between leagues, which is why correspondent Jericka Duncan suggested the NBA simply redistribute some of its revenue to the WNBA- never mind that the league is already doing that. Then there is the fretting that Clark lost her college endorsement deals. If true, this would suggest that Clark is getting no endorsement deals as a pro, which is simply not true. In fact, Clark is about to finalize an eight-figure endorsement deal from Nike. For those who are hard of math, that’s between $10,000,000 and $99,999,999.  Then, there is upcoming collective bargaining, which sets pay based on such factors as revenue, attendance, and TV rights. And it was Clark herself who recognized this: CLARK: Obviously the new media rights deal, that can be negotiated, can be life changing for a lot of players in this league.  The tone and tenor of this reporting, generally, seems to evince an end of coercing the NBA, which has subsidized the WNBA for years, into coming up with an equal pay scheme not unlike what you see at USA Soccer. But these situations are entirely different from each other, and the WNBA is going to need time to build up before closing the pay gap.  In the meantime, don’t worry about Caitlin Clark. She’s going to get paid well above and beyond the WNBA rookie salary.  

NB Blog Feed

REGIME MEDIA: ABC Pushes Biden Propaganda in Pennsylvania

The Biden campaign benefitted from some premium apple-polishing via ABC Senior White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, who delivered a dispatch from Pennsylvania that could make Pyongyang blush. Watch this recap of President Biden’s campaign activities in the Keystone State, which may well be reportable to the Federal Elections Commission as an in-kind corporate contribution, as aired in its entirety on ABC World News Tonight on Wednesday, April 17th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn now to the race for the White House. President Biden in his home state of Pennsylvania again tonight, a state he'll need to win this November. Biden aiming to draw the contrast between him and Donald Trump, who has spent much of this week in court. Here's Mary Bruce.  MARY BRUCE: Tonight, fully aware that Donald Trump's attention is focused on his criminal trial in New York, President Biden lasering in on battleground Pennsylvania. Speaking to steelworkers, Biden touting his work on the economy and taking swipes at his opponent.  JOE BIDEN: 492,000 new jobs so far in Pennsylvania alone. Under my predecessor, who's busy right now, Pennsylvania lost 275,000 jobs. I mean, let's look at the facts. On my watch, unemployment hasn't been this low or this long in 50 years.  BRUCE: Biden's leaning into his working class roots on a three-day swing through this must-win state. Meeting construction workers in Pittsburgh, visiting his childhood home in Scranton, where he told voters he understands them in a way Trump never will.  BIDEN: Donald Trump looks at the world differently than you and me. He wakes up in the morning in Mar-a-Lago thinking about himself.  BRUCE: The president, well aware that the polls are tightening and that he is gaining ground, has spent more time in Pennsylvania than any other battleground. By our count, visiting the state more than 30 times since taking office. David. MUIR: Mary Bruce, who was in Pennsylvania, now back in Washington for us. Mary, thank you. First, there is the framing. Anchor David Muir taking the time to lay down several key points: Biden needs to win PA, Biden trying to make the contrast between himself and former President Donald Trump, and Trump was in court. Muir tries to slip in some campaign disinformation by smearing PA as the “home state” of longtime Delaware resident Joe Biden who represented Delaware in the Senate for 36 years.  “Leaning into his working-class roots”, Bruce says, before casting Biden as First Empath. The “report” closes by noting that Biden is catching up in the polls and has visited the state many times. But this dispatch was not without its own omissions. Biden was actually met with protests in Pittsburgh, which included the chant of “hey hey, ho ho, Bidenomics has got to go”. This doesn’t appear to have been fit for publication at ABC News. Protests outside Biden visit to US Steel building in Pittsburgh pic.twitter.com/jBf07UbLXH — Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) April 17, 2024 Bruce referenced Biden’s visit to his childhood home and showed B-reel of Biden walking alongside some local children. However, Bruce failed to show the beginning of that staged walk- and Biden weirdly (if not creepily) and very tightly holding these kids’ hands. Biden takes no questions as he shuffles out of his childhood home with a group of children after a highly choreographed, scripted stop pic.twitter.com/fR86XqAizf — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 16, 2024 That was weird. And the report was weird, too. Weirdly sycophantic. Whatever that was, it sure wasn't journalism.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: NPR Says Bye-Bye Berliner, Hello to Censoring CEO

After stirring up a hornet's nest at NPR about a leftist tilt, senior editor Uri Berliner resigned Wednesday, but that doesn't mean NPR types can refute his argument on their seemingly inevitable insularity and intolerance. New CEO Katherine Maher insulted Berliner as attacking staffers for "who they are," when he was criticizing them for engaging in identity politics first, not journalism. Berliner announced "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 essay at the Free Press." Maher's tweets show she supports race-based reparations, rioting, and the Black Lives Matter movement. She believes "America is addicted to white supremacy." She talks about "cis white mobility privilege" without smirking. She won't have children because "the planet is literally burning." At NPR, these tweets are not disqualifying -- they're qualifying. Berliner warns against journalists identifying with a "tribe" -- race, gender, religion, or sexual preference. Maher embraces racial tribalism, beginning with a pledge to overcome her own white privilege. We looked at campaign donation records and found Katherine Maher gave about $3,000 in campaign donations in the Trump years (all to Democrats). The one that resonated most was a 2020 contribution of $500 to "Fair Fight PAC," a charity of left-wing election denier Stacey Abrams of Georgia. Election denial is cool -- when Democrats do it. In her previous job, Maher went hunting for "misinformation" was about stifling any information that seemed pleasing to her hate object, Donald Trump. At Wikipedia she refused to tolerate "misinformation" on COVID before they knew much about it. So much was unknown, and yet they had the arrogance to shut down narratives that they thought Trump would be pushing. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

NB Blog Feed

Metaphor Amnesia? Morning Joe Calls Trump an 'Animal,' Ready to 'Lash Out'

When Donald Trump referred to the illegal immigrant accused of killing 22-year-old Laken Riley on the University of Georgia campus as an "animal," the liberal media went aflame with outrage. Thus on MSNBC, Joy Reid condemned Trump's "dehumanizing and degrading" language [see clip at 2:00.] So, surely, no one on MSNBC would ever use the a-for-animal word in describing Donald Trump! Oh, wait. On today's Morning Joe, Mara Gay, an MSNBC analyst and member of the editorial board of the New York Times, said of Trump: "He's like a caged animal. And that's a dangerous situation. He's feeling very threatened. He's out of control. And so we do expect him to lash out." Oh no! Not just an animal, but an out-of-control animal! Creating a "dangerous situation" in which "we expect him to lash out." Yet for some reason, no one on the panel castigated Gay for her use of such "degrading and dehumanizing" language. Huh! Remind me to tune into Joy Reid's show later. Surely she will apply the same standard to Trump critics as she did to Trump himself! Or not. Notes: Gay's calling Trump an "animal" was preceded by a discussion of Trump's reported lack of discipline. Jonathan Lemire noted one exception to that rule -- that in the days prior to the 2016 election, Trump was persuaded to stay off Twitter and stay on message, which helped him win the election. But Lemire managed to work in a dig, saying that in addition to Trump's discipline, what contributed to his victory was "an assist from FBI Director Comey." That was a reference to the letter Comey sent days before the allegation saying that some of Hillary's emails had come to light that were pertinent to the FBI's investigation. Some in the liberal media blame Hillary's loss on that letter.  Scarborough admitted that, like Trump, he too finds it difficult to sit for hours on end, and that therefore "Mika lets me talk all the time to stay awake!" That might have been a peace offering from Joe toward Mika, who is reportedly fed up with his constant big-footing of her on the show.  Amateur psychiatrist Mika diagnosed Trump with an "ADD mentality." Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 4/17/24 6:18 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: Jonathan Lemire, obviously you've been covering Donald Trump a very long time. You understand that his lack of discipline is legendary. His [in]ability to sit still, legendary. He wrote, even in "The Art of the Deal" that, basically, that he didn't have the discipline to sit down and make plans for a day. He just kind of showed up in the office, answered phones, moved around, did things. Drudge puts it this way, "Don in Hell," [Mika laughs] with a picture of Donald Trump inside the courtroom. And for anybody that knows him, reported on him, that's been around him. The fact that this guy has to sit in a courtroom, six, seven, eight hours a day. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Oh, that's not good for him. SCARBOROUGH: Required to. It's just, it's something he has never done his entire life. JONATHAN LEMIRE: He has a legendary short attention span, ricocheting from one thought to the next, would always frustrate his business advisers, and certainly his White House staff. He's been, best I can tell, disciplined, only a handful of times in his life. Once, famously, in the last week or so of the 2016 election. The one time he was convinced to stay off Twitter, and he, mostly, stayed on message at rallies, and we know that helped him win there in those last few days—with an assist from FBI Director Comey. But that is certainly the exception rather than the rule.  SCARBOROUGH: And I will just say, yeah, anybody sitting six, seven, eight hours. You know me: if I were sitting somewhere for eight hours, I would, I would be falling asleep. I would be -- MIKA: You can't even get through four! [A reference to the daily length of Morning Joe.] SCARBOROUGH: I would be writing songs! Yeah, it's hard to even get through four, and Mika lets me talk all the time to stay awake! So I can't imagine: what a, what a physical toll for anybody. MIKA: This is where also it helps to have real firsthand knowledge of Donald Trump over the course of over a decade. And the guy has no attention span. We've seen it up front, and how we've known people who've worked for him, and they have to work around this sort of ADD mentality that he has, and the need for attention. Constant attention. Making moments. . . .  MARA GAY: And you saw yesterday that the judge recognized that concern in admonishing him and saying, I'm not going to have, you know, mumblings in my courtroom that could intimidate potential jurors. So, obviously that is a concern shared by many. I do agree with George [Conway.] I think that his pr capabilities are going to be somewhat limited in New York City, or maybe it was Jon that mentioned that a moment ago. That's absolutely true.  It's an ongoing concern. Because essentially, he's like a caged animal. And that's a dangerous situation. He's feeling very threatened. He's out of control. And so we do expect him to lash out. Anybody who has covered him over the past decade can expect that.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

A Taxing Time...at Tax Time

Was it as bad for you as it was for me? Sending Washington money we earn, but Washington doesn’t, I mean? It’s not just being part of half the nation that pays taxes while the other half doesn’t that bothers me. It’s the waste and unnecessary programs and agencies that have long outlived whatever usefulness they once had (if they were ever necessary). And still President Biden wants to raise taxes even more without proposing a single dollar be cut to reduce our unsustainable $34 trillion debt. As The Washington Times reported: “(Biden) wants to impose a 25% minimum tax on all income not currently taxed — including unrealized gains on assets — for Americans with a net worth of $100 million. Mr. Biden has also urged Congress to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% up from 21%.” No American should be forced to endure the annual torture of compiling records and filling out tax returns. Many other nations have far simpler systems. Even the instructions for filling out forms for the IRS need instructions to understand. It is why so many must hire tax attorneys, who fulfill the role of language translators. Just one example: Enter your gross farming and fishing income reported on Form 4835, line 7; Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), box 14, code B; Schedule K-1 (Form 1120-S), box 17, code AN; and Schedule K-1 (Form 1041), box 14, code F. See instructions. Got it? The Congressional Budget Office predicts the U.S. will add an average of $2 trillion in debt annually for the next decade. That’s more than$5 billion of debt daily for the next 10 years. We borrow more than$200 million every hour. That’s $3 million every minute, $60,000 every second. If that’s not enough to make your blood boil, consider a tiny fraction of the misspending that occurs in Washington. For the past nine years, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has published a“Festivus Report” exposing outrageous examples of unnecessary federal spending. In his latest report he writes: “I am highlighting a whopping $900,000,000,000 of waste (emphasis his), including an NIH grant to study Russian cats walking on a treadmill, Barbies used as proof of ID for receiving COVID Paycheck Protection Program funds, $6 million to promote tourism in Egypt, and $200 million to ‘struggling artists’ like Post Malone, Chris Brown, and Lil Wayne. No matter how much money the government has already wasted, politicians keep demanding even more.” There’s much more. Google Festivus Report and be aghast at what we are doing to ourselves. Ultimately, this is the fault of voters who won’t restrain politicians and don’t select people who will restore America’s financial future and balance the budget, as was so recently done during the administration of Bill Clinton. If too many voters keep fueling the gravy train, the only option will be an Article V constitutional convention, provided by the Founders for such a moment we are now facing. If a future Congress refuses to attack the debt an Article V constitutional convention will be the only way to balance the budget and return power to where the Founders originally intended it – to the people. Nineteen of a required 34 states have already passed resolutions calling for a Convention of States. Other states have passed it in one legislative chamber, and still others have it under consideration. Our current oppressive tax system can be analogized to Dracula, who is never satisfied with the blood he sucks out of one victim, but must constantly look for new sources to bite. We must drive a stake in the blood- sucking government’s heart, or we will end up driving one in ourselves and the country we have known and loved will be no more.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

PolitiFact Refuses To Give Rubio 'True' Rating For True Statement

It is a time-honored tradition that during campaign season, politicians will defend themselves by claiming that “since I took office” such-and-such has happened or attack their opponents by arguing that “since so-and-so took office” this has happened, but when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tried that tactic against President Biden and his inflation record, PolitiFact slapped him with a “half-true” rating despite admitting his numbers were completely true. The specific claim Rubio made was that “It's very misleading when (President Biden) says (inflation) used to be at 9%. This is compounding. It’s not like it went down from 9% to 3%. This is building month after month. The better way to think about it is that it’s 18%, 19% over the last three years." In the “if your time is short” summary at the top of his article, Louis Jacobson wrote, “Inflation compounds and it has risen by about 19% over the last three years.” If that sounds like the shortest and easiest fact-check ever, Jacobson was there to say not so fast, “compared with February 2020, the month before the pandemic began, and also compared with one year ago, wages have increased faster than prices.” Jacobson then spends several paragraphs expanding on these points. Sandwiched between two graphs on wages and inflation, Jacobson claims, “One is to compare today with February 2020, the last full month before the coronavirus pandemic hit. The pandemic represented such an economic upheaval that February 2020 is a plausible benchmark for a ‘normal’ economy.” Not only is Jacobson coming up with a novel excuse to avoid giving Rubio a “true” rating, but his stance that the pandemic must be taken into account when fact-checking political talking points is not one that he holds with consistency. In December, Jacobson gave Biden a “mostly-true” rating for a claim he made about manufacturing jobs created during his tenure. In January, when Biden attacked Trump for job losses during his presidency, Jacobson wrote a lengthy explainer piece, noting Biden omitted the pandemic, but refused to bring out the truth-o-meter. In the first three months of 2024, PolitiFact fact-checked Republicans 63 times while only giving out “true” or “mostly trues” 12.7 percent of the time. By contrast, Democrats were fact-checked 39 times and given “true” or “mostly true” ratings 56.4 percent of the time. Based on how they treat Rubio, Biden, and pandemic-related economic statistics, we can see how.

NB Blog Feed

‘Wonderfully Poetic’: Joy Reid Cheers 'My DEIs' for Prosecuting Trump

Elements of the liberal media don’t see the lawsuits and trials against former President Trump as just tools to score wins for their electoral politics, they also see them as tools to score wins for their racial politics as well. MSNBC host Joy Reid made that abundantly clear during the network’s Monday lovefest for the hush money trial in New York when she praised “my DEIs” for bringing so many charges against the former President. Delving into her usual race-baiting, Reid described it as “wonderfully poetic” that black people were prosecuting Trump. Without evidence, she suggested that it would upset Trump and his inner circle because they supposedly didn’t want black people going to law school: But for me, there is something wonderfully poetic about the fact that despite the fact that even if convicted, he's not going to go to prison. The first person to actually criminally prosecute Donald Trump is a black Harvard grad. The very kind of person that his former staff, the people who worked for him, Steven Miller et cetera, want to never be at Harvard Law School. But he was. And he came out and graduated and he's prosecuting you, Donald. “And a black woman is doing the same exact thing in Georgia,” she boasted. “And a black woman forced you to pay a $175 million fine that's out now also in question because the people who put it up, that might not be legit.”     Reid was absolutely giddy that “Donald Trump is being held to account by the very multicultural, multiracial democracy that he's trying to dismantle.” She added that “there's something poetic and actually wonderful about that” and said it was proof of “something good about our country that we're still capable of having that happen.” “Go, DEI! My DEIs are bringing it home on today!” she cheered, referring to left-wing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Just before lauding Trump’s prosecutors for their skin color, she compared Trump to one of his lawyer’s former clients, a mob boss: But to the point that you all were just making, I mean, one of my favorite facts about one of Donald Trump's lawyers, Susan Necheles, is that one of her former clients was the notorious New York mobster Benny Eggs. And I will just assume and presume that old Benny Eggs was not attacking the judge. So, Donald Trump is at this point outdoing actual mobsters in his attacks on the judge's family, the daughter. And he's doing it to the point that Lawrence made. “He knows he will never spend a day, a second, a moment in prison,” she decried. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Trump on Trial: New York v. Donald Trump April 15, 2024 7:44:32 p.m. Eastern (…) JOY REID: But to the point that you all were just making, I mean, one of my favorite facts about one of Donald Trump's lawyers, Susan Necheles, is that one of her former clients was the notorious New York mobster Benny Eggs. And I will just assume and presume that old Benny Eggs was not attacking the judge. So, Donald Trump is at this point outdoing actual mobsters in his attacks on the judge's family, the daughter. And he's doing it to the point that Lawrence made. He knows he will never spend a day, a second, a moment in prison. But for me, there is something wonderfully poetic about the fact that despite the fact that even if convicted, he's not going to go to prison. The first person to actually criminally prosecute Donald Trump is a black Harvard grad. The very kind of person that his former staff, the people who worked for him, Steven Miller et cetera, want to never be at Harvard Law School. But he was. And he came out and graduated and he's prosecuting you, Donald. And a black woman is doing the same exact thing in Georgia. And a black woman forced you to pay a $175 million fine that's out now also in question because the people who put it up, that might not be legit. Donald Trump is being held to account by the very multicultural, multiracial democracy that he's trying to dismantle. And for me, there's something poetic and actually wonderful about that. It says something good about our country that we're still capable of having that happen. Go, DEI! My DEIs are bringing it home on today. (…)

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

GAG: ABC’s Bruce Giddily Cheers Biden Being Able to Campaign as Trump’s on Trial

ABC’s Good Morning America and its chief White House correspondent/chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce were emanating warm fuzzies and weak knees on Wednesday over their allies in the New York legal system interfering in the 2024 presidential election, preventing former President Trump from campaigning five days a week and allowing their candidate — President Joe Biden — to have the country to himself. Co-host Michael Strahan had a tease giving Team Biden what they want by boasting of Trump on day two of jury selection “test[ing] the patience of the judge while President Biden hits the campaign trails in a battleground state.”     Former Clinton official and fellow co-host George Stephanopulos later tossed to Bruce with more state-run phrasing: “While Donald Trump is tied up in court, President Biden has been on the campaign trail in battleground state of Pennsylvania.” Even the chyron flashed their glee with the situation: “President Biden Hits the Campaign Trail; Slams Trump’s Values & “Failed” Economic Policies in Pennsylvania”. Bruce’s 51-second report was nauseatingly hacktastic and a fine audition to replace the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre as press secretary in a hypothetical second Biden term, starting with her gleeful proclamation about “Biden...trying to seize this moment and create a real splitscreen, leaning into his roots in Scranton, arguing he and Donald Trump have very different values.” As usual, Bruce exhibited zero pushback and relayed Biden spin as news: He said he understands the middle class in a way that Donald Trump simply never will, saying that Trump will always put the wealthy and himself first. While the President has been careful not to comment on details of Trump’s trial, he has been taking more swipes at his rival, joking about Trump’s legal debt and telling supporters here last night that he would never take advantage of a woman. Now, the President is spending three days in Pennsylvania this week. It is a battleground where he has spent the most time by our count, visiting 30 times since taking office. Michael, the President well aware this state is a must win. Not to be left out, CBS Mornings had its own glorified press release with the Biden campaign stops woven into its report on day two of the Trump trial. In the first “Eye Opener” co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King bragged about the jurors being tabbed “as President Biden campaigns in a very important swing state.” Co-host Tony Dokoupil later touted the “two very different schedules for our presumptive presidential nominees as former President Donald Trump spends the week in New York in a courtroom for jury selection in his criminal trial” and “President Biden is on the campaign trail with multiple stops in Pennsylvania.” Chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes proclaimed that “the Biden campaign is clearly looking to play up this split-screen moment where you’ve got former President Trump holed up in a New York courtroom for much of the week, while President Biden is on the campaign trail here in the nation’s largest battleground state for three days this week.” Later and after a creepy video of an enthused Biden walking and holding hands with a band of small children, Cordes bragged of “Biden popping into his childhood home Tuesday and stumping with supporters in Scranton” on the heels of “[n]ew fundraising figures show the Biden campaign brought in nearly double the Trump team’s haul in the first three months of the year”. She continued with more propaganda (click “expand”): CORDES: The Biden team has used some money to open 14 campaign offices across Pennsylvania and to hire two dozen staffers in the state since February. BIDEN: We’ve opened more campaign offices because of you all than — he don’t — hasn’t opened any that I’m aware of. I’m not being facetious. CORDES: President Biden is waking up here in Scranton today. He will then head to Pittsburgh where he’s expected to push for tariffs to triple on Chinese steel and aluminum. This as he works to line up union support. To see the relevant transcripts from April 17, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 17, 2024 7:00 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump on Trial; First Seven Jurors Selected] MICHAEL STRAHAN: The first jurors have been selected in the criminal trial of Donald Trump. Trump on Trial. Seven jurors sworn in to hear the case against the former President. What we know about the three women and four men, including a nurse, teacher and two lawyers as Trump tests the patience of the judge while President Biden hits the campaign trails in a battleground state.  (....) 7:06 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; President Biden Hits the Campaign Trail; Slams Trump’s Values & “Failed” Economic Policies in Pennsylvania] GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: While Donald Trump is tied up in court, President Biden has been on the campaign trail in battleground state of Pennsylvania. Mary Bruce is on the scene in Scranton. Good morning, Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning, George. Well, President Biden is trying to seize this moment and create a real splitscreen, leaning into his roots in Scranton, arguing he and Donald Trump have very different values. He said he understands the middle class in a way that Donald Trump simply never will, saying that Trump will always put the wealthy and himself first. While the President has been careful not to comment on details of Trump’s trial, he has been taking more swipes at his rival, joking about Trump’s legal debt and telling supporters here last night that he would never take advantage of a woman. Now, the President is spending three days in Pennsylvania this week. It is a battleground where he has spent the most time by our count, visiting 30 times since taking office. Michael, the President well aware this state is a must win. STRAHAN: Yeah, it is a must win there, Mary. Thank you very much for that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CBS Mornings April 17, 2024 7:00 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] GAYLE KING: The first seven jurors have been picked in former President Trump’s criminal trial as President Biden campaigns in a very important swing state. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Court and Campaigning] PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: A guy came up to me and asked if I could help, drowning in debt. I said, I’m sorry, Donald, but I can’t help you. [LAUGHTER] (....) 7:04 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trial & the Trial; Trump Sits for Jury Selection as Pres. Biden Campaigns in Pennsylvania] TONY DOKOUPIL: Alright, we’re going to turn now to politics, as promised, and two very different schedules for our presumptive presidential nominees as former President Donald Trump spends the week in New York in a courtroom for jury selection in his criminal trial. President Biden is on the campaign trail with multiple stops in Pennsylvania. Nancy Cordes is out there as well, traveling with the President and joins us now from Biden’s hometown, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Nancy, good morning. NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Tony. Yeah, the Biden campaign is clearly looking to play up this split-screen moment where you’ve got former President Trump holed up in a New York courtroom for much of the week, while President Biden is on the campaign trail here in the nation’s largest battleground state for three days this week. (....) 7:06 a.m. Eastern CORDES: And while Trump has denied all the allegations, the trial will pull him off the campaign trail. DONALD TRUMP: I should be right now in Pennsylvania. BIDEN SUPORTERS: We want Joe! CORDES: His rival is in Pennsylvania. President Biden popping into his childhood home Tuesday and stumping with supporters in Scranton. BIDEN: When I look at the economy, I don’t see it through the eyes of Mar-a-Lago. I see it through the eyes of Scranton. CORDES: New fundraising figures show the Biden campaign brought in nearly double the Trump team’s haul in the first three months of the year. The Biden team has used some money to open 14 campaign offices across Pennsylvania and to hire two dozen staffers in the state since February. BIDEN: We’ve opened more campaign offices because of you all than — he don’t — hasn’t opened any that I’m aware of. I’m not being facetious. CORDES: President Biden is waking up here in Scranton today. He will then head to Pittsburgh where he’s expected to push for tariffs to triple on Chinese steel and aluminum. This as he works to line up union support. (....) 8:00 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Campaigning and Court] DOKOUPIL: President Biden hits the campaign trail as former President Trump attends day two of his criminal trial in New York. CORDES: The Biden campaign is clearly looking to play up this splitscreen moment.

NB Blog Feed

Kimmel Mocks Abolitionist As Out Of Touch Because He Was Pro-Life

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel was supposed to have Vice President Kamala Harris join him on Tuesday for an interview that almost certainly would have focused on how supposedly horrible the Arizona Supreme Court is for allowing an 1864 pro-life law to be enforced. Harris couldn’t make it, but that didn’t stop him from arguing with the ghost of Justice William T. Howell, played by actor Nick Offerman, and not appreciating that Howell could view the abolition of slavery and abortion as logically consistent. Kimmel began, “During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln hired a lawyer named William T. Howell to write the legal code for the new territory of Arizona. His job was to make sure that the new laws abolished slavery, which they did, but he also worked on a number of other laws, including a ban on abortion, which is the law the Supreme Court decided to uphold last week, 160 years later, and the person we have to think about that is Justice William T. Howell, who obviously is not with us anymore, but he is the person who -- what?”     A digitally imposed Offerman then appeared and, playing the role of Howell as if he were a boxer and people from the 1800s were all stupid, began by wondering, “Who dares sully the honor of I, Arizona Associate Justice William T. Howell, who wrote the law of which you jest.” Kimmel almost certainly got the information for this sketch from a recent Washington Post article on Howell. Not only did Kimmel not see the connection between how slavers portrayed the slave and how pro-choicers portray the unborn, he also completely omitted that Howell also wrote in provisions for married women to own property. Nevertheless, Kimmel and Offerman tried to portray Howell as an old-fashioned sexist, “Okay, well listen, Justice Howell, a lot of Americans, I don't know if you know this, are very angry that your law's taking away women's rights.” Offerman tried to satirize pro-life arguments, but all he ended up doing was coming up with interesting euphemisms for genitals, “Well, if these women didn't want to be with child, why did they not sneeze after being pistoned with a fully engorged giggle stick? Why, tell me, did they not scrub their floral regions with barrel grease?” Kimmel followed up, “Barrel grease? How did you become a judge?” As a way to show how allegedly backwards the 1860s were, Offerman tried to joke that the way one became a lawyer in the 19th century had nothing to do with studying law, “I studied at a very prestigious law academy and was the pupil who shot the most nickels off a whore’s empty head. Does that satisfy your query, you godless spaghetti gobbler?” The law may have been written 160 years ago, but that doesn’t mean that Kimmel and Offerman are 160 years more enlightened. If anything, they’re less enlightened. Here is a transcript for the April 16 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 4/16/2024 11:46 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln hired a lawyer named William T. Howell to write the legal code for the new territory of Arizona. His job was to make sure that the new laws abolished slavery, which they did, but he also worked on a number of other laws, including a ban on abortion, which is the law the Supreme Court decided to uphold last week, 160 years later, and the person we have to think about that is Justice William T. Howell, who obviously is not with us anymore, but he is the person who -- what?  NICK OFFERMAN [AS WILLIAM T. HOWELL's GHOST]: Who dares sully the honor of I, Arizona Associate Justice William T. Howell, who wrote the law of which you jest.  KIMMEL: Um -- I do, I guess.  OFFERMAN: Then prepare thyself for a spectral confrontation, you Italian consack. Pugilism.  KIMMEL: Okay.  OFFERMAN: Let that be a lesson to thee.  KIMMEL: Okay, well listen, Justice Howell, a lot of Americans, I don't know if you know this, are very angry that your law's taking away women's rights.  OFFERMAN: Well, if these women didn't want to be with child, why did they not sneeze after being pistoned with a fully engorged giggle stick? Why, tell me, did they not scrub their floral regions with barrel grease?  KIMMEL: Barrel grease? How did you become a judge?  OFFERMAN: I studied at a very prestigious law academy and was the pupil who shot the most nickels off a whore’s empty head. Does that satisfy your query, you godless spaghetti gobbler? KIMMEL: No, that actually made no sense. Just like your law, which I think Arizona should nullify as soon as –  OFFERMAN: Nullify? Nullify my law?  KIMMEL: Yeah.  OFFERMAN: Why, you soft-handed mug-eared fat kidneyed onion-eyed rattlesnake fang on the scrotum. You bacon-faced, pipkin-headed, brisket-beating, rump-fed, hand-sucked, caper merchant.  KIMMEL: Okay, I don't even know even more.  OFFERMAN: You scotch-fiddled, gore-bellied, fox-infested, son of a footless hedge pig. No! 

NB Blog Feed

Kevin O'Leary Rips Biden Tax Agenda: ‘The More He Taxes, the Less Growth There Will Be’

Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary, aka “Mr. Wonderful” panned President Joe Biden’s new tax plan, suggesting that the president would damage the country in the same way that many Democrats have broken their states.  O’Leary pointed out the negative impact of high taxes on states and countries during the April 16 edition of Fox News’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. “The minute you really start raising taxes and they become uncompetitive either at the state level, you see everybody leaving New York and going to Florida or to Texas,” O’Leary told anchor Neil Cavuto, before pointing out that the “same thing happens with countries.” O’Leary went on to say that higher taxes would stall the growth of the American economy: “So you got to be very careful. … I admire what [Biden] wants to do -- but the more he taxes, the less growth there will be and that is the risk.”  In response to a question from Cavuto, O’Leary discussed how the entrepreneurs targeted by Biden’s tax proposal fuel economic growth, saying, “To get rich, they had to be wildly successful. Let's just take a Bezos or what’s happened with Elon Musk. They have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. They have created economies that are derivatives to the companies they’ve made. That’s the essence of success in the economy.” Cavuto went on to suggest that the left punishes this kind of success.  O’Leary then criticized Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), pointing out how their vision had led to migration out of their states into more business-friendly environments like Florida. “I used to live [In Massachusetts]. So did all my neighbors. Now we live here in Miami and we visit Massachusetts, because it's now Taxachusetts,” O’Leary said, before adding, “So I don’t think that works, as long as there another place to go. That is how America was formed: Taxation oppression by the British, and here we are. Let's remember that lesson.” Biden stated his intent to raise taxes on both corporations and individuals in a “fact sheet” published on March 11. The president heavily criticizes former President Donald Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, while promising that his plan “[r]estores the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent for single filers making over $400,000 a year and married couples making more than $450,000 per year.”  Due to inflation, $400,000 in March of 2024 only has the purchasing power of $317,440.42 in Jan. 2018 (the first month after the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” passed), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics “inflation calculator” tool.  Biden’s plan to raise taxes also includes an anti-energy provision. Although the president has repeatedly moved to limit drilling and made statements discouraging long-term investment in fossil fuels, he outrageously attacks oil and gas companies for failing “to invest in production.” In his “fact sheet,” Biden promises to end “tax breaks” and “tax subsidies” (Biden may be using these terms interchangeably) for the industry.  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.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

BREAKING: NPR Dissenter Uri Berliner Resigns After Suspension, Attacks

Shortly before 11 am on Wednesday, NPR senior business editor Uri Berliner resigned at about the time his suspension without pay was going to end. The most important part was where he took on woke new NPR CEO Katherine Maher: "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 essay at The Free Press." Maher's pom-pom memo to NPR staff (posted publicly on NPR.org) claimed Berliner (who wasn't named) was attacking NPR staff not for what they report, but "who they are."   My resignation letter to NPR CEO @krmaher pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK — Uri Berliner (@uberliner) April 17, 2024   While many of us thought Berliner's days were numbered when his essay was posted, it would be a test of NPR's intolerance to see if Berliner could remain. He could not.  Earlier on Twitter/X, Berliner reposted this from the New York Times media reporter:   scoop: NPR's top editor said in a meeting with the new CEO and show hosts Wednesday that she didn't want to make Uri Berliner a "martyr."https://t.co/p6iJBXmVkL We're told that everyone at the network is mindful of the disaster created by Juan Williams' firing in 2010. — Ben Mullin (@BenMullin) April 11, 2024   "Martyr" is too strong a word, but it is an exhibit of their complete unwillingness to listen to a critique on fairness and balance and groupthink and wokeness. It begs for a congressional hearing with Berliner and with Maher, maybe shoulder to shoulder.  And Berliner reposted this from former Bush staffer Peter Wehner:   People on the right who are praising NPR's Uri Berliner for his courage - and he is courageous to speak out - are in many cases the same people who have been too intimidated/cowardly to speak out against MAGA and the moral depravity of Donald Trump. Just sayin'. — Peter Wehner (@Peter_Wehner) April 10, 2024   Berliner voted against Trump twice. But voting for Democrats isn't enough in this taxpayer-funded sandbox for leftists. You have to be in sync with all the leftist lingo and the interest groups that push it, from GLAAD to CAIR. 

NB Blog Feed

ABC Mocks ‘Partisan’ Mayorkas Impeachment as ‘All for Show’ While CBS Lobs Softballs

On Wednesday ahead of the impending impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his role in the Biden border crisis, ABC’s Good Morning America continued its wildly partisan dismissal of this entire episode while CBS Mornings lobbed softballs at him a network exclusive originally billed as a chance for him to sound competent on the issue of online child exploitation. As they’ve been since the start of the impeachment push, ABC’s Good Morning America has led the way with snarky dismissals and partisan pontificating. Co-host and former Clinton tool George Stephanopoulos has been the ringleader. Wednesday was no except as he didn’t even ask a question of chief congressional correspondent Rachel Scott, but instead belly-ached about how “the partisan House impeachment of Homeland Secretary Mayorkas is heading now to the Senate, but it’s all for show now.” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “[T]he partisan House impeachment of Homeland Secretary Mayorkas is heading now to the Senate, but it’s all for show now.”@RachelVScott: “Yeah and this really could be over very quickly. Look, Republicans want a full trial. They impeached Secretary… pic.twitter.com/NMLgLBjPQb — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 17, 2024 Also a liberal hack, Scott scoffed “this really could be over very quickly” even though “Republicans want a full trial” for Mayorkas’s “handling of the border, but it is Democrats who control the Senate.” Showing her political allegiance, Scott stated as though it were a fact that Democrats “point out there is no evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, that this is all over a policy dispute and they will be looking to dismiss these charges very quickly.” Prior to the Mayorkas interview, CBS Mornings also had a partial and dry segment about the Mayorkas impeachment trial with co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King and congressional correspondent Nikole Killion (click “expand”): KING: Nikole, before you go, listen, I know it’s a busy day there because we’ve got the impeachment trial of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, begins in the Senate which, by the way, the secretary of state [sic] has just arrived. We’re talking about another topic, but we’ll certainly get to that. So, what can we expect on that front? KILLION: Well, senators will be sworn in this afternoon for a trial. Tuesday, House impeachment managers walk the articles across the Capitol to the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the House back in February. He is charged with refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border. Senate Democrats want to dismiss this trial quickly, while most Republicans argue that it should be allowed to proceed. A DHS spokesperson has called the proceedings baseless. Mayorkas surfaced for the start of the second half-hour and, after nearly seven minutes letting him conveniently seem wholly concerned about U.S. national security in a joint interview with a Meta executive on online child exploitation. The remaining nearly three minutes (2:53) was split between his impeachment and the war in the Middle East (with Mayorkas offering a boilerplate answer giving equal weight to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia). Co-host Tony Dokoupil didn’t focus on debating the merits of the impeachment and instead asked him “what’s on the table, what’s being discussed” “to stop the flow of people over the border” (click “expand”): DOKOUPIL: Mr. Secretary, you’re here with us, but meanwhile in Washington there’s an effort to impeach you and it comes at the very same time that people are waiting on the Biden administration to issue some sort of an executive order to stop the flow of people over the border, maybe by changing the asylum laws. That’s the reporting anyway. What — what’s on the table, what’s being discussed, is that still even a possibility? MAYORKAS: So, a couple — a couple thoughts. First of all, as they work on impeachment, I work in advancing the missions of the Department of Homeland Security. That’s what I’ve done throughout this process. We need Congress to pass the bipartisan legislation that a group of senators worked on. That is the enduring solution. We cannot resource ourselves, we need Congress to do so. We cannot change a broken immigration system, only Congress can do that. KING: But — but how do you explain — DOKOUPIL: But there is no executive order, so you’re pulling it off the table? MAYORKAS: Oh, no. Not at all. You know, we — we — we explore options every single day. That’s the responsibility of good government. We are considering options. We have been throughout, but really, the enduring solution is legislation because executive actions invariably are challenged in the courts. Like the loyal liberal apparatchik she is, King praised Mayorkas for “continu[ing] to do your job” despite the impeachment charges in what must “feel surreal” and “like you have on gasoline underwear” with “a lot of incoming” from Republicans he’s simultaneously “negotiating with” as they try to remove him. “How do you balance that two, knowing that — how they feel about you and that they want you out,” King wondered, to which Mayorkas twice said it’s “precisely why I focus on the work.” Gag. NBC’s Today was actually the least objectionable of the three (aside from the fact it was only a 32-second partial segment) as Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles gave a sentence to each camp (click “expand”): GUTHRIE: Let’s talk about another item. The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. The articles of impeachment — which are basically the charges — now go to the Senate for a trial, but what is expected to happen there? NOBLES: Yeah, that’s right. The Senate today is expected to swear in senators as jurors, but it is expected to be an incredibly short trial against Mayorkas. Republicans say that he ignored the law and created chaos at the border, but Democrats argue that this is nothing more than a political stunt. They’re planning to dismiss or table the trial as soon as this week. To see the relevant transcript from April 17, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 17, 2024 7:11 a.m. Eastern GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Rachel, the partisan House impeachment of Homeland Secretary Mayorkas is heading now to the Senate, but it’s all for show now.  [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; House Sends Mayorkas Impeachment Articles to Senate; Republican Senators Demanding Full-Scale Trial for DHS Secretary] RACHEL SCOTT: Yeah and this really could be over very quickly. Look, Republicans want a full trial. They impeached Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the border, but it is Democrats who control the Senate. And they point out there is no evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, that this is all over a policy dispute and they will be looking to dismiss these charges very quickly, George. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Mornings April 17, 2024 7:08 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mayorkas Impeachment Trial; Homeland Security Sec’y Expected to Survive Senate Trial] GAYLE KING: Nikole, before you go, listen, I know it’s a busy day there because we’ve got the impeachment trial of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, begins in the Senate which, by the way, the secretary of state [sic] has just arrived. We’re talking about another topic, but we’ll certainly get to that. So, what can we expect on that front? NIKOLE KILLION: Well, senators will be sworn in this afternoon for a trial. Tuesday, House impeachment managers walk the articles across the Capitol to the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the House back in February. He is charged with refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border. Senate Democrats want to dismiss this trial quickly, while most Republicans argue that it should be allowed to proceed. A DHS spokesperson has called the proceedings baseless. Gayle? KING: All right. We’ll see how that plays out. Nikole, thank you very much. In our next half hour, homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas will be here in the studio to discuss his impeachment trial and the reason why he’s here — we booked him a while ago to talk about this — a big, new campaign to keep your kids safe online. (....) 7:31 a.m. Eastern KING: We’re — we’re very glad to have you here. Nice to meet you, Antigone. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Thank you. KING: Especially for you, Secretary Mayorkas because, listen, you’re in the news, your ears must be burning because, even as we speak, they’re trying to impeach you on Capitol Hill. We’ll get to that in just a second. (....) 7:36 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mayorkas Impeachment Trial; DHS Sec’y on Impeachment Charges Brought by Republicans] TONY DOKOUPIL: Mr. Secretary, you’re here with us, but meanwhile in Washington there’s an effort to impeach you and it comes at the very same time that people are waiting on the Biden administration to issue some sort of an executive order to stop the flow of people over the border, maybe by changing the asylum laws. That’s the reporting anyway. What — what’s on the table, what’s being discussed, is that still even a possibility? MAYORKAS: So, a couple — a couple thoughts. First of all, as they work on impeachment, I work in advancing the missions of the Department of Homeland Security. That’s what I’ve done throughout this process. We need Congress to pass the bipartisan legislation that a group of senators worked on. That is the enduring solution. We cannot resource ourselves, we need Congress to do so. We cannot change a broken immigration system, only Congress can do that. KING: But — but how do you explain — DOKOUPIL: But there is no executive order, so you’re pulling it off the table? MAYORKAS: Oh, no. Not at all. You know, we — we — we explore options every single day. That’s the responsibility of good government. We are considering options. We have been throughout, but really, the enduring solution is legislation because executive actions invariably are challenged in the courts. KING: Yeah. You were making it clear, Mr. Secretary, you’re going to continue to do your job. But, I’m wondering personally, does this feel surreal? Do you feel like you have on gasoline underwear? Cause you a lot of incoming — you must feel — or do you feel like you’re sitting on the hot seat? Cause, on one hand, you’re negotiating with Republicans. And then, on the other hand, they’re trying to impeach you. How do you balance that two, knowing that — how they feel about you and that they want you out? MAYORKAS: Gayle, that is precisely why I focus on the work. KING: Mmmmm. DOKOUPIL: Should we — MAYORKAS: That is precisely why I focus on the work. DOKOUPIL: — speaking of the broader mission separate from the border, we’ve got Israel and Iran now in a confrontation. I think a lot of people reasonably wonder whether what’s happening overseas may become a threat to the homeland. KING: Yeah, yes. DOKOUPIL: Is there an increased risk in America of some sort of attack tied to sympathies in the Middle East? KING: Yes. MAYORKAS: We have seen an increase in anti-Semitism. We have seen an increase in Islamaphobia following the October 7 terrorist attacks. There is no question, as Director Wray of the FBI and I have expressed publicly, we are in a heightened threat environment and what we worry about is an increase in what we call domestic violent extremism — the radicalization of individuals already here, driven to violence based on an ideology of hate. DOKOUPIL: Credible threats right now as we speak? MAYORKAS: We — I have no known credible threats at this time, but we are in a heightened threat environment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NBC’s Today April 17, 2024 7:14 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mayorkas Impeachment Heads to Senate] SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Let’s talk about another item. The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. The articles of impeachment — which are basically the charges — now go to the Senate for a trial, but what is expected to happen there? RYAN NOBLES: Yeah, that’s right. The Senate today is expected to swear in senators as jurors, but it is expected to be an incredibly short trial against Mayorkas. Republicans say that he ignored the law and created chaos at the border, but Democrats argue that this is nothing more than a political stunt. They’re planning to dismiss or table the trial as soon as this week.

NB Blog Feed

16-Year-Old Student SUSPENDED After Saying ‘Illegal Alien’ in English Class

Nope, we aren’t even kidding. A 16-year-old student from North Carolina was suspended for three days last week after using the term “illegal alien” in his English class. The student used the phrase to gain a deeper understanding of an assignment and was penalized for it, The Carolina Journal reported. The student’s mother, Leah McGhee, noted that the English teacher assigned numerous vocabulary words during class, one of which was “alien.” To gain clarity, McGhee’s child asked, “Like space aliens or illegal aliens without green cards?” Perfectly valid question to ask for clarification if you ask me but, not everyone thought so. Apparently another student was offended by the McGhee child and threatened to fight him. The teacher called in the assistant principle and ultimately school staff decided that McGhee’s comment was “offensive and disrespectful to classmates who are hispanic.” The child was suspended for three days but it appears that the one who threatened to fight him had no punishment or consequence. Additionally, as The Carolina Journal noted, this could damage McGhee’s record as he looks to apply to colleges and for scholarships. “I didn’t make a statement directed towards anyone; I asked a question,” McGhee said. “I wasn’t speaking of Hispanics because everyone from other countries needs green cards, and the term ‘illegal alien’ is an actual term that I hear on the news and can find in the dictionary.” The McGhee family is working with an attorney to rectify the situation but so far the assistant principal is refusing to remove the infraction on the student’s record. “Because of his question, our son was disciplined and given THREE days OUT of school suspension for ‘racism,’” his mother wrote about the situation before adding, “He is devastated and concerned that the racism label on his school record will harm his future goal of receiving a track scholarship. We are concerned that he will fall behind in his classes due to being absent for three consecutive days.” This is absolutely outrageous. Even the State Senator Steve Jarvis (R-N.C) said, “I do not see that that would be an offensive statement, just in getting clarification” but the school has remained firm in its disciplinary action towards McGhee. The student handbook, as The Carolina Journal noted, says that “schools may place restrictions on a student’s right to free speech when the speech is obscene, abusive, promoting illegal drug use, or is reasonably expected to cause a substantial disruption to the school day.” So using the word “illegal alien” to ask about illegal aliens is somehow offensive? The public school system has become complete garbage.

NB Blog Feed

Pro-Lifers Face 10.5 Years For Praying, Gaza Protestors? Less Than 3

A shocking but true side-by-side comparison was made by the group End Wokeness on X Monday evening. The account pointed out that there's been dozens of traffic stops and backups for Gaza protestors that have been allowed, while at the same time numerous pro-life individuals are stuck in jail, some facing up to 11 years in prison after praying outside of an abortion clinic. If this doesn’t show you who and what our nation values and prioritizes, I don’t know what will. Ever since Hamas terrorists attacked innocent Israelis last October, a group of protestors who likely don’t even know what they’re fighting for have been protesting by standing or sitting in front of traffic. Similar to how the climate warriors cement themselves to the middle of the street, many pro-Hamas individuals and groups park their social justice warrior booties in front of moving cars. Most recently, a group of Gaza war protestors shut down the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California and stopped traffic for around five hours on Monday. Their sign read “stop the world for Gaza” and they used other cars and chained themselves together to block travel lanes on the bridge. NBC Bay Area reported that the protest began around 7:30 a.m. and it wasn’t until after noon that cars were able to start moving again. This wasn't productive and just made everyone irritated and angry that they were late to work — like hours late. A similar demonstration was conducted in New York when Gaza war protestors blocked the Brooklyn Bridge, in Chicago when they obstructed traffic to O’Hare International Airport and at the expressway that led to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington. From the San Francisco protest, 26 individuals were arrested and face charges of conspiracy as well as vehicle violations like false imprisonment for drivers who were trapped. Even if the individuals were charged with a felony for false imprisonment, it looks like they’d only be in jail for a maximum sentence of three years. It’s likely our justice system will let them off very easy since they have a tendency to favor leftists, even if they are breaking the law. One of these groups was allowed to block the Golden Gate Bridge today for 5 hours. The other group faces 11 years in prison for a "criminal conspiracy against civil rights" for praying in an abortion clinic. Realize where we are. pic.twitter.com/zqzpYKuhfe — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 15, 2024 On the other hand, many pro-lifers are being held in jail for peacefully praying outside of an abortion clinic.  In January, six pro-lifers were found guilty of violating the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act after quietly praying, singing hymns and encouraging women to not abort their kids at a Tennessee abortion facility in 2021. Those activists now face up to 10.5 years in prison, depending on their sentencing results. If that wasn't enough, the DOJ has targeted and arrested pro-lifers for praying while at the same time, allowing pro-abort vandals who paint graffiti, throw eggs, and firebomb buildings to walk away without penalty. What’s frustrating is that our justice system isn’t being just. Those bridge protestors should have been dragged off the road immediately and not just stared at while they conducted their pointless plea for attention. And, those pro-lifers shouldn’t be going to jail for the next 10.5 years of their life for PRAYING for innocent babies. This is some twisted crap.

NB Blog Feed

Daily Show Tortures Pinata To Cope With Trump Leading Latino Vote

Actor and alleged comedian John Leguizamo joined Tuesday’s edition of The Daily Show on Comedy Central to have a calm and rational, adult-like reaction to polling that shows Donald Trump leading among Latinos. Just kidding, he decided to torture a piñata while going off a profanity-ridden Spanish tirade. Translated into English (hat tip to NewsBusters' Jorge Bonilla), as he mauled the poor piñata, Leguizamo ranted, "Shit, [bleep]dammit, triple son of a [bleep], mother[bleep], [unintelligible] bastard!"     After the torture session concluded, Leguizamo continued, “I’m sorry. Where was I? Oh, yeah, right. It looks like the Democrats are in trouble, and you might be thinking, how is this possible? Donald Trump is winning Latinos? ‘Build the wall’ Donald Trump? ‘Mass deportations’ Donald Trump? Guy who thinks Daddy Yankee is a baseball player Donald Trump? But the truth is, in 2024, Latino voters have something else on their minds. Following a couple of news clips explaining that Latino voters are more worried about inflation than his race-based politics, Leguizamo claimed to understand, “That's right. For Latinos, this election is all about inflation! And that makes sense! Inflation is bad right now. They're going to have to change the name of the game show to The Price is [bleep] what-now?" And if your top concern is high prices, I get why you might lean Trump. People associate him with lower prices, even though he sells $400 sneakers that look like my cousin's Papo's teeth.” However, “The problem is, when it comes to fixing inflation, this cuchifrito-looking mother[bleep] ain't got shit.” After more news clips of Trump declaring his plan to reduce inflation includes additional oil drilling, Leguizamo reacted, “Well, you heard it here first, mi brothers: Trump's one and only plan to fix inflation is to drill for oil. But guess what: President Biden is already drilling more oil than anyone in history. More than Trump did when he was president!” Of course, Biden is also trying to appease the environmentalists, which doesn’t help with prices, but Leguizamo would rather make a Stormy Daniels-sex joke than discuss that, “Now, you know, maybe Trump has discovered some new special drilling technique that no one else knows about. Maybe he drills the oil real hard for 30 seconds, and then makes it sign an NDA. Just saying.” Somehow, it seems unlikely that going full Hulk on a party device and sex jokes are going to get people to change their voting preferences. Here is a transcript for the April 16 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/16/2024 11:18 PM ET  JOHN LEGUIZAMO: Excuse me for a second, please. [Speaking Spanish] I’m sorry. Where was I? Oh, yeah, right. It looks like the Democrats are in trouble, and you might be thinking, how is this possible? Donald Trump is winning Latinos? "Build the wall" Donald Trump? "Mass deportations" Donald Trump? Guy who thinks Daddy Yankee is a baseball player Donald Trump? But the truth is, in 2024, Latino voters have something else on their minds.  … That's right. For Latinos, this election is all about inflation! And that makes sense! Inflation is bad right now. They're going to have to change the name of the game show to The Price is [bleep] what-now?" And if your top concern is high prices, I get why you might lean Trump. People associate him with lower prices, even though he sells $400 sneakers that look like my cousin's Papo's teeth. The problem is, when it comes to fixing inflation, this cuchifrito-looking mother[bleep] ain't got shit.  CNN TOWN HALL ATTENDEE: If elected president again, what is the first thing you would do to help bring down the cost to make things more affordable?  DONALD TRUMP: Drill, baby, drill.  MARIA BARTIROMO: Is your answer to getting inflation down, drill, drill, drill, independent oil?  TRUMP: Well, among other things, it's drill, drill, drill, yes.  BARTIROMO: What else?  TRUMP: It's drill, drill, drill.  BARTIROMO: What's your answer to getting inflation down?  TRUMP: There is no else. You have to get the oil.  LEGUIZAMO: Well, you heard it here first, mi brothers: Trump's one and only plan to fix inflation is to drill for oil. But guess what: President Biden is already drilling more oil than anyone in history. More than Trump did when he was president! Now, you know, maybe Trump has discovered some new special drilling technique that no one else knows about. Maybe he drills the oil real hard for 30 seconds, and then makes it sign an NDA. Just saying. 

NB Blog Feed

Woke New NPR CEO Katherine Maher Donated to Democrats Like Stacey Abrams

Conservative Twitter is having a ball with woke new NPR CEO Katherine Maher's tweets drew a New York Times story (which isn't in the paper). The headline was gentle, about criticism over "Tweets Supporting Progressive Causes." Benjamin Mullin noticed one showed Maher wearing a "hat with the logo for the Biden presidential campaign." (He left out the Covid mask). He also noticed this colorful tweet:  "Had a dream where Kamala and I were on a road trip in an unspecified location, sampling and comparing nuts and baklava from roadside stands. Woke up very hungry." NPR spokeswoman Isabel Lara rebutted Maher "was not working in journalism at the time and was exercising her First Amendment right to express herself like any other American citizen." Now she is "fully committed to NPR's code of ethics and the independence of NPR's newsroom." Maher repeated that line: NPR is independent, beholden to no party, and without commercial interests." But just like her tweets, our search of Maher's campaign contributions show she's a fan of the Democratic Party:  -- In 2017, $1,500 to former congressman Tom Perriello in an unsuccessful run for governor of Virginia. -- In 2018, $500 to Matthew Brown in an unsuccessful run for governor of Rhode Island. -- In 2020, it was a year for women of color: $275 (in 11 donations of $25) to Jennifer Carroll Foy in an unsuccessful run for governor of Virginia, $100 to MSNBC pundit Maya Wiley in an unsuccessful run for mayor of New York City, and $500 to the “Fair Fight PAC” of election-denying leftist Stacey Abrams, who still thinks she won the governor's race in Georgia in 2018. That's back when election denial was cool in Democrat media circles. Mullin's story ended with Maher at a "town hall-style meeting" with NPR employees, and naturally, she was asked about NBC's ill-fated decision to give a contributor slot to former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, who was too close to election deniers. Maher proclaimed “I think that the most effective way that I have seen this play out is, if you’re bringing somebody into a story that is pushing a deliberate distortion, be extraordinarily well-prepared to push back and very prepared with the information necessary, the irreducible facts.” Take that, Stacey Abrams? PS: Christopher Rufo appeared on Fox News to underline Maher's wokeness:  Fox's Jesse Watters brings on Chris Rufo to describe NPR CEO Katherine Maher's old tweets: "It is the most vapid left-wing propaganda imaginable....It's like Mad Libs for Left-Wing women." I hope @davidfolkenflik can realize if this sounds one-sided....what is NPR? pic.twitter.com/d9NntyCTR5 — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 17, 2024

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

ABC Has Time for ABBA, Caitlin Clark, NONE for Mayorkas Senate Trial

It is interesting which historical things networks choose to cover and which they do not. The New York City trial of former President Donald Trump, for example, draws top billing across the dial. A no-brainer, really. But for ABC World News Tonight, the also-historic impeachment and potential Senate trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is simply a bridge too far. Perhaps ABBA and entering into the Library of Congress and the drafting of Caitlin Clark were more newsworthy items for ABC. The likelier story is that, once again and as in the case of the (related) border overrun at El Paso, ABC did not want to cover something that would cast the Biden administration in an unfavorable light. On immigration. At least the other networks pretended to try to cover the story, packaged as tiny briefs within their Congressional roundups which today centered on a potential Motion to Vacate against Speaker Mike Johnson over his scheduling of votes on assistance to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Of these, CBS’s tiny brief was the most comprehensive. Here it is, in its entirety as aired on CBS Evening News on Tuesday, April 16th, 2024: SCOTT MacFARLANE: Meanwhile, Johnson's House Republicans are trying to remove a different official. Delivering impeachment articles to the Senate today against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. MARK GREEN: …is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.  MacFARLANE: Arguing he’s willfully and systematically refused to enforce immigration laws, an allegation Mayorkas denied again today.  ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: I have abided by the law each and every step of the way.  MacFARLANE: Setting up a formal proceeding tomorrow in the U.S. Senate destined for a dead end.  What are the prospects there’s actually going to be an impeachment trial tomorrow?  THOM TILLIS: Um -- I’d say virtually none.  MacFARLANE: Democrats control the Senate and senators expect the debt matter will be quickly shut down without a trial.  PETER WELCH: It’s a bogus action by the House. That's the problem.  MacFARLANE: The impeachment proceedings are scheduled to begin here tomorrow afternoon, but the Biden administration says the entire endeavor is baseless and a waste of time.  MacFarlane’s idea of “balance” when covering the Senate trial of Mayorkas was to feature bipartisan pooh-poohing of the whole endeavor before running White House quotes dismissing the whole thing as a “waste of time”. Over at NBC Nightly News, a tinier brief, but Congressional Correspondent Ryan Nobles found the time to squeeze in a pro-impeachment voice. RYAN NOBLES: Tonight, a trial in the Senate set to begin with House Republicans formally sending over articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.  TED CRUZ: The Senate has a clear obligation under the Constitution and 200 years of precedent. We need to hold a trial.  NOBLES: Republicans accusing him of willfully refusing to comply with immigration laws, with a record 9.3 million migrant border crossings since President Biden took office. Mayorkas and Democrats call the charges baseless. Senate Democrats poised to quickly dismiss them.  What about taxpayer-funded PBS, you might ask? Surely there was time within its hourlong PBS NewsHour for Mayorkas, right? Wrong. But they did find time for this: GEOFF BENNETT: A Renaissance era landmark in Denmark's capital went up in flames today. The blaze broke out on the copper roof of Copenhagen's Old Stock Exchange as it was undergoing renovations ahead of its 400th anniversary. The spire of the structure, which is a twisted sphere of four dragon's tails, collapsed in the fire. And the city's mayor called the building an iconic piece of Danish heritage. As you can see, the media were all over the place on Mayorkas- from barely covering, to covering but carrying Dem water to not covering at all. It’s no wonder we rightly and deservedly call them “regime media”.

NB Blog Feed

Networks OMIT Latest Overrun of the Southern Border At El Paso

It’s like the “floor is lava challenge”, but with covering the southern border instead of touching the floor. Once again, the corporate evening newscasts have refused to cover a group of migrants as they overwhelm the Border Patrol and illegally enter into the country. Per Univision’s report on the latest run for the border at El Paso, as aired on Monday, April 15th, 2024: PEDRO ULTRERAS: The migrants used long fences that the authorities use as an enclosure along the Rio Grande, and used them as a ladder with which to climb. They then jumped inside (the United States). This encounter wasn’t as violent as the last one that went uncovered by all except CBS. But there was a significant breach, nonetheless, wherein illegal migrants found a way to defeat the enhanced border fencing. Per KFOX: EL PASO, Texas (KFOX) — A portion of wire barrier along the southern border in Texas was breached again by migrants who crossed the country illegally. More than 100 migrants are accused of being involved in the cutting of cortina wire and a chain-link fence that was placed along the border in El Paso by Texas National Guard soldiers. The area where the border was breached was near a high school and highway along the U.S.-Mexico border. Border Patrol officials told KFOX that on Friday agents were alerted of a group, more than 100 people, climbing a chain-link fence near Riverside High School. That group allegedly cut cortina wire along the Rio Grande, which caused a chain-link fence to collapse, according to the statement provided by Border Patrol to KFOX. An official with the Border Patrol El Paso Sector stated that the cutting of the chain-link fence and concertina wire constitutes an illegal entry into the U.S. Last time, CBS distinguished themselves as the best of a bad lot by devoting a whopping 37 seconds to the prior run at the border, with ABC and NBC offering respective goose eggs. This time around, each of the networks blanked. Once again, the corporate media earned the title of “Regime Media” by blacking out a story that reflects unfavorably upon the current Democrat administration. Once again, they choose to protect the Precious over reporting facts on the ground concerning an issue that is at the top of voters’ concerns this election. Once again, the media have chosen dishonor.  

NB Blog Feed

Netflix to Air Documentary on 'Extraordinary' Dan Rather, the 'True American Hero'

Dan Rather tweeted "I am humbled and honored to share some exciting news.  A lot of very talented people have produced a documentary about this reporter’s life." A puff piece movie honoring Rather with actors wasn't enough. Now there's a gushy Rather "nonfiction" film. Variety's Michael Schneider set the stage:  Netflix has set Rather, the documentary about veteran journalist Dan Rather‘s landmark career in news for an April 24 premiere on the streamer. The feature utilizes the story of Rather’s life on television to also explore the evolution of broadcast journalism, the troubles a free press now faces, along with the slide of American society from hard-fought advances in social justice and democratic freedoms. The doc first premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival last June. Film producer and director Frank Marshall, who founded Amblin Entertainment with his wife Kathleen Kennedy and with Steven Spielberg, is at the helm: “This is a very personal project for me,” Marshall said in a statement. “When you look at Dan’s body of work, it’s remarkable. The collection of stories he has covered, it’s my history too, and the history of our country over the past 60 years. I’ve always admired his passion, his intelligence, his humor and his commitment to the truth and it’s been an honor to get to know Dan and tell his extraordinary story.” Rather is set to appear at a screening in Austin at an Alamo Drafthouse there, and Alamo Drafthouse founder Tim League is also a huge Rather fan:  “Watching Rather, I saw a North Star of what American journalism is meant to be, driven by a thirst for the truth and the desire to share that truth with the people,” League said. “We are honored to have the opportunity to screen this wonderful film and honor a true American hero.” This is the closest Variety came to Rather's fake-National-Guard-documents scandal, and it's not close: "With unrestricted access to Rather, the film takes on the highs and lows of his time at CBS News, including his controversial exit as CBS Evening News anchor." There was no mention of George W. Bush or the National Guard. The IMDb page lists who will appear in the film, in addition to fiercely protective daughter Robin Rather: it's Samantha Bee, Douglas Brinkley, Andy Cohen, Mark Cuban, Soledad O'Brien, Shepard Smith, and Margaret Sullivan. Former CBS News colleagues Tom Bettag and Howard Stringer are also on the list.  A Michael Schneider story from last year suggested in its headline that the film "Restores Some Justice to His Lengthy Career." A "brilliant career," oozed the subhead. It had more gush from Marshall about his "truth" telling.

NB Blog Feed

Split: CBS’s Patta Fears World Has Ditched Gazans, Dokoupil Blasts Pro-Hamas Protests

Tuesday’s CBS Mornings presented something for everyone on Israel vs. Hamas as, along with another anti-Israel, pro-Hamas report from CBS foreign correspondent Debora Patta griping about global concern for Israel over Iran’s missile and drone attacks “distracted...from the misery of Gaza”, co-host Tony Dokoupil stated the obvious (but isn’t on the left) that pro-Hamas protesters blocking roads in the U.S. are not protected by the First Amendment. Patta was cued up by co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King, who claimed there’s “disagreement among Israelis over what should happen next” in response “to Iran’s massive missile and drone attack on Israel.”     Instead of criticizing Iran, Patta blamed Israel by downplaying Iran’s attempted show of force: “Engineered for maximum effect but resulting in minimal damage, the Iranian assault has triggered global calls for restraint.” The South African reporter went to a former Israeli general to claim Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — as opposed to Hamas or Iran — is a threat to Israel’s existence. In other words, someone with Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome (click “expand”): PATTA: Retired two-star Israeli Nimrod Sheffer does not believe Prime Minister Netanyahu is the right person to make such a critical decision. NIMROD SHEFFER: So, if you ask me if Netanyahu is a risk to the state of Israel, my opinion is yes. PATTA: He believes Netanyahu has a vested interest in prolonging the war in Gaza and escalating the conflict in Iran in order to stay in power. HEFFER: If you’re retaliating just to show that you’re strong enough, it’s the wrong idea. It’s the wrong strategy. Patta then performed a sob story about Hamas-controlled (and supporting) Gaza, whining “[t]he fear of an all-out regional war has distracted the attention away from the misery of Gaza” and “extreme hunger stalk[ing]” Palestinians, adding (click “expand”): There are still regular air strikes, each day bringing new grief and fresh drama....More aid is arriving, but it is not enough. They are desperate cues. This bakery in the north reopened for the first time in more than six months of war after the World Food Program brought in fuel and flour. Food prices have soared, and those who can’t afford the rising costs are frantically trying to access their money. Banks are running out of cash. With both an unfinished war in Gaza and escalating tensions with Iran, Israel is weighing how to respond to the assault. Senior experts have told us the war cabinet must balance retaliation with ensuring it does not fracture the international alliance it has built up against Tehran.  Prior to this, featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers had a news brief on what he described as “pro-Palestinian protests that disrupted traffic in major U.S. cities yesterday” such as on San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, and roads leading into Chicago’s O’Hare airport. In other words, terrorist sympathizers painted as totally harmless.  Dokoupil interjected with a two-sentence reality check: “Stopping traffic is not a protected First Amendment right. This is something different.” Duthiers and King were both awkwardly left to interject with the former giving an “indeed” and the latter saying, “mmhmm.” Aside from Dokoupil, the liberal journalists on NBC’s Today were much more in line with Duthiers in giving almost dry descriptions of the terrorist supporters. In opening teases, co-host Hoda Kotb merely said the Middle East tensions “spill[ed] over into the streets here at home” with “protesters demanding a ceasefire in Gaza blocking traffic on roads, bridges and airports” to the point that “[s]ome” would-be airport passengers” were “forced to abandon their cars and walk”. Kotb also had an opening tease in the second hour that described these thugs as “protests calling for a ceasefire ramp[ing] up” their hooliganism “in cities across the U.S.” Co-host Savannah Guthrie struck the same note: “Here at home, protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, disrupted cities nationwide yesterday, shutting down major roads, snarling traffic.” In the first hour, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel reported in a voice-over from Israel that, over in the U.S., “pro-Palestinian protesters took to the streets, blocking traffic from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco to Seattle, Chicago's O’Hare airport, and New York to demand a ceasefire.” Engel had a liveshot in the second hour with similar verbiage: “And all of this is playing out domestically in the United States with those protests, as you mentioned, pro-Palestinian demonstrators shutting down roads, coast to coast, yesterday[.]” To see the relevant transcripts from April 16, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

CBS Admits Legalizing Weed Doesn’t Stop Black Market Sales, Boosts Them

One of the major talking points the left and the liberal media used to sell Americans on legalizing marijuana was that it would eliminate black market operations. But in a Tuesday report, CBS Mornings admitted that Maine’s weed legalization had not stopped possibly hundreds of illegal grow houses from sprouting up all across rural parts of the state. They also reported that China was behind most of them. Co-anchor Tony Dokoupil opened the segment by boasting that weed was “legal for recreational use in 24 states plus Washington, D.C.” But he admitted that “that does not mean illegal growing operations have gone away. In fact, they're still booming.” Teeing up the investigative report by correspondent Nicole Sganga, Dokoupil noted that illegal “operations are expanding, particularly in rural parts of the U.S., and they're surprising backers overseas who are tied to other deadlier drugs including fentanyl.” Sganga’s report focused on the liberal state of Maine, which legalized weed but was seeing a disturbing surge in the number of illegal growing operations being funded by China. She spoke with Ray Donovan, a former chief of operations for the Drug Enforcement Agency, who explained the situation with Chinese organized crime: SGANGA: Just one flashpoint in a billion-dollar black market marijuana boom now sinking its teeth into less populated states like Oklahoma, Colorado, and Maine. DONOVAN: If I can go into Maine and buy a house for cheap that's rural, is very isolated. (…) SGANGA: But perhaps more shocking than the budding number of illegal grows: who is behind them. DONOVAN: By and large, we see Chinese organized crime behind black-market marijuana.     There was apparently one grow house that was staffed with men who were human trafficked from China to tend to the plants while being trapped in the house. One of the apparent takeaways CBS wanted viewers to have was that legal marijuana was still viable, there just needed to be an investment in enough law enforcement to crack down on the black market: SGANGA: Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but a majority of Americans now live in a state that has legalized weed. With some states still limiting cultivation and others imposing steep taxes, the marijuana underworld thrives. DONOVAN: It is not something that's going to go away, especially if you are investing in legal marijuana statewide, then we're going to have to pursue the black market marijuana organizations. While arguing that “people were tired of the war on drugs,” he admitted that “counterintuitively, when you legalize you actually need a big, strong law enforcement push in order to push the black market into the legal market, because people don't naturally want to volunteer to pay taxes, get regulated, fill out paperwork and forms.” Cracking down on crime? What a novel idea! Destroying the serious nature of the problem, they ended the segment with co-host Gayle King proclaiming, “I just want to try it one time before I die. Co-hosts Dokoupil and Vladimir Duthiers seemed more than happy to oblige: DUTHIERS: We can make that happen, Gayle! Somebody around here can make that happen! KING: I’ve never tried – I just want to try it one time. DOKOUPIL: I don't want to fund the black market, but there are a lot of trucks just sitting around here in Times Square. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings April 16, 2024 7:30:06 a.m. Eastern TONY DOKOUPIL: There’s a growing acceptance, of course, of marijuana use across the country. It’s legal for recreational use in 24 states plus Washington, D.C. But, that does not mean illegal growing operations have gone away. In fact, they're still booming. A CBS investigation finds those operations are expanding, particularly in rural parts of the U.S., and they're surprising backers overseas who are tied to other deadlier drugs including fentanyl. Nicole Sganga takes us now to an illicit marijuana farm in the beautiful state of Maine, which is one of the states where the drug is actually legal. [Cuts to video] NICOLE SGANGA: Nestled along Maine’s rocky shoreline, the sleepy town of Machias. CHIEF KEITH MERCIER (Machias Police Department): People lobster fish, they clam, and they log. SGANGA: Population, about 2,000, It’s sleepy. MERCIER: Sleepy, very quiet. SGANGA: But last fall, a pungent smell and a stream of vans darting to and from this barn woke up neighbors triggering a six-week investigation by local police and chief Keith Mercier, and unearthing more than $1 million in black market marijuana. MERCIER: They had irrigation systems setup, they had heating systems, humidifying system. It was quite an impressive operation. SGANGA: Hanging from the rafters, flowering under a sea of grow lights. A maze of more than 2,600 plants seized by police. How in the world did black market marijuana set up shop here? MERCIER: Well, I think that was one of the draws was being rural community, it could go undetected. SGANGA: Just one flashpoint in a billion-dollar black market marijuana boom now sinking its teeth into less populated states like Oklahoma, Colorado, and Maine. RAY DONOVAN (former DEA chief of operations): If I can go into Maine and buy a house for cheap that's rural, is very isolated. SGANGA: Ray Donovan is the former chief of operations for the DEA. DONOVAN: That would allow them to continue to grow the marijuana crops uninhibited. SGANGA: Law enforcement now cracking down, with at least 34 busts statewide. Since last June, more sites dotting the I-95 corridor now undergoing investigation. This is not just a Machias problem. MERCIER: No, this is a statewide problem. The information we have says that there is over 200 that are actively working right now. SGANGA: But perhaps more shocking than the budding number of illegal grows: who is behind them. DONOVAN: By and large, we see Chinese organized crime behind black market marijuana. SGANGA: In February, 50 lawmakers penned a bipartisan letter to Attorney General Garland demanding answers about China's role in thousands of illicit marijuana grows nationwide. SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): They're unregulated. They’re illicit. They're destroying homes. MERCIER: Marijuana all over the place lying around. SGANGA: Operators allegedly stealing more than $10,000 in power. Just how much power was running through? MERCIER: Substantial amount. Probably four or five times what a normal house would run. STEVE ROBINSON: These locations consume huge amounts of electricity. SGANGAL So, this is the spread sheet. ROBINSON: Yes. SGANGA: Native Mainer Steve Robinson meticulously tracks suspected illegal marijuana grows statewide and took us to one identified in court records. This looks like a suburban dream home. ROBINSON: If you look on this garage right here, there's a newly installed 400-amp service. SGANGA: Purring over power records, findings published on his website, attracting the attention of lawmakers and law enforcement. Why would anyone need that much power? ROBINSON: If you’re running say, a car wash, a grocery store. SGANGA: Or? ROBINSON: Or if you're growing a lot of marijuana. SGANGA: In some cases, the suspects arrested may have been victims. MERCIER: We encountered three Asian males. They were being paid $1,000 a month to work 24-7. SGANGA: Trapped inside sparse living quarters with blacked out windows. DONOVAN: Some of the people have been brought here from China under the auspices that they’re working under a legit business. SGANGA: It sounds like you're talking about victims of human trafficking. DONOVAN: Yes. SGANGA: Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but a majority of Americans now live in a state that has legalized weed. With some states still limiting cultivation and others imposing steep taxes, the marijuana underworld thrives. DONOVAN: It is not something that's going to go away, especially if you are investing in legal marijuana statewide, then we're going to have to pursue the black market marijuana organizations. SGANGA: You think it’s time to sound the alarm? DONOVAN: I do. [Cuts back to live] SGANGA: Donovan and other law enforcement sources told us some of the same criminal groups behind illicit weed are part of a larger criminal network tied to a deadlier drug trade: fentanyl. In fact, Donovan said the DEA first connected Chinese organized crime to these illegal weed grows by following some of the same criminals profiting off the fentanyl supply chain. Tony. DOKOUPIL: What ever to make money. Nicole, thank you very much. So, of course, one of the reasons why weed is legal in 24 states is because people were tired of the war on drugs. But, counterintuitively, when you legalize you actually need a big, strong law enforcement push in order to push the black market into the legal market, because people don't naturally want to volunteer to pay taxes, get regulated, fill out paperwork and forms. We're seeing that process play out in places like Maine. GAYLE KING: I just want to try it one time before I die. [Laughter] DOKOUPI: Well, Gayle— VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: We can make that happen, Gayle! Somebody around here can make that happen! KING: I’ve never tried – I just want to try it one time. DOKOUPIL: I don't want to fund the black market, but there are a lot of trucks just sitting around here in Times Square. KING: Okay. DUTHIERS: We're going to make that happen, Gayle. KING: It’s bucket list. Bucket list.

NB Blog Feed

Color Me Shocked? Ex-TikTok Employees Blow Whistle on Chinese Access to App

A group of former TikTok employees is sounding the alarm on the company’s disturbing ties to the communist Chinese government. Fortune interviewed 11 former employees, some of whom stated that TikTok does have close operational ties with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. Furthermore, the employees admitted that ByteDance’s “independence from China was largely cosmetic” and the China-based company received vast amounts of data. These revelations highlight the national security risks creating a firestorm of controversy around the popular TikTok app. “The allegations … create more fodder for critics who fear the Chinese government could use TikTok as a sort of Trojan Horse to spy on Americans by sifting through the huge amounts of digital data that it collects,” Fortune explained. The House of Representatives recently voted to advance legislation that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok if the latter is to operate in the United States. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent ByteDance. Former TikTok senior data scientist Evan Turner told Fortune that he always answered to a Chinese ByteDance executive despite an alleged alteration in his chain of command. Turner was also required to email detailed data about twice a month on “hundreds of thousands of U.S. users to ByteDance workers in Beijing.” As he told Fortune, “I literally worked on a project that gave U.S. data to China.” Anton Dahbura, executive director of Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, told Fortune the data — including IP addresses, names and geographic location — could be “very damaging” in the wrong hands.  Patrick Spaulding Ryan, TikTok’s lead technical program manager for security engineering until 2022, added another piece of concerning information. Ryan said that some of TikTok’s internal software was monitored and maintained by China-based ByteDance teams. Fortune added that it was impossible to assure prospective customers that U.S. data for the shared internal messaging system Lark was safe and secure. While TikTok executives are attempting to convince American users and politicians that the app is independent of China and not subject to CCP spying and data mining, the new information raises questions. Multiple former employees even admitted to being pressured by the company to downplay TikTok-ByteDance ties, either to the public or to fellow employees. But if what these employees say is true, TikTok truly is a national security risk. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

CBS’s King Whines People Don’t Care Enough About Trump Trial (Unlike ABC)

Amid the voluminous coverage on the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC this week on the start of the hush money trial brought by far-left Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against former President Trump, Tuesday’s CBS Mornings whined not enough Americans care about this trial....like ABC’s Good Morning America, who was tickled pink about Trump suffering. CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman had just finished explaining why this Trump trial is “significant because it’s first” and “is a solemn day in court when you put a former President...on trial” when co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King kvetched about the American public not being consumed by this.     “We should point out this is not normal. You know, Donald Trump always says he’s a — it’s a witch hunt, everyone’s against him, that it’s unprecedented, but also his behavior, for a lot of people, is unprecedented,” King huffed. She then added the times we’re living in are “just not normal” and, despite all these histrionics, she’s “worr[ied] that the audience just hears white noise when they hear all of these cases running together.” Klieman gave King much of what she probably wanted to hear: They may, but this is the first one that actually is going forward, so the attention will be on this one. But, no, it is not normal. Nothing about this follows legal norms in a courtroom. It may happen this time because Judge Merchan is strict and he’s going to run a courtroom the way it should be run, but 34 felonies for business records? Not normal. Over on ABC, co-host and former Clinton flack Stephanopoulos giddily told chief Washington correspondent and three-time bestselling anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl that after having spent a year “talking about the political and legal calendars clashing”, Monday finally arrived. Stephanopoulos added Monday “felt” like a change in “the dynamic...from” the past “when Donald Trump was so convinced” the charges would be boon for his campaign. Karl beamed in announcing he saw “it in his behavior, in his demeanor” with Monday having been “a wake-up call for Donald Trump” in the form of “his new reality” as “now criminal defendant Trump”. Clearly excited (and perhaps about the idea of a fourth book to hawk about Trump), Karl looked enthused at the idea of “see[ing] the bitterness, the anger” and “energy drained from” Trump: Sure, he’s been indicted four times, he’s had to go to his indict — go to his arraignments, but now, he has to be inside a non-descript courtroom in lower Manhattan day after day against his will. He must be there and he is in a courtroom where he has no control. The judge is the boss and, for the most part, he has to be silent. You could see the bitterness, the anger, I think, the — the energy drained from him when he walked out of that courtroom at the end of the day. That was a different Donald Trump. And, look, he was restrained yesterday. He didn’t violate the gag order. He didn’t lash out at anybody. But how is this going to affect his psyche and his behavior as he does this for the next roughly two months? To see the relevant transcripts from April 16, click here (for ABC) and here (for CBS).

NB Blog Feed

MRCTV's Tierin-Rose Mandelburg on OAN: Dancing in the White House, Woke NPR & Travis Kelce

On Monday, MRCTV’s Tierin-Rose Mandelburg appeared on One America News Network’s "In Focus" with Alison Steinberg.  The two talked about former TV anchor Katie Couric, who argued that former President Donald Trump’s MAGA fan base is full of “anti-intellectualism.” Mandelburg summarized that the left is great about generalizations and will say and do whatever is necessary to remain relavent. Couric’s take, in and of itself was “anti-intellectual,” but it did get her to go viral. So for her, it’s not a total loss. Same goes for White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre who was video taped dancing around the briefing room. It was very clear how serious she is about getting down to business in the White House! NOT! Steinberg also brought up the fact that NPR just hired new CEO Katherine Maher, who has a long history of being super woke. Needless to say, it looks like NPR, the taxpayer-funded network, will continue straying away from actual news and journalism and lean into being an agenda pushing machine.  Towards the end of the segment the ladies chatted about a huge scandal! Kansas City Chiefs football player liked an Instagram post with Donald Trump in it. O M G! No seriously, who the heck cares? Also, who even has the time to go through social media pages to see who is liking what posts?! Seriously people, get a life! Check out the segment below!

NB Blog Feed

Mitchell Goes To War With Math To Label Pro Basketball Sexist

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell closed out her Tuesday show by deciding to pick a fight with math. Reacting to Monday’s WNBA draft, Mitchell called “sexism” on the fact that number one overall pick Caitlin Clark will have a roughly $76,000 rookie salary while her male counterpart makes slightly north of $12 million. Mitchell reported that “Caitlin Clark's record-breaking streak continues with what could be the most watched WNBA Draft ever. Clark was the number one pick, of course, last night, scoring her place with the Indiana Fever. Clark stands to make millions from endorsements, but fans are outraged over the massive gender pay gap in her salary. Clark will reportedly earn, get this, $76,000 for her rookie season. Compare that to the $12 million, million dollars, last year's number one NBA draft pick made in his rookie year.”     Missing from this monologue was any discussion of revenue. The NBA projected that during its 2021–22 season it would bring in over $10 billion in revenue. Meanwhile, last season, the WNBA’s projected revenue was around $200 million. As of 2018, the league was losing around $10 million a season. Still, Mitchell smeared Americans as sexist for not eliminating the gap overnight, “That gender inequality and the sexism facing women's sports is a big focus on Saturday Night Live.” That SNL skit featured Clark appearing as a guest with anchor Michael Che: MICHAEL CHE: The University of Iowa announced that basketball star Caitlin Clark will have her jersey retired and replaced with an apron. Oh… Here to comment is Caitlin Clark…I am a fan, Caitlin, by the way.  CAITLIN CLARK: Really, Michael? Because I heard that little apron joke you did… Thanks to all the great players like Sheryl Swoopes, Lisa Leslie, Cynthia Cooper, the great Dawn Staley, and my basketball hero: Maya Moore, these are the women that kicked in the door so I could walk inside. So, I want to thank them tonight for laying the foundation, and Michael, since you're such a big fan, I brought you a souvenir, it’s an apron signed by me.  For years, critics of the pay gap theory Mitchell cites have said that sports is entertainment, so if you want to see the discrepancy between male and female sports diminish, then you need a more entertaining product. They were smeared as sexists by people like Mitchell, but Clark proved them correct as this year saw the NCAA women’s championship game get higher viewership than the men’s for the first time. Here is a transcript for the April 16 show: MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports 4/16/2024 12:54 PM ET ANDREA MITCHELL: Caitlin Clark's record-breaking streak continues with what could be the most watched WNBA Draft ever. Clark was the number one pick, of course, last night, scoring her place with the Indiana Fever. Clark stands to make millions from endorsements, but fans are outraged over the massive gender pay gap in her salary. Clark will reportedly earn, get this, $76,000 for her rookie season. Compare that to the $12 million, million dollars, last year's number one NBA draft pick made in his rookie year. That gender inequality and the sexism facing women's sports is a big focus on Saturday Night Live. MICHAEL CHE: The University of Iowa announced that basketball star Caitlin Clark will have her jersey retired and replaced with an apron. Oh… Here to comment is Caitlin Clark…I am a fan, Caitlin, by the way.  CAITLIN CLARK: Really, Michael? Because I heard that little apron joke you did… Thanks to all the great players like Sheryl Swoopes, Lisa Leslie, Cynthia Cooper, the great Dawn Staley, and my basketball hero: Maya Moore, these are the women that kicked in the door so I could walk inside. So, I want to thank them tonight for laying the foundation, and Michael, since you're such a big fan, I brought you a souvenir, it’s an apron signed by me.  MITCHELL: Caitlin Clark making her Indiana Fever debut in just a few weeks when the WNBA season tips off. That was one of the great SNLs ever, the whole show. 

NB Blog Feed

Delusions of the Woke: Flower Genitalia, Dancing White House & Furries

Welcome to Woke of the Weak where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and point out why they’re nuts. This week we took a look at what the left considers a great representation of our nation. We started out by seeing our very own White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre dance around the briefing room. It really screamed "professionalism." We heard from a transgender individual (we think male to female) talk about how he liked getting complimented on his posture but in the same breath decided he didn’t like being complimented on his posture.  A different trans individual complained that penises and vaginas look like penises and vaginas, even after genital mutilation surgeries. He advocated that we design trans genitalia to look like flowers or an “abstract sculpture.” The next queer, who is apparently a teacher for toddlers, insisted that she wanted to “punch that b**ch” when talking about her co-worker that kept “misgendering” her. The tolerant left ladies and gents. The next freak talked about how her womb was like the deep end of a pool: “no children allowed, but if they end up there, they die,” she said confidently. It really seems like she loves kids … NOT! Similarly, the next person claimed that puberty blockers aren’t harmful and they should be highly encouraged for six-year-olds. Surely if a six-year-old is convinced that he’s a she, the child is bound to grow up confused … confused like the user who wanted to join the military and be a cat, like the man who screamed at the camera with bright orange eyeshadow and blue nail polish and like the furry who insisted his dragon persona made him feel “euphoric.” While the left wants you to believe that those clips are what represents America, we need to stand firm in normalcy and fight back against this madness.

NB Blog Feed

Hostin Fears Trump Voter Will ‘Sneak’ onto Jury By Saying ‘I Hate Trump’

On Tuesday’s edition of The View, ABC’s staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) proved once again why she’s a former federal prosecutor. Speaking about the upcoming hush-money trial against former President Trump, Hostin proclaimed that she feared the impartial jury would be infiltrated by a Trump supporter who would “lie” by telling the court the contradictory statement: “I hate Trump. But I can be impartial.” Hostin admitted she was “excited” for the trial, calling it “a legal nerd's Super Bowl.” When faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin noted “They haven’t even picked a juror,” Hostin boasted about the jurors who said they couldn’t be impartial: “But that's exciting to someone like me because 50 people said ‘I can't even be impartial,’ which I admire them for their forthrightness and their honesty because you have to be honest when you're a juror.” But while claiming she “still believe[d] they will be able to find an impartial jury,” Hostin contradicted herself by adding: “They’re never going to find that.” She then went on to hype how the legal teams were going to comb through the social media accounts of prospective jurors for signs they support Trump: They are never going to find someone that doesn't know about the former twice-impeached loser president. Right? They're never going to find that. But what I did find also interesting about my Super Bowl that the legal teams will be checking the jurors’ social media profiles to see if they can access the truthfulness and intention of what they said during voir dire, which is their questioning.     “And I think that’s really, really important because, if you start liking Trump, you follow Trump stuff on social media, are you going to -- can you be impartial? I don't think so,” she declared without a consideration to keeping Trump haters off of the jury. In fact, her fear was that a Trump supporter would “sneak onto that jury” by lying about hating Trump: HOSTIN: You get one person that sneaks onto that jury with untoward feelings, that person can hang that jury. BEHAR: How do you sneak onto a jury? You have to be called to a jury. HOSTIN: Well, you lie. You lie. You say, “I hate Trump. But I can be impartial. And I this and that.” BEHAR: I see. HOSTIN: And then, all of a sudden, that’s the person who won’t vote to convict. While she’s worried someone biased in Trump’s favor would be allowed on the jury, she was blinded by her unhinged hatred for him to think a prospective juror announcing “I hate Trump” was the impartial position. “Where are they going to find a jury of his peers, how many bloated orange psychos are out there?” so-called comedian Joy Behar quipped. “Yeah. It’s going to be tough,” Hostin agreed. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 16, 2024 11:04:40 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: Oh, it’s just beginning. SUNNY HOSTIN: I'm not trumped out at all. SARA HAINES: I’m so Trumped out. HOSTIN: This is a legal nerd's Super Bowl. Right? Like, I'm kind of excited about this. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: They haven’t even picked a juror. HOSTIN: But that's exciting to someone like me because 50 people said “I can't even be impartial,” which I admire them for their forthrightness and their honesty because you have to be honest when you're a juror. But I still believe they will be able to find an impartial jury. They are never going to find someone that doesn't know about the former twice impeached loser president. Right? BEHAR: Yeah. HOSTIN: They're never going to find that. But what I did find also interesting about my Super Bowl that the legal teams will be checking the jurors’ social media profiles to see if they can access the truthfulness and intention of what they said during voir dire, which is their questioning. And I think that’s really, really important because, if you start liking Trump, you follow Trump stuff on social media, are you going to -- can you be impartial? I don't think so. And I think what could happen in a case like this, if you have someone – and we were talking about it this morning, someone named Clay Travis sort of telling people to get onto that jury. You get one person that sneaks onto that jury with untoward feelings, that person can hang that jury. BEHAR: How do you sneak onto a jury? You have to be called to a jury. HOSTIN: Well, you lie. You lie. You say, “I hate Trump. But I can be impartial. And I this and that” BEHAR: I see. HOSTIN: And then, all of a sudden, that’s the person who won’t vote to convict. BEHAR: Where are they going to find a jury of his peers, how many bloated orange psychos are out there? HOSTIN: Yeah. It’s going to be tough. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Couric Smears Trump Voters As Jealous Anti-Intellectuals

Former 60 Minutes anchor Katie Couric recently joined Bill Maher on his podcast Club Random. During a discussion on income inequality, Couric mused that those who support Donald Trump are motivated by anti-intellectualism and jealousy. Couric, who has declared herself “liberated” from the necessity of being a straight newswoman, told Maher that “The socio-economic disparities are a lot and class resentment is a lot and anti-intellectualism and elitism is what is driving many of these anti-establishment  — which are Trump voters — so, I think that is a huge problem that we have to address.”     She would also add “I mean globalization and, you know, the transition from an industrial to a technological society and I don’t know if you’ve ever been jealous of someone else or resentful — it is such a corroding and bitter, almost bile feeling.” Later, Couric would reply to Maher’s suggestion that current culture consists of poorer people aspiring to be like richer people by countering that some think “I’m angry about it, I’m angry about my lot in life and I’m going to take it out on, sort of, the coastal elites and the intelligentsia and that’s where I think a lot of this support is deriving from.” As for Maher, he believes that if you want to combat Trump, the way to do it is not by going after his fans, “Take something like the sanctuary cities hypocrisy, these elite cities said ‘we’re the good people, we’re always the good people--’” Couric acknowledged the point, by continuing the sentence, “until—” Maher continued, “until they send the immigrants, actually, to their city.” Couric claimed to understand, claiming she thought it would be advantageous for news organizations to head to the border to see how the surge was impacting border towns, but whether she really understood is not as clear because earlier in the episode, Maher explained Trump voters, “What they see on the other side, to them, is even more dangerous. Because it’s closer to home, ‘My kid is coming home from school and he thinks he’s a racist? He’s five, what have you been telling him? My son thinks maybe he’s not a boy.’ And maybe that’s true, that happens, but, you know, those kind of things are what they say. ‘That’s why I’m voting for Trump.'” Couric ignored that basic fact of contemporary political life when she went on her bender about Trump supporters being a bunch of jealous anti-intellectuals.

NB Blog Feed

Fox’s Doocy Triggers WH’s Kirby After Pointing Out Biden’s ‘Don’t’ Plea to Iran FAILED

With President Biden on the road for the next few days, the White House press corps had to get their hardballs in while they could on Monday. Fox’s Peter Doocy, as always, had the adversarial questions the rest wouldn’t ask. This time, he went around and around with John Kirby over Iran predictably not being intimidated by President Biden’s simple demand to “don’t” fire missiles and drones at Israel. “John, has President Biden considered maybe beefing up the public Iran posture to be more than just one word,” Doocy began, to which Kirby said amid cross-talk they should “talk about what we did.”     “[H]e said ‘don’t’ and they did it anyway. So, now what,” he asked. Doocy largely let Kirby drone on for over a minute about how Biden’s “don’t” plea was actually a smashing success (click “expand”): KIRBY: Let’s talk about “don’t” and did. Let’s talk about Saturday night. He made it clear that he didn’t want to see escalation in the region. DOOCY: And yet, there was. KIRBY: Eh, let me finish. He added military resources to the region right after October 7 and then, when we had an inkling that this kind of thing was coming, he added even more military resources to the region, more destroyers that were capable of shooting down ballistic missiles, fighters — fighter squadron that was able to shoot down drones and that’s what we did. So, you can talk about the ‘don’t’ word all you want, but let’s talk about what did happen. And what did happen was Iran utterly failed. And if I’m sitting in Tehran right now, I’m betting that President Biden takes it pretty seriously. When he says, ‘don’t’ escalate, he’s going to act to make sure that you can, and they didn’t. Yes, they fired an unprecedented amount of munitions, but how much of a success that they have, Peter? None. Zero. Very little infrastructure. It was an embarrassing failure for the Supreme Leader for the IRGC. Doocy then pivoted to the ongoing issue (raised repeatedly, such as here, here, here, here, here, and here by his colleague, Jacqui Heinrich) of the U.S. freezing Iranian assets: “Now that we know that the Iranians do not listen to President Biden’s public warnings, Is there any regret here about unfreezing billions of dollars for Iranian leaders during the President’s administration?” Kirby played dumb, wondering “what unfreezing are you talking about” and thus lead to more back-and-forth between the two with Kirby admitting he did know what Doocy was referring to and, rest assured, the administration was monitoring the haul to make sure it didn’t end up in the wrong hands (click “expand”): DOOCY: He unfroze billions of dollars — KIRBY: For — for Iranian leaders? DOOCY: Yeah. KIRBY: Really? No, I don’t think so. DOOCY: So, you guys say — KIRBY: So, first of all — DOOCY: — it’s for humanitarian purposes, but doesn’t that un — KIRBY: — but you don’t believe me? DOOCY: — well, doesn’t that free up money for them to spend on other stuff? But where do you get the money for an unprecedented number of munitions to — to fire at Israel? KIRBY: So, first of all, I’m betting, if they’re sitting in Tehran, they’re taking it seriously when President Biden says he’s going to defend Israel, we put skin in the game — a whole heckuva lot of it, and knocked almost everything out of the sky. So, I’m betting they’re taking it pretty seriously. And, as for this — this unfreezing, that none of that fun [sic] — none of those funds — funds set up in an account, by the way, by the previous administration, goes directly to the Supreme Leader, the IRGC. Can only be used for humanitarian purposes, and we’re watching that account very, very closely to make sure that that’s what happens. Doocy Time wrapped with a question about why in the world did Biden leave for Delaware then come back to the White House since, in crises past, Biden wouldn’t change plans and the press team would argue Biden “can be the President from anywhere.”  Kirby didn’t engaged except to claim he came back because “shortly after arriving — we got better, firmer intelligence and information about the — the specific timing of what we expected to be this Iranian attack”. Surprisingly, the CBS Evening News actually had the stones to air their own correspondent Weijia Jiang’s hardball for Kirby about the Iranians feeling undeterred: CBS’s @Weijia Jiang: “John, just one day before the attack, President Biden issued a warning to Iran — don’t. And now, the U.S. is not taking any part in an Israeli reprisal, so does that signal to Iran that it can defy the U.S. without facing any consequences?” WH’s John Kirby:… pic.twitter.com/rlJe6605U9 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 15, 2024 NewsNation’s Kellie Meyer had two excellent questions about why U.S. doesn’t believe Israel should be able to respond to what could have killed untold numbers of Israelis and what specifically is Biden doing to deescalate. CNN’s Priscilla Alverez represented the left’s worldview on Israel needing to do more to kowtow to Hamas in ceasefire and hostage talks even though, as she admitted Hamas has been the party whose refused to agree to anything Finally, during the Karine Jean-Pierre portion of the briefing, the Fox Business Network’s Edward Lawrence twice pointed out gas prices are soaring. Despite Jean-Pierre’s assurances we should be fortunate they’re “well below their peak back in 2022” thanks to Biden’s leadership, Lawrence again fact-checked her: “But [gas prices are] only three cents lower than a year ago. It’s up 52 percent from when President Biden came into office. Any — then — talk about changes in policy that — to encourage future investment in oil and gas industry?” To see the relevant transcript from the April 15 briefing, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Amazon Prime's Hit Series 'Fallout' Marred by Left-Wing Biases

Amazon Prime's memorable new hit series Fallout, based on the popular video games by Bethesda SoftWorks and Interplay, is marred by a number of left-wing biases. The series follows Lucy MacLean (Ella Purnell), a resident of a "Vault-Tec" bunker in the year 2296. Vault-Tec bunkers are a high-tech underground network of vaults designed to survive a nuclear blast. Generations have lived in them since nuclear fallout from the fictitious "Great War" centuries earlier. Lucy's father, Hank (Kyle MacLachlan), is the overseer of the vault where she lives. After Hank is kidnapped by invaders from above ground, Lucy leaves the secured vault to go up to the surface for the first time in her life to find him. She journeys across a wasteland filled with ghouls, warriors and various unsavory characters. The series bounces back and forth in time between a pre-fallout 1950s-style world and future years. Up on the surface, the audience is introduced to the "Brotherhood of Steel," a post-apocalypse paramilitary order. The brotherhood includes "Dane," played by "non-binary" actor Xelia Mendes-Jones, a biological woman. Dane is supposed to be one of the boys but is really a butch-looking woman with a light mustache. Dane's leader uses the pronoun "they" when speaking to her, albeit very briefly. The "transness" of the character is never spoken of or emphasized in any way, yet Dane's presence in the brotherhood still requires suspension of disbelief. Outside of Dane's character, much of the series eschews any direct wokeness. The main female lead, Lucy, is not a "Mary Sue." Stronger men sometimes have to intervene to save her, and she does not try to girlboss her way across the wasteland. She just wants to find her father.  In the end, she discovers her father is actually a villain who works for a corporation that has repeatedly nuked the world in order to destroy competition from it. The truth is revealed by Lee Moldaver (Sarita Choudhury), a woman who is described as a communist in pre-fallout flashbacks. Numerous characters are capable of living for hundreds of years via different means and Moldaver appears through different epochs. In flashbacks, she heads what is described as a communist Hollywood circle. She butts heads with actor Cooper Howard (Walter Goggins), a John Wayne type of character who stars in Vault-Tec ads before learning their evil plans. He turns into a ghoul after nuclear fallout.   After their confrontation, Moldaver tells Howard (Walter Goggins), "I'm not a communist, Mr. Howard. That's just a dirty word they use to describe people who aren't insane."  Moldaver's Hollywood movement began after her research on cold fusion was stolen by Vault-Tec. She warns Howard and others that Vault-Tec is an evil corporation intent on destruction. In the video game version of Fallout, numerous companies profit off the war, but this series adds a twist: Vault-Tec and other connected companies ensure that the bombs get dropped in the first place. Moldaver builds a new republic in the years after the first nuclear fallout. With the support of Hank McLean, Vault-Tec creates a second nuclear bombing so that there is no future alternative to their vaults. Upon finding her father, Lucy learns that the man she thought of as a loving dad is actually a cold-blooded murderer who works for a diabolical corporation. Up until that moment, Hank was one of the few white male characters in the show who had not become weak, cowardly or cruel. A preponderance of bad guys is par for the course in a post-apocalyptic word, but the fact that a white male leader always turns out to be a horrible person in contemporary television is frustrating. Fallout is a strong series in many ways, with real character development and a coherent plot. It will likely be able to keep its fan base into future seasons. Unfortunately, an underlying leftist worldview ultimately seeps through it despite all its strengths.

NB Blog Feed

NPR Internal Critic Uri Berliner SUSPENDED Without Pay for Going Public on Bias Complaints

In his latest company-man report, NPR media reporter David Folkenflik revealed that NPR senior editor Uri Berliner was suspended without pay for five days (beginning Friday) for deciding his years of internal advocacy for more fairness and balance in NPR's coverage had been fruitless, so he went public.  Folkenflik disclosed that Berliner, as a senior editor for Business, had edited many of his stories, and shared with him the formal rebuke from management: In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.... In the rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.) The NPR letter also did not cite his remarks to the New York Times, which ran its article mid-afternoon Thursday, shortly before the reprimand was sent. So that means the article for The Free Press and his interview on their podcast is what's being punished, and specifically for reporting the fact that 67 percent of NPR's current audience identifies as liberal or very liberal. In rebuking Berliner, NPR said he had also publicly released proprietary information about audience demographics, which it considers confidential. He said those figures "were essentially marketing material. If they had been really good, they probably would have distributed them and sent them out to the world." Berliner repeated his message to Folkenflik that a taxpayer-funded news outlet has a special obligation for fairness:  "I love NPR and feel it's a national trust," Berliner says. "We have great journalists here. If they shed their opinions and did the great journalism they're capable of, this would be a much more interesting and fulfilling organization for our listeners." Folkenflik then cited CEO Katherine Maher's pom-pom memo celebrating NPR's employees and without mentioning Berliner by name, she claimed he offered "a criticism of our people on the basis of who we are" and not the content of their journalism. Berliner took great exception to that, saying she had denigrated him. He said that he supported diversifying NPR's workforce to look more like the U.S. population at large. She did not address that in a subsequent private exchange he shared with me for this story. (An NPR spokesperson declined further comment.) Berliner also criticized the collection of Maher's woke tweets that surfaced before NPR hired her:  In an interview with me later on Monday, Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization. "We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that." Folkenflik's piece was balanced by a mention of conservative scholar Christopher Rufo, and paragraphs of fierce criticism of Berliner from other NPR journalists:  Morning Edition host Michel Martin told me some colleagues at the network share Berliner's concerns that coverage is frequently presented through an ideological or idealistic prism that can alienate listeners. "The way to address that is through training and mentorship," says Martin, herself a veteran of nearly two decades at the network who has also reported for The Wall Street Journal and ABC News. "It's not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don't really care about it anyway." Several NPR journalists told me they are no longer willing to work with Berliner as they no longer have confidence that he will keep private their internal musings about stories as they work through coverage. "Newsrooms run on trust," NPR political correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben tweeted last week, without mentioning Berliner by name. "If you violate everyone's trust by going to another outlet and sh--ing on your colleagues (while doing a bad job journalistically, for that matter), I don't know how you do your job now." ....NPR Investigative reporter Chiara Eisner wrote in a comment for this story: "Minorities do not all think the same and do not report the same. Good reporters and editors should know that by now. It's embarrassing to me as a reporter at NPR that a senior editor here missed that point in 2024." Google these critics and NewsBusters and you'll see they are firmly on the Left on the job.

NB Blog Feed

Stewart Blames America, Capitalism For Foreign Policy Crises

Jon Stewart reacted to the recent developments in the Middle East on Monday’s installment of The Daily Show on Comedy Central by doing his standard bit where he, on one hand, pretended everything was too complicated for him to understand, but on the other, reduced all the world’s foreign policy crises to America’s love of capitalism. Stewart’s attempt to play dumb began when he was recapping Saturday’s failed Iranian attack on Israel, and he seemed upset that the results upended his basic foreign policy worldview, “But kudos to the United States and to Israel! It shows just how effective a military defense system can be when you funnel American dollars away from health care and education.”     Yes, you can throw money at education to no effect, but if the United States and Israel had not invested in air defense, the Middle East would be in an extremely delicate situation right now, even more than it already is. Still, Stewart sarcastically continued, “It really helps to build -- and the best part is, we did it with no help! The two amigos, surrounded by hostile Arab nations, united in their zeal to destroy Israel.” Stewart then played clips from MSNBC’s Jonathan Lemire and Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reporting on the roles Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates played in thwarting the attack. He reacted by claiming it is all so complicated, “What are the teams of these [bleep] wars? I don't even know the teams anymore? The Arab countries are helping Israel? I don't know what the teams are! We need to sort this out! With jerseys or something.” Contrary to Stewart’s rantings, it isn’t that complicated. Arab countries do not pose a threat to Israel in the way that they used to and Israel has had a peace treaty with Jordan since 1994. The main threat to Israel comes from Iran and its non-state proxies, an assessment shared by many of the Sunni Arab states. It really isn’t that complicated. Later in the show, Stewart welcomed the New York Times’s David Sanger to the show to promote his book, The New Cold Wars, about America’s rivalries with Russia and China. For Stewart, these rivalries have a simple explanation, “Haven't we sowed the seeds of that with our own arrogance and cavalier approach to a lot of these foreign policy conflicts? A, we always frame things as 'this is a battle between democracy and the free world and liberation and authoritarianism,' but the truth is, we're fighting for trade channels and resources.” Stewart continued by attempting to shame the U.S., “Like, this is all a function of competing capitalist powers and aren't we the ones—I mean, we've invaded more countries than Russia and China combined. So, would it help us to not have to scold everybody for failing to live up to principles that we very clearly do not uphold?” He further added, “But we say that, but, you know, ‘you can't invade a country.’ Well, what happened in Iraq? ... ‘You can't call for regime change.’ What did we do in Libya? Every time we say these things, we undercut our own position with – I mean, for god's sakes, Iran is an enemy because we overthrew their democratically elected government in 1953.” Russia isn’t fighting for economic resources in Ukraine, Hamas isn’t fighting Israel for trade routes, China doesn’t threaten Taiwan because of capitalism. Meanwhile, Stewart is just wrong. Since 2008, Russia has invaded and sliced up two countries, China has taken territory from its neighbors, the United States hasn’t done any of those things. Here is a transcript for the April 15 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/15/2024 11:02 PM ET JON STEWART: But kudos to the United States and to Israel! It shows just how effective a military defense system can be when you funnel American dollars away from health care and education. It really helps to build -- and the best part is, we did it with no help! The two amigos, surrounded by hostile Arab nations, united in their zeal to destroy Israel.  JONATHAN LEMIRE: Jordan's air force also intercepted and shot down dozens of drones that violated its airspace and were on their way to Israel.  JENNIFER GRIFFIN: And we've now learned that Saudi Arabia and the UAE provided real time intelligence that helped track the incoming missiles.  STEWART: What are the teams of these [bleep] wars? I don't even know the teams anymore? The Arab countries are helping Israel? I don't know what the teams are! We need to sort this out! With jerseys or something.  … STEWART: Haven't we sowed the seeds of that with our own arrogance and cavalier approach to a lot of these foreign policy conflicts? A, we always frame things as “this is a battle between democracy and the free world and liberation and authoritarianism” but the truth is, we're fighting for trade channels and resources. Like, this is all a function of competing capitalist powers and aren't we the ones – I mean, we've invaded more countries than Russia and China combined. So, would it help us to not have to scold everybody for failing to live up to principles that we very clearly do not uphold?  DAVID SANGER: Well, at least we have some principles, okay? That's the one thing –  STEWART: But we say that, but, you know, "you can't invade a country." Well, what happened in Iraq?  SANGER: That's right.  STEWART: "You can't call for regime change." What did we do in Libya? Every time we say these things, we undercut our own position with – I mean, for god's sakes, Iran is an enemy because we overthrew their democratically elected government in 1953.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

ABC News HIDES Pro-Hamas Protests Across American Cities

Planned protests in opposition to Israel broke out Monday, fanning out all across the country. The protests were intended to shut down traffic in key locations across several major cities, such as landmark bridges and airport roads. And ABC World News Tonight was the only network newscast NOT to cover the protests. Here’s how NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez opened up his White House recap; with an acknowledgement of what happened: GABE GUTIERREZ: Tonight, the pressure is mounting on the Biden administration over the war in Gaza. Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters today blocked traffic on New York's Brooklyn bridge with several arrests. VOICE: Oh, God.  GUTIERREZ: Police say protesters near Chicago's O’Hare International Airport today substantially delayed travelers. And on San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, multiple arrests after protesters snarled traffic there for hours.  CBS’s Weijia Jiang offered up a similar, albeit less specific open to her own White House recap:  WEIJIA JIANG: From San Francisco to Chicago, protesters and several major cities blocked traffic, demanding an end to the war in Gaza, dialing up pressure for President Biden to do the same. In New York City, some even waved a Hezbollah flag showing condemnation for Israel. The protests were planned before Iran launched an unprecedented assault on Israel. Granted, they’re not as extensive, and there was enough source material on the protests to justify their own report. But ABC didn’t even do the mini brief. They did nothing, and the reason they did nothing is because more often than not, the first casualty of any story adverse to the president is his own electoral prospects. We often talk about “protect the Precious”, and this principle is increasingly showing itself to be very real this election cycle. It is unconscionable that ABC News hid from their viewers a multi city protest consisting of the willful blockage of roads and bridges, and featuring chants of “from the river to the Sea” as American flags burned. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective evening newscasts on Monday, April 15th, 2024: CBS EVENING NEWS: NORAH O’DONNELL: Back here in Washington, the White House is reiterating its unwavering support for Israel. President Biden is urging caution ahead of any Israeli counterattack. CBS's Weijia Jiang reports that the president is facing pressure here at home with protests shutting down parts of major cities across the country. WEIJIA JIANG: From San Francisco to Chicago, protesters and several major cities blocked traffic, demanding an end to the war in Gaza, dialing up pressure for President Biden to do the same. In New York City, some even waved a Hezbollah flag showing condemnation for Israel. The protests were planned before Iran launched an unprecedented assault on Israel. Today, as Biden hosted the Prime Minister of Iraq in the Oval Office, he stressed U.S. support of Israel, but acknowledged fears that responding to Iran could widen the war. JOE BIDEN: We’re committed to a cease-fire that will bring the hostages home and prevent any conflict from spreading beyond where it already has. JIANG: CBS News has learned during a phone call Saturday night, President Biden urged Prime Minister Netanyahu to think carefully and strategically about the risks of escalation, and said that if the IDF launched a reprisal strike on Iran, the U.S. would not participate. Biden issued this warning to Iran just one day before the strikes.   BIDEN: Don't.  JIANG: Tehran went ahead anyway.  Does that signal to Iran that it can defy the U.S. without facing any consequences?  JOHN KIRBY: If I am sitting in Tehran and I'm taking a look at what just happened on Saturday night, I don't think I’d be betting that the United States is not willing to get engaged here and help defend Israel. JIANG: House Speaker Mike Johnson says the House would soon vote on aid for Israel in light of the Iranian attack. Tonight, the White House says it opposes any measure that focuses solely on Israel as it pushes Congress to pass a package that also includes money for Ukraine and border security. Norah.  O’DONNELL: Weijia Jiang at the White House with those tough questions today. Thank you very much.  NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: LESTER HOLT: Tonight, the White House is trying to prevent a wider war in the region after Iran's attack on Israel. It comes as protests broke out coast-to-coast here at home against President Biden's policies in the Israel-Hamas war. We get more from Gabe Gutierrez.  GABE GUTIERREZ: Tonight, the pressure is mounting on the Biden administration over the war in Gaza. Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters today blocked traffic on New York's Brooklyn bridge with several arrests. VOICE: Oh, God.  GUTIERREZ: Police say protesters near Chicago's O’Hare International Airport today substantially delayed travelers. And on San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, multiple arrests after protesters snarled traffic there for hours. The demonstrations come as President Biden touts what he calls an unprecedented military effort to defend Israel.  JOE BIDEN: Together with our partners, we defeated that attack.  GUTIERREZ: In the Oval Office today, he met with Iraq's prime minister, as he tries to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East.  BIDEN: We're committed to a cease fire that will bring the hostages home, and prevent any conflict from spreading beyond what it already has.  GUTIERREZ: The president spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu this week and following Iran's attack, urging restraint, a senior administration official tells NBC News the president told Netanyahu to take the win and that although the White House's commitment to defend Israel is ironclad, the U.S. would not participate in offensive operations against Iran.  GUTIERREZ: To ask it bluntly: if Israel retaliates against Iran, will the U.S. Support that?  JOHN KIRBY: To answer bluntly, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. We don't want to see a wider conflict.  GUTIERREZ: Today the White House stressed Iran did not provide warnings to the U.S. about its time frame for launching an attack on Israel. Some Republican critics argue the Biden administration has emboldened Iran.  MITCH MCCONNELL: It's time for the commander in chief to lead allies and partners in an international effort to impose meaningful costs on Iran.  HOLT: And, Gabe, amid all of this, there are new questions about that U.S. aid package for Israel. What can you tell us?  GUTIERREZ: Yes, Lester, House Speaker Mike Johnson is facing intense pressure to bring Israel and Ukraine funding up for a vote after sitting on it for months. Well, late today, he told GOP lawmakers that he planned to do it this week in separate bills. Lester. HOLT: All right, Gabe. Thank you.  

NB Blog Feed

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.  

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Harsh Bill Maher Bluntly Backs Child Murder

On his Real Time show on HBO, Bill Maher bluntly agreed that abortion is murder, and he favors it, since there are eight million people on Earth already. As they brought up Arizona and how that’s going to be a disaster for Republicans, Maher described pro-life Americans this way: “They think it’s murder, and it kind of is. I’m just okay with that. I am. There [are] 8 billion people in the world, I’m sorry, we won’t miss you. That’s my position on that.” British journalists Gillian Tett and Piers Morgan told Maher his view was "harsh." They agree on the principle, but wish he'd be less honest. Journalists and comedians scream "False" when people tell the truth about Democrats favoring abortion until birth. Our abortion debate constantly obsesses over what we might call the pro-life extreme, that abortion is murder, whatever the reason, at whichever month it occurs. So the establishment can NOT focus the debate on the pro-abortion extreme – when is it too late for an abortion? Jake Tapper and Kristen Welker and even Saturday Night Live fake-news anchor Colin Jost insisted it was "false" that Democrats support abortion up until birth, and that an abortion late in pregnancy never, ever happens. This avoids the obvious point: what limits do Democrats support? None. Cue the Democrat platform of 2020: Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas. Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom. [We condemn acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff.] We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, income, disability, geography, and other factors. Democrats oppose restrictions on medication abortion care that are inconsistent with the most recent medical and scientific evidence and that do not protect public health. And NPR's new CEO sends a love note to staff -- you're just the best! -- without engaging with insider Uri Berliner's eye-opening account of an utter lack of viewpoint diversity and any unwillingness to consider any offering of a conservative counterpoint in so-called "public" radio. It makes it easy to mock their silly nightly insistence they're about All Things Considered. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

NB Blog Feed

CNN's Acosta Worries Team Anti-Trump Won't Get a Perfectly Nasty Jury, But Analyst Counters

Happy Tax Return Deadline Day to all who celebrate! Such an empathetic guy, that Jim Acosta! As NewsBusters has documented, Acosta is a hard-left "journalist" and a Trump antagonist to the bitter end. On today's CNN This Morning, Acosta expressed a touching concern for the prosecutors in Trump's hush money trial. In particular, Acosta fretted over the tough job the prosecutors face in selecting jurors. After all, he said, it would take only one juror refusing to vote for conviction to cause a hung jury and thus a mistrial. True. But that possibility is something prosecutors face in every trial in every locale across the country. And if there's one place in all America where that could be the least likely to happen, it's the site of this trial—the liberal hotbed of Manhattan! As CNN legal analyst Elie Honig pointed out: "It's gonna be a challenge both ways. First of all, from Trump's perspective, this is not a great jury pool for him, right? This is Manhattan-only. No Bronx, no Brooklyn, no Queens, no Staten Island. Manhattan only. A borough, a county where Donald Trump got 12% of the vote in 2020. So he's worried about that." Exactly. Biden carried Manhattan by 87% to 12%. It's a dream jury pool for prosecutors. In contrast, how would you like to be a Trump defense lawyer trying to get 12 impartial jurors in Manhattan's seething, anti-Trump political environment? Naturally, Acosta's solicitous concern was only extended to the prosecution! Note: Honig, a former assistant US attorney, has a history of diverging at times from CNN's liberal line.  For example we've noted him arguing that the charges against him in this case are either misdemeanors akin to a shoplifting crime, or the lowest level of felony, which wouldn't result in prison time. On another occasion, Honig ripped into Stacey Abrams when she claimed that Fani Willis's investigation of Trump was "meticulous and very thoughtful." Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 4/15/24 6:06 am EDT JIM ACOSTA: Guys, busy morning, busy day.  Elie, we got a look last week at the jury questionnaire. How are they looking to root out the candidates? I mean, this is gonna be a challenge, I mean, for these prosecutors. It just takes one person to, to grind this to a halt. ELIE HONIG: It's gonna be a challenge both ways. First of all, from Trump's perspective, this is not a great jury pool for him, right? This is Manhattan only. No Bronx, no Brooklyn, no Queens, no Staten Island. Manhattan only. A borough, a county where Donald Trump got 12% of the vote in 2020. So he's worried about that. But you're right, prosecutors—I've been in this situation—are terrified about one lone juror sneaking through who could hang a jury. You need all 12 in order to convict.  The questionnaire is really interesting, because what the questionnaire is trying to do is get at is, first of all, which way do you lean. It doesn't come out and just ask it. I kinda wish it did, just say like, did you vote for A or B or are you Republican or Democrat?  But there's all these other proxies for that. Have you ever participated in political activity for or against Trump? Have you ever contributed? That kind of thing. But it asks a couple of important questions. It says, wherever what you lean, can you still be impartial in this case? Now, some people are going to say, I can't be impartial. I just lean too strongly. That's it. And they're going to be out. But then there's gonna be a lot of people who say, I do have feelings, but I can put those aside and still be impartial. And that's where the instinct kicks in. That's where the judge is going to have to ask, do I believe this person? And more importantly, the parties, who have a limited number, ten each, ten strikes each. They're going to have to make the decision, do we use one of those ten precious strikes to remove this particular person? It's a guessing game. 

NB Blog Feed

PBS Copies Kamala: ‘Second Term for Donald Trump Means More Bans, More Suffering’

After the surprise ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court to approve a Civil War-era law banning abortions except to save the life of the mother, the Friday edition of Amanpour & Co. (airing on PBS after first running on CNN International) hosted a predictably pro-choice liberal law professor as a guest. But the real liberal outrage spewed from guest host Bianna Golodryga, who let her own personal thoughts overwhelm any attempt at a balanced take, over the taxpayer-funded airwaves: "Arizona has become Ground Zero for America's battle on reproductive rights," she said. "The U.S. Vice President, Kamala Harris, is in the state today, arriving hot on the heels of a decision by the Supreme Court there to hold up a Civil War era law banning nearly all abortions. A law Republican legislators then fought to protect. She is also going to send a clear message that a second term for Donald Trump means more bans, more suffering."     After blaming Trump for the ruling “by installing several conservative justices on the federal Supreme Court bench during his term” Golodryga introduced her guest, law professor Mary Ziegler, and emotionally commiserated with her: As an expert on the history of the law, I would imagine you yourself were equally shocked to hear the ruling announced this week in Arizona. I mean, just the draconian measures that it takes, bringing us back to literally a judge who wrote it, having been appointed by President Abraham Lincoln at the time. After citing Trump’s own criticism of the Arizona decision, she noted: “it really puts Republicans in a bind in a sense all of these years with their attempts to overturn Roe finally happening. It's as if the dog finally caught the car and the consequences are quite significant.” But the host dismissed America’s federalist system of state law when she said that Trump’s rational view that abortion restrictions “should be done piecemeal up to the states is creating a lot of havoc. And obviously, at the end of the day it's women and their families and their doctors who are paying the ultimate price.” She wasn’t finished, continuing her pro-choice monologue in the guise of an interview: We know, obviously, that there are real-life consequences and impacts from these laws, primarily women and families who don't have the resources to travel to another state. The fact that they even have to speaks volumes. But let's just give one example. There's Katie Cox. She sued in Texas for the right to obtain an abortion after she learned that her fetus had a rare genetic disorder. She eventually had to leave the state for care. Listen to what she told NBC News about the impact of that. Cox was also President Biden’s guest at this year’s State of the Union address, a political aspect Golodryga skipped.  The host prodded Ziegler to respond: Can you talk about the emotional trauma and toll that this is having on women, on families? And it's very simple to just say this is people who are looking for an abortion, full stop. I mean, a lot of these women have suffered unimaginably. They may want to continue to have children in the future and now can't because of the risks that they take by leaving, by seeking care elsewhere, just give us some of that. Ziegler is author of the 2022 book Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment, described by publisher Yale University Press as “A new understanding of the slow drift to extremes in American politics that shows how the antiabortion movement remade the Republican Party.” But on this segment at least, Ziegler's understated advocacy came off less liberal than the “journalist” interviewing her. A transcript is available, click "Expand." Amanpour & Co. 4/13/24 1:32:32 a.m. (ET) Bianna Golodryga: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Arizona has become ground zero for America's battle on reproductive rights. The U.S. vice president, Kamala Harris, is in the state today, arriving hot on the heels of a decision by the Supreme Court there to hold up a civil war era law banning nearly all abortions. A law Republican legislators then fought to protect. She is also going to send a clear message that a second term for Donald Trump means more bans, more suffering. A line we can probably expect to hear more of as an election season heats up. For his own part, the former president said that the Arizona ruling goes too far. But that's a stark contrast to Trump's previous campaign for the presidency, where he repeatedly promised to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal across the country. Something he made good on by installing several conservative justices on the federal Supreme Court bench during his term. So, what happens now, and how will this development impact women in Arizona and across America? Joining me now on this is law professor and author Mary Ziegler. She's an expert on the history and politics of abortion. Mary, you're the perfect person to have on for this discussion. As an expert on the history of the law, I would imagine you yourself were equally shocked to hear the ruling announced this week in Arizona. I mean, just the draconian measures that it takes, bringing us back to literally a judge who wrote it, having been appointed by President Abraham Lincoln at the time. Just first, your professional reaction to that news. MARY ZIEGLER, PROFESSOR, U.C. DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW AND AUTHOR, "ABORTION AND THE LAW IN AMERICA": I think it both was and wasn't surprising. I mean, I think once Roe v. Wade was overturned, we knew that a lot of these zombie laws were on the books, and it was just a matter of time before a state Supreme Court let one of them go into effect. So, I think it's both hard to believe that Arizona, which is obviously a divided kind of purple swing state, is being governed by a law from before the Civil War, that, you know, by its terms, for example, says you cannot perform an abortion if a woman is going to suffer permanent impairment of a major bodily function or infertility, by its terms you're not allowed to intervene in those cases. That is shocking to me as a person, but as someone who studies this it seemed kind of inevitable after it was overturned. GOLODRYGA: Yes, the only exceptions are the life of the mother, rape and incest are not included here and the decision the thought behind this decision by this very conservative Supreme Court is that with Roe no longer the law of the land that the statute is now enforceable, the statute, from the 1800s. What do you make -- I mean, is that too cute by half, given the concern -- despite the conservative nature of this court, for a State Supreme Court to come to that conclusion? ZIEGLER: Well, and the argument in the case legally was actually pretty narrow. Planned Parenthood was arguing essentially that the state legislature, which had passed a 15-week ban, wanted 15 weeks to be the policy and that they had sort of intended to override this 1864 law, and the State Supreme Court didn't buy that argument. There could be other arguments you could make. For example, we've seen litigators across the United States arguing that an abortion ban like this would violate a state guarantee of equality or privacy or a right to life, and we may see additional challenges to the law in the Arizona Supreme Court. But I think that the problem for us, as far as the Arizona Supreme Court is concerned, is that these are justices who are subject to re-election. These are unlike the U.S. Supreme Court justices who have lifetime appointments. And if one of these justices were to lose their attention election, they would be replaced by from a list of nominees by the governor who in the case of Arizona is a Democrat. So, whatever the legal rationale for this ruling, the justices who joined the majority, I think, put themselves in the political crosshairs come November. GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the court put this ruling on hold and then sent it down to the lower court for additional arguments on the law's constitutionality. So, this case has not ended as of yet. That having been said, I mean, it came 24 hours after the former president finally issued his policy and took a stance on his views on abortion by saying that it's up to the states and that that should be the end of the discussion. Here's what he said. DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (R): Again, fighting Roe v. Wade was right from the beginning all about bringing the issue back to the states pursuant to the 10th Amendment and states' rights. It wasn't about anything else. That's what it was. We brought it back to the states and now lots of things are happening and lots of good things are happening. GOLODRYGA: So, then, after this decision in Arizona, he went out and said that it was too far. Kari Lake who had supported this law beforehand then once it actually was handed down said that she didn't support it. I mean, this really puts Republicans in a bind in a sense all of these years with their attempts to overturn Roe finally happening. It's as if the dog finally caught the car and the consequences are quite significant. And the fact that, in his view, it should be done piecemeal up to the states is creating a lot of havoc. And obviously, at the end of the day it's women and their families and their doctors who are paying the ultimate price. ZIEGLER: Yes, I mean, I think one of the things Former President Trump has done, too, is he's had former Trump campaign officials making promises, essentially, that Trump is going to revive another zombie law called the Comstock Act from 1873, just a little after this Arizona law, and use it as a nationwide ban on abortion. When you ask the Trump campaign about whether they're going to do that, the Trump campaign doesn't answer the question, and says that president -- Former President Trump is a supporter of states' rights. So, we're kind of in a scenario where patients and doctors don't know how these laws are going to be interpreted. And we don't know what Former President Trump would do if he's given a second term, because his former officials are saying he actually has this backdoor ban that doesn't require Congress. His campaign isn't weighing in one way or another. So, we're kind of all in the dark about what a second Trump administration would mean, whether it would mean more of the status quo, which has been kind of this state-by-state chaos, or if it would mean some kind of effort to have a nationwide zombie law like Arizona's imposed on states with protections for abortion rights and states that don't have protection for abortion rights. Because, you know, the Trump campaign just isn't explaining which of those positions is right, right, won't answer these questions directly. GOLODRYGA: There are some Republicans like Lindsey Graham that say that the president -- the former president is just wrong on this, there should be a federal law with a 15-week ban. From your perspective, just the likelihood that you think something like that could actually happen. ZIEGLER: Well, I think the likelihood of Congress passing anything like a 15-week ban is pretty much zero, which is why in part I don't think it made sense politically from Trump's standpoint to endorse a ban that's never going to pass.I think that's why you've seen the sort of smarter conservatives like the groups in the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 saying the only way we're going to get a nationwide ban is through a law that's already on the books that we're reinterpreting or reinventing as a ban. The odds of congressional action I think are very low. GOLODRYGA: And what about Alabama? Because we see the tentacles of this extending far beyond just abortion, it's even into IVF and areas where now an embryo is viewed as a live person. And we saw the chaos that ensued following that. Republicans and Democrats have really benefited over the years from IVF. There was an attempt perhaps to codify that in Congress. That didn't happen. I mean, that's just one example. Do you expect more in other states, if not IVF, than other unintended consequences from the overturning of Roe? ZIEGLER: Yes, absolutely. So, the U.S. anti-abortion movement was not focused on taking down Roe. It was focused in a bigger picture way on the recognition of the idea that embryos and fetuses are persons with constitutional rights. And that was kind of the thrust of the Alabama ruling. It was a little narrower, it was that embryos had rights just under the context of wrongful death. But the court's reasoning was much broader and suggested that embryos and fetuses just had rights across the board full stop. If that's right, that raises lots of other questions, not just about IVF. So, for example, if many conservatives believe that common contraceptives like the birth control pill or the morning after pill are abortifacients, that would violate fetal rights. If fetuses and embryos have rights, we've seen some in the anti-abortion movement asking why they can't punish women and other abortion seekers, because of course, women and other abortion seekers are punished for other homicide offenses. There are a lot of other possibilities here because if an embryo or a fetus is a person, they're a person for all purposes, like all contexts, all the time, not just the context of abortion. So, I think we'll have to stay tuned, but this is sort of a Pandora's box in many ways. GOLODRYGA: A Pandora box has created a patchwork of different scenarios and laws in various states. If we can put up a graphic of the United States just in terms of what we've seen following the overturning of Roe, you have 21 states that ban abortion or restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancies now than the standard that had been set and had the law of land by Roe, 14 states have full bans in almost all circumstances, two have bans after six weeks. We know on Monday, Florida's Supreme Court allowed a six-week ban to go soon into effect, but voters will get to weigh in on that issue in the fall, and there is hope that the same will be the case in Arizona. With abortion on the ballot now, do you see this as a potential game changer and solution? ZIEGLER: Potentially, right? So, ballot initiatives have been significant so far, all of them that have on ballot since Dobbs have passed. We've seen several in places like Michigan and Ohio create pretty broad reproductive rights that trumped some laws on the books. Michigan too had an older law that was undone potentially by this ballot initiative. The reason it isn't a perfect fix necessarily is, one, not every state has a mechanism for voters to initiate this kind of measure. And two, conservatives are already aware of this and are trying to find backdoor ways to get a federal ban that would override any state protections, which is where this Comstock Act idea comes in. Essentially, Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Former President Trump in his disqualification case before the Supreme Court, said to "The New York Times," you know, we don't need a ban because we have the Comstock Act. The Comstock Act can be interpreted as a ban, that overrides whatever protection voters put in place in their own states. So, I think the ballot initiatives are incredibly important, definitely a possible game changer, but not without potential pitfalls. GOLODRYGA: We know, obviously, that there are real-life consequences and impacts from these laws, primarily women and families who don't have the resources to travel to another state. The fact that they even have to speaks volumes. But let's just give one example. There's Kate Cox. She sued in Texas for the right to obtain an abortion after she learned that her fetus had a rare genetic disorder. She eventually had to leave the state for care. Listen to what she told NBC News about the impact of that. KATE COX, SUED TEXAS FOR THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION: There's still -- we're going through the loss of a child. There is no outcome here that I take home my healthy baby girl, you know. So, it's hard, you know. GOLODRYGA: Can you talk about the emotional trauma and toll that this is having on women, on families? And it's very simple to just say this is people who are looking for an abortion full stop. I mean, a lot of these women have suffered unimaginably. They may want to continue to have children in the future and now can't because of the risks that they take by leaving, by seeking care elsewhere. Just give us some of that. ZIEGLER: Yes. I mean, I think one of things we've seen is that when you have an abortion ban in place, the meaning of abortion isn't clear. States are not using medical definitions. And in part, what that means is that people with wanted pregnancies who are experiencing pregnancy complications or stillbirth or miscarriage are finding themselves unable to get treatment too because physicians don't want to lose their medical licenses, they don't want to go to prison for anywhere between, you know, five years up to life in prison in states like Texas where Kate Cox was located. And the upshot of that is people are being turned away and experiencing complications that, you know, affect their health, their future fertility in their lives. The other upshot is that physicians don't want to deal with these scenarios, right? They don t want to be faced with patients like Kate Cox, where they're being forced to choose between their liberty or their medical license on the one hand and denying needed care on other. So, we began to see a flight of physicians, especially obstetricians and gynecologists from states with these kinds of prohibitions, particularly in rural areas that were already underserved. And that too has these knock-on effects for people seeking obstetric and gynecological care because they're having a harder time finding a position to treat them at all, even when they're not experiencing these pregnancy complications. So, one of the things we've seen is that these bans affect people who are seeking abortions, to be sure, but also people who aren't, right? People who may be experiencing anything else related to pregnancy. GOLODRYGA: Mary Ziegler, we appreciate the time and your expertise. Thank you. ZIEGLER: Thanks for having me.  

NB Blog Feed

NBC Goes Left, ABC Soft on Kirby Over Iran While CBS Actually Brings Heat

Following Iran’s failed attempt over the weekend to fire hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel with the goal of leaving it in ruins, the Biden White House sent John Kirby out to face the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC on their respective flagship Monday morning news shows. All three took different approaches with ABC’s Good Morning America being supportive, NBC’s Today hitting him from the left, and CBS Mornings actually challenged him.     ABC had co-host and former Clinton flack George Stephanopoulos talk to Kirby and it was akin to watching paint try. Not only were they pedestrian and open-ended, but they were short and zero interruptions (click “expand”): We know the Israeli war cabinet met this morning. What do you know about what they decided? (....) Do you think he’s persuaded the prime minister not to strike back? (....) And the United States is not going to be parted of any — any retaliation, we know that. Is there any other limit to support for Israel if they do escalate this conflict? (....) You heard Martha’s report Iran’s missiles did not get through. Are they a paper tiger? (....) Aid needs for Israel, aid needs for Ukraine. Are you confident the House is going to pass it? Where ABC’s Stephanopoulos felt like he barely gave any thought to his short, boilerplate questions, NBC’s Today went its usual route with political interviews by having co-host Savannah Guthrie take the lead. After a lead-off on what Kirby thinks the Israeli war cabinet will do next, Guthrie went left by wondering if the Biden administration will continue to demand Israel “take the win, not to retaliate.” Guthrie upped the ante in her next question by blaming Israel itself for facing an onslaught from the radical Islamists in Tehran and then wondered if Israel is the party who must cease their aggressions for there to be peace (as opposed to Iran and its proxies) (click “expand”): GUTHRIE: Well, as we all know, this strike from Iran was in retaliation for a strike that Israel took against Iranian forces in Syria that killed seven IRGC officers. The Israelis gave no heads up to its ally, the U.S., was that needlessly provocative? Do you think that Israel bears some responsibility for escalating this, and getting us to this point? KIRBY: Well, look, let’s be — let’s clear here, Iran has been funding, resourcing groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis down in Yemen, also of which, also, with the exception of Hamas, at least proxy groups, including those in Iraq and Syria, also participated in these strikes against Israel on Israeli soil. Iran is the one who was providing the means and the resources through which these groups and their own military was able to conduct this unprecedented attack on Israel. GUTHRIE: So, I mean, given that, and given what the White House is signaling about its messaging to the Israelis, I mean, I just want to go back to the point here, is the White House saying, in — in, you know, between the lines, essentially to Israel, don’t retaliate now? I mean, the Iranians have claimed that they have concluded their response to the Syria attack, so is it the U.S. position that if Israel sits tight, this can end right now? KIRBY: Well, we want to see deescalation, clearly, in the region, and everything the President has done since October 7 has been designed to keep this from becoming a wider war, Savannah, and that’s why we’re going to keep latched up with Israeli counterparts. That’s why we’re going to make it clear again to the Israelis we’ll do what we have to do to defend them, help them in their self-defense, but we don’t want to see a wider war. We don’t want to see this escalate. We certainly are not looking for a war with Iran. Between questions pointing out the bipartisan support for Israel and the hostage negotiations, Guthrie had the gall to question whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the leader whose “actions in the in the region make the U.S. nervous.” CBS Mornings co-host Tony Dokoupil eschewed both approaches and did his job of asking tough, adversarial questions.  He immediately cut to the chase with a question similar to a track Fox’s Peter Doocy would go down during the briefing: Let’s talk about deterrence because, after decades of war via proxies between Iran and Israel, we now have the first direct attack by Iran on Israel. And it follows the U.S. saying to Iran don’t. Well, they did. What is the state of U.S. influence in the region this morning? When Kirby meandered and argued it all worked out for the best, Kirby both pushed back and took aim at those (including in the White House) arguing Israel should just take drones and missiles ad nauseam without being allowed to hit back: Nobody wants a war in that region, not at all, but let’s take up this question of what a win is. You’ve described the Middle East there, Israel’s neighborhood, as a tough one. Deterrence matters, hitting back does. If a bully takes 350 odd swings at you and you duck, how is that a win? Kirby replied he wouldn’t “get into what the future portends here and — and what the Israelis might or might not do”, but doubled down on not wanting “a wider war” while also this laughable and vague claim of “continu[ing] to hold Iran accountable”. With time for only one more question, Kirby asked for a ceasefire and hostage talks update, to which Kirby correctly noted that, once again, it’s not only “up to Hamas”, but “[i]t’s way past time for them to agree to” a deal. To see the relevant transcripts from April 15, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

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. (…)

NB Blog Feed

MRC UnCensored: How PolitiFact Coddles ‘Fibber-in-Chief' Biden

NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham exposed the insane leftist bias of the leftist Facebook fact-checker PolitiFact in a new study released April 9.  During the April 12 episode of MRC’s UnCensored, Graham told MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider that this “fact-checker” applies wildly different standards to Democrats and Republicans, but especially to former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. Schneider and Graham made clear that PolitiFact goes all out to protect Biden, whom Schneider called the “Fibber-in-Chief,” from the fallout of his “notorious lies.”  PolitiFact is housed within the George Soros-tied Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which the leftist billionaire gave at least $492,000 toward its dystopian International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).  On April 9, Marshall published his findings on PolitiFact’s rampant bias, showing that a whopping 75% of Republican statements fact-checked by PolitiFact received a rating of “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants-on-fire,” between the beginning of this year and March 31. Marshall’s research showed that only 26% of statements by Democrats were labeled this way by PolitiFact during the same period.  Graham pointed to a recent Biden lie to illustrate the utter extent of PolitiFact’s leftist bent. “When Joe Biden says, ‘This bridge that collapsed in Baltimore, I’ve gone over many times, in a car and on a train’ and there are no train tracks on this bridge, now couldn’t we say that’s a pants-on-fire lie,” Graham asked. As noted by Graham, PolitiFact did not provide a rating of any kind to their story on Biden’s impossible train ride. He analyzed that PolitiFact consistently treated Biden as a charming old storyteller who embellishes a bit, while Trump was treated as a threat who lies for evil reasons. Graham added,  “Now on some level, I think what they’re trying to do here is assign a prize for evil intent. So if Biden says something silly which might suggest infirmity, well that can’t be pants-on-fire, he didn’t lie on purpose, he’s just Grandpa Joe, he says these things that are amusing.”  MRC Uncensored: How Fact-Checkers Influence Elections With Newsbuster's @TimJGraham Leftist Fact-Checkers like Politifact are actively engaged in election influencing with a heavy skew against conservatives. pic.twitter.com/bElq0FpG18 — Free Speech America (@FreeSpeechAmer) April 12, 2024 Schneider also panned PolitiFact’s behavior: “PolitiFact is using its tools to cover up the Biden indiscretion.”  But there’s more. Graham provided striking context on how PolitiFact systemically protects Biden and other Democrats like its a chronic obsession.  Graham pointed out that although “Joe Biden has been a politician for the entire timespan of PolitiFact,” the number of Biden PolitiFact entries is still in the “300’s.” Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972 and made headlines for falsehoods told during one of his presidential campaigns. By contrast, Trump, who had not held political office before his presidential run, was “the most fact-checked individual” on PolitiFact and had over a thousand entries.  Graham then compared PolitiFact’s “pants-on-fire” entries for Biden and Trump. PolitiFact had labeled Trump's statements this way 187 times according to Graham, while only giving a paltry seven Biden statements the same label. Graham further elaborated that PolitiFact had only dinged Biden with a “pants-on-fire” label — count it — once since he became president.  Conservatives are under attack! 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.

NB Blog Feed

Mom Intends to Castrate Young Son Against Father’s Wishes

California mom Anne Georgulas is petitioning state courts to let her get chemically-castrating puberty blockers for her 11-year-old biological son James, to help him with his “transition” to a female. The boy’s father, Jeff Younger, is fighting hard against the chemical castration of his son, and currently does not have custody of either of his kids, all because he doesn’t want his son to undergo harmful, life-changing and risky trans procedures.  This case has been developing for years, and on April 25, “court-ordained transgender ‘experts’ [are set to] take the stand” to convince the court that it should side with Georgulas, The Dallas Express reported over the weekend. Little James’ mother started his transition when he was just two years old, and his school helped out. After the couple split, Younger said he would put James in little boys' clothes to send him to school, and then the school would change him into girl clothes per his mother's wishes. This obviously upset the father, who said his wife was clearly manipulating their young son into believing he was a girl. The divorced couple, who both lived in Texas at the time, began fighting for custody over James and his twin sibling, and Georgulas fled to California with the kids.  In 2022, Younger petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to force the return of his children, but in December 2022, the court rejected the petition, and the kids are still in California with their mother. “My case is proof that the statutory design of the Texas Family Courts is abusive of the liberty of Texas citizens," Younger wrote in a text message to The Dallas Express. "The family courts are a clear and present danger to the welfare of Texas children. Judge ‘Bloody’ Mary Brown, 301st District Court, stripped me of parental rights without possibility of appeal, just because I want to raise my son as a boy." California has very loose restrictions when it comes to transitioning minors. As a matter of fact, the West Coast state seems to encourage the practice, and considers itself to be a sort of “refuge for trans kids and their families” who choose to flee states that don’t support child abuse. Related: Tennessee GOP May Criminalize Helping 'Trans' Kids Get ‘Care’ Without Parental Consent Younger has been vocal in asking for support in his fight to keep his son healthy and out of harm's way. He recently appeared on Unfiltered with Blaze TV where he shared the full story, urging people to go to his Facebook page called Help Save James which amasses over 41,000 followers for daily updates on the case. He also insisted he needs help to “save my son” and made a Give Send Go account to collect donations to help cover the legal fees of the case. It’s heartbreaking to hear about little James’ life being put at risk throughout this story, and it's even more heartbreaking to realize that stories like James’ aren’t even that rare anymore because of how pro-trans and anti-child safety our nation has become. Follow us on Twitter/X: In what world does trying to be an OnlyFans star do anything to honor a deceased grandfather? @tierin_rosebreaks down the left's latest insanity in this week's Woke of the Weak! pic.twitter.com/mvUFDdwPCb — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 9, 2024

NB Blog Feed

CNN Finally Puts ‘King Charles’ Primetime Show Out of Its Misery

After six months, CNN finally took their poorly-rated primetime show King Charles out back and put it out of its misery. Airing just one night a week on Wednesdays, King Charles was one of the last vestiges of the Chris Licht era of CNN leadership, which purportedly tried to achieve a more fair and balanced approach to reporting the news before an internal revolt of the network’s radical liberals quashed it. Since you’ve likely never heard of the show since its ratings were so poor, no, the show was not hosted by the king of England, but rather CBS Mornings co-host Gayle King and NBA on TNT personality Charles Barkley. CNN thought they were being clever by splicing their names together. Since the November premiere, the show has been a ratings disaster. “The long-hyped premiere of the new weekly primetime series, which aired Wednesday at 10 pm, drew just 501,000 viewers, according to same-day Nielsen ratings,” reported the New York Post. “It finished a distant third among the biggest cable news channels in total viewers, ranking as the smallest of any of CNN’s primetime debuts this year.” The Post also reported that in the months to follow, their numbers continued to fall off: “Since its debut in late November, viewership has dropped 20% for ‘King Charles’ … But the Jan. 31 broadcast, the most recent airing as the program was off this past week, brought in just 400,000 total viewers and 89,000 in the 25-54 demographic, Nielsen figures show.” King and Charles were “even losing out to reruns of old ‘Friends’ and ‘South Park’ episodes.” A problem with CNN’s apparent plan to buy primetime market share by bringing in big names to draw in viewers was that big names come with packed schedules. As The Post noted, Barkley’s hindered how often they could put out episodes since he’d have to fly to New York to do the show every Wednesday between his obligations for TNT’s Inside the NBA: An industry source told The Post that the show was limited by Barkley’s schedule. The NBA Hall of Famer could only do the show on Wednesdays due to his other commitments — namely his role as a co-host of the popular “Inside the NBA” on CNN’s sister station TNT, according to a source close to the network. Barkley had mentioned that his crowded schedule made it more difficult for the show to attract a loyal following. Another possible factor in the show’s cancelation could have been that Barkley’s political ideology didn’t adhere to liberal dogma as staunchly as most CNN hosts. In late February, on the show, Barkley told then-Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley: “Governor, I’m dying to vote for you. I want to give all my energy and all my heart behind your campaign.” His hang-up was her comments about America never being a racist country. King, on the other hand, has a history of ultra-liberal punditry and has donated to the Obama campaign and vacationed with them as though she was part of the family. 

NB Blog Feed

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. 

NB Blog Feed

Following Polls Is Not Leadership

In the mid-‘90s, President Bill Clinton hired famed pollster Dick Morris to triangulate Clinton’s path to victory in 1996. Morris told Clinton that polling is not designed to tell someone what to do. Rather, polling is designed to tell one how to sell what they want to do. President Joe Biden has forgotten that lesson and now, instead of leading, he is being led around by his polling. Eighteen percent of Michigan Democratic voters refused to vote for Biden on Feb. 27. Thirteen percent voted "uncommitted." The loudest of the uncommitted were Hamas supporters in Michigan who have demanded Democrats stop supporting Israel. Despite most Americans recognizing Israel’s right and need to eliminate Hamas and recover its citizens held by Hamas, a slim majority of Democrats and a large majority of progressive Democrats disagree. Over the past month, since the Michigan primary, Biden has slowly walked away from Israel and handed Hamas, a terrorist group that also wants to kill Americans, a victory in the press. Biden first allowed an anti-Israel resolution to pass the United Nations Security Council. Then he began more public criticisms of Israel. Now, the President demands Israel unilaterally stop fighting Hamas. Tragically and ironically, had Israel stormed into southern Gaza, destroyed Hamas and leveled Rafah quickly, the war would be over and public opinion would not have shifted so decisively against Israel. But the Israeli government attempted to humor Biden, move slow and minimize civilian casualties. That just bought Biden time to sell out Israel to placate American antisemites whose votes he needs. In Ukraine, Biden has been slow to deliver on every promise. He was slow to deliver planes. He was slow to deliver missiles. He was slow to deliver tanks. When he did deliver tanks, he supplied Ukraine with tanks so heavy they are getting stuck in the mud. Biden has conveniently blamed Republicans who have dragged their feet on funding Ukraine. But well before funding was an issue, Biden’s team never seemed in a hurry to do more than make unfulfilled promises. Now, to slow down the Russians, Ukraine has started blowing up Russian oil refineries and fuel storage facilities. The result has stymied Russian advances. Russian personnel carriers, tanks, planes, and other vehicles cannot get fuel. Instead of helping, American Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has asked Ukraine to stop. He publicly said he was concerned about what Ukraine’s attacks could do to global fuel prices. This has everything to do with Joe Biden’s reelection chances. High fuel prices will impact food prices, which will drive inflation, which will drive down Biden’s popularity. Far be it for Ukraine to stymie the Russians when doing so could cost Joe Biden an election. Now, in this country, just the other day Joe Biden went on Univision to announce he would attempt to unilaterally secure the southern border without Congress passing new legislation. The President who thinks he can unilaterally forgive student loans does not seem to think he has the power to secure the border unilaterally, despite prior presidents, including Donald Trump, doing so. Going to Univision to make his case is a telling sign that, again, Biden is being led by polls. A growing body of polling data shows Hispanic voters are seriously concerned and upset about illegal immigration. Biden needs them in his coalition to stop Trump. He must crack down on illegal immigration to get their votes. So he must now do what he has insisted he could not do. He will issue executive orders to secure the border, something he could have done all along, even before the polling turned against him. So desperate to keep a non-white coalition together to stop Trump, Biden is even pausing a ban on menthol cigarettes. The ban, proposed by the FDA, would have gone into effect before the election. Black Americans are the top consumers of menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products, both of which would have been banned. Now, the products are safe, at least until Biden wins reelection. Leadership is doing what’s right, regardless of the consequences. Biden is not leading. He is being led and that makes him easily manipulated by progressive constituencies.

NB Blog Feed

Fox News Host Notes 'MSM' Skips NPR Hubbub, Would Leap On Fox Insider Expose

On Sunday's MediaBuzz show on the Fox News Channel, host Howard Kurtz brought on ex-NPR reporter Juan Williams to recall his own in-house experience with the radical left inside NPR. Kurtz also noted most of the "mainstream" media have skipped any mention of the hubbub over NPR senior editor Uri Berliner's expose.  KURTZ: You know, The New York Times waited the two days and then a did a sort of 'NPR in Turmoil' piece but didn't get into any of the specifics. Nothing in The Washington Post, nothing at Politico, nothing on air at CNN or MSNBC. Doesn't that prove Berliner's point? If this had been a senior Fox person speaking out, I think it would have been covered nine seconds later! WILLIAMS: Oh, I don't think there's any question, I can tell you that.  The liberal dissidents inside Fox News turn to anti-Fox authors like Brian Stelter or Michael Wolff instead of going public, and remain anonymous until they can dish to the next Fox-hater who comes along.  Williams argued that the media, from NPR to Fox, identify with an audience, so NPR can boast they're not for the "Big Lie" (like Fox faced in court), but the crusading for your audience against that can lead to a "blindness." So NPR can't admit that Hunter Biden's laptop wasn't entirely fictional or a "pure distraction." Earlier, Kurtz recounted how Williams was forced out of NPR in 2010 for admitting he was scared of Muslims on airplanes on Fox's O'Reilly Factor, which led Williams to write a book titled Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate. Williams underlined this was before Trump. WILLIAMS: I think what we've seen time and again at NPR is an insulated cadre of people, liberals, I think, for the most part who think they are right-thinking, they're well educated people, that they think they're good people, and it can lead, I think, to a sort of arrogance.  So someone like me, I think you've known me a long time. I'm no flaming conservative, but I am too conservative a black guy for their taste. They would say, well, why is he willing to hear this out, to talk to a Justice Thomas, to deal with black conserv -- they don't -- For them it was, like, that doesn't fit with advocacy groups who say we need to do more in terms of black American experience. You know, obviously, I've written, I think, best-selling books about the black experience in America. But it didn't fit with their understanding.  Kurtz noted that NPR now has a database to log in all of their guests by race, gender, and sexual orientation, which suggests a DEI database of experts. WILLIAMS: I think this has gone to an extreme but, again, you know, there's just an interesting angle here which is it's conservatives at NPR battling against liberals.  KURTZ: Berliner voted against Trump twice. He's not a right-winger.  WILLIAMS: Right.. What you have is sort of, liberals against more people trying to prove they're more liberal. That's the very conversation in that very niche media environment. And I think this is highly regrettable because from the kind of journalistic experience I've had, you want people challenging ideas, people pushing you so that you're doing your best at not only getting the facts, or but presenting a balanced picture to the audience.  Even back when Williams came out with his book on being muzzled, NPR executives forwarded a, well, "Big Lie" that NPR was ideologically diverse. NPR media reporter David Folkenflik did a story quoting NPR executive Margaret Low Smith bizarrely claiming "NPR is a stunningly open-minded place. We're deeply encouraging and in fact appreciative of different points of view. Everybody knows that we apply journalistic rigor to absolutely every story we tell." Insert laugh track! 

NB Blog Feed

Masters Champ Glorifies Jesus Christ on TV After Winning Golf Tournament

The Masters is one of four major professional golf tournaments and it took place this past weekend. The winner of the event, Scottie Scheffler, is receiving an abundance of praise and celebration after using his victory to glorify Jesus Christ.  American golfer Scheffler won $3,600,000 over the weekend and is ranked 1st in the wold for professional golfers at just 27 years old. In a video interview, Scheffler talked about a conversation he’d had with one of his friends before winning the tournament. “I wish that I didn’t wanna win as badly as I did,” Scheffler recalls telling his friend.  “My buddy’s told me this morning … my victory’s secure on the cross.” Powerful words from 2024 #Masters champion Scottie Scheffler after his win on Sunday. pic.twitter.com/woRSd519r2 — Sports Spectrum (@Sports_Spectrum) April 15, 2024 “My buddies told me this morning: my victory’s secure on the cross,” meaning that through Jesus’ love and God’s ultimate plan, Scheffler already had a real victory secured for him. Taken aback, Scheffler said, “that’s a pretty special feeling, to know that I’m secure for forever and it doesn’t matter whether or not I win this tournament or lose this tournament, my identity [in Jesus] is secure for forever.” Scheffler spoke even more about his win and how it was clearly the Lord’s plans.  CHILLS: Augusta Masters Champ and #1 ranked golfer Scottie Scheffler leaves Corporate Sports Media GASPING after using victory to glorify Jesus Christ on LIVE TV— NO ONE expected this response: "I’ve been given a gift with this talent and I use it for God’s glory.” 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/GsjL56z4Kk — CatholicVote (@CatholicVote) April 15, 2024 “I believe that today’s plans were already laid out many years ago and I could do nothing to mess up those plans. I’ve been given a gift of this talent, and I use it for God’s glory,” he said. Scheffler’s sentiment caused an outpouring of support. Catholic Vote, who posted a clip of the interview wrote “CHILLS” and insisted that he left “Corporate Sports Media GASPING” after glorifying God in his winning remarks. “Absolutely spectacular human being,” one commented on X, “All Glory to God!” Another user wrote, “I'm beyond ecstatic about the Christian resurgence underway now. We're facing dark times as a nation and we're turning to the one that can save us,” while one more said, “You are an example to all of us who are Christian on how we should conduct ourselves!” It’s refreshing to see a sports champion like Scheffler recognize that his true “win” is that he has a secure identity and future in Jesus and that God deserves the glory of any and all things we on earth consider success.

NB Blog Feed

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%.

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

'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.

NB Blog Feed

DUCK A LA GRETCH: Gov. Whitmer Dances Around NBC’s ‘Genocide’ Question

During the Gaza portion of their interview on NBC’s Meet The Press, Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer (MI) ducked and danced in order to avoid answering any of the politically-fraught questions, including whether she agrees with the belief of some that what is happening in Gaza is a “genocide”. Watch Whitmer dance around both the Gaza question and on whether she thinks Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza might cost him the election, as aired on NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday, April 14th, 2024: KRISTEN WELKER: Let's talk about what is happening in the Middle East. Approximately 60% of Michigan voters disapprove of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Your state, obviously, has the largest Arab-American population in the country. Less than 20% of Arab-Americans nationally say that they will vote to re-elect President Biden. Do you think this issue, President Biden's handling of the war in the Middle East could cost him the state of Michigan?  GRETCHEN WHITMER: I think that the state of Michigan is always going to be a close race no matter what- under what scenario. I will share though, as I've had conversations with people both in my Jewish community and in the Arab-American and Muslim and Palestinian communities, that a lot of people are hurting right now. A lot of people are one degree of separation from someone who has lost their lives whether it was on October 7th or is in- the war in Gaza. And so I'm trying to keep an open dialogue to stay focused on how we support these beautiful, diverse communities here in Michigan, and I'm hoping for peace, but obviously after the events of the last 24 hours there is a lot that is evolving here, and I am glad to see that our president said he remains -- we have an ironclad commitment to the security of Israel.  WELKER: Some Democrats, including from your state, are calling the war in Gaza a genocide. Would you go that far? Do you believe that what is happening inside Gaza is a genocide?  WHITMER: I think that it's heartbreaking to see the loss of so many innocent lives, children every day that this war continues to be prosecuted and that's why as governor, as Commander-in-Chief of the Michigan National Guard, I’m  watching this very closely and doing what I can to support all of these communities here in Michigan. WELKER: But you don't go that far to use that term genocide? WHITMER: I'm not going to weigh in where I know that a lot of these terms are used to inflame and divide us. I’m going to stay focused on doing- being productive and hoping that we can have some peace very soon. The Gaza questions are not unfounded, given both the abundance of correspondents parachuting into Dearborn and reporting doom for Biden, and the hand wringing over the “Uncommitted” vote ahead of Michigan’s Democratic primary (which garnered over 100,000 votes). Additionally, Whitmer’s name often comes up in post-Biden Democrat presidential discussions. Whitmer’s responses are quite telling here. First, she demurs on whether Gaza will cost Biden the election outright in a lengthy, focus grouped non-answer that ends with a meek statement of support of Israel. Welker reminds us, yet again, that the first and purest victim of any calamity is the electoral prospects of President Joe Biden. Then, the Gaza question. Whitmer must have known that it was coming, hence the first crafted response. Having expended her talking point, Whitmer goes to the non-responsive shutdown of the question. Welker did not take a third pass, going instead to a question on Trump’s upcoming New York City trial.  The question of whether or not what is happening in Gaza is a “genocide” (it isn’t) should be easy to respond one way or the other- whether you believe there is or there isn’t. Whitmer’s craven nonresponse here is as revealing as Welker’s willful failure to extract an answer.  

NB Blog Feed

Sununu SCHOOLS Stephanopoulos Over J6: ‘You’re In This NYC Bubble’

ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos closes out his interviews of Republicans with a unique bit of sanctimony- the question of whether they’d support former President Donald Trump in the event of a conviction in one of the myriad indictments against him. And it is one of the loudest Trump opponents in this primary cycle who finally took that question and threw it back in Stephanopoulos’ face. Watch as New Hampshire Governor and former Nikki Haley surrogate Chris Sununu closes his interview with Stephanopoulos by informing him that the average American regards the Trump indictments as “reality TV” and is largely tuning the lawfare out: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: …you said in the past that he should drop out if he's convicted in the classified documents case. Do you still believe that?  CHRIS SUNUNU: No. What- he’s gonna drop out after being the nominee? Of course, not, you know, that's not to be expected at all. All of these cases by the way, the average American, it's all conflated, right? We watch this stuff. We watch the details. The average American sees it more as reality TV. I’m not saying there’s not real issues to bear there, of course there are. But there's clearly politics to bear in some of these cases. That is undeniable. The average American just thinks it's more reality TV and prosecution of him at this point. He plays that victim card very, very well. His poll numbers only go up with this stuff, so to think of this as some sort of deal breaker- again, I’ll go back to where I started, where people are going to say,” yup, if he’s convicted, I'm walking away.” That’s just not going to happen. At the end of the day, they want that culture change of the Republican Party, and if we have to have Trump as the  standard bearer- and the voters decided that’s what they wanted, not what I wanted, but what the voters- the Republican votes wanted- if he’s going to be the standard bearer of that, we'll take it if we have to. That's how badly America wants a culture change. STEPHANOPOULOS: So just to sum up, you would support him for president even if he was convicted in classified documents. You would support him for president, even though you believe he contributed to an insurrection. You support him for president even though you believe he's lying about the last election, you support him for president even if he's convicted in the Manhattan case. I just want to say- the answer to that is yes, correct? SUNUNU: Yeah, me and 51% of America. STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor, thanks for your time this morning.  A Republican governor endorsing the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee is a dog-bites-man story, notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned governor was the chief surrogate of the eventual nominee’s last rival standing. This happens all the time. But Stephanopoulos framed his Sununu interview with a brief on the upcoming Stormy Daniels trial. The interview thus became less about Sununu’s endorsement of Trump than about Stephanopoulos’ sanctimony.  This constant hectoring went on for nearly 11 minutes: Stephanopoulos trying to shame Sununu over his endorsement of Trump despite past statements and denunciations, and Sununu batting each attempt away. The most emblematic exchange of the interview has Sununu telling Stephanopoulos that he lives in a bubble- and telling him outright that the J6 stuff doesn’t matter to voters confronting a broader assortment of suck that includes such items as inflation and the border: STEPHANOPOULOS: And you believe that someone -- you believe that a president who contributed to an insurrection should be president again?  SUNUNU: As does 51% of America, George. I mean, really. I understand you're part of the media. I understand you're in this New York City bubble or whatever it is, but you gotta look around at what's happening across this country. They’re not- it's not about just supporting Trump. It's getting rid of what we have today. It's about understanding that inflation is crushing families. It's understanding this border issue is not a Texas issue. It's a 50-state issue, right?-  that has to be brought under control. It's about that type of elitism that the average American is just sick and tired of. And it's a culture change. That's what I'm supporting. That's what most of America right now is looking to support, and wants to change there. So, again, I know you're shocked that the Republican governor is supporting a Republican president and a Republican ticket, but it's about the ticket. It's about up and down the ballot, right? I want Republican governors and senators and congressmen, and that type of culture if you will, I keep going back to that, because that's exactly what it is, that's the change America is looking for, and not relitigating January 6th. It's not a top issue.  Stephanopoulos had no answer. That it is Sununu making these points makes it even more significant because the elite media cannot dismiss him as they would someone perhaps considered to be more of a Trump loyalist.  And this fundamental truth remains: the media are locked in a bubble, and are fundamentally out of touch with the American people.  

NB Blog Feed

PBS Objectivity? AZ Abortion Ban Cuts off ‘Critical Release Valve,’ No More ‘Fleeing’

The PBS NewsHour led its Tuesday evening newscast with the week’s big issue: abortion, an issue of such apparent import (and perceived advantage to the Democratic Party in November) that both anchors took a biased crack at it before the segment itself. Co-anchor Geoff Bennett: Arizona will soon be the latest state with a near-total abortion ban after the state's Supreme Court revived a 160-year-old law. The law provides no exceptions for rape or incest. And, in its 4-2 opinion, the conservative majority wrote -- quote -- "Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman's life, are illegal." Co-anchor Amna Nawaz: Doctors who perform abortions could face criminal prosecution and prison time, though the Democratic attorney general says she will not prosecute. It's the latest test of the limits on abortion since the Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections from the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision…. After a soundbite from Arizona’s Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs saying the “abortion ban is extreme and hurts women,” Bennett introduced journalist Carter Sherman, who writes from the United States for the left-wing UK paper The Guardian about (ahem) “reproductive health.” The outlet in question -- and that euphemism for abortion -- were two hints that what’s about to unfold won't hew to PBS’s congressional mandate for "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” Bennett: What's the expected impact on women's health care in Arizona and in the surrounding region? Sherman: Arizona has been a critical release valve for places like Texas, which have a total abortion ban on the books right now. So, if we ban abortion totally, or almost totally, in Arizona, there's going to be plenty of people throughout the Southwest who previously might have fled to Arizona for abortions who will now have to travel even farther out. Abortion rights supporters also say that this could have massive impacts on things like maternal mortality. So there's going to be really wide-ranging effects, really across the region in a variety of health areas. They pivoted to the political repercussions. The takeaway: Good for Democrats. Carter Sherman: I think that this decision today is going to make Arizona one of the biggest battlefields, particularly in abortion, but also in the presidential race, also in the Senate race, in the 2024 elections. What we're looking at here is a potentially very galvanized population outraged by the overturning of Roe, outraged by a near-total abortion ban, and those people might decide to go to the polls en masse and vote not just for abortion rights, but also for Democrats…. Sherman, who previously wrote for the former left-wing outlet Vice, appeared on the NewsHour last month to disdain pro-life “crisis pregnancy centers” where women sometimes walked out of with their fetuses intact. This pro-abortion segment was brought to you in part by American Cruise Lines. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour April 9, 2024 7:03:19 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Arizona will soon be the latest state with a near-total abortion ban after the state's Supreme Court revived a 160-year-old law. The law provides no exceptions for rape or incest. And, in its 4-2 opinion, the conservative majority wrote — quote — "Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman's life, are illegal." Amna Nawaz: Doctors who perform abortions could face criminal prosecution and prison time, though the Democratic attorney general says she will not prosecute. It's the latest test of the limits on abortion since the Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections from the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision. And in this election year, there is already an effort under way to get a pro-abortion rights amendment on Arizona's ballot in November. Arizona's Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs responded to today's court decision. Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ): Arizona's 2022 abortion ban is extreme and hurts women. And the near-total Civil War era ban that continues to hang over our heads only serves to create more chaos for women and doctors in our state. As governor, I promise I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms. Geoff Bennett: Carter Sherman covers reproductive health for The Guardian and joins me now. Thanks so much for being with us. Carter Sherman, The Guardian: Thank you for having me. Geoff Bennett: So, the Arizona State Supreme Court lifted a stay on this 1864 law that was passed before Arizona was a state. Help us understand how they arrived at this decision. Carter Sherman: So this ban has been the source of court battles and chaos since the overturning of Roe almost two years ago. What happened is, after a very long period of litigation, the Supreme Court of Arizona decided today that, since there is no more Roe v. Wade, there is no reason why this 1864 ban should not go into effect. Now, what's unclear at this point is when exactly that ban will fully take effect and be enforceable, in the words of the court. Abortion providers and their supporters are at this time really trying to figure out what this decision means for all the people on the ground in Arizona. Geoff Bennett: How is it that the Civil War era law supersedes the previous law that the legislature passed and the previous governor signed in 2022 that made abortion accessible up to 15 weeks? Carter Sherman: When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in Roe v. Wade in 1973, that meant that there were several laws across the country that dated back decades that were no longer going to be in effect. And many of these laws were never really, truly dealt with. They just went dormant. And so, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, suddenly, all of these states, including Arizona, had to deal with these so-called zombie laws that they had not ever really fully reckoned with. Arizona had also in 2022 passed a separate 15-week abortion ban. But what happened was that 15-week abortion ban and this near-total abortion ban from 1864 just sort of coexisted, and they weren't really harmonized in any kind of way. In this case, in particular, Planned Parenthood has argued that these laws needed to be harmonized, and that's why that the 15-week ban should be allowed to stand over the 1864 ban. That's not the argument that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted today. Geoff Bennett: Well, in the meantime, Arizona's attorney general, Kris Mayes, says she will not prosecute any doctor who performs abortion procedures. Mayes says that this is a collective effort with the state's governor. How is that being received by county prosecutors, who could potentially use their own discretion? Carter Sherman: I think that there are many, many questions about what it really means for an official like Mayes to say that she will try to hold off on any kind of prosecutions of abortion providers. The providers that I have talked to and I have heard from don't necessarily feel like they are totally in the clear at this point, and they are confused about what it means moving forward if they were to provide abortions. Geoff Bennett: What's the expected impact on women's health care in Arizona and in the surrounding region? Carter Sherman: Arizona has been a critical release valve for places like Texas, which have a total abortion ban on the books right now. So, if we ban abortion totally, or almost totally, in Arizona, there's going to be plenty of people throughout the Southwest who previously might have fled to Arizona for abortions who will now have to travel even farther out. Abortion rights supporters also say that this could have massive impacts on things like maternal mortality. So there's going to be really wide-ranging effects really across the region in a variety of health areas. Geoff Bennett: And there's also the political impact. Arizona, as you well know, is among a handful of key battleground states. An effort is already under way right now to put a measure on the 2024 ballot that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. How might this affect not just the presidential election, but that key Senate race, that hotly contested Senate race in Arizona? Carter Sherman: I think that this decision today is going to make Arizona one of the biggest battlefields, particularly in abortion, but also in the presidential race, also in the Senate race, in the 2024 elections. What we're looking at here is a potentially very galvanized population outraged by the overturning of Roe, outraged by a near-total abortion ban, and those people might decide to go to the polls en masse and vote not just for abortion rights, but also for Democrats. There's actually been, since the decision came out today, many Republicans in the state saying: This was a bad idea. I don't support this decision. And some of them had said that they will work to try to figure out a way back to this 15-week abortion limit and not a near-total abortion ban. I have covered this issue for many years. I have covered it long before Roe was overturned. And I have never really seen this sort of immediate 180 from Republicans in this way on this issue. Geoff Bennett: That is Carter Sherman with The Guardian. Thanks so much for sharing your reporting and your insights with us. Carter Sherman: Thank you for having me.

NB Blog Feed

Sounds Absurd: CNN's Elie Honig Underlines Weakness of Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump

CNN's legal analyst Elie Honig writing in a Cafe Brief newsletter that was reprinted in New York magazine on Friday presented both the pro and anti Trump ways of looking at the Alvin Bragg case that takes place on April 15 in Manhattan. It is obvious which of the two point of view that Honig thinks is most realistic in "Donald Trump’s Trial Is a Rorschach Test." ...The crime is a paperwork offense relating to how Trump and his businesses logged a series of perfectly legal (if unseemly) hush-money payments in their own internal records. The prosecution’s star witness is a convicted perjurer and fraudster who openly spews vitriol at the defendant, often in grotesque terms, essentially for a living. The famously aggressive feds at the Southern District of New York passed on the case years ago, and current Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor could have indicted before he left office but did not. The charges are either misdemeanors or the lowest-level felonies (depending on how the jury decides the case), and the vast majority of defendants convicted of similar offenses are sentenced to probation and fines, not prison. Having presented the POV favorable to Trump, Honig then presents what appears to be a rather lame way of looking at the trial from someone hostile towards Trump presenting it as a desperate payoff scheme in 2016 to keep his campaign from collapsing: ...To keep his listing campaign from capsizing, Trump and his team paid off porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged extramarital affair and then labeled those payments “legal expenses.” Already the first American president or former president to face indictment, Trump could soon become the first to sustain a felony conviction, and it’s possible he could lose the 2024 election — and eventually wind up behind bars — as a result. It's not hard to discern which of these viewpoints Honig thinks best reflects reality. This is also reflected in what else he wrote: ...Paying hush money is not a crime. In fact, a hush-money agreement, though seedy, is legally no different from any other contract between private parties. So Trump knowing about the Daniels payoff — and he clearly did — is merely a starting point here and insufficient to prove anything criminal. The charged New York State crime here is falsification of business records. The DA alleges Trump had the hush-money payments fraudulently recorded in his internal books as “legal expenses” (rather than, I don’t know, “hush money to porn star”). If proved, that’s merely a misdemeanor, a low-level crime virtually certain to result in a non-prison sentence. For comparison, under the New York code, falsification of business records has the same technical designation as shoplifting less than $1,000 of goods. ...But it’s not entirely clear whether Trump was involved in the actual logging of those payments in the internal records of his business — remember, that’s the crime. In fact, when Cohen secretly recorded his then-client talking about a hush-money payment to another woman in 2016, Trump seems clueless about the accounting mechanism. ...The received wisdom is that the Manhattan case is the least important, and will be the least impactful, of the four pending Trump indictments. The first part of that proposition is beyond reasonable dispute. One has to wonder if Donald Trump is guilty of so many massive crimes as those who oppose to him allege, why do the cases against him such as the Manhattan case appear to be so incredibly weak and prosecuted by either corrupt or highly biased or flawed officials while being surreptitiously aided by the Biden administration? Hopefully, Elie Honig won't be shunned by his CNN colleagues for his observations about the Manhattan case.

NB Blog Feed

FLASHBACK: When a Juvenile News Media Tried to Destroy the Tea Party

Fifteen years ago this week (April 15, 2009), the grassroots Tea Party movement rallied to oppose the massive government programs (bailouts, ObamaCare) pushed by new President Barack Obama. In response, left-wing cable networks employed adolescent jokes to belittle the movement, while the broadcast networks decried it as a front for “corporate interests.” The media putdowns failed, of course. The following November, the energy supplied by the Tea Party contributed to a “shellacking” of Democrats in the 2010 elections, as Republicans gained 63 House seats and six Senate seats (seven if you count Scott Brown’s upset in a January special election in Massachusetts). The first T.E.A. Party (Taxed Enough Already) protests took place in various cities on February 27, 2009, a reaction to presumed new taxes that would inevitably result from the Obama administration’s huge bailouts and spending programs. A major national protest was scheduled for April 15, “tax day,” the deadline for filing federal income tax forms. Filling in as host of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann on April 13, David Shuster mocked the Tea Party by repeatedly deploying a slang term for a sex act called “teabagging.” “It’s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals,” Shuster sophomorically sneered. The next night, CNN’s Anderson Cooper got into the act. “Republicans are pretty much in disarray...They’re searching for their voice,” analyst David Gergen dryly opined on the April 14 AC360. “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging,” Cooper snickered.       The big protests against Obama’s policies were April 15. That morning on New York City’s Imus in the Morning radio program, CNN analyst Paul Begala suggested true patriots would have no problem handing their cash to liberal bureaucrats, as he derided those protesting as “just a bunch of wimpy, whiny, weasels who don’t love their country....There are guys at Walter Reed who gave their legs for my country, and they’re whining because they have to write a check?” Over on NBC’s Today, Chuck Todd dismissed the Tea Party as no big deal. “There’s been some grassroots conservatives who have organized so-called ‘tea parties’ around the company, country, hoping the historical reference will help galvanize Americans against the President’s economic ideas. But I tell you, the idea hasn’t really caught on....It hasn’t galvanized the party the way they would hope.” On CNN that afternoon, correspondent Susan Roesgen decried the protest as “a party for Obama bashers....It’s anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can’t really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I’ll toss it back to you.” On ABC’s World News that evening, correspondent Dan Harris framed the protests as something “cheered on by Fox News and talk radio,” as he emphasized how “critics on the left” claimed “this is not a real grassroots phenomenon at all, that it’s actually largely orchestrated by people fronting for corporate interests.” “Organizers insist today’s ‘tea parties’ were organic uprisings of like-minded taxpayers from both parties....but some observers suggest not all of it was as home-grown as it may seem,” NBC’s Lee Cowan echoed on Nightly News. Over on CBS, correspondent Dean Reynolds cautioned that “it’s important to keep in mind that fresh polling indicates there is not all that much passion about high taxes in the country at large right now.” “All of these tax day parties seemed less about revolution and more about group therapy,” New York Times reporter Liz Robbins dismissed in an online piece that afternoon. “People attending the rallies were dressed patriotically and held signs expressing their anger, but offering no solutions.” Someone must have thought she went too far — Robbins’ snarky observations were omitted from the version of the article which appeared in the Times’ April 16 print edition. Following the protests, MSNBC’s Countdown on April 16 provided a platform for left-wing activist and actress Janeane Garofalo to accuse the Tea Partiers of ignorance and racism. “Let’s be very honest about what this is about,” she sneered. “It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.” The disdainful coverage of the April rallies set the tone for the rest of the year. “What do you call a crazed group of people that disrupts a meeting on health care and hangs the congressman holding it in effigy? A mob,” ex-CNN reporter Bob Franken deplored in his August 7 “Politics Daily” column on AOL. “When Hamas does it or Hezbollah does it, it is called terrorism. Why should Republican lawmakers and the AstroTurf groups organizing on behalf of the health care industry be viewed any differently?” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann growled that same night on Countdown. “They’ve waved signs likening President Obama to Hitler and the devil; raised questions about whether he was really born in this country; falsely accused him of planning to set up death panels; decried his speech to students as indoctrination; and called him everything from a ‘fascist’ to a ‘socialist’ to a ‘communist.’” ABC’s Harris scolded on the September 15 World News. “Add it all up, and some prominent Obama supporters are now saying that it paints a picture of an opposition driven, in part, by a refusal to accept a black President.” When radical liberals take to the streets to rail against Republican policies, the media like to paint their cause as popular and bend over backwards to present the protesters as mainstream and normal. But when it came to the anti-big government Tea Party, the media’s mission was to disparage and destroy the grassroots opposition to the Obama administration’s unprecedented liberalism. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                          

NB Blog Feed

PBS Panel Sees Peril for GOP on Abortion, Touts 'Powerful' Biden Ad on 'Trump Did This'

Abortion is back in the news with a vengeance, after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated a Civil War era ban on abortion and candidate Donald Trump reacted with a moderate, federalist stance on abortion, disappointing some in the pro-life movement and making him an unfair figure of mockery in the mainstream press. Friday’s episode of public television’s weekly roundtable panel Washington Week with The Atlantic was dominated by abortion politics as a lifesaver for the Democrats (if not for the victims of abortion). Guest moderator Franklin Foer of The Atlantic set the table: FRANKLIN FOER: Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstates a 160-year-old abortion ban, and as a spate of states rush to restrict reproductive rights, Republicans, including Donald Trump, scramble to insulate themselves from a potential political backlash….the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of reviving a Civil War-era law that prohibits nearly all abortions. Republicans are running to distance themselves from the surprise decision while Democrats seize the opportunity to make gains in the battleground state. The ruling came just a day after former President Trump said he opposes a national abortion ban following months of mixed signals. How will Republican candidates navigate the post-Roe landscape now confronting them? As usual, the journalists were unanimously liberal. National Public Radio political editor Domenico Montanaro touted Republicans had lost "special election after special election" on abortion and lamented “the chaos that has ensued with women not having access to reproductive rights in -- millions of women across the South in particular, this chaotic sort of patchwork of abortion laws across the country, that’s made it really, really difficult.”   PBS NewsHour political reporter Lisa Desjardins said Trump showed he wasn't worried about his base, "he's not worried about all of those hard-right evangelicals." Susan Glasser of The New Yorker said Trump can't deny he was responsible for all this, "he has taken credit so many times for dismantling Roe." GLASSER: What I found interesting is immediately have the Biden campaign in the immediate aftermath of Trump's video, they put out a new advertisement I found particularly powerful of a Texas couple that wanted to have a baby. The woman experienced a miscarriage and she was denied necessary medical care in Texas, sent home, developed an infection, got sepsis, nearly died and she probably can't have a kid now. It is intimate and powerful and there's nothing about politics until the end, and the tagline is just "Trump did this." I think those words will haunt him. She took a maximalist ideological stance, expressed via obscurantist pro-choice labeling, telling tax-paying viewers that abortion was a “human right,” and thus all talk of states’ rights was irrelevant. (At least there was no dithering about whether men could get pregnant.) Glasser: If this is a human right for women, to have access to health care, to have access to their reproductive rights, your rights shouldn’t depend on what state you live in. If it’s a right, it’s a right, and it shouldn't matter that in Texas you have no access to something that you have in California. She played Democratic political strategist and moral arbiter and assumed the audience was on her side, even if she admitted that it was rather “ghoulish” to cheer for Democrats while supposedly extremist abortion policies were becoming law in various states. Glasser: ….I saw the Biden campaign estimates that already one in three women in America has lost access to reproductive health care as a result of the Supreme Court`s decision. And so there’s this almost ghoulish phenomenon, right? Like we’re like, well, it's a great issue for the Democrats or, you know, that it’s really good news. But, of course, in a real sense, these laws are actually going into effect….So, it’s a weird situation where we’re talking about the political advantage that might come to abortion rights supporters at a time when millions of women are actually losing their rights. This pro-abortion segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards.

NB Blog Feed

New NPR CEO Haunted by Woke, Anti-Trump Tweets As Editor Exposes Bias

New NPR CEO Katherine Maher tried to rally the troops on Friday with a memo to staff that vaguely attacked NPR senior editor Uri Berliner's expose of the taxpayer-funded network's viewpoint diversity. She never actually mentioned Berliner, or seemed to engage with his overall argument. Instead, she vaguely expressed insult at Berliner noting the existence of a pile of identity groups among the employees: "Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning." Maher just unfurled rah-rah "we have the best people" verbiage: "This is the work of our people, and our people represent America, our irreducibly complex nation. Given the very real challenges of covering the myriad perspectives, motivations, and interests of a nation of more than 330 million very different people, we succeed through our diversity. This is a bedrock institutional commitment, hard-won, and hard-protected." “Our people represent America, our irreducibly complex nation,” she added. “We succeed through our diversity.” No. NPR doesn't not represent the simplest diversity, letting conservatives have a voice. This is why Berliner turned from internal conversations to public expression. In the end, Maher just supports more internal talk, not an engagement with "the enemy," the conservatives who are shut out. She announced they were "establishing quarterly NPR Network-wide editorial planning and review meetings, as a complement to our other channels for Member station engagement." The New York Post reports that Maher's history of woke tweets before she joined NPR is now haunting this new controversy: In January, when Maher was announced as NPR’s new leader, The Post revealed her penchant for parroting the progressive line on social media — including bluntly biased Twitter posts like “Donald Trump is a racist,” which she wrote in 2018. This wouldn't hurt her with a hiring panel at NPR. It would certainly be a plus!  “I mean, sure, looting is counterproductive,” Maher wrote on May 31, 2020. “But it’s hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people’s ancestors as private property.” (This perfectly matches a network whose "Code Switch" team touted the book In Defense of Looting and lauded a professor saying anti-police riots should be described as "rebellions.") The next day, she lectured her 27,000 followers on “white silence.” “White silence is complicity,” she scolded. “If you are white, today is the day to start a conversation in your community.” NPR is also the network that took the founders of Black Lives Matter announcing they were "Marxist-trained" and attempted to argue that they weren't really pushing communism.  The Post noted Maher came to NPR from the Wikimedia Foundation. "Maher earned a bachelor’s degree in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies from New York University, according to her LinkedIn account, and grew up in Wilton, Conn. — a town that her mother, Ceci Maher, now represents as a Democratic state senator."

NB Blog Feed

No, Symone! A Third-Party Candidate Won't Deprive Biden or Trump of 270 Electoral Votes

I don't mean to pick on Symone Sanders Townsend. But for the second time in as many weeks, the co-anchor of MSNBC's The Weekend has exposed a disturbing knowledge deficit. Last week, we caught Symone accusing Donald Trump, in his inaugural address, of "promising carnage." In fact, he promised to "stop" carnage, of the sort that keeps "mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities." Today, in a segment devoted to trashing third-party candidates because of the likelihood that they would take votes from Biden, Sanders revealed her unfamiliarity with the way that Electoral College votes are awarded. Sanders: "I think now more than any of our past recent elections, that third-party candidates are a true, true threat to Joe Biden, but also to 270, period. Our Constitution says, to be the President of the United States, you have to win 270 Electoral College votes. Not 269, not that majority rules all . . . Now, what if Joe Biden is denied 270? Or Donald Trump? Well, according to the 12th Amendment, the House gets to pick who the president is."  What Sanders fails to grasp is that in every state but Nebraska and Maine, whoever wins a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state's Electoral College votes. So even if a third-party candidate denied either Trump or Biden an outright majority in a given state [or in one of Nebraska or Maine's electoral districts], so long as either Trump or Biden got more votes than any other candidate, they'd get all of the state's electoral votes [or the electoral vote in the Nebraska or Maine district.] Thus, the only way that Sanders' nightmare scenario could come to pass would be if one of the third-party candidates actually won a state, or one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. And not even the most fevered conspiracy-mongers have suggested that RFK, Jr., let alone Cornel West or Jill Stein, have any hope of pulling off such a miracle. So Symone can sleep easy. But before next week's show, it would truly behoove her to study up on the topics at hand! Note: Steele told Symone that there wouldn't be a problem "if the Democrats win the House in November." That's not necessarily true. Per the 12th Amendment, "Rather than voting individually, House members vote as state delegations. Each state delegation gets a single vote, and a candidate becomes president with the support of a majority (26) of state delegations." So, even if in November Democrats won a majority of House seats, it's possible that Republicans would have the majority in more state delegations, and thus could have the power to elect the president. It's called a "contingent election." Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 4/13/24 8:19 am EDT JOE WALSH: [Third-party candidates are] so dangerous. MICHAEL STEELE: And it's just, if enough of those people to go to that place, to their happy place, where they can, where they think that that vote is going to do what? SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: Let me say this. Because I think that there is a, I think now more than any of our past recent elections, that third-party candidates are a true, true threat to Joe Biden, but also to 270, period.  Our Constitution says, to be the President of the United States, you have to win 270 Electoral College votes. Not 269, not that majority rules all. Now, the ballot access matters here, okay. So, RFK, Jr., Dr. West, Jill Stein. What does the ballot access program look like? RFK, Jr. is someone who is definitely -- STEELE: He's on one state right now.  SANDERS TOWNSEND: He just gained ballot access in North Carolina.  STEELE: So it's two states. SANDERS TOWNSEND: Two. And that is a -- that's an issue. Because the margins matter here. Now, what if Joe Biden is denied 270? Or Donald Trump?  STEELE: It goes to the House. SANDERS TOWNSEND: Well, according to the 12th Amendment, the House gets to pick who the president is. I just watched that episode of Scandal the other day. STEELE: Which version of the House? Is it the existing House or is the new House that is sworn in? SANDERS TOWNSEND: It is the, tt is the new House. STEELE: So if the Democrats win the House in November, you don't have a problem. SANDERS TOWNSEND: Well, that means people have to vote down ballot. STEELE: Well, there you go.

NB Blog Feed

Who's Fact-Checking Whoopi Goldberg on Republicans Wanting to Bring Back Slavery?

The headline at The Daily Caller read:  Whoopi Goldberg Says Republicans ‘Want To Bring Slavery Back’ Some version of that headline and Whoopi’s remark on ABC’s The View was all over the media world on Wednesday. The Daily Caller version reported this:   The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg said Wednesday that Republicans “want to bring slavery back” as she raged against Arizona’s reinstatement of an 1864 abortion ban.  ABC News's Whoopi Goldberg openly claims, without evidence, that Republicans "want to bring slavery back" She goes on to demand progressive-activist justices on the Supreme Court: "One of the good things about the Supreme Court is you can fight to make sure you make stuff better" pic.twitter.com/Bq0kT33ATG — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 10, 2024 Who will fact-check her on this crazy claim? Whoopi seems to be utterly unaware (or deliberately ignores) that support for slavery in the day came not from Republicans - whose party was formed in 1854 to oppose the expansion of slavery. History records that it was, in fact, slave-holding Democrats who founded the Democratic Party. And obviously, Whoopi is unaware that  the Democratic Party, writing in its first 6 platforms, staunchly supported slavery. Not to mention its Members of Congress opposed the passage of the 13th Amendment -- which abolished slavery. It was the GOP that ended slavery over the objections of the ardently pro-slavery Democrats. And oh yes, the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves? There were seven from 1800-1861. And since Whoopi tied the subject of slavery to abortion, a reminder that the founder of the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood was one Margaret Sanger. It was Sanger whose notoriously deep-seated racism was a pillar of her support for abortion. Her objective was to use abortion to thin out the inferior populations. Black women account for 38 percent of abortions. Isn’t it past time for Whoopi and others in the media to press the Democratic Party for its apology in supporting slavery? Periodically a call goes up for reparations -- but curiously the call is never directed at the Democratic Party which was, as said, responsible for supporting slavery and making it a matter of government policy upon winning elections -- six times in a row -- on a platform of enslaving black Americans. Fact? Misleading or gaslighting Americans is the modus operandi of the liberal media.  As the Whoopi story made the rounds, so too did this story from NPR’s Uri Berliner. Berliner’s piece over at The Free Press was headlined:  I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think. Berliner goes on to say:  An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. His point was clear: There was no viewpoint diversity at NPR. The goal every hour of the NPR broadcast day was to push the progressive world view. They're not alone. Berliner admitted this isn't just a problem at NPR. As if to reinforce Berliner’s point, in the Washington Post the other day was this already noxious headline about the shooting by Chicago police of a 26-year old black man named Dexter Reed.  It took a full eight paragraphs, deep inside the story, for the Post to report:  COPA (Chicago Police) said its review of the footage and initial reports “appear to confirm that Mr. Reed fired first,” hitting one officer while four others returned fire. Which is to say, this is an admission that directly contradicts the impression given in the headline that police singled out a car with a lone young black man at the wheel, stopped him on the pretense of not having his seat belt connected - and, unprovoked, shot him to death in a hail of 96 bullets.  In other words, the Post wasn’t interested in the truth and the facts. The Post, like those at NPR, are only interested in pushing the progressive world view. In this case that view being that police target young black men. So gaslighting is the order of the day. Which brings us back to Whoopi Goldberg on The View. Simply put, Whoopi, like the NPR crowd and that Washington Post headline, was gaslighting her audience. In Whoopi’s case leaving the impression that Republicans “want to bring slavery back” because, of course, Republicans had supported slavery in the first place. When, of course, the truth is exactly the opposite. Worse, not only did the Democrats repeatedly support slavery and oppose abolishing it, but in today’s world the party somehow can’t find it in themselves to apologize for it. No one in the pro-Biden media will ask for it. Will Whoopi take to The View to ask the Democrats and party leader President Joe Biden to apologize to black Americans for the party’s repeated support of slavery? Don’t wait up.

NB Blog Feed

Late-Night Panic: Biden Could Lose to Trump!

Late-night television changed forever after Donald Trump descended that escalator in 2015. The left-leaning format abandoned all pretense of objectivity, turning their hosts into DNC shills. Fox News’ “Gutfeld!’ remains a sobering exception.     When President Trump left office in January 2021 that mission creep stayed in place. Now, with the Biden-Trump rematch heading our way, some of late-night TV’s biggest stars are getting nervous. Some might say panicky. Why? The polls suggest the former President might just beat the current President come November. We’re a long way from November, but at the moment the late-night crowd isn’t happy with the state of the race. Let’s start with Stephen Colbert, who literally joined a Biden fundraiser late last month fearing a second Trump term. The far-Left host is trying to drag President Biden over the finish line one more time. To do so, he’s demanding Israel stop fighting back against the ghouls who tortured, raped and killed more than a thousand innocent Israeli citizens on Oct. 7. That plays into Biden’s hands, of course. The Democrat is losing his base for supporting Israel six months into the current war. Remember, Colbert hosts a comedy talk show. He’s not a pundit or an advisor to Team Biden. He just looks and sounds like one, routinely abandoning any pretense of comedy in the process. His fellow late-night Leftist Seth Meyers is even worse on that front. The “SNL” alum is all but melting down over Biden’s tepid poll numbers. He, too, blames Biden’s management of the Israeli/Hamas war. “[Voters] are understandably upset Biden keeps claiming he’s frustrated with Netanyahu’s handling of the war, while simultaneously sending more weapons to support that war against the wishes of a majority of Americans. Meyers chastised Biden for not pushing harder for a Middle East ceasefire, which Biden promised during his propaganda-style interview with the leader. “You’re the president. You can just say, ‘No more funding. No more weapons.’ You can call for a ceasefire—that’s what a majority of Americans want, including the tens of thousands of Democrats who are registering protest votes in key battleground states.” That’s not a moral position. It’s one looking ahead to Nov. 5. In other words, it’s panic time. “There must be an immediate lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages…That’s the loud and clear message of these protest votes, and Biden must listen, otherwise he’s at risk of losing to someone whose presidency was a [complete disaster].” Squint all you want, but you won’t find a single joke or attempt at humor in that harangue. Not a one.   The late nights have largely silent on the Israel-Hamas War. That changed last night with Seth Meyers who said of protest voters "Biden must listen, otherwise he's at risk of losing to" Trump, who was impeached for denying weapons to an ally at war for his own political benefit pic.twitter.com/f0lxio2loB — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 4, 2024   And then there’s Jimmy Kimmel. The former “Man Show” star can’t believe polls suggest Trump may beat Biden in their do-over match. A recent survey found Trump beating Biden in six of seven swing states. “How could this be?” a stunned Kimmel asked during a recent monologue. At least Kimmel squeezed out a quasi-joke to process the news. Trump “doesn’t even lead in a poll of people who worked for him.”  “The Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon isn’t as overtly partisan as his peers. He still allows Democratic heavyweights to push their agendas on his NBC platform. He recently teed up former First Lady Hillary Clinton to bark at swing voters that they cannot even think of staying home on Election Day.     Late-night comedians aren’t political activists by trade. Their gigs are meant to nudge viewers to bed with a smile. Instead, they’ve become an extension of MSNBC. You’d think they’d be giddy at the chance to roast President Trump for another four years. Instead, they’re panicked that they just might.

NB Blog Feed

NBC Embraces Activism, Claims 'Abortion Access Goes Beyond Politics'

NBC correspondent Dana Griffin suited up for Team Abortion on Saturday’s edition of Today. Griffin claimed that the issue goes “beyond politics for women” and embraced all the activist premises when she asked the petitioner of the Arizona Supreme Court case if “women should have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.”  Griffin began by noting Vice President Kamala Harris’s and Donald Trump’s responses to the ruling. On Trump, Griffin quoted him as posting on Truth Social, “’ the Supreme Court in Arizona went too far’ and ‘we must ideally have the three exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother,’” but she also added some further editorializing that Harris did not get “But the issue of abortion access goes beyond politics for women.”      It could be said that protecting the unborn goes beyond politics as well, but Griffin did not show pro-lifers the same courtesy. What she did show was an unidentified woman claiming she experienced “disbelief” and “anger” at the ruling. Griffin further reported that “Dr. Jill Gibson said patients were shocked and confused.” Outside of a Planned Parenthood, Gibson claimed she “had friends calling me saying was it still safe for friends who were pregnant who are out of state to travel to Arizona to visit them. This is the atmosphere of fear.” There was nothing in Gibson’s response that touched on abortion, but Griffin never bothered to follow up and ask why simply traveling to Arizona would be unsafe. Griffin did allow a brief glimpse into the thoughts of the other side from OB-GYN Dr. Eric Hazelrigg, “It’s the state’s duty to protect human life in every situation.” After introducing Hazelrigg as the man “who opened the door for the court's ruling after he petitioned for the case to be reviewed,” Griffin embraced the pro-abortion framing as she asked him, “Do you think women should have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies?” As for Hazelrigg’s response, it was almost certainly heavily edited down, “Within a certain context, and with certain limitations.” It would have been nice if NBC allowed Hazelrigg to explain what he meant by “certain context,” but Griffin had to get back to the pro-abortion activists “Some people in the state now galvanized to make their vote count in November, when they will likely weigh in on an expected ballot measure to codify reproductive rights in the state's constitution.” A second unidentified woman explained, “We want everyone to have a choice about their own bodies. It's not a politician's choice.” Whether it is a life is a matter of fact, not opinion, but NBC decided not to pursue that angle. Here is a transcript for the April 13 show: NBC Today 4/13/2024 7:13 AM ET DANA GRIFFIN: So, the attorney general has already made it clear she will not prosecute any doctors who perform abortions when this law is reinstated, but the doctors I spoke with plan to follow the law and stop performing abortions until it is legal again.  Vice President Kamala Harris at a rally in Tucson, slamming the Arizona Supreme Court ruling that enforces a Civil War-era law banning nearly all abortions.  KAMALA HARRIS: Here in Arizona, they have turned back the clock to the 1800s.  GRIFFIN: Adding that former President Trump is partly to blame.  HARRIS: As much harm as he has already caused, a second Trump term would be even worse.  GRIFFIN: On Truth Social, Trump writing “the Supreme Court in Arizona went too far” and “we must ideally have the three exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.” But the issue of abortion access goes beyond politics for women.  UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Disbelief, anger.  GRIFFIN: Dr. Jill Gibson said patients were shocked and confused.  JILL GIBSON: I had friends calling me saying was it still safe for friends who were pregnant who are out of state to travel to Arizona to visit them. This is the atmosphere of fear.  GRIFFIN: The 1864 law which only makes exceptions for the life of the mother and makes performing abortions punishable by up to five years in prison was decided Tuesday in a bombshell ruling by the state Supreme Court.  ERIC HAZELRIGG: It’s the state’s duty to protect human life in every situation GRIFFIN: Dr. Eric Hazelrigg is the OB-GYN who opened the door for the court's ruling after he petitioned for the case to be reviewed.  Do you think women should have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies? HAZELRIGG: Within a certain context, and with certain limitations.  GRIFFIN: Some people in the state now galvanized to make their vote count in November, when they will likely weigh in on an expected ballot measure to codify reproductive rights in the state's constitution.  UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: We want everyone to have a choice about their own bodies. It's not a politician's choice.

NB Blog Feed

Brooks Suggests Voting For Trump Makes Pro-Lifers Hypocritical

Donald Trump may have disappointed pro-life activists with his embrace of a federalist stance on abortion, but with President Joe Biden being a far-left abortion zealot, they will still vote for him. For New York Times columnist David Brooks on Friday’s PBS NewsHour, however, this is just another instance of “the power of Trump” and “above some of the core convictions.” Host Geoff Bennett asked Brooks for his thoughts on the fallout of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that an 1864 pro-life law can be enforced, “Because even Donald Trump is implicitly acknowledging that this is a problem, because he said that the Arizona State Supreme Court went too far and that the law, in his words, needs to be straightened out.”     Brooks claimed that “this is a phenomenal shift in the Republican Party we saw this week. Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has been a pro-life party. It's been based on the conviction that, from conception, it's a human life. It's a human life. And then you get Donald Trump. And, recently, he's been floating the idea that we should have a 15-week ban or a 20-week ban. In other words, he's for allowing a law that has 93 — or some 90 percent—of the abortions would go forward, and he's allegedly pro-life.” It is unfair to compare a post-Roe GOP candidate’s stance on abortion to a Roe-era GOP candidate’s. Even still, Brooks’s claim is unfair. Roe did not allow for a federalist solution, so by allowing states to impose bans or 15-week restrictions, Trump is being more pro-life than Roe even if he disappointed pro-life activists by not embracing a national policy. Brooks, however, would repeat himself, “This is literally the most pro-choice position a Republican has taken since Ronald Reagan, this is going back to Jerry Ford, maybe. And so you're seeing the party bend to the political winds, and it's just an astonishing turnaround.” As for those pro-life activists, Brooks claimed that “the thing that astonishes me, the pro-life groups, they should be really, I guess it's appropriate to say raising holy hell. But they're sort of going along with it. And it shows that — the power of Trump over the party. Let's protect Donald Trump, even above some of the core convictions.” Again, Brooks is being unfair. Many people believe that politics and elections are the art of the possible, and with Trump as president, it will be possible to get some conservative judges, maybe some pro-life regulations, and that state pro-life laws will survive. If Biden is re-elected, it is possible, if not likely, that the opposite will happen.  Here is a transcript for the April 12 show: PBS NewsHour 4/12/2024 7:44 PM ET  GEOFF BENNETT: Well, what about that, David? Because even Donald Trump is implicitly acknowledging that this is a problem, because he said that the Arizona State Supreme Court went too far and that the law, in his words, needs to be straightened out. DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, well, this is a phenomenal shift in the Republican Party we saw this week. Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has been a pro-life party. It's been based on the conviction that, from conception, it's a human life. It's a human life. And then you get Donald Trump. And, recently, he's been floating the idea that we should have a 15-week ban or a 20-week ban. In other words, he's for allowing a law that has 93 — or some 90 percent of the abortions would go forward, and he's allegedly pro-life. Now he's sort of backed off that position. His position is, it should be state by state. But he won't tell people how they should vote. He says, follow your heart. This is literally the most pro-choice position a Republican has taken since Ronald Reagan, this is going back to Jerry Ford, maybe. And so you're seeing the party bend to the political winds and it's just an astonishing turnaround. And the thing that astonishes me, the pro-life groups, they should be really, I guess it's appropriate to say raising holy hell. But they're sort of going along with it. And it shows that — the power of Trump over the party. Let's protect Donald Trump, even above some of the core convictions. Will it shift election, the presidential election? I'm not so sure. I think it's definitely helped Democrats in House races and it's definitely helped Democrats in every ballot initiative since Dobbs. But if you look at people in Arizona say, what are the issues they care about? Inflation and immigration are number one and two, and they vastly prefer Donald Trump. Abortion is in there, but it's down below. So will it affect the — it'll certainly drive Democratic turnout, but will it shift toward Donald Trump? I'm not sure, since the two big issues, he's pretty good on.

NB Blog Feed

WSJ SCOOP: New York Times Bosses 'Seek to Quash Rebellion in the Newsroom'

Wall Street Journal news-industry reporter Alexandra Bruell broke a story on Friday about managers at The New York Times struggling with the intolerance of new employees who are "applying ideological purity tests" to stories on "sensitive topics like the transgender community and social justice." Those kids coming out of college don't bow to the wisdom of their elders who may still want to portray themselves as neutral and independent of ideological camps. The Bruell story was headlined: New York Times Bosses Seek to Quash Rebellion in the Newsroom After internal upheaval over coverage of sensitive topics like the Israel-Gaza war, management renews emphasis on independence and neutrality Bruell began with the internal squabble over Hamas weaponizing sexual-assault on October 7, which ended up being a multiple-story obsession of NPR media reporter David Folkenflik after someone working on The Daily podcast (which airs on hundreds of NPR stations) complained to The Intercept, a radical-left site. “The idea that someone dips into that process in the middle, and finds something that they considered might be interesting or damaging to the story under way, and then provides that to people outside, felt to me and my colleagues like a breakdown in the sort of trust and collaboration that’s necessary in the editorial process,” Executive Editor Joe Kahn said in an interview. “I haven’t seen that happen before.”   It's a little funny when newspapers who routinely rely on leakers have to deal with internal leakers. They don't wonder if it causes "a breakdown of trust and collaboration that's necessary in the governing process." But it's also amusing that Kahn is aware that America's top colleges are sending him employees that think neutrality is an objectionable concept: Kahn noted that the organization has added a lot of digital-savvy workers who are skilled in areas like data analytics, design and product engineering but who weren’t trained in independent journalism. He also suggested that colleges aren’t preparing new hires to be tolerant of dissenting views. “Young adults who are coming up through the education system are less accustomed to this sort of open debate, this sort of robust exchange of views around issues they feel strongly about than may have been the case in the past,” he said, adding that the onus is on the Times to instill values like independence in its employees. Bruell noted some pitched battles over transgender issues, from an internal Slack forum over a trans-related opinion piece by Times opinion columnist Pamela Paul to an open letter signed by more than 1,000 contributors over the article “The Battle Over Gender Therapy,” and the framing of the article “When Students Change Gender Identity, and Parents Don’t Know.”  She also recalled how editorial-page editor James Bennet and science reporter Donald McNeil were let go after internal staff turmoil. Finally, we had to love what publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger thinks the "emotion-free" stories are:  Kahn said the Times’ national desk now is bigger and more equipped to cover an unprecedented election. The Times will also be more committed to covering misinformation in the 2024 election, with a team of eight to nine people, he said. In January, Sulzberger shared his thoughts on covering Trump during a visit to the Washington bureau. It was imperative to keep Trump coverage emotion-free, he told staffers, according to people who attended. He referenced the Times story, “Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First,” by Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, as a good example of fact-based and fair coverage. 

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC or Al-Jazeera? Mohyeldin Tosses Softballs to Israel-Bashing Rep. Jamaal Bowman

On his eponymous Sunday show, anti-Israel MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin spoke with Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), and gave the "Squad" radical a forum to bash Israel while claiming to support the Jewish state.  Mohyeldin, a former correspondent for Al-Jazeera English whose mother is Palestinian, set up the segment by oddly labeling former Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a "moderate" in spite of her stridently liberal record as he recalled a recent increase in congressional Democrats pushing President Joe Biden to pressure Israel over how it is conducting military operations in Gaza: So, for months, progressive lawmakers have been vocally denouncing Israel's disproportionate retaliation in Gaza, and now today, six months into the war, that view is actually held by a majority of Americans. According to a Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans disapprove of Israel's military actions in Gaza. That is the majority. And, as we mentioned before the break, moderate Democrats including Nancy Pelosi who are, you know, strong supporters of Israel, have now joined that chorus. He added: "In a letter, they have asked President Biden to suspend weapons transfers to Israel until a full independent investigation into the World Central Kitchen convoy attack is complete." After Congressman Bowman talked up the likelihood of more Democrats joining together to be more critical of Israel, Mohyeldin followed up by sympathetically asking about AIPAC targeting his guest and other anti-Israel Democrats in their primaries: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- or AIPAC as we know -- expected to spend $100 million on trying to oust Democrats like yourself in their primaries before they even get to the general election. Another group -- the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC -- just endorsed George Latimer, the AIPAC-endorsed candidate who's running against you in New York's primary. What do you make of this? What do you say to these groups who are coming after you on this issue? Have you ever experienced anything like this in your short term in politics so far? He then followed up: Why though? Why is this happening? And, again, I don't know of another part of our politics or a policy issue -- it doesn't happen -- the gun lobby does not do this with your opponent. They don't primary you if you're not taking it -- the climate lobby doesn't do this. The labor lobby doesn't do this. So why is this happening? The far-left Democrat then made incendiary claims about Israel, calling it an "apartheid state" and referring to the founding of Israel that displaced Arabs as the "Nakba" (which means "disaster" in Arabic). Bowman: They don't want any criticism of Israel. Listen, Israel is an ally. We want them to remain an ally. But just like your brother or your cousin or your friend, when they're doing the wrong thing, you have to tell them they're doing the wrong thing and hold them accountable so they can improve. Israel has been doing the wrong thing not just as it relates to this collective punishment in Gaza and the starvation that's happening right now in Gaza, but prior to that, labeled an apartheid state, occupation, a blockade, the Nakba which nobody ever wants to talk about. Mohyeldin supportively asked that "one of the critiques is like you're too focused on foreign policy -- you're not focused enough on your district -- and that's what they're trying to do with Rashida Tlaib in Michigan with other progressives. Does that hold any water?" The New York Democrat answered: My district doesn't want bombs and weapons and billions to be sent to Israel to kill babies. My district wants that money sent to our district so people can afford housing and child care and utilities and have better paying jobs and can afford food and take a vacation. We want peace, and we want investments in the American economy and the American people -- particularly those black, brown, marginalized and left behind. Transcript follows: MSNBC's Ayman April 7, 2024 7:17 p.m. Eastern AYMAN MOHYELDIN: So, for months, progressive lawmakers have been vocally denouncing Israel's disproportionate retaliation in Gaza, and now today, six months into the war, that view is actually held by a majority of Americans. According to a Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans disapprove of Israel's military actions in Gaza. That is the majority. And, as we mentioned before the break, moderate Democrats including Nancy Pelosi who are, you know, strong supporters of Israel, have now joined that chorus. In a letter, they have asked President Biden to suspend weapons transfers to Israel until a full independent investigation into the World Central Kitchen convoy attack is complete. New York Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman is one of those who signed that letter. He joins me now. Let me start off with -- I don't know if you had a chance to see our previous segment, but one of the critiques was: It's only 37 lawmakers so far. You're one of those lawmakers. Give us a -- give us a response to what you say of that critique. CONGRESSMAN JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): Yeah, I mean, it's 37 lawmakers responding to the American people. The majority of the American people demand a permanent ceasefire. We see what's going on right in front of our eyes. We see hundreds of thousands of people and children starving to death in Gaza. So the American people are with us. We're just leading the way and responding to what the people in our own districts are saying. And so, yeah, I mean, you say it's 37 lawmakers now. It was only a few at the very beginning calling for a permanent ceasefire, and that number has grown exponentially. So you're going to see this number grow. I think you're going to see this number grow pretty rapidly. MOHYELDIN: Are you seeing any initial response or any backdoor channels of communication with the White House? How do these things work? You've sent the letter -- you've signed onto the letter. Do they start signaling to you, "Hey, we welcome this, and you're helping us, giving us more space so that we can -- the President can come out there now and start being critical of Israel on this issue"? (BOWMAN) Let me ask you about the Wisconsin vote again. We were talking about this in the previous segment. What do you make of the fact that the domestic politics in this country -- and you're talking about democracy, the representation of the American people. You had about 48,000 unrestricted voters in Wisconsin. The President won that state by 20,000 votes. Is that a cause of concern for the reelection of President Joe Biden? (BOWMAN) Let me ask you about what you're going through in terms of your own personal campaign. I want to kind of make sure I just got the number. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- or AIPAC as we know -- expected to spend $100 million on trying to oust Democrats like yourself in their primaries before they even get to the general election. Another group -- the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC -- just endorsed George Latimer, the AIPAC-endorsed candidate who's running against you in New York's primary. What do you make of this? What do you say to these groups who are coming after you on this issue? Have you ever experienced anything like this in your short term in politics so far? (BOWMAN) Why though? Why is this happening? And, again, I don't know of another part of our politics or a policy issue -- it doesn't happen -- the gun lobby does not do this with your opponent. They don't primary you if you're not taking it -- the climate lobby doesn't do this. The labor lobby doesn't do this. So why is this happening? BOWMAN: They don't want any criticism of Israel. Listen, Israel is an ally. We want them to remain an ally. But just like your brother or your cousin or your friend, when they're doing the wrong thing, you have to tell them they're doing the wrong thing and hold them accountable so they can improve. Israel has been doing the wrong thing not just as it relates to this collective punishment in Gaza and the starvation that's happening right now in Gaza, but prior to that, labeled an apartheid state, occupation, a blockade, the Nakba which nobody ever wants to talk about. So, because people like me are in Congress actually speaking the truth to hold Israel accountable so they can do better for themselves and for a free Palestine, now, AIPAC wants to come after us. They don't want any criticism of Israel which is absurd and unacceptable and is not going to help us maintain a good relationship or maintain lives in Israel or Palestine. MOHYELDIN: One of their -- and we're almost out of time -- but one of the critiques is like you're too focused on foreign policy -- you're not focused enough on your district -- and that's what they're trying to do with Rashida Tlaib in Michigan with other progressives. Does that hold any water? BOWMAN: Yeah, every accusation is a confession. My district doesn't want bombs and weapons and billions to be sent to Israel to kill babies. My district wants that money sent to our district so people can afford housing and child care and utilities and have better paying jobs and can afford food and take a vacation. We want peace, and we want investments in the American economy and the American people -- particularly those black, brown, marginalized and left behind. That's what my district wants. MOHYELDIN: Congressman Jamaal Bowman, always a pleasure.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Nina Totenberg Radio Exposed Again as Leftist Den

This week, National Public Radio senior editor Uri Berliner sent shock waves through their staff by going public with an article on The Free Press website about how they lost the public's trust due to an explicit animus against Donald Trump. Since Trump entered politics, the public radio network's audience has become even more dominated by very liberal Americans. But it didn't start with Trump. NewsBusters can tell you NPR has demonstrated a leftist bent from the beginning. NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg destroyed the Douglas Ginsburg nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, then tried again with Clarence Thomas in 1991. This animus against conservatives didn't kick in suddenly in 2015. Totenberg, both on NPR and on talk shows, brazenly represented the leftist tilt of NPR, wishing out loud that Sen. Jesse Helms (or one of his grandchildren) would get AIDS, and proclaiming after 9/11 that she was ashamed of America when news broke that terrorism suspects were held in secret CIA prisons. There were other outrages over the years on NPR, but Totenberg was the "face" of left-wing activism. NPR executives tried to claim that "inclusion" of differing views is an NPR value -- but anyone who listens to NPR on a regular basis quickly figures out that this is a taxpayer-funded liberal sandbox. There's no real room for conservative views. When Republicans appear, NPR staffers are on the attack. CNN's Oliver Darcy complained that Uri Berliner's article demanding more viewpoint diversity on NPR was a "massive gift to the Right." 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 fair and balanced and a service to everyone, which only signals they're not paying enough attention to the product. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

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?

NB Blog Feed

‘Coincidence of Coincidences’: DHS Deployed State Dept. to Censorship Group Day of Hunter Biden Bombshell

A watchdog group obtained internal records showing federal agencies collaborating with private partners to crush online free speech before the 2020 election. Protect the Public’s Trust, a government watchdog, obtained never-before-seen emails that expose the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advising the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) on censorship collusion with Big Tech companies. Notably, one email came the same day as a bombshell New York Post report on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. MRC Free Speech America has reviewed the emails, which were initially reported by the Washington Examiner. The researchers of the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) had worked with DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) before the 2020 election and DHS recommended them to another major federal agency for censorship purposes. Both EIP and CISA representatives have tried to “downplay” their partnership and anti-free speech work amidst GOP Congressional scrutiny, the Examiner explained. However, the newly discovered emails appear to suggest a close working relationship. Protect the Public’s Trust Director Michael Chamberlain raised the alarm about the implications of such emails in an exclusive interview with MRC Free Speech America. “The more people dig into the Censorship Industrial Complex, the more federal agencies’ denials, disavowals, and defenses crumble. Agencies and offices that claim to never have been involved have left fingerprints all over the records we find.” EIP involved GEC, the University of Washington and the Stanford Internet Observatory. The new documentation comes soon after a 60 Minutes segment featured University of Washington researcher Kate Starbird claiming government and private entities had not colluded to pressure Big Tech into censoring content. The emails directly contradict Starbird’s claims. In his remarks to MRC, Chamberlain added, “Called out, they proclaim their efforts never focused on the speech of American citizens, yet there is overlap and evidence of close coordination between agencies involved in domestic matters and those involved in foreign policy, even helping each other make contacts and connections.”  In the unearthed emails, GEC reached out to EIP. “Our colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security/CISA recommended we talk to you about your current efforts to protect the 2020 elections from foreign interference,” then-GEC academic Adela Levis reportedly wrote in Oct. 2020. “There may be some synergies there with the work we’re doing. Warm regards, Adela.” The reply specifically highlighted Starbird’s leadership and government agencies’ anti-free speech “efforts.” GEC ended by being involved in the process of flagging content for social media to censor, the Washington Examiner reported. “EIP Team, I want to send my sincerest thanks for allowing me to participate in the Election Integrity Partnership as an analyst with the GEC,” enthused State Department employee William Beebe in December 2020. The same day GEC started working toward election interfering censorship, the New York Post story “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad” was published, the Examiner reported. MRC poll data previously illustrated that censorship of Hunter Biden scandals swayed the 2020 election in Joe Biden’s favor. Emphasizing the election interference, Chamberlain told MRC: “Coincidence of coincidences, a State Department agency attempted to connect on the very day the Hunter Biden laptop story broke, one of the most egregious examples of a story being improperly dismissed and censored as ‘foreign disinformation.’” MRC Free Speech America Assistant Editor Luis Cornelio contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, 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.

NB Blog Feed

Oh, NOW You Like Him?! Disney’s ABC Hails DeSantis for Cracking Down on Retail Theft

Exactly two weeks after Disney more or less cried uncle and agreed to a settlement with the State of Florida in its lawsuit over the Parental Rights in Education bill and a few months after Governor Ron DeSantis’s (R-FL) presidential campaign came to an end, Disney-owned ABC had a surprisingly laudatory segment on Thursday’s Good Morning America as they praised DeSantis for “com[ing] down on hard on” porch piracy and retail theft. Oh, how convenient. Now that both fronts of Disney’s pressure campaign — bashing DeSantis for defending children and parents and constantly trashing his presidential campaign to benefit Trump — are over, ABC seems to think he’s no longer a threat, so they’re now free to give him some love.     Co-host Robin Roberts had the first of two teases: ROBERTS: Porch pirate crackdown. The latest state to come down hard on criminals who swipe packages. DESANTIS: Someone’s going to have hell to pay for stealing. ROBERTS: And strict new penalties for retail theft.  In the second, co-host Michael Strahan got in on the act, promising a segment on “the latest state to crack down on porch pirates.” Strahan also opened the segment: “Now to the porch pirate crackdown in Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill to make the Sunshine State the latest to raise penalties for stealing packages from outside homes as well as for retail theft.” Even the accompanying chyron alone came off like something from an alternate reality: “Florida Porch Pirate Crackdown; Governor Signs Bill to Toughen Penalties for Stealing Packages, Retail Theft”. Correspondent Melissa Adan didn’t bat an eye as she reported “Florida is actually going to make it a felony if you steal $40 or more worth of property” and said the police chief of Coral Gables told her “he welcomes this news, as he sees hundreds of these cases here in his city and he hopes that these stiffer criminal charges make a difference.” Highlighting a few examples of porch pirates and footage of one homeowner using a decoy package to catch a would-be thief, Adan said DeSantis had enough and was “cracking down” thanks to “[a] law going into effect this October” with that $40 penalty, which she explained was previously $100 and “stricter penalties for retail theft.” She even had not one but two soundbites praising this decision with a motorcycle shop owner fretting thieves have thought they “can grab” whatever they want and then the aforementioned Coral Gables chief saying he’d “able to make stronger cases against these repeat offenders and also kind of giving other diversionary sentences to people who are facing felonies.” Stating the obvious retail theft has become “a growing trend across the country” and a National Retail Federation statistic such crimes “cost consumers $112 billion in 2022”, Adan briefly alluded to California being the worst such state, but didn’t point out which party controls the state. Tossing back to the co-hosts, she threw a bone to Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY): “Meantime, last month in New York, the governor there announced a $45 million plan to fight back against organized retail crime theft.” To see the relevant transcript from April 11, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 11, 2024 7:01 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Strict New Penalties; Porch Pirate Crackdown] ROBIN ROBERTS: Porch pirate crackdown. The latest state to come down hard on criminals who swipe packages. GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Someone’s going to have hell to pay for stealing. ROBERTS: And strict new penalties for retail theft.  (....) 7:18 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; Florida Porch Pirate Crackdown; Governor Signs Bill to Toughen Penalties for Stealing Packages, Retail Theft] MICHAEL STRAHAN:  Plus the latest state to crack down on porch pirates.  (....) 7:34 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; Florida Porch Pirate Crackdown; Governor Signs Bill to Toughen Penalties for Stealing Packages, Retail Theft] STRAHAN: Now to the porch pirate crackdown in Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill to make the Sunshine State the latest to raise penalties for stealing packages from outside homes as well as for retail theft. Melissa Adan is in Miami with more. Good morning, Melissa. MELISSA ADAN: Good morning, Michael. So, the state of Florida is actually going to make it a felony if you steal $40 or more worth of property. The police chief here in Coral Gables tells me he welcomes this news, as he sees hundreds of these cases here in his city and he hopes that these stiffer criminal charges make a difference. This morning, they are the brazen thieves striking in broad daylight and in the night. This porch pirate in Sacramento disguised as a trash bag captured stealing a package. Some homeowners like this one, have had enough, using a decoy package to catch this alleged thief. CARLOS MEIJIA [TO PORCH PIRATE]: Yo! Yo! ADAN: In Florida, the governor cracking down. A new law going into effect this October. If you steal property worth more than $40, it will be considered a felony. DESANTIS: Someone’s going to have hell to pay for stealing it. ADAN: The law, replacing an already existing one. This time, lowering the stolen property value from $100 to $40. It also includes stricter penalties for retail theft. WMR OWNER BOB BREWSTER: Everything in our store is a candy store for a criminal, things they can grab, sell fast and then take from us. ADAN: In Coral Gables, the police chief welcoming the law, sharing these videos of thieves in action. CORAL GABLES, FL POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF EDARD HUDAK: We’re able to make stronger cases against these repeat offenders and also kind of giving other diversionary sentences to people who are facing felonies. ADAN: It’s a growing trend across the country, with at least nine other states making porch pirating a felony. And that’s not all. According to the National Retail Federation, organized retail crime cost consumers $112 billion in 2022. The state topping the list? California. A proposed bill there calling for repeat shoplifters to serve jail time after a third conviction. Meantime, last month in New York, the governor there announced a $45 million plan to fight back against organized retail crime theft. Guys? ROBERTS: All right, Melissa. Our thanks to you.

NB Blog Feed

Tennessee GOP May Criminalize Helping 'Trans' Kids Get ‘Care’ Without Parental Consent

The fact that this is even something that has to be considered is absolutely berserk.  Tennessee lawmakers are contemplating criminalizing adults who help children receive transgender “care” without their parents' knowledge and consent. GOP senators advanced the legislation Thursday with a 25-4 vote and it’s on its way to the House.  SB 2782 states that any adult who “recruits, harbors, or transports” a child for the purposes of getting them transgender-related medical procedures without their parents' knowledge or consent is guilty of a Class-C felony that carries a prison sentence of three to 15 years. In September, a federal appeals court upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-related medical interventions for children. This new bill takes it a step further and prohibits non-parental adults from "helping" gender-confused minors obtain harmful hormone therapies or irreversible surgeries in other states. As the Associated Press reported, this legislation is similar to a proposal that the Tennessee Senate approved on Wednesday that would criminalize adults from aiding and abetting young people getting abortions without parental consent. It seems that Tennessee is focusing intensely on its kids and how best to protect them from harmful treatments that cause irreversible damage. In response, the media had mixed reactions.  NBC News routinely called these interventions “care” and insisted the bill came from “one of the most eager states to enact policies aimed at the LGBTQ community.”  Independent LGBTQ Journalist Erin Reed called the bill “extreme,” while another user on X shared a map that indicates where Tennessean adults can bring kids to get transgender treatment and would be shielded from any legal repercussions.  On the other hand, some agreed that the bill was a good thing.  “Gender affirming care is child abuse,” one wrote, while another insisted this sort of thing should be in every state, writing, “Any doctor who cuts off healthy body parts of a minor should be thrown in prison." Related: WIN! Court Upholds TN & KY Bans on ‘Transgender Care’ This new proposal is just one in a litany of ways Tennessee lawmakers have cracked down on progressivism targeting children. They’ve worked to keep drag away from kids, to protect teachers who don’t wish to affirm a child’s delusional identity, and have given parents a choice as to whether or not they want their children to be present for particular lessons in school. Time will tell if the state House, like the state Senate, will approve of this proposal. Follow us on Twitter/X: In what world does trying to be an OnlyFans star do anything to honor a deceased grandfather? @tierin_rosebreaks down the left's latest insanity in this week's Woke of the Weak! pic.twitter.com/mvUFDdwPCb — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 9, 2024

NB Blog Feed

NPR Editor Blows the Whistle on Their Left-Wing Bias: MRC’s Stephanie Hamill Reacts on ‘The Kimberly Guilfoyle Show’

MRC contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on “The Kimberly Guilfoyle Show” on Rumble with host Kimberly Guilfoyle on Thursday to discuss the latest trending news, including the latest scandal at NPR. Uri Berliner, Senior Business Editor for the public radio giant, has come out publicly accusing the broadcaster of left-wing bias, basically confirming what we already knew.   Hamill: We all kinda knew they had a liberal slant, and they’ve had one for many, many years. I remember back when I was in college, I used to listen to their content, and I thought it was moderately fair. I actually interned at PBS, so it is really fascinating to me to see this editor come out, who has worked their for 25 years, who actually still works there. We’ll see how long he will work their after he exposed what’s going on there. The big issue here, is that our taxpayer dollars go to funding this source who claims that they’re unbiased and that there is no slant when clearly there is.  

NB Blog Feed

Hostin: O.J.’s Acquittal Was Fine Because Cops Kill More Than He Did

Following the death of former football player and murderer O.J. Simpson, the dumb and racially charged hot takes from the cast of ABC’s The View were inevitable. Of course, it was staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) who dredged up the unfounded racial aspects of the case applied by race-hustlers. She even argued that Simpson’s acquittal was fine since, collectively, cops have killed more people than he did. According to Hostin, the case “was less about his guilt or innocence” in the brutal murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, but “rather about the system and how the system treated African Americans and continues to treat African Americans in this country.” Despite the cases not being related in the slightest, Hostin insisted that a full “context” recounting of Simpson’s trial must include what happened to Rodney King years earlier. “You have to remember in putting it into context the acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King almost to death in front of the world's eyes was in 1992. This happened in 1994,” she said. Hostin argued that for the black community, which she identified with, the Simpson trial “was less about whether or not O.J. did it” and more about using it as a stand-in for race relations in America. She went on to admit that Simpson may have “got away with it,” but “police officers have killed many more people than O.J. Simpson.”     The race card was also played by faux conservative Ana Navarro, who recalled following the case as a law school student, saying: “It was the first time I was confronted in my lifetime with the racial divides and the painful racial gaps in America.” Navarro said she spoke with former CNN host Don Lemon about Simpson’s death and trial, and he seemed to agree with Hostin’s take. “And I do think, Don Lemon was saying to me yesterday, it was not about guilt or innocence, it was about race. It was so much about race,” she recounted. Co-host Sara Haines injected a bit of sanity into the discussion by refocusing the conversation on to Simpson’s two victims: HAINES: There were innocent people involved here and I'd like to take a moment them. Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were brutally killed and murdered. And I think that the legal system failed Nicole over and over again. She had called 911 nine times, the crap beaten out of her, bloody in bushes and always released her domestic abuser. BEHAR: Who was O.J. HAINES: Yeah. I just want to not say his name like everyone is because I think the people we need to be focused on are Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman who were more than victims in this. She had kids. She was a beloved woman that missed out on major parts of her life. The Goldman family still longs for their son who was funny, kind, and outgoing. “For whatever went on in the mess of this, my heart continues to go out for those families who lived beyond and without their loved ones,” she said. The silence from Hostin was deafening. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 12, 2024 11:03:00 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: You know, I think it was less about his guilt or innocence and rather about the system and how the system treated African Americans, and continues to treat African Americans in this country. You have to remember in putting it into context the acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King almost to death in front of the world's eyes was in 1992. This happened in 1994. And I think for the black community, it was less about whether or not O.J. did it, because I think even today you'll go to, you know, barber shops and beauty salons and people will say “he did it,” but he got away with it and the police officers, you know, police officers have killed many more people than O.J. Simpson. JOY BEHAR: Probably I think they didn't trust that the police did not plant evidence because -- HOSTIN: Well, Mark Furman said on the witness stand, “I never used a racial slur.” By the way, people, when a lawyer in cross-examination in a courtroom says, “have you ever done this?” they know that you did it. [Laughter] Right? And so then they come up with tapes and he's using the "N" word like Christmas. BEHAR: But don't you think some of the reason he got away with it was because he was famous not just that he was black? ANA NAVARRO: There were so many reasons. The prosecution had a lot of failures. And, yes, I think part of the reason that it's so fascinating. Look, it's fascinating because it was O.J. Simpson. He was a celebrity, he was rich, he was a successful athlete, we all knew who he was, and he was in car rental company commercials. But it's one of these instances in American history where if you're of a certain age, everybody remembers where you were the day that the verdict was read. HOSTIN: And when the Bronco chase was happening. NAVARRO: Everything. BEHAR: Well, it was covered extensively. NAVARRO: Like with 9/11, with the JFK death, with Challenger explosion. HOSTIN: Michael Jackson’s death. NAVARRO: It reaches that level because I think it's had such cultural significance. It launched so many careers. It changed the way we cover courts. HOSTIN: Camera were in the courtroom. NAVARRO: For me it was the first time and I know it sounds naive to a lot of people but I grew up in Miami in a bubble. I went to a school that was 98 percent Latina immigrant Catholic girls. It was the first time I was confronted in my lifetime with the racial divides and the painful racial gaps in America. And I remember watching it. I remember I was at the student union in law school and the black students were on side and the white – non-blacks were on the other side. The black students erupted into cheers, the white -- everybody else was with jaws agape, and it's something that still is happening in so many cases. And I do think, Don Lemon was saying to me yesterday, it was not about guilt or innocence, it was about race. It was so much about race. SARA HAINES: There were innocent people involved here and I'd like to take a moment them. Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were brutally killed and murdered. And I think that the legal system failed Nicole over and over again. She had called 911 nine times, the crap beaten out of her, bloody in bushes and always released her domestic abuser. BEHAR: Who was O.J. HAINES: Yeah. I just want to not say his name like everyone is because I think the people we need to be focused on are Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman who were more than victims in this. She had kids. She was a beloved woman that missed out on major parts of her life. The Goldman family still longs for their son who was funny, kind, and outgoing. BEHAR: He was really an innocent bystander. HAINES: They both were innocent. BEHAR: She was not a bystander, but – HAINES: For whatever went on in the mess of this, my heart continues to go out for those families who lived beyond and without their loved ones. (…)

NB Blog Feed

'Fueled By Misinformation': CNN Downplays Christian Fears About Biden

CNN correspondent Donie O’Sullivan went to bat for the Biden Campaign on Thursday’s edition of Anderson Cooper 360, where he said of conservative Christian concerns about Biden, “Some of these fears are fueled by misinformation.” The segment would re-air on Friday’s CNN New Central, but showing the segment a second time did not make O’Sullivan’s claims any truer. In a pre-recorded report, O’Sullivan reported on the dangers of so-called Christian Nationalism, a scary sounding phrase with no discernible definition other than traditionally understood social conservatism. He also cited polling showing, “Forty-four percent of Americans say the Bible should have at least some influence on U.S. law.”     That poll question is meaningless because when some people hear the question, they think of Old Testament dietary laws, while other people think of not allowing men to compete on women’s sports teams, which is something everyone agreed with until a couple of years ago, but such nuances weren’t the point of O’Sullivan’s segment. His point was to portray conservatives as a bunch of out-touch, paranoid weirdos. Interviewing an unidentified woman on the street, O’Sullivan asked, “Do you think, is America a Christian country?” After the woman affirmed she does, O’Sullivan argued with her, “But obviously in the Constitution there is that separation of church and state.” Earlier in the segment, O’Sullivan interviewed some anti-Trump pastors and they got much easier questions, such as “Why is Christian nationalism? In your view, such a threat?” They also cited the Bible to justify their opposition to Trump’s policies on things like immigration, but they probably would answer no to the above poll question. The woman held her ground, recalling that “Yes, but then there's also, always, when I went to public school, we were allowed to pray.” After O’Sullivan followed up by asking what exactly she meant, “When you say Christianity is under attack in America, you're talking about in the schools, the teaching of --” She answered, “Not so much in the schools, but just -- I just can't come up with anything right now. But I think the biggest thing is I just don't trust Joe Biden.” In a voiceover, O’Sullivan claimed that “some of these fears are fueled by misinformation.” After a clip of Trump discussing Biden’s Easter/Transgender Visibility Day proclamation, O’Sullivan spun “International Transgender Visibility Day takes place every year on March 31. This year, Easter Sunday also happened to fall on that day.” No matter how many times the media pretends that Biden had nothing to do with Transgender Visibility Day, it will not change the fact that he decided to issue the proclamation acknowledging it. A second unidentified woman was then shown claiming, “I think more that Christians are going to be discriminated against under Biden or a second term.” After O’Sullivan asked her what that meant, she added, “By making yesterday, which was the worldwide Christian celebration of the resurrection, Transgender Day. That was quite a slap in the face.” O’Sullivan, again, started spinning “I will just say that the days, they've had the Trans Awareness Day on the same date the past few years. It just happened that this year it fell on Easter Sunday.” The woman replied, “Okay. Thank you for correcting me. I appreciate that.” Two things could be said of that. First, the fact, that woman was willing to listen to facts shows that conservative Christians are not the intransigent people O’Sullivan and Biden are trying to portray them as. Second, O’Sullivan’s should make sure those facts are actually facts and not spin. Here is a transcript for the April 11 show: Anderson Cooper 360 4/11/2024 8:36 PM ET DONIE O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Forty-four percent of Americans say the Bible should have at least some influence on U.S. law. Do you think, is America a Christian country? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I believed that growing up, I did. O'SULLIVAN: Yeah. Founded as a Christian country? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, it was founded as a Christian country. O'SULLIVAN: But obviously in the Constitution there is that separation of church and state. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, but then there's also, always, when I went to public school, we were allowed to pray. O'SULLIVAN: When you say Christianity is under attack in America, you're talking about in the schools, the teaching of – UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not so much in the schools, but just -- I just can't come up with anything right now. But I think the biggest thing is I just don't trust Joe Biden. O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Some of these fears are fueled by misinformation. DONALD TRUMP: And what the hell was Biden thinking when he declared Easter Sunday to be Trans Visibility Day? O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): International Transgender Visibility Day takes place every year on March 31. This year, Easter Sunday also happened to fall on that day. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 2: I think more that Christians are going to be discriminated against under Biden or a second term. O'SULLIVAN: How -- what do you mean by that? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 2: By making yesterday, which was the worldwide Christian celebration of the resurrection, Transgender Day. That was quite a slap in the face. O'SULLIVAN: I will just say that the days, they've had the Trans Awareness Day on the same date the past few years. It just happened that this year it fell on Easter Sunday. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 2: Okay. Thank you for correcting me. I appreciate that. O'SULLIVAN: So do you understand it better now? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 2: Yup. Yup. I do. O'SULLIVAN: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. I do. God loves transgenders and he wants them to come to him too.

NB Blog Feed

OUCH: KJP Gets Waxed by Fox’s Heinrich, Lawrence on Inflation, CNN on Lack of WH Ethics

Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre went solo for Thursday’s White House press briefing, so she shouldered all the questions, including the Middle East and the economy. It was on this latter topic where she was put through the gauntlet by Fox News’s Jacqui Heinrich and Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence as they called out the administration’s channeling of Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber in denying persistently high inflation. Lawrence cut to the chase with a brutal inflation fact-check: “[Y]esterday in the Rose Garden, the President said that when he came into office, inflation was skyrocketing, but it was 1.4 percent in January of 2021 and that was the 11th consecutive month at that time under two percent. So, it was the President misleading Americans?”     Unsurprisingly, Jean-Pierre refused to engage and instead doubled down about inflation having taken off because, when Biden took office, the country was “a pandemic” that “was closing down businesses, closing down schools, uh, and so, it was drastically disrupting the supply chain” followed by the war in Ukraine. Lawrence didn’t buy it: “But the President didn’t say the supply chain was being disrupted. He said inflation was skyrocketing.” Jean-Pierre doubled down on the dishonesty, leaving Lawrence to ask a third and final time if Biden’s really “being honest” with Americans (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: But that’s what he was referring to, right? That’s what was going on. Those were the things that were happening right before us. The pandemic — it was taking thousands of lives a day when he — he took office, schools were closed — or  majority of schools were closed, businesses were closing and we had a supply chain that was disrupted. And so, that’s what the President was speaking to and laying out and then, inflation, down the road became even more — increased even more because of the war that Russia had taken on into Ukraine. LAWRENCE: But...the Fed’s supply chain measure actually went down in — in November at that time. So — so is the President being honest about inflation? JEAN-PIERRE: The President has said — what he said what he saw when he was — when he took — when he took office. The pandemic was happening, right? It disrupted the supply chain. We know, you know what happens when the supply chain is disrupted. You know what that leads to. And so, that’s what he was speaking to and not only that — we — he had to — we also saw a war in Ukraine that Mr Putin — an aggressive aggression that Mr Putin was — was putting into Ukraine — set forth. And so, the president had to take historic action — take aggressive action in dealing with disruption in the supply chain. He had to — he released a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, so that we can deal with the supply chain and he continued to take action to lower cost. And that’s what we’ve seen, whether it’s health care costs, whether it’s dealing with junk fees, whether it’s prescription drugs, lowering those costs. That’s what the President took action in. But we saw what was happening when the President took office. We did. Heinrich cited a report in Politico from former Chief of Staff Ron Klain in which he allegedly said President Biden needs to focus more on soaring prices Americans are paying than fixing bridges. After bringing that up, Heinrich tied it to the lack of a White House statement on the latest Producer Price Index (PPI): “We didn’t get any statement today on the PPI index. You know, why aren’t we hearing more from the White House about the issues that people are facing at grocery stores and paying rent?” Jean-Pierre’s prepared answer cited the State of the Union as proof Biden has “made very clear about what he understands what the Americans are facing and he’s talked at almost every — every event that he’s had....about lowering costs”. Along with listing off five different events where an aspect of the economy came up, she closed with the reality that Klain still supports Biden and formulaic lies about Republicans wanting to end entitlements. Heinrich’s other economic question was about the Federal Reserve: “Is it all inappropriate for the President to be commenting on what the Fed might or might not do with interest rate cuts?” Jean-Pierre went down the ‘but, Trump’ route by claiming Biden has “giv[en] the Fed the space to make independent decisions” “unlike the last [President]”. Heinrich did, however, first ask about Iran: JACQUI TIME: “I just wanted to clarify one of your earlier answers. Did the administration sent a direct warning to Iran not to attack Israel?” KJP: “We've been very clear. I — I’ve — we've been — I mean, you heard from the President — right — and laid out our commitment to… pic.twitter.com/1ZF0W2QdFC — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 Elsewhere, CNN’s Kayla Tausche strayed from Team Biden’s lionization of the latest state dinner with the Japanese Prime Minister to grill Jean-Pierre over the ethical hypocrisy of inviting Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Apple’s Tim Cook when “regulators in the Biden administration have sued both Amazon and Apple, alleging anti-competitive behavior that has caused public harm.”     Jean-Pierre tried to meander with another mangled mess and affront to the English language about the necessity of “bipartisanship” and inviting “different types of people” to state dinners, but Tausche reiterated the inconsistency: The Justice Department said just less than a month ago that Apple uses its control over the iPhone to engage in a broad, sustained, and illegal course of conduct, saying that that lawsuit should send a strong signal to other companies. What signal is the White House sending? Jean-Pierre maintained a comical wall of separation between the White House and Justice Department, but Tausche pointed out the administration still “invite[d] them to dinner” and it would seem to show Biden “doesn’t think that those companies did anything wrong.” And, from the left, The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg provided the anti-Israel side of things by lecturing Jean-Pierre and the administration that “respectfully,” it’s “not true” that Biden “is doing everything he can on getting humanitarian aid into Gaza”. His second question was even more lubricious as he argued Republican presidential candidates — when challenging an incumbent Democrat — interfere in elections and national security (click “expand”): FEINBERG: Earlier this week, the former President met with Lord Cameron, the British Foreign Secretary. He has, in recent weeks, met with Viktor Orbán, the leader of Hungary. He has said he’s spoken to Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia. There is a long history of Republican presidential candidates meddling in foreign policy to undermine their Democratic opponents. Without getting into Hatch Act territory — you know, telling people to vote for or against someone — is the administration concerned that this private citizen could be working against U.S. interests in the interests of his own political ones? JEAN-PIERRE: And you’re talking about his meeting specifically with — FEINBERG: With — with foreign leaders: Lord Cameron, his talking with MBS, Viktor Orbán, and others possibly. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, a- — look, as it relates to other — other leaders and those types of meetings — specifically, let’s — let’s talk about David Cameron. The UK noted earlier this week it is common for officials from other countries to meet with representatives of different parties. That includes the United States, as we routinely meet with political leaders of different parties as well. For instance, we hosted Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid yesterday — at the beginning of the week — at the beginning of the week.  And so, it’s not uncommon. I am going to be really careful here, because you’re talking about a presidential candidate. I’m going to be really mindful. I used David Cameron as an example, but I’m going to be really mindful. I’m not speaking beyond that.  To see the relevant transcript from the April 11 briefing, click here.

NB Blog Feed

‘They/Them’ with Antifa Links Arrested Over Bombing at Alabama AG’s Office

Back in February, a bomb blew up at the Alabama Attorney General’s office in Montgomery, Alabama. This week, Kyle Benjamin Douglas Calvert was indicted and charged with “malicious use of an explosive and possession of an unregistered destructive device,” a press release by the AG’s office indicated.  After Calvert allegedly detonated a bomb outside of AG Steve Marshall’s office on February 24, he was finally arrested on Wednesday. The explosion took place at approximately 3:42 a.m. and there were no injuries or major damage to buildings reported.  “That device had the characteristics of an IED, and Calvert added a substantial number of nails and other shrapnel to increase its destructive capability,” a detention memo noted. The same memo indicated that law enforcement officers found Calvert putting stickers on state buildings that advocated for “various political ideologies,” like some promoting Antifa, anti-police, anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement related stickers.  “Thanks to the work of the FBI and our state and local law enforcement partners, this defendant is being held accountable for allegedly detonating an explosive device outside of the Alabama Attorney General’s Office. The Justice Department has no tolerance for acts of violence targeting those who serve the public,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. To add more layers to the story, some reports indicate that Calvert is transgender and has links to Antifa. That removes the surprise as to why he allegedly bombed a Republican’s office. The Post Millennial shared an image from one of Calvert’s social media pages where he wrote that he’s a “goth neurodivergent D&D nerd” and uses “they/them” pronouns. Additionally on his TikTok page, it says he’s a ”pansexual.” I mean it’s not that shocking that a person struggling with normalcy would think it’s okay to bomb the office of a state AG.  If convicted, Calvert could face up to 20 years in prison and would be required to spend at least five years behind bars.

NB Blog Feed

BUZZKILL! Krugman Claimed 'Wave of Inflation' Seems to 'Have Broken’ Day Before Hot BLS Report

The New York Times economics parody writer Paul Krugman — because that’s all he’s been reduced to now — can’t seem to avoid sleepwalking his way into major, unforced errors. In another Apr. 9 column praising President Joe Biden’s alleged “Goldilocks” economy, Krugman was adamant that “while there was a wave of inflation, it seems to have broken.” Yes, Krugman wrote this just a day before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its Apr. 10 report showing that consumer prices spiked hotter than expected at 3.5 percent year-over-year and 0.4 percent month-over-month. CNBC analyzed that core consumer prices (excluding food and energy) “also accelerated 0.4% on a monthly basis while rising 3.8% from a year ago, compared with respective estimates for 0.3% and 3.7%.” French newspaper Le Monde concluded, “The numbers are bad and getting worse.” In other words, Krugman: You done messed up A-Aron.      Krugman’s column, in retrospect, gets even more painful as one reads on: Basically, America rapidly restored full employment while experiencing a one-time jump in the level of prices without a sustained rise in inflation, the rate at which prices are rising. Not bad, especially considering all the dire predictions made along the way.” [emphasis added]. Ouch.  The other hole in Krugman’s argument here is that he doesn’t mention the workers missing from the labor force. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that number to be around 1.7 million on Feb. 13, 2024, compared to February 2020. The chamber stated, “If every unemployed person in the country found a job, we would still have nearly 2.4 million open jobs. Other estimates put the number of jobs missing from the labor market compared to its pre-pandemic trend at 4.8 million. Krugman’s new shtick for spinning the U.S. economic situation is suggesting that Americans should forget the CPI index by the BLS altogether. The so-called breaking of the “wave of inflation,” as Krugman put it, is “especially clear if you measure inflation the way other countries do.” By his distorted metrics, Krugman claimed irresponsibly that “inflation has already been cut to roughly 2 percent, the [Federal Reserve’s] inflation target.” Ah, so all Americans have to do is use other countries’ metrics to hoodwink themselves into believing that the inflation situation is better than it is, right? Brilliant!  It’s too bad for Krugman the liberal media writ large are now projecting the new inflation numbers are signaling that the Fed isn’t anywhere near its target to be comfortably cutting interest rates anytime soon. Even liberal CNN anchor Kate Bolduan admitted that the hot BLS numbers meant “[i]nflation is headed in the wrong direction right now.” Subsequently, the Atlanta Federal Reserve revised down its nowcast model for first quarter GDP growth to 2.4 percent from its April 5, 2.5 percent estimate. Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni summarized what the series of unfortunate events for Krugman’s narrative meant for the future in an X post: “BLS releases hot CPI and now ATL Fed revises down GDP nowcast...Inflation: faster[.] Growth: slower [.] Say it w/ me: stagflation.”  BLS releases hot CPI and now ATL Fed revises down GDP nowcast... Inflation: faster Growth: slower Say it w/ me: stagflation pic.twitter.com/UoptaylTDe — E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) April 10, 2024 But that’s not all. Queens College, Cambridge President Mohamed A. El-Erian even conceded that the hot inflation report signaled “continued price pressure on consumers, which hits the poor hardest, and a sharp market reaction.” Liberal Harvard Professor of Practice Jason Furman also admitted, “Over the last twelve months core CPI has risen 3.5%. That is faster than any twelve month period from February 1993 to 2020.”   Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 800-698-4637 and demand it distance itself from Krugman’s awful takes on Bidenomics.

NB Blog Feed

Daily Show Claims Pro-Life Men Are 'A Ridiculous Embarrassment'

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show brought out all the cringe on Thursday as temp host Michael Kosta labeled a recent Fox Business segment between Mark Simone and Larry Kudlow discussing abortion as “a ridiculous embarrassment.” That led him to do a sketch with Jordan Klepper where the two pretended to be stereotypical macho men who claimed to be pro-life, but also didn’t know how babies are made or what an abortion is. Kosta wrapped up the straightforward monologue on the FBN segment by introducing the sketch, “Now, a panel of men talking about abortion might seem like a ridiculous embarrassment for everyone involved, but I actually think it's a great idea for our new segment, ‘Men talk about abortion.’"  Kosta talks about abortion all the time, so he really means pro-life men discussing abortion. Still, complete with bad wigs and fake cigars, he asked, “Alright, let's get right to it, man to man. What's your solution for abortion?”     Referencing remarks Simone made in the clip, Klepper replied, “Okay, easy peasy, lemon squeezy. Alright, if a woman needs an abortion, she should just take the bus to a state where it's legal.  After claiming that having had some testicular injury qualifies him to render such judgments, Kosta added that “I know it's frustrating for women, but we can't all—we have rights some places and other places we don't. For example, I'm not allowed to go to the Epcot food court anymore because apparently you can't ‘Do that’ to the funnel cakes. I mean, Double standards? Double standards?” Klepper also urged women to accept their stance, “Look, look, women are making too big a deal about all of this. Look, I've never had to walk through a line of protesters to get basic health care, but I have had to make eye contact with the woman at Walgreens while buying a pack of slim-fit Trojan condoms! So, sometimes you got to get past feeling judged, ladies!” Kosta affirmed Klepper and wondered, “You are brave, my broham and by the way, what about the father's rights?... Right! Are you a father?” Klepper declared that he wasn’t because “I haven't quite figured out how it works yet. I do know boobs are involved, though, you know. How about you?"  Not only did Kosta report not being a father, he claimed to not be able to find a date, “Yeah, I haven't found the right lady. I was in a relationship for several years, but she turned out to be a raccoon and she tricked me out of my credit card!” Starting to break character, Klepper relayed a similar expierence, “Tale as old as time period, player, tale as old as time. In fact, my ex was three possums in a trench coat! Just, you know—point is—point is when it comes to women's rights, we get it!” Wrapping it up, Kosta finally asked, “What is an abortion?” Klepper again pleaded ignorance, “Not a clue. Not a clue. But, but, but, I think the boobs are once again involved.”  The inverse of “it’s funny because it’s true” is “it’s not funny because it’s not true,” and this bit about pro-life men being irredeemably dumb fails because pro-life men are keenly aware of what abortion is and how babies are made. Here is a transcript for the April 11 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/11/2024 11:06 PM ET MICHAEL KOSTA: Now, a panel of men talking about abortion might seem like a ridiculous embarrassment for everyone involved, but I actually think it's a great idea for our new segment, "Men talk about abortion."  KOSTA [IN CHARACTER]: Yeah, yeah, alright! alright, you know it! Yeah! Joining me now is my main bro, my main man, you’re just like me, aren’t you? Yeah. JORDAN KLEPPER [IN CHARACTER]: Yeah, I sure am, a big old man! Huh, just watch me open this jar! I'll finish it later!  KOSTA: No, you softened it up, you softened it up, big dog. Alright, let's get right to it, man to man. What's your solution for abortion?  KLEPPER: Okay, easy peasy, lemon squeezy. Alright— KOSTA: Yeah, yeah, yeah. KLEPPER: — If a woman needs an abortion, she should just take the bus to a state where it's legal.  KOSTAL Okay. KLEPPER: Look, obviously I've never had to travel out of state for an abortion but I did accidently hit myself in the balls trying to double knot my deck shoes. I cried so hard they helicoptered me into a hospital in the next state, I was fine! KOSTA: Couldn’t agree more, chief. Couldn’t agree more, chief.  Women should just take the bus ride or just give birth. And look, I've never given birth.  KLEPPER: Of course not, but you would crush it if you did! I mean, you would crush it. KOSTA: I would crush it. You know I would! Hey look, I know it's frustrating for women, but we can't all — we have rights some places and other places we don't. For example, I'm not allowed to go to the Epcot food court anymore because apparently you can't "Do that" to the funnel cakes. I mean, Double standards? Double standards? Yeah, yeah, KLEPPER: Double standard! Double standard, Double standard. Look, look, women are making too big a deal about all of this. Look, I've never had to walk through a line of protesters to get basic health care, but I have had to make eye contact with the woman at Walgreens while buying a pack of slim-fit Trojan condoms! So, sometimes you got to get past feeling judged, ladies!  KOSTA: You’re brave.  KLEPPER: Thank you. KOSTA: You are brave, my broham and by the way, what about the father's rights?  KLEPPER: Oh, the fathers have to have rights!  KOSTA: Right! Are you a father? KLEPPER: I am not a father! No, I would like to be, but I haven't quite figured out how it works yet.  KOSTA: Okay, okay. KLEPPER: I do know boobs are involved, though, you know. How about you?  KOSTA: Yeah, I haven't found the right lady. I was in a relationship for several years but she turned out to be a raccoon and she tricked me out of my credit card!  KLEPPER: Tale as old as time period, player, tale as old as time. In fact, my ex was three possums in a trench coat! Just, you know — point is — point is when it comes to women's rights, we get it!  Michael: We! Get! It! Alright, before we go, quick question: What is an abortion?  KLEPPER: Not a clue. Not a clue. But, but, but, I think the boobs are once again involved. 

NB Blog Feed

HUH?! KJP Gives BIZARRE Answer to AP When Asked About O.J. Simpson’s Death

Given the fact that much of Thursday’s news cycles were dominated by the death of O.J. Simpson, it shouldn’t have been that surprising Simpson was invoked during the White House press briefing. Somehow, the ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had a cringeworthy answer. The Associated Press’s Darlene Superville has always been a Biden hack, so she probably thought she was helping the White House out with her third question being about the corrupt and disgraced former NFL player (after two about Israel): “Was there any reaction from the President to O.J. Simpson’s death? Do you know if they ever crossed paths? If so, how? When?”     Setting aside the unintentionally somewhat on-the-nose “crossed paths” phrase, Jean-Pierre’s answer showed complete callousness to the family of those many believe Simpson killed, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. “So, I’ll say this,” Jean-Pierre began (as she often does) before adding “[o]ur thoughts are with — with his families during this difficult time — obviously, with his family and loved ones.” Yeeesh. Based on the creative litany of responses to a video tweet of the exchange, the public certainly has been left scratching its head. It was as though Simpson were some revered statesman or cabinet secretary, not a man with the nickname The Juice whose smarmy behavior led to a life of ruin after evading guilt in the criminal trial for the deaths of Nicole and Ron. Alluding to the tweet from Simpson’s account by his family announcing his death, Jean-Pierre concluded: [A]nd I’ll say this. I know that they have asked for some privacy and so, we’re going to respect that. I’ll just leave it there. To see the relevant transcript from the April 11 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] April 11, 2024 2:11 p.m. Eastern DARLENE SUPERVILLE: Was there any reaction from the President to O.J. Simpson’s death? Do you know if they ever crossed paths? If so, how? When? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this. Our thoughts are with — with his families during this difficult time — obviously, with his family and loved ones, and I’ll say this. I know that they have asked for some privacy and so, we’re going to respect that. I’ll just leave it there.

NB Blog Feed

Naked Dude Arrested After Exposing Himself In Women's Locker Room at Planet Fitness

Christopher Allan Miller stripped naked in the women’s locker room at a Planet Fitness location in North Carolina. Despite identifying as a woman, Miller was arrested Thursday for indecent exposure to a minor. Local police received a call on April 4 from a traumatized woman claiming that Miller was walking around the women’s locker room completely naked.  “It’s a man but he says he identifies as a woman, and he won’t leave the restroom. But he is just walking around showing us his — and he won’t leave,” the concerned woman said according to local news WSOC-TV 9. The offender’s booking details list Miller as a male and indicate that he’s being held at the Gaston County jail. Planet Fitness member Betty Brice spoke out about her concern with Miller in the bathroom, saying, “I think a woman should be able to go into a women's bathroom without a man coming in saying he’s transgender." Planet Fitness has been under fire as of late for its policy on transgender people, which states that individuals may use whichever facility that best aligns with their "gender identity." Here’s what the website claims: Planet Fitness is more than your neighborhood fitness center – we are the Judgement Free Zone®. At Planet Fitness, we celebrate and champion diversity and provide an environment where everyone feels accepted, respected and like they belong. Planet Fitness prohibits discrimination and harassment that is based on gender identity or gender expression in the workplace and in our clubs. The following is our corporate policy regarding the accommodation of our members and team members in terms of their gender identity. When it comes to nudity, here’s what the website states: We ask that members respect the privacy and comfort of other members by practicing modesty in the locker rooms and remaining covered as much as possible. Obviously Miller neglected to do that if he was, in fact, in the nude. A female gym member named Patricia Silvia complained back in March about a biological man using - and even shaving in - the women’s locker room, even when a girl around 12 years old was present in the space. Related: Man Allowed in Women's Restroom at Planet Fitness, Company Stock Drops Instead of apologizing to Silvia and dealing with the situation appropriately, Planet Fitness revoked her gym membership, leading to many members voluntarily canceling their Planet Fitness memberships out of protest. The gym’s value plummeted around $400 million after the fiasco. It really is sad and disturbing that Miller was not only in the ladies room, but that he was in the ladies room butt-ass naked. While I am glad he was arrested, this is exactly the kind of thing Planet Fitness is inviting with these sorts of policies. Follow us on Twitter/X: In what world does trying to be an OnlyFans star do anything to honor a deceased grandfather? @tierin_rosebreaks down the left's latest insanity in this week's Woke of the Weak! pic.twitter.com/mvUFDdwPCb — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 9, 2024

NB Blog Feed

PBS Misremembers William F. Buckley Jr.

Imagine making a documentary about one of the 20th century’s leading opponents of the Ku Klux Klan — without ever talking about the evil of the KKK itself. If that sounds like malpractice, consider PBS’s new documentary on the life of William F. Buckley Jr. “The Incomparable Mr. Buckley,” the latest installment in the “American Masters” series, has much to say about anti-Communism but never reckons with the murderous reality of Communism itself. In failing to do so, producer and director Barak Goodman unintentionally reminds his viewers of why Buckley was needed in the first place — and why he still is. Never mind that Buckley died in 2008, and next year marks the centenary of his birth. The liberals who already reigned in America’s universities when Buckley was a Yale student in the late 1940s have not learned any lessons in the decades since then. Faculty and administrators still will not speak frankly about evils emanating from the left end of the political spectrum, from Communism to the many violent groups that claim to act in the name of anti-colonialism. The PBS documentary gets Buckley’s resume right but understands little of its significance. In 1951 Buckley published his first book, “God and Man at Yale.” Four years later, when he was not quite 30 years old, Buckley launched National Review, which became the all-but-official publication of the nascent conservative movement. He had a hand in the creation of other institutions, too, such as the right’s student activist arm, Young Americans for Freedom. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan drew political support and intellectual sustenance from the movement Buckley built. And after Goldwater’s crushing defeat in the 1964 presidential election, Buckley restored conservatives’ spirits with his run for mayor of New York City the following year. “The Incomparable Mr. Buckley” is right to suggest that although WFB’s mayoral campaign never had a shot at winning — Buckley joked that if he won, he’d demand a recount — it taught conservatives how to mobilize urban Catholics and voters fed up with escalating crime. The Nixon coalition, which would win the White House in 1968 and 1972, was the Buckley coalition first. His mayoral run made him a media sensation and led to a career in television, on top of the several careers he already had as an author, editor, lecturer and movement-maker. He even started his own highly successful interview show, “Firing Line,” which ran for more than three decades, mostly on PBS affiliates, starting in 1966. “The Incomparable Mr. Buckley” tantalizes viewers with clips of WFB’s exchanges with “Firing Line” guests such as Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg. But the documentary is reluctant to let Buckley speak for himself; voiceovers from historians offering their own spin break in after only a few words from the subject himself. The filmmakers prefer to highlight defeats and embarrassments: the debate Buckley lost to James Baldwin at Cambridge University in 1965 on the resolution “The American Dream is at the expense of the American Negro” and WFB’s explosion on live TV, while covering the 1968 Democratic National Convention, when Gore Vidal taunted him as a “pro- or crypto-Nazi.” Buckley, losing his composure for once, retorted by calling Vidal a “queer” and saying he’d “sock” him in the face — “and you’ll stay plastered!” — if he kept up the abuse. Vidal delighted in getting this rise out of Buckley and thought it made great television, but the conservative was mortified. The trouble with “The Incomparable Mr. Buckley,” though, isn’t that it showcases such episodes but that it finds its subject incomprehensible at the most important level — the meaning of his life’s work. When Goodman isn’t presenting Buckley as a figure fit for “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,” he and the historians he’s enlisted press the thesis that Buckley was an irresponsible elitist who dabbled with populist forces he could not control. The documentary ends with scenes of Donald Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. But it’s elite liberals, not Buckley, who created the opening for Trump. Buckley’s institutions, notably National Review, opposed Trump — yet their opposition wasn’t enough to offset demand for Trump from voters whom liberals had alienated. By failing to learn the lessons Buckley tried all his life to teach, and refusing to moderate their left-wing prejudices in light of an articulate conservative critique, liberals in politics, media and the academy guaranteed the rise of populism. From the Cold War to crime in the cities, they blamed America for every problem. Thirty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, liberals like those behind “The Incomparable Mr. Buckley” persist in treating Communism as a footnote to McCarthyism. They have their history, and their view of Buckley, upside down. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

Is Dubbing Joe Biden In Spanish Election Interference? Yes, It Is.

It took me a minute to get there, but I have arrived at the realization that the act of dubbing President Joe Biden in Spanish is tantamount to an act of election interference, given the degree to which it alters the president’s outward presentation to voters and what such dubbing conceals to voters who rely exclusively on Spanish-language newscasts. Look at Biden’s Constitutionally-challenged rant on guns, both in the original English and as dubbed into Spanish, as aired on Univision (Spanish) and Unimás (English) on Tuesday, April 9th, 2024: JOE BIDEN: The idea we don't have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon, the idea that we're going to be in a position where he says that he famously told the NRA that don't worry, no one's going to touch your guns if I… From the very beginning, I used to teach the Second Amendment in law school, from the very beginning, there were limitations. You couldn't own a cannon. You couldn’t… You could own a rifle or a gun.   ENRIQUE ACEVEDO: Weapons of war. JOE BIDEN: They weren’t weapons of war. The contrast is as stark as night and day.  Those who watched the TelevisaUnivision interview of Joe Biden on Unimás (as I did, primarily) got English with subtitles. We heard the president in his own voice, speech pattern and mannerisms. We got to hear him trail off several times, and made assessments of his lucidity and cognition. Based on this feed we were able to speculate as to the efficacy of the (alleged) White House medical cocktail team (hard to assess because the interview was split into shorter interviews across multiple venues, as opposed to Trump’s lengthy sit-down at Mar-a-Lago). Those who watched the Spanish-dubbed interview on Univision were deprived of that perspective because of the stellar job done by the interpreter. When dubbed into Spanish, Biden sounds 40 years younger and without cognitive decline. The interpreter’s rich baritone, when transposed onto Biden, leaves viewers with the impression of a president far more vigorous than he actually is.  The truth is that this has always been the custom when covering presidents in Spanish-language media. Each network has their on-call contract interpreter that handles presidential addresses. These guys are experienced, highly skilled, and have worked through several administrations. But none of those presidents had the structural challenges that Joe Biden possesses. One can accurately convey the words of what Joe Biden is saying, but not the trail-offs and blank stares. Cognitive decline becomes impossible to convey to the viewing audience. The fairest way to present Biden to a Spanish-dominant audience, then, is simply to show him as is, in English with Spanish subtitles as was shown on Univision’s sister network Unimás. Let the viewers see for themselves.  Having had a couple of days to process the interview, one notices that there have been no interventional pieces filed by the Acela Media, and no broad protestations put forth by the Professional Latinx. There are no Washington Post or New York Times items describing a conflicted newsroom. It appears that the highly scripted, choreographed and overproduced campaign documentary has satisfied those who were outraged by the Trump interview, and that Anita Dunn effectively bullied TelevisaUnivision into proving Team Biden with their very own “softball” interview. As I said in my preview, the most dangerous scenario for Biden would have been to get the same type of interview that Trump got. But Biden got the exact opposite. And Univision's Spanish-language viewers, who studies show are part of the most misinformed cohort among voters, got more of the same.

NB Blog Feed

THE POUNCING CONTINUES: Networks Hype Arizona Abortion Politics

The network evening newscasts continue to feast on coverage of the potential political fallout over an Arizona Supreme Court ruling ratifying an 1864 territorial statute that bans abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother. Understandably so, as newscast time spent hyping abortions in Arizona is less time available to cover the types of things adverse to Democrats generally, and to the Biden presidency, specifically. Watch as NBC’s Hallie Jackson gives the game away: HALLIE JACKSON: On the Arizona ruling that reinstates an 1864 law banning nearly all abortions, with the exception of those to save the mother's life, the Biden campaign is looking to put Republicans on defense as Mr. Trump acknowledges overnight Democrats have the political advantage.  DONALD TRUMP: The only issue they have, the only issue they think they have is on abortion, and now all I say is the states are handling it. JACKSON: The former president accusing Democrats of trying to distract from the economy and immigration, both consistently the most important issue for voters, with polls showing Americans prefer Mr. Trump to President Biden by about 20 points on the economy, 30 points on the border.  Jackson concedes both that the economy and immigration are the most important issues for voters, and that Trump polls the strongest on these. This is also reflected in the amount of time that the networks devote to these issues. Which is, not very much at all in comparison to a state supreme court ruling now on its third day of A-block coverage because of its perceived benefit to the Biden campaign.  Of weird note: CBS’s Janet Shamlian named the abortion providers she interviewed, but not the pro-life activist which, by the way, was the sole pro-life perspective presented across all three network newscasts. JANET SHAMLIAN: The group Arizona for Abortion Access says it’s gathered enough signatures for a November ballot initiative allowing abortions up to around 24 weeks. Nurse Ashleigh Fiering has been helping the effort.  ASHLEIGH FIERING: It is far more dangerous to make abortions illegal and have abortions go underground, because I will tell you that people will not stop getting abortions. SHAMLIAN: An anti abortion rights group is mounting a campaign against the ballot initiative. JOANNA DE LA CRUZ: This amendment would be absolutely catastrophic for the health of women and girls.  That would be Joanna De La Cruz from the “It Goes Too Far” campaign, whose name CBS published in the companion article. Common thematics across networks revolved around pure politics, such as Vice President Kamala Harris’ trip to Arizona to speak on the issue, and general observation of the Biden campaign’s targeted advertising in the Grand Canyon State.  It remains unclear whether an abortion referendum makes it to the Arizona ballot in November, but one thing is for certain: the networks will continue to pound abortion politics, given that this spares them from having to cover any more of the Biden Malaise than is minimally necessary. Click “expand” to view the transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective networks on Thursday, April 11th, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: WHIT JOHNSON: Now to the abortion battle in Arizona, after the state Supreme Court ruled a law from 1864 that banned nearly all abortions will take effect in a matter of weeks. State lawmakers left town without taking action. Doctors already describing chaos and confusion. ABC's Rachel Scott in Arizona tonight.  RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight in Arizona, doctors describing chaos and confusion, after the state's highest court upheld a 160-year-old law banning abortion in all cases, except to protect the life of the mother. Arizona's state legislature was expected to swiftly repeal the law, but Republicans blocked that effort.  PROTESTERS: Shame on you!  SCOTT: And Dr. Jill Gibson at Planned Parenthood tells me the impact is already being felt.  What have you been experiencing the last 48 hours inside of this clinic?  JILL GIBSON: Patients are already saying that they're looking for means of getting abortions through other means. Looking for pills online.  SCOTT: Arizona's Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes says she won't enforce the law, but concedes she can't stop local prosecutors. KRIS MAYES: I would urge Arizonans who are pregnant to make a plan. And I can't believe I'm having to say that, but it's time to make a plan for 60 days from now, if something goes wrong, if you need an abortion, if you want an abortion. Start thinking about California and Nevada and New Mexico or Colorado. SCOTT: Voters could ultimately decide the issue in November, when Arizona and as many as 13 other states could have abortion measures on the ballot. And the law has become a flashpoint in the race for the White House, where Arizona is a key battleground. Donald Trump says he's proud to have appointed three of the five Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe versus Wade. But sensing political quicksand, he now says abortion should be left to the states. TRUMP: It was an incredible thing, an incredible achievement. We did that and now the states have it.  SCOTT: Now Trump says Arizona went too far. But President Biden says by appointing the justices who helped overturn Roe, Trump cleared the way for 21 states to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. And tonight in this state, these billboards going up: "Abortion is banned in Arizona thanks to Donald Trump. He won't stop until it's (banned) nationwide."  Whit, there's a lot of uncertainty here in Arizona. The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold for 14 days, but tonight, the state's attorney general tells me that it could be an additional 45 days before that law goes into effect, because of a separate lawsuit. As for the White House, they want to keep this issue in the spotlight. The vice president plans to visit Arizona tomorrow. Whit. JOHNSON: Rachel Scott in Phoenix tonight. Thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS: NORAH O’DONNELL: The Biden campaign launched a seven-figure ad buy an Arizona today that focuses on abortion. The Grand Canyon State is now the epicenter in the battle over reproductive rights after that state’s supreme court upheld a Civil War-era law that bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Abortion is currently legal until 15 weeks. CBS's Janet Shamlian takes a look at those already being impacted.  JANET SHAMLIAN: This is the busiest abortion clinic in Arizona, according to Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick, seeing some 350 patients a month. But now, Goodrick says she is worried about what could happen. GABRIELLE GOODRICK: We provide an essential health care service for the patients of Arizona, and if we cannot provide that, they are going to be lost, they are going to be in danger.  SHAMLIAN: Efforts Wednesday in the state legislature to repeal the newly-revived law were shut down by Republicans.  PROTESTERS: Shame! Shame! Shame!  SHAMLIAN: The Arizona House Speaker saying, "Democrats are so eager to enshrine in our state Constitution a right to kill unborn children. We are going to take the time needed to listen to our constituents.” Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs:  KATIE HOBBS: I am ready to do whatever it takes to get the 1864 ban repealed.  SHAMLIAN: The group Arizona for Abortion Access says it’s gathered enough signatures for a November ballot initiative allowing abortions up to around 24 weeks. Nurse Ashleigh Fiering has been helping the effort.  ASHLEIGH FIERING: It is far more dangerous to make abortions illegal and have abortions go underground, because I will tell you that people will not stop getting abortions. SHAMLIAN: An anti abortion rights group is mounting a campaign against the ballot initiative. JOANNA DE LA CRUZ: This amendment would be absolutely catastrophic for the health of women and girls.  SHAMLIAN: Most abortions take place at 15 weeks or less. Only a very small number take place 21 weeks or later. The timeline of when the new law could take effect is unclear. Dr. Goodrick says when it does, it will be a dangerous time for women. GOODRICK: It will harm a tremendous amount of Arizonans, and, um… no, it will be terrible. SHAMLIAN: As politicians continue to weigh in on the ruling, Vice President Kamala Harris will be here in Arizona tomorrow for a campaign event, discussing what the White House calls the fight for reproductive freedoms. Norah. O’DONNELL: Janet Shamlian, thank you. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: LESTER HOLT: Now to the escalating battle over abortion. The Biden campaign counting on the Arizona court ruling on that sweeping Civil War-era abortion ban to give them an edge, while President- former President Trump is also speaking out. Here’s Hallie Jackson.  HALLIE JACKSON: A new, aggressive push tonight from the president. JOE BIDEN: If Donald Trump gets back in power, what freedom will you lose next? JACKSON: A new ad blitz pinning the blame on his predecessor for Arizona's controversial abortion ban.  BIDEN: Your body and your decisions belong to you, not the government, not Donald Trump. I will fight like hell to get your freedom back.  JACKSON: On the Arizona ruling that reinstates an 1864 law banning nearly all abortions, with the exception of those to save the mother's life, the Biden campaign is looking to put Republicans on defense as Mr. Trump acknowledges overnight Democrats have the political advantage.  DONALD TRUMP: The only issue they have, the only issue they think they have is on abortion, and now all I say is the states are handling it. JACKSON: The former president accusing Democrats of trying to distract from the economy and immigration, both consistently the most important issue for voters, with polls showing Americans prefer Mr. Trump to president Biden by about 20 points on the economy, 30 points on the border. Even though Mr. Trump opposes the Arizona abortion ban and a national ban, he is also taking credit for the overturning of Roe versus Wade, a decision which paved the way for very restrictive, broadly unpopular abortion limits. He and other Republicans now trying to thread the needle, including Arizona's Kari Lake.  KARI LAKE: A full ban on abortion is not where the people are. The issue is less about banning abortion and more about saving babies. JACKSON: For the ban's opponents in Arizona, anger turning to action.  You say you're ready to do whatever it takes to get the ban repealed, but how? KATIE HOBBS: I immediately called for the repeal of this ban and I'm going to continue to do that. I think a lot of Republicans are seeing that this is going to hurt them in the election.  JACKSON: And state lawmakers could pass a repeal as early as next week, before the ban is set to go into effect later this spring. Lester.   HOLT: Hallie Jackson, thanks.  

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

‘Journalistic Rape’; Here Are the Big Moments From Catherine Herridge’s House Hearing

On Thursday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, former CBS News correspondent Catherine Herridge emerged to give her first set of extended public remarks about her sudden firing from CBS News and what she would describe as a “journalistic rape” and the crossing of “a red line that...should never be crossed again” in the (temporary) seizure of her files that contained sensitive details about sources. Joined by Sinclair’s Sharyl Attkisson, SAG-AFTRA’s Mary Cavallaro, and the Knight First Amendment Institute’s Nadine Farid Johnson, Herridge spoke out in favor of the bipartisan PRESS Act, which would largely protect journalists from being forced by the government to disclose the identity of their sources. Herridge has particular interest as, in addition to sudden unemployment, she was recently held in contempt and ordered (pending a stay) to divulge a source relating to a story from her Fox News tenure or face a $500/day fine. Herridge largely took the high road, such as in her opening statement thanking the House for “taking the time to focus again on the importance of protecting reporter sources and the vital safeguards provided by the PRESS Act”. She explained what the contempt case has done to her family and the impact it’d have on (actual) journalism (click “expand”): One of our children recently asked me if I would go to jail, if we would lose our house, and if we would lose our family’s savings to protect my reporting sources. I wanted to answer that, in this United States where we say we value democracy and the role of a vibrant and free press, that it was impossible, but I could not offer that assurance. The bipartisan PRESS Act, which came out of this House Committee, would put it into the sort of legal jeopardy that I had experienced firsthand in the federal courts. And without the legislation, more journalists will run into the uncertainty of the contempt gauntlet in the future. This legislation will provide protections for every working journalist in the United States, now and for the next generation. The legislation provides strong protections at the federal level for reporters and their sources. It would block litigants and federal governments from prying into reporters files, except when there’s imminent threat of violence, including terrorism and in defamation cases. At the state level, similar rules are already in place at the state level to protect press freedom. It is my sincere hope the passage of the PRESS Act will provide similar protections at the federal level. I hope I am the last journalist who has to spin two years in the federal courts fighting to protect my confidential sources. My current situation arises from a privacy act lawsuit. I am only a witness in the case. It is not common for these cases to reach the stage of holding a reporter in contempt. But when such cases happen, they have profound consequences, impacting every journalist in the United States. Forcing a reporter to dispose confidential source would have a crippling effect on investigative journalism because, without reliable assurances of confidentiality, sources will not come forward. The First Amendment provides protections for the press because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our democracy. If confidential sources are not protected, I fear investigative journalism is dead. Each day, I feel the weight of that responsibility. As you know, I was held in contempt of court for upholding the basic journalistic principle of maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources. Acknowledging this and losing your job “gives you clarity”, Herridge said it’s solidified “the importance of protecting confidential sources” with some having reached out when her CBS files were seized and “were concerned that, by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct, they would be identified and exposed.” Despite the fact she did receive her files, she added this “decision to receive my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should never be crossed again by any media organization in the future”, especially because such legal threats and fines would be crushing for smaller and independent journalists. For her part, Attkisson tied in the host of stories she’s covered, the Obama administration spying on her, and need for confidential sources to the Deep State’s unrepentant penchant for targeting those they perceive to be enemies. .@SharylAttkisson's full statement during the House @JudiciaryGOP on the free press: “In decades of reporting nationally at CNN, CBS, PBS, and for the last nine years on my tv show Full Measure, countless new stories that I broke or facets of them could not even reported without… pic.twitter.com/GD0P1WeIxI — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 Herridge refused to throw CBS under the bus for letting her go. In answering questions from Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) about whether “if CBS actions were influenced by the government in any way,” Herridge declined to answer as she’s “not someone who is known to offer speculation.” Attkisson, however, wadded in with the reality that government interference in the liberal media “happens everyday” with “[m]embers of committees, heads of committees, members of Congress and the White House” having “called the bureau in Washington, D.C., contacts that they have, editors and managers up in New York to try to shape our coverage.” Herridge did open up when Congresswoman Harriett Hageman (R-WY) astutely invited her to expand on why government coercion to reveal sources is dangerous (and in particular for stories aiming to hold those in power to account). At one point, Herridge said she hasn’t “lost a night’s sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources” and taking anonymity off the table severely decreases the likelihood whistleblowers will reveal government wrongdoing (click the tweet to read the full thread): @RepHageman: “Ms. Herridge, how fundamental to reporting is the protection of your sources?” Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge): “Congresswoman, I have not lost a nights sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources. That is the core of who I am as a journalist. I am… pic.twitter.com/jNgg5H0291 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 A little later on and after Congressman Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) walked Attkisson through many of her major, career-defining scoops and the necessity to have sources, Herridge told Jordan her career hasn’t been about focusing just on, say, the Biden family, but “call[ing] balls and strikes” and the seizure of her files was “not my experience in the other two networks I worked at or with my colleagues at CBS News.” “When the network of Walter Cronkite seizes the reporting files, including confidential source information, that is an attack on investigative journalism,” she added. Jordan laid out summation of what seems to happen to journalists who dare to be “critical of the government”, which is “a pattern” in which “all kinds of strange things” happen to them, whether it’s suddenly losing one’s job to having files seized to communications surveilled. “That’s scary...[Y]ou talk about a chilling effect on the First Amendment, I don’t know how we could be more chilly,” he said. Herridge became more pointed: Wherever you work, if this happened to you, it’s an attack on free press. It’s an attack on the First Amendment. It makes it more challenging for reporters to work in the future. That disrupts the free flow of information to the public. They call it — journalism a profession for a reason because it’s about an informed electorate, and it’s a cornerstone of our democracy. I can only speak for myself. When my records were seized, I felt it was a journalistic rape. Herridge further opened up to Subcommittee Chairman and Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) about pressure she felt at CBS when covering Biden family corruption after Roy observed there was “[n]othing” to “indicate that there was a failure to perform your duties” when CBS laid her off (click “expand”): HERRIDGE: Congressman, I think what you are asking me is whether I was terminated for — for poor performance. I don’t believe that my record would reflect that. I don’t know what factors the CBS News executives considered when they terminated my position. There was tension over the Hunter Biden reporting and the Biden administration, but I can’t speak for sure why I was let go. ROY: And you mentioned tension. You had been one of the — the reporters certainly in what we might define as the mainstream media that was focusing intently on the Hunter Biden laptop, on the various facts surrounding the Biden family and the flow of money and all of those things involved with that. Is that correct? HERRIDGE: That is correct. For the full picture, though, I was also the reporter at CBS News who obtained the audiotape of former President Trump apparently bragging about the Iran classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and I also exposed how 50 soldiers were denied the Purple Heart under the Trump administration in an effort to descalate after a ballistic missile attack in Iran. I — I’m someone who calls balls and strikes, Congressman. I just follow the facts where they lead. That has always been my calling card. ROY: When CBS let you go, was it around the time of you calling out the Trump administration or around the time that you were pursuing more of the Hunter Biden? HERRIDGE: Ah, I was let go a few days after the Special Counsel — Robert Hur report into President Biden’s handling of classified information. (....) ROY: In closing, can you just reiterate the extent of your belief of what this means for other journalists/ And you alluded to before, smaller journalists without the protection of the kind of corporate structure that we’ve got with Fox backing you up from your previous reporting. HERRIDGE: I just don’t think any journalists could withstand the threat of significant and crippling financial sanctions. They may not have a former employer or a current employer who’s in position to mount a vigorous or costly defense. I think it’s a very dangerous period for journalism. The PRESS Act would close the legal cap in the system, this ambiguity I’ve had to deal with for two years and I want to emphasize. This is not about a single journalist. It’s not about a single-story. It’s not about a single network. What happens in my case, the passage of the PRESS Act is going to impact every journalism — journalist working in this room and it’s going to impact every journalist in the United States and for the next generation to come. If there’s anything I can accomplish in my career as a journalist, it’s going to get this over the finish line. I feel this with every core of my being. Herridge showed more of her cards to Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC) as he closed out the hearing, including an admission about the bias she saw at CBS: Fascinating exchange at the end of the House hearing on the free press in which Catherine Herridge emphasizes real journalism must include “diverse points of view” and, while at CBS, bosses “limited points of view and voices” that made her “uncomfortable” (1/3):@RepDanBishop:… pic.twitter.com/KPP4a6ScR0 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 The left often parodies conservatives and Republicans as anti-media, but like most things out of the so-called fact-checkers, it couldn’t be any further from the truth. Click the tweet to see a thread containing the opening statement from Roy: .@ChipRoyTX: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost. Those words were true when Thomas Jefferson wrote them in 1786 and they are still true today. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press and… pic.twitter.com/oYqv4BE0Zt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 Jordan sounded similar tunes, noting: “[i]t’s not just the press that’s under attack” in recent years, but “[e]very single liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment’s been assaulted in the last couple years”: .@Jim_Jordan: “It’s not just the press that’s under attack. Every single liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment’s been assaulted in the last couple years. I mean, you think about it — your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the… pic.twitter.com/9hwMjY824s — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the April 11 hearing, click here.

NB Blog Feed

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. 

NB Blog Feed

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.

NB Blog Feed

Tlaib MELTS DOWN When FBN’s Vaughn Asks Why Her District Chanted ‘Death to America’

In footage first aired Wednesday night on Fox News’s Jesse Watters PrimeTime, Fox Business correspondent Hillary Vaughn doggedly ran down Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) earlier in the day over video from a Dearborn, Michigan event inside her district which featured chants of “death to America” and “death to Israel”.  Not surprisingly, the far-left, raging anti-Semite declined to condemn the chants and instead accused Vaughn and her Fox colleagues of being “Islamphobic” people engaging in “racist tropes”.     The footage began with Vaughn only being able to call out to Tlaib before the Michigan Democrat shouted back, “I don’t talk to Fox News! I don’t talk to Fox News!” Vaughn nonetheless asked her question as a staff member tried to move Vaughn out of the way and Tlaib reiterating she wouldn’t speak to Fox: “At a rally in your district, people were chanting death to America. Do you condemn?” When Tlaib again said she wouldn’t talk to Fox News, Vaughn asked again why she wouldn’t “condemn chants of death to America.” Clearly flustered, Tlaib dodged the question by claiming she doesn’t “talk to people that use racist tropes” even though it’s a known fact it was indeed chanted and pointing that out isn’t “racist”. “Why can’t you just say whether or not you condemn people chanting death to America,” Vaughn wondered, to which Tlaib played a broken record, “[b]ecause I don’t talk to Fox News.” As the first elevator Tlaib and a staffer had rushed to hide in wouldn’t open, they rushed to try another close by. Vaughn kept following them and tweaked her question to reflect Tlaib’s screeching: “Why are you afraid to talk to Fox?” Tlaib’s answer sounded like it was curated by her friends at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): “Fox News is not nice. Listen, using racist tropes towards my community is what Fox Tunes [sic] is about and I don't talk to Fox News.” Vaughn tried one last time: “Is death to America racist? Is chanting death to America racist?” Tlaib restated her position of ignoring Fox and, as she finally walked into an elevator, The Squad member reiterated her Fox smear and called the network “Islamophobic”: “I’m talking about your guys’s racist tropes. You know, you guys are — you guys know exactly what you do. And I know you’re Islamophobic, but you guys gotta go deal with it on your own selves, not going to use me.” This was not the first run-in between these two. For example, back on October 10, Vaughn chased Tlaib down and called out her silence on some of the most brutal atrocities committed by Hamas during their animalistic attacks in Israel on October 7. To see the relevant exchange from April 10, click “expand.” FNC’s Jesse Watters PrimeTime April 10, 2024 8:25 p.m. Eastern HILLARY VAUGHN: Congresswoman Tlaib — CONGRESSWOMAN RASHIDA TLAIB (D-MI): I don’t talk to Fox News! I don’t talk to Fox News! TLAIB STAFF MEMBER: Excuse me. VAUGHN: At a rally — TLAIB STAFF MEMBER: Sorry. VAUGHN: — in your district — TLAIB: I’m not talking to Fox News. VAUGHN: — people were chanting death to America. Do you condemn? TLAIB: Do not talk to Fox News. VAUGHN: But do you condemn chants of death to America? TLAIB: I don’t talk to people that use racist tropes. VAUGHN: Why can’t you just say whether or not you condemn — TLAIB: Because I don’t talk to Fox News. VAUGHN: — people chanting death to America? TLAIB: [Inaudible] VAUGHN: Why are you afraid to talk to Fox? TLAIB: Fox News is not nice. Listen, using racist tropes towards my community is what Fox Tunes [sic] is about and I don't talk to Fox News. VAUGHN: Is death to America — TLAIB: [Inaudible] VAUGHN: — racist? TLAIB: — never speak to Fox News. VAUGHN: Is chanting death to America racist? TLAIB: No — [inaudible] — I’m talking about your guys’s racist tropes. You know, you guys are — you guys know exactly what you do. And I know you’re Islamophobic, but you guys gotta go deal with it on your own selves, not going to use me.

NB Blog Feed

Millionaire Whoopi Dismisses High Food Prices, Whines About Commute

ABC’s millionaire moderator, Whoopi Goldberg was in a foul mood during Thursday’s edition of The View because former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain dared to say President Biden should focus his reelection message on issues that average Americans were concerned with such as inflation and high grocery prices. She repeatedly shouted down any attempt to suggest he had the power to curtail inflation but then went on about how expensive her commute was as if Biden could deal with it. According to big brain Goldberg, who recently couldn’t remember which years former President Trump ran for office, Biden wasn’t responsible for inflation at grocery stores; rather, it was the stores just raising prices for the hell of it. “I think our kvetch is not with him for grocery prices. I’m mad at the grocery stores, because if all of the things have been open why are you still raising prices?” she shouted. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin tried to argue that prices were the top concern of the undecided voters she’s spoken to and that there was a way for Biden to address it, but Goldberg repeatedly shouted over her, suggesting if those “people knew civics” as she did they’d know they were wrong (Click “expand”): FARAH GRIFFIN: What I hear when I talk to undecideds is “the grocery bills are--” GOLDBERG (interrupting): Yes, but if the people knew civics they would know that is not his -- FARAH GRIFFIN: There are absolutely things that Biden can do to address it and grocery prices have jumped 25 percent over four years. JOY BEHAR: What can he do? [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: Hang on real quick. This is the reality. It’s the most immediate and repetitive thing. You have to buy groceries every week. GOLDBERG (interrupting): We get all that. But the question is what do you want him to do? What can he do? FARAH GRIFFIN: He can challenge the major grocery chains if he wants to. There are things that he could do with – that he could encourage the Fed to do. Goldberg insisted Biden was “doing stuff he’s supposed to be doing. He’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing,” but never explained what that “stuff” was.     Farah Griffin tried to reiterate that “Americans are spending 11 percent of their income on food” but Goldberg interjected with her own problems. “I'm an American. I'm a little pissed off about over-the-price stuff, but I’ll tell you what I'm really pissed off about,” she shrieked. “I wanted to talk about why the people in New Jersey now are facing not just getting the prices raised on the buses and trains…” Suggesting that Biden was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t scenario, Goldberg argued that he was just a busy guy getting pulled in different directions: Listen, he can do what he did with the gas people. He can do everything but then he's not going to be able to take care of what he needs to do in Israel, then he's not taking care -- I mean, it's like, there's a lot of stuff to do but we get it. We know there's a lot to do. Backing up Goldberg through all of this, was staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners), who was blaming the high prices on grocery stores. Without evidence, she accused all grocery stores of “price gauging.” “Maybe we just need corporations like these grocery stores to be good corporate citizens and stop gouging! Stop trying to make money off of our backs!” she shouted. A little over a year ago, Hostin bragged that she hadn’t gone grocery shopping in years, ever since the COVID pandemic. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 11, 2024 11:05:49 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I think our kvetch is not with him for grocery prices. I’m mad at the grocery stores, because if all of the things have been open why are you still raising prices? (…) 11:07:07 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: What I hear when I talk to undecideds is “the grocery bills are--” GOLDBERG (interrupting): Yes, but if the people knew civics they would know that is not his -- FARAH GRIFFIN: There are absolutely things that Biden can do to address it and grocery prices have jumped 25 percent over four years. JOY BEHAR: What can he do? [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: Hang on real quick. This is the reality. It’s the most immediate and repetitive thing. You have to buy groceries every week. GOLDBERG (interrupting): We get all that. But the question is what do you want him to do? What can he do? FARAH GRIFFIN: He can challenge the major grocery chains if he wants to. There are things that he could do with – that he could encourage the Fed to do. SUNNY HOSTIN: Challenge how? Can he take them to court? BEHAR: So far, we're in a free country. GOLDBERG: Let her answer. FARAH GRIFFIN: There are a number of things to be done but to say, “I wash my hands, it's not my problem you can’t afford groceries.” HOSTIN: But what can he do? Can he take them to court because they’re price gauging? FARAH GRIFFIN: No, it's not a matter of taking them to court. [Crosstalk] SARA HAINES: I see what you’re saying. Even campaigning on things like that helps. Because I think also making room for immigration would be helpful here. One of the things, if you're looking towards the election if you want to grab people and get them voting, immigration is one of the most agreed upon problems. GOLDBERG: But here's the problem, he does -- He goes and he takes care of what he's supposed to be taking care of, which is the bridge and how to open – just hold on. FARAH GRIFFIN: I don't think that's what Ron Klain was saying. He was talking about him going to – [crosstalk] infrastructure projects – [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: But here's the thing, you know, people are bitching if he does stuff, they bitch if he doesn't do stuff. Listen, he’s doing stuff he’s supposed to be doing. He’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing. But I'm pissed off. [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: Americans are spending 11 percent of their income on food, the most – GOLDBERG (interrupting): I'm an American. I'm a little pissed off about over-the-price stuff, but I’ll tell you what I'm really pissed off about. I’m really pissed out that people seem to think that the American citizen is a wallet where you can just get your hand in through. That's what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about why the people in New Jersey now are facing not just getting the prices raised on the buses and trains— HOSTIN: Congestion pricing. GOLDBERG: No, no, this is on the Jersey side. HAINES: Yeah, I know, but it's all part of the same -- GOLDBERG: But the congestion pricing isn't making me as nuts as -- FARAH GRIFFIN: I just want to underscore. I think it's a fair point. There's not one box he can check and suddenly grocery prices go down. That would be ridiculous to suggest but what is being told by advisers is, “You need to speak to what people are feeling. You need to speak to this very real reality.” I make a lot of money. I put a red onion back the other day because it was $4.99. That's ridiculous! GOLDBERG: Yeah, but, again, he can talk -- Listen, he can do what he did with the gas people. He can do everything but then he's not going to be able to take care of what he needs to do in Israel, then he's not taking care -- I mean, it's like, there's a lot of stuff to do but we get it. We know there's a lot to do. My kvetch with him is – Listen, Ron, if there's something you want him to talk about, let's say, listen, we know you're doing all this stuff but when you say, “I don't want him to be talking about bridges anymore,” it sounds to people who live and need that bridge like they're being dismissive. HOSTIN: Maybe we just need corporations like these grocery stores to be good corporate citizens and stop gouging! Stop trying to make money off of our backs! (…)

NB Blog Feed

Meyers Rants At 'Piece of ****' Fox For Defending Trump on Abortion

NBC’s Late Night host Seth Meyers brought out the bleep button on Wednesday’s show to angrily respond to a Fox Business segment suggesting Donald Trump’s federalist stance on abortion makes him a moderate or even pro-choice, as he labeled radio host Mark Simone a “piece of [bleep]” and a “mother[bleep].” Meyers introduced the clip of Simone on Kudlow by declaring that “[Trump's] allies think they can trick everyone into thinking he's a moderate on abortion by lying and claiming he'll leave it up to the states, which he won't.” In the clip, Simone responded to Trump’s position by arguing, “That makes him the pro-choice candidate, leave it up to the states.”      An angry Meyers replied, “This brings us to a statement we’re calling ‘Seth tries really hard not to lose his [bleep].’ Trump is the pro-choice candidate? Are you out of your [bleep]? I'm sorry, I believe you are mistaken. Your statements are misleading, and you are failing to provide an accurate good faith analysis of the facts. You're inverting the truth for political purposes and gaslighting your viewers by grossly misrepresenting the details of the situation.” Meyers continued, “Let me put it another way: you're a [extended bleep] piece of [bleep]. Well, I failed! This has been ‘Seth tries really hard not to lose his [bleep].’"  Fox Business is not the first and certainly won’t be the last news program to discuss the political ramifications of abortion stances, but Meyers was not done ranting, “Also, let me just say, so cool to watch a couple dudes discuss an issue that literally hurts women as to whether or not it will hurt another dude, Donald Trump, at the ballot box.” Introducing a second clip of the segment, Meyers added, “That guy’s a right-wing radio host named Mark Simone. Also, he suggested in that interview that if women have to flee their states and travel tens or hundreds of miles to access life-saving medical care, it's no big deal.” In the clip, Simone proclaimed, “If you had to travel to another state to get an abortion, it's not the worst thing in the world. Hopefully this is a very rare occurrence in your life, once in your life, maybe you would do it. Buying a bus ticket to go somewhere to get it is not the worst thing in the world.” In full rant mode, Meyers huffed, “Then you take the bus, mother[bleep]. You take the bus. How about every time someone has to take the bus to get abortion care out of state, we make Mark Simone wait in line for a Greyhound at the port authority. Dude would run out that day and buy a t-shirt that says ‘My body, my choice.’"  With his “Closer Look” segments, Meyers likes to portray himself as the thinking man’s comedian who uses elaborate metaphors and analogies to make a point, but Wednesday’s show was just a bitter, angry man yelling into the wind. Here is a transcript for the April 10-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 4/11/2024 12:46 AM ET SETH MEYERS: But Trump and his allies think they can trick everyone into thinking he's a moderate on abortion by lying and claiming he'll leave it up to the states, which he won't.  MARK SIMONE: This issue does not hurt Donald Trump. He's not against abortion. He's actually okay with abortion. He wants that 15-week limit, perfectly reasonable.  LARRY KUDLOW: Well, wait, he didn't say 15 weeks, that's not quoting. Yesterday he had a different take. He didn't say 15 weeks. He said, let the states decide.  SIMONE: Well, that –  KUDLOW: –  a point I happen to agree with, by the way, wholeheartedly. But I can't pin 15 weeks on him because it's not what he said.  SIMONE: Okay, but that makes him the pro-choice candidate, leave it up to the states.  MEYERS: This brings us to a statement we’re calling "Seth tries really hard not to lose his [bleep]." Trump is the pro-choice candidate? Are you out of your [bleep]? I'm sorry, I believe you are mistaken. Your statements are misleading, and you are failing to provide an accurate good faith analysis of the facts. You're inverting the truth for political purposes and gaslighting your viewers by grossly misrepresenting the details of the situation.  Let me put it another way: you're a [extended bleep] piece of [bleep].  Well, I failed! This has been "Seth tries really hard not to lose his [bleep]." Also, let me just say, so cool to watch a couple dudes discuss an issue that literally hurts women as to whether or not it will hurt another dude, Donald Trump, at the ballot box.  That guy’s a right-wing radio host named Mark Simone. Also, he suggested in that interview that if women have to flee their states and travel tens or hundreds of miles to access life-saving medical care, it's no big deal.  SIMONE: If you had to travel to another state to get an abortion, it's not the worst thing in the world. Hopefully this is a very rare occurrence in your life, once in your life, maybe you would do it. Buying a bus ticket to go somewhere to get it is not the worst thing in the world.  MEYERS: Then you take the bus, mother[bleep]. You take the bus. How about every time someone has to take the bus to get abortion care out of state, we make Mark Simone wait in line for a Greyhound at the port authority. Dude would run out that day and buy a t-shirt that says "My body, my choice." 

NB Blog Feed

NBC Nightly News Laments Bad Inflation Report 'A Challenge' For Biden Campaign

The network evening newscasts did their best to bury yesterday’s bad inflation news. Literally. Both by leading their newscasts off with severe weather and by running their respective inflation items after the 10-minute mark. The most bizarre among these reports comes from NBC Nightly News, which bifurcated the story. First, a brief read by anchor Lester Holt on the inflation report’s effect on the stock market, and then the rest as part of White House Correspondent Peter Alexander’s roundup, which covered an array of subjects. Here’s that reassembled report, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Wednesday, April 10th, 2024: LESTER HOLT:  We'll turn to the economy. Stock markets way down across the board today. The Dow losing more than 400 points after disappointing news about inflation. The government said inflation accelerated to 3.5% in March from a year ago, that was up from a 3.2% increase in prices in February. … PETER ALEXANDER: Another challenge for the Biden campaign: the economy, with today's headline that inflation ticked up again, even higher than expected. Housing and gas prices accounting for most of it. Overall prices up nearly 19% since president Biden took office. Former President Trump tonight: DONALD TRUMP: Biden has totally lost control of inflation. It's back. It's raging back.  ALEXANDER: President Biden saying he's made tremendous progress. JOE BIDEN: We have dramatically reduced inflation from 9% down to close to 3%...my opposition talks about two things. They just want to cut taxes for the wealthy and raise taxes on other people. In sum: bad news, “a challenge for the Biden campaign”, and “tremendous progress”. Peter Alexander depicts President Biden as a hapless victim of the inflation report, rather the one responsible for it. And, as always, the purest victim of any bad news is the electoral prospects of Joe Biden. Burial notwithstanding, ABC and CBS aired more substantial reports reflecting the pain felt by consumers. At ABC World News Tonight, anchor Whit Johnson framed the report as “disappointing” and “concerning”. Correspondent Elizabeth Schulze threw cold water on the idea of the Fed cutting interest rates until inflation stabilizes. (Click “expand” to view full transcript) ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10th, 2024: WHIT JOHNSON: Now to that disappointing report on inflation. Consumer prices in March were up 3.5%, compared to a year ago, higher than expected. Report casting doubt on an interest rate cut in the near future. Here's ABC's Elizabeth Schulze. ELIZABETH SCHULZE: Tonight, Americans hoping to see the Federal Reserve cut interest rates as early as June may now have a longer wait, with inflation climbing for the third straight month.  MAN ON THE STREET: The prices is too high. SCHULZE: The consumer price index up 3.5% in March from a year ago, fueled by higher costs for rent, car insurance, clothes, medical care, and gas.  SUSAN STANKUS: I used to fill it up for 35 bucks, it was a beautiful thing.  SCHULZE: And now it's 45. STANKUS: 45, and sometimes it's 60. Between food and gas, it's had a big impact. SCHULZE: For Alexandria Jones at her vintage shop in Chicago, rent jumped from $1,400 to $1,800 a month.  ALEXANDRIA JONES: I have to do a sale. I have to bring people in just so I can be able to deal with what is, you know, the inevitable of my rent being $400 more than it was.  SCHULZE: To combat inflation the Fed increased borrowing costs to a 22-year high, making it more expensive to pay for a new mortgage, car, or credit card debt. President Biden today pointing to inflation's improvement from 9% two years ago, still predicting an interest rate cut this year.  JOE BIDEN: This may delay it a month or so, I'm not sure of that. I don’t- we don't know what the Fed is going to do for certain.  SCHULZE: Whit, that first interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve had been expected in June, but after today's report, most analysts aren't predicting it will happen until September. And that's assuming that the inflation picture improves by then. Whit. JOHNSON: All right, concerning news there. Elizabeth, thank you. CBS Evening News also went in-depth, depicting with greater detail how consumers are “feeling the pinch”. Correspondent Jo-Ling Kent tried to find bright spots in a report that offered none, and ended her report by also nixing the idea of a summer rate cut. (Click “expand” to view full transcript)  CBS EVENING NEWS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: Now to some breaking news. Wall Street took a hit, with all three major indexes finishing the day in the red. The Dow fell more than 400 points after the Labor Department reported a higher-than-expected spike in inflation. The Consumer Price Index for March rose at an annual rate of 3.5%, and that is the biggest jump in six months. In tonight’s "Money watch," CBS's Jo-Ling Kent shows us how consumers are feeling the pinch. JO-LING KENT: For the third straight month, prices have gone up more than expected, from the rising cost of car insurance and repairs.  So how much are you paying at the grocery store every week? TIKTOKER 1: Do you know how much one of these cost? Two freaking dollars. TIKTOKER 2: This was $200. TIKTOKER 3: Are we supposed to skip the power bill this month so we can buy groceries… or the mortgage?  KENT: Before the pandemic of all of these groceries, about 30 items, cost $100 on average. Now five years later, according to Nielsen IQ, all this cost 33% more, meaning you’d have to skip about ten items. Like chicken, bread, milk, and bananas, to make your $100 budget.  Five years ago versus today, the difference is remarkable. Is that normal?  CARMAN ALLISON: Oh, goodness, it's not normal at all. That is why consumers are really, really scrutinizing their behaviors because, you know, prices are leveling off, but they are leveling off at these record high levels. KENT: Higher gas prices and rent also helped push inflation up 3.5% over the last year. Also more expensive, baby food and formula spiking nearly 10%. Eldercare up over 14%. And veterinary care jumping almost 10%. President Biden responding today. JOE BIDEN: We are better situated than we were when we took office. Where inflation was skyrocketing. And we have a plan to deal with it.  KENT: But until then, shoppers continue to cut corners where they can.  ALLISON: We ask Americans, have you changed your behavior? And 87% of Americans have said yes to that. We may be seeing more, you know, white meat on the barbecue than red meat this summer because beef prices have gone up 9%. Everybody's been impacted by this. There is no way you can get around it.  KENT: The good news here is wage growth last month did outpace inflation, but this March inflation number is the biggest annual jump in six months, and it really makes it very unlikely that the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates any time soon. Norah. The grim news, with few silver linings, was simply too much to suppress outright. The networks, compelled to cover the story, did so reluctantly and after burning the story beneath weather reports and actual local crime stories.  

NB Blog Feed

‘Triggered & Unsafe’: Country Dance Team Kicked Out Over American Flag Themed Shirts

Oh so now in America we can’t even display the American flag without triggering people? The Borderline Dance team was kicked out of a Seattle dance convention called the Emerald City Hoedown for wearing American flag-themed shirts, which reportedly made others feel “triggered and unsafe.” Nope, this isn't a joke. The country line dance convention was put on by the Rain Country Dance Association, an LGBTQ-focused western dance community, Jason Rantz noted on 770 KTTH. The Borderline Dance team was invited to the event but when they arrived, “said they didn’t get the greeting they were expecting.” The hostility against Borderline arose because the team wore matching shirts with American flags on them. Like are you serious? Sad part is, this is the first year that Borderline was even able to attend the event. According to the team’s Facebook page, they’ve been invited for the past three years but “because of their Covid restrictions, we have been unable to [attend] until this year” so they were stoked to get to attend this Spring. Here’s more of what the team wrote in their Facebook post: Unfortunately, what our team was met with upon arrival was that our flag tops were offensive to some of the convention goers. There was a small group that felt “triggered and unsafe”. They had several claims for this reasoning. Mostly associated with the situation in Palestine and the Trans community in America. At first we were told we would just be boo’d, yelled at and likely many of them would walk out. This did not deter us. But then we were given an ultimatum. Remove the flag tops and perform in either street clothes (which most didn’t bring as they traveled there in their uniforms) or they would supply us with ECH shirts from years past… Or, don’t perform at all, which effectively was asking us to leave. Turns out Borderline wasn’t the only team who had to leave the convention. Their friends from West Coast Country Heat left, too, after sporting the “same spirit of patriotism” that Borderline did. “Although we may not always agree with the current state of things, we recognize that being an American means true FREEDOM. We all understood and accepted this and walked out with class and dignity despite the discrimination we had experienced,” the team added. Related: Disney-Owned ABC Procedural Drama ‘Will Trent’ Paints Conservative Christians As Violent, Hateful, Murderous Bigots What’s super odd is that line dancing, in its most traditional form, is pretty American. When you look at the style of dance across the country, most dancers who partake wear cowboy hats, bootcut jeans, flannels and boots. Not to mention, most of it is done in America-loving areas like Texas or the deep South where the patriotism is often loved and honored. Country music is usually pretty pro-America too, and doesn’t often tout super progressive ideas. Regardless of all of that, the Borderline dance team and the West Coast Country Heat should’ve been able to compete. If you’re “triggered” by a t-shirt with a flag that represents the country that you live in on it, you should move overseas. Follow us on Twitter/X: In what world does trying to be an OnlyFans star do anything to honor a deceased grandfather? @tierin_rosebreaks down the left's latest insanity in this week's Woke of the Weak! pic.twitter.com/mvUFDdwPCb — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 9, 2024

NB Blog Feed

CNN Anchor Kasie Hunt Runs Two Free Democrat Ads In Lecture on Trump, Roe Repeal

On today's CNN This Morning, host Kasie Hunt danced on the latest media party line, that Donald Trump can't pose as a "moderate" on abortion now after appointing Supreme Court justices that repealed Roe vs. Wade. But then Hunt unleashed a series of pro-abortion messages, airing for free 30 seconds of a new Biden-Harris campaign ad, as well as an ad for Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky, and a teary interview with Texas native Kate Cox from NBC News. Hunt emphasized women telling sympathetic stories about how the overturning of Roe impaired their ability to destroy their babies. The Biden ad, in which a sobbing Amanda Zurawski displays a tiny blanket for her child, ended with this blunt attack: "Donald Trump did this." Zurawski and Kate Cox have both been hosted in First Lady Jill Biden's box during State of the Union addresses, underlining how Kasie Hunt seems like a Biden campaign surrogate.  They can't interview pro-life doctors who argue the pro-abortion forces mislead the public about state laws and miscarriage treatment. Hunt could only talk about abortions as "the care she needed." One thing CNN didn't do, and can't do, was to interview unborn babies. But if CNN could, you would hear heartbreaking stories of children who wanted to live, but had that possibility ripped away from them in unspeakably cruel fashion in states that won't protect them from abortion. Hunt talks about "protecting" abortion rights, not protecting babies. Hunt ended her pitch for Biden by dramatically claiming that "these are just three stories of countless stories like them, no doubt, unfolding across the country because of the fall of Roe vs. Wade." Perhaps. But what is undoubtedly true is that under Roe, tens of millions of unborn babies perished, babies whose stories will never be told.  Now with the overturning of Roe, some babies who otherwise would have died have been born, and in years to come will be able to express how thankful they are that the overturning of Roe gave them the chance to live. The balance between the rights of mothers and the unborn will be determined on a state-by-state basis. But CNN, like the rest of the liberal media, will only present the issue from the most heart-wrenching women's perspectives--never of that of babies whose lives have been saved.  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 4/11/24 6:00 am EDT KASIE HUNT: This morning, Republicans in the Arizona state legislature blocking attempts to repeal the 1864 law banning all abortion there with just a single exception for the life of the mother. As outrage grows, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is trying to convince voters that he doesn't support the Arizona law, and now says he would not sign a national abortion ban if he is elected president. DONALD TRUMP [responding on the tarmac to a question]: Yeah, they did, and that'll be straightened out. As you know, it's all about states' rights, and it'll be straightened out, and I'm sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason, and that will be taken care of, I think, very quickly. REPORTER: Would you sign a national abortion ban if Congress sent it to your desk? TRUMP: [Shakes his head in the negative.] No. Hunt: No. Trump is trying to sound more moderate on an issue that has galvanized voters from Ohio to Kansas, to Kentucky to vote to protect abortion rights. But this Arizona law, and restrictions similar to it in other states, they are in force because of Donald Trump.  Recall: how did he win the Republican nomination in the first place? Back in 2016, he released a list of 11 Supreme Court Justices he would consider appointing, to convince skeptical evangelical voters, who are the bedrock of the Republican base, that he, Trump, was one of them, or at least that he would act like one of them. Then, to hammer that home, he picked the very publicly pious Mike Pence as his running mate. And then, he was elected president, and he transformed the Supreme Court TRUMP: Today, I am keeping another promise to the American people by nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch. I will nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Amy Coney Barrett. HUNT: In June of 2022, after nearly 50 years, the Court struck down Roe versus Wade. And Trump, who is now trying to say that he doesn't support the strictest restrictions that have been exploding in red states across the country, he has repeatedly bragged about how he made that possible. TRUMP: We ended Roe v. Wade. We terminated Roe v. Wade. I was able to terminate Roe v. Wade after 50 years of trying.  HUNT: The results have been stories like this one, told in a Biden campaign ad, yes, but about a woman, a family. who wanted their child, wanted a child, and were devastated by the consequences of the fall of Roe. BIDEN CAMPAIGN AD: [As mother speaks in the background, screen reads] At 18 weeks, Amanda's water broke and she had a miscarriage. Because Donald Trump killed Roe v. Wade, Amanda was denied standard medical care to prevent infection: an abortion. the outfit she was gonna maybewhere home from the hospital. Doctors were forced to send her home.  WOMAN IN AD: [Sobbing] This is the blanket that she was on. AD: Donald Trump did this. HUNT: There's also Kate Cox. She's the Texas woman who also desperately wanted a baby. When she was told that her baby likely wouldn't live for more than a few days outside the womb, she sought an abortion to try to protect her ability to try again, to have a child. Here's what she told NBC News in December. KATE COX: It's a hard, hard time, you know, even with, you know, being hopeful with the decision that came from the hearing this morning. There's, there's still, we're going through the loss of a child. There's no outcome here that I take home my healthy baby girl, you know. So it's hard, you know. Cox had to leave her home state of Texas to get the care that she needed. Then there was this woman, Hadley Duvall, who told her story in a campaign ad for Kentucky's Democratic governor. BESHEAR CAMPAIGN AD: I was raped by my stepfather after years of sexual abuse. I was 12. Anyone who believes there should be no exceptions for rape and incest could never understand what it's like to stand in my shoes. HUNT: These are just three stories of countless stories like them, no doubt, unfolding across the country because of the fall of Roe versus Wade.

NB Blog Feed

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. 

NB Blog Feed

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? 

NB Blog Feed

Disney-Owned ABC Drama ‘Will Trent’ Paints Conservative Christians As Violent Bigots

Disney/ABC’s procedural drama Will Trent took a political turn this week as the show touched on the issue of drag queens and the sexualization of children, as well as anti-cop sentiment. You can probably guess which side the show was on for both issues. At the opening of Tuesday’s episode, “We Are Family,” the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) team is investigating the murder of an “extremely conservative, extremely divisive” judge, Deidre. When the investigation leads them to a drag club, the team is confused as to why a conservative judge would go there. They enter the club to gather more clues, only to find the judge’s son works there and that the club has been the target of bomb threats and a “weirdo” protester outside: Glinda: I tell you what. Mama needs a break. Why don't you tip your servers, lick your lover, grab a drink, and we'll be back in a drag 10? Will: Hi, ma'am. I'm Special Agent Will Trent. This is Detective Angie Polaski. Glinda: Ooh, kind of them to send a man who dresses up. Will: Oh, thank you for noticing. Angie: Don't encourage him. Glinda: Anyway, took you long enough to get here. I put those complaints in months ago. Come on. Alright, so... Here's everything we have. Except for the bomb threats. Those happen over the phone. We kept the threatening letters, photos of the graffiti. Angie: So, someone has been threatening the club regularly? Glinda: Mm-hmm. Angie: Do you know who it is? Glinda: I'm assuming it's the same weirdo who stands outside every night "Protesting." You two are here about the threats, aren't you? Will: I'm afraid not. I'm gonna need to see any security footage you have from tonight. Glinda: Uh uh. We don't have cameras here. We get all kinds of guests, and not all of them are out. Angie: No cameras. Perfect place for a murder. Glinda: A murder? Will: A woman was killed. We believe she was here tonight. Her name was Deirdre Ringgold. Glinda: I have to tell Vibe. Will: Who's Vibe? Vibe/Gabe: Bonbon, did you steal my Dior blush aga-- You did! I can tell! That's my $20 spread across your thief face. Glinda: Gabe. Sweetie. There's something I have to talk to you about. It's about your mother. Vibe/Gabe: Oh, yeah? Will: You're Deirdre's son? Vibe/Gabe: Who are you? Glinda: Gabe, honey... ...Your mother's been killed. Vibe/Gabe: What? Angie: I'm so sorry. Will: Did you see her tonight? Vibe/Gabe: Yeah. She was just here. Will: Did she know you worked as a drag queen? Glinda: She may have been able to put that together, yeah. I think that's enough questions for tonight. Will: Hang on. We just have a couple more. Glinda: The kid's mother just died. He needs space. And if you're gonna continue interrogating him, he needs an attorney. Glinda (Kenneth Mosley) is a lawyer by day whose real name is Josiah and he ends up representing Gabe (Garrett Richmond). When Will (Ramón Rodríguez) seems surprised he’s a lawyer, Josiah remarks, “I'm a lawyer and a performer, and I have a rich romantic life. I'm a five-season Shonda Rhimes show.” Who wants to tell him that last part isn’t a compliment? The GBI team interviews Gabe with his lawyer in one room and Gabe’s stepfather Dalton (Pete Burris) and sister Rowan (Gillian Rabin) in another. Dalton gives mean, cold, blowhard vibes, which is the typical Hollywood caricature for a white, Christian man. Dalton: We all know Gabe did this! Gabe: My father died when I was five. Deirdre married Dalton not long after that. He wasn't the easiest man to relate to, but... We did go to the shooting range together. Dalton: He was a good shot. Then he traded in his guns for hosiery. Gabe: I don't know what Dalton hated more -- the fact that I was gay or that I was a better shot than him. Will: When was the last time you saw your mother? Will: Last night. She came to the club. I hadn't seen that woman since I was 15. Like, I was shocked. She said that she wanted to apologize. Rowan: Mom would never do that. Dalton: We have no hate in our hearts... But the Bible's clear. The thing about Gabe was you couldn't trust him. I caught him trying to steal Deirdre's diamond necklace and earrings once. Gabe: My dad left those to my mom before he died. I was just trying them on. Dalton: Rowan was supposed to wear that set on her wedding day. Angie: What was Deirdre apologizing for? Gabe: The night they kicked me out, Deirdre and I were arguing at the top of the stairs, and... I pushed her. And then suddenly she's falling, and she broke her wrist. Dalton: Put her in the hospital! The kid was unstable. I was glad when he ran away. Gabe: They kicked me out that night. Faith: Rowan... Is that how you remember it? Rowan: Gabe looks out for Gabe. Gabe: I told Ro that I would come back for her, but I was living in a shelter, doing drugs, and I was in no position to care for her. It wasn't until I found the drag club that my whole life turned around. They saved me. Josiah: We're family. So, the drag queens are kind-hearted saviors while the parents are mean, evil Christians. No agenda here, right? The left isn’t trying to divide families and parents from their children at all, right? Also, why did the writers have Gabe admit he physically assaulted his mother and put her in the hospital as the answer to why his mother was apologizing? And why are we supposed to believe he was kicked out for being gay, when in fact it was because he assaulted his mother? Make it make sense. Security footage later turns up showing Deidre punching the protester outside the club, so the team goes to question him:   Barrett: We will not stand for this sexual perversion! These drag queens are tearing apart our social fabric and corrupting our children! Josiah: What children, man? This is a bar. Bon Bon: I wish you would stop spray painting our walls. My nail beds weren't made for this much hard labor. Faith: Barrett Fairhope? Special Agent Faith Mitchell, GBI. We're gonna need you to come with us. Josiah: Oh, Barrett Fairhope! All this time, you never introduced yourself. No? Girl, are you finally gonna arrest him? 'Cause I got to get this. Faith: Okay, nobody's getting arrested today. Michael: I need to ask you a few questions. About your French braids. Bon Bon: Wow. I had a dream that started this way once. Barrett: What is this all about? Faith: Okay, we just have some questions about an altercation you had with Deirdre Ringgold last night. Barrett: I had nothing to do with that woman's death. Josiah: This is Barrett Fairhope, everybody. Wonder if his boss would like to see what he does with his spare time. Barrett: Don't you dare. Josiah: What, are you afraid your personal life is gonna disrupt your work? Faith: Okay. Okay. Barrett: You don't intimidate me. Josiah: And you don't intimidate me. Barrett: This is my constitutional right! Faith: Okay. Now you're under arrest. Come on. Josiah: Love to see it. Oh, yes. Let's go. Walk, honey. Walk. Walk. Silver's your color, sugar. Bon Bon: Absolutely. Josiah: Oh, yes. Mwah! Yes, Hollywood wants you to believe that the good citizens of this country who don’t care what adults do in their private/leisure time, but are concerned about children being sexualized, are actually very bad, angry bigots who would destroy property and scream into a bullhorn outside of a drag club where everyone is an adult. #eyeroll Michael (Jake McLaughlin) ends up playing 'Good Cop' when he questions Barrett and gets him to admit he’s the one who’s been calling in the bomb threats to the club and painting graffiti on it: Michael: Hey! Sorry to keep you waiting. You wouldn't believe the amount of paperwork I have to do just to talk to someone. No one lets cops be cops anymore. Barrett: I say that all the time. Michael: FYI, I already confiscated the video that guy took. Barrett: Oh, my God. Thank you. Michael: So, uh, what can you tell me about the conversation you had with Deirdre? Barrett: Yeah. So I was, um, passing out flyers. I gave her one. She stomped on it, so I got in her face. Michael: And then she hit you? Barrett: Yeah. Yeah, she was crazy. Michael: And then what? You followed her? Barrett: No, no, no. I went to urgent care. Yeah. Lunatic was wearing rings. I had to get two stitches, but I never, never saw that woman again. Michael: Yeah. Look, I'm sorry I have to ask, but you don't happen to own a .380, do you? Barrett: No, I do not need a gun to get my point across. Michael: Yeah. Hey. Between us, I was admiring your work. The graffiti. That was you, right? Barrett: Yeah. Michael: One day I'd like to shut that place down for good. Barrett: You wanna know what works? Michael: What? Barrett: A little phone call here and there. Michael: A bomb threat? Barrett: Oh, yeah. Michael: Nice. Barrett: They always close for the night. Michael: Alright, well, you've given me all I need. Thank you very much. Barrett: Yeah. Alright. Does it -- So it means I can go? Amanda: Well, not yet. I'm bringing you in on new charges -- felony vandalism, harassment, terroristic threats. Oh, and I'm writing up a restraining order. You're not going within 500 feet of that club. Michael: You might want to take up a new hobby, Barrett. Notice how Barrett was against anti-cop culture? I’m surprised they didn’t make him pro-life, too. The GBI team later learns that Deidre was almost killed by a drunk driver. Angie (Erika Christensen) asks, “So her near-death experience made her suddenly, what, love the gays?” (Again, the dialogue doesn’t make sense since Gabe was kicked out for being violent, not gay.) Eventually, they realize Rowan was the culprit. She was resentful for not being able to see her brother or even speak his name so, when she found out her mother was going to the club to see him, she got angry and shot her. As for Barrett, he somehow shows up at the club again and puts a knife to Glinda/Josiah’s throat, blaming him for costing Barrett his job. So, now he’s an attempted murderer, too. In addition to Barrett being against anti-cop culture, there was also a lot of anti-cop rhetoric throughout the episode. Will gets called a “dirty a*s cop” by one of his uncle’s friends. He defends himself well, but adds, “I’m not stupid. I know what folks go through with law enforcement.” Later, Will argues to his assistant that his uncle wouldn’t want to go to a party because, “everyone there is gonna be a cop.” His assistant replies, “He'll come. I'm coming. You think I like cops?” So, the cop-hating assistant works for a cop? Apparently, the writers want us to believe that Will and his colleagues are special and an exception, so we don’t get the “wrong” idea that most cops are good people and heroes just like Will when we watch the show. Would we expect anything less from a Hollywood production on a Disney-owned network?

NB Blog Feed

Americans Are Not Seeking Out Middle Ground

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Sen. Mitt Romney regarding the demise of the No Labels political party initiative tells us as much about Romney, and why he failed to ever become a national leader, as it does about the failure of the No Labels effort. No Labels defined its mission “to support centrism and bipartisanship.” Romney defines this effort as seeking out the “sensible middle voices” in American politics. My view is that No Labels failed because of its very incorrect assumption that what Americans seek is a so-called middle ground, or even that a middle ground exists, on issues that most trouble the nation today. No Labels was wrong in its assessment of what the nation wants and needs, and Romney is wrong. Former President Richard Nixon once observed that many make the mistake of thinking that conflict is the result of misunderstanding rather than difference of belief. When America split and descended into civil war in the 1850s and1860s, it was not because of the failure of sensible middle voices to emerge. It was because there were many in the country who believed that slavery was not only OK but desirable. It was because some believed that Black Africans who were enslaved were not even human beings. Where is the middle ground, the “sensible middle voices,” on slavery? Slavery was not about misunderstanding or lack of communication. It was about conflict between very different sets of beliefs. This is what is happening in our country today. Over the years, the country has become increasingly polarized, with very different views about what is true and not true and even what the country is about. In the most recent Gallup polling on patriotism, only 39% say they are “extremely proud” to be an American. Only 67% say that are “extremely/very proud” to be an American. Twenty years ago, 90% said they were “extremely/very proud” to be an American. On issues of great concern to and impact on the country, opinions are deeply divided. Gallup reports that the divide between Republicans and Democrats on how much power the federal government should have has increased by 50 points over the last 20 years. The divide between Republicans and Democrats on the nature and cause of global warming has increased by 33 points, on satisfaction with K-12 education has increased by 30 points, on whether abortion should be legal under any circumstances by 30 points, on the importance of foreign trade by 29 points, and about immigration by 29 points. Where is the “sensible middle” on these issues? The answer is there is none. The different points of view emerge from very different views of the world, very different views of what is or is not true. The great struggle in our nation today is about whether the founders’ vision of a free nation under God, with limited power of the national government, will be restored and harnessed to today’s challenges. Or if we will continue in the direction of secular humanism, Godlessness and socialism. Abraham Lincoln captured today’s reality, as neither No Labels nor Mitt Romney could do. Lincoln said in 1858: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. There is a reason why Donald Trump came out of nowhere in 2016 to win the presidency, running on the theme “Make America Great Again.” The struggle today is between those who want to recapture our founding values and principles. And those who want to destroy them. The House will not fall. We will become all one thing, or all the other.

NB Blog Feed

PBS NewsHour Touts Film About Being a Trans Man Embedded with the Taliban

PBS NewsHour may have some sort of quota to meet for the number of supportive stories they must file for the transgender lobby. On April 4, they touted a new documentary available on Amazon Prime and Apple TV under the headline "Documentary captures journalist’s gender transition while embedded with Taliban." GEOFF BENNETT: The film Transition follows queer Australian filmmaker Jordan Bryon as he embeds with a Taliban unit he is documenting for The New York Times. But Bryon is undergoing his own transformation as a transgender man and has to keep his identity a secret. Bennett's co-anchor Amna Nawaz did the softball interview: NAWAZ: You begin documenting one group of Taliban fighters after the Taliban retake control of the country. And, at the same time, you are in the process of your own gender transition. At what point do you decide, I need to start turning the cameras the other way and start telling my own story as part of this? JORDAN BRYON: I started the medical transition like five months before the Taliban took over, and, objectively, as a filmmaker, I was thinking it could be interesting to document this process in a place like Afghanistan, and because I wanted to use my story to show the version of Afghanistan that I had experienced, which was a really beautiful, loving, welcoming Afghanistan. Monica Villamizar, the co-director of Bryon's film, explained how she got involved:  VILLAMIZAR: I had heard about him before as this Australian D.P., cinematographer who had really, really intimate access to the Taliban. So, in my imagination, I was already wondering, who is this guy and how did he get such intimate access? And that's when we met. And Jordan said, "Come here, but I'm not sure I want to do a film about myself." And I convinced him, because I really think it takes enormous courage to do something so intimate about your own process, but I really thought his story was extraordinary. Nawaz raised the notion that Bryon would have to leave (to make the film), and once the film was out, he couldn't go back. "I just wonder how you reflect on that decision now." BRYON: It was a big decision. I lived in Afghanistan for six-and-a-half years, and it's the most significant relationship I have ever had. It is an incredible place. And, as a filmmaker, it's a gift. But when Mon convinced me to make the film, I knew then that the film would mean that I would have to cut my ties with Afghanistan, most likely for the foreseeable future at least. And I'm hoping that the film adds value to the world and adds conversations to people that make it worth having to end that relationship for a while. Villamizar called their film a "love letter to journalism." It certainly sounds like a love letter to transgenderism. This would match our findings overall, that over a seven-month period last year, the PBS NewsHour guest count on LGBTQ issues was 19 to 1, and the "1" was lesbian tennis icon Billie Jean King volunteering her objections to men competing in women's sports.

NB Blog Feed

ABC Protects Biden, OMITS Brutal “20th Century’ Gaffe From Quote On Arizona Abortion Law

We regret to inform you all that the Regime Media is at it again. ABC News, in its capacity as the most consistently pro-Biden of the network evening newscasts, excised the most damaging part of a quote from the president on the recently-affirmed 1864 Arizona statute banning abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother.  Watch as correspondent Rachel Scott closes out her report, with all the subtlety of a tank, from in front of a Planned Parenthood in Phoenix, Arizona: RACHEL SCOTT: Today, the Biden campaign saying Donald Trump set out to overturn abortion rights in America, and he did. Insisting Trump "owns the suffering and chaos happening right now." And when asked his message to the people of Arizona, a key campaign battleground, tonight, President Biden was blunt -- "Elect me."  WHIT JOHNSON: Rachel Scott with us now from Phoenix. And Rachel, as you noted there, Republican lawmakers tonight blocking Democrats' efforts to repeal that 160-year-old abortion ban. So bottom line here, where do things stand right now in Arizona?  SCOTT: Whit, Arizona is in a state of limbo. The Supreme Court here in Arizona put that ruling on hold for 14 days. Democrats and Republicans were racing to try to repeal that law before it went into effect. Well, tonight, Republicans blocking those efforts. The Democratic governor Katie Hobbs calling their actions unconscionable, saying that the Republican majority had a chance to do the right thing, and tonight they failed. Whit. JOHNSON: Rachel, thank you. Except that this wasn’t ACTUALLY what Biden said- bluntly or otherwise. Leave it to the throne-sniffingest newscast to leave out the most damaging part of an absolutely brutal gaffe wherein Biden tells the world, in front of the Prime Minister of Japan, that he is in the 20th Century. Joe Biden: ‘Elect Me, I’m in the 20th Century’ pic.twitter.com/g5CSyqcMM8 — Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) April 10, 2024 This is another one of those instances where Biden was in the clear but decides to take that one last question. And it bit him again. Once you see the actual quote in its full context, you can tell that it is not “blunt” at all- and to suggest otherwise is to traffic in regime propaganda. Both CBS and NBC accurately reflected the gaffe in their reporting about the Arizona territorial law. Their reports, like this one, served the general purpose of advancing pro-abortion narrative and falsely framing former President Donald Trump’s criticism of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling as a flip-flop on abortion and inconsistent with the belief that abortion should be left to the states. Only ABC made the choice to try to hide an easily findable gaffe within an A-block story on a deeply divisive topic. Why, you ask? In order to protect Biden. As usual. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Wednesday, April 10th, 2024: WHIT JOHNSON: Tonight, growing backlash after Arizona's Supreme Court upheld a law from 1864 that criminalizes all abortions, except to save the mother's life. Republican lawmakers in the state blocking Democratic efforts to repeal it. The issue sure to be a flash point in the race for the White House. Donald Trump, who just this week said states should decide their own abortion policy, now saying Arizona went too far. ABC's Rachel Scott is in Phoenix tonight. PROTESTERS:  Shame on you! Shame on you!  RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, outrage in Arizona. Republican lawmakers in the state capitol blocking Democrats' efforts to roll back a 160-year-old law banning abortion with only one exception, to save the life of the mother.  PROTESTERS: Save women's lives! SCOTT: It comes 24 hours after the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the law, written before Arizona was even a state, and before women had the right to vote. Donald Trump, who just this week said states should decide their own abortion policy, today saying Arizona went too far.  Reporter: Did Arizona go too far?  DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, they did, and that will be straightened out. And, as you know, it's all about states' rights. That will be straightened out.  SCOTT: It comes as Trump tries to recast his own position on abortion, sensing it's become a losing issue for Republicans. He now says he's proud of appointing three of the six Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe versus Wade, but that abortion policy should be up to the states. TRUMP: It was an incredible thing, an incredible achievement. We did that. And now, the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want. It's the will of the people.  SCOTT: Just weeks ago, Trump was floating the idea of a national ban on abortion, but today, he said he would not sign one.  REPORTER: President Trump, would you sign a national abortion ban if congress sent it to your desk?  TRUMP: No.  SCOTT: Over the years, Trump's position on abortion has swung back and forth --  TRUMP: I am very pro-choice. I'm pro-life.  TRUMP: Trump once said there should be some sort of punishment for women who get abortions, a position he quickly walked back. Today, he refused to say whether he believes doctors should face punishment for performing abortions, as they do right now in Arizona and other states.  REPORTER: Do you think a doctor should be punished for performing abortions?  TRUMP:  I'll let that be to the states. Everything we're doing now is states. SCOTT: Today, the Biden campaign saying Donald Trump set out to overturn abortion rights in America, and he did. insisting Trump "owns the suffering and chaos happening right now." And when asked his message to the people of Arizona, a key campaign battleground, tonight, President Biden was blunt -- "Elect me."  JOHNSON: Rachel Scott with us now from Phoenix. And Rachel, as you noted there, Republican lawmakers tonight blocking Democrats' efforts to repeal that 160-year-old abortion ban. So bottom line here, where do things stand right now in Arizona?  SCOTT: Whit, Arizona is in a state of limbo. The Supreme Court here in Arizona put that ruling on hold for 14 days. Democrats and Republicans were racing to try to repeal that law before it went into effect. Well, tonight, Republicans blocking those efforts. The Democratic governor Katie Hobbs calling their actions unconscionable, saying that the Republican majority had a chance to do the right thing, and tonight they failed. Whit. JOHNSON: Rachel, thank you.  

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: PolitiFact Is NOT 'Obsessed with Fairness'

When PolitiFact won the Pulitzer Prize (for national reporting) in 2008, the committee touted how they used "probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters." It's not that simple. It's not always so cut and dried to locate "truth." While USA Today fact-checking boss Eric Litke says fact-checkers should be "obsessed with fairness," our latest NewsBusters study of PolitiFact demonstrates a significant partisan aggression against Republican politicians. Named politicians in the GOP were tagged as "Mostly False" or worse in almost 75 percent of fact checks, while the Democrats landed on that False side only 26 percent of the time. Blogs tagging the Republicans as false (47) were almost five times as common as blogs tagging the Democrats as false (ten). PolitiFact's selection bias seems to operate along the lines of the old Stephen Colbert joke that "Reality has a liberal bias." Republicans drew more "fact checks" (63 to 39), but it started with a 20 to 1 disparity in the first three weeks in January. I called attention to it on Twitter, and suddenly they added five Democrat fact checks, including two for President Biden and two for Vice President Harris.  It evened out in February -- 17 Republican checks to 14 for Democrats -- but the tilt was egregious. Thirteen of 17 GOP fact checks were tagged "Mostly False" or worse, and only two on the True side. But eleven of the 14 Democrat checks were on the True side -- eight True, three Mostly True. No one should expect fact-checking groups to calibrate their checks so that the distribution of "False" claims is equally distributed. But what PolitiFact's doing here is the opposite: it's making sure the Party of Trump stands out as the less honest and trustworthy party. That doesn't "enlighten voters" as much as encourage voters to check the D. Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

NB Blog Feed

Nets Proclaim ‘Game Changer’ AZ Ruling Means Abortion Will ‘Define’ 2024 as #1 Issue

On Wednesday, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC all led off their flagship morning news shows with coverage of the Arizona state Supreme Court ruling reinstalling an abortion law dating back to 1864 that protects unborn babies unless the life of the mother is threatened.  Given the liberal media’s ebullience toward killing babies, they were giddy about this “bombshell ruling” and argued this “game changer” ensure abortion — not the economy, inflation, national security, or anything else — will “define” and “be at the center of this presidential election” to help elect Democrats.     They weren’t really interested in the facts, including the reality that while this was framed as something originally enacted during the Civil War before Arizona became a state, our friend Erick Erickson noted this was around for over a century until Roe v. Wade in 1972. CBS Mornings was all-in on wanting to use abortion to fear-monger voters, giving it a hefty 12 minutes and 42 seconds. Co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King reacted to a riff on the ruling from Tuesday’s Daily Show to sound all crestfallen about what “unfortunately...is not a joke” because the Arizona might end up “reinstating a law from the 1800s – the 1800s — that bans nearly all abortion in the state.” On the flip side, she reveled in the fact that “it could have a big political impact and a very important swing state this November.” Senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang concurred by calling it “a game changer” for 2024 in “a battleground state that has been trending Democratic” and led by a Democratic governor in Katie Hobbs who “blasted the state’s conservative Supreme Court.” In the second half-hour, the show brought in Hobbs and, aside from a question about a 15-week limit on abortion from co-host Tony Dokoupil, were pathetically soft and even argued Arizona is now a real-life Handmaid’s Tale (click “expand”): KING: You called yesterday’s decision a dark day in Arizona. I’ve heard people use the phrases like “Is this Handmaid’s Tale come to life in real life?” How should we all be processing this? What are you thinking? (....) KING: Governor Hobbs we’ve heard what it is. I’m just curious about what do we do now? Even Kari Lake who challenged you for the governor’s race during the last election has come out against it? Are you talking to your top legislative leaders? What are you trying to do to make sure this does not actually happen? (....) DOKOUPIL: Governor, I want to get into that ballot initiative and the politics of this particularly come November because that’s a very big deal. But on the question of what to do right now, do you support a 15-week ban that your predecessor signed that was the law there in Arizona before this court ruling? HOBBS: Well, that’s the ban that will be in place if the 1864 ban is struck down, but Arizonans don’t support extreme abortion bans and this 15-week ban is still extreme. Again, no exception for rape or incest, no regard for complications of pregnancy. That’s what will be in place. And again, Arizonans will have the ability to weigh in on this with a constitutional amendment in November. DOKOUPIL: So it sounds like you’re saying repeal the 1864 law and go back to the 15 week-ban until November when you want to push it to the voters. HOBBS: Absolutely, yes. DOKOUPIL: So this — the health complications and women’s right to access, all that is important. I want to put it to one side, though for a question to just ask politically. Bottom line, is this advantageous for Democrats strategically, politically with the White House, the Senate and Congress potentially on the line with Arizona’s outcome in November? (....) NATE BURLESON: Governor, a couple of questions before we let you go. Vice President Kamala Harris will be visiting Arizona following this ruling. Have you talked to the White House about this? (....) KING: You know, Governor, when the interview started, you used the word “reeling.” I think a lot of people are feeling that way. How did it come to this? I think many people who woke up and heard this news yesterday, woke up this morning and heard more of it were thinking, this was a Civil War — that was around during the Civil War. HOBBS: Yeah. KING: Women couldn’t even vote, how does what’s happened in 2024 in your state, with you at the helm? ABC’s Good Morning America was also licking its chops at what this means for their party. Co-host Robin Roberts groused about Arizona “bracing for one of the strictest abortion bans in the country” with “President Biden calling it extreme and dangerous.” Co-host and former Clinton hack George Stephanopoulos proclaimed that “the bombshell ruling on abortions rights out of Arizona” means “[i]t is very clear that this issue is going to be at the center of this presidential election.” Chief congressional correspondent Rachel Scott is a progressive tool in her own right, so she too bragged that Arizona’s state Supreme Court handing down “one of the strictest abortion bans in the country” has “turn[ed] up the heat on an issue that could define this election.” For good measure, Scott doubled down on this deciding 2024 in the second hour. Finally, on NBC’s Today, co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Craig Melvin also played along. In opening teases, Melvin called it “a bombshell ruling” while Guthrie said the decision sent “shockwaves” across the country and “[t]hrust[ed] the abortion issue front and center”  “Battleground, a new ruling by Arizona's Supreme Court sending shockwaves. Judges upholding a near total abortion ban dating back to the civil war, punishing doctors who perform the procedure...Just ahead, how some Republicans distancing themselves from the decision...and Democrats ready to pounce,” she added. Correspondent and NBC News NOW anchor Hallie Jackson also used the “shockwaves” bit and proclaimed it further emphasized why “abortion access will be” such a “critical...issue” in the presidential election. After her report, Guthrie dubbed abortion “a potent political issue” for November and, as if the liberal media aren’t interested in also making abortion the #1 issue, Jackson boasted about “Democrats...hoping to press this issue from now until November” (click “expand”): GUTHRIE: Hallie, as mentioned, this is a potent political issue — JACKSON: Yeah. GUTHRIE: — with major repercussions for the 2024 presidential election in Arizona, a key battleground state and there's an effort to have an abortion issue — a ballot issue in November. What's the status of that and what's the implication? (....) JACKSON: Since the midterms in 2022, when this has been on the ballot, voters have voted to provide some level of abortion access. We've seen that in polling too with the majority of Americans saying that this is something they support. This is why this is a tricky issue for Republicans to walk right now. We saw some in the GOP trying to thread that needle even on reproductive rights when the Alabama/IVF issue came up, for example. Keep in mind. Democrats are going to make this front and center. They’re going to try to highlight this now through November. We've talked about that new ad out from the Biden campaign — that emotional abortion ad going after Donald Trump. A senior Biden campaign adviser tells me overnight that, since this Arizona court ruling came out just yesterday, they have decided to spend what they call significantly more money on that ad in the state of Arizona, Savannah, which is a real indication how the Biden team, how Democrats are hoping to press this issue from now until November. To see the relevant CBS transcript from April 10, click here.