The Trump administration has issued subpoenas for four New York Times journalists, requiring them to testify before a grand jury in a criminal investigation. 
The subpoenas come after the Times reported on security concerns involving Trump’s new presidential aircraft — a gift from Qatar. The purpose is to compel the journalists to reveal their confidential government sources in the investigation.
The media is, of course, outraged by Mr. Trump’s actions. Most leading outlets, including ABC, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, have labeled the subpoenas “unprecedented” executive overreach. They are not.
Let’s examine the darling of the press: the Obama administration. President Obama prosecuted more leakers under the Espionage Act than any administration in history.
Mr. Trump’s actions are problematic. They raise genuine questions about press independence and government overreach. But let’s add some historical context.
As with so many things Mr. Trump does, the subpoenas are not actually a departure from the norm. They only look that way because everyone else did it in the shadows while he does it in broad daylight — and this largely has to do with a hostile media (toward Trump) versus a sympathetic one (toward any and all Democrats).
Much of the Obama surveillance was conducted in secret; the affected organizations learned about it later, after records had already been collected. In 2012, the Justice Department obtained two months of telephone records from the Associated Press without providing notice of any kind.
If anything, this secrecy is all the more troubling from a free-press standpoint. Trump obviously believes (in error) that he is fully legally justified in his actions — hence his pride and publicity in them. It’s harder to make that case about Obama, whose subterfuge implies at least a certain degree of doubt that he had the right to do what he did.
Even more notably, in 2009, Fox News reporter James Rosen published a story on North Korean nuclear weapons. The story was based on an intelligence report that had been leaked by an administration official.
In order to obtain a warrant for Rosen’s personal emails, phone contacts, and communications information, the affidavit baselessly characterized him as a possible “aider, abettor, or co-conspirator.” While Rosen was not charged, the criminal language allowed prosecutors to obtain his material with no advance notice.
Would someone like to explain to me how exactly that’s different, let alone milder, than Trump’s subpoenas?
When pressed with these facts, many Democrats will be quick to respond, “Sure, it was a problem when Obama did it, and it’s a problem now. Let’s bring it to a swift end.” I don’t disagree.
This response, however, is hugely disingenuous.
Only now that Obama is out of public office can it become an unforgivable action. You can tell me all you want that it&#8217;s a red line, but it never kept you from endorsing Obama. It doesn’t keep you from pining for the days when the president was an upstanding, humble citizen. What’s different this time?
While Obama did eventually draw the criticism of the mainstream media, it was far from a comparable reception. Obama’s abuse of the Espionage Act was treated as a mere footnote in his presidency. Meanwhile, Trump’s actions are an “unprecedented” threat to the democratic process.
This is selective memory at its finest. How many people, especially younger people, even know about the Obama scandals? It seems the media did such a good job running cover that they even forgot about them themselves.
To be clear: The Trump subpoenas are wrong. The Obama scandals were wrong. But the press is also wrong for its incessant fearmongering and selective crucifixion. If it wasn’t the end times then, it’s not the end times now.
You don’t get to pick and choose. This is another case where the press — and its blatant bias — has become the story rather than a pursuit of the truth.

Obama/Trump

Trump’s Subpoenas Are Not Unprecedented Despite The Media Hysteria

Barack Obama

DW Opinion

First Amendment

Freedom of the Press

James Rosen

Media Bias

President Trump

subpoena

It looks like we finally found something we can all agree on. Mitch McConnell’s time in politics has come to a close. Tragically, he is not fit to serve out the remainder of his term.
I’m not going to play the fool’s game of “but he’s only x years older than this or that competent politician.” Henry Kissinger and Thomas Sowell remained sharp well into their 90s. Most people do not. You don’t judge a person’s mental competency solely based on how many years they’ve been alive. You judge based on what you can see.
Everyone seems to understand that the empirical evidence reflects McConnell’s profound mental and physical decline.
But I wonder, where was all this agreement four years ago when Joe Biden, a veritable corpse, was running the entire country?
Behind closed doors, the president was reciting Shakespeare while juggling with his eyebrows. It was only when all the cameras showed up that he turned into a gaffe machine who couldn’t read a teleprompter. That&#8217;s a mean case of stage fright for a politician who&#8217;s been in the game for 53 years.
And, of course, our skeptical media bought that, no questions asked.
Alex Thompson, a White House correspondent for Politico during the Biden administration, recently co-authored a <a href="https://sites.prh.com/originalsin/">book</a> detailing the cover-up of Biden’s mental decline. Conveniently, this book comes long after the decline was obvious, and Biden is no longer running for office.
Thompson has <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-05-20/jake-tapper-defends-original-sin-biden-cover-up-media-role">insisted</a> that the media was simply “lied to” about the president&#8217;s mental state. News flash: if I can see the decline on my television, it shouldn’t take you five years to figure it out when it’s quite literally your entire job to track his affairs.
What kind of media waits for the White House&#8217;s permission before holding it accountable? But don&#8217;t worry, they’re here now to bravely stand for the truth. As usual, they&#8217;re a day late and a dollar short.
And then there was a cadre of Biden&#8217;s fellow Democrats. In a debate with Ron DeSantis, California Governor Gavin Newsom (one of the top Democratic contenders for president in 2028) insisted that the president was perfectly sharp and on top of everything.
Would — or should — an aspiring president take at face value that “behind closed doors,” Chinese President Xi Jinping has no plans to invade Taiwan, he’s simply looking to grab a beer with Lai Ching-te? And if not, which means he was lying, why should the American people place their trust in a man who lies through his teeth about something as consequential as the mental state of their own president?
So which is it? Is he too foolish to be president or too dishonest? Of course, nobody is asking this question. It’s much more interesting to keep beating the dead horse that is McConnell’s competency.
This is not a matter of respect for the statesman that Joe Biden used to be. The squirrely nature of that characterization aside, respect does not demand dishonesty.
Mitch McConnell was perhaps the most effective legislator of my lifetime. He played an instrumental role in seating a Republican majority on the court. He forced significant concessions from the Democratic majority during the Obama administration (including dropping the socialized insurance option) and blocked progressive climate legislation.
He guided the clown show that is the congressional Republicans into confirming three conservative Supreme Court Justices and 54 appeals court justices in a single presidential term, orchestrated the passage of 2017 tax reform, and spearheaded one of the only unanimous consequential legislative packages in modern history.
His legacy is unmatched.
Such is my tribute to his tremendous influence and my respect for the great man. But he&#8217;s too old to be in office. To pretend otherwise would not be an act of respect towards him, but an act of disrespect towards his constituency.
When I last saw Senator McConnell, he required the assistance of several men simply to move in and out of the chamber. He never spoke a word despite being addressed directly by several other Senators. This was shortly before his recent hospitalization.
But McConnell is taking hits left and right from the media. And therein lies the distinction: left and right. The conservative press never tried to run interference for the man, and they certainly never tried to invalidate legitimate depictions of his decline.
In 2023, MS NOW published an <a href="https://www.ms.now/opinion/msnbc-opinion/mitch-mcconnell-second-freeze-kentucky-rcna102599">op-ed</a> insisting that McConnell was unfit to serve and that he step down immediately. They were <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/mitch-mcconnell-needs-to-step-aside">joined in their concerns</a> by the National Review, one of the most prominent outlets on the American right, which called for McConnell to step down from leadership positions. 
Only when Biden decided to shoot himself in the foot on live television in front of the entire country did it start to become apparent that he was a lost cause, and the media started to turn on him. After years of lying to the American people, it was no longer taboo for Thompson to publish his book.
As members of the press, our first responsibility is to the American public. A press that shirks that responsibility for political gain disgraces the very people it’s meant to serve.

Mitch McConnell

Why Isn’t The Press Running Interference For Mitch McConnell?

Joe Biden

It’s a shame that “Saturday Night Live” is on its annual summer break. Otherwise, we’d laugh about the show ignoring the scandals coming out of the Graham Platner camp.
Except it’s not actually funny.
Once upon a time, when a politician stepped on a rake, a crush of comedians would rise up to tease them. That fueled late-night king Johnny Carson’s decades-long reign, among many others.
Carlin. Sahl. Klein. Miller. Bruce.
Politicians, in turn, had to watch their backs. That was good for their political futures and good for the country, too.
Now, we have a new generation of political figures charitably described as comedy gold. Hunter Biden. AOC. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. And, of course, Platner.
The problem? They’re all Democrats, and the current comedy zeitgeist won’t lay a glove on them. Meanwhile, every Republican in the public arena is mercilessly mocked for both real and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QI9598HwDw8">imagined flaws</a>.
Night after night after night.
It’s something mystery author novelist <a href="https://x.com/DanFriedman81/status/2074238525948510574">Daniel Friedman called out on X.</a>
This is not harmless and this is not meaningless. Democrats have successfully incepted the idea into voters’ heads that Republicans are absurd, clownish and unqualified and the one-sided mockery in entertainment media has helped to spread this lie when the Democrats are actually a collection of hideous weirdos and circus freaks that media has somehow convinced you are normal.
Why would comedians ignore political targets just because they align with their world view? Call it the Palin Effect.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was new to the national scene when Sen. John McCain selected her as his running mate in 2008. “SNL” tasked cast member Tina Fey to portray Palin as a bumpkin, a rube who told the audience she could see Russia from her house.
The impression, to Fey’s credit, was solid gold. And it stuck in the public psyche. Some actually believed the real Palin uttered that “Russia” quote. The moment showed the comedy community that their skits and yuks can impact public opinion.
It’s no accident “SNL” took a hard-Left turn following that election cycle. Even “SNL” cast member Jay Pharoah, who portrayed President Barack Obama on the show, later admitted the show’s brain trust <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/jay-pharoah-snl-obama/">“gave up on the Obama thing</a>,” meaning it pulled its punches on a sitting president.
Why? He wasn’t a Republican.
Both parties have their fair share of political embarrassments. Colorado Republicans just nominated Victor Marx, a man who told an interviewer that it <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/victor-marx-wont-say-how-many-people-hes-killed.html">doesn’t matter how many people he’s killed</a>, to be the next governor.
That’s just the tip of the unhinged Marx iceberg.
Marx’s ramblings already snagged the attention of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” “The Daily Show,” and “Last Week Tonight.” That’s both appropriate and predictable.
Expect more national ribbing in the weeks to come. And, as Desi Lydic did on her “Daily Show” skewering, they <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qILf3Wcpew4&amp;t=306s">might tie Marx to the GOP brand</a>. Heck, you can bank on that.
Late-night hosts typically ignore Democrats behaving badly. When Jimmy Kimmel finally gave Platner a full-bodied mention, he used the alleged rapist to somehow <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/jimmy-kimmel-graham-platner-trump-gop/">smear the GOP</a>.
That’s the level of dishonesty in comedy circles today. That’s the same Kimmel who threw softballs at First Son Hunter Biden during his 2021 book tour.
Meanwhile, the cultural Right has done little to balance the scales. Fox News’ “Gutfeld!” may be a late-night ratings winner, but it’s essentially a panel show aimed at a pre-sold conservative crowd.
The show doesn’t do comedy sketches that might go viral and engage those who might otherwise watch “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” or the left-leaning “Tonight Show.”
The right-leaning Babylon Bee has done some solid sketch comedy in recent years, but the site relegates its toughest political gags to its fake news stories, not its YouTube channel.
Social media fills some of the gaps, with amateur late-night hosts cracking wise or creating memes that deconstruct Democrats. The platforms’ algorithms likely keep those funny bits to one side of the aisle only.
The comic gold, meanwhile, will only get richer. Consider the stunning rise of Democratic socialists and their tried-and-failed policies. Not to mention all the antisemitism.
Colorado Democrat Melat Kiros is so far Left that she couldn’t call the Boulder thug who firebombed a Jewish <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5952491-weiser-kiros-antisemitism-debate/">gathering an antisemite</a>.
New York City Mayor Mamdani embraces socialism while enjoying prime viewing seats at the World Cup (and other perks). That might be worth a gag or two. (But we’ll never see it.)
This may read as a conservative complaint. And it is. Partially. There’s a larger, bipartisan issue in play.
Comedians, at their best, hold politicians accountable and keep them on the straight and narrow. When a gaggle of Democrats betrayed the nation’s COVID-19 restrictions in 2020, they should have been mocked so aggressively that they loosened those protocols.
The country would have been freer and equally safe from the virus, as we later learned. Instead, they kept up the charade because Kimmel &amp; co. didn’t lay a glove on them.
Plus, if a Platner-style candidate got raked over the comedy coals in the early days of his senatorial push, he might have dropped out months ago. His campaign may never have gained that early head of steam.
Instead, he dragged his party down with him as more scandals emerged, hurting both the Democrat brand and the country.
Our Court Jester Class has let us down. And the future holds little hope of any improvement.
***
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="http://www.hollywoodintoto.com/">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News&#8217; Big Hollywood. He&#8217;s also the host of <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-hollywood-in-toto-podcast-w-christian-toto/id1186449155">The Hollywood in Toto Podcast</a>. Follow him at <a href="https://twitter.com/HollywoodInToto?lang=en">@HollywoodInToto</a>.

Democratic Presidential Nominee Vice President Kamala Harris Appears On NBC’s Saturday Night Live

How Comedy Failed The Voters

Comedy

Democrats

Entertainment

graham platner

Late night TV

Saturday Night Live

Stand-up Comedy

A Texas <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting">ICE facility</a> got hit with an armed ANTIFA cell numbering in the dozens on the Fourth of July, the latest instance in a wave of Left-wing violence that includes the murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO and Charlie Kirk, whose assassin engraved his bullet casings with ANTIFA slogans.
The Left’s premiere non-Wordle newspaper doesn’t care about that. This week, three Washington Post reporters spent hundreds of words arguing that nobody can quite figure out what &#8220;left-wing terrorism&#8221; even means, calling it “difficult to categorize.”
The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/09/rubio-tries-enlist-other-nations-antifa-fight-some-allies-recoil/">piece</a> — ostensibly about Secretary of State Marco Rubio inviting representatives from 60 nations to discuss the “resurgence of transnational far-left terrorism” — is petulant drivel. Rubio isn’t overreaching. He’s the first secretary of state in a generation willing to say the quiet part out loud.
That&#8217;s not politicization, that’s catching up.
This makes the Post&#8217;s framing all the more absurd. The piece leans hard on the idea that quantifying Left-wing violence is some unsolvable epistemological puzzle — going so far as to platform &#8220;analysts&#8221; who wonder aloud whether gunning down an insurance executive on the street even counts as a &#8220;‘left-wing’ act.&#8221;
The same paper that spent 2020 calling arson and Molotov cocktails &#8220;mostly peaceful” now wants us to believe that a coordinated cell of nine defendants — convicted on federal terrorism, explosives, and attempted murder charges for storming an ICE facility with over 50 firearms between them — is too nebulous a phenomenon to name.
Left-wing violence isn&#8217;t hard to quantify; it&#8217;s just hard for the Post to admit. It’s so hard, in fact, that the authors attempt to pretend ANTIFA doesn’t exist while simultaneously citing the group’s operations in Europe.
One European diplomat is quoted as insisting, with a straight face, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have ANTIFA.&#8221; Some anonymous ally, off to protect their diplomatic backside, tells the Post their country has no earthly reason to show up to Rubio&#8217;s summit. Then, further down the article, written by the very same three bylines, the Post casually mentions that the <a href="https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/11/designations-of-antifa-ost-and-three-other-violent-antifa-groups">State Department designated ANTIFA OST</a>, a militant group in Germany (along with two more cells in Greece and one in Italy), as a foreign terrorist organization back in November.
So, which is it? Does Europe have ANTIFA or doesn&#8217;t it? The Post can&#8217;t even keep its own reporting straight for six paragraphs, and they want us to trust their skepticism about the threat&#8217;s existence.
As for all this European &#8220;consternation,&#8221; I&#8217;d humbly suggest the diplomats waving off Rubio&#8217;s invitation aren&#8217;t worried about being lectured on domestic politics. I think several of them are worried about something considerably less comfortable: what happens when American intelligence-sharing starts asking pointed questions about who&#8217;s actually funding and organizing these &#8220;loosely knit&#8221; networks in their own countries — and how many of those funding trails lead back to <a href="https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-latin-america-2/">Beijing&#8217;s Belt and Road partners</a> and CCP-linked NGOs quietly propping up far-Left instability across Europe and Latin America?
Must we again reference <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jim-banks-gop-lawmakers-rally-behind-doj-probe-alleged-ccp-linked-funding-network">Beijing’s Neville Roy Singham</a> and the groups he funds to foment illegal blockade running in the Caribbean? No administration wants to be the government that has to explain why their &#8220;spontaneous&#8221; anarchist movement keeps showing up with professional-grade logistics and foreign wire transfers. We&#8217;ve already watched what happens once voters get a look under that hood — ask <a href="https://sanfernandosun.com/2024/04/10/argentinas-police-step-up-their-response-to-growing-anti-government-protests/">Javier Milei&#8217;s Argentina</a>, <a href="https://latinoamerica21.com/en/bukele-at-a-crossroads-washington-or-beijing/">Bukele&#8217;s El Salvador</a>, or <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/22/far-right-de-la-espriella-elected-colombia-president-whats-next">Colombia&#8217;s electorate</a> this year. The hard-Left establishment gets tossed out the window once the receipts come out. That&#8217;s the real fear rattling around these foreign ministries, and it has nothing to do with Rubio&#8217;s invitation list being too &#8220;vague.&#8221;
None of this is to say every element of the administration&#8217;s approach is airtight — designating a movement with no central command as a foreign terrorist organization is a genuine legal stretch, and reasonable conservatives can debate the mechanics. But the Post didn&#8217;t publish a piece raising careful legal questions. It published 2,000 words insisting the entire premise is manufactured, while a decentralized movement racks up a body count that includes a Fortune 500 CEO, an ICE detainee, and the most prominent conservative activist of his generation.
If the Washington Post can&#8217;t see the pattern, it isn&#8217;t because the pattern is invisible. It&#8217;s because that would mean admitting that six years of &#8220;mostly peaceful&#8221; was always a lie.
***
Tony Kinnett is the host of The Tony Kinnett Cast at The Daily Signal. Connect with him on X: @TheTonus.

Violent Clashes Erupt at “Unite The Right” Rally In Charlottesville

Rubio’s 60 Nation Counterterrorism Conference Terrifies The Washington Post

Antifa

Washington Post

Many New England homes used to be equipped with the bizarre and highly inconvenient “<a href="https://www.thespruce.com/witches-stairs-7092700">Witches’ Stairs,</a>” a staggered staircase design said to prevent witches from ascending. But what if I told you there was a more efficient way to keep a witch out of your home or, better yet, your neighborhood? According to The View’s Sunny Hostin, an American flag is enough to make her feel “unsafe.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Hostin says that any community with American flags is automatically racist: 
&#8220;&#8230;when I walk into a community and I see American flags all over the community and I suddenly feel unsafe because there&#8217;s a section of this country that has co-opted the American flag and they equate… <a href="https://t.co/SMnicvTrCd">pic.twitter.com/SMnicvTrCd</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2074162504293355768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 6, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Fresh back from the hosts’ Fourth of July vacation, <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/07/06/view-white-supremacists-train-defining-image-modern-america" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/07/06/view-white-supremacists-train-defining-image-modern-america&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1783557655198000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0zkX8ghGomq1XYOla9EJdb">Hostin flaunted her craziness</a>, claiming the American flag was a symbol of “white supremacy,” and that she was terrified of neighborhoods with too many. She even admitted that this was a long-held belief:
<blockquote>
And I said this on this show many, many years ago. Because this is my tenth year on the show and I said there are times; when I walk into a community and I see American flags all over the community and I suddenly feel unsafe, because there&#8217;s a section of this country that has co-opted the American flag and they equate being an American or an American flag with white supremacy.
</blockquote>
Meanwhile, the new sexual assault allegations against Maine Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/07/07/sunny-hostin-doubles-down-support-platner-despite-sexual">weren’t enough to scare her away</a> from fully supporting him.
Hostin clearly has some deep-seated issues about certain neighborhoods and the certain people who live in them, including her own.
Last year, she <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2025/10/23/sunny-hostin-fears-her-all-white-neighborhood-will-call-cops">shared her concern</a> that everyone in the “all-white neighborhood” into which she had just moved was secretly racist, and that they were going to call the police to harass her son on his jogs.
“I have had to be in the position where I&#8217;ve gone to my local police department because I know my son is going to be training for the Junior Olympics, running around the neighborhood, in an all-white neighborhood, and I have brought him to the police and said he belongs to me, this is my son. Do not harass him, do not stop him,” she recounted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sunny Hostin apparently thinks all her white neighbors are racists. She says she fears them calling the police on on her son if they see him training for the Junior Olympics: 
&#8220;As a mother of black children, I know that black boys are not given the presumption of innocence&#8230;I… <a href="https://t.co/3Q1sfc1c5c">pic.twitter.com/3Q1sfc1c5c</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/1981021550527529155?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hostin suggested her fear stemmed from her being “a mother of black children.” “I know that black boys are not given the presumption of innocence and the presumption of youth,” she added.
Hostin’s brazen anti-Americanism apparently is supported by ABC News and Disney.
Earlier this year, she admitted that she was &#8220;embarrassed” to be an American and called America a “<a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/06/05/sunny-hostin-embarrassed-america-calls-it-failed-experiment">failed experiment</a>.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sunny Hostin, who once said she was more comfortable in Ghana than America, says she&#8217;s &#8220;embarrassed&#8221; by the country as America nears 250 and calls it a &#8220;failed experiment&#8221; in self governance:
SUNNY HOSTIN: And so I think we have a very complicated history here. I think it&#8217;s a… <a href="https://t.co/gILwK0E8y8">pic.twitter.com/gILwK0E8y8</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2062918071061230060?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But where did Hostin learn to hate America this much? According to her, she learned from her father, and she’s been fairly open about it.
In reacting to a SCOTUS ruling against Affirmative Action in 2023, <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2074616889523794213?s=20">Hostin shared</a> the corrupting “wisdom” her father taught her: “It&#8217;s been harder for us, and I&#8217;m sorry, people may not agree with that. My father always told me you have to work twice as hard to get half as far in this country and that remains true.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
If you want to see where The View&#8217;s Sunny Hostin got her hatred of America, here she is on June 29, 2023 talking about affirmative action and explaining how her father taught her to hate:
&#8220;It&#8217;s been harder for us, and I&#8217;m sorry, people may not agree with that. My father always… <a href="https://t.co/QAPHUVC1Ke">pic.twitter.com/QAPHUVC1Ke</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2074616889523794213?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Now that we’re past the Fourth of July and the Halloween season is upon us (according to my local grocery store&#8217;s candy aisle), be sure to hang up an American flag to keep the spooky kook away.
***
Nicholas C. Fondacaro is the associate editor for the Media Research Center and NewsBusters.

Netflix’s “The Rip” New York Premiere

Witches’ Bane: Put Up An American Flag To Keep Sunny Hostin Away

American Flag

Sunny Hostin

The View

The media wants you to get canceled and stay canceled.
Journalists didn’t complain about Cancel Culture during woke’s darkest days. Instead, they fed the beast. And they haven’t stopped, even if what Elon Musk dubbed the “woke mind virus” is fading.
Cancel Culture took down all comers for a good, long while. Think of those who committed legitimately awful acts (Louis C.K., Harvey Weinstein), comedians who shared “problematic” jokes (Kevin Hart), or singers saying ugly words off stage (Morgan Wallen).
For the worst offenders, the media insisted that the parties in question have no redemptive arc. Apologies were demanded but not accepted.
Louis C.K. is the poster child for this trend.
The “Louie” star was one of the most respected comics in the industry circa 2017. His FX series earned endless praise, his edgy stand-up material wowed critics, and he seemed poised for a Woody Allen-style directorial career with his upcoming film, “I Love You, Daddy.”
Then he confirmed reports that he had sexually exposed himself to multiple women. He apologized and said he’d go away for a while.
And he did, but not before his career collapsed. He lost that FX series, a role in “The Secret Life of Pets 2,” and any other gigs from his once-thriving career. Oh, and the distributor behind “I Love You, Daddy” yanked the film from the schedule. It remains unreleased.
C.K. eventually returned to comedy stages nationwide. He did so on his own, flexing his email list of supporters and trusting his comedy could lure some folks back to his side.
He suffered for his actions. He lost millions. He will never lose the label that many have affixed to him for his actions. And, of course, some fans will never support him.
That’s their choice, and it’s reasonable.
He still deserves the chance to win back an audience and make people laugh. And they came, slowly at first, and his audiences eventually grew large enough that he played Madison Square Garden.
But he’s not allowed that chance for redemption if the media has anything to say about it.
His new Netflix special, “Ridiculous,” is his first mainstream Hollywood project since the revelations went public nine years ago. Variety’s review suggests his comeback, both on Netflix’s part and the media reception, <a href="https://variety.com/2026/tv/reviews/louis-ck-ridiculous-review-netflix-1236797990/">remains problematic</a>:
<blockquote>
The release of “Ridiculous” also culminates a tour that saw C.K. make inroads with the kind of liberal-coded publications that once covered his reputational nadir, with favorable writeups in both The Times and The New Yorker.
</blockquote>
Other outlets have played a <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2021/12/louis-c-k-releases-new-stand-up-special-sorry.html">similar refrain</a> about his slow-motion comeback. The Guardian filled its “Ridiculous” review with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2026/jun/30/louis-ck-ridiculous-review-netflix">regret that the special even exists</a>:
<blockquote>
It’s less a triumphant return than a gradual slinking back, an unspoken assumption that no one really cares that much about his behavior; no particular defense or apology, just a shruggy emoticon. 
</blockquote>
Cracked.com, a far-Left site allegedly dedicated to pop culture, <a href="https://www.cracked.com/article_49913_louis-cks-new-special-shows-that-all-canceled-comics-need-are-bad-words.html">trashed C.K.’s fans</a> for laughing at the R-rated jokes told in “Ridiculous.”
Wallen’s cancellation story may be the most absurd. He was caught on camera using the “n-word,” but not aimed at anyone or, more specifically, targeting a black person. His career also collapsed overnight.
He donated thousands to black organizations to stem the career damage, apologized profusely and took a break from touring. He lost access to major awards shows, found his music stripped from radio stations and lost his representation.
The Washington Post used his cancellation <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/washington-post-cancel-culture-country-music/">to attack all of country music</a>.
He, too, slowly came back, and his fans were all too eager to forgive and forget. But when radio stations started playing his music again, <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/morgan-wallen-banned-country-radio-1227035/">Rolling Stone magazine cried out in horror</a>.
In the end, Wallen’s massive fan base un-canceled him. He grew more famous, more unstoppable, and the media hand-wringing eventually subsided.
All for saying one ugly, offensive word.
Dave Chappelle’s sin proved the most bewildering. The comedy giant poked fun at the trans community during a 2019 Netflix special dubbed, “The Closer,” that wrapped with a moving tribute to a late trans comic.
The Cancel Culture mob ignored the latter and laser focused on the former. Chappelle’s skin color and comedy god status didn’t protect him from said mob. Netflix workers picketed their employer and media outlets turned on Chappelle with a ferocity that likely caught him by surprise.
His plans to release a documentary got canceled, a project that has yet to see the light of day several years later.
And, through it all, reporters piled on Chappelle.
Rolling Stone, once a free speech bastion, <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/dave-chappelle-documentary-san-fran-tour-opener-1252836/">often led the charge.</a>
Despite the rightful criticism many have shared in the wake of that special’s release, Chappelle’s career seems to be doing just fine if the arena-wide standing ovation he received upon arrival on Thursday is any indication.
Darn it!
Others piled on, demanding he apologize for … jokes.
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1">Dave Chappelle Inducts Jay-Z Into Rock Hall With Unapologetic Speech: ‘He Is Hip-Hop’ (The Hollywood Reporter)</li>
</ul>
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1">Dave Chappelle addresses Netflix controversy, remains unapologetic about anti-trans material: ‘I said what I said’ (New York Daily News)</li>
</ul>
In most cases, the obligatory narrative followed. Think variations of “What Cancel Culture?” That ignores the massive punishments the aforementioned stars endured along the way.
You’ll likely read just that as disgraced actors Armie Hammer and Kevin Spacey rebuild their professional careers.
The people who behave badly but don’t endure this brand of media attack? Democratic politicians like Graham Platner. He was never canceled by the press in the first place. That’s all you need to know about “cancel culture.”
***
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="http://www.hollywoodintoto.com/">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News&#8217; Big Hollywood. He&#8217;s also the host of <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-hollywood-in-toto-podcast-w-christian-toto/id1186449155">The Hollywood in Toto Podcast</a>. Follow him at <a href="https://twitter.com/HollywoodInToto?lang=en">@HollywoodInToto</a>.

Louis C.K. Performance – 2025 New York Comedy Festival

What Cancel Culture Says About The Woke World Versus The Real World

Cancel Culture

Dave Chappelle

Hollywood

Louis CK

Morgan Wallen

A journalist or newsperson knows better than to make absolute, broad, sweeping statements about something they didn’t know about or that was easily disprovable; they would hedge on the existence of an edge case that could embarrass them. But that wasn’t the case with Whoopi Goldberg of “The View,” the moderator for what ABC has claimed to the FCC is a “bona fide news program.” According to Goldberg this week, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool “never had algae before” President Trump’s renovations, and “nobody” wants voter ID laws.
Amid the liberal media’s obsession with the Reflecting Pool earlier in the week, “The View” took a big gulp from that watering hole. Goldberg’s hyperbole even got support from a gullible audience member:
<blockquote>
GOLDBERG: Look this. [Points to screen showing workers in the reflecting pool] I mean, they look like they are fishing in the reflecting pool. They&#8217;re trying to get – they&#8217;re trying to get the algae out. This thing never had algae before!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No!
</blockquote>
Obviously, that was patently false. Even the anti-Trump journalists at <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-reflecting-pool-is-about-to-be-drained-again-heres-what-to-know">PBS were able to admit</a> that algae are naturally occurring and Trump’s renovations didn’t play a role. We also know the National Park Service has used hydrogen peroxide to kill algae blooms since 2021, when they switched away from chlorine.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg claims Trump was the one who vandalized the reflecting pool and that he&#8217;s going to go to prison for 10 years. 
She falsely claims &#8220;this thing never had algae before&#8221; the renovations. <a href="https://t.co/G5egXOXCtC">pic.twitter.com/G5egXOXCtC</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2069076182113321077?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 22, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goldberg beclowned herself later in the week when proclaiming that no one wanted voter ID laws:
<blockquote>
It doesn&#8217;t have the votes. So, he&#8217;s trying to push to, and do all kinds of stuff. It just — It&#8217;s ridiculous. It&#8217;s — The bill that would force people to have I.D. when they come to vote, and nobody wants it.
</blockquote>
It’s impossible to make the claim “nobody” wants voter ID when poll after poll has shown over 80% bipartisan support for the measure. That’s more than what’s needed for a supermajority vote.
Despite supposedly being a “bona fide news program” under the ABC News umbrella, Goldberg was ignorant of the fact that even her own network gave credence to the fact that it was a popular policy.  “An August 2025 Pew Research Center study found that 83% of the more than 3,500 people surveyed are in favor of requiring voters to show government-issued photo ID at the polls,” <a href="https://abcnews.com/Politics/fact-check-trump-save-america-act-amid-push/story?id=130505183">ABC wrote about the Pew Research Center poll</a>.
That’s not to mention that a majority of states (36) already require voters to present ID.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg falsely claims &#8220;nobody wants&#8221; voter ID laws. 
Sunny Hostin decries that the SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship. <a href="https://t.co/2CMFwkZX5Q">pic.twitter.com/2CMFwkZX5Q</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2070163835726483674?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Nothing about “The View” is a “bona fide news program.” <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/1896964078590984451">Goldberg has been very vocal</a> about how their role is to push Democratic Party messaging and anti-Trump fearmongering to the daytime TV audience. She’s even gotten into arguments about it in defense of their work.
A “bona fide news program” is supposed to share facts and tell its audience the truth. As shown here, “The View” does neither. That’s why the <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/06/23/mrc-leads-charge-strip-view-bona-fide-news-status">Media Research Center is leading the charge</a> to strip “The View” of that status.
“While The View may once have qualified for an exemption, the evidence shows that it has for years operated for political purposes and is therefore not entitled to an exemption from the law. The MRC has the documentation to demonstrate that “The View” is a partisan political operation that advocates for Democrats and their party, against President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans, and for the political priorities of the left,” MRC President David Bozell wrote in <a href="https://cdn.newsbusters.org/blog_attachment/THE%20VIEW%20Ex%20Parte.pdf-1781899751546.pdf">a public comment filing to the FCC</a>.
The MRC also provided the FCC with “2,473 separate pieces of evidence documenting The View’s pervasive bias and, at times, willful electioneering as exhibits to this comment.”
ABC couldn’t even get the facts right when trying to muster supporters to submit public comments. On June 22, they told viewers they had until July 6 to submit a comment. In actuality, public comment ended that day at the close of business. Only reply comments were allowed to be submitted by July 6.
Despite their own incompetence, ABC and “The View” will likely cry foul if the FCC ignores the comments filed after the deadline.
***
Nicholas C. Fondacaro is the associate editor for the Media Research Center and NewsBusters.

Disney 2026 Upfront Red Carpet

Only A Sith (And Whoopi Goldberg) Deals In Absolutes

Fake News

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Reflecting Pool

Voter ID

Whoopi Goldberg

An Al Jazeera cameraman mourned as a journalist killed by Israel was also a Hamas sniper operative, <a href="https://x.com/IDF/status/2068442916977275317">according to the Israel Defense Forces</a>.
Ahmed Washah was killed Saturday in central Gaza after an Israeli drone targeted a home in the Bureij refugee camp. Al Jazeera and multiple media outlets described him as a cameraman for Al Jazeera Mubasher, Al Jazeera’s Arabic-language live channel. Al Jazeera said two other people were also killed and others were wounded.
But the IDF says Washah was not simply a journalist and was targeted in the strike because he was “a terrorist in Hamas’ military wing who served as a sniper operative.” The IDF also said Washah had recently advanced sniper attack plans and worked alongside his brother, Mohammed Washah, whom the military described as a key terrorist in Hamas’ rocket and weapons production headquarters. Ahmed was <a href="https://honestreporting.com/ahmad-washah-hamas-terrorist-who-masqueraded-as-an-al-jazeera-journalist/">reportedly</a> killed alongside Siba’i Abu Hasna, a member of Hamas’ <a href="https://honestreporting.com/ahmad-washah-hamas-terrorist-who-masqueraded-as-an-al-jazeera-journalist/">Shadow Unit</a>, which is responsible for guarding hostages kidnapped into Gaza.
Ahmed was widely presented as an Al Jazeera cameraman killed by Israel. While leaving out his ties to Hamas, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/israeli-airstrike-kills-al-jazeera-cameraman-rcna350990">reported</a> that Ahmed was an Al Jazeera cameraman killed by Israel and noted that his brother Mohammed, an Al Jazeera Mubasher correspondent, was killed in a separate Israeli strike in April. Al Jazeera, meanwhile, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/21/kind-principled-palestinian-journalists-remember-slain-gaza-journalist">said</a> Ahmed became the 12th network employee killed by Israel and said he had covered numerous stories for the outlet, including what Al Jazeera described as “several massacres” committed by Israel in Gaza.
The IDF <a href="https://x.com/IDF/status/2068442916977275317">posted</a> publicly that Ahmed “served as an Al Jazeera photojournalist” while simultaneously operating as a Hamas sniper. The IDF also described Mohammed as “a key terrorist in Hamas’ rocket and weapons production headquarters” and said he also operated “under the guise of an Al Jazeera journalist” before he was killed in April.
After the IDF’s claims about Ahmed were challenged online, it <a href="https://x.com/IDF/status/2069422062117003612">posted</a> a photo of his apparent military ID and a video showing him firing a rifle into the air. 
That context has received less attention from the legacy media than the initial description of Ahmed as a journalist killed by Israel. A Google AI Overview shown for a simple search of “Al Jazeera journalist” described Ahmed as “an Al Jazeera cameraman who was killed in an Israeli airstrike in central Gaza” and listed him among “recent notable and slain journalists from the region.” The summary does not mention the IDF’s claim that he was a Hamas sniper operative.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-1122099 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-907x576.jpeg" alt="" width="907" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-907x576.jpeg 907w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-300x190.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-768x488.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248.jpeg 1093w" sizes=" (max-width: 907px) 100vw, 907px" /></div>
The same pattern appeared in headlines from major outlets. NBC headlined its article, “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/israeli-airstrike-kills-al-jazeera-cameraman-rcna350990">Al Jazeera cameraman killed in Gaza months after his journalist brother died in a separate strike</a>.” The Guardian’s headline read, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/20/al-jazeera-cameraman-ahmed-wishah-killed-in-israeli-strike-on-gaza">Al Jazeera cameraman Ahmed Wishah killed in Israeli strike on Gaza</a>.”
An Associated Press report carried by <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israeli-army-confirms-journalist-killed-in-gaza-calls-him-hamas-terrorist-11665140/amp/1">NDTV</a> also identified Ahmed as an Al Jazeera cameraman killed in an Israeli strike. The report said the Israeli military asserted that Ahmed had been part of Hamas’ military wing and had posed a threat to troops in the area.
Al Jazeera has denied Israel’s claims about Ahmed, according to NBC News, and condemned his killing, calling it an attempt by Israel to silence and intimidate journalists. NBC also reported that a source close to Hamas told the Committee to Protect Journalists that Ahmed had no affiliation with the organization.
 Prominent anti-Israel figures, including New York City <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/06/23/us-news/al-jazeera-journalist-that-mamdani-mourned-was-allegedly-hamas-sniper-idf-claims/">Mayor Zohran Mamdani</a>, portrayed Ahmed as a journalist killed by Israel while criticizing the IDF. 
“More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military since the so-called ceasefire,” Mamdani said Monday. “Even an Al Jazeera journalist, Ahmed Washah, was killed this past Saturday by an Israeli strike.” Mamdani did not mention the IDF’s claim that Washah was a Hamas operative.
The IDF’s claim does not erase reports that Ahmed worked for Al Jazeera. But those reports also do not erase the IDF’s claim that he served in Hamas’ military wing and had recently advanced sniper attack plans against Israeli troops.
Since the first reports described Ahmed as a journalist without including Israel&#8217;s claim that he was also a Hamas sniper, many readers were left with a narrow version of the story. Israel&#8217;s account presents a very different version of the strike than the one circulating online.

Hamas

Al Jazeera ‘Cameraman’ Killed In Gaza Was Hamas Sniper Operating Under Press Cover, IDF Says

Al Jazeera

Gaza

Israel

Israel Defense Forces (IDF)

Zohran Mamdani

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Across the country, Americans are preparing their 4th of July cookout menus and making stops at their local fireworks stands as the excitement surrounding America’s 250th birthday ramps up. But in typical fashion, left-wing media outlets are doing everything they can to trivialize the patriotic moment. 
Last week, the Atlantic published an article about international travelers visiting America for the first time to attend the World Cup. Several visitors have recently gone viral for praising aspects of American culture, such as one Japanese man who <a href="https://x.com/Realsociedad10m/status/2065084769466204310">recommended</a> everyone go to Texas Roadhouse for the “absolute best” ribeye or a Swedish girl <a href="https://x.com/elsathora/status/2064142970190758034?s=12">declaring</a> that she had “the best food ever” at a local Indiana diner.
However, as one might expect from legacy media, the Atlantic&#8217;s article <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/world-cup-tourists-america/687572/">“The Feel-Good Story of the World Cup is Too Good to Be True</a>” argues that this is all a facade. It points out that certain influencers who have been a part of the pro-America trend are actually acting for selfish reasons. It argues that the aforementioned Swedish girl is a social media influencer, therefore dismissing her affection for America although she has repeatedly insisted that her “enthusiasm for American culture is genuine.” The article also cites the X user Nobunaga, who had been posting AI generated content praising America. Although Nobunaga’s posts were done in jest, the Atlantic mocked patriotic Americans for responding to the posts with enthusiasm. The New York Times published a similar <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/style/world-cup-tourists-american-food-tiktok.html">article</a>, “World Cup Fans in the U.S. Are Sightseeing at… Buc-ee’s and Bass Pro Shops?” that mocked American culture for being “mundane.” 
The success of these World Cup fans’ posts reveals that Americans are desperate for patriotic messages. They are sick of hearing that America is “dark, aggressive, and lawless,” as <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-mistake-venezuela-injustice/685560/">described</a> by the Atlantic less than six months ago. They are sick of allegedly neutral journalists claiming America has a “<a href="https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/us-racism-a-white-cultural-problem-cnns-nia-malika-henderson/">white cultural problem</a>” or that they live in a “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/the-view-co-hosts-clash-after-sunny-hostin-attributes-trump-win-racism-misogyny">misogynist country.</a>” They are sick of social media posts by Democratic party leaders, such as Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, that <a href="https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/1985417876258611651">refer</a> to America as a “malignant clown show.” 
The mainstream media can’t stomach the patriotic messages World Cup tourists are so eager to share. Videos of travelers trying <a href="https://x.com/washghost1/status/2068097190237470935?s=12">BuzzBallz</a> outside of a 7-Eleven and <a href="https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/2068516485367009655">thanking America</a> for being “so friendly and so accommodating” are making the media seethe. They spent years trying to push the narrative that American culture was inherently toxic. They fixated on divisive propaganda, alleging the U.S. was racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, bigoted, and evil.
They have desperately tried to pretend that the love of international travelers is nothing more than vapid consumerism. Unfortunately, that narrative falls flat as videos emerge of tourists <a href="https://x.com/BuzzPatterson/status/2066883493674754099">belting</a> out the U.S. national anthem or <a href="https://x.com/Trivela_Futebol/status/2069013328069009722">dancing</a> together in the middle of Central Park. The international love for America isn’t born from a mythologized &#8220;consumer culture.&#8221; It’s a reaction to American glory. As tourists pour in from across the globe and experience the joys of American culture firsthand, legacy media outlets are being forced to watch their web of lies get exposed. 
One of their worst lies has targeted the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreign-soccer-fans-are-discovering-something-many-americans-forgot">rising social media star Freddy</a>. The soccer fan from Germany has earned three-quarters of a million followers after posting about his experiences across America, from <a href="https://x.com/FreddyLA7/status/2063853754449850487">Waffle House</a> to <a href="https://x.com/FreddyLA7/status/2067003781804355904">NASA</a>. He has shown nothing but love to America, profusely thanking cities for their hospitality. Naturally, the Atlantic tried to speculate that this was all a fabrication, alleging that his content isn’t genuine and that his posts don’t “reflect reality.” The article&#8217;s author speculated about his intentions and criticized him for remaining anonymous. It’s pretty crazy to believe that his entire posting journey is, as the author insists, an attempt to fulfill what “professional influencers dream of.” It’s even crazier to realize that mainstream media and their liberal audiences can’t comprehend the notion that somebody could genuinely love America. The Left can’t fathom that America is actually good. 
The simple truth underlying this wave of media criticism is that liberal elites hate American culture. They have spent a long time sneering at middle America for watching football on Sundays, listening to Johnny Cash, and making the best BBQ in the world. They have isolated themselves in universities and progressive institutions, distancing themselves from the working-class citizens they claim to represent. They don’t want people like Freddy drinking slushies at Buc-ee’s or enjoying an Astros game. They don’t want people to gush about Walmart or get excited over free refills. They don’t want people to realize that America is the greatest country on earth. The story of the 2026 World Cup isn’t “too good to be true”; the story of the 2026 World Cup proves that America represents everything that is good and true. 
***
Brooke Brandtjen is a writer and journalist from Wisconsin who focuses primarily on culture, politics, and religion. She is a senior contributor at New Guard Press, a publication she joined while attending Hillsdale College.

US-FBL-WC-2026-SCOTLAND-FANS

The America-Love Story The Media Never Wanted To Go Viral

America 250

Legacy Media

Upstream

World Cup

Since the moment President Donald Trump decided to name Tulsi Gabbard as his Director of National Intelligence, it was clear she was going to enter the job under fire.
The <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/classified-whistleblower-complaint-about-tulsi-gabbard-stalls-within-her-agency-027f5331">Wall Street Journal</a> has targeted her. National Review has targeted her. The Washington Post and the New York Times and — let&#8217;s just say a veritable host of legacy media outlets and gossip rags have all run attacks on her. On X, she is a frequent target of internet gadflies who want her out of the job.
And now, just as she’s leaving office, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/06/21/tulsi-gabbard-her-guru-mysterious-messages-that-helped-shape-her-political-career/">The Washington Post</a> lobs an “exposé” about her personal life and religious practices. Meanwhile, the so-called “journalists” have painfully little to say about her releasing the Fauci files — how he “provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research” — and ties to communist China. Keep focusing on the “real” scandals, journos; the rest of us have real work to do, and Tulsi Gabbard was a leader all the way to the end.
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;"><iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/OKLV6D3fxRxAlwwXLXSPCk02024uX02TgFN?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=52d2b23e-5f4c-4cd0-93e6-f31765c576ce&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-06-19%20Tulsi%20Releases%20The%20Fauci%20Files&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F61d7b551-138a-4879-a448-fe7f6679a78d.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
I know what leadership looks like. There are certain principles that define leaders — leaders who have the opportunity to shape the lives of countless people by the principles they embrace and how they apply them in times of friction. The unwavering pursuit of the truth, uncompromised moral clarity, steadfast honesty, and a disciplined yet passionate loyalty to the people they’re entrusted to lead — these are the high standards we should demand of our leaders.
Unfortunately, not everyone understands these principles or upholds such standards, and this reflects the mentality and motivation of her critics, who see her leadership and the principles she embodies as a threat to their narrative and institutional power, even as she leaves office under the most honorable of circumstances.
This is nothing new in the arena of politics, but for me, it’s personal.
The world may know her as Director, Representative, Lt. Colonel, or presidential candidate Gabbard, but to my daughters and me, she’s Tulsi. There is no one on this planet I trust more. She is also the first person I call when I need a real answer. Not a filtered one, not a safe one, not one designed to protect an image or position. She carries this mentality through every facet of her life and will continue to do so as she walks this next journey beside her husband.
Knowing Tulsi Gabbard is to know her answers are grounded in what is right, filtered through one standard: the Constitution. Nothing else factors into it. Not her own best interest, not what puts her in the safest position, not what is easy or comfortable, and certainly not what someone wants to hear.
In the political world, the cynic would assume this is how things operate: When someone speaks the truth, when they refuse to bend, play along, or say what is convenient, they should expect coordinated attacks. There are no facts or accountability involved. There are only carefully timed headlines and smear campaigns designed to sow seeds of doubt with the intent to bring that person’s character into question.
That is not journalism; it’s a playbook. And we should demand better — not only because Tulsi Gabbard deserves it, but because she holds herself to higher standards in everything she does. These are very large shoes to fill for the next DNI, and we should expect nothing less than the standard she set and her unwavering pursuit of the truth, despite attacks even from within her political sphere.
The attacks on Tulsi Gabbard weren’t just about her; they’re about what happens to anyone who refuses to compromise their principles for politics and power. So when outlets like the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal published pieces aimed at discrediting her, I do not see journalism in the traditional sense. I see a familiar pattern: discredit the person so you don’t have to engage with what they are actually saying and doing. Create enough noise so people stop asking real questions. Turn truth into controversy so it becomes easier to dismiss. And allege, without basis, anything you want to claim based on the need to remove someone who doesn’t share your maximalist ideology.
That approach may work on people who do not know Tulsi. For those of us who have actually sat across from her, spoken with her, and understand how she thinks and operates, the narrative does not hold; it collapses under the weight of reality.
That Tulsi Gabbard was — and continues to be — a target is not a sign of a flawed leader; it’s often the clearest indicator of an unflinching, purposeful one. In life, you have to choose between being liked and being trusted. One is easy and more popular; the other actually matters when it counts. In today’s environment, Tulsi’s choices put her in the crosshairs of an establishment that looks suspiciously at those who choose truth over narrative and heartfelt belief over talking points.
When she decided to leave the Democratic Party, it was not because it was easy. It surely was not popular, and it wasn’t because it put her in a better position. She did it because she believed it was right. It harkens back to a line I like to recall from Theodore Roosevelt: “It behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.”
Tulsi Gabbard is a leader who sets a high standard. We are a better country for it and a better people for demanding and trusting such leadership. At some point, we have to decide what type of leaders we want — leaders who say what is convenient or leaders who say what is true? Do we want people who protect their position or people who protect the principles they swore to uphold? You will never get both.
What makes Tulsi Gabbard a trusted, principled leader — and a target — is not her title or position; it’s that she could not be easily influenced, redirected, or controlled by the systems that so many others learn to operate within. She did not shift with pressure. She did not abandon her values based on headlines. She never prioritized perception over principle. Until her last day, she continued to operate from a fixed point: the Constitution and the service of the American people.
That is exactly what this country claims to want. And when someone actually lives it, it’s interesting who they scare. So, thank you, Tulsi, for your commitment to service, for standing your ground in the face of your enemies, and for your decision to live by a high standard of principles, even in leaving office. A grateful nation, and a friend, bids you fair winds and following seas.
***
Dakota Meyer is a United States Marine. A veteran of the war in Afghanistan, he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Battle of Ganjgal on September 8, 2009, in Kunar province, Afghanistan. He is also a NYT bestselling author and the owner of DASH Hydrate.

US-POLITICS-INTELLIGENCE-GABBARD

Dakota Meyer: Tulsi Gabbard Always Fights For America First

Anthony Fauci

Director of National Intelligence

Trump Administration

Tulsi Gabbard

Vice President J.D. Vance waded into the pit of vipers that is ABC’s &#8220;The View&#8221; on Tuesday. Armed with his wit and the facts, Vance was assailed on all sides by the panel of liberal ladies who slung lies and conspiracy theories at him, and he defused all of it — many times by just asking for evidence or questioning where it came from, and often triggering them.
Almost out of the gate, Vance had to defuse mischaracterizations of President Donald Trump’s comments about the economy and affordability. “President Trump has called affordability a hoax. He said that, not me,” claimed Joy Behar. In one of her many out-of-turn questions, Ana Navarro chided, “He [Trump] just said he loved the inflation.”
“Well, I got to defend the president on the hoax point. What the president said is the idea that Republicans caused the affordability problem is a hoax,” Vance told Behar. To Navarro, he noted: “What he said is that he loves the fact the inflation is going to come down when this war is over. That&#8217;s what he said.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
And we get the first clash. 
Vance FACT-CHECKS The View for spewing misinformation about what Trump has said about inflation. <a href="https://t.co/1DLYMZzcz1">pic.twitter.com/1DLYMZzcz1</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2066908417088774509?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Interrupting Vance’s answer to a question about the Epstein files, Navarro tried to implicate Trump in the billionaire’s crimes by noting, “They were best friends for a decade.” Vance was still able to get in his fact-check:
<blockquote>
So, number one is, yes, Donald Trump said this. He knew Epstein back in the 1980s. He also threw Epstein out of his club when he found out he was a creep and reported him to the police. That&#8217;s something the media often misses when it reports the story. They tell the fact they knew each other in the ’80s, which the president himself admits. They ignore the fact that he narced on him to the police and ultimately led to Jeffrey Epstein&#8217;s downfall.
</blockquote>
It’s worth noting that moderator Whoopi Goldberg had <a href="https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/02/19/view-has-new-excuses-their-names-epstein-files-whoopis-jet">shifting explanations</a> after a <a href="https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/02/04/whoopi-goldberg-requested-epstein-jet-fly-her-monaco-charity">NewsBusters investigation </a>of the Epstein files found an email from someone associated with her requesting to borrow his infamous jet.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sunny Hostin asks Vance about releasing the Epstein files but gets angry when he says he believes the conspiracies about Epstein and powerful people. 
He point out that Epstein hates Trump and it&#8217;s evident in the emails, he calls out the media for hiding the fact Trump called the… <a href="https://t.co/SVxAWsHI5v">pic.twitter.com/SVxAWsHI5v</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2066909968142361045?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Continuing to be a spigot of misinformation, Navarro repeatedly clashed with Vance on the issue of illegal immigration.
At one point, when Vance was setting the record straight on the lie that Trump called all Mexicans rapists and noted he was talking about Central American countries releasing criminals to go north, Navarro interrupted to falsely claim “there’s no evidence” and “this was made up.”
“Ana, we know that there were people released from prisons who were encouraged to come to the United States,” Vance pushed back. Navarro actually gave a tacit admission that it was true when she argued, “It wasn&#8217;t like it was in the Mariel [Boatlift] … it wasn’t where it was like a purposeful open up the jails, open up the insane asylums and flood Florida.”
Navarro also threw out the massive whopper, suggesting that the Trump administration was essentially torturing thousands of children:
<blockquote>
There are thousands of children, 6,200, that are being held in places like Dilley Detention Center that people that have visited — I don&#8217;t know if you have — talk about the subhuman, infrahuman conditions, the lack of clean water, the lack of medical attention, lack of education.
</blockquote>
Of course, she provided no evidence for such a claim, and Vance called out the story as coming from “one person with a political bias.” But when Vance seemingly tried to bring up how the Joe Biden administration lost hundreds of thousands of migrant children, he got shut down by Sunny Hostin.
On Friday’s show, Navarro said that if Trump were on the show, she would treat him the same way and “push back on the lies.”
Arguably one of the most brazen lies came from Goldberg about something that came out of her mouth during the interview.
After insinuating that Vance and the administration were racist and othering minorities, she snapped at Vance and got aggressive for accurately describing what she said:
<blockquote>
GOLDBERG: What did black people do to this administration that has allowed it to really stigmatize folks of color?
(&#8230;)
VANCE: But let me just give you an example. Okay, so you say we’re anti-minority or anti-black —
GOLDBERG: No, I didn&#8217;t say that! I asked. See.
VANCE: Okay, fine. Fair. Fair.
GOLDBERG: Don&#8217;t start any stuff with me, man!
</blockquote>
Goldberg’s comment definitely sounded accusatory to an honest listener.
Amid that exchange, when Vance asked her for a specific example of her purported claim of the erasure of black history, all she could do was get flustered and assert, “there’s so many.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sunny Hostin asks Vance about releasing the Epstein files but gets angry when he says he believes the conspiracies about Epstein and powerful people. 
He point out that Epstein hates Trump and it&#8217;s evident in the emails, he calls out the media for hiding the fact Trump called the… <a href="https://t.co/SVxAWsHI5v">pic.twitter.com/SVxAWsHI5v</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2066909968142361045?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So many, just like the lies &#8220;The View&#8221; tells.
***
Nicholas C. Fondacaro is the associate editor for the Media Research Center and NewsBusters.

ABC’s “The View” – Season 25

Vice President Vance Assailed On All Sides By The View’s Lies

JD Vance

When I saw the news that Vice President JD Vance would be appearing on “The View,” my concern as someone who works every day with right-of-center political voices was not about how he would perform. It was genuine confusion over why conservatives continue handing ratings, relevance, and credibility to the very institutions that have spent years demonizing them.
Nobody seriously doubts that JD Vance can handle “The View.” There may not be a Republican politician in America today better equipped for exactly that environment. Vance is quick, disciplined, and uniquely skilled at walking into hostile interviews without allowing himself to be defined by the hostility.
That ability is a large part of why many conservatives came to understand what Donald Trump saw in Vance. Plenty of Republicans questioned whether it was the right choice. The issue was not that Vance lacked intelligence or talent. The concern was that Trump had chosen someone who immediately found himself at the center of a damaging political controversy: the “childless cat lady” comments.
These comments became exactly the kind of media storm campaigns dread. Democrats saw an opening, critics argued they would alienate women voters, and many wondered whether Trump had created an unnecessary vulnerability for himself.
It was not until Vance sat across from Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” in August 2024 that Trump’s confidence in Vance started to make sense. Vance did not dodge questions about his “cat lady” comments, nor did he retreat into meaningless consultant language. He pushed back where he disagreed and explained his broader argument, shifting the conversation toward families, affordability, and the pressures Americans face in building their lives.
Whether you support him or not, it has become impossible to ignore: JD Vance is an exceptionally gifted communicator. He can debate, think on his feet, and challenge people without appearing rattled. He has the rare political skill of walking directly into difficult conversations and coming out stronger.
That is why my concern with his appearance on “The View” has nothing to do with whether he will succeed. He almost certainly will. The issue is what happens when he does.
A strong performance from Vance means viral clips, massive attention, and renewed relevance for the very platform conservatives argue has spent years treating them with contempt.
This is not a random Republican commentator looking for exposure. This is the vice president of the United States and one of the most important figures in the future of the Republican Party. Whether or not he eventually runs for president, Vance is clearly positioned as one of the leading figures who could carry Trump’s political movement into its next chapter.
Access to someone like that has value, and “The View” is about to receive all the benefits that come with it.
The ratings will come. Clips will spread across every social media platform. Conservatives will celebrate Vance pushing back. Liberals will celebrate the hosts challenging him. Everyone will argue for days, and “The View” will have gotten exactly what it wanted: attention and relevance.
The question is why conservatives keep handing it to them.
For years, Republicans have argued that the problem with much of legacy media is not simply disagreement. Debate is necessary. Conservatives should sit down with people who see the world differently.
The problem is the contempt.
Shows like “The View” do not merely criticize Republican policies. They routinely portray Trump and his supporters as something darker than political opponents. Conservatives are labeled hateful, racist, dangerous, and morally defective. The disagreement is no longer simply about competing visions for the country. It has become a judgment about the character of the people who hold those views.
That rhetoric has consequences. America is living through an era of extraordinary political hostility. There have been multiple attempts on President Trump’s life. Political violence and dehumanization are no longer abstract concerns; they are realities.
Yet the institutions that contribute to this culture rarely have any incentive to change. They get to continue the same behavior and still receive access to the most important figures in the movement they spend their days attacking.
Joy Behar reinforced this disconnect last year when she suggested Republicans were not appearing on “The View” because they were afraid to face tough questions. The response from conservatives was immediate. Clay Travis, Buck Sexton, Riley Gaines, Matt Walsh, Jennifer Sey, and others pushed back with <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/conservatives-come-receipts-after-the-view-claims-theyre-afraid-come-show">receipts</a> showing a very different reality: they were not avoiding the show. They had been trying to get on it.
As a publicist who works primarily with right-of-center personalities, I can attest to the falsehood of Behar’s excuses firsthand. Conservatives are not afraid of “The View.” In fact, many actively seek opportunities to sit across from people who disagree with them and make their case to audiences outside the conservative bubble.
Conservatives are eager to enter those hostile rooms. But they are continually blocked from entering them at all.
But now, “The View” gets JD Vance. Not because the show has changed. Not because the conversation has improved. And not because there has been some meaningful effort to understand the voters the hosts have spent years mocking.
They get him because everyone knows it will make great television.
But what happens after the cameras turn off?
The hosts of “The View” are unlikely to walk away reconsidering how they talk about conservatives. The next day, the same conversations will continue. The same voters will be reduced to the same stereotypes. The same political divide everyone claims to worry about will remain exactly where it was.
And “The View” will have gotten everything it wanted.
It will have received the ratings, attention, and cultural relevance that come with hosting one of the most important figures in the Republican Party. And it will have received all of that without changing anything about how it covers conservatives.
That is the broken incentive structure.
If institutions can spend years demonizing conservatives and still receive access to the movement’s most influential voices whenever they want a viral moment, why would they ever change?
JD Vance has already proven he can walk into hostile rooms and win. The question now is whether conservatives should keep rewarding those rooms simply because they know how to win inside them.
***
Vanessa Santos is a political communications specialist and the president and CEO of Renegade DC.

JD Vance Brings The News To The View’s Fake News

ABC News

Conservatives

Menu