Martin Luther King's Niece Blasts Mark Cuban, Endorses Trump

Hugh Hewitt Was Right to Walk Out on Capehart and Marcus

Sit back, relax, and let’s Break It Down in episode 38...

"It was a cacophony of hell."

YouTube, the Google-owned video streaming platform, rebuffed pressure from The New York Times and The Washington Post to silence some prominent right-leaning and free-speech voices just days before the 2024 presidential election. On Thursday, The Times and The Post published separate reports accusing several podcast hosts, news anchors and legal scholars of spreading so-called election-related misinformation on platforms such as YouTube. But, to the detriment of the left, a YouTube spokesperson affirmed that the platform would not censor the videos, claiming it values a range of opinions. “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” YouTube told both The Times and The Post, shocking many as the platform has had a reputation for censoring speech that the left disagrees with. Not deserving of being called a free speech bastion by any means, the platform still removed three of the videos targeted and temporarily slapped an informational banner on 21 of them, most of which were later removed, according to The Times.  While YouTube's refusal to fully cave to censorship pressure from The Times and The Post is a welcome sign, it doesn't excuse the platform's ongoing censorship. Data from MRC Free Speech America’s exclusive CensorTrack shows that YouTube has censored speech no fewer than 534 times, and that’s just scratching the surface. YouTube’s response came after the targeted individuals blasted The Times for reaching out to them for comments to be featured on the infamous report, which exclusively relied on data from a discredited, radical leftist group. The Post did not use the discredited leftist group for its report. The information that The Times and The Post relied upon singled out 286 videos across 30 channels, featuring some of the biggest and most influential hosts like Tucker Carlson, Benny Johnson, Tim Pool and Donald Trump Jr., Fox News hosts Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Watters and Mark Levin and The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles. YouTube said it reviewed eight of the 286 videos and that they did not run afoul of the company’s community guidelines. Legal voices were also targeted, including Tom Fitton, Stephen Miller, Mike Davis, Harmeet Dhillon, Kash Patel and Kimberly Guilfoyle, among others. Many of these figures rebuked The Times for blindly echoing the radical anti-free speech talking points it was fed, with Shapiro taking the lead. Shapiro accused The Times of relying on a “radical Left-wing organization whose sole purpose is destroying conservative media … in order to pressure YouTube to demonetize and penalize any and all conservatives ONE WEEK FROM THE ELECTION.” In a separate report, The Post accused Shapiro, Johnson, and podcasters Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk of “preemptively casting doubt on the integrity of the 2024 election.” Similar to The Times, The Post also contacted YouTube and other podcast platforms, requesting comments about the videos it deemed misinformation. However, YouTube similarly dismissed their request, reiterating to The Post the same statement it had provided to The Times. YouTube’s subdued approach to censorship came after the Media Research Center and members of the MRC-led Free Speech Alliance warned Big Tech giants against interfering in the presidential election by censoring online speech. “We know that governments across the world are pressuring tech firms to interfere in the 2024 elections just as so many of you did in 2020,” FSA members wrote in August 2024. “Now is the time for you to affirm that you will not bow to this coercion and to reaffirm your commitment to providing fair and even-handed service to your customers.” Several prominent free speech leaders signed the letter, including MRC Founder and President Brent Bozell and Article III Project President Mike Davis, the latter of whom was also targeted in The Times’s one-sided report. Other members of the Free Speech Alliance that were targeted were The Claremont Institute, through its senior fellow Jeremy Carl; The Heritage Foundation, through its senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky; and Human Events, through its senior editor Jack Posobiec. Former President Donald Trump has also weighed in, warning Google that any interference in the upcoming November election would come with dire consequences if he is elected president. His admonishment came after MRC released several bombshell studies showing that Google Search users had to wade through a bevy of leftist media outlet content before finding the Trump campaign’s website. "It has been determined that Google has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J. Trump, some made up for this purpose while, at the same time, only revealing good stories about Comrade Kamala Harris,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in September. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) grilled Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai for allegedly corrupting his YouTube platform to censor former President Donald Trump’s Oct. 25 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience.  Jordan condemned YouTube for its role in censoring the episode which has accumulated over 42 million views as of Friday. In a Wednesday letter, Jordan called for prompt answers from Alphabet: "We write to seek an immediate briefing on (1) YouTube’s decision to censor Joe Rogan’s interview with President Trump; and (2) Google Search’s elevation of material critical of the interview." Jordan’s requests came after the New York Post reported on Monday that a “search on YouTube using the terms ‘Joe Rogan Trump’ or ‘Joe Rogan Donald Trump’ did not bring up Friday’s three-hour sit-down at the top of the list.” The Post also noted that the interview was absent from YouTube’s trending page on Monday. Among the first to call out Google for censoring the podcast was Alexandros Marinos, an X user boasting over 61k followers. Marinos used a screen-recorded video to expose YouTube's apparent censorship, garnering over 16.5 million views on X. YouTube does not return the link to the full Joe Rogan/Trump interview no matter how I try to search for it. There is no sensible explanation for this, and if deliberate, Google is overtly interfering with the elections.@YouTube this needs fixed immediately. pic.twitter.com/4xt0V9V1EF — Alexandros Marinos ?‍☠️ (@alexandrosM) October 28, 2024 Instead of the full episode popping up in the search results, researchers found YouTube featured small clips of the nearly three-hour-long episode. Can Google make it any more obvious that they were trying to censor Rogan’s most-viewed episode of the year?  Rogan himself commented Wednesday, “There's no way it was a mistake, that's too convenient." Rogan even went so far as to say, “This is the internet. This is 2024. People are going to realize what you're doing if you try to make it so that something can't come up in a search engine because it's too popular.” Jordan continued by saying that he found the instance very troubling, especially in the few days prior to an election where free speech needs to be observed. In the letter, he scolded Alphabet saying that "Americans deserve access to political speech, especially in the closing weeks before an election." To cap off the letter, Jordan threatened Alphabet with a measurable amount of oversight on the situation if not briefed by Nov. 13—just a week after Election Day.  With just under a week to go before Election Day, it is apparent that lawmakers like Jordan are keen on ensuring that YouTube does not censor for the purpose of election interference. After all, election interference by Alphabet’s Google has become a commonality in the past few election cycles as noted in the Media Research Center’s “41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

It is odd that a website that fancies itself as a fact-checking organization would believe that if you repeat a falsehood enough times it eventually becomes true, but that is what PolitiFact is doing with Democrats and transgender sports. In a Thursday article, PolitiFact defended Montana Sen. Jon Tester’s vote that failed to protect the competitive integrity of women’s sports by claiming such attacks are false. Tester is the third Democratic senator PolitiFact has defended on the issue since October 10 after Ohio’s Sherrod Brown and Nevada’s Jacky Rosen. For the third time, PolitiFact ignored how conservatives view Title IX’s role in this issue, as Louis Jacobson wrote, "The amendments Tester voted on would have stripped federal funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls and women to compete in sports matching their gender identity. They did not dictate athletic eligibility. Federal law rarely dictates who is eligible for specific sports.” Jacobson then cites a Tester campaign statement, ‘“As a former public school teacher and school board member, Jon Tester believes these decisions should be made at the local level,’ the Tester campaign said in a statement to PolitiFact. ‘He has never voted to allow men to compete against women.’” Eventually getting to Title IX, Jacobson added, “Some federal laws, such as Title IX, prohibit sex-based discrimination for programs receiving federal funding, which includes nearly all public schools, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. President Joe Biden unveiled new rules in April that cover gender identity under Title IX, though the rules did not specifically address transgender athletes in sports.” Yes, and Tester’s inability to criticize those rules is fair game for the Senate GOP's Senate Leadership Fund. Again, for the third time, PolitiFact tried to argue that it is unfair to condemn the Democrat because the vote was on amendments to a larger spending bill: Both Democratic and Republican senators have introduced amendments structured to force members of the other party to support or oppose policies that could be controversial with constituents. Senators in the majority, as Tester was during both votes, need to plow through these amendments to get the larger bill passed. Sometimes, this means voting for something that could be used by a future opponent. Otherwise, a bill already passed by the House would have to be sent back to the House to resolve differences, an impractical course given funding deadlines. As the Tester campaign’s earlier statement makes clear, Tester would not have voted for a standalone bill to protect women’s sports. The Senate Leadership Fund clearly believes liberal culture war craziness is a winning issue for them. They have the added benefit of being correct in their attacks on Democratic incumbents, but PolitiFact insists on defending them. Unfortunately for PolitiFact, in certain sports, as in fact-checking, it is three strikes and you’re out.

The liberal papers and TV networks are not rushing to cover Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against CBS for its dishonest clip job of their Kamala Harris interview on 60 Minutes. They most likely consider it a stunt like riding in a garbage truck, as Trump trying to refocus attention on CBS sketchily refusing to release a full transcript. In his “Reliable Sources” newsletter on Friday, Brian Stelter noted (without mentioning CBS) that Harris did a "pull-aside" interview with NBC's Yamiche Alcindor, seen above. "NBC immediately posted the full transcript." Why can't CBS do the same?  But Stelter covered Trump's suit as a First Amendment threat: "1A experts trash Trump's CBS suit."  Last night, Trumpworld gave an exclusive to Fox about Trump's lawsuit against CBS alleging "deceptive doctoring" of last month's "60 Minutes" interview with Harris. The suit asserts $10 billion in damages and attempts to apply a Texas statute "that is meant to prevent advertisers from misleading the public about a product being sold," CBS's own story notes. The suit was immediately ridiculed by numerous First Amendment experts. "It's ridiculous junk and should be mocked," Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School, told CNN's Jon Passantino. "This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media," First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin of Ballard Spahr added. "The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear: the First Amendment leaves it to journalists – and not the courts, the government, or candidates for office – to decide how to report the news." Read Passantino and Rashard Rose's full story here... It's pretty easy to notice that Stelter's cited experts are lefties. Rebecca Tushnet is an active Democrat donor, who gave $1,500 to Joe Biden in 2020 and $1,033 to Kamala Harris in 2024. It's also funny that she's the "Frank Stanton Professor" at Harvard, since Stanton was the president of CBS from 1946 to 1971. Leftists consider Stanton a legend for....refusing to provide copies of outtakes and scripts to the House Commerce Committee from the CBS documentary The Selling of the Pentagon in 1971. CBS has a habit of not letting the public (and those right-wingers) see how they make their spicy, tilted sausage.  Charles Tobin (or "Chuck Tobin") of Ballard Spahr was very happy to side with Disney as it attempted to sue Gov. Ron DeSantis for what Tobin called his "year-long campaign to punish Disney for speaking out against state policies that target the LGBTQIA+ community." You can see why CNN picked these people.  Stelter concluded with CBS still claiming their Harris interview "was not doctored," but it won't release the transcript. A spokesperson said Trump's lawsuit "is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it." 

The Associated Press gave the Biden administration a fright on Halloween night, publishing a story exposing how the White House deliberately altered the official transcript of President Biden’s VotoLatino appearance where he called Trump voters “garbage.” Despite the fact that the alteration were indeed a scandal, ABC’s Good Morning America was the only broadcast morning newscast to ignore it. Instead, ABC chose to push a ProPublica article that dubiously claimed Texas’s prolife laws caused the death of an 18-year-old girl. But, neither ProPublica nor ABC provided any actual evidence that the pro-life law played any role, just relying on a grieving mother’s assertions and their own conjecture. What ABC didn’t want viewers to know was that the official White House stenographer was pressured by President Biden: The transcript released by the White House press office, however, rendered the quote with an apostrophe, reading “supporter’s” rather than “supporters,” which aides said pointed to Biden criticizing Hinchcliffe, not the millions of Americans who are supporting Trump for president. The change was made after the press office “conferred with the president,” according to an internal email from the head of the stenographers’ office that was obtained by The AP. The authenticity of the email was confirmed by two government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. ABC was obviously doing the Democrats bidding by hyping up a story purportedly showing the failure of a pro-life law. Instead of having one of their medical reporters deliver the story, they trotted out senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott. “[Teenager Nevaeh Crain] went to the emergency room three separate times. This morning, her mother tells me she ultimately died because she could not get the care she desperately needed in a state with one of the strictest abortion bans,” Scott proclaimed.     Meanwhile, the facts of the case – as laid out by ProPublica and ABC (below) – don’t show that Texas’s pro-life law played any role what so ever, but rather an unfortunate and common case of missed symptoms and a rapid decline in heath: SCOTT: Candice Fails said her daughter Nevaeh, at six months pregnant, first started complaining of stomach pain and nausea. She went to the emergency room at Baptist Hospitals of South East Texas. (…) SCOTT: Candace says Nevaeh was diagnosed with strep throat and didn’t ever receive an ultrasound. She was sent back home. When the pain didn't go away, she went to the emergency room at Christus St. Elizabeth but was told her fetus still had a heart beat and that she was fine to leave. It wasn't until her third visit to the ER that she says doctors realize something was terribly wrong; saying the fetus no longer had a heartbeat. “I felt like the doctors were more concerned about the baby than her life. I'm frustrated how these laws are affecting my daughter from getting justice that she deserves,” Crain’s mother, Candace Fails told ABC. Again, neither ProPublica, ABC, nor Fails could point to any evidence that Texas’s pro-life law cause Crane’s untimely passing; no clause in the law nor comment from a doctor who saw her was provided as evidence. But the facts didn’t stop Scott from proclaiming: “Texas, of course, has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.” She also suggesting the doctors treating Crane were afraid of breaking the law, (despite admitted they did make an exception for the life of the mother): Of course, any doctor who performs an unlawful abortion in the state of Texas could face prison time, loss of license and also some fines. This is just another ripple effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned, guys. The hospitals Crane sought treatment from were Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas and Christus St. Elizabeth. On their websites, both hospitals state that they provide health care services “in a Christian environment” and “[i]n the Christian faith” – respectively. So, the likelihood that they would have provided an abortion in the absence of the Texas law was unlikely to begin with, a fact ABC and ProPublica failed to point out. At the very bottom of ProPublica’s long-winded article, they buried how Fails was looking to sue the hospitals but “No lawyer has agreed to take the case.” Perhaps that’s a clue. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America November 1, 2024 8:03:52 a.m. Eastern MICHAEL STRAHAN: Now a new investigation from ProPublica into the case of a Texas teen who died of complications from her pregnancy, after her family said the care she need was denied until it was too late. Rachel Scott is back with the story. Good morning, again, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: Hey, Michael, good morning to you again. Yeah, Candice Fails said that she lost her 18-year-old daughter a year ago. She was six months pregnant when she started experiencing severe pregnancy complications. She went to the emergency room three separate times. This morning, her mother tells me she ultimately died because she could not get the care she desperately needed in a state with one of the strictest abortion bans. [Cuts to video] CANDACE FAILS: She loved to sing. She loved to dance. She was a wonderful soul. SCOTT: Candice Fails said her daughter Nevaeh, at six months pregnant, first started complaining of stomach pain and nausea. She went to the emergency room at Baptist Hospitals of South East Texas. FAILS: She's in a lot of pain. Her stomach is hurting her. SCOTT: Candace says Nevaeh was diagnosed with strep throat and didn’t ever receive an ultrasound. She was sent back home. When the pain didn't go away, she went to the emergency room at Christus St. Elizabeth but was told her fetus still had a heart beat and that she was fine to leave. It wasn't until her third visit to the ER that she says doctors realize something was terribly wrong; saying the fetus no longer had a heartbeat. FAILS: They were saying her blood pressure keeps dropping. She was losing blood. She was like, “Mom, I don't think I can do this.” I was like, “Nevaeh,” I told her, “I love you.” I said, “You can do this.” I said, “God made us strong. You can do this/” SCOTT: ProPublica releasing an article this morning after an investigation into her death finding that it took 20 hours and three emergency room visits to be admitted to a hospital, even though her condition was worsening. They say doctors did two ultrasounds to confirm “fetal demise.” FAILS: And I'm hollering at them, and I’m telling them to, “Save my daughter. Just save my daughter. Do something.” SCOTT: Candice said she believes her daughter didn't get the care she deserved to save her life because of the state’s strict abortion ban. FAILS: I felt like the doctors were more concerned about the baby than her life. I'm frustrated how these laws are affecting my daughter from getting justice that she deserves. SCOTT: Christus St. Elizabeth told us it, quote, “believes the care provided to this patient was at all times appropriate and compassionate. However, due to HIPPA and privacy, we cannot comment further. Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas did not respond. [Cuts back to live] Yeah, well, ProPublica says they reached out to the doctors involved and they did not respond to their requests for comment. Texas, of course, has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. It does include a narrow exception to save the life of the mother. But we’ve talked to a lot of doctors in that state who say there's so much confusion around these laws that it has changed how and when they intervene. Of course, any doctor who performs an unlawful abortion in the state of Texas could face prison time, loss of license and also some fines. This is just another ripple effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned, guys. But this mother is pleading for change this morning. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Rachel, thank you very much.

Former President Donald Trump lashed out at billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban for saying that Trump doesn't have strong or intelligent women around him because he's intimidated by them. Cuban, who has endorsed Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, criticized Trump while he was a guest on "The View" Thursday. 'Nobody likes him, nobody respects him, and he’s unattractive both inside and out!'“Donald Trump, you never see him around strong, intelligent women, ever. It’s just that simple. They’re intimidating to him. He doesn’t like to be challenged by them,” said Cuban. While the comments infuriated many of the women on the Trump campaign, the former president put out a long statement bashing Cuban and defending his female entourage on Friday. "Mark Cuban, a really dumb guy, who thinks he’s 'hot stuff' but he’s absolutely nothing, is now out there saying that I don’t surround myself with strong women. Actually, he is very wrong, I surround myself with the strongest of women - With the understanding that ALL women are great, whether strong or not strong," wrote Trump. He went on to claim that Cuban would call him incessantly when Trump was in office until he told Cuban that he simply didn't have time for his calls. "In any event, that affected him greatly, because he’s a very insecure guy, and a MAJOR LOSER, always has been and always will be!" Trump continued. "Nobody likes him, nobody respects him, and he’s unattractive both inside and out! He should go back to talk about the person he was forced to support, because I didn’t want it, Lyin’ Kamala Harris. Also, he’s got no clubhead speed!"Cuban's comments may have come from frustration at the Harris campaign that she is underperforming greatly among male voters. The gender gap has been blamed for Trump besting Harris in some polls in battleground states. "All strong women, and women in general, should be very angry about this weak man’s statement," Trump concluded.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!