Tag: media

Leading Ethics Journal Floats Forced Abortion For Minors

Pro-abortion rhetoric has long rested on a slick focus group-tested “pro-choice” mantra, which claims that abortion is necessary for women to have “bodily autonomy.” But pro-abortion “ethicists” are now asserting that “justice for girls” demands that all underage pregnancies end in the death of the unborn child — even if it requires physically or chemically subduing the mother against her will.

That is precisely the case made in a new essay in the April edition of Ethics, the University of Chicago’s elite philosophy journal. Across 31 full pages, our two authors, Alyssa Izatt, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of British Columbia, and Kimberley Brownlee, her UBC professor, explain why compulsory abortion is essential for feminine justice. In fact, in two places they explain enforcing this upon objecting females “might then require sedation or physical restraint” even though it “could be traumatizing,” but still, “the use of restraint (chemical or physical) … is justified as a last resort when it is necessary to provide adequate care.” By “adequate care,” of course, the writers mean killing the mother’s preborn child.

You heard that right. Good-bye, “My body, my choice!” Hello, “Do as you’re told, honey!” Leftist patriarchy parading as feminist empowerment. The pro-abortion ethic is growing ever more sinister.

The authors’ reasoning consists of a basic syllogism, which they admit even the most radical pro-abortion warriors have previously failed to piece together. 

First, abortion is a fundamental, uncontested good. This prejudice is crystal clear in their paper. The only negative observation of abortion they could muster is this: “Having an abortion can be challenging and distressing, even for adult women.” That’s it. They add, “It can be a life-and-death decision, a reality that is far beyond the scope of appropriate childhood responsibilities.” Can be? They never confess whose life is at stake, but one clearly assumes they mean the young mother if she brings her unborn child to term.

Second, the authors assume that underage pregnancy and childbirth are always wrong because of risks to the mother. While the essay is mum on abortion’s risks, it spends pages detailing the physical and psychological dangers of pregnancy for girls and young women. In fact, the authors boldly state without qualification that “a child’s best interests are served by the provision of an abortion: Prioritizing her wellbeing necessitates that physicians and family members view her impregnation as a malady to be treated and take steps to terminate it.” Note that the authors consistently infantilize any female under 18 as “a child.”

Ergo, forced abortion upon underage girls and young women is clearly the most ethical action because they lack the maturity to realize abortion is life-preserving health care. As such, “medical professionals would be failing a child if they withheld abortion care, even if they did so because the child was averse to it.” That is their case.

Keep reading

LAUGHABLE: Don Lemon Signals He is Open to Running for President – Says He Could Do a Better Job Than Trump

Since being fired by CNN in 2023, Don Lemon has been making a living by becoming part of the anti-Trump media, a collection of Trump-deranged liberals and bitter, former Republicans who all speak only to each other and appear on each other’s podcasts.

This week, during an appearance on the Pod Save America podcast, Lemon hilariously signaled that he is open to the idea of running for president and actually said that he would do a better job than President Trump.

It’s amazing how highly Don thinks of himself. He has such an inflated sense of self-worth.

Given his participation in the storming of a church in Minnesota this winter, he’ll be lucky to stay out of jail.

FOX News has details:

Don Lemon talks possibility of being president, says he’d be ‘a lot better than Donald Trump’

Former CNN anchor and independent journalist Don Lemon addressed whether he would ever consider running for president.

“Do I ever think about it? Yes,” Lemon said on “Pod Save America” Sunday. “Could it happen? Yeah, it could happen if the opportunity presented itself, the right opportunity presented itself. Look, if I wanted to, I know people are going to think I’m crazy. This is going to be the headline, and people are going to laugh about it. I think I could be President of the United States. I could definitely run this country better than Donald Trump.”

Lemon said that he currently doesn’t have any interest in running for office, arguing that it could “ruin” his life and pointing out that White male candidates “get away with” far more than female or minority ones. He also argued that he would have to change his party affiliation from independent to Democrat.

However, he pushed back on the idea that it was impossible for him to consider running.

“Am I at that point now? No. And I know people are going to say Don Lemon is crazy. But yeah, that’s…look, why can’t I think about running for office? Why can’t I think about being President of the United States when look at what we have?” Lemon said.

Keep reading

Obama Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order Aimed at Ending Federal Funding For NPR, PBS

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending federal funding for NPR and PBS.

US District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee lashed out at President Trump and said he targeted PBS and NPR for their viewpoints.

Last year, President Trump ended taxpayer subsidization of ‘biased media.

“National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) receive taxpayer funds through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence,” the Trump White House previously announced.

“At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize,” the White House said.

“The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens,” the White House said.

“I therefore instruct the CPB Board of Directors (CPB Board) and all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS,” Trump said.

On Tuesday, Judge Randolph Moss blocked President Trump’s executive order ending taxpayer subsidization to PBS and NPR.

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” Judge Moss wrote.

Keep reading

Liberals Won’t Confront Fraud Because They Still Believe Government Is The Solution

At least the bombs are real.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has pulled out the hoariest of boomer liberal tropes, asking what the money spent on war could buy if redirected to welfare programs. Examples include “For less than three weeks of war, or $35 billion, we could run a nationwide pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds,” and “For $75 million, about an hour’s worth of war, we could provide three books free to every child in America who is living under the poverty line.” Ah yes, we could fund so many Minneapolis daycares and “Quality Learing” centers.

I don’t know how our campaign against the mullahs will turn out, but it has real bombs being dropped on real targets with people really dying. In contrast, the sorts of programs Kristof promotes as better recipients of taxpayer money tend to be more ephemeral in their results — and that’s assuming that the recipients even exist. To cite a few examples that even a New York Times columnist ought to have heard of, there is the Somali daycare piracy, the California wildlife bridge to nowhere, the California high-speed rail debacle, and the embarrassing spectacle of cities spending endlessly to end homelessness while not even reducing it.

Kristof and his ilk never seem outraged at these wasted and stolen billions. They might mildly tsk-tsk, but there is no visceral rage toward those who plunder billions that were supposedly for helping children. Yet if lefties really believe that government programs are the key to a wonderfully better society and world, shouldn’t they be furious at those running them into the ground or robbing them?

Keep reading

‘Something Like A Civil War’: Eric Metaxas And James Kunstler Suggest Trump Needs To Outlaw The Democratic Party

On a recent episode of his self-titled program, religious-right broadcaster and full-blown Trump cultist Eric Metaxas interviewed right-wing author James Howard Kunstler, who suggested that President Donald Trump might have to declare a national emergency to outlaw the Democrat Party in order to prevent them from winning the midterm elections.

Angry that the GOP-controlled Congress has been unable to pass the SAVE Act, Kunstler warned that “at some point, I think Mr. Trump is going to have to go Abe Lincoln on the Democratic Party.”

“He’s going to have to declare some kind of a national emergency,” Kunstler said. “He may have to declare the Democratic Party as a seditious outlaw organization and do something about it.” 

Metaxas agreed while noting that such a move would undoubtedly be seen by Trump’s critics as “dramatic.”

“It seems to me that circumstances may require—may require—Mr. Trump to go to a place where he has to declare certain emergency executive powers to deal with an organization that wants to destroy the country,” Kunstler replied. “And that means probably taking some people off the game board in a very demonstrative way.”

Metaxas again agreed, suggesting that it is long past time for criminal cases to be brought against the likes of former President Barack Obama, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan. 

“Those of us who care about the country realize that others have done this,” Metaxas said. “Lincoln did it. But what would that look like? … Can he do that before the midterms? What’s that going to look like? If ever the No Kings people would be losing their minds—he does nothing and they lose their minds—when he does something, you have to wonder what that would look like.”

“I think it would probably look something like a civil war,” Kunstler answered. “We’ve been there before and somebody had to rescue the republic, and it looks like we may be entering a period where the republic needs to be rescued again. It’s going to be pretty unappetizing to see that happen, but necessity may call.”

Keep reading

CNN Alum Drops Blunt Warning on Harris 2028 Run: ‘Very Bad’ News for Democrats

CNN alumnus Chris Cillizza said former Vice President Kamala Harris is likely mounting another White House run, and he explained how that would be ‘very bad’ news for Democrats.

Late last week on his podcast, “So What,” Cillizza warned about the potential damage Harris could do to the Democratic Party if she runs for president again.

“I think this is a bad thing for the Democratic Party that she appears to be moving closer to running,” he proclaimed. “I think that she, based on the polling, would start the race as the front-runner.”

He added, “Notice I focused on ‘start the race as the front-runner.’”

“But I think that the Harris people, or Harris herself, will learn the wrong lesson from that — or has already learned the wrong lesson from that,” Cillizza continued. “And by that I mean this: She will look at that and say, ‘I’m in first place. Why wouldn’t I run? It’s my nomination to lose.’”

His comments came after CNN reported that Harris is scheduled to appear at Democratic events in four southern states next month.

The former vice president’s publicity tour for her book “107 Days” received negative press after it was discovered that she was using California Highway Patrol officers to serve as her personal security.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a Republican, said if elected, he would rescind the protection, which he called a “corrupt freebie.”

About one week later, Harris announced she was cancelling several stops on the tour, according to KCRA-TV.

“In the one general election she ran on the national level, she lost to Donald Trump, a deeply flawed candidate,” Cillizza explained. “So number one, I just don’t think, in … candidate skills, when it comes to being able to reach across the aisle and get voters who are not already hard-core Democrats, I don’t think she has a great record of doing that.”

Cillizza also concluded that Harris would steal attention from other potential Democratic nominees if she ran again, and that she would make former President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline a main talking point of the election.

Keep reading

BROADCAST BIAS: Networks downplay illegal immigrant crime, even when women are murdered

On Thursday, March 19, an 18-year-old college student at Loyola University in Chicago named Sheridan Gorman was allegedly shot dead by an illegal alien from Venezuela, Jose Medina. The networks could barely touch the story, or talk about the immigration status of the alleged shooter. CBS only spent two minutes, followed by ABC at 79 seconds and NBC at 23 seconds. Searching for it on PBS or NPR found nothing.

PBS stations did waste 90 minutes on a documentary titled, “White With Fear,” about how Republicans use overtly racist tactics to win elections, and one of those, they claimed, was highlighting violent crimes by illegal immigrants. Their primary example was conservatives reporting on the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

The networks hate reporting on crime committed by illegal immigrants. They would insist it’s atypical. They love to proclaim that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans – if you’re willing to dismiss the crime of entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa. But this ignores the obvious logic for grieving families like Gorman’s – if the alleged illegal alien killer hadn’t been allowed into the country, their loved one would still be alive.

Gorman’s family put out a statement about their loss and the politics of it: “Sheridan’s death cannot be reduced to a general ‘tragedy,’ nor can it be explained away by broad references to failures somewhere else,” the family said. “We are not interested in political arguments or in watching responsibility shift from one place to another. If there were failures—as the Governor [J.B. Pritzker] himself has acknowledged—then every one of them must be identified, examined, and addressed directly.”

Keep reading

The New York Times Runs Sob Story About a WI Dairy Farmer Who Might Lose His ‘Undocumented’ Laborers

Democrats have made it very clear that one of the reasons they support unfettered illegal immigration is that they want to import a slave-labor class that they can pay cheaply and keep in deplorable working conditions. They prove this every time they argue that, sans illegals, we wouldn’t have anyone to clean our toilets or cut our grass and the price of our produce would go up because farmers would have to pay people a living wage to harvest crops (a lot of which is automated these days, anyway).

Now the New York Times is playing that card again, this time with Wisconsin, where a farm that made the choice to hire “undocumented workers” is worried deportations will hurt their business.

Here’s more:

That worker, who came from Mexico as a teenager, knew that a calf that was sick in the morning could be dead by evening. He knew this because he has worked in the dairy industry in Wisconsin for his entire adult life, and on this family farm for about 20 years. Now in his 40s, he has mastered the intricacies of milking, birthing and inseminating, and logging it all onto a computer. This February morning, he was passing down his knowledge to the 19-year-old grandson of the family who employs him.

“We’re a little bit behind today, so you can hear everybody’s kind of angry at us,” said Sullivan O’Harrow, the grandson, who motioned toward the bellowing calves as he walked beside the worker training him.

Immigrant workers are the lifeblood of the O’Harrow farm, a four-generation family enterprise with 1,600 cows in northeastern Wisconsin. But many of them will not travel to Mexico to see dying parents, or drive to nearby towns to visit siblings, or let journalists use their names in newspapers, because they are afraid of being swept up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

That they need to hide strikes the O’Harrow family as morally wrong, but also as potentially bad for the country: These workers oversee America’s milk. By one estimate, dairies that employ immigrant workers produce 79 percent of the nation’s milk supply and the price of milk would double without them.

Keep reading

NYT Covers Iran War With No Reporters in Iran

Since the US and Israel first attacked Iran in late February, it has been easy to spot the stark difference between the New York Times’ distant coverage of Iran and its up-close and personal coverage of Israel.

Multiple Times employees are reporting from and currently living in Israel. These include reporters Isabel Kershner, Aaron Boxerman, Gabby Sobelman, Natan Odenheimer, Ronen Bergman, Adam Rasgon, Johnatan Reiss and Raja Abdulrahim, as well as Jerusalem bureau chief David M. Halbfinger.

They routinely report stories that center Israeli citizens, as in “How Israelis Feel About Another Potential War With Iran” (2/26/26). First-hand Times reports have Israelis taking “Shelter as Sirens Warn of Incoming Missiles” (2/28/26), feeling “Tense But Relieved That Iran’s Supreme Leader Is Dead” (3/1/26) and celebrating “Purim Amid Iranian Missile Attacks” (3/4/26). They also have penned stories on Iranian missile strikes in Israel mere hours after they took place (3/1/26, 3/18/26).

Many articles have been based primarily on statements from Israeli officials (3/1/26, 3/3/26, 3/11/26, 3/19/26) and US officials (3/2/26, 3/7/26). Other articles have centered on the perspective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and what would benefit him (2/28/26, 3/14/26, 3/18/26).

Meanwhile, the Times has no reporters based in Iran, as its editors admitted in two Q&A-style articles (3/9/26, 3/16/26). Instead, the paper has largely relied on its Visual Investigations team (3/12/26) and reporters based elsewhere to cover Iran, including correspondents in Israel, the US, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, India, Sri Lanka, South Korea, England, France and Germany. The Times reporters who most often quote Iranian voices—like Farnaz Fassihi, Parin Behrooz (both based in the US) and Yeganeh Torbati (reporting from Turkey)—largely rely on telephone interviews (3/2/26, 3/27/26), along with “text messages and social media posts” (3/18/26).

This lack of on-the-ground coverage in Iran has directly resulted in slower coverage and confirmation of US/Israel culpability for deadly strikes. For example, it took five days for the Times (3/5/26) to report that the US was “most likely to have carried out the strike” on the school in Minab that killed at least 175 Iranian civilians, mostly schoolchildren.

Keep reading

IDF suspends entire reserve battalion after CNN crew attack, in unprecedented disciplinary move

An unprecedented decision by the Israel Defense Forces has seen an entire reserve battalion suspended from activity following an incident in which a CNN crew was attacked, sparking international outrage.

The IDF suspended all soldiers from Reserve 941st Battalion, known as “Netzah Yisrael,” whose members are graduates of the Netzah Yehuda framework.

The incident occurred while a CNN team was covering what was described as an illegal settler takeover of nearby land. According to reports, the journalists were confronted by IDF troops who attempted to halt their work, aimed weapons at them, and in one case placed a cameraman in a chokehold, damaging his equipment.

During the confrontation, soldiers reportedly told the journalists that all of the West Bank belongs to Jews and said they were seeking revenge for the killing of Yehuda Sherman, who police said was murdered in a ramming attack last Saturday.

Keep reading