Here is a question you can ask the Google AI: "Can the Associated Press editorialize?"And here is the answer you will get: "No, the Associated Press (AP) strives for factual, nonpartisan reporting and prohibits its journalists from editorializing or expressing personal opinions in their news coverage; their core mission is to provide objective news, but they face scrutiny and debate over potential biases, requiring consumers and member editors to remain vigilant for bias and clearly identify third-party contributions." That's some remarkably unintelligent artificial intelligence. Well, it sure seems like the AP violated its own alleged prohibition of editorializing with their Saturday story about the arrest of the J6 pipe bomber suspect  by Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker, "Trump administration plays up pipe bomb suspect’s arrest. Jan. 6 violence goes unmentioned." While the title itself sounds suspiciously biased the article text itself comes off as an extended editorial:  WASHINGTON (AP) — After the arrest of a man charged with placing two pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic national parties on Jan. 5, 2021, the warning from the Trump administration was clear: If you come to the nation’s capital to attack citizens and institutions of democracy, you will be held accountable. Yet Justice Department leaders who announced the arrest were silent about the violence that had taken place when supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol and clashed with police one day after those bombs were placed. It was the latest example of the Trump’s administration’s efforts to rewrite the history of the riot, through pardons and the firings of lawyers who prosecuted the participants of the siege, and of the disconnect for a government that prides itself for cracking down on violent crime and supporting law enforcement but has papered over the brutality of the Jan. 6 attacks on police officers. “The administration has ignored and attempted to whitewash the violence committed by rioters on Jan. 6 because they were the president’s supporters. They were trying to install him a second time against the will of the voters in 2020,” said Michael Romano, who prosecuted the rioters before leaving the Justice Department this year. “And it feels like the effort to ignore that is purely transactional.” So in the first four paragraphs of the story supposedly about the arrest of the suspected pipe bomber, the AP reporters angrily editorialized that the Justice Department neglected to talk about the J6 violence by  "supporters of President Donald Trump," and  that the Trump  administration was attempting to "rewrite the history of the riot" by "papering over the brutality of the Jan. 6 attacks on police officers." The icing on the TDS cake was quoting an obviously anti-Trump Justice Department prosecutor who left the DOJ this year.  As could almost be expected the AP editorialists painted the suspect, Brian Cole, as a Trump supporter based on, get this, anonymous sources. People familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that among the statements Cole made to investigators is that he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, which Trump has insisted was stolen from him in favor of Democrat Joe Biden. The people were not authorized to discuss ongoing investigation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The rest of the AP story/editorial continues in this vein revealing a couple of very very angry AP editorialists posing as reporters letting off anti-Trump steam in the form of their highly biased report/editorial.

Shortly after noon on Friday, at the draw for the 2026 World Cup, President Donald Trump was presented with the first ever "FIFA Peace Prize" by FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) President Gianni Infantino at the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C. The draw is a huge deal, as it determines which countries will play each other and where, as they open the competition next summer. Both CNN and Fox News carried part of it live, but it didn't take long for CNN to dump out of their coverage, once Trump received his award, and that wasn't the worst part. Dana Bash, hosting CNN's Inside Politics in the noon hour, not only cut out of the event early as mentioned, but she and a panel member each had an apparent chuckle over what they had just seen. Bash took a backhanded shot at President Trump, during the introduction, while explaining to her viewers what they were about to see, as he took the stage. "This is the 2026 FIFA World Cup draw. Billions of people around the world are going to tune in to see what happens, not necessarily with president Trump's speech, but with the actual draw." This is obvious to sports fans, but she had to diminish Trump, as CNN viewers expect.   The FIFA President presented Trump with a medal and then read from the certificate that went along with it. INFANTINO:.. So the FIFA Peace Prize is presented annually on behalf of the billions of football loving people from around the world to a distinguished individual who exemplifies an unwavering commitment to advancing peace and unity throughout the world through their notable leadership and action. And therefore, FIFA... awards the 2025 FIFA Peace Prize, Football unites the world to Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in recognition of his exceptional and extraordinary actions to promote peace and unity around the world... Infantino continued, but it became too much for Bash (and CNN's small audience) to bear. INFANTINO: Before giving you the floor, Mr. President, if I may say two words... Like everyone here in the room, we see images of war all over the world. BASH: Okay, we're going to continue to monitor this ceremony at the Kennedy Center. And let me just explain what just happened.  At this point Bash paused, a female panel member could be heard giggling, and then Bash herself tried to suppress a giggle. Bash went on to diminish the significance and legitimacy of the award as a lame attempt to butter up Trump before turning to panelist Amy Walter, who continued to delegitimize the whole thing. BASH: ..Now, it was only created a few weeks ago after President Trump didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. And here's the way FIFA explains what this prize is. This is in their official explanation, "In an increasingly unsettled and divided world, it's fundamental to recognize the outstanding contribution of those who work hard to end conflicts and bring people together in the spirit of peace". Amy. WALTER: Well there is no better way to the President's heart then giving him -- BASH: Flattering. WALTER: --  something gold, and giving him literally something that sparkles and then the flattery that goes along with it. Disrespectful not only to our President but to FIFA and their President, too. Compare this with how Fox News's Outnumbered handled it. They did not take a dig at Trump when he took the stage, they did not cut away seconds after Trump received the award. Isn't it something that a so-called "news" network cuts out before the President speaks live?  Fox stayed an extra 3 minutes and 45 seconds until President Trump left the stage, and then Harris Faulkner treated what we just saw with the respect and gravitas it deserved. Liberals all think hailing Trump as a peacemaker is preposterous, because he's so aggressive in attacking them that they can't acknowledge his administration as helped peace break out anywhere.  FAULKNER: But what we just saw there was the very first, and that is FIFA getting into a mission, if you will, of recognizing on behalf of all of their sports fans and those sports fans around the world of soccer, who love peace breaking out. And who are the peacemakers on the globe? And can they give something out on behalf of FIFA and its sports fans to show their appreciation for those people who bring about peace. And you heard the president after Infantino listed all of the areas, the Abraham accords, the Cambodia and Thailand peace that broke out and the Congo, saving millions of lives by brokering a peace deal there, in Gaza. Respectful, dignified, thoughtful, fair analysis, and no giggling or chuckling. The antithesis of what we witnessed on CNN. Par for the course. 

Radical Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) lost her prominence in the Biden years as they downplayed the fringe a bit. But now that "Islamophobia" is back as President Trump called Omar and her friends "garbage," the networks ran to pamper her again. One reason Trump might have been called Rep. Ilhan Omar “garbage” is her connections to the fraudsters in the Somali community that stole more than $1 billion in government money that was supposed to feed children. On his CNN program The Lead on Wednesday, host Jake Tapper began by setting the stage about the fraud -- before nudging Omar's expected barrage of Trump attacks. He noted the New York Times found some Somalis were "making small fortunes by defrauding government programs of more than $1 billion of taxpayer money during the pandemic. We're talking about dozens of people in a community of thousands, of course." He began by gently asking Omar "What are you hearing from investigators right now?" He followed up with "Can you shed any light on why the fraud got so out of control in Minnesota?" Omar babbled in generalities like Kamala Harris.   Tapper didn't make any attempt to question Omar on her connections to this massive fraud, or how Democrats pandered to their Somali voters by letting all this happen. The New York Post reported on Thursday that Omar and her staffers defended the fraudulent charity called “Feeding Our Future.” Guhaad Hashi Said, who worked on Omar’s 2018 and 2020 campaign as an “enforcer” who oversaw Somali voter mobilization, pleaded guilty in  August to running a fake food site called Advance Youth Athletic Development, where he falsely claimed to serve 5,000 meals a day and pocketed $3.2 million out of the food program. Instead, Tapper painted her as a victim lectured about smearing Muslim migrants: TAPPER: Now, obviously, whatever the ethnic group, the actions of a few dozen should not impugn an entire community of thousands of people. Okay, I want to make that very clear. President Trump has used this fraud to make rather shock -- to me, shockingly bigoted comments about Somalis in general, including you, but the entire Somali community in Minnesota….I don't know how shocked you are at this at this point anymore, but Somali immigrants in general, you in particular have been the target of his attacks for a long time. What's your response? OMAR: Yeah. I mean, I'm not shocked because we know that the president oftentimes resorts to very bigoted, xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist rhetoric when he is trying to scapegoat and deflect from the actual failures that he has himself. The worst broadcast interview with Omar this week happened on NPR’s Morning Edition. Co-host Michel Martin did the spoon-feeding of Omar: “You've been a favorite target of President Trump since you were elected, but it cannot have been easy to hear him make these comments about the entire Somali community. I just wondered what went through your mind when he said things like they contribute nothing and should go back to where they came from and so on.” Omar replied: “His vile rant really wasn't a surprise to me. He has trafficked in racism, in xenophobia, in bigotry and Islamophobia for as long as he has held office.” Morning Edition anchor Steve Inskeep underlined NPR is Omar PR with this X post on more of her answer:  On NPR, Rep. Ilhan Omar responds to Trump’s two-day ramble about Somalis, including US citizens who employ him: Says she feels “shame” that “we elected just a really crazy, deranged old man who does not have the ability to control himself.” — Steve Inskeep (@NPRinskeep) December 4, 2025 This is NPR, which claims it's an oasis of civil discourse. It's not. It's viciously anti-Trump all the time. On the fourth question, Martin finally laid out that fraud occurred, and then just asked “do you have any reaction to that information?” Omar said she was happy there was accountability for the taxpayers. Martin followed up with another puffball: “Are you concerned that an entire community is being scapegoated because of the actions of this group of people?” Radical Muslims get softballs. Conservatives get trashed. But they call it "public" radio. 

On Saturday's edition of MS NOW's The Weekend, co-host Jackie Alemany, discussing the huge Feeding Our Future welfare fraud conducted by Somalis in Minnesota, prompted Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to discuss how President Trump's criticism is just another outbreak of bigotry. She "explained" in her question to Ellison that Trump has " historically used isolated instances to justify this language of bigotry and paint with extremely broad brushstrokes and make these generalizations. He has honed in on this investigation into Feeding Our Future, which your office actually prosecuted." That is false. It was a federal prosecution. Then she made it worse: "I'm wondering if you can set the record straight here, and talk a little bit about this investigation and what it entailed, and how isolated it actually was."  Despite being a liberal Democrat and a Muslim, Ellison—no doubt knowing just how pervasive the Somali fraud was—declined to run with Alemany's ball. Instead, he indirectly corrected her and congratulated the US Attorney's office for conducting the prosecutions, and piously claimed, "We all wanna protect the public dollar. We wanna prosecute people who engage in fraud."   The reality is that the Somali welfare fraud in Minnesota has been anything but "isolated." As per this article [emphasis added]: The fraud scandal that rattled Minnesota was staggering in its scale and brazenness.   Federal prosecutors charged dozens of people with felonies, accusing them of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a government program meant to keep children fed during the Covid-19 pandemic.   At first, many in the state saw the case as a one-off abuse during a health emergency. But as new schemes targeting the state’s generous safety net programs came to light, state and federal officials began to grapple with a jarring reality.   Over the last five years, law enforcement officials say, fraud took root in pockets of Minnesota’s Somali diaspora as scores of individuals made small fortunes by setting up companies that billed state agencies for millions of dollars’ worth of social services that were never provided. What was the source of that article, entitled "How Fraud Swamped Minnesota’s Social Services System on Tim Walz’s Watch"? Some racist, right-wing rag, no doubt? Uh, it was the New York Times.  That same article quoted a defense attorney who has represented a number of the fraudsters as saying: "Some involved became convinced that state agencies were tolerating, if not tacitly allowing, the fraud. No one was doing anything about the red flags. It was like someone was stealing money from the cookie jar and they kept refilling it.” The article also quoted a Somali American fraud investigator who said: "Elected officials in the state — and particularly those who were part of the state’s Democratic-led administration — were reluctant to take more assertive action in response to allegations [of fraud] in the Somali community." The investigator added: “There is a perception that forcefully tackling this issue might cause political backlash among the Somali community, which is a core voting bloc” for Democrats.  Contrary to Alemany's claim, the Somali welfare fraud was actually widespread -- just like the liberal media's instinct to cover up hard truths that contradict its woke narrative.  Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 12/6/25 9:29 am ET JACKIE ALEMANY: And Attorney General, I want to get back to this playbook that you outlined from the president of what [Trump] does when he's backed into a corner and wants to detract attention.  He also, in the past, historically used isolated instances to justify this language of bigotry and paint with extremely broad brushstrokes and make these generalizations. He has honed in on this investigation into Feeding Our Future, which your office actually prosecuted.  I'm wondering if you can set the record straight here, and talk a little bit about this investigation and what it entailed, and how isolated it actually was.  KEITH ELLISON: Well, it was the U.S. Attorney's office that actually brought the prosecutions. My office contributed and gave evidence and information to advance the prosecution.  But I want to say thank you and hats off and congratulations to our colleagues in the U.S. Attorney's office for a job well done. They prosecuted over 78 of these people.  But let me just say this. We all wanna protect the public dollar. We wanna prosecute people who engage in fraud. We are up for that. But, we can't do it on a partisan basis. We gotta do it together. We can't use incidents like this to score a political point. We gotta come in as a state and say, you will not steal money intended for poor people and prosecute them. That's how we protect the resources of the State of Minnesota. 

Hoover Institution Visiting Fellow Bjorn Lomborg completely flipped the script on the climate activists in the media and academia who were predicting hurricane catastrophe for the U.S. this year. Here’s a hint: the climate Armageddon never happened. Lomborg unleashed a pretty spicy take in a December 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed that’s sure to make heads explode in the leftist press: “Climate Change Might Have Spared America From Hurricanes.” Say what? Lomborg’s core argument was that “Scientific and media bias promote the illusion that global warming produces nothing but bad results.” Talk about a plot twist. MRC Business drafted a roundup November 24 of outlets like The New York Times and CBS News that were all clamoring to make readers and viewers believe that the end was nigh before hurricane season kicked in. CNN meteorologist Briana Waxman, for example, scare-mongered August 4 that “Primetime hurricane season is here, and the Atlantic is a powder keg.”  For all the climate brouhaha, the final tally for this year’s hurricane season amounted to just 13 tropical storms and five hurricanes with no U.S. landfall, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Watch CBS Evening News Co-Anchor John Dickerson's initial doom reporting on hurricane season from May below   Lomborg took note of the extreme bias media types continue to look through whenever they’re trying to make a changing climate out to be the boogeyman adults should be seeing in their nightmares: These analyses typically run climate models simulating the world as it is today, with elevated sea-surface temperatures, and compare them with a hypothetical preindustrial world with cooler oceans. If a hurricane is more likely in the former scenario than in the latter, the conclusion is that climate change made the hurricane more likely … But notice what’s missing from the coverage. A New York Times article in October highlighted hurricanes ‘turning away from the East Coast,’ noting 12 named storms so far but only one minor tropical storm brushing the U.S. This was framed as welcome relief, with the misses attributed to atmospheric steering patterns like the Bermuda high-pressure system. Not once did the piece invoke climate change. The journalists seem to believe that climate change can cause only bad outcomes. Did you catch that? Climate change, as a concept, is practically always framed dubiously to be some kind of death knell, when the opposite could also be true, if journalists and reporters even attempted to be logically consistent. As Lomborg concluded: “If warmer oceans energize storms, couldn’t they also influence other meteorological phenomena that diverted this year’s hurricanes harmlessly out to sea? No one ran the models to check. No professors lined up for quotes.”  This isn’t an “anomaly,” Lomborg wrote. In fact, it’s reflective of a “pattern” that’s been going on in media coverage for years. “Dig into past coverage, and you’ll find climate framing in hurricane coverage dating back to the mid-2000s—tying intense storms and active seasons again and again to global warming,” Lomborg recounted. As was the case then, Lomborg rebuked that “[t]hese stories overflow with experts declaring each event a harbinger of climate doom, backed by fresh attribution studies. Yet when reality bucks this narrative, no one makes the connection.” Oof. Put some ice, er, climate change on that burn.