Commentary Culture Investigations

There’s never a good time for exceptionally low passenger airliner flyovers, but this is a particularly bad time of year for them.

Media Research Center President David Bozell joined Jon Scott on Fox Report Saturday afternoon to call out the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for bending the knee to terrorists and insulting America by minimizing the devastating, abominable 9/11 terrorist attacks.Jon Scott described the internal CBC memo, which told staff, “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” After the memo was leaked, the CBC attempted to put the cat back in the bag, stating, “CBC News has never said what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, was not terrorism.”Bozell refuses to allow the CBC to belittle such an inexcusable tragedy and then pretend they never did. While nearly 3,000 Americans perished at the hands of Islamic suicide bombers, Brits and Canadians were also murdered in the attacks. Bozell sharply retorted:”24 Canadians died on 9/11 in case the CBC didn’t realize that. 158 Canadians perished in Operation Enduring Freedom fighting terrorists, engaged in terrorism.”@DavidBozell calls out the CBC for telling its reporters not to refer to the 9/11 attacks as terrorist attacks. pic.twitter.com/cUzfGId4U0— Media Research Center (@theMRC) August 29, 2026While 9/11 was an indisputable act of terrorism, the CBC’s contradictory editorial guidelines distanced the network from that reality. Bozell decried the decision, stating: Bozell decried the organization, stating:”For absolutely no reason whatsoever they have to kowtow to terrorists. They might as well be waving the white flag, 25 years later, of the war on terror and surrendering to terrorism.”Bozell revealed that the CBC possesses an “unfounded, unnecessary sensitivity to Islam” and would rather make enemies of the United States by downplaying the deaths of American citizens than risk being bullied for “Islamophobia.” FBI Director Kash Patel tweeted, “Any agency in Canada that doesn’t publicly reject this bastardization of history … will no longer have a friend in this FBI.”Bozell heartily agreed with Patel’s commentary and explained that this disgraceful behavior must not be tolerated:”Just like we discovered with PBS and NPR, here in the States, there is no reason for Canadians to have public broadcasting subsidized by the taxpayer.””Just like we discovered with PBS and NPR, here in the states, there is no reason for Canadians to have public broadcasting subsidized by the taxpayer.”MRC President @DavidBozell calls on Canadians to defund the CBC for its woke nonsense on @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/wQk9ZqZRCH— Media Research Center (@theMRC) August 29, 2026Bozell went on to say, “The fact that Canada has just decided 25 years later” that 9/11 was not an act of terrorism “is just beyond the pale,” and the CBC “deserves a full defund” just as CBS did.Watch the entire segment here:

Screenshot via NewsNation/Snapstream

Late Monday morning, RedState’s Streiff penned an impeccable item eviscerating the Washington Post leakers inside the Department of War who’ve placed American blood and treasure in danger because Deep Staters felt like informing the country’s enemies that six four-star generals have expressed concern (through proper channels) to Secretary Pete Hegseth that the Iran war has stretched thin military might and readiness to other threats.Streiff’s headline laid it out masterfully: “Six 4-Star Generals Disagree on Iran. That’s Duty. Leaking It to The Washington Post Isn’t.”He explained that “[t]he objections to the administration’s Iran operations” from “[t]he military heads of the Army, Air Force, and Navy as well as the four-star combatant commanders for U.S. European Command, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command” came in the twice-monthly “highly classified document called the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, or SDOB.”The Washington Post story relayed that the generals argued the ongoing Iran war “is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland.”While the six combined for a “non-concur” assessment, Streiff acknowledged they’ve complied, which he said has been “[o]ne of the hallmarks of military service.”Streiff said The Post story raises four issues, starting with the above argument about “loyalty and integrity.”“In this article, Hegseth’s handpicked subordinates disagreed in writing with a major policy…‘but will execute it nevertheless.’…The fact that the men the media have accused of being Hegseth sycophants put their disagreement in writing tells you the dishonest and libelous nature of those stories,” he seethed.Second, Streiff called the assessments and merits of the generals “Self-Inflicted” because “all of the objections are rooted in the endemic rot that has afflicted the Armed Forces and defense policymaking” for decades with closures, shutters, and bureaucratic delays.Most importantly for this audience, the third issue was “The Deep State Exists”: “It takes zero imagination to understand why this story was leaked to the Washington Post. Someone in a senior staff position…lost the internal policy battle with Hegseth and the White House. So now they are trying to sabotage the administration[.]”“This is not fun and games,” he added, noting it’s “a violation of one’s oath to the Constitution[.]”That led to his final point, which came under the heading: “Treason Is Real.” Conceding these articles undermining the U.S. military represent “a story as old as the frog and the scorpion” in that “[m]uch of the media’s reporting on the war with Iran and the Pentagon has no other purpose than ensuring President Trump’s strategy fails and undermining Pete Hegseth.”But because of this hankering, The Washington Post has “delivered to our enemies…classified information” that’s “equal parts malicious and irresponsible” that will help Iran both move toward a posture of “hunker down and wait” and cause “needless deaths” of Americans since someone inside the Pentagon had their ego hurt. To read Streiff’s full takedown, click here or see the link above.

The exhibition is gone, but the Met’s moral failure remains.

NBC via Mediaite

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, President Donald Trump proclaimed that he was going to report NBC News moderator Kristen Welker to the Federal Communications Commission for “rebuke and punishment” over comments she made on the local D.C. affiliate NBC4 Washington. What did she say? Well, she inaccurately said Trump’s political endorsements have had “mixed results,” when the numbers didn’t bear that out.While speaking about how Trump would “loom large over these midterms,” Welker largely dismissed the power of the President’s political endorsement and maked it seem as though a recent victory was a fluke:He, of course, has endorsed a slate of candidates in the primaries. He’s had some mixed results, but most recently, his pick of Senator Darline Graham, of course, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, was successful in her primary battle, so now she takes on Dr. Annie Andrews in South Carolina.Welker went on to describe how Trump’s unpopularity in approval polls showed how he was actually an albatross around the necks of Republican candidates:But this broader question: what impact will President Trump have on the midterms. He is urging Republicans and voters to go out and vote like he’s on the ballot, and that could cut both ways. Particularly in some of these battleground states and battle ground districts, in part because of the backdrop.  President Trump’s approval rating at their lowest in his second term. Deeply unpopular because of the Iran War, which most Americans are opposed to.And, of course, the Iran War has spiked prices. The price of gas above $4-a-gallon. And affordability is the number one issue for voters. So, all of that creating a lot of concern within the Republican Party about how it’s going to impact their chances in November.Trump’s response came a few hours later.  “Kristen Welker, the Unpopular ‘Hostess’ of the once great Meet the Press, now considered Meet the Fake Press, just stated that Donald Trump has “mixed results” on his Endorsements of Candidates, when the recent WINS of Darline Graham and Mike Mazzei, stand at 100% for the U.S. Senate, and 98% for the U.S. House, recently and over the longterm,” Trump posted on Truth Social.“How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given Public Airwaves?” Trump wondered before demanding action from the FCC, “Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment.”Trump included a graphic that noted his endorsement success rate was 98.35 percent, 24 for 24 in the Senate while in the House it was 215 out of 219.It would likely be difficult for the FCC to take action against a single journalist since they deal with the networks and corporations broadly, as well as other macro issues for the industry and technology.The FCC was already examining the possibility of taking action against Disney, ABC News, and The View. However, in that case, there was a body of evidence against the network as a whole, rather than just one person.There’s also a possibility that Trump’s demand for Welker to be punished could hurt the effort to hold ABC accountable.In their lawsuit against the FCC, Disney insisted that the Commission was specifically acting on behalf of and by orders of the President. It’s likely Disney’s lawyers would point to the Welker demand as evidence of what they told the judge was a “retaliatory campaign” against the media.

CNN/SnapStream

On Monday, CNN This Morning discussed Michigan far-left Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s apology for comments after a terrorist attack against a Michigan synagogue this March, as panelist and liberal YouTuber Luke Thomas claimed there was no “robust data” that showed El-Sayed having problems with voters, notably Jewish voters, in the state.Later, panelist and CNN commentator Jonah Goldberg called out mainstream media coverage of the DSA and noted how coverage would be much different if there was a neo-nazi caucus within the Republican Party compared to the new reality of a DSA caucus within the Democratic Party.First, host Audie Cornish teased the segment on El-Sayed’s synagogue attack statement with an insane lede: “Abdul El-Sayed apologizes for his comments about the Michigan synagogue attack. Do Jewish Democrats have to forgive and forget to keep the Senate seat blue?” Monday’s CNN This Morning had a somewhat insane tease for a wider segment on Abdul El-Sayed and the DSA, which stated, “Abdul El-Sayed apologizes for his comments about the Michigan synagogue attack. Do Jewish Democrats have to forgive and forget to keep the Senate seat blue?” pic.twitter.com/ucDzRqY2cX— Nick (@nspin310) August 31, 2026 Thomas then chimed in during the actual segment and completely minimized El-Sayed’s issues: “But what I’m just trying to understand is, I looked this up, how has Abdul El-Sayed, how does he pull with Jewish voters in Michigan? How has he performed with them? And, to my knowledge, there isn’t really any robust data about that.”He continued and said, “It’s an 80/20 issue about reining in the government of Israel,” before he closed with more downplaying of El-Sayed’s problems: “There’s a lot of focus on this guy and his ideas that are not in any way in contravention to the voting base, and it doesn’t feel like the story ever seems to cover that fact.” After host Audie Cornish mentioned Democrats’ overall Michigan issues, MMA analyst/Liberal slop YouTuber Luke Thomas chimed in on the issue and suggested there was “no robust data” to suggest El-Sayed has issues with Democratic voters, especially Jewish Democrats.He continued… https://t.co/W7CjyXtPsQ pic.twitter.com/RzK24gIT0H— Nick (@nspin310) August 31, 2026 Cornish jumped in and cited Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel’s comments on her possible issues with El-Sayed since she’s a Jewish woman. Thomas responded and complained that “she prosecuted students,” presumably at pro-Palestinian college encampments from 2024. The problem with Thomas’s complaints: charges were dropped against those students.Thomas, described as an MMA analyst, just seemed to agree with the far-left on political topics, as seen with some of his YouTube slop thumbnails. Later, Jonah Goldberg called out the double standard of mainstream media as he said, “And it’s infuriating to me that if it was a neo-nazi caucus, the way the mainstream media would cover them is, ‘Oh my gosh, look how these people are responding. Look how this is a member of… https://t.co/DupletCS0Y pic.twitter.com/Y354us8JJD— Nick (@nspin310) August 31, 2026 At the end of a prolonged discussion on the DSA and whether Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was “too establishment” for the socialist group, Goldberg called out media coverage of the DSA compared to if the right had an emerging radical group in government. Goldberg first noted how the group stated they did not approve of AOC, the “Liberation Caucus of the DSA,” was a “Marxist, Leninist, Maoist revolutionary organization” that the DSA had to condemn “after the shooting in Washington of two Jews outside of a museum,”Goldberg continued and called out the elitist mainstream media for their double standards: And it’s infuriating to me that if it was a neo-nazi caucus, the way the mainstream media would cover them is, ‘Oh my gosh, look how these people are responding. Look how this is a member of this organization.’Cornish responded and claimed, “Well, we did during the alt-right conversation, and most people were told they were crazy or woke or too sensitive.”After Goldberg continued his point and said, “All I’m saying is this organization- what AOC should have done is say, look, these guys are like literally Maoists. They defend the murder of 40 million Chinese people,” Cornish interrupted to once again talk to Thomas.It seemed Cornish did not want to talk about the media double standard as she instead turned to her new favorite liberal MMA analyst to save herself from the DSA conversation.The transcript is below. Click “expand”:CNN This MorningAugust 31, 20266:38:43 AM EasternAUDIE CORNISH: Abdul El-Sayed apologizes for his comments about the Michigan synagogue attack. Do Jewish Democrats have to forgive and forget to keep the Senate seat blue?(…)6:44:02 AM EasternAUDIE CORNISH: Okay, the group chat is back. This was a just straight apology. This wasn’t. I’m sorry. Some people may have felt hurt. This was: I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have said something to minimize this. I am sorry. But I do think it’s fascinating that Michigan was this thing that Democrats thought they could kind of sweep under the rug after the Kamala Harris race. It was like, those issues are fine and it’s come back to bite them in a major way. We are still talking about Michigan. We’re still talking about anti-semitism. And October 7th and all of these things.LUKE THOMAS: Perhaps I have a bit of a different perspective on this one. CORNISH: Do it.THOMAS: I mean, I take his apology sincerely. Maybe there’s some different views on the panel here, and that’s totally okay. But what I’m just trying to understand is, I looked this up, how has Abdul El-Sayed, how does he pull with Jewish voters in Michigan? How has he performed with them? And, to my knowledge, there isn’t really any robust data about that. More to the point, if you just look at his views more generally, yes, maybe some political fence-mending is in order. But according to the Democratic voting base, his views are in lockstep with them. It’s an 80/20 issue about reining in the government of Israel. So, I can understand why this particular issue is certainly a hot-button one. Again, I take his apology sincerely, and we’ll see how the rest of the Michigan voters do. But I just want to be very clear about this. There’s a lot of focus on this guy and his ideas that are not in any way in contravention to the voting base, and it doesn’t feel like the story ever seems to cover that fact.CORNISH: Here’s who disagrees with you? Here’s Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General, last week talking to –THOMAS: She prosecuted students, though. I mean -CORNISH: – to The Atlantic, I just want to say, because there is a world of Jewish Democrats who say the litmus test for being a part of the party now is support or not support when it comes to Israel. So here’s Dana Nessel.[Cuts to video]MICHIGAN AG DANA NESSEL (D-MI): I think it’s a fundamental mistake for the democratic party to think that you can just push Jewish Democrats out and simply replace them with any other population. I have people saying, you, uh, are not going to tell us what you deem to be anti-semitic. We’ll decide what’s anti-semitic. That’s not up for you, the Jewish population, to decide. And I find that to be very off-putting and offensive.[Cuts back to live]JONAH GOLDBERG: Uh, look, I think this was foreseeable in a lot of ways. El-Sayed is obviously there are different people with different issues, but he’s very much the Democrats. Ken Paxton, he was the worst. He was the less desirable candidate to nominate. Where I disagree with you is – his associations with people like Hasan Piker, but not just Hasan Piker, other people who have, you know, come out in support of Hassan Nasrallah and all that kind of thing. Jewish Americans are freaked out, a lot of them, by anti-semitism on the left and also on the right. And each side wants to claim the real problems on the other side. But it’s really an American problem right now. And they’re hyper attentive to these things at the local level, particularly in Michigan, where these things are playing out and they see Sayed play these weird games where he won’t even refer to Hasan Piker, who’s this anti-semitic, anti-Israel, pro terrorist – I make no apologies about saying any of that – streamer. He campaigned with him. He refuses to sort of repudiate him. And even when he publicly disagrees with him, he refuses to say so by name. And you can say, this is all silly games and word games, and there was a lot of silly word games going on. But Jewish voters who saw a truck drive into the synagogue in Detroit, which is what this apology was all about, they’re paying super – there are high-information voters in Michigan, and they’re paying attention to –(…)6:56:17 AM EasternGOLDBERG: The clip you showed earlier, the image you showed earlier of the criticism of AOC, if I read it right on the screen, said ‘Liberation Caucus of the DSA.’ I encourage everybody go look up, go to the home page of the Liberation Caucus of the DSA. It is openly and avowedly Maoist, not like – I’m not – this is not an exaggeration. Like, they explained that they are a Marxist, Leninist, Maoist revolutionary organization. They’ve come out. They are a pro-terrorist attack organization so the DSA actually had to condemn them after the shooting in Washington of two Jews outside of a museum. They are nuts, the DSA liberation caucus. And it’s infuriating to me that if it was a neo-nazi caucus, the way the mainstream media would cover them is, ‘Oh my gosh, look how these people are responding. Look how this is a member of this organization.’CORNISH: Well, we did during the alt-right conversation, and most people were told they were crazy or woke or too sensitive.GOLDBERG: Okay. All I’m saying is this organization, what AOC should have done is says, look, these guys are like literally Maoists. They defend the murder of 40 million Chinese people –CORNISH: Luke, you look like you have something to say?(…)

Photo via Antonie Giret on Unsplash

What a difference a few years make.Not long ago, politicians said climate change was going to kill us, so we must move to “net zero” emissions. This is theoretically possible. Since vegetation removes carbon, we could get to net zero by burning fewer fossil fuels.Governments everywhere pledged to do just that.President Joe Biden and European leaders promised “net zero by 2050.”For a while, it seemed like it might happen. Spain invested billions into its solar power grid. Germany and Spain claimed to get most of their power from renewables.But now they realize that they made a mistake.   European businesses closed as electricity costs rose, and last year, Spain’s electricity supply shut down for 16 hours.It was a wake-up call for the green dream.“The power outages are the starkest illustration of bad electricity policy,” says Alex Epstein, author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” in my new video. “You can avoid power outages with these bad policies. What you can’t avoid is scarcity and rationing and poverty.”On top of that, net zero’s push also left people more vulnerable to climate extremes.There were 10,000 excess deaths during a heatwave in June, notes Reuters.“These places in Europe can’t keep cool in the summer,” marvels Epstein, “even though we’ve had this technology for a hundred years called air conditioning!”A majority of Americans have air conditioning, but only about 20 percent of European homes have it.In Britain, some homeowners were even ordered to tear out air conditioners under climate laws. “This is just the pure religious nature of the climate catastrophist movement,” says Epstein. “It has one commandment: ‘thou shalt not impact nature.’ They just think that everything good is a happy climate god and everything bad is a vengeful climate god.”“Why aren’t wind and solar enough?” I ask. “The solar panels keep getting cheaper. Batteries last longer.”“Because the electricity grid has to be built around the worst day,” he replies.When there’s no wind or the sun doesn’t shine, countries need reliable, steady power to back up renewable power.Now, countries like Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom are walking back their net-zero push.German Chancellor Friedrich Merz now says rules must “better align climate targets, market realities, companies and jobs.”He also said, “It was quite simply a strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy.”   No kidding. And here in America, I hear less climate fearmongering.The Washington Post reports, “analysis of lawmakers’ appearances and posts on social media show they are going quiet on climate.” “It’s very surprising to many people,” says Epstein, “how unserious the climate catastrophists were about net zero, and the way you can see this is what’s happened with the rise of AI.”Tech companies now report increases in emissions, even though “five years ago, they were all telling us: ‘climate change, existential crisis, got to go net zero!’“ Epstein laughs.Microsoft’s CEO had promised, “By 2030, Microsoft will be carbon negative.” Since then, they increased emissions, without apology.Google once said it would be “the first major company in the world to run on carbon free energy by 2030.”They’ve since removed that pledge from their website. Bill Gates, who once wrote a book about “climate disaster,” now writes, “We should measure success by our impact on human welfare more than our impact on the global temperature.”“The fact that (Gates) has taken the new position publicly to me is a sign that we’re in a much better intellectual environment,” says Epstein.“It would be nice for one of these tech executives to say, ‘You know what? I kind of lied and I advocated some policies that screwed over everyone, including myself, and I’m going to change,’“ says Epstein. “But nobody has done that. They’ve just acted like their past self didn’t exist.”Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Government Gone Wild: Exposing the Truth Behind the Headlines.”

A new report shows that defending the regulatory status quo is not the same thing as defending Head Start’s comprehensive mission.  

It was an odd time to propose honoring a fashion designer who once praised Hitler.