The Left is in a Murderous Mood

Dems New Obsession: Guacamale

Every non-African person alive today can trace their ancestry back to this small group of ancient humans.

New York Times columnist Masha Gessen joined NPR host Michel Martin on Wednesday’s edition of Amanpour and Company on PBS, where he attacked the Supreme Court for not listening to the left’s preferred “experts” on the case involving Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. Martin declared, “You have some interesting things to say in a number of the columns that you've written about how this is also about a kind of loathing or resistance to expertise,” before inviting Gessen to “Say more about that, why you say that.”     Gessen lamented, “I think that's what we really saw in the Supreme Court hearing, right? It was supposed to be an Equal Protection Clause hearing. So, it was all supposed to be about whether it constitutes sex discrimination. But in fact, the justices kept going back, and this is true for both conservative and liberal justices, they kept going back to the merits of the care itself.” The first half of Amanpour and Company refers to host Christiane Amanpour, who tapes her portion of the show from London. On the day this episode aired, the left-wing Labour government in Britain announced a ban on puberty blockers for minors as a way to treat gender dysphoria. The Tennessee law before the U.S. Supreme Court also does that, as well as hormone treatment, but Gessen wanted to pretend that Tennessee’s position was the radical one: And if you think about it, that's quite extraordinary, because the justices, I mean, they kept, both sides, kept completely getting lost in the weeds. They can't tell the difference between puberty blockers and hormone treatment, nor should they, they're justices. They're not doctors. But, doctors, every single professional medical association, including every single pediatrics association in this country, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, arguing that this ban is harmful, that children should -- some children should have access to gender-affirming care, that it is correct, it is needed, it is in some cases lifesaving. With the news out of Britain, maybe that says more about “every single pediatrics association in this country” than it does Tennessee or the Supreme Court. Gessen further lamented, “Instead of saying, ‘Okay, well, the doctors say that this is necessary, what is the state's compelling interest in going against medical expertise?’ Instead of posing the question like that, they started debating the merits of the actual care. And, you know, Justice Kavanaugh said, ‘Oh, there are harms on both sides. What if people regret it, or what if they commit suicide? Both things are dangerous.’ We have actual experts for that.” The state's compelling interest is to know whether this "care" is necessary or effective because experts who have been captured by politics are just activists with fancier titles. Here is a transcript for the December 11 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 12/11/2024 MICHEL MARTIN: You have some interesting things to say in a number of the columns that you've written about how this is also about a kind of loathing or resistance to expertise. Say more about that, why you say that. MASHA GESSEN: I think that's what we really saw in the Supreme Court hearing, right? It was supposed to be an Equal Protection Clause hearing. So, it was all supposed to be about whether it constitutes sex discrimination. But in fact, the justices kept going back, and this is true for both conservative and liberal justices, they kept going back to the merits of the care itself. And if you think about it, that's quite extraordinary, because the justices, I mean, they kept, both sides, kept completely getting lost in the weeds. They can't tell the difference between puberty blockers and hormone treatment, nor should they, they're justices. They're not doctors. But, doctors, every single professional medical association, including every single pediatrics association in this country, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, arguing that this ban is harmful, that children should -- some children should have access to gender-affirming care, that it is correct, it is needed, it is in some cases lifesaving. And so, the fact that justices on both sides think nothing of sort of -- instead of saying, “Okay, well, the doctors say that this is necessary, what is the state's compelling interest in going against medical expertise?” Instead of posing the question like that, they started debating the merits of the actual care. And, you know, Justice Kavanaugh said, “oh, there are harms on both sides. What if people regret it or what if they commit suicide? Both things are dangerous.” We have actual experts for that?

On Wednesday and Thursday, ABC and NBC have omitted from their flagship morning and evening newscasts the Wednesday morning release of the November inflation report (known as the Consumer Price Index) that showed the Biden economy coming to an end on a sputtering note with a jump in prices of 2.7 percent from this time a year ago. With the Federal Reserve and economists having hoped inflation would have fallen to roughly two percent, that nearly three-quarters of a point disparity is less-than-ideal. Thursday’s CBS Mornings was the only flagship morning or evening show to bring it up. Co-host Nate Burleson began by telling CBS business analyst Jill Schlesinger that “we all thought that things were stabilizing,” but prices the last two months have continued to creep up, so he wanted to know “what’s going on.” This 'CBS Mornings' segment was the only mention on the top morning or evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC of the new inflation report, meaning ABC and NBC haven't said a word about it on their lead shows pic.twitter.com/LUPzjD5zJZ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 12, 2024 Schlesinger said “it’s hard to think about” inflation in “a methodical way” and conceded it’s “a drag,” due in large part to “shelter or house and, while those costs have been coming down, as people are renewing rents and leases…[w]e are still 4.7% higher than we were a year ago.”  To really drive that increase home (pun intended), she said increased housing costs make up “about 40 percent of the increase” in inflation. Burleson then asked about prices for “those end-of-the-year indulgences” and Schlesinger framed it as mixed with “toy prices down about 3.5 percent from a year ago” and while at home food costs (i.e. trips to the grocery store) are only up 1.6 percent from last year, certain sectors such as eggs (37 percent jump) continue to cause pain. She closed by trying to have people cheer up: So, it’s been fascinating because we know wages have been rising on an annual basis faster than the inflation rate. That’s good. It’s helping people catch up. Interestingly, in a survey recently people said I expect inflation rates to remain at this level, but I’m feeling okay about my personal financial situation. That’s a survey out from the New York Federal Reserve, so we’ll have to see if people are going to still feel better as prices stay at these levels. Instead, ABC covered stories such as Thursday’s Good Morning America celebrating a new junk fee regulation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News had a bizarre investigation on dead body traders in Las Vegas. Schlesinger returned for CBS Mornings Plus and kvetched “[i]t is is so disheartening when people say ‘oh, the inflation rate, it actually ticked up from one month to another’” and while “[i]t is a bummer,” she argued the bright side is it’s not where inflation reports used to clock in at nine percent years earlier. “[P]rices are still high and I get that why people are so bummed out about the fact that these prices are 23 percent higher than they were just five years ago. So even if the rate is coming down, it’s all – it's fine, but people are still struggling with those higher prices,” she added. Later, co-host Adriana Diaz tried to put a positive spin on things, which Schlesinger was more than happy to assist in by telling viewers no one should want prices to truly go down (click “expand”): DIAZ: It is. I think sometimes people get confused, when you think about inflation coming down, they expect prices to come down, but really it’s just prices aren't coming up as much when inflation comes down, right? SCHLESINGER: This is what is so confounding to people because you know, you see someone, a geek like me. I come on television. I say it’s great news, the inflation rate is coming down. The prices are still high and again, we are talking about the rate of increase of prices. Now, people want prices to come down. That's actually not a good thing. When prices come down, we are in a deep, horrible recession, so we can go back to the spring of 2020 and prices were basically flat or falling. That was not a sign of a healthy economy. What we are hoping for is that inflation marches ahead, two, two-and-a-half percent on annualized basis and that our wages are growing fast, but this period of time was unique. It was very painful and I know people were catching up from it. Correspondent Kelly O’Grady was on Wednesday’s CBS Mornings Plus to provide initial analysis and was much more transparent in conceding “we are not making the progress that we wanted to see in the fight against inflation” and prices jumped in “[f]our out of the six grocery food groups that the index measures[.]” Diaz also tried to argue things are actually quite good, but O’Grady wasn’t having it (click “expand”): DIAZ: But if we pull back and look at kind of the larger trend, I mean, inflation was at nine percent just a couple summers ago. So even though we’re not at that two percent target, we’ve made a lot of progress, right? O’GRADY: We absolutely have. But I don’t want to gaslight viewers. This doesn’t mean the prices are going down. They’re just rising at a slower rate. DIAZ: Yes. O’GRADY: So yes, we’re not at nine percent, but we want to see it come down to two percent. DOKOUPIL: Yeah, wow. Not — not great news, but we can hope for better ahead To see the relevant CBS transcripts, click here (for December 11’s CBS Mornings Plus), here (for December 12’s CBS Mornings), and here (for December 12’s CBS Mornings Plus).

It’s no coincidence that every time Donald Trump taps another person for his administration, a list of allegations against that person soon follows. Pete Hegseth, Trump’s DOD nominee, is currently battling a storm of smears ranging from old sexual assault allegations that were deemed false to an alleged drinking problem corroborated by 10 anonymous witnesses. Conservative talk show host Megyn Kelly recently sat down with Hegseth to discuss the smears brought against him since his nomination. Dave Rubin plays a clip of their conversation. “Do you think you’re being Kavanaughed right now?” Kelly asked. “I had a member not 45 minutes ago look me in the eye in private, just he and I, and say, ‘That's what they're trying to do to you. ... That's their playbook. Get ready for more, and they're going to make it up, just like they have so far — all anonymous, all innuendo, all rumor, nothing sourced, no verification, and they're just going to keep doing it because you're a threat to them,”’ Hegseth recounted. He told Kelly that he knows that this is all true. He is being Kavanaughed because he’s “a threat to [the swamp’s] system.” However, he plans to do exactly what Brett Kavanaugh did — fight back. “Kavanaugh stood up, and he fought, and he won,” said Hegseth. “What you’re seeing right now with me is the art of the smear.” Dave respects Hegseth’s determination to fight the system that’s attempting to destroy him. “If we've learned anything in the last decade, it’s don't give into the lies,” he says, pointing to Jordan Peterson’s advice — “Don’t apologize unless you’ve done something wrong.” “There is no evidence that Pete Hegseth has done anything wrong,” he says. “You can just see it so clearly — he gets it! That's the beautiful thing that has shifted in culture. So many of us get it” and have determined that “we will not partake in the lie anymore. We will not let you take out good people,” says Dave. To hear more of his commentary and see the footage of Kelly and Hegseth’s conversation, watch the clip above. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A Las Vegas trial defendant who earlier this year jumped over a courtroom bench and physically attacked a judge was sentenced this week to at least 26 years in prison for his actions, KLAS-TV reported. You can view video here of attack.What's the background?On Jan. 3, Deobra Redden — who already was a convicted felon with a long history of violent crime — stood before Las Vegas District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus for sentencing over a charge of attempted battery with substantial bodily harm, KSNV-TV reported. 'I’m not a bad person, I’m not an evil guy. I’m not making excuses for my actions, but I’m saying I’m not a bad person, and I know that I did not intend to kill Mary Kay Holthus. I know I cared about her wellbeing.'Holthus indicated she disagreed with a request from Redden's attorney to keep him out of prison, and that's when Redden cursed at Holthus, rushed the bench, jumped over it, and physically attacked the judge. A man next to the judge and a court officer both tried to hold Redden back and subdue him, KSNV said, adding that multiple punches were thrown at Redden. An alarm was activated, Holthus stood up after a few minutes, and officers escorted her out of the courtroom, the station said.A week later, Redden again stood in front of Holthus, and she sentenced him to up to four years in prison, completing the hearing that was cut short due to Redden's attack.What happened next? Redden pleaded guilty but mentally ill in September during his trial for attempted murder in relation to his attack against the judge, KLAS reported.At Redden's sentencing hearing Tuesday, the station said prosecutors read the following statement from Judge Holthus: “He made a conscious decision to kill me and made every effort to succeed. If he had his way, he’d be facing a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for murder.”Redden tried to convince District Court Judge Susan Johnson that he wasn't trying to kill Holthus."I’m not a bad person, I’m not an evil guy," Redden told the judge, according to KLAS. "I’m not making excuses for my actions, but I’m saying I’m not a bad person, and I know that I did not intend to kill Mary Kay Holthus. I know I cared about her wellbeing.”Redden's entreaties were not enough. Johnson sentenced Redden to a prison term of 26 to 65 years, the station said.“It was not just retaliation or an attack on Judge Holthus,” Johnson said, according to KLAS. “It was also an attack on the judiciary.” Johnson added that doctors who evaluated Redden determined that he knew the difference between “right and wrong," the station said.With credit for time served, KLAS said Redden would be eligible for parole in the 2050s.You can view video here of the sentencing hearing.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

IG Report Lists How Many 'Confidential Human Sources' FBI Had at the Capitol on J6 (BS Called)

FATALITY! Riley Gaines OWNS Trans Montana Dem for Celebrating Court BLOCKING Gender Affirming Care Ban

Here's the Overwatch 2 x Avatar: The Last Airbender trailer, announcing that the collaboration begins on December 17, 2024. Tap into the essence of bending as you join forces with your favorite heroes from Team Avatar and master the elements of all four nations. Check out this new Overwatch 2 trailer for a look at what to expect, including a look at the Overwatch 2 Avatar skins.