Tag: mainstream media

USC historian defends Southern Poverty Law Center funneling payments to KKK leaders 

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s payments to the handful of remaining white supremacist groups in the country are just like how Jewish groups took down extremists, according to a University of Southern California historian.

Professor Steven Ross made the comments during an interview last week with National Public Radio. He has a book coming out about “racist” and “antisemitic groups” in the 20th century. 

Last week, the Trump administration announced federal charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, accusing it of defrauding donors. The 14-page complaint says the SPLC paid informants within the Ku Klux Klan and other white hate groups. At the same time, the group was fundraising off the alleged resurgence and influence of those same organizations.

But Professor Ross rushed to defend the payments to white supremacist groups, linking that activity back to the work of Jewish groups in the 1940s and onward to infiltrate hate groups.

He told NPR:

I’m not sure if the indictment is true or not, but the idea that there are paid informants is not illegal. These people are simply monitoring what was going on. And when they’re accused of being – stealing records, those records were sent, I’m sure, to government forces like the FBI, the Justice Department, because they weren’t doing their job.

To be clear, the informants were not simply accused of “stealing records,” like the surely dwindling check register of a random “Klan” group.

In one horrifying example, the Southern Poverty Law Center paid an organizer of the deadly 2017 Charlottesville rally. 

The unidentified perpetrator “attended the event at the direction of the SPLC,” according to the indictment. The person “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.”

Furthermore, the group continued to pay the organizer after the deadly violence, making payments throughout 2023. In total, the left-wing group paid $270,000 to the perpetrator.

NPR host Terry Gross interjected to clarify the accusations about inciting violence, before pivoting and suggesting FBI agents do the same thing. (I mean, likely true).

“I’m [sure] the SPLC is doing the same thing because they know their informants would get in trouble, otherwise,” Ross said. “That they could be prosecuted by the government.”

Keep reading

The Moral Malaise: The New York Times Makes The Case For “Microlooting” To Murder

“It is so hard to live ethically in an unethical society.” That lament heard this week from New York Times opinion culture editor Nadja Spiegelman could well be the Democratic Party’s epitaph.

Spiegelman was interviewing two left-wing influencers about how everything from shoplifting to murder may be excusable today in light of the unfairness they see in society.

The podcast, a product of the nation’s newspaper of record, reveled in the moral relativism that has taken over the American left. It featured the ravings of the antisemitic Marxist streamer Hasan Piker, who calmly explained how the murder of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson was perfectly understandable. His rationalization came from Marxist revolutionary Friedrich Engels, who had called capitalism “social murder.” If capitalists are “social murderers,” then why not kill them? The logic is liberating and lethal for some on the left looking for a license for violence.

Mind you, this same newspaper had once condemned and effectively banned a U.S. senator for writing an op-ed advocating the use of the military to quell violent protests during the summer of George Floyd’s death. The Times even forced out its own opinion editor for having the temerity to publish such an opinion.

But glorifying murder? The suggestion of open hunting season on corporate executives did not appear to shock or repel Spiegelman. After all, we are living in “an unethical society.” She explained that many felt that the murder of Thompson, the father of two, meant that “finally, someone can actually do something about health care.”

Even liberal comedians are practicing a literal version of slapstick. Margaret Cho this week declared that “we need a feral, bloodthirsty, violent Democrat.”

To be fair, Spiegelman did concede that it might seem a bit “scary” for some to start murdering our way to social justice.

She also explained that shoplifting can be justifiable because people are “stealing from Whole Foods — not just for the thrill of it, but out of a feeling of anger and moral justification.”

New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino also contributed to the podcast, titled “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” She immediately threw in her own experience with “microlooting” and explained why it is arguably moral: “I have, under very specific circumstances. I will say, I think that stealing from a big-box store [isn’t] significant as a moral wrong, nor is it significant in any way as protest.”

She detailed her own past thefts and added, “I didn’t feel bad about it at all, in part because the store was a corporation. And it certainly felt, in a utilitarian sense, I was like, this is not a big deal. Right, guys?”

Not in the confines of the New York Times, where apparently you are entitled to all goods that are fit to pilfer.

The bizarre exchange highlighted the moral chasm that is opening its maw on today’s political left. In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I write about how rage helps people excuse any offense or attack. It dismisses the humanity of others and provides a license to hate completely and without reservation.

It is not really murder or theft if there are no real humans on the other side, is it?

Other columnists have defended such property crimes. Washington Post writer Maura Judkis ran a column mocking shoplifting stories as the “moral panic” of a nation built on “stolen land.” It is reminiscent of those who excused rioting in past summers “as an expression of power” and demanded that the media refer to looters as “protesters.”

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones went so far as to call on journalists not to cover shoplifting crimes.

Keep reading

‘The View’ Relish Trump and His Cabinet ‘Felt the Fear’ for Their Lives During WHCD, in Push for Gun Control

During Monday’s airing of ABC’s The View, host Ana Navarro led her co-hosts in relishing that President Donald Trump and his Cabinet “felt the fear” of death during Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, and might now be more open to gun control.

Newsbusters managing editor Curtis Houck posted an excerpt from the Disney-owned talk show, in which Navarro expressed bewilderment that Congress did not pass gun control after the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. She then added, “But maybe now, that they have felt the fear themselves, they will do something.”

Navarro talked about the “important political leaders” who were at the White House Correspondents dinner and said, “Now they know, they’ve lived it in their own flesh, the fear that our school children go through.”

As Navarro talked, viewers could hear other hosts saying “yes” in agreement.

Breitbart News noted that Pennsylvania state Rep. and former Democratic Party Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta pushed a ban on “military-grade weapons” on Sunday, which was the day after the WHCD attack.

Kenyatta did not mention that the alleged WHCD attacker used a shotgun and pistol, neither of which were “military-grade weapons.” Therefore, the ban he proposed would not have prevented or even hindered the attack.

Keep reading

Jimmy Kimmel Fantasized About Trump’s Death on ABC Days Before Third Assassination Attempt

Jimmy Kimmel, host of the Disney-owned ABC late-night show Jimmy Kimmel Live!, put on a mock White House Correspondents’ Dinner roast during Thursday night’s broadcast in which he fanaticized about President Donald Trump’s death in a joke aimed at First Lady Melania Trump.

Firing off one-liners about President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Stephen Miller, among other White House officials, Kimmel set his sights on the First Lady.

“And of course, our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” Kimmel said to the delight of the studio audience.

Kimmel’s ten-minute monologue meant to, as Kimmel said, give him the opportunity to “do some of the jokes a comedian might do if our president wasn’t a trembling drama queen who’s scared of comedy,” aired just days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday, which saw 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California, reportedly charge through a metal detector and shoot a Secret Service agent in the chest before being tackled to the ground and taken into custody.

Keep reading

This Clip of CNN’s S.E. Cupp Just Hours Before the WHCD Shooting Last Night Has Aged Like Fine Milk 

Does everyone remember S.E. Cupp? She used to be a conservative commentator on FOX News years ago, but at some point she came down with an incurable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome and went to work for CNN.

Last night, just hours before the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Cupp made some comments that have not aged well. Like, at all.

With her typical overconfidence and smug sense of moral superiority, Cupp remarked that Trump was being allowed to speak at the WHCD despite the fact that he “wants us [journalists] dead.”

Transcript via Curtis Houck:

“[The @WHCA] made it real easy for him to attend. And I, you know, glad to see everyone’s in great spirits. And this is a party. I’m real bummed. Real bummed about tonight. because here’s what’s happening tonight. Journalism is throwing a party. Journalism is celebrating journalism at this party. Journalism, for some reason, invited Brendan Carr, FCC chair, who is threatening to revoke the licenses of broadcast networks. Pete Hegseth, who removed journalists from the Pentagon, and Donald Trump, who attacks us on the regular.

Now, they’re giving Donald Trump a speaking position to roast us to our faces for an hour. And he doesn’t have to stay for the part where we celebrate journalism and give out awards to journalists and talk about the importance of free speech. And here’s the kicker: we broadcast it on national TV. He could not have planned this scenario better. And guess what? He didn’t. We did. Journalism planned this scenario for Donald Trump. So, if I’m Donald Trump, of course, I come under these conditions.

And you just heard Brian Stelter say that the correspondents association was trying to sort of mend some fences with a guy who wants us dead, figuratively, figuratively. He wants journalism dead. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t think this is a great night for journalism. It’s a night that’s meant to be celebrating it, but I think it’s a real bummer.”

Keep reading

WHCD Shooting Suspect Told Law Enforcement He Targeted Trump Officials, CBS News Sources Say

A major development has emerged in the investigation into the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, and the implications are serious. 

According to two sources cited by CBS News, suspect Cole Tomas Allen allegedly told law enforcement after his arrest that he intended to shoot Trump administration officials.

If that statement is confirmed in court, the entire nature of the case changes. This is no longer just about a shooting attempt in a crowded venue. It becomes a case centered on targeted political violence against federal officials, which carries far more severe legal consequences under federal law.

Intent is one of the most critical factors in any criminal case, especially at the federal level. 

An admission like this could open the door to charges well beyond the preliminary firearms and assault counts already announced by U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro. 

Prosecutors now have a potential pathway to pursue statutes specifically designed to protect government officials and the federal government’s functioning.

One of the most relevant statutes in this situation is 18 U.S.C. § 115, which criminalizes threats against federal officials in connection with their official duties. This law applies broadly, covering members of Congress, federal judges, law enforcement personnel, and executive branch officials, including cabinet members. 

The penalties are significant, with up to 10 years in prison for threats alone, and substantially more if an attempt or actual act of violence is involved. 

The reasoning behind the enhanced penalties is straightforward: a threat against a government official is treated not just as a threat to a person, but as an attack on the operation of government.

That distinction matters. Federal prosecutors consistently treat cases involving government officials differently because of the broader implications. 

These cases are not limited to individual harm; they are viewed as potential disruptions to government stability and public order.

The setting of the incident could also play a major role. If investigators determine that Allen specifically chose the White House Correspondents’ Dinner because of the expected presence of administration officials, that could support arguments for premeditation. 

Keep reading

Blanche Shuts Down CBS’s Margaret Brennan After She Tries to Turn the WHCD Shooting Into a Gun Control Debate

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation with host Margaret Brennan to discuss yet another attempted assassination against President Trump and his administration officials.

Margaret Brennan tried to get Blanche in a debate about gun control after a left-wing would-be assassin stormed the lobby of the Washington Hilton and opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

The shooter, Cole Allen, 31, of Torrance, California, traveled to DC by train. Margaret Brennan tried to get Blanche into a debate about gun control.

Allen sent his family a manifesto parroting Democrat-media talking points and expressing his hatred for “rapist, traitor” Trump.

Margaret Brennan wanted to make the attempted assassination by a left-wing lunatic about gun control.

“Here in the District of Columbia, open carry is not permitted. You just said he traveled from California across the country by train,” Brennan said.

“At this point, are you thinking at the federal level of changing security protocols in any way to, for example, match on trains what you are expected to go through when you fly, when you do have to declare a weapon when you cross state lines?” she added.

Blanche did not take the bait.

“Look, this isn’t about, in my mind, changing the law or making the laws more restrictive around possession of firearms,” Blanche said.

“It appears he purchased the firearms in the past couple of years. We don’t know how the firearms ended up in his possession in DC,” Blanche added.

“We can make some assumptions based on what I said of how he got to DC, but I don’t think the narrative here is about changing laws or making our laws more restrictive,” he said.

“This is about law enforcement who are doing their jobs and a suspect who tried to do something and failed miserably,” Blanche said.

Brennan still wanted to take the conversation back to gun control.

“Well, I’m not talking about changing the law in terms of possession of a firearm,” she said.

“I’m asking about crossing state lines with that firearm and arriving in the capital,” she added.

“Well, look, you are talking about — if we’re asking the question, that’s talking about changing the laws,” Blanche said.

“And I don’t think that that’s something we should be focused on right now in any way, shape or form,” he said.

Keep reading

After SPLC Indictment, Democrats Scramble to Defend It as “Politically Motivated” 

MSNOW’s latest segment offered a clear example of how legacy media handles politically inconvenient stories. Instead of engaging with the substance of a federal indictment, the discussion—featuring Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman—shifted toward deflection, narrative framing, and selective omission.

The underlying story is not complicated. 

As previously covered by The Gateway Pundit, a federal grand jury has indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on charges including wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

According to prosecutors, the organization allegedly misled donors for nearly a decade—raising funds under the banner of combating extremism while secretly diverting millions of dollars to individuals connected to extremist groups.

The indictment outlines a detailed pattern. Between 2014 and 2023, more than $3 million in donor funds were allegedly funneled to individuals tied to organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations. 

Donors were not informed. Instead, prosecutors describe the use of fictitious entities and concealed bank accounts to obscure where the money was actually going.

On MSNOW, however, the focus shifted almost immediately. 

Rather than addressing the specifics of the indictment, Rep. Goldman emphasized the SPLC’s historical role as a “civil rights” organization and suggested that the case itself is politically motivated.

That argument sidesteps the central issue. A federal indictment is the result of a grand jury reviewing evidence presented by prosecutors.

The segment relied heavily on reputation as a substitute for analysis. The SPLC’s past work was repeatedly referenced, while the current allegations were treated as secondary or speculative. That approach creates a disconnect.

If an organization built its credibility on identifying and exposing misconduct, then allegations of internal financial misconduct should be treated as a serious institutional issue rather than dismissed as partisan noise.

There was also a noticeable effort to broaden the conversation into unrelated political territory. 

Keep reading

DEBUNKED: The Left Falsely Blames Trump for the Afghan Refugee Mess Created by Biden’s Disastrous Withdrawal

Left-wing media is once again scrambling to rewrite recent history—this time over Afghan refugees still stranded overseas after Joe Biden’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

During a recent segment, MSNOW attempted to frame President Donald Trump as “targeting” Afghan allies who assisted the United States during the war. 

The claim centers around reports that some Afghan nationals currently living in Qatar may be given relocation options outside the United States, including possible resettlement in other countries.

But the outrage narrative leaves out the most important facts.

First, these individuals were not universally promised permanent resettlement in the United States—certainly not under the Trump administration. 

The idea that every Afghan who assisted U.S. efforts was guaranteed entry into the U.S. is simply false. Immigration and refugee policy has always involved a structured vetting process, prioritization, and logistical constraints.

The current situation exists because of Biden’s 2021 withdrawal—an operation widely criticized across the political spectrum for its execution.

When the Taliban rapidly took over Afghanistan following Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces, thousands of Afghan allies were left in limbo. Many were relocated to temporary holding locations, including a former U.S. military base in Qatar. 

Years later, many remain there, waiting for final decisions on resettlement.

That is the context MSNOW conveniently ignored.

Instead, the segment leaned heavily on emotional framing, highlighting interpreters, special forces affiliates, and families—including hundreds of children—while suggesting the Trump administration is abandoning them. 

The reporting relied in part on claims from outlets like The New York Times, which often shape the initial narrative before it spreads across legacy media.

What is actually being discussed is policy—not abandonment.

Any proposal to relocate individuals to third countries is part of a broader effort to manage a complex backlog created by the rushed withdrawal. 

Keep reading

They Can’t Even Flip Burgers

The Protected Class Finally Meets The Real World

The New York Times tried to write a sympathy piece for the USAID class. It accidentally wrote an indictment. The villain of the story was supposed to be DOGE, the great orange-bad-men-with-spreadsheets monster that came into Washington and started cutting through the federal fat farm. The victims were supposed to be the noble public servants, contractors, grant managers, NGO executives, and democracy-development professionals who suddenly found themselves outside the taxpayer-funded cocoon. Then the Times gave away the whole game: one former senior vice president at a USAID-funded nonprofit had been making roughly $272,000 a year, and after the gravy train jumped the tracks, she was interviewing for a $19-an-hour job at a spice store.

Normal Americans did not read that and reach for a tissue. They read it and asked the only question that matters: what in God’s name were we paying for?

That is what the coastal press still does not understand. A quarter-million-dollar salary means something in the real country. It means working years of double shifts. It means a house is paid off. It means college tuition. It means a small business surviving another year. It means a mechanic, a nurse, a trucker, a cop, a farmer, or a welder would have to grind for years to see what one USAID-world executive was pulling down annually from a system most Americans cannot even see, let alone audit. Then we are supposed to cry because the private economy looked at that résumé and said, “the best we can do is 19 bucks an hour.”

No. That is not a human-interest story. That is a flashing red light.

The entire Times frame is backward. DOGE was treated like the marauding villain because it dared to question the sacred bureaucracy. How dare anyone cut government jobs? How dare anyone interrupt the NGO pipeline? How dare anyone ask whether these programs actually work? How dare anyone touch the soft, padded, credentialed ecosystem where public money flows into nonprofit offices, consultant contracts, administrative salaries, stakeholder meetings, and reports about reports. The Times wants Americans to see cruelty. What Americans see is confirmation.

Keep reading