Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) held nothing back by claiming that the Left-wing uproar about Clarence Thomas’ ethical concerns is primarily based on the Supreme Court Justice’s race.

Cruz spoke with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures, where the conversation arrived at the scrutiny Thomas has been under ever since ProPublica reported on the undisclosed vacations and perks he received over the years from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow. The senator flatly rejected the idea that Thomas did anything wrong, calling him “one of the greatest Supreme Court justices ever to serve on the court.”

“Democrats hate Justice Thomas, and they save this special degree of hate for him, because he’s a Black man,” Cruz declared. “And their view is an African American is not allowed to be a conservative, is not allowed to disagree with Left-wing orthodoxy.”

Cruz went on in claiming Democrats see Thomas “as a traitor because he is African-American,” to which, Bartiromo muttered, “How disgusting!” On the subject of Thomas’ ethical concerns, Cruz blew past Thomas’ non-disclosure of Crow’s generosity in order to equate his vacations to those taken by left-leaning justices of the court.

“This is a political smear job directed at Clarence Thomas because he is an extraordinary constitutionalist and the Left hates him for it,” Cruz declared. Again, none of this drew any pushback from Bartiromo, who wrote it off as “more of the same.”

Watch above via Sunday Morning Futures.

Republican former Congressman Will Hurd said age will be a central issue in the 2024 campaign for both likely candidates, noting “guess what, Donald Trump’s no spring chicken either.”

President Joe Biden officially launched his long-teased 2024 reelection campaign this week with a campaign video that hit a lot of familiar notes, and heated up media disussion about Biden’s age.

On Sunday’s edition of ABC’s This Week, host Martha Raddatz asked her panel about the launch, and Hurd called the likely pairing of Biden and Trump a “rematch in 2024 that nobody wants to see” in which age will be a major factor:

RADDATZ: And, Will, that’s – that’s what he concentrated on. He really didn’t talk about his accomplishments in that video. He talked about January 6th. He talked about democracy. Is this the way to beat Donald Trump if Trump’s — Donald Trump’s the nominee?

WILL HURD, (R) FMR TEXAS CONGRESSMAN: Well, Joe Biden is operating as if Donald Trump is going to be the nominee. And his future success depends on Donald Trump being the nominee. When you have seven out of 10 Americans doesn’t want to see Joe Biden run for re-election and six out of 10 Americans not want ting to see Donald Trump run as well, this is a potential rematch in 2024 that nobody wants to see.

And, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, age is going to be a factor in this campaign because, guess what, Donald Trump’s no spring chicken either. And so this is something that’s — that both candidates are going to have to deal with through their primaries and – and – and President Biden in the general election.

RADDATZ: And, Asma, I suppose you would agree about all of you, I mean, age is clearly an issue in this campaign.

ASMA KHALID, NPR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It is. And you heard that from voters. Yes.

RADDATZ: You cannot ignore it. You heard those – you heard those, especially young voters talking about that. But – but the roll-out was – was pretty low key.

KHALID: It was. It was. It was a video and then later in the day the president addressed kind of the legislative accomplishments that he’s achieved. And I kind of see that, from the White House’s standpoint, you really hear them focus on two visions. One is this broad idea of freedom, and protecting freedom, whether that means, you know, abortion rights with the situation in Dobbs in the Supreme Court, and the other factor of this then is promoting legislative accomplishments. I mean it is very difficult for this White House to ignore the president’s approval ratings are still underwater.

They have been underwater for more than a year, ever since the withdrawal from Afghanistan. It would be, under any normal circumstances, very difficult for a president to have those approval ratings and win re-election. But this is not normal times.

Watch above via ABC’s This Week.

MSNBC host and former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki described ex-President Donald Trump’s comments about ex-VP Mike Pence’s testimony as “something out of the Sopranos.”

On Thursday, Pence testified for more than five hours before the Special Counsel Jack Smith-led Justice Department probe into Trump’s conduct surrounding the January 6 insurrection and the 2020 election.

Trump was asked about the testimony on his way into an event in New Hampshire Friday, and said this:

On Sunday’s edition of MSNBC’s Inside With Jen Psaki, Psaki and MSNBC legal analyst Neal Katyal talked about the importance of Pence’s testimony, and agreed Trump’s comments were intended as “intimidation”:

JEN PSAKI: Pence was there for more than 5 hours, more than seven, some reports have said. What is the significance about the length of time?

NEAL KATYAL: Well, I do think it means that he that Jack Smith, the prosecutor, was going really slowly day by day. Beyond that, I don’t think we can say too much, except that it does say something about Jack Smith’s timing, because if you’re a prosecutor and you’re thinking of bringing in the former vice president, as I say, that’s a big deal. You do that only at the end. It’s kind of like Eminem. You got one shot and one opportunity and you bring.

JEN PSAKI: The biggest fish in at the end.

NEAL KATYAL: At the end, because you can’t really bring him in again. I mean, maybe you can if there’s new facts that emerge, but you really want to try and do that to button everything up. And so I do think what that means is that we are going to see some movement from Jack Smith officially on these things in the next couple of weeks.

JEN PSAKI: Do you think there’s additional big fish that could come here after Pence?

NEAL KATYAL: I don’t think so. I think Pence is kind of the last person. There are other people like John Eastman and others who are probably asserting attorney client privilege or may be the targets. And you don’t bring targets necessarily into the grand jury. So. So I think we’re really talking about toward the end of this January 6th probe. And then, of course, there’s the Mar a Lago probe, which is separate.

JEN PSAKI: We could be getting close. So NBC’s Jonathan Allen caught up with former President Trump right after we learned of Pence’s testimony. And let’s listen to that.

JONATHAN ALLEN: Mr. President. President, what do you think of Mike Pence testifying today?

NEAL KATYAL: I don’t know what he said. But eh… I have a lot of confidence in him.

JEN PSAKI: I have a lot of confidence in him. It sounds like it’s out of The Sopranos. But what did you think of his comments?

NEAL KATYAL: That’s exactly how it sounds to me. I mean, the, in Donald Trump is someone who’s always tried to intimidate witnesses, dangle pardons in front of them, all sorts of things to try and get them to stop telling the truth. And here, Trump tried. He went to, this week, Jen, to the US Court of Appeals, our second highest court, to try and block Pence from testifying. So he’s not behaving like a guy who’s like, cool with Pence’s testimony. Of course he’s not. Once the testimony happened, I’m sure he’s trying to shape the narrative as best he can.

Watch above via Inside With Jen Psaki.

Former federal prosecutor and current MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner told Jonathan Capehart that wire fraud will be “easy charges to prove” and will lead to a “larger charge of conspiracy” against ex-President Donald Trump.

January 6 prosecutors are reportedly pursuing information that could lead to wire fraud charges — on top of everything else Trump faces — by looking to see if Trump and his team knowingly raised funds based on false fraud claims.

On Saturday morning’s edition of The Saturday Show with Jonathan Capehart, Capehart asked Kirschner what he thinks Pence gave the grand jury, and Kirschner said it was likely a lot:

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Oh. Oh, that’s deep! I didn’t realize that. That is deep. All right. The New York Times is now reporting that Jack Smith’s federal prosecutors are investigating whether Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes by fundraising from false claims of widespread voter fraud. How will this factor in the prosecutor’s prosecutors decision to press charges?

GLENN KIRSCHNER: Y’know, wire fraud is kind of the stock-in-trade of federal prosecutors, if you use the wire, is kind of an old time term. It used to mean the TV, the radio, the telephone. Now it is the Internet. As part of a scheme to defraud others out of their money. Now, would Donald Trump ever do something like that? Those are fairly easy charges to prove. So I have a feeling you’re going to see a series of wire fraud charges in what I predict will be the larger charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Because remember, Jonathan, a federal judge out in California ruled previously there was enough evidence, a preponderance of the evidence, that Donald Trump committed the crime of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: That’s right, I keep forgetting about that, that particular decision.

Watch above via The Saturday Show with Jonathan Capehart.

Ex-presidential niece Mary Trump told SiriusXM host and Salon interviewer Dean Obeidallah that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision not to charge ex-President Donald Trump will go down in history as a “massive failure.”

Trump has been indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s grand jury investigating the circumstances around hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. According to reports, Trump faces 34 counts in the sealed indictment and will be arrested and arraigned on Tuesday.

On Friday’s edition of The Dean Obeidallah Show, the host asked Mary Trump if we can look forward to Trump-branded jumpsuits, but after she joined in, Mary cautioned against letting Trump control the narrative:

DEAN OBEIDALLAH: So we know that he’s trying to he’s raised money off the threat of charges. Do you think he does anything even like. He’s made products for everything. He’ll license some new like Trump prison jumpsuit you can buy, or like Trump water for jail. Like you can bring it to prison with, you.

MARY TRUMP: Nail files with the logo.

DEAN OBEIDALLAH: And have like a big T nail file, that kind of thing. Like, because nothing’s what we’re joking about. Nothing’s beyond the pale. Like, he could do it if he can make money on it and and laugh and you can buy it for five bucks. The Trump, you know, nail file to help Donald get out of jail, spend $10 a day. He would do it.

MARY TRUMP: $10. They’ll charge, he’ll charge 47 or whatever. He’ll turn all of it into NFT users something. Yeah, of course he will do anything to monetize this and try to convince people that that’s why he’s doing it. You know, that this is all just so he could get more money in his coffers. But let’s not let him change the narrative and let’s not let the Republican Party change the narrative. And that’s really where the danger is. The media fell flat on its face two weeks ago. We have to if they won’t hold the line here, the rest of us have to. We cannot let anybody buy into this narrative that this, that Donald Trump’s finally, for once in his life facing justice, that the rule of law finally, finally is being upheld, means that this is a political tack, a political attack against a political opponent and it’s undermining democracy. We cannot let them get away with it. It’s too dangerous.

Watch above, via The Dean Obeidallah Show.

Multiple sources told New York Times correspondent and CNN analyst Maggie Haberman that prosecutors are pursuing information that could lead to wire fraud charges on top of everything else ex-President Donald Trump faces.

Haberman — an influential analyst to whom Trump pays a lot of attention — has a network of Trumpworld sources, as well as contacts she has developed over years of reporting on Trump in New York.

On Friday, she and colleagues Alan Feuer and Jonathan Swan published an article entitled “Prosecutors in Jan. 6 Case Step up Inquiry Into Trump Fund-Raising” that details a new line of inquiry for the investigation that could open yet another can of worms for Trump:

As they investigate former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal prosecutors have also been drilling down on whether Mr. Trump and a range of political aides knew that he had lost the race but still raised money off claims that they were fighting widespread fraud in the vote results, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims.

The prosecutors are looking at the inner workings of the committee, Save America PAC, and at the Trump campaign’s efforts to prove its baseless case that Mr. Trump had been cheated out of victory.

Haberman flagged one particular portion by quoting it on Twitter: “All three areas overlap, and could inform prosecutors’ thinking about whether to proceed with charges in an investigation in which witnesses are still being interviewed.”

That quote from the plugged-in Haberman carries a suggestion that won’t likely be of comfort to Trump.

Trump faces a raft of other investigations and potential indictments and charges — the Special Counsel Jack Smith-led Justice Department probes into Trump’s mishandling of classified information under the Espionage Act and his conduct surrounding the January 6 insurrection, as well as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ grand jury investigation of his effort to overturn election results in Georgia and New York Attorney General Letitia James’s civil case against Trump and his company, and  his arrest and arraignment in a Manhattan courtroom over an indictment on 34 felony counts for crimes involving hush money payments to adult entertainment entrepreneur Stormy Daniels and others and the E. Jean Carroll rape lawsuit that went to trial this week.

CNN’s Elle Reeve confronted a college Republican about anti-trans speaker Michael Knowles just seconds before an “incendiary device” went off yards away, interrupting them.

Knowles has sparked protests due to his sharply anti-transgender rhetoric, including explicitly calling for the “eradication” of what he calls “transgenderism.”

On Friday’s edition of CNN News Central, Reeve joined anchor John Ber,am to share a deeply-reported piece that included interviews with tans activists like Charlotte Clymer, and an intense confrontation with Pitt College Republicans VP Josh Minsky that was interrupted by a loud BOOM!:

REEVE (voiceover): More than 11,000 people signed an online petition against Knowles and two other conservative speakers invited to Pitt. The school went forward with the events saying it upholds the principles of protective speech and expression. Though that speech can contradict the school’s values. Knowles had been scheduled to debate Professor Deirdre McCloskey, who is trans. But McCloskey pulled out the week before, telling CNN that Knowles was not a serious person. Then ISI, the sponsor, offered trans writer Charlotte Clymer $10,000 to sub in. She said no.

REEVE (on camera): $10,000 is a lot.

CHARLOTTE CLYMER, WRITER AND ACTIVIST: Oh, yes. $10,000 is a lot of money. That would have paid off my car. That’s half a year of rent.

REEVE: Have you ever been offered that much?

CLYMER: No, not even close.

REEVE: What does that some — say to you?

CLYMER: It says they’re willing to pay anything to grow their entertainment enterprise. I don’t know why trans folks are expected to accept the premise that our humanity is up for debate. If it were a debate on whether or not to allow racial segregation back into society, we wouldn’t have a debate about that. That would be unacceptable.

REEVE (voiceover): Finally, gay libertarian podcaster Brad Polumbo agreed to debate Knowles.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Polumbo, it’s awesome that you could come here on such short notice. How much were they paying you to do this?

BRAD POLUMBO, GAY LIBERTARIAN PODCASTER: A lot.

REEVE (voiceover): Knowles, through spokeswoman, declined an interview with CNN. And despite the emphasis on free speech, ISI demanded media not film more than the debate’s opening remarks. But once the event got going, no one ushered the media out.

JOSH MINSKY, VICE PRESIDENT, COLLEGE REPUBLICANS AT PITT: Michael Knowles is a big speaker. He should be able to speak and have freedom of speech and sadly that’s, kind of, being shut down in modern society as can you see outside.

REEVE (on camera): But would you have a panel where someone spoke about whether or not there should be legal murder?

MINSKY: No, because —

REEVE: So —

MINSKY: — murder is objectively wrong and you’re killing someone. But I would not put that on the same spectrum.

REEVE: What was that?

MINSKY: As I said about shutting down free speech, I think this is very good example of the fact that clearly something is going on here.

REEVE (voiceover): That boom was an incendiary device set off outside the building according to a university statement. No one was injured but some buildings were temporarily shut down.

REEVE (on camera): Do you think the point of this debate is to try to convince people in this room or to convince people on the internet?

MINSKY: I think it’s both. I mean, look, all of the event is not to make some uneducated leftist kid, you know, feel like an idiot. So, I hope there’s leftist people here that ask questions opposing Knowles and are able to do so respectfully.

REEVE: So, the protesters burned Michael Knowles an effigy which is protected speech.

CLYMER: It is — I wonder that though.

REEVE: Why not?

CLYMER: It’s too violent, it’s too aggressive, in fact it’s counterproductive. Because what they do is they take an image of that, they spread it online, and they say, see. This is what the movement is trying to do. They are going to burn anyone an effigy who disagrees with them.

Watch above via CNN News Central.

CNN anchor Chris Wallace had a shockingly mild reaction to Nikki Haley’s new campaign theme that President Joe Biden will die in office, and even seemed to defend the substance of the remarks.

At issue is Haley’s casual remark on Fox News, “If you vote for Joe Biden, you really are counting on a President Harris because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not something that I think is likely.”

It’s a remark that CNN This Morning co-anchor Poppy Harlow had no trouble interpreting, telling viewers Friday morning that Haley “is facing backlash this morning after she flat out said President Biden probably won’t be alive in five years.”

And former Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) had no trouble denouncing the remarks in an interview with Harlow, as she again translated the ghoulish comments:

HARLOW: He’s not — he’s going to be dead in five years? I mean — and she didn’t walk it back.

JONES: Yes, that’s — No, that’s exactly what she is saying. You know, there is a combination. And I — as I tweeted out, I thought those comments were vile. I think they were appalling. I really do believe they’re not befitting of a presidential candidate or any candidate for public office in the United States of America. And there is an element of race baiting in that as well, too.

Playing on the fears of folks that might not want a strong black woman as president of the United States. And I think that there is some serious issues and I’d love to see some of her Republican colleagues walk it back for her. But I don’t think we’re going to see it. I think they’re going to probably jump onboard. As I said, I think this is a race to the bottom.

HARLOW: That was interesting. This morning, I was looking for Republicans pushing back against it at all and not see it.

Wallace was a guest on Friday morning’s edition of CNN This Morning to talk about the news of the day, as well as to promote the new season of his HBO Max and CNN series Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace.

When Harlow asked Wallace about the comments, he downplayed them as merely “inartful” and “crude” — but then rushed to dissect the political advantages of the attack, praising it as a political “two-fer,” and suggesting other candidates will do the same thing, less crudely and inartfully:

HARLOW: Hey, Chris. Good morning. Before we get to your fascinating interview with Bernie Sanders, I need to hear what you have to say about Nikki Haley elevating the debate over Joe Biden’s age to a whole new level. Here is what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: If you vote for Joe Biden, you really are counting on a President Harris, because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not — is not something that I think is likely. It’s why I continued to say we need to have mental competency tests starting at 75.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Maybe not elevating it. What do you —

HARLOW: Yes, great point, Kaitlan. What do you think?

WALLACE: Well, it was said somewhat in-artfully, and some would say even crudely, but the issue of Biden’s age is going to be an issue in this campaign. There’s no question about it.

And I have always thought that one way to get — in effect, what you are hearing from Nikki Haley there is a two-fer. She is attacking the issue of Biden’s competence and vigor as he runs for a term that would end when he’s 86. She is also taking a shot at Kamala Harris and saying, you don’t want her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. If Biden’s approval numbers are low, Harris’s numbers are even lower. And I suspect that you are going to see, maybe done more artfully than Governor Haley did there, a lot of talk during the next 12, 14 months where people are saying President Harris? with a question mark, because a lot of people don’t like that prospect.

COLLINS: Yes, they think that’s an easier attack.

Now I’ve said before that while I never used to be a particular fan of Wallace while he was at Fox News, his journalistic authority is beyond question — perversely because of where he worked.

But since his move to CNN, he has exposed a deeply empathetic side that was never evident at Fox, which made his reaction to Haley’s disgraceful comments all the more shocking. Openly campaigning on the likely death of your opponent is crossing a line that should produce outrage in anyone — it certainly seemed to in Harlow.

It was genuinely shocking to hear Wallace fail to express any outrage at all, let alone an appropriate level. It was even more shocking for him to openly endorse the premise of the attack — that raising the specter of President Kamala Harris stepping in after a tragedy — as a politically potent attack that other candidates are sure to emulate.

This is not to pick on Wallace — the decency I have come to expect of him is what makes this noteworthy. But this remark has not generated appropriate levels of attention from any of the media. If Biden or any Democrat had flat-out said Trump will be dead before he can finish his term, it would lead every newscast for two years and there’d be a congressional committee devoted to investigating it.

Watch above via  CNN This Morning.

Windows 11 has come a long way since its initial launch, but it still isn’t for everyone. Plenty of Windows 10 fans refuse to upgrade their machines to Microsoft’s latest OS: One estimate suggests Windows 10 still commands 73.46% of PCs in the world, while Windows 11 remains at 20.95%. There are more than a few…

Read more...

Flash cards are an effective memorization tool, as any test-taker well knows. And if making physical flash cards is useful, why not make them online? The next time you find yourself getting stuck while trying to glean the most important information from a long YouTube video, a dense PDF, or a bunch of articles, you…

Read more...

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith believes the Boston Celtics would have handled the firing of coach Ime Udoka differently if he were white.

In September 2022, the Celtics suspended Udoka for the entire 2022-23 season for “violations of team policies.” It was then revealed Udoka was involved in an improper workplace relationship with a female subordinate. The Celtics ultimately fired him.

On April 24, the Houston Rockets announced the organization officially hired Udoka to be their coach for the 2023-24 season.

While Smith praised the Rockets and Udoka for this second chance, he maintained it wasn’t “any of our business.”

“And yes, at the time, I took it to the racial component; and I’m gonna take it there now,” Smith said on Wednesday’s episode of his Know Mercy podcast. “I know – personally – of an inordinate amount of stories that involved white men associated with sports franchises, who were screwing around with someone internally.

“Let me tell you what I’ve never seen: I never saw a damn press conference about it. I never said, ‘Ime Udoka shouldn’t be fired.’ I didn’t have an opinion as to whether he should be fired or he should be kept. My opinion was, “Keep him or fire him.’ What you don’t do it publicize it. He’s the only one screwing? Nobody else was? Everybody else was celibate?”

Smith also took exception to the NBA keeping the woman’s identity a secret while still making the report public, thus involving Udoka’s partner – actress Nia Long – in the controversy.

“Now, he might’ve been wrong,” Smith said of Udoka, “because you’re messing with something in-house. It could’ve been a subordinate. I understand. Fire him! And say, “Ask him why.’ But to have a press conference and put his business – tacitly or otherwise – on front street… You didn’t think about Nia Long at all. But you thought about the other woman, who – purportedly – was white. I ain’t forgetting that – ever.”

Watch the clip above.

“Zone 2” is the name the fitness world has (mostly) agreed upon to describe the low intensity cardio most of us should be doing. When you’re in zone 2, you’re working hard enough that you start breathing heavier, but easy enough you could hold a conversation. You stop a zone 2 session because your workout time is up,…

Read more...

Buzzkills everywhere agree: Fun as they are, attending a loud concert can damage your hearing. Plenty of venues are obnoxiously loud, and you could experience symptoms of hearing loss within just five minutes of exposure the cacophony.

But if you’re someone who frequents live music gigs, your wireless earbuds can help…

Read more...

Bring Your Own Cup Day is back this Saturday, April 29 at 7-Eleven, Speedway, and Stripes locations nationwide. You can bring any size cup (or bucket) that fits under the 10-inch hole in the in-store display to get as much Slurpee as you can for $2. Here are the details and some inspiring and creative stretches of the…

Read more...

White House chief national security spokesman John Kirby told Mediaite the killing of an ISIS-K terrorist shows “you don’t need boots on the ground to be able to go after the terrorists.”

The National Security Council announced Tuesday that the terrorist behind the deadly attack that killed 13 service members during the evacuation of Afghanistan had been killed by the Taliban.

Kirby held an on-the-record briefing with reporters via Zoom on Wednesday morning, during which I asked him to expand on his earlier remarks about the operation, and what it means to the U.S. in terms of fightigi terrorism without having troops on the ground:

TOMMY CHRISTOPHER: My first question was, I just want to know if you could talk a little bit more about what you think the killing of this ISIS-K leader says about the, you know, the ability to do things like this without having troops on the ground. And, you know, whether or not you see that as a vindication.

And I also wanted to ask you about the reaction in Russia to the firing of Tucker Carlson…

ADM. JOHN KIRBY: Those are two very different questions.

TOMMY CHRISTOPHER: Yes, sir.

ADM. JOHN KIRBY: Yes. On your first one, I go back to what I said before. We really have worked hard since we withdraw from Afghanistan to sharpen over-the-horizon capabilities. And I know when we talk about that, we tend to get focused on the strike capability, what we call the kinetic capabilities, the ability to reach out and hit somebody. And certainly that is the, that’s the pointy end of it.

But when we talk about over-the-horizon capabilities, it’s also about it’s also about being able to see things, to know things, to monitor things. And it is we have proven, I think, that that though more difficult in some places, if you don’t have boots on the ground, is not impossible. And again, the record speaks for itself. Just against ISIS, let alone other terrorists that we have removed from the battlefield in the last couple of years.

But to the nub your question, I mean, there’s no question that having this guy no longer able to plot and plan and conduct attacks is a good thing. It’s a good thing for everybody. It’s certainly a good thing for the families of those 13 service members whose lives were taken at Abbey gate, having them gone is a good thing.

And it is part and parcel. It does, part and parcel reflect the the president’s decision to leave Afghanistan that we don’t need, it does in fact, prove that you don’t need boots on the ground, you don’t need to remain in a particular field of battle to be able to go after the terrorists. We said that we’d be able to continue to defend ourselves from terrorist threats in Afghanistan and beyond.

And we’ve proven that in Afghanistan, by the way, by hitting Zawahiri. No, we didn’t have anything to do with this. And but these two groups are mortal enemies. They hate one another. They continue to attack one another. And the Taliban continues to conduct operations against ISIS. And one less ISIS leader walking the face of here is something I think we can all feel good about and and we don’t need. And this shows that we don’t need to always have a significant presence on the ground in order to be able to enjoy that particular element.

Watch above via Mediaite.

When you’re out of work and need to pay some bills, the goal is typically to get a new full-time job as soon as possible. To bridge the gap, we tend to think of gig economy jobs—DoorDash, Uber, etc—as the obvious solution. But there’s an old school, tried-and-true option to keep in mind too: Temping.

Read more...

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley delivered a major address at the headquarters of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the most prominent pro-life organizations in the country on Tuesday during which she blamed the media for having “stoked division” on the issue.

“The next president must find national consensus. That might sound strange to many people,” began Haley:

Under Roe, consensus was replaced by demonization, and let’s be honest: most in the media prioritized demonization. They stoked division, pitting Americans against each other. No one talks about finding consensus, everyone goes to the barricades and attacks the other side. They’ve taken a sensitive issue that has long divided people into a kind of gotcha bidding war. How many weeks are you for? How many exceptions are you for? And the list goes on

Abortion figures to play a more prominent role than usual in both the GOP primary and general election because of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade last year, and some observers have blamed the decision for Republicans’ underperformance in the 2020 midterms and posited that it could be integral to President Joe Biden’s reelection strategy.

On Tuesday, Haley touted her pro-life credentials while articulating a conciliatory approach to the issue.

“These questions miss the point if the goal is about saving as many lives as possible,” continued Haley. “You don’t save any lives if you can’t enact your position into law, and you can’t do that unless you find consensus.”

The former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Trump explained during her address that her position is the result of her husband’s adoption story as well as her own fertility troubles, but that she respected how others’ stories led them to the opposite conclusion.

“Reaching consensus starts with humanizing, not demonizing. Just like I have my story, I respect everyone who has their story. I don’t judge someone who’s pro-choice anymore than I want them to judge me for being pro-life,” argued Haley.

Substantively, Haley implied that she would sign some kind of federal limit on abortion into law, although she eschewed committing to signing or vetoing any particular measure. “I do believe there is a federal role on abortion,” said Haley, who nevertheless acknowledged that “No Republican president will have the ability to ban abortion nationwide.”

Haley’s commitment to some kind of federal role on the issue can be contrasted with the position of her boss turned rival, Donald Trump.

In a statement delivered to the Washington Post last week, a spokesman for the Trump campaign said that “President Donald J. Trump believes that the Supreme Court, led by the three Justices which he supported, got it right when they ruled this is an issue that should be decided at the State level.”

The statement faced backlash from a variety of prominent pro-lifers, including SBA Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser, who called Trump’s position “morally indefensible.”

“We will oppose any presidential candidate who refuses to embrace at a minimum a 15-week national standard to stop painful late-term abortions while allowing states to enact further protections,” she added.

Watch above via C-SPAN.

Let’s face it: There are a whole lot of people looking for jobs right now. With an estimated 168,000 people laid off in just the first four months of 2023, plus all the folks who would naturally be on the market no matter what (maybe you’ve been looking for a while, or are still employed but trying to get out), we’re…

Read more...

Canva has already democratized the process of graphic design, simplifying things with templates and asset libraries to the point that anyone with a web browser can design something functional, even attractive—if not exactly original. Pairing Canva with new AI technologies only makes sense, as, to put it charitably, AI…

Read more...

After news broke on Monday that CNN had fired embattled anchor Don Lemon, The New York Times reported that a tense debate last week between GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Lemon may have been the final straw that ended his 17-year run at the network.

Lemon has generated a good deal of controversy in recent weeks with widely panned comments regarding Nikki Haley, another GOP presidential candidate, being “past her prime” and reported tensions behind the scenes between him and his co-host Kaitlin Collins.

The Times reported, however, that Lemon’s racially charged debate with Ramaswamy “left several CNN leaders exasperated”:

Last Wednesday, however, Mr. Lemon made headlines again after a highly contentious on-air exchange with Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican presidential candidate. The segment deteriorated as the men fiercely debated questions of Black history and the Second Amendment; Mr. Lemon’s co-anchor, Ms. Harlow, could be seen sitting silently beside him, at times casting her gaze elsewhere and scrolling through her smartphone.

The tense exchange between Lemon and Ramaswamy, which Mediaite was first to cover, became contentions after Lemon slammed Ramaswamy for lecturing him about the Black experience in the U.S. while defending a recent speech he made at an NRA event, in which the Republican candidate accused the Democratic Party of wanting to put Black people “back in chains.”

“For you to compare it to 1865, and 1964 is actually… I think it’s insulting to Black people. It’s insulting to me as an African-American, I don’t want to sit here and argue with you because it’s infuriating for you to put that to put those things together. It’s not right. Your telling of history is wrong,” Lemon charged during the interview as Ramaswamy defended his statements to the NRA.

“Well, here’s where you and I have a different point of view. I think we should be able to express our views regardless of the color of our skin. We should have this debate without me, regarding you as a Black man,” Ramaswamy said later in the interview.

“It’s insulting that you’re…” shot back Lemon.

“Regarding you here as a fellow citizen,” interjected Ramaswamy.

“That you’re sitting here whatever ethnicity you are splaining to me what it’s like to be Black in America,” Lemon replied.

“Whatever ethnicity I am?” asked a stunned Ramaswamy.

“I’ll tell you what I am? I’m an Indian American. I’m proud of it. But I think we should have this debate. Black, white, doesn’t matter,” he added.

“I think we should have this debate but I think we should,” Lemon replied as Ramaswamy said, “On the content of the ideas to do.”

“You should do it in an honest way and in a fair way. And what you’re doing is not an honest and fair way. We appreciate you coming on,” Lemon replied.

“With due respect, Don, I look forward to continuing that conversation,” Ramaswamy concluded as the two men shook hands.

Watch the full clip above via CNN.

Mediaite Founding Editor Colby Hall appeared on NewsNation, where he’s a contributor, to discuss Tucker Carlson‘s exit from Fox News Monday, but got a surprise when informed live on the air that Don Lemon had been let go from CNN.

Although CNN said the network had “parted ways” with Lemon and that he “will forever be a part of the CNN family,” He tweeted a full statement saying he was “not given any indication” that he would be terminated and that CNN didn’t inform him directly.

“Did anyone see this one coming?” NewsNation anchor Marni Hughes asked Hall about Lemon.

“Wow!” Hall said, reacting to the news.

“Stunning!” The Mediaite founding editor added. “I had spoken to Don earlier and he said he was worried about that very thing. About two months ago he made fun of Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley said that every candidate should not be past their prime. He said every woman over 40 are past their prime. I know the top executives at CNN were really concerned. They liked Don, he was a star at CNN. He was famous for saying things off the cuff that got him into trouble. But that comment stuck a dagger into the target viewer of cable news morning programming, and it became clear that Don couldn’t come back from that. That if you offend the older demographic of say, 50, 60, 70-year old women, saying that they’re past their prime, that’s a tough thing to bounce back from. Wow, what a stunning cable news day!”

Lemon apologized on air after the Nikki Haley comment, saying, “I regret it,” and that the statement was “inartful and irrelevant.”

Haley celebrated Lemon’s departure from CNN and took a swipe at transgender women, tweeting, “A great day for women everywhere. Now, let’s get men out of women’s sports. #StillInMyPrime,”

Watch the NewMax clip above.

A top ESPN NBA analyst has condemned remarks from 11-time championship coach Phil Jackson — who slammed the league’s social justice initiatives.

In a commentary posted to Twitter, ESPN’s Jalen Rose blasted Jackson for saying that he no longer watches the NBA because he feels it has gotten too political.

“They even had [social justice] slogans on the floor, on the baseline,” Jackson said, in a recent interview on the Tetragrammaton podcast. “It was catering. It was trying to cater to an audience, or trying to bring a certain audience into play. And they didn’t know it was turning other people off. People want to see sports as non-political.”

Rose slammed the famed coach’s comments.

“You can’t make this up,” Rose said. He added, “The same Phil Jackson that won championships with some of the greatest Black athletes in the history of the game. Michael Jordan. Scottie Pippen. Shaquille O’Neal. Kobe Bryant. Made millions on their backs. And off their sweat equity.”

The ESPN analyst called out Jackson for mocking the NBA for players wearing social justice messages such as “justice” and “equal opportunity” on the back of their jerseys, instead of their names.

“They had things on their back like ‘Justice’ and a funny thing happened,” Jackson said. “Like ‘Justice went to the basket and Equal Opportunity knocked him down’… Some of my grandkids thought it was pretty funny to play up those names. I couldn’t watch that.”

“You’re sitting there watching the game with your grandkids, and ya’ll think it’s funny when justice passes the ball to equal opportunity?” Rose said. “When somebody shows you who they are, believe them.”

Watch above, via Twitter.

In the opinion of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), is not House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) who is leading the House Republican caucus, but rather Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

Appearing on Inside with Jen Psaki Sunday, the New York congresswoman essentially argued that Kevin McCarthy is a puppet and Greene is actually calling the shots.

“Speaker McCarthy, in order to become speaker, had to cut some deals we still don’t know the details on,” Psaki said. “Do you think he’s actually running his caucus or do you think someone else is.”

“He’s not,” the congresswoman replied. She added, “I think you you’ve got Marjorie Taylor Greene running the caucus. I mean, and she makes very common public statements to that effect. Every time something irks her, she communicates that McCarthy is doing her bidding. And I think that this is something that is quite clear.”

The congresswoman argued McCarthy has had to make a choice between the two sides of his caucus, and has opted to back the far-Right.

“I think that Speaker McCarthy is stuck between having to please the most racist and heinous elements of his party with having to maintain a majority, and he is choosing to side with the extremists,” she said.

She added, “He’s kind of brought himself up a creek without a paddle.”

Watch above, via MSNBC.

Liberal radio host Thom Hartmann told SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah that the so-called “No Labels” party will “make it possible for Donald Trump to become president again.”

No Labels, the former home of Mark Halperin, is trying to appeal to voters who don’t want either of the major party candidates.

Bot on a recent edition of The Dean Obeidallah Show, Hartmann argued the group can only help Trump, and heavily suggested they’re being funded by pro-Trump forces:

DEAN OBEIDALLAH: Can you share a little because we might hear no Labels and they might be like, Well, that sounds nice, right? It’s not left. It’s not right. And Democrats, not Republican. But there’s a lot more going on here. So can you share a little bit of what you wrote about the No Labels in their plans, their scheming for 2024?

THOM HARTMANN: Yeah, No Labels is you know, it’s a group of washed up, you know, mostly Democratic consultants. They’re corporatists. They’re they’re they’re people who are available to go where the money is. So it seems. They’re not going to pull votes away from Donald Trump. They’re going to pull votes away from Joe Biden and they’re going to make it possible for Donald Trump to become president again. They have raised $75 million that are dark money organization. They refuse to say where any of their money came from or how much came from who or what, you know, how it’s being spent.

But they have put together $75 million to get ballot access in every state in the union. The only state where people are seriously pushing back right now is Arizona, where the Democratic Party of Arizona is suing them to try and keep them off the ballot. And, you know, frankly, I think there should be a lot more pushback because they could do a lot of damage. We have had three Republican presidents in my lifetime who took office because there was a third party ex-Democrat on the ticket.

In 2000 you had Ralph Nader on the ballot and Ralph Nader got 79,000 votes down in Florida. George W Bush won Florida by 570 votes, 567 or whatever it was, 57, I forget. And and, you know, they did a follow up survey and they found that two out of three of the Nader voters would have voted for Al Gore if Nader hadn’t been on the ticket. So that, you know, that would have given him about a 40,000 vote surplus of Al Gore.

And then in 2016, you had Jill Stein on the ticket. And in Wisconsin and Michigan, Jill Stein carried more votes and I believe in Pennsylvania. Jill Stein, it’s in my article I to go back and look for the links.

But Jill Stein carried more votes in those states than Donald Trump won by. So, you know, it’s like we’ve we’ve had three Republican presidents now that, Nixon, Bush and Trump, who would not have won, certainly two of the three definitely wouldn’t have won. Arguably all three wouldn’t have won had there not been a third party candidate on the ticket, on the ballot. And now these guys are saying, yeah, let’s put a third party candidate on the ballot.

Why would you do that? Apparently because you want Trump as president. I don’t think because they want Trump as president, though. I think it’s because, you know, these are people who are who are probably paid very, very well for what they do. And there are big money people who would like to see Trump as president because they want more tax cuts and more deregulation. And, you know, they’re willing to put up the cash.

Watch above via The Dean Obeidallah Show.

Ex-President Donald Trump posted a relentless barrage against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that included one link bashing Mediaite and another promoting one of our articles.

Trump took shots at DeSantis in a speech Friday to the Lee County GOP Lincoln Reagan dinner, highlighting a raft of Florida endorsements at the beginning of the speech and mocking DeSantis later in the evening. From Caleb Howe:

“In Florida, I got 1.2 million more votes than your successful governor’s campaign. You know that. We got 1.2 million,” said Trump.

He then adopted his mocking voice, play acting DeSantis begging him for help.

“‘Sir I’d love to have your support, sir. I’d love to have your support. I’m down at about three. I’d love to have you support.,’” said Trump. He then acted out his imaginary reply. “‘All right, let’s think about it.’”

“Then there was like, a rocket ship after I gave it,” he continued after the performance. “Otherwise, right now, you’d have a lawyer someplace looking for business.”

On Saturday, Trump spent the day posting and re-posting links on his Truth Social account attacking DeSantis and boasting about his lead in various polls.

In one post Saturday, Trump published a link to an article trashing a Colby Hall story, entitled “Mediaite Still in Denial About 2020 Election.”

Trump fan Jeffrey Lord took issue with this passage:

There is no evidence that reasonably suggests that there was “large scale cheating & irregularities” in the 2020 election as Trump claims, which is best evidenced by the failed legal efforts put forth by Trump’s lawyers. He lost the election. Full stop. He is the loser of the 2020 election and every reasonable person accepts that to be true.

But minutes later, Trump posted a pair of Mediaite articles that were more to his liking.

One was entitled “Charlie Kirk Throws His ‘Friend’ Ron DeSantis Overboard: ‘He’s Had a Bad Month,’ Doesn’t Come Across As ‘Strong or Confident’“, and the other blared “Fox News Airs Brutal DeSantis Segment Showing Republicans Backing Trump: ‘Only One Member From Florida’ Has Endorsed the Governor.”

The posts garnered tens of extra pageviews for the website.

It’s no revelation to observe that the American immigration system is broken, but a recent retraction from NBC News demonstrates that even its critics are understating the true depth of the ongoing crisis at the southern border.

On April 12, NBC and Noticias Telemundo reported that Packers Sanitation Services Inc. had hired a 16-year-old migrant to work at a meat processing plant, even though federal law prohibits employing minors at such facilities.

But days later, PSSI sent NBC a taped interview during which the migrant stated that he was not a minor. When confronted about this discrepancy, the migrant said it would be “hard for me to explain.” NBC subsequently obtained documentation from his home country of Guatemala showing that he is actually 21 years old.

From NBC’s retraction:

Presenting as a minor at the border made it easier for Pedro to enter the country under current U.S. immigration policies. The U.S. government issued him documentation based on that false information.

Also:

He spent three months in a Health and Human Services shelter for underage migrants in Chicago. He attended a high school in Kansas. And a U.S. official says he continues to have an active case, based on the information he provided to cross the border, with HHS.

So, in summary: An adult male presented as a child at the United States’ southern border because he knew that he would be more likely to enter and stay in the country if authorities believed him to be an unaccompanied minor. Under U.S. law, most unaccompanied minors must be transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with the Department of Health and Human Services, which places them with “sponsors,” oftentimes family members, already in the country.

In this instance, the migrant received official papers from the federal government denoting that he was a child and spent time in two spaces that placed him in close proximity with actual children before going on attain employment and eventually lie, yet again, about his age to NBC News (which, by the way, is the only reason we’re aware of this particular, easily replicable abuse of the system.)

Can you imagine a more stark exhibition of the faulty processes and bad incentives?

Migrants of all ages have reason to simply show up at the porous border where they may well be able to avoid authorities. Families have reason to send minors to the border by themselves, where they’re likely to be able to gain entry to the United States, but are also vulnerable to exploitation by drug cartels and human traffickers. Young adults have reason to lie about their age to enjoy the same advantages. U.S. authorities will hand those who do lie — and those about whom authorities evidently know next to nothing — official documents reflecting that lie and place them in close proximity to minors.

In fiscal year 2021, authorities tallied up 1,734,686 encounters with migrants at the southern border. In 2022, number ballooned to 2,378,944 in 2022. 2023 is on track to surpass even that.

As damning as those figures are, the true depth of the crisis at the border can only be fully grasped when you consider how it’s taken advantage of, as well as its disastrous consequences.

AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File

Politico Magainze on Friday published a deep dive article looking at the latest threats to American civil society and warned of a potential “civil breakdown” as the 2024 presidential primary season heats up.

Senior U.S. counterterrorism officials have raised concern over “the risk of major civil disruption” from the far-right is still a threat to U.S. democracy and authorities aren’t equipped to handle it, noted two writers at Politico, citing a federal threat assessment.

The warning looms large in anticipation of the 2024 presidential election that could pit Donald Trump against Joe Biden once again — a repeat of the 2020 contest that brought about the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, which led to the deaths of at least seven people, according to a bipartisan Senate report.

Writers Steven Simon with the MIT Center for International Studies and Jonathan Stevenson with the International Institute for Strategic Studies say they’ve backed off from warning of possible full-scale civil war, arguing instead, “Now it is starting to look less plausible, given the strength shown by the political center in the 2022 midterms and President Joe Biden’s largely effective tenure in the White House.”

However, the writers say the deep political divide could result in “smaller pockets of armed unrest” that “could easily ignite and spread disorder”:

As the 2024 election approaches, the threat of political violence and civil breakdown is only going to increase. And despite all that U.S. national security and law enforcement officials have learned since Jan. 6, the country is still not prepared for a far-right revolt.

Simon and Stevenson argue the lack of a clear federal strategy for keeping up with domestic terrorists, who are usually lone wolves with grudges against the government, is a remaining problem authorities need to solve.

“No single agency is really in charge, and much of the jurisdictional authority lies with locally elected prosecutors reluctant to step on the toes of those who put them in office. And, unlike the United Kingdom, for example, the United States has no nationwide government agency authorized and equipped to counter radicalization,” concludes the article.

Read the full Politico article by Steve Simon and Jonathan Stevenson here.

When I was in high school, the only times we thought about goats was when we planned to steal them because they were a rival high school’s mascot, or when we needed a sacrifice to the Great Old Ones. Seems kids today are taking a different tack, and posing for prom pictures with them. They’re also redefining the…

Read more...

There’s no doubt AI, specifically ChatGPT, is all the rage right now. It’s never been easier to try out AI technology without paying a dime. However, there’s still a barrier to entry, however small, that might keep some from dipping their toes in the next big thing in tech. Snapchat might’ve just changed that, …

Read more...

All-American swimmer Riley Gaines, who is an activist working to keep transgender women out of women’s sports, praised the Republican sponsors of the “Ban Transgender Athletes In Girls’ Sports” bill that passed the House of Representatives on Thursday.

Gaines famously swam the 200 Freestyle against transgender athlete Lia Thomas in the 2022 NCAA Championships, where they tied for fifth place. Thomas went on to win the national title in the 500-yard Freestyle.

“This was not an event that I did, so I sat on the side of the pool and watched as Lia Thomas won, beating out Olympians, beating out American record holders, the most impressive females this country has seen by body lengths,” Gaines said on Fox’s Faulkner Focus. “This one swimmer beat out every other swimmer in the country by seconds.”

In previous interviews, Gaines has called Thomas “an arrogant cheat” who stole the national title.

When asked about a possible competitive advantage, Thomas told ABC News, “there’s a lot of factors that go into a race and how well you do.”

Harris Faulkner insinuated that Thomas became a transgender athlete because she was outclassed in men’s competitions.

“2018, 2019, Lia Thomas, a.k.a. William, was competing with the men’s team before competing against you, Riley, and ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle,” Faulkner said. “65th ranking in the 500 freestyle. Could not compete against the men.”

“Of course, it’s almost ironic how the Left was once a party that embraced women and fought for women’s rights and now we’ve seen this narrative being totally flipped,” Gaines said. “It shows the War on Women is underway and Democrats will pay for it in 2024.”

Democrats have used the label “War on Women” to encapsulate Republicans’ attempts to ban abortion and limit birth control, thus ostensibly keeping women from determining their own destinies.

Gaines told Faulkner that she was going to continue advocating for keeping trans women from competing in future women’s sporting events.

“So I was set to be in dental school this year…But I put that aside because I realized, dental school will be always be there. But the relevance and the importance behind this issue seeing firsthand what’s at stake if someone doesn’t fight for this, I realized that that opportunity might not always be there…I’ve totally changed my life plans from what I thought I would be doing.”

The “Ban Transgender Athletes In Girls’ Sports” bill now goes to the Democrat-led Senate, where it is most likely to die.

Watch the Fox clip above.

An international coterie of physicists have determined the ultimate technique for using a playground swing, and I’m happy to report you have probably been doing things correctly your entire life.

Read more...