Nope, this isn’t satire. Former Congressman Scott Taylor was recently sent an image of classes given to Army recruits at the U. S. Military Academy at West Point. One of the classes was titled “Uniformed Perspectives: The Evolution of Cross-Dressing in the Military and Gender Norms." The United States Military Academy was founded on March 16, 1802. It’s a four-year college that “builds, educates, trains, and inspires the Corps of Cadets to be commissioned leaders of character committed to the Army Values and ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation,” its website states. It’s long been respected as the premiere institution for military and academic training. Now however, I have a feeling that once pristine reputation  - may be tarnished. The class, taught by Morten Ender, Professor of Sociology and co-chair for Diversity & Inclusion Studies, is an obvious indicator that our military training strategies are going woke. Other than the cross-dressing/gender norms class, Ender also plans to hold one called “Do My Leaders ‘Get’ Me?: Unpacking the Importance of Representation in the Military.” This was sent to me, classes at @WestPoint_USMA Quite sure China and Russia are not teaching this nonsense to their officers. Fix yourself. #dod #army pic.twitter.com/QrhEuG8nHb — Scott Taylor (@Scotttaylorva) May 4, 2024 In response to Taylor’s post about the classes, users on X were pissed that THIS is what our U.S. Military is prioritizing. “I expect China and Russia military schools have this up as a motivational poster, no longer fearing the U.S. military” one user wrote. Another user said, “For those that think the military will not be used against us, think again. This is not the military of old. This is the woke military.”  Others called the class “disgusting” and asked “what can we do?” This isn’t the first indicator that the U.S. Military is heading down a path of wokeness. Last month a member of our military posted a TikTok video in his camos shaking his booty for the camera. Last year the Navy appointed a drag queen for help in recruitment in order to attract a “talented” and “diverse workforce.” Similarly, oftentimes around pride month in June, multiple branches share their solidarity with LGBTQ people. In 2022 the U.S. Marines posted a helmet with rainbow pride bullets lodged in it, the U.S. Air Force wrote #CelebratePride in a post and the U.S. Space Force posted a graphic with the words “QUEER SPACE” on it and an astronaut holding a pride flag. Thing is, when our foreign threats see things like these, see that our eventual troops are learning about queer crap and cross-dressing instead of how to protect our nation, those foreign threats are going to have no fears of coming in and demolishing us. We need to facilitate a military of strong warriors, not woke social-justice warriors.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight Subcommittee is holding a hearing on Wednesday morning to address the political tilt of taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio. NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham is one of the experts who will testify.  Members of the MRC-led Free Speech Alliance sent a letter to committee chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) applauding the hearing and insisting taxpayers "should not be compelled to pay for a politicized media outlet whose primary objective is to undermine American ideas and ideals." The letter argues PBS and NPR have made a mockery of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” Therefore, "NPR must not be rewarded for its unlawful behavior and anti-American objectives." Signatories include MRC founder and president Brent Bozell, Young America’s Foundation President Governor Scott Walker, American Values President Gary Bauer, and American Principles Project President Terry Schilling.  The letter is below:  Dear Chair McMorris Rodgers, We applaud your decision to investigate National Public Radio (NPR). Its politicized leadership and programming have once again been brought into the spotlight, but its history of biased reporting is legendary. It long ago abandoned even the appearance of abiding by its statutory mandates in favor of pursuing a leftwing agenda.  Taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for a politicized media outlet whose primary objective is to undermine American ideas and ideals, including our First Amendment free-speech rights as well as the economic system that creates the wealth that NPR feeds off of.  It is critical that this hearing expose NPR’s unlawful conduct and how its leadership and reporters have used its resources to pursue political outcomes.  For its entire existence, NPR and its sister organization, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), have made a mockery of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” NPR must not be rewarded for its unlawful behavior and anti-American objectives. Many argue that no media outlet should be subsidized with US tax dollars, but NPR has certainly lost the moral authority to demand our continued support.  We encourage you to thoroughly investigate how NPR uses its talent and resources in contravention of the law. The Committee should determine the following:  With thousands of alternative media outlets now available to the public, has NPR outlived its usefulness? Are NPR’s hiring practices designed to prevent diversity of viewpoints in its programming? Has NPR used its power, reach and resources to interfere in elections, including the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections? Half of Americans are conservative or lean right in their political views; how does NPR attempt, if at all, to address the interests of this swath of Americans? In 1967, Congress determined that funding NPR and PBS, both entities under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), was necessary since there were only three broadcasters on television and only a small number of news-oriented radio stations across the country. Today, the internet has allowed countless alternative news sources to flourish. There are tens of thousands of online media sites and countless podcasts where the public access news daily.  Black-and-white televisions have been replaced with 5G technology and most radio stations now have apps to compete with audio streaming services. Why should taxpayers continue to finance PBS and NPR now that there’s CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Spotify, Pandora, Sirius XM, iHeart Radio, Amazon Prime, Apple Music, and countless others?  Thank you for holding this important hearing. We look forward to learning how the Committee intends to reform NPR and the role taxpayers play in funding its operations.  Sincerely, L. Brent Bozell III Founder and President Media Research Center   J. Christian Adams President and General Counsel Public Interest Legal Foundation   Saulius “Saul” Anuzis President The American Association of Senior Citizens    Brent Baker Vice President for Research and Publications Media Research Center   Gary L. Bauer President American Values   Ryan Bomberger CoFounder & Chief Creative Officer Radiance Foundation   David N. Bossie President Citizens United   Floyd Brown Founder The Western Journal   The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs President Ronald Reagan   Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II   Elaine Donnelly President Center for Military Readiness   Steven Ertelt Editor LifeNews.com   Kevin Freeman Founder NSIC Institute   Mark J. Fitzgibbons President of Corporate Affairs American Target Advertising   Lady Brigitte Gabriel Founder & Chairman ACT For America   Paul Gessing President Rio Grande Foundation   Tim Graham Executive Editor NewsBusters   Mike​​​​ Gonzalez Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation   Mike Hill  Former Member  Florida State House   Phil Kerpen President American Commitment   Kelly M. Kullberg General Secretary American Association of Evangelicals    Jim Lakely Vice President & Director of Communications The Heartland Institute   George Landrith President Frontiers of Freedom   John Pierce  Chairman National Constitutional Law Union   Richard Manning President Americans for Limited Government   Josh Manning Deputy Managing Editor The Western Journal   Mr. Edward Martin President Phyllis Schlafly Eagles   James L. Martin Founder/Chairman  60 Plus Association   Christie-Lee McNally President Raven Strategies   Cleta Mitchell, Esq. Founder Election Integrity Network   C. Preston Noell III President Tradition, Family, Property, Inc The Honorable George K Rasley Jr Managing Editor ConservativeHQ.com   Khadine L. Ritter, Esq. Chairman Eagle Forum of Ohio   Craig Shirley Chairman and CEO Shirley & McVicker Public Affairs   Terry Schilling President American Principles Project   Cameron Sholty Executive Director Heartland Impact   Dan Schneider  Vice President for Free Speech Media Research Center   Jon Schweppe Policy Director American Principles Project   Sharon Slater President  Family Watch International   Sean Spicer Host The Sean Spicer Show   James Taylor President The Heartland Institute   Tim Throckmorton  President Lifepointe Ministries   Kristen A. Ullman President Eagle Forum   Governor Scott Walker President Young America’s Foundation   Gavin Mario Wax President New York Young Republican Club   Deborah Weiss, Esq.,  President, Vigilance, Inc   Tim Wildmon President American Family Association  

Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok is seemingly desperate to hold onto both its China ties and the American market. Last month, President Joe Biden signed legislation that would force TikTok into either divestment from its Chinese parent company ByteDance or a ban in America due to national security concerns. TikTok has now sued, claiming economic harm to creators and a free speech violation, according to Bloomberg. This argument is paradoxical because TikTok itself has an infamously anti-free speech track record. Bloomberg noted that the lawsuit marks the first legal challenge since the legislation was enacted. TikTok is claiming the legislation could suppress free speech and harm the business owners and users who benefit financially from the app, alleging an “illegal punishment without due process”, the outlet added. “There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere,” the company reportedly complained in the court filing. Experts have emphasized TikTok’s national security risks. Moreover, multiple former TikTok employees recently confirmed close ties between TikTok and Chinese ByteDance. As MRC founder and President Brent Bozell emphasized, “TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States.” TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States. We at the MRC have been consistent from the beginning. TikTok is a national security threat. @BrentBozell pic.twitter.com/FfSh1futU3 — Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 12, 2024 In April, the same month that the ban legislation was signed, TikTok announced a counteroffensive to suppress alleged “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. The CCP-tied app has repeatedly targeted free speech, making its free speech arguments incongruous. According to leaks, TikTok has censored content to please the CCP in the past, including videos about the independence movement in Tibet and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Last year, the app boastedabout removing over 500,000 videos related to the Hamas-Israel conflict. In 2022, MRC revealed that TikTok had “permanently banned” eleven pro-free speech organizations. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The New York Times came out stridently in defense of pan-Arab news network Al-Jazeera after the Israeli government temporarily shut down its local operations, claiming it was threatening Israel’s security by serving as a “mouthpiece” for Hamas. The paper was highly aggrieved over the “anti-democratic” move while ignoring Al-Jazeera’s history as a virulently anti-Israel outlet Arab news network. Of course, wartime censorship is not unheard of even in democracies (including Ukraine) or the Arab world in general, and Israel is existentially vulnerable surrounded by enemies and with elite opinion firmly on the side of the pro-Hamas demonstrators on college campuses throughout America. Five reporters in all contributed to The Times' report, “Israeli Cabinet Votes to Shut Down Al Jazeera’s Operations in the Country,” in Monday’s edition. Israel moved on Sunday to shut down local operations of Al Jazeera, the influential Qatari-based news network, in an unusual step that critics denounced as anti-democratic and part of a broader crackdown on dissent over Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Al Jazeera, a major source of news in the Arab world that has often highlighted civilian suffering in Gaza, of harming Israel’s security and inciting violence against its soldiers. Israeli officials did not immediately provide examples of Al Jazeera content it claimed posed a threat. In a statement, Al Jazeera called the decision a “criminal act” and said that “Israel’s suppression of the free press to cover up its crimes has not deterred us from performing our duty.” …. Pointing to the government’s diminishing tolerance for freedom of expression, Ms. Touma-Sliman noted that in November, she was suspended from all parliamentary activities for two months after publicizing press reports about Israeli forces attacking Gaza’s main hospital. The military had denied the accounts. Meanwhile, reporter Steve Lohr found “media experts” to condemn the only democracy in the region as a censor: “Media experts condemn Israel’s move against Al Jazeera.” The Israeli government’s decision to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in that country and block its reports there was condemned by American media and free speech experts as a troubling precedent and further evidence that Israel was engaging in a harsh wartime crackdown on democratic freedoms. There was no criticism of Al-Jazeera from the Times itself, which merely relayed accurate Israeli criticism in a dismissive tone, even though Al-Jazeera has shown terrorist sympathies like throwing a “birthday party” with cake and fireworks in 2008, to celebrate the release of Lebanese terrorist, who killed four in Israel, including a four-year-old girl (see MEMRI’s clip). The Times also failed to mention that Al Jazeera reporters Ismail Abu Omar and Mohamed Washah were caught moonlighting as Hamas commanders. In February, The Times of Israel reported that "the IDF revealed a trove of images" that showed Washah in a Hamas uniform training fighters how to shoot rocket-propelled grenades, build warheads, and operate drones armed with an RPG. "Abu Omar infiltrated into Israel and filmed from inside Kibbutz Nir Oz during Hamas’s onslaught," they noted.   #عاجل #خاص في الصباح صحفي في قناة #الجزيرة وفي المساء مخرب في حماس! @AJArabic ⭕️خلال نشاط لقواتنا قبل عدة أسابيع داخل احدى معسكرات حماس في شمال قطاع غزة تم ضبط كمبيوتر متحرك يعود إلى المدعو محمد سمير محمد وشاح من مواليد 1986 من البريج حيث يتضح من المستندات ان محمد وشاح هو قائد… pic.twitter.com/s8CX1kOfvP — افيخاي ادرعي (@AvichayAdraee) February 11, 2024   By contrast, the Times has eagerly highlighted moves to squash outlets run by media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s supposedly dangerously right-wing news outlets. Censorship fever (from another media outlet!) ran particularly high in late 2020 and 2021, with the Times attacking Murdoch on bogus issues like climate change or spreading extremism. In February 2021, London bureau chief Mark Landler’s obsessive hostility toward Murdoch’s media empire was on display in his coverage of two fledgling right-of-center news outlets, in “Murdoch to Challenge U.K.’s Fairness Statute With Fox News Playbook.” He began with a tiresome attack against the “poisonous political culture” of Fox News, then suggested Murdoch could be banned in Britain, “where television news is regulated to avoid political bias.” In October 2020, Times reporter Isabella Kwai filed on an online petition in Australia targeting Murdoch, posted by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, asking “the government to establish a Royal Commission, the country’s highest form of inquiry, into the dominance of Australian media by Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp.” Rudd called “Murdoch “an arrogant cancer on our democracy.” An impartial voice for sure! In January 2021, columnist Nicholas Kristof launched a quest to ban Fox News from basic cable packages (just for a start) in order to “stop supporting networks that spread lies and hatred, and cable companies should drop channels that persist in doing so….” But now that a left-wing anti-Israel outlet is being temporarily suspended during wartime, the Times conveniently morphs back into free-speech absolutists.

Across the dial, the network evening newscasts closed their coverage of the Trump business records trial in New York with coverage of another matter- the classified documents trial in Florida federal court. Specifically, a collective mourning over the fact that this trial won’t go before the 2024 presidential election. Most emblematic of the coverage: ABC, with its lengthy (for a brief) anchor introduction and framing question. Watch the full report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: And meanwhile, there's another breaking headline involving the former president tonight. The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago has now indefinitely postponed that trial. Is there any chance this now happens before Election Day? Let's get right to our Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas, live in Washington. Pierre, what have you learned? PIERRE THOMAS: David, the likelihood there will be a trial in the classified documents case before the election is fading fast. Judge Aileen Cannon has officially taken a May 20th trial date off the calendar, saying there were too many pretrial motions and legal issues to resolve before trial could go forward. Some of the issues have sat for months, and some are not even scheduled for hearings until later this month or June. The special counsel tonight declining to comment. But David, this delay makes it all but certain the classified documents case will not go to trial before the election. MUIR: Pierre Thomas tonight with us as well. Pierre, thank you. ABC Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas felt compelled to provide a full rundown as to the procedural reasons why the classified documents trial isn’t going forward, complaining that “some of the issues have sat for months”. Thomas then whines that this case will not go to trial before the election. A similar tone was struck at CBS, as far as whining over a lack of a trial before the general election. Below is the transcript of the full report as aired on CBS Evening News on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: And Robert, I do need to ask you about a separate trial involving that classified documents. What have we learned today about that trial? ROBERT COSTA: Norah, a stunning development late today. Florida federal judge Aileen Cannon has now decided to indefinitely postpone that classified documents trial that was looming on the horizon for the former president, raising a real question about whether Trump will ever face a trial on that front before the election, or even this year. O’DONNELL: Robert Costa, thank you. Despite Costa’s hysterics, the development is not all that stunning. Not mentioned in these reports is that at least some of the hangup in the classified documents case is due to the procedures governing discovery under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), which governs discovery in this trial. Costa might not have been so stunned, perhaps, had he read CBS’s own primer on CIPA.  Fun fact, per the report: the CIPA bill was originally introduced by Senator Joe Biden. Finally, on NBC, the same lamentations citing the same complex motions, with one added bonus: Lester Holt and Laura Jarrett work in the January 6th trial, which is also on hold pending the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity. Below is the transcript of the full report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: LESTER HOLT: And Laura, at the top of the newscast, I mentioned a big development in another Trump case, this, the classified documents case in Florida. What happened? LAURA JARRETT: Yes, Lester, the judge tonight making official what was already widely expected, putting that trial date officially on hold, wiping it away, saying essentially there are too many unresolved issues and complex motions left to resolve here, Lester. HOLT: And one more federal case, the one focusing on election interference. Where does that stand? JARRETT: Lester, that one too also in limbo, with no trial date as we await a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court about whether the former president is in fact immune from prosecution at all, making this case in New York, Lester, perhaps the only case that will be complete before the November election. Lester. HOLT: All right. Laura Jarrett, thanks. Laura Jarrett closes her report by noting that the New York trial may well be the only one to conclude before the 2024 presidential election, thus forcing the left to settle for one quarter of its originally-scheduled judicial election interference- much to the chagrin of the Regime Media.  

You can tell when the PolitiFact website is going to negotiate around the facts. On May 7, their top headline on the home page asked: “Are ‘outside agitators’ co-opting campus protests?” This isn’t quite the right question. The media have presented these events as “student” protests, so if half the participants aren’t college students, how would they describe the non-students? PolitiFact writers Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu and Loreben Turquero offered this summary: 1. Police, city and university officials nationwide have blamed “outside agitators” for campus protests but have provided little evidence for their claims. 2. Law enforcement experts say police often consider “outside agitators” to be people who move from city to city and are paid to be agitators. 3.  Historians say government and law officials commonly use the “outside agitator” narrative to delegitimize protesters and their demands. First, the “little evidence” is a weird claim, when PolitiFact’s article acknowledges facts like the New York Police Department reported that 32 out of 112 people arrested at Columbia’s private campus were unaffiliated with the university. At nearby City College, 102 out of 170 people arrested were not students. Add it up, and 134 out of 282 protesters were not students. So when Mayor Eric Adams complains about “outside agitators,” he’s not in need of a “fact check.” They even scolded leftist Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) over their “agitator” concerns. They did not mention the recent story of an outside agitator named James Carlson, who was part of the army who briefly occupied Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. He’s a 40-year-old trust fund heir who owns a townhouse in Brooklyn worth $3.4 million. PolitiFact typically seeks out “experts” to match the narratives it wants to underline. They don’t like people suggesting these protesters aren’t local and they might be paid to protest. They found William & Mary law professor Timothy Zick to define the outside agitator spin: "It was used as sort of a phrase that would link protesters, no matter how peaceful they were, to Communists and other infiltrators who were causing disruption." The term is used to cast doubt on protester “sincerity.” Angus Johnson, "historian of student activism" at Hostos Community College in New York, explained, "The idea behind the concept of the outside agitator is that dissent can never be coming from the people who are expressing that dissent.”  They also turned to Johnston to underline, “Some experts have been quick to note the main goal of a protest is to get others to join in.”    This spin is nothing like how the media spun the Tea Party protests against ObamaCare legislation. They sought to discredit them as donor-funded “Astroturf” (not grass-roots). They went looking for the most racist or ignorant-sounding sign they could find, to present protesters as a kooky “fringe” movement.  NBC’s Chuck Todd decried “town hall madness.” The front page of The Boston Globe lamented the “quarrelsome masses hollering questions downloaded from activist websites." MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ranted, “The truth is out about the societal sabotage dressed up as phony protests against health care reform...When Hamas does it or Hezbollah does it, it is called terrorism.” That looks pretty funny right now, since these protesters are a much better match for that Hamas spin. All of this was about "delegitimizing protesters and their demands." Protests are covered in wildly divergent ways, depending on whether the activists are on the Left or the Right. This is just as true for liberal “fact checking” organizations as it is for liberal media outlets. 

The former managing director at Soros Fund Management panned President Joe Biden’s management of the economy during a CNBC appearance.  During the May 7 edition of Squawk Box,  Stanley Druckenmiller, billionaire investor and former chairman and president of Duquesne Capital, gave his frank assessment of Bidenomics — and it was not positive, to say the least. In the interview, CNBC anchor Joe Kernen asked Druckenmiller about the nation’s overspending under President Biden. In response, Druckenmiller seemed overcome by disgust before telling Kernen, “If I was a professor, I would give [Biden] an F." This is an incredible election-year statement coming from a man who once managed money for leftist billionaire George Soros. Earlier in the interview, Druckenmiller criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the Biden administration for the state of the economy. He said, “The day Powell pivoted, gasoline was $2. It went to $2.80. It's now at $2.55.” Druckenmiller also suggested that the current state of affairs would be politically damaging for Biden, adding, “the average American cares more about gasoline prices than they do about stock prices and they are getting hurt.” He went on to mention economic difficulties previously highlighted by CNBC: “There was an interview earlier on your show about people being priced out of the housing market.” This is true,  Biden’s policies are taking a toll on the average American. Since January 2021 (when Biden took office), the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate has risen from 2.77% to 6.8% on April 4, 2024.  Druckenmiller also mentioned that “Inflation is 21% higher than it was in 2019. To me, even politically, that's more consequential than keeping the markets up than trying to nail the soft landing and not having a recession.”   Indeed, Americans have been brutalized by 5.5% average monthly inflation under the Biden administration.  The former Duquesne Capital president went beyond the impact of Bidenomics on struggling Americans, suggesting that Biden’s missteps would have horrible ramifications for the future.  “All government needed to do was get out of their way and let them innovate. Instead, they have spent and spent and spent,” Druckenmiller said. “And my new fear now is that spending and the resulting interest rates on the debt that’s been created are gonna crowd out some of the innovation that otherwise would have taken place. We’ve got a 7% budget deficit at full employment. It’s just unheard of.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report fairly on how Bidenomics is crippling the American economy.

After former President Donald Trump gave some remarks to reporters assembled outside of his New York trial on Tuesday, CNN’s host of The Lead, Jake Tapper, brought on the network’s resident fact-checker, Daniel Dale, to assess the accuracy of Trump’s claims. In one instance, Dale shamed Trump for calling D.A. Alvin Bragg a Soros-backed prosecutor, even going so far as to claim Soros is a frequent victim of anti-Semitism. Tapper began, “Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation, then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice?”     For his first fact-check, Dale chose a topic of questionable importance: is Trump leading in all the polls or merely most of them? He declared, “There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few.” Dale then went off the rails, “He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts.” He elaborated, “So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.” As Dale would say, “there was a lot there.” First, with anti-Semitism surging on college campuses, labeling criticisms of Soros’s political donations to far-left causes, including those anti-Israel encampments, as anti-Semitic is as nonsensical as it is appalling. Second, Dale wants to pretend as if Soros giving money to an organization, which in turn donates it to a candidate, is somehow evidence that Soros doesn't financially support Bragg. Soros doesn’t need to have spoken to Bragg to support him. Plenty of people donate to organizations, who in turn donate to candidates because they support those groups’ missions and trust them to donate to candidates who support that mission. Soros just does so in great quantity. Third, “reform-minded” is a convenient way of hiding their soft-on-crime progressivism. Here is a transcript for the May 7 show: CNN The Lead with Jake Tapper 5/8/2024 4:35 PM ET JAKE TAPPER: Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice? DANIEL DALE: There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few. He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts. So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.

One of the risks inherent to Regime Media, as opposed to performing legitimate fact-based journalism, is that their Trump Derangement Syndrome drives them to say things that are easily debunkable or quickly proven wrong. Take, for example, CBS’s Chief White House Correspondent Nancy Cordes. During her report last week fretting the effect the pro-Hamas campus protests might have upon President Joe Biden’s reelection prospects, she threw in a 15-second non-sequitur accusing former President Donald Trump of making an “unfounded claim about campus demonstrators”- a fancier and more succinct “without evidence”. We flagged it the time, and memorialized it via X in anticipation of the inevitable: Laying down this marker for when it is discovered that at least ONE (1) foreign-born student and/or outside agitator was paid by some radical oligarch-funded organization. pic.twitter.com/kR0GYRjIU0 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 3, 2024 As we said when covering her broader report: Cordes’ shootdown of Trump’s statement so early into the protest fallout is arrogant to the point of recklessness. All it takes is ONE paid foreign student/agitator in order to make Cordes look like a total fool. Well, you’ll never guess what inevitably happened next. It turns out that there, in fact, are foreign-born outside agitators funded by outside organizations most charitably classified as “woke philanthropy”. As Joe Simonson reported in the Washington Free Beacon: A New York City nonprofit that received more than $12 million from Goldman Sachs' charitable arm encouraged anti-Israel activists to re-create the violent protests of  "the summer of 2020," just hours before rioters stormed and occupied a building on Columbia University’s campus. More than 100 masked and keffiyeh-clad activists convened in the People’s Forum’s Manhattan office Monday evening to plan their next moves as anti-Israel protests reach a fever pitch across the country. The meeting, which was scheduled to start at 6:45 p.m., was delayed to give protesters from Columbia time to make it downtown. Once the Columbia protesters arrived, People’s Forum executive director Manolo De Los Santos urged the group to "give Joe Biden a hot summer" and "make it untenable for the politics of usual to take place in this country." Los Santos praised Columbia students for "decid[ing] that resistance is more important than negotiations," and urged those assembled at the People’s Forum to "support our students so that the encampments can go for as long as they can." Sounds very outside agitation-y. Who funds The People’s Forum, you ask? Well: The People’s Forum’s operations are made possible in large part by a $12 million donation from Goldman Sachs’s charitable arm. The source of that money is likely Neville Roy Singham, a communist who has "long admired Maoism." Singham, an American businessman who lives in China, reportedly helps finance the Chinese Communist Party’s "propaganda worldwide," according to the New York Times. His wife, Jodie Evans, is the leader of the activist group Code Pink. Under her leadership, the group has celebrated China as "a defender of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war." So we have woke-funded outside agitation. Where, might one ask, was this gentleman born? Per The New York Post: Manolo De Los Santos, the 35-year-old leader of the Midtown-based nonprofit The People’s Forum (TPF), came to The Bronx from his native Dominican Republic at age 5 and has made a career of spurring protests on the streets of New York City. He first traveled to Cuba in 2006 and was there as recently as March to demand an end to the US blockade against the socialist state which has been in place since 1962. Well, there you have it. A foreign-born outside agitator funded by nonprofits. As an added bonus, he got himself arrested at a campus encampment last night:  ?BREAKING! Multiple leaders of the ALL OUT FOR RAFAH march in NYC were arrested by the NYPD while they led over a thousand pro-Palestine demonstrators in the streets of Manhattan. We will not stand for the intimidation of the NYPD. The more they try to silence us the louder we… pic.twitter.com/DlAqq5ZXH7 — The People's Forum (@PeoplesForumNYC) May 7, 2024 Will Nancy Cordes retract her smear of Trump or issue an apology? Probably not, as that would distract from her ongoing battle with ABC’s Mary Bruce for most Biden-sycophantic White House correspondent. The cost of being Regime Media is that, more often than not, you are going to be made to look ridiculous. 

It seems that celebrities will do absolutely anything to remain relevant. In Macklemore’s latest attempt to stay at least somewhat popular, the 40-year-old rapper released a song called “Hind’s Hall,” which is all about the liberation of Palestine.  “Block the barricade until Palestine is free,” the first verse of the song reads, as well as the line “f**k the police.” Macklemore continues with his pro-Palestine rhetoric in verse two, calling out the elites who aren’t pro-Palestine with: “Seen the rubble, the buildings, the mothers and the children and all the men that you murdered, and then we see how you spin it.” How they spin it? Like how Macklemore is spinning the narrative to insist that Palestine is some innocent country that played no part in the brutal terrorist attack involving kidnaping, rape and murder of innocent Israeli citizens? Sure, Macklemore. “Screamin’ “Free Palestine” ‘til they’re home at last (Woo),” he said. Macklemore also calls out President Joe Biden in the third verse, which begins with, “Claimin’ it’s antiSemetic to be anti-Zionist / I’ve seen Jewish brothers and sisters out there and ridin’ in," and ends with, “The blood is on your hands, Biden, we can see it all / And f**k no, I’m not votin’ for you in the fall.” Related: Terrorists in Training: Pro-Hamas 'Protesters' Vandalize WWI Memorial in Central Park, Burn American Flag In the last portion of the song, Macklemore insists that he’s glad he’s an independent artist, suggesting if he belonged to a label, he’d probably be dropped.  “I’d be fine with it ‘cause the heart fed my page / I want a cease fire, f**k a response from Drake," he raps. The music video for the song featured police officers dealing with violent pro-Palestine protestors, Palestinian flag-waving, and a video montages of  legislators - I assume ones who Macklemore thinks could do more for the Palestinian people. HIND’S HALL. Once it’s up on streaming all proceeds to UNRWA. pic.twitter.com/QqZEKmzwZI — Macklemore (@macklemore) May 6, 2024 In response to Macklemore’s attempt of a roast in a song, both those in support of his message and those against it responded. Fox News freelance opinion editor Dan Gainor condemned Macklemore, telling him, “You support gang rape and murder,” pointing out the number of innocent Israeli citizens who’ve fallen victim to Hamas attacks.  “Just deleted every song I ever had of yours,” a different user wrote, while investigative journalist Laura Loomer called Macklemore “a straight up retard” and a “f**king moron.”  Others disagreed, writing things like, “as a Palestinian we appreciate this” and “this has a great lyrically message.” Ultimately, while Macklemore is entitled to his opinion, can’t he just stick to writing music about girls or something instead of virtual signaling until ends meet?! Seriously, this is not even entertaining. Follow MRCTV on X: Things That Need To Be Said: I Don't Care Leftists cry and scream about "freedom for Palestine," but these entitled brats have no idea the real problems facing America. pic.twitter.com/MuAuXPt4x2 — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 6, 2024