Tag: mainstream media

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

MSNOW Pushes Tired Liberal Talking Point That Second Amendment Only Applies to Guns Available When it Was Written

MSNOW host Melissa Murray and a liberal guest who clearly advocates for gun control, recently pushed the tired talking point that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to modern firearms, only the guns that were available when the Constitution was written.

Mind you, they said this on TELEVISION, which certainly wasn’t available when the First Amendment was written.

This is what the left flatly refuses to acknowledge about the Second Amendment. As they take full advantage of every new tool available for the advancement of free speech.

Partial transcript via NewsBusters:

MELISSA MURRAY, FILL-IN HOST: This consolidated set of cases has really captured the attention of many Second Amendment enthusiasts. The Second Amendment, as you know, involves the right to keep and bear arms. What do we know from the court in their most recent rulings about how the justices are likely to respond to this challenge to bans on semi-automatic weapons?

LEAH LITMAN, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, or at least the Republican appointees, have shown they have a ton of zeal for basically cannibalizing and eliminating common sense gun control regulation because they’ve adopted an interpretation of the Second Amendment that maintains firearms that didn’t exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified — those are still constitutionally protected.

And yet governments have to show that the regulation of those firearms that’s used today resembles the kind of regulations that were applied to firearms that looked substantially different than firearms do today. That is, the government would have to show that it is regulating AR-15’s in the same way that the government’s regulated especially dangerous weapons that existed in the 1700s and 1800s — like, I don’t know, muskets or bayonets. And based on that logic, the court last term struck down two gun control regulations, one at the federal level and one at the state level. So I think it’s very concerning that the court took up this particular case.

Keep reading

Canadian Broadcasting Corp Tells Staff Not to Refer to 9/11 as ‘Terrorist Attack’

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sent a memo to its reporters and editors this week instructing them not to refer to the September 11, 2001, attack on America as a “terrorist attack.”

The memo, first reported by an astonished Warren Kinsella at the Toronto Sun, used boldface type to emphasize the directive to CBC employees.

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” the memo said bluntly.

“The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan. The World Trade Center was destroyed,” the memo continued, by way of explaining why the atrocity seen by most of the world as the textbook example of a “terrorist attack” should not be described as such.

According to Kinsella, the memo originated with Basem Boshra, the Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News.

Kinsella reached out to CBC to ask for further insights on why “hijackings” that “led to passenger jet crashes” should not be treated as terrorism.

The response, from CBC spokeswoman Kerry Kelly, was this:

CBC’s longstanding language guidance regarding the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ is a preference for the use of these words with attribution, a practice shared by many of the world’s top journalistic organizations. Our general manager and editor in chief has written publicly in the past on the subject.

In other words, CBC claimed it was following in the footsteps of news organizations that have invented lively euphemisms for terrorists, such as “activists” or “militants.” The CBC guide also seemed to be using a dash of passive voice to whitewash the horror of 9/11, as if those passenger jet crashes were a force of nature, or an unexpected consequence of the crazy hijinks of the hijackers.

Kelly tried again when the New York Post (NYP) came calling on Thursday, and arguably dug the CBC’s hole even deeper:

Our focus is to report the facts of such atrocities with accuracy, clarity and detail; to convey the scale and scope of violent acts wherever they occur; to quote the people affected, and to convey the views of officials and experts on these events. We bear witness.

But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.

The NYP pointed out that even Osama bin Laden referred to the 9/11 attack as an act of “blessed terror,” which really ought to be good enough for the CBC.

By the time Kelly got around to Canada’s National Post, she was engaging in Matrix-level reality distortions by claiming it was “wholly inaccurate to state our journalists have been urged to declare that this was not a terrorist act” – even though the memo said literally, exactly that, and in boldface type to boot. The CBC spokeswoman was effectively arguing there is a difference between refusing to call 9/11 a terrorist attack, and definitively stating that it was not one.

Kelly also tried to justify the memo by pointing out that CBC refused to call the October 7, 2023, atrocities perpetrated against Israel by Hamas “terrorism,” an argument that did not exactly provide the escalator ride out of the moral basement that she was hoping for.

The October 2023 blog post Kelly referred to, written by CBC News editor in chief Brodie Fenlon, offered a version of the hoary “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” canard – written after an earlier memo ordering CBC reporters not to call the Hamas attack “terrorism” was leaked to the public.

“CBC News is independent of any and all governments, yet we and other news organizations have been regularly lobbied over the years by many opposing groups to label certain people or acts of violence as terrorism – precisely because the word is so important to them and carries so much weight,” he wrote.

Fenlon quoted the relevant passage from the CBC style guide:

Exercise extreme caution before using the words terrorist and terrorism. While the language is not seriously disputed in some cases, it’s less clear if not highly contested at other times — which can lead to virtually endless questions about consistency and impartiality in our coverage of various attacks around the world.

Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it’s a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.

Outrage quickly boiled over on both sides of the border. Conservative MP Rachael Thomas pronounced the CBC memo “absolutely shameful,” and accused the outlet of “choosing to redefine terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity of 9/11.”

Keep reading