Tag: media

Chris Cuomo Tries to Play Dumb on DSA Radicals: ‘Who’s a Communist?’

During a conversation about the rise of the DSA on NewsNation, Chris Cuomo tried to play dumb, asking Bill O’Reilly, ‘Who’s a communist?’

O’Reilly schooled him and you can read and watch their exchange below.

This is an important moment to remember. From now until November, there will be numerous exchanges like this one, where a liberal media type will completely downplay the DSA, their goals, and their own words.

Multiple high ranking members of the DSA are on camera saying that communism is the ultimate goal of their movement.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

CHRIS CUOMO: Look, we see this all the time, which is: in the primary, we hate each other, but then when it’s against the other guys, especially in this toxic to some that are talk, party politics is we got to come together. Because the last thing we want is, you know, as Democrats would say, is another Trumper, especially in a blue seat. So, I don’t understand that motivation.

BILL O’REILLY: Then I will enlighten you.

CUOMO: Please.

O’REILLY: There’s hasn’t been, in my lifetime, a movement as radical as a Bernie-Sanders-led progressive movement. This took me by surprise on – Two years ago, if you were to say ‘Hey, there’s going to be a big communist element and it’s going to get traction.’ I would have went, ‘what are you talking about Albania?’

CUOMO (interrupting): But who’s a communist? Who’s a communist? Who? Who’s a columnist?

O’REILLY: The means of production is what people like Mamdani want to control. All you got to do is look it up. Okay, the means of production. They wants to control that

Keep reading

Conservative National Review Urges Trump Impeachment Over Latest Grift

On Wednesday, the National Review – the preeminent conservative magazine since 1955 — called it: President Donald Trump has done the “impeachable.”

“There is no plausible defense of Trump’s TruthSocial scheme,” declared National Review Senior Editor Charles Cooke. “It is flagrantly corrupt. It is impeachable. Congress should intervene. (It won’t, I know.)” He posted this assertion over his latest article, entitled “Truth Social’s Early-Access Scheme Is Indefensible.”

As he explains, over the weekend, the Trump Media & Technology Group announced the creation of a “real-time feed on the Truth Social website that will give paying institutions early access to certain high-profile posts for between $60,000 and $100,000 per month.” Cooke doesn’t hold back with his assessment of the scheme, writing, “There is no credible defense of this. The only reason that anyone would want priority access to Truth Social is to gain priority access to President Trump’s pronouncements on that platform. And the only reason that anyone would want priority access to President Trump’s pronouncements on that platform is to act on them for pecuniary gain.”

As Cooke elaborates, “Trump often uses Truth Social as the primary forum for his announcements — announcements that include changes to personnel, the imposition or rescission of tariffs, key foreign policy decisions, and more. These announcements are extremely useful to financial institutions, and, in the age of high-speed trading, the faster those financial institutions can obtain them, the more money those financial institutions can make. Facilitating this access is not a byproduct of Truth Social’s API offering; it is its core — perhaps its sole — purpose. Simply put: President Trump is charging Americans a fee — a fee that, in part, goes into his family’s pockets — for the privilege of receiving news about his official actions earlier than those who do not pay.”

According to Cooke, it is “obvious how unequivocally corrupt this setup is. Technically speaking, the beneficiaries will not gain the information they seek directly from Trump himself, but indirectly, via an API (Application Programming Interface) whose output will be processed by a bunch of semi-autonomous servers and acted upon according to a set of predetermined parameters. But the results will be the same as if Trump had personally picked up the phone.”

He continues, “Good traders do not react to the news on the fly; they have plans of action, which are to be implemented if a war starts or ends, if taxes are raised or cut, if the Federal Reserve’s next chairman is expected to be hawkish, dovish, or somewhere in between, and so on. If, instead of using Truth Social as the middleman, President Trump announced that, for a hefty annual charge, he would call a select group of brokers at the stock exchange to inform them of his important decisions, and thereby give them a head start in executing their plans, we would call that what it is: corruption. Why not here?”

Here Cooke concludes in rare agreement with Democratic lawmakers, writing, “Senators Warren and Schiff have described Trump’s plan as ‘an outrageous abuse of the President’s office for his personal benefit that undermines everyday investors and the integrity of our markets, while enriching Wall Street and other wealthy insiders.’ They are correct… It is certainly a grave offense against honesty, transparency, and good government. If it has any self-respect, Congress will respond to the president’s brazen provocation by passing a law that renders his model flatly illegal. And, if that fails to persuade him, it will impeach and remove him from office, the better to drain the swamp.”

Keep reading

CBS News Not Airing ‘60 Minutes’ Jeffrey Epstein Story Under Scrutiny

Senator Ron Wyden has questioned why a 60 Minutes interview with now-former correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi on Jeffrey Epstein’s banking practices never aired, adding it had been “suppressed.”

The Oregon Democrat raised the issue in a new Senate Finance Committee report, published on August 4, alleging Deutsche Bank failed to promptly disclose more than $250 million in suspicious Epstein-related transactions.

“It is disappointing that, instead of advancing new facts that would help bring accountability to the men who participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation, the report largely recycles allegations that have already been exhaustively examined by courts and the government,” a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase told Newsweek.

Asked for comment, Wyden’s office pointed Newsweek to page 61 of the report, where it says his taped interview with Alfonsi was intended for a broader 60 Minutes segment on banks and Epstein, adding that it is unclear whether CBS News leadership will allow the broader segment to air following Alfonsi’s departure from the network.

CBS News says the segment simply was not ready before the show’s season ended.

Pushing back against any suggestion that the interview was buried, a spokesperson for the network said in a statement shared with Newsweek via email: “We air pieces when they are ready, and suggesting that an interview is being ‘suppressed’ for any reason is categorically false.”

According to Wyden’s report, “the investigation found significant evidence that JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America violated federal anti-money laundering laws by failing to screen and report Epstein’s suspicious financial transactions in a timely manner.”

A spokesperson for Bank of America told Newsweek: “We take our legal and regulatory obligations seriously and, as we have previously said, the bank did not facilitate wrongdoing.”

Keep reading

If You Want to Live, Stop Trusting the FDA, CDC, Corporate Media, and Jab-Pushing Doctors

If You Want to Live, You Have to Think For Yourself

I recently posted a flippant comment about not trusting the judgment of people who took the COVID jabs. The backlash was immediate and furious, and it only confirmed what I’ve known for years: too many people have outsourced their thinking to authorities who lie to them for a living.

The anger proves my point. When you confront people with evidence that their trusted institutions deceived them, they don’t want to hear it. They’d rather defend the authority that misled them than admit they were used as guinea pigs in a mass medical experiment. That’s not stubbornness; it’s deep psychological conditioning.

I make one exception: the active-duty military personnel who were physically coerced into taking the shots. The United States Coast Guard members who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Biden administration over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate were victims of medical assault, not naive volunteers. [1] Their “choice” was discharge, career destruction, and public humiliation. I have nothing but respect for the people who fought back.

The ‘I Trusted My Doctor’ Excuse Is Not a Defense

The most common justification I heard from angry commenters was some variation of “I trusted my doctor, the FDA, the CDC, the media, Fauci.” And that is exactly the problem. Your doctor was not the one who authorized an experimental gene therapy with zero long-term safety data. Your doctor was just the final delivery mechanism for a system that had already abandoned real science.

The Biden administration pressured the FDA to “change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards” to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines, according to a congressional report. [2] Emergency use authorization was never meant to bypass the entire clinical trial process, yet that is precisely what happened. Experts said that properly analyzing millions of pages of individual participant data would have required at least six months, so they skipped it entirely. [3]

Pfizer’s own whistleblower, Brook Jackson, testified that trial data were falsified, patients were unblinded, poorly trained personnel administered injections, and follow-up on reported side effects was significantly delayed. [4] Anyone with internet access could have found all of this information in real time from independent voices. Ignorance was a choice, and for too many people, it was a fatal one.

Keep reading

Max Miller Destroys His Career in Disastrous, Shambolic CNN Interview

Well. That was an unmitigated disaster. 

In today’s edition of Save My Career, embattled Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) appeared on CNN yesterday evening, where anchor Jake Tapper cross-examined him — live on the air — about allegations of spousal abuse, child abuse, and drug use. And it was certainly a memorable performance for all the wrong reasons.

Why’d he go on CNN? 

We’ll get into that in just a sec, but we must first identify Miller’s PR objectives:

  1. Reassure Republican voters so that he doesn’t face pressure to drop out of his reelection race. (GOP abandonment is his #1 vulnerability. If he loses MAGA’s base, his career is kaput.) He wants us to believe that Team MAGA still needs him.
  2. Put his latest scandal(s) behind him. (This has “already been addressed” and is therefore “yesterday’s news.”) Time to move on.
  3. Appear credible, honest, and trustworthy — so we believe his denials.

Now let’s reverse-engineer Miller’s PR strategy: The benefit of using CNN — as opposed to Fox News, where the ratings (and Republican audience) are over triple the size — is threefold:

  1. By appearing on CNN, Miller is signaling that he’s unafraid of tough, hostile questions. You can accuse him of many things (some of which are admittedly horrific), but you can’t accuse him of seeking a softball interview. He wants us to conclude, “If Miller had anything to hide, he wouldn’t have gone on CNN.” Thus, he must be innocent.
  2. Jake Tapper was also a perfect foil because GOP audiences are already expecting him to be rude, nasty, and antagonistic towards Republicans. In a verbal conflict between Tapper and Miller, conservatives are STRONGLY predisposed to side with Miller because Tapper has made false accusations against Republicans for years. (Plus, since Joe Biden’s senility so spectacularly fooled Tapper, he’s clearly not that bright, and Miller probably figured he’d steamroll him.)
  3. Since CNN’s Republican audience is so small, more Republicans will hear about his interview than see it. This means Miller can claim credit for entering the “belly of the beast” (and answering all the tough questions without flinching), while spinning any problematic moments on X, conservative podcasts, Fox News, Newsmax, etc. — where the MAGA audience is more concentrated.

I understand why Miller adopted this strategy, but it was still PR malpractice. In fact, it was such an unholy trainwreck that his career is likely over.

The smarter PR approach would’ve been to sidestep the controversy instead of litigating it point-by-point: “I love my little girl more than life itself, and it just kills me that she’ll read all these horrible lies about her daddy one day. That’s why I’ll never say a bad word about my daughter’s mother — even when it exonerates me.”

That’s all he had to say!

Keep reading

The Dumb, Arrogant Liars Who Are Also Journalists

There is a frustrating contradiction when it comes to the way public information is assessed for factual truth.  For decades, prominent news organizations have steadily lost credibility.  Fewer Americans than ever believe what The New York Times, CNN, NPR, or even the AP publishes as the “objective” record of current events.

At the same time, however, alternative, competing descriptions of current events are almost entirely ignored.  No matter how compelling or factually sourced a story might be, it is largely disregarded until mainstream corporate news institutions are willing to recognize its validity.

This annoying state of affairs was highlighted last week after Dr. Anthony Fauci refused to testify before the Senate.  Although the man holds one of Joe Biden’s get-out-of-jail-free autopen pardons, Fauci cowardly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than a hundred times.

With a general pardon in hand that presumably allows him to get away with past acts of mass murder, he could put himself in legal jeopardy only by not telling the truth while under oath at the hearing.  So long as Fauci avoided newly committing perjury, there was no risk to his liberty.  The fact that he nevertheless remained mum the whole time revealed a particularly guilty conscience: Fauci could not bear the thought of admitting to the world that he told numerous lies in the past.

To be sure, Fauci’s lies are huge and unforgivable.  He lied about COVID arising from inter-species transmission in an outdoor meat market rather than from a bioweapons laboratory re-engineering coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.

He lied about not having partially funded deadly coronavirus research at that lab as part of a workaround to American regulatory prohibitions against such dangerous projects.  He lied about COVID’s lethality, especially with regard to young or healthy bodies.  He lied about the efficacy of simple masks to prevent viral transmission.  He lied about the need to close schools and businesses.  He lied about the need for draconian home confinements.  He lied about the effectiveness of the experimental mRNA injections that he called “vaccines.”  He lied about the proven effectiveness of alternative treatments.  He lied about the effectiveness of natural immunity.

His lies were profound, and because mainstream news institutions refused to question anything he said, his lies were the only bits of information allowed to circulate in the public sphere.  So-called “journalists” not only repeated verbatim exactly what the government’s chief medical bureaucrat claimed to be true but also cheered social media platforms for censoring competing points of view.

“Reporters” working for The New York Times and CNN were enthralled by Fauci’s perceived professional prestige and institutional authority.  Why?  Because they are enamored of their own perceived professional prestige and institutional authority.  They worship glory and accolades; they are slaves to appeals to authority; they care nothing for the pursuit of truth.

Keep reading

LAUGHABLE: MSNOW Host Tries to Suggest DSA Candidates Are Moderating Their Views

Eugene Daniels of MSNOW recently suggested that DSA members running for office are starting to moderate their views. It is to laugh.

As proof of this, he talks about being handed a document by a DSA member that no longer included anything about abolishing the Senate, defunding the Department of War, or the police.

In other words, they’ve started hiding all the crazy stuff they believe from public view, and to Daniels, this is proof that they are taking a more moderate approach. Only someone who watches MSNOW would believe this idiocy.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

EUGENE DANIELS: So, guys, I think—what I thought was really interesting and what I left with was that they’re also understanding that this is a moment that they haven’t had before, and that they actually have to appear more serious.

You know, when I was talking to the co-chair at the beginning there, one of the other parts of the conversation was that, you know, they know that people see them as like, silly little kids that are playing politics or — where in fact, they could, you know, take all of the anger that’s happening in this country and transition into something real.

And so when you talk about, you know, that little pamphlet I had was something that they were giving out to everyone. And what was not in there was the stuff that has gotten the most attention from their platform. That’s on two pages. We have this in element one. There are a lot of things on there, but what wasn’t in that in that paper was there was no abolish the U.S. Senate, which has gotten them pilloried. There was no abolish the Defense Department. There was no there was nothing about defunding the police. That that was not in there.

And what he said to me was this document that I was holding in my hand, has — was put together in the last month. So to me that signals that there may be some changes coming to the platform.

Keep reading

Mainstream Media Bias in Fauci Hearings: Republicans Were Mean To Him

Anthony Fauci’s July 29 congressional testimony generated extensive media coverage, but the reporting revealed a sharp divide in how the hearing was portrayed. The coverage underscores the left-leaning agenda of the mainstream media. Right-leaning media have concentrated on the facts of the case, the questions asked, and the evidence they argue shows that Fauci knew social distancing and lockdowns were ineffective and that the vaccines may have been harmful.

Left-leaning mainstream media outlets, by contrast, defended Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment while overlooking what his silence left unanswered. They framed the questioning itself, not Fauci’s refusal to answer, as the story and characterized the hearing as partisan theater, with little attention to the substance of the gain-of-function, lockdown, and vaccine-safety questions being asked.

Evidence for the inquiry derives from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic’s report, *After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward*, a 520-page final report released in December 2024 after a two-year, bipartisan-membership investigation that included more than 100 investigative letters, 38 interviews or depositions, 25 hearings, and review of over a million pages of documents.

The report concluded that SARS-CoV-2 likely leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan rather than emerging naturally, based on the virus’s biological characteristics and illnesses among researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the fall of 2019. It found that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that EcoHealth Alliance, which subawarded those NIH grants, failed to properly oversee the experiments, facilitated the gain-of-function work, and misled the NIH about its research.

The report also concluded that Chinese and U.S. government agencies, along with some members of the international scientific community, sought to cover up facts about the pandemic’s origins.

On mitigation measures, the subcommittee found that masking and social distancing mandates were not based on hard science. It also concluded that the 6-foot social distancing guidance was not supported by science, despite being forcefully implemented by state and local governments. Finally, the report found that prolonged lockdowns caused severe harm to the American economy and to Americans’ mental and physical health, with a particularly negative effect on the young.

Keep reading

Newsom’s Release of Tax Returns Called ‘an Insult to Transparency’

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California released four years of federal tax returns this week to carefully selected news outlets — a disclosure which one news outlet slammed as “sneaky” and an “insult to transparency.”

The release was prompted “in part by a federal investigation into the finances of his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom,” aides told the New York Times, one of the few publications tapped to view and report on the returns.

That’s the rub, critics said.

The California Post reported Saturday that the governor “only permitted a small group of favored media outlets to pore over 718 pages of documents while forbidding them from making copies,” a move it headlined as “sneaky” and the process an “insult to transparency.”

The Post, which had lobbied for their release, was not one of the chosen few.

In 2024, the most recent year released, the Newsoms reported a taxable income of about $1.39 million, $1 million of that from investments, according to the Times’ reporting on Friday.

The governor’s taxable wages from his salary as governor were about $192,000. According to that report “his wife’s wages were about $148,000.”

Until this week, Newsom and his wife have not released returns since he ran for reelection in 2022, though when he was first elected governor he promised to release them annually–but failed to do so, the Times noted.

His office told the newspaper that the new release was in response to “right-wing claims” that the couple enriched themselves during his time in office.

The Post and others, however, took umbrage at the methodology of the disclosure. The paper reported the release was made at a “carefully managed private media event Thursday in Sacramento.”

“Media outlets including the New York Times and Politico, whose reporters were ordered to use only a pen and paper to take notes on the documents, agreed to publish their findings Friday morning,” the Post wrote in its Saturday edition.

The Times confirmed that restricted note-taking scenario as well.

The Post published comments from two critical congressmen from the Golden State.

“If the governor is truly committed to transparency, it makes little sense to pick and choose who that transparency extends to,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), a former state legislator, told the tabloid. “This appears to be another Newsom story where the factual details are very different from the self-proclaimed headline.”

Rep. James Gallagher (R-CA) also weighed in, saying, “Newsom’s transparency is a lot like his homelessness policy — it leaves a lot to be desired.”

He continued, “He talks big about things but never actually delivers. This is another instance of that — only allowing select people and only pen and paper. This isn’t real transparency. There are still a lot of questions where Gavin’s money comes from.”

According to the Times:

The returns, which were released for 2021 through 2024, show that Mr. Newsom’s finances have been fairly stable over the years, except in 2021, when the family’s income received a $1 million boost after they sold a multimillion-dollar home. Mr. Newsom has filed for an extension to file his 2025 return, which is due in October.

Tax returns often do not indicate how much a person’s wealth has grown through investments and business holdings. Many asset classes grew substantially in value between 2021 and 2024, yet the Newsoms’ income remained roughly the same. The governor and his wife both have significant investments in blind trusts, and only the income from those investments was reflected in the tax returns.

The couple, the Times reported, earned the bulk of their joint income from the governor’s investment in the wine and hospitality industry, held in a blind trust. His wife’s income stemmed from nonprofits with which she is associated.

The governor, who published his memoir Young Man in a Hurry, also earned $70,000 as an author in 2023 and $75,000 in $2024, presumably as advances for that book or royalties for a children’s book he also wrote.

Over the period released, the couple’s donations to charity ranged from a low of $40,000 in 2021 to a high of $67,000 in 2023. The names of organizations receiving cash were withheld, according to the Times, while recipients of non-cash donations were included.

One such donation was “Armani business wear” to a justice nonprofit in Oakland, the clothing costing them $45,000 but listed at a “thrift shop value” of only $4900. Other donations like toys and furniture went to Goodwill Industries.

The couple also paid additional taxes for domestic staff members and babysitters, reportedly paying nearly $200,000 in wages for household employees in 2024.

The returns came especially into focus after the governor disclosed recently that he and his wife are subjects of a federal investigation, which he claims is politically motivated.

Newsom in the past has accused the administration of weaponizing the Justice Department against him because he is a likely contender in the 2028 presidential election.

Keep reading

RFK Debunks Sen. Warren’s Hypocritical Attack on His Supposed Big Pharma ‘Conflict of Interest’

Reuters and Washington Post have a new deceptive report out claiming that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has financially benefited from a settlement with a top pharmaceutical company. But they left the crucial context out that showed he personally received not a dime.

Democrats are never ones for context. They love to have reasons to pretend they are destroying corruption when they are really going after personal political opponents. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for instance, had her warpaint and Tomahawk out as she screeched, “Is RFK Jr.’s son getting a cut of a $50 MILLION settlement that his dad could have influenced? I’m investigating.” Naturally, she needs something to investigate to avoid investigating Anthony Fauci and the pharmaceutical companies that pushed COVID vaccines that we now know, courtesy of Fauci‘s journal, were quite ineffective and sometimes injurious.

Kennedy responded to Warren and the lefty media outlets at the same time. “The Washington Post editorial board accuses me of a conflict of interest that might bias me against Big Pharma, whose interests they apparently seek to protect,” he posted on X, highlighting the irony of media and politicians rushing to defend monopolistic businesses. “The alleged conflict comes from money I supposedly made from a settlement in a lawsuit against Merck for injuries caused by its Gardasil vaccine.”

He emphatically stated: “The problem is that I never received a penny from the Merck Gardasil settlement, and neither has my son nor anyone else in my family.” So Warren et al. are smearing Kennedy with — surprise, surprise — lies.

Kennedy explained further, “Before taking office, I relinquished any interest in potential Gardasil fees back to the Wisner Baum law firm, which publicly confirmed this during my confirmation process. Yet @SenWarren, @Reuters, and @washingtonpost editorial board — in their ardor to protect Big Pharma — continue to push a false narrative that makes Big Pharma the victim and me the mendacious villain.”

For yet more interesting context, according to a Fox News report from last year, Warren received a whopping $5 million from Big Pharma during her 2020 presidential bid. And the Washington Post freaked out when Kennedy proposed limiting pharmaceutical ads. Always follow the money.

Keep reading