By Ken Shepherd | November 30, 2015 | 6:20 PM EST

On the Nov. 30 edition of MSNBC's MTP Daily, pro-abortion rights absolutist Sen. Barbara Boxer was given free rein to draw a line connecting pro-life rhetoric with Friday's fatal shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. While guest host Steve Kornacki meekly asked the California Democrat if she saw a connection between the two, he failed to chastise her for smearing a significant plurality, if not majority, of Americans who consider that, yes, abortion does end a human life and hence amounts to killing babies.

By Brad Wilmouth | November 30, 2015 | 5:54 PM EST

As Monday's CNN Newsroom with Carol Costello devoted a segment to whether political rhetoric against Planned Parenthood's practices inspired an attack on a Colorado Planned Parenthood office, host Costello began by asserting that GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina had "falsely" claimed that the abortion provider "was guilty of harvesting a live baby's organs" as the CNN host wondered if such "rhetoric" is "fueling" violence.

And Daily Beast contributor Dean Obeidallah took aim at Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Dr. Ben Carson as he made charges of politicians "legitimizing hate," and charged that most extreme language comes from the right more than the left.

By Matthew Balan | November 30, 2015 | 4:19 PM EST

The media has been carrying water for pro-abortion activists since the Friday shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado in trying to hold the pro-life movement/conservatives, along with the Republican Party, responsible for the murders for their "fierce criticism" of the abortionist organization. However, a more recent incident of threatened violence leads one to wonder if the press will advance the same narrative with Black Lives Matter and other "racial justice" activists.

By Mark Finkelstein | November 30, 2015 | 12:16 PM EST

Ruth Marcus has come close to blaming Republicans for the Colorado Springs shootings. Appearing on Jose Diaz-Balart's MSNBC show today, Washington Post columnist Marcus said that "the Republican candidates . . . have been part of the inflamed and inflammatory rhetoric about Planned Parenthood, about the sale of baby parts, about dismembering live babies . . . I think it's a fair conclusion, especially based on his . . . alleged mentioning of 'no more baby parts,' that this kind of rhetoric helped create this environment."

Really? Is there no room for people--without being accused of inflaming people to commit murder--to express their opposition to abortion and to the largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood? To state what the videos indisputably demonstrate: that among other things that PP was in the business of selling baby body parts? 

By Brad Wilmouth | November 29, 2015 | 11:25 PM EST

On all three broadcast network Sunday talk shows, hosts pressed some of their GOP guests by forwarding a quote from Planned Parenthood complaining that "hateful rhetoric" from abortion opponents had contributed to the shooting attack on Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain in Colorado.

NBC's Chuck Todd on Meet the Press notably managed to utter the words "hateful rhetoric" three times and "heated rhetoric" once as he repeatedly brought up Planned Parenthood's complaints about being criticized by the pro-life movement for selling baby parts.

By Mark Finkelstein | November 29, 2015 | 7:46 AM EST

It was one of those stunning live-TV moments revealing the seamier side of TV news.  Pat Brown is a criminal profiler who has taken a principled stand on media appearances about mass murderers. She will not discuss individual criminals, their motives, etc., believing that to do so only increases the number of mass murders. 

But when Brown appeared on CNN's New Day this morning, co-host Christi Paul immediately tried to engage her in a discussion of Colorado Springs shooter Robert Dear's possible "anti-government" views. Retorted Brown: "I'm a little disturbed because I made an agreement with CNN to appear this morning only under the condition that we do not talk about the particular shooter, use his name, or show his face." Undeterred, Paul tried to lure Brown into a discussion of the shooting investigation, but again Brown rebuffed it There the interview ended, but co-host Victor Blackwell came on to claim that the agreement had been honored because neither Dear's photo nor name had been used.  Didn't use Dear's name? Really? Have a look at the screencap, Mr. Blackwell. 

By Brad Wilmouth | November 27, 2015 | 4:46 PM EST

Appearing as a guest on Friday's Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield on CNN to discuss Chicago protests that threaten to disrupt Black Friday shopping, liberal CNN political commentator Marc Lamont Hill suggested that the police had arrested the killer of a nine-year-old boy because it "diverts attention" from the recent release of the police shooting video of Laquan McDonald.

He also seemed to suggest that by shopping that blacks are "funding our own genocide" as he brushed off concerns about the protesters hurting the shopping season.

By Clay Waters | November 27, 2015 | 11:54 AM EST

Sports and politics are an uneasy mix, but ESPN's "The Truth" columnist Howard Bryant sees no conflict from his end-zone perch at the back of ESPN's biweekly magazine. His column for the December 7 edition tackled a mini-scandal about the Pentagon paying for patriotic displays at professional ball games: "Are You Ready for Some Patriotism?" Bryant went beyond genuine concerns over the sub-rosa marketing by the Pentagon to criticize any such respectful acts as pandering to police. Going full p.c., Bryant even argued that Veterans Day was a slap in the face to American Indians.

By Curtis Houck | November 24, 2015 | 10:34 PM EST

The latest verbal battle between Megyn Kelly and liberal Fox News contributor Richard Fowler took place during Tuesday’s Kelly File over a Black Lives Matter activist getting right up to the face of a Chicago police officer as live coverage unfolded of protests in Chicago related to the shooting death of LaQuan McDonald.

By Tom Blumer | November 24, 2015 | 9:49 PM EST

There are plenty of problems with the government's "no-fly list," and especially the plans by some congressmen and senators to abuse it. That said, it appears, almost three years later, to have gotten one name right.

In late 2012 and early 2013, leftists like Chris Hayes at MSNBC, Glenn Greenwald and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones were upset that Saadiq Long, a U.S. Air Force veteran who was living in Qatar, had been put on the no-fly list. After making a stink, Long's name was apparently removed so he could fly into Oklahoma to see his ailing mother, only to see his no-fly listing reinstated so he couldn't leave. He returned to Qatar, but only after taking a bus down to Mexico City and flying from there. End of story? Hardly, as PJ Media's Patrick Poole reports:

By Tom Johnson | November 24, 2015 | 11:25 AM EST

Liberals sometimes say that law enforcement’s approach to the Mafia offers a model for how to deal with jihadists, even though the latter tend not to limit their demands to protection money. This past Sunday, Egberto Willies claimed that if terrorist attacks were “treated as they should be, like organized crime, it would neuter ISIS. After all…the group is no more powerful than a large band of thugs with weapons.”

But crimefighting methods weren’t the main concern of Willies’s piece. Rather, it was his belief that “neocons” wish to exploit fear of terrorism in order to start a war which would “transfer wealth from the masses to the few owners of the defense industrial complex.” Willies also ranted that conservatives don’t take a back seat to Islamist fanatics when it comes to lethality: “America's right-wing mass killers and gang bangers have killed more people in the West than ISIS has.”

By Tom Blumer | November 23, 2015 | 3:50 PM EST

New York Daily News covers on November 18 ("NRA'S SICK JIHAD" — noted at the time by NB's Kristine Marsh) and today ("NOWHERE TO HIDE, JIHADI WAYNE") have accused the NRA of placing the right to purchase guns ahead of public safety from terrorist attacks.

The paper's bogus claim is based on the NRA's opposition to legislation prohibiting anyone on the government's "terror watch list" from purchasing a gun. While the idea might appear to have sensible on the surface, it doesn't survive scrutiny, as the folks at the group's legislative arm painstakingly explained over four years ago: