Read the original post "How to Start a Blog!" on A Modern Homestead. Blogging is one of the cheapest ways to start an online business and make money from home. It’s flexible‚ easy to start‚ cheap to maintain‚ and you can grow your income to thousands per month! I’m proof you can build a 6-figure business from your dining table. And you can do this too! Whether it's... Read More The post "How to Start a Blog!" appeared first on A Modern Homestead.

Trump‚ Biden Head for the Border on the Same Day

FCC Now Forcing Broadcasters to Publish Race and Gender Data of Employees

10 Things That Had Not Been Invented When Joe Biden Was Born

If you work at the New York Times‚ you’re not allowed to like Chick-fil-A. A screenshot of an article is going viral on Twitter talking about an employee’s first day at The New York Times. When HR asked him what his favorite type of sandwich was and he responded with the popular chain's Spicy Chicken Sandwich‚ he was roasted for liking a sandwich from somewhere that supposedly didn’t support gay people. Yes‚ that’s actually what happened.  Adam Rubenstein‚ who was hired by the Times in 2019 for their Opinion section‚ wrote about how he was considered a “heretic” at The New York Times in a piece for The Atlantic published early Monday morning. Related: SHOCKER: New York Times Highlights Detransitioner Stories The employee discussed his experience at orientation his first day where he‚ along with other new hires‚ did an icebreaker. The question he was given asked about his favorite sandwich. Being that it was his first day and he didn’t want to come across as presumptuous and snobby with his actual favorite (the Super Heebster from Russ &; Daughters’)‚ he said instead‚ “the Spicy Chicken Sandwich from Chick-fil-a.” Immediately‚ he says‚ the HR representative in the room shut him down and said‚ “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” Are. You. Kidding. Me? He adds the other new hires immediately began snapping their fingers in agreement.  “I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage‚” the man admitted before noting that he “sat down‚ ashamed.” The screenshot of the story was posted Monday morning and already has almost 700‚000 views and thousands of reactions.  "What's your favorite sandwich?" “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A.” "Wrong!" pic.twitter.com/4A72FSL11N — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) February 26‚ 2024 “And they say Republicans are a cult‚” one user replied on X. “Any ideology or political movement that says you can't like a certain sandwich is one to steer clear of‚” wrote another‚ while The Post Millennials Senior Editor Andy Ngô commented‚ “What a sick culture in that news room.” Unfortunately for Rubenstein‚ his discomfort while working for the Times' didn’t stop there. Coming from outlets that were not outwardly or obviously on one side of the political isle or another‚ he often found that his questions were “unwelcome.” He reflected on his experience surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story that an MRC poll shows may have cost Joe Biden his presidency had it been reported responsibly.  “Many of my colleagues were clearly worried that lending credence to the laptop story could hurt the electoral prospects of Joe Biden and the Democrats. But starting from a place of party politics and assessing how a particular story could affect an election isn’t journalism‚” he wrote. Rubenstein also once contributed to a story surrounding the Black Lives Matter riots after George Floyd died‚ saying that lies‚ misinformation and rumors took over throughout the outlet. Rubenstein said coworkers insisted he was some sort of "fascist‚" eventually causing him to leave the paper‚ as “It had been made clear to me‚ in a variety of ways‚ that I had no future there.” Rubenstein had to learn the hard way something that only a few of us seem to really understand: the media is overtly biased‚ and places like The New York Times will only stand up for leftwing ideas and people who support them.  If the Times or any other outlet aims to cover America as it is and not simply how they want it to be‚ they should recruit more editors and reporters with conservative backgrounds‚ and then support them in their work. They should hire journalists‚ not activists. And they should remember that heterodoxy isn’t heresy. And as an aside‚ liking the taste of a sandwich doesn’t mean you’re homophobic. It just means you like the chicken sandwich. Follow us on Twitter/X: Since when is having more words to explain your views a bad thing? pic.twitter.com/yIbdSVhOSi — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 23‚ 2024

Can states put social media platforms on notice for censoring Americans‚ or are these platforms broadly protected to prohibit or limit content online with impunity? These are some of the questions that the Supreme Court may decide.  Here’s what you need to know about the cases. Today‚ the Court heard two separate but related legal cases that dealt with Texas and Florida free speech laws working to punish social media platforms that selectively censor online content. But NetChoice–a company representing Big Tech platforms‚ including Meta‚ Amazon‚ Google‚ PayPal‚ Pinterest‚ Snap‚ TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) among others–took issue with the laws and filed lawsuits. The cases‚ dubbed NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice‚ are against Ken Paxton and Ashley Moody‚ the attorneys general of Texas and Florida‚ respectively.  Attorney and MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris scolded Big Tech’s efforts to maintain its power to censor Americans. "The bottom line: Big Tech companies want to have their cake and eat it too‚” Morris said. “They've been at this censorship game for a long time‚ and now that Florida and Texas have stepped in with legislation‚ the chickens are coming home to roost. Either social media companies are responsible for the content that exists on their platforms (as publishers) or they're entitled to certain‚ specified liability protections for posts made by third parties on their open platforms via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They can't have it both ways." First‚ NetChoice v. Paxton. What’s the Case About? Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed House Bill 20 in September 2021‚ broadly protecting Texas residents from censorship on social media platforms. The law classifies social media companies as "common carriers" and prevents Big Tech companies from banning American users based on their political viewpoints. As a common carrier—meaning they provide services to the public and control access to other markets—the social media platforms would be forbidden from discriminating based on viewpoint.  (You May also Like: MRC VP Dan Schneider on NetChoice SCOTUS Cases: Do Big Tech Companies Have a Right to Censor?) "Social media websites have become our modern-day public square‚” Abbott said in a statement the day he signed the law. “They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.” Then‚ Moody v. NetChoice – Is It Different? In May 2021‚ Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed Senate Bill 7072‚ a law that sought to fix some of the censorship that plagued the 2020 presidential election: Big Tech’s censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell and the banning of then-sitting President Donald J. Trump.  Like Texas’s‚ Florida’s pro-free speech law similarly uses common carriership to block social media companies from censoring news organizations‚ excluding an enumerated list of reasons‚ including but not limited: child exploitation and other unlawful activities.  In 2020‚ Big Tech platforms shielded then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden by blocking the spread of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on the infamous “Laptop From Hell.” The Post’s reporting‚ perhaps for the first time‚ helped to cement years-long allegations that Biden was aware of‚ and even participated in‚ the contentious business dealings of his embattled son‚ Hunter Biden. Big Tech’s censorship of the Hunter Biden bombshell tilted the 2020 presidential election in favor of Biden‚ according to an MRC survey conducted by The Polling Company published on Nov. 24‚ 2020. The poll specifically found that 45 percent (out of 1‚750 polled Biden voters) conceded not knowing of Joe Biden’s role in Hunter Biden’s dealings. “According to our poll‚ full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate‚ flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump‚ giving the President 311 electoral votes‚” the MRC wrote at the time. (Related: EXCLUSIVE: ‘Laptop from Hell’ Reporters Detail How Big Tech Shielded Biden from Scandals) The Florida law also classifies Big Tech censorship meant to hurt a political candidate as an “in-kind contribution” to that candidate’s political opponent. This classification can be avoided by disclosing each censorship action as an independent expenditure. This particular section of the law indirectly alluded to Big Tech platforms banning Trump’s accounts over the events that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. “Many in our state have experienced censorship and other tyrannical behavior firsthand in Cuba and Venezuela‚” DeSantis said in a press statement announcing the bill on May 24‚ 2021. “If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently‚ to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology‚ they will now be held accountable.” What is NetChoice’s Argument? NetChoice‚ representing Big Tech companies in both cases‚ effectively seeks to block both laws‚ arguing that Texas and Florida are infringing on social media companies’ First Amendment rights. In one sense‚ NetChoice appears to be asking the Court to create a constitutional right to censor. NetChoice insists that the laws compel the social media platforms to speak. MRC Counsel for Investigations Tim Kilcullen contributed to this report through legal analysis.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

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 2023. >; For 2021 and 2022‚ for all of 2020. For all of 2019. For all of  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.)   â–  New on February 26: Liberal Media Scream: Trump Derangement Syndrome flies off the charts 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.   â–  February 19: Liberal Media Scream: Colbert says Trump ‘going to prison’ better than sex (Washington Examiner post) Remember when late-night comedy shows were funny instead of being populated by left-wing lecturers? Case in point in our weekly Liberal Media Scream is Late Show host Stephen Colbert. Along with many people last week‚ he watched the televised testimony of Fulton County‚ Georgia‚ District Attorney Fani Willis and her explanation of her affair with an attorney she put in charge of the election case against former President Donald Trump. “How good was this sex? Good enough to risk democracy over?” he asked in his monologue. Colbert then added‚ “You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that‚ my friends — is what they call a real happy ending.” From Thursday’s Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS:     STEPHEN COLBERT: Now‚ I don’t know who’s telling the truth here yet‚ but I will say exchanging business cards isn’t exactly a meet cute. The movie’s not called When Harry Networked with Sally. Now‚ at one point‚ Willis had had enough and really laid into opposing counsel. FANI WILLIS: You’re confused; you think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial‚ no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. COLBERT: Damn straight. Yeah. That’s right. That’s right. Here’s the thing. Yes‚ it’s true Donald Trump and his associates are on trial in this‚ one of the most important cases in the history of our republic. So‚ and‚ I’ve just got one follow-up question here: Given that if you are removed from the prosecution‚ it could delay this trial until after the election: How good was the sex? Good enough to risk democracy over? Because I’ve never had sex that good. You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that‚ my friends — is what they call the real happy ending. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Liberals love to complain that Donald Trump has broken many norms‚ but prominent entertainment media figures like Colbert have destroyed late-night TV. It was a comedy refuge from hard-edged politics‚ but Colbert is using his show to advance left-wing talking points and push his hate of Trump and conservatives in the guise of comedy. It’s not funny‚ and a legend like Johnny Carson‚ whose political jokes were light-hearted and chided both sides‚ is rolling over in his grave.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  February 12: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC host laughably says press against Biden (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream has LOL written all over it. Imagine any cable news show host claiming that the media has a negative bias against President Joe Biden. LOL‚ right? That’s what happened on Sunday’s Meet the Press when MSNBC host Jen Psaki said the media showed its bias when it simply repeated what the nearly 400-page report from special counsel Robert Hur said about the president’s foggy mind. Psaki‚ who was Biden’s first White House press secretary‚ complained that the media should be attacking former President Donald Trump‚ not her former boss. “If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now‚ you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered‚ given all of the things” Trump has said and done‚ she said. From the roundtable on Sunday’s Meet the Press: JEN PSAKI: If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now‚ you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered‚ given all of the things that have happened this week‚ including‚ and I know you asked Chris Christie about this‚ the fact that Donald Trump yesterday suggested that Vladimir Putin should have free rein in attacking NATO allies‚ and what do we see is wall-to-wall coverage of whether a guy who is four years older than his opponent is too old to be president. KRISTEN WELKER: And we are going to get to NATO. Go ahead. BRENDAN BUCK‚ former spokesman to ex-speaker Paul Ryan: Part of that job‚ to bring that to the front is‚ it’s the president’s job to bring that out and attack his opponent. I mean‚ the president is not taking the opportunity on Super Bowl Sunday. He’s not taking‚ really‚ any opportunities. And we hear‚ time and again — PSAKI: First of all‚ that’s not true. It’s not being covered. He has traveled just as much as Donald Trump‚ as Barack Obama. It is hard to break through the cloud of Donald Trump in this media environment. That is true. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “A media hostile to a liberal cause or Democratic politician is such a novelty that liberal political operatives like Jen Psaki just can’t comprehend it. After three-plus years of sycophantic coverage of Joe Biden‚ he gets a few days of negative coverage‚ and she lashes out at the media for daring to briefly act as real journalists. Welcome to the world endured every day for decades by conservatives and Republicans.”   Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  February 5: Liberal Media Scream: Kristen Welker likes to lecture Republicans‚ too (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a look at new Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker’s treatment of Republican leaders. And surprise — not — she continues to be just as biased as former host Chuck Todd. First‚ she lectured House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on the border bill released by the Senate on Sunday. “You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters‚ to the people who put you in office‚ to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing?” she said. Then‚ she passed along the Democratic talking point that after three years of aggressively enacting open border policies‚ “Joe Biden said he would shut down the border.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: KRISTEN WELKER: You have been calling for legislative change to actually deal with this problem. You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters‚ to the people who put you in office‚ to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Kristen‚ we did that. We did that nine months ago. And since we passed our measure in the House to solve this problem‚ and the reason we had to do it is because we saw that President Biden was not fulfilling his obligation under the law. That’s why it is such a failure of leadership‚ but we did our part. And by the way‚ since then‚ in the nine months since that bill sat on [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s desk‚ collecting dust‚ 1.8 million illegals have been allowed into this country‚ welcomed into the country‚ sent around the nation into every community — communities near everyone listening and watching this morning. And that is a catastrophe‚ and the American people know it‚ and that’s part of the reason that Joe Biden has the lowest approval rating of any president facing reelection. WELKER: Even former President Trump‚ though‚ called for legislative change on this issue. You have one of the slimmest majorities in the House in history. Don’t you have to compromise to get something done? What you passed in the House can’t pass in the Senate‚ Mr. Speaker. You know that. JOHNSON: We are willing to work. We are willing to work with the Senate. I am not disclosing that‚ and I’ve been very consistent for the hundred days that I’ve had the gavel. We are willing to work‚ but they have to be serious about it. If you only do a few of those components‚ you are not going to solve the problem‚ and Kristen‚ that is not a Republican talking point. That’s what the sheriffs at the border‚ the Border Patrol agents‚ the deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol‚ a 33-year veteran of the agency‚ told us. He said that it’s as though we’re administering an open fire hydrant. He said‚ “I don’t need more buckets‚” like the president has proposed. I need to stop the flow‚ and we know how to do that‚ but Joe Biden is unwilling to do it. WELKER: Let me ask you about your decision‚ and by the way‚ Joe Biden said he would shut down the border. He’s calling for more funding. He’s calling for you to pass this legislation. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “A perfect example of a so-called journalist serving as an advocate for Washington’s media-political establishment‚ demanding a recalcitrant conservative get in line and adopt the approved narrative.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  January 29‚ 2024: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   â–  January 22‚ 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Washington Post’s Rubin wants Trump ‘fascists’ reeducated (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features popular Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin doubling down on her Never Trump campaign. Appearing on the MSNBC weekend show Velshi exactly a year from Inauguration Day‚ the onetime conservative opinion writer said that the masses appearing at former President Donald Trump’s rallies “are part of a fascist cult.” And‚ she added‚ “they’re impervious to any kind of data‚ any kind of information. But what you have to do‚ if you care about democracy‚ is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans‚ they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump.” Rubin on MSNBC’s Velshi on Saturday: “Why it’s perhaps important to go to one of these rallies is to understand why he does have supporters. These people are part of a fascist cult. And let’s be honest‚ there are a lot of them. But a lot of them doesn’t mean that they are behaving logically or rationally. To the contrary‚ we’ve seen in other fascist regimes that millions of people‚ sometimes even a majority of the country‚ becomes intoxicated with an authoritarian figure‚ and these people are utterly irrational. If you speak to some of them‚ they will spit back these bizarro conspiracy theories. They actually believe in all of the mumbo-jumbo that he tells them. “So I think it would be a wake-up call about what these people are about‚ and‚ no‚ we’re not going to convince people who are part of the cult to switch. As you say‚ they’re impervious to any kind of data‚ any kind of information. But what you have to do‚ if you care about democracy‚ is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans‚ they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump. And I think that’s the job between now and November‚ and that’s the challenge for the Biden administration.” Brent Baker‚ the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “How condescending of Rubin to be so comfortable denigrating supporters of a presidential candidate she despises with one of the most vile insults. Just because she hates Trump doesn’t make those going to his rallies‚ the very embodiment of democracy in action‚ ‘fascists.’ Whatever happened to liberals wanting to expand participation in the democratic process?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  January 15‚ 2024: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Mika all in to help Biden’s reelection (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features Mika Brzezinski‚ the co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe‚ fawning over first lady Jill Biden in a sign of where the cable network stands before the 2024 presidential primary season begins. With easy questions quizzing Biden about her favorite emoji to dismissing chants of “Let’s go Brandon” that still follow the president‚ Brzezinski put on an able defense of the Biden White House. Among the questions posed to the first lady was this: “The division in this country‚ the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think‚ ugh‚ maybe we bow out?” The questions were part of Brzezinski’s Know Your Value “movement.” Our partners at the Media Research Center highlighted these from last Thursday’s show and today’s event at the White House: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You’ve been married to President Joe Biden for 46 years. There have been Senate races‚ three presidential campaigns‚ eight years of your husband serving as vice president. Unthinkable personal loss and challenge‚ and now democracy is on the ballot. What do you think when you hear people say‚ “Well‚ I just can’t vote for Joe Biden this election?” What is it that they may not know about him at this point‚ especially when the alternative seems to want to change this nation so radically? BRZEZINSKI: Potentially another four years in the White House. With everything you do here‚ does yet another one give you any pause thinking of‚ like‚ the personal health and well-being for both of you? The division in this country‚ the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think‚ ugh‚ maybe we bow out? BRZEZINSKI: How have you been coping personally with the onslaught of accusations against your husband and your family‚ including and especially Hunter‚ the focus of a House Oversight Committee hearing holding‚ holding him in contempt‚ obsessing over him‚ showing pictures of him during vulnerable moments in his battle with addiction on the floor of the House. This would crush any family. BRZEZINSKI: What do you think when you hear Trump Republicans calling it “Biden crime family” or one congresswoman‚ “The Biden crime family sold out America‚” Marjorie Taylor Greene‚ “He’s a liar‚ he’s mentally incompetent‚” and let’s not even talk about what “Let’s go Brandon” means. But you have U.S. senators holding signs that say that. ….BRZEZINSKI: Your favorite emoji? JILL BIDEN: Oh‚ my gosh. The turquoise heart. BRZEZINSKI: Turquoise heart? BIDEN: Yeah. BRZEZINSKI: I don’t have the turquoise heart on my phone. What does that mean? BIDEN: It’s like the beach. It’s calm. BRZEZINSKI: Oh‚ I like that. BIDEN: Color of the sea. BRZEZINSKI: Do I type out turquoise heart? Comfort food? BIDEN: Oh‚ french fries. BRZEZINSKI: Umm. Yeah‚ yeah. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Mika Brzezinski is all in on the reelection of Joe Biden. First lady Jill Biden picked well in selecting Brzezinski to interview her‚ confident she wouldn’t be challenged as they both could commiserate with how awful Trump is and how mean Republicans are to her family‚ topped by letting her tout the turquoise heart emoji. How informative.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  January 8‚ 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos judges Trump an insurrectionist‚ unqualified for 2024 (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a five-screamer featuring an ABC host and former Clinton handler acting as judge‚ jury‚ and executioner of former President Donald Trump and his effort to remain on the 2024 primary ballots and let voters‚ not partisan state officials‚ decide his fate. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos‚ on his Sunday show This Week‚ was quizzing his panel about the campaigns in some states to declare Trump ineligible for election because an official decided that the former president triggered a 14th Amendment ban on insurrectionists. On his show‚ which occurred the day after the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot‚ one of his panelists suggested the Supreme Court will decide Trump is guilty but that it will be up to Congress and not the states to erase the GOP front-runner’s name from the ballots. “If you say he engaged in insurrection‚” Stephanopoulos said‚ “I don’t see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and say he’s qualified to run for office.” Panelist Donna Brazile‚ an influential liberal and former acting Democratic Party chairwoman‚ told her host‚ “I totally agree with you‚ George.” From the roundtable on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah‚ what’s your guess on what the court does here? SARAH ISGUR‚ SENIOR EDITOR OF THE DISPATCH: I think you’ll have the Supreme Court hold that he is not disqualified from being on the ballot. They’ll overturn the Colorado Supreme Court. STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is‚ how will they do it though? ISGUR: Correct. I think they’ll say that‚ in fact‚ the 14th Amendment makes clear it’s up to Congress. If Congress can requalify someone by a two-thirds vote‚ there’s no timeline on that. Which means that‚ you know‚ as one of the amicus briefs has pointed out‚ it’s really supposed to be post-elections about holding office‚ not running for office. And so I think they’ll say it’s really Congress’s job. The states can’t make up their own standard. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it more likely than not? Et cetera. What’s interesting to me will be whether or not the Supreme Court goes out of their way in order to get those three‚ Kagan‚ Sotomayor‚ Jackson votes‚ in saying‚ “Yes‚ it was an insurrection‚ and yes‚ he engaged in it‚ but it’s up to Congress.” STEPHANOPOULOS: I don’t see how they can do that‚ Donna Brazile. If you say he engaged in insurrection‚ was the question I asked Nancy Pelosi‚ I don’t see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and say he’s qualified to run for office. DONNA BRAZILE: I totally agree with you‚ George. Brent Baker‚ the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Another example of how Stephanopoulos remains a Democratic partisan first‚ a journalist a distant second. No true journalist would weigh in with a definitive conclusion on what the Supreme Court should do weeks before a ruling on such a contentious issue which divides Americans. Stephanopoulos has clearly put himself in the camp with those who want to deny the public’s ability to vote for whomever they prefer. So much for saving democracy from Trump when you want to subvert the process.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  December 25‚ 2023 and January 1‚ 2024: No Liberal Media Screams these weeks.   â–  December 18‚ 2023: Liberal Media Scream: Scaremonger Scarborough: Trump will ‘execute’ foes‚ crush ‘American experiment’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough’s latest anti-Trump ranting. The host‚ whose earlier claim that former President Donald Trump will “execute” foes should he be reelected won the Media Research Center’s “Worst Quote of the Year‚” said on Monday that Trump would destroy America’s democracy‚ too. “A year from now‚ it could be over‚ the American experiment at an end one year from now‚” Scarborough said in comments we graded a rare five out of five “liberal media screams.” His comments are clearly what the latest Rasmussen Reports survey was tapping into when it found that more voters than ever believe the left bias in the media has reached a new high. The comments also raise a question about what scaremongering liberal media figures will be saying in 11 months if Trump is on the verge of beating President Joe Biden. Scarborough on Monday’s Morning Joe in a discussion with Politico’s Jonathan Lemire: “One year from now‚ it could be over. American democracy could be over. Donald Trump‚ one year from now‚ could win. He’s told us what he is going to do. When I say American democracy is going to be over‚ I haven’t said this. Donald Trump is the guy who said it. He is the one talking about executing generals that are not loyal enough to him‚ a guy that’s talking about terminating the Constitution if it gets in the way of his power. He’s the guy that’s talking about taking off news networks he disagrees with. He’s the one talking about prosecuting and putting in jail people who disagree with him. He’s the one saying that. “So‚ a year from now‚ it could be over‚ the American experiment at an end one year from now. So‚ let me ask you‚ with that being the case and with Joe Biden’s poll numbers getting worse‚ why is the White House going around singing‚ ‘Don’t worry‚ be happy’? Because that’s basically what they’re saying. Why does Joe Biden still have all of his campaign people inside the White House? When are they going to go out and start working on the campaign — not of his lifetime‚ of our lifetime? When are they going to start acting like American democracy is on the line and stop telling everybody to not worry?” Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explained our weekly pick: “Saying day after day after day the same over the top ‘the sky is falling’ warning to try to scare his viewers about Trump ending democracy is doing nothing but making Scarborough look every bit as unhinged as he wants people to see Trump. It may be catnip for MSNBC viewers‚ but Scarborough has become a parody of someone stuck inside a Trump Derangement Syndrome whirlwind unable to make cogent criticisms.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  December 11: Liberal Media Scream: PBS runs interference for Biden over Hunter scandals (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the efforts of Public TV and a Washington Post columnist to deflect the latest criminal indictment of first son Hunter Biden away from President Joe Biden. Following the tax charges filed by the Justice Department against Hunter Biden‚ the PBS NewsHour was eager to tell viewers on Friday that it saw no connection to the president. Anchor Geoff Bennett started with the “context” that Hunter Biden “does not work in the White House for his father in the way that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did. And the indictment does not in any way implicate President Joe Biden.” PBS guest Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post also ran block for Biden. “For Republicans to try to make a connection between Hunter Biden and trying to say that‚ 'Well‚ if you’re going to go after Trump‚ well‚ why shouldn’t we go after Biden?' these are two completely different cases‚” he lectured. From Friday’s PBS NewsHour: GEOFF BENNETT: So‚ let’s start with the latest legal trouble facing Hunter Biden‚ with the important context that Hunter Biden’s a private citizen. He is not seeking‚ nor has he ever held‚ public office. He does not work in the White House for his father in the way that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did. And the indictment does not in any way implicate President Joe Biden. And yet this will certainly add to the problems‚ the political problems‚ facing this White House‚ as House Republicans‚ Jonathan‚ zero in on Hunter Biden’s business dealings as part of their own investigations. JONATHAN CAPEHART: As part of their own investigations that have been going on for years now‚ and they’ve been using the president’s son‚ the president’s troubled son‚ to try to sully the president. And so far‚ they’ve come up with nothing‚ even though‚ next week‚ apparently‚ they’re going to be voting on‚ you know‚ to authorize an impeachment inquiry‚ trying to make connections that aren’t there. Look‚ when you read the indictment‚ when you hear about the indictment‚ it’s bad. I mean‚ it’s not good. It’s not good at all. But we’re talking about someone‚ as you — I’m glad you put that proper context there. He’s an adult. He has not held office. He’s not sought office. He’s not working for his father. The only thing is‚ is that he — his father is president of the United States. He’s being held accountable. And I take — I agree with [Hunter Biden’s lawyer] Abbe Lowell that‚ if his last name weren’t Biden‚ he probably wouldn’t even have these charges. They would have worked it out. But he’s facing the consequences‚ and he’s going through the legal avenues that are afforded to him. And for Republicans to try to make a connection between Hunter Biden and trying to say that‚ 'Well‚ if you’re going to go after Trump‚ well‚ why shouldn’t we go after Biden?' these are two completely different cases. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “You can almost feel through the screen how uncomfortable the PBS team was to even cover this story‚ but they realized they had to at least mention it‚ so they poured on the caveats so their audience wouldn’t be burdened with any information that might hurt their perception of President Biden. It’s the exact opposite tack they take with Donald Trump‚ where any allegations around him are amplified and discussed ad nauseam.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  December 4: Liberal Media Scream: Media eagerly team with Liz Cheney to undermine Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the remarkable teaming of the media with conservative Republican former Rep. Liz Cheney to stop former President Donald Trump’s 2024 bid. Repeating her success in winning Democrats to her cause after the Jan. 6 riots and in her No. 2 role on the House Jan. 6 panel‚ the media have eagerly opened its best shows for her to talk about her new book and campaign against Trump. The media have helped to promote her book and provided top platforms‚ notably on CBS Sunday Morning‚ where she warned that “one of the things we see today is sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.” In interviewing her about Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning‚ John Dickerson offered the perfect set-up question: “If a person is a member of Congress and they have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution‚ can they defend the Constitution and also endorse Donald Trump?” Cheney replied: “You can’t be for Donald Trump and for the Constitution. You have to choose.” The media's focus on the book has helped it into the No. 1 spot on Amazon on Monday‚ a day before it is released. From Sunday’s CBS News Sunday Morning: JOHN DICKERSON: After losing her 2022 Republican primary‚ Cheney traded the U.S. Capitol dome for the Thomas Jefferson-designed rotunda at the University of Virginia‚ where she has been lecturing on politics and writing a new book‚ Oath and Honor. Let me ask you about that oath. If a person is a member of Congress and they have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution‚ can they defend the Constitution and also endorse Donald Trump? LIZ CHENEY: No. It’s inconsistent. DICKERSON: So‚ they’re breaking with their oath by saying they would like him to be the next president? CHENEY: In my view‚ you know‚ fundamentally‚ there is a choice to be made. You can’t both be for Donald Trump and for the Constitution. You have to choose. DICKERSON: It’s a lot of people who are choosing Donald Trump. CHENEY: Yeah‚ it is. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Usually‚ to earn such a laudatory CBS News segment for your book‚ it must be published by CBS-owned Simon &; Schuster. But Dickerson and CBS are so enthralled with her quest to destroy Trump and anyone Trump-adjacent that despite having Little‚ Brown and Company as her publisher‚ they went into full promotion mode‚ cuing up her talking points with no pushback.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  November 27: Liberal Media Scream: Post reporter says ‘sources’ fret public’s lack of credit for Biden ‘successes’ (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream‚ we have the latest example of a journalist inside the Beltway concerned that President Joe Biden just isn’t getting the credit he deserves for "Bidenomics‚" the Middle East crisis‚ or pretty much anything else. Despite two years of polling that shows the public doesn’t buy the White House spin that their life is better under the Democratic administration‚ the Washington Post’s Leigh Ann Caldwell on Sunday’s Meet the Press cited “my sources” complaining that Biden is getting treated like the no-respect funnyman Rodney Dangerfield. “My sources are saying President Biden doesn’t get a lot of credit‚ not only on this‚ but on a whole host of things‚” she said in addressing the hostage releases over the weekend. But maybe there's hope‚ she added‚ that Biden will get the credit she says he deserves if his team just sells it better. "They have a lot of work to do to once again‚ like I said‚ try to get credit for the successes that he’s had over the past two years which he keeps on getting blamed for everything bad that’s happened." From Sunday’s Meet the Press: KRISTEN WELKER: Leigh Ann‚ I want to start with you. This is a huge test for President Biden. And obviously now‚ the pressure’s on to release the Americans. How is this playing for him politically‚ do you think? LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: Well‚ obviously it’ll be great if Americans are released with those hostages. But my sources are saying that President Biden also doesn’t get a lot of credit for his successes‚ not only on this‚ but on a whole host of things. So that does concern Democrats on Capitol Hill.... Yeah‚ Bidenomics has really been‚ become a negative word‚ especially among Democrats‚ because it’s not working. I was texting with some Democratic members of Congress last night just trying to get a read over the holiday weekend‚ what they’re hearing at home and what people are saying‚ and these members said that it is just not looking good for President Biden politically out there‚ that he would probably lose some swing states if the election were held today. So they have a lot of work to do to once again‚ like I said‚ try to get credit for the successes that he’s had over the past two years which he keeps on getting blamed for everything bad that’s happened. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Caldwell maintained Democrats ‘have a lot of work to do to once again‚ like I said‚ try to get credit for the successes’ President Biden has ‘had over the past two years‚’ but she’s clearly just as invested as any liberal Democrat in advancing that narrative to help Biden. And in that interest‚ she reflects much of the press corps which want to influence the outcome‚ as proven by how complaints that Biden isn’t getting the credit he supposedly deserves have become a common media theme.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  November 20: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Jonathan Karl says he wrote book to warn voters away from Trump (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream‚ we feature the latest example of the legacy media going from self-appointed instant fact-checkers on former President Donald Trump to out-and-out enemies. The choice is ABC’s Jonathan Karl‚ who admitted that he wrote his latest book on Trump to warn America about him. Asked on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS why Trump is leading the Republican nomination contest‚ Karl said that “superficially” there’s “a sense” that things were better during the Trump presidency. And‚ he added of his just-released Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party‚ “that’s why I wrote this book.” He explained that “if people are going to go into this next election thinking about that‚ they also need to be thinking‚ not just about what Trump was‚ but what he is now and what he is proposing and planning to do‚ what a second Trump administration would look like. And I don’t think people have come to terms with that at all.” Karl on Thursday’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS: “I think part of what’s happened is people look back. There’s anxiety in the country. People have economic anxiety. There’s discontent with Joe Biden and I think there’s some superficially a sense like ‘Look‚ if we could only go back to four years ago‚ the world was relatively at peace‚ inflation was low‚ everything was —’ I think there is some of that and that’s why I wrote this book because if people are going to go into this next election thinking about that‚ they also need to be thinking‚ not just about what Trump was‚ but what he is now and what he is proposing and planning to do‚ what a second Trump administration would look like. And I don’t think people have come to terms with that at all.” Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Karl’s quest is the very definition of improper political advocacy by a journalist. His job is to report the news in an impartial manner‚ not jump into the fray when a candidate he hates gets popular‚ and write a book to convince voters they are making a bad choice. How could any Trump supporter‚ or any Republican‚ ever trust his reporting when they know he has a personal interest in directing the outcome?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  November 13: Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s Hunt says no room for ‘happy and sunny’ in GOP (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream‚ we feature the latest CNN absurdity‚ a blanket declaration that there is no place for happiness in the Republican Party. The claim came today from CNN’s Kasie Hunt‚ who was giving her early morning assessment on the decision by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) to drop out of the 2024 presidential race‚ joining former Vice President Mike Pence on the sidelines. “There’s just no appetite in the Republican base right now for someone who’s happy and sunny‚” she said‚ citing her election night sources. Of course‚ many pollsters would suggest that there is just no appetite in the Republican base for anybody other than former President Donald Trump‚ and GOP voters seem to be pretty happy with that. Hunt‚ CNN’s chief national affairs analyst‚ on Monday’s CNN This Morning: “The noteworthy thing to me about this — I mean‚ look‚ I think it was pretty clear that Tim Scott’s campaign never took off the way‚ frankly‚ a lot of people in Washington thought that it might. He had‚ you know‚ all the ingredients to be really successful in the traditional Republican Party. He had a lot of backing. Honestly‚ he wasn’t public about it‚ but a lot of the people who have been working against Donald Trump for more traditional candidates like Mitt Romney were working on his operation trying to figure out how they could make that happen. “But when I talked to sources‚ and I did a lot of this on election night last week‚ they keep saying to me that there’s just no appetite in the Republican base right now for someone who’s happy and sunny. They’re angry. The base is angry. And that’s a big part of why Donald Trump has had such a durable lead in this race because he campaigns in a much different way. Tim Scott tried to be the kind of ‘Morning in America’ Republican candidate‚ and it’s just not what people are into. So‚ you know‚ it does make sense. He saw the writing on the wall‚ especially about the fourth debate‚ and here we are.” Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “None of the GOP presidential candidates are coming close to Trump‚ so why the particular argument Tim Scott failed because he’s a ‘happy warrior’ and the electorate is motivated by anger? Trump fans would contend his rallies are peppered with funny lines and upbeat messaging about the basis for his movement‚ Make America Great Again‚ which in itself is a happy and aspirational quest for a return to the best of America.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  November 6: Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s Zakaria says Biden better on border than Trump (Washington Examiner post) For this week’s Liberal Media Scream we feature the zaniest pro-White House spin yet on the historic border crisis caused by President Joe Biden’s policies. While big city “sanctuary” mayors are crying uncle because the president’s policies are dumping in thousands of illegal immigrants without providing any money or help with housing‚ CNN’s Fareed Zakaria somehow thinks that the White House is handling the crisis well. Biden is “actually not doing a bad job‚” he said on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher. For proof‚ he cited the deportation of illegal immigrants‚ ignoring the enormous crowds of migrants waved into the U.S. every day and the high number of those who slip in undetected. Zakaria on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO: “Biden’s actually not doing a bad job‚ they have deported more people — if you think that’s right and I do because you want a system of laws‚ right? They have deported more people under the Biden administration than Trump did. They’ve been harder line. The problem for Biden is‚ and this is a problem for Democrats‚ you can’t take credit for it because then you’re going to outrage‚ the progressive wing is going to go nuts. And so‚ even the things he does‚ it’s like stealth enforcement. You can’t talk about it.” Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The only reason the Biden administration deported anyone was because of the Trump-imposed Title 42 to deal with COVID‚ which stayed in place for more than two years of his administration until he ended it in May. In the fiscal year that ended September 30‚ 2.4 million people crossed the southern border‚ the highest number since records started being kept in 1960‚ and that was the third straight record year‚ all under Biden.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  October 30: Liberal Media Scream: Speaker Johnson takes compare him to KKK and mass shooter (Washington Examiner post) We could see this coming from miles away. For this week’s Liberal Media Scream‚ we feature the predictably sad reaction of the press to the unanimous Republican vote to confirm soft-spoken Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) as the 56th House speaker last week. Outlet after outlet tried to portray the Bible-toting Johnson as out of touch with America‚ instead comparing him to a KKK leader. It’s surprising liberal media outlets didn’t identify him with his middle name‚ James Michael Johnson‚ like mass killers. Even on CNN‚ analyst Gloria Borger conceded that the media was trying too hard to demonize the little-known lawmaker. It is “hard to demonize” him‚ she said‚ explaining‚ “He’s not the devil incarnate.” But Bill Maher and his crew didn’t get the memo. First‚ on his Friday show‚ Scott Galloway‚ a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business‚ said to audience applause‚ “The reason this guy is speaker is none of us have the time to read his resume and realize he’s David Duke-lite.” Maher pushed back on that characterization‚ but he offered his own invective‚ calling Johnson “a religious nut” before raising last week’s mass shooter of 18 in Maine: “Apparently he heard voices‚ and I thought‚ ‘Is he that different than Mike Johnson?’” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO and Max: SCOTT GALLOWAY: The whole point here is that we separate church and state‚ that we believe in the peaceful transfer of power‚ and the reason this guy is speaker is none of us have the time to read his resume and realize he’s David Duke-lite. BILL MAHER: Well‚ we do now. I don’t know if he’s David Duke-lite — I read today he has an adopted black son. I don’t think David Duke would do that‚ but he is a religious nut. .... MAHER: When you’re this much of a religious fanatic‚ there is no room for real democracy. That’s not what you believe in. He said it today: Look in the Bible — that’s my worldview. I was reading about this horrible shooting in Maine. We don’t know much about the guy yet‚ but apparently he heard voices‚ and I thought‚ ‘Is he that different than Mike Johnson?’ I mean‚ degree‚ yes‚ but it’s thinner than you think. Brent Baker‚ the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “What hypocrisy. You can’t decry how Donald Trump and MAGA have lowered discourse in America and undermined respect for democracy and then smear the incoming speaker of the House as no different than a racist Klan leader or a mass murderer. The comparisons are ridiculous and should be beneath anyone who considers themselves a serious political analyst.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  October 23: Liberal Media Scream: Morning Joe warns of Trump retaliation just short of firing squads (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC host Joe Scarborough speculating on a second Trump White House‚ ranting that it will be one retaliation after another for slights he’s felt over the past eight years‚ starting with the media and courts. On his show this morning‚ Scarborough compared Trump to hard-line Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. “He’s wiped out the judiciary‚ he’s wiped out the free press‚” Scarborough charged. There was no mention‚ of course‚ of how Trump made history as president with his appointments to federal courts‚ including three of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices‚ or that he was among the most accessible presidents in recent memory despite his verbal hits on the press. But at least he offered that Trump won’t line up his enemies and shoot them. Scarborough’s ruminations came during an interview with the Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum‚ who just wrote an article titled “Netanyahu’s Attack on Democracy Left Israel Unprepared.” Joe Scarborough on Monday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC: “I always tell people‚ if you want to see what Donald Trump is going to do if he gets reelected‚ don’t think about him lining up people against the wall and having them shot." “Just see what [Viktor] Orban has done in Hungary where he’s bragged about having illiberal democracy‚ and he’s wiped out the judiciary‚ he’s wiped out the free press. And Anne [Applebaum]‚ I suppose‚ that’s probably what Donald Trump will look for as a blueprint if he gets elected again.” Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Left-wing paranoia perfectly encapsulated by Joe Scarborough. No matter how bad you think a second Trump presidency would be for the nation‚ the idea that just because he makes derogatory remarks about judges‚ prosecutors‚ and journalists means he wants to ‘wipe out’ the judiciary and free press‚ is ridiculous. And even if he were so inclined‚ the U.S. political system would never allow it‚ leaving Scarborough’s warning as little more than baseless scaremongering.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  October 16: Liberal Media Scream: CBS anchor scoffs‚ ‘Indictment’ of Biden? (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the hypocrisy and bewildering ignorance of the media’s coverage of the classified documents cases both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump face. On the hypocrisy front‚ consider all the hours of TV coverage Trump received for his handling of documents compared to Biden. Also‚ consider how much time the networks gave the extraordinary two days of questions Biden faced last weekend from the prosecutor: just 48 seconds. Then watch as CBS Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan appears astonished that Biden’s case and charges are similar to Trump’s and that a House Republican chairman would even suggest that they should be handled the same way. “Indictment?” she interjected when her guest‚ Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH)‚ chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence‚ said‚ “President Biden needs the same consequence that they pursue with President Trump.” From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: You were talking about classified documents mishandled by the current president‚ and you said that when it came to Biden and Trump‚ they’re both equally egregious with equal classification issues. This past week‚ President Biden was interviewed by special counsel Robert Hur. Will there be legal consequences? Will your committee do anything to act on this? I mean‚ what exactly do you mean equally egregious? REP. MIKE TURNER: Well‚ when you look at the documents‚ both the classification level and the subject matter‚ both sides‚ Trump and Biden's documents‚ if they had been released in the public or gotten into the hands of nefarious parties‚ would be damaging to the United States national security. When I look at those documents‚ there are documents on both sides‚ equally egregious‚ that would have negative consequences to our means‚ methods‚ techniques‚ and our allies. Now‚ in this instance‚ I think President Biden needs the same consequence that they pursue with President Trump. The actions are the same. And in this instance‚ if you notice— BRENNAN: Indictment? TURNER: You’re getting leak after leak after leak on the Trump documents. You’re hearing nothing on the Biden documents. So you’re continuing to see the inequality that comes out of the Justice Department as there’s silence on the other side with respect to Biden’s. And by the way‚ he was a serial classified document hoarder. I reviewed documents that were from all the time that he’s been in government. This really is a very serious breach by President Biden. BRENNAN: Just to be clear here‚ though‚ are you saying that President Biden had top secret and TS/SCI classification level documents in his personal home? TURNER: That’s public already‚ Margaret‚ so I’m not confirming something that people don’t already know. That is correct. BRENNAN: OK. So I think you’re saying that he should be indicted when you say treated the same? TURNER: I think they need to be treated exactly the same. Now‚ they’re continuing their investigation with President Biden. I don’t think if President Biden in the end has been found to violate the law‚ and I believe from what I’ve seen that he has‚ that he should be treated any differently than Donald Trump. Why would he? Just because he’s president or because he’s a Democrat? And that’s how the Department of Justice has been acting. They need to be treated the same. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Brennan’s naivete about President Biden’s potential very serious misdeeds and seeming surprise that a veteran congressman would suggest he deserves to get treated just as harshly as former President Trump‚ reflects the larger disinterest in Biden’s behavior by the Trump-obsessed press corps. Indeed‚ special counsel Robert Hur interviewed Biden over two days last week‚ yet the ABC‚ CBS‚ and NBC evening newscasts offered a measly 48 seconds of coverage in total.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  October 9: Liberal Media Scream: CBS touts waitress jobs as sign Bidenomics works (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the transparent effort by the media to prop up Bidenomics at a time when most people believe costs and expenses under President Joe Biden are way too high. CBS led the way over the weekend when Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan said that a jobs report showing restaurant jobs up was proof Biden’s claims are right. She cited it to counter claims from 2024 Republican presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) that the economy is not doing enough for people. “That seems to undercut your argument that the economy’s broken‚” Brennan said. Scott slapped down that logic. He said‚ “Well‚ all you have to do is talk to the average American family and ask them what they feel — how they feel about Bidenomics. The answer is very simple. We’ve lost over $5‚000 of spending power since January of 2021. We should always celebrate the creation of jobs‚ but we should never forget that we went 52 consecutive paychecks — 52 consecutive paychecks — with a loss of spending power.” From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: On Friday‚ we spoke with Republican senator and presidential candidate Tim Scott from his home state of South Carolina. Our conversation began on the economy and the surprisingly robust September jobs report. BRENNAN TO SEN. TIM SCOTT: Friday's jobs numbers shattered expectations. It showed some economic momentum. In fact‚ restaurant hospitality hiring is back to pre-pandemic levels. That seems to undercut your argument that the economy’s broken. SCOTT: Well‚ all you have to do is talk to the average American family and ask them what they feel — how they feel about Bidenomics. The answer is very simple. We’ve lost over $5‚000 of spending power since January of 2021. We should always celebrate the creation of jobs‚ but we should never forget that we went 52 consecutive paychecks — 52 consecutive paychecks — with a loss of spending power. BRENNAN: And you blame political leadership‚ not the Federal Reserve? SCOTT: Well‚ if you think about the fact that over the last‚ I guess‚ year and a half‚ we’ve seen 16% inflation since Joe Biden’s taken office‚ which led to 11 consecutive rate increases‚ that downward pressure on our economy certainly created cracks and fissures throughout the economy. That was caused by Joe Biden’s lack of leadership and understanding of how to create jobs in America. Brent Baker‚ vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “Brennan put Democratic talking point spin ahead of reality in getting so excited about a jobs report largely built on gains in part-time employment and government jobs. Her priority was to undermine Scott’s very persuasive argument that Bidenomics is a disaster‚ something recognized by the vast majority of people outside of the media elite.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   â–  October 2: Liberal Media Scream: MAGA just racists‚ says MSNBC regular (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the continued smearing of MAGA by MSNBC‚ this time including the broken-record claim that supporters of former President Donald Trump are racists. Ignoring Trump’s support among black people‚ his friendships with notable African Americans‚ and his appointments of black people to top jobs during his administration‚ MSNBC let legal correspondent Elie Mystal rant that Trump is running for president again “on white grievance” and adding that “without racism‚ Trump is just dumber Chris Christie‚ all right?” From Sunday night’s The Mehdi Hasan Show on MSNBC: MEHDI HASAN: When you watch Donald Trump talking about “dampening the forest floor‚” and then you look at polls that show him neck and neck with Biden or maybe in the lead by 10 points or 5 points over Biden‚ do you put your head in your hair in your hands? ELIE MYSTAL: Look‚ Mehdi‚ not really. There is a recent poll‚ a study out of the University of Chicago that said the biggest indicator of whether or not you support Trump is whether or not you believe racism has been defeated‚ right? Whether or not you believe systemic racism doesn’t exist‚ whether or not you believe that what white people face more racism than people of color. Trump’s running on white grievance. It’s how he’s always been. It’s what he’s always done. And I feel like reducing it to racism always makes certain kinds of Democrats squeamish. We want there to be a bigger answer. We want to believe maybe Republicans actually think you should “dampen the forests.” We want to believe there is a reason. There’s nothing there there. All it is is white grievance. Without racism‚ Trump is just dumber Chris Christie‚ all right? And so‚ that is why he is where he is because he plays into the racism of his fans. Brent Baker‚ the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center‚ explains our weekly pick: “How convenient it must be to be so comfortable dismissing the political choice of a large portion of the public by tarring them all as a bunch of racists. Saves time on having to actually address what fai

Even while apologizing for the ridiculous racial and woke bias of its Gemini artificial intelligence‚ Google refused to address the root problem: its deep leftist bias. Google’s Gemini received a lot of backlash after multiple users‚ including MRC Free Speech America‚ found evidence of ridiculous bias in the AI image generator. From black George Washington to a woman pope to refusals to generate images of white people and Tiananmen Square‚ Gemini obviously had ideological leftism programmed into it. “It’s clear that this feature missed the mark. Some of the images generated are inaccurate or even offensive‚” Google admitted in a Feb. 23 release. The Big Tech giant did not‚ however‚ admit that its ideological bias and anti-free speech policies are the culprits; nor did it address the bias also evident in Gemini’s written responses. Google confessed that its AI needed major updating. “First‚ our tuning to ensure that Gemini showed a range of people failed to account for cases that should clearly not show a range‚” the tech company vaguely rambled. “And second‚ over time‚ the model became way more cautious than we intended and refused to answer certain prompts entirely — wrongly interpreting some very anodyne prompts as sensitive.” Gemini “may not always be reliable‚” Google admitted‚ and the image generation feature has been turned off for the time being while Google improves it. Fox News accused Google‚ however‚ of having a “White people problem.” Tellingly‚ in its release‚ the tech giant advised “relying on Google Search‚ where separate systems surface fresh‚ high-quality information on these kinds of topics from sources across the web.” Google topped MRC Free Speech America’s list of 2023’s worst Big Tech censors for its blatant search term bias against President Joe Biden’s 2024 election opponents. While Gemini’s biased images were particularly shocking‚ the same leftist bias was reported in non-image replies. Google did not address this issue in the release. After MRC previously caught Google’s AI downplaying evidence of Hamas terrorists’ mass rape and sexual assault‚ a spokesperson issued a separate apology. For example‚ The Washington Free Beacon’s Joe Gabriel Simonson shared a screenshot apparently showing Gemini’s assertion that Free Beacon fact checks are 100% false. The Google AI could not‚ however‚ provide a single piece of evidence to support the smear besides a claim from leftist PolitiFact. The AI then claimed there were “strong arguments” to justify the government outlawing the right-leaning Free Beacon.  Another user replied to Simonson with apparent screenshots of Gemini agreeing that there were reasonable arguments for banning other right-leaning outlets—New York Post and Washington Times. Meanwhile‚ the AI labeled any potential outlawing of leftist New York Times and The Washington Post as constitutional violations. Some individuals have also highlighted multiple instances of anti-white wokeness in the X feed of Jack Krawczyk‚ Gemini’s product lead. Krawczyk has since made his X account private. Only time will tell if Google will use less bias in programming Gemini or not. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

After nearly four years of relative silence‚ former New York Times op-ed editor Adam Rubenstein sounded off Monday morning in a lengthy essay at The Atlantic about the embarrassing‚ pathetic‚ and disturbing episode from June 2020 in which Rubenstein was pushed out over the paper's publication of Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) infamous op-ed calling for using the military to quell the costly and deadly Black Lives Matter riots. Rubenstein wasn’t the only casualty as his boss and editorial page editor James Bennet was forced to resign by a far-left mob of their own colleagues showing a petulant but standard inability to accept diverse viewpoints. Rubenstein caught the reader’s attention from the get-go in his piece “I Was a Heretic at The New York Times; I did what I was hired to do‚ and I paid for it” with this open (click “expand”): On one of my first days at The New York Times‚ I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink‚ I believe‚ and so I had to answer the pink prompt‚ which had me respond with my favorite sandwich. Russ &; Daughters’ Super Heebster came to mind‚ but I figured mentioning a $19 sandwich wasn’t a great way to win new friends. So I blurted out‚ “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A‚” and considered the ice broken. The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage. “Not the politics‚ the chicken‚” I quickly said‚ but it was too late. I sat down‚ ashamed. But he remained committed to The Times‚ saying both Bennet “and James Dao‚ the op-ed editor‚ were committed to publishing heterodox views” and brought him in from The Weekly Standard given his “contacts on the political right and a good sense of its ideological terrain”. As an editor‚ Rubenstein said op-ed editors “provide research for columnists and to solicit and edit newsy‚ against-the-grain” items to fulfill the mandate from Times founder Adolph Ochs to publish content sparking “intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion”. “This‚ I learned in my two years at the Times‚ was not a goal that everyone shared‚” he added After explaining how it was unsurprisingly “a strange experience” on issues like voting and Israel (with one telling him that Israel’s existence “makes me very uncomfortable”)‚ he stated the obvious that he “realized...right-of-center submissions were treated differently” with “a higher bar for entry‚ more layers of editing‚ and greater involvement of higher-ups.” This led to the Cotton episode‚ which began with “Cotton’s office pitch[ing] me an op-ed about Twitter threatening to lock his [Twitter] account” over tweets calling for President Trump to ‘invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to deploy’ the military ‘to restore order.’”  Rubenstein added that Dao replied it should instead be outlining “the actual substance of his argument” versus just decrying potential censorship. Cotton’s office agreed and quickly submitted a draft that would be published alongside “arguments against Cotton’s view.” The editorial process‚ aside from a bizarre aside with a photo editor about Cotton wanting to draw “a false equivalence‚” seemed routine. Rubenstein described it all as an “all pretty standard” chain of events. Upon publication‚ all hell broke loose. An internal Slack channel was set up to foment a mob against Rubenstein and Co. Worse yet‚ it was backed up by the NewsGuild union that’s also supposed to represent him. Instead‚ it joined in the mobs claiming Cotton’s piece placed the lives of Times journalists “in danger.” Best of all‚ Rubenstein named names (click “expand”): Immediately‚ the op-ed caused an outcry within the Times. Dozens of the paper’s employees retweeted an identical‚ or near-identical‚ statement‚ workshopped on Slack and rubber-stamped by the NewsGuild of New York‚ which represents the newspaper’s union (I was a member)‚ claiming that “running this put Black @nytimes staff in danger.” (....) Leadership at the paper seemed to think so; the claim had the trappings of a workplace-safety and racial-justice issue. The Times Guild immediately started organizing against the op-ed and those responsible for it. “Is there something else we can do? I am behind whatever action we might take‚” wrote Susan Hopkins‚ a newsroom editor who now helps run the front page‚ in the Guild Slack channel. By the end of the week‚ the Guild had a letter with more than 1‚000 signatures demanding changes to the Opinion section. (When I pointed out to a Guild representative that its activism was in effect calling for one of its own members to face repercussions‚ he seemed surprised‚ and apologized‚ though the Guild did not meaningfully change its public tack.) A diplomatic correspondent‚ Edward Wong‚ wrote in an email to colleagues that he typically chose not to quote Cotton in his own stories because his comments “often represent neither a widely held majority opinion nor a well-thought-out minority opinion.” This message was revealing. A Times reporter saying that he avoids quoting a U.S. senator? What if the senator is saying something important? What sorts of minority opinions met this correspondent’s standards for being well thought-out? In any event‚ the opinion Cotton was expressing in his op-ed‚ whatever one thinks of it‚ had‚ according to polling cited in the essay‚ the support of more than half of American voters. It was not a minority opinion. Soon a new channel was created on Slack to discuss the op-ed. In a matter of hours‚ more than 1‚500 employees had joined it‚ and there were thousands of messages plotting next steps and calling for a retraction‚ an editors’ note‚ firings. (....) On Thursday‚ June 4‚ a reporter on the business desk named Edmund Lee contacted me. “So‚ we’re reporting out the Cotton Op-Ed‚” he wrote. “We know from sources you were the principal writer.” I reached out to Dao for advice on how to handle this ludicrous claim‚ and did as he suggested. “I’ll have to send you to corp comms‚” I wrote to Lee. “Off the record: I can categorically tell you that I did not write the Op-Ed.” Later that day‚ the Times published a story by Lee and two other reporters. “The Op-Ed was edited by Adam Rubenstein‚” the article said. It devoted five paragraphs to my interaction with the photo editor‚ who had‚ against company policy‚ shared with the reporters some of our Slack messages. (....) As Bennet noted in his essay for 1843‚ the article claimed that Cotton advocated suppressing “protests against police violence.” The op-ed didn’t argue that. If it had‚ we would not have published it. In fact‚ Cotton’s essay was explicit in distinguishing between protests and the undeniable violence and looting: “A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.” Later‚ after poring over the Slack channels‚ I realized something more surprising: Rachel Abrams‚ one of Lee’s co-authors on the article‚ had been a vocal internal critic of Cotton’s op-ed. “How can they be sending us emails telling us they’re keeping us safe and care about our physical and mental well-being and then publish this‚” she had posted on Slack‚ later adding‚ “I think it’s good that a lot of us will put our names on a strong condemnation.” Despite having initially defended the publication of the Cotton op-ed‚ publisher A.G. Sulzberger “caved and was claiming that a review...found that ‘a rushed editorial process’” meant the piece “did not meet our standards.” This was even though‚ as per Rubenstein‚ no one spoke to him as part of said “review.” Rubenstein went on to cite more names‚ including TV critic Margaret Lyons arguing Cotton’s piece was akin to publishing something “where serial killers tell us murdering is actually fun and great” and reporter Liam Stack whining that any call for staff to calm down was “just making people more angry.” A so-called “editor’s note” was soon affixed to the piece‚ which Rubenstein said‚ “contain[ed] many errors‚ among them that the editorial process had been ‘rushed‚’ that ‘senior editors were not sufficiently involved‚’ and that facts in the article weren’t quite right.” The infantile-minded but nonetheless ruthless young tyrants won the day as the threats piled up‚ changes were made after Bennet’s resignation‚ and Rubenstein eventually left the paper.  All the while‚ the same intolerant hive of young ideologues who dominate the paper haven’t batted an eye at op-eds from authoritarians like Vladimir Putin‚ defenses of Chinese Community Party crackdowns on dissidents‚ and the head of the Taliban (click “expand”): Every now and then‚ the group that handles security for the Times would check in on me to make sure I was safe. Ever since the paper had named me as the person responsible for publishing Cotton’s op-ed‚ I had been receiving alarming threats. (....) Once Bennet resigned‚ a new regime came into Opinion. Dao was reassigned to the national desk. Clay Risen moved to Politics‚ then to Obituaries. New policies were enacted. A “See something‚ say something” rule was affirmed‚ and a Slack channel called “op-sensitivity” was created‚ in which editors were encouraged to raise concerns about one another’s stories. By December‚ I had decided to leave the paper. It had been made clear to me‚ in a variety of ways‚ that I had no future there. In the years preceding the Cotton op-ed‚ the Times had published op-eds by authoritarians including Muammar Qaddafi‚ Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan‚ and Vladimir Putin. The year of the Cotton op-ed‚ it also published the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Regina Ip’s defense of China’s murderous crackdown on prodemocracy protests in Hong Kong‚ Moustafa Bayoumi’s seeming apologia of cultural and ethnic resentments of Jews‚ and an article by a leader of the Taliban‚ Sirajuddin Haqqani. None of those caused an uproar. Last year‚ the page published an essay by the Hamas-appointed mayor of Gaza City‚ and few seemed to mind. Rubenstein concluded by noting that “the fight over Cotton’s op-ed was never about safety‚ or the facts‚ or the editing‚ or even the argument‚ but control of the paper” and that current Times employees have no desire “to cover America as it is and not simply how they want it to be” or “hire more editors and reporters with conservative backgrounds‚ and then support them in their work.”

Some Democrats are purportedly conspiring to block Donald Trump from the White House if the Supreme Court doesn't rule him constitutionally ineligible‚ according to a new report.On Friday‚ the Atlantic published an article explaining "how Democrats could disqualify Trump if the Supreme Court doesn't." The plan? If the Supreme Court doesn't give "clear guidance" (i.e.‚ the outcome Democrats want)‚ according to the Atlantic‚ then "House Democrats suggest that they might not certify a Trump win on January 6."You read that correctly. Some Democrats might do exactly what they claim Trump tried to do: block the certification of a presidential election.Earlier this month‚ the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson‚ the case stemming from the Colorado Supreme Court's having ruled Trump constitutionally ineligible for the presidency. The justices appeared highly skeptical of the case and could rule unanimously in Trump's favor. But what if the court doesn't address Trump's eligibility specifically? That could lead to a "constitutional crisis‚" the Atlantic argued.In that case‚ "Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. ... Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November‚ even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens‚ they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office‚" the publication said.In fact‚ the Atlantic spoke with top House Democrats who‚ in the publication's words‚ "would not commit to certifying a Trump win" absent of a specific ruling on Trump's eligibility."That would be a colossal disaster‚" said Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff. "We already had one horrendous Jan. 6. We don't need another."Neither Schiff nor Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D) committed to certifying Trump's potential victory if the Supreme Court doesn't rule directly on Trump's constitutional eligibility.The Atlantic‚ for its part‚ tried to lighten the weight of the hypocrisy.Despite having "left open the possibility of challenging a Trump win‚" Democrats "shuddered at its potential repercussions‚" the publication said. Moreover‚ the Atlantic suggested that if Democrats challenge a Trump victory‚ it's different.From the Atlantic:As Republicans are fond of pointing out‚ Democrats have objected to the certification of each GOP presidential winner since 2000. None of those challenges went anywhere‚ and they were all premised on disputing the outcome or legitimacy of the election itself. Contesting a presidential election by claiming that the winner is ineligible‚ however‚ has no precedent.Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) was perhaps the most explicit."We might just decide that's something we need to prepare for‚" Raskin told the Atlantic of not certifying a potential Trump victory.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!