Eight years after she left the White House, the liberals on TV are still fawning all over Michelle Obama. Gayle King and Whoopi Goldberg led the parade defending Queen Michelle's self-absorbed decision to skip Jimmy Carter's funeral and Donald Trump's inauguration because it wasn't "the right thing for me." She's free to do that, but she's not free to demand we all shut up about it. On April 10, CBS Mornings host Gayle King led her royal consort in proclaiming that Mrs. Obama can tell everyone it's none of their business. "She doesn't need to explain anything to anybody," announced CBS's Vladimir Duthiers. Gayle thought her complaining was so lovable!  The funniest part of this fawning is Gayle saying Michelle’s so unbothered, "I bet she won’t talk about this again." Oh no, she did it again on another podcast with an actress. This time it was Taraji P. Henson, who seems like quite a egotistical diva in her own right, but this was on Michelle's own podcast (the one with her brother Craig Robinson.)  Newsweek reported journalist Katie Couric wrote a message in the comments that garnered over 9,800 likes: "Michelle. You do you. That's why we love you. Ignore the haters and the naysayers. You're powerful and that's why you're a lightening rod for them. Carry on!" This podcast spurred Whoopi Goldberg to come unglued on The View. How dare anyone question the Queen! “My question about all of this is why does she owe anybody an explanation? … Why is it my business?! She didn't go!” Sunny Hostin said it was a female thing: "You know why -- I think it's because women are always expected to say “yes,” and expected to do things even when they don't want to do them." These types of events are generally dutifully attended by all living presidents and first ladies. So an absence is notable. Attendance is NOT mandatory, but when Barack shows up and Michelle doesn’t, then the tabloids and the social media started speculating about whether their marriage was on the rocks. Michelle Obama is very rich and very famous and she is free to skip out on anything she feels is not worth her time. But she is not free to squash anyone else talking about it, even if all her liberal media adorers want to shame everybody else. Michelle just doesn’t get how whiny and entitled she sounds. The entire time that she’s been on the national stage, her media coverage was about 97 percent positive, most of it super-duper positive.  In addition, we talk about our new number about the network obsession with deported illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia: 143 and a half minutes of televised attention to the "Maryland Man." But the rape and murder of Maryland mom Rachel Morin is still ignored, despite her illegal-alien killer being convicted at trial. Her mother Patty Morin appeared in the White House briefing room, and ABC and CBS still skipped it. NBC gave it 12 seconds.  CNN's Donie O'Sullivan was the latest liberal to devote a story to the White House allowing an invasion of "MAGA Media" White House correspondents. He was appalled that these journalists (he wondered if they were journalists) were cheerleading Trump instead of challenging them. Would Donie want to revisit how CNN covered Biden and Harris, not to mention Obama?  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

It must be a cold day in hell apparently. Leftist fact-checker FactCheck.org actually took time to defend President Donald Trump’s first term economy from deceptive falsehoods circulating online. They were unhappy that Biden fans were misleading people about their website's economic record-keeping.  The fact-checker took particular issue with a graphic circulating online distorting data to give former President Joe Biden a much more favorable economic assessment over Trump. As FactCheck.org noted, “[T]wo of its figures are way off, and others are out of date — creating a more unfavorable comparison for Trump.” Moreover, wrote staff writer D'Angelo Gore, “The graphic also doesn’t mention that Trump’s numbers, for his first term, were negatively affected by the economic decline caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”  That’s certainly a factoid many in the media don’t like to point out when doing Biden vs. Trump economic comparisons. A post of the graphic on X, according to the outlet, “garnered roughly 98,000 ‘views’ and been reposted about 4,200 times.” pic.twitter.com/5caOKrpCxT — Annie (@AnnieForTruth) April 17, 2025 Whoever generated the graphic reportedly relied on twisting data from FactCheck.org’s previous reports. “Biden’s figures, which are in green, appear to come from our article “Biden’s Numbers, April 2024 Update” – but two of the figures have been inverted,” Gore wrote. Specifically, Gore continued, “we reported that the most recent economic growth rate under Biden at that point, for the first quarter of 2024, was 1.6% – not 18.8%, as the graphic says. And we reported that the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services under Biden had grown 18.8% at that time – not 1.6%.” The creator of the graphic also tried to use outdated figures from FactCheck.org’s database in order to slam Trump. According to Gore, “[T]he creator of the graphic appears to have pulled his figures, which are in red, from our original version of “Trump’s Final Numbers” that was published in October 2021. (The graphic’s figure for job growth under Trump is a typo.) But we updated that article in July 2024 because we found that several of the statistics – due to periodic revisions to government data – were no longer accurate.” Add to that the gross omission of the COVID-19 lockdowns that sent the economy into a spiral and you have full fledged leftist propaganda, as Gore undlerined: "Our report mentioned the pandemic nearly 40 times." In fact, as Gore conceded, Trump’s numbers are much better if one eliminates the COVID-19 pandemic year as an outlier:  There had been an increase in employment under Trump before the pandemic caused the loss of more than 20 million jobs in April 2020, as attempts to stop the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 led to business closures and layoffs. Also, prior to the pandemic, the unemployment rate was 3.5% in February 2020, and the economy had grown by 2.3% in 2019. “We don’t know if those economic gains would have continued if not for the pandemic, but it’s misleading to present Trump’s first-term economic record without mentioning the COVID-19 caveat,” Gore concluded.  Now, of course, Gore couldn’t let himself be completely red-pilled and was guilty of leaving out context himself. When citing Biden’s jobs numbers, Gore argued that “the unemployment rate was 4%, and total employment for the entirety of his presidency had increased by more than 16.1 million jobs, including 610,000 manufacturing jobs.” The issue: Nowhere did Gore mention that much of the so-called jobs added under Biden were simply those recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, when the employment number being thrown around as a win for Biden was “15 million” jobs added last year, fellow fact-checker Snopes slapped that down as a load of bunk.  According to Snopes, “About 9 million of those jobs were lost during the pandemic, so the net jobs gain from pre-pandemic levels was 5.5 million.” In other words, the “15 million” claim was bunk. The author of the fact check, Anna Rascouët-Paz, addressed the Biden propaganda on her personal Twitter account: “Did the US economy really add 15 million jobs under Biden? *squinty face* mmmm let's not push it.”

Thursday’s CBS Evening News Plus dove head-first into another meltdown about the Trump administration’s push to remove Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and other race-hustling removed root and branch from the federal government. This time, fill-in host Maurice DuBois brought out the head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to melt down about a new executive order to undo disparate impact. Before diving in for the bias, let’s put on the table what defines “disparate impact.” It can be declared in a variety of circumstances, ranging from hiring to housing to lending to school discipline, when policies are deemed discriminatory toward a certain group(s) of people, regardless of whether said policies are content neutral.     I wrote this in 2013 as part of an unpublished research paper while a Heritage Foundation intern (click “expand”): The real definition, so to speak, came about in Title (or Section) VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which deals with equal opportunity employment and anti-discrimination in the workplace. In that section, the term “adverse impact” is the key feature and is another term for disparate impact. Whereas disparate impact is meant to be unintentional, disparate treatment theory is where the actual practices and policies are flatly deemed discriminatory in their intent. Over the course of the past 42 years, disparate impact theory was sanctioned in the Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), the term used for unintentional discrimination has grown to reach far beyond employment qualifications and practices. When it appeared to be on the ropes in the late 1980s after the Supreme Court began rolling back Griggs, Congress reacted legislation in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to ensure that disparate impact remained. The Obama Administration and in particular the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have exacerbated this problem for companies further as possible disparate impact charges now include alleged discriminatory lending, fair housing, education, and police tactics (in addition to hiring practices). Unsurprisingly, DuBois framed this as outrageous anyone would oppose it: “Those civil rights groups are condemning President Trump for signing a series of executive orders this week that they say would weaken anti-discrimination laws.” “So, one of the executive orders goes after what is known as disparate impact liability. Take us through what that is and an example, if you can, of how that’s helped people in the past,” he said in the first of many softballs to the NAACP’s Janai Nelson. Nelson unapologetically defended this reverse discrimination of sorts, first discouraging viewers from being “tripped up on these words ‘disparate impact liability.’” Instead, she said this should be about “interrogat[ing] inequality” and changing policies when “different groups experienc[e] a law or a policy in different ways.” She then gave an example of how credit scores are racist (click “expand”): NELSON: We see this in so many spheres of society. So for example, if people are trying to access affordable housing and there’s a rule or a law, like a credit report threshold that somehow is making it difficult for people to find access to housing, to get shelter, then we should ask, is that really a useful tool to ensure who gets access to housing or not? If it is, then that’s fine. If it’s not, and it’s hurting particular populations more than others, then we should be interrogating it. We should be making sure that we are not forcing inequality on people simply because of their identity based on policies that don’t serve us. DUBOIS: Whether it’s intentional or not is a key here too. What’s your biggest concern? NELSON: That’s right. DuBois’s softballs continued: “What’s your biggest concern with this executive order?” Nelson seethed that “this is an attempt to dismantle our entire civil rights infrastructure” and disparate impact must remain in place because “[g]one are the days” when discrimination widely transpires out loud. She explained discrimination still permeates society and thus “[when we see imbalances, when we see inequality, we have a duty to interrogate it.” “[I]t is going to undermine the entire civil rights infrastructure that this country has relied on to diversify the ranks of leadership with more women, with more people of color, with people with disabilities, with people from all different backgrounds, we will be an entirely different America, which is really what this Trump administration is after,” she huffed as a long-winded way of claiming the White House wants a white-only country. The pair closed by insisting “equal opportunity” is lip-service for reinstituting discrimination (click “expand”): DUBOIS: One final thought here. The executive orders framed disparate impact as being divisive and endangering equal opportunity more broadly. You hear the president talk about DEI in this way as well. What do you make of all that? NELSON: Listen, this is just more of the lies and falsehoods that President Trump loves trafficking in. He uses words like equal opportunity, which come out of the civil rights movement, to weaponize those words against the very people they were intended to benefit, which is frankly all Americans. All Americans benefit from all of us having equal opportunity to achieve and to access opportunity, which makes this country better. It’s the reason that we can even talk about America’s greatness. It’s because of civil rights laws and protections that remove the barriers that sideline so many for generations. As our friends at National Review wrote on Friday: “It is past time to let go of group-obsessed thinking and inspire us once again to aspire to treat every American equally — no matter the outcome. The impact of that would benefit us all.” To see the relevant CBS transcript from April 24, click here.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the infamous “Maryland Man” of media renown (who is actually an illegal immigrant and accused MS-13 gang member from El Salvador with no legal right to be in the United States) was the subject of yet another story on National Public Radio. The online version of the radio report by Eric Westervelt and Joel Rose for NPR's All Things Considered Wednesday added some more sympathetic details to the Maryland man's media mythos -- he's just a quiet family man!  A federal judge agreed to give the Trump administration another week to answer detailed questions about the illegal deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia....Despite the temporary reprieve, the standoff between the White House and the federal courts may still be heading for a reckoning. In a scathing order Tuesday evening, Judge Xinis accused the Justice Department of willful refusal to comply with her order and attempting to "obstruct" discovery after receiving what she characterized as vague and unsatisfying responses to her demand for information on efforts to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. …. The White House continues to insist, without providing solid evidence, that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, the Salvadoran gang that the Trump administration has recently declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization. White House border czar Tom Homan defended the administration's handling of the Abrego Garcia case. "We removed an MS-13 gang member, public safety threat, wife-beater, designated terrorist from the United States," Homan told reporters on Wednesday. "He's home. He's a citizen of El Salvador, a native of El Salvador who had due process despite what you're hearing." NPR used the word "illegal" once to describe how Garcia had been deported and once to admit "he entered the U.S. illegally." Let’s see how the following “living quietly in Maryland” description holds up to future scrutiny: Court documents show that Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally but was granted protection by an immigration judge in 2019 that should have prevented his deportation. He had been living quietly in Maryland with his wife and three children and working in construction until Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested and deported him last month. Lawyers for Abrego Garcia complained Tuesday that despite the court-ordered discovery process, the government had produced "nothing of substance" and repeatedly refused to answer questions based on what the administration called the "false premise" that the administration must facilitate his release. In fact, that is exactly what the Supreme Court ordered. NPR found a “remarkable opinion” from Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who NPR eagerly emphasized was Reagan appointee (Xinis is an Obama appointee, a fact NPR didn't bother noting.)  "The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not," wrote Wilkinson, a conservative judge who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. "Regardless, he is still entitled to due process." Law professor and legal analyst Jonathan Turley, who favors Garcia being returned, at least temporarily, wrote on X: ….no one familiar with the case would claim that a man (1) repeatedly accused of beating his wife, (2) suspected of human trafficking, and (3) accused of being an alleged MS-13 gang member lived quietly in Maryland.

An official at the World Health Organization (WHO) brazenly admitted to being behind worldwide censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic, but that’s not his most disturbing confession.  WHO Team Lead for Digital Channels Andy Pattison explained during an April 15 interview with the Planet Classroom Podcast the role his globalist organization took in pushing major social media platforms to censor users. Pattison discussed how the WHO worked with Big Tech on so-called misinformation prior to COVID-19. He addressed these companies’ efforts to “make their misinformation and disinformation policies a little bit stronger,” adding, “we were advising them on how best to do that.” [Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America]