Tag: mainstream media

Conservative Catches CNN Host Abby Phillip in a Glaring Hypocrisy as She Defends Communist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Absurd Demand on Air Conditioning

Notorious CNN host Abby Phillip’s efforts to defend communist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s demand for air conditioning went sideways when one of her guests caught her in a huge hypocrisy.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Mamdani on Wednesday requested that New Yorkers set their thermostats to 78 degrees. He claimed this was to alleviate stress on the energy grid.

Temperatures are soaring into the triple digits in the Midwest and East Coast this week and into the July 4th holiday weekend.

“The best protection against extreme heat is air conditioning, he added. If you don’t have it at home, know now where you’ll go to stay cool. Check in on your neighbors, especially seniors, and if you see someone outside who appears to be in distress, call 311 so we can get help to them.

“This administration is using every tool we have to keep New Yorkers safe, but the strongest city is one where neighbors look out for one another. And to every business owner, please set your thermostats to 78 degrees to alleviate the stress on our grid.”

Of course, we all know the Gracie Mansion (where Mamdani lives) will be fully air-conditioned. According to Marxists like him, the rules should apply only to the masses.

Phillip, though, saw Mamdani’s demands as reasonable. During her show last night, she repeatedly cited then-South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s similar requests from a 2015 heat wave in the Palmetto State as a reason to let New Yorkers suffer.

Conservative guest Ben Ferguson then challenged Phillip by asking whether she raised the temperature in her home in solidarity with Mamdani. This caused the panel to go off the rails.

After the shouting died down, Ferguson dropped a bombshell: the CNN studio they were debating in was nowhere near 78 degrees.

Keep reading

Muslim Texas Nurse Fired After Posting TikTok Video Suggesting She Would Not Treat Patients if They Watch Fox News

A Muslim Texas nurse named “Ahlam” was fired after posting a TikTok video suggesting she would not treat patients if they watch Fox News.

Libs of TikTok exposed the nurse, posted her TikTok to X and tagged her employer, UTMB Health in Houston, Texas.

The nurse posted a video of herself ‘peacing out’ and refusing to treat a patient based on their political views.

“When I walk into my patient’s room and Fox News is blasting,” the nurse said in the caption of video showing her backing away and leaving the room.

According to Libs of TikTok, Ahlam’s social media account has been scrubbed and made private.

On Thursday, UTMB responded to Libs of TikTok and said the nurse was suspended pending an investigation into her behavior.

Keep reading

IT’S A REAL MYSTERY: CNN Host Wonders Why Republicans Are Describing DSA Members as Communists

Last week, Kaitlan Collins of CNN claimed that DSA members are not communists. This week, another CNN host is openly wondering why Republicans are calling DSA members communists.

How are these media people so incredibly misinformed? Or are they just lying to cover for the DSA? Maybe a bit of both.

In the clip below, host Audie Cornish says that Republicans are skipping over criticism of socialism and going right to communism. Maybe because that’s what the DSA people themselves keep saying out loud.

NewBusters reports:

CNN’s Cornish Wonders Why Republicans Call the DSA ‘Communists’

On Tuesday’s CNN This Morning, the short morning show focused heavily on the trials and tribulations of the Democratic Socialists of America and their rise, with candidates being nominated across the country, including in NYC last week and possibly in Colorado this week. In one of many segments on socialism and the Democrat Party, Cornish asked her panel about GOP’s labeling of the DSA as communists and said, “Do you think it’s weird they’re skipping straight to communism?”…

After a soundbite played from a Chevliar love-fest on MS NOW last week, USA Today White House Correspondent Francesca Chambers returned to comments President Trump made on the “threat of communism,” which led to Cornish to respond as she posed a question to the group: “Do you think it’s weird they’re skipping straight to communism?”

Cornish then showed a graph of the unpopularity of socialism, which she said showed, “Americans in general don’t view it all that much better than they did in 2010,” before she returned to question the use of “communism”:

And I just wonder why you can’t just critique socialism as is, and you have to go straight to communism?

Keep reading

Time To Shed Light on Canadian Military Mission to Congo

Canadian media and politicians have all but ignored Congo’s recent World Court case against Rwanda. It’s unsurprising since Canada has enabled three decades of aggression, including by leading a bizarre, little known, UN mission to the region on behalf of Washington.

On Friday the Democratic Republic of Congo filed a case to the International Court of Justice against Rwanda for repeated invasions and support for armed groups on its territory since 1996. Congolese Justice Minister Guillaume Andali said his country is seeking redress for Rwanda’s breaches of conventions covering genocide prevention, racial discrimination, women’s rights and torture.

In 1996 Rwandan forces marched 1,500 km to topple the regime in Kinshasa and then re-invaded after the Congolese government it installed expelled Rwandan troops. This led to an eight-country war between 1998 and 2003, which left millions dead. Since that time Rwanda and its proxies have repeatedly invaded eastern Congo and continue to occupy the east of the country. Some six million remain displaced.

The Rwanda government in Kigali justified its 1996 intervention into the Congo as an effort to protect the Banyamulenge (Congolese Tutsi) living in eastern Congo from the Hutus who fled the country when the RPF took power after the 1994 genocide.

The US military increased its assistance to Rwanda in the months leading up to its fall 1996 invasion of Zaire. In The Great African War: Congo and Regional Geopolitics, 1996-2006 Filip Reyntjens explains: “The United States was aware of the intentions of Kagame to attack the refugee camps and probably assisted him in doing so. In addition, they deliberately lied about the number and fate of the refugees remaining in Zaire, in order to avoid the deployment of an international humanitarian force, which could have saved tens of thousands of human lives, but which was resented by Kigali and AFDL [a Rwandan backed rebel force led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila].”

In the just released Rwanda’s 30-Year Assault on Congo: The Crimes, the Criminals, and the Cover-Up (Baraka Books) Judi Rever documents Washington’s central role in a war to topple aging kleptocrat Mobutu Sese Seko, who lost his use after the end of the Cold War. According to a review, Rever documents how “the US provided satellite tracking data to locate Hutu refugees in the jungle. It deployed AC-130 gunships, P-3 Orion surveillance planes, and a national intelligence support team drawing on the CIA, the NSA, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. It sent Special Forces from Fort Bragg to train Rwandan troops in counter-insurgency.”

Ottawa played an important, if somewhat bizarre, part in this sordid affair. In late 1996, Canada led a short-lived UN force into eastern Zaire, meant to bring food and protection to Hutu refugees. The official story is that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien organized a humanitarian mission into eastern Zaire after his wife saw images of exiled Rwandan refugees on CNN. In fact, Washington proposed that Ottawa, with many French speakers at its disposal, lead the UN mission. The US didn’t want pro-Joseph Mobutu Sese Seko France to gain control of the UN force.

Keep reading

BBC refuses to report on The Rape Gang Inquiry because it has to make “complex choices”

Today, the story broke about a Muslim rape gang ringleader, who was convicted of 30 child rapes, who “cannot be deported” despite being stripped of his British citizenship – thanks to a rule in the Immigration Act 1971.  Instead, this child rapist will be let loose into the British community.

It’s not only legislation which is protecting the perpetrators and putting the community at risk. 

Today, Rupert Lowe, a Member of Parliament (“MP”) for Restore Britain, revealed evidence of the protection the BBC affords Muslim rape gangs.

The BBC has not reported on the findings of the independent Rape Gang Inquiry because, the BBC says, “complex choices” have to be made for editorial and practical reasons.

You can read the BBC’s excuses HERE.

The following is a tweet posted by Mr. Lowe, commenting on the BBC’s explanation.

The BBC has issued an official explanation on why it has failed to cover our rape gang inquiry.

“Complex choices” are made for editorial and practical reasons. These choices “should not be taken as indicative of bias.” Their words.

But the BBC were very quick to cover malicious complaints against our inquiry, in an attempt to smear our efforts. They were then forced to later apologise for how they covered the story.

So, either the inquiry is worth reporting on, or it’s not. They can’t pick and choose.

We’re told “complex choices” are made, meaning that efforts to uncover the industrial rape of young girls is not near the top of list.

Let’s take a look at a few stories on the main BBC news page, right now…

  • ‘Osaka pays ‘love and respect to Japan’ in Wimbledon kimono’
  • ‘Why £15 durians are being sold at half price – or given away for free’
  • ‘We had packed lunches every day for 10 years and retired at 40’

Are these stories more important than the rape gang inquiry? I think not.

You cannot hate the BBC enough. I expect no fair coverage from them; I’ve stopped expecting it. But the BBC is funded by the British people. Their continued suppression of our inquiry is a disgrace.

Keep reading

Despite Media Claims, USAID Cuts DID NOT Kill 14 Million People

Critics of the U.S., along with mainstream media and Democratic lawmakers, have claimed that Elon Musk’s cuts to USAID have killed 14 million people. This claim fails on multiple levels. Musk did not cut USAID. As head of DOGE, he held no formal legal authority to cancel contracts or eliminate programs, and the formal cancellations were executed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The death toll figures circulating in the press are not confirmed counts but forward projections spanning up to five years, derived from economic models that assume no alternative funding was found, no internal reallocation of funds occurred, and no recipient government, third-country government, or global aid organization stepped in to fill gaps, assumptions the evidence does not support. An examination of the countries most dependent on USAID funding finds no verified excess mortality data for 2025 or 2026 attributable to the cuts; what exists are modeled estimates, not death registries.

The White House stated in court that Musk was a senior presidential adviser with no formal decision-making authority. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that DOGE played a role in the dismantling of USAID. However, the court found that the cuts were approved by government officials. It also ruled that Musk’s social media statement claiming he had “fed USAID into the wood chipper” did not legally constitute evidence that he made those decisions.

Keep reading

NPR’s Nina Totenberg Reveals Why She Posted a Story Claiming Alito Was Retiring – Then Quickly Retracted

Does NPR’s Nina Totenberg have advanced knowledge that Justice Samuel Alito is about to retire?

NPR reporter Nina Totenberg on Tuesday published an article claiming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring.

Totenberg claimed that the Supreme Court made the announcement that Alito was retiring.

Nina Totenberg wrote: “Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Supreme Court’s opinion reversing Roe v. Wade is retiring, the court announced on Tuesday.”

However, 10 minutes later, the NPR article was scrubbed and left with an editor’s note.

The original article is archived here.

“This story has been taken down. It was published in error,” the note read.

NPR staff published a separate article claiming the Alito article was “erroneously published.”

NPR said that Totenberg already had a draft article on Alito’s retirement ready in advance of the announcement.

The outlet claimed that Totenberg assumed that Alito was retiring after she heard a bystander say that Chief Justice Roberts made a retirement announcement.

“Totenberg was reporting on the final day of the Supreme Court session on Tuesday. As she was leaving the court, Chief Justice John Roberts was announcing upcoming retirements. Totenberg wondered why everyone else wasn’t leaving and asked someone outside the court. According to her interview that same day on All Things Considered, Totenberg asked a bystander what was going on, and the person replied “retirement announcements.” But Totenberg heard the reply in the singular, “announcement, ” and assumed it was the notice that Alito was retiring,’ NPR reported.

Nina Totenberg revealed on “All Things Considered” that she made a “rookie mistake.”

“I scared everybody half to death for about five minutes,” Totenberg said on the show. “It’s entirely on me. It’s not anybody else’s fault.”

Totenberg read the text of her apology to Alito on Tuesday’s show:

“Dear Justice Alito, there are no words to adequately apologize for today’s error in reporting your retirement. It was entirely my fault. I rushed out of the courtroom after the opinion announcements, and when I realized that the usual rush of folks after a few minutes had not happened, I asked somebody was going on inside, to which the answer was, ‘retirement announcements.’ I didn’t hear the ‘s’ on ‘announcements,’ and I assumed something no reporter should ever do, that you were retiring. It was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism. I could go on, but I don’t know what else to say, except that I am so so sorry.”

NPR claimed that Nina Totenberg’s status as one of the most experienced reporters covering the Supreme Court contributed to the error.

“Totenberg is one of the most experienced reporters covering the Supreme Court. She’s done so for NPR since 1975. Her status contributed to the error,” NPR said.

“She’s the preeminent Supreme Court reporter in the courtroom,” NPR Executive Editor Krishnadev Calamur said. “So I’m assuming that’s what she heard. … She’s in the room. It’s like when we report opinions. I’m not waiting to see what the Times is reporting. It’s when Nina says, here’s what happened, and we do it. That’s the trust you build up.”

Keep reading

TRIGGER WARNING: NBC News Grovels to Viewers for Using Terms ‘Biological Male’ and ‘Biological Female’ in Report About SCOTUS Ruling on Trans Athletes 

When NBC News reported on the Supreme Court decision on transgender athletes in sports today, journalist Craig Melvin fell all over himself top explain that he was using the terms ‘biological male’ and ‘biological female’ because that is the language the court used in the ruling.

He did not come right out and tell viewers that he was giving them a trigger warning but this is exactly what a trigger warning looks like. It was like he was apologizing to viewers for using these words.

This is how far we have gone down this ridiculously stupid road. Journalists on TV are afraid of offending the audience with completely normal and non-offensive words.

NewsBusters reports:

NBC News debased itself Tuesday with its Special Report on the Supreme Court decision allowing state bans of transgenderism in sports to remain in place, delivering a trigger warning about the use of “biological male” and “biological female” as well as scoffing at President Trump for “boil[ing] it down into bumper sticker language” when it’s unclear men have advantages over women and more care should be shown to a “deeply personal issue” that involves a “small” number of people…

Today co-host Craig Melvin also embarrassed himself with Orwellian verbiage, posing what seemed to be a trigger warning for any trans person watching: “Just a quick note here. The terms that we’re using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you know, we’re using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female.”

Melvin should consult both Genesis 1 and 5 as well as Matthew 19 to name a few chapters in the Bible laying out male and female.

Jarrett thankfully returned and dispensed with analysis of the ruling without the ludicrous rhetorical throat-clearing.

Keep reading

CNN Host Complains Declaration of Independence is ‘Soiled’ With ‘Racism’ and a ‘Slur’ Ahead of Nation’s 250th Birthday

CNN anchor Victor Blackwell used his Saturday morning show to attack one of America’s most sacred founding documents, calling the Declaration of Independence “soiled with a slur” against Native Americans.

The segment aired as Americans prepare to celebrate the nation’s 250th anniversary on July 4.

Blackwell focused on a specific passage in the Declaration’s list of grievances against King George III, which states that the king “has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

The host told viewers it is important to remember that the Declaration contains this “slur.”

Blackwell admitted he was not familiar with that section until recently and stressed the need for more people to acknowledge what he described as historical racism against Native Americans.

Native American activist and writer Rebecca Nagle joined the segment as a guest and criticized the idea of celebrating the Declaration’s “lofty ideals” without also confronting what she called the founders’ “deep hatred for indigenous people.”

Nagle suggested that many Native Americans have difficulty embracing the anniversary because of the country’s history with indigenous tribes.

Keep reading

The Empathy Weapon

This morning the New York Times published an essay by an immunologist who wasn’t vaccinated as a child, found science, got her shots, and now wants to help other parents see the light. It’s got that signature NYT sheen, is well written and emotionally compelling. And yet, if you’ve been paying attention to the media machine you can see that this piece is merely emotional blackmail. It’s sophisticated and speaks in the language of maternal love. The fact that it’s dressed in a lab coat is the tell.

The essay’s argument is simple: the author’s mother didn’t vaccinate her out of love. The author now vaccinates her own children out of love. The only difference is information and emotional support. The moral of the story? Parents who don’t vaccinate aren’t bad people – they just haven’t been guided to the correct conclusion yet.

Anyone not asleep through the last few years may recognize the game.

In 2021, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul stood before a congregation and told them the vaccinated were “the smart ones,” that those who refused were “not listening to God,” and that the faithful needed to go out as “apostles” and convert the unbelievers. It was cheap, crude, and disgraceful on so many layers.

And then there was Bill de Blasio. In the middle of the city’s vaccine push, the mayor of New York went on camera dangling a plate of burger and fries, moaning “Mmm, vaccination” like he was filming a McDonalds commercial.

I’ve never been more ashamed to be a New Yorker than watching those two represent my hometown during that period.

The Times essay is precisely the same sermon for a different congregation. Three pitches for the exact same product. De Blasio dangled fries at people who couldn’t afford to say no. Hochul played to the soul. The Times aims square at the laptop class. The approach may look different but the reveal is obvious: there is only one correct answer and the institutions hold it. These are all merely tactics to get the holdouts to convert.

Keep reading