Tag: media

Infowars Reporter Jamie White Was Killed in Racially Motivated Attack – Suspect Bragged About His Murder in Rap Lyrics

Infowars reporter Jamie White was killed in a racially motivated attack, police said.

Jamie White, 36, was murdered in Austin, Texas, in March.

InfoWars founder Alex Jones announced the murder of his reporter:

We are deeply saddened to inform you that InfoWars Reporter Jamie White was brutally murdered around midnight Sunday night due, in part, to the policies of the Soros Austin, TX D.A. Jose Garza.

We pledge that Jamie’s tragic death will not be in vain, and those responsible for this senseless violence will be brought to justice.

Jamie’s important work will be carried on through InfoWars, our readers, and our cherished listeners.

Alex Jones was in shock as he disclosed on his show that Jamie White was shot in the arm and through his carotid artery in his neck.

Jamie White was found lying on the ground in the parking lot of his apartment complex and passed away at the hospital at 12:19 am on Monday.

Earlier this month police arrested one of the four suspects involved in Jamie White’s murder.

Eloy Adrian Camarillo, 17, confessed to police that White, 36, was shot during an attempted vehicle burglary by him and three of his friends.

Keep reading

Former CNN Reporter Shocked as Tesla Vandalized—But Not by MAGA Supporters

Former CNN reporter Chris Cillizza revealed that his Tesla was vandalized during a weekend soccer tournament, which included a handwritten sign accusing Elon Musk of being a Nazi.

Cillizza’s vehicle was vandalized while he was attending his son’s game.

“So this is the first time I’ve experienced the sort of politics of Elon Musk and Tesla,” Cillizza wrote on his Substack newsletter.

Cillizza explained that when he initially bought the car, he was more concerned that MAGA supporters might vandalize it due to its strong association with progressive values.

“The big concern I had—because this was the big thing that was happening—was sort of pro-MAGA people keying the car or smashing it…because America is about, like, real engines, not electric cars,” he said.

“That was the perception back then, right? It was like you’re coding yourself as, like, an enviro-liberal-wacko-communist if you bought a Tesla.”

However, Cillizza was forced to admit it was not conservatives who ultimately targeted his vehicle.

“It is amazing to me that five-ish years on, I am getting this on my car because Elon Musk has now become sort of persona non grata for the non-MAGA crowd,” he said.

Musk’s endorsement of President Donald Trump has made him a target in progressive circles that once championed Tesla as a symbol of green innovation.

Cillizza acknowledged the brand’s shift in public perception, recalling a similar cultural backlash he received after tweeting about eating at Chick-fil-A.

“I hope the hate tastes good,” was one of the responses he said he received at the time.

Despite progressive criticism, Chick-fil-A ranked 26th in this year’s Axios/Harris poll, well ahead of Tesla.

Keep reading

Nothing In AP’s Presidential Records Act Hit Piece On Trump Is True

On May 20, the Associated Press published an article titled “The future of history: Trump could leave less documentation behind than any previous U.S. president.” As a federal records management consultant with more than 25 years of experience supporting White House and agency records management at all levels of the government, I can assure you nothing in this article is even remotely true. 

Let’s begin with the article’s opening claim: “For generations, official American documents have been meticulously preserved and protected … safeguarding snapshots of the government and the nation for posterity.” While this may have been true decades ago when almost all government records were maintained on paper, it has not been true in the digital age.

Both the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the Federal Records Act (FRA) require records born digitally to be managed through each phase of their lifecycle — creation, distribution, use, maintenance, and disposition — in their native electronic formats. These records must be maintained in systems that ensure their integrity, authenticity, and provenance, and apply an archivist of the United States-approved retention schedule that prevents their premature destruction by anyone. 

Over the course of my career, I have supported the management of billions of electronic government records. During that time, I have never seen a single White House or agency electronic record managed through its lifecycle in compliance with the PRA or the FRA. Not one. The government claims to be doing it, but they are not. 

Though this may be hard to believe, it is demonstrably true. It is also something I am willing to swear to under oath. The Associated Press’s claim that the government has “meticulously preserved and protected” federal records in the past is simply not true. 

The article also asserts that the Trump administration “sought to expand the executive branch’s power to shield from public view key administration initiatives” by utilizing apps like Signal, which can “auto-delete messages containing sensitive information rather than retaining them for record-keeping.”

However, the article fails to note that Signal’s auto-delete feature is optional and can be turned off. Moreover, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approved Signal for government use under General Records Schedule 6.1 during the Biden administration. It is also not the president’s job to manage the lifecycle of White House electronic messages in compliance with the PRA. That work is delegated to the White House Office of Records Management (WHORM), which is part of the Executive Office of the President and operates under the Office of Administration.

The article further claims that the FBI raid on President Trump’s Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, was due to the president’s refusal to return classified records to the National Archives. But NARA had no right to claim ownership of the paper printouts of the electronic records that the president stored at his estate. 

Keep reading

Propaganda Press Rediscovers Its Outrage Over Presidential Pardons

Apparently, the propaganda press has rediscovered its outrage over presidential pardons — now that President Donald Trump is issuing them. After watching then-President Joe Biden hand out pardons, clemency, and commutations like they were candy, the left-wing media have finally found their missing pearls to clutch.

Trump pardoned reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, who had a combined sentence of 19 years for what pardon czar Alice Marie Johnson called a “first-time nonviolent offense.” The duo was found “guilty of eight counts of financial fraud and two counts of tax evasion in 2022,” Fox News reported. Trump also issued a pardon to former New York Congressman Michael Grimm, who served seven months in prison after he pled guilty “to underreporting taxable revenue from his Manhattan restaurant Healthalicious,” according to the New York Post. Trump also pardoned rapper “NBA YoungBoy” and former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland.


ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl said in a post on X: “Donald Trump is using his pardon power early and often — And there’s a clear trend: many of his pardons are going to his supporters and political allies.”

CNN’s Aaron Blake wrote: “‘No MAGA left behind’: Trump’s pardons get even more political.”

Blake continued: “If you look closely at how Trump’s used his pardon power — which he has exercised dramatically this week, with a slew of new pardons and commutations on Wednesday alone — it’s virtually impossible to miss the political overtones. Many of Trump’s acts of clemency have rewarded an ally or someone tied to an ally, or they have served a clear and not terribly subtle political purpose.”

MSNBC’s Frank Figliuzzi wrote that “Trump’s pardons show he is becoming more brazenly corrupt.” Figliuzzi appealed to the precedent of giving pardons “as a president [is] leaving office,” citing a “legal expert” who said that pardons can be “costly.”

“Not anymore,” Figliuzzi wrote, apparently angered that Trump issued a pardon while president instead of doing it “quietly” on his way out the door.

Politico’s Gregory Svirnovskiy claimed that Trump was on a “clemency spree.”

But a cursory Google search seemingly reveals that for all the hand-wringing about Trump exercising his executive authority to grant pardons and clemency, media figures like Svirnovskiy and Figliuzzi were nowhere to be found when Biden was issuing his preemptive pardons — or pardons he issued to his family members before leaving office. (Notably, Biden didn’t just issue political and family allies, either. He also quietly commuted the sentences of Chinese spies and a Chinese national convicted of child pornography.) Blake gently questioned the scope of the Hunter Biden pardon, but he made sure to include critiques of Trump’s first term grants of clemency.

Keep reading

CBC Brags About Shutting Down Popular Political Clips YouTube Channel

A rising Canadian YouTube channel that had been pulling major traction has suddenly been banned following an aggressive report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which labeled the channel a “content farm” and reached out to YouTube directly. Not long after, the channel was gone.

“It’s just one example of what experts refer to as the ‘content’ or “engagement” farming phenomenon, in which individuals or organizations tailor their content to tap into the algorithm of the platform and boost their popularity,” the CBC explained in an article, as if this isn’t something that most YouTubers do.

Real Talk Politiks, the creator behind the now-deleted account, took to X on Sunday to reveal what happened, pointing the finger at government-aligned media and tech collusion.

“CBC, Canada’s state-funded media just got YouTube to terminate my channel — not for breaking rules, but for having the wrong political views,” the post read.

Despite operating without strikes, policy violations, or deceptive content flags, the channel was wiped.

What sparked the removal, according to CBC’s own report, was an AI-generated video of Ronald Reagan that allegedly lacked a clear label; something that might typically warrant a correction or warning, not a digital purge.

The CBC leaned into the narrative, bragging about its work in getting the channel shut down, and published a YouTube video titled “How we shut down one of Canada’s biggest news ‘content farms’.”

Keep reading

Media Falls Over Itself To Defend South African President Who Claimed Genocidal Chants Were Free Speech

Last week, President Donald Trump confronted South African leaders over the alleged genocide taking place against white South African farmers. Trump presented South African leaders — and the media — with video evidence of racially charged rhetoric advocating for the murder of white farmers. One such video showed political leader Julius Malema leading chants of “kill the Boer” and “Revolution demands at some point there must be killing.”

The propaganda press were quick to not only dismiss the genocidal chants, but to defend South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, who didn’t seem eager to confront and condemn the chants. Outlets dropped all pretense of objectivity to paint Ramaphosa as a measured statesman blindsided by Trump.

NPR’s Kate Bartlett wrote “South Africa’s president is praised for staying calm during Trump’s Oval Office ambush.” Bartlett praised Ramaphosa for keeping “his cool” and heralded him as “one of the key mediators in the talks that ended apartheid in 1994.”

The talking point was quickly spread amongst the propagandists, with Reuters’ Olivia Kumwenda-Mtambo and Alexander Winning writing: “Buffeted by Trump, South Africa’s Ramaphosa praised for keeping his cool.”

But perhaps it’s easy to “keep cool” when your government doesn’t appear to have any serious moral objection to openly genocidal rhetoric.

Despite their best attempt to cover for South African leaders, upon returning from the United States, South Africa’s president excused the genocidal chants as merely free speech.

Speaking to reporters, Ramaphosa said the chant is a “liberation chant.”

Liberation from what, exactly? White farmers? And how will that liberation occur if not through violence, as some South African political leaders are calling for?

“We take into account what the constitutional court also decided when it said that, you know, that slogan, ‘Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,’ is a liberation chant and slogan,” Ramaphosa said.

Keep reading

NPR Is Under The Delusion It Has A Constitutional Right To Your Money

NPR filed a delusional lawsuit on Tuesday against the Trump administration, arguing that it has a constitutional right to your hard-earned money.

The suit, brought by NPR and three Colorado-based public radio stations, alleges that Trump’s executive order cutting federal funding to the left-wing NPR and PBS violates their right to free speech, as well as provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act.

“The [Executive] Order’s objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radios across the country,” the suit states.

But as Texas Rep. Brandon Gill countered in a post on X: “NPR has a right to free speech. It doesn’t have a right to our tax dollars.”

Trump issued an executive order earlier this month directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to “cease federal funding” to NPR and PBS.

“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,” the order stated, with the White House adding that PBS and NPR “receive millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’”

“No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize,” the order continues.

But NPR argues that it does have a right to your hard-earned dollars.

The suit argues the order is unconstitutional and violates the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. That law established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to “‘facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality’ and ‘creativity’ will be ‘obtained by diverse sources’” among other things. As stated in NPR’s lawsuit, the act explains “how the Corporation must allocate its general appropriation from Congress.” Twenty-five percent of the appropriation goes toward public radio, while 75 percent goes to public television.

According to the suit, “Congress has appropriated $535 million in general funding for the Corporation for Fiscal Years 2025, 2026, and 2027,” while NPR, in fiscal year 2024, spent roughly $11.1 million in total in grants from the CBP.

Trump “is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement. “The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.”

Keep reading

Liberal Outlet Politico Urges Democrats to Create a ‘Shadow Cabinet’ to Counter Trump – Suggestions Include John Fetterman’s Wife

The progressive outlet Politico is urging Democrats to create a ‘shadow cabinet’ to fight Trump. Perhaps they haven’t heard, but the chair of the DNC announced that they’re already doing that. He said so back in April.

Remember when Democrats and the media claimed to care about saving our precious norms? What do they call this?

The only difference between Politico’s plan and the one the DNC chair already announced is who will be featured in this unconstitutional body.

From Politico:

As Democrats cast about for a strategy to thwart President Donald Trump’s agenda, rebrand their party and take back power, Sen. Elissa Slotkin recently offered one intriguing idea: Build a shadow Cabinet.

The shadow Cabinet, as envisioned by the Michigan Democrat in an interview with POLITICO, could be composed of the ranking members of congressional committees who could then take the lead in challenging the Trump administration. It’s a common feature of opposition politics abroad and could be a way for Democrats to flood the media zone and deliver a coordinated response to Trump’s most wild maneuvers. But … ranking members?

Ranking members have their uses. They’re good at reclaiming their time and making motions to recommit. But they are not the fresh faces who can give the Democratic Party a sleek new look.

Nor are the thirsty crop of presidential wannabes right for a shadow Cabinet. Everything they say would be parsed for self-serving motivation, distracting from the party’s broader task at hand.

Here are some of the names they float:

Samantha Power – SHADOW SECRETARY OF STATE

Letitia James – SHADOW ATTORNEY GENERAL

Jon Stewart – SHADOW SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Gisele Fetterman – SHADOW SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bill Nye – SHADOW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR

Didn’t we just go through this?

Keep reading

Media Hypes New COVID Variant NB.1.8.1 Just ONE WEEK After WHO Member States Signed Pandemic Agreement

Dozens of mainstream media outlets published articles this week warning readers of a new COVID-19 variant spreading throughout China, Europe and the U.S.

Several headlines about the NB.1.8.1 variant also pointed out the Trump administration is restricting access to COVID shots for healthy citizens, attempting to tie the decision to the new strain’s spread.

“Today, the ‘Covid Vaccine’ for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule…” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Tuesday.

The variant just happens to be making headlines across the globe just a week after the World Health Organization adopted the world’s first Pandemic Agreement.

“The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,” said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.”  

The U.S. did not sign onto the agreement as it did not have representatives present during the vote with President Donald Trump announcing in January America officially left the WHO.

While current data does not indicate the NB.1.8.1 strain causes more severe illness than prior variants, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, told CBS News in an emailed statement that “it may spread more easily.”

Keep reading

‘60 Minutes’ anchor Scott Pelley ripped for ‘angry, unhinged’ commencement speech criticizing Trump

Outraged critics blasted longtime “60 Minutes” anchor Scott Pelley as “angry” and “unhinged” after he delivered a fear-laced tirade against President Trump during a commencement speech in North Carolina.

The CBS newscaster warned Wake Forest University’s graduating class on May 19 that “insidious fear” has infiltrated schools, businesses, and homes across the nation — leaving America in a state of “peril.”

“Your country needs you — the country that has given you so much is calling you, the class of 2025, your country needs you and it needs you today,” Pelley said during his grandiose sermon-like speech.

“This morning our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack, universities are under attack, freedom of speech is under attack and insidious fear is reaching throughout schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts,” he continued.

“The fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln’s phrase ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ then why are we afraid to speak? Ignorance works for power. Power can change the definition of the words we used to describe reality. This is an old playbook, my friends. There is nothing new in this.”

Keep reading