Author name: LifeZette

MSNBC host Joy Reid announced her departure from X, formerly known as Twitter, by posting a video on social media in which she detailed her decision to delete her account.

Reid, who had 1.9 million followers on the platform, cited her lack of recent activity and ownership concerns as reasons for leaving the platform, which is now under Elon Musk’s control.

Joy Reid has officially DELETED her account. pic.twitter.com/sk0nCsk2cm

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) November 14, 2024

“Today, I finally did something I’ve been meaning to do for a while,” Reid stated, showing screenshots of the account deletion process. “The reason for doing it and kissing goodbye my 1.9 million followers over there is because I haven’t been posting for a long time. I just didn’t want to contribute content once it was purchased by its present owner.”

Reid went on to say that she had initially kept the account to prevent someone else from taking her username and “using it for nefarious purposes.”

Her exit from X sparked questions about potential future issues, given that she had previously faced controversy over past blog posts on her personal blog, which contained allegedly antisemitic and homophobic content.

At the time, Reid claimed her blog was hacked, an investigation that reportedly did not yield a definitive culprit.

The move to delete her account comes just days after former Fox News host Megyn Kelly speculated that MSNBC might consider letting Reid go.

In her podcast, Kelly stated that “MSNBC is allowing her [Reid] to spew this racist hate on their channel,” adding, “It’s a tick-tock situation until her a– is fired.”

Megyn Kelly thinks MSNBC will dump Joy Reid after she said Trump plans to deport minorities who have legal status in the country. https://t.co/MWvmqUj4Yo pic.twitter.com/mzVcDVqnQ8

— New York Post (@nypost) November 12, 2024

Kelly’s remarks follow Reid’s recent controversial commentary, where she suggested that Black and Hispanic Trump voters were “identifying with whiteness” by supporting the former president.

Ratings for MSNBC have shown a notable decline since Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.

Since Election Day, the network has experienced a 53% drop in prime-time viewership, while Fox News has reported a 21% increase in prime-time viewership.

Don Lemon leaves X
Joy Reid leaves X
CCDH leaves X
The Guardian leaves X

The trash is taking itself out 👏

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 14, 2024

Read More at LifeZette

George Clooney, the Oscar-winning actor who once dismissed Donald Trump’s chances at the presidency, now finds himself under fire from his own party’s supporters after Kamala Harris’ disappointing 2024 election defeat, as reported by Daily Fetched.

Clooney’s vocal support for alternatives to President Joe Biden, especially in a critical op-ed published in The New York Times, has stirred up a hornet’s nest among liberals, who are now pointing fingers his way for the recent loss.

At 63, Clooney has been a dedicated advocate for the Democratic Party, contributing both time and money. In fact, he helped raise a staggering $30 million for Biden’s re-election campaign, only to openly question Biden’s viability shortly after.

His call for new Democratic leadership just months before the election is now being widely blamed for sparking doubts within the party. An insider close to Clooney revealed, “George feels that the backlash he is getting for Kamala losing is not at all warranted. He thinks it’s completely unfair to try and make him a scapegoat for her loss.”

🚨🇺🇸GEORGE CLOONEY: F*CK POLITICS – I'M OUT

Clooney is reportedly stepping away from politics after feeling like the “scapegoat” for Kamala's loss to Trump.

Clooney, who initially raised a whopping $30 million for Biden, later penned a fiery op-ed urging the president to step… pic.twitter.com/wiPCljp0yZ

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) November 9, 2024

Clooney’s recent struggles with the party have left him contemplating a step back from political involvement. According to the same source, he’s feeling “very disheartened,” particularly after investing so heavily in the party’s goals and witnessing the swift backlash after the election.

Speculation around Clooney’s op-ed further heightened when rumors suggested that former President Barack Obama might have ghostwritten or heavily influenced his words.

While Politico noted that Obama didn’t explicitly encourage Clooney to speak out, he reportedly did nothing to stop it, creating an air of suspicion around their partnership. But whether or not Obama was involved, the larger story is clear: Hollywood’s political clout is rapidly fading.

This incident has forced a spotlight on the effectiveness of celebrity endorsements. Even paying high-profile figures like Oprah Winfrey millions to endorse candidates seems increasingly futile when core policy issues—such as gun rights, free speech, and economic concerns—hold much greater sway over voters.

As Clooney prepares to pull back from his once-enthusiastic political role, he faces the reality that Hollywood’s sway over politics may not be as powerful as it once was.

Despite the millions spent and the famous faces brought forward, the loss of Harris in the 2024 race seems to have spotlighted a deeper disconnect between the entertainment industry’s values and the everyday concerns of American voters.

Read More at LifeZette

Newly obtained documents show that Dr. Anthony Fauci received $15 million in taxpayer-funded security after his retirement, according to a report by independent journalist Jordan Schachtel and Open The Books.

The arrangement, detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provided security for Fauci from January 4, 2023, to September 20, 2024.

The protection included a security detail and chauffeur.

The U.S. Marshals Service, which operates under the Department of Justice, confirmed to the Daily Caller that they provided protective services to Fauci from January 2023 to August 2024, one month less than indicated by Schachtel’s report.

The $15 million security arrangement did not include the costs of Fauci’s previous protection, which began in April 2020 and continued through December 2022.

WHY WAS $15 MILLION SPENT ON FAUCI’S SECURITY?@JeremyPortnoy discovered this startling overspending with FOIA, and how Fauci is no longer a federal employee.@Stinchfield1776 pic.twitter.com/xgHLxwId2u

— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) November 9, 2024

According to the MOU, the $15 million covered transportation, law enforcement equipment, and the salaries and benefits of Fauci’s security team. The agreement also included the option to renew or extend the contract in the future if deemed necessary.

The report highlights the unique nature of this extended security arrangement, noting that it could not find other examples of a former federal employee receiving protection at this level.

Fauci, who served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) until his retirement in December 2022, was among the highest-paid federal employees, with a salary surpassing that of then-President Donald Trump in 2019.

The allocation of taxpayer funds for post-retirement protection has drawn comparisons to similar arrangements for former public officials.

Former presidents receive Secret Service protection for life, per federal law, and some high-level officials have also received extended security due to potential threats.

For example, two former national security advisers in the Trump administration were provided with taxpayer-funded security after leaving office due to threats from Iran, at a cost exceeding $12 million, according to a 60 Minutes report from CBS News.

Separately, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who suspended his campaign, reportedly lost his Secret Service detail.

The Daily Caller News Foundation confirmed that Kennedy was initially denied Secret Service protection multiple times and only received protection after an attempted assassination of President-elect Trump in July.

The report on Fauci’s security funding has reignited scrutiny of his time as head of NIAID.

Fauci’s agency previously faced criticism after the White Coat Waste Project revealed that it funded controversial animal testing, including experiments on beagles.

The Daily Caller reported in August that the Biden administration was aware of NIAID’s alleged attempts to cover up these experiments.

This latest revelation about Fauci’s security funding adds to the growing discourse on how taxpayer dollars are allocated for security measures post-retirement, particularly for high-profile figures in government service.

I agree!

I told Dr. Fauci to his face that he should be in jail and prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Well, we might finally get the chance… https://t.co/8EgwmjjDdq pic.twitter.com/armVT7whFK

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) November 12, 2024

The full extent of Fauci’s security costs and whether the protection could be extended in the future remains to be clarified.

Read More at LifeZette

Pentagon officials are reportedly discussing how to respond to potential directives from President-elect Donald Trump, according to a report by CNN citing defense sources.

The conversations include planning for various possible actions by the incoming administration, such as deploying military forces to assist with mass deportations or reinstating Schedule F, an executive order from Trump’s previous term that would reclassify certain federal employees, making them easier to dismiss.

The reported discussions include “gaming out” scenarios in which Trump could use the military to support federal and local law enforcement in deportation operations.

According to CNN, some officials are preparing for “the worst-case scenario,” though a defense official acknowledged that the actual course of action remains uncertain.

One of the primary concerns among Pentagon officials, CNN reported, is the possibility that Trump could reintroduce Schedule F, a measure he first implemented via executive order in 2020.

Schedule F reclassified certain civil servants as “at-will” employees, allowing for their dismissal based on performance.

Joe Biden rescinded the order shortly after taking office in 2021, but Trump has publicly indicated his intention to bring it back, stating in a 2023 video that he would “wield that power very aggressively.”

The prospect of Schedule F’s return has reportedly generated significant concern within defense circles, with one official telling CNN that they have received a high volume of communications on the topic.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has previously warned against “inappropriate political encroachments” on career civil servants, while Trump has criticized some in the Pentagon as “rogue bureaucrats.”

Concerns over potential conflicts between Trump and the Department of Defense have also been amplified by Trump’s past statements, including his October comments to Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo about addressing “radical left lunatics” within government ranks.

Trump referenced the possible need for the National Guard or the military to deal with “the enemy within,” a term he used to describe political opponents, including Democratic Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff from California.

The possibility of a strained relationship between Trump’s administration and the Pentagon has reportedly led officials to prepare for a different dynamic in his second term.

CNN reported that the connection between the Trump White House and the Department of Defense (DoD) was notably tense during his first term, prompting a heightened focus on personnel choices for key DoD roles this time around.

"The unelected bureaucracy of this government answers to the civilian and duly elected leadership."@ScottJenningsKY excoriates Pentagon officials over reports of secret meetings about how to “thwart or countermand the Commander-In-Chief."

The plotting against Trump has… pic.twitter.com/Glptqqvw5q

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 9, 2024

Republican CNN contributor Scott Jennings addressed these reported discussions on Anderson Cooper 360⁰, suggesting that if officials are worried about upcoming changes, they should raise their concerns directly with Trump. “What’s Donald Trump supposed to think?” Jennings asked.

“He’s gotta read in the newspaper tonight that the unelected bureaucracy of the federal government is having meetings, at some level, about how to thwart or countermand the Commander in Chief.”

The report comes amid heightened interest in how Trump’s approach to the Pentagon may differ from his previous term.

Many of Trump’s most vocal critics from his first term came from within his own administration, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and former Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Both Milley and Kelly were prominent in their critiques, with Kelly comparing Trump to a fascist and alleging that Trump praised Adolf Hitler, a claim Trump has denied.

As Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, the focus on his potential actions and changes within the Pentagon reflects broader questions about how his administration will interact with the military and defense establishment.

The discussions reported by CNN indicate that defense officials are actively considering the challenges and adjustments they might face under the incoming administration, with scenarios being evaluated to anticipate potential policy shifts under Trump’s leadership.

Read More at LifeZette

Voters in Alameda County, California, have recalled District Attorney Pamela Price, marking the first time the county has removed an elected DA from office.

Price, who was backed by George Soros and known for her “criminal justice reform” policies, was ousted by a significant margin in one of California’s most left-leaning areas, which includes the city of Oakland.

Early Wednesday morning, Alameda County released unofficial results showing that 64.8% of voters supported recalling Price, while 35.2% voted to keep her.

Although official results may take a few days to finalize, the recall’s outcome underscores growing dissatisfaction with progressive criminal justice policies, even in traditionally liberal communities.

According to Mercury News, Price’s recall represents a notable shift in attitudes toward criminal justice reform in California.

Price, who had been in office for less than two years of her six-year term, had faced mounting criticism over policies that many residents saw as too lenient on crime.

Her approach included measures aimed at reducing incarceration and supporting alternatives to prosecution for certain offenses, but critics argued that these policies contributed to rising crime in Oakland and other parts of Alameda County.

Price was one of several progressive prosecutors across the country whose campaigns received financial backing from billionaire George Soros.

Soros has supported numerous candidates promoting criminal justice reform, particularly those who ran on platforms aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement.

However, in California, backlash against these policies has become increasingly visible.

Last year, voters in San Francisco recalled DA Chesa Boudin, another Soros-backed prosecutor, after widespread complaints about rising crime and public safety issues.

On Tuesday, Soros-backed Los Angeles County DA George Gascón, who also implemented similar policies, lost his re-election bid by a wide margin.

During her tenure, Price faced a series of controversies that fueled public discontent.

Notably, her laptop was stolen from her car in Oakland—a city grappling with escalating crime and the effects of “defund the police” policies that led to reduced law enforcement resources.

Price was also accused of nepotism after hiring her boyfriend, despite concerns raised about his background.

Beyond local recalls, California voters have taken other actions to address crime and safety concerns.

In recent state elections, a large majority voted in favor of Proposition 36, a measure designed to counteract some of the unintended consequences of Proposition 47, which passed in 2014.

Proposition 47 reduced penalties for certain theft and drug offenses, but critics say it has contributed to an increase in retail theft, looting, and other crimes.

Proposition 36 aims to reintroduce stricter measures, signaling a statewide shift toward policies that prioritize public safety over leniency.

The recall effort against Price gained momentum as Oakland residents and business owners voiced frustration with policies they believed were inadequate for dealing with the city’s crime issues.

Under Price’s leadership, Oakland had experienced a surge in crime, prompting criticism from citizens who felt that public safety was not being adequately addressed.

The recall’s success could influence similar efforts in other regions, as voters reconsider the impact of progressive criminal justice policies.

Alameda County’s decision to recall Price may have broader implications for the future of progressive criminal justice reforms in California and across the U.S. Price’s removal, along with the recent recalls and defeats of other high-profile reformist prosecutors, highlights a potential shift in public opinion.

As California’s bluest areas push back against progressive policies perceived as ineffective, the state may see a return to more traditional approaches to criminal justice in an effort to curb crime and enhance public safety.

Read More at LifeZette

A California teacher recently found herself in hot water after a video surfaced showing her controversial approach to a school mock election, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

In the clip, a parent confronts the teacher for reportedly offering a pizza party reward only to students who voted for Kamala Harris, while denying it to those who picked Donald Trump. The video, which has since gone viral, was posted by the LibsofTikTok account, a popular source for exposing what it sees as left-leaning bias in schools.

The footage opens with a mother discussing a California mock election ballot with her daughter, who explains that students who “voted” for Harris in the school activity would receive beauty products and a pizza party, while those who chose Trump would be left out.

Watch:

A California teacher allegedly had students do a mock vote for Trump or Harris. Those who voted for Harris are rewarded with a pizza party while those who voted for Trump are not. pic.twitter.com/D7SHUsej6s

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 16, 2024

According to the parent’s interaction, the classroom wasn’t just about politics on paper but also came with a notable reward for students who aligned with the teacher’s chosen candidate.

In the video, the teacher is heard defending the decision, stating that “Democrats are more for feeding the hungry” and suggesting that’s why she was willing to buy pizza for the students who picked Harris.

She justified her stance further, noting that Democrats supposedly prioritize free medical care and social services, implying that only students who “paid their dues” in voting for Harris would benefit.

In contrast, the teacher maintained that students voting for Trump would need to go without, as “they just do what the conservatives do — which is pay for yourself.”

The confrontation took an interesting turn when the mother offered to pay for pizza for her child’s class, effectively calling the teacher’s bluff.

Read More at LifeZette

A staffer working for the campaigns of two Ohio Democrats, Senator Sherrod Brown, and Congresswoman Emilia Sykes, was recorded making controversial remarks on immigration, sparking backlash from Republicans and conservative groups.

In a video first reported by Ohio.news, the staffer, identified as Kevin Oyakawa, called for open borders and referred to those advocating for stricter immigration policies as “racist.”

“Open the f—ing border, I don’t give a s— who comes in here,” Oyakawa reportedly stated in a conversation with a volunteer earlier this month.

He went on to argue that discussing immigration reform is a “losing issue” for Democrats in Ohio solely due to “people’s pure racism.”

Watch: 

BREAKING: Dem staffer Kevin Oyakawa, who works for Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Emilia Sykes, accused Ohioans of "pure racism" over border security stance.

In a tirade, he demanded open borders, saying, "Open the f**king border, I don't give a sh*t who comes in here."… pic.twitter.com/9jRluat7GK

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) October 26, 2024

According to Oyakawa’s since-deleted LinkedIn profile, he was serving as a regional organizing director with the Ohio Democratic Party, supporting Brown’s and Sykes’ campaigns in Summit and Stark counties.

Read More at LifeZette

With just days until Election Day, a recent Media Research Center (MRC) analysis reveals that the 2024 presidential race coverage from mainstream media has skewed more dramatically than ever.

Major networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—have showered Vice President Kamala Harris with 78% positive coverage, while former President Donald Trump faced a staggering 85% negative coverage since July, as reported by News Busters.

The data shows a stark divide, greater even than in 2016 when both Trump and Hillary Clinton experienced mostly negative reporting, and bigger than in 2020, when then-candidate Joe Biden saw 66% positive coverage compared to Trump’s 92% negative press.

From July through October, Trump was subjected to over 230 minutes of airtime filled with personal scandals, while Harris received notably lighter treatment.

MRC analyzed 660 campaign stories aired across these networks since President Biden stepped down on July 21, finding Harris received positive “vibes” largely shaped by enthusiastic voter quotes, while Trump faced near-uniform criticism directly from network reporters.

Although Harris initially received around 350 minutes of coverage, since mid-September, Trump has faced nearly double the airtime—398 minutes for him compared to 230 minutes for Harris—heavily negative.

When it comes to Trump, the networks dedicated 230 minutes to personal controversies, including Trump’s January 6 claims and his critiques of the Biden administration.

Coverage of Trump remained 97-100% negative on topics ranging from hurricane responses to comments about immigration, often casting him as a “danger to democracy” while Harris’s controversies saw little attention.

On policies, coverage was more evenly negative for both candidates. Trump’s policies received 63% negative coverage compared to Harris’s 54%.

As for social issues, abortion and reproductive rights were covered favorably for Harris, with 73% positive coverage, while Trump’s stance saw a resounding 92% negative slant.

Read More at Lifezette

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has expressed concerns over the Trump campaign’s decision not to engage in presidential transition agreements with the federal government ahead of the 2024 election.

In a letter addressed to former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Raskin criticized the campaign’s refusal to commit to the transition process, which he says could have negative implications for the peaceful transfer of power.

Raskin, who serves as the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, warned in his letter that rejecting these agreements breaks with precedent.

He wrote, “Breaking the precedent set by every other presidential candidate since 2010, you have rejected these resources and refused to commit to a smooth transition.” He further accused Trump of demonstrating “a spectacular disregard for the successful continuation of the essential institutions of American democratic government.”

Raskin’s letter raises questions about the potential impact on the transition of power, should Trump win the 2024 election. Transition agreements, established by the Presidential Transition Act, are intended to ensure the incoming administration is prepared to take over key responsibilities.

Some observers have noted that Raskin’s letter might reflect growing concerns within the Democratic Party about the prospects of a Trump victory.

While Raskin raises alarms, it’s clear that the Trump-Vance team is prioritizing their campaign strategy over administrative logistics at this point.

Read More at LifeZette