Despite calls for many Democratic politicians and pundits to temper their inflammatory rhetoric, this week has proven a further escalation in this dangerous form of rage rhetoric. DNC Chair Ken Martin just told MSNBC’s “The Beat” that “we may be nearing” the moment when “elections don’t matter and then the resistance looks completely different.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on people to “forcefully rise up.” With political violence on the rise, these leaders are clearly fueling the mob in hopes that they and their party can ride the wave of rage back into power. History suggests that it is a foolish delusion. Today’s revolutionaries quickly become tomorrow’s reactionaries.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who pictures himself brandishing a baseball bat has previously called upon people to “fight in the streets.” California Governor Gavin Newsom previously declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.” Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger called upon her supporters to “Let your rage fuel you.” She then refused to withdraw her support for the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Jay Jones, who once expressed his desire to kill his political opponents and his children.
In his podcast with co-host Al Hunt, James Carville was again spewing unhinged hate. He returned to treating Trump and others as Nazis and their supporters as “collaborators.” I previously criticized Carville for that analogy. He later attacked me.
Doubling down, Carville declared
“You know what we do with collaborators? I think these corporations, my fantasy dream is that this nightmare ends in 2029 and I think we ought to have radical things. I think they all ought to have their heads shaven, they should be put in orange pajamas and they should be marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and the public should be invited to spit on them.”
To be sure that his menacing words were not lost, he then added “The universities, the corporations, the law firms, all of these collaborators should be shaved, pajamaed and spit on.”
There was no later push back by his co-host Hunt or anyone else associated with the podcast.
As one of those Carville has already attacked, I expect he has a haircut and public humiliation in mind for me and a significant number of others deemed insufficiently committed to the resistance.
Even with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempts on Trump and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, these politicians and pundits are still fueling the madness. Even with the sniper attack on ICE officers, they are still calling these law enforcement officers “Gestapo” and “Nazis.”
“What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts, flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. … Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”
The appearance of guillotines has become commonplace in left-wing protests. From protests against Trump to those against Israel, the symbol of the Terror is being rolled out as a warning to those with opposing views: “We got the guillotine, youbetterrun.”
It is the ultimate expression of an age of rage. There is no question that it is protected speech. However, it is part of what I have called “rage rhetoric,”and it is meant to inflame others. It suggests that the only solution to these issues is what the French called “the razor of the Republic.” In the French Revolution, the irony is that those who turned the guillotine into the symbol of revolution were themselves beheaded on the same platforms. Robespierre and others would ultimately be dispatched in the same atmosphere of rage and revelry.
As my new book discusses, most revolutions are driven by establishment figures who seek to capitalize on the wave of popular rage to gain power. We are seeing that today with many Democratic leaders using rage rhetoric to appeal to the far extremes of their political bases. Some have. Protesters are burning cars, dealerships, and even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police.
In the end, today’s pseudo-revolutionaries are likely to find themselves tomorrow’s reactionaries. Leading mobs is rarely a safe place to be as more radical elements take hold of a movement. The result is an inexorable pattern that runs throughout history as revolution devours its own.
If there’s a grand prize in America’s Dysfunction Olympics, Joe Biden handing a full, cosmic-scale pardon to his own son would be the soaring triple backflip onto a bed of rose petals. What Biden did was political malpractice—wrapped in gold foil. And now Hunter Biden dares to admit this divine clemency a symbol of “privilege.” He then lambasts Donald Trump’s supposed “revenge tour” like a schoolyard victim whining about a bully.
Pardon, Privilege, and the Perverse “Narrative”
Let’s parse the spectacle:
On December 1, 2024, Joe Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for all federal offenses his son may have committed from January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2024—including tax and gun charges, and even hypothetical future ones. This pardon came after repeated promises that Hunter would not be pardoned. The turnaround smacked of desperation.
Now, Hunter says he’s “incredibly grateful” and “realizes how privileged I am,” but also claims that his father would not have pardoned him had Trump not won. He also invokes the specter of Trump’s “revenge tour,” arguing that he would’ve been the “easiest target,” somehow vulnerable enough to silence the entire Biden clan.
Hunter got off scot-free from genuine crimes (remember, tax evasion and firearm charges are not made-up). Now, he piously “admits” that he was privileged—all while casting himself as a persecuted innocent. That’s not humility; that’s hubris in the shape of a press release.
A Hypocrisy So Thick You Could Swim In It
1. Selective “Justice” for the Elite
If you tell the average American they’ll be jailed for delinquent taxes, ignoring them won’t work; they’ll still get prosecuted. But if your last name is Biden, the rulebook says exception. That’s not theory; it’s been practiced. The Washington establishment has long operated under one law for the powerful, another for the powerless.
Democrats screamed about the “rigged justice system” when Trump was investigated, but now they rig it for their own. That’s not consistency—it’s con artistry.
2. The Political Panic Pardons
Wrapping a pardon like a political grenade isn’t rare. Presidents have always pardoned cronies, allies, or inconvenient truths. But pardoning his own son—and one embroiled in crime, addiction, and scandal—is not just nepotism; it’s betrayal of the public trust. The Left used to pretend pardons are about mercy or reform. But in this case, the only mercy is for the powerful.
3. The “Revenge Tour” Fairy Tale
Hunter claims Trump is on a “revenge tour”—as though Trump sat in some shadow room with a red ledger, marking off names. But which evidence supports that? We saw him challenge unconstitutional actions, purge bureaucrats tied to past vindictive investigations, and strip security clearances from politicized deep-state actors.
That’s not obsession—it’s course correction. Trump doesn’t lash out randomly; he goes after institutional rot. If Joe Biden’s legacy was built on family shenanigans and corruption, then yes, Hunter looked over his shoulder—but that’s on the family for being vulnerable, not on a president for doing his job.
Why Hunter Should Shut His Mouth (And Maybe Hide Under a Rock)
Here’s what’s guaranteed: the more Hunter talks, the worse it gets. If he keeps playing victim, it reminds people why he was pardoned—to defang him as a target. His own words confirm that. And if he speaks with indignation, he resurrects interest in the crimes he claims were swept under the rug. Then, if he rails about Trump, he writes his own invitation: “Put my name back under the microscope.”
Truthfully, if he’s smart (he’s not), he’ll go underground, live quietly, and let Joe’s pardon do its job.
Hunter Claims He Could Have Beaten the Wrap
Hunter alluded that he would have argued that the prior prosecutions were politically motivated or inconsistent, and that every person deserves due process. Let’s call this “The Leftist Defense”, and surely one that Big Tish, Comey, and Jack Smith will all deploy, unsuccessfully. Clearly, Hunter wants the world to believe that Trump’s DOJ would have weaponized charges against him or his family relentlessly—thus the pardon was a shield, not a favor.
Finally, you know that Biden would have used his addiction as an excuse. Addiction has been his scapegoat for years. For him, addiction trump’s culpability, and that mercy has a place in justice.
Rebirth of the Two-Tiered Justice System
If you have power and connections, you go free. If you don’t, you go to jail. That’s the American dream inverted, and it’s rotting from the top down.
A president—even one from the Left—who pardons his own child weaponizes the very office meant to temper excess. It’s one thing to help others; it’s another to help your own at the expense of fairness.
Hunter Biden’s remarks do one useful thing: they confirm what most people already suspected. He got a pardon not as redemption, but as immunity. He’s not a contrite citizen; he’s a walking monument to corruption’s soft power.
He can call it “privilege.” It is. He can blame it on a “revenge tour.” It’s not. He can cry crocodile tears about being a target. He wasn’t. But none of that changes the truth: he got a pardon meant to sanitize him. He got an escape hatch welded shut from accountability. And that, dear reader, is not scandal — it’s statecraft in the wild hands of the well connected.
Jimmy Kimmel is back on television by less than popular demand. Kimmel’s ratings are hardly robust (Kimmel pulls in 1.85 million in comparison to Gutfeld! at 3.2 million). Still, his suspension for spreading disinformation about the killer of Charlie Kirk became a cause celebre on the left. Kimmel continues to air nightly screeds against Trump and conservatives. Of course, he is hardly unique in appealing to an echo-chambered audience. However, this week Kimmel showed children being read Eric Trump’s book by a drag queen. What was most disturbing was not the use of the children to echo talking points on how great drag queens are but showing them throwing Trump’s book into a woodchipper. It appears that nothing is funnier for the modern left than a good book burning or chipping.
Trixie Mattel led the “Drag Queen Storytime” with a group of kids in the satiric treatment of Trump’s book. Mattel asked the kids questions like “Do I scare any of you?” eliciting a response: “You just look amazing. Why would that be scary?”
The children are given choices to read like Collectible Spoons of the Third Reich.
It may be the most bizarre element of the skit, even bordering on the ironically humorous. After all, Mattel was portraying the Trump Administration as Nazis but was about to show the children how to destroy books that have views that they do not like. That may not bring back memories of collectible Nazi spoons, but it does bring back memories of Nazi book burning.
The audience delights as one child says that she would “kick” Donald Trump “in the…” before the show bleeped out the rest of her response.
Mattel then shows the kids how to “make excellent confetti” out of a book that they do not like with a giant wood chipper outside of the studio. It is the type of comedic styling that would have had Joseph Goebbels rolling on the ground laughing.
For the free-speech community, there are few more disgraceful images as the burning or destruction of books because you do not agree with the author’s viewpoints. To see children participating in such an exercise is even more troubling. It is easy to dismiss this as simply another bizarre skit on a show struggling for ratings. However, some of us have been raising concerns for years about the embrace of the American left in effective (or even actual) book burning. Some on the right have also embraced book burning.
Cancel campaigns of conservative speakers were not enough for many on the left. They have pressured companies not to publish books by conservatives, including figures like Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is far easier (and environmentally sound) to ban opposing books than to physically burn them. However, the sentiment is the same. Rather than responding to those who oppose you, you fight to silence them and prevent others from reading them.
That is why the image of children happily tossing books into a woodchipper is so disturbing for many in the free speech community. This is not just satire but reality as many push to destroy books with opposing views. None of this means that there is any crime in this comedic sketch. Even book burning is protected speech. Yet, the humor is missed by many of us who have been objecting to the rise of a new generation of self-righteous book burners in America.
It’s always a wild ride when The View invites someone who doesn’t parrot their daily talking points. Cheryl Hines, actress and wife of RFK Jr., stepped into that lion’s den this week and showed America what grace under fire looks like. Surrounded by professional interrupters who treat disagreement like a personal insult, she calmly defended her husband’s record, dropped a few inconvenient facts, and somehow managed to make the whole panel stumble into partial agreement. That’s not just impressive — that’s a public service.
Sonny Hostin’s Sanctimony on Full Display
Sonny Hostin didn’t come to ask a question — she came to deliver a sermon from Mount Smugness. With that trademark tone of “I’ve read three headlines, therefore I’m right,” she scolded Cheryl Hines for daring to support her husband, sneering that RFK Jr. is “the least qualified Health Secretary in history.” Sure, Sonny — because working with Trump automatically disqualifies you from basic competence. It wasn’t about policy or background; it was about political loyalty. The subtext was clear: how dare someone who won’t toe the media line be allowed in polite company?
Cheryl Hines: Calm, Classy, and Prepared
What made the exchange remarkable wasn’t just Hostin’s predictability — it was Hines’ composure. While the panel tried to talk over her, she politely reminded them that her husband has spent decades taking on corporate polluters like Monsanto, DuPont, and Exxon — not exactly light reading in the world of public health. She wasn’t rattled, she wasn’t rude, and she didn’t need a cue card to make her point. That calm confidence made The View’s moral grandstanding look even more desperate.
The Left’s Religion of “Expert Worship”
Hostin’s “he’s not qualified” jab was more than just an insult — it was a window into the left’s biggest blind spot. These folks treat “experts” like saints and degrees like holy relics. To them, you can’t possibly know anything unless a university logo signs off on your opinion. Hostin’s tone said it all: “How dare a man without a medical degree question the medical establishment?” The irony, of course, is that most past Health Secretaries weren’t doctors either — but facts tend to bounce off the View table faster than Joy Behar’s punchlines.
The “Least Qualified” Argument Is Pure Nonsense
Let’s be real. When Hostin calls RFK Jr. “the least qualified Health Secretary ever,” what she really means is “he works with Trump.” That’s the entire argument, wrapped up in one elitist bow. Forget the decades RFK Jr. has spent studying environmental toxins, arguing in courtrooms, and advocating for cleaner air and safer food — apparently, none of that counts because he’s not part of the club. It’s like saying a firefighter isn’t qualified to talk about fire safety because he doesn’t work for the EPA.
The Charlie Kirk Comparison the Left Hates
Hostin’s jab also echoed the same tired insult Charlie Kirk heard every time he debated a liberal college student: “You don’t have a degree.” These self-appointed intellectuals seem convinced that wisdom comes only from a lecture hall. But here’s the thing — Charlie Kirk and RFK Jr. are two of the most well-read, well-studied, and well-informed people in their respective movements. They’ve spent years researching, writing, and engaging with real-world evidence. They just did it outside the Ivy League bubble. And you know what else they have? Common sense — something that’s been in short supply on The View for years.
America Was Built by People Without Permission Slips
The idea that you need a credential to contribute is about as un-American as it gets. Our Founding Fathers weren’t “experts” by the modern definition — they were thinkers, readers, doers, and dreamers who believed in individual liberty over institutional approval. If The View had been around in 1776, they’d probably have called Jefferson “unqualified” to write the Declaration because he didn’t have a degree in political science from Harvard. America wasn’t built by people with plaques on their walls; it was built by people with conviction in their hearts.
The View’s Fear of Real Conversation
Hines didn’t come to argue — she came to explain. But that’s exactly what terrified The View. They don’t do dialogue; they do dominance. The second a guest challenges their worldview, they close ranks like a gated community. They claim to champion “different perspectives,” yet every conversation sounds the same: mock, moralize, repeat. The reason they attack RFK Jr. so viciously isn’t because he’s wrong — it’s because he’s dangerous to their illusion of certainty. He’s willing to ask the questions they’ve been trained to avoid.
What The View Misses About the American Spirit
There’s a deeper cultural divide here that goes way beyond politics. The View represents a European-style mentality — trust the system, obey authority, let the “qualified” decide for you. But America’s DNA is different. We’re not a nation of followers. We’re a country that questions everything. Our strength doesn’t come from experts in suits; it comes from ordinary people who think critically, challenge power, and refuse to be silenced. That’s what scares the media class more than anything — they know they’re losing control of the narrative.
Why They Fear RFK Jr.
RFK Jr. isn’t a threat because of what he believes — he’s a threat because he dares to think independently. That’s what the establishment can’t tolerate. He doesn’t need permission to speak, and he doesn’t beg for validation from corporate media. He’s the rare political figure who admits when he’s still learning — and that humility drives elitists crazy. They prefer controlled narratives, not open debates. When RFK Jr. says, “Show me the science,” they hear, “Show me your weakness.” That’s why they go for his character instead of his argument.
Cheryl Hines Represented Every Common-Sense American
In that one appearance, Cheryl Hines did more than defend her husband — she spoke for millions of Americans who are tired of being talked down to by smug TV panels and bureaucratic know-it-alls. She showed that grace, facts, and composure still win in a room full of professional outrage artists. By calmly pushing back against misinformation disguised as “expert opinion,” she reminded the country that logic and decency aren’t outdated. They’re just out of style on daytime television.
The Media’s Hypocrisy Is the Real Story
Let’s not pretend this is new. The same media that once hailed “questioning authority” as noble now brands it as dangerous — as long as the questions come from the wrong people. If RFK Jr. had endorsed Biden tomorrow, The View would be singing his praises as a visionary reformer. But because he’s working with Trump, he’s “unqualified.” It’s not about truth or health or science; it’s about team loyalty. The message is simple: stay in your lane or we’ll shame you off the road.
America Still Trusts Truth Over Titles
For all the noise, Cheryl Hines’ appearance struck a chord because it reminded viewers of something they already know: credentials don’t equal character. Ordinary Americans still believe in truth over titles, action over applause, and courage over conformity. The people who keep this country running — the truck drivers, teachers, small business owners, and parents — don’t need elite approval to see through hypocrisy. They just need someone to say out loud what they already feel: we’ve been lectured enough.
The Bottom Line
In a country that once prized free thought, The View has become a monument to groupthink. Cheryl Hines walked in uninvited and reminded them what freedom of speech actually looks like. Sonny Hostin can keep sneering about degrees and “qualifications,” but most Americans see right through it. We don’t need another expert in a lab coat telling us how to think. We need leaders — and spouses of leaders — who aren’t afraid to ask hard questions, challenge the status quo, and use that rarest of political tools: common sense.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
The ladies of ‘The View’ continue to reside in a remarkable fantasy land, utterly detached from the reality they claim to analyze. During a recent broadcast, the hosts embarked on a truly laughable narrative, suggesting they are eager to welcome Republican voices but are being thwarted by a supposed lack of courage on the right. This absurd claim is a masterclass in self-delusion, ignoring the years of vitriolic hostility that have made their program a case study in liberal media intolerance.
Joy Behar, in a moment of pure fantasy, explicitly laid out this bizarre accusation. She stated, “I was going to say that I think we should have more Republicans on the show, but they don’t want to come on. They’re scared of us.” This statement is as revealing as it is divorced from the truth. It reveals a profound inability to understand that avoidance is not born from fear, but from a rational unwillingness to subject oneself to a circus of bad-faith attacks and manufactured outrage. Whoopi Goldberg attempted to add a veneer of legitimacy to their enterprise, claiming, “But that’s the great thing about The View, you know, we want people to come and give their views. And everyone who comes here, we try to be respectful, and we ask tough questions.” This so-called “respect” is a phantom, rarely witnessed by anyone who has actually seen a conservative guest be immediately shouted down, interrupted, and labeled with the most vile epithets the left can muster.
The reality is that Republicans, and particularly the stalwart supporters of President Donald Trump, routinely venture into the most hostile media environments imaginable. They face down aggressively biased interviewers on CNN, MSNBC, and major network news programs. The suggestion that they would be “scared” of a daytime talk show hosted by a panel of perpetually outraged liberals is an insult to the intelligence of the American public. The truth is far simpler and more damning: conservatives avoid ‘The View’ for the same reason sensible people avoid deadly diseases, poisons, and toxic waste. It is a rational act of self-preservation, not an admission of cowardice.
One cannot spend years demonizing political opponents, casually throwing around terms like “fascist” and “Nazi,” and then feign confusion when those same individuals decline an invitation to your venom-filled arena. The show’s history is a testament to liberal intolerance, a platform where conservative ideas are not debated but denounced. The hosts’ sudden professed desire for Republican guests is entirely disingenuous. As the article rightly points out, the real question is: why would they want them on? The answer is clear: so they can accuse them of destroying the country to their faces in a cheap ratings grab, providing a spectacle for their like-minded audience.
WATCH
The View claims Republicans don't want to come on the show because "they're scared of us." Alyssa Farah Griffin says she's like to have Ted Cruz on the show again, but the last time he asked to come on they denied him. pic.twitter.com/f4PUfLzQ5W
This stands in stark contrast to the strength and resilience demonstrated by President Donald Trump and his allies. While the left hides in safe spaces and refuses to engage with legitimate conservative media, President Trump has never shied away from a fight. He embodies the fortitude that the left mistakenly labels as fear in others. His administration and supporters are focused on real issues—rebuilding the economy, securing the border, and restoring American sovereignty—not on participating in the degrading circus of a show that long ago abandoned any pretense of civil discourse.
Below is my column in the Hill on the rise of rage politics. There was barely a respite from the rage rhetoric after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the sniper attack on the ICE facility. Gov. Gavin Newsom is back this week to calling his opponents “fascists” while other Democratic politicians are back to calling ICE “fascists.”
Here is the column:
“Let your rage fuel you.” Those words from Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger captured what I have called “rage politics” in America.
Across the country, politicians and pundits are fueling rage, encouraging voters to embrace it. If you turn on the television, you would think that Darth Sidious had taken over: “Give in to your anger. With each passing moment, you grow stronger.”
I do not think for a second that Spanberger supports violence. She was sharing with voters the “sage advice” of her mother, which she said she has applied in her political career. However, the anger is all around us.
Recently, I debated Harvard Law Professor Michael Klarman, who declared, “I am very angry” and “I am enraged.” In denouncing ICE as “thugs” and saying Trump supporters are “fascists,” Klarman explained that the rage had a purpose: “to shake people out of their insomnia.”
Rage, however, comes at a cost in politics. I recently wrote a book about rage and free speech, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”It discusses our history of rage politics and how it has led to violence and crackdowns. Rage gives people a license to say and do things that they would not otherwise say or do. It is addictive, it is contagious, and it is dangerous.
We are seeing the result of rage rhetoric all around us. That includes the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the sniper attack on ICE agents in Texas this week, in addition to violent protests around the country. Rage allows you to deny the humanity of those you disagree with. Recently, two sisters were caught on video destroying a memorial to Kirk. Kerri and Kaylee Rollo were later arrested. However, they immediately opened a GoFundMe site to call for donations for “fighting fascism” and Kaylee wrote “my sibling was fired from her job.” Hundreds of donors gave the sisters thousands of dollars as a reward for the latest such attack on a Kirk memorial.
For many months, some of us have warned that violent rhetoric was crossing over into political violence. Democratic politicians have spent months ratcheting up the rhetoric against ICE agents, who have suffered more than a 1,000 percentincrease in attacks, including the recent sniper attack.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the day before that attack, signed a law that purports to bar ICE agents from wearing masks in California. He openly mocked them, asking, “What are you afraid of?“
Joshua Jahn answered that question the following day in Texas when he fired at ICE personnel, only to shoot three of their detainees.
Previously, Newsom had warned voters that Trump was building ICE into a personal army that might be used to suppress voting in the upcoming midterm elections. “Do you think ICE is not going to show up around voting and polling booths to chill participation?” he said.
Others added to the rage rhetoric by declaring the impending death of democracy and lashing out at ICE. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who has used violent rhetoric in the past, declared that ICE agents were acting like “slave patrols” in hunting down immigrants in the streets.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) used a commencement address to denounce “Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets. They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons… just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared.”
Others, like Boston Mayor Michele Wu, echoed the claims that ICE personnel are “Nazis” and called ICE Trump’s “secret police.”
The rage rhetoric (and claims of a fascist takeover) has been adopted by a wide range of Democratic politicians, often using the same catchphrases of an “authoritarian playbook.” In our debate, Professor Klarman warned that this was all “authoritarianism rooted in old-fashioned white supremacy.”
As discussed in my book, politicians and pundits have long sought to ride the wave of rage into power or influence. Rage is a powerful narcotic. The problem is when it becomes an addiction. There is always a certain percentage of the population that will believe such hyperbolic claims.
Those are the people who end up trying to kill jurists like Justice Brett Kavanaugh or politicians like Trump. It was also seen in the assassination of Democratic politicians earlier this year in Minnesota.
With the recent assassination and attacks on ICE, some are expressing regret. One of the most telling was Hillary Clinton on MSNBC, who said that we should “stop demonizing each other” while blaming “the right” for most of the hate. It was a curious call from a woman who called Trump supporters “deplorables” and suggested that they should collectively be forced into “deprogramming” as a cult. Just before the interview, Clinton had embraced the “fascism” mantra and, during the interview, she went right back to attacking Republicans.
A new poll shows that 71 percent view political violence as a serious problem, but the rage rhetoric continues unabated.
The perfunctory calls for lowering the temperature after the latest shooting are unlikely to last. Key figures in public life keep injecting rage directly into the veins of American politics. It is hard to go “cold turkey” in breaking that addiction, but you first have to want to do so. There is no indication that our rage-addicts are anywhere near a step-program for recovery. If history is any measure, this fever will only break when voters clearly reject the politics of rage.
The mainstream media has wasted no time twisting the assassination of Charlie Kirk into something it never was. Instead of acknowledging the brutal reality—that left-wing hatred and ideology drove a radicalized young man to pull the trigger—they’ve started painting it as some sort of tragic love story. This is the same tired playbook we’ve seen before: when the killer fits their side of the political aisle, the motive magically becomes “emotional” rather than ideological.
Montel Williams’ Gaslighting on CNN
Montel Williams, who hasn’t been relevant in decades, resurfaced on CNN to provide cover for the left. His claim? The shooter wasn’t politically motivated but rather “emotionally” driven because of a relationship. That’s not just tone-deaf—it’s disgusting. To suggest this murder wasn’t political when the shooter literally etched leftist slogans into bullet casings is beyond dishonest. It’s gaslighting, pure and simple, and it insults the intelligence of every American who’s paying attention.
Scott Jennings Brings the Receipts
Thankfully, Scott Jennings didn’t let that narrative slide. He reminded everyone of the killer’s own words: “I can’t stand this hate anymore. I’m going to take Charlie Kirk out.” He pointed to the evidence etched on bullet casings and the testimony of family members who confirmed the shooter had embraced radical left-wing ideology. Jennings was clear—the crime wasn’t born out of some teenage heartbreak. It was fueled by the poison the left has been spewing against conservatives for years.
Left-Wing Radicalism in Plain Sight
For over a decade, the left has labeled conservatives as fascists, bigots, and enemies of humanity. This rhetoric doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it breeds hate, it radicalizes people, and in this case, it ended in assassination. The shooter waited for the word “trans” to be spoken before he pulled the trigger. That wasn’t random. That was ideological conditioning manifesting in violence. To deny the political motive is to deny reality.
The Stakes Are Too High for Lies
Montel Williams’ attempt to shift the story away from politics is more than lazy punditry—it’s dangerous. By pretending this was an “emotional” tragedy instead of politically motivated violence, CNN and the left are giving cover to a movement that incites hatred against conservatives daily. Scott Jennings was right to call it out, and the rest of us must do the same. If we let the media spin this assassination into anything but what it was, we’re only ensuring that more violence will follow.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW. JIMMY
Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg have one talent—slandering conservatives on live TV. Thanks to Dave Rubin resurfacing the infamous clip, we’re reminded of the time they falsely claimed Charlie Kirk welcomed neo-Nazis into a Turning Point USA event. The reality? The Nazis weren’t invited, weren’t inside, and weren’t connected to TPUSA in any way. But when has truth ever gotten in the way of daytime propaganda?
Joy Behar’s Goebbels Impression
Behar went full Goebbels, ranting about swastikas and anti-Semitic caricatures “in the front” of the event, then dragging Ron DeSantis for not commenting as if failing to address Joy’s fantasy is proof of guilt. It was cartoon-level hysteria dressed up as political commentary.
Whoopi Goldberg Adds Her Special Brand of Crazy
Not to be outdone, Whoopi Goldberg piped up, defending Antifa while pretending neo-Nazi protestors outside a TPUSA event were somehow the Right’s problem. To Whoopi, burning down cities and assaulting cops is just “anti-fascism.” The mental gymnastics would be impressive if they weren’t so dangerous.
The Legal Note That Blew Up Their Narrative
Then came the best part—the forced retraction. Producers shoved a legal note in front of them: TPUSA had condemned the neo-Nazis and had nothing to do with them. Boom. Their entire smear collapsed on live TV. Joy tried to cover by calling her lie “metaphorical.” Translation: she got caught lying but refused to admit it.
Dave Rubin Puts Them on Blast
Dave Rubin did everyone a favor by resurfacing this clip on “The Rubin Report.” He reminded America what The View really is—a propaganda factory that only backtracks when the lawyers step in. Without Rubin holding up the receipts, this smear would’ve been memory-holed and rewritten as “truth” by the Left.
The Shadow of Charlie’s Assassination
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Joy and Whoopi’s smear looks even uglier. Their false claims that he welcomed neo-Nazis weren’t just cheap shots—they were part of the constant drumbeat of lies that painted Charlie as something he never was. That kind of rhetoric doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It poisons the culture, fuels hatred, and adds to the toxic climate that targeted him. Joy and Whoopi will never take responsibility but make no mistake—their propaganda helped feed the atmosphere that made Charlie a target.
The View as America’s Disinformation Network
At the end of the day, Joy and Whoopi didn’t just misspeak. They spread disinformation, defamed a conservative leader, and then laughed it off when caught. And now, in the shadow of Charlie’s death, their lies look even uglier. The View isn’t television—it’s a disinformation machine dressed up as coffee-table chatter.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW. JIMMY
On August 7, 2025, CBS News aired a four-minute interview between correspondent Debora Patta and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. What viewers saw was a diplomat appearing defensive and dismissive on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. What they didn’t see were entire sections of the conversation that dismantled Hamas propaganda, exposed massive aid theft, and debunked false reports. Those parts were cut, and the edits all tilted in the same direction—away from Israel’s defense and toward Hamas’s narrative.
How CBS Framed the “Starving Children” Question
CBS aired Patta asking Huckabee about images of starving children, with him responding that people in Gaza are suffering because Hamas has blocked food from reaching them. What they removed was his insistence that such images must be verified, along with examples of false or recycled photos used in media reports—including one from Yemen, one from 2017, and another staged scene. Stripped of that context, his answer looked like a brush-off instead of a demand for factual accuracy.
The $500 Million Hamas Food Theft Story That Vanished
During the interview, Huckabee explained that Hamas made half a billion dollars in 2024 by stealing humanitarian food shipments, selling them on the black market, and inflating prices to starving civilians. He relayed reports from aid recipients who, for the first time, didn’t have to pay Hamas for food. This section never made it to air, eliminating one of the most damaging accusations against Hamas’s leadership.
The Hoax That Made Headlines Worldwide
CBS also cut Huckabee’s account of a false report claiming 27 people were killed at a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation site. He said video footage showed no one was injured, yet major outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, and CNN all ran the story before quietly issuing small corrections. Without this example, CBS left viewers thinking his skepticism about casualty numbers was unfounded.
Trimming the Genocide Rebuttal
In the aired version, Huckabee was shown saying that if Israel were attempting genocide, they were “really, really bad at it” and could have done it on October 8. Missing was his full argument: that Israel has the capability to destroy Gaza in days but has not done so, making the genocide claim absurd on its face. Cutting that portion removed the logic behind his position, leaving only a quip.
Erasing His View on Hamas Negotiations
The CBS segment did not include the start of the interview, where Huckabee dismissed the idea of further negotiations with Hamas, calling them unserious and brutal. He described their history of murdering their own people and continuing to torture hostages. Omitting this removed his broader point about why Hamas control in Gaza must end for any lasting stability.
Ending on CBS’s Rebuttal, Not Huckabee’s Question
In one of the most telling moments, Huckabee asked critics of Israel, “How many countries who are in the middle of a war are expected to feed the enemies who murdered their people?” Instead of airing his follow-up or letting the question resonate, CBS immediately cut to Patta invoking Article 55 of the Geneva Convention, declaring that Israel, as an occupying force, must provide food and medical supplies. This framing gave CBS the last word and left viewers with the impression that Huckabee’s point was legally and morally invalid without giving him a chance to respond.
Why These Edits Matter
Every cut in this interview weakened the case against Hamas and softened the reality of their crimes. CBS’s version downplayed Hamas’s exploitation of civilians, ignored documented instances of misinformation, and stripped away Israel’s moral defense. This wasn’t neutral editing for time—it was selective editing to fit an anti-Israel narrative.
The Larger Impact on Public Opinion
When mainstream outlets shape interviews this way, they do more than misrepresent a single official. They distort the public’s understanding of a war, influence international opinion, and embolden terrorist organizations by shielding them from scrutiny. In a conflict where propaganda is as powerful as rockets, these editorial decisions have real-world consequences.
The Full Transcript Tells a Different Story
Huckabee was right to release the full transcript. Anyone reading it will see that his remarks were detailed, evidence-based, and supported by real examples. The contrast with CBS’s broadcast is stark and should concern anyone who values honest journalism, regardless of political affiliation.
Closing Thoughts
Selective editing isn’t just a bad habit—it’s an act of narrative control. In this case, it protected Hamas from public accountability and undermined an American ally. Viewers deserve the full truth, not a version filtered to fit a political agenda.
The Public Broadcast: From Educator to Echo Chamber
NPR started as your mom’s cultured whisper in the morning—classical music, educational fare. Fast forward to 2025, and it’s more like a 24/7 campus rally, with woke mantras peppered throughout its programming. PBS, once a wholesome window into Mr. Rogers, now co-hosts drag story hours for your kids. We can’t even get through “Masterpiece Theater” these days without an ideological subplot.
But then came Trump, stepping in like a turnaround CEO sans the boardroom jargon. He wielded Executive Order 14290 (May 1, 2025) like an axe: “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” With a flick of the pen, he defunded NPR and PBS—finally freeing Uncle Sam from being the PR manager for progressive talking points. And Congress finally codified this.
NPR’s Leftward Migration: From Neutral to Narrative
During the George Floyd riots, NPR promoted a book called ‘In Defense of Looting.’ Here is one line from the article.
“The very basis of property in the U.S. is derived through whiteness and through Black oppression…”
Let’s pause on that anchor quote: NPR, taxpayer-funded, giving airtime to a book celebrating looting as moral justice. It’s not editorializing—it’s activism, on your dime. Scholar Samantha Bradshaw documented how private platforms shape propaganda—but here, public media is doubling down, funding incitement instead of impartial reporting.
When your “news” platform starts sounding like a university campus radical, you’ve gone rogue. But NPR doubled down—because why be a news service when you can be political?
Trump Cuts the Red Tape—and the Funds
Realizing nobody else would do it, Trump played his CEO card. On May 1, 2025, he issued EO 14290 to eliminate funding to NPR and PBS. Congress followed suit via the Rescissions Act of 2025, stripping $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—effectively zeroing out federal support. Stations panicked—PBS’s CEO warned of devastation in rural America. Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Sen Lisa Murkowski called PBS and NPR, “a lifeline for many of my small, rural communities.”
Seriously? I grew up in a small community, and not once did I hear of anybody relying on NPR for anything. Sure, you might listen occasionally, generally when you’re in “flyover” country and you can’t get a clear radio signal. But rely on NPR?
If your lifeline is faking neutrality while preaching leftism, then it was a leash more than it was a lifeline.
The Red Ink Tsunami Hits Legacy Media
PBS and NPR are icing on the cake for President Trump. He can be credited for permanently crippling the fake-news narrative. He coined the term nearly a decade ago—“fake news,” and it bit. It’s survived every administration’s spin cycle.
TV isn’t immune. The cancellation of The Late Show hit late-night with a sledge hammer. Networks and podcasts bloodied. Even the Washington Post CEO held a town hall asking “Real journalism, or pink slips?”—because the left’s game plan isn’t editing copy, it’s bleeding the business. The private outlets are hemorrhaging red ink—and in their last throes, they scream “We need protection!” But Trump, armed with budgeting knives rather than bluster, said “Nah.”
Government Joins the Exit Strategy
Public media was the last unabashed government-funded narrative peddler. But not anymore. Trump’s bold move compelled taxpayer escapes from ideological echo chambers. PBS may fight in court (they did), but fact is: government propaganda is over. Not through cancel culture—but through budget cuts. Welcome to free market—where propaganda meets zero-dollar ads.
If PBS and NPR stoically go down, I’m all to happy to add them to the existing media carcasses.
Trump’s Media Trophy Room: And He’s Still Adding Heads
Consider:
He debuted “fake news.”
He defunded federal media’s baton of bias.
He triggered TV cancellations (The Late Show, Trevor Noah, Joy Reid, Rachel Maddow, et al).
He forced WaPo to issue existential memos.
All from the CEO perspective. You cut waste. You dump the PR spin. You claw back cash to run the important things. Check. Check. And check.
Reactions, Backlashes, and Irony
Progressives wailed. Rural station heads claimed doom. But recall Fred Rogers: in 1969, he moved Congress to fund PBS as an educational beacon. They cried foul. Now they’re elite tentacles of the Left. Hilarious arc.
Exclusive PBS drag shows? NPR-sponsored looting pamphlets? This isn’t Fred Rogers pushing wheels in Peacefulville; it’s Leftist insurgent political theater paraded as journalism.
Why Defunding Was More Than Just Budget Cuts
No neutral public sector narrative. If government-funded media hops Left, taxpayers get hemmed into funding echo chambers.
Red ink is real. Legacy news is dying. Public media was the last subsidized fortress—now it’s falling.
Marketplace wins. Podcasts, private news, streaming—if you create it, someone will pay for it.
Final Score: A Win for Citizens, Not Cultures
Trump didn’t just sculpt policy—he curated the information buffet. Cutting public media funding wasn’t removal—it was refusal to fund Leftist PR from Washington.
What’s next? A civilian media renaissance—undirected, decentralized, and driven by demand—not by capital-D Doublespeak.
NPR and PBS weren’t the neutral stewards they advertised. In fact, they became state-funded billboards for the Left. CEO Trump cut them from the budget, liberating taxpayers and creating a media meltdown, and pulling the plug on propaganda.
Below is my column in the Hill on the termination of funding for National Public Radio. Now that we have ended government-sponsored media, the question is whether the media will cease acting like a state media. The good news is that the market could force a correction that the media has largely refused to make.
Here is the column:
With the final elimination of public funding for National Public Radio as part of a $9 billion savings package, the era of the American state media will technically come to an end. However, what makes for state media is not state support alone.
So, the state media is dead — long live the state media.
That variation of the traditional mourning cry of the British monarchy will be heard more in whispers than proclamations this week in Washington. The government subsidy for NPR has long been a subject of controversy. Many opposed NPR for its open bias in reporting news, a record that thrilled the left and outraged many on the right. Just before the final vote, NPR CEO Katherine Maher gave another interview that left many agape. She denied any such bias and asked whether anyone could point to a single story that showed a political or ideological slant.
Ignoring a myriad of such examples, Maher then went from defiant to delusional, insisting that NPR was trying hard to “understand those criticisms.”
It was a bit late for Maher to feign surprise or confusion, particularly as a CEO whose selection to take over the struggling NPR many of us opposed. Her glaring and overt bias did not seem like the antidote to NPR’s shrinking audience and revenue. In 2024, NPR had a window to actually “understand” the criticism and make adjustments. Instead, it treated the government subsidy as an entitlement, backed by Democratic members in Congress. The board would have done better to select a neutral journalist. Instead, it doubled down, hiring a candidate with a long record of far-left public statements against Republicans, Trump, and others.
This is the same CEO who attacked respected senior editor Uri Berliner when he tried to get NPR to address its bias and restore greater balance on the staff. Berliner noted that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans.
Maher slammed the award-winning Berliner for his “affront to the individual journalists who work incredibly hard.” She called his criticism “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.” Berliner resigned after noting how Maher’s “divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR” that he had been pointing out.
But I have argued that NPR’s well-established bias and publication of baseless conspiracy theories are not the real reasons for taking away its federal funding. The truth is, NPR represented an embrace of a state media model used in other countries that Americans thoroughly reject.
Maher bizarrely tried to rally support for government funding by insisting that we must “keep the government out” of the media. Congress just did precisely that by clawing back NPR’s funding.
The government has occasionally supported the media, but generally to benefit all media outlets. For example, in 1791, Madison declared that Congress had an obligation to improve the “circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people” and sponsored the Post Office Act of 1791, giving newspapers reduced postage rates.
Notably, those same Democrats in Congress who decried the reduction of funding for NPR would have revolted over funding for more successful radio outlets, such as Fox Radio. Indeed, some of the same members had previously pushed cable carriers to consider dropping Fox News, the most popular cable news channel.
What Congress did with prior funding of a single preferred media outlet was wrong. Liberals and Democrats fought to protect the funding even though NPR’s shrinking audience is now overwhelmingly white, affluent, and liberal.
However, the end of government subsidies will not necessarily mean the end of an effective state media. As I noted in my book “The Indispensable Right,” we have seen how the media can create the same effect as state media by consent rather than coercion. For years, media outlets have echoed the same party line, including burying negative stories and repeating debunked stories. Actual readers and listeners abandoned the mainstream media in droves. “Let’s Go Brandon” became a national mantra mocking journalists for their inability even to see and hear if the sights and sounds don’t fit their preconceived narratives.
Just as Maher has expressed utter confusion on how anyone could view NPR as biased, these editors and journalists will cling to the same advocacy journalism, rejecting the principles of objectivity and neutrality. However, there is still one hope for restoring traditional journalism: the market.
Now that NPR is off the public dole, it will have to compete fairly with other radio outlets for audiences and revenue. It is free to alienate most listeners who have center-right viewpoints, but it will have to sustain itself on a smaller share of the market.
Other outlets are facing the same dire choice. Recently, the Post encouraged writers and editors to leave if they were unwilling to get on board with a new direction at the newspaper. Previously, Washington Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis had told his writers that the newspaper was experiencing massive losses in readers and revenues because “no one is reading your stuff.” It triggered a revolt on the staff, which would have rather run the paper into insolvency than return to objectivity and neutrality.
The same preference was seen with the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s late-night show. What had been David Letterman’s formidable program had become a shrill echo chamber for the far left as Colbert engaged in nightly and mostly unfunny diatribes against Trump and Republicans. As its ratings and revenues fell, Colbert was unmoved. At the same time, Fox’s Greg Gutfeld continued to crush the competition as viewers abandoned CBS and other broadcast networks.
The year’s second-quarter ratings showed Fox News’s “Gutfeld!” drawing an average of three million viewers. Gutfeld’s more conservative takes on news remain unique among these late-night shows. In comparison, “The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert came in second last quarter with an average 2.42 million viewers, despite being a far more costly program.
As liberals expressed outrage over the cancellation and alleged that CBS’s owner, Paramount, was seeking to garner favor with the Trump Administration, even CNN admitted that the show under Colbert had become “unfortunately unprofitable.” Colbert’s show was reportedly losing $40 million a year with a bloated staff and declining audience.
Paramount issued a statement insisting that Colbert’s cancelation was “not related in any way to the show’s performance.” Perhaps, but media companies are hardly in the habit of cancelling profitable, high-performing programming.
Ultimately, the market is correcting what the media would not. Roughly half of this country is center-right, and 77 million people voted for Trump. They are turning to social media and new media rather than remain a captive audience to a biased legacy media committed to advocacy journalism.
As media outlets fail, there may also be more pressure on journalism schools to return to core principles rather than crank out social justice warriors no one wants to read or hear from.
In the meantime, Maher and NPR can continue to stay the course and try to make up in pledge drives what they lost in public subsidies. However, the whole thing will now have to pay for itself without passing along costs to the rest of the non-listening country.
The Department of Homeland Security on Monday ripped a media report as “fake news” that alleged illegal immigrants in overcapacity detention centers are going hungry because of food shortages. An unnamed former Immigration and Customs Enforcement official told NBC News in a story published Monday that it’s difficult for a detention facility to stay stocked with the right amount of food when it might face an unexpected surge of new detainees.
“FAKE NEWS!” DHS wrote in a post on X. “Any claim that there is a lack of food or subprime conditions at ICE detention centers are FALSE. All detainees are provided with proper meals, medical treatment, and have opportunities to communicate with their family members and lawyers.‘
“Meals are certified by dieticians. Ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of individuals in our custody is a top priority at ICE.”
Reports of poor conditions at ICE facilities are becoming a common theme in the mainstream media, with The New York Times reporting June 28 that the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration is straining the nation’s detention facilities. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act provides $45 billion for ICE detention centers and reportedly could lead to an additional 116,000 to 125,000 beds, slightly below the 131,000 U.S. citizens in federal prisons, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission data.
DHS posted, “ICE actually has higher detention quality standards than most US detention spaces that hold actual US citizens. Despite a historic number of injunctions, DHS is working rapidly, overtime to remove these illegal aliens from detentions centers to their final destination: home.”
A Texas state flag flies in a yard filled with debris on July 6 in Hunt, Texas. (Jim Vondruska via Getty Images)
Heavy rainstorms caused widespread, deadly floods in Texas over the Fourth of July Weekend.
According to the latest estimates, 94 people have been confirmed dead due to the flooding of the Guadalupe River and elsewhere in Central Texas. This number includes 27 young girls and counselors from Camp Mystic, a Christian camp in Hunt, Texas.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who represents a district affected by the flooding, spoke about both the tragedies and acts of heroism in the wake of the flood.
Rep. Roy: “There's a there's a lot of pride and the people of Texas rising to the occasion.“ pic.twitter.com/SETsgDsyHT
— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) July 7, 2025
Unfortunately, some media commentators took this tragic moment and wrongly twisted it to make it an indictment of President Donald Trump, the Trump administration, and conservatives in general. Many claimed that Department of Government Efficiency budget cuts are specifically to blame for the casualties.
This was CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein on Saturday in the 5pm Eastern hour, speculating about DOGE cuts having possibly played a role in the deadly Texas floods (with dozens still missing):
“But there are two important notes here. Number one, the President has been deeply… pic.twitter.com/YzKBibYJle
“MAGA and [right-wing] media seem very upset today as a chorus of us experts discuss the impact of cuts to weather forecasting,” wrote CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem on X. “This is the world of disaster information wars. I say this: a total tragedy in Texas and we owe those young girls the willingness to learn from it.”
The following is a fact check of these claims.
National Weather Service
Critics of the Trump administration have directed most of their ire at the National Weather Service, saying that after funding “cuts” the organization failed to do its job in Texas.
When experts warned for months that the NWS “is being destroyed” by Trump’s personnel cuts, Howard Lutnick assured Congress that forecasting won’t be affected. Now TX officials are blaming a faulty forecast by NWS for the deadly impact of a storm. https://t.co/zQZmKq7553
A Huffington Post White House reporter said that Trump “imposed significant cuts to the National Weather Service, degrading its ability to do its job.”
He imposed significant cuts to the National Weather Service, degrading its ability to do its job.
Also he has not visited the site of a single disaster that has occurred on his watch.
However, he has managed close to 50 days of golf, including today, right now. pic.twitter.com/dJfbDKcThF
ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos said on Sunday, “We’re also learning there were significant staffing shortfalls to the National Weather Services offices in the region.”
George Stephanopoulos on @ThisWeekABC: “We’re also learning there were significant staffing shortfalls to the National Weather Services offices in the region.” pic.twitter.com/1xwf7DkQuq
Even the Democratic National Committee got in on these accusations Monday.
INBOX: Democratic National Committee doubles down on blaming Texas flooding deaths on Trump admin staff cuts to the National Weather Service.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt just called such claims a "depraved lie that serves no purpose during this time of national… pic.twitter.com/YDLvNfBwif
However, not only have there been no cuts to NWS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but it appears that those agencies were well and properly staffed on the eve of the floods.
The Associated Press reported that the NWS office in New Braunfels “had extra staff on duty during the storms.” Whereas during normal times two forecasters would be on duty, the office had five forecasters on duty ahead of the storms, according to AP.
But most evidence points to NWS fulfilling its duty and providing warnings well ahead of the floods.
The Department of Homeland Security posted its own accounting of events and said that the “mainstream media is deliberately lying about the events leading up to the catastrophic flooding in Texas.”
The GOP’s budget cuts to NOAA are set to take effect at the start of fiscal year 2026, which begins on October 1, 2025.
Anyone making the deaths of the children in Texas about partisan politics is morally bankrupt. Please reflect.
After posting a timeline of the actions the NWS took, DHS concluded, “The National Weather Service provided over 12 hours of advance notice via the Flood Watch and over 3 hours of lead time for Flash Flood Warnings, with escalated alerts as the storm intensified.”
Some media outlets have also concluded that NWS was not to blame for what happened in Texas. A Wired article acknowledged that NWS “did its job in Texas” based on interviews with meteorologists.
Wired reported that NWS “did send out adequate warnings as it got updated information. By Thursday afternoon, it had issued a flood watch for the area, and a flash flood warning was in effect by 1 a.m. Friday. The agency had issued a flash flood emergency alert by 4:30 a.m.”
Some commentators on the Left didn’t buy the narrative that the Texas flood deaths were caused by budget cuts and the Trump administration.
Nina Turner, a former national co-chair of Sen. Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, wrote on X that the “GOP’s budget cuts to NOAA are set to take effect at the start of fiscal year 2026, which begins on October 1, 2025.”
Rep. Joaquin Castro on the deadly Texas flooding:
"I think climate change is obviously a part of it. These floods are happening more often."pic.twitter.com/iNFu8rx8MH
Turner said that, while she disagrees with the budget cuts, “anyone making the deaths of the children in Texas about partisan politics is morally bankrupt. Please reflect.”
Climate Change
Another common narrative of the Texas flood deaths is that they were caused by climate change.
More Pielke: "The flooding was certainly extreme but it should not have been historically unexpected. The documented record of extreme flooding in “flash flood alley” goes back several centuries, with paleoclimatology records extending that record thousands of years into the… pic.twitter.com/QdwJXCqJ3k
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 7, 2025
The Texas flood occurred in an area that suffers regular, extreme flooding. Some have called it “flash flood alley.”
But according to a meteorologist on X, citing numbers from the Environmental Protection Agency, the number of floods in the affected part of Texas has actually decreased since 1965.
Journalist Michael Shellenberger explained on X that flood deaths in the United States have declined sharply in the last century because better systems are now in place to save lives.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) denies that DOGE cuts to National Weather Service staffing led to delays in warnings about the deadly floods in Texas.
He says it's "reasonable over time" to look back at "what could have been done better," but "immediately trying to use it, for either side,… pic.twitter.com/DQ8UY5CwcC
The problem, according to Shellenberger and others, was not with the National Weather Service or with DOGE cuts. The problem is that there wasn’t a sufficient local flood warning system in place to ensure that people in the affected areas could escape harm.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a news conference that it is “reasonable over time” to look back at “what could have been done better” during the Texas floods, but “immediately trying to use it, for either side, to attack their political opponents—I think that’s cynical and not the right approach.”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Legacy media calls the Riots incited by Democrat leaders a peaceful protest. They called Trump’s “march peacefully and patriotically” speech a call for violence at the Capitol. Bias much?
6 Reasons the ‘No Kings’ Riots Are Far Worse Than January 6 — But the Media Still Calls Them ‘Mostly Peaceful’
By Guest Contributor – The Gateway Pundit – June 16, 2025
Late last week, we came across a commentary video by the gamer Asmongold on YouTube. The topic of course was the unrest surrounding the LA ICE raids. The commentary triggered some back-and-forth with users in his chat one of whom tried to dismiss what was going on in LA by comparing it to the protest on January 6, 2021. This prompted another user to comment that the Left “Always brings up Jan 6.” To which, Asmongold responded, “Because they don’t have any other examples.” From the very start of the January 6 saga, it’s been a constant struggle to get the truth out over the mountain of lies spread by the media and the Biden administration about what actually happened that day. The frustration is compounded by the fact that even among those on the Right who… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
Well, well, well—another day, another mask ripped clean off the smug face of “objective journalism.” ABC News has officially suspended senior correspondent Terry Moran after he let loose on X (formerly Twitter), calling Stephen Miller and Donald Trump “world-class haters” in a post so drenched in bile it made Keith Olbermann look subtle. The tweet got deleted—of course—but not before screenshots lit up conservative circles like a Fourth of July sparkler. Now ABC is scrambling to pretend it has standards. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t.
Moran’s Meltdown in His Own Words
Let’s recap the meltdown. Moran wrote that Stephen Miller wasn’t known for brains but for “bile,” describing him as “richly endowed with the capacity for hatred” and someone who “eats his hate.”He went on to say Trump was also a world-class hater, but only because it fuels his “own glorification.”This wasn’t analysis—it was a tantrum. And it came just hours after the third straight night of violent riots in Los Angeles, where Trump had just deployed the National Guard to restore order. The timing? Not subtle.
ABC Plays Damage Control—Too Little, Too Late
After backlash from all sides, including the White House and a furious online conservative base, ABC News issued a very corporate statement saying Moran had “violated our standards” and was being suspended pending further evaluation. Now they want you to believe they care about “objectivity.” Please. ABC calling itself neutral is like Hunter Biden calling himself sober—technically possible, but hard to swallow. This isn’t the first time ABC has had to clean up after its own, either. Just last year they paid $15 million to settle a defamation suit with Trump over a George Stephanopoulos interview. At this point, “We stand for impartiality” is the most laughable line in their brand guide.
The White House Fires Back—And Rightly So
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt jumped into the fray, calling the post “unhinged and unacceptable,” and demanded ABC explain how they’d hold Moran accountable. Vice President J.D. Vance called Moran’s rant “a vile smear dripping with hatred,” and said it proves why Americans can’t trust ABC’s Trump coverage. And Stephen Miller himself? He summed it up best: “Terry pulled off his mask.” That’s the point. This wasn’t just a reporter having a moment. It was a veteran journalist admitting what so many of us already knew—these people don’t report on Trump. They despise him. And they despise you, too.
Journalists or Activists? Pick One
Let’s be honest: Terry Moran didn’t get caught in a gotcha moment. He gave a confession. He said the quiet part out loud. For years, people like him have lectured the rest of us from their media ivory towers, pretending they’re just telling the truth while pushing narratives straight from the DNC playbook. The only thing more dangerous than dishonest journalism is dishonest journalism wrapped in fake neutrality. And Moran wrapped his hatred in both. His post didn’t just attack two public figures—it confirmed decades of conservative skepticism about the press.
The Real “Hate” Is Coming from Inside the Newsroom
The irony here is almost too perfect. While cities burn from “peaceful protests,” and while the Left defends lawlessness in the name of equity, the same media talking heads accuse Trump and his team of being the real threat to democracy. This is what projection looks like. Moran accused others of feeding on hate—but the bile in his tweet says otherwise. If you want to know what fuels the corporate press, just read Moran’s late-night poetry slam. He wasn’t giving policy commentary. He was lashing out because he’s losing control of the narrative—and he knows it.
What Happens Next?
Will ABC quietly reinstate Moran after a week of “reflection”? Probably. Will the rest of the media rally around him, pretending this is a free speech issue? Almost certainly. But make no mistake—this moment matters. Every time a media figure exposes their disdain for half the country, it pushes more Americans out of the mainstream media bubble and into platforms like ours. The more they rant, the more they reveal. And that’s why we’ll keep watching. Keep calling it out. And keep fighting back.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – 5 years later, after the death of (Criminal) George Floyd, The Star Tribune continues to show bias, painting a picture far from the real truth, almost in a worshiping of Saint Floyd fashion as some hero.
EXCLUSIVE: 5 years later: Justice after George Floyd? The dismissed lawsuit revealing the truth—and Derek Chauvin’s response
By Dr. JC Chaix – AlphaNew.org – May 20, 2025
In an exclusive phone call from prison, Chauvin himself said then-Inspector Katie Blackwell’s testimony was “outright perjury.” When a police chief doesn’t want you to look at police body camera videos, then you know you need to look beyond the lies and see the facts for yourself. From the very beginning, many of our so-called leaders misspoke and misjudged what was necessary to keep the peace and let justice truly prevail in Minneapolis. Following the arrest and heart attack of George Floyd, police bodycam videos were withheld. Lawyers engaged in lawfare, and riots, protests and politics made any hope of a fair and impartial trial for the four accused officers nothing more than an impossibility… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – After Jake Tapper blasted conservatives for accusing Democrats of ignoring Biden’s mental decline, he comes out with his book “Original Sin”. Explaining how the Democrats and the White House covered up his mental decline as though he weren’t a part of the cover-up.
After Criticizing Any Discussion Of Joe Biden’s Cognitive Decline, Jake Tapper Seeks to Profit from the Cover-up
Margaret Flavin – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 26, 2025
CNN’s Jake Tapper was a harsh critic of anyone who dared to raise the topic of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. But now that he can profit from the coverup he and his fellow “journalists” participated in, Tapper is ready to profit off the deception. Tapper is plugging his new book Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, which is set for release in May 2025. An overview of the book reads:… READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – DFL (Democrats) are willing to fight to the end for Illegal aliens but not for Minnesota citizens.
BRANCO TOON STORE
Will budget agreement hold? DFLers decry cuts to state health care for illegal immigrants
By Luke Sprinkel – AlphaNews.org – May 16, 2025
DFL legislators lashed out when it was announced that illegal immigrants would no longer be eligible for MinnesotaCare under the deal. Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders in Minnesota have agreed to a two-year state budget deal that significantly reduces a looming $6 billion deficit, raises taxes only on marijuana, and is several billion dollars smaller than the state’s record $72 billion budget from 2023. The deal also brings a big change to MinnesotaCare, a state-run health care program for low income individuals. Under a compromise reached by Gov. Walz, DFL legislative leaders, and House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, adult illegal aliens will no longer be allowed to enroll in MinnesotaCare… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
Data released Tuesday shows that egg prices dropped 12.7 percent last month — the “biggest monthly decline since 1984.” The report follows weeks of President Donald Trump telling Americans that egg prices were falling — welcome news after the cost of eggs rose for 17 out of the past 19 months, according to CNN. But the left-wing legacy outlet is scrambling to process the eggcellent news.
CNN’s David Goldman wrote Tuesday that “For months, President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that egg prices are tumbling. It wasn’t true then, but it’s true now.”
Goldman continues:
“Despite Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ far more conservative estimate that egg prices would normalize in the summer, Trump last month said, ‘as you know, the cost of eggs has come down like 93, 94% since we took office.’ Those percentage declines Trump stated are not close to accurate – but we now know that consumer egg prices were, indeed, falling sharply when Trump made those remarks (the Consumer Price Index data wasn’t out yet to confirm or deny Trump’s claims).”
CNN admits egg prices “were, indeed, falling sharply when Trump made those remarks,” but a few sentences later bizarrely still claims the “timing of his claim” was wrong.
Translation: Trump said something that turned out to be true (egg prices fell), but because we didn’t have the same data at the exact moment Trump said it, he was wrong.
That’s one of the propaganda press’ favorite things to do: dismiss or discredit the truth but then claim credit for discovering it themselves later and grant permission to everyone else to acknowledge it. Goldman’s piece is hardly an outlier. It’s the norm. Take the propaganda press’ coverage of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson are awaiting the release of their new book Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, which details Biden’s decline over four years. The excerpts released thus far read more like a confessional of sins long known to anyone with a set of eyes and ears.
But the book and discussions amongst the left are all happening well after Tapper and the legacy media themselves engaged in the cover-up. The media decided that Biden wasn’t cognitively declining and essentially painted anyone who questioned the narrative as a far-right “conspiracy theorist” not acting “in good faith.”
The examples are endless. But now that Tapper, Thompson, and the rest of them can make a few bucks off telling the truth, they’re willing to do it.
Or take the coverage of masks during Covid. The New York Times’ Zach Montague said in September 2020 it was a “dangerous assertion” to state that wearing masks during the pandemic had “little to no medical value.” Fast forward just over two years when Bret Stephens, writing for The Times, declared, “The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?” Stephens highlighted a report that found there was “no evidence” masks made “any difference.”
To be clear, it was a “dangerous assertion” to say masks did nothing until the propaganda press decided it was okay to make that same assertion. As the Federalist’s Elle Purnell wrote, outlets like the New York Times “played a significant role in defending the officially sanctioned [Covid] narrative” and “chok[ed] dissent.”
And then, of course, there’s the alternative — where something is true until the media says it no longer is, like the case of the propaganda press running cover for Kamala Harris’ devastating management of the border as vice president.
As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd wrote last year, “Years after acknowledging and even praising President Joe Biden for naming Vice President Kamala Harris ‘border czar,’ corporate media claimed the presumptive 2024 Democrat nominee was never charged with overseeing the logistics of the record-breaking invasion.”
In each case, one pattern remains the same: The truth never changed, only the media’s willingness to acknowledge it. Whether it’s egg prices, Biden’s cognitive decline, mask mandates, or who was in charge of the southern border, the facts don’t seem to matter to the propaganda press.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
Really? A 0.1% slip qualifies as “sinking”? If that’s the case, my diet attempts “collapse” every time I glance at a donut.
This kind of hyperbolic doom-spinning is exactly how the media treats anything related to Donald Trump—relentless negativity, even when the facts don’t cooperate. And just like clockwork, Democrats keep doubling down on their favorite pastime: lying.
“Nobody Is Above the Law”… Except Democrats, Apparently
The Left’s sanctimonious chant of “Nobody is above the law!”has aged like milk left in a hot car. One judge has fallen for her theatrics (for now). But by “Trump Summer”, the legal tide will turn—and the Left’s tears will flow like a flash flood of the Amazon River.
I keep reflecting on the arrest of that so-called “judge” in Wisconsin. The shot over the bow that Trump offered lit the Leftist world on fire. And if you think the LA fire was big, wait until you get a load of this one.
The American people are done watching Democrats skate on blatant crimes while weaponizing the justice system against their opponents. There’s a higher law at play here—call it divine justice, karma, or just common sense. Democrats can’t lawyer their way out of reality this time.
Don’t believe me? Ask 60 Minutes, which is reportedly restructuring to pay Trump a chunk of the $20 billion he’s suing them for. When even legacy media outlets start sweating, you know the jig is up.
I’ve already started compiling my list of potential perps, and perhaps we will start the betting line soon. Because it’s only a matter of time before Team Trump starts laying down indictments.
The Left’s Playbook: Eternal War, Zero Peace
Don’t rest on your laurels—this battle isn’t ending anytime soon. The Left doesn’t want peace for America citizens. After all there is too much money in chaos. So expecting them to quit lying is like asking a cat to stop licking it’s naughty bits. It won’t because it’s in the cat’s nature, as evil is in Democrats’ nature.
But here’s my advice: Enjoy the ride. That’s why you’re here, right? I’m not here to solve all the world’s problems (though I could, if given a cape and a caffeine IV). I’m here to help you survive Leftism with your sanity—and sense of humor—intact. I do that by validating you existing sanity, and letting you know that you are on the side of righteousness, so shout your opinions from the mountaintop.
Next, when you finally corner a Leftist with facts, and their face does that “I just realized my entire worldview is built on quicksand” twitch, savor it. That look of cognitive dissonance is natural habitat for them. Try to snap a picture of it, so you can laugh uncontrollably, when life gets you down.
The Silent Civil War (Where Only One Side Fights Dirty)
We’ve been in a cold civil war for decades—no bullets, just endless gaslighting by Leftists. Conservatives kept hoping sanity would return on its own. Sadly, it won’t.
The Left has turned lies into truth, and America into a banana republic run by jackals with journalism degrees and hyper-inflated egos.
Trump’s presidency resembled the Matrix, as he walked through a hailstorm of bullets unscathed—for us. How many politicians (or CEOs) could’ve survived that onslaught? His family, his allies, even Elon Musk (more on him in a sec) paid a price just for being near him.
Elon Musk: The Left’s Latest Victim (Because He Dared to Work With Trump)
Speaking of casualties, let’s talk about Elon. The man lost billions simply because he had the audacity to… checks notes… work with Trump. If he’d done the same for Obama, the Left would’ve built him a golden statue and bought an extra Tesla, just for the parts.
Instead? Media hit jobs. Activist tantrums. The full “How dare you not hate the right people!” treatment. But the tide is turning. Democrats miscalculated—they assumed their lies would hold forever.
Truth Always Wins (Eventually)
Democrats bet everything on deception. But history has a way of humbling frauds. So grab your popcorn, sharpen your arguments, and get ready—because the Left’s house of cards is collapsing.
For decades, 60 Minutes was the crown jewel of investigative journalism—an institution that shaped public trust and defined Sunday night television. But the show that many Americans once revered is now a shadow of its former self.
Behind the crumbling façade lies a string of scandals, ideological bias, and recent events that signal the end of any claim to journalistic integrity. With the resignation of longtime executive producer Bill Owens and a looming legal showdown with Donald Trump, 60 Minutes finds itself exactly where it’s been heading for years: rock bottom.
The Fall of a Media Giant
What happened to 60 Minutes didn’t happen overnight. The erosion of its credibility has been a slow, painful process. The once-respected news program long ago abandoned its commitment to unbiased reporting, trading journalistic skepticism for partisan narratives.
One of the most glaring examples came during a 2020 interview between Donald Trump and correspondent Lesley Stahl. In what was supposed to be a serious pre-election discussion, Stahl dismissed Trump’s mention of the Hunter Biden laptop story—claiming there was no way to verify its authenticity and calling it “unverified” and “disinformation.” Today, we know she was dead wrong. Not only has the laptop been verified by multiple outlets, but even mainstream sources now admit its contents were legitimate. Stahl, however, has yet to issue a retraction or apology. That’s not journalism; that’s gaslighting.
And that pattern of deception hasn’t just hurt their audience—it’s now hurting them legally. Donald Trump has filed a $475 million defamation lawsuit against CBS and Lesley Stahl, arguing that their reporting constituted deliberate misinformation with political intent. At the heart of the case: the network’s failure to correct the falsehoods Stahl spread on national television. Trump’s legal team claims this goes beyond error—it’s weaponized disinformation under the guise of journalism.
A “News” Show That Protects Kamala Harris?
The situation only worsened during the 2024 campaign. When 60 Minutes aired what was billed as a hard-hitting interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, critics quickly noticed something strange: two versions of the same exchange. In one, Harris appeared poised, offering a succinct response. In the other, uncut footage revealed a meandering, disjointed answer—the kind of embarrassing verbal gymnastics that have become Harris’s trademark.
So why the two cuts? Editing interviews isn’t unusual, but 60 Minutes went beyond polishing; they flat-out sanitized Harris’s performance. That’s not editing for time. That’s editing for narrative. It was a blatant act of political damage control masquerading as journalism.
Internal Turmoil and a Public Exit
Bill Owens, the show’s executive producer since 2019, recently announced his resignation. His departure wasn’t framed as a hostile firing, but reading between the lines, it’s clear Owens was being pushed out—or boxed in.
In his memo to staff, Owens wrote:
“Over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.”
That’s as close to a whistleblow as one gets in mainstream media. Owens essentially admitted that editorial independence—once a hallmark of 60 Minutes—had been replaced with corporate micromanagement and ideological filtering. He continued:
“Having defended this show—and what we stand for—from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward.”
Translation: they broke it, and I’m not going down with the ship.
Getting Beat Down—Literally
To understand just how far 60 Minutes has fallen, one only needs to recall a bizarre and humiliating moment that perfectly encapsulates the modern state of Western media abroad. In 2011, 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan was brutally assaulted by a mob while covering protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The horrifying attack highlighted not only the dangers of foreign reporting but also the disconnect between legacy media’s narratives and ground reality. Logan later said the media refused to talk about what really happened—who attacked her and why—because it would have contradicted the prevailing political storyline.
It was another warning sign: 60 Minutes, like much of corporate journalism, had become more concerned with narrative control than truth-telling. Even the safety of their own journalists became secondary to optics.
The Death Rattle of Corporate Journalism
The irony is staggering. A show once known for its fearless exposés now finds itself accused of being a tool for political manipulation. Viewership is declining, credibility is shot, and the lawsuits are piling up. What was once must-watch TV is now just another example of legacy media self-destructing under the weight of its own hypocrisy.
With Bill Owens out, lawsuits mounting, and public trust in free fall, 60 Minutes is rapidly becoming a cautionary tale of what happens when journalism becomes activism.
The ticking stopwatch is still there. But instead of signaling truth, it now ticks toward irrelevance.
Below is my column in the Hill on recent disclosure that the Biden Administration may have withheld evidence contradicting the Chinese on the origins of COVID. Millions of Americans lost loved ones and would like to know who was responsible. It appears that our government and many experts were less motivated to find that answer.
Here is the column:
Imagine a world war that left more than seven million dead, hundreds of millions became ill, wrecked the global economy, and left a generation with lasting psychological and developmental injuries. We have seen such wars in history. What is different in this circumstance, however, is that all of that happened, and yet, years later, we still have no agreement on the original cause or possible culprits behind a pandemic that ravaged the world.
Worse yet, many politicians, experts and journalists do not seem inclined to find the answers. This is like fighting World War II and then shrugging off the question of what actually started it.
New questions are being raised over long-withheld evidence on the origins of COVID, information that contradicted the accounts of not just the Biden administration but also allies in academia and the media.
The Chinese first reported the outbreak in December 2019 and insisted that it came from a wet market in Wuhan — a natural or “zoonotic” transfer from bats sold at the market. Others were skeptical and pointed to the nearby Wuhan government virus lab, known to have conducted coronavirus studies with bats. This lab had a history of safety and contamination concerns.
The “lab-leak theory,” which was always the most obvious explanation, was further reinforced by scientists who saw evidence of possible manipulation of the virus’s genetic code, particularly the “spike protein” that enables the virus to enter the human body in a “gain of function” operation. There was (and still is) a serious controversy over the origins of the virus, but any debate was quickly scuttled in favor of the natural theory.
The Chinese immediately moved to crush any speculation of a lab-leak. Wuhan scientists were gagged and the Chinese refused to allow international investigators access to them or the lab in question. The Chinese also used their considerable influence over the World Health Organization and other groups to dismiss or downplay the lab theory..
Now, a long-withheld military report has finally been released by the Trump administration. It appears to confirm what was once denied by the Biden administration: U.S. military service members contracted COVID-19-like symptoms after participating in the World Military Games in October 2019 in Wuhan.
That contradicts China’s timeline. It suggests a longer cover-up in that country, which allowed the virus to spread not only to the U.S. but to countries around the world. Other nations also reported that their military personnel had fallen ill after attending the same games, suggesting that the virus was not only spreading but already raging in the area at that time.
The most disturbing aspect of this report is not the alleged conduct of the Chinese government, but that of our own. Rumors of U.S. military personnel coming down with the virus had long been out there. Republicans in Congress repeatedly asked the Biden administration about any report on the outbreak. Then-Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told The Washington Post in June 2021 that the military had “no knowledge” of COVID-19 infections among the troops participating in those games.
Even as the illness associated with the games became known, the Biden administration repeatedly refused to confirm the U.S. cases, and a 2022 report was withheld from both Congress and the public. If true, the level of duplicity and dishonesty is shocking. In the U.S. alone, more than 1.2 million died and more than 111 million were made sick by this virus. Yet the Biden administration is accused of withholding this information from the world. Why?
This disclosure follows an equally troubling disclosure that scientists in the Biden administration actually found support for the lab theory but were silenced by their superiors.
Last December, the Wall Street Journal released an alarming report on how these scientists supported the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.
As scientists were being attacked publicly and blacklisted for supporting the lab theory, experts at both the FBI and the Energy Department found the lab theory credible. Although no theory could be proven conclusively, it was deemed a more likely scenario than the natural-origin theory. The CIA also found the lab theory credible.
What the public was hearing was entirely different. They were hearing the same narrative laid out by the Chinese government in December 2019. The Chinese relied upon western scientists to form a mob against anyone raising the lab-leak theory as a possible explanation. Many were enlisted to sign letters or publish statements denouncing the idea. It became an article of faith — a required virtue signal among university scientists. The western media were equally primed to quash the theory.
After President Trump embraced the lab theory, the Chinese had the perfect setup. The media was on a hair-trigger in opposition and denounced his comments as not only unfounded but also racist. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified.”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum.” Over at CNN, reporter Drew Griffin criticized the “widely debunked” theory and host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.
The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. After Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) raised the lab-leak theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
The Post’s “fact checker” Glenn Kessler mocked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for entertaining the theory. “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab,” he posted. “Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
Even in 2021 when countervailing evidence was surfacing, the unrelenting attacks continued. New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli urged journalists not to mention the “racist” lab theory. Social media companies also enforced the narrative and, with the coordination of the Biden Administration, experts raising the lab theory were targeted, censored, and blacklisted.
It now appears that the COVID outbreak may have occurred months before the alleged wet market release — months that could have been used to contain the virus. Instead, China is accused of suppressing the news and allowing the virus to spread worldwide. Our military personnel alone went home from the Wuhan games to 25 states, potentially carrying it with them. When information on these infections connected to the games was reported around the world, China even suggested that the U.S. used the games to release the weaponized virus.
In 2020, I wrote a column on why China seemed poised to avoid any liability for what might be the greatest act of negligence in history. The sheer size of the disaster somehow seemed to insulate China. As Joseph Stalin had once said, “a single death is a tragedy” and “a million deaths is a statistic.”
Try more than seven million, and you have a statistic that was not worth confronting the Chinese over. What was done was done.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The legacy Media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, NY Times, etc.) have lost all credibility among most of America because of the outright lies and bias toward the left they have shown over the past few decades. The new Alternative media, such as Warroom with Steve Bannon, Dan Bongino, The Gateway Pundit, and many others, are being turned to as reliable sources for information.
Mark Halperin and Guest Slam Tone Deafness and Bias of Media Outlets Like MSNBC: ‘Utterly Broken’ (VIDEO)
By Mike LaChance – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 27, 2025
Mark Halperin recently had a conversation with Marc Caputo, formerly of Politico, and they tore into MSNBC for the outlet’s inability or flat out refusal to course correct after the outcome of the 2024 election. They make some great points, especially about the hiring of Jen Psaki at MSNBC and how no one in the mainstream media seemed to have a problem with it. MSNBC is in the process of imploding. Joy Reid was just fired and Rachel Maddow has lost a significant portion of her staff and yet they show no signs of trying to fix the problems that are killing the network… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
There was another meltdown at the Washington Post after owner Jeff Bezos moved again to moderate the newspaper’s message, which has plummeted in readership. Bezos told the editors that he wanted the newspaper to advocate for individual liberties and the free market. The message sent the left into vapors and led to the resignation of Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley. Outside the paper, another round of calls for boycotts and subscription cancellations followed.
In the announcement below, Bezos declared, “I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.”
He added that a newspaper should be a voice for freedom — “is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.” He noted that:
“There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”
For those of us in the free speech community, the return of the Post as a champion of free speech and other individual rights would be a welcomed change. Notably, staff did not object when prior owners aligned with their views on editorial priorities. Obviously, we will need to see how this new directive is carried out. I would be equally opposed to the Post purging liberal views in the way it moved against conservative and libertarian views for the last decade. I do not see such a directive in this announcement. Bezos wants his newspaper to be a voice for individual freedom and free market principles. That should not mean that the newspaper will not run any dissenting views on policies and programs. It does mean that the newspaper will continue to be an outlet for voicing extreme views calling for the curtailment of free speech and other individual rights.
What is striking is that many on the left expect Bezos to run the newspaper like a vanity project, losing millions of dollars to bankroll a far-left agenda. This is an announcement that goes to the position of the newspaper, not any intrusion into reporting. It also does not bar a diversity of opinion on the op-ed pages which still have a vast majority of liberal writers.
The thought that the Post would now focus on advocating for individual rights and the free market led Jeffrey Evan Gold, who posts as a legal analyst for CNN and other networks, to declare that it was the “last straw” and post his cancellation.
Jeff Stein, the publisher’s chief economics reporter, denounced Bezos as carrying out a “massive encroachment” that makes it clear “dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there.” For many moderates and conservatives, it was a crushingly ironic objection given the virtual purging of conservative and libertarian voices at the newspaper.
Amanda Katz, who resigned from the Post’s opinion team at the end of 2024, offered a vivid example of the culture that Bezos is trying to change at the Post. Katz said the change was “an absolute abandonment of the principles of accountability of the powerful, justice, democracy, human rights, and accurate information that previously animated the section in favor of a white male billionaire’s self-interested agenda.”
Just as a reminder, Bezos simply stated that the newspaper would advocate for freedom and free markets. However, the most telling condemnation came from Post columnist Philip Bump, who wrote “what the actual f**k.” Not surprisingly, Bump wrote the condemnation on Bluesky, a site that promises a type of safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views.
Bump previously had a meltdown in an interview when confronted about past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that it stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.
We have previously discussed the sharp change in culture at the Post, which became an outlet that pushed anti-free speech views and embraced advocacy journalism. The result was that many moderates and conservatives stopped reading the newspaper.
In my book on free speech, I discuss at length how the Post and the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. I once regularly wrote for the Post and personally witnessed the sharp change in editorial priorities as editors delayed or killed columns with conservative or moderate viewpoints.
Last year, that culture was vividly on display when the newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is “an America issue.”
During a press briefing, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview and said, “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.”
There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” was entirely silent. No correction. No qualification.
The Wootson controversy was consistent with the embrace of advocacy journalism at the Post. We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
The former Post editor, Downie, recounted how news leaders:
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Other staffers could not get past the gender and race of those who would oversee them. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.
So, let’s recap: The Washington Post’s owner has been pushing the newspaper to shift back toward the middle and restore greater balance on its pages. He is unwilling to bankroll a far-left echo chamber of advocacy journalism. Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley resigned in protest rather than agree to emphasize individual rights and free markets in editorials that speak for the newspaper.
Shipley previously fought to reverse Bezos’s decision not to endorse presidential candidates in 2024 or later elections. Some of us have long argued that newspapers should end such endorsements as inimical to journalistic neutrality and objectivity. The editors reportedly encouraged Bezos that, if he wanted to end such endorsements, he should wait until after endorsing Harris in this election cycle — a remarkable position devoid of any cognizable or controlling principle.
There was a time when advocating for editorials to champion freedom would not have been controversial. The staff’s hyperventilation only reinforces the need for such an intervention. These same voices supported the Post adopting “Democracy dies in Darkness” to oppose what they viewed as an attack on democracy from Trump or the right. However, advocating for freedom in editorials is simply unacceptable.
Perish the thought that a newspaper would commit itself to advocating for individual rights and the free market. (Warning foul language below)
Perhaps the Post could adopt a new slogan: “Freedom dies in Silence.”
Here is the announcement from Jeff Bezos:
I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning: I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision.
We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction. I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
In a striking display of assertiveness, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demonstrated his unwavering loyalty to President Trump by decisively addressing a reporter’s unwarranted inquiry during a pivotal meeting at the Pentagon. The meeting, which included Saudi Arabia’s Defense Minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, was interrupted by a reporter who posed a provocative question regarding the recent appointment of Air Force Lieutenant General Dan “Razin” Caine as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, succeeding Charles “CQ” Brown. The reporter’s characterization of Lt. Gen. Caine as “underqualified” was swiftly and effectively dismissed by Secretary Hegseth.
President Trump’s decision to replace Charles Brown with Dan Caine reflects his commitment to reinvigorating the military’s leadership. Trump expressed gratitude to General Brown for his four decades of service, stating on Truth Social: “I want to thank General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown for his over 40 years of service to our country, including as our current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is a fine gentleman and an outstanding leader, and I wish a great future for him and his family.”
Contrary to the liberal media’s unfavorable portrayal, Lt. Gen. Caine is far from “underqualified.” President Trump highlighted his achievements and expertise, noting, “General Caine is an accomplished pilot, national security expert, successful entrepreneur, and a “warfighter” with significant interagency and special operations experience.” Caine’s role in the rapid defeat of the ISIS caliphate during Trump’s first term underscores his strategic prowess, debunking any claims of inexperience.
The liberal media’s attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s appointment falters when confronted with the facts of Caine’s competence. During the prior administration, Lt. Gen. Caine’s contributions were recognized, but he was overlooked for promotion by the Biden administration. Trump’s administration, however, has corrected this oversight, entrusting him with a critical leadership role.
A confrontationally posed question to Secretary Hegseth aimed to challenge this appointment. However, Hegseth’s response was poised and direct: “I’m going to choose to reject your unqualified question. Who’s next?” This succinct retort quelled the attempted disruption, allowing the meeting to proceed without further interruptions. This exchange illustrates Hegseth’s dedication to maintaining order and respect amidst unwarranted media provocations.
Trump’s commitment to revitalizing American military leadership is further evidenced by his directive to Hegseth to seek nominations for additional key positions, highlighting a proactive approach to strengthening national defense and putting America First.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the latest attack on Elon Musk from the left. There is a mania on the left in calling people with opposing views “Nazis” and referencing the Third Reich. The left has jumped the Nazi shark in this rhetoric as the public tunes out these increasingly hysterical voices.
Here is the column:
One of the least successful efforts of the left and many in the media this election was to paint Republican voters as “Nazis” hellbent on destroying democracy. While once verboten as a political comparison, liberal politicians and pundits have developed something of a Nazi fetish, where every statement and gesture is declared a return of the Third Reich. It seems like each news event presents a Rorschach test where every inkblot looks like a Nazi.
That mania reached absurd, even comedic, levels with the attack on Elon Musk over an awkward gesture during the inauguration celebration. An exuberant Musk told the crowd, “My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured.” As he gave those words, he placed his right hand on his chest and stretched his arm outward, his palm facing the floor. He then repeated the gesture before putting his hand on his chest again. It was all done in a matter of seconds, but it was enough for the usual mob to erupt in faux outrage.
Pundits insisted that Musk had chosen the moment to come out as a Nazi on national television. The Washington Post breathlessly reported this week how the “Nazi-style salute” had “invigorated fans on the far right.” The usual liberal professors were rolled out to offer a patina of authority to the ridiculous claim.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University, declared, “Historian of fascism here. It was a Nazi salute and a very belligerent one too.”
Mike Stuchbery went on X (the company owned by the man he now suggests is a Nazi reenactor) to declare, “I studied the Nazis at university, taught the history of Nazi Germany on two continents and wrote for major newspapers about Nazi Germany. I am internet famous for fact-checking chuds [gross people] on the history, ideology and policy of Nazi Germany. That was a Nazi salute.”
Well, that settles it.
As the outrage continued, any doubt or dissent was denounced as evidence that you are obviously a Nazi as well. That became a bit embarrassing when the leading Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League, stated the obvious: This was not a Nazi salute but rather an “awkward gesture.”
The core principle of liberal mob tactics is that there can be no divergence, even by a group like the ADL. The way to deal with opposing ideas or writings is by making someone persona non grata. If you do not cancel others, you will be canceled.
So, the ADL was effectively declared soft on Nazis by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): “Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity. People can officially stop listening to you as any sort of reputable source of information now. You work for them. Thank you for making that crystal clear to all.”
We’ve reached a level of absurdity where Jewish advocates are treated like they are virtual Nazi sympathizers.
This is not the first time the Democrats have labeled Trump and his supporters “Nazis.”
It started years ago as Democrats repeated analogies of Trump to Hitler and his followers to brownshirted neo-Nazis. Defeating Trump has been compared to stopping Hitler in 1933, and media personalities like Rachel Maddow went on the air with a hysterical claim that “death squads” were authorized by the Supreme Court.
When Trump held a massive rally in New York’s Madison Square Garden before the election, the media were apoplectic and immediately declared it … you guessed it … akin to a Nazi rally. From the Washington Post to the New York Times, the media formed an affinity group meeting to fret over “echoes of 1939.” In case anyone missed the message, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz emphasized “a direct parallel” with the Nazis.
Over at the Nation, David Zirin treated Madison Square Garden (known for everything from cage fights to dog shows) as an almost Vatican-like space: “With his fascist New York City rally, Donald Trump has befouled what many believe to be a sacred space: Madison Square Garden.”
So Trump is a Nazi. Musk is a Nazi. Half the country are Nazis. The problem is that, if you say everyone is a Nazi, then no one is a Nazi. It loses its meaning.
That includes Ocasio-Cortez, who appears to have joined the ranks of the Reich after critics posted her making a Musk-like gesture during a speech.
There was no torrent of media fretting about how the gesture reflected the extremism of AOC’s questioning need for a Supreme Court, seeking to bar Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots, or supporting censorship. AOC is a certified Nazi hunter, a license that seems only to be available to figures on the left.
Of course, labeling political opponents as diabolically evil fanatics and seeking to bar candidates from ballots sounds a lot like … well … it sounds familiar.
There is an alternative. We can put the rage rhetoric aside and have honest debates over differences on politics and laws. In other words, we can fight over policy … and leave the Nazis out of it.
Below is my column on the Biden family pardons in Fox.com. President Joe Biden merely confirmed the worst expectations of his critics. The true condemnation rests with those in the media who enabled the Biden influence-peddling operation.
Here is the column:
At 11:45 am, the media felt the final sting of the Biden scandal. It was delivered by President Joe Biden, who shattered any pretense of principle in pardoning family members allegedly implicated in the influence-peddling corruption scandal.
According to an old fable, a scorpion convinced a leery frog to carry him across a river, noting that he could not sting him since they would both drown. Halfway across, the scorpion struck and the frog asked why he would doom them both. The scorpion replied “I am sorry, but I couldn’t resist the urge. It’s in my nature.”
For those of us who have written about the corruption of the Biden family for decades, the pardons were crushingly predictable. The President simply couldn’t resist the urge. In a city where corruption is a cottage industry, the Bidens have long been in a league of their own, from nepotism to influence peddling to illicit lobbying. In the influence-peddling scandal, millions were generated from foreign sources in virtual plain view.
There were the luxury hotel rooms, a diamond, a sports car, and massive payments called “loans. In the summer of 2019, one Chinese businessman wired Hunter Biden $250,000 using Joe Biden’s Delaware home as the beneficiary address.”
The sense of absolute impunity came out in shake-down communications. For example, there was the WhatsApp message to a Chinese businessman openly threatening the displeasure of Joe Biden if money was not forked over without delay. In the message, Hunter warned:
“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the Chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
That sense of impunity was due to mainstream media forming a protective shell around the family. The media refused to pursue the scandal despite the Hunter Biden laptop and clear evidence of influence peddling.
In 2020, CBS News’s Lesley Stahl literally laughed mockingly at then-President Donald Trump when he raised the Hunter Biden laptop and what it revealed about the Bidens. (Yet Stahl still recently expressed confusion and alarm that people were abandoning legacy media for new media.)
Reporters assured citizens that the laptop was presumptive “Russian disinformation.” Even after the media belatedly acknowledged that it was authentic, MSNBC and Washington Post analysts were still making the claim last year.
After Republicans in the House detailed millions in payments, the media shifted to claiming that there was no real scandal unless it was shown that Joe Biden actually received money directly. It was a ridiculous claim since courts have long treated money going to family members as the same as going directly to a principal as criminal conduct.
The media continued to protect Biden, as evidence showed that Biden had repeatedly lied about not meeting with Hunter’s clients or not having knowledge of his foreign dealings.
As the media narrative continued to collapse, it latched on the promise of Biden that he would never pardon his son – proof that the President was willing to let the criminal justice system run its course. Biden then was shown to be lying about the pardon promise. After he was forced out of the election, Biden signed a pardon for any crimes over a decade committed by his son.
The media gave muttered “harrumphs” and moved on. Many said that it was understandable for a father of a son who struggled with drugs.
Now, in the final minutes of his presidency, Biden pardoned his other allegedly implicated family members, including James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens, and Francis Biden. James Biden was previously referred for criminal charges for lying under oath to Congress as part of its investigation into the corruption scandal.
The pardons were clearly timed to avoid media scrutiny and questions. While he described the act as one of “conscience,” it was an almost mocking act of corruption.
In a strange way, it passed in Bidenworld as an honest moment. There were no claims of supporting an addicted son or dealing with a pending case. It was done in the final minutes because it was raw and obvious. There is no pretense or apology. Just good old-fashioned corruption Biden-style.
It was as honest a moment as when Biden told a friend that “no one f**ks with a Biden.” There was nothing revealing in this about Biden. He could shrug and say, “It’s in my nature.” The sting instead fell on the media, which trusted Biden not to demean it further with such an unethical and disgraceful final act.
The funny thing is that Biden made it across the river. He boarded his final flight with his family (and himself) protected by the misuse of his presidential authority. However, if he looked out the window, he could see his media allies slipping stunned beneath the waters.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
In following the defamation trial against CNN by veteran Zachary Young, we have previously (here, here, and here) marveled at how bad things were going for the network. It appears that they are getting even worse. This has been a brutal week as CNN figures, including host Jake Tapper, took the stand. If “this is CNN,” the judge (and possibly the jury) are not liking what they are seeing. The report at the heart of the case aired on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on Nov. 11, 2021, and was shared on social media and (a different version on) CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper told his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered that “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.” Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as an example of that startling claim. The evidence included messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mf**ker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.” As is often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window. In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “f**king Young just texted.” In the last week, Tapper was seen on video by the jury and was mocked for claiming under oath that he “doesn’t pay attention to ratings,” a claim that could make him unique as a network host. While Tapper can argue that he was referencing the following of daily numbers, critics hammered him by showing repeated clips where he discussed ratings. However, the most damaging testimony may have come from top producers who told the jurors that they opposed the modest apology given to Young on air. Since Young seemed to do well before the jury, the testimony of senior editor Fuzz Hogan, CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt, CNN producer Michael Conte, CNN’s executive vice president of editorial Virginia Moseley, and CNN supervising producer Michael Callahan undermined any effort to portray the network as seeking to amend a wrong or reduce damage to Young.
Arguably, the worst moment came with an argument by CNN’s lead attorney, David Axelrod. Axelrod introduced a document that he claimed was a smoking gun and showed that Young was a liar. Pointing dramatically at Young and waiving the document in the air, Axelrod declared that he had the proof:
“Plaintiff’s entire case, sitting right there, is that after the publications, he couldn’t get any work…Mr. Young knew, when he filed this lawsuit that he had entered into a new consulting agreement with a government contractor one month after CNN’s publication. This entire lawsuit was a fraud on this court. It was a fraud on CNN. This man knew it. I don’t know what they know. But when this came up in discovery, CNN’s counsel asked Mr. Young about the Helios connection, and he completely lied in his deposition. Over and over again, he made up some incredible ruse that Helios just had his security clearance because it was a company that held security clearances. It makes no sense. He knew at that time that he had a consulting agreement with Helios Global and he didn’t disclose it. It was an outright lie.”
However, it turned out that the document merely was Young’s application to maintain his security clearance.
Young’s attorney, Vel Freedman, later laid waste to CNN. He told the court that Young had lost his security clearance back in 2022 and that he hadn’t been aware of that until he double-checked after his testimony in the case. Freedman asked for the right to present a witness who would testify on the issue and Axelrod objected. Judge Henry had had enough and blew up at CNN. He read back Axelrod’s comments and said “You called him a liar multiple times there.” He told Axelrod that he owed an apology to the plaintiff. After telling CNN that “this isn’t Kindergarten,” he added “Right now, your credibility with me, Mr. Axelrod, is about none.”
That is never a good thing to hear from a judge.
Axelrod apologized but the damage is clearly considerable.
The most chilling aspect from a litigation perspective? Axelrod replaced the earlier lead counsel who also imploded in court over ill-considered arguments.
None of this bodes well for the network. Alienating the judge is obviously never good, but it also could have a material impact if there is an award that CNN wants reduced by a order of remittitur. In addition, having top producers expressing a lack of regret and even opposition to the on-air apology could push such damages higher for a jury. Both sides are arguing that “this is CNN,” but these moments are building a more negative view of what that is.
Below is my column in Fox.com on the potentially historic change in policy at Meta to restore free speech protections. As one of the longest and loudest critics of the company over its censorship history, it is admittedly hard to trust. However, an alliance of Mark Zuckerberg with Elon Musk could prove the most important development for free speech
Here is the column:
“Faithful friends are hard to find.” For the free speech community, those words from Shakespeare have long been tragically true. Indeed, until Elon Musk bought Twitter (now X), we were losing ground around the world to an unprecedented anti-free speech coalition of government, corporate, media, and academic interests. Now, Musk may have added a major new ally that could help turn the tide for free speech: Mark Zuckerberg.
In a new video, Meta’s CEO announced that the company would adopt X standards and restore free speech protections across Facebook, Instagram, and Meta platforms. Meta will also end its third-party fact-checking program, introduce a ‘community notes’ system, and focus on removing criminal and fraudulent material—the very guidelines proposed by some of us in prior years.
For the free speech community, it was like the United States entering World War II to support Great Britain. Where Musk stopped the progress of the global anti-free speech movement, Zuckerberg could actually help us regain ground around the world.
As one of Zuckerberg’s most vocal critics over free speech, it is admittedly hard to trust. We all love redemptive sinners, but it would be more impressive if the redemption preceded the apprehension.
So allow me a brief cathartic moment…
In the last few years, a mix of House investigations and litigation has forced more of the censorship system under the Biden Administration into public view. That is expected to draw even greater attention with the continued discovery in Missouri v. Biden, showing years of false statements about the extent of this government-corporate alliance across social media platforms.
In my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I wrote about Zuckerberg and Meta’s record on censorship, including their failure (until recently) to release the Facebook files.
Meta resisted efforts to uncover this evidence for years, even after Musk released the Twitter Files and revealed a censorship system described by one court as perfectly “Orwellian.”
While Zuckerberg portrayed Meta as an unwilling partner in this censorship system in his video, he and the company ignored many years of objections from many of us regarding the critical role the company plays in targeting and censoring opposing viewpoints. Facebook even ran a creepy ad campaign to try to convince young people to embrace what they call “content modification” as part of their evolution with technology. It did not work.
When the anti-free speech movement targeted Musk, Zuckerberg did nothing for years. Fearing that other companies might restore free speech protections, members of Congress, including now Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), sent a chilling letter to Facebook stating that it should not even consider such a move or risk becoming “part of our ongoing oversight efforts.”
In a November 2020 Senate hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), D-Conn., warned Zuckerberg and other CEOs that he and his Senate colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”
While Musk defied those threats, the pressure seemed to work with Zuckerberg. It was not until the Republicans won both houses and the White House that Zuckerberg and Meta decided that free speech was worth fighting for.
In his exclusive interview with Fox News, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, admitted that the Trump election changed the situation for Meta: “We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression.”
It is a chilling statement if one thinks of what might have happened if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, arguably the most anti-free speech ticket in history, had won. The suggestion is that the new spring at Meta would have turned into a frozen tundra for free speech.
Around the world, free speech is in a free fall. Speech crimes and censorship have become the norm in the West. A new industry of “disinformation” experts has commoditized censorship, making millions in the targeting and silencing of others. An anti-free speech culture has taken root in government, higher education, and the media.
We will either hold the line now or we will lose this indispensable right for future generations. Zuckerberg could make this a truly transformative moment but it will take more than a passing meta-culpa.
We need Zuckerberg now more than ever. So, with that off my chest, I can get to what I have longed to say: Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the fight.
Below is my column in the Hill on the sentencing this week of President-Elect Donald Trump in Manhattan. Judge Juan Merchan waited to schedule the hearing for just ten days before the inauguration, limiting the time available to appeal. His order suggests that, if there is any interruption or delay in his sentencing, he might follow the advice of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and suspend sentencing for four years, a terrible option that we previously discussed. One could call that passively aggressive, but it seems quite actively aggressive.
Here is the column:
At 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 10, 2025, the curtain will fall on the longest performance of “Hamlet” in history. Acting Justice Juan Merchan will finally decide whether “to be or not to be” the judge to sentence Trump to jail. (Spoiler alert: He appears set to avoid a jail sentence and likely reversal.)
Since Trump’s conviction in May 2024, Merchan has contemplated his sentencing options. This was to be the orange-jump-suit moment many longed for over years of unrequited lawfare. They will likely be disappointed. As some of us noted after the verdict, this type of case would often result in an unconditional discharge or a sentence without jail time. That prediction became more likely after Trump was reelected in November. Limits on Trump’s freedom or liberty would likely result in a fast reversal, and Merchan knew it.
While various pundits predicted that Trump “will go to jail” after the trial, more realistic lawfare warriors had other ideas. The next best thing was to suspend proceedings and leave Trump in a type of legal suspended animation. Merchan would hold a leash on the president as a criminal defendant awaiting punishment. But the whole point of a trophy-kill case is the trophy itself. Merchan will not disappoint. While indicating that he is inclined to a sentence without jail or probation, he will finalize the conviction of Trump just 10 days before his inauguration. In so doing, he will formally label the president-elect a convicted felon.
It will be punishment by soundbite. Trump will become the first convicted felon to be sworn into office, a historical footnote that will be repeated mantra-like in the media. Merchan seems at points to be writing the actual talking points for the talking heads. In his order, he states grandly that the jurors found that this “was the premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.” He then adds that he could not vacate the conviction because it would … constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law.”
Of course, this did not work out as many hoped. That apparently includes President Biden. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Biden was irate over the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute Trump more quickly to secure a conviction before the election. He also reportedly regretted his appointment of Attorney General Merrick Garland as insufficiently aggressive in pursuing Trump. It appears Garland was not sufficiently Bragg-like for Biden’s lawfare tastes.
The sentencing, however, will have another impact. Trump will finally be able to appeal this horrendous case. It has always been a target-rich opportunity for appeal, but Trump could not launch a comprehensive appeal until after he was sentenced.
Those appellate issues include charges based on a novel criminal theory through which…..
“This body and this nation has [sic] a territories and a colonies problem.” Those words from Del. Stacey Plaskett echoed in the House chamber this week as the delegate interrupted the election of the House speaker to demand a vote for herself and the representatives of other non-states. The problem, however, is not with the House but with Plaskett and other members in demanding the violation of Article I of the Constitution.
After her election in 2015, Plaskett has often shown a certain disregard for constitutional principles and protections. Despite being a lawyer, Plaskett has insisted in Congress that hate speech is not constitutionally protected, a demonstrably false assertion. Where there is overwhelming evidence of a censorship system that a court called “Orwellian,” Plaskett has repeatedly denied the evidence presented before her committee. When a journalist testified on the evidence of that censorship system, Plaskett suggested his possible arrest. (Plaskett suggested that respected journalist Matt Taibbi had committed perjury due to an error that he made, not in testimony but in a tweet that he later corrected).
However, ignoring the free speech or free press values pales in comparison to what Plaskett was suggesting this week in nullifying critical language in Article I.
Article I, Section 2, states:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch in the States Legislature.”
The ability to vote in the House is expressly limited to the elected representatives of “the several states.” Nevertheless, as the vote was being taken on the eventual election of Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), Plaskett rose to demand recognition and to know why she was not allowed to vote:
“I note that the names of representatives from American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia were not called, representing, collectively, 4 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, collectively, the largest per capita of veterans in this country.”
The presiding member asked a rather poignant question in response: “Does the gentlelady have a problem?”
The answer was decidedly “yes.”
Plaskett responded, “I asked why they were not called. I asked why they were not called from the parliamentarian, please.”
The response was obvious:
“Delegates-elect and the resident commissioner-elect are not qualified to vote/ Representatives-elect are the only individuals qualified to vote in the election of the speaker. As provided in Section 36 of the House rules and manual, the speaker is elected by a majority of the members-elect voting by surname.”
Plaskett then declared “This body and this nation has a territory and a colonies problem. What was supposed to be temporary has now, effectively, become permanent. We must do something about this.”
As Plaskett’s mike was cut off, she objected “But I have a voice!” as Democrats gave her a standing ovation………
MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell is under fire this week for using the terrorist attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans to attack the United States Army as a greater threat than those crossing our Southern border. The statement is a vintage example of why many are turning away from legacy or mainstream media, including MSNBC (which has lost nearly half its audience since the election).
O’Donnell has long maintained his show as something of a safe space for the left, including declaring that no Trump supporter would be allowed to speak on his show because they are all “liars,” a label that now applies to a majority of American voters in the last election.
Yet, this statement stands out for many in its unhinged effort to spin the tragedy into a more favorable liberal talking point.
O’Donnell declared:
“The simple fact is, this country has suffered more deadly terrorism at the hands of American-born citizens who are veterans of the United States military than people who have crossed into this country at the southern border. It is very clear from the evidence that if you want to worry about terrorism in this country, the United States Army is a much bigger problem than the southern border.”
There are two curious elements to O’Donnell’s comment. The first is that Army training somehow makes veterans greater threats of terrorism. The military also tends to instill patriotism and public service in its members. Moreover, O’Donnell was referencing the fact that Shamsud-Din Jabbar served in the Army, even though he was largely trained as a human resources and information technology expert. His attack was not a McVeigh-like truck bomb, but the use of the truck itself — an unfortunately common terrorist method that hardly speaks to any Army training.
Second, O’Donnell makes reference to those crossing the Southern Border as opposed to others who have either crossed any border or have entered this country legally. Again, the suggestion is that there is something about military training worthy of special concern. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Colvin Reid, James T. Hodgkinson, Thomas Matthew Crooks, Darrell Edward Brooks Jr., and others may beg to differ.
O’Donnell made specific reference to Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist behind the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995:
“Timothy McVeigh parked a truck outside that building loaded with explosives in an act of homegrown American terrorism. Timothy McVeigh’s hatred of the American government was not tamed in any way by his service in the American military. So, too, with America’s latest terrorist attack in New Orleans on New Year’s Eve, with an American military veteran driving a pickup truck through a crowd to murder 14 people.”
Ok, McVeigh and Jabbar became extremists after they served in the military. However, all terrorists make such ………
In an explosive exposé, the Wall Street Journal has revealed how the mental decline of President Joe Biden was pronounced from the start of his term. However, cabinet members and other Democrats lied to the public about his declining levels of acuity and engagement. That effort succeeded largely with the help of an alliance with the media, which showed little interest in whether the President was actually running the government.
After President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance, the solid wall of media and staff shielding his declining mental state collapsed. Even after Special Counsel Robert Hur declined criminal charges against Biden due to his diminished state, Democratic pundits and the press covered for him, claiming that he was sharp and effective. With the debate, the public was able to see what many in the media and the White House had been hiding for years.
After interviewing roughly 50 insiders, the Journal found evidence of a knowing effort to hide Biden’s mental state. For many, Biden’s refusal to leave his home for much of the 2020 campaign was evidence of the insecurity of staff about his ability to engage with reporters. It only got worse during the term as staff virtually tackled anyone trying to ask him a question. Biden was routinely shuffled off stage after reading briefly from a teleprompter.
Behind the scenes, cabinet members reportedly stopped asking for meetings with Biden after staff conveyed that such requests were not welcomed. He held far fewer cabinet meetings and was often considered “down” for any discussions. That included a period during the calamity of the Afghan withdrawal.
One official is quoted as admitting on one occasion in 2021 that Biden “has good days and bad days and today was a bad day so we’re going to address this tomorrow.” That was just after he was elected. Yet, Biden was kept within the protective cocoon of media that did not press the issue and was infamous for ignoring scandals while asking Biden about his choice of ice cream on a given day.
Now, some media outlets are re-positioning on the issue as they prepare to resume hard questioning and investigations in the new Trump Administration . . . after a four-year hiatus. Suddenly, everyone is shocked to learn that Biden was mentally diminished and blaming nameless staff for misleading them.
One exception this week was Chris Cillizza, who served as CNN’s editor-at-large before leaving the network in 2022. On YouTube, Cillizza stated, “As a reporter, I have a confession to make” and admitted “I should have pushed harder earlier for more information about Joe Biden’s mental and physical well-being and any signs of decline.”
Now, everyone likes a redemptive sinner, and I give Cillizza credit for admitting his own failure to pursue the story despite many critics objecting for years over the lack of such inquiries. However, Cillizza only confessed to failing to pursue the story due to a fear of being accused of “age shaming” Biden. The suggestion is that identity politics chilled journalism, not the overwhelming media support for the President and countervailing opposition to Trump.
The “age shaming” excuse is difficult to square with the failure to pursue an array of other scandals during the term from influence peddling to policy debacles. Nevertheless, Cillizza was remarkably frank that he was only able to push on the story after leaving CNN:
“I didn’t really push on it, if I’m being honest. Now, once I left CNN and once it became a little bit clearer to me about Biden’s age, I think I did write pretty regularly and talk pretty regularly about how I wasn’t sure that this guy was up to it. And then obviously, after the June 27 debate, everybody, including me, was writing and talking about it.”
Putting Cillizza’s statement aside, there is a notable effort by some in the media to retroactively resume journalism after years of docile coverage on issues such as Biden’s incapacity.
The belated interest in the story reflects not only the limits of modern journalism but the limits of the 25th Amendment. From the outset, there was concern over Biden’s acuity and stamina within the White House. It was hidden from the public. His cabinet members like DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and others quashed claims of any diminishment with first-hand testimonials about how sharp and impressive the President was in meetings. Vice President Kamala Harris echoed those claims.
The Vice President and the cabinet are essential to the removal process under the 25th Amendment. Section 4 allows the removal of a president. One option is what I have called the “mutiny option.” It requires a vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” and notify Congress that the vice president intends to take over. If Vice President Kamala Harris could get eight Cabinet officers to go along with a letter to Congress, her status as the “Acting President” would likely be short-lived. Joe Biden would only have to declare to Congress that “no inability exists.” Biden would then resume his powers. That would then trigger a congressional fight.
In reality, the Biden term shows how they can often be part of the cover-up.
The 25th Amendment also does not define incapacity and having “good days and bad days” is unlikely to suffice. As I previously discussed, the issue of “disability” of a president was briefly raised in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was a delegate from Biden’s home state of Delaware who asked how they would respond to a disability, “and who is to be the judge of it?” John Dickinson’s question was left unanswered in the final version of the Constitution.
What followed were persistent controversies over succession. This issue came to a head after President Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a stroke. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Congress finally addressed the issue in the 25th Amendment. The amendment addresses the orderly succession of power as well as temporary disabilities when presidents must undergo medical treatment or surgeries. This process is even more unlikely to occur when the media has formed a protective line around a president.
The problem was never “age shaming,” it was a shameless effort to shield this president from tough questions and public exposure.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Mainstream legacy media is no longer mainstream due to their years of left-wing bias, lies, and outright leftist propaganda. More people than ever aren’t buying what they’re trying to sell, so folks are turning to alternate media sources that are killing their viewership numbers.
Mollie Hemingway Slams ‘Corrupt’ Propaganda Media, Says Trump is Showing Republicans How to Lead (VIDEO)
Mike LaChance – The Gateway Pundit – Dec 19, 2024
Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist has become one of the strongest voices on the right when it comes to calling out the liberal media. During a recent appearance on Laura Ingraham’s show on FOX News, Hemingway pointed out that we have not had a functioning media for years, accusing them of being corrupt and regime propagandists. Later in the segment, she suggested that Trump is showing the Republican party how to be an effective leader… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Almost twenty years ago, the country was outraged by allegations of an African-American stripper that she was hired and then gang raped by white Duke Lacrosse players. The story followed an all-too-familiar pattern. The media, professors, and pundits immediately treated the allegations as true and declared the crime as a manifestation of our racist society. Many demanded immediate suspensions of all of the students as the racial and class conflicts were emphasized in the media. As I wrote previously, Duke University joined the mob against its own students and discarded any semblance of due process or fairness. Now, the accuser Crystal Mangum has admitted that she made the whole thing up in an interview on the independent media outlet “Let’s Talk with Kat.” The problem is that little was likely learned in higher education from the experience.
The students found themselves in a nightmare as the media flash mob formed to call for their punishment. They were arrested and subject to the unethical and unprofessional treatment of former Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong. Nifong pandered to the press and the community in public speeches despite criticism from some of us that he was fueling the rage against the students despite serious questions over this account. He declared publicly:
“The information that I have does lead me to conclude that a rape did occur. The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so.”
From the outset, there were obvious problems with the account, including a lack of supporting forensic evidence that would ordinarily be found at the scene.
Nifong was later disbarred for his misconduct, including withholding exculpatory evidence. Even after the allegation was shown to be a hoax, former North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper took the easy way out and declined to charge Mangum despite her ruining the lives of these students. She was later arrested and convicted of murdering her boyfriend.
Now, Mangum is admitting, “I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn’t, and that was wrong, and I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people who believed in me…[I] made up a story that wasn’t true because I wanted validation from people and not from God.”
It is heartening to see Mangum come to grips with what she did and ask for forgiveness. However, there remains a lack of such remorse from many in the press and higher education who helped lead this mob against these students. Years later, many continued to resist efforts to afford due process protections to those accused in higher education.
The media followed its usual pattern of dispensing with countervailing facts to fuel the racial elements or play up the class differences. Nancy Grace declared, “I’m so glad they didn’t miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!”
Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, who praised Nifong’s handling of the case, said publicly that “I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”
Feminist and journalist Amanda Marcotte writes for publications such as Salon and Slate. She captured the blind rage even after ethics charges were raised against Nifong, stating:
“I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f**king god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Marcotte later deleted the statement and criticized Nifong.
The greatest unfairness to these students came not from such extreme voices but mainstream media, which showed little interest or comfort in exploring contradictions and gaps in the account.
As is often the case, the hoax was later revealed and there was a collective shrug from most in the media as we await the next cathartic case or controversy.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren D-Mass. is under fire for her statement to Joy Reid on MSNBC explaining why Luigi Mangione allegedly murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Warren explained that this was a “warning” that “you can only push people so far.” After a public outcry, Warren walked back her statement. Yet, the statement captures the growing radicalism on the left, particularly among anti-capitalist, Democratic Socialists, and other groups. It is also notable how many of the same political and media figures who were apoplectic and unrelenting over the false claim about Trump’s “fine people on both sides” statement are largely disinterested in this and other extreme comments on the left.
Reid has long been criticized for racist and extremist commentary. Warren seemed eager to play to the far-left audience after first noting that “Violence is never the answer,” but then adding the warning to others that “you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands.”
The senator explained that “the visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system.‘
“Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far. This is a warning that if you push people hard enough, they lose faith in the ability of their government to make change, lose faith in the ability of the people who are providing the health care to make change, and start to take matters into their own hands in ways that will ultimately be a threat to everyone.”
The comments came after various pundits and citizens celebrated the killing, including the former Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz, who expressed “joy” over the murder (only to walk that back like Warren). Some have defended Lorenz and explained how, while they may not express joy, they understand where “she is coming from” in celebrating the murder of a healthcare executive.
Wanted posters have appeared throughout New York with the images of other CEOs (and of Thompson with a red X across his face). It is the same moral relativism that we have long seen in higher education on the left where violent rhetoric against conservatives or capitalists is common.
It is unclear if Mangione’s anti-capitalist views brought him into contact with known violent groups on the left, including Antifa. Just days before the murder, I wrote about how a liberal media site was selling Antifa products in celebration of the anti-free speech, violent group.
The different treatment given the statements of Trump and Warren are striking. Notably, the false claim received endless coverage and is still reported by the media despite being debunked. The Charlottesville controversy occurred at the start of Trump’s presidency and showed how the media was not interested in whether stories were true in the shift to open advocacy journalism.
What was evident to many of us listening was that Trump was referring to the debate over the removal of controversial historical statutes and noting that there were “very fine people on both sides.” As Snopes belatedly recognized years later, “while Trump did say that there were ‘very fine people on both sides,’ he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists and said they should be ‘condemned totally.’”
None of that mattered (or continues to matter to some) in the media because the narrative was better than the facts. Many in the media did not even acknowledge that Trump denied the spin given by his opponents and said that he was referring to the underlying issue of the protest. The statement was treated as demonstrably and unequivocally endorsing violence. It is the same reason why the statement of Warren and many on the left have not been given the same level of public condemnation even in the face of an actual murder. It does not fit the narrative.
Many celebrated Warren’s warnings and the implied rationalization for the murder. Others praised her gutsy take. The far-left publication The New Republic reported the Warren statement in positive terms in an article titled “Senator Elizabeth Warren had an awfully real reaction to the shooting of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.”
TNR has been one of the promulgators of this story and attacked Trump in 2024 in what it called a “new” defense over his comments despite the fact that he has always maintained that he was referring to the overall protest over the monument. TNR also attacked Snopes for its fact check and “helping Trump.”
As I discuss in my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” politicians use rage rhetoric to ride waves of public anger and garner supporters on the extremes of our political system. The same motive has led some Democratic leaders to embrace Antifa in the past. However, these establishment figures often find that being embraced as a revolutionary today often means that you are viewed as a reactionary tomorrow by the same radical allies in these movements.
Below is my column in The Hill on the calls for “blanket pardons” for hundreds and even thousands of people. Despite Trump’s ill-considered statement about how the J6 Committee members should go to jail for what they did on NBC this weekend, Trump has also insisted that he wants “success” to be his revenge. Many in the media are also omitting that Trump immediately said “no” to whether he would direct either the Attorney General or the FBI director to indict or investigate. While I have been a vocal critic of the J6 Committee, I know of no crime that could be credibly pursued against the members, as I have written. More importantly, presidents do not just send people to jail. There will be no round-up of opponents and democracy will survive. We have an entire constitutional system designed to prevent arbitrary prosecutions or authoritarian measures. These White Knight pardons are meant to preserve a collapsing narrative of how Trump wants to round up his enemies and end democracy. It has resulted in a strange and uniquely Washington phenomenon: pardon envy.
Here is the column:
Liberal pundits and press in Washington are facing a growing nightmare in Washington. No, it is not the victory of President-elect Donald Trump or the Democrats’ loss of both houses of Congress and the popular vote in this election. It is the possibility that democracy may not collapse as predicted, and Trump might not even round up his opponents en masse.
For months, liberals have been telling voters that this will likely be their last election and that democracy is about to end in the U.S. ABC host Whoopi Goldberg declared on “The View” that Trump will immediately become a dictator who will “put you people away … take all the journalists … take all the gay folks … move you all around and disappear you.”
Many predicted they would be on the top of the enemies list and the first to be rounded up.
Now, the moment is nearly here, and pundits are dreading that the public may notice there is no line of democracy champions being frog-marched down Pennsylvania Avenue. Faced with such a scenario and a further loss of credibility, many are coming up with the next best thing — pretending they stopped the roundup by having Biden pardon everyone. The spin will be that Trump would have gone after rivals but was prevented from doing so by Biden.
The idea is to portray yourself as a white knight, riding down to protect the vulnerable and timid from the coming hoard.
Even if democracy inconveniently survives, Biden can preserve the narrative with sweeping pardons. The White House is reportedly exploring giving preemptive pardons to figures ranging from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Sen.-elect Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).
Cheney previously declared that this “may well be the last real vote you ever get to cast.” A pardon would preserve her persona as a modern-day Joan of Arc who avoided being burnt at the stake only by the grace of a Biden pardon. Others seem to be panicking that there may be a list of pardoned people, but they will be left off. Call it “Pardon Envy.” The only thing worse than not being on a Trump enemies list is not being on a Biden pardon list.
Before the election, MSNBC host Al Sharpton and regular Donny Deutsch warned viewers that they would likely be added to an “enemies list.” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow ominously told her viewers that, “Yes, I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us.”
Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin seemed apoplectic that she and others might be omitted from both lists. One has to be somewhat sympathetic to Rubin. To be left both unpardoned and unarrested is to lose all standing among the “save democracy” social set.
Rubin, once dubbed the Post’s Republican columnist, has called for the Republican Party to be burned down and recently advised people how to keep panic alive despite the election: “You can’t talk broad themes. You have to boil it down to nuts and bolts, and you have to be pithy. What do I mean by pithy? How about this: Republicans want to kill your kids. It’s true.”
In a podcast, Rubin explained that Biden should pardon “thousands” to blunt Trump’s “initial round of revenge” from journalists to the “little guy and gal” counting votes. She advised that he should pardon whole “categories” of people to pardon anyone Trump may have “identified by name or type” to offer “protection from a maniac.”
In her most recent column, Rubin repeated the call for Biden to pardon “scores of Americans” due to a “reasonable fear that a weaponized FBI directed by a vengeful president will carry out threats to pursue his enemies.”
The key is to issue broad pardons to suggest that, absent such extraordinary action, “this maniac” would have purged whole areas of blue states. It is like telling everyone that you are wearing a tin-foil hat to prevent aliens from snatching you. When someone points out that they have not seen any aliens, you can respond, “See, it worked!”
The Biden White House is considering the use of such white-knight pardons to claim that the president did not protect just his son (and himself) with the pardon power but many others. Biden wants to remove the stain of his abuse of the pardon power to benefit his own family by turning it into a literal party favor for other Democrats and Trump critics. Even though Trump has denied any interest in retribution, saying that “my revenge will be a success,” preemptive pardons leave the impression that they did in fact preempt something that would have occurred.
A white-knight pardon can also work when you are protecting someone who does not want to be saved. That is the case with a Trump pardon. Such a pardon is absolutely not needed and would constitute the most hostile pardon in history. The federal cases against Trump are effectively dead. Even though they were dismissed without prejudice, it is extremely unlikely they would be resumed. Moreover, the cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith were riddled with constitutional problems and unlikely to be sustained even with a conviction.
The only ongoing legal threat to Trump is from Democratic prosecutors on the state level, such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. A pardon would not apply to such cases anyway.
Yet, to pardon Trump for nonexistent federal cases would be to suggest that Biden saved him from prosecution. This is the same president who did nothing for years until the cases collapsed. He would now claim that he worked to bring the nation together after calling Trump a virtual Nazi and his supporters “garbage.”
Trump may be the only one who is not interested in a trophy pardon. What is the value of being part of the resistance if you are not being pursued, persecuted or pardoned?
It seems like some of the same people who had hoped to be on the list for the Biden Inaugural balls are now making calls to make the Biden pardon list. If Biden were to yield to calls for hundreds or even thousands of pardons, the loss of political standing for those not making the list could become intolerable. For any self-respecting armchair resistance fighter in 2025, a Biden pardon could become the latest status symbol.
We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit brought by Navy veteran Zachary Young against CNN and anchor Jake Tapper. Young has been doing well in court and last week he won on additional major issues against CNN. In a pair of orders, the jury will be allowed to award punitive damages, and his experts would be allowed to be heard by the jury on the damages in the case. It also found that the Navy veteran was not a public figure and thus is not subject to the higher standard of proof associated with that status.
The punitive damages decision is particularly interesting legally. It could prove financially onerous for the struggling network, which has plunging ratings and has reduced staff.
The court found that CNN’s “retraction” was insufficient to remove punitive damages from the table. In my torts class, we discuss retraction statutes and the requirements of time and clarity. I specifically discussed the CNN case.
The report at the heart of the case aired on a Nov. 11, 2021 segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” and was shared on social media and (a different version) on CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”
Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as an example of that startling claim.
The damages in the case could be massive but Young was facing the higher New York Times v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice,” requiring a showing of knowing falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth. Judge Roberts previously found that “Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”
The evidence included messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.”
As is often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window. In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “fucking Young just texted.”
That record supports a showing of actual malice. However, CNN wanted to avoid punitive damages with a claim of retraction. Under Florida’s Section §770.02(1), a publication seeking this protection must publish a “full and fair correction, apology or retraction.” While the statute does not define “full and fair” it does specify that the retraction shall be “published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical” where the original article appeared and ‘in as conspicuous place and type’ as the original, or for a broadcast “at a comparable time.”
In this case, Jake Tapper made the following statement on March 25, 2022:
“And before we go, a correction. In November, we ran a story about Afghans desperate to pay high sums beyond the reach of average Afghans. The story included a lead-in and banner throughout the story that referenced a black market. The use of the term black market in the story was in error. The story included reporting on Zachary Young, a private operator who had been contacted by family members of Afghans trying to flee the country. We didn’t mean to suggest that Mr. Young participated in the black market. We regret the error and to Mr. Young, we apologize.”
However, the court noted:
“The retraction/correction was not made during the other television shows in which the Segment aired. No retraction, correction or apology was posted on any online article or with any social media posting. Defendant’s representatives referred to the statement made on the Jake Tapper show as a correction rather than a retraction.”
Not only did the court find that insufficient, but it menacingly added, “the Court finds that there is an issue of material fact as to whether Defendant published a full and fair retraction as required by §770.02 for the televised segment and no retraction for the social media and online article postings, which could be additional evidence of actual malice.”
This is relatively new ground for the Florida courts and will undoubtedly be appealed in time. For now, punitive damages will remain an option for the jury. The message to news organizations is that minimizing retractions can produce a critical loss of the coverage of the common statutory provisions protecting the media.
It is also worth noting that Young was found to be a private individual and not a “public figure.” After the Supreme Court handed down New York Times v. Sullivan, it extended the actual malice standard from public officials to public figures. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974), the Court wrote:
“Hypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare. For the most part those who attain this status have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment.”
The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
In creating this higher burden, the Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard for both public officials and public figures. Public figures are viewed as having an enhanced ability to defend themselves and engaging in “self-help” in the face of criticism. The Court also viewed these figures as thrusting themselves into the public eye, voluntarily assuming the risk of heightened criticism. I have previously written about the continuing questions over the inclusion of public figures with public officials in tort actions.
However, the court found that Young did not trip this wire.
“Young’s limited posts do not constitute him thrusting himself ‘to the forefront’ of the Afghanistan evacuation ‘controversy.’ In total, Plaintiffs worked for four companies and evacuated 22 people from Afghanistan. Per Defendant’s Segment, ‘[t]here [were] fewer than Page 13 of 34100 American citizens in Afghanistan who [were] ready to leave’ and ‘countless Afghans, including thousands who worked for or aided the US . . . who are frantically trying to leave.’ While Young was clearly trying to advertise his services, it can hardly be said that he played a sufficiently central role or was at the forefront in being able to influence the resolution of all those unable to escape Afghanistan. He was not going to get all these thousands of people out, nor was he ever intending to as he (according to his posts and testimony) was only assisting those with sponsors. He also was not going to convince the Taliban to let these folks leave the country. As such, Plaintiffs do not meet the test for this second suggested controversy to be labeled as limited public figures.”
The court also ruled that Young would be allowed to keep his economic damages expert witness, Richard Bolko, a ruling that, in conjunction with the punitive damages matter, could spell real trouble for CNN.
It appears no liberal Christmas is complete without the ultimate stocking stuffer: an actual stocking to wear over your face while rioting. While not yet selling face coverings for anonymous violence, Crooked Media, co-founded by former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor, is selling a line of Antifa items for liberals wanting to make a statement against any “Peace on Earth.” (As of this posting, Antifa items were still being sold on the “Crooked Store” site). You can now proudly wear your “Antifa Dad” hat to signal your support for political violence and deplatforming. It is the ultimate naughty gift list for putting the slay back into your Sleigh Bells.
These liberal hosts and their “POD SAVE AMERICA” show have been featured on various shows and courted by figures like Hillary Clinton. There is no apparent backlash for their support of one of the most violent groups in the world, which routinely attacks journalists and anyone who holds opposing views. Imagine the media response if a conservative site started selling “Proud Boy” items. Yet, Crooked Media is now offering liberals the chance to buy “ANTIFA” onesies for babies, a T-shirt for toddlers reading “ANTIFA” and other items.
Just to make sure that everyone understands the support for the violent group, a spokesperson for Crooked Media told Fox News Digital that the clothes it has listed on its website “are not a joke.” The spokesman added that “all toddlers are antifa until their souls are broken by capitalism.”
“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”
Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the anti-free speech movement nationally. As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated, “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”
It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
Now, liberal families can bring a small part of that political violence into their homes for the holiday to pledge that there will be no peace or silent nights so long as opposing views are heard. Antifa has gone retail, and there is no better way to celebrate political violence and rage than your Antifa onesie.
With tensions rising after the election, the embrace of organizations like Antifa will only fuel calls for violent action. Liberal figures like ex-Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz have even conveyed support for the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan.
It is not the time to go full naughty list to celebrate a group that regularly beats reporters and others with opposing viewpoints. While this may appeal to your own special smash-mouth Santa, tis the season for political violence.
Below is my column in The Hill on how some Democrats are joining a diaspora of the disgruntled and despondent in leaving the country or finding safe spaces away from opposing viewpoints. It appears that nothing succeeds like secession when you lose an election.
Democrats who campaigned on the need for “joy” and “saving democracy” are strikingly unjoyful about the results of the democratic process in 2024. Before the election, slips like the one of President Joe Biden calling Trump supporters “garbage” were immediately denied or deflected. But once voters had given the Republicans control of both houses of Congress, the popular vote and the White House, leading Democratic figures and celebrities dropped all pretense of civility. They are now being open about their contempt for voters, calling them “f—-ing morons” and “arrogant, ignorant” adolescents.
After calling for Americans to come together for Kamala Harris, MSNBC’s Joy Reid sent out a heart-warming holiday message to those who voted for the GOP to “make your own dinner, MAGA. Make your own sandwiches, wipe your own tears.”
Those not wallowing in Reid’s anger are increasingly voicing themes of isolation, insurrection and secession.
For years, the contempt for Trump voters has been open and obvious in much of the media. The “Let’s Go Brandon” movement captured the lunacy of the press and politicians simply denying what citizens could see, hear and experience for themselves.
When asked for answers on issues like the economy and immigration, Harris paraded an army of celebrities to tell the public how to vote — shiny objects that they thought would be enough for shallow American voters.
They were wrong. Now that the public has made its choice, leading figures are condemning the majority of voters as a mix of misogynists, self-haters and fascists. Whoopi Goldberg, 69, even joined the “4B” sex strike against men. Others seem to be morphing into exactly what they said Trump would become as president: isolationist and insurrectionist.
Some have responded to the losses by retreating further into echo chambers protected from opposing views. Many dumped X in favor of BlueSky, a new social media safe space for liberals who fear being triggered by opposing views. Notably, censorship advocates such as Nina Jankowisz have fled to BlueSky. The site is portrayed as a return to the good old days when liberals controlled all of the social media and maintained a massive censorship and blacklisting system over political discourse.
New York Times tech reporter Kevin Roose wrote a column last week that offered the familiar “I can breathe again” account: “After an hour or so of scrolling through Bluesky the other night, I felt something I haven’t felt on social media in a long time: free.”
It is the ultimate irony. This election shocked many on the left precisely because they were writing and commenting on each other within their hardened media and political silos. They are unlikely to improve themselves by receding further into that safe space to rave about the “f—ing morons” who make up the majority of America.
Other Democratic politicians have moved beyond the chest-pounding of leaders like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) to pledges of more direct obstruction or inflammatory rhetoric.
Denver mayor Mike Johnson (D) declared that he was preparing the Mile-High City for its “Tiananmen Square moment” to fight the federal government in any attempt to deport unlawful migrants. Johnson warned that he would have not only Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep [ICE] out” but also “50,000 Denverites.”
Not long ago, Democrats were calling similar protests an “insurrection.” Johnson later walked back his remarks but insisted that his city would fight federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws.
Rather than such trench warfare, most Democratic governors and mayors are simply pledging not to cooperate with federal authorities, which is a lawful choice. The concern, however, is how others will react to the overheated rhetoric for months that this will be “our last election” and that Trump is the new Hitler. Such rage rhetoric gives people license to say and do things they would not ordinarily say or do. Leaders calling on citizens to “fight” ICE and the “fascists” can easily inspire violence, as we have seen in past years. Indeed, that was the very premise of the criminal case against Trump supported by many of these same leaders, alleging that his calls to “fight” against certification was a call for insurrection.
Some liberals are very publicly fleeing the country. Sharon Stone (who called American voters “uneducated”) is reportedly off to Canada. Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are off to a mansion in Cotswolds in England. Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman is also reportedly exploring a departure from the country after his millions of dollars failed to produce a victory for Kamala Harris.
Some, however, want to take part of the country with them. New York State Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Upper East Side) has received praise for her call for New York to join Canada. Where Alexandre Dumas believed that ‘Nothing succeeds like success,” some believe that, after losing an election, nothing succeeds quite like secession.
Krueger previously sought to block Trump from the ballot in the name of protecting democracy. That would have barred the 45 percent of New Yorkers who voted for the president-elect, but those voters would find themselves either Canadians or refugees under her proposal.
Krueger suggested that secession simply makes sense when the majority of the country disagrees with you. She believes New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont could form a new Canadian province.
“I got back some unofficial responses and heard this is probably sellable in Ottawa,” she said. “And look, if we were Europe, in the length of time we’ve been a nation, for Canada, if we were European countries, our borders would have moved around 20 times by now, right?”
She explained that this is all just “thinking outside of the box.” The box that she and other liberals find themselves in is called “democracy,” and they don’t like it.
Just for the record, the last time people thought “outside the box” and seceded, we got a war with roughly 700,000 people killed.
Yet, assuming New Yorkers can get used to milk in a bag and cheese curds as a snack, there may be an obvious appeal for the left in the True North. Formerly “strong and free,” Canada has become a nightmare for free speech with the ever-expanding criminalization of political speech. One professor, who said that Trump’s plans to combat censorship has left many frightened, said that if free speech protections are restored, “I will be on a plane [out of America].”
For New York Times reporters and officials alike, they will be able to “breathe again” in the controlled, regulated air of censorship countries like Canada.
The only challenge for our displaced and disgruntled diaspora will be that Canadians tend to be nice.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the effort of Alvin Bragg to suspend the criminal case against President-Elect Donald Trump for almost five years. It would be a terrible choice for the court and for the country.
Here is the column:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed Tuesday to create a new constitutional creature: the layaway president. It was once common for stores to hold expensive items that you really wanted but could not make the payment. So, they were tagged and kept on the shelf until you were ready to redeem your item.
For Bragg, that leaves Donald Trump tagged until 2029.
In a filing before Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, Bragg suggested that the court should stay the pending criminal case and defer any sentencing “until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term.” That would allow a city prosecutor to put a leash on a sitting president for four years. Trump would govern by the grace of this local judge and district attorney. In the meantime, pundits and politicians could portray the president as free on a type of work release program.
The suggestion is appalling to most of the people in the country, including the majority of voters who voted for Trump. Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats ran on this and other cases in the election. The result was arguably the largest jury decision in history.
That being said, I do not believe that the mere election of a president negates jury verdicts on 34 criminal counts. But ample reasons exist to overturn those verdicts or to dismiss this case. For example, after the verdict, the Supreme Court rendered its immunity decision barring the use of certain evidence against a president. Some of the evidence used in the Manhattan case likely fell within one of the protected categories. The prosecutors not only elicited testimony from Trump aides in the White House but then doubled down on the significance of that evidence in their closing arguments. Merchan could declare that the court cannot rule out the impact of such testimony on the final verdict.
Even if Merchan, as expected, does not dismiss the case on the basis for the immunity decision, the trial was rife with reversible error. This was a raw exercise of lawfare, and Merchan did little to ensure fairness toward the defendant. Yet none of those errors can be likely addressed until Merchan reaches final decisions on the motion to dismiss as well as the sentencing question.
While that will mean that Trump could, upon possible sentencing, formally become a convicted felon, the matter can then be finally pried out of the hands of Merchan and taken to higher courts for review. The worst possible option is the one suggested by Bragg, who would adopt the popular persona of Trump’s turnkey.
The President would be seen by many as governing on a type of conditional status from one of the most politically compromised prosecutors in the country. For Bragg and other Trump opponents, that may be far more satisfying than a sentencing now given the unlikelihood of any jail component.
After the years and millions spent on the case, it would be the ultimate buzz kill to have Trump sentenced to some fine or other non-carceral penalty. Many Democrats want to have Trump govern with an asterisk of a “President pending sentencing.” Instead, Trump would govern with the clock ticking toward a sentencing date.
It is a dangerous precedent. Such pending sentences can have a coercive impact on a president in dealing with given officials, including a state governor who might be willing to pardon a president.
Consider the effort of the governor of New York in restoring the lucrative state and local tax, or SALT, deductions. There is no reason to believe that Trump would succumb to such leverage (and he has already indicated that he would consider the change).
However, any decision on policies like SALT would be the subject of speculation of whether a reduction in taxation was made in the hope of a reduction in incarceration.
Critics would suggest that New York is yanking on the leash to achieve policy advantages. This is the same judge and prosecutor who gagged the leading candidate for the presidency in discussing aspects of the case in the months leading up to the election. Now, they would allow him to govern pending their own suspended decisions on his future.
The Trump case was always a thrill kill for Bragg. Under Bragg’s proposal, his supporters would prolong that thrill for four more years. The cost, however, would be devastating for the country.
This country needs a president, not a president on layaway from the Manhattan District Attorney.
It has been five decades since Lorne Michaels’ “not ready for prime-time players” created Saturday Night Live, a show whose stars and characters became touchstones for all Americans, regardless of politics. But this weekend, Michaels decided to flush that all down the toilet.
On Saturday night, Vice President Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on the birthplace of Ed Grimley and the Church Lady in a cringeworthy skit that also happened to be a blatant violation of Federal Communications Commission elections rules.
Back on Oct. 1, Michaels told The Hollywood Reporter that neither Harris nor her opponent Donald Trump would appear on the show, a statement which turned out to have all the honesty of Jon Lovitz saying, “Yeah, that’s the ticket.” Suddenly, with three days left before the election, Michaels decided that his comedy show, one of the few things all Americans still share, would become a full-blown arm of the Harris campaign.
I’d be very curious to know exactly how this happened. Did Michaels have a change of heart and reach out to Harris? Or as seems more likely, did a panicked Harris campaign beg for her star turn on the weekly broadcast? This is the same Kamala Harris who couldn’t be bothered to attend the Al Smith dinner at the invitation of Cardinal Timothy Dolan because her schedule was too tight. Suddenly, 72 hours before the election, she cancels a rally in Michigan to appear live at the home of Father Guido Sarducci?
Live from New York….It’s Democrat Propaganda!
Michaels broke a real and serious trust here, part of what makes comedy as social commentary work. It’s something SNL has often strived at: fairness and the idea that all sides are open to ridicule. Such a blatant display of partisanship destroys that.
This is why woke comedy doesn’t work. In the place of the edgy and honest skewering of society, it instead is a laundry list of pseudo-religious shibboleths wearing a shabby comic costume. The audience isn’t laughing at the joke, but at the stupidity of those they disagree with.
It is also worth noting that SNL has produced some of the most notable conservatives in Hollywood, including Dennis Miller, Rob Schneider, and Victoria Jackson.
Lorne Michaels created “Saturday Night Live” 50 years ago, but it was never supposed to shill for the Democratic Party, writes David Marcus. (Rosalind O’Connor/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images via Getty Images)
The reason that comedians skew more to the right is that, unlike actors, screenwriters, or directors, they don’t learn their craft in colleges or conservatories with progressive worldviews. They just sign up at a club and if people laugh, they get asked back. Comedians also need to be free to walk right up to the line of decency in their work, to challenge the things the left says should not be challenged. This is why Dave Chappelle is in hot water every six months.
In this sense, Michaels has not only done the worst disservice to his audience since he took Norm MacDonald off of the Weekend Update segment, but he’s also harmed his own cast who he decided to feature in a super expensive political ad.
In response to the FCC violation, NBC gave Trump equal time during NASCAR and NFL broadcasts, but who at the network greenlighted this mess to begin with? Whoever it is deserves to be sleeping in a van down by the river.
If there is a silver lining to Michaels’ mendacity, it is that the Harris skit was abysmal. Every time she looked in the mirror, all I could think of was Stuart Smalley saying, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”
Actor Maya Rudolph and Vice President Kamala Harris appear on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” on Nov. 2, 2024, in New York City. (Jeenah Moon/Getty Images)
Michaels really ought to apologize to his audience and his cast for either his harebrained decision to hand the show over to Harris or his cowardly acquiescence to their unfair and illegal request. Whichever it is, he doesn’t exactly look marvelous.
If there is ever a time when Americans need an escape from the constant drumbeat of partisan politics, ads and signs, it is three days before an election, but Michaels didn’t care, trying to elect Harris was more important.
Michaels might think he pumped up Harris like Hanz and Franz, but all he really did was soil the reputation of his show. As Wayne and Garth might say, at least in this instance, “he’s not worthy.”
Since the “Let’s Go, Brandon” incident, the media has been repeatedly accused of reframing news or rewriting words to benefit the President or the Biden-Harris Administration. This week, the White House Press Office and various media outlets like Politico and MSNBC have been ridiculed for denying that President Joe Biden called Trump supporters “garbage.” It has created a weird dissonance as Democratic politicians denounced what the White House and many in the press denied was said. Now, the White House Press office is being criticized from a new quarter for the clean up on aisle three: the Director of White House Stenography, Amy Sands. The White House stenographers objected to the rewriting of the transcript by the Biden White House staff to suggest that the President was condemning Trump’s rhetoric, not his supporters.
The President’s attack on Trump supporters was nothing new. Leaders like Hillary Clinton called them “deplorables,” and Biden himself has described their views as a return of the confederacy and the rise of fascism. Democrats have called the movement a modern form of Nazism and an effort to destroy democracy, round up homosexuals, and create internment camps.
The problem was the timing. As Harris was denouncing Trump for name-calling and insisting that Democrats are bringing the country together (while condemning Trump as a modern version of Hitler), Biden was literally behind her in the White House, calling tens of millions of Trump supporters “garbage.”
Fox News reportedly obtained an email in which the supervisor sounded the alarm on the White House press office’s “breach of protocol and spoilation of transcript integrity between the Stenography and Press Offices.” Sands went on to say that
“if there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently. Our Stenography Office transcript — released to our distro, which includes the National Archives — is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff…After last night’s process, our team would like to reiterate that rush drafts/excerpts the Stenography Office sends to assist the Press Office are not intended for public distribution or as the final version of the transcript. Please avoid sharing rush drafts/excerpts, which are subject to review and might create confusion among staff, media, and the public while our Stenography Office completes a thorough review process.”
The White House was criticized for adding an apostrophe to the President’s comments to change the meaning of the key line.
After the statement, there was an immediate clean-up effort by Politico White House bureau chief and MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire, who was accused of changing the language by saying that “Biden, in a Zoom call with the organization Voto Latino, said ‘the only garbage’ was the ‘hatred’ of Trump supporters who said such things about American citizens.”
Lemire was widely ridiculed. For many, it sounded like another “Let’s Go Brandon” moment. He later turned to the apostrophe spin: “The full Biden quote from the Zoom tonight, which is being taken out of context.” Accompanying the text is a screenshot of a transcript that has Biden saying: “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.”
The spin would have been more convincing if many of these pundits were not at the same time insisting that a line from a comedian delivered at a Trump event should be attributed to Trump (despite his later condemnation of any such view). It would also be more credible if Biden had not spent much of the last four years portraying the Trump movement as a new confederacy (before it was reframed as the new Third Reich).
When asked about the internal objections, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates only repeated the prior statement: “The President confirmed in his tweet on Tuesday evening that he was addressing the hateful rhetoric from the comedian at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally. That was reflected in the transcript.”
However, Fox noted that it remains “unclear … whether the transcript the White House cites is the one that was altered and released to the press or the final transcript that was sent to the National Archives.”
Other reporters now admit that Biden said what he said but describe it, as did CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell, as “a gaffe by President Biden where he, in his explanation, inadvertently called Trump supporters garbage.” The “inadvertent gaffe” ignores years of portraying Trump supporters as seeking to return the United States to the Jim Crowe period or pursuing a neo-Nazi future.
While various Democratic politicians have denounced Biden’s statements and Harris has said that she strongly disagrees with them, diehards like MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell mocked those who were critical as “some of the worst” or just ungrammatical journalists:
“To do so, they had to refuse to listen to the actual sentence Joe Biden spoke. They had to refuse to look at the written words of that sentence. They had to refuse to understand English grammar. They had to refuse to understand what a singular possessive is. They had to refuse to understand what apostrophe ‘s’ means. They had to refuse to remember what they learned in elementary school about the English language.”
It appears that the non-partisan, career stenographers who recorded the interview contemporaneously are also on that “worst” list of ungrammatical morons.
The mainstream media is now dismissing the entire matter as just the placement of an apostrophe. Yet, many of these same voices were supporting a full-fledged investigation into the transcript of the Ukraine call during the Trump Administration over “the use of ellipses.”
I was critical of that call and supported calls for an accurate transcript, particularly on such a weighty issue. However, back then, the accuracy of such transcripts was accepted as of paramount importance. Whether it is a matter of foreign or domestic policy (or an apostrophe or ellipses), the public should be confident on the accuracy of White House transcripts, as stressed by Sands in her internal objections to the White House Press Office.
Below is my column on Fox.com on the expanding boycott of the Washington Post by Democratic politicians, pundits, and members of the press. The reason? Because owner Jeff Bezos wants to stay politically neutral and leave the matter to the public. In an age of advocacy journalism, the return to neutrality is intolerable. The reaction is itself revealing. In a heated meeting this week at the Post, writers were apoplectic with attacks on Bezos and alarm over the very notion of remaining neutral in an election. One declared to the group: “One thing that can’t happen in this country is for Trump to get another four years.” The immediate and reflexive call of the left for boycotts and canceling campaigns is all too familiar to many of us. The question is whether the targeting of Bezos could backfire in creating a major ally for the restoration of American journalism.
Here is the slightly altered column:
It is not every day that you go from being Obi-Wan Kenobi to Sheev Palpatine in twenty-four hours. However, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos now has the distinction of having Luke (Mark Hamill) lead a boycott of his “democracy dies in darkness” newspaper as the daily of the Darkside.
Then something fascinating happened. Bezos stood his ground.
The left has made an art form of flash-mob politics, crushing opposition with the threat of economic or professional ruin. Most cave to the pressure, including business leaders like Meta’s Mark Zuckerburg. That record came to a screeching halt when the unstoppable force of the left met the immovable object of Elon Musk. The left continues to oppose his government contracts and pressure his advertisers over his refusal to restore the prior censorship system at X, formerly Twitter.
Now, the left may be creating another defiant billionaire. This week, Bezos penned an op-ed that doubled down on his decision not to endorse a presidential candidate now or in the future. Some of us have argued for newpapers to stop all political endorsements for decades. The encouraging aspect of Bezos’s column was that he not only recognized the corrosive effect of endorsements on maintaining neutrality as a media organization, but he also recognized that the Post is facing plummeting revenues and readership due to its perceived bias and activism.
I used to write regularly for the Post, and I wrote in my new book about the decline of the newspaper as part of the “advocacy journalism” movement. As Bezos wrote, “Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.”
Bezos previously brought in a publisher to save the Post from itself. Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis promptly delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
The response was that the entire staff seemed to go into vapors, and many called for Lewis to be canned. Bezos stood with Lewis.
Now, resignations and recriminations are coming from reporters and columnists alike. In a public statement, Post columnists blasted the decision and said that while maybe endorsements should be ended, not now because everyone has to oppose Trump to save democracy and journalism. The statement produced some chuckles, given the signatories, including Phillip Bump and Jen Rubin, who have been repeatedly accused of pushing false stories and reckless rhetoric. (Rubin later denounced Bezos for his “Bulls**t explanation” and said that he was merely “bending a knee” to Trump.).
Bezos could do for the media what Musk did for free speech. He could create a bulwark against advocacy journalism in one of the premier newspapers in the world. Students in “J Schools” today are being told to abandon neutrality and objectivity since, as former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has explained, “all journalism is activism.”
After a series of interviews with over 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Few can stand up to this movement other than a Bezos or a Musk. However, the left has long created their own monsters by demanding absolute fealty or unleashing absolute cancel campaigns. Simply because Bezos wants his newspaper to restore neutrality, the left is calling for a boycott of not just the Post but all of his companies. That is precisely what they did with Musk.
A Bezos/Musk alliance would be truly a thing to behold. They could give the push for the restoration of free speech and the free press a real chance to create a beachhead to regain the ground that we have lost in the last two decades. The left will accept nothing short of total capitulation and Bezos does not appear willing to pay that price. Instead, he could not just save the Post but American journalism from itself.
If so, all I can say is: Welcome to the fight, Mr. Bezos.
Recently, I spoke at an event about my book, “The Indispensable Right,” at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Appearing on the panel with me was a New York University professor and one of the Facebook board members directing “content moderation.” We had a sharp disagreement over the record of Meta/Facebook on censorship, which I described as partisan and anti-free speech. Now, Congress has released the internal communications at Facebook, showing an express effort to appease Biden officials by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election.
In a new report released by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government, Facebook executives are shown following the lead of the FBI, which gave them prior warnings to prepare to spike such stories before the election. The FBI knew that the laptop was authentic. They had possession of the laptop, and American intelligence concluded that it was not Russian disinformation.
One Microsoft employee wrote, “FBI tipped us all off last week that this Burisma story was likely to emerge,”
However, these communications also show a knowing effort to appease Biden and Harris and effectively assist them in their election efforts. Facebook’s then-Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg reportedly wrote to Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan, “[o]bviously, our calls on this could colour the way an incoming Biden administration views us more than almost anything else.”
One of the most interesting communications came from a Facebook employee who recognized that they would be accused of seeking to influence the election: “When we get hauled up to [Capitol] [H]ill to testify on why we influenced the 2020 elections, we can say we have been meeting for YEARS with USG [the U.S. government] to plan for it.”
The Facebook files go beyond influencing the election. At one point, Nick Clegg, the company’s president of global affairs, asked, “Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made.” The Vice President in charge of content policy responded, “We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn’t have done it.”
Notably, Democrats opposed every effort to seek this information, and Facebook only recently relented in turning over its files years after Elon Musk ordered the release of the “Twitter files.” I raised this issue during the NCC event to counter the glowing self-appraisal of Meta over its record. Despite its claims of transparency, it refused calls from many of us for years to release these files. When finally forced by the House to do so, CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a perfunctory apology and moved on. As shown at the NCC event, it is now spinning its record as a defense of free speech.
It was such a fun time last week watching the perpetual drama queens that make up our national news media boil with rage over two newspapers declining to issue meaningless campaign endorsements. But it also revealed something unsettling about the unhealthy degree of emotional investment they have in this race.
Will the media accept the outcome of the election if Donald Trump wins? It’s far from a foregone conclusion that they will. There’s a strong argument they didn’t the last time Trump won. Why should anyone expect them to accept it this time around?
It’s a question these homely nerds are inclined to ask every elected Republican in the shallowest way possible — some variation of, “Will you accept the outcome of this election no matter what?” (I think every restaurant server from now on should ask Jake Tapper the moment he’s seated, “Will you accept the way your food comes out no matter what? It’s a yes or no question.”)
After the appalling behavior they displayed last week, now is a very crucial time to ask them the same thing. If they were this hysterical over management at The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times deciding, there would be no endorsement of Kamala Harris this campaign cycle — the type of endorsement that hasn’t mattered for decades — how can they be expected to acknowledge a Trump victory? And if they won’t, what will it mean to the people who are still influenced by them? They will have essentially been told their elections and their government are invalid. These are the things civil wars are made of.
As silly as the media have made themselves look, they’re dead serious. That a major news publication wouldn’t throw its weight behind the non-Trump candidate means nothing to normal people, but reporters in Washington and New York aren’t normal people. Look how they talk. They say things like “Democracy dies in darkness,” and we laugh because it’s corny. But they believe in earnest it’s a sacred oath binding their entire life’s meaning to a cause: maintaining the Washington and corporate power structure to their financial benefit. To hell with everyone else.
If in 2016 the news media eagerly went along with an absurd hoax that Trump won that election in large part because he conspired with the Russian government, what won’t they say when he wins again? They just spent the past three months telling voters that up is down, black is white, and Kamala is popular. They moved on from the attempt on his life like it was a standard news cycle that had run its course.
How could we expect them to concede defeat after everything they’ve done? And yes, a Kamala defeat will be theirs, too. Her campaign is theirs.
It’s a question they’re not ready to answer because, for them, it’s unthinkable.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the growing hysteria among press and pundits proclaiming the imminent end of democracy if Kamala Harris is not elected. The predictions of mass roundups, disappearances, and tyranny ignore a constitutional system that has survived for over two centuries as the oldest and most stable democracy in the world. More importantly, the public appears to agree that democracy is under threat but appear to hold a very different notion of where that threat is coming from.
Here is the column:
“Democracy dies in darkness” is the Washington Post’s slogan, but can it handle the light?
The Post has been doggedly portraying the election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris as a choice between tyranny (Trump) and democracy (Harris). Yet when it commissioned a poll on threats to democracy shortly before the election, it did not quite work out.
Voters in swing states believe that Trump is more likely to protect democracy than Kamala Harris, who is running on a “save democracy” platform. The poll sampled 5,016 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. When asked whether Trump or Harris “would do a better job” of “defending against threats to democracy,” 43% picked Trump while 40% picked Harris.
Notably, this was the same result when President Biden was the nominee. While over half said that threats to democracy were important to them, the voters trusted Trump (44%) more than Biden (33%) in protecting democracy.
Even with the slight improvement for Harris, the result was crushing for not just many in the Harris campaign but the press and pundits who have been unrelenting in announcing the end of democracy if Harris is not elected.
I have long criticized the apocalyptic, democracy-ending predictions of Biden, Harris and others as ignoring the safeguards in our system against authoritarian power. Nevertheless, Harris supporters have ratcheted up the rhetoric to a level of pure hysteria. Recently, Michael Cohen, a convicted felon and Trump’s disbarred former lawyer, told MSNBC that if Trump wins the election, he will “get rid of the judiciary and get rid of the Congress.”
Recently, MSNBC host Al Sharpton and regular Donny Deutsch warned viewers that they will likely be added to an enemies “list” for some type of roundup after a Trump election. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow also joined in the theme of a final stand before the gulag: “For that matter, what convinces you that these massive camps he’s planning are only for migrants? So, yes, I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was quick to add her own name to a list that seems to be constantly updated by the media. She told podcast host Kara Swisher, “I mean, it sounds nuts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy threw me in jail.”
On ABC’s “The View,” the hosts are becoming indistinguishable from tinfoil-hatted subway prophets. Whoopi Goldberg even explained how Trump is already committed to being a dictator who will “put you people away … take all the journalists … take all the gay folks … move you all around and disappear you.”
Of course, assuming that Cohen is wrong that there will be no courts after a Trump victory, this would require federal judges to sign off on the rounding up of MSNBC personalities, all gay people, all reporters, and, of course, Whoopi Goldberg. All that is required is for over two centuries of constitutional order to fail suddenly, and for virtually every constitutional actor in our system to suddenly embrace tyranny.
Those pushing this hysteria often curiously cite the January 6 riot as proof that the end is near. Yet that horrible day was the vindication, not the expiration, of our constitutional system. The system worked. The riot was put down. Congress, including Republicans, reassembled and certified Biden as the next president. In the courts, many Trump-appointed judges ruled against challenges to the election. Our system was put through a Cat 5 stress test and did not even sway for a moment. Nevertheless, the same voices are being heard on the same media outlets with doomsday scenarios.
Former Acting US Solicitor General Neal Katyal told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” ominously, “We are looking at a very possible constitutional crisis and one that’s going to make January 6, 2021, look like a dress rehearsal. And this year, the rogues have had four years to go pro and perfect the big lie.”
In other words: Be afraid, very afraid.
Then, in a New York Times column, Katyal lays out scenarios premised on a complete breakdown of the oldest and most stable democratic system in history. It is like telling passengers on an ocean liner that we will all drown and then whispering that this is “assuming the crew intentionally scuttles the ship, all bulkheads and sealed departments fail, and every lifeboat and life preserver is discarded.”
But then we are all going to die.The only way to avoid that watery grave (with the death of democracy itself)? Vote Democratic.
There is, however, some good news in all of this: Despite years of alarmist predictions from Biden, Harris, the press, and pundits, the public is not buying it. It is not because they particularly like Trump. Many of his supporters seem poised to vote for him despite viewing him as polarizing and, at times, obnoxious.
No, it is because the American voter has a certain innate resistance to being played as a chump. Many of the same figures claiming that democracy is at stake supported ballot cleansing to remove Trump and others from the ballots. They supported the weaponization of the legal process in New York against Trump. Likewise, as Harris insists that she is the only hope for fundamental rights, many cannot fail to notice that she is supporting an unprecedented system of censorship that one court called “Orwellian.”
None of this means that the choice between Trump and Harris is easy. However, Harris’ claim to be the only hope for democracy is proving as tin eared as running on pure “joy.”
Voters are clearly demanding more than a political pitch of abject fear mixed with illusive joy.
Last night, millions tuned in to watch Fox’s Bret Baier interview Vice President Kamala Harris in a brief but substantive exchange. One of the most interesting aspects of the interview was the purely pedestrian view of the presidency that Harris presented in the interview. Harris repeatedly responded with “I will follow the law” while refusing to say where she personally stands on immigration, transgender athletes, and other issues.
After confining interviews to largely softball forums like The View, Harris faced a serious journalist who pushed for actual answers on policies. While confined to a short time by the Harris campaign, Baier kept pulling Harris back to these questions to cut off the evasions that have characterized past interviews. Baier noted that she has previously campaigned on some of these issues and publicly declared that she worked for such things as gender transitioning operations for undocumented persons. Harris now refuses to state her position on such issues and says “I will follow the law.”
Yet, Harris is not adopting that pedestrian model in other areas like abortion rights where she is pledging to use executive powers to resist pro-life laws. The Biden-Harris Administration has used such orders to negate both constitutional and statutory authority. That includes orders that were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on issues like the national eviction moratorium.
Notably, Harris did flip her position on decriminalizing unlawful entries. Despite running on that pledge in her earlier unsuccessful run for the White House, Harris now says that she is against such decriminalization. As with her past opposition to fracking and gun rights, the change is likely to draw criticism that Harris is adopting a new persona for a close race.
The refusal to give her position on these issues is reminiscent of Joe Biden’s last campaign where he simply refused to say if he opposed packing the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. What is different is that Harris previously stated strong and public positions on these questions but is now refusing to confirm that she continues to support those policies, including some that rank near the top of issues for voters.
Baier did a heroic job in trying to prevent the filibustering of the interview and push for answers on these questions. It was the first such interview where Harris faced a dogged interviewer. Given the frantic effort of the staff to end the interview (after showing up late), it is likely to be the last.
The mantra of “I will follow the law” ignores that a president plays a major role in the legislative process and has considerable executive powers in determining how such laws are enforced. The presidency is more than a promise of “joy” and compliance. It is about leadership on issues that matter to voters.
The interview had a seasonal feel with Halloween approaching like a political reading of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven where every question is answered by “Nevermore.”
That could well be the theme of the Harris campaign. When pressed on contradictions or controversies, Harris seemed to declare “Nevermore Trump” over and over again. We will see if that is enough in a matter of a few weeks.
In the meantime, real journalists will be left seeking answers that never come, exclaiming like Poe’s protagonist “tell me—tell me, I implore!” However, “Quoth the [Harris] ‘Nevermore.’”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Media (CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. are showing their complete bias in support of Kamala Harris, covering up her lies and cleverly editing her interviews. At the same time, misrepresenting Trump at every turn.
President Trump Responds to “The Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History” After Fake News ’60 Minutes’ is Busted Editing Kamala’s Nonsensical Answer with Previous Soundbite, Calls for CBS to Lose its Broadcasting License
By Jordan Conradson – Oct 11, 2024 – The Gateway Pundit
On Thursday, President Trump issued a scathing rebuke against CBS and the network’s ’60 Minutes’ program after they were busted for deceiving the public with a fraudulent edit of Kamala Harris’s recent interview. As The Gateway Pundit reported, ’60 Minutes’ cut Kamala’s nonsensical answer to a question and replaced it with a completely separate sentence she said earlier in the interview. This is fraud and election interference. This move is completely disqualifying for a news organization and proves more than ever that CBS is a Regime-controlled propaganda machine… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
The blurring of the lines between news and opinion has eroded the public’s trust in the legacy media. (Maria Vonotna/iStock/ Getty Images)
DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Americans’ trust in the mass media has fallen to a record low leading up to the November election, according to a new survey released by Gallup on Monday. About 36% of those surveyed said that they have “no trust at all” in the mass media, while only 31% expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence, and 33% expressed “not very much” confidence, according to the Gallup survey.
The low trust in the media comes as mainstream outlets are being criticized over accusations of bias, such as with the lack of coverage of President Joe Biden’s mental acuity before his debate against former President Donald Trump.
Americans’ confidence in the mainstream media previously dropped to a previous low of 32% in 2016, which was matched in 2023, according to previous Gallup surveys.
Democrats expressed the highest amount of confidence in the mass media being able to report news “fully, accurately, and fairly,” with 54% saying they trust it, according to the survey. Age gaps also made a difference in the ratings, with 74% of Democrats aged 65 and older having a fair or great amount of confidence in the media, compared with just 31% of Democrats aged 18 to 29.
Republicans and independents expressed much lower confidence in the mass media, compared with Democrats, with only 12% of Republicans and 27% of independents saying they have a great or fair amount of media trust, according to the survey.
The U.S. legislative branch was also rated poorly, with only 34% of people saying they trusted it.
ABC journalists Linsey Davis and David Muir came under fire after they moderated the ABC News presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on Sept. 10, as many debate viewers thought it was unfairly rigged against Trump. Viewers expressed outrage over Trump being fact-checked multiple times by the debate moderators, while Harris was largely not challenged on her claims.
CBS News was recently criticized for editing footage of Harris’ response to a question about the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in a “60 Minutes” interview Oct. 7
While many people expressed concern over Biden’s mental acuity following his appearance in the June 27 presidential debate against Trump, several corporate news outlets tried to blame Biden’s debate performance on his having a cold.
Gallup’s poll was conducted between Sept. 3 and Sept. 15 and surveyed a random sample of 1,007 adults from all U.S. states, with a plus-or-minus 4 percentage point margin of error.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent interview of Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz defending his record on free speech. The interview with Fox host Shannon Bream only magnified concerns over what I previously described as the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries.
Here is the column:
Roughly five centuries ago, a new dance first reported in Augsburg, Germany was promptly dubbed the “waltz” after the German term for “to roll or revolve.” Today, there is no nimbler performer of that dizzying dance than Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz.
Indeed, “Walzing” has become the Minnesota governor’s signature political two-step after his controversial statements on his allegedly socialist views, eliminating the electoral college and other topics. On Sunday, Walz’s dance partner was Fox News host Shannon Bream, who seemed to be fighting vertigo as the candidate tried to deflect his shocking prior statements on free speech.
Bream asked Walz about his prior declaration that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”— a statement that runs counter to decades of Supreme Court decisions. Walz notably did not deny or retract his statement. Instead, his interview ironically became itself a flagrant example of misinformation.
First of all, misinformation and hate speech are not exceptions to the First Amendment: Whether it is the cross burnings of infamous figures like KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg or the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., hate speech is protected. Yet both Harris and Walz are true believers in the righteousness of censorship for disinformation, misinformation and malinformation.
The Biden administration defines misinformation as “false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm” — meaning it would subject you to censorship even if you are not intending harm. It defines malinformation as “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” So, you can post “true facts,” but would still be subject to censorship if you are viewed as misleading others with your pesky truth-telling.
Furthermore, “book bans” are not equivalent to the Harris-Walz censorship policies. After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting, Democrats are attempting to deflect questions by claiming that the GOP is the greater threat.
“We’re seeing censorship coming in the form of book banning’s in different places,” Walz told Bream. “We’re seeing attempts in schools.”
First, a reality check: The Biden-Harris administration has helped fund and actively support the largest censorship system in our history, a system described by one federal court as “Orwellian.” These are actual and unrelenting efforts to target individuals and groups for opposing views on subjects ranging from gender identity to climate change to COVID to election fraud. While Walz and others rarely specifically reference the book bans in question, Florida is one state whose laws concern age limits on access to graphic or sexual material in schools.
School districts have always been given wide latitude in making such decisions on curriculum or library policies. Indeed, while rarely mentioned by the media, the left has demanded the banning or alteration of a number of classic books, including “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Of Mice and Men,” under diversity or equity rationales.
I have long opposed actual book bans perpetrated by both the left and the right. However, school districts have always made such access and curriculum decisions.
Finally, Walz and others often sell censorship by citing the dangers of child pornography or of threats made against individuals. Walz on Sunday followed Hillary Clinton’s recent pro-censorship campaign as he employed such misdirection.
“The issue on this was the hate speech and the protected hate speech — speech that’s aimed at creating violence, speech that’s aimed at threats to individuals,” he claimed. “That’s what we’re talking about in this.”
First, he’d said there is no protected hate speech. Second, the law already provides ample protections against threats toward individuals. What’s most striking is that, after years of unapologetically embracing censorship (often under the Orwellian term “content moderation”), the left does not seem to want to discuss it in this election.
Democrats in Congress opposed every major effort to investigate the role of the Biden administration in the social-media censorship system it constructed. Many denied any such connection. Elon Musk ended much of that debate with the release of the Twitter Files showing thousands of emails from the administration targeting individuals and groups with opposing views.
Now the public is being asked to vote for the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries — but neither Harris nor Walz want to talk about it in any detail. The result may be the largest bait-and-switch in history. Walz, Clinton and others also falsely claim they are simply trying to stop things like child pornography — which is already covered by existing criminal laws.
But what many on the left want is to regain what Clinton called their loss of “control” over what we are allowed to say or hear on social media.
Make no mistake about it: The “Walzing” of free speech is one dance you would be wise to decline. Otherwise, do not be surprised if, when the music stops, you find yourself without both your partner and your free speech.
It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s 180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election. The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.
As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.
To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states“Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings.
With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings.
If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others. Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.
For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case.
Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC.
It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”
We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit against Deadspin and writer Carron Phillips over an article claiming that nine-year-old Holden Armenta appeared at a Chiefs game in 2023 in black face. I noted in a prior column that I believed that the court would view this as a matter that had to go to a jury. It now has. Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg this week rejected Deadspin’s motion to dismiss.
Phillips posted a side image of Holden at a game of the Kansas City Chiefs against the Las Vegas Raiders, showing his face painted black. The 9-year-old was wearing a headdress while doing the signature “Tomahawk Chop.”
Phillips went into full attack mode.
The senior Deadspin writer had a Pavlovian response in a scathing article on the boy’s “racist” and “disrespectful” appearance.
“It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate black people and the native Americans at the same time…Despite their age, who taught that person that what they were wearing was appropriate?”
Phillips also denounced the NFL for “relentlessly participating in prejudice.” In a now-deleted tweet, Phillips later called people “idiots” for “treating this as some harmless act.”
Of course, the full picture showed that Armenta had the other half of his face painted in red paint — the Chiefs colors. It also turns out that he is Native American. Indeed, his grandfather is serving on the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
Deadspin obviously valued Phillips’ take on race as do other journalists and columnists. Despite his past controversial writings, he was selected as the 2019 & 2020 National Association of Black Journalists Award Winner.
In Armenta v. G/O Media, Inc. Lugg wrote that “[h]aving reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that Deadspin’s statements accusing [Holden] of wearing black face and Native headdress ‘to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,’ and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, are provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable.”
The opinion turned on whether this could be treated as opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. California law applied in the case and the court focused on two opinions that held that claims of racism can be statements of fact. Lugg wrote:
Generally, statements labeling a person as racist are not actionable. “A term like racist, while exceptionally negative, insulting, and highly charged—is not actionable under defamation-type claims because it is a word that lacks precise meaning and can imply many different kinds of fact.”…
Deadspin argues that the statements alleging H.A. wore Black face are nonactionable for the same reasons that calling him racist would be non-actionable. {“Blackface is used to mock or ridicule Black people; it is considered deeply offensive.” Deadspin, in recasting Black face as “culturally insensitive face paint” in the December 7 Update, recognizes the negative understanding of the descriptive term.} … But there is a legally significant distinction between a statement calling someone a racist and a statement accusing someone of engaging in racist conduct; expressions of opinion are not protected if they imply an assertion of an objective, defamatory fact. Two recent decisions applying California law, Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) and La Liberte v. Reid (2d Cir. 2020), assist in clarifying this distinction.
The Court in Overhill Farms held that “a claim of racially motivated employment termination is a provably false fact.” In that case, a group of employees accused their employer of engaging in racist firings of Hispanic workers as a pretext to hide racist and discriminatory abuse against Latina women immigrants. After the employer sued for defamation, the employees moved to dismiss, arguing that their statements were non-actionable opinions. The California Court of Appeals denied the employees’ motion, reasoning:
[D]efendants did not merely accuse [their employer] of being “racist” in some abstract sense …. [I]n almost every instance, defendants’ characterization of [their employer] as “racist” is supported by a specific reference to its decision to terminate the employment of a large group of Latino immigrant workers. The assertion of racism, when viewed in that specific factual context, is not merely a hyperbolic characterization of [the employer’s] black corporate heart—it represents an accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct…. [T]he statements reflected in defendants’ written press release, leaflets and flyers accused Overhill of more than harboring racist attitudes; they accused Overhill of engaging in a mass employment termination based upon racist and ageist motivations. Such a contention is clearly a “provable fact;” indeed an employer’s motivation for terminating employment is a fact plaintiffs attempt to prove routinely in wrongful termination cases.
In La Liberte v. Reid, a community activist brought suit after a television host republished two photographs of her at a pro-immigration rally with captions alleging racist conduct. The first caption accused the plaintiff of screaming “You are going to be first deported … dirty Mexican!” at a 14-year-old boy. The second caption compared a photograph of the plaintiff to white Americans yelling at the Little Rock Nine. The television host moved to dismiss the activist’s defamation claims, arguing that her statements were “nonactionable statements of opinion.” The trial court agreed and granted dismissal. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, explaining:
A reader could interpret the juxtaposition of the Photograph with the 1957 Little Rock image to mean that [plaintiff] likewise screamed at a child out of racial animus—particularly in light of [defendant’s] comment that “[h]istory sometimes repeats.” That interpretation is bolstered by [defendant’s] description of the white woman in the Little Rock photograph as a “person screaming at a child, with [her] face twisted in rage” and [her] comment that it was “inevitable” that the photos would be juxtaposed. [Defendant] thus portrayed [plaintiff] as a latter-day counterpart of the white woman in 1957 who verbally assaulted a minority child. Like the defendants in Overhill Farms, [defendant] “did not merely accuse [plaintiff] of being ‘racist’ in some abstract sense.” Rather, her July 1 Post could be understood as an “accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct,” which can be proved to be either true or false. That makes it potentially defamatory.
The Armentas contend that the Original Article and its Updates involve defamatory statements regarding conduct that is provably false and, therefore, this Court should be guided by Overhill Farms and La Liberte. These statements include:
(1) H.A. was wearing “Black face;”
(2) H.A.’s conduct in wearing “Black face” was motivated by his hatred of Black people;
(3) H.A.’s wearing of a Native headdress resulted from his hatred of Native Americans;
(4) H.A. is part of a “future generation[ ]” of racists who had “recreate[d] racism better than before”; and
(5) Raul and Shannon Armenta “taught” their son, H.A., “racism and hate” in their home.
Deadspin’s audience could understand its portrayal of H.A. to mean that his entire face was painted black and, because his entire face was painted black, it was H.A.’s intent to disrespect and hate African Americans. The publication went beyond an expression of opinion and flatly stated H.A.’s motivation for appearing as he did.
Similarly, a reader could be left with the belief that H.A. wore a Native American headdress as a signal of disrespect to that population. Any doubt as to the thrust of these representations is resolved in the opening line of the article, where the author unequivocally asserts, “It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate Black people and the Native American at the same time.”
While arguably couched as opinion, the author devotes substantial time to describing H.A. and attributing negative racial motivation to him. Further, the article may be reasonably viewed as derogating those who may have taught him—his parents. A reader might not, as Deadspin contends, interpret this assertion as a reflection of the author’s opinion. To say one is a racist may be considered opinion, but to plainly state that one’s attire, presentation, or upbringing demonstrates their learned hatred for identifiable groups is actionable. A reader may reasonably interpret the Article’s assertion that H.A. was wearing Black face as fact….
The CBS broadcast showed H.A. for approximately three seconds. In those three seconds, viewers could see that H.A.’s face was painted two colors: black and red. Deadspin published an image of H.A. that displayed only the portion of H.A.’s face painted black and presented it as a factual assertion that there was a “Chiefs fan in Black face” at the game. The complaint asserts facts that, reasonably interpreted, establish Deadspin’s Original Article and its Updates as provably false assertions of fact….
Deadspin contends that La Liberte and Overhill Farms stand as outliers from decisions recognizing that accusations of racist behavior are “inherently subjective and therefore non-actionable[.]” Not so. They reflect reasoned assessments of the lines between protected and actionable speech and offer a paradigm for identifying and assessing provably false allegations of racial animus. This Court may grant Deadspin’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) only if “under no reasonable interpretation of the facts alleged could the complaint state a claim for which relief might be granted.” Applying the analytical framework of La Liberte and Overhill Farms to the facts here, the Armentas maintain a “possibility of recovery.” …
This is a well-constructed and well-supported decision that could have lasting importance. In an age of rage, including race-baiting columns like the one in this case, the opinion is a shot across the bow for publications like Deadspin.
We have seen a series of major rulings allowing public figures to go forward in other defamation lawsuits against media companies. In addition to alienating much of their markets with echo journalism, these outlets are now facing mounting legal costs due to attack pieces like this one. The bill is now coming due.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.