Hopelessly Woke NPR Places Trigger Warning on Declaration of Independence

The hopeless wokeness of tax-funded National Public Radio has been confirmed by NPR senior business editor Uri Berliner, who started shockwaves with his Free Press essay “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust” providing chapter and verse of how NPR had been take over fully by the left, and as a result blowing several major stories like Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, and dismissing the coronavirus lab leak theory. For his whistleblowing efforts, the veteran journalist Berliner was suspended from NPR for five days before resigning. Demonstrating the totality of NPR bias, new chief executive Katherine Maher is in the spotlight after a series of bizarre tweets resurfaced in which she sounds like an Artificial Intelligence parody of a leftist media elitist, such as when she excused looting during the summer 2020 riots. Berliner targeted Maher directly on X: "I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay." One example of anti-American wokeness is the “editor’s note” NPR staff felt obliged to place on archived stories about its on-air reading every Independence Day of the Declaration of Independence in full, an honorable tradition apparently now consigned to the ash-heap of history. Yes, one of America’s founding documents now requires a trigger warning, in the view of partially government funded radio (hat tip: Masks are bad, actually on X): Editor's note on July 8, 2022: This story quotes the U.S. Declaration of Independence -- a document that contains offensive language about Native Americans, including a racial slur. The transcripts of previous years of the annual reading now include the warning, relating to the Declaration’s reference to the “merciless Indian savages” purportedly whipped up by King George III of England to wage “domestic insurrections” on the rebellious colonists. NewsBusters previously explored how NPR host Leila Fadel in 2022 preened about NPR’s “break with tradition” in no longer reading the document on air, so as to explore “what equality means” instead, with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep and two liberal Harvard professors. Four days later, perhaps after an internal “struggle session,” the sad editor’s note appeared.

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

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

NewsBusters Podcast: A Fervent Obsession with Trump Trial Jury Selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) called for Biden administration Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to resign following a testy Senate hearing.  During the April 17 edition of Fox News’s Hannity, Hawley told host Sean Hannity, that Granholm lied to Congress and cannot be trusted to regulate American energy. “She did lie to Congress, what she said Sean, is that she sold all of her shares, that she didn't own any stock in companies she regulates — not true,” Hawley told Hannity, after being asked about Granholm’s stock scandal. “She later then… came back and said, ‘Oops, oops, I made a mistake I owned a bunch of stock, in a bunch of companies including Ford,’ who the Energy Department obviously regulates and oversees,” Hawley stated.  Expanding on his remarks, Hawley added: “And she now expects us to buy that. Listen, it is a fact, Sean, an independent watchdog has found that she violated the law nine separate times and yet here she is still running the Energy Department, still trading stocks.”  Hawley went on to call for her resignation, exclaiming, “I don't believe a word she says, she ought to resign. It is a disgrace that she is sitting there making money on the stock market off companies that she regulates when she’s supposed to be making energy safe and cheap for the American people.”  During the April 16 hearing when Hawley confronted Granholm, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) questioned Granholm on whether the Biden administration supports the radical goal of reaching “net zero,” or drastically reducing carbon emissions. American energy, transportation, agriculture and construction depend heavily on fossil fuels such as oil and coal and fossil fuel products such as plastic and artificial fertilizer. Lee also drew an admission from Granholm that the Biden Administration is anti-energy. When Lee asked her if the Biden administration supports making the country net-zero, Granholm admitted that the Biden administration supports a transition to net-zero. Days later, Granholm crowed in a post on X about a 20-state project to “accelerate America’s net-zero transition by 2050.”  Lee also grilled Granholm on the absurdity of running away from cheap sources of energy like coal, while energy demand is rapidly increasing. After mentioning how developments such as new data centers lead to rising demand, Lee said, “Demand is soaring and it’s soaring at the same time when the premature retirement of coal-fired power generation units is happening. And it's happening without replacement dispatchable generation capabilities.” [SEE MORE: Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm Dodges Question] Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at 818-460-7477, CBS News at 212-975-3247 and NBC News at 212-664-6192 and demand they hold Biden and his cronies accountable for attempting to restrict fossil fuel production and Americans’ choices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN Doesn't Challenge Iranian FM On His Embassy Hypocrisy

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

Column: Do Celebrities Have Deeper Liberal Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First on MRC Business: A vicious anti-Israel group that occupied Google until their arrests was created by two organizations that Soros poured massive amounts of money into.  No Tech for Apartheid, a tech worker campaign that frequently accuses Israel of “genocide,” occupied the Sunnyvale, California-based office of Google Cloud’s CEO for the crime of doing business with Israelis. No Tech for Apartheid refers to itself as a project of the anti-Israel groups Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and MPower Change. Strikingly, Soros’ Open Society Foundations’ gave at least $525,000 to JVP between 2017 and 2022, while also giving $350,000 to JVP Action, an affiliated 501(c)(4) “sister organization” of JVP. Soros gave at least $2,205,555 to MPower Change from its founding in 2016 to 2022.  In response to the protests demanding that Google cancel a $1.22 billion contract with the Israeli government, the tech giant fired 28 of the participants. The footage of the protests and the arrests has gone viral on social media. No Tech for Apartheid posted an absurd thread on X, referring to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian as “genocide profiteers.” BREAKING: Google employees were arrested after occupying their boss's office for more than 8 hours to demand that the company sever ties with Israel. WATCH: pic.twitter.com/W4WQO8NNgH — Kassy Akiva (@KassyDillon) April 17, 2024 No Tech for Apartheid does not list any staffers. However, MPower Change does claim No Tech for Apartheid as one of their “campaigns” on their website. Anti-Israel radical Granate Kim, a former employee of JVP, is MPower Change’s current Campaign Director.  Radical anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour is the executive director and co-founder of MPower Change. Sarsour is famous for her radical hatred of Israel. According to the Committee For Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, Sarsour strongly opposes the existence of Israel. Sarsour is a supporter of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement to impoverish, isolate and destroy Israel, the homeland of the Jewish People. Both Sarsour and MPower Change promote a radical anti-law enforcement agenda and viciously smear both American law enforcement and Israel as collaborating oppressive forces.  MPower Change Action demonstrated this agenda not only by supporting “defunding” and “abolishing” the police but by endorsing two Soros-funded radical leftist prosecutors for reelection in 2023: Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano and Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti.  The other organization involved in No Tech for Apartheid’s creation, JVP, is also a vicious opponent of Israel. This was evident on JVP’s frequently asked questions page, where the organization makes several disturbing statements. For example, JVP not only refers to Israel’s efforts to end Hamas terrorism and rescue the hostages as a “genocide,” but also argues that Hamas attacks are justified so long as they have military targets: “An occupied people have a right to resist, including the use of force. But the targeting of civilians is not permitted.”  JVP also refers to itself as “anti-Zionist.” JVP admits that they initially avoided this label as it "closed off conversation in the Jewish community," before ultimately caving to “Palestinian partners.” While admitting that they are in a “struggle against Zionism,” JVP defines the term to make clear what they are fighting against: “Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism, and is the primary ideology that drove the establishment of Israel.” In other words, Soros is funding a group opposed to the existence of Israel.  This organization also unequivocally supports the BDS movement, not just for Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, but for all of Israel. JVP compares their fight to demonize Israel to the American Civil Rights movement and the fight against the slave trade. Furthermore, JVP backs a Palestinian “right of return” that would threaten Israel’s existence as a Jewish State. Every one of these awful details can be found on their FAQ page.  Soros has a long track record of funding radical anti-Israel groups like MPower Change and JVP. After last year’s brutal terrorist attack on Israel, MRC President Brent Bozell and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider called Soros out for giving $550,000 to Pro-Hamas groups between 2017 and 2022 alone.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on Soros’ comments and funding of anti-Israel causes.

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

Tech mogul Elon Musk has folded in his so-called defense of free speech in his recent battle with a Brazilian court. On Monday, Musk's attorneys informed Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes that social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) will comply with all of the censorship demands targeting accounts accused of spreading misinformation, according to Reuters. "As already communicated to the federal police, X Brasil informs that all orders issued by this Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court will continue to be fully complied with by X Corp," Musk’s legal counsel reportedly wrote in the letter addressed to Moraes. Musk’s compliance marks a stark departure from his vehement threats to ignore the orders. “We are lifting all restrictions,” Musk declared on April 6, accusing the Moraes of threatening X with fines and imprisonment. “As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit.” Related: UPDATE: Are You Paying Attention? Brazil Escalates Major Free Speech Assault The battle between X and de Moraes stems from an inquiry by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court that centers on the spread of what the government deemed to be misinformation amid federal elections. In court rulings, Moraes accused X of allowing some popular Brazil-based users to spread so-called misinformation. In turn, he demanded Musk censor them. In court decisions, Moraes accused X of being a major driver of alleged misinformation and demanded Musk censor these users. Amid Musk’s initial refusal to comply with such demands, Moraes threatened to impose daily fines of $20,000 for each account not banned. Last week, the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court declined to respond to MRC’s request for comment on Musk’s refusal to comply with the orders. Instead, a court spokesperson directed MRC to a criminal referral directing the county’s attorney general to investigate Musk for potential obstruction of justice. Before Monday, Musk had hurled scathing comments at the Brazilian assault against its citizens’ free speech. “The severity of the censorship and the degree to which Brazil’s own laws are being broken, to the detriment of their own people, is the worst of any country in the world in which this platform operates,” he wrote on April 10. Hours earlier that same day, Musk declared that X respected the Brazilian laws but said the company “must refuse” to comply with orders that break the law. His remarks likely refer to earlier characterizations of Morae’s orders as lacking legitimate legal basis.  𝕏 respects the laws of Brazil and all countries in which we operate. When given an order to break the law, we must refuse. https://t.co/vLuFUP9gN8 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 10, 2024 Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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