As we wait to see what happens during the two week ceasefire announced by President Trump on Tuesday, the left wing media might have to take a break from the recent mantra, that such attacks may result in charges of "war crimes" against Trump. On Monday, before the cease fire, one cable TV host decided to educate his viewers, but for most others, it was the status quo. On Monday night, CNN's Laura Coates Live noted that Trump had earlier repeated his threat to strike infrastructure inside Iran, and read from a post from one of the six Democrats who had made a video urging our military to disobey illegal orders. COATES: The President repeated threats to strike civilian infrastructure, and we're talking about bridges, power plants, etc. He brushed off those strikes that could constitute some believe, war crimes. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) put it this way. "When the smoke clears, it will be our service members, not President Trump or Secretary Hegseth, who could have to live with the consequences," specifically legal and mortal danger.  Coates then turned to  Brad Bowman from The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who didn't disappoint with patented Democrat talking points.  BOWMAN: There's a difference between combatants and noncombatants. There's a difference between military and civilian. And it's good to be strong, but it's better to be good and good nations don't deliberately hurt civilians. And if you hit nuclear power plants, you're going to deprive neonatal wards of energy that they need. You're going to deprive Iranians of clean water. You're going to hurt them. We claim to be on the side of the Iranian people. So this will be counterproductive. This will turn Iranians against America. It will help the regime and their political warfare campaign, where they're trying to dupe Iranians into believing that we're the villains instead of them....As a general rule of thumb, if what your doing sounds a little bit like Vladimir Putin, stop and don't do it. Nothing new. But earlier in the evening, on Jesse Watters Primetime on Fox News, Watters did what is hardly ever done by the media, he put the story in context. He played a short clip of Trump answering the left's new favorite question from a New York Times reporter at Monday's press conference. NY TIMES REPORTER: Are you concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount to war crimes.? PRESIDENT TRUMP: Not at all. I hope I don't have to do it. Mentally these are disturbed people. If you think I'm going to allow them, powerful and rich, to have a nuclear weapon, you can tell your friends at the New York Times, not gonna happen. Then Watters laid it out. WATTERS: If knocking out power is a war crime Bill Clinton should be in The Hague. Slick Willie obliterated Serbia's power grid back in '99. Both the Bushes did it in Iraq. Lyndon Johnson hit a few power plants in North Vietnam. It was called Operation Rolling Thunder .These targets are selected as humanely as possible, considering dual use systems and the law of proportionality. A report from Rand indicated that NATO attacked six types of fixed infrastructure targets in Serbia, The vast majority of these targets were of the “dual use” variety in that they served a civilian as well as a military functions. They included electric power and industrial plants. Sound familiar? Operation Rolling Thunder went on from 1965-1968 and a report by Grey Dynamics indicates that eventually, targets expanded to larger pieces of infrastructure, primarily the kind that enabled troop transport and included systems (seacraft, land craft, bridges, major roads) as well as petroleum, oil and lubricants. More familiarity?  And Watters had the audacity to remind viewers that it's Iran who has actually been doing  what the left is so afraid Trump may do. WATTERS: But the goal of war is to win. We aren't hitting their water, hospitals, or hotels. That's what Iran is doing to our allies. Remember, these aren't civilian power plants. The Guard runs them and gets dibs on the power. So hitting that type of target hurts the military. And their ability to fight back. Watters was absolutely right to point out the hypocrisy of the left in labeling Trump's trumpeted actions as war crimes. But he shouldn't be the only one doing it. There is no fake news worse than fake news by omission. 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt faced a mostly liberal, elite media press corps Wednesday afternoon that had a Costco-sized carton of eggs on their face from President Trump’s Truth Social post the night prior unveiling a preliminary peace deal with Iran following declarations “a whole civilization will die,” so it was no surprise some arrived with adversarial question. This included two questioning whether the U.S. has lost the “moral high ground” in the world and against Iran, which has killed tens of thousands of protesters in the last year, criminalizes homosexuality, oppresses women, and has one of the worst records for press freedom. The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg was the first to go down this road: “The U.S. has been a moral leader for most of its history by fighting wars against other governments, not against civilizations. How can the President claim that America can ever have the moral high ground if he’s threatening to destroy civilizations and not casting wars as fights against other governments?” This question was proceeded by mention of the 2003 invasion of Iraq when “George W. Bush said in a message to the Iraqi people that the military campaign was directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.” The @Independent’s @AndrewFeinberg: “So, regarding the President’s rhetoric, when the us invaded Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush said in a message to the Iraqi people that the military campaign was directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.… pic.twitter.com/e0JpVnEGvq — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 Leavitt tore apart this attempt to equivocate, calling his line of question “insulting”: I think you should take a look at the actions of this President over the course of the past six weeks and the actions of our brave men and women in our United States military who have taken out the essentially taken out the military of a rogue Islamic regime that is chanted Death to America for 47 years, that has killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers over the course of the last five decades. The President absolutely has the moral high ground over the Iranian terrorist regime. And for you to even suggest otherwise is, frankly, insulting. The other reporter was Katie Rogers of The New York Times, who first asked: “I’m — just given the gravity of what he said yesterday, what was your understanding of what he meant when he said, I’m — this civilization is going to be eliminated?” New York Times’s Katie Rogers: “Does [the President] see the United States as a moral leader in the world given that he’s —”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “I was asked this exact same question by your colleague Andrew in the back. And I think, again, the insinuation by anyone in… pic.twitter.com/Gny9v2WrKx — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 Leavitt declared Trump’s promise to wipe out Iranian infrastructure was “a very, very strong threat from the President of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a cease-fire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, so it was a very strong threat that led to results.” Rogers then plunged down the “moral” track, but Leavitt wasn’t having a scintilla of this anti-Americanism (click “expand”): ROGERS: Does he see the United States as a moral leader in the world given that he’s — LEAVITT: I was asked this exact same question by your colleague Andrew in the back. And I think, again, the insinuation by anyone in this room that Iran somehow has the moral high ground over the United States of America is insulting — ROGERS: No one is [inaudible] LEAVITT: — considering the atrocities that they have — ROGERS: — civilization off the map. That’s different. LEAVITT: — considering the atrocities that they have committed against our people and our military over the past five decades. Earlier in the briefing, NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez similarly wondered “why is it appropriate for the President of the United States to use that kind of language when talking about civilian targets” even though “Iranian leaders have previously said Death to America[.]” “And was the President mocking Islam by signing off his true social post over the weekend, ‘praise be to Allah.’ Wouldn’t that antagonize Muslim allies across the world,” he added. NBC’s @GabeGutierrez: “Karoline, the President yesterday threatened that ‘a whole civilization would die’ if a ceasefire deal wasn't reached. Understanding that Iranian leaders have previously said Death to America, but why is it appropriate for the President of the United States… pic.twitter.com/b3Wf0A55NU — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 As it was still early on in the briefing (Gutierrez was the second reporter called on), Leavitt calmly explained that while “I understand the questions about the President’s rhetoric...what the President cares most about is results and, in fact, his very tough rhetoric and his tough negotiating style is what has led to the result that you are all witnessing today.” Before the Q&A, Leavitt set the record straight on a supposed ten-point plan put out by the Iranians: .@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt on U.S. negotiations with Iran... “I’ve seen a lot of inaccurate coverage today from the media about these negotiations and these plans already, so let me be clear and correct the record. The Iranians originally put forward a ten point plan that was… pic.twitter.com/jdajjz6fxZ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 Our friends at AMAC had the “new media seat” and sent editor-in-chief Shane Harris with questions about what the U.S. achieved in Operation Epic Fury and what Trump’s message was to elderly Americans ahead of the midterms: .@AMACforAmerica’s @ShaneHarris513 was today’s “new media seat” recipient at the White House press briefing, asking about Trump’s message to the American people about what Operation Epic Fury achieved and then his message to American seniors ahead of the midterms... Harris: “Two… pic.twitter.com/2CiPjlckrY — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 Speaking of conservative media, Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese invited Leavitt to further explain Vice President JD Vance’s role in mediating talks with Iran and then separately if President Trump would support or oppose the Dignity Act, which “would give some illegal immigrants in the country a path to citizenship”: .@DailyCaller’s @ReaganReese_: “On Iran, it’s been reported that the cease fire was struck after the involvement of two unlikely factors: J.D. Vance and China. What role did those parties play in striking a deal?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “Well, Vice President Vance has… pic.twitter.com/ulR6OXNopd — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 .@DailyCaller’s @ReaganReese_: “And on the Dignity Act, it’s getting a fresh push through Congress. It would give some illegal immigrants in the country a path to citizenship. What’s the White House’s position on this legislation and would the President sign it if it made it to… pic.twitter.com/DKDXgFsBO7 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 Speaking of Vance, 2023 MRC Bulldog Award winner Mary Margaret Olohan inquired about security for the Vice President and fellow U.S. negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff in Istanbul (as well as whether the U.S. “plan[s] to deport more relatives or people in the families of Iranian officials”): .@realDailyWire’s @MaryMargOlohan: “Are there still security concerns about Vice President Vance being part of these peace talks [with] Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner? And then, two, given the ongoing deportation of General Soleimani’s niece, does the Trump administration plan to… pic.twitter.com/neQmJLcQ8T — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 Fast-forwarding to the end, independent conservative journalist Lyndsay Keith sought to have Leavitt elaborate on Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s declaration U.S. troops would be, in her words, be “sticking around” during the two-week cease-fire. She was followed by Newsweek’s Leo Feldman wondering if Trump was considering withdrawing the U.S. from NATO: .@LyndsayMKeith: “Secretary Hegseth said this morning that U.S. troops would be sticking around. Can you expound upon that? What we should expect from U.S. troops in theater for the next two weeks and beyond?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “I would refer you to the Pentagon for… pic.twitter.com/nmure5HRJC — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 .@Newsweek’s @LeoFeldmanNEWS: “On NATO, can you tell me, is the United States still considering withdrawing from NATO? Is that still a possibility?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “It's something the President has discussed, and I think it’s something the President will be… pic.twitter.com/R1wvik97ci — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 8, 2026 To see the relevant transcript from the May 8 briefing, click here.

In a recent appearance on Stinchfield Tonight on Real America’s Voice with host Grant Stinchfield, Media Research Center President David Bozell pulled no punches describing the elitist media’s coverage of the U.S. actions against Iran as “Trump Derangement Syndrome on steroids.” Bozell warned that the intense hostility goes far beyond typical partisan negativity. He predicted that if Democrats regain majorities in Congress, they won’t settle for lengthy investigations. Instead, they may skip straight to impeachment by accusing President Trump of war crimes, seeking international bodies or “kabuki courts” to claim he killed civilians or violated global norms. "It's Trump Derangement Syndrome on steroids!" @DavidBozell destroys the anti-American media for rooting against the home team in the Iran War. @stinchfield1776 @RealAmVoice pic.twitter.com/kDwarLjQf9 — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 7, 2026 This narrative, Bozell argued, originates with left-leaning journalists who rely heavily on sources from NGOs and international human rights organizations that consistently feed anti-Trump, anti-American stories. Networks have abandoned any pretense of rooting for the home team. MS Now’s Lawrence O’Donnell claimed Trump was “humiliated” after Iran downed planes. CNN suggested Iran held “all the cards.” PBS, even after defunding, hosted a guest accusing Texas of already committing war crimes. Bozell highlighted the absurdity: some commentators appear to defend the Iranian regime, which reportedly used women and children as human shields to protect military electricity grids from U.S. strikes. Rather than supporting American forces defending national interests, certain voices side with America’s adversaries. .@DavidBozell torches Democrats and the fake news media for siding with terrorists instead of Americans in the Iran War. @stinchfield1776 @RealAmVoice pic.twitter.com/U5YF8MaPUD — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 7, 2026 Thankfully, cooler heads appear to have prevailed for now, with both sides stepping back from escalation. Yet the episode reveals a troubling pattern: when it comes to President Trump, segments of the elite media seem willing to undermine U.S. interests and defend even the most repressive regimes rather than report fairly. Stinchfield praised the Media Research Center and NewsBusters for relentlessly exposing this bias, noting they even loan staff to his program each evening. “You guys do such great work,” he said, thanking Bozell for holding the media accountable.  

PBS debuted a new two-part documentary on Tuesday by Lucy Worsley that seeks to cover the American Revolution from the British perspective and how its series of missteps led to the loss of the colonies. At one point in part one, Worsley interviewed Prof. Olivette Otele in a segment that sounded like it came out of The 1619 Project, as both suggested the Dunmore Proclamation had a lot to do with the Southern colonies being pushed to join the rebellion despite the historical timeline not matching up with such an assertion. Worsley teased that, “At the Royal Naval College in Greenwich, I'm meeting a historian to examine newspaper reports from December 1775. They tell a remarkable story about Lord Dunmore, Britain's royal governor in Virginia.” After Otele repeated that biographical information, Worsley asked, “And what was going on in Virginia? Was it a tough assignment? Was there rebellion?”   On PBS's documentary on the American Revolution from the British perspective, Lucy Worsley and Prof. Olivette Otele give a 1619 Project-esque view of the rebellion in the southern colonies. Worsley says "I guess if I were a plantation owner then and I was feeling pretty loyal to… pic.twitter.com/3uOJDXiYtM — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 8, 2026   Otele replied: He found a colony that was extremely wealthy and that had the largest enslaved people's population in the colonies, in the 13 colonies. But at the same time, he was lacking supplies and he didn't have reinforcement, and he was more or less forced to do—to take initiative. So what he decided to do is to issue a proclamation, and this is what the proclamation says. " And I do hereby further declare all indentured Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His Majesty's Troops as soon as may be.” He is willing to offer freedom to any enslaved people or to indentured servants who'd be willing to join the British side. After the pair discussed how Dunmore did not issue the proclamation out of the goodness of his heart but rather as a strictly practical measure, Worsley declared, “I guess if I were a plantation owner then and I was feeling pretty loyal to the British, not very keen on the rebellion, this might tip me over the other way.” Otele agreed, “Yes, the colonists were absolutely outraged. They actually believed that enslaved people would be freed by the British all across the colonies, and therefore it was an assault on their livelihood, on the economy. They saw it as an attempt at, you know, stopping their right to ownership and property.” The duo then discussed how Dunmore’s move backfired before Worsley added, “This proclamation had dramatic and far-reaching consequences. Emancipation was being used as a weapon of war. And it pushed more Southern, slave-owning colonies straight into the revolutionary camp.” The idea that the Dunmore Proclamation helped fuel the rebellion was The 1619 Project’s key bit of evidence that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery before professional historians called them out on it. The main counterargument is that the Dunmore Proclamation was a response to a rebellion that was already growing and not the cause of one, which Worsley and Otele sort of alluded to but ultimately minimized with Worsley’s conclusion. Additionally, the Dunmore Proclamation was issued in November 1775, but by that point Virginia had sent delegates to the First Continental Congress in September 1774. George Washington, a Virginian himself, was appointed to lead the Continental Army in June 1775 by the Second Continental Congress that convened a month earlier. By July of 1775, all 13 colonies would join Congress. Human motives are not always pure, and there were probably some people who fell into the camp Worsley and Otele were describing, but Virginia joined the Revolution out of solidarity with Boston and opposition to British taxes and other offenses. No matter how much PBS or The 1619 Project tries to make slavery a key part of the revolution, it will not suddenly become true. Here is a transcript for the April 7 show: PBS Lucy Worsley Investigates: The American Revolution: The Break Up 4/7/2026 9:44 PM ET LUCY WORSLEY: At the Royal Naval College in Greenwich, I'm meeting a historian to examine newspaper reports from December 1775. They tell a remarkable story about Lord Dunmore, Britain's royal governor in Virginia. Tell me a bit about Lord Dunmore. Who was he? OLIVETTE OTELE: He was the fourth Earl of Dunmore, known as John Murray, and he was the royal colonial governor of Virginia. WORSLEY: And what was going on in Virginia? Was it a tough assignment? Was there rebellion? OTELE: He found a colony that was extremely wealthy and that had the largest enslaved people's population in the colonies, in the 13 colonies. But at the same time, he was lacking supplies and he didn't have reinforcement, and he was more or less forced to do—to take initiative. So what he decided to do is to issue a proclamation, and this is what the proclamation says. " And I do hereby further declare all indentured Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His Majesty's Troops as soon as may be.” He is willing to offer freedom to any enslaved people or to indentured servants who'd be willing to join the British side. WORSLEY: That's a really extraordinary statement, isn't it? He's saying, "Look, if you're enslaved, and you're on the rebel side, and if you come over to the British loyalist side, I will give you your freedom." And do you think he was doing that because he actually believed that they deserved freedom and that slavery was a bad thing? OTELE: No, Dunmore was calculating, it was strategic. What he wanted to do was to have more men fighting on the British side, and he was backed into a corner. That's why he made the decision. WORSLEY: Do you know how many formerly enslaved black Virginians joined up who actually, you know, became part of the British army? OTELE: We don't have the exact numbers, but it's between 800 and 2,000 people who joined him. And he set up a regiment, which was the Ethiopian Regiment. WORSLEY: I guess if I were a plantation owner then and I was feeling pretty loyal to the British, not very keen on the rebellion, this might tip me over the other way. OTELE: Yes, the colonists were absolutely outraged. They actually believed that enslaved people would be freed by the British all across the colonies, and therefore it was an assault on their livelihood, on the economy. They saw it as an attempt at, you know, stopping their right to ownership and property. WORSLEY: So from the point of view of Lord Dunmore, this seems to me like a total own goal. OTELE: Yes, Lord Dunmore didn't think, I think, this through. He thought about the immediate consequences, but not necessarily the long-term impact on the war after that. WORSLEY: This proclamation had dramatic and far-reaching consequences. Emancipation was being used as a weapon of war. And it pushed more Southern, slave-owning colonies straight into the revolutionary camp.

MS NOW star Rachel Maddow should have extra time to prepare her long lecturing monologues on Monday night, since she's only doing one show a week for a reported $25 million a year (nice work if you can get it). But on April 6, she borrowed from an NPR story to underline how the Trump administration is mistreating the veterans in this time of war. It's too bad she didn't actually seem to read the whole article that she was sharing with her superfans. It unfolded like this, next to the graphic "Breaking Bad," as if Trump is like the drug kingpin in that show.   MADDOW: How are these guys doing taking care of the troops and the veterans who come home from war? This is the lede from NPR. Quote, more than 10,000 veterans lost their homes to foreclosure since May of last year, when the Trump administration shut down a key safety net in the VA home loan program. Quote, the Trump administration was warned this would happen. At a hearing in March 2025 before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, a representative from the Mortgage Bankers Association warned about it explicitly. quote, ‘Foreclosure. Period. That's really where it's going to come to. Nevertheless, less than two months later, the Trump administration shut down the rescue program anyway. Since then, more than 10,000 U.S. veterans have lost their homes through foreclosure sales. Rachel Maddow makes propaganda with an NPR story on veterans losing their homes under Trump. She left out the part where NPR explained "The roots of the crisis go back to a mistake made during the Biden administration..." Because Maddow makes propaganda. https://t.co/6ATT2mDAg7 pic.twitter.com/5Y25HdlLeW — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 7, 2026 Maddow left out the part where NPR's investigative reporters explained the problem goes back to the Biden administration, even if the story still pushed an anti-Trump angle:  The roots of the crisis go back to a mistake made during the Biden administration, when the VA abruptly shut down a pandemic assistance program while thousands of vets were still in the middle of it. Struggling homeowners who used the program to skip some mortgage payments suddenly had to pay those payments back all at once — an unaffordable burden for many of them. After an NPR investigation exposed the problem, the VA halted foreclosures for a year while it rolled out a fix. Republicans in Congress, citing costs, wanted to kill that fix and replace it with something else. But last spring, the mortgage industry warned that shutting down the program without first replacing it would be a disaster. "Foreclosure. Period. That's really where it's gonna come to," warned Elizabeth Balce, representing the Mortgage Bankers Association, at a hearing in March of 2025 before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Less than two months later, the Trump administration shut down the rescue program anyway. The story highlights sympathetic veterans who now can't make the payments that are suddenly demanded. There's really nobody from the Republican side quoted (the Trump VA offered a written statement). So the NPR story has an anti-Trump slant -- but not as propagandistic as Maddow's little cartoon of a commentary. (The piece that aired on Morning Edition sounded more anti-Trump than the online version.) Remember, Maddow's fans in the media have long gushed over her as a "Wonky-Tonk Woman" who always "does her "homework." Well, she flunked this exam.