Newsbusters

The New York Times can’t seem to make up its mind on the First Amendment.

Here is the Times promoting censorious Andrew Marantz on the subject of free speech in 2019: 

Free Speech Is Killing Us

Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

Got it? Free speech was a problem for the Times in 2019.

But now? Here’s this Times headline from just this month of March, 2025: 

‘People Are Going Silent’: Fearing Retribution, Trump Critics Muzzle Themselves

People say they are intimidated by online attacks from the president, concerned about harm to their businesses or worried about the safety of their families.

This Times story proclaims: 

More than six weeks into the second Trump administration, there is a chill spreading over political debate in Washington and beyond.

Got that? In 2019 The Times was alarmed, spreading the notion that “Free Speech Is Killing Us.” Now there was a reason to elect Joe Biden and get that threatening Trump guy dictator out of the White House and silence his minions.

Now, a mere six years later in 2025, The Times frets that “People Are Going Silent” because – wouldn’t you know – that nasty Trump guy is back in the White House and his minions are intimidating Americans into silence.

What a difference six years makes! 

The real problem here is that the American Left hates dissent from whatever is the hot topic on the left wing agenda of the moment.

As if to underline the point, one story after another has leaked recently on the ongoing turmoil at The Washington Post because – OMG! – owner Jeff Bezos wants more conservatives on the Op-Ed pages.

This daring, ohhhhh so terrible idea has resulted in headline after headline, beginning with the news in 2024 that Bezos would not have the Post endorse Kamala Harris for president, choosing silence on the issue with no endorsement of either Harris or candidate Trump.

This resulted in headlines like this one from CNN: 

The Washington Post is in deep turmoil as Bezos remains silent on non-endorsement

Once 2024 was in the history books and 2025 had dawned, the “turmoil” stories out of the Post kept coming.

Why? Because publisher Bezos had the horrific idea to publish some conservative opinion on the Post Op-Ed pages. Leading to headlines like this one from the Times: 

Bezos Orders Washington Post Opinion Section to Embrace ‘Personal Liberties and Free Markets’

David Shipley, The Post’s opinion editor, is resigning after trying to persuade Jeff Bezos to reconsider the new direction. 

One could go on and on with similar headlines. The central point is clear: The American Left despises free speech and wants to silence it, whether in the Washington Post or anywhere else where disagreement over an issue that is a favorite of the Left surfaces.

We’ll have to see if the Bezos order is actually followed. Last year, the Post didn’t formally endorse Kamala, but the editorial board kept slamming Trump as the worst possible choice, so there was no doubt where they stood. 

Move away from journalism in Washington and head north to New York City. There, on the leftist-filled campuses of Columbia and Barnard universities, one headline after another tells the tale of leftist pro-Palestinian students trying to shut down the free speech of pro-Israel students. Examples:

From the Times of Israel: 

Barnard College expels 2 students who disrupted Israel history class last month

Anti-Israel student coalition at US institution shares footage of activists interrupting class, saying course ‘legitimizes the Zionist entity’; Hillel president praises expulsion

TIME magazine:

Investigations at Columbia University Clash with Concerns about Free Speech on Campus 

The list of these stories are endless, filling the Internet. But the theme is always – always, always, always – the same: The Left will passionately defend the free speech of “pro-Palestinian” actors even as they suppress the free speech of their opponents. 

It could be leftists inside The Washington Post. It could be leftists at prestigious American universities. Heaven knows the arena where this obsession with suppressing a dissenting (conservative?) point of view will surface.

But at this point, make no mistake. Surface it will. And the answer to this anti-free speech mania from the Left, whether inside a major American newspaper, an Ivy League university or anywhere else, is for believers in free speech to stand up and speak out.

Being quiet is not an option.

One interesting development over the first month and a half of the Trump Administration has been the degree to which the media has deeply passionate opinions about the federal government’s bureaucratic org chart. On MSNBC’s Saturday edition of The Katie Phang Show, the eponymous host welcomed AFT president Randi Weingarten to simultaneously claim the Department of Education does not control education and that the administration’s goal to get rid of it is the same as getting rid of education. Meanwhile, Phang would argue they are doing so because they want people to be “ignorant.”

Phang began by asking, “They’re trying to eliminate the existence of the Department of Education. Why, if it doesn’t make a difference to you if a Republican or a Democrat is dismantling the DoE going to be such a disaster for our country?”

 

 

Weingarten responded that “It’s a disaster symbolically, as much as it’s a disaster in reality. Think about a country whose president basically says as their first acts, ‘I’m getting rid of education.’”

She continued, “What does that say about the future? What does that say about—take all the things that Republicans believe in: entrepreneurship, ingenuity, creativity. How do you say to a country, ‘I’m taking, I’m getting rid of the one department, the smallest department in the federal government, the Department of Education.’ Now on the facts. This is what the Department of Education does. It is about opportunity.”

Later, Weingarten, who was getting quite emotional, elaborated that the department is mostly a money distribution center thanks to Title I, “It’s so we can create that ladder of opportunity. It’s so we can make sure that kids can succeed. Poor kids, kids with disabilities, kids who want to go to career tech ed. Kids who are first generation college goers to get some scholarship money, that’s what the Department of Education does. And that’s why you’re seeing across the country people saying, 90 percent of the kids in America go to public schools. They know what Title I is. They know what IDEA is.”

 

 

She claimed conservative claims about a federal takeover of education are incorrect, “The federal government does not control education. The states do, local school boards do. This is about opportunity. That is why so many people are so mad about it, because they’re just taking opportunity away from kids that don’t have it.”

During her confirmation hearing, Secretary Linda McMahon claimed that she considers Title I and IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) separate from the task of shuttering the department. She suggested that the latter could be given to Health and Human Services. Other proposals have included shifting civil rights enforcement to the Justice Department and student loans to the Treasury Department.

Still, Weingarten rolled on, “I’m really angry. I taught kids in Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn, New York. Virtually all of them got Title I funds. I taught AP Gov. One of the things that they just cut was the We The People competition, which was taught in ruby red districts like Van Wert, Ohio, and deep blue districts like my district.  Why? If we need civics, would you cut the We The People competition? It’s $11 million. Why would you do that?”

Phang claimed to have the answer, “Because they want the people to be ignorant. They want the people to not have a proper basis of education, and they want to make sure that the disadvantaged stay disadvantaged. Which is why what you said is important for us to reiterate here too: the Department of Education does not control the curriculum of your kids’ school. It’s local. It’s local and state.”

So, then what’s the problem with a little bureaucratic reorganizing?

Here is a transcript for the March 8 show:

MSNBC The Katie Phang Show

3/8/2025

12:16 PM ET

KATIE PHANG: Joining me now is Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. Randi, I’m a huge fan of all teachers. I think teachers are underpaid, underappreciated, undervalued. But now it goes a step further. They’re trying to eliminate the existence of the Department of Education. Why, if it doesn’t make a difference to you if a Republican or a Democrat is dismantling the DoE going to be such a disaster for our country?

RANDI WEINGARTEN: So first, it’s a disaster symbolically, as much as it’s a disaster in reality. Think about a country whose president basically says as their first acts, “I’m getting rid of education.”

What does that say about the future? What does that say about—take all the things that Republicans believe in: entrepreneurship, ingenuity, creativity. How do you say to a country, “I’m taking, I’m getting rid of the one department, the smallest department in the federal government, the Department of Education.” Now on the facts. This is what the Department of Education does.

PHANG: Yes.

WEINGARTEN: It is about opportunity.

…

It’s so we can create that ladder of opportunity. It’s so we can make sure that kids can succeed. Poor kids, kids with disabilities, kids who want to go to career tech ed. Kids who are first-generation college-goers to get some scholarship money, that’s what the Department of Education does. And that’s why you’re seeing across the country people saying, 90 percent of the kids in America go to public schools. They know what Title I is. They know what IDEA is.

The federal government does not control education. The states do, local school boards do. This is about opportunity. That is why so many people are so mad about it, because they’re just taking opportunity away from kids that don’t have it.

So, billionaires’ kids, of billionaires, they have it. They go to private schools. Everyone else, 90 percent go to public schools. Don’t take away their opportunity.

PHANG: So, let’s stay on the facts.

WEINGARTEN: Sorry. I’m really angry about this.

PHANG: No, do not apologize—no, because—

WEINGARTEN: I’m really angry. I taught kids in Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn, New York. Virtually all of them got Title I funds. I taught AP Gov. One of the things that they just cut was the We The People competition, which was taught in ruby red districts like Van Wert, Ohio, and deep blue districts like my district.

Why? If we need civics, would you cut the We The People competition? It’s $11 million. Why would you do that?

PHANG: Because they want the people to be ignorant. They want the people to not have a proper basis of education, and they want to make sure that the disadvantaged stay disadvantaged. Which is why what you said is important for us to reiterate here too: the Department of Education does not control the curriculum of your kids’ school.

WEINGARTEN: No. In fact—

PHANG: It’s local. It’s local and state.

WEINGARTEN: In fact, again, some facts.

PHANG: Yes.

WEINGARTEN: In the—in 2015, right before Donald Trump became president, the first time there was a bipartisan coalition that got the education, the Elementary and Secondary Act changed. So, the Department of Education controls virtually nothing. It basically— your local school board and the state education department of your state control everything from curriculum to graduation requirements. The department is a supplement. It helps deal with opportunity to help level things up.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is taking a stand for free speech. Or is he?

The Washington Post owner’s editorial decree rocked journalism. Bezos instructed the Post’s opinion section to hyper-focus on free markets and personal liberties. Naturally, the paper’s far-left journalists cried out in pain.

One quit on the spot.

 

Learn to code…
WaPo Editor Quits After Bezos Orders Opinion Page to Defend Free Markets, Personal Liberty https://t.co/gkYf9ZTeMG
— Rep. Scott Perry (@RepScottPerry) February 26, 2025
 

That speaks volumes as to where journalists stand on core U.S. values today.

No one should be surprised, though. Consider how CBS News now embraces speech police in the modern era.

We could cheer Bezos’s decree, and many are doing just that. Look closer.

Amazon has routinely censored art that didn’t fit the progressive narrative. Just ask filmmaker and journalist Mike Cernovich.

 

That’s a wonderful sentiment, @JeffBezos. Would you mind sharing it with Amazon? They banned my movie Hoaxed without explanation. When a new distributor re-released it, Amazon pulled it again.
Why? pic.twitter.com/FS1G03Oxr1
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 26, 2025
 

Cernovich says Amazon banned his 2019 documentary “Hoaxed” not once but twice. HiT previously reported on the matter.

Director Eli Steele’s compelling 2020 documentary “What Killed Michael Brown?” nearly suffered the same fate. Amazon’s editorial team initially blocked the film’s release on the platform, citing its so-called poor quality.

Steele’s films feature solid craftsmanship and nuanced narratives. A quick media storm erupted and Amazon backpedaled.

The mega platform initially agreed to stream director Michael Pack’s “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words.” The 2020 movie debuted on PBS and let the reclusive Supreme Court justice share his inspirational story.

Then, without warning, Amazon removed the documentary from its platform during Black History Month. No explanation.

Filmmaker Robby Starbuck ran into a more recent Amazon roadblock. The anti-DEI activist’s film, “The War on Children,” got blocked by Amazon’s censors last year. The documentary examines the sexualization of children in the modern era.

Good luck finding it on Amazon’s streaming marketplace. It’s also unavailable to buy in DVD form. Still.

 

 

Need more?

Author Jack Posobiec’s book, “Bulletproof,” initially featured the wrong book cover on its official Amazon page last year. The tome recalled the assassination attempt against then-candidate Trump.

Director Amanda Milius’ 2020 documentary “The Plot Against the President” faced an Amazon approval delay that caught the attention of a Legacy Media outlet. The film excoriated the Russian Collusion Hoax before many news outlets caught up with the truth.

That delay mattered.

Milius’s team slated the film for an October release, hoping to educate voters in the runup to the presidential election.

 

 

Some of these cases didn’t get legacy media attention. Bezos is a very busy man, so it’s possible he never learned about his company’s censorship practices.

Possible, but unlikely. He couldn’t have missed these censorship stories.

The company banned Ryan Anderson’s “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” in 2021. Amazon deemed material disparaging the trans agenda “hate speech,” although users could order Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” both then and now.

Amazon also censored books critical of the COVID-19 vaccines following pressure by the Biden administration.

Perhaps Bezos’s decree reflects a genuine change of heart. We’ve seen Mark Zuckerberg do an about-face regarding Facebook’s biased fact-checking regime in the wake of Donald Trump’s Nov. 5 victory.

The Amazon billionaire may have similarly seen the light. Or, his decree is an attempt to trick free speech believers across the fruited plain.

Former CNN reporter Maria Ressa won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2021 for her “efforts to safeguard freedom of expression.” However, as the heads of the social media platforms move past their relationship with fact-checking companies and towards greater freedom of speech, she warned Comedy Central’s The Weekly Show podcast host Jon Stewart that America is sliding towards “kleptocracy.”

While Jeff Bezos does not run a social media site, he does run the Washington Post, and recently he has had some ideas about its editorial page, which led Stewart to claim, “I’ve been a little bit shocked at Zuckerberg, Bezos. You know, he goes into the Washington Post and he says, ‘Hey, from now on, our opinion page is not opinion. I have two pillars that I’m completely pretending I abide by, which is free markets and personal liberty,’ basically a more libertarian viewpoint, and just said, ‘Our opinion page is now those two things.’”

 

 

That’s not what Bezos said. Bezos was clear that the Post would continue to write about “other topics,” which still dominate the opinion section of its website.

Stewart, however, continued, “I’m sure what he’s suggesting is, and they have to be promoting those two things or whatever my vision is. And it’s so antithetical to what is actually happening. This idea that a more top-down society will increase personal liberty for people or create free markets. It’s a joke. Yeah.”

Comedy Central also produces The Daily Show. There is not a single conservative amongst its on-air personalities. Conservatives, for them, are people to be mocked, whether in monologues or Jordan Klepper man-on-the-street segments. Stewart’s argument that having a vision is incompatible with personal liberty is impossible to take seriously.

Yet, Ressa was even more unserious as she moved beyond Bezos, “We’re losing our rights each time. So the behavior, we’ll call them the broligarchs because they are tech bros. So that’s where it comes from, the tech bros. This is power and money, and just straight-out power and money building what I hope doesn’t happen, which is a kleptocracy. Anne Applebaum calls it an autocracy, but this is power and money. I think what you’re seeing is the obeying in advance. I think it started with Elon Musk was way up front, and then Mark Zuckerberg followed by taking away fact-checking at the start of the year, right?”

To return to Bezos, it simply cannot be argued that what is happening at the Post is autocracy when there are still multiple articles arguing that Donald Trump represents a threat to freedom of the press. Musk’s purchase of Twitter has its origins in the platform banning the sharing of a New York Post article about Hunter Biden and jokes about Rachel Levine. Fact-checkers could throttle access to content even though fact-checkers themselves need to be fact-checked. What kind of freedom of expression advocate is Ressa?

Here is a transcript for the March 6 show:

Comedy Central The Weekly Show

3/6/2025

23 Minutes, 56 Seconds

JON STEWART: What do you think of, I’ve been a little bit shocked at Zuckerberg, Bezos. You know, he goes into the Washington Post and he says, “Hey, from now on, our opinion page is not opinion. I have two pillars that I’m completely pretending I abide by, which is free markets and personal liberty,” basically a more libertarian viewpoint, and just said, “Our opinion page is now those two things.”

That’s it. And I’m sure what he’s suggesting is, and they have to be promoting those two things or whatever my vision is. And it’s so antithetical to what is actually happening. This idea that a more top-down society will increase personal liberty for people or create free markets. It’s a joke. Yeah.

MARIA RESSA: We’re losing our rights each time. So the behavior, we’ll call them the broligarchs because they are tech bros. So that’s where it comes from, the tech bros. This is power and money, and just straight out-power and money building what I hope doesn’t happen, which is a kleptocracy. Anne Applebaum calls it an autocracy, but this is power and money. I think what you’re seeing is the obeying in advance. I think it started with Elon Musk was way up front, and then Mark Zuckerberg followed by taking away fact-checking at the start of the year, right?

Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart lamented to PBS News Hour host Geoff Bennett on Friday that Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s podcast appearance with conservative Charlie Kirk, where he dissented from the party line, continued the nation’s alleged inability to have “nuanced and thoughtful” conversations about transgender people participating in women’s sports.

After playing a clip of the interview, Bennett wondered, “So, this is coming amid a debate among Democrats about, you know, how much did cultural factors play a role in their huge defeat in November and how do they address it? How does this strike you, Jonathan?”

 

 

Capehart began by trying to calm down his fellow liberals who might view Newsom’s appearance as a betrayal, “Well, look, Governor Newsom is somebody whose credentials in LGBTQ rights were cemented 21 years ago, when he, against the advice of every Democrat in the country, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”

However, he did lament that “what this shows is, and what I wished he had done, because I actually listened to the podcast and this entire section. And he kept talking about fairness, which I get, but he didn’t talk more fully about, what exactly do you mean?”

Capehart then played dumb on what the definition of a man is, “In the conversation with Charlie Kirk, I mean, the way he says ‘no men in female sports,’ just the way he talks about that, we’re not talking about men in drag pretending to be women in sports. We’re talking about trans women, trans girls.”

In other words, men or boys. Still, Capehart rolled on, “But what I really like and what I loved about this segment on trans athletes with Dr. Bradley Anawalt, he puts it — he says it perfectly. This is — that there’s a tension here between fairness and allowing people who want to play sports to play sports.”

He further claimed, “What we need to do is, as Americans, and certainly elected officials, have a more nuanced and thoughtful conversation. This is not a black-and-white issue. This is something that requires a lot of thoughtful — a lot of thoughtful conversation led by scientists, led by doctors, led by people who actually know something about this.”

The politics of the Middle East is nuanced. What differentiates male and female is straightforward.

Still, Capehart held out hope that history will prove him correct, “And the last thing I will say is, I — look, I’m an out gay man. I came up during the 1980s, when there was the AIDS epidemic and people were out in the streets saying, ‘Hey, we are here.’ Will & Grace comes along, and suddenly there’s a cultural change, a change in the country in how they viewed LGBTQ folks. We need to have that same kind of cultural conversation when it comes to the T, one that is nuanced and thoughtful, and not sort of bombastic in the way that Charlie Kirk talks about.”

Capehart went on for so long that National Review editor and David Brooks’s substitute, Ramesh Ponnuru, didn’t get a chance to weigh in. Bennett simply brought the segment to a close, “We will have to leave it there. I’m so sorry. We’re out of time… We’ll have you back, and we will get you to weigh in. Thanks for your time.”

Here is a transcript for the March 7 show:

PBS News Hour

3/7/2025

7:36 PM ET

GEOFF BENNETT: So, this is coming amid a debate among Democrats about, you know, how much did cultural factors play a role in their huge defeat in November and how do they address it? How does this strike you, Jonathan?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, look, Governor Newsom is somebody whose credentials in LGBTQ rights were cemented 21 years ago, when he, against the advice of every Democrat in the country, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

So this is not a question of whether he has thrown the community under the bus after two decades. But what this shows is, and what I wished he had done, because I actually listened to the podcast and this entire section. And he kept talking about fairness, which I get, but he didn’t talk more fully about, what exactly do you mean?

In the conversation with Charlie Kirk, I mean, the way he says  “no men in female sports,” just the way he talks about that, we’re not talking about men in drag pretending to be women in sports. We’re talking about trans women, trans girls.

But what I really like and what I loved about this segment on trans athletes with Dr. Bradley Anawalt, he puts it — he says it perfectly. This is — that there’s a tension here between fairness and allowing people who want to play sports to play sports.

What we need to do is, as Americans, and certainly elected officials, have a more nuanced and thoughtful conversation. This is not a black-and-white issue. This is something that requires a lot of thoughtful — a lot of thoughtful conversation led by scientists, led by doctors, led by people who actually know something about this.

And the last thing I will say is, I — look, I’m an out gay man. I came up during the 1980s, when there was the AIDS epidemic and people were out in the streets saying, “Hey, we are here.” Will & Grace comes along, and suddenly there’s a cultural change, a change in the country in how they viewed LGBTQ folks.

We need to have that same kind of cultural conversation when it comes to the T, one that is nuanced and thoughtful, and not sort of bombastic in the way that Charlie Kirk talks about.

BENNETT: We will have to leave it there. I’m so sorry. We’re out of time.

CAPEHART: Sorry.

BENNETT: Jonathan Capehart. We’ll have you back, and we will get you to weigh in. Thanks for your time.

On Fox News, a conservative wondered out loud: “Is it possible to be a feminist and a decent person?”

Just kidding. Hard to imagine that question would be asked. If someone did dare pose it, the liberal media would come crashing down on the miscreant’s head.

But no one blinked an eye on CNN This Morning on Thursday when journalist Margaret Talev, in a segment on Andrew Cuomo’s comeback attempt to be Mayor of New York City, said:

“The question is, can you be masculine and embrace your masculinity and also be a decent person at the same time?”

Cuomo resigned as governor of New York in August 2021 after Democrat Attorney General Letitia James found he had sexually harassed 11 women, including two who were not state employees.

Host Audie Cornish opened the segment with a clip of her podcast interview of Tarana Burke, founder of the #MeToo movement. Burke called the prospect of Cuomo’s nomination a “mistake.” She argued that discounting “violence against women” is what’s “killing us” and making progress impossible.

Turning to her all-female panel, Cornish, speaking of Cuomo, plaintively asked: “Why not look for leaders without the baggage?”

Nia-Malika Henderson of Bloomberg claimed that Democrats see as the path forward, “White men, moderate white men. Kind of manly white men as well. And I think if you look at Andrew Cuomo, that is the part that he’s playing.”

Hanna Rosin of The Atlantic, who wrote a book titled The End of Men, jumped in with this: “A right-wing radio commentator who was very popular said to me, the problem with Democrats is they don’t have any manly enough candidates. That the Democrats are not manly enough, and that’s why they can’t win elections. What do you guys think about that?” 

That’s when Talev wondered if a man could be masculine and a decent person at the same time.

To answer her question, Talev might start by considering the 3,535 men [there’s been one woman] who have been awarded the Medal of Honor. Or Todd Beamer, he of “let’s roll” fame, who along with other men attempted to retake United Airlines Flight 93 from hijackers on 9/11.

Here’s the transcript.

CNN This Morning
3/6/25
6:19 am ET

AUDIE CORNISH: Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo officially pitching his political comeback to New Yorkers, and he’s betting they’re ready to forgive and forget. 

Cuomo announced he’s running for mayor of New York City. He resigned in 2021 after he was accused of sexual misconduct. But we’re in the post-MeToo era now? So for this week’s episode of my podcast, The Assignment, I spoke to the woman who started the MeToo movement, Tarana Burke, and asked her about Cuomo’s potential return to office, what that says about not just Democrats, but society at large. 

TARANA BURKE: I was literally about to go live, and I never do that on Instagram the other night. I was like, this is the — and I hope this stays in, because I need to say this. 

We will never be able to move forward. And when I say move forward, I mean collectively towards liberation. This is not about women or men or even sexual violence. 

But the kind of world that so many of us say that we want to live in, we will not get there when we keep making these same kinds of mistakes. When we discount violence against women as a serious enough offense, right? It always gets dismissed. 

So what happens is, somebody like Andrew Cuomo decides he’s going to run for mayor, and people are like, oh, yeah, he’s great. He knows how to govern. He can beat such and such and blah, blah, blah. 

And then somebody will say, but wait a minute. What about, and they’re like, uh, well, yeah, that was terrible, or maybe that happened, but. And that “but” is what’s gonna kill us. That but is what sets us back. 

CORNISH: You guys just heard what Tarana said. Nia, I’m gonna start with you. Why not look for leaders without the baggage? Is it that it’s no longer considered baggage? 

. . . 

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: If you think about the conversations that are going on in the Democratic party, they see white men as the path forward, and possibly- 

CORNISH: — Moderate white men who talk about law and order. 

HENDERSON: Moderate white men. Kind of manly white men as well. And I think if you look at Andrew Cuomo, that is the part that he’s playing. 

CORNISH: Okay, manly men. 

HANNA ROSIN: Manly men, I was just going to say. 

CORNISH: I feel like you’re going to have thoughts. 

ROSIN: I want you guys to respond to this. So somebody, it’s a right-wing radio commentator who was very popular, said to me, the problem with Democrats is they don’t have any manly enough candidates. That the Democrats are not manly enough, and that’s why they can’t win elections. What do you guys think about that? 

HENDERSON: Well, listen, I mean, I think that’s partly what Andrew Cuomo was doing. If you think about what was going on with Biden, some of that, he was old, he was weak, he wasn’t manly enough. He wasn’t, he didn’t project strength in the way that Donald Trump was able to. 

CORNISH: Or that, those are, in our minds now, those things are equal. 

HENDERSON: Exactly. 

CORNISH: Right? That’s the only way. 

MARGARET TALEV: There is a comeback movement for masculinity. The question is, can you be masculine and embrace your masculinity and also be a decent person at the same time? 

On The Sunday Show, MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart admitted that illegal border crossings are now at a record low, but seemed to do so only so he could scoff at President Donald Trump for wanting to send more troops to the border.

Contributor Maria Hinojosa went on to deny there were people flooding across the border last year as in spite of there being record illegal border crossings over the past four years compared to previous years.

Capehart began the segment by finding “cruelty” in the President declaring English to be the official language of the United States:

If cruelty really is the point of the Trump administration, its handling of immigration is the proof. Just last night, for the first time in United States history, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as our country’s official language.

He added:

The order rescinds a mandate from former President Bill Clinton that requires the government and organizations that receive federal funding to provide language assistance to non-English speakers. This means that, in a country built in part by immigrants, access to crucial services for non-English speakers could be drastically restricted.

He then related for viewers that the Pentagon is planning to send 3,000 troops to the border, and then suggested that they are not necessary and are just being sent for show:

Here’s the thing: The number of illegal migrant crossings is at record lows right now. Even President Trump acknowledges this — right there on the screen. So it’s unclear why this extra military force is even needed. But this type of performative political theater coming out of the Trump administration is nothing new, and we will likely witness more of Trump’s theatrics on this issue when he addresses Congress on Tuesday.

Unlike Fox, he did not go so far as to inform viewers that the number of border crossings in February were only about 8,300 compared to about 96,000 in February a year ago, or that there has been a record drop in migrants dying at the border after such deaths happened at record levels under President Joe Biden.

After he got Hinojosa to react to the President’s move on the English language, Capehart followed up by asking her about the sending of troops to the border, leading her to complain:

It’s ridiculous, Jonathan, and, you know, a year ago exactly in this time, I was at the border at a time when there was supposed to be flooding of migrants, right? I didn’t see that, and I was at the border in the Tucson area.

Not mentioned was that a record number of immigrants came into the country during Biden’s presidency, including at least two million known gotaways.

After recalling that she saw two men cross the border and pray before turning themselves over to the Border Patrol, she concluded: “So what is absolutely out of control is the militarization of the border, not the people who are coming here. And we know that the people who are coming here are not criminals.”

Transcript follows:

MSNBC’s The Sunday Show

March 2, 2025

6:19 p.m. Eastern

JONATHAN CAPEHART: If cruelty really is the point of the Trump administration, its handling of immigration is the proof. Just last night, for the first time in United States history, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as our country’s official language. The order rescinds a mandate from former President Bill Clinton that requires the government and organizations that receive federal funding to provide language assistance to non-English speakers. This means that, in a country built in part by immigrants, access to crucial services for non-English speakers could be drastically restricted.

Meanwhile, at the U.S.-Mexico border, the Pentagon is sending nearly 3,000 additional active duty troops. On Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved orders to deploy soldiers primarily from the Stryker Brigade combat team to the border. Here’s the thing: The number of illegal migrant crossings is at record lows right now. Even President Trump acknowledges this — right there on the screen. 

So it’s unclear why this extra military force is even needed. But this type of performative political theater coming out of the Trump administration is nothing new, and we will likely witness more of Trump’s theatrics on this issue when he addresses Congress on Tuesday.

(…)

What do you make of the idea of sending that Stryker force to the border when even the President says border crossings are at a record low?

MARIA HINOJOSA, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: It’s ridiculous, Jonathan, and, you know, a year ago exactly in this time, I was at the border at a time when there was supposed to be flooding of migrants, right? I didn’t see that, and I was at the border in the Tucson area. What I did see, Jonathan, is the wall exists, but for 21 miles on the Tucson border, there are 19 openings — 19 openings — as large for multiple cattle to come through — holds under or allowing that anybody if they’re with the Border Patrol, they could just fill with cement open.

And I met two men who had crossed through one of those openings. And what they did — oh, the evil — these people who were coming to take our jobs — they knelt and they were praying on the U.S. side of the wall after they had made it. And they were then just going to give themselves over to the Border Patrol. So what is absolutely out of control is the militarization of the border, not the people who are coming here. And we know that the people who are coming here are not criminals.

Reporters like Oliver Darcy and David Folkenflik serve as sounding boards for the radical-left staffers inside liberal media outlets who are furious whenever owners or executives threaten to move any outlet toward the center, or make any move that seems to please President Trump. Vicious bias is equated with the gallant exercise of freedom of speech.

Managing Editor Curtis Houck explains what’s been in the media news this week. In his newsletter venture named Status, Darcy freaked out over Eliana Johnson, editor of the Washington Free Beacon, being called in for a meeting at The Washington Post. It was described as “yet another sign of the rightward direction that Will Lewis, along with owner Jeff Bezos, hopes to steer the storied newspaper.”

At CBS News,  Darcy was alarmed at how a new executive named Jeff Shell forced them to accommodate Trump over his lawsuit against 60 Minutes intended to force a transcript and video of their Kamala Harris interview. CBS executives “later told associates they were disturbed that Shell was inserting himself into the newsroom’s decision-making, given that Paramount’s merger with Skydance has yet to close and that corporate interference in journalistic matters is traditionally anathema. Even more troubling, Shell seemed to believe CBS News should have simply appeased Trump, despite the dangerous precedent it would set.”

At the Los Angeles Times, Darcy spread the news that an attempt to use A.I. to generate opposing viewpoints ended up with a soft summary of the Ku Klux Klan. This might be what machines do, that lack the human instinct to know how inflammatory that is.

NPR’s Folkenflik appeared on All Things Considered on Wednesday night to warn about Trump truncating free speech. He claimed there was a “desire to control the flow of information to the public from kind of a pro-MAGA, pro-Trump point of view, rather than to say that, hey, we welcome the fractious free flow of opinion and information from all sides.”

Does anyone believe you could define NPR’s broadcasts as a fractious free flow of diverse opinions? Conservatives are either mocked or ignored entirely. 

Folkenflik implied Trump was at odds with free speech: “This tension between Trump’s desire for kind of a control of the message from the White House, from the Oval Office, colliding with the — at least the spirit and perhaps even the law as embodied in the Bill of Rights.”

Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

A discussion on Wednesday’s CNN NewsNight took a turn so outrageous that even CNN’s own fact-checkers would object. During the discussion, political commentator Ana Navarro accused President Trump of “making up stories about transgender mice” despite CNN’s own website saying otherwise.

Navarro’s comment came on a panel which was lamenting the internal chaos plaguing the Democratic Party since their defeat in the election of the previous November. As the mood turned nostalgic for the Obama years, Navarro fumed:

(…) Barack Obama is living his best life, and…the strength from the Democrats has got to come from the people. Because… the only thing that the talking heads and the elected officials do, is attack each other. Today, instead of attacking Trump’s lies, and yesterday’s state of the union- attacking the fact that Trump was making up stories about transgender mice- I guess he thinks the mice are all turning into little Emilia Perezes. We are talking about the Democrats and how they are infighting again.

 

 

CNN had indeed been circulating the allegation that Trump had lied when he stated that his new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), had caught the government spending “$ 8 million for making mice transgender.”

However, they were soon forced to admit they had been a little fast and loose with the accusation, and there was, in fact, more to the story.  In a fact-check on their website, CNN admitted that the morning after the speech the White House had produced documentary proof of federal grants of $8.3 million for “health studies that involve mice receiving treatments that can be used in gender-affirming health care” for the purpose of “figur[ing] out how these treatments might affect the health of humans who take them, not for the purpose of making mice transgender.”

A correction from Deidre McPhillips read, “An earlier version of this item incorrectly characterized as false Trump’s claim about federal money being spent for “making mice transgender.” The article has been updated with context about the spending, which was for research studies on the potential human health impacts of treatments used in gender-affirming care.”

As CNN was still eager to emphasize, the records indicated that the purpose of using these hormones on lab mice was to test their effects on humans receiving gender therapy, but whether or not the endgame of subjecting mice to such procedures was to make the mice themselves “little Emilia Perezes,” that was in fact what was being done. Therefore, Trump’s statement was not “ma[de] up,” and Navarro had falsely accused the president of lying.

On this occasion, CNN had so flagrantly been caught dead in their tracks, even they had to backpedal a bit on their foolish drivel. However, their on-air personalities did not seem to get the memo.

To read the full transcript is below:

CNN Newsnight
03/05/2025
10:23 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: LOST DEMS FACE INTERNAL STRIFE OVER STRATEGY, BEHAVIOR]

ANA NAVARRO: (…) Barack Obama is living his best life, and it’s going- the met- the strength from the Democrats has got to come from the people. 

Because the- all- the only thing that the talking heads and the elected officials do, is attack each other. 

Today, instead of attacking Trump’s lies, and yesterday’s state of the union- attacking the fact that Trump was making up stories about transgender mice- I guess he thinks the mice are all turning into little Emilia Perezes- We are talking about the Democrats and how they are infighting again.

The Daily Show found religion on Thursday, sort of. While Comedy Central’s flagship show did not repent for claiming Jesus would approve of Transgender Visibility Day or that Christmas is “the queerest holiday of all,” it did send Desi Lydic to Michigan to meet with Episcopal priest Chris Yaw to hype his gun buyback program.

Lydic began, “How does a priest get involved with getting guns off the streets?”

Yaw answered with a statement of questionable accuracy, “In America, it is a lot easier to get a gun than to get rid of a gun.”

 

 

Is it? This entire segment was about how you could just give Yaw your gun and he would work with the local police to destroy it. Nevertheless, Yaw continued, “There is the sense that, in churches, we are just going to pray for this gun problem, but church people are sick of thoughts and prayers too.”

Lydic acted amazed, “You know what is bad when a priest is sick of thoughts and prayers. I mean, that’s your bread and butter.”

In a voiceover, she continued, “And just as Jesus turned water into wine, Father Yaw turned prayers into action and started a gun buyback program.”

Unfortunately for Yaw, the company the state contracted with had a problem, as he recalled later in the segment, “We found out they are not really destroying them. They were salvaging most of the gun and reselling the parts on the internet. People can make their own ghost guns.”

Lydic replied, “So, GunBusters is actually contributing to making more guns. Jeez— sorry. Shit. Sorry. Jesus.

In another voiceover, Lydic elaborated, “Turns out, they were using the pulverizer more for evil than good. Doing only partial destruction means that the guns can be born again, and not in the Jesusy way.”

Further on, Lydic sat down with Michigan State Rep. Natalie Price, who made her feel better, “I can tell you what we are doing here in Michigan, which is partnering with state police and a company that will fully pulverize and destroy the complete weapon right here in Michigan.”

An excited Lydic congratulated Price by exclaiming, “Women get shit done.

Continuing with her newfound excitement, Lydic continued, “So it seems the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a pulverizer. But this time, Michigan has their very own state-run pulverizer. Ensuring that the guns that they receive are completely destroyed. I went back to the church to spread the good word to Father Yaw, only to discover he had taken it upon himself to fulfill his own prophecy.”

For his part, Yaw had even more good news for Lydic, “There is more that needs to be done. We’re planning to actually destroy the weapons ourselves, with chop saws.”

While the late night comedians continue to gush over liberal Episcopalians, don’t expect them to start promoting the parts of scripture that actually go against them.

Here is a transcript for the March 6 show:

Comedy Central The Daily Show

3/6/2025

11:12 PM ET

DESI LYDIC: How does a priest get involved with getting guns off the streets?

CHRIS YAW: In America, it is a lot easier to get a gun than to get rid of a gun. There is the sense that, in churches, we are just going to pray for this gun problem—

LYDIC: Right.

YAW: — but church people are sick of thoughts and prayers too.

LYDIC: You know what is bad when a priest is sick of thoughts and prayers. I mean, that’s your bread and butter. 

And just as Jesus turned water into wine, Father Yaw turned prayers into action and started a gun buyback program.

…

YAW: We found out, they are not really destroying them. They were salvaging most of the gun and reselling the parts on the internet. People can make their own ghost guns.

LYDIC: So, GunBusters is actually contributing to making more guns.

YAW: Yeah.

LYDIC: Jeez—sorry. Shit. Sorry. Jesus—

Turns out, they were using the pulverizer more for evil than good. Doing only partial destruction means that the guns can be born again, and not in the Jesusy way.

…

LYDIC: Luckily, Michigan has a solution.

NATALIE PRICE: I can tell you what we are doing here in Michigan, which is partnering with state police and a company that will fully pulverize and destroy the complete weapon right here in Michigan.

LYDIC: Women get shit done.

So it seems the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a pulverizer. But this time, Michigan has their very own state-run pulverizer. Ensuring that the guns that they receive are completely destroyed. I went back to the church to spread the good word to Father Yaw, only to discover he had taken it upon himself to fulfill his own prophecy.

YAW: There is more that needs to be done. We’re planning to actually destroy the weapons ourselves, with chop saws.