Wednesday's HOT MIC

Here is today's HOT MIC.

A letter regarding 2nd Lt. Spenser Rapone (the commie cadet) has been circulating for a few days in private among members of the military. It is an open letter to the U.S. Military Academy written by retired LTC Robert M. Heffington, a former assistant professor at West Point.

Heffington is the West Point officer who wrote a sworn statement in the fall of 2015, testifying to Rapone's radical and unacceptable behavior as a cadet -- only to see him graduate six months later.

He is not optimistic.

In one particularly despairing passage, Heffington writes that during his time on the West Point faculty (2006-2009 and again from 2013-2017), he had "personally witnessed a series of fundamental changes at West Point that have eroded it to the point where I question whether the institution should even remain open."

The entire letter has been posted at American Military News:

Previous posts at PJ Media on 2nd Lt. Spenser Rapone:

Newsweek Writer: Conservatives Are 'Mad as Hell' About the Commie Cadet

West Point Commie May Have Been Radicalized by His Mentor at the Military Academy

Sen. Rubio Wants Commie West Point Officer Drummed Out of Army

West Point Knew the Commie Cadet Was an Avowed Marxist—and Graduated Him Anyway

Get. rid. of. the. Obama. holdovers. Mr. President!

Boom, baby:


Not your typical "end of the world" story.

Yellowstone National Park is home to buffaloes, grizzly bears, elk, and a lot of hot springs. It's also home to one of the 20 supervolcanoes in the world. These supervolcanoes are actually made of up of several large caldera that, when they let loose, can cause billions of tons of civilization-destroying ash and gas to shoot up hundreds of miles into the atmosphere.

It was previously thought that we had little to worry about from the Yellowstone supervolcano. Scientists believed it would be  thousands of years before another eruption.

Until today.


According to reports, a “supervolcano” sleeping underneath Yellowstone National Park has the destructive capability to send the entire planet into a volcanic winter. Even more unnerving, researchers believe that the Yellowstone volcano could be ready to erupt within the next few decades.

Researchers at Arizona State University have presented new data that claims pressure beneath Yellowstone may build up much quicker than previously thought. The findings are changing the timetable for a potential eruption from thousands of years to as early as the 2030’s. “It’s shocking how little time is required to take a volcanic system from being quiet and sitting there to the edge of an eruption,” ASU graduate student Hannah Shamloo told the New York Times.

The volcano, which sits on the Yellowstone caldera in northwest Wyoming, is estimated to be capable of expelling nearly 250 cubic miles of molten rock and ash in one blast. That tremendous explosion would reportedly produce 250,000 times more deadly material than the Mount St. Helens eruption did in 1980.

Geologists believe Yellowstone’s last super-eruption took place about 631,000 years ago. It is suspected that a super-eruption from one of the 20 known supervolcanoes has dramatically affected the planet every 100,000 years. In the hopes of preventing the next global catastrophe, NASA has been working on a complicated plan to cool down the fiery time bomb.

According to reports, NASA is looking to drill down into the great volcano to open a path for water to be pumped in. The plan may also unlock a new source of geothermal energy for use.

“Through drilling in this way, it could be used to create a geothermal plant, which generates electric power at extremely competitive prices,” NASA’s Brian Wilcox said, via the BBC. “The long-term benefit is that you prevent a future supervolcano eruption which would devastate humanity.”

This clip from the 2005 disaster film Supervolcano that depicts what a Yellowstone eruption might look like is terrifying and cool.


This is absolutely horrifying and tragic. Those dirt patches were all covered by houses a few days ago.

It wasn't exactly contested.

OK, Kruiser --

I don't want to turn today's Hot Mic into the Ronan vs NBC/BuzzFeed Show, but you've got to watch this clip of Ronan Farrow talking to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

There is no doubt in my mind that NBC squashed this story to avoid Weinstein's wrath. I'm also convinced the only reason the New York Times went public after apparently sitting on it for 13 years, was to avoid getting scooped by Ronan and The New Yorker on Monday.

Stephen: NBC News president Noah Oppenheim has issued a response to what you've been writing about today, and it just confuses things:

Mediaite has more on the weak excuse:

“[I]t would pain all of us who were involved in that, and involved in investigations, if anyone at this organization, thought there was anything to be ashamed of in that decision making process,” Oppenheim said. “In fact, quite the contrary.”

Oppenheim said that Farrow was given resources and “many, many months” to report the story, but couldn’t bring it in for a landing. Last summer, Oppenheim said the network made the decision to pull the plug. But Farrow wanted to keep chasing it, so he continued the project for The New Yorker, where he eventually published his findings on Tuesday.

“The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us,” Oppenheim said.

So Oppenheim is throwing Farrow under the bus. Farrow--who's still employed by NBC News--doesn't quite see eye-to-eye with his boss on this:

On Tuesday, Farrow told Rachel Maddow that he disagreed with the multiple assessments at NBC that the story was not reportable.

“I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosive reportable piece that should have been public earlier and immediately obviously The New Yorker recognized that and it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable,” Farrow said. “In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”

If we're going with Occam's Razor here, Farrow's account of things seems far more plausible. Farrow's report was quite lengthy, detailed and loaded with bombshells. If he "couldn't bring it in for a landing" during the summer, it was probably only because NBC aborted the landing intentionally.

Let's call this one "Do not Buzz the Hand that Feeds You."

A little earlier today I shared Ali's tweet which said, "BuzzFeed is refusing to cover the NBC News aspect of the Weinstein story. Related: NBC gave BuzzFeed a $200M investment."

And I promised you I'd look into it.

Well, I have.

First things first though.

Over at Instapundit this morning, I linked a story -- from The Daily Beast, not from BuzzFeed -- headlined "How NBC ‘Killed’ Ronan Farrow’s Weinstein Exposé."

The gist:

Addressing a controversy that has been percolating for the past several days in the media ecosystem since The New York Times published its own Weinstein exposé—including questions about whether NBC executives caved to the well-connected Weinstein and his formidable lawyers, Charles Harder, Lisa Bloom, and David Boies—Maddow brought it to a boiling point by telling Farrow: “NBC says that the story wasn’t publishable, that it wasn’t ready to go at the time that you brought it to them.”

Farrow fired back: “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier. And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that. And it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”

Clearly, NBC News-ish is or at least was in the tank for Weinstein -- but is BuzzFeed in the tank for NBC?

Well, we do have this Reuters report from last November: NBCUniversal doubles stake in BuzzFeed with $200 million investment.

Simple math tells us that NBC owns a $300,000,000 stake in BuzzFeed. You could drop a zero off that and still have more money than most people will make in 30 lifetimes. You could drop another zero off that and enjoy a nice retirement.

Finally, here's a list of all of BuzzFeed's recent stories involving the Peacock Network:

Now, maybe BuzzFeed is working right this very minute on a detailed exposé of of how and who at NBC kowtowed to (alleged!) serial rapist/molester/dirty-boy Harvey Weinstein. And they just haven't gotten around to publishing it yet, because BuzzFeed is so slow out of the gate with these salacious celebrity stories.

Or maybe we know just how much omertà you can buy for $300 million bucks.

I'll keep you posted.

The Boy Scouts are now going to also be the Girl Scouts and really what is the point of anything anymore:

The leftist culture war can be subversive and infuriating, but mostly it's just dumb. There is already a Girl Scouts, so why do they need to be in the Boy Scouts? Isn't that sexist? Telling little girls that they need the boys to have a more fulfilling scouting experience seems to send a very 1940s kind of message.

"Oh honey, your little Girl Scouts achievements don't mean much. Go get some validation from the Boy Scouts."

How can this move be interpreted any other way?

If you don't think fighting the culture war is important, you'll regret that one day when Miss America crowns an ugly, 6'2" guy named Chet in the interest of "fairness."