Don’t support evil, support independent artists, HERE!
It’s really the only workable solution…
Tag: mainstream media
Whoopi Goldberg of ‘The View’ Campaigns for Democrats in the Midterms: ‘Our Lives Literally Depend on This’
The View came back from a summer hiatus this week and dove head first into campaigning for the Democrats in the 2026 midterms.
Among the conversations on the show today were, invoking the 25th Amendment on President Trump, and voting for the Democrats because, according to host Whoopi Goldberg, ‘our lives literally depend on this.’
This type of open electioneering for one side is why The View has come under a microscope with the FCC. ABC News is not supposed to do this, but they allow The View to do it all the time.
Transcript via NewsBusters:
BEHAR: Let me ask you, you say the emperor had no clothes what if he took all his clothes off?
FARAH GRIFFIN: People would tell him he looks great and he’s in great shape.
BEHAR: If he took all his clothes off and started running around the pool. Would they get him out then?
HOSTIN: 25th Amendment!
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: All of these things, all of these things are in our hands.
BEHAR: Vote, vote.
GOLDBERG: This is what we can tell you, if you want to see change, you got to make the change. It doesn’t matter your color. It doesn’t matter if your a Democrat or Republican, if you want change, you got to get out there and make it happen.
Thomas Jefferson Warned Us About the Media
We all know that the American “mainstream,” “corporate” media cannot be trusted. Well, they can be trusted to always Polly-parrot the Democratic Party’s talking points, thus they can be trusted to lie, be dishonest, corrupt, and always wrong. They are the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, just as Joseph Goebbels’ media was the propaganda wing of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. It is unfailingly the case that today’s media never supports the conservative, Christian, godly, pro-traditional American perspective. They are as evil as Democrats, because they are Democrats, and religiously so.
Apparently, in American history, media bias has always been a problem. Thomas Jefferson wrote that, in his day:
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” (Letter to John Norvell on June 11, 1807)
Nothing the media says can be trusted. Even on the rare occasions when they tell the truth, Jefferson said, we can’t trust that they are speaking the truth because they lie so much that anything they say must be viewed with suspicion. The best approach, and the one most conservatives and patriotic Americans take, is just to assume that anything the media reports is wrong, or incomplete in its reporting (especially if the event has an element contrary to their left-wing narrative, like any murder not committed by a white, male, MAGA Christian).
Jefferson also wrote:
“I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them.” (Works of Thomas Jefferson)
Best thing to do is not bother watching ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al., or reading The New York Times or any other liberal rag. Truth can be found, but you’ve got to dig a little to find it now. Townhall is a good source, of course, as is X. But to most Americans, I would simply advise not wasting time watching or reading any of the “corporate” media outlets. As Jefferson implies, you’ll be dumber if you do.
Now we do need some good, courageous, well-grounded conservatives scouring the mainstream media sites to expose their errors. Many Townhall writers do this, and we appreciate them. But for most Americans, the mainstream media is nothing but a lying, dangerous nuisance. No sense in getting close to a cobra and slapping it in the face.
Gavin Newsom Says He Would Continue His Podcast if He Became President – Wonders What He Would Wear
Gavin Newsom recently did a puff interview with PBS and was asked if he would continue his podcast if he became president. His body language changed and he became positively giddy at the thought.
He then wondered aloud what he would wear for the broadcast.
How is anyone taking this man seriously as a governor, let alone as a presidential candidate?
If Newsom runs for president, he is going to have to answer a lot of questions about California.
Even the Associated Press knows it:
California made Gavin Newsom famous. Will it drag down his 2028 presidential ambitions?
Gavin Newsom’s secret is no secret here in South Carolina.
They were selling “Gavin 2028” buttons outside his events this past week as he trekked across the state that will hold Democrats’ first presidential primary. His allies, the state party chair, college presidents and pro-Newsom activists all openly hinted at his national aspirations. And people close to him privately referred to a White House campaign as “the next thing.”
Still, California’s Democratic governor has barely begun to address what may be his biggest political liability as he stakes a claim as an early front-runner in the Democratic Party’s 2028 shadow primary. That liability, South Carolina voters acknowledged this past week, is something he cannot change — his home state, California, is a symbol of modern-day liberalism that people across the political spectrum love to hate.
Vera DeVito, a 78-year-old Democrat who packed into one of Newsom’s eight public events across South Carolina, said she didn’t know much about him or his policies — except that he’s from the Golden State. On that basis alone, she suggested that supporting Newsom could be “risky.”
“It’s going to be hard for him to appeal to the whole country,” she said in the town of Summerville. “Everybody thinks California is different — especially in the South. They’re not crazy about California.”
People aren’t crazy about California because California is crazy for putting up with Gavin Newsom.
The state has lost population for the first time in history on his watch.
Media Lies About ‘Infinitesimally Rare’ Noncitizen Voting Are A Load Of Bull Hockey
The legacy press has an entire vocabulary for election fraud, and every word in it carries the same instruction: Stop looking. “U.S. News and World Report and PBS: “extremely rare.” Time magazine: “very, very rare.” NPR quoted an expert who called it “infinitesimally rare.” It has become a reflex, appended to any mention of election integrity, the way a surgeon general’s warning is appended to a pack of cigarettes, that election fraud is rare, rare, rare. The implication is that “rare” means “irrelevant.” But does it?
Since When Is Rarity the Standard?
Every ballot cast by an ineligible voter cancels out the ballot of an eligible one. A noncitizen who votes does not merely add a vote to one side of the ledger — he subtracts one from a citizen who did everything right. Every fraudulent vote cast invalidates the vote of an eligible voter, effectively disenfranchising that person.
So how many disenfranchised citizens is the acceptable number? One hundred? A thousand? We do not apply this reasoning anywhere else in election law. Nobody argues that ballot-box stuffing is tolerable at low volume, or that a poll worker who alters a few dozen returns should be waved off because the total is statistically small. We do not tell a mugging victim that street crime is rare.
More to the point: Rarity is irrelevant to the margin. Recent congressional races have been decided by a few hundred votes. Virginia’s House of Delegates control came down to a tied district settled by drawing a name from a bowl. In races like these, “infinitesimally rare” fraud is more than sufficient to determine who governs.
Is the Problem Even Being Measured?
The Heritage Foundation maintains an Election Fraud Database documenting proven instances of election fraud — cases in which a prosecutor thought the conduct serious enough to act on, and which ended in a conviction, a civil penalty, a judicial finding, or an overturned election. As of this writing, the database contains 1,619 such cases.
The database does not include potential fraud that election officials discover but that is never investigated or prosecuted — and it obviously cannot include fraud that goes undetected in the first place.
This is the circularity at the heart of the “fraud is rare” consensus. The statistic measures prosecutions. It is then offered as proof about incidence. But you cannot establish the rate of a crime by counting convictions when the relevant authorities decline to prosecute — and you certainly cannot do it when the system is designed so that the crime is rarely discovered at all.
Fairfax County Is the Proof
Consider Fairfax County, Virginia’s largest jurisdiction, in the shadow of the nation’s capital.
In September 2024, Fairfax County’s electoral board adopted a policy requiring the general registrar to refer individuals identified by the Virginia Department of Elections as potential noncitizens to the commonwealth’s attorney and the attorney general. The referrals went out month after month. In a single batch on Oct. 6, 2025, the registrar referred 71 individuals. An earlier batch that summer sent 78 names forward. Over roughly a year and a half of monthly referrals, the cumulative total ran well into the hundreds.
Yet on Feb. 19, 2026, the board voted to rescind the policy. The stated reason, according to the meeting minutes, was that the policy had not led to a single prosecution, that compliance consumed “significant” staff time at the elections office, the commonwealth’s attorney, and the attorney general’s office, and that no prosecutor would find that checking a box on a DMV form met the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Read that again. Hundreds of referrals. Zero prosecutions. Policy abandoned as too burdensome.
And here is the part that matters for the statistic: Because none of those cases were prosecuted, not one of them will ever appear in the Heritage database — or in any of the academic tallies that journalists cite when they write that noncitizen voting is infinitesimally rare. The cases were found. They were referred. They were dropped. And their disappearance from the record is then cited as evidence that there was nothing there.
The context is worse than the referral numbers suggest. Fairfax County canceled 985 registrations on citizenship grounds between January 2022 and July 2024 alone; county Republicans count 1,912 cancellations over four years, including 538 in 2025 — more than one per day. Virginia removed 6,303 statewide between January 2022 and July 2024.
Crucially, Virginia does not verify citizenship at registration. It cannot; federal law forbids requiring documentary proof on the federal form. So these registrations surfaced only when the registrants disclosed their own status — typically on a jury questionnaire or a DMV transaction. Nobody went looking. The system caught only the people who raised their hands.
Sulzbergers Keep Secret Archives at Taxpayer Expense While Denouncing Supreme Court for Doing the Same Thing
A highly hyped New York Times investigation—touted with the unusual label “Times Exclusive”—appeared this month under the headline “How the Supreme Court Locks Away Its Own History.” It complained that “many of the justices have valued confidentiality over transparency and chosen to postpone scrutiny of their work for years to come.”
“Some scholars question why papers should be sealed long after a justice has retired,” says the Times article, by Jodi Kantor, with research and reporting contributed by Julie Tate, Ann Marimow, and Adam Liptak. It quoted a legal historian at the University of California, Davis, Mary Ziegler, accusing the justices of engaging in “reputation management,” and, as Ziegler was paraphrased in the article, “protecting themselves from examination and second-guessing.”
Not disclosed in the Times article: that the papers of former Times publishers Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., donated to the New York Public Library in 2007, are closed to public access until 2035 and 2057, respectively, according to the finding aid to the collection.
How Big Ag Seized Control Over Media, Research, Policy and the Marketplace
Industrial agriculture is increasingly adopting the same public relations, lobbying and information tactics long used by Big Oil, investigative journalist Amy Westervelt said on the “Real Organic Podcast.” Those strategies help corporations influence research, media and policy, making it easier to “shape the information that voters are getting,” she said.
Journalist Amy Westervelt has spent years documenting how the oil industry used public relations, think tanks and university partnerships to shape public opinion and influence public policy.
But in a recent interview on the “Real Organic Podcast,” Westervelt said she increasingly sees many of those same tactics in industrial agriculture.
“I am finding so many parallels in the agriculture space,” said Westervelt, host of the investigative podcast “Drilled” and author of the forthcoming book, “Brought to You By: Inside Big Oil’s Total Information War.”
She said large agricultural companies, like their counterparts in the fossil fuel industry, have established research centers that help generate academic support for policies that benefit industry.
“It’s like they need a certain amount of … credible information from academics to be able to make the policy argument for certain things,” she said.
Throughout the interview, Westervelt suggested these efforts are part of a broader corporate strategy designed not simply to influence markets, but to shape public debate before policy decisions are ever made.
‘Corporations start to have multiple problems with democracy’
Westervelt traced the origins of modern corporate public relations to the early 20th century, arguing that growing public scrutiny prompted businesses to rethink how they protected their interests.
“Corporations start to have multiple problems with democracy” as new laws, investigative reporting and broader voting rights threatened business interests, she said. That’s when you see “the birth of corporate PR.”
Rather than simply selling products, corporations sought to mold public opinion before voters could demand greater oversight, according to Westervelt.
“These companies need a way to shape the information that voters are getting in a way that will make them more likely to vote against their own interests and in the interests of the corporations that have a lot at stake,” she said.
Over time, industries refined those tactics, using increasingly sophisticated methods “to try to shape the context that they’re operating in and to deal with … ‘creeping democracy,’” Westervelt said.
Media ‘not doing its job’ of holding powerful corporations to account
Think tanks have become one of industry’s most effective policy tools, according to Westervelt.
“They train the people who work there to go on TV shows and radio shows to get these particular talking points out,” she said.
Unlike registered lobbyists, many think tanks operate with little transparency, she added.
“These organizations have loads of money. They have a lot of influence, and they’re not really regulated in any way,” Westervelt said. “They’re pretty good at hiding who funds them.”
She said corporate influence doesn’t stop with think tanks. It also extends into universities, where industry funding can help shape the research that later informs public policy.
While much of her reporting has focused on fossil fuel companies, Westervelt said she increasingly sees similar patterns in industrial agriculture. She described the practice as a form of “pre-lobbying,” in which corporations cultivate the evidence needed to support future policy arguments.
As one example, Westervelt described speaking with a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after an oil company funded carbon capture research.
Researchers were invited to submit project proposals, but one scientist wanted to study “the potential health impacts” of carbon capture pipelines, including “what might happen if it leaks,” she said.
According to Westervelt, the principal investigator instead encouraged him to “look for a more positive project.”
Seemingly small decisions like these can gradually shape which questions get asked — and which never reach the public, she said.
“There’s so many little things like that happening all the time that are keeping … really important ideas just out of the … public square,” she said.
Westervelt said those information gaps are reinforced by powerful technology platforms and a media landscape that often fails to challenge corporate influence.
“You do have now tech companies working really in lock step with these big corporations, helping them to drown out everybody else,” she said. “Letting them juice the algorithm, spend a fortune on … advertising, and really drown out kind of anyone that doesn’t agree with them.”
Meanwhile, she added, “the media is not doing its job kind of holding the powerful to account. That’s just not a thing that is rewarded by newsrooms at this time.”
AWW! Poor CNN Contributor is ‘Exhausted’ With Hearing About Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants
CNN contributor Leigh McGowan is ‘exhausted’ with hearing stories about illegal immigrants committing crimes like killing American citizens.
She made the comment during a recent panel discussion on the network, when conservative contributor Brianna Lyman was trying to make a valid point about what the liberal media covers and chooses not to cover.
Lyman was using as an example, a woman in Massachusetts who was strangled by an illegal immigrant just last week. McGowan rolled her eyes in disgust at the mere mention of it.
FOX News has details:
A CNN panel erupted Tuesday after far-left podcast host Leigh McGowan called repeated discussions of Americans killed by illegal immigrants “exhausting” after a conservative panelist raised the strangling death of Massachusetts woman Brianna Connolly by an illegal immigrant.
The panel was discussing the death of Pierre Damas Bel, a 20-year-old Haitian-born college student in Ohio whose family said he died by suicide Monday after being required to wear an ankle monitor after losing his Temporary Protected Status. Ohio State Highway Patrol said Bel died after walking into traffic on Interstate 70 and that the incident remained under investigation.
“Well, temporary does mean temporary, so eventually this individual may have been ordered to be removed,” The Federalist reporter Brianna Lyman said on the “NewsNight” panel. “I think it’s kind of insulting that we’re talking about this immigrant instead of Brianna Connolly from Massachusetts who was strangled last week by an illegal alien. Why is the focus never…”
McGowan interrupted Lyman as she mentioned Connolly’s killing.
“Oh my God!” she said. “It’s so exhausting. Over and over again.”
Lyman immediately responded by contrasting McGowan’s frustration with the experiences of victims’ families.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.