Connect with us

International

‘They’re So Dishonest’: Doctor Unloads On Media For Asking Biden ‘Terrible’ Questions Instead Of ‘Grilling’ Him

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By JASON COHEN

 

Physician and medical professor Dr. Vinay Prasad criticized the media on Thursday for not asking President Joe Biden the right questions to assess his cognitive capability.

Democrats have increasingly been encouraging Biden to drop out of the presidential race after his debate performance against former President Donald Trump, which caused worries regarding the president’s mental competence. Prasad on his YouTube channel said the media should challenge the president’s capability through asking tougher questions rather than pushing him to take a cognitive test.

WATCH: 

“The media, they’re so so relentlessly focused on whether or not he should get a neurologic test. I think they fundamentally misunderstand. Yes, if you’re his doctor, you might want to do tests on this gentleman, but if you’re vetting a candidate for this office, the test is learn how to ask better questions,” Prasad said. “The questions they ask are so terrible. Ask pointed questions, ask really questions that force him to retrieve memories, ask questions that really ask him to articulate.”

“Don’t ask open-ended questions that allow him to filibuster and just go back to saying the stock and trade things he says all the time that come out like rote memorization,” he continued. “Push him in different domains. You can actually assess someone for president if you are a competent journalist and ask the right questions. They don’t appear to do that.”

Corporate media’s years-long effort to quash questions regarding Biden’s mental fitness faced a substantial setback after the debate. Despite worries from Americans, legacy media outlets consistently downplayed their legitimacy.

“We have to admit that they’re completely dishonest. Before the debate, when 50 million Americans watched him with word-finding difficulties and things of that nature … they were running a media campaign that said any video you saw of him was probably doctored or it was taken out of context because, of course, the man is doing just fine,” Prasad said. “They never raised the question of, ‘is he performing, this 80-plus-year-old gentleman is up for the task of being president?’ They never raised that question. The moment that everyone saw it, and then the jig was up and they couldn’t conceal these deficits anymore … now they’re suddenly happy to run op-ed after op-ed and calls for him to step down.”

“They’re so dishonest, this media. What are you doing in the White House Press Corps? Don’t you see the man? Aren’t you assessing him daily? Why are you keeping that a goddamn secret?” he asked.

Biden recently sat down for an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in an effort to reassure voters that he is capable of being president, asserting his debate performance was just a “bad night” and that he is not cognitively diminished. The president also seemed to express an unwillingness to take a cognitive test.

“No amount of medical testing is going to answer the question of if somebody is fit enough to be president of the United States. Just like no amount of imaging and test questionnaires is going to tell you if a college kid is able to play in the NBA,” Prasad added. “You have to watch them play basketball and you have to watch him engage in the sorts of acts that one would expect from a president.”

“It would probably involve, I would imagine, being woken up in the middle of the night and having to get your opinion on a bunch of big issues and that might happen like many nights in a row, so you might have some chronic sleep deprivation,” he said. “How would you perform under those circumstances? You might get a sense for that if you were really grilling somebody in a vigorous dialogue and vigorous questioning, which the media didn’t want to do for all this time.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script that says men can get pregnant isn’t ‘neutrality,’ by any stretch.

Imagine a society in which the state broadcaster demanded that the female hosts eliminate the word “women” in favor of “people” and rebuked them if their facial expressions betrayed any hit of protest on air.

Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2025. According to the BBC: “Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says.”

Martine Croxall, a BBC presenter, was introducing an interview about “research on groups most at risk during UK heatwaves,” and the teleprompter script she was reading live on BBC News Channel contained the phrase “pregnant people.”

Croxall visibly raised her eyebrows, and corrected in real-time: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”

When Dr. Mistry, a professor, came on for the interview, she too referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people.”

Because a female presenter clearly objected to “women” being erased in favor of “people” for the ideological purpose of buttressing gender ideology, the BBC has now upheld “20 impartiality complaints” against Croxall. According to the BBC: “BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said it considered her facial expression as she said this gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter.’”

READ: BBC rebukes newscaster for correcting ‘pregnant people’ with ‘women’ on air

In other words, as a woman, Croxall obviously objected to the implication that men can get pregnant. Croxall has a son and has thus been pregnant herself. But in our current clown world, the Executive Complaints Unit “said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it ‘indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.’”

The totalitarian trans activists desperately trying to force society to play along with their delusions with force or coercion were behind the complaints, with the ECU reporting that Croxall’s facial expressions were “variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt, or exasperation.” In other words: Say your lines the way we gave them to you and look like you believe them, bigot.

The ECU was also concerned that those who, you know, disagree with the idea that men can get pregnant were also pleased by Croxall’s act of defiance, and that she received “congratulatory messages” on social media (including one from J.K. Rowling), which “together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”

Clearly the BBC—which is desperately been trying to regain its reputation—is attempting to wave the fig leaf of “neutrality” in order to reestablish its previous bona fides. But rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script and making a facial expression that appeared to indicate opposition to the idea that men can get pregnant isn’t “neutrality,” by any stretch.

Just a decade ago, no media outlet would have considered implementing gender ideology into their coverage as fact. Now presenters are expected to use fundamentally propagandistic language that frontloads the premises of activists while keeping a straight face as if both transgender ideology and observable biological reality are two perspectives deserving of equal respect and consideration.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

Continue Reading

International

Large US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

As the number of suspected narcotic transport boats destroyed by the U.S. military grows, so does the number of naval vessels in the Caribbean.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced on social media Thursday evening that U.S. forces carried out their 17th strike on alleged drug boats, killing three “male narco-terrorists” in the targeted operation.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that his administration’s intent to target narco-terrorists in the region to help curb the flow of drugs into the country.

Last month, it was announced that the newest and largest U.S. Navy Aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, and its strike group would be transiting to the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility in the Caribbean.

Ahead of the Ford’s arrival, several naval ships are already in the region, including the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, according to the U.S. Naval Institute—the Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious ship, among the larger classes of ships in the Navy.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group deployed in August, carrying over 4,500 sailors and Marines, according to the Department of War. The group includes the Iwo Jima, USS Fort Lauderdale, USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

As of early this week, the USNI reported that, in addition to the group, three Navy guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Caribbean, including the USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, and USS Stockdale. In addition, USNI reported the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) and the USS Wichita (LCS-13) are operating in the Caribbean.

The buildup of navy ships in the region points to the administration’s commitment to prioritizing targeting narco-terrorists. Still, it could also signal the U.S. focusing on potential adversarial threats in Latin America.

Hegseth told The Center Square last month at an event in the White House that the Department of War is keeping its eyes on adversaries in the region after TCS asked the secretary and the president if they had plans to expand U.S. Naval operations in Puerto Rico, specifically Roosevelt Roads, a Navy base closed in 2004.

“We’re familiar with the location that you’re referring to, and we will make sure that we’re properly placed in order to deal with the contingency we’re dealing with there, and also any ways in which other countries would attempt to be involved also, so we can walk and chew gum. We’re definitely keeping our eyes on near peer adversaries at the same time,” Hegseth told TCS.

The secretary’s response cemented the administration’s “America first” policy, which is beginning to shift focus to its “own backyard.”

“But we think sending a message on these cartels, these narco-terrorists, is an important, important inside our hemisphere, which for far too long other presidents, as the president pointed out, they’ve ignored our own backyard and allowed other countries to increase their influence here, which only threatens the American people. We’re changing that,” Hegseth concluded.

The naval buildup in the region could highlight concerns in recent years that Venezuela, under the dictatorship of socialist Nicolas Maduro, has aligned the country with American adversaries, such as Russia, China and Iran.

In 2022, Venezuela hosted military drills with countries including Russia, China and Iran.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that Latin America is ripe for U.S. adversarial influences.

“While Western observers have focused their attention on joint connivances of Russia and Iran in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East, where Russo-Iranian military-security operations directly affect U.S. and European interests, the Western Hemisphere is not isolated from the two countries’ quests for global influence. In fact, in many ways it is an essential piece of the puzzle. First, both Iran and Russia perceive Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as a fertile ground for exploiting popular resentment vis-à-vis the United States and the ‘collective West,’ which they – rather successfully – harness to advance their view of a multipolar world,” according to CSIS.

The group cites sanctions from the West, which are growing in large part due to Russia’s ongoing offensive in Ukraine.

“Second, LAC partners could prove instrumental in offsetting the impacts of Western sanctions against Moscow and Tehran by mitigating their diplomatic and economic isolation. Finally, certain LAC countries could also serve as less scrutinized partners for further developing Russo-Iranian warfare capabilities or cooperation, sheltering mercenaries or militias – such as Hezbollah – and acting as vectors for ‘horizontal escalation’ of conflicts in which Russia and Iran are currently involved,” the group added.

Continue Reading

Trending

X