Isaac Schorr at Mediaite penned an opinion piece titled "CNN Should Apologize for Its Obscene Fearmongering Over Trump Outlawing Gay Marriage." On Friday morning's CNN Newsroom, CNN host Pamela Brown (daughter of John Y. Brown, the former Democrat governor of Kentucky) played up the alleged threat of Trump outlawing gay marriage -- even though Trump never touched it in his first term. Brown began:  In the November issue of Vogue, Shelby Wax writes about waking up on the Wednesday after Election Day and wondering if that wedding will still be possible. In her piece, Wax says in part -- quote -- "The one thing that scares me most is I no longer feel like I can envision my future. Will a stacked Supreme Court overturn my right to marry? Will my family be recognized as a family by my country?" ...So, Shelby, you write about how Trump's victory has spurred you and others in the LGBTQ+ community to get married now, rather than wait. That is happening. Tell us more about those conversations and what you're doing in your own life in response. Wax referred to Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs ruling suggested the Obergefell "marriage equality" decision could be reversed. That’s all there is. Schorr makes the point that in his majority opinion repealing abortion on demand in Dobbs, Justice Samuel Alito expressly said abortion is different, that no life is ended in a gay marriage. Schorr also noted "At Trump’s direction, the GOP has removed all mention of marriage being a union between 'one man and one woman' from its party platform." Trump moved the GOP platform toward the center on these social issues. FAKE NEWS: CNN aired a segment arguing gay couples are correct in worrying a second Trump term and the Supreme Court could ban gay marriage and gays from becoming parents Tinfoil-hat stuff. Pamela Brown then brought in a GLAD Law official to double down on this BlueAnon claim. pic.twitter.com/grl3Atg02r — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 6, 2024 Brown maintained this fiction with Wax's partner: "So, in this piece, you acknowledge that you may be acting out of fear, but that you also say that fear is valid. Olivia, what is your biggest fear now that Donald Trump is returning to the White House?" The closest Brown came to acknowledging reality came next: "There are other data points too, that one of Trump's Cabinet picks is a married gay man, Scott Bessent, who is tapped to lead the Treasury Department. He, Donald Trump, for his part, is supported by groups like the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative gay rights organization. Mar-a-Lago has hosted same-sex weddings. Does any of that provide solace to you, Shelby?" Wax said "not necessarily." Fear wins! Brown asked one more softball question: "I'm wondering, Olivia, how your families have reacted. Are they supportive of your plans?" Yes. Then Brown brought on attorney Mary Bonauto of the Boston-based law firm GLAD LAW to be supportive of the frightened lesbians, but underline that no, this is not happening. "Marriage equality is protected on many levels. As you said yourself, Pamela, Obergefell remains the law of the land. The elections did not change that. And I'm not even clear that the executive branch would want to undo marriage equality…the country has moved on.” Why didn’t CNN listen to this beforehand and NOT put this baseless fear on the air?

Trigger warnings are the new normal. Everything from “Dumbo” to “Goodfellas” have been slapped with warnings for anyone coming across the content in question. New stories. Classic tales. And, of course, “Blazing Saddles,” one of the most beloved satires of all time, couldn’t escape without a warning.   'Blazing Saddles' trigger warning shows culture has gone off rails https://t.co/IUNlOykFOx — Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers) August 15, 2020   The latest trigger warning, coming from the UK, may be the silliest yet. This comes courtesy of the BBFC, the British Board of Film Classification. The content in question? “Wicked,” the big-screen adaptation of the Broadway “Oz” prequel. The film stars Cynthia Erivo as the green-hued heroine, a young woman mocked for her skin color.     The story touches on friendship, feeling different from your peers and, of course, flying monkeys. The BBFC fears the film, which is crushing the box office competition, might trigger select audiences. Why? “…seeing beloved characters being mistreated, especially when Elphaba’s skin-colour is used to demonise her as the ‘Wicked Witch’, may be upsetting and poignant for some audiences.” Yes, that’s a key point of the original show and the movie. Should we avoid stories that are “upsetting” and/or “poignant?” That might leave out, well, most content. Even more important? If you fear being offended or triggered by it, there are countless examples of films and TV shows where similar themes exist. Should they have trigger warnings, too? If not, why not? The saddest part? The far-Left Guardian’s take on the “Wicked” warning. The snark-filled column suggests the true villains are those who think this is woke gone wild. But that would be political correctness gone mad, wouldn’t it. We shouldn’t have to put up with trigger warnings, even on films that have been heavily marketed for children despite being based on revisionist novels that contain several scenes set in BDSM clubs. Children need to learn that racism and animal abuse happens every day. They should be subjected to depictions of this without warning, especially if they’re five years old and just want to watch a nice fairytale movie with lots of lovely songs in it. Smart storytellers trust children to embrace and accept themes that provoke conversations. No, a tyke shouldn’t be watching “Fifty Shades of Grey.” Many family films, like the recent “Best Christmas Pageant Ever,” deliver moral tales of wrongdoing and redemption appropriate for all ages. And, shockingly enough, it’s drawing a crowd without a single trigger warning.

CNN’s self-asserted desire for facts took a back seat on Friday’s Inside Politics in favor of wild speculation as former Maryland State Police Commander Neill Franklin joined host Dana Bash to raise the possibility that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson “orchestrated” his own assassination. Given the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" were found on the bullet casings, most people have assumed that the suspect’s motive must have been either a disgruntled customer or someone with a political ax to grind against private health insurance or perhaps both. To that end, Bash began, “Major Franklin, the motive. That is still not really known. We have some clues, like what was written on those shell casings.”     Franklin concurred but warned, “That's, you know, in a sense, leading people initially to that being the motive. But you also know criminal investigators have to think of everything. Could that be a diversion?” After Franklin considered other possibilities, such as a family member, Bash wondered, “So, when you say that, obviously, to talk to his family, you have to know who he is. DNA evidence is important for— I mean, first and foremost that, but also ultimately for a trial, as Shimon was saying. Do you think that they know who he is? You think that they have his identity?” Franklin thought the odds of that were “very good,” but added, “I want to say something else that I know these criminal investigators are looking into as it relates to motive. There have been times when people have orchestrated their own demise for certain reasons.” A clearly surprised Bash interjected with a “Whoa,” as Franklin continued, “We know that there was some—yeah, I'm not saying this is the case, but as an investigator—” Bash wondered if that would be “like for insurance purposes,” and while Franklin agreed that was possible, he also suggested Thompson may have wanted to cover something up, “Absolutely, insurance purposes. You know, maybe they fear some type of investigation down the road. Maybe they want to leave their family in a good light. But there have been cases where people have orchestrated their own demise and here’s another reason— Perhaps still a little shocked, Bash sought to clarify, “And just to say, you're saying in a nice language. You're saying—you're saying that it is a possibility that he hired somebody to kill him.”  Franklin doubled down, “Absolutely, it cannot be ignored. My, and this is what is really digging at me, as a former criminal investigator, this guy knew too much about where he was going to be at a specific time. There's no evidence that I've seen of him. When you look at the timeline of him coming to that area outside of the Hilton, and where he was outside of the Hilton. It's a very small window, very small window. It's not like he was roaming around. We have video of him roaming around, going from one door to the next to the next, trying to figure out where he's going to be at a specific time.” Bash added, “He knew,” as Franklin continued, “He was there. He was lying in wait. Who would have that specific type of information as to what sidewalk he was going to be on?” Thompson was heading across the street for a publicly-publicized annual investors conference. It is also odd that Franklin would say, “It’s not like he was roaming around” when CNN’s website quotes NYPD chief of detectives Joseph Kenny as saying, “We have him wandering around, walking in the vicinity of hotel.” Surely there is a difference between considering all possibilities and wild conspiracy theorizing, but it appears CNN’s “without any evidence” qualifiers do not get applied equally. Here is a transcript for the December 6 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 12/6/2024 12:06 PM ET DANA BASH: And Major Franklin, the motive. That is still not really known. We have some clues – NEILL FRANKLIN: Absolutely. BASH: -- like what was written on those shell casings. FRANKLIN: Absolutely. So, right now, what a lot of people are thinking is okay, is directly related to his position as CEO of UnitedHealthcare. And some of the things that we're hearing about the insurance industry and denying claims and so on. What was scribed or written on the shell casings about, you know, delay, deny, and so on. That's, you know, in a sense, leading people initially to that being the motive. But you also know criminal investigators have to think of everything. Could that be a diversion? … BASH: So, when you say that, obviously, to talk to his family, you have to know who he is. DNA evidence is important for -- I mean, first and foremost that, but also ultimately for a trial, as Shimon was saying. Do you think that they know who he is? You think that they have his identity? FRANKLIN: It's a good chance – it's a very good possibility with these new photographs that he has, that they already know who he is. It's a very good chance of that. But I also -- I want to say something else that I know these criminal investigators are looking into as it relates to motive. There have been times when people have orchestrated their own demise for certain reasons. BASH: Woah. FRANKLIN: We know that there was some -- yeah, I'm not saying this is the case, but as an investigator – BASH: Like for insurance purposes? FRANKLIN: Absolutely, insurance purposes. You know, maybe they fear some type of investigation down the road. Maybe they want to leave their family in a good light. But there have been cases where people have orchestrated their own demise and here’s another reason – BASH: And just to say, you're saying in a nice language. You're saying -- you're saying that it is a possibility – FRANKLIN: It is a possibility. BASH: -- that he hired somebody to kill him. FRANKLIN: Absolutely, it cannot be ignored. My, and this is what is really digging at me, as a former criminal investigator, this guy knew too much about where he was going to be at a specific time. There's no evidence that I've seen of him. When you look at the timeline of him coming to that area outside of the Hilton, and where he was outside of the Hilton. It's a very small window, very small window. It's not like he was roaming around. We have video of him roaming around, going from one door to the next to the next, trying to figure out where he's going to be at a specific time. BASH: He knew. FRANKLIN: He was there. He was laying and wait. Who would have that specific type of information as to what sidewalk he was going to be on?

As lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., after a long and hard-fought election season, they will begin to set priorities for the upcoming session. The economy and inflation remain the top concerns for Americans and small businesses. We need to make sure we embrace policies that help them thrive. Extending the 2017 tax law is a crucial step toward providing small businesses with the security they need.The 2017 tax law transformed the small business landscape, enabling owners to reinvest more earnings into their operations. This spurred job creation, investments in new equipment, and the launch of new ventures. By lowering the tax burden on small businesses, the law fueled historic wage growth and brought unemployment to record lows.Lawmakers can either increase uncertainty by raising taxes or negotiate in good faith to build on the 2017 reforms.Policymakers should always aim to support economic growth and stability. The road map Congress laid out six years ago remains clear. Neither Congress nor the next president should undo those reforms so soon, especially while high inflation and interest rates strain entrepreneurs. Lawmakers must assess potential outcomes carefully. If there is no agreement on lowering rates, why not maintain the current tax levels instead?During my time at the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Entrepreneurial Development, we helped thousands of entrepreneurs nationwide start and grow their businesses. Washington’s economic policies played a crucial role in our success. Today, I worry that lawmakers are too eager to raise taxes on small businesses instead of exploring ways to help entrepreneurs invest more in their employees.The Tax Foundation’s latest research shows that avoiding corporate tax increases could boost U.S. economic output by 1.7%, wages by 1.5%, and employment by 381,000 full-time jobs. These gains would come at about half the cost of the Inflation Reduction Act’s green energy tax credits and the CHIPS and Science Act’s tax credits, grants, and spending programs.I understand where our new incumbents and candidates in Congress are coming from. Most were not involved in negotiating the 2017 law, and many believe that reshaping America’s tax code will fight inequality for generations. The reality, however, is that the taxes Washington is considering raising will likely harm the middle class the most. A narrow-minded “higher taxes” approach won’t solve America’s spending issues or help us compete in the global economy of the future.As the next Congress debates whether to maintain or raise the corporate tax rate, we face a critical decision. Lawmakers can either increase uncertainty by raising taxes or negotiate in good faith to build on the 2017 reforms. Allowing entrepreneurs to reinvest in their workforce will benefit the economy far more than higher taxes.Politicians must remember that voters have a real choice in deciding who should pay taxes and how much. By reviewing data from the past six years, lawmakers should recognize the success of the 2017 tax policies. Maintaining the current tax rate and extending key provisions would deliver the greatest long-term benefits to the economy and the middle class.

Charlamagne tha God isn’t Jason Whitlock’s favorite radio host, but his recent appearance on “The View” pleasantly surprised the voice of “Fearless.” “I found this fascinating and interesting because he actually had a little common sense when he was on ‘The View,’ and I’m wondering who put him up to this, who greenlit this, who allowed him to go on ‘The View’ and talk some logical sense into Whoopi Goldberg," Whitlock says. “A lot of this conversation about President Biden getting criticized from both sides of the aisle for pardoning his son Hunter after repeatedly saying he would never do it, and a lot of people are saying that it’s hypocritical, as if the other side doesn’t do it,” Joy Behar said to Charlamagne and the rest of the panel. “I think all of the criticism is valid, because you know, Democrats stand on this moral high ground all the time, and they act so self-righteous. The reality is he didn’t have to say anything in regards to whether or not his son wanted to be pardoned,” Charlamagne responded. “He could’ve said, ‘Hey man, I’m not focused on that right now.’” “But since they were calling Trump a threat to democracy and they were saying that nobody’s above the law,” he continued, “that’s what they were running on.” “He didn’t have to volunteer that lie to begin with,” he added, before Whoopi Goldberg took her opportunity to jump in. “My question is, what is it that makes people flip the f*** out with Joe?” Goldberg asked. “Democrats are flipping out with Joe because Democrats believe that they don’t represent what he’s currently representing. But that’s just not true. That’s why I say they stand on this moral high ground that simply does not exist,” Charlamagne replied. While Whitlock and Shemeka Michelle agree with what Charlamagne said, they don’t believe the exchange was organic. “I feel like if he was really an adversary and really was up there saying something totally different and shocking to them, something that they hadn't agreed with, and especially Joy, they would have been a little bit more hostile towards him,” Michelle tells Whitlock. “So I just think this was all planned and it just didn’t come across as genuine at all.” Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A Date Which Will Live in Infamy: Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day

Investigators Closing In on United Healthcare CEO’s Shooter, but It Might Be Harder Than It Seems

Watch How *Acting* President Donald Trump Dominates Macron in Visit to France

The Thrill Is Gone: Joy Reid Loses Half Her Audience After Election - and We All Know Why

Image: Hugo Herrera / The Verge The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced on Friday it had placed Google Payment Corp. under federal supervision, reports Reuters. Google reportedly filed a lawsuit to block the CFPB’s order, which could result in routine inspections and monitoring like those imposed on banks. The agency found that Google’s error resolution and fraud prevention processes pose risks to consumers, citing consumer complaints about Google Pay Balance and Google’s peer-to-peer payments. Those complaints, which Google’s lawsuit claims are “unsubstantiated,” according to The Washington Post, include that the company didn’t seem to fully investigate fraudulent charges and didn’t “adequately explain” the results of those investigations. The CFPB says its finding that Google should be supervised doesn’t mean the company is “guilty of wrongdoing.” It also notes in its order that Google Pay and the P2P platform were discontinued earlier this year. Google spokesperson José Castañeda provided a statement to The Verge: This is a clear case of government overreach involving Google Pay peer-to-peer payments, which never raised risks and is no longer provided in the U.S., and we are challenging it in court. Update December 7th: Added statement from Google spokesperson José Castañeda.