Pseudo economics savant Paul Krugman just can’t give up trying to sell the snake oil of Bidenomics as being the unsung hero of the economy that the supposedly dumb plebeians just couldn’t appreciate. Seriously, bro. Just take the “L” and move on. Krugman plastered another piece of rambling gobbledygook on his Substack page November 16 trying to draw parallels between the Trump and Biden economies. Unlike Trump, snooted Krugman, there was a “surprisingly strong case for Bidenomics.” Oh, but wait! He took it a step further: He referred to the inflationary disaster President Joe Biden inflicted on the economy with his outrageous spending policies as the “[t]he triumph that nobody appreciated.” He’s been engaging in this kind of stupidity throughout the Biden administration, constantly trying to gloss over the fact that he got his "transitory" inflation calls spectacularly wrong. As early as 2023 — while inflation was still running hot, Krugman was bleating that the Biden economy was “remarkably successful, even if nobody will believe it.”  My goodness. It’s like watching Jim Carrey’s character Fletcher Reede from Liar Liar (1997) trying desperately to go unconscious by beating himself to a bloody pulp.  What new, profound new evidence did Krugman use to support his wobbly argument? Well, nothing he hasn’t already blurted out in the past, such as his out-of-context ballyhooing over GDP growth. “The U.S. economy also vastly outperformed other advanced economies. Chart 3 shows real GDP since the eve of the pandemic in the U.S. and the euro area, both expressed as indexes with the fourth quarter of 2019 set equal to 100. U.S. outperformance has been huge.” But what Krugman conveniently left out was that much of this growth was artificial stimulus brought on by the government drastically spiking its debt.  In 2023 alone, economist Brian Wesbury analyzed that about half of the 3.1 percent GDP growth came from government spending. Fellow economist Daniel Lacalle wrote in a November 17, 2024, column that “An unsustainable increase in government spending and federal debt bloated the official GDP, making gross domestic income significantly weaker than headline GDP.” Did Krugman bother mentioning any of this? Of course not. He’s too busy kissing Biden’s toes. Krugman even had the temerity to claim that “global forces” such as supply chain disruptions, “not U.S. policy, were the main drivers of the Covid inflation spike.” Yeah, okay Krugman. The MIT Sloan School of Management admitted in July 2024 that “some policymakers — up to and including President Joe Biden — blamed shortages in the supply chain. But a new study shows that federal spending was the cause — significantly so.” Senior MIT Senior Lecturer of Finance Mark Kritzman, one of the authors of the research, added: “Our research shows mathematically that the overwhelming driver of that burst of inflation in 2022 was federal spending, not the supply chain.” Also, economist John Cochrane stated unequivocally in an interview for the Stanford University Graduate School of Business that “inflation mostly came from the government’s $5 trillion in COVID and post-COVID deficits.” The government, said Cochrane, “essentially sent people $5 trillion with no plans to pay the money back. People tried to spend it, driving up prices. The Fed eventually raising interest rates made inflation come down a bit faster than it would have otherwise, but it was going to go away on its own anyway. There is no magic momentum to inflation. Stop pushing, and it stops.”  Oops! And yet Krugman in his new piece actually accused President Donald Trump’s administration of “lying.” Projection much?  It’s quite a marvel to see when a Nobel prize winner such as Krugman is so determined to nuke his career into oblivion by perpetually acting like the consummate class clown. No one can or should take him seriously on anything. 

In the past week, the Apple News aggregator entirely excluded right-leaning media outlets in its top 20 daily stories.  During the week of Nov. 8-14 Apple promoted articles from NPR, The Washington Post and NBC, but Fox News Digital was notably missing from the Apple News daily lineup. Fox News Digital is the third most-visited news site in America according to Statista's list of “[l]eading global English-language news websites” calculated by monthly visits. New York Post and Daily Mail are not far behind. However, not a single Fox News, New York Post or Daily Mail article appeared among the top 20 news articles curated by Apple News editors each day of the week. News aggregators curate articles from various sources to create a news feed that includes a wide range of outlets.  Of the 140 articles MRC Free Speech America researchers examined, 93 were from outlets rated “left” or “lean-left” by AllSides.  Apple News’ favorite left-leaning outlet during this week was The Washington Post, which it included 18 times. It also included multiple articles from The Guardian, The New Yorker, CNN, USA Today and others.  The closest Apple came to including a right-leaning source was ten articles from The Wall Street Journal, which AllSides rates as “center” for its news reporting and “lean-right” for its opinion section. MRC Free Speech America previously reported on how the news aggregator promoted an egregious smear piece by The Guardian just minutes after Kirk was shot. The Guardian ran a story calling Charlie a “Trump ally,” while shamelessly including a fundraising blurb at the bottom of the piece asking for money to help the paper not “bow” to President Donald Trump. The Guardian later removed the fundraising section but only after MRC reached out for comment. Methodology: During the week of Nov. 8 - 14, 2025, MRC researchers examined the top 20 news stories featured on Apple News each day at approximately 10:00 AM. Researchers then used the AllSides media bias ratings, which categorize an outlet as “left,” “lean left,” “center,” “lean right” and “right” to determine the overall bias presented by Apple News and calculate the results. Free speech is 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.   Image by Daniel Heilig from Pixabay

A strange thing happened on the Saturday edition of CNN's Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield. Her guest California Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman suddenly could no longer hear the host, when she turned the questioning to the Epstein files. Sherman had no problem hearing and answering questions on the impending floods and mudslides in his home state, and the DOJ's challenge of California's Congressional redistricting bill, Proposition 50, passed on election day. While technical issues are not uncommon in media, there are some circumstances that do make this one strange. One day before his CNN appearance, a group called Dear White Staffers posted pictures of the Congressman looking at suggestive pictures of women in lingerie (they said "porn") while on a plane, with a caption that read, "Why did California Congressman Brad Sherman feel it was appropriate to look at porn on his iPad during a flight today? His district deserves better representation than this! Why did California Congressman Brad Sherman feel it was appropriate to look at porn on his iPad during a flight today? His district deserves better representation than this!! #CA32 pic.twitter.com/gAYZ82tyr2 — Dear White Staffers (@dearwhitestaff) November 14, 2025 Sherman would later tell Punchbowl News that the pictures came up due to algorithms in the "for you" section. Whether he was searching for these photos or they appeared suddenly through no fault of his own is not all that relevant here. The fact is that, that X post showing him and the photos received millions of views, prior to the CNN interview. Keep that in mind as you follow along with how the interview ended.   Sherman took three questions, two on the bad weather headed California's way, and one on the DOJ's suit against Prop 50. He  heard and answered them all, over the course of 4 full minutes. Then Whitfield changed the subject. Whitfield: .. And next week, the House is supposed to vote on whether to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Sherman: Hello? Whitfield: But yesterday, the President directed the Justice Department to investigate. Sherman: Hello? Whitfield: Hi. Can you hear me? Can you hear me Congressman? Sherman: Sorry, I cannot a, cannot hear you. Whitfield: You can't hear me anymore. How about now? Um... are you positioning yourself or prepared for next week's expected vote? On the Jeffrey Epstein files being released? ..Congressman, are you still with me there?... All right. It seems like we've lost our connection. Unfortunately, with congressman Brad Sherman, we're glad you were able to be with us, at least for a few moments there. Thank you so much.  She then paused for nearly six additional seconds before moving on to the next story.  First, let me say that until proven otherwise, and it won't be, even if there is proof held by CNN, I will believe that the Congressman couldn't hear Whitfield. Having said that, there are some questions that need to be asked. First, did Sherman panic and fear that after Epstein comes Sherman and his plane pics? Second, would he be correct in his assumption? Would Whitfield act as a true journalist, at least for this interview, and ask the obvious of the Congressman, or would she never bring it up, you know since he's a liberal and all. We may never know.

Today's Morning Joe and CNN This Morning offered a sharp contrast in their reaction to Marjorie Taylor Greene's remarkable comments to Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union yesterday. MTG apologized for her failure to have called out President Trump's attacks on others in the past, and said that, going forward, she is committed  "to put[ting] down the knives in politics." Citing his Baptist background, in which people are taught to embrace the sinner who renounces his past, Joe Scarborough welcomed MTG's change of heart. Mika kicked off the discussion by saying that she's "here" for what MTG said. Scarborough admitted, "I've said so many stupid things through the years that, you know, I would ask and have asked forgiveness for." Would that include Joe's countless Trump/Hitler-Nazi analogies, the kind of thing that could incite violence against the president? Does Joe renounce such dangerous rhetoric going forward? It was a very different tone over on CNN This Morning. Host Audie Cornish introduced the segment by displaying some of MTG's greatest [negative] hits, including the infamous Jewish space lasers. CNN media analyst Sara Fischer said that the rebrand is not going "super well." "If you make your entire political career off of having knives out for people and conspiracies, and now it's all about having empathy and tissues, people don't respond well to that." Author Garrett Graff [a former staffer on Howard Dean's presidential campaign] was even more critical: "I think this is the most opportunistic of the opportunists in American politics, sensing that the opportunities have changed. We are starting to see that Donald Trump is at historic lows with independents. He's at historic lows with swing voters. He is going to be out of office in a couple of years at this point, one way or another. And I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is not setting herself up for anything like the Senate or governorship. She is setting herself up to be the leader after Trump." And what was that ominous crack about Trump being out of office in a couple of years "one way or another?" Note: In his item from earlier this year, MRC's Clay Waters offered a valuable insight into Graff, a Trump-hater par excellence. In another CNN appearance, Graff made multiple Trump/Hitler analogies, with the host citing a Graff article in which he claimed that "America's trajectory feels like Berlin circa 1933." Here are the transcripts MS NOW Morning Joe 11/17/25 6:48 am ET MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I want to show our viewers Marjorie Taylor Greene's remarkable turnaround on rhetoric. I'm here for it. Take a look.  DANA BASH [on CNN's State of the Union on 11/16/25]: Congresswoman, you posted on X that President Trump is, with his comments, fueling a, quote, hotbed of threats against you.  Obviously, any threats to your safety are completely unacceptable. But we have seen these kinds of attacks or criticism from the president at other people. It's not new. And with respect, I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.  MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: Dana, I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics. It's very bad for our country and it's been something I've thought about a lot, especially since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, is that I'm only responsible for myself and my own words and actions.  And I am going, I am committed, and I've been working on this a lot lately, to put down the knives in politics. I really just want to see people be kind to one another, and we need to figure out a new path forward that is focused on the American people, because as Americans, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we have far more in common than we have differences, and we need to be able to respect each other with our disagreements.  JOE SCARBOROUGH: David [French]?  MIKA: That's amazing.  SCARBOROUGH: I go to a fellow Southern Baptist.  MIKA: I'll take it.  SCARBOROUGH: And you know, like me, First Baptist Church Pensacola, if Dr. Pleitz had to make us sing 16 verses of Just As I Am, he would. And when people went down to the front and gave their lives and, and asked for forgiveness of their sins, everyone would rejoice, even if we were last in line at Morrison's.  So, like Mika said, I'm all here for it. We're here for it. And just because -- I've said so many stupid things through the years that, you know, I would ask and have asked forgiveness for, that when I hear that from somebody, anybody, I'm sorry. I know there are a lot of people that are like, yeah, but, yeah, but, yeah, but.  You know what I say? Yeah, but, okay, you know what? This is great. One at a time. Let's actually embrace this and hope it sticks.  ------------------------ CNN This Morning 11/17/25 6:36 am ET AUDIE CORNISH: I want to ask you about one more thing related to Congress, which is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's been going through a big political reinvention this year. She obviously was a former Trump loyalist, and now she's leaning into this high-profile breakup with the president.  And speaking exclusively with CNN's Dana Bash, she did something extraordinary for a politician, at least. She apologized.  MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics. It's very bad for our country. I am committed, and I've been working on this a lot lately, to put down the knives in politics. I really just want to see people be kind to one another.  CORNISH: So, first of all, just to understand how she kind of entered politics, why we would be calling this a rebrand, just some of the past headlines from, say, 2018, where she was someone who spread conspiracy theories, frankly, about Sandy Hook, about other shootings, the Las Vegas shooting, and then, of course, an antisemitic trope about wildfires on secret Jewish space lasers. She's been asked to talk about this since and has sort of, I don't know what, said that she was taken in or a victim of misinformation. How is this rebrand going?  SARA FISCHER: Not super well. If you make your entire political career off of having knives out for people and conspiracies, and now it's all about having empathy and tissues, people don't respond well to that.  CORNISH: Did you just say empathy and tissues [laughs]?  FISCHER: That's what it seems like, right? She's going on Dana Bash's show. She's apologizing in a soft tone. This is not a soft tone type of person. I think that people look at her and think, okay, your political future in Georgia might not be going the way that you think it's going to go. We were talking earlier about polling against a possible Senate run. So she's trying to rebrand herself.  . . .  GARRETT GRAFF: I think this is, to me, what is the interesting part of this, is I think this is the most opportunistic of the opportunists in American politics, sensing that the opportunities have changed.  CORNISH: You mean that he has some weaknesses within his base? GRAFF: That we are starting to see that Donald Trump is at historic lows with independents. He's at historic low with swing voters. He is going to be out of office in a couple of years at this point, one way or another.  And I think to me, this is an interesting window into the fracturing that we are going to see of this sui generis Trump coalition as it begins to imagine what's next. And I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is not setting herself up for anything like the Senate or governorship. She is setting herself up to be the leader after Trump. 

In its efforts to find every anti-Trump story line it can, the PBS News Hour is touting members of the military who are seeking outside legal advice about whether the missions assigned by the Trump administration are legally justified, starting with the drug-boat bombings. Brett T. at Twitchy cracked: "It seems as though PBS got a press release from 'The Orders Project,' an outfit run by a former Army lawyer. We're sure it's nonpartisan." It's part of the National Institute of Military Justice, founded in 2020 to question the legality of military matters through pro bono legal consultations. Military service personnel have been seeking outside legal advice about some of the missions the Trump administration has assigned them. https://t.co/vFrl9tJg9a — PBS News (@NewsHour) November 14, 2025 Is it ideological? Well, they also have a "Trans Representation Project," touted as "a pioneering initiative dedicated to defending the rights of transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and other gender-diverse service members facing adverse actions due to their gender identity." So they are a beautiful fit for PBS, which is a press-release service for LGBTQ activism. The drug-boat bombings have been conducted without much public disclosure, so it's a worthy subject for journalist questions. But our first question is: Has this Orders Project ever protested a Biden military action, like droning a family in Afghanistan shortly after its withdrawal fiasco? Hitting the search engines says No.  On his LinkedIn page, Frank described the subject as "the risk military members face with assurances of immunity when the subject matter includes the commission of atrocity crimes." Anchor Amna Nawaz began with the softball: "Tell me about the calls you have been receiving specific to those U.S. military strikes on boats. How many calls and what are people asking?" He said some officers have questioned "the new military activities in the Caribbean," so Nawaz followed up: "In other words, pressure to get on board with the decision to carry out the strikes. Is that what you're saying?" The flavor of all this is they're looking for heroes who will disobey this commander-in-chief.  She also asked, "there's a DOJ memo that basically says soldiers would be immune from prosecution if involved in these boat strikes, how do you react to that?" This is where the "atrocity" talk came in from Rosenblatt: "For example, if a service member relies on DOJ immunity, that doesn't mean that a state may not prosecute them for any crimes they commit, or if they travel to another country. If there are allegations that they have committed atrocity crimes, then other countries are — could invoke their own universal jurisdiction and put them before the national courts of another country." Nawaz also questioned domestic deployments, of the National Guard being ordered to protect citizens in big cities with crime problems. "And then related to the National Guard deployments, you told my colleague earlier you're also fielding calls related to that. What are those questions?" Rosenblatt replied:  We're getting an appropriate level of curiosity, because anybody who's been following the courts, it's like watching a tennis match right now, back and forth every day between a district court enjoining the president's actions and a court of appeals lifting that, and the Supreme Court acting on their emergency docket. So when people are being told or to anticipate a deployment to an American city, they do have some questions about this. And we just try to help them figure out what's right for them, to help them feel better about what they're doing or where they need to raise questions, to ask the right questions of their leaders to make sure that they are remaining compliant with their — not only their legal obligations, but so that there's no moral injury later on that they don't do something that they knew was wrong at the time. This is a curious argument, since liberals usually complain that the National Guard members stand around a lot, which doesn't sound like a "moral injury" question.