Newsbusters

Jake Tapper has denied being “of the left.” 

On Sunday’s edition of CNN’s State of the Union, host Tapper, in a loaded question, asked Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins: “How long do you anticipate this tariff chaos is going to be going on? 30 days, 60 days, 90 days?”

In response, Rollins wryly responded:

“We’re now two days in, right? You’ve got two days of data. Everyone, especially on your side, on the left, is freaking out.”

Snapped back Tapper: “I’m not on the left.”

That earned a sardonic laugh [see screencap] and “thank you” from Rollins.

So, Tapper is “not on the left.” Really? Let’s go to his record.

But before doing so, we’ll quote the late, great comedian Henny Youngman, who when asked how his wife was, replied, “compared to what?”  

So we’ll stipulate that Tapper, while leaning to port, does not list as decidedly to the left compared to some others in the liberal media. He’s not another Jim—Acosta or Sciutto. Not to mention the likes of Nicolle Wallace or Joy Reid.

But back to Tapper’s record. Before coming to CNN, Tapper was:

Press secretary to Dem Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky.
Spokesman for Handgun Control, subsequently named the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Senior writer at the Washington City Paper, a lefty alternative paper whose alums include leftists like Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Washington correspondent for the leftist website Salon.

And yes, it’s possible that Tapper and his wife are another unlikely duo, much like James Carville and Mary Matalin. But if Tapper is pro-life, how likely is it that he would have married a former Planned Parenthood official?

As for his tenure at CNN, just in recent times our Nicholas Fondacaro caught Tapper complaining about Elon Musk shining a spotlight on Muslim rape gangs in the UK, and denying Stephen Miller’s assertion that the great majority of career federal employees are left wing. Miller had offered the example of USAID, where 98% of the workforce donated to Kamala Harris or another left-wing candidate.

CNN was also found liable for Tapper, in a report on The Lead With Jake Tapper, having defamed Zachary Young as a “black market” hustler who charged “exorbitant fees” for helping people leave Afghanistan. The jury awarded Young $5 million in damages and also found CNN liable for punitive damages, which the parties settled out of court.

In his deposition for that trial, Tapper laughably claimed, “I do not pay attention to ratings.” Fox News subsequently uncovered multiple tweets by Tapper boasting of his shows’ ratings. Oops.

Most recently, Tapper announced that next month, he and CNN analyst Alex Thompson will be releasing a book on the cover-up of Joe Biden’s decline. 

Okay. But it comes 10 months after Biden quit the race. While Biden was still in office and running for re-election, Tapper was part of the “cheap-fake” shaming brigade that allowed Biden to decline in office.  In 2020, Lara Trump, in an appearance on Tapper’s State of the Union, said that Biden was in obvious “cognitive decline.” Tapper scolded her for supposedly mocking Biden’s “stutter” and cut the segment short.

Bottom line: while Tapper is not among the worst offenders in the liberal media, Brooke Rollins had it right in calling him a member of the left.

Here’s the transcript.

CNN
State of the Union
4/6/25
9:02 am EDT

JAKE TAPPER: Let’s talk about these tariffs now with somebody who has had to deal very closely with the tariffs and the fallout from the tariffs. The Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins joins us now. Secretary Rollins, welcome to State of the Union. Thanks so much for joining us. 

Fed Chair Jerome Powell says that these tariffs could drive inflation back up and throttle growth. JP Morgan raised the likelihood of a recession by the end of this year from 40% to 60%. And take a listen to what Republican Senator Ted Cruz, a Trump ally from your home state of Texas, had to say. 

TED CRUZ: If we’re in a scenario 30 days from now, 60 days from now, 90 days from now, with massive American tariffs and massive tariffs on American goods in every other country on Earth, that is a terrible outcome. It’s terrible for America. It will hurt jobs and hurt America. 

TAPPER: So how long do you anticipate this tariff chaos is going to be going on? 30 days, 60 days, 90 days? 

BROOKE ROLLINS: Well, first of all, Jake, thank you for having me. I think it’s really important to realize that last Wednesday was when the president announced this new American order, the new American economic plan. 

We’re now two days in, right? You’ve got two days of data. Everyone, especially on your side, on the left, is freaking out. 

TAPPER: I’m not on the left. 

ROLLINS: But at the end of the day, listen, this whole concept — [laughs–see screencap] all right, Jake, thank you. 

This whole concept is about rebuilding an American economy around American goods, around American industry. We do already live under a tariff regime in this country, but it’s the tariff regime of China, of Mexico, of Brazil, of Australia, of countries that: Mexico won’t take our corn, Australia won’t take our beef, the country of Honduras takes more pork than the entire European Union does, American pork, I should say. 

So from our farming and ranching perspective, which is what I’m focused on, but happy to talk about anything, that it is has to, it is time for a change, and that’s what this president evoked last Wednesday. 

As the media continue to convulse over the fallout of President Donald Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs, there have emerged several goofy narratives. Chief among them, that the proof evident of the haphazard nature of President Trump’s tariffs is the reciprocal levy upon the largely uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands, south of Australia. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick shut that mess down fairly quickly.

Watch as CBS’s Margaret Brennan tried to roll that out, only to get ended by Lutnick:

WATCH: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick just ended the dopey “Trump tariffed the penguins” talking point pic.twitter.com/xpTOCRarkC
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 6, 2025

CBS FACE THE NATION

4/6/25

10:39 AM

MARGARET BRENNAN: Like, why are the Heard and McDonald Islands, which don’t export to the United States and are quite literally inhabited by penguins, why do they face a 10% tariff? Did you use AI to generate this?

HOWARD LUTNICK: No. No, the idea- look, the idea is that there are no countries left off.

BRENNAN: Why are they on the list?

LUTNICK: Because the idea- what happens is, if you leave anything off the list, the countries that try to basically arbitrage America go through those countries to us. Any country- like we had tariffs, the President put tariffs on China, right, in 2018, and then what China started doing is they started going through other countries to America. They just built through other countries, through America. And so, the President knows that, he’s tired of it, and he’s going to fix that. So basically he said, look, I can’t let any part of the world be a place where China or other countries can ship through them–

BRENNAN: Through the Heard Islands.

LUTNICK: –so the end of those loopholes- these ridiculous loopholes. And now what he’s trying to say is, I’m going to fix the trade deficit of the United States of America. It’s a national security issue. We need to make medicine. We need to make semiconductors. We need to make ships. We need to have steel and aluminum. Come on, we need the greatness of America to actually be built in America. And he’s tired of getting ripped off by the rest of the world.

“Why is Trump tariffing the penguins” has been a thing for several days now but no one ever bothered to ask until now, and now we know why. In short, these uninhabited locales were tariffed in order to inhibit tariff circumvention from actors such as China and other nations. 

The left and their allies in the media will undoubtedly persist in continuing to push this goofy narrative. Doing so in the face of a well-thought out rationale will only make the media and everyone else in the leftwing orbit look foolish.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview, as aired on CBS Face the Nation on Sunday, April 6th, 2025:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, welcome to “Face the Nation.”

HOWARD LUTNICK: Great to be here.

BRENNAN: We see about 60% of Americans have money in the stock market, which mean that retirees could be just as concerned as hedge fund managers this morning. Did you expect this level of shock in the financial markets?

LUTNICK: Well, you’ve got to realize this is a national security issue. I mean, we don’t make medicine in this country anymore. We don’t make ships. We don’t have enough steel and aluminum to fight a battle, right? All our semiconductors are made overseas. So every button we press when we try to start our car or even use our microwave, these are all semiconductors. They’re all made elsewhere. We’ve got to start to protect ourselves, and we’ve got to stop having all the countries of the world ripping us off. We have a $1.2 trillion trade deficit, and the rest of the world has a surplus with us. They’re earning our money. They’re taking our money, and Donald Trump has seen this, and he’s going to stop it. So it is going to be a big change. Of course, it’s going to be a big change, but the rest of the world has been ripping us off for all these many years. Donald Trump has seen it. He’s spoken about it–

BRENNAN: –I understand that and–

LUTNICK: –and he’s just not going to take it anymore. And that’s his model.

BRENNAN: And that was abundantly clear during the presidential campaign, how much the president truly believes in tariffs and putting them at the center of his economic policy, but you saw absolute panic in the global markets. Did you expect that or were you surprised?

LUTNICK: No, I think the point is, you need to reset the power of the United States of America and reset it against all our allies and our enemies alike. The- the idea that all the countries of the world can run trade surpluses with America and buy our things with us– remember, $1.2 trillion. in 1980 we were a net investor- meaning we owned more of the rest of the world than they owned of us–

BRENNAN: Yeah, it’s a different world now, it’s a different market.

LUTNICK: And now- and now they own 18- they own $18 trillion of us, net. So that means the rest of the- every year when we run a $1.2 trillion deficit, the rest of the world buys $1.2 trillion of America, and it goes up and up and up. And eventually we’re not going to own America, and we are going to be owned by the rest of the world.

BRENNAN: Are you talking about–

LUTNICK: Imagine if we had a war and we can’t build a ship, we can’t fly a plane. We can’t build our own planes–

BRENNAN: Okay–

LUTNICK: –we don’t have our own semiconductors. This is what the President is here to fix for America. It’s- he- in his hands, and he wants to fix America. This is his chance–

BRENNAN: Understood. So–

LUTNICK: –to fix America, and we need him to fix it for our children and our grandchildren.

BRENNAN: Okay, but for- for businesses to do what you’re doing, because what I hear you laying out there is a plan to re-industrialize the United States and to bring companies back to America. For a CEO to choose to invest–

LUTNICK: Well said. Well said.

BRENNAN: –but for a CEO to make those decisions- you know this- they need certainty. They need to know if it costs them more to stay overseas, or if it costs them more to move here. So can you give them clarity, so that they don’t just cut jobs because they’re dealing with the cost of these tariff- tariffs. Can you tell them how long they’re staying in place?

LUTNICK: Absolutely. The United States of America is going to protect the people who invest in America. Trillions and trillions of dollars- you heard the President speak about it- are coming to invest in America. This is the economy of the world. We are the consumer of the world, and companies need to build it here, and we will protect them for building it here.

BRENNAN: Okay, so–

LUTNICK: We will help the American workers, yes. American workers are more expensive, but they’re better.

BRENNAN: I got it–

LUTNICK: We’re going to protect all the factories that come to America, and that’s what’s coming here. So, the President is on it–

(CROSSTALK)

BRENNAN: Okay, is the 10% tariff permanent?

LUTNICK: He’s going to protect them- well, remember, this is a national security issue–

BRENNAN: –I got it. Is the 10% tariff permanent?

LUTNICK: –and he needs to address our budget deficit- that- the, you know, the laws of America are the laws of America, he would like it to be that we need to protect the companies that invest here, and we are going to protect the companies that invest here. That is the policy of the United States of America. That’s why trillions of dollars are coming here. The rip off of the- of the United States of America is over. All these companies are going to come and invest here. That’s what they’re doing. That’s why they’ve committed trillions of dollars. They know this is the economy–

BRENNAN: – Okay, Mr. Secretary, though–

LUTNICK: –this is the place to go.

(END CROSSTALK)

BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, the campaign’s over. You won. So I’m asking what the plan is. So the treasury secretary said on another network, “we’re going to hold the course.” “It’s not the kind of thing you can negotiate away in days or weeks.” That makes it sound like the tariffs are staying in place at least for days or weeks. Is that correct? Or is the President considering postponing implementation to negotiate?

LUTNICK: There is no postponing. They are definitely going to stay in place for days and weeks. That is sort of obvious. The president needs to reset global trade. Everybody has a trade surplus and we have a trade deficit. We are paying away our future and our lives. Come- the countries of the world are ripping us off, and it’s got to end. The President has made it crystal, crystal clear. This is the policy we’re going to protect. The factories that come build in America,  we’re going to protect them. They’re going to be successful. That’s why they’re going to build in America, the greatest economy in the earth. All of these companies are going to come and build here.

BRENNAN: So when three of the President’s other economic advisers, who are on other networks today, say that 50 different countries have been calling the White House to try to talk about the tariffs, what does that mean? Because that makes it sound like there is a negotiation, which is different from saying the tariffs are permanent.

LUTNICK: Well, what it shows is that all these countries know that they’ve been ripping us off, and the day has come for that to end. Now the problem is, it’s not just tariffs- like, I’ll give you an example, like Vietnam said they’d like to be zero-zero. Remember, Vietnam sends us $120 billion worth of goods every year–

BRENNAN: Yes, cheap manufacturing

LUTNICK: And we send them about $12 billion- wait, we send them $12 billion. So it’s not the tariffs. It has nothing to do with tariffs. If they went to zero-zero, they would go to 200 billion with us. We need to stop the rip off, and zero-zero is- is the way–

BRENNAN: –I know but we don’t have zero-zero, sir.

LUTNICK: –to make it more of a rip off. We need–

BRENNAN: We don’t have zero-zero actually, because when we saw the president stand in the Rose Garden holding up that chart that you helped make, that- that wasn’t actually tariffs. That was actually confusing to investors, because it was some kind of other formula, and the countries themselves seemed kind of random. Like, why are the Heard and McDonald Islands, which don’t export to the United States and are quite literally inhabited by penguins, why do they face a 10% tariff? Did you use AI to generate this?

LUTNICK: No. No, the idea- look, the idea is that there are no countries left off.

BRENNAN: Why are they on the list?

LUTNICK: Because the idea- what happens is, if you leave anything off the list, the countries that try to basically arbitrage America go through those countries to us. Any country- like we had tariffs, the President put tariffs on China, right, in 2018, and then what China started doing is they started going through other countries to America. They just built through other countries, through America. And so, the President knows that, he’s tired of it, and he’s going to fix that. So basically he said, look, I can’t let any part of the world be a place where China or other countries can ship through them–

BRENNAN: Through the Heard Islands.

LUTNICK: –so the end of those loopholes- these ridiculous loopholes. And now what he’s trying to say is, I’m going to fix the trade deficit of the United States of America. It’s a national security issue. We need to make medicine. We need to make semiconductors. We need to make ships. We need to have steel and aluminum. Come on, we need the greatness of America to actually be built in America. And he’s tired of getting ripped off by the rest of the world.

BRENNAN: Okay, but just to be clear, April 9, the so-called retaliatory tariffs- the reciprocal tariffs, I should say. Are those coming or are they open to negotiation?

LUTNICK: The tariffs are coming. He announced it, and he wasn’t kidding. The tariffs are coming. Of course they are.

BRENNAN: Okay. Is the administration considering any kind of offset, any kind of subsidy? You mentioned the first administration, there was some bailout to farmers to help them deal with the pain from Chinese retaliation. Are you looking at that now?

LUTNICK: I’m- not that I’ve- I have not participated in any meetings with respect to that. The country is focused on- you realize, trillions of dollars of factories are going to be built in America. That’s huge GDP. The factories being built in America are huge GDP–

(CROSSTALK)

BRENNAN: That takes years–

LUTNICK: And that is going to matter to us.

BRENNAN: And you said that robots are going to fill those jobs. So those aren’t union worker jobs.

LUTNICK: No, it’s really automated jobs. It’s automated factories- automated factories. But the key is, who’s going to build the factories? Who’s going to operate the factories? Who’s going to make them work? Great American workers. You know, we are going to replace–

BRENNAN: You said robots on other networks. You said that to FOX.

LUTNICK: –the armies of millions of people- well, remember, the army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little- little screws to make iPhones, that kind of thing is going to come to America. It’s going to be automated and great Americans- the tradecraft of America, is going to fix them, is going to work on them. They’re going to be mechanics. There’s going to be HVAC specialists. There’s going to be electricians, the tradecraft of America. Our high school educated Americans- the core to our workforce, is going to have the greatest resurgence of jobs in the history of America to work on these high-tech factories, which are all coming to America. That’s what’s going to build our next generation of America.

(CROSSTALK)

BRENNAN: Are you concerned, in the time it will take for a company to move to America, that it will benefit China in the- in the immediate term, that other markets will look to other suppliers instead of dealing with the United States?

LUTNICK: That is ridiculous. The problem is, everyone in the world sells to us. Our economy is the consumer of the world. We are the only one with a trade deficit. The rest of the world has a trade surplus. Why does Europe have a trade surplus? Is there something about Europe that’s special? Seriously, are they a different world than we are? Why are they selling 200 billion a year–

BRENNAN: Oh, Mr. Secretary.

LUTNICK: –more to us. It’s because it’s not fair. The rules are made not fair, and President Trump is going to fix them, and he’s doing it for America, and he’s doing it for your children and mine and our grandchildren. This is the moment that the United States of America takes hold of itself, and Donald Trump’s been talking about this his whole life. This is Donald Trump’s agenda, and we’re all here to help him execute it.

BRENNAN: And we will take him at his word, quite literally. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your time this morning. “Face the Nation” will be back in a minute. Stay with us.

 

National Public Radio took a second bite out of a rancid liberal apple of a story from June 2022, part of its homegrown series “Life Kit — Tools To Help You Get It Together,” with an update spurred by a new TV series: “’Adolescence’ is a parental nightmare. Here’s what to tell kids about online extremism.” What did NPR tell the kids? Don’t make jokes, and heed the advice of discredited race-baiter Ibram X. Kendi.

Barrie Hardymon and Michelle Aslam authored the original 23-minute radio story about “online extremism” (right-wing variety only) and an updated version was published online Thursday, taking on board the new British series drama “Adolescence.”

The four-episode series follows Jamie, a baby-faced 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a female classmate. Viewers observe early that Jamie is guilty, having slid into the online quicksand of the “manosphere,” a catchall phrase for a network of online communities populated by the aggressive misogynists we sometimes call incels. Peddling a deep sexism and a belief that men are treated unfairly by society, these groups, made up of influencers like Andrew Tate, at their worst promote violence and celebrate mass murder.

Meanwhile, outlets like the New York Times do their best to downplay actual violence problems in Britain involves grooming gangs dominated by recent Muslim refugees.

In 2022, I interviewed Christine Saxman, a consultant who talks to parents and teachers about radicalization among young people. The conversation followed a wave of anxiety after a rash of mass shootings by young men in Buffalo, N.Y., and El Paso, Texas, when my boys were in middle school.

Saxman’s top tip: No joking around! As if adolescent joking is the first step on the path to massacres in Walmart.

Here are some of Saxman’s top tips from our Life Kit 2022 interview.

It’s really important to know when your kid might be falling down the rabbit hole. What are the signs you should be aware of?

Saxman told me to really keep an eye out for the kinds of jokes your kids are reacting to and making. Be particularly aware if they are beginning to engage with humor that dehumanizes others, in particular gay, transphobic and sexist jokes. Disguised as humor, it gives people with racist agendas plausible deniability, because it’s “just” a joke.

“Joking around LGBT issues,” Saxman says, “… is a very common entry point for many different conspiracy theories. So the jokes get worse and worse, and then the content gets worse and worse … almost like a Venn diagram, if you can imagine — the ways in which they can use each of these different levers to pull you in. Because once they’ve normalized this kind of dialogue that it’s OK to dehumanize gay people, it’s OK to dehumanize women, that we believe that there’s this Jewish cabal running things, that’s the stepping stone to go deeper and deeper.”

The story ended with a lecture:

….all of this means nothing if you aren’t raising kids who are fluent in the language of racism and antiracism.

Worst was the reading list recommendations tacked on at the end, dominated by the discredited “Everything is racist” hack intellectual Ibram X. Kendi, who held the media spotlight during the nightmare summer 2020 of Black Lives Matter. 

Here are a few resources:

Ibram X. Kendi’s 2022 book, How to Raise an Antiracist.
Here are some of Kendi’s book recommendations on helping your kids understand race.

But it’s not 2020 anymore (except at NPR), and his lavish “Center on Antiracist Research” at Boston University is already shuttered and Kendi himself has been unmasked as a thin-skinned “intellectual lightweight” even among some of the white liberals who previously hailed him.

The New York Times seemed invigorated in its coverage of nationwide “Hands Off” anti-Trump protests on Saturday. The funniest part? The story by a trio of Times reporters had zero ideological labels — no “liberal,” “left-wing,” “progressive,” “socialist,” you name it. 

Reporters Shaila Dewan, Minho Kim, and Katie Benner began with gush: 

They came out in defense of national parks and small businesses, public education and health care for veterans, abortion rights and fair elections. They marched against tariffs and oligarchs, dark money and fascism, the deportation of legal immigrants and the Department of Government Efficiency.

Demonstrators had no shortage of causes as they gathered in towns and cities across the country on Saturday to protest President Trump’s agenda. Rallies were planned in all 50 states, and images posted on social media showed dense crowds in places as diverse as St. Augustine, Fla.; Salt Lake City and rainy Frankfort, Ky.

There were references to Democrats, as in lacking passion.

The mass action, with the deliberately open-ended name “Hands Off!,” was planned at a time when many Democrats have bemoaned what they see as a lack of strong resistance to Mr. Trump. The president has moved aggressively to punish people and institutions that he views as out of step with his ideology.

Don Westhoff, a 59-year-old accountant, was another first-time protester. He voiced outrage at the administration but had words for Democrats as well, saying they needed an infusion of younger leaders to oppose the president.

There were no “left-wing” labels, but “right-wing” made it! 

Right-wing slogans like “Stop the Steal” were co-opted in defense of Social Security, medical care and cancer research.

Quite a contrast in labeling with the liberal paper’s “March for Life” protest story by Elisabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer back in January, with NINE uses of “anti-abortion,” from the start: “Anti-abortion activists are charging ahead with their ultimate mission to end all abortions nationwide, freshly emboldened by powerful allies in Washington, a continued Supreme Court majority and legislative opportunities in conservative states.” There were three “conservative” labels. This was the liveliest labeling section: 

Standing among the thousands of abortion protesters — largely school and church groups and families cheering in the cold as speakers praised Mr. Trump’s anti-abortion actions — were three members of the president’s domestic policy council.

Such steps and symbolism amounted to a signal after a presidential campaign during which Mr. Trump pushed anti-abortion leaders to the outskirts of the Republican Party. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago with the Dobbs decision, many Republicans worried that the anti-abortion cause had become a political liability among independent voters.

But now that electoral politicking is over, anti-abortion activists are facing the question of just how far they can go.

Here’s the joke: When protesters and “objective” reporters are so clearly in ideological sync, the protesters magically become just as non-ideological as the reporters pretend to be. 

Demonstrators gathered across the U.S. on Saturday for a day of protest against President Trump and his policies. Read more: nyti.ms/3Ebi0oi[image or embed]
— The New York Times (@nytimes.com) April 5, 2025 at 5:46 PM

What else can you expect from an ideology that celebrates the murder of pre-born babies than  for its loyal followers to enforce it through violence?

Savannah Craven, a content creator for the pro-life group, Live Action, was brutally beaten on the streets of New York City, Thursday, while she was asking pedestrians if they know what Planned Parenthood does.

VIDEO OF THE ASSAULT OF PRO LIFE JOURNALIST BY PRO-ABORTION ADVOCATE IN NEW YORK
Savannah Craven was working with Live Action conducting man on the street interviews, asking “Do you know what Planned Parenthood does?” when she was attacked
She is at hospital now pic.twitter.com/oTOKATXsjp
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) April 4, 2025

In the middle of her interviews, one violent wildebeest approached her, allegedly asking to be featured. Craven claims she knew the woman was an abortion follower off the bat, but that she was respectful at the beginning of their conversation. 

It didn’t last long. 

Upon learning Craven opposes the murder of pre-born babies, the beast grew enraged. 

“You don’t understand the magnitude of having a child!” she yelled at Craven. Apparently, that justifies murdering children, even those in foster care, according to the woman.

The conversation devolved into bloodshed when Craven pressed her for allegedly admitting she’d be okay with killing foster babies and children who have been abused.

“That’s not the point!” she yelled before suddenly sucker punching Craven twice. The crazed lard then scurried off like a coward before the injured activist could even get off the ground and figure out what the hell had happened to her. 

LiveAction claims she turned around to assault her a second time, but was stopped by Craven’s husband who was filming the interviews.

🔥🚨BREAKING NEWS: Conservative pro life influencer Savanah Craven says she was assaulted in NYC by a pro-abortion while filming interviews today. She uploaded this video in a police car while headed to the hospital with blood on her face. pic.twitter.com/dPybx9u5x3
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) April 4, 2025

She was immediately hospitalized and needed two stitches in her eyebrow, but the abortionist beast is still on the loose. 

Can you help identify her?

pic.twitter.com/7rpgH3gFM9
— Freedom of the Truth🙏🇺🇸 (@TimSeeksTruth) April 4, 2025

“She literally tried to abort me,” cried Craven in an Instagram livestream recapping the incident. “It’s not just about babies,” she determined. Leftists “don’t care about human life.”

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Savannah Craven Antao (@savannahacraven)

But she assured her followers a little blood and some stitches will not make her “cower” for even “one second.” 

“They’re going to have to kill me before they stop me from going out there,” concluded Craven.

It was perfect that PolitiFact would choose April Fools Day to pluck out a “fact check” from the March 26 House hearing with the CEOs of PBS and NPR. The biggest “Pants On Fire” lie in that proceeding was these CEOs declaring they were unbiased and nonpartisan. That ignored every example that the Republican members of Congress provided, as well as from witness Mike Gonzalez of the Heritage Foundation.

PBS CEO Paula Kerger and NPR CEO Katherine Maher have NO page at PolitiFact. In fact, none of the PBS News Hour anchors and reporters have a page on PolitiFact. In fact, PBS News has a partnership with PolitiFact, where their “fact checks” are reposted on the News Hour website. 

Instead of choosing the most obvious lie, PolitiFact’s Grace Abels – the “staff writer focused on LGBTQ issues” – threw a “False” rating at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for a statement that was more of an opinion than a factual statement. She said “they now have drag queen story time instead of good old ‘Sesame Street.’”

Abels made no disclosure of their partnership with PBS in this “fact check.”

She energetically suggested Greene was saying drag queens replaced Sesame Street. 

“Sesame Street” continues airing on PBS and has not been replaced by drag queen storytime.

 

Worse yet, Abels didn’t even nail down the central fact question on PBS making a video of drag queen “Lil Miss Hot Mess” singing “The Hips On The Drag Queen Go Swish Swish Swish” to the tune of “The Wheels on the Bus.” Did it air on PBS, or at least locally on PBS superstation WNET? The brass there wouldn’t say! 

The segment Greene flagged was funded and produced by The WNET Group, the nonprofit that operates New York City’s local PBS station, in partnership with the New York City Department of Education. PBS has said it did not distribute it.

When contacted for comment, The WNET Group Spokesperson Kellie Castruita Specter did not answer whether the segment aired on the local network or only online; she said it was no longer “in circulation.” The “Let’s Learn” website says the show is “nationally broadcast” but it does not specify which markets air the show.

Abels quoted Kerger saying “The drag queen was actually not on any of our kids shows. It did not air.” But WNET won’t back her up on that. Why would you produce it and not air it? That makes no sense. 

It’s definitely “in circulation.” We put the clip in our “Five Reasons to Defund Public Broadcasting” video. I put it this way in the blog post: “But we’ve come a long way from Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” That quip is harder to “fact check.”

Sign the petition to help us defund the drag-queen pushers at PBS and NPR at defundpbsnpr.org.

It all began with William F. Buckley, Jr. It is worth noting that 2025 marks the centenary of Buckley’s birth.

In 1955, the young Mr. Buckley founded National Review magazine. Famously, he is noted for saying this: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” 

What could not be seen in 1955 was that Buckley was opening the floodgates on what would come to be known as conservative media. Just a short recall will note that a mere dozen years later, in 1967, The American Spectator was created by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., then a young student at the University of Indiana. (And the Spectator, full disclosure, is where I also hang my journalistic hat.)

On into the future came the birth of talk radio and the massive success that came to Mr. Talk Radio himself, Rush Limbaugh. In today’s America it would be hard to find a city that does not boast of their own version of a local talk radio show. In the mid-ninety’s media mogul Rupert Murdoch delivered up Fox News, to the red faced furies of liberals who believed liberals were the only ones who should and could dominate the media. Only this week has Newsmax (where, full disclosure, I am a contributor, and NewsBusters colleagues Tim Graham and Curtis Houck frequently appear) evidenced its own success, with founder Chris Ruddy ringing the opening bell on Wall Street to signal Newsmax’s listing on the New York Stock Exchange.

This being the 21st century, the world of podcasts and Internet websites blossomed, with countless shows and sites featuring conservative hosts or staff. (Like the site you are reading right now, produced by those wizards of smart here at the Media Research Center).

The question? What to make of all this tidal wave of conservative media? 

The answer, one suspects, is fairly simple. America always had millions of conservatives in its midst. But alas, conservatism bubbled up only on occasion in public discourse because, for whatever reason, the media was in the hands of liberals. And to be accepted into the club that was American liberalism, one simply could not allow horrendous revelations that, well, yes, in 1964 you voted for Barry Goldwater for President. Or that four years after that you quietly cast your vote for Richard Nixon. And later for Reagan. Not for nothing did Nixon speak of what he called “the silent majority.”

But throughout, conservatives and conservatism were always there. It simply took the courage – which Buckley possessed in considerable measure – to go public with a defiantly conservative media outlet. He was not mumbling his conservative views to himself in the darkness. 

Buckley wrote books and then began publishing his magazine. Eventually he morphed into a television star — the anchor of Firing Line — where his conservatism and sharp wit were on considerable display in, of all places, PBS. Given the congressional testimony of today’s PBS boss the other day, one would be justified in thinking that were Buckley around today they would never in a million years have agreed to air his show. Instead, we have a Democrat-pleasing bastardization of Firing Line, where Rush Limbaugh is demonized for ruining Christianity with his venom.

The point here, which the Newsmax listing this week on the New York Stock Exchange made crystal clear, is that conservative media is here to stay. It is succeeding. And looking back at those who played such an enormous role in creating it — the names like Buckley, Tyrrell, Limbaugh, the Murdochs and now Chris Ruddy — it is to realize that while they were and are the visible creators, it is, to use Nixon’s phrase, America’s Great Silent Majority that is really responsible for conservative media’s success. For it is they who read the magazines, listen to talk radio and podcasts,, watch Fox, Newsmax, and doubtless other conservative outlets.

It is, in short, the American people who have created the conservative media. 

They have been out there all along, and, beginning with Bill Buckley and his magazine, they have learned to make themselves heard.

And they are not about to be quiet.

As the books tumble out exposing the Democrats hiding the mental decline of Biden — and that includes the press — some hardcore partisans are going to trash the trend. Who needs these books? 

On ABC’s The View Friday, during the usual shrieking against President Trump, they mentioned former Biden chief of staff Ron Klain telling author Chris Whipple that by debate time in 2024, Biden was in no shape to run for president, but Ana Navarro still maintained that she would rather “have Joe Biden in a coma over Trump.”

Joy Behar raised the subject, saying that Klain “claimed there was a lot of concern that Biden couldn’t keep up with the debate prep, and he would fall asleep by the pool.”

 

 

The idea of theoretically the most powerful man in the world being in that health would have alarmed many people. Sarah Haines quipped “me too,” while Alyssa Farah Griffin agreed. 

Behar tried to brush the allegations off with the comment, “If any of this is true, what can Democrats do now? I mean, it seems to me this ship is sailed. What’s the point?… [D]o we really believe that Trump is not falling asleep in the chair at Mar-a-Lago?”

Safely back on Trump, Sunny Hostin agreed, “I’d rather read a book about what Trump did to us when he was president, and what he’s doing to us now. I’m much more interested in that. I’m not interested in looking back. I mean, we’re in a constitutional crisis right now.”

Farah “Yeah, respectfully, there were more books about Trump than I feel like anyone ever needed to read.” She also suggested Biden’s ego was Trumpian: “People always think I’m, like, so critical just cause I think he needed to step aside and give someone else a chance- he does start to come off the more we’re learning like ‘I alone can fix it.’ It almost comes off Trumpian.”

Sarah Haines didn’t like how Democrats didn’t listen to voters and their concerns about his fitness. 

I would say the learning lesson here is ‘listen to the voters,’ because one thing that really pissed me off, as an independent- and I was one of the people that sat here and said, after seeing President Biden, ‘I voted for Biden, I really liked Biden.’  I actually had been happy with him and I would have voted for him if he continued to run. 

But I did look at him and think, ‘I think maybe you do need to step aside,’ and now the rumors that we’re hearing- starting to make sense. And what happened is, everyone said, ‘You’re disloyal if you say that, shut up and fall in line,’ and that’s why people want to be independents these days. Because, partisan politics — they lie. 

Behar returned to complaining: “So why say it- or write it? What’s- It’s kind of mean.” Joy Behar doesn’t like mean??

Navarro chimed in:

 [U]sually I like these books…But, these are not normal times, so I’m just not interested in palace gossip from a year and a half ago because I’m more interested about the children who are losing food, because this government is cutting off their program, and the federal workers who are losing their jobs, and I’m interested about the deportation people who have no due process…

Haines said two things can be true at once, “you can despise Trump,” and “still be able to see straight what happened here. 

Navarro, though, remained adamant, “I always said I would prefer, you know, Joe Biden in a coma over Trump, and I maintain that.”

Apparently, if the persistent allegations were true, that the leader of the free world had literally been incapacitated, Navarro was not interested in the cover-up because she can only focus on Donald Trump.

To view the full transcript click “expand” to read:

ABC’s The View
04/04/2025
11:16 AM

JOY BEHAR: The 2024 presidential campaign was even more of a mess for Democrats than we even saw. According to several new books about the last few months of the election, that’s- they’re writing books about it now- In one book, Biden adviser Ron Klain claimed there was a lot of concern that Biden couldn’t keep up with the debate prep, and he would fall asleep by the pool.

SARA HAINES: Me, too.

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: The same.

BEHAR: Me too. 

Another book claims President Obama didn’t want VP Harris to take Biden’s place, his choice was Governor Gretchen Whitmer. 

Now, these are books that people are writing so we have to take a lot of this, I think, with a bit of a grain of salt. I mean, if any of this is true, what can Democrats do about it now? I mean, it seems to me this ship is sailed. What’s the point?

SUNNY HOSTIN: I’d rather- read a book- about what Trump did to us– when he was president, and what he’s doing to us now.

BEHAR: Yeah.

HOSTIN: I’m much more interested in that. I’m not interested in- in looking back. I mean, we’re in the- we’re in a constitutional crisis right now.

BEHAR: And do we really believe that Trump is not falling asleep in the chair at Mar-a-Lago?

FARAH GRIFFIN: Yeah, respectfully, there were more books about Trump than I feel like anyone ever needed to read.

ANA NAVARRO: I wish he did.

HAINES: You wrote one.

BEHAR: I did. I did.

FARAH GRIFFIN: You did. We’re in a moment we’re in [sic.] where a lot of people are scared, they’re nervous, they’re worried that we’re seeing America fundamentally changed. 

And, a reason for that, not just the little asterisk, is that Joe Biden did not win, did not step aside in time to allow someone else to win-

BEHAR: Right.

FARAH GRIFFIN: And I do think it is a story that warrants some reflection because even beyond the electoral consequences of Trump winning and what we’re going to experience the next four years, I think there is also- what I’m struck by- and I think highly of Biden- 

BEHAR: Yeah.

FARAH GRIFFIN: People always think I’m, like, so critical just cause I think he needed to step aside and give someone else a chance- he does start to come off the more we’re learning like ‘I alone can fix it.’ It almost comes off Trumpian.

BEHAR: And it was late, also. He was late.

FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, he should have done it sooner. 

BEHAR: Right. Right.

FARAH GRIFFIN: If he had, after the debate, that would have given someone enough runway to actually run a winning campaign.

HAINES: Well, I would say the learning lesson here is ‘listen to the voters,’ because one thing that really pissed me off, as an independent- and I was one of the people that sat here and said, after seeing President Biden, ‘I voted for Biden, I really liked Biden.’ 

FARAH GRIFFIN: Yeah.

HAINES: I actually had been happy with him and I would have voted for him if he continued to run. 

But I did look at him and think, ‘I think maybe you do need to step aside,’ and now the rumors that we’re hearing- starting to make sense. And what happened is, everyone said, ‘You’re disloyal if you say that, shut up and fall in line,’ and that’s why people want to be independents these days. Because, partisan politics- they lie. 

It was the Democratic Party that made that choice, that said, ‘To be- you’re betraying him if you call it like you see it.’ And the point here was is [sic.], he wasn’t necessarily fit to run for another four years.

BEHAR: Okay, okay.

NAVARRO: Look, I know Ron Klain. I was- texting with him yesterday. He’s one of the longest advisers and very, very close to Biden, so this is probably very painful to them both.

BEHAR: So why say it- or write it? What’s- It’s kind of mean.

HOSTIN: He’s saying that the framing’s wrong.

NAVARRO: Because they- you know what? Folks get caught up talking about post mortems of campaigns-

BEHAR: Oh, they want to sell books.

NAVARRO: And talking to reporters who- are their friends. And usually I like these books, usually I like the- campaign gossip- of- Primary Colors after Clinton, or O after Obama, or Game Change after McCain. 

But, these are not normal times, so I’m just not interested in palace gossip from a year and a half ago because I’m more- more interested about the children who are losing food, because this government is cutting off their program, and the federal workers who are losing their jobs, and I’m interested about the deportation people who have no due process and I’m- you know- interested in the fact that we are at war with — a trade war with- the rest of the world, and threatening allies like Panama and- you know- and Greenland.

FARAH GRIFFIN: Some of us warned that- some of us warned that all of this, specifically, was coming. You know, there were people beating the drum, explaining explicitly what a second Trump term would be. 

HOSTIN: Project 2025, everyone.

NAVARRO: Right.

FARAH GRIFFIN: They were saying it but the Democrats could not put up something formidable enough to beat it.

HAINES: Well, and two things can be- two things can be true at once, you can despise Trump, and everything the Republicans stand for, and still be able to see straight about what happened here, and denying it and telling people you’re not seeing what you’re seeing is never going to win voters. Ever.

HOSTIN: I bet you every single person that voted- for- for Kamala Harris wishes that Kamala Harris won right now.

HAINES: I do.

HOSTIN: I- I bet you that- and I bet you, there are a lot of people that voted for Trump, that wish that Kamala Harris was in the White house.

NAVARRO: You know, there are probably a lot of people who didn’t vote, who are probably regretting it now.

HOSTIN: Yes.

BEHAR: To me this is- to me this is-

NAVARRO: You know, I always said I would prefer- you know- the- Joe Biden in a coma, over Trump, and I maintain that.

BEHAR: We’ll be right back.

MSNBC is still trying to turn Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation case into something where they frame themselves as Pastor Martin Niemoller warning that the Trump Administration won’t stop with anti-Israel activists. On Saturday’s Velshi, guest host Melissa Murray welcomed Khalil’s attorney, Raher Azmy, to warn, “They will” go after others.

Murray falsely claim, “So, regardless of where you fall on the Gaza question, this is really concerning just generally for the rule of law. This is someone who is exercising First Amendment rights and has been detained and hasn’t had an opportunity to exercise his due process rights to challenge his deportation, his detention.”

 

 

The entire reason Azmy is on the show is because Khalil is challenging his deportation, but such basic details aside, Murray then asked, “What does this mean for ordinary citizens, lawful green card holders, and all of us generally?”

Azmy replied, “Yeah, I mean, under the government’s pretty chilling authoritarian logic, one could be arrested, detained, and deported if you’re not a U.S. citizen simply because you disagree with the foreign policy objectives of the United States. And as Mahmoud suggests, that is not in no way limited to Palestine. That’s just the tip of the spear. But it’s a power they want to claim to go after other activists as well. And they will.”

Conveniently ignored in all of this is that Khalil’s group does not believe that Israel should exist. As for the U.S., it is difficult to argue that the group isn’t a bunch of secessionists when it lumps in Hawaii in the list of places they claim need to be decolonized. It is also true that Khalil was at protests that distributed Hamas and Hezbollah literature despite them being U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. Additionally, calling for the destruction of Israel is, according to Barack Obama’s State Department, anti-Semitic. Khalil’s beliefs are clearly a threat to the U.S. and its values. It is not as if he is simply disagreeing with the wisdom of parts of U.S. foreign policy that are unique to Trump.

Here is a transcript for the April 5 show:

MSNBC Velshi

4/5/2025

11:30 AM ET

MELISSA MURRAY: So, regardless of where you fall on the Gaza question, this is really concerning just generally for the rule of law. This is someone who is exercising First Amendment rights and has been detained and hasn’t had an opportunity to exercise his due process rights to challenge his deportation, his detention. What does this mean for ordinary citizens, lawful green card holders, and all of us generally?

RAHER AZMY: Yeah, I mean, under the government’s pretty chilling authoritarian logic, one could be arrested, detained, and deported if you’re not a U.S. citizen simply because you disagree with the foreign policy objectives of the United States. And as Mahmoud suggests, that is not in no way limited to Palestine. That’s just the tip of the spear. But it’s a power they want to claim to go after other activists as well. And they will.

Joe Rogan learned firsthand how corrupt the legacy press can be.

The Spotify superstar took a gaggle of medications, including Ivermectin, after he tested positive for COVID-19 in 2021. The comic watched in horror as the press turned on him, suggesting he had ingested “horse paste” and not a Nobel Prize-winning drug.

His media Red Pilling commenced.

He’s been torching the press ever since, spreading the word to his loyal flock.

Now, he’s excoriating the media anew for something reporters didn’t do. They failed to highlight the incredible rescue of two stranded U.S. astronauts earlier this month.

Why? Elon Musk’s SpaceX saved the day. The legacy media loathes Musk.

It’s that simple.

 

 

Rogan invited the team behind “Triggernometry,” Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster, to his program Saturday. The comedians have become truth tellers of the first order, transcending political labels to speak clearly on the issues of the day.

Part of the “Joe Rogan Experience” chat focused on SpaceX’s mission to bring astronauts Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Suni Williams back to earth. They were on board a space station for more than nine months before the successful rescue operation.

It should have been a massive news story. It could even inspire a movie or TV miniseres some day. Heck, dolphins greeted the rescued astronauts’ capsule in a moment tailor-made for the big screen.

Instead, legacy media outlets covered it briefly and moved on. Nothing remarkable to see here. Move along.

And Rogan knows why.

 

🚨NEW: @JoeRogan blasts the legacy media for downplaying @ElonMusk and @SpaceX’s heroic rescue of two astronauts trapped at the space station.
“They’re trying to sh*t on everything he does and hide all the good stuff. You didn’t hear a peep about Elon rescuing those astronauts.… pic.twitter.com/PSqtt8Nstu
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 29, 2025
 

“They’re trying to s*** on everything [Musk] does. Hide all the good stuff. We didn’t hear a peep about Elon rescuing those people,” Rogan said. “We should have had a live stream of it. It should have been a huge national event. ‘We’re finally gonna rescue the astronauts who were trapped on a space station for eight f***ing months. This supergenius, this Elon Musk character, is the guy who figured out how to go get them.’

The magnitude of the SpaceX rescue wasn’t lost on him.

“His company went and rescued them. We can’t do it anymore … we had to rely on his company,” he said.

The rescue’s news value couldn’t be more obvious. So where was the wall-to-wall coverage?

“This is a giant special interest story that would grab so many headlines and would have so much ratings because everybody wants to see it,” he said. “You’d be sitting on the couch with your family. ‘Are they gonna get ’em? Is it gonna dock? Is it gonna work?’”

Rogan isn’t alone in his assessment. 

The Daily Mail shared the muted reaction from The New York Times to the rescue:

Judging that Musk’s politicking had ‘poisoned’ his business empire, and connecting the recent slump in Tesla value, a guest author for the New York Times offered the damning assessment: ‘So what if Elon Musk rescued the astronauts?’

The TV news networks are all about ratings … to a point. Narrative and ideology trump all. It explains why so many media outlets ignored incendiary footage in recent years.

Why? The footage made the Left look bad. Think:

Violent Antifa protests
Jews being harassed on college campuses
Women’s rights advocate Riley Gaines being hunted on a college campus
Those clips routinely went viral on social media, but mainstream news outlets ignored them.

Rogan knows why, and he’s not afraid to explain it to his followers.