Tag: mainstream media

Clyburn Calls For Packing The Court With “Baker’s Dozen” To Flip Cases

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted.

In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.

When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:

“Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:

“The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect.”

So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.

The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR’s infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.

In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.

One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.

Keep reading

CNN Forced to Issue ‘Clarification’ After Allowing VA Governor Abigail Spanberger to LIE About Trump

CNN recently allowed Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger to blatantly lie on the air, claiming that Trump’s executive order on mail-in ballots would negatively affect members of the U.S. Military serving overseas.

Today, Wolf Blitzer offered a ‘clarification’ on the topic, admitting that what Spanberger said was not true.

It’s too bad that they didn’t have the ability to fact-check Spanberger in real time, but you know the media. They always give Democrats the benefit of doubt.

FOX News has details:

On Friday’s installment of “The Situation Room,” Blitzer sat down with Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger to discuss the lawsuit the commonwealth filed alongside other blue states to block President Donald Trump’s executive order from March to curb mail-in voting, which was slapped with a 14-day temporary restraining order last week by a federal judge.

“The continued attacks that we’re seeing from the Trump administration is really just an effort to get people fearful, to get people to stay home, and, in many cases, to eliminate what is a valid, safe, secure way for people to be able to have their voices heard and to vote,” Spanberger said.

“And in Virginia, you have a lot of military personnel who totally rely on mail-in ballots if they want to be able to express their opinions,” Blitzer told the governor.

“That’s true,” Spanberger replied. “It’s members of the military service, of our diplomatic service, intelligence services, people serving overseas in service to our country who get their ballots mailed to them at the various postings throughout the world.”

However, Blitzer made a “quick note of clarification” at the end of Monday’s program in reference to his exchange with Spanberger.

“We discussed legal challenges to the Trump administration’s directives for the Postal Service on mail-in voting. A comment I made suggested that U.S. military and overseas voters’ ballots would be impacted by these directives. I want to be clear right now: those ballots are exempt from the Postal Service’s new rules implementing the president’s March executive order,” Blitzer told viewers.

Keep reading

Angie Nixon: Trump ‘Is Basically a Communist’

Monday on MS NOW’s “The Beat,” Florida Democratic Senate candidate Angie Nixon said President Donald Trump “is basically a communist.”

Nixon said, “Folks don’t realize, but I am not someone who just popped up overnight. I have been a union organizer and a community organizer in the state for the past nearly two decades, and so I’ve built a really unique, diverse coalition across the state, and people have been leaning in. Just this weekend alone, we had over 700 volunteers that were out on doors knocking for us across the state of Florida, and that’s only expanding.”

She continued, “Ashley Moody is so in total lockstep with Donald Trump. You just had a gentleman on who was talking about how he has taken over Venezuela. That sounds like communism to me. They’re taking over their oil reserves and wanting to sell them off. That is the epitome of what communism is.”

She added, “She is, you know, kissing up to a president that is basically a communist. He’s taking control of private industries in another country. He’s also cozying up to someone like the guy in North Korea who is a known communist. And so Ashley Moody is bad for Florida.”

Keep reading

Maxine Waters Claims the ‘White Media’ is Trying to Divide Democrats for Ratings

Rep. Maxine Waters recently told followers that the Democrats are doing ‘pretty good’ with regards to the midterms, before warning people that when it comes to Democrats vs. DSA leftists, that the ‘white media’ is trying to divide Democrats in a quest for ratings.

How is this woman a member of Congress? Every time she opens her mouth, something incredibly stupid and offensive comes out.

Which media outlet do you suppose she is referring to here? CNN? MSNOW? They’re talking about this subject.

From the Western Lensman:

Maxine Waters claims something called “white media” wants a Dem establishment vs Democrat Socialist fight.

“Some of the media, mostly the white media, are interested in a fight in order to get their ratings up.”

What?

This race-grifting clown just managed to concoct one of the most brain-wormed takes imaginable.

Keep reading

Bezos-Owned Washington Post Publishes CLASSIFIED Pentagon Orders Book During Active Combat With Iran — Pentagon Calls It a Crime and a “Betrayal of the Force”

The far-left Washington Post just did what the legacy media always does when American troops are in harm’s way and a Republican is running the Pentagon.

They published material from a classified Secretary of Defense Orders Book, the document that maps warships, aircraft, weapons systems, and personnel worldwide, and dressed it up as a hit piece on Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that several senior military leaders warned War Secretary Pete Hegseth that maintaining a force of more than 50,000 American troops in the Middle East is unsustainable and could weaken the United States’ ability to respond to threats elsewhere.

The newspaper acknowledged that its reporting was based on information contained in the classified Aug. 14 edition of the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, or SDOB.

The classified orders book reportedly details the worldwide availability and allocation of American warships, aircraft, weapons systems, and military personnel. It also contains sensitive assessments submitted by America’s senior commanders.

According to the Post, some troops deployed to the Middle East were ordered to remain through September, while others could remain into 2027.

Four senior commanders reportedly submitted formal “non-concurs” expressing disagreement with the proposed extensions:

  • Adm. Daryl Caudle, Chief of Naval Operations
  • Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, Commander of U.S. European Command
  • Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Commander of U.S. Southern Command
  • Adm. Samuel Paparo, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

A “non-concur” does not mean that a commander is refusing to follow an order. It records a commander’s professional disagreement while acknowledging that the order will still be executed.

Washington Post military affairs reporter Dan Lamothe eagerly amplified the purported contents of the classified document.

“Four-stars all non-concurring with prolonging operations against Iran as they are into 2027, per this Washington Post exclusive,” Lamothe wrote, before listing the four commanders.

But DataRepublican, whose real name is Jennica Pounds and who began serving as a Special Government Employee at the Department of War in July, fired back with a brutal response.

DataRepublican argued that the commanders’ assessments were not the most alarming part of the story. The real scandal, she said, was that someone apparently handed information from one of the Pentagon’s most sensitive force-allocation documents to the Washington Post.

Keep reading

Netanyahu Admits He Spent ‘Close To 1,000 Hours’ On American Television To Bring The U.S. Into War With Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly admitted in a recent Hebrew-language television interview that he spent close to 1,000 hours on American television over nearly four decades to build the political consensus in the United States that ultimately resulted in the U.S.-Israel war on Iran.

“It also took a long time to bring America to this understanding,” Netanyahu said in the interview, which aired on Israeli Channel 14 and was widely clipped and shared on social media with English subtitles. “I was able to do that because I had close to a thousand hours on American television.”

The admission is remarkable for a sitting head of government — an explicit acknowledgment that sustained, long-running foreign lobbying of American public opinion, conducted through U.S. broadcast and cable networks over four decades, was a deliberate strategy to shape U.S. foreign policy toward war with Iran.

Netanyahu framed the effort as a patient, decades-long project. He has appeared on virtually every major American television outlet since the 1980s — Fox News, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC, MSNBC — frequently warning of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, repeatedly describing Iran as being “minutes away” from a nuclear weapon, and pressing successive U.S. administrations to treat Tehran as an existential threat requiring direct military action.

The war Netanyahu spent decades lobbying for began on February 28, 2026, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and multiple senior IRGC officials. According to a New York Times investigation, Netanyahu made a “hard sell” to President Trump in the White House Situation Room on February 11, arguing that Iran was ripe for regime change and that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could bring an end to the Islamic Republic.

The CBS News 60 Minutes interview with Netanyahu in May 2026 — his first U.S. broadcast interview since the war began — offered additional texture. Netanyahu confirmed that Trump had told him “I want to go in there” regarding the removal of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpiles. When asked whether the war was over, Netanyahu said significant work remained: nuclear material still needed to be removed, enrichment sites dismantled, proxy networks dismantled.

The 1,000-hours claim, now viral across social media platforms, has drawn significant reaction. Critics describe it as a candid admission of systematic foreign influence over American foreign policy decision-making — influence conducted through the open megaphone of U.S. network television, in addition to scores of visits to American officials. The pattern Netanyahu describes — sustained narrative-building through American media over decades — is a textbook soft-power influence campaign, conducted in plain sight, aimed directly at shaping the conditions under which the United States would enter a war.

Analysts have noted the irony: while foreign influence in American politics is typically treated as a covert threat to be countered, Netanyahu’s approach operated entirely in the open, on American airwaves, with the enthusiastic cooperation of American broadcast networks that granted him access for decades.

Keep reading

An Illegal Migrant Tried To Saw Off A Man’s Head; You Won’t Believe What The BBC Did Next…

A leaked internal email shows a senior BBC executive reaching for the language of “solidarity” after a Sudanese asylum seeker was charged with trying to brutally murder a Northern Irish man in the street. The corporation’s instinct was not to dwell on the victim, but instead to soothe colleagues “who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries.”

A local man is carved up on a Belfast pavement, unrest follows, and the state broadcaster act as if the real emergency is that imported staff might feel “particularly vulnerable.”

Investigative journalist Steven Edginton published the leak on Friday. Jack Whyte, the BBC’s Chief Technology Officer, wrote to staff after the backlash that followed the attack on Stephen Ogilvie. Whyte said he wanted to “express our solidarity with colleagues who may feel particularly vulnerable or fearful at this time, including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries.”

He condemned “hatred, intimidation, and violence in all its forms” and added that the BBC is “committed to fostering an environment where every colleague feels supported, included, and able to bring their whole self to work.”

Whyte’s wording is a tell. “Including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries” is the only group specified. Native staff who watched a man carved up on a Belfast street are left to infer that their fear does not count as vulnerability. Their anxiety is “hatred” adjacent, while the imported colleague’s anxiety is a welfare priority.

A source inside the corporation put the omission in plainer English: “The BBC offered solidarity to foreign staff but not to native Brits who might be worried about illegal migrants beheading them.”

Keep reading

Trump Targets NBC Host For FCC ‘Rebuke Or Punishment’

President Donald Trump took a run at NBC’s Kristen Welker on Sunday, accusing the Meet the Press moderator of misrepresenting his endorsement record ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Trump, who boasts a 100% success rate with endorsed candidates in 2026 Senate primaries and a 98% success rate in House races, took issue with a comment Welker made not on the Sunday broadcast of Meet the Press itself, but during a pre-show appearance on WRC-TV, NBC’s local Washington station, to promote the program — where she said he’d had “mixed results” with his endorsements.

“Kristen Welker, the Unpopular ‘Hostess’ of the once great Meet the Press, now considered Meet the Fake Press, just stated that Donald Trump has ‘mixed results’ on his Endorsements of Candidates, when the recent WINS of Darline Graham and Mike Mazzei, stand at 100% for the U.S. Senate, and 98% for the U.S. House, recently and over the longterm,” Trump posted via Truth Social.

“How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given Public Airwaves?” the president asked, sharing data showing the actual data on his endorsements. “Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment. Unfortunately, she is not the only one.”

Trump turned then to address media more broadly, saying that there were many others who went out of their way to broadcast only the bad things — even if that meant reframing good things to make them appear bad.

“The Radical Left News is going out of their way to harass, demean, and libel anything ‘TRUMP.’ Their new weapon is to say that my 99% SUCCESS Rate on Endorsements, 100% on Senatorial Endorsements (Many of whom were not even given a shot of winning until I Endorsed!), is either a mixed result, or not very good,” he wrote. “In actuality, it is, without question, the strongest Endorsement in the History of Politics. If it were not, I would be the first to admit it.”

Trump referenced Senator Darline Graham (R-SC), whose name had barely been on the radar prior to Trump’s endorsement, as a prime example. Graham was his first choice to fill the vacancy left by her brother, the late Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“Darline Graham’s run for the Senate was the biggest story in all of Politics, because she wasn’t expected to win, and then, when I Endorsed her, and she easily won, the story of her Victory was hardly covered by anybody. Likewise, the future Governor of Oklahoma, who was behind in every Poll, I Endorsed him, he won, and the story was barely covered!” Trump complained. “The Press is a Disgrace to our Nation, and I hope that Chairman Brendan Carr, and the fine people of his Commission, will take this Threat to our Country very seriously. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter of Fake Polls and Commentary!”

HBO host and comedian Bill Maher admitted defeat on the same issue during his Friday night broadcast of “Real Time,” where he conceded that he’d been wrong about the impact and success Trump’s endorsements in 2026 primary races. He also joked that it had been the president himself who had texted him to make the correction.

Keep reading

Read Between the Lies: A Pattern Recognition Guide

When Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, announced during Event 201’s pandemic drill in 2019 that they would “flood the zone with trusted sources,” few understood this preview of coordinated narrative control. Within months, we watched it unfold in real time—unified messaging across all platforms, suppression of dissent, and coordinated narrative control that fooled much of the world.

But not everyone stayed fooled forever. Some saw through it immediately, questioning every aspect from day one. Others thought it was just incompetent government trying to protect us. Many initially accepted the precautionary principle—better safe than sorry. But as each policy failure pointed in the same direction—toward more control and less human agency—the pattern became impossible to ignore. Anyone not completely subsumed by the system eventually had to confront its true purpose: not protecting health or safety, but expanding control.

Once you recognize this pattern of deception, two questions should immediately arise whenever major stories dominate headlines: “What are they lying about?” and “What are they distracting us from?” The pattern of coordinated deception becomes unmistakable. Consider how media outlets spent three years pushing Russiagate conspiracies, driving unprecedented social division while laying the groundwork for what would become the greatest psychological operation in history. Today, while the media floods us with Ukraine coverage, BlackRock positions itself to profit from both the destruction and reconstruction. The pattern becomes unmistakable once you see it—manufactured crises driving pre-planned “solutions” that always expand institutional control.

Mainstream media operates on twin deceptions: misdirection and manipulation. The same anchors who sold us WMDs in Iraq, promoted “Russia collusion,” and insisted Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation” still occupy prime time slots. Just as we see with RFK, Jr.’s HHS nomination, the pattern is consistent: coordinated attacks replace substantive debate, identical talking points appear across networks, and legitimate questions are dismissed through character assassination rather than evidence. Being consistently wrong isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. Their role isn’t to inform but to manufacture consent.

The template is consistent: Saturate media with emotional spectacles while advancing institutional agendas with minimal scrutiny. Like learning to spot a fake smile or hearing a false note in music, you develop an instinct for the timing:

Money and Power:

Medical Control:

Digital Control:

As these deceptions become more obvious, different forms of resistance emerge. The truth-seeking takes different forms. Some become deep experts in specific deceptions—documenting early treatment successes with repurposed drugs, uncovering hospital protocol failures, or exploring the impact of vaccine injuries. Others develop a broader lens for seeing how narratives themselves are engineered.

Keep reading

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Responds to Reports He’s Considering a 2028 Presidential Run

On Friday, NBC News reported Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is considering running for President in 2028.

In the report, NBC News, while using anonymous sources, claimed Hegseth has told close friends and family members that he’s considering running in 2028.

On Friday night, the Secretary of War responded to the report in a post on X and wrote, “100% false.”

He added, “We told NBC that, but they just lie w/ anonymous “sources.”

“My only job: Make the Department of War Great Again. Carry on Patriots, and enjoy your Friday night,” concluded Hegseth.

Here’s the NBC News report Hegseth was responding to:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has told close friends and associates that he is considering a run for president in 2028, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

Hegseth and his wife, Jennifer, have floated the idea of a presidential run for the past few months, believing he has some of the same attributes that have made Donald Trump popular with the MAGA movement, the people said. Trump’s core voters appreciate Hegseth’s toughness, defiance and conservative stance on social issues, they said.

Hegseth’s appearance at the Iowa State Fair on behalf of a Republican congressman earlier this month kindled both surprise and speculation about his possible presidential ambitions.

Iowa has long been a springboard for presidential campaigns. The state’s caucuses have traditionally come first in the nominating calendar, making Iowa a magnet for presidential hopefuls.

Keep reading