Login
Former President Donald Trump delivered a “focused” pitch to America’s top CEOs and received a loud ovation at the conclusion of his Business Roundtable remarks Thursday, an attendee at the meeting told The Daily Signal.
That’s a stark contrast to reporting from New York Times columnist and CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin, who told “Squawk Box” viewers Friday that Trump was “meandering, could not keep a straight thought, was all over the map.” Sorkin was not present at the Business Roundtable meeting.
Hours later, White House Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates amplified Sorkin’s spin on X. CNBC and other liberal media outlets ran with the story, and an MSNBC blogger suggested Trump’s appearance raised “concerns about his cognitive state.”
But is any of it true?
“It’s a clear bunch of BS,” according to the attendee. “This is a farce all the way around.”
News outlets mostly stuck to the substance of Trump’s remarks in their initial coverage Thursday: He spoke about cutting corporate taxes from 21% to 20%, after reducing the rate from 35% during his presidency.
The media narrative began to change Friday, starting with Sorkin’s CNBC commentary.
I will say I was surprised. I spoke to a number of CEOs who I would say walked into the meeting being Trump supporter-ish, or thinking that they might be leaning that direction, who said that he was remarkably meandering, could not keep a straight thought, was all over the map, and that they – which, maybe not surprising – but was interesting to me because these were people who, I think, might have been actually predisposed to him and actually walked out of the room less predisposed to him, actually predisposed to thinking ‘This is not necessarily,’ as one person said, ‘this may not be any different or better than a Biden thought, if you’re thinking that way.’
By Friday night, the Biden campaign’s official X account was promoting the Sorkin clip.
Reporter: I just spoke to a number of CEOs who met with Donald Trump. They thought they may support him at first, but they walked out of the meeting saying he was remarkably meandering, could not keep a straight thought, and was all over the map pic.twitter.com/M6rx7i4zX0
— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) June 15, 2024
But the attendee who spoke with The Daily Signal said Sorkin’s interpretation is wrong. (The Daily Signal granted the attendee anonymity to speak candidly about the private meeting.)
“There was never a moment of meandering,” the attendee said. “He was focused. In fact, he received a loud ovation at the end.”
The attendee added: “There was not one CEO who wasn’t impressed with what they heard from Trump. Everybody was clapping.”
Sorkin did not immediately reply to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The post ‘Bunch of BS’: Attendee at Trump’s CEO Meeting Refutes Media Reports appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The nation’s most self-impressed journalists, the ones who strangely self-identify as “mainstream,” could not bring themselves to treat the Hunter Biden trial as comparable in any way to Donald Trump’s trial in Manhattan. Treating Hunter as a significant “news” subject gives them the creeps, like they’ve been drafted into Rupert Murdoch’s army.
So it’s a little shocking the Hunter trial gained about half as much coverage as Trump’s—at least through the first eight days of coverage. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC morning, evening, and Sunday interview shows, Trump’s trial drew more than 174 minutes, while Hunter’s trial drew 85 minutes. (By the Trump trial’s end, they filled the air with 640 minutes.)
It’s less shocking to notice the difference in tone. Trump’s trial was a “criminal” trial about “hush money.” On April 25, fill-in CBS anchor Margaret Brennan announced, “The former president faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business documents related to a so-called hush money payment to a porn star.” Other stories fussed that Trump was bullying and threatening witnesses and court staff.
Hunter Biden stories were loaded with empathy. On June 3, ABC’s Terry Moran relayed: “President [Joe] Biden released a statement standing by his only surviving son, saying in part ‘I have boundless love for my son.’” CBS reporter Norah O’Donnell echoed him that night on “the president’s only surviving son.” On June 10, NBC fill-in anchor Tom Llamas began: “For the first time, the child of a sitting president facing a potential criminal conviction. Right now, a jury deliberating the fate of Hunter Biden, the sole surviving son of the president.”
Hunter Biden is 54 and network anchors refer to him as a “child.”
The contrast in tone tells you that the media elites loathe Trump but treat the Biden family like they’re close friends who they want to surround and protect. There was a sense of glee when Democrats began crowing about Trump the “convicted felon.” Then came the sorrow that they only had 11 days to celebrate before the president’s son drew the same label.
Then came the stubborn facts. Conservative outlets like the New York Post were more interested in how prosecutors based their case on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the court verified it as evidence. CBS never mentioned this. ABC gave 10 seconds, and NBC offered 30 seconds acknowledging the laptop’s use in court. None of them revisited their 2020 performance, when they all robotically regurgitated the Biden campaign spin that the laptop was “garbage” carrying the “earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
Prosecutors not only mined the laptop but used Hunter’s addiction memoir “Beautiful Things” against him. That was quite a backfire, after the pro-Biden networks (and their affiliated comedians like Jimmy Kimmel) gushed over Hunter’s memoir as “catharsis” for the 50-something child. Back in 2021, CBS donated 25 minutes of airtime to syrupy interview segments with the addict. Maybe “donated” is the wrong word since CBS-affiliated Simon & Schuster published the book.
These guilty verdicts will not affect the pro-Biden media’s incessant efforts to tout the Biden family as a selling point for the Democrats. They couldn’t stop talking after the verdict about how the first lady was in the courtroom almost every day, and how the president scores points with voters when he talks about how much he loves his “only surviving son.”
They will keep spinning in desperation that Hunter Biden‘s epic crack-and-hookers binges somehow make the Bidens more sympathetic to Americans with addicts in their family. Journalists were given cocaine-powdered lemons, and the lemonade they are making is a heady brew. But not everyone wants to drink it.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
The post The Hunter Verdicts Won’t Stop the Desperate Pro-Biden Spin appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Does Time magazine really matter anymore?
It still has a circulation of more than 1 million, but that is one-third of what it was in 2012. Does anything it reports still resonate, or is it like a tree that collapses unheard in the solitude of the woods?
Time just secured an interview with President Joe Biden, when Biden has granted very few interviews to print news outlets. Time gained access to Donald Trump in April, and the first thing you notice when you compare the two interviews is the length.
At the top of the transcripts, Time claims the Biden transcript is a “28 minute read,” while Trump’s is listed as 83 minutes. Time’s “fact check” of the Trump interviews (“21 minute read”) is almost as long as the Biden interview.
Another noticeable tilt is the agenda of questions. Biden’s questions were overwhelmingly about foreign policy. There are three on inflation, three on immigration, and three on Biden’s age. There were zero questions on Hunter Biden and the Biden scandals. There were zero questions on the Trump trial or the Trump prosecutions.
Did Team Biden put any conditions on which questions could be asked? It’s a fair question, considering how selective they’ve been in handing out interviews.
By contrast, by my count, Time asked Trump 11 questions about the Trump prosecutions (and “revenge” for them), five questions about Jan. 6, two about potential political violence in 2025, four on fighting the “Deep State,” three on his “dictator for a day” joke, and four on whether he’d seek to overturn the 22nd Amendment and seek a third term.
On top of that, Trump drew 14 questions on abortion policy and six on crime. It’s obvious from the Time transcripts that they consider Trump’s opinions on domestic issues to be much more controversial—and even extremist—than anything Biden advocates.
The rest of the media picked up on Trump’s abortion answers, and Biden didn’t have to provide any abortion answers.
Even the age questions to Biden were timid softballs, and Biden’s answer—suggesting he could take his interviewer Massimo Calabresi in a fight—was taken as a joke. Calabresi told CNN’s Jake Tapper it was “lighthearted” and “quite funny.” Biden responded to a follow-up about voter concerns with his usual spin: “Watch me.” Calabresi confessed it might be a “stock answer.” So, why not push through it? Why not ask, “Everyone’s been watching you, that’s your problem”?
Time could have asked Biden why his team refuses to release audio of his interview with stolen-documents special counsel Robert Hur, with the fear Republicans will exploit the audio in advertising. But Time pretends Hur is a nobody and that Biden’s stolen documents should already be forgotten. Hur refused to prosecute Biden, and Jack Smith just keeps prosecuting Trump.
It looks a bit rigged.
By contrast, Trump’s interviewer Eric Cortellessa lectured him: “I just want to say for the record, there’s no evidence that President Biden directed this prosecution against you.” Trump rejected that: “I always hate the way a reporter will make those statements. They know it’s so wrong.” Time, like other slavishly pro-Biden outlets, refuses to acknowledge that Biden’s No. 3 Justice Department official Matthew Colangelo resigning to join Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team of Trump prosecutors shreds the “no evidence” lie.
The Democrats running Time are hyperbolically raising fear that a president using the Justice Department might go after his political opponents, while somehow being blind and deaf enough to ignore that Biden is using the Justice Department to go after his political opponents. They can’t believe anyone would object to their shamelessness.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
The post Time Magazine Betrays Its Tilt in Biden, Trump Interviews appeared first on The Daily Signal.
In our modern political dumpster fire, there has never been an art so refined and illustrious as pointless pearl-clutching.
In this, the ninth year of 2016, most everyone is fairly desensitized to the political drama emanating from the Left’s ardent claims that any conservative policy or protest is an appeal to fascism as their own organizations and protesters set fire to cities (and sometimes themselves).
Republicans pass a bill banning sexually explicit content in public schools from kindergarten to third grade? Florida Democrats and media labeled it fascism.
A U.S. Supreme Court justice’s wife flies a Revolutionary War flag commissioned by George Washington? Salon’s senior writer described Justice Samuel Alito and his wife as “extremely invested in the semiotics of American fascism.”
The New Republic, The Guardian, taxpayer-funded PBS—any time a Republican so much as upholds parliamentary procedure, defends former President Donald Trump, or questions the surge of gang and cartel members amid waves of illegal immigrants—these outlets are ready in the wings to call any to the right of Chairman Mao a fascist.
The latest banner of fascism to be shouted down in a “Two Minutes Hate” session out of George Orwell’s “1984”: flying the flag of the United States upside down. The horror!
As ridiculous as it might sound—the group that has spent the past eight years defending those who burn, shred, and desecrate the U.S. flag is suddenly outraged over many in the nation who have flown the U.S. flag upside down in a symbol of distress over Trump’s political prosecution and conviction.
Many on the Left and precious few on the Right have taken to social media to lambast those who would fly the U.S. flag upside down as “disrespectful,” “treasonous,” and “idol-worshipers.”
Is this the case? Are those who reacted to Trump’s felony convictions in New York City simply bowing at his feet in a brutal backstabbing of the United States? Is this heinous, unspeakable act the very hallmark of fascism and the alleged “cult of personality” that the Left has predicted for almost a century?
Of course not, and you know that.
We needn’t walk down the halls of easily accessible history to discern how this wrist-shattering pearl clutch is both hypocritical and ignorant. But we’ll do so, not out of necessity but because heaping good data en masse against poorly constructed arguments is entertaining.
First and foremost: Flying the flag of the United States upside down is not disrespectful, illegal, treasonous, or even unprecedented.
Although 4 U.S. Code § 8, commonly referred to as the “Flag Code,” isn’t legally enforceable (because U.S. citizens retain First Amendment rights to do with their own flags whatever they wish), flying the flag upside down under appropriate circumstances wouldn’t violate the law.
The law clearly states: “The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” (The “union” refers to the patch of blue with 50 stars.)
Thousands in the U.S. have flown our flag upside down to express their “dire distress” in such instances over the past century.
Leftists consistently flew the U.S. flag upside down throughout Trump’s presidency to signal their deep disquiet and fear, from Washington state to Louisiana. Democrats in New Jersey resolutely flew the flag upside down in protest of Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. Some Republicans flew their flags upside down when Barack Obama was reelected in 2012.
The American flag has been flown upside down as “a tribute to veterans’ sacrifice,” and was one of the many symbols of protest against the Vietnam War used by leftist demonstrators in the 1960s.
The Flag Code doesn’t specify what “extreme danger to life or property” entails, nor does it restrict such interpretation to a physical danger or a political one. Might there be a situation today in which many Americans feel in deep distress over a perceived danger to the life and property of their republic?
Never before in American history has a former president, much less one running for office again, been charged and convicted in such a kangaroo-court fashion that even his political adversaries note the insanity of the circumstances.
In an extremely heated presidential election campaign, indicting one of the two frontrunners would be considered enough of an anathema—but the case of New York v. Trump was more than precarious, it was a circus.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, ran on the promise of doing anything he could to find something to indict Trump with. Outside his jurisdiction, Bragg used a federal election statute—which the Federal Election Commission already had stated Trump didn’t violate—as a convoluted lever to turn 34 counts of “falsifying business records,” misdemeanors that by this point were outside New York’s statute of limitations, into felonies.
As if that weren’t enough, Judge Juan Merchan refused to allow a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission to testify, refused to allow the defense to speak to the jury before deliberation, and informed jurors that to convict they didn’t have to reach a unanimous decision on what crime was committed.
Such actions by Merchan set a nation on fire even as trust in institutions already was wavering.
Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor, wrote for New York magazine, an extremely liberal publication: “Prosecutors got Trump—but they contorted the law.” Honig pointed out that never before in U.S. history has there been a state prosecution using federal election law.
You’ll notice that I haven’t mentioned Trump’s sex life, his character, or his business decisions—in fact, many of those expressing extreme distress at this forded Rubicon aren’t being protective of Trump like he was some kind of nonsensical religious idol.
Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who have spent the past few years as Trump’s chief opposition within the GOP, both called this case and conviction despicable.
When a reporter asks President Joe Biden whether he used this case to politically persecute Trump and he casts a wicked grin in her direction, how is the nation supposed to respond?
Reporter: "President Trump refers to himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What's your response to that, sir?"
— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) May 31, 2024
Biden: *smiles*pic.twitter.com/CZY8JUMvKO
Why is the left side of the aisle afforded the right to ride through towns and cities shouting about the impending doom of the republic like some bastardized caricature of Paul Revere, and the right side isn’t allowed to call out the very sham John Adams unpopularly fought in court to prevent?
Spare me your clutched pearls, neoconservatives. Your faux dignity and condescension at the concerns of Americans whose carcass of a justice system is paraded openly don’t move me.
I don’t have to defend Trump’s personal life and sign onto a “cult of personality” to recognize that each of us has a right to be free from political persecution and election interference.
Commentator Alyssa Farah’s silly claims that flying the flag upside down signals “selling out” are as pathetic and hypocritical as the rest of the cast of “The View” with whom she clucks and quacks about abortion rights, gun confiscation, and anti-Catholicism.
Whistling past the graveyard and sending a “strongly worded letter” have only mired us further in the muck of Third World antics.
I reserve the right to fly my flag upside down to signal my extreme distress at this danger to the life and property of the republic I love, and I’ll do so whenever I find it appropriate.
The post To the Condescending Cranks Faking Outrage Over Upside-Down Flags appeared first on The Daily Signal.
When the elected Democrat district attorney of Manhattan and his 12 (likely Democrat) Manhattan jurors convicted Donald Trump on artificially inflated felony counts of business accounting, you could count on leftist journalists to try to make it the Most Historic Event Ever.
We’re not even sure it won’t all be reversed on appeal. But “historic” is their word of choice … when they like the result.
In 1999, when Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about sex with an intern named Monica Lewinsky, Geraldo Rivera was furious on the “Today” show: “It was a spiteful action, an action that they performed absolutely in violation of the framers’ intent. It was a legislative coup d’etat.”
Impeaching Trump twice was never a “coup” to NBC News. But the worst part of that spectacle was leftist activists like Rivera trying to speak for the framers of the Constitution. He was implying it wasn’t just a revolting result but revolting in the eyes of James Madison and the rest. The Left reveres nothing about the Founders, routinely denouncing them as a racist, sexist, capitalist patriarchy.
This regrettable citation of the Founding Fathers happened again with the Trump trial, and again in this case, the American revolutionaries were placed on the side of the Democrats.
George Stephanopoulos began his commentary on “This Week” with the second president: “In 1774, John Adams said representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Two hundred and fifty years later, the heart and lungs of liberty are facing what may be the ultimate stress test.” It’s John Adams vs. Trump.
The front page of the June 3 New York Times was topped with an editorial—labeled “News Analysis”—from its White House correspondent Peter Baker. He picked Patrick Henry as the Trump opponent.
“The revolutionary hero Patrick Henry knew this day would come,” Baker began. Henry “feared that eventually a criminal might occupy the presidency and use his powers to thwart anyone who sought to hold him accountable.” In Henry’s words, “Away with your president, we will have a king.”
Never mind that historians pointed out Henry was inveighing against the Constitution before it was ratified. Baker channeled the Democrat line: “The notion that 34 felonies is not automatically disqualifying and a convicted criminal can be a viable candidate for commander in chief upends two and a half centuries of assumptions about American democracy.”
Inside the paper, the headline over Baker’s essay was “If a Felon Becomes President, Can Anyone Limit His Power?” The text box underlined the theme again: “Revival of a long-ago fear that a U.S. leader could try to be a king.” All that followed was the argument ad infinitum that Trump’s second term would result in “unfettered abuses of authority.”
What Baker and Stephanopoulos refused to understand was that this rhetoric of a president abusing authority can also be applied to President Joe Biden. On CNN, Scott Jennings mocked Rep. Jake Auchincloss, D-Mass., on how Biden ruthlessly ignored the courts and the Congress in offering $165 billion in student loan “forgiveness” to win younger voters.
“You’re a member of Congress,” Jennings told Auchincloss. “Does it not offend you that the president of the United States is usurping your authority?” The eventual answer was no.
The Democrats and their media enablers use “history” to establish how there is a “right side,” and that is their leftist agenda. Undercutting democratic norms and coequal branches of government is admirable when the ends justify the means. The Founding Fathers are just yellowed paper puppets in their relentless power games.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
The post Beware When Leftist Journalists Use Founders to Attack Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Traditional media outlets are failing—badly. Whether it’s the lack of public trust in their ability to report the news accurately and fairly or their reactionary approach to world events, the American people deserve something better.
Ten years ago today, we launched The Daily Signal as an alternative to the establishment press. We believed then that major news outlets and broadcast networks were leaving a massive audience of conservatives and independent-minded Americans unserved. We set out on June 3, 2014, to inject competition into the market.
Our hypothesis was correct. Outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR were shocked by Donald Trump’s victory in 2016. They never saw it coming because they never paid attention to the populist movement that propelled Trump to the White House.
Sadly, despite some promises to reform their ways, many media outlets have resorted to even worse behavior today. They have further alienated millions of Americans.
A recent I&I/TIPP poll, which measures trust in media, found that a mere 34% of Americans trust traditional media outlets.
With the future of America at stake, this is a warning sign—but also an opportunity.
That’s why we’re announcing an exciting new era for The Daily Signal. We view the public’s crumbling faith in media as a moment to put rocket boosters on our scrappy news outlet.
As of today, The Daily Signal is officially an independent media organization with our own leadership team and board of directors. Over the next month, we will complete the process of separating from The Heritage Foundation, although we will continue to adhere to the same conservative principles that have guided our journalists for the past 10 years.
>>> Meet The Daily Signal’s Team of Journalists
Importantly, this change will allow us to publish a wider range of content than we have in the past, including coverage of political news in this critical election year. We’ve given our website a fresh look and we’re also adding a new Journalism Fellowship Program with the goal of training the next generation of conservative journalists, two of whom start today.
What does this mean for you?
You can expect the same insightful reporting and thoughtful commentary we’ve produced for the past 10 years. Just as our name implies, we will continue be your signal that cuts through the noise to transmit the news quickly and simply.
We will always tell you the TRUTH.
That’s our promise.
If we’re serious about saving America and creating a better future for the next generation, it requires an informed public.
Our nation’s leaders, and the people who elect them, need clearheaded, truthful information to make wise decisions—the intel to understand what’s really going on in centers of influence.
In the coming days, weeks, and months, you can expect The Daily Signal to make investments in three areas where we see traditional media lacking:
Over the past decade, our small but hardworking team has consistently delivered fair, accurate, and trustworthy journalism to a loyal audience that reaches tens of millions of people each year. As we’ve embraced new forms of storytelling, including short-form documentaries and bite-sized videos, that audience has grown exponentially.
>>> A Look Back at The Daily Signal’s First Decade
We won’t ever be content with the status quo. Innovation is part of our culture. And there’s really no other option with the radical Left determined to alter America in ways that will make this country unrecognizable for our children and grandchildren.
To all the patriotic Americans and supporters of our work, thank you for making the past 10 years possible. When we launched in 2014, I embraced the words of a mentor, Andrew Breitbart, who believed we needed more voices, not fewer. And it’s with that same spirit today that we embark on this new era for The Daily Signal.
By focusing on quality journalism, the unmatched knowledge of our contributors, and insider intel thanks to our access policymakers, we’re ready to take The Daily Signal to the next level.
Thanks for making us your trusted source for news. And if you’re not already a subscriber, please sign up for our newsletters.
The post Independent and Ambitious: A New Era for The Daily Signal appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Ten years after its creation, The Daily Signal enters a new era Monday as its own independent organization.
Today, its dedicated team of reporters and editors serve an audience of millions of Americans who rely on The Daily Signal to produce high-quality news stories and publish insightful commentary and analysis.
The team consists of 12 full-time staff, two fellows, two interns, and many contributors. Learn more about them below and see other Daily Signal authors.
Senior News Producer and Podcast Host
After interning at The Heritage Foundation in the spring of 2018, Allen began her career as a communications department administrative assistant. After two years, she moved into a position with The Daily Signal in spring of 2020. Allen says she will never forget the experiences she has had reporting from the U.S. southern border. She deeply respects NewsNation reporter Ali Bradley for her bold and honest coverage of the southern border situation. Allen’s goal for The Daily Signal in 2024 is to increase podcast quality with even stronger coverage of the daily news and major policy issues facing the nation.
President and Executive Editor
As the founding editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, Bluey always dreamed of building a news outlet at Heritage from the moment he started his job in 2007. Having previously covered Congress as a reporter, he saw an opportunity to marry Heritage’s policy expertise with rich storytelling. He models his own approach to journalism on the work of the now-deceased syndicated columnist Robert Novak. He has big hopes for The Daily Signal’s future by putting a stronger emphasis on video, pursuing investigative reporting, and expanding its Capitol Hill coverage and political commentary.
News Intern
Crozier was selected to be a summer 2024 intern at The Daily Signal. He continues to build his writing portfolio and learn from The Daily Signal’s talented, experienced staff as he advances his own budding journalism career. One of his biggest inspirations in conservative media is The Daily Signal’s Mary Margaret Olohan for her fearless reporting on important cultural issues. Crozier hopes to become a more productive writer and reporter through the internship.
Senior Editor and Writing Adviser
After working as the official writer for Heritage’s previous president, Gottstein became a writing adviser. In that role, he helps policy analysts to write more compelling op-eds geared toward educating policymakers and the general public. The role also includes editing for The Daily Signal and managing the other editors. Gottstein enjoys the entertaining and useful writings of John Stossel. This year, Gottstein wants to help grow The Daily Signal audience significantly because he thinks Americans often cannot get the unique news, commentary, policy analysis, and solutions to some of America’s biggest issues anywhere else.
News Producer
Kennedy recently moved to The Daily Signal from digital production at Heritage to help improve video content while furthering the outlet’s investigative ambitions. Previously, he oversaw the day-to-day production of digital content. Kennedy is proud of his work with colleagues Virginia Allen and Christian Lasval to report exclusively on illegal aliens driving unlicensed mopeds and motorcycles in Washington, D.C. His favorite memory on the job is traveling to Maui to cover Hawaii’s wildfires. Kennedy admires Dutch historian Frank Dikötter’s books that document the now-deceased Chinese communist dictator Mao Zedong’s reign of terror. This year, he wants to see The Daily Signal’s social channels reach No. 1 in Forbes’ annual social media ranking of free-market organizations.
Investigative Columnist
Since Heritage’s Lindsey Burke recruited Kinnett for investigative column writing in 2022, he has written The Daily Signal’s most-read article of 2023, “California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse.’” It resulted in backlash so intense that California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the legislation. Flying to Maui to cover the wildfires with Tim Kennedy is Kinnett’s favorite memory at The Daily Signal. This year, he hopes to help create The Daily Signal’s first Instagram video with more than 5 million views or to syndicate his radio show to three stations. His top two media role models are Ben Shapiro and Chris Rufo.
Chief News Correspondent
Lucas is an accomplished journalist, veteran White House correspondent, and author with extensive experience in political reporting. As The Daily Signal’s chief news correspondent, he covers a wide range of topics and uses his investigative skills to uncover the truth. He has a keen ability to distill complex issues into clear, compelling stories. He is also the author of several books, including “The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections” and “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Lucas previously reported from state capitals in Kentucky and Connecticut and is a graduate of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Digital Fellow
McCue was a Daily Signal intern during the summer 2023 session. She is proud of the breadth of topics she covered during her internship. One of McCue’s favorite memories at The Daily Signal was joining the staff at a Turning Point USA conference in Florida to promote the outlet. Emily Jashinsky, director of the National Journalism Center, is McCue’s journalism role model because she has made a name for herself by speaking boldly and unapologetically while still practicing thoughtful journalism. As the digital media fellow, McCue hopes to help make The Daily Signal a household name for conservative news.
Senior Editor
Along with Rob Bluey and Katrina Trinko, McIntyre helped found The Daily Signal in 2014. At the time, he was in his seventh year as an editor in Heritage’s communications department following a 30-year career as a reporter and editor at weekly and daily newspapers. McIntyre is proud of his work helping Daily Signal reporters and other contributors to capture the importance and consequences of public policy challenges and solutions in their news stories and commentaries. During his time with The Daily Signal, his favorite memory is when he helped interview, hire, and develop The Daily Signal’s first three full-time reporters.
Mooney came to work at The Daily Signal after reporting for the State Policy Network, a nonprofit organization, on how the IRS was targeting tea party activists during the Obama administration. The Daily Signal became the ideal platform for Mooney to expand on that coverage when a Virginia farmer, in a long-standing legal dispute with environmental activists, became caught up in the IRS controversy. Mooney admires the work Ken McIntyre and Peter Parisi do as editors on his articles. He aims to investigate new topics this year, such as election integrity, the border crisis, and cultural disputes involving radical public school curriculums.
Managing Editor
O’Neil came to The Daily Signal after working as a Fox News Digital editor and as a PJ Media editor. His passion for conservative journalism and the truth led O’Neil to write his book, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.” O’Neil loves bringing his family to Capitol Hill events and connecting with people at The Daily Signal. In journalism, he most looks up to G.K. Chesterton. O’Neil hopes to increase The Daily Signal’s website traffic, get himself and his colleagues on TV more often, and help develop the original and exclusive reporting that drives conversation.
Senior Reporter
Olohan came to work at The Daily Signal after working at the Daily Caller News Foundation. Her most influential Daily Signal project to date was coverage of high school girls in Vermont who pushed back against a boy identifying as a girl who was using their locker room. One of Olohan’s favorite memories at The Daily Signal was going to the Big Board, a bar in Washington, D.C., to report on the stripping of its liquor license for refusal to enforce COVID-19 mask mandates. This year, she would like to identify the leaker of the Supreme Court draft opinion for Roe v. Wade. Olohan’s journalism role model is Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist.
Editor
Parisi joined The Daily Signal after responding to a posting on a journalism jobs board. He had previously worked at The Washington Times for 10 years with Ken McIntyre. Parisi enjoys sharing the benefit of his many years of writing and editing experience with interns, adding that getting thank-you notes from departing interns after each semester makes it all worthwhile. He relishes the challenge of compiling and editing policy analysts’ and reporters’ analyses of presidential State of the Union addresses and presidential candidates’ debates under intense deadline pressure. His journalistic role models include the now-deceased talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and current talk-radio host Chris Plante. This year, Parisi hopes to write a column that makes the top 10 in that month’s tally of The Daily Signal’s most-read pieces.
News Intern
Pero is a summer 2024 Daily Signal intern. A rising senior at Hillsdale College, she is a staff member of the college’s newspaper, The Collegian. Having interned with The Daily Caller’s video production department in the summer of 2023, Pero is eager to develop her writing and reporting skills this summer. She looks up to the journalistic work of John J. Miller, director of the journalism program at Hillsdale. During her time at The Daily Signal, Pero hopes to become a sharper thinker and stronger writer, and one day to decide on a beat topic to specialize in.
Sleem has worked at The Daily Signal since graduating from Christopher Newport University in 2014. Her greatest accomplishment with the outlet has been taking on various roles and working with people who have helped her to sharpen her journalism skills. Sleem’s favorite memory at The Daily Signal is covering the 2016 election results with the team. Everyone worked together very quickly to get information out to the public. One of her favorite journalists is Virginia Allen, who she says is a natural at reporting and interviewing. Sleem hopes to help The Daily Signal team out in whatever way she can this year in order to keep people informed about what’s going on in Washington, D.C., and how it affects them.
Columnist
Stepman previously worked at Human Events and Breitbart News. He describes his book “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past” as his top accomplishment. A memory that sticks out to Stepman is when he covered a socialist conference in Chicago that foreshadowed the Left’s embrace of transgenderism. As a columnist, he looks up to Victor Davis Hanson for combining clear, concise thought with factual depth and history. Stepman plans to have a second book in the works by the end of the year.
Editor-in-Chief
Trinko joined The Daily Signal in 2014 to help develop the strategy for a new news outlet focused on quality reporting of issues that interest conservatives. She is grateful to lead a team that has fearlessly reported on hot-button topics, such as detransitioners, Obamacare, the border, and more. Trinko fondly remembers fast-paced nights when the team worked on election coverage, brainstorming and reacting together in real time, pizza in hand, while working to provide the best journalism it could for The Daily Signal’s audience.
Reporting Fellow
Troutman joins The Daily Signal as a reporting fellow after interning at the media outlet in the spring of 2023. As an intern, she covered Tucker Carlson’s speech at Heritage’s 50th Anniversary Gala. The article blew up a few days after the announcement that Carlson was no longer with Fox News. Troutman’s journalism role model is Mary Margaret Olohan, because she admires Olohan’s bravery in covering controversial stories, her drive, and her constant ability to get amazing news scoops. With this being Troutman’s first full-time job in journalism, she hopes to write a lot and break many untold stories.
The post Meet The Daily Signal’s Team of Journalists appeared first on The Daily Signal.
New polling from Scott Rasmussen reveals that America’s elite 1%—those with high incomes, urban residences, and postgraduate degrees—are significantly out of step with the rest of the country on a range of issues.
It’s a troubling trend for America, and it doesn’t bode well for our future considering the elite 1% occupy many of the leadership roles in our cultural, educational, and government institutions.
There’s perhaps no statistic more shocking than the 69% of politically obsessed elites who think it would be better if only people with college degrees could vote. By comparison, just 15% of all voters hold that view. (Rasmussen defines “politically obsessed” as elites who talk about politics every day.)
Rasmussen’s latest survey, conducted by RMG Research, asked other questions ranging from government censorship to gun ownership. On nearly every issue, there’s a wide gulf between the ruling class and everyday Americans.
You can learn more about work on the elite 1% by tuning into “The Scott Rasmussen Show,” which airs Sunday at 10 a.m. ET on Merit Street Media.
In the meantime, listen to our full interview on “The Daily Signal Podcast” or read an edited transcript below.
Rob Bluey: What are the headlines coming out of your latest research?
Scott Rasmussen: As a reminder, the last time we talked about how the politically obsessed elites think the American people have too much individual freedom and people in this elite world really trust the federal government.
What we did this time is began to ask some of these same groups, the elite 1 % and the politically obsessed, what do they think America looks like?
Perhaps the funniest finding of all is we ask the question, “Do most Americans agree with you on most important issues?” Now, if we ask voters, about half say, “Yeah, I think most people agree with me.” Among the politically obsessed elites, 82% of that group thinks that most Americans agree with them on most issues. It’s not even close to true, but they’re looking in a mirror. They see what they want to see.
What’s scary about that, if you think about it in context of the administrative state, if these people believe that their views are representative of America, it justifies them cheating a little bit or bending the rules because they can say, “We’re fighting for the American people.” In fact, they’re fighting against the American people.
Bluey: Are there particular policy issues where you see that playing out more so than others? For instance, one that comes to mind is climate change.
Rasmussen: It’s actually harder to find places where the American people are with the elite. You mentioned climate change. About 2 out of 3 of this politically obsessed elite think that most voters are willing to pay $250 a year or more to fight climate change.
When we do polling to ask people how much they’re willing to pay—in terms of taxes or higher prices—about half say they’re not willing to pay anything, and 72% say nothing more than $100.
If you think about that in a policy sense, these influencers believe the American people are willing to pay something they’re not, and that’s why they can support some different policy ideas.
But look, it’s starts with a very basic thing: 71% of the politically obsessed elites think most Americans trust the federal government most of the time. That has not been true for 50 years. It’s been a half century since people tended to trust the government that much. Today, only 22% of voters voiced that much trust in government.
That is one of the core distinctions. If you trust the federal government, you trust the regulatory apparatus a lot more. You trust other rules and regulations, and voters just aren’t there.
Bluey: Another area that you polled had to do with social media. What did you find when you surveyed the elite 1% on that particular topic?
Rasmussen: Everybody, whether you’re in the elite or not, has some concern about disinformation and fake news. Where the difference comes is what to do about it.
Among most voters, they say that having the government decide what is misinformation and fake news is a bigger threat than the fake news itself. Among the elites, they say just the opposite.
Should the federal government be allowed to censor social media posts? Among all voters, 16% say yes. Among the politically obsessed elites, just over 50 % say, “Of course, we should have the right to censor social media.” Fundamentally different views.
The views of the elite 1% amount to a rejection of America’s founding ideals. Even on something as simple as, “Does the federal government listen too much or not enough to the American people?” Overwhelmingly, voters say the government is not listening to us and the elites are saying it’s listening too much.
Bluey: There seems to be a wide discrepancy of views when it comes to who should vote and who should have a say in our country’s future. That number to me was one that stood out and was quite alarming.
Rasmussen: Absolutely alarming.
We asked a question that seemed to me to be absurd, Would it be better if only people with a college degree were allowed to vote?”
Appropriately, most Americans just soundly reject that idea. But among the elites, they heavily believe this country would be better off if all those deplorables who didn’t go to college weren’t allowed to vote.
Bluey: And one issue where there’s also quite a big disparity is gun ownership. How do the elite view guns?
Rasmussen: Consistently for decades, voters say they want to live in a community where guns are allowed. Sometimes it’s in the low 60s, sometimes after a horrific shooting event, it moves down to the low 50s, but consistently a majority of Americans can support that.
Among the elite 1 % that politically obsessed portion of it, about 70% of them say, “No, we want to live where guns are outlawed.” And 76% of them want to ban the private ownership of guns.
If you are in that politically obsessed elite and you believe strongly that we should ban guns, and if you believe that most American people want to live in a community where guns are outlawed, then you take an almost religious fervor to the fight to ban guns because you can convince yourself that you’re fighting on behalf of the public. And once again, you’re actually fighting against what the American people are looking for.
Bluey: Do you feel that the elite 1 % are more out of touch in 2024 than maybe they were in past generations?
Rasmussen: First, I don’t have data from past generations, so I can’t make a clear assessment on that. But I think it’s probably a little bit different.
There have always been elites. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were clearly elites of their era, but they also had a commitment to something larger than themselves. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, said he was just articulating what the American people were feeling. At the same time, Alexander Hamilton said, “We need to establish a monarchy.” If you actually read his plan, it’s horrific.
So there have always been some people and elites who kind of rejected the founding ideals, who rejected the concepts of the Declaration of Independence.
>>> ‘Most Terrifying Poll Result I’ve Ever Seen’: Scott Rasmussen Surveys America’s Elite 1%
What’s changed in the last couple of generations are two things.
No. 1, we’re a little bit more sorted geographically. Members of the elite aren’t encountering non-elites on a regular basis. It’s not just that we live in gated communities or separate areas. Public transportation has been replaced by Uber. There’s not a lot of contact with people who aren’t like you.
The second part is there has been the rise of what a lot of people view as the global elite, where people begin to see others from other countries as more like them than they do their own countrymen.
Bluey: The use of pronouns has become quite pronounced in a lot of corporate settings, even in our federal government. There are some departments and agencies that now include them in email signatures and things of that nature. Is there a difference of how elites view pronouns vs. the rest of America?
Rasmussen: Let’s start with the fact that most Americans don’t even know what you’re talking about when you’re expressing your preferred pronouns. Only about 1 out of 10 voters has ever introduced themselves in that manner.
When they hear talk of it, it seems very foreign. But among the politically obsessed elite, about 60%, have introduced themselves expressing their preferred pronouns. And it’s hard to overstate the cultural difference at that point.
If you’re in this elite world—if you’re in the elite schools or many agencies of the federal government—it is absolutely normal and an everyday occurrence that you meet somebody and they tell you not only their name and their position, but their preferred pronouns. In the rest of America, that just doesn’t happen.
When you get into discussions about misgendering somebody, there are regulations being pushed right now that would require employers to punish somebody for misgendering—for not using somebody’s preferred pronouns. Only 9% of voters think that’s a fireable offense, but even more than that, they don’t even know what the discussion is about.
This is where that glaring gap between the elites and most Americans is quite visible. It is the cultural world they’re in, whether we’re talking about guns, or climate change policies, or preferred pronouns, or even the topic of should biological males be allowed to play in women’s sports.
Among the politically obsessed elite, 41% say they should. Now, that’s not a majority, but essentially, the politically obsessed elite is evenly divided on this question, whereas to most Americans, it’s ridiculous. Of course, biological males have a physical advantage. Of course, it is dangerous to let biological males into the women’s locker room. But the elite is having a discussion about it. That is out of step with the country. It is dangerous.
It’s fine to have different views. We all live on our own bubbles. Your bubble is a little different than mine, but probably has some overlap. But you have to be able to look outside your bubble and see what the rest of the country is doing.
If you’re in this elite world, you have enormous influence and you think your views are reflecting the public at large, that’s a really dangerous combination.
Bluey: One of the most notable examples of the last decade is when Donald Trump was elected president. It seemed that the elites were in shock. What might happen if Trump is victorious in November and how might they react?
Rasmussen: On Election Day 2016, most of the conversation was Hillary Clinton is up by three in the polls, but there’s a margin of error, she’ll probably win by six. There was a shock. They couldn’t believe it. They couldn’t imagine what was happening. And because in their mind, Hillary Clinton was the ideally prepared person.
Looking ahead to this year, first thing I will tell you is if the election is at all close, the way the last nine elections have been in, whichever team loses, they’ll believe the election was stolen. If Donald Trump wins, we will hear an awful lot about how he stole the election from these elites.
But something else is happening that’s playing a part in the election. It’s a distorted view of the public.
When we see the campus protests about the Palestinian situation, 62% of the elites have a favorable opinion. They think it’s great what these protesters are doing. Most voters don’t. Only 24% of voters support the protesters.
That leaves the pundits to misread the way a situation has played out. In fact, since the campus protest started, support for Israel has gone up—not what some of the protesters might have hoped for.
A lot of the elites are misreading the dynamics going on right now. About 80 % of the elite 1% approve of the way Joe Biden is doing his job.
The post 69% of Elites Want to Restrict Voting to College Graduates Only appeared first on The Daily Signal.
President Joe Biden made a well-publicized commencement address on May 19 at Morehouse College in Atlanta, a historically black college. The networks touted the speech but didn’t put any “fact-checkers” on it. It contained at least four fibs.
In an echo of his 1987 lies that crumbled in his first presidential campaign, Biden claimed, “I was the first Biden to ever graduate from college.” A newspaper obituary for his maternal grandfather Ambrose Finnegan noted he graduated college.
He repeated his story that his son Beau died of a brain tumor after he spent “a year in Iraq as a major—he won the Bronze Star—living next to a burn pit.” In 2019, FactCheck.org noted the science on cancer from exposure to burn pits in Iraq was “insufficient,” but Biden tells that story often.
Then Biden uncorked his typical race-baiting: “Today in Georgia, they won’t allow water to be available to you while you wait in line to vote in an election.” Georgia’s Legislature passed a bill in 2021 that said no person should “give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink” within 150 feet of a polling place. It doesn’t mean you can’t have water!
Biden also claimed, “there’s a national effort to ban books—not to write history, but to erase history. They don’t see you in the future of America.” The leftists all said that “erasing history” bunk about Florida’s education standards, when it was crystal clear that black history was mandated, not erased.
None of these fact-check moments made the front-page New York Times story gushing over the Morehouse speech. It mentioned Biden spoke of deaths in his family and left out the “burn pits” part.
Biden’s recent lie that inflation was at 9% when he became president was so blatant that most of the liberal “fact-checkers” called it out: AP, CNN, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Snopes, and The Washington Post. (Lead Stories and Reuters did not.) We’ll see if these latest Biden falsehoods get checked (again).
They could also check Biden’s four whoppers in remarks the day before at a campaign fundraiser in Atlanta.
The president told his backers, “I wasn’t going to run again after my son died because of being in Iraq for a year in those burn pits.” He said, “We were supposed to lose in 2020.” He claimed Donald Trump told Time magazine, “States should monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate the abortion bans.” Trump did not say that. Biden also claimed Trump said there were “really good people on both sides” in Charlottesville protests, implying he praised neo-Nazis. That’s an ongoing hoax.
At a Sunday afternoon campaign event in Detroit, the president again dragged out the line, “I’m the first in my family ever to go to college.”
A Sunday night speech at the NAACP brought more of the tired-brain gaffes. Biden claimed he was vice president “during the pandemic.” He said Obamacare was “saving millions of families $800,000—$8,000 a year in premiums.” The White House transcript adjusted it down to $800.
Then he returned to “folks wanting to ban books” and “erase black history, literally.”
He misquoted Trump as saying, “I’ll be a dictator on Day One” and “just inject bleach” to cure COVID-19. He bungled in claiming Trump said if he lost, there will be “bloodshed.” Trump implied an economic “bloodbath.”
The more Biden mangles the facts, the more you can be sure that national TV coverage is going to edit out the embarrassing parts. Call it “erasing history as it unfolds.”
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
The post Bungling Biden’s Commencement Whoppers appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Vaunce News