Tag: mainstream media

CNN Insists Gov’t NOT ‘Deliberately Steering Hurricanes’ Toward Pro-Trump Areas in ‘Plot to Steal Election’

CNN ran a segment attempting to discredit speculation that the U.S. government may have steered recent hurricanes toward “Trump-supporting communities” in a bid to sway the upcoming election.

CNN’s Kaitlin Collins explained that chatter on social media was giving rise to an “old conspiracy theory” and “lie” that the government is manipulating the weather in the wake of Hurricanes Helene and Milton that have decimated Trump-leaning portions of Southeastern states.

“It was mostly confined to the fringe corners of the internet. The theory goes that the government controls the weather by dropping toxic chemicals from the sky in these trails that planes leave behind. It does not. Those trails are just water vapor,” Collins argued on Friday.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris Rushes to Accept CNN’s Debate Offer to Save Face — Trump Rejects Rigged Mainstream Circus Setup

Kamala Harris is desperately clinging to any opportunity to regain her political footing after a string of underwhelming performances.

CNN’s offer to host a second presidential debate on October 23 in Atlanta seemed like a lifeline for Harris, who quickly accepted the invitation, confident that the far-left network will shield her from tough scrutiny.

“CNN sent invitations on September 21 to both Vice President Harris and former President Trump’s campaigns to participate in a CNN debate this fall as we believe the American people would benefit from a second debate between the two candidates for President of the United States,” the far-left network said in a statement.

“With less than 30 days to Election Day, we are placing a deadline for a formal response from both campaigns for this Thursday, October 10 at 12 p.m. ET to participate,” the network added.

However, former President Donald Trump isn’t falling into CNN’s trap. He’s well aware of the network’s slanted coverage and refuses to participate in a rigged mainstream circus.

Trump’s rejection of the debate isn’t just a strategic move; it’s a stance against the very media machine that has propped up Harris and her failing campaign.

Harris, now left to fend for herself, tried to paint Trump as afraid of another face-off.

“Trump should have no problem agreeing since it is the same format and setup as the CNN debate he attended and said he won in June, when he praised CNN’s moderators, rules, and ratings,” according to Harris’ campaign.

His decision to decline isn’t just about the timing—it’s about refusing to engage with a network that has lost all credibility. CNN may have once been the gold standard of debate hosts, but under its current leadership, it’s little more than a PR firm for the Democrat Party.

Keep reading

Media Blitzes and Desperation

It’s less than one month from the 2024 presidential election and it feels like there has been a shift.

The Kamala Harris campaign must be nervous. Democratic polling suggests Trump has made gains – and even leads – key swing states. An internal poll from Democrat Tammy Baldwin’s Senate campaign, for example, shows Trump up by 3% in Wisconsin. It’s getting to the point that Michigan Democrats have begged Kamala to do more events in that state, as she lags with union support and polls poorly with men. Her struggles in Michigan are not unique to that state – she faces the same problems in every other close race she needs to win, particularly Pennsylvania and Nevada.

The sign of Democratic concern has always been whether Kamala and Tim Walz will do interviews. It’s risk reward: Kamala interviews poorly, and people seem to like her less the more they get to know her, but in such a close race where Kamala can’t seem to gain momentum, what are the other options?

Their hand has been forced. The Democrats’ internal polls might not be totally public, save for the occasional leak, but her own people know “they’re not moving the needle.”

Keep reading

Kamala Harris’ ‘world salad’ response on 60 Minutes edited out by CBS

CBS News appears to have edited the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris to show the Democratic 2024 hopeful in a more positive light.

Social media erupted in criticism of the vice president’s ‘word salad’ response to a question about the Israeli-Hamas war.

But after the episode aired on 60 Minutes on Monday night, the version that was put onto the show’s official YouTube page did not include Harris’ nonsensical answer and instead included a truncated and more straight-forward response.

And pro-MAGA accounts and conservative people on X were quick to point out the change.

Host Bill Whitaker asked Harris in their interview about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was listening to the U.S. and whether the administration had any sway over the Jewish State’s decision making in its conflict with Hamas terrorists operating out of Gaza.

‘Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,’ Harris replied.

Keep reading

Harris Scrambles After CBS Calls Her Out for Stealing Biden’s Delegates: ‘You Were Handed the Nomination, No Primary, No Votes… That’s Not How Our System Was Intended to Work’

Kamala Harris’s campaign took a hard hit this week during her highly anticipated 60 Minutes interview with CBS’s Bill Whitaker.

What was meant to be a friendly sit-down to showcase her policies turned into an all-out disaster, as Harris was called out for essentially being “handed” the Democrat nomination without ever going through a primary process.

CBS hit her with hard-hitting facts: no votes, no debates, no campaign battle — just an elitist handoff of power.

After a shaky start discussing her foreign policy approach to Middle East tensions, Harris stumbled through an attempted defense of her economic policies, which Whitaker repeatedly challenged.

Her “word salad” responses about middle-class investment left the host unimpressed, who pressed her again and again on how she would actually pass her proposals through Congress.

The tense exchange grew even more heated as Harris tried to deflect by casting blame on “the rich,” prompting Whitaker to urge her to be “realistic.”

The most damaging part of the interview, however, was when Whitaker zeroed in on the issue of her nomination.

Joe Biden abruptly announced he was dropping out of the 2024 race after Obama and Nancy Pelosi forced him out following the disastrous debate with Trump.

Harris stole all of Biden’s delegates. Although she has never won a primary, she is now the Democrat nominee after a group of elitists ushered her to the top of the ticket.

In a democratic system, the people expect to vote for their leaders, not have them handed to them by a small group of political elites. Harris’s nomination reeks of backroom deals and insider politics, and Whitaker wasn’t afraid to call her out on it.

Keep reading

Complaints Ask FEC, FCC To Investigate ABC For Breaking Broadcast And Donation Rules In Debate

Remember that brazenly biased presidential debate on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC television? The one where ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis “fact-checked” former President Donald Trump five times and Vice President Kamala Harris, not at all?  The one advertised as a legitimate debate that felt more like a 90-minute campaign commercial for Harris?

The Center for American Rights has filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), asking these agencies to hold ABC and its local affiliate accountable on two matters: an alleged campaign donation violation, and a concern about its television broadcast license.  

Unlike print media, broadcast airwaves belong to the public. While anyone can find some paper, start their own newsletter, and say whatever they want, there is a finite number of airwaves across the broadcast spectrum, so they belong to everyone. That is why the FCC licenses segments of the airwaves to broadcasters with the condition that they must use a certain amount of their broadcast time to serve the public.

“One of the obligations of stewarding the airwaves in the public interest is that debates must be fair and impartial, and when you fail at that, there must be accountability from the regulator,” Daniel Suhr, attorney at the Center for America Rights, told The Federalist in a phone interview. “The media have been pushing the boundaries for decades and what ABC did was further than what anyone had done previously.”

Keep reading

Bret Stephens Says the US Must Attack Iran

High upon his perch atop the New York Times editorial page, Bret Stephens offers a full-throated call for the United States to launch a war of aggression against Iran.  This featured opinion piece in the “paper of record” is noteworthy because it reflects the detritus that’s currently swirling around the minds of U.S. foreign policy elites concerning a big war with Iran.

Mr. Stephens serves up so many glaring omissions in this op-ed that when you finish reading it your eyes will burn as if you had been staring at the sun.  He begins with a paragraph-long quotation from the late Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who Israel assassinated on September 27th with over 80 two-thousand pound “bunker buster” bombs in the Dahiya Shia quarter of South Beirut.  He uses the quotation to strongly suggest that Nasrallah’s only real motive in fighting against the Israelis was to “kill all Jews.”  Stephens knows how to get a rise out of his readers.

By smearing Nasrallah as nothing more than an “antisemite” he purposely overlooks the reasons for Hezbollah’s existence in the first place.  There was no Hezbollah until after the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its military occupation of the country that lasted for eighteen years.  The IDF and their Lebanese proxies killed approximately 17,000 civilians.  Nasrallah was born in Bourj Hammoud, Lebanon on August 31, 1960.  He was a young man during the years of Israeli occupation; and like many Lebanese, he wasn’t very keen on seeing a large piece of his country become another Gaza Strip or West Bank.  In 1985, a new resistance group bounded onto the scene as part of the ongoing struggle to push the Israelis out of Lebanon: Hezbollah, “The Party of God.”

Keep reading

“We Spread Misinformation”: CBS Photojournalist Lights Himself On Fire Near White House 

A CBS News photojournalist from Phoenix, Arizona, lost his marbles in Washington, DC Saturday evening near the White House at the Black Lives Matter Plaza, setting himself on fire while screaming, “I am a journalist. We spread the misinformation.”

Sam Mena Jr, a photojournalist for ​AZFamily KTVK 3TV and KPHO CBS 5 News, set his left arm on fire while attempting self-immolation during a pro-Palestinian rally near the White House. He shouted, “Free Palestine!”, and “I’m a journalist and I’m ashamed! We spread the misinformation!”

Just before the incident, the MSM photojournalist posted a lengthy blog post to his website, telling anyone who read the post exactly what he was going to do:

“To the 10 thousand children in Gaza that have lost a limb in this conflict, I give my left arm to you. I pray my voice was able to raise up yours, and that your smiles never disappear.” 

What’s very concerning is that the MSM photojournalist, who possibly had a few screws loose, was just feet from former President Trump during a press conference in Arizona late last month. 

Keep reading

Israeli airbase sustains extensive damage from Iranian missile strikes, but Israel is censoring reports on the damage

Iran’s recent attack on Israel, which saw nearly 200 missiles being lobbed at the country in retaliation for the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, is largely being framed in the media as a failure. According to their narrative, Israel managed to intercept most of the missiles and the population was largely spared.

However, satellite images tell a different story, with Israel’s Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert apparently being hit hard by ballistic missiles from Iran.

The imagery, which was released by the AP, showed a large hole in the base’s aircraft hangar as well as a crater on one of its runways. The base houses Israel’s F-35 fighter jets.

Iran claims that 90 percent of the missiles it sent hit their targets after being fired in successive waves, but Israel has been doing its best to cover up the damage. Although the IDF did eventually admit that some of their air force bases were impacted, they specified that no aircraft, troops or weapons were hit. However, the entire topic is the subject of heavy military censorship.

For example, when the Wall Street Journal asked the IDF about an initial assessment by the Israeli army that the damage was only minor, they refused to provide further details on the grounds that they “didn’t want to give information to Iran” about the extent of the damage.

Israel has also closed off a number of military zones and barred reporting on where Iranian missiles hit the ground.

However, some Hezbollah sources have claimed that they put the Hatzerim, Nevatim and Ramon airbases out of service with their missile strikes.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, one senior Hezbollah source claimed: “Most of the bases targeted by Iran in Israel were hit directly, especially the airbases. Most of the objectives of the strike were achieved according to the set plan. Nevatim, Hatzerim, Tel Nof, Netzarim and Glilot bases were targeted. The scale of Israeli missile interception was weak. It has been confirmed that there were significant casualties among Israeli soldiers.”

The Wall Street Journal did report that two fallen missiles from Iran were found near the Dead Sea close to Dimona, which is the location of Israel’s nuclear facilities, although it is not known if they fell there or were shot down.

In addition, a missile hit a road just outside of the headquarters of Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service near Tel Aviv. Another strike damaged around 100 houses in a town to the north of Tel Aviv.

Keep reading

Media Urge Expansion of Ukraine War—Nuclear Risk Be Damned

Ukraine has for months been asking the Biden administration for permission to use long-range US, British and French weapons to strike deeper in Russian territory, which would be a clear escalation in the war. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the move would cross a red line for him, and recently announced that he was loosening Russia’s nuclear doctrine for using nuclear weapons.

Despite the risks of such escalation—and a lack of evidence that it would shift the war in Ukraine’s favor—Biden’s public reluctance to loosen his limits has been met in the war-hungry media primarily with derision.

The US, Britain and France have all supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles, including Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). But Biden has thus far limited their use to border areas. Britain and France are following Biden’s lead on range limitations.

Last month, in response to further advances by Russia into Ukraine, Ukraine launched a surprise invasion into Russian territory in Kursk. Since then, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pressed the US for more and longer-range missiles, Putin has increasingly raised the specter of nuclear retaliation.

Under its 2020 nuclear doctrine, Russia could respond with nuclear strikes to nuclear or conventional attacks it deemed a “threat to its existence,” if they came from a nuclear power. His new doctrine lowers the bar, so that a “critical attack” on Russia carried out with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” would be grounds for launching a nuclear response—including against the supporting power.

In other words, if Ukraine used long-range missiles supplied by a NATO power to launch an attack on Russia that it deemed “critical,” Putin could respond with a nuclear strike, against either Ukraine or against that NATO country.

Keep reading