Tag: mainstream media

CNN Finally Admits the Truth About Democrat-Run Cities

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria went off-script this week — at least by his network’s standards — and said the quiet part out loud: Democrat-run cities are a mess, and the politicians in charge either can’t or won’t do anything about it.

Of course, this isn’t news to you, but for a CNN host to admit this is a big deal.

Zakaria opened with Zohran Mamdani’s New York, calling it “a prime example of a problem Democrats seem unwilling to confront.” That’s a pretty remarkable admission from a CNN host, but I assure you, he was just getting started.

“Blue cities are out of control,” he said, “promising more, spending more, delivering less, and pushing off the fiscal problems to some future day.”

He then turned to Los Angeles, and the numbers he cited are staggering. Zakaria noted that the city’s homelessness budget for fiscal year 2025-2026 alone totals roughly $950 million. Not the cumulative total over several years. One year. And what has all that money bought? He explained that the LA Homelessness Services Authority reported that homelessness increased by 9% countywide and 10% within the city in 2023. A 2024 AP account found that homelessness had surged by 70% countywide since 2015 and by 80% within the city.

“All this amid public frustration, despite billions spent,” Zakaria said.

Then came perhaps the most damning detail. An audit reviewed $2.4 billion in city homelessness funding and found that “officials could not reliably track where it went or what it achieved.” That’s right. $2.4 billion has just disappeared into the bureaucratic ether. 

To make matters worse, not only are there never results, but there’s never any accountability either, at least not for the people running the city.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond

We have a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT in our landmark case against CNN at the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has just ordered CNN to file a formal response to our petition – the petition we filed to hold CNN and the mainstream media accountable for spreading falsehoods during President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, when they twisted and manipulated what a member of the president’s legal team actually argued. I know because I was there on the floor of the Senate when it happened.

When we filed our petition for writ of certiorari in this critical defamation case, CNN appeared to think it could simply ignore it. That’s a common tactic. If a party believes the Court isn’t likely to take a case, they can waive their response and hope the Justices quietly deny review.

That’s exactly what CNN tried to do.

Their strategy seemed simple: Don’t engage. Don’t draw attention to it. Let it die quietly.

But the Supreme Court didn’t let that happen. Instead, the Court stepped in and ordered CNN to respond – in writing.

That matters.

It doesn’t guarantee the Court will ultimately take the case. But it does signal that at least some of the Justices believe this issue deserves serious consideration.

And it should.

Keep reading

DoJ Released Much More on Epstein’s Israel Ties—But Media Still Aren’t Much Interested

Late last month, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) published 3.5 million pages about convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.

On top of the grotesque and horrifying photos and emails that appear to offer more evidence of systemic and widespread child abuse, the Epstein files revealed further allegations of his ties to Israel and its intelligence agency Mossad.

The Epstein/Israel revelations have been covered at length by independent and overseas media outlets:

  • “The Israeli government installed security equipment and controlled access to a Manhattan apartment building” that Epstein managed (Drop Site News, 2/18/26). Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli spy Yoni Koren were frequent guests at the apartment, and Rafi Shlomo, then–director of protective service at the Israeli mission to the United Nations, “controlled access to the apartment for guests, and even conducted background checks on cleaners and Epstein’s employees.”
  • An informant told the FBI he “became convinced that Epstein was a co-opted Mossad agent” (Middle East Monitor, 2/8/26).
  • Epstein emailed Barak in December 2018: “You should make clear that I don’t work for Mossad :)” (Dissident, 2/2/26). Barak responded, “You or I?” Epstein replied, “That I don’t :).”
  • Epstein emailed Barak twice in November 2017 (London Times, 2/8/26): “Did Boies ask you to help obtain former Mossad agents to do dirty investigations?” and “Boies said he got to the Mossad guys through you? True? This is getting a lot of press.” Barak responded, “Call me. [Redacted] in Paris.” (Epstein was likely referring to attorney David Boies, who was facing scrutiny at the time for hiring a private firm, run largely by former Mossad officers, to investigate women who accused his client Harvey Weinstein of rape, and journalists trying to expose the allegations—New Yorker, 11/6/17.)
  • Epstein’s foundation backed pro-Israel projects like Friends of Israel Defense Forces and the Jewish National Fund, which buys land in Palestine to build settlements (Middle East Eye, 2/7/26).

Keep reading

WHOOPS! Whoopi Goldberg Breaks Silence After Her Name Surfaces in Epstein Files — Claims Being Listed “Does Not Mean Guilt”

Far-left Whoopi Goldberg was finally forced this week to address the growing controversy surrounding her name appearing in newly released DOJ documents tied to disgraced child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Before her name surfaced, The View hosts were loudly demanding the full release of the Epstein Files, now they’re suddenly suggesting that maybe not everyone named in those documents is actually guilty.

The latest batch of Epstein documents, unsealed by the Department of Justice, includes a May 8, 2013, email from a redacted sender to Epstein.

The message details arrangements for Goldberg to attend a charity event hosted by Julian Lennon’s White Feather Foundation in Monaco.

It reads: “Whoopi needs a plane to get to Monaco. John Lennon’s charity is paying for it… They don’t want to charter, so they are looking for private owners.” Epstein’s curt reply was “no thnaks,” indicating he passed on offering his Gulfstream II jet.

On Tuesday’s broadcast, a visibly defensive Goldberg attempted to get ahead of the brewing storm.

“In the name of transparency, my name is in the files. Yes!”

But Goldberg quickly moved to contain the political fallout, insisting that simply being named in documents connected to Epstein does not equate to guilt or involvement in criminal activity.

“I wasn’t his girlfriend. I wasn’t his friend,” she said, adding, “I was not only too old, but it was at a time… you used to have to have facts before you said stuff.”

She lamented being “dragged” by online critics who assume guilt by association, claiming, “People actually believe that I was with him… no, I didn’t get on the plane.”

Keep reading

Stephen Colbert Hates Black Women and Other Universal Truths

As someone who loves comedy, what a*s-clowns like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert havedone to the concept is like what Harvey Weinstein did to movie production or what Democrats have done to journalism, if journalism were their cellmate in Super-Max. Colbert is the Jeffrey Epstein of truth and Kimmel is the Luigi Mangione of honesty. That’s why it was not shocking to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size that Colbert would go on his show and lie, doing his best to help a white guy, James Talarico, beat a black woman, Jasmine Crockett, in the Democratic primary in the Texas Senate race.

First, I have to tell you about the concept of equal time. It is surprising how many “journalists” out there either do not have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept, or simply are willing to come off as morons for the cause of their party. It’s about half and half, as I think you’d be stunned by just how many of these people have the intelligence of someone who snacked on lead paint chips.

But the concept of equal time is pretty basic: If you are going to have a candidate for office on a show that uses the public airwaves (broadcast tv and radio, not cable or streaming), other legitimate candidates (those who are on the ballot officially) can request an appearance for the same amount of time. This only applies to real candidates, not write-ins, and ONLY for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. The rest of the time, it is a free-for-all and shows can have on whoever they want.

One thing I’ve heard morons in the media claim is that the FCC is monitoring broadcasts or warning networks of the equal time obligations, but that is a lie. The FCC does not monitor any broadcasts, they respond to reports filed by viewers/listeners and anyone else, either for violation of decency rules or equal time. An audience member can’t make a claim for equal time on behalf of someone else; the candidate or politician must. The FCC decides if a claim is valid, period.

This is not rocket science, not even close, which means the people deliberately saying otherwise are lying or don’t have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept.

Keep reading

Even CNN Can’t Ignore the Problems With Canada’s ‘Buyback’

The Liberal government in Canada is continuing its nationwide gun “buyback” of banned firearms, though we haven’t heard many Liberal politicians touting its success as of late. 

Instead, most of the recent headlines about the compensated confiscation effort have centered around localities refusing to participate. Most recently, the police department in Kingston, Ontario declared it won’t be involved in the federal effort, citing “concerns related to the program’s design, implementation, and potential impacts on local policing resources and public safety priorities,” identified by both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. 

The “buyback” is off to such a rough start that even CNN is reporting on the criticism, though its report studiously avoids calling the effort a failure. 

In January, Canada began implementing one of those reforms: a long-awaited, hotly debated program to compensate the country’s gun owners for their now-banned firearms. Yet the buyback program has suffered yearslong delays and pushback from police, provincial officials and gun owners.

In September, audio emerged of Canada’s Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree, the official responsible for implementing the legislation, questioning the ability of police departments to enforce the buyback. Anandasangaree later said the recording was made without his knowledge, and said the comments were “misguided.” 

Complicating the buyback is the fact that Canada has plenty of guns, more than the program alone can collect. The federal government estimates that it has the funds to buy 136,000 firearms, but Canada has roughly 2 million registered and 10 million unregistered guns, according to a 2017 release from the Small Arms Survey, an independent research group based in Switzerland.

Now, not all of those firearms have been banned by the Canadian government, at least not yet. But it is fair to say that the Liberals have been targeting the country’s legal gun owners, while the vast majority the country’s gun-involved crime is committed by individuals who’ve acquired their guns through illicit means. I doubt many violent offenders, gang members, and drug dealers are going to participate in the compensated confiscation efforts.

A number of provinces have declined to participate as well, though the Liberal government is still talking tough about collecting firearms in those locations. 

Keep reading

The Atlantic Busted Fabricating Dead Kid Measles Story

Last Thursday, The Atlantic published a heart-wrenching story about an 11-month-old child who died of measles. Written in the second person from the perspective of a mother whose two unvaccinated children fell ill with the disease, the story is rich with personal detail;

“You plant her on the couch with a blanket and put Bluey on the TV while she drifts in and out of sleep…” 

“While the kids are napping, you tap a list of your daughter’s symptoms into Google and find a slew of diseases that more or less match up…”

“Her cough wracks her whole body, rounding her delicate bird shoulders. She does not sleep well. And as you lift up her pajama top to check her rash one morning, you see that her breathing is labored, shadows pooling between her ribs when she sucks in air.” 

Turns out, NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. The Atlantic‘s Elizabeth Bruenig simply made it up, leading to mass confusion.

As Laura Hazard Owen of NiemanLab – who initially busted Bruenig – writes:

When I initially read Bruenig’s story, I was stunned: An Atlantic staff writer’s unvaccinated child had died of measles in the 2020s, and now she was writing about it? At the end of Bruenig’s piece, though, there’s an editor’s note: “This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews with physicians, including those who have cared directly for patients with measles.” That was the point when I sent a gift link to my mom group: “as far as I can tell this piece is fiction. What do we think about this choice? I am very conflicted!!!” My conflict stemmed from my concern that, though the piece was heavily researched, it was not a true story. I wondered if the key people whose minds might be changed by it — people who don’t vaccinate their kids — would brush it off as fiction, or fake.

Following the publication, two journalists reached out to Owen to let her know that they were similarly confused, as there “was not an editor’s note/disclaimer on the piece at all.” 

What’s more, The Atlantic’s own spokesperson told one of the journalists: “This is based on a mother’s real account,” – after which the outlet added a disclaimer. 

Keep reading

“You’re Kidding Right?” Karoline Leavitt Shreds CBS Reporter Suggesting Trump has Never Falsely Been Called Racist

A CBS reporter on Wednesday unironically asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt when President Trump had been falsely accused of racism, and she responded with incredulity. 

“You’re kidding, right?” Leavitt fired back in disbelief, adding that she will compile a list of “radical Democrats, throughout the years,” falsely calling Trump a racist.

The Democratic Party’s playbook for years has been to call Trump a racist.

Just this week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed Trump and the GOP were trying to implement “Jim Crow 2.0” by trying to require voter ID and proof of citizenship for registered voters. Days before this, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed that Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro was arrested by the US military solely because Venezuela is “below the equator.”

And don’t forget about other Democrats like Jasmine Crockett, who constantly plays the victim and labels Trump and the GOP as racists.

CBS’s Ed O’Keefe pointed to President Trump’s comments following the death of Reverend Jesse Jackson, where Trump memorialized Jackson as “a good man, with lots of personality, grit, and ‘street smarts,’” while noting that he is “falsely and consistently called a Racist by the Scoundrels and Lunatics on the Radical Left” despite working with Jesse Jackson on numerous occasions. O’Keefe then asked, “Where or when does the President believe he’s been falsely called racist?”

Clearly holding back her laugh, Leavitt responded, “I’m going to get my team in that room to start going through the internet of radical Democrats throughout the years, Ed, who have accused this president falsely of being a racist. And I’m sure there’s many people in this room and on network television across the country who have accused him of the same.” She further highlighted the President’s upcoming Black History Month Reception this afternoon at the White House, as well as the accomplishments he made for black Americans in his first term, and what he continues to do today.

“He has, absolutely, been falsely called and smeared as a racist, and I’m happy to provide you those receipts, and we gladly will right after this briefing,” she added. 

Keep reading

NYT Accidentally Confesses There’s A Left-Wing Judicial Coup Against Trump

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has never been one to show good judgement. When he’s not getting caught conducting “personal business” on a staff Zoom call, he’s accidentally admitting that there’s an ongoing leftist-led judicial coup designed to stymie President Trump’s agenda.

The serial self-pleasurer let the proverbial cat out of the bag in his Monday opinion column for The New York Times. Titled, “The Plan for a Radically Different Supreme Court Is Here,” the article purports to roll out a blueprint for countering conservative appointments of originalist judges to the bench but inadvertently discloses the existence of leftists’ efforts to weaponize the judicial system against Trump.

The admission comes in the piece’s opening paragraphs, in which Toobin discusses the American Constitution Society and its new president, Phil Brest. The ACS has often been described as the less successful and left-wing alternative to the conservative Federalist Society, which has become an influential force in getting originalists appointed to the Supreme Court and other federal judgeships.

Toobin notes how Brest — who worked in the Biden White House’s counsel office — “helped the president nominate and win confirmation of 235 federal judges, which is more than Mr. Trump’s total in his first term.” In the very next sentence, however, the CNN legal analyst let it slip that these judicial appointments have become the left’s primary tool in grinding Trump and his voters’ agenda to a halt.

“Those [Biden] judges — and others appointed by Democratic presidents — have proved that the most effective resistance to Mr. Trump has come not from Democratic politicians but rather from federal judges,” wrote Toobin, who subsequently listed off a series of overreaching orders issued by “these judges, many of them Biden appointees,” against the 47th president.

Toobin goes on to lament how the ACS has not boasted the same level of success as groups like The Federalist Society and has failed to advance an alternative style of judicial interpretation to originalism, which emphasizes the interpretation of the Constitution as written at the time of its adoption. Once again, the CNN legal analyst openly admits that — contrary to the article’s headline — the ACS doesn’t actually have a different philosophy or “plan” in mind, and that the group’s only strategy at the moment is appointing activist judges who will abuse their authority to stonewall Republican presidents.

“For now, under Mr. Brest, the A.C.S. seems headed for an approach that looks like the one that Democratic politicians have so far adopted: aimed more at opposition to Mr. Trump’s record rather than on a specific, alternative vision for the Constitution. In his opening message to the group, Mr. Brest described the A.C.S. as building ‘a bulwark against overreach by the Trump administration and the Roberts court,’” Toobin wrote. “Mr. Brest has pledged that A.C.S. will continue its Biden-era focus on judicial appointments … As for what those judges will stand for — as opposed to what they stand against — Mr. Brest has no clear answer.”

What Toobin’s article encapsulates is the left’s ongoing struggle session about how best to lie to the American people about the kinds of legal minds they want to appoint to the bench and their blatant disregard for proper separation of powers.

The entire reason for the modern originalist movement’s foundation and ultimate success is because of past Supreme Courts’ embrace of living constitutionalism, a style of judicial interpretation in which judges treat the Constitution as a “living” document that magically evolves with the times. It is through this philosophy that judges take it upon themselves to act as legislators and effectively rewrite America’s founding document as they see fit.

Keep reading

“More Trust in Gas Station Sushi!” — FCC Chair Brendan Carr BLASTS Legacy Media, Colbert, and Dem Hopeful Talarico for FALSELY Claiming Trump’s FCC BLOCKED TV Interview Over Fears Talarico Could Flip Texas

FCC Chair Brendan Carr absolutely eviscerated the fake news peddlers who swallowed hook, line, and sinker a blatant hoax cooked up by late-night comedian Stephen Colbert and far-left Democrat Senate hopeful James Talarico.

Texas Democrat James Talarico apparently teamed up with late-night leftist Stephen Colbert to push a massive, embarrassing HOAX.

The ridiculous claim? That Donald Trump’s FCC supposedly “blocked” a TV interview because they were utterly “worried” Talarico might actually flip the deep-red state of Texas.

In January, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a crackdown on partisan talk shows in both daytime and late-night in an effort to provide equal treatment for political candidates.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said at the time, “For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as “bona fide news” programs – even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes.”

“Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

As a result of the rules, CBS chose not to air an interview between Late Night host Stephen Colbert and Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico on the network.

The interview was instead moved to YouTube, and Colbert was not pleased.

In an effort to look like a free speech warrior, Colbert mentioned Talarico during the show and released a false statement:

Colbert: You know who is not one of my guests tonight? That’s Texas State Representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers—who called us directly—that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention not having him on.

And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk—let’s talk about this. This doesn’t just affect interviews. The rules forbid any candidate appearance, including by voice or picture. That’s right. I am absolutely not allowed to show a photo of Texas State Representative James Talarico.

Because that’s not him—that’s a stock photo we found when we Googled “not James Talarico.”

It was a couple of weeks ago, on Carr’s Orders, the SEC opened an investigation into ABC’s The View after their James Talarico interview. That is absolutely shocking. James Talarico did The View before my show?

So I cannot show you any form of James Talarico. I can’t interview James Talarico. I can’t show any pictures of James Talarico.

I’m not even sure I can say the words “James Talarico.” But what I can show you is what we always show when we have to pull material at the last minute: this tasteful nude of Brendan Carr.

Talarico also posted a clip of the segment, further spreading the lie.

“This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see. His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas,” Talarico wrote on X that was viewed 12 million times.

Keep reading