NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Spews Fake News About Butker Speech To Warn About GOP 'Misogyny'

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner continued the media tradition of spreading fake news about what exactly Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker told a Catholic college during a recent commencement address. Wagner falsely reported that Butker told the women graduates “their rightful place was in service to men” as her guest, law Prof. Leah Lithman, urged viewers to vote against GOP “misogyny.” What makes Wagner’s falsehoods even worse is that she previously played the clip of Butker saying that while some of them may get fancy jobs and promotions, he ventured to guess they were mostly looking forward to the families they would raise. That someone would value their family more than their job is not exactly a radical position, but Wagner still lamented, “On Saturday, during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas, Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker railed against abortion and IVF, he called birth control ‘unnatural,’ diversity, equity and inclusion ‘tyranny’ and queer pride a ‘deadly sin.’ Then he addressed the women graduates directly telling them that their rightful place was in service to men.”     Wagner rolled on, “Butker verbalized a decades-long conservative project, one that has manifested into real life policy. Already there are 21 states with abortion bands, 31 states where anti-DEI measures have been either passed or introduced and 12 states with anti-LGBTQ laws. The anti-feminist Christian Nationalist agenda is alive and well and it is gaining ground.” What do “anti-DEI” or “anti-LGBTQ laws” mean? Nobody knows because Wagner didn’t specify. Instead, she introduced Litman and asked, “just to put into perspective the things that Harrison Butker was talking about, I want to read this line from the inimitable Jessica Valenti, this is what she’s writing about, ‘Butker’s remarks weren't ‘fringe’ or radical’ she says ‘they're the law, he was simply saying out loud what Republicans have already codified, that women's role in this country is to bear children and support men who are the actual stars of the show.’ What do you make of that?” Litman replied, “I think that is a really terrifying statement that captures the current political moment we are living in, the district judge in the case that ordered the nationwide ban on medication abortion, is a judge, who before he became a judge, railed against no fault divorce laws, that actually allow people to get divorced.” She also lamented, “You have Republican political operatives ginning up theories that would allow them to revive an 1873 Victorian-era law, the Comstock Act, that would prohibit abortion nationwide. These theories are not fringe, they are being propounded by Republican politicians, at the state, local, and federal level and these are the stakes in the upcoming election and likely all future ones as long as the Republican Party leans into the movement for Christian nationalism and the misogyny that underlies it.” If Wagner were to ask Butker if he viewed being a husband and a father as more important or satisfying than being a professional football player, he would almost certainly say yes, but asking it would upset the narrative. Here is a transcript for the May 17 show: MSNBC Alex Wager Tonight 5/17/2024 9:55 PM ET ALEX WAGNER: On Saturday, during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas, Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker railed against abortion and IVF, he called birth control "unnatural," diversity, equity and inclusion "tyranny" and queer pride a "deadly sin." Then he addressed the women graduates directly telling them that their rightful place was in service to men. Butker verbalized a decades-long conservative project, one that has manifested into real life policy. Already there are 21 states with abortion bands, 31 states where anti-DEI measures have been either passed or introduced and 12 states with anti-LGBTQ laws. The anti-feminist Christian Nationalist agenda is alive and well and it is gaining ground. Joining me now is Leah Litman, law professor at the University of Michigan and one of the co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. Leah, thank you for joining me, just to put into perspective the things that Harrison Butker was talking about, I want to read this line from the inimitable Jessica Valenti, this is what she’s writing about, “Butker’s remarks weren't ‘fringe’ or radical” she says “they're the law, he was simply saying out loud what Republicans have already codified, that women's role in this country is to bear children and support men who are the actual stars of the show.” What do you make of that? LEAH LITMAN: I think that is a really terrifying statement that captures the current political moment we are living in, the district judge in the case that ordered the nationwide ban on medication abortion, is a judge, who before he became a judge, railed against no fault divorce laws, that actually allow people to get divorced. There are many states that now restrict divorces in cases where people are pregnant. You have Republican politicians on the Supreme Court debating whether states can prohibit abortion in cases where denying women an abortion would jeopardize their bodily organs and major bodily functions.  You have Republican political operatives ginning up theories that would allow them to revive an 1873 Victorian-era law, the Comstock Act, that would prohibit abortion nationwide. These theories are not fringe, they are being propounded by Republican politicians, at the state, local, and federal level and these are the stakes in the upcoming election and likely all future ones as long as the Republican Party leans into the movement for Christian nationalism and the misogyny that underlies it.

NB Blog Feed

EU Warns Media Platforms Can Be Fined for Slovakian PM Shooting 'Disinformation'

Are you posting about the shocking assassination attempt on Wednesday upon the Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico? Well, a warning. You and the Big Tech platform you are posting on can be punished for spreading "disinformation' if the European Commission, the increasingly authoritarian cabinet government of the European Union, has its way. On Thursday, Bloomberg published the warning of impending EU censorship on this topic in an article by Peter Chapman and Samuel Stolton in "EU Monitoring ‘Spread of Disinformation’ on Fico Shooting." The story subtitles also provide these ominous censorship warnings: "Regulators can punish platforms that fail to stem fake news" "EU’s new Digital Services Act imposes tough rules on Big Tech" And please be warned that the European Commission could be actively "monitoring" YOU: The European Commission said it’s “actively monitoring” the spread of fake news about Wednesday’s shooting Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and warned it can slap Big Tech platforms with fines for failing to tackle disinformation. Fake news aka disinformation is information that the mainstream media and censors in various countries do not want you to see. Do you remember when suggesting that there might have been a Wuhan lab leak was considered to be "disinformation?" Ditto the Hunter Biden laptop. The regulator “is equipped with wide-ranging investigatory and supervisory powers, including the power to impose sanctions and remedies,” it said in an emailed statement....Violations could be punished under the European Union’s tough new Digital Services Act, which forces online platforms to put into place measures to tackle illegal content and disinformation, uphold user rights, and protect user’s health and wellbeing. Oh please, please protect our health and wellbeing from dangerous Thoughtcrimes! Under the Digital Services Act, the bloc has singled out multiple online platforms and search engines last year as large entities worthy of scrutiny. That includes X, Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc. and others with more than 45 million monthly active users in Europe. Which of the Big Tech platforms will abide by the dictates of the Orwellian Digital Services Act? Looking at you, YouTube! Russian state media has claimed that the political motivation behind the shooting was Fico’s criticism of pro-Ukrainian aid. The alleged perp was recorded loudly protesting Fico's criticism of Ukraine aid, so does that mean the platforms carrying that video will be fined or otherwise punished by the self-styled arbiters of "truth?"

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Lawrence O'Donnell's Cheesy Trump Trial Diaries

Part of the endless Trump trial coverage on MSNBC was The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell reading what sounded like bad diary entries on courtroom happenings. Porn star Stormy Daniels dressed loosely in black, which "suggested the modesty of a nun." How bizarre.  Days later, O'Donnell mocked Trump's appearance in court. He "leaves his face, with his eyes closed, in tortured elderly shapes when he drifts off into his closed-eye space, his mouth shifts from its preferred scowl to the look of a collapsing old building." Ever have that feeling of "collapsing building mouth"? On MSNBC, Brian Stelter told Ari Melber the GOP's in terrible shape, with all these Trump bootlickers showing up at his trial in Manhattan. "I’m just trying to imagine if any Democrats are going to show up at the trial of Bob Menendez, the senator, or or the trial of Joe Biden's son Hunter -- both of which are gonna happen in the next few weeks! And we’re not gonna see any of this, and that tells you everything you need to know about the differences between these two parties in 2024." To which there is an obvious rejoinder: We’re just trying to imagine if any Democrat-servant networks are going to show up at the trials of Senator Menendez or Hunter Biden. No one expects they will be doing gavel-to-gavel coverage for those trials, and that tells you everything you need to know about the Democrat-servant networks. Speaking of MSNBC, The New York Times devoted nearly 3,000 words by Jim Rutenberg and Michael Grynbaum to explain “How MSNBC’s Leftward Tilt Delivers Ratings, and Complications.” What's complicated? The unintentionally funny part is when NBC News suggested MSNBC was ruining its branding as "straight news." Who believes that any more? Lester Holt made it clear "fairness is overrated." We were a little stunned at how angry the networks became over Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker's commencement address at Benedictine College. It wasn't surprising: a Catholic speaker talked about Catholic issues to Catholic graduates. But the Butker critics who aren’t Catholics pulled out little snippets they could not abide. First, they hated that Butker paid tribute to his wife Isabelle for making him successful, for assuming “one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.” That is like a curse word to the feminists. They can’t allow the notion that children might benefit from having a parent in the home. Lester Holt's NBC Nightly News featured a student who inaccurately summarized it: "Getting married and having kids is not my ideal situation right now. It definitely made graduation feel a little less special, knowing I had to sit through that and get told I'm nothing but a homemaker.' Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

NB Blog Feed

PBS Takes Pro-Hamas Line on Israel, Nakba: 'Mass Expulsion' of Palestinians in 1948

Wednesday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour forwarded pro-Hamas historical talking points to paint Palestinians as endless victims of yet another war they launched against Israel, matching up with the network’s consistently slanted coverage of the current Israel-Hamas war. It’s been 76 years since Arab countries attacked the fledgling state of Israel en masse in 1948 to strangle the Jewish homeland in its crib, but were repelled. PBS portrayed the al-Nakba, or “catastrophe,” using the Palestinian rhetoric of “mass expulsion,” with no caveats or actual historical explanation given. Host Geoff Bennett stirred in the anniversary to portray Palestinians as endless victims of unjust Israel aggressions, based on two wars begun by Arab/Islamic entities. The full report: Bennett: In the Middle East, there's been intense fighting across the Gaza Strip, including in the southern city of Rafah. An Israeli government spokesperson said today that Israel will eliminate the four remaining Hamas battalions there, but not necessarily every Hamas fighter. Separately, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential building in the Jabalia refugee camp near Gaza City. Medics say at least three people were killed and 20 others injured. This all comes as Palestinians marked 76 years since the Nakba, or catastrophe, which refers to their mass expulsion from what today is Israel. Some displaced Gazans say the war now is even worse. Faridah Abu Artema, Displaced Palestinian (translation): My mother and father told me about the Nakba, but this here is worse. This is destruction. What we have seen, no one else has seen. Every day is a catastrophe, the catastrophe of hunger, the catastrophe of illness. Every day, we move from place to place. The children are sick. I don't know what to say. Bennett: The U.N. says more than 80 percent of Gaza's population have fled their homes since the start of the war. Many have relocated more than once. The historical reality: In 1948 Britain partitioned the Palestinian Mandate, cleaving out a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Jews accepting statehood but the Arabs refusing to live alongside the Jews in the region. Several Arab countries then launched a failed war on Israel they day it declared independence. PBS managed to out-do the slanted description from Wednesday’s CBS Evening News. These pro-Hamas talking points were brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular.

NB Blog Feed

Genocide, Butker, Alito, & Scheffler: The Best and Worst of This Week’s WH Briefing

This week marked a rare occasion in which President Biden remained at the White House all five weekdays and thus allowed for five press briefings from the ever-inept press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre (and John Kirby only serving as a crutch on Friday). The questions were, not surprisingly, all over the place given the lunacy of the week, ranging from accusing Jews of genocide to harassment at the FDIC to Biden’s unpopularity to fact-checking Biden to smearing Harrison Butker (one exchange we wrote about separately here), and Justice Samuel Alito. Below are some of the smartest and dumbest questions of the briefing, presented in chronological order.   Of Course the Al-Jazeera Reporter Asks About Genocide in Israel “I looked up Francesca Albanese, the Special U.N. Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine presented one in March. Her — she presented it in Geneva. The three criterion she used, citing international law, three acts: Israel’s intent to destroy national ethnic, racial, or religious groups; serious bodily or mental harm to a group; inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring physical destruction, in whole or in part, with imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group; process of erasure of the native Palestinians. So, those three things are happening.  How can you say genocide is not being committed?” — Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, May 13, 3:10 p.m. Eastern. A Question No Liberal Wants to Answer: Will You Stop Spending Money? Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence: “So, Warren Buffett this month said that taxes will have to be raised to pay for the national debt. He said the government may want to decrease spending. So, with — we've had announcement after announcement of — of taxpayer money being doled out — we’ve seen almost weekly now. Is the federal government spending too much money?” Jean-Pierre: “So, let me just say a couple things that Warren Buffett did say that we certainly agree with and I'll quote him: “The wealthy are definitely under taxed, relative to the general population,” which is why the President has a plan to make sure that wealthiest among us, the billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share and we've been very clear about that. They pair — the pay their fair share in order to pay for — for his investments in America and cut the deficit by $3 trillion and it — and Buffett also said it “doesn't matter bother him to pay taxes” and so it has been very clear — the President has said that he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. That is what the President has said. Warren Buffett pretty much agrees with us. We agree, obviously, with him, and this is very different than what Republicans want to do. They put out their plan. They put out what they want to do. They want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. We do not agree with this and what we want to do is continue to make sure that we're lowering cost for Americans for families, whether it is Big Pharma — fighting Big Pharma, lowering health care costs, making sure that we go after corporation as we — as we — you hear us talk about junk fees. Those are the ways that we want to move forward. That's what our focus is.” — Q&A on May 13, 3:18 p.m. Eastern. Ducking Biden’s ‘Fire on Spot’ When It Comes to FDIC Harassment     Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann: “There's new reporting in The Wall Street Journal found that the FD — FDIC director Martin Gruenberg, disrespected, disparaged and treated unfairly officials there and he was known to be someone who can control his temper. Obviously, President Biden said early on in his administration that he would fire on the spot anyone who bullied or unfairly belittled coworker. So, has the President seen those reports and — if those reports proved to be accurate. Will he take action?” Jean-Pierre: “So I don't have any personal announcements to make at this time. The FDIC administrator — chairman to be exact — made, apologized, and spoke to this. And so, certainly I would — I would send you there. The FDIC is independent agency, so would refer you to them as to anything else coming out from the FDIC on this particular matter, but I just don't have any policy — personnel announcement to make at this time.” — Q&A on May 13, 3:22 p.m. Eastern. Sorry, Folks, We Know This Is a Reelection Ploy for the Rust Belt Lawrence: “So, this is an election year. Why did it take three years to impose these tariffs?” U.S. Trade Ambassador Katherine Tai: “So, this is where I put my lawyer hat back on. Under the 301 statue, in the fourth year of the tariffs, if there is a stakeholder that has benefiting from the tariffs, who asked us to keep them, we keep them. That is what happened in 2022 because the tariffs first went on in 2018. As a result of that, in the fall of 2022, we started a process. We opened up a portal that was open, I think, in the end of 22 to the very beginning of 23, notice and comment. We wanted to hear from all of our stakeholders, their views on the tariffs, the pros and the cons — please inform us. That — that elicited, I think, about 1,600 comments. So, that's at the beginning of 2023. And then, we started a whole of government, interagency review within the Biden administration. That process has taken us to today and the unveiling of this finalized package which the President approved.” Lawrence: “So, it took three years to figure out the Chinese were flooding the market and stealing technology? I mean, it's pretty evident that they've been doing that all along.” Tai: “No, it took — it took a year and a half for the course of the review. You will see the amount of care that we put into our investigation and our findings. Yes, there continue to be problems, but then the question is: What do you do about the tariffs? For this administration, it is extremely important that we approach a relationship like the one between the U.S. and China and these issues around the industries and the jobs of the future with discipline. That's what takes so long — is the design and the architecture of the tariff defense system that you will see.” — Back and forth on May 14, 1:29 p.m. Eastern. Wow: NBC Reporter Calls Out Biden Flip-Flop on Tariffs “You said that the President has been consistent on this issue, but back in 2019, when he was a candidate, he said that “any freshman economics student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs”, referring to his opponent at the time. And he also said that he would reverse what he called ,senseless policies’. Why’d he change his mind?...Previously, he called them “senseless”. They're no longer senseless? — White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez’s questions to Tai, May 14, 1:33 p.m. Eastern. Doocy Time Asks KJP Why Americans Have the Sads With Ole Joe “Why do you think Americans are so down on President Biden right now?...I know you don't like to talk about polls, like, the five of six swing states that he is losing right now to somebody who is a criminal offender. But, more broadly, it doesn't seem like anything you guys are doing, is making him more popular. Why do you think that is?” (....) “So, more broadly then, have you considered in the White House that some of President Biden's recent policy positions could be a turn off to the people that used to like him?” — Doocy, May 14, 1:55 p.m. Eastern. FBN’s Lawrence SCHOOLS KJP on Biden’s Inflation Lies FBN’s @EdwardLawrence: “I wanna ask you about how the President talks about inflation. So, two times over the past two weeks, the President said inflation was nine percent when he came into office. Is the President misleading Americans on that? Or does it — just not realize that… pic.twitter.com/2XzQyUsBY3 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 15, 2024 — Back and forth on May 15, 2:43 p.m. Eastern. ABC, AP Throw Hardballs at KJP Over Biden Blocking Release of Hur Tapes “President Biden decided to block the release of the audio interview with the special counsel. And, obviously, the letter from the White House counsel laid out the reasons about the concerns of being used for political purposes. But that seems to imply that the White House is concerned that these could be politically damaging. So why not just release that, especially with this White House’s commitment to transparency?...But does the White House feel that the recording — the audio could be politically harmful since that point was also raised in the letter?” — AP’s Seung Min Kim, May 16, 2:20 p.m. Eastern. “Just to follow up on what Seung Min was asking for. Speaker Mike Johnson said that President Biden is ‘apparently afraid for citizens to hear’ his interview with special counsel Robert Hur. How is the White House responding to that criticism?...You talked about transcripts being released, but as you know, hearing something and reading it is very different and if the transcript is already out there, why is it different to have the audio there? — ABC senior White House correspondent Selina Wang, 2:22 p.m. Eastern. Leftist Coordination: ABC, AP, CBS Team Up to Invite to Smear Justice Alito “Does the President, who is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed with the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Alito should recuse himself from 20 cases involving the 2020 election or January 6 because of the reporting of the upside down flag flown outside of this house?” — AP’s Darlene Superville, May 17, 3:12 p.m. Eastern. “So, given the flag incident, does President Biden believe that Justice Alito can rule in — with impartiality for all the cases involving January 6?” — CBS’s Weijia Jiang, May 17,  3:15 p.m. Eastern. “So the President concerned that having a Supreme Court justice who is it such a high position of power, displaying a flag in his house in such a way that that could fuel more extremism and division in this country?” (....) “[W]hat is the sense here about the wive’s role here? Whether it is a Supreme Court justice, whether the senator or president, should she be able and entitled have our own political opinions and views without having them tied to her husband or not?” — Wang, May 17, 3:22 p.m. Eastern. Doocy Steps Up to Ask KJP About Scheffler’s Shocking Arrest     Doocy: “President Biden think about the world's number one golfer, Scottie Scheffler, being cuffed and then hauled in for a mug shot for what appears to be a misunderstanding at a traffic stop?” Jean-Pierre: “So I — I've seen the reports of — uh — Mr. Shuff — Scheffler’s arrest. I just want to say that our hearts go out to the individual that was killed.” Doocy: “Unrelated.” Jean-Pierre: “No, let me finish in the auto — in the auto accident that preceded his arrest. Obviously, someone did die. Someone was killed, preceded his arrest that, obviously, he was not involved in. Uh — so, I want to make sure that we share our condolences to that family and their loved ones. Anything else as specifics to his arrest, that would be something for local authorities to speak to.” Doocy: “I think — just — I — you guys have spent a good chunk of this week —” Jean-Pierre: “Yep.” Doocy: “— talking about how you don't want anybody to ever go to jail again for possessing marijuana. Do you think that somebody who was involved in what appears to be a misunderstanding of a traffic stop should be facing 10 years in prison?” Jean-Pierre: “There — we've seen the reports. There — there's a process there. We have to let the legal authorities do — go to their — you know — process and how this all works. I can't comment from here, from the lectern about something that's being looked into by local authorities. I got to be mindful about that, but let's not forget. Someone lost their lives [sic]. Not obviously — that preceded this, but there was an individual that was killed and there's a family that’s mourning a death of a loved one. And so, we want to be sensitive to that as well.” — Back and forth on Scheffler’s arrest, May 17, 3:19 p.m. Eastern. CNN Reporter Tries to Get KJP to Have Butker Banned From WH “Can we still assume that the Kansas City Chiefs will be visiting the White House this year celebration of their Super Bowl victory?” (....) “So, can you confirm — you said everyone on the team is obviously invited. Is the Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker welcome at this White House?” (....) “Given his recent comments, is he specifically welcome at this White House?” — CNN’s MJ Lee, May 17, 3:31 p.m. Eastern. Taxpayer-Funded Journo: Does Biden Know African-Americans See Themselves in Gazans? “[I]s the President mindful of how black students were protesting in campus might see a parallel of their experience of injustice between themselves and the Palestinians? Has he [OTHER REPORTER COUGHS] input about this? Is he sympathetic to that?” — Voice of America’s Patsy Widakuswara, May 17, 3:35 p.m. Eastern.   To see the relevant transcripts from this week’s briefings (including even more questions), click here (for May 13), here (for May 14), here (for May 15), here (for May 16) and here (for May 17).

NB Blog Feed

No Evidence! Joe Scarborough Accuses Justice Alito of Leaking Dobbs Draft

Evidence? Joe Scarborough don't need no stinkin' evidence. On today's Morning Joe, the Biden phone buddy and informal adviser felt entitled to make a very grave--and entirely evidence-free--accusation against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Thus it was that in a segment devoted to a New York Times story skewering Alito for permitting the flying at his home of an upside-down American flag, Scarborough accused Alito of having leaked the draft of the Dobbs opinion [which Alito wrote], overturning Roe v. Wade. This flag defense was an odd take from this show -- which not too long ago let their contributor Mara Gay complain it was "disturbing" to see so many American flags (flown by Trump supporters) when she visited Long Island on D-Day.  That wasn't his only slam of Sam Alito. As Scarborough—who went from having perfect pro-life ratings as a congressman from Florida's conservative panhandle to sounding like a Planned Parenthood fanboy now that he's at MSNBC—put it: "For a Supreme Court Justice, and I will say—my opinion only—but the guy most likely to have had something to do with the leaking of the Dobbs decision. Leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, or somebody connected to him leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, because he wanted to keep Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett frozen in place. I think history will show that." Scarborough later said that with respect to both Alito's explanation of the flag flying, and his denial of being responsible for the leak of the draft Dobbs decision, "nobody believes him." Perhaps "nobody believes" Alito in the liberal cocoon of MSNBC, or amongst Scarborough's summering buddies on liberal-elitist Nantucket. But Joe, you need to get out more. Let's play a thought game. Alito has said that he had no involvement in flying the flag, and that it was his wife who did so in response to objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs that a neighbor had put up.  Now imagine that the wife of a conservative Justice is a liberal. In response to a pro-life sign put up by a conservative neighbor, she puts an "Our Bodies Our Choice--Hands Off Roe!" sign in their front yard -- only to have her husband order her to take it down.  Which would be the more likely reaction from liberals?  Would they applaud the Justice for standing up for judicial independence? Or would they condemn the Justice for patriarchal infringement on his wife's freedom of expression and accuse the Justice of attempting to turn his wife into a Handmaid, and his home into a mini-Gilead [labels with which MSNBCers have slurred Justice Amy Coney Barrett]? Note: Alito has said that he thinks he knows who leaked the Dobbs draft. But unlike Scarborough, given the lack of evidence, he didn't point a finger at any individual. Alito did make a good case, though, as to the motivation behind the leak: He said he was sure the leak “was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft … from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside — as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.” Alito said the theory that the draft was leaked by someone on the right to lock in the five votes necessary to overturn Roe “is infuriating to me.” “Look, this made us targets of assassination,” Alito told his interviewers. “Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible.” Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/17/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you, growing up, one of my friend's fathers was a federal judge! I had no idea until I got older whether he was Republican or Democrat. And that was the case in northwest Florida, a very conservative place. The federal judges kept themselves beyond reproach. They never talked politics, ever. In the privacy of their homes, if you ask their opinion, they would just say, not my job, right? I'm a judge. They actually took their oaths seriously! And for a Supreme Court Justice, and I will say—my opinion only—but the guy most likely to have had something to do with the leaking of the Dobbs decision. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: Leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, or somebody connected to him leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, because he wanted to keep Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett frozen in place. I think history will show that.  But that aside, for a guy who is a Supreme Court Justice, that let that happen at his own home, in one of the most fraught times in American history since, since the Civil War, it's just, it's just sad. And it shows how little respect he has for the institution. It shows how little respect he has for the law. It really does. It's disgusting. . . . WILLIE GEIST: I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag, Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to the Times. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs. Joe, there you have it. MIKA: Wait. Wait a minute. SCARBOROUGH:  So you're going to hate on America because of something a neighbor did? MIKA: You're going to blame your wife? SCARBOROUGH:  Blame your wife? MIKA: And make up that excuse? SCARBOROUGH: What, what is this? MIKA: My wife was mad at a neighbor. SCARBOROUGH: Blaming wives. Anybody care to jump in here? MIKA: Bu I want to know, what, what person, let alone woman, wife, would do that in response to a problem with a neighbor. SCARBOROUGH: Eugene, a neighbor, a neighbor upsets me, comes outa, makes fun of me because the Rays beat the Red Sox last night. And the Red Sox really suck. And so, I'm mad. I'm not gonna hang my flag upside down. EUGENE ROBINSON: Right. Right. SCARBOROUGH: None of this -- this is dumb as what I heard about the Dobbs leak. Nobody believes him.

NB Blog Feed

Biden Administration Wastes Time Celebrating Another Gay Holiday

“Happy International Day Against homophobia, biphobia, & transphobia” … said no right minded person ever. Though May 17 may be a regular day for you and me, for the left, May 17 marks International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. Since the gays apparently need ANOTHER made-up holiday, the left, our administration especially, celebrated the occasion on social media.  On May 17, 1990, the World Health Organization (WHO) decided that homosexuality is no longer classified as one of the items on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Apparently now, the alphabet mafia has taken it over to celebrate themselves and fight back against anyone who disagrees with their delusional sense of identity. Taking over Easter and celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility seemingly wasn't enough for the White House. Starting off strong, our very own President Joe Biden said, “On the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, my Administration stands in solidarity with LGBTQI+ people around the world as they seek to live lives free from hate-fueled violence and discrimination." He also noted that "It’s a matter of human rights, plain and simple” on Friday afternoon. Funnily enough, someone brought up Biden’s past statements where he indicated, using his “devout Catholic” beliefs, that “marriage is between a man and a woman.”       Vice President Kamala Harris, an alleged Christian, shared essentially the same thing as her boss adding, “Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and accepted for who they are.” The U.S. Department of State shared an image of the Pride flage and wrote, “LGBTQI+ persons deserve recognition of their universal human rights and human dignity. On #IDAHOBIT and every day, the United States stands with LGBTQI+ persons around the world." The department's head, Secretary Antony Blinken, insisted that he supports “promoting the safety and dignity of LGBTQI+ persons” and noted that it’s a “key component of advancing our nation’s interested.” Sure, sir, as long as the nation’s interests are to promote delusion and confusion and make the idea of a nuclear family cease to exist. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security shared a graphic with a giant rainbow on it and wrote that it plans to defend “DHS employees and each one of our citizens, promoting equality, dignity, and respect for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.” While I don’t think that any one of us wants to conduct any harm or have any malicious intent towards people who don’t agree with us, I can’t help but wonder what was not being done in our country while our administration was so heavily focused on a made up holiday for gender and sex? Don’t we have huge things to worry about, like the border, abortion and the economy to name a few? Not to mention two wars raging overseas?!  Geez louise, our country’s gotta get our priorities (and our people) straight.

NB Blog Feed

Not Okay: Biden’s Demonstrably False Claim in Softball Yahoo! Finance Interview

Despite receiving a flattering question from an interviewer, President Joe Biden still faceplanted in his response.  During a May 14 interview with Yahoo! Finance, Biden falsely claimed that inflation had been wildly higher under his predecessor. His interviewer, who had promoted Bidenomics in his question, did not correct Biden. “I think inflation has gone slightly up. This was at 9% when I came in and it's now down about 3%,” Biden astonishingly said.  But it was not. In fact, inflation in January 2021 stood at only 1.4% but skyrocketed under Biden’s watch, reaching an average of 5.5% from February 2021 to April 2024. To make matters more absurd, Biden made this demonstrably false statement in response to a misleading question flattering his economic record.  The interviewer, Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi, entirely failed to mention the impact of COVID-19 shutdowns while giving Biden credit for creating 15 million jobs: “Mr. President, over 15 million jobs have been created under your watch, the unemployment rate under 4% for 27 straight months, the stock market at a record high. Why don't households feel wealthy right now?” While Biden chose to lie about inflation in response to this easy question, the fibs didn’t stop there.  The 81-year-old president also told Yahoo! Finance that wages were outpacing inflation, claiming, “But the fact is that I think people are just uncertain and that's why we got to be steady, stay the course and continue to produce these incredible jobs and the job—and by the way the pay for the jobs are, are outpacing the inflation rate they pay.” Real wages have actually fallen under Biden. Americans’ median weekly real earnings have declined from $373 in the first quarter of 2021 to $365 in the first quarter of 2024.   ICYMI: Bidenomics after 39 Months: Six Charts the Media Don’t Want You to See The White House has struggled to spin the president’s ludicrous statements as more and more bad economic news comes in.  During the May 16 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto, White House Economic Adviser Jared Bernstein wildly ducked and dodged when confronted with Biden’s claims of taming 9% inflation.  See More: White House Economic Adviser Jared Bernstein Can’t Defend Biden Biden’s brief but disastrous Yahoo! Finance interview came the same day as the news that inflation had increased 0.5% in April, exceeding expectations.   Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they tell the truth about the Bidenomics disaster. 

NB Blog Feed

Oversight Board Member Admits Meta Doesn’t Prioritize First Amendment

A Meta Oversight Board member recently confirmed the obvious: Meta might be an American company, but it certainly doesn't prioritize the First Amendment in its policy decisions.  Kenji Yoshino, a New York University Constitutional law professor and member of the Meta Oversight Board, asserted that the U.S. Constitution is not the baseline for the tech company’s free speech policies. “Our baseline here is not the US Constitution and free speech, but rather international human rights norms,” he said at a National Constitution Center town hall event.    Yoshino noted that America is an “outlier” when compared with other countries because it has such strong legal protections against censorship. He explained that as Meta became a global company “it could not simply default back to U.S. jurisprudence.” The Meta Oversight Board member claimed that Meta looks at “striking a balance” between international values like “safety” and “dignity” and the U.S. Constitution. However, he admitted, “oftentimes that calculus comes out differently than it would if the baseline were First Amendment norms.”  Yoshino contrasted the two different attitudes toward freedom of speech, explaining that in the U.S. “the [protecting] the speech we hate doctrine, is part of an expansionist and rigid vision that is intensely speech protective.” In Europe, however, the attitude is “much more tilted toward equality and dignity than it might be toward speech.”  But the European standard is far from perfect. For example, multiple European countries, including Scotland, France and England, criminalize alleged “hate speech.”  Applying European standards to Americans can lead to anti-First Amendment censorship. This is especially problematic as U.S. government agencies have reportedly resumed coordination with tech companies, indicating actions directly violative of the First Amendment. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

We ‘Need to Fix’ It: Behar Decries the Constitution as ‘Un-American’

Joy Behar, the same co-host of ABC’s The View who thought the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was the military alliance that defeated Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, was back with more of her wisdom during Friday’s show. According to her, two elements of the U.S. Constitution – both present since the founding – were “un-American.” “These lifetime assignments [to the U.S. Supreme Court] have got to stop and they need to fix the Electoral College also because that's un-American,” she shrieked. Behar was triggered by newly released, years-old photos of an inverted American flag allegedly outside the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito several days AFTER the riot at the Capitol. The latest smear campaign against conservative justices suggested – without evidence – that it was to show solidarity with the rioters. Ignoring or ignorant of the meaning of an inverted flag, Behar declared it was something wholly invented by “MAGA people”: Now, in case you don't know, this is something that the MAGA people have adopted as a stop the steal symbol. In other words, when you see that flag upside down, that means stop the steal, which they imagine happened even though Joe Biden did win legitimately. We all know it. Everybody who’s not crazy knows it.     Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin contributed to the misinformation by misquoting the U.S. Flag Code. According to her: “…the American flag should not be flown upside down except in moments of national – dire national distress.” The code actually says: “The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” Historically, an inverted flag has been used my American ships to signal such distress. Farah-Griffin added that what the Alito’s did was “un-American” and “disturbing” especially since it was allegedly done “days after a riot at the Capitol!” But her argument didn’t make much sense either since she, and many in the liberal media, had suggested that January 6 was a day of dire national distress; much like what she said was the only correct time to fly the flag inverted. She and the rest of the cast played a round of whataboutism and pretended as though they would be equally upset if a liberal justice did it: FARAH GRIFFIN: But I would note this to my conservative friends defending this, let's just say if Justice Sotomayor had hung a flag upside down after Donald Trump was elected we would call for her resignation. BEHAR: That’s right! HOSTIN: We sure would! Since The View didn’t care to criticize Sotomayor when she refused to recuse herself and issued a ruling that directly involved her book publisher, it’s safe to say they wouldn’t have anything to say on the matter. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 17, 2024 11:15:42 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: So, the Supreme Court – very iffy these days – is getting ready to deal with cases involving presidential immunity and obstruction charges against Trump. Okay? The January 6th insurrectionists also, they're ready to deal with all those cases. But a photo has just emerged from days after the Capitol Riot on January 6th showing an upside down American flag flying outside – wait for it – Justice Alito's house. Now, in case you don't know, this is something that the MAGA people have adopted as a stop the steal symbol. In other words, when you see that flag upside down, that means stop the steal which they imagine happened even though Joe Biden did win legitimately. We all know it. Everybody who’s not crazy knows it. SUNNY HOSTIN: It was proven. BEHAR: It was proven over and over and over again. Yet Justice Alito has this upside down flag. Now, he claims his wife did it. Thank you, Senator Menendez, another one. In a dispute with neighbors saying she did it because she was disputing with neighbors about their anti-Trump signs on their lawn, even that -- even that annoys me that the wife is worried about anti-Trump signs in her neighborhood. Do you believe his answer to the thing that his wife did it and he has nothing to do with stop the steal? HOSTIN: I do believe it. How about Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas. Ginni Thomas sent a bus to the January 6 insurrection and Clarence Thomas is sitting on that court listening to insurrection cases. He’s listening to election fraud cases. It's ridiculous! You know, what upsets me so much about it as an attorney is that the Supreme Court has always been sort of the bastion of the law. Right? It’s where we look to for guidance and now 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court. Never has the Supreme Court been so -- and they do, right? 60 percent. [Applause] It hurts me to my core. And, you know, Justice Sotomayor has said over and over and over again, she said, “will this institution survive” – this is after the Mississippi abortion case – “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” I don't see how it is possible. If you have a Supreme Court justice, even if his wife did it, for days and days and days having that sign there, that is a political expression that has no place! ANA NAVARRO: I think it's incredibly sad how -- how dysfunctional -- we've seen the dysfunction in Congress and now dysfunction in the Supreme Court. So, Americans have to be watching this and just having this crisis, existentialist crisis of faith in our most important institutions and, look, I think John Roberts has lost control of this court. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: Maybe he agrees with them. NAVARRO: Well, I don't know if he does or not but he has a duty to the American people as chief justice to make sure that this Supreme Court is at a certain level of decorum and you have Ginni Thomas and Clarence Thomas accepting all sorts of gifts from billionaires and hearing some of the cases and you've got this. I mean, it’s an embarrassment. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I don't even know -- I don't buy this description. So the U.S. Flag Code states that the American flag should not be flown upside down except in moments of national – dire national distress. I think pointing the finger – If my husband put a flag upside down, I’d say, “what are you doing?!” This is un-American, it’s disturbing. But I would note this to my conservative friends defending this, let's just say if Justice Sotomayor had hung a flag upside down after Donald Trump was elected we would call for her resignation. BEHAR: That’s right! HOSTIN: We sure would! FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s so, un-American in days – HOSITN: We sure would. FARAH GRIFFIN: In days after a riot at the Capitol! SARA HAINES: It also speaks to—When you’re married to a Supreme Court justice and you are well aware of that, elevate yourself. When responding to yard signs in your neighborhood, you're telling me you're triggered too easy. He's a Supreme Court justice. You're going to hear things. The fact that that was the act she took because she had to get her word in? It’s a really pathetic example – NAVARRO: Sounds like she belongs in Congress. HAINES: And your stat is worse, Sunny. It's worse. It's 44 percent of Americans support – have faith in the Supreme Court. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: These lifetime assignments have got to stop and they need to fix the Electoral College also because that's un-American. FARAH GRIFFIN: They need a code of ethics. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Sex W/ Jesus, Foursomes & Oral: Even A Board Member Protests 'Evil' Sexually Explicit Books

A disgusted school board member read the contents of a book titled “Triangles,” which explained, in extremely graphic detail, a foursome. This book, along with other books like it, is available to students at middle and high school libraries in North East San Antonio, Texas. The book by Ellen Hopkins talks about three different women’s sex lives. According to booklooks.org, a website dedicated to exposing these sexually explicit books given to children, the book “has sexually obscene sexual activities including sadomasochism; sexual nudity; profanity; alcohol abuse; drug use; controversial religious commentary; and alternate sexualities.” GRAPHIC LANGUAGE WARNING: Bonny Wallace, read page 368 from the book at the May 13 board meeting: I move my mouth to taste her nipples. They are larger than mine. Luscious. My partner’s hands pull me backward to lie across the table. He kisses Lorraine as Micah’s tongue finds the sweet spot between my legs. It all becomes a heady mix of men. Tongues. Hands. Gingers. The unique brine of women. The heat of c**k. Condoms. Don’t forget those. And, God, orgasm. Mine. Hers. Theirs. I think other people are watching. Touching themselves because this foursome is amazing. Beautiful people doing incredibly sensual things. Segue to dirty, nasty things.  At that point the woman left the podium to head back to her seat. Before she could make it all the way back to her chair, board member Diane Villareal interrupted saying: “I’m sorry, I’m gonna ask a question now because I was under the impression that these books had been removed from our schools. What the heck is going on?” The audience erupted in applause at her shock.  “This is revolting,” Villarreal continued, “I wouldn’t even expect to read this in Penthouse if they still published that trash and this is in our schools!?” The video, posted originally by Sarah Fields, president for Coalition Texas, and shared by Libs of TikTok, has almost 800,000 views on X.   In the full video of the nearly two-hour long board meeting titled “Parental Advisory Explicit Content,” concerned parents acknowledged the disturbing content in books that are made accessible to students.  One father talked about his daughters who go to Churchill High School in the school district. He noted that many “vulgar” books in the library are things he’d never want his daughters to be able to have access to, adding that there's nothing that has any “educational” value in them. A woman who is the Texas ambassador for Moms for Liberty noted that the material is “harmful” for children. She read an excerpt from the book called “The Empire of Storms” which is available at every middle school in the district. Related: Oral, Abortion, and Sex With Jesus: Mom Reads Shocking Excerpts From Book Found In a Local High School “His teeth gazed over her nipple and her eyes drifted closed, a moaning slipping out of her, his tongue flipped against her nipple and her head tipped back, her fingers digging into his shoulders,” she read. The woman went on but I’ll spare you the details. All you need to know is that it was erotic content that is provided to young kids in school.  A pastor read an excerpt from the book “What Girls are Made Of” which talked about giving “Jesus head” and “having sex with Jesus.” One more read an “evil” book that kids have access to which read “Daddy put his pee pee smelling thing in my mouth.” Like one of the pastors said, these books have no place in schools. They belong in the “pits of hell.” Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV’s Eric Scheiner joins @AlisonOAN to talk about what the leftist media really means when they talk about “democracy.” pic.twitter.com/zZe9fUkCZo — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 15, 2024

NB Blog Feed

MRC UnCensored: Erik Prince Unveils Solution to Unplug Big Tech’s ‘Pervasive Surveillance’

As Big Tech companies continue to expand their control over Americans’ cellphone data, one businessman has stepped up, providing an alternative and delivering a powerful message: enough! This was the sentiment of Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, former NAVY Seal and owner of the Unplugged tech startup, during an exclusive interview on MRC UnCensored with host and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. In the interview, Prince touted his one-of-a-kind Unplugged Smartphone, which he said is designed to combat Big Tech’s censorship and what he described as the “pervasive surveillance of Big Brother." Referring to the “enormous power” of Big Tech companies, Prince mentioned that Americans have become the “product” of Big Tech, as these companies control “everything you do digitally, every call you make, everywhere you go, what you browse, what you buy [and] who you interact with.” He recounted witnessing the rampant censorship conducted by Big Tech during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, when censors “were canceling certain voices that they didn't like that were opposed to their big government narrative.” But Prince had enough, he told Schneider, recalling the launch of UP Phone, which, unlike any other device, does not rely on Google software. Similar: MRC President Bozell to Patrick Bet-David: Google Is Picking Winners and Losers Taking matters into his own hands, Prince explained, “I basically had an angry phone call with a couple of friends of mine saying, ‘What the hell are we going to do? We're not going to change Big Tech by b****ing about it. We're only going to change it by competing.’” Prince suggested that the smartphone, launched in 2022, is even more relevant nowadays after Congress re-authorized controversial portions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s (FISA) Section 702. “With Congress just a couple weeks ago passing not just a FISA extension, but a massive FISA enlargement, because what the federal government has been doing is have a very cozy relationship with Big Tech, all too cozy,” he said. The infamous spying tool allows the federal government to collect a massive trove of emails from U.S. persons to foreign countries of interest without a warrant.  “It basically allows the federal government, any agency can go to Big Tech and demand they turn over that data,” he continued. “Any messages, photos, anything they have without a warrant and without probable cause.” Expanding on his remarks, Prince added, “Just one federal investigator … with a bone to pick wants to go on a fishing expedition to dig into your life. They have carte blanche to do it. This is the only thing that protects that kind of digital sovereignty.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

'Jesus Was Gay': CBS Yucks It Up With Anti-Jesus 'Comedy'

CBS’s late night comedy game show After Midnight went off rails on Thursday as host Taylor Tomlinson and her fellow comedian guests yucked it up with some cheap and flippant anti-Jesus and “Jesus was gay” laughs. Tomlinson set up the round by introducing a TikTok video, “Life is full of surprises. As M. Night Shamalayan once said, 'Never let them know your next move.' This is exemplified in this TikTok from @julianprospers where he asks a stranger about his relationship status.”     The video showed the following discussion: MAN: We've been on and off for, like, 10, 15 years, maybe, but got really serious the past few months. JULIAN PROSPERS: So, is this a woman that you think that it’s not a— MAN: It's not a woman. PROSPERS: It’s not a woman. MAN: No. PROSPERS: It's a man.  MAN: Yeah. PROSPERS: So you're gay. MAN: No, no, it's our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, brother. Tomlinson replied, “I don't want to be cynical, but I was once in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it didn't work out long-term. It's not Him, it's me. Let's save this TikTok guy some heartache. As Jesus, break up with this guy.” Jay Jurden buzzed in first, “I'm sorry, my dad kind of hates gay people. Have you seen the signs?” Next was Todd Barry, “I have to break out with you. You've never been really good about texting back.” Finally, there was Bassem Youssef, who, when he’s not on After Midnight, is on CNN and PBS telling allegedly serious journalists that Israel needs “to go F itself.” Now, Youssef feigned political correctness, “I don't know if I can actually touch this because whatever I would say would be blasphemous. Also, I didn't know that Jesus was gay. Oh, [bleep].” Jurden then returned to add, “Man shall not live by [bleep] alone. Was that too far?” and Youssef tacked on, “Oh, can I do one more? Can I do one more?” While it got lost in Tomlinson’s many guffaws, Prospers appears to be someone who believes in using social media to spread his faith. As evident by his video description, the video was a skit about people refusing to commit to Christ, not a genuine man on the street interview with a stranger as Tomlinson portrayed. People can judge for themselves if it hit the comedic sweet spot or not, but After Midnight definitely didn’t. Here is a transcript for the May 16-taped show: CBS After Midnight 5/17/2024 12:41 AM ET TAYLOR TOMLINSON: Life is full of surprises. As M. Night Shamalayan once said, "Never let them know your next move." This is exemplified in this TikTok from @julianprospers where he asks a stranger about his relationship status. MAN: We've been on and off for, like, 10, 15 years, maybe, but got really serious the past few months. JULIAN PROSPERS: So, is this a woman that you think that it’s not a— MAN: It's not a woman. PROSPERS: It’s not a woman. MAN: No. PROSPERS: It's a man.  MAN: Yeah. PROSPERS: So you're gay. MAN: No, no, it's our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, brother. TOMLINSON: I don't want to be cynical, but I was once in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it didn't work out long-term. It's not Him, it's me. Let's save this TikTok guy some heartache. As Jesus, break up with this guy. Jay. JAY JURDEN: I'm sorry, my dad kind of hates gay people. Have you seen the signs? TOMLINSON: Todd. TODD BARRY: I have to break out with you. You've never been really good about texting back. TOMLINSON: Big texter, Jesus. Bassem? BASSEM YOUSSEF: I don't know if I can actually touch this because whatever I would say would be blasphemous. Also, I didn't know that Jesus was gay. Oh, [bleep]. JURDEN: Oh, can I do one more? Can I do one more? TOMLINSON: Sure, yeah, yeah. JURDEN: Man shall not live by [bleep] alone. Was that too far? TOMLINSON: Bassem. YOUSSEF: We have a full trinity, we don’t need a fourth.

NB Blog Feed

ABC, NBC Giddily Tout ANOTHER Far-Left Smear of Conservative Supreme Court Justice

ABC’s Good Morning America (GMA) and NBC’s Today eagerly touted in faux serious tones early Friday a new front in the left’s war to delegitimize, shame, and even attempt to remove conservative judges as The New York Times published a screeching story about an upside down flag flying at the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2021. Liberal journalist Jodi Kantor typed this up on behalf of the liberal Borg and even appeared in the GMA segment, arguing Alito signed with the flag he’s a far-right conspiracy theorist.     “We turn now to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito under fire after The New York Times published a picture of an upside down flag flown outside his home in 2021 just days after the January 6 riot,” fill-in co-host Rebecca Jarvis began. Longtime Supreme Court correspondent Terry Moran was in need of a fainting couch as he huffed Alito’s been “no stranger to controversy” with this new story “stunning and unprecedented”. “Flying the flag upside down is meant to be a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger, according to the U.S. flag code. It’s also been used as a symbol of protest...and, after the 2020 election, some of Donald Trump supporters adopted the upside down flag to object to Biden’s victory,” he added. Moran also pointed to Kantor having obtained e-mails from fellow leftist quacks — aka Alito’s neighbors — whining “the flag was flying for multiple days” and were concerned about this “political statement”. On-screen, Kantor made this seem like a national scandal: “They were incredulous because one of the bedrock rules of being a federal judge is that you’re not supposed to take part in politics.” Moran only briefly focused on Alito’s denial to Kantor: “I had no involvement whatsoever. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” Earth to Terry and Jodi: What signs did Alito’s neighbors have? To what degree did they harass the Alitos? Heck, what’s the political stance of Alito’s neighborhood? And does Brett Kavanaugh and the man who wanted to assassinate him and his family Nicholas Roske jog your memories? Moran also falsely accused Alito of being somehow unprecedented in being political and also lied about Alito “heckl[ing]” Barack Obama in 2010 (when he only mouthed displeasure and thus no Joe Wilson) (click “expand”): MORAN: Justice Alito has a history of stirring political controversy, unusual for Supreme Court justices. The author of decisions that overturned Roe vs. Wade, he mocked criticism of the ruling that ended a federal right to abortion. ALITO: I had the honor this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. [CROWD LAUGHTER] MORAN: And Alito famously heckled President Obama at the 2010 State of the Union when Obama criticized the court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision. Alito calling out, “not true,” at Obama. And one possible concern about that upside down flag at Alito’s house, there are still cases before this Court stemming from January 6, including former President Trump’s claims of absolute immunity for his actions at that time. And one more thing: There has been no statement from Mrs. Alito, whom Justice Alito blames for the incident.  All told, that segment was a whopping three minutes and 30 seconds. Meanwhile, NBC’s Today had a 52-second news brief via co-host Hoda Kotb that she too tried to make into an affront to humanity: “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is responding this morning to a report in The New York Times that, in 2021, he had an American flag hanging upside down outside of his home.” Kotb continued by noting “this was the photo taken on January 17, 2021” and “[t]he upside down flag was a symbol associated with former President Trump’s false claims of election fraud.” Along with reading the statement Alito gave to The Times, Kotb proclaimed all this has “rais[ed] concerns” — by whom, she wouldn’t say — “about Alito’s impartiality”. Like with Justice Clarence Thomas, the liberal media will stop at nothing to either force out or remove Alito, Thomas, and any other jurist who doesn’t kowtow to a certain ideology. As we’ve seen when leftist freaks have plopped themselves outside the homes of right-leaning justice, the liberal media have little regard for the children, spouses, and loved ones of the justices. To see the relevant transcripts from May 17, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Gets Melty Over NYT Poll— MRC’s Hamill Reacts on Newsmax

MRC contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on Thursday’s The Balance on Newsmax with host Eric Bolling and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon where they discussed MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough’s latest tizzy over a New York Times/Siena poll showing former President Donald Trump leading President Joe Biden in five out of six swing states. On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough accused the Times of rigging the polls against Biden, so that they could generate more traffic with ‘clickbait stories.’ LOL. "I'm young enough to remember when these same people would get really excited when conservatives or Trump would question polling, the 'fake news polls' if you will. It's hilarious to see them get their tinfoil hats out," Hamill said. "The New York Times isn't doing Trump any favors."    WATCH:    Heilemann: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? Scarborough: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. Heilemann: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- Scarborough: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on.

NB Blog Feed

'I'm Sorry, What?" Acosta Whines Butker Not 'Banned' Like Kaepernick

CNN host and self-appointed guardian of truth Jim Acosta welcomed sports reporter Rachel Nichols to Friday’s CNN Newsroom for a factually-challenged segment about Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s commencement address to Benedictine College, where he declared that female graduates may get more satisfaction from their family lives than their careers. For Acosta, it was obvious Butker is benefiting from a double standard that the ostracized Colin Kaepernick is not. Acosta rambled, “Well, and is there a double standard here? I mean Colin Kaepernick. I mean, he takes a knee to protest police brutality and gets banned from the NFL, can't get a job in the NFL. Harrison Butker gives this speech, goes wide right so to speak and the NFL says, 'well, you know he was on his day off when he gave this speech, no big deal.' I'm sorry, what?”     Like Butker’s field goals, there are three points worth mentioning. First, Kaepernick didn’t just “protest police brutality.” He went to Miami, of all places, and praised Fidel Castro and compared getting paid millions of dollars for a voluntary job to slavery. Second, the NFL went out of its way to appease him. You can’t watch an NFL game today without seeing something like “It takes all of us” or “end racism” on the back of the end zones. Finally, Kaepernick began his refusal to stand for the national anthem in August 2016, but he was benched for poor play the previous season and later that same season. As for Nichols, she was not much better, “The NFL will tell you that they didn't ban Colin Kaepernick and there's been no official ban on Colin Kaepernick. Of course, anyone paying attention would tell you that unofficially teams sort of feel that he cannot be touched and it is a double standard. There's no question about it.” Nichols lamented, “Many times in professional sports and frankly, particularly in the NFL, if you deliver results, a lot is excused and in this case, Butker was a key part of winning that Super Bowl for them. He's got the longest kick in Super Bowl history. He's very good at his job and he does have some support.” She also tried to undercut Butker’s message, “Of course, there's also voices on the other side who are pro-family, pro-religion, pro-God, who are making the point, you can still be all of those things and support women's rights. There are certainly plenty of men in this country who are equal partners in raising their children, some as single dads who would argue with his comments, even if they are dedicated church members.” At this point, it should be noted what Butker actually said: For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. Butker never said men should be absent from their children’s lives, as Nichols suggested. He never told the women in the audience that they should stay in the kitchen. He affirmed their achievements, acknowledged that some of them will get fancy titles and promotions, but declared that they will feel “most excited” about their families. What’s so radical about that? Here is a transcript for the May 17 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 5/17/2024 10:31 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: Well, and is there a double standard here? I mean Colin Kaepernick. I mean, he takes a knee to protest police brutality and gets banned from the NFL, can't get a job in the NFL. Harrison Butker gives this speech, goes wide right so to speak and the NFL says, “well, you know he was on his day off when he gave this speech, no big deal.” I'm sorry, what? Yeah. RACHEL NICHOLS: The NFL will tell you that they didn't ban Colin Kaepernick and there's been no official ban on Colin Kaepernick. Of course-- ACOSTA: Yeah. NICHOLS: -- anyone paying attention would tell you that unofficially teams sort of feel that he cannot be touched and it is a double standard. There's no question about it. Many times in professional sports and frankly, particularly in the NFL, if you deliver results, a lot is excused and in this case, Butker was a key part of winning that Super Bowl for them. He's got the longest kick in Super Bowl history. He's very good at his job and he does have some support. Of course, there's also voices on the other side who are pro-family, pro-religion, pro-God, who are making the point, you can still be all of those things and support women's rights. There are certainly plenty of men in this country who are equal partners in raising their children, some as single dads who would argue with his comments, even if they are dedicated church members.

NB Blog Feed

Joe Biden as a Political Pinwheel

Joe Biden is not a person of principle or character. He is a lifelong politician who has spent decades shifting his positions on nearly every major issue. If one had to define Biden's political worldview, it would be simply this: Follow the Democratic herd, and desperately attempt to place yourself dead center in the middle of it. Joe Biden is, in short, a political pinwheel, taking note of the prevailing winds in his own party and seeking to channel them in his favor. This strategy made Biden a career also-ran. After all, who wants to follow a follower? Biden never achieved any level of national popularity on his own: His presidential runs imploded in embarrassing fashion in 1988 and 2008. His saving grace was, in fact, his blandness and inoffensiveness: Thanks to those peculiarly counterintuitive qualities, Barack Obama made him his vice president. There, Biden thrived as a vice president who presided over little actual policy but happily floated trial balloons for the administration and acted as a rah-rah cheerleader for his more popular boss. Obama himself had so little faith in his vice president that he passed him over in 2016 in favor of the widely reviled Hillary Clinton. After Clinton lost, Biden threw his hat in the ring -- and thanks to the extraordinary incompetence of some of his opponents (Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar), the extraordinary dilettantism of others (Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg), and the befuddled racialism of still others (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) -- he prevailed by simply fulfilling two conditions: First, he was alive (barely); second, he wasn't any of the other clods. So Joe Biden became president. He posed as a political moderate. But there is a difference between principled moderation and simply bobbing, corklike, about the eddies of internal Democratic politics. Moderation sometimes requires a Sister Souljah moment -- a moment when you push away the radicals and embrace the mainstream. Acting as a political pinwheel encourages no such strength. In fact, it encourages the opposite: caving to every interest, at all times. And thus, Joe Biden has tried to be everything to everyone -- and has ended up as no one to anyone. Biden has zero passionate fans, because his positions are all ersatz; he barely even has passionate enemies, since so few of his opponents believe that he believes anything he says in the moment. His constant waffling has earned him little loyalty and no victories of note (and no, spending trillions of dollars on wasteful boondoggles isn't a victory; it's just the way government is now done). Biden's waffling has cost Americans dearly. Stuck between a Modern Monetary Theory left and more fiscally moderate liberals, Biden has halved the baby, opting for big spending and interest rate increases. Trapped between a post-American left and traditionally interventionist Wilsonian liberals, Biden has hedged between militaristic support for Ukraine and slow-walking aid. Caught between an Israel-hating left and Israel-supportive liberals, Biden has declared his support for Israel in its goals of extirpating Hamas and then pressured Israel to leave Hamas in place by promoting Hamas propaganda and embargoing critical weaponry. It turns out that the presidency is a bad place for pinwheels. The closest thing to a pinwheel president we've had over the past few decades was Bill Clinton -- but even Clinton knew to pursue a course once the course had been charted. Biden flips radically between positions -- even from day to day -- leaving the rest of the world confused and discombobulated. Americans don't like it. In fact, they don't like it so much that polls show that Joe Biden would be a one-term president if the election were held today -- and that he would lose to the man he declares a threat to democracy. Why? Because there is one character aspect on which Donald Trump outpolls Biden by leaps and bounds: leadership. As it turns out, there's no substitute for leadership. And Joe Biden has never been a leader.

NB Blog Feed

New York Times Admits 'MSNBC's Leftward Tilt,' But Presents NBC News Shows as Neutral!

The New York Times devoted nearly 3,000 words by writer-at-large Jim Rutenberg and media reporter Michael Grynbaum to a topic rarely acknowledged: Media bias from the left, in “How MSNBC’s Leftward Tilt Delivers Ratings, and Complications.” (Right-leaning Fox News, by contrast, is a constant target of the paper’s hostility.) But what does it say about the paper’s own tilt when its reporters constantly appear on the left-wing airwaves of MSNBC? The story began: MSNBC placed a big bet on becoming comfort TV for liberals. Then it doubled down. Time slots on the cable network once devoted to news programming are now occupied by Trump-bashing opinion hosts. The channel has become a landing spot for high-profile alumni of President Biden’s administration like Jen Psaki, who went from hosting White House press briefings to hosting her own show. On Super Tuesday, when producers aired a portion of a live speech by former President Donald J. Trump, Rachel Maddow chastised her bosses on the air. The moves have been a hit with viewers. MSNBC has leapfrogged past its erstwhile rival CNN in the ratings and has seen viewership rise over the past year, securing second place in cable news behind the perennial leader, Fox News. The unintentionally funny part is when NBC News suggested MSNBC was ruining it branding as "straight news." Who believes that any more?  But MSNBC’s success has had unintended consequences for its parent company, NBC, an original Big Three broadcaster that still strives to appeal to a mass American audience. NBC’s traditional political journalists have cycled between rancor and resignation that the cable network’s partisanship — a regular target of Mr. Trump — will color perceptions of their straight news reporting.  NBC faced "tensions" in an election year, on "how to maintain trust and present neutral, fact-based reporting in a fractionalized era when partisanship carries vast financial and cultural rewards." The report talked about how they tried to take some of the hyperpartisan tone out in the last decade by moving Al Sharpton to weekends, bringing Greta Van Susteren over from Fox, and creating a daily version of Meet the Press. But then Donald Trump showed up, and even those cosmetic shifts were scuttled: Then, Mr. Trump’s ascent shocked the Democratic base and spiked viewership of Ms. Maddow and other left-leaning hosts, whose programs became a kind of televised safe space. MSNBC’s ratings surged. The story centered on NBC News boss Cesar Conde and how he's tried to bring Republican voices on NBC, including the brief Ronna McDaniel Debacle, and Kristen Welker's incredibly combative interview with Donald Trump on her debut at Meet the Press host. The Left has a fit any time NBC interviews Republicans, and so the interviewers end up sounding fiercely oppositional.  At least, Rutenberg and Grynbaum acknowledged that MSNBC was “tightly embracing its partisan direction” by hiring Biden press secretary Jen Psaki and another Biden aide, Symone Sanders: “It was the kind of revolving-door hiring that liberal pundits used to criticize when it happened with Fox News and the Trump administration.” Left out of the long story were any mentions of the myriad Times reporters (including authors Rutenberg and Grynbaum themselves) that have appeared as guest talent on the "comfort food for liberals" channel during the Trump era and beyond, presumably contributing to what the Times itself calls the network’s “leftward tilt.” some with contributor contracts. A partial list of Times journalists who’ve appeared on MSNBC in recent years would include Susan Craig, Nicholas Kristof, Nicholas Confessore, Katie Benner, Jeremy Peters, Annie Karni, Carl Hulse, Michael Schmidt, Nicholas Confessore, Jeremy Peters, Mike Isaac, Megan Twohey, as well as the story’s authors Jim Rutenberg and Michael Grynbaum (the article contained no disclosure of their previous MSNBC appearances). Appearances by Times scribes are much thinner on right-leaning Fox News, though ex-NYT staffer Nellie Bowles did appear on America’s Newsroom on Wednesday to promote her eyebrow-raising criticism of wokeness, including some bizarre anecdotes from her days at the Times.

NB Blog Feed

How Can Jake Tapper Moderate CNN Debate? He Trusts Hamas Propaganda

Alongside the concerning announcement, this week, that CNN would be hosting the first general presidential debate next month was the equally concerning announcement that Jake Tapper would be tapped to be one of the moderators. The expectation of moderators to fact-check the candidates made Tapper’s selection was particularly concerning. In addition to his left-wing bent, Tapper has exhibited a truly disturbing lack of discernment of who to trust for sourcing facts, including claiming that propaganda from Hamas was trustworthy. As NewsBusters reported last year, just 10 days after the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas against innocent Israeli civilians, Tapper openly suggested that “there’s no reason to doubt” Hamas figures about the death toll in Gaza. “Let's go to a major story developing right now in Gaza, what the Palestinian government is calling a war crime, the government in Gaza says the Israeli Defense Forces struck a hospital in the center of Gaza City, the al-Ahli Baptist hospital,” he announced on October 17. The purported attack was less than a few minutes old but Tapper was rushing to parrot Hamas claims that the number of people killed was “between 200 and 300” with “many more innocent people still trapped under the rubble.” His colleague Anderson Cooper would later note that it could have been a Hamas rocket that fell short, but Tapper quickly shot back: “Yeah, I know. I mean, this is always a very difficult situation, because right now, we have reports of hundreds killed and there's no reason to doubt that.”     But in the light of day, it was clear we had every reason to doubt that. Not only was it a rocket that was fired from Gaza, it landed in the parking lock and only blew out the windows of the hospital, and the casualties were minuscule compared to upwards of 300 or more. Tapper largely avoided accountability for his defense of the propaganda number put out by Hamas, but more recently (May 13) he did a segment on The Lead highlighting how “the United Nations quietly revised downward its numbers on fatalities for Palestinian women and children.” Omitting the specific detail that the number was 50 percent lower, Tapper relied on correspondent Jeremy Diamond to spin the revelation as just some necessary bookkeeping (Click “expand”): We'll Jake, this isn't about saying that fewer Palestinian women and children have been killed during this conflict. This all has to do with where the United Nations is pulling its data from. The United Nations is now listing women and children who have been killed, but only those who have been whose identities have been fully documented. That means that they you know, the names, the dates of birth, the identity card numbers of those individuals. But that brings the United Nations to more than 7,000 children who have been killed, about 5,000 women. But there are thousands more women and children that the Palestinian Ministry of Health says have been killed in this conflict since October 7. But in many of those cases, they don't have someone who has identified them by name with a specific date of birth, for example. That brings the Palestinian Ministry of Health to about 15,000 children, about 9,900 women who have been killed. Diamond went on to defend the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health by arguing that “both U.S., as well as United Nations and other humanitarian aid agencies, these officials have all said that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have checked out in previous conflicts.” “Right. The Palestinian Ministry of Health, obviously run by Hamas itself, and they don't distinguish between fighters and innocent civilians,” Tapper added, essentially suggesting the number was accurate and it just included Hamas fighters. But the next day (May 14), Tapper struck a far more skeptical tone regarding reports from the Israeli Defense Forces that they had struck a Hamas “war room” in a U.N. school. “Israel says it killed more than ten terrorists, though CNN cannot independently confirm Israel's claim,” he declared. Tapper was suspicious of IDF claims that Hamas was in U.N. school while we know multiple U.N. workers took part in the October 7 attack and accounts from former hostages show U.N. workers aided the terrorists. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to believe Tapper is an honest broker of facts for a presidential debate? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Lead May 13, 2024 5:38:32 p.m. Eastern (…) JAKE TAPPER: Jeremy, though, of course we can see the horror on the ground, clearly. It's been harder to get an accurate estimate of how many Palestinians have been killed since October 7 in Gaza. Last week, the United Nations quietly revised downward its numbers on fatalities for Palestinian women and children. Tell us more about that. What led to the change? JEREMY DIAMOND: We'll Jake, this isn't about saying that fewer Palestinian women and children have been killed during this conflict. This all has to do with where the United Nations is pulling its data from. The United Nations is now listing women and children who have been killed, but only those who have been whose identities have been fully documented. That means that they you know, the names, the dates of birth, the identity card numbers of those individuals. But that brings the United Nations to more than 7,000 children who have been killed, about 5,000 women. But there are thousands more women and children that the Palestinian Ministry of Health says have been killed in this conflict since October 7. But in many of those cases, they don't have someone who has identified them by name with a specific date of birth, for example. That brings the Palestinian Ministry of Health to about 15,000 children, about 9,900 women who have been killed. And it's important to note that both U.S., as well as United Nations and other humanitarian aid agencies, these officials have all said that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have checked out in previous conflicts. But, of course, there is a difference between how the Palestinian Ministry of Health sees the casualty figures in Gaza and what the Israeli government is saying. We've heard from Israeli government officials, including the Israeli prime minister now saying they believe that about 14,000 plus militants have been killed and about 16,000 civilians. That's obviously a very big discrepancy with the numbers coming from the Palestinian Ministry of Health. TAPPER: Right. The Palestinian Ministry of Health, obviously run by Hamas itself, and they don't distinguish between fighters and innocent civilians. (…) May 14, 2024 5:50:29 p.m. Eastern TAPPER: And we’re back with our world lead. Israel's military claims that it struck a Hamas war room in central Gaza in its effort to root out the terrorists group following the October 7 attack on Israel. The war room, Israel says, was imbedded inside a school in Nuseirat. That's the town. And operated by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, or UNRWA. Israel says it killed more than ten terrorists, though CNN cannot independently confirm Israel's claim. It’s clear the IDF is pounding that area. (…)

NB Blog Feed

ABC's 'Grey's Anatomy' Says Texas Not 'Safe' for Trans Kids

Last night, ABC's Grey's Anatomy described the state of Texas as dangerous for its opposition to trans mutilation of minors. In the episode, "Blood, Sweat and Tears," on Thursday, a "trans" child named "Caroline" flies all the way from Texas to Grey-Sloan Memorial Hospital in Seattle for neurosurgery on a tumor. She and her mother consider Texas too hostile to trust doctors there. Caroline's family knows Dr. Monica Beltran (Natalie Morales), one of Grey-Sloan's doctors, because Beltran previously practiced in Texas. Caroline needs surgery on a neurofibroma, which is "a spontaneous growth in the nerve tissue" that can damage the nerve. The surgery itself does not relate to the child's trans identity, but the mother and child are uncomfortable with Texas doctors operating on her for anything at all. Last year, Texas banned puberty blockers, hormone "therapy" and other medicalized transgender harm against minors. During a conversation between Beltran and her colleague, Dr. Amelia Shepherd (Caterina Scorsone), Beltran describes Texas as a place where transgender children fear for their lives. Shepherd: They came a long way to see you. That must be flattering.  Beltran: It's enraging. Caroline shouldn't have to travel to see a doctor who treats her with respect.  Shepherd: You didn't want to stay in Texas, try to help more kids there?  Beltran: You know, as much as I hate it, I think maybe it is safer for them to come see me here. I mean, it's just gotten so hostile. [ Sighs ] Forget the awkward stares and the micro-aggressions. One family was talking about putting a bulletproof vest on their son, just to come see me, because he's trans.  Shepherd: That is... [ Sighs ]  Beltran: Yeah, there's no words to describe it. In reality, trans-identified radicals have been targeting the lives of those they oppose, with multiple shootings at Christian targets in particular. Hollywood consistently portrays opponents of the radical LGBTQUIA+ agenda as ticking time bombs when the reverse has been shown to be true. Grey's Anatomy has been a far-left show throughout its almost twenty years on the air, fear-mongering about everything from pro-life state laws to climate change. Apparently, there's an audience for such polarizing drama, because the series has had staying power for nearly two decades. Its hostile attitude towards political opponents will likely ramp up even more next season with an upcoming election. Inexplicably, audiences will also probably continue to watch.

NB Blog Feed

ABC Reporter, KJP Team Up to Trash Butker for Pro-Life, Pro-Family Speech

ABC reporter Karen Travers used her round of Q&A during Thursday’s White House press briefing to invite a willing accomplice in Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to join the liberal media mob against Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker for his alleged crime of giving a pro-family, pro-life, pro-parenting commencement address at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. “I want to ask you about the topic that's getting a lot of attention,” Travers began, adding Butker’s “facing criticism for his recent commencement address where he told female graduates that the most important title a woman can hold is homemaker.”     Fact-check: Pants on fire. Butker did not, in fact, say that. Here’s a transcript of his full speech, but here’s a key line: “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” Travers’s softball wasn’t done: “He was critical about surrogacy, IVF, and Pride Month, and he also criticized the President for being a Catholic who supports abortion rights. Has the President seen those comments? Does he have a reaction to that?” Jean-Pierre had the gall to initially bat it down by saying Biden’s “been pretty busy today, so I haven't had a chance to — to focus on this particular issue” and she herself had only seen “some reports on it.” Nonetheless, Jean-Pierre pivoted to implicitly torching Butker and argued Biden won’t “back away from supporting women and reproductive rights, reproductive health care” because “it is important to fight for all of our freedoms”. She obviously had to throw in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and argued pro-lifers support putting women “in a position to not get the health care that they need” and “causing chaos”. Jean-Pierre’s rant dragged on, tying Butker to “extreme Republican” (click “expand”): And then you have extreme Republicans that continue to talk about — to talk about how they want to put national abortion ban. It's causing chaos. It's causing chaos for women. It’s causing chaos for families. When you're saying that a family can't make a decision on IVF, that's not what this President is about. He wants to make sure that women have the right to make these incredibly difficult decisions about their health care, so families could make a decision about how they want to build and — and move forward with building a family.  And so I can't — I can't speak to those direct comments, but what I can speak to is what the President has committed to, and he has shown that over and over again and you have a Vice President that has toured the country talking exactly about that, about how we have to protect our freedoms and freedoms of — of — obviously, reproductive health as — as we're speaking right now. Travers offered a follow-up to further attack Butker and implicitly accuse him of being a partisan tool: “As the President gets ready to give his own commencement address, does he think a message like that is appropriate at a commencement address?” Jean-Pierre stuck to the same pattern with this second answer, first insisting she hadn’t “heard this in context” other than seeing “some reporting” then tearing into Butker without saying his name by arguing Biden — unlike the Chiefs kicker — views “commencement day as such an important moment for not just the students, but for their families, obviously, their loved ones” The press secretary gave a whopper of a garbled mess as she said in part that Biden wants “to talk about the future, to talk about how — how they — how in the world that we are in — that — in the world that we're in now, how do we move forward? And you’re [sic] hear with themes from this President on that particular message, and he understands how critical and important that have those messages — especially a message from the President of the United States, how much it matters.” To see the relevant transcript of the May 16 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] May 16, 2024 2:32 p.m. Eastern KAREN TRAVERS: I want to ask you about the topic that's getting a lot of attention. The Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker is facing criticism for his recent commencement address where he told female graduates that the most important title a woman can hold is homemaker. He was critical about surrogacy, IVF, and Pride Month, and he also criticized the President for being a Catholic who supports abortion rights. Has the President seen those comments? Does he have a reaction to that? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: You know — ah — the President's been pretty busy today, so I haven't had a chance to — to focus on this particular issue. I think I've heard some reports on it. Look, the President is not going to back away from supporting women and reproductive rights, reproductive health care. It is important to do that. It is important to fight for all of our freedoms, and that's what you're seeing the President do. He's not going to back away from that and look, I can't speak to this specific thing because I haven't heard it in — in — in its entirety. But, look, you know, you have a former administration that — uh — that had said — a former President that said, over and over again that they were going to do everything they can to get rid of Roe v. Wade, was successful in doing that, by putting forward judges that made that happen. We saw the Dobbs decision in 2022 and what that caused is chaos. It caused women to — to have to — do — you know — to have — you know, be in a position to not get the health care that they need. I mean, that's — should not be where we are as a country. It should not be. And then you have extreme Republicans that continue to talk about — to talk about how they want to put national abortion ban. It's causing chaos. It's causing chaos for women. It’s causing chaos for families. When you're saying that a family can't make a decision on IVF, that's not what this President is about. He wants to make sure that women have the right to make these incredibly difficult decisions about their health care, so families could make a decision about how they want to build and — and move forward with building a family. And so I can't — I can't speak to those direct comments, but what I can speak to is what the President has committed to, and he has shown that over and over again and you have a Vice President that has toured the country talking exactly about that, about how we have to protect our freedoms and freedoms of — of — obviously, reproductive health as — as we're speaking right now. TRAVERS: I know you said can't speak to the comments. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. TRAVERS: As the President gets ready to give his own commencement address, does he think a message like that is appropriate at a commencement address? JEAN-PIERRE: From — from this particular — TRAVERS: Yes. Mmhmm. JEAN-PIERRE: — look again, I haven't heard — I haven't heard this in context. I — I saw some reporting, so want to be super mindful. Look, the — the President sees commencement day as such an important moment for not just the students, but for their families, obviously, their loved ones to talk about the future, to talk about how — how they — how in the world that we are in — that — in the world that we're in now, how do we move forward? And you’re [sic] hear with themes from this President on that particular message, and he understands how critical and important that have those messages — especially a message from the President of the United States, how much it matters. I don't want to get ahead of the President. He's going to, obviously, layout and speak to his commencement address on his own, but he's done this many times before. He's done — he's done this when — he's — given commencement address as a senator, has done it, obviously as Vice President, and now President, and this is an incredible important, impactful — impactful moment.

NB Blog Feed

Column: Boos and Hisses for the Kansas City Chiefs Kicker

On May 14, Kansas City Chiefs placekicker Harrison Butker gave the commencement address at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas. Within 48 hours, the media elites were ablaze with outrage. There’s a “growing uproar,” warned NBC’s Hoda Kotb. A Catholic speaker talked about Catholic issues to Catholic graduates. But the Butker critics who aren’t Catholics pulled out little snippets they could not abide. First, they hated that Butker paid tribute to his wife Isabelle for making him successful, for assuming “one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.” That is like a curse word to the feminists. They can’t allow the notion that children might benefit from having a parent in the home. He said to the female graduates that “some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” He didn’t say they shouldn’t have careers. He did suggest that many women – especially Catholic women – put motherhood first. Butker also inflamed the Left with a brief allusion to “the deadly-sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it.” None of us should have pride in our sins, but the libertine left is allergic to the entire concept of sorrow for sin. Personally, this was my favorite political passage: “Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally. He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.” Lapsed Catholics and non-Catholics have no grasp of how the Catholic Church defines “scandal.” Catholics like Joe Biden, who aggressively support the exact opposite of church teachings, confuse both religious and non-religious people about what Catholics are called to believe -- like abortion is by its nature a deadly sin. But simplistic reporters don’t want anyone calling Biden a phony, any more than they want you to proclaim he's a divider, not a uniter. Jonathan Beane, the chief “diversity” officer of the NFL, put out a statement that “Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger." It never stops being comical to tout “inclusion” when you’re telling a conservative Catholic to shut up about “Pride Month.” One can never dissent from the “diversity and inclusion” cops, who blatantly imply only the leftist side of the cultural debate defines their most precious words. Bobby Burack at Outkick pointed out that the NFL had no public statement of objection for Butker’s Kansas City teammate Rashee Rice, who was recently arrested on eight felony charges concerning a hit-and-run accident “while drag-racing his Lamborghini at 119 mph on a Dallas highway.” Reckless Rice is also under investigation for allegedly punching a photographer at a nightclub in Dallas, “leaving the accuser with noticeable swelling in his face.” The NFL has no comment.   Butker’s speech predictably prompted a Change.org petition calling for him to be fired by the Chiefs. Once again, it’s the Left that claims conservatives will “end democracy” and crush freedom of speech, while they demonstrate their absolute intolerance of an opposing point of view.  They can't achieve true "progress" until dissenters are heckled and banned.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Equates Illegal Immigration With Historic Civil Rights Struggle

CBS Evening News commemorated the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the historic Supreme Court opinion that reversed Plessy v. Ferguson and ended official segregation, by equating the historic struggles of black Americans to illegal immigration. I couldn’t believe it myself either the first time I watched, but see for yourselves: WATCH: CBS Evening News commemorates the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education by equating illegal immigration with the historic struggle for civil rights pic.twitter.com/4iMgeiFmVP — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 17, 2024 JANET SHAMLIAN: The historic district is transforming once again. This time opening its doors to refugees and migrants. PILAR MEJIA: Just because somebody doesn't speak English doesn't mean they are less valuable to a community. SHAMLIAN: Students from more than 40 countries have enrolled. MEJIA: We have clothing, we have… SHAMLIAN: Director of Cultural Innovation Pilar Mejia welcomes each one.  Without this program, where do you think some of these families would be right now? MEJIA: It would be tragic. They might end up in either not being able to come, um- stay in situations in their countries that are dire. SHAMLIAN: Is there any connection you can draw there between what’s happening now with these kids and the situation at the time? ANDERSON: The connection is they are all looking for a better and brighter future. They’re all hoping for something better for their lives. We’re dealing with families who want more for their children. SHAMLIAN: It’s that better, brighter future that was fought over 70 years ago in the schools of Topeka. Janet Shamlian, CBS News, Topeka, Kansas. The report began innocuously enough, and initially appeared to have been a straight commemoration of Brown v. Board. There was the profile of the district’s first-ever black school superintendent, and a spotlight on some of the reforms she’s instituted in service of the community.  But it is at that point that the report goes off the rails: The hardships resulting from the choice to come into this country outside our lawful immigration system is not even within the same galaxy of comparability as enduring the horrors of slavery and/or the post-Reconstruction regimes endured by descendants of the formerly enslaved. The old Jim Crow regime is, in fact, nothing at all like illegal immigration, no matter how much the left or CBS correspondent Janet Shamlian would like to make it so.  To suggest as much in a news report is a grievous insult, both to history and to human decency. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, May 17th, 2024: MAURICE DUBOIS: President Biden met today with two of the original plaintiffs in the Brown v. Board of Education case, decided 70 years ago tomorrow. It outlawed segregation in schools, an important step in the fight for racial equality. Tonight, Janet Shamlian introduces us to the woman now running the Topeka schools, guided by the legacy of that Supreme Court decision. TIFFANY ANDERSON: I heard you had a birthday. JANET SHAMLIAN: Home delivered birthday gifts and cake aren’t generally part of a school curriculum. ANDERSON: Good morning! SHAMLIAN: But Topeka schools superintendent Tiffany Anderson rarely sticks to a lesson plan when there is a child in need. ANDERSON: If we don't do it, who will? SHAMLIAN: The district at the center of the 1954 Brown v Board of Education ruling outlawing racial segregation in schools… STUDENT: In the past, they had turned to "Separate but equal"... SHAMLIAN: …is now helmed by its first black female superintendent.  70 years later, do you live with the burden of their hope and dreams? ANDERSON: I think 70 years later, I live with the privilege to help their hopes and dreams come to life. I’m standing on their shoulders. SHAMLIAN: High school graduation rates have skyrocketed from near 70% to 91% during her eight year tenure. She's established morale-boosting programs, like graduation ceremonies for students in the nearby state correctional facility. ANDERSON: So have faith that you will make it through and be out of this space. SHAMLIAN: In a district where almost half of students qualify for subsidized lunch, she put washers and dryers in schools, as well as food and clothing pantries. ANDERSON: It's not really hard to get people on board when they know that you care and they know they can be part of something pretty incredible and transformational. SHAMLIAN: Why isn't it happening somewhere else? ANDERSON: Sometimes fear. Fear can make you choose not to accept other people. Fear can shut down systems in a way like nothing else can. SHAMLIAN: The historic district is transforming once again. This time opening its doors to refugees and migrants. PILAR MEJIA: Just because somebody doesn't speak English doesn't mean they are less valuable to a community. SHAMLIAN: Students from more than 40 countries have enrolled. MEJIA: We have clothing, we have… SHAMLIAN: Director of Cultural Innovation Pilar Mejia welcomes each one.  Without this program, where do you think some of these families would be right now? MEJIA: It would be tragic. They might end up in either not being able to come, um- stay in situations in their countries that are dire. SHAMLIAN: Is there any connection you can draw there between what’s happening now with these kids and the situation at the time? ANDERSON: The connection is they are all looking for a better and brighter future. They’re all hoping for something better for their lives. We’re dealing with families who want more for their children. SHAMLIAN: It’s that better, brighter future that was fought over 70 years ago in the schools of Topeka. Janet Shamlian, CBS News, Topeka, Kansas.  

NB Blog Feed

NBC Nightly News MELTS DOWN Over Harrison Butker’s Commencement Speech

In fairness, the entire media are swirling in a meltdown vortex over the commencement address delivered by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker at Benedictine College in Kansas. But NBC Nightly News’ report on the “controversy” was easily the most ridiculous. Watch the report in its entirety, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Thursday, May 16th, 2024 (click “expand”): NBC's dopey report on Harrison Butker's commencement speech pathetically attempts to bait Taylor Swift into reacting to this manufactured "controversy". pic.twitter.com/U31pRgLRZQ — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 17, 2024 LESTER HOLT: We'll turn now to the growing controversy over a graduation speech at Catholic college given by a kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs. Some critics saying it was sexist and homophobic, and calling on the team to cut him loose. Here is Liz Kreutz. LIZ KREUTZ: Tonight, the NFL on defense after growing backlash over that controversial graduation speech given by one of their star players, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker. HARRISON BUTKER: I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. KREUTZ: In this speech at Benedictine College, the 28-year-old Super Bowl champ criticizing LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, IVF and surrogacy, while encouraging the young women graduates to focus on being a homemaker. BUTKER: Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. KREUTZ: Despite a standing ovation from the crowd, many slamming the speech as homophobic and sexist. STUDENT: Getting married and having kids is not my ideal situation right now. It definitely made graduation feel a little less special, knowing I had to sit through that and get told I'm nothing but a homemaker. KREUTZ: The NFL, which is coming off a year of record female viewership amid hype over Taylor Swift's relationship with Butker's teammate, Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, now distancing themselves from Butker. The league saying in a statement, Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL. And more than 140,000 people have now signed a petition calling on the NFL to remove Butker from the Chiefs. So far neither Benedictine College, the Chiefs, or Butker himself have commented. Lester. HOLT: Liz Kreutz. Thank you. Generally speaking, the media’s reaction to Butker’s speech is the verbal and audiovisual equivalent of the “Soyjak Pointing” meme. Case in point, Ali Vitali’s reaction to the address, which sought to gin the Swifties up into a cancellative fury- as did Liz Kreutz’ report. Sure, NFL was stoked about all the new fans Taylor Swift brought to the game. Not sure how they’re gonna feel tho when Swifties start pushing back on some of the men that make up the league. Tip of the iceberg: https://t.co/jQzZFm8nCz — Ali Vitali (@alivitali) May 16, 2024 Coverage of Butker’s address boils down to, literally, Acela Media types getting mad at a Catholic that went to a Catholic school and said Catholic things. And you know that this is so because what galls them the most is the fact that Butker’s speech was well received within Benedectine College, a point also made on ABC World News tonight: STEPHANIE RAMOS: There is a change.org petition demanding the Chiefs release Butker. So far, no comment from the team. And despite the headlines surrounding this speech, Butker did receive a standing ovation, David. The media’s coverage of the speech is, at best, misdirective. I know this to be true because there is no mention of Butker’s criticism of President Joe Biden at the outset of his address: Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the Sign of the Cross during a pro- abortion rally. He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice. The media, ever protective of Biden, dared not address this criticism specifically- instead hiding it within the abortion catch-all. Nor is there mention of Butker’s calls to embrace such things as masculinity and tradition.  One does not have to be an adherent of the Roman Catholic Church to see and understand what so enraged the media about Butker’s address, which is well worth reading in its entirety. The call to embrace faith, tradition (including traditional gender roles), and family over today’s toxic societal mores was enough to drive the left into a frenzy.  Furthermore, Butker proves that if there is indeed such a thing as a culture war, it is the left who are the aggressors seeking to impose their values upon others. An exposed media lashes out. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Thursday, May 16th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn to the controversial graduation speech. Tonight, the Super Bowl champion Chiefs’ kicker Harrison Butker under fire tonight, after what he said about women and their roles, and what he said about the LGBTQ community. And what he suggested to women graduates about their roles moving forward. Here's Stephanie Ramos. STEPHANIE RAMOS: Tonight, the NFL responding to that commencement speech from Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, and his controversial comments about women, abortion, and the LGBTQ community. HARRISON BUTKER: I have gained quite the reputation for speaking my mind. RAMOS: The Super Bowl winner delivering the commencement address Saturday at Benedictine College, a conservative Catholic liberal arts school in Kansas. Butker addressing the female graduates, saying that while they may go on to have successful careers, he guesses the majority are most excited to be wives. Mothers. BUTKER: I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now, about to cross this stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. RAMOS: Conservative sports commentator Clay Travis coming to his defense. CLAY TRAVIS:  I saw people saying, "You got to cut him, how dare he say --" I didn't even see him say anything remotely controversial. RAMOS: Butker then referring to Pride month as a deadly sin. BUTKER:  …not the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it, but the true, God-centered pride that is cooperating with the Holy Ghost to glorify Him. RAMOS: The advocacy group GLAAD outraged. SARAH KATE ELLIS: I couldn’t believe it was such an outdated, antiquated view on LGBTQ people and women- and using religion, in a way… RAMOS: The NFL stating, "Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger." There is a change.org petition demanding the Chiefs release Butker. So far, no comment from the team. And despite the headlines surrounding this speech, Butker did receive a standing ovation, David. MUIR: Stephanie Ramos on this tonight. Stephanie, thank you.  

NB Blog Feed

Biden Buddy Scarborough Brags: Campaign 'Supremely Confident, Holding Four Aces'

On Thursday's Morning Joe, not content to boast about his insider status with the Biden campaign, Joe Scarborough disparaged his panelists for their inferior sources. Said Scarborough: "Just for people at home, it's important for them to kind of see what's behind the scenes. I have, for six months, since people have been freaking out about Biden's team. I'm telling you, every time I go in and talk to anybody that's running the campaign, the big part of the campaign. I don't know what they're telling you and what they're telling other people. They're like, they act like people that are holding four aces.  . . . They're supremely confident." Yes, Scarborough doesn't know what his colleagues are being told by the envelope lickers in the Biden campaign, but when Joe "goes in," he talks to the people running "the big part of the campaign." Impressive! In addition to letting us know that the Biden people are "supremely confident," and act like they're holding "four aces," Scarborough confided that the top campaign people "know something that I think a lot of us don't know." Joe Scarborough plays the super insider. Don't worry about Trump, folks, Team Biden is "supremely confident!" pic.twitter.com/JAokVcBmYg — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 17, 2024 This sounds a lot like Scarborough trying to buck up the morale of Biden voters -- and donors -- in light of the recent New York Times/Siena poll showing Biden losing in five out of six swing states.  Yesterday, we noted Scarborough's frantic effort to tear down that poll, going so far as to claim that the Times intentionally rigged it against Biden in order to be able to write multiple clickbait stories on the results. Bonus Coverage: Morning Joe Airs Jimmy Fallon Imagining Trump Having To Get Parole Officer's Permission For Debate As is its wont, Morning Joe opened today's show with a clip from one of the liberal late-night hosts. In this case, it was Jimmy Fallon, imagining Trump accepting Biden's offer to debate "assuming it's okay with my parole officer."  That won raucous laughter from Fallon's audience, and presumably as well from most Morning Joe viewers.  But it amounts to an admission that the multiple trials entangling Trump, led by Democrat prosecutors, do indeed make campaigning difficult for him. Fallon might find that hilarious. But it could well elicit sympathy for Trump from many voters. We'll see who has the last laugh, Jimmy. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/15/24 6:09 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's a dead heat now. Again, my reaction's not so much to the Times. And I'm dead serious here. It's to people who freak out disproportionately on the Times, and then the Times doing 15 stories on their poll. Fox will not do 15 stories on their Fox poll [which shows Trump leading Biden by one point.] Morning Consult won't. But it's become this cottage industry for people on the other side of the Chinese wall that Mara is not on. So she had nothing to do with this. Please, do not direct any comments or tweets to her. Just for people at home, and I, I, it's important for them to kind of see what's behind the scenes. I have, for six months, since people have been freaking out about Biden's team. I'm telling you, every time I go in and talk to anybody that's running the campaign, the big part of the campaign. I don't know what they're telling you and what they're telling other people. They're like, they act like people that are holding four aces.  [Imagining conversation between himself and confident Biden aides] Well what about this? Yeah, it's pretty bad. What about this? Yeah, yeah, well, that looks really tough. Yeah, boy, Trump. They really -- MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Is this a criticism or -- SCARBOROUGH: No! I'm telling you, they know something that I think a lot of us don't know. And they look at numbers and they see where things are going. They've had a theory of the case, that when people realize Donald Trump is going to be getting into the race, things are going to start gelling better for him.  They understand that you win politics by raising money and organizing on the ground. They understand Donald Trump's numbers are way down in every way in fundraising. And they'll [the Trump campaign] say, oh, we're gonna -- No they're not. They're not gonna -- they're never going to catch Joe Biden.  And as far as organization goes, we all know, anybody who's been involved in a political campaign, if you're tearing up, like, stakes in April and May, you're not gonna put them back down in July and August. Donald Trump is going to be pounded on the ground. The blocking and the tackling, the Biden people feel great about. And they have about a thousand clips of Donald Trump that, every day, they're like, which one are we going to use today? Boop. And it just makes him look horrible. JONATHAN LEMIRE: The Biden campaign -- SCARBOROUGH: They're supremely confident. LEMIRE: Yes. They are cognizant -- MIKA: Makes me nervous. LEMIRE: That it will be very close. They're confident, but they know it's gonna be tight.

NB Blog Feed

ABC, NBC RAGE at Butker’s ‘Controversial’ Speech, Cheer ‘Growing’ ‘Backlash’

On Thursday, ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today seethed with disgust at Christians and anyone who values being a parent over their careers (or any other accomplishment or trait) in light of the Benedictine College commencement address by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, which they deemed “controversial” and worthy of “backlash” and “growing outrage” for going “too far” by stressing the inherent importance of parenting. “Commencement controversy. Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker under fire for his message to women during a graduation speech...Inside the growing uproar he sparked,” scoffed Today co-host Hoda Kotb in a tease in between a clip of Butker saying he’d “guess...the majority of” female graduates before him are “most excited about” marriage and parenting than “successful careers” they might lead.     Kotb — who’s had a long, public journey to parenthood and adoption — apparently was incensed by Butker’s remarks. In a second tease, co-host (and best-selling Christian author) Savannah Guthrie boasted of “growing outrage” against Butker for the “controversial graduation speech” and correspondent Kaylee Hartung whined the kicker’s “remarks have stunned many”. Early in her full report on the faux controversy, Hartung bragged that “many” saw his support for Catholicism and strong families as having gone “too far”. Check out how Hartung was enraged by the notion that someone would argue being a parent is a high calling (click “expand”): HARTUNG: In a controversial commencement speech at Benedictine College over the weekend, three-time Super Bowl champion Harrison Butker railing against everything from President Biden to Pride Month to IVF and speaking directly to the women in the audience. BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring. HARTUNG: Invoking his own family — BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: My beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as mother. [SCREEN WIPE] That all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school — [CRIES] would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all, homemaker. HARTUNG: — Butker also criticizing gay rights when telling the students to take pride in their school — BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Not the deadly sin sort of pride that has the entire month dedicated to it. HARTUNG: — and had a message for the men. BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Be unapologetic in your masculinity, fighting against the cultural emasculation of men HARTUNG: The NFL responding saying “Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity” and “his views are not those of the league”. Hartung snidely added that “[w]hile outrage builds online...some pointing out the Georgia native’s own mother is a physicist in the Department of Oncology at Emory.” Of course, Butker said nothing of the sort about women being barred/discouraged from the workforce. Follow this link to read his full speech. After melting down about Butker throwing in a Taylor Swift reference, she attempted to claim “some students” were “left hurt by the experience” based on a single TikTok video and lamented “Butker hasn’t responded to the firestorm” he “ignited.” Hartung even seemed to voice support for this mob rule by gushing “the court of public opinion is in session.” Co-host Craig Melvin reacted to this by kissing up to longtime liberal NBC journalist Maria Shriver: “I would encourage folks to check out the Maria Shriver rebuttal posted online.” Kotb concurred: “[T]hat may be the — the best takedown if you’re looking for that.” Irony alert: Melvin released a children’s book two weeks ago that focused on — yes — the joy of having children. ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts made her intentions clear in a tease: “Kansas City chiefs kicker facing backlash for his commencement speech remarks on gay rights, abortion and women’s role in society.” With the chyrons “Chiefs Kicker Under Fire for Commencement Speech” and “Faces Backlash for Comments on Abortion, Gay Rights & Women”, correspondent Stephanie Ramos kvetched that he made “headlines for remarks off the field” and “sound[ed] off about working women” and “referr[ed] to Pride Month, which celebrates the LGBTQ community, as a deadly sin.”     Ramos even brought in Kate Ellis, the CEO and president of GLAAD — the far-left organization that believes biological men can be women if they feel like it — to denounce Butker for voicing “such an outdated antiquated view on LGBTQ women and women and using religion in a way.” Ramos also pointed to the supposed outrage from Taylor Swift fans, but had the decency to concede Butker “did receive a standing ovation from the graduates — from many graduates and some attendees there.” The almost always self-centered Roberts then had the gall to complain “usually, the commencement address is about the graduates, not about your personal views”.  That’s interesting since Roberts talked about herself in 2015 when giving the Emerson College commencement address. Or that, later in the show, the team approved of Jennifer Coolidge talking about her career journey at the Washington State University commencement. Since the joy and significance of parenthood should be at least downgraded behind, say, one’s career, then why did they have subsequent segments about Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner co-parenting despite no longer being together, Olivia Munn discussing freezing her eggs before a hysterectomy in the face of a breast cancer diagnosis, and gushing over David Beckham talking about how much his wife and children mean to him? To see the relevant transcripts from May 16, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

The Worst of Tapper and Bash: CNN Debate Moderators Lurch Left

[LANGUAGE WARNING] On Wednesday it was announced that CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will moderate the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden on June 27.   Based on their reporting and analysis over the years at CNN, Republican supporters of Trump should expect Tapper and Bash to question not just his policy positions, but his judgment and even behavior.  Both had harsh reviews for Trump’s performance after the first presidential debate in 2020.  Tapper blasted Trump: “That was a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck….worst debate I have ever seen….it’s primarily because of President Trump.” Bash agreed: “You just took the words out of my mouth. You used some high-minded language. I’m just going to say it like it is: that was a shitshow!” On Election Night 2020, Tapper provided a nasty epitaph to Trump’s presidency: “For tens of millions of our fellow Americans, their long national nightmare is over.” On the other hand, both have profusely praised Biden.  After Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address, Tapper prompted his colleague: “Dana Bash, what did you think? You’ve been to a lot of State of the Union addresses. Do you think that President Biden met the moment?” Bash giddily affirmed: “He certainly met the moment….[Democrats] wanted him to be a fighter and….did he deliver.” Bash can’t believe Biden isn’t trouncing Trump, even bringing Rep. Nancy Pelosi on her show to incredulously ask: “Inflation, it looks good when you look at the numbers….Wages are up….There’s a lot for President Biden to tout. So the question is about why Americans don’t seem to be giving him the credit?” Here’s a brief montage by NewsBusters Media Editor Bill D’Agostino of Tapper and Bash at their worst:      The following is a small sampling of the most liberal moments of Tapper and Bash’s time at CNN, via the MRC archives:  DANA BASH   “Dumpster Fire” “Shitshow” Debate Was Trump’s Fault     CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper: “That was a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck. That was the worst debate I have ever seen. In fact, it wasn’t even a debate. It was a disgrace. And it’s primarily because of President Trump, who spent the entire time interrupting not abiding by the rules he agreed to, lying, maliciously attacking the son of the Vice President.”…Correspondent Dana Bash: “You just took the words out of my mouth. You used some high-minded language. I’m just going to say it like it is: that was a shitshow!”...Tapper: “The President does not think he’s going to win this election. And he wants to bring the rest of us down with him.”— CNN’s Debate Night in America, September 29, 2020.   Biden “Met the Moment”     CNN anchor Jake Tapper: “Dana Bash, what did you think? You’ve been to a lot of State of the Union addresses. Do you think that President Biden met the moment?”CNN anchor Dana Bash: “He certainly met the moment that his members of his party, those who are really upset and worried about this coming election year and frankly, what would happen if he didn’t win another time because of their concerns about who’s on the other side of the ticket. They wanted him to be a fighter and — boy — fight, did he deliver.”— CNN’s live coverage of the State of the Union address, March 7, 2024.   Blaming Trump Rhetoric for New Zealand Shooting     “The question is can he [President Trump] and will he do more to bring together – try to bring together people. That’s the opposite of what we saw in Charlottesville and it is the opposite of what we see when the political calendar gets close to election day. When he knows what riles up his base and the problem is riling up the base using terms like ‘invaders’ in ads that he tweets out also reaches people who are nut jobs.”— Chief political correspondent Dana Bash discussing New Zealand shooting as aired on CNN New Day, March 15, 2019.   Taken Aback by Trump’s “Flip Comment” at Debate “Not to sound too corny, but what makes this country different from countries with dictators in Africa or Stalin or Hitler or any of those countries with dictators and totalitarian leaders, is that when they took over, they put their opponents in jail. To hear one presidential candidate, say — even if it was a flip comment, which it was — ‘you’re going to be in jail’ to another presidential candidate on the debate stage in the United States of America, stunning, just stunning.”— Correspondent Dana Bash during post-presidential debate coverage on CNN, October 9, 2016.   Should Trump Receive Intelligence Briefings?  “I want to ask about the idea that Donald Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee for president. U.S. intelligence agencies are reportedly preparing to share classified briefings with him. You’re, of course, a former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Speaker of the House. Should Donald Trump receive intelligence briefings?”— Host Dana Bash to Rep. Nancy Pelosi on CNN’s State of the Union, March 17, 2024.   Inflation “Looks Good,” Why Isn’t the Public Giving Biden Credit?      “I want to ask about the economy. Inflation, it looks good when you look at the numbers. Inflation is down to just 3 percent. The labor market is steadily adding jobs. Wages are up. Consumer sentiment is the highest since September of 2021. So there’s, a lot for President Biden to tout. So the question is about why Americans don’t seem to be giving him the credit. A Quinnipiac poll this week found nearly six in 10 Americans still disapprove of his handling of the economy. Why is that? And what does he have to do to turn that around?”— Host Dana Bash to Rep. Nancy Pelosi on CNN’s State of the Union, July 23, 2023.    Trying to Provoke a GOP Food Fight: Did Trump “Go Too Far?” “Governor Bush, Mr. Trump has suggested that your views on immigration are influenced by your Mexican born wife. He said that, quote, ‘If my wife were from Mexico, I think I would have a soft spot for people from Mexico.’ Did Mr. Trump go too far in invoking your wife?”— CNN debate moderator Dana Bash to Gov. Jeb Bush at GOP Primary Debate, September 16, 2015   Bash to Ramaswamy: How Dare You Point Out Democratic Racism?     “You took issue with comments from Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. She reportedly said, quote, ‘We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice.’ About that, you said, ‘These are the words of the modern grand wizards of the modern KKK.’ You know, I’m sure, the KKK was responsible for more than a century’s worth of horrific lynchings, rapes, murders of black people. How in any way are the views you’re talking about comparable to the views and atrocities committed by the KKK?”— Host Dana Bash to GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy on CNN’s State of the Union, September 10, 2023.   Praising “Badass” Pelosi “In many ways, Nancy Pelosi is the original Badass Woman of Washington.” — November 13, 2018 tweet (from CNN’s official Twitter account) promoting correspondent Dana Bash interview with Rep. Nancy Pelosi.   Adoring AOC     “Being Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez means being a celebrity and looking like one, red lips and all. She was featured on the cover of Vanity Fair in 2020 and even shot this tutorial for Vogue on her beauty routine....You sometimes take heat for your celebrity status, for being glamorous....You embrace the power?...How do you use that power, the power of femininity, as you describe it?”— Host Dana Bash on CNN’s Being...AOC, August 9, 2021.   JAKE TAPPER   Trump Era of  “Cruelty” and “Meanness” Is “Coming to an End”      “It has also been a time of extreme divisions. Many of the divisions caused and exacerbated by President Trump himself....It has been a time where truth and fact were treated with disdain. It is a time of cruelty where official inhumanities such as child separation became the official shameful policy of the United States. But now the Trump presidency is coming to an end, to an end, with so many squandered opportunities and ruined potential, but also an era of just plain meanness. It must be said to paraphrase President Ford, for tens of millions of our fellow Americans, their long national nightmare is over.”— Host Jake Tapper on CNN election coverage, November 7, 2020.   When Did Airing “Untrue Things” Stop CNN Before? “We’re not carrying his [Donald Trump] remarks live because frankly he says a lot of things that are not true and sometimes potentially dangerous.”— Host Jake Tapper on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, June 13, 2023.   Boffo Review for Biden Convention Speech     “I’ve heard Joe Biden give, I don’t know, dozens, hundreds of speeches over the years. I have to say this was one of the best, if not the best performance I’ve ever seen.”— Host Jake Tapper on CNN’s live coverage of the Democratic National Convention, August 20, 2020.   Hailing a Republican (Jeff Flake) For Standing Up to Trump “You know Joe McCarthy started in the late forties his crusade of indecency and smears and lies. And you know President Trump and Joe McCarthy are very different historical figures, but there is something similar....People are gonna look back at this era and say what were you doing with all – it’s not McCarthyism but it’s something else – all this indecency and all these lies, what did you do during that time?” — CNN host Jake Tapper discussing former Sen. Jeff Flake’s denunciations of Trump as aired on CBS’s Late Show with Stephen Colbert, October 24, 2017.   Tapper Questions Disabled Vet’s “Commitment” After No Impeachment Vote     “Congressman Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida, who lost his legs, by the way, fighting for democracy abroad, although I don’t know what his — I don’t know about his commitment to it here in the United States.”— CNN anchor Jake Tapper during live impeachment coverage, January 13, 2021.

NB Blog Feed

Historic German Church Hosts Worship Service Ft. Taylor Swift Songs

That’s certainly an interesting way to get young people to church. The Church of the Holy Spirit in Heidelberg, Germany, put on a service titled “Anti-Hero — Taylor Swift Church Service,” over the weekend in an attempt to get young people into church. According to Deutsche Welle, the pop singer tie-in resulted in bringing more than 1,200 people on Sunday to listen to Taylor Swift’s music. The 600-year-old church, which is now a Protestant church, set up the event to “attract younger people, as well as to focus on the profound religious convictions expressed in many of Swift’s songs.” Pastor Christof Ellsiepen said the following about his intentions with helping set up the service: “The Church of the Holy Spirit has always been a place of encounter and exchange. That's why a pop-music religious service fits so perfectly. With it, we are giving space to the questions and issues that occupy the younger generation." The German congregation insisted that there were Christian themes in Swift’s music.  Parish Pastor Vincenzo Petracca noted that for Taylor Swift, her “faith and action are inseparable” and said that “theologically speaking, she points to the justness of God.” The church, which held two of these stupid services, also left out a gay sign on stage behind its musicians noting that “all sizes, all [colors], all cultures, all sexes, all beliefs, all religions, all ages, all types, all people” were welcome at the congregation. Naturally though, the services were mostly filled up with young females who likely came to the service for the T-Swift sing-a-long rather than to develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Among the six total Swift songs performed by Tine Weichmann, a singer from the area, was the song, “Soon You’ll Get Better,” written for Swift's mother who was battling cancer. In it, Swift notes “each night I pray to you / Desperate people find faith, so now I pray to Jesus, too.” Related: WATCH: Taylor Swift, Social Media Slaves & Entitled Invaders Pastor Petracca noted that during that song, many in the congregation teared up.  Yet, even in that line, Swift is implying that she only prayed to save her mom as if to say “desperate times call for desperate measures,” and that she doesn’t regularly pray like actual Christians do. Of course, the performers also sang “Shake It Off,” which allegedly “brought the entire congregation to their feet, singing and dancing before breaking into furious applause.” But remember, they weren't jumping with joy for the son of God but for Taylor Swift's song. In another one of her songs, “Bigger Than the Whole Sky,” which many speculate is about a miscarriage, Swift sings the line, “Did some force take you because I didn't pray?” Where, if speculations are true, she’s insisting that some sort of higher being - God - took her baby away because she wasn’t praying. While Taylor Swift may use lines that point out God or some sort of religious practice, they’re not worship songs and by no means a role model of accurate theology. But, leave it to progressive “Christianity” to take Taylor Swift who arguably doesn’t practice religion that closely or at all, and use her as a role model for a religious leader for young girls. Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV’s Eric Scheiner joins @AlisonOAN to talk about what the leftist media really means when they talk about “democracy.” pic.twitter.com/zZe9fUkCZo — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 15, 2024

NB Blog Feed

Haines Smears Butker: Claims He's in an 'Extremist' 'Cult-Like' Religion

ABC’s The View was pulsing with anti-Catholic bigotry during Thursday’s show, as pretend-moderate co-host Sara Haines lashed out and smeared Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker and his Catholic faith as “extremists” and “cult-like.” His crime? Giving a commencement address at Catholic, Benedictine College where he talked about – among other things – how some women find fulfillment in being homemakers. In addition, “comedian” Joy Behar claimed he had “big mother issues.” Haines’s bitter anti-Catholic hatred gushed like a firehose. She claimed that Butker was a member of “a very extreme religion” because he attended “the traditional Latin mass,” which she treated like a separate sect of Catholicism. Without evidence, she claimed he was practicing something “cult-like and extremist like some religions in the Middle East and Asia.” She then proceeded to lecture Butker about how he doesn’t “walk with Jesus” and oppressed people: So, what I can say to him, as a Christian, is if you're using this to oppress people or hold them down you're not walking with Jesus. If you are using the religion, if you're more obsessed with the religious rituals and practices than you are with the word of Jesus, you're not walking with Jesus. And if you’re using it for the judgment of others and as a weapon to beat people down you're also not walking with Jesus. “So, I would really encourage him, really encourage him to find the best parts of faith and not diverge into extremist beliefs,” she chided.     Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin got in on the Butker bashing (likely because he also made a joke about her idol Taylor Swift, referring to her as ‘my teammate’s girlfriend’). She chastised him for daring to talk about politics in his commencement address, as many speakers do. She decried how he called out President Biden, but then she turned around and whined that he didn’t say anything against former President Trump: ...he steps further by wading into the political. He took a swipe at Joe Biden, he brought up DEI, which has nothing to do with anything I’ve ever read in scripture, and then he leaned really heavily into talking about, like, the ideal man and being a godly man, an example; missed the opportunity to talk about the man who might be the leader of the free world, Donald Trump, and his many shortcomings. Behar chimed in to diagnose Butker with Freudian “mother issues.” Without evidence, she claimed he was big “angry” because his “super-duper,” “very accomplished physicist” mom was “probably” not home “because she was busy with her career.” Also, without evidence, she claimed he had “nothing but disdain” for Swift because he told the joke. “So get a therapist!” she shouted. Their cognitive dissonance was deafening. Later in the show, they brought on actor Nick Offerman and his female farmer friend. They praised how she went from working in the world of fine art to being a farmer and… a homemaker. “Her masterpieces are on the dinner table or in their kids' values rather than on a canvas," Offerman touted, after mocking Butker earlier in the interview.   Cognitive dissonance: After denouncing Butker for promoting women being homemakers, The View promotes a woman who studied fine art then became a farmer after she became a mom with four kids. "Her masterpieces are on the dinner table or in their kids' values," Nick Offerman adds. pic.twitter.com/aGL1bQrx5D — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 16, 2024   Shockingly, the only person making a lick of sense on the entire set was moderator Whoopi Goldberg. She pointed out the obvious that Butker was “at a Catholic College. He’s a staunch Catholic. These are his beliefs and he's welcome to them.” Goldberg compared Butker with the saga of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. “The same way we want respect when Colin Kaepernick takes a knee, we want to give respect to people whose ideas are different from ours,” she argued. “So, I'm okay with him saying whatever he says and the women who were sitting there, if they take his advice, good for them, they'll be happy. If they don't, good for them, they'll be happy a different way. That's my attitude,” she declared. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 16, 2024 11:04:58 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, the NFL released a statement that he gave this speech in his personal capacity and they do not -- the NFL does not share his views. So, you know, listen, I like when people say what they need to say. He’s at a Catholic College. He’s a staunch Catholic. These are his beliefs and he's welcome to them. I don't have to believe them. I don't have to accept them. The ladies that were sitting in that audience do not have to accept them. The same way we want respect when Colin Kaepernick takes a knee, we want to give respect to people whose ideas are different from ours, because the man who says he wants to be president, you-know-who. He says the way to act is take away people's right to say how they feel. We don't want to be that. We don't want to be those people. So, I'm okay with him saying whatever he says and the women who were sitting there, if they take his advice, good for them, they'll be happy. If they don't, good for them, they'll be happy a different way. That's my attitude. [Applause] SARA HAINES: I agree with you and I disagree with you. GOLDBERG: That's okay. HAINES: So, I agree with you that – in the spirit of freedom speech, I don't want people shut down or fired for things they’re willing to say. I will break with you on the comparison to Colin Kaepernick, for this reason: Colin Kaepernick was standing up for the rights of many and saying in a social justice moment, this is a reminder that we're not there yet. What this man is doing is not just a devout Catholic, this is someone who’s practicing something called the traditional Latin mass, which is divergent to the majority of Catholics. It’s compared to being cult-like and extremist like some religions in the Middle East and Asia. So, this is a very extreme religion. And what bothers me about that, as a Christian, is that when people abuse Christianity, they often not only cherry-pick from the Bible, they misinterpret and lie by omission, by taking out parts that would have explained something a little better. So, what I can say to him, as a Christian, is if you're using this to oppress people or hold them down you're not walking with Jesus. If you are using the religion, if you're more obsessed with the religious rituals and practices than you are with the word of Jesus, you're not walking with Jesus. And if you’re using it for the judgment of others and as a weapon to beat people down you're also not walking with Jesus. So, I would really encourage him, really encourage him to find the best parts of faith and not diverge into extremist beliefs. [Applause] GOLDBERG: But if this is -- if this is his belief system, there are many Catholics who are staunch this way. HAINES: A small, small percentage go to the Latin mass. GOLDBERG: I’m just telling you there are many people who believe this way and I'm simply saying rather than write a petition to get him fired because this is – HAINES: Don't get him fired. GOLDBERG: That's what I'm talking about. HAINES: The Pope discourages it. Just so you know, In the Catholic Church the Pope diverges from this belief. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Just one thing, if I may. I don’t know if you guys now this, I went to a very religious college [Patrick Henry College] and a lot of what he was talking about here was largely Christian Catholic orthodoxy, but he steps further by wading into the political. He took a swipe at Joe Biden, he brought up DEI, which has nothing to do with anything I’ve ever read in scripture, and then he leaned really heavily into talking about, like, the ideal man and being a godly man, an example; missed the opportunity to talk about the man who might be the leader of the free world, Donald Trump, and his many shortcomings. (…) 11:11:14 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: I was going to say something completely out of the field. I don't think that this is a political issue. I think he has mother issues. [Laughter] HAINES: He may! SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes! Yes! He Does! BEHAR: Wait. His mother is a very accomplished physicist. HAINES: Went to Smith College. BEHAR: I mean super-duper accomplished woman. His mother, now he probably was left alone because she was busy with her career. He's angry. HOSTIN: Do the therapy. Do the therapy. BEHAR: This is my armchair therapist. I agree. I'm not a professional therapist but I play one on TV. And I think that's the real issue. He has big mother issues. He refers to Taylor Swift as that so-and-so. What did he say? FARAH GRIFFIN: His teammate's girlfriend. BEHAR: Another hugely accomplished woman he has nothing by disdain for, because of mommy! So get a therapist! (…)

NB Blog Feed

Brian Stelter: So SAD the Trump Trial Shows the GOP Is a Cult That Repeats Fox Talking Points

As part of MSNBC’s never-ending Trump trial coverage, former CNN host Brian Stelter arrived on The Beat with Ari Melber on Tuesday to mock all the politicians and Fox News hosts showing up at the courtroom. Brian tweeted out his proudest soundbite. I'm just trying to imagine if any Democratic lawmakers are going to show up at the trial of Senator Bob Menendez – or the trial of Joe Biden's son Hunter. pic.twitter.com/zGjqRajjDv — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 16, 2024 STELTER: I’m just trying to imagine if any Democrats are going to show up at the trial of Bob Menendez, the senator, or or the trial of Joe Biden's son Hunter -- both of which are gonna happen in the next few weeks! And we’re not gonna see any of this, and that tells you everything you need to know about the differences between these two parties in 2024. To which there is an obvious rejoinder: We’re just trying to imagine if any Democrat-servant networks are going to show up at the trials of Senator Menendez or Hunter Biden. No one expects they will be doing gavel-to-gavel coverage for those trials, and that tells you everything you need to know about the Democrat-servant networks.  Stelter is trying to argue that Trump has a "cult" of celebrity, but it's also true that the leftist media's obsessive coverage makes it a more high-profile event for Trump supporters to show up and be seen. No Democrats will want to add any sliver of news-worthiness to the Democrat trials.  Trump has tried to turn these partisan prosecutions around, as he did with endless scandal probes while he was president. He doesn't have the luxury of a broad media establishment that will bury embarrassing stories.  Stelter can’t wait for Showtime or HBO to do a Trump-trial movie: “I can't wait to see the actual real-life movie that's going to be made of this trial. Because today was the stuff of actual drama! And people should see it. It's a shame we don't have cameras!” Once again, Showtime and the rest aren’t making a Biden docudrama. He continued: STELTER: But I do think the Republicans suddenly belatedly showing up to support Trump is in some ways the most interesting thing that happened today. Where were they for the last three weeks? Where were Trump’s friends? People are focused on why isn't his family coming? None of his friends showed up until this week. Now all of a sudden, they're all popping up, whether it's for the veepstakes or because he's pressuring them to be there. But it is so revealing and so sad about the state of the Republican party that they're all belatedly showing up. Did you see what Lisa Murkowski said today? One of these establishment Republican senators? She was asked why aren't you going to New York City to be at the trial. She said, don't we have something better to do around here than to watch stupid boring trials? And the reality is, Ari, no. The GOP lawmakers have nothing better to do, right? Than to sit around, and take their talking points from Fox. Stelter added that "far right" networks like Fox News tried to ignore the trial, but the "big story" coverage of networks like MSNBC have forced them to acknowledge this is big. Once again, just like with the Pelosi-Picked Panel on January 6, Fox is going to carry some of the same "big stories" as the leftist press with a different spin. It's a little harder to skip stories that 37 national media outlets are obsessing over. PS:  MSNBC's Ari Melber really HATES anyone (accurately) saying the judge's daughter Loren Merchan is a Democrat fundraiser. He thinks Trump is Geppetto and all his GOP minions are Pinocchios. He wants the Gag Rule to extend to all Republicans for their "scurrilous" attacks on Loren. pic.twitter.com/kockYAYL30 — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 16, 2024

NB Blog Feed

Ruhle Shames Romney For Citing The Border as an Area Where Biden Has Failed

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle once again assumed the role of President Biden’s top defender on Wednesday’s edition of The 11th Hour as she interviewed Utah Sen. Mitt Romney. The former GOP nominee did not exactly prove to be a hostile interview, but Ruhle still didn’t appreciate him condemning Biden’s record on the border or refusal to affirm that Biden is simply the greatest. Ruhle wondered, “President Biden ran as a bipartisan president. He’s worked with you on a number of things and gotten a lot done. The infrastructure law, the CHIPS Act, lowered healthcare costs, the list goes on, but the country remains polarized and getting more divided. If he would have a second term, do you think there is something he could do to actually bring people back together? Because he's got a lot of policies under his belt that he has done for the country, and work with you.”     Romney could’ve pointed out that this supposedly great unifier once told a black audience that he was going to put them back in chains, but he didn’t. Instead, he simply declared that there is more to unifying people than giving speeches, leading Ruhle to complain, “But President Biden isn't just giving a good speech, infrastructure law is now the law. The CHIPS Act is bringing jobs back, is bringing manufacturing back. Those aren't speeches, those are policies.” Romney replied by citing two big areas where Biden has failed, “Number one, the fact that things cost more than they did before. Inflation is still there. People somehow think the prices are going to go down. No, when you beat inflation, prices don’t go down, that would be deflation, they just stabilize, and they’re getting stabilized, but the fact that people are paying more is a real concern to them.” The second is “the border. Look, people have been screaming about the border for all three-and-a-half years Joe Biden has been president and he has not done anything to solve the problem at the border. That’s a huge issue for President Trump. I can't understand why President Biden didn't tackle this from the very beginning.” That didn’t sit well with Ruhle, “What has Congress done? Because it's Congress who sets the laws.” Romney recalled, “Well, the Republicans have put forward our plan. The House put out a border plan, and that’s what Congress did. The president said no, that wasn't acceptable. Then they began working on a bipartisan basis. But you know what? This was not a problem when President Trump was president. The reality is—” Ruhle interrupted to try to argue that Trump is actually the reason the border is such a mess, “The border has been a problem for years, sir, and a plan was just put together and it was Donald Trump, who is not currently in office, who blocked it.” While not countering Ruhle’s assessment that Trump blocked the bipartisan bill a few months ago, Romney reiterated that the border is still worse under Biden than it was under Trump, “Yeah, he blocked the plan, in part, I'm sure, because he wants to keep this issue hot and alive for his election, but don't forget, when he was president, he did a lot of things that sounded really ugly, but we didn't have anywhere near the number of people that have come into the country illegally as we have under President Biden and that is something he should have done everything in his power.” For Stephanie Ruhle, nothing is Joe Biden's fault, it's either Republicans or some foreign power that wants to elect Republicans that are to blame for the country's woes. Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 5/15/2024 11:18 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: President Biden ran as a bipartisan president. He’s worked with you on a number of things and gotten a lot done. The infrastructure law, the CHIPS Act, lowered healthcare costs, the list goes on, but the country remains polarized and getting more divided. If he would have a second term, do you think there is something he could do to actually bring people back together? Because he's got a lot of policies under his belt that he has done for the country, and work with you. MITT ROMNEY: Yeah, the way to bring people together is not just to give a good speech, nice as that is. The way to get people together is to tell the truth. To let them know what the real challenges are that you're concerned about, and how you are going to honestly deal with them. RUHLE: But President Biden isn't just giving a good speech, infrastructure law is now the law. The CHIPS Act is bringing jobs back, is bringing manufacturing back. Those aren't speeches, those are policies. ROMNEY: No, there’s no question that President Biden accomplished a number of things, but don't forget, in politics very few people care about what you’ve done, they care about what you're going to do, alright? And right now there are a couple of things that are very much on people's mind. Number one, the fact that things cost more than they did before. Inflation is still there. People somehow think the prices are going to go down.  RUHLE: That’s deflation. ROMNEY: No, when you beat inflation, prices don’t go down, that would be deflation, they just stabilize and they’re getting stabilized, but the fact that people are paying more is a real concern to them and number two, the border.  Look, people have been screaming about the border for all three-and-a-half years Joe Biden has been president and he has not done anything to solve the problem at the border. That’s a huge issue for President Trump. I can't understand why President Biden didn't tackle this from the very beginning. RUHLE: What has Congress done? Because it's Congress who sets the laws. ROMNEY: Well, the Republicans have put forward our plan. The House put out a border plan, and that’s what Congress did. The president said no, that wasn't acceptable. Then they began working on a bipartisan basis. But you know what? This was not a problem when President Trump was president. The reality is— RUHLE: The border has been a problem for years, sir, and a plan was just put together and it was Donald Trump, who is not currently in office, who blocked it. ROMNEY: Yeah, he blocked the plan, in part, I'm sure, because he wants to keep this issue hot and alive for his election, but don't forget, when he was president, he did a lot of things that sounded really ugly, but we didn't have anywhere near the number of people that have come into the country illegally as we have under President Biden and that is something he should have done everything in his power. Frankly, take some actions that maybe the courts would have stopped. They had a better argument saying hey, “Congress needed to act.” But he never did that. And as a result the American people are saying hey, I want something else.

NB Blog Feed

NBC Nightly News Cheers for Dems Filibustering for Missouri Abortion ‘Rights’

NBC Nightly News ran a segment celebrating the Missouri Democrats who held a more than 50 hour marathon filibuster trying to block a bill that would restrict abortion. The outlet praised the “supporters of abortion rights” who wanted to “protect” a woman’s “right” to kill her kid. Presently in Missouri, Republicans are trying to pass a bill that would make it more challenging to amend the Missouri constitution. Democrats are fighting for the option to amend the state constitution, in order to eventually include abortion until fetal viability. NBC loved this idea.   “Tonight, Democrats are fighting back,” against “one of the strictest” bans on abortion in the country, NBC News Washington Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor said.  “Supporters of abortion rights say they’ve gathered enough signatures for a separate ballot measure in November that would protect access to abortions,” Alcindor said excitedly. “But if the Republican proposal is passed before November,” she added, “enacting the abortion amendment would not just require a simple statewide majority but also majorities from five of the state’s eight districts,” making it harder to pass certain things, especially for Democrats, given that Missouri is traditionally more red. NBC then played a clip from State Senator Lauren Arthur (D-Mo.) who said, “The reason Republicans are so committed to silencing people’s voices at the ballot box is because they’re afraid that Missourians are going to come out in support of restoring their reproductive rights and their access to abortion in Missouri." It’s extremely obvious which side of this debate NBC stands on with this puff piece. It’s just a shame that it's the side that celebrates and advocates for more baby death.

NB Blog Feed

MRC’s Bozell Warns of Soros-Funded ‘Fascistic’ Plot Amid 2024 Election

Leftist billionaire George Soros is “behind an all-out effort to shut down” free speech in the United States, MRC President Brent Bozell declared on Thursday. Bozell’s scorching remarks came in response to an MRC report that exposed Soros as one of the financiers of an anti-free speech cartel beseeching Big Tech platforms to censor Americans ahead of the 2024 presidential election. “I think Americans really need to be worried about this man,” Bozell said during an interview on Fox Business’s Varney & Co. “I think he's the greatest threat to democracy — not just in this country, but worldwide — and the things he's doing are frightening.” Read the Bombshell! George Soros Fueled $80M Into Groups Calling for Big Tech Censorship in Lead-Up to 2024 Elections At the center of Bozell’s warning is a media group’s letter pressuring social media platforms to censor content under the auspice of “implement[ing] election-integrity policies to protect democracy worldwide.” The letter, which Bozell lambasted for its “really fascistic attitude toward democracy,” was signed by over 200 groups and was led by the Soros-funded media group Free Press (not to be confused with journalist Bari Weiss’s The Free Press). In it, these groups pressed for “swift action” to allegedly protect democracy by keeping a “safe and healthy” environment for users. That is, by suppressing content that goes against their ideologies. But here’s the kicker: MRC research found that a large portion of these anti-free speech cartel non-profits have been bankrolled by none other than Soros.  “Of those 200 organizations, 45 of them were funded by George Soros … to the tune of $80 million — 45 that we know of. It’s probably more than that,” Bozell declared.  Reiterating the MRC’s findings, Bozell warned that these left-wing organizations “went to everybody in Big Tech whether it was Meta, TikTok, Google, YouTube” to call for the censorship of “conservatives, censor faith-based groups, censor Donald Trump yet again, shut down any, any debate over climate change.” More on Soros: Is He Buying Universities’ Silence on Anti-Semitic Agitators? Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Colbert Is 'Surprised' Biden Will 'Dignify Trump' By Debating

CBS’s Stephen Colbert had two distinct reactions to the news that former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden have agreed to debate each other on Wednesday’s installment of The Late Show. On one hand, he adored Biden’s announcement video, going so far as to break out the “Damn! Cam.” On the other, he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos he “was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him.” Of course, Biden’s announcement didn’t come out of nowhere, as Colbert acknowledged when he introduced a clip of Biden, “Trump has been challenging President Biden for months now, and today, Biden accepted by releasing this video, where he took a swipe at Trump's court schedule.”     The video showed Biden telling viewers that, “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So, let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.” The two men have decided on Thursday, June 27, and Tuesday, September 10. Nevertheless, Colber reacted with glee, “For my reaction to that, join me over at the ‘Damn! Cam.’ Damn!” Later, Stephanopoulos joined the show to hype his new book and Colbert started to ask, “Let’s talk about debates. Okay, you’ve moderated debates—” Stephanopoulos interrupted to lament, “Yes, it did happen. I think because I’m being sued, I’m not going to be moderating this one this time around.” Trump is suing Stephanopoulos for defamation, but even if that lawsuit didn’t exist, the former Clinton operative’s out of left field question to Mitt Romney about banning birth control is enough to disqualify him from moderating any future debate. Regardless, Colbert continued, “Are you surprised? Because I was a little surprised they were going to happen. I was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him.” Stephanopoulos replied, “I was surprised, especially after you were talking about it before, that Chris Wallace debate four years ago, just the worst presidential debate in American history. I was surprised it's going to happen again. Interesting move by Biden, kind of a bold move by Biden. I do think the rules he's put in place could make a difference.” Colbert interjected to add, “I love them. No audience. In studio. When your time is up, the mind goes off. That's a loss of power.” Stephanopoulos agreed, “Yeah, and it will be interesting to see, I mean, I know both sides have accepted now. I wonder if at the end of the day, with those rules, if those rules are really in place, if the debate really happens, but I think those rules are essential.” Many in the media are making a bigger deal of the agreed upon rules than they should. For instance, in every past presidential debate there has been an audience, but it has been required to remain silent and the cutting of mics could hurt the mumbling and rambling Biden just as much as Trump. Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/15/2024 11:38 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump has been challenging President Biden for months now, and today, Biden accepted by releasing this video, where he took a swipe at Trump's court schedule. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So, let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.  COLBERT: For my reaction to that, join me over at the "Damn! Cam." Damn! … COLBERT: Let’s talk about debates. Okay, you’ve moderated debates— STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, it did happen. I think because I’m being sued, I’m not going to be moderating this one this time around. COLBERT: Are you surprised? Because I was a little surprised they were going to happen. I was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him. STEPHANOPOULOS: I was surprised, especially after you were talking about it before, that Chris Wallace debate four years ago, just the worst presidential debate in American history. I was surprised it's going to happen again. Interesting move by Biden, kind of a bold move by Biden. I do think the rules he's put in place could make a difference. COLBERT: I love them. No audience. In studio.  STEPHANOPOULOS: The mic goes off. COLBERT: When your time is up, the mind goes off. That's a loss of power. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, and it will be interesting to see, I mean, I know both sides have accepted now. I wonder if at the end of the day, with those rules, if those rules are really in place, if the debate really happens, but I think those rules are essential. 

NB Blog Feed

MRC’s Houck Reacts on FNC to Biden/Trump Debate Plans; ‘Watch Out for Shenanigans’

NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck returned to the Fox News Channel Wednesday on Fox News @ Night to react to the sudden agreement between the Joe Biden and Donald Trump campaigns to hold presidential debates on June 27 with CNN and September 10 with ABC. Speaking to host Trace Gallagher, Houck urged caution on the part of the Trump team and be prepared for the debates to be rigged. Asked by Gallagher to explain why he doesn’t “think that CNN moderators” Jake Tapper and Dana Bash “will give Trump a fair shake,” Houck explained “you got to watch out for shenanigans” and said it was reminiscent of what this site warned ahead of the “infamous CNBC debate back during the 2016 election cycle.”     “Jake Tapper, he received awards for pushing the fake Trump Russia collusion case. So, as you point out in your Common Sense [commentary], and Erin [Perrine] and Amber [Duke] pointed out as well [in the previous segment], you know, the demands that President Trump is willing to meet, yeah, you want to see these debates happen, but did you do that at the expense of a fair show for you,” he added. Gallagher then went to former local TV anchor Dee Sarton with similar warning from a piece by our friend Eddie Scarry at The Federalist: “Trump, along with every other Republican should at least have a guarantee that there won’t be any more Chris Wallace or Candy Crowley moments where the moderator takes liberty to run interference for the Democrats.” Sarton concurred with Houck and Scarry, saying her “stomached turned when I heard...who moderators were going to be” and Biden may “have turned the tables a little bit with” his goating video Wednesday morning. “You got to really think about the Americans...who would really love to see these two men side by side, who maybe are still a little bit undecided in this. What do they need to hear? And try to cut through that...[T]he guy is pretty smart..But it’s going to take a lot of work to be ready for that night,” she argued. Houck followed up with more concerns about this CNN debate, such as the possibility they’ll engage in “live fact-checking” with the sniveling Daniel Dale “and who knows about snarky chyrons.” To remove the possibility of any nonsense being fed to the moderators, Houck also suggested “Dana Bash and Jake Tapper and then, Lindsey Davis and David Muir and ABC shouldn’t be wearing earpieces” in order to keep the debate as organic and “free flowing” as possible. All they would need to keep things moving, Houck argued, would be clocks (which are standard below most camera rigs in TV studios). “There is just so many factors, especially with CNN that we really, really got to watch out for. And just real quickly, on substance, Peter Doocy is exactly right, that — it’s very clear this is to distract away from the issues, considering Biden has been dragged on issue after issue,” Houck concluded. Before the segment wrapped, Sarton spoke from experience of moderating debates about the dynamics between having an audience versus none at all: I’ve heard some people say today, oh, well, Trump, you know, he feeds off the audience. He needs that audience. I’m not sure I agree with that. I think he can bring it without an audience, even though obviously, it helps. I’ve done debates when the room is empty, and it really does suck all the light out of the room...I don’t think the lack of an audience is going to be nearly as damaging to President Trump. To see the relevant transcript from May 15, click “expand.” FNC’s Fox News @ Night with Trace Gallagher May 15, 2024 11:09 p.m. Eastern TRACE GALLAGHER: Let’s get media analysis from NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck, and the host of A Home That Heals podcast, the queen of Idaho Television, former TV news anchor Dee Sarton. Thank you both for coming on. To you first, Curtis, because you don’t think that CNN moderators will give Trump a fair shake. Explain that for us. CURTIS HOUCK: Yeah, I think you got to watch out for shenanigans, Trace. We, at NewsBusters said this when there was that infamous CNBC debate back during the 2016 election cycle. Jake Tapper, he received awards — GALLAGHER: Mmhmm. HOUCK: — for pushing the fake Trump Russia collusion case. So, as you point out in your Common Sense, and Erin and Amber pointed out as well, you know, the demands that President Trump is willing to meet, yeah, you want to see these debates happen — GALLAGHER: Right. HOUCK: — but did you do that at the expense of a fair show for you? GALLAGHER: Yeah. And Dee, Eddie Scarry at The Federalists, wrote the following here, quoting, “Trump, along with every other Republican should at least have a guarantee that there won’t be any more Chris Wallace or Candy Crowley moments where the moderator takes liberty to run interference for the Democrats.” I mean, we have learned that moderates can — moderators, rather, Dee, can really sway the jury. I mean, you have worked the debates. So, you know, what’s going on here. If you were advising Trump, about these debates, is there anything you would advise or add? DEE SARTON: Oh, boy, I’ll tell you, my stomach turned when I heard, you know, who the moderators were going to be? And yeah, it’s a — it’s a tough situation. I feel like he came out so strong and said, any place any time. GALLAGHER: Yeah. SARTON: That was sort of his power play, and now they have turned the tables a little bit with this. And so, I am a little bit worried about that. And I guess my advice would be boy, you got to really think about the Americans — the Americans that — that I’m around all the time, who would really love to see these two men side by side, who maybe are still a little bit undecided in this. What do they need to hear? And try to cut through that. But that’s got to be tough, but I kind of can’t imagine when you’ve got the — all of that going against you, how that happens. GALLAGHER: Yeah. SARTON: But the guy is pretty smart, and I think he can figure it out. But it’s going to take a lot of work to be ready for that night and in a way that the underdecides will hear his message. GALLAGHER: Yeah. It seems, Curtis that the Biden team wants this debate to be as controlled as possible. You know, that’s why you control as much as you can. And hopefully, you can contain any errors or any you know, bad looks. HOUCK: Yeah, exactly. I mean, and then, there is the question, as you pointed out, as well about live fact-checking, is Daniel Dale going to be there? GALLAGHER: Yeah. HOUCK: I saw someone on X today argue that maybe, you know, the Dana Bash and Jake Tapper and then Lindsey Davis and David Muir and ABC shouldn’t be wearing earpieces, so they are not being fed things in their ear. You know, they can have clocks there like we do in our studios for keeping time. But other than that, I mean, it should just be free flowing. GALLAGHER: Yeah. HOUCK: And who knows about snarky chyrons? There is just so many factors, especially with CNN that we really, really got to watch out for. And just real quickly, on substance, Peter Doocy is exactly right, that — it’s very clear this is to distract away from the issues, considering Biden has been dragged on issue after issue. GALLAGHER: Yeah, and it really is a big gamble, Dee, because you look at this and you think, okay, they can control this, they can cut the microphone to Donald Trump, and cut Biden’s microphone and, maybe even kind of limited the moderators, but the bottom line is, is that there’s no teleprompter. And if you’re an 81-year-old president, who is known to kind of speak out of turn, this is something that they cannot control and it’s not the State of the Union speech. I mean, you can do whatever you want to but you have to speak off the cuff for a lot of this. SARTON: Right, you really do. And, you know, I was thinking about this earlier today. It’s a situation where people — I’ve heard some people say today, oh, well, Trump, you know, he feeds off the audience. He needs that audience. I’m not sure I agree with that. I think he can bring it without an audience, even though obviously, it helps. I’ve done debates when the room is empty, and it really does suck all the light out of the room. But I do you think it’s going to be tough. From what we have seen of President Biden, I just kind of can’t imagine what that’s going to be like. GALLAGHER: Yeah. SARTON: And not having those support systems in place for him, I think that’s going to be the Achilles heel for him. I don’t think the lack of an audience is going to be nearly as damaging to President Trump. GALLAGHER: Yep, it is. I mean, you’re the President. You are alone and you are flying blind for a short time there. Dee Sarton, Curtis Houck, thank you both. HOUCK: Thanks.

NB Blog Feed

CNN's Jennings Takes a Minute to Undo CNN's 24/7 Trump Trial Hype -- No Minds Will Change

Before we get to the substance of their dialogue, let's begin by observing that in introducing Scott Jennings on her CNN This Morning panel Tuesday, host Kasie Hunt described Jennings as a "conservative columnist." It said the same on screen.  Question: when's the last time Hunt or any CNN host introduced someone as a "liberal" columnist? Yeah, I can't think of such a time, either. Meanwhile, Kasie Hunt offered no identifiers for Elliot Williams (eight years serving President Obama), reporter Molly Ball (Nancy Pelosi apple-polisher) or "Republican" Sarah Matthews (who really wants Trump to lose). Conservative people are fine with being called conservative. What's ridiculous is that everyone who agrees with CNN is presented as nonpartisan or objective. Okay, on to the discussion. In the context of the Stormy Daniels hush money trial, Hunt challenged Jennings: "It's reminding everyone of what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States. Uh, and: I'm just kind of curious. How do you feel about defending him with these allegations out there?" Translation: aren't you ashamed of defending this reprobate? This, from the Clinton News Network that defended all of Bill's #MeToo antics. Jennings, over the course of the discussion, made the obvious point: that this trial reveals nothing new about Trump, and is therefore unlikely to change many votes. As he facetiously put put it in conclusion: "October of 2016. No one knew that Donald Trump had had sex with lots of women out there, some of whom were not his wife. No one could have possibly known!" JENNINGS (on Republicans): But they would say things like, this case should have never been brought. This is a terrible court. This prosecutor is a partisan hack -- whatever. And they would also say this: I don't care about sex paperwork, but I do care about that the president has driven as to an inflationary crisis and is going wobbly on our ally, Israel. You're going to see Republicans all over the country make that argument. And I think whether he is convicted, whether the jury is on or whether he's acquitted, I think this will move the needle for virtually no one. This amounted to a small dissent from the 24/7 Trump-trial hype on CNN, including the dramatic readings of court transcripts.  Note: Jennings in turn challenged Hunt to describe what the crime is that Trump is alleged to have committed. Hunt had to admit, "I understand that you are technically correct," i.e., that no one can describe a crime other than a paperwork snafu. Note: As to Hunt saying that the trial is "reminding everyone of what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States," millions of Americans are thinking, Yeah, reminds me that when Trump was president, I could afford to fill my gas tank and shop for groceries, and we weren't involved in foreign wars. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 5/14/24 6:03 am EDT KASIE HUNT: Our panel's here: former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, Molly Ball, senior political correspondent at at the Wall Street Journal, conservative columnist Scott Jennings, and Sarah Matthews, [disgruntled] former deputy White House press secretary under President Trump. Welcome all! . . .  Scott Jennings, this is a guy that, you know, he's the presumptive Republican nominee for president. It's [the Stormy Daniels hush money trial], it's reminding everyone of, kind of, what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States. And I'm just kind curious: how do you feel about defending him with these allegations out there? SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, nothing new has happened here. I think what you're seeing, such a muted reaction from people, is because it's already priced in, it's baked into his candidacy, it's baked into who he is. Nothing -- we know all of this. And I don't have to, no Republican really has to defend anyone's personal behavior to make this -- HUNT: Well, there are a bunch of Republicans standing up behind him. JENNINGS: Well, but they're not necessarily defending his personal behavior. But they would say things like, this case should have never been brought. This is a terrible court. This prosecutor is a partisan hack: whatever. And they would also say this: I don't care about sex paperwork, but I do care about that the president has driven as to an inflationary crisis and is going wobbly on our ally, Israel. You're going to see Republicans all over the country make that argument. And I think whether he is convicted, whether the jury is on or whether he's acquitted, I think this will move the needle for virtually no one. SARAH MATTHEWS: You don't think if he's convicted, it's not going to make a difference at at all? I mean, there was a CNN poll that showed that 24% of Trump backers said that if there is a conviction, that they would reconsider their support. I will admit, that doesn't mean that they are going to change their support, but they would reconsider. And I mean, on an election that's going to be on the margins, then, I think you would be worried about every vote. JENNINGS: If you are someone who -- I'm trying to envision the voter who would go to the polls, say, you know, I was going to vote for Donald Trump, but then I found out he got the paperwork wrong because he had sex with somebody. I don't know who that person is. I don't know who that person is! HUNT: I don't think that paperwork-wrong thing is, is. I mean, to Sarah's point, I mean, he would be convicted for -- the perception is not going to be paperwork. JENNINGS: What's he being convicted for, then? If it's not a paperwork, what's he being -- HUNT: I understand that you are technically correct. I just think -- can anyone consume this -- it's like -- JENNINGS: The problem with this case is, no one can actually explain what he's being convicted for. It was obvious that the case was brought so they could put people on the stand to try to personally embarrass him. That's what it is. HUNT: They were paying her to keep quiet so that voters, particularly women, wouldn't think badly of Trump before the election, right? JENNINGS: [Facetiously] October, October of 2016: no one, no one IIknew that Donald Trump had had sex with lots of women out there, some of whom were not his wife. No one could have possibly known!

NB Blog Feed

BBC Runs Hit Piece on Slovakian Prime Minister Hours After He's SHOT in Assassination Attempt

There is a time and place to be critical of a political leader if you are a news organization. However, the time to be critical of such a person is most definitely NOT just hours after an assassination attempt in which such a person lies in a hospital in critical condition from multiple bullet wounds. And yet the BBC, with the soul of a ghoul, went ahead on Wednesday and did just that hours after the Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico was shot multiple times. BBC Prague correspondent Rob Cameron somehow thought the very day of Fico being the gravely wounded victim of an assassination attempt would be a good time to write up this hit piece, "How Robert Fico rose to dominate Slovak politics." First came the smear in Cameron's story followed by a medical description of the one he just smeared just a sentence earlier. Robert Fico's ability to reinvent himself has kept him at the top of Slovakia’s politics despite repeated scandals. Now surgeons are battling to save his life after an assassination attempt that followed a government meeting in a small town. Class act, Rob. And true to form, Cameron reverted immediately to smear mode the very sentence after revealing his life threatening situation in the hospital. His most recent fall from grace was in 2018, when mass protests forced his resignation in the wake of the murder of investigative journalist Jan Kuciak and his fiancée. What followed in the rest of the article was a cascade of slams directed at Fico fighting for his life in the hospital: During the six months he has been in office this time, he and his coalition allies have taken a sledgehammer to Slovakia’s institutions. Reform of the criminal justice system included abolition of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, set up 20 years ago to investigation serious crime and corruption. ...The national broadcaster – RTVS – is to be shut down in June and replaced with a new body with a new director. Mr Fico says RTVS cannot be objective as it is in permanent conflict with his government, and this ‘unsustainable’ situation can only be rectified by replacing it. Observers – including the opposition, the European Commission and the European Broadcasting Union – have warned the move would be a blow to media freedom in Slovakia. "Public broadcasters" don't object when European governments dismantle "far-right public media," as NPR lauded Poland for well, "taking a sledgehammer" to the critical public broadcaster there.  ...However if 59-year-old political veteran Mr Fico pulls through, he will likely draw new strength from this attempt on his life. Amid the calls for calm and an end to the hateful rhetoric, his closest political allies are already laying the blame squarely on the liberal opposition and the media. One coalition ally – deputy prime minister Andrej Danko – said the country was heading for "political war". The political temperature has certainly risen in Slovakia since he formed what is his fourth administration in October. Okay, BBC, we get that you have a great deal of antipathy towards Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, who doesn't want to aid Ukraine. But on the very day of an assassination attempt upon him which left him critically wounded in a hospital, is it too much to expect you to give your hate a rest?

NB Blog Feed

HAMAS MEDIA: CBS Evening News Observes ‘Nakba Day’

As pertains to the ongoing war in Gaza, CBS News continues to solidify its reputation as the most pro-Hamas among the networks. A brief report on the Biden administration’s request for new military assistance for Israel quickly turned into an opportunity to echo pro-Palestinian points and observe “al-Nakba”, which loosely translates to “Catastrophe Day”.  Watch the aforementioned report in its entirety, as aired on the CBS Evening News on Wednesday, May 15th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: Turning now to the war in Gaza. The Biden administration is pushing Congress for a new billion-dollar weapons package for Israel, as so much humanitarian aid could be arriving within days for millions of Palestinians. A floating pier built by the U.S. military is now being moved into position off the Gaza coast. Food and supplies can't come soon enough for Palestinians, who today marked al-Nakba. That’s the Arabic term for the displacement of more than 700,000 Palestinians during the creation of Israel 76 years ago. There is a lot of actual information that was omitted from the report so that Norah O’Donnell could have the time to read the pro-Hamas talking points off of the teleprompter. For example, it is unclear when the billion-dollar military assistance package will actually arrive to Israel. But O’Donnell made sure to juxtapose that assistance with humanitarian aid due to arrive for displaced Palestinians. Compare O’Donnell’s observance of al-Nakba with that of Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-The Squad). Their language is practically identical: As we mark the 76th anniversary of the Nakba, we honor all the lives lost since the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians began, and the Palestinians who were forced from their homes and violently displaced from their land. — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) May 15, 2024 That is certainly one reading of history. The other is that when the British partitioned Mandatory Palestine, they created both a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Jews accepting statehood and the Arabs refusing to live alongside the Jews. And that the real catastrophe (or nakba) happened when five Arab countries failed to expel Israel after they declared their independence a day before the start of what is now known as the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Whatever displacement happened, happened as the result of an eliminationist war waged against the Jewish state. Hamas’ barbaric October 7th attack has, unfortunately, triggered further needless displacement and death. This, unfortunately, is more nuance than can be crammed into a 30-second brief intended to elicit empathy for Palestine rather than to report facts.  

NB Blog Feed

2024 Presidential Debate Host ABC News Falsely Casts Biden As Issuing Debate Challenge

The Regime Media kicked off their respective evening newscasts by hyping the upcoming presidential debates, which were just agreed to by President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. But ABC News, aggressively Biden-servile and an announced debate host, chose to disinform the public by insisting on casting Biden as the one who challenged Trump to a debate, when the record reflects the exact opposite. Watch as ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir, who will co-moderate the September 10th debate with Lindsey Davis, falsely depicts Biden as the aggressor before throwing over to Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, who promptly does the same: DAVID MUIR: Early today, president Biden issuing the challenge. Trump, who refused to debate his primary opponents, saying yes. And within hours, two debates were set, one in June, the other in September, right here on ABC. Our Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce leading us off at the White House tonight. MARY BRUCE: Tonight, in a true campaign surprise, President Biden and Donald Trump agreeing to two one-on-one debates, the first just a few weeks from now, at the end of June, the earliest general election showdown in American history. Trump has been pushing for debates for months. DONALD TRUMP: I'm trying to get him to debate. BRUCE: This morning, Biden with this surprise challenge. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. BRUCE: Biden then taunting Trump, referencing the one day a week that he's not tied up in court. BIDEN: So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. Note the sleight-of-word here: Right after Biden is said to have issued the challenge, Trump is depicted as “pushing for debates for months”. Biden is then again presented as the challenger. Why insist on pushing such a blatant and easily refutable falsehood? Because it is the only way to cast Biden in a favorable light, as opposed to reporting that the incumbent President of the United States responded to his challenger after months of baiting.  CBS’s Nancy Cordes took a less obvious but similar approach on the CBS Evening News: NANCY CORDES: President Biden threw down the gauntlet at 8:00 A.M. Eastern, in a video posted online. On the other hand, Cordes is more transparent about Biden doing the debate as a way to inject life into his flagging campaign: CORDES: So why are these two debating in June, more than four months before the election? Well, the campaigns say it’s because so many people now vote early, but the Trump team is also looking for a way to turn the page after his criminal trial ends, while Biden, who is trailing in many polls, could use a strong head-to-head performance to remind voters why they went for him over Trump in 2020.  NBC Nightly News was easily the most transparent of the three major networks: PETER ALEXANDER: Tonight the stage is set for the first TV confrontation between President Biden and former President Trump in more than three years. The agreement punctuating a dizzying day of deal-making. The president posting this video responding to weeks of pressure from Mr. Trump for a debate. … Both sides bypassing the Commission on Presidential Debates' proposal for three fall showdowns. President Biden's decision comes after former President Trump repeatedly challenged him to debate. DONALD TRUMP: You can see, we have an empty podium right here to my right. You know what that is? That's for Joe Biden. I'm trying to get him to debate. The clear and unequivocal truth is that Trump forced the issue on debates, and Biden accepted his challenge. Reporting the truth would not have changed much in the way of ABC’s report (and, to a lesser extent, CBS). But ABC insisted on casting Biden in the most favorable light, even at the expense of the truth. If this is how ABC reports the debate announcement, how will they actually moderate the debate?   Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective evening newscasts on Wednesday, May 15th, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT DAVID MUIR: We do begin tonight with this presidential debate showdown now coming. President Biden and former President Trump both agreeing to two debates. The first in just a matter of weeks on CNN, before the conventions, the earliest debate ever for a general election. It will be the first debate stage faceoff, Biden versus Trump, since 2020, when they met twice. Early today, president Biden issuing the challenge. Trump, who refused to debate his primary opponents, saying yes. And within hours, two debates were set, one in June, the other in September, right here on ABC. Our Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce leading us off at the White House tonight. MARY BRUCE: Tonight, in a true campaign surprise, President Biden and Donald Trump agreeing to two one-on-one debates, the first just a few weeks from now, at the end of June, the earliest general election showdown in American history. Trump has been pushing for debates for months. DONALD TRUMP: I'm trying to get him to debate. BRUCE: This morning, Biden with this surprise challenge. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. BRUCE: Biden then taunting Trump, referencing the one day a week that he's not tied up in court. BIDEN: So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. BRUCE: Trump firing back, "Just tell me when. I'll be there. Let's get ready to rumble." TRUMP: I really think he has to debate. He might as well get it over with. Probably should do it early so that he can -- you know, because -- he's not going to get any better. BRUCE: A short time later, the debates were set, the first on June 27th hosted by CNN, before either candidate is declared the official nominee at their party's convention. And the second on September 10th hosted by ABC News, just weeks before voters head to the polls. There will be no live audience, just the moderators and the candidates themselves a television studio, face-to-face.  And tonight, inside the campaigns, they are well aware the stakes are extremely high here. Both men confident that they can outperform the other. Donald Trump, of course, has been pushing for this for months. President Biden eager to show the stark differences between the two of them and jump-start this race. They both are now looking forward to this, of course, the first debate now coming, we know, June 27th on CNN. The second debate, at a key moment in the fall just weeks before the election, and ABC News will be having that debate on September 10th. And ABC News tonight is announcing the moderators of that debate, David Muir and Linsey Davis. David? MUIR: We will all be very busy in the months ahead. Mary Bruce, among the team here covering this. Mary, thanks so much again. September 10th here on ABC. CBS EVENING NEWS NORAH O’DONNELL: The stage is set. The dates are picked, and President Biden and Donald Trump are already throwing jabs ahead of two presidential debates that are now on the calendar. Until today, it was unclear if there would be any general election debates, but that all changed this morning when the two men, who can't agree on anything, agreed in a matter of hours that they would face off on June 27th and September 10th. The first date, now just 43 days away, will be the earliest televised presidential debate in American history. CBS's Nancy Cordes starts us off tonight from the White House on how it all came together. NANCY CORDES: President Biden threw down the gauntlet at 8:00 A.M. Eastern, in a video posted online. JOE BIDEN: Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. CORDES: He even tossed it a dig at Trump's trial schedule, which currently keeps him in court four days a week. BIDEN: So let’s pick the dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays. CORDES: Nevertheless, within half an hour, Trump said he was in.  DONALD TRUMP: I‘ve accepted the two, 100%. CORDES: He added an insult of his own. TRUMP: Probably should do it early so that he can, you know, he's not going to get any better. CORDES: Just after 11:00 A.M., Trump's campaign upped the ante, calling for four debates over the next four months. By noon, both campaigns had accepted invitations for one debate in late June, and another in mid-September, though the Biden team appeared to turn down a third debate invitation that came from Fox News. MICHAEL TYLER: The president has said he is willing to debate twice. CORDES: Michael Tyler is communications director for the Biden campaign.  CORDES: …think that President Trump wouldn't show up? TYLER: Well, he certainly does have a history of complaining about debates, skipping out on debates. CORDES: The two men squared off twice in 2020. BIDEN: You are the worst president that America has ever had. TRUMP: I’ve done more than you’ve done in 47 years, Joe. CORDES: Those debates were so hostile, many wondered if there would be a sequel this year. BIDEN: Will you shut up, man? TRUMP: Listen, who is on your list, Joe? BIDEN: This is so… CHRIS WALLACE: Gentlemen  BIDEN: This is so unpresidential. CORDES: We asked voters in Philadelphia if they plan to watch this time. VOTER: I might watch part of it. But I think it’ll just annoy me so much. VOTER: I doubt it. I might, but I doubt it because I know what each one is going to say. CORDES: So why are these two debating in June, more than four months before the election? Well, the campaigns say it’s because so many people now vote early, but the Trump team is also looking for a way to turn the page after his criminal trial ends, while Biden, who is trailing in many polls, could use a strong head-to-head performance to remind voters why they went for him over Trump in 2020. Norah. O’DONNELL: Will be interesting. Nancy Cordes, thank you so much. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS LESTER HOLT: Good evening and welcome. Not one but two presidential debates are on the books tonight after an exchange of verbal taunts more akin to a prizefight promotion. President Biden and former President Trump have agreed to televised one-on-one debates, the first happening June 27th and notably without a live audience. The second one, September 10th. The arrangement first proposed by President Biden was quickly accepted by Mr. Trump, who refused to take part in this year's Republican primary debates. The first of the showdowns timed by the Biden campaign to take place before early voting begins. In the time being, the debate among pundits will likely be over which candidate has the most to gain or maybe lose. White Hhouse correspondent Peter Alexander now with how it all came together. JOE BIDEN: Before I get started, I want to… PETER ALEXANDER: Tonight the stage is set for the first TV confrontation between President Biden and former President Trump in more than three years. The agreement punctuating a dizzying day of deal-making. The president posting this video responding to weeks of pressure from Mr. Trump for a debate. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then he hasn't shown up for debates. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. ALEXANDER: The president taunting his rival over his Manhattan hush money trial that’s kept him in court four days a week. BIDEN: So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. ALEXANDER: There are traditionally three debates. The president offering two. Mr. Trump, who refused all of the primary debates, quickly saying yes and pushing for more writing, “I am ready and willing to debate crooked Joe at the two proposed times. I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue. Just tell me when, I'll be there”. Within hours, a pair of debate dates were set- one in late June, another in September. Both sides bypassing the Commission on Presidential Debates' proposal for three fall showdowns. President Biden's decision comes after former President Trump repeatedly challenged him to debate. DONALD TRUMP: You can see, we have an empty podium right here to my right. You know what that is? That's for Joe Biden. I'm trying to get him to debate. ALEXANDER: The June 27th face-off with no audience will come at a critical moment in the race, with recent polls showing Mr. Trump in a strong position in some key battleground states, and shortly after the former president's criminal trial is expected to wrap up. Today Senator Mitt Romney, a fierce Trump critic, arguing the president should have pardoned Mr. Trump. MITT ROMNEY: I would have immediately pardoned him. I'd have pardoned President Trump. Why? Oh, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardon the little guy. ALEXANDER: The debate is certain to be a bitter battle with the president and his predecessor trading insults. TRUMP: The worst presidents-- take ‘em, give me the ten worst names. They haven't done the damage to our country that this total moron has done. ALEXANDER: And from Mr. Biden just today: BIDEN: The guy has sort of lost his mooring. He seems like the guy who just doesn't know what the hell he's doing anymore. ALEXANDER: In an already unprecedented campaign, the first crucial clash now the earliest in modern history. HOLT: ANd Peter, to be clear, this means this happens before the conventions? ALEXANDER: That's right- likely even before Mr. Trump has picked his vice presidential nominee here. The former president is now saying that he accepted an offer for a third debate in October. The Biden campaign, though, they are brushing that off, Lester, telling me no more games, no more chaos and their words: President Biden will do TWO debates.  HOLT: All right. Peter, thanks very much.  

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Ad Nauseam Trump Trial, SHOCKING Debate Agreement

The hush money trial of former President Trump is the only event happening in the world, according to the liberal cable news outlets perched outside the New York City courthouse like vultures. At least The View has their cracked courthouse correspondent inside the courtroom with a pair of binoculars trained on Trump. And just before Curtis Houck and I sat down to record; BREAKING NEWS across the wires: Presidential debates were announced! I give the rundown on Sunny Hostin’s clownish and narcissistic coverage of the Trump trial. According to her, feverishly documenting every muscle twitch, eye glance, and whisper to counsel was not being don’t any other reporter in the room except for her. And no, she wasn’t joking. Curtis gives us an update on his tally of the network coverage of the trial and the embarrassing fact-check of former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s new book proving that she lied about President Biden NOT looking at his watch during an inappropriate moment. HINT: NewsBusters was on the bleeding edge of that story! We also discuss the plans for the upcoming debates and how the coordinated icing out of the presidential commission on debates could have the democracy the liberal media purports to defend. Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts.

NB Blog Feed

PBS Drools Over Dem Success on Abortion Issue: 'Could You Ever Vote Republican Again?'

The PBS NewsHour on Monday attempted to bolster the struggling Biden re-election campaign by focusing on a purported Democratic issue, abortion -- or as PBS labels it, “reproductive health care” -- in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in all 50 states. It’s a partisan tactic they’ve tried several times before both on weekdays and the weekend edition. Monday’s story featured the program’s most biased reporter, political correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez, complete with labeling bias. Besides the euphemistic references to “reproductive health care” and the “right to choose” a "procedure," the reporter used the term "conservative" twice, but no liberal or even “progressive” ones. Amna Nawaz: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Republicans have banned abortion in 14 states and restricted it in more. But, when given the chance, voters have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to protect access to the procedure. This election year, abortion will again be a defining issue. Laura Barron-Lopez reports from the battleground of Michigan, where Democrats plan to keep reproductive health care front and center. Annie Sharkus, Michigan Voter [to her child]: You got it? Great job. Laura Barron-Lopez: Raised in a deeply religious and conservative household, Annie Sharkus stayed out of politics, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Sharkus: I gathered signatures. We organized, like, a rally. I gave a speech at one, started going to, like, coffee hours and things like that with our local politicians, just getting more involved, because I didn't want my kids to look back at this point in time and say, like, OK, well, what did you do, and I couldn't tell them that I did nothing. Sharkus told PBS she doesn’t “specifically identify as Democrat or Republican,” but if you can't ever imagine voting for Republicans again, you sound like a Democrat.  Barron-Lopez: Do you think that you could ever vote Republican again? Sharkus: I don't think that I would with the current direction that the Republican Party is going. I am so far from identifying with what they want to happen that I don't see it ever happening. Barron-Lopez: Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin wants to keep women like Annie squarely in the Democratic column. Her message to voters, abortion will always be on the ballot. ...When voters turned out for abortion rights in Michigan in 2022, it was a victory for Democrats. In 2024, they're trying to replicate that success here and in states across the country. Slotkin, now running for the U.S. Senate, is one of many down-ballot Democratic candidates trying to maintain urgency. Shanay Watson-Whittaker of Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) combined belief in God with the “right to choose” abortion. Slotkin has been endorsed by this abortion lobbying group, and boasts a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record. But neither Slotkin nor the abortion lobby are apparently "liberal" or "leftist." Even the conservative in the story sounded liberal on the issue, not wanting to make it a federal issue. Barron-Lopez: Nolan Finley is the conservative opinion editor at The Detroit News. What exactly would you like to see either the presidential nominee, Donald Trump, lay out or other Republicans across the board in terms of the specific policy towards abortion? When asked by the reporter to pin down a time frame during the pregnancy, Finley was amenable to a ban after 20 weeks, far past the first trimester of pregnancy. Finley: Fifteen, maybe twenty, wherever -- somewhere in that range where people can settle and say, this is fair. This allows people time to make their decision…. There were a couple of a Trump soundbites as well, so it wasn't completely one-sided. After soundbites from two other pro-abortion voters, Barron-Lopez huddled up again with Rep. Slotkin and gave her the last word, sounding the “wakeup call for Democrats” against the party’s previous “complacency” on the issue. This pro-abortion, pro-Democratic segment was brought to you in part by Cunard. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/13/24 7:24:01 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Republicans have banned abortion in 14 states and restricted it in more. But, when given the chance, voters have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to protect access to the procedure. This election year, abortion will again be a defining issue. Laura Barron-Lopez reports from the battleground of Michigan, where Democrats plan to keep reproductive health care front and center. Annie Sharkus, Michigan Voter: You got it? Great job. Laura Barron-Lopez: Raised in a deeply religious and conservative household, Annie Sharkus stayed out of politics, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Annie Sharkus: I gathered signatures. We organized, like, a rally. I gave a speech at one, started going to, like, coffee hours and things like that with our local politicians, just getting more involved, because I didn't want my kids to look back at this point in time and say, like, OK, well, what did you do, and I couldn't tell them that I did nothing. Laura Barron-Lopez: Now abortion access is protected in Michigan, but voters are still thinking about it. Even though it's not on the ballot in Michigan this time around, do you still think that it is a top issue for a lot of voters? Annie Sharkus: Even if we're not worried about it in our state in particular, yes, it's definitely something that people are using to gauge how they're voting. Laura Barron-Lopez: The stay-at-home mom of two, who lives in the suburbs of Detroit, isn't excited to vote for Joe Biden. But Annie thinks he will ultimately make access to abortion safer. Annie Sharkus: With voting for Joe Biden, it is hard, because I'm not a single-issue voter. I don't specifically identify as Democrat or Republican. While I will vote for him, I wish that there was another option. Laura Barron-Lopez: Do you think that you could ever vote Republican again? Annie Sharkus: I don't think that I would with the current direction that the Republican Party is going. I am so far from identifying with what they want to happen that I don't see it ever happening. Laura Barron-Lopez: Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin wants to keep women like Annie squarely in the Democratic column. Her message to voters, abortion will always be on the ballot. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI): The other side has made this a central issue for them for 50 years. Their actions speak louder than words. And their actions are currently, like, as we speak, trying to threaten a woman's right to choose, and people see that. Laura Barron-Lopez: When voters turned out for abortion rights in Michigan in 2022, it was a victory for Democrats. In 2024, they're trying to replicate that success here and in states across the country. Slotkin, now running for the U.S. Senate, is one of many downballot Democratic candidates trying to maintain urgency. Rep. Elissa Slotkin: We have to understand that most people see this as a kitchen table issue. A decision about whether to have a child or not is the most profound kitchen table issue that we have. It's not separate from inflation. It's not separate from the economy. It's like your whole family trajectory and whether you are going to be able to afford that life. Laura Barron-Lopez: What happened in Michigan became a blueprint for how to organize around abortion effectively. Ohio followed suit in 2023. Now the right to an abortion will be on the ballot this November in three states, including Florida, which currently bans any kind of termination after six weeks of pregnancy. And similar initiatives could end up on the ballot in up to nine other states this year, including the battlegrounds of Arizona and Nevada. Shanay Watson-Whittaker, Reproductive Freedom for All: What happened in 2022 wasn't an anomaly. Laura Barron-Lopez: Back in Michigan, state activists like Shanay Watson-Whittaker, who works for the nonprofit Reproductive Freedom for All, were instrumental in mobilizing voters in 2022. Two years later, she's sharing that strategy. Shanay Watson-Whittaker: Michigan, for a lot of folks, has been like a North Star. We specifically and intentionally had conversations with Black clergy, with clergy from other denominations, sat them down and talked about reproductive freedom. What people forget are that clergy are humans. They have experienced loss — miscarriage loss. They have had abortions. We believe in God and we believe in Jesus. And,at the same time, we believe that government should not interfere with a woman's right to choose. Laura Barron-Lopez: Meanwhile, Republicans who cheered the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe are struggling to find their footing. In March, the presumptive GOP nominee, Donald Trump, spoke favorably of a national 15-week abortion ban. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: People are really — even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be — 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at. Laura Barron-Lopez: Then, last month, he flip-flopped, saying states could decide for themselves. Donald Trump: The states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state. Laura Barron-Lopez: Still, some top Republicans in Congress support the national 15-week ban and measures that would make it a crime to transport minors across state lines for an abortion without parental consent. Donald Trump: Thank you, Wisconsin. Laura Barron-Lopez: More recently, Trump told "TIME" magazine he'd allow states to both monitor pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. Nolan Finley, Opinion Editor, The Detroit News: Republicans keep handing Democrats this issue every election cycle. It never seems to be out of the political picture. Laura Barron-Lopez: Nolan Finley is the conservative opinion editor at The Detroit News. What exactly would you like to see either the presidential nominee, Donald Trump, lay out or other Republicans across the board in terms of the specific policy towards abortion? Nolan Finley: Well, I would like them to stay away from a federal policy. I think that's what's the point of the Dobbs ruling. But I think the Nikki Haley solution of let's all sit down and find out where we can agree in terms of a point in the pregnancy where were going to say you have had time to make your choice. Laura Barron-Lopez: Whether it's six, 15 weeks? Nolan Finley: Fifteen, maybe 20, wherever — somewhere in that range where people can settle and say, this is fair. This allows people time to make their decision. This allows you to deal with rape and incest, et cetera, but it also prevents something I think most people would be opposed to, and that is abortion in the last month or so of pregnancy. Laura Barron-Lopez: For voters we spoke to in Lansing, they're heeding calls that abortion is an issue to turn out for in November. Matt Allswede, Michigan Voter: Michigan voters, they recognize that this is an issue that goes beyond the borders of the state of Michigan. Susan Anderson, Michigan Voter: I think we have all found out that we cannot rest on our laurels, that we must come out and vote for the right people. Laura Barron-Lopez: Ultimately, Roe was a wakeup call for Democrats like Congresswoman Slotkin, one that she says exposed their party's complacency. Rep. Elissa Slotkin: I think we let ourselves get comfortable, that we didn't believe the other side when they said, we're coming for Roe v. Wade and we want to overturn it. We saw all that happening, but we just had a failure of imagination. What I want to do is say publicly to the whole country that we have a 10-year plan to get back to a federal right to an abortion. We're not going to let it just be a state issue. We're actually going to organize and mobilize to do the thing we didn't do for 50 years, which is pass a piece of federal legislation to codify Roe. Laura Barron-Lopez: The results in November could determine if Slotkin's plans takes 10 years or another 50. For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez in Michigan.      

NB Blog Feed

Deeply Disturbed Scarborough Accuses New York Times Of Rigging Polls AGAINST Biden!

As we've noted in the past, Mika Brzezinski has expressed concerns over the fragile psyche of her husband and co-host Joe Scarborough, at one point ordering him to take an extended break from the show. Mika might be inclined to give Joe another long time-out after his disturbed and disturbing performance on Wednesday's Morning Joe. Scarborough absolutely freaked out [see screencap and Mika's stone-faced reaction] over a New York Times/Siena poll showing Trump leading in five out of six swing states. Note that the show never actually displayed the bad-for-Biden poll results in question on screen, no doubt not wanting to provide them any additional publicity. Scarborough began by saying that he believed in conspiracy theories, and believed that the Times had entered into a conspiracy with psychiatrists in blue states to split the profits on psychiatric care in return for the Times using skewed methodology in Trump's favor. Joe was - at least we hope - kidding about that. But Scarborough was dead serious when he accused the Times of rigging the polls against Biden in order to write clickbait stories about them: Maybe they're trying to make up for '20, when they skewed in Biden's direction by about four or five points? But every one of these New York Times/Siena polls have been wildly skewed when you compare them to other polls that come out at the same time. (...) And by the way, people are calling Mika, saying this is a just reaction to one poll. No. You can go back. You can look at the tape. We do this every time when the New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It's always an outlier, and the New York Times always gets 15 or 16 articles out of them that everybody rushes to, because it says, Earth ends at 5:00. Hit link at New York Times, 15 times, and they keep writing articles about it.      At one point, an incredulous John Heilemann put it to Scarborough: "You're saying the New York Times is systematically putting these polls out in a way to try to amplify them to drive the news cycle?" Responded Scarborough: "Yes. Yes, I am saying that." Scarborough rudely shouted down Heilemann, who had very politely and cautiously tried to differ ever so slightly in his take (Click "expand"): HEILEMANN: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? SCARBOROUGH: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. HEILEMANN: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- SCARBOROUGH: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on. We recently noted evidence that wife and co-host Mika Brzezinski was getting fed up with Scarborough's insolent, incessant interruptions of her. Combine that with Scarborough's intemperate big-footing of Heilemann today, and his explicitly expressed belief that the New York Times—of all media outlets—was manipulating its polls against Biden, and serious questions arise about Scarborough's mental state. Note: Scarborough mentioned that when NPR looked into some of the people quoted in Times articles saying they voted for Biden in 2020 but are now switching to Trump, it was found that they had never voted before. Could be. But ask yourself: when asked by a reporter or pollster about their presidential preference, who was the average person less likely to admit they prefer? Good Ol' Joe Biden, or Trump, whom the media consistently portrays as a monster who will end democracy forever? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC Morning Joe 5/15/23 6:11 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I have said for the past couple of days, as I've said for the past couple of months, that -- and I believe now that there is a conspiracy. And I do believe in conspiracies. I think psychiatrists in blue states have conspired with the New York Times/Siena pollsters and said, listen: we'll split the profits on psychiatric care if you guys will, will, will have the craziest methodology, which they always have. Maybe they're trying to make up for '20, when they skewed in Biden's direction by about four or five points? But every one of these New York Times/Siena polls have been wildly skewed when you compare them to other polls that come out at the same time. . . .  And by the way, people are calling Mika, saying this is a just reaction to one poll. No. You can go back. You can look at the tape. We do this every time when the New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It's always an outlier, and the New York Times always gets 15 or 16 articles out of them that everybody rushes to, because it says, Earth ends at 5:00. Hit link at New York Times, 15 times, and they keep writing articles about it.  There are, and NPR has found some of these voters that said, well you know, I voted for Biden before. And they said, but wait. This guy, we checked the voting rolls. He has never voted. Other news organizations offer three, four more examples. Not just of people in the surveys but people the New York Times quoted in their article: "Well, here's one of many people we interviewed who said he's disillusioned and is going to vote for Trump." No record of him voting. JOHN HEILEMANN: Yeah. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay? HEILEMANN: You know -- MIKA: Are you feeling something, John Heilemann, that you want to say? HEILEMANN: I think sometimes as a general matter, there's maybe an overreliance on voters telling the truth about things in general. Hate to say it. Reporters find this occasionally that reporters lie. Here is what I say about this poll. If I were to ask you this question, Joe: do you know anybody on either side who doesn't think that it's the case that of the battleground states, that Joe Biden is stronger in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin than he is in Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia? SCARBOROUGH: It sounds about right. I've seen some polls that show Georgia's very close. Greg Bluestein actually had an article that says the CNN poll is wildly off. HEILEMANN: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? SCARBOROUGH: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. HEILEMANN: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- SCARBOROUGH: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on. What I hear is after these Siena polls come out, every time: oh, well, everything that Joe Biden's done since the, since the State of the Union address, all these, all this money he has put out. All of the campaigning is for naught.  No, it's not! No, it's not! There's one poll that's wildly skewed every time. And it does shape -- if it's a New York Times poll versus a Morning Consult poll and the New York Times then amplifies it 15, 16, 17, times, it, it, it warps reality and everybody responds to that in the media and in the political world. HEILEMANN: So if you're -- all I'd say about this is that I agree with you. That the problem to me, unless you want to speculate, unless you want to suggest you think there is a conspiracy at the Times about this which you're -- SCARBOROUGH: Their methodology is bizarre and Larry Sabato said this, Wall Street [Journal] said that. HEILEMANN: Joe, you're saying something more than that. You're saying the New York Times is systematically putting these polls out in a way to try to amplify them to drive the news cycle. SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Yes, I am saying that. HEILEMANN: And I'm  saying, I'm not, I'd like to know,  I'm curious, as somebody who understands your level of sophistication about reading the media, why you think that's true. What I'm trying to say is, I agree with you. The best bulwark against any polls, outliers or anything else, is for people who are actually consumers of this information, is to not let these -- any given news outlet, or any given poll, shape your perception of the race unduly. SCARBOROUGH: But John, that's not realistic. And I'll tell you why it's not realistic. Because, and I'll say to you, I know people come up to you after every New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It completely changes the political battlefield out there for about a week, week-and-a-half. It distorts the questions that are asked of the White House. It distorts the questions that are asked of Donald Trump. It distorts all of the opinion. It distorts everything.  And that keeps happening every month when this comes out. And then finally, about two weeks later, after the residue of the New York Times/Siena poll leaves, people go, I think Joe Biden's on a winning streak. And then two weeks later it comes out again, and it's garbage. It's an outlier. And yes, the New York Times,  when they have all of these experts questioning the methodology. When they're calling about 20% of the people likely voters who have never voted before, or didn't vote in the last two primaries. When they're even quoting people who say they're switching their vote from Joe Biden, who have never voted before? I'm sorry! The New York Times has to know what they are doing!

NB Blog Feed

Dorsey Spills on Twitter’s ‘Problematic’ Collusion with Gov’t Censors

Jack Dorsey, the founder and former CEO of Twitter (now X), admitted that Twitter’s relationship with the government was (and potentially still is) “problematic.”  Mike Solana, editor-in-chief of Pirate Wires, sat down for an interview with Dorsey, and the pair discussed some of the problems that arise from governments worldwide attempting to censor speech on social media. Since the release of the Twitter Files, there has been much scrutiny surrounding the relationship between Big Tech and the Federal Government. Dorsey called the collusion between these entities “problematic.” However, he also claimed, unbeknownst to the public, that there was some pushback from Twitter employees to the government’s censorship instructions. “I also don't think the people who got called out in the Twitter Files get enough credit for pushing back on government requests,” Dorsey said. “The U.S. is certainly one of them.” The U.S. government was by no means the only government hounding Twitter and now X to censor.    According to Dorsey, Twitter (now X) has traditionally complied with government censorship requests to some extent. However, he alleged that Musk is more willing to ban accounts at the request of foreign governments.  There are certain loopholes, however.  “You can take the content down within the country, but it's still available to the rest of the world,” said Dorsey. “But if someone in that country has a VPN, they can still see it. And I think governments are wise to this now, so today they're asking to take content down in every single market.”  Dorsey cited the recently relevant example of Australia. “But what you saw with Australia recently, is the prime minister asked Twitter and Elon to take some content down everywhere, instead of just within the Australian market,” Dorsey said. “I think you'll see more and more of that stuff.” When asked if there’s a chance social media companies will survive this effort, Dorsey said, “There’s absolutely no way.” He added, “You’ll have phases, but that doesn’t exist forever. Elon will fight in the way he fights, and I appreciate that, but he could certainly be compromised. Or something could happen to him, and then what happens to the whole platform?” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

The View Cheers Debate Limitations: Having an Audience ‘Doesn't Serve’ Biden

Shortly before ABC’s The View went to air, word was finally announced that both the Biden and Trump campaigns agreed to two debates; one with CNN in June and one in September with ABC. But it was two demands made by Team Biden that had captured most everyone’s interest: no audiences and mics would be cut off. Of course, the liberal ladies of The View cheered the rules with one saying the quiet part out loud and admitting that an audience would hurt President Biden. After spending several minutes bragging about being at a Disney party the previous night, the cast finally got around to talking about the debate. And the first thing they did was share how relieved they were that Biden’s demands were agreed to: WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Here's what I really appreciate. Biden is saying, no audience. JOY BEHAR: Good. GOLDBERG: And that the mics must be cut once - SARA HAINES: I love this. GOLDBERG: -- the time to answer the question has expired. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes. [Cheers and applause] No one questioned the suspicious timing of the announce since it came shortly after the Biden campaign put out a highly edited video of the President challenging Trump to exactly two debates. But faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin proclaimed, “It was smart of Biden to get ahead of this by challenging Trump and I think it's a recognition that they're neck and neck in the polls.”     Of course, she was completely ignoring the fact that Trump had challenged Biden to debate weeks ago after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. But who’s counting? Farah Griffin praised the “roadblocks” as “critical” and argued that “cutting off the mics is the most important or it can descend into absolute chaos.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) proclaimed that “Biden clearly has the edge” because he could cite the charges brought against Trump by Democratic D.A.s and his Justice Department: HOSTIN: Every answer starts with, “well, my opponent, who has been criminally convicted.” BEHAR: That's right. HOSTIN: Or, “Well, my opponent who’s facing--” BEHAR: Impeached. HOSTIN: “Who has been twice impeached.” “My opponent, who is facing three other criminal trials.” I mean, it's gold. It's very easy. Co-host Joy Behar was confused and didn’t seem to understand that Trump had already agreed to the debates. “I don't think that Biden should have projected that he wants no audience and the mic should be cut off,” she fretted. “But it gives [Trump] a way to get out of it by saying ‘Look, I’m not doing it without an audience.’”   Here's 2 1/2 minutes of Joy Behar not understanding that there will not be an audience at the CNN debate and that Trump already agreed to it. She declared Trump is "going to stack the audience with Trumpers." The rest of the cast had to repeatedly tell her Trump already agreed to… pic.twitter.com/JSElATKAKl — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 15, 2024   The rest of the cast had to repeatedly tell her Trump already agreed to it, but it didn’t sink in for a couple of minutes (Click “expand”): BEHAR: We were talking about the debates and I wanted to say that I don't think that Biden should have projected that he wants no audience and the mic should be cut off. HAINES: Oh, I do. I think so. BEHAR: I think that CNN should have said to the two them, “this is the debate.” GOLDBERG: You know they're not going to do that. BEHAR: “We’re not telling you-” and also no audience. An audience distracts everybody. GOLDBERG: Yes. Well, that's what Biden – FARAH GRIFFIN: But Trump agreed to it, so that what’s happening. GOLDBERG: So, it'll be interesting. HAINES: But Biden needed to get out in front of it. I would actually disagree with Joy and say he had to project that, because if they arranged it for the best TV moment and all been in those times it doesn't serve him. BEHAR: But it gives him a way to get out of it by saying “Look, I’m not doing it without an audience.” FARAH GRIFFIN: He agreed to it. HAINES: He agreed to it. BEHAR: We'll see. Despite the insistence from the rest of the cast that were would be no audience, Behar was still leery that Trump was "going to stack the audience with Trumpers." “It’s like you have Bozo the Clown on one side and you’ve got a statesman on the other who has had years under his belt of being in the Senate. He knows what he's talking about,” she predicted. Someone get Joy a mirror. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 15, 2024 11:07:01 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Here's what I really appreciate. Biden is saying, no audience. JOY BEHAR: Good. GOLDBERG: And that the mics must be cut once - SARA HAINES: I love this. GOLDBERG: -- the time to answer the question has expired. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes. [Cheers and applause] GOLDBERG: And I kind of -- I think it's fair and I don't -- I think it's at CNN. SARA HAINES: It is. BEHAR: CNN. GOLDBERG: So it's CNN. And I'm hoping us because the last time -- I don't know if it was CNN that was moderating it but when they -- when the moderators allowed him to go behind Hillary Clinton -- HOSTIN: The stalking. GOLDBERG: --and stalk her and they didn't say, “hey-- HOSTIN: “Get back to the podium.” GOLDBERG: -- get back to the podium.” This is -- people always say, what was it -- what was the crowning thing where -- because I always said he's gonna. He's gonna win when he was running against Hillary. I always said it was never a doubt. I said, when I saw people recognize her getting stalked and didn't stop it. BEHAR: Yeah. HAINES: Yeah. BEHAR: There were a lot of signposts. GOLDBERG: There were a lot of signposts that for me said -- then there were the people who were saying, you know, I love him because he knows what he's doing. I watch his show. BEHAR: Yeah, yeah. GOLDBERG: There was a lot of that and so we're all -- I'm hoping this debate happens. I think it's a good idea. It's good for us, you know, and D.T. will have to get his poop together. [Crosstalk] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It was smart of Biden to get ahead of this by challenging Trump and I think it's a recognition that they're neck and neck in the polls. And I think the Biden team is recognizing maybe the trial isn't breaking through in the way that having Donald Trump in every American living room answering tough policy questions head-to-head with him will remind them who he is, what his second term will look like. I think it's critical that they do have these roadblocks in place, cutting offer the mics is the most important or it can descend into absolute chaos. And I remind folks, I've been for debates always. I understand he's ridiculously unfit for office but this is for the Americans whether we -- GOLDBERG: For us. FARAH GRIFFIN: Who are undecided still. They need to see it. They need to hear it and need answers to questions. I think it's good for democracy. HOSTIN: I think it's good for democracy. The only thing is, if you look at the statistics, you know, a lot of people don't watch the debates and a lot of people don't make their decision based on the debates so that's a little bit disappointing but I will say this, I mean, Biden clearly has the edge. Every answer starts with, “well, my opponent, who has been criminally convicted.” BEHAR: That's right. HOSTIN: Or, “Well, my opponent who’s facing--” BEHAR: Impeached. HOSTIN: “Who has been twice impeached.” “My opponent, who is facing three other criminal trials.” I mean, it's gold. It's very easy. BEHAR: Yeah, but a lot of people out there feel like – that identify with him. They think he's a victim now. I was reading about this. (…) 11:15:19 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: You, do you remember what you were talking about? BEHAR: We were talking about the debates and I wanted to say that I don't think that Biden should have projected that he wants no audience and the mic should be cut off. HAINES: Oh, I do. I think so. BEHAR: I think that CNN should have said to the two them, “this is the debate.” GOLDBERG: You know they're not going to do that. BEHAR: “We’re not telling you-” and also no audience. An audience distracts everybody. GOLDBERG: Yes. Well, that's what Biden – FARAH GRIFFIN: But Trump agreed to it, so that what’s happening. GOLDBERG: So, it'll be interesting. HAINES: But Biden needed to get out in front of it. I would actually disagree with Joy and say he had to project that, because if they arranged it for the best TV moment and all been in those times it doesn't serve him. BEHAR: But it gives him a way to get out of it by saying “Look, I’m not doing it without an audience.” FARAH GRIFFIN: He agreed to it. HAINES: He agreed to it. BEHAR: We'll see. [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: You're also right with this. BEHAR: I think so. HOSTIN: That he’ll back out. GOLDBERG: You know, that -- he is a backer-outer anyway. HOSITN: He is. FARAH GRIFFIN: He said he would testify in the trial. BEHAR: He’s going to come across as the low information candidate that he is! HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: That is it. He doesn't know what he's talking about. GOLDBERG: No. BEHAR: Not for nothing, President Biden has been in the Senate. GOLDBEGR: He's going to study. He's going to study. He's going to study and then he's going to get pissed and off the rails. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: It’s like you have Bozo the Clown on one side and you’ve got a statesman on the other who has had years under his belt of being in the Senate. He knows what he's talking about. So all this guy can do is stump it. Stump it. Like he did to poor Hillary that day. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Peru Classifies Transgender People as ‘Mentally Ill’

America should take notes… On Tuesday, the Peruvian government officially categorized both transgender and intersex people as “mentally ill.”  The decree, signed by President Dina Boluarte, notes that “transsexualism, dual-role transvestism, gender identity disorder in childhood, other gender identity disorders and fetishistic transvestism” are now all recorded as mental illnesses in Peru, as Daily Mail reported. The Peruvian government insisted that this will help make “psychological treatment” more freely available to those struggling with these identity and ideology disorders. Now in Peru, people who experience confusion when it comes to their body and identity can receive free health services for said confusion. The shift “categorically reaffirms respect for the dignity of the person and their free actions within the framework of human rights, providing health services for their benefit.” The move, as Daily Mail indicated, came out just days before the 34th anniversary of when the World Health Organization (WHO) removed “homosexuality” from the list of International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Additionally, the word “transexuality” was removed from the list in 2019. But to Peru, those identity terms are now considered mental health illnesses. A report from Yahoo News included a quote from Percy Mayta-Tristán, a medical researcher at Lima’s Scientific University of the South. “You can’t ignore the context that this is happening in a super-conservative society, where the LGBT community has no rights and where labeling them as mentally ill opens the door to conversion therapy,” he said. Critics noted that this new policy would open the door to conversion therapy. But that begs the question, if you’re converting from a delusion, isn’t that good? In response to the news, users on X seemed to be supportive of the move. “I never thought I would see the day Peru was more advanced then the US,” a user wrote on X, while another wrote, “truth hurts.” A different user noted that Peru is “making public what most people are thinking” and said “Good for Peru” Similarly, others said things like “they’re right” and “well done Peru.” I wonder when, if ever, the United States will do the same.

NB Blog Feed

Pro-Life Activist Sentenced to 57 Months in Prison for Protesting Abortion

Lauren Handy, 30, was sentenced to 57 months in prison as well as three years probation on Tuesday for trying to save babies from abortion at an abortion facility back in 2020. The court however, deemed that Handy violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). On October 22, 2020, Handy, along with a number of other pro-life activists, was arrested for allegedly blocking access to the Washington Surgi abortion clinic in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors insist that Handy instructed other pro-lifers at the scene to link themselves together with locks and chains while they sang hymns and prayed for the moms and babies who were set up for abortions.  JUST IN: Pro-lifer Lauren Handy sentenced to nearly 5 years in prison for "blockading" a Washington abortion clinic in 2020. After she was indicted, police found 5 fetuses in her Washinton home. According to prosecutors, Handy instructed co-defendants to chain themselves… pic.twitter.com/WMyeEVPxrz — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 14, 2024   Handy’s already been in jail since August of 2023 when she was convicted of conspiracy against rights and for violating the FACE Act. She was the first of the pro-life group to be sentenced. William Goodman received 27 months and John Hinshaw will have to serve 21 months. according to Tuesday's results. Heather Idoni and Herb Geraghty are waiting for their sentences after pleading not guilty. They face up to 11 years in prison. This is the same clinic where Handy and another pro-life activist, Terrisa Bukovinac, found the bodies of five preemie babies as well as the parts of 115 aborted babies, that the clinic had planned to send to Maryland to be incinerated and used as renewable energy. It’s also the same clinic where late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo admitted that if a child was accidentally born alive from a botched abortion, he’d leave the child to die slowly and painfully rather than give him or her medical attention. Other pro-life groups and individuals were dumbfounded that Handy will have such a harsh penalty for simply attempting to save babies from the evils of abortion. “30-year-old pro-life activist Lauren Handy has just been sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for handing roses and resources to women at an abortion facility, Meanwhile, abortionists who dismember and kill children walk free. A grave injustice,” LiveAction president Lila Rose said.  Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) wrote, “Protestors can block roads, airports, public transit, take over college campuses, and fight police without consequences, but if you pray, sing hymns, and try to convince women to not have their unborn babies killed then you go to prison for YEARS!!!" “Three weeks ago a judge let a woman walk who smothered her child to death while on meth. Today a judge sentenced a pro life activist (Lauren Handy) to nearly 5 years in federal prison for a peaceful sit in at an abortion clinic,” a different user wrote on X. One more user said, “Thanks to the weaponized DOJ, this woman will spend the next 5 years in prison! If she’d been an environmental activist, she’d have probably  gotten a misdemeanor! But, she’s a pro-life advocate, so this admin used the FACE Act to prosecute her." The leftist media are describing Handy as some sort of villain and insist the 57 month jail sentenced isn’t sufficient.  Daily Beast called Handy a “zealot” who “harassed and directly denied health care access to at least two women who were seeking medical care” (medical “care” being abortions). Similarly The Associated Press called Handy an “anti-abortion activist who led a clinic blockade.” Handy shared some words on the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising’s X page alluding to the fact that she doesn’t regret her decisions back in 2020 that led her to where she is now. “It has been close to 9 months since I was abruptly ripped from my community. This has led me to think long and hard on what to say about my sentencing today in federal court” she said in part one of a four part thread on X. “Yes, this time has been challenging but I refuse to be jaded. Why? Because life goes on … even in jail,” she wrote adding, “today I am at peace with myself and my future” before signing her note “Choose Courage Over Comfort.”

NB Blog Feed

PBS Repeats Debunked Hamas-Published Child Casualty Statistics

PBS/CNN host Christiane Amanpour likes to say that journalists should “be truthful, not neutral,” but when she welcomed author Reza Aslan to Wednesday’s Amanpour and Company to promote his new children’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, she could not be bothered to fact-check his debunked casualty estimates from Gaza. Ironically, the whole segment was a violation of Amanpour’s dictum, as the duo portrayed the conflict as a massive tragedy between two sides who refuse to understand that they both have legitimate aspirations and historical grievances against each other. Amanpour began, “So, you know, it just seems to be such a daring thing to do right now, to write a children's book about the hottest conflict, well, obviously Russia and Ukraine as well, but one of the most difficult ones to broach and to think about. So, just tell me why you did it and who actually you're targeting.”     Aslan began, “Well, as you know, over the last seven months of this conflict, since the attacks of October 7th, which led to the death of 1,300 Israelis, including 33 children, some 14,000 children have been killed in Gaza. That's more children than in all the other global conflicts around the world since 2019.” Critics have long argued that Hamas’s numbers cannot be relied upon and recently they were proved correct as the U.N., which relies on Hamas for its reports, halved its estimates. Specifically, it revised the female casualty estimates from 9,500 to 4,959 and from 14,500 to 7,797 for children. Amanpour didn’t step in to correct the record, nor did she point out the truth once Aslan was done speaking. Instead, Aslan broadly summarized the book: And when you're, you know, confronted with that kind of devastation, that kind of horror, I could understand why, as parents, we want to shield our children from it. But I truly do believe, as a parent of four children myself, that this conflict is actually an opportunity to teach our kids and give them the tools necessary to cultivate compassion and empathy, the critical thinking skills, because, yes, this war has been devastating for the children of Israel and Palestine, but children all around the world, including here in the United States, have also been impacted by this conflict. They're inundated with these images of destruction and despair. It's unavoidable, Christiane. And as parents, I get it. Most of us feel like we ourselves barely understand this conflict. I do it for a living and I barely understand it. And so, what I wanted to do was provide a text that would allow caregivers, parents to have the meaningful conversations necessary with their children that could give them context, a sense of understanding about where we are in this conflict. And most importantly, to counter some of the stereotypes and the prejudices that are just flooding them from all sides. If Aslan wants to portray the conflict as tremendously complicated and argue that starting the process of solving it requires both sides to look in the mirror, he cannot use the fake statistics that one side uses to hurl libelous charges of genocide. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 5/14/2024 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So, you know, it just seems to be such a daring thing to do right now, to write a children's book about the hottest conflict, well, obviously Russia and Ukraine as well, but one of the most difficult ones to broach and to think about. So, just tell me why you did it and who actually you're targeting. REZA ASLAN: Well, as you know, over the last seven months of this conflict, since the attacks of October 7th, which led to the death of 1,300 Israelis, including 33 children, some 14,000 children have been killed in Gaza. That's more children than in all the other global conflicts around the world since 2019. And when you're, you know, confronted with that kind of devastation, that kind of horror, I could understand why, as parents, we want to shield our children from it. But I truly do believe, as a parent of four children myself, that this conflict is actually an opportunity to teach our kids and give them the tools necessary to cultivate compassion and empathy, the critical thinking skills, because, yes, this war has been devastating for the children of Israel and Palestine, but children all around the world, including here in the United States, have also been impacted by this conflict. They're inundated with these images of destruction and despair. It's unavoidable, Christiane. And as parents, I get it. Most of us feel like we ourselves barely understand this conflict. I do it for a living and I barely understand it. And so, what I wanted to do was provide a text that would allow caregivers, parents to have the meaningful conversations necessary with their children that could give them context, a sense of understanding about where we are in this conflict. And most importantly, to counter some of the stereotypes and the prejudices that are just flooding them from all sides.

NB Blog Feed

WATCH: MRC’s Dan Schneider Takes Blowtorch to Election-Interfering Big Tech Giants

MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider blew the lid off the gargantuan election interference that leftist Big Tech platforms have been engaging in for years. During the May 13 edition of The Unusual Suspects podcast, host Rob Garguilo asked Schneider which Big Tech companies are actively suppressing election-related speech. “Every single one of them,” replied Schneider. He added that the leftists in the C-Suites of these censorship-obsessed tech companies, “have the idea that anytime that we disagree with them, that that is disinformation or misinformation or mal-information and harmful to what they think is democracy so we have to be silenced.” Schneider concluded that the “biggest offender” was Google, which was shown through MRC Free Speech America research to have grossly interfered in US elections since 2008.  Schneider broke down some of the MRC’s past findings illustrating specifically how Google has manipulated the U.S. election process to serve its own left-wing political ends. “For about three months we ran about the same two sets of search queries [Republican presidential campaign websites and Democrat presidential campaign websites], and we ran them before each one of the Republican presidential campaign debates.” The results damningly showed that Google actively suppressed President Joe Biden’s political opponents, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But of course, as Schneider analyzed, this is just one of the many glaring examples of Google’s malfeasance. MRC Free Speech America counted no less than 41 times that Google has worked to ensure that its favored leftist candidates won their respective elections.  Schneider stressed that there are “very practical things” citizens could do to fight against Google’s bias. “If you have to use Google, don’t bother with the first page of search results. Go to the second or third page of search results, if you actually want a balanced view.” Schneider also suggested other search engine platforms like Tusk and DuckDuckGo as viable alternatives to the Google monopoly. Garguilo summarized MRC’s Big Tech research as “terrifying when you hear what’s going on with election interference.” He added that part of the problem is a lack of awareness of the issue. “We’ve traded freedoms for ease of convenience,” Garguilo said. “You know why people don’t use DuckDuckGo? It’s not as easy to use as Google. I never even knew Tusk existed. So I’m walking away knowing that now there is a different search engine.”   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 MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

NB Blog Feed

BREAKING: Biden, Trump Agree to Presidential Debates in June on CNN, September on ABC

UPDATE, 11:58 a.m. Eastern: In addition to the CNN debate on June 27, former President Donald Trump and President Biden revealed on their respective social media accounts that they’ve both agreed to a second presidential debate for Tuesday, September 10 on ABC. The move was also confirmed by ABC News. In turn, this fulfills the two debates requested for June and September by the Biden campaign with moderators only to be selected from liberal media networks ABC, CBS, CNN, or Telemundo. As of this update, no word on whether Team Biden will agree to the Trump campaign’s request for two additional debates in July and August. The original post continues below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following a flurry of developments Wednesday morning that publicly began with the Biden campaign’s lengthy statement and cut-filled video of President Biden goating former President Donald Trump, the two sides agreed just before 11:00 a.m. Eastern to an audience-less presidential debate for Thursday, June 27 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern inside CNN’s newly-minted Atlanta, Georgia compound in Techwood. CNN’s invitation came curiously not long after the Biden regime’s essay-lengthy demands, most notably calls for debates in June and September with the vice presidential debate in July and that moderators could only come from ABC, CBS, CNN, or Telemundo. “CNN will host an election debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump on June 27, 2024 at 9pm ET from the crucial battleground state of Georgia. The debate will be held in CNN’s Atlanta studios. To ensure candidates may maximize the time allotted in the debate, no audience will be present,” the network said in a press release. It added that, in an important tidbit for this website and readership, “[m]oderators for the debate and additional details will be announced at a later date.” Time to start taking bets. Fake News Jim? Jake Tapper? Anderson Cooper, who co-moderated one of the Trump-Hillary Clinton 2016 debates? Erin Burnett, who just conducted a softball interview with Biden? Late-night liberal hack Abby Phillip? Or do they run it back with Chris Wallace? While it then alluded to requiring candidates fulfilling all constitutional qualifications, sufficient appearances on state ballots, and polling benchmarks, this arrangement as a result of informal talks between the two campaigns would appear to have been done to cut out the Presidential Commission on Debates and thus exclude third-party candidates, including the high-polling independent bid by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. An on-air announcement came during Acosta’s hour of CNN Newsroom to coincide with a CNN Public Relations tweet. “Alright, more on the breaking news right now, Former President Donald Trump has accepted CNN’s invitation for debate with President Biden. That is setting up a June showdown...[T]his is going to happen very quickly if — if all a plays out the way it’s happening right now,” Acosta proclaimed to CNN’s resident Biden apple polisher, Arlette Saenz. Saenz then relayed what her side of the aisle wanted out of this debate, noting the lengthy Biden regime’s list of “very specific” demands “about what they want to see” such as “the microphones can only be on when each candidate is expected to speak, potentially eliminating some of that very intense back-and-forth that we saw in the very first debate between Biden and Trump back in 2020.” #BREAKING: CNN announces that both President Biden and Donald Trump have accepted their invitation for a presidential debate on Thursday, June 27 at CNN's Atlanta studios at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, no studio audience. pic.twitter.com/YIaBwSDqSr — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 15, 2024 Acosta and chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny then discussed more of the details, including how this will be a throwback to the first-ever presidential debate on TV in 1960 between future Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (click “expand”): ACOSTA: CNN will host and election debate between Biden and Trump on June 20, at. 9:00 p.m. in the Atlanta studios of CNN. Our new studios, not at the old building, but the new building. ZELENY: The historical Techwood studios. ACOSTA: The Techwoods campus and it says here, “to ensure candidates may maximize the time a lot in the debate, no audience will be present”. ZELENY: Right. ACOSTA: That’s interesting. ZELENY: And that is — it really takes us back, Jim, to those first televised debates in 1960, of course, in CBS news and Chicago. ACOSTA: Oh, yeah. ZELENY: On ___ street clerk shirt at WBBM as you well know. ACOSTA: My old stomping ground, yeah. ZELENY: And it’s certainly is designed, at least the Biden campaign is hoping, that it will focus on the issues, on the candidates, and the contrast port. And also that it’s an Atlanta. Obviously, Georgia is a central battleground in this election. It’s some — state that has really been the subject of so much conversation. Donald Trump claimed he won it. He did not win it, of course court cases, et cetera, but it is a key battleground as well. But this is a fast moving development and the point is, you can tell I didn’t k-mean has been working on this for awhile. ACOSTA: Oh yeah. ZELENY: And clearly, they’ve been preparing for the idea of a debate, but it could just happen weeks after the first criminal trial’s in. ACOSTA: That’s right. ZELENY: So, certainly the outcome of that will also be hanging over this debate. Minutes after this announcement, a Trump campaign memo was made public by campaign co-managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles arguing “there should be more than just two opportunities for the American people to hear more from the candidates themselves.” In turn, they announced they agree to not only the Biden campaign’s proposals for the September showdown and the vice presidential candidate sparring session, but two additional debates in July and August because “[w]e believe the American people deserve more than what the Biden administration has to offer.”

NB Blog Feed

'When Does The Stoning Begin?': Colbert Bizarrely Attacks Johnson's Faith

Speaker Mike Johnson traveled to New York on Tuesday to support Donald Trump at his trial, which led CBS’s Stephen Colbert to accuse him of hypocrisy and launch a bizarre attack on his faith on The Late Show. Colbert began by putting up a photo of a chagrin-looking Johnson, “Trump got some moral support today from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, seen here after accidentally thinking about the word ‘nipple.’" Amidst the guffaws from the liberal audience, Colbert added, “Just the word, not even the image, just the word ‘nipple.’ It's too titillating and don't get him started on the word titillating.”     Finally getting to his substantive point, Colbert continued by portraying the 52-year old Johnson as some sex-confused weirdo, “Johnson is a hyper-conservative Biblical literalist, but today, he took a day off from performative holiness to attend Trump's hush money trial. Now, I'm no fan of Johnson, but no one should be subjected to 30 years of sex education in one day.” Colbert also played a video of Johnson declaring, “I'm an attorney. I'm a former litigator myself. I am disgusted by what is happening here.” Afterwards, Colbert returned to add, ‘“I've heard things today that disgust me! Woman layeth with man outside holy wedlock? When does the stoning begin? I brought my lucky rock.’” Colbert is trying to paint Johnson as a hypocrite for citing the Bible as the basis for his political beliefs while supporting a candidate who allegedly paid hush money to cover up an affair with a porn actress, but that is not what Trump is on trial for and Colbert knows it. Besides, as a supposedly devout Catholic himself, Colbert also surely knows one can be a “hyper-conservative Biblical literalist” and opposed to stoning, but admitting these truths would ruin the joke, such as it is. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/14/2024 11:42 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump got some moral support today from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, seen here after accidentally thinking about the word "nipple."  Just the word, not even the image, just the word "nipple." It's too titillating and don't get him started on the word titillating. Johnson is a hyper-conservative Biblical literalist, but today, he took a day off from performative holiness to attend Trump's hush money trial. Now, I'm no fan of Johnson, but no one should be subjected to 30 years of sex education in one day.  That's like taking an Amish kid to Epcot. "Goodness, English. Mexico is beside France is beside space?"  Now, outside the courtroom, Johnson made it clear what he won't stand for this charade. MIKE JOHNSON: I'm an attorney. I'm a former litigator myself. I am disgusted by what is happening here. COLBERT: "I've heard things today that disgust me! Woman layeth with man outside holy wedlock? When does the stoning begin? I brought my lucky rock.” 

NB Blog Feed

Fix Social Security With Ownership, Not More Government

The trustees for Social Security have just issued their annual report. And, as we have learned annually over recent years, the system cannot meet its obligations. According to this latest report, the Social Security system will not be able to meet its obligations to retirees by 2035. In 2035, the system will be adequate to meet just 83% of its obligations. This is supposedly good news because the projected shortfall occurs one year later than reported last year. But the change simply reflects the fact that the system is so massive -- it's the single largest government program, with annual expenditure of $1.2 trillion -- that small changes in assumptions in the planning model produce big changes in the projected results. Young people today start working and immediately have 6.2% of their paycheck deducted in payroll tax for Social Security, with their employer matching this with another 6.2% -- all paid into a system that is bankrupt. Our political leaders, to the extent they choose to speak about this issue, reiterate their commitment to “save the system.” But “saving the system” means just taking a bad situation and making it worse. Who wants to “save the system” by raising taxes, raising the retirement age or cutting benefits? Many still believe that Social Security is some kind of retirement investment program, but it's not. It is a government tax and spending program. Individuals are forced to pay the payroll tax. And those payroll taxes are used to pay retirement benefits for those currently retired. Even if you think this is a good idea, it no longer works. When the system began in the 1930s, there were over 40 working Americans per retiree. Today, because of longer life spans and declining birthrates, there are just a little over three working for each retiree. Worker's taxes soon won't be enough. I have been writing for years that the system should not and cannot be saved, and I make this same declaration now. It is quite reasonable for the government to insist that individuals take steps to secure their future in retirement. But it is not reasonable for government to step in and take away an individual freedom on how to take care of themselves. Individuals should be allowed to take ownership of the payroll tax they are forced to pay and use these funds to invest in their own personal retirement account. The benefits of giving individuals freedom to take ownership of their own earnings and invest are huge. For one thing, putting funds into the equity markets over a 45-year working life yields far higher returns than Social Security provides. In one study, done a number of years ago at the Cato Institute, they looked at a theoretical average-income couple that retired in 2009, one year after a huge crash in the stock market. Despite a 37% market decline in 2008, the cumulative returns they received since they started investing when they were 21 in 1965 yielded savings of $855,175. This is based on the actual market returns over those years, not theory. This is 75% more than what they would have gotten from Social Security, per the study. Lack of ownership in stocks greatly accounts for the huge difference in household wealth between Black households and white households. Whereas, per the Federal Reserve, 65.6% of white households own stocks, only 39.2% of Black households do. As a result, average household wealth in assets among white households is approximately $1.5 million compared to $297,000 among Black households. Plus, investing gives everyone “skin in the game” to limit government and keep our American system of capitalism alive and healthy. No move could do more to restoring economic vitality and individual freedom in our country than transforming our broken Social Security system into a nationwide personal investment program.

NB Blog Feed

George Soros Fueled $80M Into Groups Calling for Big Tech Censorship in Lead-Up to 2024 Elections

A massive effort spearheaded by a censorship-obsessed group financed by leftist billionaire George Soros is looking to incorporate global pressure to push Big Tech platforms to juice their censorship operations before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Free Press, a Soros-funded media group that claimed responsibility for helping get former President Donald Trump banned from Twitter, is at the helm of a new push to restrict free speech online. “More Than 200 Groups Urge Leading Tech Platforms to Implement Election-Integrity Policies to Protect Democracy Worldwide,” Free Press blared in its Apr. 9 press release on a new co-signed letter by groups around the world.  In the letter, the anti-free speech groups raged at social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter (now X) and YouTube for reducing “interventions necessary to keep online platforms” allegedly “safe and healthy” and demanded “swift action” to protect so-called democracy. MRC research unveiled that at least 45 of the signatories have had their coffers packed with Soros cash to the tune of a whopping $80,757,329 between 2016 and 2022 alone.  The letter was distributed to top executives at Big Tech platforms at Discord, Google, Instagram, Meta, Pinterest, Reddit, Rumble, Snap, TikTok, Twitch, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). The document attempted to justify that it was written with reducing “real-world harms” and “the rise of extremism and violent attempts to overthrow democratic governments” in mind. However, it appears that its true design is to pressure Big Tech companies to silence speech the left despises as 60 countries across the globe gear up for their elections in 2024. But even more disturbing was the letter’s implication that its primary target is interfering in the 2024 U.S. election. This development is directly in line with Soros’ brand, who has dedicated millions of his ungodly fortune to groups looking to interfere in elections by stifling online speech.  The first of six so-called “interventions” called for by the coalition involve investment “in greater platform integrity by reinstating election-integrity policies, inclusive of moderating content around the Big Lie,” which the Soros-funded co-signatory William J. Brennan Center for Justice defined as the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The letter also condescended how in “2020, Black people and other people of color, women, and non-English speakers were — and continue to be — disproportionately targeted with online election lies.” The statement linked out to an Associated Press article pertaining specifically to so-called 2020 election “disinformation” in the U.S. election and how 2024 will be allegedly “worse.”  Nora Benavidez, the senior counsel and director of Digital Justice and Civil Rights at Free Speech, railed in a statement, “‘The tech industry’s refusal to safeguard their platforms is already having a dangerous impact on democracies around the world.’” Her disingenuous pontificating ended in hyperbole: “‘Today, hundreds of civil-society groups are putting these companies on notice: Failure to uphold and enforce sound election-integrity policies and expand non-English staffing to monitor disinformation, political deepfakes and other harmful content will be catastrophic to free and fair elections worldwide.’”  The explicit push for speech controls is especially disturbing in light of the stated vision of one of Free Press’s founders. Leftist Free Press co-founder Robert W. McChesney once made a Marxist call to action in 2000 to “overhaul” the American press: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.” He published his comments in the Monthly Review, a self-described “independent socialist magazine.” It appears Free Press is living up to its founder’s principles.  The signatory that received the most Soros funding in MRC’s tally was none other than the climate change-obsessed Global Witness, which is already on record pressuring Facebook and TikTok to increase censorship operations before the 2022 midterm elections. The Soros empire funded the group with a massive $20,338,270 between 2016 and 2022. The group’s “digital threats” campaign, for example, is specifically focused on pressuring governments to regulate speech on social media. “The Big Tech companies are not too big to be made to change, and change does not rely on significant numbers of us having to stop using the digital products these companies provide,” Global Witness claimed.   Another one of the more dangerous groups listed in the letter is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), which received $3,149,863 from Soros between 2017 and 2022. The leftist group was recently exposed in a House Judiciary Committee investigation for co-authoring a “hate groups” blacklist with the Soros-funded Global Disinformation Index (GDI) targeting “conservative” and faith-based organizations. This list was later disseminated by law enforcement to several financial institutions. The discovery was part of a broader congressional investigation that uncovered federal law enforcement circulating documents to private financial institutions to jawbone them into giving up sensitive customer data. The customers caught up in the federal dragnet didn’t even necessarily have to be suspected of committing any crimes. ISD disturbingly lists the U.S. Department of State and Department of Homeland Security as funders. The fact that Free Press is at the tip of this Soros-tied spear should concern every American. Free Press’s obsession with censorship and gaining control of the Internet cannot be overstated. This is the same group that boasted how it was “involved in direct talks that pressured Google and Amazon to boot the dangerous” pro-free speech platform Parler from their platforms because of so-called “election lies.”  Free Press’s 2015 annual report celebrated how it was also responsible for influencing the Obama-era FCC into adopting draconian “Net Neutrality” rules that arbitrarily sanctioned massive government regulation of the Internet. Free Press praised how the FCC reportedly cited the Soros-funded organization “close to 70 times” in its final order on the matter. The adopted FCC rules empowered government officials to review, approve or reject Internet service provider rates. What they actually did, according to the Cato Institute, was guarantee “ISPs government enforced market protection and profitability, in exchange for regulators ensuring that ISPs won’t be too profitable.” In other words, the FCC rules proposed by former President Barack Obama and Free Press in 2015 sought to regulate the Internet as a public utility. Then-FCC commissioner Ajit Pai stated that the move gave the agency “broad and unprecedented discretion to micromanage the Internet,” in a 2015 press release on the proposed rules. Americans beware. The Soros network is coming after your free speech just in time for the U.S. elections — again. 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 MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

NB Blog Feed

Column: Hillary Clinton’s Conspiracy Privilege

It’s hard to watch the incessant gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Donald Trump trial in Manhattan without feeling like you’re traveling in a time warp back to 2016. We’re back reliving the “Access Hollywood” tape and talk of how Trump would have never been elected except porn star Stormy Daniels accepted a six-figure check to keep quiet. The richest vein of hypocrisy on this adultery-mangles-electability question flows through the Clintons. Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" to denounce Trump for squashing the bimbo stories. It was typically shameless. She said: “I think the defendant, the former president, knew exactly what he was doing when he went to such great lengths to try to squash, bury, kill stories, pay off people, because he understood the electoral significance of them.” The cast of “Morning Joe” treated Hillary Clinton as a therapist for their Trump angst, and no one interrupted and asked about all the squashing, burying, and killing of stories that Hillary Clinton engaged in when they first sought the White House in 1992. On the cusp of the Gennifer Flowers allegations breaking in January of that year, Hillary Clinton was telling Margaret Carlson of Time magazine “My marriage is solid, full of love and friendship, but it’s too profound to talk about glibly.” But after Flowers asserted she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton, they appeared on “60 Minutes,” and Hillary Clinton claimed women being questioned about their relationship with Bill were her friends. “We reached out to them. I met with two of them to reassure them they knew they were friends of ours. I felt terrible about what was happening to them.” In retrospect, one can smell what Hillary was cooking. She was pressuring potential accusers to stay quiet, but pitching it on national TV as just chatting things over with friends. One can only imagine how Melania Trump processed the Stormy Daniels tale, but paying a non-disclosure agreement isn't exactly maintaining your innocence. That's why the Democratic prosecutors in New York are pumping this out on CNN and MSNBC, hour on the hour. The Left thinks those religious conservatives are bothered by this, and it should cause them to vote for someone else, preferably that "devout Catholic" Joe Biden. But Hillary has always waged war on anyone who would seek to damage her and Bill's future in politics, and the media have always gushed over her warfare. At the end of the Year of Our Intern in 1998, Time magazine was aglow. Reporters Nancy Gibbs and Karen Tumulty oozed that "as she pursued the private rescue of a marriage and the public rescue of a presidency, she was the one person who seemed to see the larger story and shaped its telling." The "larger story" was the "vast right-wing conspiracy." In this election cycle, Democratic prosecutors lobbed 91 felony charges at Trump, and the networks largely refuse to even describe them as Democrats, let alone a vast left-wing conspiracy. Time managing editor Walter Isaacson even wrote that they wanted to name her "Person of the Year" in 1998 for her, um, "dignity." That's how they describe Hillary lying for months that Bill didn't have sexual relations with That Woman. "Her strength and her almost surreal ability to assert her dignity were remarkable to some and mystifying to others." This kind of copy is why most Americans don't trust the "mainstream media." They don't report stories as much as they "shape" them for the benefit of their political allies.

NB Blog Feed

We Regret To Inform You All That CNN Is Still Performing Dramatic Readings Of Trump Trial Transcripts

Generally speaking, CNN’s coverage of the so-called Trump “hush money” trial has taken such an onanistic turn that reasonable people may question whether Jeffrey Toobin is now in charge of the once-revered Cable News Network. The most ridiculous iteration of this coverage? Dramatic readings of the trial transcripts. Watch as yet another night of dramatic readings kicks off tonight’s episode of CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, as aired on CNN on Tuesday, May 14th, 2024: ELLIOT WILLIAMS (AS TODD BLANCHE): You referred to President Trump as a “Dictator Douche Bag”, didn't you?  MARCUS CHILDRESS (AS MICHAEL COHEN): Sounds like something I said. WILLIAMS: And on that same TikTok, so again on April 23rd, you referred to President Trump when he left the courtroom, you said that he goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs in an effing cage like an animal. Do you recall saying that?  CHILDRESS: I recall saying that. LAURA COATES: Mmm. That’s a dramatic reading, Abby. ABBY PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, that's kinda how it went down, intonation and all, Marcus. Thank you for that. Also with us…  COATES: No New York accent, though!  PHILLIP: No New York accent, but… COATES: Where are the New York accents? What are you doin’?! WILLIAMS: You guys know I can’t do that. COATES: All right. ALL: (laughter) I can’t imagine the trajectory that leads these guys to law school, build careers, serve respectively in the Obama administration and on the House January 6th Committee, only to be brought on CNN and be made to read “Dictator Douche Bag” as well as Michael Cohen’s hangdog responses, and then be berated by Laura Coates for insufficiently performing these dopey readings in a comedic Noo Yawk accent. Nor can I imagine the galaxy-brain calculations that result in performing this schtick now for a second night in a row, thinking this is good television. Or journalism. But here we are. Were it not for the fact that this trial is the fruit of an ongoing effort to weaponize state and federal government against the leading opposition presidential candidate, it would almost seem wholly appropriate to cover this joke of a trial and underlying charges in a comedic manner.  There are many words that come to mind with which to describe the nonsense running on CNN air (or MSNBC’s, for that matter), but journalism is not one such word. CNN’s creepy, cheerleady coverage of this trial is the furthest thing from journalism, and embodies the worst excesses of Regime Media.  

NB Blog Feed

Network PM Newscasts AVOID NYC Mayor Adams’ Racist ‘Swimmers’ Remarks

The evening network newscasts leave us, once again, to imagine what coverage might have been had a Republican elected official attested to migrants making great lifeguards due to their being “excellent swimmers”, as did New York Mayor Eric Adams. The wild stereotyping and casual racism are all there for the taking but the networks took a pass, leaving reasonable individuals to conclude that there’s a (D)ifference in how such stories are covered. Beyond the conservative media ecosystem, only NBC News Now has dared to cover the story. Here’s how Tom Llamas opened his report on his eponymous show:   TOM LLAMAS: Back here in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams sparking controversy over remarks he made about migrants, appearing to suggest they could fill the city's lifeguard shortage because they are, quote, “excellent swimmers”. Take a listen. ERIC ADAMS: If we had a migrant and asylum seeker plan that states those jobs that we are in high demand, we could expedite. How do we have a large body of people in our city and country that are excellent swimmers and at the same time, we need lifeguards? And the only obstacle is that won’t give them the right to work to become a lifeguard? That just doesn't make sense. LLAMAS: That quote really doesn't make sense. Adams’ administration has faced criticism over its handling of the estimated 180,000 migrants who have arrived in the city since 2022, many of them ending up in the city’s already overwhelmed shelter system. Llamas would go on to interview a local migrant advocate who blasted Adams for his dual discourse when it comes to migrants, and for his view that the migrant crisis will destroy New York City. Llamas continued to blast Adams for his remarks, and questioned whether his factual basis for calling migrants “excellent swimmers” is the notion that they swam across the Rio Grande, or perhaps the Florida Strait- lamenting the lack of outrage over Adams’ remarks in a “progressive” city. WATCH as Tom @LlamasNBC RIPS Mayor Adams over wildly racist "excellent swimmers" remark, decries lack of outrage in "progressive" NYC. No nightly network newscast covered this story- not ABCWNT, CBSEN, or NBCNN. There's clearly a (D)ifference in coverage versus if a GOP said it. pic.twitter.com/4HXjUpYDsn — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 15, 2024 TOM LLAMAS: But I also want to talk about just sort of painting with a very broad brush that the migrants in New York are all great swimmers. Where would he get that from, unless it had something to do with crossing the Rio Grande, or because some of them may come from places like Cuba or Haiti, or another island? Regardless, it's incredibly racist and I am shocked and really upset that there hasn't been more sort of outrage in this city. A city that claims to be progressive, a city that claims to protect people from all nationalities and no one really cares about this. It’s true, and the record will reflect that included within the “no one” that cares about Adams’ remarks: his own colleagues across the dial and including at his own network. None of the evening network newscasts reported on this story.  And how could they, when reporting on the casual racism of the Mayor of New York would have surely forced them to cut their gushing stories on Caitlin Clark and the highly anticipated start of the WNBA season? Shockingly, neither did “Latino advocate” networks Univision or Telemundo. This is a stark departure from their normal custom, which is to dedicate three minutes of A-block to the occasional TikTok of a random Karen screaming “speak English” to illegals at some indeterminate local retail establishment. It goes without saying that had a prominent Republican said anything close to what Adams said, there would be a multi-day cycle and some enterprising White House correspondent would’ve already gotten President Joe Biden to mumble “something, something, Cesar Chávez.”  But Tom Llamas learned the hard way, and on a personal issue, what we’ve already known: that there is a (D)ifference as to how these stories are covered. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as streamed on NBC News Now’s Top Story With Tom Llamas, on Tuesday, May 14th, 2024:   TOM LLAMAS: Back here in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams sparking controversy over remarks he made about migrants, appearing to suggest they could fill the city's lifeguard shortage because they are, quote, “excellent swimmers”. Take a listen. ERIC ADAMS: If we had a migrant and asylum seeker plan that states those jobs that we are in high demand, we could expedite. How do we have a large body of people in our city and country that are excellent swimmers and at the same time, we need lifeguards? And the only obstacle is that won’t give them the right to work to become a lifeguard? That just doesn't make sense. LLAMAS: That quote really doesn't make sense. Adams’ administration has faced criticism over its handling of the estimated 180,000 migrants who have arrived in the city since 2022, many of them ending up in the city’s already overwhelmed shelter system. For more on Adams’ remarks, the state of the migrant crisis in New York City, I'm joined now by Power Malu, he is the executive director of Artists, Athletes, and Activists, it’s a grassroots organization that connects migrants here in the city with key services including shelter, food, medical care and legal support. Power, I want to thank you for joining me. I want to start with the mayor's comments there. I know how I interpreted that- those comments, how did you interpret them? POWER MALU: Once again, we have an administration that’s deflecting attention off of their incompetency and mismanagement, and pointing the finger at the migrants. At any given press conference, you’ll have this administration blame the migrants for the financial woes of the city and in the same breath, they’ll praise and say the migrants should be allowed to work because they can help us. LLAMAS: Yeah, I get that, but I also want to talk about just sort of painting with a very broad brush that the migrants in New York are all great swimmers. Where would he get that from, unless it had something to do with crossing the Rio Grande, or because some of them may come from places like Cuba or Haiti, or another island? Regardless, it's incredibly racist and I am shocked and really upset that there hasn't been more sort of outrage in this city. A city that claims to be progressive, a city that claims to protect people from all nationalities and no one really cares about this. MALU: Yeah, we have an administration that is constantly doing things like this and it gets brushed under the rug. Also, this mayor says that people attack him because he is black or African-American. So what we are having here is just excuse after excuse as to why you’re not dealing with the migrant crisis. And I want to say is that there are plenty of grassroots organizations that have been supporting since Day One, and this administration has constantly said that there is no resources, but they are abundant. There’s abundance of resources. LLAMAS: Do you think a mayor who could make a comment like that has an understanding of who these people are and where they come from? ‘Cause they really come from all over the world. MALU: Absolutely. This is stereotypes. This is, you know, a mayor that is not in touch with what's going on. We’ve been on the ground since Day One. There are people that cross from Africa, from Afghanistan, from Latin America, they are from all over the world. So to just say that people that are here are great swimmers, it's a poor comment.  LLAMAS: Do you think it was literally connected to them crossing the Rio Grande? Do you think that’s where the logic came- I don't even know where the logic comes from. MALU: So you’re talking about a mayor who said that these migrants are the issue that’s going to crush New York City. That's what he said at another townhall meeting. So you can't listen to the things that he says because this administration are spin masters. They always try to find a way to deflect attention. Where do you get migrants are great swimmers and they are going to save the situation with the pools and the beaches? You should've been thinking about this a year ago when that problem existed. Yes, of course they are skilled when they come here and they are looking for work and they deserve work but it doesn't happen by osmosis. Our organization has been helping them file for work authorization and asylum and they can't even get their mail because they're constantly being moved from shelter to shelter. Let's deal with the root of the problem. LLAMAS: All right, Power Malu. I also want to say that we’ve- we reached out for comment to the City of New York and to Mayor Adams, I think we’re still waiting on that comment. But anyways, Power, we appreciate you.  

NB Blog Feed

See You In Court! New ‘Victory’ for AG Paxton’s Free Speech Lawsuit

A federal judge secured an “important victory” and denied the Biden censorship regime’s attempts to quash a free speech lawsuit. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, The Daily Wire and The Federalist are jointly suing the State Department for weaponizing foreign counter-propaganda efforts to censor Americans. The Biden administration filed a motion to dismiss the case or move it to a likely more sympathetic Washington, D.C. court. But U.S. District Judge for Texas’s Eastern District Jeremy Kernodle denied the request. He also granted the plaintiffs’ request for an “expedited discovery” as they seek to “to determine the full scope” of the Biden administration’s nefarious actions. The lawsuit centers on the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which funded censorship projects like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard. Both projects blacklist media outlets–particularly right-leaning media–and use those blacklists to discourage potential advertisers from working with them. Similar: Not So Fast: Biden Signs NDAA Calling Out NewsGuard … Then Issues Disclaimer  Margot Cleveland, an attorney for the New Civil Liberties Alliance who is litigating the suit, noted in a statement just how nefarious the government’s actions truly are. “The State Department and its Global Engagement Center lost sight of the Constitution’s foundational principles, executing a secretive censorship scheme that funded, tested, and promoted technologies that demonetize American media outlets and silence the speech of ordinary Americans,” she said. Paxton also tore into the State Department for its “reprehensible attempt to censor the American press with funding intended to monitor foreign propaganda, aiming to repress viewpoints the federal government disagreed with.” He added that “[a]busing taxpayer money, Biden repurposed a government agency into a censorship apparatus. It must stop, and I am proud to lead the Nation’s fight to save the First Amendment.”  Both GDI and Newsguard have actively worked to dry up ad revenue streams for media plaintiffs The Daily Wire and The Federalist.  GDI listed both The Daily Wire and The Federalist in its list of the “riskiest sites” for advertisers to show their products on in an October 2022 report. NewsGuard has similarly worked to discredit the two media sites. The ratings firm gave The Daily Wire a rating of 49.5 out of 100, indicating that users and advertisers should “proceed with caution.” NewsGuard similarly gave The Federalist one of its lowest ratings coming in with a 12.5 out of 100 and a warning to “proceed with maximum caution.” This comes after the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to halt GEC’s funding of NewsGuard and GDI during the course of the ongoing court proceedings. Late last year, MRC Free Speech America and the Free Speech Alliance also called for the two groups to be defunded through the National Defense Authorization Act. Related: MRC, Pro-Free Speech Allies Call on Congress to Block NewsGuard Funding in NDAA MRC Free Speech America Contributor Christian Baldwin contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

‘Shocked’: TV Host Blasts TikTok, Instagram for Blocking Pro-Israel Content

A NewsNation host slammed communist Chinese government-tied TikTok and Meta-owned Instagram for censoring content on one of the most hotly debated topics online. On May 3, NewsNation founder and host Dan Abrams declared himself “shocked” by censorship of his pro-Israel content on two popular social media platforms. These are just the latest cases of bias and censorship related to the Hamas-Israel conflict. Dan Abrams discussed the censorship of his content with his father Floyd Abrams during the Dan Abrams Live show. The NewsNation host played a clip of him challenging a pro-Palestinian professor on why anti-Israel protesters “call for a Hamas ceasefire proposal, if ceasefire was their true goal.” According to the host, this content was censored on Instagram for allegedly promoting a dangerous organization.  Dan Abrams also touched on TikTok’s ties to the communist Chinese government and compared the differing standards he said the app used in censoring content challenging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu versus the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.  “I mean, look, on TikTok, I guess I wasn’t as surprised, that they are, it’s owned by China, right? ... The content that they censored from me was when I was questioning the numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry, and I had an expert on who was saying that the numbers can’t make sense,” the NewsNation host said. “They wouldn’t let me share that. But then, when I asked tough questions of Netanyahu’s spokesperson, oh, that was fine to distribute.” Dan Abrams’s father appeared to agree. “It is really unforgivable for an entity that relies on free speech, that purports to defend free speech, to engage in that sort of content-centric, ‘you have to be on our side’ censorship,” the lawyer slammed TikTok.  TikTok is owned by Chinese ByteDance. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. Previously, actor Nate Buzolic also accusedInstagram and TikTok of censoring his pro-Israel, anti-Hamas content. TikTok even openly bragged about removing over 500,000 pieces of content relative to the ongoing Hamas-Israel conflict. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

De Niro Goes on Profanity-Laced Tirade, Claims Trump Is 'Already' Hitler/Mussolini

Between co-host Sunny Hostin saying there were too many white people in Trump’s courtroom and George Stephanopoulos praising the Deep State, the Tuesday edition of ABC’s The View was already stacked with outrageous moments before Trump-hater and actor, Robert De Niro took the stage late in the show. The bitter aging actor went on an unhinged and profanity-filled tirade against the former President and asserted that he was “already” like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. “I don't understand why people are not taking him seriously [as a threat],” De Niro decried, “because you read about it historically in other countries that they didn't take the people seriously. Think of Hitler and Mussolini. They were fools and clowns. Well -- and I hear -- some people -- I mean, who does not think that this guy is going to do exactly what he says he's going to do? He's done it already.” De Niro predicted that, if Trump got elected again, at some point he and other people against Trump would be able to say, “We told you so.” He then lashed out at Trump’s supporters with a deluge of profanity that caused executive producer Brian Teta to mute the entire show, not just De Niro: DE NIRO: It's going to happen. If he gets elected it's going to change this country for everybody and they might think that it's going to make their life better or just want, excuse my French [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] Literally. Those people who support him with anger and hate because that's what he's about, they're going to see. I mean, I used to see these things -- I didn't understand how he and Rosie O’Donnell used to get – I didn’t really care. I see what a hateful, mean-spirited awful thing he is.     Wallowing in hypocrisy, De Niro argued that he wanted to punch Trump in the face because Trump once said he wanted to punch a person who was disrupting one of his rallies during the 2016 election: And why will he not do that in this country? He's already done it. Why would he not -- when I say I want to punch him in the face, it’s cause what he said to a person, a bystander, or somebody in one of his rallies, he wants to punch him in the face. You don't talk that way to people. “What kind of person does that?” De Niro asked. Well, Robert, you do. What does that say about you? De Niro would go on a much longer profanity-filled tirade, causing the show’s audio to break in and out multiple times: DE NIRO: He's done everything. What more do you need? It's almost like he wants to do the worst that he could possibly do to show this country [Show mutes as De Niro curses] His Slau [Show mutes as De Niro curses] I [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] As they were nearing the end of the segment, moderator Whoopi Goldberg chimed in to claim – without evidence – that Trump planned to take over the country and not relinquish power until he died. “Listen, he's not going to not stop being president! You understand this?! His idea is to stay in until he drops dead!” she screeched. “That's it! He's not even conceding it now so imagine if he actually did win the election. It's over!” De Niro agreed. “We're going to have such civil strife. All the things he says because everybody is now on to him where he projects what he's saying. It's what he wants, what he envisions the world to be, which is chaos and craziness, total craziness.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 14, 2024 11:50:55 a.m. Eastern (…) ROBERT DE NIRO: I don't understand why people are not taking him seriously, because you read about it historically in other countries that they didn't take the people seriously. Think of Hitler and Mussolini. They were fools and clowns. Well -- and I hear -- some people -- I mean, who does not think that this guy is going to do exactly what he says he's going to do? SUNNY HOSTIN: Right. DE NIRO: He's done it already. JOY BEHAR: Worse. [Applause] DE NIRO: And then what? We're going to sit around and say, “What? We told you so” or whoever, “I told you so?” It's going to happen. If he gets elected it's going to change this country for everybody and they might think that it's going to make their life better or just want, excuse my French [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] Literally. Those people who support him with anger and hate because that's what he's about, they're going to see. I mean, I used to see these things -- I didn't understand how he and Rosie O’Donnell used to get – I didn’t really care. I see what a hateful, mean-spirited awful thing he is. BEHAR: He was vicious to her. DE NIRO: He's vicious. BEHAR: Vicious. DE NIRO: And why will he not do that in this country? He's already done it. Why would he not -- when I say I want to punch him in the face, it’s cause what he said to a person, a bystander or somebody in one of his rallies, he wants to punch him in the face. You don't talk that way to people. What kind of person does that? [Applause] BEHAR: Makes fun of the physically challenged. He makes fun of people who have physical challenges. DE NIRO: He's done that too. He's done everything. BEHAR: Trashes the military. He says people who go to war are losers. Wake up! DE NIRO: He's done everything. What more do you need? It's almost like he wants to do the worst that he could possibly do to show this country [Show mutes as De Niro curses] His Slau [Show mutes as De Niro curses] I [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: And the other thing is if he becomes president again, he is never -- listen, he's not going to not stop being president! You understand this?! His idea is to stay in until he drops dead! DE NIRO: That's it. He's not even conceding it now so imagine if he actually did win the election. It's over. We're going to have such civil strife. All the things he says because everybody is now on to him where he projects what he's saying. It's what he wants, what he envisions the world to be, which is chaos and craziness, total craziness. GOLDBERG: But what isn't crazy is the fact that we love when you come here. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Go Figure: Liberal Media Lie Their Pants Off on Katie Britt’s Pro-Life Proposal

Last Thursday, Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) teamed up with fellow Republican Senators Kevin Cramer (ND) and Marco Rubio (FL) to unveil the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act aimed at giving pregnant women a federally-backed “clearinghouse” of resources — called Pregnancy.gov — for “expecting and postpartum moms, as well as those with young children,” and create grants for caregiving organizations helping women enter the world of parenting. Along with expanding child support to include a woman’s pregnancy, a press release from the senators said the MOMS Act would “provide critical support to women during typically challenging phases of motherhood – prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood development – and bolster access to resources and assistance to help mothers and their children thrive.” Not surprisingly, the far-left, abortion-loving liberal media have decided to be as focused on defeating this pro-life bill with misinformation as they were about pushing women to murder their unborn children. In story after story, the liberal media have claimed the bill would create a database of women currently pregnant for the federal government - in some liberal dystopia/twisted fantasy - to surveil women to prevent abortions. The problem? It’s all voluntary and shy from divulging one’s location. The Guardian went full send with a headline beyond parody: “Katie Britt proposes federal database to collect data on pregnant people; Republican US senator from Alabama best known for delivering widely ridiculed State of the Union speech in March”. Writer Léonie Chao-Fong doubled down with a disregard for biology, claiming without evidence the bill “create[s] a federal database to collect data on pregnant people” by having them “enter their personal data and contact information.” Chao-Fong also whined: “[t]he bill specifically forbids any entity that ‘performs, induces, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortions’ from being listed in the database, which would in effect eliminate swaths of OB-GYN services and sexual health clinics across the country.” Yes, Léonie, the point is to give women facing sudden pregnancies options beyond abortion. NBCNews.com and longtime Rachel Maddow producer Steve Benen piled on in a story whining about the bill giving federal funds to pro-life pregnancy crisis centers and pedaled the lie about HHS becoming a surveillance agency (click “expand”): This is, to be sure, standard GOP fare. Republican officials tend to be uncomfortable with the idea that the party’s sole focus in this area is imposing abortion restrictions, and the MOMS Act appears designed to package familiar GOP measures on the issue. The fact that these senators intend to extend grants to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” is part of the conservative agenda, and a reminder of why the legislation doesn’t have — and won’t have — any Democratic support in the chamber. But a HuffPost report noted that the Pregnancy.gov provisions in the bill are drawing additional scrutiny because they allegedly raise the prospect of “a federal database storing information on pregnant people.” It was against this backdrop that Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington joined with 10 other Senate Democratic women to denounce Britt’s bill, saying it would, among other things, “create a new government-run website to collect data on pregnant women and direct them to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.” To be sure, Britt’s office has thoroughly rejected the idea that the legislation is designed to create some kind of “registry,” but the press release from the 11 Senate Democratic women added that under the Pregnancy.gov plan, the website would “encourage users to provide their contact information, ‘which the Secretary may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users’ — meaning that pregnant women would be encouraged to provide data to a potential Trump administration and potentially allow a government bureaucrat to follow up with them about the status of their pregnancy.” The tools at HuffPost did the same in a piece with the headline “Critics Rip Sen. Katie Britt For Celebrating Moms With ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Like Proposal” and hilariously then referred to women as “pregnant people”. Yahoo! News promptly cross-posted this under the same headline. Salon and Raw Story weren’t going to be left out either. Cue the laugh tracks for the latter’s headline: “Katie Britt shredded for ‘Handmaid’s Tale’-type proposal to ‘register’ pregnant women”. At Salon, they melted down at women even being told groups that support women and babies exit: “The bill also outlines the creation of a database of ‘pregnancy support centers,’ or crisis centers, which critics say provide women with misleading information in an effort to keep them from having abortions.” Someone call GLAAD on HuffPost, NBC, Raw Story, and the like for using the term “pregnant women!” Now, for the facts. Here was a piece from the (now digital-only) Alabama newspaper conglomerate AL.com: Britt spokesman Sean Ross said users are not required to register or log in to the site to search for resources. The website will not ask for the user’s pregnancy status or for personally identifiable information. “These social media posts are intentionally, flagrantly false,” Ross said. Website users could voluntarily enter their contact information if they wanted personal follow up from a staff member at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Those services would also be available to friends and family members who are not pregnant if an individual was worried about sharing her information with the website. The website would invite users to take an assessment and provide consent to be contacted. The website would not require people to take the assessment to receive more information about local resources, Ross said. “Through the website, anyone can view the relevant resources in a given locale without disclosing any personally identifiable information to the government,” Ross said. The headline, however, only met Britt halfway with a scoffing headline: “Claims that bill would create registry of pregnant women ‘flagrantly false,’ says staff for Alabama Sen. Katie Britt.”

NB Blog Feed

The Biden Lies the Liberal Media Want You to Forget

As the 2024 election approaches, the left-wing corporate media have lost all interest in President Biden’s frequent lies about his life and career. In the past, these journalists have paid brief attention to the one of President’s latest tall tales, but rarely have they ever bothered to revisit them when the moment has passed. No matter how frequently Biden may lie, the media refuse to see a pattern. As NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham has noted, prominent Biden fact-checkers spend a great deal of time disputing negative claims about Biden, yet they show little interest in fact-checking the man himself. Thanks to this favoritism, the President has gotten away with telling a host of utterly false or unproven stories about his own life. Some of these stories are less than a month old, while others have popped up multiple times throughout Biden’s decades-long political career. See for yourself how many of these fibs the media would prefer we all conveniently forget:  

NB Blog Feed

‘Packed With Patriots’: George Stephanopoulos Praises ‘the Deep State’

Appearing on Tuesday’s edition of The View to hawk his new book The Situation Room: The Inside Story of Presidents in Crisis, ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos not only admitted to the existence of the Deep State, but he also praised them as “packed with patriots.” He went on to push a conspiracy theory against President Ronald Reagan which was debunked long ago by a congressional commission. The former lackey to President Bill Clinton was teed up to praise the Deep State by faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin. She gushed about how the Deep State were the ones who make the history of America: “My favorite thing is that you interviewed Situation Room staff. I’ve always said that it's White House staff whose names you'll never know that are the writers of history. They’ll tell us so many details.” Stephanopoulos went on to lionize the unelected, busybody bureaucrats who often injected themselves into matters of the nation to influence and control what happened in the country: You know, that was my favorite part about doing the book. I interviewed about a hundred duty officers from the White House – and these are people that come – relatively young people who come from all over the government: the CIA, the DIA, Defense Department, military. And, you know, some people like to call those people the Deep State. He went on to declare “that the Deep State is packed with patriots” who supposedly “don't care about political parties” and were only “there to serve the presidency and institution” and not a particular president.     Quoting one member of the Deep State he spoke to, Stephanopoulos claimed they “serve in silence.” Meanwhile, he put a name to the quote: Mike Seelie. So much for being silent. In the second block of the interview, Stephanopoulos and moderator Whoopi Goldberg pushed a conspiracy theory against Reagan he tried to revive in his book. Falsely claiming “there’s no question about it,” Stephanopoulos asserted – without evidence – that Reagan had worked with Iranian extremists to prolong the Iranian Hostage Crisis to help him win the election against President Jimmy Carter: The Iranians decided to hold the hostages until after -- they waited until the moment that Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. You know, one of the things we also learned in the last year was there have always been questions about whether or not somehow the Reagan campaign had tried to influence the Iranians to hold; and the congressional commission said no, but last year it did turn out that John Connelly had gone to the Middle East and had meetings about it that at least suggested that something might have happened. Even Stephanopoulos admitted that a congressional commission debunked what he was peddling; and yet, the ABC “journalist” was still pushing the lies anyway so that he could sell his book and make money. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 14, 2024 11:19:58 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I also love – The book is so good! My favorite thing is that you interviewed Situation Room staff. I’ve always said that it's White House staff whose names you'll never know that are the writers of history. They’ll tell us so many details. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, that was my favorite part about doing the book. I interviewed about a hundred duty officers from the White House – and these are people that come – relatively young people who come from all over the government: the CIA, the DIA, Defense Department, military. And, you know, some people like to call those people the Deep State. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: The Deep State. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the big thing I learned doing this book is that the Deep State is packed with patriots. FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: People who go to work every single day on the front lines of the most intense crises the country faces and go it to serve their country and serve the presidency, not the president. They don't care about political parties. They're there to serve the presidency and institution. SUNNY HOSTIN: And they're doing it anonymously. FARAH GRIFFIN: Exactly. STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely. As one of them told me, Mike Seelie said, “we serve in silence.” (…) 11:28:42 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: George, one of the things that I learned in the book was that Jimmy Carter initially thought that, you know, he was going and he had nothing to do with bringing the folks home, but in your book -- STEPHANOPOULOS: The hostage crisis. GOLDBERG: You talk about the fact that he did find out the hostage crisis maybe went on a little longer to -- for him to get out of office so Reagan could take the—the – the glory. STEPHANOPOULOS: There’s no question about it. The Iranians decided to hold the hostages until after -- they waited until the moment that Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. You know, one of the things we also learned in the last year was there have always been questions about whether or not somehow the Reagan campaign had tried to influence the Iranians to hold; and the congressional commission said no, but last year it did turn out that John Connelly had gone to the Middle East and had meetings about it that at least suggested that something might have happened. (…)

NB Blog Feed

CNN Doc Claims There's No Evidence Transgender Athletes Have Advantage

CNN aired a special documentary entitled The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper: The Battle Over Transgender Athletes on Sunday that purported to be a nuanced look at the issue of transgenderism’s relationship with women’s sports. However, the program clearly had a preferred side, as it claimed there’s no evidence that men who think they are women have an athletic advantage despite showing examples of people climbing the leaderboard and setting records after their transition. Despite his name being on the title, Cooper barely appeared during the show, instead, the documentary bounced around to various subjects who each said their own piece. In one clip, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines was denouncing the movement in a speech, “A lot of world leaders, the message that they're sending is that we as women don't matter. Our safety doesn't matter. Privacy: forget it.”     Now, speaking directly to the camera, Gaines added, “When you have males who have gone through male puberty, it takes away that fairness. We can't neglect fairness and safety in hopes to be inclusive.” CNN then put up text on the screen for viewers to read, “Research on whether transgender athletes have an advantage is limited. A 2017 Sports Medicine study concluded there is ‘no direct or consistent research’ showing that transgender people have an athletic advantage.” But, we have real-world evidence. One of the sob stories CNN chose to highlight was that of Meghan Cortez-Fields, who, elsewhere in the documentary, claimed to be aware that he was really a she at age five. Cortez-Fields recalled switching from the men’s swim team to the women’s, “Once I'm in that race, it's just I got to go. My mom would be proud of me. So no matter what, I will always try my hardest. I'm just afraid for the reception that I will get if I try my hardest in six feet. And I was afraid that if I was able to win, all of my success would be discredited because I was trans.” Again, CNN put up some graphics, “In February 2024, Meghan broke two school records and placed 2nd in the 100-yard butterfly at a championship meet, the last of her career.” It then played a clip of Fox’s Gillian Turner and John Roberts with the former reporting, “After transferring from the men's team over to the women's, Meghan Cortez-Fields smashed Ramapo College's 100-yard butterfly record.” Roberts added, “Like Lia Thomas, gets into the women's category and starts blowing records away.” There are other examples as well, but CNN insists there is no evidence. Perhaps, Sports Medicine should update their study. Here is a transcript for the May 12 show: CNN The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper: The Battle Over Transgender Athletes 5/12/2024 8:34 PM ET RILEY GAINES: A lot of world leaders, the message that they're sending is that we as women don't matter. Our safety doesn't matter. Privacy: forget it. When you have males who have gone through male puberty, it takes away that fairness. We can't neglect fairness and safety in hopes to be inclusive. GRAPHICS: Research on whether transgender athletes have an advantage is limited. A 2017 Sports Medicine study concluded there is "no direct or consistent research" showing that transgender people have an athletic advantage. … MEGHAN CORTEZ-FIELDS: Once I'm in that race, it's just I got to go. My mom would be proud of me. So no matter what, I will always try my hardest. I'm just afraid for the reception that I will get if I try my hardest in six feet. And I was afraid that if I was able to win, all of my success would be discredited because I was trans. GRAPHICS: In February 2024, Meghan broke two school records and placed 2nd in the 100-yard butterfly at a championship meet, the last of her career. GILLIAN TURNER: After transferring from the men's team over to the women's Meghan Cortez-Fields, smashed Ramapo College's 100-yard butterfly record. JOHN ROBERTS: Like Lia Thomas, gets into the women's category and starts blowing records away. IRENEBRITUSA [YOUTUBE PERSONALITY]: And the woman who came second has to just accept it. CORTEZ-FIELDS: Something has definitely become a battleground for this disagreement.

NB Blog Feed

Race-Obsessed Hostin: Too Many White People in Trump Trial Courtroom, Needs 'a Little Color'

The staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host of ABC’s The View, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) was again allowed into the New York courtroom for former President Trump’s hush money trial and reported back to the Cackling Coven her shocking findings. Last week, she was startled by Trump’s “radioactive orange” face. This time, she was rocking brand new “binoculars” with which she deduced that there were too many white people in the courtroom. According to the race-obsessed co-host, there were too many white people and her job was to “give a little color to the courtroom.” Even moderator Whoopi Goldberg wanted her to walk it back: HOSTIN: I was! I was in the courtroom again yesterday. Yes, thank you. [Applause] Thank you. What I want to do is give a little color to the courtroom, because a lot of people – GOLDBERG: Oh, redo that. HOSTIN: No, no, a little color. I mean that literally and figuratively. It’s worth noting that Hostin took a lot of pride in having been in the courtroom; but when the audience didn’t clap for her, she cued them to do so by declaring “thank you” to a silent room. Even though every major news outlet had multiple reporters in the courtroom reporting on every twitch, gesture, and eye movement from the former President, Hostin clownishly and narcissistically claimed "no one" had reported what was physically happening in the courtroom except for her.     "I now have access to binoculars," she bragged (pictured above). Hostin bloviated that “[w]hile other reporters are zooming in on the documents, I'm zooming in on [Trump]!” She even defended her clownish analysis when pressed by co-host Sara Haines: HAINES: Is this your serious legal analysis?! HOSTIN: Yes, it really is! It really is! Because people have been reporting that he is asleep. He is not asleep. He is enraged. And that’s why I think he’s so orange because it think it’s red underneath. To justify her use of binoculars to watch a television screen watching Trump, she started mimicking some of the facial and body movements he exhibited while listening to the testimony of his former fixer, Michael Cohen. Even though Cohen had been convicted for lying under oath and served time for it, Hostin insisted the jury found him to be a credible witness. The reason why? He spoke with a New York accent: And I will tell you there were reporters falling asleep in the courtroom, not the jury. Not the lawyer with the legal pad. He is feverishly taking notes. I think Michael Cohen came off credibly. He was charming. [Puts on a New York accent] He’s a New Yorker. This is a New York jury. He speaks like a New Yorker. Hostin also walked back her falsehood from last week when she erroneously suggested that there were “several” legal professionals on the jury, admitting there were only two. She didn’t correct her lie about there being more women than men. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 14, 2024 11:04:45 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Sunny was sitting there. So, what did you hear? SUNNY HOSTIN: I was! I was in the courtroom again yesterday. Yes, thank you. [Applause] Thank you. What I want to do is give a little color to the courtroom, because a lot of people – GOLDBERG: Oh, redo that. HOSTIN: No, no, a little color. I mean that literally and figuratively. Because a lot of people are reporting what was said in the courtroom, right? But no one has really reported about what you see when you're actually there. And I said the other day that he appeared orange, very -- in an unnatural way. I've never seen anyone that orange before. I now have access to binoculars in the courtroom. And so, I'm using the binoculars. JOY BEHAR: Why? Is it such a big courtroom? HOSTIN: Yes, it is a huge courtroom and they have a camera directly on Donald Trump because we are behind him, so we can't see his face, but we can see his face on the screen. So, while other reporters are zooming in on the documents, I'm zooming in on him. SARA HAINES: Is this your serious legal analysis? HOSTIN: Yes, it really is! It really is! Because people have been reporting that he is asleep. He is not asleep. He is enraged. And that’s why I think he’s so orange because it think it’s red underneath. I saw him during Michael Cohen’s testimony sort of going like this – [makes faces] – and I said, “oh, here he's sleeping” and he went – [makes faces and convulses] [Laughter] That is what's happening. BEHAR: You know, my dog does that when he's sleeping. HOSTIN: When he’s sleeping? BEHAR: Yeah. HOSITN: He’s not sleeping. So, that's one of my first observations. The other observation is: I learned more about the jurors from some of my now-friends in the courtroom. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: She’s going to be vacationing with these people. HOSTIN: I basically am. There are two lawyers on the jury. Two male lawyers, one is a civil litigator, the other one is a retired wealth manager. The foreperson is in sales. There's an investment banker, and a corporate attorney. What is so interesting about this jury is that – this is a documents case, let's all remember, it is not about an affair necessarily, it's about documents and payment to a porn star and the hiding of those business records. These guys understand documents. And I will tell you there were reporters falling asleep in the courtroom, not the jury. Not the lawyer with the legal pad. He is feverishly taking notes. I think Michael Cohen came off credibly. He was charming. [Puts on a New York accent] He’s a New Yorker. This is a New York jury. He speaks like a New Yorker. BEHAR: Yeah. HOSTIN: And they were giggling at him a little bit. He also talked about his love for his daughter – and, Sara, you'll get into this. He has a text message – they showed a text message change with his daughter who’s at the University of Pennsylvania and she sort of – ‘you're going through this with Donald Trump?’ and he says “Don't worry, I'll take care of it. I love you” and she says “I love you” and he says, “I love you more.” What parent can't identify with that? So, they humanized him. He was very credible. (…)

NB Blog Feed

CBS Hypes The Daily Show Giving 'People The Information They Need'

This week’s host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Desi Lydic, joined the cast of Monday’s CBS Mornings to promote her upcoming episodes. Throughout the segment, Lydic and her hosts would hype the fellow Paramount property as a place that people can go to get not only entertaining, but informed takes on politics, and also start conversations they wouldn’t otherwise have. It all sounded nice, but was completely disconnected from The Daily Show that exists in the real world. Co-host and Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition cover model Gayle King began the segment by introducing Lydic, “Viewers know her for her dry sense of humor and clever takes on politics and current events. She is hilarious. She joined the Emmy Award-winning show in 2015. Recently, she poked fun at Nebraska for being one of only two states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district rather than the winner takes all.”     In the clip that CBS showed, Lydic was actually arguing that Nebraska’s system is better than a winter-take-all and condemning those who sought to switch to such a system. Her main point, however, was that the Electoral College should be done away with and replaced with the popular vote, which King eagerly embraced, “I think she might be onto something.” Later, co-host Nate Burleson asked Lydic, “When it comes to comedy, especially during these times, I feel like there's an appetite for intelligent, political comedy because it gives the people the information they need while making them feel comfortable about the chaos that they are currently living in. Not that this hasn’t always been here, but nowadays I feel like there is a bigger stage for entertainers like you. Do you feel like that's the case?” Lydic claimed a special ability to build cross-aisle bridges: Well, it does feel like things are so polarized and people are getting the news from the sources that reflect back their own opinions. You know, it feels like we're all kind in echo chambers and, you know, I personally am certainly more on the left-leaning side. The Daily Show tends to be a more progressive show, but I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. My parents are Republicans, have been Republicans for quite some time, so, you know, those conversations can be challenging, and humor at its best can be sort of disarming and maybe start conversations that wouldn't happen otherwise. That sounds nice, but speaking of Kentucky, last year, Lydic took a field trip to the state with the Washington Post’s Perry Bacon Jr., who used the interview to urge people to harass Republicans at church and the grocery store. In the same interview, Lydic reveled in Sen. Rand Paul getting his “ass kicked” by his neighbor. Regardless, Lydic did Jon Stewart’s classic clown nose on, clown nose off routine as she added “So, we want to entertain people. We’re not out to change the world.” Burleson was not prepared to let Lydic sell herself short, “But that helps when you write, that you understand both perspectives.” Lydic agreed, “I think it's important to get curious about what other people feel and if you're at odds, you know, ask questions. Have a little empathy. Try to have a meaningful conversation about it.” Again, that sounds nice, but Lydic doesn’t put her money where her mouth is. She could interview a conservative, but that is not scheduled to happen. Instead, we’ll probably get more claims like “having a vagina does not make you a woman” or that Jesus would approve of Transgender Visibility Day. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: CBS Mornings 5/14/2024 9:42 AM ET GAYLE KING: Our next guest, Desi Lydic is hosting The Daily Show alongside Jon Stewart and The Daily Show news team. Viewers know her for her dry sense of humor and clever takes on politics and current events. She is hilarious. She joined the Emmy Award-winning show in 2015. Recently, she poked fun at Nebraska for being one of only two states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district rather than the winner takes all. DESI LYDIC: Nebraska should really truly keep the system, though, because it's certainly a more fair way to divide up the votes than winner take off. What if everybody did that like Nebraska by district or maybe even by person, you know, then whoever whips the most persons would be president. That would be pretty popular. Oh, we could call it the popular vote. I don't know. I'm just spitballing. KING: I think she might be onto something, that Desi Lydic joins us in the studio. Hello, Desi. We're so glad you're here today. … NATE BURLESON: You know, when it comes to comedy, especially during these times, I feel like there's an appetite for intelligent, political comedy because it gives the people the information they need while making them feel comfortable about the chaos that they are currently living in. Not that this hasn’t always been here, but nowadays I feel like there is a bigger stage for entertainers like you. Do you feel like that's the case? LYDIC: Well, it does feel like things are so polarized and people— BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: -- are getting the news from the sources that reflect back their own opinions. You know, it feels like we're all kind in echo chambers and, you know, I personally am certainly more on the left-leaning side. The Daily Show tends to be a more progressive show, but I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. My parents are Republicans, have been Republicans for quite some time, so, you know, those conversations can be challenging, and humor at its best can be sort of disarming and maybe start conversations that wouldn't happen otherwise. BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: So, we want to entertain people. We’re not out to change the world. BURLESON: But that helps when you write, that you understand both perspectives. LYDIC: That's right. KING: Which you do, which you do, yeah. LYDIC: I think it's important to get curious about what other people feel— BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: -- and if you're at odds, you know, ask questions. Have a little empathy. Try to have a meaningful conversation about it.

NB Blog Feed

MRC Backs Religious Lawsuit Against NPR-Favoring Government Rate Scheme

The Media Research Center is calling on the federal government to stop discriminating against religious broadcasting companies and right-leaning talk radio. On Monday, MRC filed an amicus brief this week in support of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)’s petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case pertaining to religious broadcasting companies challenging the Biden-led Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which is a federal entity responsible for regulating royalties and copyright licenses. In the brief, MRC argued that the CRB violated the First Amendment religious liberty and free speech rights by not providing the same deal to religious broadcasters it entered into with leftist National Public Radio (NPR). The legal battle began in 2021 after the CRB inexplicably refused to extend a favorable NPR deal, including low fees, to the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee (NRB), a non-profit representing various religious communicators and broadcasting companies. The ADF wrote in February that the CRB established a statutory license for companies, including NPR and NRB, to pay royalties to the copyright holders of songs played on their stations. Instead of offering the same rates granted to NPR, the CRB demanded that religious broadcasting companies pay 18 times the royalty fees of NPR if they have over 200 listeners. This was in contrast to the CRB's deal with NPR, a secular, taxpayer-funded company at the center of controversy for bias. Related: Here Are the Best & Worst Moments From the House NPR Hearing with MRC’s Graham “Here, the Board created a content-based, tiered rate structure that required religious broadcasters to pay far more than NPR stations to communicate with an audience above a mere 218 people,” the MRC brief read, alluding to the notable discrepancies in the deals offered to NPR and the NRB. Further addressing the court, the MRC wrote that this discriminatory practice “forces religious broadcasters to pay royalty rates 18 times higher than those to which NPR will be subject.” The religious broadcasting companies took the CRB to court in 2021. Regrettably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the federal government. “This unlawful discrimination forces some noncommercial religious stations to stay small and restrict their listener reach so they can afford to stream online,” the ADF added. “The Copyright Royalty Board is violating federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and so we are urging the Supreme Court to take this important case and rule on the side of religious liberty and free speech.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Michael Knowles Mauls Biden’s Ridiculous Defense of Bidenomics on CNN

The Daily Wire host Michael Knowles attacked President Joe Biden for his incoherent response to questions from a CNN anchor.  During the May 10 edition of The Michael Knowles Show, Knowles responded to President Biden’s befuddled defense of Bidenomics, noting that Biden’s “failures on the economy were most likely to destroy Democrats in November.” To emphasize just how bad things are for Biden, Knowles played a clip of “Erin Burnett of CNN grilling Biden for his economic failures” during which Biden made a vain attempt to save face.  On May 8, CNN Anchor Erin Burnett, to her credit, confronted President Biden with both his low polling on economic issues and bad economic statistics. “Voters by a wide margin, trust Trump more on the economy,” Burnett told Biden. She went on to cite polls and statistics that spell out Biden’s devastating failures:  “The cost of buying a home in the United States is double what it was when you look at your monthly costs from before the pandemic. Real income, when you account for inflation is actually down since you took office, economic growth last week, far short of expectations. Consumer confidence, maybe no surprise, is near a two-year low. With less than six months to go to election day are you worried that you're running out of time to turn that around?” Absurdly, Biden responded, “We’ve already turned it around.” Biden referenced a poll to support this point before veering off in a very different direction. “The polling data has been wrong all along. You guys do a poll at CNN, how many folks do you have to call to get one response?”  Knowles roasted the president for his incoherent response. “Biden is not as swift as he used to be and he just gave two answers that contradict each other,” Knowles said.  He ripped Biden for simultaneously questioning the bias of unfavorable polls while also pointing to one solitary favorable poll. Knowles pointed out the absurdity of anyone on the left arguing that the polls or the media are biased against them.  “Democrats have the media on their side. So when a Republican says ‘the fake news coverage is slanted against us’, that’s different from the Democrats saying that because Republicans don't really have news outlets and Democrats have all of the news outlets, same goes for polling, same goes for any aspect of American political propaganda,” Knowles said.  The Daily Wire host went on to say that when polls are actually wrong, they tend to overestimate Democrats rather than Republicans. “So when you’ve got polls coming out, economic indicators coming out, statistics from all the social scientists coming out that do not look good for Democrats and you hear this being reported by Democrat liberal news outlets, you know these people are really, really in trouble,” he said. He added that the media “have every single incentive to paint the Democrats in as good a light as possible and that’s just not going to cut it these days because everyone knows that the economy is in the doldrums.”  The economy is in the doldrums. While the devastating statistics listed by Burnett proved too much for Biden to address, they aren’t the only bad numbers. Burnett also could have mentioned that Americans have dealt with 5.5% average monthly inflation under the Biden administration. She also could’ve addressed how gas prices have skyrocketed from $2.42 a gallon in Jan. 2021 (when Biden took office) to $3.54 in March. Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they tell the truth about the Bidenomics disaster.

NB Blog Feed

Editor’s Pick: WashTimes Showcases Report on How Few of Today’s Immigrants Work

In a front-page story for Tuesday’s print edition and published Monday online, The Washington Times’s intrepid reporter Stephen Dinan shared the findings of a new Center for Immigration Studies report that said only 46 percent of recent immigrant arrivals — both illegal and legal — are holding down jobs and contributing to the American economy. “The Center for Immigration Studies, using Census Bureau numbers, calculates that 46% of immigrants who arrived over the past two years are employed. That challenges a key selling point from immigration advocates that the stream of newcomers is critical to the U.S. economy,” he explained, pointing out this means even though “[s]ome immigrants say they are looking for work...most...are out of the labor force.” He cited this key quote from CIS officials Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler: “Immigration clearly adds workers to the country, but it just as clearly adds non-workers who need to be supported by the labor of others.” Dinan later went through the push and pull of whether mass, persistent immigration benefits an economy: One persistent issue has been whether immigrants are a net benefit or a drain. The Congressional Budget Office says that taken as a whole, the economy grows faster with more people. The reason is simple: More potential workers means a more productive total economy. The CBO says the average worker is slightly worse off. Again, the reason is simple: The pie may be bigger, but it is divided by even more people. The CBO says the population has a large range of outcomes. Those at the higher economic rungs come out better off with higher immigration levels, while those on the lower rungs, who are more likely to compete with less-educated newcomers, end up worse off. (....) The CIS said the unemployment rate among immigrants from Latin America, overlapping heavily with illegal immigrants, without a college education is 10%. That rate has held steady for several decades. The Biden administration is trying to get official work permits for newly arrived illegal immigrants who are caught and released into the interior. Immigrant rights advocates say that will allow the migrants to support themselves and stop using government assistance. To read Dinan’s story, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Report: DHS Preparing to ‘Protect’ Democracy Ahead of 2024… Sounds Familiar?

USA Today once again raised the specter of election interference to justify the Department of Homeland Security’s latest foray into election meddling in its latest sycophantic interview. On May 8, USA Today’s Josh Meyer released a new “exclusive” interview with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The theme of the interview was how DHS was dealing with an “unprecedented array of election threats.”  He opined, “The right to vote and the integrity of the right to vote – and therefore of the election itself – is a fundamental element of our democracy.” Mayorkas was careful to stress, of course, that the effort was wholly “nonpartisan,” a label that was also applied to the anti-constitutional Disinformation Governance Board (DGB). “This is a nonpartisan effort,” he claimed. “And, in fact, all our efforts across this department are nonpartisan.” Despite Mayorkas’s assertions of nonpartisanship, the USA Today piece paints the initiative as primarily a response to anti-democratic forces on the right.  “Democrats also fear violence from those who would reject election results showing Joe Biden being reelected,” the leftist newspaper reported. Mayorkas stressed that DHS would use its power to combat the “threat of disinformation,” just like the short-lived DGB, infamously known as the Ministry of Truth. According to USA Today, the coordination between the DHS and local election officials has been run out of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). “We’re providing best-practice security guidance to these stakeholders, and that’s where we unpack threats, but also and most importantly provide them with recommendations for what they can actually do to mitigate those threats,” said Cait Conley, senior advisor to CISA director Jen Easterly and leader of the initiative. In order to fight these “threats,” characterized by USA Today as a result of “unsubstantiated claims of election fraud,” CISA launched Protect24, a new website that proliferates materials for local and state election officials. The website has several pages related to “disinformation actors.” One page, titled “Tactics of Disinformation,” identifies common “tactics” used by supposed malactors. “Disinformation actors capitalize on conspiracy theories by generating disinformation narratives that align with the conspiracy theory worldview,” the brochure reads.  The brochure also targets “alternative platforms,” that is, platforms that don’t censor their user base, as tools of subversive elements. “Disinformation actors may seek to take advantage of platforms with fewer user protections, less stringent content moderation policies, and fewer controls to detect and remove inauthentic content and accounts than other social media platforms,” the brochure says. Another page, titled “Election Security Rumor vs. Reality,” tries to debunk concerns around expanded voting procedures like mail-in-balloting and unsupervised ballot drop boxes. Before the 2020 election, CISA also used its power to quash skepticism regarding voting practices such as universal mail-in-ballots. CISA worked through the Election Integrity Partnership, run out of Stanford Internet Observatory, to nudge social media companies to censor accounts that questioned election procedures.  According to Mike Benz, founder of Freedom for Freedom Online, the EIP flagged 27 million tweets to be deleted by social media companies and used DHS infrastructure to do so.  In leaked emails, Alex Stamos, the leader of SIO, described the effort as a way for the federal government to coordinate censorship. “The EIP’s true purpose was to act as a censorship conduit for the federal government,” wrote Stamos in a Nov. 2020 email. In another email to the social media app Nextdoor, Stamos described EIP as “a one-stop shop for local election officials, DHS, and voter protection organizations to report potential disinformation for us to investigate and to refer to the appropriate platforms if necessary.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

NB Blog Feed

'He'd Be So Rattled': Kimmel And Meyers Dream Of Trolling Trump At Trial

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! has the week off, but that did not stop the eponymous host from traveling across the country to New York and NBC’s Monday edition of Late Night with Seth Meyers. Together, Meyers and Kimmel would fantasize about trolling Donald Trump at his trial and dream about him being convicted. The duo was discussing their histories with Trump when Meyers observed, “You actually got mentioned in the proceedings because there was some texts and it was because you had Stormy Daniels on your show.” While Kimmel took pride in that, he claimed it didn’t live up to Meyers’s experience, “I appreciate that. It doesn't compare to making so much fun of him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that he actually ran for president.”     After Meyers wanted to forget the whole thing, “No, no, let's talk about yours,” Kimmel continued, “Which was your fault. But it was exciting even though you put in—you know, you put in the work, and it really pays off. I was excited to be mentioned. I don't know why I was excited to be mentioned, but I was definitely excited to be mentioned.” Meyers then wondered, “But you would want to go down to the courthouse? If you lived in New York full-time, do you think you'd go down?” Kimmel replied, “No, I want to go down with you” before recalling, “I think—because, listen, we know he hates us… Do you remember the first time you found out he really, really hated us? I was on a weeklong camping trip, where there were no motors, or phones, or anything allowed. And when I got off the river, my phone clicked on, and I just got message after message after message about Trump bashing us. And I thought, ‘Oh, I'm back in civilization.’ But what I would love to do is for you and I to go down there, and maybe as a -- because, you know, he's in some legal trouble.” He then suggested, “As a gesture of goodwill, because we are human beings… I think we should bring him a whole bunch of little bottles of ketchup. Because you're not allowed to eat in the courtroom. You're not allowed to drink in the courtroom. Ketchup falls in that kind of gray area.” Kimmel then turned the dynamic around and asked Meyers, “How close do you think we could get to him? And I mean emotionally.” Meyers then imagined a scenario where, “I mean, based on the amount of people there, we could just go and wait in line and get in. And it would be -- he'd be so rattled if we were there. It would be like that SNL sketch where all of a sudden, Kenan realized Beavis and Butthead are there. He'd have the same reaction.” He then wondered, “Have you thought about what would happen if he actually was convicted?” Kimmel admitted that “I have thought about this. I dream about it. I really hope it happens.” Maybe Kimmel could give the flowers he held in his lap during the interview to Alvin Bragg, that would certainly cement the late night comedian’s relationship with the Democratic Party. Here is a transcript for the May 13-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/14/2024 12:59 AM ET SETH MEYERS: I wanted to congratulate you. You actually got mentioned in the proceedings.  JIMMY KIMMEL: Thank you. MEYERS: Because there was some texts— KIMMEL: Well. MEYERS: — and it was because you had Stormy Daniels on your show. KIMMEL: I -- thank you. I appreciate that. It doesn't compare to making so much fun of him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that he actually ran for president.  MEYERS: No, no, let's talk about yours. KIMMEL: Which was your fault. But it was exciting even though you put in -- you know, you put in the work, and it really pays off. I was excited to be mentioned. I don't know why I was excited to be mentioned. MEYERS: Yeah. KIMMEL: But I was definitely excited to be mentioned. MEYERS: But you would want to go down to the courthouse? If you lived in New York full-time, do you think you'd go down? KIMMEL: No, I want to go down with you. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I think -- because, listen, we know he hates us. MEYERS: 100 percent. KIMMEL: 100 percent. Do you remember the first time you found out he really, really hated us? I was on a weeklong camping trip, where there were no motors, or phones, or anything allowed. And when I got off the river, my phone clicked on, and I just got message after message after message about Trump bashing us. MEYERS: Yes. KIMMEL: And I thought, “Oh, I'm back in civilization.” But what I would love to do is for you and I to go down there, and maybe as a -- because, you know, he's in some legal trouble. MEYERS: Yeah. KIMMEL: And as a gesture of goodwill, because we are human beings. MEYERS: Sure, empathetic human beings, no less. KIMMEL: Nice people. I think we should bring him a whole bunch of little bottles of ketchup. MEYERS: Uh-huh. KIMMEL: Because you're not allowed to eat in the courtroom. You're not allowed to drink in the courtroom. Ketchup falls in that kind of gray area. MEYERS: Condiments are allowed, yeah. KIMMEL: That I think he could get away with a little bit of that. How close do you think we could get to him? And I mean emotionally. MEYERS: Well I -- the funny thing is we could -- I mean, based on the amount of people there, we could just go and wait in line and get in. And it would be -- he'd be so rattled if we were there. KIMMEL: Oh, yeah, he would. MEYERS: It would be like that SNL sketch where all of a sudden, Kenan realized Beavis and Butthead are there. He'd have the same reaction. KIMMEL: Except even Beavis and Butthead-ier than that, yeah. MEYERS: Now, what do you think would -- have you thought about what would happen if he actually was convicted? KIMMEL: If he is convicted -- yeah, I have thought about this. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I dream about it. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I really hope it happens.

NB Blog Feed

What Trump Sees in Doug Burgum

Donald Trump knows how to run a talent show. He’s built a career out of them — in addition to careers as real estate mogul and president of the United States. What he learned from Miss Universe beauty pageants and the breakout success of “The Apprentice” he’s now applying to the tryouts for vice president. No one watches if competition isn’t tense: Contestants all need a moment to shine, even if their chances are dim. Dark horses make a good storyline — underdogs an even better one. So now the spotlight turns to a contender nobody would have guessed would be under serious consideration: the governor of North Dakota. Who? Is that the one who shot the dog? No, that’s Kristi Noem, governor of the other Dakota. And her hopes are as dead as that poor pooch. The governor on the rise is Doug Burgum. Who — or rather, why? Burgum ran for president last year and participated in the Trumpless Republican debates nobody watched. He had so little support he offered $20 gift cards for $1 donations just to keep up his donor numbers to qualify for the debates. He dropped out when even that wouldn’t cut it anymore. Burgum’s unknown to anyone but nerds and North Dakotans, and his state isn’t in danger of defecting to Joe Biden. If Tim Scott or Marco Rubio might just help Trump with Black or Latino voters, or a woman might get more women to vote Republican, what does Burgum bring? Ohio is safely red, but Sen. J.D. Vance reinforces Trump’s populist rhetoric and could boost him in rust-belt battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Michigan. But Doug Burgum? Yet he’s getting an audition — even a push, appearing alongside Trump at a huge New Jersey rally last Saturday. Trump sees personal, ideological and financial angles to the North Dakota governor. The last is most obvious: Burgum is rich in his own right and does more for the ticket’s bottom line than any other VP contender. It’s hard to know just how rich the governor is, but the most modest estimates put him above $100 million, and he could easily be worth many times that. Trump was outspent in 2016 and 2020, and Biden’s fundraising has far outpaced his this cycle. The endless civil suits and criminal cases lodged against Trump haven’t torpedoed his polling, but they’ve drained him of dollars his election effort can’t spare. Burgum wouldn’t be the first running mate added to a ticket for the millions he can personally contribute: The Libertarian Party nominated the billionaire David Koch for vice president in 1980, hoping his money would propel presidential nominee Ed Clark to victory, or at least a respectable showing. That hope was in vain: neither Ronald Reagan nor Jimmy Carter, nor the electorate, took notice of the Clark-Koch ticket, which won about 1% of the popular vote. This year another contender outside the two-party system, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is pursuing a similar strategy. His running mate, Nicole Shanahan, the ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, is estimated to be worth several hundred million dollars — not enough to buy the election but plenty to help an independent like RFK over the costly hurdles involved in getting ballot access. Do Burgum’s bucks bring enough bang for Trump? The ideological rationale for considering the governor is simply that he reassures the GOP’s capitalist wing, which is troubled by Trump’s populist tendencies and extravagant personality. Eight years ago, Trump picked Mike Pence to cement the loyalty of evangelicals and old-guard conservatives who’d had reservations about the New York tycoon throughout the primaries — Republicans more excited by Ted Cruz than Trump. Today Trump expects enthusiastic evangelical turnout. So he might look to secure his flank on the other side of the party, with libertarian-minded and business-oriented Republicans. And on a personal level, Trump likes old-fashioned archetypes of executive authority — military men and corporate leaders, like his ill-fated first secretary of state, the ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Trump’s an impresario, but when the cameras are off, he wants to be surrounded by suits and uniforms, not wannabe celebrities. Burgum’s a vice president for corporate America; Trump’s the only star his administration needs, as far as the man at the top is concerned. Even so, Burgum probably won’t be Trump’s pick. Yet he’s plausible enough to extend the season an episode or two. The contest isn’t really about the contestants anyway; it’s about investing the audience in the drama of choosing and the man making the choice. Every hopeful gets his or her moment, but the hour belongs to Trump. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC’s Jen Psaki, Having Not Yet Apologized For Smearing Families of the Kabul 13, Now Smears Alabama

One feature of wall-to-wall coverage on leftwing cable is that it is unscripted. And on unscripted, not-as-tightly-produced television where you have to fill multiple hours of “analysis” of a single event, such as on this occasion, the trial of former President Donald Trump in New York City, people’s real opinions sometimes just fall out. Such an occasion happens here, during MSNBC’s Maddow block. Watch as former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki- fresh off of smearing Gold Star parents, now smears the entire State of Alabama as “crazy” (click “expand”): JEN PSAKI: The most intere-- and you touched on this and went over it, and this is the thing that stuck out to me so much about today is this sort of sideshow, but it's not a sideshow of these senators. It's so strange seeing J.D. Vance and Tommy Tuberville in New York. It was like a Where's Waldo moment? Like there they are. Oh, there they are in back of him at this press conference. But it tells you so much because as you said, not only did they stand there, they went out afterwards and then they put out things on social media because they're looking for approval from Trump. And that adds to what we've seen over the last couple of weeks which is, one: people who want to be the vice presidential running mate or in the Cabinet saying- confirming they don't think Trump lost the election in 2020. Two, we've started to see a number of people recently in the last couple of weeks on a number of shows suggest they might not respect the outcome of the election in 2024. That's replaying the game again. And this is the third piece. I mean, we're going to see Vivek tomorrow. How crazy will that be? I don't know yet. We will see. But that is a piece of this that tells you so much about his own political power, even if we're not clear about where the polls between the two candidates are going to be at the end of this trial yet. RACHEL MADDOW: And can I just -- I mean if you, like, imagineer a world in which Republican politics is not rotating around the axis of Donald Trump, what are the politics? What's the political impact of these sitting senators and very ambitious Republican politicians making sure that they are seen inside of what they are decrying as a very depressing New York City courtroom? I mean, they're putting themselves in state criminal court as a way of trying to get themselves before the American people so that this is where we imagine them. I mean this is just -- it may be one thing to try to get Trump's favor. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. MADDOW: But this exists in its own right in terms of how they are displaying themselves, what they- how they want us to think of their milieu in politics, and how they want us to think of them when it comes to criminal defendants in the criminal process. PSAKI: Well, they think it's a winner for them politically to some degree, to hug and to align themselves with Trump. And perhaps in their states, it is. Uh, you know, J.D. Vance, he's not up for re-election this year. Tommy Tuberville, he does a lot of crazy things, but he’s- he’s Alabama- Trump is quite popular there. Right? This sort of thing used to be amazing to watch- the left’s sneering condescension and contempt for the unwashed Deplorables, especially across the South, as embodied by Psaki during her rant against the electeds that accompanied Trump during Michael Cohen’s testimony. Saying that Tuberville “is Alabama”, and therefore crazy, is quite the look. But this is not unexpected. As of this writing, Jen Psaki has not yet apologized to the families of the Kabul 13, our brave service members killed during ISIS-K’s terrorist attack against the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan.  In fact, Psaki hasn’t offered anything in the way of self-reflection beyond what she told Fox News when she said that "the story on Afghanistan is really about the importance of delivering feedback even when it is difficult, told through my own experience of telling President Biden that his own story of loss was not well received by the families who were grieving their sons and daughters”. There’s no apology there, and one wonders whether one might come at all. After all, the inmates have proven themselves capable of running the asylum at MSNBC, given the aftermath of the Ronna McDaniel fiasco.  What indication is there that Psaki will face any accountability for smearing Gold Star families? Time will tell, but it sure does seem, at least preliminarily, that MSNBC has made its peace with welcoming a professional smear merchant as a conquering star.  

NB Blog Feed

Regime Media Continue To HIDE Education Secretary Cardona's Massive FAFSA Fail

The Education Department’s ongoing meltdown due to its failed implementation of its new website for its Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) should, on the merits, be an ongoing major national story. But the Regime Media have chosen only to cover the story in a very sparing manner, shielding those responsible for the FAFSA meltdown from any scrutiny or accountability. Watch the oddly detached introduction to the report filed by Meg Oliver for the CBS Evening News: NORAH O’DONNELL: Nearly two weeks after what is traditionally College Decision Day, many students are still unable to commit to a school. That's because of computer glitches plaguing the Education Department's newly overhauled financial aid system. CBS’s Meg Oliver has an important update. MEG OLIVER: With high school graduation just weeks away, anxiety was mounting for senior Jojo Henderson. The 18-year-old from Pittsburg, Texas couldn't commit to college without knowing his financial aid. JOJO HENDERSON: I’m frustrated, because it’s just like- you do everything that you're supposed to do and then you have to wait on the government to catch up. The FAFSA meltdown is presented as just a singular misfortune that happened spontaneously. Like a tornado, perhaps, or a volcanic eruption- and most certainly not as the result of massive bureaucratic incompetence. This ongoing disaster falls squarely in the lap of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who is far more focused on making sure men compete in women’s sports, change in women’s locker rooms and pee in women’s restrooms than in ensuring that college-bound students are able to access federal financial aid. Had this happened during the Trump administration and under Betsy DeVos’ watch at the Department of Education, the media’s collective hair would be on fire. This story would be national, running near-daily on A-block and with wall-to-wall coverage of any related congressional hearings, with someone hounding DeVos the entire time. Instead, Cardona has benefited from the privilege of serving in an administration with such lightning rods as Alejandro Mayorkas and Pete Buttigieg, therefore mostly escaping scrutiny.  The Regime Media have certainly earned their title. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on the CBS Evening News on Monday, May 13th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: Nearly two weeks after what is traditionally college decision day, many students are still unable to commit to a school. That's because of computer glitches plaguing the Education Department's newly overhauled financial aid system. CBS’s Meg Oliver has an important update. MEG OLIVER: With high school graduation just weeks away, anxiety was mounting for senior Jojo Henderson. The 18-year-old from Pittsburg, Texas couldn't commit to college without knowing his financial aid. JOJO HENDERSON: I’m frustrated, because it’s just like- you do everything that you're supposed to do and then you have to wait on the government to catch up. OLIVER: Henderson filled out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, known as FAFSA, almost five months ago. He finally received his financial information last week, after some college decision deadlines. Typically, the Department of Education releases the forms on October 1st, then sends the students’ data to colleges within one to three days of submission to calculate aid. This year, the application forms came out three months late. It's estimated more than a quarter of colleges have still not sent aid packages. OLIVER: Did you think of giving up? Maybe not going to college? JAELYN JAMES: Yeah, many times actually. OLIVER: Really? JAMES: Um, I was just, like- so tired of waiting. OLIVER: New Jersey high school senior Jaelyn James finally received her aid package close to the decision deadline. SARA URQUIDEZ: My biggest advice is to not give up. OLIVER: Sara Urquidez oversees counseling for thousands of public school students in the Dallas area. URQUIDEZ: Ask for extensions, ask if deposits for housing are refundable, ask for anything they possibly can to help make a decision but don't opt out at this point in the process. OLIVER: A FAFSA fiasco that's still not finished. Meg Oliver, CBS News, Wayne, New Jersey.  

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Reagan-Hating Networks Cite Reagan to Help Biden

Ronald Reagan is suddenly a topic in the liberal media, but only as a lame defense of President Biden’s betrayal of our ally Israel. ABC, CBS, and NBC all offered this talking point. The most energetic rebuttal of this pro-Biden theme came from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on CBS’s Face the Nation. Jorge Bonilla explains the Sunday spin, including that CNN State of the Union host Dana Bash did. She didn't throw Reagan spin at Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), but she suggested Donald Trump was an anti-Semite -- in part for his suggestion that Jews voting against him “should be ashamed.” That's an interesting spin, since Democrats routinely suggest that blacks and Hispanics that vote for Republicans are "race traitors," or aren't demonstrating a tribal loyalty. They don't expect that shaming with Jews. CBS's Sunday Morning aired a puffball interview with comedian Bill Maher, letting him claim he speaks for the "normies" and he's not ideological. On his Friday night program on HBO, Maher lamented that the Democrats "blew it" in all their legal warfare on Trump.  What was amazing in this profile was CBS reporter Robert Costa imploring Maher to lay off mockery of the Left, just shine the spotlight on the right-wingers! He asked: "What do you say to your [leftist] critics, though, who say that you should just focus on them, Bill, if they’re more alarming to you than the Left. And why not shine the spotlight on them only?" It's like he wants Maher to be exactly like CBS's own Stephen Colbert.  We conclude with questions Jorge knows from his places of residence: why would Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) claim black kids in the Bronx don't know the word "computer"? And why would the press ignore it? Then there is the very short-lived attempt by "Queers for Palestine" to block an exit to Disney World in Orlando. Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts.

NB Blog Feed

Meta AI Bends Over Backwards to Defend Censorship

Meta’s new artificial intelligence chatbot claims there’s a “valid” argument to be made for censoring legal free speech. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp, proudly announced a new AI assistant on April 18, simply called Meta AI, but the AI chatbot appears to have been programmed with a disturbing bias against free speech. When MRC researchers asked Meta AI if speech, especially so-called “hate speech,” should be censored, the chatbot provided arguments both for and against censorship, but without mentioning that the established U.S. principles of freedom of speech stem from the Constitution. The AI asserted, “That's a complex and sensitive topic! Social media censorship is a debated issue, with valid arguments both for and against.”  “It should come as little surprise that leftist-trained AI have adopted the same tired, vague, fear-based approach to censorship,” said Director of MRC Free Speech America Michael Morris. “Time and again, the left has shown that it is all too willing to bend U.S. standards on speech, often citing potential harms and mis- or disinformation as justifications for silencing their opposition. But the clear and obvious answer to bad speech has always been and will forever continue to be more speech, not less.” Meta AI listed what it titled “Arguments for censorship,” including, “Hate speech and harmful content: Social media platforms have a responsibility to protect users from hate speech, violence, and harmful content that can cause real-world harm.” The chatbot then referred to “Disinformation and misinformation,”  terms frequently applied by leftists to silence opinions they dislike or disagree with. Meta’s AI continued, “Censorship can help prevent the spread of false information that can influence public opinion, elections, and critical decision-making.” The AI chatbot didn’t only list arguments for censorship, noting also that censorship curtails “Freedom of speech and expression” and that “[c]ensorship can be biased.” Meta AI totally omitted any reference to the constitutional right to free speech in America. In fact, even its admission about freedom of expression contained a caveat: “Social media platforms should allow users to express themselves freely, without fear of censorship, as long as they're not promoting harm or violence.”  But the American company is not following the American standard for legal free speech and is instead using these vaguely defined objections to justify censorship. The chatbot even doubled down on the importance of limiting “hate speech,” a subjective term that can be very easily misapplied. “Hate speech is a complex issue, and opinions on censorship vary,” Meta AI alleged. The chatbot then proceeded to list out reasons to censor so-called hate speech specifically:  1. Protection from harm: Hate speech can contribute to a hostile environment, incite violence, and perpetuate discrimination against marginalized groups. Censorship can help prevent real-world harm. 2. Promoting inclusivity: By censoring hate speech, social media platforms can create a more inclusive and welcoming environment for diverse users. The AI did, however, acknowledge “Free speech concerns” and “Difficulty in defining hate speech.” Meta platforms have displayed bias and censored so-called hate speech before. For instance, both in November and May 2023, Facebook removed a meme labeling some 30 LGBTQ “genders” as “Mental Disorders.” Facebook accused the users of “Hate speech.” Also in May 2023, Facebook reportedly prevented The Tennessee Conservative from sharing an article about funding additional voting machines in Williamson County claiming it went “against our Community Standards on hate speech.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

‘I Got a Contract’: Whoopi Decries Meme About Her Leaving the Country

The View moderator Whoopi Goldberg took umbrage with former President Trump during Monday’s show, because he apparently helped to spread an internet joke on his social media platform that she was moving to Canada. But despite her bitter ranting to the contrary, she had - in fact - threatened to leave the country the first time Trump was elected. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “Canada doesn’t want you Whoopi, NOBODY DOES!!!” The image included a heavier Goldberg with the caption: “I’m moving to Canada for sure this time!” It’s worth noting that the words were not in quotation marks.     “You know what I'm a little agitated about? That man had something to say to me,” Goldberg decried on the show. “He saw a meme, you know who, saw a meme that said I was leaving the country. People always see these crazy memes that I'm going to leave the country if he gets in there. Somebody else thought I was leaving, was sending suggestions for people to take my place.” Goldberg snapped at Trump, calling him a “little snowflake” while she hypocritically melted down over the meme: Look, I'm not going anywhere. Okay? [Applause] And it's not for the reason, you little snowflake, it's not for the reason you think. He said nobody wanted me. Honey -- “We want you, Whoopi,” staunchly racist and anti-Semitic ABC co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) interjected. An audience member also shouted: “We love you, Whoopi!”     Goldberg argued, “It wouldn't matter if no one here wanted me… because I got a contract. So, I'm going to be here where I'm wanted for the next couple of years.” Saying you’re “not going anywhere” “for the next couple of years” because you “got a contract” and are being paid loads of cash is not the repudiation you think it is, Whoopi. Goldberg lost her cool after the 2016 elections when people were calling her out for not moving out of the country when she previously alluded to it. She’s repeatedly denied that she ever threatened to leave the country, but that’s not true. She’s on the record as saying this about Trump’s campaign message in early 2016: The minute you start pointing and saying that person is a rapist and a murderer, it pisses me off because I’ve been part of that when they just use a blanket statement to talk about black people or when they use a blanket statement to talk about white people or women or any other group. I don’t think that’s America. I don’t want it to be America. Maybe it’s time for me to move, you know. Goldberg had either chickened out or it was all bluster to begin with. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 13, 2024 11:18:47 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: You know what I'm a little agitated about? That man [former President Donald Trump] had something to say to me. He saw a meme, you know who, saw a meme that said I was leaving the country. People always see these crazy memes that I'm going to leave the country if he gets in there. Somebody else thought I was leaving, was sending suggestions for people to take my place. Look, I'm not going anywhere. Okay? [Applause] And it's not for the reason, you little snowflake, it's not for the reason you think. He said nobody wanted me. Honey -- SUNNY HOSTIN: We want you, Whoopi. GOLDBERG: Well, you know what? It wouldn't matter if no one here wanted me. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Whoopi! GOLDBERG: Thank you! [Applause] But I know where I'm going to be because I got a contract. So, I'm going to be here where I'm wanted for the next couple of years. We'll be right back.

NB Blog Feed

Following Trans Scandals, Planet Fitness Offers FREE Membership for Teens

Earlier this year, Planet Fitness came under fire after numerous reports of transgender women in the women’s locker rooms or bathrooms surfaced across the nation. On Monday, word spread that the company, begging for members, announced a new campaign that would give teenagers free summer passes.  Great, now the gym giant wants kids to be subject of the transgender freaks in the bathrooms! “High school summer pass is here,” the commercial stated before noting that from June 1 to August 31 teenagers aged 14 to 19 years old “can work out at Planet Fitness totally free!” BREAKING: Planet Fitness announced that they are giving away free summer passes to kids. This is the same company that lets men enter the women's locker rooms and expose themselves to women and girls while simultaneously allowing a culture of perverted and degenerate behavior in… pic.twitter.com/JP1dXs5Fji — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 13, 2024 “Come in and get energized,” the commercial added, “with tons of cardio and strength equipment, all in the judgment free zone, find your big fitness energy with the high school summer pass.”  While encouraging kids to stay active during the summer is a great idea, having them stay active at Planet Fitness is a horrible idea. In March, an Alaskan woman was using the locker room facility at a Planet Fitness location when a “queer” person that was a biological man, began using the women’s area mirrors and shaving his face. There was a roughly 12-year-old girl in the locker room when the man was present and reports indicate the child was “kind of freaked out.” Around the same time, #BoycottPlanetFitness began trending on social media with many people going into their local Planet Fitness to cancel their memberships. Additionally, the company’s stock price dropped. Less than a month later, Christopher Allan Miller stripped naked in the ladies locker room at a Planet Fitness location in North Carolina. While Miller was arrested, the woman who reported him had her gym membership revoked by Planet Fitness after the gym insisted that she wasn’t being inclusive of Miller’s transgender identity. After that fiasco, Planet Fitness’ value plummeted around $400 million. Even still, Planet Fitness has remained firm in its commitment to the delusions of trans people and insists that anyone can use any bathroom that they feel matches their gender identity, even if it means that creepy old men will share spaces with young girls. It’s no wonder the gym is begging for new clients and marketing their membership to teens who are unlikely to either know about these trans policies or too naive to recognize the repercussions they could hold. The information on the website states that teens who are 19-years-old can sign up online or in person without a parent or guardian. For those who are under 19-years-old, a parent or guardian is needed to sign up in person or online. But in filing out the form, there doesn't seem to be any reason a child can't fill it out for his or her parent. So essentially, any kid can sign up online without their parent knowing.   As an aside, on the form, Planet Fitness offers the gender option of "non-binary" for teens to select if they don't identify with male or female. As Libs of TikTok noted in it’s post, “Parents, beware! Do not allow your kids in PF. They are desperate for new customers after seeing mass cancellations. Protect your children!” A user on X wrote how “disturbing” Planet Fitness’ new scheme is, “They’re overtly preying on children now. Planet Fitness allows men in women’s bathrooms and wants kids to now be thrown into the mix,” and insisted that the company is a “threat” to innocent children. “What point is there allowing pervs in the locker rooms unless there is a good supply of kids?” another account sarcastically added. If you are watching this play out and are still thinking the left, and now, Planet Fitness especially, isn’t after your kids, open your eyes.

NB Blog Feed

Haines DEMANDS Media DO MORE to Help Reelect Biden, Air Camp Events

Sara Haines is the co-host of ABC’s The View who’s supposed to be the voice of “independent” voters in the middle. But while she has defended conservatives on some things, the mask has slipped plenty of time. Such was the cast on Monday’s show when she grew frustrated with “the media” for not doing enough to help reelect President Biden – like airing his campaign events – because they were obsessed with the hush money trial of former President Trump. “I actually blame the media slightly,” she huffed talking about Biden’s slumping poll numbers. Her solution was to stop sitting outside the New York City courthouse and start airing Biden’s campaign events. Throwing away the illusion of being an independent, she particularly wanted them to focus on the events that were about “a winning issue for Democrats”: We talked last week a lot about how I don't think people are able to watch this Trump trial 24/7, like all the time. It's a still shot. It's a picture of a door. It's all this stuff. Now, we're talking about we're in a campaign. We should be hearing more. We say, why don't we hear from the Biden administration? I don't leave that all on the Biden administration's door. The media needs to cover things. For example, abortion is a winning issue for Democrats. Women's reproductive health. Vice President Harris did an event last week. I couldn't find any coverage on it. And that's a Democrat's winning stance.     “I also think that there was an asylum regulation decided on with the border. Everyone has agreed the border's a problem. Didn't see any coverage on that because we're busy watching the Donald Trump door not opening,” she decried. Haines also whined that after Biden’s speech condemning anti-Semitism last week, “They cut to the speech, came back and talked about Donald Trump.” She described the whole thing as “Donald Trump is Donald-Trumping us. It's Deja Vu from 2016, and the coverage.” “It's ridiculous!” she said of the media covering Trump. The segment was kicked off by moderator Whoopi Goldberg lashing out at CNN’s Fareed Zakaria for calling attention to new polling showing a 25-point swing in Trump’s favor on competency. His warning that it was “a reflection of people's sense that the President's age is affecting his capacity to govern. And there's very little that Joe Biden can do now to change that perception,” triggered her. “Well, what's the point of having a conversation if you're saying it's a done deal? You know, you can't do that,” she denounced. Fake-Republican Ana Navarro agreed with Haines. According to her, “you don’t have a choice” of who to vote for other than Biden because “This is a binary choice America has between good and evil…” Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin admitted it was “hard to wrap our heads around” the fact that “a lot of voters attribute the pre-pandemic economy to Donald Trump. They don't blame him for the global phenomena that was the pandemic.” “Joe Biden has objectively achieved a lot on the economy,” Farah Griffin proclaimed while saying Biden’s messaging was too dismissive of Americans’ discontent with high inflation. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 13, 2024 11:02:43 a.m. Eastern (…) FAREED ZAKARIA: The one that troubles me the most is on the question of who was the more competent. Joe Biden led Donald Trump by nine points in 2020. But Trump now leads by 16 points in January 2024. That 25-point shift could be a reflection of people's sense that the President's age is affecting his capacity to govern. And there's very little that Joe Biden can do now to change that perception. [Cuts back to live] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Well, what's the point of having a conversation if you're saying it's a done deal? You know, you can't do that? And it's not a done deal until the people of the United States vote. That's when it's a done deal. But, you know, we have this conversation, what, twice a week. So, you know the question. What do you think? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So, I've got to say I agreed with a lot of Fareed Zakaria's take. And I want to underscore: I want Trump to lose! So, it's important to me six months out with this platform that we have to talk about some very real trends and signs that Donald Trump may be far stronger than we think he is. It may be hard to wrap our heads around. I personally – as someone who has testified against him, has talked about how unfit he is – it's hard to believe he has as much support as he does. One thing he talked about was the economy. And I was trying to make sense of this because, obviously, he left office in 2020; the economy was in freefall, massive unemployment. But what I think it is is a lot of voters attribute the pre-pandemic economy to Donald Trump. They don't blame him for the global phenomena that was the pandemic. Joe Biden has objectively achieved a lot on the economy. He did the infrastructure package as well. He has things to brag about. But my problem is this: he did an interview with Erin Burnett and he said, ‘actually, you're better off than you think you are.’ That's a bad message. When people's grocery prices are up 30 percent, you're saying believe me rather than what your bank account is telling you. He's got six months to come up with an inspiring, forward-looking message and get out there and talk about it. And for us, I think it’s important – I engage Trump voters and I don't do it to make them feel shamed or to attack them for where they are but to talk about what a second term could look like and how dangerous it is. I think that's how we need to be using our voices. And the campaign – the Biden campaign just has to get more active. SARA HAINES: Yeah. I would say when you say, ‘the Biden campaign has to get more active,’ I actually blame the media slightly. We talked last week a lot about how I don't think people are able to watch this Trump trial 24/7, like all the time. It's a still shot. It's a picture of a door. It's all this stuff. Now, we're talking about we're in a campaign. We should be hearing more. We say, why don't we hear from the Biden administration? I don't leave that all on the Biden administration's door. The media needs to cover things. For example, abortion is a winning issue for Democrats. Women's reproductive health. Vice President Harris did an event last week. I couldn't find any coverage on it. And that's a Democrat's winning stance. I also think that there was an asylum regulation decided on with the border. Everyone has agreed the border's a problem. Didn't see any coverage on that because we're busy watching the Donald Trump door not opening. GOLDBERG: And don't forget Nikki Haley, her win. Didn't he win? Didn’t she pick up a whole lot – FARAH GRIFFIN: Yeah. She got like 150,000 – HAINES: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. But also you’ve got, last week, our incumbent president stepped in to do a speech on anti-Semitism. They cut to the speech, came back and talked about Donald Trump. So, what's happening here is Donald Trump is Donald trumping us. It's Deja Vu from 2016, and the coverage -- the irony is the people covering that news thinks they're getting one up on Donald Trump while they're handing him a lot of votes because of the coverage. It's ridiculous! ANA NAVARRO: I’ve been saying – I agree with you. I’ve been saying from the beginning I actually think this trial is somewhat helping Donald Trump because it's keeping him off the trail and because we are not focusing on the stupid stuff he says on a daily basis. And that is helping him. On Biden, look – You know, at first it was people saying, we don't like our choices. What else? What third candidate? Well, no third candidate. No knight in shining armor appeared. Now, I'm hearing people say, is there a way in the convention they can change the candidate? That's not going to happen. I'm going to say it until I'm blue in the face. I'm going to say it until the day of election, this is a binary choice. This is a binary choice America has between good and evil, between decency and havoc, between indicted and 88 counts and not. I mean, you know? They're both old. If that's what's keeping you at night -- up at night -- you don't have a choice. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Transgender Kills Civilian: Runs Him Over, Stabs Him & Kisses Him

The left still likes to tell you that transgender people aren’t struggling mentally …  Karon Fisher, a transgender woman in Houston, Texas, allegedly crashed into the body of 64-year-old Steven Anderson earlier this month, before stabbing him to his death, kissing him and prancing over his body. Co-Owner of Trending Politics, Collin Rugg, posted a video of the incident which looks like it was obtained from someone’s outdoor security camera. NEW: Man killed by transgender driver who plowed into him, backed over him and stabbed him 9 times before kissing him and prancing over his body. Absolutely horrific. 20-year-old suspect Karon Fisher is a man according to court papers. After trying to flee the scene in a car,… pic.twitter.com/XuG8KcPIZw — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 11, 2024 According to reports, Anderson was outside getting the mail from his mailbox when Fisher rammed right into him with a vehicle. Fisher allegedly then reversed the car in order to hit Anderson again while witnesses called 911. The video shows Fisher, who was wearing what looked like a bra and underpants, flip over Anderson’s limp body before straddling and kissing him. Reports indicate that Fisher then stabbed Anderson a total of nine times before prancing over his body like a gazelle and walking away “as if nothing had happened.” Neighbors were terrified at the sight, rightfully so. “It’s very disturbing. I have kids here; they could have been out here playing,” a neighbor told ABC13 while another noted how shocking it was that the murder happened in “broad daylight” saying “it happened right under our noses.” The suspect previously was on community supervision for five years over evading arrest in 2023 and in 2021 was charged with prostitution. The same day Fisher allegedly killed Anderson, reports indicate that he assaulted a staff member at the hospital. He’s being held on a two million dollar bond.  Twitter CEO Elon Musk summed it up simply but perfectly when he responded “terrible” to this horrific story.

NB Blog Feed

VCU Students Walk out of Graduation to Protest Youngkin's Speech

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) graduates walked out of their graduation ceremony Saturday morning as a way of protest when Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin began to deliver the commencement address. The walkout, participated in by dozens of students, was supposed to be a way to show support for Palestine and protest against some of Youngkin’s Republican policies. The VCU chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) urged VCU officials to rescind the invitation to Youngkin this week prior to the graduation ceremony. When their urges were unsuccessful, they, along with other students, said they planned to walk out when Youngkin began speaking — and that’s exactly what they did Saturday morning.  Students, many of whom were wearing masks, stood up and stormed out when Youngkin began his opening statements. Many students held kaffiyeh scarves and signs reading things like “Teach Black history” and “Book bans [do not equal] respect for learning.” Related: Youngkin Promotes Parental Voice Over Children’s Gender And Pronouns Previously Youngkin has proved that he doesn’t want woke crap in schools and emphasized that “parents matter” when it comes to what is and isn’t taught to their kids in school. To the left however, likely many of those who protested at the graduation, that sort of transparency is seen as a threat to the indoctrination and grooming goals of many progressives. NEW: @VCU students walk out of their own commencement to protest @GlennYoungkin #valeg They will not be allowed back into the ceremony but don’t seem worried. “My families going to be mad, but it’s worth it for what he’s done to bBack and trans ppl” - said by a student outside https://t.co/zA9RvvC1Vz pic.twitter.com/wOvgl1lVVK — BK (@BradKutner) May 11, 2024 Other students and protestors marched around the school holding signs and shouting things like "No books, no peace, let knowledge increase" with plans to all meet up at Abner Clay, a local park. The walkout at @VCU graduation is underway. pic.twitter.com/VFOoe5jc2B — Megan E. Pauly (@Megan__Pauly) May 11, 2024 The temper tantrum by the VCU grads was met with mixed reviews from social media users. One user on X gave “kudos” to the students saying “Glenn Youngkin weaponized Black people to win the race for governor with fearmongering over critical race theory and stirring up white parents’ angst. I can’t think of anyone more deserving of a commencement walkout at a historically black university.” A different user said the walkout “warm[ed] her heart.” On the contrary, one user said it wasn’t “courageous” at all, but rather that it was “an insult to their fellow graduates.” Similarly, a user wrote “Pathetic!! Small few inconsiderate fools ruin it for rest of Graduates & families Like so many activists they only care about themselves. What did they really accomplish? Nothing!” I agree with the latter sentiments. Regardless of your personal view of a particular person, there’s something called basic human respect and that’s something I think all those who walked out could benefit from learning about. Follow us on Twitter/X: Wacky Moments of Leftist Extremism: The Media Freak Out Over Trump's Trial Falling Apart The ladies on The View are furious that the court system isn't just throwing Trump in prison without a trial. pic.twitter.com/IDdcOlk35T — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 10, 2024

NB Blog Feed

Turning into a Noem: Psaki to Alter Book After Lying About Biden, Afghanistan

Axios White House reporter Alex Thompson flagged on Monday former Biden White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s new memoir Say More will have an altered passage in future printings following the revelation that it falsely claimed President Biden never looked at his watch during the August 29, 2021, dignified transfer of remains for the 13 Americans murdered in Kabul during the U.S.’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan. Thompson highlighted the key passage in which she claimed Biden has been a victim of “misinformation” aimed to make “him appear insensitive” when, in her (alternate) reality, “the president looked at his watch only after the ceremony had ended. Moments later, he and the First Lady headed toward their car.” Of course, it flew in the face of live footage from the scene and professional photographers. Psaki quoted friendly media with a (fake) fact-check via USA Today, but she couldn’t even get that right as she attributed it to The Washington Post. Thompson also noted that Psaki’s claim “contradict[s] news photos and firsthand accounts of Gold Star families” At the time, our Nick Fondacaro torched these partisan tools for “drag[ging] those grieving families through the mud” by downplaying what they had seen with their own eyes. And, over on the broadcast networks, Fondacaro noted they ignored it completely in the news cycle after it happened.   It's true. Joe Biden checked his watch during the dignified transfer of the servicemembers killing in Afghanistan at the airport. You can see him jerk his left hand to pull the watch out from under his sleeve, then look down at it. pic.twitter.com/M3QVzJbTIm — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) August 29, 2021   Psaki cowardly “initially declined to comment”, but emerged only after Thompson’s story was posted to admit a “detail in a few lines of the book about the exact number of times he looked at his watch will be removed in future reprints and the ebook”. Further, Psaki channeled her former boss to both Axios and our friend Brian Flood at FoxNews.com by making it about — wait for it — Beau Biden: The story on Afghanistan is really about the importance of delivering feedback even when it is difficult told through my own experience of telling President Biden that his own story of loss was not well received by the families who were grieving their sons and daughters The rest of Thompson’s piece emphasized in broad strokes the reality as we barrel toward the November presidential election that Afghanistan remains one of if not the biggest stain on the President.

NB Blog Feed

Australian Federal Judge Weighs in Favor of Free Speech with This Move

An Australian federal judge has swooped in to defend free speech by siding with Elon Musk in the tech billionaire’s latest spat with Australia’s Ministry of Truth. On May 13, Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett blocked the application for the extension of an injunction issued by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The injunction ordered X to censor a video depicting an Australian Bishop being stabbed while delivering Mass in Sydney.  It is expected that the Justice will issue an explanatory statement later in the day, reported SkyNews Australia. Musk responded to news of the ruling by re-expressing his continued commitment to the cause of free speech globally. “Not trying to win anything,” Musk posted on X. “I just don’t think we should be suppressing Australia’s rights to free speech.” Grant issued the injunction on April 16 ordering X to suppress the video even for users outside of the United States. She also threatened the company with a daily fine of $785,000 AUD if it didn’t comply with the order.  X’s Global Government Affairs Team challenged Grant’s authority, citing her lack of jurisdiction over non-Australian users. X’s lawyers also argued before the Justice that the video in question was not overly graphic and, contrary to the Australian Government’s characterization, did not glorify violence or terrorism. Related: WATCH: Bishop’s Powerful Response to Censorship Demands of Stabbing Video On April 28, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, the victim of the vicious stabbing, made a public statement in favor of free speech as a cornerstone of Western civilization and a fundamental natural right.  Musk has faced a lot of pushback and even legal threats for his bold stance in favor of free speech. Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie called for Elon Musk’s arrest. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese singled out X as being so-called uncooperative with the Australian government’s censorship initiatives and claimed that Musk was going against the will of Australians. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Joe Scarborough's Mother's Day Brag: I Was A Multi-Sport Star!

Regular Morning Joe viewers are all too familiar with Joe Scarborough's annoying habit of working the fact that he used to be a congressman into conversations. But for a bragging change of pace, Scarborough somehow managed to slip into his Mother's Day reminiscences that in high school, he apparently was a multi-sport star.  In baseball: "I played baseball. All-Star, had a high average, all this stuff." In basketball: "I was scoring like 30, 35 points a game." Honk if this makes you think of another famous Joe who brags about being a football legend in high school in Delaware. The irony is that, for Scarborough, on those rare occasions when he failed in sports, his mother was anything but sympathetic. When he struck out to end a game, she told him: "If you can't do any better than that, Joey, you'd be doing yourself and the family a great service by never playing baseball again." And when his team lost a basketball game, her reaction was: "You know, it would have been so great if God would have given us at least one natural athlete." Yikes! Scarborough also shared this poignant memory: that his mother really didn't want to have him at all! She didn't want a third child, who was Joe. Though Scarborough claimed she eventually got over it and that he was even the apple of her eye.  I'm reminded of the joke about the two mothers chatting, and one brags to the other: "My son pays his psychoanalyst $375/hr., and all he talks about is me!" Paging Dr. Freud to Scarborough's rescue...Or perhaps, Stuart Smalley. Repeat after us, Joe: "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggone it, people like me." And sure, feel free to throw in: "Did I ever mention that I used to be a Member of Congress?" Far be it from me to delve into Scarborough's psyche. But could it be that the scars of his mother's tough love, and knowing that, at least at first, she was disappointed to give birth to him, in some way account for his penchant for bragging, be it about what a macho man he is, having been a congressman, and now, about having been a high school multi-sport star? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/13/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, it's so interesting. I, um, everybody loves to talk about their moms. Oh, she was so sweet and the most loving, she was an angel. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Mary Jo. SCARBOROUGH: As you know, Mary Jo loved Joey. She loved me so much. And some people would say, like, that I was the apple of her eye after she got over having me. She wasn't really pleased to have a third, a third child, but she eventually did. She was there every step of theway and was the biggest supporter.  But, you know, there was another side of my mom that, that people don't talk about. And I know this sounds weird. This is only, like, 20, 30 seconds, but I saw Ed Sheeran on Howard Stern's show last year, and it explains the success of my mom in being a mom. Here's Howard Stern talking to Ed Sheeran. ED SHEERAN: You learn nothing from success, nothing. You learn everything from the failures. And this is the thing that annoys me about the state that the world is in at the moment. No one talks about failureanymore. It's like shame.Like, failure is shame, like, let's just bury that and not talkabout it. No one goes, oh, what did we learn from this? Whereas with success, everyone shouts about it. But there is nothing in success. Success happens from failing hundreds of times. SCARBOROUGH: So the reason that reminds me of my mom is one of -- I think one of her best moments was, I played baseball.  And, you know, All-Star, had a high average, all of this stuff. Bases loaded, and a key game, and I struck out. Threw my bat down, walked to the car. I was so angry. I got in the back seat, and I said, I said, I'm just going to quit. My mom, you know, drives off. And she quietly says, Well, if you can't do any better than that, Joey, you'd be doing yourself and the family a great service by never playing baseball again.  MIKA: Oh, ouch. SCARBOROUGH: Right? So I sit back, and I'm like, what? That's not what a mom is supposed to say! Guess what? It made me go out and practice harder. It was unconditional love. MIKA: Aww/ She knew you. SCARBOROUGH: But man, she was tough. She was a tough mother, and she never -- like, no time for, like, sympathy for, you know, if we messed up. She let us know. And that, that combination of love and toughness, I think, it makes all the difference. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: And when we lost, my mom let us know. Like, I lost a basketball game. I remember, again, back seat, you know, and I was, I was scoring, like, 30, 35 points a game. We still lost, and my mother turns to my dad in the front seat, so her three children can hear it in the back. She goes, You know, it would have been so great if God would have given us at least one natural athlete." MIKA: Aw, come on. SCARBOROUGH: Who says that? No! No! So, what happens, we get home, I get the basketball out, and I'm shooting for, like, the next two hours.  This is parenting! I mean, it's not just hugging people and being -- you know, Mika, that term, snowplow parents, where we, we want to do everything for our kids and we don't want our kids to ever feel any discomfort. No! That's not what's being a good parent is about.

NB Blog Feed

Tolerance for Me, But Not for Thee! 'Hateful' Conservative Man on ABC's 'Station19' Needs Rescuing by Gay Liberal Sister

As if ABC’s Station 19 didn’t shove their liberal opinions down our throats enough by championing kids attending over-sexualized gay pride parades and portraying anyone who doesn’t toe the LGBTQ line as hateful bigots, the show decided to revisit last month’s storyline in their latest episode, “Give It All.” Apparently, Shonda Rhimes hadn’t given it her all in the previous episode, “True Colors,” and she had some more liberal preaching to do. If you remember, in the previous episode, a crowd of angry, white, conservative men (of course) were protesting at a pride parade in which Station 19 was participating, including bi-sexual character Maya Bishop (Danielle Savre) who saw her brother among the men. Now, four episodes later, Maya’s brother is back to again teach viewers, “Conservatives bad! White men bad! Liberals good!” I mean, they could at least try to come up with a unique storyline instead of ripping off tired old tropes from other shows. Maya shows up at the home her brother Mason (Cameron Cowperthwaite) is sharing with his fellow protesters whom he considers family, and she’s already moody and agitated from hormones she’s taking for IVF treatment: Mason: What do you want, Maya? Maya: I don't know. After seeing you at Pride, I just wanted to talk. I mean, what the hell, Mason? Mason: Is that a question? Maya: Do you believe this crap? Is this who you are now? Mason: "Now" is a weird qualifier. Maya: I've known you my entire life, Mason. You're just confused or… Mason: You don't think I can form my own opinions? I can't think for myself? Maya: You're not a person who… Okay, you're not full of hate. We grew up together. I know you. Mason: You don't know me. You know yourself. That's all you've ever cared about. Maya: Is that one of yours? Mason: Yeah. Maya: Fine. Tell me who you are then. I want to understand. Mason: I'm not doing this. Maya: No, I'm not leaving until we talk. So we nee… Mason: Come on, Maya, enough. Just leave me alone. Damn it. Maya: I'm sorry. Let me... Mason: Just please leave! Maya: No, I can help, okay? Let me help. Poor Maya is trying so hard to save her brother from his conservative self. What’s a liberal girl to do? #EyeRoll As their argument continues, Mason becomes every Hollywood production’s caricature of how they see conservatives - angry, cruel and hateful: Mason: At least I can contribute. Maya: To what? This boys' home for deplorables? Mason: We uphold the traditions of our country and the people who built it. Maya: What does that even mean? Mason: A man used to be able to raise a family on one salary. We're losing out on jobs because of identity politics, immigration. Maya: Mason, you are brainwashed. Mason: This is the stupidity… This is the stupidity my brothers warned me about. Men like us are despised. Maya: What are you talking about? How are you despised? You were the group shouting at innocent people at… Look, I'm just confused, okay? The Mason I knew was a kid who made up stories with me. You remember that? He was the kid who insisted on having a funeral for the dead mouse in the garage. He is extremely talented. Mason: Talented? Why didn't you ever tell that to Dad when he was burning my art? Where were you when I wanted to go to art school? All the money went to your Olympic training. These people are my brothers. Okay? They helped me get clean. They hung my art on the walls. I matter to these people. No one ever told me that I mattered before. Maya: You matter to me, Mason. Just let me get you out of this place and see how it feels. Mason: And go where? Maya: Move in with me. Mason: You want me to come and live with you? Maya: You don't know what real family feels like. Let me show you. Deplorables? Okay, Hillary. And Maya doesn’t think straight, white men are despised in our culture? Hollywood really does exist in a bubble. Maya is a great example of so many on the left who mistakenly believe conservatives and Christians must give up their deeply held beliefs (which Maya refers to as brainwashing) to love them. Do the writers not realize she’s being just as sanctimonious and holier-than-thou as Mason is? She just cloaks her bigotry in “love” and a savior complex: Maya finally admits to Mason she’s bisexual which takes him by complete surprise: Maya: You could go to school and study art and get a job. Mason: You want me to pay rent? Maya: I mean, no. You could, but I don't need you to pay rent. Mason: You really want me to come and live with you? Maya: I just… I want to show you that there's another way. Mason: I didn't need your saving when I was on the streets, and I don't need it now. Maya: These people don't care about you. Mason: These people are my family. Maya: Who harass innocent people at a parade. Was that your family? Mason: Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Why are you so obsessed with that? Why do you care so much about a stupid gay parade? Maya: Because they're my people, Mason. You're harassing me and my community. Her revelation just brings out more of Mason’s hatred: Mason: You're telling me you're... gay? Maya: Yes. I'm bisexual. Mason: Oh, so you're confused. And you have daddy issues. Maya: I have a wife. We're trying to adopt a son. I am building a family. Mason: You have a wife and a kid? And you want me to move in with you? Call your wife. Tell her. God knows that fatherless kid is gonna need a male role model, especially when the little weirdo tells all the other kids at school about his two mommies. No, go on. Call her. Tell her Uncle Mason's coming. I'll pack my bags. Right. Maya: I want you to be a part of my life, Mason, but I can't do that if you don't… Mason: So, you want me to accept you and your "choices," but you don't have to accept me and mine? Maya: I can agree to disagree about everything except my humanity, Mason. I'm just trying to exist, and your "brothers" hate me for it. Mason: Because you are poisoning this country. And you shouldn't be allowed to do that. You shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Maya: Oh, my God. You're Dad. You've become Dad. Mason: Don't pull that crap with me. Maya: No, actually... You're not him. You're worse. I came here trying to save you or something. But now I get it. That's not possible. You can never be a part of my life, Mason. Not like this. You're not allowed to touch the beautiful life that I've created, because you would ruin it. I have love that we never knew existed as kids, and I wanted you to have that, too, but...You don't want it. And I won't risk losing it, so... As a conservative Christian with a transgender family member, I have lived this experience. My family member is one of the most kind, loving people you could ever hope to know. My husband and I have gay family members, as well. What’s beautiful is they love us and allow us to be ourselves without shaming us for our faith. They know we don’t think any less of them or judge them, and they don’t think any less of us or judge us. We just…love each other. Unfortunately, I have lost close friends who are gay once they’ve learned about my Christian, conservative beliefs, and it’s honestly broken my heart. I was willing to love them just as they are, but they couldn’t do the same for me. Because just as Maya says she can agree to disagree on everything but her humanity, the same can be said for conservatives and Christians who are hated and criticized for who we are. Sadly, Maya cuts Mason out of her life and the two never find any common ground to cling to. There’s only judgement and hate on both sides: Beckett: May I help you? I used to help my ex-wife with hers. Maya: I found my brother. He's so hateful. Like, I thought a little piece of him was still left, but he's gone. Oh, my God. I cut him off. How could I do that? Beckett: Maya... Maya: I'm a horrible person. Beckett: Maya, you did what you needed to do. Maya: Why does it feel like somebody died or something? Beckett: That's actually apparently a real thing. Hughes said it's called "ambiguous loss." Can I? Maya: Yeah. Beckett: It hurts like hell. But you had to make a choice. It was either him or you. Maya: Yeah. Yeah. Beckett: It's okay. It's okay. You ready? Alright. And, Bishop... Maya: Yeah? Beckett: For what it's worth you're already a great mother. Maybe if Hollywood would ever allow conservatives and Christians onto their writing teams to consult the way they do pro-abortion and leftist activists, they could come up with a decent storyline in which two family members actually express their love and devotion to each other unconditionally, no matter their differences. And neither must conform to the others’ beliefs in order to be “rescued.” Yeah, I’m not holding my breath, either.

NB Blog Feed

New York Times Roots for Pro-Hamas Competition: 'Al Jazeera Finds Fans On Campus'

The radical leftists on campus don't trust newspaper like The New York Times for their coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, but the Times doesn't mind. On the front of Monday's business section, they offered a laudatory look at the pro-Hamas, Qatar-funded network Al Jazeera, under “Why Al Jazeera is the Go To News Source for Student Protesters.” Santul Nerkar, a young journalist at the paper, never used terms like "leftist" or "radical" or even "progressive." They're just "pro-Palestinian." The print headline: “Al Jazeera Finds Fans On Campus.” He began: Nick Wilson has closely followed news on the war in Gaza since October. But Mr. Wilson, a Cornell student, is picky when it comes to his media diet: As a pro-Palestinian activist, he doesn’t trust major American outlets’ reporting on Israel’s campaign in Gaza. When conservatives say they don’t trust the mainstream press to cover Republicans fairly, they’re often smeared as ignorant or racist or McCarthyite. (The Times certainly doesn't respect the right-leaning New York Post.) Yet when leftists readers spout distrust, journalists from those same outlets under attack sound supportive. Strange how that works. Instead, he turns to publications less familiar to some American audiences, like the Arab news network Al Jazeera. “Al Jazeera is the site that I go to to get an account of events that I think will be reliable,” he said. Nerkar listed a few freak-show outlets, including Jewish Currents, which spouts about “Israel war crimes and “genocide,” as reliable reportorial options. Many student protesters said in recent interviews that they were seeking on-the-ground coverage of the war in Gaza, and often, a staunchly pro-Palestinian perspective -- and they are turning to alternative media for it. There’s a range of options: Jewish Currents, The Intercept, Mondoweiss and even independent Palestinian journalists on social media, as they seek information about what is happening in Gaza. .... Israel’s recent ban on the local operations of Al Jazeera has only elevated the network’s status among many student protesters. They prize coverage from reporters on the ground, and Al Jazeera has a more extensive operation in Gaza than any other publication. Students also noted the sacrifices it has made to tell the story there. Two Al Jazeera journalists have died since the start of the war. What didn’t make it into this report: Al-Jazeera’s pro-terrorist coverage like throwing a “birthday party” with cake and fireworks in 2008, to celebrate the release of a Lebanese terrorist who killed four in Israel, including a four-year-old girl. Al Jazeera reporters Ismail Abu Omar and Mohamed Washah were caught moonlighting as Hamas commanders. In February, The Times of Israel reported that "the IDF revealed a trove of images" that showed Washah in a Hamas uniform training fighters how to shoot rocket-propelled grenades, build warheads, and operate drones armed with an RPG. Nerkar oddly described Hamas as "armed resistance," not as engaged in the slaughter of civilians and hostage-taking. Critics say its coverage veers into support of the armed resistance to Israel. The Israeli government, which has accused Al Jazeera of acting as a “mouthpiece” for Hamas, last Sunday seized its broadcast equipment and shut down its operations in the country for at least 45 days. This is apparently Al Jazeera’s idea of balance: Terrorist videos as well as Israeli government news conferences. Al Jazeera called the government’s accusation “baseless” in a statement, adding that it has broadcast every news conference held by the Israeli cabinet and representatives for the Israel Defense Forces, in addition to videos from Hamas. …. The protesters rattle off a list of mainstream American publications as having coverage they find objectionable, including CNN, The Atlantic, the BBC and The New York Times, among many others. Nerkar approached the truth when he quoted scholar Hussein Ibish that the show’s “distinctly anti-American bent” had found a new fanbase on American college campuses: “There’s a third-worldist, anti-imperial point of view, and that’s also the view that many college kids have adopted.” Can’t disagree with that.

NB Blog Feed

CNN’s Dana Bash Hits Trump With A Smear Within A Smear

While forwarding the smear of former President Donald Trump as an antisemite due to his suggestion that Jews voting against him “should be ashamed”, CNN’s Dana Bash falsely suggested that Trump’s dinner with noted antisemite Nick Fuentes was intentional. Watch as Bash levels that smear towards the end of her exchange with U.S. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) on Israel: J.D. VANCE: We have to remember, Donald Trump is very direct here…  DANA BASH: Well, you said he was right. VANCE: …and he hasn't singled out Jewish-Americans. He singled out a lot of people for voting for Joe Biden and suggesting they've got to wake up and elect him as president in 2024. So I don't think there's any effort to single out Jewish-Americans, and just on that particular question about tropes, I mean, look, we know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care about our ally, Israel. We know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care a lot about these ridiculous protests. I actually have a friend of mine whose brother was graduating from Columbia, who had the graduation ceremony canceled. And that's a non-Jewish person who cares a lot about these anti-semitic protests. So I think the fact that Donald Trump is talking about Jews in that particular context does not mean he doesn't think the same lessons apply to a whole host of American citizens. BASH: Yeah, because he did say that any Jewish person who voted for Joe Biden should be ashamed of themselves. I want to move on.  VANCE: But he’s made similar comments about a lot of different groups of people, Dana. I don't think anybody could look at the presidency and the conduct of Donald Trump and say, this is a person who's somehow anti-semitic. And I think whether you're Jewish or not, you should be looking at the record of Joe Biden BASH: He had dinner with Nick Fuentes, who is an avowed anti-semite.  VANCE: Dana, you should look at the record of Joe Biden and recognize that, whether you’re Jewish or not, his presidency has been a disaster for the American people. The interview started out with a discussion on President Joe Biden’s decision to withhold military assistance from Israel . To Bash’s credit, that particular portion of the interview featured no appeals to the authority of Ronald Reagan. The interview then shifts to the accusations of anti-semitism against Trump. Earlier, we noted the emergence of this weird reclassification of a shopworn appeal to interests as an “anti-semitic trope”.  Irrespective of one’s feelings over Trump’s statements, they do not rise to anything more than an opinion. Black and Hispanic conservatives get excoriated by the left all the time for “voting against their self-interest”, and no one ever accuses those leftists of being anti-Black or anti-Hispanic, nor do such statements ever draw any media scrutiny. Reasonable individuals are left to won(D)er why that is.  Bruce’s fabrication of an anti-semitism where there is none smacks of media firefighting, intended to protect President Biden not just from the fallout of the munitions block, but from his own recent “very fine people” moment, as well as appearing weak on Israel.  The broader adoption of this talking point confirms our thesis. But Bash adds a new wrinkle, bolstering the fake trope with another event falsely packaged as proof evident of Trump’s alleged antisemitism: noted antisemite Nick Fuentes crashing Mar-a-Lago for dinner with Kanye West. Bash confidently uttered “He had dinner with Nick Fuentes, who is an avowed anti-semite” as a definitive tu quoque despite multisource confirmation that Trump was blindsided by Fuentes. Per then-NBC reporter Marc Caputo: Trump has since said he didn’t know Fuentes or his background when they dined together, a claim Fuentes confirmed in an interview, but others at the crowded members-only club figured out his identity. Why let the truth get in the way of a good smear? The interview moves on to the ongoing New York trial and closes with Bash trying to corner Vance on the 2024 election. As this interview demonstrates, if we didn’t have Regime Media we’d have no media at all. Click “expand” to view the transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN State of the Union on Sunday, May 12th, 2024: DANA BASH: I want to ask about something that Donald Trump said in- on social media. He said, “what Biden is doing with respect to Israel is disgraceful. If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel”. You tweeted that Donald Trump was right about that. So I just wanted to be clear. Do you think that Jewish people who voted for Joe Biden should be ashamed of themselves? J.D. VANCE: What I think, Dana, is that people should look at the record here and recognize that Donald Trump has actually been really good for the State of Israel. We had peace and prosperity in our country, and we had a very stalwart ally of the Israelis. Now, Joe Biden as president, the Israelis have been attacked, you've got these terrible campus protests with a lot of anti-semitic overtones all over our country, and you also have him trying to micromanage the Israeli response to them being attacked. Do I think it's reasonable to look at this situation and say that if you're a Jewish-American who cares about the State of Israel, who cares about these anti-semitic riots and say, you should be on the side of Republicans in 2024 because they govern effectively on some of the issues that you care about? I think it's a totally reasonable argument to make, and I think that Donald Trump's going to keep on making it.  BASH: You know, historically, the notion of saying to Jews, “you should put Israel first and what happens in Israel first”, and not sort of consider them American citizens first has been used as an anti-semitic trope. Do you- do you recognize that there and perhaps that language isn't exactly on point when you're talking about something that is very, very sick- it’s a tinderbox right now. VANCE: We have to remember, Donald Trump is very direct here…  BASH:: Well, you said he was right. VANCE: …and he hasn't singled out Jewish-Americans. He singled out a lot of people for voting for Joe Biden and suggesting they've got to wake up and elect him as president in 2024. So I don't think there's any effort to single out Jewish-Americans, and just on that particular question about tropes, I mean, look, we know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care about our ally, Israel. We know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care a lot about these ridiculous protests. I actually have a friend of mine whose brother was graduating from Columbia, who had the graduation ceremony canceled. And that's a non-Jewish person who cares a lot about these anti-semitic protests. So I think the fact that Donald Trump is talking about Jews in that particular context does not mean he doesn't think the same lessons apply to a whole host of American citizens. BASH: Yeah, because he did say that any Jewish person who voted for Joe Biden should be ashamed of themselves. I want to move on.  VANCE: But he’s made similar comments about a lot of different groups of people, Dana. I don't think anybody could look at the presidency and the conduct of Donald Trump and say, this is a person who's somehow anti-semitic. And I think whether you're Jewish or not, you should be looking at the record of Joe Biden BASH: He had dinner with Nick Fuentes, who is an avowed anti-semite.  VANCE: Dana, you should look at the record of Joe Biden and recognize that, whether you’re Jewish or not, his presidency has been a disaster for the American people.  

NB Blog Feed

NPR Loves Far-Left Tik-Tok Effort to Punish Celebrities For SILENCE on Gaza

Chloe Veltman, a correspondent on National Public Radio’s “Culture Desk” who last year celebrated the “Nation's first 'drag laureate,'" is still guarding the far-left ramparts of U.S. culture for NPR with Saturday’s “The Met Gala has fueled backlash against stars who are silent about the Gaza conflict.” She demonstrated, as if any more evidence was needed, the tax-supported network’s rigid adherence to a left-wing worldview that offends at least half its intended audience. Even as other outlets are trying to rein in the woke left and open public debate back up with more tolerance of opposing views, Veltman went all-in in support of anti-Israel (i.e. pro-Hamas) social media-fueled cancel culture targeting the outlandish Met Gala in NYC. A collective effort on TikTok and other social media platforms to push celebrities to speak publicly about the conflict in Gaza went into overdrive this week after The Met Gala. Creators on TikTok have earned millions of views for videos they've made linked to hashtags like #celebrityblocklist, #letthemeatcake and #blockout. Many of these posts list the names of actors, musicians and other high-profile figures whom the video creators say had not yet spoken out against Israel's attacks on the region -- or hadn't spoken out sufficiently -- and therefore should be blocked. And there's been a special push in recent days to name those who attended the opulent, star-studded annual Met Gala on Monday. They're not punishing celebrities speaking out for Israel. They're for punishing celebrities who say nothing about Israel or Gaza. This doesn’t sound sinister at all: "I made a Google Doc of every celebrity that attended the Met Gala, and now I'm going through and writing if they've been silent, or if they've been using their platform to speak up about the genocide in Gaza," said one TikTok user in a video displaying a long list of celebrity names against a black background with the word "SILENT" in red next to some, including Zendaya, Nicki Minaj, Keith Urban and Andrew Scott…. (There’s an unrelated “Zionist authors” version of this sort of hate-list as well.) Veltman the NPR culture journalist sounded precisely like Veltman the far-left activist: Calls on social media to boycott celebrity silences have been on a slow burn for months. But the fact the New York event, with its unchecked display of privilege and wealth, took place at around the same time as thousands of Palestinians were being forced to flee Rafah at less than 24 hours notice as Israeli troops took control of the Gaza territory's border crossing with Egypt, fanned the glowing embers into full-on flames. …. The rationale behind the calls on social media to block celebrities, thereby negatively impacting their advertising revenue, is to put pressure on them to use their massive influence to try to stop the violence in Gaza. The journalist concluded her taxpayer-supported segment celebrating the destructive, ultra-online temper tantrums for somehow helping “Gaza” (though calling for Israel to stop its war on Hamas would benefit the terrorists who run Gaza). And even if the many, much-viewed videos aimed at canceling celebrities don't help to bring about a change for the people of Gaza, there's at least an emotional reward for those doing the canceling. "It does provide some sense of agency," said the University of Michigan's Collins. "A sense that I've done something to influence other people to do something that perhaps maybe might make a difference. Because in the minds of those folks, it's better than doing nothing."

NB Blog Feed

SHAMELESS: Sunday Shows Pull Reagan Appeal To Authority Card On Pro-Israel GOPs

Much has changed in America over the years, but one tradition remains; the use of hymnals on Sundays. Not in churches, though- but by the Regime Media who on the Lord’s Day will often squawk out the same talking point. Today’s media hymn: the clumsy appeal to authority citing Ronald Reagan, as justification for President Joe Biden’s decision to withhold munitions shipments to Israel in protest of the Rafah offensive. Watch as Sen. Tom Cotton absolutely SHUTS DOWN Margaret Brennan’s attempt at an appeal to Reagan’s authority on CBS Face the Nation, as aired on Sunday, May 12th, 2024: MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you more broadly, because people like Senator van Hollen, who is going to be on here, will talk about the principle and the spirit and the meaning of U.S. law. And you know that past presidents have withheld military aid to Israel to force changes in behavior. President Reagan did that. President Bush did that. Why do you have a problem with President Biden doing that? TOM COTTON: Well- first off, when you talk about the principle and the spirit of U.S. law, it seems to me like they're not talking about the letter of U.S. Law, because Tony Blinken's own report concluded they did not violate U.S. law. Ronald Reagan’s decision to pause the delivery of fighter jets in the '80s was totally different from what happens here- what’s happened here. Israel is fighting a war of survival against a terrorist group that committed the worst atrocity against Jews since World War II. In the 1980s, an Israeli ambassador had been targeted for assassination. Ronald Reagan knew that the pause of fighter jets would not interfere with Israel's fighting, because they had plenty of fighters. They did not pause munitions. Joe Biden is not sending munitions in the middle of a shooting war that’s a war of survival, and look at the broader context. Israel knew that Ronald Reagan had its back in the region. He sank half of Iran's navy. Joe Biden has consistently given Iran hundreds of billions of sanctions relief that exactly funded groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. BRENNAN: And you know that they dispute that and they are still sending weapons. The Regime Media are either disgusted by Ronald Reagan and hate everything he stands for, or too young to remember Reagan but know just enough to reflexively hate him because he is still revered by conservatives. Regardless of individual circumstance, the deployment of the appeal to Reagan’s authority is intended to serve the same purpose: to cow Republicans into compliance with whatever issue the Regime Media is advocating for on any given day: in this instance, Biden’s aforementioned hold on munitions transfers to Israel. In Brennan’s case, her hollow attempt at an appeal to Reagan’s authority is so thoroughly shut down by Cotton that she has little choice but to revert to White House talking points.   NBC’s Kristen Welker attempted the same tactic with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on NBC’s Meet the Depressed, with similar results: NBC’s @kwelkernbc also suddenly found wisdom in Ronald Reagan, relaying a Democratic talking point she attributed to “historians.” To @LindseyGrahamSC: “Historians would say ‘why is it okay for Reagan to do it and not President Biden?’” #MTP pic.twitter.com/jM9BR1GFVh — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 12, 2024 So incensed is Graham at the empty appeal to authority that he stomps all over Welker’s use of a variant of “critics say”- “military officials say”. What military officials were these, precisely? And how were these unnamed military officials able to preemptively react to Graham’s answer on the decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan? One suspects that Graham was knowingly addressing “General Tristan Melker” here.  And on ABC This Week, we get Martha Raddatz using Reagan’s decision on fighter jets as an “aha” against House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): ABC’s @MarthaRaddatz sees wisdom in Reagan to defend Biden. To @RepMcCaul: “You regularly invoke...Reagan. You heard Sen Coons bring up the fact he paused weapons to Israel as well. You constantly ask yourself,what would Ronald Reagan do? That’s what Ronald Reagan did” #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/EpNTpXC1cg — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 12, 2024 The media despise Ronald Reagan and everything he stood for, including and especially the principles of Peace through Strength as pertains to American foreign policy. But they are unafraid to use Reagan against today’s Republicans in an attempt to score points in support of the Biden administration. Remember Alinsky’s Rule Four: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Today the Alinskyites in the media failed, and did so miserably. Click "expand" to view transcripts of the aforementioned interview segments as aired on their respective programs on Sunday, May 12th, 2024: NBC MEET THE PRESS: KRISTEN WELKER: But let me ask it this way, because President Biden is not the first president to use armed shipments to try to influence Israeli policy. As you know former president Ronald Reagan on multiple occasions withheld weapons to impact Israel's military actions. Did President Reagan show that using U.S. military aid as leverage can actually be an effective way to rein in and impact Israel's policy? LINDSEY GRAHAM: When you're telling the world you’re gonna restrict weapons delivery to the Jewish state who is fighting a three-front war for their survival, it embowdens Iran, it emboldens Hamas. (Yahya) Sinwar is probably juiced up on the idea there’s daylight between the United States and Israel. The hostage deal is harder. This the worst decision in the history of the U.S.- Israel relationship, to deny weapons at a time the Jewish state can be destroyed, so here's what I would say. There is some hope we can get over this. Non-negotiable, the destruction of Hamas. Nobody in Israel will allow Hamas to be standing militarily or politically when this is over. How we get there is subject to negotiation. My problem is not with the weapons that Israel is using. My problem is with the tactics that Hamas is using, and the idea that America would not send a nickel of aid echoed by a United States Senator when all of the Jews are trying to be killed by radical Islamic groups tells us where we are at as a nation. The Republican Party is with Israel without apology. WELKER: But historians would say, “why is it OK for Reagan to do it and not President Biden, but let me ask you about the big deal” GRAHAM: Well, why is it OK- can I say this? Why is it OK for America to not two- to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? Why was it OK for us to do that? I thought it was OK.  WELKER: Senator?  GRAHAM: So Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state. WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO. (CROSSTALK) WELKER: Senator- again, military officials say the technology has changed. But let me ask you about how all of this could impact the-- let me ask-- let me ask you something. GRAHAM: Yeah, these military officials that you’re talking about are full of crap. ABC THIS WEEK: MARTHA RADDATZ: You regularly invoked- or invoke former President Ronald Reagan. You heard Senator Coons bring up the fact that he paused weapons to Israel as well. You constantly ask yourself, “what would Ronald Reagan do?” That’s what Ronald Reagan did. MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, I think- look. I think in this case to say, look. I'm all for the humanitarian piece here, and that can be done. But I am not for saying -- what the president said is different. He said, I- if they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons, period. He didn't say something else. That's what he said, and I have to go by his words because you know what? They're not giving us any information. The State Department, this administration, have been- not been transparent- they’ve been hiding the 8-ball, and that’s what he said.  

NB Blog Feed

CBS's Robert Costa Begs Bill Maher to Stop Mocking Lefties, Just Mock Republicans

CBS reporter Robert Costa put together a puffball interview for HBO Real Time host Bill Maher on their show Sunday Morning. They let him claim he's not ideological and didn't laugh when he said  “I speak for the normies. I speak for that vast middle that is tired of the partisanship. I don’t want to hate half the country, and I don’t hate half the country.” Bill Maher represents the "vast middle," the "normies"? Conservatives across America would make a face at that. At bottom, Maher is a bit of shock jock, so that when Democrats are in power he's going to mock them as well, just as he suggested on Friday night that the Democrats "blew it" in all their legal warfare on Trump.  What was amazing in this profile was Costa imploring Maher to lay off mockery of the Left, just shine the spotlight on the right-wingers!  Robert @costareports pressed @BillMaher on @CBSSunday: If “left irritates you,” but “the right often alarms you,” then “what do you say to critics who say you should just focus on them if they’re more alarming to you than the left, then why not shine the spotlight on them only?” pic.twitter.com/5glVpJQsFQ — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 12, 2024 COSTA: You write a lot of throughout this book that the left irritates you, frustrates you at times, but the right often alarms you. MAHER: Yes. They’re very alarming. They’re extremely alarming. More alarming. COSTA: What do you say to your critics, though, who say that you should just focus on them, Bill, if they’re more alarming to you than the Left. And why not shine the spotlight on them only? MAHER: The truth isn’t one-sided like that. The Democrats constantly are,running against Trump with the idea ‘You people out there couldn’t possibly vote for this guy.’ And people are saying, ‘Watch me. Hold my beer. Watch me vote for him again.’ Earth to Bill: Your "news" people at CBS and ABC and NBC and PBS do believe the "truth is one-sided like that." Maher then insisted Trump is a massive liar and literally crazy with malignant narcissism. CBS ran a clip of Maher citing the Glenn Kessler "lie counter" at The Washington Post: "Trump made over 8,000 false or misleading statements as president. Nothing like this has ever happened before." What has never happened before (or since) was the Post doing a database of "false or misleading statements" by one politician. They refused to follow through with Biden. Maher could have asked Costa when he and Bob Woodward were going to do one of those investigative books on President Biden. Woodward did four on Trump. They're just like Kessler: "why shine the spotlight" on Biden?  Speaking of false statements, Maher talked about how he was willing (despite leftist protest) to interview former Trump Attorney General William Barr, in part because he found it very important that Barr was willing to say Trump lost the election. Then Maher also took after ”Bill Barr's, I thought, horrible behavior when the Mueller Report came out and he basically lied about it.” Costa didn't ask: What's the lie? It was more about spin as the collusion case fizzled. At the time, Democrats were furious because Barr announced Mueller would not indict Trump, but they wanted wiggle room. Mueller then offered verbal flatulence to Congress, "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime." But the scandal was over.

NB Blog Feed

FLASHBACK: When ABC News Buried Top Anchor’s Ethical Scandal

Nine years ago this week, ABC News was roiled by a journalistic scandal: Their top political anchor had refused to disclose his big dollar contributions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time he used ABC’s airwaves in an attempt to discredit an anti-Clinton author, an obvious favor to the just-launched Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign. Yet after a few days of bad headlines, and a pair of on-air apologies, George Stephanopoulos simply resumed covering politics as if nothing had happened. ABC’s casual attitude matched the blind eye the network had turned to the anchor’s obvious bias over two decades as a pundit, correspondent and anchor. Stephanopoulos first achieved celebrity status as a staffer on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, later spending four years at the White House as a spokesman and senior advisor. After Clinton’s re-election in 1996, the thoroughly partisan Stephanopoulos jumped to ABC News — first as a liberal commentator, but later as a supposedly neutral news anchor. “If I were biased, I don’t believe I would have gotten the job,” Stephanopoulos bragged to Newsday in 2002, after he was tapped to helm ABC’s Sunday morning show, soon to be re-named This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Of course, Stephanopoulos is completely biased; one only needed to look at his on-air utterances to see it plainly. Yet to maintain the illusion of objectivity, Stephanopoulos needed to at least superficially conform to journalists’ norms — such as NOT donating tens of thousands of dollars to the pet causes of the Democratic partisans he was supposed to be covering objectively. The immediate problem: Stephanopoulos had gone on the attack on the April 26, 2015 edition of This Week, grilling investigative author Peter Schweizer over a book showing massive foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, all while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and then a leading presidential candidate. (Hillary had declared her candidacy just two weeks earlier, on April 12.) Stephanopoulos impugned Schweizer as biased because he had worked for Republicans and received funding from a conservative source. “You used to work for President Bush as a speech writer. You are funded by the Koch brothers,” Stephanopoulos lectured Schweizer in an unusually hostile interview. But Stephanopoulos — who had an even more partisan pedigree — hadn’t told viewers about the $75,000 he had donated the Clinton Foundation as recently as 2014. In mid-May, the Washington Free Beacon called ABC News, asking for comments about these contributions. With the story about to break, ABC appears to have tipped the information to a friendlier reporter, Politico’s Dylan Byers, who broke the news on Thursday, May 14, 2015. Byers quoted from an e-mail statement from Stephanopoulos: “I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize.” Byers’ Politico colleague, Jack Shafer, blasted it as “unbecoming” for a news organization like ABC to punish the Free Beacon by handing their scoop to another outlet. “Government and business play this retaliatory game all the time when journalists surprise them with a request for comment. What’s unbecoming is that a news organization might engage in this practice.” Yet, as Shafer acidly noted, it’s “precisely the type of thing you can imagine the Stephanopoulos-era Clinton administration doing without compunction.” Later that day, Stephanopoulos took the minimal step of bowing out as moderator of a February 2016 debate among GOP presidential candidates — as if the Republicans would have showed up if he was in charge. “I won’t moderate that debate,” Stephanopoulos assured Politico’s Byers. “I want to be sure I don’t deprive viewers of a good debate.” Critics were unimpressed. “This blunder by Stephanopoulos is so severe that it really threatens to undo what he’s accomplished in his 18 years at ABC News,” FNC’s Howard Kurtz exclaimed that Thursday night. “For him, as a top ABC anchor, to give this money to the Clinton Foundation while covering the story is in itself a grave error in judgment. But then to not tell his bosses at ABC News, to not disclose it to the viewers, it’s unthinkable.” “It is quite obvious Stephanopoulos should have recused himself from that interview” with Peter Schweizer, NewsBusters editor Tim Graham argued that same day on FBN’s Varney & Co., “or he should have had the decency and the ethics to announce to the audience that he had donated tens of thousands of dollars to the foundation that he very much looked like he was defending.” Schweizer agreed, telling Bloomberg Politics that Stephanopoulos’s failure was a “massive breach of ethical standards....He fairly noted my four months working as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn’t disclose this?” But ABC News wouldn’t concede a thing. “He’s admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him,” the network said in a statement to Politico. Stephanopoulos offered formulaic apologies on the two shows he anchored: Good Morning America and This Week. “Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation,” Stephanopoulos announced on the May 15 Good Morning America. “Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake.” Two days later, This Week viewers saw a nearly identical apology. “I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.”     As Stephanopoulos was mouthing his first apology, ABC alumnus Geraldo Rivera was on Fox & Friends, pointing out that when he was fired in 1985, the reason given was a mere $200 contribution to a non-partisan mayoral campaign. But a key difference, according to Rivera: “George Stephanopoulos is the darling of ABC News management so they will treat him with kid gloves.” Perhaps the last word on the topic (at least on ABC’s airwaves), came the following month, when Stephanopoulos scored an interview with the just-announced candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination, Donald Trump. Stephanopoulos asked Trump what he thought about Hillary Clinton. “Of course, you shouldn’t be talking to me about that, in all fairness,” Trump tweaked, in obvious reference to Stephanopoulos’s conflicts of interest. “You shouldn’t be asking me those questions, but I don’t mind.” For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                          

NB Blog Feed

Ex-NPR Editor Uri Berliner Mocks New NPR CEO Katherine Maher for Skipping House Hearing

NPR whistleblower Uri Berliner, who penned a bombshell expose on the woke one-sidedness of the "public" radio network's news product, knocked new NPR CEO Katherine Maher for failing to show for Wednesday's House hearing on the leftist bias of her new employer. She claimed she had a Board of Directors meeting all day. Instead, Maher submitted written testimony NPR is “bringing trusted, reliable, independent news and information of the highest editorial standards” to tens of millions of listeners. Eli Lake at The Free Press, which ran Berliner's piece, talked to Berliner about the no-show. “Why isn’t she there? Is she the right person for the job at this time?” he asked, adding that her written statement “sounds like a pledge drive.” This question could be turned around on Berliner, who surely was invited to testify by the House Republicans. Berliner also called BS on Maher’s claim that she doesn’t interfere in NPR’s editorial content. “She said she was on the other side of the firewall that separates the newsroom from the CEO,” he told The Free Press in a phone interview. “However, when my story came out, after I had already been suspended for five days without pay, she told editorial staffers in a public statement on the NPR website they had been hurt, demeaned, and disrespected by what I wrote. That’s knocking down the firewall right there.” He added, “She doesn’t address how NPR’s audience has shifted dramatically over time, from roughly reflecting America to a much narrower progressive slice of the country.” He insisted “NPR needs real leadership now...The board will need to decide whether Katherine Maher is the right person for the job.” Clearly, they decided Katherine Maher matched NPR's wokeness nicely, with the donations to election-denying Stacey Abrams and the tweets in defense of looting, which perfectly matched NPR's vibe. Fox News media reporter Joseph Wulfsohn reported on Berliner's comments last weekend at the Dissident Dialogues festival in New York [photo credit: Fox News]. Berliner revealed that one of the "big factors" that motivated him to go public about NPR's groupthink was Maher's arrival in March. He hoped the new CEO could "turn a new leaf" for the outlet. "As I said in my essay, we're welcoming a CEO, I'll be rooting for her because I thought, okay, maybe this is the time to bring this up. We've got new leadership. Maybe this is the time we could really tackle these things," Berliner said. Berliner then pivoted to the memo Maher penned to staff publicly rebuking him:  "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." "Supposedly there's what's called a firewall in the newsroom," Berliner said. "There's the newsroom, the editorial team, and there are people who run the business, the CEO. And I think basically in one of her first acts, if not her first act, she crossed over that firewall to criticize me as a journalist. And that I found especially troubling given her views on the First Amendment, free expression."  Meanwhile, this is the kind of contempt NPR reporters show for their critics: Brian Mann is the guy who I testified failed to cover Hunter Biden's laptop in October 2020 in favor of a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden's Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” NPR is facing a ton of criticism rn from people who either aren't actually listening to our reporting or who are just making #%#@ up. Which makes it harder to focus on real questions and critical feedback about our journalism. https://t.co/EOVKMb4ugk — Brian Mann (@BrianMannADK) May 7, 2024

NB Blog Feed

NPR Hearing: Our NewsBusters Opening Statement for the Congressional Record

It was an honor and a privilege to testify before Congress on the bias at National Public Radio. It was my second turn. In 1999, I testified about the bias at PBS. Nothing has changed much in the overall tilt of public broadcasting, even if it's grown more intense with social media and the Trump phenomenon. I collated examples of NPR bias by using the NPR topic tag on NewsBusters -- remember you can isolate individual networks or journalists or politicians to evaluate the media's performance. After preparing an opening statement for several days, your time is limited to five minutes, but your remarks as submitted to the committee are placed in the Congressional Record. I knew not every sentence could make the televised hearing, but the statement is often read by members and staffers before the hearing begins. So in case people wanted to get the entire statement as submitted, it is posted below:  ---    Good morning, I represent the Media Research Center, America’s preeminent conservative media watchdog organization. It was founded in 1987, and I joined the center in 1989. We monitor national media outlets on a daily basis and provide daily coverage of the media’s tilt at NewsBusters.org.  We are eager to testify with many examples on this hearing’s intention to examine accusations of bias on National Public Radio. NPR and PBS have for their entire existence made a mockery of language in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that mandated “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.”     On its website, NPR has a statement of principles, including this: “We know that truth is not possible without the active pursuit of a diversity of voices, especially those most at risk of being left out.” I would say after decades of listening, the voices most at risk of being left out are the conservatives. They are talked about, but they don’t get to do much talking. We would make the same argument about PBS, from the NewsHour to the Frontline documentaries. Roughly half the taxpayers of America donate to a public-broadcasting system that considers them unworthy of inclusion. NPR never lives up to their evening newscast title, All Things Considered.     After senior editor Uri Berliner recently testified about NPR’s bias on the internet, NPR chief news executive Edith Chapin proclaimed, "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world." The obvious rebuttal to that is: So why did Berliner write his expose? And why did he resign after NPR employees refused to work with him?     Berliner suggested this bias became more pronounced when Donald Trump ran for president. We can tell you NPR has demonstrated a leftist bent much longer than that. NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg destroyed the Douglas Ginsburg nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, then tried again with Clarence Thomas in 1991. They energetically channeled the accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and when a man arrived in an Uber on Kavanaugh’s street two years ago with weapons and plans to assassinate Kavanaugh, NPR failed to file a single feature story on it. Nina Totenberg could not be found. NPR, a supposed source of civility, didn’t demonstrate that she cared one bit about this potential political violence. But in March, between Morning Edition and Fresh Air, Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was granted an hour of taxpayer-funded air time to reproduce her unproven charges of teenaged sexual assault.     This kind of pattern underlines Berliner’s recent statement on NewsNation: ”NPR has a lot of soul searching to do about representing the country at large. Being a publicly funded news organization and really trying to represent this country in all its great diversity and viewpoints.”     NPR isn’t soul searching. NPR isn’t seriously trying to achieve a diversity of sources or an independent news agenda. Instead they are serving their own left-leaning donors, major and minor. As Berliner reported, by 2023, 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. Apparently, you don’t want to upset them with an opposing view. This network lives in an airless bubble, or a silo, pick your metaphor.      Both PBS and NPR repeat the leftist media’s resistance to an opposing side on contentious issues like climate change and transgender ideology. Our study of seven months of PBS NewsHour found they gave over 90 percent of the air time to the Left on gender ideology stories. NPR displayed its take in 2022 by interviewing transgender Biden HHS appointee Adm. Rachel Levine to argue “There is no argument about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care. There is no argument.” NPR reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin underlined: “Gender-affirming care is not harmful. It's lifesaving, she explains.” No dissent was allowed.     NPR clearly doesn’t fear congressional oversight of its aggressive biases, on air and online. They had a fit when Elon Musk defined them on Twitter as “state-affiliated,” like somehow taxpayer funding doesn’t affiliate you with the state. They know Congress isn’t going to want to police their content. It doesn’t just upset the public broadcasters. It infuriates the so-called “mainstream media.” But the only thing that seems to concentrate the attention of public broadcasters on this subject is the threat of defunding. Even then, it might cause a “course correction” for a few weeks or months, before returning to the mean-spirited mean against Republicans. I would suggest NPR should have to come to Congress and defend its content choices at least once a year.     Their choices can be very questionable.  A glaring Exhibit A is the New York Post series on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October of 2020. Most of the so-called “mainstream media” tried to dismiss this story – falsely – as Russian disinformation. But NPR stood out.     NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride quoted Terence Samuel, NPR's Managing Editor for News. “We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” He dismissed the Post stories as a “politically driven event.” That’s interesting, since you could argue Nina Totenberg’s hostile reporting on Supreme Court nominees created “politically driven events.”     Instead of seeking to investigate the Biden family’s influence-peddling, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden's Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” There wasn’t one word in it about Hunter Biden’s business practices involving his father, which was the point of the Post stories.     The pattern continues today. When the House Oversight Committee had a hearing in March where Hunter Biden was supposed to appear, NPR’s All Things Considered wouldn’t consider a feature story on it. NPR covered the Pelosi-picked House January 6 Committee live for every minute, and then ignored the Biden impeachment inquiry.     Instead, NPR’s homepage was topped the next morning by their hot story: new details on Rupert Murdoch’s British phone-hacking scandal of 2011. NPR had a Biden mention on their homepage. White House reporter Deepa Shivaram had a TikTok-like video shoot on President Biden grabbing a trendy boba tea in Las Vegas under the headline “Food stops can tell you a lot about a campaign.”     There are other egregious examples of imbalance that encourage chaos and disorder in society:     On August 27, 2020, NPR's blog "Code Switch," with the slogan "Race In Your Face," posted an interview promoting a new book titled In Defense of Looting. Natalie Escobar promoted author Emily Osterweil's view that “looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society.”     On The NPR Politics Podcast on July 17, 2021, NPR reporter Danielle Kurtzleben brought on Yale law professor Elizabeth Hinton to promote her book on the acceptability of violence as a protest tactic against police. Kurtzleben called this book “excellent” and explained: “You talk about these clashes as rebellions -- and quite pointedly, not as riots. It's a very meaningful choice.”     On NPR’s Fresh Air on April 15, 2023, their movie critic John Powers praised the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline, hailing it as “hugely timely” when “people are frustrated by society's inability, indeed unwillingness to even slow down ecological disasters like climate change.”     Notice no one is presented in these segments to object to these advocates of criminality and violence. So when people think NPR is that place for civility on the radio, they would be wrong. They can devote their resources to getting behind looting, rioting, and blowing up pipelines.     But NPR presents the Republicans as uniquely extreme. They were quite the welcome wagon in this Congress. On January 18, 2023, the NPR interview show Fresh Air headlined their show, “How will the hard-right Republicans in Congress wield their newfound power?” Gross began: “Now that Kevin McCarthy has assumed his new role as speaker of the House, a position he won after making concessions to the far right of his party, what can we expect?” Between host Terry Gross and her guest, New York Times reporter Catie Edmondson, they labeled the House Republicans as “far right” or “hard right” 32 times. Democrats apparently don’t have an extreme.     Nine days later, on Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep laid out the red carpet for House Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries to announce on the debt-ceiling debate, “We are not going to pay a ransom note to extremists in the other party." Republicans were suicidal in their opposition, Inskeep suggested: “You'd say to Republicans, "Drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel." Jeffries replied: "We're not going to let the car go off the cliff even though there are people who are willing to do it."      On the PBS NewsHour, NPR White House reporter Tamara Keith said last October “what's happening in the House is a reflection of a broader divide in the Republican Party, where there's maybe like 20 percent or 30 percent of Republicans who don't want to burn it all down.”     To NPR, the only “election deniers” are Republicans, and they won’t remind anyone that Hakeem Jeffries and the star Democrats on the January 6 Committee argued Trump wasn’t actually elected, that maybe he was installed with the help of the Russian government. Berliner pointed out how Congressman Adam Schiff was on 25 times to push the Democrat line. Fox News found the number of segments was actually 32.     NPR offered live coverage of every minute of the House January 6 Committee, in daytime and in prime time, a committee where Speaker Pelosi would not allow the opposing party to choose their own committee members. This year, hearings of the Biden impeachment inquiry or the Mayorkas impeachment received zero live coverage, despite Democrats being allowed to choose their own committee members.  It suggests Democratic-run hearings are “historic” and “newsworthy” and even nonpartisan, while Republican-organized hearings should be buried as serving no public purpose whatsoever.     NPR is a hub of the leftist argument that the current election is all about the survival of democracy, and that electing Republicans is the end of democracy. This leads to a serious tilt in the media. On the NPR-distributed weekly talk show Left Right & Center, the alleged “Center” of the show, former NPR anchorman David Greene, proclaimed: I think the bind that a lot of journalists are in is, how can we be passionate believers in democracy and not be biased in a presidential election?” Greene said he knows “voters get to decide,” but “Can you believe in democracy without being pro-Biden?”     At least in this case, Republican voice Sarah Isgur answered Yes. I would also answer yes, that in a democracy, conservatives and Republicans deserve to be half a debate, and the so-called defenders of democracy sound like the squashers of debate and democracy. They silence opposition by claiming every one of us conspires to end democracy.     The people who are opposed to independent, fact-based journalism in this debate are not the conservatives. It is NPR itself that refuses to operate in a nonpartisan manner that allows both sides to speak and is willing to cover stories and hearings that the Democratic Party would rather avoid. They take our money, and use it to smear us without rebuttal.

NB Blog Feed

CNN, Media Freak When GOP's Rep. Scott Perry Accurately Ties KKK History To Democrats

Amazing. As my NewsBusters colleague Curtis Houck colleague Curtis Houck headlined:  Election Interference: CNN Uses Audio of Private Briefing to Falsely Smear GOP’s Scott Perry In which Curtis notes CNN’s Annie Grayer has a story based on audio of a private meeting involving, full disclosure, my very own Pennsylvania Congressman, Republican Scott Perry. In which it is alleged that “Perry told colleagues in a closed door briefing that: The KKK in modern times, a lot of young people think somehow it’s a right-wing organization when it is the military wing of the Democratic Party. Decidedly, unabashedly, racist and antisemitic,” Perry said according to the recording. Grayer added that “The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the modern Democratic Party.” Grayer was not alone in flipping out at Perry’s remarks. The Philadelphia Inquirer, the New Republic and The Daily Beast  and others in the liberal media jumped on this as well. The New Republic termed Perry’s remarks “bizarro” while The Daily Beast settled for “bonkers.” In the Inquirer story the reporter quoted "Matt Jordan, director of the Pennsylvania State University News Literacy” who said that after its founding in 1865 by Democrats “it became an extra-legal terror organization that was never the wing of any political party.” Where to start with this wildly ignorant understanding of basic American history? The hard historical fact, per, among many, Columbia University historian Eric Foner is that the KKK was in fact “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan was as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” Indeed, the Klan was so tied to the Democrats that the party’s 1924 Convention in New York City has been dubbed the “Klanbake” because so many of the delegates were Klan members.  The Klan’s favorite for the presidential nomination that year was one William Gibbs McAdoo, who had served Democrat - and Klan supporter  - President Woodrow Wilson as Secretary of the Treasury. Wilson, recall, was such a staunch Klan supporter that he hosted a White House screening of the pro-Klan, decidedly racist Hollywood blockbuster Birth of a Nation. The Klan hosted a massive convention rally for McAdoo across the Hudson River in New Jersey, replete with burning crosses. When one delegate had the temerity to introduce a resolution for the party platform condemning the Klan, it failed.  Historian Linda Gordon, in her book The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s and the American Political Tradition writes:  The results suggested not only how many supported the Klan but how many feared antagonizing it.   In very recent American history, the late Senator Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, was the longest serving member in the entire history of the Congress. Byrd was also the “Exalted Cyclops” of the Klan. He was elected to lead Senate Democrats as both Senate Majority Leader and, in the minority, as Senate Minority Leader.  In 1944, history records that Byrd wrote in a letter to a fellow segregationist Democratic Senator that:  I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. And who gave the eulogy at Byrd’s funeral? That would be his friend, Delaware Senator Joe Biden. All of which is to say, Congressman Scott Perry was 110% right to mention the tie between the Klan and the Democrats. In fact, segregation, a staunch pillar of the Klan’s platform, was nothing more than what is now quaintly called “identity politics.” Identity politics is, as it were, the son of segregation.

NB Blog Feed

Bill Maher Has Video: Stormy Daniels Was a 'Bad Witness,' Flip-Flopped to Victim

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, the host complained about how the Democrats from Merrick Garland on down "blew it at every turn" on creating legal problems for Trump, so now before the election, "it's Stormy or bust." Even there, Maher argued porn star Stormy Daniels is a "bad witness" because she has changed her story in front of this jury, from empowered porn actress to victim. On HBO @BillMaher frets Dems had multiple chances “to put Trump on trial...but blew it at every turn,” then points out it’s “Stormy or bust” but she’s “a bad witness” because what she claimed this week at the trial is “quite in variance with what she said to me in 2018” #RealTime pic.twitter.com/C5WdqErsaV — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 11, 2024 Maher said: "Let me show you a little video. This is when I had Stormy on in 2018 and first I asked her about why she had sex with trump. Listen to that, and then listen to what she says after that and we’re going to talk about the trial because it's quite at variance with what she said to me in 2018." First she said “I have no idea” why she allegedly had sex with Trump. Maher said “you said this is not a #MeToo case,” and she agreed: “I wasn't attacked or raped or coerced of blackmailed… they tried to shove me in the #MeToo box to further their own agenda. First of all, I didn't want any part of that because it's not the truth and I'm not a victim in that regard.” Maher said “That’s not what she’s saying now. She's talking about he was bigger and blocking the way. It's all the #MeToo buzzwords. She said there was a power, an imbalance of power for sure. My hands were shaking so hard. Said she blacked out. Blacked out? She's a porn star!" New York Times columnist Frank Bruni tried to joke he might black out with Trump, too. Maher crudely said she has sex with strangers routinely. New York Post columnist Douglas Murray agreed with Maher: “Everyone who is hanging on the hope of Stormy Daniels being the way to get Trump in prison is going to have another disappointment coming.” Later, Maher applauded New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn’s comments about not being Pravda for Team Biden. Bruni agreed that reporters shouldn’t "sugar coat” Biden’s flaws or just feed voters “baby bird style.” But Murray said everyone can see through the media, that in 2020 they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story "because they wanted to get their guy in."  In the end, Bruni came around to the real Times viewpoint, you can't fail to present Trump as a threat to democracy:  But here’s thing we can’t do. We need to be honest about them both, we do not ignore and sugarcoat Biden's shortcomings. But we also can’t do this ‘Here's one that story about Trump, here's one bad story about Biden.' We can't enforce this mathematical equivalence, right?  You’ve got one candidate who has delusions or aspirations to a quasi-fascist state. You have another who's going to mix up the names of world leaders and need a midday nap. It’s not eenie-meanie-miney-mo.

NB Blog Feed

Late Night Shame: ‘SNL,’ Colbert Can’t Condemn College Antisemitism

“Saturday Night Live” had a second chance to address the raging antisemitism on today’s college campuses. Swing, and a miss! The new skit, inspired by the violent protests at Columbia University, proved as toothless as the last one. The former, targeting the Ivy League presidents who couldn’t condemn antisemitism on their campuses, trained its firepower on the GOP politician grilling them.     The just-released sketch shows parents of college students grappling with the latest round of protests. Veteran “SNL” player Kenan Thompson draws some chuckles as a Columbia University parent, but the material sidesteps the violence and morally warped behavior engulfing the New York campus.     It gets worse. The show’s “Weekend Update” segment soft-pedaled both the antisemitism on display at Columbia University and the unchecked violence which trashed a campus building.   🚨#BREAKING: Protesters have just stormed and overtook the Hamilton Hall at Columbia University Sparking Riot as They Barricade Inside and Break Windows⁰⁰📌#Manhattan | #NewYork⁰⁰At this very moment, hundreds of students and pro-Palestine protesters have just forcefully… pic.twitter.com/PbU04sHSI9 — R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) April 30, 2024   Co-anchor Michael Che tut-tutted said violence during his comments Saturday night. Officials at Columbia University complained that protesters broke windows and destroyed property …But, so what? College kids also do that when they win the Final Four … Also, if you don’t want students to freak out, stop telling them the truth. No word about the Jewish student beaten by protesters earlier this month. Che and co-anchor Colin Jost also couldn’t be bothered to trace the liberal dark money behind the protests, the promotion of Hamas talking points and other toxic campus trends. The show couldn’t mock viral videos showing how clueless many protesters are throughout the country.   The anti-Israel protesters at UCLA just held a press conference where they said they were victims of a “life threatening assault” at the hands of “Zionists” last night. They complained that police didn’t do enough to intervene, however, their demands include “abolish policing”. pic.twitter.com/bt5aQY3NZf — Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) May 1, 2024   Also ignored? The Jewish student blocked by pro-Palestinian protesters from attending his own college. And that doesn’t include the pro-violent chants, students praising North Korea and other moral indignities. “SNL” failed on every level. And they had company. Late-night comedians are also doing their best to ignore the raging protests. Nothing to see here. Move along. They’ve been doing just that for months, even when Jewish students were told to hide in the attic during one violent protest. Nothing. Stephen Colbert finally addressed the raging anti-Israel protests in his backyard last week on CBS’s “The Late Show.” He suddenly found himself caring about free speech on college campuses following the Columbia University riots. Colbert yawned when conservative after conservative got shouted down, canceled or physically attacked on campuses nationwide. Now, with some college protesters getting arrested for illegally occupying buildings and destroying property, suddenly Colbert found his “Truth to Power” voice. And it’s not just at Columbia. Yesterday, cops arrested at least 100 protesters at UT Austin. This morning they arrested at least 30 protesters at UNC Chapel Hill. Yes, college administrators are using the classic de-escalation tactic of sending in heavily armed police and threatening to call the National Guard. Seth Meyers wasn’t much better. The former “SNL” star attacked the police summoned to quell the riots, not their violence or antisemitic nature. As a New Yorker, I just want to say I really appreciate knowing that this is where my tax dollars are going: using drones to round up co-eds rather than, say, keeping libraries open or building affordable housing or making sure the F train isn’t a total piece of s*** Now, imagine if a single black student was beaten by Pro-Life protesters. Or, even worse, MAGA hat types. Would late-night comics be similarly silent? Of course not. When Jewish students are targeted, harassed and attacked, late-night comedians can’t rally to their defense. Why? Wrong party. The protesters are uniformly Left-of-Center, and the Democrats need them to vote early and often come November. Yes, they’re chanting “Genocide Joe” today, but they won’t support GOP candidates up and down the ticket. And, if properly coddled, they’ll likely return to the Democratic camp. It’s why President Joe Biden waited so long to finally stand up for Jewish students on campus, knowing his far-Left friends in Michigan may not rally to his side if he defends Israel or its people. This is the same president who based his 2020 campaign run on the Fake News that Donald Trump called Nazis “very fine people.” Actual Nazis now stalk college campuses. This also explains late-night’s morally warped response to hate, violence and more from the far-Left. It’s all about politics. Period.

NB Blog Feed

ABC Omits Vital Details, Hails 'Damning' State Dept. Report On Israel

The State Department released its report on whether Israel has been violating international law and its weapons agreement with the U.S. on Friday, and it read like a politician desperately trying to appease two irreconcilable factions of his base. Nevertheless, ABC White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks told Saturday’s Good Morning America that the report was “damning.” Both Parks and her NBC Today counterpart, Aaron Gilchrist, omitted information that paints Israel’s actions in a very different light. In studio, Parks declared that “this is a damning report, the strongest criticism that we've heard from the Biden Administration, saying Israel likely violated international law in Gaza, but the report stopped short of drawing any final conclusion or requiring any change in U.S. policy, saying that more information is needed.”     Now doing a voiceover for a pre-recorded report, Parks added, "Overnight, a new State Department report finding Israel may have violated international laws in Gaza and likely used American-supplied weapons to do so. The report saying Israel has the knowledge and means to mitigate civilian harm, but the high level of civilian deaths ‘raises substantial questions about whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.’” Parks also hyped that “given Israel's reliance on American-supplied weapons, it is ‘reasonable to assess’ that some U.S. weapons have been used in instances inconsistent with Israel's obligations under international law. International laws Israel has agreed to requires nations to protect civilian lives, allow humanitarian aid into war zones, and avoid excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure. The report says more information is needed, details hard to assess given the conflict and accuses Israel of a lack of transparency.” Gilchrist was marginally better, he didn’t use breathless words like “damning,” but he also didn’t provide the full context, “The U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Israel, that’s one of the top lines from that  highly anticipated State Department assessment of how Israel is using American weapons in Gaza. Now, the report says it’s “reasonable to assess” that Israel may have violated international law, but that the country has not broken the terms of the U.S. weapons agreement. Now, this report calling the assurances Israel provided credible enough to continue the flow of weapons.” Someone who did provide a fuller context was D.C. correspondent Natalie Brand on CBS Saturday Morning. After going through the same details as Parks and Gilchrist, she asked Middle East Institute senior fellow Brian Katulis, “So, what message does this report send Israel?” Katulis was more honest, “It sends a muddled message because it's inconclusive.” After going through several clips of GOP condemnation of Biden’s weapons and halt and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin defending it, Brand touched on a different aspect of the report, “The new report also mentions Israel has a number of ongoing active investigations pending and notes military experts describe Gaza as being as difficult a battle space as any military has faced in modern warfare. Now, in a new statement this morning, Israel says it's in complete compliance with the laws of armed conflict.” The part about military experts’ take on the Gaza battle space should be included in every report about civilian misery in Gaza because people with no knowledge of military matters, but who have agendas cast moral judgements and lob all kinds of incendiary accusations at Israel do so without this context. ABC and NBC leaving it out was pure dishonesty. Here is a transcript for the May 11 shows: ABC Good Morning America 5/11/2024 7:09 AM ET JANAI NORMAN: Now to the Israel-Hamas War and the release of a long awaited report on whether Israel has violated international law in its use of U.S. weapons in Gaza. ABC's MaryAlice parks joins us live in studio with more. Good morning to you, MaryAlice. We've heard the Biden administration stepping up its rhetoric but this is a new level. MARYALICE PARKS: Yeah, absolutely, good morning, Janai. This is a damning report, the strongest criticism that we've heard from the Biden Administration saying Israel likely violated international law in Gaza, but the report stopped short of drawing any final conclusion or requiring any change in U.S. policy, saying that more information is needed.  Overnight, a new State Department report finding Israel may have violated international laws in Gaza and likely used American-supplied weapons to do so. The report saying Israel has the knowledge and means to mitigate civilian harm, but the high level of civilian deaths "raises substantial questions about whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases."  Adding, that given Israel's reliance on American-supplied weapons, it is “reasonable to assess” that some U.S. weapons have been used in instances inconsistent with Israel's obligations under international law. International laws Israel has agreed to requires nations to protect civilian lives, allow humanitarian aid into war zones, and avoid excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure. The report says more information is needed, details hard to assess given the conflict and accuses Israel of a lack of transparency. *** NBC Today 5/11/2024 7:05 AM ET AARON GILCHRIST: The U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Israel, that’s one of the top lines from that  highly anticipated State Department assessment of how Israel is using American weapons in Gaza. Now, the report says it’s “reasonable to assess” that Israel may have violated international law, but that the country has not broken the terms of the U.S. weapons agreement.  Now, this report calling the assurances Israel provided credible enough to continue the flow of weapons. That news coming just days after President Biden acknowledged that U.S. weapons killed innocent Palestinians. He also acknowledged he paused a new shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel last week and he warned he would suspend further weapons shipments if Israel carries out a large-scale assault on Hamas in Rafah where we know more than a million civilians are holed up now. The president’s warning during an interview this week drew praise and criticism from Republicans and Democrats. Progressives calling it a positive step in holding Israel accountable, conservatives blasted Biden, though, calling the pause a reward to Hamas.  Pennsylvania Democrat Senator John Fetterman called that decision “deeply disappointing” and even as the U.S. questions how effective Israel has been at limiting the civilian harm in Gaza, the administration has sent other defensive weapons and small arms to Israel. *** CBS Saturday Morning 5/11/2024 8:05 AM ET NATALIE BRAND: However, it says it's not able to reach definitive conclusions on whether U.S. supplied weapons were "used in the actions alleged as violations of" humanitarian law, but it goes on to say, "given Israel's significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it's reasonable to assess" that weapons may have been used by Israel's military in instances, quote, "inconsistent" with international law.  So, what message does this report send Israel? BRIAN KATULIS: It sends a muddled message because it's inconclusive. It leaves open the question of what's the best way for the United States and Israel to try to bridge the gaps that now have become so apparent between the two of them on this particular Rafah operation. BRAND: The report comes the same week as the Biden administration's decision to pause the delivery of thousands of bombs to Israel, a move blasted by Congressional Republicans. JONI ERNST: And he is turning his back on Israel. TOM COTTON: The president is only emboldening Hamas. BRAND: President Biden says he will not supply offensive weapons that Israel could use in a large-scale military operation in Rafah. LLOYD AUSTIN: If the question is, is it possible to conduct effective operations and protect civilians? Absolutely, it's possible. BRAND: Defense secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Friday there have been far too many civilian casualties since the Israel-Hamas War began. AUSTIN: We would like to see that trend change, so that's really our focus. BRAND: The Biden administration says it's also watching with concern what the U.N. calls a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The State Department's report says while the overall level of aid reaching Palestinians remains, quote, “insufficient,” it goes on to say it doesn't "currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or restricting delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance."  The new report also mentions Israel has a number of ongoing active investigations pending and notes military experts describe Gaza as being as difficult a battle space as any military has faced in modern warfare. Now, in a new statement this morning, Israel says it's in complete compliance with the laws of armed conflict.

NB Blog Feed

PBS Slights Non-Protester Rights on Campus: 'No Right to...Most Convenient Path to Library'

Tuesday’s PBS NewsHour actually brought on a critic of the pro-Hamas protesters currently infesting college campus quads across the country, which so far have gotten a nearly free ride from scrutiny (there’s certainly been little scrutiny of the pro-Biden groups funding them). New York Times columnist David French is certainly no hard-core conservative -- he's pretty close to PBS regular David Brooks -- but his opinion that the “camping” protesters posed a threat to other students and should be removed was a strong counterpoint to PBS’s knee-jerk support of the agitators and its exquisite sensitivity to the radicals’ demands. That was too much for NewsHour reporter and interviewee Lisa Desjardins, who found bizarre ways to excuse the mobs, which have often targeted Jewish students in disgusting ways. She introduced French as someone "who says colleges are not doing enough to crack down" on protests. Journalists have been terrible at distinguishing peaceful protests and occupying public or private spaces.  Desjardins suggested to French he's weak on injustice:  "Protesters do say they see an injustice overseas and America tied to that injustice some — they say, through its support of Israel. They see this as a life-and-death cause. They're talking about nothing less than starvation, violent deaths of civilians. What should protesters be doing when they see injustice like that, in your view?" FRENCH: Well, they should absolutely lift up their voices in protest, and the schools should absolutely provide an avenue and a place for people to protest. They can engage in their own boycotts. They can engage in all kinds of constitutionally protected activities to lift up this issue. But they do not have the ability, under American law, to violate the rights of others because they think it's for a good cause. That is not the way this works. You cannot — my First Amendment rights and my rights to study, to sleep, to receive the benefit of an education do not depend on whether or not another group of students consider that a cause is important enough to disrupt my rights. That's not how this works. Desjardins lectured that non-protesting students shouldn't complain about little inconveniences: "As you know, there's not the same kind of right to free speech on private college campuses as there is on public, but many embrace that ideal. But I also don't know that there is an espoused right to sleep or right to have the most convenient path to the library….the Founders themselves espoused rebellion, not just their own.” Jew checkpoints on campus aren’t exactly the same thing as a “convenient path to the library." Bonus coverage: In the previous segment, NewsHour congressional reporter Laura Barron-Lopez claimed Donald Trump had “demonized Palestinian refugees” at a campaign rally. What awful thing did Trump say? Her clip: Donald Trump: Your towns and villages will now be accepting people from Gaza, lots of people from Gaza, because, under chain migration, they can bring everybody they ever touched. Under no circumstances should we bring thousands of refugees from Hamas-controlled terrorist epicenters like Gaza to America. We just can't do it. This segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/7/24 7:32:27 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Protests against the war in Gaza continue on a number of campuses across the country. As part of our ongoing coverage, Lisa Desjardins has a conversation tonight about the wave of crackdowns at some colleges and universities and how they are being justified. Lisa Desjardins: Amna, the past day shows more action and reaction. Police made dozens of arrests as they broke up an encampment at the University of California, San Diego. At the University of Chicago, police disbanded another encampment. But, at MIT, pro-Palestinian protesters refused to move, despite the threat of academic suspension. Today, in his own speech recognizing Holocaust Remembrance Day, House Speaker Mike Johnson charged that many schools are hostile places for Jewish people and have — quote — "succumbed to an antisemitic virus." Last night, we looked at the idea that colleges have themselves fomented these protests. Our guest tonight says colleges are not doing enough to crack down on them. David French is an opinion columnist for The New York Times. And, David, what do you think universities are getting wrong here? David French, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times: Yes, what they're getting wrong is, they're ignoring their own reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that should allow all parties to have equal access to campus facilities. This is something that universities who have tens of thousands of students often, but not — they don't have the public spaces big enough to encompass everybody who might want to engage in free expression. So, when you have a time, place and manner restriction, what that does is, it says everyone's going to have equal access to the campus, and also that place and manner restriction means that people can't disrupt the actual educational process of the school. And so what's happening is that many of these protests, particularly encampments, are occupying space on the quad. They're, by necessity, excluding others who might want to use it. And then, with the nature of the protests, they're interfering with the students' ability to study, to learn, sometimes even to sleep. And some of these Jewish students are finding that their access to campus is limited by the protests as well. And so by blowing through these time, place and manner restrictions, the protesters are actually violating the rights of other students. And in that circumstance, the university has to step in. Lisa Desjardins: Some of these protests, as you say, have raised a lot of concerns, but so has the idea of calling in police. Police have more power than students. How do you see the idea that perhaps how do you make sure that a get-tough approach doesn't go too far? David French: Well, the bottom line is that these universities have a legal obligation to protect the rights of all of the students and also to protect the Jewish students on campus from antisemitic harassment. So, when these encampments violate the rights of others and they refuse to leave, then, sometimes, there's no option but to bring in law enforcement. Now, that doesn't mean that law enforcement can do whatever it wants. It should be disciplined. It should be restrained in its use of force. But when a group of students is violating the rights of other students, there are legal obligations that attach to the university to defend the rights of others. And so if these students won't move, the university is, in many ways, their hands are tied, because they cannot continue to consent to the violation of other students' rights. Lisa Desjardins: Let me get at this idea of what is civil disobedience and what is actually problematic, unlawful conduct, as you're saying. For example, if there was a sit-in at a diner… David French: Right. Lisa Desjardins: … and those conducting the sit-in were preventing the business from conducting its own business and preventing other patrons from entering, is that something that you see in the same kind of light? And is it civil disobedience or not? David French: Well, when we saw the civil rights movement, what you saw was protesters violating unjust laws, like prohibiting Black Americans from eating in the same diners as white Americans. That's violating an unjust law and then accepting the consequences. So you accept the consequences of your legal violation, which upholds the rule of law. But that's the key. There's an unjust law that you violate, and then you accept the consequences, and you do it all peacefully. Here, in many ways, what they're doing is, they're violating just laws. In other words, they're actually in violation of laws that protect the rights of others, and then they're refusing to accept the consequences. They're covering their faces to avoid detection. They're often in outright defiance of the police when the police try to move them. And that's when you're moving from civil disobedience, which is honorable and respects the rule of law, to outright lawlessness, where they're violating just laws and refusing to accept the consequences. Lisa Desjardins: Protesters do say they see an injustice overseas and America tied to that injustice some — they say, through its support of Israel. They see this as a life-and-death cause. They're talking about nothing less than starvation, violent deaths of civilians. What should protesters be doing when they see injustice like that, in your view? David French: Well, they should absolutely lift up their voices in protest, and the schools should absolutely provide an avenue and a place for people to protest. They can engage in their own boycotts. They can engage in all kinds of constitutionally protected activities to lift up this issue. But they do not have the ability, under American law, to violate the rights of others because they think it's for a good cause. That is not the way this works. You cannot — my First Amendment rights and my rights to study, to sleep, to receive the benefit of an education do not depend on whether or not another group of students consider that a cause is important enough to disrupt my rights. That's not how this works. Students have ample opportunity to express their views, and they also have opportunity to engage in true, genuine, peaceful civil disobedience. But what we're seeing on many campuses, not all, but many campuses is something an order of magnitude beyond that. Lisa Desjardins: As you know, there's not the same kind of right to free speech on private college campuses as there is on public, but many embrace that ideal. But I also don't know that there is an espoused right to sleep or right to have the most convenient path to the library. All of this is sort of weighing with something you pay attention to, our founders. You're an originalist. You pay attention to their intention here. The founders themselves espoused rebellion, not just their own. How do you weigh that idea of this sort of American tension between, yes, speak up, even do rebellious acts for something you believe in, but also perhaps follow the law? David French: In many of these campuses, if you're talking about people in their own dorms, in the comfort of their own dorms, there is a right to some peace and safety and security here. And it is in fact violation of federal law, anti-harassment law, in particular, when, in particular, Jewish students can't have full access to campus, can't have — can't sleep, can't rest. These things actually violate federal law when it rises to that level. And in that circumstances, these universities have to do something to protect the rights of other students. The right to rebellion, I would say that that was seriously diminished after the loss in the Civil War by the Confederacy. I don't think there's any real concept of a right to rebellion. In this circumstance, if you have an actual rebellion against authority on campus, where people move beyond these reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, they're violating the rights of others. And I'm sorry, the law protects all of us. It doesn't just protect a small cohort of people who decide to occupy part of a campus. Lisa Desjardins: David French, part of a national conversation here, we appreciate your time.

NB Blog Feed

Capehart Dismisses Biden's Israel Critics: 'Haven't Been Paying Attention'

Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart told Friday’s PBS NewsHour that anyone who believes that President Joe Biden is playing politics by withholding aid from Israel hasn’t “been paying attention.” Unfortunately, for both Capehart and Biden, the latter’s previous comments about Israel and its enemies are resurfacing and they put that claim very much in doubt. Capehart was reacting to The Daily Beast columnist and David Brooks fill-in Matt Lewis, who was asked by host Amna Nawaz, “Matt, is it clear to you where President Biden's red line is on this?”     After rejecting the premise that the U.S. should be drawing red lines on allies, Lewis pointed out that by trying to appease young progressives, who are probably unappeasable anyway, Biden runs the risk of also alienating not just mainstream, pro-Israel Democrats, but also anti-Trump Republicans, “Keep in mind, Nikki Haley, just this week, got 21 percent of the vote in a Republican primary in Indiana. There are people out there who were open to voting for Joe Biden. And I think they're less likely today than they were a week ago.” Nawaz then turned to Capehart and wondered, “On the domestic politics front, Jonathan, was the tough talk for Bibi Netanyahu, the pausing of some weapons deliveries, was that President Biden bending to political pressure here at home?” Capehart quickly dismissed the idea, “No. No. I mean, Matt, love you to pieces, but anyone who thinks that there are domestic political considerations on the part of the president that's driving his decisions hasn't had — you haven't been paying attention to Joe Biden.” He recalled, “We have to remember this is a man who's been on the world stage for 50 years. During — during those years, he was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He knows — he's known Prime Minister Netanyahu for 50 years.” Further trying to prove his point, Capehart added, “He is about getting to — he's about using the power of diplomacy to bring about a resolution. He's done a lot of things on the world stage that domestically have hurt him, the withdrawal from Kabul and how disastrous that was. But he stood by that decision because it was the right thing to do.” Afghanistan is a bad analogy. That is a policy decision that Biden has chosen to defend, even if it is unpopular. On Israel, Biden has reversed not just his initial post-October 7 beliefs, but decades of positions about Israel and its enemies. During the Democratic Primary in 2019, Biden told then-NewsHour host Judy Woodruff that cutting off aid to Israel would be “Absolutely preposterous. It's just beyond my comprehension why anyone would do that.”   In 2019 Joe Biden understood the distinction between ally and adversary: "The idea that we would cut off military aid to an ally, our only true, true ally in the entire region, is absolutely preposterous. It's just beyond my comprehension why anyone would do that." pic.twitter.com/vHPo9WzBCr — Mike (@Doranimated) May 10, 2024   Likewise, in 2006 during the George W. Bush Administration and Israel’s war with Hezbollah, he mused about Hezbollah transporting its missiles in the aisles of commercial aircraft and labeled Hezbollah “cowards” for hiding amidst the civilian population, including in hospitals.   Extraordinary 2006 video (found by @phillyrich1) of Senator Biden discussing (responding to @SharylAttkisson) the proper reaction when civilians are hurt when Israel must fight Hezbollah or Hamas https://t.co/fbQTKLBXgH pic.twitter.com/NojEyqRaSR — David Shor (@DYShor) May 10, 2024   In 1992, Biden angrily attacked George H.W. Bush, “There’s no incentive for the Arabs to compromise if they know they must only wait — for USA will do their bargaining for them.”   Biden speaking in 1992 on how bad it was that Pres. Bush was pressuring Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir to make peace with the Arabs “There’s no incentive for the Arabs to compromise if they know they must only wait — for USA will do their bargaining for them” pic.twitter.com/wn6eYIS6CV — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 16, 2024   Biden has either changed his mind for the worse or he is playing politics. Capehart can deny it all he wants, but the proof is right there. Here is a transcript for the May 10 show: PBS NewsHour 5/10/2024 7:35 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ:  Matt, is it clear to you where President Biden's red line is on this? MATT LEWIS: Well, first, I think we should be drawing red lines on our enemies, not our allies, right? But I think Biden has a problem right now and it is a political problem. It is axiomatic in politics that if you try to please everybody, you will end up pleasing nobody. And, up until now, I think that, domestically, in terms of domestic politics here in America, Joe Biden had a problem certainly with, kind of, young progressives who were unhappy that he was standing firmly with Israel. I think now that has become muddied. And I think we're now in a position where, number one, it's unlikely that these young progressives who are calling him things like Genocide Joe are going to come around to liking Joe Biden and voting for him. He also, though, risks alienating, number two, Democrats who are pro-Israel, kind of the mainstream Democrats. And the other thing that I think isn't really being talked about is the impact this may have on never-Trump conservatives. We saw people like Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney come out and strongly condemn Joe Biden's comments about Rafah. Keep in mind, Nikki Haley, just this week, got 21 percent of the vote in a Republican primary in Indiana. There are people out there who were open to voting for Joe Biden. And I think they're less likely today than they were a week ago. NAWAZ:  On the domestic politics front, Jonathan, was the tough talk for Bibi Netanyahu, the pausing of some weapons deliveries, was that President Biden bending to political pressure here at home? JONATHAN CAPEHART: No. No. I mean, Matt, love you to pieces, but anyone who thinks that there are domestic political considerations on the part of the president that's driving his decisions hasn't had — you haven't been paying attention to Joe Biden. We have to remember this is a man who's been on the world stage for 50 years. During — during those years, he was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He knows — he's known Prime Minister Netanyahu for 50 years. He is about getting to — he's about using the power of diplomacy to bring about a resolution. He's done a lot of things on the world stage that domestically have hurt him, the withdrawal from Kabul and how disastrous that was. But he stood by that decision because it was the right thing to do. And I think that the president doing what he's doing, from carrots and sticks with Netanyahu, he is doing it because he's — for him, the resolution is a cease-fire deal, however he can get it.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Hillary's Hot Talk of Hitler and Bimbo Eruptions

Hillary Clinton was the big guest Thursday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. MSNBC’s headline on their YouTube video was "Joe Biden is the only choice for women who value freedom. Isn’t that just perfect for that network and that show? Abortion = freedom.  Hillary pleased the MSNBC crowd by saying there’s no choice for voters between Biden and Trump: "One is yes, old and effective, has passed legislation that I think is going to put America on such a strong footing for the future....The other is old and dangerous. I mean, why is that a hard choice for people?" Hillary also thought she should have been way ahead in 2016. Now we're reliving 2016 in a Manhattan courtroom, and Stormy Daniels was the star witness this week. The richest vein of hypocrisy was Hillary accusing Trump on hush money. He "went to such great lengths to try to squash, bury, kill stories, pay off people, because he understood the electoral significance of them." As if the Clintons never tried to squash and kill stories by female accusers!  Then Joe Scarborough descended into his Nazi parallels with Trump again, goading Hillary to unload all the "Trump is Hitler" talk. She said he's a dictator who will end democracy, and Republicans are "people who care more about a future tax cut than the sanctity of the Constitution." Together, they've spending almost eight years spreading this bizarre notion that eventually everyone will listen to them and agree with them, as long as the media keeps hammering away at the "fascist." They’re going to keep being disappointed. The press is constantly failing unless and until Trump is ruined. They're quite a fun bunch to watch. At the end, we notice Kamala Harris cackling over saying the word "Ovaries!" at a group of male reporters while she's visiting an abortion clinic as a campaign stop. It sounds sexist, like men don't know women's body parts. And The NPR Politics Podcast underlines why NPR obsessed this week over Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and her failed attempt to boot Speaker Mike Johnson. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

NB Blog Feed

YouTube Jumps into EU Election Interference

Google-owned YouTube is jumping on the bandwagon of election censorship. In a May 9 blog post, YouTube detailed its plans to target and censor certain election-related content ahead of the European Union (EU) elections this June. This includes removing content and terminating channels that YouTube considers to be spreading “disinformation” online. “Our global team of reviewers combine with machine learning technology to apply these policies at scale, 24/7,” the platform boasted. YouTube’s blog came soon after the Meta Oversight Board urged all tech companies to engage in election censorship. YouTube listed various efforts to provide pop-ups and links to EU election information but also included a lengthy description of censorship policies. “We have strict policies against hate speech, harassment, incitement to violence, and certain types of elections misinformation,” YouTube bragged. “For example, we remove content that misleads voters on how to vote or encourages interference in the democratic process.”  [Emphasis added]. The platform, indeed, admitted in the new blog that its election interference interest extended beyond its own platform. “Our Intelligence Desk has also been working for months to get ahead of emerging issues and trends that could affect the EU elections, both on and off YouTube,” the platform announced proudly. It also claimed that it is investing in artificial intelligence (AI) to crush free speech even more quickly and efficiently. YouTube boasted that in the fourth quarter of 2023 most allegedly violative content was censored before viewers were ever able to see the content. “[F]or every 10,000 views on YouTube, between 11 and 12 were of content that violated our Community Guidelines,” the platform explained.  YouTube’s announcement follows a call from the Meta Oversight Board for “basic global platform standards for elections everywhere” and “sufficient resources [dedicated] to moderating content before, during and after elections.” MRC Free Speech America rankedYouTube among the Big Tech censors with the worst instances of crushing free speech in April censoring a video of Independent U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This latest censorship is simply a continuation of YouTube’s long history of censorship. For instance, the platform removed a Republican National Committee podcast in 2022 featuring Donald Trump calling the 2020 election “rigged.” Could YouTube display the same bias for the 2024 EU elections? Conservatives are under attack. Contact YouTube here and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Teacher on Bail for Raping One Student, Has Baby With a Different Student

Here’s the 7,325,793,257th reason I plan to homeschool my children. Rebecca Joynes, a math teacher in Manchester, UK, just had a baby with a teenager she slept with. She did so while out on bail for sex with a different one of her students. I guess raping one kid just wasn’t enough for Miss Joynes. Manchester Evening News reported that Joynes gave the first boy ten digits of her phone number and had him try to guess the 11th. Joynes then coerced the boy with a shopping trip, which CCTV footage confirmed, where she bought him a Gucci belt after picking him up at his house. That evening Joynes allegedly brought the student back to her apartment to rape him two times when he spent the night at her house.  As the New York Post indicated, Joynes was “laughing” while having unprotected sex with the student after he “told her he was too young to even drive.”  “She said, ‘Oh shut up’ … ‘Stop saying that,’” the 15-year-old student said. Joynes admits to going to the shop with the boy, and that he visited her house, but denies any sexual activity. While Joynes appeared in court for that case, she was allegedly sleeping with another minor! Joynes was suspended from work over the first instance and apparently thought that her time off from teaching made it somehow okay to have sexual relations with a different young boy.  Supposedly, she and this minor chatted via Snapchat, kissed once and then, as prosecutors mentioned, their relationship became sexual in nature.  As the Manchester Evening News noted, Joynes allegedly told the child it was “almost impossible” for her to conceive since she had polycystic ovarian syndrome. Yet, a baby girl was conceived. Apparently, Joynes gave the baby’s father an item that had “I love you daddy” written on it. On the same night, reports seem to indicate Joynes also “put rose petals down” and had a “scratchcard” from Victoria’s Secret with different sex positions on it for the two to try.  Joynes tried to justify her actions by claiming that she wasn’t a teacher at the time of the rape of this second boy and that he was 16, which is the age of legal consent in UK. However, when it involves a child and a figure of authority, that age is raised to 18. “Ms Joynes, of Pensby Road, Wirral, denies four counts of sexual activity with a child, and two counts of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust,” Manchester Evening News indicated. While this story takes place over in Europe, the U.S. is no stranger to this kind of behavior. A 24-year-old Wisconsin elementary teacher was recently arrested for allegedly “making out” with one of her fifth-grade students. In California, a teacher just pled no contest after being accused of raping a 14-year-old student on his eighth grade graduation. A Minnesota teacher had sex with one of her 18-year-old students and pleaded guilty in February. Earlier that month a different teacher pleaded guilty to sneaking into a 14-year-old student’s home and bed to rape him. A teacher in Iowa pleaded guilty to sex acts with numerous minors like sending nude images to them and “fondling or touching” at least one of them. Mrs. Phillips from Kentucky admitted to having sex with “numerous teenage boys” during her time as a teachers assistant and a Louisiana teacher was arrested in January after allegedly “sexting” a 15-year-old student from her school. Yup, and the worst part is, that’s all only from the first few months of 2024. All that to say, this type of behavior, where someone who’s supposed to be a trusted adult, coerces, grooms and abuses children, has got to come to an end.

NB Blog Feed

ABC Whines Tear Gas Used to Stop Pro-Hamas Mob Trying to Ruin Graduation

With commencement season ramping up, some universities have decided to protect the rights of the vast majority of their students and put swift ends to the anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas mobs that were trying to ruin the special day their classmates had worked toward by calling in the police to break them up. But ABC’s Good Morning America took exception to their efforts and whined that police were using tear gas on the unruly crowds of terrorist sympathizers. “We’re going to turn now to the new clashes on college campuses across the country including the arrests just moments ago at the University of Pennsylvania,” co-anchor Michael Strahan clutched his pearls at the top of the segment. Correspondent Victor Oquendo put the focus on the University of Arizona and decried the cops’ use of tear gas, treating the situation as though the police gassed the crowd with chemical weapons of war: Let's start at the University of Arizona were they are gearing up for their graduation ceremony later today. Law enforcement spring what appears to be teargas on roughly 100 protesters gathered by the university's main gate. This is the second time this month that chemical irritants have been used to disperse protesters on campus.     Along the spectrum of his reaction to the different campus news, Oquendo seemed to hype the mob at George Washington University who were “shutting down traffic and setting up tents” outside the home of the university’s president. “And this comes just one day after police cleared the encampment on campus there,” he added. He also didn’t seem to have a problem with the students of the University of Southern California having their commencement ceremonies canceled: And here in Los Angeles, the University of Southern California canceled the official graduation opting instead to what they called “a celebration” at the L.A. Coliseum. Students there instead of walking and getting their diploma onstage, they were treated to a drone and fireworks show. Over on NBC’s Today, foreign correspondent Richard Engle huffed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat down with Dr. Phil for a “non-confrontational interview” and “took aim” at the students siding with terrorists. “You have a lot of ignorant people there whose sense of history, at best, goes back to breakfast, not even that,” the Prime Minister mocked them. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America May 10, 2024 7:05:13 a.m. Eastern MICHAEL STRAHAN: We’re going to turn now to the new clashes on college campuses across the country including the arrests just moments ago at the University of Pennsylvania. Victor Oquendo is tracking the very latest for us. Good morning, Victor. VICTOR OQUENDO: Good morning, Michael. Around the country this morning, tensions ratcheting up across college campuses. Let's start at the University of Arizona were they are gearing up for their graduation ceremony later today. Law enforcement spring what appears to be teargas on roughly 100 protesters gathered by the university's main gate. This is the second time this month that chemical irritants have been used to disperse protesters on campus. Over to George Washington University in D.C., hundreds of protesters gathering on a street that includes the home of the president of the university, shutting down traffic and setting up tents. And this comes just one day after police cleared the encampment on campus there. And here in Los Angeles, the University of Southern California canceled the official graduation opting instead to what they called “a celebration” at the L.A. Coliseum. Students there instead of walking and getting their diploma onstage, they were treated to a drone and fireworks show. Whit. WHIT JOHNSON: All right. Victor Oquendo for us. Thank you.

NB Blog Feed

CBS, NBC Blames ‘Defiant’ Netanyahu for No Ceasefire, Argue He Wants War to Avoid Jail

On Friday, CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today bellyached about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the wake of President Biden abandoning Israel and argued Netanyahu has not only “already cross[ed] President Biden’s red line” on Rafah with limited strikes by the Israel Defense Forces, but he’s holding up ceasefire talks and prolonging the war so as to avoid jail time. Foreign correspondent Ramy Inocencio returned to the well of former Israeli national security adviser Chuck Freilich for the second day in a row to suggest without evidence that Netanyahu’s kept Israel’s war against Hamas going for personal gain. Right on cue, Inocencio pointed out Freilich was referring to indictments against Netanyahu “for fraud, bribery, and breach of trust”: Netanyahu derangement syndrome on 'CBS Mornings' as they imply the Israeli Prime Minister is only keeping the war going so he can stay in power and out of prison pic.twitter.com/XJRsNQucjw — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 10, 2024 Over on NBC’s Today, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel also had some Netanyahu bashing, but first some classic sob story propaganda for Hamas: The U.N. announced that, as of this morning, more than 100,000 Palestinians have fled the city of Rafah in southern Gaza. Many civilians had originally been ordered by Israel to come here for their safety. Now, they say, they have nowhere to go. We are tired, says this man. Either they should kill us all at once and send us up to God or they stop the war.  Engel bemoaned that “Netanyahu is determined to press on with an offensive against Rafah” with tough talk about Israel being willing to go it “alone” and has “much more than our fingernails”. In an act of irony, Engel had the gall to complain about Netanyahu sitting for “a lengthy and nonconfrontational interview with talk show host Dr. Phil” that ripped “protests on college campuses in the U.S.” IRONY ALERT: NBC's 'Today' complains about a 'nonconfrontational' interview Netanyahu gave to Dr. Phil. Gee, what were all those Jimmy Carter and Kennedy family interviews over the years? Also, notice how Richard Engel argues Israel has "already cross[ed]" Biden's "red line" pic.twitter.com/SsGlzUwYpA — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 10, 2024 Engel doled out more sob stories on Gazans and openly wondered if Israel has “already cross[ed] President Biden’s red line” with limited strikes on Rafah, which he claimed NBC’s Gazan stringers have proven “already” “attack[ed] Rafah’s main population centers” He also concluded by suggesting Israel — not Hamas — is why there’s no ceasefire/hostage deal: “The Rafah operation has also derailed hostage negotiations and talks to achieve a cease-fire with one senior diplomat telling NBC News the talks have effectively collapsed.” To see the relevant transcripts from May 10, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

Heritage Economist on Target Pride: DOJ Should be ‘Suing Them Into Oblivion’

Heritage Economist E.J. Antoni saw right through retailer Target’s attempt to once again push summer LGBT propaganda while avoiding a repeat of the backlash they faced in 2023.  During the May 10 edition of Newsmax’s The National Report, Antoni ripped Target, which made headlines in 2023 for selling “pride” apparel from a Satanic designer and “pride” gear for children. On May 9, Target published a statement on its 2024 “pride” collection, which the retailer said, “Will be available on Target.com and in select stores, based on historical sales performance.” While some celebrated that Target would place LGBT propaganda in fewer stores, Antoni was not appeased.  “Well, let's be perfectly frank here, what Target has done and is continuing to do is nothing less than the sexualization of children,” he said. “It's a disgrace. If we had a DOJ in this country that was more concerned with protecting the innocent than prosecuting them, then they would be all over Target and would be suing them into oblivion.” Related: ROUNDUP: Media Shill for Target Bending Knee to Satanic Wokeism In its statement, Target also promised to “continue to support LGBTQIA+ organizations year-round, including Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality and more.” Strikingly, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is a radical organization that applies ESG ratings to companies based on their willingness to embrace radical gender theory.  The HRC’s “Corporate Equality Index” (CEI) judges companies based on factors such as whether they included “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in their nondiscrimination policies. It also questions whether companies have “trans-inclusive” bathrooms and “health coverage for transgender individuals without exclusion for medically necessary care.” In 2022, the HRC gave Target a perfect CEI score of 100 but downgraded its perfect score to 95 for 2023. On their website, the HRC thanks Target and a number of other companies “for their generous support of the work of the Human Rights Campaign.” The HRC refers to Target as a “National Corporate Partner” and a “platinum partner,” the highest possible level of supporter.  According to the anti-woke non-profit 1792 Exchange, “Target forces employees to undergo multiple ideological trainings and uses its reputation, corporate funds, and political influence to support controversial sex and gender ideologies, organizations, and legislation.”  Target also uses “sex and gender ideology criteria” for hiring, choosing vendors and marketing. The 1792 Exchange also states that Target horrifically covers “transgender medical procedures for covered employees and dependents, including children.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they cover Target’s continued support for the radical HRC.

NB Blog Feed

Target Announces Its 2024 'Pride' Plan

Another year, another example of Target missing the bullseye. On Thursday evening, Target Corprate released its 2024 fact sheet about how it will commit to the gays during "Pride month" this upcoming June. Among the ideas on how to be more supportive of the LGBTQs were events to educate people about the gays, community events around the nation celebrating the gays, products that represent the gays, support of overtly gay organizations, and spotlighting gay brands in Target stores. Essentially, Target wants to barf the rainbow all over everything for the month of June, and throughout the rest of 2024 as well. “At Target, we know our business thrives when we create experiences that foster a sense of belonging. That’s why we support and celebrate the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round,” the company wrote in its “Plans for Pride 2024” announcement. Here’s the details in full: Our Pride+ Business Council will host internal events and experiences where interested team members can learn, reflect, celebrate and connect. It’s complemented by the year-round resources and benefits we provide to our LGBTQIA+ team members, reflecting our culture of care for all 400,000 people who work at Target. We’re joining local Pride events in our hometown of Minneapolis and around the country. We’re offering a collection of products including adult apparel and home and food and beverage items, curated based on consumer feedback. The collection will be available on Target.com and in select stores, based on historical sales performance. We continue to support LGBTQIA+ organizations year-round, including Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality and more. Target also spotlights LGBTQ-owned brands in our assortment during Pride Month and throughout the year in our stores and online. It’s no surprise that Target is excited to roll out its gay crap. Afterall, the store cares more about pushing an agenda than just about anything else, and this fad isn’t new.  For example, for Easter this year, Target ignored the fact that the holiday was in celebration of Jesus' resurrection and instead focused on pastel flowers, bunny rabbits and eggs in its candy selection. During the Christmas season, Target released a “gay Nutcracker” as well as a pride snowglobe, a fabergé pride Santa, and pride Christmas drinking glass among many other rainbow-washed merchandise - and of course last year’s pride display was also nuts. It featured “tuck-friendly swimsuits” and merch from a pro-Satan transgender designer. Related: Target SLAMMED Over ‘Gay Nutcracker’ Christmas Decorations The odd part about Target’s re-commitment to "pride" this year is that last year, while it attempted to use the pride crap to cater to inclusivity and garner more sales, the scheme did the exact opposite.  In August, Q2 results for Target’s earnings indicated that the company had declined 5.4 percent from the year before. As a matter of fact, quarterly sales declined for the time in six-years according to that report. These results initially caused Target executives to re-think all the pride displays yet now, just a few months later, it seems that the liberal shopping giant has learned nothing from its past mistakes. Catch me avoiding the store at ALL COSTS this June and beyond. Follow us on Twitter/X: Hosts of The View have a bizarre conversation about the color of Trump's skin pic.twitter.com/TWnQPasUwS — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 10, 2024

NB Blog Feed

UnHerd, Shellenberger Unmask Censorship Industrial Complex, Reveal Sinister Origins

Journalist/author Michael Shellenberger joined forces with UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers and Tablet Magazine Senior Writer Jacob Siegel to discuss the inner workings of censorship in the West. On Thursday, UnHerd released an interview featuring the three men, who discussed the complex web of NGOs and state agencies that make up the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” the origins of the industry and the techniques it uses, as well as the underlying ideology driving the players behind it.    Shellenberger did not hold back in his criticism of these entities, describing their mission as driven primarily by a sense of bigotry and religious zeal.    “But the other one is in this mania to — which I really think is driven by intolerance and dogmatism — censor and disparage different voices, dissident voices, they end up widening the circle too broad,” Shellenberger said. “So you end up censoring people for things that are factually true.” Shellenberger concluded that the drive for “misinformation” really came into being as a way to counter undesirable political ideologies that saw a resurgence in 2016, notably with the election of Donald Trump.  “But when you see all these people working together over time, you get a much clearer picture that this is what we would consider counter-populism,” Shellenberger observed. “This was clearly [an] orchestrated event after the revolutions of 2016 to fight against populism.” According to Sayers, the convoluted nature of the censorship industry makes it very difficult to avoid and leads companies and online advertisers to inadvertently support censorship, such as with the Global Disinformation Index, a non-profit that creates advertising blacklists designed to starve “harmful” news sources and dissident voices of ad revenue. Related: Not So Fast: Biden Signs NDAA Calling Out NewsGuard … Then Issues Disclaimer “I actually corresponded with Elon Musk about it,” Sayers said. “Twitter is apparently using GDI via something called ‘Integral Ad Services,’ which is another one of these ad buyer platforms, and now he was on Twitter saying, ‘GDI should be shut down and the miscreants should be published.’ So you’ve got this weird situation where the heads of these companies don’t even understand the beast that is happening further down.” GDI was exposed last month by UnHerd for placing the outlet on a “dynamic exclusion list” of news sources to be boycotted by advertisers.  GDI’s 2022 report featured a list of “the ten riskiest” online news outlets that exclusively included right-leaning and libertarian news outlets while “the ten lowest-risk” list was filled exclusively with hyper-partisan leftist outlets like Buzzfeed and NPR. According to UnHerd, the GDI is funded by many governments including the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (until 2023), the European Union, the German Foreign Office and Disinfo Cloud, a body created and funded by the U.S. State Department. You May Also Like: A Defiant State Department Threatens to Obstruct Censorship Investigation Responding to external pressures raised by UnHerd’s reporting, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron sent a letter on May 8 to Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch declaring that the UK government will no longer fund the GDI. Cameron wrote, “The FCDO has not funded GDI since 2023, and there are no current plans to do so.”  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

NB Blog Feed

More of This, Please! More in the Media Need to Replicate NewsNation’s Border Special

In an hour-long primetime special Thursday night called Crisis on the Border, NewsNation did something the liberal media — and TV news in general — needed to emulate, which was a more accurate, consistent, and raw depiction of the Biden border crisis from the side of law enforcement and the dangers unfettered illegal immigration posed to the public.  Hosted by Dan Abrams, it featured three different reporters live in the field, new reporting, facts about the border, and interviews with four police chiefs on how open-border policies have harmed their communities. Abrams opened by declaring this won’t be “about politics.” Instead, NewsNation’s goal was to inform viewers “about what is actually happening at our southern border and maybe — maybe — even spur some change.”     From there, the special took on the feeling of an episode of his other show, Reelz’s On Patrol: Live (and its predecessor in spirit, A&E’s Live PD) as Abrams immediately tossed to indefatigable correspondents Ali Bradley and Brian Entin (click “expand”): ABRAMS: But we have some — some breaking news because just, as we’ve been preparing for the show, Ali Bradley NewsNation’s border correspondent on the front lines has been there when they just found three migrants trying to hide there and they’ve been arrested in Hidalgo County, Texas. Ali, what just happened? BRADLEY: Yeah, hey, Dan. So we’re out here, we’re actually embedded with an elite brush team with Texas DPS. They are working in conjunction with Border Patrol, so we’ve got state and federal partners working together and we have the chopper in the air. Let me show you what we just witnessed. So, we pulled three people out of this, look at how hard it is down here. This is what they’re up against, so they had to get down in there. That’s basically a canal, a drainage ditch of sorts, pulled these three individuals out, one young man from Honduras, telling us that he was on the hook with the cartel to pay $16,000 to get to Virginia. And guess what Dan? They’re actually working another two people that are in the canal further up. So, we’re gonna go up there, I’m going to send it back to you here. We’re going to keep our feet on the ground. And we’re gonna go after these other two people that are in the water up there.” ABRAMS: Alright, so remember. This is just happening live down there. And we’re going to be staying with Ali Bradley. We’re going go back to her in — in a moment. Ali, thank you for that reporting. You know what? Let’s go now to Pinal County in Arizona. Our senior national correspondent Brian Entin is live patrolling there, what they call smugglers highway Brian, what are you seeing? ENTIN: Yeah, it’s I-10 the nickname — Smugglers Highway. Just a minute ago, we pulled over a semi with Sheriff Lamb here — a semi that’s been reported stolen. I’m not sure exactly — he’s been talking to the driver. Figure out what’s going on. Sheriff Lamb, have you — is this immigrant involved? What have you been able to figure out? PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA SHERIFF MARK LAMB: We’re going check the back right now. It’s a stolen — it’s stolen trailer. So, we’re going to check the back. We’ve seen ‘em in — in trailers before. (....) ABRAMS: I mean, look, you can just tell based on what we just showing you, right? We have two correspondents at the border who, in the last 10 minutes, have seen major activity related to migrants and the border. That’s why it’s important to be there and to be there live. You don’t get that sense without actually watching the stuff as it happening? All right. So we were just with Ali Bradley. Alright? And she said — she is — she’s going to be going back out to that scene following that story that we were just watching, but she’s the one who got this exclusive interview with this current border agent. And again, that is the video — oh, actually that video is just coming in, ok?  So that is the video now of up to of the three migrants who were just arrested there hiding in that area and, literally in the last 10 minutes that came in. The reason we weren’t able to show that to you a moment ago is because we just got the video into us. It happened moments before we went on the air. And you heard that Ali Bradley had actually talked to — talked to one of them as they were as they were there. And again, you know, this is a quite common occurrence at the border. Bradley also taped a bombshell interview with an anonymous border agent, who told her what Americans don’t realize was “we do not control the border, the cartel controls the border” and “[e]verything that we do is a reaction to things that they have planned” with those apprehended merely “pawns while the kings and queens are doing whatever they want.” They added “[n]o one” from the government will be able “to protect you” since “[e]ven at the local law enforcement level, we’re seeing them be defunded and overwhelmed to where your life has to be threatened for them to make you a priority.” In part two, Bradley asked if they’re “scared to do your job.” The agent said while they are from “a more earthly” perspective with “policies changed” that endanger agents and place “illegals...before us,” they’re a Christian who knows God “has my back”. Bradley’s last question about whether they’re more scared of the government or the cartels drew a surprising answer:  Look at the way you have me presented to do an interview when I’m off-duty. I’m terrified to talk to the media because I’m sacred of what, you know, the government could do, which obviously, would be losing my job, right, which I don’t think is fair. At three different points, Abrams brought out charts about apprehensions, gotaways, and key border sectors to show “what our border patrol agents are up against” with the first showing “2.5 million encounters for the whole of last year,” “up from 1.7, just two years before” and 1.3 million already this year. Bradley came back near the bottom of the hour with a fascinating segment about a so-called “cartel kit” and how, in many places, the cartels controlled the desert:     It wasn’t just Bradley and Entin with Abrams as the NewsNation host also spoke with Border Report correspondent Salvador Rivera, who provided two liveshots from San Diego (where an allegedly Peruvian family gave themselves up to Border Patrol), the four police chiefs, and interviewed Texas DPS Lieutenant Chris Olivarez on the state role. The hour concluded with a tense chase as Bradley and Olivarez raced to catch up and assist Border Patrol with five people who’ve breached the border wall in hopes of apprehending them before they can reach a cartel/smuggler’s getaway car and thus prevent “a high-speed chase.” They arrived to find only two of the five captured, but then were dispatched to join in another pursuit seconds later (click “expand” to see a transcript from some of the key moments):     BRADLEY: [W]e just pulled over here. We’re tracking that group that we were telling you about. So there’s a couple individuals here. Some single adults here that were just picked up by border patrol. I — we just arrived on scene. Lieutenant Olivarez, let’s talk a little bit about kind of what’s unfolding here. We literally just arrived, so we have not talked to Border Patrol, so we don’t know much about these individuals. OLIVAREZ: Actually, we got to go. We’ve got some more. We’ve got to go. You’ve got to go get some more guys. All right. Let’s go! (....) BRADLEY: You actually see a Border Patrol motorcycle dirt bike over here to our left. So, we’ve got activity out here. We’re following a Border Patrol car. A lot activity here right now down, Dan. So again, out here, you have ATVs, you have horseback, you’ve got helicopters, we have different lights over here. We’ve got another law enforcement vehicle that’s searching in this area, so it looks like they kind of believe that somebody might be on foot in this area that we are — we are that we are traveling along. And we’ve got our windows down, we’re looking out we’re trying to find if there’s anybody out here, this is what we’re up against. So, like, Lieutenant Olivarez says, these individuals are reaching this wall so quickly, a matter of seconds, and it is basically off to the races for these individuals and they’re hiding in this very thick brush. And look at this, this industrial — there are buildings everywhere. There are so many places to hide before these individuals are really picked up by these load vehicles, so that’s what they’re contending with down here like Lieutenant Olivarez says, it’s a very dynamic situation. So, again, we have multiple agencies on the ground right no. We are embedded with this elite brush team that, as you can see, they have to pivot and go in the vehicles and go after individuals that are getting into these smuggling vehicles before it can become a pursuit and a bigger problem for law enforcement and also for the community. It’s very dangerous when these pursuits go through these communities. (....) BRADLEY: [This] is what they’re doing every single night down here. This is what we did last night as well. But right now, we are looking for people that are we are on foot that just breached the border wall and we’re trying to get them before they get into a loaded vehicle — a smuggling vehicle and then end up basically going north toward San Antonio and then north from there into whatever stash house or whatever other area they kind of disappear into in the interior of our country. With time having run out on the hour, Abrams summarized this as just “happen[ing] to be a Thursday”: “That’s about all that makes today special and we just decided it’s important to see what’s happening at the border on a typical day. And we’ve got a little taste of it. That’s all. That’s all we saw. Just a little bit.” By giving viewers a raw, live sense of what a day on the border looked like (as opposed to a sanitized, pro-illegal-alien perspective), it was an absolute home run by NewsNation. To see the relevant transcript from the May 9 special, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Reid and Hasan Claim Biden Critics 'Support The Killing Of Kids In Rafah'

When MSNBC’s Joy Reid meets with former colleague Mehdi Hasan to discuss the Israel-Hamas War, it is guaranteed that the viewer will end up dumber than they were at the beginning of the segment. Yet, even by their standards, Thursday’s edition of The ReidOut was especially noteworthy because the duo somehow managed to be both incredibly outrageous and unintentionally hilarious. Reid began the segment by laughing at people who are comparing President Joe Biden’s decision to withhold weapons from Israel to Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial. She also got in a historically illiterate cheap shot at Sen. Tom Cotton, “President Biden is facing blowback for saying that he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches a major invasion on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Senator Tom Cotton, of slavery was the best bad option thing, has called on the House to impeach Biden for withholding weapons to Israel, even comparing Biden's actions to the charges in Trump's first impeachment, in which Trump was accused of strong-arming Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid. Yeah, really not the same thing at all.”     First, Cotton was referencing an obvious historical fact that the Founders were presented with two options: one nation born in liberty that had slavery or multiple nations that had slavery with no such ideals to appeal to. They correctly chose the first. Second, Trump was impeached for abuse of power, defined as using American foreign policy to advance your own personal interest at the expense of the national interest. The “dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid” was just the details. Ironically, when Hasan joined, he would hail Biden’s decision to withhold the aid precisely because it was good politics. The man who once apologized for once being pro-life declared that anyone who disagrees supports killing kids, “Look, what I would say is put aside the morality of not wanting to support the killing of kids in Rafah, put aside international law which is against this stuff. Just from a practical domestic political perspective, it would be in Joe Biden's and Democratic Party's interest to have this war end.” The idea that international law prohibits Army X from attacking Army Y simply because Y encamps itself in a dense urban environment is not only insane, it’s factually wrong (see Article 51, Section 7 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions). Taking Hasan’s point to its logical conclusion would require freedom-loving nations to simply cede major cities to the enemy. After going through what Hasan considered to be Biden’s “good message on the domestic front,” Reid declared that “it does seem to me that what [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] wants is for the war to go on. Forever would be perfect.” Biden is demanding that Israel slow down and come up with an elaborate plan before attacking Rafah, but because Netanyahu has thus far listened to him, Reid and Hasan attack him for prolonging the war. As for Netanyahu’s motivations, Reid claimed, “for him, his fate, like Donald Trump's, in terms of staying out of prison and keeping and retaining power… So, Netanyahu has no interest in the thing Joe Biden needs, which is peace.” Reid and Hasan would go on to add that Netanyahu doesn’t care about the hostages and cited Israelis protesting as their evidence, but people like Reid and Hasan always conveniently leave out the fact that the leader of the opposition, Benny Gantz, is part of the war cabinet. Also, what “Joe Biden needs”? How about what America needs? If Reid and Hasan are the good two state solution-supporting, peace-loving progressives they claim to be, maybe they can next explain how Israel and the Palestinians are supposed to come to a peaceful solution with Hamas still in power. Here is a transcript for the May 9 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 5/9/2024 7:52 PM ET JOY REID: President Biden is facing blowback for saying that he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches a major invasion on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Senator Tom Cotton, of slavery was the best bad option thing, has called on the House to impeach Biden for withholding weapons to Israel, even comparing Biden's actions to the charges in Trump's first impeachment, in which Trump was accused of strong-arming Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid. Yeah, really not the same thing at all. … MEHDI HASAN: Look, what I would say is put aside the morality of not wanting to support the killing of kids in Rafah, put aside international law which is against this stuff. Just from a practical domestic political perspective, it would be in Joe Biden's and Democratic Party's interest to have this war end.  REID: Yes. HASAN: Right? Joe Biden has a good domestic record to run on. He has record falls in crime, you know, record low unemployment. He’s taken a good move on marijuana. He’s got a good message on the domestic front.  REID: Yeah. Yeah. HASAN: It’s getting blotted out because he wants to stick with Netanyahu and I am glad there is now some distance between him and Netanyahu. It needs to increase. REID: Let's talk about Netanyahu because it seems to me— HASAN: Do we have to? REID: —We must talk about him. It does seem to me that what he wants is for the war to go on.  HASAN: Yes. REID: Forever would be perfect, because for him, his fate, like Donald Trump's, in terms of staying out of prison-- HASAN: Yeah. REID: -- and keeping and retaining power-- HASAN: Yeah. REID: -- it is all tied to the war continuing. So, Netanyahu has no interest in the thing Joe Biden needs, which is peace. HASAN: Netanyahu’s counting down the days to a Trump presidency.  REID: That’s it. HASAN: Where he knows he’ll have much more freedom. He knows he has a trial coming up. This is about him personally— REID: Absolutely. HASAN: Like Trump, he cares about himself more than anything else. He’s got a coalition that will collapse if he agrees to any kind of ceasefire and he’s abandoned the hostages, Joy. Like, I always hear people saying “you don't care about the hostages.” You know who doesn't care about the hostages? Benjamin Netanyahu.  REID: And their families say so because they’re literally protesting— HASAN: Their families are getting assaulted by Israeli police.  REID: Absolutely. Absolutely.  HASAN: Their families stood outside Netanyahu’s house earlier this week and said "there's blood on your hands." So, when I hear people in America saying “oh, you don’t care about the hostages” go to Israel-- REID: Yeah. HASAN: -- see what the hostages are saying, they want a deal. They want an end to the conflict, they want their people home, as we all should want.

NB Blog Feed

Hostin Attended Trump Trial, Startled By ‘Radioactive Orange’ Face

Apparently, someone allowed staunchly racist and anti-Semitic ABC co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) into the hush money trial of former President Trump and she reported back during Friday’s edition of The View. She said it was “shocking” to see Trump in person for the first time because his face was “radioactive orange.” She also lied about the composition of the jury and attacked one of the witnesses as “part of the Trump cult” because she had good things to say about her former boss. The liberal ladies of The View were so excited to “cross-examine” Hostin and get the “tea” of what she witnessed. Moderator Joy Behar’s first pressing was about Trump’s skin tone and since Hostin was an obsessed race baiter, she was more than happy to oblige: BEHAR: So, my first question is, what shade of orange is his face? HOSTIN: I have to tell you! I have to tell you! BEHAR: Was he like more a tangerine or more of a burnt sienna? Give us some specifics. HOSTIN: It is a burnt sienna. I have never seen him in person. I didn't realize he was that orange. Like, you know, Ana has been making jokes about how orange he is. BEHAR: Yeah. Yeah. Is it like her dress? HOSITN: You’ve said he’s orange. It’s a lot like this [points to Ana Navarro’s dress]! Yes! It's almost like a radioactive orange and it’s shocking to see in person.     Noting that “cases are won and lost with jury selection,” Hostin boasted about the jury and painted it as bad news for Trump. She claimed the jury was made up of “several lawyers” and was excited that it was a “pretty female-skewed jury.” “There are many more women on the jury than there are men,” she said. But neither of those statements were true. According to Spectrum News NY1, a local news station: “Twelve jurors tasked with deciding the outcome of former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial have been seated. The panel consists of seven men and five women.” They also note that only two had careers in the legal field. Lying about the composition of the jury meant none of Hostin’s claims about Trump’s behavior in the courtroom could be trusted. According to her dubious assertions, Trump was acting like a child: He's stretching out like this. He's like fist-bumping with attorneys. He’s like stretching. He took a little nap. Like, most defendants do not do that. They are instructed to sit there, pay attention, look with some humility. That's not Donald Trump. Hostin also lashed out at Madeline Westerhout, Trump’s former executive assistant who worked in the White House. Westerhout was supposedly “part of the Trump cult” because she enjoyed working for him and said he would wave to his wife. “She is part of the Trump cult, for sure. She described him as one of the best bosses she ever had. She described him as being very loving with Melania, that they would, like, text each other and wave to each other outside of the window. I never expected anything like that,” she scoffed. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 10, 2024 11:02:03 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: So, yesterday Stormy Daniels got back on the stand at Trump's hush money trial and was grilled in a cross-examination by Trump's attorneys. BUT, listen to this, our own little Sunny Hostin was in the courtroom yesterday. So, we're going to – [Applause] We're going to cross-examine her. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes. BEHAR: So, my first question is, what shade of orange is his face? HOSTIN: I have to tell you! I have to tell you! BEHAR: Was he like more a tangerine or more of a burnt sienna? Give us some specifics. HOSTIN: It is a burnt sienna. I have never seen him in person. I didn't realize he was that orange. Like, you know, Ana has been making jokes about how orange he is. BEHAR: Yeah. Yeah. Is it like her dress? HOSITN: You’ve said he’s orange. It’s a lot like this [points to Ana Navarro’s dress]! Yes! It's almost like a radioactive orange and it’s shocking to see in person. It really is, because he’s a tall person. And he’s also a little thinner now. I don't know if he’s taken the shot. BEHAR: He's on Ozempic, you know it! HOSTIN: He's actually looking thinner. But let me set the stage because I think people that haven't been in the courtroom don't understand the gravity of it. You know, you've got this very large courtroom and it's an older courtroom and you've got a “In God We Trust” seal next to it. The American flag – across from the American flag, the New York State flag, a judge presiding with gray hair right in between these flags. And then in front of them a former sitting president in front of all of that for the first time in U.S. history. So, that gives you a little bit of the gravity that actually I felt. But then, here's the tea. Okay? So, he is unlike any defendant sitting in a courtroom that I've ever seen. BEHAR: Because? HOSTIN: He's stretching out like this. He's like fist bumping with attorneys. He’s like stretching. He took a little nap. Like, most defendants do not do that. They are instructed to sit there, pay attention, look with some humility. That's not Donald Trump. BEHAR: So, out of all the dwarfs – the Seven Dwarfs is his Grumpy, Sleepy, or Dopey? HOSTIN: I think he’s Sleepy and Dopey combination. BEHAR: Okay. HOSTIN: That was my impression. The other think I would say – ANA NAVARRO: And allegedly farty. HOSTIN: I did not smell the farting. BEHAR: Were you sitting downwind? HOSTIN: Yeah. I was sitting downwind but I did not smell the farting yesterday. I will also say this-- NAVARRO: Windy. HOSTIN: I think that cases are won and lost with jury selection. There are several lawyers on the jury. That was very striking to me. It's a very diverse jury. There are many more women on the jury than there are men. BEHAR: Uh-oh. Not good for him. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I think there’s – HOSTIN: Even including the alternates. I mean, I couldn't tell which ones were the alternates but there are 18 people and the majority of them are women. So, that was interesting to me. Because if people drop out it's a pretty female-skewed jury. The other thing I will say is it's one of the most engaged juries I've ever seen. SARA HAINES: How was the testimony? HOSTIN: I'm talking notes and everything. The testimony, I wanted to ask Alyssa about something. Because something interesting to me there was a woman that testified, Madeline Westerhout and she was his executive White House assistant. Right? And she sat right outside the Oval Office. She is part of the Trump cult, for sure. She described him as one of the best bosses she ever had. She described him as being very loving with Melania, that they would, like, text each other and wave to each other outside of the window. I never expected anything like that. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Desperate NY Times: Valid Soros Criticism Equals 'Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes'

As pro-Hamas campus protesters scream end-of-Israel slogans on college campuses and President Biden cuts off weapons to Israel, the New York Times put its investigative journalism to a very political task, neutralizing any attempt by Republicans to campaign against antisemitism:  How Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes Despite Declaring Support for Israel Prominent Republicans have seized on campus protests to assail what they say is antisemitism on the left. But for years they have mainstreamed anti-Jewish rhetoric. The Times spent some 3,500 words and used Artificial Intelligence and four staffers (Karen Yourish, Danielle Ivory, Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, and Alex Lemonides) to try to paint the GOP as the true anti-semitic party. Their methodology?  The Times used a variety of methods to examine the extent to which federal politicians have used language promoting antisemitic tropes. Reporters examined official press releases, congressional newsletters and posts on X (formerly Twitter) of every person who served in Congress over the past 10 years that contained the words “Soros,” “globalist” or “globalism” — terms widely accepted by multiple historians and experts on antisemitism as “dog whistles” that refer to Jews. The paper’s ideologically motivated thesis rests heavily on the false assumption being that criticism of left-wing ideological financier George Soros is by definition anti-Semitic. Some “seizing” occurred on the “largely peaceful” (really?) campus protests, which the Times severely underplayed. Amid the widening protests and the unease, if not fear, among many Jews, Republicans have sought to seize the political advantage by portraying themselves as the true protectors of Israel and Jews under assault from the progressive left. While largely peaceful, the campus protests over Israel’s bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands have been loud and disruptive and have at times taken on a sharpened edge. Jewish students have been shouted at to return to Poland, where Nazis killed three million Jews during the Holocaust. There are chants and signs in support of Hamas, whose attack on Israel sparked the current war. A leader of the Columbia protests declared in a video that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Debate rages over the extent to which the protests on the political left constitute coded or even direct attacks on Jews. But far less attention has been paid to a trend on the right: For all of their rhetoric of the moment, increasingly through the Trump era many Republicans have helped inject into the mainstream thinly veiled anti-Jewish messages with deep historical roots. The conspiracy theory taking on fresh currency is one that dates back hundreds of years and has perennially bubbled into view: that a shady cabal of wealthy Jews secretly controls events and institutions contrary to the national interest of whatever country it is operating in. The Times will not tolerate any criticism of leftist financier George Soros. The current formulation of the trope taps into the populist loathing of an elite “ruling class.” “Globalists” or “globalist elites” are blamed for everything from Black Lives Matter to the influx of migrants across the southern border, often described as a plot to replace native-born Americans with foreigners who will vote for Democrats. The favored personification of the globalist enemy is George Soros, the 93-year-old Hungarian American Jewish financier and Holocaust survivor who has spent billions in support of liberal causes and democratic institutions. The reporters extrapolated wildly to make standard political rhetoric “hate-filled speech of the extreme right.” This language is hardly new -- Mr. Soros became a boogeyman of the American far right long before the ascendancy of Mr. Trump. And the elected officials now invoking him or the globalists rarely, if ever, directly mention Jews or blame them outright. Some of them may not immediately understand the antisemitic resonance of the meme, and in some cases its use may simply be reflexive political rhetoric. But its rising ubiquity reflects the breaking down of old guardrails on all types of degrading speech, and the cross-pollination with the raw, sometimes hate-filled speech of the extreme right, in a party under the sway of the norm-defying former, and perhaps future, president. The reporters spared a few paragraphs of their diatribe to note left-wing anti-Semitism, referencing the campus protests and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) “for her statements after the Hamas attack, including ‘from the river to the sea.’” The Times repeated the same snotty “In fact…” formulation for the pro-Hamas protests. An “indirect” connection is still a connection, no matter how often the press throw around “anti-Semitism” in Soros’s defense. In fact, Mr. Soros’s connection to the protests is indirect: His foundation has donated to groups that have supported pro-Palestinian efforts, including recent protests, according to its financial records….

NB Blog Feed

CNN Claims This 'Sordid Detail' from Stormy Daniels Will Hurt Trump With Women Voters

On CNN This Morning, CNN senior political analyst Mark Preston said that porn star Stormy Daniels claiming in court that Donald Trump didn't use a condom ("protection") during their alleged sexual encounter constitutes a "sordid detail" that will hurt Trump with women voters in swing states.  Preston: I assume now that there are women in these five or six states that we're looking at now, whether it's Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Nevada, Arizona, or Georgia who perhaps would have thought about voting for President Trump. But then they, see this, and not to be very sordid. But this is pretty sordid. I would assume if I cheated on my wife, I mean, she'd kill me, but that would be one thing. She'd probably kill me twice. There's, another thing, though, to, I believe to cheat on your wife and then have it publicly come out that you didn't use protection. And I think that that is -- I'm telling you though -- that is something that I think will hit home. Host Kasie Hunt gleefully agreed with Preston, chuckling as she said, "It's all very sordid." No qualifiers from anyone on the panel about the porn star's claims being "alleged." The veracity of her testimony was seemingly taken as a given. And CNN has been gavel-to-gavel "sordid" during Stormy Daniels Week. Meghan Hays, a former Biden aide, was also only too happy to agree, saying that come September and October, those sordid "details" would be highlighted in TV ads targeting moderate women voters. Preston should know a thing or two about sordid sexual details in the lives of prominent politicians. He's a former aide to . . . Sen. Ted Kennedy. Note: When Preston said that his wife would "kill" him if he cheated on her, a laughing Hunt interjected, "I would hope so." Fine. Now imagine the reaction if a woman on the panel said that her husband would kill her if she cheated on him.  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 5/10/24 6:06 am EDT MARK PRESTON: We're seeing what's happening in the courtroom right now, and we're paying a lot attention to these sordid details. In the court of law, I don't think the sordid details are going to matter, and perhaps could backfire, what have you. Court of public opinion, though. I mean, we are talking about trying to -- I assume now, that there are women in these five or six states that we're looking at now, whether it's Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, you know, who perhaps would have thought about voting for President Trump. But then they, see this, and, and, and not to be very sordid -- but this is pretty sordid.  KASIE HUNT: [Chuckling] It's all very sordid.  PRESTON: I would assume if I cheated on my wife, that would, I mean, she'd kill me, but that would be one thing.  HUNT: I would hope so [laughs.] PRESTON: She'd probably kill me twice. [Extended Hunt laugh.] There's, another thing, though. To, I believe, to cheat on your wife and then have it publicly come out that you didn't use protection. And I think that that is -- I'm telling you though -- that is something that I think will hit home. You're laughing, Meghan, but it's true. I think that that is something that, there's a trust level. There's the moralistic level, you know, issue, that people wrestle with. I'm wrestling with that right now on TV. HUNT: I am too, for the record. MEGHAN HAYS: To your point about these five or six states that they're trying to play to. Those are the Nikki Haley voters that are these moderate women in suburban cities that are going to vote. Who are they going to vote for? They are the undecided.  And these are the things that are going to come up. And these are the ads that the Super PACs and other people are going to put forth come September and October to remind these women of these details.

NB Blog Feed

Stewart Labels GOP 'F****** Children' For Blasting Biden's Weapons Halt

Jon Stewart shook things up this week as he hosted Comedy Central’s The Daily Show on Thursday instead of Monday, but one thing that did not change was Stewart’s habit of confusing snark for substance as he labeled GOP senators condemning President Biden’s halt on weapons shipments to Israel as “[bleep] children.” Stewart’s musings came at the end of a long line of diatribes where he accused conservatives and Republicans of freaking out about things that do not need to be freaked out over, “All this false outrage is starting to make me cynical about America’s media ecosystem. Is there anything else going on that does merit a DEFCON 1 freak-out?” That led to a clip of Fox News’s Sean Hannity declaring, “In the end, this is a sad day for America, a moral failing of a magnitude we can't even begin to calculate.”     Referencing back to preceding controversies, a sarcastic Stewart wondered, “Oh, my god, a moral failing we can't even begin to calculate? Perhaps it's a combo failing? An appliance that changed its name to be more inclusive? Is Mr. Coffee now They/Them Coffee? Is that -- is that the danger we now face?” Stewart then played two clips of NBC’s Savannah Guthrie and Andrea Mitchell reporting on the news that Biden has halted bomb shipments to Israel with a third clip of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin telling Congress, “We paused one shipment of high payload munitions.” If anything, Stewart felt the decision was too little, too late, “Oh, my god! The Biden Administration has paused one shipment of 3,500 munitions, of the over 300,000 munitions Israel has already dropped on Gaza, to try and prevent the Israelis from attacking the area where all the refugees of this war are currently sheltering. I mean, oh, my god! Or to put that another way.” That led to a montage of various GOP senators condemning the move. One clip featured Texas’s Ted Cruz declaring, “Joe Biden has been the greatest friend to Hamas and Hezbollah that there is on planet Earth,” to which Kansas’s Roger Marshall responded by giving him a high five and adding, “Amen! Damn, he's good.” Stewart responded, “Yes, nothing says gravitas like, [goofy laughing] ‘He's a terrorist sympathizer –[indistinguishable muttering]’ ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself [indistinguishable muttering].’ You people are [bleep] children. That came out wrong, but I am curious, why would Biden halt that shipment now?" In a clip, Biden was shown claiming that “I have made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet they're not going to get our support if, in fact, they're going into these population centers.” Stewart replied by unwittingly undermining his own position, “If they go into the population centers? The whole place is a population center! They've been in the population center for six months! Gaza’s all population center! You know what you never hear around Gaza? ‘Yeah, I don't live in the populated area. I live in upstate Gaza. I live by the lakes! It is really quiet there.’”  The logical conclusion of Biden and Stewart’s position is that if the bad guys hold a city, it's theirs. If Israel could fight Hamas out in the open, it would, but for all the IDF’s technological superiority, it has not managed to create magical fairy dust. Here is a transcript for the May 9 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 5/9/2024 11:08 PM ET JON STEWART: All this false outrage is starting to make me cynical about America’s media ecosystem. Is there anything else going on that does merit a DEFCON 1 freak-out? SEAN HANNITY: In the end, this is a sad day for America, a moral failing of a magnitude we can't even begin to calculate. STEWART: Oh, my god, a moral failing we can't even begin to calculate? Perhaps it's a combo failing? An appliance that changed its name to be more inclusive? Is Mr. Coffee now They/Them Coffee? Is that -- is that the danger we now face? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: President Biden threatening to withhold more military aid if the Israeli military carries out an all-out assault on the city of Rafah. ANDREA MITCHELL: President Biden halting a weapons shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel. LLOYD AUSTIN: We paused one shipment of high payload munitions. STEWART: Oh, my god! The Biden Administration has paused one shipment of 3,500 munitions, of the over 300,000 munitions Israel has already dropped on Gaza, to try and prevent the Israelis from attacking the area where all the refugees of this war are currently sheltering. I mean, oh, my god! Or to put that another way. RON JOHNSON: And now what the Biden administration has done is they become the primary protector of Hamas. JONI ERNST: He absolutely is siding with the terrorists. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The only reason they aren't dancing in Iran is because they don't believe in dancing. TED CRUZ: Joe Biden has been the greatest friend to Hamas and Hezbollah that there is on planet Earth. ROGER MARSHALL: Amen! Damn, he's good. STEWART: Yes, nothing says gravitas like, [goofy laughing] "He's a terrorist sympathizer –[indistinguishable muttering]” "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself [indistinguishable muttering]."  You people are [bleep] children. That came out wrong, but I am curious, why would Biden halt that shipment now? JOE BIDEN: I have made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet they're not going to get our support if, in fact, they're going into these population centers STEWART: If they go into the population centers? The whole place is a population center! They've been in the population center for six months! Gaza’s all population center! You know what you never hear around Gaza? "Yeah, I don't live in the populated area. I live in upstate Gaza. I live by the lakes! It is really quiet there." 

NB Blog Feed

Column: CNN Deploys a 'Fact Checker' for Trump, Not for Biden

On May 8, President Biden took the very unusual step of submitting to an interviewer who was an actual journalist (not a Howard Stern or Drew Barrymore). It wouldn’t be long before he started mangling his record – and Donald Trump’s. CNN's Erin Burnett began with how Trump’s promises of new jobs in Wisconsin didn’t come true: “Why should people here believe that you will succeed at creating jobs where Trump failed?” Biden bragged: “He's never succeeded in creating jobs and I have never failed. I have created over 15 million jobs since I have been president.” He did it all by himself! He claimed other than Herbert Hoover, Trump's "the only other president who lost more jobs than created in his four-year term.” There’s a massive asterisk – the global Covid pandemic. Trump’s employment record in the first three years of his presidency was strong. The raw number of employed Americans reached new records. In October 2018, it had reached more than 165.6 million. The unemployment rate hit record lows across demographics: for women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and youth. Obviously, the severe lockdowns during the pandemic – most aggressively pushed by the Democrats and their media allies – drove massive job losses. Non-farm payroll employment in the United States declined by 9.4 million in 2020. So Democrats blame that on Trump, and when the pandemic was over, they took credit for the economy climbing out of that hole. But that wasn’t Biden’s worst mangle. He claimed to CNN that “no president's had the run we have had, in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation. It was nine percent when I came to office, nine percent.”  That’s ridiculous! It’s a bald-faced lie. Inflation was 1.4 percent, again, due to the pandemic. Burnett didn’t check his facts, during or after the interview. She pushed him to acknowledge inflation was bad, but she didn’t suggest he was lying. Fox News contributor Joe Concha tweeted: “And of course, CNN makes sure its pious fact-checker is nowhere to be found afterward.” That would be Daniel Dale, who's almost entirely deployed on TV to “fact check" Trump. Since Trump’s Manhattan trial began in mid-April, Dale has appeared nine times  to "check" him. He has not appeared to check anyone else. On April 18, Jake Tapper said “he’s handy to have around at times like this.” Some of these fact checks are “brag checks.” Trump will say he’s ahead in all the polls, when he’s ahead in most polls. But Dale sounds most exasperated when Trump blames Biden for his legal troubles. On April 18, Dale decried “his false conspiracy theory that essentially that Joe Biden is behind this case, which was brought by a locally elected district attorney.”  Dale can’t even disclose DA Alvin Bragg is a Democrat. He acknowledged Trump’s lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, was a Biden Justice Department official, and then joined Bragg’s team. A “conspiracy theory” between Democrat lawyers looks obvious here, and declaring it “false” is lame spin. On May 7, Dale threw a penalty flag at Trump for saying Bragg is a “Soros-backed” prosecutor….and Trump didn’t say that in the remarks they’d just aired. Dale turned on the spin machine by saying Soros is “a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” and then claimed “at best” the money was indirect:  Soros donated to the Color of Change PAC, and then the PAC backed Bragg. If a conservative DA received big money from a pro-Trump PAC, CNN would call him or her “Trump-backed” without hesitation. CNN deploys Dale not as a “fact checker” as much as a spin spoiler.

NB Blog Feed

ABC’s Mary Bruce Invents Weird New ‘Anti-Semitic Trope’ With Which To Smear Trump

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to shield President Joe Biden from the fallout of his decision to block munitions shipments to Israel, ABC Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce has crafted a strange new “antisemitic trope” with which to smear former President Donald Trump. Watch as Bruce uncorks this so-called trope during her coverage of Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza: MARY BRUCE: Tonight, many Republicans now accusing Biden of abandoning a critical ally, including Donald Trump, who today repeated an anti-semitic trope questioning Jewish voters who stand by the president. REPORTER: Mr. President, any comment? DONALD TRUMP: If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel. Irrespective of one’s feelings over Trump’s statements, they do not rise to anything more than an opinion. Black and Hispanic conservatives get excoriated by the left all the time for “voting against their self-interest”, and no one ever accuses those leftists of being anti-Black or anti-Hispanic, nor do such statements ever draw any media scrutiny. Reasonable individuals are left to won(D)er why that is.  Bruce’s fabrication of an anti-semitism where there is none smacks of media firefighting, intended to protect President Biden not just from the fallout of the munitions block, but from his own recent “very fine people” moment, as well as appearing weak on Israel.  Efforts to smear Trump’s callouts as antisemitic are no different than trying to smear as antisemites those who are critical of George Soros’ funding of radical left causes and domestic destabilization. Far from being rooted in any desire to protect Jews from discrimination or worse, they seek to shield leftists from scrutiny in the public square. Mary Bruce shamefully crossed over into White House crisis comms, far beyond her usual Biden sycophancies.  Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Wednesday, May 9th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: Tonight, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defiant, saying, “we will stand alone”, after President Biden's threat to withhold U.S. weapons if there's a full-scale invasion of Rafah. And these tense talks over a cease-fire halted amid fury over Rafah, with so many hostages still being held by Hamas. Mary Bruce at The White House tonight. MARY BRUCE: Tonight, as President Biden threatens to further withhold U.S. weapons from Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu defiant. "If we have to stand alone, we will stand alone," he said today. Firing back after Biden, in his most direct warning yet, said the U.S. would not provide Israel with weapons to attack Rafah. JOE BIDEN:  I've made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet, they're not going to get our support, if in fact they go in these population centers. BRUCE: It comes after the president has warned Netanyahu for weeks not to invade Rafah, where more than a million civilians are seeking refuge. But those warnings have been ignored. Netanyahu already launching what he says are limited operations inside Rafah, choking critical humanitarian aid. Biden already halting the shipment of 3,500 U.S. bombs, fearing American weapons could be used to kill more innocent Palestinians. Tonight, many Republicans now accusing Biden of abandoning a critical ally, including Donald Trump, who today repeated an anti-semitic trope questioning Jewish voters who stand by the president. REPORTER: Mr. President, any comment? DONALD TRUMP: If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel. BRUCE: The Biden campaign quick to condemn those comments, as the president insists U.S. support for Israel's defense remains ironclad. Now, the president says the U.S. will continue to provide for Israel's defense, even as he threatens to halt sending offensive weapons to them. And tonight, those cease-fire talks are now stalled. The sticking point, we’re told, is Rafah. Israel insisting that any temporary ceasefire deal exclude their operations in what they say is a Hamas stronghold. David. MUIR: All right, Mary. Mary Bruce again tonight, thank you.  

NB Blog Feed

CBS Is The Only Network To Cover Denial of Hunter Biden Dismissal Motion

n a normal world with normal media, breaking developments on the legal woes of the son of the sitting President of the United States would draw significant coverage. But we neither live in normal times nor have a normal media.  Therefore, the decision issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upholding District Judge Noreika’s denial of a motion to dismiss drew minimal coverage, and only on the CBS Evening News. Watch the full report, as aired on Thursday, May 9th, 2024:    NORAH O’DONNELL: The trial against Hunter Biden on federal gun charges is on track to begin next month after a federal appeals court declined to dismiss those charges today. Hunter Biden is accused of falsifying a federal firearms form, and illegal possession of a firearm while using a narcotic. The president's son also faces federal tax charges in California, and is scheduled to stand trial later in June. He has pleaded not guilty in both cases. It goes without saying that if it were Donald Trump, Jr. who got busted on gun charges, the charges being falsely affirming one is not a drug addict on ATF 4473 for purposes of a gun purchase while smoking industrial amounts of crack, then the coverage would be significant and constant- on the gun charges, on Burisma, on everything.  CBS only mustered a scant 26 seconds on the matter but it was still 26 seconds more than ABC and NBC, which didn’t even bother to cover the story. Again, if it were Don, Jr.  Here’s some of the detail missing from CBS’s teeny-tiny report, via Politico: A federal judge in Delaware denied Hunter Biden’s bid to throw out his felony gun charges on Thursday, rejecting arguments from the president’s son that the federal prohibition on owning guns while using illegal drugs is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Separately, a federal appeals court panel ruled against Biden earlier Thursday in another bid to have the charges against him tossed. The two decisions appear to clear the way for his case to head to trial on June 3, though his defense team can still pursue further appeals. Last year, Biden was charged with illegally buying a gun while using illegal drugs and with lying on a government form about his drug use when he made the purchase –– two separate criminal charges. Special counsel David Weiss alleges that Biden bought a gun in October 2018, a time when he was frequently using crack cocaine. Biden has spoken publicly about his struggles with drug addiction. CBS doesn’t even mention the district court denial of Hunter Biden’s Bruen defense against the gun charges, which puts many Second Amendment advocates in the unusual position of being sympathetic to the younger Biden.  The Regime Media only managed to muster a grand total of 26 seconds on Hunter Biden. If it weren’t for CBS, there’d be none at all.  

NB Blog Feed

RFK Jr. Admits to Supporting ‘Full Term’ Abortion

It’s absolutely jaw dropping to me that people openly support what can be summed up as nothing less than infanticide. In an interview with podcaster Sage Steele, Democratic Presidential nominee Robert Kennedy Jr. was asked about his ideas when it comes to abortion restrictions. Kennedy, very confidently, insisted that all abortion decisions should be made by a mother and that he supports abortion “even if it’s full term.” The interview, released Wednesday as part of The Sage Steele Show, already has over 21,000 views on YouTube. LifeNews.com released a less than 30 second clip of the show and it already has more than 154,000 views on X with hundreds of retweets and comments. BREAKING: Robert Kennedy Jr. endorses abortions up to birth. "Even if it's full term."https://t.co/2VFOBxzChb pic.twitter.com/1xkzmDkwKt — LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) May 9, 2024 Steele asked if Kennedy, if elected, would keep abortion laws at the federal level as is, “Keeping it as is, with Roe versus Wade having being overturned and leaving it up to the states to determine if and when a woman can have an abortion?” “No, I wouldn’t leave it to the states,” Kennedy said. “We should leave it to the woman,” he added, a few moments later insisting that he’d not place any federal protections on innocent life but rather leave it up to a woman. “We shouldn’t have government involved,” he said. Steele pushed back in order to get Kennedy to clarify his stance: “Even if it’s full term?” What Kennedy said next shocked me. “Even if it’s full term,” he said, meaning that he’d support a woman’s decision to abort her child, even if it is fully formed and merely a few inches up the birth canal. LifeNews.com did indicate that even though Kennedy claims that he “may not support late-term abortions personally, his answer makes it crystal clear that his political policy would allow late-term abortions with no limits.” In response to the clip, many pro-lifers were stunned and heartbroken. Sean Feucht, a Christian singer who recently led worship at a pro-Israel march said, “No Bible-believing, Jesus-following Christian should come remotely close to endorsing this guy for President.” TPUSA president Charlie Kirk said RFK Jr. was “affirming his commitment to China-style full-term abortion, without limits, nationwide.” Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts shared that sentiment when he said, “The real radicals on abortion are those, like Robert Kennedy, who support full-term abortion. What a grotesque and evil concept.” I pray for the day that pro-aborts either wake up or stop ignoring the realities of what abortion is. Until then, that population, the most vulnerable population in our society, is under eminent risk with mindsets like Kennedy’s.  

NB Blog Feed

Pro-Israel Protestors Rally & March Outside USC Campus: ‘Bring Them Home’

Pro-Israel students at the University of Southern California (USC) gathered together on Wednesday to march for the return of the innocent Israelis still held captive by Hamas, standing in stark contrast to the pro-Palestine protests that have erupted across college campuses around the nation, wreaking havoc, causing graduation ceremony cancellations, and bringing violence to school grounds. Pursuit Church teamed up with Christian worship artist Sean Feucht to hold the “United for Israel March” on Wednesday, where hundreds of both local and traveling pro-Israel marchers gathered by USC to stand in solidarity with those who lost their lives on October 7, as well as those still being held by Hamas terrorists. Feucht led worship songs at the start of the event before the march began. Later, marchers gathered outside the front gates of USC as the school's four-day long graduation ceremony series began. USC students in particular have been relatively vocal about their anti-Israel stance. In April more than 90 people were arrested during a protest at the campus after setting up illegal encampments on the school grounds. During the same month, USC even canceled its official commencement ceremony amid concerns of violence and noted that the valedictorian speech, which was set to be given by an outwardly pro-Palestine activist, was canceled, too. In the same vein, back in November, a Jewish professor at USC was banned from teaching on campus for the rest of the fall semester after comments he made against Hamas went viral. Hence why the location of this rally was of vital importance. Related: Indoctrination Nation: YOUNG Missouri School Kids Protest for Palestine - 'Zionism has Got to Go!' Rally-goers peacefully raised their hands to God and prayed for His protection over the Israeli citizens prior to the march. “The significance of us gathering on this University campus is to say, 'anti-semitism will be defeated,'" Feucht told the crowd before launching into a chant of, “Jewish hate must go!” Attendees included both Jews and Christians. USC 🚨: A Christian converted Muslim man from Iran, and Christian converted Jewish woman from Israel take communion together in symbolic peace between Muslims and Jews, and prayer said over the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/JckFzJOtnc — Anthony Cabassa (@AnthonyCabassa_) May 9, 2024 When the singing and prayer ended, attendees began marching down the streets of Los Angeles chanting things like, "Bring them home” while carrying both the Israeli and American flags.   Your daily dose of good news: At USC hundreds of pro israel supporters march at usc after an pro palestinian encampment was removed. Quite a difference with your average pro hamas crowd pic.twitter.com/zMrbYlLRU8 — Brian BJ (@iamBrianBJ) May 9, 2024 A plane even flew over the University with a banner behind it that read, “Israel is forever. Jewish Lives Matter.” Staff and members of the group Concerned Women for America, which seeks to "protect and promote Biblical values and Constitutional principles through prayer, education, and advocacy," attended the event and held signs that read “CWA Stands with Israel!” Paige Nelson, CWA’s Executive Assistant to the VP and Development Project Manager, issued a statement to MRCTV after attending the event herself: It is no secret that since October 7, 2023, antisemitism in the United States has spiked, specifically targeting Jewish students and faculty at some of our most esteemed institutions. Pro-Hamas protests are breaking out, coating these campuses in violence and hysteria, and creating dangerous environments for the Jewish community to exist. Yesterday’s march was the complete opposite and a testament to our God not being finished with His people. Christians and Jews gathered together in prayer and worship - acknowledging that we serve the same good Father and have power in numbers. The march was filled with joy and laughter, unity and peace. There were no arrests, blocking traffic, or disgracing the American flag. Instead, hundreds gathered to show support for our Jewish brothers and sisters and to spread the good news that our Lord has already won the battle, He has conquered death, and that He will not give up on the promised land. This event stands in stark contrast to the types of protests taking place across the nation, where pro-Hamas students and demonstrators have set up camp at various schools calling to "liberate" Palestine. “Hamas is Me! Hamas is You! Hamas is our Family,” one black supremacist at George Washington University yelled on Tuesday before pledging to destroy Israel. Students from Princeton went on what they called a “hunger strike,” voluntarily denying themselves food in an attempt to show their solidarity with Gaza, and the Latino Institute at UCLA attempted to place blame on police officers for terminating their violent and outrageous protests - and that’s all within just the last week. Like Nelson said, the violence many of the pro-Gaza protestors exude is not necessary, as demonstrated by the pro-Israel group. “There were no arrests, blocking traffic, or disgracing the American flag,” she said about Wednesday’s march. Maybe those pro-Palestine protestors should take a look at how advocating for what you believe in should actually be done. Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV's @Schineman joins One America News to talk Biden refusing interviews, Google censorship, and Maxine Waters' hypocrisy. pic.twitter.com/y4tXzsFlWY — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 9, 2024  

NB Blog Feed

ABC Relieved Biden Abandoning Israel as Trump Leads War ‘Trust’ Poll

For weeks, the liberal media have had their eye on November as they’ve been trying to get President Biden to abandon Israel in hopes of getting the pro-Hamas votes in swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin. ABC’s Good Morning America seemed relieved on Thursday as they hyped Biden’s threat to stop sending weapons to Israel if they attacked Hamas’s final stronghold. They even noted the threat came as their latest poll showed former President Trump edged out on trust to handle the war. “This is President Biden's most direct warning to Israel since the start of this war and it could set up a historic clash with this critical ally,” boasted Biden’s chief apple polisher, ABC chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce. Biden’s latest comments about Israel also scratched ABC’s anti-American itch, because it allowed them to suggest that America had teamed up with the bad guys: BRUCE: For weeks, Biden warned Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to invade Rafah where over 1 million civilians are seeking refuge. And he's already taking action, halting a shipment of 3,500 U.S. bombs, fearing American weapons could be used against civilians. Something Biden now concedes has already happened. BIDEN: Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. On the timing of the threat, Bruce noted that “Biden's stark warning comes as he faces growing criticism at home over his steadfast support for Israel. Our latest poll finding voters now trust Donald Trump more to handle this war.”     To the question “Trust more to handle Israel-Hamas War,” Trump led with a plurality of 37 percent to Biden’s 29. Meanwhile, 33 percent responded “neither.”  The poll, which was conducted between April 25-30 had a margin of error of two percent. Bruce concluded the segment by trying to have her cake and eat it too: Now, the President says the U.S. will still continue to provide for Israel's defense, like the Iron Dome missile system. But after months of urging Israel to do more to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, President Biden is adamant: if Netanyahu invades Rafah, the U.S. will not supply offensive weapons to Israel. There was similar hype for the threats against Israel on CBS Mornings, where foreign correspondent Ramy Inocencio seemed to revel in how “angry reactions are flying from Israel’s far-right politicians to President Biden.” He also seemed to tout how others say “Israel may have already lost in terms of its international standing” and that it was “an incredible achievement for Hamas.” Over on NBC’s Today, Gabe Gutierrez marveled: “For weeks the White House has said that it opposes a large-scale assault on Rafah, but President Biden is now taking a much harder line, threatening to withhold more weapons from Israel…” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 9, 2024 7:10:26 a.m. Eastern MICHAEL STRAHAN: Now to President Biden delivering a warning to Israel saying he'll stop some weapons shipments as Israel invades the city of Rafah. Our chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce has the latest for us. Good morning, Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning, Michael. This is President Biden's most direct warning to Israel since the start of this war and it could set up a historic clash with this critical ally. President Biden now threatening to halt the shipment of additional U.S. weapons to Israel, which he acknowledges have been used to kill innocent civilians. [Cuts to video] This morning, President Biden is calling out the Israeli government. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: It's just wrong. We're not gonna supply weapons and the artillery shells used. BRUCE: Making it clear in his sharpest criticism yet that the U.S. will not provide Israel with weapons to attack Rafah. BIDEN: I have been made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet. They're not going to get our support if, in fact, they go into these population centers. BRUCE: For weeks, Biden warned Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to invade Rafah where over 1 million civilians are seeking refuge. And he's already taking action, halting a shipment of 3,500 U.S. bombs, fearing American weapons could be used against civilians. Something Biden now concedes has already happened. BIDEN: Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. BRUCE: Biden's stark warning comes as he faces growing criticism at home over his steadfast support for Israel. Our latest poll finding voters now trust Donald Trump more to handle this war. As some Republicans now accuse Biden of undermining Israel. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): This is obscene. It is absurd. Give Israel what they need to fight the war they can't afford to lose. BRUCE: But Biden insisting U.S. support for Israel remains iron clad. BIDEN: We're not walking away from Israel's security. We're walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas. [Cuts back to live] BRUCE: Now, the President says the U.S. will still continue to provide for Israel's defense, like the Iron Dome missile system. But after months of urging Israel to do more to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, President Biden is adamant: if Netanyahu invades Rafah, the U.S. will not supply offensive weapons to Israel.

NB Blog Feed

Rumble CEO Reacts to Being Banned in Russia, Unveils Pressures against Rumble to Censor

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski reacted to Rumble being banned from Russia over its adamant free speech stance. On May 7, Pavlovski addressed an X Spaces hosted by social media personality Mario Nawfal. During the Spaces, Pavlovski was asked to explain why his platform was banned from Russia as well as his company’s experiences with other countries demanding censorship. Strikingly, Rumble has been criticized in the past for platforming Russian media and was even forced to leave France after that country demanded that the platform ban Russian news programs.  Similar: Russia Blocks Video Platform for Refusing Censorship “One thing that’s really striking to me right now is if you guys remember back … two years ago, we were banned, well, we left France, they threatened to shut us off at the local level, so we decided to make the decision to leave the country entirely,” Pavlovski said. “And we did it because they wanted us to shut down Russian, news sources that come from Russia, so we denied that request, and we ended up leaving France. And every single paper in the United States and Canada covered how we were allowing Russian news sources on Rumble, and we were, they called me every name in the book.” https://t.co/rgqHcq5wSj — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 7, 2024 Pavlovski pointed out the bitter irony that Rumble had previously been banned for platforming Russian voices and that the legacy media, previously so critical of Rumble for being “pro-Russia,” is now conspicuously silent on Rumble being banned. “It might have happened a month ago, but we confirmed that Russia has put Rumble on a blocked list, and we are completely inaccessible within  Russia entirely,” Pavlovski explained. “And not a single news source, not a single news source that covered us prior, what we did in France, is covering this situation.” Pavlovski revealed that Rumble was banned after it refused to comply with censorship orders from the Russian government. He mentioned that one of the accounts was banned over a marijuana related issue. “Another account seemed to be some conspiracy channel, but I’m not sure because it was in a different language … and the other channel seemed to be an Arabic channel that was political in the Arabic language,” Pavlovski added. “Those were the types of channels that they wanted us to remove, and we didn’t see that they violated any of our terms of service, so we ignored the orders, and then they shut us off at the IP level.” Pavlovski was also asked if he received similar requests from Western governments. While he denied receiving any direct orders, Pavlovski pointed out that censorship in the West is conducted using an entirely different model from traditionally autocratic countries. “The way the U.S. market tries to impose censorship is by using media organizations to try to do hit jobs on your company,” Pavlovski said. “So they’ll bring up this person or that person or this piece of content, and they’ll write up a whole article about one video that they found on your platform out of millions, so the way censorship moves in America is through using media organizations. The media organizations are the entities that push censorship across all the Big Tech platforms.” He added that “the Big Tech platforms are scared shitless of the media organizations, and that’s what gets them to buckle.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Will the Media Hold NY Gov. Hochul Accountable for Racist Remarks? MRC’s Hamill Reacts on Newsmax

MRC contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on Tuesday’s The Balance on Newsmax with host Eric Bolling where they examined recent racist remarks made by New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) during a forum in California where she said there are black kids growing up in the Bronx who ‘don’t even know what the word computer is.’  KATHY HOCHUL: In fact, I talk to a lot of other people who say, “I wish my governor had thought of that first”, and I say, “No no, this is New York. We like to be first, with all due respect to people from other states. It's sort of- it's sort of our attitude. You know, “we will be the best- we will be the first”. And I want others to follow because right now we have, you know, young black kids growing up in The Bronx who don't even know what the word “computer” is. They- they don't know- they don't know these things, and I want the world to open up to all of them because when you have their diverse voices innovating solutions through technology, then you're really addressing society's broader challenges. While most of the major mainstream media outlets initially covered her remarks and apology this week, it appears many have moved on as there haven't been any follow-ups.  One could only imagine what the coverage would look like if it were a Republican who said what she said. One could assume there would be wall to wall news coverage or even calls for her to resign.

NB Blog Feed

Nets Play Propagandists for Biden in Wisconsin, Bemoan ‘Stubborn’ Economy

On Wednesday night and Thursday morning, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC dutifully complied with suckling coverage of President Biden’s trip to Racine, Wisconsin as part of Microsoft announcing a new headquarters for its artificial intelligence (A.I.) division and bemoaning how the economy’s remained a “stubborn challenge” for Biden to break through to Americans who’ve stupidly been “nostalgic” for the Trump economy. ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News each served up a full report on Wednesday with the former, of course, turning to chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher, Mary Bruce.     “President Biden traveling to the critical battleground of Wisconsin today, where a new poll has him leading Donald Trump by the slimmest of margins. Biden there to announce Microsoft will build a $3.3 billion artificial intelligence center on the very same site of a failed Trump era project that was supposed to create tens of thousands of jobs, but never got off the ground,” Bruce began, sounding as though she were handed a script from Karine Jean-Pierre. Bruce cited all the key talking points about Microsoft’s alleged plans and how it will be positioned in the same spot that a largely failed Foxconn deal hawked by then-President Trump in 2018 fell through. “But the project fizzled. The field where Trump once broke ground with golden shovels now empty,” Bruce bragged, adding her President is “eager to sell his economic accomplishments to skeptical voters.” “Now, work on this new Microsoft project, we’re told, is already underway. President Biden certainly well aware of that new poll out today showing him leading Donald Trump in Wisconsin 50 percent to 44 percent in a two-way race,” she concluded. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt also parroted the trip as Biden “work[ing] to sell voters on his economic achievements and the strength of the U.S. economy”, but fretted “he is still facing plenty of skepticism.” NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander started off much like Bruce with the fluff:  President Biden tonight in Wisconsin, his fourth visit to the crucial battleground this year, announcing the creation of a multibillion dollar A.I. datacenter. Microsoft promising to bring thousands of jobs. (....) The President also trying to cast a contrast here at the same site where then-President Trump announced a $10 billion electronics factory, but that massive project never materialized. After a softball soundbite from a union worker who attended the event, Alexander put up the idea of skepticism by admitting “Biden has a lot of convincing to do” with “[a] poll this week shows Americans trust Mr. Trump over the President on the economy and inflation by double digits while two-thirds of Americans say they’re living paycheck to paycheck.” He also spoke to an ice cream shop owner who expressed frustration that “everything costs more” and “four years ago,” she “could just go to work — right — come home, not really have to worry about so much.” Thursday’s CBS Mornings gave CBS its puff ball piece. Fill-in co-host Natalie Morales played the opening stenographer: “President Biden is highlighting his record on the economy as he tries to deflect criticism over high inflation, and he underlined that message to voters in a campaign trip to the battleground state of Wisconsin where he praised a multibillion dollar project by Microsoft.” Chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes whined the economy’s been “a stubborn challenge” and seemed perturbed voters would say they wanted a return to the Trump economy when, in 2020, they said it was poor. Gee, wonder what happened that year (click “expand”): CORDES: You know, 80 percent of voters tell us in polls that the economy is a major factor for them in this election. It is the biggest issue and, when it comes to the economy, many voters say they’re nostalgic for the past, so President Biden is getting more aggressive about contrasting his record with former President Donald Trump’s. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: On my watch, we make promises, and we keep promises. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] CORDES: President Biden paid a visit to this site in Racine, Wisconsin, Wednesday, not only because it’s the future home of a $3 billion Microsoft data center, but also because it’s where his predecessor wielded a golden shovel seven years ago to tout a project that ended up falling flat. DONALD TRUMP [in June 2018]: Really something, thank you, fellas. CORDES: Back then, the Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn was promising a plant with 13,000 jobs, but later, Foxconn scaled that number back by 90 percent. BIDEN: Foxconn turned out to be just that, a con. [LAUGHTER] Go figure. CORDES: Biden is trying to tackle a stubborn challenge. In the battleground state of Wisconsin, 62 percent of voters think the economy was better under Trump even though only 36 percent of Wisconsin voters actually rated the economy as good when Trump was President in 2020. BIDEN [on CNN]: We have the strongest economy in the world. CORDES: In his interview with CNN yesterday, Biden touted the nearly 15 million jobs created since he took office as the nation bounced back from the pandemic. BIDEN [on CNN]: He’s never succeeded in creating jobs, and I’ve never failed. NBC’s Today had a partial segment on Biden’s roadtrip with senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez conceding “[r]ecent polls show Americans trust Mr. Trump over Biden on the economy”, but noted the President jabbed the American people on CNN by saying “they have the money to spend.” To see the relevant transcripts from Mary 8, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC). For transcripts from May 9, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

Brain Worm Aficionados: The View Spouts Off on RFK Jr.'s Diagnosis

Masters of the subject, the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View kicked off their Thursday show by sounding off on independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his past diagnosis of having a dead worm in his brain. The irony that they, of all people, were going to mock someone else for having a parasite in their brain was completely lost on the cast. Following a soundbite of Kennedy explaining that he got the parasite while in India and that he had made a full recovery, moderator Whoopi Goldberg scoffed at his confidence. “Really? But he insists he's still up for the gig, and even tweeted – and I don't know why – that he could eat five more worms and still beat you-know-who and Biden in a debate,” she said. Co-host and “comedian” Joy Behar suggested – without evidence – that the brain worm was “the reason for his irrational behavior,” but wanted to know: “what is Trump's excuse?” “Does he also have a worm in his brain?” she quipped. “We know he suffers from narcolepsy. He's always falling asleep.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) was worried about Kennedy’s “cognitive function.” Pretend-independent Sara Haines reminded Hostin that Kennedy “did not have this treated;” and despite it being Kennedy’s body and his choice, Hostin bloviated that she was “uncomfortable with the worm being there.”     Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin and Behar played off of each other to suggest brain problems were what Kennedy and Trump supporters wanted: FARAH GRIFFIN: It's crazy but before you roast RFK too hard it's now showing that he may actually take more votes from Donald Trump than Joe Biden. BEHAR: Well sure, because they both have weird brains. So it makes sense. It makes sense. Kennedy might have a dead worm in his brain, but how does The View cast explain the things that come out of their mouths? In 2022, Goldberg claimed the Holocaust “isn’t about race.” She described the Holocaust as “white people doing it to white people. So, this is y'all go fight amongst yourselves.” Back in February, Behar claimed NATO was the military alliance that defeated Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. “Because I know history,” she ironically proclaimed in her rant. “And Putin will not stop at Ukraine if they don't -- if we don't help them. And Trump is saying he'll pull out of NATO. These are allies. We were all in this together in World War II, and now he’s going to pull out of this?! Outrageous!” Just last month, Hostin asserted that “climate change” was to blame for the solar eclipse and earthquakes. And in March, Haines declared: “Everyone belongs at a drag show!” As for The View’s fake Republicans, Farah Griffin cried that “sexism” was to blame for then GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s lack of endorsements. And while co-host Ana Navarro wasn’t on set to rip Kennedy, she’s denied the existence of his candidacy in the past and defends allegedly corrupt Democratic Senator Bob Menendez (NJ). The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 9, 2024 11:02:35 a.m. Eastern (…) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Parasites are very common in India where I had done a lot of environmental work, and it comes from eating undercooked pork. [Transition] PODCAST HOST: So, you've made a full recovery. Is that fair to say? KENNEDY: Yeah. [Cuts back to live] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Really? [Laughter] But he insists he's still up for the gig, and even tweeted – and I don't know why – that he could eat five more worms and still beat you-know-who and Biden in a debate. JOY BEHAR: Well, Whoopi. Now we know the reason for his irrational behavior, but what is Trump's excuse? [Laughter] Does he also have a worm in his brain? We know he suffers from narcolepsy. He's always falling asleep. GOLDBERG: It's crazy. He had a worm that died in his brain and I guess atrophied and is now part of his brain matter. SUNNY HOSTIN: It’s part of his brain! BEHAR: To make fun of the other two candidates, Biden and Trump, he's not exactly Arnold Schwarzenegger and now we know he has these ailments. He had other stuff years ago. (…) 11:04:25 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: That worm doesn’t die – well, it dies in your brain and then calcified and it stays there forever. GOLDBERG: Didn't I say that just a minute ago? HOSTIN: I thought – [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: To hear Sanjay say it, for me, was sort of like – that worm is there, and I don't know how your cognitive function is still -- SARA HAINES: He did not have this treated, by the way. He did not have this treated. HOSTIN: No. HAINES: So, his is still in there like you're saying and it’s like a tumor. HOSTIN: Although, Sanjay sais sometimes you don’t have to – Now, I'm like quoting Sanjay. But Sanjay said you don't have to get it treated but he has treated it. But that worm is still there. I'm uncomfortable with the worm being there. (…) 11:05:11 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It's crazy but before you roast RFK too hard it's now showing that he may actually take more votes from Donald Trump than Joe Biden. BEHAR: Well sure, because they both have weird brains. So it makes sense. It makes sense. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Russia Blocks Video Platform for Refusing Censorship

Russia reportedly blocked a video platform for taking a strong stand on free speech. Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski announced on May 7 that the Russian government had blocked his video-hosting platform after refusing to comply with censorship demands. The report comes as Big Tech companies and governments around the world step up their efforts to suppress free speech, even here in America. In a post to X (formerly Twitter), Pavlovski explained, “Russia has officially blocked Rumble because we refused to comply with their censorship demands. Ironically, YouTube is still operating in Russia, and everyone needs to ask what Russian demands Google and YouTube are complying with?” MRC Free Speech America just highlightedGoogle-owned YouTube as among the worst Big Tech censors of April for targeting Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Pavlovski testified before Congress this week, listing multiple countries where his platform faces legal challenges and government pressure to censor certain content. These countries include Brazil, France, New Zealand and Australia, according to Fox News coverage of Pavlovski’s prepared testimony for the House Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations. “Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the cornerstones of a democratic society,” the CEO said, adding that he finds it “extremely troubling” that “these fundamental rights are being threatened” by the American government too. The pro-free speech tech company also emphasized free speech when it released Rumble Cloud in March. At the time, Pavlovski explained that the cancellation of alternative social media Parler by Amazon Web Services drove Rumble’s decision to start Rumble Cloud. The goal is to shield businesses from Big Tech censorship. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

MRC's Tim Graham on Fox Biz: NPR's CEO Should Be Afraid of Us and Our Evidence

After his boat-rocking testimony before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on the leftist tilt of National Public Radio on Wednesday, NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham appeared on The Bottom Line with Dagen & Duffy on Fox Business. Host Sean Duffy said it was unfair to make taxpayers fund a "radical liberal machine.". NPR CEO Katharine Maher declined an invitation to the hearing, and Graham said "Maybe she didn't want to show up because we had all of the examples today.... NPR likes books like In Defense of Looting. NPR likes the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline and then it's everything they have to say about the Republicans, being 'hard right' Republicans who want to drive the country off a cliff. I don't know how you can defend all that. We had Democrats today trying to claim what NPR does is objective, you just don't like objective reporting, which is comedy. You can't provide a laugh track when they say that, because it impolite. But you sure wanted to."   Co-host Dagen McDowell suggested the Democrats don't listen to NPR so they can be "blissfully ignorant" when they call it unbiased, so they "can stay that without laughing." She called NPR a "sewage lagoon." They discussed how NPR claims they only receive one percent of the budget from the federal government, but in reality, the government funds the local affiliates, who send money back to Washington in "programming fees." So a defunding would be dramatic for them.  Tim said "What they really need to do is just take that threat, and say we getter go back to what we are supposed to be doing, which is allowing both sides to speak, let both parties speak. That is not what they are doing, they have softballs for Democrats and hardball for Republicans -- when they get a chance [to be interviewed]." See highlights from Tim's hearing here. 

NB Blog Feed

With No Evidence, Reid Claims Trump Bribed Judge In Classified Docs Case With SCOTUS Seat

MSNBC’s Joy Reid took a break from covering former President Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York on the Wednesday installment of The ReidOut’s to discuss his classified documents case and the news that Judge Aileen Cannon has postponed the trial indefinitely while she considers all the pre-trial motions and other issues related to the case. Reid responded by putting on her tinfoil hat and declaring, with no evidence whatsoever, that Trump has implicitly bribed her with a future Supreme Court appointment. Reid asked legal analyst Joyce Vance, “If you're Jack Smith, do you try to somehow appeal it to the 11th Circuit and get her booted?” Vance gave a long, rambling answer that ultimately suggested such a move would, from her perspective, unfortunately not go anywhere, “You know, the best hook that Jack Smith has for an appeal would be if Judge Cannon were to make rulings that he didn't like when it comes to whether Donald Trump can use classified information at trial. He's got a right to appeal those. Of course, we're in that pre-trial phase where the government needs a special hook to take an interlocutory appeal. Most sorts of issues have to wait until afterwards. So, I think what Jack Smith has been waiting for has been these rulings on the classified information.”     Cracking herself up, Reid interrupted, “She's never going to rule.” Vance continued, “And that is one of the issues -- right. She suspended that this week. Those responses were due this week. Out of the blue, she gave Trump a continuance and so, for Jack Smith, I suspect he's now regretting the fact that he did not try to recuse her early on when he could have.” With absolutely zero evidence, Reid echoed an idea she floated on April 10 by following up with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, “As the great Lawrence O’Donnell says, Eugene, the bribe is implied. She wants to be on the Supreme Court. She thinks she can get on if Donald Trump wins. She's going to kill this case. Catch and kill as one might say.” Also cracking himself up, Robinson began, “I know, but Aileen Cannon on the Supreme Court, come on. I mean, you know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know—” Reid insisted, “It's Trump. She's done him favors.” Robinson tried to start again, “Look, I know, I shouldn't put anything beyond the realm of possibility.” Interrupting again to take a cheap shot at another woman Trump appointed, Reid declared that “she has about as much experience as Amy Coney Barrett.” Robinson then lamented, “Well, yeah, but Amy Coney Barrett's a lot smarter than Aileen Cannon. I mean, look, this is an illustration of when a case goes before a federal judge, federal judges have enormous power. The federal judge is in charge of that case and so, this story that this case will not come to trial before the election, this story was written the day the case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon and it was” In New York, whenever the judge rules against Trump it is hailed as proof that nobody, not even a former president, is above the law or rules that govern court cases, but when something doesn’t go Jack Smith’s way, it is treated as a great scandal. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 5/8/2024 7:23 PM ET JOY REID: If you're Jack Smith, do you try to somehow appeal it to the 11th Circuit and get her booted? JOYCE VANCE: You know, the best hook that Jack Smith has for an appeal would be if Judge Cannon were to make rulings that he didn't like when it comes to whether Donald Trump can use classified information at trial. He's got a right to appeal those. Of course, we're in that pre-trial phase where the government needs a special hook to take an interlocutory appeal. Most sorts of issues have to wait until afterwards. So, I think what Jack Smith has been waiting for has been these rulings on the classified information. REID: She's never going to rule. VANCE: And that is one of the issues -- right. She suspended that this week. Those responses were due this week. Out of the blue, she gave Trump a continuance and so, for Jack Smith, I suspect he's now regretting the fact that he did not try to recuse her early on when he could have. REID: As the great Lawrence O’Donnell says, Eugene, the bribe is implied. She wants to be on the Supreme Court. She thinks she can get on if Donald Trump wins. She's going to kill this case. Catch and kill as one might say. EUGENE ROBINSON: I know, but Aileen Cannon on the Supreme Court, come on. I mean, you know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know— REID: It's Trump. She's done him favors. ROBINSON: Look, I know, I shouldn't put anything beyond the realm of possibility. REID: She has about as much experience as Amy Coney Barrett. ROBINSON: Well, yeah, but Amy Coney Barrett's a lot smarter than Aileen Cannon. I mean, look, this is an illustration of when a case goes before a federal judge, federal judges have enormous power. The federal judge is in charge of that case and so, this story that this case will not come to trial before the election, this story was written the day— REID: Absolutely. ROBINSON: -- the case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon and it was.

NB Blog Feed

Seven Blatant Biden LIES ABC, CBS, NBC Refuse to Report

It’s not just the gaffes that keep coming, it’s also the lies! President Joe Biden can barely open his mouth without a blatant falsehood falling out.  He dropped multiple fibs in just one Howard Stern Show appearance late last month. Did ABC, CBS or NBC fact check any of them? Of course not! From falsely claiming he was arrested during a desegregation protest to pretending he used to drive an “18-wheeler,” the following are seven Biden lies that ABC, CBS and NBC have refused to cover.  Here’s a brief montage via NewsBusters Media Editor Bill D’ Agostino:     1. Biden (Without Proof) Says He Was Arrested Standing on a Porch with Black Family During Desegregation Protest   On April 26, CNN.com reported:  President Joe Biden went on “The Howard Stern Show” on Friday and repeated his familiar story about the time he supposedly “got arrested” trying to defend the civil rights of Black Americans. As in the past, Biden told the story on Friday while recounting what his mother supposedly said while urging him to accept Barack Obama’s 2008 offer to be his running mate. His mom, he said, did not want him to turn down a man who was vying to become the first Black president. Biden told Stern: “She said, ‘Joey, let me — remember’ — true story, she said — ‘Remember when they were desegregating Lynnfield, the neighborhood…suburbia — and I told you — and there was a Black family moving in and there was — people were down there protesting; I told you not to go down there and you went down, remember that? And you got arrested standing on the porch with a Black family? And they brought you back, the police?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, Mom, I remember that.’” Facts First: There is no evidence Biden ever got arrested during a civil rights protest, as The Washington Post and PolitiFact found when they looked into this claim in 2022 — and Biden has at least twice told the story of his supposed presence at this particular Delaware protest without mentioning any arrest, instead claiming that the police merely took him home that day. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   2. Biden (Falsely) Boasts That He Made a Most Eligible Bachelors List       On May 2, the Washington Post reported:  Three times in recent weeks — at an April 16 campaign event in Scranton, Pa., to supporters in New York on April 25, and to Stern — Biden said he was on a list of 10 most eligible bachelors after his first wife was killed in a car accident in 1972. Biden has made this claim at least twice before, saying last year that he was on the list for five years. He married Jill Biden in 1977. No such list can be found. The closest thing is a reference in a 1974 Washingtonian profile that quoted a press aide as saying that reporters kept seeking an interview with Biden after the tragedy: “A few weeks after Neilia’s death we got a call from Sally Quinn of The Post. She wanted to do a story on the Senator as Washington’s most eligible bachelor. Naturally we said no but it wasn’t easy because she kept calling all the time.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   3. Biden Claims He Was Sent “Salacious” Pictures From Women, Forwarded to Secret Service  On April 24 the New York Post reported:  President Biden recalled Friday that “lovely women” mailed him “very salacious pictures” when he was a young and unmarried senator — and that he handed the images over to the Secret Service — in a bizarre interview with Howard Stern. “A lot of lovely women — but women would send very salacious pictures and I’d just give them to the Secret Service. I thought somebody would think I was…,” the 81-year-old president said before trailing off. It’s unclear why the Secret Service, whose role is to protect the president and investigate counterfeiting and fraud, would have any interest in amateur soft-core porn sent to Biden while he was an unmarried senator from 1973 to 1977. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   4. Biden Tells Wisconsin Crowd One of His Catholic School Teachers Was a Green Bay Packer – FALSE!      On May 8, the New York Post reported: President Biden blurted Wednesday that one of his childhood Catholic school teachers was drafted by the Green Bay Packers — an assertion disproven by a simple check of publicly available NFL records. The 81-year-old president shared the false claim as he boasted of his connection to Wisconsin sports fans during a trip to the swing state. “My theology professor at the Catholic school I went to was a guy named Reilly — last name — and he had been drafted by the Green Bay Packers,” Biden said in Racine, south of Milwaukee. “And he decided to become a priest before that, so he didn’t go. But every single solitary Monday that Green Bay won, we got the last period of the day off.” According to Pro Football Reference, the Packers have only drafted a single person with the last name “Riley,” “Reily,” or “Reilly” since the NFL began its annual college draft in 1936. University of Colorado quarterback Maurice “Tex” Reilly was selected with the 202nd overall pick in the 22nd round of the 1947 draft — after his education was interrupted by World Word II, during which he commanded bombing missions over the Pacific, according to a 2002 article in the Denver Post. Instead of playing professional football, the Bronze Star recipient rejoined the US Air Force in October 1947 as a civil engineer and was deployed to Japan and later Spain. Reilly also served as an instructor at bases in Ohio and Alabama before retiring as a major general, according to a military biography. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   5. Biden’s (Inaccurate) Memory of Him Being a Football Legend On May 2, the Washington Post reported:  Biden was a football player in high school, but he exaggerated his record when he appeared on [Howard] Stern’s show. “By the way, I don’t think a lot of people know that you were a star receiver in high school. Star receiver! You were like the first-string guy. You were the guy who caught the ball,” Stern said. “Runner-up in state scoring, you know,” Biden replied. “What the heck? But I was a runt.” Biden made the same boast during a campaign event in Michigan in February and twice on the same day in December. But Biden is exaggerating. The Wilmington News-Journal reported that in 1960, Biden placed fourth — with four touchdowns and 24 points — in a five-school conference for private schools in Delaware. His high school, Archmere Academy, did place first in the league and was the state’s only undefeated team, while Biden was the team’s leading scorer. A season preview in the News-Journal described Biden, who was nicknamed “Dash,” as “one of the best pass receivers on the team.” When nonconference games are included, Biden earned a total of 60 points. But that was good enough only for fifth place in the state, according to a season wrap-up in the News-Journal. The state’s top scorer earned 108 points. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   6. Biden Boasts About All the Lives He Saved as a Lifeguard  On April 26, The Daily Wire reported:  Speaking on Friday on “The Howard Stern Show,” Biden told the host he had “saved” a “half dozen” kids from drowning back when he was a lifeguard. When Stern followed up and asked him if he had saved any other lives and if he was still lifeguarding when he was “in law school,” the president said, “Yeah, people just need help sometime.” These are lies, as noted on X by one journalist, who included clips of Biden’s comments from the show. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   7. Biden Recalls the Time He “Used to Drive an 18-Wheeler,” It Never Happened On April 24, CNN.com reported:  President Joe Biden has revived a debunked tale about his past – his fictional claim that he used to drive an 18-wheeler truck. Biden has repeatedly embellished or invented biographical tidbits. In 2021, he claimed during a tour of a Mack Trucks facility: “I used to drive an 18-wheeler, man,” then added, “I got to.” At a separate 2021 event, he told college students studying truck technology, “I used to drive a tractor-trailer,” adding, “I only did it for part of a summer, but I got my license anyway.” Biden’s claims were fact-checked at the time as false. But on Tuesday, during a campaign event in Florida, Biden said it again. A supporter told him, “The only reason I have a pension is because of you.” (The supporter appeared to be referring to the Biden administration’s $36 billion in aid to prevent steep pension cuts for more than 350,000 union workers and retirees, including truck drivers.) Biden responded: “Well, we did get that done. Anyway. Besides, I used to drive an 18-wheeler.” Facts First: Biden’s claim remains untrue. There is no evidence he ever drove an 18-wheeler. When CNN inquired about the claim in 2021, the White House noted that Biden once had a part-time job driving a school bus (which is not an 18-wheeler or a tractor-trailer) and that, as a US senator in 1973, he spent a night riding in a cargo truck (not driving it). ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.

NB Blog Feed

Lawsuit Where? Feds Reboot Big Tech Censorship Collusion, Report Says

Two major government agencies have reportedly rebooted their collusion with social media companies despite looming Supreme Court scrutiny for potential First Amendment violations. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-VA) broke the news during a press briefing at the tech-tied RSA Conference, according to tech outlet Nextgov/FCW. At the event, the senator reportedly conceded that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are back to their old work of coordinating censorship of free speech ahead of the 2024 presidential election. An FBI representative admitted the resumed Big Tech communications to The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood. CISA would not confirm the report, however.  “The FBI remains committed to combating foreign malign influence operations, including in connection with our elections,” the bureau’s representative claimed, as reported by The Federalist. “That effort includes sharing specific foreign threat information with state and local election officials and private sector companies when appropriate and rigorously consistent with the law.” Further expanding on its response, the representative added, “In coordination with the Department of Justice, the FBI recently implemented procedures to facilitate sharing information about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on that information.” The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, a major free speech case that exposed an alleged massive network of government and Big Tech censorship collusion. Legal challenges reportedly limited government activity, but that is no longer the case, according to Warner and Nextgov/FCW. “There seemed to be a lot of sympathy that the government ought to have at least voluntary communications with [the companies],” Warner said, according to the tech outlet. The Democrat senator then urged the Biden administration to “call out” other nations for potential election meddling, asserting Russian interference in the 2016 election as a precedent. Yet Warner did not apparently address the issue of social media interfering in U.S. elections through censorship under U.S. government pressure. Warner announced an upcoming Senate hearing on election security, according to Nextgov/FCW. “If the bad guy started to launch AI-driven tools that would threaten election officials in key communities, that clearly falls into the foreign interference category,” Warner scare-mongered. The FBI and CISA are among the agencies accused of violating First Amendment rights. Notably, the FBI is tied to election interference, since Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that his company censored the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election after FBI pressure. According to a poll conducted by the Media Research Center in November 2020, 17 percent of individuals who voted for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden admitted that they would not have done so if they had been aware of the scandals involving both Biden and his son, Hunter. These scandals were censored by Big Tech and the legacy media. Murthy v. Missouri is a historic case challenging alleged government collusion with major tech companies to censor Americans’ free speech. The complaint filed for the suit cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Morning Joe Mocks Trump In Bomber Jacket: Biden/Obama, Hello?

Morning Joe had great fun today mocking Donald Trump over hosting a dinner at Mar-a-Lago last night for purchasers of his NFT trading cards, which feature Trump in a variety of heroic images. He's George Washington on the Delaware, he's Elvis Presley in a black jumpsuit with shades. But those weren't the ones they mocked. "MSNBC Republican" Elise Jordan singled out one image for particular ridicule: "The bomber jacket. Now, that is really quite a -- what did they do? Take Tom Cruise, and then just put Trump's head on it? I mean, that is actual, just complete propaganda." It apparently didn't occur to Jordan or any of the other panelists that Trump is not the only president with an affinity for bomber jackets. The difference is that people at MSNBC actually worship the coolness of Obama. Do the images below refresh your memory, Elise? CBS News, 2019: "Barack Obama goes viral in custom '44' jacket at Duke-UNC game." GQ, 2019:  "Barack Obama's Bomber Jacket: The Inside Story:The most exciting part of last night's Duke-UNC game took place off the court." Esquire, 2020: "The Story Behind Obama's (Extremely Good) Three-Point Bomber Jacket: The suddenly stylish former President has been rocking one particularly enviable pick from Lululemon." A replica Obama bomber jacket is actually on sale to the public. No word on whether Barack gets a piece of the action.  You can easily Google some embarrassing Obama-Adoration bomber jackets for sale. But apparently, that's on brand for MSNBC.  As long as we're on the subject, may we point out to Jordan that Tom Cruise was also a fictional fighter pilot? It's a mark of how popular culture is more real to some people than actual historical figures, fighter pilots like Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover -- John McCain! -- among others.   Trump's sale of pieces of the suit he wore for his iconic mugshot in the dubious Fani Willis prosecution in Georgia was also the object of great mirth and hilarity, with Scarborough exclaiming "Oh my God! What the holy F is going on here?" And the normally even-handed Willie Geist flatly declared that the pieces of the mugshot suit for sale are "undoubtedly" not from that suit.  Evidence, Willie—or are all accusations against Trump fair game? He may not rival Obama in the movie-star worship, but even Joe Biden fans can buy the "Joe Biden Aviation Jacket" in leather. And don't miss the opportunity to get your own "Biden Harris Peace Love Equality Hope Diversity" bomber jacket on eBay. Elise Jordan should have one of those. The Biden-Harris website seems to prefer those "Dark Brandon" products with the shiny red eyes.  Kamala Harris superfans can just go to the National Archives Store for their "Madam Vice President" polo shirt and cap in pink, not to mention the cartoony "Madam Vice President" socks. Merchandise is bipartisan.  

NB Blog Feed

Can’t Make This Up: WashPost Cites Debunked Study to Push DEI

Two writers for The Washington Post tried to make the case for discriminatory diversity equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI) in an article about DEI’s rebranding. However, they relied on debunked research to do it.  A May 5 article by The Post referenced a pro-DEI study by management consulting firm McKinsey & Company on the “business case for DEI” in response to the increased condemnation aimed at the infamous leftist acronym.  Strikingly, these studies, which linked greater diversity to profitability, had already been ripped to shreds long before May 5. In March 2024, UNC-Chapel Hill Professor of Accounting John R. M. Hand and Texas A&M Associate Professor of Accounting Jeremiah Green exposed these studies, noting that they could not replicate McKinsey’s work.  Green and Hand wrote that their “inability to quasi-replicate [McKinsey’s] results suggests that despite the imprimatur given to McKinsey’s studies, they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives." The Post reporters Taylor Telford and Julian Mark not only ignored Green and Hand’s research but went ahead and cited McKinsey anyway.  “Many large companies see a correlation between a diverse workforce and financial success, and routinely tout the ‘business case’ for DEI,” they wrote. “Companies with the highest racial, ethnic and gender representation are 39 percent more likely to financially outperform, according to a 2023 study by McKinsey & Co. involving more than 1,200 firms worldwide.” Telford and Mark went on to mention that, “In his annual letter to shareholders this year, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon emphasized that DEI ‘initiatives make us a more inclusive company and lead to more innovation, smarter decisions and better financial results for us and for the economy overall.’” But where did Dimon get that idea? McKinsey—of course. JPMorgan leaned on McKinsey’s published fig leaves for discrimination. To this day, JPMorgan cites one of these McKinsey studies “Diversity Matters” on their website: “According to a study conducted by McKinsey & Company diversity creates increased client orientation and a diverse talent pool, which fosters creativity, improves collaboration and results in enhanced employee performance.” When JPMorgan Asset Management CEO George Gatch called diversity, equity and inclusion “critical to our success” in a video, McKinsey once again showed up in the footnotes.  Telford and Mark are correct that many corporate leaders embraced McKinsey’s DEI propaganda. The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh recently went after the former CEO of Intel and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban for using McKinsey as an excuse to push DEI.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of leftist DEI ideology infecting corporate America.

NB Blog Feed

Psaki Claims Being An Ex-Biden Official Makes Her a Better MSNBC Host

Former Biden White House Press Secretary and current MSNBC host Jen Psaki took her book tour to the Wednesday taping of CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where she declared that her history as a Democratic official makes her more qualified to be a host. Meanwhile, she also praised her former boss for halting weapons shipments to Israel. Colbert asked, “I watch your show, I mean, I enjoy it. I just—I would just imagine that, especially as we get closer to the election, that tension's going to be greater for you to stay objective, even if you actually believe in the objectives of the president of the United States.” Psaki downplayed the concerns because her views are well known, “That’s true, but I don't think my views of Donald Trump are a secret. I don't think yours are either, if I'm being honest.”     Wondering if there was a difference, Colbert retorted, “But, I’m not a journalist and I’m not—you know, I’m a professional clown.” The late night comedians have this bit where they want to be political influencers and view their jokes as a more entertaining and thus more effective way to make a political point than a 5,000-word essay that nobody reads, but whenever someone calls them out on it, they revert back to the clown posture. Ironically, Psaki undermined this conceit, “Yeah, I think you’re way more than that, you’re informing the public.” Getting back to her own show, she continued, “I think people who are watching my show, I hope, and this is the North Star we always talk about on our team is, do people come away with a better understanding of a person?” She also claimed, “I don't think it’s a secret, I don’t try to make it a secret. I worked for not just Joe Biden, I worked for Barack Obama, I worked on three presidential campaigns. That’s part of my story. I think I can bring a lot of insights to the public about how these things work, about how campaigns work, and also what’s actually at stake in this election.” Colbert wondered if she could be critical of Biden, but naturally he chose an issue from Biden’s left, “Is there something that you could inform the audience about that might be something that you feel like the Biden Administration is not doing correctly right now? … Much is being made of the fact young voters are turned off to President Biden, especially in light of his continued support of Netanyahu with the tragedy that’s going on in Gaza right now in response to the tragedy of October 7.” Psaki hailed recent news that Biden is halting weapons supplies to Israel, “I do think that there is some leverage we are all seeing being used. Should it have been used earlier? I think the answer is yes to that, but we are seeing them hold back on the sending of weapons. That’s actually a significant sign given that the United States and Israel has a long-standing connection on military support where the United States is a big provider of that.” After Colbert asked if that has happened before, Psaki rolled on, “Not many times before. It has happened before, but not many times before, but that is a significant step. Prime Minister Netanyahu, I would say, is someone who Joe Biden has had a tricky, challenging, difficult relationship with for some time.” Challenging? Yes, but because Netanyahu refuses to outsource Israel’s security to Biden’s Israel-hating base that he is now desperately trying to appease and because Democrats have gotten mad at Netanyahu for the war's length despite their demand he not attack Hamas in Rafah. Here is a transcript for the May 8-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/9/2024 12:05 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: I watch your show, I mean, I enjoy it. I just—I would just imagine that, especially as we get closer to the election, that tension's going to be greater for you to stay objective, even if you actually believe in the objectives of the president of the United States. JEN PSAKI: That’s true, but I don't think my views of Donald Trump are a secret. I don't think yours are either, if I'm being honest. COLBERT: But, I’m not a journalist and I’m not—you know, I’m a professional clown. PSAKI: Yeah, I think you’re way more than that, you’re informing the public. I think— COLBERT: Then I’m not doing my job very well. PSAKI: I think people who are watching my show, I hope, and this is the North Star we always talk about on our team is, do people come away with a better understanding of a person? Maybe it’s Joe Biden, someone running for office, maybe it’s a governor, and an issue, and/or an issue. So, is there an issue misconstrued out there that I can help explain? I don't think it’s a secret, I don’t try to make it a secret. I worked for not just Joe Biden, I worked for Barack Obama, I worked on three presidential campaigns. That’s part of my story. I think I can bring a lot of insights to the public about how these things work, about how campaigns work, and also what’s actually at stake in this election, so— COLBERT: Is there something that you could inform the audience about that might be something that you feel like the Biden Administration is not doing correctly right now? Some constructive information that they wouldn’t even mind hearing from you. For instance, how about outreach to young people right now. Much is being made of the fact young voters are turned off to President Biden, especially in light of his continued support of Netanyahu with the tragedy that’s going on in Gaza right now in response to the tragedy of October 7. PSAKI: Well, I would say, obviously I haven't been in there in two years, but I have worked in diplomacy, I worked for the former secretary of State. I do think that there is some leverage we are all seeing being used. Should it have been used earlier? I think the answer is yes to that, but we are seeing them hold back on the sending of weapons. That’s actually a significant sign given that the United States and Israel has a long-standing connection on military support where the United States is a big provider of that. COLBERT: Has the United States done that many times before? Withheld the weapons? PSAKI: Not many times before. It has happened before, but not many times before, but that is a significant step. Prime Minister Netanyahu, I would say, is someone who Joe Biden has had a tricky, challenging, difficult relationship with for some time.  People don't always see that, that it isn’t often talked about, but in terms of, to go back to your original question about what they could be doing differently, it’s very hard and difficult to explain the nature of diplomacy. It’s just very hard to talk about what’s happening behind the scenes sometimes because if you do, you’ll ruin the diplomatic talks and the conversations, but outreach and connection and listening to young people and hearing from them is certainly an important part of that. He is going to talk to Morehouse University, he is going to do the commencement address there in a couple weeks. That’s a good step. They could be doing more of that and I think that’s an important part of their outreach that they’ll have to do over the next couple months.

NB Blog Feed

Election Interference: CNN Uses Audio of Private Briefing to Falsely Smear GOP’s Scott Perry

With Republicans holding a razor-thin House majority and President Biden struggling to build momentum against former President Trump, there’s no limit to how far the liberal media will go into interfere in the presidential election. Such an odious example came up on Wednesday as CNN.com eagerly published an account using audio from a private House Oversight Committee meeting to falsely paint Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA) as a racist. Typing unofficially on behalf of her liberal sources hellbent on ousting Perry, Annie Grayer bragged of “audio of Perry’s comments shared with CNN” that alleged Perry told colleagues “in a closed door briefing...on Tuesday that the Ku Klux Klan is the ‘the military wing of the Democratic party’ and that migrants coming to the US ‘have no interest in being Americans.’” Grayer further kvetched in the second graph that Perry’s “a right-wing Republican who has repeated elements of the anti-immigrant and antisemitic replacement theory before.” Nowhere in her smear job did Grayer allude to how Perry’s comments came about, what they were in response to, or that private briefings and hearings are meant to be secret with lawmakers and staff largely abiding by that in the name of this thing called trust. It took until a fourth paragraph for Grayer to even quote entire sentences from Perry, which she clearly tried to paint as inaccurate: “The KKK in modern times, a lot of young people think somehow it’s a right-wing organization when it is the military wing of the Democratic Party. Decidedly, unabashedly, racist and antisemitic,” Perry said according to the recording. The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the modern Democratic Party. Ah, splitting hairs, she is! Someone needs a history lesson like we had to provide to USA Today back in 2020. And we should also ask at this point: Will Grayer release the audio? And was what was said before Perry included? Funny how it works with the liberal media and anonymous sources. Grayer then deceptively argued Perry somehow brought up replacement theory out of the blue when one could almost certainly bet it was first invoked as a taunt by a House Democrat (click “expand”): Perry then defended replacement theory, which is the idea that white people are being slowly and intentionally replaced by minorities and immigrants. “Replacement theory is real” Perry said according to the recording shared with CNN. “They added white to it to stop everybody from talking about it.” While Perry said he is happy to accept people “that are here legally,” pointing to his ancestors who migrated to the US, he has an issue with migrants that are “un-American.” “What is happening now is we’re importing people into the country that want to be in America … but have no interest in being Americans, and that’s very different and to disparage the comments is to chill the conversation so that we can continue to bring in more people that we never met that are un-American,” Perry said, according to the recording. Earth to Annie: What part(s) of this are inaccurate? For example, since President Biden took office, there have been 7.5 million border encounters with illegal immigrants and an educated guess of another 1.7 million people who escaped detainment. That certainly doesn’t indicate attempts are made to stem the flow! Grayer also dishonestly refused to note the tail end of her quotation indicated Perry was addressing someone who had attacked him and/or those critical of illegal immigration. Who was that? Follow this link for a list of the Democrats on the committee. Take your best guess! Only at the bottom did she provide a statement from Perry excoriating “the radical Left” for “twist[ing] facts in order to silence conversation about its own crimes and Biden’s intentional failures to enforce laws and close or regulate our borders.” Grayer had no shame as she implied Perry supports mass murders and is even anti-Semitic: Replacement theory is the idea that white people are being slowly and intentionally replaced by minorities and immigrants. The xenophobic and racist rhetoric associated with the theory has found its way into the mainstream of American politics and elements of it appear to have motivated some of the most heinous recent mass murders in the US and around the world. There are specific antisemitic elements of the unfounded theory as well, that Jews specifically are organizing a flood of non-white immigrants.

NB Blog Feed

Bud Light Still an Epic Failure Since Transgender Mulvaney Scandal

Just over one year following Bud Light’s terrible decision to hire transgender influencer and professional toddler Dylan Mulvaney to promote its once pro-America beer, the company's sales are plummeting. Again. According to the first-quarter earnings report released Wednesday, Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light’s parent company, has decreased 9.1% in revenue in the U.S. The news comes more than a year after Mulvaney dressed up as a wannabe Katherine Hepburn with black gloves, pearls and red lipstick in an attempt to help Bud Light sell more beer. Mulvaney was also gifted a custom Bud Light can with his face printed on it, which he drank in a bathtub before posting a video of it to social media last April. Given that the beer is usually consumed by pro-America, country-lovin’ men, the fake girl’s attempt backfired. Bud Light ended up being canned by millions of drinkers across the country and ended up costing the company more than $1 billion in sales. In February, Bud Light attempted to make a comeback with its Super Bowl ads focusing on patriotism and humor - but, as Fox Business pointed out, the company is “still suffering.” Aside from the 9.1% decrease in revenue in America, “sales to retailers in the U.S. were down 13.7%” in the first-quarter earnings," Fox News reported. Essentially, distributors don’t want to buy Bud Light to sell because they know that consumers won't buy it! As former Anheuser-Busch President of Operations Anson Frericks said, “They haven’t done a good job climbing out of this ditch at all,” when talking about how much the wokeness has failed Bud Light. “I think the biggest problem is that they’ve lost trust with their customers,” he added, “and they still haven’t gone out and personally asked for their customers to come back to them and until they restore that trust, I don’t think that this brand is gonna turn around and get back to growth anytime soon.” Honestly, I agree with Frericks. Brands that get" woke" end up going broke, and true comeback stories are few and far between. Related: Trans TikToker Dylan Mulvaney Becomes Bud Light's Newest Spokesperson - No, Really Look at Disney, which started implementing more and more woke crap into its parks, branding and programing and now, is suffering immensely with lack of customer interest and buy-in. Doritos Spain hired a transgender freak to promote its chips and received a ton of pushback. Sports Illustrated recently adopted a more "body-positive" approach to its issue covers and ended up cutting tons of its employees due to the lack of revenue from the failed attempt at appealing to audiences. Even fashion brands that have attempted to gender-neutralize their lines have been canceled. The truth is, people don’t want this woke crap ruining our perfectly good brands, and Bud Light is learning that the hard way. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left Continues To Push Their Fetishes On Normal People We used to have places to put these people. pic.twitter.com/Q9I8qK0qXD — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 7, 2024

NB Blog Feed

PBS NewsHour: Trump's Wild Gestapo Remarks vs. Biden Faces 'Jaded Electorate'

The “Politics Monday” segment of the PBS NewsHour, as hosted by substitute anchor William Brangham, was spicier than usual. Brangham found “controversy” on Trump’s side (no surprise there) but President Biden eluded blame for his poor polling -- blame a “jaded electorate” instead. Brangham: It's already shaping up to be a busy political week, as Republicans navigate the fallout from controversial remarks made by former President Trump at a fund-raiser over the weekend. Meanwhile, six months out from the election, President Biden continues to deal with a jaded electorate, as he wrestles with the political ramifications of the war in Gaza. He was joined by the usual Monday political duo, Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Brangham huffed: Six months out, as I just mentioned, from this election, this weekend, Donald Trump was at this campaign event and he made these comments where he basically equated the Biden White House with the Nazis, saying that they are running a -- quote – ‘Gestapo administration.’ Now, this is, obviously, Amy, the -- just the latest in a long history of Trump saying things like this. But one of his fellow Republicans, one who's vying to be the number two on the Trump ticket, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, came out and defended Donald Trump. Here's what he had to say. Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND): The majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. In sarcasm mode, Brangham interjected his own thought. "So feeling like a trial is unfair is equivalent to being part of the Nazi secret police."  As if Democrats haven’t been calling Trump or all the other Republican presidential candidates some form of “fascist” for time immemorial. Walter lamented how Republicans must suck up to Trump to be his vice presidential candidate, as if that’s a novelty. Kamala Harris didn't have to demonstrate loyalty? Walter: What we are seeing as well, as you pointed out, Doug Burgum reportedly on the short list to be a vice-presidential candidate, is that loyalty to Donald Trump is always important. I think, in a Trump 2.0, it will be very, very top priority in picking who is around him. And so, when we talk about, what are the constraints or what are the restraints or the guardrails around a Trump presidency for things that he says or does, who's going to maybe rein him in, stand up and say no in the way that the vice president, Mike Pence, did, these folks are not saying that they would like to… Brangham: They're saying: I won't do that. Don't worry, boss. NPR’s Keith explained a sort of running mate beauty contest in Palm Beach. She mocked it as comparable to the soapy reality show The Bachelor: Tamara Keith: They brought all of these candidates, potential vice-presidential picks in, and then many of them went out on the Sunday shows. And what they had to do was show their loyalty to former President Trump. As Amy said, he does not want another vice president who will be loyal to him only up until when it matters and when the Constitution is on the line. He wants someone who will go out there and prove and tie themselves in knots, like Senator Tim Scott did on Meet the Press, just tie themselves in knots to stick with the reality that is Trump's reality, even if it is not true. Then Brangham ran the infamous clip from NBC’s Meet the Press of host Kristen Welker hassling Republican Sen. Tim Scott, a possible Trump VP choice, asking him SIX times if he would accept as valid the results of a presidential election that hasn’t taken place yet. No panelist admitted their fellow journalist's questioning was hackishly excessive, though both Keith and Walter agreed it went on “for a long time,” and the PBS clip skipped the part when Scott finally said in frustration, “This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat Party.” The panel then turned to Biden’s poor polling. This snotty segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/6/24 7:45:57 p.m. (ET) William Brangham: It's already shaping up to be a busy political week, as Republicans navigate the fallout from controversial remarks made by former President Trump at a fund-raiser over the weekend. Meanwhile, six months out from the election, President Biden continues to deal with a jaded electorate, as he wrestles with the political ramifications of the war in Gaza. Following this all closely is our Politics Monday duo, Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. So nice to see you both. Happy Monday. Six months out, as I just mentioned, from this election, this weekend, Donald Trump was at this campaign event and he made these comments where he basically equated the Biden White House with the Nazis, saying that they are running a — quote — "Gestapo administration." Now, this is, obviously, Amy, the — just the latest in a long history of Trump… Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report: Yes. Yes. William Brangham: … saying things like this. But one of his fellow Republicans, one who's vying to be the number two on the Trump ticket, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, came out and defended Donald Trump. Here's what he had to say. Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND): A majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. William Brangham: So feeling like a trial is unfair is equivalent to being part of the Nazi secret police. Amy Walter: Well, first, let's talk about the majority of Americans, as the governor said right there, feel that this is unfair, which, according to the most recent poll, the NPR/PBS/Marist poll, that is not true; 54 percent in that poll thought that it's fair. Now, 46 percent think it's unfair. So there are a lot of people… William Brangham: Right. Amy Walter: … who think the way the North Dakota governor does. But if we think that this candidate Trump or a Trump 2.0 president is going to look any different than the candidate we have known since 2016 or the person who was president for four years, you're going to be sorely mistaken. This is the reality of — this is just who Donald Trump is, how he's going to operate, how he is going to speak and behave. What we are seeing as well, as you pointed out, Doug Burgum reportedly on the short list to be a vice presidential candidate, is that loyalty to Donald Trump is always important. I think, in a Trump 2.0, it will be very, very top priority in picking who is around him. And so, when we talk about, well, what are the constraints or what are the restraints or the guardrails around a Trump presidency for things that he says or does, who's going to maybe rein him in, stand up and say no in the way that the vice president, Mike Pence, did, these folks are not saying that they would like to… William Brangham: They're saying: I won't do that. Don't worry, boss. Amy Walter: I'm pretty good with — I'm pretty good with the way that Trump is going to operate. Tamara Keith, National Public Radio: Yes. Right now, we are in the audition phase of the vice presidential pick contest… Amy Walter: Yes. Tamara Keith: … or, like, an episode of "The Bachelor" or something. And he — they had this event in Palm Beach. They brought all of these candidates, potential vice presidential picks in, and then many of them went out on the Sunday shows. And what they had to do was show their loyalty to former President Trump. He — as Amy said, he does not want another vice president who will be loyal to him only up until when it matters and when the Constitution is on the line. William Brangham: Right. Tamara Keith: He wants someone who will go out there and prove and tie themselves in knots, like Senator Tim Scott did on "Meet the Press," just tie themselves in knots to stick with the reality that is Trump's reality, even if it is not true. William Brangham: Let's take a look at what Tim Scott had to say, because he was asked about, will you accept the election results, regardless of who wins? Here's what he had to say. Kristen Welker, Moderator, "Meet the Press": Well, Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line? Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump. And I'm excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment, and… (Crosstalk) Kristen Welker: Wait, wait. Senator, yes or no, yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter who wins? Sen. Tim Scott: That is my statement. William Brangham: I mean, Kristen Welker went back and forth about this multiple times. Tamara Keith: For a long time. Amy Walter: Yes, for a long time. Tamara Keith: And this is relevant because former President Trump is still denying the results of the last election. He is going to Wisconsin and Michigan and saying, oh, no, I actually won here, when he didn't. So, it's entirely relevant whether you will accept the results of the 2024 election. He has also said in that "TIME" magazine interview that — it came out last week — that he doesn't think that there will be violence or any issues, as long as the election is fair. But, at the same time, he is saying that the last election, which was fair, wasn't. William Brangham: Fair meaning, "I won." Tamara Keith: Generally speaking, yes. (Crosstalk) Amy Walter: Yes. William Brangham: Amy, meanwhile, Biden has got polling that again showing not great news for his campaign. We want to put up this graphic here. A majority of the U.S. adults, 54 percent, disapprove of Biden's performance. That is a 3 percent jump since March. Now, that's within the margin of error. Amy Walter: Yes. William Brangham: But it is his worst rating since 2019. I mean, how panicked should that campaign be? Amy Walter: Well, he is deeply unpopular, but he's not that much more unpopular than Donald Trump is. And the poll that you're citing are — the Marist poll. So, Donald Trump's overall approval rating is 42 percent, the president being at 40 percent. Where we sit right now is really fascinating. It feels like we have been — this campaign has been going on for about 100 years, because it basically has. (Laughter) Amy Walter: We're rerunning 2020. William Brangham: You both look great for 100-year-old people. (Laughter) Amy Walter: Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. But the focus right now is on Joe Biden. He's the president now. Obviously, four years ago, it was Donald Trump. If the question is, should we go — which president do you think did a better job in his first term, right now, Trump is winning that argument. And you see in poll after poll when they ask questions about what do you think — who you did a better job on the economy, whose policies do you think have helped you the most, Biden or Trump, Trump is beating Biden on those matters. But if you talk about a campaign, which is about the future, that's the conversation that we haven't really gotten into yet. And that's why you saw even the Tim Scott interview. You hear the surrogates, as well as Donald Trump, talk a lot about, remember back in the days, let's bring us back to those days of four years ago… William Brangham: Right, booming economy. Amy Walter: … when the economy was great and inflation was low. So, remember, remember how great those times were. It's up to the Biden campaign to make the case that — not so much to fight about whether those times were great, but to talk about the next four years and what an administration of Biden's would look like and his policies and compare them to Donald Trump's. Tamara Keith: Which is why the Biden campaign continues to highlight all of the things that Trump says… Amy Walter: Yes. Tamara Keith: … like the Gestapo comments and everything else that he has said, while also really trying to amplify what he is saying he would do… Amy Walter: That's right. Tamara Keith: … and, in particular, on abortion rights, where he is trying not to say what he would do, and on any number of policy matters. In that "TIME" magazine interview, again, where he talked about wanting to round up migrants and… William Brangham: Right, deploy the military inside the U.S. Tamara Keith: Yes. And then he was asked, well, but the military being used on civilians? And he said, oh, no, they're not civilians, which is a pretty significant departure from norms. William Brangham: Right. Amy Walter: Yes. And this — the case hasn't really been prosecuted yet. Tamara Keith: Yes. Amy Walter: Believe it or not, we are still, which feels like either six months, you think, is a long time from now or a very short time from now. I tend to think of it as a short time. I think most normal voters think, well, we're a long way away from the election. William Brangham: So they just haven't dialed in yet. Amy Walter: Yes. And the — and both candidates soon enough will be on the airwaves making their case to voters. Theoretically, there will be debates between these candidates, where the differences between the two will become more of the conversation. William Brangham: Theoretically, on those debates. Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, so nice to see you both. Thank you. Amy Walter: You're welcome. Tamara Keith: Thanks, William.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Only Network To Report Indictment of Laken Riley’s Killer

The murder of University of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley shook the nation, and hammered home the real dangers to which the nation became exposed when the border was flung open on January 20th, 2021. The media has been reluctant to cover the story because it casts Democrats (generally) and President Joe Biden (specifically) in a very bad light. That reluctance continues to this day. CBS Evening News was the only national network newscast to report on the indictment of the illegal alien that murdered Laken Riley. Here is that brief report in its entirety, as aired on Wednesday, May 8th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: The 26-year-old man accused of murdering Georgia nursing student Laken Riley has been indicted by a grand jury on ten new charges, including kidnapping and being a peeping Tom. The suspect, a migrant from Venezuela, is charged with killing the 22-year old while she was jogging on the University of Georgia campus in February. That brief comes in at 20 seconds. Scant, to be sure, but still 20 seconds more than ABC or NBC could muster up. The details are harrowing. Per Fox News: A Georgia grand jury on Tuesday indicted Jose Ibarra, the suspect charged in Augusta University student Laken Riley's murder, on 10 counts, court documents show. Ibarra, a 26-year-old illegal immigrant from Venezuela, is accused of killing Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, while she was out for a run along dirt trails on the University of Georgia campus in Athens on Feb. 22. The grand jury indicted Ibarra on counts of malice murder, two counts of kidnapping with bodily injury, two counts of aggravated assault with intent to rape, two counts of aggravated battery, obstructing or hindering a person from making a 911 call, tampering with evidence and being a "peeping Tom." Ibarra is accused of causing Riley's death by inflicting blunt-force trauma to her head and "asphyxiating her in a manner unknown to jurors," the indictment states. The report goes on to say that Ibarra, who is known to have ties with the murderous Tren de Aragua transnational gang, is suspected of going to the apartment of another person, a UGA staffer, to spy on her as well. The story just gets worse as details emerge. The national news media, bent on protecting Biden, will do everything they can to avoid covering this story, which hammers home the dangers of imposing open-borders policies upon a nation that wants nothing to do with them.  

NB Blog Feed

Yep, the Much-Hyped CNN-Biden ‘Interview’ Was in Fact a Tongue Bath

CNN’s press release announcing anchor Erin Burnett’s sit-down with President Joe Biden promised an interview. Clearly, that didn’t happen. Instead, we got pure, unadulterated Regime Media sycophancy.  Burnett opens the interview with a thematic softball fresh off of Biden’s visit to Microsoft’s new AI data center, to be built on the site of the former Foxconn project in Wisconsin. Biden was allowed to mumble through his talking point set-pieces, with little to no follow-through. You'll be SHOCKED to discover that the former CNBC anchor offers NO pandemic recovery pushback on Biden's job creation whopper. Biden is just allowed to mumble his talking point set pieces unchecked. pic.twitter.com/F9kCD2L3uj — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 About those “100,000” jobs that Burnett and Biden throw around here- it should be noted that the actual site itself expects to generate 2,300 construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs. It’s right there on CNN’s writeup: The new center aims to create 2,300 union construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs over time, according to Microsoft. Microsoft said it will use the center to train about 100,000 workers across the state on generative AI by 2030, thanks in part to a partnership with United Way Wisconsin, United Way Racine and other community partners. It also plans to open a lab on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to help companies and manufacturers infuse the technology into their businesses. Watch for more of the “100,000 jobs” sleight-of-hand, small potatoes for a media that, with the recent and notable exception of Katy Tur, already let Biden get away with claiming pandemic recovery as his creation of 15 million jobs. Watch next, as Burnett frets that Biden might not have enough time to turn the economy around, to which Biden responds “I’ve ALREADY turned it around.” CNN’s @ErinBurnett empathizes with President Biden on economy: “With less than six months to go to Election Day, are you worried that you’re running out of time to turn that around?” pic.twitter.com/598wDxQVxW — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 The biggest and most easily verifiable whopper of the night? Biden claiming that inflation was at 9% when he took office. It was, in fact, at 1.4%, a fact that HAD to have been top of mind for the former CNBC anchor with a background in economics. But alas, no pushback or correction. Simply inexcusable. Another unchecked whopper: Biden claims the inflation rate was 9% when he took office. Inflation was in fact 1.4% in January 2021. pic.twitter.com/hLWJfwjUQa — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 Moving off of the economy, Burnett offered Biden a bridge from which to pander to “the youth vote”, assuming they interrupted their “free Palestine” chants at college campuses and “Little Gaza” encampments in order to watch the interview: Channeling hate agenda of terrorist-supporting anti-Semites. @ErinBurnett to Biden: “Mr. President, signs at college campuses, some say ‘Genocide Joe.’ Many of us who have gone to those campuses, sometimes we hear that chant. Do you hear the message of those young Americans?” pic.twitter.com/7WnPGehQRU — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 Biden also announced the holdup of weapons shipments to our ally Israel over concerns they may be used in Rafah: Beyond 2,000 lb. bombs, Biden has held up artillery shipments to Israel over Rafah concerns. pic.twitter.com/i7nZyZIhuM — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 Now for the January 6th nostalgia portion of the interview: Another softball from @ErinBurnett to Biden to cue up his talking points: “How seriously do you take” Trump’s “threat” to not accept election results? Biden: “The guy is not a democrat with a small d.” pic.twitter.com/JgDYrLff5v — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 And, finally, some Obama revivalism. What advice might the god-king offer Biden these days? “Keep doing what I’m doing”, says Biden. In her last question, @ErinBurnett relays Democratic concerns, noting Barack Obama “has said that this is an ‘all hands on deck moment,’” so “what’s his advice to you when you talk to him?” Biden: “Keep doing what I’m doing.” pic.twitter.com/5528QUrFst — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 Most notably from the panel discussion, Scott Jennings and David Axelrod get into it over the parallels between Biden’s hold of military assistance to Israel, arguably over political considerations (see the aforementioned “youth vote” and the 18% “Uncommitted” vote in the Michigan Democrat primary), and former President Donald Trump’s call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy- which triggered an impeachment.  .@ScottJenningsKY rightly notes parallels between Biden weapons hold and first impeachment of Trump. And, yes, the Michigan primary and 18% uncommitted vote happened AFTER Gaza City and Khan Younis offensives. pic.twitter.com/Jxhj1pWTWX — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 We were promised an interview. Instead, we got a tongue bath from a Regime Media bent on protecting The Precious at all costs.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: A Fun Day on Capitol Hill Truth-Telling About NPR

The House Republicans on the Energy & Commerce Committee invited me to testify on Wednesday about allegations of bias at National Public Radio. The expose by former NPR business editor Uri Berliner galvanized the Republicans to introduce several bills about defunding NPR after more than 50 years of taxpayer support. Is there any hope that NPR will change its biased ways? Don't be wildly optimistic. However, I told them they should hold more hearings and press new NPR CEO Katharine Maher to explain how their content serves all the public, and not just the Democrat fraction. Maher declined this invitation, insisting she had an previously schedule all-day board meeting. We'll hope this committee can find a date to ask her to justify all the tilt we've been exposing.  I reminded Congress that supposedly civil NPR has in the last few years endorsed the book In Defense of Looting, called a book "excellent" that claimed anti-police riots should be called "rebellions," and hailed a movie called How to Blow Up a Pipeline. Then there is their attack on Republicans.  On January 18, 2023, the NPR interview show Fresh Air headlined their show, “How will the hard-right Republicans in Congress wield their newfound power?” Gross began: “Now that Kevin McCarthy has assumed his new role as speaker of the House, a position he won after making concessions to the far right of his party, what can we expect?” Between host Terry Gross and her guest, New York Times reporter Catie Edmondson, they labeled the House Republicans as “far right” or “hard right” 32 times. Democrats apparently don’t have an extreme. Nine days later, on Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep laid out the red carpet for House Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries to announce on the debt-ceiling debate, “We are not going to pay a ransom note to extremists in the other party." Republicans were suicidal in their opposition, Inskeep suggested: “You'd say to Republicans, "Drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel." Jeffries replied: "We're not going to let the car go off the cliff even though there are people who are willing to do it." On the PBS NewsHour, NPR White House reporter Tamara Keith said last October “what's happening in the House is a reflection of a broader divide in the Republican Party, where there's maybe like 20 percent or 30 percent of Republicans who don't want to burn it all down.” Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

NB Blog Feed

Morning Joe Expert: Stormy Daniels' Testimony Hands Defense 'Major Issue' For Appeal

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos has once again proven himself to be an independent thinker, someone who calls them as he sees them and doesn't dutifully toe the liberal media line. In the past, we've noted Cevallos saying that Roe was ripe to be overturned, because there was no constitutional basis for it. More recently, he called a Hunter Biden plea deal not merely a sweetheart deal, but a "gift from Heaven." Cevallos was back at his iconoclastic truth-telling on today's Morning Joe. He repeatedly called Stormy Daniels' testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial a "major issue" available to the defense for the appeal of any possible conviction, which could lead to it being overturned. The notion was that her testimony was excessively prejudicial to Trump. Cevallos analogized the situation to the recent overturning of one of Harvey Weinstein's convictions on the grounds that overly prejudicial testimony had been admitted. Cevallos mentioned that even though trial judge Juan Merchan had rejected a defense motion for a mistrial based on Daniels' testimony, he did acknowledge that some of her testimony perhaps should not have been allowed. Said Cevallos: "If you're a defense attorney, you're marking your notebook, and now you have your first major issue." Concluded Cevallos: Concluded Cevallos: "So if two years from now, we're back here saying, the conviction got overturned: this is terrible! Well, this might be what we look at. And we can say, well, the prosecution took a calculated risk, and it's yielded benefits in the last 24 hours. But maybe in a couple years, those benefits will not have been worth the risk.        Bonus Coverage: Scarborough Bigfoots Mika Again -- And Again! Amid a press report that Mika is fed up with the incessant interruptions of Joe Scarborogh -- her husband co-host -- Scarborough was back at his bigfooting of Mika in the very first minute of today's show. It was clear from Mika's facial expression and body language that she was not pleased. Mika even emitted a "wow" in reaction to Joe's rude recidivism. Scarborough acknowledged that his latest interruption was sure to incite lots of email criticism. And despite asking Mika to forgive him, just three minutes later Scarborough cut Mika off yet again! Mika has forged a side career based on her "Know Your Value" books and conferences. The notion is to encourage and empower women to stick up for themselves in their careers. So, not a good look for Mika to permit herself to be regularly trampled by Bully Boy Scarborough.  View Rude Joe in action here.

NB Blog Feed

Here Are the Best & Worst Moments From the House NPR Hearing with MRC’s Graham

On Wednesday, the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations during a hearing on the decades-long liberal boondoggle that is National Public Radio (NPR). Not surprisingly, he came armed with examples of their virulent bias and hate for conservatives. Joined by Americans for Tax Reform’s James Erwin, the American Enterprise Institute’s Howard Husock, and Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron, Graham took questions from lawmakers that fell into all-predictable camps of Republicans recognizing the problem and Democrats not only denying reality, but accusing critics of NPR of putting the lives of journalists in danger. Before we dive into the highlights and lowlights, here was Graham’s opening statement, which included examples dating back to the 1980s of NPR’s shameless partisan hackery (click “expand”):     I represent the Media Research Center, America’s preeminent conservative media watchdog organization. It was founded in 1987, and I joined up in 1989. We monitor national media outlets on a daily basis and provide daily coverage of the media’s tilt at NewsBusters.org.  Uri Berliner obviously tried to make the point that media bias became a bigger problem when Donald Trump ran for president. We are here to tell you this has been a problem for a very long time. NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg destroyed the Douglas Ginsburg nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, then she tried again with Clarence Thomas in 1991. They energetically channeled the accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and when a man arrived in an Uber on Kavanaugh’s street two years ago with weapons and plans to assassinate Kavanaugh, NPR failed to file a single feature story on it. Nina Totenberg could not be found. NPR, a supposed source of civility, didn’t demonstrate that cared one bit about this potential political violence. But in March, between Morning Edition and Fresh Air, Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was granted an hour of taxpayer-funded air time to reproduce her unproven charges of teenaged sexual assault. Now, most of us, what we remember best has been mentioned. The Exhibit A here of NPR’s bias is the New York Post series on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October of 2020. Most of the so-called “mainstream media” tried to dismiss this story – falsely – as Russian disinformation. But NPR stood out. NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride quoted Terence Samuel, NPR’s Managing Editor for News. He said: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” He dismissed the Post stories as a “politically driven event.” That’s interesting, since you could argue Nina Totenberg’s hostile reporting on Supreme Court nominees created “politically driven events.” Instead of seeking to investigate the Biden family’s influence-peddling, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden’s Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” There wasn’t one word in it about Hunter Biden’s business practices involving his father, which was the point of the Post stories. The pattern continues today. When a House Oversight Committee had a hearing in March that Hunter Biden where he was supposed to appear, NPR’s All Things Considered wouldn’t consider a feature story on it. NPR covered the Pelosi-picked House January 6 Committee live for every minute, and then it couldn’t do a two-minute story on the Biden impeachment inquiry. Instead, the next morning NPR’s homepage was topped the next morning by their hot story: new details on Rupert Murdoch’s British phone-hacking scandal of 2011. NPR’s website did have a Biden mention. White House reporter Deepa Shivaram had a TikTok-like video shoot on President Biden grabbing a trendy boba tea in Las Vegas under the headline “Food stops can tell you a lot about a campaign.” NPR, that network of civility, also has encouraged chaos and disorder in society: On August 27, 2020, NPR’s blog “Code Switch”, with the slogan “Race In Your Face,” posted an interview promoting a new book titled In Defense of Looting. On The NPR Politics Podcast on July 17, 2021,they promoted a book by Yale law professor Elizabeth Hinton saying that protests against policy should not — they shouldn’t be called riots. They should be called “rebellions”. On NPR’s Fresh Air on April 15, 2023, their movie critic John Powers praised the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline, hailing it as “hugely timely”. You know, this is what NPR is doing. They can devote our taxpayer dollars to getting behind looting, rioting, and blowing up pipelines . And yet, NPR represents the Republicans as uniquely extreme. We’ve seen this throughout this Congress where they come on and say, “oh, the hard right Republicans are ruining everything.” Um, they were doing this morning discussing Miss Taylor Greene, but they have had several sappy interviews with Hakeem Jeffries. Steve Inskeep at one said — said, “you say to Republicans drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel.” This is the way they treat Republicans, basically as nutballs who are gonna drive the car off the cliff. You might understand that’s why we might get a little upset. Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) was on the flip side, accusing those investigating NPR’s political tilt of a “disturbing” return to “the dark days of McCarthyism” when, instead, the House should crack down on private “right-wing media organizations that have a long history of peddling misinformation, disinformation, promoting partisan agendas and sowing fear and division.” “Public cynicism about the media doesn’t come from NPR. It comes from the right-wing media,” he added as if to suggest NPR hasn’t done anything itself to harm its reputation. Congresswoman and full committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA) was the first member in the Q&A to speak with Graham, which afforded him the chance to call out Ranking Member Cathy Castor’s (D-FL) for claiming media critics are akin to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and those in the Chinese Communist Party: .@HouseCommerce Chair @CathyMcMorris on @NPR: “Mr. Graham, I’ll start with you. As you’re aware, Mr. [Uri] Berliner, in — wrote this op-ed, and in it, quote, he says, “By 2023, the picture was completely different. Only 11% describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative,… pic.twitter.com/QO7TTwvlMX — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 As the Democratic witness, Aaron served as a stand-in for NPR and lamented to Pallone that the motives of journalists would be questioned. This led Pallone to argue adversarial critiques of the news media are acts of political intimidation. Aaron agreed and said sustained (and outside) criticism of journalists made them “more timid, more cautious, more unwilling to ask hard questions” and thus it’s not only “harder for them to do their job”, but their lives are on the line. Moments later, Congressman Jeff Duncan used his time to lambaste NPR as “a Democrat propaganda machine funded by U.S. tax dollars” and mock the idea they’re providing “objective reporting”: GOP @RepJeffDuncan on @NPR in @HouseCommerce hearing: “You know, I used to drive 65,000 miles a year in my truck and like Mr. [@TimJGraham], I used to listen to NPR a good bit. In fact, I enjoyed All Things Considered. But unfortunately all things aren't considered now. The… pic.twitter.com/11JKUZq1bR — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) went to Graham after noting “there’s a hunger in our society for just plain, unbiased news” that also doesn’t send blood pressures soaring. She asked Graham about what’s needed “to ensure NPR provides impartial coverage and serves a broader audience”:     And, in response to a question from Lesko, Erwin brought up what precipitated the last congressional hearing about NPR (that Graham also testified at), which was “a scandal where local affiliates were sharing donor lists with Democratic Party operatives” and suggested a remedy of allowing taxpayers to opt out of funding NPR (and PBS) on their tax forms. Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) astutely focused on the connection public broadcast has to far-left foundations: .@USRepGaryPalmer at @HouseCommerce hearing on @NPR: “I'd like to respond to my Democratic colleagues concerns about local media and the role that NPR plays in that. There was an article that pointed out that traditional outlets like The New York Times have moved so far to the… pic.twitter.com/pZFCMJKtWf — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Later, Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Aaron fretted it’s “very dangerous” to be “attacking the media” because that’s how “democracies” die:     Sanity was restored when Congressman John Joyce (R-PA) acknowledged that “my constituents in south Central and southwestern Pennsylvania would be a target audience for NPR” with large, rural swaths dependent “on radio for news for emergency alerts and more”, but aren’t as NPR’s squandered away their trust with their liberal biases. Graham explained how NPR has strayed from its mission of representing all voices by explaining how, oftentimes, stories will claim to feature a Republican voice, but said voice will be from, say, Liz Cheney. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) closed out the hearing by adding his voice to what were a parade of voices on the Republican side denouncing NPR CEO Katherine Maher from declining to appear before the committee. He then asked Graham about NPR’s future with Maher (click “expand”):     CRENSHAW: [Y]ou’ve collected a pretty impressive assortment of NPR’s failures on — and — and failures to have unbiased reporting. Give us your thoughts on that and is Ms. Maher a good — a good fit to change course? GRAHAM: Oh, I don’t think there’s any intention to change course. I think that’s why she was selected. It would be interesting to hear her try to explain, you know, what it is that they’re trying to do, because when we listen to this radio network on a regular basis, it’s quite clear. You can understand why the Democrats don’t want to have a hearing about this. It works very, very well for them, right? You can understand why the gentleman from Free Press has to say he’s not here to represent public broadcasting, but they’re very closely affiliated and fight for the funding together. You know, obviously, Democrats like the system exactly as it is right now. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: And so, the very least we can do is — yes, have the CEO in and try to explain who in there is doing anything to suggest maybe we should have a more balanced set of interviews. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: Let’s — let’s have a more balanced set of journalists. You won’t see anybody from Fox News on NPR. CRENSHAW: No, and you would think that’s what the whole point — if you’re gonna do unbiased media, then it has to be unbiased. Biased media is okay. You know, just — just admit it, though. MSNBC does not try to claim that it’s unbiased. I don’t even think Fox tries to claim it’s unbiased anymore. It’s just not right. It’s we’ve had. We’ve had biased media in this country since their founding, but if you’re going to be a taxpayer-funded media company, you actually have to adhere to the principles of — of unbiased news broadcasting or say the quiet part out loud and maybe that’s the benefit of the new CEO. She has said the quiet part out loud, pretty clearly. And so, there can be no — there can be no question about what direction NPR is headed and it — and it can be simply written off and maybe we should — we should look at ways to defund it. How — how would we in Congress, perhaps, some suggestions on how we would change course in NPR? To see the relevant transcript from the hearing on May 8, click here.

NB Blog Feed

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Says TikTok Legal Filing 'Gives Away the Game'

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr roasted TikTok’s “arrogance” as it attempts to escape severing its ties with the communist Chinese government. Last month, President Joe Biden signed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese-controlled parent company, ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok, or risk being banned from the U.S. market entirely. On Tuesday, TikTok responded to the bill with a legal challenge, claiming that divestiture is “impossible” and “infeasible.” But Carr is not buying it. “While TikTok trots out the expected grab bag of arguments, it adopts a strange strategy of ignoring the reason for the law,” Carr stated in an X post. “TikTok wants this to be a case about the content of its speech. It is not. It is about TikTok's malign conduct - conduct the Constitution doesn't protect.” Carr further addressed some of TikTok’s ludicrous claims in a follow-up post in which he said that “TikTok's legal filing gives away the game in several ways” and noted the platform’s continued hypocrisy as it is once again caught red-handed. “Despite claiming independence from Beijing, TikTok now concedes that it is the CCP (not TikTok) that controls the fate of its algorithm and foreign commercial transactions,” Carr noted.  Indeed, in its legal filing, TikTok admitted as much when it claimed that China’s regulation of exported technologies would prevent divestiture. “[T]he Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is key to the success of TikTok in The United States,” the platform wrote in its legal complaint launched against Attorney General Merrick Garland. Carr similarly drew attention to TikTok’s claim that it would be “impossible” to transfer its source code to a new owner. “Despite claiming for years that TikTok's national security threat could be addressed by having U.S.-based engineers inspect its millions of lines of code, TikTok now says that outside engineers would be unable to understand the complex code,” Carr wrote. In a third post, the FCC commissioner summed up the communist Chinese government-controlled platform’s flagrant and consistent pattern of claiming one thing and doing another as “arrogance.” “Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show ‘everything is seen in China,’” Carr declared. “Arrogance is claiming that TikTok U.S. is independent while former employees have made clear that Beijing-based personnel are calling the shots,” he later added. Carr went on ultimately concluding: “Arrogance is believing that TikTok could present a clear and present danger to U.S. national security and America would simply allow that threat to persist. Our Constitution compels no such result.” Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show "everything is seen in China." Arrogance is denying that TikTok illicitly surveilled the locations of Americans (and deriding the reporting as lacking "journalistic… https://t.co/qB0Gx7Ws9v — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) May 8, 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 so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Says TikTok Legal Filing 'Gives Away the Game'

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr roasted TikTok’s “arrogance” as it attempts to escape severing its ties with the communist Chinese government. Last month, President Joe Biden signed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese-controlled parent company, ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok, or risk being banned from the U.S. market entirely. On Tuesday, TikTok responded to the bill with a legal challenge, claiming that divestiture is “impossible” and “infeasible.” But Carr is not buying it. “While TikTok trots out the expected grab bag of arguments, it adopts a strange strategy of ignoring the reason for the law,” Carr stated in an X post. “TikTok wants this to be a case about the content of its speech. It is not. It is about TikTok's malign conduct - conduct the Constitution doesn't protect.” Carr further addressed some of TikTok’s ludicrous claims in a follow-up post in which he said that “TikTok's legal filing gives away the game in several ways” and noted the platform’s continued hypocrisy as it is once again caught red-handed. “Despite claiming independence from Beijing, TikTok now concedes that it is the CCP (not TikTok) that controls the fate of its algorithm and foreign commercial transactions,” Carr noted.  Indeed, in its legal filing, TikTok admitted as much when it claimed that China’s regulation of exported technologies would prevent divestiture. “[T]he Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is key to the success of TikTok in The United States,” the platform wrote in its legal complaint launched against Attorney General Merrick Garland. Carr similarly drew attention to TikTok’s claim that it would be “impossible” to transfer its source code to a new owner. “Despite claiming for years that TikTok's national security threat could be addressed by having U.S.-based engineers inspect its millions of lines of code, TikTok now says that outside engineers would be unable to understand the complex code,” Carr wrote. In a third post, the FCC commissioner summed up the communist Chinese government-controlled platform’s flagrant and consistent pattern of claiming one thing and doing another as “arrogance.” “Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show ‘everything is seen in China,’” Carr declared. “Arrogance is claiming that TikTok U.S. is independent while former employees have made clear that Beijing-based personnel are calling the shots,” he later added. Carr went on ultimately concluding: “Arrogance is believing that TikTok could present a clear and present danger to U.S. national security and America would simply allow that threat to persist. Our Constitution compels no such result.” Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show "everything is seen in China." Arrogance is denying that TikTok illicitly surveilled the locations of Americans (and deriding the reporting as lacking "journalistic… https://t.co/qB0Gx7Ws9v — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) May 8, 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 so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Whoopi to Trump: ‘If You Didn't Do It, Why Are You in the Court?’

The View has championed so-called “criminal justice reform” efforts, praised cases of convicted criminals getting rulings overturned, and condemned former President Trump for his past calls to convict the Central Park Five. But on Wednesday’s edition of The View, moderator Whoopi Goldberg lashed out at Trump and proclaimed that he wouldn’t be in court if he didn’t commit the crimes he was accused of. Goldberg’s bitter rant came at the conclusion of their first segment when they reacted to the court testimony of porn star Stormy Daniels. Just before going to a commercial break, she popped off about how Trump being in court was all the evidence needed to prove he was guilty: GOLDBERG: You know, I just think if you didn't do it, why are you in the court? (…) GOLDBERG: Why are you there? (…) GOLDBERG: You brought this on yourself. You did this to you. Nobody did this to you. You told the untruth. You took stuff. This is on you. This isn't them. It isn't the judge. This is yours. Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin suggested that Trump’s refusal to testify also proved his guilt and “comedian” Joy Behar added that “O.J. didn’t take the stand either.”     Earlier in the segment, Farah Griffin whined that “This whole trial” was giving her “the ick.” She was “so frustrated it's the first trial that we're seeing of Trump and potentially only before the election.” Farah Griffin lamented that Daniels’ testimony was a “mixed bag.” She claimed the porn star, who has lied publically, was “a credible person” but “hurt her credibility” by giving “salacious details” about her alleged affair with Trump. “We all met her. We had her on the show,” she reminded the rest of the cast. “I would have liked to hear from Stormy who is a mom, who wants to live a private life, wants to put this behind her, has been exploited by countless men in her life, Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti. And she’s there under subpoena just to confirm what she's able to.” Always able to prioritize the important things, Behar spouted off about how she didn’t “trust” Trump with the nuclear codes because he allegedly didn’t “think to wear a condom when he's having sex with a porn star.” Without evidence, Behar also decried the documents case in Florida getting pushed back by claiming Trump “could have given [the documents] to any dictator in the world!” “He may not go to jail for this but the American people can see what he is. He's a despicable person and we have to remember that,” she tried to calm herself down. What was actually worth remembering was that last year, The View decried the legal notion that Trump was entitled to a fair trial. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 8, 2024 11:04:58 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: This whole trial is giving me the ick. I'm so frustrated it's the first trial that we're seeing of Trump and potentially only before the election. Here’s my thing. Stormy’s testimony was a mixed bag for me. So, we all met her – JOY BEHAR: It was a what? FARAH GRIFFIN: Mixed bag. We all met her. We had her on the show. I actually don’t believe she needed to into salacious detail. I would have liked to hear from Stormy who is a mom, who wants to live a private life, wants to put this behind her, has been exploited by countless men in her life, Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti. And she’s there under subpoena just to confirm what she's able to. SUNNY HOSTIN: She said some of that. FARAH GRIFFIN: But I think if you're a juror – cause then she is showed to have lied on Jimmy Kimmel and then she gets into these salacious details. I think it hurt her credibility and she is a credible person. I absolutely believe that this affair took place. BEHAR: I thought it was very – go ahead. FARAH GRIFFIN: But my two things. There’s two things they have to prove: the campaign finance side of it. I think that's been proved. I think a consideration was how it would affect his campaign. But the falsifying business records, that’s tough. HOSTIN: Why? Why do you think it’s tough? FARAH GRIFFIN: He signed some things but he’s going to say, “I run an organization with thousands of employees, I make a lot of money, I sign things all the time my attorneys put in front of me.” (…) 11:07:25 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: I don't trust a guy with the nuclear codes who doesn't think to wear a condom when he's having sex with a porn star. I'm sorry. I think that it may – as you say, the other one down in Florida Cannon, that judge needs to be taken to task because she keeps kicking the can down the road on that whole trial – HOSTIN: It's indefinite now. BEHAR: - with the documents, which he could have given to any dictator in the world! And we’re not going to see that until after he's in office and then he’ll probably get rid of everybody who disagrees with him! But – He may not go to jail for this but the American people can see what he is. He's a despicable person and we have to remember that. (…) 11:10:47 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: You know, I just think if you didn't do it, why are you in the court? FARAH GRIFFIN: Or testifying. BEHAR: Get on the stand! FARAH GRIFFIN: He won’t. GOLDBERG: Why are you there? FARAH GRIFFIN: Because he will not be able to say “I did not have sex with that woman.” BEHAR: O.J. didn’t take the stand either. GOLDBERG: You brought this on yourself. You did this to you. Nobody did this to you. You told the untruth. You took stuff. This is on you. This isn't them. It isn't the judge. This is yours. BEHAR: Look in the mirror. GOLDBERG: We'll be right back.

NB Blog Feed

Peterson, Elon Musk Have Choice Words About ‘Most Orwellian’ Law

Clinical psychologist and podcast host Jordan B. Peterson and X owner Elon Musk were flabbergasted by Canada’s latest infringement on civil liberties, anti-hate speech bill C-63. On May 7, Musk and Peterson responded to Canada's proposed “hate” speech bill. The bill, called. “Online Harms Bill C-63,” would implement fines of up to $50,000 on individuals who post “content that foments hatred” or “that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.”  Musk initially responded to an X post by user Camus, who pointed out that C-63 would enable ex post facto fines for “hate speech” on social media. “This sounds insane if accurate!” wrote Musk. This sounds insane if accurate!@CommunityNotes, please check https://t.co/RB1Ea0upTk — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 7, 2024 Jordan Peterson seconded Musk’s sentiments and expressed his alarm over the bill, saying it was reminiscent of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Mr. Musk@elonmusk It's much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a "hate crime" might (might) be committed. It's the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West:https://t.co/oSqX3pxiBB — Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) May 7, 2024 “It’s much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a ‘hate crime’ might (might) be committed,” Peterson posted at Musk. “It’s the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West:” Peterson has previously been very critical of the new bill and even dedicated a nearly two-hour interview with TRIGGERnometry host Konstantin Kisin and Canadian lawyer Bruce Pardy to point out why it is dangerous. “It is the most totalitarian Western bill I’ve ever seen,” said Peterson during the April 22 interview.  C-63 would create a new Digital Safety Commission to maintain compliance with the law by “social media operators” and to work with said companies to develop new regulations that would define government-sanctioned speech.   The bill would mandate that social media operators allow users to flag content as harmful. It would also require operators to designate a “resource person” to process claims against harmful content and “direct users to internal and external resources to address their concerns” including “the [Digital Safety] Commission or a law enforcement agency.” Under the bill, social media companies must create “digital safety plans” to be shared with the Digital Safety Commission. Social media operators that refuse to comply or hinder the Commission would be subject to heavy fines of “not more than 8% of the operator’s gross global revenue or $25 million, whichever is greater…” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

NB Blog Feed

Levin NUKES ‘Linguini’ Biden, Media ‘Censorship’ Downplaying Oct. 7, Touting Hamas

Back on Saturday during his Fox News Channel Show Life, Liberty, & Levin, our friend and conservative talk radio legend Mark Levin used his opening monologue to torch President Biden and his allies in the liberal media for downplaying the animalistic October 7, 2023 terror attacks by Hamas on innocents in Israel the further we get from the attacks to commiserate with Gazans (despite their reported widespread support for their government’s attacks). Levin began by tearing into Biden’s brief May 2 speech about the pro-Islamic terrorism college students, calling it “not so much a speech” and instead “a statement” by a “pathetic” man with “linguini for a spine” and who’s “ so thoroughly pathetic” with “no moral center”.     Biden continued, taking issue with the media’s refusal to show (or even return to) the graphic footage from the attacks: How many news organizations, how many news platforms have played for you the video of what took place on October 7? Well, a lot of it. It’s on the internet. We have a lot of it because the monsters who perpetrated those heinous crimes of inhumanity, they took the video. They are very proud of it. The video was captured by the IDF, the Israelis. As I say, it is online. There’s a 47-minute video that shows in excruciating detail how the Islamist Hamas Nazis murdered people, raped people, butchered people, burned them alive, decapitated them, cut off their breasts, shot them in the groin. Oh, there’s all kinds of stuff — mass rape. Have you ever seen it on TV? Cable or network. No, you haven’t. Why? You haven’t even seen video that doesn’t show the worst of it, video where the terrorists are just going through the Nova festival field showing — showing of the kids they murdered, shot in the back, shot in the chest, shot in the head. Have you seen any of that on TV? No, you haven’t seen any of it. “[W]e don’t get video in our media, our main media of October 7. Oh, it is too gruesome. Instead, we get these looped videos over and over again of buildings in Gaza that have been destroyed because Hamas either destroyed them or they had the terrorists there, or they had their munitions there, and of course, it’s Israel’s fault,” he lamented. Levin dropped the hammer: “[Y]ou won’t see the video that exists. Why is that? It’s called censorship. That’s why. The American media is censoring what took place on October 7. Again, you can see it online, but the mass media where most people go for their news, you won’t see it. It is being covered up.” Levin expanded on this contrast and the lengths General Dwight D. Eisenhower went to ensure the horrors left behind were broadcast (click “expand”): When soldiers of the Fourth Armored Division entered the camp, they discovered piles of bodies, some covered with lime, others partially incinerated on pyres. The ghastly nature of their discovery led General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe to visit the camp on April 12th, with Generals George S. Patton and Omar Bradley.And after his visit, Eisenhower cabled General George C. Marshall, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Washington, describing his trip to the death camp. He said, “the things I saw beggar description...The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering so as to leave me a bit sick...I made the visit deliberately in order to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’” Eisenhower’s cable to Marshall on April 19, 1945, and I quote: “We continue to discover German concentration camps for political prisoners, which conditions of indescribable horror prevail.” From Eisenhower to General Marshall for eyes only. “I visited one of these myself, and I show you that whatever has been printed on them today has been understated. If you would see any advantage and asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to take a short visit to this theater in a couple of C-54s, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places, where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering, as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. I am hopeful that some British individuals in similar categories will visit the northern area to witness similar evidence of atrocities.” And then Eisenhower the same day received this response: “Your proposal has been cleared and approved by the Secretary of War and the President.” — Truman — “Plans are being formulated and you will be kept advised.” This is what Eisenhower wrote in “Crusade in Europe” in its pages in his book: “The same day, [April 12, 1945], I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I’ve never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face-to-face with the indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I’m certain however, that I’ve never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock. I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at firsthand about these things in case they ever grew up at home, the belief or assumption that the stories of Nazi brutality were just ‘propaganda’. Some members of the visiting party were unable through the ordeal to go through it. I only did so, but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening, I’d sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany, a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that will leave no room for cynical doubt.” He said: “Of all these displaced persons, the Jews were in the most deplorable condition. For years, they’d been beaten, starved, and tortured.” And in Ike, the Soldier: As They Knew Him, Merle Miller quotes Eisenhower speaking on April 25, 1945 to members of Congress and the journalists who had been shown Buchenwald the day before. He said: “You saw only one camp yesterday, there are many others. Your responsibilities, I believe, extend into a great field at informing the people at home of things like these atrocities is one of them...Nothing is covered up. We have nothing to conceal. The barbarous treatment of these people received in the German concentration camps is almost unbelievable. I want you to see for yourself and be spokesman for the United States.” Back in 2024, Levin noted the lack of (constant) focus on the horrors on October 7 by the liberal media is because “they are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists to Iran, to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to the PLO” as well as “their front organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Jewish Vote, CAIR” and “the Marxist and Islamist professors”. Later, Levin powerfully concluded that not only will history look poorly on Biden, but the President and his allies in academia who’ve “given aid and comfort to the modern Nazis, in Iran, Hamas, and in our own country, the Hitler Youth and the imams that spew their hate” will be remembered like those in the 1930s and 1940s who “gave aid and comfort to Nazi Germany”. To see the relevant Fox transcript from May 4, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Acosta Practically Begs IDF Spox To Give Up Fight Against Hamas

IDF spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner admirably managed to calmly, but firmly educate CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta on Wednesday that there is “no magic wand” that will force Hamas to surrender amid Acosta’s pestering and insistence that enough is enough. As a White House correspondent during the Trump years, Acosta portrayed himself as an uncompromising fighter for truth. Now, in May 2024, Acosta put that aside for the idea that if a position is popular, it must be valid, “But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that.”     He further added, “I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now.” Lerner began his response by mourning, “The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations.” He continued, “Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal—” Acosta then interrupted, “The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” As Acosta was repeating his argumentum ad populum, Lerner asked, “So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas?” Ignoring that critical question, Acosta rolled on, “You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much.” Lerner then repeated his own question, “The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?” Neither Acosta nor any of the groups he cited as a good answer to that. They have no knowledge, let alone, expertise, in military matters, but feel they get to lecture Israel on precisely that. They claim Hamas shouldn’t rule Gaza and then demand Israel stop its war on Hamas. They add that the suffering has gone on for too long and then demand Israel adopt policies that would prolong the war and hence, the suffering. It’s enough to drive a lesser man than Lerner insane. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: CNN Newsroom 5/8/2024 11:26 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that. I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now. PETER LERNER: The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations. Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal— ACOSTA: The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” LERNER: So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas? ACOSTA: -- You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much. LERNER: The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?

NB Blog Feed

ABC, CBS Ignore TikTok Admitting They’re Controlled By the Chinese Gov

During their Wednesday newscast, ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS Mornings boasted that TikTok was talking the American government to court because the company refused to comply with American law. The networks boosted TikTok’s claims in their legal filing that the law violated the First Amendment and their suggestion that members of Congress were hypocrites for having TikTok accounts, but what they failed to disclose to their audiences was the fact that those same filings proved that the Chinese Communist Party controlled TikTok. In their filing, TikTok admits: “Third, the Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States … By doing so, the Chinese government clearly signaled that it would assert its export control powers with respect to any attempt to sever TikTok’s operations from ByteDance, and that any severance would leave TikTok without access to the recommendation engine that has created a unique style and community that cannot be replicated on any other platform today.” ABC senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott trumpeted that “TikTok is taking on the federal government, setting up a showdown in court over free speech and national security.” Ignoring the fact the filing admitted they were taking orders from the Chinese government, Scott framed their lawsuit as an act of brave defiance. “TikTok's parent company is making it clear they cannot and will not be selling the platform,” she proclaimed. Scott concluded her report by touting: “The bottom line, TikTok will remain available in the United States as this plays out in the courts.”     Over on CBS, correspondent Scott MacFarlane parroted TikTok’s talking points that “it's being asked to do the impossible -- to be divested or sold to an approved buyer by their China-based owner ByteDance within months or face a ban in the United States.” “They say that's a violation of the First Amendment and that they're being singled out because of their ties to China,” he added. While ignoring the part of TikTok’s filing that admitted that they were controlled by the Chinese Government, MacFarlane quoted another: In their new legal petition, they say, “There's no question the act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19th, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.” “The company denies those allegations and has asked a court to delay or stop enactment of this law. And they note in their legal petition many of the members of Congress who passed the law, Natalie, have and use TikTok accounts themselves,” he chided. Meanwhile, on NBC’s Today, correspondent Savannah Sellers quoted the damaging part of the filing but failed to connect the dots: TikTok and ByteDance arguing the law’s requirement to divest “disregarded less extreme alternatives” and “is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally.” Going on to say: “The Chinese government has made it clear it would not permit a divestment...” Lawyers also arguing that TikTok is protected under the First Amendment's guarantee freedom of expression. The networks still refused to mention that TikTok users had threatened to kill a U.S. Senator and commit suicide after TikTok directed their users to contact their congressional representatives. The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America May 8, 2024 7:13:43 a.m. Eastern ROBIN ROBERTS: Now to TikTok suing the federal government over the law that would force its Chinese owners to sell the video-sharing app. Our senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott has the latest. Good morning to you, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: Hey, Robing. Good morning to you. TikTok is taking on the federal government, setting up a showdown in court over free speech and national security. It has been two weeks since the President signed that bipartisan bill into law that forces TikTok's Chinese parent company to either sell the app or face a total ban in the United States. Well, this morning, TikTok's parent company is making it clear they cannot and will not be selling the platform. So, on one end of this, you have a bipartisan group of lawmakers, even the President, they are arguing that TikTok poses a national security risk and that by using the platform the Chinese government could have access to your data, including your browsing history, even your location. TikTok denies those allegations. They say it would take years for them to find a new set of engineers to figure out how to program the platform and that it would force a shutdown of the app here in the United States by January of next year. They also argue a ban infringes on the rights of 170 million Americans who use the platform here in the United States. In this lawsuit, TikTok also points out that the Biden campaign continues to use the platform even after the President signed that bill into law. They insist that completely undermines their argument that it poses a risk to Americans’ safety. The bottom line, TikTok will remain available in the United States as this plays out in the courts. Michael. MICHAEL STRAHAN: All right, Rachel. Thank you very much for that. CBS Mornings May 8, 2024 7:24:21 a.m. Eastern NATALIE MORALES: TikTok is going to court to try to stop a new law that could lead to a nationwide ban on the social media giant. It says the law demanding that it sever ties with its China-based parent company would stifle free speech. However, supporters of the measure say it is essential for national security. Scott Macfarlane is on Capitol Hill. Scott, good morning. SCOTT MACFARLANE: Natalie, good morning. TikTok says it's being asked to do the impossible -- to be divested or sold to an approved buyer by their China-based owner ByteDance within months or face a ban in the United States. They say that's a violation of the First Amendment and that they're being singled out because of their ties to China. In their new legal petition, they say, “There's no question the act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19th, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.” Congress overwhelmingly and swiftly passed this law arguing TikTok’s ties to China are a national security concerned and risk the private data of its users. One House committee chair says TikTok is like a spy balloon in your phone. The company denies those allegations and has asked a court to delay or stop enactment of this law. And they note in their legal petition many of the members of Congress who passed the law, Natalie, have and use TikTok accounts themselves. MORALES: So interesting. All right, Scott. We'll be following this one.

NB Blog Feed

Media Panic that Pro-Hamas Campus Protests May Hurt Biden, 'Like 1968'

After weeks of defending pro-hams campus protests, the media are now panicking that those same protests might hurt biden’s re-election chances. In the past week, a slew of political commentators have written articles comparing the current situation on college campuses to the anti-war protests of 1968, and warning that a summer of radical leftism may clinch the 2024 election for Donald Trump. CNN’s Jake Tapper put it best during the April 29 edition of The Lead: When you look at these protests, these images, when you see the controversies about the ones that have an antisemitic element, and on and on, just like what you’re seeing on the side of your screen right now. Do you think to yourself... “Wow, this is a real in-kind contribution to Donald Trump.” The corporate media are certainly aware that these protests are unpopular. But rather than condemn them outright, their focus is instead on what that means for their preferred Presidential candidate. Watch:

NB Blog Feed

Macklemore New Song: 'Screamin' Free Palestine 'Til They're Home At Last'

It seems that celebrities will do absolutely anything to remain relevant. In Macklemore’s latest attempt to stay at least somewhat popular, the 40-year-old rapper released a song called “Hind’s Hall,” which is all about the liberation of Palestine.  “Block the barricade until Palestine is free,” the first verse of the song reads, as well as the line “f**k the police.” Macklemore continues with his pro-Palestine rhetoric in verse two, calling out the elites who aren’t pro-Palestine with: “Seen the rubble, the buildings, the mothers and the children and all the men that you murdered, and then we see how you spin it.” How they spin it? Like how Macklemore is spinning the narrative to insist that Palestine is some innocent country that played no part in the brutal terrorist attack involving kidnaping, rape and murder of innocent Israeli citizens? Sure, Macklemore. “Screamin’ “Free Palestine” ‘til they’re home at last (Woo),” he said. Macklemore also calls out President Joe Biden in the third verse, which begins with, “Claimin’ it’s antiSemetic to be anti-Zionist / I’ve seen Jewish brothers and sisters out there and ridin’ in," and ends with, “The blood is on your hands, Biden, we can see it all / And f**k no, I’m not votin’ for you in the fall.” Related: Terrorists in Training: Pro-Hamas 'Protesters' Vandalize WWI Memorial in Central Park, Burn American Flag In the last portion of the song, Macklemore insists that he’s glad he’s an independent artist, suggesting if he belonged to a label, he’d probably be dropped.  “I’d be fine with it ‘cause the heart fed my page / I want a cease fire, f**k a response from Drake," he raps. The music video for the song featured police officers dealing with violent pro-Palestine protestors, Palestinian flag-waving, and a video montages of  legislators - I assume ones who Macklemore thinks could do more for the Palestinian people. HIND’S HALL. Once it’s up on streaming all proceeds to UNRWA. pic.twitter.com/QqZEKmzwZI — Macklemore (@macklemore) May 6, 2024 In response to Macklemore’s attempt of a roast in a song, both those in support of his message and those against it responded. Fox News freelance opinion editor Dan Gainor condemned Macklemore, telling him, “You support gang rape and murder,” pointing out the number of innocent Israeli citizens who’ve fallen victim to Hamas attacks.  “Just deleted every song I ever had of yours,” a different user wrote, while investigative journalist Laura Loomer called Macklemore “a straight up retard” and a “f**king moron.”  Others disagreed, writing things like, “as a Palestinian we appreciate this” and “this has a great lyrically message.” Ultimately, while Macklemore is entitled to his opinion, can’t he just stick to writing music about girls or something instead of virtual signaling until ends meet?! Seriously, this is not even entertaining. Follow MRCTV on X: Things That Need To Be Said: I Don't Care Leftists cry and scream about "freedom for Palestine," but these entitled brats have no idea the real problems facing America. pic.twitter.com/MuAuXPt4x2 — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 6, 2024

NB Blog Feed

Worst Censorship of April: Are Meta Platforms Stepping Up Censorship?

Spring was in the air and snow melting in April, but Big Tech platforms — especially Meta’s — continued to freeze free speech. Utilizing its unique CensorTrack.org database, which has logged 6,745 cases as of publication, MRC Free Speech America tracked censorship across multiple platforms in April. Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram seemed particularly determined to suppress free speech, targeting content that included an anti-communist meme and criticism of President Joe Biden’s border crisis. Google-owned YouTube, meanwhile, continued its election interference by censoring a high-profile Independent presidential candidate.  And while Meta’s censorship only made up 9 out of a total of 28 cases in April, the Zuckerberg-led platforms’ speech suppression packed more of a punch.  Below are the worst cases of censorship from April. Humorless Meta targets memes. Both Facebook and Instagram censored satirical memes this past month. Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a “pro-liberty organization on America's college campuses,” posted a meme on Facebook of horses standing under an immense table and chairs in a field with the caption, “This farm owner was denied a council permit to build a horse shelter. Fortunately, you don't need a permit to build a table and chairs.” YAL commented, “What a nice table.” Facebook slapped a fact-check label on the post calling it “partly false” and linked to articles from Check Your Fact and Lead Stories. Reportedly, the German farmer wasn’t denied a permit but did build the table shelter to avoid regulations.  Instagram, meanwhile, put a sensitive content filter on an Atlas Society post of a meme showing Care Bears with the caption, “What communists think they do.” The next image was of a firing squad with text saying, “What they actually do.” Instagram asserted the meme “may contain graphic or violent content," and required users to click through in order to view the meme. Facebook has found that users fail to click through similar interstitials 95 percent of the time. Instagram attempts to restrict followers of an account critical of LGBTQ ideology. On April 17, 2023, users started sharingscreenshots of an Instagram notice that popped up when users tried to follow Libs of TikTok. “Are you sure you want to follow libsoftiktokofficial? This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or went against our Community Guidelines,” the notice read. The notice disappeared by April 18, and no clarification was offered on the platform’s reasoning. Google-owned YouTube censors one of President Joe Biden’s opponents. YouTube imposed a fact-checking label on a video of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation show. Kennedy aimed to “clarify [his] position on January 6” during the appearance. YouTube slapped a context label on the video with a link to the Wikipedia page for the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The label asserted, “On Jan. 6, 2021, the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., was attacked by a mob of supporters of then-U.S. president Donald Trump, two months after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.” Facebook disabled the account of a show host for criticizing radical Islamic terrorists. Daniel Greenfield, a journalism fellow for FrontPage Magazine’s David Horowitz Freedom Center, declared on April 15 that Facebook had disabled FrontPage Editor Jamie Glazov’s account as of April 4 for discussing Islamic terrorism. Facebook reportedly objected to a “Glazov Gang” interview headlined  “Oct. 7 Coming to the USA?” The platform alleged that the interview, which discussed terrorists crossing into America through the open southern border, violated its “community standards” and threatened “the security of people on Facebook,” according to Greenfield. Glazov’s account appears to have been restored by Facebook. Instagram censors critique of IRS for no clear reason. The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) posted an image of a Hanna Cox tweet on its Instagram page, stating, “There are 724 billionaires in the US and 87,000 new IRS agents. They're not going after the rich, cupcakes. They're coming for you.” Instagram then imposed a “Missing Context” label on FEE’s post, asserting, “The same information was reviewed by independent fact-checkers in another post.” Clicking on the warning, though, only brought up the message, “This information is not available.”

NB Blog Feed

I TOLD YOU SO: CBS’s Latest Trump Smear Unraveled In Less Than A Week

One of the risks inherent to Regime Media, as opposed to performing legitimate fact-based journalism, is that their Trump Derangement Syndrome drives them to say things that are easily debunkable or quickly proven wrong. Take, for example, CBS’s Chief White House Correspondent Nancy Cordes. During her report last week fretting the effect the pro-Hamas campus protests might have upon President Joe Biden’s reelection prospects, she threw in a 15-second non-sequitur accusing former President Donald Trump of making an “unfounded claim about campus demonstrators”- a fancier and more succinct “without evidence”. We flagged it the time, and memorialized it via X in anticipation of the inevitable: Laying down this marker for when it is discovered that at least ONE (1) foreign-born student and/or outside agitator was paid by some radical oligarch-funded organization. pic.twitter.com/kR0GYRjIU0 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 3, 2024 As we said when covering her broader report: Cordes’ shootdown of Trump’s statement so early into the protest fallout is arrogant to the point of recklessness. All it takes is ONE paid foreign student/agitator in order to make Cordes look like a total fool. Well, you’ll never guess what inevitably happened next. It turns out that there, in fact, are foreign-born outside agitators funded by outside organizations most charitably classified as “woke philanthropy”. As Joe Simonson reported in the Washington Free Beacon: A New York City nonprofit that received more than $12 million from Goldman Sachs' charitable arm encouraged anti-Israel activists to re-create the violent protests of  "the summer of 2020," just hours before rioters stormed and occupied a building on Columbia University’s campus. More than 100 masked and keffiyeh-clad activists convened in the People’s Forum’s Manhattan office Monday evening to plan their next moves as anti-Israel protests reach a fever pitch across the country. The meeting, which was scheduled to start at 6:45 p.m., was delayed to give protesters from Columbia time to make it downtown. Once the Columbia protesters arrived, People’s Forum executive director Manolo De Los Santos urged the group to "give Joe Biden a hot summer" and "make it untenable for the politics of usual to take place in this country." Los Santos praised Columbia students for "decid[ing] that resistance is more important than negotiations," and urged those assembled at the People’s Forum to "support our students so that the encampments can go for as long as they can." Sounds very outside agitation-y. Who funds The People’s Forum, you ask? Well: The People’s Forum’s operations are made possible in large part by a $12 million donation from Goldman Sachs’s charitable arm. The source of that money is likely Neville Roy Singham, a communist who has "long admired Maoism." Singham, an American businessman who lives in China, reportedly helps finance the Chinese Communist Party’s "propaganda worldwide," according to the New York Times. His wife, Jodie Evans, is the leader of the activist group Code Pink. Under her leadership, the group has celebrated China as "a defender of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war." So we have woke-funded outside agitation. Where, might one ask, was this gentleman born? Per The New York Post: Manolo De Los Santos, the 35-year-old leader of the Midtown-based nonprofit The People’s Forum (TPF), came to The Bronx from his native Dominican Republic at age 5 and has made a career of spurring protests on the streets of New York City. He first traveled to Cuba in 2006 and was there as recently as March to demand an end to the US blockade against the socialist state which has been in place since 1962. Well, there you have it. A foreign-born outside agitator funded by nonprofits. As an added bonus, he got himself arrested at a campus encampment last night:  🚨BREAKING! Multiple leaders of the ALL OUT FOR RAFAH march in NYC were arrested by the NYPD while they led over a thousand pro-Palestine demonstrators in the streets of Manhattan. We will not stand for the intimidation of the NYPD. The more they try to silence us the louder we… pic.twitter.com/DlAqq5ZXH7 — The People's Forum (@PeoplesForumNYC) May 7, 2024 Will Nancy Cordes retract her smear of Trump or issue an apology? Probably not, as that would distract from her ongoing battle with ABC’s Mary Bruce for most Biden-sycophantic White House correspondent. The cost of being Regime Media is that, more often than not, you are going to be made to look ridiculous. 

NB Blog Feed

Dale Claims Soros Is a 'Target Of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories'

After former President Donald Trump gave some remarks to reporters assembled outside of his New York trial on Tuesday, CNN’s host of The Lead, Jake Tapper, brought on the network’s resident fact-checker, Daniel Dale, to assess the accuracy of Trump’s claims. In one instance, Dale shamed Trump for calling D.A. Alvin Bragg a Soros-backed prosecutor, even going so far as to claim Soros is a frequent victim of anti-Semitism. Tapper began, “Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation, then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice?”     For his first fact-check, Dale chose a topic of questionable importance: is Trump leading in all the polls or merely most of them? He declared, “There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few.” Dale then went off the rails, “He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts.” He elaborated, “So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.” As Dale would say, “there was a lot there.” First, with anti-Semitism surging on college campuses, labeling criticisms of Soros’s political donations to far-left causes, including those anti-Israel encampments, as anti-Semitic is as nonsensical as it is appalling. Second, Dale wants to pretend as if Soros giving money to an organization, which in turn donates it to a candidate, is somehow evidence that Soros doesn't financially support Bragg. Soros doesn’t need to have spoken to Bragg to support him. Plenty of people donate to organizations, who in turn donate to candidates because they support those groups’ missions and trust them to donate to candidates who support that mission. Soros just does so in great quantity. Third, “reform-minded” is a convenient way of hiding their soft-on-crime progressivism. Here is a transcript for the May 7 show: CNN The Lead with Jake Tapper 5/8/2024 4:35 PM ET JAKE TAPPER: Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice? DANIEL DALE: There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few. He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts. So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.

NB Blog Feed

PLOT TWIST: Soros Comrade Condemns Bidenomics: ‘I’d Give Them an F’

The former managing director at Soros Fund Management panned President Joe Biden’s management of the economy during a CNBC appearance.  During the May 7 edition of Squawk Box,  Stanley Druckenmiller, billionaire investor and former chairman and president of Duquesne Capital, gave his frank assessment of Bidenomics — and it was not positive, to say the least. In the interview, CNBC anchor Joe Kernen asked Druckenmiller about the nation’s overspending under President Biden. In response, Druckenmiller seemed overcome by disgust before telling Kernen, “If I was a professor, I would give [Biden] an F." This is an incredible election-year statement coming from a man who once managed money for leftist billionaire George Soros. Earlier in the interview, Druckenmiller criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the Biden administration for the state of the economy. He said, “The day Powell pivoted, gasoline was $2. It went to $2.80. It's now at $2.55.” Druckenmiller also suggested that the current state of affairs would be politically damaging for Biden, adding, “the average American cares more about gasoline prices than they do about stock prices and they are getting hurt.” He went on to mention economic difficulties previously highlighted by CNBC: “There was an interview earlier on your show about people being priced out of the housing market.” This is true,  Biden’s policies are taking a toll on the average American. Since January 2021 (when Biden took office), the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate has risen from 2.77% to 6.8% on April 4, 2024.  Druckenmiller also mentioned that “Inflation is 21% higher than it was in 2019. To me, even politically, that's more consequential than keeping the markets up than trying to nail the soft landing and not having a recession.”   Indeed, Americans have been brutalized by 5.5% average monthly inflation under the Biden administration.  The former Duquesne Capital president went beyond the impact of Bidenomics on struggling Americans, suggesting that Biden’s missteps would have horrible ramifications for the future.  “All government needed to do was get out of their way and let them innovate. Instead, they have spent and spent and spent,” Druckenmiller said. “And my new fear now is that spending and the resulting interest rates on the debt that’s been created are gonna crowd out some of the innovation that otherwise would have taken place. We’ve got a 7% budget deficit at full employment. It’s just unheard of.” 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 fairly on how Bidenomics is crippling the American economy.

NB Blog Feed

Column: PolitiFact Shames Talk of 'Outside Agitators' at College Protests

You can tell when the PolitiFact website is going to negotiate around the facts. On May 7, their top headline on the home page asked: “Are ‘outside agitators’ co-opting campus protests?” This isn’t quite the right question. The media have presented these events as “student” protests, so if half the participants aren’t college students, how would they describe the non-students? PolitiFact writers Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu and Loreben Turquero offered this summary: 1. Police, city and university officials nationwide have blamed “outside agitators” for campus protests but have provided little evidence for their claims. 2. Law enforcement experts say police often consider “outside agitators” to be people who move from city to city and are paid to be agitators. 3.  Historians say government and law officials commonly use the “outside agitator” narrative to delegitimize protesters and their demands. First, the “little evidence” is a weird claim, when PolitiFact’s article acknowledges facts like the New York Police Department reported that 32 out of 112 people arrested at Columbia’s private campus were unaffiliated with the university. At nearby City College, 102 out of 170 people arrested were not students. Add it up, and 134 out of 282 protesters were not students. So when Mayor Eric Adams complains about “outside agitators,” he’s not in need of a “fact check.” They even scolded leftist Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) over their “agitator” concerns. They did not mention the recent story of an outside agitator named James Carlson, who was part of the army who briefly occupied Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. He’s a 40-year-old trust fund heir who owns a townhouse in Brooklyn worth $3.4 million. PolitiFact typically seeks out “experts” to match the narratives it wants to underline. They don’t like people suggesting these protesters aren’t local and they might be paid to protest. They found William & Mary law professor Timothy Zick to define the outside agitator spin: "It was used as sort of a phrase that would link protesters, no matter how peaceful they were, to Communists and other infiltrators who were causing disruption." The term is used to cast doubt on protester “sincerity.” Angus Johnson, "historian of student activism" at Hostos Community College in New York, explained, "The idea behind the concept of the outside agitator is that dissent can never be coming from the people who are expressing that dissent.”  They also turned to Johnston to underline, “Some experts have been quick to note the main goal of a protest is to get others to join in.”    This spin is nothing like how the media spun the Tea Party protests against ObamaCare legislation. They sought to discredit them as donor-funded “Astroturf” (not grass-roots). They went looking for the most racist or ignorant-sounding sign they could find, to present protesters as a kooky “fringe” movement.  NBC’s Chuck Todd decried “town hall madness.” The front page of The Boston Globe lamented the “quarrelsome masses hollering questions downloaded from activist websites." MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ranted, “The truth is out about the societal sabotage dressed up as phony protests against health care reform...When Hamas does it or Hezbollah does it, it is called terrorism.” That looks pretty funny right now, since these protesters are a much better match for that Hamas spin. All of this was about "delegitimizing protesters and their demands." Protests are covered in wildly divergent ways, depending on whether the activists are on the Left or the Right. This is just as true for liberal “fact checking” organizations as it is for liberal media outlets. 

NB Blog Feed

Networks Mourn Indefinite Postponement of Trump Classified Docs Trial

Across the dial, the network evening newscasts closed their coverage of the Trump business records trial in New York with coverage of another matter- the classified documents trial in Florida federal court. Specifically, a collective mourning over the fact that this trial won’t go before the 2024 presidential election. Most emblematic of the coverage: ABC, with its lengthy (for a brief) anchor introduction and framing question. Watch the full report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: And meanwhile, there's another breaking headline involving the former president tonight. The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago has now indefinitely postponed that trial. Is there any chance this now happens before Election Day? Let's get right to our Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas, live in Washington. Pierre, what have you learned? PIERRE THOMAS: David, the likelihood there will be a trial in the classified documents case before the election is fading fast. Judge Aileen Cannon has officially taken a May 20th trial date off the calendar, saying there were too many pretrial motions and legal issues to resolve before trial could go forward. Some of the issues have sat for months, and some are not even scheduled for hearings until later this month or June. The special counsel tonight declining to comment. But David, this delay makes it all but certain the classified documents case will not go to trial before the election. MUIR: Pierre Thomas tonight with us as well. Pierre, thank you. ABC Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas felt compelled to provide a full rundown as to the procedural reasons why the classified documents trial isn’t going forward, complaining that “some of the issues have sat for months”. Thomas then whines that this case will not go to trial before the election. A similar tone was struck at CBS, as far as whining over a lack of a trial before the general election. Below is the transcript of the full report as aired on CBS Evening News on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: And Robert, I do need to ask you about a separate trial involving that classified documents. What have we learned today about that trial? ROBERT COSTA: Norah, a stunning development late today. Florida federal judge Aileen Cannon has now decided to indefinitely postpone that classified documents trial that was looming on the horizon for the former president, raising a real question about whether Trump will ever face a trial on that front before the election, or even this year. O’DONNELL: Robert Costa, thank you. Despite Costa’s hysterics, the development is not all that stunning. Not mentioned in these reports is that at least some of the hangup in the classified documents case is due to the procedures governing discovery under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), which governs discovery in this trial. Costa might not have been so stunned, perhaps, had he read CBS’s own primer on CIPA.  Fun fact, per the report: the CIPA bill was originally introduced by Senator Joe Biden. Finally, on NBC, the same lamentations citing the same complex motions, with one added bonus: Lester Holt and Laura Jarrett work in the January 6th trial, which is also on hold pending the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity. Below is the transcript of the full report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: LESTER HOLT: And Laura, at the top of the newscast, I mentioned a big development in another Trump case, this, the classified documents case in Florida. What happened? LAURA JARRETT: Yes, Lester, the judge tonight making official what was already widely expected, putting that trial date officially on hold, wiping it away, saying essentially there are too many unresolved issues and complex motions left to resolve here, Lester. HOLT: And one more federal case, the one focusing on election interference. Where does that stand? JARRETT: Lester, that one too also in limbo, with no trial date as we await a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court about whether the former president is in fact immune from prosecution at all, making this case in New York, Lester, perhaps the only case that will be complete before the November election. Lester. HOLT: All right. Laura Jarrett, thanks. Laura Jarrett closes her report by noting that the New York trial may well be the only one to conclude before the 2024 presidential election, thus forcing the left to settle for one quarter of its originally-scheduled judicial election interference- much to the chagrin of the Regime Media.  

NB Blog Feed

NYT's Hypocritical Horror Over Al-Jazeera Ban: Tried to Kick Murdoch Out of AUS, UK

The New York Times came out stridently in defense of pan-Arab news network Al-Jazeera after the Israeli government temporarily shut down its local operations, claiming it was threatening Israel’s security by serving as a “mouthpiece” for Hamas. The paper was highly aggrieved over the “anti-democratic” move while ignoring Al-Jazeera’s history as a virulently anti-Israel outlet Arab news network. Of course, wartime censorship is not unheard of even in democracies (including Ukraine) or the Arab world in general, and Israel is existentially vulnerable surrounded by enemies and with elite opinion firmly on the side of the pro-Hamas demonstrators on college campuses throughout America. Five reporters in all contributed to The Times' report, “Israeli Cabinet Votes to Shut Down Al Jazeera’s Operations in the Country,” in Monday’s edition. Israel moved on Sunday to shut down local operations of Al Jazeera, the influential Qatari-based news network, in an unusual step that critics denounced as anti-democratic and part of a broader crackdown on dissent over Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Al Jazeera, a major source of news in the Arab world that has often highlighted civilian suffering in Gaza, of harming Israel’s security and inciting violence against its soldiers. Israeli officials did not immediately provide examples of Al Jazeera content it claimed posed a threat. In a statement, Al Jazeera called the decision a “criminal act” and said that “Israel’s suppression of the free press to cover up its crimes has not deterred us from performing our duty.” …. Pointing to the government’s diminishing tolerance for freedom of expression, Ms. Touma-Sliman noted that in November, she was suspended from all parliamentary activities for two months after publicizing press reports about Israeli forces attacking Gaza’s main hospital. The military had denied the accounts. Meanwhile, reporter Steve Lohr found “media experts” to condemn the only democracy in the region as a censor: “Media experts condemn Israel’s move against Al Jazeera.” The Israeli government’s decision to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in that country and block its reports there was condemned by American media and free speech experts as a troubling precedent and further evidence that Israel was engaging in a harsh wartime crackdown on democratic freedoms. There was no criticism of Al-Jazeera from the Times itself, which merely relayed accurate Israeli criticism in a dismissive tone, even though Al-Jazeera has shown terrorist sympathies like throwing a “birthday party” with cake and fireworks in 2008, to celebrate the release of Lebanese terrorist, who killed four in Israel, including a four-year-old girl (see MEMRI’s clip). The Times also failed to mention that Al Jazeera reporters Ismail Abu Omar and Mohamed Washah were caught moonlighting as Hamas commanders. In February, The Times of Israel reported that "the IDF revealed a trove of images" that showed Washah in a Hamas uniform training fighters how to shoot rocket-propelled grenades, build warheads, and operate drones armed with an RPG. "Abu Omar infiltrated into Israel and filmed from inside Kibbutz Nir Oz during Hamas’s onslaught," they noted.   #عاجل #خاص في الصباح صحفي في قناة #الجزيرة وفي المساء مخرب في حماس! @AJArabic ⭕️خلال نشاط لقواتنا قبل عدة أسابيع داخل احدى معسكرات حماس في شمال قطاع غزة تم ضبط كمبيوتر متحرك يعود إلى المدعو محمد سمير محمد وشاح من مواليد 1986 من البريج حيث يتضح من المستندات ان محمد وشاح هو قائد… pic.twitter.com/s8CX1kOfvP — افيخاي ادرعي (@AvichayAdraee) February 11, 2024   By contrast, the Times has eagerly highlighted moves to squash outlets run by media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s supposedly dangerously right-wing news outlets. Censorship fever (from another media outlet!) ran particularly high in late 2020 and 2021, with the Times attacking Murdoch on bogus issues like climate change or spreading extremism. In February 2021, London bureau chief Mark Landler’s obsessive hostility toward Murdoch’s media empire was on display in his coverage of two fledgling right-of-center news outlets, in “Murdoch to Challenge U.K.’s Fairness Statute With Fox News Playbook.” He began with a tiresome attack against the “poisonous political culture” of Fox News, then suggested Murdoch could be banned in Britain, “where television news is regulated to avoid political bias.” In October 2020, Times reporter Isabella Kwai filed on an online petition in Australia targeting Murdoch, posted by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, asking “the government to establish a Royal Commission, the country’s highest form of inquiry, into the dominance of Australian media by Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp.” Rudd called “Murdoch “an arrogant cancer on our democracy.” An impartial voice for sure! In January 2021, columnist Nicholas Kristof launched a quest to ban Fox News from basic cable packages (just for a start) in order to “stop supporting networks that spread lies and hatred, and cable companies should drop channels that persist in doing so….” But now that a left-wing anti-Israel outlet is being temporarily suspended during wartime, the Times conveniently morphs back into free-speech absolutists.

NB Blog Feed

Hypocrisy: TikTok Cries Censorship in Ultimatum Lawsuit — Despite Banning Others

Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok is seemingly desperate to hold onto both its China ties and the American market. Last month, President Joe Biden signed legislation that would force TikTok into either divestment from its Chinese parent company ByteDance or a ban in America due to national security concerns. TikTok has now sued, claiming economic harm to creators and a free speech violation, according to Bloomberg. This argument is paradoxical because TikTok itself has an infamously anti-free speech track record. Bloomberg noted that the lawsuit marks the first legal challenge since the legislation was enacted. TikTok is claiming the legislation could suppress free speech and harm the business owners and users who benefit financially from the app, alleging an “illegal punishment without due process”, the outlet added. “There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere,” the company reportedly complained in the court filing. Experts have emphasized TikTok’s national security risks. Moreover, multiple former TikTok employees recently confirmed close ties between TikTok and Chinese ByteDance. As MRC founder and President Brent Bozell emphasized, “TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States.” TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States. We at the MRC have been consistent from the beginning. TikTok is a national security threat. @BrentBozell pic.twitter.com/FfSh1futU3 — Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 12, 2024 In April, the same month that the ban legislation was signed, TikTok announced a counteroffensive to suppress alleged “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. The CCP-tied app has repeatedly targeted free speech, making its free speech arguments incongruous. According to leaks, TikTok has censored content to please the CCP in the past, including videos about the independence movement in Tibet and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Last year, the app boastedabout removing over 500,000 videos related to the Hamas-Israel conflict. In 2022, MRC revealed that TikTok had “permanently banned” eleven pro-free speech organizations. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Free Speech Alliance Members Applaud House Hearing on Leftist Tilt at Tax-Funded NPR

The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight Subcommittee is holding a hearing on Wednesday morning to address the political tilt of taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio. NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham is one of the experts who will testify.  Members of the MRC-led Free Speech Alliance sent a letter to committee chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) applauding the hearing and insisting taxpayers "should not be compelled to pay for a politicized media outlet whose primary objective is to undermine American ideas and ideals." The letter argues PBS and NPR have made a mockery of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” Therefore, "NPR must not be rewarded for its unlawful behavior and anti-American objectives." Signatories include MRC founder and president Brent Bozell, Young America’s Foundation President Governor Scott Walker, American Values President Gary Bauer, and American Principles Project President Terry Schilling.  The letter is below:  Dear Chair McMorris Rodgers, We applaud your decision to investigate National Public Radio (NPR). Its politicized leadership and programming have once again been brought into the spotlight, but its history of biased reporting is legendary. It long ago abandoned even the appearance of abiding by its statutory mandates in favor of pursuing a leftwing agenda.  Taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for a politicized media outlet whose primary objective is to undermine American ideas and ideals, including our First Amendment free-speech rights as well as the economic system that creates the wealth that NPR feeds off of.  It is critical that this hearing expose NPR’s unlawful conduct and how its leadership and reporters have used its resources to pursue political outcomes.  For its entire existence, NPR and its sister organization, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), have made a mockery of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” NPR must not be rewarded for its unlawful behavior and anti-American objectives. Many argue that no media outlet should be subsidized with US tax dollars, but NPR has certainly lost the moral authority to demand our continued support.  We encourage you to thoroughly investigate how NPR uses its talent and resources in contravention of the law. The Committee should determine the following:  With thousands of alternative media outlets now available to the public, has NPR outlived its usefulness? Are NPR’s hiring practices designed to prevent diversity of viewpoints in its programming? Has NPR used its power, reach and resources to interfere in elections, including the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections? Half of Americans are conservative or lean right in their political views; how does NPR attempt, if at all, to address the interests of this swath of Americans? In 1967, Congress determined that funding NPR and PBS, both entities under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), was necessary since there were only three broadcasters on television and only a small number of news-oriented radio stations across the country. Today, the internet has allowed countless alternative news sources to flourish. There are tens of thousands of online media sites and countless podcasts where the public access news daily.  Black-and-white televisions have been replaced with 5G technology and most radio stations now have apps to compete with audio streaming services. Why should taxpayers continue to finance PBS and NPR now that there’s CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Spotify, Pandora, Sirius XM, iHeart Radio, Amazon Prime, Apple Music, and countless others?  Thank you for holding this important hearing. We look forward to learning how the Committee intends to reform NPR and the role taxpayers play in funding its operations.  Sincerely, L. Brent Bozell III Founder and President Media Research Center   J. Christian Adams President and General Counsel Public Interest Legal Foundation   Saulius “Saul” Anuzis President The American Association of Senior Citizens    Brent Baker Vice President for Research and Publications Media Research Center   Gary L. Bauer President American Values   Ryan Bomberger CoFounder & Chief Creative Officer Radiance Foundation   David N. Bossie President Citizens United   Floyd Brown Founder The Western Journal   The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs President Ronald Reagan   Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II   Elaine Donnelly President Center for Military Readiness   Steven Ertelt Editor LifeNews.com   Kevin Freeman Founder NSIC Institute   Mark J. Fitzgibbons President of Corporate Affairs American Target Advertising   Lady Brigitte Gabriel Founder & Chairman ACT For America   Paul Gessing President Rio Grande Foundation   Tim Graham Executive Editor NewsBusters   Mike​​​​ Gonzalez Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation   Mike Hill  Former Member  Florida State House   Phil Kerpen President American Commitment   Kelly M. Kullberg General Secretary American Association of Evangelicals    Jim Lakely Vice President & Director of Communications The Heartland Institute   George Landrith President Frontiers of Freedom   John Pierce  Chairman National Constitutional Law Union   Richard Manning President Americans for Limited Government   Josh Manning Deputy Managing Editor The Western Journal   Mr. Edward Martin President Phyllis Schlafly Eagles   James L. Martin Founder/Chairman  60 Plus Association   Christie-Lee McNally President Raven Strategies   Cleta Mitchell, Esq. Founder Election Integrity Network   C. Preston Noell III President Tradition, Family, Property, Inc The Honorable George K Rasley Jr Managing Editor ConservativeHQ.com   Khadine L. Ritter, Esq. Chairman Eagle Forum of Ohio   Craig Shirley Chairman and CEO Shirley & McVicker Public Affairs   Terry Schilling President American Principles Project   Cameron Sholty Executive Director Heartland Impact   Dan Schneider  Vice President for Free Speech Media Research Center   Jon Schweppe Policy Director American Principles Project   Sharon Slater President  Family Watch International   Sean Spicer Host The Sean Spicer Show   James Taylor President The Heartland Institute   Tim Throckmorton  President Lifepointe Ministries   Kristen A. Ullman President Eagle Forum   Governor Scott Walker President Young America’s Foundation   Gavin Mario Wax President New York Young Republican Club   Deborah Weiss, Esq.,  President, Vigilance, Inc   Tim Wildmon President American Family Association  

NB Blog Feed

West Point Teaches Army Recruits About Cross Dressing & Gender Norms

Nope, this isn’t satire. Former Congressman Scott Taylor was recently sent an image of classes given to Army recruits at the U. S. Military Academy at West Point. One of the classes was titled “Uniformed Perspectives: The Evolution of Cross-Dressing in the Military and Gender Norms." The United States Military Academy was founded on March 16, 1802. It’s a four-year college that “builds, educates, trains, and inspires the Corps of Cadets to be commissioned leaders of character committed to the Army Values and ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation,” its website states. It’s long been respected as the premiere institution for military and academic training. Now however, I have a feeling that once pristine reputation  - may be tarnished. The class, taught by Morten Ender, Professor of Sociology and co-chair for Diversity & Inclusion Studies, is an obvious indicator that our military training strategies are going woke. Other than the cross-dressing/gender norms class, Ender also plans to hold one called “Do My Leaders ‘Get’ Me?: Unpacking the Importance of Representation in the Military.” This was sent to me, classes at @WestPoint_USMA Quite sure China and Russia are not teaching this nonsense to their officers. Fix yourself. #dod #army pic.twitter.com/QrhEuG8nHb — Scott Taylor (@Scotttaylorva) May 4, 2024 In response to Taylor’s post about the classes, users on X were pissed that THIS is what our U.S. Military is prioritizing. “I expect China and Russia military schools have this up as a motivational poster, no longer fearing the U.S. military” one user wrote. Another user said, “For those that think the military will not be used against us, think again. This is not the military of old. This is the woke military.”  Others called the class “disgusting” and asked “what can we do?” This isn’t the first indicator that the U.S. Military is heading down a path of wokeness. Last month a member of our military posted a TikTok video in his camos shaking his booty for the camera. Last year the Navy appointed a drag queen for help in recruitment in order to attract a “talented” and “diverse workforce.” Similarly, oftentimes around pride month in June, multiple branches share their solidarity with LGBTQ people. In 2022 the U.S. Marines posted a helmet with rainbow pride bullets lodged in it, the U.S. Air Force wrote #CelebratePride in a post and the U.S. Space Force posted a graphic with the words “QUEER SPACE” on it and an astronaut holding a pride flag. Thing is, when our foreign threats see things like these, see that our eventual troops are learning about queer crap and cross-dressing instead of how to protect our nation, those foreign threats are going to have no fears of coming in and demolishing us. We need to facilitate a military of strong warriors, not woke social-justice warriors.

NB Blog Feed

UPDATED: Facebook: We ‘Mistakenly’ Blocked Biden Opponent's Video… We Swear

UPDATE: After the publication of this piece, Facebook a Meta spokesperson responded to MRC Free Speech America's request for comment saying "The link was mistakenly blocked and was quickly restored once the issue was discovered." Meta has once again deemed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ideas too dangerous to be allowed on Facebook and Instagram. Kennedy’s Super PAC American Values 2024 (AV24) announced Sunday that it will file a lawsuit against Facebook and Instagram’s parent company after the platforms suppressed links to Kennedy's newly released documentary, “Who is Bobby Kennedy?”  “Facebook is putting its thumb on the scale this election,” Kennedy posted on X. “Please help me understand how this Woody Harrelson film about my life violates Facebook’s community standards?”   Kennedy uploaded the 30-minute film to Facebook on May 3.  But when Facebook users tried to share links to the film’s website, the platform claimed the content violated its “Community Guidelines” and would not allow users to post. Instagram users had a similar experience when trying to post the link in Instagram stories, according to screenshots included in a TikTok video that Kennedy’s team posted on May 5. The Kennedy Beacon, the substack newsletter of AV24, alleged that Facebook and Instagram labeled the documentary as “spam,” and accused the film of  showing “support or praise of terrorism, organized crime or hate groups,” “solicitation of sexual services,” and “sale of firearms or drugs.” AV24 also alleged that Facebook and Instagram have shadowbanned the film, citing low engagement numbers as evidence.  Tony Lyons, the founder of AV24, lambasted Facebook and Instagram for their actions infringing on the rights of the American voter. “When social media companies censor a presidential candidate, the public can’t learn what that candidate actually believes and what policies they would pursue if elected,” Lyons told The New York Times. “We are left with the propaganda and lies from the most powerful and most corrupt groups and individuals.”  Meta has since claimed that the video being labeled spam was a mistake rather than overt censorship.  “It was mistakenly blocked and corrected within a few hours,” said Meta spokesman Andy Stone told The Times. When asked for comment, a Meta spokesperson said that the link was blocked by mistake. "The link was mistakenly blocked and was quickly restored once the issue was discovered," said the spokesperson.    Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

Time For a Reality Check: The Left Loves Furries, Trans People & Fetishes

Welcome to Woke of the Weak where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. The left has a toxic tendency to think that it’s the arbiter of truth - that whatever progressives say is not only their truth but gospel truth and should not only be respected but widely accepted and spread throughout the nation. If you ask me, however, the left - well, most of it - is living in fantasyzland and needs nothing more than a reality check. This week we took a look at some of those examples of delusion. For starters, one teacher bragged about teaching his students about transgenderism. A different professor showed up to teach at UC Berkeley as a furry! At the same time, over at Columbia and Harvard, med students made cringey music videos to encourage students to attend their programs. I certainly hope that none of the “doctors” wasting their time making those videos become my physician anytime soon.   While thinking about people I don’t want to interact with, I’d also never like to interact with the man in the yellow dress and a sunhat who insisted that he deserved to use the women’s restroom. A different set of freaks held a pride event in Utah where kids were invited to check out the BDSM and fetish gear. Yup, that actually happened. Towards the end of the episode, we heard from a lady who explained that you were a bigot if you didn’t want to date an obese person, we saw a lady with lip injections the size of Texas and even a “demi-sexual trans lesbian.” Can’t make this crap up!

NB Blog Feed

The Slow Decline of the United Methodist Church

“O never give me over to my own heart’s desires, nor let me follow my own imaginations!”– John Wesley There are many reasons for the modern church’s loss of its prophetic voice, politics being just one of them. As in ancient times, trying to embrace what the rest of the world is doing has diminished the power of the church to address what used to be called “sinful behavior.” The latest, but surely not the last example, is what the United Methodist Church did last week at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Delegates voted 523 to 161 to replace the definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman and will now allow gay Methodist ministers to be ordained and perform same- sex marriages. They dropped language that said homosexual practice “is incompatible with Christian teaching.” African delegates voted against the change. What do they know that others have forgotten? Marriage between a man and a woman IS compatible with Christian teaching. The majority of delegates should read and obey the Scriptures that John Wesley, the founder of their denomination, preached without compromise. In Genesis, it says: “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh.” The idea is to express love through mutual pleasure and produce children. (Genesis 2:24) Jesus quotes that verse in the New Testament, affirming traditional marriage (Matthew 19:5-6) In Judges, it says: “In those days Israel had no king. Everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 21:25). We see that reflected in today’s attitudes about sex, marriage and so many other things. Paul writes that in the end times, “to suit their own desires, they will gather round them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3). We have entered that age and not just when it comes to faith. It’s the same with politics and politicians, too many of whom are telling us what we want to hear, rather than what we need to hear. There are numerous warnings about what will happen – and has happened – if especially religious leaders ignore Scripture. The ancient Israelites were severely punished for doing just that and now too many Christian denominations are climbing into the same boat. But the boat is sinking, as reflected in the number of people who have left these churches. As The New York Times reported about Methodism three years ago, “ America’s second-largest Protestant denomination is in the final stages of a slow motion rupture that has so far seen the departure of a quarter of the nation’s roughly 30,000 United Methodist churches, according to the denomination’s news agency.” It has only gotten worse since then. What else should be expected if the preaching and teaching reflects what the secular world believes? Why attend these churches? Many congregants are fleeing to other denominations, spending their Sunday mornings at a local coffee shop or staying home. To put things on a secular level, most businesses that lose customers would change their way of doing business to win them back. Not the Methodists, Episcopalians, United Presbyterians, and a branch of Lutherans among others. They are doubling down. Strongly evangelical churches that believe and preach Scripture are growing. Heresy is a bad “business model” for the church. Martin Luther said: “Peace if possible, truth at all costs.” If we can’t agree on truth, then anything goes. Historically, the church has been a moral voice when it stood for what Scripture calls “righteousness.” It affirmed doing right things and opposed wrong things. It was a major influence in ending slavery, promoting the right to vote for women and civil rights. While there was opposition to all these, the right prevailed. If the church has lost its voice, who will speak up against wrong things? Who will listen?

NB Blog Feed

‘Prove a Point’: The View Wants Trump in Gitmo for Violating Gag Order

No one has ever accused the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View of having rational, measured responses to political happenings. Last year, they decried the legal notion that former President Trump was entitled to a fair trial; then on Tuesday, they wanted him sent to “Guantanamo Bay” with the terrorists because he violated the gag order for his hush money trial and was held in contempt of court. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg had a bit of a breakdown after playing a soundbite of Trump outside the New York City courthouse condemning the gag order as a violation of his constitutional right to free speech. “When did you read the Constitution?” she screeched. “You know, you could’ve had – you had four years to read the Constitution and figure it out,” she added before her words broke down into indiscernible animal noises: “But I – He just read it now. He just read it. It’s a ba gah [gags and hisses].” Feigning high-mindedness, staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) bloviated that she was “conflicted over whether or not he should be held in contempt and … put in jail for it.”     Hostin came down on the side “put him in the clink” in order to “prove a point” about how it’s the judge who controls the trial and not Trump: HOSTIN: The other thing I will say. We all saw, many of us are old enough to have seen the O.J. case. Remember how Judge Ito lost complete control of the courtroom. And I think that had a lot to do with the win. You cannot let Donald Trump be a runaway train in that courtroom. GOLDBERG: No. No. HOSTIN: It's not his courtroom. It's the judge's courtroom. And so, I think to make a point, to prove a point, put him in the clink! Why not? Put him in the clink! This turn in the conversation got Goldberg so excited she started doing a little peepee dance.   peepee dance pic.twitter.com/0Y88TA05wz — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 7, 2024   “But which prison would be best?” Goldberg wanted to know. “Rikers” Island was “number one” for both Goldberg and Hostin (the latter was so excited they were on the same page that she did her own unhinged convulsions). Goldberg then floated some other prisons including reopening Alcatraz and the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay: GOLDBERG: But you know, I'm okay if he goes to Alcatraz and they re-open it. HOSTIN: Maybe. GOLDBERG: You know? What about Guantanamo Bay? Okay. (…) That's right! What about Supermax? Supermax would be interesting. El Chapo was in Supermax, you know, hey now, he wants to be with the hip people, come on. Faux-conservative Ana Navarro loved the idea of sending Trump to Gitmo because it “would be close to Mar-a-Lago. Melania can come and visit.” She followed that up with mocking laughter. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 7, 2024 11:18:20 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: When did you read the constitution? [Laughter] You know, you could’ve had – you had four years to read the Constitution and figure it out. [Applause] But I – He just read it now. He just read it. It’s a ba gah [gags and hisses] – SUNNY HOSTIN: Even if he read it, it didn't matter to him. Right, Whoopi? I'm sort of conflicted over whether or not he should be held in contempt and put in pri -- he's already been held in contempt but put in jail for it. But I do think that 71 percent of Americans have said that he should be put in jail if he is convicted. The other thing I will say. We all saw, many of us are old enough to have seen the O.J. case. Remember how Judge Ito lost complete control of the courtroom. And I think that had a lot to do with the win. You cannot let Donald Trump be a runaway train in that courtroom. GOLDBERG: No. No. HOSTIN: It's not his courtroom. It's the judge's courtroom. And so, I think to make a point, to prove a point, put him in the clink! Why not? Put him in the clink! [Applause] GOLDBERG: Ooh, ooh, oh! If – I don't want this to sound like I'm doing wishful thinking. HOSTIN: Yes. GOLDBERG: But which prison would be best? [Laughter] HOSTIN: I know which one. GOLDBERG: I’m going to give you— HOSTIN: Rikers. GOLDBERG: Well, that’s what I – That’s number one; is Rikers! But you know, I'm okay if he goes to Alcatraz and they re-open it. HOSTIN: Maybe. GOLDBERG: You know? What about Guantanamo Bay? Okay. ANA NAVARRO: Oh, that would be close to Mar-a-Lago. Melania can come and visit. [Mocking laughter] GOLDBERG: That's right! What about Supermax? Supermax would be interesting. El Chapo was in Supermax, you know, hey now, he wants to be with the hip people, come on. So, these are my suggestions in case anybody wants to know. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Jacqui Time Drops Hammer on WH Supporting Israel, Whether Student Camps Need to Go

In case you missed it, Monday’s White House press briefing was dominated by questions about Hamas supposedly agreeing to a ceasefire deal that, as we would quickly find out, was one they more or less concocted on their own (as opposed to one backed by Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the U.S.), so Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich made a point to wonder whether the Biden regime still wants Israel to win the war. “John, noting everything that you’ve said about the concerns expressed by the U.S., about the risk to Palestinians in Gaza with a full-scale operation, is the U.S. still aligned with Israel in its intention to eliminate the terrorist threat posed by Hamas,” Heinrich wondered to national security spokesman John Kirby.     When Kirby replied with a simple “of course”, Heinrich followed up: And is there any feeling that Hamas may be trying to trick the public in some way? You heard Israeli officials commenting on this latest proposal as a trick, and there’s been a lot of pressure...on the administration to make sure that the needs of Palestinians are — are being served and that the U.S. support for Israel isn’t, you know, overhanded. And you had the — the report come out earlier today, or maybe yesterday that the U.S. was potentially weighing withholding an arms shipment to Israel. Is there any concern that Hamas was trying to capitalize on that public pressure and, you know, play a trick, as Israeli officials put it? Since he’s apparently the only adult in the room with ounces of moral clarity (but not here when he did his best Jean-Pierre impression), Kirby said he would only be able to “answer that question unless I got between the ears of Mr. Sinwar, and that’s a place I really don’t want to be” and these questions need to go to him. Kirby then lowered the boom on these radical Islamists: You know, it’s interesting. I stand up here and answer questions. Karine, Matt Miller at the State Department, Pentagon colleagues, the President does, Prime Minister Netanyahu does, and the IDF military spokesman does. You know who hasn’t answered a single question about his intentions and what games he might be playing or where he intends to take this? Mr. Sinwar, head of Hamas, and I think it’s a — I think it’s high time that he answers some of these questions, and he come clean about what his intentions are. After he said the administration’s examining it, Heinrich questioned whether it’s “still a good idea to try to negotiate with terrorists”. Kirby countered that, unfortunately, “you gotta negotiate with who you got to negotiate to get people back with their families.” Heinrich closed whether she began with concerns about the U.S. supporting “Israel’s intention to eliminate Hamas.” Kirby didn’t back down and said Israel has the “right and responsibility to go after the Hamas threat — to eliminate that threat” that inflicted such harm on their citizens. The Fox correspondent also got in a few questions to Jean-Pierre on the pro-Hamas encampments on college campuses. After a “no” on the possibility that Biden would “get out there and talk to students,” Heinrich asked about whether President Biden and the administration would support a dismantling of a the (terrorist sympathizing) camp at the George Washington University (click “expand”): HEINRICH: GW’s president has called for Metro police in D.C. to intervene to dismantle what they’ve deemed an illegal encampment and D.C. police have so far refused to respond to that call. It’s happening in the President’s backyard. Is there any reaction from the White House on what should happen?” JEAN-PIERRE: So, that is something that I’m going to leave to the local law enforcement and universities., That’s for them to figure out — for them to work it through. They know what is happening on the ground, and we’ve always been very clear about that and we’ll continue to be clear about that. We’re going to continue to call for peaceful protest and, you know, dissent cannot lead to disorder and so going to continue to be very, very clear, as the President has been — as I have been, and so many of us here in this administration has been. HEINRICH: Any idea why DC police would not respond to this call? JEAN-PIERRE: I would — I would refer you to the D.C. police. That’s something for them to speak to. Elsewhere in the briefing, an Al Jazeera correspondent and The Wall Street Journal’s Annie Linskey kvetched to an unfortunately sympathetic Kirby about Israel shutting down the pro-Hamas, Qatari-funded Al Jazeera (click “expand”): LINSKEY: And just really quickly. The Israelis stopped broadcast of Al Jazeera over the weekend. Can you comment on whether that’s appropriate action for a United States ally? KIRBY: We don’t support that action. As we said, very clearly on World Press Freedom Day on Friday, I know Karine talked about this, the work of independent journalism around the world is absolutely vital. Um — it’s important to an informed citizenry and public, but it’s also important to — to — uh — to help inform the policy making process, so we don’t support that at all. LINSKEY: And did the President bring it up at all in his call? KIRBY: The focus of the call was on hostage deal and on Rafah. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I’m gonna give you to — KIRBY: But you say my — sorry — I think I put a statement out this morning on that. So we have officially reacted to it. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Al Jazeera in the back. AL JAZEERA CORRESPONDENT: Thank you so much, Karine. Thank you, John. Uh, is that administration planning on discussing the banning of Al Jazeera in Israel with the Israeli government? We just celebrated the freedom of the press here in the United States and across the globe, and then this decision came and it was really a big shock. KIRBY: As I just said, we don’t — AL JAZEERA CORRESPONDENT: Will this administration raise this issue with the government of Israel? KIRBY: We have raised this issue and I made a — a public statement about it. On a different topic NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez and CBS’s Ed O’Keefe ended the briefing by questioning Jean-Pierre about the seemingly never-ending saga of Governor Kristi Noem’s (R-SD) memoir: NBC's @GabeGutierrez: “Just really quickly. What's your response to Kristi Noem’s comments, implying that Commanders should be put down?” KJP: “Look, you know, when we learned last week, obviously, like all of you in her book that she killed her puppy, you heard me say that was… pic.twitter.com/QmxlsIZlms — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 6, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the May 6 briefing, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Retired IDF Officer Calls Out Hasan For 'Parroting Hamas's Talking Points'

Former MSNBC host and current CEO and editor-in-chief of Zeteo Mehdi Hasan joined CNN NewsNight host Abby Phillip and Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow and retired IDF Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus on Monday to discuss the latest Israel-Hamas War developments. Hasan finally got his comeuppance as Conricus accused him of “parroting Hamas’s talking points,” despite Phillip pointing out Hamas’s latest propaganda is just that: propaganda. Specifically, Phillip was talking about Hamas’s claims that it has accepted a ceasefire, “But it's really kind of a counterproposal that includes elements that they know Israel never agreed to. So, was this some kind of propaganda effort by Hamas to say, ‘we're at the table, we're agreeing to something’?” The short and correct answer would be “yes,” but Hasan suggested Hamas’s announcement was some sort of negotiating genius, “The Israelis apparently were on board until, of course, Hamas agreed, and then the Israelis’ bluff was called. And now they're saying, well, we don't agree to this proposal because we want to free the hostages, even though the proposal would help free the hostages. You saw Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper—”     Phillip cut him off, “Can I just pause you there for a second, because I think I just want to add one bit of information I think is critical here? The part that Israel didn't agree to is the part that calls for a permanent end to the war and I think this is really what is at issue here, that Israel has never agreed to that.” Undeterred by facts, Hasan kept rolling, “In what world is Hamas going to say, we're going to release all the hostages and you carry on killing us? Obviously, outside world, America, Western countries has been wanting a ceasefire for a while. We were told Hamas was the obstacle, and now they're calling Israel's bluff.” He also claimed “the obstacle to a hostage deal has always been Benjamin Netanyahu… Those are the words of Haim Rubinstein, the former spokesperson for the hostage's family, who told the Israeli press last week that Netanyahu’s been the obstacle. He says that they found out there was a deal on the table back on October 9th, 10th to get hostages released, but Netanyahu hid it from them.” Hasan naturally omitted the major detail that Israel would have to agree not to enter Gaza. No country that just suffered a crime that was the per capita equivalent of 13 9/11s was going to agree to that. Still, Hasan thought the reason for the war’s continuation is Israeli domestic politics, “He hid it from them because he knows that if he agrees to a hostage deal, his fascist colleagues and his coalition government will collapse his government. This is Israeli domestic politics.” Phillip then turned to Conricus, “If the hostages are all released, shouldn't Israel seriously consider ending hostilities in Gaza and allowing for a political settlement that leads to the future?” Later on, Phillip would press Hasan about how Hamas could dictate the terms of its own surrender in a war it started, but for now, Conricus began, “Yeah, I'm listening to the second edition of Mehdi Hasan's monologue that I saw earlier and it's not surprising that you're parroting Hamas' talking points.” He then doubled down while pointing out that the timing of Hamas’s announcement was awfully convenient: They're the ones for the last four months have been refusing any… now, when push comes to shove and when they see Israeli tanks lined up on their way to Rafah, all of a sudden they are agreeing. They're agreeing to something that wasn't on the table. And it's quite absurd that this is even how it's covered. And it’s classic deception 101 by an organization that is very savvy in deception and unfortunately has figureheads and mouthpieces all over western media doing their work, whether it's Al Jazeera or other places, and getting that message that out that Israel is the problem, when Israeli civilians and soldiers are the ones that have been abducted. That is the problem with Hasan. He sets up a strawman about Israel’s position, only this time someone was there to call him out on it. Other shows that think he is worth their while should do the same. Here is a transcript for the May 6 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 5/6/2024 10:24 PM ET ABBY PHILLIP: But I want to ask you about this reporting, about Hamas, saying publicly they've agreed to a ceasefire deal. But it's really kind of a counterproposal that includes elements that they know Israel never agreed to. So, was this some kind of propaganda effort by Hamas to say, we're “at the table, we're agreeing to something”? MEHDI HASAN: Well, look, the reporting we have says that, yes, it was an Egyptian-Qatari proposal that the Americans were involved in, too, Abby. The CIA director, Bill Burns, has been involved in this. The Israelis apparently were on board until, of course, Hamas agreed, and then the Israelis’ bluff was called. And now they're saying, well, we don't agree to this proposal because we want to free the hostages, even though the proposal would help free the hostages. You saw Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper— PHILLIP: Can I just pause you there for a second, because I think I just want to add one bit of information I think is critical here? The part that Israel didn't agree to is the part that calls for a permanent end to the war and I think this is really what is at issue here, that Israel has never agreed to that and that maybe this is a counter-proposal, but that means essentially that everybody has to get back to the table and agree to what is on the table now. HASAN: Yes. But let me just say, in what world is Hamas going to say, we're going to release all the hostages and you carry on killing us? Obviously, outside world, America, Western countries has been wanting a ceasefire for a while. We were told Hamas was the obstacle, and now they're calling Israel's bluff. The reality is, Abby, that the obstacle to a hostage deal has always been Benjamin Netanyahu. And those are not my words. Those are the words of Haim Rubinstein, the former spokesperson for the hostage's family, who told the Israeli press last week that Netanyahu’s been the obstacle. He says that they found out there was a deal on the table back on October 9th, 10th to get hostages released, but Netanyahu hid it from them. Those are the words of the spokesperson for the Israeli families of the hostages. And he hid it from them because he knows that if he agrees to a hostage deal, his fascist colleagues and his coalition government will collapse his government. This is Israeli domestic politics. PHILLIP: Lieutenant Colonel, what about that? I mean, if the hostages are all released, shouldn't Israel seriously consider ending hostilities in Gaza and allowing for a political settlement that leads to the future? JONATHAN CONRICUS: Yeah, I'm listening to the second edition of Mehdi Hasan's monologue that I saw earlier and it's not surprising that you're parroting Hamas' talking points. Really, let's put things here in perspective. We have a terrorist organization that abducted civilians and soldiers. They're the ones for the last four months have been refusing any deal that Israel, the U.S., Qatar, Egypt and others have put forward. And now, when push comes to shove and when they see Israeli tanks lined up on their way to Rafah, all of a sudden they are agreeing. They're agreeing to something that wasn't on the table. And it's quite absurd that this is even how it's covered. And it's classic deception 101 by an organization that is very savvy in deception and unfortunately has figureheads and mouthpieces all over western media doing their work, whether it's Al Jazeera or other places, and getting that message that out that Israel is the problem, when Israeli civilians and soldiers are the ones that have been abducted.

NB Blog Feed

Biden’s Lapdog: Emails Expose YouTube as White House’s Gold Standard of Censorship

YouTube, the famous video-sharing platform, was shockingly co-opted by the Biden White House to become the gold standard of censorship.  On May 1, the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Weaponization of Government Subcommittee released a voluminous report exposing lengthy correspondence between the White House and Facebook, YouTube and Amazon.  YouTube’s team was particularly receptive to the demands of the administration and was touted by Biden officials as an exemplar to prod other companies, specifically Facebook.  Meta Director of Global Engagement Nick Clegg stated that Senior White House Coronavirus Advisor Andy Slavitt informed him about attending a “misinfo” meeting where “the consensus was that FB [Facebook] is a ‘disinformation factory.’” In contrast to Meta, Slavitt claimed that YouTube “has made significant advances to remove content leading to vaccine hesitancy whilst” the Mark Zuckerberg-owned platforms “lagged behind.” Leaked emails show that YouTube’s relationship with the Biden administration began in January 2021. Early on, Biden officials like White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty expressed an interest in YouTube’s content moderation policies, specifically around vaccine hesitancy. On April 12, 2021, Flaherty sent an email to YouTube to inquire about the company’s acts to stifle dissenting opinions on vaccines. “Heya – A while ago, I met with folks from Google about misinformation and COVID-19,” Flaherty wrote. “Was hoping to connect again with folks from your side about the work you’re doing to combat vaccine hesitancy, but also crack down on vaccine misinformation.”     The following day, on April 13, a Google employee communicated to a coworker instructions to add to the “Feb COVID19 Misinformation Deck” and referenced a meeting with Flaherty in which the White House official expressed a keen interest in “borderline content.” A Google calendar invite sent to Flaherty references a meeting with YouTube on April 21 titled “YouTube Vaccine Misinfo Meeting.” The topic of the briefing was “general trends seen around vaccine misinformation” and “the empirical effects of YouTube’s efforts to combat misinfo, what interventions YouTube is currently trying, and ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work.” According to Flaherty, the concerns about vaccine hesitancy were a matter of nationwide policy concern and reflected the personal desires of President Biden himself.  “But we want to make sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working towards making the problem better,” Flaherty wrote in an April 21 email. “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH, so we’d like to continue a good-faith dialogue about what is going on under the hood here. I’m on the hook for reporting out.” Internal emails from Google’s team reveal that Flaherty was very hands-on with YouTube’s censorship activities and was prodding them to go even further to eliminate dissenting views. “It’s worth noting this quote from WH Digital Director Rob Flaherty (Who, as this group knows, has been tough on us at times)...” a Google employee mentioned.   Occasionally, the YouTube team would be actively threatened by Flaherty and had their motives called into question, other emails show. In a July 20, 2021 email, Flaherty demanded accountability from YouTube after a CNN fact-checker tweeted a screenshot that showed “anti-vaccine” content. One of the suggested videos was a debate on vaccines between legal scholar Alan Dershowitz and environmentalist attorney (now Independent presidential candidate) Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  “We had a pretty extensive back and forth about the degree to which you all are recommending anti-vaccination content,” Flaherty said. “You were pretty emphatic that you are not. This seems to indicate that you are. What is going on here?” In one instance, Flaherty also requested that YouTube actively propagandize by promoting the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine. “Now that the FDA has approved Pfizer, I’m making the rounds to get a sense from the various platforms how (or if) folks are planning to promote it in any way,” Flaherty wrote. “We’d appreciate a push here, given the fact that this is an oft-cited blocker for many folks,” he added.  The influence of the Biden White House was so pervasive at YouTube that its Trust and Safety Team actually sent a draft of its new content moderation policies for vaccine content to the White House for final approval. “Our YouTube Trust and Safety Team is working to finalize a new policy to remove content that could mislead people on the safety and efficacy of vaccines,” said an email sent from a Google employee to Flaherty. “We would like to preview our policy proposal for you and get any feedback you may have. Are you available to meet this Friday (9/24) or Monday (9/27)?”  Coordination between the White House and YouTube was not limited to vaccines, however. Other subjects that the White House pushed to be censored included “Russian misinformation,” “climate misinformation” and “reproductive health misinformation” (abortion). The May 1 report also uncovered that the Biden administration exerted similar pressure on Facebook and Amazon. Like YouTube, Facebook changed its content moderation policies as a result of applied pressure from the Biden White House. Amazon, while not a social media platform, changed its usual practices to suppress books on its website that questioned vaccines or other COVID narratives.   Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

NB Blog Feed

Is Soros Buying Universities’ Silence on Anti-Semitic Agitators?

First on MRC Business: George Soros’ Open Society Foundations sunk massive amounts of cash into several universities—most of which have been a breeding ground for radical anti-Israel students and whose administrations responded poorly to protestors, agitators and rioters trespassing, breaking into and occupying buildings and harassing Jewish students. Both the New York Post and Politico have reported on Soros’ connections to the groups leading the anti-Israel protests. And now, an MRC Business investigation exposed how Soros has also given at least $34,638,060 to the nine universities that have made headlines for their slow response to anti-Semitic protests and riots, as well as their ineffectual or possibly even sympathetic administrators. Among the recipients of Soros funding connections were Columbia University, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of North Carolina (UNC), University of Southern California (USC), City University of New York (CUNY), the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and, of course, the University of California Berkeley from 2016 to 2022. Soros also poured money into media and journalism-related initiatives at several of these schools, including $2,399,360 to Harvard, $1,827,560 to Columbia, $366,369 to UNC and $125,000 to CUNY.  The accusations of anti-Semitic sentiments at Harvard, MIT, UPenn and Columbia were so severe that all four presidents of these universities have been called to testify before Congress. The presidents of UPenn and Harvard resigned in disgrace due to their failure to address campus anti-Semitism. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay also failed to clearly condemn the anti-Semitic phrase “From the River to the Sea,” which calls for the genocide of the Jewish people. The president of Columbia only allowed police to clear out trespassing anti-Israel agitators after they barricaded themselves inside a building, trashed it and prevented people from going in or out.  At CUNY and UNC, anti-Israel hecklers tore down the American flag while raising the Palestinian flag above the campus. Students have occupied and attempted to occupy buildings, trashed their campuses with garbage and graffiti, and acted with basic impunity due to a lack of decisive actions from their university administrations.  Other universities have taken anti-Semitism more seriously. University of Florida president Ben Sasse famously stood his ground against violations of campus policy on campus and in the pages of The Wall Street Journal.   At Florida State, the administration cleared out a prohibited encampment in five minutes, faster than former President Harry Truman recognized the restoration of Israel. The University of Notre Dame chose to have anti-Israel protestors arrested after their event continued after its allotted time. The University of South Florida has also enforced its policies against anti-Israel protesters.  Princeton University took action against students occupying a campus building, having 13 arrested for this incident while having two other students arrested to enforce a policy against tents.   Of five universities that acted swiftly to condemn unlawful behavior by anti-Israel agitators, Soros gave a total of $1,685,040 from 2016 to 2022. That’s a lot less than $34 million.  MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider asked why these universities have tolerated this behavior for so long. “This draws into question whether the Hamas nine are allowing these agitators to run amok so as to keep the gravy train flowing. Columbia seems addicted to the Soros cash. Will the Hamas nine universities do anything to keep the money flowing?” Schneider asked.  Not all the anti-Israel agitators have been students, according to the New York Post. The Post, citing law enforcement sources, stated that 134 of 282 people arrested during recent violent protests at New York universities had no connection to the schools they were arrested at. New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) backed the idea that campus protests were being inflated or even led by “outside agitators” during a May 1 press conference.  The Post also reported in an April 27 article that some of “the protests are being encouraged by paid radicals who are ‘fellows’ of a Soros-funded group called the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR),” which pays them up to $7,800 and trains them to organize pro-Palestinian campaigns.  Disturbingly, Soros has a long record of funding anti-Israel groups. Soros gave $525,000 to Jewish Voice for Peace between 2017 and 2022, a group that has figured prominently in campus protests.  Even POLITICO, far from a conservative media outlet, recently reported that Soros has funded three anti-Israel groups involved in the campus protests: Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow and the Adalah Justice Project. As noted by the New York Post, all three of these radical groups have been involved in anti-Israel protests since Hamas launched a terror attack against Israel last fall.  During the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack, MRC President Brent Bozell and Schneider pointed out that Soros had heavily funded seven of the groups that spoke up in defense of acts of Hamas terrorism. This included $550,000 in donations for the pro-Hamas group Al-Shabaka, which issued a horrifying statement papering over murder and rape with the phrase “decolonization is not a metaphor.” The leftist billionaire also made an absurd comment about the terrorist group, saying that America and Israel “must open the door to Hamas.” The president of Soros’ Open Society Foundations Lord Mark Malloch-Brown has also advocated in favor of Hamas, arguing that “Hamas must be a party to a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.” 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’s funding of anti-Israel causes. Note: The author of this article graduated from the University of Notre Dame. 

NB Blog Feed

Oliver Doubles Down On Attempt To Bribe Thomas Off The Court

HBO’s host of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver, traveled to NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers on Monday for one of his periodic visits to his network-based cohorts. During his visit, Oliver and Meyers reminisced about the time Oliver promised Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million to “get the fuck off the Supreme Court,” with Oliver doubling down, “Honestly, I'd open it up again.” Meyers recalled that “there is something that has not happened yet that you threw out into the universe. You basically offered Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year—not just a million dollars, a million dollars a year if he resigned from the Supreme Court.”     Amid cheering from the audience, Oliver also remembered that it is “so easy to feel that way when you didn't make the offer and I felt exactly like you until the offer went out on TV. I was so excited. "Oh, that was fun. That show went really well. Oh [bleep], it's about to happen now, isn't it?" After a bit about how Oliver’s wife was not as thrilled as the audience with the idea, he declared, “It was both a huge relief and massively disappointing that he didn't take it.” Meyers then wondered, “What was the window of time you gave him?” Oliver then doubled down, “It was—we gave him 30 days. Honestly, I'd open it up again. If— ahead of — As long as—As long as he gets out before the—before they're doing the June decisions. I would be willing to open discussions again.” After a bit of self-revelation that Thomas probably wasn’t watching, Meyers joked that Thomas’s wife Ginni was, which led Oliver to continue, “Yeah, if you want to get in touch and open up the negotiations again, I still have the contract in the drawer in my desk, and I'd be willing to do that. Again, until one of us dies, and hopefully that will be you.” For Meyers, that last bit was “just self-preservation” to avoid having to make large amounts of million-dollar payments, but Oliver doesn't have to worry because Thomas isn't the corrupt vote-seller the bit pretends that he is. Here is a transcript for the May 6-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/7/2024 1:08 AM ET SETH MEYERS: There is something that has not happened yet that you threw out into the universe. You basically offered Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year -- not just a million dollars – JOHN OLIVER: Yeah. MEYERS: -- a million dollars a year if he resigned from the Supreme Court. OLIVER: I did do that. I did, yeah. Yeah. Easy. MEYERS: Easy. OLIVER: Easy -- so easy to feel that way when you didn't make the offer and I felt exactly like you until the offer went out on TV. I was so excited. "Oh, that was fun. That show went really well. Oh [bleep], it's about to happen now, isn't it?" MEYERS: Now, I imagine there's multiple people you just – OLIVER: Oh, yeah. Yes. MEYERS: -- Have to talk to about that. People, lawyers – OLIVER: For sure. MEYERS: Your wife. OLIVER: Definitely. MEYERS: Were they as applaud-y as this group? OLIVER: I would say my wife was on the low side of the applaud-y. It was more, "What did you just tell me?" I did say to her, it's until one of us dies. And I think that if he takes the offer -- MEYERS: Not you or your wife, you or Clarence Thomas. OLIVER: No, yeah, that's what I'm -- no, no. Yeah. Well, you diagnosed the awkwardness in that room really well. “Why would you put that in the offer, you sociopath?”  Until I or Clarence Thomas die. And I did feel like if he took the deal that there were going to be some people so angry with me that they were going to kill me. Therefore, my wife wouldn't be on the hook for the money. But she didn't take that as the reassuring statement that I hoped. “Oh, I won't be around for that. Don't worry. It's fine.”  But it would have -- if he said -- it was both a huge relief and massively disappointing that he didn't take it. MEYERS: What was the window of time you gave him? OLIVER: It was -- we gave him 30 days. Honestly, I'd open it up again. If-- ahead of -- As long as -- MEYERS: Yeah. OLIVER: As long as he gets out before the -- before they're doing the June decisions.  MEYERS: Yeah. OLIVER: I would be willing to open discussions again. So Clarence, I know I keep -- every time I'm talking to Clarence through the camera here. MEYERS: Sure, yeah, yeah. Of course. OLIVER: Clarence, I know you're a big fan of Seth. MEYERS: Yeah. I think he -- I think he's not, but Ginni has it on. OLIVER: Ginni-- Ginni is just a fan of just the canon of Late Night. MEYERS: Oh, just loves it, yeah. OLIVER: Yeah, if you want to get in touch and open up the negotiations again, I still have the contract in the drawer in my desk, and I'd be willing to do that. MEYERS: That's really cool. OLIVER: Again, until one of us dies, and hopefully that will be you. MEYERS: More than fair. OLIVER: You know, like -- MEYERS: That's just self-preservation.

NB Blog Feed

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

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

NB Blog Feed

Will Noem-Focused Media Allow Gov. Hochul’s Casual Racism To Slide?

The corporate media, quick to characterize conservative reaction to the news of the day as “pouncing” and seizing”, are currently doing just that all over Gov. Kristi Noem’s latest book and the revelations therein. Which is their right. But in the interest of walking and chewing gum at the same time, there should be an equal focus on statements just made by New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Watch as Gov. Hochul demonstrates the left’s casual bigotry of low expectations, saying to WashPost editor and MSNBC/PBS host Jonathan Capehart’s face that there are “black kids growing up in The Bronx who don’t even know what the word ‘computer’ is”: KATHY HOCHUL: In fact, I talk to a lot of other people who say, “I wish my governor had thought of that first”, and I say, “No no, this is New York. We like to be first, with all due respect to people from other states. It's sort of- it's sort of our attitude. You know, “we will be the best- we will be the first”. And I want others to follow because right now we have, you know, young black kids growing up in The Bronx who don't even know what the word “computer” is. They- they don't know- they don't know these things, and I want the world to open up to all of them because when you have their diverse voices innovating solutions through technology, then you're really addressing society's broader challenges. Can you get away with casual racism so long as you wrap your casual racism around some woke word salad? Hochul certainly seems to think so. And Capehart offers no challenge or pushback against what Hochul is saying here. From a journalistic perspective, of course.  One immediately wonders what the fallout would be if it were a conservative saying such things. Where would media reaction fall on a scale of 1-Chernobyl? The more prominent the governor, the closer to Chernobyl. Just imagine the coverage if, say, Ron DeSantis had said something similar. There is literally no excuse for the media not covering Hochul’s statements. The lazy corporate media tend to turn New York stories into national stories. By extension, THIS is a national story. In this day and age, Hochul’s utterances warrant ceaseless A-block coverage up and down the dial. We’ll soon find out whether governor scandals draw equal coverage on the merits, or whether there in fact is a (D)ifference.  

NB Blog Feed

NBC Only Evening Newscast To Cover Blocked U.S. Weapons Transfer To Israel

News broke yesterday of a blocked U.S. weapons transfer to Israel, as ceasefire negotiations appeared to be stalled and the invasion of Rafah appeared imminent. A full day later, no evening network newscast reported on this dramatic shift in U.S. policy towards Israel save for NBC Nightly News.  Even then, the report was sparse: an addendum tacked on to the end of Richard Engel’s dispatch on Hamas’s acceptance of a ceasefire deal negotiated between Hamas and Hamas. Watch all 28 seconds of genre-leading coverage, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Monday, May 6th, 2024: LESTER HOLT: Richard, meanwhile we've learned The White House has stopped a U.S. shipment of military aid to Israel. RICHARD ENGEL: This is a rare move, Lester. The White House blocking a large shipment of offensive weapons including 2,000-pound bombs, just as Israel's intensifying military operations in Rafah. Two administration officials confirming it, but say that it does not reflect a shift in overall policy. The White House isn't commenting. Lester. HOLT: Richard Engel, thank you. That 28 seconds was more than ABC or CBS mustered on their respective evening newscasts, which is surprising given the magnitude of such a story breaking over the weekend, and especially so within the context of an impending (or ongoing, depending on who you ask) IDF invasion of Rafah. As Axios reported: The Biden administration last week put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel, two Israeli officials told Axios. Why it matters: It is the first time since the Oct. 7 attack that the U.S. has stopped a weapons shipment intended for the Israeli military. The incident raised serious concerns inside the Israeli government and sent officials scrambling to understand why the shipment was held, Israeli officials said.   President Biden is facing sharp criticism among Americans who oppose his support of Israel. The administration in February asked Israel to provide assurances that U.S.-made weapons were being used by Israel Defense Forces in Gaza in accordance with international law. Israel provided a signed letter of assurances in March. Axios goes on to report that the shipment was blocked last week. Perhaps this is what prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to say the following as part of his statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day: From here in Jerusalem, I am sending a very clear-cut message: you will not chain our hands and even if Israel has to stand alone, it will stand alone and will continue to fight our enemies until victory. None of this was reported to the American people, who got all of 28 seconds across three network prime-time newscasts. It seems important, too, this shift in U.S. policy towards a significant ally. One is ultimately left wondering whether coverage of the war in Gaza is driven by facts on the ground of poll numbers coming out of Michigan. The handling of this story suggests the latter.  

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: 'SNL' Thinks Dumb Trumpers Get Their News from T-Shirts

We witnessed another mediocre edition of Saturday Night Live on NBC, but one snippet of the "Weekend Update" fake-news caught my attention. It came from fake anchor Michael Che, blink and you’ll miss it. He joked Biden supporters are "more likely to get their news from newspapers and mainstream media, while Trump supporters get their news from T-SHIRTS!" The T-shirt on screen said “Joe Biden sucks.” Translation: Democrats read The New York Times for hours, then probably master the crossword puzzle in a half-hour. Republicans read T-shirts and maybe a bumper sticker or two. Yes the right-wingers are too stupid for news reports in complete sentences. SNL’s analysis of media consumption among conservatives are pretty much like the scribbles on the front of a T-shirt. SNL could be speaking for our media elites. If you fail to read them and trust them implicitly and follow all of their political marching orders, they assume you hate a free press and wish desperately for the End of Democracy. Also: A new poll from AP and the American Press Institute found only 14 percent of expressed a great deal of confidence in election-related information they receive from national media. By contrast, 52 percent have little or no confidence at all in the information they receive from national news organizations. 53 percent, say they are extremely or very concerned that news organizations will report inaccuracies or misinformation during the election. Imagine that! AP media reporter David Bauder turned to American Press Institute chief Michael Bolden, who said “Years of suspicion about journalists, much of it sown by politicians, is partly responsible, he said. People are also less familiar with how journalism works.” Reporters have sown “years of suspicion about politicians.” That’s how investigating politician performance could be described. So why would investigating journalist performance draw complaints of “sowing years of suspicion”? Why can they never be evaluated for how they serve the public? They want to run the country, and they don’t want you complaining about it, okay? Bolden is implying that politicians have swindled the public with this liberal-bias thing, because they’re not very bright. Then he lobbed another insult, that people aren’t familiar with “how journalism works.” Oh no, we know exactly how it works, and we know it's not working for us. Enjoy the podcast below, or whenever you listen to podcasts. 

NB Blog Feed

MSNBC Airs Threat To Possible Trump Veeps: You Could End Up Being Executed!

The liberal media isn't waiting for Donald Trump to announce his running mate before going on the attack. MSNBC has aired a pre-emptive strike on all the potential VP candidates. And not only did it contain a vitriolic denunciation of them, but it also included a not-so-veiled threat of the most ominous sort. Tara Setmayer, a former Republican congressional staffer turned member of the disgraced Lincoln Project, was a guest on Sunday's edition of MSNBC's The Weekend. Here's how she vilified the people whose names are apparently in the running as Trump's running mate: "They're despicable hypocrites. These are the worst people, because Donald Trump couldn't become who he has become, the malignancy of Trump could not have spread like this without the enablers.  "Plain and simple: these are Vichy Republicans. And for the historians out there, they will appreciate what happened to the Vichys during World War II." "What happened to the Vichys?" Readers will recall that during WWII, the Vichys were established in France as a puppet government of Nazi Germany. They were a government of Hitler collaborators.  And, to answer Setmayer, "what happened" to the Vichys? When the war ended, more than 10,000 were executed. So Setmayer was sending a chilling threat to the potential VP candidates and anyone else who might "collaborate" with Trump: you might meet the same fate as the French collaborators with the Nazis! And the liberal media denounces Trump's alleged disregard for the rule of law and threats against opponents? Note: This wasn't the first time we've caught Setmayer jumping ugly against Republicans. Last year, when Ron DeSantis was riding high as a potential Republican presidential candidate, we noted Setmayer attacking his wife Casey as a "Serena Waterford wannabe." As we wrote at the time: "Waterford is the character from The Handmaid's Tale who has been described, in a website about screen villains, as "the cruel, fanatically religious wife of Fred Waterford, the dictator of Gilead." Setmayer did stop short of recommending Vichy-collaborator treatment for Casey DeSantis.

NB Blog Feed

ABC Commiserates with Nathan Wade, Bemoan ‘Whirlwind of Distraction’ From Jailing Trump

On Sunday’s World News Tonight and Monday’s Good Morning America (GMA), ABC rolled out the first two segments on their flagship newscasts of their network exclusive interview with former Fulton County, Georgia special prosecutor Nathan Wade over losing his job nearly two months ago in the 2020 election case against former President Trump and 18 others because of his illicit romantic relationship with District Attorney Fani Willis. Correspondent, Sunday World News Tonight anchor, and ABC News Live host Linsey Davis didn’t lob one softball after another, but she largely let him off the hook by fretting Wade and Willis were caught and thus were a collective “whirlwind of distraction” from the fourth Trump indictment and letting Wade offer no serious apologies as he called their trysts “as American as apple pie.” On Sunday night, Davis opened with Wade’s soundbite that “[w]orkplace romances are as American as apple pie” and occur with “everyone” but bemoans the fact that they were caught. Asked if he regrets becoming involved with Willis, Wade replied he only “regret[s]” this “private matter became the focal point of this very important prosecution”. In the other Q&A, Davis only wondered if they had really grappled with the fact that “democracy is on the line, as has been described” and thought of putting the country above their relationship. Wade again displayed zero remorse, only saying he’d “concede that that could have been an approach, but...when you are in the middle of it, these feelings are developing, and you get to a point to where the feelings are — are — are so strong that, you know, you start to want to do things that really are none of the public’s concern.” While Wade won’t end up in prison, the guy belongs in some sort of dog house or horny jail for how shameless the man remains about his escapades. Monday’s GMA brought about just over six and a half additional minutes of this cringe. Davis boasted that “Wade had a lot to get off his chest” about losing the case he had “spen[t] 865 days” working on what would be yet another case of election interference.     Setting the tone this wouldn’t be grilling by starting with Wade telling her he “want[s] people to know the real me”, Davis reracked the first exchange that aired on Sunday night about office sex is “as American as apple pie” and he only regrets being caught. Davis then fretted “[t]he relationship created a whirlwind of distraction from the indictment of former President Trump and 18 others for alleged election interference” and put the brakes on their prosecutions. As a way to seem tough, she quoted far-left feminist Post columnist Monica Hesse and wondered why it took them 25 days to fight back (click “expand”): DAVIS [TO WADE]: A Washington Post columnist wrote, “what were they thinking? How would they start a romance, embroiled in the prosecution of a former President, start a romance and not see this trouble coming a mile away.” And so, what were you thinking in that moment? WADE: You know, again, you — you don’t plan to — to develop feelings. You don’t plan to — to fall in love. You don’t plan to — to — to have some relationship in the workplace that we — you don’t set out to do that and those things develop organically. They develop over — over time. And the — the minute we had that sobering moment, we discontinued it. DAVIS: For nearly one month after news of their relationship broke, neither prosecutor acknowledged it publicly. [TO WADE] So, for 25 days, we didn’t hear from — from you or District Attorney Willis. You’re a public servant — right — getting paid by the state of — of Georgia. Why not say, okay, we’ll — we’ll make a statement, get on top of this? WADE: Let me say this. My conversation here with you today is just that. It’s — it’s Nathan’s conversation. I — I do not speak for the district attorney’s office. I do not speak for their position. As a matter of fact, I am certain that they would rather me not be having this — this exchange with you. So, with that, I want to continue to protect the integrity of this prosecution. I don’t want to say or do anything that would jeopardize this case. After a comical aside with Wade claiming his relationship with Willis hasn’t had an effect on the case, Davis somewhat incredulously and somewhat sympathetically played along as he claimed he wasn’t ready for the public spotlight from having been named to the case and whined about Trump attacking him (click “expand”): DAVIS: One aspect Wade said he wasn’t prepared for was the intense public scrutiny and harassment he said he’s faced. [TO WADE] So, you didn’t realize when you took the case your life was going to be under a microscope? WADE: I did not realize that my life would be in danger. The microscope — I don’t have a problem with. The truth is I — you know, the worst that you could find was the fact that I had a relationship with someone or that I — I happened to be going through a divorce, that’s okay. That — that’s okay. I — I had nothing to — to hide. DAVIS: And some of the attacks have come from the former President himself. [TO WADE] Is there any part of you that regrets that you gave him any aspect to say, oh, you have to question the credibility of this case because of the relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade? WADE: So, while — while I will concede, Miss Davis, that the relationship did not happen in ideal timing, I don’t think that anything that occurred during the course of the relationship should cause question as it would relate to the efficiency of the indictment, as it would relate to evidence that was uncovered and — and — and may or may not be presented at — at trial. Following one final clip of Wade expressing confidence the trial will happen, Davis told the GMA crew back live that “one thing Wade says he does regret is the impact the scandal has had on his adult children” and “[h]e wants people to know he was separated at the time of the relationship with Fani Willis”. To see the relevant ABC transcripts, click here (for May 5) and here (for May 6).

NB Blog Feed

‘Come on The View!’ MSNBC Biden Flack Defends Him Refusing Pressers

You can take the press secretary out of the White House, but you can’t take the White House out of the press secretary. Despite now being a member of the press (after her ethically dubious hiring by NBC/MSNBC), former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki appeared on Monday’s edition of The View and defended President Biden’s refusal to do press conferences and his desire to only grant sit down interviews to friendly media outlets that give him a tongue bath. Psaki was teed up by faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, who framed her question about Biden’s lack of “press availabilities” as her providing free campaign advice: So Jen, you have been on both sides as working as a press secretary, but also now being in the media. And there's been a lot of criticism of Biden, most recently from The New York Times that he's held the fewest interviews and press availabilities of any president since Reagan. I personally think it would help dispel some of the concerns about his age if he did more. What would your advice be to the White House in terms of his accessibility to press? The former press secretary turned MSNBC host began by suggesting that it was so hard for Biden to pick which media outlets to give interviews to because, “the benefit of the media environment right now…is that there are so many choices” and the goal is “just trying to communicate with the American people.”     Played to her hosts’ massive egos, Psaki further advised Biden that “he should come on The View before he does a press conference.” Which got an excited “Thank you!” screech from Farah Griffin. Psaki argued that it was better for the American people to hear Biden take part in “real conversations” with hosts that love him (and shows The View co-hosts seemed to enjoy): PSAKI: He should because people want to have real conversations about issues that are happening. I think press conferences are important, but I also think him doing Howard Stern – SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes! PSAKI: -- that's an interview that reached a broader audience of people. Him talking to the guys from Smart List, which is a great podcast – SARA HAINES: Oh, I love that podcast. “So, I would say more Howard Stern. Come on The View. You know, more Smart List conversations where you’re having conversations about policy, but they're real ones that people have at their kitchen table,” she declared. Pretend-independent co-host Sara Haines even suggested that she rarely hears any important information distributed during a press conference, which she claimed were “just gotcha moments.” “Sometimes, as a citizen, when I watch I don't want just the same just like catching moment. I want to know what's going on and I don't always get that from a press conference,” she lamented. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 6, 2024 11:39:34 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So Jen, you have been on both sides as working as a press secretary, but also now being in the media. And there's been a lot of criticism of Biden, most recently from The New York Times that he's held the fewest interviews and press availabilities of any president since Reagan. I personally think it would help dispel some of the concerns about his age if he did more. What would your advice be to the White House in terms of his accessibility to press? JEN PSAKI: Well, I think the benefit of the media environment right now – there's a lot of challenges, but I'll start at the optimistic side – is that there are so many choices. And when you’re communicating from the White House, I mean, respect for freedom of speech and freedom of the press is important, but you're also really just trying to communicate with the American people. So, my view is he should come on The View before he does a press conference. [Applause] FARAH GRIFFIN: Thank you! PSAKI: He should because people want to have real conversations about issues that are happening. I think press conferences are important, but I also think him doing Howard Stern – SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes! PSAKI: -- that's an interview that reached a broader audience of people. Him talking to the guys from Smart List, which is a great podcast – SARA HAINES: Oh, I love that podcast. PSAKI: So, if you are in the White House, you're not thinking about, “Am I checking the box on doing the most interviews?” You're thinking about, “Am I doing the most I can to communicate my message to the American people?” That's who I represent. So, I would say more Howard Stern. Come on The View. You know, more Smart List conversations where you’re having conversations about policy, but they're real ones that people have at their kitchen table. HAINES: And they're also not just gotcha moments. PSAKI: Yeah. HAINES: Sometimes, as a citizen, when I watch I don't want just the same just like catching moment. I want to know what's going on and I don't always get that from a press conference. PSAKI: Yes. Exactly. (…)

NB Blog Feed

Silly Us: Google Regurgitates Typical Excuse After Slashing MAGA Ad

Google is back to its old censorship tricks, leaving no room for MAGA sense of humor. Last Friday, Google made some waves on X when it was caught censoring an ad supporting former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign multiple times. Google reportedly restored the ad the following day, claiming it had flagged it “in error.” MRC President Brent Bozell decried this sorry excuse. “This is unacceptable,” he said. “Why did Google remove the ad from Trump's Super PAC in the first place? This is a continuation of a campaign against conservatives.” Bozell's reaction came after Google censored a Trump ad scheduled to run from May 1 to May 3, according to screenshots of Google’s Ad Library posted by Andrew Arenge, a director of operations for the Program on Opinion Research and Election Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. The ad depicted a fictional phone call between a Biden campaign aide and a voter. “Everything costs more. Food, gas, rent,” the voter complained. The campaign aide was piped back, touting Biden's disastrous immigration policy. “OK, but Biden’s helping pay rent for newcomers to America from around the world,” the campaign aide responded.  The voter was not impressed, saying “You mean, illegal immigrants? I’m struggling to pay my bills, but Biden’s paying rent for illegals? They get handouts, and I’m paying for it.” The voter added, “Things were better before Biden. I’m voting for Trump!”  Trump’s Super PAC is running this ad in rural Georgia counties targeting Black men. pic.twitter.com/mcRMkGsqLN — Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) May 3, 2024 Google’s recent bout of censorship should come as no surprise and must be called out for what it is. “This is election interference, pure and simple. Congress must investigate @Google for this and the other 41 cases of election interference we found since 20[0]8,”  Bozell posted on X Friday.  This is election interference, pure and simple. Congress must investigate @Google for this and the other 41 cases of election interference we found since 2018. https://t.co/Gd1hEF1xJA — Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) May 3, 2024 MRC Free Speech America released a study in March detailing 41 times Google was caught interfering in U.S. elections, beginning in 2008, intensifying in 2016 and continuing into 2024. The platform has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to engage in election-interfering tactics including creating AI that has a bias against certain candidates, launching autofill manipulation and burying candidates' campaign websites in their search results.  But Google always seems to either ignore the problem or frame it as an unfortunate, albeit unintentional, “error.” As Bozell described it, “When Google gets caught interfering in elections, they reverse themselves claiming an 'error' occurred.” This happened in 2020 when the platforms suspended then-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (D-HI) ad account during the height of her popularity, and in 2008 when Google’s blogging platform flagged then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) supporters.  And the censorship always seems to impact candidates who step in the way of the most extreme leftist candidate, regardless of party—and Google has yet to answer for its ongoing election interference.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

NB Blog Feed

24-Year-Old Teacher Arrested After Allegedly ‘Making Out’ With 5th Grader

Another week, another teacher sexually assaulting a student. Maddison Bergmann, a 24-year-old Wisconsin elementary school teacher, was arrested recently after allegedly making out with one of her 5th grade students. Screenshots from numerous text message conversations between the victim and Bergmann suggest that the sexual abuse took place during lunch or after school, CBS News reported. Apparently, the victim’s mother overheard a phone call between Bergmann and her son which prompted the mother to go through her 11-year-old's cellphone. The victim then told investigators that he spoke with Bergmann “almost daily.” When the child’s father found out about the alleged relationship, he marched to River Crest Elementary with the printed conversations from his son's phone, leading to police being called “regarding inappropriate conduct between a current teacher and a 5th grade student.” Additionally, court documents indicate that Bergmann’s bag had a folder in it with handwritten notes from the victim. The victim noted that the boy and his teacher would write notes to one another talking about “kissing each other” throughout the day. Related: Church Volunteer Accused of Sexual Assaulting 15-Year-Old Boy “One of my cousins is in the 5th grade and I can't imagine a man talking to her how we talk. I know we have a special relationship and I do love you more than anyone in the world but I have to be the adult here and stop,” one of the notes, allegedly from Bergmann, said. Documents also report that Bergmann told the victim how much she enjoyed “him touching her” and “making out” with him, the New York Post reported. After being arrested and released on a $25,000 bond, Bergmann has been placed on administrative leave and faces one count of first-degree child sexual assault. Her fiancé has since reportedly called off their July wedding, shocking no one. Sadly, stories like this one are becoming way too common. It’s essentially weekly that we here at MRCTV report on another teacher sexually assaulting one or more of her students, often repeatedly. If you were considering homeschooling and needed something to push you in one direction or the other, this is it. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left Needs Therapy & You Might Too After Watching This The people featured in this video really need therapy & our prayers too. pic.twitter.com/zLbJcivOW3 — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 30, 2024

NB Blog Feed

ABC, CBS Ignore Frat Bros Who Saved American Flag from Pro-Hamas Mob

Last week, a group of heroic Pi Kappa Phi fraternity brothers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill saved an American flag from being torn down a desecrated by a mob of anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas student extremists. But in the week since the incident occurred, the flagship morning and evening newscasts of ABC and CBS ignored the incident, while NBC only gave their heroism in the face of evil anti-Americanism a fleeting eight seconds on NBC Nightly News two nights later. To be fair, the broadcast networks were too busy whining about the pro-Hamas encampment at Columbia University being busted by the NYPD. ABC in particular was also busy lying about the UCLA encampment being “largely peaceful.” And CBS was busy worrying that the protests could hurt President Biden’s reelection chances. ABC and CBS might argue that they thought that the flag-saving incident didn’t rise to a level that would allow it to be considered a national story, but that’s debunked by the fact that at least NBC gave it a few seconds. NBC correspondent Liz Kreutz tucked the frat bros into a much larger report on the college encampments generally. “This American flag at UNC put back in place and protected in part by a group of fraternity brothers after protesters had replaced it with a Palestinian flag,” she said.   This 8-seconds from NBC Nightly News (May 2) was all the Big Three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) could muster for the heroic frat bros at UNC who saved an American flag from the anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas extremists who gathered on campus. It's been a week. pic.twitter.com/kxtQtVnTMi — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 6, 2024   On Thursday’s edition of NewsNation’s On Balance, host Leland Vittert spoke with three of the brothers to get a sense of what it was like in the moment and what it’s been like since the video of them saving the flag went viral. “When we saw our brothers there defending that flag, there was no doubt in any of our minds that we're going to go and join them,” Zachary Serinsky explained. “I'm glad that it was able to be put to an end. And the way that it did eventually. But yeah, we were there defending our brothers and there wasn't going to be anything that was going to stop us from going to that flag.” When asked about the GoFundMe campaign set up on their behalf to pay for a party (which at the time of the interview had raised over $400,000) and the John Rich concert they were getting as a reward, Trevor Lan stated: I mean, I think that we can all agree that we didn't anticipate that that part of it would occur, but we did know that it's important to stand strong on our beliefs and to be a representation of what we hope to see for Jewish students and for students who believe in our flag and democracy across the country.     Brendan Rosenblum said that people have reached out to them about job opportunities, “But again, like, that's not what this was about. It was just to bring attention to the issue we believe in.” He was also hopeful about how their actions changed the conversation on campus. “People are talking to both sides about it and trying to have constructive dialogue because they realize that what happened on our campus is not okay and we have to figure out a way to move forward together,” he said. “And that's the biggest, the most positive thing that came out of this. And I think that's something that we both, and everyone there can be proud of.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s On Balance May 2, 2024 7:07:54 p.m. Eastern (…) LELAND VITTERT: I want to bring in the boys here in a second. Zachary Serinsky, Brendan Rosenblum, Trevor Lan. The guys who are in that video. Brendan, we had you we had you yesterday. Start with Zachary, real quick. You guys just did what you thought was the right thing. All of a sudden. Are you surprised by the result? ZACHARY SERINSKY: I'm not. first of all, thank you for having us. We’re all happy to be here. When we saw our brothers there defending that flag, there was no doubt in any of our minds that we're going to go and join them. I'm glad that it was able to be put to an end. And the way that it did eventually. But yeah, we were there defending our brothers and there wasn't going to be anything that was going to stop us from going to that flag. VITTERT: All right. But Trevor, I think about this. Right, okay. A couple days ago, you guys did the right thing. You weren’t doing it for fame or for glory. You were doing it because you thought it was the right thing to do. You were there with your brothers who were taking a stand and now you're on TV with John Rich, who is going to play you a concert with $400,000 worth of free beer. That's pretty cool. TREVOR LAN: Yeah. I mean, I think that we can all agree that we didn't anticipate that that part of it would occur, but we did know that it's important to stand strong on our beliefs and to be a representation of what we hope to see for Jewish students and for students who believe in our flag and democracy across the country. VITTERT: Brendan, tell me what's happened in the past 24 hours and the conversations you've had. BRENDAN ROSENBLUM: Yeah, I think first of all, we've definitely got a lot more media attention. And for us, it's not about fame, it's not about coolness. It's about bringing attention to our message. Stand up for what you believe in, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. For me, it’s when your values are questioned that’s when it matters. It's easy to believe in something when no one – it’s easy – But when people question that, that's when it's important to stand by them. (…) 1:12:57 p.m. Eastern ROSENBLUM: I think there's been a lot of outreach, there's definitely been job opportunities. But again, like, that's not what this was about. It was just to bring attention to the issue we believe in. And I think the biggest thing we saw from this is people are talking about it. People are talking to both sides about it and trying to have constructive dialogue because they realize that what happened on our campus is not okay and we have to figure out a way to move forward together. And that's the biggest, the most positive thing that came out of this. And I think that's something that we both, and everyone there can be proud of. (…)

NB Blog Feed

NBC's Kristen Welker Presses Tim Scott SIX Times to Accept 2024 Election Results

Does anyone remember Kristen Welker -- in her short tenure at the helm of NBC's Meet the Press -- pushing around a Democrat to answer a question SIX times? Last December, Welker pressed Ron DeSantis six times to condemn Trump calling radical leftists "vermin." On Sunday, she was back on the anti-Trump train, demanding SIX times that Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) pledge to accept the election results of 2024 long before we know what they are.  The first answer could be "I don't know, Kristen. Has NBC accepted the 2016 election results yet? Because that's not what it looked like through the whole Russian-collusion fiasco."  You can say this is a fair question, since Trump hasn't accepted the results of the last election. But this question certainly implies "will the Republicans accept their inevitable defeat?" “You voted to certify the election results of 2020,” Welker said. Trump said “the exact opposite of what you said and did after 2020. Why would you want to be on a ticket with someone where there’s such a fundamental difference?” “President Trump himself said he expects this election to be fair,” Scott replied. “He expects it to be honest, and he expects to win. That’s what the presidential candidate should expect. And I expect the exact same thing. And frankly, the American people agree with him.” Then Welker began pressing Scott on his willingness to accept the 2024 results. “Will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024: Bottom line?” Welker asked. “At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump,” Scott said. “Wait Senator,” Welker said, “Yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter who wins?” Scott just said, “That is my statement." After demanding Tim Scott accept the unknown 2024 election results SIX times, NBC host Kristen Welker hops on her NARAL hobby horse again, yelling at Scott that he can't say Democrats support abortion up until birth. Welker refuses to accept the 2020 DNC platform! pic.twitter.com/6LTzoJzxTv — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 6, 2024 Welker robotically repeated: “Just yes or no: Will you accept the election results of 2024?” Welker said. The senator repeated: “I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president. Kristen, you can ask him multiple times—” “Sir,” Welker pressed on. “Just a yes or no answer.” “The American people will make the decision,” Scott replied. “And the decision will be for President Trump.” Welker wouldn't let up, like she had a Jeff Zucker yelling into her earpiece. “I don’t hear you committing to the election results,” she said. “Will you commit to the election results?” Then Scott called out her Democrat tilt. “This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat Party. At the end of the day, I’ve said what I’ve said, and I know that the American people, their voices will be heard. And I believe that President Trump will be our next president.” Welker fanatically tried a sixth time: “The hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power,” she said. “So I’m asking you, as a potential VP nominee, will you accept to commit to the election results in this election cycle, no matter who wins? Just simply yes or no.” “I expect President Trump to win the next election. Listen, I’m not going to ask to answer your hypothetical question,” Scott said. In the same show, Welker interviewed Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and she didn't ask him anything six times. But Welker also returned to quibbling with Sen. Scott when he said Democrats support abortion up to birth. That's a fact, NBC! NBC’s @kwelkernbc obsesses with @SenatorTimScott, asking SIX times variations of “Senator, yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter who wins?” Scott: “This is why so many Americans believe NBC is an extension of the Democratic Party” #MTP pic.twitter.com/IgoJLQXpZI — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 5, 2024

NB Blog Feed

Top New York Times Editor Joe Kahn: We Don't Want to Be Biden's Pravda!

Current New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn granted an interview to former Times media columnist Ben Smith at his new venture Semafor.com. Kahn surely infuriated leftists like former Times ombudsman Margaret Sullivan, who want to shred any notion of objectivity against those horribly lying authoritarian Republicans. He said don't skew the news!?  BEN SMITH: Dan Pfeiffer, who used to work for Barack Obama, recently wrote of the Times, “They do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.” Why don’t you see your job as: “We’ve got to stop Trump?” What about your job doesn’t let you think that way? JOE KAHN: ...One of the absolute necessities of democracy is having a free and fair and open election where people can compete for votes, andthe role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters. If you believe in democracy, I don’t see how we get past the essential role of quality media in informing people about their choice in a presidential election. To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda. It is true that Biden’s agenda is more in sync with traditional establishment parties and candidates. And we’re reporting on that and making it very clear. Kahn said Trump could possibly win the popular vote in November. "It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It’s the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening." It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top, and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them? I don’t even know how it’s supposed to work. We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that’s very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side? And that would accomplish — what? I think editors like Kahn are trying to maintain this pose that their media outlets are independent and fact-based and not a partisan machine. The pose fails when you actually read them. But it’s like he’s lecturing his troops that this is who they want to Appear. They want to be seen as independent. They want a little finesse in their editorializing. Trump drove them to an excess, Kahn implied, into an explicit Stop Trump mentality, especially in 2020, with the whole Tom Cotton op-ed fiasco. Smith asked "Do you think the Times let the inmates run the asylum for too long?" KAHN: I wouldn’t use those words. I do think that there was a period of peak cultural angst at this organization, with the combination of the intensity of the Trump era, COVID, and then George Floyd. The summer of 2020 was a crazy period where the world felt threatened, people’s individual safety was threatened, we had a murder of an innocent black man by police suffocation. And we have the tail end of the most divisive presidency that anyone alive today has experienced. And those things just frayed nerves everywhere. Kahn said "the newsroom is not a safe space." KAHN: It’s a space where you’re being exposed to lots of journalism, some of which you are not going to like. Don’t you feel like there was a generation of students who came out of school saying you should only work at places that align completely with your values? SMITH: Don’t you think we all sort of said that to them? KAHN: I don’t think we said it explicitly. I think there was a period [where] we implied it. And I think that the early days of Trump in particular, were, “join us for the mission.” SMITH: Was it a mistake to say that — even to think it? KAHN: I think it went too far. It was overly simplistic. And I think the big push that you’re seeing us make and reestablish our norms and emphasize independent journalism and build a more resilient culture comes out of some of the excesses of that period.

NB Blog Feed

Miraculous Gun Jam Saves Pastor During Pennsylvania Church Service

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

NB Blog Feed

ICYMI: Hamill Derails WH Briefing, Doocy Battles Inept KJP Over Her Alma Mater

Friday’s White House press briefing began with a distinct 2016 vibe as the Biden administration demanded it be taken seriously on the reelection front with Star Wars actor Mark Hamill surprising reporters ahead of May 4 (aka May the Fourth Be With You!) and a few dutifully complied by asking him questions despite the fact that, as we’d later learn, one hasn’t seen any of the movies. Elsewhere, the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre faced her usual hardballs from the like of Fox colleagues Edward Lawrence on tax cuts and basic respect for laws on the books and then Peter Doocy on both-sides-ing anti-Semitism and Islamphobia, Jean-Pierre’s alma mater, and the now-famous UNC fraternity brothers.     Hamill led off with his surprise appearance and donning a pair of aviators to match the President before saying he “was honored to be asked to come to the White House to meet the President, the most legislatively successful president in my lifetime” and listing off standard party talking points. He then opened it up to questions after thanking The New York Times’s Peter Baker in the second row for his most recent book which was, naturally, an anti-Trump tome with wife Susan Glasser. ABC’s Selina Wang seized the opportunity: “Thank you, Mark Hamill, for being here. What did you ask? What did you talk about with the President?” After Hamill replied this was his first time visiting a White House on his own in the Oval and thus more special (as opposed to going in a group), CBS’s Weijia Jiang had the other question:  JIANG: Did President Biden bring up Star Wars to you, sir? HAMILL: Well, you know, I called him Mr President. He said, you can call me Joe and I said, “can I call you Joe-Bi-Wan Kenobi?” Jiang returned to this topic during her Q&A with a genuine question about why Hamill came to the White House, but Jean-Pierre didn’t like her tone and it quickly devolved into a mini-roast of the CBS correspondent for admitting she’s never watched the movies (click “expand”): JIANG: And then just to close the loop. What was Mark Hamill doing here today? JEAN-PIERRE: I think he said. He said he was meeting with — he was having a meeting. Did you not like having him in? JIANG: No, I mean, that’s not — we all loved meeting him, but —  JEAN-PIERRE: It sounded — it sounded — it sounded very kind of like, why? Why here? Um, he was no, He said it himself. I — we — we wanted to make sure that he provided — which is one of the reasons he spoke to — why he was here himself. He wanted to meet with the President. They had a meeting, and — JIANG: About what? JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you guys asked him questions. Uh — uh — uh — uh, they had a meeting about — um — what the President has been able to do on behalf of the American people. Mark Hamill was in town. They met. I think it was — it was important as someone — you all — you all know Mark Hamill. He is someone who has who is very much invested in our country — very much invested in — um — in the direction of this country. And so — uh — they had a — you know, they had a meeting. It was — he — he went into that meeting, and I thought — we thought it would be fun for him to come out here and lighten up — and lighten up the room a little bit on a Friday. We also believe that you guys are — so — there are some Star Wars fans in here. Uh — but, you know, the President — I mean, the President meets with a lot of people. There’s a lot of people that come through the White House that the President has an opportunity to sit down and talk with. You just happen to — you just happen to see Mark Hamill today because we thought it would be a nice gesture to have him come out and say hello, but I wouldn’t put too much. I really wouldn’t put too much into it. He meets with a lot of people here.  JIANG: Thank you. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. All right. Jeez. Weijia is not happy about Mark Hamill being here. [REPORTERS LAUGH] That’s okay. I’m not gonna tell him. He’s not watching probably. I won’t tell him. REPORTER: Have you [inaudible] JIANG: I don’t — I haven’t seen the movies. JEAN-PIERRE: Do you — do you not like Star Wars? You have not seen Star Wars. What? JIANG: I will now. I will now. [REPORTERS BOO] JEAN-PIERRE: That’s why that happened, folks. That’s why I got the question. Yeah. JIANG: I’m gonna watch. I’m going to watch. REPORTER: She’s not alone. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, there’s more.  REPORTER: What? JEAN-PIERRE: Well, All right. I’m gonna let that go. Fast-forwarding to the back end of the briefing, Lawrence fact-checked the administration on tax cuts: “So, the President says that he wants to let the tax cuts — the Trump tax cuts expire. If that law expires, it does raise taxes on almost every American. So, does he still support that expiring without anything else in place?”     Jean-Pierre deflected by claiming while Biden will “let the Trump tax cut expire....he will not raise taxes on anyone less than $400,000” and he’s “been very clear about that.” Lawrence doubled down: “[T]he President can’t pick and choose which part of the law sunsets. The entire law will sunset and the Tax Foundation says that someone who’s married, two kids, making 85,000 would pay $1,700 more in taxes. That’s somebody under $400,000”. Jean-Pierre didn’t budge on any of her talking points, including the irrelevant claim about Republicans “want[ing] to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security” Doocy Time began with this both-sidesism that, if it were done by a Republican president, would trigger liberal media-wide excoriations: “So, in the President’s remarks yesterday, he’s talking about Islamophobia on campuses. Lately, we’ve been seeing a lot of vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric on campuses. Does he think Islamophobia is just as big of a problem on campus as anti-Semitism?” Jean-Pierre shamelessly wouldn’t fully rebut that and instead remained in neutral with a standard word salad about Bide being able “to call out all forms of hate, always” and opposing protests that aren’t “within the law”.     Doocy next used Jean-Pierre’s own words against her when noting no one had asked her about the fact that anti-Semitic protest hotbed Columbia University is Jean-Pierre’s alma mater. Pathetically, Jean-Pierre mocked Doocy for having done “some research” (click “expand”): DOOCY: Something else that it somehow slipped my mind. JEAN-PIERRE: How is that — DOOCY: — over the last couple of weeks. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, goodness. DOOCY: You are an alumna of Columbia — OTHER REPORTERS: Ooooo! DOOCY: — University. JEAN-PIERRE: Wow, that’s a shocker. DOOCY: You, in all the talking about it — JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. DOOCY: — you haven’t brought it up. Uh, you told Columbia students a few years back. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. DOOCY: “Don’t” — JEAN-PIERRE: Oh! DOOCY: — “lose the idealism that you have.” So what do you tell them now? JEAN-PIERRE: You did — you did some research. Oh, my God! DOOCY: All I do is research and just hope that you call me. JEAN-PIERRE: [LAUGHS] You did some —” DOOCY: But no! What do you tell, the — JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look —“ DOOCY: — the students who are following in your footsteps? JEAN-PIERRE: — look — I mean, look, going to be — oh, and that’s actually gonna be a great segue to — uh — to the student — student journalist that we have in the room, Danny — um — after I answer this question. DOOCY: I do have one more, though. [REPORTERS LAUGH] JEAN-PIERRE: Ah! DOOCY: Sorry, Danny. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s okay. Uh — so, look — I’m not speaking on behalf of me. I’m not. I speak on behalf of this President. That’s my job, and I believe in this president. I believe in the work that we do. It is an honor and a privilege to stand at this lectern every day to speak to you and all your colleagues and to take your questions. It is not about me — uh — and really your question and what you’re asking me and — and what I have said to students is pretty much what the President has said. All Americans have the right to peacefully protest within the law. They have to — we have the right. That’s what makes this country so great, right? That’s what makes what — when we’re talking about our freedoms, our democracy. That’s what’s so important — to have the opportunity to agree and disagree and do it in a peaceful way in a peaceful way. That’s important, and the President also called out — if you’re — if you are breaking and entering and you are taking over buildings, that is not peacefully protesting, and the President was very clear about calling that out as well and also anti-Semitism and calling it what it is. It is hate speech. Doocy closed by being the first reporter to bring up in the briefing the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill fraternity brothers who “saved an American flag from an angry mob of protesters” and there was “a GoFundMe where people can donate to throw them a rager.” Amazingly, Doocy asked if Biden “would...donate” to which Jean-Pierre was incredulous: “You never disappoint, my friend.” She then gave a standard answer about how ripping down the American flag as anti-Israel students was not an example of peaceful protest”. When Doocy asked if Biden would even give them a call, Jean-Pierre only said “protecting the American flag is admirable.” To see the relevant transcript from the May 3 briefing (including a question from the left by the AP on anti-Semitic campus protests and a long back-and-forth with April Ryan directly lobbying for a pardon of former Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby), click here.

NB Blog Feed

Jon Meacham On Morning Joe: No 'Buts' About It—You MUST Vote For Biden!

You might think of a presidential election as a choice among candidates. Not to historian and occasional Biden speechwriter Jon Meacham. He will brook no dissent. There is no choice. You MUST vote for Joe Biden! On today's Morning Joe, Meacham told to Biden phone buddy and informal adviser Joe Scarborough the election prospects are "thrilling and terrifying. It's thrilling because it's up to all of us.... What's terrifying is that it's up to us, and it's up to the voters in the swing states." Meacham doesn't really trust the people, and that's why he's going to keep telling you the "stakes" are too high, you can't vote Republican: "I think it's going to be impossible for people to vote in the fall and not understand what's at stake." He knows many voters aren't spending this whole year in a fetal position for the survival of democracy, but gosh, voting for Biden is really, really important! "What I would say to anyone who says, 'Yeah but. Yeah, Trump is awful but, whatever," is there is no but. It's got to be, "Yeah, Trump is that, and, I'm going to vote against him." There is no but? It's "got to be" a vote against Trump, i.e., for Biden?  And the liberal media accuses MAGA of disrespecting democracy? Win or lose, Trump is sure to get tens of millions of votes. But Meacham doesn't even try to understand what motivates people who say, "yeah, but" -- not to mention the millions who outright like Trump and everything he is and stands for.  Such is the arrogance and condescension of the liberal media.  Question: When it was disclosed that Meacham was an occasional Biden speechwriter, MSNBC announced that "per network policy," he would no longer be employed as a paid contributor.  So what about Joe Scarborough? As mentioned, it's been disclosed that not only is Scarborough a frequent Biden phone buddy, but also serves as an informal adviser, offering his "take" on issues of the day.  What's the MSNBC "network policy" that permits Scarborough to continue in his multi-million-dollar MSNBC gig? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/6/24 6:37 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: Jon Meacham, there is simply, we won't even ask. And we stopped asking some time ago for historical parallels. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: There just simply aren't. SCARBOROUGH: There are no historical parallels in this country. But, my gosh, as you said before, what is at stake is so massive this fall. I'm curious your thoughts when you see this testimony, and the Time magazine article. The continued threats of an authoritarian regime coming directly from Donald Trump . . . And so, I'm just curious about your take on where we are right now. JON MEACHAM: I think, my answer is, at once, to me, thrilling and terrifying. It's thrilling because it's up to all of us. It's up to the voters in the seven or eight states. It's up to those of us who have strong feelings about the continuance of the constitution order, to make this case. And that's great, right? That's we the people. What's terrifying is that it's up to us, and it's up to the voters in the swing states. And it's up to those of us who have to make the case to people around the country.  If -- there's no mystery here, right? It's going to be -- I think it's going to be impossible for people to vote in the fall and not understand what's at stake. And if, and maybe that's part of what those of us who, you know, want to make this case have to keep doing, is making sure we say it. And it may seem repetitive to the political-industrial class, but that doesn't matter. I think as Ed would say, you know, there are normal people who are better adjusted than we are and don't worry about this all the time. But it's really, really important. And I don't think, again. What I would say to anyone who says, "Yeah but. Yeah, Trump is awful but, whatever," is there is no but. It's got to be, "Yeah, Trump is that, IIand, I'm going to vote against him.

NB Blog Feed

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

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

NB Blog Feed

CBS’s Norah O’Donnell Is MAD That Hakeem Jeffries is Insufficiently Critical Of Israel

During an otherwise fawning interview on CBS for 60 Minutes, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was sharply questioned for his refusal to be overtly critical of Israel over their conduct of the war against Hamas in the aftermath of the medieval and horrific attack of October 7th. Watch this exchange, in which CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell pokes Jeffries time and again, as aired on 60 Minutes on Sunday, May 5th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: But isn't it also true that, while retaliating and going after Hamas terrorists, that Israel has been indiscriminate in its bombing? HAKEEM JEFFRIES: I would not say that they've been indiscriminate. I do think what we'd like to see moving forward is the execution of the new phases of this conflict with surgical precision. O’DONNELL: You could still be a strong supporter of Israel and Americans' defense of Israel and be critical of their approach about how they wage this war in Gaza. JEFFRIES: That's correct. O’DONNELL: But you seem reluctant to criticize Israel at all? JEFFRIES: I'm dealing with the facts on the ground. O’DONNELL: The facts are, according to the U.N.- half of Gaza's 2.2 million people are on the verge of famine. Has Israel done enough to get food and aid into Gaza? JEFFRIES: Israel clearly needs to do more, as they have recently acknowledged through their actions, to surge humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The other thing that I think is important… O’DONNELL: Only after they killed seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen. JEFFRIES: Correct. And that was horrific, including one American. Now, in terms of the loss of innocent Palestinian life in this tough theater of war, that is deeply disturbing, tragic, and should be painful for anyone who has a shred of humanity in their body. In this exchange, O’Donnell sounded more like a Biden White House official trying to get Jeffries to fall in line than like a journalist on 60 Minutes. We often use the term “Regime Media”, but here the media acted as part of the regime. Zero daylight between them both, which put Jeffries on the defensive and exposed him, even, as a leader seemingly out of step with the anti-Israel forces within the highest echelons of his own party. O’Donnell even attempted to use Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s floor speech calling for the removal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an appeal to authority with which to get Jeffries to criticize Israel. Jeffries refused the bait. The interview was otherwise intended to be a fawn job- a mechanism with which to cast Jeffries in a most favorable light ahead of the 2024 election. Topics ranged from basic biography- fitting for an introductory interview- to immigration and abortion, the defense of which he equates to the defense of Democracy itself.  WATCH: House Dem Leader Hakeem Jeffries equates abortion to DEMOCRACY itself pic.twitter.com/V98w3PRUo5 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 6, 2024 The interview closes with a brutal exchange on the economy, in which Jeffries dismisses voter perceptions of the economy being better under former President Donald Trump, and admits that Democrats have not made that case to the American voter. "Well, that's just not the case", says Hakeem Jeffries when confronted with 2/3 of voters believing the economy was better under Trump. Brutal exchange on the economy to close his interview with Norah O'Donnell on 60 Minutes pic.twitter.com/dIb0eQ1j75 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 6, 2024 Jeffries received infinitesimal to no pushback on these points as he struggled to make them, which tells you everything you need to know about how the Regime Media will cover this election. Buckle up.

NB Blog Feed

Sen. Tom Cotton SCHOOLS ABC’s Jon Karl on Campus Protesters, ‘Little Gazas’

During a wide-ranging interview on ABC’s This Week, Sen, Tom Cotton (R-AR) took a blowtorch to the antisemitic protesters on college campuses, brutally mocked them as establishing “little Gazas”, and schooled host Jon Karl when he tried to twist mockery of the encampments into mockery of Gaza itself. Watch the exchange, as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, May 5th, 2024: TOM COTTON: They're spray painting buildings with vile, antisemitic hate. (Biden) said, well, we shouldn't have antisemitism or hate speech in the abstract, or Islamophobia. Where are the encampments, Jon, on campuses spreading Islamophobia? Why is Joe Biden so equivocal? Why does he have to draw moral equivalence between thousands of students who are setting up Little Gazas all across America…  JON KARL: Can I…can I ask you… COTTON: …engaging in hate speech- engaging in hate speech against Jews, assaulting Jews, disobeying the law, and some fictional encampment that’s spreading Islamophobia? KARL: Can I ask you, you just three or four times now just used the phrase “little Gazas”. What do you mean by that? COTTON: Well, they call themselves the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. They’re little. They’re little Gazas. KARL: I mean, are you…? It seems like you're mocking the situation in Gaza. This is a place that the World F--- COTTON: A lot of these people do -- these people do deserve to be mocked. KARL: No, no, no. Gaza. I'm talking about, you know, Gaza, you know… COTTON: With… No. On college campuses. KARL: We had the World Food Program has just now said that there is an outright famine in parts of Gaza. Tens of thousands of people have died. You're using this phrase “little Gazas” -- COTTON: Which is 100% the fault of Hamas. Just like every civilian casualty in Gaza is 100% the fault of Hamas. Yet Joe Biden for seven months has leaned on Israel, has pressured Benjamin Netanyahu, has told him to stand down when they get attacked by Iran, has said they can't go into the last holdout where Hamas has its final terrorist battalions. But no. These students on campuses? They deserve our contempt. They also deserve our mockery. I mean, they're out there in their N95 masks in the open air. With their gluten allergies, demanding that Uber Eats get delivered to them. They should not have been allowed to fester on campus for two weeks when these liberal administrators and liberal politicians refuse to send in the police to clear them out the very first day they set up their tents.  As soon as Cotton began mocking the protesters living within their “little Gazas”, one could see Jon Karl’s brow begin to furrow. One imagines a similar strained expression over at The New York Times, as staff got wind of Cotton’s op-ed calling for a military response to the violent protests raging throughout America’s cities. When Karl finally found his angle, the asinine suggestion that Cotton’s mockery of the protester tent cities was a mockery of Gaza itself, it got quickly shot down with even more mockery, forcing Karl to move off the subject and on to speculation over the 2024 Republican presidential ticket. The interview covered such subjects as funding for Ukraine, the campus protests, the 2024 presidential campaign and January 6th. On each of these issues, Karl’s hysterics were quickly and promptly shut down. There was ample opportunity here to have a broad-ranging discussion of multiple issues. Instead and surprising no one, Jon Karl chose to perform Regime Media.

NB Blog Feed

ABC’s Jon Karl Follows Stephanopoulos With HYSTERICAL Editorial To Open ‘This Week’

It appears that there is now an editorial requirement at ABC News in place, mandating that whoever is hosting that Sunday’s This Week must now open the show with a screeching editorial about “the stakes” of the 2024 presidential election. There is no other explanation for Jon Karl’s editorial today, a week after George Stephanopoulos’ screeching hysterics. Watch the opening editorial in its entirety, as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, May 5th, 2024: ANNOUNCER: From ABC News it’s This Week. Here now, Jonathan Karl. JON KARL: Good morning. Welcome to This Week. For as long as I've covered politics, politicians have said, “this will be the most important election of our lifetimes.” They said that, no matter how high or low the stakes actually were. Election Day 2024 is exactly six months from today and this time, the divisions in our country are so vast and the choice so stark there's little doubt this really is the most important election of our time. No more crying wolf. This. Is it. Karl takes a different tack here. He almost comes across as more subtle, what with his vague references to stark choices. This departs a bit from Stephanopoulos’ lengthy recitation of the various charges against former President Donald Trump. But such a departure is only one of style. On substance, Karl’s editorial is every bit as hysterical as Stephanopoulos’, and equally as arrogant. These editorials are in many ways reflective of the messianic complex displayed by those throughout the media. Inspired by equal parts unreformed partisanship and elite arrogance, they seek to impose their ideology upon the American people, as opposed to simply reporting on the facts and stories as they occur on the ground.  It is not enough to report on the presidential race as an ongoing event- they now seek to lecture the public on “the stakes” of the election and argue the strongest possible case in support of the reelection of Joe Biden. This is what Karl’s breathless proclamation of this being “the most important election of our time” seeks to achieve. Call it whatever you want so long as you don’t call it journalism.  

NB Blog Feed

FLASHBACK: Lefties Frowned As America Cheered bin Laden’s Demise

Thirteen years ago, nearly all Americans were united in celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader behind the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Yet one group stood on the sidelines and scowled: the Sourpuss Left, which fretted the “mindless jubilation” and “jingoistic hubris” of those cheering the elimination of the evil al Qaeda leader, an avowed enemy who had ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people. “It felt a little crazy, a bit much. Almost vulgar,” one Washington Post columnist huffed about the late night crowds celebrating outside the White House gates on May 1, 2011. “I think that this kind of jumping up and down, chanting ‘USA, USA,’ send a message of almost, sort of, blood lust,” another commentator mourned on PBS that week. There was also the morally-inverted griping that Big Bad America was worse than al Qaeda. “This was not justice,” fumed journalist Allan Nairn on Democracy Now. “This was one killer killing another — a big killer, the United States government, killing another, someone who’s actually a smaller one, bin Laden.” Mainstream liberal journalists avoided such hateful nonsense, instead touting the “heroics” of President Barack Obama, as if he had actually participated in the dangerous military operation. “Professor Obama turned into General Obama and ran this incredible, incredible raid,” gushed Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson. “That took a lot of guts, the kind of thing you do see in a Hollywood movie.” To his credit, however, Obama didn’t listen to his then-Vice President. “Mr. President, my suggestion is: Don’t go. We have to do two more things to see if he’s there,” Joe Biden counseled his boss, as he himself related in a speech to House Democrats the following year. (Video here.) Thirteen years later, Biden’s “don’t go” advice seems as terrible as ever (especially now that he’s handed Afghanistan back to the abhorrent Taliban), while the anti-American Left has moved on to condemning Israel’s necessary fight against similarly implacable and deadly terrorist enemy. Here’s a rundown of the worst quotes from that week, when (nearly) every citizen recognized and celebrated an American victory in the War on Terror: ■ “Some Americans celebrated the killing of Osama bin Laden loudly, with chanting and frat-party revelry in the streets. Others were appalled — not by the killing, but by the celebrations.... ‘The worst kind of jingoistic hubris,’ a University of Virginia student wrote in the college newspaper, The Cavalier Daily. In blogs and online forums, some people asked: Doesn’t taking revenge and glorying in it make us look just like the terrorists?”— New York Times reporter Benedict Carey in a May 6, 2011 news story, “Celebrating a Death: Ugly, Maybe, but Only Human.” ■ “It is just and necessary that this evil man was finally punished for the mass murders he engineered on September 11, 2001. But I am repelled by the scenes of mindless jubilation, from Times Square to the park in front of the White House, that erupted after President Obama delivered the news in a properly sober tone Sunday night.”— The Washington Post’s “Spirited Atheist” blogger Susan Jacoby in a May 2, 2011 posting. ■ “At the news of Osama bin Laden’s death, thousands of people — most of them college-aged and in requisite flip-floppy collegiate gear — whipped up a raucous celebration right outside the White House gates that was one part Mardi Gras and two parts Bon Jovi concert....It felt a little crazy, a bit much. Almost vulgar....When I saw that folks were celebrating in the streets at the news of bin Laden’s death, my first reaction was a cringe. Remember how we all felt watching videos of those al-Qaeda guys dancing on Sept. 11?”— Washington Post “Metro” section columnist Petula Dvorak, May 3, 2011. ■ “It’s idiotic to treat these kinds of international events like sporting events, like it’s the World Cup that we’re cheering for here....I think that this kind of jumping up and down, chanting ‘USA, USA,’ sends a message of almost sort of blood lust. I think we need to be really careful about that.”— Correspondent Jeremy Scahill of the left-wing The Nation magazine, on PBS’s Tavis Smiley, May 2. ■ “When you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?”— ABC News religion correspondent Father Edward Beck on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, May 3, 2011. ■ “People cheer because they thought they saw justice, but this was not justice....This was one killer killing another — a big killer, the United States government, killing another, someone who’s actually a smaller one, bin Laden....We have to stop these people, these powerful people like Obama, like Bush, like those who run the Pentagon, and who think it’s OK to take civilian life.”— Journalist Allan Nairn on the far-left Democracy Now radio program, May 2, 2011. ■ “I’m glad he’s gone. But I just feel something has — we’ve lost something of our soul here in this country. And maybe I’m just an old school American who believes in our American judicial system.... [Snarls] ‘What do we need a trial for, just get rid of him.’ The second you say that, you’re saying that you hate being an American. You hate what we stand for, you hate what our Constitution stands for.”— Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, May 5, 2011. ■ “So when does SEAL Unit 6, or whatever it’s called, drop in on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more death, innocent death, than bin Laden.”— Left-wing radio host and former CNN producer Mike Malloy on The Mike Malloy Show, May 2, 2011. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                            

NB Blog Feed

Keith Olbermann RAGES with Mob on Twitter Against Peggy Noonan's Columbia Column

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, who was once a Reagan speechwriter and is now a dyspeptic critic of Donald Trump, infuriated leftists on Twitter this weekend with a column about her visit to the Columbia University campus to observe the pro-Hamas protests and attempt to interview some young protesters.  Noonan wrote she understood the youthful passion to protest, but these protesters all wore masks and didn't want to engage with largely supportive media. She found this carried an air of menace...and cowardice. This was the passage that New York Times reporter Peter Baker passed around that fanned the fury:  I was at Columbia hours before the police came in and liberated Hamilton Hall from its occupiers. Unlike protesters of the past, who were usually eager to share with others what they thought and why, these demonstrators would generally not speak or make eye contact with members of the press, or, as they say, “corporate media.” I was on a bench taking notes as a group of young women, all in sunglasses, masks, and kaffiyehs, walked by. “Friends, please come say hello and tell me what you think,” I called. They marched past, not making eye contact, save one, a beautiful girl of about 20. “I’m not trained,” she said. Which is what they’re instructed to say to corporate-media representatives who will twist your words. “I’m barely trained, you’re safe,” I called, and she laughed and half-halted. But her friends gave her a look and she conformed. Raging kook Keith Olbermann, the man so unbalanced that he tweeted the Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe vs. Wade were "domestic terrorists," argued Baker and Noonan were not journalists: Is there a point at which Peter Baker and Peggy Noonan will understand that vast swaths of America do not recognize them as journalists? Hell, if I knew about the "I'm not trained" line I could've gotten Noonan off my back and off my shows in 2004 instead of 2006 https://t.co/2P2OvlX3rt — Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) May 4, 2024 The Left could certainly argue that college kids might be smart not to sit down with a journalist they don't know, and Noonan could be characterized as an establishment Republican, who wouldn't naturally love radical disorder. Noonan noted they were yelling “Israel bombs, Columbia pays! How many kids did you kill today?” Lefties were probably angrier at Noonan for suggesting that even liberals in Manhattan were pleased the cops shut this encampment down:  The Vietnam demonstrations came to a country at relative peace with itself and said: Wake up! The Hamas demonstrations come to a country that hasn’t been at peace with itself in a long time. It watched, and thought: More jarring hell from kids with blood in their eyes making demands. The people of my liberal-left town were relieved to see the NYPD come in, drag the protesters away, restore order, and let people clean things up.

NB Blog Feed

Ugh: PBS Hails ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Court Win for Minors, Including Mastectomy

The PBS NewsHour was back to its old rhetorical tricks this week on the LGBTQ front. Lately the outlet has been reacting with pro-transgender alarm when yet another state restricts transgender surgery for minors. But it had cause to celebrate on Tuesday, covering a “groundbreaking ruling” that somehow didn’t shake up the other media outlets enough to cover. PBS teamed up with its fellow taxpayer-funded outlet National Public Radio to bring the joyful news that a federal appellate court in Richmond had ruled that so-called “gender-affirming care” must be covered by state health care plans in West Virginia and North Carolina. They used that Orwellian term no less than ten times in the segment. including in the supportive introduction from host Amna Nawaz: “A federal appeals court issued a groundbreaking ruling last night ensuring that gender-affirming surgery is covered by state-run health insurance programs.” The entire exchange took place in a liberal bubble, with zero mention of conservative counterpoints -- no  inconvenient questions about gender transition, or how a biological man can become a woman, or if the government should be obligated to pay for such a change. NPR health reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin -- who provided a similar bubble of an interview to transgender Biden appointee Adm. Rachel Levine two years ago, that there was "no scientific debate" on these surgeries -- only cared about how the "trans community" greeted the news. Reporter Stephanie Sy explained: ...this decision centered around two lawsuits, with trans people in West Virginia and North Carolina suing to secure insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgery." Sy crowed, "It is a win for the trans community, but it may not be the final word on the issue." Selena Simmons-Duffin, health-policy reporter, NPR: I think this is a really significant ruling. The Fourth Circuit's majority opinion was really strong and called discrimination against trans patients on these plans to be -- quote -- "obviously discriminatory." I think that the big takeaway is that insurers are not going to be able to say that they're going to cover this care for some patients with some diagnoses and not for others. If they're going to be covering things like sex hormones and mastectomies for some patients, they're going to have to cover it for trans patients as well. And I do think that it's really seen in the trans community as a major win, and it cuts against some of the trends of more litigation and more restrictions that we have seen in statehouses across the country. Sy: Selena, how far-reaching is this ruling? Does this mean trans people with state medical plans are now covered for gender-affirming care where they couldn't or where they weren't before? Simmons-Duffin explained that the ruling was a signal that “trans people are protected under the law,” as if they weren’t protected by law before. Both reporters ignored the traumatic effects of gender surgery (including hormone replacement theory and even chemical and physical castration) on children in their eagerness over the medical insurance decision, while continuing their happy talk about “gender-affirming care.” Sy: We have seen in the last few years some two dozen states pass restrictive laws on gender-affirming care specifically for minors. Does this decision, Selena, apply to minors covered by state medical plans, even in states where legislatures have banned care? Simmons-Duffin: ….it is important to differentiate this from some of the other cases around gender-affirming care for minors, because this is really about insurance coverage and whether insurers can make the distinction that they're going to cover hormones and mastectomies with certain conditions, but not for people with gender dysphoria. In this case, they said that's not going to fly and that needs to stop…. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/30/24 7:13:54 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: A federal appeals court issued a groundbreaking ruling last night ensuring that gender-affirming surgery is covered by state-run health insurance programs. Stephanie Sy has that report. Stephanie Sy: Amna, this decision centered around two lawsuits, with trans people in West Virginia and North Carolina suing to secure insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgery. The federal appellate court in Richmond, split 8-6, ordered that the state health care plans — quote — "reinstate coverage for medically necessary services for the treatment of gender dysphoria." The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote briefs in support of the trans plaintiffs. It is a win for the trans community, but it may not be the final word on the issue. For more on all of this, I'm joined by NPR's Selena Simmons-Duffin, who covers health policy for NPR. Selena, it's good to see you on the "NewsHour." So, as you know, there are numerous court cases around the country about transgender rights and access to gender-affirming care. How significant was this ruling, and what are the big takeaways to you? Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR: I think this is a really significant ruling. The Fourth Circuit's majority opinion was really strong and called discrimination against trans patients on these plans to be — quote — "obviously discriminatory." I think that the big takeaway is that insurers are not going to be able to say that they're going to cover this care for some patients with some diagnoses and not for others. If they're going to be covering things like sex hormones and mastectomies for some patients, they're going to have to cover it for trans patients as well. And I do think that it's really seen in the trans community as a major win, and it cuts against some of the trends of more litigation and more restrictions that we have seen in statehouses across the country. Stephanie Sy: Selena, how far-reaching is this ruling? Does this mean trans people with state medical plans are now covered for gender-affirming care where they couldn't or where they weren't before? Selena Simmons-Duffin: Well, actually, in both of these cases, the state plan in North Carolina and Medicaid's — Medicaid in West Virginia, they already had to start covering this care after the district court ruled in the plaintiff's favor in 2022. So people have been able to bill for this and get coverage for this in the last two years, but what the appellate ruling does is really solidify that coverage. And as I said, it also signals to other plans in other states around the country that this is care that needs to be covered and that trans people are protected under the law. Stephanie Sy: We have seen in the last few years some two dozen states pass restrictive laws on gender-affirming care specifically for minors. Does this decision, Selena, apply to minors covered by state medical plans, even in states where legislatures have banned care? Selena Simmons-Duffin: I should say that there were plaintiffs in these cases that were minors. So, for example, in North Carolina, there were some members of the plan who joined the case on behalf of their dependent minor child who was transgender. And so they were seeking coverage for the care of that child. But I think it is important to differentiate this from some of the other cases around gender-affirming care for minors, because this is really about insurance coverage and whether insurers can make the distinction that they're going to cover hormones and mastectomies with certain conditions, but not for people with gender dysphoria. In this case, they said that's not going to fly and that needs to stop. But one thing I also wanted to mention is that, in the realm of bans across the country in different states for gender-affirming care for youth, just today, in Kansas, the Statehouse was unable to override the veto of the governor who had vetoed the ban on gender-affirming care for youth in that state. So I think advocates are really hoping that this does — even beyond the realm of its actual reach, it does send a signal to different places, to governors, to statehouses to say, this isn't a winning issue and the courts are starting to fall in their favor, although it has been a mixed bag in the courts. Stephanie Sy: Yes, absolutely. In this particular case — and you quoted it — the majority wrote that, when it comes to the state's exclusion of gender-affirming care for medical plans — quote — "We hold that the coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity." It said the exclusions, in essence, violate the 14th Amendment and provisions in the Affordable Care Act. There are so many transgender rights issues mired in the courts right now. Selena, do you see the Supreme Court taking all this up any time soon? I know, in this case, West Virginia's attorney general has already said he is appealing. Selena Simmons-Duffin: Yes, I mean, court watchers and policy watchers that I have talked to really think that a case is going to reach the Supreme Court at some point, and probably soon. But the Supreme Court has been sending some mixed messages on this. So there was a gender-affirming caravan in Idaho that the Supreme Court allowed to take effect. But then there are other cases, including one from the Fourth Circuit that was related to transgender students participating in sports, that the Supreme Court declined to take. And that was a win for the transgender plaintiff in that case. Court watchers suggest that it seems like the Supreme Court is maybe reluctant to jump into the fray, but there has been so much litigation in this area and so many laws being passed that it just seems inevitable that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in and give some clarity.

NB Blog Feed

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

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

NB Blog Feed

Bloomberg Columnist Claims Trump Trial Doesn't 'Get Much Attention' From Media

Bloomberg Businessweek columnist Joshua Green mourned on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO that the media has been covering the demonstrations on college campuses across the country and not Donald Trump’s hush money trial. Not only is surging anti-Semitism among college students a newsworthy topic, but it is simply not true that Trump’s trial has been removed from newscasts. Green’s fellow panelist was former Trump strategist Kellyanne Conway and the trio were discussing what voters care about when Maher quipped, “People do care about democracy also, they do, maybe not the circles you run in.”     Conway pushed back, “I came on your show five days after that, we know what—nine days after that, you know what I think of January 6, that will never change. But if we are looking backward, elections are always about the future, not the past. That's the way America needs to look at them and right now they feel cost of living in everyday quality of life is diminishing.” That led Green, who is the author of The Rebels: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Struggle for a New American Politics and Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency, to chime in, “But as a pollster you've got to worry, I mean, you've seen polls that say if Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, he's currently on trial, though, it doesn't get much attention in the news that support for Trump will ebb.” A stunned Conway replied, “Trump doesn't get attention in the news? It’s all they talk about.” Green clung to his claim, “No, the criminal trial, no, it’s nothing but protests. It’s like the D block.” At the same time, Maher tried to offer an explanation, “Well, that criminal really—we’re treating it like it's like the Gwyneth Paltrow skiing trial. People just don’t care.” Back in the real world, the media, and especially cable, has obsessed over the trial. They cover it pretty much all day, relay what is going on inside the courtroom, and then have their legal analysts discuss. CNN has tried to analyze the profound meanings of photographs and court sketches of Trump to such a comical degree, even Jon Stewart couldn’t pass on the opportunity to mock them for it. Here is a transcript for the May 3 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 5/3/2024 10:27 PM ET BILL MAHER: People do care about democracy also, they do, maybe not the circles you run in. KELLYANNE CONWAY: Of course, we all do. No, no, we all do. You know what I think of January 6. JOSHUA GREEN: But as a pollster. CONWAY: I came on your show five days after that, we know what—nine days after that, you know what I think of January 6, that will never change. But if we are looking backward, elections are always about the future, not the past. That's the way America needs to look at them and right now they feel cost of living in everyday quality of life is diminishing. GREEN: But as a pollster you've got to worry, I mean, you've seen polls that say if Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, he's currently on trial, though, it doesn't get much attention in the news that support for Trump will ebb. CONWAY: Trump doesn't get attention in the news? It’s all they talk about. GREEN: No, the criminal trial, no it’s nothing but protests —. CONWAY: Oh, okay. Well— MAHER: Well, that criminal really—we’re treating it like it's— GREEN: It’s like the D Block. MAHER: -- like the Gwyneth Paltrow skiing trial. People just don’t care.

NB Blog Feed

The Onion and Ben Collins: A Perfect Fake News Marriage

It’s hard to remember a time when The Onion was synonymous with “funny.” The humor site once had the field all to itself, creating Fake News stories that made us laugh and think. The Onion came out in printed form, and its attacks on the political class could be withering. That was then. Today’s online-only Onion is comedic in name only. The outlet’s hard-Left politics have all but stripped away its comic potential, from the woke handcuffs placed on liberal satire to how it protects Democrats… …much like today’s late-night TV landscape. So if you want to read something funny about President Joe Biden, for example, you’d never type “the onion” into a search engine. You go to The Babylon Bee.   To Save Time, The Babylon Bee Will Now Just Republish Everything Biden Says Verbatim https://t.co/KDHEZAjgU7 pic.twitter.com/O4ZfgGrc8P — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 18, 2024   That site leans to the Right, but it’s unrelenting in its humor and ability to smite both sides. It’s everything The Onion isn’t – topical, fast, bold and hilarious. And, sadly, The Onion might soon be even worse. The site just got picked up by new owners, and former NBC journalist Ben Collins is the platform’s CEO moving forward. Ostensibly charged by the Peacock network with overseeing so-called “disinformation,” Collins proved inept at the gig. We’re still waiting for him to weigh in on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, the “Very Fine People” hoax and more. Here’s how Collins described Libs of TikTok, the social media journalist who exposes the far-Left’s extremes. “Fox News’ favorite aggregator of LGBTQ teachers they don’t like the look of.” The latter part of the sentence feels slanderous, no? What’s his proof that Libs of TikTok is bigoted. Does he share any? Collins, formerly with the far-Left Daily Beast, also got exposed by The Federalist for carrying water for the hard-Left. Consider: NBC’s leftist reporter Ben Collins, meanwhile, arguably offered the most laughable response to Soros backing Bragg. Quoting a CNBC story, Collins says Soros can’t back Bragg because the two never met. Journalist Steve Krakauer slammed Collins for his social media-heavy methods that often occur without actual journalism. Collins seems to spend his days endlessly opining on social media about the state of journalism – like his frequent attacks on the New York Times. But one thing Collins does not appear to be doing very much anymore is journalism. Collins hasn’t written an article for NBC News in more than 100 days. His last one, published in early October, was on one of his favorite targets, X owner Elon Musk. Before that, you have to go back to May 22 to find his previous byline, a short piece about a “fake picture of an explosion” at the Pentagon that had gone semi-viral. He’s also wary of transparency. I asked Collins and NBC News if he was still a full-time employee of the media outlet, and neither responded to multiple requests for comment.  Does this sound like the person to shake The Onion from its hard-left shackles? It gets worse. Collins was one of many mainstream news reporters who got the infamous Gaza hospital story wrong. Collins is treated as an expert in the burgeoning field of countering the spread of misinformation. Yet his error rate is noteworthy…. Did Collins soberly wait for these facts to come in? Nope. The award-winning disinformation expert helped circulate the inaccurate claims of the Palestinian authorities. When other voices on social media recommended caution, Collins chimed in to assert that any delay in reporting the horrific casualty numbers represented a profound moral failing. It’s Disinformation 101, and he fell for it. That he recently won a Walter Cronkite Award for journalism speaks volumes about today’s Fourth Estate. Collins’ rage against free speech advocate Elon Musk found him making more mistakes, according to Reason. Collins’ reporting often contains basic errors that suggest he doesn’t particularly understand the right-wing forces he’s denouncing. His most recent article alleges that Musk’s plans for Twitter were shaped by a far-right former Trump administration staffer, even though it’s fairly clear the staffer wasn’t actually telling Musk what to do, but rather warning about what would happen to Musk if he offended “the regime.” Collins even raged against the release of The Twitter Files, which exposed the platform’s extensive censorship regime against right-leaning voices. He did so without calling out any errors in Matt Taibbi’s reportage. He just used ad hominem attacks on the left-leaning Taibbi. So The Onion’s return to its funny, bipartisan roots is even more unlikely today. Still, the two parties may be perfect for one another.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Claims Human Smuggling At Border 'Is More Complex'

On CBS Saturday Morning, host Dana Jacobson sat down to discuss the border crisis with anthropology Prof. Jason De Leon, where the duo also hyped his new book on human smuggling. Both host and author claimed the issue “is more complex” than simply viewing the smugglers as bad guys who take advantage of people. Jacobson reported, “The business of human smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security, is a multibillion dollar industry, run by criminal organizations intent on taking advantage of vulnerable people. The story de Leon tells is more complex.”     De Leon differentiates between smugglers and traffickers. For him, a smuggler is working within a consensual agreement with the person seeking to cross the border, whereas a trafficker is not. He therefore claimed, “I can write a story about how they're the bad guys in this whole scenario and all they do is brutalize migrants, but if you think about the realities, if smugglers only brutalized migrants, the system wouldn't function, and so I went into it telling myself that, you know, what can I find that's relatable, it's not trying to humanize smugglers, it's working from the assumption that they are human first and that they just happen to be in this brutal occupation.” Jacobson then claimed that smugglers and migrants face the same set of challenges, “The low-level smugglers de Leon met said issues like poverty and gang violence had driven them out of Honduras. The same issues many migrants also face.”  She then asked, “You talk about smuggling and think what you write, it's violent, it exploits people, but that it's also a symptom of a larger problem. What is that larger problem?” That does not sound complex at all. In fact, de Leon would spend much of the rest of the time portraying smuggling as a get-rich-quick scheme. He also blamed things such as climate change for the crisis, “We need to think about why are people migrating in the first place, and you know, why does the United States have an insatiable appetite for cheap, undocumented labor that we rarely acknowledge, and as long as you need the labor and as long as climate is changing and making places unlivable, those smugglers are going to stay in business and just make more money off of this whole process.” After de Leon warned the crisis is not going to end any time soon, Jacobson added, “A future de Leon hopes can be made easier by considering different perspectives and the humanity of everyone involved.” De Leon concluded by lamenting, “The approaches that we've been using to deal with these problems have clearly been ineffective for decades and yet we just don't seem to want to get smarter about this stuff… You can build whatever border wall you want. There are desperate people on the other side who are willing to die to save themselves, to save their family, and then there are smugglers who are willing to make a buck on that in all kinds of different ways, so that will just keep the system, kind of, going forever.” You can’t have a policy that claims the weather being too hot is a legitimate asylum claim and as CBS itself admitted, the smugglers exploit people and subject them to possible death, so why is this complex? Here is a transcript for the May 4 show: CBS Saturday Mornings 5/4/2024 8:54 AM ET DANA JACOBSON: The business of human smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security, is a multibillion dollar industry, run by criminal organizations intent on taking advantage of vulnerable people. The story de Leon tells is more complex. JASON DE LEON: I can write a story about how they're the bad guys in this whole scenario and all they do is brutalize migrants, but if you think about the realities, if smugglers only brutalized migrants, the system wouldn't function, and so I went into it telling myself that, you know, what can I find that's relatable, it's not trying to humanize smugglers, it's working from the assumption that they are human first and that they just happen to be in this brutal occupation. JACOBSON: The low-level smugglers de Leon met said issues like poverty and gang violence had driven them out of Honduras. The same issues many migrants also face.  You talk about smuggling and think what you write, it's violent, it exploits people, but that it's also a symptom of a larger problem. What is that larger problem? DE LEON: We need to think about why are people migrating in the first place, and you know, why does the United States have an insatiable appetite for cheap, undocumented labor that we rarely acknowledge, and as long as you need the labor and as long as climate is changing and making places unlivable, those smugglers are going to stay in business and just make more money off of this whole process. JACOBSON: It's an industry that continues to grow as migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border hit record highs with people coming from as far away as Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. DE LEON: People are coming from around the globe. They're coming up from South America, through the Darien Gap. It's a window into the future as all those places become unlivable for different reasons. We're going to continue to see that mix of people coming up from the south to our doorstep. JACOBSON: A future de Leon hopes can be made easier by considering different perspectives and the humanity of everyone involved. DE LEON: The approaches that we've been using to deal with these problems have clearly been ineffective for decades and yet we just don't seem to want to get smarter about this stuff. I hope with this book that it's a way to undermine the simplistic framings of what the problem actually is. You can build whatever border wall you want. There are desperate people on the other side who are willing to die to save themselves, to save their family, and then there are smugglers who are willing to make a buck on that in all kinds of different ways, so that will just keep the system, kind of, going forever.

NB Blog Feed

PBS Wonders Why College Protests Are Labeled Anti-Semitic

The cast of Friday’s PBS NewsHour was greatly confused. Host William Brangham didn’t understand why the anti-Israel college demonstrators, on the whole, have been branded as anti-Semitic, while Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart didn’t know why it is so hard for the demonstrators to protest Israel without degenerating into anti-Semitism. Brangham’s remarks came on the heels of New York Times columnist David Brooks warning that the protests are toxic for Democrats, “I think if the protests continue to veer in the direction they're veering, you could see some pretty serious repercussions, which is why Biden is speaking, which is why Chuck Schumer is speaking, trying to distance themselves from what the protesters are doing.”     Claiming his first-hand look at the protests disproved the idea that they are rampant with anti-Semitism, Brangham wondered, “I mean, Jonathan, a lot of the critics of these protests like to say that it's all anti-Semitism, just a hot stew of anti-Israeli bias. I was at one of the NYU protests earlier this week, and there is some of that, for sure. But it's mostly young people, as you were describing, who are despairing over what is happening in Gaza. How is it that people who care deeply about this issue can't — can somehow protest and not be risked being branded as anti-Semities?” Capehart began by correcting him, “So, there's anti-Semitism, but then you anti — you said anti-Israeli,” to which Brangham apologized, “I'm even conflating it myself here.” That settled, Capehart proceeded, “Exactly. And that is the issue. It is possible to criticize the government of Israel, the state of Israel, the prime minister of Israel, the policies, what he says, his actions, without veering into ugly anti-Semitism. If you don't like what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing in Gaza, not allowing enough humanitarian aid to go through, that is a legitimate criticism.” He then added, “But to then go into all the ugliness, some of the ugliness that we have heard, that's not okay. I don't understand how — why it's so hard to state your objections without being bigoted about it.” Perhaps we can help both Brangham and Capehart out. If you listen to what the leaders of the movement say, they talk about defeating Zionism which is simply the belief that Israel should exist. That is not criticism of Netanyahu and is an anti-Semitic position, according to President Barack Obama’s State Department. As your typical liberal, Capehart believes that there should be a ceasefire leading to two states for two peoples and that Netanyahu is an obstacle to this, but he and his fellow liberals keep projecting their liberalism onto Marxists and others who do not want such an outcome by refusing to acknowledge that the problem is with the group’s leaders and professors, not a handful of bad actors who corrupted a genuine anti-war, pro-peace movement.  Here is a transcript for the May 3 show: PBS NewsHour 5/3/2024 7:36 PM ET DAVID BROOKS: And, so I think if the protests continue to veer in the direction they're veering, you could see some pretty serious repercussions, which is why Biden is speaking, which is why Chuck Schumer is speaking, trying to distance themselves from what the protesters are doing. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Jonathan, a lot of the critics of these protests like to say that it's all anti-Semitism, just a hot stew of anti-Israeli bias. I was at one of the NYU protests earlier this week, and there is some of that, for sure. But it's mostly young people, as you were describing, who are despairing over what is happening in Gaza. How is it that people who care deeply about this issue can't — can somehow protest and not be risked being branded as anti-Semities? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Okay, what — excuse me. So, there's anti-Semitism, but then you anti — you said anti-Israeli. BRANGHAM: I'm even conflating it myself here. CAPHEART: Exactly. And that is the issue. It is possible to criticize the government of Israel, the state of Israel, the prime minister of Israel, the policies, what he says, his actions, without veering into ugly anti-Semitism. If you don't like what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing in Gaza, not allowing enough humanitarian aid to go through, that is a legitimate criticism. But to then go into all the ugliness, some of the ugliness that we have heard, that's not okay. I don't understand how — why it's so hard to state your objections without being bigoted about it.

NB Blog Feed

Leftist Journos and Hollywood Celebs Trash Trump But Praise Pro-Hamas Protests

It’s an odd state of affairs when a former President of the United States is called a threat to the “bedrock tenets of democracy,” the “rule of law itself” and is compared to Adolf Hitler but pro-Hamas/anti-Semitic protestors are praised for “singing prayers of peace.” Yet that is where the leftist press and their Hollywood friends are right now. Yikes! This past month saw ABC’s Good Morning America co-host and This Week moderator George Stephanopoulos warning his audience that Donald Trump was testing the “bedrock tenets of our democracy” in a way “we haven’t seen since the Civil War.”  MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace feared she would be out of a job after a Trump victory because of his “outward disdain” for a “free press.” Meanwhile Wallace’s MSNBC colleague Joy Reid came out spinning for the pro-Hamas protestors who took over college campuses as she claimed they weren’t hurling anti-Semitic slurs but rather “singing words of peace.”  Over on CNN, podcaster Kara Swisher waved her finger at the critics of the college kids: “Not to support them, is sort of anti-American.” Hollywood celebrities spouted crazy exaggerations about Trump too. ABC’s Black-ish actress Jenifer Lewis feared that “Hitler” Trump “will punish everybody that didn’t vote for him,” put “us in camps.” While actress and talk show host Drew Barrymore begged Vice President Kamala Harris to be the “Momala of the country.” The following are the most obnoxious outbursts by leftist journalists and celebrities during the month of April:  [LANGUAGE WARNING]   Trump Is Testing the “Bedrock Tenets” of “Democracy”     “Until now, no American presidential race has been more defined on what’s happening in courtrooms than what is happening on the campaign trail. Until now. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits — to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.”— Moderator George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, April 28.   A Trump Win Could Lead to the End of a “Free Press,” and “The Rule of Law Itself” “Depending what happens in November — seven months from right now — this time next year, I might not be sitting here. There might not be a White House Correspondents Dinner or a free press. While our democracy won’t exactly fall apart immediately without it, the real threat looms larger. A candidate with outward disdain not just for a free press but for all of our freedoms and the rule of law itself.” — Host Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, April 29.   Protesters Aren’t Hurling Anti-Semitic Insults, They’re “Singing Words of Peace”     “I saw….these students singing and singing about peace and singing salaam, singing words of peace. So, it just didn’t square with what I was even hearing on television and television commentators saying was shrieking anti-Semitism, I didn’t hear it.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, April 22.    “Anti-American” To Oppose Young Pro-Hamas Protesters “The question is, are you for order and against chaos, or for protests and the right to free speech?...All the free-speech warriors are suddenly like, order, order, we must have order. And so there are heinous things that are said, but there is a line where you have to support also young people, especially when they do things that they do badly. Not to support them, is sort of anti-American in a way.”— Podcast host/former New York Magazine contributing editor Kara Swisher on CNN’s The Chris Wallace Show, April 27.   Netanyahu = Stalin     “It is increasingly looking like Benjamin Netanyahu had a plan to force famine on the Palestinian people, on the Gazan people, to amp up the pressure on Hamas….You’re starving women and children in Gaza….They’re now having to grind up dog food and cat food and….drink salt water….It’s savage conditions, and it’s calculated….It’s calculated just like Stalin’s starvation of Ukrainians was calculated.”   — Co-host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, April 5.    If You Vote for Trump, You Are Not a “Patriot” “There’s a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason: Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot.”— MSNBC contributor/presidential historian Jon Meacham on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, April 19.   Fretting That Trump’s Trials May Hurt Biden      “These legal cases have only helped him fundraising….energized his base….He’s risen in the polls with every indictment….The problem for Joe Biden and the Democrats is….the trial is crowding out everything else. So Joe Biden goes out and does policy things….But everything else is crowded out….That’s what happened in 2016 to Hillary Clinton and that could be replicated this year.”— NBC chief foreign correspondent and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell on NBC’s Meet the Press, April 21.   “Wonderfully Poetic!” Joy Reid Cheers “My DEIs” for Prosecuting Trump     “The first person to actually criminally prosecute Donald Trump is a black Harvard grad....He came out and graduated and he’s prosecuting you, Donald. And a black woman is doing the same exact thing in Georgia. And a black woman forced you to pay a $175 million fine….Trump is being held to account by the very multicultural, multiracial democracy that he’s trying to dismantle. And for me, there’s something poetic and actually wonderful about that. It says something good about our country that we’re still capable of having that happen. Go, DEI! My DEIs are bringing it home.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, April 15.   Katie Couric’s Condescending Take on Trump Voters     “The socio-economic disparities are a lot and class resentment is a lot and anti-intellectualism and elitism is what is driving many of these anti-establishment  — which are Trump voters — so, I think that is a huge problem that we have to address.”— Former NBC Today co-host and CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on HBO Real Time host Bill Maher’s podcast Club Random with Bill Maher, April 14.    Immediately Tying Trump to Man Who Set Himself on Fire “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.”— Correspondent Terry Moran during ABC’s live coverage of the Donald Trump trial, April 19.    Trump = Cult Leader Like David Koresh, Jim Jones or Charles Manson     “What Donald Trump is doing….it’s kind of David Koresh. It’s kind of Jim Jones. Because those two men started by saying, ‘You need to come to Jesus.’ They started as Christian evangelizers. But eventually, their evangelism said, ‘No, I get to have your wife. No actually, I get to tell you to kill these federal agents that are outside. I’m asking you to pick up a machine gun and shoot them because I don’t want to go to jail.’...It’s making me lose my mind to watch people who call themselves Christians fall down on their knees and worship this man. This is [Charles] Manson stuff.”— Co-host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, April 2.    It’s a Conspiracy! Blaming High Gas Prices on Donald’s Oil Business Buddies  “These prices are not the fault of President Biden….We’ve got the highest oil production in U.S. history and some overseas oil producers who would sure like to help DJT.”— Host Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC’s The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, April 17.   NBC’s Brief Hiring of Former RNC Chair Was a Blow to “Democracy”     “It was an unpleasant few days at our network….In mainstream media, we need to include an array of voices. But there’s a line, and the line is truth….You have to be someone upholding our democracy.”— NBC’s Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, April 3.   America Ruled By a Bunch of “Grumpy Old Men” Like Afghanistan and Iran “[France] actually signed into law a constitutional amendment to guarantee a woman’s right to make choices about her own body….This was sort of a demonstration of will by….a country that’s very supportive of your revolution, to show that this is universal human rights and that women actually need to be treated like adults and whether it’s Afghanistan, Iran, or the United States, a bunch of grumpy old men shouldn't be making essential decisions.”— PBS/CNN host Christiane Amanpour on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, April 11.    “Handmaid’s Tale Come to Life” in Arizona “People say it may sound like a joke….A lot of people are saying, unfortunately, it is not a joke. And that is where we’re going to begin today….The [Arizona] Supreme Court reinstating a law from the 1800s — 1800s — that bans nearly all abortion in the state….I’ve heard people use the phrases like “Is this Handmaid’s Tale come to life, in real life?’”— Co-host Gayle King on CBS Mornings, April 10.   Republicans Are Making Women’s Lives “More Miserable”      “[Mike] Pence, Lindsey Graham, and [Donald] Trump are fighting to see who could make women’s lives more miserable. That’s like what they’re really fighting for. ‘How can we really destroy women in this country?’ That’s it.”— Co-host Joy Behar on ABC’s The View, April 9.   “Hitler” Trump “Will Punish Everybody That Didn’t Vote For Him,” Put “Us In Camps” “If that man [Donald Trump] gets in, as soon as he takes the oath, he will have generals walk down the steps of the Capitol….He will take a hammer and break the glass where the Constitution is, and he will tear it up in our faces and say, ‘Now I’m the king of the fucking world. You will bow down, bitches.’ He will punish everybody that didn’t vote for him….I know what mental illness looks like! That mania is unstoppable! See, this motherfucker is Hitler. He didn’t come to play….That motherfucker will have us in camps.” — ABC’s Black-ish actress Jenifer Lewis on the Sirius/XM radio show Mornings with Zerlina, April 4.   Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are the “Father” and “Momala” of “Our Country”     “I keep thinking in my head that we all need a mom. I’ve been thinking that we really all need a tremendous hug in the world right now, but in our country, we need you to be Momala of the country.”— Actress/talk show host Drew Barrymore to Vice President Kamala Harris on the syndicated The Drew Barrymore Show, April 29.  “You’re the kind of leader I love, because we’re lucky to have you in the Oval Office. And serving as the father of the country because if you’re a good father to your family — which you are — I know you’ll be a good father to the country.” — Host Howard Stern to President Joe Biden on Sirius/XM’s The Howard Stern Show, April 26.    Trump Actually Benefiting From “Two-Tiered System of Justice”  “[Trump] is part of a two-tiered system of justice but not in the way he thinks he is. He is getting way more concessions than the average criminal defendant would get. He’s 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 that the justice system will provide to you if you can afford it.”— Musician/actor John Legend on MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki, April 15. 

NB Blog Feed

Sister Barbara's Gone Rogue! NPR Touts Nuns for 'Enshrining Abortion Rights' in Missouri

Leftists love to believe that churches should be run like clubs -- the majority rules. So they'll make a big deal out of polls, like the Pew Research Center finding six of ten Catholics disagree with the church's opposition to abortion. They do not ask self-identified Catholics whether they actually go to church on Sundays, or if they stopped the minute they became an adult. You would get a more conservative result. On Tuesday, NPR's newscast All Things Considered brought on reporter Katia Riddle to channel the views of pro-abortion Catholics, but what made it more shocking is touting a pro-abortion nun -- someone who is financially supported by the Church, and who should be accepting of all the Church teachings. KATIA RIDDLE: Today, Missouri is replete with Catholic churches, iconography and people like Sister Barbara. SISTER BARBARA: I certainly did not intend to, you know, become a sister or a nun. RIDDLE: She's standing outside her modest apartment, wearing jeans and a sweatshirt. She grew up Catholic but wasn't all that religious. In her 20s, she describes a kind of love affair she fell into with Catholicism. SISTER BARBARA: An emphasis on serving the poor and getting involved in just, you know, the social justice issues of the day. And that was a whole new idea for me about what religious life was really about. Church officials might want to know who this nun is, and why she would publicly -- well, not all the way -- bite the hand that's feeding her. RIDDLE: NPR is not using Sister Barbara's last name. She fears retribution from her local archdiocese for publicly expressing her beliefs on reproductive rights. She doesn't agree with the church's position that abortion is a sin and should be illegal. SISTER BARBARA: I just don't see it in just real absolute terms. RIDDLE: She says she wouldn't personally choose to end a pregnancy. SISTER BARBARA: However, I have not been in the situation of a person who has - had suffered from incest or rape or all of those things. RIDDLE: The Bible, she points out, does not say anything explicit about abortion. She fell in love with Catholicism for its practice around compassion and service, not politics. SISTER BARBARA: I want to put a sticker on the car that says, don't like abortion? Don't have one. RIDDLE: That's why she's supporting an effort in Missouri to enshrine abortion rights in the state's Constitution. Several other nuns interviewed for this story said they feel the same. One was even collecting signatures to put the measure on the November ballot, though she didn't want to talk about it on the record. Over seven minutes, Riddle lined up the Catholic abortion advocates: ex-nun Alice Kitchen, retired reproductive endocrinologist Marilyn Richardson, Democrat state representative Ingrid Burnett, and college student Mary Helen Schaefer. The only surprise is a brief nod to Matt Lee, who runs a pro-life group called Missouri Stands with Women. He's a deacon in the church. RIDDLE: Lee says he's not surprised that many Catholics support abortion access. Some reproductive rights advocates say church leadership is scared of this diversity of opinion among its followers, but Lee disagrees. LEE: Could you say the Catholic Church is under attack or the church's beliefs are under attack or their institutions are? Sure, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is scared. I mean, scared people tend to run away. The Catholic Church is not running away from this fight. Try not to laugh at NPR saying some other organization is scared of having a diversity of opinion inside its walls. Riddle concluded with the unsubtle hint that the Catholic hierarchy should be tethered to polls instead of their view of God's will: SISTER BARBARA: I think that the Catholic Church would not be here today if they didn't have a remarkable ability to turn corners when it's necessary - when things are about to collapse for it. RIDDLE: After all, she points out, Catholicism has been around for centuries. She's hoping this abortion debate is a relatively brief distraction from what she sees as the faith's fundamental aspirations. SISTER BARBARA: Reaching for some kind of ideals in the way we love and live with each other, with one another. RIDDLE: For Sister Barbara, one of those ideals would be for church leadership to value what a majority of Catholics believe.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Biden Laughs at the New York Times Interview Request

President Biden and his team have been very reluctant to hold press conferences or grant interviews. He's much less accessible than other recent presidents. For the most part, the press doesn't care. But The New York Times put out a statement shortly before the White House Correspondents Dinner protesting how it was troubling that Biden has "so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term." What happened next? At the White House Correspondents Dinner, Biden JOKED about it, even suggesting The New York Times was inferior to the Howard Stern show in its influence. Mr. Butt Bongo Fiesta was a better forum. Journalists laughed along, underlining they have next to zero professional self-respect.  Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple posted has a new piece on Friday headlined “The New York Times, alone in its outrage over access to Biden.” He noted the Times laid it all out for Biden:  For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term. The president occupies the most important office in our nation, and the press plays a vital role in providing insights into his thinking and worldview, allowing the public to assess his record and hold him to account. Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. It is true that The Times has sought an on-the-record interview with Mr. Biden, as it has done with all presidents going back more than a century. If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage, that is his right, and we will continue to cover him fully and fairly either way. However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability. Times Publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, according to the Times statement, has “repeatedly urged the White House to have the president sit down with The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, CNN and other major independent news organizations that millions of Americans rely on to understand their government.” It's not like Trump will act like Biden in a second term. As Wemple shows, with numbers from Martha Joynt Kumar, Trump had about three times as many pressers at this point in his presidency than Biden – 97 to 34. Same with interviews – 327 to 118. Trump will take on hostile interviews. Biden's talking to Stern, Drew Barrymore, and Ryan Seacrest.  Wemple wanted to point out the Times is standing alone with its outrage, without supporting words from other news organizations contending with Biden’s hard-to-get status. “I think this is a norm that matters,” said Sulzberger in a Tuesday interview with Wemple. “And all our experience shows that when norms like this erode, especially a norm as uncomfortable as the discipline of answering probing questions from independent journalists, they rarely return.” Wemple said he asked The Post, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today — as well as TV outlets that have interviewed the president (ABC News, NBC News/MSNBC, CBS News and CNN) — whether the situation merited a public statement along the lines of the Times’s. "Not a single outlet responded with an endorsement of the Times’s message," including Fox News. They're all holding out hope for an interview -- which can draw ratings.  Enjoy the podcast below -- or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

NB Blog Feed

What Word the Media Refuses to Use For the College Riots: Insurrection

No one who's politically aware can be unaware of January 6, 2021. Tens of thousands of Americans descended on Washington to protest the counts and Covid-related conditions of the 2020 election. A riot took place at the US Capitol. The riot resulted in the charging, per ABC News three years later, of over 1,200 and “incarceration for more than 460 people.”  The coverage since then of that day in the mainstream media is typified by headlines like this from the New York Times:  Jan. 6 Panel Accuses Trump of Insurrection and Refers Him to Justice Dept. Or like this from Forbes:  Jan. 6 Insurrection 2 Years Later: How Many Arrested, Convicted And What Price Donald Trump May Still Pay The Washington Post has an ongoing section titled:  THE JAN. 6 INSURRECTION There’s more of this kind of thing out there. And that’s before you get to Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden. Here’s NPR on Pelosi:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Launches Select Committee To Probe Jan. 6 Insurrection And CNN on Biden:  The big lie being told by the former president, and many Republicans who fear his wrath, is that the insurrection in this country actually took place on Election Day. There’s more like this out there in the media, but you get the drift. When the subject of the riot at the Capitol on January 6th comes up, the “I word” is always nearby. So let’s take a moment to check the definition of “insurrection” and move on to the events of our current day and what is curiously missing in the coverage of these multiple upon multiple anti-Israel, anti-Semitic riots on one college or university campus after another. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “insurrection” as follows:“…an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” As of today, America is awash in multiple upon multiple “acts or instances revolting against civil authority” - the civil authority of one American college or university after another. And the mainstream media coverage is curious indeed.  Here’s a sample headline from the Washington Post:  Riot police and over 2,000 arrests: A look at 2 weeks of campus protests CNN headlined:  What we know about the protests erupting on college campuses across America The CNN story said:   New York CNN  —  College campuses across the United States have erupted with pro-Palestinian protests, and school administrators are trying — and largely failing — to defuse the situation. And on…and on and on…went the media coverage of these riots on multiple college campuses, the resulting arrests and financial damage. Good for them.  But the missing word in all this coverage? The missing word used routinely in the media and by progressive politicians to describe one solitary -- and admittedly decidedly wrong -- riot on January 6, 2021? That would be, of course, “insurrection.” All one has to do is turn on the television or start streaming current network coverage and there is decided violence on display. At Columbia University in New York the insurrectionists smashed windows and occupied the university’s Hamilton Hall. The Los Angeles Times headlined:  Nationwide, police make almost 2,000 arrests at college campuses since protests started All of which is to say that what’s happening collectively on some 70 college campuses across the country - riots, vandalism, violent clashes with police -is decidedly an insurrection against the “civil authority” and “governing” of those colleges and universities.  Yet mysteriously, silence on that fact from the media. Which in turn suggests that because the culprits of January 6 were Trump supporters the media says they were all about insurrection. But when the culprits of infinitely larger riots, replete with violence and attacks on police, involve far-left, anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas students and “outside agitators” - oh well, no big deal. If ever there were a naked example of how liberal media bias operates, there it is. Relentless coverage of “insurrection” for January 6th, (and in fact, no one was ever charged with the actual crime of “insurrection”) shrugging off massive campus unrest as just mere good ole American protests. The good news? Americans are on to the game.  And in the hierarchy of the liberal media’s friends in the Democratic Party, word seeps out about concern on how all of this reflects on President Biden and his re-election chances. As headlined here in the Financial Times:  Campus protests become a political liability for Joe Biden and Democrats Exactly. Which says just why the liberal media is not eager to exacerbate Biden’s problem by describing these events as an “insurrection.” Things are bad enough as they are.

NB Blog Feed

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

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

NB Blog Feed

Austin Tex. Votes to Become ‘Sanctuary City’ For Transgender Minors

I think it may actually be time to "mess with Texas." The Austin City Council voted in favor of becoming a sanctuary city for transgender minors seeking “gender-affirming care” on Thursday. The city has plans to break Texas state law, which aims to protect kids against things like chemical castration, in order to mutilate innocent children to feed a delusion and push an agenda. In a vote of 10-1, the council passed a measure that will help it undermine state law by directing police to push any enforcement of the state's transgender child restrictions to their “lowest priority.” As noted in the resolution:  Except to the extent required by law, it is the policy of the City that no City personnel, funds, or resources shall be used to investigate, criminally prosecute, or impose administrative penalties upon: (1) a transgender or nonbinary individual for seeking healthcare, or (2) an individual or organization for providing or assisting with the provision of healthcare to a transgender or nonbinary individual; and further, the City shall not terminate or limit the eligibility for City funding, such as grants or contracts, to an individual or organization for seeking, providing, or assisting with the provision of healthcare to a transgender or nonbinary individual. Local news station KXAN said that the resolution would make sure that police aren’t “wasting their time” making sure kids aren’t getting mutilated and instead focus on other issues in the city. Numerous individuals gave testimonies both for and against the city’s push for skirting around the law. One included a de-transitioner who explained how she was adamantly against these “permanent” procedures. Related: South Carolina Senate Passes Ban on Transgender Treatments for Kids The woman, Aether Dixon, detailed the complications she faced after being coerced into starting transgender treatments as a teenager. After being on testosterone for just a few months, Dixon said she was diagnosed with a cardiovascular intolerance, “having constant issues with heart regulation and passing out.” While in agonizing pain, Dixon remembers asking herself why she was still unhappy even after following through with all the transgender procedures she could.  Now 21, Dixon said she is dealing with the complications of the treatments like “vaginal atrophy, extreme joint pain and discomfort from permanently changing my sex characteristics,” saying all of it is because she “identified and was affirmed in [her] trauma.” Dixon said she supports state laws restricting these kinds of procedures for children. “The legislation this item is against is not taking away rights or anatomy, it is regulating experimental medicine on children in a non-criminal way. Save every kid from the unnecessary hormone complication and lost body parts,” Dixon said, noting that kids need help and support to love themselves and their bodies, not procedures that will ruin them. Yesterday, I addressed #Austin City Council, sharing my journey as a queer and undocumented individual, advocating for agenda item #64: a #transgender protection resolution to combat #SB14.🏳️‍⚧️ It was a pivotal moment as I shed light on the mental health toll of homophobia and… pic.twitter.com/eiTtYagt4d — Christian Aguirre (@christianindc) May 3, 2024 A different woman, Michelle Evans, read a statement on behalf of state Representative Brian Harrison (R - Tex.) and said that the city of Austin shouldn’t be able to arbitrarily make up its own rules.  “Actions like the one being proposed today, if passed, make it abundantly clear that this council is unfit to manage the capital city of the greatest State in the country," Evans read. On the other hand, Christian Aguirre,  a “proud member of the LGBTQ community,” expressed his support of the resolution, claiming it would help people like him who grew up “queer and undocumented” and somehow prevent suicide...by mutilating kids before they're old enough to vote. Yesterday, I addressed #Austin City Council, sharing my journey as a queer and undocumented individual, advocating for agenda item #64: a #transgender protection resolution to combat #SB14.🏳️‍⚧️ It was a pivotal moment as I shed light on the mental health toll of homophobia and… pic.twitter.com/eiTtYagt4d — Christian Aguirre (@christianindc) May 3, 2024 Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement on Austin’s resolution on Thursday evening: If the City of Austin refuses to follow the law and protect children, my office will consider every possible response to ensure compliance. Texas municipalities do not have the authority to pick and choose which state laws they will or will not abide by. The people of Texas have spoken, and Austin City Council must listen. Time will tell what actions Paxton makes regarding the Austin City Council’s resolution. Hopefully everyone puts politics aside and considers what is actually helpful and what is harmful for these young, confused minors. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left Needs Therapy & You Might Too After Watching This The people featured in this video really need therapy & our prayers too. pic.twitter.com/zLbJcivOW3 — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 30, 2024  

NB Blog Feed

ABC, CBS Play White House Pravda Fawning Over State Dinner for Teachers

Less than week after President Biden used his White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) speech to order the liberal media to get to work on behalf of democracy (aka his reelection campaign), ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS Mornings took this to heart with puff ball pieces Friday on a White House state dinner held to celebrate teachers. This was especially par for the course on ABC. Co-host Michael Strahan even had a tease at the top of the second hour: “From the classroom to the White House. The historic event for teachers who help others make their dreams come true. We got ready with the national teacher of the year.”     “Going to turn now to the White House, honoring America’s top teachers last night, including the national teacher of the year. Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang was there and ABC got an exclusive behind the scenes access,” he added moments later. Wang did her best impression of colleague and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce: [T]he White House, for the first time, hosting a state dinner for teachers. Now, these are lavish events for heads of state, but this time, teachers got to experience the glitz and glam and we got that exclusive look behind the scenes. Overnight, the White House hosting the first ever teachers of the year state dinner. First Lady Dr. Jill Biden toasting honorees from nearly every state and territory. Following soundbites from Jill and Joe Biden, Wang touted ABC’s exclusive look at national teacher of the year Mindy Testerman — an ESOL teacher in Tennessee — getting ready and as she made her grand entrance where celebrities and politicians often pose for photos upon rival for state dinners. “Testerman hoping to use her platform to encourage other teachers to advocate for students,” Wang added, asking her inside the White House, “[w]hy is teaching so important?” “Teaching is so important because as this country moves forward, educators make every other single profession possible,” Testerman replied. Wang concluded with a line from Testerman’s speech, which sounded like it was crafted by the Democratic National Committee as she talked about preserving “democracy”: And guys, Missy Testerman said in her speech last night that teachers make democracy possible by educating the next generation. And, look, the learning goes both ways. She told me that her students have taught her courage, calling them her heroes[.] Having been the ones to reveal both Testerman as the award recipient and there would be a state dinner for all state and national teachers, CBS Mornings was ebullient and made sure viewers knew it. “For the first time ever, America’s top teachers were invited to a special dinner at the White House to honor their work. First Lady Jill Biden hosted last night’s event, upgrading the usual White House reception for state and national teachers of the year,” fill-in co-host Jericka Duncan began, tossing to chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes. Cordes made sure to twice name-check the show (click “expand”): [V]ery glitzy. You might recall that the First Lady revealed right here on CBS Mornings last month that she was going to host a state dinner for the nation’s top teachers. And so, last night, the educators traded in their school clothes for gowns and suits as they were each announced individually at the event. Now, this is a big deal since White House state dinners are typically reserved for visiting heads of state, prime ministers, the Hollywood elite. It’s the toughest ticket in town. But this space, take a look, may look familiar. Missy Testerman joined CBS Mornings last month when we revealed that she was named the 2024 national teacher of the year. The English as a Second Language program director at Rogersville City School in Tennessee has been teaching for more than three decades. She was celebrated last night.  Like a Biden press secretary, Cordes added “[t]he nation’s top educators received an inspirational message from the First Lady, who has also been teaching for more than 30 years” and “thanked them for everything they do to change the world.” It grew even more pathetic and partisan when she complimented the President’s message: “Her other half, President Biden, also stopped by to honor the teachers. He told them, ‘you are the kite strings that hold our national ambitions aloft.’ Very poetic, guys. Maybe he has a teacher in the house.” Or, a speechwriter, but whatever. To see the relevant transcripts from May 3, click here (for ABC) and here (for CBS).

NB Blog Feed

Hostin: You Can’t Send Police to Bust Camps, Kids Had ‘Fire Drills!’

On Friday’s edition of The View, ABC’s staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) decried that administrators and states sent the police in to bust many of the illegal, anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas encampments on college campuses across the country. According to her, it was unconscionable for the police to break up the encampments because the students “grew up” doing “fire drills” in school. Hostin, completely ignoring the fact that the students she was backing employed Nazi-style tactics against the Jews on campus (including taking a Jewish student hostage), whined that “anti-protesters that have coming in and caused violence to these encampments.” “Let's not forget that part of the story,” she bitterly declared as moderator Joy Behar shot back with: “You know what, there are a lot of parts to the story.” The shrill rambling continued with Hostin bizarrely proclaiming that the police should have considered the fact that the students had participated in “fire drills” before busting the encampment: Can I just also say this? Let's also remember that these kids that are protesting are kids that grew up with active fire drills and for them to be subjected to the type of police violence that we are seeing on the nightly news is something also something to recall.     It’s unclear what Hostin meant by this and she didn’t offer any further explanation as to why “fire drills” would make her fellow anti-Semites exempt from following the law. Co-host Sara Haines pushed back and noted that the encampments were harming other students through actions, not speech. “But there are students that can’t cross campus. The antithesis of freedom of speech is threatening someone, they have to say something you believe to cross the campus,” she told Hostin off. Interestingly, Behar, Haines, and co-host Ana Navarro actually called out the encampments for being funded by shady dark money groups. “You know, can I just say one thing? Somebody is behind that with money! I’m sorry. Who bought those tents, for example?” Behar exclaimed. “There are two Palestinian rights groups that are actually – until we end Israel we will not stop. There are two agitating groups that are problematic,” Haines explained. Meanwhile, Navarro noted that “professional protest consultant” Lisa Fithian had been spotted at the Columbia encampment. “But there is actually video footage that I've seen here in New York and Columbia of a woman I guess is like a protest consultant. A professional protester or something like that appears in the video in Columbia,” she noted. “She basically has shown up in many protests that have occurred, and she knows how to make them more effective.” They got into talking about the encampment - a topic they largely avoided most of the week - because visuals of lawless campuses were hurting Biden in the polls. “Do they not remember the visuals on January 6?! Do they not remember those visuals of chaos?!” an unhinged Hostin shouted. “January 6th is ingrained in my memory and should be ingrained in every single person's memory in the United States of America!” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 3, 2024 11:07:59 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: Do they not remember the visuals on January 6?! Do they not remember those visuals of chaos?! SARA HAINES: I think visuals – literally humans look at the recent visions so nightly image right now matters more to them than January 6. HOSTIN: January 6th is ingrained in my memory and should be ingrained in every single person's memory in the United States of America! [Applause] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It should be but while they’re completely different, a lot of the imagery looks similar. And it was you're going to see Republicans seeing windows being smashed, things being defaced on college campuses and it evokes that same sense of lawlessness. HAINES: And the President had to speak to it. FARAH GRIFFIN: It was wise of Biden to get out and give a – JOY BEHAR: You know, can I just say one thing? Somebody is behind that with money! I’m sorry. Who bought those tents, for example? FARAH GRIFFIN: Oh, definitely. There's agitators who have infiltrated it for sure. [Crosstalk] HAINES: There are two Palestinian rights groups that are actually – until we end Israel we will not stop. There are two agitating groups that are a problematic. ANA NAVARRO: But there is actually video footage that I've seen here in New York and Columbia of a woman I guess is like a protest consultant. A professional protester or something like that appears in the video in Columbia – [Crosstalk] No, she basically has shown up in many protests that have occurred, and she knows how to make them more effective. She knows how to -- HOSTIN: But there are also anti-protesters that have coming in and caused violence to these encampments. Let's not forget that part of the story. That part – BEHAR: You know what, there are a lot of parts to the story. HAINES: Yeah. HOSTIN: Can I just also say this? Let's also remember that these kids that are protesting are kids that grew up with active fire drills and for them to be subjected to the type of police violence that we are seeing on the nightly news is something also something to recall. HAINES: But there are students that can’t cross campus. The antithesis of freedom of speech is threatening someone, they have to say something you believe to cross the campus. BEHAR: Okay, back to the vice president. (…)