Tag: mainstream media

MSM Says It Knows What Hegseth’s Mystery Meeting Of Hundreds Of Generals Is All About

The Washington Post and CNN say they know what Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth’s big summoning of hundreds of military generals and admirals is all about. The meeting is set for Tuesday at Quantico Marine Base near Washington D.C. 

No official explanation has yet to be given for why some 800 top commanders are being gathered – some traveling from bases across the globe. Speculation has abounded, including whether it could relate to going to war with Russia, or some other dire and alarming change in force posture. Major media outlets in the US are now claiming it will merely be a big talk by Hegseth in maintaining “warrior ethos” and things like professional standards. It’s also being reported as one big “rally the troops” meeting.

Apparently this somewhat unprecedented gathering is due to his “mounting impatience that the Pentagon hasn’t readily adopted the Trump administration’s directives on military culture, according to officials briefed on the plan.”

The speech will aim to get everyone on the same page in terms of Trump’s desire to tighten up discipline and professional standards across military ranks. So far, President Trump has only said when asked about the somewhat unprecedented meeting by reporters, “It’s great when generals and top people want to come to the United States to be with a now-called secretary of war.”

The Washington Post states:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered hundreds of generals to travel from around the world to hear him make a short speech on military standards and the “warrior ethos,” multiple people familiar with the event told The Washington Post.

Commenting on the swift pushback, it continues:

Some Pentagon officials questioned the wisdom of launching a relatively large gathering on short notice to hear Hegseth speak for a matter of minutes, and bristled at the idea that long-serving military leaders — a segment of whom spent years in combat earlier in their careers — needed instruction on how to fight.

“They don’t need a talk from Secretary Hegseth on the warrior ethos,” a defense official said.

A high profile retired general has spoken up on social media, and Hegseth bat it down…

Keep reading

Beware How The Climate Crusade ‘Partners’ With The Media And ‘Educates’ The Courts

Do you ever wonder why mainstream news stories seem so one-sided in their “climate change” coverage, promoting the most radical theories while ridiculing so-called “climate deniers?” Similarly, have you ever pondered how judges who are not scientists or climate experts render opinions favorable to the climate cult while citing scientific “facts” and “evidence” to bolster their verdicts?

For decades, CBS News – the storied broadcast home of icons like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite – was long regarded as the gold standard for television journalism. The “Tiffany Network’s” reporting might sometimes be controversial, but it was always considered deeply researched and proudly independent. CBS News prided itself on its unassailable integrity – “And that’s the way it is,” Cronkite assured us every evening when he signed off.

When it comes to reporting on climate news, those days are gone. For some climate-related stories, CBS News has of late been partnering with Climate Central, a nonprofit that bills itself as “policy-neutral” and “independent,” but acknowledges on its on website that it “uses science, big data, and technology to generate thousands of local storylines and compelling visuals that make climate change personal and show what can be done about it. We address climate science, sea level rise, extreme weather, energy, and related topics.”

In early September Fox News reported, “Last month, CBS News published a story about melting glaciers that also aired on ‘Sunday Morning.’ Ben Tracy was the correspondent on the segment, with his byline at the top of the article. A disclaimer at the bottom read, ‘Story produced by Chris Spinder, in partnership with Climate Central. Editor: Chris Jolly.’” Fox News noted that another CBS News article in July, “also tied to an on-air segment with Tracy, included the disclaimer that the story was ‘produced in partnership with Climate Central.’”

In fact, Tracy and Spinder “work for Climate Central. Only Jolly is a current CBS News staffer, according to his LinkedIn page.” So much for fair, balanced and independent journalism.

On its website, Climate Central boasts of its influence on news organizations, noting that through its “Partnership Journalism” program, it “contributes data, science and data reporting, editing and guidance to joint features coverage informed by new climate data.” The site provides links to page after page of “news” stories on which it has “partnered,” ranging from alternative energy outlets to traditional news agencies.

Keep reading

Leftist Media Admits That Wealthy Elites Are Most Affected By Mass Deportations

It’s a rare occasion when a far-left media source actually admits that the “right wing”  is correct about anything.  Though, when it comes to most issues the political left is often wrong, and when they do finally admit it it’s usually attached to a piece of propaganda arguing that conservatives are also “still wrong” even though they were right.

This frustrating lack of humility among progressives has become a part of their mythos; it’s almost expected that leftists always double down on their ignorance.  The trait is not as charming as they seem to think it is, but the rest of the world has learned to navigate around it and still get things done.

One area where progressives have been absolutely spurious in their arguments is the mass deportation issue.  Either they lie about the “need” for mass immigration or they lie about the supposedly negative effects of sending illegals back home.

The ongoing narrative among Democrat politicians is that mass immigration is necessary to reinforce the US economy.  They claim that without migrants (legal and illegal), the system will essentially collapse as labor shortages cripple agriculture, manufacturing, housing construction and basic services. 

Keep in mind that millions of migrants have self deported since Trump took office, border encounters have plunged by 95% and hundreds of thousands of illegals have been deported (over 2 million illegals total in the past 250 days).  Yet, there has been no disruption of services or agriculture and many companies that once hired illegals (for 30% less wages) are now forced to hire American workers and pay a fair wage.  The claims of a national economic breakdown without migrants is proving more and more incorrect with every passing month.   

So, where are the negative effects of deportations?  Are there any?  Politico, using Washington DC as a microcosm, admits that wealthy elites are the most effected group when it comes to the loss of migrant labor. 

As conservatives have been pointing out for decades, the only beneficiaries of mass immigration are rich coastal Democrats hiring illegals on the cheap as well as corporations unwilling to pay American employees a normal wage.  As Politico notes:

“It’s a longstanding MAGA critique of mass immigration: the idea that the status quo amounts to a lifestyle subsidy for the class of Americans who frequent upscale eateries, get their kitchens renovated and hire nannies, landscapers or cleaning ladies.  And, for better or worse, a month of unprecedented immigration enforcement in Washington seems to be bearing out that critique…”

“However catastrophic the impact on targeted capital-area immigrants has been, the highest-profile local economic impact of the blitz so far has been on restaurants, food delivery services, home-improvement contractors, even moving companies — precisely the industries that cater to the capital’s elites. That’s a consumer base unlikely to garner much political sympathy in the broader country…”

Keep reading

HOW ORIGINAL: Whoopi Goldberg Wants to Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Trump From Office

This week, after Trump’s amazing speech at the United Nations, Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of the toxic TV show ‘The View’ suggested that the 25th Amendment should be used to remove Trump from office.

How original! We’ve never heard anything like this before now.

Whoopi Goldberg does not understand that we’re not doing this again. We’re not allowing the left to try to remove Trump from office like they did for four years in his first term.

Trump won the Electoral College and the popular vote last November. Grumpy Whoopi can go pound sand. Does anyone recall her saying this while the walking zombie Biden was in office?

The New York Post reports:

Whoopi Goldberg calls for invoking 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office after UN speech: ‘I’m worried’

Whoopi Goldberg suggested forcibly removing President Trump from office over his “unhelpful” United Nations General Assembly speech — igniting a firestorm of backlash online.

The lefty co-host of “The View” declared that other world leaders are “really concerned for” the US under Trump’s leadership.

“He had a chance to deliver much more than what he did, and they don’t consider him to be serious anymore. I’m worried,” Goldberg said during Wednesday’s show.

The former actress then suggested invoking the 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of a president who is deemed unable to fulfill the duties of the office.

“Well, they questioned Biden’s competence. If Biden had acted like this I would have said, ‘Yeah take him’ … This was not presidential and this was not helpful,” Goldberg said.

She really is a dishonest idiot, isn’t she?

Keep reading

Stephen Colbert Pushes More Control on ‘Long Guns’ After Man Attacked Dallas ICE with 8mm Bolt Action

On Wednesday night, Stephen Colbert pushed for more gun control on “long guns” after a sniper used a WWII-era bolt action rifle to attack a Dallas ICE facility.

Colbert was interviewing Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) when he made the comments.

Media Research Center captured the moment the interview began,  with Colbert saying:

Before we get into anything else, right off the top, I just want to point out and let everybody know that you have been a tireless advocate for gun control for years now. And as you know, and I think most of the people out here know, today there was another tragic shooting, this time at an ICE facility down in Dallas. We don’t know a lot about it so far. What goes through your mind when you hear about another shooting like this?

Murphy responded by saying, in part, “It just sickens me that we have a president who instead of trying to stand up and say wherever the violence comes from, it’s unacceptable, is politicizing this moment. It’s about the victims and it’s about a mourning of a loss of a potential moment to bring this country together.”

Keep reading

FCC Threats Against Jimmy Kimmel Echo a Century of Speech Control

Days after the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Jimmy Kimmel joked on his show that the “MAGA gang [was] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” This prompted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr to threaten network broadcasting licenses, alleging that Kimmel’s show violates “public interest, convenience or necessity,” and to tell ABC that this could be resolved “the easy way or the hard way.” The following day, ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel LIVE!—a decision it reversed on Monday after public outcry. 

Many conservatives, trying to remember where they put their keys and their beefs about cancel culture, see this as the way the cookie crumbles. Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), however, believes that Carr was wrong and called this “mafioso” behavior “dangerous.” The dispute highlights a century-old tension: political control over broadcast licenses and the power to shave free speech.

Broadcast TV and radio authorizations—held by stations in the ABC network—state that private companies cannot claim ownership of the radio spectrum. Access to airwaves is a privilege, not a right. This dates to the 1927 Radio Act, proposed by then–Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover and signed by President Calvin Coolidge. Its rules were repeated virtually verbatim in the 1934 Communications Act, amended in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and constitute today’s law of the land.

The greatest problem with censorship is the ease with which subtle demands by politicians slant the news, particularly in the choice (or rejection) of controversial topics. But it is the law backing up the government’s powerful authority that makes that influence work. Fred Friendly’s fascinating book The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, describes one of the sensational cases where a permit to speak was actually cancelled. In the WXUR case, a Philadelphia station was operated by the highly opinionated Rev. Carl McIntire, a “suspended” Presbyterian minister. Although his organization raised $5,000 to support Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, McIntire was considered an antisemite by the National Council of Churches, the Urban League, and the B’nai B’rith. They objected to his “intemperate attacks on other religious denominations…and political officials.” The organizations called for McIntire’s broadcast license to be revoked (denied for renewal) by the FCC because its programs “help[ed] create a climate of fear, prejudice and distrust of democratic institutions.” 

McIntire lost WXUR in 1973—the only time such a right was extinguished under the so-called Fairness Doctrine. But legions of speakers have been cowed and hushed. As early as 1929, the left-wing stations WEVD (named for Eugene V. Debs) and WCFL (owned by the Chicago Federation of Labor) were warned about espousing their radical views. WEVD was accused in a 1929 renewal at the Federal Radio Commission of being “the mouthpiece of the Socialist Party.” WCFL was branded a “propaganda” outlet. Both enterprises read the room and backed away from their edgy politics and full-time line-ups. WCFL merged into the NBC conglomerate, while WEVD—cadging donations to stay alive—limped along by sharing most of the week’s broadcast time with commercial outlets. 

One of the great 20th century judicial liberals, D.C. Senior Court of Appeals judge David Bazelon, originally supported the FCC’s attack on McIntire’s ownership of WXUR. His First Amendment rights were compromised, under the 1943 NBC Supreme Court verdict, based on the “physical scarcity” doctrine. This posits that there are only a limited number of frequencies—a limit imposed by nature, not the government—and so the regulator has to select the best content to fill those slots. It was an uncompelling argument at the time: Resources in limited supply are sold to bidders every day without FCC (or other) administrative assignment. There are actually unlimited spectral slots, not just counting what technology might deliver (tell me the top limit on satellite radio channels or Internet radio stations), but in divvying the old AM dial into finer slices. 

Keep reading

No, Senator Van Hollen: Stations Choosing Not To Air Kimmel Isn’t Censorship

It’s very clear that the Democratic Party has no idea what the First Amendment means and what free speech is.

They have spent the past week telling us there’s a Constitutional right to have a high-paying late-night talk show, calling the short-lived suspension of Jimmy Kimmel “censorship.” It’s not. It was a business decision by ABC/Disney and stations like Sinclair and Nexstar to not air a show after the host made inflammatory comments about Charlie Kirk.

Even with Kimmel’s return to his show, several Sinclair stations have opted to not broadcast his show.

That, of course, is their right.

But Democrats like California State Senator Scott Wiener vowed to break up Sinclair for not airing Kimmel, and now Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is calling Sinclair’s decision not to air Kimmel “censorship” too.

While FCC Chair Brendan Carr did comment on the situation and talk about possible consequences for ABC/Disney and Kimmel, the FCC did not demand the suspension of Kimmel’s show. That decision came from the network after Kimmel refused to tone down the rhetoric (and the future of Kimmel’s show has long been in doubt anyway).

Keep reading

MSM Reports on How Ukraine Is Crumbling Under Military, Political and Economic Problems

The real Ukraine is not what they dreamed of.

Two years ago, The Economist published an editorial that predicted a ‘Ukraine 2.0’ that was a secure, democratic, and prosperous nation.

But now, the British magazine has been forced to the conclusion that the Kiev regime is anything but what they expected.

They found that Ukraine is ‘eroded across multiple fronts’, a nation in slow decline, and the article questions the purpose of their prolonged resistance.

The Economist reported:

“’We can fight for years, losing positions slowly,’ says a senior Ukrainian official. ‘But why?’”

Ukrainian forces have been capable of holding out Russian advances but at the cost of incremental territorial concessions.

The article reasons that Russia’s attrition strategy is succeeding, hollowing out Ukraine’s defensive posture.

“Russia’s plan is to grind Ukraine down, and it is working.”

Ukraine’s society is broken, with centralized power, tested institutions, and complicated alliances, particularly as Western support is diminishing.

Prosperity is but a dream, with a Ukrainian economy battered by destruction, displacement, and a complete dependency on aid.

Keep reading

Vance Slams Democrats, Media For ‘Encouraging Crazy People’ To ‘Commit Violence’

Vice President JD Vance called out “left-wing media” and Democrats, specifically naming Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-CA, for “encouraging crazy people to go and commit violence” in a speech in North Carolina Wednesday.

“The very people who keep us safe ought to be honored and protected and praised by Democrats and Republicans alike,” Vance said. “It is time to stop the rhetorical assault on law enforcement.”

Vance covered the Trump Administration’s fight against crime in Washington, D.C., and Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier this month before addressing Wednesday’s shooting at the ICE facility in Dallas.

Vance said the shooting was politically motivated and was perpetrated by a “violent, left-wing extremist,” evidenced by the “anti-ICE” writing on a bullet and other information Vance said was not yet public.

Vance’s speech also referenced the NBC story that falsely accused ICE agents of using a 5-year-old girl as bait to arrest her father, as covered by The Federalist.

“Political violence has gotten out of control in this country. We’ve got to stop it. We’ve got to condemn it. And that starts, unfortunately, at the very top of the Democratic Party,” Vance said. “If you want to stop political violence, stop attacking our law enforcement as the Gestapo … stop telling your supporters that everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi. If you want to stop political violence, look in the mirror.”

Keep reading

MSNBC’s O’Leary: Not ‘Really Clear, Definable Ideology or Motive’ in Kirk Assassination

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” MSNBC Security and Intelligence Analyst Christopher O’Leary discussed the shooting at an ICE facility in Texas and stated that “we have not seen, in this case, yet, and even not in the Charlie Kirk assassination, a really clear, definable ideology or motive.”

O’Leary said, “So, what we saw in Dallas, with the special agent in charge, the mayor, the chief of police, was a unified message putting out what they knew at the time, the resources that were being arrayed against understanding it better, and really just settling the public that there was no ongoing threat. And that was done well. And that’s — and there was unity amongst the interagency there.”

He continued, “And then you have Director Patel putting out information that is clearly, immediately trying to assign blame. And I don’t think we know enough, and I don’t think the FBI quite knows enough yet what the motivation is here. Does it look like there may be a political angle to this, based on the recovered evidence? For sure. Do I think there [are] trends that are moving in that direction, that we could see more violence emerging from the different sides of the political spectrum? Absolutely. But we have not seen, in this case, yet, and even not in the Charlie Kirk assassination, a really clear, definable ideology or motive.”

Keep reading