Lachlan Murdoch, the successor to his father Rupert as the executive chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation., has made news himself in recent days for standing up to the woke mob that was, yet again, clamoring for the head of a Fox News host. This time --- for the umpteenth time --- the host in question was Tucker Carlson. Tucker had drawn the wrath of the mob for pointing to the obvious. Which is to say the American left is deliberately creating and using the chaos at the US southern border as a way of re-populating the US, in this case with poor illegal immigrants who would presumably be the political pawns of the Democratic Party. Cue the outrage. This time in particular was a much reported-on demand from Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, condemning Tucker for anti-Semitism and demanding he be fired. Here’s the headline from The Washington Post: "ADL demands Fox News fire Tucker Carlson over anti-Semitic trope: ‘This has deadly significance.'" The story said this: “Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson argued that immigration to the United States would “dilute the political power” of Americans in a segment that also referenced “white replacement theory” — a discriminatory trope, often weaponized by white nationalists, suggesting people of color are “replacing” White Americans. The segment left the Anti-Defamation League urging Fox News to fire Carlson for his “open-ended endorsement of white supremacist ideology,” the first time the group has made such a demand, according to the Associated Press. On Sunday, Jonathan A. Greenblatt, chief executive and national director of the ADL, repeated those demands on CNN, slamming Carlson for his remarks and condemning the network’s owners, the Murdoch family, for not immediately taking action. “I think we’ve really crossed a new threshold when a major news network dismisses this or pretends like it isn’t important,” Greenblatt told to CNN’s Brian Stelter. “This has deadly significance.” Catch that line? Mr. Greenblatt was “condemning the network’s owners, the Murdoch family, for not immediately taking action.” In fact, there was soon a response in letter form to the demand from the ADL. A response from no less that the head of Fox, the aforementioned Lachlan Murdoch. The Murdoch response drew headlines, as here at The Hill: "Lachlan Murdoch responds to call for Tucker Carlson's firing." The Hill had obtained a copy of the Murdoch letter and ran it in full. Here it is: Dear Mr. Greenblatt, Thank you for your letter of April 11, 2021 and also for your good work over the years. Fox Corporation shares your values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind. In fact, I remember fondly the ADL honoring my father with your International Leadership Award, and we continue to support your mission. Concerning the segment of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on April 8th, however, we respectfully disagree. A full review of the guest interview indicates that Mr. Carlson decried and rejected replacement theory. As Mr. Carlson himself stated during the guest interview: "White replacement theory? No, no, this is a voting rights question.” Throughout our news and opinion programming, our management and Board are focused on fair, accurate and informed reporting and commentary on matters of public interest. We thank you for participating in this important national conversation. Sincerely, Lachlan K. Murdoch The news stories about the ADL demand did not mention that Mr. Greenblatt’s past includes a stint with in the Obama administration - which is to say he has a past as a Democratic operative. The leftward tilt of the ADL was, however, noticed and responded to quite vividly by some 1500 Jewish rabbis. The headline, also in The Hill: 1,500 rabbis accuse ADL of 'grossly misplaced charges of anti-Semitism' in attack on Tucker Carlson A Jewish group of conservative rabbis are defending Tucker Carlson against the ADL. The story says in part: “Fifteen hundred Orthodox Jewish rabbis called the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV) have signed a letter to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), supporting Tucker Carlson in response to the organization's demand to have the Fox News host fired.” Good for them. But the point here is Mr. Murdoch’s serious leadership in defending both Tucker Carlson and Fox News itself. There is an interesting dynamic in any family business, and the Murdoch family’s News Corporation is no exception. I first began to realize that dynamic after my first appearance on CNN in 2009. I had looked into a group called So We Might See. Formed by liberals in seven major mainstream religious denominations, they were petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to take Rush Limbaugh off the air because he was dealing in hate speech. In my research I realized they had linked to another group --- the “Drop Dobbs” campaign. At the time Lou Dobbs was on CNN, where he had been literally since CNN began with founder Ted Turner. Lou had drawn the wrath of left-wingers because of his staunch opposition to illegal immigration. In my column I went after the Drop Dobbs group as well for its anti-free speech campaign. Long story short I was quickly invited to New York to CNN to be on with Lou himself. Standing in a CNN green room, in came Lou himself to say hello to his guests. Then into his studio he went and as we watched, stunned, he announced at the very top of his show that he was quitting CNN and this was to be his last show. Suffice to say his guests were astounded. In retrospect this a class A early exhibit of what we now know as cancel culture. But it sent me researching what I had just seen up close and personal. The fact was that CNN in 2009 was already no longer the CNN it was when founded by Ted Turner. Change had come to CNN (and continues to come.) But the realization dawned that there are two stages of life for a business. The first is its creation with the driving vision of its founder, its creator. But life moves on. Founders of companies age and eventually pass away like every other human being on the planet. Somewhere in there the creation is handed over to someone else. Sometimes it’s a family member, quite frequently it is someone outside the founder’s family. But in all cases the person who takes over is not the creator. He or she is a manager of the original dream. And sometimes this works - and sometimes it doesn’t. As events have unfolded in the Fox Corporation, son Lachlan Murdoch has been handed the baton --- and quite fortunately, as this latest episode with the demand to fire Tucker Carlson attests, the younger Murdoch has more than measured up the task of running Dad’s dream. He is making Fox his. He has been praised over here in The New York Sun. The headline: "Lachlan Murdoch’s Mettle Says The Sun of the son: “Congratulations are in order to the chairman of Fox News, Lachlan Murdoch, for his refusal to bow to a demand that he fire Tucker Carlson. The demand was made by the Anti-Defamation League after a broadcast by Mr. Carlson on immigration. The ADL reckoned Mr. Carlson’s ‘rhetoric was not just a dog whistle to racists — it was a bullhorn.’ Mr. Murdoch rejected the claim with a polite note. It’s nice to see a press baron standing up for a controversial newsroom star for a change. ADL’s complaint is that Mr. Carlson had given, in a broadcast with Mark Steyn,* ‘an impassioned defense of the white supremacist ‘great replacement theory,’ the hateful notion that the white race is in danger of being ‘replaced’ by a rising tide of non-whites.’ In fact, Mr. Carlson had distanced himself from that view.” Exactly. Three cheers for Lachlan Murdoch. Without question he understands what is really at play here. He did indeed show his mettle, making it plain that yes, in fact, he is very much in charge of the Rupert Murdoch dream and is running that dream well, with skill and mettle. He is not about to back down. Mettle, to remind, is defined by the dictionary as “vigor and strength of spirit or temperament” and “staying quality: stamina.” Quite clearly this episode illustrates that Lachlan Murdoch does indeed have mettle - and so too does his company. He is without doubt in charge. Good for him. And good for Fox.
On Friday afternoon, CNN's Ana Cabrera presented viewers with disputed, one-sided anti-gun commentary in reaction to a mass shooting in Indianapolis. Even though the accuracy of his work has been disputed, University of Alabama crime researcher Adam Lankford was given a forum to misleadingly argue that the U.S. has one of the worst mass shooting problems of any country in the world, and blaming it on too much availability of guns. It was not mentioned that prominent right-leaning crime expert John Lott has challenged his findings, and argues the opposite -- that the U.S. has a relatively lower rate of the kinds of large-scale public shootings that so often attract media attention. After a report on a shooting that left eight dead at a FedEx office in Indianapolis the night before, Cabrera claimed: "So we've told you the numbers. In fact, the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings. But why? I recently asked Professor Adam Lankford. He's been studying mass shootings for years." Then came a pre-recorded clip of Professor Lankford portraying the U.S. as having a much worse mass shooting problem than other countries: I did a study of 171 countries to really look at where public mass shooters attack most frequently and why. And, despite having less than five percent of the world's population, the United States had approximately 30 percent of the world's mass shooters -- really like six times what we should have if things were evenly distributed. And, in addition, we have more than 40 percent of the world's civilian firearms. He added: And so, to your point about guns, firearm access seemed to be a critical explanation here. I do not look for a bunch of possible explanations, but, really, what the data said was that firearm access explains why people here, when they want to do something bad, do something so bad when compared to people with bad intentions but less access in other countries. Cabrera then brought up an argument sometimes made by Republicans that mental illness needs to be targeted to stop the wrong people from getting guns, leading Professor Lankford to reiterate that too much access to guns in the U.S. leads to more mass shootings. No guest from the right was present to question his claims in real time. It was also not mentioned that Lankford and Lott have responded back and forth on the subject for several years as Lott argues that the U.S. has disproportionately fewer mass shootings as compared to other countries. This one-sided anti-gun segment on CNN was sponsored in part by Progressive. Their contact information is linked. Transcript follows: CNN Newsroom April 16, 2021 1:09 p.m. Eastern ANA CABRERA: So we've told you the numbers. In fact, the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings. But why? I recently asked Professor Adam Lankford. He's been studying mass shootings for years. PROFESSOR ADAM LANKFORD, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA: I did a study of 171 countries to really look at where public mass shooters attack most frequently and why. And, despite having less than five percent of the world's population, the United States had approximately 30 percent of the world's mass shooters -- really like six times what we should have if things were evenly distributed. And, in addition, we have more than 40 percent of the world's civilian firearms. And so, to your point about guns, firearm access seemed to be a critical explanation here. I do not look for a bunch of possible explanations, but, really, what the data said was that firearm access explains why people here, when they want to do something bad, do something so bad when compared to people with bad intentions but less access in other countries. CABRERA: Politicians often throw out various factors to try to explain mass shootings in America. One of those is mental illness. Listen. SENATOR TED CRUZ (R-TX): Let's target the bad guys -- the felons, fugitives, those with mental disease -- let's put them in jail -- let's stop them from getting guns. MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: The real challenge here is mental illness, and identifying people who are likely to do this kind of thing in advance is very, very difficult. CABRERA: Adam, what did your research find about whether there is a correlation between mass shootings and mental illness? LANKFORD: Well, so I think it's important to acknowledge that certainly, you know, if you look at individual mass shooters, they often could benefit from mental health treatment, but that doesn't explain why the United States is so different from the rest of the world. So one of the things I looked at is suicide rates, and suicide and mental illness are closely correlated, and the United States does not have anywhere near the worst suicide problem in the world. And if you think about treatment and services, there are a lot of countries around the world that wish they had our treatment services -- our medication -- so, ultimately, the key is: What makes the United States different as a factor that could explain why we're so different when it comes to this form of violence, and mental illness just isn't it.
Saturday Night Live can feel CNN’s pain. The far-left network is suffering a ratings catastrophe now that Donald Trump no longer calls the White House home. CNN spent four years savaging President Trump with a blend of lies, conjecture and concentrated spin. Without its favorite bogeyman, Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers have moved on to other programs, apparently. CNN’s prime-time lineup recently suffered a 45 percent plunge in the Age of Biden. Is it SNL’s turn now? The formerly apolitical show enjoyed huge ratings in the first episode following Trump’s November defeat. That episode, starring Dave Chappelle and the Foo Fighters, drew a whopping 9.1 million viewers. That was then. The new normal took over after that heady high, according to the far-left Showbiz411.com. …the numbers stayed around 6 million for three more weeks. But then reality set in: Alec Baldwin as Trump was gone. Trump himself was gone, and with him all acerbic political bashing. The resistance was done. “SNL” suddenly lacked a purpose. It went from being appointment viewing to a pedestrian experience. The fans tuned out. The show’s subsequent ratings drop showcase that assessment, hovering around 3.6 million viewers for the last three original episodes. Pundits can point to several reasons for the fall, from a lack of A-list guests to the show’s famously hit-or-miss creative streaks. Let’s state an obvious reason for the decline. Viewers feasting on every Baldwin/Trump skewering have nothing to savor these days. Independent viewers hungry for timely, balanced satire find attacks on lesser-known Republicans like Reps. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. The show avoided sketches starring President Joe Biden for four straight episodes following his inauguration. Since then, they’ve barely touched the 78-year-old gaffe machine. It’s hard to remain a political comedy destination when you won’t poke fun at the Commander in Chief. That’s precisely what SNL is avoiding, so much so that it drew laughable defenses from two formerly sound news outlets -- USA Today and The Washington Post. Right-leaning SNL fans who tuned out for four Trumpian years might be lured back if it parodied President Biden in any meaningful way. That’s not happening, though. And it’s not like there’s nothing to poke fun at. President Biden treats the fawning press like a vampire avoiding holy water Both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris keep wearing masks even though they’re fully vaccinated The U.S.-Mexican border is a crisis to anyone not donning partisan blinders Biden’s allegedly moderate streak disappeared, replaced by a hard-left persona that would make Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blush. No U.S. president is impervious to satire, unless the point isn’t comedy but propaganda. Late last year, “SNL” was still riding higher in the ratings. The Dec. 5 episode yielded a strong 6.19 figure, while the Oct. 24 installment with Adele generated 5 million viewers. The recent drop comes despite media outlets continually fawning over the show. Reporters share its weekly sketches and highlight every twist and turn the series offers. It’s great publicity, of course, but it’s not having the impact it once had. SNL could still rally when the show returns next month for its final volley of shows for the season. Critics who write the series off do so at their own peril. You can’t survive on broadcast TV for 45-plus years without knowing the secret to longevity. Still, a show that aggressively alienated half the country will struggle to regain its former glory if it treats the Biden administration as a no-joking zone. [Cross-posted from Hollywood in Toto.]
The hosts and journalists on MSNBC are now going out of their way to eviscerate Georgia for its new voter security law. That’s a little awkward if anyone remembers that one of the biggest names at the network — Joe Scarborough — previously mocked media “lapdogs” for pushing Barack Obama’s flimsy “voter suppression” claims. In June of 2013, before Joe Scarborough left the Republican Party officially, he hammered the Obama administration’s claims that calling for voter ID is somehow abhorrent. The Morning Joe co-host sounded like some awful right-winger that his 2021 colleagues now despise: ... Telling somebody they have to bring a photo ID to the voting booth, and comparing that to the poll taxes or comparing that to the literacy test, or comparing that to the outrageous, hateful, despicable things that took place before 1965 – they lose me. And I think they lose most of the American people... Scarborough scoffed “But this administration and the mainstream media that followed right behind like lap dogs, they all put that presumption in people's heads.” On April 4, 2021, co-host Ali Velshi cheered false attacks about Georgia’s new election security law. On April 7, 2021, Washington Post associate editor Eugene Robinson sounded exactly like the people that past-Scarborough was talking about, saying of Georgia and Jim Crow: “If this not a complete and total verbatim repeat of that, it is certainly a very close rhyme.” Someone should tell 2021 MSNBC about 2013 Joe Scarborough. He sure sounds like he supports "voter suppression." For more examples from our FLASHBACK series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.
Friday’s Washington Post splashed a big headline on the front of the Style section with a picture of number-one Fox News host Tucker Carlson and the words “The bully pundit: Fox News host Tucker Carlson often launches attacks on journalists. And once he’s off the air, the zealots who follow him start lobbing hate tweets and death threats.” Radio host Chris Plante made fun on his Friday morning radio show with the obvious point: So it’s dangerous to launch attacks on journalists, but what is this story but a 43-paragraph attack on a journalist? Apparently, no Fox News host can be identified as a journalist. The Washington Post implies conservatives are propagandists, not journalists. This is just the latest in a pile of stories campaigning for Carlson to be canceled by Fox. This was how the story was headlined on the internet: Tucker Carlson villainizes journalists on his top-rated show. Then the threats pour in. As the Fox host’s popularity grows, he has found fodder in lesser-known media figures whom he presents as symbols of liberalism-run-amok Underneath the copy on the front page, the Post put these words in bold type: Fox News host Tucker Carlson has established a pattern of lambasting journalists with far lower profiles than him. The cable network has defended Carlson, saying in one case that ‘no public figure or journalist is immune from legitimate criticism of their reporting, claims, or journalistic tactics.’ They printed that like it was hate speech, like it was offensive. This is a common liberal-media tactic: disparaging conservative media criticism by saying it only encouraged violent Twitter trolls. CNN commonly claimed any attempt to criticize them or chant “CNN sucks” at Trump rallies encouraged violence against journalists. Post media reporter Jeremy Barr lined up examples of threatened liberal journalists – Brandy Zadrozny of NBC News, Virginia Heffernan of the Los Angeles Times, and Taylor Lorenz of The New York Times – letting all those women and their media backers slam Carlson. (Lorenz drew the Fox News statement the Post put in bold type.) Barr briefly mentioned leftists threatening Carlson, or what "he considers" a threat. Carlson’s allies, though, have countered such complaints by noting that the host, too, has been the subject of behavior he considers harassing, such as a boisterous protest outside his Washington home in November 2018 that he found threatening. So getting a Twitter death threat is serious, but a mob outside your home is just a "boisterous protest"? Was it "mostly peaceful"? His wife called the cops. The vast majority of the story sticks to Tucker the Bully Pundit argument. Leftist White House reporter April Ryan pops in toward the end. “I am just a target that he wants to use to gin up his base and the base of Donald Trump in 2024,” she said. “I’ve never targeted Tucker Carlson. I’ve never targeted him. I never said, ‘Oh, go after this person.’ They make personal attacks because they can’t handle the truth." Ryan said she confronted Carlson at the Politicon convention, where both spoke, a few years ago. She said she told him that “basically everything you do has put my life in jeopardy.” The point of this article is that Fox News is a menacing threat, not a news network. It's as anti-Fox as a Brian Stelter rant at CNN. This makes sense, since Barr is a favorite of Stelter's.
On Thursday's PBS NewsHour, host Judy Woodruff pushed the sort of identity politics often employed by liberals as she fretted that it is "sexist" to be sharply critical of a liberal politician if she is a woman, as if men never receive similar scrutiny. The PBS host brought up the issue as she interviewed former Republican House Speaker John Boehner as part of his book promotion tour. Boehner had been criticizing some of his more conservative GOP colleagues in the House who were antagonistic toward him when he was Speaker. While lauding most members of Congress in both parties as well-intentioned. he took another shot at conservatives as he added: "But, you know, there's about 10 percent of Congress that are on the far left and on the far right that have different ideas, you know. They're about creating chaos, conflict, draw attention to themselves, raising cash, and going their own separate ways." After Boehner bashed conservatives twice in his answers to two different questions, instead of making any pushback from the right, Woodruff tried to prod more conservative-bashing as she followed up: Speaking of raising cash, I want to ask you about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. You actually have some good things to say about her. You compliment her toughness -- you say she may turn out to be the most powerful Speaker in history. But my question is: Republicans have raised a lot of money demonizing her. Is that sexist? Boehner -- who has been getting a positive reaction from the liberal media for bashing his own party -- pushed back in this case and defended Republicans: Oh, that's not sexist at all. It's just a lot of Republican voters and independent voters don't really care for her style of San Francisco liberal policies. And so, over the years, you know, became the face of the opposition. Listen, was the face of the opposition for a while -- I know what it's like. Paul Ryan went through this as well. You know, it's politics. It has nothing to do with identify politics in any way, shape or form. As Woodruff followed up, she invited more critiques of Republicans on issues like the Q'Anon conspiracy theory and President Donald Trump's refusal to admit defeat in the election, with no critiques of Democrats. At one point earlier in the interview, after Boehner referred to some of his conservative colleagues as "knuckleheads" for pushing back on his leadership, Woodruff accepted his trashing of conservatives as she followed up: "And you spent a lot of time talking about the knuckleheads, but you're also complimentary. You say most members of Congress are not charlatans. So does it bother you that the public approval of Congress is so low? We just looked at it -- it's in the 30's right now." This episode of PBS NewsHour was paid for in part by Consumer Cellular. You can fight back by letting advertisers know how you feel about them sponsoring such content. Transcript follows: PBS NewsHour April 15, 2021 JUDY WOODRUFF: Which party gave you a harder time when you were Speaker? JOHN BOEHNER, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Oh, hell, it was the Republicans. You know, the Democrats, they were the minority party in the House when I was Speaker. The Republicans -- we were the majority party. And on any given day, I would have 210, 215 solid Republican votes. But in all, I'd probably have two or three dozen knuckleheads that I had to deal with who were part of the "Always Say No Caucus." WOODRUFF: And you spent a lot of time talking about the knuckleheads, but you're also complimentary. You say most members of Congress are not charlatans. So does it bother you that the public approval of Congress is so low? We just looked at it -- it's in the 30's right now. BOEHNER: Well, yes, it does bother me, but those numbers really haven't changed a whole lot over the decades that I've been around. Listen, 90 percent of the colleagues that I've worked with -- Democrat and Republican -- good, honest, decent people trying to do their best for their constituents and for the country. But, you know, there's about 10 percent of Congress that are on the far left and on the far right that have different ideas, you know. They're about creating chaos, conflict, draw attention to themselves, raising cash, and going their own separate ways. JUDY WOODRUFF: Speaking of raising cash, I want to ask you about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. You actually have some good things to say about her. You compliment her toughness -- you say she may turn out to be the most powerful Speaker in history. But my question is: Republicans have raised a lot of money demonizing her. Is that sexist? BOEHNER: Oh, that's not sexist at all. It's just a lot of Republican voters and independent voters don't really care for her style of San Francisco liberal policies. And so, over the years, you know, became the face of the opposition. Listen, was the face of the opposition for a while -- I know what it's like. Paul Ryan went through this as well. You know, it's politics. It has nothing to do with identify politics in any way, shape or form.
On Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher supportively interviewed Sharon Osbourne about cancel culture. Osbourne was canceled after a decade from the CBS show The Talk -- their knockoff of ABC's The View -- after getting in a tense exchange with black co-host Sheryl Underwood about her friend Piers Morgan and his criticism of Meghan Markle. Maher said "You have to agree with everything Meghan Markle says or you are a racist, is this the standard now? Unless you agree with every person of color -- that seems insane." “I’ve been called so many things in my life,” Osbourne told Maher. “I am so used to being called names, but a racist is one I will not take.” “Yeah,” Maher replied. “It’s an insult, if you’re not one.” The controversy went all the way back to 2003, when Osbourne had words with an Iranian-American talent agent over a raffled diamond necklace from her 25th anniversary party, where Osbourne reportedly called Tab a “Persian carpet c—." Osbourne said the woman "crashed" the party, was not invited. Osbourne apologized, but it's still being dragged out in wake of the new racism allegations. After discussing this with Osbourne, Maher said "This idea and culture now that people need to 'reeducate' themselves, indoctrinate themselves I'm sorry, I'm 65, you're 68. I know who I am! I don't need reeducation," Maher continued. "Do you need reeducation? 68, you've been around the world, you're married to a rock star, you've been with all the A-listers and rock 'n' roll. Like, f--- 'em. Like you need to, 'Huh, race, tell me all about it.' It's fantasy." Ruing woke cancel culture. @MrsSOsbourne: “It isn’t about being a racist, it’s about not knowing what is correct and woke for your language that day.” @BillMaher: “You have two choices, if you’re white, you’re either a racist or a racist and you don’t know it.” #RealTime pic.twitter.com/rIev5H18y3 — Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) April 17, 2021 "I'm a fighter, I'm fine, I'm doing just fine but what about the people who are cut from the knees down and they can't afford to go 'get lessons' on what's politically correct and how to talk to people?" she said. "What happens to them? It's not fair, it's not fair because it isn't about being a racist, it's about maybe not knowing what is 'correct and woke for your language that day because it changes from day to day -- what is correct and what isn't." Maher and Osbourne then discussed Robin DiAngelo's controversial book White Fragility, which she was given and said she read. It's touted as a manual for white people to learn they have "white privilege" and have been indoctrinated to think white is better, so stop denying you're racist. "You have two choices if you're White, you're either a racist -- or a racist and you don't know it. I'm not down with that," Maher said. "I know who raised me, I know who my friends are. I know how I've treated people." "That's right. And this thing is, you cannot blanket any race," Osbourne replied. "You cannot -- there's good and bad in every race. You don't blanket."
Stay away from New York City, men in suits and “plutocrats of Park Avenue!” The New York Times doesn’t want you back in town. That was the message on the front of the Thursday Styles section in “Hisses for the Rich Who Fled – As the pandemic eases and wealthy New Yorkers return, they may face resentment.” The 2,000-word rant was penned by Jacob Bernstein, son of Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein and his second wife, journalist and screenwriter, Nora Ephron. In other works, the culturally plugged-in Bernstein found an impressive bunch of likeminded individuals to trash their fellow elitists. While Luke Winkie’s mean-spirited Times essay in March seemed tongue in cheek, Bernstein's wasn't and gave off an ethnocentric, we-don’t want your-kind energy as even a picture caption targeted a specific group: “Men in suits on New York City’s streets again: an unwelcome sight for some.” Bernstein found proudly contemptuous lefties, seemingly unaware that the culture mecca of the country isn’t funded on drag queens and BLM activists, but on revenues generated by the Wall Street types they openly loathe (click “expand”): Even without final data from New York City about how many people remained in the city during the pandemic, an abundance of anecdotal evidence exists about the exodus of its wealthiest residents. At the writer Molly Jong-Fast’s Upper East Side apartment building, less than half a dozen of the 47 units were occupied in April 2020, she said. Mark Armstrong Peddigrew, a personal trainer in Lower Manhattan, said that roughly 85 percent of his clients left town. At Loaves & Fishes Foodstore, a grocer in the Hamptons where lobster salad costs more than $100 a pound, there were 30-minute lines on Thursday mornings during the off season. Now, as the rate of vaccinations increases, the blooming bulbs around the city feel like a metaphor for more than just spring. (Molly Jong-Fast is the left-wing pundit and daughter of feminist author Molly Jong and granddaughter of novelist/communist Howard Fast.) With the city finally starting to reopen, The Times has decided it’s time to settle ideological scores -- not between the haves and have nots, but between the city leavers and those who stayed. Many of Bernstein’s respondents used the pandemic abandonment as an excuse to express hostility toward the people who actually pay an oversized share of the city’s bills through taxes: Bar owner James Dorje Halpern “took great joy in seeing fewer Wall Street types and so-called digital nomads, the sort who’d worked near the meatless meatpacking district for Google or similar.” Another reliable liberal provided an ideological angle (emphasis mine): For Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, one of the biggest was watching people of all shades and stripes take to the streets in droves, having finally woken up to the horrors of police brutality that had been known to her and so many other Black people for centuries. The horror of abortion went unmentioned. Bernstein piled on more sneering contempt for the rich, who apparently weren’t welcome (an odd stance for a liberal newspaper with a wealthy city subscriber base): “The plutocrats of Park Avenue were already receiving pleas in Palm Beach, Aspen and elsewhere to go back whence they came.” Bernstein did allow an actual conservative policymaker to advance an argument, and didn’t even give him a hostile label: Eric Kober, 66, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who specializes in housing policy, said that without the taxes from the rich, the city would likely have to slash social programs and lay off thousands of employees. That, he noted, was what happened in the 1970s, when the city faced a financial crisis and the population dwindled. But he quickly neutralized that feint toward balance with the “former managing director of the Black Lives Matter Global Network” to provide him with this gripe: “In order to dismantle oppressive, exclusive systems, we require the participation of those who have traditionally benefited from the most oppressive practices.”
Always adept at fomenting division and gaslighting MSNBC viewers to hate their political adversaries, network contributor and Princeton professor Eddie Glaude Jr. insisted during Friday's Andrea Mitchell Reports that police shootings in this day and age have continued to terrorize African-American communities because of former President Ronald Reagan. Viewers almost certainly didn't know that Glaude would invoke the Gipper when fill-in host Kasie Hunt wondered how, in context of recent mass shootings and police-involved shootings, "do we figure out how to move forward and have the next iteration of this conversation? What do we need to be focused on right now?" At first, Glaude focused on the trauma families go through in losing a loved one: [N]ot only are there families grieving, but you can imagine, as these images are loop and they’re kind of layered on top of each other, you have to imagine communities, black folk around the country terrorized in interesting sorts of ways and problematic ways by having to see these images over and other again. Not only because they are horrific, but because they generate an occasion for us to worry about our own family members, about our own lives, about our children, our husbands, our wives, our aunts, our mothers, our fathers, that sort of thing. One way to address those fears would be for networks like MSNBC and academics like Glaude to provide context on police shootings and not sensationalize, but that would mean Glaude wouldn't be able to call conservatives racist like did here while also invoking the 40th President: "We have to understand for generations, the age of Reagan what defined by a form of policing black and brown communities that had violence at its core. We thought of these folks as super predators, we thought of 'tough on crime' as the way in which we modeled it." Glaude eventually got around got around to giving a nondescript answer to Hunt's question: You think about the very ways in which our communities have been perceived to justify this form of policing. So, we have to in some ways...challenge the underlying assumptions...in surveilling, containing and surveilling black folk, brown folk. We have to challenge what Melissa [Murray] just suggested. Not challenge, we have interrogate what we mean by public safety when it comes to particular communities. This segment was sponsored by Fidelity. Their contact information is linked. Here is the relevant transcript: MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports April 16, 2021 12:11 PM ET KASIE HUNT: Well, Eddie Glaude Jr., so much pain across -- across the country. Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, now, Chicago. Communities grieving at the loss of -- of -- of -- these -- of pieces of themselves essentially, especially for the family members of the victims here. To Melissa’s point, how do we figure out how to move forward and have the next iteration of this conversation? What do we need to be focused on right now? EDDIE GLAUDE JR: Let me just say Kasie, you're absolutely right. There are -- not only are there families grieving, but you can imagine, as these images are loop and they’re kind of layered on top of each other, you have to imagine communities, black folk around the country terrorized in interesting sorts of ways and problematic ways by having to see these images over and other again. Not only because they are horrific, but because they generate an occasion for us to worry about our own family members, about our own lives, about our children, our husbands, our wives, our aunts, our mothers, our fathers, that sort of thing. So, that's the first thing. The second thing is that we have to understand that for generation -- for generations, the age of Reagan what defined by a form of policing black and brown communities that had violence at its core. We thought of these folks as super predators, we thought of “tough on crime” as the way in which we modeled it. Remember the black box in Chicago emerges out of this framework. You think about ramparts in Los Angeles. You think about the very ways in which our communities have been perceived to justify this form of policing. So, we have to in some ways, Kasie, just very quickly, challenge the underlying assumptions -- HUNT: You got the floor Eddie as far as I’m concerned GLAUDE: -- in surveilling, containing and surveilling black folk, brown folk, right? We have to challenge what Melissa just suggested. We have to -- not challenge, we have interrogate what we mean by public safety when it comes to particular communities.
The White House press corps has never been a fan of guns or the Second Amendment, so it was no surprise on Friday when multiple reporters hammered President Joe Biden and Press Secretary Jen Psaki from their left flank on gun control. In one instance, a reporter compared gun violence to the coronavirus pandemic and demanded their responses be of equal vigor. Capping off his first foreign head-of-state visitor to the White House in Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Biden wrapped up his week with a brief, joint press conference with Suga (which followed the traditional two-and-two model of two reporters from each country’s press corps being called on). The Associated Press’s Aamer Madhani took his shot with a question similar to one he asked Psaki hours earlier, which suggested that Biden made a mistake by focusing on his so-called infrastructure package instead of gun control: Mr. President, in your last press conference, you said successful presidents prioritize and that you were focusing your agenda on one thing at a time. And I’d like to just ask you, what would you say to many Americans who voted for you about the legislative progress on gun control and police reform, having to wait while we pursue infrastructure, given that we continue to see these incidents with mass shootings and also police involved shootings, including the incident a lot of us saw in Chicago most recently. Do you feel any need to reprioritize your agenda? Biden quickly grew angry, saying he’s “never not prioritized to this” and insisted that gun owners not only support “universal background checks,” but also the banning of both “assault weapons” and any gun “that can hold 100 rounds, or 40 rounds, or 20 rounds.” In other words, that would be gun confiscation or criminalize the very act of gun ownership for millions of Americans. Reuters’s Trevor Hunnicutt was the only other White House reporter called on and though he didn’t ask about gun control, his question was also a softball as he gave Biden the floor to provide an “update...on how the talks are going with Iran” amidst the news that Iran has decided to increase uranium enrichment to 60 percent. Reporters from both the U.S. and the visiting country usually each ask a question of both leaders, but that wasn’t the case here as Hunnicutt was the only reporter to work in a question to both leaders. Back in 2017 during President Trump’s first press conference with a foreign leader (then-U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May), he received quite the opposite reception as he went toe-to-toe with a BBC reporter. Back in 2021, Madhani had a narrative to push and, as we said earlier, he first deployed this activist-like line of questioning to Psaki in the 11:00 a.m. Eastern hour (click “expand”): MADHANI: In addition to the awful situation in Indianapolis yesterday, in Chicago, there was a video released of really bad [INAUDIBLE] isn’t a proper word, but chilling video of the police shooting death of Adam Toledo. There’s rough — tensions are running high in Brooklyn Center. The George Floyd trial is still going on. I — I was wondering, does the President regret, you know, prioritizing infrastructure at this point, when this — racial equality and the adjacent issue of gun reform sort of fit in those four buckets that you guys talked about right from the beginning? Is there — is there any regrets on the prioritization? PSAKI: Well first, I would say the President believes that we, leaders, can do more than one thing at one time and yes, we’ve proposed an American Jobs Plan...At the same time, as I just reiterated at the beginning, the President has used the power of his office to put in place, take executive actions, pull his own levers to ensure that we are doing more to address gun violence. At the same time, he’s also working with Congress to move forward on the George Floyd Act. (....) MADHANI: Point taken and on the George Floyd Act, can you offer any details on how exactly — who’s making the calls? What’s being done, from the White House and from the President and Vice President on down, to lobby Congress and make it happen? NBC’s Mike Memoli became a reliable sycophant during the 2020 presidential campaign, so it was no surprise to us when his first Briefing Room appearance during the Biden administration included questions from the left and that bizarre tie-in between the coronavirus pandemic and guns (click “expand”): To follow up on the issue of guns, by some measures this is at least the third mass shooting of this President’s young administration. He’s described this as an epidemic, gun violence in this country, and we’ve seen in terms of the response to COVID-19 what an all of government response from this administration looks like to a pandemic. Why not the same level of response to this ongoing issue of gun violence, the appointing of a senior czar, for instance, beyond just the efforts that are being made on legislation? (....) On legislation, just a few weeks ago, I asked the President if he was going to be making phone calls to Republicans in particular in the Senate to try to advance the background check legislation there. He said he would be willing to, I know the jobs bill has been the priority. Is there more you can say about the kind of outreach he’s been doing on background checks specifically? ABC’s Maryalice Parks likewise sounded like someone from Everytown or the Giffords Center, expressing frustration with hearing Psaki “talk over and over again about the President’s support of the House bills, but right now it just doesn’t seem like they’re — you guys have those votes in the Senate.” Asking whether there’s a chance for “a more limited package,” Parks then urged Psaki to “pitch something a little bit more limited” so that something could “get...across the finish line.” After Psaki blamed Republicans for a lack of new gun control measures, Parks tried again: And you’re saying that — that the executive action that the President took on gun safety were initial steps. You said you used that phrase over and over. So, what’s — what’s next? Give us some preview of what other executive actions you guys are considering because otherwise, it’s just passing the buck to Capitol Hill.
Queerness is so en vogue at the moment! So trendy and cool - now a former Bachelor is cashing in and coming out. The most important news from this week: Former Bachelor Colton Underwood came out as gay. Of course, the public will be dying to know every ounce of detail regarding his incredible story of self-realization. Fortunately for the culture, Netflix will be providing just what the world so desperately needs, a new reality series starring Underwood, the latest gay man. Underwood sent shockwaves around the world on Wednesday, April 14, when he came out as gay on ABC’s Good Morning America in an interview with lesbian Robin Roberts. “I’ve ran from myself for a long time. I’ve hated myself for a long time, and I’m gay. I came to terms with that earlier this year and have been processing it,” he said. Stunning. Brave. Famously known as “The Virgin Bachelor”, the Catholic former NFL player announced that a new Netflix series already in production will document his coming out and life as a gay man. The show will also feature Olympian Gus Kenworthy, a freestyle skier who came out in 2015 and is now Underwood’s gay sidekick. Gayness is apparently a big selling point for Netflix. In actuality, it probably isn’t, but mainstream media would never miss an opportunity to force the homosexual agenda on the American populace. Underwood discussed his Catholic upbringing with GMA and said that as a boy he “learned in the Bible that gay is a sin.” “I’ve know that I’ve been different since the age of 6, and I couldn’t process it and I couldn’t put my finger on what it was until my freshman year of high school when I knew I was gay,” he said. Since then he struggled with being honest with himself, but now is “closer to God” by coming out. “I used to wake up in the morning and pray for Him to take the gay away. I used to pray for Him to change me,” he explained. After finding out he was going to be the 23rd Bachelor, he celebrated the opportunity to find a wife and have children, thanking God “for making me straight.” While the whole world is weighing in on the matter of Underwood’s sexuality, some have been distrustful of the news, seeing it as a publicity stunt, or disingenuous. Others have attacked his character, most notably for the way his relationship with his previous girlfriend from the show panned out. Cassie Randolph, who received the final rose from Underwood, at one point sought a restraining order from him, accusing him of stalking and harassment. She later withdrew her request for the order. Underwood even received backlash for following conservative Candance Owens on Instagram. In some corners, he is not being welcomed as a member of the LGBTQ community because his political views are considered too right-leaning. One particular instance from Underwood’s Bachelor days has resurfaced that takes on new meaning in the wake of his coming out. It is a short moment involving comedian Billy Eichner, who jokingly encouraged him to look into whether or not he is gay. “Maybe you’re the first gay bachelor, and we don’t even know it!” he exclaimed. I’m happy for @colton. If you’re gay, be gay! I’ve been gay forever & I love it! https://t.co/vuDWy7HVap — billy eichner (@billyeichner) April 14, 2021 Unfortunately, the time when The Bachelor features an out member of the LGBTQ community may not be far off.
Unlike the liberal networks, who this week tried to justify and explain the Democratic power grab to try and pack the Supreme Court, Fox’s Chris Wallace on Friday wasn’t having any of it. He unloaded on the “anti-constitutional,” “bone-headed” move, flatly declaring it’s simply “not going to happen.” Appearing on America’s Newsroom, Wallace derided, “I don't think there is a chance in the world that the court is going to be expanded from nine members. First of all, Joe Biden was right back in 1983. It is a bone-headed idea.” Really wanting to be firm, Wallace called on host Dana Perino to “mark this tape” and offered to “eat my hat" if if proven wrong: Look at Joe Biden. He has appointed a commission and hasn't come out against it, but the commission is not going to report and then it’s not offer recommendations. It’s going to report in six months. So this isn't going to happen. I will -- mark this tape. If by 2022 they increase the size of the court I will come back here and eat my hat. Later, Wallace speculated on another possible reason for the plan, to intimidate conservative justices. That, too, he dismissed: There is the argument that's what FDR succeeded in doing when he failed to pack the court back in the 1930s that it intimidated the sitting justices on the court and therefore led to them taking a lighter hand in policing the New Deal. I don't know. I find it very hard to believe that this is going to intimidate Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or -- go on and on, the three Trump justices. I don't think they intimidate very easily. And look, this is an idea that has been roundly discounted not just by the conservatives on the court, by the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg said “nine is a good number.” Breyer said, “You start fiddling with the number of justices on the court –" I don't think it's anti-democratic. I think it's anti-constitutional. In contrast, NBC’s Today on Thursday tried to justify the power grab. Kasie Hunt explained, “The push from progressives to do it now is an effort to dilute a conservative majority that could shape the law for generations.” On Thursday’s Good Morning America, Rachel Scott echoed, “Progressive Democrats say this is absolutely necessary to restore the balance of the Supreme Court.” The perspective and point of view of someone like Chris Wallace has sorely been lacking on the networks. A partial transcript is below. Click “expand” to read more. America’s Newsroom 4/16/2021 10:03 DANA PERINO: Let's bring in Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace. Was it in the debate you moderated you asked the court packing question? At some point along the way you are asking Joe Biden about it and they haven't answered it for a long time. He starts the commission and now this adds a whole new level to the argument. CHRIS WALLACE: Good morning, guys. You know, one of the advantages --- you know this, Dana, from having been around Washington a while, is you just get a feeling in your bones is something serious or is it just a political play? I don't think there is a chance in the world that the court is going to be expanded from nine members. First of all, Joe Biden was right back in 1983. It is a bone-headed idea. There are now six justices appointed by Republicans, three by Democrats. They want to add four. It would be 7 to 6 Democrats. Then, when the Republicans come in they would add 2 and be 8-7 Republican and end up with 75 supreme court justices and it loses any credibility. That's one reason I think it is not going to happen. The other is look at Nancy Pelosi yesterday. “I have no intention of bringing the bill to the floor.” Look at Joe Biden. He has appointed a commission and hasn't come out against it but the commission is not going to report and then it’s not offer recommendations. It’s going to report in six months. So this isn't going to happen. I will -- mark this tape. If by 2022 they increase the size of the court I will come back here and eat my hat. … WALLACE: There is the argument that's what FDR succeeded in doing when he failed to pack the court back in the 1930s that it intimidated the sitting justices on the court and therefore led to them taking a lighter hand in policing the New Deal. I don't know. I find it very hard to believe that this is going to intimidate Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or -- go on and on, the three Trump justices. I don't think they intimidate very easily. And look, this is an idea that has been roundly discounted not just by the conservatives on the court, by the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg said “nine is a good number.” Breyer said, “You start fiddling with the number of justices on the court –" I don't think it's anti-democratic. I think it's anti-constitutional.
On Wednesday, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan had a column headlined "Bad news for journalists: The public doesn’t share our values." A new poll from the so-called Media Insight Project is "disturbing." The pull quote in the Style section is “Only one of five core values touted by journalists also shares support of a majority of Americans.” The list: Oversight. We’re the watchdogs keeping an eye on government officials and other powerful people and institutions. Transparency. We believe it’s best to put information out in the open, not keep it hidden. Factuality. It’s crucial to provide as much accurate information as possible to get to the truth. Spotlighting wrongdoing. We think society’s problems are best solved by exposing them to public criticism. Giving a voice to the voiceless. It’s our job to advocate for those lacking power or social standing. What happens if we pull a Saul Alinsky and hold the media accountable to their own core principles? It's not a good look. At NewsBusters, we're the watchdogs of the press, and we're treated like enemies of journalism, not far from Enemies of the People. The media love anonymous sources, which is not transparency. The Washington Post removed their whole archive from Nexis. They don't want anyone spotlighting their wrongdoing. Let's not even get into precisely who the "voiceless" are that they must represent and defend. Enjoy the podcast below. Or listen wherever you enjoy your podcasts.
Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe was permanently banned by Twitter after he exposed damning bias at CNN. He has announced plans for upcoming lawsuits for both CNN and Twitter. Twitter permanently banned O’Keefe just as videos exposing CNN were going viral on the platform. “In response, O’Keefe says that he is suing Twitter for defamation,” specifically “falsely claiming that he was operating fake accounts,” Fox News host Sean Hannity summarized in an April 15 broadcast. Both O’Keefe and conservative attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon appeared on the episode to “announce our upcoming lawsuit against @Twitter to hold them accountable for their egregious lies and banning of James,” Dhillon summarized in an April 15 tweet. O’Keefe expressed confidence, explaining “we won in the Supreme Court in New York against The New York Times for defamation, and now we’re gonna go ahead and sue Twitter for suspending my account and falsely and maliciously claiming that I did something that I did not do.” O’Keefe proceeded to torch Twitter’s leadership in a statement that could be applied as a condemnation of the liberal media establishment in its entirety: “It's wrong what they’re doing. They defame millions of people. They defame people every day. And we will not lose. In fact, you know, we’re going to get discovery into Twitter's operations. We can't afford to lose. We can't lose. We’ve never lost a lawsuit, and we are going to prove malice here. We’re going to file a complaint on Monday.” O’Keefe suggested that Twitter banned him in a strategic move after his organization “released all of these bombshell recordings into CNN showing them calling themselves propaganda.” In one recording, CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester was caught saying, “Look what we did, we got Trump out. I am 100 percent going to say it, and I 100 percent believe that if it wasn’t for CNN, I don’t know that Trump would have got voted out.” Part of the Hannity segment showed was where Chester admitted that people in CNN strategically ignore that many anti-Asian hate crimes are committed by black men: “I was trying to do some research on like the Asian hate, like the people are getting attacked and whatnot. A bunch of black men that have been attacking Asians. Um, so, I’m like, ‘What are you doing? Like, we are trying to like, help, like, with the BLM.’” He acknowledged that viewers accept the liberal media’s false narratives: “People were, like, lapping up that it was like, you know, white guys for like so long. I don’t — I haven’t seen anything about focusing on the color of people’s skin that aren’t white. They just, they just aren’t saying anything.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact Twitter at (415) 222-9670, on Facebook, on Twitter or by mail to 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, and demand that the platform provide equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
One of America’s oldest newspapers can’t catch a break from Big Tech censorship. Facebook blocked the link to a New York Post story that criticized Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors for purchasing her fourth home. The house reportedly expanded her real estate holdings to $3.2 million. It appears as though her new home is as grandiose as one would expect a fourth home to be. “The self-described Marxist last month purchased a $1.4 million home on a secluded road a short drive from Malibu in Los Angeles, according to a report,” the Post noted. The Post later described the other three homes that Khan-Cullors and her spouse have reportedly purchased in her “real estate binge,” including two other homes in California and one in Georgia. The Post also included several photos of each home. The photos did not appear to include any identifying information, such as a house number or street name. Facebook was apparently unwilling to allow users to call out a “self-described Marxist” on her hypocrisy of owning four homes and blocked the link to the Post’s story entirely. Upon trying to post the article, users were met with an angry red message that said, “Your post couldn't be shared, because this link goes against our Community Standards.” A Facebook spokesperson told MRC Free Speech America “This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy,” Facebook’s statement continued: “The articles shared multiple details which could identify the residence of one of the BLM founders, in violation of her privacy rights.” The Post was founded by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in 1801, according to the outlet. The Post, not created to be “a vanity project” for its founder, was frequently used by the founder to “wage vicious political battles.” The newspaper was also censored in October of 2020, after it published an article that claimed to expose alleged corrupt dealings of then-candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in Ukraine. Twitter blocked the link completely, and locked the Post’s account for 17 days. Facebook deprioritized the story in its algorithm. A study from the Media Research Center revealed that 36 percent of Biden voters were not aware of this story before the election. “Thirteen percent of these voters (or 4.6% of Biden’s total vote) say that had they known these facts, they would not have voted for the former Vice President,” the MRC study noted. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at 1-650-308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to provide clarity on “hate speech,” rules that seem to be applied inconsistently. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
I haven't seen much humor in life during the past year or so, but one thing that has been uproariously hilarious lately is the orchestrated media narrative that President Joe Biden is bipartisan and conciliatory. Please give me a moment to catch my breath. I think it was Karl Rove who recently observed that the media's effective definition of bipartisan legislation is not that significant numbers of both parties' lawmakers support a bill but that some poll somewhere shows that a large percentage of Americans of each party support some vaguely described initiative, even if zero Republican legislators support the actual bill. You can frame a poll question to get the result you want. I can't claim to be prophetic for having warned in my last book that if Democrats were to recapture the presidency, they would launch the most radical agenda in modern times. Indeed, you would have to have been almost blind or willfully naive to think otherwise. Yet never-Trumpers and many Democrats denied the radical wing of the party would have that much influence. But here we are. Saying "I told you so" doesn't give me much solace. Whoever is pulling Biden's strings was able to get him elected using the carefully crafted message that he was a moderate, especially compared with Bernie Sanders. These same puppet masters are now imposing their will, and they mean to complete former President Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of this nation, which is quite fitting considering that he is one of the key masters and probably the main one. Many of us cautioned that they would try to pack the Supreme Court, and complacent scoffers waived their hands at us dismissively. But now Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Jerry Nader are set to offer legislation to add four more seats to the court and fill them with liberal-activist justices who would convert the court to a rubber stamp for the left's unconstitutional measures, rather than maintain it as a critical, nonpartisan check on excesses of the political branches. Do they have your attention yet? Please don't say this is renegade Democratic lawmakers, not Biden. You know better, notwithstanding his previous comments that it would be a "boneheaded" move and a terrible, terrible idea. He's the leader of the party. Then there's Biden's radical reversal of Trump's border policies, which were designed to restore a sane and orderly immigration system. Biden has single-handedly caused a crisis at the border by incentivizing migrants to come here with promises of monetary benefits, health benefits and sanctuary. Why would any nation-respecting president engage in such reckless behavior to the detriment of United States citizens and then pretend that this rush to the border is Trump's fault or the result of certain "root causes" in the migrants' home countries? By root causes, does he mean undemocratic, tyrannical governments -- the kind that he and Democrats are trying to usher in here? And how about their constant stirring of the racial pot? Biden and the Democrats are firmly behind this disturbing wokeness trend now dominating our culture, as evidenced by Biden's nomination of Kristen Clarke to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. As Sens. Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz demonstrated in their questioning of Clarke at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Clarke supported measures to defund the police, despite claiming she now opposes them. Media fact-checkers are scrambling to deny the obvious, but it's pretty hard to sell that narrative when Clarke penned an op-ed titled "I Prosecuted Police Killings. Defund the Police -- But Be Strategic." If Biden (or his handlers) isn't pushing an extremist, race-laced agenda, why would he nominate someone so obviously obsessed with race? As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted, those who are pushing to defund the police are at war with Western civilization. That's not all. Biden's United Nations ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, believes and preaches that the United States is guilty of systemic racism. She told the Human Rights Council that "the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents." She added, "We have to acknowledge that we are an imperfect union -- and have been since the beginning -- and every day we strive to make ourselves more perfect, and more just." She said that this "imperfect union" must approach issues of "equity and justice at the global scale...with humility." She actually told this council, which includes such human rights abusers as China, Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, that the United States needs to "engage trailblazing groups like yours" to "improve." Kind of makes Obama's notorious world apology tour look like a paean to America as founded. Note also Biden's incendiary rhetoric about Georgia's election integrity bill, which is designed not to suppress minority voters, as maliciously claimed, but to ensure fairness in the election process. Biden referred to the law as "Jim Crow in the 21st Century," "Jim Crow on steroids" and "an atrocity." Remember that during Jim Crow, blacks were threatened and beaten, and their houses sometimes burned down, to keep them from voting. The main provisions of the Georgia law impose voter identification requirements for absentee ballots and limit the use of ballot drop boxes. It is undeniably insulting and patronizing to minorities to imply that they can't be expected to produce personal identification to vote. Know that some 70% of blacks reportedly support voter ID laws. If none of this strikes you as particularly radical, then what do you think of Biden's proposed multitrillion-dollar "infrastructure" bill that is only marginally about infrastructure? Trump haters would have us believe that they just wanted to have the adults back in charge of our government. Well, if deliberately bankrupting the United States and destroying the U.S. dollar is adult behavior, I'd prefer adolescents at the helm. As my dad used to say, "There'll be a day of reckoning."
Today on The View, actress Yvette Nicole Brown tried to surpass comedian Chelsea Handler for the most hateful Hollywood hot takes over the Daunte Wright police shooting. While on The View today, the Community actress, who also appeared on several Disney shows and Nickelodeon, claimed that the officer who mistook her gun for a taser was feigning a performance so she could get away with “killing a black person.” Co-host Meghan McCain asked their guest, a fellow gun-owner, how the officer could mistake her gun for a taser, saying she “didn’t buy it.” “Why don’t you buy it either?” McCain asked. The actress described the differences between a glock and a taser before falsely claiming that the white police officer's actions were being described as "no big deal" when that wouldn't happen if she had been a black woman like herself: Had it been me, had I pulled out a gun, pointed it at them, shot them and they died, would I be able to say it was an accident and everybody go, 'No problem Yvette, you're good.' No. So, In my mind, if it would happen to me, I would get a murder charge. Sunny, I know maybe I might not be right legally, maybe it had to be a manslaughter charge. I feel like the way they're handling it, saying it's just a little accident, and you know it's no big deal. It's why Black Lives Matter exist. Co-host Joy Behar cut in to ask Brown why the officer repeatedly warned, "taser, taser" before shooting. But Brown said that was just a feigned performance to try to make her look innocent when she shot Wright. "She was used to just saying what needs to be said to get off, should you kill a black person," the actress accused, without a shred of evidence: You know what Joy? I feel like it's the same reason they say 'why are you resisting?' 'Why are you resisting?' I don't think she was thinking about her um her camera--her body cam being on. I think she was used to just saying what needs to be said to get off, should you kill a black person! So she goes taser, taser, taser. Then she can say, 'Oh I don't know, It was a gun? I don't know.' I just feel like it was like, she was trying to get off. That's what I think. Then just two questions after McCain's, Brown actually bragged about how she was a role model of love and light to kids: I’ve always felt since I started my career on a kid show, I was on "Drake and Josh" on Nickelodeon, I know that kids watch me. I don't have a problem being a role model. I don't have a problem being the kind of person that says maybe we should be kind or maybe we should look out for each other, maybe we should model love. So when I pick my roles, I try to make sure it's one of those babies watching "Drake and Josh" can see and not be confused or concerned. I want them to be able to go that’s 'Helen' and I like what 'Helen' did this time….I just hope that I’m a light and a blessing and an asset everywhere I go. Yes, “maybe” she could start by taking her own advice by not accusing police officers of being malicious racist murderers out to kill black people. You can see more of this love and light Brown displays towards people like President Trump and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in the links provided. Read the transcript below: The View 4/16/2021 MEGHAN MCCAIN: Yvette, it's hard to find anything we all agree on, but we all love you very much. You post a lot on social media about the struggle for social justice. This week the former officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright was charged with second degree manslaughter after the former police chief claimed she mistook her gun for her taser. As a fellow gun owner, you say you don't buy that excuse. I didn't buy it either. Why don't you buy it? YVETTE NICOLE BROWN: I don't buy it because I've held a Glock. I know how heavy a Glock is. There's no way you pick up a Glock and think it's a taser. Also one is yellow. One is black. One is on one side of your body, one on the other. And what I do when stuff like this happens Meghan, I like to switch people. I like to take her out and put me in it. Had it been me, had I pulled out a gun, pointed it at them, shot them and they died, would I be able to say it was an accident and everybody go, 'No problem Yvette, you're good.' No. So, In my mind, if it would happen to me, I would get a murder charge. Sunny, I know maybe I might not be right legally, maybe it had to be a manslaughter charge. I feel like the way they're handling it, saying it's just a little accident, and you know it's no big deal. It's why Black Lives Matter exist. It's why Colin Kaepernick took a knee. All of this stuff is what happens to us. It's enough. I’m tired of them killing us. JOY BEHAR: Yvette, why was she yelling taser, taser, taser then? Why was she yelling that? YVETTE NICOLE BROWN: You know what Joy? I feel like it's the same reason they say 'why are you resisting?' 'Why are you resisting?' I don't think she was thinking about her um her camera--her body cam being on. I think she was used to just saying what needs to be said to get off, should you kill a black person! So she goes taser, taser, taser. Then she can say, 'Oh I don't know, It was a gun? I don't know.' I just feel like it was like, she was trying to get off. That's what I think.
Following the police killing of Daunte Wright in Minneapolis this week, San Antonio Spurs Coach Gregg “Pop” Popovich let loose with another of his anti-Republican eruptions. The Trump hater denounced deplorable NBA owners who donate money to Republicans opposed to gun control and defunding the police. Dan Cancian’s Newsweek sports story recounts Popovich’s volcanic tirade during a press conference, citing the five-time NBA champion who “again blasted politicians who opposed campaigns to reform and, in certain cases, defund the police.” The Spurs coach and gun control advocate said of Wright, "It just makes you sick to your stomach. How many times does it have to happen? [...] That individual is dead. He's dead. His friends and family are grieving. "How many young Black kids have to be killed for no fricking reason? How many? So that we can empower the police unions? … And we just keep moving on. As if nothing’s happening. … I think we’re already in the process of being Rome. It’s over unless we find some leadership and some commonsense and find some people that can steer us in the right direction." Popovich and Cancian then take aim at Republicans -- NBA owners among them -- trying to preserve the Second Amendment.: "The people who continually fight to maintain the status quo are not good people. ... Our governor in Texas, Gov. (Greg) Abbott. It's deplorable. It’s almost impossible to listen to this man speak. You know the other day when guns came up, he actually made the statement again, the old trite myth argument ‘They’re coming for your guns.’ … Nobody’s taking away anybody’s guns, and he knows it. So he’s a liar. … He’ll do whatever he has to do to follow the lead of Donald Trump and the rest of the Republicans. "We need to find out who funds these people. I want to know what owners in the NBA fund these people who perpetrate these lies. Maybe that's a good place to start, so it's all transparent." Cancian obliged Popovich and turned the focus away from the late Wright and onto Republicans opposing gun control. “According to data from the Federal Election Commission, NBA owners donated a combined $14.9 million to Republican politicians overall in the 2020 election cycle,” Cancian wrote. Five NBA team owners, including the Spurs' Julianna Hawn Holt, contributed directly to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, Cancian added. Before angrily stomping out of the virtual press conference, Popovich also blasted Republicans for perpetuating “the big lie” about election integrity and for being complicit in the Jan. 6 incident at the U.S. Capitol. He accused Trump and Republicans of being responsible for COVID-19 deaths and fighting vaccines. And basically ruining the country. Any more questions about why the NBA has an arctic -5 percent favorability rating among Republicans?
After over a year of Democrats and their allies in the liberal media repeatedly demanding trillions of taxpayer dollars be spent on COVID relief and expanding unemployment benefits, on Friday, MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle discovered people were deciding to rely on government checks rather than return to work. She even confronted a top economic advisor for the Biden White House about the troubling trend. “We know people who’ve been out of work are getting the much-needed enhanced jobless benefits from now until September,” Ruhle remarked to White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein during her 9:00 a.m. ET hour show. However, she then revealed the downside of the government doling out that money: “But I want to share with you part of my conversation with a local florist....She is trying to hire some seasonal part-time workers and here’s what she’s up against.” A clip followed of Ruhle talking to small business owner Alex Avdoulos about her floral shop: RUHLE: So when you’re trying to hire people part time, what response are you getting from them? ALEX AVDOULOS [CO-FOUNDER, PETALS AND ROOTS]: Basically, “We’d love to come back to work but we can’t lose our benefits to do so.” RUHLE: But is the issue for them, they can’t take the pay cut? AVDOULOS: That’s right, yeah. I can’t afford to pay them what they need to live, so – and they would be sacrificing their benefits. RUHLE: Do you think it’s not correct that we assume people aren’t coming back because it's health and safety, do you think it’s economic? AVDOULOS: I think it is economic. Turning back to Bernstein, Ruhle wondered: “Is that a problem we can fix?” Bernstein downplayed the “anecdote” and claimed that “from our perspective, we have to see it in the data. And thus far, it’s not something we’ve seen.” Moments later, he asserted: “Now last time we looked at this a few months ago, we couldn’t find much of a correlation between enhanced UI benefits – ” Ruhle cut him off: “But Jared, a few months ago, or even last month, the economy wasn’t really open. So now you have all of these businesses starting to reopen, as we get vaccinated, and try to hire shift workers, low-wage workers, service workers, and they’re saying they can’t.” Of course conservatives and Republicans have been warning about this negative impact for months. Rather than take those concerns seriously, the leftist media have routinely rejected them. Back in February, an MSNBC.com article dismissed the argument completely: There was similar talk along these lines last year, with some GOP lawmakers arguing that more generous benefits for the unemployed will discourage the jobless from re-entering the workforce. The problem with the argument remains the same: given the scope of the economic crisis, and the number of businesses that have been forced to close, there's little to suggest there are vast job openings simply waiting for qualified applicants. It's not that the unemployed want to stay home relying on benefits; it’s that there are simply aren’t yet enough job opportunities. It creates a dynamic in which, for many households, there’s a choice between jobless aid and nothing, not jobless aid and a paycheck. Well, now it’s clear that the job opportunities are out there, but people are bringing in more money from unemployment checks than they would from a job. In addition to scolding GOP opposition to massive entitlement spending, hosts like Ruhle constantly pushed propaganda on the absolute necessity of passing Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, which included the latest unemployment benefit expansion. Her lobbying on behalf of the legislation was so blatant that Bernstein actually expressed his gratitude during a January appearance on her show: “Thank you for your advocacy.” Days later, Ruhle wailed that the choice was either spend trillions or watch the country “bleed to death.” At least now she’s aware that making American workers dependent on government welfare has a cost that can’t always be calculated in dollars. Ruhle’s epiphany was sponsored by Progressive and Fidelity. Here is a transcript of the April 16 exchange: 9:39 AM ET (...) STEPHANIE RUHLE: We know people who’ve been out of work are getting the much-needed enhanced jobless benefits from now until September. But I want to share with you part of my conversation with a local florist for a Nightly News story coming up. She is trying to hire some seasonal part-time workers and here’s what she’s up against. So when you’re trying to hire people part time, what response are you getting from them? ALEX AVDOULOS [CO-FOUNDER, PETALS AND ROOTS]: Basically, “We’d love to come back to work but we can’t lose our benefits to do so.” RUHLE: But is the issue for them, they can’t take the pay cut? AVDOULOS: That’s right, yeah. I can’t afford to pay them what they need to live, so – and they would be sacrificing their benefits. RUHLE: Do you think it’s not correct that we assume people aren’t coming back because it's health and safety, do you think it’s economic? AVDOULOS: I think it is economic. RUHLE: Is that a problem we can fix? JARED BERNSTEIN: Well, first of all, I think we have to distinguish between anecdote and data. They’re both important, by the way, and I’m not dismissing anecdotes. But from our perspective, we have to see it in the data. And thus far, it’s not something we’ve seen. I mean, last month we created – I should say the American economy – created over 900,000 jobs. And you reported earlier that the unemployment claims have been coming down, you know, fairly greatly, still at an elevated level, but coming down pretty reliably in recent weeks. So people are leaving unemployment, people are coming back into the job market and getting jobs at a pretty hefty clip. Now last time we looked at this a few months ago, we couldn’t find much of a correlation between enhanced UI benefits – RUHLE: But Jared, a few months ago, or even last month, the economy wasn’t really open. So now you have all of these businesses starting to reopen, as we get vaccinated, and try to hire shift workers, low-wage workers, service workers, and they’re saying they can’t. BERNSTEIN: Yeah, well, so this is – that’s exactly why we need to continue to look at this. Thus far, what we’re seeing is robust job creation and we’re not seeing a great deal of differences between places where, you know, enhanced benefits have more of an impact than places where they don’t. It’s also the case, though, that we have some hot spots where variants of the virus are rearing up, and so I do think people trying to remain safe is also in the picture. Sorting all of this out is important. And you’re right, Stephanie, we can’t just rely on analysis that’s stale, we have to continue to watch these developments. RUHLE: It is a dynamic situation. (...)
We all want healthy air and to save endangered animals, but tone deaf journalists have no idea how deranged it sounds to hint that a global, human-killing pandemic might really be the key to saving our planet. Three million people are dead, but Friday's CBS This Morning touted “nature celebrating” as the world does “better” in the wake of the coronavirus. The CBS crew interviewed naturalist David Attenborough about his new documentary making the same point. Co-host Tony Dokoupil awkwardly cheered, “That's nature celebrating there. A new documentary reveals the astonishing way nature flourished as the world went into lockdown during the pandemic.” In a clip, Attenborough enthused, “But as we stop, remarkable things start to change in the natural world. Clearer air. Cleaner waters. And animals starting to flourish in ways we hadn't seen for decades.” Of course, when media types say “we stopped,” they really mean millions and millions died a painful death. Promoting the upside to all the death, Dokoupil added, “You have long maintained that the wild, the wild on this planet will survive with us or without us. I guess during these lockdowns we kind of got proof.” Attenborough one-upped his interviewer, minimizing the human suffering: “Yes. Not just survive, [Earth] does better.” On April 1, NBC’s Today sounded the same disdain for humans, trumpeting that “Earth got a break.” Talking to a University of Miami professor, reporter Kerry Sanders used the word “gift” to refer to the global killer that wrecked economies and put millions out of work: “Nobody would have wanted to see this pandemic, but from a science standpoint, the data you have collected is a gift.” CBS’s appalling, tone deaf contempt for humanity was sponsored by Chevrolet and Toyota. Click on the links to let them know what you think. A partial transcript is below. Click “expand” to read more. CBS This Morning 04/16/2020 8:40 AM ET TONY DOKOUPIL: That's nature celebrating there. A new documentary reveals the astonishing way nature flourished as the world went into lockdown during the pandemic. The Year Earth Changed is narrated by the legendary natural historian Sir David Attenborough. SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH: Overnight our lives are put on pause. But as we stop, remarkable things start to change in the natural world. Clearer air. Cleaner waters. And animals starting to flourish in ways we hadn't seen for decades. DOKOUPIL: I have two more examples in a non-David Attenborough voice from the film. With no humans on the beach, the testing success rate for loggerhead sea turtles jumped to 61 percent. That is the highest scientists have ever seen. And in San Francisco with car traffic down, white crowned sparrows are singing new notes. Researchers hope the bird will have their best mating season in years. Earlier this week, we spoke with sir David and the documentary's executive producer, Mike Gunton about nature's remarkable rebound. Sir David, I want to begin with you. I have a little piece of paper that says you can be called only David. But you'll remain sir to me. GAYLE KING: Yes. DOKOUPIL: If you don't mind. You have long maintained that the wild, the wild on this planet will survive with us or without us. I guess during these lockdowns we kind of got proof. DAVID ATTENBOROUGH: Yes. Not just survive, it does better. As you might imagine. Less noise, less fume in the air, more space. What more do you want if you're a wild animal? So natural history of the creatures around us, they've flourished by and large this last year. ANTHONY MASON: Your crews also filmed humpback whales in Alaska where the cruise industry was shut down. What was the impact, and what did you see with the whales? ATTENBOROUGH: By and large, every animal has done better without us. And that's not surprising. In this instance, the whales were able to communicate again with their young and much better than they were in the past. So the young could hear the parents, some distance away, and the parents didn't mind going away, and that's why whales have been doing very much better. (....) DOKOUPIL: Sir David, back to you. I think the lesson from this footage is that small changes in our behavior can have a huge impact on nature. That is the lesson. Do you think we're learning it or have learned it as a planet? ATTENBOROUGH: Biologists have known that all the time. By and large, men, human beings are the last arrival biologically out of this planet. And to sort of edge our way into it by pushing animals aside. We've only got to stop for a few months and suddenly the natural world will benefit.