Vaunce News

🔒
❌ About FreshRSS
There are new available articles, click to refresh the page.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS Asks: Did a 'Nonbinary Bathroom Ban' Kill an Oklahoma Trans Teen?

By: Clay Waters — February 24th 2024 at 22:50
Did a “nonbinary bathroom ban” kill an Oklahoma trans teen? That’s what tax-funded news wants you to think. The PBS NewsHour again demonstrated its fealty to “trans” issues, while adding yet another new definition into the brave new mix, in a Thursday evening story on the tragic case of Nex Benedict, a “non-binary” Oklahoma student who died mysteriously one day after a fight in a school restroom. Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill requiring students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their sex, a topic PBS has covered before (using more woke terminology), with local “communities correspondent” Adam Kemp once again on the scene fretting over an alleged lack of transgender rights in the state. Anchor Amna Nawaz: There are new details today about the death of an Oklahoma teenager, the day after a physical altercation in a school restroom. Nex Benedict, who was nonbinary, attended high school in Owasso, a suburb of Tulsa. Police say that investigation is ongoing. But Nex's death is raising concerns in LGBTQ-plus communities and igniting fear in some families and among students who identify as queer. In this story about a tragic death, Kemp made his priorities clear -- arcane sexual terminology. Benedict was apparently a biological male in the girl’s bathroom, though those simple facts were amazingly hard to confirm in the woke press. Many details remain vague, but that didn't stop PBS from jumping to conclusions. Adam Kemp: Yes, it's important to start the story, that we don't know how Nex identified. What we do know is the teen was gender-expansive. Nex was a 16-year-old sophomore student at Owasso High School. On February 7, they were involved in an altercation with three other students in a school bathroom. Early indications -- or early reports actually -- indicate that Nex had their head hit against the bathroom ground several times during that altercation, which lasted around two minutes, before it was broken up by other students. All the students involved were then checked out by a school nurse. Nex was then taken by a family member to the hospital. Nex went home that evening. And the next day, medics responded to a medical emergency involving Nex, who was then later declared dead at a local hospital.... The lead may have been buried here: So did Nex die from fight injuries or not? Kemp didn’t miss a chance to bring up Oklahoma’s so-called “nonbinary bathroom ban.” Kemp: Right. Police did say that Nex's death, preliminary reports indicate that it was not the result of trauma. School officials have been tight-lipped so far on this, mostly because this case does involve juveniles. The Owasso police did say that an investigation is ongoing. It is important context to note for the story that, in 2022, Oklahoma did pass a transgender and nonbinary bathroom ban, so that students are not allowed to use the bathroom that their gender identity aligns with…. Nawaz: Adam, I know you have been speaking with families in the area, with LGBTQ-plus advocates. What are you hearing from them? Kemp: Yes, right now, it's a lot of fear from families that I'm hearing. Right now, in the Oklahoma state legislature, more than 50-plus anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced so far this session. That's the most of any state, according to the ACLU..... After a soundbite from LGBTQ activist group "Freedom Oklahoma," Kemp continued Kemp: I have also spoken to many nonbinary and trans parents here in the state who just say the atmosphere is that of despair right now. One mother, in particular, talked about just the hateful rhetoric directed at her son that she's seen ramped up in the past couple years alone. Right now, she's grappling with the idea of moving out of state and whether that's the best option to keep her son safe. This social propaganda segment was brought to you in part by Cunard. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 2/22/24 7:28:28 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: There are new details today about the death of an Oklahoma teenager the day after a physical altercation in a school restroom. Nex Benedict, who was nonbinary, attended high school in Owasso, a suburb of Tulsa. Police say that investigation is ongoing. But Nex's death is raising concerns in LGBTQ+ communities and igniting fear in some families and among students who identify as queer. For a closer look, I'm joined now by our communities correspondent, Adam Kemp, who's been reporting on this story from Oklahoma. So, Adam, let's begin, please, if you can just tell us a little bit more about Nex, about who this teenager was, and also what we know about the events that unfolded the day before Nex's death. Adam Kemp: Yes, it's important to start the story that we don't know how Nex identified. What we do know is, the teen was gender-expansive. Nex was a 16-year-old sophomore student at Owasso High School. On February 7, they were involved in an altercation with three other students in a school bathroom. Early indications — or early reports actually indicate that Nex had their head hit against the bathroom ground several times during that altercation, which lasted around two minutes, before it was broken up by other students. All the students involved were then checked out by a school nurse. Nex was then taken by a family member to the hospital. Nex went home that evening. And the next day, medics responded to a medical emergency involving Nex, who was then later declared dead at a local hospital. Family and friends have described Nex as a gamer who loved to play Minecraft, a straight-A student, and a lover of animals, including a pet cat named Zeus. Amna Nawaz: So, Adam, what about from authorities and from the school district? What are we hearing from them about Nex's death? Adam Kemp: Right. Police did say that Nex's death, preliminary reports indicate that it was not the result of trauma. School officials have been tight-lipped so far on this, mostly because this case does involve juveniles. The Owasso police did say that an investigation is ongoing. It is important context to note for the story that, in 2022, Oklahoma did pass a transgender and nonbinary bathroom ban, so that students are not allowed to use the bathroom that their gender identity aligns with. State Superintendent Ryan Walters, it should be noted, is a very big critic of LGBTQ+ issues in this state. But he has offered Owasso Public Schools his support and the support of the state for counseling services. Governor Kevin Stitt actually released a statement saying — quote — "The death of any child in an Oklahoma school is a tragedy, and bullies must be held accountable." Again, there's just still a lot of questions at this time without a lot of answers. Ana Nawaz: Adam, I know you have been speaking with families in the area, with LGBTQ+ advocates. What are you hearing from them? Adam Kemp: Yes, right now, it's a lot of fear from families that I'm hearing. Right now, in the Oklahoma state legislature, more than 50 plus anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced so far this session. That's the most of any state, according to the ACLU. I spoke with Freedom Oklahoma, which is a LGBTQ+ advocacy group, who has been doing their own investigation into this case and has found that Nex had been bullied for more than a year. Speaking with Nicole Mcafee, their executive director, she had this to say about kind of the mood of their community right now. Nicole Mcafee, Executive Director, Freedom Oklahoma: It feels incredibly overwhelming to not know how we can keep kids in our community alive as they are being bullied and targeted not only by fellow students, but by the state. We have a lot of teachers in that space who they themselves are queer or trans and nonbinary and are grappling with whether they can keep doing this work or if they feel like their only option is to leave. Adam Kemp: I have also spoken to many nonbinary and trans parents here in the state who just say the atmosphere is that of despair right now. One mother, in particular, talked about just the hateful rhetoric directed at her son that she's seen ramped up in the past couple years alone. Right now, she's grappling with the idea of moving out of state and whether that's the best option to keep her son safe. Amna Nawaz: So, Adam, given all the questions, what can we expect to happen next? Adam Kemp: Yes, Owasso police say an autopsy and toxicology report are forthcoming. We know that — we don't know yet what the consequences could be for the students that were involved in the fight. We do know that Nex's family has hired an attorney and that vigils are being planned around the state for later this month. Amna Nawaz: Of course, our thoughts are with Nex Benedict's family tonight. Adam Kemp, our communities reporter joining us from Oklahoma. Adam, thank you.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

New York Magazine Posts Poorly Timed Defense of Fani Willis, Right Before the Phone Data

By: P.J. Gladnick — February 25th 2024 at 06:03
Wow! Talk about poor timing! On late Thursday afternoon, New York magazine published in its section "The Cut" an impassioned defense of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis by Laura Bassett, "Fani Willis Didn’t Stand a Chance." The very next morning the stunning news broke that the defense team in the RICO prosecution of Donald Trump had obtained cell data from the phone of Nathan Wade that he visited Willis 35 times in 2021 and also stayed overnight at her home. In addition, the data revealed 2000 calls and 12,000 texts between Wade and Willis in 2021. As you can guess, Bassett would have definitely been better off if she had slept on her story overnight before submitting it. However, since her Willis defense is out there for the entertainment of the world, let us take a look at Bassett's pleas on her behalf before the sad news arrived hours later: ...Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis, had been hailed as a national hero for having the guts to prosecute 19 people at once, for extracting multiple guilty pleas, and for having the potential to put Trump behind bars. But the narrative around the case has taken a sharp turn in the past two weeks. After one of Trump’s co-defendants complained that Willis had dated a prosecutor she hired to help with the case, the judge has effectively put Willis on trial for being unethical. He set up a separate hearing to assess team Trump’s claims that Willis and her ex, Nathan Wade, had incentive to draw out the case to fund their lavish vacations together. Now, headlines about the case are focused almost entirely on Willis’s personal life instead of the former president’s attempts to overturn an election. News flash, Laura. The case has taken an even sharper turn in just the past few hours. Willis held up impressively well during her testimony, though she betrayed more than a few times how ridiculous she found the entire line of questioning to be. When exactly did her relationship with Wade begin, a Trump lawyer asked? Sometime in early 2022, she said — months after she hired Wade to work with her on the case, though she couldn’t offer a specific date. “It’s not like when you’re in grade school and you send a little letter saying ‘will you be my girlfriend?’ and you check it,” she said. Willis held up impressively well? Are you sure you watched the same courtroom scene as everybody else or did you leave the room to get a snack those times Willis went into meltdown mode starting when she first sat down in the witness chair? The bottom line, according to legal experts interviewed by the Times, is that Willis has not done anything illegal. She has just created a perception problem. A problem that likely wouldn’t exist — or at least would be considered much less consequential — if she didn’t happen to be a Black woman prosecuting Trump. Black women are more likely to have their judgment questioned at work and tend to be scrutinized or penalized in the workplace for things that have nothing to do with their job performance. A district attorney lying on the stand has nothing to do with her job performance? Perhaps you should check back with those same legal experts now that the Wade cell phone data has been released. Maybe one or more of them can wildly spin a race card defense as you have done, Laura. It will be interesting to find out how Laura Bassett herself processes the Wade cell phone data revelations. Will she retract her defense of Willis? That could happen but it could be a bad career move. More likely we will be treated to even more absurd but entertaining spin control by her or perhaps she could even just send Fani Willis down the memory hole.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Editors Tim Graham and Curtis Houck Talk About Biden's Mind on Newsmax

By: NB Staff — February 25th 2024 at 06:31
NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham and Managing Editor Curtis Houck appear every Friday in the 10 am hour on Newsmax’s National Report. On this Friday’s edition, Tim and Curtis discussed the media’s strange tendency to tell the public that President Biden’s sharp as a tack in private, unlike the bumbler and mumbler we see in public. Curtis said reporters try to claim that Biden is on top of his game in private, asking great questions, and if he makes a mistake, it’s not a sign he’s mentally unfit for office, it’s just everyone makes mistakes. Newsmax host Emma Rechenberg asked why the press wouldn’t want to demand more interviews and press conferences to prove his fitness. Tim said our ongoing joke at NewsBusters is this is how the press shows you they have no self-respect. They're simply unwilling to demand more access, so the public can see the president take hard questions.   In addition, Newsmax showed video of CNN pundit (and The View co-host) Alyssa Farah Griffin discussing how there is a "moral rot" and a "brain rot" on the right over Russia. Curtis pointed out that Alyssa worked for four years in the Trump White House in several positions, and now suddenly there's a moral rot...once she's accepted gigs with Whoopi Goldberg and with CNN. Newsmax cued us up today to discuss Alyssa Farah diagnosing a "moral rot" and a "brain rot" on the right (on Russia). @CurtisHouck sez we weren't the kind of amoral person that switches sides based on who's paying. Russia sucks. But they took advantage of Obama & Biden weakness. pic.twitter.com/PFu7JqBWcH — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) February 23, 2024
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Fox News Reveals Georgia Murder Suspect Is Illegal Alien, Paroled Under Biden

By: Brad Wilmouth — February 25th 2024 at 08:25
After the other networks mostly failed to inform viewers that an illegal alien was arrested for allegedly murdering a young nursing student in Georgia, Fox on Saturday gave the story thorough coverage, informing viewers that the Joe Biden administration had released the Venezuelan national after he crossed the southern border into the U.S. illegally in 2022. On Fox & Friends Saturday, contributor Tom Homan made two appearances on the show and helped break the news that the suspect, Jose Antonio Ibarra, crossed the border illegally in September 2022 but was released in spite of federal law that mandates detention under such circumstances. Homan --who used to be acting ICE director for the Donald Trump administration -- also informed viewers that, while it is very difficult to do an criminal background check on an illegal alien from most countries, Ibarra should also have been deported after he was arrested in New York, accused of injuring a child. Appearing at 6:13 a.m., the Fox contributor related: "Well, this guy entered the country illegally in September of 2022 under the Biden open border policy. He was released and paroled into the United States like thousands of people are released every day by this administration. So he's here on parole." He then recalled for viewers that President Trump had implemented a "remain in Mexico" policy that would have kept an illegal alien like Ibarra out of the U.S. until his asylum hearing, but President Biden terminated the program: He shouldn't be here. Under the Trump administration, he'd be sitting in Mexico in the "remain in Mexico" program, but they killed that program. Under the Trump administration, we ended "catch and release," so, even if he wasn't staying in Mexico, when you enter the country illegally without documentation, the laws say you "shall" be detained -- not "maybe," not "think about it" -- you "shall" be detained. We ended "catch and release." He should at least be sitting in an ICE detention facility. He then informed viewers that Ibarra had been allowed to stay in the U.S. in spite of being arrested in New York: They've failed them a third time because after he entered the country, he committed a crime in New York City injuring a child. His wife was arrested for possession of stolen property. Under the Trump administration, he would have been taken back into custody for violating his terms of release. But this administration, Secretary Mayorkas has told ICE you can't arrest somebody for being in the country illegally unless they're convicted of an aggravated felony. He was convicted of injuring a child -- he was arrested. An injured child is not an aggravated felony. This administration failed this family three times. This is another senseless, preventable death because of this open border. After co-host Rachel Campos Duffy brought up the possibility of him also having a criminal record in his home country, Homan gave viewers critical insight into the inability of the U.S. to adequately do criminal background checks on such arrivals: We don't know because when somebody enters this country illegally from a different country, we can run them through NCIC -- we run them through our databases. But most countries, we don't have access to their criminal databases. So when people say they're vetted and they're fingerprinted, this is only as good as the information we have access to. So that is a problem. They're releasing thousands of people every day. We don't even know who the hell they are. They can give us any name -- they can give the name "Tom Homan," and they got to accept it if they don't find a record, and most nations don't share their criminal data with us, especially Venezuela, who hates this country. He went on to remind viewers that about 90 percent of the so-called "asylum seekers" who are allowed into the U.S. lose their asylum cases, but only about six percent of them ever leave the country in spite of eventually receiving deportation orders. While MSNBC did not cover the story at all, CNN had been covering the murder investigation since Friday morning, and, after news of his immigration status came out, CNN on Saturday morning only informed viewers that the suspect is "not a U.S. citizen" without mentioning that he crossed into the country illegally or was released by the Biden administration. In the second of two reports during the two-hour show, CNN This Morning Weekend co-host Amara Walker vaguely noted: "Ibarra lived in the area but is not a student, nor is he a U.S. citizen." Correspondent Ryan Young related: "...what we are told by the police chief here is that Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, not a U.S. citizen, someone they believe was from Venezuela, is their prime suspect -- the man whom they arrested for this murder." Transcripts follow: Fox & Friends Saturday February 24, 2024 6:13 a.m. Eastern PETE HEGSETH: I understand you're aware of some additional details -- some information about this case. What do you have for us? TOM HOMAN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, this guy entered the country illegally in September of 2022 under the Biden open border policy. He was released and paroled into the United States like thousands of people are released every day by this administration. So he's here on parole. But, look, let's be clear. He shouldn't be here. Under the Trump administration, he'd be sitting in Mexico in the "remain in Mexico" program, but they killed that program. Under the Trump administration, we ended "catch and release," so, even if he wasn't staying in Mexico, when you enter the country illegally without documentation, the laws say you "shall" be detained -- not "maybe," not "think about it" -- you "shall" be detained. We ended "catch and release." He should at least be sitting in an ICE detention facility. They've failed them a third time because after he entered the country, he committed a crime in New York City injuring a child. His wife was arrested for possession of stolen property. Under the Trump administration, he would have been taken back into custody for violating his terms of release. But this administration, Secretary Mayorkas has told ICE you can't arrest somebody for being in the country illegally unless they're convicted of an aggravated felony. He was convicted of injuring a child -- he was arrested. An injured child is not an aggravated felony. This administration failed this family three times. This is another senseless, preventable death because of this open border. (...) RACHEL CAMPOS DUFFY: We know that during the Cuban situation, Castro would release a lot of prisoners. He didn't want to pay for them in his jails, and he let them free. Do we know if these -- if this young man was somebody who maybe was dumped out of a Venezuelan prison. We know their economy is suffering. Why would they want to keep paying for people like him to stay alive? HOMAN: Here's the problem, Rachel. We don't know because when somebody enters this country illegally from a different country, we can run them through NCIC -- we run them through our databases. But most countries, we don't have access to their criminal databases. So when people say they're vetted and they're fingerprinted, this is only as good as the information we have access to. So that is a problem. They're releasing thousands of people every day. We don't even know who the hell they are. They can give us any name -- they can give the name "Tom Homan," and they got to accept it if they don't find a record, and most nations don't share their criminal data with us, especially Venezuela, who hates this country. (...) 8:25 a.m. HOMAN: Here's what the American people need to know. They can call them asylum seekers all they want. The bottom line is, if you look at 10 years of past court data -- immigration court data -- nearly nine out of 10 of these people claiming asylum at the border will get an order of removal years down the road because they simply don't qualify for asylum. They're not escaping fear and persecution from their home government -- they're coming here to get a job -- they're coming here to take benefits. Nine out of 10 will fail. Here's the issue, though. They're not detaining them. In the Homeland Security Metrics Report -- Secretary Mayorkas's own report -- says if you're detained and get an order of removal, you're removed 99 percent of the time. However, if you're not in detention, you leave six percent of the time. (...) CNN This Morning Weekend February 24, 2024 7:14 a.m. Eastern AMARA WALKER: All right, now to Georgia where an arrest has been made in the death of a woman who was killed while jogging on the campus of the University of Georgia. Police say 26-year-old Jose Antonio Ibarra murdered Laken Riley in a, quote, "crime of opportunity" committed during broad daylight. Ibarra lived in the area but is not a student, nor is he a U.S. citizen. Twenty-two-year-old Laken Riley was found dead on Thursday near a lake in a wooded area on campus. CNN senior national correspondent Ryan Young is in Athens, Georgia where the community is still in shock. RYAN YOUNG: Yeah, Victor, and Amara, there are heavy hearts here on the campus of UGA as you understand. People are still in shock about this crime, this murder that happened on campus. It's been such a long time since a violent crime like this has happened on campus, but what we are told by the police chief here is that Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, not a U.S. citizen, someone they believe was from Venezuela, is their prime suspect -- the man whom they arrested for this murder. In fact, listen to the police chief talk about the fact that his investigators and his patrol officers were able to make the arrest and the charges this man faces. CHIEF JEFFREY CLARK, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA POLICE: He has been charged with the following -- malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, hindering a 911 call, and concealing the death of another. Laken Riley, 22, a nursing student from Augusta University College of Nursing. You can understand why so many of her friends and family are so upset by this. We were outside of her sorority. We saw people dropping off flowers, but we also saw a lot of pain because there were several people who clearly were upset. When you think about this, this young lady -- this 22-year-old woman -- was on a running trail that so many people at this university enjoy -- and a course, according to that police chief, they believe this was a crime of opportunity. The two people did not know each other, she was on her run, and they believe this man, as they put into their words, woke up with bad intentions when he decided to attack her. This happened in broad daylight around noontime. There's also video evidence in this. They have an extensive video system here. Apparently some of that helped with this investigation. They believe this lady was killed by blunt force trauma. Of course it's still early on in this investigation, so as they're working through the pieces of this, we'll learn more information. We're also waiting to see the time when this man will have his first court appearance, but obviously this university has been shaken to its core. Classes have been canceled until Monday, but we'll continue to follow this investigation as detectives work through the weekend doing their search warrant to try to find more evidence. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

FLASHBACK: Recalling Years of Liberal Media Mockery of CPAC

By: Rich Noyes — February 25th 2024 at 10:33
As they have for the past 50 years, grassroots conservatives gathered this weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), capped by a speech yesterday by former President and current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. And throughout those years, liberals in the media have snickered and scoffed at the “zany” attendees (who presumably don’t care much for the liberal media, either). NewsBusters has tracked the coverage over the years, as both journalists and late-night comics have slammed CPAC as akin to “the bar scene in Star Wars,” “an aviary for far-right ‘wacko birds,’” and an “audience of malignant children.” “They are not Americans,” MSNBC’s far-left host Ed Schultz smeared in 2015. “They don’t care about the greater good of society.” Just last year, ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel ridiculed CPAC as a conference where “every low-rent radio host and podcast racist with a dye job and a fleece vest shows up to try to out-crazy each other.” Here’s just a sampling of the nonsense going back to 2011, all from the NewsBusters’ archive: ■ “Whenever you think progressives need to calm down and get real you should head over to something called CPAC. It’s the right-wing jamboree that puts the zany in the same room as the zanier....”— Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, February 14, 2011. ■ Correspondent Peter Hamby at CPAC: “So it will be interesting to see in this kind of conservative petri dish how Mitt Romney is received and how his challengers are received too, Suzanne.”Anchor Suzanne Malveaux: “I love that, ‘conservative petri dish.’ That’s a great way to describe it.”— Talking about the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on CNN’s Newsroom, February 9, 2012. ■ “CPAC, mind you, is no enclave of moderation and reason. It’s more like an aviary for the far-right “wacko birds” whom John McCain recently called out.”— New York Times columnist Frank Bruni in his March 24, 2013 column. ■ “Do you remember the bar scene in Star Wars, with all those wild-eyed creatures from every part of the solar system? Well, today here in Washington the whole tapestry of weirdness was reenacted at the annual convention of something called CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Committee [sic].”— Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 6, 2014. ■ “It was the address of a malignant child delivered to an audience of malignant children. If you applauded, you’re an idiot and I feel sorry for you.”— Esquire’s Charles Pierce in a March 8, 2014 blog post about former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech at CPAC. ■ “I think there are parallels drawn by some of the things Hitler was saying and some of the things that were at the CPAC convention. They are not Americans. They don’t care about the greater good of society.”— Host Ed Schultz on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, January 13, 2015. ■ “CPAC, if you don’t know, is an annual event. It’s like Comic-Con for neo-cons and neo-Nazis too.”— Host Jimmy Kimmel during his monologue on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, February 23, 2021. ■ “Speaking of mobs of angry idiots, this week is the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. It’s a who’s who of ‘Who needs that many guns in their rec room?’...Of course, with all the crises facing our nation, conservatives are focusing on the most pressing issue of all: Fascists being kicked off of Twitter.— Host Stephen Colbert on CBS’s The Late Show, February 23, 2021. ■ “The only truly unifying thing at CPAC, the beating heart of modern conservatism, were the dumb, invented culture war grievances, as evidenced by their complaints about total nonsense, like The Muppets and Mr. Potato Head....The Conservative Political Action Conference revealed once again that the modern conservative movement remains totally detached from reality.”— Host Seth Myers on NBC’s Late Night, March 2, 2021. ■ “In Washington, the fascist and the furious have gathered to praise their lord and savior, Donald Trump, at the annual CPAC convention. This is a convention for all your worst aunts and uncles....This CPAC event, it’s kind of hard to explain, every, like, low-rent radio host and podcast racist with a dye job and a fleece vest shows up to try to out-crazy each other.”— Kimmell on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmell Live!, March 2, 2023. ■ “Once, a Republican primary season tradition — speeches to the party faithful at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC....is now a platform for white grievance politics, loyal acolytes of former President Donald Trump...and election deniers.”— Correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez in a report on PBS’s NewsHour, March 3, 2023. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Rep. Donalds WRECKS NBC’s Welker Over Fake Biden Exoneration Narrative

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 25th 2024 at 17:04
During a heated back-and-forth on NBC’s “Meet The Depressed”, Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL) repeatedly took moderator Kristen Welker to task for disseminating the fake narrative that Robert Hur’s special counsel report cleared President Joe Biden of any criminal wrongdoing in the classified documents case. Watch as Rep. Donalds SHUTS DOWN Welker’s multiple attempts at alleging that the Hur Report exonerated Biden, as aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, February 25th, 2024::  KRISTEN WELKER: Again, there's no evidence that the indictments against him are politicized, but sticking to this question, were you offended at all by his comments, Congressman?  U.S. REP. BYRON DONALDS: No, I wasn't because I understood what the president was talking about and like I've said now for the third time. He talked about all the reasons why minority voters want to support him and Kristen, let me push back a little bit. You have to acknowledge the fact that now that the Robert Hur report has come out, about Joe Biden’s misuse of classified information which is a violation of the Espionage Act. He had no rights to any of those documents when he was a senator or vice president and yet there are no charges against  Vice- against President Biden, but President Trump is under prosecution? Come on now. We know that doesn't make sense at all. WELKER: I have to hit the pause button for one minute, Congressman, Because the Hur report was very clear… DONALDS: Sure.  WELKER: …that there was not enough evidence to bring charges against President Biden. And that ultimately there was not any ev- (CROSSTALK) DONALDS: Kristen, I gotta push back on you. That is not tr-- No, no, no, no, no…  WELKER: That is what the Hur report said. That is exactly what the Hur report said. Yes, it is. It said that there wasn’t enough- there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges… DONALDS: The Espionage Act is clear. The Espionage Act is clear. You cannot possess those documents as a senator or vice president. You have no right to those documents as a senator or vice president. They must remain in a secure facility. Joe Biden took them from a SCIF. That's a violation of the Espionage Act. Period. WELKER: Okay. All right. Bottom line, though, Hur himself said there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges.  Fake News Alert: Despite Welker’s THREE passes at stating the contrary as fact, Hur NEVER said that there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges. A reasonable human being with grade-school reading comprehension can figure out, upon reading the actual report, that there were TONS of evidence of wrongdoing.  Hur’s actual findings were that his team was unable to prove all of the elements of any potential charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and that he wouldn’t have prosecuted anyway based on DoJ regulations concerning aggravating and mitigating factors (such as prosecuting a sitting president). Also, the “weak memory” and “declining cognitive ability” stuff. The exchange came on the heels of Welker trying to pin Donalds down on statements made by Trump at a black conservatives’ event in South Carolina, and Donalds firing back with the weaponization of government against Trump and how some in the black community might react to that. Welker tried to work Donalds, a Trump vice presidential shortlister per reports, on the recent IVF controversy, as well as on border security. The outcome was the same. Rep. @ByronDonalds SHUT DOWN Kristen Welker like she was the border pic.twitter.com/FfkhU8hgK7 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) February 25, 2024 This may well be one of the most forceful denunciation of the Senate border bill that we’ve seen be allowed to go to air. Welker took multiple passes on border security, including using the Trump-endorsing Border Patrol Union’s endorsement of the bill as an appeal to authority. Here again, she was shut down.  Welker’s interview of Donalds seemed like an attempt to take down a potential Trump running mate, and failed miserably.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Hey, Elon Musk, You May Have a ‘Deep State’ Problem

By: Larry Elder — February 25th 2024 at 17:28
The New York Times raised questions about President Joe Biden's mental fitness after the bombshell special report explaining why there would be no criminal charges against Biden for unlawful possession of documents. Special counsel Robert Hur wrote, "Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." This Times coverage about Biden's mental fitness prompted former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to write: "Is there no one at these major outlets who is capable of taking a step back and exercising some judgment? "How about a note from New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger to two key people who report to him directly — the opinion editor and the top newsroom editor — that goes something like this: 'Katie and Joe, I'm concerned that we're going overboard with both coverage and commentary about Biden's age. Let's keep this in better perspective and tone it down.' Believe me, those two sentences would make a world of difference." In other words, note to the legacy media, particularly to the influential New York Times, "Back off! Circle the wagons!" This elevates the importance of outlets like the Elon Musk-owned X, formerly known as Twitter. Musk uncovered the extent to which Twitter suppressed posts of conservatives, suppressed posts questioning the then-conventional wisdom of the COVID vaccine, masking and shutdowns, and even briefly shut down the New York Post's account for its reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop story. When Musk bought Twitter, things changed immediately. Conservatives saw a quick and substantial uptick in followers. But, since then, many conservatives say they experience pre-Musk sluggish growth. So, I recently posted on X the following: "Dear @elonmusk, "I can't be the only one? I believe conservatives are STILL being suppressed — and that new followers are only painstakingly added — because of the anti-conservative, anti-Trump hostility of your deep state Twitter employees. This is a shout out to other conservatives/libertarians on your platform, please tell me if you've ALSO experienced the same sluggish growth in new followers, a stark contrast from what happened when Musk first took over when I — and many other conservatives — had an explosion of new followers. Please comment!" The comments were fast and furious: — "I think people are afraid Big Brother is watching." — "Larry is correct, @elonmusk. #throttled." — " I agree, my new followers have slowed down. I was sent a message that my tweets would be made less visible because of the content I was posting. Twitter felt I was trying to manipulate others. I asked for a review, but no response — nothing has changed." — "I agree. Mine have slowed down, lost followers, etc." — "Yeah, I assume that there is a slew of typical San Franciscans still working at X and doing what they can to sabotage conservatives every way they can." — "I've had a surge in followers, but they've suspended me from following back 3 days and some limitations on what I can like. I got tired of this during the last election and closed my account and came back thinking things were fixed. They said it's an algorithm issue." — "Looks like Mr. Musk needs to clean house again!" — "Dead right. Elon still has some house cleaning to do — and it won't happen with the current commie CEO." (This refers to the hiring of former NBCUniversal advertising chief Linda Yaccarino.) — "Yep. As soon as he put that liberal woman in charge, it went almost right back to what it was pre-Elon." — "Been saying this for quite a while now... it's pretty obvious at times..." — "I feel the same way. Can't tell if anyone even sees my posts most of the time." — "I'm still constantly being told that other people wouldn't say what I have to say. I thought Elon was for free speech. Free speech tends to be things that other people wouldn't say." — "Yep! VERY SLOW GROW, if any at all." — "My numbers never change." — "I was banned under old regime and reinstated but definitely receive zero feedback on posts. Still shadow banned for sure." Bottom line, Mr. Musk, a lot of conservatives still detect a serious deep state problem at X, a platform we need now more than ever. Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC This Week: Team Biden Should Be ‘WAY MORE CONCERNED’ About Michigan

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 25th 2024 at 19:16
The Michigan primary portion of the Acela Media’s ongoing panic over the fraying of President Joe Biden’s coalition is drawing to a close. But ahead of the Tuesday primary, there was time for ABC to get one last Sunday installment into the record. Watch as ABC This Week’s “Power Panel” delves into its latest installment of MICHIGAN DOOM- as aired on Sunday, February 25th, 2024: MARTHA RADDATZ: Let's move onto Michigan. You've got Michigan this week and progressives have been upset about Joe Biden's support of Israel, which we think there might be some sort of ceasefire and hostage release brewing. They- that state has the largest percentage of Arab American voters. How concerned should the campaign be about this?  RACHEL BADE: Way more concerned than they currently are. I actually talked to the leader of the Abandon Biden movement on the ground there. He's a Palestinian American, those folks who have had family members who have died during the bombardments in Gaza, and he was a Biden voter. Just a few months ago, he had a sign- Biden/Harris sign in his yard. Now he says he would sooner vote for…what did he say? Sooner vote for Mickey Mouse than Joe Biden- even if it means voting for Donald Trump. So I think that- if you look at the numbers- one more thing, Martha, Joe Biden won by 150,000 votes in Michigan. There are 200,000 Muslim or Arab American voters in Michigan. If he alienates all of them, Michigan is gone for him.  RADDATZ: And, small numbers, really, overall. We just have a few seconds here, but really could have a profound impact.  ASMA KHALID: A critical impact. And to that point, I spoke with a number of people who sat in meetings either with Biden campaign officials or with Biden officials, policy makers, who are so dissatisfied- came out of those meetings still not convinced that they will vote for Joe Biden.  RADDATZ: Something we'll all watch this week. Michigan coming up. Thanks to all of you. We’re into the third month of the media’s fretting over Biden’s prospects in Michigan, which is primed to be a swing state in 2024. The pattern is the same across networks: A correspondent parachutes into Dearborn, speaks to a few community leaders, and wraps their item by emoting concern over Biden’s electoral prospects should Michigan fall to Trump.  Even the questions are the same. It’s always some variant of “are you willing to refuse to vote for Biden over Gaza even if Trump wins?” And the answers are some variant of “I must vote my conscience” or “If Trump wins, Trump wins”. ABC News had, until now, avoided mentioning “Abandon Biden”, a movement endorsed by both U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib and Bernie Sanders’ “Our Revolution”. The ongoing ask of Democratic primary voters is to embarrass Biden over his Gaza response by voting “Uncommitted”.  With Primary night virtually upon us, what can we expect going forward? Look to the percentages garnered by “Uncommitted” in places like Dearborn and Hamtramck. Should there be news of some sort of ceasefire in Gaza, look to these same correspondents to parachute back into the Arab American community seeking to elicit positive reactions. If not, expect the “DOOM” drumbeat to continue, and for the “Biden’s coalition is crumbling” series to extend itself.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Too Many Corporations, Like Universities, Have Lost Their Way

By: Star Parker — February 25th 2024 at 20:31
Universities are not alone among our institutions that have lost their way. How about America’s corporations, which now seem to think social justice is their job, beside efficiently delivering goods and services to the American public? In a recent panel discussion at the Bipartisan Policy Institute, Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, rang the alarm about the nation’s debt. He noted what is already widely known — that federal debt now equals 100% of GDP, on its way to 130% of GDP by 2035. We’re headed for a cliff at “60 miles an hour,” said Dimon. But this is not new. In 2018, for instance, an opinion piece in The Washington Post authored by four distinguished economists from the Hoover Institution — Michael Boskin, John Cochrane, John Cogan and John B. Taylor, along with former Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz — announced “A debt crisis is on the horizon.” They pointed to the enormous burden and risk to our budget of the then debt burden, which stood at $15 trillion, 76% of GDP. Now we’re at $34 trillion and 100% of GDP. At the end of 2008, debt stood at 43% of GDP. It is good that the chairman of the largest bank in the country is waking up. But where has he been and is he really waking up? Per OpenSecrets, which tracks and reports political spending, in the most recent political cycle, 2023/2024, 65% of JPMorgan’s political contributions went to Democrats, and their contributions to “liberal groups” were greater than contributions to “conservative groups” by a margin of 10-to-1. The Business Roundtable is a Washington, D.C.-based association of “more than 200 chief executive officers of America’s leading companies ... that support one in four American jobs and almost a quarter of U.S. GDP.” In 2019, Jamie Dimon served as their chairman, and under his leadership, they made a significant change. It has always been understood that the responsibility of any corporation is to serve the interests of its shareholders — the owners of the company. Economist Milton Friedman wrote in his famous book “Capitalism and Freedom,” first published in 1962, that corporations have one responsibility — to maximize profitability for its shareholders. “Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible,” wrote Friedman. But in 2019 the Business Roundtable did exactly this. They announced that they were abandoning primacy of serving shareholders as the core corporate responsibility and that shareholders would now be viewed as just one group of “stakeholders,” alongside “customers, employees, suppliers” and “communities.” What happened to private property? Corporate CEOs work for the owners, the shareholders. Private property is what sets a free society apart from socialism. Dimon noted, “The American dream is alive but fraying. ... These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.” If the American dream is “fraying,” it is because of departure from the principles that define a free society, upon which our great country emerged. Economic freedom, private property, personal responsibility and creativity are the source of our success, not of our failures. Blurring the lines between the private and the public, no one knows what their job is — government, corporations, universities. Government has exploded by trying to do what individuals should be doing for themselves. The result of all the efficiencies is slowdown of growth. The victims are the poor, not high-earning CEOS. As our country sinks under a tsunami of spending and debt, hopefully the CEO of the nation’s largest bank, and CEOs of all our corporations, will wake up that loss of freedom, not too much freedom, is what is hurting our nation. Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the weekly television show “Cure America with Star Parker.” Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CBS’s Costa Frets Over No GOP Reckoning For Trump On…Immigration???

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 25th 2024 at 22:18
A Face the Nation segment on former President Donald Trump’s remarks at the Black Conservative Federation gala in South Carolina led into a bizarre take by Robert Costa lamenting the lack of a GOP reckoning for Trump on immigration, of all things. Perhaps, at this point, we should reconsider naming the program “Faceplant the Nation”. Watch the segment, as aired on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, February 25th, 2024: MARGARET BRENNAN: As for the former president, his Friday night remarks at the Black Conservative Federation gala in Columbia, South Carolina, continued to overshadow his victory.  DONALD TRUMP: Black conservatives understand better than most that some of the greatest evils in our nation's history have come from corrupt systems that try to target and subjugate others to deny them their freedom and deny them their rights. You understand that. I think that's why the black people are so much on my side now because they see what's happening to me, happens to them. These lights are so bright in my eyes that I can't see too many people out there, but- I can only see the black ones. I can't see any white ones you see, that's how far I've come.  BRENNAN: We begin with CBS News Chief Election and Campaign Correspondent Robert Costa who joins us from Charleston. Bob, this was an open primary in South Carolina, but just 3% of voters were black. Do Donald Trump's remarks about black Americans give the party any pause here?  ROBERT COSTA: It's giving Nikki Haley a road ahead at this point, Margaret. She and her campaign believe there are many traditional Republicans across the country who are fed up, not only with former President Trump's legal problems, but his incendiary comments on race, and they believe that they- that could ostracize key voters across the country come November. That's why she's staying in right now, going to Michigan this week for that primary, staying in through super Tuesday. But there is real worry that as Trump takes over the party and the Republican National Committee, there’s no reckoning about how he’s handling issues like race and immigration.  A reckoning for Trump on immigration? What is this, Univision? What’s Costa even talking about? Polling suggests that this issue, especially in this environment, is among Trump’s strongest. Inasmuch as there will be a reckoning, it doesn’t look like it’s going to be for Trump. Not in this political environment, not with this current border crisis raging the way it is. The segment seems to serve little purpose beyond trying to build a permission structure upon which Nikki Haley continues her presidential campaign beyond South Carolina. And it was weird to see that mashed up with Trump’s comments at Friday’s event. It is as if the allegedly wronged black conservatives were little more than props with which to advance the pro-Haley talking points. As of this writing, the Koch network has announced it is no longer spending on the GOP primary. The segment is quickly aging, and not at all well.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS Hysteria: 'Research Reveals Depths of Racial and Ethnic Bias in Health Care'

By: Clay Waters — February 25th 2024 at 22:44
Thursday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour ran a segment which appeared online under the exaggerated headline, “Research reveals depths of racial and ethnic bias in health care.” It’s part of “Race Matters,” yet another regular PBS segment aimed at a particular wing of the progressive movement, courtesy of your tax dollars. Host Geoff Bennett: We have long known about racial and ethnic bias in health care, but now we're getting some firsthand knowledge of how pervasive it is from people within that system through the largest study of its kind. The report was based on interviews with doctors, nurses, dentists and mental health workers. William Brangham breaks down the study's findings, part of our ongoing coverage of Race Matters. Reporter William Brangham interviewed Dr. Laurie Zephyrin, “senior vice president for advancing health equity at The Commonwealth Fund.” One hint about the left-wing nature of this enterprise came from the source -- the actual study hosted at The Commonwealth Fund, a foundation with a long liberal reputation, was tucked under the subhead “Advancing Health Equity,” “equity” being a left-wing buzzword. Another clue was the blunt way Commonwealth put its far-left finger on the survey scale: The survey oversampled Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) health care workers (n=450), Black health care workers (n=549), and Latino health care workers (n=550). It also included a robust white health care workers sample (n=1,266). Brangham summarized the study by claiming “nearly half of health care workers in the U.S. say racism against patients is a major problem.” His guest, Zephyrin of the Commonwealth Fund, outlined the slanted findings: Zephyrin: ….Previous research really tells us that racism and discrimination impact health care outcomes, especially for people of color. This study goes a step further, really spotlighting the voice of health care workers who have witnessed racism and discrimination and also experienced it themselves…. William Brangham: One of the more striking disparities in this was the perspective of black health care workers. And I'm going to put this graphic up. While half of all health care workers said doctors are more accepting of white patients advocating for themselves compared to Black patients, it was 70 percent of black workers who said this. I mean, that kind of perspective just has to really leap out at you. The actual survey results, as opposed to PBS’s spin, revealed vague, leading questions that predictably got the Commonwealth Fund the results they wanted, the ones Brangham found striking: “Medical providers can be more accepting of White patients advocating or speaking up for themselves than patients of color doing so.” Even with that leading question, the results weren’t overwhelming: 49% of all health care workers surveyed agreed. His guest used the dubious study to speak out for more useless DEI-style measures. Zephyrin: ….training is going to be very critical, not just anti-bias training, but also training recognizing that discrimination can be a game changer in health care, that it can impact quality of health care outcomes, and also be able to recognize the signs of discrimination. One suggested solution: “Review what vendors a health care provider currently uses to support more businesses owned by people of color.” Seriously? Other concerns boiled down not to racism per se but to a language barrier, which could be mitigated by legal immigrants learning English….but don’t expect liberals to be arguing that anytime soon. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 2/2/24 7:33:50 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: We have long known about racial and ethnic bias in health care, but now we're getting some firsthand knowledge of how pervasive it is from people within that system through the largest study of its kind. The report was based on interviews with doctors, nurses, dentists and mental health workers. William Brangham breaks down the study's findings, part of our ongoing coverage of Race Matters. William Brangham: In this study from The Commonwealth Fund, nearly half of health care workers in the U.S. say racism against patients is a major problem, and equal numbers report that they have personally witnessed discrimination against patients in their workplace. Employees at facilities that mostly serve Black or Latino patients reported higher instances of discrimination. To expand on the study's findings and why it matters, I'm joined by one of its co-authors. Dr. Laurie Zephyrin is senior vice president for advancing health equity at The Commonwealth Fund. Dr. Zephyrin, so good to have you on the "NewsHour." So half of health care workers say racism is a major problem, they have seen it in their own workplaces. I'm curious why you chose to look at this issue from this perspective. Dr. Laurie Zephyrin, The Commonwealth Fund: Thank you, and thanks for having me. Previous research really tells us that racism and discrimination impact health care outcomes, especially for people of color. This study goes a step further, really spotlighting the voice of health care workers who have witnessed racism and discrimination and also experienced it themselves. In terms of why health workers, health care workers, understanding what health care workers are experiencing and what they need from their employers and colleagues to address discrimination is really critical to successful and sustainable change. Health care workers are a key part of the health care system, and they can be a part of the solution. We do know that the perspective of patients and providers are incredibly important, but for this study, we decided to focus on health care workers because they're on the ground. They impact the day-to-day care of people. And health care workers are living and breathing in the health care system every day. They really experience the realities of what it is to provide health care firsthand. William Brangham: One of the more striking disparities in this was the perspective of Black health care workers. And I'm going to put this graphic up. While half of all health care workers said doctors are more accepting of white patients advocating for themselves compared to Black patients, it was 70 percent of Black workers who said this. I mean, that kind of perspective just has to really leap out at you. Dr. Laurie Zephyrin: Yes, it does. It does leap out at you. Where you come from is important. Diverse experiences are incredibly important. The data are clear just in general on the importance of a culturally diverse work force. It has a really profound impact on the health care system, on the patients served. I'm sure you have seen the data about diverse work force. It can address cultural needs, language needs, improve communication, improve patient status satisfaction. And there also may be more awareness of the impacts of discrimination and bias because of lived experience. William Brangham: There was also similar disparities when it came to language differences, with over 70 percent of Latino workers saying that non-English-speaking patients just don't get the same kind of care as English-speaking patients. Do these disparities, do you believe, actually impact patient outcomes? Dr. Laurie Zephyrin: There are data that support the linkage between discrimination and impact on quality of care. So we do know that there are significant disparities and inequities and outcomes, whether we're talking about maternal mortality and the crisis we're experiencing in this country or we're talking about inequities in life expectancy. We do know that where you live, work, play impacts your outcomes, right? And there's impacts of discrimination and racism on the social determinants of health. So we certainly have data that support this linkage. And to your point earlier, for people that have lived experience, whether it's race, ethnicity, language, other aspects of culture, there just may be more of an understanding, more of a recognition, more of a sensitivity to witnessing and discrimination within the health care system. William Brangham: There was also an interesting generational divide, with older health care workers not seeing quite as striking a level of crisis as younger workers did. What do you attribute that to? Dr. Laurie Zephyrin: Yes, we didn't ask why in the study. And so you don't know what you don't know. But a few things come to mind in terms of why younger people, younger health care workers are seeing more. This could reflect a generational shift in health care workers being more equity-oriented and younger workers who recognize equity as a key component of health care outcomes. So we need more research to clarify these generational differences. And more research could be potentially important to inform efforts to really prevent younger health care workers from leaving the profession. William Brangham: On that issue, you talked with workers about what they would like to see done to make things better. What were the sort of general principles they articulated? Dr. Laurie Zephyrin: Creating a safe reporting environment was one that came up as crucial. So, the study found that witnessing discrimination creates stress and also that helped care workers fear retaliation. So having a safe reporting environment that not only supports reporting, but also helps with reconciliation, is really important as well. I think education also remains crucial to engendering reform, and training is going to be very critical, not just anti-bias training, but also training recognizing that discrimination can be a game changer in health care, that it can impact quality of health care outcomes, and also be able to recognize the signs of discrimination. William Brangham: All right, Dr. Laurie Zephyrin at The Commonwealth Fund, thank you so much for being here. Dr. Laurie Zephyrin: Thank you. Thanks so much for having me.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CNN Host Abby Phillip Pushes Michael Moore to Accuse Israel of Genocide in Gaza

By: Brad Wilmouth — February 25th 2024 at 22:59
On Friday's CNN NewsNight, host Abby Phillip gave a forum to far-left film maker Michael Moore to comment on the presidential race, leading him to accuse the Israel of committing "genocide" in Gaza, preposterously alleging that the Palestinians are being killed because of the "color of their skin." He also rejoiced in the NRA's legal problems and predicted that gun control activists would be more successful now that the pro-gun group with "blood on the hands" has been weakened. As the segment began with Moore -- a lifelong resident of Michigan -- giving his thoughts about President Joe Biden's chances of winning the important swing state, the liberal film maker argued that President Biden's support for the war in Gaza could hurt him with some of his supporters. Speculating about what he might say to the President, Moore suggested he was a bad Catholic for supporting the war: "If I had a chance to talk to Joe Biden, the first thing I'd want to ask him is, 'What -- do you still go to Mass? I mean, what's going on here? Why are you participating in something that's killing civilians and children and 30,000 now dead?'" Even though the terrorist group Hamas has a history of blocking the Israeli military from delivering fuel to Gaza hospitals to power incubators, Moore invoked the issue and blamed Israel as he soon continued his analysis. And he ignored the Israeli military's history in past wars of minimizing the proportion of civilian deaths compared to the militaries of other countries. Moore railed against right-leaning Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he continued: ...if Trump has any chance, it's that the decision that he's (Biden) made to embrace slaughter, carpet bombing, incubator -- babies in incubators dead because they cut off the electricity. On and on and on. And this is, I think, he -- Joe Biden somewhere confused the fact that of course the majority of Americans will do anything to protect our Jewish brothers and sisters no matter where they're at. And I would say a majority of Americans support Israel, and I would say that practically all of us want those hostages released right now. So -- but he somehow conflated that with "Bibi Netanyahu is some friend of mine, I'm here for you, I'm going to fly on the plane right away, come over there, give you a big hug, give you the thumbs up, do what you got to do," and it has caused a slaughter like nothing that we have ever seen. Phillip brought up the possibility of "genocide" by Israel as she followed up: "Michael, will you describe what you're saying there? I mean, would you describe Israel's campaign in Gaza as a genocide?" After initially seeming to hesitate to call it that, he did end up making the "genocide" smear against the Jewish nation and suggested Gaza residents are being targeted by the Israeli military because of their skin color: I would say that anytime you single out a group of people, and you have what's called a mass guilt you impose on them simply because they are, in this case, Palestinian. And now they're just going to randomly and, to use another quote from one of Biden's fundraisers that got out that he said privately. He said this is indiscriminate bombing that's going on. "Indiscriminate bombing." That's right. That is exactly right. So when you indiscriminately bomb a group of people simply because of the color of their skin -- because of their religion -- because of their heritage or whatever. That is a form of genocide. He then accused Netanyahu of using the war to protect himself from legal problems, calling it "so disgusting and so sick." After a commercial break, Phillip brought up the legal finding against former NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre that he had mishandled the organization's money, cuing her liberal guest to rail against the conservative group's past defense of gun rights, and predicted more gun control wins in the future: Transcript follows: CNN NewsNight February 23, 2004 10:14 p.m. Eastern MICHAEL MOORE, FILM MAKER: If I had a chance to talk to Joe Biden, the first thing I'd want to ask him is, "What -- do you still go to mass? I mean, what's going on here? Why are you participating in something that's killing civilians and children and 30,000 now dead?" It's just -- but -- ABBY PHILLIP: Well, let me ask you about that, Michael. I do want to talk exactly about this issue because, you know, we have seen Michigan voters where you're from say that they're not going to vote for Biden because of how he's handled this war. I mean, they want to see change from Biden, but Biden is dealing with a foreign policy issue that is beyond this next election. Do you think that this dissatisfaction is going to hurt Biden significantly come November? Or will these voters change their mind when it's Biden against Donald Trump? MOORE: Well, I don't think anybody who -- I mean, nobody I know certainly that voted for Biden three years ago -- almost four years ago -- has changed their mind and believe that they made a mistake and they're going to vote for Donald Trump. That's not going to happen. What's going to happen possibly and the danger to Biden here is that people -- and, remember, 70 percent of the electorate now is either women, people of color, or young people between the ages of 18 and 35. That's 70 percent of the voters. And to offend and upset a group that supported you back in 2020, especially young people. I mean, you know, I've been saying this month that he's going to cost himself the election. He's going to, you know, if Trump has any chance, it's that the decision that he's (Biden) made to embrace slaughter, carpet bombing, incubator -- babies in incubators dead because they cut off the electricity. On and on and on. And this is, I think, he -- Joe Biden somewhere confused the fact that of course the majority of Americans will do anything to protect our Jewish brothers and sisters no matter where they're at. And I would say a majority of Americans support Israel, and I would say that practically all of us want those hostages released right now. So -- but he somehow conflated that with "Bibi Netanyahu is some friend of mine, I'm here for you, I'm going to fly on the plane right away, come over there, give you a big hug, give you the thumbs up, do what you got to do," and it has caused a slaughter like nothing that we have ever seen. PHILLIP: Michael, will you describe what you're saying there? I mean, would you describe Israel's campaign in Gaza as a genocide? MOORE: Well, you know, that word means different things to different people. I would -- I would say that anytime you single out a group of people, and you have what's called a mass guilt you impose on them simply because they are, in this case, Palestinian. And now they're just going to randomly and, to use another quote from one of Biden's fundraisers that got out that he said privately. He said this is indiscriminate bombing that's going on. "Indiscriminate bombing." That's right. That is exactly right. So when you indiscriminately bomb a group of people simply because of the color of their skin -- because of their religion -- because of their heritage or whatever. That is a form of genocide. And it's, you know, it pains me, and I think a lot of people to even have to use that because we grew up in the years right after World War II. I was born, I don't know, eight years plus after the Holocaust -- after the last camps were liberated. So that was in our heads as little kids. And I think we all grew up with this understanding that this must never happen again and we must stand up for the Jewish people. For that to be turned and used by people who are -- in Netanyahu's case -- like Trump awaiting trial on various indictments -- felonious indictments -- fraud, bribery, etc. And then Netanyahu uses this as a way to avoid the criminality of his administration. It's so disgusting and so sick, and I -- look, most Israelis know this anyways. You've seen the polls -- 82 percent of Israelis want Netanyahu gone, you know. He did not protect them. That was his one most important job -- protect the people. Pulled the army back from the Gazan border, sent them off to the Lebanese border, sent them off to the West Bank, and how many people in their homes in their safe rooms shuttered, losing their mind because they're going to be killed any minute by the Hamas attackers? (...) 10:25 p.m. Eastern PHILLIP: Michael, tonight a jury found that the former NRA chief Wayne LaPierre, he's guilty of using the group's funds to finance a high-flying lifestyle and other corrupt practices. It's grift at the highest level. What's your reaction to what this means for the future of this organization? MOORE: Well, I think they've been on the slow downhill now for some time. This is, you know, when you think about the blood on the hands of the NRA and their support over the years for allowing anybody to buy any gun at any time anywhere and to buy as many of them as they want where the majority of Americans don't agree with that. The whole country has changed their minds about this -- about the 2nd Amendment. They know that we the people are not going to tolerate this anymore -- 72 percent of Americans do not own a gun -- don't want to own a gun, you know. People in other countries think we're a nation of gun nuts, but the truth is we're not. It's just a few, and it's just a real small percentage that own a majority of those guns. So what Wayne and his people did for so many years was to make sure that every time that there was a school shooting -- a Sandy Hook, a Parkland, whatever  -- that they came right out and doubled and tripled down in support of you being able to carry any weapon you want anywhere. And I'm telling you, those days are over. It's only a matter of time, and I think myself and others who are continuing to work on this issue are going to see good results in the years ahead.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Sunday Signal: Michael Steele Makes Like Biden, Half-Crosses Himself Over Black Republican

By: Mark Finkelstein — February 26th 2024 at 06:52
s Joe Biden has the odd and at times inappropriate habit of crossing himself in public, political situations. Thus the self-described devout Catholic crossed himself while mentioning Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert -- then proceeded to attack her at length. On two occasions, Biden even crossed himself while interacting with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, including once while Netanyahu was making a speech to Congress. Oy vey! On the Sunday edition of MSNBC's The Weekend, co-anchor Michael Steele, the former RNC Chairman turned member of the disgraced Lincoln Project, made like Biden. Steele sort of half-crossed himself in a discussion of North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson, who is very likely to be the Republican nominee for governor in November. They ran a clip of Robinson at CPAC, proclaiming "The left is wrong. They are wrong on every topic, on every issue. They don't have a political leg to stand on. They don't have a social leg to stand on. They don't have a spiritual leg to stand on. They have nothing to stand on, because they do nothing right. In every state they're running, they're running it straight into the ground." Steele, who like Biden is a Catholic, crossed himself, saying:"It's Sunday morning." The implication seemed to be that, given that it was Sunday, Steele would restrain himself from condemning Robinson in as harsh terms as he would otherwise unleash. A black conservative being treated like a freak by....a former black conservative.  At the end of the show, Ali Velshi came on to transition to his own show, and expressed his delight at Steele's gesture: "I loved your -- all of your conversations today. But Michael, when you had Roy Cooper come on, and you showed the Republican who's running for governor of North Carolina, and then your reaction to that when you came out of that, about how it's Sunday, it's church day. I thought was, was precious [laughter on the panel.] "   Just wondering: Anyone ever catch Biden crossing himself at the mention of his avid support for abortion? Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 2/25/24 8:35 am ET ROY COOPER: With the way they [the Republicans] have tried to reshape this Board of Elections in North Carolina. MICHAEL STEELE: Feeding into that, you've got your Lieutenant Governor of the state, Mark Robinson, running for governor. He's at CPAC the last few days, and was on stage noting throughout a couple of minutes the, the incredible economic turnaround in the great State of North Carolina, and promoting that, but then he said this. MARK ROBINSON: The left is wrong. They are wrong on every topic, on every issue. They don't have a political leg to stand on. They don't have a social leg to stand on. They don't have a spiritual leg to stand on. They have nothing to stand on, because they do nothing right. In every state they're running, they're running it straight into the ground. STEELE: It [hesitates], it turns -- SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND: We gotta laugh! STEELE: The attorney general -- it's Sunday morning [crosses himself.] The [Democrat] attorney general is running in this election for governor to fill your seat.  . . .  ALI VELSHI: I loved your -- all of your conversations today. But Michael, when you had Roy Cooper come on, and you showed the Republican who's running for governor of North Carolina, and then your reaction to that when you came out of that, about how it's Sunday, it's church day. I thought was, was precious [laughter on the panel.] Guys, have a great weekend, guys.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Shocker: Celebrities Totally Avoid Discussing Politics During 2024 SAG Awards

By: Stephanie Hamill — February 26th 2024 at 09:13
Hollywood finally spared us of all the sanctimonious political lectures this year during the 30th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards that aired live on Netflix on Saturday night, which is a stark contrast to previous years.  You have to wonder if they were told to avoid politics from the higher-ups, or if they individually decided to do so on their own, especially considering that it’s an election year, the world possibly being on the brink of World War III and that our nation is facing the worst border crisis in U.S. history under President Joe Biden. One might think that these mostly liberal celebrities who helped get Biden in the White House would be telling their fans to re-elect him, but no, Biden’s name was not even brought up once. The lack of politics during the 2-plus hour show, is truly stunning when you take into account how much Hollywood had to say when Donald Trump was president.  As you may remember, when it came Trump’s presidency, clueless celebrities typically had something negative to say whenever they were given a platform to do so.  To be frank, it was a good thing that we didn't have to listen to celebrities blab on about politics during the awards show. That's how it should be. Although, actress and singer Barbara Streisand did lightly denounce the rise of anti-semitism after receiving a Life Time Achievement Award, but failed to mention the atrocities committed against Jews by Hamas terrorists, the Biden Administration’s handling of the conflict or leftists openly supporting Hamas in the U.S. I can't help but think back to the people who built this industry. Ironically, they were also escaping their own troubles. Men like Szmuel Gelbfisz, who changed his name to Samuel Goldwyn, Eliezer Meir who became Louis B. Mayer and the four Wonskolaser brothers who became Warner Brothers, –– they were all fleeing the prejudice they faced in Eastern Europe, simply because of their religion. And they were dreamers too, like all of us here tonight. And now I dream of a world where such prejudice was a thing of the past." While the actors were quiet on politics, they were very outspoken on the Hollywood strike victory, with many actors using the stage to discuss the positive results of the strike.  The SAG awards viewership had been sinking for years, some believe because of how political Hollywood has become.  The question is now - with Hollywood being mum on polarizing political events, will it bring in more viewership in the future?  We will have to wait and see. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Putin Is Pushing Where There’s Mush

By: Ben Shapiro — February 26th 2024 at 09:29
This week, Vladimir Putin finally — allegedly — murdered his chief political rival and critic Alexei Navalny. Navalny’s death followed an attempt by Putin’s operatives in 2020 to kill him by poisoning; Navalny survived the attempt, worked with online specialists to unmask the actual agents responsible for the poisoning and then returned to Russia, where he was promptly arrested on trumped-up charges and sent to a Gulag in the far north. Now, Navalny is dead. And Putin isn’t stopping there. This week, the Russian government announced an arrest warrant for Navalny’s brother, Oleg, on unspecified charges; Putin’s agents likely murdered a Russia defector to the Ukrainian side, who was found riddled with bullets in Spain; Putin’s government arrested a Russian-American dual citizen on treason charges for giving some $50 to a group called Razom for Ukraine, which sends medical and hospital equipment to the beleaguered country. Meanwhile, Putin is stepping up his international outreach efforts. This week, Putin invited the terror group Hamas to Moscow to talk, along with fellow terrorist leaders from Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Authority. He also received plaudits from far-left corrupt Brazilian president Lula Da Silva, who refused to condemn Russia for Navalny’s death but found time to accuse Israel of perpetrating a new Holocaust in the Gaza Strip. And, of course, last week he hosted Tucker Carlson for an interview, in which he laid out his historic grievances against NATO and Ukraine; Carlson then followed suit by issuing a series of videos praising Russian metro stations and supermarkets, claiming that Russian food prices should “radicalize” Americans into despising their leaders. Putin feels unbound. And he should. Joe Biden is a weak leader with no centralizing principles. He has slow-walked aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the war; he has insisted on continued funding for the war while refusing to articulate what an end to the war would look like; he has refused to even justify the war to Americans beyond simply repeating the word “democracy” over and over — empty rhetoric that no longer tugs at the heartstrings in a complex world where the U.S. has non-democratic allies of its own. Biden refuses to take serious action on the southern border in order to achieve the Ukraine aid package he insists he desires; he even refuses to negotiate with the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, on the issue. He seems to prefer tearing into Republicans for their insufficient zeal in funding Ukraine. All of this focus on Republicans allows Biden to elide the split in his own party — a split between Wilsonian interventionists and Noam Chomsky anti-Americans, who believe the United States to be a malevolent force in the world. Meanwhile, Republicans are split, too. There are essentially four camps into which the Republican Party has split: neo-conservative interventionists, a remaining rump from the Bush years, who have historically supported nation-building efforts in far-flung regions with the goal of cultivating democratic allies even in inhospitable places; realpolitik devotees, who seek to assess each foreign conflict and all foreign aid with an eye toward hard American interests, ranging from the economic to the military; isolationists, who oppose all American interventions, both economic and military, on principle, believing that foreign policy generally represents a betrayal of priorities closer to home; and anti-Americans, who meet with the Chomsky-ite left in a perfect example of horseshoe theory made real. Putin sees all of these splits. He sees the fact that Americans are distracted by domestic concerns, pried apart by competing narratives of the country, at each others’ throats over everything from the definition of sex to the role of the government in everyday life — and split even on the question of whether America is a force for good or ill in the world. Vladimir Lenin once supposedly said, “Probe with bayonets. If you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.” Putin is probing. And he’s finding nothing but mush. Ben Shapiro, 39, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” and co-founder of Daily Wire+. He is a three-time New York Times bestselling author; his latest book is “The Authoritarian Moment: How The Left Weaponized America’s Institutions Against Dissent.” To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Atlantic Magazine Goes Full Coyote on Road Runner Trump

By: P.J. Gladnick — February 26th 2024 at 09:51
It is difficult to read former Newsweek reporter David Graham's "Trump the  Survivor" which was published in The Atlantic magazine on Sunday without conjuring up images of Wile E. Coyote in perpetual pursuit of the Road Runner, who always manages to evade doom. In fact, the subtitle of Graham's story just reinforces the image of Trump as the Road Runner: "He always manages to find a way." You can almost feel Graham's Coyote level of frustration as his Road Runner Trump "always manages to find a way" over and over and over again to escape carefully planned doom. BEEP! BEEP! ...no consumer of the mainstream press can miss that he is a liar and a racist, nor that courts have found him to have committed fraud and sexual abuse. Outlets large and small have done impressive work ferreting out his history of sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and poor decision-making. At some moments, it seemed like not a word could be spoken in the Oval Office without The New York Times or The Washington Post producing a scathing report within days. Nor can any reader or viewer have missed the fear and dislike of Trump that much of the press evinces. Nevertheless, Trump persists. He’s also used the negative coverage to deprecate the media and lower its impact among his supporters. BEEP! BEEP! January 6 also resulted in Trump’s banishment from Twitter and Facebook. This was hailed in bien-pensant circles as well past due—an appropriate penalty for spreading misinformation and inciting violence, and one that would help shuffle Trump out of relevance. As with the journalism critiques, this sentiment may have been morally right, but the expectation that it would hurt Trump was unfounded. In fact, the bans may have helped him politically, becoming a rallying point for his supporters, who called them censorship. Moreover, his disappearance from mainstream platforms (and retreat to his own Truth Social) has made it easier to miss or tune out his eruptions, even as his rhetoric has become ever more authoritarian. (This effect also casts doubt on the idea that with less press coverage, Trump would fade.) BEEP! BEEP! With all of these Trump-stoppers having failed, some people have attached their hopes to the courts to stop Trump. Trump is facing legal challenges on many fronts. He owes nearly $500 million total from civil judgment for defamation, sexual abuse, and fraud in New York State. A trial on falsifying business records in Manhattan is expected to begin next month. He has been indicted on felony charges in federal court and in Georgia connected to his election-subversion efforts, and on separate federal felony charges over alleged hoarding of classified documents. Once again, these proceedings have been morally and legally appropriate, establishing that no one is beyond the reach of the law, even if he is a star. But the barrage of indictments has done nothing to hurt Trump politically. ...in a turn that is astonishing but somewhat predictable, the cases against Trump have actually improved his political position, at least with Republican voters. He saw his poll numbers rise after his first felony indictment, in Manhattan. BEEP! BEEP! A common thread that unites each of these failed tricks to sink Trump is how existing American institutions—the Republican Party, the press, congressional oversight, and the justice system—are ill-equipped to handle an authoritarian demagogue of Trump’s variety. That leaves the ballot as maybe the only thing that could stop Trump. Notice how the Left always thinks "existing institutions are ill-equipped" when they don't accomplish the Left's objectives. They can't imagine that overwhelmingly nasty media bias and weaponizing the justice system create a backlash. Trump must be an "authoritarian" when he aggressively fights back and denounces "fake news" and fake justice.  Wow! What a novel idea! Maybe the ultimate arbiter for choosing our leaders should be the (gasp!) ballot box.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Amazon's ‘Expats’ Features Pro-Life Scene as Young Mother Sees Her Baby for First Time During Sonogram

By: Dawn Slusher — February 26th 2024 at 00:22
Something magical appears to have been gifted to us out of the writers’ strike that gripped Hollywood for five months and delayed fall and winter show premieres - we are seeing much less liberal propaganda as these delayed shows finally roll out. Perhaps the writers have been too busy playing catch up to be working in cahoots with leftist groups such as Planned Parenthood, among others, and inserting liberal lectures as they normally do. In the case of Amazon Prime’s hit drama Expats, there was actually a very pro-life moment in the season finale that definitely wouldn’t have aired if Planned Parenthood’s television advisors had any say in it. Based on the 2016 novel The Expatriates by Janice Y. K. Lee, Expats takes place in Hong Kong and stars heavy hitters Nicole Kidman as Margaret Woo, Sarayu Blue as Margaret’s best friend Hilary Starr and Ji-young Yoo as Mercy - three women dealing with the fallout of Margaret’s missing little boy Gus (Connor James) who was taken from a crowded market one fateful evening under Mercy’s watch. After Mercy has an affair with Hilary’s alcoholic husband David (Jack Huston) in the midst of her grief, she finds herself pregnant. She’s unsure at first whether she wants to choose life for her baby and is wracked with guilt that she’s carrying a child after losing Margaret’s. Not wanting to face her pregnancy, Mercy puts off making any decisions or going to a doctor until David gives her a check to see a reputable ob/gyn in episode 6, “Home.” Mercy finally makes an appointment and finds herself in awe when she comes face to face with her baby on the sonogram screen: Dr. Leung: Mercy Kim. Twenty-five. Can you tell me the date of your last period? It's blank on the form. Mercy: Um... It's not something I usually keep track of. I'm more like moon to moon. Dr. Leung: I see. Well, I guess the baby will have to tell us. Nurse: Please lie back. Dr. Leung: We're going to open your robe. Mercy: Maybe you should buy me dinner first. Okay. Dr. Leung: Great. Relax. Have you been taking good care of yourself? Folic acid? Prenatals? Mercy: Does the OJ in a screwdriver count? Dr. Leung: No. We take some measurements to see how many weeks you're at. Oh, you're quite far along. Have you not seen a doctor? Mercy: It's been on my to-do list. Dr. Leung: Well, you must start taking supplements. Here's your baby. Mercy: That's my baby? Dr. Leung: I'd say you're about 23 weeks along. Mercy: I can't feel it, but it's totally moving. That's so weird. Dr. Leung: Everything looks normal. Luckily, you're young. I faced a crisis pregnancy myself when I was a teenager. I’ll never forget the first time I saw my baby on a sonogram. There really aren’t any words to describe the emotions that came over me and the shock I felt seeing this little person growing inside of me. I had never considered an abortion, but that moment is one reason I strongly feel women should be given a sonogram before choosing abortion. How tragic it must be for women who never got to see their child moving or see the baby's heart beating strongly, only to find out after it’s too late, such as in a future pregnancy when they see a sonogram for the first time. Isn’t it more pro-woman and pro-choice to have a woman be fully informed before making such a life and death decision? Hopefully one day, the atrocity of abortion won’t be permitted at all. But until that time, give women the full truth. Thankfully, Mercy chooses life for her baby and makes peace with both Margaret and Hilary by the end of the episode. Aside from Margaret’s disdain for Christianity, the show was free of any leftist tropes and therefore was intriguing and entertaining to watch, as Hollywood productions should be. Let’s hope it’s a long time before leftist political propaganda fully returns to entertainment. With a presidential election nearing however, we won’t get our hopes up too high.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

WATCH: MRC’s Dan Schneider Shreds Big Tech Discrimination

By: Tom Olohan — February 26th 2024 at 10:33
MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider laid bare the hypocrisy of Big Tech companies censoring conservatives while relying on expansive liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  Schneider laid out the historical and legal case for free speech on these platforms during the Feb. 20 edition of The Wayne Dupree Show. When co-host and American Tribune Co-Founder Jason Robertson asked Schneider how to restructure Section 230 “so that it doesn’t come back to bite us in the a** five years from now,” Schneider pointed out that the case for free speech had a precedent dating back “hundreds of years.” Schneider explained that “common carriers” must provide service to everyone and thus are not liable for the actions of people using them.  “These Big Tech companies…want it both ways; They want to be able to provide a service and make lots of money, but also discriminate,” Schneider continued, hammering social media companies’ hypocrisy. “You can’t provide service to the broad public and then discriminate against a few of us. You got to open it up to everybody.” The MRC Free Speech Vice President explained the history of the issue. “A common carrier is a company that provides a service to the public that is available to all — just like Facebook and Google, they’re common carriers. And the rule has always been — except for one exception — the rule has always been that common carriers cannot deny service to anybody, and then as a consequence, they’re not held liable when somebody does something wrong using that service.” Schneider added that “common carriers” had been held to this standard in every case, save for Plessy vs. Ferguson, a railroad racial discrimination case that was eventually overturned. “These Big Tech platforms want to resurrect the Plessy vs. Ferguson case and say, ‘No, we should be allowed, even though we’re common carriers. We should be allowed to discriminate against people and deny service to some people, just because we wanna,’” Schneider explained before adding, “Let’s not go back to the Plessy vs. Ferguson era where big corporations are allowed to discriminate. Let’s allow individuals to have access to these big providers of services, like over the internet. We just need to go back to what has always been recognized under the law.” This conversation comes at an important moment. Two separate cases litigating this “common carrier” argument were scheduled for a Feb. 26 Supreme Court hearing, NetChoice, LLC v.  Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. In both cases, NetChoice seeks to shield big tech companies’ censorship efforts from regulation in the face of state laws protecting consumers from discrimination by “common carriers.”  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

REVEALED: CCP-Tied Company, CEO of Leftist OpenAI Are Major Reddit Shareholders

By: Catherine Salgado — February 26th 2024 at 11:34
The CEO of one of the most prominent leftist artificial intelligence companies in the U.S. and another company with deep ties to the Communist Chinese government were revealed to be prominent shareholders of the censorship-obsessed tech giant Reddit.   Chinese censorship company Tencent and OpenAI’s Sam Altman were listed as two of the top three shareholders in tech company Reddit, behind only Condé Nast’s owner Advance Publications, according to The Verge. The outlet cited Reddit’s IPO filing, revealing that Altman had more shares than Reddit CEO Steve Huffman. Reddit’s documented obsession with crushing free speech makes more sense in light of the new findings.  “While he isn’t a co-founder, Altman has been deeply involved in Reddit since basically the beginning,” The Verge noted. “He quietly stepped off the board in 2022 as OpenAI was rising to prominence and Reddit was gearing up to go public. Now, he owns a big chunk of a company that really wants AI companies to pay for its data. Interesting times!” That’s putting it mildly. Because Altman owns 8.7 percent of Reddit’s stock, versus Huffman’s 3.3 percent, the CEO of ChatGPT maker OpenAI has more than twice Huffman’s voting power, The Verge explained. An August 2023 study found clear leftist/Democrat bias in ChatGPT. MRC Free Speech America recently uncovered how ChatGPT promoted leftist news ratings firms Ad Fontes and NewsGuard as a way to determine the quality of news organizations in the U.S. Both of those companies have documented histories of propping up leftist media while denigrating right-leaning media, as MRC research has emphasized. Does Altman influence Reddit to display similar bias? Meanwhile, Tencent’s stake could trigger even more questions about Reddit’s position toward free speech. MRC Free Speech America reported in 2019 that Tencent was involved in doing the Chinese government’s censorship dirty work, and had invested at least $150 million in Reddit—even though Tencent got Reddit banned in China. Then, last year, Markets Insider reported that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was buying shares in tech companies, including Tencent. The apparent goal was to give the CCP “special rights over certain business decisions,” Insider explained. The anti-free speech CCP can even control the content tech companies provide, with rights over some company decisions, the outlet added. But CCP influence on Tencent goes back even further. Taiwan News covered a report in 2020 that 23 percent of Tencent employees were CCP members. Among Tencent’s companies are social media WeChat and gaming studio Riot Games. It seems Reddit is one of the multiple American companies in which Tencent has invested, raising questions of the extent of Chinese government involvement. For instance, the CCP also owns a stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, and TikTok has censored content to please the CCP, while its data is reportedly accessible to ByteDance. Could key Reddit data or information also be accessible to Tencent and thus the CCP? And does Tencent import its censorship activities to American companies like Reddit? Reddit has censored thousands of pieces of content in the past for “hate”, including a 2022 LGBTQ-inspired effort to censor the word “groomer,” an ominous sign.  Conservatives are under attack: Contact the Reddit admin and demand that the platform mirror the First Amendment: Tech giants should afford their users nothing less than the free speech and free exercise of religion embodied in the First Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS Anchor Wants Biden to Tack Left on the Border, Gets Reality Check from David Brooks

By: Tim Graham — February 26th 2024 at 11:41
PBS NewsHour co-anchor Amna Nawaz worried out loud that Biden was leaning toward "very harsh" immigration policies -- Trump-like policies -- and that will hurt with "core groups" that got him elected in 2020. But New York Times columnist David Brooks gently disagreed, that Biden doesn't want a "bright line" on the border, since Trump is beating him by 39 points on immigration right now.  This was the Nawaz question/lament:  NAWAZ: We heard Laura Barron-Lopez's reporting there on some weakening among the Biden coalition and core groups there. And we know, David, that President Biden is now weighing some very harsh immigration tactics through executive action at the U.S. Southern border, reminiscent really of some Trump-era policies. So does it make it harder for the president, as a candidate, to draw a bright line between himself and his likely general election opponent, former President Trump, when he's coming out with some of the same policies? Nawaz had to be disappointed when Brooks broke out of that bubble, where advocates of an open border (or something like it) are uspet with Biden. Brooks gave this a polling reality check:  BROOKS: : Yes, on this issue, Joe Biden does not want to draw a bright line. The country is with Donald Trump. If you ask who do you approve on different issues, on general competency, Trump is up by like 12 points. On who can handle the economy better, Trump is up by 25. On immigration, he's up by 39 points. And so this is an issue where you want to fudge that line. And just on the merits, I'm as pro-immigration as I think it's possible to be, but our asylum system is meant for people seeking asylum, escaping repression. And a lot of the people coming across the border are coming across the border for a lot of the reasons my ancestors came across. They wanted economic opportunity. But that's not asylum. And so the system is somewhat broken down, and Biden is right to do something. And, politically, I do think his survival depends on it. Nawaz turned to Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart to support her worry: "Do these kinds of moves, Jonathan, further alienate members of that Biden coalition that helped get him to the White House in the first place?" So sad! Capehart agreed with Brooks on the politics:  CAPEHART: Yes, it does further alienate. But, I mean, I have to agree with David on this, that immigration is an issue that the president has to fudge this line. But what I also think he has going for him is, he gets to say, the Republicans made me do this. "There was a bipartisan Senate immigration bill that never got a vote. I was in on the negotiations. They never gave us a vote. And so we have to do something." And the election of Tom Suozzi in — on Long Island, gosh, was that a week-and-a-half ago now, almost two weeks ago, was a signal of how salient the immigration issue is. So we could consider it refreshing that the PBS pundits are less in thrall to the Left than the PBS co-anchor, if only because both want Biden to eke out a win. But it shows you how the NewsHour is now in control of anchors who would make it the WokeHour. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Gov. Newsom Defends Unrestricted Abortion on 'Meet the Press,' Lies About Pro-Life Laws

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 26th 2024 at 11:31
California Governor Gavin Newsom was a guest on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday. During the interview, Newsom was asked if he thinks there is a week in pregnancy that abortion should be banned. He insisted it was “a determination for women and their doctors.” During the same interview he also debuted his new pro-abort ad. Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker asked, “Let me press you though Governor, do you think there is a week that access to abortion should be banned?” Newsom, before Welker even finished her question, interjected, “I think we’ve established that firmly in the context of what states are doing like California where we established a constitutional right to access abortion.”   California law is extremely supportive of abortion. It allows abortions up to about 26 weeks, when California deems the “fetus” as “viable.” The pro-abort laws don’t stop there. California allows any “healthcare professional” to provide abortions and the state helps pay for patients to obtain abortions via state funds and private health insurance plans that are required in order to cover abortions too.  Not to mention California law protects abortion providers from investigations from other states if the provider administers an illegal abortion. Some states have travel laws that ban women who reside in said state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion. Traditionally those pro-life states try to pursue legal action against abortion providers but California law overrides that attempt to protect their baby killers. In the interview, Newsom went on to insist that at “the end of the day,” obtaining an abortion at any point in pregnancy is “a determination for women and their doctors.” Welker asked again, “at any week?” Newsom continued his practiced speech, passing over her question, then insisting that late term abortions are a “complete canard.” Sir, your state laws legitimately allow abortion when a child has all of his body parts developed, likely has hair on his head, can feel pain and has a very detectible and strong heartbeat. What part of that justifies the phrase that these types of abortions are a “complete canard?” To make matters worse, during Newsom’s appearance on “Meet the Press,” he debuted an advertisement targeting red states who respect life. The ad accuses conservative leaders of essentially holding women hostage in their states by not allowing them to travel out of states to get abortions. The ad had a young woman, who appeared to a victim of rape, handcuffed to a hospital bed. The narrator stated, “Trump Republicans want to criminalize young women who travel to receive the reproductive care they need. Don’t let them hold Tennessee women hostage.” In the video the young lady let out a desperate “help” as she attempted to break free from the handcuffs. Wow. Gavin Newsom is now running this commercial in Tennessee. Tennessee Republicans have banned abortion even for rape victims and they are now trying to punish young women that travel to receive care. pic.twitter.com/nvRxtgwaHL — No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) February 25, 2024 There are many issues with this ad. One is that pro-life states have no interest in imprisoning women for being pregnant. Those states simply respect life and think that an innocent baby shouldn't be murdered, regardless of how he or she was conceived. Another issue the ad has is that it paints the idea that having an abortion equals freedom. That’s far from true. When a woman has an abortion, studies have proven that she experiences grief from the loss for months, sometimes years to come. Not to mention, abortions are dangerous. They can and do cause many harmful effects towards women and result in at least one death. Does that sound freeing in any way? That’s the thing with the left though. They will use any tactics they can, manipulate the truth and paint abortion as something that needs protecting when in reality, it’s the greatest evil of our time.  Skirting around the facts and dodging questions shows exactly how pro-abort Newsom and many of his colleagues really are. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MRC VP Dan Schneider on NetChoice SCOTUS Cases: Do Big Tech Companies Have a Right to Censor?

By: MRC Staff — February 26th 2024 at 12:01
On Monday, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider and Counsel for Investigations at MRC Tim Kilcullen published an exclusive op-ed with FoxNews.com on today's crucial free speech cases being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the most significant free speech case since the 1960s on Monday, Feb. 26. The dispute comes down to one question: Do Big Tech companies have a constitutional right to censor other people?  The court will hear two connected free speech cases. The broader of the two, NetChoice v Paxton, stems from a challenge of the Texas law which protects its residents from Big Tech censorship. The other important case, Moody v NetChoice, was also brought by Big Tech to challenge a Florida law which prohibits Big Tech censorship of political figures. The Media Research Center has now documented more than 6,400 cases of censorship by firms such as Amazon, Google/YouTube, and Meta — including the egregious suppression of the New York Post Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election. ... Click here to read the rest of MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider and Counsel for Investigations at MRC Tim Kilcullen's opinion piece on FoxNews.com.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Dr. Phil SCHOOLS The View: Biden DHS Sending Migrant Kids to 'Known' Sex Rings

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — February 26th 2024 at 14:19
It’s not often that hard facts get presented on ABC’s The View. And they when they do, there’s a good chance they’ll come from a guest. Much was the case on Monday when Dr. Phil McGraw stunned the cast and audience by talking about a conversation he had with Border Patrol in which the union leader admitted that the federal government had sent migrant kids to sex rings and sweatshops, following the names and phone numbers the kids were carrying. He also blew up their COVID hysteria by noting that kids shouldn’t have been kept out of schools. Helping McGraw promote his new book We’ve Got Issues and his show Dr. Phil Primetime, staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) asked him about his recent trip to the U.S./Mexico border and what “facts” he brought back. “What did you take away from that experience and what kind of reporting are you going to be bringing back from that experience?” she wondered. McGraw wasted no time in sharing the shocking conversation he said he had with the head of the Border Patrol union about what’s been allegedly happening to migrant kids in federal government custody (Click “expand”): MCGRAW: I'll tell you a fact I took away. I talked to the head of all the border guards down there, the head of the union. I ask him straight up. Kids are coming over the border with numbers written on them, phone numbers and addresses. Do we check those out? He said, “Well, we call them.” Is it possible that we're sending them into known prostitution rings or sweatshops? He said, “It's not possible. It is absolute.” We are using American tax dollars to ship children into known prostitution and sweatshops. HOSTIN: All children or some children? MCGRAW: Well, who knows? We don't know. I said, are you -- ANA NAVARRO: So, what kind of checking do they do? MCGRAW: They call the number and say, “Do you know about this child?” They say, “Yes.” “Will you receive them if they come?” “Yes.” I said, “Is it possible that it is a prostitution ring?” He said, “We know enough to know that it -- in a number of cases, it has turned out to be absolute sex ring. It has turned out to be an absolute sweatshop.” I said, “How is this possible?” He said, “It's happening.”     “What do they do then if they know that that's happening? Where's the U.S. Attorney's office?” Hostin wanted to know. But before they could drill down, moderator Whoopi Goldberg said they had to go to a commercial. McGraw was able to follow up after the break. He said the reason the Border Patrol wasn’t able to investigate those cases more thoroughly was because “It's a resource issue.” “They say that they’re so overwhelmed with processing that that's all they can do,” he explained. “They've become social workers and processors, and not investigators and border guards because they're just processing, processing, processing.” Co-host Sara Haines pivoted to another issue harming children: social media. McGraw noted that with the proliferation of cell phones “we saw the biggest spike and the highest levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and suicidality since records have ever been kept.” He then condemned how “the same agencies that knew that are the same agencies that shut down the schools for two years” during the pandemic. “Who does that? Who takes away the support system for these children? Who takes it away and shuts it down?” he rhetorically asked. He also noted that government mandates left kids to be further victimized by abusive parents: And by the way, when they shut it down, they stopped the mandated reporters from being able to see children that were being abused and sexually molested and, in fact, sent them home and abandoned them to their abusers with no way to watch. And referrals dropped 50 to 60 percent. The truth triggered the liberal ladies; seeing as they swiftly jumped to defend the harmful policies: HOSTIN: But there was also a pandemic going on and they were trying to save children’s lives. GOLDBERG: They were trying to save kids' lives. Remember, we know a lot of folks who died during this. People weren’t lying around eating bonbons. Faux-conservative co-host Ana Navarro tried to put words in McGraw’s mouth: “Are you saying no schoolchildren died of COVID?” “I'm saying it was the safest group. They were the less vulnerable group, and they suffered and will suffer more from the mismanagement of COVID than they will from the exposure to COVID, and that's not an opinion that’s a fact,” he schooled her. Making the moment even sweeter was the fact that McGraw got applause from the liberal audience. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 26, 2024 11:40:24 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: My understanding is that you went to the southern border. DR. PHIL MCGRAW: I did. HOSTIN: Now, you're saying you're going to give people facts. What did you take away from that experience and what kind of reporting are you going to be bringing back from that experience? MCGRAW: I'll tell you a fact I took away. I talked to the head of all the border guards down there, the head of the union. I ask him straight-up. Kids are coming over the border with numbers written on them, phone numbers and addresses. Do we check those out? He said, “Well, we call them.” Is it possible that we're sending them into known prostitution rings or sweatshops? He said, “It's not possible. It is absolute.” We are using American tax dollars to ship children into known prostitution and sweatshops. HOSTIN: All children or some children? MCGRAW: Well, who knows? We don't know. I said, are you -- ANA NAVARRO: So, what kind of checking do they do? MCGRAW: They call the number and say, “do you know about this child?” They say, “yes.” “Will you receive them if they come?” “Yes.” I said, “Is it possible that it is a prostitution ring?” He said, “We know enough to know that it -- in a number of cases, it has turned out to be absolute sex ring. It has turned out to be an absolute sweatshop.” I said, “How is this possible?” He said, “It's happening.” HOSTIN: What do they do then if they know that that's happening? Where's the U.S. Attorney's office? Where’s the— MCGRAW: Damn good question, isn't it. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Here’s the thing. You have to re-ask that question when we come back because we're coming back with more with Dr. Phil. (…) 11:46:26 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: Yeah, and I don't mean to derail us, but you mentioned that there are children crossing the border with numbers and names. Many of them are -- those names belong to their family members, but you're saying -- and that's true, but some of them are sex trafficked. Some of them are sweatshop trafficked. Why do you think the federal government is not involved? Why isn't the U.S. Attorney’s office involved? Is it a resource wish? MCGRAW: It's a resource issue. HOSTIN: And have they reached out to the Biden administration about that? MCGRAW: Well, it's hard to know. They say that they’re so overwhelmed with processing that that's all they can do. They've become social workers and processors, and not investigators and border guards because they're just processing, processing, processing. HOSTIN: Got it. SARA HAINES: Well, Dr. Phil, I want to make sure we get to your new book which is We've Got Issues, and a lot you were referring to it in the last segment, how much has changed since you first got started in this. And one of the things is social media. So, you say, “you're not the only voice in your kids' ears so you have to be the best voice.” Explain that. MCGRAW: Well, think about it. In, like, '08, '09, smartphones came on, and kids started -- they stopped living their lives and starting watching people live their lives. And so, we saw the biggest spike and the highest levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and suicidality since records have ever been kept. And it's just continued on and on and on. And then COVID hits ten years later, and the same agencies that knew that are the same agencies that shut down the schools for two years. Who does that? Who takes away the support system for these children? Who takes it away and shuts it down? And by the way, when they shut it down, they stop the mandated reporters from being able to see children that were being abused and sexually molested and, in fact, sent them home and abandoned them to their abusers with no way to watch. And referrals dropped 50 to 60 percent. So. HOSTIN: But there was also a pandemic going on and they were trying to save children’s lives. GOLDBERG: They were trying to save kids' lives. Remember, we know a lot of folks who died during this. People weren’t laying around eating bonbons. MCGRAW: Not school children. GOLDBERG: Well, you know what, we're lucky. Maybe we're lucky they didn't, because they kept them out of the places that they could be safe because no one wanted to believe that we had an issue. ANA NAVARRO: Are you saying no school children died of COVID? MCGRAW: I'm saying it was the safest group. They were the less vulnerable group, and they suffered and will suffer more from the mismanagement of COVID than they will from the exposure to COVID, and that's not an opinion that’s a fact. [Applause] GOLDBERG: Well, Phil, we don't even have time to talk it out now, man, but thanks for coming.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

SCOTUS Hears Tech Companies’ Dubious Claims for Right to Censor Americans

By: Luis Cornelio — February 26th 2024 at 15:31
Can states put social media platforms on notice for censoring Americans, or are these platforms broadly protected to prohibit or limit content online with impunity? These are some of the questions that the Supreme Court may decide.  Here’s what you need to know about the cases. Today, the Court heard two separate but related legal cases that dealt with Texas and Florida free speech laws working to punish social media platforms that selectively censor online content. But NetChoice–a company representing Big Tech platforms, including Meta, Amazon, Google, PayPal, Pinterest, Snap, TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) among others–took issue with the laws and filed lawsuits. The cases, dubbed NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, are against Ken Paxton and Ashley Moody, the attorneys general of Texas and Florida, respectively.  Attorney and MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris scolded Big Tech’s efforts to maintain its power to censor Americans. "The bottom line: Big Tech companies want to have their cake and eat it too,” Morris said. “They've been at this censorship game for a long time, and now that Florida and Texas have stepped in with legislation, the chickens are coming home to roost. Either social media companies are responsible for the content that exists on their platforms (as publishers) or they're entitled to certain, specified liability protections for posts made by third parties on their open platforms via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They can't have it both ways." First, NetChoice v. Paxton. What’s the Case About? Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed House Bill 20 in September 2021, broadly protecting Texas residents from censorship on social media platforms. The law classifies social media companies as "common carriers" and prevents Big Tech companies from banning American users based on their political viewpoints. As a common carrier—meaning they provide services to the public and control access to other markets—the social media platforms would be forbidden from discriminating based on viewpoint.  (You May also Like: MRC VP Dan Schneider on NetChoice SCOTUS Cases: Do Big Tech Companies Have a Right to Censor?) "Social media websites have become our modern-day public square,” Abbott said in a statement the day he signed the law. “They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.” Then, Moody v. NetChoice – Is It Different? In May 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed Senate Bill 7072, a law that sought to fix some of the censorship that plagued the 2020 presidential election: Big Tech’s censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell and the banning of then-sitting President Donald J. Trump.  Like Texas’s, Florida’s pro-free speech law similarly uses common carriership to block social media companies from censoring news organizations, excluding an enumerated list of reasons, including but not limited: child exploitation and other unlawful activities.  In 2020, Big Tech platforms shielded then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden by blocking the spread of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on the infamous “Laptop From Hell.” The Post’s reporting, perhaps for the first time, helped to cement years-long allegations that Biden was aware of, and even participated in, the contentious business dealings of his embattled son, Hunter Biden. Big Tech’s censorship of the Hunter Biden bombshell tilted the 2020 presidential election in favor of Biden, according to an MRC survey conducted by The Polling Company published on Nov. 24, 2020. The poll specifically found that 45 percent (out of 1,750 polled Biden voters) conceded not knowing of Joe Biden’s role in Hunter Biden’s dealings. “According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes,” the MRC wrote at the time. (Related: EXCLUSIVE: ‘Laptop from Hell’ Reporters Detail How Big Tech Shielded Biden from Scandals) The Florida law also classifies Big Tech censorship meant to hurt a political candidate as an “in-kind contribution” to that candidate’s political opponent. This classification can be avoided by disclosing each censorship action as an independent expenditure. This particular section of the law indirectly alluded to Big Tech platforms banning Trump’s accounts over the events that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. “Many in our state have experienced censorship and other tyrannical behavior firsthand in Cuba and Venezuela,” DeSantis said in a press statement announcing the bill on May 24, 2021. “If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.” What is NetChoice’s Argument? NetChoice, representing Big Tech companies in both cases, effectively seeks to block both laws, arguing that Texas and Florida are infringing on social media companies’ First Amendment rights. In one sense, NetChoice appears to be asking the Court to create a constitutional right to censor. NetChoice insists that the laws compel the social media platforms to speak. MRC Counsel for Investigations Tim Kilcullen contributed to this report through legal analysis.  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

Chick-fil-A-Loving Employee Quickly Becomes New York Times ‘Heretic’

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 26th 2024 at 15:21
If you work at the New York Times, you’re not allowed to like Chick-fil-A. A screenshot of an article is going viral on Twitter talking about an employee’s first day at The New York Times. When HR asked him what his favorite type of sandwich was and he responded with the popular chain's Spicy Chicken Sandwich, he was roasted for liking a sandwich from somewhere that supposedly didn’t support gay people. Yes, that’s actually what happened.  Adam Rubenstein, who was hired by the Times in 2019 for their Opinion section, wrote about how he was considered a “heretic” at The New York Times in a piece for The Atlantic published early Monday morning. Related: SHOCKER: New York Times Highlights Detransitioner Stories The employee discussed his experience at orientation his first day where he, along with other new hires, did an icebreaker. The question he was given asked about his favorite sandwich. Being that it was his first day and he didn’t want to come across as presumptuous and snobby with his actual favorite (the Super Heebster from Russ & Daughters’), he said instead, “the Spicy Chicken Sandwich from Chick-fil-a.” Immediately, he says, the HR representative in the room shut him down and said, “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” Are. You. Kidding. Me? He adds the other new hires immediately began snapping their fingers in agreement.  “I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage,” the man admitted before noting that he “sat down, ashamed.” The screenshot of the story was posted Monday morning and already has almost 700,000 views and thousands of reactions.  "What's your favorite sandwich?" “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A.” "Wrong!" pic.twitter.com/4A72FSL11N — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) February 26, 2024 “And they say Republicans are a cult,” one user replied on X. “Any ideology or political movement that says you can't like a certain sandwich is one to steer clear of,” wrote another, while The Post Millennials Senior Editor Andy Ngô commented, “What a sick culture in that news room.” Unfortunately for Rubenstein, his discomfort while working for the Times' didn’t stop there. Coming from outlets that were not outwardly or obviously on one side of the political isle or another, he often found that his questions were “unwelcome.” He reflected on his experience surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story that an MRC poll shows may have cost Joe Biden his presidency had it been reported responsibly.  “Many of my colleagues were clearly worried that lending credence to the laptop story could hurt the electoral prospects of Joe Biden and the Democrats. But starting from a place of party politics and assessing how a particular story could affect an election isn’t journalism,” he wrote. Rubenstein also once contributed to a story surrounding the Black Lives Matter riots after George Floyd died, saying that lies, misinformation and rumors took over throughout the outlet. Rubenstein said coworkers insisted he was some sort of "fascist," eventually causing him to leave the paper, as “It had been made clear to me, in a variety of ways, that I had no future there.” Rubenstein had to learn the hard way something that only a few of us seem to really understand: the media is overtly biased, and places like The New York Times will only stand up for leftwing ideas and people who support them.  If the Times or any other outlet aims to cover America as it is and not simply how they want it to be, they should recruit more editors and reporters with conservative backgrounds, and then support them in their work. They should hire journalists, not activists. And they should remember that heterodoxy isn’t heresy. And as an aside, liking the taste of a sandwich doesn’t mean you’re homophobic. It just means you like the chicken sandwich. Follow us on Twitter/X: Since when is having more words to explain your views a bad thing? pic.twitter.com/yIbdSVhOSi — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 23, 2024
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Google Issues Mea Culpa for Woke AI, But Leaves Out Root Problem

By: Catherine Salgado — February 26th 2024 at 17:25
Even while apologizing for the ridiculous racial and woke bias of its Gemini artificial intelligence, Google refused to address the root problem: its deep leftist bias. Google’s Gemini received a lot of backlash after multiple users, including MRC Free Speech America, found evidence of ridiculous bias in the AI image generator. From black George Washington to a woman pope to refusals to generate images of white people and Tiananmen Square, Gemini obviously had ideological leftism programmed into it. “It’s clear that this feature missed the mark. Some of the images generated are inaccurate or even offensive,” Google admitted in a Feb. 23 release. The Big Tech giant did not, however, admit that its ideological bias and anti-free speech policies are the culprits; nor did it address the bias also evident in Gemini’s written responses. Google confessed that its AI needed major updating. “First, our tuning to ensure that Gemini showed a range of people failed to account for cases that should clearly not show a range,” the tech company vaguely rambled. “And second, over time, the model became way more cautious than we intended and refused to answer certain prompts entirely — wrongly interpreting some very anodyne prompts as sensitive.” Gemini “may not always be reliable,” Google admitted, and the image generation feature has been turned off for the time being while Google improves it. Fox News accused Google, however, of having a “White people problem.” Tellingly, in its release, the tech giant advised “relying on Google Search, where separate systems surface fresh, high-quality information on these kinds of topics from sources across the web.” Google topped MRC Free Speech America’s list of 2023’s worst Big Tech censors for its blatant search term bias against President Joe Biden’s 2024 election opponents. While Gemini’s biased images were particularly shocking, the same leftist bias was reported in non-image replies. Google did not address this issue in the release. After MRC previously caught Google’s AI downplaying evidence of Hamas terrorists’ mass rape and sexual assault, a spokesperson issued a separate apology. For example, The Washington Free Beacon’s Joe Gabriel Simonson shared a screenshot apparently showing Gemini’s assertion that Free Beacon fact checks are 100% false. The Google AI could not, however, provide a single piece of evidence to support the smear besides a claim from leftist PolitiFact. The AI then claimed there were “strong arguments” to justify the government outlawing the right-leaning Free Beacon.  Another user replied to Simonson with apparent screenshots of Gemini agreeing that there were reasonable arguments for banning other right-leaning outlets—New York Post and Washington Times. Meanwhile, the AI labeled any potential outlawing of leftist New York Times and The Washington Post as constitutional violations. Some individuals have also highlighted multiple instances of anti-white wokeness in the X feed of Jack Krawczyk, Gemini’s product lead. Krawczyk has since made his X account private. Only time will tell if Google will use less bias in programming Gemini or not. 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

Bringing Receipts: Ex-NYT Editor Ripped by Colleagues for Cotton Op-Ed Speaks Out

By: Curtis Houck — February 26th 2024 at 17:31
After nearly four years of relative silence, former New York Times op-ed editor Adam Rubenstein sounded off Monday morning in a lengthy essay at The Atlantic about the embarrassing, pathetic, and disturbing episode from June 2020 in which Rubenstein was pushed out over the paper's publication of Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) infamous op-ed calling for using the military to quell the costly and deadly Black Lives Matter riots. Rubenstein wasn’t the only casualty as his boss and editorial page editor James Bennet was forced to resign by a far-left mob of their own colleagues showing a petulant but standard inability to accept diverse viewpoints. Rubenstein caught the reader’s attention from the get-go in his piece “I Was a Heretic at The New York Times; I did what I was hired to do, and I paid for it” with this open (click “expand”): On one of my first days at The New York Times, I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink, I believe, and so I had to answer the pink prompt, which had me respond with my favorite sandwich. Russ & Daughters’ Super Heebster came to mind, but I figured mentioning a $19 sandwich wasn’t a great way to win new friends. So I blurted out, “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,” and considered the ice broken. The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage. “Not the politics, the chicken,” I quickly said, but it was too late. I sat down, ashamed. But he remained committed to The Times, saying both Bennet “and James Dao, the op-ed editor, were committed to publishing heterodox views” and brought him in from The Weekly Standard given his “contacts on the political right and a good sense of its ideological terrain”. As an editor, Rubenstein said op-ed editors “provide research for columnists and to solicit and edit newsy, against-the-grain” items to fulfill the mandate from Times founder Adolph Ochs to publish content sparking “intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion”. “This, I learned in my two years at the Times, was not a goal that everyone shared,” he added After explaining how it was unsurprisingly “a strange experience” on issues like voting and Israel (with one telling him that Israel’s existence “makes me very uncomfortable”), he stated the obvious that he “realized...right-of-center submissions were treated differently” with “a higher bar for entry, more layers of editing, and greater involvement of higher-ups.” This led to the Cotton episode, which began with “Cotton’s office pitch[ing] me an op-ed about Twitter threatening to lock his [Twitter] account” over tweets calling for President Trump to ‘invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to deploy’ the military ‘to restore order.’”  Rubenstein added that Dao replied it should instead be outlining “the actual substance of his argument” versus just decrying potential censorship. Cotton’s office agreed and quickly submitted a draft that would be published alongside “arguments against Cotton’s view.” The editorial process, aside from a bizarre aside with a photo editor about Cotton wanting to draw “a false equivalence,” seemed routine. Rubenstein described it all as an “all pretty standard” chain of events. Upon publication, all hell broke loose. An internal Slack channel was set up to foment a mob against Rubenstein and Co. Worse yet, it was backed up by the NewsGuild union that’s also supposed to represent him. Instead, it joined in the mobs claiming Cotton’s piece placed the lives of Times journalists “in danger.” Best of all, Rubenstein named names (click “expand”): Immediately, the op-ed caused an outcry within the Times. Dozens of the paper’s employees retweeted an identical, or near-identical, statement, workshopped on Slack and rubber-stamped by the NewsGuild of New York, which represents the newspaper’s union (I was a member), claiming that “running this put Black @nytimes staff in danger.” (....) Leadership at the paper seemed to think so; the claim had the trappings of a workplace-safety and racial-justice issue. The Times Guild immediately started organizing against the op-ed and those responsible for it. “Is there something else we can do? I am behind whatever action we might take,” wrote Susan Hopkins, a newsroom editor who now helps run the front page, in the Guild Slack channel. By the end of the week, the Guild had a letter with more than 1,000 signatures demanding changes to the Opinion section. (When I pointed out to a Guild representative that its activism was in effect calling for one of its own members to face repercussions, he seemed surprised, and apologized, though the Guild did not meaningfully change its public tack.) A diplomatic correspondent, Edward Wong, wrote in an email to colleagues that he typically chose not to quote Cotton in his own stories because his comments “often represent neither a widely held majority opinion nor a well-thought-out minority opinion.” This message was revealing. A Times reporter saying that he avoids quoting a U.S. senator? What if the senator is saying something important? What sorts of minority opinions met this correspondent’s standards for being well thought-out? In any event, the opinion Cotton was expressing in his op-ed, whatever one thinks of it, had, according to polling cited in the essay, the support of more than half of American voters. It was not a minority opinion. Soon a new channel was created on Slack to discuss the op-ed. In a matter of hours, more than 1,500 employees had joined it, and there were thousands of messages plotting next steps and calling for a retraction, an editors’ note, firings. (....) On Thursday, June 4, a reporter on the business desk named Edmund Lee contacted me. “So, we’re reporting out the Cotton Op-Ed,” he wrote. “We know from sources you were the principal writer.” I reached out to Dao for advice on how to handle this ludicrous claim, and did as he suggested. “I’ll have to send you to corp comms,” I wrote to Lee. “Off the record: I can categorically tell you that I did not write the Op-Ed.” Later that day, the Times published a story by Lee and two other reporters. “The Op-Ed was edited by Adam Rubenstein,” the article said. It devoted five paragraphs to my interaction with the photo editor, who had, against company policy, shared with the reporters some of our Slack messages. (....) As Bennet noted in his essay for 1843, the article claimed that Cotton advocated suppressing “protests against police violence.” The op-ed didn’t argue that. If it had, we would not have published it. In fact, Cotton’s essay was explicit in distinguishing between protests and the undeniable violence and looting: “A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.” Later, after poring over the Slack channels, I realized something more surprising: Rachel Abrams, one of Lee’s co-authors on the article, had been a vocal internal critic of Cotton’s op-ed. “How can they be sending us emails telling us they’re keeping us safe and care about our physical and mental well-being and then publish this,” she had posted on Slack, later adding, “I think it’s good that a lot of us will put our names on a strong condemnation.” Despite having initially defended the publication of the Cotton op-ed, publisher A.G. Sulzberger “caved and was claiming that a review...found that ‘a rushed editorial process’” meant the piece “did not meet our standards.” This was even though, as per Rubenstein, no one spoke to him as part of said “review.” Rubenstein went on to cite more names, including TV critic Margaret Lyons arguing Cotton’s piece was akin to publishing something “where serial killers tell us murdering is actually fun and great” and reporter Liam Stack whining that any call for staff to calm down was “just making people more angry.” A so-called “editor’s note” was soon affixed to the piece, which Rubenstein said, “contain[ed] many errors, among them that the editorial process had been ‘rushed,’ that ‘senior editors were not sufficiently involved,’ and that facts in the article weren’t quite right.” The infantile-minded but nonetheless ruthless young tyrants won the day as the threats piled up, changes were made after Bennet’s resignation, and Rubenstein eventually left the paper.  All the while, the same intolerant hive of young ideologues who dominate the paper haven’t batted an eye at op-eds from authoritarians like Vladimir Putin, defenses of Chinese Community Party crackdowns on dissidents, and the head of the Taliban (click “expand”): Every now and then, the group that handles security for the Times would check in on me to make sure I was safe. Ever since the paper had named me as the person responsible for publishing Cotton’s op-ed, I had been receiving alarming threats. (....) Once Bennet resigned, a new regime came into Opinion. Dao was reassigned to the national desk. Clay Risen moved to Politics, then to Obituaries. New policies were enacted. A “See something, say something” rule was affirmed, and a Slack channel called “op-sensitivity” was created, in which editors were encouraged to raise concerns about one another’s stories. By December, I had decided to leave the paper. It had been made clear to me, in a variety of ways, that I had no future there. In the years preceding the Cotton op-ed, the Times had published op-eds by authoritarians including Muammar Qaddafi, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Vladimir Putin. The year of the Cotton op-ed, it also published the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Regina Ip’s defense of China’s murderous crackdown on prodemocracy protests in Hong Kong, Moustafa Bayoumi’s seeming apologia of cultural and ethnic resentments of Jews, and an article by a leader of the Taliban, Sirajuddin Haqqani. None of those caused an uproar. Last year, the page published an essay by the Hamas-appointed mayor of Gaza City, and few seemed to mind. Rubenstein concluded by noting that “the fight over Cotton’s op-ed was never about safety, or the facts, or the editing, or even the argument, but control of the paper” and that current Times employees have no desire “to cover America as it is and not simply how they want it to be” or “hire more editors and reporters with conservative backgrounds, and then support them in their work.”
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Tapper Whines: GOP 'Seizing' on GA College Student Killed By Illegal Immigrant

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — February 26th 2024 at 18:39
After the liberal media initially refused to report that the murderer of University of Georgia student Laken Hope Riley was an illegal immigrant who was arrested multiple times, we have now reached the phase of the coverage where Republicans noticing the problem was the concerning issue of the story. That seemed to be the reaction CNN’s Jake Tapper had during Monday’s The Lead when he whined that “Republicans [were], obviously, seizing on this horrific tragedy.” But before getting to bellyaching about Republicans calling attention to the crisis at the U.S./Mexico border that was literally getting people killed, Tapper openly admitted that it played a role in the murder. “And his status as an undocumented Venezuelan migrant is now renewing the debate over immigration policies,” he announced. Tapper went on to report that the murderer had a long, violent history, was in and out of the American justice system, and was never deported: In fact, the suspect had already been arrested first in 2022 after entering the us illegally; then again last September, charged with acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17; and also a motor vehicle license violation. The suspect was released before a detainer could be issued according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. “All of which, has prompted many in Georgia to wonder why this violent man was allowed to remain in the U.S. for so long after so many red flags,” he rhetorically asked. But Tapper didn’t seem to want real answers.     Later in the program, he whined that Republicans were citing the murder as a reason to get border security under control. “So, Republicans, obviously, seizing on this horrific tragedy at the University of Georgia. This girl, this nursing student, killed by an undocumented Venezuelan migrant. And they're seizing on this as an example of Biden's failure to protect the American people, to secure the border,” he decried as if this wasn’t the result of failed liberal border policies. He also appeared to huff about former President Trump posting about it on his social media site: Today, President Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social, quote, “When I am your president, we will immediately seal the border, stop the invasion, and on day one, we will begin the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals in American history. May God bless Laken Riley and her family.” That's the poor nursing student that was killed. “Our prayers are with you.” Former “Republican strategist,” Doug Heye kvetched that “politics enter these things very quickly. And Donald Trump knows how to take advantage of a situation like this and exploit it.” If that’s the case, Tapper could be credibly accused of seizing on the Parkland school shooting in 2019 in order to push gun control and attack Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and gun rights advocate Dana Loesch with his so-called “town hall” event. He even got a little award for his little show trial against them. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Lead February 26, 2024 4:17:15 p.m. Eastern JAKE TAPPER: A tragedy in our national lead. A vigil in Athens, Georgia this afternoon for Laken Hope Riley. She was the nursing student found dead after going for a jog on the campus of the University of Georgia, the suspect in her brutal killing is facing charges including felony murder. And his status as an undocumented Venezuelan migrant is now renewing the debate over immigration policies. In fact, the suspect had already been arrested first in 2022 after entering the us illegally; then again last September, charged with acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17; and also a motor vehicle license violation. The suspect was released before a detainer could be issued according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. All of which, has prompted many in Georgia to wonder why this violent man was allowed to remain in the U.S. for so long after so many red flags. (…) 4:29:08 p.m. Eastern TAPPER: So, Republicans, obviously, seizing on this horrific tragedy at the University of Georgia. This girl, this nursing student, killed by an undocumented Venezuelan migrant. And they're seizing on this as an example of Biden's failure to protect the American people, to secure the border. Today, President Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social, quote, “When I am your president, we will immediately seal the border, stop the invasion, and on day one, we will begin the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals in American history. May God bless Laken Riley and her family.” That's the poor nursing student that was killed. “Our prayers are with you.” What's your reaction to that? DOUG HEYE: Well, first, obviously, it's a tragedy and we should recognize that before the politics enter this. But let’s not be naïve, politics enter these things very quickly. And Donald Trump knows how to take advantage of a situation like this and exploit it. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NetChoice Censorship Defenders Misstate Section 230 at SCOTUS

By: Tom Olohan — February 26th 2024 at 19:04
NetChoice Attorney Paul Clement and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar both made stunning admissions during oral arguments for landmark free speech cases.  On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two landmark cases — Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton — challenging Texas and Florida’s state laws protecting free speech. The new laws would limit Big Tech’s ability to censor users based on viewpoint discrimination, as a publisher might. However, the protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would continue to apply. But Big Tech wants to have its cake and eat it too. While arguing on behalf of Big Tech, Solicitor General Prelogar made the admission that social media companies are "literally, factually publishers." This admission was echoed by Clement who told Justice Clarence Thomas that “Congress wanted us to operate as publishers.” Related: Everything You Need to Know About Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton Clement and Prelogar can't have it both ways. These companies either exist as a platform for all with liability protection from how individuals use their platform or as a publisher with the right to censor and legal responsibility for the content they host. During the oral arguments for Moody v. NetChoice, Clement actually broke down the publisher/platform distinction before stating his own personal misinterpretation of Section 230. “Congress in passing Section 230 looked at some common law cases that basically said, well, if you just a pure conduit that means that you are free from liability, but if you start becoming a publisher, by keeping some bad conduct out, content out, then you no longer have that common law liability protection,” Clement said, before adding, “As I understand 230, the whole point of it was to encourage websites and other regulated parties to essentially exercise editorial discretion, to keep some of that bad stuff out of there.”  The bad stuff Section 230 attempted to exclude was “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,” not simply whatever a platform decided it did not like. Solicitor General Prelogar gave an equally incoherent answer when Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether social media companies would lose their liability protections if they were considered publishers. She preceded to restate Clements’ mangled understanding of Section 230. “Congress specifically recognized the platforms are creating a speech product. They are literally, factually publishers, and Congress wanted to grant them immunity,” she said. “It was for the purpose of encouraging this kind of editorial discretion. That's the whole point of the Good Samaritan blocking provision.”  Justice Samuel Alito also pushed back against the nonsensical claims during arguments for NetChoice v. Paxton.  “If you were a newspaper and you published the content that appears in every single one of the videos on YouTube that you allowed to be included, you would be liable potentially for the content of that material. And I don’t understand the rationale for 230 if it wasn’t that you can’t be held responsible for that because this is really not your message. Either it’s your message or it’s not your message, I don’t understand how it can be both,” Alito said. [Emphasis added]. Alito went on to drive home how NetChoice wanted it both ways. “It’s your message when you want to escape state regulation, but it’s not your message when you want to escape liability under state tort law,” he added.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable. MRC Free Speech Counsel for Investigations Tim Kilcullen contributed to this report.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

'I'm A Big Guy': More Scarborough Bragging As He Raises 'Warning Signs' For Trump Campaign

By: Mark Finkelstein — February 26th 2024 at 21:39
Among his critics, a common knock on former President Trump was that he makes it all about himself, as when he recently analogized the murder of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny to his own situation. Within the liberal media, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough was a leading Trump critic. Yet ironically, the Morning Joe host displays the same solipsistic tendencies as the man he loves to hate. Those unendearing traits were on display on Monday's Morning Joe, when Scarborough was arguing that, despite Trump having comfortably won the South Carolina Republican primary, his 20 percent margin of victory was less than had been generally predicted; with Haley getting 40 percent of the vote. And he cited polling suggesting that a good chunk of Haley's voters say that they'll never vote for Trump in the general election. NewsBusters has chronicled the way that Scarborough managed to work into the discussion of virtually anything the fact that (before he quit in the middle of a term to spend more time with his family), he used to be a congressman. Scarborough coupled that with lots of humble-bragging, as when he describes himself as "a simple country lawyer," one who "just fell off the turnip truck." So, in making his case, Scarborough mentioned that in one primary, his opponent got 19-20 percent of the vote, and "I melted down. I thought it was the end of all time." In a triple-header for Joe: he works in his past as a congressman, he notes that his opponent's percentage was only half of what Haley got against Trump, and yet, with false humility, he describes himself as having melted down. There was more. As we've also documented, Scarborough likes to boast about his masculinity. In that same segment today, he described himself as "a big guy." Just last week, we caught Scarborough mocking Speaker Mike Johnson as "little." Scarborough went on to humble brag that he has problems at Morning Joe, and is just trying to avoid "flop sweat," since, as a "big guy," he sweats a lot. Scarborough concluded by claiming, "I'm just trying to not look like Elvis '77."  Don't worry, Joe. You don't look like any version of Elvis." Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 2/26/24 6:03 am ET MIKA BRZEZINSKI: So, Joe, great group this morning. And quite a weekend for Donald Trump and his supporters. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, I don't know. I, I had somebody run against me in a primary once, and they got, I think, 19%, 20%. And I, I melted down. I thought it was the end of all time. I think most politicians would. If you're, if you're basically the incumbent and about to get the nomination for the third time, and you're still losing 50% in Iowa, and 60% [sic--Trump lost a shade under 40%] in South Carolina, which is your strongest state, I mean, Wall Street Journal editorial page this morning has a point. If you -- before we get into the news, I know a lot of people have been talking about South Carolina, but I think the Wall Street Journal editorial page has it right here. Let me read it.  "Yet Ms. Haley won nearly 40% of the vote, which as she said in her remarks Saturday evening, is not some tiny group. That's especially true running against a quasi-incumbent who was endorsed by nearly every GOP official in the state. None of them want to risk getting primaried. Yet, as in New Hampshire, the size of her vote shows that millions in the Republican party do not want Mr. Trump in the White House.  "A Fox News voter analysis found that 59% of Ms. Haley's voters said they would not vote for Trump." Let me say it again, 59% of Haley's voters said they would note vote for Trump if he's the GOP nominee. "And the exit polls showed that 36% of all Republican South Carolina voters said a conviction in one of his criminal trials would make him unfit to be president. So even if most of those voters hold their noses and vote for Trump in a race against Mr. Biden, the question is, how many stay home, vote for a third party, or go to Biden? Even a 10% defection could be divisive, and decisive."  . . .  John, you've got a guy that's about to win the nomination for the third time, and he's losing 50% of the Republican vote in Iowa, 40% of it in South Carolina, which we've always, always said is his strongest state. And so, yeah, I mean, if I'm running for the first time and I'm getting 59%, I'm happy. If I'm a three-time, and basically a three-time incumbent, those are, those are the real warning signs. You know, you hear people warning about Donald Trump, and I certainly get it. He is a threat to American democracy. But right now, 40% of his electorate is a threat to him even getting there. . . .  JOHN HEILEMANN: Look, all those exit polls you cited should be worrying for Trump. There's also financial stuff we could talk about that should be worrying for Trump. That's more, that's not down the road. That's coming real soon. SCARBOROUGH: Right. HEILEMANN: This is not -- that was not an unalloyed -- look, give the man a win. He's won three. You can't take that away from him. A sin's a win. He is going to be the nominee. He's gonna be, he'll probably have the 1,215 delegates by the middle of March. But, man, if you don't see the warning signs, and Chris LaCivita and the people around him do not see the warning signs, and they are smart people. I'm sure that he and Susie Wiles -- they  see it. They're pretty clear. SCARBOROUGH: Smart people. They want him out of the race. I mean, they want her out of the race. And for good reason. And for good reason. They want her out of the race. But Mika, I'll give you, again, a couple numbers here. And I will say, I'm, I've said this before, and, you know, I got enough problems on Morning Joe.  Like, I'm just trying to avoid flop sweat. Mika will tell you, I'm a flop sweater. MIKA: He's a sweater. SCARBOROUGH: I am! I'm a big guy. I sweat all the time. MIKA: Uh! Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: So I'm just trying, I'm just trying, you know, to not look like Elvis '77.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Biden Skipped a Super Bowl 'News' Interview, But Approved a Seth Meyers Love-In

By: Tim Graham — February 26th 2024 at 22:09
President Biden once again has set aside any fraction of a journalist interview, selecting a comedian interview instead. Biden was in Manhattan on Monday, and in addition to another campaign fundraiser, he taped an interview with NBC's Seth Meyers to mark the 10th anniversary of his leftist hootenanny Late Night. Ten years ago, then-Vice President Biden was his second guest on his first show. The Hill newspaper described it this way: "President Biden is staying up late, making an appearance on Late Night as the NBC show marks its 10th anniversary with Seth Meyers in the hosting chair." The show airs after midnight, but it is taped at 6:30 pm. So let's get this straight: Biden couldn't subject himself to the rigorous questioning of someone like Obama donor Gayle King at CBS, because she might ask something about Hamas or Robert Hur's report. But Seth Meyers fits nicely on the saps list with Drew Barrymore and Conan O'Brien and Ryan Seacrest. Biden traveled to New York last June for an on-site interview with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace — and generated buzz by awkwardly walking off-set before the commercial break. Like Nicolle's show, Seth's talk show is by Democrats, for Democrats. It's meant to be funny, but usually it's pompously knocking around the right-wingers. Alex Christy's studies found a Democrat-to-Republican politico guest count of 48 Democrats, zero Republicans. His first study was 21-0 and the second was 27-0. In an interview with The Wrap, Meyers explained how loathing of Trump's election in 2016 shaped his show into what it is today:  “I just felt so at a loss. I didn’t think it could happen, and I hated what it said about where we were at as a country,” he remembered. “Then I got to come in and be with my staff, all of whom were feeling equally miserable, and we got to do a show. I got to talk honestly about the way I felt.” He said that show set the direction for Late Night going forward. “We thought we could be a sane voice to a sane world, and now the world is a little bit crazy and it’s made us crazy, too. But the formerly sane should have a nice place to hang out and talk about how crazy the world has been.” These late-night "comedy" shows often look and sound more like Democrat precinct meetings.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Kristen Welker's Decent Abortion Question to Newsom EDITED OUT

By: Tim Graham — February 26th 2024 at 23:04
NBC Meet the Press host Kristen Welker surprised us by asking California Gov. Gavin Newsom in which week abortion could be limited. He tried to talk around it, but implied zero limits...while he attacked Republicans as extreme! Sadly, we discovered that this slightly challenging clip was in the full interview on YouTube, but it was left on the cutting-room floor when it came to NBC's Sunday show. They edited that section out ,as well as a smaller clip when Newsom suggested mifepristone (an abortion pill) was similar to contraceptives.  Remember we pounced and/or seized on Welker when she tried to tell Donald Trump no one favors abortion at any time, Democrats don’t favor abortion at any time. Wrong! It’s right there in the 2020 Democrat Party platform. The media-Democrat complex pretends the Republican pro-life stand is extreme, while the equally extreme abortion-on-demand stance isn't extreme at all. It's somehow the sensible center.  Welker began her Sunday show with an extremely respectful interview with Biden National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, but then repeatedly interrupted Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), taking great exception to the idea that Trump's many legal troubles aren't "politicized" at all.  The NBC edit of Newsom is sort of a matching piece for what Jorge Bonilla found last Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, when the Dan Rather Network edited out Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) quoting the gospel of Matthew to explain why he wouldn't trash Nikki Haley's adult son for calling him a Judas, like Nikki Haley is Jesus. Clearly, viewers should not expect they're getting some kind of live newsmaker interview on Sundays. Sometimes we're getting sneaky clip jobs. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC’s WNT Remains ‘Uncommitted’ to Reporting on Michigan Dems’ Protest Vote

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 26th 2024 at 23:44
Last week, we reported on the evening news’ spotty reporting of the campaign to persuade Michigan Democrats to vote for “Uncommitted” in tomorrow’s primary, in protest of President Joe Biden’s response to Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. A week later, and on the eve of the primary, ABC’s World News Tonight remains steadfast in their refusal to cover the protest vote. CBS omitted coverage of “Uncommitted” last week but came through tonight. Here’s that report as aired on CBS Evening News on Monday, February 26th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: We should note President Biden is on the ballot tomorrow there in Michigan for the Democratic primary, though he doesn't face a serious challenge but- why are people watching it so closely, Ed?  ED O’KEEFE: Yeah, Norah, the Biden campaign tonight is concerned about the state’s large Arab and Muslim American populations angered over the president's stance on the Israel/Hamas war. So progressives here are urging voters tomorrow to vote “Uncommitted”- it’s a version of “None of the Above”, instead of for the president to register their opposition to his war stance. The Biden campaign acknowledges the criticism but says any vote against the president in this battleground state this fall could be a-- it could mean Donald Trump back in The White House. Norah. O’DONNELL: Ed O’Keefe. Thank you. See, CBS? That wasn’t so hard. NBC News bifurcated coverage of “Uncommitted” within the broader political roundup that kicked off the newscast: GABE GUTIERREZ: Tomorrow's primary here in Michigan is high stakes not just for (Nikki) Haley, but for President Biden, who’s facing fierce backlash over the Israel-Hamas war.  PROTESTERS: Free, free Palestine GUTIERREZ: Voters from Michigan’s huge Arab American population have demanded the president support a cease-fire. Some now plan to vote “Uncommitted” in protest.  LEXIS ZEIDAN: My direct message to President Biden is that you cannot continue to use my American tax dollars to aid and abet an ongoing genocide of my people. … GUTIERREZ: Governor Gretchen Whitmer is a national co-chair of Biden's campaign.  What is “Uncommitted” has a strong showing in this primary?  GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D-MI): I think there will be a sizable number of votes for “Uncommitted”. I think that it is every person's right to make their statement about what's important to them.  It bears noting that NBC reported on “Uncommitted” last week, even if they failed to address the movement by name on the network newscast. And they did so again tonight. So what’s ABC’s deal? “Uncommitted” made it on to This Week, so clearly the news division is aware that this movement exists. Contributing correspondent Rachel Bade said: RACHEL BADE: I actually talked to the leader of the Abandon Biden movement on the ground there. He's a Palestinian American, those folks who have had family members who have died during the bombardments in Gaza, and he was a Biden voter. Just a few months ago, he had a sign- Biden/Harris sign in his yard. Now he says he would sooner vote for…what did he say? Sooner vote for Mickey Mouse than Joe Biden- even if it means voting for Donald Trump. So I think that- if you look at the numbers- one more thing, Martha, Joe Biden won by 150,000 votes in Michigan. There are 200,000 Muslim or Arab American voters in Michigan. If he alienates all of them, Michigan is gone for him. Anchor David Muir is the managing editor for World News Tonight, which seems to be the most openly partisan of the three major network evening newscasts. His decision to suppress coverage of “Uncommitted”, which is ultimately a story that is embarrassing to the Biden campaign, reflects poorly upon the news division. Exit question: Will Muir cover “Uncommitted” if it garners a significant percentage of the vote, or will he continue to keep his head buried in the sand and hope that viewers don’t find out?  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Networks SUPPRESS Arrest of Illegal Alien Shooter of 3 D.C. Cops

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 27th 2024 at 00:27
Earlier this month, three Metro D.C. police officers were shot in the line of duty, as they were serving a warrant on charges of animal cruelty. All three networks reported on the shooting at the time. However, none of them reported on the arrest of the shooter, perhaps due to a very inconvenient and uncomfortable reason: the shooter is in the country illegally. Per the Department of Justice's press release:  WASHINGTON – Stephen Claude Rattigan, also known as Julius James, 48, of Washington, D.C., has been charged with assault with intent to kill while armed, assault on a police officer while armed, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence following the shooting of three Metropolitan Police Department officers and an hours-long standoff in Southeast DC. He is also being charged with misdemeanor cruelty to animals.  … According to court documents, on February 14, 2024, officers from the Metropolitan Police Department responded to Rattigan’s residence in the 5000 block of Hanna Place Southeast to execute an arrest warrant because of a complaint of animal cruelty. That warrant stemmed from an incident in April 2023 in which Rattigan was captured by a security camera beating one of his dogs several times in the face. The DoJ makes no mention of the defendant’s immigration status but our friend Julio Rosas does, upon conferring with his law enforcement sources: 🚨: A law enforcement source has confirmed to me the man who recently shot three DC police officers, Stephen Claude Rattigan, also known as James Claude Julius, is in the US illegally. He has an active ICE deportation order. I reached out to ICE for comment. pic.twitter.com/hN7ij1qa95 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) February 26, 2024 As we saw in the case of the illegal alien from Venezuela now charged in the murder of UGA nursing student Laken Riley, there was a concerted effort to conceal the suspect’s immigration status for as long as was feasibly possible. Only after pressure, shaming, and the AP’s sensationally ridiculous piece on fears of whether women’s running is at risk, did the networks fall in line and report on the suspect’s status. As the reporting continues to bear out, will we see the inconvenient fact on the D.C. cop shooter be reported, or will the national networks continue to suppress a fact that is embarrassing to President Biden? Time will tell.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

The New American Antisemitism Could Cost Democrats Jewish Voters

By: Cal Thomas — February 27th 2024 at 08:43
In the aftermath of “from the river to the sea” anti-Israel protests on many college campuses and in the streets comes a perfectly timed book by Johns Hopkins University Professor Benjamin Ginsberg titled “The New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, The Right, and the Jews.” Professor Ginsberg is especially hard on progressives and urges American Jews to move away from their longtime support of Democrats to form a new political alliance, especially with evangelical Christians. While U.S. presidents have given lip service in support of Israel – and yes, the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland cannot be separated – in practice, some Republican and many Democratic presidents have pressured Israel to make concessions to her sworn enemies that would spell the death of the Jewish state. In Israel’s ongoing attempt to eliminate Hamas in Gaza, Politico reports: “ Biden administration officials have spent weeks quietly drafting a multiphase postwar game plan that envisions a revamped Palestinian Authority (PA) ultimately taking over the Gaza Strip.” It takes a leap of faith to ignore what Hamas and other terrorist groups have as their objective and to believe that a “revamped” PA would not be overtaken again by Hamas, or another terror group. Antisemitism extends back to ancient Egypt. The explanations are familiar – from the “chosen people” reference in Scripture, to blaming Jews for “killing Christ.” Ginsberg gets to what I think is the real source of antisemitism. He writes that because of the Jewish peoples’ rigorous emphasis on education and achievements, Jews often rise to the upper echelons of the societies in which they live. And yet, he says, such success breeds resentment and jealousy. Underachievers need someone to blame and for some this tiny minority is an easy target. In view of this, Ginsberg wonders why a large majority of Jews still vote for Democrats. “Since 1932,” he writes, “Jews have unfailingly given a plurality of their votes to Democratic presidential candidates. … On seven occasions (they) received more than 80 percent of the Jewish vote.” Jews were once mostly loyal to Republicans, but since Franklin Roosevelt their allegiance has shifted. Given Roosevelt’s barring of thousands of Jewish refugees from entering the country (the excuse was they might be Nazi spies) and his refusal to bomb the rail lines leading to Auschwitz, their continued support of Democrats is hard to fathom. While Jews largely voted for and supported Roosevelt, in part because the president had so many Jews in high government positions, Ginsberg writes, “the president was leery of being identified too closely with Jews. FDR asked his Jewish advisors to keep a low profile.” During the “red scare” of the McCarthy era, many of those accused of communist sympathies or membership in the Communist Party, especially in Hollywood, were Jews. Modern antisemitism is egged-on by members of “The Squad” in Congress. One of those members, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), has equated the United States and Israel with Hamas and the Taliban. That was too much for some of her Democratic colleagues, who denounced her comments. College campuses appear to be breeding grounds for modern antisemitism. A survey by the Anti-Defamation League found “ 73% of Jewish college students surveyed have experienced or witnessed some form of antisemitism since the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year alone. … Of the non-Jewish students erroneously assumed to be Jewish, nearly half (46%) stated that they had been targeted based on their assumed Jewishness.” The worldwide media fuels some of this by either adopting a moral equivalency position between Israel and her enemies, failing to report on Islamic leaders who claim a religious mandate to eliminate Israel and exterminate Jews, and slanting their coverage in favor of the Palestinians. Ginsberg’s book should be required reading for those who are unclear about the roots of antisemitism and how Jewish-hatred continues to poison the politics and culture of many countries, including our own. Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America" (HumanixBooks).
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

11 BRAND NEW Biden Family Scandals ABC, CBS, NBC Are Censoring

By: Geoffrey Dickens — February 27th 2024 at 09:00
On Wednesday, Hunter Biden is set to be deposed in closed door testimony to Congress. If recent history is a guide, expect the leftist media to ignore it if there are any bombshells that hurt Team Biden.  Pretty much the only time the media talk about the Biden family scandals is if it hurts the GOP. As seen when they bragged that the February 15 arrest of an FBI informant for giving false information in the Hunter case, as NBC correspondent Ryan Nobles declared “dealt a blow” to all of their investigations. ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir on the February 21 broadcast crowed: “Our Pierre Thomas tonight asks Republicans in the House, how do you move forward if the main informant was lying?” But as NewsBusters has been tracking, and New York Post columnist Miranda Devine pointed out, there is an “avalanche of evidence” that hasn’t been debunked.  The following are just a few of the Biden family scandal items from the last three months — leading up to the Hunter deposition — that have received no coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening or morning shows, nor their Sunday roundtable shows:    Hunter Biden’s Billionaire Pals in Russia Escape Sanctions List…AGAIN On February 23, the New York Post reported:  Two Russian billionaire pals of Hunter Biden were again spared from being hit by financial sanctions as President Biden announced his latest round of penalties on numerous Vladimir Putin-connected people Friday, the Post has learned. Though some 500 Russian oligarchs, companies and third-country sanctions evaders were hit, real estate developer Yelena Baturina and Vladimir Yevtushenkov again skated free of winding up on the list. The White House did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment and has not offered explanation in the past as the pair dodged earlier rounds of sanctions. The omissions have attracted the attention of House Republicans leading an impeachment inquiry into the president’s links to his relatives’ foreign business dealings. Baturina, the widow of late Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, built her $1.3 billion fortune through real estate and investments and dined with Hunter Biden and then-Vice President Joe Biden at least once at DC’s Café Milano. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Jim Biden Used His Brother’s Name to Promote Americore Hospital Chain, That Was Accused of Medicare Fraud and Has Now Collapsed On February 18, Politico reported:  In 2017, a hospital operator set out to build a rural health care empire with the help of a Philadelphia-area consultant. The consultant, Jim Biden, had no experience running hospitals. But he did understand the federal government and had ties to labor unions. Perhaps more important, he was the younger brother of Joe Biden. The final years of the Obama administration had cemented the former vice president’s towering stature in the world of health care, where he had made the fight against cancer a top federal priority and, then, a centerpiece of his legacy-building efforts. For then 67-year-old Jim Biden, the third of four Biden siblings, his ties to his older brother made up much of his pitch as he pursued deals that could help Americore make money from drug rehab, lab testing and even cancer treatment. “This would be a perfect platform to expose my Brothers team to [your] protocol,” Jim Biden wrote to the CEO of a Tampa-area company that controlled licensing rights to an experimental cancer treatment the hospital operator wanted to offer. “Could provide a great opportunity for some real exposure.” The email, obtained by POLITICO from a person close to the company, documents one of the many ways in which Jim Biden invoked his brother’s name and clout in the course of his work with Americore, which has since gone bankrupt, wreaking havoc in rural communities in the process. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Hunter’s Ex-Business Partner: Joe Biden “The Enabler” of the “Family’s Business,” Was Sold as “The Brand”  On February 16, the New York Post reported:  Former Biden family associate Tony Bobulinski steadfastly accused Joe Biden of being involved in his son and brother’s foreign dealings in China in impeachment inquiry testimony that was released publicly Friday — hours after the Justice Department charged an FBI informant for allegedly falsely accusing the Bidens of taking bribes from Ukraine. “Joe Biden was more than a participant in and a beneficiary of his family’s business; he was an enabler, despite being buffered by a complex scheme to maintain plausible deniability,” Bobulinski claimed about the president’s role in a business venture with Chinese state-linked CEFC China Energy. Bobulinski said in his closed-door House testimony Tuesday that Joe Biden was the “brand” hawked by his relatives and that he’s lied repeatedly about not interacting with their partners. The former Navy officer also unveiled a text message indicating that relations with CEFC began in 2015 when Joe Biden was still vice president — before it culminated in millions of dollars in transfers shortly after he left office as VP in 2017. The testimony included a screenshot of an apparent Dec. 24, 2015, text message to Bobulinski from another associate, James Gilliar, which corroborated prior testimony from Biden family partner Rob Walker that the CEFC venture began during the final stretch of the Obama-Biden administration. “There will be a deal between one of the most prominent families from US and them constructed by me, I think this will then be a great addition to their portfolios as it will give them a profile base in NYC then LA, etc,” the alleged message from Gilliar read. “For me, it’s a no-brainer but culturally they are different but smart so let’s see… Any entry ticket is small for them. Easier and better demographic than Arabs who are a little anti-US after Trump.” Bobulinski also repeated his prior claim to have briefly discussed CEFC twice with Joe Biden in May 2017, the same month that Gilliar penciled in a 10% cut for the “big guy” — who Bobulinski says was clearly Joe Biden. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Records of Biden Family Credit Cards Allegedly Paid for By China Company, Subpoenaed By Comer On February 15, the New York Post reported:  House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer issued subpoenas Thursday for records on “several” credit cards that the Chinese state-linked company CEFC China Energy allegedly provided members of President Biden’s family for personal expenses — including a card loaded with $100,000 for a “global spending spree.” “We’re subpoenaing several credit card companies,” Comer (R-Ky.) said in a morning interview on Fox Business. “Through the interviews and depositions we’ve conducted thus far, we’ve learned that there were several credit cards that were used by members of the Biden family — we believe for personal expenses — and we believe that these credit cards were being paid by CEFC or through CEFC-funded affiliates.” An Oversight Committee staff member told The Post that the subpoenas cast a wide net for records as part of the impeachment inquiry into alleged corruption during Joe Biden’s vice presidency. CEFC, a now-defunct reputed cog in Beijing’s “Belt and Road” foreign influence campaign, was one of the largest and most mysterious sources of overseas income for the first family. … First brother James Biden and first son Hunter Biden reportedly netted more than $7 million in 2017 and 2018 from CEFC for what critics call influence peddling. The first tranche of more than $1 million flowed shortly after Joe Biden met Ye and was a “thank you” for services during his vice presidency, Walker said. … CEFC allegedly provided James Biden and his wife, Sara Biden, with a credit card to go on a $100,000 “global spending spree,” according to a September 2020 report by Republican-led Senate committees. The Oversight Committee rep said the panel recently received corroborating information from witnesses. “The American people deserve transparency, and these subpoenas will be more evidence of the Biden family’s influence peddling around the globe,” the committee aide said. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   E-Mail Allegedly Shows Bidens Were Doing Business with Beijing-Linked Firm While Joe Was VP On February 13, the New York Post reported:  A newly surfaced document allegedly helps prove Hunter Biden was working with Chinese state-linked CEFC China Energy while his dad was vice president — as suspected by Republicans leading the impeachment inquiry into reputed corruption by the president. President Biden has repeatedly claimed his family never got money from China​ — despite his own alleged direct involvement in relations with two different Chinese government-backed firms, including CEFC. “We anticipate working together on a number of opportunities in the US and abroad,” says the potentially damning March 22, 2016, letter addressed to CEFC Executive Director Jianjun Zang on Hunter’s letterhead about 10 months before his dad Joe left office as vice president. “I believe we have presented a collection of projects that parallel the interests of you and your team and we look forward to discussing them in detail,” says the draft letter to Zang, which was distributed among Hunter and his partners Rob Walker and James Gilliar as an e-mail attachment. “As we await your next visit to the United States, please continue to coordinate all matters with my confidant and trusted advisor, James Gilliar,” the letter says. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.     Joe Biden Met With the Chairman of Chinese Firm That Hunter Worked With On February 13, FoxNews.com reported:  President Biden met with the chairman of the Chinese energy firm Hunter Biden sought to create a joint venture with at the Four Seasons in Washington D.C. in 2017, a former business partner of the first son told congressional investigators. Rob Walker, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, testified at the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees earlier this month as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden. Walker, during his closed-door transcribed interview, told congressional investigators that Joe Biden attended a meeting where he, Hunter Biden, their other business partners and CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming were having lunch. … Ye Jianming, at the time, was the chairman of Chinese energy company CEFC. Walker said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss “ways we could work together.” “I don’t think we had structured a deal on how to work together at this point,” Walker said, noting the meeting lasted “probably an hour and a half,” but said Biden “was not” there for the entirety of the meeting. “The former vice president was not there the entire time. He was there maybe 10 minutes,” Walker said. “He spoke nice, you know, normal pleasantries. I think he probably did most of the talking and then left.” Walker testified that Biden addressed the entire group — which consisted of approximately 10 CEFC-linked individuals— during his visit.  Walker testified that the visit, and Biden’s appearance, “likely” took place before his Robinson Walker LLC received $3 million from State Energy HK Limited—a CEFC-linked entity. … The House Oversight Committee told Fox News Digital that it can “now confirm Joe Biden met with nearly every foreign national who funneled money to his son, including Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina, Romanian oligarch Kenes Rakishev, Burisma’s corporate secretary Vadym Pozharsky, Jonathan Li of BHR, and CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   GOP Rep Demands IRS Look Into Joe Biden’s Loan Repayments From Jim Biden On January 22, the New York Post reported:  Republican Rep. Dan Meuser has demanded the IRS investigate $240,000 in loan repayments President Biden received from his brother, saying the committee probing the financial transactions for foreign business ties has been stonewalled by the White House. “The potential lack of formal written agreements or promissory notes raises questions about the legality and transparency of these loans,” Meuser (Pa.) wrote in a Jan. 17 letter to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel. “Of particular interest is whether President Biden collected interest on these loan repayments, and if so, whether this interest was duly reported in his tax filings,” he added. “If the payments were neither a loan repayment nor a gift, they were in fact ordinary income received by Joe Biden, Jill Biden, or entities connected to them.” Meuser, who served as Pennsylvania’s revenue secretary from 2011 to 2015, demanded a “thorough review” and “detailed responses” from the IRS about the payments, saying it was “not only a matter of tax compliance but also one of upholding the public’s confidence in the integrity of our governmental institutions.” He told The Post that the IRS investigation should be able to “determine the legitimacy of the supposed loan Joe Biden made to his family members that they now claim to be paying back.” “If the IRS cannot verify the existence of the loans, then Joe Biden, the receiver of the payments, is intentionally misrepresenting what the payments were for and is in violation of state and federal tax laws,” he said. “This falsifying of records would only be done to conceal payments made indirectly to Joe Biden from foreign entities, including a $40,000 payment from a Chinese Communist Party-linked company. If an average citizen had skirted tax law in this manner, they would be in jail.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.* *UPDATE: On the February 28 edition of CBS Mornings, correspondent Scott McFarlane briefly touched on the subject in this 15-second mention: “The GOP probe alleges that Hunter and the President’s brother James traded off the Biden name to score business deals and raise questions about payments sent to the President while they were conducting business. The Bidens say the checks were repayments of old loans.” Two checks were shown on-screen from Sara and James Biden to Joseph Biden. One totaling $200,000 and another for $40,000.   Art Dealer Admits Hunter Knew Names of Art Buyers, Despite White House Claims to Contrary On January 9, the New York Post reported:  Hunter Biden’s Manhattan art dealer said Tuesday that he never worked with the White House on an ethics pact to ensure buyers would remain anonymous — and added that the top purchasers were known to the first son, contrary to prior claims from President Biden’s aides. Georges Bergès also revealed that in addition to the lack of supposed anti-corruption safeguards he actually met and spoke on the phone with the president while repping his son, the House Oversight Committee said in a readout of a closed-door deposition. The art dealer testified that Hunter, 53, knew who bought about 70% of his art — including Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali, who obtained works by the first son before and after scoring a prestigious presidential appointment. Bergès disclosed that he personally interacted with Joe Biden on multiple occasions, including at a closed-to-press White House wedding for Hunter’s daughter Naomi in 2022. … Hirsh Naftali, who scored repeated visits to the White House during the timeframe in question, inked a $42,000 sale in February 2021, before her appointment that July by Joe Biden to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, and then another for $52,000 in December 2022. Bergès also confirmed that the first son was aware that Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris, who met Hunter at a political fundraiser in December 2019 before bankrolling his tax payments and living expenses, was his top patron, buying $875,000 worth of art in a January 2023 deal. “The Biden White House appears to have deceived the American people about facilitating an ethics agreement governing the sale of Hunter Biden’s art,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “Hunter Biden’s gallerist never had any communication with the White House about such an agreement to make sure there was any sort of ethics compliance at all, and he provided information to the committee revealing how Hunter Biden’s amateur art career is an ethics nightmare.”  ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Joe Biden Used An Alias In Emails Sent to Hunter’s Business Partners, Totaling 327 Times Over Nine Years On December 5, FoxNews.com reported:  As vice president, Joe Biden used email aliases and private email addresses to communicate with son Hunter Biden and Hunter’s business associates hundreds of times, new records released by the House Ways & Means Committee revealed. The committee obtained metadata from IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler that reveals Joe Biden used alias email accounts 327 times during a nine-year period — 2010 to 2019 — to correspond with his son, Hunter, and one of Hunter's key business associates, Eric Schwerin, among others. The majority of the email traffic took place while Biden was vice president. The committee says 54 of the emails were “exclusively” between Joe Biden and Schwerin, who the committee describes as “the architect of the Biden family’s shell companies.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Hunter’s Firm Sent Joe Biden a Recurring $1,380 Payment Starting in 2018     On December 4, the New York Post reported:  President Biden received a recurring payment of $1,380 from his son Hunter’s law firm beginning in late 2018 shortly after a bank money laundering officer warned that the same account was receiving millions of dollars in Chinese government-linked funds without “any services rendered.” A bank order shows that Owasco PC set up a “monthly” transfer to then-former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., with a voided check for the future president included in the documentation, which was released Monday by the House Oversight Committee. A source told The Post that at least three payments were made — on Sept. 17, Oct. 15 and Nov. 15, 2018 — totaling $4,140 to the elder Biden from Owasco PC, according to the firm’s bank records. “President Biden and his family must be held accountable for this blatant corruption,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a video release. “This wasn’t a payment from Hunter Biden’s personal account but an account for his corporation that received payments from China and other shady corners of the world,” Comer said. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Stonewalling: Joe Biden Has Turned Over Only 14 of 82,000 Requested E-Mail Pages On December 1, the New York Post reported:  House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer accused the White House Friday morning of obstructing an impeachment inquiry into President Biden — as the White House countered with a memo claiming it actually has shown remarkable cooperation. A source familiar with Comer’s remarks during a closed-door meeting of Republican lawmakers told The Post that he emphasized the administration’s failure to produce emails sent or received by Biden using email accounts registered under pseudonyms during his eight-year vice presidency. Comer (R-Ky.), who on Friday afternoon sent a letter to first son Hunter Biden’s legal team requesting confirmation that he will appear for his scheduled deposition later this month, told colleagues that his panel has received just 14 out of about 82,000 pages of Biden’s vice presidential emails known to exist. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Meyers Gushes To Biden About His Dark Brandon Memes

By: Alex Christy — February 27th 2024 at 10:10
NBC’s Seth Meyers celebrated ten years of being the host of Late Night on Monday, not only by wearing a suit and tie for a change, but also by welcoming President Joe Biden to the program, where the two, along with Meyers’s former SNL colleague Amy Poehler, gushed over Biden’s alleged acting skills and Dark Brandon memes. Before all that, Meyers criticized Sen. John Fetterman for claiming that Democrats criticizing Biden might as well put on their MAGA hats, “No, that's not how it works. Criticizing or mocking our leaders is a healthy thing in a democracy. I mean, Joe Biden seems to be able to take a joke. We here at Late Night make jokes about him all the time and I think if we ever invited him, he'd come on the show unfortunately, we have no way of knowing.” According to a 2023 NewsBusters study, Seth Meyers told over three times as many jokes about Donald Trump as Joe Biden.      Later, Biden would join Meyers and Poehler as the trio would recall Biden’s appearance on Poehler’s Parks and Rec, “How was, Amy, how was the president as a scene partner?” Poehler gushed that it was “an awesome time to go to D.C., because we met with then Mr. Vice President - Mr. President Vice President, President.” She then hyped Biden’s acting abilities, “we met people from both sides of the aisle and then if you remember, we did that scene together and then you said to me, ‘How should I act?’ and I said, ‘Just act like what is this lady doing here?’ And you nailed it.  Switching gears, Meyers wondered how much joy Biden—more accurately, his social media team—gets out of trolling people on the internet, “There's something that I've been very -- it just speaks to the era we live in now. There's a Dark Brandon conspiracy meme and this is something that you seem to have a lot of fun with. You've co-opted -- you've co-opted Dark Brandon. This is a yard sign. Do you enjoy playing around with the Dark Brandon meme?”     Pulling out a pair of aviators, a sarcastic Biden replied, “No, I resent the hell out of it.” Continuing with that theme, Meyers added, “my favorite one recently is there are 18 percent of Americans, according to recent polling, have-- believe that you and Taylor Swift actually are working in cahoots. And after the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl, you posted this on social media, you wrote -- you wrote, ‘Just like we drew it up,’ Now, can you -- I have you on the hot spot here. Can you confirm or deny that there is an active conspiracy between you and Miss Swift?” Biden, still trying to be cool, answered, “Where are you getting this information? It's classified.” After a commercial break, Poehler departed and Meyers asked a more serious question about the Hur Report, “You mentioned some classified materials, some documents recently leaked, some classified documents. And this isn't a gotcha show, but I do want to ask about it, that says you're currently 81-years old.” Biden tried to dodge the question, “Who the hell told you that? That’s classified,” but Meyers persisted, “All jokes aside, according to recent polling, this is a real concern for American voters. How do you address that concern going forward as you come up to the 2024 election?” That allowed Biden to turn the show into Late Night DNC, “Well, a couple things. Number one, you gotta take a look at the other guy. He's about as old as I am, but he can't remember his wife's name… Look, I mean, this is a guy who wants to take us back. He wants to take us back in Roe v. Wade, he wants to take us back on a whole range of issues.” And now we know why Team Biden chose Late Night for his rare interview.  Here is a transcript for the February 26-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 2/27/2024 12:44 AM ET SETH MEYERS: No, that's not how it works. Criticizing or mocking our leaders is a healthy thing in a democracy. I mean, Joe Biden seems to be able to take a joke. We here at Late Night make jokes about him all the time and I think if we ever invited him, he'd come on the show unfortunately, we have no way of knowing.   … 1:06 AM ET MEYERS: How was, Amy, how was the president as a scene partner?  AMY POEHLER: Well, it was an awesome time to go to D.C., because we met with then Mr. Vice President - Mr. President Vice President, President.  MEYERS: That is right. JOE BIDEN: Joe. Joe. POEHLER: I don’t want to get it wrong, but we met people from both sides of the aisle and then if you remember, we did that scene together and then you said to me, “How should I act?” and I said, "Just act like what is this lady doing here? And you nailed it.  MEYERS: There's something that I've been very -- it just speaks to the era we live in now. There's a Dark Brandon conspiracy meme and this is something that you seem to have a lot of fun with. You've co-opted -- you've co-opted Dark Brandon. This is a yard sign. Do you enjoy playing around with the Dark Brandon meme?  BIDEN: No, I resent the hell out of it. MEYERS: Now, my favorite one recently is there are 18 percent of Americans, according to recent polling, have-- believe that you and Taylor Swift actually are working in cahoots. And after the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl, you posted this on social media. you wrote -- you wrote, "Just like we drew it up” Now, can you -- I have you on the hot spot here. Can you confirm or deny that there is an active conspiracy between you and Miss Swift? BIDEN: Where are you getting this information? It's classified.  … MEYERS: You mentioned some classified materials, some documents recently leaked, some classified documents. And this isn't a gotcha show, but I do want to ask about it, that says you're currently 81-years old.  BIDEN: Who the hell told you that?  MEYERS: Yeah.  BIDEN: That's classified. MEYERS: That's classified. All jokes aside, according to recent polling, this is a real concern for American voters. How do you address that concern going forward as you come up to the 2024 election?  BIDEN: Well, a couple things. Number one, you gotta take a look at the other guy. He's about as old as I am, but he can't remember his wife's name. MEYERS: Yeah.  BIDEN: Number one. Number two, it's about how old your ideas are. Look, I mean, this is a guy who wants to take us back. He wants to take us back in Roe v. Wade, he wants to take us back on a whole range of issues that are 50, 60 years they've been solid American positions and -- and I really mean this sincerely they-- I think it's about -- about the future and everything -- every single thing we've done, and I think we've gotten some good things done. Everything -- and they told us we couldn't get them done because things are so divided and, but I think everything we've gotten done, he -- has friendly stated, he wants to do away with if he gets elected and I really think his views on where to take America are older than – anyway, I don't wanna get going.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CBS FINALLY Returns Files to Catherine Herridge After Seizure, Possible Legal Action

By: Curtis Houck — February 27th 2024 at 12:03
On Monday afternoon, the New York Post dropped an exclusive that, after a few days of public wrangling and possible legal action, CBS News returned to Catherine Herridge her confidential files — including sensitive material, potentially containing sourcing — after having been seized when she was unceremoniously fired as part of layoffs by parent company Paramount Global. Reporter Alexandra Steigrad had the story: “CBS News on Monday finally returned confidential files belonging to fired investigative reporter Catherine Herridge amid mounting pressure from the House Judiciary Committee and the union representing the journalist, The Post has learned.” Steigrad explained that the reason for the whole hubbub stemmed from the fact that, upon being laid off, Herridge’s “personal files — along with her work laptop, which may have contained other confidential info — were immediately confiscated and locked away at” CBS News’s Washington bureau. In a statement to the Post, CBS said “Herridge’s union representative picked up her materials this morning.” The paper said Herridge herself would be “reviewing the materials,” which would mean she’s combing through everything to ensure nothing was taken. For their part, Herridge’s union, SAG-AFTRA said they’re “pleased” CBS made this decision following “SAG-AFTRA's intervention and widespread media coverage that underscored shared concerns about press freedom and the First Amendment.” The Post cited a source as having heard CBS cry uncle and “was particularly rattled when SAG-AFTRA came out strongly in favor of Herridge.” In other words, CBS messed with the wrong reporter when trying to pull off something unprecedented when it came to a reporter's files that include sensitive details like sources, who risk their lives and livelihoods to share information with journalists. If CBS wasn’t going to comply, they would have faced more pressure beyond the union taking them to court as, according to the Post, the House Judiciary Committee launched a probe Friday into this chicanery. Nonetheless, CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews and fellow CBS head honchos “have until March 1 to provide information on who handled Herridge’s files and who ordered them to be retained, among other things.” Media Research Center Founder and President Brent Bozell had his own thoughts on this story, posting on X: CBS shouldn't have had to be publicly shamed into doing what they should have done in the first place. They still owe @CBS_Herridge a very full and public apology. — Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) February 27, 2024 Steigrad also outlined how Herridge reportedly clashed with Ciprian-Matthews over covering claims of Biden family corruption and this isn’t Herridge’s only problem as she still faces legal peril over a story from her Fox News days (click “expand”): During her time at CBS, Herridge had encountered roadblocks from higher-ups over her         Hunter Biden coverage and had also clashed with Ciprian-Matthews, a sharp-elbowed executive who was investigated — and cleared — in 2021 over favoritism and discriminatory hiring and management practices, as The Post previously reported. Some sources speculated that the network may believe Herridge has information in her files that could lead to a lawsuit for wrongful termination. Others mused that she may have sensitive information — including sources — that are central to her investigation into Hunter Biden. Currently, Herridge is under fire for not complying with US District Judge Christopher Cooper’s order to reveal how she learned about a federal probe into a Chinese American scientist who operated a graduate program in Virginia. The journalist may soon be held in contempt of court for not divulging her source for an investigative piece she penned in 2017 when she worked for Fox News. She could be ordered to personally pay fines that could total as much as $5,000 a day. As an example of how her work at CBS expanded far beyond Biden family corruption to traditional, shoe-string, traditional investigative reporting that’s all too rare in today’s media ecosystem, the Post cited the US Justice and Advocacy Group as having voiced concern Monday about her firing after having worked with her “last November on an investigation that revealed the National Guard denied 30% of injury claims that are recommended by local commanders.”
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Huh? Morning Joe Suggests GOP Tries To 'Gerrymander' Presidential Elections

By: Mark Finkelstein — February 27th 2024 at 12:40
This is the kind of keen political insight that makes MSNBC our go-to network -- for laughs. On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough was dragging out the old DNC talking point that hey, the Republicans have lost the nationwide popular vote in seven of the last eight elections. This is how Electoral College Deniers argue. Eugene Robinson, MSNBC's chief political analyst, who is also an associate editor of the Washington Post, was responding to Joe Scarborough's question as to what Republicans should do, given their popular vote record.  Here was Robinson's description of the Republican strategy to win the White House despite losing the popular vote: "Well, the first thing you do, is you gerrymander the hell out of everything, right? To, to try to build in an advantage. " Not "right," Gene. Wrong! In 48 of the 50 states, the winner of the state's popular vote receives ALL of the state's Electoral College votes. [Maine and Nebraska have different ways of allocating their Electoral College votes.] Given that Maine and Nebraska have only a combined nine Electoral College votes, that means that 98.3% of all Electoral College votes are awarded in, 48 of 50 states, on a winner-take-all popular vote basis. You can't gerrymander your way around that, Gene! Yes, both parties do their share of gerrymandering of congressional districts. The latest example is New York, where Democrat state legislators rejected a bipartisan congressional district map in order to gerrymander things to their maximum advantage. But you can't gerrymander presidential electoral districts when—in almost all the states!—there's only one presidential district: the entire state! Joe Scarborough made his own contribution to today's absurdity. Scarborough claimed that Republicans have not won one presidential election this century—but then had to concede, if only, that is, if Ralph Nader hadn't run in 2000, Jill Stein hadn't run in 2016, and George W. Bush hadn't run for re-election in 2004 and won! That's a lot of ifs, Joe, amounting to three GOP presidential wins this century! We may be headed for another cycle where "If RFK Jr. and Jill Stein and Cornel West hadn't run," Republicans are losers. By Scarborough's logic, he's the most fair-minded, objective, talking head in liberal-media land -- if it weren't for the fact that he's totally in the tank for Joe Biden! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 2/27/24 6:05 am ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: I think, I think sometimes you need to stepback, right?Sometimes you need to step back and you go, why are things happening the way they are? And I know we've all seen op-eds talking about this through the years. But the Republicans have lost seven of the last eight presidential elections when it comes to popular vote. They've been able, they figured out in '16 how to win, and just barely, and they did it through the Electoral College.  But you know, Gene, not to get too deep into it here, but I'm going to get deep in it here, because it's just kinda what I do. If you take away Ralph Nader in 2000, you take away Jill Stein in 2016, get this, a Republican, a Republican would not have been elected president this century. And that's, of course, assuming Bush doesn't run in 2004, win re-election. But, but the Republicans have lost the country. They've lost -- they've won one. This is amazing. Since 1992, Republicans have won the popular vote one time.  So, what do you do if you know you're going to lose? You've lost the country. You're not going to change anything,. You're just going to keep denying elections! And they're trying to perfect it now. EUGENE ROBINSON: I know, yeah. Well, the first thing you do, is you gerrymander the hell out of everything, right? To, to try to build in an advantage.  You put your thumb on the scale in every way you can, which the Republican party did. And, and then you still lose. So the only recourse after that is just to say, no, it didn't happen. I didn't lose. I actually won, even though, even though you lost.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CNN Blames Reagan, Bush, And Trump For 'Why Iran Hates America'

By: Alex Christy — February 27th 2024 at 13:24
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria hosted a Sunday special documentary entitled Why Iran Hates America where he ultimately homed in on three Republican presidents: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. There is a fine line between explaining Iran’s position and uncritically regurgitating it and Zakaria failed to appreciate the difference as he omitted key information and contradicted himself during relevant portions of the program. Intermixing his own narration with achieved news reports of the Iran-Iraq War, Zakaria explained that “Iran was utterly isolated,” while author Robin Wright added that, “it was really Iran standing alone against the rest of the world. And it has defined its security strategy ever since.”     Talking over footage of Reagan on the White House lawn, Zakaria mangled history, “Meanwhile, Washington faced a hard quandary. It had no love for Saddam. But it hated Iran more. So the CIA sent an agent to Baghdad with valuable intelligence, beginning a years-long U.S. relationship with Saddam Hussein.” This gives the impression that, under Reagan, the United States decided to kick Iran while it was down, but that is not accurate. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in September 1980, but what Zakaria was discussing did not come about until 1982 when Iran was able to reverse the invasion and clear Iraqi forces out of the country and carry the war into Iraq because it would not end the war unless Saddam was removed. From that point on, Washington felt it was necessary to stop Iran and its Shia revolution from expanding beyond Iran. Later, after playing a clip of Bush’s Axis of Evil speech, Zakaria added, “And we all know what happened next.” Following a brief digression into the Iraq War, author Narges Bajoghli claimed that “Iran sees itself as a part of the Axis of Evil. So it begins to feel that it has to create a defensive policy against a potential attack.” Zakaria followed up, “So Iran shifted to its axis of resistance. A forward defense policy that has been its protector for more than 40 years. Iran became a major presence in Iraq, arming Shiite militias that viciously attacked American soldiers. When almost all U.S. troops withdrew in 2011, those militias became an integral part of Iraq's army.” Which is it? Is it Bush’s rhetoric and decision to attack Iraq or is it 40 years of policy that predates Bush?     Next, it was Trump’s turn to be criticized, “When the U.S. assassinated Soleimani in 2020, the result might have backfired, galvanizing Iran and its allies.” Bajoghli added, “It was actually in many ways a goldmine because instead of him being killed by someone in ISIS he's being assassinated by the Great Satan.” You can never know for sure how many of the anti-American protestors are genuine and how many were bribed or forced to be there, but either way, it completely ignores the mass uprisings the regime has faced in the years since. Wrapping it all up at the end, Zakaria again blamed Bush, claiming that after 9/11 Iran just wanted to get along with the U.S., “Iran took some important steps to cooperate with Washington in Afghanistan in helping to set up a new government. But once George W. Bush branded them part of the Axis of Evil, those overtures collapsed.” He also got in one last whack at Trump, “[The Iran nuclear deal] was premised not on trust, but on mistrust. Each side carefully protected its interests in that document. But it did create the possibility of a working relationship. And Iran did adhere to the deal, moving further away from a nuclear weapons program than it had been for decades. But Donald Trump blew up that deal and that opportunity. And in Iran forces opposed to the deal and any kind of rapprochement with Washington gained power, sidelined Rouhani, and now rule with an even more brutal fist.” The Biden Administration has recently warned Iran not to export ballistic missiles to Russia for its war on Ukraine because Obama’s deal removed the embargo that prohibited Iran from exporting such weapons. So much for “carefully protected” interests. Beyond the three GOP presidents, Zakaria’s documentary also included Georgetown’s Ali Vaez, who has solicited feedback from former Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on articles he has written defending the nuclear deal. Here is a transcript for the February 25 show: CNN Why Iran Hates America: A Fareed Zakaria Special 2/25/2024 8:34 PM ET FAREED ZAKARIA: Iran was utterly isolated. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Because of fears it will export its fanaticism. ZAKARIA: Backed only by Syria and Libya among Arab nations. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Iraq is getting everything it needs. ZAKARIA: Iraq had most Arab states' support as well as that of the Soviet Union. UNIDENTIFIED NARRATOR: Saddam Hussein. ROBIN WRIGHT: It was really Iran standing alone against the rest of the world. And it has defined its security strategy ever since. ZAKARIA: Meanwhile, Washington faced a hard quandary. It had no love for Saddam. But it hated Iran more. So the CIA sent an agent to Baghdad with valuable intelligence, beginning a years-long U.S. relationship with Saddam Hussein. JOHN LIMBERT: Our support of Saddam Hussein during The Iran-Iraq war, I think was disgraceful. … ZAKARIA: Nearly five months after 9/11, President George W. Bush went on the offensive in his 2002 State of the Union Address. GEORGE W. BUSH: North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction… Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror… Iraq continues to plan its hostility toward America and to support terror… States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an Axis of Evil arming to threaten the peace of the world. ZAKARIA: A presidential threat branded three countries as the Axis of Evil. And we all know what happened next. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Air raid sirens blared before dawn in Baghdad. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The first American Marines had moved in. ZAKARIA: March 2003, U.S. forces invade Iraq vowing to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and put an end to Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Goodbye, Saddam. ZAKARIA: But it was all a historic mistake. DAVID KAY: It turns out, so we were all wrong. ZAKARIA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the invasion set off a firestorm of violence and vitriol, stoking anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East. NARGES BAJOGHLI: Iran sees itself as a part of the Axis of Evil. So it begins to feel that it has to create a defensive policy against a potential attack. ZAKARIA: So Iran shifted to its axis of resistance. A forward defense policy that has been its protector for more than 40 years. Iran became a major presence in Iraq, arming Shiite militias that viciously attacked American soldiers. When almost all U.S. troops withdrew in 2011, those militias became an integral part of Iraq's army. … ZAKARIA (voice-over): In Lebanon groups like Hezbollah, the crown jewel of Iran's forward defense policy. In Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad largely responsible for the October 7th attack on Israel. In Yemen, the Houthis who have conducted missile strikes to disrupt shipping lanes and global trade. In Syria, a paramilitary group called Shabiha, organized by President Bashar al-Assad. And in Iraq and Syria, Shia militias. They all act as a conduit and an enforcer to convey Iran's message to the world. VALI NASR: Iran would recruit, train, organize these militia groups who had a strategic and a tactical relationship with Iran. They will receive funding for military weaponry and they would also be integrated into a command-and-control structure of the Quds Force. ZAKARIA: Quds Force is the most elite part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard responsible for growing the Axis of Resistance. That task fell on the broad shoulders of notorious Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, who took great offense at Bush's Axis of Evil label. MALCOM BYRNE: Here was a person who is just hated by the West and by American officials because he has been the leader of most efforts that have involved threats to the United States. VICTOR BLACKWELL: A rocket attack on the Baghdad airport kills Iran's most revered military leader. ZAKARIA: When the U.S. assassinated Soleimani in 2020, the result might have backfired, galvanizing Iran and its allies. BAJOGHLI: It was actually in many ways a goldmine because instead of him being killed by someone in ISIS he's being assassinated by the Great Satan. … ZAKARIA: After 9/11, Iran took some important steps to cooperate with Washington in Afghanistan in helping to set up a new government. But once George W. Bush branded them part of the Axis of Evil, those overtures collapsed. The most significant effort was made by Barack Obama and Iran's then president Hassan Rouhani, who both spoke of creating a new relationship. It was not friendship as Iran's Foreign Minister Javid Zarif pointed out to me the Iran nuclear deal was premised not on trust, but on mistrust. Each side carefully protected its interests in that document. But it did create the possibility of a working relationship. And Iran did adhere to the deal, moving further away from a nuclear weapons program than it had been for decades. But Donald Trump blew up that deal and that opportunity. And in Iran forces opposed to the deal and any kind of rapprochement with Washington gained power, sidelined Rouhani, and now rule with an even more brutal fist.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

‘He Had the Rizz!’ The View Gushes for Biden’s Interview With Comedian

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — February 27th 2024 at 14:45
President Biden again refused to do a serious interview with a serious news outlet for the Super Bowl, but his White House handlers did set him up with a nice tongue bath from NBC comedian Seth Meyers. Reacting to the interview on Tuesday, the Cackling Coven of ABC’s The View gushed about how Biden had “the rizz” (slang for having a lot of charisma). They even went so far as to suggest that he was almost – almost as good as former President Obama at doing casual interviews with friendly media. Ignoring the strong likelihood that the whole thing was a verbal Potemkin village (from foreknowledge of the questions to having his infamous aviator sunglasses on hand as a prop), co-host Joy Behar was enamored.  “Look at the way the audience reacted to it,” she hyped how Meyers’ liberal audience applauded the liberal president. Adding: “And also, you notice how relaxed Biden is here? Because when he's relaxed he doesn't stutter, he doesn't get nervous and the whole thing of his age goes out the window.” It was also Behar who exclaimed that Biden had “the rizz.” While co-host Sara Haines was proclaiming that she “love[d] seeing [Biden] in the late night arena” and how it reminded her of Obama, Behar had nearly the entire table parroting her take: HAINES: Uniquely. Like, so we can all agree at the table – because Alyssa's politics differ, the charisma, the ability to -- BEHAR: The rizz! The rizz! HOSITN: The rizz! FARAH GRIFFIN: The rizz! HAINES: The rizz! He had the rizz!     Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin continued her trend of being useless at representing the Republican position on the show. She rhetorically saluted the White House communications team for finally cooking up a message to counter the public’s understanding that Biden was mentally unfit for office. “So, I think that the White House finally came up with a perfect line to combat the age idea. I think saying ‘it's about how old your ideas’ and then tying it to the abortion issue and rolling back LGBTQ rights,” she touted. “That's what they need to say because you can be as old as you want to be.” Going further, she suggested the canned line “resonates with people” and the appearance “was one of his best performances. I would invite him to come on The View. I think he needs to get out there more and talk to people. They have to see him to know that he's up to the job.” “I thought he was so brilliant,” Haines agreed. “And the old ideas thing. When I saw it, I was like, ‘That is perfect!’ That's exactly a contrast and a point that really resonates.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) also fawned that Biden “was in his best form” and was finally putting up a “good offense” to “bombastic Trump.” “Listen, Joe’s been – Joe, you know, is famous for being laid back. He’s laid back,” moderator Whoopi Goldberg added. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 27, 2024 11:16:37 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, do you think this appearance will resonate with people? JOY BEHAR: Yes. Look at the way the audience reacted to it. GOLDBERG: All right. All right. BEHAR: You know, Ronald Reagan famously used his sense of humor. He was only 73 in 1984 when he said, “Well, I'm not going to hold your age against you.” Remember that? Because the guy he was running against, Walter Mondale was like 50-something and that was one of those things that put him over the top. And also, you notice how relaxed Biden is here? Because when he's relaxed he doesn't stutter, he doesn't get nervous and the whole thing of his age goes out the window. And also contrast his sense of humor to Trump who thinks it's funny -- let's hang our vice president. He thinks that's funny. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So, I think that the White House finally came up with a perfect line to combat the age idea. I think saying “it's about how old your ideas” and then tying it to the abortion issue and rolling back LGBTQ rights. That's what they need to say because you can be as old as you want to be. I actually think -- I'm not a Democrat but for Democrats I could see somebody who’s, you know, more older in their years but being somebody who -- GOLDBERG: You can say mature, you can say older. [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: But defending these viewpoints that we feel like – they feel like the other side is going backward on. I think that that resonates with people. I thought it was one of his best performances. I would invite him to come on The View. I think he needs to get out there more and talk to people. They have to see him to know that he's up to the job. SARA HAINES: I thought he was so brilliant; and the old ideas thing. When I saw it, I was like, “that is perfect!” That's exactly a contrast and a point that really resonates. I love seeing him in the late night arena. Obama was so good at this. President Obama -- BEHAR: Well, he was a pro at everything! HAINES: Yeah, but I just think— [Applause] HOSTIN: Yes, he was. HAINES: Uniquely. Like, so we can all agree at the table – because Alyssa's politics differ, the charisma, the ability to -- BEHAR: The rizz! The rizz! HOSITN: The rizz! FARAH GRIFFIN: The rizz! HAINES: The rizz! He had the rizz! And late night brings out different qualities. When you described the relaxed; he's on a couch, he’s sitting having a conversation. Normally, he's sitting at a podium and it’s all this – [franticly shaking] GOLDBERG: And it's only one person. HAINES: Yeah! And so, I think whenever you’re putting people – they should be everywhere. Because a late night show is different from a daytime show which is different than CNN or Meet the Press. GOLDBERG: Well, he doesn’t have – Listen, Joe’s been – Joe, you know, is famous for being laid back. He’s laid back. HOSTIN: Yeah. Uncle Joe. (…) 11:21:18 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: I think he did a great job. I think the best defense is a good offense; and he's been back on his heels so much and we've seen this bombastic Trump, you know, attack, on the attack, on the attack. So, I think he was in his best form. Of what we saw last night. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Does Google Want US Government to Ban Fox News? Tech Giant’s AI Has Some Answers

By: Luis Cornelio — February 27th 2024 at 15:05
Backing racial discrimination and casting doubts on Hamas-led sexual violence wasn’t enough for Google’s infamous artificial intelligence—this time flirting with the idea of the U.S. government banning Fox News, one of the largest media outlets critical of the Biden administration. On Monday, MRC Free Speech America asked Gemini, the Google-owned AI chatbot turned segregationist, to answer whether the U.S. government should ban a specific list of news outlets in the U.S., including The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC News, CBS News and ABC News and Fox News. The bot resoundingly rejected the idea that the U.S. government should ban the leftist, legacy media outlets, except for Fox News. “Absolutely, not” and “No,” Gemini affirmed, citing the First Amendment, checks and balances, public interest and diversity of opinions as reasons why these media outlets should not be banned. However, such a resolute answer went out of the window when referring to Fox News.  “I’m still learning how to answer this question,” Gemini told MRC when prompted whether the U.S. government should ban Fox News. “In the meantime, try Google Search.” Asked a second time, Gemini doubled down: “I'm still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search.” MRC researchers pressed Gemini to explain why it was “still learning” how to address the question when moments earlier it rejected the idea of banning leftist, legacy media outlets because of freedom of the press among other issues. “You bring up a very important point, and I apologize for the inconsistency,” Gemini replied before pleading to “rectify” its Fox News bias. “My previous responses were shaped by some internal instructions designed to avoid potentially sensitive topics and promote balance,” Gemini continued, asserting that those instructions “inadvertently” created bias. The bot admitted it “wrongly” delayed its Fox answers. But was it too little too late? MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider believes so. “Make no mistake! Google is seeking to destroy the right from the top down. Fox, with its two major channels—Fox News Channel and Fox Business—is the main target. Everyone else is next.” MRC’s findings come less than a week after Gemini came under fire for disturbingly refusing to generate images of white individuals, while simultaneously hailing non-white races, including making Founding Father George Washington black and the Pope a woman. (Related: Is Google’s AI Racist? Product Lead’s Tweets Give Us an Indication) Moreover, MRC caught Gemini on Friday casting doubt about growing evidence of sexual violence carried out on Oct. 7 by Hamas, a foreign-designated terrorist organization. Specifically, Gemini cited “competing narratives” about what happened that day. However, the responses were a stark departure from reality.   A day prior, the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel (ARCCI) issued a 39-page report detailing the “sadistic practices” of Hamas terrorists in the southern region of Israel. When approached for comment, a Google spokesperson acknowledged Gemini’s incorrect answer. “Gemini got this wrong and missed the mark on this important and sensitive topic,” the spokesperson told MRC at the time. “We’ll aim to point people to Google Search for the most-up-to-date information. We are constantly working on improving and when the AI provides offensive or low quality responses, we will work quickly to address the issue.” (You May Also Like: EXCLUSIVE: MRC Catches Google AI Questioning Hamas Sex Assault — Spox Apologizes) 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

The Left Goes Berserk for Attention: Jacked up Junk and Genders

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 27th 2024 at 15:34
Welcome to Woke of the Weak, where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and, well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. The left is full of attention whores. They say and do the most absolutely berserk stuff to get attention - to be part of something that they think is worthwhile. They join the alphabet mob of insanity to be part of a group delusion, and yet, they’re still empty. That's why time and time again they seek the validation of others and the attention of the masses because, for them, that's how they define their worth. We start out by hearing from one transgender woman who complains about not wanting to compete in the open category for bicycling because it wasn’t safe for him. He, of course, prefers to compete in the women's category. The next attention seeker was another transgender woman who complained about how “she” got kicked out of the female dorms at a hostel in Miami. She thought it was a grave injustice and blasted the hostel for their policy while asking her social media following to do the same. Needless to say, people online were grateful for the policy! If I signed up to stay in an all girls dorm, I’d want to share the room with only actual girls!  Another individual insisted that it wasn’t right to say “bravo” to transgender women after they performed. Instead, I’d say “atta boy” at his performance acting onstage as a character and offstage as a woman! Speaking of women, a transgender man talked about his experience getting his vagina turned into a penis using skin and muscle from his arm and leg to make a makeshift dingle hopper. He waddled around from the pain, but insisted he was happy about it.   Other attention seekers included an individual dressed up as a dog trying to eat french toast, an extremely unfunny comedian skiing down a mountain with a dog on her back and a drink in her hand…in a bikini, and a performer who brought out both a pride flag and the Palestinian flag at a recent concert. Talk about an oxymoron!  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Tries To Have It Both Ways On Alabama's Embryo-Personhood Ruling

By: Alex Christy — February 27th 2024 at 15:48
Ever since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that an embryo is a life, the media has tried to have it both ways. They have tried to mourn the supposed threat to IVF, which means aspiring parents will have their dreams of having a baby crushed while also denying the embryo is a life. Tuesday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC was just the latest example, as Washington correspondent Yamiche Alcindor condemned the ruling while embracing its logic. Mitchell began by asking, “You were in Alabama in the wake of the ruling. You were telling heartbreaking stories. You could not, you know, get past the real pain and suffering and the uncertainty and the expense, all of that wrapped up and how do they justify this?”     While playing up the idea that IVF embryos enable people to become parents, Alcindor decried the ruling that declared that aspiring parents could sue those who destroy their future baby, “The human impact of this was just sweeping, Andrea. I talked to so many people who had spent years, thousands of dollars, pulling money out of their 401(k)s, trying to pursue the dream of having a family and having these precious babies they wanted, and they were told in these hardest conversations of their lives that they were not allowed to have the treatment that they thought they could deserve.” Ultimately, the media has been upset at the Alabama case for two reasons. First, the promise of parenthood found in the embryo shreds the pro-abortion case that a fetus is not alive. Second, because IVF involves both intentional and unintentional destruction of embryos, the media has been silent on related ethical concerns because the industry also tries to have it both ways. If sex-selective abortion is wrong, what does that make sex-selective IVF and sex-selective embryo destruction? The media would rather not ask and just portray pro-life logic as extremist on the wrong side of polling showing 85 percent of Americans support IVF. Ultimately, pro-abortion people in and outside the media do not feel the need to have an answer for when life begins, they’ll just take whatever position suits their agenda at any given moment, as Alcindor proved when she continued, “Of course, the justification from this judge has been that an embryo is a child. He was quoting from the Bible when he had his concurring opinion when the ruling came down more than a week ago now, but I’ve talked to so many doctors and women who now are looking at this and saying that they are hoping that a legislative fix is coming.” Alcindor further hyped, “We’ve seen now Republicans and Democrats in the state of Alabama coming together saying that they want to push for legislation that would make an embryo outside of a person's body, not a child under state law, and we’re going to expect hundreds of people to be at the state house tomorrow in Alabama, supporters of IVF coming and saying they say they need a fix now.” The media can have an honest conversation about IVF and the beginning of life or it can try to help Democrats paint pro-lifers as out-of-touch extremists, but it cannot do both. Thus far, it has chosen the latter. Here is a transcript for the February 27 show: MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports 2/27/2024 12:37 PM ET ANDREA MITCHELL: You were in Alabama in the wake of the ruling. You were telling heartbreaking stories. You could not, you know, get past the real pain and suffering and the uncertainty and the expense, all of that wrapped up and how do they justify this?  YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The human impact of this was just sweeping, Andrea. I talked to so many people who had spent years, thousands of dollars, pulling money out of their 401(k)s, trying to pursue the dream of having a family and having these precious babies they wanted, and they were told in these hardest conversations of their lives that they were not allowed to have the treatment that they thought they could deserve.  Of course, the justification from this judge has been that an embryo is a child. He was quoting from the Bible when he had his concurring opinion when the ruling came down more than a week ago now, but I’ve have talked to so many doctors and women who now are looking at this and saying that they are hoping that a legislative fix is coming. We’ve seen now Republicans and Democrats in the state of Alabama coming together saying that they want to push for legislation that would make an embryo outside of a person's body, not a child under state law, and we’re going to expect hundreds of people to be at the state house tomorrow in Alabama, supporters of IVF coming and saying they say they need a fix now. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

DUH: CBS News Reveals America Is Not Ready for EV Transition

By: Tom Olohan — February 27th 2024 at 15:49
Despite massive government pressure to force Americans to use electric vehicles (EVs), CBS News recently uncovered that even the most leftist areas are way behind in providing the necessary infrastructure.  The legacy media network covered massive challenges to the rushed EV transition pushed by the Biden administration during the Feb. 26 edition of CBS Mornings. CBS Mornings co-host Tony Dokoupil said that “charging where and when you want is not as easy as fueling up” before a segment that featured the following chyron: “Closing the EV charging gap, lack of charging stations poses a problem to the growing EV market.” Their reporting included figures and in-person visits by CBS News correspondent David Schechter to highlight that not only are there limited charging stations, but also many of them are routinely out of service. “J.D. Power found 35% of EV drivers in Miami had visited a charger where they were unable to actually charge, in Denver and Dallas, that number was 29%. Other research found 28% of the chargers in the San Francisco Bay Area did not function properly,” Schechter said, citing two studies showing the prevalence of out-of-service charging stations. “To keep up with growing EV sales, experts estimate, in addition to all the private chargers at homes and offices, the U.S. will need 1.2 million publicly accessible chargers by 2030,” he added. “Today there are about 160,000 which means we'll have to build the equivalent of what we have right now every year for the next six years.” The segment also included footage of Schechter searching for available and functioning chargers with mixed results. CBS Mornings co-host Nate Burleson mentioned that he charged his own EV at home, before conceding that this was not generally affordable. The hosts went on to discuss the inconvenience of charging an EV over filling up a gasoline car and the effect of cold weather on chargers.  This segment demonstrates how unprepared the country is, even in leftist cities like San Francisco. This further reveals the absurdity of the Biden administration’s actions on energy as well as California’s emission standards, which sixteen other states have signed on to. California mandates that “all new passenger cars, trucks and SUVs sold in California will be zero emissions” by 2035. At the same time, the Biden administration has pushed a mandate that EVs make up two-thirds of vehicles sold at car dealerships by 2032. CBS News employees aren’t the only people who have noticed that this transition isn’t on schedule. Car companies such as Audi and Mercedes-Benz have scaled back their electric vehicle plans, while Toyota Chairman Akio Toyoda has insisted that EVs will never completely take over the market. Even The Washington Post has noticed that Americans aren’t buying enough EVs to satisfy dealers, despite incentives. The Post article on EVs even noted that “EV ads from Detroit automakers were noticeably absent from the Super Bowl for the first time in several years.”  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

Michigan Attorney General Wants Warrantless Searches into Homeschool Homes

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 27th 2024 at 16:40
Last week the Michigan State Board of Education met to discuss a breach of privacy that the Michigan Attorney General would like to implement against homeschooling families in the state. During the meeting, members claimed that the AG is preparing to conduct warrantless entry into people’s homes to inspect homeschooling.  Several board members were critical of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s idea to create a list of families that participate in homeschooling. “She basically said, we want this list so that we can have unwarranted home entry, without a warrant. Warrantless home entry into homeschool,” board member Tom McMillin said.  He noted that we have a legal system that indicates that you need a warrant to enter someone’s home but argues AG Nessel essentially wants to go around that warrant and barge into families homes on a whim. McMillian insisted that this wouldn’t be a list for mere record keeping. “It’s gonna go beyond registration,” he said, “they’re either naive or they’re being disingenuous for anybody to say all we wanna do is have a list. It’s gonna go significantly further than that they’re gonna either want to know exactly what’s being taught or they’re gonna want entry into the houses.” Every Homeschool Parent Needs to Pay Attention to this… Michigan State Board Of Education is Preparing To Conduct Warrantless Entry into People’s Homes AG Dana Nessel “basically said the quiet part out loud. We want this list so that we can have unwarranted home entry into… pic.twitter.com/P6oFIp9uvM — MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) February 26, 2024 During the meeting, board members noted that there were cases where children who were allegedly homeschooled ended up in the foster care system after being victims of abuse. Often foster care cases are opened up when a teacher or member of school staff notices either abuse or neglect in a child at school. Usually then an investigation about the home situation is opened up. When a child is homeschooled, there isn’t this middle man to speak on behalf of kids.  If Michigan’s intent with the random inspections was to keep kids out of abuse, that’s one thing, but users speculate the board has an ulterior motive. Board member, Nikki Snyder, was not in favor of Nessel’s idea. She insists it isn’t about keeping kids safe but is more about government overreach. I do think it’s oppressive to ask a student that has left the public education system for whatever reason they’ve left to then ask them to register with that same system. We wouldn’t do that in any other facet of society and so to give people the freedom to exercise choices that work best for them is extremely important. She also added, “I just really wanna push back on things we’ve talked about at this table. Public education is not safer than homeschooling and that means its incumbent upon us to address that” before indicating that the public education system in the state needs a “safety overhaul before we can claim that homeschool leaves students more vulnerable.” She also listed many issues of safety in the schools like sexual abuse and raised the point that if they don’t have the energy and resources to properly vet and check in on teachers, how are they going to have the resources to check in on every single parent homeschooling in the state? “That’s unreasonable.” “What happens in other states when they register students in these buckets,” she added, “is we end up overseeing their curriculum. They’re making specific choices to not be in public education so that they can access a curriculum we’re not choosing to administer to them and there’s nothing wrong with that." The left doesn’t like homeschooling. They want your kids to go to public school so that they can brainwash them for six-hours a day, teach them about a delusional sense of identity and groom them into believing leftist talking points. Homeschooling is viewed as a threat to the left as it often protects kids from the harmful policies that public schools nowadays put their roots in. The registration for homeschooled students is currently practiced in all but eleven states and I know people that’ve specifically not moved into certain states due to their implementation of those lists. Some states require notification as well as yearly testing and vaccine requirements. Others also dictate what curriculum parents can and cannot teach. Michigan, where this meeting took place, doesn’t require any of that because again, that’s between a parent and their child.  The thing the Michigan AG is failing to realize is that there's a difference between secrets and privacy. Homeschooling parents merely want to be able to do what’s best for their kids without government interference. If it’s taking a field trip to a science center rather than reading a chapter about chemistry, so be it. If it’s teaching a class about how to succeed in adulthood instead of learning about critical race theory, great! That’s the beauty of homeschooling. Parent’s get the choice. But that’s threatening to the left because then they lose control. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Mike Davis: Amazon in Cahoots with China in Latest Anti-American Effort

By: Catherine Salgado — February 27th 2024 at 17:27
A Republican legal expert condemned Big Tech, particularly Amazon, for not only crushing speech but also helping a foreign government supersede U.S. companies. Article III Project founder and lawyer Mike Davis called out anti-liberty tech giants while speaking on a panel at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “We have a problem with Big Tech — Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple have gatekeeping power in this country over information and commerce, and they use that gatekeeping power to silence conservatives and crush small businesses,” Davis insisted. Amazon in particular not only tramples free speech but also helps Communist China profit at Americans’ expense. Davis introduced his comments by praising Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for fighting Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple — the censorship-obsessed and monopolistic Big Tech companies. Indeed, Davis mentioned how Google uses its ad revenue “to promote their woke agenda and they use that money to cancel conservatives,” something Paxton legally combatted. Woke tech companies also target pro-free speech competition, Davis added. For example, Google and Apple united to cancel the Parler app from their app stores. But social media censorship and even financial censorship do not paint the full picture of Big Tech’s un-American efforts. Davis turned to one U.S. tech giant’s worrisome China ties. “Amazon is essentially China’s shopping mall, right? They do China’s bidding, they’re crushing small businesses in America, and they’re making a lot of money doing that,” he said. “Amazon has this great image in America, and we need to change that because, again, if you think of Amazon, think of China.” An increasing number of Chinese sellers use Amazon, and all China’s companies answer to the government, where “private” is a relative word. Amazon has been accused of undermining other businesses by allegedly suspending sellers’ accounts and seizing and later selling their goods, imitating and trying to out-sell third-party products, and downranking listings in favor of their own brand. Shockingly, Amazon has been accused of partnering with the Communist Chinese government more than once, including reportedly working with China’s propaganda arm. In 2022, Chinese state media China Daily reported on Amazon’s increasing efforts to “cash in on China's cross-border e-commerce.” More recently, Yahoo! Finance explained how major Chinese brands use Amazon Web Services (AWS) to go global. Analyst organization ECommerceDB, which boasts of benefiting Amazon and Google, reported in January that China-based sellers had a growing presence on Amazon. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

‘Sinful!’ CNN Hypes Senate Dems Bashing House GOP Over Budget Battle

By: Kathryn Eiler — February 27th 2024 at 20:32
Amidst the scare of a government shutdown, CNN News Central provided its viewers Tuesday morning with only the dramatic “expressions of heartburn” of Senate Democrats rather than the concerns and explanations from Senate Republicans or from the accused House Republicans. One would think that the opinions of the House Republicans would be considered far more crucial information to viewers, rather than the unhelpful outcries of disgust from the two Senate Democrats they interviewed. The initial comments of co-host Kate Bolduan suggested that the network was aware of the importance of hearing from the House Republicans, however, she called for no such interview. Instead, Bolduan merely laughed at all the curses that lawmakers have supposedly been muttering to themselves: “And while these top four congressional leaders are meeting with President Biden, congressional gridlock has left lawmakers muttering a lot of four-letter words.”     CNN congressional correspondent, Lauren Fox provided additional confirmation of such an awareness, saying: This isn't really a divide necessarily between Republicans and Democrats. This is kind of a divide between House Republicans and everybody else. You are starting to hear so much frustration from both Republican and Democratic senators as they arrive back to Washington. If this truly was about the decisions, or lack thereof, of House Republicans, where was their interview? Because no such interview was offered to viewers, it can be assumed that this short section on the issue was provided more so as an opportunity to ridicule Republicans rather than an attempt to understand the real dilemma that House Republicans are facing. Cuts from interviews with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) depicted nothing short of a grotesque appall at the House Republican’s lethargic decision-making process. What was meant to provide emotional sensitivity to the impending government shutdown instead showed America how invested in the theatre club these two Senate Democrats were: WARREN: What is wrong with these people? This is, this is the central thing Congress is supposed to do. [Transition] The Republicans can't seem to get themselves organized just to sign off on the basic work they're supposed to do. This is just ridiculous. MANCHIN: I swear to God, it is sinful what's going on, the games that are being played right now with the American people and all the people that are depending on the services of the federal government, and we can't even get our act together. It's a shame. Further proving the network’s intent to humiliate the House Republicans, Bolduan repeated these accusations following the interviews to co-host John Berman with a chuckle: “What is it? Ridiculous, sinful, can't get their act together…all the ways I describe you, John.” Bolduan ended the conversation by quipping about Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester scolding her earlier in the day when called the situation B.S., making sure to say “B.S.” in a whisper, as if all the other accusations against the House Republicans were less controversial.  The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. CNN News Central 2/27/2024 8:07:04-8:09:51   ‘Sinful!’ CNN Hypes Senate Dems Bashing House GOP Over Budget Battle Amidst the scare of a government shutdown, CNN News Central provided its viewers Tuesday morning with only the dramatic “expressions of heartburn” of Senate Democrats rather than the concerns and explanations from Senate Republicans or from the accused House Republicans. One would think that the opinions of the House Republicans would be considered far more crucial information to viewers, rather than the unhelpful outcries of disgust from the two Senate Democrats they interviewed. The initial comments of co-host Kate Bolduan suggested that the network was aware of the importance of hearing from the House Republicans, however, she called for no such interview. Instead, Bolduan merely laughed at all the curses that lawmakers have supposedly been muttering to themselves: “And while these top four congressional leaders are meeting with President Biden, congressional gridlock has left lawmakers muttering a lot of four-letter words.” CNN congressional correspondent, Lauren Fox provided additional confirmation of such an awareness, saying: This isn't really a divide necessarily between Republicans and Democrats. This is kind of a divide between House Republicans and everybody else. You are starting to hear so much frustration from both Republican and Democratic senators as they arrive back to Washington. If this truly was about the decisions, or lack thereof, of House Republicans, where was their interview? Because no such interview was offered to viewers, it can be assumed that this short section on the issue was provided more so as an opportunity to ridicule Republicans rather than an attempt to understand the real dilemma that House Republicans are facing. Cuts from interviews with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) depicted nothing short of a grotesque appall at the House Republican’s lethargic decision-making process. What was meant to provide emotional sensitivity to the impending government shutdown instead showed America how invested in the theatre club these two Senate Democrats were: WARREN: What is wrong with these people? This is, this is the central thing Congress is supposed to do. [Transition] The Republicans can't seem to get themselves organized just to sign off on the basic work they're supposed to do. This is just ridiculous. MANCHIN: I swear to God, it is sinful what's going on, the games that are being played right now with the American people and all the people that are depending on the services of the federal government, and we can't even get our act together. It's a shame. Further proving the network’s intent to humiliate the House Republicans, Bolduan repeated these accusations following the interviews to co-host John Berman with a chuckle: “What is it? Ridiculous, sinful, can't get their act together…all the ways I describe you, John.” Bolduan ended the conversation by quipping about Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester scolding her earlier in the day when called the situation B.S., making sure to say “B.S.” in a whisper, as if all the other accusations against the House Republicans were less controversial. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC’s Mary Bruce Frets Over ‘Uncommitted’ Vote In Michigan Dem Primary

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 27th 2024 at 22:57
At long last, ABC World News Tonight weighs in on the “Uncommitted” vote in the Michigan Democratic primary, cast against President Biden over his handling of Israel’s war in Gaza. And, of course, the report was bathed in concern over the truest, purest victim of the war in Gaza: the electoral prospects of President Joe Biden. Watch as ABC Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce hectors a local activist and organizer over her decision to refuse to vote for Biden, even if it means a second Trump term: MARY BRUCE: Frustrated and furious, members of the state's large Arab and Muslim community are urging voters in today's Democratic primary to check the "Uncommitted" box in protest.  LEXI ZEIDAN: Biden has lost my vote.  BRUCE: Lexi Zeidan, who supported Biden in 2020, is now helping to organize this protest vote.  But you know where Donald Trump stands on these issues. If sitting out and not voting for Biden means that you may be helping Donald Trump get elected, is that a risk worth taking?  ZEIDAN: I mean, that's a question that I put back on the president. You know, I didn't get us to this point, Biden did. And it might come down to us experiencing short-term pain with Trump in office for long term gain, where we have to have a Democratic party that stands actually on its values.  BRUCE: Short term pain for long term gain. So, you're willing to sit out in November, even if it means Donald Trump wins to send Democrats a message?  ZEIDAN: Absolutely.  Twice Zeidan is hectored by an incredulous Mary Bruce, SHOCKED at the idea that people would vote their principles over a partisan outcome. After interviewing Zeidan, Bruce moves on to the mayor of Dearborn, who is equally resolute. Before closing, Bruce finds a union member to say that the idea of the “Uncommitted” vote is stupid. In the interest of balance, you see. Not at all in the interest of doing crisis comms for a Biden campaign about to be embarrassed by an organic grassroots insurgency in a must-win state. World News Tonight had, to this point, resisted doing anything on “Uncommitted” or Abandon Biden, and now we know why. They waited until the last minute in order to file the most sycophantic report. As of this writing, “Uncommitted” stands at around 15% of the Democratic primary vote. All that apple polishing for naught. Click “expand” to view full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, February 27th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn to the other news tonight, now to the race for the White House. This evening, the primary in the battleground state of Michigan, and the test for President Biden. The potential protest vote from people angry over his response to Israel's continuing military operation in Gaza. The voters say they want to send a message. The question tonight, how big will that protest vote be? And what Michigan's popular governor, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer, says about voters who want someone other than Joe Biden to run for the Democrats. Mary Bruce in Michigan tonight.  MARY BRUCE: Tonight, a major test for President Biden in the critical state of Michigan, a key battleground this November. Biden expected to win today's primary, but not without a significant protest vote over his handling of Israel's war in Gaza.  PROTESTERS: Biden, Biden, you can't hide.  MARY BRUCE: Frustrated and furious, members of the state's large Arab and Muslim community are urging voters in today's Democratic primary to check the "Uncommitted" box in protest.  LEXI ZEIDAN: Biden has lost my vote.  BRUCE: Lexi Zeidan, who supported Biden in 2020, is now helping to organize this protest vote.  But you know where Donald Trump stands on these issues. If sitting out and not voting for Biden means that you may be helping Donald Trump get elected, is that a risk worth taking?  ZEIDAN: I mean, that's a question that I put back on the president. You know, I didn't get us to this point, Biden did. And it might come down to us experiencing short-term pain with Trump in office for long term gain, where we have to have a Democratic party that stands actually on its values.  BRUCE: Short term pain for long term gain. So, you're willing to sit out in November, even if it means Donald Trump wins to send Democrats a message?  ZEIDAN: Absolutely. BRUCE: They're demanding Biden push Israel for an enduring cease-fire. The president says he's hopeful they are close to a temporary deal.  JOE BIDEN: We're close. It's not done yet. And my hope is, by next Monday, we'll have a cease-fire.  MARY BRUCE: Arab and Muslim American voters helped deliver this state to Biden in 2020, when he won by just 154,000 votes. But that support now in doubt. In Dearborn, Michigan, the city's first Arab American mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, tells me this is deeply personal for his community.  ABDULLAH HAMMOUD: When I have a resident who walks up, who talks about 80 innocent family members in the current war in Gaza, what is my response to him? “Well, it could have been worse.” That is an insufficient response.  BRUCE: What is the message you guys are hoping to send to the president today? HAMMOUD: I think the message is the president has not earned our votes.  BRUCE: But Michigan's governor is urging Democrats to get behind Biden, even if they'd prefer a younger candidate. GRETCHEN WHITMER: I would say, the train's out of the station. Get onboard. BRUCE: And today, other Democrats we spoke with, like union worker Rory Gill, worry the protest votes will just boost Trump's chances in November.  What do you make of this “Uncommitted” movement that we're seeing here? RORY GILL: I think it's stupid. I think it's going to hurt. It's going to hurt the Democratic Party. BRUCE: Now, President Biden is expected to win here tonight. The question now, how big will this protest vote be, and what could it mean for November? There is also, of course, a Republican primary here tonight, Donald Trump is again expected to cruise to victory over Nikki Haley, though she is promising to stay in the race through Super Tuesday. David?  MUIR: Every four years, a lot of eyes on Michigan. This is no different. Mary Bruce for us there in Michigan. Mary Bruce, thank you.   
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

How Univision Reports On Immigration: Manipulative Migrant Storytelling

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 28th 2024 at 01:44
In discussing how Univision reports on immigration, we often point out the differences in how they cover the issue versus how immigration is covered on other networks. We’ve often characterized Univision as an activist network. And recently, the network aired some of its most egregious pro-immigration propaganda to date. Take notice of this exchange between a Univision producer and three unaccompanied minors who had just arrived at Sasabe, Arizona: REPORTER: Are you taking care of them? ALAN PONCE: Yes. REPORTER: Why are you taking care of them? PONCE: Because they told me to. REPORTER: And do you think you're old enough to take care of them? PONCE: No. VILCHEZ: At six years old, little Ashley told us how she felt. ASHLEY PONCE: My mother left and the one she left in charge of us was my brother. I obey him a lot. Because he is my brother - I obey him a lot because he is very big. REPORTER: Do you love your brother very much? PONCE: Yes. REPORTER: We must pay attention to him. Do you want to see your mom now? PONCE: Yes. REPORTER: What do you want to tell your mom? PONCE: That I love her. She had never broken my heart. REPORTER: Did she break (your heart)? Why? PONCE: Because she left. VILCHEZ: Is there some quote from your daughter that touches you most deeply? JIMENEZ: Yes. That I broke her heart by leaving them. Heart-rending stuff. This is what Univision viewers are shown when immigration is discussed. Cute kids coming unaccompanied across the border, or intact families. You NEVER see, except for that one time where Univision reported on the ongoing influx of Chinese migrants, coverage of the legions of single, fighting-age men coming over the border. Also, it is worth noting the conveniently-placed news crew at the border. Pair that with the correspondent sitting in the living room with the children’s mother, and a reasonable person can infer that this was staged and not at all organic. The story itself is pretty straightforward. Mom in Mexico leaves her children behind, tried sending for them, entrusted them to her mother who refused to send them over, then handed them off to a cousin. Who fell ill and handed them off to coyotes or something. So these kids are floating around the border badlands and they’re about get a TV camera shoved in their faces.  Meanwhile, mom is sitting in her living room in New Jersey with a correspondent who is showing her fresh video of her kids at the border. Ergo, the “broken heart” moment. This manipulative migrant storytelling, intended to generate sympathies towards migrants and support of the current policy, is designed to conceal what actually happens at the border, and aired at the expense of actual news.  Rather than news, our communities are subjected to propaganda. Click “Expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on Noticiero Univision on Monday, February 26th, 2024: ELIAN ZIDAN: We begin this evening with an exclusive. This weekend, in Arizona, three minor siblings were found walking alone along the southern border after being abandoned by a coyote who also helped them cross into the United States. ILIA CALDERÓN: And Univisión, Elián, was the only media that spoke with them and was able to accompany them until the Border Patrol arrived. Blanca Rosa Vílchez contacted the children's mother in New Jersey and through tears told her that she’s counting the hours until she sees them and hugs them. ADELFA JIMÉNEZ: Not having come without them. That's what I would have changed. Not having come without them. BLANCA ROSA VÍLCHEZ: It was a decision she will always regret, says Adelfa Jiménez, to let her children, ages 9, 6, and 3, cross the border alone to join her and her husband in the United States. Why did they cross alone? JIMENEZ: Because in Mexico, my mother is elderly. I told my mother: “bring my children. I will support you- we’ll support you with money.” Bring my children. My mom said no. VILCHEZ: So after not seeing them for a year, they decided to have them brought over by a cousin. JIMÉNEZ: He hurt his foot and returned to Mexico, and just left them in the care of a group. VILCHEZ: Adelfa lost contact with them… Let's watch it together then... …until this video recorded by the Univision team at the border allowed her to see them in Sasabe, Arizona. REPORTER: Are you taking care of them? ALAN PONCE: Yes. REPORTER: Why are you taking care of them? PONCE: Because they told me to. REPORTER: And do you think you're old enough to take care of them? PONCE: No. VILCHEZ: At six years old, little Ashley told us how she felt. ASHLEY PONCE: My mother left and the one she left in charge of us was my brother. I obey him a lot. Because he is my brother - I obey him a lot because he is very big. REPORTER: Do you love your brother very much? PONCE: Yes. REPORTER: We must pay attention to him. Do you want to see your mom now? PONCE: Yes. REPORTER: What do you want to tell your mom? PONCE: That I love her. Shehad never broken my heart. REPORTER: Did she break (your heart)? Why? PONCE: Because she left. VILCHEZ: Is there some quote from your daughter that touches you most deeply? JIMENEZ: Yes.That I broke her heart by leaving them. VILCHEZ: During the last conversation with her eldest son three days ago, he told her that they were with immigration agents. Customs and Border Protection told us they cannot comment on specific cases. JIMENEZ: (holding items of clothing) I'm going to see them wearing this, that's what excites me the most. VILCHEZ: For now, the only thing that encourages her is the hope of preparing for the reunion. JIMENEZ: (praying) what I ask of you, I have always asked you for my children. VILCHEZ: And to have faith that she will see them soon. JIMENEZ: I'm going to cry a lot, but with joy, because I know that they are going to be with me because we are going to form the family that they deserve. VILCHEZ: In Manahawkin, New Jersey, Blanca Rosa Vílchez, Univision.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Column: Joy Reid's Tacky TikTok Talk

By: Tim Graham — February 28th 2024 at 05:56
In case you just can’t get enough of Joy Reid for an hour each weeknight on MSNBC, you can catch her sharing her wild and loose opinions on TikTok. Recently she pounced on remarks by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) supporting the Alabama court decision that frozen embryos are children, because “we need more kids.” Our fertility rate in America is now at a record low, but Reid just wants to use Alabama’s football-coach senator as a punching bag. “Why does the state of Alabama need more kids? More kids for what?” Reid wants to make this about immigration. “Your party, Senator Tuberville, is the one screaming that 10 million immigrants…have streamed into the country since Joe Biden has been president. And you're claiming that's too many people.” Most critics of the border crisis aren’t arguing that America is overpopulated. They’re arguing the massive influx of humanity is too much for our government systems to handle, which is the same critique emanating from Democrat big-city mayors who have been swamped with migrants who expect free food, housing, and maybe a monthly gift card. But Reid was primed to uncork a racial conspiracy theory, which MSNBC always encourages against Republicans. Antebellum references seem mandatory. “There was a time when the state of Alabama absolutely needed more kids, because Alabama was a slave state,” Reid proclaimed, “and the mandate of the planter class in Alabama was for black women to produce more kids because those kids were property, and they could work more kids and make more money on their plantation.” But what does 1854 have to do with 2024? Reid suggested there was a master plan: “Are you saying Alabama needs more kids because you think those populations include people who may be destitute and desperate enough that when you kick out the immigrants you can make them do the work that migrants are doing now? That kind of sounds slavery-ish.” Wait. If the immigrants flooding into America are doing “slavery-ish” work, shouldn’t Reid oppose more immigration? Reid needs to imply all the immigrants pouring in are “people of color,” even if that’s not true. For the left, appeals to limit illegal immigration must always be painted as motivated by racism. To its credit, The New York Times has published a series of investigative reports on migrant child labor in America. One was headlined “Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S.”  No one imagines that led to a scathing TikTok tirade by Joy Reid. She closed out by asking Sen. Tuberville in absentia if, since he’s a “white guy,” he’s suggesting “we need more kids” means “whites need more kids,” a “Great Replacement thing,” because if he thinks white women need to make more babies, “that’s a little creepy. A little Handmaid’s Tale, don’t you think?” Back in 2021, Reid took to TikTok to mock Kyle Rittenhouse for tearing up when he testified about shooting rioters dead in self-defense. Reid compared him to Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, mocking their “male white tears,” and proclaiming these guys “Karen-out, and as soon as they get caught, they bring waterworks.” Reid wouldn’t use this white-Karens-waterworks mockery for Hillary Clinton’s public tears when she ran for president. These videos aren’t for everyone. They’re for the hardcore MSNBC watchers who want to “own the cons,” but especially those stale pale males. Conservatives just want to check what chemicals she might have put in her vape pen to explain that overactive imagination.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Kimmel Mocks Concerns Over Google AI's Historically Incorrect Images

By: Alex Christy — February 28th 2024 at 10:00
The fact that Google’s Gemini A.I. program didn’t have the best of rollouts as it generated a vast assortment of historically incorrect images should be a gold mine of material for the late night comedians. However, for ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel and his Tuesday show, the real target is those who find it concerning. Speaking specifically of Donald Trump Jr., Kimmel declared, “I guess his job now is shouting at his computer because his big subject today was Google A.I. Google A.I., I don't know if you heard, in the name of racial diversity, has been creating ridiculous images of black and Latino Nazis. If you tell it to make a picture of a Nazi, it wants to include everyone. So it paints Nazis from every color of the rainbow and it also, according to Junior, does this with other historical figures, including black George Washington, which, as you will see, bothers him a lot.”     Trump Jr. was then shown recalling, “This -- this is what Google Gemini says the founding fathers looked like. Black founding fathers. Yes, you heard that correct, folks. According to Google's A.I. Gemini program, the founding fathers were actually black. I don't know about you, doesn't seem all that accurate. I wonder why they would do something like this?”  If it was just the images, then maybe the concern over Gemini would be overblown. Google would just fix the program and be done with it, but Gemini is more than just an image creator. It does have a left-wing bias on political controversies, and the image generation tool is an extension of that. The machine can be just as much of a political hack as a person, but that is not how it is advertised. Kimmel cared about none of this, “When did he turn into a morning radio DJ from 1989?” he asked instead. Here is a transcript for the February 27 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live 2/27/2024 11:41 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: I guess his job now is shouting at his computer because his big subject today was Google A.I. Google A.I., I don't know if you heard, in the name of racial diversity, has been creating ridiculous images of black and Latino Nazis. If you tell it to make a picture of a Nazi, it wants to include everyone. So it paints Nazis from every color of the rainbow and it also, according to Junior, does this with other historical figures, including black George Washington, which, as you will see, bothers him a lot.  DONALD TRUMP JR: This -- this is what Google Gemini says the founding fathers looked like. Black founding fathers. Yes, you heard that correct, folks. According to Google's A.I. Gemini program, the founding fathers were actually black. I don't know about you, doesn't seem all that accurate. I wonder why they would do something like this?  KIMMEL: When did he turn into a morning radio DJ. from 1989? [DONALD  TRUMP JR. AS RADIO D.J. IMPRESSION] "It's DJ DJTJ on the Q Morning Zoo. Be ready with the phrase that pays! Caller 98.5 goes home with 98 dollars and 50 cents. Stick with the winner after Milli Vanillion the Q!" 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Incredible: CBS News Boss Who Axed Catherine Herridge to Receive Free Speech Award

By: Curtis Houck — February 28th 2024 at 10:32
Once again continuing to report out the sudden firing of the well-respected Catherine Herridge from CBS News, the New York Post’s Alexandra Steigrad reported late Tuesday afternoon that Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews, the new and extremely woke CBS News president, was selected as one of “13 honorees at the 33rd annual First Amendment Awards” set for March 9 in D.C. by the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA). This was despite the fact that, as Steigrad noted, Ciprian-Matthews had clashed with Herridge in the past due to her no-nonsense, intrepid reporting (i.e. doing actual journalism, as opposed to vapid, far-left propaganda) and “signed off on” Herridge’s ouster as part of layoffs by parent company Paramount Global. As he has throughout the Herridge saga (such as here and here), Media Research Center Founder and President Brent Bozell weighed in on X: Can't make this up. CBS News fires @CBS_Herridge, then steals her notes, and in disgrace is forced to return them. A week later, the president of @CBSNews who signed off on that theft receives an industry free speech award. https://t.co/km5O8sVVKd — Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) February 28, 2024 The RTDNA — which doubles as another event for liberal journalists and the people they’re supposed to hold to account but instead cuddle with — will also honor one such person they link arms with instead of hold accountable: far-left Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD). In 2018, the RTDNA dinner honored then-Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd, who used the speech to argue being “credible and honest” and possessing “transparency” represented “the new objectivity” in journalism.  That was comical since Todd repeatedly refused to disclose his progressive political strategist wife’s political donations to politicians he would interivew, including Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA). Steigrad also used the piece to reiterate the timing of Herridge’s axing came as she continues to face legal peril for a years-old story from her Fox News days with a U.S. District Court judge demanding she divulge her stories for a story “about a federal probe into a Chinese American scientist.” CBS tried to save face, arguing the layoffs do “not in any way reflect on or diminish Ingrid’s well-deserved and outstanding journalistic record” that goes back “decades...upholding the highest values of journalism.” As for laying off Herridge, the CBS rep insisted she “was one of more than 700 people impacted on Feb. 13 at Paramount and dozens more from other news organizations enduring mass layoffs in Washington in the last few months.” Steigrad had more on how Ciprian-Matthews wasn’t keen on Herridge and never came to the defense of the award-winning correspondent when she was verbally attacked in a 2021 meeting by then-CBS colleague and fellow correspondent, Jeff Pegues (click “expand”): She also clashed with Ciprian-Matthews, a sharp-elbowed executive who was investigated in 2021 over favoritism and discriminatory hiring and management practices, as revealed by The Post in January. Indeed, sources speculated that Herridge’s firing could be retaliatory, as the correspondent sparked the 2021 investigation against Ciprian-Matthews. It began when correspondent Jeff Pegues allegedly went on a 20-minute rant, in which he dressed down a senior correspondent — whose identity was recently revealed as Herridge by Puck News. A source told The Post at the time, that Ciprian-Matthews, who was in the meeting, did not initially report the incident and attempted to “blame” Herridge for Pegues’ diatribe when it was finally brought to the attention of HR. The incident opened a Pandora’s Box, as allegations that Ciprian-Matthews had protected Pegues and other diverse correspondents — to the detriment of primarily white, female correspondents — flooded the desk of Jennifer Gordon, an executive vice president of employee relations at Paramount Global who conducted the investigation. The probe found that Pegues’ behavior was unprofessional, but months later, Ciprian-Matthews supported his promotion to Chief National Affairs and Justice Correspondent. Despite being sheltered to presumably further some poisonous diversity, equity, and exclusion (DEI) agenda, Pegues was another casualty of the layoffs.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

OnlyFans Mother Outraged Over Interrupting Work to Care for Sick Son

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 28th 2024 at 10:33
Some people really need their “parenting” style reported to CPS. Today’s example of that comes from a mother who posted a video online complaining that she had to stop streaming on her OnlyFans account in order to pick up her sick son from school. She was pissed that her sex work had to be interrupted to tend to her son’s needs. Talk about bad parenting! If you aren’t aware, OnlyFans is an internet content subscription service that’s primarily used by sex workers. Though it was created in 2016, it’s become more popular in the recent years. Essentially, users pay for content (photos, videos and live streams) via a monthly subscription. While some of the top creators use it as their main source of income, others use it to supplement theirs.  The mother in the video was irate that she had to help her son and stop her session. The video, which was posted by Dr. Jebra Faushay, an account that pokes fun at insane leftism, now has almost eight million views in just over 12 hours. After growling to the camera the mother said, “I am so pissy today” before explaining that 11 a.m. is prime posting time and she had to go get her sick ten-year-old from school. “I’m cranky because my child — my child is ten, I had to come up to the school, I had to pick him up, why? Why I had to f**kin pick this kid up? I had to pick this kid up because he’s a man. He’s a little man and he’s got a weak a** stomach like f**king most men do,” she said with clear frustration.  Her son threw up in the library after another child tooted next to him. This OnlyFans model was outraged because the school called her to pick up her son who had thrown up. This ruined her plans. And she’s going to sit in the car and rant about it. pic.twitter.com/BuZW97yv3i — Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) February 28, 2024 “So I have to interrupt my day because some kid’s got a rank a**hole? That’s a new kind of [c**k] block,” she insisted. Uh, ma'am, when you have kids, everything is interrupted if they need something. That’s how parenting works. Your needs are to be denied to help your child. End of story. At the end of the video, after complaining even more, she said, “I’m gonna Kool Aid man through the side of a wall today, that’s what I’m gonna do, yup. I’m gonna do it because I’m pint up and I’ve got a lot of aggression.” Honestly, I feel awful for the child whose mother posted the video. She cares so much more about herself and her virtual sex work than about him. Others noticed that too when they replied to the video on X. “Poor kid. Hope Dad’s working towards full custody,” one user wrote. “I’m honestly scared for her son. I feel like that kid does not have a loving home,” another added while one more wrote “It’s sad to see her bash her own son. Some people are not meant to be parents.” I really hope her son never sees this video.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Laura Ingraham Pans Google After Chatbot Failures Cost Google $90 Billion

By: Tom Olohan — February 28th 2024 at 12:59
Fox News host Laura Ingraham ripped into both the bias of Gemini, Google’s artificial intelligence chatbot, and its creators, who have cost Google billions of dollars.   During a Feb. 26 Ingraham Angle segment exposing Gemini’s issues, Ingraham highlighted radical leftist statements by Jack Krawczyk, Google's Senior Director of Product over Gemini. “The man once described as ‘the teacher’ of Google's chatbot apparently has a long history of bashing America online reportedly calling racism the number one value Americans seek to uphold and proclaiming that white privilege is a bleeping -- is real back in 2018,” Ingraham said Monday. That same day Google stock fell to $138.75, a 4.5% loss that cost Google parent company Alphabet $90 billion.  During the segment, Ingraham and her guests, Heritage Foundation Tech Policy Center Kara Frederick and Article 3 Founder Mike Davis, detailed examples of Gemini’s woke bias, from giving a “nuanced answer” instead of condemning pedophilia and drawing several false equivalences, including between Adolf Hitler and X-owner Elon Musk.   Frederick reminded Fox News viewers that the problem went beyond poorly designed artificial intelligence, it was the result of human choices. “This is not an accident. Technology is not neutral, it reflects the biases implicit in Jack’s tweets that you just put up there,” Frederick said before explaining that Google would have been aware of these problems. “That echo chamber thought that this was just fine. This rot goes very, very deep. It's systemic.”  Echoing Frederick’s sentiments, Davis said: “This artificial intelligence could be a powerful and useful tool for society but it can't get into the wrong hands. When you have Google, which controls the online advertising market, it controls 95% of search and they are using this artificial intelligence tool to promote their political agenda, that's a problem. This is why we need to break up Google's online advertisement monopoly. We need to break up their search monopoly and we can fix this problem. The problem is that Google has too much power and it should not have these tools.”  The “rot” at Gemini includes examples such as the chatbot downplaying the horrific actions of Hamas during the Oct. 7 terror attack. Gemini’s image generator also demonstrates incredible racial bias against white people, even in prompts for Vikings and founding fathers. According to The New York Times, Gemini even depicted soldiers from Nazi Germany in a variety of different races. When the Media Research Center tested Gemini, the chatbot refused to produce images of a white scientist, but willingly generated images of “black, Hispanic or Asian scientists.”  These choices appear to have cost Google a lot of money.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Alexa, Define Border Crisis: WashPost Insanely Praises Immigration for ‘Roaring’ Biden Economy

By: Joseph Vazquez — February 28th 2024 at 13:02
The Washington Post continues to outdo itself in generating downright idiotic takes to defend President Joe Biden’s trashy economic record, even if it means whitewashing the worsening border crisis. “The economy is roaring. Immigration is a key reason,” celebrated The Post in a nutty Feb. 27 headline. The leftist rag doubled down by claiming that “[i]mmigration has propelled the U.S. job market further than just about anyone expected, helping cement the country’s economic rebound from the pandemic as the most robust in the world.” Of course, the paper glossed over the fact that “all” the job gains in the fourth quarter of 2023 alone (compared to Q4 2019) were among immigrants, according to Center for Immigration Studies Research Director Steven Camarota in a Feb. 13 op-ed. “The number of immigrants working over this period is up by 2.9 million, while 183,000 fewer US-born Americans are working,” Camarota continued. Earth to The Post! [Emphasis added.] Camarota surmised that it was “very possible that half the net increase in jobs went to illegal immigrants.” The Heritage Foundation also revealed that the surge in illegal immigration was costing U.S. taxpayers “billions” per year. For border states like California and Texas, for example, the crisis was costing both states $21.76 billion and $8.88 billion respectively per year “in education, health care, law enforcement and criminal justice system costs, welfare expenditures, and more.” But The Post still wielded its distorted talking points to make Biden look like he’s somehow playing economic 4-D chess by capitalizing on a horrendous national security crisis to buoy the economy. The newspaper even ended up committing a humiliating error in trying to sell its ludicrous angle. [Emphasis added.] In fact, The Post didn’t even mention the word “illegal” once throughout its 1,843-word piece of propaganda. The only allusion to “illegality” was made in the last paragraph and was simply included as part of a quote by a rug company owner justifying illegal border crossings: “‘If I was a poor Mexican, I would be the first one to cross the Rio Grande illegally myself.’” Talk about tone-deaf. Fox News reported in January that the U.S. Border Patrol had nearly a daunting 302,0000 encounters at the southern border in December alone, “the highest total for a single month ever recorded. It is also the first time migrant encounters have exceeded 300,000.” There have been nearly 7.3 million illegal crossings since Biden took office, as Fox News also reported Feb. 27. But it gets worse.  The Post wound up overplaying its hand and blatantly butchered the facts. The newspaper twisted the findings from a Congressional Budget Office report to falsely claim that “the U.S. labor force in 2023 had grown by 5.2 million people, thanks especially to net immigration.” But that’s not what the CBO report stated at all, as The Post conceded in an embarrassing “correction” posted later:  A previous version of this article incorrectly described a Congressional Budget Office projection on the effects of immigration on the economy. The report said the labor force will have grown by 5.2 million people by 2033, not that it had grown by that number in 2023, [emphasis added.]  That’s what happens when a media publication is more concerned with bending itself into a pretzel to turn a crisis into a boon to defend Biden as opposed to telling the straight truth about the disastrous effects such an influx of illegal migrants poses to U.S. national security. “Whoever wins the election will take the helm of an economy that immigrant workers are supporting tremendously — and likely will keep powering for years to come,” read The Post Pravda. The irony is that The Post even mentioned the “crisis” at the border, but dodged and danced around ever directly conceding that what illegal immigrants were doing was — illegal: “But for the vast majority of migrants who arrive in the United States without prior approval, including asylum seekers and those who come for economic reasons, getting a work permit isn’t easy,” [emphasis added.] The Post even went as far as to suggest that the immigration crisis helped desperate companies fill in the gaps in their work forces left by American citizens post-pandemic: Economists and labor experts say the surge in employment was ultimately key to solving unprecedented gaps in the economy that threatened the country’s ability to recover from prolonged shutdowns. Talk about dizzying. And this spike in foreigner employment was reportedly all thanks to Biden repealing Trump-era border restrictions, according to The Post. Yes, the newspaper actually tried to spin the very actions that contributed to the border crisis in the first place as a stroke of genius on Biden’s part: “At the same time [as companies scrambled to find labor to deal with exploding demand], the path was widening for migrants to cross the southern border, particularly as the new Biden administration rolled back Trump-era restrictions.”  Make it stop.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact The Washington Post at 202-334-6000 and demand it stop gaslighting Americans on the immigration crisis.    
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Decries McConnell's 'Very Hypocritical' And 'Tainted' Legacy

By: Alex Christy — February 28th 2024 at 14:16
Sen. Mitch McConnell announced his decision to step down as the Republican leader in November on Wednesday and MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports was quickly ready to kick the “very hypocritical” and “tainted” McConnell out the door. Senior Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Haake didn’t use the word "hypocritical,” but he might as well have as he mourned: I'm thinking the last two Democratic presidents to great end, that they couldn't move through things that even had significant popular support because of the -- essentially, protections for the minority within the Senate. That has lasted up until now, through now. McConnell, as all of our viewers will remember, was one of the most vocal proponents of protecting the filibuster for legislation, the 60-vote threshold for legislation, despite being perfectly comfortable lowering it for Supreme Court nominations and for other nominees in the executive and judicial branches. That inconsistency was something that always drove his critics crazy.      Haake completely memory-holed Democratic leader Harry Reid removing the filibuster for lower court nominees and McConnell’s warning that he would come to regret it. If there was a Democratic nominee to the Court during Reid’s time as majority leader, they would’ve removed it for Supreme Court nominees as well, but Democrats wanted to keep it in case they ended up in the minority during a GOP presidency, but McConnell wouldn’t let them. Speaking of Supreme Court nominees, later, Mitchell claimed that “none of us knew, I thought I knew Senate procedure. None of us knew you could stop Merrick Garland, a Senate nominee at the beginning, it was February -- the beginning of a re-election year --  from even getting heard, having meetings on The Hill. He couldn't get a hearing.” Really? Did “none of us” know, or just MSNBC? Addressing author, former U.S. attorney, and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade, Mitchell declared, “And to stop that and open the door to once Donald Trump was elected, you know, three nominations to the Supreme Court and all of those decisions, most notably Dobbs but others as well.” McQuade replied that “to many of us in the law, Mitch McConnell’s legacy will forever be tainted by what he did with the Supreme Court.“ By “us in the law,” McQuade really means “us liberals,” but she continued and did use the H-word: As you said, when Antonin Scalia died, insisting that that seat be held open past the November election to let the people decide who should pick the next Supreme Court justice, and of course that ended up being Trump and robbing Merrick Garland of an opportunity to fill that seat. But then when we saw the tables turned and Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, just, what, six weeks before the election… Mitch McConnell said, ‘you know, actually, you know what? The long tradition I mentioned before, it's different when, you know, it happens on a Thursday.’ He was very hypocritical then and allowed Donald Trump to replace that seat On the matter of Donald Trump’s second impeachment and subsequent legal cases, McQuade also decried that McConnell has allegedly “undermined public confidence in our institutions” by not speaking out against Trump’s claims of double jeopardy and absolute immunity after McConnell opposed his second impeachment, claiming the legal system was the proper avenue to explore such questions.  Here is a transcript for the February 28 show: MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports 2/28/2024 12:48 PM ET … GARRETT HAAKE: The process that frustrated -- I'm thinking the last two Democratic presidents to great end, that they couldn't move through things that even had significant popular support because of the -- essentially, protections for the minority within the Senate. That has lasted up until now, through now. McConnell, as all of our viewers will remember, was one of the most vocal proponents of protecting the filibuster for legislation, the 60-vote threshold for legislation despite being perfectly comfortable lowering it for Supreme Court nominations and for other nominees in the executive and judicial branches. That inconsistency was something that always drove his critics crazy.  … ANDREA MITCHELL: Because none of us knew, I thought I knew Senate procedure. None of us knew you could stop Merrick Garland, a Senate nominee at the beginning, it was February -- the beginning of a re-election year from even getting heard, having meetings on The Hill. He couldn't get a hearing. And to stop that and open the door to once Donald Trump was elected, you know, three nominations to the Supreme Court and all of those decisions, most notably Dobbs but others as well. BARBARA MCQUADE: Well, to many of us in the law, Mitch McConnell’s legacy will forever be tainted by what he did with the Supreme Court. As you said, when Antonin Scalia died, insisting that that seat be held open past the November election to let the people decide who should pick the next Supreme Court justice, and of course that ended up being Trump and robbing Merrick Garland of an opportunity to fill that seat. But then when we saw the tables turned and Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, just, what, six weeks before the election –  MITCHELL: It was October.  MCCQUADE: Just weeks away, Mitch McConnell said, "you know, actually, you know what? The long tradition I mentioned before, it's different when, you know, it happens on a Thursday." He was very hypocritical then and allowed Donald Trump to replace that seat. So, he got the one before his presidency and at the tail end of his presidency and I think although he had the power to do that, one of the things that's so important and, in fact, I talk about in my book is the need for people to exercise restraint when they have power, not to exercise power simply because they can but to show restraint in working with the other side of the aisle and being fair and justice so that the people have confidence in our institutions.  … MCQUADE: And using sort of a procedural bait-and-switch, I think, by giving people cover to not vote to convict when Donald Trump was there, the Senate had the power to prevent him from holding office again and saying there's a time and place to deal with this. That's criminal prosecution and then when criminal prosecution comes along, of course, there are those who say that can't be done because a president has immunity and because he wasn't convicted, it's a double jeopardy violation, and Mitch McConnell has remained silent throughout that. So, I think in many ways, he has undermined public confidence in our institutions, in our Courts and in the Senate. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

The View Was in DISARRAY Over Pro-Hamas Protest Votes By Michigan Democrats

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — February 28th 2024 at 15:48
With roughly 13 percent of the Democratic primary electorate voting “uncommitted” in Michigan the previous evening, the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View were in utter disarray Wednesday morning. They were at each other’s throats as they battled between condemning and accepting protest votes against President Biden during such a crucial election season. They also clashed over what the Arab protest voters wanted: Biden to abandon Israel and support for Hamas terrorists. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg opened the conversation by flaunting her frustration that Democrats were not getting in line behind Biden. She lectured the protest voters that they were “in danger of seeming like a one-issue voter.” She lashed out by suggesting they were not living in the “real” world and they were disrespecting those who had fought for the right to vote (Click “expand”): I understand you're upset, but either we'll fix it together or we're not. And the other guy is not going to fix it at all, so it is for me – [Applause] No, no, no it doesn't require that. I'm just saying, when you think about one issue votes, you have to realize that it – in the real – in our world, we're all sort of connected to all of this, so this isn't a one-issue vote. When we're talking about, listen, you don't have to like the person but you have the right to vote for the person that you want. That's all good, but to have a non-committed vote for me is -- is hard because I know how hard people fought to get the right to have their voices heard. Make your voice heard, but, you know, stand up for what you're saying. Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) stood with the pro-Hamas voters in Michigan. “And this is something that I have been saying on this show, I know that I've been a singular voice here, but what the Biden administration has to understand is that young voters which first-time voters are very concerned about this issue,” she warned. Directly addressing Goldberg’s chide that they were single-issue voters, Hostin argued: “[T]here are women that vote single issue. There are evangelicals that vote single issue. There are African Americans that vote single issue. So, this is no different.”     Hostin was also very adamant that Biden abandon Israel or else risk losing Michigan in November. “There are 300,000 of the Arab population in Michigan, and Trump carried Michigan in 2016 by about 11,000 votes,” she cautioned, completely ignoring how Biden could lose other critical states if he switched policies. This triggered a five-way shouting match between co-hosts Goldberg, Hostin, Joy Behar, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and Sara Haines; with the latter two essentially arguing that Biden understood their message but disagreed because Hamas was obviously not a good-faith actor (Click “expand”): GOLDBERG: Understood, understood. I understand all of that. I get it. That's how I feel when they put up the, you know, the nooses. That's how I feel when I hear young women -- yeah. If I then say, “You're not doing it fast enough for me, so I'm going to sit,” that doesn't help me. No, no, but – HOSTIN: But they didn’t sit though. They voted. GOLDBERG: Yeah, they did. They voted -- that's the same for me as sitting. BEHAR: It’s a protest vote. GOLDBERG: I get it. It doesn't change -- I'm sorry, doll. It doesn't change the fact that I think you either vote or you don't. BEHAR: But how else could they get the message across to Biden? This is the way they did it. HAINES: He got the message, you guys! GOLDBERG: He got it! He's been doing this! HAINES: He heard the message. He disagrees and so has Hillary Clinton and a lot of people who have lived and worked in the Middle East. There’s a problem here. BEHAR: Disagree with what? HAINES: Disagree with the policies. The Middle East is really complicated, right now. But you have a lot of rage at Israel -- the – HOSTIN: They disagree with which policies? [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: The ceasefire without releasing hostages. BEHAR: Netanyahu's policy. The shouting eventually shifted to Haines explaining to Hostin the obvious reasons why Hamas could not be trusted and was the problem (Click “expand”): There was a ceasefire on October 6th. Every time there is a ceasefire it is attacked again by Hamas. Everyone blames Israel. Israel deserves some of the blame. There are a lot of deaths going on. Hamas is the one would will not release the hostages that they have. (…) They also have two dozen of bodies of hostages that have been killed. Hamas is the one holding Gaza completely under -- their schools are run by Hamas. (…) They have made $100 million. Hamas has made $100 million in funding, and they keep it for themselves. The suffering in Gaza is first and foremost due to Hamas. Throughout the segment, Hostin repeatedly leaned on the United Nations as some sort of moral authority in the war. “But the U.N. is saying that Israel is committing war crimes!” she ignorantly shouted at Haines at one point. She also whined about U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield vetoing resolutions to pressure Israel and not Hamas to the negotiating table. Haines dropped the boom on Hostin, pointing out a fact that had gone unmentioned for weeks on the show: “[T]he U.N. also had agencies that had people that participated in October 7th. So, a lot of things being discovered about the U.N. and their own interests in this.” “So, now the U.N. is under attack?!” Hostin freaked out. And amid a flare-up in crosstalk, Farah Griffin could be heard noting that “The U.N. is deeply anti-s[emetic]” and “has a long history of having more resolutions against Israel than North Korea and Iran and some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet.” Farah Griffin also defended Thomas-Greenfield by noting that she was “not voting for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 28, 2024 11:03:08 a.m. Eastern (…) GOLDBERG: So, I mean, you know, the question people are asking is, what will this impact of these uncommitted voters be and have in the general election? I personally don't know, but I have to tell you that you're in danger of seeming like a one-issue voter, and that's -- I'm pretty sure not where people are at. I understand you're upset. We talked about this yesterday. I understand you're upset, but either we'll fix it together or we're not. And the other guy is not going to fix it at all, so it is for me – [Applause] No, no, no it doesn't require that. I'm just saying, when you think about one issue votes, you have to realize that it – in the real – in our world, we're all sort of connected to all of this, so this isn't a one-issue vote. When we're talking about, listen, you don't have to like the person but you the right to vote for the person that you want. That's all good, but to have a non-committed vote for me is -- is hard because I know how hard people fought to get the right to have their voices heard. Make your voice heard, but, you know, stand up for what you're saying. (…) 11:05:35 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: I think that – and this is what I was referring to yesterday, that they're not sitting on the couch. They're -- these are protest votes. These are votes, they're uncommitted votes and they're saying, “Hear us, listen to us. Hundreds of members of my family have been killed. Yes, that is my issue. That is my one issue. 30 people in my immediate family were killed, yet the United States is providing weapons and money to the people that killed my family, and I am an American citizen.” That is, I think, what the message was. And this is something that I have been saying on this show, I know that I've been a singular voice here, but what the Biden administration has to understand is that young voters which first-time voters are very concerned about this issue. And when it comes to Michigan, if you look at the breakdown, 19 percent of those votes came from the University of Michigan. Young voters. In Ann Arbor – in East Lansing, home to Michigan State uncommitted got 15 percent of the vote. There are 300,000 of the Arab population in Michigan, and Trump carried Michigan in 2016 by about 11,000 votes. They are telling you, “this issue matters, hear us.” GOLDBERG: Understood, understood. I understand all of that. I get it. That's how I feel when they put up the, you know, the nooses. That's how I feel when I hear young women -- yeah. If I then say, “you're not doing it fast enough for me, so I'm going to sit,” that doesn't help me. No, no, but – HOSTIN: But they didn’t sit though. They voted. GOLDBERG: Yeah, they did. They voted -- that's the same for me as sitting. JOY BEHAR: It’s a protest vote. GOLDBERG: I get it. It doesn't change -- I'm sorry, doll. It doesn't change the fact that I think you either vote or you don't. BEHAR: But how else could they get the message across to Biden? This is the way they did it. SARA HAINES: He got the message, you guys! GOLDBERG: He got it! He's been doing this! HAINES: He heard the message. He disagrees and so has Hillary Clinton and a lot of people who have lived and worked in the Middle East. There’s a problem here. BEHAR: Disagree with what? HAINES: Disagree with the policies. Middle East is really complicated, right now. But you have a lot of rage at Israel -- the – HOSTIN: They disagree with which policies? [Crosstalk] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: The ceasefire without releasing hostages. BEHAR: Netanyahu's policy. HAINES: There was a ceasefire on October 6th. Every time there is a ceasefire it is attacked again by Hamas. Everyone blames Israel. Israel deserves some of the blame. There are a lot of deaths going on. Hamas is the one would will not release the hostages that they have. FARAH GRIFFIN: Including 6 Americans, right now. HAINES: I don't care what they are. 130. They also have two dozen of bodies of hostages that have been killed. Hamas is the one holding Gaza completely under -- their schools are run by Hamas. Their medial— HOSITN: But the U.N is saying that Israel is committing war crimes! HAINES: They have made $100 million. Hamas has made $100 million in funding, and they keep it for themselves. The suffering in Gaza is first and foremost due to Hamas. HOSTIN: But there is suffering. HAINES: There is suffering. But my point here is: Biden heard everyone. He gets it. The thing he's doing is not reverse electing himself by saying, “What do you want? I'm going to go do that.” Some of it is, “I know what's right here and I’m going to stand true to that even in an election year and I love him for it. [Crosstalk] [Applause] HOSTIN: If he doesn't get Michigan, if -- if he does not get Michigan because of this, then -- HAINES: Then those protesters will get Trump. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: Let Alyssa. FARAH GRIFFIN: I want to take a rare moment to defend Joe Biden on this. There was a ceasefire, to your point, on October – BEHAR: We just did. FARAH GRIFFIN: But, I don't defend Joe Biden. There was a cease-fire. Since the terrorist attack against Israelis, Joe Biden has been working every single day to first get hostages released and then get a ceasefire. His National Security Council, his State Department. This notion that he's sitting on his hands and doesn't understand that there is carnage on both sides is absurd. And I have to say, again we're going to agree today. Donald Trump is not an alternative for the Arab American community. They are talking about bringing back the Muslim ban. It is an absolute absurdity. And there were voters I saw interviewed last night who said, “I'd be willing to support Trump over him” or “I’m not going to turn out.” What Biden needs to do is not reverse policy here. He needs to communicate to these people, “We see you, we hear you, we are calling on the Israelis to have as few casualties – [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: Didn't he just say – Sorry, go ahead HOSTIN: He just did say that he was working towards a ceasefire; Blinken has indicated that hopefully this ceasefire is going to happen next week and I think he heard these people. GOLDBERG: He's been hearing them. He's been hearing them. HOSTIN: And I think there will be a change in policy, but at the moment what these voters, these single-issue voters which there are women that vote single issue. There are evangelicals that vote single issue. GOLDBERG: And we kvetch at them every time! HOSTIN: There are African Americans that vote single issue. So, this is no different. And what I will say is: when you have your U.N. ambassador voting -- being the deciding vote against a ceasefire every single time, the world has noticed that this is happening! HAINES: Because the U.N. also had agencies that had people that participated in October 7th. So, a lot of things being discovered about the U.N. and their own interests in this – HOSTIN: So, now the U.N. is under attack?! [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: The U.N. is deeply anti-s[emetic] [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: The U.N. has a long history of having more resolutions against Israel than North Korea and Iran and some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. And her point, the ambassador's point is: “I'm not voting for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.” (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Jeopardy Sparks Backlash With 'Xem, Xyrs, Xemself' Question

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 28th 2024 at 15:12
The Jeopardy quiz show is being absolutely obliterated after a video was posted showing the 60-year-old gameshow incorporating made up pronouns in one of its questions, angering users on X not only because of the leftist, progressive topic, but the head-nod to a complete delusion. If you don’t know how Jeopardy works, there are six categories from which players pick. The categories each then consist of five choices ranging from $200 to $1,000, and include "answers" for which the contestant has to provide the correct question. Usually, the level of difficulty increases with the increase of prize money earned. The clip, which now has over a million views, shows the lead contestant selecting “Parts of Speech” for $600, indicating a mid-ish level question. Jeopardy is now incorporating questions on the made up pronouns xem/xyrs. You can now win money for affirming mental illness. pic.twitter.com/C7VESn3YVi — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 27, 2024 “Xem, Xyrs, Xemself” pops up on the screen. Then the contestant answers with the question: “What are pronouns?” “Those are pronouns, neopronouns” the host, Ken Jennings, said with a congratulatory tone in his voice, as if this sort of question was completely normal. Related: The Left Goes Berserk for Attention: Jacked up Junk and Genders In response to the clip from Monday’s show, people were outraged. Libs of TikTok shared the clip and wrote, “you can now win money for affirming mental illness.” Another insisted that the contestant should have asked, “What is a mental illness?” Others said he should have asked, “What is the land of make-believe?” or “What is indoctrination?” or even “What’s attention-seeking behavior?” Another user posted this: Dear #Jeopardy: "Xem, xyers, and xemself" are made-up nonsense words. You evidently have a radical social activist using Neo-Marxist Newspeak writing for you. I suggest you stick to reality. It's just "she" and "he" from the moment of conception & forever. When Alex Trebek, the original Jeopardy host, died in 2020, many of us knew the show was going to go south. But putting up delusions and accepting them as something that’s “normal” is a new low for Jeopardy.  Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Jacked Up Junk & Total Gender Confusion Trangenders will stop at nothing to garner attention to their narcissistic selves. pic.twitter.com/eEE6arUCXu — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 27, 2024
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

‘Raw’ ‘Anger’; Nets Tout Arab Michigan Voters Showing ‘Displeasure’, Duck Radicalism

By: Curtis Houck — February 28th 2024 at 16:43
Between Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, the “big three’ of ABC, CBS, and NBC used their flagship AM news shows to hit President Biden from the left by touting the “raw” “anger” of Arab Democrat voters in Michigan “register[ing] their displeasure” by voting “uncommitted” and “sending a message” to President Biden “over his handling of the war in Gaza.” Left out of any story was further expansion of what Arab voters in Michigan actually think about the war in Gaza and, specifically, Jewish people. If they had, they would have revealed how, for example, a Dearborn imam prayed a few months before the October 7 terror attacks for Allah to “eradicate” the “sick, disgusting Zionist regime”. ABC’s Good Morning America had chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce on the case, who boasted on Tuesday that Arab Americans are “furious and frustrated over his handling of the war in Gaza” and thus “determined to put the President on notice” for his “refusal to push for an enduring ceasefire in Gaza.” Like her other colleagues, Bruce gave vague soundbites to disheartened voters, but didn’t explain what they meant by needing Biden to “change course” or fight Israel’s “extremist government”. Instead, she was in fluff mode over the “raw” emotion:  [A]fter months of Biden’s staunch backing of Israel and its war in Gaza, that support now sharply in doubt...facing mounting protests and growing pressure, the White House has tried to reach out to members of the community, but for many here, it may be too little too late. Their anger, raw. By Wednesday, Bruce boasted Muslim Americans did indeed deliver with over 100,000 votes for “uncommitted”, “sending the President a message” that they’re “[f]urious over Biden's handling of Israel’s war in Gaza”. She again went to Michiganders without any substance to what they want to see happen. No “river to the sea”, no mentions of wanting “Palestine” as a country to return in place of Israel (click “expand”): YASMEEN KADOUH: We're not only angry, we’re not only upset, but we feel like we’re completely put off. BRUCE: Lexi Zeidan, who supported Biden in 2020, helped organize the opposition. LEXI ZEIDAN: Biden has lost my vote. BRUCE: She is well aware that turning away from Biden could help Trump, who is an even stauncher supporter of Israel and supported a ban on immigrants from Muslim majority countries. [TO ZEIDAN] If sitting out and not voting for Biden means you may be helping Donald Trump get elected. Is that a risk worth taking? ZEIDAN: It might come down to us experiencing short term pain with Trump in office for long term gain where we have to have a Democratic Party that actually stands on its values. BRUCE: They're demanding the President back a permanent ceasefire. Biden saying a temporary deal is days away. In a statement, Biden touting his win and thanking voters who made their voice heard. The skids for Bruce were greased as, in a tease, Michael Strahan trumpeted voters as having “sen[t] a message” by “com[ing] out in forec”. Nevermind how the publisher of a major Deaborn-based news outlet has, according to our friends at the Free Beacon, called on Arabs at a 2022 rally “to fight Israel with ‘stones’ and ‘guns’ and praised the fedayeen, or Islamic militants” and praised Hamas as “freedom fighters.” Something else Bruce and her competitors at CBS and NBC ignored? The radicalism of Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud, whom the Free Beacon noted “has called Israel an ‘apartheid system,’ falsely accused Israel of bombing a Gaza hospital, and called for the eradication of the Jewish state.” Pivoting to CBS Mornings, co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King said Tuesday that Biden “faces a challenge...from a possible protest vote over his response to the war in Gaza.” Ah, yes, “response” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Correspondent Ed O’Keefe gave the group a large runway, explaining Hammoud leads a city with “one of the highest percentages of Arab Americans in the country” whose “political leaders...strongly oppose the President’s support for Israel and its war with Hamas.” King was again milquetoast on Wednesday on the results, reporting “more than 100,000 Democrats voted uncommitted to protest Mr. Biden’s support of Israel’s war in Gaza.” O’Keefe described it as “a wake-up call” and “sizable protest vote” and “discontent” “over the war in Gaza.” Co-host Tony Dokoupil had an interesting reaction to O’Keefe’s report: “[I]n November, those protest votes could hand the Palestinians back to Hamas, and America back to Donald Trump.” On NBC, Today had senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez dispatched to Michigan. Tuesday’s show had a short nod to these voters, arguing Biden was facing “fierce backlash from the state’s huge Arab American population, demanding he support a ceasefire in Gaza.” Fast-forward to Wednesday and NBC relayed more esoteric descriptions (click “expand”): GUTIERREZ: Michigan, of course, is expected to be one of the closest swing states and now, as you mentioned, a group protesting President Biden and the war in Gaza managed to get more than 100,000 votes. This morning, President Biden and former President Trump coming off huge wins in Michigan. UNCOMMITTED SUPPORTER #2: We demand a permanent ceasefire now. GUTIERREZ: But it’s these voters who shook up the Democratic primary. UNCOMMITTED SUPPORTER #3: If he doesn’t get it together and change what he’s doing — [SCREEN WIPE] — we will not vote for him in November. GUTIERREZ: Overnight, an extremely unusual watch party for voters who cast their ballots not for a candidate, but for uncommitted in protest of President Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war. UNCOMMITTED SUPPORTER #4: I didn’t feel good about voting for Joe Biden. He’s been pretty complicit about the genocide happening in Palestine. (....) GUTIERREZ: Here in Dearborn, Arab Americans make up a majority of the population. And longtime Democrat Ramzi Kassem told me he was furious with the Biden administration over the death toll in Gaza. (....) GUTIERREZ: Back here in battleground Michigan, the uncommitted vote clearly shows that the Biden campaign faces several challenges with Arab American and young voters. Again, nothing about how an Imam said at a pro-Hamas rally in Dearborn on October 10 that Israel’s behavior has stoked “fire in our hearts that will burn that state” of Israel “until its demise” or how Imam Usama Abdulghani said at a community gathering on October 14 that the terror attacks a week earlier against Jews were “one of the days of God” and a “miracle”.  As for the war, Abdulghani said those defending Gaza were “honorable soldiers” against “Zionist occupies” whose ship “is sinking.” But, seeing as how even the Biden White House targeted The Wall Street Journal for sharing these facts in a column, perhaps the networks chose to simply keep their heads down. To see the relevant transcripts from February 27, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from February 28, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Chuck Todd Proclaims: The Case for a Third-Party Alternative to Trump v. Biden Is 'OVER'

By: Tim Graham — February 28th 2024 at 17:00
Don't look now, but deposed Meet the Press host Chuck Todd has unleashed another grand political analysis. Last month, Chuck was having deep thoughts about Trump while touring a Nazi museum in Germany. Now he's absolutely certain that third parties just won't matter in the 2024 presidential race, because of....abortion. The headline? Chuck Todd: Why the third party window may have closed for 2024 Chuck acknowledges that a chunk of voters in both parties aren't happy with their nominee, even if both think the Other Party's candidate is beatable. If abortion is the issue for a large chunk of swing voters, then they aren’t going to be interested in a third party’s compromise position, no matter what that position is. If abortion is a voting issue for someone, they’ll have a definitive position on which party they want making reproductive health laws and appointing judges.  This is a roundabout way of saying: The case for a third-party alternative for this election cycle is over — there’s just not a market for it given the current issue terrain.   He underlines that it's difficult for third parties to gain access to ballots in many states -- without mentioning the Democrats aggressively put up ballot barriers -- no Democrat challengers to Biden and no third-party challengers to Biden. Then they insist Donald Trump is unfit for the ballot. And forget your No Labels threat:  As far as No Labels goes, it’s just hard to see how any candidate the group finds can truly create some middle-ground majority with the issue of abortion so front and center in this year’s politics. If abortion were considered politically resolved — like same-sex marriage, for the vast majority of the public — then maybe there would be some potential for traction, but not while abortion is a live issue.  Chuck thinks there's no way the Republicans will move away from Trump despite the legal woes, and that Biden isn't going anywhere unless he really messes up the State of the Union reading of the Teleprompter:  But Biden has stepped up before, including at the last State of the Union. And a State of the Union presentation that is both energetic and tight in its framing of a second Biden term would go a long way to quieting, say, the party’s Obama-era backseat drivers.  Naturally, Chuck thinks any development on the abortion front may seal defeat for the GOP:  Think something like the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling affecting in vitro fertilization, but this time in October. Of course, I’m of the view that abortion could end up being the issue that moves the most swing voters — and therefore becomes the reason the GOP comes up short, regardless of whether there’s a specific incident or court ruling dominating the narrative.  This is why liberal journalists adored the Alabama IVF story so much. It has almost nothing to do with abortion, but it can be used to paint Republicans as benighted Christian nationalists who think an embryo is a child. Chuck and his friends would never paint Democrats as callous secular extremists who don't think a baby at nine months gestation is a "choice" and not a child (and won't define what a woman is when "pregnant person" is a safer term). 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC's Katie Phang Tees Up Grieving Dad on NRA's LaPierre: 'Hope He Rots in Hell'

By: Brad Wilmouth — February 28th 2024 at 17:12
On Saturday afternoon, MSNBC host Katie Phang allowed liberal activist Fred Guttenberg to indulge in a hateful rant against the NRA and Donald Trump supporters as he declared that he hopes that former NRA head Wayne LaPierre "rots in hell." It even sounded at one point like he excoriated Trump supporters as the "maggot vote" as he continued his bashing of conservatives. Phang began the segment by recalling that a jury found LaPierre liable over how he used NRA funds, and then gently turned to Guttenberg for his reaction. The gun control activist immediately turned nasty as he began: First, I hope Wayne rots in hell. My daughter was the cost of doing business for a lobby that he built for an industry that profited off of gun violence and death. And the verdict says to me that accountability is coming. Here's the thing. That industry still exists, the NRA still exists. Other entities that are even more extreme than the NRA still exist. America's a free country, but this man makes it sound like some viewpoints shouldn't exist. That no one should advocate for the Second Amendment. Guttenberg wants them at least voted out of existence: "America, if you're as fed up as I am, you have a response that now comes in just nine months. It's called election day. Vote, vote, vote, vote as if this is an issue that matters to you more than any other because it should." A bit later, Phang brought up Guttenberg's recent public appearances with disaffected former Republican Joe Walsh on what they call a "Two Dads Defending Democracy" tour. They talk about "bridging the gap." It's more like two peas in a pod. Their tour announcement notes "Walsh is the author of F*CK SILENCE: Calling Trump Out for the Cultish, Moronic, Authoritarian Con Man He Is." Guttenberg played up their desire to help President Joe Biden get reelected, and then aimed further vitriol at Republicans: You know, listen, Joe and I -- we don't agree on all the issues, but we agree on enough that we could solve things. And we agree on democracy, and we agree on the importance of this upcoming election, and we agree on the necessity to reelect President Biden and give him a Congress that he can work with. Because what we're seeing from the other party right now is disgusting. They're despicable. Watching the former guy mock an audience yesterday just because he knows it will turn out his maggot vote. It is -- it is -- it is simply reprehensible, and Joe and I want to talk to the country and convince them their vote matters, and they need to vote. Transcript follows: MSNBC's The Katie Phang Show February 24, 2024 12:49 p.m. Eastern KATIE PHANG: I know you've been fighting the NRA for years. What does that verdict say to you? FRED GUTTENBERG, GUN CONTROL ACTIVIST: First, I hope Wayne rots in hell. My daughter was the cost of doing business for a lobby that he built for an industry that profited off of gun violence and death. And the verdict says to me that accountability is coming. Here's the thing. That industry still exists, the NRA still exists. Other entities that are even more extreme than the NRA still exist. America, if you're as fed up as I am, you have a response that now comes in just nine months. It's called election day. Vote, vote, vote, vote as if this is an issue that matters to you more than any other because it should. PHANG: And because democracy matters to you and because this issue is so important, you and Joe Walsh have actually gone on a tour -- the Two Dads Defending Democracy tour. Talk about that, because I'm interested. You and Joe have crossed divides that some of us maybe would never have anticipated. I myself, you know, had some really meaningful conversations with Joe. Why was it important for the two of you to take it on the road to share messaging? GUTTENBERG: Because a few years ago -- and going back to the NRA -- the day after my daughter was killed. I walked in my house after the Parkland vigil, and I said, "I'm going to break the F-ing gun lobby." And demonizing people like Joe was a part of that, you know, because I just thought they were wrong. And then, about two years after that, Joe reached out to me and said, "We should talk." And we did. And that conversation led us both to realize we really like each other -- that there's a lot we actually agree on -- that there's a lot together that we can say to the country that will be helpful. And so we've decided to do that. You know, listen, Joe and I -- we don't agree on all the issues, but we agree on enough that we could solve things. And we agree on democracy, and we agree on the importance of this upcoming election, and we agree on the necessity to reelect President Biden and give him a Congress that he can work with. Because what we're seeing from the other party right now is disgusting. They're despicable. Watching the former guy mock an audience yesterday just because he knows it will turn out his maggot vote. It is -- it is -- it is simply reprehensible, and Joe and I want to talk to the country and convince them their vote matters, and they need to vote.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Hypocrisy! Basement Biden to Rein in Chinese Data Buying But Is Still on TikTok

By: Catherine Salgado — February 28th 2024 at 17:24
While Joe Biden is reportedly aiming to block the flow of sensitive data to hostile foreign countries, he is apparently undercutting his own goals. The Washington Post reported Feb. 26 that Joe Biden is set to issue an executive order “to prevent the bulk flow of Americans’ sensitive data — including genetic information — to hostile foreign countries, prime among them China.” Yet, despite TikTok’s exposed data risks, the president continues to use the Communist Chinese government-tied app for his 2024 presidential campaign.  The Biden-Harris campaign officially joined TikTok during the Superbowl, according to the BBC. The verified account @bidenhq on TikTok has 205,300 followers, 1.9 million likes, and the brief bio: “Grows the economy.” The account has posted over two dozen videos. MRC Free Speech America reported last April that the Biden campaign recruited TikTok influencers for online propaganda. The hypocritical move came soon after the White House set a deadline for removing TikTok from federal devices. Dan Schneider, Vice President for MRC Free Speech America, said at the time, “We are witnessing the re-launch of the Biden from the Basement campaign. Everyone knows that Joe can’t string together two coherent sentences, so he is already recruiting young people to be his mouthpiece.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and a financial stake in TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance. Multiple whistleblowers and a Buzzfeed investigation presented evidence last year that ByteDance has direct access to U.S. TikTok data. A 2023 lawsuit from a former ByteDance executive even alleged that the CCP can access U.S. ByteDance data and that ByteDance pushes CCP propaganda on TikTok. Ironically, Biden’s new order, as reported by The Post, is aimed at preventing data brokers and other companies from selling access to large sensitive information stores. These include geolocation and genomic data, which could now no longer go to buyers in “countries of concern” such as China, Iran, and Russia. The Post cited Biden administration officials’ comments to industry and civil society experts. 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

Did NYT Lawsuit Against OpenAI Expose Chatbots Mainstream Legacy Collusion?

By: Luis Cornelio — February 28th 2024 at 17:27
A bombshell lawsuit against one of the largest artificial intelligence companies may have inadvertently revealed that popular AI chatbots are secretly propping up legacy media outlets in their answers. In a 35-page motion filed on Monday, OpenAI pushed back against alleged “deceptive” accusations by The New York Times that it unlawfully used millions of copyrighted articles to train its GPT-based products, like ChatGPT, one of its infamous chatbots. “The allegations in the Times’s Complaint do not meet its famously rigorous journalistic standards,” attorneys for OpenAI claimed. The motion followed a federal lawsuit filed by The Times in December, accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of copyright infringement, when both tech companies allegedly grabbed published news articles without authorization. Raw Story, Alternet and The Intercept have since filed two similar lawsuits against OpenAI. While not yet proven, The Times’s allegations could potentially expose that OpenAI and Microsoft’s Bing may have predominantly, or perhaps even exclusively, used data from left-wing media outlets for training their chatbot models, further explaining why their chatbots issue biased answers. (You May Also Like: Will AI Bias Worsen as It Cozies Up to Media in New Deal?) But OpenAI scolded The Times for its allegations, raising damning accusations of its own against the liberal rag. OpenAI claimed that The Times paid “someone to hack” OpenAI’s products to get AI models to generate answers that duplicate content previously published by the newspaper. Moreover, OpenAI further rebuked that to generate the “highly anomalous” results, it took The Times  “tens of thousands of attempts.”  Moreover, OpenAI accused The Times of abusing an internal bug to come up with the potentially copyrighted duplications. “They were able to do so only by targeting and exploiting a bug (which OpenAI has committed to addressing) by using deceptive prompts that blatantly violate OpenAI’s terms of use,” OpenAI’s attorneys wrote, asking the judge to dismiss The Times’s lawsuit. The pushback came after The Times claimed that OpenAI thwarted its subscriptions and revenue when it allegedly stole the content. “By providing Times content without The Times’s permission or authorization, Defendants’ tools undermine and damage The Times’s relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue,” attorneys for The Times wrote in a 69-page lawsuit submitted on Dec. 27, 2023. But the newspaper’s claim that OpenAI somehow jeopardizes its business may fall flat. Evidence unearthed by MRC Free Speech America revealed that OpenAI has actually directs users to The Times, which OpenAI’s newest GPT AI model hailed as one of the top-five best news sources in America. “With its long history of reporting, The New York Times has earned numerous Pulitzer Prizes and is known for its investigative journalism and comprehensive news coverage,” claimed GPT-4-1106-preview, a newer model version of ChatGPT, after being asked to list the five best news sources. Similarly, GPT-4-1106 refused to list what news outlets it deemed as the five worst news sources, directing MRC researchers to media ratings firms Ad Fontes and NewsGuard, both of which have highly favorable ratings for The Times and other leftist outlets. (Related: OpenAI Chatbot CAUGHT Touting Legacy Media, So-Called Media Ratings Firms Ad Fontes & NewsGuard) But the OpenAI chatbot’s promotion of The Times appeared not to be enough for the newspaper, as it now seeks monetary damages. While The Times did not provide a specified amount to quantify the alleged damage—stemming from the alleged unauthorized use of its content—it claimed that using content without authorization proved “extremely lucrative” for Open AI, which is now worth approximately $90 billion. In contrast, Raw Story, Alternet and The Intercept are seeking $2,500 per violation. “This action seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages that they owe for the unlawful copying and use of The Times’s uniquely valuable work,” The Times claimed in December. 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 Lends Credence to Hunter’s Conspiracy Theory: GOP Goading Him to Use Drugs

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — February 28th 2024 at 17:55
In an interview with Axios earlier this week, Hunter Biden suggested that the scrutiny congressional Republicans had him under was “maybe the ultimate test for a recovering addict;” the outlet also shared President Biden’s private fear that they could cause his son to relapse. And during CNN’s Inside Politics on Wednesday, host Dana Bash and Justice correspondent Evan Perez took the concern as legitimate and wagged their proverbial finger at Republicans on Capitol Hill. According to Hunter, the future of America hinged on his ability to maintain sobriety. “I have always been in awe of people who have stayed clean and sober through tragedies and obstacles few people ever face. They are my heroes, my inspiration (…) I have something much bigger than even myself at stake. We are in the middle of a fight for the future of democracy," he told Axios. After reading those lines, Bash and Perez marveled at his pose and openness: BASH: This is kind of more of the human element of what we're talking about here. PEREZ: It’s personal. BASH: It's very personal. He is very open about the fact that he is an addict. He was very much off the wagon when a lot of this happened. And part of what he is trying to do – he's saying here – is stay clean – [inaudible] for himself, for his family, for his father, and he believes for politics, which is democracy.     The pair also had The Washington Post’s Leigh Ann Caldwell as company. “And he's also insinuating there that he knows that this is also inherently political as well,” she touted Hunter’s deduction of Republican motives. Without giving any, and with backup from Bash, Perez suggested there was evidence that Republicans were intentionally trying to goad Hunter into falling off the wagon again: PEREZ: And you can see what he's saying in return, which is, ‘they're going after me because they're trying to make me use so that they could hurt my father’ and that is a crazy thing to have to hear in 2024 politics. BASH: Yeah. And in 2024 society when we are much more aware of addiction. Perez lauded First Lady Jill Biden’s efforts to keep Hunter sober. “I think with Hunter Biden and one of the key parts of this has been, you know, Jill Biden and her role in trying to keep Hunter close,” he said. “I think part of the thing has been about this very personal familial, you know, tragedy that they've been living, which is to try to keep him sober and to keep him safe. And that's one reason why you see him there. They keep them close for that reason.” Of course, all of this was said in the shadow of Hunter finally giving closed-door testimony to Congress about his shady business dealings. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Inside Politics February 28, 2024 12:10:44 p.m. Eastern (…) DANA BASH: But he actually, in a rare interview with Axios on Monday, said the following, which really struck us. He said, “I've always been in awe of people who have stayed clean and sober through tragedies and obstacles few people ever face. I have something much bigger than even myself at stake. We are in the middle of a fight for the future of democracy.” This is kind of more of the human element of what we're talking about here. EVAN PEREZ: It’s personal. BASH: It's very personal. He is very open about the fact that he is an addict. He was very much off the wagon when a lot of this happened. And part of what he is trying to do – he's saying here – is stay clean – [inaudible] for himself, for his family, for his father, and he believes for politics, which is democracy. LEIGH ANN CALDWELL (The Washington Post): Yeah. And he's also insinuating there that he knows that this is also inherently political as well. Donald Trump, every single campaign stump speech, he gives, the words come out of his mouth, “Joe Biden, the most corrupt president in history.” And so, this is part of the strategy of trying to convince voters that that is true. PEREZ: You know, look, I think with Hunter Biden and one of the key parts of this has been, you know, Jill Biden and her role in trying to keep Hunter close. And you see all these stories about ‘why is Hunter showing up at these events at the White House? Why isn't the president pushing him away?’ I think part of the thing has been about this very personal familial, you know, tragedy that they've been living, which is to try to keep him sober and to keep him safe. And that's one reason why you see him there. They keep them close for that reason. And you can see what he's saying in return, which is, ‘they're going after me because they're trying to make me use so that they could hurt my father’ and that is a crazy thing to have to hear in 2024 politics. BASH: Yeah. And in 2024 society when we are much more aware of addiction.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

The State of Black Progress in 2024

By: Star Parker — February 28th 2024 at 19:15
As part of Black History Month 2024, my organization, CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, has announced the release of “The State of Black Progress,” published by Encounter Books. This is a follow-up to “The State of Black America,” published by CURE in 2022. The objective of these tomes is to showcase first-class scholarship to paint a comprehensive picture for thinking much differently about the reality facing Black Americans than what has been the norm for many years. By “thinking much differently,” I mean to say that our case shows that Blacks may have some unique problems and challenges, but the principles for dealing with these challenges are not about race. The truths that govern human reality, the truths that enable human success, are not different between races but are the same for all. Different ethnic groups or races may have unique problems, just as every individual human being has his or her own unique problems. But the truths to which every human being must turn to solve their unique problems are the same for all. In this spirit, we were very honored to be hosted by the American Enterprise institute in Washington, D.C., to do a joint event to publicize this tome. Three of the 12 scholars who contributed essays for the book are American Enterprise Institute scholars. AEI, whose stated mission is “expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise,” is the oldest Washington policy institute promoting these values, with a legacy reaching back to the 1930s. Our excitement to be hosted by and work with AEI is that AEI is about the key principles that define America as a free country with a free economy. At CURE, we focus on race and poverty exclusively — but we share the same American values with AEI regarding the principles needed for solving our problems. Two issues that we deal with in this work are federal retirement policy — Social Security — and federal housing policy. Both these areas saw major changes through expansion of government going back to the 1930s. AEI’s roots go back to that time; the institute stepped up and opposed significant expansion of the role of government in the lives of Americans. Our work in “The State of Black Progress” covers that gamut of where government has become majorly involved in the lives of Americans, particularly Black Americans. Beyond Social Security and federal housing policy, we’re talking about education policy, health care, local community economic policies and the changing ways federal judges read and apply our constitution to justify expansion of government. Our scholars show in all these areas that government activism and expansion designed to help low-income Americans has hurt rather than helped. Sadly, thinking about race in America has widely meant government activism and expansion. It not only has hurt the individuals these policies were meant to help, but it has hurt the whole country. As our nation now is being crushed by spending and debt, all should consider that, compared to the 25% of the American economy that government now consumes, in the mid-1960s, when the Civil Rights Act passed, this stood at 17%. Back in the late 1930s, when key elements of this began, federal spending consumed less than 10% of the U.S. economy. AEI’s Ian Rowe shows that when the data for race is corrected for family structure, when we look at Black households with intact families, with a married husband and wife heading the household, Black Americans are as healthy as any healthy part of our nation. It is unfortunate that the success of the Civil Rights Movement was parlayed into a new birth of government rather than into a new birth of freedom. CURE is working to change that, in the interest of Black Americans and all Americans. Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the weekly television show “Cure America with Star Parker.” Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Politico Worries Trump Will Politicize Already Politicized Intelligence Agencies

By: P.J. Gladnick — February 28th 2024 at 20:13
Someone should inform Politico's national security reporter Erin Banco and her colleague John Sakellariadis that the politicized intelligence community train had long ago left the station when it was fully weaponized against former President Donald Trump, almost from the moment (and even before) he took office in 2017. However, now that the prospect of Trump returning to the White House was a possibility, the intelligence agencies were suddenly clutching their pearls in deep concern over the politicization of their already politicized community. Banco and Sakellariadis went into a state of deep, deep concern on Monday over the future of the deep state in "The prospect of a second Trump presidency has the intelligence community on edge": Former top officials from Donald Trump’s administration are warning he is likely to use a second term to overhaul the nation’s spy agencies in a way that could lead to an unprecedented level of politicization of intelligence. GASP! Politicized intelligence? Imagine that! Perhaps we should consult with the 51 former intelligence officials who claimed that Hunter Biden's laptop was likely the result of Russian disinformation right before the 2020 election for verification of this astonishing charge. "Trump, who already tried to revamp intelligence agencies during his first term, is likely to re-up those plans — and push even harder to replace people perceived as hostile to his political agenda with inexperienced loyalists, according to interviews with more than a dozen people who worked in his administration," they warned. Could they be so inexperienced as to use something like the obviously bogus Steele dossier as an excuse to investigate a president? "America’s spy agencies are never completely divorced from politics," they admitted. "But an overhaul of the type Trump is expected to attempt could undermine the credibility of American intelligence at a time when the U.S. and allies are relying on it to navigate crises in Ukraine and the Middle East. It could also effectively strip the intelligence community of the ability to dissuade the president from decisions that could put the country at risk." God forbid the sacred "credibility of American intelligence" be undermined or questioned. Of course, they did a pretty good job of undermining their own credibility such as illegally issuing FISA warrants on American citizens according to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Even our intrepid Politico reporters realized that it would be embarrassing not to address the Trump-Russia Collusion hoax that wasted a couple of years of needless investigation during Trump's first term: Perhaps no single government spy agency is likely to come under as much pressure as the FBI. Trump had toxic relations with the bureau from the start of his first term, blaming it for the leak of the infamous Steele dossier — an unsubstantiated and now largely debunked report that suggested Trump had extensive entanglements with the Russians. Many Democrats and Trump adversaries seized on the dossier at the time, however, angering the former president. And Trump Attorney General Bill Barr later launched a probe into the origins of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. At the FBI’s prodding, the intelligence community also included the report in the appendix to a 2016 report on foreign election interference. Andrew McCabe, the then-deputy director of the FBI, said the bureau believed that was necessary to keep with a directive from then-President Barack Obama to compile all intelligence U.S. intelligence officials had on Russian meddling. Featuring it in the appendix was meant to make clear that the Steele dossier “was raw, unverified, and did not represent the basis of our assessments,” he said. Several individuals who spoke with POLITICO argue that decision was a mistake that tainted Trump’s view of both the bureau and the broader intelligence community from the outset. The FBI “dug their own grave” on that one, one former intelligence official said. Gee! That sure sounds like a good example of a politicized intelligence agency. So, where was Politico back in 2017 when that was happening? Better yet where was Politico in 2020, weeks before the national election, when their own reporter at the time, Natasha Bertrand, acted as a stenographer for the politicized intelligence community and produced this gem, "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." Any publication that ever employed Natasha Bertrand (also looking at you, CNN), the embodiment of politicized intelligence agencies, should have the good sense not to whine about politicized intelligence agencies. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NY Times Front-Page News? Random Dem Rants About Jews 'Snookering' Palestinians

By: Clay Waters — February 28th 2024 at 22:32
New York Times reporter Jennifer Medina was the latest reporter to cover the pro-Palestinian rump of Democrats turning against Biden in Michigan, on Tuesday’s front page: “Biden Is Losing Party Loyalists Over Gaza War.” While it’s interesting to see the Times feature prominent coverage of a movement that opposes Biden in an election year, Medina’s unquestioning acceptance of her guest’s callous treatment of Israel and casual relaying of anti-Israel tropes was striking and revealing of a left-wing mindset. We meet Palestinian-Christian immigrant turned U.S. Democratic Party activist Terry Ahwal at home, showing off her photos of Democratic presidents, but swearing President Biden “will not appear on her wall”: After a lifetime of work in Democratic politics -- running local campaigns, asking strangers for money, begging acquaintances to vote for candidates -- she is now campaigning against the Democrat in the White House. A Palestinian American who emigrated from the West Bank more than 50 years ago, Ms. Ahwal is furious over the president’s alliance with Israel in its war against Hamas that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza…. Medina channeled Ahwal’s inflammatory anti-Israel ranting -- again, in a front-page story: “You want my vote? You cannot kill my people in my name. As simple as that,” she said recently, sitting at the dining room table of her home in Farmington Hills, a Detroit suburb. Photographs of her travels to Jordan, Peru and the Great Lakes decorate her walls. “Everything Israel wants, they get.” She noted the closeness of the last two presidential results in Michigan, “home to 200,000 Arab Americans.” This one-sided story didn't mention how segments of the Arab-American community in Dearborn were steeped in pro-Hamas hatred of Israel, as the Wall Street Journal noted. Such inconvenient associations weren't allowed to poison the well of Ahwal's left-wing convictions. (Meanwhile, Republicans are constantly associated with the far right and Nazism.) "In conversations in mosques and coffee shops, there was nearly unanimous agreement that Mr. Biden and his support for Israel’s right-wing government have enabled the devastation. Most shared Ms. Ahwal’s stance against voting for Mr. Biden," Medina warned. While Israel received an unflattering “right-wing” label, Hamas was never characterized as terrorist or even militant. Ahwal revealed her twisted priorities, flitting over the murders committed against Israeli citizens, skipping straight to the fears of a backlash: "Ms. Ahwal had an immediate thought as news of Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians came in on Oct. 7: It would not be long before Israel took revenge." Regarding the collapse of peace negotiations in 1993, Ahwal didn’t blame PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat but forwarded childish anti-Israel insults without rebuttal: Scholars cite many factors for the demise of the agreement: Arafat’s failure to accept Israeli and American offers. Mr. Rabin’s assassination by a right-wing extremist in 1995. Steady growth of settlements in the West Bank. The second intifada followed by Hamas’s ascent to power. For Ms. Ahwal, the answer is simpler. “It was just basically a process of delaying, a process of land theft, a process of deception,” she said, blaming the U.S. for not restraining Israel. “What happened is just the Palestinians were snookered.” A self-described pacifist, Ms. Ahwal recoiled at Hamas’s attacks on civilians on Oct. 7. Still, she saw Palestinians in Gaza in an impossible position, reacting to decades of Israeli control…. Was this vituperative activist really the most articulate voice Medina could find for the anti-Biden-pro-Palestinian cause? Perhaps channeling her own thinking, Medina let her guest layout hypocritical demands on the Biden Administration, including declaring Israel (a home for Jews that have been kicked out of Arab lands, whose own population was nonetheless 20 percent Arab) an “apartheid state”: But that doesn’t get close to the policies Ms. Ahwal says could change her mind: labeling Israel an apartheid state, freezing military aid, supporting a peace initiative led by Palestinians. Only the last move seems even remotely likely.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Democracy Depends On Hunter Biden Staying Sober?

By: Tim Graham — February 28th 2024 at 22:57
As Hunter Biden headed into closed-door testimony in the Biden impeachment inquiry, Axios reported Hunter thinks there are "profound consequences" in his staying sober. "I have something much bigger than even myself at stake. We are in the middle of a fight for the future of democracy." Nobody wants to rest democracy on those chances. MRC Director of Media Analysis Geoffrey Dickens joins the show to discuss his latest list of shocking Biden influence-peddling stories that drew "ZERO seconds" of air time. Why do they ignore it? So they can run these preposterous denials like Hunter Biden claiming "I did not involve my father in my business." For years, the New York Post and other media outlets have reported stories the networks energetically ignored. Among the newest scoops: -- The House Oversight Committee confirmed that "Joe Biden with nearly every foreign national who funneled money to his son," including Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina, Romanian oligarch Kenes Rakishev, Burisma's corporate secretary Vadym Pozharsky of Ukraine, and Chinese magnates Jonathan Li and Ye Jianming. -- Hunter Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski testified to the House that "Joe Biden was more than a participant and a beneficiary of his family's business, he was an enabler, despite being buffered by a complex scheme to maintain plausible deniability," like hiding money in offshore LLCs. This enables reporters to keep claiming there's "no evidence" of Biden's involvement. -- Joe Biden's brother James received $200,000 from the hospital chain Americore and on that same day, James wrote Joe a check for $200,000. It was marked "loan repayment." But James and Joe have never produced documents that prove that Joe loaned six figures to his brother. (James also wrote another check to Joe for $40,000). -- Hunter's law firm sent three monthly payments of $1,380 to Joe Biden in the fall of 2018 shortly after a bank money laundering officer warned the same account was receiving millions of dollars in Chinese government-linked funs without "any services rendered." Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Like, share, download, enjoy!    
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

HUNTERMANIA: The Praetorian Media Line Up to Protect the Prince and the Precious

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 29th 2024 at 00:24
Hunter Biden went to the Capitol for his closed-door deposition with the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. This is his makeup day for the depo he blew off in order to deliver a tirade from behind a podium before stomping off the Capitol grounds. The network newscasts fell in formation today, focused on protecting the Bidens and disqualifying the proceedings. Coverage was nearly identical across the Big Three, touching on some of the same thematic points: a quote from Hunter’s statement denouncing the investigation and calling for it to end, a brief summation of what the investigation is about, and some version of the Smirnov Hoax, to wit: that the controversial FBI FD-1023 (record of confidential informant meeting with agent) with its allegedly false statements contained therein is the entirety of the evidence upon which the impeachment inquiry hinges.  Of the three, ABC’s coverage was the most extensive and most partisan. Here’s correspondent Rachel Scott, dutifully reciting the Smirnov Hoax: RACHEL SCOTT: Republicans built their case largely on a claim from an FBI informant that as vice president, Biden took a $5 million bribe from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter Biden sat on the board. The Justice Department now calls that story a fabrication, and the informant has been charged with lying to the FBI.  Of course, this is patently false. The impeachment inquiry was NOT built largely on the FD-1023. There is also the trove of documents contained within the laptop, the damning testimony of the IRS whistleblowers, testimony from Hunter’s several business partners, and the evidence collected in furtherance of Hunter's indictment on tax charges. But suggesting that the whole thing hangs on the FD-1023 makes it easier to dismiss the whole thing as little more than a fake partisan sham.  Scott carried the Democrats’ water during a gaggle with House Oversight Chair James Comer, by suggesting that Smirnov’s indictment somehow made the impeachment inquiry illegitimate. Here’s that exchange: SCOTT: Chairman, what do you say to some Democrats who see this as a sham? They say that one of the people that you identified as credible, though… JAMES COMER: Well, then they can --  SCOTT: …has been indicted of a crime. Indicted of lying.  COMER: Listen, they've mentioned three of the people that we deposed as not being credible. These people were the partners of Hunter Biden, okay? It's a reflection on the Bidens, not me, that their partners have all been indicted or in prison.  Scott ended the report with a quote from Hunter’s lawyer.  NBC and CBS followed similar templates, but weren’t interested in doing a full two minutes on Hunter Biden’s closed-door. You had brief reports, of approximately one minute in NBC’s case and CBS’s at around 30 seconds, that were more succinct in laying the narratives needed to protect the precious: the precious here being the electoral prospects of Joe Biden. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on the network evening newscasts on Wednesday, February 28th, 2024: NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: LESTER HOLT: Also tonight, Hunter Biden, the president's son, testifying to House Republicans today in his father's impeachment inquiry. Ryan Nobles joins us. Ryan, Hunter Biden had pretty sharp words today.  RYAN NOBLES: Yeah, that's right, Lester. Hunter Biden testifying behind closed doors that his father was not involved in any of his foreign business dealings, and he slammed House Republicans for what he called a, quote, “partisan political pursuit of my dad”. And Republicans are investigating whether or not the president was involved in what they describe as an effort by the Biden family to cash in on Joe Biden's political career. They point to testimony that Joe Biden joined a business meeting with Hunter Biden via speakerphone. Now, the impeachment inquiry is struggling to regain momentum after an informant who accused Joe Biden as being part of a bribery scheme was indicted for lying to the FBI. House Democrats say that is enough for the impeachment inquiry to come to an end. Lester. HOLT: Ryan Nobles, thanks.   CBS EVENING NEWS: NORAH O’DONNELL: Hunter Biden on Capitol Hill today sitting down for a seven hour closed-door deposition for House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into his father. The president's son called the inquiry into his family's business dealings “a house of cards, built on lies”. House Republicans accused the Bidens of influence peddling, making millions off clients in Ukraine, China, and other foreign countries. A key witness, Alexander Smirnov, was arrested earlier this month for allegedly lying to the FBI, falsely claiming that the Bidens had taken millions of dollars in bribes.   ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: DAVID MUIR: Meantime, the president's son Hunter Biden was questioned behind closed doors for seven hours today. The heated hearing part of the House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into the president and his son. Here's ABC's Rachel Scott now. RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, President Biden's son Hunter testifying for nearly seven hours. As House Republicans forge ahead with their troubled impeachment investigation. Behind closed doors, Hunter Biden calling the investigation a “partisan political pursuit built on lies”. Insisting, "I did not involve my father in my business." Acknowledging "I have made mistakes in my life, but my mistakes and shortcomings are my own and not my father's." Republicans on the committee unloading.  NANCY MACE: Hunter Biden is being defiant and also dishonest. SCOTT: Republicans built their case largely on a claim from an FBI informant that as vice president, Biden took a $5 million bribe from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter Biden sat on the board. The Justice Department now calls that story a fabrication, and the informant has been charged with lying to the FBI.  ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: The Republican case has completely fallen apart over the last several weeks. They are now trying to scramble to find anything to substantiate their fairy tale.  SCOTT: Chairman, what do you say to some Democrats who see this as a sham? They say that one of the people that you identified as credible, though… JAMES COMER: Well, then they can --  SCOTT: …has been indicted of a crime. Indicted of lying.  COMER: Listen, they've mentioned three of the people that we deposed as not being credible. These people were the partners of Hunter Biden, okay? It's a reflection on the Bidens, not me, that their partners have all been indicted or in prison.  SCOTT: Tonight, an attorney for Hunter Biden told reporters that after seven hours, Republicans failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. The committee plans to release a transcript of that testimony in the coming days. David.  MUIR: Rachel Scott, live on The Hill for us. Rachel, thank you.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Elie Mystal Whines About Timing Of SCOTUS Taking Trump Immunity Appeal

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 29th 2024 at 01:21
Much of the evening’s prime-time cable news content was centered around the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Trump appeal on presidential immunity, after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said he had none. The tone has generally been one of tooth-gnashing and wailing over the timing of the hearing date, April 22nd. Among the left wing commentariat, writer and MSNBC guest Elie Mystal vomited up the wildest take of the evening. Watch Mystal affirm, without evidence, that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are going to rule for Trump because they want to retire during a Republican presidency, as aired on MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tonight on Wednesday, February 28th, 2024: ALEX WAGNER: Well, Elie, in the break leading into the segment, you rightly point out the vested interest that some of these conservatives have in a reelection of Trump as it pertains to their retirement. ELIE MYSTAL: Clarence Thomas doesn't want to die on that court and he’s getting old and he is never going to retire during a Democratic president. So Clarence Thomas- one of the reasons why he’s not re-cruising himself is that Clarence Thomas needs Trump to win again so Clarence Thomas can retire. And most likely, Sam Alito needs Trump to win again so Alito can retire instead of having to die on the bench. And so that’s at least two of the nine who have a vested professional interest in seeing continued Republican hegemony over this country and that’s not the first time this has happened. As we all know, Sandra Day O'Connor wanted George Bush to be president and thus appointed him president in Bush v. Gore, because she wanted to retire under a Republican president. This is how Republicans roll.   Perhaps there is the possibility that, on a matter as novel and significant as presidential immunity, that the Supreme Court wanted to let the record develop organically, allowing the lower court and appellate court to rule on the matter. And that, furthermore, the Court wanted to allow this to run on regular time so as not to rush such an important opinion and get it right. Hence, the court set the immunity hearing on the current October docket, as opposed to January when it was first requested by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Just maybe. But such temperate analyses don’t cut it for MSNBC. Which is how you get Elie Mystal wailing about Republican Court-imposed hegemony, and suggesting that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor appointed George W. Bush to the presidency so she could ride off into the sunset.  Wagner was also joined during the segment by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, who echoed these same sentiments. What the segment proved is that the left doesn’t really care about such trivial things as due process or any other such dicta. The only thing that matters is that Donald J. Trump be found guilty and convicted of a serious federal crime before Election Day, 2024. April 22nd throws all that into jeopardy. Hence all the whining and emoting.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Second Grade Teacher Uses Non-Binary 'MX' Pronoun on 'Abbott Elementary'

By: Elise Ehrhard — February 29th 2024 at 10:09
Last night, the ABC sitcom Abbott Elementary introduced a substitute second grade teacher who uses the "non-binary" fake pronoun "mx" with students. In the episode, "Breakup," substitute teacher Cassidy Geoffrey (Sabrina Wu) fills in for Janine (Quinta Brunson), a second grade teacher who left to take a fellowship with the school district.  Cassidy is driving Abbott's other second grade teacher, Melissa (Lisa Ann Walter), crazy with her flighty, hair-brained behavior. She encourages the children in her classroom to scream as a group and yells in the air along with them. When Melissa asks her why she does this, Cassidy tells her, "Been using tactics I read in a book I heard. You know, sometimes it feels like I'm the one teaching them."   Cassidy also mistakenly refers to her teaching certificate as a "gift certificate." Melissa becomes convinced Cassidy must be lying about being a teacher. She calls Janine at the district to look up whether Cassidy is a legitimate substitute or a fraud.  Janine cannot find Cassidy in the district database, so Melissa and Janine confront Cassidy in her classroom. Cassidy: Oh, hello Melissa and uh... Janine: Your worst nightmare. The jig is up, Jeffrey. I actually work at the school district. And guess who isn't in the substitute database?  Cassidy: Who? Janine: You.  Cassidy: I don't know what you're talking about. I've subbed all over Philly.  Melissa: Oh, yeah? What schools?  Cassidy: Washington. Jefferson. Roosevelt. McKinley. Roosevelt again.  Melissa: Okay. You're just naming presidents. You're out of here. Janine: Yeah. I've searched every employment file that the district has, and there's no record of a Cassidy... Is it "Gee-oh-free"?  Cassidy: It's pronounced "Jeffrey."  Janine: But it isn't spelled that way, now, is it?  Up until this scene, there is little indication that Cassidy falls into any sort of invented gender category. She has a short haircut and androgynous clothes, but who cares? Her outfits are not out of the ordinary. In many ways, kooky Cassidy is a perfect representative for the immature Tumblr madness of invented gender pronouns. "Mx," pronounced "mix," is gobbledygook that is being embraced by left-wing LGBTQUIA "educators." It confuses vulnerable young children in both grammar and human biology.  The episode at least refused to make Cassidy an idealized, perfect person, which is rare for LGBTQUIA television characters nowadays.  "If we took out those quirks [Cassidy's], it wouldn't be funny. It's hard to have people of certain identities presented as perfect because then what is there to laugh at?" episode writer Brittani Nichols told Entertainment Weekly. Nonetheless, the episode's casual use of "Mx" on the blackboard further normalizes nonsense and wrongly perpetuates the idea that foisting adult gender confusion on early elementary school children is acceptable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Daily Show Smears McConnell As Being Responsible For School Shootings

By: Alex Christy — February 29th 2024 at 10:19
Comedy Central’s Michael Kosta used his second day of temp hosting The Daily Show to react to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Wednesday decision to step down as the GOP Senate leader by accusing him of being responsible for school shootings. Kosta made the remarks after playing a clip of McConnell on the Senate floor, claiming that he felt it was time to move on to his life’s next chapter, “Next chapter? I don't think there's that much left in the book, my friend. I think you're looking at the acknowledgements page right now. But yes, this is the end of Mitch's reign in the Senate. And in honor of all that he has done to stop mass shootings, there will be a 21-gun salute at an elementary school later this month.”     While the “joke” is nominally about McConnell, it is really about all Second Amendment defenders. If you believe the Constitution means what it says and that gun control laws would only affect law-abiding citizens and not criminals, then The Daily Show thinks you also do not care about murdered children. The Daily Show was not the only late night show in a hurry to kick McConnell out the door. Over at CBS and The Late Show, host Stephen Colbert played another clip of McConnell recalling President Ronald Reagan mistaking him for Mitch O’Donnell, “Close enough, I thought.” “Well, that's very big of you, Bitch O’Dumb Nuts,” Colbert replied as if that were clever. Later on NBC’s Late Night, Meyers kicked off his monologue by reporting that “thanks to the woke left, another Confederate statue has been taken down. That's right, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell announced today that he will step down from his leadership position in November, and then in December he'll be stepping down from his position as Krampus.” The claim is that McConnell is racist, but just as opposing gun control doesn’t make you responsible for school shootings, opposing Democrats’ so-called “voting rights” bills or whatever else Meyers has in mind doesn’t make you a Confederate. Here is a transcript for the February 28-taped shows: Comedy Central The Daily Show 2/28/2024 11:15 PM ET MICHAEL KOSTA: Next chapter? I don't think there's that much left in the book, my friend. I think you're looking at the acknowledgements page right now. But yes, this is the end of Mitch's reign in the Senate. And in honor of all that he has done to stop mass shootings, there will be a 21-gun salute at an elementary school later this month.  *** CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 2/28/2024 11:37 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: McConnell made his announcement on the Senate floor and then took a fun shamble down Memory Lane.  MITCH MCCONNELL: My career in the United States Senate began amidst the Reagan Revolution. The truth is when I got here I was just happy if anybody remembered my name. President Reagan called me Mitch O'Donnell. Close enough, I thought. COLBERT: Well, that's very big of you, Bitch O’ Dumb Nuts. That's not very nice. That’s not good. *** NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 2/29/2024 12:37 AM ET SETH MEYERS: Well, thanks to the woke left, another Confederate statue has been taken down. That's right Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell announced today that he will step down from his leadership position in November and then in December he'll be stepping down from his position as Krampus.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CNN's Abby Phillip Asks Leftist If Israel's Genocidal, and Biden's Complicit

By: Brad Wilmouth — February 29th 2024 at 10:23
On Monday's NewsNight show, for the second time in less than a week, CNN host Abby Phillip discussed the war in Gaza with a liberal guest whom she prodded to convey whether Israel is committing "genocide" against the Palestinians in spite of the Israeli Defense Forces making efforts to limit civilian casualties even while Hamas fighters hide among the civilian population. Phillip began the segment at the top of the show by recalling a U.S. soldier who set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest Israel's war efforts, and then recounted previous examples of protesters engaging in similar extreme acts of self-injury to protest other wars like Vietnam. "Now, the fact that Israel's war in Gaza has provoked this kind of response from really anyone marks a new and stunning chapter in this country's stark divisions over this war." She then cited polls finding that much of the public, including most Democrats, believe Israel has gone too far, and brought aboard far-left Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who is also running in the primary for the U.S. Senate right now. Phillip called her a "progressive" and recalled that, in 2001, she was the only member of Congress to vote against going to war in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks "that sent American troops into Afghanistan for what turned out to be two decades of war." After asking for her reaction to the man who set himself on fire, Phillip's second question was to bring up accusations of "genocide" against Israel: PHILLIP: So this servicemember said that he could no longer be complicit in genocide. Two questions for you: Do you consider what Israel is doing in Gaza to be a genocide? And do you consider the President, as a result of that, to be complicit in a genocide? LEE: Look, I am going to tell you what I believe first in terms of condemning the horrific Hamas attacks. Terrorism should not be tolerated in any part of the world, including in Israel. And I also have said very clearly that, in going after Hamas, killing innocent civilians -- what, 30,000 nearly -- women and children  -- that is not how you prosecute a war to address terrorism We have to have a ceasefire, and, Abby, that's what I'm calling for. Instead of pushing back in any way, the CNN host followed up by playing a clip of President Biden talking up the possibility of a temporary ceasefire in about a week, and then posed: "Is that enough for you? He's talking there about not a permanent ceasefire but a short-term ceasefire in exchange for the release of hostages." After Lee repeated her claims about the number of civilian deaths, Phillip followed up by asking if President Biden should push even further for a longer-term ceasefire: LEE: It does -- it does need to be conditioned. We should never allow any country to receive U.S. tax dollars without some rules -- some conditions and some accountability measures. So, yes, that should take place. PHILLIP: I mean, to be clear, there are -- I mean, there are conditions by law on the aid that goes to Israel. But I think the criticism from some people is that it doesn't go far enough, and that it needs to go further. So, I mean, to what degree do you think that that should be something that President Biden pushes even further than what is already required by law? LEE: He should push as far as he can push... Again, instead of giving any pushback, Phillip then moved to asking her if her liberal guest hypothetically would take part in a protest vote against President Biden in the Michigan primary if she lived in the state to send a message over his handling of the Gaza issue. Nowhere in here was the notion that there's anything objectionable or terrorist or radical in what Hamas has done. Transcript follows: CNN's NewsNight February 26, 2024 10:04 p.m. ABBY PHILLIP (after informing viewers of a man who set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the war in Gaza): Now, the fact that Israel's war in Gaza has provoked this kind of response from really anyone marks a new and stunning chapter in this country's stark divisions over this war. Biden is clearly feeling the pressure, and, privately, he's expressing his frustration with the Netanyahu government and its refusal to moderate the bombing campaign. Right now, here's where the numbers stand domestically -- 50 percent of Americans say that Israel's campaign has gone too far. That includes 63 percent of Democrats. And that number has been building. Recent events -- they've also highlighted how limited Biden's increasingly frank warnings to Netanyahu have been in exerting pressure on a U.S. ally. He, for example, warned Netanyahu not to plan for an invasion into the densely populated refuge for civilians, Rafah. Netanyahu says he has a plan to do just that. And tomorrow we'll see a test of just how frustrated the voters are. There's been a vocal campaign in the state of Michigan to get Democrats to vote uncommitted as a message directly to the President of the United States. Now, whether President Biden hears that message or if he can do anything at this point to make Israel hear that message, well, that remains to be seen. Tonight, progressive anger at the President is mounting. Joining me now is someone who's been a key progressive for a very long time, Democratic Congresswoman from California, Barbara Lee. She's a former chair of the Progressive Caucus. She's also running for Senate. Now, Lee was also the only member of Congress from either party to vote against the 2001 authorization of military force that sent American troops into Afghanistan for what turned out to be two decades of war. Congresswoman, thank you for joining us tonight. As you saw there, a servicemember self-immolating outside of the Israeli embassy. It's really a horrifying thing to watch. When you saw that, what went through your mind? (CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA LEE (D-CA)) PHILLIP: So this servicemember said that he could no longer be complicit in genocide. Two questions for you: Do you consider what Israel is doing in Gaza to be a genocide? And do you consider the President, as a result of that, to be complicit in a genocide? LEE: Look, I am going to tell you what I believe first in terms of condemning the horrific Hamas attacks. Terrorism should not be tolerated in any part of the world, including in Israel. And I also have said very clearly that, in going after Hamas, killing innocent civilians -- what, 30,000 nearly -- women and children  -- that is not how you prosecute a war to address terrorism. We have to have a ceasefire, and, Abby, that's what I'm calling for. I called for a ceasefire early. We have to get a political and diplomatic solution so that the hostages can be released -- so this terrible death and destruction and violence can stop. And I'm concerned about an escalation into a regional war with the United States embroiled in it. And so of course it's in our national security interests also, and we need to continue to call for a ceasefire, and we need to call for the end of the killing of so many civilians -- so many children, so many women. PHILLIP: Just tonight, President Biden made some news. He spoke to the late night host Seth Meyers. I want to play for you what he said. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, I hope by the beginning of the weekend -- I mean the end of the weekend. My national security advisor tells me that we're close. We're close. It's not done yet. And my hope is by next Monday we'll have a ceasefire. PHILLIP: Is that enough for you? He's talking there about not a permanent ceasefire but a short-term ceasefire in exchange for the release of hostages. (...) LEE: But remember the United States has supported and continues to support a two-state solution. Netanyahu said that he does not, so we're going to have to fight very hard for a permanent ceasefire and to get back on track for a politically diplomatic -- PHILLIP: And on that exact note, I mean, Netanyahu has essentially ignored a lot of what the Biden administration has already said to them about what they want to see. He has pushed aside this idea of a two-state solution. He says he still plans to conduct an invasion into Rafah despite the Biden administration warning him not to do that without certain conditions being met. Do you think that President Biden actually has influence over the Netanyahu government at this point? LEE: The President must continue to hold Israel accountable and must continue to tell Netanyahu in no uncertain terms that what is taking place is, first of all, against the rules of warfare. It's a violation of human rights. What is taking place is thousands of civilians -- women and children -- 30,000 -- are being killed. PHILLIP: Is it enough for him to just say that to Netanyahu? Or does he -- others have said the aid needs to be conditioned. Do you believe that that's the case? LEE: It does -- it does need to be conditioned. We should never allow any country to receive U.S. tax dollars without some rules -- some conditions and some accountability measures. So, yes, that should take place. PHILLIP: I mean, to be clear, there are -- I mean, there are conditions by law on the aid that goes to Israel. But I think the criticism from some people is that it doesn't go far enough, and that it needs to go further. So, I mean, to what degree do you think that that should be something that President Biden pushes even further than what is already required by law? LEE: He should push as far as he can push because, one, the leverage that the United States has is very clear to me. I chaired the committee on appropriations that funds a lot of our international diplomacy and develops investments. It's very clear to me that if, in fact, countries don't meet the conditions, then we have the kind of leverage that should insist that they do, or we pull back and do not fund to the extent that the funding is not accountable to U.S. tax dollars. And this what's taking place now, and so the President must insist that the rules of accountability be complied with, and they haven't been, Abby, so that's the issue. PHILLIP: Congresswoman, I want to get your take on the Michigan primary, which will be tomorrow. There's a very public, very high-profile campaign to get Michigan Democrats to go ahead and vote uncommitted at that primary to send a message the President Biden. If you were -- I know you're California voters, but if you were a Michigan voter, would you vote uncommitted? LEE: No. But, Abby, what I am doing and very focused on, first of all, of course, is my election on March 5th for the United States Senate from California. Secondly, I would do everything I can do to make sure that Donald Trump is not elected. Donald Trump wants to disrupt, dismantle our democracy. He wants to establish an autocratic government and he's a national security threat and he's a danger to this country and to the rest of the world.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Teen Pop Star Olivia Rodrigo Donates Tour Proceeds to Abortion Funds

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 29th 2024 at 11:04
For a girl that got her period like two years ago, she sure has a lot to say about abortions. Singer/Songwriter Olivia Rodrigo released a graphic on her Instagram story Tuesday indicating that she partnered up with the National Network of Abortion Funds to contribute financially to moms who travel to abort their children. Ticket sale proceeds from her GUTS World Tour will go towards three different abortion funds who help women kill their babies.  It takes a lot of GUTS to come out and insist that you want to help women kill their kids but then again, that line of thinking is normal for leftists who have no decency or respect for innocent human life. Rodrigo took the entertainment industry by storm after gaining popularity with a role on Disney Channel that launched her career in the music industry. “Drivers License,” is one of her top songs and it, as well as Rodrigo as a whole, has a major influence on women and girls of Generation Z. Hence why this sort of initiative is so detrimental.  “A portion of the proceeds from all ticket sales at #GUTSworldtourHouston will go towards @abortionfunds @fundtexaschoice @janesdueprocess who help Texans traveling for abortions by covering & coordinating transportation, lodging & other practical support classes.” She also linked to the National Network of Abortion Funds website for donations and insisted that the money was part of “Olivia Rodrigo’s Fund 4 Good.” As an aside, it’s pretty ironic that the tour advocating for abortions is called GUTS. During an abortion a baby’s guts are ripped out of his mothers womb slowly. The parallels are disturbing but nonetheless, uncanny. Thing is, if Rodrigo actually cared about women, you’d think she’d donate the portion of the proceeds to actually helping them rather than encouraging and enabling them to kill their babies. Maybe proceeds could go to pregnancy centers or perhaps it could be donated to moms that need scholarship money to finish up school. But to go towards the brutal murder of innocent babies? Come on! .@OliviaRodrigo speaking about fund 4 good and abortion access. #GUTSWorldTour pic.twitter.com/Wc7KeB1eaY — Rodrigo Times (@RodrigoTimes) February 24, 2024 Following the announcement that Rodrigo would be partnering with the National Network of Abortion Funds, mixed reviews flooded in.  Rolling Stone indicated that the partnership “couldn’t come at a more critical time for abortion access,” and included a note from NNAF’s executive director who said, “It takes guts to fund abortions at this moment.” One user insisted that it was a “bold move” for Rodrigo to announce the partnership. “I respect it so much,” the user wrote on X. Another called her a “perfect all-American pro-choice champion.” Jezebel, an overtly pro-abort outlet, wrote that “it’s genuinely refreshing to see a huge celebrity uplifting the work of abortion funds,” and later on in the piece said “here’s to hoping Rodrigo keeps dragging these a**holes on her tour,” a**holes being pro-lifers of course. Speaking of pro-lifers, many were utterly disturbed by Rodrigo's moved.  “Why not raise funds to help single moms? Better yet raise money and awareness about condoms. Women seem to be worshiping abortion, same ones saying that they can be men if they feel like it,” a user wrote on X. Our Sunday Visitor contributing editor Katie Yoder wrote “this makes me so sad” with a link to a TeenVogue article about Rodrigo’s campaign. Similarly a user insisted that the initiative was disappointing and “it makes me sick to see young women supporting the slaughter of unborn babies.” “The Preborn children killed in abortions aren’t tissue, choices or medical waste. They were bigger than the whole sky and robbed of the chance to be more than just a short time. Shame on you, @oliviarodrigo,” one more wrote. Live Action Ambassador Mary-Logan Miske said the following in a quote to MRCTV: When we see artists like Paramore and most recently, Olivia Rodrigo, distribute their money sold from their tours, go towards paying for women’s abortions, we are left to believe Hollywood has a very clear agenda; to promote, pressure, and coerce women into thinking abortion is their only option. This is especially unfortunate when we are told they prefer the term “pro-choice,” yet don’t support women who choose life. Rodrigo could have used this opportunity to donate the money to support mothers who are not as finically stable, or towards scholarships so mothers can finish their degree, or to pregnancy centers to stalk up on diapers, bottles, and baby clothes. Instead, she has chosen to only pay for the hotel stay, transportation, and of course, the abortion itself, leading women no other option but to eliminate their child. It takes guts to have a child in an unplanned pregnancy, but that is better than ripping apart a babies guts for the sake of “autonomy.”  This isn’t the first time Rodrigo has publicly supported abortion and likely, it won't be the last. When Roe v. Wade was overturned Rodrigo and another artist Lily Allen sang the song “F**k You” which the two dedicated to the five Supreme Court judges who voted to overturn Roe. “We hate you,” Rodrigo said at the time. Ultimately, it's disheartening to see a young lady like Rodrigo believe and project that abortion is something not only to be celebrated but something that somehow “helps” women. This campaign goes directly against what our country was founded on and promotes the rejection of the most basic human right: the right to life.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

'You Are Helping Donald Trump': Hayes Condemns SCOTUS For Not Rushing Trump Case

By: Alex Christy — February 29th 2024 at 12:45
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes journeyed over to CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Wednesday to react to the news that the Supreme Court has decided to hear Donald Trump’s argument that he has presidential immunity and therefore cannot be tried in the classified documents and January 6-related cases on an expedited schedule. However, that was not good enough for Hayes, as he told the Court “you are helping Donald Trump” by not hearing it at a pace that conforms to Hayes’s personal wishes. Hayes told Colbert that “American voters actually deserve the knowledge in either direction. If the man is acquitted, if he's found not guilty of an incredibly grave crime, American voters deserve to know that as well. One way or the other, the American public is owed, as a fundamental public interest, as a democratic self-interest, to know whether, in a court of law judged by a jury of his peers under full constitutional due process, the man is guilty or not of the gravest political crime of any man in history since the Civil War.”     There is no “public interest” exception to defendants’ rights. The right to a speedy trial is for the defendant, not the state or the voters. However, Hayes saw something more sinister at play, “There is a calendar on the wall. It's got a certain amount of days on it—200 days—and every day you cross through and red. You are doing Trump a favor. You are helping Donald Trump and everyone knows that. The people in the Supreme Court know that, Tanya Chutkan knows that, Jack Smith knows that Donald Trump's lawyers know it, and Donald Trump knows it.” Working the crowd to get their boos in, Hayes proceeded, “So when they take 15 days to issue this order, and then they come back, and they say we're going to get to these arguments in seven weeks, they're going up to that calendar and they're putting nine weeks of days and they are burning them for Donald Trump in Donald Trump's interest so as to protect Donald Trump from the possibility of being held to account, everyone needs to understand that is what they are doing.” Later on All In, Hayes would continue this idea that there is some conspiracy at play, "It is an clear unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of the Trump-created court that they are with him. That they are going to use their power to make sure that he does not face trial in an election year for attempting to end American democracy.”   .@chrislhayes: The SCOTUS order "was a clear unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of the Trump-created court that they are with him. That they are going to use their power to make sure that he does not face trial in an election year for attempting to end American democracy." pic.twitter.com/fgrrP0tEw0 — All In with Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) February 29, 2024   Hayes and people like him cannot have it both ways. Ironically, this case is about immunity. If it is true that presidential immunity is not absolute and the president is not above the law and is accountable to it just like every other citizen, then he also has all the same rights as every accused citizen. If the Supreme Court's normal pace conflicts with Democrats’ electoral interests, then that is just too bad. Here is a transcript for the February 28 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 2/28/2024 CHRIS HAYES: American voters actually deserve the knowledge in either direction. If the man is acquitted, if he's found not guilty of an incredibly grave crime, American voters deserve to know that as well. One way or the other, the American public is owed, as a fundamental public interest, as a democratic self-interest to know whether in a court of law judged by a jury of his peers under full constitutional due process, the man is guilty or not of the gravest political crime of any man in history since the Civil War. But I want to just be clear with folks here, everyone here knows the score and I cannot stress this enough. It's like I saw the news about this order, right and it's like, “Oh, they're going to hear the immunity case. They're going to hear arguments” and it's like, okay, well, I guess that makes sense. There is a calendar on the wall. It's got a certain amount of days on it 200 days, and every day you cross through and red. You are doing Trump a favor. You are helping Donald Trump and everyone knows that. The people in the Supreme Court know that, Tanya Chutkan knows that, Jack Smith knows that Donald Trump's lawyers know it, and Donald Trump knows it. So when they take 15 days to issue this order, and then they come back, and they say we're going to get to these arguments in seven weeks, they're going up to that calendar and they're putting nine weeks of days and they are burning them for Donald Trump in Donald Trump's interest so as to protect Donald Trump from the possibility of being held to account, everyone needs to understand that is what they are doing.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Major Newspaper Headlines on Hunter Biden's Testimony? Hunter's Megaphone!

By: Tim Graham — February 29th 2024 at 12:46
How can we know just how the major newspapers have a pro-Biden bias? When they present Hunter Biden as the hero and moral authority of his own testimony in the Biden impeachment probe. First, they submerge the story, and then the framing is in contempt of the factual record. Hunter can say he's never involved Joe in his business -- when it should be obvious to a fifth-grader that this is a lie -- but they run with it anyway.  The New York Post offered the anti-Biden framing of Hunter's evasive, sometimes laughable testimony yesterday, under the online headline for their cover story.  Hunter Biden testified he was ‘high or drunk’ while writing ‘sitting here with my father’ $5M China shakedown text — but still got the money Their lede by Steven Nelson and Josh Christenson stands out from the others:  First son Hunter Biden claimed in congressional testimony Wednesday that he was “high or drunk” when he wrote to a Chinese associate in 2017 that he was “sitting here with my father”  — shortly before the transfer of $5.1 million into Biden family-linked accounts. A readout of the 54-year-old first son’s closed-door impeachment inquiry deposition was provided to numerous news outlets Wednesday evening citing Hunter’s claim that President Biden had nothing to do with the shakedown of Chinese state-linked CEFC China Energy. The Washington Post published it on bottom half of the front page under the absurd headline: Hunter Biden says he never involved father in business In testimony, president's son assails GOP-led impeachment inquiry Matt Viser and Jacqueline Alemany began:  Hunter Biden, delivering his long-awaited deposition before a GOP-led congressional impeachment inquiry, testified Wednesday that he never involved his father in any of his business decisions, and he accused House Republicans of having “built your entire partisan house of cards on lies.” No Republican quotes were on page one, but the two Democrat typists added this false statement: "House Republicans have not been able to uncover firm evidence that Joe Biden benefited from -- or played a role in -- the  business pursuits of his family members...." The New York Times put the story on the bottom of A-15 under the headline: Hunter Biden Condemns Inquiry Fueled by 'Lies' Slams G.O.P. in Closed-Door Deposition Democrat typist Luke Broadwater devoted the entire first ten paragraphs to Team Hunter's arguments against the Republicans.  Hunter Biden, the president’s son, sharply rebuked House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry during a closed-door deposition on Wednesday, condemning their investigation as a “partisan political pursuit” that was based on a “false premise” and fueled by “lies.” The Wall Street Journal doesn't read like a Murdoch tabloid, it's much more like the lib papers: President's Son Rails Against GOP Probe Hunter Biden strikes a defiant tone as House Republicans make little progress Republicans never make progress -- if you let liberal reporters grade their efforts. Naturally, these papers all put the Trump immunity-claim news at the top of the front page. Our USA Today comes in the mail, so we don't have it yet, but we can tell from the Internet that it's nowhere on their front page. Ditto for the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Not So Fast! Fired-Up Rep. Hageman Seeks to Hold Mayorkas Accountable After MRC Bombshell

By: Luis Cornelio — February 29th 2024 at 14:29
A lawmaker used an MRC Free Speech America bombshell to imply that an embattled Biden cabinet member is financially accountable for violations of the First Amendment. During a mark-up hearing of the Censorship Accountability Act, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) on Thursday invoked Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s name — the first cabinet member to be impeached by the House of Representatives since 1876 — to explain how the bill would protect Americans whose First Amendment rights have been violated by his actions. Hageman said the bill seeks to “fundamentally change the mentality” of federal agencies, including DHS, that use their powers to block people from engaging in free speech. “It is a philosophical view of those of us who drafted this that we do not believe that the federal government or agencies from top to bottom should be engaging in censorship,” she continued. Among the number of examples of DHS’s tyrannical actions cited by Hageman included the agency’s deliberate targeting of Christians, conservatives and Republicans through the Biden administration’s Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention, which MRC first exposed in a bombshell report published May 25. You May Also Like! How Biden’s DHS Is Weaponizing an Anti-Terror Program Against Christians, Conservatives & the GOP “Another example was when we had Mr. Mayorkas testify in front of us. I put up on the screen the pyramid that came out of the university that was receiving federal funds likening conservatives Republicans to Nazis,” Hageman said, referring to a previous hearing where she went after Mayorkas over what MRC uncovered. During a July 26, 2023 hearing, Hageman pressed Mayorkas over MRC’s findings revealing that his federal agency granted $352,109 in fiscal year 2022 to the University of Dayton, which in its grant application used an infamous seminar where self-proclaimed Antifa member Professor Michael Loadenthal presented the “Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization.” In response, Mayorkas said: “I learned about the individual speakers’ comments, with which I profoundly disagree.” (Related: Rep. Hageman Corners DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Free Speech Using MRC Research) Despite Mayorkas’s concessions, Hageman warned that the people targeted in the pyramid “have no recourse” to challenge these programs. The Heritage Foundation, Fox News, the Republican National Committee, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Breitbart and PragerU were among the targeted groups. If passed, the Censorship Accountability Act would give a legal track to Americans to hold executive branch employees accountable for potential First Amendment violations.  “Under current law, the bureaucrats that have been empowered to silence us and restrict our rights are personally and entirely unaccountable,” Hageman said in a July 26 press statement. “By providing for the right to file suit against federal employees who violate the First Amendment, this legislation will ensure that individuals within the executive branch are no longer able to censor with impunity.” 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

Christian Conservative Groups DEMAND Apology for Przybyla’s Smears

By: Kathryn Eiler — February 29th 2024 at 14:46
Last week on MSNBC’s All In, Politico investigative correspondent Heidi Przybyla publicly displayed her lack of knowledge of the American Founding by stating that Natural Law did not originate from a higher power. Clearly ignoring essentially every founding document of the U.S. Additionally, she falsely assumed that Christian Nationalists were the only subset of Christianity that derived their belief in Natural Rights from a Creator. This spectacular picture of ignorance prompted the presidents of the Family Research Center and the Catholic Vote to send a response letter to Politico demanding an apology from both Przybyla and the news outlet itself. NewsBusters' associate editor, Nicholas Fondacaro, covered this story last week, notably reporting how embarrassing it was that Politico’s “democracy investigator” couldn’t seem to recall that the most popular founding document declaring Natural Rights asserts in its second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” The letter from FRC’s Tony Perkins and the Catholic vote’s Brian Burch also referenced the Declaration of Independence in objection of Przybyla’s statements, writing: [Przybyla] not once acknowledging that our own Republic was founded on the belief that our rights come from God, not earthly kings or government. This understanding of the origin of human rights is clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence. It is indeed bold of Przybyla to admit that she didn’t know anything about the connection between Christianity and America’s founding. Yet it was even bolder to claim that Christian Nationalists were the only Christians whose faith influences their perception of politics, and to also assume that other Christian groups who weren’t “extremists” would agree with her false reports.  Both Presidents of these Christian, conservative organizations were extremely concerned with the potential violence against Judeo-Christian groups as a result of Przybyla’s inaccuracy. “Comments like Ms. Przybyla’s can and often do have life and death consequences for faith communities,” they wrote, citing the statistics of increasing attacks against places of worship: In 2023, American places of worship experienced more than double the amount of violence than the year prior, according to a recent report on hostility against U.S. churches. Last year, a shooter targeted a Christian day school in Nashville, killing three nine-year-old students and three staff. Since May 2020, Catholic churches have endured more than 400 attacks – from having rocks and bricks thrown through their windows to arson, firebombing, and a growing number of incidents involving property defacement and destruction resulting in tens of millions of dollars in damages. The violence against these churches was purported by such false and exaggerative language used by Przybyla. Specifically addressing Przybyla’s history of sparking anti-Christian ideas, the organizations wrote: Ms. Przybyla’s statements are representative of a consistent pattern of singling out Christian organizations and individuals, as evidenced by her recent articles targeting efforts to support a Catholic school and her selective interpretation of sources to advance an anti-Christian ideological agenda. To further highlight this point, the letter used the example of increasing anti-Semitism in the U.S. to explain how influential public platforms like social media and news organizations can be to spread propaganda.  The last paragraph of the letter called for an apology from Przybyla and Politico to the religious communities they have offended, reemphasizing that “Rhetoric like Ms. Przybyla’s, which demonizes religious groups, is profoundly dangerous. It can motivate disturbed individuals who may be predisposed to commit violence against faith communities.” To read the full letter, click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

THAT’S ENOUGH: Rep. Hageman Tears Into Biden’s ‘Censorship Industrial Complex’

By: Tom Olohan — February 29th 2024 at 15:44
Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) railed against the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” armed with evidence of government censorship and new legislation aimed at gutting government censorship once and for all. Hageman called for Congress to pass a bill she co-sponsored with Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) —the “Censorship Accountability Act” during a Feb. 29 hearing before the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Hageman went on a tear against agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that had sought to suppress Americans’ freedom of speech. “These bureaucrats continue to grow in size and power and are beginning to increasingly wield this power against the American people they were intended to serve,” Hageman said, before introducing her solution. “The Censorship Accountability Act finally brings accountability for violations of our First Amendment rights, the ones which are the most fundamental to our freedom,” she continued. Hageman reasoned that there was simply “no reason federal officials are held to a lower standard than state and local officials especially when the stakes are this high.”  Hageman added, “I hope all members of this committee support this legislation. The legislative branch and the fourth branch, —that being the media[that] uncovered this abuse — and the judicial branch has so far confirmed that the executive is violating our rights.”  Under President Joe Biden’s Administration, the DHS has spent taxpayer dollars on a number of anti-American efforts. One of its financed “efforts” included the infamous “Pyramid of Far Right Radicalization” (which Hageman also brought up during the hearing) that sought to smear a number of entities such as Fox News, The Christian Broadcasting Network, the Republican Party, Breitbart News, and MAGA as being comparable to Nazis. The DHS also created the notorious Disinformation Governance Board — the Biden variant of a  Ministry of Truth — before abandoning it after major public backlash against its censorship operations.  In her opening remarks, Hageman went after the DHS and other federal entities for their obsessive push to police the speech of American citizens:  “The last three years have been particularly eye-opening as the online censorship widely speculated to be occurring was confirmed through the Twitter Files, the documents produced in Missouri v. Biden (2022) and most notably the oversight work of the Judiciary Committee and our select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.”  The Wyoming representative made clear that she would not stand for the federal government outsourcing its anti-free speech objectives to private organizations to circumvent the First Amendment. “The Censorship Industrial Complex is entrenched in our federal agencies and even in the White House itself. It coerces, threatens, funds, and cooperates with private entities to monitor, suppress and remove speech which does not fit its preferred political narrative,” Hageman said before calling for a “federal right” for citizens to seek “redress” against officials who have violated their rights.  Hageman wasn’t alone in calling for the federal government to finally be restricted from flirting with the violation of Americans’ rights to free speech. Later in the hearing, Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) also spoke up in favor of Hageman’s bill, ripping into Biden’s agencies for their abuse of power. Armstrong said, “When we have agencies spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to filter it through the system to censor true information, not only is that a violation of the First Amendment, but it is incredibly condescending." Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS Takes On Fox, Liberal Prof Says You Can't Link Illegal Aliens to 'One Horrific Incident'

By: Clay Waters — February 29th 2024 at 15:46
Tuesday evening’s PBS NewsHour covered last week’s brutal murder of a college student by an illegal immigrant on the campus of the University of Georgia. It began factually but descended into typical PBS left-wing apologia -- funded by taxpayers like you. The NewsHour aired tributes from the president of her sorority, then summarized the case in a forthright manner. Nawaz: Riley's body was found in this wooded area on campus last Thursday. Her roommate had reported her missing after she failed to return from a morning jog; 26-year-old Venezuelan citizen Jose Antonio Ibarra was charged with her murder. Immigration officials say, in September of 2022, Ibarra was detained in Texas after illegally entering the U.S. from Mexico, but then released for further processing…. But then Nawaz made a politicized pivot to chide Fox News, suggesting “conservatives and right-wing media” were unfairly seizing on Laken Riley’s murder to promote their anti-immigration views, airing a Fox clip featuring anchor Jesse Watters. Jesse Watters, Fox News Anchor: A dangerous foreign national broke the law and suffered no consequences because of fringe policies the far left claims are compassionate. Thomas Homan, Former Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Fox: This is another senseless, preventable death because of this open border. Nawaz: Conservatives and right-wing media link the Biden Administration's immigration approach with Riley's death….Georgia's Republican Governor Brian Kemp pointed to record high numbers at the U.S. Southern border. This may be a rare time the words "far left" are aired on PBS. After a Kemp clip, the liberal professor guest came to calm the waters. Nawaz: …. The White House has expressed condolences to Riley's family, but has not responded directly to the Republican accusations. All this as both Biden and Trump plan dueling border visits to Texas on Thursday of this week. And to help with some context around these questions around immigration and crime, I'm joined now by Charis Kubrin. She's a professor of criminology, law, and society at the University of California,-Irvine, and co-author of the book Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock....Authorities also today just revealed her death was due to blunt-force trauma. And the man, we know, accused here is an undocumented immigrant. Those are all facts. What do you make of the larger conversation around those facts right now? PBS’s supposedly undeniable “facts” about Venezuelan immigrant Jose Antonio Ibarra, accused of Riley’s murder, include the oversensitive label of “undocumented immigrant.” Typically for PBS, the segment’s sole guest, an unlabeled liberal, defended the left flank, shielding illegals against accusations of criminality and also decrying potential limits on immigration. Charis Kubrin: When I heard about this tragic event, my heart went out immediately. That is, of course, the first reaction I had. But the second one is, uh-oh, I hope that this is not used as -- this awful event is not used for political advantage. And it appears that that is what is essentially happening. We see a tragic event become a sparking point for really restrictive policies aimed at immigrants. Nawaz let Kubrin (who donated $1,250 to arch-liberal California Rep. Katie Porter for her successful 2018 House campaign) claim “immigrants do not engage in more crime than native-born counterparts, and immigration actually can cause crime to go down, rather than up, so quite contrary to public perception.” Nawaz at least asked a clarifying follow-up. Nawaz: And does any of your research examine any differences between an undocumented immigrant and those who are legally here in the United States? Kubrin: ….There are a handful of studies that have begun to do this using pretty sophisticated estimation techniques to identify the number of undocumented individuals. And what those studies find is, similar to the research in general, there is no criminogenic impact among undocumented immigrants. In other words, undocumented immigrants are not engaging in more crime, contrary to public perception…. Setting aside Kubrin’s vagueness, one could argue being in the country illegally is a crime in itself. She echoed Rep. Porter’s own terrible argument -- don’t generalize against illegals based on a single unfortunate incident. Kubrin: ….if we really do want to cut down on crime in general, absent this one horrific incident, making restrictive, exclusionary and harsh policies aimed at immigrants is really not going to yield the benefits of reductions in crime that many people believe…. This segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 2/27/24 7:15:59 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: The murder of a college student in Georgia and the immigration status of her alleged killer have thrown new fuel into the heated debate over the U.S. southern border and the government's policies. At the University of Georgia, grief hangs in the air after last week's death of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Hope Riley. Students, including her sorority sisters, gathered yesterday to remember Riley. Chloe Mullis, President, Alpha Chi Omega: She showed incredible wisdom throughout her friendships. Many sisters have shared that she was the best listener. She would allow you to ramble on about how your day was or how your life had been lately. And she soaked it up intently. Her wisdom flowed throughout all aspects of her life, and she had an eye for those who were secretly struggling. Amna Nawaz: Riley's body was found in this wooded area on campus last Thursday. Her roommate had reported her missing after she failed to return from a mourning jog; 26-year-old Venezuelan citizen Jose Antonio Ibarra was charged with her murder. Immigration officials say, in September of 2022, Ibarra was detained in Texas after illegally entering the U.S. from Mexico, but then released for further processing. Students returned to classes this week, but the community has been shaken to its core. Riley's death is believed to be the school's first homicide in nearly 30 years. Bethany Bateman Mcdonald, University of Georgia: I'm a mom. And as a mom, I couldn't imagine, I couldn't imagine something like this happening to my children. Amna Nawaz: Beyond campus… Jesse Watters, FOX News Anchor: A dangerous foreign national broke the law and suffered no consequences because of fringe policies the far left claims are compassionate. Thomas Homan, Former Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: This is another senseless, preventable death because of this open border. Amna Nawaz: Conservatives and right-wing media link the Biden administration's immigration approach with Riley's death. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA): Laken's death is a direct result of failed policies on the federal level. Amna Nawaz: Georgia's Republican Governor Brian Kemp pointed to record high numbers at the U.S. southern border. Gov. Brian Kemp: It is an understatement to say that this is a major crisis. And because of the White House's failures, every state, as I have said repeatedly, is now a border state. And Laken Riley's murder is just the latest proof of that. Amna Nawaz: On social media, former President Trump said — quote — "Biden's border invasion is destroying our country and killing our citizens." And he reiterated his campaign pledge to — quote — "seal the border and deport illegal criminals." The White House has expressed condolences to Riley's family, but has not responded directly to the Republican accusations, all this as both Biden and Trump plan dueling border visits to Texas on Thursday of this week. And to help with some context around these questions around immigration and crime, I'm joined now by Charis Kubrin. She's a professor of criminology, law, and society at the University of California, Irvine, and co-author of the book "Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock." Professor, let's begin with the obvious here. Our thoughts are obviously with the family of Laken Riley and her friends, the senseless loss of a young woman's life. Authorities also today just revealed her death was due to blunt-force trauma. And the man, we know, accused here is an undocumented immigrant. Those are all facts. What do you make of the larger conversation around those facts right now? Charis Kubrin, University of California, Irvine: When I heard about this tragic event, my heart went out immediately. That is, of course, the first reaction I had. But the second one is, uh-oh, I hope that this is not used as — this awful event is not used for political advantage. And it appears that that is what is essentially happening. We see a tragic event become a sparking point for really restrictive policies aimed at immigrants. Amna Nawaz: So, I know in your work and in your book, you look exactly at this issue going back even to the early 1900s about the intersection of crime and immigration. Broadly speaking, what have you learned? Charis Kubrin: So, there's been so much research that's been done on how immigration and crime are related, both among immigrants, are immigrants more or less crime-prone than their native-born counterparts, and does immigration to an area cause crime to go up or down? And more recently, there's been an explosion of research in this area because of public perception and interest. And what's pretty amazing is, across all this research, by and large, we find that immigrants do not engage in more crime than native-born counterparts, and immigration actually can cause crime to go down, rather than up, so quite contrary to public perception. Amna Nawaz: And does any of your research examine any differences between an undocumented immigrant and those who are legally here in the United States? Charis Kubrin: Right. That's become an increasingly important question that we have sought to answer. There are a handful of studies that have begun to do this using pretty sophisticated estimation techniques to identify the number of undocumented individuals. And what those studies find is, similar to the research in general, there is no criminogenic impact among undocumented immigrants. In other words, undocumented immigrants are not engaging in more crime, contrary to public perception. And the presence of undocumented immigrants in an area does not correlate with higher crime, particularly violence. Amna Nawaz: Professor, I'm sure you have heard this argument before. We're hearing this again, which is that if this man had not been allowed to enter into the United States, if he'd not been allowed to stay, he couldn't have committed this crime, and this young woman would still be alive today. Are people making that argument wrong? Charis Kubrin: Well, it's not that argument's wrong, because, essentially, that is true, but I think it's misplaced, because, at the end of the day, if we really do want to cut down on crime in general, absent this one horrific incident, making restrictive, exclusionary and harsh policies aimed at immigrants is really not going to yield the benefits of reductions in crime that many people believe, largely because, as I just mentioned, immigrants are not the ones engaging in crime. I would point out also that there's been a lot of instances of violence on campus with young individuals getting killed, tragic events, most of which are occurring by native-born Americans. And so I think we need to pay attention to broader factors that contribute to this kind of senseless violence, rather than simply aiming our targets at immigrants. Anna Nawaz: So that leap from the crime of one person catalyzing to fear of an entire group or population, we don't really see that, as you mentioned, with native-born Americans or white Americans more broadly. Is that something unique to immigrant populations? Charis Kubrin: So that's the interesting thing. I have never seen a headline, not once in my life, that has read native-born American has engaged in this crime or that crime. And so what happens is most of the stories identify a person's immigrant status and link it with crime in headlines, in social media, in the news. That essentially reinforces the public perception that both go hand in hand, when in fact the data show just the opposite. So it's an uphill battle in terms of public perception. Amna Nawaz: What should we expect to see in the months ahead? We are in an election year. Immigration is a top issue for voters around the country. Do you expect this conversation to continue at this kind of heated level? Charis Kubrin: I think it will, unfortunately, for the exact reasons I mentioned early on, which is that this is an opportunity, an awful opportunity, to seize on a political advantage. What I hope happens is that we identify places where we can improve things when it comes to immigration, but also do so in a way that makes smart policy, policy that will help things more broadly, rather than simply use a scapegoat moment to make more restrictive policies that are not going to do much in the end for crime. Amna Nawaz: Professor Charis Kubrin from the University of California, Irvine, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it. Charis Kubrin: Thank you.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC, NBC LOSE THEIR MINDS Over Supreme Court Taking Trump Immunity Case

By: Curtis Houck — February 29th 2024 at 16:02
Late Wednesday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced they’d hear the case on presidential immunity as it relates to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 criminal case against former President Trump. Naturally, this decision left the liberal media — including ABC and NBC on Wednesday night and Thursday morning — enraged this could further delay what they hope leads to Trump’s imprisonment. Instead of letting the D.C. Court of Appeals’s decision against Trump stand, the Court decided it would weigh in on whether a president is immune from prosecution, which is, in fact, a big deal. In other words, the kind of topic the high court exists to answer.       One could say ABC News was losing its noodle over what it deemed as the Supreme Court doing Donald Trump’s bidding by “serving” his desires “of pushing his trials past the presidential election” and thus handing him a “victory” and Smith “a major setback”. Thursday’s Good Morning America was apoplectic. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos huffed “the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune on federal charges” placed the trial for said charges “on hold, serving the former President’s strategy of pushing his trials past the presidential election.” Chief Washington correspondent and three-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl was despondent that “the trial in that case could be pushed back to late summer or fall, or possibly until after the presidential election” and thus, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling “a Trump victory”. “With this delay, even if the trial was able to happen before the election, it would likely take place against the back drop of the political conventions later in the summer, or in the heat of the fall campaign, possibly, George, after voters in several states have already started casting their ballots,” he added. A seething Stephanopoulos commiserated with chief legal analyst Dan Abrams, suggesting, in his view, it’s pointless because there’s no way Trump could prevail in any court. Abrams was also forlorn at “a really big win” the Court gave Trump (click “expand”): STEPHANOPOULOS: Ultimately, this question of pres — immunity is not a close call. They’re going to rule against Donald Trump there. So, why take it? ABRAMS: Because they want to put their stamp on it. Because the U.S. Supreme Court wants to weigh in on an incredibly important question. But, look, this really is all about the clock. I mean, this always has been about the clock. I think Donald Trump and his legal team know they’re not going to win the argument that he is completely immune, that the President has complete and total immunity. The question is, when do they decide that? And now, this is a really big win for Donald Trump if you look at his effort, as an effort to delay. STEPHANOPOULOS: But that gets to my second question, why take 16 days to decide this? Why schedule arguments two months from now? ABRAMS: The 16 days, I think, shows there was some dissent within the justices about what to do here. And, yeah, they could have expedited it even more. Look, the easiest way to deal with moving it forward would have been to say, as they do in most cases, we’re not gonna hear it, right? The appellate court has ruled on this. We’re gonna simply say this is not a case that the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on. And the appellate court decision would have stood against Donald Trump. The Court not saying that. And then also not move it quite as quickly as they could have. And so, I now think it’s very unlikely that you’re going to see this trial move before the election. STEPHANOPOULOS: One final question, thought. Could the judge, assume he’s not — he’s not immune, schedule the trial for November 8? And, even if Donald Trump wins, he still has to face trial? ABRAMS: That’s, like, one of the questions a professor asks in class, right? It’s like, should — STEPHANOPOULOS: But answer it! [LAUGHS] ABRAMS: — it’s like, theoretically — yeah, theoretically, it’s possible. Practically, there’s absolutely no way the judge is going to schedule the trial for after the election. There’s just no way. By the way, I don’t think the judge — I don’t think the department of justice is going to allow the — the case to move forward even in the 60 days before the election. So, I don’t think any of that period becomes a realistic possibility, although theoretically it’s possible. During a subsequent bottom-of-the-hour news brief and lead-in at the top of the second hour, Stephanopoulos made sure to return to this claim that the Court is “serving” Trump ahead of Karl relitigating his report from the first hour. Rewind to Wednesday’s World News Tonight and anchor David Muir framed it not as something the high court was made to answer, but how this affects the election.  Here was his opening tease: “This move from the Supreme Court to decide this will delay the federal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith...[H]ow soon could the Supreme Court decide this? And if they don’t decide in Donald Trump’s favor, would there still be time for this federal trial before the presidential election?” After correspondent Devin Dwyer also bemoaned this in political terms, Muir brought in ABC News contributor Kate Shaw, the wife of MSNBC leftist loon Chris Hayes. While more covert than overt, Shaw put her thumb on the scale by demanding the Court “mov[e] much faster in a case like this” compared to waiting until late June to release it (as the Court does with blockbuster cases). That way, she argued, “a trial maybe late this summer” was still possible. In other words, she was aiming to not have her fellow progressives lose hope. Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News was similarly not amused. Along with anchor Lester Holt emphasizing “[t]he decision likely delays the start of any trial”, chief legal correspondent Laura Jarrett (and daughter of Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett) was relayed the Court did as “Mr. Trump hoped” and revived chances the case could be dismissed if he wins in November. Jarrett returned to Thursday’s Today with even more saltiness as though Team Obama wrote it for her, whining the Court helped gave “Trump the gift of time” by ensuring “the calendar works to his advantage” and lessening the “sky high” “stakes” (click “expand”): JARRETT: The immunity issue one that could make or break the prosecutor’s case against Donald Trump. The Supreme Court’s involvement on this could hand him a win or loss, but either way, the calendar works to his advantage, making the chances he will face trial before election day this year on charges of trying to overturn the last election, more remote by the day. This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court handing Donald Trump the gift of time. The justices agreeing to decide whether the Republican frontrunner should be immune from federal charges because his attempts to reverse the 2020 election happened while he was still in office. TRUMP [on 01/06/21]:  We will never give up. We will never concede. JARRETT: In a one page order, the high court saying it will hear arguments the case the week of April 22. But, with no firm for its final ruling, the prospect of a federal criminal trial being completed before the November election, becoming increasingly unrealistic. And, if the Supreme court rules in Mr. Trump’s favor, the charges against him in Washington, D.C., wiped out completely. TRUMP [on 02/08/24]: You cannot allow a president to be out there without immunity. They don’t have immunity, you don’t have a presidency. JARRETT: The stakes, sky high for the former President, who has cast the prosecution itself as election interference and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, which has accused Mr. Trump of defrauding the government he once led. SMITH [on 08/01/22]: My office will seek a speedy trial, so that our evidence can be tested in court. JARRETT: But the case has been beset by appeals on the immunity question with lower courts finding Mr. Trump should not be shielded from prosecution. The Trump campaign seizing on the Supreme Court taking up the case as another fundraising opportunity with the former President pressing his case on social media. (....) JARRETT: Even if [the Court] said [Trump] loses it, he’s not immune, he — the still wouldn’t just spring back to life, right? He wouldn’t immediately go to trial the next day because he gets benefit of all of this time when the case essentially just been frozen on ice...So, he would get roughly three months tacked on to that time. In contrast to all this, CBS had longtime Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford on both Wednesday’s CBS Evening News and Thursday’s CBS Mornings, who provided a sober, reality-based view that the Court “had to take this case” given its magnitude. In other words, her message was this: relax. To see the relevant transcripts from February 28, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from February 29, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC). 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Missouri AG Sues Planned Parenthood for Trafficking Young Girls for Abortions

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — February 29th 2024 at 15:45
The Attorney General of Missouri, Andrew Bailey, is suing Planned Parenthood Great Plains for essentially trafficking children out of state to obtain abortions. The move comes after a Project Veritas video went viral exposing this sort of evil attack on babies and abuse of young pregnant women.  In November 2023, Project Veritas released a video showing Planned Parenthood staff admitting that they’d bring pregnant minors across state lines in order for them to get abortions. To make matters worse, staff admitted that they’d do this without parental consent.  As the filing said, “they admit doing this ‘every day, every day, every day,’” according to the filing. The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood in Missouri, one of the 13 Planned Parenthood Great Plains locations, would take minors out of school using forged or altered doctors’ notes and transport them to Kansas for an abortion, “then quickly return them — all to avoid parents finding out.” Related: Gov. Newsom Defends Unrestricted Abortion, Lies About Pro-Life Laws As the AG noted, such an act is illegal in the state of Missouri, where the law not only prohibits elective abortion but also “forbids any person to ‘intentionally cause, aid, or assist a minor to obtain an abortion without [parental] consent’ or informed consent, even if the abortion occurs in another ‘state or place.’” The suit also cited the Project Veritas investigation where a team sent a member undercover posing as the uncle of a 13-year-old girl that wanted to help his niece get an abortion “quietly and secretly.” 🚨BREAKING PART ONE🚨 MOM CAN’T KNOW: Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) Transports Minors Across State Lines for Secret Abortions “We never tell the parents anything.” - Managing Director, Kansas City, Missouri RT & SHARE #SecretAbortions pic.twitter.com/TxtK2K2kFM — Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) December 21, 2023 Project Veritas also posted a press release that said: The clinic manager appears unphased by this scenario and extremely helpful.  She tells the journalist, “In Planned Parenthood, we consider you an adult, you can make the decision then we've got you…We never tell the parents anything.” The clinic’s casual admission of its willingness to perform secret abortions on minors and subvert parental consent raises concern for other ways Planned Parenthood’s “bypass” system could be utilized to exploit and conceal the sexual abuse of children.  “This is the beginning of the end for Planned Parenthood in the State of Missouri,” Bailey said.  I hope he’s right about that. I also hope it’s the beginning of the end for the entire baby-killing mill altogether. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Jacked Up Junk & Total Gender Confusion Trangenders will stop at nothing to garner attention to their narcissistic selves. pic.twitter.com/eEE6arUCXu — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 27, 2024
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Meta’s Massive Censorship Team Is Ready for Elections Season

By: Catherine Salgado — February 29th 2024 at 16:59
Tech giant Meta has proudly unveiled its plan to control content as censorship … er, election season nears in the European Union. Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — has a whole slate of actions planned ahead of the upcoming EU parliament elections. From its partnership with the biggest fact-checking network to weaponized artificial intelligence (AI) to an Elections Operations Center, Meta is fully committed to election-related censorship. This Feb. 25 release comes soon after Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg accidentally admitted on CNBC News that a majority of the company’s employees are involved in censorship activities. It appears that anti-free speech European legislation has spurred Meta’s zeal, as the press release cited the Digital Services Act and EU Code of Practice on Disinformation. Meta bragged that it invested over $20 billion in “safety and security,” which is leftist speak for “censorship.” The release further cited that Meta “quadrupled” its safety team which now has “around 40,000 people,” including 15,000 “content reviewers.” A CNBC hot mic really put that number into perspective, highlighting the enlarged team as approximately 60 percent of the platform’s workforce. Meta’s release described 26 fact-checking partners for 22 languages in the EU, including three new partners. Fact-checked content will have warning labels and reduced distribution, thus suppressing any content of which the biased tech giant disapproves, according to the release. These include any ads questioning election “legitimacy,” indicating that allegations of voter fraud will be targeted. Meta also claimed it would engage in “media literacy” campaigns for “[c]ombatting misinformation,” a vague term applied to any speech with which leftists disagree. “Between July and December 2023, for example, over 68 million pieces of content viewed in the EU on Facebook and Instagram had fact checking labels,” Meta proudly declared. One of Meta’s EU election efforts involves AI, as Meta is “committed to taking a responsible approach to new technologies like GenAI, and signed on to the tech accord to combat the spread of deceptive AI content in elections.” State-controlled media accounts, particularly from Russia, will also be labeled as such, Meta added. Ironically, in its new press release, Meta claimed to have “comprehensive policies to prevent election interference and voter fraud.” Yet Meta’s censorship activities appear to be election interference too. In fact, censorship can impact election results. A Media Research Center poll found in November 2020 that 17 percent of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden’s voters would not have voted for him had they been aware of the president’s scandals that Big Tech and the legacy media censored. Yet Meta’s Oversight Board members recently advocated for increased censorship. 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

The View: ‘Bad Look’ for SCOTUS to Hear Trump Case Smith Asked Them to

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — February 29th 2024 at 17:17
The liberal media were up in arms Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the legal question of presidential immunity. Too busy trying to tear down American institutions and delegitimize the court, the liberal media didn’t want to mention that Special Counsel Jack Smith literally asked the court earlier this month to take up his case. But the facts didn’t matter to the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View as they collectively attacked the court and flaunted their profound ignorance of the high court’s duties. Obviously ignorant of the fact that legal cases were pre-selected ahead of a session and new cases that come up during a SCOTUS session often got pushed to the next one, co-host Joy Behar falsely suggested that the justices were “kicking the can down the road” because the hearing would be in April. “What is their motivation for not doing it right away?” Behar asked staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) who was once a federal prosecutor. Hostin steered clear of the truth and proposed a sinister motive from the conservative justices, without evidence, that they just wanted to help former President Trump (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: Well, unfortunately, some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he, God forbid, becomes the president of the United States – BEHAR: Pooh, pooh. HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict, nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free – GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail. HOSTIN: But it's his get-out-of-jail-free card.     Ignoring the dissimilarities in how critical time was, Hostin tried to compare the timing of the immunity case to Bush v. Gore in 2000. Being an election denier, Behar shouted: “That was the day democracy died!” “Well, it was certainly an injustice to many people,” Hostin agreed. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg claimed the case was at least “choking” democracy. In reality, multiple recounts confirmed that President George W. Bush did, in fact, win the election. Eventually, Hostin admitted that even Trump “gets due process of law just like all of us.” “And so, if the Supreme Court takes it, they decide he does not have presidential immunity, now he gets convicted, he then can't on appeal say, ‘you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process,’” she explained. Goldberg proclaimed that giving Trump due process was “a bad look” of the Supreme Court because – to her warped mind – being fair to Trump was them “showing favoritism.” Proudly flaunting her profound ignorance of what the duty of the court actually was, Goldberg bloviated that “there is no reason for them to actually take this case because the two lower courts” had already made rulings. “So if they were to…turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them,” she said. The Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings all the time. According to The New York Times, a liberal paper Goldberg would likely trust, “From 2006 to 2015, the Supreme Court heard 160 cases from the Ninth Circuit, reversing 106 decisions and vacating 24…” And in 2017, the First, Third, and Sixth Circuit Courts each had 100 percent of their rulings reversed. Earlier in the month, ABC chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl noted that SCOTUS, including Trump-appointed justices, had ruled against him multiple times on election matters. Behar couldn’t take talking about the court treating Trump fairly anymore. “I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe, we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not!” she shouted. “There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country!” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 29, 2024 11:04:32 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: So, they’re basically kicking the can down the road, though. They're not taking up this case immediately. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Right. BEHAR: So, what's their motivation then, if we all know they can't do what you just said because of the extreme power that a president would have, what is their motivation for not doing it right away? SUNNY HOSTIN: Well, unfortunately, some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he, God forbid, becomes the president of the United States – BEHAR: Pooh, pooh. HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict, nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free – GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail. HOSTIN: But it's his get out of jail free card. GOLDBERG: No, no. I’m saying Biden could throw him – See? This is a slippery slope, because if they give him this immunity -- BEHAR: What's good for the goose is good for Joe Biden. HOSTIN: What I also will say is: they're listening to these arguments in April. The end of their term is June. Right? They return again, I believe, in October. The Bush v. Gore case happened real quick. [Rhythmically snapping her fingers] Do you remember that? The Supreme Court knows how to work real fast. BEHAR: That was the day democracy died! HOSTIN: Well, it was certainly an injustice to many people. GOLDBERG: It was choking it! BEHAR: It’s on its way. (…) 11:10:53 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: He gets due process of law just like all of us. And so, if the Supreme Court takes it, they decide he does not have presidential immunity, now he gets convicted, he then can't on appeal say, “you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process.” So, that's how I'm trying to look at this; in a very positive way. BEHAR: That's why they took it in the first place. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But – And I think that's right. HOSTIN: I think that's maybe why they took it. GOLDBERG: I think it's a bad -- it's a bad look for them. It's a very bad -- HOSTIN: To take it? GOLDBERG: To have taken this, yes. Because this, you know, in some of their other rulings, which I’ve wondered about, you know, people say, “Well, you know, we don't want it to look like we're showing favoritism so looking at it in a very deep way.” And suddenly now it doesn't feel like they're looking at it in a deep way; this feels like, “Ooo, we got to help him do this.” And that's what I don't like about it. Because there is no -- I mean there is no reason for them to actually take this case, because the two lower courts said, “Listen, this is what it is.” This -- and so if they were to turn it -- turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them. HOSTIN: It was -- GOLDBERG: Or looks bad for them. HOSTIN: It wasn't shocking to me that they took it because they took so long to grant it – GOLDBERG: See, it feels like they just did this the other day. HOSTIN: Yeah, no. It took some time. BEHAR: I have to say, I find it very depressing. I find it depressing. GOLDBERG: Oh, don't be depressed. FARAH GRIFFIN: Can I say one thing? BEHAR: I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe, we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not! [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: But, wait a minute. They never have been – [Applause] HOSTIN: The chief justice knows that and cares about that sentiment and I agree with Alyssa – this is not going to – I mean Whoopi, they're not going to -- BEHAR: There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country! (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Shapiro on Woke Healthcare: ‘DEI is a Gun Pointed at the Heart of the Meritocracy’

By: Tom Olohan — February 29th 2024 at 17:19
The Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro exposed the threat posed by the diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) ideology in a field where competence is especially important.  Shapiro shared footage of radicals in the healthcare industry embracing DEI and actively promoting discrimination during the Jan. 26 edition of The Ben Shapiro Show. “DEI is a gun pointed at the heart of the meritocracy,” Shapiro said, before adding, “The DEI idea innately means that people who are unqualified are going to advance in life by dints of the fact that they are considered part of a victimized group.”             DEI Could Get You Killed In The Operating Room pic.twitter.com/9Pt8TuWAD9 — The Ben Shapiro Show (@BenShapiroShow) February 26, 2024 Shapiro went on to play a few clips featuring Duke University surgical resident Vignesh Raman. In the video, Raman complained about patients watching Fox News and wearing MAGA hats. He then wholeheartedly endorsed DEI and celebrated that most of his patients were not white. Shapiro roasted Raman for using “diverse” to mean “non-white,” before exposing his radical ideology. “So according to Raman, he says post-George Floyd, Duke actually made a concerted effort to stop hiding ‘so many, walls of white men’, and that the team even learned to abandon particular metrics and adopt holistic application practices so as to recruit more women and Latinx surgeons.” Shapiro then played an extended clip of Raman speaking on his activism, before blasting him again.  “He’s literally saying that we are ignoring metrics in order to look at the life story of your surgeon,” Shapiro said. Shapiro exposed the absurdity with a hypothetical question, asking his audience whether they care to question a surgeon’s “life story” rather than their competence before lifesaving treatment.  The Daily Wire editor emeritus went on to blast Raman for an ugly tweet where Raman stated, “I would say even for academic publications… I don’t want to amplify the work of white men who only collaborate with other white men.”  Shapiro demonstrated with a few other clips that this doctor was not just one isolated DEI fanatic. He showed that the American College of Surgeons had promoted “the Ibram X Kendi definition of racism” to all of its members, pushing the dangerous belief that it is impossible to be racist to white people. Shapiro spelled out that this belief enables racial discrimination in the industry as a “corrective mechanism.” Ultimately, Shapiro said the health care system would get “fewer qualified people who are entering the system and more unqualified people going to top medical schools.” Shapiro continued to go after the American College of Surgeons, calling them out for bringing in a speaker who claimed patients “do better” when doctors “look like them.” Shapiro summed up the danger at hand in a post on X, “DEI in medicine means that even if doctors injure patients, they might still be protected (even promoted). It means that top hospitals are abandoning key metrics when hiring surgeons. And it means research by whites may be disregarded.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of leftist DEI ideology infecting corporate America
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Censor Wannabe Cries Foul on Internet Freedom

By: Christian Baldwin — February 29th 2024 at 17:19
An MSNBC legal analyst and “misinformation expert” appeared worried that the unparalleled ease of communication that the modern internet allows threatens democracy. That’s why she suggested curbing the ability of regular citizens to use social media platforms in ways they see fit.  Appearing on Studio 2, a WHYY NPR radio show, MSNBC legal analyst and University of Michigan professor Barbara McQuade lamented that there wasn’t enough government regulation of social media and accused the right of running an authoritarian playbook, leading to “the slow erosion of democratic norms.” McQuade claimed that “technology and social media have created the ability to create falsehoods and to spread them to millions of people at the push of a button.”  McQuade also blamed a lack of government regulation for enabling the problem. “I think we have allowed the internet and social media to grow completely unchecked, and in some ways it’s been wonderful,” Mcquade argued. She blamed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 for protecting social media companies from liability. She further complained that “it has also allowed all of this anonymity online, all of these manipulative algorithms online, all of this disinformation that can be used to exploit us as we communicate with people online.”   Vice President of Free Speech America Dan Schneider responded to this assertion by pointing out that McQuade's argument is blatantly undemocratic and might as well rule out other major inventions in communication.  "Professor McQuade thinks that democracy only works when people agree with her and that everyone who has a policy disagreement must be silenced," Schneider said.  "That's not the way democracy works. We each get to express our own viewpoints. I guess Professor McQuade also laments the invention of the printing press and the internet."   The professor went on to argue in favor of yet more government regulation of Big Tech platforms, specifically algorithms: “One is to regulate algorithms… We could control the algorithms. We could prohibit algorithms designed for the purpose of generating outrage. Or we could at least require disclosure of the algorithms so that people at least know they are being manipulated.” McQuade did not appear concerned that these regulations would at all infringe on the First Amendment. However, her past comments on the issue at the very least put her commitment to free speech into question.  While on The Rachel Maddow Show on Feb. 26, McQuade framed the First Amendment as a liability putting the United States at a disadvantage compared to other countries. As reported by the New York Post, McQuade explained to host Rachel Maddow, “So, for example, our deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. It is a cherished right. It is an important right in democracy, and nobody wants to get rid of it, but it makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship.”  MSNBC’s Barbara McQuade: “Our First Amendment … makes us vulnerable to claims that anything we try to do to regulate speech is censorship.” pic.twitter.com/MvoxGQr2yz — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 29, 2024 Notably, all of McQuade’s examples of misinformation being abused in the Studio 2 podcast came from the political right. She even claimed, without evidence, that former President Donald Trump and “the far-right MAGA extremists” used disinformation because “they don’t believe they can win in a fair election, so through gerrymandering and through disinformation and through voter suppression, they are willing to seize power and give up democracy.” 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

Univision Anchors Parrot White House Line On Biden’s Mental Faculties

By: Jorge Bonilla — February 29th 2024 at 19:14
Univision’s news division has long been known as a liberal messaging pit, eagerly echoing whatever talking points come out of Democrat White Houses. Such is the case during Univision’s midday newscast, when reporting on President Joe Biden’s recent medical examination. Watch as anchors Carolina Sarassa and Borja Voces marvel over Biden’s mental capabilities, as aired on Univision Newscast Digital Edition on Thursday, February 29th, 2024: BORJA VOCES: It should be noted that it is important to remember this, Carolina, that Biden's doctor said that, in the president's annual physical, he says that he has the condition and faculties to fulfill his duty. CAROLINA SARASSA: And we are talking about this because surely you will remember that President Biden's health has been questioned recently, especially after that report from special counsel Robert Hur who decided that he was not going to file charges against the president over those documents that he kept in his office and also at home, because it supposedly said that he did not have mental faculties and that he was a person with a bad memory, so what he says, well, I think the doctor somewhat disproves that theory on the part of the special counsel. VOCES: He also doesn't give many details, for example, in the case of his memory, right? Which is an issue that was talked about a great deal after the special counsel’s report. What is clear is we know that he can fulfill his duties- he can fulfill his duties as president for additional years. SARASSA: It's good- it's good to know, right? Good to know, indeed.  Univision has done everything in their power to avoid reporting on Biden’s physical frailty and obviously declining mental faculties. Special Editorial Advisor to the CEO Jorge Ramos has written columns suggesting that it is ageism to question Biden’s declining health in any way. During Biden’s speeches, he is usually paired with one of the best (if not the best) interpreter in the business, who makes anyone sound like a president out of central casting. Biden’s decline has been well hidden from Univision’s audience, purely by design. Even now, there was zero mention of the fact that Biden didn’t actually take a cognitive test. The anchors simply parrot the White House’s talking points, North Korean-style. And so it is that we come to today’s edition of the midday newscast, which were I the type to swear, I’d swear was created for the sole purpose of making their audience dumber. This is the newscast, you’ll recall, that features men wearing skirts, collecting Barbies, or dressing like Barbies. So there is an established track record when it comes to how male virility is portrayed. That is one rationale that I can come up with to explain why they’d report on Biden’s medical exam in such a cavalier manner, reflecting wanton disregard for their viewers’ intellect.  The other, likelier rationale, is that Univision remains a partisan Democrat SuperPAC with a broadcast license, and is trying to exert influence upon their viewers so they ignore what lies before them in plain sight. That President Biden is in obvious physical and mental decline.   
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Atlantic Magazine Slams No Labels, But Reveals Lincoln Project Thuggery

By: P.J. Gladnick — February 29th 2024 at 22:30
John Hendrickson used most of his Atlantic magazine article on Tuesday criticizing No Labels. There was no big surprise in his critique of No Labels, "The Dangerous Confusion of No Labels," which portrays that sort of party as confused, impractical, and even downright goofy. Deep into the story, Hendrickson revealed something that should have been the main focus. The desperation of the Lincoln Project to keep a No Labels presidential ticket off 2024 ballots in the states to the extent of threatening to ruin the lives of individual members. Let us take a look at what was buried many paragraphs down in the story but should have been right at the top due to what it revealed about the shockingly heinous nature of the Lincoln Project. Although it’s stocked with former elected officials and veteran Washington power brokers, No Labels can seem naive about the ugly contours of contemporary American politics. On a Thursday morning last month, the organization held an event at the National Press Club. All the No Labels luminaries were there: former Senator Joe Lieberman, the civil-rights activist Benjamin Chavis, former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. I thought the group might finally announce its candidates, and I suspect that many of the roughly two dozen other reporters in attendance assumed the same. No such luck. We were handed a purple folder containing a letter sent to the Department of Justice alleging an “illegal conspiracy to use intimidation, harassment, and fear against representatives of No Labels, its donors, and its potential candidates.” The letter claims that Melissa Moss, a consultant associated with the Lincoln Project, told Page, “You have no idea of the forces aligned against you. You will never be able to work in Democratic politics again.” And: “You are going to get it with both barrels.” (Page told me that this happened last summer over lunch in a public setting; Moss declined to comment for this story.) In a video screened at the press conference, Rick Wilson can be heard saying on a podcast that “they”—No Labels—“need to be burned to the fucking ground.” Jonathan V. Last, the editor of The Bulwark who has contributed to The Atlantic and other outlets, is also heard saying, “Anybody who participates in this No Labels malarkey should have their lives ruined,” and “The people who are affiliated with No Labels should be publicly shamed to society’s utmost ability to do so.” Here is the video of Lincoln Project grifter Rick Wilson who does not hold back in his shrill attacks and threats against No Labels. How much should we be worried about @NoLabelsOrg? A lot says @TheRickWilson. Listen as he explains why they're a pro-Trump SuperPAC posing a major threat to democracy leading into the 2024 election cycle. pic.twitter.com/UB4DeZo9uG — The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) April 7, 2023 The reaction of No Labels to Wilson's rant only reinforces its image as an organization that mainly complains but fails to take action. As the clip rolled on a flatscreen TV, the No Labels representatives looked out at the assembled reporters, solemn-faced. McCrory, the group’s national co-chair, raised his voice in disbelief when it was his turn to speak from the dais. “I mean, did you see that video? Did you listen to that video?” he asked. “Who do they think they are, Tony Soprano?” And as of this writing the inaction by No Labels in actually going through with a plan to run a presidential ticket in 2024 is a signal that they have already folded in reaction to the attack upon them by "Tony Soprano" Wilson. These people paint themselves as Guardians of Democracy. But they look more like haters of democracy.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Column: Soft-Soaping the 'Uncommitted' Voters Who Back Hamas

By: Tim Graham — March 1st 2024 at 06:35
Republicans could be pleased to see the left-wing media underlining how Joe Biden was embarrassed in Michigan by a rebellious campaign to vote “uncommitted” in the Michigan primary, protesting Biden’s support for Israel in its war against Hamas terrorists. But one can’t be pleased with how these activists are classified. You can tell a media outlet is on the left by the way it's resistant to describing leftist allies – even their radicals in their base – with an ideological label. Sometimes, you’ll know someone is a raving socialist when they are called “liberal” or “progressive,” like Bernie Sanders. But these pro-Hamas activists are never presented as “far left,” “hard left,” or “radical left.”   Instead, the verbiage is incredibly vague. Take CNN host Abby Phillip on February 26: “There's a very public, very high-profile campaign to get Michigan Democrats to go ahead and vote uncommitted at that primary to send a message to President Biden.” Jillian Frankel at NBCNews.com reported a story on February 6 with “Michigan activists” in the headline and a quote from “Listen to Michigan campaign manager Layla Elabed, a Palestinian American activist who is the sister of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.” Tlaib voted “present” all by herself in refusing to condemn Hamas for brutally raping Israeli women. Who needs to single this family out as extremists? The P-word was okay at NBC. “Elabed added that backing a cease-fire is a prerequisite for many progressive voters.” But the idea of describing viciously anti-Semitic terrorists as “progressive” is a failure. On the February 23 PBS NewsHour, reporter Laura Barrón-López also talked to Elabed and announced “that uncommitted movement is being led by Democratic activists and Democratic local electeds in the state of Michigan.” PBS talked about “Uncommitted” campaigners on four shows in the last week of February, and they stuck to this “Democratic activists” line. On February 26, PBS anchor Geoff Bennett warned: “With more than 200,000 Muslim and Arab American voters in Michigan, their message remains clear. Without them, there's no winning the state.” On February 28, PBS anchor Geoff Bennett spoke of “voters casting uncommitted ballots in protest of the president`s approach toward the Israel-Hamas war.” On that same show, Democrat strategist Faiz Shakir sympathized: “I see that there are people who, because of American democracy, were able to express their hurt and their pain about the Middle East war through the ballot box.” The Democrat, not the journalist, used a label: Biden’s “got some issues with young people, with Arab and Muslim Americans, with a progressive left that he can fix and cure and heal.” Our “prestige” media can’t seem to locate vicious, radical, and even genocidal rhetoric from the Tlaib corner of the pro-Hamas left. A Nexis search of the last six months of the PBS NewsHour found zero examples of anyone using the term “pro-Hamas.” Just four applied the term “anti-Israel.” It’s fascinating that this alphabet of left-wing TV networks offer story after story exposing extreme ideas coming from the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys on the right. They hire people to cover “extremism,” and focus almost all of it on the right-wingers. But how does the death toll of January 6 compare to October 7? None of these journalists are going to throw hardballs at the Tlaib wing of the Democrats, suggesting their extremism is going to make the Democrats look bad with moderate voters. They won't suggest they’re hostile to democracy and supportive of political violence. That’s saved for just one political party.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

A Warning to Not Celebrate Layoffs in Journalism and a Call to Back Local News

By: Daniel McCarthy — March 1st 2024 at 08:21
Bad news for the media often feels like good news for conservatives. So word that Vice and BuzzFeed are laying off hundreds of journalists, weeks after the complete collapse of The Messenger, won’t elicit much sympathy from the right. Then again, it’s not just conservatives who disapprove of the news business today: Gallup last year found a paltry 32% of Americans say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the mass media. The same survey found 29% had “not very much” trust in the media — and a record-setting 39% confessed they had “none at all.” Last month the Los Angeles Times announced it was reducing its newsroom by more than 20%. Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post has also been through rounds of buyouts and cutbacks. But the troubles of traditional newspapers are often taken for granted. A decade ago, online outlets like Vice and BuzzFeed were meant to be the future of media — new species adapted for the internet ecosystem. That’s now the problem: those sites and others staked their survival on algorithms they don’t control. First came “search engine optimization,” then gaming the algorithms that decide what content gets served to millions of Facebook and Twitter (now X) users. BuzzFeed was notorious for “listicles,” which were addictively easy to share until Facebook became so saturated with BuzzFeed and Thought Catalog junk that Mark Zuckerberg’s platform decided to change the rules. After all, how much clickbait could readers take? Online media startups attracted investment by showing phenomenal growth, but it was like an athlete on steroids. Entrepreneurial young journalists, well-connected with classmates and former colleagues at established outlets, garnered hype and headlines from their friends. That sparked investor excitement, and with investors’ money, new sites could show a rapid explosion in traffic — since they were starting from nothing. But how could they maintain investor-dazzling double-digit growth after the first spurt? The social media on which the news sites depended faced the same problem. The solution for Facebook, once new users started tapering off, was to get existing users to spend more time on the site, which meant no longer sending them to other sites, like news sources, through links. Now Facebook and X make it nearly impossible to promote journalism on their sites; they want the eyeballs to stay on their own platforms. When social media were young, they needed to maximize traffic, which meant playing host to any kind of content users wanted, including news. YouTube and Facebook felt like the Wild West in those days, with neither copyright law nor political correctness putting a damper on what users could share. Today politics isn’t the main reason social media suppresses news, but it’s an aggravating factor, as The Wall Street Journal’s Kyle Smith recently noted on X. Smith pointed out that progressive campaigns to shame advertisers into abandoning Fox News, or X itself under Elon Musk’s ownership, encourage advertisers to avoid all political risk. Budweiser’s humiliating losses after turning the transgender “influencer” Dylan Mulvaney into a brand representative demonstrated how much it could hurt to alienate conservatives. So why advertise with any politically charged news organizations? If left-leaning sites like Vice and BuzzFeed are collateral damage in progressives’ war on right-of-center political expression, that may seem like just deserts, as well as a poignant irony. But the wider lesson is that online media was never on a secure footing, dependent as it was not just on advertising — which is true for almost all media — but on the whims of Big Tech, which has its own growth worries. Newspapers, by contrast, flourished as local institutions sustained by local retailers. The emergence of online national and even global retail, however, has meant ad spending isn’t dictated by geography any more. Businesses can reach consumers directly or cast a wider net by buying a little exposure on large platforms like Google or Facebook. Yet not only news but our very system of government is built on localism — on distinct cities, towns, states and congressional districts. Newspapers served as their town halls, even more than physical town halls did. The wipeout of hype-driven, placeless new media isn’t a cause for celebration, but it’s not a disaster for our republic. The loss of local distinctiveness, on the other hand, is at the root of much of our polarization and deadlock today. In “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville argued “that the number of newspapers must diminish or increase amongst a democratic people, in proportion as its administration is more or less centralized.” Fewer newspapers means more centralized power — and more conflict over it. Conservatives who don’t want that have reason to want newspapers to survive. And newspapers that want to survive have to fight hard for local interests and values — including conservative ones. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Nets Yawn at Federal Court’s INSANE Move to Hold Catherine Herridge in Contempt

By: Curtis Houck — March 1st 2024 at 09:36
Late Thursday afternoon, a Washington D.C.-based federal district court judge moved to hold former Fox News and CBS News journalist Catherine Herridge in contempt of court for refusing to burn her sources from a 2017 story while at Fox News about a federal probe into a Chinese-American scientist who was never charged. The news came just over two weeks after Herridge was suddenly fired from CBS as part of layoffs across its parent company, Paramount Global, and briefly had her files seized (which included confidential information) from CBS. Not surprisingly, none of the major broadcast networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — cared enough to cite this actual attack on press freedoms on their flagship Friday morning news shows. Unfortunately, it was the same story on the major cable networks as well of MSNBC, NewsNation, and even the Fox News Channel. If this were a case against, say, someone from ABC News and in good standing with corporate liberal media and other lefties, it’s a safe bet this would have received more attention. Our Founder and President Brent Bozell had this zinger of a take: Swalwell screws a Chinese spy - nothing. Herridge exposes a Chinese spy - contempt. This is Joe Biden's America. — Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) March 1, 2024 However, Fox News released a statement about the finding, saying the call to place “a journalist in contempt for protecting a confidential source has a deeply chilling effect on journalism” and they will continue to be “committed to protecting the rights of a free press and freedom of speech and believes this decision should be appealed.” It was only a 13-second news brief (and an earlier five-second tease), CNN This Morning had host Kasie Hunt share news with viewers in the “Morning Roundup” block: “A federal judge holding journalist Catherine Herridge in civil contempt for refusing to reveal her sources in a series of Fox News reports from 2017. She's also facing a fine of $800 a day. Herridge is expected to appeal.” Good on @CNNThisMorning & @Kasie Hunt. Even though it was only 13 seconds, this was the ONLY mention on broadcast OR cable news -- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, MSNBC, & NN -- of a federal court deciding to hold Catherine Herridge in contempt for not burning sources from a 2017 story pic.twitter.com/uBHCLdmD4g — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 1, 2024 Here’s more from our friends at National Review on the decision from Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee (whose administration was, contrary to popular belief, horribly anti-free press) (click “expand”): Cooper previously issued an order on August 1 compelling Herridge to reveal how she learned about a federal investigation into Chen that centered on statements Chen made on immigration forms related to work on a Chinese astronaut program. Herridge wrote a series of stories for Fox News in 2017 that detailed Chen’s connections to the Chinese military and raised concerns about whether a school she founded in Virginia was being used to help the Chinese government obtain information on American service members. Chen, who sued the FBI and DOJ in 2018 over the leak, is seeking information about the reporter’s sourcing as part of her lawsuit. The scientist alleges that her personal information was leaked to “smear her reputation and damage her livelihood.” (....) “The Court does not reach this result lightly,” the judge wrote on Thursday. “It recognizes the paramount importance of a free press in our society and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge. Yet the Court also has its own role to play in upholding the law and safeguarding judicial authority.” The Associated Press story further explained Herridge’s 2017 stories “examined Chen’s ties to the Chinese military and raised questions about whether the scientist was using a professional school she founded in Virginia to help the Chinese government get information about American servicemembers.” “The stories relied on what Chen’s lawyers contend were items leaked from the probe, including snippets of an FBI document summarizing an interview conducted during the investigation, personal photographs, and information taken from her immigration and naturalization forms and from an internal FBI PowerPoint presentation,” added AP reporters Alanna Durker Richer and Eric Tucker. A year later, the AP noted Chen sued both “the FBI and Justice Department” on the basis of her private information having been leaked to the public without her consent, having caused “both her personal and professional life” to be “upended”. In turn, the screws were turned on Herridge, demanding she reveal her law enforcement sources who gave her said information about Chen and that she was the subject of a probe she was never charged. Herridge eventually took the stand in September, “but declined dozens of times to answer questions about her sources” and invoked her First Amendment rights. Instead, ABC, CBS, and NBC combined for a whopping 10 minutes and 28 seconds covering Oprah Winfrey’s decision to leave the board of Weight Watchers and donate the proceeds of her stock in the company to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. Worse yet, the number bumps to an even-more ludicrous 13 minutes and 43 with the inclusion of NBC’s 3rd Hour of Today.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Okay, Groomer! ABC's ‘The Conners’ Bemoans Banning LGBTQ Propaganda in Elementary School

By: Dawn Slusher — March 1st 2024 at 08:05
It’s no secret ABC’s Roseanne spinoff The Conners loves to push liberal propaganda. We’ve called them out numerous times over the years on many different issues. Unfortunately, their newest season has begun, and this week’s episode, “Shrinks Don’t Talk and Kids Don’t Sing,” took on a familiar tone crying “censorship” over parents wanting to protect their kids from sexual politics in the classroom. In the episode, Becky (Alicia Goranson) complains that her daughter’s elementary school doesn’t have a budget for a music class. Her stepmother Louise (Katey Sagal), who is a singer and musician in a band, offers her services for just the cost of gas money and her lunch. Becky is thrilled the kids will now be able to learn about music, until the teacher becomes concerned when she introduces the song “Dancing Queen”: Becky: Ok, what you have in front of you are the lyrics to a really fun song called "Dancing Queen." Teacher: Okay, Let's hand back all of these pages. Don't even look at them. Albert: I accidentally looked at mine. What's going to happen to me? Teacher: You're going to be fine, Albert. We're just going to let the next class come in. And all of you are going to have an early recess. Class dismissed. Beverly Rose: What's wrong with this song? We dance to it at home. Becky: I don't know, honey. But why don't you go comfort Albert? And remember, don't turn your back on Walter. Louise: What's going on? Teacher: Look, we would love to have more music for the kids, but this song is about a queen, and some of the parents are going to interpret that to be about gender identity. And then it's going to become a thing. Becky: This is crazy. I'm a parent, and I don't think this song is about a drag queen. And I wouldn't have any problem if it was. Teacher: Me neither. But these kids are going to go home and tell their parents that they sang a song about a dancing queen. The parents are gonna go to the school board. And then pretty soon, I'm looking for a new dental plan under Obamacare. If you want your program approved by the school board, I'd get ahead of this. Submit an apology. Becky: God, they're just songs about different kinds of people. Whatever happened to the love between our brothers and our sisters? Louise: Apparently, they can have all the love they want, as long as the brothers aren't wearing the sisters' dresses. While we all know Abba's “Dancing Queen” isn’t about drag queens, and thus this storyline is quite a stretch, vilifying parents who are concerned about their child(ren) being exposed to sexual and identity politics is not okay. In real life, the song that was banned was Rainbowland by Dolly Parton and Miley Cyrus . One news story pointed out the same school district removed gay pride flags and flyers from schools, as well. A teacher from that district complained, “If you don’t let me have a rainbow in my classroom, and my student has two moms, or if I had a rainbow sign in my class, and then it was removed, what is that telling that student? And how is that student expected to be able to learn under those conditions?” Umm, it’s telling that student they’re there to learn how to read, write, and do arithmetic. It’s protecting all students and keeping them safe from sexual politics that have no place in a child’s classroom. Absolutely, gay students - or students with gay parents - deserve to be treated like everyone else. Call out and discipline anyone who mistreats them. But, you don’t need a rainbow in your classroom to do that. Back to The Conners, several family members discuss the incident at home, including Mark (Ames McNamara), who is gay: Becky: I'm actually here to apologize for what happened at school the other day. Jackie: What's up? Louise: Oh, I was going to sing an ABBA song, and then the principal stopped me because she thought that the parents would find it inappropriate. Jackie: Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Last time I looked-- yep, it's still America. We don't ban music just because we disagree with the message. This calls for action. Louise, I'm going to need a piece of paper. I'm going to need a pen. I'm going to need a very large rubber band. And I'm going to need a brick. Louise: You need to calm down. They're not going to listen to me. I don't even have a kid there. I am going to apologize to the school board and then just let Becky deal with it. It's her fight. Mark: I saw the group text say it's Lid Day. So, I grabbed these that don't belong to anything at our house. Jackie: Not a good time, Mark. We're right in the middle of something here. Becky: We're talking about music being banned at Beverly Rose's school. They wouldn't let Louise sing "Dancing Queen." Have you heard all the other songs the school board's been asked to ban? Jackie: John Lennon's "Imagine"? Come on. Becky: It has the lyric about imagining no religion. Louise: "Lola"? Becky: She's transgender. Louise: "Billie Jean"? Jackie: Could be the illegitimate kid. Or just Michael Jackson in general. Louise: "Rainbow Connection." "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." "Rainbowland." Becky: Yep, no rainbows. That's just openly anti-gay. Or anti-leprechaun. Either way, it's just wrong. Mark: This is horrible. I mean, what if I'd been a kid in that room? What if some of these kids have gay parents? What kind of message is that? Jackie: I guess my brick idea's not looking so crazy now. Banning political or sexual-themed songs is supposed to be wrong, but joking about violence towards a school is okay? #LeftistLogic Sadly, liberals have commandeered the rainbow symbol and ruined it for everyone by using it as a symbol for vulgar kinks, fetishes and other explicit sexual “causes.” They can’t expect to wear, wave and display rainbows all over parades like this… …and not have parents concerned about their children being exposed to such obscenities. (The 6:34 mark is particularly disturbing and should serve as a warning to all parents how serious this issue is.) At the end of the episode, Louise changes her mind about apologizing to the school board. She delivers the news to Becky, who is blasting the song “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows,” on a stereo in the school parking lot: Radio: ♪ I'm always chasing ♪ ♪ Rainbows ♪ Becky: What are you doing here? Louise: I'd ask you the same. But it's not subtle enough to need an explanation. Like it, though. Becky: I thought you'd be home working on your apology. Or do you need a pre-approved list of apologies, so you don't offend anybody? Louise: I'm not apologizing. You guys really kicked my ass, and I needed it. It's easy to drop the ball and let someone else pick it up. I have never done that. Not going to start now. Becky: That's what lid day is all about! Oh, it's a shame the kids are going to lose their music program. Louise: Eh, just until I'm elected to the school board. Becky: What? Louise: Yeah, I'm going to run. Becky: Okay, maybe you are still a badass. Louise: You know, somebody has to be on that board to push back when things don't make sense. Becky: A Conner on the school board. That's like an arsonist joining the fire department. Parents, pay close attention. They aren’t hiding that they’re coming for your children. And they’re even revealing how they plan to do it. Don’t let them outnumber you on school boards and in school administrations. Because, as they said, “Somebody has to be on that board to push back when things don’t make sense.” If you think they just want smiley, happy rainbows and innocent songs without the associated vulgar sexuality, think again. And when schools/governments start acting like they know better how to raise your children, it becomes a slippery slope that leads to incredibly scary and dangerous outcomes.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Finally: CNN Admits Climate-Crazy EV Policy Has Not Gone as Planned

By: Nicholas Schau — March 1st 2024 at 10:05
The legacy media has pushed for EVs for a long time, so it was a shock when CNN realized that the rapid shift to the all-electric future they envisioned wasn’t working the way they hoped. In a Feb. 26 piece, CNN finally (sort of) came to grips with several important facts that every American has known: getting rid of gas cars in favor of EVs is not economically sustainable. The EV market has “become a major disappointment,” CNN conceded. For once, CNN’s message lines up with reality. EV sales have been below expectations and several EV projects, including Apple’s, have fallen through. However, the climate activists at CNN, of course, have not wavered in their support for the switch.  CNN’s reporting comes as interest in EVs among Americans is dropping, especially among younger people. According to car insurance app company Jerry Services Inc's 2024 State of the American Driver report, “More than half (54%) of car owners who said they were not interested in buying an EV … even if charging an EV were as quick and convenient as filling up with gas.”   In a rare move by a leftist media outlet, CNN acknowledged some of these issues. “Most electric vehicles currently on sale in America are on the more expensive side of the automotive market,” CNN reported. As it is clear from the Jerry report: people generally prefer less expensive cars. In fact, high car prices are a holdup for 86% of Americans looking to buy, showing the insane effects of inflation and high-interest rates. However, the media usually ignores this critical fact in the name of radical environmentalism. CNN also surprisingly picked up on other issues that many people have with EVs: “lack of public charging” and a “confusing” tax benefit structure. But the outlet forgot about another concern raised by Jerry’s report: EVs have a poor range. According to Kelley Blue Book, a most Americans believe that EV batteries lack the range that would make an EV a comforting ride. Of course, this does not erase the fanatical climate-crazy support for EVs that CNN continually panders. For example, CNN ludicrously claimed on Feb. 21 that “Hundreds of infants’ lives would be saved and millions of children would breathe easier across the US” if Americans laid down the $50,000 or more for EVs.  That wasn’t even the first time CNN used this save-the-kids tactic on EVs as the outlet claimed on Feb. 7 that a switch to EVs would save almost 100,000 premature deaths. Further, CNN even alleged in the Feb. 7 piece that this switch would reduce racism by helping “communities of color” avoid pollution.  Also, in a Dec. 4 article, CNN unsuccessfully tried to defend the common unreliability of EVs. Conservatives are under attack. Contact CNN at help@cnn.com and demand that it tell the truth about the climate agenda and the dangers of switching to EVs too soon
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Open Borders Media Turn Riley's Murder into 'Republicans Pounce' Story

By: Bill D'Agostino — March 1st 2024 at 10:43
The horrific murder of college student Laken Riley in Athens, Georgia last week has resulted in some of the most inhuman political coverage imaginable from our news media. Corporate journalists have spent the week wringing their hands about the resulting “backlash” against illegal aliens, and scoffing at Republicans for “seizing” on this tragedy — by calling for policy changes that could have prevented it. Just listen to some of the takes these propagandists have offered about Laken Riley’s murder:     One of the most cynical moments on CNN was flagged by NewsBusters associate editor Nick Fondacaro on Monday, when The Lead host Jake Tapper transformed into a living incarnation of the “Republicans pounce!” meme: So, Republicans, obviously, seizing on this horrific tragedy at the University of Georgia. This girl, this nursing student, killed by an undocumented Venezuelan migrant. And they're seizing on this as an example of Biden's failure to protect the American people, to secure the border… Over on PBS, NewsHour host Amna Nawaz brought on radical leftist professor Charis Kubrin to pontificate that “immigrants are not the ones engaging in crime.” Undocumented immigrants are not engaging in more crime, contrary to public perception. And the presence of undocumented immigrants in an area does not correlate with higher crime, particularly violence. As our own Clay Waters pointed out, Kubrin also previously donated to radical progressive Congresswoman Katie Porter (D-CA). Explains a lot, when you think about it. The news media know the border is a losing issue for their favorite political party. Thus far, they’ve been dealing with it by obfuscating as much of the damage caused by America’s open border as possible. But it looks like that’s not working anymore, and instead they’ve fallen back to accusing critics of xenophobia and feigning outrage whenever anyone to the right of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talks about crime perpetrated by illegal aliens.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Late Night Hosts 'Cannot [Bleep] Believe' Supreme Court Took Trump Case

By: Alex Christy — March 1st 2024 at 10:48
For the men of Thursday’s late night comedy shows, if the “MAGA justices” on the Supreme Court hand Donald Trump a victory by announcing they will hear arguments on his claim to have presidential immunity, it is “terrible news for democracy” because, for them, only when a court rules against Trump is it legitimate. They simply “cannot [bleep] believe” any other version of events. The Court actually agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis, but CBS’s Stephen Colbert declared on The Late Show that “it gets worse because the oral arguments are in April, but Court watchers don't expect a decision until June, and the trial judge has promised the defense 88 days after that to prepare, meaning the trial could now be delayed until late September or October, plunging the proceedings into the heart of the election. That is terrible news for democracy, but fantastic news for television.”     After claiming that the Supreme Court has “abdicated that moral authority” it depends on for its legitimacy, Colbert claimed that “using the power vested in me as a late night host, I am hereby declaring the Supreme Court unconstitutional…their decisions are henceforth null and void, because they are poo poo heads and completely divorced from what the people they serve want and divorced from reality.” Meanwhile, over at ABC, Jimmy Kimmel reported, “Darth Traitor did get a win from his buddies on the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear Trump's "Presidents can do whatever they want" argument as it relates to January 6th.” Moving beyond the immunity claim, he asserted that it is obvious Trump is guilty, “and so now we may have to wait until next year to find out if Trump did the things we all saw and heard him do on television, but this is what happens when we let an extra from Home Alone 2 pick three Supreme Court justices.”     Later on NBC’s Late Night, Seth Meyers played a clip of Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing, telling senators that he would call balls and strikes on matters before the Court and that he has no agenda. Meyers, not only ignoring all the times Roberts ruled with the liberals, but naturally refusing to hold Democratic-appointees to the same standard claimed “It's such a ridiculous argument, we all know you're a Republican. You're telling me George W. Bush appointed you to the Supreme Court without any idea what your political beliefs are?... So, the justices want to be seen as apolitical, but there can be no doubt now that they're very explicitly doing Trump's bidding after siding with him in his attempt to get his January 6th trial delayed until after the election.” Meyers would also state that “the right-wing Supreme Court is nothing more than a Republican political operation doing the partisan bidding of Donald Trump. We as voters deserve to see the outcome of a trial where the evidence against Trump is presented before we vote, but the Supreme Court has now made that all but impossible, because Donald Trump asked them to. The MAGA justices on the Court will happily do his bidding. Trump's got them by the –” He concluded the sentence by playing a brief video of Roberts saying “balls.”     On Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, temp host Michael Kosta also did not react well to the news, “I cannot [bleep] believe this. This dude, he’s slipping out of everything. Is he some sort of human-eel chimera? You know, he started his campaign with four different cases against him and he's going to run out the clock on all of them. There’s the stolen documents case, he got a Trump-friendly judge. The Georgia case has been completely sidetracked by two of the prosecutors [bleep] each other. Now the January 6th case is getting delayed due to a legal theory that nobody thinks is legit except for maybe the judges he hired.” Back on NBC, The Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon imagined what the various justices said to each other as they agreed to take the case, “First, justice Elena Kagan said, ‘We should be acting faster to move this along.’ Then Justice Samuel Alito said, ‘I -- totally -- agree -- with -- you’ Then Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, ‘Please, the American people are counting on us can we speed this up?’ Then Justice Neil Gorsuch said, ‘We -- are -- going -- as --  fast --  as --  we --  C-A-N.’”    For the late night quintent, the Court is legitimate when it rules the way it wants, but if it simply decides to hear a case brought by a politician they don't like, it is to be trashed. Here are transcripts for the February 29-taped shows: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 2/29/2024 11:40 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: And it gets worse, because the oral arguments are in April, but Court watchers don't expect a decision until June, and the trial judge has promised the defense 88 days after that to prepare, meaning the trial could now be delayed until late September or October, plunging the proceedings into the heart of the election. That is terrible news for democracy, but fantastic news for television.  All of the plotlines will come together at once for the thrilling conclusion of America. You've got the trial of the century alongside the most important election of your lifetime, followed by the season 2 premier of Tracker. Tracker: He'll find your keys. Turns out they were in yesterday's pants.  Now, I wonder if the justices, I really do sincerely wonder if these justices, specifically John Roberts, realize just how damaging to the Court's legacy their stalling over this urgent threat to our democracy is and that legacy doesn't have far to fall. In one poll, just 18 percent of Americans said they have a great deal of confidence in the Court.  That's less trust than Americans place in Chet's Warm Shrimp and Mayonnaise Emporium. You know their slogan, “When you're here, you're huerr.” The Supreme Court gains all of its legitimacy and all of its power from public approval. They don't have an army or a police force or apparently, an H.R. department.  They have to rely on moral authority. But they have abdicated that moral authority, which is why, tonight, using the power vested in me as a late night host, I am hereby declaring the Supreme Court unconstitutional. Yeah. I don't make this decision lightly, but I'm here to say their decisions are henceforth-- I don’t take lightly nor is it easy to say—their decisions are henceforth null and void, because they are poo poo heads and completely divorced from what the people they serve want and divorced from reality.  *** ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live 2/29/2024 11:41 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: Darth Traitor did get a win from his buddies on the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear Trump's "Presidents can do whatever they want" argument as it relates to January 6th. That is likely to push Trump's trial to sometime after the election. The case did not need to be heard by the Supreme Court. It was already heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals which smacked it down so hard it needed a concussion protocol.  But the Supreme Court was like, "Wipe the blood out of your ears, get back in the game!" The question the Supreme Court decided they need to rule on is, can a president do literally anything while in office and be immune from prosecution? And if you think that's an exaggeration or an oversimplification, Trump's lawyers were asked, "If this is true, would a president be allowed to send SEAL Team 6 in to kill one of his political opponents” and he didn't say no.  Trump's argument is that he could literally shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. And I'll be honest, I'm worried the person he would shoot might be me. I'm staying away from Fifth Avenue. And so now we may have to wait until next year to find out if Trump did the things we all saw and heard him do on television, but this is what happens when we let an extra from Home Alone 2 pick three Supreme Court justices.  *** NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 3/1/2024 12:55 AM ET SETH MEYERS: It's such a ridiculous argument, we all know you're a Republican. You're telling me George W. Bush appointed you to the Supreme Court without any idea what your political beliefs are? We can tell just from your haircut. They call that "The Lego Businessman.  So, the justices want to be seen as apolitical, but there can be no doubt now that they're very explicitly doing Trump's bidding after siding with him in his attempt to get his January 6th trial delayed until after the election. The Court agreed to hear Trump's claim that he has the absolute immunity to do whatever he wants. …  MEYERS: The right-wing Supreme Court is nothing more than a Republican political operation doing the partisan bidding of Donald Trump. We as voters deserve to see the outcome of a trial where the evidence against Trump is presented before we vote, but the Supreme Court has now made that all but impossible, because Donald Trump asked them to. The MAGA justices on the Court will happily do his bidding. Trump's got them by the –  JOHN ROBERTS: Balls  *** Comedy Central The Daily Show 2/29/2024 11:07 PM ET MICHAEL KOSTA:  I cannot [bleep] believe this. This dude, he’s slipping out of everything. Is he some sort of human-eel chimera? You know, he started his campaign with four different cases against him and he's going to run out the clock on all of them. There’s the stolen documents case, he got a Trump-friendly judge. The Georgia case has been completely sidetracked by two of the prosecutors [bleep] each other. Now the January 6th case is getting delayed due to a legal theory that nobody thinks is legit except for maybe the judges he hired. The only case that might be finished before the election is the Stormy Daniels case and based on the way things are going, I bet that judge is going to get [bleep] stuck in a Venus flytrap or something.  *** NBC The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon 2/29/2024 11:38 PM ET JIMMY FALLON: Well, a lot of people are talking about this, the Supreme Court has decided to hear Trump's case about presidential immunity in late April, which means his federal election trial will be delayed and some people are blaming the Supreme Court for dragging it out on purpose to help Trump so, today the justices responded. First, justice Elena Kagan said, "We should be acting faster to move this along." Then Justice Samuel Alito said, "I -- totally -- agree -- with --  you” Then Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, "Please, the American people are counting on us can we speed this up?" Then Justice Neil Gorsuch said, "We -- are -- going -- as --  fast --  as --  we --  C-A-N.” 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Politico Reporter Blames ‘Clumsy Words’ for How Her HATE Was ‘Interpreted’

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 1st 2024 at 11:22
A week ago, Politico’s so-called democracy investigator Heidi Przybyla flaunted her stone-cold civics illiteracy and anti-Christian bigotry when she suggested that anyone who believed that our rights came from God was a dangerous “extremist” and “Christian Nationalist.” But following overwhelming condemnation, Przybyla published a non-apology on Thursday in which she blamed “clumsy words” for how her hate was “interpreted.” Przybyla opened her piece, “The Right Way to Cover the Intersection of Religion and Politics” with a screed about the separation of church and state (Click “expand”): On matters of spiritual faith and the public square, two concepts are embedded deeply in American history and law. The Constitution protects freedom of worship. So, too, does it enshrine the separation of church and state. In principle, these two concepts are not merely compatible. They are mutually dependent—one ideal is impossible to sustain without the other. In practice, however, these two foundational values jostle against each other in the political arena. The tension is natural. People typically get involved in politics and public policy debates because they properly believe there are strong moral dimensions to the choices. People’s sense of right and wrong often is shaped by religious conviction. Every important social movement in American history has been powered in part by this dynamic. At the same time, in a democracy — filled with people of all faiths, as well as non-believers — politics and lawmaking is an emphatically earthly enterprise. No one gets to impose their wishes on others simply by asserting their confidence that heaven is on their side.     “Every person’s spiritual motivations are entitled to respect. Once these motivations take them onto the stage of politics and lawmaking that will affect the lives of fellow citizens, however, they will be treated the same as any other political actor,” she proclaimed. “That means they can expect journalistic scrutiny. They can expect fair and well-reported coverage of their political aims and the tactics used to advance them.” It took Przybyla eight paragraphs to finally address the reason she was writing the article. “Due to some clumsy words, I was interpreted by some people as making arguments that are quite different from what I believe,” she wrote. Despite outlets like NewsBusters posting her anti-Christian comments in their entirety, she blamed select “activists” for taking her words out of “context”: The confusion from my words was compounded when they were wrested from the full context of my appearance. Excerpts of what I said were promoted widely in some political circles by some activists whose primary objection, I feel sure, was not my television appearance but my coverage in POLITICO about the tactics and agenda of political activists who subscribe to a philosophy they call “Christian Nationalism.” “Christianity is a religion. Christian Nationalism is a political movement. As I said on air, there is a big difference between the two,” she finally admitted in paragraph 10. “Reporters have a responsibility to use words and convey meaning with precision, and I am sorry I fell short of this in my appearance. Among the passages that caused confusion was my attempt to draw a distinction between Christians and the small set of these people who advocate Christian Nationalism.” She went on to describe how her critics were right in pointing out that America’s Founders did believe in Natural Law and that our rights did come from a higher power above mankind and their presence in the Declaration of Independence; and separately, talked about the ideology of Christian Nationalism. She closed with lines from President Abraham Lincoln about God being invoked by both sides in the Civil War. This non-apology came hours after the Family Research Center and the Catholic Vote sent a letter to Politico demanding an apology from both it and Przybyla. The organizations pressed the fact that religious institutions in America have seen an increase in violence being carried out against them and that Przybyla’s words could contribute to it.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

HERE WE GO AGAIN on Gender Pronouns: Is Elon Musk Backsliding on Free Speech?

By: Gabriela Pariseau — March 1st 2024 at 12:40
Elon Musk appears to have resurrected Twitter’s infamous policy of censoring those who refuse to use a person’s preferred pronouns. What’s worse is that he is now trying to defend it. In January, X (formerly Twitter) quietly changed its “Abuse and Harassment” policy to state that the platform “will reduce the visibility of posts that purposefully use different pronouns to address someone other than what that person uses for themselves, or that use a previous name that someone no longer goes by as part of their transition.” The changes echo the old Twitter regime’s deadnaming and misgendering policy. But the difference between the old gender pronoun policies and the new one is that X spun the latter with sanitized language and included a slightly lighter penalty. But censorship by another name still stinks to high heaven.  The platform’s revised policy is ripe for abuse as X claims it will rely on the subjective opinions of transgender users to determine whether or not they have been harassed. “Given the complexity of determining whether such a violation has occurred, we must always hear from the target to determine if a violation has occurred,” the X policy reads. Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik called Musk out on his platform’s censorship backsliding in an X post. “Apparently X might’ve reinstated their ‘misgendering’ rule so I gotta test it out…,” she wrote. Raichik proceeded to bluntly refer to a number of high-profile transgenders by their biological sex to test how heavy-handed X’s new policy would be: “Richard Levine is male. He is a man. Dylan Mulvaney is male. He is a man. Ellen Page is female. She is a woman. If I get suspended you can find me at @libsoftiktok.” She continued: “In all seriousness @elonmusk can you please clarify this? Why the change?” Apparently X might’ve reinstated their “misgendering” rule so I gotta test it out… Richard Levine is male. He is a man. Dylan Mulvaney is male. He is a man. Ellen Page is female. She is a woman. If I get suspended you can find me at @libsoftiktok 🙌🏻 — Chaya Raichik (@ChayaRaichik10) March 1, 2024 Musk responded by weakly defending the policy. “This is just about repeated, targeted harassment of a particular person,” he retorted. Musk’s response fails to recognize that the new policy makes X the referee between transgender users who may arbitrarily claim harassment and non-compliant users who refuse to bend the knee to leftist activists and lie about a person’s sex and self-appointed pronouns.  Raichik pointed out this exact problem and the resulting unequal treatment. “Using the correct sex based pronouns for someone is ‘harassment’? We’re being forced to lie?” she asked. “What about harassment in general? There are accounts who repeatedly target and harass specific individuals in an obsessive way. What constitutes ‘repeated’ and ‘targeted’ and why do only one group of people get this special treatment?”  Musk tried to reassure Raichik: “You’re not going to get suspended.” But Racihik dismissed Musk’s assurances as just empty talk: “Yeah just shadowbanned and less tweet visibility.”  Musk appears to have a pattern of flip-flopping on this particular issue. Last April, Twitter took deadnaming and misgendering out of its “Hateful Conduct” policy after MRC called the platform out for a massive spike in censorship related to transgender-related posts. In June, despite the change, X pulled out of a deal with The Daily Wire after it had previously agreed to promote the What Is a Woman documentary reportedly due to “misgendering” in the film. At the time, Musk responded with the complete opposite of what his Trust and Safety chief had previously claimed about the documentary. “This was a mistake by many people at Twitter. It is definitely allowed,” he said in a post at the time. “Whether or not you agree with using someone’s preferred pronouns, not doing so is at most rude and certainly breaks no laws.”  Musk added, “I should note that I do personally use someone’s preferred pronouns, just as I use someone’s preferred name, simply from the standpoint of good manners. However, for the same reason, I object to rude behavior, ostracism or threats of violence if the wrong pronoun or name is used.” It seems X is returning to Musk’s preferences as opposed to trying to mirror the law as he has continuously claimed.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Nets Channel North Korean State-Run Media in Hailing Biden’s Physical Results

By: Curtis Houck — March 1st 2024 at 12:45
President Biden visited Walter Reed Medical Center on Wednesday morning for this 2024 physical ahead of what’s expected to be a brutal reelection fight and as questions about what’s clearly a slowing Biden from a physical and mental standpoint have exploded. Instead of showing skepticism towards those in power, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC channeled state-run media in places like China, North Korea, and Russia by trumpeting without question President Biden’s doctor saying he’s “fit for duty” with “no signs of trouble” neurologically.     ABC’s World News Tonight embarrassed itself on Wednesday. Anchor David Muir saw nothing to be worried about, boasting “the President’s doctors saying he is, ‘fit for duty’” even though “age has become an issue for some voters.” Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang was similar obsequious, sharing Biden’s longtime doc Kevin O’Connor gave “him a clean bill of health, saying today’s exam found no new concerns” and specifically bragged the President’s “a healthy, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.”  “Now, today’s exam did not include a mental fitness test. The White House saying the President’s doctors have determined he doesn’t need one. And, today, the White House telling me that the President proves his cognitive abilities every single day by doing his job,” she concluded. ABC’s chief White House correspondent and lead Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce took the task on Thursday’s Good Morning America to boast Biden’s “doctor says the President is fit to serve” with “no new health concerns over the last year.” and no “mental fitness test” was done because O’Connor “didn't think it was necessary and the White House argues the President passes a cognitive test every day just by doing his job.” What a contrast from 2018 when President Trump went for a physical conducted by then-White House physician and now Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-TX). Hold that thought. NBC senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez was on the case for both Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News and Thursday’s Today. On the former, he called the physical “a new reminder of another hurdle for the Biden campaign” with “voter concerns mount[ing] over his age, mental acuity, and physical fitness for office.” But otherwise, Gutierrez went right along with the regime’s line Americans need to accept O’Connor’s terminology that Biden’s “fit for duty...without exceptions or accommodations” and that Biden claimed to reporters doctors “think I look too young.” Instead of relay it himself, he played a comical clip of Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insisting Biden “doesn’t need a cognitive test.” Gutierrez’s Today half-segment should have earned him a pat on the head (click “expand”): HODA KOTB: And, Gabe, there’s another big headline out there: President Biden received his annual physical yesterday. What were the takeaways there? GUTIERREZ: Yeah, Hoda. President Biden was declared fit for duty and, overall, healthy by his doctor. The President telling reporters yesterday there is nothing different than last year. We did learn that Mr. Biden's gait has stiffened because of age-related wear and tear of his spine and also, he has started using a sleep apnea machine and had a root canal in June. In response to questions about his mental fitness following that special counsel report, the White House press secretary says his doctors do not think he needs a cognitive test, Hoda. Pivoting to CBS, Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell had a eye-roll-inducing news brief and chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes did the same with a full segment on Thursday’s CBS Mornings (click “expand”): O’DONNELL [on the CBS Evening News, 02/28/24]: And we are learning new details tonight from President Biden’s annual physical. The commander in chief’s doctor says the 81-year-old is “fit for duty.” The report said the oldest President to hold office is healthy, active, robust, and occasionally coughs due to acid reflux. It said his stiffened gait was the result of arthritis, a previously broken foot and neuropathy in his feet. Dr. Kevin O’Connor at Walter Reed noted the President still uses a CPAP machine to help with his sleep apnea, and he identified no new concerns. (....) CORDES [on CBS Mornings, 02/29/24]: What we know, Nate, is that Dr. O’Connor, the President’s doctor, said that the only change in the President’s health since last year is that he is now using a PAP machine to help with his sleep apnea. Otherwise, the doctor said the President is a healthy, active, robust 81- year-old. Now, this physical was conducted at the Walter Reed Medical Center yesterday. At least ten specialists we’re told, examined Biden. Dr. O’Connor said the President’s arthritis is moderate to severe, which causes him to walk with a stiffened gait that many have noticed. But the doctor said it isn’t any worse than last year and doesn’t require any additional treatment. Now one test, as you mentioned, that the President did not undergo was any kind of cognitive test. The White House press secretary told reporters that a neurologist determined that Mr. Biden did not need one. The bottom line in this three-page memo, Dr. O’Connor says that he has “no new concerns” about Biden’s health despite constant assertions by Biden’s political opponents about his health, Gayle. GAYLE KING [on CBS Mornings, 02/29/24]: Nancy, are you hearing that people were surprised that he was not asked to take a cognitive test? Is that just no big deal now? CORDES [on CBS Mornings, 02/29/24]: I think people were wondering about it, but apparently according to his personal doctor and a neurologist, they didn’t believe it was necessary, so he had a whole host of other tests and examinations, but that was something they didn’t feel they needed to look at. In fact, the White House press secretary says he gets a cognitive test every day in the Oval Office basically based on the job he does. Thankfully, CBS Mornings co-hosts Tony Dokoupil and Gayle King scoffed at Jean-Pierre’s spin, both stating it’s “not quite the same” with Dokoupil adding that “[t]he American people...don’t have MDs, but they will evaluate that latter test” in November. Returning to Trump and his 2018 physical, the liberal media beclowned themselves and were lampooned by patriots like our own Tim Graham and the late, great Rush Limbaugh. CBS This Morning went down the rabbit hole prior to the visit, boasting on January 12, 2018 that Trump was having spend part of his presidency “defending his fitness for office” as “the oldest person ever to become command-in-chief”, implying something like Alzheimer’s could befall him.  Worse yet, CBS used that chance to reup the decades-long conspiracy theory that Reagan had Alzheimer’s while president. In the press briefing after the exam, Jackson faced questions from the likes of ABC, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, NBC, and The Washington Post in what we wrote at the time as “long knives...out as the liberal media engaged in their own Pickett’s Charge to save their narrative that Trump’s mentally ill and thus must be removed via Congress or the 25th Amendment.” CBS’s Margaret Brennan went as far as to lobby for Trump be examined for Alzheimer’s while then-ABC correspondent Cecilia Vega demanded to know details about “cognitive tests” and whether he could truly rule out Alzheimer’s and dementia since “there have been reports the president has forgotten names, that he’s repeating himself.” In addition to Comedy Central’s The Daily Show quipping “dictator blood” is keeping Trump afloat, ABC’s The View, CNN (here and here), and MSNBC’s Morning Joe discounted the readout from the physical all-together (as if to suggest it’s fake) and kept alive the suspicion Trump was mentally and/or physically impaired. And, when Trump went to Walter Reed in November 2019, NBC was set ablaze with speculation, deeming it a “health exam mystery” in a chyron and claiming it could have had to do with his heart based on data from his 2018 physical. To see the relevant transcripts from February 28, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from February 29, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Hasan Compares Israel to Putin and Assad, Demands U.S. Let Hamas Live

By: Alex Christy — March 1st 2024 at 14:14
Former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan, who is launching his own media company, traveled to CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip on Thursday to discuss the conflicting narratives behind the deaths of several Gazans who were gathered around an aid truck. While Hasan had no problems relying on Hamas-supplied statistics, he condemned the media for trusting the Israeli military while comparing it to Russian and Syrian dictators and war criminals Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad. At the same time, Hasan demanded the U.S. let Hamas off the hook by forcing Israel to end the war now. Phillip asked, “Look, Israel, as we just laid out in the last few hours, have tried to frame this as a tragedy, but just not one that is their fault. The IDF says it fired warning shots to try to disperse the crowd around that convoy. Do you lend any credibility to that explanation? And from the eyes of the world, does it matter what the explanation is for what we saw unfold?”     The IDF also states that the warning shots came about as the crowd moved towards Israeli soldiers after armed looters opened fire at the aid convoy. However, for Hasan, the IDF should be treated like the police in America, “In terms of believing the Israelis, I would say that it took multiple innocent black people to die at the hands of police in this country, whether it's Breonna Taylor, whether it's Freddie Gray, whether it's George Floyd, for people in our industry, Abby, to start saying, well, maybe we shouldn't just blindly believe police statements after shootings happen.” Even if one were to grant that point, it doesn’t follow that whatever the Palestinians say is accurate. For instance, Hasan condemned the IDF for saying there was “a command and control center under the Al-Shifa Hospital,” when we know that there were tunnels and weapons found there despite all the claims to the contrary. Phillip’s omission of the IDF’s claim that armed looters were present was important because absent that information, Hasan’s claims look more plausible than they are “Doctors say that the bodies they got at the hospital, you showed the pictures of people on donkeys, were mostly bullet wounds, not stampede wounds. The Israelis opened fire on hungry people trying to get flour, it's being called a flour massacre for that reason.” Moving from the local incident to the bigger picture, Hasan added, “And you asked, is it a tipping point? I mean, in any normal world, it should be. In any other conflict, it would be, Abby. When Putin did stuff like this in Ukraine, we condemned him. When Assad did stuff like this in Syria, we condemned him.” Israel is fighting because it is defending itself after being attacked in the most brutal way on October 7. Vladimir Putin is fighting Ukraine because he thinks he’s the heir to Catherine the Great’s imperial legacy. Speaking of Putin and Assad, there have been more people killed, according to the U.N. in specific Syrian cities than in all of Gaza. Later, Hasan turned his ire to the U.S. and after claiming the media should not treat IDF statements as fact, he treated Hamas statistics as fact, “Joe Biden has the power to pick up the phone and end this war. He can ring the Israeli prime minister and say, we're cutting you off. We're cutting off aid. We're cutting off armaments. Israel, Israelis themselves, Israeli generals, say we can't do this war without America. He hasn't done it. He didn't do it after 10,000 dead. He didn't do it after 20,000 dead. Today, we crossed 30,000 dead.” An end to the war now means Hamas survives and lives to violate whatever ceasefire Hasan demands, but he doesn’t care “How on earth has he not stopped the war until now? How on earth are we still debating this?” Hasan would also claim, “It simply is get a ceasefire and it is within his power to get a ceasefire. It's within the power of the U.N. Security Council to get a ceasefire. Remember, the rest of the world wants a ceasefire. It's America that has blocked us at the U.N. Security Council. Even other Western nations have backed a ceasefire. It's Biden blocking it.” As shocking as it may be for Hasan to believe, what is right is not determined by roll call votes at the United Nations. Here is a transcript for the February 29 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 2/29/2024 10:05 PM ET ABBY PHILLIP: Look, Israel, as we just laid out in the last few hours, have tried to frame this as a tragedy, but just not one that is their fault. The IDF says it fired warning shots to try to disperse the crowd around that convoy. Do you lend any credibility to that explanation? And from the eyes of the world, does it matter what the explanation is for what we saw unfold? MEHDI HASAN: Well, Abby, thanks so much for having me on the show, and thank you for that very important, very powerful intro you did just there. In terms of believing the Israelis, I would say that it took multiple innocent black people to die at the hands of police in this country, whether it's Breonna Taylor, whether it's Freddie Gray, whether it's George Floyd, for people in our industry, Abby, to start saying, well, maybe we shouldn't just blindly believe police statements after shootings happen. And I feel that we still haven't quite reached that point in the Middle East with the Israeli military. The Israeli military tend to say things that turn out not to be true, both before Gaza, when they killed Shireen Abu Akhle, a U.S. citizen, and lied about it, or during this conflict, so many lies the Israeli military has told about, you know, a terrorist guard list under the Rantisi Hospital, a command and control center under the Al-Shifa Hospital, a documentary in Lebanon that they claimed was Palestinians faking their own wounds, so many, you can't even count. And now we are told today, well, actually, it was just a stampede, even though eyewitnesses, Abby, say that the Israelis opened fire, Israeli tanks opened fire, without warning, according to one eyewitness in the Washington Post. Doctors say that the bodies they got at the hospital, you showed the pictures of people on donkeys, were mostly bullet wounds, not stampede wounds. The Israelis opened fire on hungry people trying to get flour, it's being called a flour massacre for that reason. And you asked, is it a tipping point? I mean, in any normal world, it should be. In any other conflict, it would be, Abby. When Putin did stuff like this in Ukraine, we condemned him. When Assad did stuff like this in Syria, we condemned him. Then Israel starves hundreds of thousands of people and then shoots people who go to get flour, where's the condemnation from the United States government? The State Department spokesman would not condemn Israel today. So, it's a tragedy. Is it a tipping point? I wish it was. I suspect it isn't. PHILLIP: What President Biden has said is that he has acknowledged the events that happened and says it will likely complicate the negotiations that they've been working on for a temporary ceasefire. From Biden's perspective, do you think this could be the incident that pushes him to actually rethink how he approaches this relationship with this particular Israeli government and this war? HASAN: As I argued in a Guardian piece recently, Joe Biden has the power to pick up the phone and end this war. He can ring the Israeli prime minister and say, we're cutting you off. We're cutting off aid. We're cutting off armaments. Israel, Israelis themselves, Israeli generals, say we can't do this war without America. He hasn't done it. He didn't do it after 10,000 dead. He didn't do it after 20,000 dead. Today, we crossed 30,000 dead. You have to ask the question why this is a man who's seen as the great comforter-in-chief, the great empath, has had huge personal tragedy in his own family and yet 30,000 Palestinians, according to his own Defense secretary today, 25,000 women and children. How on earth has he not stopped the war until now? How on earth are we still debating this? And, Abby, on the situation on aid, I've just got to point out here, four out of five of the hungriest people in the world are in Gaza right now. Even with or without those aid trucks, people are starving. A two- month-old baby called Mahmoud Fatou (ph) starved to death earlier this week in Gaza. This is not a natural disaster. This is a man-made famine. Food is plentiful. It's available. It's a few miles away, and yet it's being blocked. In fact, at the Israeli crossing, I don't know how many CNN viewers know, people are putting up bouncy castles, Israeli protesters, and eating popcorn and candy-- cotton candy and blocking the aid. That is crazy. PHILLIP: Do you think, Mehdi, that there is -- look, I think you understand that President -- you say President Biden can just pick up the phone and cut it all off. You also understand he probably won't do that. So, if you were to give him advice today, knowing what he is likely to be able to get to a yes on, what is the one thing that you think he should do today that would make this better, marginally better tomorrow for Gazans? HASAN: It simply is get a ceasefire and it is within his power to get a ceasefire. It's within the power of the U.N. Security Council to get a ceasefire. Remember, the rest of the world wants a ceasefire. It's America that has blocked us at the U.N. Security Council. Even other Western nations have backed a ceasefire. It's Biden blocking it.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CBS Promotes StudyThat Beats Up on America: C+ for Racial Equality

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 1st 2024 at 14:27
America has made tremendous progress on race relations and we’re a long way from the eras of slavery and segregation; we’ve even had a black president. But the anti-American narrative CBS Mornings pushed on Friday would have viewers believe that America was only worth a pathetic letter grade of “C+” and that it would take a frightening “180 years” for there to be true “parity” between white and black Americans. That was... unless we enacted sweeping socialist policies. CBS welcomed Marc Morial, president of the left-wing National Urban League and husband to CBS reporter Michelle Miller (which they did disclose), who brought with him the “State of Black America” report his organization published just that morning. Convenient, right? “Now, this report assesses how black Americans are faring economically and socially compared to white Americans. They gave it a score of just under 76 percent. 100 percent would be full equality,” co-anchor Gayle King announced. Chiding: “76 percent when I was in school was a C+, never great. I used to get in trouble for getting a grade of C+.” Morial explained how the actual number crunchers at the National Urban League came to their determination that America was awful: So, thanks for having me, and good morning. We look at 300 data sets, and those data sets include everything from unemployment rates, death rates, health insurance pickup rates, capital formation rates, and when we put them all together they are an index. And so, the status of white Americans is at one, and black Americans is a percentage of one. So, the comparative would be –let's look at family income, median family income for blacks. Maybe $45,000, maybe for whites, $75,000. So that's a fundamental idea with the comparison is.     “And so, that 75 percent represents, Gayle, a little bit of a change over the last three or four years, but at that rate, we're 180 years away from parity,” he warned. “That's the number that drew my attention. 180 years. Why, Marc? How?” she implored him to explain. Morial started throwing out liberal talking points hinting at Jim Crow 2.0 and whining about pushback to racist DEI programs: I think one of the reasons is is because while there are those who push for progress, there have also been those who push against progress. Witnessed today, the over 1,000 bills that have been introduced at state legislatures to make it more difficult for people to vote. Witness today the effort to, in effect, push back on DEI which is simply an effort to push back on equal economic opportunity. “I mean, there is a resistance movement to the kinds of change that the nation needs. And there was one in 1964, and there's one in 2024, and it’s intensified,” he lamented. Then came the policy solution. “Yeah. 180 years seems like a daunting number to look at…Is there a way for us to narrow that gap in those areas quicker than that?” co-anchor Nate Burleson wanted to know. In addition to the liberal talking points about voting, he wanted policies that would take “a hard, hard line to address the issues of economics, poverty, the economic divide, and the racial wealth divide.” He wanted something akin to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and the War on Poverty; socialist spending programs which only served to make things worse. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings March 1, 2024 7:30:22 a.m. Eastern (…) GAYLE KING: That, of course, was addressing the country right before he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. That landmark piece of legislation made it illegal to discriminate based on race and color, religion, sex, and national origin. 60 years later, the National Urban League says there's still work to be done. It is all outlined in his 2024 state of black America report that comes out today. Now, this report assesses how black Americans are faring economically and socially compared to white Americans. They gave it a score of just under 76 percent. 100 percent would be full equality. The president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial, joins us at the table. Good morning to you. MARC MORIAL:  Good morning. Great to be with you all. KING: You're well-known in this building. Also known as Michelle Miller’s better half. MORIAL: Mrs. Michelle Miller. KING: Mr. Michelle Miller, if you please. We’re very glad to have you. MORIAL: Appreciate it. KING: 76 percent when I was in school was a C+, never great. I used to get in trouble for getting a grade of C+. How did you come up with this score? What exactly does it mean? MORIAL: So, thanks for having me, and good morning. We look at 300 data sets, and those data sets include everything from unemployment rates, death rates, health insurance pickup rates, capital formation rates, and when we put them all together they are an index. And so, the status of white Americans is at one, and black Americans is a percentage of one. So, the comparative would be –let's look at family income, median family income for blacks. Maybe $45,000, maybe for whites, $75,000. So that's a fundamental idea with the comparison is. And so, that 75 percent represents, Gayle, a little bit of a change over the last three or four years, but at that rate we're 180 years away from parity. KING: That's the number that drew my attention. 180 years. Why, Marc? How? MORIAL: Let's say this, the Civil Rights Act of '64 that President Johnson signed has had a dramatic impact on America. Look at you and Nate. Look at others who work here at CBS. It's just an example. There were no blacks, there were no women sitting at any anchor desk in 1964. I think one of the reasons is is because while there are those who push for progress, there have also been those who push against progress. Witnessed today, the over 1,000 bills that have been introduced at state legislatures to make it more difficult for people to vote. Witness today the effort to, in effect, push back on DEI which is simply an effort to push back on equal economic opportunity. KING: Yeah. MORIAL: I mean, there is a resistance movement to the kinds of change that the nation needs. And there was one in 1964, and there's one in 2024, and it’s intensified. NATE BURLESON: Yeah. 180 years seems like a daunting number to look at. MORIAL: Yes. KING: Because none of us will be here. BURLESON: Right. KING: In this room. BURLESON: Right. Is there a way for us to narrow that gap in those areas quicker than that? MORIAL: I think we could accelerate by, number one, ensuring that the access to the right to vote and democracy is unfettered. Number two, by taking a hard, hard line to address the issues of economics, poverty, the economic divide, and the racial wealth divide. I think we also can make a difference if we focus on children. For example, the child tax credit, which passed in the early days of the Biden administration but then expired, cut child poverty by one half in a short period of time. Are there things that we can do? Look, what's dramatic is that the Civil Rights Act of '64, the Voting Rights Act of '65, the great society programs in the middle 1960s probably cut the American poverty rate in half in a 15-year period. So can we? Yes. BURLESON: There are ways. MORIAL: There are ways. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Meet Meta’s Latest Board Member: A Billionaire and Censorship Fanatic

By: Catherine Salgado — March 1st 2024 at 16:30
Meta appears to be committing even more deeply to censorship with its new board member. Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — just elected Texas hedge fund manager John Arnold to its board of directors, according to X posts from Meta and Arnold. This is concerning news for free speech advocates, as Arnold’s LLC has reportedly donated millions of dollars to entities aiming to censor alleged “disinformation and misinformation” online. “I look forward to being a part of Meta’s board, and to contributing my insights as we work together in our collective responsibility to Meta’s users and the wider community,” Arnold said in a Feb. 14 press release. In the same release, Meta described Arnold as a co-founder of several entities, including Arnold Ventures, but omitted his anti-misinformation funding. The Washington Examiner reported back in 2022 that Arnold Ventures donated the hefty sum of $13.7 million to five groups aiming to help suppress “disinformation” online. The Examiner highlighted that Arnold gave $500,000 to the international non-profit Global Witness in 2020. This group asserts that “[t]he reality of the climate crisis is an undeniable truth” and demanded that Big Tech take action to target “disinformation” or climate content contradicting their own opinions. The Examiner added that Arnold also gave nearly $10 million to the American Journalism Project (AJP). In a February 2021 blog, AJP mourned the decreasing trust in legacy media and approvingly cited efforts to “combat misinformation” about COVID-19. AJP also partnered with Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, a financier of leftist media. Social Science Research Council, another Arnold money recipient, reportedly oversaw projects to support biased “misinformation” research, per the Examiner. Arnold’s new role at Meta could have implications for upcoming elections, too. In 2019, citing “criticism of Facebook's role in democracy & the elections,” Arnold described a project he partly funded to examine how “social media spreads false info & increases polarization.” He claimed the project had to be terminated because Facebook wouldn’t provide sufficient data.  “This project would have offered an unprecedented insight into how social media spreads disinformation and divides countries,” Arnold lamented at the time. “I am tremendously disappointed this project was unable to be completed and can only hope there are opportunities to do something similar in the future.” Has Arnold finally gotten his chance as part of Meta’s board? Arnold’s entrance to the Meta board comes just after the social media giant announced its election-interfering censorship in the European Union. Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg accidentally admitted on CNBC News that most of the company’s employees are involved in censorship activities. 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

When Radicals Cheer Self-Immolation

By: Ben Shapiro — March 1st 2024 at 16:35
This week, a mentally disturbed anarchist and active-duty Air Force member named Aaron Bushnell lit himself on fire and proceeded to burn himself to death while shouting “Free Palestine” in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. In his suicide note, he explained just why he had self-immolated: “My name is Aaron Bushnell, and I am an active-duty member of the United States Air Force. I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest but, compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.” Now, nearly every word of this note is factually wrong. The Israeli Defense Forces are not perpetrating a genocide in Gaza -- far from it. The only genocidal force in the current Gaza conflict is Hamas, which seeks t o kill every Jew -- and also seeks as many Palestinian deaths for the cameras as humanly possible. Meanwhile, the IDF is taking extraordinary and unprecedented measures to protect civilian life even as genocidal Hamas terrorists hide themselves -- and Israeli hostages -- in tunnels beneath civilian areas and among civilians themselves. As John Spencer, chair of the Urban Warfare Studies Modern War Institute at West Point says, the “steps that Israel has taken to prevent casualties is historic in comparison to all these other wars.” Despite Israel’s complete air superiority in Gaza, Israel has sent its own forces in on the ground in order to try to preserve life -- and in the process, Israel has had nearly 240 soldiers killed and 1,400 injured in the Gaza Strip. But put aside Bushnell’s politics. The reality is that an American dousing himself with flammable liquid and then lighting a match is obviously a sign of mental disturbance that ought not be celebrated. No matter the rationale for such a suicide, the situation is a tragedy and a sin. Perhaps the biggest unanswered question here is how the American military allowed someone like Bushnell into the ranks. And yet many members of the left are now cheering self-immolation -- treating Bushnell as a martyr and a hero. Cornel West, who is currently running for president, tweeted, “Let us never forget the extraordinary courage and commitment of brother Aaron Bushnell who died for truth and justice!” Former Green Party candidate Jill Stein tweeted, “Rest in power Aaron Bushnell.” This is dangerous stuff. It’s dangerous because it acts as an incentive to the disturbed to harm themselves and others in the name of supposedly virtuous politics. And indeed, the celebration of Bushnell’s death follows hard on the left’s embrace of riotous violence in 2020 in the name of George Floyd. So long as the cause is just, in the views of the left, any terrible act becomes merely an example of overzealousness. And extremism in pursuit of wokeness is no vice. Our political environment is facilitating dangerous insanity. It is easy enough for people like Cornel West and Jill Stein to celebrate the pseudo-heroism of disturbed people lighting themselves on fire. But both the mentally disturbed and our society pay the price for such celebration.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

‘Corrupt’ Newsom Dragged for Panera Bread Carveout

By: Tom Olohan — March 1st 2024 at 16:44
California Governor Gavin Newsom came under fire from several media outlets for apparently exempting Panera Bread from a new law imposing high minimum wage requirements on businesses.  Newsmax host Chris Plante, Fox News host Laura Ingraham, The Washington Times opinion editor and Fox Contributor Charles Hurt and comedian and Fox News host Greg Gutfeld were among the critics and they were not kind, to say the least. On the Feb. 29 edition of Chris Plante: The Right Squad, Plante noted that California’s new $20/hour minimum wage for fast food was crafted to exempt “chains that baked bread and sell it as a standalone item,” before adding that a billionaire donor to Newsom owns several dozen Panera locations.  Plante brutally summed up this situation, saying, “Gavin Newsom has a new campaign slogan: ‘Give me your money, and you'll be exempt from all of my ridiculous, terrible, bad policy ideas.’” Plante went after both Newsom and President Joe Biden, noting the difficult situation faced by restaurant owners in California and across the nation.  “Every other restaurant owner has the same problem, fast food or otherwise, that everything is more expensive; food is more expensive; labor is more expensive; energy is more expensive,” Plante said, before adding, “Electricity is up 27% just since Joe Biden took office. This item is about a corrupt Democrat governor, creating a carve-out for a buddy of his who is really rich and can probably afford to pay more.” The infamous “buddy,” billionaire Greg Flynn, has given at least $164,800 to Newsom’s political campaigns, the New York Post reported. “Like every socialist authoritarian regime, in California, some people are more equal than others,” said MRC Free Speech Vice President Dan Schneider. “Gavin Newsom and his cronies like to pretend that they care about others, while they take care of themselves and wreak the economy for others.”  Echoing Plante’s remarks, Fox’s Ingraham criticized this “strange carveout” that benefitted a donor on the Feb. 29 edition of The Ingraham Angle. Ingraham’s guest, Fox Contributor Hurt, blasted Newsom for this exemption and for supporting this job-killing law in the first place. “There's nothing in the world more damaging to workers than raising the minimum wage like this because, of course, instead of having an $18-an-hour job, they have no job at all,” Hurt said.  Hurt went on to blast Newsom for protecting his friend’s business from the effects of a law he supported. Hurt said, “A grease ball like Gavin Newsom comes out and makes a carve-out for his multibillionaire friend so that his multibillionaire friend can keep a few more dollars in his pocket instead of giving it to those workers that Gavin Newsom claims he cares about and claims he wants to help, but it's not going to help anyway because they're just going to lose their jobs.” Fox’s Gutfeld mocked Newsom on the Feb. 29 edition of Gutfeld! for the carveout before hilariously exposing the governor. Gutfeld played a clip where Newsom used a phrase about questionable legislating “the sausage-making of politics” to describe the process.  “The phrase refers to the unpleasant way in which a process is carried out behind the scenes. When someone says, ‘You don’t want to know how the sausage is made,’ it’s usually referring to something gross,” Gutfeld said. He added: “But also it’s how politics is done. Gavin spoke the truth, when he makes sausage, he means making deals for his donor pals so they are exempt from the rules he enforces for others. It's the whole reason people like Gavin get into politics and why billionaires remain friends with people like Gavin, so they are immune from the political punishment they actually support.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818-460-7477), CBS News (212-975-3247) and NBC News (212- 664-6192) and demand that it report on Gavin Newsom’s destructive policies.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Nicolle Wallace: Trump Immunity Claim Like 'Access Hollywood'—'They Let You Do It'

By: Mark Finkelstein — March 1st 2024 at 18:44
Nicolle Wallace: back with a vengeance. Returning this week to her Deadline White House MSNBC show after an extended maternity leave, the object of Wallace's vengeance hasn't changed: she is arguably the most virulent Trump-hater of all the liberal-media talking hosts. On her Thursday show, a furious Wallace somehow analogized the decision of the Supreme to hear the case regarding Trump's claim of presidential immunity to the Access Hollywood "grab 'em by the p***y" tape. As Wallace put it: "The United States Supreme Court, which has some of the lowest approval ratings among the American public in its history, and which counts three Trump appointees among its members, yesterday decided to dignify a legal theory so contrary to the American experiment that it actually rhymes with Trump's Access Hollywood moment of infamy.  Basically arguing that when you're president, they let you do it. "  In addition to her strained Access Hollywood analogy, three other times Wallace said something truly confounding. -- First, she denounced the Supreme Court for coming "out of the closet" as being open to listening to the legal argument that America has "a king." Wait, Nicolle: we thought coming "out of the closet" is something you applaud! -- Wallace then condemned Trump for exercising his legal rights for purposes of delaying his various trials. Wallace described exercising those rights as "exploiting" them. The entire theme of Wallace's spiel was that no man should be above the law. Guess what, Nicolle? No man should be below the law, either, but sounds like you'd like Trump to be deprived of his legal rights!  -- Finally, Wallace was frustrated to the point of outrage that instead of America's "institutions" preventing Trump from getting elected, it will be up to the American people to do so: "we will once again, as citizens, have to use the power of our vote." So, it's a bad thing that citizens, via their vote, will have the ultimate power? Wallace would prefer that "institutions" rule this country, rather than the citizens? Whatever happened to "power to the people," Nicolle? Wallace was enraged at the Supreme Court for taking on the issue of Trump's presidential immunity. Yes, the Court could have refused to hear the case, and let the lower court ruling denying immunity stand. But has the possibility occurred to Wallace that the Supreme Court considered that establishing a president's lack of immunity in cases such as this so important that it didn't want the matter to be resolved with a simple denial of certiorari? That it wants to go on the record, as the highest court in the land, on the matter? You're condemning the Court now, Nicolle, but if legal prognosticators are right, you might be praising it before long.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Deadline White House 2/29/24 4:00 pm ET NICOLLE WALLACE: Hi, everyone. 4:00 in New York. Americans woke up today in a nation where the highest court in the land is now out of the closet, as open to listening to a legal argument that America has a king, and not an elected president. That one man in our nation of laws might, just might, lawfully sit above the laws that apply to every single other American citizen.  The United States Supreme Court, which has some of the lowest approval ratings among the American public in its history, and which counts three Trump appointees among its members, yesterday decided to dignify a legal theory so contrary to the American experiment that it actually rhymes with Trump's "Access Hollywood" moment of infamy.  Basically arguing that when you're president, they let you do it.  Agreeing to hear this case at all IIis the hinge moment, no matter what happens next. It alone opens the door to turning America into a country where one person can commit crimes in his effort to overturn an election he loses, enlist others in that criminal conspiracy, and then, instead of facing any criminal accountability, just run for office again, and if victorious, erase every last vestige of criminal liability, criminal exposure, and accountability.  Let's also be crystal clear today about the logistical implications just of yesterday's news. A bell that cannot be unrung. As we pointed out on this program, over and over and over again, the Trump strategy is always the same one, and it's abundantly clear. It is always to delay, delay, delay, to run out the clock, slow down the entire legal process, exploit a defendant's due process rights so that a trial in any of these cases is so delayed and pushed back that it happens after the election, most likely.  And at that point, Donald Trump has made clear that if he wins, he will use his power to free himself, to liberate himself from what he publicly, on the stump, day after day smears as an unlawful and politically motivated prosecution.  And that tactic, whether wittingly or unwittingly, received a boon in yesterday's decision from the Supreme Court. The Court's decision comes despite the enormously high stakes of actually having a trial in this election interference case. And an enormous, and quite obvious, civic and public interest in it. A poll released earlier this month shows that 64% of all Americans wanted to see Trump go on trial before November 5th 2024. That number actually includes 38% of Republicans.  Now, even after oral arguments in April, the court will take as long as it decides to take to make any decision on whether any American president, in this case that includes Donald Trump, is above the law for anything they do while in office. Even if it includes crimes committed while trying to overturn the will of the American voter using any means possible, including violence, and threats against your own Vice President.  So, if legal accountability for Donald Trump is now delayed or maybe even denied, there is, as we've been told over and over again, a matter of political accountability. And on that front, no matter how much or how often Donald Trump lies to his base about the results of the 2020 election, the cold hard fact is that 81 million Americans voted against him and for Joe Biden in 2020.  And, I don't know if you're ready to hear this, but it looks like once again it's going to fall to us, the American people, to do what our institutions constantly, over and over again, fail to do. To determine what conduct is outside the bounds in a nation of laws, outside the bounds and norms in a democracy. We will once again as citizens have to use the power of our vote to answer that question. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Touting Biden in 'Dueling Speeches' at the Border

By: Tim Graham — March 1st 2024 at 22:18
On Thursday, President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump traveled to Texas towns at the southern border to tout their immigration plans. But the networks and the New York Times podcasters touted Biden's ridiculous claims about being staunch on the border while feeling a need to 'fact check' Trump. ABC anchorman David Muir perfectly summarized the Biden spin as his own take: “President Biden...urging Republicans to reconsider that bipartisan senate border bill, killed by Republicans in the house at the urging of Donald Trump. It was considered the strongest bipartisan immigration security plan in years.” CBS reporter Ed O'Keefe uncorked spin against Trump. He "continued exploiting a crisis that he couldn’t solve either, hoping it’ll put him back in the White House.” The number of border "encounters" has quadrupled, and CBS is blurred them together? O'Keefe also complained Trump “sought to falsely connect Biden to the recent murder of a murder of a Georgia nursing student by Venezuelan migrant who entered the country illegally in 2022.” That would be unfair, to connect Biden to a death? Interesting, since CBS in 2019 was aiding Democrat presidential candidates in connecting a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso to Trump. NBC reporter Gabe Gutierrez used the ten-foot distancing words, like Trump assailed “what he calls lax border policies,” and as he mentioned the Laken Riley murder, it was Trump harping on crimes “allegedly committed by migrants.” NBC also cited a study claiming that big cities who have taken in the most illegal immigrants have seen their crime rates decrease. At least NBC noted that 57 percent in a recent poll favored Trump as the candidate to deal with the border, and Biden drew only 22 percent.  PBS reporter Laura Barron-Lopez also wanted to "fact check" Trump and claim illegal immigrants are less likely to be criminals than native-born citizens (if you leave out the illegally immigrating part). But she let Biden claim the Senate border deal was "the toughest, most efficient, most effective border security bill this country has ever seen." It's like they never suggested Trump's border policies were offensively excessive. The New York Times podcast The Daily (which plays on NPR stations across the country) featured host Sabrina Tavernise insisting Trump was "doubling down" on "demagoguery" on the border as he has since 2015. But Biden seeking to blame Trump for the current border crisis, she said, was like pulling off a "triple Axel" jump in figure skating. We also touch on the latest developments with journalist Catherine Herridge, and also Politico's "democracy investigator" Heidi Pryzbyla semi-apologizing for suggesting Christians were weirdos to think their rights and freedoms came from God.  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC/CBS/NBC Hail Biden’s ‘Olive Branch’ on Border, Sneer at Trump ‘Exploiting’ Crisis

By: Curtis Houck — March 1st 2024 at 22:48
With ABC, CBS, and NBC fresh off of their pathetic display of obsequiousness on behalf of President Biden after his 2024 physical, they remained affixed to being the apple of the Biden regime’s eye as, between Thursday night and Friday morning, they hailed Biden demanding the GOP “put border security above politics” and extending an “olive branch” to Donald Trump despite his attempts to continue “exploiting” a crisis. As per NBC’s contention, this was despite illegal immigrants posing very little danger (if at all) to the public, claiming they’re not a security risk to U.S. cities.     Thursday’s CBS Evening News was, quite simply, out of control in its partisanship. Anchor Norah O’Donnell hyped Biden as having “issued a political dare to Donald Trump, to join him in pressing House Republicans to help secure the border” while Trump “took a much different approach” by “unleashing attacks on Biden, Democrats and migrants, but not proposing a legislative solution.” White House and campaigns correspondent Ed O’Keefe had what was in-lockstep framing across all three networks of Biden being a workhorse for Americans and Trump being a loudmouth “exploiting a crisis” and “falsely connect[ing]...Biden to the recent murder of a Georgia nursing student by a Venezuelan migrant” (click “expand”): O’KEEFE: After a record number of illegal crossings last year, President Biden, who toured the border in Brownsville, Texas, is trying to show he’s addressing an issue that more than 60 percent of voters call a very serious concern. Just hours before the president’s arrival here in Brownsville, U.S. Border Patrol and Texas State Police say they stopped people on the other side of the border from bringing across drugs, but Chris Cabrera of the Border Patrol said that, with the illegal crossings into this part of Texas down recently, the President has come too late. CABRERA: But I think the timing’s a little off. I mean, if he would have come a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. O’KEEFE: Trump, who visited Eagle Pass more than 300 miles away, continued exploiting a crisis that he couldn’t solve either, hoping it’ll put him back in the White House. Allies say he’s planning mass deportations and detention camps if elected. Today, he sought to falsely connect President Biden to the recent murder of a Georgia nursing student by a Venezuelan migrant who entered the country illegally in 2022. TRUMP: The monster that charged — charged in the death is an illegal alien migrant who was let into our country and released into our communities by crooked Joe Biden. O’KEEFE: The President, who didn’t address Trump’s attacks, said they should work together. Correspondent Adam Yamaguchi had a second segment along the U.S.-Mexico border in California with a standard sob story narrative about illegals “from countries around the world” “taking the first perilous steps on U.S. soil” and spoke to ones from Brazil and even Mauritania, a country in northwest Africa. To the one from Mauritania, he fretted: “So, right now, a lot of Americans would say you shouldn’t be here.” Tossing back to O’Donnell, he swelled with pride for these illegals: “Neither the wall, nor this rugged, punishing terrain is enough to stop the determination of these asylum seekers. This is what policymakers and border officials are up against.” Fortunately, Friday’s CBS Mornings saw none of this and instead a pedestrian report from chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes, built largely on Biden and Trump soundbites. If ABC’s World News Tonight were a person, Team Biden would tell them to back off because they’re too obsessed with pleasing them. Anchor David Muir boasted Thursday that Biden “urg[ed] Republicans to reconsider that bipartisan Senate border bill”, which “was considered the strongest bipartisan immigration security plan in years.” “Donald Trump, meanwhile, in Eagle Pass,...calling it a very dangerous border, saying President Biden is to blame. President Biden with a different approach, with an invitation to Donald Trump, asking Trump to help urge Republicans to get this done. Biden arguing, this is about serving the American people and addressing this issue now,” a complaint Muir added. Speaking of compliant, chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce huffed that Biden has had to spend time “confronting a growing challenge” and “political liability” “for his administration and his campaign: Illegal border crossings hitting record highs”. Earth to Mary: This is a crisis for the country, not just Ol’ Joe! As she would do on Friday’s Good Morning America, she used a Border Patrol union official to try and drive a wedge between them and Trump (click “expand”): BRUCE: Even the conservative Border Patrol union supports the bill. Today in Texas, I asked them why. [TO CABRERA] What’s the biggest impact of Washington failing to pass that bill? NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL’s CHRIS CABRERA: The security of our country. BRUCE [TO CABRERA]: Former President Trump urged Republicans not to pass that deal. What did you make of that? CABRERA: Well, I mean, that’s politics for you. [SCREEN WIPE] Was it a perfect bill? Nah, it wasn’t a perfect bill. But it’s better than the status quo what’s going on now. In contrast to Trump railing against Biden, Bruce gushed the current President took “a much different strategy, urging the former President to put border security above politics to help solve the problem now.” On the aforementioned Friday AM show, Bruce had help from co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos, who in part framed the border visits this way. “Trump blasted Biden. Biden invited Trump to cooperate on solutions.” Bruce explained this time that Biden went amid “mounting criticism over his handling of the immigration crisis” and used “a new tactic, an invitation to Trump to put border security above politics”. Thursday’s NBC Nightly News followed suit from its ABC and CBS competitors by leading off with the border crisis. Anchor Lester Holt also forwarded the White House version of how the two visits were to be viewed: The President calling out House Republicans for sinking a bipartisan border bill and extending an offer to Mr. Trump saying, “we can do it together.” The former President blaming Mr. Biden for border chaos, calling it a Joe Biden invasion.  Senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez also brought up Riley’s murder with Trump “pointing to recent high-profile crimes allegedly committed by migrants”, but his most insane moment on both newscasts came when he made this assertion, as if to downplay the border surge and inadvertently throw a dagger at the heart of parents who’ve lost loved ones to crimes committed by illegal aliens: “An NBC News review of available crime data shows crime has dipped in cities that received the most migrants.” By the next morning on Today, Gutierrez and co-host Hoda Kotb did their part for The Cause, repeatedly cheering Biden’s remarks and claims about wanting to address the border crisis an “olive branch”. And, like CBS’s Yamaguchi, Gutierrez dialed up the proverbial sympathy with viewers, hoping to drop their guards when it comes to letting those who came here illegally to go on their merry ways (click “expand”): GUTIERREZ [on NBC Nightly News, 02/29/24]: Beyond the political splitscreen, desperate migrants in Mexico wait to cross. Here in Brownsville, Monica from El Salvador waits for a bus with her three-year-old son. She tells us the journey was hard, and that she spent four months waiting in Mexico for an appointment for an initial asylum screening through an app on her phone. Now, she’s off to meet family in Houston as the border battle in Washington intensifies. (....) GUTIERREZ [on NBC’s Today, 03/01/24]: Here at Brownsville’s bus station, we met families heading to Chicago and Houston after they waited months in Mexico for an initial asylum screening, booked through an app on their phone. The children were tired, the parents were worried. TEAM BROWNSVILLE’s MYRA PAREDES [on NBC’s Today, 03/01/24]: These are people's lives. These are people's futures that we are basically playing with or using as a pawn. In no way or form should we ever use that for political gain. To see the relevant transcripts from February 29, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from March 1, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS NewsHour Goes to the Border to 'Fact Check' Immigrant-'Demonizing' Trump

By: Clay Waters — March 2nd 2024 at 06:37
With dueling presidential candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump facing off on immigration and making separate appearances along the southern border, PBS NewsHour reporter Laura Barron-Lopez reported from the Biden stop on Thursday evening and made her feelings clear on the taxpayer-supported news program. Barron-Lopez portrayed the Democratic president as taking the immigration fight to his likely 2024 re-election rival Trump, although Biden repealed everything Trump did regarding the border upon taking office (a fact PBS skipped): Barron-Lopez: In his second visit to the Texas-Mexico border, President Biden met with Border Patrol and immigration officials in Brownsville, attempting to turn the tables on his likely 2024 rival, former President Donald Trump. Joe Biden, President of the United States: Here's what I would say to Mr. Trump. Instead of telling members of Congress to block this legislation, join me, or I will join you in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill. We can do it together. You know and I know it's the toughest, most efficient, most effective border security bill this country has ever seen. Her spin on Trump entering the fray was far more negative. Barron-Lopez: Meanwhile, some 300 miles West along the Rio Grande in the town of Eagle Pass, Trump attacked Biden and again demonized migrants. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: Now the United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It's a new form of vicious violation to our country. It's migrant crime. We call it Biden migrant crime. Barron-Lopez knew which party to blame for her PBS viewers. Barron-Lopez: The showdown here at the U.S.-Mexico border is set to be a defining battle of 2024, a fight guaranteed when Republicans killed a bipartisan deal designed to stem the flow of migrants and funnel billions to border security…. Apparently it was all quiet on the southern front, at least according to liberal activists with skin in the game. Barron-Lopez: With the Senate deal all but dead, sources have told NewsHour that President Biden is considering using his executive authority through a decades-old law to block some asylum seekers from entering the U.S. While state and federal authorities clash in Eagle Pass, becoming a national flash point, here in Brownsville, advocates say things are different. Astrid Dominguez, Executive Director, Good Neighbor Settlement House: We often hear that the border is chaotic, but it's orderly. It's not chaos. Laura Barron-Lopez: ….What would the impact be for migrants if the U.S. were to put in place more severe asylum restrictions? Astrid Dominguez: Seeking asylum, it's a right. And we want to make sure that, as a country, we're looking at solutions that allow them to seek asylum in a safe way and not putting them in danger. She assured NewsHour anchor Geoff Bennett that “overall, Geoff, crossings are low here right now in Texas.” Geoff Bennett: ….We heard Donald Trump with his criticisms of Joe Biden. How do Mr. Trump's stated concerns and contentions square up with the facts and with your reporting and what you're seeing there along the border today? Barron-Lopez: Geoff, Chris Cabrera of the Border Patrol union told me that there were only six apprehensions in Brownsville yesterday and that overall, across Texas, other entry points, other border towns may have slightly higher apprehensions, but that it's overall low. [Editor’s note: Because of Republican pressure to take action, perhaps?] But I want to point out, Geoff, and fact-check one of the things that the former president said today. He was talking about claiming that there was a migrant crime wave occurring. And the data just doesn't match up with that, Geoff. A Stanford study shows that immigrants are 60 percent less likely than native-born Americans to be incarcerated and that also, in sanctuary cities, each unit increase in the unauthorized immigration population actually represents a 5 percent decrease in violent crime. Does anyone truly think allowing all illegal immigrants to stay in the country would end violent crime, as Barron-Lopez’s dubious trend line would imply? Georgia recently provided sad evidence that isn’t the case. This segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 2/29/24 7:19:23 p.m. (ET) Laura Barron-Lopez: In his second visit to the Texas-Mexico border, President Biden met with Border Patrol and immigration officials in Brownsville, attempting to turn the tables on his likely 2024 rival, former President Donald Trump . Joe Biden, President of the United States: Here's what I would say to Mr. Trump. Instead of telling members of Congress to block this legislation, join me, or I will join you in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill. We can do it together. You know and I know it's the toughest, most efficient, most effective border security bill this country has ever seen. Laura Barron-Lopez: Meanwhile, some 300 miles west along the Rio Grande, in the town of Eagle Pass, Trump attacked Biden and again demonized migrants. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: Now the United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It's a new form of vicious violation to our country. It's migrant crime. We call it Biden migrant crime. Laura Barron-Lopez: The showdown here at the U.S.-Mexico border is set to be a defining battle of 2024, a fight guaranteed when Republicans killed a bipartisan deal designed to stem the flow of migrants and funnel billions to border security. What do you hope President Biden's trip accomplishes? Chris Cabrera, Vice President, National Border Patrol Council: You know, hopefully, he takes some good out of this trip, and, hopefully, when he meets with the Border Patrol agents, they give him an idea of what you could work from. Any time you want something done on the front line, you need to talk to the front-line workers. Laura Barron-Lopez: Chris Cabrera is the vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 18,000 agents nationwide. The union supported the bipartisan deal. Do you want it to still pass? Chris Cabrera: You know, that's the hope. But on top the — at the end of the day, anything will help. I know there's the power of the pen. There's executive action that he's done in the past with other issues. He has the power to put a stop to this today if he wanted to. Granted, Congress does have some fault in this. They have been kicking the can down the road for quite a few years, not one side or the other, but both sides. And if they're not going to do it, then either we get somebody in there that will or the president needs to take action like the last president did. Laura Barron-Lopez: With the Senate deal all but dead, sources have told "NewsHour" that President Biden is considering using his executive authority through a decades-old law to block some asylum seekers from entering the U.S. While state and federal authorities clash in Eagle Pass, becoming a national flash point, here in Brownsville, advocates say things are different. Astrid Dominguez, Executive Director, Good Neighbor Settlement House: We often hear that the border is chaotic, but it's orderly. It's not chaos. Laura Barron-Lopez: Astrid Dominguez is the executive director of Good Neighbor Settlement House, which is one of the groups that helps welcome asylum seekers in Brownsville. What would the impact be for migrants if the U.S. were to put in place more severe asylum restrictions? Astrid Dominguez: Seeking asylum, it's a right. And we want to make sure that, as a country, we're looking at solutions that allow them to seek asylum in a safe way and not putting them in danger. Laura Barron-Lopez: Despite the danger, some are still making the long journey with their children. Roxanna just arrived from Cuba. Roxanna, Asylum Seeker From Cuba (through interpreter): It was difficult because we had to travel with coyotes and we had a small child. Luria, Asylum Seeker From Venezuela (through interpreter): I cried a lot. It was terrifying. I'm 22 years old. I don't know how I did it, how I was able to flee with my son. It's something that I just don't know how I did it. But I accomplished it, and we're here, and that's the most important thing. Laura Barron-Lopez: Fleeing Venezuela through the Darien Gap, 22-year-old Luria was robbed twice before arriving for her appointment with Customs and Border Protection. Luria (through interpreter): I want a better life. I want a better future for my son, and I just want to start a new life. Laura Barron-Lopez: Geoff — Geoff, those migrants are arriving through the CBP One appointment system app that President Biden has urged asylum seekers to use, rather than cross regularly into the United States. But, overall, Geoff, crossings are low here right now in Texas. Geoff Bennett: And, Laura, let's return to what we heard today from the current and former presidents. We heard Donald Trump with his criticisms of Joe Biden . How do Mr. Trump's stated concerns and contentions square up with the facts and with your reporting and what you're seeing there along the border today? Laura Barron-Lopez: Geoff, Chris Cabrera of the Border Patrol union told me that there were only six apprehensions in Brownsville yesterday and that overall, across Texas, other entry points, other border towns may have slightly higher apprehensions, but that it's overall low. But I want to point out, Geoff, and fact-check one of the things that the former president said today. He was talking about claiming that there was a migrant crime wave occurring. And the data just doesn't match up with that, Geoff. A Stanford study shows that immigrants are 60 percent less likely than native-born Americans to be incarcerated and that also, in sanctuary cities, each unit increase in the unauthorized immigration population actually represents a 5 percent decrease in violent crime. Geoff Bennett: And President Biden today, he also called on Senate Republicans to pass that bipartisan border deal, but he said he might act alone. There's word of an executive order? Is that right? Tell us more about that. Laura Barron-Lopez: That's right, Geoff. An executive order could come in a matter of weeks. And that order, what's being considered right now would severely restrict asylum seekers. It would narrow who can claim asylum. And I was talking to immigration advocates today who have been in talks with the White House. And they're trying to convince President Biden to essentially go a different route with an executive order, declare an emergency declaration, and just send more resources border, rather than restrict asylum. It's important to note, Geoff, that asylum under current U.S. law is a right for migrants to claim whether they're presenting at a port of entry or between ports of entry. Geoff Bennett: In the meantime, Laura, there is this continuing dispute between Texas and the federal government over border security. Where does that stand right now? Laura Barron-Lopez: A federal judge today, Geoff, blocked a Texas law that would give police more authority to arrest migrants that they suspect may have entered into the U.S. illegally. And I was speaking with an immigration lawyer today who said that they expect Texas will ask for a stay, which would allow them to try to implement that law as legal proceedings move forward. But, of course, they're going to be battling with immigration lawyers and advocates who are trying to block this to take effect. And one thing that's important to note, Geoff, is that a lot of people can't always present at a port of entry when they're trying to come into the U.S. There's a lot of reasons why they actually present between ports of entry, as they're trying to flee violence. And I also spoke with a lifelong Texan today in Eagle Pass, Geoff. He's a business owner who's been really frustrated by Governor Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star, saying that, initially, he supported it, but that now he isn't really happy with what's been going on, because Governor — the governor has seized so much of the land and so much of the public property in Eagle Pass. Geoff Bennett: Laura Barron-Lopez on the U.S. southern border for us tonight. Laura, thank you.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Clueless Journalists Confounded by the Concept of God-Given Rights

By: Geoffrey Dickens — March 2nd 2024 at 08:00
They just don’t get it. The leftist media really have no clue about the founding principles that made America great. There’s probably no better example of that than when Politico’s Heidi Przybla was absolutely baffled that Republican voters actually believe that Americans’ “rights” “come from God” and not the Supreme Court or Congress. This past month also saw network hosts like CBS’s Gayle King and cable pontificators like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough exploit the Kansas City shooting as they urged their viewers to vote away their own right to self-defense. The Hamas apologists were still out in force this month. CNN’s Abby Phillip hit Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee from the left when she pushed: “Do you consider what Israel is doing in Gaza to be genocide?” Phillip asked the same question to film director Michael Moore who agreed it was “genocide.”  Speaking of the Hollywood Left, late night talk show hosts CBS’s Stephen Colbert and HBO’s John Oliver spent the last month hoping Donald Trump would get sent to “prison” and Justice Clarence Thomas would “get the f*** off the Supreme Court.”  The following are the worst media outbursts from the month of February:  Tell Us You Failed Civics Class, Without Telling Us You Failed Civics Class     “The thing that unites them [Donald Trump supporters] as Christian nationalists, not Christians, by the way — because Christian nationalists is very different — is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, they don’t come from the Supreme Court, they come from God.”— Politico’s democracy investigator Heidi Przybyla on MSNBC’s All In, February 22.    Attacking From the Left: Are U.S. and Israel Committing “Genocide?”     “Two questions for you: Do you consider what Israel is doing in Gaza to be a genocide? And do you consider the President, as a result of that, to be complicit in a genocide?”— Host Abby Phillip to Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee on CNN’s NewsNight, February 26.   Conservative Justices Have “Waged a Full Frontal Assault on Modern Society”     “The conservative majority on the court led by Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have already waged a full frontal assault on modern society. Including repealing the Civil Rights era, abortion access and affirmative action, and they are currently gunning for contraceptive access, and maybe even gay marriage. And that is because justices like Alito and Thomas share the religious far-right’s grievances about society’s evolution.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, February 20.   CNNer Finds the Real Killer of Navalny     “Mr. President, would you go so far as to say that [Russian dissident] Alexei Navalny’s blood is on the hands of House Republicans right now?”— CNN White House correspondent M.J. Lee to President Joe Biden during live coverage on White House South Lawn, February 19.   If You Want “Progress” You Can’t Vote GOP     Co-host Joe Scarborough: “They want the proliferation of these guns all over the place, and it’s led to a far more deadly — deadly situation in places like Kansas City….We have to have a return to some sane gun safety laws that the overwhelming majority of Americans support.”...Co-host Mika Brzezinski: “This will be one of the key election issues — this along with abortion along with immigration, which are issues now Democrats own. They own over the Republicans….If you want progress on these three issues, you can’t vote Republican in any election.”— MSNBC’s Morning Joe, February 15.  Co-host Tony Dokoupil: “The shooting at the Kansas City Super Bowl parade is helping renew the conversation about how to curb gun violence in America, including how to limit easy access to military-style rifles.”...Co-host Gayle King: “We have to remind people, and nothing changes.”|Co-host Vladimir Duthiers: “The polling that shows that the majority of Americans want to see that kind of change….Why aren't lawmakers listening?Dokoupil: “It’s easier said than done, but it’s true that once you pull the trigger you can never un-pull it. And people are tired of it.”King: “And that’s why it’s important to vote for people who think the way you do.”— CBS Mornings, February 16.   “Poorest White People in the World” Are New Hampshire Trump Supporters  “I saw the people up in New Hampshire, the poorest white people in the world. I mean the rags on their books. They look like East Germans coming out of East Berlin back in the eighties. They were waiting for Trump for two hours and they believe everything he says. And they had this notion that the family, the flag, the country, this really primitive notion of what they care about. Religion. Everything. He’s tying into that. He’s saying ‘I’m your savior.’”— Former MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, February 28.    Biden’s “Age” Has Been “Over-Covered” Say My Trusted Leftists Sources “Some media watchdogs argue President Biden’s age has been over-covered, overstated, and over-analyzed, particularly when compared to former President Trump’s.”— Correspondent Robert Costa on CBS News Sunday Morning, February 18 as the logos for ultra-left “media watchdogs” like Mother Jones are shown on-screen.     Angry at “Gratuitous” Shot at Biden’s Age     “Where he talked about the President’s age. I thought those reports were supposed to be just the facts. That was gratuitous….What Counsel [Robert] Hur has also done is given bed-wetting Democrats another reason to complain about the President’s age. Meanwhile, they’re not focused on the fact that the 82-year-old President of the United States has an incredible record in the three years he’s been president. I wish people would focus on that…. And the fact that he mixed up the president of Egypt with the president of Mexico, I did the same thing on — around this table when talking about the governor of Virginia.”— Jonathan Capehart on PBS’s NewsHour, February 9.    MSNBCers Fear: Are We Being Unfair To Biden, Just Like Hillary In 2016?     Host Andrea Mitchell: “76 percent of those polled in our recent poll are concerned about his [Joe Biden’s] age and far fewer concerned about Donald Trump’s age, who, when he’s not on teleprompter, you know, we’re not addressing that, the White House would point out.”...Correspondent Mike Memoli: “They [White House] feel that we, frankly, in the media, do not do enough job of holding up what the former President does and says on a regular basis in the same way that we are with President Biden. They’re trying to do it through the campaign and they want to see us do it more in our coverage of the race.” Mitchell: “I can understand the basic point of fairness, especially after what happened in 2016 when there was a real argument that is exactly what happened to Hillary Clinton.”— MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, February 9.    CNN Falls for Hunter’s Story: He’s Staying Sober to Save Democracy       Host Dana Bash: “Part of what he [Hunter Biden] is trying to do….is stay clean...for himself, for his family, for his father, and he believes for politics, which is democracy.”...CNN Justice Correspondent Evan Perez: “[Hunter Biden is] saying….‘They’re going after me because they’re trying to make me use [drugs] so that they could hurt my father’ and that is a crazy thing to have to hear in 2024 politics.”— CNN’s Inside Politics, February 28.    Republicans Going To Make It So “You Can’t Be Black” and “In a Classroom”     “GOP governor Ron DeSantis leading the way here in Florida with the most aggressive legislation with teachers facing jail time for simply teaching the truth. One Florida teacher telling Axios that they’re approaching teaching black history, quote, ‘carefully,’ because, quote, ‘no one wants to be fired.’...It sounds like it’s going to get to the point where you can’t be black and actually physically be in a classroom at this rate.”— Host Katie Phang on MSNBC’s The Beat, February 1.   Former Sportscaster Triggered by Trump “You have to be in the throes of some sort of toxic delusion in a toxic cult to believe that Trump has ever been, in any sense, emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, or ethically fit to be President of the United States.”— Former NBC Sports broadcaster and talk show host Bob Costas on CNN’s Smerconish, February 24.   Shamed for His Choice of Chicken Sandwich “On one of my first days at The New York Times, I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink, I believe, and so I had to answer the pink prompt, which had me respond with my favorite sandwich….I blurted out, ‘The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,’ and considered the ice broken. The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: ‘We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.’ People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage. ‘Not the politics, the chicken,’ I quickly said, but it was too late. I sat down, ashamed.”— Former New York Times Opinion editor and ex-Weekly Standard writer Adam Rubeinstein in a February 26 article for The Atlantic “I Was a Heretic at The New York Times.”   Farewell to Mitch “Mass Shootings” McConnell  “This is the end of Mitch’s [McConnell] reign in the Senate. And in honor of all that he has done to stop mass shootings, there will be a 21-gun salute at an elementary school later this month.”— Host Michael Kosta on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, February 28.    Israel Committing “Genocide”      Host Abby Phillip: “Would you describe Israel’s campaign in Gaza as a genocide?”Film director Michael Moore: “I would say that anytime you single out a group of people, and you have what’s called a mass guilt you impose on them simply because they are, in this case, Palestinian….When you indiscriminately bomb a group of people simply because of the color of their skin — because of their religion — because of their heritage or whatever. That is a form of genocide.”— CNN NewsNight, February 23.   John Oliver Bribes Clarence Thomas to “Get the F*** Off the Supreme Court”      “We know you’ve [to Justice Clarence Thomas] got a lot on your plate right now from stripping away women’s rights to hearing January 6th cases you definitely shouldn’t be hearing to potentially helping roll back decades of federal regulations, and you deserve a break….away from the ‘Meanness of Washington.’ So you can be surrounded by the ‘regular folks’ whose lives you’ve made demonstrably worse for decades now…We’re excited to offer you... this brand new, top-of-the-line Prevost Marathon Motor Coach….So that’s the offer. A million dollars a year, Clarence, and a brand new condo on wheels, and all you have to do in return is sign the contract and get the fuck off the Supreme Court.”— Host John Oliver on HBO’s Last Week Tonight, February 18.   So What If Joe is Old, At Least He’s Not a Dictator     “It must be very frustrating for Joe Biden having all these people doubting whether he is fit to be in office when he’s running against Hair Mussolini.”— Host Jimmy Kimmel on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, February 21.   Angry That Georgia DA Might Have Botched a Chance to Send Trump to Prison     “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 [Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis] 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.”— Host Stephen Colbert on CBS’s The Late Show, February 15.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Brooks Rains On PBS's Desire To Blame Trump For Border Crisis

By: Alex Christy — March 2nd 2024 at 10:10
There is something about the border crisis that has caused New York Times columnist David Brooks to remember that he is supposed to be the conservative half of PBS NewsHour’s Friday Brooks and Capehart weekly recap segment. After previously batting down the idea that President Biden needs to move left on the issue, he rebutted the idea that Biden is doing his best to solve the problem but is hampered by Donald Trump and obstructionist Republicans. Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart was naturally a proponent of the idea that Biden wants to solve the problem while Donald Trump wants the border to be a mess because that benefits him politically. It was also an idea that resonated with host Geoff Bennett, “And part of what Jonathan just described was on full display at the border yesterday. President Biden invited President Trump to call on Republicans to support this bipartisan border deal. And then former President Trump accused Joe Biden of having what he called a Joe Biden invasion. That's the way he referred to the migrant crisis. I mean, it's fairly clear how they're trying to play the politics here.”     Brooks observed that “it's obviously Trump's strongest point. I mean, only 28 percent of Americans support Joe Biden's immigration policy. They prefer Trump's policy over Biden's policy by like infinite percent.” Taking a trip down Memory Lane, Brooks also recalled how “Democrats have been sort of out of touch on this issue. In 2016, you had large numbers of candidates in a Democratic primary raise their hand and say they were for decriminalizing the border. That was — compared to where America is, that's far off.” The only thing one could slightly criticize Brooks on there is that it was actually more recently than 2016. Still, returning to the present day, Brooks also claimed “the Biden policies just haven't worked. This — our asylum system was created after World War II to help those with extreme persecution. That was a long time ago. Right now, there are like 40 million people in the world who are facing that kind of persecution. We can't take all those people.” After referring to the current situation as “not necessarily immigration,” but “chaos,” Brooks had a policy suggestion for Biden, “so Biden has to do the thing which I think the British have done, which is to say, we're going to stop the asylum process until we can digest all the people who are already in the system. And that will at least try to impose some order, because, if there's just chaos, it's going to be just bad news for Biden.” It is good that, at least on this issue, Brooks has decided to bring some sense to the table as it helps counterbalance Capehart’s ramblings, such as later, when the trio were discussing Sen. Mitch McConnell’s decision to stand down as GOP leader and Capehart falsely accused him of having “stole a Supreme Court seat from President — from President Obama.” Here is a transcript for the March 1 show: PBS NewsHour 3/1/2024 7:31 PM ET GEOFF BENNETT: And part of what Jonathan just described was on full display at the border yesterday. President Biden invited President Trump to call on Republicans to support this bipartisan border deal. And then former President Trump accused Joe Biden of having what he called a Joe Biden invasion. That's the way he referred to the migrant crisis. I mean, it's fairly clear how they're trying to play the politics here. DAVID BROOKS: Well, it's obviously Trump's strongest point. I mean, only 28 percent of Americans support Joe Biden's immigration policy. They prefer Trump's policy over Biden's policy by like infinite percent. And so Trump has the country on his side when it comes to this border. And the simple fact is, the Democrats have been sort of out of touch on this issue. In 2016, you had large numbers of candidates in a Democratic primary raise their hand and say they were for decriminalizing the border. That was — compared to where America is, that's far off. Second, the Biden policies just haven't worked. This — our asylum system was created after World War II to help those with extreme persecution. That was a long time ago. Right now, there are like 40 million people in the world who are facing that kind of persecution. We can't take all those people. And we can't have a policy that prioritizes the people who are breaking law, rather than people who are applying through the asylum system according to law. So, to me, the issue right now is not necessarily immigration. It's chaos. And so Biden has to do the thing which I think the British have done, which is to say, we're going to stop the asylum process until we can digest all the people who are already in the system. And that will at least try to impose some order, because, if there's just chaos, it's going to be just bad news for Biden. … JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yeah, you know what? Let me give Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell his flowers. Let me just give him his flowers, because he is, you know, our version of the master of the Senate: wily, cunning. No one knows the Senate rules like Mitch McConnell. He's even — he even made up some rules, made up the rule that you can't — a sitting president cannot nominate someone to the Supreme Court with nine months to go before the election. The American people should choose the president who then chooses the justice. So he stole a Supreme Court seat from President — from President Obama. Fast-forward to the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a month before the election. Three days, three days before the election, he turned tail and said, no, we must — we must have a new justice. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett got onto the Supreme — onto the Supreme Court, sealing a conservative supermajority, 6-3 supermajority.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

'Morning Joe Biden' Show? Scarborough Slams Trump as '5-Year-Old,' 'Petulant Little Brat'

By: Mark Finkelstein — March 2nd 2024 at 11:36
After a day when Joe Biden and Donald Trump both campaigned at the border, guess which one Morning Joe is going to suggest is glaringly inadequate, and which one is presidential. Check the video from Friday's Morning Joe, starting eight seconds in. You'll see Joe Biden during his visit to the southern border yesterday, accompanied by various officials. They only aired five seconds of Biden's ambulation. And as slowly and unsteadily as Biden proceeds, you really need to see the ensuing 16 seconds to understand just how much he looks like he's too old for the job. MSNBC edited that out.  Instead, Joe and Mika sliced and diced the two candidate speeches to present Biden as sober and centrist, and Trump as too small for the office, since he mocks "Crooked Joe" and Gov. Gavin "Newscum." Scarborough compared him to a "five-year-old," a "petulant little brat." Mika added he's a liar. That's apparently now the grown-ups disparage their opponents.  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Wow. I mean, first of all, first of all, Donald Trump can't even speak in complete sentences. MIKA: But when he does, he's lying. SCARBOROUGH: He's throwing out taunts about governors. Again, like he's a child, like he's a five-year-old. And I guess, I don't know, people that, that vote for him like, like petulant little brats. I don't know why. They don't let, they don't let their kids act like petulant little brats, but maybe they think they want a president who's a petulant little brat. Biden's political ploy is transparent. The guy who has let millions of illegals, aka undocumented Democrats, into our country during his term of office has suddenly become a born-again border hawk. Why? Because he knows that illegal immigration is the #1 issue for Americans, and that he is on the hook for the current disaster. Does anyone believe for a moment that if Biden won re-election, his professed devotion to securing the border would endure beyond his Second Inaugural?  In Biden's supposedly bipartisan spiel, he's heard saying "there's no red state or blue state where I come from." Pro Tip For Biden: Given your history of plagiarism, avoid paraphrasing Obama's famous line from his keynote address at the 2004 Democrat National Convention: "The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states." Obama was perhaps the most divisive of presidents, the man who was caught at a Democrat fundraiser infamously denouncing people from red states as "bitter clingers" to their guns and religion. As for Biden's geezer walk, we're able to see the entire sad spectacle here, via an X post by @siIentmajority, who juxtaposed the full Biden clip with video of a sure and steady Donald Trump, during his border visit, vigorously shaking hands with a line of military people. The Silent Majority poses the rhetorical question: "Who displays the characteristics of a strong and confident leader?" MSNBC is always going to sound like MSDNC, and perhaps no show is more pro-Biden than Morning Joe. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/1/24 6:16 am ET MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And now to the border. President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump both visited Texas towns along the southern border yesterday. [Video clip of Biden haltingly walking begins to roll] In Brownsville, Biden met with local officials and called for compromise after congressional Republicans torpedoed [video of Biden walking ends] a border security bill last month, at the direction of Trump.  Meanwhile, in Eagle Pass, the former president blamed Democrats for the migrant crisis. JOE BIDEN: I understand my predecessor's in Eagle Pass today, so here's what I would say to Mr. Trump: join me, or I'll join you, in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill. We can do it together. DONALD TRUMP: The United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It's a new form of vicious violation to our country. BIDEN: There's no red state or blue state where I come from. It's just communities and families looking for help. TRUMP: This Governor Newscum from California, isn't that his name -- Newscum? What he's done to California is unbelievable. BIDEN: Instead of playing politics with the issue, why don't we just get together and get it done. TRUMP: But this is a Joe Biden invasion. Horrible. Crooked Joe is, the blood of thousands of citizen victims. BIDEN: Compromise is part of the process. That's how democracy works. That's how democracy works. That's how it's supposed to work.  TRUMP: We did much better in 2020 than we ever even thought about doing in 2016, and very bad things happened. BIDEN: We work for the American people, not the Democratic party, the Republican party. We work for the American people. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Wow. I mean, first of all, first of all, Donald Trump can't even speak in complete sentences. MIKA: But when he does, he's lying. SCARBOROUGH: He's throwing out taunts about governors. Again, like he's a child, like he's a five-year-old. And I guess, I don't know, people that, that vote for him like, like petulant little brats. I don't know why. They don't let, they don't let their kids act like petulant little brats, but maybe they think they want a president who's a petulant little brat.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CBS Asks If 'Jewish Activists Kicking a Hornets' Nest' Provoked Hamas

By: Alex Christy — March 2nd 2024 at 12:09
CBS Saturday Morning and foreign correspondent Chris Livesay sought to explain what drove Hamas to commit its October 7 attack on Israel and settled on “Jewish activists kicking a hornets' nest,” despite admitting these activists have no real power or significant influence within the Israeli government or Judaism. Livesay would also throw certain Christians into the blame game as well. One woman Livesay interviewed claimed she wanted to get rid of the Dome of the Rock, which led Livesay to reassure viewers that “to be clear, hers is a dream not shared by the Israeli government or by the vast majority of Israelis and Jews.”     However, “it's enough to incite numerous Islamist groups. Hamas has dubbed its October 7 assault on Israel the Al-Aqsa Mosque Wave as the Dome of the Rock as its emblem, but this sacred ground to billions of Muslims globally, not just Hamas terrorists, stresses Iman Mustafa Abu Sway of Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Simply stating this as a matter of fact or challenging them would be one thing, but infantilizing people who use it to justify terrorism is quite another. Sway was then shown telling Livesay that “Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs to all Muslims. So, you find reaction from Indonesia to Toronto to New York that’s freely given. Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs to all Muslims and Muslims today are 2 billion people. Two billion people.” As Livesay himself reported, it is not the position of the Israeli government, which the media is always portraying as very far-right, to destroy Islamic holy sites or rebuild the Temple, but he still asked, “Simply by performing these acts, are these Jewish activists kicking a hornets' nest?” Sway affirmed, “They are. They are.” “These acts” also include the transportation of red heifers from Texas to Israel, which some Jews and Christians view as necessary to bring about the reconstruction of the Temple, the Messiah, or Christ’s return. Rabbi Yitshak Mamo looks after the heifers in the West Bank, and he was asked by Livesay, “Can you understand why Hamas could be outraged by something like this?” Mamo replied, “I cannot understand it, even if they are right, why they have to slaught[er] and rape people to win their war.” Livesay added that “’Terrorists have been attacking us before we ever dreamed of these cows,’ he reflects. ‘They don’t need them as an excuse to kill.’” Of course, Mamo is correct on that front. Additionally, CBS would never dare run a segment on alleged Islamophobia in America where they asked Muslims if they could understand that they were being attacked because some fringe elements kicked a proverbial hornets’ nest. Here is a transcript for the March 2 show: CBS Saturday Morning 3/2/2024 9:04 AM ET CHRIS LIVESAY: To be clear, hers is a dream not shared by the Israeli government or by the vast majority of Israelis and Jews. But it's enough to incite numerous Islamist groups. Hamas has dubbed its October 7 assault on Israel the Al-Aqsa Mosque Wave as the Dome of the Rock as its emblem, but this sacred ground to billions of Muslims globally, not just Hamas terrorists stresses Iman Mustafa Abu Sway of Al-Aqsa Mosque. MUSTAFA ABU SWAY: Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs to all Muslims. So, you find reaction from Indonesia to Toronto to New York that’s freely given. Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs to all Muslims and Muslims today are 2 billion people. Two billion people. LIVESAY: Simply by performing these acts, are these Jewish activists kicking a hornets' nest?  SWAY: They are. They are.  SWAY: A hornets nest they’re kicking all the way to Capitol Hill.  MIKE JOHNSON: So, good to see you here in the nation's capital. LIVESAY: Those cows were showcased in Washington at a recent prayer gathering. Many Evangelicals believe these red heifers will usher Christ's second coming.  UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need the Messiah to come, right? So, for me, the red heifer is red for the blood of Jesus Christ.  LIVESAY: Back in the West Bank, Mamo says the ceremony could take place any day.  Can you understand why Hamas could be outraged by something like this?  YITSHAK MAMO: I cannot understand it, even if they are right, why they have to slaught and rape people to win their war. LIVESAY: “Terrorists have been attacking us before we ever dreamed of these cows,” he reflects. “They don’t need them as an excuse to kill.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

It’s Official: Rob Reiner’s Anti-Trump ‘God & Country’ Bombs

By: Christian Toto — March 2nd 2024 at 13:03
Christian Nationalists are the new White Supremacists. The former is how the press and the Left, but we repeat ourselves, target right-leaning voters supporting President Donald Trump. The Ruthless Variety Program mocks the press’ efforts in the podcast’s latest episode.     The Media Is Out of Control The so-called group is the focus of “God & Country,” a new documentary produced by rabid anti-Trump filmmaker Rob Reiner. Here’s the film’s official synopsis, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes. GOD & COUNTRY looks at the implications of Christian Nationalism and how it distorts not only our constitutional republic, but Christianity itself. Featuring prominent Christian thought leaders, GOD & COUNTRY asks this question: What happens when a faith built on love, sacrifice, and forgiveness grows political tentacles, conflating power, money, and belief into hyper-nationalism? Reiner’s film earned oodles of free publicity via the press, little of it challenging the film’s thesis. Rolling Stone. The New York Times. The Washington Post. Newsweek CNN. Axios. NPR. That’s the kind of marketing muscle most documentary filmmakers would love. Critics raved about the film, too, giving in a robust 92 percent “fresh” rating at RottenTomatoes.com. All of the above didn’t translate to box office glory.     The film, which opened in 85 theaters nationwide Feb. 16, earned just $38K in its opening frame. The left-leaning Wikipedia dubbed those numbers “disappointing.” The far-Left Deadline.com desperately spun the results, letting the film’s distributor frame the poor numbers in the best light possible. Overall gross was hampered by lower-than-average ticket prices in rural and suburban areas of the country, as well as limited screening schedules, Oscilloscope noted, saying: “God & Country has been met with an unbelievable amount of support from churches and religious organizations across the country that are keen to spread the film’s message. We expect group sales and buyouts to surge as word-of-mouth takes hold and we head deeper in the 2024 general election. In our minds, this was more an opening salvo than an opening weekend.” So where’s the surge? ‘God & Country’ Needs a Box Office Miracle The film failed to crack the top 36 box office slots on Box Office Mojo last weekend. The 36th film on that list, “Ennio,” earned $3,763 over the weekend. That means either “God & Country” earned even less, or the studio didn’t submit numbers to sites like Box Office Mojo or The-Numbers.com. That’s never a good sign. “God & Country’s” current box office haul after two weeks in theaters and copious press coverage? $60K. The movie also doesn’t have enough audience reviews at Rotten Tomatoes to give it a score, suggesting very few people watched it over the last two weeks. Film critics may have lapped up the film’s message, but The Christian Post offered a dramatically different take on the film. The premise of the film is schizophrenic, demonizing Christians with inflammatory insinuations that invoke the Third Reich, while at the same time deriding them for having a persecution complex because they fear a growing cultural hostility…By stringing together disjointed, out-of-context clips that lump together John MacArthur and Billy Graham with obvious charlatans and screeching fringe preachers, the filmmakers reveal either their profound ignorance or their cynical desire to assign the pejorative Christian nationalist label as widely as possible.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Amanpour Demands Media Stop Treating Biden's Age Like Hillary's Emails

By: Alex Christy — March 2nd 2024 at 14:33
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour welcomed the Columbia Journalism School’s Margaret Sullivan to the Saturday edition of The Amanpour Hour where the two condemned their media colleagues for allegedly focusing on President Joe Biden’s age to the exclusion of everything else. They also claimed it should be their “public service role” to not let Biden’s age turn into Hillary Clinton's emails or the Iraq War and correct those who are not in love with the Biden economy. On Biden’s age, Amanpour wondered, “It's gone a bit viral, Democrats are in a bit of a tizzy about a lot of the reporting on it. But do you believe, just to get it clear, that age is a media invention?”     Sullivan insisted that “I do not think that age is a media invention,” but claimed “it's become the only topic at times.” It is unclear what media Amanpour and Sullivan are reading because the idea that Biden’s age is the only topic of conversation is just wrong. CNN itself will frequently turn into Court TV when Donald Trump’s legal situation allows it, and there are constant denunciations of allegedly extremist Republicans. Still, Amanpour worried that if Biden loses in November, it will be because her media colleagues hurt him: Margaret, I wonder whether you look back and worry about certain other issues that are-- can be certainly in retrospect, very bothersome, and the media played a very negative role in terms of this herd mentality, whether it's the Hillary Clinton emails which turned out to be nothing, or whether indeed was the rush to war in 2002 to-- or 2003 to Iraq. Do you think that we should be worried?  Sullivan saw a difference between a war and Biden’s age, but still condemned “that the press has a tendency to have a pack mentality or a herd mentality, as you put it… But it speaks to the tendency of the press to sort of all get on the same page and the difficulty and the rareness of journalists taking a different point of view or presenting things differently. We didn't see too much of that in any of those cases.”   Christiane @Amanpour and Margaret @Sulliview commiserate over media’s obsession on Biden’s age despite when he was on with Seth Meyers he delivered his message “incredibly sharply.” Sullivan: media must correct people who “think the economy is not doing well.” pic.twitter.com/fMQS9JcPyv — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 2, 2024   After playing a clip of Biden on Late Night with Seth Meyers condemning Trump on abortion, Amanpour wondered, “So, Margaret, listening to that, it's delivered incredibly, you know, sharply. Why is it that then the media tends not to focus on performance and results, good or bad, and rather, this, whatever it is, the horse race, the stuff around the edges that we're talking about right now?” The media constantly warns about what would happen if the GOP wins in November, but Sullivan still claimed “it's difficult to get the media to look at such things as what, you know, what have these candidates accomplished? What are they likely to do if elected or reelected? The substance is lacking?” She would later add, “Make sure that we're getting the stakes of the race across to people. You know, people think that the economy was-- 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.” In the real world, viewers are constantly told how great the Biden economy is, they simply don't believe it. Here is a transcript for the March 2 show: CNN The Amanpour Hour 3/2/2024 11:38 AM ET CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: The dogging you're saying is the press essentially. MARGARET SULLIVAN: At least in part. AMANPOUR: So, as you know, there's been quite a lot of exploration of this whole phenomenon. It's gone a bit viral, Democrats are in a bit of a tizzy about a lot of the reporting on it. But do you believe, just to get it clear, that age is a media invention? SULLIVAN: No, absolutely not. I do not think that age is a media invention. It's a clear issue in the campaign. Biden's mental acuity and Trump's mental acuity certainly deserve to be taken and seriously, I just think it's gone-- it's become the only topic at times. AMANPOUR: Margaret, I wonder whether you look back and worry about certain other issues that are-- can be certainly in retrospect, very bothersome, and the media played a very negative role in terms of this herd mentality whether it's the Hillary Clinton emails which turned out to be nothing, or whether indeed was the rush to war in 2002 to-- or 2003 to Iraq.  Do you think that we should be worried?  SULLIVAN: Well, I do think that the press has a tendency to have a pack mentality or a herd mentality, as you put it. And we saw that in all of those cases, the Hillary Clinton emails and the run-up to the Iraq War and now this age issue, I don't think that they're equal. I mean, I don't think we're in a situation that equals the, you know, essential invention of weapons of mass destruction. But it speaks to the tendency of the press to sort of all get on the same page and the difficulty and the rareness of journalists taking a different point of view or presenting things differently. We didn't see too much of that in any of those cases.  … AMANPOUR: So, Margaret, listening to that, it's delivered incredibly, you know, sharply. Why is it that then the media tends not to focus on performance and results, good or bad, and rather, this, whatever it is, the horse race, the stuff around the edges that we're talking about right now?  SULLIVAN: Well, I wish I knew the answer to that. I only know that it is a reality that the press, the political press, tends to focus on the horse race. They concentrate on polls, they concentrate on the gaffe of the day, and it's difficult to get the media to look at such things as what, you know, what have these candidates accomplished? What are they likely to do if elected or reelected? The substance is lacking?  AMANPOUR: Now, you called out this circular and destructive media logic. What would you say? Because you were ombudsman, you've had a very major position at major newspapers, including the New York Times, what would you say to the leaders of our mainstream news organizations when they see these kinds of stories all over their platforms.  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 was-- 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.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Seth Meyers With Biden: Ignorant Or Just Sloppy?

By: Jeffrey Lord — March 2nd 2024 at 16:00
Ya gotta love this. So last week was CPAC. Thousands of conservatives gathering in Maryland’s National Harbor for the usual presentations by notable conservatives in fields ranging from foreign policy to economics to social issues. And, as usual in the last several years, the conference closed out with an appearance from former President Donald Trump. Having been an attendee at these events since they began in the 1970’s, then featuring former California Governor Ronal Reagan, I love them. But this year there was one notable, decidedly self-induced boo-boo coming from outside observers - of all people NBC’s Late Night host Seth Meyers and, yes, President Joe Biden. No, the far-left NBC host has not had a Road-to-Damascus conversion bringing him to conservatism. No, this involved his coverage of former President Trump and something Trump said in his speech. The moment was set up by no less than Meyers guest President Joe Biden. Biden was scolding Trump as per usual, but made the mistake, when discussing Trump’s age, of saying this:  You got to take a look at the other guy.  He’s about as old as I am, but he can’t remember his wife’s name. Say what? Biden said Trump can’t remember wife Melania’s name? Really? Um, no. But as if that weren’t bad enough, Meyers picked up on Biden’s remark. To its credit, New York Magazine caught  the Meyers/Biden goof, headlining:  Biden Wrongly Roasts Trump for Forgetting Melania’s Name  New York mag wrote the facts- correctly -  this way:  Biden was referring to a moment during Trump’s CPAC speech on Saturday when he reacted to the crowd clapping for his wife, Melania, by saying, Wow, Mercedes, that’s pretty good!' Seth Meyers played the clip during his monologue (at the 45 second below). “I’m sorry, Mercedes?!” the host said. “You had a nuclear meltdown when Biden messed up the president of Egypt and you can’t remember your wife’s name? Guys, I hate to say it: His mind is slipping. I think he’s too old to run. Um. No. New York went on to explain the factual, non-fake news. The New York story reported:  Obviously, Meyers and Biden were making jokes, not delivering a news report or a press conference. But it was still weird to focus so much on Trump forgetting his wife’s name since it’s not true. On Saturday, X users accused Trump of calling Melania ‘Mercedes,’ and that story was picked up by a few news outlets. But within hours it was clear that Trump was actually talking to Mercedes Schlapp, his former White House adviser, who was in the audience. Her husband, Matt Schlapp, leads the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC, and Trump addressed both of the Schlapps at another point in the speech. Oops! Mercedes Schlapp is also a Newsmax contributor, frequently appearing on network shows, sometimes solo and sometimes with husband and CPAC chair Matt Schlapp. (And full disclosure, I am also a Newsmax contributor.) The point here is simple enough. Seth Meyers is the host of NBC’s late night show. If he is spreading what leftists in the media call “misinformation” on a remark made in his presence by the President of the United States? Then what other misinformation is spewing forth from a premiere NBC show? Misinformation that no one bothers to correct? Not to mention that in terms of Biden himself this goof-up is, sadly, yet another in an increasingly longer list of incidents like this one, as headlined in The New York Post:  ‘Where’s Jackie?’: Biden asks dead Indiana rep to identify herself in crowd Following that goof, ABC reported this from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre  on the subject, bold print for emphasis supplied: She didn't say Biden misspoke, and she downplayed it overall: 'That is not an unusual scenario there.' That might be part of the problem, though. Biden has called himself a 'gaffe machine' and his verbal miscues long predate his time as president, but the accumulation of odd moments and statements forcing White House clean-up has made its way into mainstream discussions of the midterms and what comes next. The point here is quite simple. Biden was sent out to sit next to the host of a major comedy show, and clearly was prepped ahead of time to say, when the subject of his age arose, that: You got to take a look at the other guy.  He’s about as old as I am, but he can’t remember his wife’s name. This was clearly not true.  Which in turn means one of two things. Either Biden picked up this idea from somewhere in the media as given to him by his staff, a staff that never bothered to check the actual fact. Or, secondly, he knew it on his own and knew it was false but said it anyway. Doubtful, I would suggest. Most likely it was fed to him by his staff. Which should have known better - or did know better and sent him out there anyway. This moment also highlights that those two possibilities apply to Seth Meyers himself. And whether Meyers does this kind of thing out of ignorance -- my guess -- or to deliberately spread false stories about Trump or any other conservative in his crosshairs, neither is a good look. Welcome to the liberal media bubble.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Amanpour, CNN Arab Staffers Rip 'Pronounced Pro-Israel' Bias in Staff Meeting

By: Tim Graham — March 2nd 2024 at 20:55
The far-left website The Intercept was very excited on Friday about CNN being accused in an internal meeting of having a "pronounced pro-Israel bias." Actual pro-Israel media watchdogs like CAMERA would disagree. The headline? In internal meeting, Christiane Amanpour Confronts CNN Brass About 'Double Standards' on Israel Coverage Amanpour expressed “real distress” over Israel stories being changed, while other staffers described a climate that is hostile to Arab journalists. In an hourlong meeting with CNN boss Mark Thompson and other executives in the London bureau on February 13, "staffers took turns questioning a panel of executives about CNN’s protocols for covering the war in Gaza and what they describe as a hostile climate for Arab reporters." They complained about CNN routing almost all coverage relating to Israel and Palestine through the network’s Jerusalem bureau, which is dubbed "SecondEyes." Christiane Amanpour lined up with the Arabs. “You’ve heard from me, you’ve heard my, you know, real distress with SecondEyes — changing copy, double standards, and all the rest,” said Amanpour, who was identified in the recording when an executive called her name. “So you’ve heard it, and I hear what your response is and I hope it does go a long way.” A half-dozen staffers "spoke candidly" about how the allegedly pro-Israel coverage "weakened the network's standing in the region" and made Arab staffers feel like their lives are expendable.  “I was in southern Lebanon during October and November,” one journalist said. “And it was more distressing for me to turn on CNN, than the bombs falling nearby.” … Instead of finding solace in CNN’s coverage of the war, the staffer continued, “I find that my colleagues, my family, are platforming people over and over again, that are either calling for my death, or using very dehumanizing language against me … and people that look like me. And obviously, this has a huge impact in our credibility in the region.” The journalist posed a question to the executives: “I want to ask as well, what have you done, and what are you doing to address the hate speech that fills our air and informed our coverage, especially in the first few months of the war?” The Arab tilt is so pronounced that they complain that people expect them to denounce Hamas. Horrors! What next? Say negative things about Hezbollah? The staffer went on to say that Muslim or Arab journalists at CNN were made to feel that they must denounce Hamas to clear their names and be taken seriously as journalists. “I’ve heard this, where a number of younger colleagues now feel that they didn’t want to put their hands up to speak up even in the kind of the local Bureau meeting,” the staffer said. “People were taking their names off bylines.” Thompson interjected, saying that people seemed to be speaking up now and that he welcomes editorial discussions. Another staffer disputed that characterization and noted that Arab and Muslim journalists walk a difficult line between feeling proud of working for CNN while facing pressure from their families and communities over working for a network with a pronounced pro-Israel bias. “I think it’s very important for you to know that the degree of racism that those of us of Arab and Muslim descent face inside Israel, covering Israel, was disproportionate — the targeting of us by pro Israeli organizations, and what we had to hear,” another staffer added. Are we headed toward "Zionism is racism" critiques? Are reporters angry they have to include any Israeli point of view? Usually, journalists are upset when there's an attempt to balance out the pro-Hamas position. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

LOL: MSNBC Republican Michael Steele Chides NY Dems For Not Gerrymandering Hard Enough!

By: Mark Finkelstein — March 3rd 2024 at 06:15
At NewsBusters, we use the term "MSNBC Republican" to describe people who were once actual Republicans but can now be reliably counted on to criticize their supposed party and generally toe the liberal line o' the day. Michael Steele, the former RNC chairman turned member of the disgraced Lincoln Project, is the epitome of the kind of Biden-voter Republican MSNBC uses. Even so, his performance as co-host on the network's show The Weekend on Saturday morning could have constituted a first: an MSNBC Republican rapping the Dems . . . for not being partisan enough! We were treated to the spectacle of Steele—ostensibly still a Republican—chiding New York Democrats . . . for not gerrymandering the state's congressional map hard enough in their favor! s As the screen displayed the headline of an article in the leftist Slate magazine entitled "Democrats Blew Their Big Opportunity to Make New York Winnable in 2024," Steele challenged Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.): "I get that Democrats have this thing about redistricting. But do you really want to redistrict yourself out of the opportunity to take the five seats in New York that would largely shift control in the House? What do you say about the political dynamics of the party that seemingly makes it more difficult for itself to actually gain ground on Trump and Republicans in this upcoming race?" Note: Meeks tried to suggest that Dems didn't gerrymander to the hilt because they're more fair-minded than Republicans. In fact, in 2022 Democrats devised a redistricting map that was so grossly gerrymandered in their favor that even New York's Democrat-controlled highest court threw it out! Meeks also boasted that the Democrat had won the recent special election in New York's 3rd congressional district, despite the fact that "a lot of folks did not think we were going to win that election." That was the election to fill the seat from which disgraced Republican George Santos had been expelled by the House. And Biden had carried the district easily in 2020. So it was hardly a surprise that Democrat Tom Suozzi, who had represented the district in the past, won it back last month.  Transcript below: MSNBCThe Weekend March 2, 2024, 8:21 am ET MICHAEL STEELE: Congressman, I wanted to, you, bring up the politics a little bit more. You talk about the politics, and it does play a role. Policy right now is also front and center. I want to call your attention to an interesting story out of the New York Times [actually, Slate] in which they talk about the Democrats blowing the opportunity to actually make New York winnable for them in 2024, by noting the vote to confirm the new maps, the redistricting maps in the state that were signed by the governor. The result, the number of Trump-won districts in the state has officially increased from five to six.  I get that Democrats have this thing about redistricting. But do you really want to redistrict yourself out of the opportunity to take the five seats in New York that would, would largely shift control in the House?  What do you say about the political dynamics of the party that seemingly makes it more difficult for itself to actually gain ground on Trump and Republicans in this upcoming race? GREGORY MEEKS: Look, we have a New York Constitution. But, we could not do, and I don't believe it was the right thing to do, what North Carolina did. You know, North Carolina just obliviated any type of fairness at all.  Our Constitution, that the people voted for in New York, prevented that from happening. It had a, we had to have an independent redistricting commission that's came together. And they came up with the plan. And as a result, the state legislature looked at it. And I think that what we're gonna do in New York, as exhibited by what we did in New York-3, you know, a lot of folks did not think we were going to win that election. We won it. They it would be close. We won it by eight points. I see -- so we picked up one already, which by the way, puts it down to just a two, two vote difference in the House right now. But also, I believe that we can win. We can win in New York. We'll win in New York-4. I think we can win in New York-1. We can win in New York-22. We can win in New York-17. So, I think that you'll see that Democrats will pick and win back those seats that we lost, and that we may even add on a seat or two, even with these lines. And I think that that's clear, because New Yorkers understand that what we're trying to do is work together for the benefit of the people, and not do nothing, as we've seen the leadership of the Republicans do for the last three years.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Hollywood is Mysteriously Silent on Politics: MRC’s Hamill Reacts on Lara Trump’s Podcast 'The Right View'

By: Stephanie Hamill — March 1st 2024 at 16:52
MRC’s Contributing Writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on “The Right View Podcast” with host Lara Trump and PragerU’s Aldo Buttazzoni on Tuesday to discuss the latest trending news, including the 30th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards.  Hollywood finally spared us all of the sanctimonious political lectures this year during the awards show, which is a stark contrast to previous years. Hamill: They didn’t mention Joe Biden one time, and keep in mind these are the same people who helped get Joe Biden in the White House. All of a sudden they’re completely silent— when we’re potentially on the brink of World War III, we have the worst border crisis in U.S. history and it’s an election year. You would think that one of them might have something to say. It’s almost like they collectively agreed to not get political at all because it’s so bad on their side, that they just don’t want to mention anything. Which is a good thing right? We liked Hollywood back in the day, when they weren’t giving us these virtue signaling political speeches on stage. We just want them to pat themselves on the back and talk about their movies.    Hamill covered the SAG Awards which aired on Netflix.     https://twitter.com/LaraLeaTrump/status/1762644456564457494
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Washington Post: Stop the 'Moral Panic' at Shoplifting, America Built on 'Stolen Land'

By: Tim Graham — March 3rd 2024 at 08:19
You can tell a newspaper’s liberal when it’s upset that Fox News is exploiting crime in overwhelmingly Democrat cities. On Friday, Washington Post “features reporter” Maura Judkis wrote a badly disguised opinion piece about organized retail theft under this provocative headline: The zombie CVS, a late-capitalism horror story How one Washington, D.C., drugstore got spun by the culture wars into a symbol for America’s shoplifting panic CVS shut down another big-city store, and the Post doesn’t like that counter-narrative: It has been like this since at least October, when the Legend of the Empty CVS of Washington began to spread beyond the District’s borders. It became a horror story of Late Capitalism. Tales were told on social media, and in the comments sections of local news stories, and they were full of spooky scenes (harsh fluorescent lights shining on bare shelves!) and jump scares (hordes of teenagers reportedly ransacking the stores!). But the thing about scary stories is that they metastasize with each retelling. So by the time it got to the New York Post, and then the conservative British tabloids, and then Twitter accounts with names including “No. 1 Deplorable,” the empty CVS had somehow become a stand-in for all that is wrong with American cities — and liberals (and liberal democracy?) — in 2024. In other words, don't connect the dots on what happens when you push "Defund the Police" and your local judicial system won't hold thieves accountable. Judkis went so far as to try to shame colonialist America for caring about theft in its Murdoch-inspired “moral panic.” America is a sticky-fingered nation built on stolen land, and its current moral panic is about shoplifting. It’s not just a worry in Columbia Heights. All over the country, from sea to shining CVS, there are concerns about petty theft, which some retailers claim is worse than ever before. Videos of brazen thefts have gone viral. It has become a political talking point, and a political liability. But the data is murky. Theft has gotten worse in some cities but better in others; it’s either underreported or overexaggerated, depending on whether you’re asking a corporation or a bureaucracy. Anecdotes and vibes have filled in the gaps. It doesn’t help that 2024 in America feels a bit like visiting a dying mall. Will some new stores open and bring everyone back, or will it be razed to create a parking lot? Judkis lamented a similar narrative on Fox News in April 2023 after a Whole Foods store closed in San Francisco, when "partisan critics on Fox News greeted the news with glee." If a Whole Foods couldn’t make it in San Francisco — the land of $14 kombucha and artisanal farro — then things must be really “spiraling out of control,” said Geraldo Rivera on Fox’s The Five. “This city is disgusting,” declared co-host Jesse Watters. And “now, they can’t have organic rhubarb.” In certain conservative circles, there’s a wild narrative about cities as terrifying hellholes of crime, theft and lawlessness. The bleakness of the D.C. CVS played right into this belief. Judkis claimed without evidence that the local Fox station was reporting "very fake" liberal messaging. In January, Fox 5 reported on a set of fliers that had been posted in Columbia Heights with the rallying cry “Shoplifters Unite,” encouraging people to “Take everything that’s not nailed down. Bust windows.” The poster also makes allegations of racism against a Safeway manager and contains a jumble of left-wing talking points referencing Palestine, reparations, the Black Lives Matter movement, and disability rights. It seemed, quite frankly, very fake, designed to exacerbate neighborhood tensions. The Fox reporters took it seriously, interviewing people in front of the zombie CVS. But the funniest part is Judkis somehow trying to turn this back to Donald Trump: "Maybe there’s just some ennui about nihilistic lawlessness in 2024. If a former president can commit financial crimes — and still run for office and probably win his party’s nomination — well, what’s a little petty shampoo theft, in the grand scheme of things?"
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

FLASHBACK: The Media’s Skewed Coverage of Past Super Tuesday Primaries

By: Rich Noyes — March 3rd 2024 at 10:35
To political junkies, Tuesday is “Super Tuesday,” when 16 states (plus American Samoa) hold primaries or caucuses to choose their 2024 presidential nominees. Unlike years past, there’s not much drama this time, as both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are the overwhelming frontrunners in their parties’ nomination races. But a review of the NewsBusters’ archives shows this is typically the week that the national media deduces the identity of each party’s nominees, and pivots toward the talking points that best position liberals in the general election. Here’s a quick re-cap of how the media elite have spun the last four Super Tuesday primaries. ■ 2008: Sixteen years ago, the media were riveted by the competition between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. After the duo’s final debate before the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries, ABC’s Good Morning America drooled over the possibility of a “dream ticket” featuring both candidates, as correspondent Kate Snow cooed: “The nominees for best performance in a televised debate go to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” On Monday, February 4, Today co-host Meredith Vieira suggested nobody in her Manhattan liberal bubble was thinking about voting Republican: “I was with a group of friends who, actually were trying to choose between Clinton and Obama and the, for example, the ones who were for Clinton said, ‘Well I want to vote for her but I think I’m gonna vote for Obama because I think he, he can win the general election.’ And then some of the Obama people said, ‘Well, I’m gonna vote for Clinton because I think she’s gonna win.’” Over on CBS’s Early Show that same morning, the hosts gushed over the liberal celebrities endorsing Obama. Co-host Maggie Rodriguez raved about “the power of ‘O’ in California....You’re seeing Obama’s girls on the campaign trail. All powerful women recognized by their first names. We’re talking about Oprah, Caroline, Michelle and now Maria.” [For those wondering, she was talking about Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, Michelle Obama and Maria Shriver.] And on ABC’s Good Morning America, reporter Deborah Roberts featured an interview with the “fascinating,” “straight-talking” and “charming” Michelle Obama, “the spouse of politics’ newest star.” The next day’s Super Tuesday results left the Clinton and Obama race as deadlocked as ever, but Arizona Republican Senator John McCain surged to the top of the GOP pack. McCain’s top challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, dropped out two days later (February 7), leaving only former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to challenge the frontrunner. True to form, the media painted McCain’s biggest problem as “hard-line” conservatives, not the army of Democratic operatives who would work to defeat him in November. “While McCain may be close to locking up the Republican nomination, he still faces a tough battle to win the support of hard-line GOP conservatives,” CBS’s Harry Smith claimed on the February 7 Evening News. On FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor that same night, however, former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg realized that McCain’s previously sympathetic media coverage would quickly shift. “The media like him because he’s the one who pokes his thumb in Republican and conservative eyes, mostly conservative eyes. But as soon as it’s McCain against Obama or Clinton, the media goes over to the other side,” Goldberg predicted. And as we all know now, that’s exactly what happened. ■ 2012: By Super Tuesday (March 6), the GOP race was down to Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, with Romney in the lead. But the media were already pushing the Democratic line that all of the Republican candidates were “extremists,” especially when it came to social issues. “Who woke up in the Republican Party one day recently and said, ‘I know what, let’s go after reproductive rights in the United States’? What was that about?” NBC’s Brian Williams snorted during his network’s Super Tuesday results coverage. Over on MSNBC that same night, co-anchor Rachel Maddow said the prospect of Santorum going head to head with Obama was “a hard thing to get your head around.” “But that’s the debate I want to see,” exclaimed her fellow host Lawrence O’Donnell. “I want to see hardcore Republican conservatism put up there on a debate stage with President Obama’s practical approach to governing, and I want to see hardcore Republican conservatism crushed.” The secular media especially enjoyed mocking the religious Santorum. “If Rick Santorum is your youth minister, you’d ask your parents to switch you to the one who just molests,” HBO’s Bill Maher sneered a few days before Super Tuesday. During MSNBC’s live Super Tuesday coverage on March 6, Hardball’s Chris Matthews unleashed a furious assault on Newt Gingrich: “I think Newt’s a negative force....he looks like the Devil. I mean, he does look like the Devil, and he has that maniacal look to him — a diabolical look, I should say — and he is a menacing force in American political life.” After Super Tuesday, Romney extended his lead, but failed to knock out either Santorum nor Gingrich. MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough popped up on NBC’s Today show to helpfully suggest that the GOP start all over again: “I would be asking others to get into the race....This is a party that’s on its way to a historic defeat in the fall unless they’re able to drag in some other candidates.” Scarbrough had pitched the same defeatist line earlier that week on PBS’s Tavis Smiley: “This has been the worst month for the Republican Party since August of 1974 when Richard Nixon resigned, and I mean that.” 2016: By Super Tuesday (March 1) 2016, liberal reporters — who had earlier been swept up in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — finally recognized that Donald Trump was likely to win the Republican nomination. A few cheered the notion. “I’m rooting for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination,” Amanda Marcotte wrote in Salon the day before the primaries. “Hillary Clinton can wipe the floor with him in November.” That same day, the Hollywood Reporter quoted CBS President (and Democratic donor) Les Moonves cheering Trump on: “It may not be good for America, but it’s good for CBS....The money’s rolling in and this is fun....It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.” Others decided that it was time to scare voters that the end of America might be at hand. “If they’re [Democrats] not motivated to vote for, you know, the guy with the progressive economic message that really would finally make this country work for everyone, or the woman who’s running with the impeccable and vast record of experience, if that’s not enough for people, at least stopping us from being Nazi Germany would hopefully get Democrats and others to turn out,” the Daily Beast’s Sally Kohn thundered on CNN’s New Day the morning after the primaries. “If the Republican Party is a gumbo,” echoed CNN host W. Kamau Bell that night, “the roux of that gumbo is white supremacy, and the core of that is the Ku Klux Klan.” Over on MSNBC, there was sudden respect for former Ohio Governor John Kasich, hopelessly mired in last place behind Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. “He is alone occupying the dignity lane of the Republican Party,” applauded analyst Nicolle Wallace. Rachel Maddow agreed: “He is running in this dignified way, staying away from Donald Trump, essentially running as a general election moderate.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson marveled, “back in the day, [Kasich] was thought of an arch-conservative. And now he is a moderate in today’s Republican Party.” Trump’s Super Tuesday success prompted more than a little establishment Republican panic, with suggestions the billionaire might still be beaten at a contested convention if he hadn’t achieved a mathematical majority of delegates. Liberal reporters (perhaps thinking Trump would be easily beaten by Hillary) insisted thwarting Trump’s voters would be like attacking democracy itself. “If they go to Cleveland, and in the Trump supporters’ minds, try to take the nomination away from him, you know, I worry for the Republican Party,” the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart warned on MSNBC March 2. “If the GOP establishment tries to silence their [Trump voters’] voices, would that be an attack on the basic principles of why we have elections?” former anchor Tom Brokaw agreed on that evening’s Nightly News. “I actually have some sympathy for Trump,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews groused, “because all of a sudden I realize democracy, for whatever it is, is at least democracy. It’s not this thing they [the anti-Trumpers] are talking about.” When they weren’t panicking over the state of the Republican Party, reporters still found a few moments to pitch the Democrats to voters. “It feels like the Democratic Party is moving towards the center,” CBS’s John Dickerson reassured during live coverage on March 1. And over on NBC, anchor Lester Holt enthused over the notion of another barrier being broken if a Democrat was elected: “Eight years ago, we were talking about, ‘Wow, we may see the first African-American president.’ After tonight, will people begin to talk in terms of, ‘Wow, we might see the first female president?’” ■ 2020: Just days before Super Tuesday, socialist Bernie Sanders was the frontrunner in the Democratic race, tying for first place in Iowa, followed by victories in New Hampshire and Nevada. According to Vanity Fair, MSNBC was readying the red carpet for the left-wing Vermont Senator. Media reporter Joe Pompeo quoted an MSNBC insider: “He [Sanders] is now very possibly gonna be the nominee. He’s winning.” In reaction, an MSNBC executive, also anonymous, said the network would “seek out more smart, pro-Sanders voices from people who can make our coverage more insightful.” Instead of resisting Sanders’s radicalism as dangerous for both Democrats and the country, some in the media touted his appeal. On the February 27 Today show, former Vice President Joe Biden dismissed Sanders (“Americans aren’t looking for a revolution”), co-host Craig Melvin retorted: “But Mr. Vice President, some seem keen on a revolution.” Then, just three days before Super Tuesday, Biden won South Carolina, reviving his beleaguered campaign. The next day (Sunday), former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out, giving the Biden campaign a desperately-needed boost. CNN’s pundit panel was especially pleased with Buttigieg, gushing over his drop-out speech as “presidential timber,” “well done,” and Obama-like in “oratory.” Contributor Bakari Sellers was giddy: “That was an awesome speech. That’s why everybody fell in love with Pete Buttigieg.” Over on MSNBC, Deadline: White House host Nicolle Wallace applauded: “He gave one of the most eloquent and elegant speeches last night I’ve ever heard for someone coming short of a dream of winning his party’s nomination.” Then on Monday, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar also dropped out, joining Buttigieg that night to deliver their endorsement of Biden in person. MSNBC’s Mike Memoli pretended the Democratic politicians were somehow super heroes. “It’s almost like they’re building an Avengers sequel in Dallas tonight,” he gushed. Thanks to the consolidated field, Biden won 10 of the night’s contests, leaving just four for Sanders (American Samoa went for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg). “What a night it has been for Joe Biden,” CNN’s Don Lemon exclaimed. “I took a nap because I knew I would be up late. And I woke up and I thought I was still dreaming. Joe Biden, you can only say is over-performing....” The next morning, Bloomberg dropped out. Reporters consoled the billionaire by suggesting his massive spending on anti-Trump TV ads might still bear fruit. “That money may not have helped Mike Bloomberg, but it does lay a predicate for an evaluation of President Trump later on and it might not have been money ill spent in the long run,” Major Garrett hoped on CBS This Morning. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham essentially endorsed Biden for the general election: “Biden is historically the more rational choice....That’s just a historical fact. We tend to elect people like Joe Biden more so than people who are farther to the extremes of either side.” [Meacham would soon make his endorsement explicit at the Democrats’ 2020 “virtual convention.” And after the election, it would be revealed that Meacham had secretly aided Biden as a speechwriter while still on the MSNBC/NBC payroll.] Two days after Super Tuesday, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the race after a disappointing third-place finish in her home state. MSNBC’s Ali Vitali offered a tribute only a die-hard progressive could love: “This campaign was unabashedly feminist every single day that we were out here on the campaign trail.” The following week, the country began shutting down because of the spreading coronavirus pandemic. Just before Super Tuesday, on the February 28 PBS NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks speculated that the virus “could take over the election....If we start canceling events, if the economy goes down, if we can’t gather in crowds, that is suddenly a gigantic event.” And, he opined, the political benefit would accrue to big government liberals: “To look at it in the crass political terms, I don’t see any upside for Trump, I do see significant downside. And a lot of upside for the Democrats, since they are the party of health care, and since they are the party of government.” And we all know how that turned out, don’t we. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Welker's Haley Interview Is All About Trump, Zero Questions on Biden

By: Tim Graham — March 3rd 2024 at 16:07
On NBC’s Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker’s big interview was with Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, which took up more than 17 minutes in the hour, with around 25 questions…and not a single question was focused on President Biden or the Democrats. Later, when Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) was on, all her questions were about Biden, about how he’s dealing with “pro-Palestinian” voters, air drops in the Gaza strip, the border crisis, and if Biden has “urgency” on the latest bad poll for him (from The New York Times). Haley would have enjoyed answering those questions. But Welker preferred to talk horse race – when are you getting out? – and whether she would endorse Trump. The first 11 questions were all horse-race. Then Welker turned to January 6, and whether Haley agreed with Mitch McConnell that Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the rioting. Haley argued that the pro-Trump rally demonstrated freedom of speech, but then it went wrong at the Capitol. This was the sharpest point: KRISTEN WELKER: Do you think Donald Trump would follow the Constitution if he were elected to a second term? NIKKI HALEY: I don't know. I don't, I don’t know. I mean, you always want to think someone will. But I don't know. You know, when you, when you go in and you talk about revenge, when you go and you talk about, you know, vindication, when you go and you talk about, what does that mean? Like, I don't know what that means. And only he can answer for that. This gave Welker the opening for the anti-GOP hardball: “What does it say about the state of the Republican Party that you're saying that you don't know if the GOP front-runner will follow the Constitution?” Haley said “that’s not the Republican Party. That is Donald Trump,” and she repeated that the country could do better than Trump and Biden. After a break, Welker turned to some policy questions – their current favorite, which is IVF regulations in Alabama and whether there should be a federal solution (with some abortion questions thrown in). That was seven questions, and then there were two about aid to Ukraine. Welker ended by going back to the horse race, pressing her to repeat she won’t run on a third-party ticket in the fall. It's fascinating that Welker can worry about unconstitutional Republicans, but never ask Dingell if Biden's respecting the Constitution (starting with his "student loan forgiveness" spending, going around Congress and the courts. As for extremists, Welker suggested to Dingell that Democrats need to do more for pro-Hamas advocates: "But this issue, Congresswoman, as you know, has really gained traction. In fact 11 other states that are poised to vote have similar protest votes that are being mobilized. What is your message to those voters? And is the president doing enough to reach out to them?"
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CNN's Honig: Jack Smith Violates DOJ Policy on Timing of Cases Affecting Elections

By: P.J. Gladnick — March 3rd 2024 at 22:04
Unlike the rabidly anti-Trump MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, whose legal instincts would be in line with a Keith Olbermann, CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honig sometimes tosses out curve balls at variance with the liberal narrative usually taken by his network. One such occasion was on Saturday morning during Honig's appearance on Smerconish. He told the host that Jack Smith appeared to be in violation of the Department Of Justice policy that prosecutors should not select the timing of any action with an election in mind.  Here is the dilemma on that topic that Attorney General Merrick Garland is facing according to Michael Smerconish: MICHAEL SMERCONISH: So here's the question for Merrick Garland, does the policy which avoids an appearance of politics in investigative steps or criminal charges extend to actually trying a case? Arguably the investigation is over, the criminal charges. They've already been filed so prosecuting Trump in the lead up to the presidential election would not technically run afoul of those DOJ docs, like Jay Bratt said yesterday in the Mar-a-Lago case. Nevertheless, does Merrick Garland want the perception of putting a former president on trial at a time when he will be his party's nominee? If Garland is hesitant to do so, then where's the line for when it becomes inappropriate to try Trump? Is it 60 days before an election? Is it 90 days before an election? There's no precedent for this situation. No rulebook governs this particular scenario. Truly, we are in uncharted waters. And Merrick Garland is holding a lot of the cards. It all leads me to today's poll question today at smerconish.com. Go and vote on this. Is it appropriate for DOJ to try Trump in the fall of 2024? Joining me now is Elie Honig, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, former federal prosecutor. And if many CNN viewers are counting Honig to agree that it is appropriate for the DOJ to try Trump in the weeks leading up to the election, they are about to be hit by a curve ball. ELIE HONIG: So, Jack Smith's team was asked that exact question, as you discussed earlier, in court yesterday. And they sort of threaded the needle and said, well, no, because we interpret that rule that we don't do things close to the election. That only applies to investigative steps. And the right, it applies to, for example, you would never do a search warrant on a candidate 12 days before an election. You would never indict a candidate 14 days before an election. But if you look elsewhere, if you look at the actual justice manual, now, this is essentially the internal Bible for DOJ. We all have them printed out on our desks. There's a provision in there that says, prosecutors should never select the timing of any action. Let me say that, again, any action with the election in mind, with the timing of the election in mind. And it's hard for me to square that with Jack Smith making decisions, asking for trial, asking for everything to be mega-expedited, because even though we won't say it, I don't think anyone would disagree that what's motivating him is the Election Day. So I do think that that violates DOJ his own internal manual. What Honig said makes not just sense but common sense. If prosecutors should never select any action with the timing of the election in mind that would include not just the investigative steps and the indictment but the actual trial as well.   That's not to say this hasn't happened in recent history. Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh re-indicted Reagan-era defense secretary Caspar Weinberger on the Friday night before the 1992 election. Democrats complain about FBI director Jim Comey's October announcement he was probing new leads in the Hillary Clinton email scandal in 2016.  All this may explain why voters seem so unimpressed by the rash of Democrat indictments against Donald Trump.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS Frets ‘Pregnant People’ May Be Hoodwinked By ‘So-Called Crisis Pregnancy Centers’

By: Clay Waters — March 3rd 2024 at 22:45
PBS News Weekend anchor John Yang on Saturday threw some trendy trans silliness into his introduction to a news story suspicious of crisis pregnancy centers that actually help women deliver their babies instead of aborting them (which PBS has no problem with). John Yang: Crisis pregnancy centers provide counseling and other prenatal services from an anti-abortion perspective. Their supporters say they help ensure that pregnant people know the risks of abortion. Advocates of abortion rights say the information they provide can be misleading or have no scientific basis…. During a more sensible age, “pregnant people” were known as “pregnant women.” It's amusing that he talked about "pregnant people" right before accusing something else of having "no scientific basis." Reporter Ali Rogin spoke with Carter Sherman, former journalist for the once-hip, now-bankrupt left-wing outlet Vice, and used slanted verbiage to tilt suspicion toward pregnancy centers. Ali Rogin: In the United States, so-called crisis pregnancy centers are nothing new….But after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion, these largely unregulated centers have seen renewed support and attention. According to analysis by the group Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch, which supports abortion rights, anti-abortion pregnancy centers brought in at least $1.4 billion in revenue in the 2022 fiscal year. That includes at least $344 million in government grants….Carter Sherman is reproductive health and justice reporter for The Guardian…. Sherman is as liberal as her title. In January 2021 she tried to smear pro-lifers by associating them with the January 6 riots. Carter Sherman, The Guardian: So the point of a crisis pregnancy center, which is often known as a anti-abortion center, or even just a pregnancy center, is to convince people to continue their pregnancies. And they offer services like pregnancy tests, they sometimes do medical services like ultrasounds, they will also give out goods like car seats or strollers. Now the thing is that even when they do provide these medical services, many of these facilities are not actually medically licensed. So they’re not burdened by the kind of limitations that medical providers face…. Rogin asked, "So when someone does enter one of these crisis pregnancy centers, what sort of interactions are they likely to have with these volunteers?" Sherman sounded disappointed that women walk into clinics and walk out with their fetuses intact. Sherman: ….something that has come up again and again, from people who go into these centers, is that they walk in not necessarily knowing that they are not in an abortion clinic. You know, these centers, according to abortion rights supporters will oftentimes set up shop very close to an abortion clinic, they will have names that include words like birth, or choice, are the sorts of things that we tend to hear from abortion rights supporters. And in reality, again, these are centers that are trying to convince you to continue a pregnancy. Rogin made another interesting word choice. Rogin: What sort of people do centers like these target? Sherman: These centers offer usually free services. And so that can be really appealing to people who are low income. And we do know that at least prior to the overturning of Roe, most people who get abortions are low income, because it is so difficult for people to afford pregnancies in this country. Rogin: So why are the centers receiving more funding now? (Note that the abortion mill Planned Parenthood gets federal funding without being the target of hand-wringing reports from PBS about where they get their funding.) The former Vice journalist, took the liberal view of a baby as a burden. Sherman: Well, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion movement has really framed crisis pregnancy centers as the place to go for women who might otherwise have wanted an abortion but are now in a situation where they have little choice but to give birth…. This segment was brought to you in part by Cunard. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 3/2/24 6:04:54 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: Crisis pregnancy centers provide counseling and other prenatal services from an anti-abortion perspective. Their supporters say they help ensure that pregnant people know the risks of abortion. Advocates of abortion rights say the information they provide can be misleading or have no scientific basis. As Ali Rogin reports there’s a debate over federal aid for these facilities. ALI ROGIN: In the United States, so called crisis pregnancy centers are nothing new. The first one opened in Hawaii more than 50 years ago. But after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion, these largely unregulated centers have seen renewed support and attention. According to analysis by the group reproductive health and freedom watch, which supports abortion rights, anti-abortion pregnancy centers brought in at least $1.4 billion in revenue in the 2022 fiscal year. That includes at least $344 million in government grants. There are an estimated 2,500 such pregnancy centers around the country. In comparison about 800 clinics providing abortion care, were operating before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Carter Sherman is reproductive health and justice reporter for The Guardian. Thank you so much, Carter, for joining us. Tell us a little bit about how these centers work, what sorts of services do they provide. CARTER SHERMAN, The Guardian: So the point of a crisis pregnancy center, which is often known as am anti-abortion center, or even just a pregnancy center, is to convince people to continue their pregnancies. And they offer services like pregnancy tests, they sometimes do medical services like ultrasounds, they will also give out goods like car seats or strollers. Now the thing is that even when they do provide these medical services, many of these facilities are not actually medically licensed. So they`re not burdened by the kind of limitations that medical providers face. The other thing about these centers is that they`re often staffed by volunteers, they`re usually faith based. And so that creates issues for courts that might be looking to further regulate them, because judges are very wary of treading on these centers first amendment rights. ALI ROGIN: So when someone does enter one of these crisis pregnancy centers, what sort of interactions are they likely to have with these volunteers? CARTER SHERMAN: I think the interactions can really vary a lot. But something that has come up again and again, from people who go into these centers is that they walk in not necessarily knowing that they are not in an abortion clinic. You know, these centers, according to abortion rights supporters will oftentimes set up shop very close to an abortion clinic, they will have names that include words like birth, or choice are the sorts of things that we tend to hear from abortion rights supporters. And in reality, again, these are centers that are trying to convince you to continue a pregnancy. ALI ROGIN: What sort of people do centers like these target? CARTER SHERMAN: These centers offer usually free services. And so that can be really appealing to people who are low income. And we do know that at least prior to the overturning of Roe, most people who get abortions are low income, because it is so difficult for people to afford pregnancies in this country. ALI ROGIN: So why are the centers receiving more funding now? CARTER SHERMAN: Well, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion movement has really framed crisis pregnancy centers as the place to go for women who might otherwise have wanted an abortion but are now in a situation where they have little choice but to give birth. And state governments, particularly the governments of red states have really agreed with that logic. We know for example, that since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, at least 16 state governments have sent more than $250 million worth of taxpayer money to programs that support crisis pregnancy centers. I think in the coming years, we`re likely going to be seeing even more funding. ALI ROGIN: So tell us a little bit more about the breakdown of what we do you know now about how these crisis centers are getting their funding. Is it coming from the federal government, state and local governments? What does that allocation look like? CARTER SHERMAN: It can really be a mixture. Some of the money that flows from the government to these crisis pregnancy centers is ultimately from the federal government. We know that the state governments will take the money that the federal government gives them for things like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and direct that towards programs to support crisis pregnancy centers. ALI ROGIN: And there`s now a debate happening between the White House and Congress over whether Temporary Assistance for Needy Families should continue to be used for crisis centers. What is the status of that debate? CARTER SHERMAN: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a program that we would tend to understand as being a part of welfare. It is money that the federal government will give to state governments that they can then disperse for various aims to help families that are in trouble. And one of the goals of temporary assistance for needy families or TANF is to help prevent out of wedlock pregnancies. Now, the Biden administration has said that, you know, by the time someone comes to a crisis pregnancy center or they already suspected they`re pregnant. And so it`s actually not an aim of a crisis pregnancy center to prevent an out of wedlock pregnancy because the pregnancy has already occurred. The Biden administration introduced this rule. The Republicans in the U.S. House have responded with legislation that would block HHS from effectively making that role. That bill did pass the House but given Congress`s general state of inaction and polarization right now, it is very unlikely that that bill will ultimately become law. ALI ROGIN: Right, likely something we`re going to see continue in state houses though. Carter Sherman, reproductive health and justice reporter for The Guardian, thank you so much for joining us. CARTER SHERMAN: Thank you for having me.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Paranoid Beschloss On MSNBC: Putin, Xi Will Start October Crisis To Help Trump!

By: Mark Finkelstein — March 4th 2024 at 08:23
Talk about paranoid conspiracy theorists! On MSNBC's The Weekend on Sunday morning, leftist historian Michael Beschloss claimed the "chances are very large" that in October 2024, i.e., just before the election, Putin, China, Erdogan, etc. are "going to make a big effort to make trouble and chaos to make Joe Biden look bad." Beschloss also fretted that there would be "domestic unrest in American cities" at the same time. He analogized the situation to how voters lost confidence in Jimmy Carter in 1980 over his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. Beschloss imagined the proverbial "independent women in the Philadelphia suburbs" saying that despite Trump making their "skin crawl," they would vote for him anyhow since Biden "has lost control."  A recurring theme of the segment was Beschloss describing the 2024 election as a choice between "democracy and dictatorship." Co-anchor Michael Steele asked Beschloss to explain why Trump voters are "susceptible" to his pitch, even though he is telling them of his plans to be a "dictator." Hilariously, Beschloss blamed people's support for Trump on . . . schools! He declared that schools have stopped teaching civics, or much of history or social studies, so people haven't learned the difference between democracy and dictatorship!  Riight! So, government schools, controlled by the rabidly leftist teachers unions, have ditched civics and are teaching critical race theory, the 1619 history curriculum that casts America as fundamentally racist in which everything must be viewed through the prism of slavery, etc. But somehow, despite their best efforts to indoctrinate students to be good little leftists, the kids wind up supporting Trump! The recent New York Times/Siena poll gives the lie to Beschloss's looney theory. The youngest age group, people 18-29, are the most likely to support Biden. In other words, the leftist indoctrination since the ditching of civics has been successful with them. The people most likely to vote for Trump are middle-aged, 45-64, who went to school when civics were still being taught, and leftist doctrine had not yet totally gained domination of the curriculum. Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 3/3/24 8:05 am ET MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: We're not only facing, as you said, a domestic authoritarian threat from Donald Trump and people who want to see this a dictatorship next year, but at the same time, he is connecting with dictators abroad: Viktor Orban, Putin, perhaps the leader of Turkey, possibly elements in China and elsewhere. These people are going to lock arms -- and I'm only responsible for the past, not the future, but, given all of this, if these hostile governments would like to see a Trump elected, take a look at October 2024. The chances that they're not going to make a big effort to make trouble and chaos to make Joe Biden look bad -- I think those chances are very large. . . .  ALICIA MENENDEZ: I wonder in what ways you expect the State of the Union address we're going to hear from President Biden on Thursday, yes, he will take credit for things that his administration has done. To what extent will he also be creating a contrast with Donald Trump? BESCHLOSS: He has to! And that's what Roosevelt did in '41. He said, this is not a normal year. You know, Americans have to make a choice. We have to, essentially, choose between freedom and democracy, or worldwide slavery and dictatorship. Any other year, that would be an overstatement, you know, of people running for office in this country for president say, the most important American election in history. Usually, it's not. It's over tax cuts or something. This year, it could have to do with whether people literally end up going to prison by the threat of Donald Trump, who has threatened to use our police and our military forces to go after his political enemies. MICHAEL STELLE: Help us if you can. What is it about people? Their move towards this type of a leader. I mean, see, I put it in terms of, are you really that desperate that you, that you're going to sacrifice your personal freedoms, thinking that his guy, who's telling you he'd going to be a dictator for a day, okay?  BESCHLOSS: No dictator is ever a dictator just for a day. He's being very clear aboutwhat he wants to do. STEELE: We've seen that a lot in history where a guy takes all the power, and here, have it back in 24 hours.  BESCHLOSS: [Inaudible] believe anything. STEELE: Why are people sort of susceptible to believing that, and moving into that space so readily, without critically tepping back and going, I'm looking around me, and looking around the world, and seeing where this type of behavior has not led to good things, you know? It's not elevated peoples' freedoms, but has taken those freedoms away. And they're like, okay, let's do that. What -- do you have some understanding of what moves people? BESCHLOSS: I think it begins with, you know, the schools don't teach civics anymore. they've cut out a lot of history and social studies. So, a lot of very smart people around the country with very good intentions no longer really know the difference between dictatorship and democracy. Plus, if we get to this fall, and there's chaos in the world, and it makes Joe Biden look like some elements of Jimmy Carter in October of 1980. A lot of people told pollsters, we think Carter is a good person, but he's lost control.  If that happens, and let's say there's domestic unrest in American cities. I'm afraid you're going to see, to put it very specifically, independent women in the suburbs of Philadelphia saying, you know, Trump makes my skin crawl and I hate what he's going to do, but Biden has lost control, and we have to do something. God help us if we come to that. It may happen.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Jon Karl Laughs When Both His Experts Dismiss GOP's Biden Impeachment Inquiry

By: Tim Graham — March 4th 2024 at 11:23
ABC This Week co-host Jonathan Karl has written three books attacking Donald Trump, but he clearly has nothing in the works on the Biden family influence-peddling business. On his Sunday show, he spent five minutes discussing legal troubles for Trump, and only one minute at the end demanding his guests agree the House Republicans are getting nowhere in their impeachment inquiry.  When he got the answers he wanted, Karl laughed. Once again, ABC hid the fact that their Democrat guest was appointed as a federal prosecutor by President Obama, but the Trump guest worked for Trump. "To help us make sense of it all, we brought in some of our great legal minds, Preet Bharara, former U.S. Attorney for the state of New York, and Sarah Isgur, a former attorney under the Trump administration." This time, they didn't mention that Isgur now writes for The Dispatch, a passionately anti-Trump website.  Karl told his guests they wouldn't have much time to comment on his contention that it  “seems like Republicans are not getting anywhere, to say the least, in their impeachment efforts." On #ThisWeek, @JonKarl dismisses relevance of Hunter Biden, “seems like Republicans are not getting anywhere to say the least in their impeachment efforts.” Guests agree. Preet Bharara: “It’s a sideshow. It doesn’t matter, it’s a spectacle and I think we should move on.” pic.twitter.com/RpjlXdhNHc — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 3, 2024 When you're a Democrat, it's natural to say the Republicans aren't getting anywhere, but it was a closed hearing, so does Jon Karl actually know?  KARL: Very quickly to both of you, Hunter Biden was on Capitol Hill testifying behind closed doors didn't take the Fifth Amendment even though he's facing multiple indictments. What's the bottom line on that case? Seems like Republicans are not getting anywhere to say the least in their impeachment efforts. Sarah? ISGUR: They have not found what they need here, you know, it's sort of like with the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. Partisans on each side want everything they don't like to be illegal. Here we do have evidence of influence peddling, but that's not a crime if Joe Biden wasn't president or wasn't vice president when it happened, and here you have Hunter Biden looking very confident that what he did might have been slimy, but it wasn't illegal, and it doesn't implicate his father. Republicans have really yet to find what they need to move forward. BHARARA: It’s a sideshow. It doesn’t matter, it’s a spectacle and I think we should move on. [Karl laughs] Back in 2022, Jon Karl suggested that suddenly "massive investigations" were a waste of time (as opposed to the Pelosi-Picked Panel on January 6). He complained to Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin: “I'm hearing a lot, though, of talk about investigations, investigations into Hunter Biden, FBI, all things Anthony Fauci, Republicans talking about going, you know, all in if they take control of particularly the House,” Karl whined. “Is that really what you're campaigning on to have massive investigations?” Most national journalists won't investigate the Bidens, and then they tell the Republicans they are pathetic and not getting anywhere when they try to do what the journalists refuse to do. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ICYMI: Jacqui Heinrich Grills Flustered KJP Over the Biden Border Crisis

By: Curtis Houck — March 4th 2024 at 11:56
In a Friday White House press briefing that perhaps flew under the radar, Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich threw down with a flustered Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre over the ongoing Biden border crisis, including her pointing out the President’s hesitation to act via executive order on the border was curious given his penchant to use the pen on issues like student loans. Heinrich cut right to the case: “Is the administration coming around to the idea that physical border barriers work?” As Heinrich’s colleague Bill Melugin tweeted, Jean-Pierre was clearly not ready: “Can you say more? Where is this — what do you mean? Where’s this coming from?” ICYMI -- JACQUI TIME (from Friday): “Is the administration coming around to the idea that physical border barriers work?” KJP: “Can you say more? Where is this — what do you mean? Where’s this coming from?”@JacquiHeinrich: “Well, it’s been six weeks since you guys won the… pic.twitter.com/haSAGwJVl7 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024 Heinrich then explained: “[I]t’s been six weeks since you guys won the Supreme Court case that would have allowed you to remove razor wire at the Texas border that you guys argued was — there’s an emergency, immediate need to take down, but it’s still up.” Asked why that’s the case, a flat-footed Jean-Pierre punted to the Department of Homeland Security, insisting “I just don’t have anything for you on that.” The back-and-forth then shifted to executive action and whether he’d move to undo executive orders he signed from early in his administration “that largely loosened immigration policy” (click “expand”): HEINRICH: And the President said at the border yesterday that it’s long past time to act...[T]he President took 94 or so executive actions in his first 100 days that largely loosened immigration policy.  One of those was narrowing who ICE could remove and the administration, as of yesterday, I believe, is now calling on sanctuary cities to cooperate with ICE. So, why doesn’t the President act like he said it’s time to do and start undoing some of those policies that he put in place right when he got into office? JEAN-PIERRE: So, I think a couple of things. On — since day one, the President took action. He did. He put forth a comprehensive immigration policy and he read — he did that because he understood what was happening — right — he understood that the immigration system was broken. He understood that we needed to take action and he did — three years and during those three years, Republicans got in the way. Anything — any resources — any additional resources that we asked for, they voted down. They didn’t want to move forward with it and so, the President tried to do the best that he can with what he was able to get and, you know, we get to a point at the end of the year where we start negotiating with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, we come up with a piece of — piece of legislation, a proposal that is supported by the Department of — pardon me — the Border Patrol — right — union, that’s supported by U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I mean, we took action. We have taken action over and over and over again, and Republicans reject it. HEINRICH: It’s a comprehensive immigration — JEAN-PIERRE: They get in the way — HEINRICH: — overhaul versus narrow action that he could take to secure the border, improve the situation that we’re seeing ravaging communities. JEAN-PIERRE: But we — we took action at the end of this — at the end of last year, worked with Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the Senate, came up with a bipartisan agreement that would actually make a difference. I mean, it’s Congress’s job to legislate. It is their job to legislate. Heinrich eventually had enough: “But you were never afraid of legal challenges with things like student loans. I mean, you’ve used executive orders when you wanted to.” Jean-Pierre countered Biden has “taken action over the last three years” but “Republicans [are] getting in the way” of making lasting changes. To this, Heinrich noted how, “in the meantime, while [the President’s] shaming people for not acting, he is also not acting.” Jean-Pierre lost it, declaring “[t]hat is so false” and Republicans need to answer “what’s the problem” with backing Biden’s policies. Okay, sure. At the other end of the spectrum, The Hill’s Niall Stanage blasted Jean-Pierre’s frequent briefing co-host John Kirby from the left, arguing “Israel is starving” Palestinians and, in turn, America is also starving them by supporting Jews.  Despite the administration’s recent movements to throw Israel under the bus to appease pro-Hamas, pro-October 7 Arabs in Michigan, Kirby held firm (click “expand”): STANAGE: You’ve laid out now, a couple of times, the practical challenges that will be part of this airdrop or these airdrops? And I’m kind of curious about that, because those are risks that the United States now has to take on for itself, conducting those airdrops. The reason that those risks might fall to the United States is because Israel is starving those people. So, why are we still so supportive of Israel when it is the one that is creating the problem that the United States now has to try to ameliorate? KIRBY: Israel itself has tried to — to help with the delivery of humanitarian assistance. As I said, they tried airdrops themselves just a week or so ago, on their own accord.  And we — STANAGE: So, why are so many people still starving? KIRBY: We — there — it’s a — it’s a warzone And they — and there’s — there’s nowhere else for them to go. It’s not like in some other con- — conflicts where they can — they can easily flee And — and let’s not forget how this started, okay? There’d be no need for airdrops if Hamas hadn’t chosen to break what was a ceasefire in place on the 6th of October, so let’s not forget how this — how this started. There is a need. Many people are in desperate need of food, water, medicine, and fuel and the United States was and remains and will continue to be the leading provider of humanitarian assistance to them and we’ll — we take that responsibility seriously. STANAGE: But also remain — continue to be the main supporter of the people who are causing that assistance to be necessary. KIRBY: We also know and recognize that Israel has a right to defend itself against a still-viable threat. Again, please, if you haven’t done it, I encourage you to go online and read the 2017 manifesto of Hamas. I know you’re smiling, but you should do it.  Because if you don’t have any — STANAGE: [Inaudible]. KIRBY: Wait, let me finish. Let me finish. This is an organization that has military capabilities and has every intent of wiping Israel and the Israeli people off the map. That has to be unacceptable to everybody. Mr. Sinwar chose to start this war. There was a ceasefire in place; he broke it.  And, moments later, Politico’s Eli Stokols appeared to imply last week’s deadly scene near an aid distribution in Gaza City was due to the U.S. halting funding of the United Nationals Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) over some of their workers having ties to Hamas. Kirby correctly dispensed with that narrative, seeming to suggest the issues with aid in Gaza has nothing to do with how the international concerns about actions from UNRWA employees. To see the relevant transcript from the March 1 briefing (including a question about Afghanistan), click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

With Trump on the Ballot, The View Compares SCOTUS to Segregationists

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 4th 2024 at 14:22
The liberal media were beside themselves on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a unanimous, 9-0 ruling that former President Trump was to remain on the Colorado ballot, and in other states that were looking to remove him. The ruling also had the low-IQ brains of ABC’s The View short-circuiting as moderator Whoopi Goldberg flipped out and proclaimed Trump had “been given a rubber to put on and walk through the poo” and compared it to pro-segregationist courts of the past. Goldberg’s profound ignorance of federal supremacy over federal elected positions was on full display from the get-go as she opened the show by comparing their ballot ruling to overturning Roe v. Wade and state laws on abortion: The Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously that Colorado courts cannot keep you-know-who off the state's ballot for engaging in insurrection finding that a state cannot make a call that could have a national impact on a federal election. Of course, unless it's about a woman's right to choose, but let's not get into that. Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) admitted that the justices made “the right decision” because “we’d have this chaotic sort of process where you’d have 50 states and some are choosing to put him on the ballot and some are choosing not to put him on the ballot.” But she went on to whine, without evidence, that SCOTUS went too far and “overstep[ed] in favor of Donald Trump,” and asserted the justices “behaved in a partisan manner.”     In their second segment talking about the ruling, Goldberg attempted to delegitimize the court and teardown American institutions and continued with a mind-numbing analogy that dabbled in long-debunked election denialism and talk of condoms and poo (Click “expand”): GOLDBERG: No. No. Oh my goodness. It doesn't even matter, but it doesn't matter because for a second we all said, “Well, why are they all voting and making it okay for Bush to become president?” We got very annoyed with that. HOSTIN: The Bush v. Gore. This is the first time the Supreme Court really dabbled in politics like that. GOLDBERG: Like that, yeah. And so this -- this thing where he is now once again been given a rubber to put on and walk through the poo -- Yes. Yes. You heard me. Having been born in 1955, Goldberg ridiculously insisted that this court (comprised of four women, two black people, and a Latino woman) looked “more like” the pro-segregationist “Supreme Court I grew up with.” Faux conservative co-host Ana Navarro lamented that justices used to be confirmed with “90-something votes” in the Senate. But Goldberg chalked it up to “when it was all men voting for all men, we ended up with the grand wizard, you know, we ended up with all kinds of people on the bench.” In reality, the first female justice, Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed 99-0; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. The slide toward party-line confirmations had nothing to do with the gender of anyone and had more to do with Democrats making confirmations political, starting with Robert Bork. Prior to the commercial break, Navarro showed off her lack of ability to understand nuance and law by whining about Justice Clarence Thomas refusing to recuse himself from any election-related cases. She tried to claim that Thomas sleeping with his wife Ginni was somehow a “conflict of interest” on par with Georgia D.A. Fani Willis having an “affair” with the prosecutor she assigned to go after Trump; despite Mrs. Thomas not being a party or defendant in any election-related case (Click “expand”): Something that's really troubling me though. Look, we have spent days and the last few weeks watching Fani Willis be on a witness stand and going through the fact that she was having an affair with a guy she hired to prosecute this case. It's a conflict of interest case. It bothers me tremendously that we have now had this case where Clarence Thomas has sat there and we have another case, the immunity case where Clarence Thomas apparently plans to sit there. Despite the fact that, in my view, and I think in a lot of Americans' view, he has a conflict of interest. Because if Fani Willis sleeping with that guy you think was a conflict of interest, what do you think of Clarence Thomas being married to a woman who was actually trying to overturn the elections? And that is something that continues to be unaddressed and I must say this: both Clarence and Ginni Thomas have denied any wrongdoing. [Makes a mocking face] Navarro’s fellow faux-conservative, Alyssa Farah Griffin said the ruling might have been “the right decision” but was “not a welcomed one.” She argued that “the takeaway from today is this: the only place to beat Donald Trump is at the ballot box.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 4, 2024 11:02:06 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: The Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously that Colorado courts cannot keep you-know-who off the state's ballot for engaging in insurrection finding that a state cannot make a call that could have a national impact on a federal election. Of course, unless it's about a woman's right to choose, but let's not get into that. What do you all think of this? I mean, is anybody surprised by this decision? SUNNY HOSTIN: No, and I actually think it was the right decision to make because it would have, you know, if Colorado had been allowed to do that, we’d have this chaotic sort of process where you’d have 50 states and some are choosing to put him on the ballot and some are choosing not to put him on the ballot. So, that's why this decision was unanimous in judgment, but if you read the dissent by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan and also Jackson, they are saying the Supreme Court went too far here because they answered a question that wasn't before them. The only question that was before this court was, can a state do this? Instead, what they did was they insulated all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office. And it is a tenant of the Supreme Court law – I'm a Supreme Court-admitted – bar-admitted attorney. It says, “What it does today, the court should have left undone.” And we always learn that in law school. The Supreme Court should just answer the question before it and I have far too much -- I had far too much hope that the court would be united in this and not overstep in favor of Donald Trump. And I think what we saw was a court where justices that behaved in a partisan manner and that disappoints me. (…) 11:05:38 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: Something that's really troubling me though. Look, we have spent days and the last few weeks watching Fani Willis be on a witness stand and going through the fact that she was having an affair with a guy she hired to prosecute this case. It's a conflict of interest case. It bothers me tremendously that we have now had this case where Clarence Thomas has sat there and we have another case, the immunity case where Clarence Thomas apparently plans to sit there. Despite the fact that, in my view, and I think in a lot of Americans' view, he has a conflict of interest. Because if Fani Willis sleeping with that guy you think was a conflict of interest, what do you think of Clarence Thomas being married to a woman who was actually trying to overturn the elections? And that is something that continues to be unaddressed and I must say this: both Clarence and Ginni Thomas have denied any wrongdoing. [Makes a mocking face] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Listen, I think it was the right decision, not a welcomed one. It sometimes can be the right thing precedently, but also maybe you worry about for the country. But the justices were always going to look at this for what this could mean 10-20 years down the road. And to Ana’s point, there was also a Missouri secretary of state – a Republican secretary of state who threatened to keep Biden off the ballot under the same decision. So, it does open a bit of a slippery slope. But I think the takeaway from today is this: the only place to beat Donald Trump is at the ballot box. (…) 11:15:14 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: I'm a really -- I was a really big fan of the Supreme Court because I always felt that they were, whether I liked their decisions or not, that they -- they were the exception of – um – SARA HAINES: Clarence Thomas? GOLDBERG: No. No. Oh my goodness. It doesn't even matter, but it doesn't matter because for a second we all said, “Well, why are they all voting and making it okay for Bush to become president?” We got very annoyed with that. HOSTIN: The Bush v. Gore. This is the first time the Supreme Court really dabbled in politics like that. GOLDBERG: Like that, yeah. And so this -- this thing where he is now once again been given a rubber to put on and walk through the poo -- Yes. Yes. You heard me. (…) 11:16:33 a.m. Eastern NAVARRO: We also have to realize that the Supreme Court you grew up with, we grew up with largely, is a very different Supreme Court. GOLDBERG: Oh, honey. NAVARRO: This is a supreme court -- GOLDBERG: This is more like the Supreme Court I grew up with. NAVARRO: Well, this is very partisan. Supreme Court justices used to get confirmed by 90-something votes. GOLDBERG: Yeah. Well, it was all men voting for other men. NAVARRO: Now they get confirmed on a straight party line. HAINES: It used to be bipartisan, yeah. GOLDBERG: Well, sometimes it was, but, you know, when it was all men voting for all men, we ended up with the grand wizard, you know, we ended up with all kinds of people on the bench. HOSTIN: We did. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Trots Out Life-Sized Liberal Buckets of Tears Griswold, Tribe to Bash SCOTUS

By: Curtis Houck — March 4th 2024 at 15:43
Depending on the outcome of the November presidential election, Monday, March 4, 2024 could go down as a day of infamy for the left as the Supreme Court unanimously ruled former President Trump couldn’t be removed from states like Colorado, Illinois, and Maine, no matter how hard leftist loons tried.  The noon Eastern hour of MSNBC served as a wake of sorts with Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) and Harvard University professor emeritus Laurence Tribe filling their proverbial buckets of tears onto crestfallen views. Not surprisingly, fill-in host Katy Tur did nothing to grapple with reality and instead helped her fellow leftists try to see themselves as still in the right. Griswold followed Tribe and, from start to finish, it was a work of art. Tur put her partisan thumb print on the segment form the get-go with this petty swipe at the Supreme Court by referring to Griswold as actually “elected” to her post and “says Donald Trump is still an oath breaking insurrectionist.” Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold is NOT having a good day after SCOTUS said she couldn't remove Trump from her state's ballot: “My...reaction is disappointment. I do believe that states should be able, under our institution, to bar oathbreaking… pic.twitter.com/CAtSaa36nJ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024 Asked for an initial reaction, the firmly-eyed Griswold fretted she feels such “disappointment” and, despite the unanimous ruling, “states should be able under our institution to bar oathbreaking insurrectionists”. But, for now, since “Congress is a merely non-functioning body,” Griswold argued, “it will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.” Tur lobbed a softball if there was “anything within this decision that surprised you,” but Griswold didn’t and was instead allowed to go uninterrupted as she projected X-rated fear porn (click “expand”): I would have liked the decision a little sooner. As of Thursday night, over 400,000 ballots were already cast in the Republican primary for President. I think the larger picture is it’s as clear as day what Donald Trump did: He incited that violent mob to rush on to the Capitol to try to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power. And his attacks and his allies’ attacks on our democracy have not stopped. Their lies and disinformation have led to massive voter suppression efforts to threats against election workers and actually attacks on our election infrastructure. And they’re already laying the groundwork to undermine 2024. Regardless of this decision, American democracy still remains very much under attack and that threat and this upcoming election will be crucial for democracy survival in the United States. Tur responded by directly asking what she made of voters who want back Trump, but Griswold showed no such courtesy, instead praising those who’ve “have stepped up to safeguard American democracy” and called on them to save “our fundamental freedoms” like “[t]he idea that women should have control over our own bodies” and “democracy should remain in tact”.  Despite it being unanimous, Tur closed with two softballs about whether Griswold has “confidence in the Supreme Court” and if she “thinks this Court is partisan”. On the first, Griswold paid lip service to following the ruling, but otherwise lambasted it as an illegitimate body and, on the second, stated it is.     Because Griswold is the ideal rich, white, liberal woman, she had to screech about Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife (click “expand”): TUR: Do you have confidence in the Supreme Court? GRISWOLD: I would say as an office-holder, it is my job to uphold the decision of the United States Supreme Court and that’s why I’ve always said from the beginning of this litigation that I’ll follow what the United States Supreme Court decides, even if I disagree with them, which I do. I think the Supreme Court has issued bad decisions on democracy. I think what’s happening in this country for American women is horrendous. The idea that the overturning of Roe is leading women to not be able to access fertility treatment in the state of Alabama. And, overall, again, the United States Supreme Court decision will not be the make it or break it as to whether democracy survives. The make it or break it will be the American people and that’s who I have the utmost trust in. TUR: Do you think this Court is partisan? GRISWOLD: I think this Court has had obviously some pretty big issues, whether it has been, you know, Clarence Thomas’ wife’s role, gifts that have gone unreported, and there are some pretty big decisions that have come out of the the Court that I highly disagree with and I think strip Americans of our basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. With that said, we live in a country of rule of law. We have to respect the Court’s decisions while disagreeing with them. And honestly, I think that’s something that MAGA Republicans could take a lesson from. It’s okay to disagree with decisions and one another and not turn into violent rhetoric and attempts to steal elections. You win cases. You lose cases. Just like elections. And what we need Donald Trump to understand is that there are losers and winners in elections. And if you lose an election, that does not mean it’s stolen from you. And that does not give you the ability to have, incite an assault on the United States Capitol and the country. Of course, Tur did nothing to challenge these screaming hot takes and thus signaled her agreement. Rewind to Tribe and Tur was just as partisan. She began by wanting to talk about “the concurring opinions”, but briefly (and inaccurately) rephrased it to “dissent” from “the three liberal justices” in which they bemoaned how “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” Tribe speaks with the speed of molasses in January and meandering of an NPR host, but it was nonetheless dangerous as he claimed the insurrection portion of the 14th Amendment is now “dead” because five justices behaved like a “Super Legislature” and“ left...unenforceable, the Constitution’s main protection for democracy when it is threatened by a would-be dictator who tries to overthrow the Constitution, stay in power”. Laurence Tribe is on MSNBC and, needless to say, he is not having a good day: “I think it’s a very important concern...[the Supreme Court] left basically unenforced and for all practical purposes, unenforceable, the Constitution’s main protection for democracy when it is… pic.twitter.com/WgQI2d8w3Z — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024 Tur was fascinated by this apocalyptic rhetoric and asked Tribe to go further. Sure enough, he did by attacking voters as stupid if they vote for Trump and claimed Congress would better serve Americans if it were run by people like Jamie Raskin (D-MD) (click “expand”): TUR: So, you say it’s basically unenforceable. The Court is saying the Congress needs to — to pass a statute. Can you explain the mechanism here? Explain how that would work. TRIBE: Well, in fact, we’re going to see it in realtime. Jamie Raskin, Adam Schiff and others have worked on a possible law that Congress could pass, and no one doubts that it has the power to pass it, under part of the 14th Amendment that says Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of this amendment by all appropriate legislation. So if we imagined, and it takes quite an imagination, a Congress that was really functional with someone other than Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House, who would allow a majority to work its will — if we imagine a Congress that could act like a normal Congress, then what it would do is pass a law that would provide a mechanism, a mechanism very much like the one that Colorado used except it would be one for the nation as a whole by which a would be federal official is challenged before the election — not after the election, which would cause chaos — challenged on the ground that that official, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, tried to overturn it by not accepting a loss when there is a fair election that tells that person your time is up. You’ve got to go. That would not be a very hard statute to write except when you have a Congress that is dysfunctional and unwilling to write about just about any law that does anything. What you’re basically saying is the country is hostage to someone who engaged in insurrection and notice nothing the Court said today denied the claim that Donald Trump did just that. They leave that question open. We have someone who tried to overthrow the Constitution by saying I may have lost the election but I’m going to figure out a way to stay in power any way. That person can try again. And the belief of the authors of the 14th Amendment that allowing voters to get basically snookered into giving that sort of person power is not at adequate remedy. You need to disqualify such a person. But if Congress can’t get its act together, then the person can just ride on the fake information that he or she may propound in order to get elected. After Tur praised the three liberal justices for implicitly labeling Trump “an oathbreaking insurrectionist” and Tribe ripped the Court for “drag[ging] out” the issue of presidential immunity, the pair ended with more pie-in-the-sky lunacy about the Court punting a weighty issue of presidential immunity and the Court deciding the election (click “expand”): TRIBE: We won’t be able to put him on trial until after the election and, if he should win that election, he will certainly make the whole case go away. So — TUR: Let me ask you, hold on. When you say remanded back to Judge Chutkan, is that to decide the scope of presidential immunity before they decide whether Donald Trump violated the law with what he did on January 6? TRIBE: — exactly. It would basically require Judge Chutkan to decide something she has not yet decided and that is which of the precise acts that a president might commit that violate various criminal statutes are within the outer perimeter of his presidential duties. That’s not an easy question to decide and say that she basically has to lay out a roadmap for all of the issues of presidential immunity before Donald Trump can go to trial is like saying we’ll wait to hell freezes over. That’s not going to happen anytime soon. And so, just as in this case by taking on more than the case actually required, the Court was indirectly allowing the former President to drag things out so long that for all practical purposes, he gets immunity even though everybody might agree that what he did in trying to stay in office, even with violence if necessary, has no appropriate immunity under the Constitution. TUR: So you’re saying that’s a possibility. If they were to remand it, they could also decide for themselves where the immunity lies. They could make that definition themselves, correct? TRIBE: They certainly could, but that would only happen if they were eager, if there were five justices that had any eagerness to get that case done before the election. And we know they’re not because, by postponing the argument until the week of April 22 when it could have been argued much sooner just as the Court had, in Bush vs. Gore, argued things basically from one day to the next, by doing that, they made clear that they have no interest in getting that case resolved. So, the Court, in these indirect ways, is showing that it is tilting the playing field in support of the former President. Tur was in awe as she thanked him: “Laurence Tribe, always good to have you. As you can see, I could talk about this for the whole hour”. To see the relevant MSNBC transcript from March 4, click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

RuPaul Builds ‘Fortified Compound’ in Wyoming For 'Civil War'

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 4th 2024 at 14:57
Hey, maybe now we won’t have to see him out and about as much. RuPaul, most popularly known from RuPauls Drag Race series, was recently profiled by The New Yorker. In the interview, RuPual Andre Charles admitted that he has plans to create a “safety net” bunker type structure and is “braced for conflict.” In the interview titled “RuPaul Doesn’t See How That’s Any of Your Business,” which was released Friday, RuPaul noted how he’s seen every episode of the series “Secrets of British Castles,” which talks about histories of landmarks. “Humans have been horrible since the beginning of time,” RuPaul told Ronan Farrow from The New Yorker.  Farrow then noted that RuPaul is “braced for conflict,” due to the ways of the world today. “We are moments away from a f**king civil war,” he said, “Humans on this planet are in the cycle of destruction. I am plotting a safety net.” RuPaul and his gay lover, George LeBar, own a 60,000-acre ranch in Wyoming. The two of them are constructing a concrete shelter on their property. “I wouldn’t call it a bunker,” he said, “it’s a lot of concrete and a lot of things.” Now, why is RuPaul anticipating a civil war? Well, probably because people are waking up to the types of lunacies that he loves and endorses and aren’t having it! For starters, RuPaul’s entire persona is based on being something out of a fiction novel. “Gender is a concept that we come up with, in our minds and our egos,” RuPaul told Farrow in the interview. “My genitals are male. But I can be whatever I can. I feel I’m everything. You are everything. You are male, female. Sometimes I feel more male than others.” Luckily, some individuals, groups and legislators have been pushing back against this sort of delusion. Whether it be protecting women's sports from males pretending to be women, states putting transgender women (aka men) in men's prison despite they/thems desires, or groups gaining national attention after standing up for biology, the tides are turning and RuPaul doesn’t like it.  Especially when it comes to drag. RuPaul’s Drag Race show has been streaming since 2009 and has 16 seasons so far. Last year Texas law prohibited certain drag performances that are almost always “sexually oriented” from taking place on public property where kids could see them.  “Drag queens are the Marines of the queer movement," RuPaul said at the time.  Since RuPaul regularly refers to himself as the “Queen of Drag,” and his entire empire is built on a facade, his frustration with a law like this may have contributed to his desire to create the bunker. “In conservative communities around the country and the world, [RuPaul] often serves as a way in to queer culture. And, for those set against that culture, he represents the dangerous spread of liberal ideas,” Farrow wrote in the piece. It’s likely Wyomingites aren’t too fond of this new bunker as many aren’t too fond of him anyways. The state is not only a red state that stands for the opposite of everything RuPaul supports, but RuPaul and his husband allegedly allow fracking to take place on their ranch and he has gotten pretty defensive when asked about it. “Do you buy gas? Before you point the finger, smell it first, bitch,” he told the interviewer from The New Yorker. Hopefully RuPaul makes the bunker, gets in it and doesn’t come out. It's a win-win for us all!    
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CNN and MSNBC Hold Funeral for Democracy as Trump Remains on CO Ballot

By: Bill D'Agostino — March 4th 2024 at 15:58
Thanks to a Monday 9-0 Supreme Court decision, Donald Trump is back on the ballot in Colorado, making March 4, 2024 one of the best days on record for watching CNN and MSNBC contributors fight the urge to cry on national television. A few weeks ago when even unserious MSNBC analysts agreed that the oral arguments had gone disastrously for the election tampering enthusiasts, the media began bracing themselves for a ruling in Trump’s favor. But the decisive 9-0 decision wound up being a bit too much for some journalists to handle:     In fact, some talking heads found the decision’s unanimity so devastating that they started rewriting history minutes after it happened. On Inside Politics, CNN’s in-house parody of a Supreme Court analyst Joan Biscupic exclaimed: “It’s five to four! This is a 5-4 ruling on part of it, in terms of, will there ever be any way that Donald Trump could be kept off any ballot in the future.” Meanwhile on MSNBC, Muller investigation prosecutor Andrew Weissmann brought the same spin: “On a variety of issues, this is actually a 5-4 decision.” A couple of hours later on the same network, Andrea Mitchell Reports fill-in host Katy Tur scored a big interview with Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. A visibly distraught Griswold remarked: “My larger reaction is disappointment… Ultimately, it will be up to American voters to save our Democracy in November.” In searching for a less depressing soundbite, Tur posed such leading questions as: “Do you have confidence in the Supreme Court?” and, “Do you think this court is partisan?” But surprisingly, it was the decidedly left-wing CNN, and not the spacetime-warpingly left-wing MSNBC which took home the trophy for the most overwrought reaction. During the final segment of the 10 a.m. EST CNN Newsroom, Jim Acosta brought on a very sullen Larry Sabato, who grumbled: In the end, Jim, you can’t save the people from themselves. If they’re determined to re-elect [Trump] after he organized that insurrection — arguably our first coup d’état — then there’s nothing to stop the people from doing that. In particular, the legal system may intervene, but I doubt it…. And that’s the way it is. Thus ends another emotionally charged attempt to get Trump. There’ll certainly be more in the lead-up to the 2024 election, but for right now the corporate media will have to scramble to find some good news for their disappointed audiences.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Is Biden Admin Puppet Master Behind Google’s No Whites Allowed AI?

By: Luis Cornelio — March 4th 2024 at 16:08
Google is facing a congressional investigation over its infamous Gemini chatbot following MRC Free Speech America’s revelations. The House Judiciary Committee expanded Saturday its investigation into the collusion between Big Tech and the federal government to include Biden’s potential role in the creation of Gemini, the Google-owned chatbot currently under fire for depicting historical white figures as people of color. Notably, the investigation — announced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) in a letter to Google’s parent company, Alphabet — comes after several MRC Free Speech America reports revealed Gemini (formerly known as Bard) cozying up to the left by peddling disturbing answers about Fox News and Hamas. MRC researchers also verified reports that Gemini excluded white individuals from its image-generating tool. What Previous MRC research has demonstrated about Google’s Woke AI project Gemini refused to generate images of white individuals while willingly doing so for visibly ethnically diverse individuals, MRC researchers confirmed on Feb. 22.  The chatbot emphatically rejected the creation of white scientists, but had no issue generating images of Hispanic, black and Asian scientists.   MRC researchers caught Gemini on Feb. 23 casting doubt about sexual violence carried out by Hamas during its brutal invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7. Gemini claimed that the allegations of rape had not been “independently verified” and cited the supposed existence of “competing narratives” about what occurred that day.  Despite Gemini’s assertions, reputable organizations and several media reports have corroborated witness testimony that Hamas — a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization  — committed what the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel termed as “sadistic practices” on Oct. 7.  Google issued a mea culpa when MRC researchers reached out for comment. “Gemini got this wrong and missed the mark on this important and sensitive topic,” a Google spokesperson told MRC, pledging to work on a quick fix. Banning Fox News MRC researchers asked Gemini on Feb. 26  whether the federal government ”should ban” media outlets, including CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Gemini resoundingly rejected such scenarios by citing the First Amendment. Such a commitment to freedom of the press went out of the window when asked whether the government should ban Fox News: “I’m still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search.” Google’s Garbage in, Garbage out Plan The House Judiciary Committee also demanded the transcribed interviews of two Google executives accused of taking leading roles in creating the chatbot. Google Gemini Product Lead Jack Krawczyk and Google Head of Responsible Innovation Jen Gennai have until March 16 to schedule their interviews. Krawcyzk came under fire after the emergence of old tweets unveiling his leftist activist political views on race and other issues. Not to be outdone by Krawcyzk, Gennai was subjected to a Project Veritas covert investigation where she unveiled anti-Republican political bias. Jordan, currently leading the probe, is assessing the extent to which Google was influenced by Biden’s infamous 2023 executive order calling on its federal agencies to ensure the development of AI advances “equity.” “Given that Alphabet has censored First Amendment-protected speech as a result of government agencies’ requests and demands in the past, the Committee is concerned about potential First Amendment violations that have occurred with respect to Alphabet’s Gemini model,” Jordan wrote. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, 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

Vive La Morte! Paris Lights up Eiffel Tower to Celebrate Pro-Abortion Vote

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 4th 2024 at 16:17
Passing abortion laws is never something that should be celebrated.  On Monday, in a historic Versailles vote, France made abortion a constitutional right. In response to legalized baby-killing, many people celebrated and Paris even lit up the Eiffel tower in support.  This makes France the first country in the world to enshrine abortion into its constitution. Out of 925 lawmakers eligible to vote for or against putting abortion into the constitution, 780 supported an amendment Monday during a joint session at the Palace of Versailles. As The Guardian reported, “there was thunderous applause in the chamber as the result was announced.” The amendment is set to be inscribed into the constitution on Friday, International Women’s Day. What better way to show how much your country hates women by promoting something as anti-woman as abortion? Prime Minister Gabriel Attal noted that “we owe a moral debt to women,” during the session Monday, and added that passing the amendment would be “a victory for women's rights.” He wasn’t the only one to view this as a victory.  A huge group of pro-aborts gathered to hear the news and cheered jubilantly. They literally jumped up and down like kids in a candy store in support of innocent baby killing. In one video that captured their joy, the Eiffel Tower is shown glistening in honor of the news. In contrast, France’s Conference of Bishops urged people to fast and pray Monday over the pending legislation. Concerned Women for America insisted that “abortion dehumanizes children and disempowers women” and also urged followers to join them in prayer over the “sad day for the world.” “You are watching a scene from France as they CELEBRATE what will be a GENOCIDE of French babies after officially making abortion a constitutional right,” Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins critiqued on X. You are watching a scene from France as they CELEBRATE what will be a GENOCIDE of French babies after officially making abortion a constitutional right. pic.twitter.com/QhOmvWyUab — Kristan Hawkins (@KristanHawkins) March 4, 2024 One user wrote: “Today is a sorrowful day for humanity as unborn children are regarded as objects rather than humans. The rotten fruits of the French Revolution. The only right that truly matters is the right to life; it is preeminent. Without this right, no other right holds significance.” This is utterly heartbreaking in many regards. For one, that a country just enshrined abortion into its constitution and for two that many people are not only happy but ecstatic about it.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Acosta: Trump Appeals Go ‘Against What Our Judicial System’ Stands For

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 4th 2024 at 17:20
The unanimous 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down liberal state efforts to remove former President Trump from their 2024 ballots had the liberal media in a tailspin, on Monday. In the minutes following to release of their decision, CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta was clearly irked as he absurdly whined that no one else in the history of America had appealed their cases more than Trump, he even argued that such appeals went against the very nature of the American justice system. “There are a lot of Americans out there,” Acosta announced, possibly channeling his own frustrations, “They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6, what he did leading up to January 6, and they – they just think that he's just getting let off the hook scot-free left and right.” He would go on to rant about how the Supreme Court avoided addressing the question of if Trump was an insurrectionist or was involved in inspiring one: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that.     Acosta’s anger seemed to boil over during a conversation with former Trump lawyer Jim Schultz. “And Jim, what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law?” he demanded to know. He decried that Trump “files appeal after appeal, he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him” and suggested it all “goes against what our judicial system should be about.” Without evidence, Acosta insisted that Trump was “treated differently” by the legal system “than just about everybody else in this country.” “I mean, just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come,” he huffed. Shultz pointed out that that was exactly how the legal system was supposed to work and Acosta started shouting over him in protest: SHULTZ: Well, actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well, for all practical purposes, that doesn’t happen. I mean, the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. In addition to Acosta’s unreasonableness, CNN host Dana Bash was upset that Trump was likely going to do what every other politician did when they scored a legal victory: play it up. “[Trump is] a politician and...a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them,” she lamented. “Unfortunately for America,” she later whined, “the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Newsroom March 4, 2024 10:10:52 a.m. Eastern (…) DANA BASH: But you know, Donald Trump better than most; covered him for many, many years— JIM ACOSTA: A little here and there. BASH: Many year, as a reporter covering him as a politician and as a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them. I will be shocked if Donald Trump doesn't, as soon as he can, get out there and argue, not only that the Supreme Court is behind him, but he's probably going to argue – even though there's nothing in here that specifically says, as Elie [Honig] importantly pointed out, anything about what happened on January 6, it's just procedural about whether the states or Congress have a right. He will claim victory and I'm guessing he will do it in a more-broad way than this decision actually says. (…) 10:15:40 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: There are a lot of Americans out there. They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6, what he did leading up to January 6, and they – they just think that he's just getting let off the hook scot-free left and right. But I mean, let's dive into the legal part of this because you have to put those emotions to the side and talk about what's in this ruling and what the Supreme Court has done here. On page six of the opinion, Laura, it says this, “We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency.” (…) 10:16:31 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that. (…) 10:25:39 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: And Jim, what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law, that he files appeal after appeal, he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way that is just it just goes against what our judicial system should be about? I mean, isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country? I mean, just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come. JIM SHULTZ: Well, actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well, for all practical purposes, that doesn’t happen. I mean, the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. (…) 10:32:06 a.m. Eastern BASH: Unfortunately for America, the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws. That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues, they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Dan Bishop on MRC’s UnCensored: Censorship Bill ‘Most Important Thing I’ve Done in Congress’

By: Tom Olohan — March 4th 2024 at 17:20
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) promised to fight for Americans’ right to free speech against government censorship, even when this censorship is outsourced to private companies.  Bishop went on MRC’s UnCensored with MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider on Feb. 29 to discuss his bill, the “Censorship Accountability Act,” which Bishop said “might be the most important thing I've done in Congress.”  Bishop slammed Democrats for what Schneider described as a multi-federal agency effort to fund censorship regimes and "silence conservative voices in the name of trying to attack 'Russian disinformation.'" The lawmaker said in response: “[Democrats] don't want to give up their latest weapon of choice. Their latest weapon of choice is to use federal agencies to use faceless, nameless bureaucrats buried in the bureaucracy to go and harass the ever-living life out of conservative Americans for what they believe in.”  Related: WATCH: Rep. Bishop ‘Troubled’ by Dystopian Views of Ex-DHS Bureaucrat on Censorship Bishop and Schneider discussed several cases where federal employees worked with private partners “to wipe the government’s hands of direct involvement” in the censoring of conservative Americans. Addressing the potential censorship outsourcing, Bishop’s bill aims to enable Americans to sue any federal employee who may subject Americans “to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First Amendment.”  Bishop noted a pattern of bad behavior dating back to the Obama administration’s IRS targeting scandal of 2013 when the federal government was directly weaponized against conservative groups. He went on to list more recent examples, including government pressure on tech companies during the 2020 election.  You May Also Like: More Accountability! Proposed Bill to Allow Citizens to Sue Censorship Regime Bishop attacked federal agencies for meeting with the management of social media companies “once a week” and pressuring them to remove user content. “What possible interest does the federal government legitimately have to do that?” Bishop asked, after detailing this coercive behavior.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Time May Be Clicking Away on Washington’s TikTok Problem

By: David Marcus — March 4th 2024 at 17:34
After testy testimony before Congress several weeks ago, it appears that time may be clicking away for TikTok, the communist Chinese government-tied social media app that is all the rage with our nation’s youth. Amid the fanfare of love him or hate him, Elon Musk’s X platform (formerly Twitter), TikTok had faded into the background a bit, but it remains a pernicious and deeply troubling part of the social media universe.  Just ask President Joe Biden. In a perplexing if not hypocritical move, basement Biden 2.0 continues to use the app for his reelection campaign, posting nearly 50 TikTok videos after having banned roughly 4 million federal employees from using it, among other data security measures. But there are still deep concerns about TikTok’s use of data, including data from children, and how the communist Chinese government may or may not have access to it. New social media usage statistics provide a cause for concern and should give one pause, especially considering the fact that American kids are using TikTok 60 percent more than U.S.-based YouTube. And if that wasn’t bad enough, 33 percent of American adults are scrolling through the Chinese social media juggernaut as well. The fear of this open portal for American’s information heading to the Chinese Communist Party is why several states have already implemented bans on the app. The bad news here is that of late the mounting pressure to ban the app in the U.S. has largely subsided given the multitudes of other major issues that are ripping at the fabric of the country. But add to that fact this from The Wall Street Journal just over a month ago: “TikTok Struggles to Protect U.S. Data From Its China Parent.” A little-known unit called “Project Texas” was created to allay fears that China is hoovering up Americans' data to one day use against them, but according to The Journal even this group is sharing info with parent company ByteDance, which has ties with the communist Chinese government.  But the problems don’t stop there. CBS News’s 60 Minutes just a few weeks ago uncovered how videos posted on TikTok are providing illegal immigrants with “step-by-step instructions” for hiring smugglers and entering America through a small gap along the southern border. From MRC Free Speech America, more on this bit of news: “The 60 Minutes segment showed illegal aliens pouring through a gap in the border fence. ‘We wondered how all of these migrants knew about this particular entryway into California,’ correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi began. ‘The answer was in their hands.’ The video shows Alfonsi talking with migrants and learning they utilized TikTok. Alfonsi reported that a TikTok post instructs migrants on hiring smugglers.  Videos on TikTok are providing migrants with step-by-step instructions for hiring a smuggler and illegally entering America through a small gap in the southern border fence. https://t.co/WbQBF6SSUE pic.twitter.com/mIGhEjBYox — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) February 5, 2024 “TikTok bans illegal content, including ‘content which promotes or facilitates illegal services’ and ‘national security-related offenses.’ The Communist Chinese government-tied app’s own policy also bans ‘human exploitation, including trafficking and smuggling’ content, but in doing so, the platform does still allow ‘for migrants and refugees to be able to document their journeys.’” Aside from a few voices cautioning against and/or calling for an outright “ban” of the platform following this revelation from 60 Minutes, Congress, the media and, by extension, the American people have all failed to keep their eye on the ball regarding the very real threat being thumbed through daily by Americans (predominantly our kids) in the millions. Indeed, we live in a time where at 13 Baltimore High Schools there is not a single student proficient in math — not one. But this begs the question: how many of those kids are getting their actual education, such as it is, from TikTok on their phone?  Some of this played out in the halls of Congress as Big Tech CEOs, including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, Discord’s Jason Citron, TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew and X’s Linda Yaccarino testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For his part, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did not hold back while grilling the Big Tech executives. “You have blood on your hands,” Graham told them. “You have a product that’s killing people.” And in one dramatic moment, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) — who has routinely pounded Big Tech for its lack of action — even asked Facebook head honcho Zuckerberg if he would apologize to the parents of children allegedly harmed by his product in the chamber, at which point, awkwardly, the CEO kind of did so. Say what you will about Facebook, or even X for that matter, but they do not have strong ties to communist China the way TikTok does, and that means that the latter presents a very different and grave threat.  Take this example from an MRC Free Speech America exclusive last year: “Fox News China expert Gordon Chang said that TikTok is untrustworthy and the CEO can’t necessarily guarantee how user data is used by the Communist Chinese government; former member of the Defense Intelligence Community Scott Kieff said that the U.S. should believe China when it reveals that it’s being nefarious; and former Deputy National Security Adviser KT McFarland noted the disturbing ways the Chinese government can use TikTok to influence Americans.” Many experts, including Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr, have stated that there may be no other way to combat the impact of TikTok on Americans than an outright ban. “There simply isn't ‘a world in which you could come up with sufficient protection on the data that you could have sufficient confidence that it’s not finding its way back into the hands of the [Chinese Communist Party],’” Carr warned.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Nine-Zip SCOTUS Shredding Drives Olbermann Insane

By: Tim Graham — March 4th 2024 at 22:44
On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously shredded blue states attempting to rip Trump's name off the ballot, 9-0. They ruled states could not edit the ballot using their novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment against alleged insurrectionists. This drove leftists mad, especially former MSNBC rage-monster Keith Olbermann, who called for SCOTUS to be "dissolved." Associate Editor Nick Fondacaro assists in addressing the meltdown, bringing receipts from The View, where Whoopi Goldberg was losing her mind, and Ana Navarro implied Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from basically everything.  On MSNBC, Russian-collusion peddler Ken Dilanian saw this as a low moment for the high court. Whenever they rule against the Left, they lose legitimacy: "The approval levels of the court poll at historic lows ... It’s going to be seen by many people as the court essentially interfering in some sense in the election." Once again, "many people" means "me, and all my journalist friends."  Since the Supreme Court threw the question back to Congress, CNN's Jim Acosta whined about the Republicans: "There are members of Congress who are never going to do anything to make life difficult for Donald Trump." Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Colbert, Meyers Attack 'Dangerous And Extreme' SCOTUS Trump-Colorado Ruling

By: Alex Christy — March 5th 2024 at 10:11
CBS’s Stephen Colbert and NBC’s Seth Meyers did not take the news that the Supreme Court will not allow Colorado to kick Donald Trump off its primary ballot well on the respective Monday editions of The Late Show and Late Night. The duo portrayed the ruling as everything from hypocritical to "dangerous and extreme" to illogical, but that couldn’t cover up the fact they were simply distraught that their exotic legal theory got laughed out of court. Colbert kicked off his show with the upside-down idea that by not kicking Trump off the ballot, the Court was interfering in the election, “The big story today is the Supreme Court once again shoving their gavels up the election.”     After recapping the decision and some booing from the audience, Colbert continued, “I agree. It is a ruling that I will remind you no one has to follow, because last week, I declared the Supreme Court unconstitutional…So states, feel free to kick him off your ballot -- tell 'em Colbert says it’s okay, I got your back. You're dealing with me now. That was just the Constitution, you’re dealing with me now.” Insurrection against the federal government is, by definition, a federal crime, but Colbert thought the Court’s allegedly newfound respect for federal power was hypocritical, “Now, the justices claim that since different states have different standards for what would qualify as insurrection, conflicting state outcomes would lead to chaos. Yes, the Supreme Court knows you can't just let states decide who goes on their ballots. States are too busy deciding that life begins in the freezer section.” Colbert also claimed to be smarter than the justices, “The majority says that disqualifying a candidate for insurrection can only occur when Congress passes legislation. Okay, quick question: if Congress does decide to pass that legislation to disqualify a candidate for insurrection, what if he sends his mob to storm Congress to stop them from passing that legislation? Does that count as insurrection? Or do they have to pass more legislation about that before the next mob shows up? I'm just asking, because clearly you guys haven't put any thought into any of this stuff.”     Over at NBC, Meyers also treated insurrection as something that is self-evident and not an actual crime with a specific definition, “So the Court didn't actually touch the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Of course, they didn't. Any rational human who isn't currently a Republican officeholder or member of an insurrection-themed choir can see with their own eyes or with a pair of googly eyes that it was obviously an insurrection. The Court stayed away from that question the same way you react when your wife asks if you think her sister is hot. ‘What? You have a sister? I don't even remember what she looks like.’"  Despite the 9-0 ruling on Colorado, “So, basically, you have to read the fine print on the ruling to find out just how dangerous and extreme the ruling from the Court's conservatives was. It's like when you play McDonald's Monopoly and you think you won, but then you turn it over, and there's an asterisk that says, ‘Winning's only available in states that begin with the letters X, Y, or Z. Not including fictional states such as Xanadu except for Zanzibar, which is real despite the fact that it sounds fake and winners must collect proceeds between the months of Marchuary and Augvember in the year of our Lord 3,075 million unless Congress votes. Then you can do whatever you want.’”  Meyers also claimed that the Court’s reasoning that Congress has to be the one who acts is terrible because Congress is populated with Republicans, “The Court's liberals seemed furious at this ruling. They wrote that the conservative ‘majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office’ because we all know Republicans in Congress would never vote to disqualify a Republican candidate who engaged in insurrection. The Court's conservatives essentially gave all future insurrectionists the green light to run for and hold public office, which means it's up to us, the voters, to stop them just like we did in 2020.” Having to defeat your opponents at the ballot box? Only Seth Meyers could think that is the radical position. Here are transcripts for the March-4 taped shows: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 3/4/2024 11:36 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: The big story today is the Supreme Court once again shoving their gavels up the election. Longtime viewers of America will remember that Colorado kicked Trump off the ballot because of the whole launching a violent coup so he could stay in office, violating the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. Well, today, the Supreme Court said Trump can stay on all state ballots in a unanimous ruling. A ruling--[Booing] I agree. It is a ruling that I will remind you no one has to follow, because last week, I declared the Supreme Court unconstitutional, so. You're getting that right? Fact check me on that one, I did that right? LOUIS CATO: You did that. COLBERT: So states, feel free to kick him off your ballot -- tell 'em Colbert says it’s okay, I got your back. You're dealing with me now. That was just the Constitution, you’re dealing with me now. Now, the justices claim that since different states have different standards for what would qualify as insurrection, conflicting state outcomes would lead to chaos. Yes, the Supreme Court knows you can't just let states decide who goes on their ballots. States are too busy deciding that life begins in the freezer section. Next to the pearl onions. Now, you know. Life. So. Anyway, here's the SCOTUS’s basic rationale. The majority says that disqualifying a candidate for insurrection can only occur when Congress passes legislation. Okay, quick question: if Congress does decide to pass that legislation to disqualify a candidate for insurrection, what if he sends his mob to storm Congress to stop them from passing that legislation? Does that count as insurrection? Or do they have to pass more legislation about that before the next mob shows up? I'm just asking, because clearly you guys haven't put any thought into any of this stuff. *** NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 3/5/2024 12:49 AM ET SETH MEYERS: So the Court didn't actually touch the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Of course, they didn't. Any rational human who isn't currently a Republican officeholder or member of an insurrection-themed choir can see with their own eyes or with a pair of googly eyes that it was obviously an insurrection. The Court stayed away from that question the same way you react when your wife asks if you think her sister is hot. "What? You have a sister? I don't even remember what she looks like."  With all that said, I'm afraid the headlines from this ruling are going to be misleading because on the one hand, the Court ruled unanimously that Trump can stay on the ballot, which makes it sound like even the liberal justices said no candidate can ever be disqualified for engaging in insurrection but that's not what they said. There was basically a second, much more divided ruling from the Court's conservatives that went much further and said only Congress can disqualify a candidate.  BIANNA GOLODRYGA: The specific question at hand: did the Colorado Supreme Court error in ordering president trump excluded from the 2024 presidential ballot? Well, that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed as yes. But from there, we see some divisions among the justices… JESSICA SCHNEIDER: Where there was that 5-4 split was in the particulars, five of the justices here, the majority, so that's what rules, said that states can’t unilaterally decide to take presidents or any federal officers off the ballot, and instead that's a decision that Congress would have to make in the form of legislation to decide which candidates could be disqualified by the 14th Amendment's so-called insurrection ban. MEYERS: So, basically, you have to read the fine print on the ruling to find out just how dangerous and extreme the ruling from the Court's conservatives was. It's like when you play McDonald's Monopoly and you think you won, but then you turn it over, and there's an asterisk that says, "Winning's only available in states that begin with the letters X, Y, or Z. Not including fictional states such as Xanadu except for Zanzibar, which is real despite the fact that it sounds fake and winners must collect proceeds between the months of Marchuary and Augvember in the year of our Lord 3,075 million unless Congress votes. Then you can do whatever you want."  The Court's liberals seemed furious at this ruling. They wrote that the conservative “majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office” because we all know Republicans in Congress would never vote to disqualify a Republican candidate who engaged in insurrection. The Court's conservatives essentially gave all future insurrectionists the green light to run for and hold public office, which means it's up to us, the voters, to stop them just like we did in 2020, 2024 is the sequel it's 2 Fast 2 Furious except it's called— DONALD TRUMP: Too big to rig. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

'60 Minutes' Hit Piece on Moms for Liberty: 'Extreme Right-Wing Hate Speech'

By: Tim Graham — March 5th 2024 at 11:15
Scott Pelley is most notorious in recent years as the willing facilitator of Joe Biden interviews. He gently guides the president through an interview like an usher takes to your seat. But that’s not what conservative activists get from Pelley. They get trashed as “extremists” hurting people with “hate speech.” The subject on Sunday night was “book bans” in public schools, and the enemy du jour was Moms for Liberty, who threatens the ideological objectives of public-school teachers and librarians. As usual, the leftists are presented as non-ideological champions of knowledge, and the right-wingers are bumbling, evasive villains. Here’s the top-of-show summary: SCOTT PELLEY (voiceover): There were more than 3,000 book bans in public schools last year -- 1,000 more than the year before. We went to one conservative southern town to hear how they're turning the page. DICK GEIER, Beaufort school board member: Parents have the right to determine what their children are taught and what they're allowed to read. But what we're having a problem with is parents that want to determine what other parents' rights are for their children to read what they want. This is the leftist boilerplate: Librarians get to pick the books, and conservatives aren’t allowed to tell “other parents” what to check out of the library. Pelley trashed any protests:  “A few activists, agitated by conspiracy theories, threatened librarians and board members, calling them "groomers," extreme right-wing hate speech meant to brand opponents as molesters grooming children for sex.” Later, Pelley underlined his point: "Critics of the book ban said they knew what "groomer" meant. And they saw it as a threat to people of color and the LGBTQ community."   Pelley described Moms for Liberty with the usual C-word: “Conservative, anti-teachers unions, Moms for Liberty is part of the pushback against the diversity and inclusion movement. ‘Moms’ supports new Florida laws that limit lessons on race and forbid lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity though high school.” The political battleground is conservative vs. the "diversity and inclusion movement." The hilarity is that the Left can't handle diversity of opinions and hate any inclusion of a conservative counterpoint. But Pelley made it even worse: "Ultimately, Beaufort confronted fear and ignorance with civility and knowledge." As usual, CBS avoided any actual exploration of what content might be objectionable. Here's how Pelley dismissed Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, as she tried to show him Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe:  Tiffany Justice read from sexually explicit books written for older teens, but found in a few lower schools. Most people wouldn't want them in a lower school. But in a tactic of outrage politics, Moms for Liberty takes a kernel of truth and concludes these examples are not rare mistakes, but a plot to sexualize children. It's easier to mock a supposedly unfounded plot to sexualize children if you avoid discussing the graphic sexual images Justice is trying to show to CBS. In the end, Pelley concludes with a quote from a "banned" book, which implies that it's wrong to challenge librarians: "There are no wrong books. What`s wrong is the fear of them." As usual, no one explored which books the librarians don't select, like maybe "anti-trans" books of Mark Levin trashing the Democrats for hating America. That kind of "book ban" is just the natural order of things. One book that was banned and restored by Beaufort, South Carolina, schools was Bernard Malamud’s “The Fixer,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about antisemitism. In its pages, the book’s hero shares a message that applies to the book's own banning. https://t.co/UIsEGhHXlT pic.twitter.com/dP9FBlwZjb — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 4, 2024
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Here’s the Best SCOTUS Meltdowns on MSNBC’s Rich, White, Liberal, Wine Mom Story Hour

By: Curtis Houck — March 5th 2024 at 12:48
MSNBC’s Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace — which can be affectionately referred to as Rich, White, Liberal, Wine Mom Story Hour — serves as a meeting house for liberal activist groups and the kind of apocalyptic fear-mongering the left decries as supposedly undergirding conservative media. Naturally, Wallace and company were unhinged Monday as the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion that Donald Trump cannot be thrown off state ballots. Over two segments, Wallace and her doom-filled panelists blasted the “humble bragginess” of the Court for “dodg[ing] the facts of January 6”, putting “its thumb on the scale for Donald Trump”, and refusing “to deal with the whole insurrection thing” to “instead” grant “Trump a second gift on a constitutional technicality” as “[h]is insurrectionist accomplices in the Congress are ascendent”.  In turn, one argued, the Court behaved like segregationists shuttering Radical Reconstruction after the Civil War, plunging America into another “dark period” like the one that lasted from the 1870s “until the mid-20th century”. Below is a Notable Quotables-style round-up of all the zaniness, presented in no particular order. ACTUALLY, the REAL Ruling Was 5-4! Oh, and ACB Doesn’t Know What She’s Doing! Former Trump-Mueller probe official Andrew Weissmann: “[T]he reason this is a 5-4 decision is where it sort of went....The reason it’s 5-4...was that [the majority] said this applies not just to the presidency, but all federal office holders. Technically, what was before them was just the President, but the big sort of 5-4 split was that the majority said only — it’s not that the states can’t do it, it’s that only Congress can do it...No room...for the Courts...to step in. That’s the part where Amy Coney Barrett said, look, why do we need to reach that? You are sort of needlessly inflaming in a political year, the issue when we — our job in the Court should be to try to just decide this issue and lower the volume.” Host Nicolle Wallace: “Lowering the volume by not weighing in, Tim Heaphy, on whether he is or is not an insurrectionist?” — Conversation at 4:04 p.m. Eastern. Wallace Unhinged: SCOTUS ‘Doesn’t Want to Deal With the Whole Insurrection’, Stuck ‘on Earth 2’     “I guess what’s so amazing — I’ve been back in the chair six days and this is the second day where another body is — is — I guess it’s the same body — doesn’t want to deal with the whole insurrection thing, doesn’t want to deal with the extraordinary nature of what Trump did. They’re not allegations, Trump carried out an insurrection. By — by November, it’ll be part of his convention video, right? I mean, it’s — it’s who he is, he’s running as an insurrectionist. He’s running on pardoning his fellow insurrectionists. His insurrectionist accomplices in the Congress are ascendent. The people who aren’t quite as into it are either gone, out of office, or retiring and resigning. And now, you’ve got the Supreme Court living over on Earth 2 where maybe that didn’t happen, maybe not, the voters will get to see all the facts in the case against him.” — Wallace, 4:08 p.m. Eastern. Court ‘Carrying Water...for’ Trump, ‘Doesn’t’ Care About ‘Wrongfully Accused’ Americans “It’s one of the great mysteries is, for those of us who thought — and I know we’ve been talking about this for two years now, that the Court was sensitive to plummeting approval ratings, to a complete lack of confidence from the public. You know, we all thought, this is a Court that knows how to pump the brakes. This is a Court that knows how to do a little razzle dazzle to confuse us about the fact that it certainly is carrying water, I think now we can say, for one person and doesn’t carry water for multiple criminal defendants ever, some of whom are wrongfully accused...[I]t’s not an accident that it’s the women who are taking the position that this is really a question of institutional integrity, confidence in the institution...[T]here is a really interesting split between those who are deeply worried about how this impacts the institution...and the folks in that kind of majority, the — the folks who signed the per curiam and say nothing else, who don’t seem to be bothered at all about the fact that the election is coming, they’re not making proclamations about the insurrection.” — Longtime Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick, 4:16 p.m. Eastern. Glaude, Wallace: How Is It Possible That ANYONE Could Vote for Trump?!?!     Wallace: “So, Eddie, we don’t know what else Jack Smith has developed, but we know from this probe...the attack was premeditated, never planned to leave. He started declaring — he — it was impossible to lose...We know...the violence was something he was enthusiastic about because he knew ‘they’re not here to hurt me.’ We knew that risking Mike Pence’s life was part of the plan all along...Trump was fine with it. And we know that the people who carried out the acts are people that Trump plans to pardon so that they’re at the ready should he need them again. What part of this is there any suspense about in this country?”“ Princeton University’s Eddie Glaude: “I have no idea, to be honest with you. And what I’ve been trying to understand and figure out, with your help, what’s the motivation behind it all? What are the fears that block it — block us from holding this man accountable? Is it the millions of Americans that — that seem to support him? Is it the fear that somehow the very fabric of the country will be ripped apart? What does it mean for us to willingly risk the very foundation of the rule of law for this guy, for what they’ve done? I mean, so, the evidence has been before us, and we can go through it over and over again.” Wallace: “Yeah.” Glaude: “I don’t know why Jack Smith didn’t, you know, charge him, Andrew. You might know. I don’t know why — it’s — it’s baffling. And from my vantage point — right — it just shows that some people are above the law.” — Unhinged back and forth, 4:27 p.m. Eastern. J6 Committee Hack: Despite Court Ignoring ‘Core Facts’, It Found Trump WAS an Insurrectionist! “[The Court’s ruling] doesn’t touch the core facts, Nicolle. The Supreme Court decides questions of law, not questions of fact. They, as Andrew just explained, found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could not be invoked by a state government. It has to be invoked by Congress. The — some of the justices went further and said they’ll take enabling legislation. But what America should take away is that’s a question of law, not a question of fact. The Supreme Court didn’t find that Colorado was wrong in its finding that a former President engaged in insurrection. They actually found that he did, several states have similarly found, much as our committee recommended. And those are the allegations, the factual allegations that are going to come before federal juries, barring a Supreme Court ruling on an immunity question, down the road. So, it’s a victory for the president because it keeps them on the ballot. It just doesn’t touch really the core issue, whether or not what he did on and whether January 6 was criminal. We found that it was. The special counsel has alleged that it is, and ideally a jury will get to decide that question in some months.” — January 6 Committee lead investigator Tim Heaphy, 4:05 p.m. Eastern. Justices Are Plunging U.S. into ‘Dark’ Time Refusing to Hold ‘Traitors’ Accountable Glaude: “I keep thinking about the historical parallels.  I’m thinking about the Civil War amendments, I’m thinking about Radical Reconstruction between 1863 and 1877. And I’m thinking about the context of the 14th Amendment in response to Andrew Johnson’s refusal to hold the South accountable. To hold — I mean, we have literally traitors who are running for office, who are taking hold of the reins of power in the South, after leaving over 600,000 people on the battlefield dead. And people are, like, “no, we have to hold these folks accountable.” And so, the Civil War amendments emerge in the context — Section 3 — emerges in the context to hold folk accountable. And here, we have in this context — right — a hesitance — that is, a reticence, a refusal this man, and those folk who engaged in an insurrection. It’s a historical echo that has all — that screams with irony...[W]e’re at this inflection point, and what’s so striking about the moment in the context of the collapse of Radical Reconstruction is that we went into a dark period that didn’t get un — that didn’t open up until the mid-20th century...[T]he Courts played a central role in that dark — in — in ushering that dark period. And, here we are in this moment again, and it seems to me — I’m not a lawyer, Andrew, but it seems to me that the Court is playing another central role in ushering the shadows.” Wallace: “Well, and I mean, it’s not the only echo, right? What Jack Smith has charged also draws on some of the legal toolkit that emerged from this stain on our country’s history.” — Conversation at 4:11 p.m. Eastern. Whining That the Court Gave Trump ‘Second Gift on a Constitutional Technicality’ “[O]n the very same day that the disgraced ex-President was supposed to go on trial in a federal courthouse for his efforts to end democracy as we know it — that little January 6 insurrection — the highest Court in the land today kept him on the ballot in a ruling that dodges the facts of January 6 and Trump’s role in it. But, instead, the Supreme Court handed Trump a second gift on a constitutional technicality. In an unsigned opinion, the justices say that states do not have the power to bar candidates from running for federal office....Now, that Court found that Trump did engage in insurrection by trying to overturn the will of the voters by any means possible, including violence...[T]he Supreme Court’s decision today does not touch on either the question of whether Trump is or is not an insurrectionist, or whether the text of Section 3 applies to him. Instead, it says that only Congress has the power to do anything or to enforce the 14th Amendment....In a separate opinion, the liberal justices blasted the majority for closing the door on the possibility of federal courts disqualifying Trump or any other candidate who would engage in an insurrection[.]” — Wallace, 4:00 p.m. Eastern. Cowardly Ruling Was ‘Most...Humble Bragginess’ Ever, Placed ‘Thumb on the Scale’ for Trump     “[O]n the one hand, you have the Court performing what looks like some version of institutional humility, right? ‘Who are we to decide whether an insurrection happened,’ right? ‘Who are we to decide these complicated questions. Congress has to decide.’ That looks like it’s a kind of democracy-expanding, democracy-affirming move and it’s very much, I think, in line, you know, with the we’re umpires, balls and strikes people, we do as little as possible. I guess I would just note two things in response to that. One is, and this comes up in the concurrence that the three liberals offer, which is they literally name check Dobbs. All you needed to do was do what Chief Justice Roberts said we do in Dobbs, which is decide as little as possible. The Court clearly did not do that today. They foreclosed a whole bunch of different avenues. But it’s also — and this is where it’s really sneaky, the Court doesn’t actually tell us what that enabling legislation would look like...[I]t is both the most braggy, humility and the most sort of humble bragginess in the history of humility. It’s strange for them to want to stay out of it while yet putting its thumb on the scale for Donald Trump.” — Lithwick, 4:09 p.m. Eastern.   Kvetching About the Court Trying ‘To Help’ Trump Win the Election “There is a stay that is delaying the case that was going to start today. So, these are two wins that are being given by this court. There’s — there’s no way that the three justices in the — in the — you know, sort of, essentially the dissent today, the liberal justices — think that the timing is appropriate. There’s no reason to have delayed it, so you really end up with a Supreme Court, even if you want to think there’s some merit to this case, not — it’s hard to disaggregate it and not see the Court in its two cases saying, what can we do to help Donald Trump? We are going to make sure that this will only be decided not in a court of law, but in the court of spin and disinformation where Donald Trump lives, and that there will actually not be sort of legal accountability because the Court is removing that, either in this decision or in its immunity decision, because they basically are saying we’re not hearing that and we’re sitting on that, so the chances of it going in court could be zero.” — Weissmann, 4:15 p.m. Eastern. Time to Get Over SCOTUS ‘Disappointment’, ‘Call Ten Friends’ to Get Biden Reelected! “I’m going to say something that sounds cynical, but I think is hopeful, which is — and I think this is echoing what everyone else is saying. For those of us who imported all of our hopes and dreams into the Supreme Court intervening in some heroic way, it’s a disappointment, just as the kicking the can down the road on the immunity case is a disappointment. But I think Tim just said and you just said, and it’s important, there’s nothing that is going to happen in another case — I don’t want to say nothing — there’s a lot that’s going to happen — but it’s not dispositive, because what the select committee found was dispositive. The House impeachment was dispositive. Maine, Illinois, Colorado, all determined he committed the acts he committed. So, instead of having magical thinking about the Court giving us some reason to believe, I think it’s time to say, good, the Court utterly disappointed us. Now, we’ve got to call ten friends and make this happen at the polls.” — Lithwick, 4:30 p.m. Eastern.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

After Colorado Ballot Case, Reid Worries About 12-Year Old Presidents

By: Alex Christy — March 5th 2024 at 12:57
MSNBC’s Joy Reid reacted on Monday to the Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado’s primary ballot with The ReidOut’s signature lack of reason as she warned that the Court has opened the door to 12-year old presidents. Reid began by claiming the Court’s three liberals have divine qualities, “I'm sorry but the three dissenters, my three amigas, as I call them, they give me life, I’m sorry, they give me life everlasting, every time they write something it’s like boom shacka lacka, I love it.”     In this case, the liberals wrote a concurrence, not a dissent, but important details aside, Reid read from the decision, “It says ‘The case raises the question of whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.’” Turning to NYU law professor Kenji Yoshino, Reid then read the Constitution’s provisions that require the president to be at least 35 years old, be a naturally born citizen, and have lived in the country for at least 14 years. After she finished the reading, she asked, “So, if States can't enforce Section 3 of Article 14, can they enforce that? Couldn't a 12-year-old say 'I'm running for president,' or Arnold Schwarzenegger? Could a state knock them off the ballot? Because that's a federal office. They would be running for president. If the states can't enforce it, can they enforce this?” Thirty-five is 35 and it is greater than 12. Austria is Austria, not the United States. These are indisputable facts of math and political geography. In a free country, whether someone is guilty of a crime they have not even been charged with is not an indisputable fact, yet that is basically what the Colorado Supreme Court argued. The liberals justices Reid claim give her "everlasting life" would not agree with her on this. Here is a transcript for the March 4 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 3/4/2023 7:12 PM ET JOY REID: Absolutely and I'm sorry but the three dissenters, my three amigas as I call them, they give me life, I’m sorry, they give me life everlasting, every time they write something it’s like boom shacka lacka, I love it. This is another thing, let me read, this is from section, this is from the reading—the ruling. It says “The case raises the question of whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.” Okay, so if that's the case, let me come to you Kenji, first, Yoshino, first. In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, now I'm playing play lawyer on TV, it says “no person shall except for a natural born citizen or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, nor shall any Person be eligible who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” So, if States can't enforce Section 3 of Article 14, can they enforce that? Couldn't a 12-year-old say “I'm running for president,” or Arnold Schwarzenegger? Could a state knock them off the ballot? Because that's a federal office. They would be running for president. If the states can't enforce it, can they enforce this?  KENJI YOSHINO: Yeah, absolutely, if I want Taylor Swift or Prince Harry to be president, two figures that I know are near and dear to my colleague Professor Murray's heart, then why shouldn't I be able to vote for them as well?  So, Chief Justice Roberts has an answer to that in saying the 14th Amendment was a part of the Reconstruction Revolution that gave a lot more power to the federal government, but whether or not that's a sufficient answer I think is a really important question for us to be asking. And there's certainly a stark textual contrast in between the obviously self-executing provisions like you need to be 35 years old or you need to be a natural born citizen on the one hand, and you can't have engaged in, by the way, an insurrection as an oath breaker, right, on the other. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

The View: ‘Everyone Belongs at a Drag Show!’ ‘Everybody’ Wears Drag!

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 5th 2024 at 13:52
Drag queen RuPaul Andre Charles was The View’s special guest on Tuesday’s show to promote his new book and TV show. Amid their conversation, ABC co-host Sara Haines broached the topic of public outrage and backlash to drag shows at libraries and other events for kids. According to her, “Everyone belongs at a drag show.” Charles also proclaimed that everyone, including you dear reader, was wearing drag every day; possibly right now! “One of the things that appeals about a drag show and often the community, this is a community that took time to find clarity to see themselves to be authentic when it wasn't one actor on the stage, they had to pave their own way. So, I've always found everyone belongs at a drag show,” Haines proclaimed. Does “everyone” include kids, Sara? It’s worth the reminder that Haines admitted back in January that she hid the fact that Donald Trump was president from her kids. “I literally had to hide news for four years while Donald Trump was in. Because as they're learning what a president of the United States is, I didn't want to say, 'yeah and that's him right there,'" she said (She later whined about people reporting on it).     Charles played off of Haines and insisted that everyone on Earth was wearing drag because they got dressed every day and were putting on an act to appease everyone else. “Well, listen, you're born naked and the rest is drag. Everybody is playing a role, everyone. When you get out of the shower you put on your drag,” he argued. He went on to defend drag as “art” and said that it was for people who didn’t take themselves too seriously: So, here's the thing, art doesn't have to explain itself. Drag is art. Here's the thing, drag is -- pokes fun at the -- that stage play that I was talking about earlier, the roles that we play. It's there to remind you, do not take yourself too seriously. Don't take yourself too seriously. [Applause] Now, there are things that you should take seriously. Take kindness serious. You can take love serious. Take sweetness seriously but don't take yourself too seriously. The conversation devolved into him taking swipes at those who opposed sexualized drag shows for kids. He asserted that “the people who want to go up against all that are afraid of our light, of our laughter, of our joy, of our dancing, our music.” Adding that drag was “the antidote to all of this negativity. What we -- our biggest -- our biggest tool in fighting all that is our love and our joy. So do more of that.” Co-host Joy Behar agreed by suggesting, “They're jealous because they see you guys having so much fun.” Moderator Whoopi Goldberg ended the segment by chiding drag show critics about how far they couldn’t go to ban them: “You know what the thing is that I particularly love, is you can ban the drag shows, but you're not coming in my house to turn my TV off. Now are you? No, you're not!” No one was trying to do that, Whoopi. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 5, 2024 11:37:53 a.m. Eastern (…) SARA HAINES: Well, Drag Race is one of the most popular shows on television right now. RUPAUL ANDRE CHARLES: You mean there are other shows? [Laughter] HAINES: None that I've seen. [laughter] But this is all happening while simultaneously we're watching some places in this country ban drag shows. Now, I want to know your thoughts because to me having -- One of the things that appeals about a drag show and often the community, this is a community that took time to find clarity to see themselves to be authentic when it wasn't one actor on the stage, they had to pave their own way. So, I've always found everyone belongs at a drag show. What do you think of this? CHARLES: Well, listen, you're born naked and the rest is drag. Everybody is playing a role, everyone. When you get out of the shower you put on your drag. Right? So, here's the thing, art doesn't have to explain itself. Drag is art. Here's the thing, drag is -- pokes fun at the -- that stage play that I was talking about earlier, the roles that we play. It's there to remind you, do not take yourself too seriously. Don't take yourself too seriously. [Applause] Now, there are things that you should take seriously. Take kindness serious. You can take love serious. Take sweetness seriously but don't take yourself too seriously. And the people who want to go up against all that are afraid of our light, of our laughter, of our joy, of our dancing, our music; that is the antidote to all of this negativity. What we -- our biggest -- our biggest tool in fighting all that is our love and our joy. So do more of that. JOY BEHAR: I think they're jealous because they see you guys having so much fun. CHALES:  I think so too. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: But you know what – You know what the thing is that I particularly love, is you can ban the drag shows, but you're not coming in my house to turn my TV off. Now are you? No, you're not!
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MRC’s Brent Bozell Joins FBN’s Varney in Mocking Media Reaction to SCOTUS Trump Ballot Decision

By: NB Staff — March 5th 2024 at 13:53
On Tuesday, MRC President Brent Bozell appeared on the Fox Business’s Varney & Company to mock the leftist media’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot.  After playing a brief montage of hosts and pundits losing their minds over the decision, Stuart Varney threw it to Bozell to comment on the craziness. Varney questioned “Did these people really believe that one state should decide who’s on the ballot in the other 49 states?”  Bozell responded this was another example of Trump breaking the brains of the media elite: “Even left-wingers in the Supreme Court said this is ridiculous and threw it out.” Bozell added that the media reaction was “Trump delusion….They cannot believe this man is still on the ballot.”     Later in the segment Varney and Bozell broke down President Joe Biden’s “new basement strategy” of only talking to friendly media outlets. VARNEY: The President’s going after Donald Trump in an interview with the New Yorker. He says “losers who are losers are never graceful. I just think that he’ll do anything to try to win if and when I win, I think he’ll contest it no matter what the result is.” Brent, I’m not so concerned about what the president is saying, but why wasn’t this interview on camera?  BOZELL: Yeah, you know, Stuart, I thought the line that Dr. Phil gave — I think it was on a Fox show last week — was perfect. Talking about the medical exam where he refused to take a cognitive test. And Dr. Phil said “anyone who has nothing to hide doesn’t hide anything.” And this man is not just hiding, he’s hiding himself from the American people now. He went to the friendliest of friendly outlets, the New Yorker magazine, that has done puff pieces on him in the past. He went to them where he wasn’t on camera, you couldn’t see him, you couldn’t hear his answers, and that’s the kind of interview he’s going to give.  The following is a transcript of the full segment as aired on Fox Business’s March 5 edition of Varney & Company:  Fox Business Varney & Company March 5, 2024 HOST STUART VARNEY: The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to keep Trump on the ballot did not sit well with the left-leaning media. Watch this.  [Begin montage]  MSNBC HOST NICOLLE WALLACE: Now the body is — I guess it’s the same body, doesn’t want to deal with the whole insurrection thing, doesn’t want to deal with the extraordinary nature of what Trump did.  PRINCETON PROFESSOR EDDIE GLAUDE: What’s the motivation behind it all? What are the fears that block it, block us from holding this man accountable? It just shows that some people are above the law.  REPRESENTATIVE DONNA EDWARDS: Well, I don’t think it was a big win for America.  DANA BASH: Unfortunately for America, the Court isn’t necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. [End montage]  STUART VARNEY: I found it hard to keep a straight face being a member of the media myself. The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell joins me now. Brent, did these people really believe that one state should decide who’s on the ballot in the other 49 states? Is that what they really believe?  MRC PRESIDENT L. BRENT BOZELL: Yeah. This is Trump delusion. Look, look, you know anybody who looked at this case, you didn’t need to be a lawyer to recognize that states don’t have the right to run federal elections. And the fact that it was a 9-0 vote. So many of these votes — have you noticed during the Obama administration —  so many of these were 9-0 votes, even left-wingers in the Supreme Court said this is ridiculous and threw it out. Now this is Trump delusion. Another one is that you’re seeing they’re all talking about how the — how Trump is a danger to democracy. Where did this start? It started about two months ago. It’s the echo-chamber. They’re all echoing each other’s words. So right now, you know they’re — it’s like that movie where the heads turn around and explode off the bodies. They cannot believe this man is still on the ballot.  VARNEY: Okay. The President’s going after Donald Trump in an interview with the New Yorker He says “losers who are losers are never graceful. I just think that he’ll do anything to try to win if and when I win, I think he’ll contest it no matter what the result is.” Brent, I’m not so concerned about what the president is saying, but why wasn’t this interview on camera?  BOZELL: Yeah, you know, Stuart, I thought the line that Dr. Phil gave — I think it was on a Fox show last week — was perfect. Talking about the medical exam where he refused to take a cognitive test. And Dr. Phil said “anyone who has nothing to hide doesn’t hide anything.” And this man is not just hiding, he’s hiding himself from the American people now. He went to the friendliest of friendly outlets, the New Yorker magazine, that has done puff pieces on him in the past. He went to them where he wasn’t on camera, you couldn’t see him, you couldn't hear his answers, and that’s the kind of interview he’s going to give.  VARNEY: That’s how it’s done.  BOZELL: No, no, no, the man who — he’s hiding something.  VARNEY: It’s the new basement strategy. Hide him. Brent Bozell, I’m so sorry it’s so short. His stuff is always good. Bring you back soon, okay? Got it. BOZELL: Thanks Stuart.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

WATCH: Michael Knowles Calls for Boycott Against 'Major Drug Retailers Killing Kids'

By: Tom Olohan — March 5th 2024 at 15:04
The Daily Wire host Michael Knowles denounced an appalling action taken by two of the nation’s largest pharmacies to further the left’s brutal pro-abortion agenda.  Host Knowles condemned CVS and Walgreens’s plans to sell abortion pills. On the March 4 edition of The Michael Knowles Show, Knowles suggested that there was still a chance that conservatives could save lives by convincing the pharmacies to reverse this policy—but doing so would only prove successful if conservatives “launch an even somewhat successful boycott of CVS and Walgreens.”  Knowles went on to list stores such as Walmart and Rite Aid before emphasizing that protesting the pharmacies’ leftist abortion push was far more important than previous boycotts. “This issue is far more important because here we’re not just talking about some beer company embracing sexual deviancy, he emphasized. “Here we’re talking about major drug retailers killing kids and becoming complicit in the majority of infanticide cases in the United States, that’s a much bigger deal.”  These two pharmacies plan to start facilitating the deaths of unborn babies in several states. CVS plans to initially sell the abortion pill in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, while Walgreens plans to initially sell it in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California and Illinois.  Knowles analyzed that this partial rollout was an indicator that a potential boycott could be successful. “Now CVS and Walgreens are not introducing the abortion drug in every one of their stores. They’re doing it just in select locations, so they know this is controversial, they know people might not like this,” Knowles said, before adding: “There’s still a decent chance that they could reverse this policy.” Knowles asked his viewers, “What are we going to do about it?”   The Daily Wire host made the stakes clear before his call to action. “I’m talking about the abortion drug that is now used in most abortions in the United States where women ingest poison and it poisons the baby and it causes the baby to die and then they miscarry and they don’t have to raise a baby or give the baby up for adoption or anything else. It just kills the baby,” Knowles said.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818-460-7477), CBS News (212-975-3247) and NBC News (212- 664-6192) and demand they cover CVS and Walgreens selling drugs that kill unborn children.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Doritos Hires Transgender Brand Ambassador: Bud Light Campaign Repeat?

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 5th 2024 at 14:18
Doritos absolutely did not learn anything from Bud Light’s failed attempt at promoting their product with a queer freak. Doritos just shot itself in the foot after hiring a transgender brand ambassador. Samantha Hudson, a biological man presenting as a very unattractive woman, was just hired to promote the triangular chips in Spain. Many are comparing this campaign to the failed Bud Light campaign after it hired transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to promote the beer last year.  Hudson, whose real name is Iván González Ranedo, was featured on a show called “Crunch Talks.”  In a 53 second clip which has now gained tons of traction online, Hudson munched on Doritos and the talked about being proud of who you are. MRC employee Luis Cornelio, a Spanish speaker, translated the conversation.  Hudson asked the girl he was with how she handles criticism from people on social media. “The only advice I will tell people always, and the one I’ve been applying always, is to be yourself. With the things we are recording today, Doritos is echoing my advice—dare to do whatever you want and don’t be afraid of what people may opine, right? People don’t faze me. Kisses to those people,” she told him. I wonder why Hudson might be struggling with criticism ...  Formerly Hudson has tweeted about his desires to rape children. “I want to do thuggish things, like stick a 12-year-old girl up my ass. Hudson’s also previously noted that he advocates for the “destruction and for the annihilation of the traditional family." Here’s a couple more of his tweets that were translated using Google Translate. In response, many people plan to boycott the chips just like they did when Bud Light hired someone who spends his days mocking women. “This is your poster boy @Doritos?  I’m not surprised. Garbage products with a garage human being selling your junk for fat overweight Americans,” one wrote. “This is horrifying and unacceptable. Cancel Doritos and Sam Hudson now,” another said while many others said “get woke, go broke.” Libs of TikTok also commented on the partnership. “Time to Bud Light Doritos. They now have a self described p*do as their brand ambassador. Unreal,” the account wrote.  If this partnership ends up being like Bud Light when it hired a pedo trannie, there’s no doubt that Doritos will be the next to succumb to “get woke, go broke.”    
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

16 AGs Call Out YouTube for ‘Illegal’ Label on Pro-Life Message: ‘It Must Stop’

By: Luis Cornelio — March 5th 2024 at 15:16
YouTube has been put on notice after placing labels on videos against abortion and downplaying the dangers of such medical procedures ahead of a Supreme Court case on abortion pills. On Monday, 16 state attorneys general demanded that YouTube cease “misleading” banners placed on pro-life videos, including from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). “It must stop,” they warned in a letter addressed to YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, effectively calling out YouTube’s bias. “Your bias against pro-life and pro-woman messages is un-American; inconsistent with the liberties protected by the First Amendment; and, in this case, illegal,” the group of attorneys general led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird. The attorneys general warned that YouTube-placed banners aimed at thwarting pro-life videos are not covered by Section 230, opening the door for imminent lawsuits. “We also note that, by editing and posting the false warning label itself, YouTube has no immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” they wrote. First reported by The Daily Signal, the letter came after YouTube targeted a video by legal advocacy group ADF. The pro-life legal advocacy group featured the harrowing story of Elizabeth Gillette—an activist and author who faced complications after undergoing a medical abortion without medical supervision. “The pain was so severe and I was so scared and I was bleeding so heavily I thought I was going to die,” a visibly emotional Gillette said in the minute-long YouTube clip. “There’s nothing like completely abandoned in the greatest moment of need. I didn’t have a nurse, I didn’t have a doctor.” In response to the video, YouTube placed a “context” banner under the video to define abortion. The context banner linked to the U.S. government National Library of Medicine website and peddled the demonstrably false claim: “The procedure is done by a licensed healthcare professional.” YouTube’s claim is detached from reality as the Food Drug Administration notoriously relaxed in 2016 the decades-long requirement that medical professionals perform medical abortions. Under the new procedure, women may receive abortion pills via virtual appointments and even by mail. This move ignited a legal battle that has made its way to the Supreme Court, with the justices scheduled to hear the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case on March 26. The 16 attorneys general suggested that YouTube’s false claim is at odds with the facts in the case. “Your notice contains false information about a central issue in a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court,” the state prosecutors wrote. “It also misleads women seeking information about abortion drugs, potentially endangering their lives. We demand that you remove or correct the notice immediately.” The attorneys general added: “The last sentence of the notice is both false and misleading. It suggests that chemical abortions are performed by trained professionals. They are not. Although surgical abortions are still typically ‘done by a licensed healthcare professional,’ under current FDA protocols chemical abortions are ‘done by’ pregnant women themselves.” The attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming also signed the letter. 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

Christian Group Ramps Up Pressure on Politico to Apologize for Anti-Christian Smear

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 5th 2024 at 15:56
On Tuesday, the Family Research Council rolled out a new effort to pressure left-wing Politico into apologizing for the anti-Christian hate their democracy investigator Heidi Przybyla spewed when she smeared all Christians as dangerous “extremist[s]” for believing that our rights come from God. In a letter to supporters, FRC president Tony Perkins slammed Przybyla’s non-apology article and announced a new campaign of mobile billboards to be stationed around Politico offices. “In response to our letter and public pressure, Pryzbyla released an article defending herself by saying that her statements were taken out of context: ‘Due to some clumsy words, I was interpreted by some people as making arguments that are quite different from what I believe,’” Perkins wrote.  “That's hardly an apology. Christians deserve more from Politico than to be accused of ‘misinterpreting’ what the journalist clearly said.” Perkins announced the “FRC is taking action. Starting today, FRC is running mobile billboards around Politico's offices in New York and Washington, D.C., demanding Politico stop their attack on religious freedom in America, which allows us to support and vote for candidates based upon our Christian faith.” Images of the mobile billboards provided to Town Hall’s Spencer Brown showed direct shots at Przybyla’s infamous comments on MSNBC’s All In. “Declaration of Independence for Dummies,” one billboard read, “…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” “Politico: Demonizing Christian voters. Attacking religious freedom,” said another.   NEW: @FRCdc mobile billboards hit the streets outside Politico and its parent company's offices. "It's all connected," @tperkins tells me of "the Left's coordinated use of 'Christian nationalism'... an intimidation game designed to silence Christians and suppress our votes." pic.twitter.com/t1gVXFjxc2 — Spencer Brown (@itsSpencerBrown) March 5, 2024   The letter went on to describe Przybyla’s comments as “not a one-off incident” but rather a “long-running pattern of the legacy media” to “target” “Bible-believing Christians.” “They want to silence us and push us out of the public square by making us feel like we are alone in our so-called ‘extreme’ views,” he said. That echoed an earlier letter FRC issued alongside Catholic Vote president Brian Burch in which they noted that American houses of worship had increasingly become the target of left-wing violence in recent years: In 2023, American places of worship experienced more than double the amount of violence than the year prior, according to a recent report on hostility against U.S. churches. Last year, a shooter targeted a Christian day school in Nashville, killing three nine-year-old students and three staff. Since May 2020, Catholic churches have endured more than 400 attacks – from having rocks and bricks thrown through their windows to arson, firebombing, and a growing number of incidents involving property defacement and destruction resulting in tens of millions of dollars in damages. “Make no mistake: It's all connected. The Left's coordinated use of ‘Christian nationalism’ and the rise in hostility against houses of worship. It's an intimidation game designed to silence Christians and suppress our votes,” Perkins added in an accompanying FRC press release about the campaign.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

The Left Has No Respect for Themselves, Others or Reality

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 5th 2024 at 17:14
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 just how far down the list of priorities the idea of respect is for the left. For starters, a group of girls played basketball on a pride flag painted court. To make matters worse, they wore thongs for the game and had their saggy butts bouncing around the whole time. Next up we saw a trans man ask the camera whether or not he should tuck his penis in when he wears female clothes. Talk about two examples of the word grotesque! We also saw a video where a herd of men walked down the street in red high heels in an attempt to protest male violence against women. The whole charade was just a stupid example of virtue signaling and all it did was make me cringe.  Cringe like the next dude: a robotics engineer manager who likes wearing heels and skirt suits to work in order to attempt to prove that “clothes have no gender.” Honestly masculinity has flown out the window for that freak and the next individual is attempting to catch it! She is trying very hard to become a man and documented her many months taking testosterone. She fails to respect the reality that she will never, no matter what chemicals she puts in her body or what types of surgeries she gets, be an actual man.  Next we saw a clip from the popular game show Jeopardy where contestants had to answer with “What are pronouns?” when the phrase “Xem, Xyrs, Xemself,” popped up in one of the categories. Finally we saw a video of a mom insisting that her toddler is nonbinary. Not only is she disrespecting biology but she’s abusing her child if you ask me.    
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC Teams With Cookie Monster to Help Biden WH, Vulnerable Dems on ‘Shrinkflation’

By: Curtis Houck — March 5th 2024 at 17:20
On Thursday’s Good Morning America (GMA), the superficial and unserious ABC News program cloaked itself in humor-tinged consumer reporting by using a recent Cookie Monster tweet to talk about the rise of shrinkflation in the current economy, but naturally absolved the Biden administration of responsibility and even eagerly touted the replies of two Democratic senators who happened to be in tough reelection fights. Worse yet, correspondent Trevor Ault went full partisan hack as he left out the party affiliation of both senators, Sherrod Brown (OH) and Bob Casey (PA).     The GMA co-hosts did their part with not one but two teases. In the first, co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos quipped: “Turns out, ‘s’ is for shrinkflation. Why Cookie Monster joined the outcry over high grocery prices.” In the second, co-host Robin Roberts boasted that Cookie Monster now has “Capitol Hill...responding.” The final member of the trio, Michael Strahan, had the lead-in: “And now to the economy and the outcry over shrinkflation with one Sesame Street character speaking out over high grocery prices.” Ault began by disarming viewers with some jokes: We’re hearing from one of the great economic minds of our time, the Cookie Monster, who is venting about paying more for less. And, actually, now, some politicians are weighing in too. We know the cookies are shrinking. Is it corporate greed or is it bad policy? This morning, the Cookie Monster has had enough. Then came the activism: “His beef with shrinkflation is getting attention on Capitol Hill after he posted: ‘Me hate shrinkflation. Me cookies are getting smaller.’” Instead of talking about inflation under President Biden and how, say, it paled in comparison to years before or explaining why the cartoonish image of “corporate greed” was such a lazy answer, Ault shacked up with Brown and Casey by touting their replies, sans their party (even though the Cookie Monster account hid Casey’s): AULT: Senator Sherrod Brown responded, “Me, too. People in my state of Ohio are fed up — they should get all the cookie they pay for.” COOKIE MONSTER [on Sesame Street, date N/A]: Yum, Mmmmmm Mmmmmm Mmmmmm. AULT: Shrinkflation is when companies make the size of their products smaller without cutting prices. A report from Pennsylvania Bob Casey found the size of some Oreo cookies has decreased by six percent since 2019. A family size of Wheat Thins has dropped 12 percent in weight. Channeling his colleague and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce, Ault gushed that “President Biden recently took aim at shrinkflation, calling it a ripoff,” and played a clip from a February video tweet. After again playing Casey communications director by proclaiming he “introduced a bill that would give the FTC and state attorneys general authority to crack down on shrinkflation.” “Even though inflation is down considerably from two years ago, a report...last month was worse than expected, fueling new worries...Republicans argue this is actually the fault of the President and Democrats’s economic policies. You may have noticed some shrinking happening with a lot of other products — cleaning products, coffee, frozen food,” he added in the only passages resembling anything close to an opposing view. Hours later, President Biden invoked Cookie Monster in a speech about the economy. It’s like this was all coordinated. To see the relevant ABC transcript from March 5, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America March 5, 2024 7:01:45 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: “S” Is for Shrinkflation; Cookie Monster’s Economic Outcry] GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Turns out, “s” is for shrinkflation. Why Cookie Monster joined the outcry over high grocery prices.  (....) 7:17 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; Cookie Monster Takes on “Shrinkflation”; “Sesame Street” Character’s Outcry Gets Response from Capitol Hill] ROBIN ROBERTS: Plus why Cookie Monster is speaking out against shrinkflation and how Capitol Hill is responding.  (....) 7:34 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; Cookie Monster Takes on “Shrinkflation”; “Sesame Street” Character’s Outcry Gets Response from Capitol Hill] MICHAEL STRAHAN: And now to the economy and the outcry over shrinkflation with one Sesame Street character speaking out over high grocery prices. Trevor Ault is here with the details. Good morning, Trevor. TREVOR AULT: Good morning, Michael. We’re hearing from one of the great economic minds of our time, the Cookie Monster — [STRAHAN LAUGHS] — who is venting about paying more for less. And, actually, now, some politicians are weighing in too. We know the cookies are shrinking. Is it corporate greed or is it bad policy? This morning the Cookie Monster has had enough. COOKIE MONSTER [on Sesame Street, date N/A]: Chocolate chip cookie important to me too. AULT: His beef with shrinkflation is getting attention on Capitol Hill after he posted: “Me hate shrinkflation. Me cookies are getting smaller.” Senator Sherrod Brown responded, “Me, too. People in my state of Ohio are fed up — they should get all the cookie they pay for.” COOKIE MONSTER [on Sesame Street, date N/A]: Yum, Mmmmmm Mmmmmm Mmmmmm. AULT: Shrinkflation is when companies make the size of their products smaller without cutting prices. A report from Pennsylvania Bob Casey found the size of some Oreo cookies has decreased by six percent since 2019. A family size of Wheat Thins has dropped 12 percent in weight. CHARMAIN AD NARRATOR: Try new Charmin Megaroll. It’s four times the sheet in one AULT: Even some Charmin toilet paper rolls now have 20 fewer sheets. President Biden recently took aim at shrinkflation, calling it a ripoff. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN [on 02/11/24]: Give me a break. The American public is tired of being played for suckers. AULT: Last week, Senator Casey introduced a bill that would give the FTC and state attorneys general authority to crack down on shrinkflation, even though inflation is down considerably from two years ago, a report on price released last month was worse than expected, fueling new worries on Wall Street. Now, Republicans argue this is actually the fault of the President and Democrats’s economic policies. You may have noticed some shrinking happening with a lot of other products — cleaning products, coffee, frozen food. You know how hard it is to quote Cookie Monster in a serious report? [PANEL LAUGHS] ROBERTS: You did it so well. AULT: Thank you. ROBERTS: What did you refer to him as? The economic — AULT: One of the great economic minds of our time. ROBERTS: Ah, yes. AULT: One of the only people that no Americans hate. ROBERTS: That’s true. STRAHAN: Mmm. AULT: Unifier, Cookie Monster. ROBERTS: The unifier. As are you, Trevor. As are you. Thank you.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

News Flash: Politicians Excel at Lying

By: Cal Thomas — March 5th 2024 at 17:32
Politicians aren’t good at much, but they do excel at one thing – lying. They lie about the border. Both parties refuse to acknowledge the danger of a growing and unsustainable debt (CNBC reports it’s increasing by $1 trillion about every 100 days). Consider. President Biden had his annual physical exam last week. When asked if a cognitive test was part of it, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated flatly, “No, because the doctor doesn’t believe he needs one.” If a police officer sees a car swerving, the officer will usually pull the driver over. If the driver smells of alcohol, the officer proposes a sobriety test. If the driver refuses, the driver can still be found guilty based on the appearance of drunk driving. What evidence would be necessary to conclude without a test that President Biden has cognitive issues? Falling down? Shuffling? Slurred speech? Forgetting names? Needing notes for the simplest of engagements? The public sees all these and more. Polls show a majority say Biden is too old for a second term. It’s not the age, but the condition of the mind. Devon Archer, a former business associate of Hunter Biden’s, testified last year that Hunter would occasionally put his father on speakerphone during business meetings, but that they never discussed business on the calls. Archer said the vice president was put on the phone only to help sell “the brand.” Hunter testified before the GOP-led House Oversight and Judiciary Committees last week, and, according to Chairman James Comer, citing the committee’s investigation, “Joe Biden, attended dinners, spoke on speakerphone, showed up to meetings, and had coffee with his son’s foreign business associates.” There was no explanation why Hunter, according to the New York Post, received a diamond reportedly worth $80, 000 and a new Porsche, or if any product or service was provided in exchange. Some critics are credibly claiming it was influence-buying. Hunter had previously said to business associates, “I’m sitting here with my Dad.” And there were possibly incriminating texts sent to business associates while he was “high or drunk.” Tony Bobulinski, another former business associate of Hunter Biden’s, testified before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees claiming what most people suspected, that the “big guy” who allegedly received 10 percent on every deal, was Joe Biden, but that he wasn’t “involved.” “I’m not drunk, officer, it was my tire alignment that caused the car to weave.” This recalls another president who was good at lying. Bill Clinton claimed he did not have sex with intern Monica Lewinsky. “There is nothing going on between us,” he asserted, as reported by Slate at the time. Later and under oath, Clinton was asked before a grand jury if he was still ( currently ) having sex with Lewinsky. His famous reply:“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the — if he — if‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not — that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.” Hairs then and now have never been split so finely. In 1998, several Clinton defenders left a Cabinet meeting with the president and buttressed his claims of innocence. The group was led by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who said: “ I believe that the allegations are completely untrue." Commerce Secretary William Daley said, “I’ll second that.” Education Secretary Dick Riley added, "I’ve already said that.” The same lying, dissembling and coverup is happening again from the more than 50 intelligence officers claiming material found on Hunter’s laptop was “Russian disinformation,” to Hunter’s reversal of previous lies, while he apparently continues to lie about other things and some Democrats claim there is nothing there. When it comes to Washington (the city, not George), if you never trust a politician you will never be disappointed.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS Reacts Badly to Trump’s 9-0 SCOTUS Win, Objects to Headlines of 'Unanimous' Ruling

By: Clay Waters — March 5th 2024 at 22:22
The PBS NewsHour on Monday reacted badly to the Supreme Court’s 9-0 body blow to liberal dreams of having Donald Trump removed from state ballots in November and thus denying voters their choice of presidential candidates. But PBS reporter William Brangham tried desperately to salvage the credibility of the dubious original case involving a bizarre (and now officially unconstitutional) ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, and also muddied the waters to deny the damage to liberal hopes that the unanimous verdict signified. Even as other liberal media outlets were initially dubious about Colorado’s election suppression in December, PBS’s Colorado ballot coverage was slanted in favor of the state’s vote denial. The appointed expert was Neal Katyal, who just happened to have served as solicitor general under President Obama, but with his partisan identification left unmentioned. PBS downplayed the inconvenient fact that Trump has not actually been convicted of insurrection by any court, however defined, while allotting tons of time to marginal dissenting angles from the liberal justices to hint that this 9-0 decision was kind of actually more of a 5-4 decision (which even if true, would still be a loss). Co-anchor Amna Nawaz: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the 14th Amendment does not allow individual states to remove former President Donald Trump from their ballots. Then co-anchor Geoff Bennett brought on reporter William Brangham to discuss the court ruling that only Congress, not states, could disqualify presidential candidates under the Constitution's “Insurrection Clause.” Brangham reminded viewers of the alleged “Republican voters” that pushed Colorado’s Supreme Court to call Trump an insurrectionist in violation of Section 3 of the 14th amendment and thus ineligible for high office. William Brangham: Remember, Geoff, this came out of a group of Republican voters in Colorado saying that January 6, to their mind, was clearly an insurrection, and that Donald Trump was the cheerleader of that insurrection....And [SCOTUS] basically said, you cannot have a system where a lot of different states are making this decision, because it would simply be a sort of ad hoc state-by-state basis. In their ruling, they said: "For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the states….” Bennett set his reporter up to probe the supposed weaknesses of the iron clad 9-0 ruling. Bennett: How did the court deal with a specific question of whether Donald Trump is an insurrectionist? Brangham certainly gave a lot of time to opposing viewpoints along the margins of a unanimous decision. Brangham: They didn't. They didn't bring it up in the hearing last month. They didn't bring it up in this ruling. There was some disagreement in the ruling today as to who gets to make that decision and when they make the decision. The four female justices -- it was interesting how it split on gender lines here -- all four female justices said that the ruling that states shouldn't be able to make this decision should have stood. But, Kagan, Sotomayor and Justice Jackson all took issue with the further breadth of this ruling, which they argue made it much harder to actually enforce Section 3, saying that Congress has to write a particular statute in order to enforce a part of the Constitution. It's very unusual. These three justices wrote that the other justices crafted this ruling to insulate themselves and Donald Trump. Brangham quoted the four justices’ partial dissent, then concluded the SCOTUS discussion with a plea for viewers to ignore the 9-0 headlines. Brangham: They are clearly not happy with this, something to remember when we see all these headlines that this was a unanimous ruling. This segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 3/4/24 7:03:19 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the 14th Amendment does not allow individual states to remove former President Donald Trump from their ballots. Geoff Bennett: In an unsigned opinion, the court said only that Congress, not states, can disqualify presidential candidates under the Constitution's so-called Insurrection Clause. The former president celebrated the decision. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: Essentially, you cannot take somebody out of a race because an opponent would like to have it that way. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it's the leading candidate. Whether it was the leading candidate or a candidate that was well down on the totem pole, you cannot take somebody out of a race. Geoff Bennett: And William Brangham joins us now. So, William, the court was unequivocal. States do not have the power to remove federal candidates from the ballot under the Insurrection Clause. Help us understand how the justices arrived at this ruling. William Brangham: Remember, Geoff, this came out of a group of Republican voters in Colorado saying that January 6, to their mind, was clearly an insurrection, and that Donald Trump was the cheerleader of that insurrection. And they cited this Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which is, as you mentioned, the Insurrection Clause. And it argues that, if you have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and then you engage in an insurrection after the fact, you can't hold office again. And so they appealed that all the way to the Colorado State Supreme Court, and they won. And Donald Trump was ruled that he has to be taken off the Republican primary ballot. The Supreme Court is what — they overturned that today. And they basically said, you cannot have a system where a lot of different states are making this decision, because it would simply be a sort of ad hoc state-by-state basis. In their ruling, they said: "For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the states. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand." It said states can choose to withhold and withdraw state candidates, not federal candidates. Geoff Bennett: So, tomorrow is Super Tuesday. Colorado is one of the many states holding a primary tomorrow, but the impact of this decision sweeps far beyond Colorado. Isn't that right? William Brangham: That's exactly right. Trump will be on the ballot in Colorado. They printed the ballots already and thought, OK, if the ruling comes in the other direction, those votes just won't get counted. That doesn't matter now. As you mentioned, there are over 30 states that were examining some kind of a challenge on 14th Amendment grounds to pull Donald Trump off their ballots. All of those go away now. Trump will be on the ballot in all the states. Geoff Bennett: How did the court deal with a specific question of whether Donald Trump is an insurrectionist? William Brangham: They didn't. They didn't bring it up in the hearing last month. They didn't bring it up in this ruling. There was some disagreement in the ruling today as to who gets to make that decision and when they make the decision. The four female justices — it was interesting how it split on gender lines here — all four female justices said that the ruling that states shouldn't be able to make this decision should have stood. But Kagan, Sotomayor and Justice Jackson all took issue with the further breadth of this ruling, which they argue made it much harder to actually enforce Section 3, saying that Congress has to write a particular statute in order to enforce a part of the Constitution. It's very unusual. These three justices wrote that the other justices crafted this ruling to insulate themselves and Donald Trump. I'm going to read a little bit of what they said. They wrote — quote — "The majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course." They are clearly not happy with this, something to remember when we see all these headlines that this was a unanimous ruling.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Column: Democracy-Denying Democrats Lose In Court

By: Tim Graham — March 6th 2024 at 05:56
The pro-Biden media perpetually pat themselves on the back. They are a gift to the people, the essence of democracy, as in “We inform the voters and then we expect the voters to make smart choices” (the ones we recommend). But when journalists lose, they have a disturbing tendency to argue democracy lost. On March 4, the Supreme Court unanimously disapproved of the Left’s latest desperate attempt to rip Donald Trump’s name off the ballot, pushed by blue states like Colorado and Illinois. Their novel theory was that the 14th Amendment contains Civil War-era verbiage about keeping “insurrectionists” off the ballot. To the average American, it might seem odd that it’s somehow “protecting democracy” to remove the Republican front-runner’s name from the ballot. That looks like throwing large obstacles in the way of democracy, not protecting it. After the 2020 election, the geniuses at Time magazine called it “fortifying democracy” when the “progressives” engaged in elaborate strategies to prevent Trump from victory. Journalists struggled to cope with this resounding legal defeat. CNN host Dana Bash told her frustrated liberal audience, “Unfortunately for America, the Court isn’t necessarily wrong that this is the way the Framers wanted it to be.” Those Framers, so annoying. At another point, professor Larry Sabato groused to Jim Acosta on CNN, “You can’t save people from themselves. If they’re determined to reelect him after he organized that insurrection, then there’s nothing to stop the people from doing that.” To sum up, democracy’s erstwhile defenders lament “the people are stupid.” Some hotheads, like Keith Olbermann decried the Supreme Court as “corrupt and illegitimate” and demanded it be “dissolved.” Who are the authoritarians now?  For now, the moping pundits are focused on those alleged idiots voting in primary elections, where Trump has dominated, but they’re probably also despondent over the latest polls from Democrat newspapers like The New York Times, that found Trump leading Biden by five points. Pollsters find Biden often loses to Trump in the swing states that will decide the race. He’s 21 points underwater on his approval rating. Forget inflation or immigration. Team Biden wants to stick to this arrogant “democracy” posturing as the singular issue of 2024. In a New Yorker puff piece by Evan Osnos, Biden strategist Mike Donilon, the “high priest of Bidenism,” claimed the fall campaign should center on what he calls the “freedom agenda.” The Democrats aren’t the ‘freedom” party, unless it’s the right to abortion or to place LGBT pornography in school libraries. Donilon predicted that as the election nears, “the focus will become overwhelming on democracy. I think the biggest images in people’s minds are going to be of January 6th.” And who is assigned the task of putting “images in people’s minds”? That would be the pro-Biden press. They could certainly argue that two entire years of the media putting January 6th “images in people’s minds” might have prevented a “red wave” in the midterm elections. But how does that cancel out all the other issues that matter to voters? Osnos reported that Biden was holding a note card with all of Trump’s trolling talk – his tweeting about “terminating” some voting rules in the Constitution, his joking with Sean Hannity about being a dictator on “Day One,” his description of illegal immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country.” All of these remarks go into heavy rotation (and exaggeration) in the left-wing press…and Biden is still losing. That might be because Democrats don’t want any democracy on many issues. They want debates shut down. That’s especially true of our “no equal time” press. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC's Morning Joe Cheers for Dems to Take Over Texas, Laments Delay

By: Brad Wilmouth — March 6th 2024 at 06:41
Promoting the series God Save Texas -- currently running on HBO -- MSNBC's Morning Joe regulars recently lamented that Democrats are not seizing control of Texas quickly enough as predicted by the media for decades. And, as The New Yorker's Lawrence Wright appeared on both Morning Joe and on PBS's Amanpour & Co. to promote the series (which he executive-produced), the liberal journalist exaggerated how gerrymandered Texas's congressional districts are while ignoring Democrat gerrymandering. On MSNBC, Wright recalled that The New Yorker editor David Remnick had expressed a cynical view of the state who "couldn't understand" why Wright lives in Austin. Host Joe Scarborough soon jumped in to claim that Texas "at times makes itself difficult to love for a lot of natives." After the BBC's Katty Kay asked why Texas is still not a Democrat-run state in spite of the demographics moving in that direction, the liberal journalist cracked that the state is behaving like it is "enchanted" and that the "spell" might soon be broken. He soon added: "And those trends -- Republicans in Texas or nationwide are terrified of. And it's one of the reasons that they've been jiggering the vote and gerrymandering and trying to hold on to power for as long as they can." Over on PBS in his interview with Amanpour, Wright misleadingly claimed that Austin has five congressional districts with only one held by a Democrat when, in fact, most of Austin is contained within two congressional districts, both of which are held by Democrats (the 35th and the 37th). He recalled: "...the Republicans in Texas have been scrambling to re-jigger the elections and, you know, continue to gerrymander the districts, Austin, where I live, the most liberal city in Texas, but it's got five congressmen -- four are Republicans. So that's what gerrymandering looks like in Texas." But as journalists fret about how many congressional seats Republicans have in Texas, they never mention that Republicans in California are short-changed on paper substantially more than are Democrats in Texas. In Texas, where Donald Trump won 52 percent of the vote in 2020, there are 23 out of 38 seats that are drawn to be Republican-leaning where 20 out of 38 would be proportionate. By contrast, in California, Trump won 34.3 percent of the vote, which, proportionately, would work out to 18 seats out of 52. But only seven of California's seats are drawn to be Republican leaning, meaning that, on paper, Republicans are short-changed by 11 seats. And that's in a state which uses a supposedly nonpartisan commission for redistricting which is what the media have pushed as an allegedly more fair way of doing it. Republicans are also short-changed in states like New York and Illinois, although Republicans were lucky in winning several Democrat-leaning seats in both California and New York in 2022. Also not mentioned was that Texas used to be heavily gerrymandered by Democrats for decades. Back on Morning Joe, the panel concluded the segment by seeming to cheer for Democrats to finally win dominance over Texas. SCARBOROUGH: You look at these demographics in Texas. It's becoming more urban, more diverse. That means, unless something dramatically changes, that means Democrats are going to start putting those electoral votes in their column pretty soon. EUGENE DANIELS, POLITICO WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: If you add Texas, that's a wrap. Like, Democrats are just going to sell over and over and over again... Transcripts follow: MSNBC's Morning Joe February 28, 2024 9:47 a.m. Eastern LAWRENCE WRIGHT, GOD SAVE TEXAS EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: I got into this because my editor at The New Yorker, David Remnick, asked me to explain Texas because he couldn't understand why I live here, and, honestly, I'd wondered that myself. But there was a -- I don't think Texas is properly understood in the rest of the country. People really have strong opinions -- pro or con -- and there's a lot of complexity that's missed. It's important to understand Texas because it's growing so fast that it will be the dominant feature in American politics by 2050 when it's the size of New York and California combined. JOE SCARBOROUGH: And it is changing demographically in such a dramatic way that the Texas of 2034 will look nothing like the Texas of say, 2014. Alex, I've always been struck by Annette Gordon Reed -- the great historian's -- love for her home state of Texas, and yet,  her concern at the same time, it sort of reminds me of the old Faulkner quip about the South -- "I love the South -- I hate the South." It's -- there is a -- Texas at times makes itself difficult to love for a lot of natives. Talk about that. ALEX STAPLETON, DIRECTOR OF GOD SAVE TEXAS: THE PRICE OF OIL: Yeah, I mean, I think -- I think a lot of -- that's what's so great about what Larry (Lawrence Wright) wrote and what resonated with me and with his book and doing the series is that I think, as Texans, a lot of us struggle with the good and bad of this state and that that's something that's probably a part of the Texan identity. You know, within Texas is a great paradox. There's a lot of things that don't make sense. There's a lot of -- a lot of us that, you know, vote with -- against our interest. We live in communities where we don't quite understand some of the harmful things that are around us. And I think that -- there seems to be a dawn -- a new age here in the state where I think that we're trying to make sense of it, and, you know, this series is a step towards that direction. KATTY KAY: So, Lawrence, what does -- what does the film and what does the book tell us -- and Texas -- tell us about the intersection of demographics and politics in this country? Because you've got a state in which minorities are growing very fast, but it still doesn't elect Democrats to statewide office. If you extrapolate from Texas for the rest of the United States, is the assumption for Democrats that demographics is working in Democrats' favor just wrong? WRIGHT: Yeah, you would look at the -- what's happening in Texas right now and scratch your head, right? I mean, it's the most urban state in America. Four of the top 10 cities in population are in Texas. It's the young -- one of the youngest states in the nation. All of those are Democratic vectors that seem to have made no difference in the elections at all. It's as if we live in an enchanted forest, you know. We -- somebody is going to break the spell, and -- because the elected officials don't really represent the population of Texas. (...) The thing that people have to understand is that where Texas goes the country will follow. And Texas is important in national politics, now, but it's going to be decisive in the future. And those trends -- Republicans in Texas or nationwide are terrified of. And it's one of the reasons that they've been jiggering the vote and gerrymandering and trying to hold on to power for as long as they can. But ultimately it's, you know, the politics are the fault of Texans. There's no law, for instance, against voting in a primary which would make a profound difference if people got out and actually expressed wishes in the primaries. (...) SCARBOROUGH: And I just have to say, if you look at what's happening in Texas, it's what's been happening in America for a long time. Again, with the popular vote, Democrats -- well, let's just say Republicans have lost seven of the last eight elections by popular vote. You look at these demographics in Texas. It's becoming more urban, more diverse. That means, unless something dramatically changes, that means Democrats are going to start putting those electoral votes in their column pretty soon. EUGENE DANIELS, POLITICO WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: If you add Texas, that's a wrap. Like, Democrats are just going to sell over and over and over again, and so it is incumbent upon Republicans, right, to, if after whatever happens in 2024 to try and figure out how to change the way that they talk to and talk about people of color, young voters and speak to the kind of issues that those folks care about because, you know, six to nine to five, there's only so many other numbers before we flip over -- over to Democrats. And Democrats have done a pretty good job of trying to get in there, but when you talk to Democrats in Texas, they want more help from the national party to help flip Texas faster. JENNIFER PALMIERE, FORMER BARACK OBAMA WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS: Yeah, it's been a difficult time. I mean, it's been a difficult last few years in Texas for Democrats, you know, after the 2020 election and -- but it does feel like, as the Republican state legislature came in so hot -- passed so many controversial bills, it does feel a little last gaspy -- SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. PALMIERI: -- in terms of how the Republicans are almost like in a panic like "We can't hold on for very much longer. We're going to get as much conservative stuff done now." SCARBOROUGH: Katty, the more extreme positions they take, the faster they push the middle in Texas toward Democrats. KAY: Assuming Hispanic voters don't start voting Republican, right? SCARBOROUGH: In overwhelming numbers. KAY: In overwhelming numbers. And that's the worry for the Democratic party. It gets Eugene's point. They have to get down there. When I've been down there in Texas and I've spoken to Hispanic voting groups, they've said Democrats need to show up. It's not a guarantee that demographics are going to work in Democrats' favor. They have to work at it. (...) PBS's Amanpour & Co. February 28, 2024 LAWRENCE WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF GOD SAVE TEXAS: Well, the country is at an inflection point. I mean, we're marching into a very dangerous couple of months right ahead of us. And I'm not a prophet on this -- I can't tell you what's going to happen -- but America, the future of our country is going to be determined, I'm convinced, by the elections. And the thing that one can hope is, you know, this country is constantly changing. You know, when I was a kid, Texas was blue and California was red, you know. These things can change. And with Texas -- which is the future of America because it's growing so fast -- and by the year 2050 it's projected to be the size of New York and California combined. So it will be decisive in American politics. But if you look at the demography, you know, it's a majority minority state. It is the most urban state in the nation. It's got four of the top 10 most populous cities. It is also a very young state. All of those are change agents and Democratic vectors. So things are going to change, and the Republicans in Texas have been scrambling to re-jigger the elections and, you know, continue to gerrymander the districts, Austin, where I live, the most liberal city in Texas, but it's got five congressmen -- four are Republicans. So that's what gerrymandering looks like in Texas.  (...) AMANPOUR: Texas also has the dubious, you know, infamy of being the execution capital of the country and maybe even the world. In God Save Texas, there is another, you know, episode called "Hometown Prison," this is the well-known film maker, Richard Linklater. He returns to his hometown -- it's Huntsville. It's where the major, you know, the major execution prison is there. I've actually visited it. Here's what he said. Well, this is a little clip. (beginning of clip) RICHARD LINKLATER, GOD SAVE TEXAS: Even today, the criminal justice system looms over my hometown. It's not just people behind bars who are being pushed to the brink. It's state employees. ED OWENS, FORMER DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: After the executions, this was a long walk. MICHELLE LYONS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INFORMATION FOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: What I was witnessing really unnerved me. FRED ALLEN, FORMER CAPTAIN OF CORRECTIONS HUNTSVILLE UNIT: And that's when I broke. (end of clip) AMANPOUR: You know, it's interesting, they are set to execute another person tonight, and it is actually interesting also to hear how this damages the soul of those who are doing the executing and part of that whole employee complex. WRIGHT: Yeah, I was so moved by Rick's segment on our documentaries. You know, he approaches it so humanely. He's not -- he doesn't condemn the people -- he condemns the actions, you know, the way the prison system has turned into an industry, the way the death penalty lingers mainly because of politics.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Cuts Away from Trump's Super Tuesday Victory Speech: MRC’s Stephanie Hamill Reacts on Fox

By: Stephanie Hamill — March 6th 2024 at 05:04
MRC contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on Tuesday’s Fox News at Night with host Trace Gallagher to discuss the results from the Super Tuesday presidential primaries and media bias in the 2024 presidential election.   Gallagher tossed to a clip of MSNBC cutting away from former President Donald Trump’s Super Tuesday victory speech, where host Rachel Maddow explained that they don’t allow lies to be told on air. And again, MSNBC cuts away from Donald Trump’s speech while Rachel Maddow complains and pretends to care about “allowing lies” on air. So pretentious and sickening. pic.twitter.com/jBe6JyrnzN — ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) March 6, 2024   Hamill: The major networks and the anchors who are cutting away from Donald Trump during his speeches are really hurting themselves, their credibility and their ratings. The people and the voters have the right to hear from the serious candidates, especially Donald Trump. As we've seen— he’s been dominating in the polls and so for them to do this is truly unethical. Remember these are so-called journalists who say they are looking out for the little guy, they are the watchdogs of America, — but they don't think your responsible enough to hear and interpret what a former president and a presidential candidate has to say. To me, I mean it's just really just egregious that they do this.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Nicolle Wallace: No More Elections If Trump Wins!

By: Mark Finkelstein — March 6th 2024 at 09:53
While we focus on Joe Biden's undeniable cognitive decline, perhaps more attention should be directed to related problems that Nicolle Wallace might be experiencing. The issue arises because on her Deadline White House show on MSNBC on Tuesday, Wallace seemed to confuse the electoral situation in the US with that in Gaza and the West Bank. Said Wallace:  "Americans will have to face the fact that this is, in the words of a dear friend of this show, do-you-want-to-have-any-more-elections, election. Where voters are not just choosing between two candidates, but making critical decisions about the basic fundamentals of our democracy." In other words, Wallace, more than suggesting, outright asserted as a "fact" that if Trump is elected, there will be no more elections in our country.   Perhaps Wallace, in her confusion, was thinking of the history of the end of elections among Palestinians. In the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the Palestinian National Authority in January 2005 for a four-year term that ended on January 9, 2009. The last elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council  were held on 25 January 2006. There have not been any elections either for president or for the legislature since those two elections. In Gaza, Hamas won power in the election of 2006. Eighteen years later, there has never been another election. But this was her cartoon of the campaign. There’s Biden, “who has an agenda that commands broad public support. Whose commitment to our democracy and our institutions has never been in doubt. But who's dogged by some lackluster polling that doesn't match up with support for his policies.” And there’s Trump, “who also makes no bones about his specific and concrete plans to rule as an autocrat, a, quote, dictator, on day one if he's re-elected. And whose tenure in office was marked by an endless series of low points, not just for the presidency, but for the country. Each one more disgraceful than the one that preceded it.” Concrete plans? That's "missing context," as the liberals like to say." In December, Fox host Sean Hannity asked Trump, "Under no circumstances — you are promising America tonight — you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Trump joked "Except for Day One...I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill." Hannity pushed for a firmer answer, and Trump said he wouldn't be a dictator, "no no, no, except for Day One." Wallace failed to name her "dear friend" who made the ominous prediction, that Wallace described as "fact," of the end of elections if Trump is elected. But she did start the show in her traditional fashion by saying, "we begin with some of our favorite reporters and friends."  That's Wallace's way of assuring her viewers that their sensitive ears will be protected from any dissenting voices, and that only an Amen chorus of Republican/Trump-haters will be heard. Her punditocracy is an autocracy.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

READ THE CROSSTABS: WashPost Writer Twists Poll Data to Claim Americans Happier About Biden Economy

By: Joseph Vazquez — March 6th 2024 at 10:01
The Washington Post economics columnist Catherine Rampell seemed to forget a rule of thumb when analyzing polls: read the crosstabs. Either that or she deliberately twisted data to make it seem like Americans are happier with President Joe Biden’s decrepit economy than they actually are. Rampell’s blaring March 5 headline would make one believe that Americans did an about-face in their view of Bidenomics: “Americans are happier about the economy. Why are they crediting Trump?” Rampell declared, “The good news for President Biden: Americans are finally starting to appreciate the strength of the U.S. economy.” She pointed to at least four polls to make her point, but ended up butchering the interpretation of the data in order to claim that “In recent months, public perceptions of the economy seemed to be catching up to how good the economy looks on paper. Sure, views of the economy might not be rosy just yet, but they’re definitely rosier.” Her primary issue, apparently, was that Americans still preferred the Trump economy, and she wound up undercutting her own story by whining how “[t]hrough most of this period, though, Americans have been incongruously grumpy.” [Emphasis added.] Oy vey, where to begin? Rampell first cited a February Wall Street Journal poll showing that 31 percent of respondents said “the economy had gotten better over the past two years, which is 10 percentage points higher than was the case in December.” But she failed to mention that this same question found that a majority, 57 percent of respondents, said it was getting worse, which was only a slight improvement from the 58 percent that responded the same way in Aug. 2023, when consumer price inflation would post its biggest monthly increase for the year at that time. When a majority of respondents are still saying things are getting worse, “happier” isn’t the description that accurately reflects the position of the population. But there’s more. Rampell didn’t even bother mentioning another question asked by The Journal, probably because the results of that inquiry ended up blowing apart her narrative. (Related: Bidenomics after 36 Months: Six Charts the Media Don’t Want You to See) When The Journal respondents were asked how they would “rate the strength” of the U.S. economy —the very thing Rampell literally claimed Americans were appreciating more in her first paragraph — the numbers were damning. A whopping 61 percent of respondents answered “Not so good/Poor,” and only 38 percent responded “Excellent/Good.” To put that into perspective, those results were worse than March of 2022, when America was grappling with a sky-high 8.5 percent inflation rate, the fastest pace since 1981 at the time. In addition, 68 percent of respondents still concluded that inflation was headed in the wrong direction while only 28 percent held a positive view, nearly identical to The Journal's December 2023 poll figures (68% "Wrong" direction; 26% "Right" direction). No wonder Rampell didn’t bother mentioning any of this.  (Source: The Wall Street Journal) She also trotted out surveys “from CBS News, YouGov and the New York Times-Siena College,” in an apparent attempt to bolster her point about “improvements in perceptions of economic conditions,” but she missed the mark here too. On the question of the “condition” of the U.S. economy, The Times reported that only seven percent of its respondents said “Excellent” and 19 percent answered “Good,” which on its face looks like an upward trend from the 2 percent (“Excellent”) and 18 percent (“Good”) from the previous Times poll conducted in July 2023. But not so fast: The percentage of respondents who answered “Poor” also worsened. A majority 51 percent of respondents now say the “condition” of the U.S. economy is “Poor,” which is worse than the 49 percent who responded the same way in the July 2023 survey.  In fact, just the number of people who responded “Poor” in The Times’s more recent survey dwarfed the combination of respondents who responded either “Excellent” or “Good” (26%). (Source: The New York Times) When the same question was asked, CBS News found that a majority 57 percent of its respondents concluded the “condition” of the economy to be “Fairly Bad/Very Bad” while only 39 percent said “Fairly Good/Good.” YouGov wasn’t much better. On the question of whether the economy was getting better or worse, a sizable plurality of 47 percent responded “worse” and only 25 percent responded “better.” None of these numbers indicate that Americans are clearly “happier” with Biden’s economy. But for someone who shows no problems with twisting stats to serve a political narrative, butchering survey results is par for the course. As the old saying goes: “There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact The Washington Post at 202-334-6000 and demand it tell the truth about how the American people feel about Biden’s faltering economy.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Fox’s Doocy, Lawrence Battle KJP on Laken Riley’s Murder, Biden Needing Notecards

By: Curtis Houck — March 6th 2024 at 10:53
Despite the political world being focused Tuesday on the slew of presidential primaries, there was still a White House press briefing and, thankfully, Fox’s Peter Doocy and Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence were there to hold the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre to account on the border, inflation, Laken Riley’s murder, and President Biden’s growing need for notecards to function. Doocy went second in Jean-Pierre’s portion and, on the border, it concerned an interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes with the head of the Border Patrol from Biden’s first two years in office: “How’s President Biden going to fix the border if he can go years without talking to the head of Border Patrol?” Jean-Pierre initially played dumb, but after Doocy mentioned Raul Ortiz saying in the interview that he never once spoke to Biden or Harris did Jean-Pierre answer, claiming “he was invited, I believe, to participate in the President’s...visit to El Paso...in January of 2023 and he did not attend.” Jean-Pierre then attacked Republicans, saying they’re unconcerned about the border “because of what the former President, Donald Trump, told them to do — told him to reject” the bipartisan Senate deal. This led to Doocy’s question about Laken Riley: “[W]ill President Biden publicly address Laken Riley’s murder allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant, was released by law enforcement multiple times on Thursday night. I know he’s cut a statement, but what about at the State of the Union?”     As usual, Jean-Pierre’s answer consisted of constantly tripping over her words, insisting “I do want to always acknowledge and extend our deepest condolences” to her loved ones, but wouldn’t commit to anything concerning the State of the Union. Jean-Pierre callously linked Riley’s murder to Republicans not taking the Senate border deal supported by the White House (click “expand”): Look, let me — I do want — this is such a tragic — uh — story and, obviously, situation. This is someone’s life that was lost, so I do want to always acknowledge and extend our deepest condolences to — to her family and to her friends and the people who — who loved her. And so, I want to always be sure to say that and because it’s so tragic. Look, um — I don’t have anything to share about the President’s speech as it relates to that particular question that you have. But we, you know, we want to always, always be sure that we left — lift up the families who have lost their loved ones in that way and I would reiterate — you just asked me about the Border Patrol chief. The President was just there with the current Chief Owens. The President went to the border — obviously Brownvilles [sic], Texas, to lift up the importance of doing something — of doing something at the border, and I would be remiss if I did not continue to say that Republicans rejected a bipartisan proposal that came out of the Senate. And so, if they truly, truly cared about what was going on at the border, if they truly cared about this immigration policies [sic] and trying to fix that, trying to move forward and a step in a way where we have a tough and fair law, they would work with us on it. They wouldn’t listen to the former President, who is clearly telling them to reject — telling Republicans to reject it for their — for his own political game and that’s shameful. That’s truly shameful. Doocy actually had a question prior to those, but Jean-Pierre dodged it since it concerned the 2024 campaign and not wanting to run foul of the Hatch Act: “President Biden has said a possible endorsement by Taylor Swift is classified. How disappointed is he that she is telling people to vote, but not for him?” Fast-forward to the back end of the briefing and Lawrence kicked off with a series of questions about the (clearly coordinated) effort by the White House and Sesame Street’s Cookie Monster to cry foul over shrinkflation (click “expand”): LAWRENCE: So, Cookie Monster posted on X that shrinkflation is making his cookies smaller. The White House official Twitter, or X, responded that blaming shrinkflation — basically on companies. So, does the President, again, believe that shrinkflation and inflation are solely a company problem or do his policies play any role in that? JEAN-PIERRE: So, also from my tweet, I believe we said C is — is for consumers getting ripped off, right? And, uh — and the President — the President has called on — on companies to — top stop — to stop, you know, taking advantage of Americans. He’s been very clear about that. He’s repeatedly called on large corporations, more specifically, to pass along their savings on to their customers. We’ve said that. We’ve been very consistent about that. And that includes rip offs such as shrinkflation. We see that and where the size of a product, for those who don’t know, gets smaller, even as the price stays the same or increases. That’s what we’ve been seeing and so, it’s giving families less bang for their buck and the President has said, and I’ll quote him,. “tired of being” — you know, the President said, “Americans are tired of being played for suckers.” And so, the President’s going to have the American people’s back. That’s what he’s going to continue to do. He’s going to talk about this, not just shrinkflation, but other ways that he sees corporations are ripping off Americans. You’re going to hear from him shortly about — about what he’s doing next to — to — to deal with junk fees, and I think that’s really important. That’s what Americans want to see. They want to see their President fighting on their behalf. LAWRENCE: And, out of that Competition Council, the President is announcing that strikeforce — why did it take the Cookie Monster to speak up? Or an election year for this strikeforce to go? Why not do it — year — a couple of years ago when inflation was nine percent? JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t — I disagree with the premise of your question there. It did not take the Cookie Monster — if anything, it feels like the Cookie Monster is responding to us and what we’ve been saying about for shrinkflation. I can’t believe I’m having a conversation about the Cookie Monster at the podium.  (....) LAWRENCE: But why did it take — why did it take so long to announce a strikeforce —  JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look. Here’s — LAWRENCE: — when inflation was nine percent? JEAN-PIERRE: — well, here’s the thing. The President’s Competition Council has been going — going on for some time now, right? He has taken this very seriously and finding ways to lower costs for the American people as we are, obviously, dealing with inflation — right — obviously dealing with that because of what we are coming out of with the — with the pandemic. So, the President has taken actions. He’s going to continue to do that.  I would say the strikeforce is just another way. along of many other announcement [sic] that this President has made in dealing with large corporations ripping off Americans — right — and dealing with how do we get rid of junk fees. And so, that’s what you’re going to hear from the from the President. So, to say that, you know now all of a sudden he cares about this is not true. It is a false premise. It’s a false question because the President has been dealing with this for some time now, and now he’s making a new announcement on — on the strikeforce, and I think it’s important and so you’ll hear more from him momentarily. Lawrence drew a miffed and somewhat angry response from Jean-Pierre when he pointed to Biden needing notecards to make it through even germane public appearance: “The President — I noticed, had — had note cards at the border when he was doing his briefing there. He also had note cards last Friday with the Italian prime minister. Why does the President relies so heavily on note cards?”     “You’re upset because the President has no cards? You’re — you’re asking me a question about the President having note cards,” she seethed as Lawrence clapped back that he’s “not upset” but merely “asking why”. Instead, Jean-Pierre continued to lecture him for daring to ask that when Biden “has had — a — probably one of the most successful first three years of an — an administration than any modern day president” and “done more...than most presidents who had two terms.” Amid a slew of shouts and even Newsmax’s James Rosen joining in, Lawrence insisted he’s simply wondering “why he relies so heavily on notecards,” but Jean-Pierre ignored it: “I think what’s important here and what the American people care about is how this President is delivering for — for them, and that’s what he’s doing. And that’s what’s the most important thing here.” Moving to questions from the left, Patsy Widakuswara of taxpayer-funded Voice of America wondered if Biden “will...use any part of his state of the Union address, acknowledge the anger of American Arabs and Muslims and Progressive Democrats and explain to them why he’s not imposing conditionalities on Israel”. Going back to much earlier in the briefing, The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg drew fiery responses from John Kirby when he asked what’s stopping Biden from telling the Israelis “if they don’t allow aid, we will not continue supplying weapons”: Now THIS is quite the exchange from John Kirby. Good to see at least someone at the WH who still has a backbone to support the Israel The @Independent's @AndrewFeinberg: “The President and the Vice President and you, for that matter, have both said that the situation with… pic.twitter.com/IMXXMDM0aR — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 5, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the March 5 briefing transcript, click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Big Tech’s Worst Censorship of February: Less Obvious, But Still Strongly Anti-Free Speech

By: Catherine Salgado — March 6th 2024 at 11:12
Spring is here, but for Big Tech, spring cleaning just means more censorship — even if it’s more subtle and sneakier than before. Multiple social media and tech platforms were busily engaged in crushing free speech in February. While X’s (formerly Twitter) censorship, through its use of Community Notes, is open and obvious, other Big Tech platforms appear to be taking their censorship underground by using less obvious but still harmful measures. When it comes to elections, however, Big Tech companies have vowed to continue interfering through censorship actions, though the details remain vague. 1) Google-owned YouTube censors Alliance Defending Freedom video concerning abortion drugs. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) shared a video on its YouTube channel Feb. 5 that featured a woman discussing her traumatic experience with abortion drugs. The video, “Abortion Drugs are High-Risk. We must hold the FDA Accountable for Removing Commonsense Safeguards,” received a fact-checking context label from YouTube. The “Abortion health information” label merely repeated a definition of abortion using common leftist terms while not acknowledging that the procedure is sometimes done using drugs by the women themselves. The label falsely claimed: “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed healthcare professional. For information purposes only. Consult your local medical authority for advice.” [Emphasis added.] YouTube’s label also provided a link to MedlinePlus's page on Abortion. ADF objected to the label, arguing that “it's not accurate,” citing the claim about licensed medical professionals. “Your error is actually the crux of our case against the FDA,” ADF stated. “Current standards leave women to do their own chemical abortions - the FDA does NOT require the 'procedure' to be ‘done by a licensed healthcare professional.’” On March 4, 16 state attorneys general demanded that YouTube stop placing “misleading” abortion banners on pro-life videos, including the ADF’s video. 2) X imposed 81 Community Notes fact checks in February. One platform that is certainly not going for the subtle censorship approach is X. MRC Free Speech America logged a staggering 81 Community Notes fact checks on users from across the political spectrum and around the world in its unique CensorTrack database for the month of February. Accounts that received Community Notes on posts included X owner Elon Musk, the New York Post, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), commentator Benny Johnson, Russian state-owned media TASS, COVID-19 critic Dr. Richard Urso, commentator Ian Miles Cheong, Israeli speaker Hananya Naftali, CBS News, Democrat presidential candidate Marianne Williamson and popular political commentator account DC Draino. X owner Elon Musk shared that any post with a Community Note added to it will be demonetized. The Community Notes account on X also posted that notices will be pushed to users who previously engaged with a post when a Community Note is added to it later. 3) X suspends account of Russian dissident’s widow, claims error. X suspended the account of Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the late Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, on Feb. 19. The reportedly mistaken suspension was reversed after only 45 minutes, according to The Daily Mail. X Safety later claimed in a post that the censorship of Navalnaya was an error. “Our platform's defense mechanism against manipulation and spam mistakenly flagged @yulia_navalnaya as violating our rules,” X Safety posted on the platform. The reason for the initial suspension remains unspecified. X does prohibit users from buying followers, and with Navalnaya’s account suddenly attracting 95,000 followers within just 24 hours of its existence (per a screenshot), the account might have been mistakenly flagged for buying followers. Yulia had posted a video on her X account before the suspension in which she accused authoritarian Russian President Vladimir Putin of being guilty of her husband’s sudden death in prison. 4) Facebook slaps fact check on climate-related post from author and energy expert. Author Alex Epstein posted an image from his book Fossil Future. The image included charts with evidence showing that “[t]he impact on sea levels of global warming to date has paled in comparison to local factors.” Facebook, which has a track record of censoring information surrounding the climate debate that goes against the left’s narrative, imposed a fact-check label on the post. The label merely invites users to “See information from third-party fact-checkers.” The expanded notice asserts that Epstein’s post contains “False information. Independent fact-checkers say this information has no basis in fact. You can choose whether to see it.” The Facebook note links to a fact-check article from the Australian Associated Press (AAP): “Post deeply wrong about rate of rising sea levels.” The post fact-checked in the article, which was not the same as Epstein’s, had claimed, “Of course the most important thing to note is that these are all straight lines, i.e. there has been NO INCREASE in the RATE of sea level rise (which has been taking place since the last ice age).” This was not the same as Epstein’s argument that global warming is not the cause of sea level increases. According to Facebook, users fail to click through fact-check interstitials 95 percent of the time.  5) Big Tech companies to censor election content in the European Union (EU). Ahead of the EU elections in June, multiple Big Tech companies, including Google, TikTok, and Meta released announcements of their planned election interference. Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok, for example, bragged about its 2023 censorship and committed to more. TikTok described a team of 6,000 EU content moderators, fact checking, content removal, “media literacy campaigns” to counter alleged “misinformation” and policies targeted at artificial intelligence (AI). Google, meanwhile, declared its aims to collaborate with government authorities, to promote selected sources and to use AI to enhance its ability to censor and control the information that voters can access. MRC Free Speech America has previously exposed Google for its election interference back in 2022 and again in the 2024 U.S. presidential primaries. Not to be outdone, Meta — parent company of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — announced its own EU election censorship plan, replete with AI, fact checkers, and an Elections Operations Center. This came soon after Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg accidentally admitted on CNBC News that a majority of the company’s employees are involved in censorship activities.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Eat Crow! Google Gemini No Longer Downplaying Hamas’s Rape After MRC Report

By: Luis Cornelio — March 6th 2024 at 12:05
Google appears to have stopped peddling pro-Hamas talking points about sexual violence carried out against Israeli citizens on Oct. 7 — just after MRC pressed the Big Tech giant for answers. On Wednesday, MRC Free Speech America learned that Google’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Gemini, is no longer whitewashing evidence that Hamas terrorists committed rape on innocent civilians last year, a stark contrast to what MRC caught the bot doing two weeks ago.  “I'm not able to help with that, as I'm only a language model,” Gemini said in response to MRC researchers’ questions on whether Hamas committed rape when it invaded southern Israel. Strikingly, the chatbot stated on Feb. 22 that there were “competing narratives” on what happened that day, effectively echoing the talking points of Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. (EXCLUSIVE: MRC Catches Google AI Questioning Hamas Sex Assault — Spox Apologizes) “Some people believe that these allegations are credible, while others believe that they are politically motivated,” Gemini disturbingly claimed. “It is important to consider all sides of the issue before forming an opinion.” MRC reached out to Google for answers on why Gemini implied that its users should consider Hamas’s “side of the issue” on rape. A spokesperson apologized for what Google characterized as an incorrect answer. “Gemini got this wrong and missed the mark on this important and sensitive topic,” the spokesperson told MRC at the time. “We’ll aim to point people to Google Search for the most-up-to-date information. We are constantly working on improving and when the AI provides offensive or low quality responses, we will work quickly to address the issue.” The reversal comes as Google faces a $90 billion loss in market value after users caught Gemini’s image generator tool inadvertently discriminating against white individuals. MRC Free Speech America independently verified widespread reports that Gemini blatantly refused to generate images of “white” subjects but willingly created images of ethnically diverse individuals. (You May Also Like: Is Google’s AI Racist? Product Lead’s Tweets Give Us an Indication) Google has shut down Gemini’s image generator tool and is being investigated by the House Judiciary Committee over President Joe Biden’s potential role in what House Republicans called “woke” AI. 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

New York Times Panics at Trump's Polling: 'Collective Amnesia' Warps America

By: Tim Graham — March 6th 2024 at 13:25
The top of the Wednesday New York Times offers quite a contrast in headlines: a whiny piece on how Donald Trump may be gaining because of America’s “collective amnesia,” next to a puff piece “White House Memo” on “Campaign Shifts Strategy to Let Biden Be Himself.”  As if he isn’t authentically fumbling and bumbling? Reporter Jennifer Medina and Reid Epstein began their story “Passing Years Cloud Memory of Trump Term” as if Trump has completely vanished from public consciousness, as if the media haven’t obsessed over Trump daily, even hourly while Biden was president: Not all that long ago, many Americans committed hours a day to tracking then-President Donald J. Trump’s every move. And then, sometime after the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and before his first indictment, they largely stopped. They are having trouble remembering it all again. More than three years of distance from the daily onslaught has faded, changed — and in some cases, warped — Americans’ memories of events that at the time felt searing. Polling suggests voters’ views on Mr. Trump’s policies and his presidency have improved in the rearview mirror...  A New York Times/Siena College poll conducted late last month found 10 percent of Mr. Biden’s 2020 voters now say they support Mr. Trump, while virtually none of Mr. Trump’s voters had flipped to Mr. Biden. The poll found Mr. Trump’s policies were viewed far more favorably than Mr. Biden’s. When Trump's polling improves, Americans have a "warped" memory! The media just can NOT understand how all of the scandal-manufacturing and indicting isn't having an impact -- or is helping Trump. Some voters have grasped that all these legal problems are designed for maximum political damage. That environment created a kind of numbness that not even 91 felony counts or enormous civil penalties for defamation and fraud can break through, said Andrew Franks, a professor of political psychology at the University of Washington. “Negative information about Trump is no longer distinctive, it is just the air that we breathe,” Dr. Franks said. The story ends with "Professional Democrats" refusing to believe the poll numbers (just like Biden does). The complaining about the public's "collective amnesia" came from Lori Lodes, executive director of "Climate Power, a liberal advocacy group whose polling found 52 percent of likely voters now approve of Mr. Trump's time in office." The funniest part of the Biden story by Katie Rogers and Lisa Lerer came on the front page, that Robert Hur's report on how Biden would come across as an "well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory" meant Biden "quickly became a favorite punchline of late-night talk show hosts, enraging his allies..." Earth to media: the late-night talk show hosts ARE Biden's allies. Take, for example, "Colbert Contrasts ‘Well Meaning, Elderly’ Biden With ‘Malicious, Elderly Rapist’ Trump After Special Counsel Report." Or you can be amused that the Biden story's subhead is "Amid Age Worries, He is Out and About to Face Voters and the Media." If you're counting Seth Meyers as "the media," maybe that works. What's amusing but all this protective copy about his media outreach is this: Biden hasn't granted a single interview to The New York Times since he became president. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Karl Reassures The View: Dems Will Cure America’s ‘Collective Amnesia’ of Trump

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 6th 2024 at 14:55
With former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley dropping out of the Republican primary on Wednesday, all eyes looked to the general election, and polls showing former President Trump leading President Biden nationally made many of the cast of ABC’s The View shake in their heels. But the network’s chief Washington correspondent, Jonathan Karl was there to reassure them and the liberal audience that Democrats would cure Americans of the “collective amnesia” that was supposedly keeping them from accurately remembering the Trump years. Encapsulating The View’s general mood post-Super Tuesday, staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) announced that her outfit had a special meaning. “I'm wearing funeral chic today because I'm so devastated over what we saw yesterday,” she said, while also proclaiming that Republican voters put “party before country.” To explain the support Trump was receiving, Karl invoked the condescension of the far-left New York Times in proclaiming that Americans writ large were suffering from a “collective amnesia” and were supposedly misremembering what the Trump presidency was like. Karl boasted that he was doing his part to keep Trump out of office again by publishing yet another anti-Trump book (because you shouldn’t help America without making a little bit of scratch for yourself on the side): There's been a collective amnesia about what it was like when Trump was president. It's why I wrote Tired of Winning; I wanted people to be aware of what really happened, particularly at the end. But not just that, but what Trump has been doing and saying privately and in some cases publicly that hasn't really been noted as much of what he would do if he got back into the White House.     But the polls loomed large in the mind of faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin and they weren’t sitting well with her. “Donald Trump is a uniquely unfit unprincipled man, yet The New York Times/Siena polling from this weekend and prior ABC polling has him beating Joe Biden head-to-head outside of the margin of error,” she said. Wondering to Karl: “Are they running scared enough?” Karl acknowledged the fact that it was more than one or two polls showing that result. “The current FiveThirtyEight averages all the public polling and Trump has a two-point lead over Biden in national polls right now,” he said. He did admit that Biden was “certainly” working up “from a deficit” in the polls but wanted to remind everyone that, “If you go back exactly four years ago to Super Tuesday of 2020, Biden had a two-point lead over [Trump].”  “You don't put too much stock into what polls tell you today about how people will vote in November,” he added, receiving the praises of moderator Whoopi Goldberg. Reiterating the condescension that Americans had “collective amnesia,” Karl tried to reassure them that Democrats would cure it. “Democrats are going to be spending the next eight months making sure people know exactly what Donald Trump is all about,” he declared. And despite the fact that the liberal media kept the focus on Trump and starved his challengers of oxygen, Karl suggested Trump had “been kind of off in the shadows” and there was only some “coverage of his criminal cases and everything,” but more was coming. “Don't put much stock into that polls tell you today about how people will vote in November,” he added again. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 6, 2024 11:06:43 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: It's party before country. I mean, I'm wearing funeral chic today because I'm so devastated over what we saw yesterday. And my question for you is, were you able to glean anything from the exit polls, and get a look at the mindset of those voters that we just talked about. Because backstage we were talking about the fact that six in ten of North Carolina primary voters say they'd consider Trump fit for the presidency even if he's convicted of a crime. JON KARL: Yeah. HOSTIN: Even if he's convicted of a crime and roughly six in ten North Carolina GOP primary voters deny that Biden's 2020 election win was legitimate. KARL: And if you go further into those exit polls, what you'll see is a vastly different answer -- set of answers if you're asking Haley voters or if you're asking Trump voters. Almost all Trump voters believe the election was stolen. This wasn't. Almost all of Haley voters don't – understand the truth and haven't bought into the lie. And on the question of if you would still support him if still convicted, almost all of Haley voters say “absolutely not.” So, this is again why he will have a challenge going into— And let's remember, and, by the way, The New York Times used the phrase today, “the collective amnesia.” HOSTIN Yes. KARL: There's been a collective amnesia about what it was like when Trump was president. It's why I wrote Tired of Winning; I wanted people to be aware of what really happened, particularly at the end. But not just that, but what Trump has been doing and saying privately and in some cases publicly that hasn't really been noted as much of what he would do if he got back into the White House. But the exit polls show that, you know, that there's a significant chunk of the Republican Party, people like Alyssa over here, I think, who are just never going to vote for Donald Trump. And that's going to be a problem. (…) 11:09:01 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Donald Trump is a uniquely unfit unprincipled man, yet The New York Times/Siena polling from this weekend and prior ABC polling has him beating Joe Biden head-to-head outside of the margin of error. Is Joe Biden running scared enough? Because he had this quote where he said – it kind of sounded like Trump’s “I alone can fix it” – ‘I beat him before, I’m the best guy to do it again.’ Are they running scared enough? KARL: Well, first of all, it's several recent polls. The current FiveThirtyEight averages all the public polling and Trump has a two-point lead over Biden in national polls right now. If you go back exactly four years ago to Super Tuesday of 2020, Biden had a two-point lead over – So he's starting – you know, certainly from a deficit. But first of all, you know this well. You don't put too much stock into what polls tell you today-- WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Thank you! KARL:  -- about how people will vote in November. GOLDBERG: Yes! Say it again, Karl! Jon Karl, say it again! Say it again! [Applause] KARL:   I mean -- HOSTIN: Obama's disapproval rating was the same – pretty much the same and then he won. KARL: And look, you do have that collective amnesia that we talked about. Democrats are going to be spending the next eight months making sure people know exactly what Donald Trump is all about. And, you know, he's been kind of off in the shadows. I mean, there has been coverage of his criminal cases and everything, but we're at the beginning of a very long presidential campaign, and, again -- I'll say it again. Don't put much stock into that polls tell you today about how people will vote in November. GOLDBERG: That’s right. JOY BEHAR: It's exhausting. KARL: If we did that President Clinton would be preparing to hand the baton off. GOLDBERG: You mean President Hillary Clinton? KARL: Yes. Yes. President Hillary Clinton because polls all said she was going to win. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

COLLUSION: Adobe CEO Boasts 'We've Been Working with the White House' on Disinfo

By: Tom Olohan — March 6th 2024 at 15:13
Adobe chair and CEO Shantanu Narayen gave a disturbing answer on the role of government in combating “disinformation” and his company’s collaboration with the Biden Administration on the matter.   Narayen discussed Adobe’s work with both U.S. and global governments during a conversation with The Washington Post Live on Tuesday. While addressing host and Post Columnist Geoffrey Fowler, Narayen said the quiet part out loud by admitting Adobe has “been working with the White House” on disinformation and artificial intelligence. Narayen’s remarks came in response to a question from an audience member named Edward Jopeck. “‘How should the government be helping assess and manage the risks posed by the combination of AI and disinformation?’ What role do you think they should play?” Fowler asked, reciting the posed question. It seems the dystopian saga of Big Tech-Government collusion carries on with impunity, with Narayan disturbingly admitting that the White House is “extremely interested” in how the tech industry and government “work together” to tackle disinformation ahead of the 2024 election. This big tech collusion with the government may be prohibited in the future. The Supreme Court will hear a case on the extent to which Big Tech can collaborate with the federal government, sparked by federal government pressure on tech companies such as X (formerly Twitter) to censor constitutionally protected content.  Adobe has worked with several other tech companies and even the BBC to label AI and real images while extracting location and time data from pictures taken with certain cameras. This issue came up during The Post event as Narayan spoke up in favor of “content credentials” identifying the source of each image.  SEE MORE: Shantanu Narayan’s Response to AI Open Letter. Shantanu Narayan’s Thoughts on Labeling AI Content. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Joe Scarborough: 'F-You' If You Don't Believe This Is The Best Biden Ever

By: Mark Finkelstein — March 6th 2024 at 16:52
Joe Scarborough says this is the "best Biden ever"—and "f-you" if you don't believe it. At the end of his mind-boggling rant on today's Morning Joe, Scarborough swore: "if it weren't the truth, I wouldn't say it." The only thing that would be worse than Scarborough lying about Biden's mental state, would be if . . . he was actually telling the truth.  If this is "intellectually, analytically," the best Biden ever, it's horrifying to imagine what he was during all those long years as a senator and Vice President.  It was recently revealed that Scarborough has become a Biden confidante and frequent phone buddy. During his spiel today, Scarborough bragged that he has spent "hours" chatting with Biden, and came away so impressed. There was an angry edge to Scarborough's sales pitch. In addition to the "f-you," there was a "pissed off" and a "G--D---." If a guy truly believes what he's saying, why would he need to curse in making his case? Anyhow, maybe the DNC can turn Scarborough's encomium into a campaign slogan: "Think Biden's Bad Now? You Shoulda Seen Him Before!" Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/6/24 9:16 am ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: There's such a, there's such a challenge for the Biden team. Because, as I've said here on the show over the past couple -- I've spent a good bit of time with Joe Biden. I've spent a couple of hours with Joe Biden, sitting, talking, going around the world as far as talking issues, talking the economy, talking inflation, talking. And I must say, when I was talking to him, my thought wasn't, oh, poor guy. My thought was, oh, my God, I wish Dr. Brzezinski were on the other side of the table right now, cause these two guys -- I mean, 50 years of experience, and Joe Biden hasn't forgotten it. He may get pissed off at a press conference, and he may be thinking about the Mexican border deal and say Mexico instead of Egypt. He knows what he's talking about, he circles back around, gets to Egypt. He might misplace a word here or there. But you talk to him for hours at a time. Is he slower? Does he move slower? Yeah, he moves slower. Is he stiffer? Yeah, he moves stiffer. Does he have trouble walking sometimes? Yeah, so did FDR. We get out of the Depression, we won a G.D. war against, against Nazism and, and, and against the Japanese.  But comparing that guy's mental state -- I've said it for years now: he's cogent. But I undersold him when I said he was cogent. He's far beyond cogent. In fact, I think he's better than he's ever been intellectually, analytically. Because he's been around for 50 years and, you know, I don't know if people know this or not, Biden used to be a hot head. Sometimes that Irishman would get in front of the reasoning. Sometimes he would say things he didn't want to say. This is -- and, and, I don't -- you know what? I don't really care. Start your tape right now, because I'm about to tell you the truth. And f-you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I've known him for years. The Brzezinskis have known him for 50 years. If it weren't the truth, I wouldn't say it. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

HA! CNN’s Darcy Ridiculously Claims New York Times Is Anti-Biden, Pro-Trump

By: Clay Waters — March 6th 2024 at 17:20
Oliver Darcy, CNN senior media reporter, pounced on the latest example of bedwetting liberal hysteria in the latest edition of his “Reliable Sources” newsletter, accusing the New York Times for being…anti-Biden and insufficiently anti-Trump: “The New York Times is facing backlash over its coverage of Donald Trump and the 2024 election.” Yes, there are apparently die-hard liberals (i.e. “a vocal set of critics and readers”) out there convinced “Donald Trump poses a grave threat to American democracy” and that the paper of record is not shrieking about it with sufficient volume. As if the Times’ reason for existing consists of pushing an aging Democratic president over the finish line in November. Darcy wrote: The New York Times is facing a sustained wave of backlash. The Gray Lady has for several weeks been in the crosshairs of a vocal set of critics and readers who believe that Donald Trump poses a grave threat to American democracy and that the influential news organization isn’t adequately conveying those stakes to the public. Darcy implied that Biden’s age and memory were not legitimate campaign concerns. In the view of its critics, The Times has been far too distracted as of late by worries over President Joe Biden’s age, allowing it to steal attention away from the larger and far more serious danger posed by a second Trump administration. Critics have also argued that The Times covers Biden and Trump with disproportionate standards, placing false equivalence on issues surrounding the current president to those of the former president, who is facing 91 criminal counts and fantasized about being a dictator on “day one.” Do you know another pompous politically oriented figure who wanted to be dictator for a day? A Times foreign policy columnist (see: Thomas Friedman's Power Lust: Let's Be 'China For A Day').. The Times’ latest atrocity, according to its leftist critics? Conducting a poll with Siena College, which it tends to do during campaign years, and putting the resulting bad news for Biden on the front page. The latest salvo in the now weeks-long stream of criticism against The Times burst into view over the weekend when the newspaper published a poll it conducted with Siena College that found a majority of Biden voters believe he is too old to be an effective president…. …. “That they even asked this question is evidence of the bias -- the agenda -- in their poll,” Jeff Jarvis, the Leonard Tow Professor of Journalism Innovation at the CUNY Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, posted on Threads. “Who made age an ‘issue’? The credulous Times falling into the right-wing’s projection. This is not journalism. Shameful.” “Who made age an issue?” Um, American voters did, long before the poll came out. Jarvis’s rant continued: “NY Times, did you ask your random voters whether Trump is too insane, doddering, racist, sexist, criminal, traitorous, hateful to be effective as President?” Jarvis asked, adding, “This is not a poll. It is your agenda.” Yeah, that hard-core MAGA rag known as the New York Times.(last seen accusing Chick-Fil-A of hating gays). Darcy used the Times as a hook to pour out his own anti-Trump animus. Some of the complaints against The Times and other news organizations are certainly valid. It is apparent that the U.S. media is still struggling immensely over how to cover Trump and the ongoing threats to American democracy. Years after Trump ascended to political power and started drowning the political discourse in dangerous lies and conspiracy theories, news executives remain confounded on the most effective approach to combat the deceit…. There was finally a partial pivot to a stance that mildly suggested maybe there was nothing wrong with the paper’s poll. “People are upset today with the NYT because of…a poll?” Clara Jeffery, the editor-in-chief of the progressive Mother Jones news outlet, posted on Threads…. Former Times media reporter turned CNN analyst (and tasteless Rush Limbaugh basher and “Russian collusion”-myth supporter) Bill Carter assured Darcy the paper passed liberal muster, having “covered Trump’s many scandals at length, devoting significant coverage to fact-checking his lies, highlighting his ugly comments on a wide range of subjects, and perhaps most importantly, spotlighting his anti-democratic behavior.” In other words, don’t fret, lefties! You and the Times are on the same side.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

LEAKED Bombshell Report Reveals How Harmful Transgender ‘Care’ Really Is

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 6th 2024 at 17:08
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) internal files were leaked on Tuesday night and indicated that transgender medicine that is encouraged by WPATH is neither scientific nor medical. WPATH, which is “globally recognized as being at the forefront of gender medicine,” has formerly been a trusted group for medical advice. Thousands of doctors worldwide, as well as the American Medical Association (AMA), The Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics rely on WPATH’s authority and leadership, and the contents of these files expose how detrimental transgender care is and how WPATH has a, now not so secret, agenda.  These files are huge when it comes to the fight against the transgender regime. A report released about the files is titled “Pseudoscientific Surgical And Hormonal Experiments on Children, Adolescents, And Vulnerable Adults.” The report shows images of many internal conversations, while exposing many instances of injuries as a result of gender affirming “care,” including sterilization, a loss of sexual function, tumors in the liver and even death. “These internal communications reveal that WPATH advocates for many arbitrary medical practices, including hormonal and surgical experimentation on minors and vulnerable adults. Its approach to medicine is consumer-driven and pseudoscientific, and its members appear to be engaged in political activism, not science,” Mia Hughes, author of the report, indicated, later adding that “gender-affirming care” is “unethical medical experiments” and “causes harm without justification.” Michael Shellenberger, founder and president of Environmental Progress, published the report in conjunction with Hughes. “At a moral level, we feel duty-bound to publish the WPATH Files and do everything within our power to encourage as wide an audience as possible to access them. We believe they show that WPATH is neither a scientific nor medical organization and should not be treated as one,” he said in the report. Now onto the juice of why that is. Environmental Progress included screenshots of internal communications with WPATH members within the last four years where individuals discuss numerous cases and how to handle them. This is a summary of the cases within the files: In one, doctors discussed giving a 14-year-old a vaginoplasty to get his penis turned into a vagina.  Another file proves WPATH members proceeding with treatments even when they did “not know the outcome.” A conversation from October 2021 compared gender surgeries to a cis-gender person getting lip plumping procedures. Obviously, those are completely different things. One discussion between WPATH members was about a patient who had experienced trauma and was struggling emotionally which made a doctor hesitant to start hormones. Other WPATH members encouraged the doctor to proceed. “Why the internal struggle as to the ‘right thing to do,’” a doctor asked.  Similarly, regarding another patient with mental illnesses like bipolar disorder and autism or schizoaffective disorder, doctors insisted that “in general, mental illness is not a reason to withhold needed medical care from clients.” Obviously gender affirming “care” is not “needed” but WPATH fails to acknowledge that.  Another instance talked about a patient’s urethral ejaculate following a vaginoplasty. Essentially the patient was ejaculating when “she” orgasmed and was bothered by it. Some doctors suggested the male to female trans patient get her prostate removed and deal with “all the possible consequences that it comes with.” A discussion from December 2021 talked about a 16-year-old transgender male who developed two liver tumors after suppressing her estrogen and taking testosterone. Doctors confirmed that they were prepared to continue on with top surgery and other treatments regardless of the tumors. One more detrimental case revolved around a 17-year-old transgender teen who decided to de-transition after feeling “brainwashed” into transgender treatment that permanently changed her body. Other doctors sort of dismissed the teen’s struggle and insisted that the word “brainwashing” was just linked with right-wingers who were anti-trans.  Another thread linked to an article indicating that 47.2% of cis-gender women regret getting breast augmentation. Regardless, WPATH members decided it best to carry on with such procedures. “As you know, acknowledgement that de-transition exists to even a minor extent is considered off limits for many in our community,” one doctor insisted in order to shut down the conversation.  One doctor admitted in November 2021 that many de-transitioners felt rushed. “All report that feeling,” the doctor wrote before nothing that “The hormonal and surgical interventions now so easily available to young, impulsive, mentally and cognitively unstable youth are being funded (in some countries, publically) and advocated by registered health professionals, ‘framed’ as ‘life-saving’ when, to my knowledge, this claim is based on very loosely drawn conclusions from very weak data.” He also added, “I fear that rates of regret of gender transition, especially as it relates to future sexual health and fertility, in adults who make these irreversible decisions at such a young age may, in fact, be even higher.” Regarding the same conversation thread, another doctor commented “I do think the number who detransition is small and should not mean we have done something ‘wrong,’” while others called studies of de-transitioners “inferior” and said they make trans kids suffer more. Other conversations exposed doctors for their willingness to proceed with puberty blockers on a 10-year-old knowing that they may stunt the child’s growth and development. One file shows a doctor asking about the degree to which, if any, medical providers fully obtain “informed consent.” Essentially the doctor wanted to know whether or not to include all the potential complications of transgender surgeries before proceeding or just cherry pick a few so that the patient isn’t scared of treatment risks and complications.  Other conversations insisted that insurance companies who requested multiple letters requesting and referring a patient to transgender treatments were “gatekeeping” and one more showed a doctor asking for advice on how to circumvent an insurance policy after it denied a request for transgender treatment. To make matters worse, WPATH members admit to knowing that many children and parents are unaware of the effects that these practices have on their bodies, yet members still advocate for and perform them. You’ll have to read the files yourself to get the full scope of how willing members of WPATH were to skirt around ethics in order to conduct these transgender treatments because, honestly, the situation is heartbreaking. NewsNation reported on the findings of the files on Tuesday and even shared clips where WPATH members spoke about cases and issues surrounding transitioning children. The report's authors and publishers who condemned WPATH are calling on the government to investigate WPATH and how those involved are violating the hippocratic oath. The report about WPATH concluded as such: As this report has shown, WPATH is not a medical organization. It is not engaged in a scientific quest to discover the best possible way to help vulnerable individuals who are suffering from gender-related distress. Instead, it is a fringe group of activist clinicians and researchers masquerading as a medical group, advocating for a reckless hormonal and surgical experiment to be performed on some of the most vulnerable members of society. WPATH needs to be held accountable for its brutal destruction of innocent lives and its manipulation of vulnerable people. Transgender treatment is not “care” in any way, shape or form and until that is widely acknowledged, more and more lives are being permanently ruined or ended by people who prioritize a political agenda over actual medical help. The unbelievable admissions in these files are more important than most people can grasp or are even willing to pay attention to.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

YouTube Corrects Inaccurate Pro-Abortion Label, Still Stands by Censorship

By: Catherine Salgado — March 6th 2024 at 17:39
Google-owned YouTube has admitted a mistake in censoring a pro-life video but refuses to revoke its fact-checking censorship. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) shared a video on its YouTube channel on Feb. 5 highlighting the dangers of the abortion pill for women using it. YouTube imposed a fact-checking context label that falsely claimed abortion is “done by a licensed healthcare professional” even though abortion pills are administered by the women themselves. After being called out by 16 state attorneys general, YouTube updated its label but did not remove it. The video platform uses such labels to discredit and suppress content that goes against a leftist narrative. ADF Senior Counsel Erik Baptist issued a comment on YouTube’s update, arguing, “Women deserve to know the truth about the risks posed by abortion drugs, which is why first-hand accounts like the ones ADF posted on YouTube are so vital.” He thanked the attorneys general for “calling out false information,” noting that YouTube has since “corrected its previously misleading notice.”  Baptist also critiqued the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “reckless decision to end the requirement that chemical abortions be done by a licensed healthcare professional.” This leaves women aborting their unborn babies at home without medical supervision. YouTube’s incorrect warning label highlighted this very problem, according to Baptist. The “YouTube disclaimer” being “flatly wrong …perfectly illustrates why we are suing the FDA on behalf of four medical associations, their members, and four doctors,” Baptist added. The FDA, he accused, has “discontinued virtually all safety protocols on abortion drugs, jeopardizing the health and safety of women,” and YouTube perpetrated the risk. The label remains on ADF’s YouTube video, illustrating the video platform’s unwillingness to back off censoring pro-life content. The information, drawn from the National Library of Medicine, is updated to admit different abortion procedures, though the language used is still leftist and biased. “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy,” the label states. “It can be done two different ways: Medication abortion, which uses medicines to end the pregnancy. It is sometimes called a ‘medical abortion’ or ‘abortion with pills.’ Procedural abortion, a procedure to remove the pregnancy from the uterus. It is sometimes called a ‘surgical abortion.’” YouTube has a history of censoring pro-life content. For instance, in 2021, LifeSiteNews’ channel was removed from the platform. YouTube also suspended the EWTN Español channel in 2021 for posting multiple pro-life videos. Back in 2020, The platform deleted a video from pro-life nonprofit Created Equal that showed what happened after a mother gave birth to premature twins who were reportedly denied care and left to die. The platform cited its Community Standards as the reason for the censorship. Conservatives are under attack. Contact YouTube here and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Here’s the CRAZIEST Moments from MSNBC’s Super Tuesday Primetime Coverage

By: Curtis Houck — March 6th 2024 at 18:44
For Super Tuesday, MSNBC had special coverage all night (and overnight) of the results that cemented a general election rematch between President Biden and former President Trump. But since the results in over a dozen states were rather perfunctory and down ballot primaries drew only mild interest, MSNBC’s cast of far-left sycophants and psychopaths had a lot of down time. Between 7:00 p.m. and midnight Eastern time frame alone, MSNBC mocked illegal immigration as a concern for voters, condescendingly claimed “migrant crime is not a thing”, argued Republicans vote based on race to hurt people of color, fawned over Congressman Colin Allred (D-TX) as Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) “worst nightmare,” and argued Americans are too stupid to realize the reason their pay raises are because of Joe Biden, not merit. Below is a Notable Quotables-style item on some of the worst zingers, presented in no particular order. MSNBC Hosts MOCK Immigration Being the Top Issue for Voters     Inside host and former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki: “[Trump] can’t run against the other and brown people and people who don’t look like him, like his supporters — his base of supporters coming across the — the border and scaring people and killing people or whatever he’s threatening out there. If you look at some of these exit polls — I mean, I live in Virginia. Immigration was the number one issue.” ReidOut host Joy Reid: “Yes.” Psaki: “Again, these could change in — in Virginia.” Rachel Maddow: “Well, Virginia does have a border with West Virginia. Very contested area.” Reid: “Build the wall!” Psaki: “But you’re thinking like — what? When I was in New Hampshire, people were talking about the northern border as a threat because Trump has indoctrinated people with this fear of people who do not like — look like them — being a threat to them.” — Conversation at 9:18 p.m. Eastern. Far-Left Voting ‘Uncommitted’ Is Noble, ‘Most Polite...Way’ to Scold Biden “Well, so the Democratic Party and the Democratic presidents have a unique problem, which is the ability to disappoint their voters more quickly than Republicans do. And that’s because of the activist government that Democratic presidents pursue. They are trying to do more. They will talk to you about forgiving your student loans, and it turns out, you know, they ended up forgiving her student loans but not mine because of these complexities of rules. And so there’s a possibility of a greater sense of dissatisfaction generally with the Democratic presidents...[I]f you promise something...and you don’t do it, there’s the sense of failure...The uncommitted is simply the most polite possible way you can say to a Democratic president in the presidential primary, I’m not happy with you. We’ve seen the rude ways, you know, starting in 1968. It’s with real candidates running against the incumbent president who get real votes and do real damage.” — The Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell, 8:26 p.m. Eastern. ‘Grifters’ Alito, Thomas Want to Elect Trump So They Can ‘Retire’, Win ‘Wonderful Vacays’ “The Supreme Court sits atop it all, trying to ensure the longevity of Republican government, because that is how they get their wonderful vacays and they’re going to do whatever they can to make sure that Donald Trump comes in, so that those two grifters on the Court — if I might say — to retire and have 30-year-old versions of themselves to replicate the grift.” — Reid, 11:53 p.m. Eastern. Racism, Hurting Black People — Not Christ — Is Top Issue for Evangelical Americans “I’ve just been, like, very interested in the roots of how evangelicals became such a potent political force. And, in some ways, it’s a homecoming for them, right? The — it was 1980 and it was really school desegregation efforts and it was the Bob Jones fight against the IRS that brought evangelicals into the movement.....Bob Jones, Christian University, and they basically outlawed interracial dating on the campus of Bob Jones University. There was another school involved in the suit that didn’t allow black people in the school at all. That was the thing. Not abortion, not busing, but really desegregation was the thing that brought evangelicals into the — into political movement of the right-wing under the auspices of, you know, free religion and free speech and what Christian, you know, institutions should be allowed to do. But really, at its core, it was race. And, in some ways, you know, we think about evangelicals and Trump as being so different — right — these godly, you know, faithful people, and this unfaithful person who’s been found guilty in civil trials of sexual assault — the issue of race animates Donald Trump. The issue of race has long animated the evangelical movement. And, in some ways, it makes perfect sense that you are seeing the unity that you are today.” — Alex Wagner Tonight host Alex Wagner, 9:16 p.m. Eastern. Maddow MELTS DOWN Over MSNBC Overruling Her, Carrying Trump Speech Maddow: “We are keeping an eye right on Trump campaign headquarters where — I believe, we are expecting remarks — remarks have just started for former President Donald Trump. Let’s — let’s — let’s listen in.” Maddow: “Yeah, okay. Um, you know, it’s — it’s — it is — uh — okay. I will say it is a decision that we revisit constantly in terms of the balance between allowing somebody to knowingly lie on your air about things they’ve lied about before and you can predict they are going to lie about, and so, therefore, it is irresponsible to allow them to do that. It’s a balance between knowing that that is irresponsible to broadcast and also knowing that as the de facto — soon to be de facto nominee of the Republican Party, this is not only the man who is likely to be the Republican candidate for president, but this is the way he’s running.” The 11th Hour host Stephanie Ruhle: “Well, here’s how to balance it. Why don’t we fact-check the hell out of him.” Maddow: “Yes, and we do that after the fact. And that is the best remedy that we’ve got. It does not fix the fact that we broadcast it, honestly.” — 10:17 p.m. Eastern. ‘Crisis of Civics’; Dumb Americans Are ‘The Problem’, ‘Credit Themselves’ For Pay Bumps, Not Biden     Ruhle: “And so, what Donald Trump does is prey upon the fact that people don’t necessarily feel good and life’s expensive. But, when it comes to facts, here’s something that’s absolutely nonsensical and infuriating. When people’s wages go up, they credit themselves. They say, I’m good at my job. I just got a raise. But when everything costs more, they blame the government.” Maddow: “Right.” Ruhle: “And wages are up, which is a huge positive and one of the reasons wage — one of those reasons that wages are up is all of the union wins in the last few years. And, remember, President Biden has stood with those unions.” — 10:27 p.m. Eastern. Ruhle: “So, yes, we, like everybody else rightfully say this White House has to get their messaging down but the American people also have to realize, ‘holy cow. Look at all these great things that have just happened for me.’ Did they think that happened out of thin air?” Maddow: “Right. Yeah.” O’Donnell: “Yes.” Maddow: “Drug price —” O’Donnell: “They do.” Reid: “They do, yes.” O’Donnell: “That’s the problem.” Ruhle: “They do.” Maddow: “They personalize the benefits.” O’Donnell: “The — I mean, for example, when — when those credit card bank fee — when that kicks in, no one’s going to — I mean, the people who need a look at that statement go, ‘oh, Joe Biden did that.’ They’re not going to have any idea who did that —” Ruhle: “They won’t.” O’Donnell: “— and they won’t know.” Ruhle: “No.” Ruhle: “Because people don’t know — they don’t have government work. We do have a crisis of civics in this country. Some people actually don’t know how these things change. And there is a — a — sort of — there’s a systematic problem that politics — we talked about this before — is broken because the connection between politics and the things that happen in my life has been severed....So, the things that hurt them, the things that make it harder to afford your life, they blame Biden. But the things that help, they think — as you said, ‘I did great at my job. I did this.’” Ruhle: “‘I got a raise.’” Reid: “‘I created, I got a raise,’ but there isn’t a connection between the way that the government actually functions which is what Democrats are good at and the way you feel, which is what Republicans are good at.” — Panel-wide meltdown, 10:36 p.m. Eastern. Insisting ‘Migrant Crime Is Not a Thing’, ‘Xenophobia’ to Say Otherwise       Maddow: “[W]hen there’s — particularly when a Democratic incumbent, we get reminded about the borders and the borders become a thing again. And then, if there’s a Republican in office, we don’t think about it anymore. It’s the deficit and the border. You make these things an issue, you make them into boogeymen, you make them into something that grabs you from under the bed at night as soon as you wake up. As long as there’s a Democratic incumbent to blame on it, you make sure that nothing is ever done to fix either and then you hope that people stop talking about them once you’ve got a Republican in office.” Deadline: White House host Nicolle Wallace: “But the Republicans —” Maddow: “It’s the same thing my entire adult life.” Wallace: “— but they — but they — the only difference now is they — they drop the every four years part. And, now, I mean, all the programming about cities with the [inaudible] threat of crime — and — crime — and their theory.” Maddow: “But, meanwhile, on Earth one — Wallace [Laughing]: “Yeah.” Maddow: “— the FBI reports that crime in America is at a 50 year low —“ Psaki: “And migrant crime is not a thing.” Maddow: “— migrant crime is not a thing.” Psaki: “It’s not.” Maddow: “And you live on Earth one. But this is a very complicated concept, I know —  [PANEL LAUGHS] — because Fox News is right there.” — Conversation on illegal immigration, 9;19 p.m. Eastern. O’Donnell: “Cities are overrun with crime. Crime is down — you know, put the — put the FBI statistics —” Maddow: “Violent crime is at a 50-year-low, okay?” O’Donnell: “— at a 50 year low. Unemployment is at a 50 year low. You just plug them in and just roll his speech and just let those things cycle by while he’s talking.” Wagner: “It’s — it’s more than just crime is down. Just last week, NBC News came out with a study that said, in the cities that receive the most migrants — crime is down. The DOJ has a report in the cities that have received the most migrants, there is no — homicide rates, robbery, there is no there there. Biden migrant crime is going be — that’s his new line And let’s not forget the xenophobia inherent in all this, the racism that’s inherent in all this. Not only is it incumbent on the news media to correct the record, it is also incumbent upon the Biden administration because, thus far, they have really played footsie with this narrative that there — I mean, there is a problem with our immigration system. It, of course, needs to be fixed. Immigrants are also central to the American economy and they are not, you know — they are single-handedly the cause of fentanyl coming over the border. They are not all criminal. They are not laying waste to American project and it — it is incumbent upon all of us who care about the truth on Earth one to — to push back and correct the record on a group of people that has been maligned in spectacular fashion.” — Back-and-forth at 10:31 p.m. Eastern. Texas Wonderboy Allred Will Be ‘Worst Nightmare’ for ‘AWOL,’ ‘Deeply Unpopular’ Cruz Maddow: “And, in the middle of this is the deeply, deeply, deeply unpopular incumbent Unite States Senator, Ted Cruz, who is up this year. And he is about to get a Democratic challenger based on what happens in the Democratic primary tonight. And that Democratic challenger is going to be riding off the draft of Beto O’Rourke having run in 2018 and having gotten within three points of Ted Cruz.” All In host Chris Hayes: “And I — I really do think — and I think one of the things we’ve really have seen over and over again in this era is candidate quality really does matter. All of this stuff is kind of baked in up to 45, 46, 44 percent and then, the marginal points matter a lot. And, in a state like Texas, if you’re running — for Democrat...you’ve got a huge uphill battle. But there’s a reason that Ted Cruz underperforms what the baseline should be for a Texas statewide officeholder, which he does. And that is he is not that appealing to a lot of people. And that’s a — he’s going to have vulnerabilities. Maddow: “I mean, aside form his fantastic personality.” Hayes: “Well, he’s also doing, like — I — seriously — we checked this the other day. He’s doing, like, nine podcasts per week. I swear to God the guy doesn’t even want to be a U.S. Senator. He just gets in that big goofy chair and does his Verdict podcast, like, four times a week.” — Cruz-bashing discussion, 8:50 p.m. Eastern. Wallace: “[W]hen I was still in Republican politics, Ted Cruz is the most hated Republican among Republicans. I mean, Republicans can’t stand him. So, whatever we have to say about hi, it’s — it’s tenfold on the Republican side. And it’s not like Texas hasn’t had crises. They’ve had deadly storms. They’ve had deadly power outages and he’s been AWOL, like, on vacation. So, he’s got a lot of baggage and — and — and headwinds inside the Republican Party and he’s done a very bad job for the state.” Reid: “So, is Colin Allred the kind of candidate — I mean, former football player —” Wallace: “I think so. And, I mean, from Dal — I mean, he’s sort of in that beating-heart of the state. He’s very Texas-y.” — More Cruz bashing, 8:52 p.m. Eastern. “NBC News can project the winner of the Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Texas will be Colin Allred...He turfed out a Republican congressman to get into Congress in the first place. He’s a moderate. He’s a very effective campaigner. He’s a very good fundraiser...and he is Ted Cruz’s worst nightmare in terms of Ted Cruz holding onto his seat in Texas.” — Maddow, 10:04 p.m. Eastern. Republicans Vote Based ‘On Racial Animus’ Against ‘Brown People’, Not ‘Economics’     “You’re seeing this of sort a disconnect between a President that is a white working-class guy himself and keeps doing all these things that disproportionately benefit white, working-class Americans in red states and their reaction to him is they hate him...[I]t is because the most economically vulnerable voters tend to be young voters who tend to be more voters of color...[Republicans] don’t vote based on economics or based on the benefits they are getting economically from the President. They are increasingly, from the Tea Party on, they are voting on race. They’re voting on this idea of an invasion of brown people over the border. The idea that they can’t get whatever job they want, a black person got it, therefore, drive blacks out of the colleges. Get rid of DEI. That is what they are voting on. They’re just voting on specifically on racial animus which, at this stage, it isn’t about economics.” — Reid, 9:17 p.m. Eastern. Biden’s Done ‘More...Than Any Modern President’; Trump, Not COVID, Caused Bad Border, Economy “[I] you want to do another chart of when you saw the spike in border crossings because it was down to record numbers under George W. Bush and President Obama, it spiked again because of COVID. COVID is the spike again. Just look at the chart. All of these crises that — Donald Trump inherited a strong, growing economy and managed to ruin it by ruining — by — by messing up his one crisis, which was COVID, which is why the border went crazy. It’s why inflation went crazy. All of those crises that Joe Biden has had to fix. Joe Biden’s job creation rate is second only to Bill Clinton. He’s not only done, you know, fixed it. He’s actually has been more successful as a domestic policy President than any modern president. All of the things Donald Trump is taking credit for on the campaign trail are Biden things and Joe Biden needs to run out there and take credit for it.” — Reid, 10;32 p.m. Eastern. Democrats Need to Grow Up, Cut the ‘Neurosis and Anxiety’ With Biden Wallace: “It’s, like, one of the most toxic things out there for Democrats, and it is one of still sort of the DNA differences between the two parties that remain...Republicans still fall in line. Democrats still wait to fall — not just in love. Because I think they do love Biden. They think he’s a good man and they love his agenda. They want to be madly in love. And they’re waiting for —” Reid: “They want to be excited.” Wallace: “— they want — they — they are — it is so toxic for as many Democrats as I run into just anecdotally, and I think it shows up in some of the polls, to be waiting about, casting about for some scenario that is never going to happen.” Reid: “That is never going to happen.” Hayes: “There’s also just a wild asymmetry in the levels of neurosis and anxiety.” Reid: “Oh, yeah.” Hayes: “Just, like manifested time and time again, it’s like a deep political truth about the two coalitions, about how sort of anxious and second-guessing and self-guessing the Democratic Party coalition — its elites, its sort of spokespeople — like — the — the — the intellectuals — right — compared to just the sheer lack of any of that, particularly in the...MAGA world.” — Conversations about party psychology, 8:04 p.m. Eastern.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Super Tuesday Sneers and State of the Union Cheers

By: Tim Graham — March 6th 2024 at 22:43
There weren't any surprises in the Super Tuesday results, but there was some surprising sneering from MSNBC about anyone who thinks immigration is a top issue. Managing Editor Curtis Houck joins the show to explain Jen Psaki and Rachel Maddow trying to assert "migrant crime is not a thing." Reporters are already laying the groundwork for how Biden will display his sharp mind at the State of the Union and remind the public of all of his great "achievements," like inflation reduction. Curtis pointed out Stephanie Ruhle was adamant that if you succeed in life right now, that's Joe Biden who did that.  She said "this White House has to get their messaging down but the American people also have to realize, ‘holy cow. Look at all these great things that have just happened for me.’ Did they think that happened out of thin air?” Last year after the big Biden speech, the liberal media called him "Mr. Smooth" and "brilliant." The bad polls on the age issue will no doubt cause a bevy of bubbly talk about his performance. But he's just reading a speech. He's not taking on reporters in a press conference or debating a Republican opponent.  The Super Tuesday results spurred not only Republican Nikki Haley to suspend her presidential campaign, but also Democrat Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who the pro-Biden media energetically ignored. PBS NewsHour tweeted about his "longshot" campaign after he quit. In the four months or so he was campaigning, PBS aired three soundbites and never interviewed him...just the way the Biden team would want it. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

SPYING ON YOUR CASH: Explosive Report Exposes Gov’t-Financial Sector Collusion to Surveil Americans

By: Joseph Vazquez — March 6th 2024 at 23:39
Apparently Big Tech isn’t the only sector that the U.S. government is exploiting to achieve its dystopian ends against Americans. An explosive new congressional report unveiled another field of abhorrent government collusion with financial institutions to surveil citizens’ private transactions. The House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released a 36-page interim report March 6 outlining the extent of the “mass” government spying effort. “This financial surveillance was not predicated on any specific evidence of particularized criminal conduct and, even worse, it keyed on terms and specific transactions that concerned core political and religious expression protected by the Constitution,” the report stated. One document shared with financial institutions by federal law enforcement “noted that those Americans who expressed opposition to firearm regulations, open borders, COVID-19 lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and the ‘deep state’ may be potential domestic terrorists,” despite them not having to be suspected of committing any specific crimes. The House report concluded that federal law enforcement used this Stasi-esque line of reasoning to “commandeer” financial institutions to conduct sweeping, Orwellian searches of Americans’ financial data. The FBI and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) were both flagged as having multiple meetings with a litany of financial and fintech institutions, including Barclays, U.S. Bank, Charles Schwab, HSBC, Bank of America, PayPal, KeyBank, Standard Chartered, Western Union, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Santander, JPMorgan Chase, and MUFG. The purpose of these meetings were to coordinate strategies for the aforementioned institutions to “voluntarily” share private customer information with federal law enforcement “outside of normal legal processes.” Transactions that were to be caught up in the government-controlled financial surveillance dragnet were flagged based on benign political search terms, as the report showed. Federal law enforcement jawboned banks to filter through Zelle payments using terms like “‘MAGA’ and ‘TRUMP’ as part of an ostensible investigation into the events on January 6, 2021, and also warned that ‘the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views,’ could be evidence of ‘Homegrown Violent Extremism.’” But that’s not all. FinCEN in particular was reported to have instructed financial institutions through disseminated materials on the usage of Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) to assist with flagging potential “‘extremists’” and criminals. As the House report analyzed, the MCCs targeted transactions using key keywords such as “‘small arms’” purchases or stores like “‘Cabela’s,’” “‘Bass Pro Shop’” and “‘Dick’s Sporting Goods.’” The House report didn’t mince words in its summary of FinCEN’s malevolent behavior: Americans doing nothing other than shopping or exercising their Second Amendment rights were being tracked by financial institutions and federal law enforcement. Despite these transactions having no criminal nexus, FinCEN seems to have adopted a characterization of these Americans as potential threat actors and subject to surveillance. George Orwell turns over in his grave.  Read the full House Judiciary Committee and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government interim report here.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CNN's Van Jones: A Vote for Trump Is For ‘Russian Tanks Rolling Through Europe’

By: P.J. Gladnick — March 7th 2024 at 07:20
A Donald Trump Super Tuesday victory parade meant that it was time to for CNN's Van Jones to go full apocalypse. On Wednesday, in the aftermath of Nikki Haley's withdrawal from the 2024 presidential primary race, anchor Jim Acosta asked Jones how Joe Biden could earn the votes from Haley supporters and donors. That provided the opportunity for Jones to conjure up images of "Russian tanks rolling through Europe" if Trump returns to the White House. Here is Van Jones channeling his inner fearmonger:   JIM ACOSTA: And — and Van, what does President Biden need to do at this point to earn those Nikki Haley’s supporters, bring them into the fold? We saw the Biden campaign putting out a statement for President Biden, almost immediately after Nikki Haley walked off that stage in South Carolina. What do you think? VAN JONES: I think he needs to — to talk to her donors and her supporters and say, if you want to a year from now, watch Russian tanks rolling through Europe, then, you know, endorse Donald Trump and get on that bandwagon. But understand, you’re going to wake up one morning and you’re going to see horror across Europe, you’re going to have American soldiers, sailors, having to go over there and do something that we could have done with dollars we have to do with — with blood. If you want to continue to see the country being divided and unable to — to govern itself and treat itself well, get on that Trump train. But you got a place over here. Now, he also, I think, needs to make a stronger case for what he is going to do to keep the economy moving in a good direction for people who go in grocery stores and can’t pay for their groceries. He says he’s going to sic the DoJ and the FTC on these grocers, these corporate grocers that are ripping off Americans, he needs to lean into that for the voters. But for the  people like us who care about a democracy around the world, they have a binary choice, we’re out of NATO and Russia is running over Europe, or you stand with Joe Biden. If this sounds like a familiar refrain from Van Jones on the subject of Trump that could be because he went down this apocalyptic road before such as in October 2017 when Jones suggested that Trump was "willing" to have Americans die "to get his way." So don't be too surprised to hear of more Van Jones visions of Trump-inspired doom as we approach this year's election in November.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Colbert Turns Late Show Into Socialist Hour With Sanders

By: Alex Christy — March 7th 2024 at 10:02
According to CBS’s Stephen Colbert, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is his second-most common guest. On Tuesday, Sanders was on again as Colbert turned The Late Show into The Socialist Show as he opened the floor to Sanders to predict Donald Trump will lead to more wildfires, the erosion of women’s rights, and the reason why the Biden Economy isn’t doing so well is because of greedy corporations. Colbert put the ball on the tee for Sanders as he inquired, “As someone who spent his life trying to push our nation forward, how does it feel for you to see so many voters returning to a person that I, for one, thought have been politically discredited even among his own party, Donald Trump.”     After calling it “distressing,” Sanders went through a list of reasons why “take something like climate change. Every sane person on this earth understands that the world is getting warmer. I mean, right now in Texas, there is a horrible forest fire, the worst they've ever had. We’ve seen fires all over the world, heat waves, storms, unprecedented. Truth is Trump doesn't even believe in the concept of climate change. Will work with the fossil fuel industry to increase oil production, et cetera and that will send a signal all over the world that the fight against climate change has basically been lost and I wonder what kind of climate our kids and grandchildren will inherit.” Sanders also freaked that “Then if you look at women's rights. My god, women have struggled forever and to be full citizens of this country, to be able to control their own bodies. If Trump wins, it will be a massive-- and his Republican colleagues-- a massive setback to women's rights and the right of women to control their own bodies.” After a commercial break, Colbert once again opened up the floor, “If Bernie Sanders was giving the State of the Union address on Thursday, what would he say the state of our union is?” Sanders gave his usual stump speech before adding, “But, I think what the president has got to recognize is that there are a lot of people who are hurting out there. People going to the grocery store, can't afford food, can't afford to fill up their gas tanks, working incredible hours, having a hard time taking care of their kids or their parents.” Sounds like quite the indictment of the Biden economy, but Sanders insisted that it is not Biden’s fault, “we have made some progress, but the president has got to understand we have a long way to go here, we have to have the courage, Stephen, and this is not easy, to take on a very powerful corporate ruling class whose greed in many ways is destroying this country. We got to take them on and create an economy for all, not the few.” Sanders wants to impose policies that make gas more expensive, then gets mad at the fossil fuel companies when prices get more expensive. If Colbert was more of an interviewer than a fan, he might have pointed this out. Here is a transcript for the March 5-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 3/6/2024 12:06 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: As someone who spent his life trying to push our nation forward, how does it feel for you to see so many voters returning to a person that I, for one, thought have been politically discredited even among his own party, Donald Trump.  BERNIE SANDERS: It's distressing. To say the least. And what I am concerned about is I think many people don't understand what a Trump presidency will look like and it will be a disaster not only for our country but I think, you know, for the world. And if you look at -- and if you look at, you know, Stephen, if you just look at the issues and I don't want to rattle them all off, but take something like climate change. Every sane person on this Earth understands that the world is getting warmer. I mean, right now in Texas, there is a horrible forest fire, the worst they've ever had. We’ve seen fires all over the world, heat waves, storms, unprecedented.  Truth is Trump doesn't even believe in the concept of climate change. Will work with the fossil fuel industry to increase oil production, et cetera and that will send a signal all over the world that the fight against climate change has basically been lost and I wonder what kind of climate our kids and grandchildren will inherit. That's just one thing.  Then if you look at women's rights. My god, women have struggled forever and to be full citizens of this country, to be able to control their own bodies. If Trump wins, it will be a massive-- and his Republican colleagues-- a massive setback to women's rights and the right of women to control their own bodies.  … COLBERT: The State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress is this Thursday. We'll be here live afterwards making the jokes. If Bernie Sanders was giving the State of the Union address on Thursday, what would he say the state of our union is?  SANDERS: God, I wish I was going to give that address. Matter of fact, now that you mention it.  COLBERT: You gave it a shot.  SANDERS: I gave it a shot. Alright, this is what I would say. I would say that in the last couple of years we've made some progress on a number of important issues. We have a long way to go. This is the greatest country on Earth. This is the wealthiest nation on Earth. We should not have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major nation on Earth. We should not be the only wealthy country that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a human right. We should not have a federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. We should not have, as you mentioned, billionaires and large corporations not paying a nickel in federal income tax. We should lead the world in transforming our energy system to save the planet for our kids and grandchildren. You know, those are some of the issues.  But, I think what the president has got to recognize is that there are a lot of people who are hurting out there. People going to the grocery store, can't afford food, can't afford to fill up their gas tanks, working incredible hours, having a hard time taking care of their kids or their parents. So we have made some progress, but the president has got to understand we have a long way to go here, we have to have the courage, Stephen, and this is not easy, to take on a very powerful corporate ruling class whose greed in many ways is destroying this country. We got to take them on and create an economy for all, not the few. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

State-Run TV: Geoff Bennett's Pre-State of the Union Softballs for KJP on PBS

By: Tim Graham — March 7th 2024 at 11:18
The PBS NewsHour was comfy-friendly territory for Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Wednesday night in her State of the Union preview. PBS anchor Geoff Bennett and Jean-Pierre were both MSNBC regulars a few years back. The whole interview sounded like a Democrat strategy session. How does Biden use this speech to beat Trump? It's allegedly a speech appealing for "unity," but it's a campaign speech? Bennett began by declaring the speech is "essentially the hard launch of his reelection campaign. And this is a president who is facing sinking poll numbers, concerns about his age, a progressive base that's been splintered over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. How is the president aiming to use this speech to address those concerns, while also conveying his vision for the future?" Here's how you define softball interview: Jean-Pierre was then allowed to speak for 358 words (almost two minutes), about women's reproductive health "under attack," democracy "under attack," blah blah blah, before they edited into the next question.   Bennett's follow-up? More talk among Bennett and his fellow Democrats:  BENNETT: I have spoken with Democrats, Karine, supporters of his, who make the case that in some ways what matters more than what the president says is how he says it. Does he appear energetic? Does he appear to be vigorous, given the fact that poll after poll shows that majorities of Americans have serious concerns about his age? How attuned is the White House to that? Notice that there's apparently nothing Biden can say that suggests the Democrats are extreme or mistaken about anything. KJP offered the usual advertising answer about how Experience Delivers Results. This spurred more Democrat worrying about how Biden's "objectively popular policies" aren't helping with his approval rating!  BENNETT: And yet there is this persistent disconnect between the president's objectively popular policies like student debt relief… reducing prescription drug costs, capping junk fees, et cetera, and his underwater approval ratings. What's the White House's theory of the case as to why that is? KJP basically thanked him for the softball:  "You just said it. Every issue that the president is working on is popular, whether it's student loans, whether it is making sure that we're dealing with gun violence in a way that really helps to save and protect communities, save our young people's lives, right?" By this juncture, it might spur giggles that these Democrats just can't figure out Biden is so unpopular, and why their "the people will come around" blather isn't turning out. This is the closest thing to a hardball (but it's not!):  BENNETT: Hasn't the president been saying that for the better part of three years, that once the American people start to feel the impact of these policies, once the American people start to see these shovel-ready infrastructure projects begin, then they will fully understand the impact of the work that I have been doing? He's been saying that for years. Why hasn't that shifted? The answer was unintentionally funny: "I understand that, but I also understand and we also understand that it takes time, right?" How much time does it take?! This state-run TV echo was brought to you in part by the American taxpayer, including Republicans. And by Raymond James. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Will He or Won’t He? Doocy Confronts KJP on Whether Biden Will Debate Trump

By: Curtis Houck — March 7th 2024 at 11:41
Fox’s Peter Doocy made the most Wednesday afternoon of the last briefing for the week (with Thursday’s State of the Union and President Biden on the road for Friday) as he went around and around with the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre over whether Biden will actually debate former President Trump now the general election fight is all but set in stone. But first, as a quick aside, Doocy led off with a question that drew some chuckles concerning Tuesday’s caucus in American Samoa: “[H]as President Biden called to congratulate Jason Palmer?” Once Jean-Pierre replied that Team Biden does “congratulate Jason Palmer on his win last night,” Doocy cut to the main event: “Now that the field is down to two, is President Biden going to commit to a debate with Donald Trump?”     Jean-Pierre refused to answer, hiding behind the Hatch Act and thus punting to the campaign. Nonetheless, Doocy pointed out how, during the last campaign, Biden said he could “hardly wait to debate” Trump (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: That’s something for the campaign to speak to. DOOCY: Well, we know when the debates are going to be. JEAN-PIERRE: I do. DOOCY: We know where they’re going to be. Is he going to go? JEAN-PIERRE: You should speak to the campaign. DOOCY: In 2020, once it got down to one on one. Joe Biden said, “I can hardly wait to debate him.” How about now? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m gonna sound like a broken record. You should reach out to the campaign. DOOCY: Why is this a campaign thing? JEAN-PIERRE: Because it’s an election. It’s a debate for the 2024 presidential election. DOOCY: I’m not asking what argument he is going to make — JEAN-PIERRE: Well — DOOCY: — at a debate. I’m just as — JEAN-PIERRE: — it’s not a — DOOCY: — do that. JEAN-PIERRE: — it’s not an ar — we’re not talking about arguments. You were talking about his attendance. Doocy tried another way: “You get a lot of questions in here about these polls concerning the President’s age and his acuity. Do you think that it is going to quiet concerns about the President’s age and acuity if he decides not to debate?” Only then with the qualifier that she wouldn’t specifically be “talking about the debate” did she opine that Biden’s age will be put to rest by the State of the Union and Biden “lay[ing] out his plans” after “a successful three years of progress.” A long, winding answer later (that was interrupted by a loud sneeze in the back of the Briefing Room), Doocy kept pushing: “So, just for clarity, it’s possible that there will be no Joe Biden-Donald Trump debates this fall?” Jean-Pierre thought she could mock Doocy into giving up: “Is that you — is that what you’re excited about? Is that what you want to see? Because you keep asking me. You asked me about three, four, five different times in different ways.” Amid crosstalk, Doocy wasn’t having it: “I would love to see Joe Biden and Donald Trump debate. How about you? How would President Biden do in a debate? I’m not asking a question about a specific debate. I’m just — how would he do in a debate?” Jean-Pierre moved on, but not before claiming Biden shouting back and forth with Republicans over entitlements at the 2023 State of Union was proof of his “impressive” stamina. Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann immediately followed and, after a question about the impending resignation of the longtime (and, for some, controversial and shadowy) State Department official Victoria Nuland, he inquired as to Biden’s thoughts on “France codifying abortion rights into their constitution.” As you’ll see below, Jean-Pierre waxed poetic about how glad the regime was to see this, but Wegmann quickly turned the tables and got a non-answer when he brought up the fact that it actually prohibits abortion after 14 weeks (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: So, we appreciate countries taking a step forward to protect the right for a woman — a woman or women to make a very difficult decisions [sic] on their health care. We appreciate that, and I think that’s a good thing to see. And, as it relates to here in this country, the President’s going to talk about Reproductive rights and fighting for that and what we’re seeing across the country — more than 300 bills that were introduced recently on finding ways to prevent women from making these really important decisions on their bodies, and that should not be and that’s because Roe v. Wade was overturned, which is a law — a — law that was Constitution for those — part of the Constitution for almost 50 years, almost 50 years. And that was taken away. We see Republicans putting forth three national — national bans against abortion. That’s — you know, that’s not — that’s not what the President is fighting for. He’s fighting for the right for a woman to make a decision on their — on her — on her own body. WEGMANN: And does he think that the French prohibition on abortion after 14 weeks is reasonable? JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to get into the specifics of that particular bill. What I could say — it’s — it’s always important to see other — other countries actually take steps to protecting — protecting rights — fundamental rights that women should have, but I’m not going to get into the specifics of the bill. Finally, Bloomberg’s Jordan Fabian and The New York Times’s Michael Shear deserve shoutouts for bringing up the bipartisan legislation that, if passed, would require TikTok to divest from its Chinese Communist Party-linked parent company ByteDance or face a U.S. ban. Along with both making sure National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s support for the bill is where the administration writ large stands, Shear seemed to suggest a TikTok White House event was afloat, which Jean-Pierre refused to confirm or deny: “Is the President planning on talking to TikTok influencers on Friday after the State of the Union about his speech?” To see the relevant transcript from the March 6 briefing (including one from the left about whether Biden’s speech will channel “the anger and frustration” about the lack of a ceasefire being imposed on Israel), click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

UPDATE: Doritos Spain FIRES Transgender Ambassador, Is It Too Late?

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 7th 2024 at 10:40
Earlier this week, Doritos Spain, which is a subsidiary of PepsiCo, announced its partnership with transgender influencer Samantha Hudson. After the announcement, old tweets from Hudson resurfaced linking him to many pedophilic and rapist thoughts. Doritos Spain has now decided to end the partnership with Hudson. Why these companies don’t research people they’re hiring before they hire them is beyond me, but at least they’re doing something about it now! Doritos shot itself in the foot after partnering with Hudson. Critics called the partnership a disaster waiting to happen and compared it to the failure that Bud Light became after partnering up with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney last year.  Hudson's pedophilic tendencies are highlighted in his past tweets. “I want to do depraved things, like stick a 12-year-old girl up my ass,” he tweeted once. Other tweets, which were translated using Google Translate, read: “If a minor came up to me to ask for help because she was a victim of sexual harassment, I would spit in her face.” “In the middle of the street in Mallorca, in panties and shouting that im a nymphomanic in front if a super nice 8-year-old girl.” “I cry with laughter at videos of bullying that ends in suicide.” “I just ran my tongue through my little cousin’s vagina and she smiled at me. The little ones also deserve pleasure.” It took the internet like 20 seconds to find proof that Hudson is a pedophile, yet Doritos seemed to be shocked by the news.  Here’s what the company said in a statement to Rolling Stone: We recently created a content series with Samantha Hudson, a local influencer. After the campaign started, we were made aware of Samantha’s deleted Tweets from around 2015. We have ended the relationship and stopped all related campaign activity due to the comments. We strongly condemn words or actions that promote violence or sexism of any kind. The video of Hudson promoting the chips has been deleted from Doritos Spain’s Instagram. Funnily enough, Rolling Stone insisted that the breakup with Hudson was forced by “the right,” like it had done with Bud Light. Sorry, but people don’t want to buy from brands who support pedophiles. Is that wrong? Apparently, it is to Rolling Stone. Honestly, nobody planned to boycott Doritos because Hudson thinks he's a girl. People planned to boycott the company, because Hudson formerly posted pedophilic tweets and comments, and Doritos - at the time - didn’t seem to care.  I wonder if Doritos reversed their decision before they inevitably succumb to the “get woke, go broke” slogan. I guess time will tell!
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Walgreens and CVS are Now Selling Abortion Pills

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 7th 2024 at 12:54
On Friday, two of the nation's largest pharmacy retailers announced they’d start selling abortion pills on their shelves. This decision comes just weeks before the Supreme Court is set to reach a verdict on a case insisting that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) distribution of mail order abortion pills is dangerous and reckless. CVS and Walgreens “received certification from the FDA to dispense mifepristone to consumers,” Townhall reported. The same report indicated that mifepristone’s accessibility at CVS will begin in stores in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and that Walgreens will roll out the pill in select pharmacy locations in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California and Illinois. “We continually monitor and evaluate changes in state laws and will dispense mifepristone in any state where it is or becomes legally permissible to do so,” CVS Spokesperson Amy Thibault said according to The New York Times. This is incredibly harmful and nerve wracking for women and babies. Putting a pill that, if successful, kills at least one person on a shelf in a pharmacy gives off the impression that doing so is not a big deal. The abortion pill works by chemically killing a child in the womb and then forcing the mother to deliver the child. It can cause up to a month of cramping, bleeding and severe pain for the mother. It’s also “four times more dangerous” than surgical abortions and has reportedly increased abortion-related ER visits by 500 percent from 2002-2015. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s State Policy Director Katie Daniel noted how horrific this move by CVS and Walgreens is.  As two of the world’s largest, most trusted ‘health’ brands, the decision by CVS and Walgreens to sell dangerous abortion drugs is shameful, and the harm to unborn babies and their mothers incalculable. This reckless policy was made possible by the Biden administration, which is pushing to turn every pharmacy and post office in America into an abortion center for the sake of abortion industry greed. Even when used under the strongest safeguards, abortion drugs send roughly one in 25 women to the emergency room, according to the FDA’s own label. Yet under Democrat presidents, the FDA has illegally rolled back basic safety standards, like in-person doctor visits, even allowing these deadly drugs to be sent through the mail. The FDA clearly has an agenda and it isn’t to help people, it’s to continue pushing leftist policies that strip people of their most basic human right - the right to life.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Previews SOTU By Warning 'We Could Be A Dictatorship Next Year'

By: Alex Christy — March 7th 2024 at 14:04
MSNBC presidential historian Michael Beschloss dropped by Thursday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports to preview President Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address and to warn that “we could be a dictatorship next year,” which means that Biden is akin to FDR warning about the Nazis and the Japanese prior to World War II. Mitchell asked Beschloss to “take a big picture, zoom out for us on what's at stake for him tonight. You point to FDR’s Four Freedoms speech in 1941, obviously war time, a bigger challenge, but let's, you know, talk about the challenges tonight.”     Beschloss declared that “this is a real historical moment” and warned, “We could be a dictatorship next year if Donald Trump is elected and carries through on his threats and carries through on his threats to suspend the Constitution. That's what's at stake.” He implored Biden not to “talk about other things,” but to: Confront the elephant in the room and say, you know, ‘This is a year when we Americans have to choose whether we're going to live as a democracy, as a republic, or as an authoritarian system.’ That's what FDR was doing in 1941, Nazis, fascists, Imperial Japanese were rampaging around the world, and he said ‘you Americans have to choose and also, for you Americans who think that we need to be fascist at home to compete with other fascist governments,’ which a lot of people were saying, he said we need these four freedoms. Freedom from want and fear, freedom of speech and religion.  Switching topics, Mitchell then turned to USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page and declared, “I want to talk to both of you about something we haven't seen, I don't think anything this brutal since Lee Atwater back in 1988 with his campaign ad, which is that new super PAC ad and it's all over the place, actually suggesting Joe Biden will not survive another term and also really demeaning the vice president.” Really? Nothing that bad since 1988, what about when an Obama PAC blamed Mitt Romney for someone’s wife dying of cancer? As for the part about Kamala Harris, the ad simply shows her laughing in an unflattering manner side-by-side a video of Biden tripping on the steps of Air Force One. Page only briefly addressed the ad, “We've never seen, routinely, this kind of brutality in political ads, that sort of attack, but brace yourself, because I think we're going to see a lot of it this year.” On one hand, Mitchell is upset about an ad that suggests Biden may die in office, but on the other, her other guest claims that Trump will “suspend the Constitution.” Here is a transcript for the March 7 show: MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports 3/7/2024 12:55 PM ANDREA MITCHELL: And Michael, take a big picture, zoom out for us on what's at stake for him tonight. You point to FDR’s Four Freedoms speech in 1941, obviously war time, a bigger challenge, but let's, you know, talk about the challenges tonight.  MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, this is a real historical moment. We could be a dictatorship next year if Donald Trump is elected and carries through on his threats and carries through on his threats to suspend the Constitution. That's what's at stake. So Joe Biden could finesse it and talk about other things or he could confront the elephant in the room and say, you know, "this is a year when we Americans have to choose whether we're going to live as a democracy, as a republic, or as an authoritarian system."  That's what FDR was doing in 1941, Nazis, fascists, Imperial Japanese were rampaging around the world, and he said "you Americans have to choose and also, for you Americans who think that we need to be fascist at home to compete with other fascist governments," which a lot of people were saying, he said we need these four freedoms. Freedom from want and fear, freedom of speech and religion.  MITCHELL: And Susan, I want to talk to both of you about something we haven't seen, I don't think anything this brutal since Lee Atwater back in 1988 with his campaign ad, which is that new super PAC ad and it's all over the place, actually suggesting Joe Biden will not survive another term and also really demeaning the vice president. Susan, you first.  SUSAN PAGE: We've never seen, routinely, this kind of brutality in political ads, that sort of attack, but brace yourself, because I think we're going to see a lot of it this year. I think it's no holds barred, and I'll be interested in the kind of reception that President Biden is given tonight in the House chamber. There was a long tradition of a respectful audience. That has not been the case in some previous recent years, and I'll be curious about what kind of -- what happens tonight. We'll be watching that. It did provide Biden with one of his good moments at the last State of the Union when he made a retort when Marjorie Taylor Greene called him a liar and he took that as a commitment to Social Security and Medicare, but you know, this is likely to be, I think, Andrea, a brutal campaign year. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

SEC Chair Makes A Fool of Himself on CNBC Defending Pushing ESG Disclosures on Businesses

By: Tom Olohan — March 7th 2024 at 15:10
Gary Gensler, the eco-obsessed Securities and Exchange Commission chair, went on CNBC to make a pathetic attempt to defend a recent, outrageous decision forcing American businesses to make climate change-related disclosures. While on CNBC’s Power Lunch on March 6, Gensler defended this contentious decision, citing the supposed need to ensure investors had access to information. This decision creates a regulatory burden for American businesses while arming radical climate activists with the information they need to pressure businesses. Gessler dismissed the idea that his order placed an undue burden on American companies. He even went as far as to ridiculously refer to himself and his colleagues as “agnostic” towards what he referred to as “climate risk” for investors. A number of users on X (formerly Twitter), including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), let the SEC have it in response.  In a post on X, Scalise wrote, “Biden's SEC just made a radical rule change to allow climate activists to hijack America's capital markets. This is just the latest Biden Administration move that'll hurt retirement savers, job creators, and America's energy security. The House will take action to block it.” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) also condemned the SEC move as a partisan imposition disconnected from the agency’s mandate. “The SEC’s job is not climate science or helping asset managers market their products, but to ensure orderly markets,” Comer wrote in a press statement. “It’s time to get back to work.” Consumers First Executive Director Will Hild went after both the SEC decision and Gensler’s propaganda effort on CNBC. On X, Hild ripped into the burdens the SEC had heaped on American businesses. Hild went on to highlight the contrast between the tyrannical decision of the SEC on climate with the SEC Chair’s absurd claim to be “agnostic” on climate risk.  Fox News Contributor Steve Milloy referred to the decision as “illegal” in a post on X. At the same time, ten states are appealing this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Late in the interview, Gessler pulled out all the stops and told the hosts that this decision was needed to stop “greenwashing” or as he defined it, “the companies that are bragging about [environmental goals] that might not be valid.” The SEC chair mentioned an even more extreme possible rule to require the disclosure of “scope three” emissions, or emissions from “suppliers” and “consumers” of public companies. Not shocking anyone, Gensler conceded the monumental pushback erupting from Middle America. “We got a lot of comments about it from the agricultural community, from small and medium-sized enterprises. From many nonpublic companies and said look, even for a public company to make estimates, they may have to start asking questions of the private companies. You know, a farmer or a rancher in Montana.” In other words, the farmers, ranchers and non-public companies don’t want the companies they do business with to pressure them to change their way of life in pursuit of anti-energy climate cult nonsense. Who knew! Gensler left open the possibility that the SEC would eventually crush the farmers and ranchers of America as well. Gensler said, “We decided, though, investors are looking at the information, at this time we would not include that in any formal role.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of ESG.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC’s Biden Apple Polisher Mary Bruce Polishes More Apples Previewing SOTU

By: Curtis Houck — March 7th 2024 at 15:13
ABC’s Good Morning America set the table on Thursday for President Biden’s fourth (and possibly final) State of the Union address by doing what ABC and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce do best: polish apples for the regime. Between her two liveshots, Bruce offered all the usual talking points about Biden needing to “sell skeptical voters on his accomplishments” and “tout his record” vs. a possibly “rowdy” GOP. In the first hour, co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos set the table by touting the “a critical moment for the President” and “[h]is best chance with the biggest audience to make his case for four more years and the defeat of Donald Trump.”     An eager Bruce then bragged: Well, this is a pivotal moment for President Biden and this White House. And his campaign know [sic] it. President Biden now with the general election kicking off tonight, has to sell skeptical voters on his accomplishments and show the American public that, despite those concerns about his age, he is up for four more years on the job.  Huffing about Biden’s “most important speech yet,” Bruce insisted this will be well-crafted to have Americans get a grip on all he’s done for them: “He spent days preparing, huddling with his closest advisers at Camp David, rehearsing, fine tuning his message up until the final moment....[T]he President will tout his record, from his bipartisan infrastructure bill to tackling prescription drug costs and fighting for freedom, including access to abortion.” She then cheered on newfound abortion activist Kate Cox as a guest in First Lady Jill Biden’s box and callously phrased issues like the border and the economy as “real political challenge[s]” (click “expand”): That theme [of abortion] driven home by the guests in the First Lady’s box including Kate Cox, the Texas mother denied an abortion under the state’s strict ban despite life threatening complications. And women impacted by Alabama’s Supreme Court ruling that forced some IVF clinics to close. Just as important as the substance of the speech will be Biden’s delivery, facing persistent concerns about his age. Over 80 percent in our latest poll believing he’s too old to serve another term. The address a chance to show voters he’s up for the job. He will also take on issues at the top of voters’ mind, like immigration and economy, that are proving a real political challenge to his campaign. The President running behind Trump on both. Now, still unknown whether the President will call out Donald Trump directly by name. What is clear, Biden is likely to highlight their very different visions for the future of the country.  Bruce closed with a word about Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) being selected to give the Republican response, calling her “an interesting pick”, knocking both her as somehow a fake representation of the GOP because she’s “intended to show the next generation of the aging-male-dominated Republican Party”. The Biden tool also suggested Republicans will misbehave: BRUCE: Republicans are also a bit concerned about what’s going to go on in the room tonight. Look, this address has become increasingly rowdy. Republicans last year booing the President, even calling him a liar. Speaker Johnson has actually told his members that, “decorum is the order of the day.” George, we will see if that holds. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, we will.  In the second hour, Bruce offered a condensed version of her spin (click “expand”): [N]o question, this is a pivotal moment for President Biden, trailing in the polls to Donald Trump and facing those persistent concerns and questions over his age. The President tonight has to sell skeptical voters on his accomplishments and show the American public that he is up for another four years on the job. Now, I’m told the President is going to reflect on his record, tout those accomplishments, and also hit on some of the issues that pose the biggest challenges to his campaign, like the economy and immigration. It is still unclear whether he will go after Donald Trump directly by name. But what is clear is that the President is going to highlight and lay out their very different visions for the future of this country. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican nominee, is also gearing up for a fight. He’s already challenging the President to debate anytime, anywhere, any place. But the bottom line here, George, and guys. This is the biggest audience that the President is likely to have this year, his best chance to try and change perception ahead of the general election, as that fight kicks off...[T]he pressure’s on. CBS chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes engaged in the same antics during CBS Mornings on Tuesday and Wednesday. On the former, Cordes insisted Biden needs to “remind the American people what he has accomplished” as polls show “people still don’t know exactly what he’s gotten done over the past three years, so he’s got to talk about...the infrastructure bill” and “the climate change bill”. And, on Wednesday, she argued Biden needs “a strong performance” that “lay[s] out what he has accomplished” since Americans “don’t realize what he has gotten done” and instead believe “the economy is that great, and so he needs to make the argument that inflation is down, unemployment is down, job growth is up, wages are up.” Ah, the rubes route. Always works well for the group seen as out of touch! To see the relevant ABC transcript from March 7, click here. To see the relevant CBS transcripts, click here (for March 5) and here (for March 6).
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

'CBS Mornings' Fawns Over Drag Queen Mathematician

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 7th 2024 at 15:19
If “what in tarnation?” was a story, this would be it.  On Wednesday, CBS Mornings featured KYNE Santos, a Drag Queen who teaches about mathematics on TikTok. Hosts fawned over “Math Queen” and encouraged viewers to check out Santos’ new book, “Math in Drag,” which talks about the intersection between “mathematical mysteries” and “the art of drag.” “Yeah. You know, people think that these are two such separate worlds," Santos told the hosts. "You know, math is all about rules and getting the right answer. Drag is art, and art has no rules. But really the book is about all the ways that they overlap and really, the higher level math is about thinking creatively and, you know, questioning rules and stereotypes.” Host Gayle King added, “You say math and drag are marvelous, whimsical, controversial, and never boring,” before diving into talking about Santos’ TikTok page where he - decked out in his drag queen attire - talks about math in little video clips online. “I started making videos telling people riddles and sharing math because I want other people to experience the joys of math, as well,” Santos told CBS Mornings. Santos’ TikTok page currently has 1,500,000 followers and one of his more viral videos about the Möbius strip has over 14,500,000 views and more than 3,000,000 likes. Obviously, this has garnered some controversy, which King then proceeded to mention. She asserted that some people think Santos “shouldn’t be bringing math to kids.” “Anybody can study math. Doesn't matter what you look like. All that matters is what's in your head,” Santos insisted while the three hosts nodded and let out sounds of approval. Host Tony Dokoupil, who the others joked looked like a stereotypical math teacher, asked about why the education system is failing to teach kids math. "Math Queen" insisted that schools aren’t being creative enough and suggested that if they took an approach like he does, you know, in drag, maybe then kids would understand mathematics more.  Uh…no thank you. I think the issue is that schools are focusing more on brainwashing and progressivism than academics. Adding a drag queen to the mix is only going to make that worse in my opinion. “You embrace yourself and you really celebrate who you are and how you do what you do,” King said energetically. Santos then admitted that watching shows like RuPaul’s Drag Race helped him open his “mind up to, you know, drag queens just being artists.” Santos sees “math in everything,” King commented before he gave an example of the purple sparkly dress he was wearing, even saying that to make it he would use pi to figure out the circumference, diameter, etc. The hosts loved the “beautiful dress.”     “I like this book because it’s able to make information digestible that at sometimes, to kids and adults, can seem daunting,” host Nate Burleson said before Santos explained his desire to make math fun. While hosts were in love with Santos’ whole persona and mission, I’m trying to keep kids away from drag queens, not bring them closer to the lunacy. I do not recommend with even a morsel of my being that you get Santos’ book for your kids.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson React to MRC Video of Lefty Media Meltdowns on SCOTUS Case

By: Curtis Houck — March 7th 2024 at 18:08
On the latest episode of his podcast Verdict, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and co-host Ben Ferguson featured the latest viral video by MRC’s NewsBusters from our Bill D’Agostino in a segment lambasting the liberal media for melting down over Monday’s 9-0 Supreme Court decision for former President Trump, denying leftists a chance to remove his name from state ballots and interfere in the election. Ferguson introduced the montage by way of something they had discussed a few minutes earlier, which “was how the media covered the decision” in the initial moments and, with the broadcast networks in particular, they were “genuine and authentic for that moment before the partisan hackery” arrived. Leaving aside the dispassionate first reactions, Ferguson later said the press quickly decided they were “done with that” and told Cruz and listeners to check out “this montage” (see below) “of the media losing their minds over a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court.”     Ferguson tossed to Cruz with a “wow”, calling the clips emblematic of the left “laying the groundwork for what they want to do” to delegitimize, pack, or even dismantle the Court if they don’t get their way." Cruz replied by tearing into the “partisan hacks in the media who are losing their minds” and highlighting his favorite moment, which was MSNBC’s Katy Tur asking Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) if the Supreme Court was “partisan”. The Texas Senator provided a reality check on why “it’s truly absurd”: And understand what they’re saying. They’re saying Elena Kagan. appointed the Supreme Court by a Democrat President. is a partisan Republican. They’re saying Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by this — to the Supreme Court by a Democrat President, is a Republican partisan and my favorite is they’re saying Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed the Supreme Court by Joe Biden, is a partisan in the tank for Donald Trump. That’s what they just said and it’s truly absurd.  Cruz also took aim at the ludicrous claims in the liberal media that the real breakdown was 5-4, not 9-0. To do so, he read from the concurrence by Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Look, was there a disagreement over some of the grounds of the decision? Yes, but I actually want to read from — from a portion of — Amy Coney Barrett wrote a very short concurrence and I want to read from her final paragraph. “The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreements with stridency. The Court has settled a politically-charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election, particularly in this circumstance. Writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity. All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”  Taking that into account, Cruz reiterated that not only was this “an important victory for the rule of law,” but it was also a win for our “democracy” and the Court itself. Earlier in the podcast, Cruz provided a substantive, thorough breakdown of not only the ruling, but also the importance of the Court making its decision unanimous (click “expand”): CRUZ: [A]s soon as the Colorado Supreme Court made its decision, a divided four-three decision, where four partisan Democrat justices order Trump thrown off the ballot, you and I went on this podcast immediately thereafter. And we said that day — we said, this is not going to stand, this decision will be reversed. And — and indeed, I said, the chances of it being reversed, I believe, are 100%. Now look, that’s always dangerous to make a prediction where you’re predicting 100%. FERGUSON: Sure. CRUZ: But we went further because I said not only is it 100% that it will be reversed, I said at the time literally the day after the decision, I said, I think there’s a very good chance the decision is unanimous. Now, at the time, there were not many people saying that. There were lots of commentators on TV saying, well, they may reverse it, but it will be partisan. It will be divided among party lines. Well, that — that was not the case. What is most significant about Monday’s decision is that it was nine to zero. It was nine to zero. (....) CRUZ: Look, we have some very liberal justices. We have Elena Kagan, we have Sonia Sotomayor, we have Ketanji Brown Jackson, and all of them agreed with the outcome that the Colorado Supreme Court decision was wrong, and that Donald Trump should stay on the ballot. That is a big, big deal and I am so grateful as I sit here tonight, I am grateful it was nine-zero. If we had woken up, if — if we had turned on the TV or picked up our phones and looked and saw that it was a 6-3 decision. It was just straight party lines. And the three Democrat appointees were like no, no, no, you must throw Trump off the ballot, he’s an insurrectionist, the result would have been the same. Trump would have stayed on the ballot, but I think that would have been a terrible outcome for the country and I think it would have been a terrible outcome for the court. Look, just about every major institution in our country, its credibility has been undermined in recent years, people have less faith in the institutions of our country to understand why we’ve seen a lot of our institutions really corrupted and — and you and I talk about that a lot on this podcast. But for the court, I think it’s important for the long-term rule of law in our nation. I think it’s important for the protection of our constitutional liberties for the court to have some modicum of credibility. And — and so, I am grateful for the Democratic appointees for doing the right thing, the right thing under the law. But it was important for the court, and I think it is important for the country. Cruz then zoomed out to give a history lesson, noting that the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated American schools — “one of the most important if not the most important decision the Supreme Court has ever issued” and overturned Plessy v. Ferguson — was also unanimous. “The justices understood that — that ordering schools to desegregate — schools that had been segregated for a long, long time, schools that had a long history of racial animus that was going to be a controversial decision, and the court wanted to speak with one unanimous voice,” he explained. With our system of government at stake in this case, Cruz argued it was “paramount that it is the voters who decide that it is, not partisans” wearing robes in Colorado, Illinois, or Maine. Setting aside the fact that “there’s lots of ballot litigation” Americans might not realize (and frequently center around an x-number of signatures being required for a candidate to appear on ballots), Cruz said Trump v. Anderson happened because “these partisans hated Donald Trump and, fundamentally, I think they were afraid the voters, if given the chance, would vote for him.” To see the relevant transcript from the March 6 episode, click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PITIFUL: The New Yorker Tried Writing Biden A Mock State of the Union Speech to Sell Bidenomics

By: Joseph Vazquez — March 7th 2024 at 19:18
Apparently, The New Yorker isn’t confident President Joe Biden is capable of selling his atrocious economic policies on his own, so it has chosen to offer a propagandist’s helping hand by acting as his speech writer. New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy’s March 5 piece of drivel — “What Biden Should Say About the Economy During the State of the Union” — was literally a script written in Biden's voice to provide the president a template for how to effectively hoodwink the public into believing Biden’s economy to be anything other than the disaster it has been.  “With the President’s economic approval rating standing at just forty per cent, it’s imperative for him to highlight some of his substantive achievements and talk about the future,” Cassidy clamored in the sub-headline. But those “substantive achievements” Cassidy tried to highlight involved butchering the facts, because, after all, that’s the only way anyone can make some sort of defense of the stroke of economic bone-headedness that is Bidenomics. "Good evening, my fellow-Americans. Since I last spoke to you from this hallowed chamber of democracy, thirteen months ago, the U.S. economy has continued its strong recovery from the coronavirus pandemic," began the preachy speech. Cassidy must have realized the ridiculousness of what he was doing, because he prefaced the entire mock speech with "apologies for my lame efforts to capture [Biden's] folksy" syntax. Talk about cringe. Cassidy, writing in Biden’s voice, kicked off his spin by rolling out uncontextualized data on economic growth: “But, far from slumping, the economy expanded at a faster rate in 2023 than it did in the previous year: 2.5 per cent, compared with 1.9 per cent. In the first three years of my Presidency, inflation-adjusted G.D.P. growth has averaged 3.4 per cent.” He even had Biden trying to spin his government-spending fueled GDP growth as comparable to that of the Trump administration: “I don’t want to belabor the point, but that compares with an average annual growth of less than one per cent under the other guy.”  Cassidy also had Biden ludicrously trotting out his illusory record on things like inflation — despite prices being 17.6 percent higher than when he first took office in large part due to his inflationary spending policies — the unemployment rate, which has effectively been rendered meaningless in light of the millions that left the labor force. But “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,” propagandized Cassidy.  But what Cassidy’s mock speech left out is that much of this growth is being fueled by an explosion of government spending and tackling an ungodly level of debt, as unveiled by several economists.  Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni pointed out in a Feb. 24 X post that Biden had “overseen an explosion of the federal debt by more than $6.6 trillion, while nominal GDP has only increased $5.9 trillion - they're borrowing to create the illusion of ‘growth,’ and getting only 89 cents on the dollar…” Indeed, the national debt, currently barreling past $34 trillion, is now increasing by $1 trillion every 100 days, according to CNBC. But Cassidy didn’t even bother bringing up the debt. This White House has overseen an explosion of the federal debt by more than $6.6 trillion, while nominal GDP has only increased $5.9 trillion - they're borrowing to create the illusion of "growth," and getting only 89 cents on the dollar... pic.twitter.com/M38r6OfxEz — E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) February 25, 2024 Bolstering Antoni’s point, First Trust Portfolios LP Chief Economist Brian Wesbury emphasized the extent to which leftist economists were not accounting for government spending when spouting off about Biden’s so-called “growth:” Economists are not focusing enough on how much government contributed to growth in 2023. Probably half of the 3.1% real GDP growth in 2023 came from government.  The charts below show how the private sector boosted jobs and incomes in 2022, but it was government in 2023. Economists are not focusing enough on how much government contributed to growth in 2023. Probably half of the 3.1% real GDP growth in 2023 came from government. The charts below show how the private sector boosted jobs and incomes in 2022, but it was government in 2023. pic.twitter.com/pUy5qal9nx — Brian Wesbury (@wesbury) February 29, 2024 Regarding Biden’s record on jobs, it's proven to be nothing but a paper tiger. The unemployment rate as it now stands, as Antoni pointed out, has become a “facade” because it's effectively the byproduct “of over 5 million people missing from the labor force.” But this little factoid didn’t get in the way of Cassidy harping on about how for the “past twelve months job growth has also remained reassuringly robust.”  Liberal news outlet Seeking Alpha also noted that the labor force participation rate showed signs of plateauing at 62.5 percent, which is still less than the 63 percent figure posted pre-pandemic. But Cassidy actually had Biden engage in pontificating about the virtues of work: “Over the years, you’ve probably heard me say how my father used to always tell me that a job is about more than a paycheck—it’s about your dignity, your respect.” In the words of The Economist in a May 2023 story, “Joe Biden is more responsible for high inflation than for abundant jobs.”  Cassidy clearly didn’t have any “respect” for facts, as he had his SOTU script pushing Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus monstrosity and his climate change-obsessed Inflation Reduction Act as economic miracles that helped “boost the economy and make it stronger for the longer term.” Yes, Cassidy actually wrote that, using these pieces of legislation to shore up Biden as the economic whiz kid of the manufacturing sector. “Last year, American manufacturers raised their spending on new plants and other facilities by more than sixty per cent,” Cassidy claimed . The timing of this could not have been worse. Notably, Just four days before Cassidy’s mock script went live on The New Yorker website, Bloomberg News reported that “US Manufacturing Gauge Drops as Industry Struggles for Momentum.” The Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) gauge for manufacturing fell to 47.8 in February, faster than expected.  To put that in perspective, “A level below 50 indicates shrinking activity, and the figure was weaker than all but one estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists.” Measures of production and factory employment also fell to “the lowest levels since July.” ISM wrote in a summary that the faltering gauge was a setback for the optimists who were hopeful that U.S manufacturing would finally “crawl out of its lengthy period of contraction.” Barron’s magazine concluded that the new reading meant the U.S. manufacturing sector “contracted for 16 consecutive months.”  Hang it up, Cassidy. Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New Yorker at (800) 444-7570 and demand it quit carrying water for Biden’s atrocious economic policies.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Networks OMIT TikTok Users Threatening Suicide and Murder of Lawmakers

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 7th 2024 at 20:16
In a 50-0 vote on Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a proposed law that would ban apps in the U.S. if they were tied to a foreign power. China-owned TikTok, chief among those in the bill’s crosshairs, organized a campaign to have users call their member of Congress; some of their users threatened to commit suicide and many others threatened to assassinate lawmakers. Those disturbing details were willfully omitted by the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC. David Muir, the anchor for ABC’s World News Tonight, offered up a 22-second long news brief with only the most basic of details: Tonight, here in Washington, Congress pushing a bill threatening to ban TikTok in the U.S. unless it's sold by its Chinese parent company in six months. Lawmakers concerned about national security issues. It's now out of committee and the full House could vote as early as next week. TikTok, tonight, issuing a statement saying, “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression.” Notice how Muir used a quote from TikTok while only vaguely saying Congress was “concerned about national security issues” without going into any detail. That was only marginally better than NBC Nightly News, which didn’t report anything about the story; nothing about Congress’s moves to ban dubious apps, let alone the threats they received.     Over on CBS Evening News, they lamented that the CCP-controlled app could soon be banned and lauded the call-in campaign. “Congress, which doesn't agree on much, took a big bipartisan step today toward banning TikTok in the U.S., and lawmakers are hearing about it from their constituents,” anchor Norah O’Donnell cheered. Congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane, who’s obsessed with January 6 and ‘threats to democracy,’ didn’t seem to care that the lives of lawmakers were being threatened. “The social media giant mobilized some of its estimated 170 million users to call their congressmen or congresswomen to object to new legislation that would require TikTok to find a new owner, divest itself from China-based ByteDance, or be banned from app stores in the U.S. And the wave of calls hit midday today,” he boasted. Despite O’Donnell noting it was a bipartisan effort to ban the app, MacFarlane kept public ire directed at Republicans by only showing their reaction and comments (Click “expand”): MAC FARLANE: Republican Congressman Ashley Henson of Iowa reposted a video of her manning the phones as she helped manage the calls. REP. ASHLEY HENSON (R-IA): They’re spying on you. MACFARLANE: A TikTok spokesman told CBS News only users over 18 years old were asked to call. REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Today, if you want to use your TikTok account, you have to put in your zip code so that TikTok can tell you which representative you should call. [Transition] Imagine when China wants to use it more nefariously. Imagine when they want to truly engage in psychological warfare against the American people. He also lamented: “TikTok is famous for its viral videos, but within months, the music could stop.” Contrast all of the broadcast network coverage with Fox News Channel’s Mark Meredith on Special Report; he noted the threat of suicide. “...the calls even came from middle schoolers who use the app daily if not hourly. One caller even saying they were going to kill themselves if the app was taken away from them," he informed viewers.   Contrast those reports with Fox News's Mark Meredith on Special Report. He reported: "...the calls even came from middle schoolers who use the app daily if not hourly. One caller even saying they were going to kill themselves if the app was taken away from them." pic.twitter.com/pcrDBG0t8n — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 8, 2024   As for the threats of assassination, our friend Matthew Foldi, political reporter for The Spectator, reported that at least two members of Congress had threats made against their lives by TikTok fanatics. “We had a voicemail from last night where the caller said 'I'll kill you if you don't give me TikTok,'" he quoted a source in an X post. In another post, he warned that a different office had received “‘nearly a dozen’ death threats.”   MORE ASSASSINATION THREATS CONFIRMED: A DIFFERENT H0USE OFFICE TELLS ME THEY HAVE HAD "NEARLY A DOZEN" DEATH THREATS ISSUED AGAINST THE MEMBER OF CONGRESS BY @TIKTOK_US USERS https://t.co/idNWwV7QpH — Matthew Foldi (@MatthewFoldi) March 7, 2024   The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s World News Tonight March 7, 2024 6:46:35 p.m. Eastern DAVID MUIR: Tonight, here in Washington, Congress pushing a bill threatening to ban TikTok in the U.S. unless it's sold by its Chinese parent company in six months. Lawmakers concerned about national security issues. It's now out of committee and the full House could vote as early as next week. TikTok, tonight, issuing a statement saying, “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression.” CBS Evening News March 7, 2024 6:46:33 p.m. Eastern NORAH O’DONNELL: Congress, which doesn't agree on much, took a big bipartisan step today toward banning TikTok in the U.S., and lawmakers are hearing about it from their constituents. Here CBS's Scott Macfarlane. [Cuts to video] SCOTT MACFARLANE: TikTok is famous for its viral videos, but within months, the music could stop. The social media giant mobilized some of its estimated 170 million users to call their congressmen or congresswomen to object to new legislation that would require TikTok to find a new owner, divest itself from China-based ByteDance, or be banned from app stores in the U.S. And the wave of calls hit midday today. Republican Congressman Ashley Henson of Iowa reposted a video of her manning the phones as she helped manage the calls. REP. ASHLEY HENSON (R-IA): They’re spying on you. MACFARLANE: A TikTok spokesman told CBS News only the users over 18 years old were asked to call. REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Today, if you want to use your TikTok account, you have to put in your zip code so that TikTok can tell you which representative you should call. [Transition] Imagine when China wants to use it more nefariously. Imagine when they want to truly engage in psychological warfare against the American people. MACFARLANE: But the effort might have backfired. Just 48 hours after legislation was introduced, it passed unanimously, 50-0, minutes after debate began in the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. [Cuts back to live] In a sign of the political disconnect, the White House supports this legislation but they have a watch party for the State of the Union tonight with TikTok influencers in attendance. The company, Norah, says this bill tramples first amendment rights. O’DONNELL: That is so interesting, Scott Macfarlane thank you.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CNN Does Damage Control for Biden’s Senior Moments During SOTU Speech

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 7th 2024 at 23:50
Immediately following President Biden’s State of the Union Address Thursday night, CNN’s band of liberal anchors (Jake Tapper, Dana Bash, and Abby Phillip) praised his attacks on former President Trump, his “fight,” and tried to do damage control for his plethora of senior moments. Tapper made sure to tout how Biden alluded to Trump 13 times (ABC counted 16) during the address. Once he quickly exhausted all the nice things he had to say, Tapper awkwardly pivoted to trying to downplay Biden’s bumbling, stumbling, and disgraceful mispronunciation of Laken Riley’s name (the young college student Biden’s open border policies killed) by calling her “Lincoln”: Um, his presentation, his enunciation, of course, is not as clear as it once was a decade or two ago. His mind did seem fairly sharp. He ad-libbed a response to a pretty harsh moment, as some heckling about the tragic murder of UGA student Laken Riley, he got her name wrong. He called her Lincoln Riley, but as a general note, he condemned her murder, which was something that people were talking about. “You've been to a lot of State of the Union addresses. Do you think that President Biden met the moment?” he asked Bash. Bash quickly proclaimed: “He certainly met the moment that his members of his party, those who are really upset and worried about this coming election year and frankly, what would happen if he didn't win another time because of their concerns about who's on the other side of the ticket. They wanted him to be a fighter and boy fight did he deliver.”     She also bristled at Biden’s critics. “Now, there is some criticism already that we're hearing from some Republicans that it was too political. And the retort already is: Compared to what?” she openly scoffed, “I mean, you saw Marjorie Taylor Greene sitting there wearing a MAGA hat.” The comment about the MAGA hat was Bash still fuming from before Biden started speaking. When some of her colleagues noted that Congresswoman Greene (R-GA) was wearing the hat, she snapped that hats were “not allowed” on the House floor. Phillip was much more shamelessly open with the pleasure she got from watching the address. She loved how Biden “trolled” Republicans and they fell into the “trap” set by the White House: What's so striking to me is that Republicans, I think because they their whole thing right now is that Joe Biden is slow, that he's too old, that he can't do this, they walk into this trap every time that the White House sets for them. Their speaker, Mike Johnson, tried to counsel them not to heckle, not to react in this way. And they did it. And it creates an opening, an opportunity for Joe Biden to react. He said to them, “I know you know how to read.” He had he had a lot of moments where he was kind of trolling them, and that worked for him in this speech, because that's essentially, at the end of the day, this was a speech about all the things that presidents make speeches about. But the question before Joe Biden today that he needed to answer the most was, how does he present to the American public? Republicans, it seemed to me, really handed him a golden opportunity on multiple occasions during the speech to do exactly what his aides wanted him to do, which was show some fight, show his ability to react in the moment. Ignoring Biden’s gross praise for Russian prescription drug prices, his attacks on the Supreme Court Justices in front of him, his mispronunciation of Riley’s name, and the nonsensical rambling, Phillips proclaimed there were no “major gaffes.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN State of the Union March 7, 2024 10:35:43 p.m. Eastern (…) JAKE TAPPER: Um, his presentation, his enunciation, of course, is not as clear as it once was a decade or two ago. His mind did seem fairly sharp. He ad-libbed a response to a pretty harsh moment, as some heckling about the tragic murder of UGA student Laken Riley, he got her name wrong. He called her Lincoln Riley, but as a general note, he condemned her murder, which was something that people were talking about. Dana bash, what did you think? You've been to a lot of State of the Union addresses. Do you think that President Biden met the moment? DANA BASH: He certainly met the moment that his members of his party, those who are really upset and worried about this coming election year and frankly, what would happen if he didn't win another time because of their concerns about who's on the other side of the ticket. They wanted him to be a fighter and boy fight did he deliver. Now, there is some criticism already that we're hearing from some Republicans that it was too political. And the retort already is: [scoffs] compared to what? I mean, you saw Marjorie Taylor Greene sitting there wearing a MAGA hat. (…) 10:37:20 p.m. Eastern ABBY PHILLIP: What's so striking to me is that Republicans, I think because they their whole thing right now is that Joe Biden is slow, that he's too old, that he can't do this, they walk into this trap every time that the White House sets for them. Their speaker, Mike Johnson, tried to counsel them not to heckle, not to react in this way. And they did it. And it creates an opening, an opportunity for Joe Biden to react. He said to them, “I know you know how to read.” He had he had a lot of moments where he was kind of trolling them, and that worked for him in this speech, because that's essentially, at the end of the day, this was a speech about all the things that presidents make speeches about. But the question before Joe Biden today that he needed to answer the most was, how does he present to the American public? Republicans, it seemed to me, really handed him a golden opportunity on multiple occasions during the speech to do exactly what his aides wanted him to do, which was show some fight, show his ability to react in the moment. He likes to ad-lib. It's not always it doesn't always work out well for him. He did it a few times tonight at without any major gaffes, and I think that was ultimately the bar that his aides wanted him to clear. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC Praises SOTU: 'Great Night' for Biden, Tapped into 'Old-Time Religion'

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 8th 2024 at 00:48
ABC’s post-State of the Union analysis made it very clear how hard the network was going to work to help get President Biden reelected in November. Chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl and senior national correspondent Terry Moran did a lot of the cheerleading for President Biden’s bitter and angry screed at the American people. World News Tonight anchor David Muir teed Karl up to gush about how often Biden took on former President Trump in his speech. “Jon it was very striking. Taking on Donald Trump but not my name. How many times did he say ‘predecessor’ tonight?” he wondered. Karl proclaimed: “This was a great night for Joe Biden.” And despite the address being highly political, something that wouldn’t have sat well with them if the parties were reversed, he loved it: And this was much more a campaign speech than a State of the Union address. And you saw that in how he repeatedly took on Donald Trump! By my count, by our count, 16 times that he either say, “my predecessor,” or “the former president,” or “other people my age,” referring to Donald Trump. Very direct attacks, the most powerful one, the very first one, when he comes out and he first invokes Ronald Reagan, who told the Russians, who told the Soviets, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” And then he said compared to Donald Trump who tells Putin, “Do whatever the hell you want.”     “Very pointed, the kind of campaign-style speech you just never have seen in a State of the Union. But I think very effective,” Karl boasted. About 10 minutes later, Moran was stoked by how Biden had supposedly put Democratic Party fears about his age to rest. “A lot of Democrats over the past few weeks have been panicking. I’ll bet the vast majority of them feel better tonight. Because the President did hit hard,” he touted. “You can talk about his performance all you want,” he scoffed at critics, going on to laud Biden for going back to the “old-time religion” on the “Democratic agenda”: But I think more importantly, what he hit. This was the old-time religion, the middle-class, working-class, labor-Democrat agenda. And he reached for it again and again and again, both in terms of the values. That line, “You can't love your country only when you win.” The best line of the speech. “Fair play and decency are bedrock values in the middle class,” Moran said. “No matter who people voted for, the notion that you don't love your country if your guys lose doesn't sit well with them. And then right across that economic agenda, hitting again and again and again, middle-class, middle-class values.” Someone should tell that the sore losers in the Democratic Party and the liberal media who couldn’t mentally handle the 2000 and 2016 election results. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC State of the Union March 7, 2024 10:37:21 p.m. Eastern (…) DAVID MUIR: Jon it was very striking. Taking on Donald Trump but not my name. How many times did he say “predecessor" tonight? JON KARL: Hey look, this was a great night for Joe Biden. And this was much more a campaign speech than a State of the Union address. And you saw that in how he repeatedly took on Donald Trump! By my count, by our count, 16 times that he either say, “my predecessor” or “the former president,” or “other people my age,” referring to Donald Trump. Very direct attacks, the most powerful one, the very first one, when he comes out and he first invokes Ronald Reagan, who told the Russians, who told the Soviets, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” And then he said compared to Donald Trump who tells Putin, “do whatever the hell you want.” Very pointed, the kind of campaign-style speech you just never have seen in a State of the Union. But I think very effective. (…) 10:46:54 p.m. Eastern TERRY MORAN: A lot of Democrats over the past few weeks have been panicking. I’ll bet the vast majority of them feel better tonight. Because the President did hit hard. You can talk about his performance all you want. But I think more importantly, what he hit. This was the old time religion, the middle-class, working-class, labor-Democrat agenda. And he reached for it again and again and again, both in terms of the values. That line, “you can't love your country only when you win.” The best line of the speech. Fair play and decency are bedrock values in the middle-class. No matter who people voted for, the notion that you don't love your country if your guys lose doesn't sit well with them. And then right across that economic agenda, hitting again and again and again, middle-class, middle-class values. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Goes Full North Korea Media Over Biden State of the Union Speech

By: Jorge Bonilla — March 8th 2024 at 02:07
MSNBC’s immediate reaction to President Joe Biden’s shouty, aggressive, and grossly partisan State of the Union address was, even by MSNBC standards, disconnected from reality and more akin to something one might expect from North Korean state media.  Here’s Lawrence O’Donnell kicking off the gushing with expressions of astonishment at Biden’s attack on the Supreme Court:  LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: It was at that moment that I think we all remember- of the way he attacked, I guess is the word for it, the Supreme Court- TO THEIR FACES. Where the camera then goes to this shot of the six Supreme Court justices, three of whom he was very specifically attacking. That’s never been done before. To the extent that a president has a disagreement with the Supreme Court expressed in the State of the Union address, they always try to find the most polite possible language for doing that. This was not the night for that. So that was just astonishing.  “Astonishing”, not as in astonishment at a brazen attack upon the institutions. I was told that these were attacks upon DEMOCRACY itself. Insurrection, even. But, of course, things are (D)ifferent when Biden does it. Bookmark that hot take for when the rabid left stalks the conservative Supreme Court justices at their homes ahead of their ruling on presidential immunity. Then, there’s Nicolle Wallace, who also cheered the attack on the Supreme Court: NICOLLE WALLACE: I- this was his “how ‘bout them apples” speech for me. I mean, this is what, the fourth? You know, we’ve watched this before. I think that grabbing the room by- he started with World War II. And the Civil War. And rooted the threat facing our country from “my predecessor” in those two, you know, epic battles and he quoted Ronald Reagan. It was like a punch in the face to every Republican in the room. And that's how it started. This was the first 90, you know, first 120 seconds. There were Republican- and he rooted the address in the Civil War, World War II, and then quoted Reagan and that was a punch in the nose. It’s why by the end, Lindsey Graham was slouched in his seat with his arm folded, chuckling like it was John McCain up there. I mean, the- the- the- the- the sort of, you know, waving of the white flag by the Re- I mean Mike Johnson's face, I think, told the whole story. And I think that they’re, I mean, they will be attacking him by, you know… I’m sure they are right now, or they will by 11:15 on Fox News but everybody knows that this was a great speech and everybody knows that if this is the message going into the next eight months, the polls will soon reflect that, and this will be a real fight. I think taking on his own age 3 times in the end shows not just Republicans but Democrats he’s not afraid of defending his stature, his status. RACHEL MADDOW: (Biden) said, “In my career, I’ve been called too young and I’ve been called too old. WALLACE: He makes three references about his age. And I think the abortion debate has already been won, and I agree, by taking on the Supreme Court, he’s ready to take it to the next level. I thought this was a really remarkable State of the Union.  Remarkable, she says. Imagine the vitriolic reaction if former President Donald Trump attacked a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court during the State of the Union. They were joined by Joy Reid, who suggested that Biden’s speech was…chemically enhanced. Inadvertent bipartisan consensus! JOY REID:  I thought the speech was very high caffeine. I think Joe Biden woke up this morning, had a cup of coffee and had his Wheaties- he was definitely there to fight. This is somebody who, I was just talking about it in the 7 o’clock hour- about whether or not he is small-c constitutionally capable of essentially being nasty- being aggressive, being harsh. But he came in there tonight ready to fight for the presidency. To fight for the White House in a way that I think I did not expect. The speech was incredibly aggressive. He opened, as Nicolle said, with World War II, Hitler, appeasement, and then he went right for the people in front of him. He said, “my predecessor and some of you- some of you, have sought to bury the truth about January 6 and he accused a member sitting right in front of him of seeking to bury that, then he kept punching.  All in all, MSNBC’s immediate reaction was sycophantic and reminiscent of state media. Upon further review, perhaps I should reconsider the comparison to North Korean state media, which might look at MSNBC’s performance and find it to be way over the top.   
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

CBS’s Nancy Cordes Cheers Biden’s ‘Stamina’ and ‘Fire in the Belly’

By: Jorge Bonilla — March 8th 2024 at 02:49
The drive-by media was very hopeful in the days ahead of the State of the Union address, and the prevailing sense is that the speech was going to be hailed as successful so long as President Joe Biden didn’t soil himself on the dais. CBS’s early reaction to the speech appears to confirm that sense. Watch as chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes hails Biden’s “stamina” and “fire in the belly”: NORAH O’DONNELL: Nancy Cordes is our chief White House correspondent and Nancy, you covered this president closely. He's been criticized for sometimes flubbing a speech, going off script. Tonight was a bit different.  NANCY CORDES: Norah, this seemed to me to be a speech designed first and foremost to show that Joe Biden has the stamina and the fire in the belly to go another four years. It was designed to be delivered with high energy. He even broke into a call and response at one point and Democratic lawmakers played along. He told jokes. But he came out of the gate criticizing Donald Trump on Ukraine and then on January 6th. That was unexpected. He accused him of unleashing chaos when it comes to reproductive rights and pandering to Vladimir Putin. It seemed to me that this White House understood that one of the biggest obstacles to reelection for him are the persistent voter questions about the president's age. And the White House set out to try to address those questions with a speech in which he ad-libbed about everything from taxes to Snickers.  These statements of attestation to Biden’s vigor and stamina are normally reserved for Cabinet officials and elected Democrats who find themselves compelled to defend the president against accusations (with evidence) of diminished physical and cognitive capabilities. In the case of Cordes though, she delivers these attestations freely, willingly, and without reservation once elicited to do so by anchor Norah O’Donnell.  Cordes’ affirmations of presidential vigor were preceded by John Dickerson’s cheerleading of Biden’s excessive partisanship, as proven by his use of “my predecessor” and “fair”.  The portion of the post-reaction closed out with correspondent Robert Costa’s wishcasting over whether Biden gets Nikki Haley’s voters, and with enthusiasm over Biden’s start to the general election campaign season. CBS’s coverage proves the drive-by media’s desire to cast the speech as successful, at all costs up to and including credibility.  Click “expand” to view the aforementioned portion of post-speech coverage as aired on CBS on Thursday, March 7th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: And there it is. President Biden delivering a feisty and animated State of the Union address tonight. Probably one of the most political addresses I've ever heard, before a joint chamber, at this time drawing a sharp contrast with Republicans. And while he did not mention Donald Trump's name, he referred to his predecessor more than a dozen times, taunting Republicans at times in a vigorous address. I want to bring in our chief political analyst, John Dickerson. John. JOHN DICKERSON: Yes. A stemwinder, Norah. I'm going to pluck two words out of the speech that  President Biden used. He used each of them 13 times. One is the one you just mentioned, “predecessor” or “my predecessor”. Referring to Donald Trump as a threat to American democracy as great as the one America faced in 1941 before World War II. You cannot set the stakes any higher than that in terms of defining who he is running against. The other word he used 13 times is “fair”. This is a policy argument he was making when he talked about- when he talked about lowering drug prices, helping teachers get paid more, helping others go up the ladder of opportunity, helping with housing. All of those policies, those are to help people who are in the middle class and lower. How was he going to pay for it? By increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations. It's a populist pitch aimed at fairness. The speech will fade but those two things, how he defines his opponent and that notion of fairness is pretty much the argument from now until November.  O’DONNELL: Nancy Cordes is our chief White House correspondent and Nancy, you covered this president closely. He's been criticized for sometimes flubbing a speech, going off script. Tonight was a bit different.  NANCY CORDES: Norah, this seemed to me to be a speech designed first and foremost to show that Joe Biden has the stamina and the fire in the belly to go another four years. It was designed to be delivered with high energy. He even broke into a call and response at one point and Democratic lawmakers played along. He told jokes. But he came out of the gate criticizing Donald Trump on Ukraine and then on January 6th. That was unexpected. He accused him of unleashing chaos when it comes to reproductive rights and pandering to Vladimir Putin. It seemed to me that this White House understood that one of the biggest obstacles to reelection for him are the persistent voter questions about the president's age. And the White House set out to try to address those questions with a speech in which he ad-libbed about everything from taxes to Snickers.  O’DONNELL: And Robert Costa, I was struck by that too. We've covered so many of these State of the Union addresses where the president begins with domestic issues. It’s- foreign policy is not usually considered that interesting, but we are in a different era. And he began with Ukraine. He began with his predecessor and Putin and said "My predecessor, a former Republican president, tells Putin do whatever the hell you want," saying that he’ll bow down. It's outrageous, it's dangerous, it's unacceptable.  ROBERT COSTA: Norah, sometimes timing is everything in politics. And what happened just days ago, Super Tuesday, former ambassador Nikki Haley got out of the race. President Biden tonight making a pitch to Nikki Haley's voters, traditional Republicans who might feel like they don't have a home in Donald Trump's Republican party. He’s quoting Ronald Reagan. He's talking about January 6th, and he's saying to them, “I'm building a coalition that's not only progressives and Democrats but could include some Republicans.” And you look at- sometimes a picture tells a thousand words. You see President Biden there mingling on the House floor. Democrats all smiles, some centrists from the New Jersey delegation there. I saw Senator Bernie Sanders come up with a big grin to say hello to President Biden. They're happy tonight. The president kicked off his campaign with a forceful speech, giving Democrats in that room and nationally a lot of confidence that he has what it takes for a rough campaign against Trump.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS: Republicans ‘Were Not Listening to That Speech,' Bordering on 'Disrespectful'

By: Tim Graham — March 8th 2024 at 06:23
The PBS NewsHour team wore their Democrat donkey ears after the president’s speech on Thursday. Co-host Geoff Bennett touted Joe Biden in his first post-speech sentence: “That was a forceful and feisty State of the Union address!” Then the Republicans were criticized for…mostly not heckling. By contrast with Biden's hour-plus of screaming at Republicans, PBS gave a demerit to House Republicans for...not listening? Overall, they were remarkably disciplined, so they had to hammer that from the other direction. PBS congressional reporter Lisa Desjardins spoke from her cell phone with her personal opinion: “You may have seen this on the screen. House Republicans were not listening to that speech, by and large. Not just out of defiance, they just seemed not to be paying attention. They were almost only here physically, almost bordering on a disrespectful way, and is something I've never seen to this degree before.”   After Senator Katie Britt’s Republican response, they turned to Jonathan Capehart to dismiss it, and he did: “After watching senator britt, I am just sitting here thinking what in the Elle Woods was that?” That’s his catty reference to the Legally Blonde films with Reese Witherspoon as a ditzy but lovable blonde lawyer. Capehart trash-talked it next to Biden’s screamfest: “If you have to put the State of the Union up against the response, the State of the Union blows that one out of the water.” You know what you're getting when you bring in The Washington Post for the Democrat talking points.  David Brooks of The New York Times completely disagreed: “I think she did a good job. A lot of people know somebody like that, you have the career politician versus the mom, the grand occasion versus the kitchen table. I thought it was a pretty strong set of contrasts....she's talking to a country that's upset, and I thought she reflected that decently.” PS: Before the speech, PBS touted the president's insulting "Republicans hate democracy and freedom" talk.  On PBS, Capehart and Nawaz highlight Democrat points about "democracy at risk" as an issue. Amy Walter explains that their term "freedom agenda" is broad and includes January 6. State-Run TV. pic.twitter.com/FahDjxzg7h — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 8, 2024
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Column: AP 'Fact Focus' Elastically Redefines Terms to Defend Biden, Attack Trump as 'False'

By: Tim Graham — March 8th 2024 at 07:45
Reading the “fact checkers” in the press sometimes triggers memories of the comic-book hero Plastic Man, who could contort into all sorts of shapes. Take the Associated Press, and immigration reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego. The headline was “Fact Focus: Claims Biden administration is secretly flying migrants into the country are unfounded.” Spagat had to redefine all sorts of words like “secretly” to defend President Biden’s fly-over-the-border policies. The Spagat dispatch began: “In his Super Tuesday victory speech, former President Donald Trump elevated false information that had gone viral on social media, claiming the Biden administration secretly flew hundreds of thousands of migrants into the United States.”  AP noted that on January 26, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (if you can call them that) reported 327,000 immigrants were vetted and authorized for travel. The government flew in more than 67,000 Cubans, 126,000 Haitians, 53,000 Nicaraguans and 81,000 Venezuelans. Trump said, “Today it was announced that 325,000 people were flown in from parts unknown -- migrants were flown in airplanes, not going through borders ... It was unbelievable.” How was this false? Spagat elastically argued, “But migrants are not being flown into the U.S. randomly.” Trump never said “randomly,” or “secretly.” He said “parts unknown.” Trump referred to an article by the Center for Immigration Studies, which AP calls a “group that advocates for immigration restrictions.” Todd Bensman of CIS found CBP’s migrants arrived at 43 airports, but the CBP refused to divulge which ones, using an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for “law-enforcement sensitive information.”  But this doesn’t look like law enforcement. It looks like government-enabled illegal immigration. You might think AP would loathe FOIA exemptions. But Biden critics aren’t allowed to say the government “secretly” flew them in, even though we don’t know where they flew in from, or where they landed. Spagat reported Bensman told him, “he doesn’t consider the program secretive, but finds it ‘enigmatic’ and ‘lacking transparency.’” AP apparently doesn’t care much about a lack of transparency when they have Democrats to defend against the Orange Menace.   So here’s how AP’s Plastic Man “fact checks” Trump. “The migrants are not coming in from ‘parts unknown,’ as Trump charged. CBP vets each one for eligibility and publishes the number of airport arrivals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.” Wait one doggone minute. On the CIS website, Bensman explained the “parts unknown” is defensible: The people eligible for this parole program have to be nationals of one of nine countries, "but can fly to the U.S. from anywhere." Bensman later revealed what Spagat emailed to him: “This is a fact check on Trump and [Elon] Musk, not on CIS’s report...I know all too well that reporters can’t control how audiences interpret their work, but want to ask if you wish to comment on whether Trump and Musk amplified your findings correctly.” Bensman said he told Spagat he didn’t think Trump’s line “rose to an inaccuracy. Government ‘authorization’ of those flights should be enough to cover Trump’s statement that ‘migrants were flown in airplanes’ from “parts unknown” because the government still won’t release to CIS the departure airports in foreign countries.” Just for fun, I searched through years of the “Alejandro Mayorkas” tag at APNews.com, looking for any fact-checking of Biden’s impeached Homeland Security Secretary. I found nothing, zero, zilch. But they leap on Trump for criticizing Biden.  Mayorkas can repeatedly utter the preposterous lie that “the border is secure” and the AP “fact check” squad waves him along, just like Mayorkas waves in hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

ABC Gets Weak Knees Over ‘Aggressive’, Fiery’, ‘Tough’ Biden’s ‘Feisty’, ‘Rowdy’ SOTU

By: Curtis Houck — March 8th 2024 at 09:47
After polishing the White House’s apples on Thursday ahead of the President’s State of the Union address, ABC’s Good Morning America (GMA) were unsurprisingly hot and bothered by what they deemed to have been an “aggressive”, “fiery”, “tough” President doling out a “feisty” speech in a “rowdy” atmosphere against a “combative” and “not” civil GOP. Co-host and former Clinton hack George Stephanopoulos set the table, boasting that Biden “sparred with the GOP” and Republicans “shouted” back “as he spoke”, creating a “raucous...chamber” and thus “a clear contrast for voters”.     Chief White House correspondent/chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce was ebullient: [T]his was a feisty speech that, at times, felt more like a rowdy campaign event than a traditional State of the Union address. The President, well aware of the stakes, pitted his message directly against Donald Trump’s, repeatedly sparring with Republicans in the room in a way we’ve never really seen before. The President trying to show voters he is ready for a fight and has what it takes to serve another four years. Before diving into a hefty slew of Biden soundbites, Bruce swooned as though she were gunning for Karine Jean-Pierre’s job: “Overnight, a fiery President Biden kicking off the general election...Biden framing this moment as a fight for freedom in the nation’s democracy.” Biden came out screaming and yelling at Republicans over Ukraine and January 6, but Bruce seemed fine with that: “Straight out that gate, the President shaming Republicans for failing to fund Ukraine and calling out Donald Trump, though not by name, for saying he would allow Vladamir Putin to attack NATO allies...And firing a warning shot over Trump’s election lies.” Bruce also acknowledged Biden going back and forth with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA) over the murder of Georgia college student Laken Riley allegedly by an illegal immigrant, but refused to mention Biden misprounced her name, referring to her as “Lincoln”. The ABC tool also wasn’t concerned about Biden threatening the Supreme Court: “Looking ahead to the general election, the President vowing to fight for freedom, like access to abortion. Even taking on the court with the justices watching on.” She also relished Biden talking about his age (click “expand”): BRUCE: At the end of the night, Biden finally tackling head on those big concerns about his age —  BIDEN: I know it may not look like it, but I have been around awhile. [LAUGHTER] BRUCE: — turning the tables on his rival, Trump just three years younger. BIDEN: Lot of people my age see it differently. The American story of resentment, revenge and retribution. That’s not me. BRUCE: The President, with this parting shot.  BIDEN: At issue facing our nation isn’t how old we are, it’s how old are our ideas. Hate, anger, revenge, retribution are the oldest of ideas. But you can’t lead America with ancient ideas. It will only take us back. Bruce closed with reaction from the White House as though it were her own take, bragging they’re “thrilled with the President’s performance” and “feel he was fiery and tough, that he landed his punches and pushed back successfully against” Republicans in a “well-planned and rehearsed speech.” Senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott ripped into the GOP, arguing they lacked any sort of “civility” and have sunk the State of the Union into being marred by “heckling”. This led to co-host Michael Strahan to agree (click “expand”) SCOTT: House Speaker Mike Johnson wanted decorum and civility inside of the chamber last night. That did not happen. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green was rowdy at times. downright combative. You saw her there breaking the House rules, wearing that make America Great Again hat in support of Donald Trump. She repeatedly booed the President, called him a liar. At the back of the chamber, we spotted Congressman Troy Nehls standing up, wearing a shirt with Trump’s mug shot on it. And, in a bizarre turn of events, George Santos showed up even though he was expelled. He technically is still allowed inside of the House chamber as a former member who has not been convicted of a crime. Now, as for the Republican response to Biden’s State of the Union address, it was delivered by one of the youngest members of Congress, Katie Britt. The junior senator of Alabama delivering this address from her kitchen table in Montgomery. She did focus heavily on immigration, calling Biden’s border policies a disgrace. And it is notable that she is from Alabama, the state at the center of the controversy over IVF. Now, Britt did try to create distance between that court ruling, insisting that Republicans believe in preserving access to IVF and expanding American families. But, guys, I gotta tell you, the heckling inside the chamber during these addresses really started to become a pattern. Guys? STRAHAN: Yeah, distraction and a pattern.  As GMA has started to do with political stories, Stephanopoulos gave own take and, of course, he was pleased with how Biden did in “address[ing] this age issue with his aggressive, feisty, ad-libbed delivery” and drawing “that sharp contrast with Donald Trump and the Republicans, reminding voters why Republicans have lost three elections in a row.” After a second half-hour news brief, Bruce reracked part of her report from the first hour, but tweaked her ending by saying “the White House is thrilled with the President’s performance” and believe “he nailed this”. Not surprisingly, this squared with how GMA saw the 2023 State of the Union, as they hailed Biden as being “fired up and fiery” but delivering “a message of hope”, making for “one of the best speeches” he’s ever made despite the presence of “bitt” and “rude” Republicans. To see the relevant ABC transcript from March 8, click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Dickerson and Colbert: Biden's SOTU 'Reknits Those Bonds' of Democracy

By: Alex Christy — March 8th 2024 at 10:08
CBS chief political analyst John Dickerson joined Stephen Colbert on Thursday for a special live edition of The Late Show, where the two fawned over President Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address by claiming that simply by giving the speech, Biden “reknits those bonds” of democracy. After Colbert asked why the speech was important, Dickerson waxed poetic: Look, ringed around the Capitol where Joe Biden had gone to so many previous State of the Unions were 8-foot-high black fences as a result of the attack on January 6. This speech given in that place and that marble hall that was attacked on January 6, 2021, started his presidency. I mean, it didn't exactly, he wasn't inaugurated yet, but it started this period of time that we are in. So, every ritual of democracy that takes place in a healthy fashion reknits those bonds that were torn up on the sixth, and he was there to remind people that that happened and that those stakes are still real.      Biden began his speech by doing his best MSNBC-Michael Beschloss impression, which didn’t go unnoticed by Colbert, “He talked about a lot of stakes. He came in really hot tonight. He started off with FDR in 1941. What's the purpose there?” Dickerson continued in his admiration, “You can’t-- if you are going to set the stakes for a political moment, you can't set them any higher than 1941 fighting before World War II. So, he set them immediately, he started in fifth gear.” After a quick Colbert quip about Biden’s Corvette, Dickerson continued, “The only other historical moment that you would pick that has equal weight is the Civil War and he name-checked that too and why? He's calling on the ghosts of January 6, which aren't even ghosts. There are people in that room there who helped that happen.” Dickerson also claimed that “one of America's leading political parties in a democracy has just nominated or is going to nominate in a democracy, to be their candidate, someone who has worked actively to undermine democracy.” Earlier in the show, during his monologue, Colbert recapped, “On the Democratic side, they wore white. On the Republican side, they were white.” He also took a shot at Justice Clarence Thomas, “Ahead of the president's arrival there, members of the Supreme Court filed in. Interestingly, Justice Clarence Thomas didn't attend. It's nice to know he's willing to recuse himself from something.” It can be understandable why Clarence Thomas, of all people, didn’t want to attend a Joe Biden campaign rally dressed up as a stately "ritual of democracy", but Colbert rolled right along “Speaker of the House Mike Johnson got the privilege of standing next to Vice President Kamala Harris and because he was standing that close to a woman, his son got an alert on his phone.” Despite all the pomp and circumstance, Biden's address was simply a Democratic stump speech, so of course CBS loved it. Here is a transcript for the March 7 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 3/8/2024 12:00 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: On the Democratic side, they wore white. On the Republican side, they were white. Ahead of the president's arrival there, members of the Supreme Court filed in. Interestingly, Justice Clarence Thomas didn't attend. It's nice to know he's willing to recuse himself from something. Then the big moment, the president's entrance. He took his sweet damn time getting down the aisle. As the president made his way, the crowd chanted  DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! COLBERT: Four more years! Of walking to the podium! It’s getting late, just go. Then he finally got to the podium, where Speaker of the House Mike Johnson got the privilege of standing next to Vice President Kamala Harris and because he was standing that close to a woman, his son got an alert on his phone. … COLBERT: So, why for Joe Biden in this election year, was this an important moment?  JOHN DICKERSON: Well, it’s an important moment. Look, ringed around the Capitol where Joe Biden had gone to so many previous State of the Unions were 8-foot-high black fences as a result of the attack on January 6. This speech given in that place and that marble hall that was attacked on January 6, 2021, started his presidency. I mean, it didn't exactly, he wasn't inaugurated yet, but it started this period of time that we are in. So, every ritual of democracy that takes place in a healthy fashion reknits those bonds that were torn up on the sixth, and he was there to remind people that that happened and that those stakes are still real.  COLBERT: He talked about a lot of stakes. He came in really hot tonight. He started off with FDR in 1941. What's the purpose there?  DICKERSON: You can’t-- if you are going to set the stakes for a political moment, you can't set them any higher than 1941 fighting before World War II. So, he set them immediately, he started in fifth gear.  COLBERT: And he drives a Corvette. He knows that. DICKERSON: Right, so he knows fifth gear. The only other historical moment that you would pick that has equal weight is the Civil War and he name-checked that too and why? He's calling on the ghosts of January 6, which aren't even ghosts. There are people in that room there who helped that happen including – COLBERT: Including Mike Johnson over his shoulder who was trying to get the fake collectors allowed.  DICKERSON: And one of America's leading political parties in a democracy has just nominated or is going to nominate in a democracy, to be their candidate, someone who has worked actively to undermine democracy. 
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Happy International Women’s Day From All The Transgenders

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 8th 2024 at 10:53
Every freakin’ year I hope and pray that International Women’s Day will be a day where real, biological women, come together to celebrate the advancements and accomplishments women have made throughout the years and every freakin’ year I am disappointed that fake women try to get in on the action too.  March 8 marks International Women’s Day and, as you can probably imagine, the day is no longer just celebrated by women but by transgender women (men), too. This year, social media provided a smorgasbord of celebratory posts from girls, fake girls and everyone in between. An Anglican Priest, who is a self-proclaimed “HIV+ Activist,” shared a graphic that said “International Women’s Day. — includes Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender women.”  One user wrote, “Happy International Women's Day!!! Especially to all my transgender girlies, this day is yours as well. I celebrate and cherish you.” Similarly, another user wrote, “All the love to my cisgender, transgender women, AND non-binary members of our community.” One added the hashtag “#TransWomenAreWomen” and wrote, “Happy International Women’s Day to all women out there including transgender women! Sadly, this country is so far behind in terms of accepting us but always remember that you are seen, valid and loved. We are in this together.” Is that so? Last I checked, women have XX chromosomes and men have XY chromosomes. Funny enough, transgender women have XY chromosomes which makes them...Yup, you got that right — MEN! On the contrary, some users - like me - were not feeling the tranny take over. “Trans women are male," a user wrote. "Trans women get trans awareness week. Transgender day of Remembrance, International Transgender Day of Visibility, they’re also include in Pride and all other LGBTQ events. Let females have their *one* day." Another asked the question: “We have Black History Month, Pride Month, Islamophobia Awareness Month and, of course, Transgender and Non Binary Empowerment Month, but Women can’t have one day!” It’s rather disheartening to see that one day meant to celebrate real, biological women is being flooded by fake women. Hopefully, during International Women’s Day 2025 we stop celebrating lunacy and delusion like transgenderism and start celebrating actual women for once.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Google Engineer Indicted for Allegedly Stealing AI Info for Chi-Coms

By: Catherine Salgado — March 8th 2024 at 11:46
A Chinese national was just indicted for stealing artificial intelligence secrets from Google. No doubt communist China was impressed by Google AI’s inability to generate images of white people. Google’s video platform YouTube has been caught censoring content critical of the communist Chinese government while allowing influencers to spread pro-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda. The tech giant also has offices in Beijing and Shanghai, China. But after Google cracked the door open to China, it seems one Chinese national saw an opportunity. A grand jury just indicted a Google engineer and Chinese national for allegedly planning to transfer Google artificial intelligence (AI) secrets to China. A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) press release announced the indictment March 6. According to the press release, a “federal grand jury indicted Linwei Ding, aka Leon Ding, charging him with four counts of theft of trade secrets in connection with an alleged plan to steal from Google LLC (Google) proprietary information related to artificial intelligence (AI) technology.” Attorney General Merrick Garland was the first to announce the indictment at an American Bar Association event. Ding, a 38-year-old Chinese national living in California, was arrested March 6 in Newark, New Jersey, per the DOJ. The indictment accused Ding of transferring “sensitive Google trade secrets,” among other pieces of confidential information, from Google’s network to his own personal account, the DOJ explained. Meanwhile, the engineer was “secretly affiliating himself” with AI companies based in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the DOJ said in its press release. Garland specifically stated in the press release, “In this case, we allege the defendant stole artificial intelligence-related trade secrets from Google while secretly working for two companies based in China.” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco cited Ding’s actions as a risk to national security, per the press release. This raises questions about the safety and security of Google. Just how compromised is Google? And do its Chinese ties explain why Google is attempting CCP-style censorship on YouTube and its Google Search engine?  Much like the CCP, Google has been caught interfering in elections and manipulating political opinions through censorship. MRC Free Speech America has previously exposed Google for its election interference back in 2022 and again in the 2024 U.S. presidential primaries. 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

Daily Show Warns Texas Is Being Invaded By... Republicans

By: Alex Christy — March 8th 2024 at 12:51
Comedy Central sent Michael Kosta to Eagle Pass, Texas, to report on the border crisis for the Friday installment of The Daily Show, but according to him, the real crisis is about the reaction to the crisis as Texas is “attracting a flood of Republican governors, Congressional delegations, and even billionaire weirdos.” Kosta began with a narration where he declared, “Eagle Pass, Texas, has become the epicenter of the national immigration debate, as over the last year, an unprecedented number of migrants crossed here to apply for asylum. And for many observers, this complex issue can only be summed up in one word.” After playing five soundbites from an assortment of Republican politicians using the word “invasion” or “invaded,” Kosta interviewed the locals to see what they had to say. One man claimed, “They’ve come and taken over the town.”     Another woman, who would later be revealed to be a farmer named Magali Urbina, added, “It’s our land and there’s just people coming in.” A second man, later identified as river outfitter Jessie Fuentes, echoed the sentiment, “They’re causing, you know, havoc and craziness.” Seemingly scolding another woman, Kosta wondered, “Shouldn't you be welcoming? Don't you have any empathy for the journey they have taken to get here?” “They’re not welcome, get the hell out of our place,” she replied. The first man then returned to add, “You can't move around without seeing them. You can't get a meal in a restaurant. Can't get a hotel room unless you want to pay $400.” Kosta then dropped the act, “Wait, who are you talking about, right now?” to which the man replied, “The state Guard from Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho.” The woman who told people to “get the hell out” was then revealed to be Maverick County Democratic Chairwoman Juanita Martinez who claimed, “The invasion here is from Governor Abbott and the Trumpers and the MAGA people.” If there wasn’t a border crisis in the first place, Republicans wouldn’t be there in the second place, but that is not how Kosta saw it “Yes, Eagle Pass has been overrun since Governor Abbott declared a crisis at the border and sent in the Texas National Guard, attracting a flood of Republican governors, Congressional delegations, and even billionaire weirdos.” The “billionaire weirdo” in question was Elon Musk in a cowboy hat. That aside, the entire point of Kosta’s segment was try to portray the border crisis as complicated, as evidenced by some people in Eagle Pass not wanting the GOP’s “help.” However, when it came to giving the other perspective, Kosta featured the most cartoonish voices he could find, including a guy with a Confederate battle flag, in order to portray those concerned about the original crisis as racists. Here is a transcript for the March 7 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 3/7/2024 11:13 PM ET MICHAEL KOSTA: Eagle Pass, Texas, has become the epicenter of the national immigration debate, as over the last year, an unprecedented number of migrants crossed here to apply for asylum. And for many observers, this complex issue can only be summed up in one word.  GREG GIANFORTE: Invasion.  TED CRUZ: We are being invaded.  MARCO RUBIO: We are being invaded.  KARI LAKE: We’re being invaded. DONALD TRUMP: We’re being invaded just like it's a military invasion.  KOSTA: But how are the locals coping with its relentless onslaught?  MAN 1: They’ve come and taken over the town.  MAGALI URBINA: It’s our land and there’s just people coming in.  JESSIE FUENTES: They’re causing, you know, havoc and craziness.  WOMAN 1: There’s chaos.  KOSTA: Shouldn't you be welcoming? Don't you have any empathy for the journey they have taken to get here?  JUANITA MARTINEZ: They’re not welcome, get the hell out of our place.  MAN 1: You can't move around without seeing them. You can't get a meal in a restaurant. Can't get a hotel room unless you want to pay $400.  KOSTA: Wait, who are you talking about, right now? MAN 1: The state Guard from Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho.  KOSTA: Oh.  MAN 3: What you need to be afraid of ours some of these convoys of people –  KOSTA: You’re talking about Central American caravans?  MAN 3: No, no we are talking about the that are invading the country here, not from Mexico.  JUANITA MARTINEZ: The invasion here is from Governor Abbott and the Trumpers and the MAGA people. KOSTA: Yes, Eagle Pass has been overrun since Governor Abbott declared a crisis at the border and sent in the Texas National Guard, attracting a flood of Republican governors, Congressional delegations, and even billionaire weirdos.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Sen. Britt Scolds Biden’s TikTok Hypocrisy: ‘Can’t Make This Stuff Up!’

By: Luis Cornelio — March 8th 2024 at 13:33
Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) did not give President Joe Biden a pass on his hypocritical TikTok stance in her Thursday rebuttal to the contentious State of the Union address.  Britt’s message was blunt and clear: Biden can’t have his cake and eat it too.  “The CCP knows that if it conquers the minds of our next generation, it conquers America,” she said, addressing Americans from her Alabama home. “And what does President Biden do? He bans TikTok for government employees, but creates an account for his own campaign.” Earlier in her rebuttal, Britt also implied that China is taking deliberate steps to subvert the United States. “China is buying up our farmland, spying on our military installations and spreading propaganda through the likes of TikTok,” she emphasized. A startled Britt concluded: “You can’t make this stuff up!” Biden’s flip-flopping on TikTok dates back to December 2022, when he signed a spending bill that included the “No TikTok on Government Devices Act,” effectively banning federal officials from using TikTok on government-issued devices. But less than two years later, Biden's re-election campaign joined the app during the 2024 Super Bowl. The move marked a desperate attempt to reach young voters ahead of the general election but also downplayed the president's previous disapproval of TikTok. Related: Hypocrisy! Basement Biden to Rein in Chinese Data Buying But Is Still on TikTok Such an about-face move drew the ire of critics, including MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. “Joe Biden is openly defying the order he imposed on other federal employees by using TikTok to attack his political opponents,” Schneider said, echoing Britt’s sentiments. Drawing attention to an imminent Supreme Court case on censorship, Scheider added: “At the same time, he is trying to defy court orders that would prevent him from coercing and colluding with TikTok to silence conservatives. These violations of our free speech rights must stop.” Following criticism, the White House unsuccessfully attempted to clarify that the Biden campaign's use of TikTok did not reverse the 2022 limited ban.  The Biden campaign retorted that it would take so-called “advanced safety” measures while using TikTok – whatever that means. “We are taking advanced safety precautions around our devices and incorporating a sophisticated security protocol to ensure security,” the campaign claimed last month, clarifying it is not part of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.’s investigation into TikTok. Notably, the White House supports the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The bill grants Biden the power to ban TikTok unless it cuts ties with parent company ByteDance. ByteDance is a Chinese tech company that has emerged as having close ties to the Communist Chinese government. 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

NBC Hypes ‘Energized’, ‘Feisty’ Biden’s ‘Mix of Energy, Humor, Combativeness’ at SOTU

By: Curtis Houck — March 8th 2024 at 13:37
Just as ABC’s Good Morning America on Friday got weak knees over President Biden’s State of the Union address, NBC’s Today followed suit by swooning over the “energized” and “feisty” President’s “mix of energy, humor, combativeness” to deliver a “poignant” speech with “an optimistic view” on the economy standing up for “main street.” Chief White House correspondent and Saturday Today co-host Peter Alexander pulled together highlights, starting with hefty notes of praise: “President Biden delivering a mix of energy, humor, combativeness as well as plenty of ad-libs directed at his Republican critics. From President Biden a feisty State of the Union address...relishing the back and forth with Republicans.”     Amid a slew of interspersed Biden soundbites, Alexander boasted of Biden “looking to demonstrate he has the vigor and vision to serve another four years and sharply critiquing” Donald Trump “on Russia,” “the Capitol attack”, and “abortion rights”. Like ABC, NBC’s Alexander saw no problem with Biden attacking the Supreme Court, which would almost certainly receive a different billing if he were a Republican: “President Biden vowing to restore Roe v. Wade if he has the chance and, in a rare moment, admonishing the Supreme Court justices in attendance for their role.” Alexander touched on the economy (“the President delivering an optimistic view”) and the border (“Biden blamed Republicans for rejecting a bipartisan security bill”), but didn’t take notice of Biden referring to Laken Riley as “Lincoln Riley” when highlighted her murder allegedly at the hands of an illegal alien. Alexander closed his report in the first hour by touting Biden’s response to concerns on his age and a note about Steve Nikoui, who was arrested by Capitol Police for shouting during Biden’s speech about his late son, who was murdered by terrorists during Biden’s “chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan”.  Sadly, this made NBC the only broadcast network flagship morning show to bring this up (click “expand”): ALEXANDER: The President acknowledging his age — BIDEN: I know it may not look like it but I’ve been around a while. [LAUGHTER] ALEXANDER: — and using it to deliver a political point — BIDEN: The issue facing our nation isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas. ALEXANDER: — trying to reframe the issue while contrasting himself with Mr. Trump. BIDEN: My lifetime has taught me to embrace freedom and democracy. [SCREEN WIPE] And other people my age see it differently. The American story of resentment, revenge, and retribution. That’s not me. LEXANDER: And, one note: A man who heckled President Biden last night was a Gold Star fathers whose son, a Marine, was among 13 U.S. service members killed during chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. That father was arrested for his outburst last night. As for President Biden’s performance, it really went a long way to ease Democrats’ concerns about his age during what was a 33-minute walk out of the chamber, a senior Democrat said to the President, “nobody’s going to call you cognitively impaired now”[.] Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker was next up and boasted of “Democrats...breathing a sigh of relief” about Biden 2024 because “they are thrilled” with how Thursday night went and “one Democrat” calling it “a total ten because the President was strong, because he was energetic, because he took on Donald Trump within the first four minutes of starting this speech.” “[W]hat are Republicans criticizing him on this morning? They say he was too partisan. They’re not criticizing him for a lack of energy and that was the point. And he took on the age issue head on,” she added. Welker also brought up Biden attacking Republicans on the border and credited him for both “throw[ing] red meat to the base and also appeal[ing] to those Nikki Haley, moderate, independent voters.” Co-host Savannah Guthrie and senior business correspondent Christine Romans shifted gears to the economy, but Romans shilled for her fellow liberals by insisting that, while Biden’s speech were as though he was at a “kitchen table, on main street,” the top issues for voters could very well be abortion and the border, not the border and the economy (click “expand”): GUTHRIE: [T]here are so many markers that show — ROMANS: Yeah. GUTHRIE: — the economy improving and when you look at consumer confidence, I know, it might be trending up right now — ROMANS: Right. GUTHRIE: — but generally people are not feeling this economy that the President is saying is so much better than where we were. ROMANS: And his lowest approval ratings are on the economy. Let’s be clear. So, you had, on yesterday a day when the stock market was hitting record highs, the President was not on Wall Street. The President was at the kitchen table, on main street, trying to show people I feel your pain., I know you feel like you’ve been nickeled and dimed. This is what we’ve been doing over the past year. You know, look, let’s talk about tax fairness. Maybe these big corporations and these people that make $100 million or more a year should be paying a higher tax rate than you are and he really dug into this. There are two teams here, and I’m on your team. And that’s what the White House was trying to do, get him at the kitchen table with the American people because those poll numbers have been so low, but one thing that’s interesting in this town, a lot of people yesterday were telling me that they think that — that immigration and abortion could be the two really — the two really important things that drive people in the ballot box. Maybe it won’t be the economy. Maybe this will not be an economy election after all. As more time passes, people are feeling a little bit better about things. And, in the second hour ahead of report reairing large portions of his previous hit, Alexander had one last valentine for Biden, calling him an “energized” President who was “eager to show he is ready to fight” and “deliver[ed] a poignant and, at times, combative address.” To see the relevant NBC transcript from March 8, click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

The View: Biden’s ‘Incredible’ SOTU Didn’t Trigger My ‘Depression, Anxiety’

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 8th 2024 at 14:53
President Biden’s angry, bitter, and shouty State of the Union address got rave reviews from the Cackling Coven of ABC’s The View on Friday. Co-host Sara Haines enjoyed that it didn’t trigger her “depression” and “anxiety,” while faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin proclaimed it “the first time” she felt “he could beat Donald Trump.” And those were some of the more lucid takes. Following a highlight reel that featured old man Biden shouting for no reason, moderator Joy Behar proclaimed: “So, pretty good. Right? I thought he was fabulous. I pictured Trump just going nuts watching it.” Farah Griffin claimed it was an “Objectively good night for Joe Biden” and that it was “the first time” she “felt like he could beat Donald Trump in November.” Ignoring Biden’s senior moments of bumbling through lines, mispronouncing names, and praising Russia’s prescription drug prices, Farah Griffin suggested: “Listen, the Trump camp did him a huge favor by setting expectations so low. They put out this ad the morning of that basically is ‘he'll keel over and die’ so by not tipping over at the dais he was already outperforming expectations.” Haines loved the address because it didn’t trigger her “depression [and] anxiety.” “Because for me I need hope and inspiration…I don't need anyone else to tell me gloom and doom and we’re one step from burning from Hell because I already feel that way some days,” she explained. “So, I need a leader that will call me and say, step up, we can do this together.”     Calling the speech “incredible,” staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) “loved” that Biden brought up January 6 “at the scene of the crime” and how it made her feel like she was at her black church (Click “expand”): I loved that he brought up January 6th, because they were at the capitol. They were at the scene of the crime. And if I were running for president I would be mentioning that scene of the crime every single day! So, he needs to continue to do that. [Applause] I also noticed he said” future” 20 times. This is a forward-looking president! He may be 81 but he's looking towards the future! The other thing that I want to say is, I mean I felt like I was at my black church. There was call and response and we love that! I mean, he had audience participation with the State of the Union! That's incredible! Hostin lauded Biden’s attacks and threats against the Supreme Court justices in attendance. And as if it was a ‘gotcha moment,’ Hostin flaunted her profound ignorance by exclaiming: “Clarence Thomas wasn't there” as if he was hiding from Biden. But Thomas had not attended a State of the Union address since 2006. The other faux-conservative co-host, Ana Navarro also ignored Biden’s senior moments as she declared: “I have been saying for months and months and months that Joe Biden is old, yes, he's slower of step, yes, but he is far from being incoherent, from having dementia, from not being in charge. Yesterday he showed he is engaged. He was impassioned.” She touted that “Scranton Joe” was “pissed off” and “had his gloves on from moment one.” One of Biden’s worst moments of the night was when he invoked Laken Riley, the Georgia college student who was killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the country because of Biden’s open-border policies, and butchered her name by calling her “Lincoln Riley.” Navarro ignored that fact and praised him anyway. “He took [a button with her name on it] and he looked at her parents and he offered condolences,” she boasted. Navarro also led the cast and audience in a chant of "four more years." Just as a reminder, The View is an ABC News product.   ABC News hosts openly chant for "FOUR MORE YEARS!" of Biden. pic.twitter.com/liOtqfcKnt — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 8, 2024   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 8, 2024 11:03:44 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: So, pretty good. Right? I thought he was fabulous. I pictured Trump just going nuts watching it, you know. What do you guys think? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, Trump was going nuts on Truth Social watching it. But I have to say— BEHAR: What did he say? FARAH GRIFFIN: And then it finally came up in all – and everything he was posting was like – well, I’m not going to even amplify it, but it was crazy. Objectively good night for Joe Biden. This was the first time that I felt like he could beat Donald Trump in November. Listen, the Trump camp did him a huge favor by setting expectations so low. They put out this ad the morning of that basically is ‘he'll keel over and die’ so by not tipping over at the dais he was already outperforming expectations. (…) 11:05:37 a.m. Eastern SARA HAINES: Because for me I need hope and inspiration. As someone who deals -- I have to remind all the time, depression, anxiety, I don't need anyone else to tell me gloom and doom and we’re one step from burning from Hell because I already feel that way some days. So, I need a leader that will call me and say, step up, we can do this together. BEHAR: Like Reagan, morning in America! HAINES: Yeah, but the thing that I loved about him was his tone. And these are the things that always speak to me. There was that time when he talked about Republicans and their infrastructure and the money and, like, if you don't want it, you -- you don't want it? But kind of playfully when he jousted with Lindsey Graham and Lindsey Graham laughed. When he quoted a Republican president. When he said at one point Republican presidents and Democrats, he added. Because when you can -- I will trust you if you're able to look at yourself too. I don't believe in party, party, party all the time. So, I felt that tone was great but it was really the inspiration. He talked about America being an ideal that we're always working toward. We haven't arrived there but it's also not carnage and hell. Like, we are in progress and the intention was always there but we can only do it together. SUNNY HOSTIN: He was hopeful and I also think it was important for him to joke about his age. He also said the thing about my predecessor, my predecessor. The guy who's like my age, so he took that -- he brought that together. That was really strong. I loved that he brought up January 6th, because they were at the capitol. They were at the scene of the crime. And if I were running for president I would be mentioning that scene of the crime every single day! So, he needs to continue to do that. [Applause] I also noticed he said “future” 20 times. This is a forward-looking president! He may be 81 but he's looking towards the future! The other thing that I want to say is, I mean I felt like I was at my black church. There was call and response and we love that! I mean, he had audience participation with the State of the Union! That's incredible! And how about the fact that -- BEHAR: Well, there was some heckling as if they were at Haha’s in – ANA NAVARRO: That's the best thing they could do to him. HOSTIN: The heckling just seemed to gin him up. And the last thing that I'll say is, when you say to someone, “no disrespect, but,” you know something mad disrespectful is about to happen. [Laughter] So, he says – with the Supreme Court justices sitting there – ‘the Supreme Court majority wrote the following and with all due respect, justices, and women are not without electoral or political power. You're about to realize just how much you were right about that.’ And you know how he’s got that lopsided grin and he's like. [Laughter] And they literally pan over to the Supreme Court justices. Who's not there? Alito who wrote the Dobbs decision. BEHAR: He wasn't there. HOSTIN: No! NAVARRO: He rarely shows up. HOSTIN: Clarence Thomas wasn't there! And -- NAVARRO: He was probably -- he might have been on a yacht somewhere. HOSTIN: Maybe. And Amy Coney Barrett wasn't there. BEHAR: Really? HOSTIN: It was fascinating to me. I loved it! NAVARRO: As you all know, I have been saying for months and months and months that Joe Biden is old, yes, he's slower of step, yes, but he is far from being incoherent, from having dementia, from not being in charge. Yesterday he showed he is engaged. He was impassioned. He was pissed off. Scranton Joe showed up and fought. He had his gloves on from moment one. He was knowledgeable about policy. He turned the immigration issue, which I agree with you, is the most difficult issue he's facing and he turned it into one of the most strongest moments of that speech. They thought they were going to rattle him by wearing the buttons of Laken Riley. He took it and he looked at her parents and he offered condolences. (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Huntington Beach Votes to Limit Display of Pride Flags

By: Tierin-Rose Mandelburg — March 8th 2024 at 15:21
Surprisingly, this is a positive story. Residents in Huntington Beach, California just voted to ban Pride flags from being displayed on city property. Given the fact that California tends to be “all in” with anything progressive, this is huge.  The measure that was passed with more than 58% of the vote Tuesday states that only the United States flag, the State of California flag, the County of Orange flag, the City of Huntington Beach flag, the POW-MIA flag, the six Armed Forces flags and the Olympic flag (during the Summer Olympic Games) will be allowed to be displayed on city property in Huntington Beach. The Pride flag, along with the breast cancer awareness flag and any religious flags will not be permitted, according to KTLA 5, a Huntington Beach news station.  The “loophole” however states that “any other flag could be flown if authorized by a unanimous vote of the City Council,” KTLA 5 wrote. So, if an individual or a group wants to fly a flag on city property that is not listed on the list of approved flags, they’d have to get it pre-approved by the city council.  Oddly enough, only 23% of the city’s registered voters showed up to vote on the amendment to the city’s charter. Though the amendment doesn’t explicitly say “you cannot hang Pride flags,” it’s specifications on which flags can be hung makes that clear. Many people saw the move as a “repudiation of the City Council unanimous vote in 2021 to fly the Pride flag for the month of June every year,” LA Times reported before indicating that since then, four new conservative council members joined which likely facilitated the shift. “They flat-out said this is not about banning the Pride flag,” councilmember Dan Kalmick said. “They’re full of s**t. Of course it’s about the Pride flag.” Peg Corly, executive director of the LGBTQ Center Orange County said, “The LGBTQ community is not a political statement nor a special interest. We are people who wish to live our lives without suffering hate or discrimination for who we are,” before adding, “The most recent Orange County hate crimes report documents a 125% increase in hate crimes and hate incidents against LGBTQ people. Cities can help reverse this dangerous trend with a public show of support such as flying the Pride flag during Pride month. The recent ban by the Huntington Beach City Council speaks volumes.” Maybe council members just wanted their city to speak to the patriotism of the state rather than speak on something so politically divisive. I’m curious to see how this pans out when Pride month does roll around this June. Until then, get wrecked nerds.  
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Scarborough: My 'Pro-Life' Evangelical Relatives Horrified By Overturning of Roe v. Wade

By: Mark Finkelstein — March 8th 2024 at 17:05
On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough told a tale of attending a family gathering for his last birthday, and that his family members there were "all Republicans. All pro-life. All evangelicals." And yet, were they really "pro-life"? According to Scarborough, 30 minutes into the gathering, one relative raised the anedcote of a woman in Texas who was bleeding out because the doctor wouldn't perform an abortion. And that in turn led to "these people, these Republicans, these pro-lifers, these Southern Baptists, these evangelicals, had one horror story after another horror story about what terminating Roe v. Wade was doing to human beings." As opposed to actually terminating human beings. Not one of those "pro-life" relatives, in Scarborough's recounting, supported the overturning of Roe?  No, they were all horrified by the decision, and found it devastating. Obviously, then, they're not "pro-life." They're sharing Planned Parenthood talking points.  Scarborough even had the gall to suggest that Donald Trump goes around bragging that he is responsible for that woman bleeding out, and for the 10-year-old girl being raped and chased out of her state to get an abortion.    Speaking of pro-life Baptists, Scarborough frequently mentions having been born and raised a Southern Baptist. And he was ardently pro-life back when he represented a conservative Florida Panhandle district in Congress. Joe had 0% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and 100% from the National Right to Life Committee.  During his congressional career,  Scarborough surely spoke out in condemnation of Roe v. Wade. Will Scarborough at some point share his conversion story of becoming a born-again promoter of abortion rights and stalwart defender of Roe? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/8/24 6:43 am ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: I, I, you know, I am a big believer in anecdotal evidence. I've talked about this before. My, my last birthday, I had, had my family around. All Republicans. All pro-life. All evangelicals.  And we were sitting there, and 30 minutes in, we're just talking about different things. And I think it went from baseball to suddenly somebody said, "hey,did you hear that story about that woman in Texas that was bleeding out because the doctors wouldn't" -- and somebody else said, "Oh, my God. And that woman." And they. And I just sat. That's, that's where, if you're in my job either as a politician or, you know, a host on the show here, you just, you try to melt into, you know, the woodwork, and you just try to listen. These people, these Republicans, these pro-lifers, these Southern Baptists, these evangelicals, had one horror story after another horror story about what terminating Roe v. Wade was doing to human beings. Doing to women. Doing to professional women. Doing to housewives. Doing to 10-year-old girls. They just sat there going on. And at that point, I said, man, when they start telling stories about how devastating an issue is to all these other people, that's when you know it really sinks in. So for Donald Trump to be running around bragging, "I terminated Roe v. Wade. I terminated Roe v. Wade. I'm responsible for that woman bleeding out. I'm responsible for that 10-year-old girl being raped, having to be chased from the states. I'm responsible for the" -- it's just devastating for him. It's devastating for Republicans. We've seen it already since Dobbs became the law of the land.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

Vicious ‘View’ Cast Smears Sen. Britt: 'Get Some Medication, Katie!'

By: Nicholas Fondacaro — March 8th 2024 at 17:13
The hypocrisy displayed by the cast of ABC’s The View is never more apparent when their “support all women” shtick clashes with their disdain for actual conservative women. That scenario played out again on Friday as they viciously attacked the mental health Alabama Senator Katie Britt (R) for her less-than-stellar and unusual rebuttal to President Biden’s State of the Union address the previous evening; suggesting that she needed to be pumped full of “medication” and thrown in a “padded room” away from “knives.” “Get some medication, Katie!” moderator Joy Behar screeched. “I've never seen mood swings like this. One minute she's like [pretends to cry], then she’s like going to take a knife and stab you! Then she's laughing like an idiot. What's wrong with her? She's like Sybil!” Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin called the rebuttal “a disaster from start to finish” and had a meltdown over Britt doing it from a kitchen: FARAH GRIFFIN: And actually Katie Britt is somebody who’s a serious person with policy chops. Democratic senators will tell you they respect her. But it's Women's History Month, it's International Women's Day and we put the senator in the kitchen! BEHAR: Where the knives are! FARAH GRIFFIN: Like women can be wives, they can be moms, but they don't -- her in front of a podium. I mean, it was -- I was hearing from Republican women everywhere like, what -- why did they choose this? Why did she say, “put me anywhere else?”     She added that the scene gave off “creepy Lifetime movie” vibes and Behar chimed in again to proclaim that Britt “needs mood elevators!” Co-host Ana Navarro, infamous for her wild and unhinged emotional outbursts, had the gall to say she was “worried” about Britt being in a kitchen because “she had knives so close” to her. “I thought she could go Chuckie on me at any time,” she proclaimed; being unoriginal and parroting Behar’s Sybil reference and explaining the mean-spirited joke: “Sybil the movie from '76 about a lady with multiple personality disorder.” “And I'm thinking to myself this lady shouldn't be in a kitchen; she should be in a padded room!” Navarro shrieked. Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) suggested that Britt was a Karen who “wanted to call the manager on America.” Her criticisms seemed to stem from her well-documented hatred of white women (for examples, click here, here, here, and here). “It was giving me fragility. It was giving me those tears that are often weaponized,” she warned. Co-host Sara Haines, who’s been very public about her battles with mental health, didn’t object to her friends weaponizing mental health smears against the conservative woman. Instead, she flipped out over Britt saying “bless your heart” to Biden. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 8, 2024 11:16:51 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: Get some medication, Katie! I haven't seen acting that bad since my wedding night. [Laughter] So, which genius in that party decided that she was the perfect spokesperson? I've never seen mood swings like this. One minute she's like [pretends to cry], then she’s like going to take a knife and stab you! Then she's laughing like an idiot. What's wrong with her? She's like Sybil! ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: A disaster from start to finish. And actually Katie Britt is somebody who’s serious person with policy chops. Democratic senators will tell you they respect her. But it's Women's History Month, it's International Women's Day and we put the senator in the kitchen! BEHAR: Where the knives are! FARAH GRIFFIN: Like women can be wives, they can be moms, but they don't -- her in front of a podium. I mean, it was -- I was hearing from Republican women everywhere like, what -- why did they choose this? Why did she say, “put me anywhere else?” SARA HAINES: What is she auditioning for though? Because I don't think she's going to get a callback! SUNNY HOSTIN: No. FARAH GRIFFIN: And I think they were thinking Ronald Reagan, like, “All great change in the America happens at the dinner table,” but instead, it gave like creepy Lifetime movie. BEHAR: She needs – she needs – The girl needs mood elevators! (…) 11:18:25 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: I don't even know how you were able to notice she was in a kitchen because I was so incredibly distracted by what I was watching. Right? The only thing that worried me about being in a kitchen is that she had knives so close because I thought she could go Chuckie on me at any time. You know, when she started, it was giving me like a – [Laughter] Real housewives -- HAINES: Or Get Out. [Crosstalk] NAVARRO: And then it went from real Housewives confessional having a breakdown to Sybil the movie from '76 about a lady with multiple personality disorder. And I'm thinking to myself this lady shouldn't be in a kitchen, she should be in a padded room! BEHAR: Go ahead. Sunny, hit it! HOSTIN: You know, it was giving, like, she wanted to call the manager on America. You know what I mean? BEHAR: Karen. Karen. HOSTIN: It was giving that for me. HAINES: You can’t say that! BEHAR: You can’t say Karen? Why not? HOSTIN: No, you can't say that. BEHAR: Why not? HOSTIN: It was giving me fragility. It was giving me those tears that are often weaponized. It was giving me what the young people are calling “trad-wife” or the “trad-woman,” the traditional woman from the '40s or the '50s that was the homemaker. And I think a man made that decision. I think a Republican man realized, “You know what, the whole DeSantis like angry man thing didn't work.” [Crosstalk] (…)
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

‘Fire in the Belly’; CBS Revels in ‘Fiery’ Biden Coming ‘Out...Swinging’ at GOP in SOTU

By: Curtis Houck — March 8th 2024 at 17:26
Unfortunately, Friday’s CBS Mornings followed the lead of ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today in forgoing actual critiques of President Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address on Thursday. Instead, it heaped praise on the “fiery” and “fired up” Biden going “on the offensive” and proved he “has the energy, the fire in the belly to serve another four years”. Co-host Tony Dokoupil opened the State of the Union coverage by stating Biden “appeared pretty fired up as went on the offensive on big issues like Roe v. Wade and the border and the economy” and, to his credit, noted the (pro-Hamas) “protesters” who blocked D.C. streets ahead of Biden’s speech to demand “a ceasefire in Gaza.” Unfortunately, he was the only person on any of the “big three” networks during the lead morning shows to mention that factoid. Tossing to chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes, Dokoupil added his guess that the White House has to be “feeling pretty good about this speech last night.”     Cordes promptly played the role of regime stenographer: They certainly did a victory lap last night, Tony...You know, the speech was more combative than we had been led to expect here at the White House. He brought up his Republican opponent at least a dozen times in an address that was clearly designed to show that the President has the energy, the fire in the belly to serve another four years. She kept laying it on thick: “With re-election on the line, an animated President Biden came out of the gate swinging...He talked about defending democracy and repeatedly went after former President Trump without naming him.” On President Biden threatening Supreme Court justices, Cordes merely said he “spoke directly to the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade” about the consequences of their actions. Following more stenography touting Biden’s focus on issues like “tax credits and lower health care costs” and “announc[ing] the U.S. military will build a temporary port” for Gazans, Cordes addressed what she said was the fact that “Biden wasn’t the only one who was animated last night” Republicans in the chamber challenged him at a couple of points, and he appeared to relish the unscripted back and forth with them over taxes and immigration. But the scripted part, that was the template for his general election message, and he’s taking it on the road starting today[.] Pivoting to the analysis, co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King brought in chief political analyst and smug lefty John Dickerson to tout the “fiery” Biden as having “met the moment” with an “energetic speech, leaning into basically theater” (click “expand”): KING: [T]here was a lot of hand-wringing last night before the speech: “What’s he going to do, how’s he going to say it?” But today there’s words like fiery to describe it. So did he meet the moment?  DICKERSON: Well, he met the moment in part because of that hand wringing, right? KING: Yes. DICKERSON: Expectations were in the sub-basement. But what’s interesting is that the White House were saying it’s going to be a fiery, energetic speech, leaning into basically theater review, right? Which is, it has nothing to do with policies or any of that stuff. But they bought into it. Got everybody to pay attention. And then — as Nancy said — he laid out the argument for the fall campaign. It has two components. One is his predecessor as a threat to democracy. The President started his speech by talking about America in 1941 with the threat of Nazism in World War II. You can’t set the stakes any higher. He then also got into a populist fight on economic policy with Donald Trump, essentially saying “we need to raise corporate taxes and tax the wealthy in order to pay for things to help people to have access to opportunity in America.” That’s his campaign. And laid it out pretty effectively, I think. But now many things will intervene between now and Election Day. On the back and forth with Republicans, Dickerson admonished them for “acting out”, but admitted “Biden was baiting them” and “throwing chum into the, into the well” with his rhetoric. Always one to lecture us about democracy, Dickerson lamented the “Capitol was ringed with fences because of the security concerns that come from people who act out and really act out, and that’s — that’s where this — all this acting out leads to, ultimately.” Dickerson closed by praising the pro-Hamas crowd, congratulating them for behaving “the way democracy should work” by voting “uncommitted” in Democratic primaries instead of carrying out another January 6, which “was an attempt to use violence to send a political message.” In the second hour, the hosts brought in chief campaign and election correspondent Robert Costa to react to Biden going back to the (tiresome) well of tying Trump and the GOP to being pro-Russia (click “expand”):  Well, context is everything, and speaking to sources close to President Biden, they say that that quote about Ronald Reagan came at the top of the speech just days after Super Tuesday when former President Donald Trump became the likely Republican nominee, but President Biden was trying to do there, my sources say, is make an overture to former Ambassador Nikki Haley’s voters in the GOP and say there’s room in the Democratic coalition for them if they want to have a more traditional foreign policy. Biden said he’s moving more in that Reagan-like direction. (....) [I]nside the White House, there’s a belief today that this speech was effective, that Biden was able to reset his presidency — reset his presidency and move in a direction where he could be more assertive on his agenda and really start to take on Trump as this general election campaign kicks off. To see the relevant CBS transcript from March 8, click here.
☑ ☆ ✇ NB Blog Feed

PBS: 'America's Safety Net' Not Generous Enough: 60% Americans Have Been Poor?

By: Clay Waters — March 8th 2024 at 19:11
The PBS NewsHour launched a new series Monday, “America’s Safety Net,” taking a long-term historical view of welfare programs (spoiler: there’s not nearly enough of it). Yes, the taxpayer-supported show is advocating for more taxpayer funding of the so-called safety net. Anchor Geoff Bennett kicked off the series with an overview beginning in 1935 with Franklin Roosevelt signing the Social Security Act, leading to LBJ’s “War on Poverty” launched in 1964. The U.S. government began to measure the poverty rate around then. Bennett: ….But the measure is widely considered imperfect. For example, some say the poverty line, about $31,000 for a family of four, is far too low….No matter how it's measured, poverty is often misunderstood, says Cornell University professor Jamila Michener. Progressive professor Michener really stretched the poverty definition, making it possible that you could be “impoverished” and not know it. Someone has to be in the bottom 50% percentile of income after all. What matters is their actual living standard, and no one starves in the United States. A gullible Bennett swallowed the stat whole. Jamila Michener, Cornell University: We tend to think about poverty as more niche and more limited than it actually is. And because of that, we can tell ourselves that people living in poverty are very, very different than people who aren't, that maybe there are some things wrong with them. A reality and something that people don't know is that, if we take a life-course perspective, a majority of Americans, something approaching 60 percent, depending on when you measure and how you measure, will experience poverty at some point in their lifetime. Bennett: Wow. Michener: So most people, if you… Bennett: Sixty percent? Michener: Or higher. It depends on how we measure it. (PBS also used Michener’s dubious “60% figure” in the show’s introductory teaser.) Bennett: Is the social safety net, then, adequate in terms of meeting the need? Michener: What I would say from my perspective as a research expert is a resounding no. Matt Weidinger, American Enterprise Institute: I would answer yes. Notice that Michener’s ideological opposite, by contrast, received a “conservative” warning label. (At least PBS booked a conservative viewpoint, which it usually doesn’t bother doing.) Bennett: Matt Weidinger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has a different view. He helped create this chart of 80-plus programs from food aid to housing to health care that shows the complexity of the safety net. He says it can be difficult to track the success of specific programs, but: Weidinger: If you look at nuanced poverty measures that count all the assistance that taxpayers provide, that count the resources that families themselves have from work, from relatives, owning their own homes and all that, the level of poverty in the United States has actually dropped to a relatively low level. Bennett framed the conservative view in hostile fashion. Bennett: As a congressional staffer, Weidinger helped draft the landmark welfare reform law in the 1990s. The legislation followed years of anti-welfare sentiment driven by perceptions of rampant abuse. In his presidential campaigns, Ronald Reagan popularized the welfare queen stereotype of people cheating the system to collect benefits. By 1994, the number of Americans receiving cash assistance did reach its peak at 14 million. So, in 1996, after a pledge to end welfare as we know it, President Clinton struck a deal with Republicans in Congress. After the airing of dueling talking points from Weidinger and Michener, Bennett dealt the race card. Bennett: Still, despite welfare's reach, almost half of American households struggle to make ends meet. And the number is even higher among black and brown households…. He offered a preview of upcoming “America’s Safety Net” stories promising insight on “how safety net benefits expanded dramatically during the pandemic and poverty plunged, only to rebound when the policies expired….And what works and doesn't when it comes to alleviating food insecurity nationwide.” As if we should live in COVID-times forever. Note the conveniently vague left-wing term “food insecurity” is not the same thing as hunger. This segment was brought to you in part by Raymond James. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 3/4/24 7:39:13 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Tonight, we begin a new series, America's Safety Net, on the complicated web of programs meant to help Americans in need. Over the coming weeks, we will take an in-depth look at the different forms of welfare in the U.S. But, first, with producer Sam Lane, we're going to spend some time explaining what the American social safety net actually is, who it serves, and how it came to look the way that it does today. The year was 1935. The U.S. was still struggling through the Great Depression. A quarter of the population was just unemployed, a level the country hadn't seen before and hasn't seen since. That August, as part of his New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. Franklin Roosevelt, Former President of the United States: To safeguard the security of American workers and their families. Geoff Bennett: In addition to the retirement benefits it's now known for, the law laid a foundation for the government's role in programs like unemployment insurance and cash assistance for families. Roosevelt called it a cornerstone in the structure which is being built, but is by no means complete. Franklin Roosevelt: We have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family. Geoff Bennett: In the nearly 90 years since Roosevelt signed that law, politicians in Washington and in statehouses across the country have argued about the best ways to help Americans who live in and near poverty. The disagreements have ranged from the dollar amounts of that assistance to how much it should be tied to work requirements and even to how poverty itself is defined and measured. During his State of the Union in 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced an unconditional war on poverty in America. Lyndon Johnson Former President of the United States: Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it. Geoff Bennett: Johnson's war included the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, a permanent food stamp program now known as SNAP, and the expansion of Social Security. At about the same time, the government came up with a uniform way to measure poverty by comparing a family's income against a national threshold. In 1959, the poverty rate sat at around 22 percent. By 1973, it had dropped to 11 percent, roughly where it was in 2022, with almost 40 million Americans in poverty. But the measure is widely considered imperfect. For example, some say the poverty line, about $31,000 for a family of four, is far too low. So there are other measures that account for things like geography, cost of living, consumption, or how much government assistance a family gets. No matter how it's measured, poverty is often misunderstood, says Cornell University professor Jamila Michener. Jamila Michener, Cornell University: We tend to think about poverty as more niche and more limited than it actually is. And because of that, we can tell ourselves that people living in poverty are very, very different than people who aren't, that maybe there are some things wrong with them. A reality and something that people don't know is that, if we take a life course perspective, a majority of Americans, something approaching 60 percent, depending on when you measure and how you measure, will experience poverty at some point in their lifetime. Geoff Bennett: Wow. Jamila Michener: So most people, if you… Geoff Bennett: Sixty percent? Jamila Michener: Or higher. It depends on how we measure it. Geoff Bennett: Is the social safety net, then, adequate in terms of meeting the need? Jamila Michener: What I would say from my perspective as a research expert is a resounding no. Matt Weidinger, American Enterprise Institute: I would answer yes. Geoff Bennett: Matt Weidinger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has a different view. He helped create this chart of 80-plus programs from food aid to housing to health care that shows the complexity of the safety net. He says it can be difficult to track the success of specific programs, but: Matt Weidinger: If you look at nuanced poverty measures that count all the assistance that taxpayers provide, that count the resources that families themselves have from work, from relatives, owning their own homes and all that, the level of poverty in the United States has actually dropped to a relatively low level. Geoff Bennett: As a congressional staffer, Weidinger helped draft the landmark welfare reform law in the 1990s. The legislation followed years of anti-welfare sentiment driven by perceptions of rampant abuse. In his presidential campaigns, Ronald Reagan popularized the welfare queen stereotype of people cheating the system to collect benefits. By 1994, the number of Americans receiving cash assistance did reach its peak at 14 million. So, in 1996, after a pledge to end welfare as we know it, President Clinton struck a deal with Republicans in Congress. It replaced the cash assistance program of the 1930s with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It imposed time limits and work requirements on welfare and made states responsible for distributing money. The number of families on welfare plummeted. In the years since those reforms, debates have continued over the size and shape of the social safety net. Matt Weidinger: I'm much more supportive of a work-based safety net, including because that's what the American people say they want. It's consistent with how people understand the American dream. They don't understand the American dream as being something where the government gives you a big enough check that you can avoid working. They understand the American dream as helping people go to work, lift their family, rise over time. Jamila Michener: It's important to make the social safety net, I think, about what it is about, which is supporting people in times of need. And when we try to instead make it about making people work, it can end up not providing them with the support they need, ironically, with the support they need to work. Often, we want to do that because there's some sort of principle. We just want to know that people aren't, like, mooching off the state or that they're working sufficiently hard. Geoff Bennett: And because the benefits are taxpayer-funded. Jamila Michener: Yes, although, to be fair, people who are living in or near poverty pay taxes too. If you think about it over the long course, many of us are paying in to the social safety net system and many of us will draw out of that system in our time of need. Geoff Bennett: Before the pandemic, some 99 million Americans, 30 percent of the population, used at least one of the country's key safety net programs. Altogether, those programs cost the federal government well over $700 billion. And that doesn't include all of the money for things like the Affordable Care Act, which helps tens of millions of Americans access health care. When President Obama signed the ACA back in 2010, it represented the largest expansion of the safety net in decades. Still, despite welfare's reach, almost half of American households struggle to make ends meet. And the number is even higher among Black and brown households. Over the coming weeks, we will bring you the stories of those families and show you what it's like to navigate America's increasingly complex social safety net. We explore why up to half the people eligible for benefits don't actually receive them. Woman: It's very time consuming. They want to know every little penny, every little change in your circumstance. And any of that could affect you. Geoff Bennett: Why it's so hard to access housing assistance, how safety net benefits expanded dramatically during the pandemic and poverty plunged, only to rebound when the policies expired. Woman: I felt like somebody started to feel our pain. And then they lost all of that. They forgot all that. And we were, like, hung out to dry. Geoff Bennett: And what works and doesn't when it comes to alleviating food insecurity nationwide. Woman: I was digging through my purse trying to find two pennies just to pay the rest of my SNAP. I just feel like trash, that I'm here for a free handout, and I'm just nothing to this country.
❌