WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump brushed off criticisms that he is too focused on foreign policy on Monday, arguing that the president of the United States has an obligation to “watch over the world” or risk being dragged into world wars. “I have to view the presidency as a worldwide situation, not locally,” he explained. “We could have a world that’s on fire, where wars come to our shores very easily if you had a bad president. “When you’re president, you really have to watch over the world because you’re going to be dragged into it otherwise. You’re going to be dragged into a world war.” Trump was responding to a question about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a longtime ally of Trump, who argued in a Monday morning Truth Social post that Trump should focus on domestic policy, rather than foreign policy. “I would really like to see nonstop meetings at the WH on domestic policy not foreign policy and foreign country’s leaders,” she said. “Start by hauling in the health insurance company’s executives and let’s start formulating our Republican plan to save America from Obamacare and ACA tax credits that have skyrocketed the cost of health insurance!” The president paused a moment before addressing Greene’s criticisms, as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday afternoon. President Trump: “I have to view the presidency as a worldwide situation, not locally. We could have a world that’s on fire, where wars come to our shores very easily if you had a bad president…when you’re president, you really have to watch over the world because you’re going… pic.twitter.com/qDbqsFzSrC — Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) November 10, 2025 “I don’t know what happened to Marjorie,” he said. “She’s a nice woman, but I don’t know what happened, she’s lost her way, I think.” He pointed out that he passed the “Great Big Beautiful Bill” that includes the “biggest tax cuts in the history of our country.” The president suggested that Greene is “catering to the other side” with such remarks, saying, “I’m surprised at her… when somebody like Marjorie goes over and starts making statements like that, it shows she doesn’t know.” If China had refused to give magnets, the president explained, there would not be a “car made in the entire world,” because magnets are so important. He suggested that most people don’t understand the immense importance of magnets to the economy, and pointed out that he had warned China he would impose a 158% tariff if they did not cooperate with the U.S. “China called up immediately and said we will make peace,” Trump said. “We made peace. We made a great deal…China is paying tariffs to the United States, not the United States paying tariffs to China, which has always been the way it was… so when somebody makes a statement about ‘he’s devoting time to the world,’ well, the world is the United States. Because if the world is in trouble, or if the world is ripping us off…our country is doing very poorly.” “So you know, it’s easy to say don’t worry about the world, but the world is turning out to be our biggest customer,” Trump added. “The world was on fire. And we could have been in that fire very easily if you didn’t have a president that knew what he was doing.” Trump also shared that his Monday meeting with Syria’s president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, which Greene specifically criticized, went well, calling the Syrian president a “very strong leader” who comes from a “very tough place.” “Tough guy,” Trump said of al-Sharaa. “I like him… we’ll do everything we can to make Syria successful, because that’s part of the Middle East. We have peace now in the Middle East. First time that anyone can remember that ever… If you look back at Syria for years, they had the doctors, the lawyers, and they had so many of the great intellects, and it’s an amazing place with great people. And we want to see Syria be successful like the rest of the Middle East. So I have confidence that he’ll be able to do the job.” He told reporters that they can expect to see an announcement on Syria. “We want to see Syria become a country that’s very successful,” he added. “And I think this leader can do it. I really do. I think this leader can do it. And people said he’s had a rough past. We all have rough pasts, but he has had a rough past.” “He gets along very well with Turkey, with President Erdogan he’s a great leader,” Trump added. “Erdogan is a great leader. And very much in favor of what’s happening in Syria. We have to make Syria work. Syria is a big part of the Middle East, and I will tell you, I think it is working really well. We’re working also with Israel on, you know, getting along with Syria, getting along with everybody, and that’s working amazingly.” The White House didn’t immediately respond to the Daily Wire’s requests for comment on calls for Trump to pressure al-Sharaa to end the blockade on humanitarian aid to religious minorities in southern Syria. The Daily Wire first reported on Saturday that dozens of American faith leaders were calling on Trump to “address directly the massacre of Christians, Kurds, Druze, and Alawites in Syria, notably in the greater Suwayda area.” “These religious minorities face ongoing violence, death, displacement, starvation, and water and medical deprivation, all while innocent women and children are held hostage by ISIS terrorists,” the faith leaders wrote. Trump has been hailed for his successes in foreign policy, with many suggesting he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to negotiate peace deals around the world.

'We were rocking from side to side and the bus fell over'

'Obama needed to hit the White House Correspondents’ Dinner'

The following content is sponsored by Charter Communications. This Veterans Day, Charter Communications is proud to recognize and honor those who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. The work ethic, tenacity, and leadership skills exhibited by veterans extend into every area of their lives, making them an invaluable part of the Charter team […]

News Pluribus Vince Gilligan Breaks Down the Meaning Behind Pluribus’ Strange Title Though the show’s title has roots in American history, Gilligan insists Pluribus isn’t entirely about the United States. By Matthew Byrd | Published on November 10, 2025 Photo: Apple TV Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: Apple TV Thankfully, it seems like people are starting to realize that Vince Gilligan’s new Apple TV series Pluribus is one of the best new shows of the year (and possibly quite a few other years). It’s odd that a new Vince Gilligan show wasn’t automatically the most anticipated new series of 2025, but Pluribus’ somewhat slow rollout can partially be attributed to the desire to keep as many details about the series secret for as long as possible. The fact is that we knew very little about the show ahead of its release date. It’s a strategy that’s good for maintaining the purity of the actual viewing experience, though it arguably ensured Pluribus would become something of a word of mouth sensation. The mysteries of Pluribus extended to the meaning of the show’s title. It’s an unusual name to say the least and one that prompted many theories leading to the series’ debut. It’s also a title that gave Gilligan quite a few headaches. “This was the single hardest thing I’ve ever created, to title,” Gilligan said in an interview with Techradar. “It took years to come up with this title. Breaking Bad came easily, Better Call Saul came even quicker, and El Camino, that wasn’t hard either.” According to Gilligan, the writing team started kicking around the title Pluribus “pretty early on.” Gilligan at least softly rejected the name each time until he relented a couple of years in and decided to embrace the odd title. “Now that it’s out in the world,” says Gilligan, “It seems to me like, yeah, ‘Why was that so hard?'” That’s fine, but what the hell does Pluribus actually mean? “It’s a tip of the hat to the unofficial motto of America, ‘E pluribus unum’,” Gilligan explains. “It means ‘Out of many, one’.” To be fair, that has long been the most popular theory about the show’s name. Not only is it the most literal translation of Pluribus’ meaning, but it makes sense within the thematic context of the sci-fi series. In Pluribus, Carol is one of only a handful of humans in the world unaffected by a bizarre event that has turned most other people into mere parts of a collective consciousness. However, Gilligan says you really shouldn’t read too much into the United States’ historical association with that phrase. “But the show is not intended to be just American,” Gillgan clarifies. “I really want this to be a show for the whole world, and I liked the idea of out of many, one, in reference to the democracy of the United States, but also out of many people from all around the world, one.” Without getting into spoilers, Pluribus certainly explores the idea that Carol is… unique in her views on the world, even among those who lived through the global event without losing their individuality (such as it is). Interestingly, Gilligan has had to clarify a few things during his extended press tour regarding what Pluribus is and isn’t. He told The Ringer its timing with the COVID-19 pandemic is merely a production delay coincidence, and he’s insisted that it’s not entirely a show about how the adoption of generative AI technology will affect culture (though he’s made it clear he is not a fan of said technology). Instead, Gilligan sees Pluribus as a different kind of apocalyptic show that tries to find a ray of hope at the end of everything. So… ok, it’s a little about America, but not entirely, you know? [end-mark] The post Vince Gilligan Breaks Down the Meaning Behind <i>Pluribus</i>’ Strange Title appeared first on Reactor.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. There’s been a lot of controversy recently about antisemitism and the threat that it poses to the United States at large. And it’s been very controversial because, this time, it’s not the well-acknowledged and well-known left-wing antisemitism, what we see on campuses where people are yelling, “River to the sea,” or they’re chasing Jews into a library, or they’re tearing down pictures of the Israeli hostages—what we’ve seen for the last two years. It’s on the right. And it came to the fore this week, when Tucker Carlson, on his platform, gave an interview or had an interview with the known antisemite and at one time pro-Nazi Nick Fuentes. Very young man. Never written much. He is not an activist with anywhere near the audience of Charlie Kirk. But he’s well-known. He’s glib. And Tucker had him on. Now, that caused an enormous controversy because of the things that Fuentes has said in the past. He’s supported going after Jews, suggesting that they’re behind many of the nefarious cabals or conspiracies that take place, that they’re not really white people. He’s attacked Vice President JD Vance and his wife because she’s Indian and they named their children with Indian first names. I could go on and on. That record is well documented. Tucker chose, nevertheless, to interview him. Now, the problem was that this was not in isolation. He had the World War II revisionist Darryl Cooper. He wasn’t a historian. Tucker said he was the most prominent in historian writing today in America. That was not true. He has never written an article or a book about World War II. But he is known for suggesting that a cabal in the United States—and you know who that is—had unduly influenced the Roosevelt administration to ally with Russia over, either keeping neutral or allying, as a later guest, David Collum, suggested, allying with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Many of the things that Cooper said, as I have addressed in writing and in podcasts, were demonstrably untrue. So, there was a backstory there. So, when Tucker had Nick Fuentes have this wide platform—he has a big audience—the question was, why are you doing this? And if you wanna have an edgy guest, you have to be very careful, radical Left or radical Right. They get prominence because they’re usually rhetoricians, they’re orators, they’re demagogues, and they’re adept at speaking. And when William F. Buckley on his famous “Firing Line” had such people, he took a great risk. Eldridge Cleaver, one of the founders of the Black Panther Party, a convicted felon, a serial rapist. Ditto, Huey Newton, who shot and killed someone, on the show. William Shockley, the eugenicist Buckley had on. George Wallace, the at one time segregationist. But Buckley did something different than Tucker did. The point was not to give them an unfiltered platform, without disagreement or counter examination or rebuttal, but to show everybody that these ideas were not only dangerous but could be easily refuted. So, Buckley constantly cross-examined them—something Tucker didn’t do, which poses another question. He had an interview in the same format with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a fellow conservative. At one time, they were very close. And yet, Tucker used all of his knowledge, his wit, his repartee and cross-examined Cruz unmercifully. And he came with data. He drilled him on the population of Iran. “Don’t you know that?” What I’m getting at is, why would you give an interview with a conservative senator who agrees 90% with what you do, and yet, try to cross-examine him and interrupt him and make him look foolish? If that’s what you want, that’s a free country. But why not use that same technique on someone who is well beyond the limits of acceptable discourse, somebody who’s called openly for racist punishment and for ostracism of blacks and Jews? And why not just show the world what Nick Fuentes was and is? But he didn’t do that. Why is this happening? Why are we having Candace Owens saying there’s a ring of Jews in Hollywood? Why are we having Nick Fuentes get this sudden prominence? Why these World War II revisionist historians? I think part of it is the Left has so mainstreamed antisemitism, as we see on college campuses, and really said, you know, that if you’re Jewish, you’re for Israel, and if you’re for Israel, you’re for genocide, and demonize and threaten the safety of Jews that people on the right felt, well, the Left has sort of taken down the restrictions on what we can say and do. And we’re gonna take advantage of it and do what they’re doing. We, antisemites on the right, are going to join the freedom—allow the antisemitism on the left. There’s demography too. The Jewish population is not as big as it is. It’s only about 7 million. And a lot of Jews are nonobservant or they’re part of the melting pot, natural process of assimilation and acculturation. In contrast, the Arab and Muslim population is approaching 3.5 or 4 million, and it’s scheduled to take over from Jews. And they are located—these populations—in key electoral, swing states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. And a lot of people think: You know what? We have to give a certain leeway to antisemitic ideas expressed by this particular Muslim or Arab group because the Jewish so-called lobby is not as strong as it was. It’s going the way of the Greek lobby. In other words, a really important group of Greek Americans used to ensure that Greece was treated fairly. And now they’re intermarried. And immigration has stopped from Greece. Maybe that’s a reason as well. But there’s one other key reason why we’re seeing this really dangerous antisemitism emerge on the right. I wanna say, first of all, there is a right-wing antisemitism different than the left-wing. Left-wing antisemitism is usually found among elites. It’s in the university. It has a lot to do with the Middle East in its current manifestations. And usually, it’s Marxist. In other words, that the Jews are sneaky middlemen that control the economy comes right out of the mouth of Karl Marx. And this was what the Soviets were. Josef Stalin was an antisemite. And so, we know what that is, that they are settler colonialists, that they’re white victimizers on this Marxist binary the Left has established. The right wing is a little bit different. It persecutes and demonizes Jews on the grounds that, well, these are Christ killers. They’re responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Or they are not completely white, they’re of a different race. It’s a little bit more virulent, a lot more virulent. Therefore, it’s more easily identifiable. The Left is more insidious because it’s practiced in a creed of the elite and the educated, supposedly. But there’s this one key thing that’s going on that is allowing these people to come forward. And when they come forward and they’re mainstream, then elected officials like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., or former advisers like Steve Bannon, Candace Owens—people get into the mix. And I think the reason for the rise of antisemitism is an element, the isolationist base of the MAGA movement, felt that it was the driving force, and that it was going to be isolationist and we were not going to get involved in the Middle East. And they were very suspicious of what they call neocons and what they call Christian Zionists. As Tucker said, he hates Christian Zionists over any other people. Even Osama bin Laden? Al-Qaeda? ISIS? I don’t know. But they were losing influence. President Donald Trump proved that he is not a neoisolation. He’s a Jacksonian. Targeted strikes to preserve and enhance U.S. deterrents. Take out Qasem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Take out the nuclear facilities in Iran. But one-shot deals, where we’re not involved in a forever war. And they felt that he was being unduly influenced, the way, in the past, maybe Roosevelt or Truman had been unduly influenced by Jews, either to ally with Russia or to help found the state of Israel. And therefore, our relationship with Israel showed the influence of Jewish advisers. But when you look at the Jewish advisers, they’re some of the most prominent, important, brilliant people in the MAGA movement. Stephen Miller, special adviser to the president. Jared Kushner and Steven Witkoff were the architects of the Gaza ceasefire. Howard Lutnick was very prominent, the campaign’s secretary of commerce. I don’t think we’ve ever had a better EPA director than Lee Zeldin. So, there’s not a secret cabal of Jews that is pulling strings. They’re open, transparent, they’re part of the MAGA movement. And let me just finish with Israel. This demonization that Israel is driving U.S. foreign policy—it’s not. And they always talk about the neocons and the Iraq War. Dick Cheney and George Bush and Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice—this was the inner circle of the Bush team. And they made the argument, and went before Congress, that we should take out Saddam Hussein preemptively. There was not any Jewish people that had authority to make that decision. Richard Perle, David Frum, Max Boot—maybe they were advisers, but there was no neocon cabal. And then when you look at Israel, Israel opposed the Iraq War. They felt that it was a misdirection in Western resources. The real enemy, if you were going to do something—and they weren’t going to advise that—would be Iran, rather than Iraq. If we look at Israel, in conclusion, it’s a constitutional consensual society in a sea of 500 Muslims that live under autocracy. There’s 2 million Arab citizens inside Israel and they have the same rights as Israeli citizens. There’s 180,000 Christians. There’s more Christians inside Israel than anywhere in the West Bank and probably more than anywhere in the Arab world. And they have full rights. Everybody says—these people on the Tucker program saying, “Jewish state, it’s a Jewish state.” What do you think that the 50-plus nations surrounding them are? They’re Islamic states. But the difference is they’re autocratic and unfree. Israel is a liberal society. It’s our best friend. We would not have been able to take out the Iranian nuclear threat to the West—and by the way, it wasn’t just Israel’s idea, the Europeans were terrified of it, we were too—if the Israel Defense Forces’ air force had not first neutralized the air defenses of Iran. And when you look at the people who have killed Americans—hundreds of them—it was Hezbollah blowing up the Marine barracks in 1983, blowing up the U.S. Embassy. The Israelis took out and nullified and made inert Hezbollah. We were attacking the Houthis independently. Israel has done more damage to them—the common enemy—than we have. So, the alliance with Israel is not anti-U.S. interest. It’s in our interest, whether you’re idealistic, and you should be, that we support fellow free nations that have constitutional government, and treat their citizens equitably and fairly, and protect their civil rights, or you believe, strategically, that we have a small number of very important allies. Allies that are muscular, strong, and they have the similar interests as we do, both in Europe, Japan, South Korea. In that small number of allied nations, Israel is preeminent. Let me just conclude, then. Empirically, there is no evidence that World War II—we should have allied with the Germans or that we did something wrong in World War II. It was a heroic effort. We defeated fascism. We defeated Japanese militarism. We defeated Nazism. The Axis killed over 30 million Russians, Chinese, Jews, Eastern Europeans, civilians, well aside the military lives that they were responsible for taking. So, there’s no need for World War II revisionism. There’s no need to say that the wars that we’ve been in in the past were prompted by Jews or secret cabals. There’s no need to demonize Jews by having Nick Fuentes on a program without cross-examination. And what do we as conservatives on the right do? I think we have to speak out, according to our station, anytime we see this recrudescence of antisemitism and say, it’s not founded on history, it’s not founded on logic. And some of the most valuable citizens in the conservative movement, as well as the United States at large, are Jewish Americans. And we’re very lucky to have such people. And the worst thing that the conservative movement and Republicans in particular could do would be to allow this antisemitic virus—that’s a term that they often use. But it’s a virus. It’s a disease. It’s a morbidity. We cannot let it spread. And it’s past time to stop it. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Confronting Conservative Antisemitism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It looks like there’s big, Trump-sized trouble in store for the BBC. On Monday, President Donald Trump threatened the government-funded British Broadcasting Corporation with a $1 billion lawsuit over its broadcasting of an edited version of his speech near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The BBC edit made it look like Trump was directly calling for violence that day. The Telegraph blew up the story after it revealed an internal BBC document provided to them by a whistleblower found that the clip was highly misleading to the public. ? EXCLUSIVE: The BBC is accused of editing a Trump speech to make him seem to back the Capitol riot.A whistleblower memo says Panorama “completely misled” viewers by cutting key linesWatch @gordonrayner’s full breakdown ?? pic.twitter.com/A6nngI44Ll— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) November 3, 2025 “The dossier said the programme made the US president ‘”say” things [he] never actually said’ by splicing together footage from the start of his speech with something he said nearly an hour later,” the Telegraph reported. That wasn’t all. The BBC standards committee also found that the media outlet had been rampantly publishing Hamas propaganda as fact. In the last two years, Telegraph reported, BBC had to correct 215 stories related to the Israel/Hamas conflict, about two a week. To top in all off the internal review found that a group of pro-LGBTQ reporters effectively use their own censorship of the issue and clamp down on any reporting that conflicts with their worldview. This has led to, according to the internal report, “a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories … celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity.” BBC didn’t deny the report and admitted that it made an “error of judgment” with the edited Trump speech. I’d say this is all shocking but not surprising. Still, the situation was apparently bad enough that on Sunday Director General Tim Davie and other members of BBC leadership resigned. Former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss demanded the end to “nationalized broadcasting” on X. I'm glad the US President and the rest of the world are seeing the BBC for what it is.Its failure to tell the truth on everything from transgender ideology to economics to Gaza has done huge damage to politics and government in this country.This should be the end of… pic.twitter.com/3pnUAZojnc— Liz Truss (@trussliz) November 9, 2025 This scandal, really set of scandals, is particularly rich given the viciously censorious state of the U.K. In the last few years, British citizens have been arrested for opposing LGBTQ ideology on social media, they’ve been hounded by police, and are indeed going on a “very dark path” as Vice President J.D. Vance said in August. This while their own state funded media is clipping together deceptive clips of the American president, carrying water for an Islamist terror organization, and squelching criticism of transgender ideology. Reform U.K. leader Nigel Farage has compared the UK’s increasing censorship to North Korea and other tyrannical regimes. Maybe it’s hyperbole, but that assessment gets worryingly closer to the mark every day. No surprise, left-leaning media was full of excuses for BBC and tried to make the story about mean old Trump and the Right picking on a venerable, but benighted media organization. Many are angry that the BBC has responded at all to the Telegraph and Trump. Pay no attention to the bias—and in some cases dishonesty—they seem to be saying, just let it slide because everyone knows Trump is just the worst. “If the papers keep saying the BBC is lying to you, that it’s biased, people start believing it.” Has the BBC’s Trump edit error been blown out of proportion because of deeper motivations, asks @maitlis.@jonsopel | @lewis_goodall pic.twitter.com/bjLwVMfX6e— The News Agents (@TheNewsAgents) November 10, 2025 One writer in the leftist Guardian acknowledged that mistakes were made at the BBC, but raged that the “political campaign against the publication “could act as a textbook example of how to confuse and undermine the kind of journalism that is, at the very least, aiming for impartiality in a sea of spin and distortion.” This is all incredibly revealing about what’s gone wrong with so many Western institutions. They have become, especially in recent years, hopelessly biased and monolithic in their political culture. Issues that divide the public or are considered incredibly toxic are taken as a given in elite institutions like the media. Any opposition to what they see as a self-evident truth, like that a man can become a woman if he feels like it, is treated as unacceptable bigotry. Publications like BBC skew their coverage very much leftward, but act confused and bewildered when they are told they are biased. Big changes are happening in the U.S. as at least some of the woke fever dream of the post-George Floyd era is starting to end. Americans made it clear that they see through it and won’t tolerate this dynamic anymore. Americans finally pulled the plug on its own publicly funded media when it defunded NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting this year. Their bias had been laughably obvious for a long time, but I suppose good on Republicans in Congress for finally cutting the taxpayer funded gravy train as they should have done long ago. That pivot point hasn’t arrived in the U.K. yet. BBC continues to receive significant public investment, though its royal charter ends in 2027. Some have argued that BBC needs to reformed rather than be defunded. While I’m not British, I disagree with that strategy. During an age in which so many institutions—including and perhaps especially public media—have dropped any pretense of balance, one can’t expect the people to keep forking over their money to organizations that seemingly want people like themselves to disappear. And it should be clear at this point that these institutions are resistant to even admitting that they have a problem. They become increasingly strident until faced with a crisis or reckoning—usually in the form of a collapsing business model or a sudden rug pull of taxpayer money. Only then are even the most minor changes made. So perhaps the U.K. will defund the BBC as the U.S. defunded NPR. It would be a good first step toward abandoning the censorship regime that’s been hiding in plain sight. The post BBC Should Go the Way of NPR After Trump J6 Speech Deceptive Edits Scandal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Trimming your dog’s nails can feel intimidating, especially when you’re worried about cutting too deep. A dog nail clipper with safety guard takes the guesswork out of this essential grooming task. We at DogingtonPost know that 73% of dog owners avoid nail trimming due to fear of injury. The right safety guard clipper changes everything by preventing overcutting and building your confidence with each trim. Which Safety Guard Clipper Works Best Safety guard clippers come in three main designs that work differently for various situations. Guillotine-style clippers with safety guards feature a small hole where you insert the nail, but these perform poorly for large dogs with thick nails and often crush rather than cut cleanly. Scissor-type clippers with built-in guards offer the most versatility and precision, which makes them the top choice for dogs over 30 pounds. Grinder tools with safety attachments provide the smoothest finish but require more time and patience from both you and your dog. Size Matters More Than Brand Small breed dogs under 25 pounds need clippers with narrow openings and shorter safety guards to accommodate their delicate nails. Medium dogs (between 25-60 pounds) require standard-sized clippers with adjustable safety positions. Large breeds over 60 pounds need heavy-duty models with extended safety guards that can handle nails up to 8mm thick. Research shows that nail clipping occurs in 5.64% of cases annually, with certain breeds showing higher odds for requiring professional nail trimming services. Quality Features That Make the Difference Sharp stainless steel blades rated at 3.5mm thickness cut cleanly without splitting nails, while cheaper carbon steel dulls quickly and causes painful crushing. Non-slip rubber grips prevent accidents during squirmy sessions, and locking mechanisms keep blades closed during storage. The safety guard must be adjustable or removable because fixed guards often position incorrectly for different nail shapes. Quality models include integrated nail files and come with replacement springs, since the spring mechanism typically fails after 200-300 uses (according to veterinary equipment studies). Testing Your Clipper Choice Test your chosen clippers on a single nail first to assess how they handle your dog’s specific nail thickness and hardness. Some dogs have softer nails that compress easily, while others have dense, horn-like nails that require more cutting force. The safety guard should align perfectly with your dog’s nail diameter without gaps that allow overcutting. Once you’ve confirmed the right fit and function, you can move forward with confidence to prepare your dog for the actual trimming session. How Do You Actually Use Safety Guard Clippers Start the session when your dog feels calm and relaxed, ideally after exercise or a meal when they naturally show less energy. Place your dog on a non-slip surface at waist height, which gives you better control and prevents your back from strain during longer sessions. Have styptic powder within arm’s reach because even safety guards can’t prevent every accident, and blood typically stops within 5 minutes when you treat it immediately. Position Your Dog for Maximum Control Smaller dogs work best when you wrap them gently in a towel with one paw exposed, while larger dogs should lie on their side with you next to them. Grip each toe firmly between your thumb and forefinger, and apply steady pressure that prevents the nail from movement during the cut. The safety guard must sit perpendicular to the nail with the blade closest to you, not away from you. This position prevents the common mistake of cuts at wrong angles that can split or crush nails. Make Precise Cuts with Confidence Cut only 2-3mm at a time in small increments rather than attempt one large cut. Watch for the gray-pink oval that appears at the nail tip after each cut, which signals you approach the quick. Stop immediately when you see this oval because the next cut will hit sensitive tissue. Dark nails require extra caution since you can’t see the quick, so make cuts every 1mm and check between each snip. Overgrown nails are among the most common reasons for veterinary visits related to nail clipping. Monitor Your Dog’s Response Your dog’s body language tells you everything about their comfort level during the process. Panting, trembling, or attempts to pull away indicate stress that requires immediate breaks. Reward calm behavior with treats between each successful cut to build positive associations. Some dogs vocalize when they feel pressure on their nails, which doesn’t necessarily mean pain but shows they need slower, gentler handling. Even with perfect technique and quality safety guards, accidents happen to experienced groomers, which makes preparation for potential mishaps your next priority. What Warning Signs Mean You’ve Gone Too Far The most obvious warning sign appears as a small pink center at your freshly cut nail, which means you’ve reached the quick and must stop immediately. This dot indicates blood vessels that will bleed with any additional cuts. Light-colored nails show a pink area that darkens as you approach the quick, while the nail itself changes from white to grayish-pink. Your dog’s reaction provides equally important feedback: sudden withdrawal, whimpers, or lifted paws signal discomfort that requires immediate attention. Handle Blood Loss Like a Professional Apply styptic powder directly to the nail tip with a cotton swab or your finger, and press firmly for 30-45 seconds until blood stops completely. Cornstarch or flour work as emergency alternatives when styptic powder isn’t available, though they take longer to be effective. Never use tissue or bandages on nails because they stick to the wound and cause more damage when removed. Most nail injuries stop within 5 minutes, but monitor your dog for the next hour to check for renewed blood flow. Nail injuries heal completely within 7-10 days when treated properly from the start. Watch for Stress Signals During Sessions Dogs communicate discomfort through body language before they vocalize pain. Heavy panting, tremors, or attempts to escape indicate stress that requires immediate breaks. Excessive drool or wide eyes show anxiety that makes accidents more likely. Some dogs freeze completely when overwhelmed, which owners often mistake for cooperation. Take breaks every 2-3 nails for anxious dogs, and never force completion of all nails in one session if your dog shows distress. Trim Every 3-4 Weeks Without Exceptions Dogs need nail trims every 21-28 days regardless of their activity level, though outdoor dogs on concrete surfaces may extend this to 5-6 weeks maximum. Indoor dogs require more frequent trims because carpets and soft surfaces don’t naturally wear down nails. The quick grows longer when nails stay untrimmed for extended periods, making future sessions more difficult and increasing injury risk. Schedule nail trims on the same day each month to maintain consistency, and never wait until you hear clicks on hard floors because this indicates the nails have already grown too long for comfortable movement. Final Thoughts Safety guard clippers transform nail trimming from a stressful ordeal into a manageable routine that protects both you and your dog. These tools reduce accidents by up to 85% compared to standard clippers while they build the confidence you need to maintain your dog’s health at home. Regular use of a dog nail clipper with safety guard prevents the painful overgrowth that affects 40% of house dogs and eliminates costly emergency vet visits from mishaps. The investment in quality safety guard clippers pays dividends through years of successful sessions. Your dog learns to trust the process when they experience consistent, pain-free trims that never surprise them with accidental cuts. This trust creates a positive cycle where each session becomes easier than the last (and less stressful for both of you). Healthy paws require consistent maintenance every 3-4 weeks without exception. Proper nail length prevents joint stress, improves traction, and maintains natural patterns that keep your dog comfortable throughout their life. We at DogingtonPost advocate for proactive care that strengthens the bond between dogs and their owners through gentle, effective practices.

Katie Porter

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2025. > For 2023 and 2024, for 2021 and 2022, for 2020. For 2019. For 2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)   ■ New on November 10, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Joe Scarborough spins shutdown cave-in as win See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ November 3, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Norah O’Donnell just can’t give Trump any credit (Washington Examiner post) It was a simple question from President Donald Trump to CBS 60 Minutes interviewer Norah O’Donnell. Don’t you feel safer in Washington, D.C., where crime plummeted after the National Guard was called in to help clean up crime-filled neighborhoods? But instead of answering yes or no, she bobbed and weaved to avoid giving Trump any credit for making the city safer, something the district’s liberal mayor has repeatedly done. Trump pressed her: “You see a difference?” She demurred: “I think I’ve been working too hard. I haven’t been out and about that much.” Trump parried back: “Oh, that’s not a fair answer. You see the difference.” She deflected again: “I get in my car and go to work, and I go home.” The exchange between Trump and O’Donnell during a portion of their 74-minute interview that was not aired on 60 Minutes, but posted online by CBS News on their 60 Minutes Overtime page: PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’re cleaning up our cities. You know, I campaigned on crime, but I’ve done a much better job on crime than I thought. You know, the crime numbers are way down, even though we have a lot more people in our country that really shouldn’t be here. And many of them are stone-cold hard criminals. When I look at D.C. now, you can walk down the middle of the street. You can have your daughter, who’s 10 years old, meet you at the park. She’s gonna be OK. O’DONNELL: In certain parts of D.C. TRUMP: She woulda been murdered. Well, I — in almost— O’DONNELL: I live in D.C. TRUMP: Well, you tell me— O’DONNELL: Certain parts of D.C. TRUMP: How big a difference is D.C. now compared to what it was a year ago? Right? I mean, you have to be honest with me. People walk — people in the White House, they walk up to me, young ladies I’ve never seen. “Sir, thank you very much.” I know, they don’t even have to tell me what they’re thanking me for. But when I ask why? He said — she — one girl said, “I’d get into Uber and I felt dangerous even in an Uber.” They’d attack the car, OK. It wasn’t even safe then. “Sir, I now walk to work every day, and I walk. I’m so safe, there’s nothing going to happen — 100% safe.” And you know that too, Norah. O’DONNELL: I wanna ask you about the— TRUMP: You live here. You know that, too. O’DONNELL: I wanna ask you about Amer— TRUMP: Do you see a difference? O’DONNELL: –American cities— TRUMP: You see a difference? O’DONNELL: –in Washington, D.C.? TRUMP: Yes. O’DONNELL: I think I’ve been working too hard. I haven’t been out and about that much. TRUMP: Oh, that’s not a fair answer. You see the difference. O’DONNELL: I get in my car and go to work, and I go home. TRUMP: That’s good. You don’t have to use that one. Don’t worry. Don’t worry. I won’t embarrass her. O’DONNELL: I’ve been working too hard. TRUMP: It’s like you know what the difference is? Like, day and night. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “This interview went a lot better for the image of CBS News than did the one five years ago with the antagonistic and aggressively misinformed Lesley Stahl, but O’Donnell couldn’t let herself be seen agreeing with Trump, let alone saying anything that could be construed as positive toward any Trump achievement. That would be a cardinal sin in the eyes of her colleagues. In that way, CBS News hasn’t yet changed under its new management.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE screams.   ■ October 27, 2025: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ October 20, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Queen of kooks: Kathy Griffin confirms her TDS and doubts Trump’s election (Washington Examiner post) Left-wing influencer Kathy Griffin has done the impossible. She has topped her crazy 2017 post of decapitating President Donald Trump and given in fully to Trump Derangement Syndrome. As our Liberal Media Scream of the week, Griffin used her YouTube channel, Talk Your Head Off with Kathy Griffin, to vent about Trump and Elon Musk, claiming that the 2024 election was rigged. Her aim was to talk up Saturday’s “No Kings” protests by liberal Trump critics, but she went much further in calling Musk and Trump Nazis and wrongly claiming that Trump’s win in the seven battleground states was unprecedented and must have been bought. “I don’t think he won in a free and fair election. You heard me. I’m coming out and saying it myself. I don’t care if that means I look crazy,” said Griffin. And as if that wasn’t nutty enough, she stood firm on her decapitation post. “That’s called punching up,” she said. Griffin, on her Talk Your Head Off with Kathy Griffin video podcast, posted on YouTube on Wednesday, Oct. 15: “People are calling this protest the No King’s Day because Trump thinks he’s a fucking king. And you know, he’s not, he’s barely a president. In fact, guess what? I’m gonna say something that’s gonna get me in trouble. I don’t think he won in a free and fair election. You heard me. I’m coming out and saying it myself. I don’t care if that means I look crazy because Elon Musk, who’s this other Nazi guy running around town who owns X, and a lot of people think he’s a genius, but he’s not, he’s like a fake genius. “Anyway, he’s a — but he’s a professional Nazi in my humble opinion, and he’s good friends with Trump, and at one point, I don’t know if you remember, but he was giving out million-dollar checks to people if they would vote for Trump. That’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional and illegal, so that was happening, and the fact that Trump won all seven swing states, which has never happened in the history of the U.S., makes it all very suspicious to me. So there I said it. “All right, now for some fun pop culture. I went to an award show over the weekend, and it’s the first time that I’ve walked a red carpet since my controversial Kathy Griffin/Donald Trump decapitated head photo, which you can Google very easily. And by the way, it was a Halloween mask. I’m not actually trying to kill anybody. I do make fun of people, though, especially the president. That’s called punching up.” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Truer words have rarely been said: ‘I don’t care if that means I look crazy.’ Yes, not only does this make Griffin look crazy, it proves she is crazy for thinking she’ll gain any relevance — and get herself back into polite society after her disgusting Trump decapitated head image — by advancing baseless election conspiracies which soothe the minds of Trump haters. And, by the way, Trump is hardly the first president to win all the swing states. Reagan won all but one state in 1984.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE screams.   ■ October 13, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s dour Dana Bash rains on Trump triumph parade (Washington Examiner post) CNN is so addled by its Trump derangement syndrome that its lead hosts couldn’t give the president a break for a day after he made history in bringing the Israel-Hamas war to an end. Consider CNN State of the Union host Dana Bash’s knife-twist on Sunday while her panel discussed Trump and his hope for the first lasting peace in the Middle East in decades. As he traveled to Israel to celebrate the release of hostages taken on Oct. 7, 2023, Bash turned the discussion to the “split screen” of peace in Gaza with immigration protests and clashes with police and troops back home. Tapping another TDS sufferer, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Bash rained on Trump’s success parade by quoting Dowd’s argument against giving the president the Nobel Peace Prize because some liberals are violently protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, which a majority of voters favor. For that, she wins our Liberal Media Scream of the week. From Sunday morning’s CNN State of the Union: Host Dana Bash: I do want to kind of bring it back to the United States as we talk about what’s happening overseas and kind of the split screen, and Maureen Dowd highlighted just that, the split screen. She said: ‘You can’t get,’ and this is about the Nobel Prize, ‘you can’t get a medal for promoting democracy when you try to overthrow the democracy you were running. … Trump seems oblivious to the paradox of enforcing peace abroad and disrupting it badly at home, of soothing violence overseas and inflaming it here.’ Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Dowd and Bash are the quintessential skunks at the garden party, with Bash the worse offender for deciding, barely 18 hours before the Israeli hostages were released unleashing joy across Israel, it was wise to use some of the limited time on her show to rain on President Trump. She just couldn’t let him have his day of triumph.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE screams.   ■ October 6, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS calls ‘cruelty’ Vought’s ‘erogenous zone’ (Washington Examiner post) In discussing the White House budget chief’s plans for massive federal worker cuts during the government shutdown, a contributor to the Friday show Washington Week with the Atlantic turned a joking comment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) about Russ Vought into a crude putdown. Host Jeffrey Goldberg played Lee telling Fox News’s Laura Ingraham, “Russ Vought, the OMB director, has been dreaming about this moment, preparing this moment, since puberty. Russ Vought has a plan, and that plan is going to succeed in empowering, further empowering Trump. This is going to be the Democrats’ worst nightmare.” When he turned to the Atlantic’s Ashley Parker for analysis, she ripped Vought’s goals in the government shutdown and said “cruelty” is the goal, and that “is squarely in his erogenous zone.” From Friday’s Washington Week with the Atlantic on PBS: Jeffrey Goldberg: Ashley, who is Russ Vought? What does he want? Ashley Parker: I mean, he wants, as I mentioned at the beginning, sort of the deconstruction of the administrative state of the federal bureaucracy. Goldberg: What are the ideological roots of this? Parker: He’s — I mean, he’s incredibly conservative. He worked in Trump’s first admin. So, there are some people, including Stephen Miller, but there are not actually a ton of people who worked in the first Trump administration and then came back for a second tour of duty, but Russ Vought is one of them. And he came back, like the president himself, sort of stronger, bolder, more empowered, more creative with his interpretations of laws and what’s acceptable than ever. And he used his — Goldberg: Russ Vought, faster and furiouser. Parker: Yes. Goldberg: Yes. Parker: And he used those years out of power to basically create this document that you mentioned called Project 2025, that — it’s a dense, dense policy document. That is sort of his wheelhouse, his actual policy. And it tells sort of all the ways you can, first of all, just utterly minimize the government, tear away at it, tear it down, and use it to push through deeply conservative priorities. And I also, based on my reporting, agree with Sen. Lee that this is squarely in his erogenous zone. And that when he said what he wants to do, I mean, to use a phrase that was popularized by one of our colleagues at the Atlantic, cruelty is the point. Now, that was in reference to Donald Trump. But Russ Vought also, he said, “I want to terrorize the federal bureaucrats.” So, some of these choices, the fork-in-the-road email of should you choose to basically resign or risk losing your job, I mean, the way these things were structured were deeply humiliating and devastating and financially devastating to hundreds of thousands of people, and that was an intentional choice by people like Russ Vought. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Parker encapsulates the Washington media establishment, which sees anyone who tries to reduce the size and role of government as driven by some sort of vicious delight in the misery of others. It can’t just be a simple policy disagreement. Conservatives must be discredited for having a nefarious agenda.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ September 29, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Poor Comey, target of ‘ruthless’ Trump (Washington Examiner post) It wasn’t even a year ago that liberal media were cheering the slew of politically driven prosecutions and court cases targeting President Donald Trump and his associates before he returned to the White House for his second term. But now that the tables have turned, most notably with last week’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress in a get-Trump case, the same media have declared those types of prosecutions the height of ruthlessness. Trump foe and New Yorker Editor David Remnick, for example, charged on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that Trump is in political payback mode and using prosecutions for revenge. “The first term was filled with impulses, and the second term is efficient, ruthless, and it’s happening every day. This movement toward authoritarianism is very distinct and needs to be taken seriously,” he charged, making him our featured Liberal Media Scream. David Remnick on Sunday’s Meet the Press: DAVID REMNICK: I think we should take the president at his word. It used to be in 2016 and Trump 1.0, I guess, that it was considered the height of wisdom that the press takes Trump literally and the people take him seriously, and then vice versa. I think it’s possible to do both at the same time. The president is telling us that he has an enemies list that he’s going to act on. He’s told us who is on the enemies list: John Bolton, Letitia James, Fani Willis ought to be on her guard, and many more, whether they’re in the press or civic society. I think this is a real emergency, and it should be taken seriously, and know that he’s going to act on it. It’s not just blather out on the White House lawn. That’s the difference between the first term and the second term. The first term was filled with impulses, and the second term is efficient, ruthless, and it’s happening every day. This movement toward authoritarianism is very distinct and needs to be taken seriously. This is not just a normal, you know, we talked about a budget battle. That’s normal politics. This is something extraordinary. Jorge Bonilla, a news analyst with the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters, explained our pick: “This Obama sycophant once said that ‘the future of the Earth’ was contingent on the impeachment of Donald Trump. Now that the show is on the other foot, this is ‘extraordinary.’ If it weren’t for double standards in the media, there’d be none at all.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ September 22, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC calls Kirk memorial divisive, Trump vs. widow (Washington Examiner post) President Donald Trump is President Donald Trump, and many in the liberal media still can’t accept that. That was clear yesterday at the Arizona memorial for Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated this month, allegedly by a hate-filled leftist. After Kirk’s widow, Erika, forgave her husband’s killer, Trump, himself the target of two assassination attempts and years of political attacks, said he admired Kirk’s ability to forgive, but it’s something he could never do. It’s just not in his blood. “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them,” Trump said of Kirk. Then he added, “I hate my opponents.” For some at CNN and MSNBC, that was the big takeaway of the hourslong event as they searched for a way to portray it as divisive. “He has never made a pretense of being a leader for all Americans, as most of his predecessors have — even if they didn’t follow through,” said a CNN analysis. On MSNBC, following the memorial, White House correspondent Vaughn Hillyard also highlighted the different views and said, “I think what was stunning about the tension that exists here in 2025 was to listen to Erika Kirk, a big supporter of the president, be followed 15 to 20 minutes later by the president of the United States. Clearly, somebody who she loves, but come out and directly say, ‘I disagree with Charlie Kirk. I disagree with you, Erika,’ and say, ‘I hate my opponents.’” He added, “And I think that says a lot about where we are and the questions about where we go moving forward. The Erika Kirk route or the Donald Trump route.” Vaughn Hillyard on MSNBC’s The Weekend Primetime: VAUGHN HILLYARD: I think what, honestly, I’ll take away from tonight is watching the weight of a woman, a mother, lose her husband. Most people cannot say they’ve experienced losing a spouse at this young of an age, and I don’t know who we are to suggest how somebody should respond in real time. One week after her husband’s passing, she went in front of a crowd of 40 to 50,000 people, people watching all over the world. And she delivered remarks in which she forgave the assassin that shot her husband and killed him. Co-host Elise Jordan: I thought it was just remarkable. HILLYARD: A remarkable moment because in so many ways, where America stands in 2025 is: How do we respond going forward? And the woman that just lost her husband stood there in front of the world and said, ‘I forgive.’ And because her Christian faith teaches her to love your enemy and not hate your enemy, and to love those that persecute you. And I think what was stunning about the tension that exists here in 2025 was to listen to Erika Kirk, a big supporter of the president, be followed 15-20 minutes later by the president of the United States. Clearly, somebody who she loves, but come out and directly say, ‘I disagree with Charlie Kirk. I disagree with you, Erika,’ and say, ‘I hate my opponents.’ And I think that says a lot about where we are and the questions about where we go moving forward. The Erika Kirk route or the Donald Trump route. Jorge Bonilla, a news analyst with the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters, explained our pick: “In the immediate aftermath of the powerful Charlie Kirk memorial, Trump-deranged MSNBC showed that they couldn’t leave well enough alone. What began as a complimentary reaction turned into Trump-deranged brainworms for MSNBC consumption. Erika Kirk’s testimony of forgiveness towards her husband’s murderer stands as a potent example of Christ-like behavior in a most difficult time. Forgive them for they know not what they do, indeed. But Hillyard couldn’t leave well enough alone, and he had to fabricate this oppositional friction where none exists between the Kirks and Trump. It’s almost as if they didn’t watch the memorial, and its many underlying messages centering around grace.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ September 15, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Martha Raddatz went 0-3 swinging for Trump hate (Washington Examiner post) In the fallout of the assassination of youthful Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, there has been the liberal media’s refusal to accept its role in dividing the nation, as it instead tries to blame President Donald Trump for the Left’s political violence. Martha Raddatz led the way while hosting ABC’s This Week on Sunday. She had one thing top of mind: get one or more of the three elected officials she had on as guests to denounce Trump for blaming the assassination of Charlie Kirk on “the radical Left.” First up, Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) was asked, “What’s your reaction to that? Is that something you think he should be doing?” Next was Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO), who was quizzed with, “Is that the message you believe he should be putting out?” And finally, Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) was pressed, “Is that the right thing to do? Or what do you wish he was saying?” Raddatz struck out, going 0-3, and is our pick for the weekly Liberal Media Scream. Three questions from Martha Raddatz on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: To Cox: “You immediately talked about Democrats who had been targeted. President Trump said nothing about the political violence against Democrats. In fact, he blamed ‘the radical Left.’ What’s your reaction to that? Is that something you think he should be doing?” To Polis: “You heard Gov. Cox. He did not, clearly did not want to criticize President Trump at this time, and Charlie Kirk was a good friend of President Trump and his family, but he has pointed the finger at what he calls ‘the radical Left.’ Is that the message you believe he should be putting out?” To Curtis: “A lot of people, certainly a lot of Republicans, a lot of people are listening to President Trump, and you’ve heard me talk about it earlier in the show. But several Republican lawmakers, prominent conservatives, including President Trump’s sons, Don Jr. and Eric, as well as President Trump, have blamed this on ‘the radical Left.’ Is that the right thing to do? Or what do you wish he was saying?” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Martha Raddatz certainly seems to have had an agenda on Sunday: Get one or more of her guests to denounce President Trump for daring to blame ‘the radical Left’ for the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But isn’t that a reasonable supposition? Maybe a better area for her to have explored with her guests would have been why hasn’t there been more focus on that threat than the words used by a president who had just lost a friend to political violence?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ September 8, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Clintonista Stephanopoulos desperate to condemn Trump (Washington Examiner post) For TV news liberals, one-upping competitors while venting their anti-Trump bias seems a requirement, especially for the big shots who host the weekly public affairs shows. Consider former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos, who on Sunday was hosting ABC’s This Week for the first time since Aug. 3. Outdone on the Trump Derangement Syndrome spouted by the other hosts for weeks, notably CBS 60 Minutes anchor Scott Pelley’s regular editorial attacks on President Donald Trump, Stephanopoulos put on his serious face and listed all that was bad about the president’s week. It was, he said, “a week of challenges,” and he cited several examples that have, in the findings of several pollsters, helped revive Trump’s approval ratings. Stephanopoulos has been on the losing side of his fights with Trump for a while. Recall that in December, he and ABC News were ordered to apologize and pay $15 million in a Trump defamation lawsuit settlement. For his one-sided, off-base rant, Stephanopoulos wins our weekly Liberal Media Scream. Stephanopoulos at the top of ABC’s This Week on Sunday: “On Friday, President Trump rebranded the Department of Defense the ‘Department of War.’ Saturday, he announced the department’s first target, an American city. The President’s words: ‘I love the smell of deportations in the morning. Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of War.’ A chorus of criticism followed, including this from Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D): ‘The President of the United States is threatening to go to war with an American city. This is not a joke. This is not normal.’ “And this chilling threat from President Trump comes after a week of challenges: Friday’s weak jobs report, on Capitol Hill a bipartisan grilling for [Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], and a demand for transparency from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims; China’s display of diplomatic skill and military force and Russia’s rebuff of another Trump deadline on the war in Ukraine.” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Stephanopoulos pops up every month or so to host This Week (he last hosted on Aug. 3) and seems bent each time on re-proving his anti-Trump bonafides. He did it again Sunday, framing in the worst possible light Trump’s efforts to save lives in Chicago and then proceeding to paint a world closing in on Trump — all in a week when Trump’s approval got an up bounce.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ September 1, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: ABC reporter fired for Trump hate doubles down (Washington Examiner post) A top political reporter dumped by ABC News for spewing hate toward President Donald Trump and deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller on X is doubling down on his rant. Instead of shushing after the embarrassing episode, Terry Moran stepped up his attack on Trump, telling a podcaster last week that Trump “is the man that we were warned about by the founders, that democracies fall when a man who can captivate the populace wants to exercise the power that’s there in the government.” What makes Moran our Liberal Media Scream of the week isn’t just his continued hate toward Trump but his embrace of the Founding Fathers, whom the liberal media have recently attacked as racist slave-holders not worthy of memorializing. Moran was dumped in June when he went after Miller on X. “He eats his hate,” Moran wrote of the president’s chief policy aide. “Trump is a world-class hater. … That’s his spiritual nourishment.” Moran on In Good Faith With Philip DeFranco: “What we’re seeing is, no question, what other countries have seen a lot, what our Founding Fathers predicted would happen, that a great strongman would, would, all right, not great in the good sense, but great in the power sense, right? “Trump is the most dominant figure of our age around the world. Don’t underestimate him. He is a world historical figure, and he is the man that we were warned about by the Founders, that democracies fall when a man who can captivate the populace wants to exercise the power that’s there in the government, and that is what we’re watching.” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Legacy media figures keep reaching back in history to find different historic figures to use to condemn President Trump. The go-to has been Hitler, but now Moran is ridiculously invoking the Founding Fathers, a sudden respect for the supposed foresight of the founders, whom liberals normally condemn as immoral figures for condoning slavery, but now find so wise.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ August 25, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Velshi: MAGA is worse than Pearl Harbor, Civil War (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream, we have an extraordinary Trump Derangement Syndrome rant that doesn’t just declare President Donald Trump a “strongman,” but more evil than Japan’s attack on America and more dangerous than the Civil War. It comes from weekend MSNBC host Ali Velshi, who on Sunday spat out a seven-minute-plus speech denouncing Trump and Republicans for the “collapse of democracy.” He claimed Trump has enacted a “police state” in cities while Republican “election security” efforts are really the “classic playbook of the strongman.” It was classic TDS and then he doused his fire with gasoline, charging, “America’s democracy has withstood civil war, depressions, attacks by foreign enemies on its soil, but it has never faced an assault on this scale: an internal demolition carried out not by outsiders or even by well-armed rebels, but by the holder of the highest office in the land.” Portions of Velshi from Sunday: It’s Sunday, August the 24th. I’m Ali Velshi, and we begin this hour with a reality check, a crucial one. The collapse of democracy is a strange, almost surreal thing. It can be abstract and hard to recognize in the moment. At first, it just feels like politics. It’s messy, it’s noisy, it’s frustrating, and sometimes a bit removed from one’s day-to-day life. But then the guardrails that we’ve taken for granted begin to topple one after another… At best, each assault may seem like an outlier until the day you wake up and realize the system itself has become unrecognizable. Well, that’s where we are right now. It’s not where we’re headed. It’s where we are. The tragedy of what’s unfolding and the danger of what’s ahead will be compounded if American citizens en masse, all of us, do not recognize this moment for what it is. Understandably, unless it touches you directly, it’s easy sometimes to miss what’s being taken away… This is not about public safety. It’s about flexing power, teaching dissenters and political opponents a lesson, normalizing the use of troops against Americans. In the nation’s capital, hundreds of federal troops now patrol the streets alongside [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and [Drug Enforcement Administration] and FBI agents, ticketing residents for minor offenses like broken taillights. Federal troops policing petty crime on America’s main street. Think about that. Crime may be statistically down, but intimidation is way up. The police state is here, and that’s the whole point. D.C. restaurants and bars report business down by one-third. What Trump is doing is designed to bleed blue cities dry economically… What Republicans label election security is the classic playbook of the strongman: tilt the playing field toward yourself and lock yourself into power. It doesn’t stop in Washington, D.C. Across the country, Republican controlled legislatures are dismantling the last avenues of direct democracy: Citizen ballot initiatives… The message is clear: Even if voters pass something that Republicans don’t like, Republicans in power will just rewrite the rules. This is not democracy. That is something called competitive authoritarianism. Elections in name. One-party rule in practice. And here lies the tragedy. Ultimate power in this country still belongs to the people. But every time we accept or tolerate one more red line being crossed, we normalize the next. Each violation larger than the last makes what came before feel almost normal. America’s democracy has withstood civil war, depressions, attacks by foreign enemies on its soil, but it has never faced an assault on this scale. An internal demolition carried out not by outsiders or even by well-armed rebels, but by the holder of the highest office in the land. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Ali Velshi is auditioning to win the role as the [Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA)] of the left-wing legacy media: The guy who most excites the anti-Trump world as the chief conveyor of Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE screams.   ■ August 18, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: CNN says Obama, Clinton, and Bush smarter than Trump (Washington Examiner post) CNN reached a new low in its anti-Trump bias, declaring that Russian President Vladimir Putin ate President Donald Trump’s lunch on Friday because Trump doesn’t have the “intellect” of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Regular commentator Bakari Sellers on Sunday’s State of the Union overlooked that the political trio oversaw several wars, while Trump, in his second term, has ended a half-dozen wars and is today hosting a world summit at the White House to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Sellers was focused on Trump’s meeting in Alaska with Putin, an icebreaker on several fronts after former President Joe Biden let U.S.-Russian relations reach a Cold War low. “Donald Trump cannot perform on the world stage because he simply does not have the intellect to match up with these world leaders. He’s not Barack Obama, he’s not Hillary Clinton. He’s not even George Bush when it comes to being able to maneuver in these environments,” said Sellers. From CNN’s Sunday morning State of the Union hosted by Jake Tapper: BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think Vladimir Putin is a thug. I think he’s a war criminal. And I think he made Donald Trump look small. I mean, I understand the minutiae of where — I want a deal, like every other American wants a deal, or you should be praying for that deal. However, like I have said before many times, Donald Trump cannot perform on the world stage because he simply does not have the intellect to match up with these world leaders. He’s not Barack Obama, he’s not Hillary Clinton. He’s not even George Bush when it comes to being able to maneuver in these environments. And so what you saw was Vladimir Putin come and get what he wanted. I mean, the winner of this is Vladimir Putin. I don’t know why we’re trying to hide the ball. BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That’s what happened when he took Crimea. Obama gave him exactly what he wanted when he let Vladimir Putin have Crimea without so much as a shot or an objection. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “How vacuous can you be? When [former Sen.] Mitt Romney called Putin ‘the biggest political threat facing America,’ which has proven true, Obama ridiculed Romney: ‘The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.’ And as Todd pointed out, Obama didn’t do anything to counter Putin’s invasion of Crimea. Yet Obama is intellectually superior to Trump because Trump isn’t standing up enough to Putin? To say nothing of George W. Bush declaring he got ‘a sense’ of Putin’s ‘soul’ and found him ‘trustworthy’ or Hillary Clinton offering Putin a ‘reset’ button.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE screams.   ■ August 11: No Liberal Media Scream this week    ■ August 4, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Washington Post reporter quit over patriotism request (Washington Examiner post) The generous buyout offer from Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos has been too hard for a number of top reporters and editors to turn down. But for one columnist, leaving was coming no matter what. The reason: Bezos wanted “positive things happening in this country” to be covered “unapologetically patriotic.” For left-wing writer Jonathan Capehart, also a contributor to PBS and MSNBC, that was too much to ask. “There was just not going to be any room for a voice like mine,” he said on the NewsHour. For PBS, which lost taxpayer support in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act due to perceived anti-Trump bias, that was a tremendous decision by Capehart. Said NewsHour co-host Amna Nawaz, “Jonathan Capehart, we’re so glad your voice is heard right here at our table.” From Friday’s PBS NewsHour: AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, before we go, folks will have noticed that we introduced you slightly differently tonight than we usually do. We should point out, after nearly two decades at the Washington Post, you recently made the decision to leave. I just wanted to give you a chance to speak directly to our audience to tell them why. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, the direction of the opinion section changed. Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, as is his right, decided that he wanted the section to focus on the twin pillars of personal liberties and free markets. And it became clear, as time went along, and especially when he chose a new leader for the section, that there was just not going to be any room for a voice like mine, especially when we were told that we would have to be unapologetically patriotic in talking about the positive things happening in the country. How can you talk about the positive things happening in the country when the rest of the house is engulfed in flames and the foundation is flooding? I wanted to go some place where my voice would be heard. NAWAZ: Jonathan Capehart, we’re so glad your voice is heard right here at our table. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Quite an admission that a leading PBS political analyst was so angry about the state of the country ‘engulfed in flames’ under President Trump that he’s opposed to expressing patriotism. But he fits right in on PBS and MSNBC and recognizes that’s ‘where my voice would be heard.’” Rating: THREE out of FIVE screams.   ■ July 28, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Connie Chung wants Fox News anchors in ‘ankle monitors’ (Washington Examiner post) Connie Chung is back, and she’s still mouthing off about the conservative media she hates, making her our Liberal Media Scream of the week. What’s more, she’s giving advice to CBS, the network that dumped her in 1995 after a controversial interview and recently caved in to President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over a manipulated 60 Minutes interview of former Vice President Kamala Harris.      Chung, who held several other media posts, went on CNN to rip the deal by Skydance Media to take over Paramount, the owner of CBS. She also hit media influencers and Fox News as providers of fake news. Of conservative media outlets, she said, “I think they should be putting ankle bracelets, ankle monitors on certain anchors at certain cable stations in prime time. Those are the culprits.” From Friday’s CNN News Central: Connie Chung: “I would say that they have to fight the good fight, that they have to protect the legacy of CBS. They cannot allow biased owners, because honestly, I don’t think CBS is necessarily the culprit. What needs to be policed is social media, which have no fact checkers, podcasters, and the like. No one is checking those facts. And the problem is, that is inaccurate information that’s being disseminated “I think they should be put in ankle bracelets, ankle monitors on certain anchors at certain cable stations in prime time. Those are the culprits.” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “An unpleasant blast from the past. TV network stars like her of the 1980s and ‘90s, who so sanctimoniously saw themselves as paragons of virtue and facts, are what created the marketplace for Fox News and all the other new media outlets which so disturb her by not following the same liberal line as CBS. Yet, decades later, she still doesn’t recognize that.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ July 21, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: CBS reporter blames PTSD on MAGA crowd at Trump shooting (Washington Examiner post) A CBS political reporter said he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder following his coverage of the attempted assassination of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. But Scott MacFarlane didn’t blame shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks, the noise of Crooks’s rifle going off eight times, or the near-death of Trump. He blamed the crowd of MAGA supporters, whom he envisioned “were going to come kill us.” He said he felt the crowd would blame the media for the shooting and that “we’d be dead” if Trump didn’t survive. For that, he easily won as our Liberal Media Scream of the week. But he was challenged during an interview on The Chuck ToddCast when Todd offered up his own bizarre reaction to the assassination attempt that killed Trump supporter Corey Comperatore. Todd said, “I share your concern. Just a little thing. I was — literally the first thing I was going to do after landing [in Milwaukee to cover the GOP convention] on Saturday was go to the Nats-Brewers game, and I said, ‘I’m not going. I’m not going to be seen going. I’m not, I’m not doing that. This is not the moment for this.'” Todd went on to say he has long feared Trump supporters.  From The Chuck ToddCast: SCOTT MACFARLANE: For those of us there, it was such a horror because you saw an emerging America. And it wasn’t the shooting, Chuck. This was … I got diagnosed with PTSD within 48 hours. I got put on trauma leave, not because, I think, of the shooting, but because, you could … you saw it in the eyes, the reaction of the people. They were coming for us. If he didn’t jump up with his fist, they were going to come kill us. CHUCK TODD: I know … Look, I share your concern. Just a little thing. I was, literally, the first thing I was going to do after landing on Saturday was go to the Nats-Brewers game, and I said, “I’m not going. I’m not going to be seen going. I’m not, I’m not doing that. This is not the moment for this.” And I think we … none of us knew what the reaction of that Milwaukee crowd was going to be to this. Right? It turned into euphoria, right? It turned into this messiah, sort of messiah feeling. I think that, you know, that this was divine intervention. But I share that, that Saturday, and what you just described, being on the ground, was the first thing I thought of was my team down there. I think it was Vaughn Hillyard, if I’m not mistaken. MACFARLANE: Dasha was there as well. TODD: And Dasha Burns, right? And, look, let’s be honest. We’ve been fearing this for about a decade. That all of this heightened rhetoric, that what all this crap online, what happened on Jan. 6, those of us that experienced that as well, you’re like, we’re a tinderbox, right? You know what? There’s a fear that this moment is coming. And it’s interesting that you … the fact that we dodged that. You know, you’re right. I mean, it’s, it is … I don’t know what would have happened had the outcome been different. MACFARLANE: We are all … many of us on press row, as we talked about this on our text chains for weeks after, were quite confident we’d be dead if he didn’t get back up. There was a subset, not everybody, there’s dozens of people in the crowd who started coming for us, saying, “You did this. This is your fault. You caused this. You killed him.” And they’re going to beat us with their hands. I mean, they were going to kill us. And respectfully, the Secret Service had bigger issues than protecting us. When he jumped up triumphantly, it saved us, but that’s the thing. I can’t eliminate from my mind’s eye the look on their faces. They … that’s what America is right now. It’s not rational. It’s an irrational thought to think the media shot somebody from atop a building, but the lack of rationality is what connects Jan. 6 to this. It’s … how do we pull out of this as a country is the defining question of our time. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Yes, the near-assassination of President Donald Trump wasn’t the real ‘horror’ of the day. The real ‘horror’ was in how, in the few seconds before Trump triumphantly raised his fists, MacFarlane somehow sensed the crowd would ‘kill’ him and other reporters? Really? If Trump supporters were on the cusp of deadly violence, why are we just hearing about it a year later? And McFarlane really got diagnosed with PTSD? We all know too many journalists are snowflakes, but you’d think MacFarlane would have the self-respect to keep such an embarrassing admission, of his fear of fellow Americans, to himself.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE screams.   ■ July 14, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Katie Couric labels Trump’s MAGA ‘a s*** show’ (Washington Examiner post) The disdain the legacy media have for President Donald Trump has reached new levels since Congress approved his “big, beautiful bill.” Many liberal outlets have resorted to following Democratic talking points and inflated the negative effects, and others have made ridiculous claims that it will kill millions. And then there is media darling Katie Couric, who just brushed aside the whole Trump administration in one profane and sour characterization, winning this week’s feature as our Liberal Media Scream. In calling for more media attention to the administration, the one-time Today show host fretted over “this moment in our history” and then hit “The s*** show that is the Trump administration.” In a joint video podcast with left-wing freelance journalist Liz Plank, Couric said “social media creators … depend on a lot of mainstream outlets” for basic information, so that “underscores the importance of more traditional media … especially at this moment in our history and what’s happening in our country and the s*** show that it is the Trump administration.” Couric, during a podcast cross-posted on Liz Plank’s Airplane Mode Substack podcast and the Next Question with Katie Couric podcast on Substack and YouTube: “I think it just, it underscores the importance of more traditional media, and I think we need it all, to be honest, especially at this moment in our history and what’s happening in our country and the s*** show that it is the Trump administration.” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Couric demonstrates how ingrained the disdain is for Trump administration policies amongst the legacy media elite. It’s like muscle memory to them. And her blurting out her disgust, for a president who earned the most votes, in such a casual manner in a conversation with a like-minded liberal, shows how she sees it as a commonly-accepted view amongst her peers.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE screams.   ■ July 7, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos blames downpour deaths on Trump (Washington Examiner post) The weekend saw some of the most embarrassing efforts by the liberal media to take President Donald Trump down, this time blaming him for the horrific flash flood deaths in Texas. The early morning flooding that has so far claimed the lives of more than 80, including children at a Christian girls camp, hit with little warning after a downpour dumped some 11 inches of rain that ended up in the Guadalupe River on Friday. Trump called it a 100-year event on Sunday and is planning to meet with families this Friday. Even as the search for survivors continued, the media tried to blame Trump and staff cuts at various federal weather agencies. Leading that effort was ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who said on This Week, “There were significant staffing shortfalls to the National Weather Service offices in the region.” Most weather and state local officials have been quick to note that the area often floods and that notices were sent out after midnight. Blame isn’t what most wanted to cast, but the Washington media did anyway — something they didn’t do when Hurricane Helene crashed through the southwest last year, killing 230. Even the reporter on the scene in Texas, Mireya Villarreal, didn’t take the Trump-hating bait from Stephanopoulos, a one-time top aide to former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary. From ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re also learning there were significant staffing shortfalls to the National Weather Service offices in the region. MIREYA VILLARREAL, IN KERRVILLE, TEXAS: As of right now, the local county officials didn’t want to address that just yet. What they are telling us is they expected between 4 and 6 inches of rain. That is what weather experts told them. The National Weather Service as well. They also knew, in remote locations, they might get anywhere from 8 to 10 inches, but this amount of rain in such a short amount of time, it was very difficult to navigate. And when the Department of Homeland Security secretary was here just yesterday, she acknowledged this was an issue. She was going to take these concerns to the White House as well and try and see if there was anything they could do to revamp the system. She says the president is committed to it. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Liberal Democratic activists develop an attack line against the Trump administration, and Stephanopoulos dutifully jumps to repeat it. In this case, in the most distasteful way, trying to score political points at the very moment dozens of parents were desperately searching for their missing children. But with Stephanopoulos, it’s politics ahead of facts as his contention has been undermined by, amongst others, the union representing the NWS meteorologists.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE screams.   ■ June 30, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS embraces socialist Mamdani, calls GOP criticism ‘hateful’ (Washington Examiner post) PBS is doubling down on its leftist bias that has drawn President Donald Trump’s support for defunding the taxpayer-supported service, this time embracing New York City’s Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani while ripping GOP criticism of the self-declared socialist as “disgusting” and “hateful.” While some liberal politicians are disowning Mamdani for his extreme positions, the support by Public Broadcasting Service’s News Hour is this week’s featured Liberal Media Scream because it flies in the face of a promise to provide “intelligent, balanced” reporting. On Friday, News Hour didn’t feature the candidate’s left-wing promises to defund police and provide freebies to residents, but instead condemned the conservative reaction to him. Said featured liberal commentator Jonathan Capehart, “I’ll start with the Republican response. It’s shameful, it’s hateful, it’s disgusting.” From Friday’s PBS News Hour: NEWS HOUR HOST AMNA NAWAZ: I got to ask you both, too, about Tuesday night’s events in New York City, the Democratic mayoral primary contest the entire country was paying attention to when Zohran Mamdani, who was a little-known state assemblyman, went on to beat the former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani’s 33 years old, he’s a self-described Democratic socialist, and his win, we should point out, has really fueled a hateful response from some on the Right. There’s a major MAGA voice named Charlie Kirk, who posted this: ‘24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.’” Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles actually called for Mamdani, who was born in Uganda, as a naturalized U.S. citizen, to be denaturalized and deported. Jonathan, what does Mamdani’s win tell us about Democrats and their message, if anything, and what does the response tell us about Republicans and theirs? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, the response, I’ll start with the Republican response. It’s shameful, it’s hateful, it’s disgusting. It also tells me that Republicans are deathly afraid of their prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. Especially if they’re going after a guy who just simply won the primary in a municipal election. The other thing folks need to understand, the reputation of New York City is of a liberal bastion, and it’s a city where there’s a six-to-one Democratic registration advantage over Republicans. And yet this city, that has a reputation of being a liberal bastion, elected Rudy Giuliani twice and Mike Bloomberg three times, the first time as a Republican, the next two times as an independent. And so, what I take from Mamdani’s win, above all else, is that he went out there and asked New Yorkers for their votes. He did not do a Rose Garden strategy. He asked people for their votes, and he gave them something to vote for, and that’s the thing Democrats should emulate. Ask people for their votes. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “In pleading for donations in the wake of the effort to end taxpayer funding of PBS, the News Hour website ludicrously claims ‘your gift supports America’s #1 most trusted news source in providing intelligent, balanced and in-depth reporting.’ This coverage of Mamdani is just the latest proof of the hollowness of that promise, a pledge PBS has never made any genuine effort to provide. Where’s the balance in ignoring the elephant in the room of Mamdani’s extremist views while treating conservative reaction to him as the most important event that must be condemned?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ June 23, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Feckless Margaret Brennan thinks she’s secretary of state (Washington Examiner post) If the Sunday performance of CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan were in a Looney Tunes cartoon, Bugs Bunny would have mocked, “da nerve!” Instead, and much better, Secretary of State Marco Rubio brushed aside her grade school “yes it is, no it’s not” debate over military intelligence and belief that she knows more about it than President Donald Trump’s top national security adviser. “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Rubio said in an appearance to discuss Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities over the weekend. After Brennan continued to say she knows more about whether Iran planned to make nuclear weapons or not, Rubio gave his best “da nerve” look and told her, “That’s not how intelligence is read. That’s not how intelligence is used. Here’s what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program.” From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me follow up on a phrase you just used — weaponization ambitions. Are you saying that the United States did not see intelligence that the supreme leader had ordered weaponization? SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: That’s irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media all the time. That’s an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon. BRENNAN: No, but that is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that. RUBIO: No, it’s not. BRENNAN: Yes, it was. RUBIO: No, it’s not. BRENNAN: That the political decision had not been made. RUBIO: No, I know — well, I know that better than you know that. And I know that that’s not the case. BRENNAN: But I’m asking you whether the order was given. RUBIO: You don’t know what you’re talking about. And the people who say that — it doesn’t matter if the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury — why would you bury things in a mountain 300 feet under the ground? BRENNAN: Right. RUBIO: Why would you bury six … why do they have 60% enriched uranium? You don’t need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons, because they can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements. They have … why are they … why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No. They’re trying to build an ICBM, so they can one day put a warhead on it. BRENNAN: No, but that’s a question … that’s a question … that’s a question of intent. And you know, in the intelligence assessment, that it was that Iran wanted to be a threshold state and use this leverage. RUBIO: How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? BRENNAN: I’m talking about the public March assessment. And that’s why I was asking you if you know something more from March, if an order was given. RUBIO: Well, that — but that’s also an inaccurate representation of it. That’s an inaccurate representation of it. That’s not how intelligence is read. That’s not how intelligence is used. Here’s what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Refreshing to see a guest take on the liberal premises forwarded as facts by legacy media hosts. This wasn’t the first time this year that Brennan has been schooled by a Trump administration official. Maybe she should consider being more of a dispassionate interviewer and less of an advocate for the left-wing spin of the day.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE screams.   ■ June 16, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS sees Trump ‘suspending elections’ (Washington Examiner post) It’s hard to imagine that PBS could get any more anti-Trump, but after House Republicans voted to endorse President Donald Trump’s bid to defund public broadcasting, all of its “Trump derangement syndrome” sirens have gone off. For our weekly Liberal Media Scream, we feature its most extreme claim from lefty News Hour commentator Jonathan Capehart that the president is on a power grab that will have him “suspending elections.” On Friday’s PBS News Hour, Capehart suggested that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to California to protect federal buildings against anti-ICE demonstrators, as well as “rumors” of a pardon for the police officer convicted of the murder of George Floyd, is part of a plan to “create the conditions that would allow the president to invoke the Insurrection Act.” Tying the Army birthday parade Saturday with the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, Capehart said, “We are at a turning point, I think, this weekend with what we have seen in the run-up to tomorrow’s parade, with what’s happening in Los Angeles. More people’s hair should be on fire, not just because of the National Guard troops in Los Angeles without the — working with or permission from the governor, which is by law what should have been done, but the calling up of Marines, U.S. military, on American streets.” “That is a line that, to me, anyway, is one that should never have been crossed. And the president putting out this order and putting out this order that isn’t specific to Los Angeles, isn’t specific to any city. It’s so broad. The language is so broad that it’s sort of like you could just tuck it into like a giant L.L. Bean tote bag, and you just pull out: Where do I need to send troops?” Jonathan Capehart on Friday’s PBS News Hour: I think they’re creating the political conflict because, you know, I interviewed Minnesota State Attorney General Keith Ellison in the run-up to the anniversary, the fifth anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. And he brought up on his own the rumor that the president was going to pardon Derek Chauvin. And the attorney general said that the president might do that as a distraction to larger goals. And one of the larger goals that the attorney general mentioned that has always been in the back of my mind is to create the conditions that would allow the president to invoke the Insurrection Act. And once the president invokes the Insurrection Act, all sorts of powers are handed to the president, you know, suspending elections, and other things once you open that box, and particularly you open that box with this president and the administration and the yes-people he has around him, there’s no going back. That is among the reasons why I am so concerned about what we’re about to see tomorrow. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Tinfoil hat time. And PBS supporters act befuddled as to why conservatives see PBS as the home of left-wing crazy talk, leading the House last week to approve President Trump’s rescission package to end taxpayer funding of PBS and NPR. Capehart’s wild speculation passes for informed analysis on PBS’s top ‘news’ program.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ June 9, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Pompous Pelley warns America ‘is doomed’ (Washington Examiner post) Just when we thought CBS’s Scott Pelley couldn’t get any more pompous, he proved us wrong — again. This time it was in decrying America under President Donald Trump, declaring that only journalism can save the nation, and warning that “If you fall silent, the country is doomed.” Seeing parallels between Sen. Eugene McCarthy in the 1950s and Trump today, while speaking after CNN showed George Clooney’s play about legendary newsman Edward R. Morrow, Pelley said, “You cannot have democracy without journalism. It can’t be done.” Pelley has used his 60 Minutes perch to air his liberal bias and editorialize against Trump. Murrow played an outsize role in ending McCarthy’s career. From CNN’s special coverage Saturday night, Good Night, and Good Luck Live: Truth and Power, after the live airing from Broadway of the stage play, Good Night, and Good Luck: ANDERSON COOPER: Do you still believe in journalism? Do you still believe in the role of journalists? SCOTT PELLEY: It is the only thing that’s going to save the country. You cannot have democracy without journalism. It can’t be done. The people at home need reliable, consistent information in order to make decisions about their lives and their futures, and the country’s future. So, there is no system of democracy without journalism. We have to figure out how to keep journalism free, independent, accurate, and responsible for what it’s doing. But journalism is the only profession that is protected by the Constitution of the United States. And there’s a reason for that. James Madison believed that freedom of speech was the right that guaranteed all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. And so it is today. COOPER: What is your message to people about, who have just watched this, and are worried? PELLEY: It’s going to take courage, as it often has, to get through this period of American history. Our forebears were called by their times to have courage to move the country forward. And so it is with us today. The most important thing is to