When Palestinians Die in Israeli Captivity, US Media Almost Never Take Note

The different treatment accorded to the plights of Palestinian and Israeli prisoners by US corporate media illustrates a persistent double standard that treats some people as more human than others.

Take 20-year-old Palestinian prisoner Ahmed Saeed Tazaz’a, who died in Israel’s Megiddo Prison after nearly three months of illegal detention, according to the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs (CDA), an agency of the Palestinian Authority (8/3/25).

Tazaz’a, who was from Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank, was imprisoned on May 6 of this year without a charge or a trial. He was held under Israel’s policy of “administrative detention,” which locks up Palestinians indefinitely “on the grounds that he or she plans to break the law in the future,” according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. Tazaz’a did not suffer from prior health problems before his arrest, according to his family (WAFA8/7/25).

There are currently some 3,613 Palestinians under administrative detention in Israeli prisons, according to the July 2025 CDA report, and more than 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli custody (not including those held in military camps) in total. Even Israel’s own military intelligence only identifies a quarter of its detainees from Gaza as “fighters,” while human rights groups and Israeli soldiers have reported even fewer—roughly 15%—as Hamas members (Guardian9/4/25).

The CDA reports that Tazaz’a was the 76th identified Palestinian to die in Israeli custody since October 7, 2023. 

Keep reading

Trump-Hating Michael Cohen Shocks MSNBC Hacks by Admitting Comey Likely Committed a Crime and Will Be Found Guilty

MSNBC’s smug panelists were left stunned on Saturday when Michael Cohen, the disgraced former Trump attorney who has spent the last several years trashing President Trump, admitted on live TV that James Comey “likely committed a crime” and “will be found guilty.”

The left-wing network’s anchors weren’t prepared for Cohen’s blunt assessment.

Cohen, once weaponized by Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden’s DOJ in Trump’s sham New York trial, now says evidence in Comey’s case will prove that he broke the law and weaponized the FBI.

Cohen’s remarks were so unexpected that they left Elise Jordan gasping for air.

Elise Jordan:
You predicted this. Not that it’s a great development for the rule of law in our country. Did you think it would be this fast, though? And who do you think is next?”

Michael Cohen:
Well, is it about the rule of law? Do any of us actually really know whether or not Comey is or is not guilty of the charges? I know that they parade out all of these pundits — they have the great titles in the chyron: former prosecutor, former FBI. Who’s seen a single document that’s in the possession right now of the DOJ? The answer is nobody. Who has the crystal ball? Still nobody.

I will tell you, from my investigation — which I used Brian Karem, who’s a 30-year White House correspondent, to speak to people inside government because they wouldn’t talk to me — I’ve learned that Comey was actually very much involved in the Russia investigation in a very negative way. Chances are this DOJ has every single email, every text message, every communication. I believe, likely, he will be found guilty.”

Elise Jordan:
“Oh, well, that’s interesting, because a lot on the right —

Michael Cohen:
I think he likely committed a crime.

Elise Jordan:
What specifically?

Michael Cohen:
I believe, likely, he committed a crime. I don’t know what that crime is, but there are hundreds of thousands of documents, and the government has each and every one of them. All they need to find is that one. Remember, James Comey, when he was the head of the FBI, was so used to punching down. Well, now you have the FBI that’s going to be punching up. I’ve been through this system. I know better than anybody what a weaponized DOJ looks like and feels like. It is insurmountable.

Keep reading

German State Public Radio and TV Broadcaster NDR Suppresses Explosive Documentary Exposing OCCRP Election Meddling and Secret U.S. Funding

Germany’s taxpayer-funded state broadcaster NDR is desperately trying to bury its own investigative documentary that exposes the shady journalist network OCCRP. The reason? The film caught OCCRP chief Drew Sullivan on camera bragging that his organization was “responsible for overthrowing five or six governments.”

The revelations are devastating. NDR reporters uncovered that OCCRP—whose media partners include Der Spiegeland Die Zeit—was secretly bankrolled from the United States for decades. When the documentary turned out to be critical instead of a love letter, Sullivan reportedly pressured NDR to kill the project. The state broadcaster complied, scrapping the documentary before it aired and cutting ties with OCCRP in 2023. The scandal finally leaked in December 2024 through the French platform Mediapart.

Censorship and Threats Against an Elected Official

Now, as OCCRP is embroiled in a massive EU funding scandal, the suppressed film has resurfaced. MEP Petr Bystron (AfD) revealed through an inquiry that OCCRP received €600,000 from EU coffers immediately after the European elections—right after the network ran smear campaigns against conservative candidates, including Bystron himself.

Despite this interference, Bystron won his seat and published the hidden film online. That’s when NDR struck back, issuing him a cease-and-desist order and threatening fines of up to €50,000. The state broadcaster appears terrified that Sullivan’s own words might reach the public.

OCCRP in Panic Mode

Sullivan and OCCRP reacted furiously on X, dismissing the leaked documentary as “attacks” on their organization. But Sullivan offered no explanation as to how quoting his own on-camera admissions could be an “attack.” OCCRP also dodged questions from the Berliner Zeitung about its EU payments, merely insisting it was still “independent.”

Sullivan’s radical views are also on display elsewhere. After the brutal murder of American conservative Charlie Kirk, the OCCRP boss gloated: “A moment of silence is not appropriate. He was no hero. […] He was a racist, an anti-democratic liar.”

U.S. Fallout

The scandal is reverberating across the Atlantic. President Donald Trump already cut OCCRP’s lifeline by halting its funding via USAID. And now, U.S. media like Gateway Pundit and InfoWars are exposing how this so-called “investigative” network has been weaponized to manipulate elections and topple governments worldwide.

Keep reading

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