"Surrural..." The post The album that saw Tom Waits try to “outdo” ‘Rain Dogs’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

“The United States of America is a federal republic: a federation of states governed by written constitutions,” wrote Russell Kirk. The Constitution created a republican form of government. A foundational aspect of our system is representative government. “Representative government, or what we call the republican tradition, is the bedrock of American constitutionalism,” noted James McClellan. A republican form of government, as designed by the Founders, meant that sovereignty resided with the people who elected representatives. Further, the Founders designed a republican system based on the constitutional principles, which included limited government, checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, rule of law, among others. (RELATED: Constitutional Order and Existential Threats) The Framers understood political theory and systems, and the idea of a democracy was rejected. Democracy was associated with “mob rule,” which was fresh in the minds of the Framers with Shays’ Rebellion. (RELATED: Bad Presidents or Bad Government?) They also understood human nature and that humanity was fallen. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51: But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. The late historian of the American Founding, Forrest McDonald, argued that “the genius of the system was that the power of government, though great and emanating ultimately from the people, was divided rather than concentrated in any single representation of the people.” This was the balance that the Constitution achieved by rejecting democracy. (RELATED: The Cynical Talk About a ‘Constitutional Crisis’) The use of the word “democracy” is not just harmless horse swapping of terms. Although the Framers created a republican form of government, the term has been interchanged with “democracy.” Politicians, the media, and academia constantly refer to American democracy. The use of the word “democracy” is not just harmless horse swapping of terms. Decades of civic illiteracy, combined with ideological policy efforts to “save our democracy,” have been successful in not only confusing Americans but outright undermining constitutionalism. This is why our designation as a “republic” or a “democracy” is more than just an academic question. The more the United States forgets its republican heritage results in further erosion of constitutional principles. James Carville, a Democratic Party strategist who is famous for his “it’s the economy, stupid” advice, recently revealed what many liberals have been thinking about once they regain power. Carville not only predicts that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2028 but that they will then proceed to start reforming government by “packing” the United States Supreme Court. (RELATED: How James Carville Would ‘Save Democracy’) “I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court,” predicts Carville. Carville argues that Democrats will “pack the Court by expanding the number of Justices from nine to 13.” The end goal, states Carville, is for the Democrats to make this “intervention so we can have a Supreme Court that the American people trust again.” The justification for this is to “save our democracy.” The term “democracy” is often used incorrectly to describe the American political system. This is especially true of the political left, which argues that revolutionary changes are needed in order to preserve democracy. Today’s Democrats are hoping they will succeed where President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed when he attempted to “pack” the Court. “We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself,” explained President Roosevelt in arguing for his reform plan. (RELATED: FDR’s Court-Packing Attempt) Similar arguments will be made that, as a result of President Donald Trump’s policies and recent decisions by the Supreme Court, constitutional reforms are needed to “save our democracy.” Carville’s argument for “packing” the Court is not new, nor is the progressive or modern liberal belief in advocating for substantial constitutional reforms. It is not just “packing” the Court, but also eliminating the Electoral College, reforming the Senate by either reforming the institution or outright elimination, and further limiting the sovereignty of states. (RELATED: Republicans, Go on Offense Against the National Popular Vote — Now!) In two opinion essays for Governing, Stephen Legomsky, a law professor emeritus at Washington University and author of Reimaging the American Union, argues that many of the political problems confronting the nation are a direct result of federalism. The root cause of the problem, Legomsky argues, directly resides with the states. Although Legomsky places the blame for the nation’s political ills on states, in reality, it is a larger attack on the Constitution. “Liberals have for many decades tried to replace the Constitution’s ideas of limited federal and presidential power, checks and balances, and federalism with majoritarian democracy, expanded and centralized government, and strong presidential leadership,” noted Claes G. Ryn, an emeritus professor of politics at Catholic University. Since the early 20th Century, progressives have attacked the American Founding as obsolete. Progressives argued that the Constitution could not solve modern policy problems, and in response, they called for a vast expansion of federal power. Since the 1930s, the federal government has expanded both in size and scope. This has come at the expense of federalism — the constitutional principle of power being divided between the national and state governments. “A dislike for the constitutional republicanism of the Framers has been integral to modern American liberalism. Liberals have long wanted an imperial presidency and a corresponding centralization and expansion of government,” argues Ryn. Legomsky and Carville are not offering new arguments. In fact, they are just echoing what progressive academics and politicians have been arguing for decades. These revolutionary reforms are being proposed as a measure to not only “save democracy,” but to “improve our democracy.” The term “democracy” is not only overused and misapplied but also misunderstood. “There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes,” warned President Calvin Coolidge. The Founding Fathers outright rejected democracy. The Constitution created a republican form of government, that is, a republic and not a democracy. This was once clearly understood, but as a result of the decline in civic education and the repetitive use of the term “democracy,” it is an important principle that has been lost. “The government of the United States is a representative republic and not a pure democracy,” wrote Senator Arthur Vandenberg. Further, Vandenberg argued that “this country is frequently spoken of as a democracy, and yet the men who established our government made a very marked distinction between a ‘republic’ and a ‘democracy,’ gave very clear definitions of each term, and emphatically said they had founded a republic.” Whether it is “packing” the Court, abolishing the Electoral College, the relevance of the Senate, or the further undermining of federalism, Americans need to realize that a serious debate over the Constitution is occurring. The crusade for “democracy” by those on the political left is an effort to fundamentally change the Constitution, which will have significant ramifications on policy. Senator Vandenberg warned that “the most serious of all modern dangers to the Constitution, and therefore, to the welfare of the American people, are traceable to neglect of these distinctions” in referring to the misunderstanding of “republic” and “democracy.” Benjamin Franklin, on the final day (September 18, 1787) of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, when asked about what type of government was created, he famously replied, “a republic, if we can keep it.” The future direction of policy will hinge on whether we remain a republic as the Founders intended or become a “democracy.” READ MORE from John Hendrickson: Iowa Does Not Need ‘Revolutionary’ Election Changes That Violate Voters’ Associational Rights Honoring Patrick J. Buchanan Iowa Needs to Constitutionalize Taxpayer Protections John Hendrickson is the Policy Director at Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation.

Honor-based violence is not an anomaly but a foreseeable outcome when Western immigration systems admit families without examining the cultural codes they bring. Until democracies confront these tensions honestly, the women they promise to protect will remain the first to pay the price. Just days ago, on Nov. 29, 2025, Dutch prosecutors asked a court to impose 25 years in prison on the father and long sentences on the two brothers of 18-year-old Ryan Al-Najjar, the Syrian refugee they are accused of murdering in an honor killing. The men allegedly drowned her in a marsh last spring after she began to live as her Dutch peers do: choosing her own clothes, spending time with classmates, and forming a relationship with a Dutch boy. Her father fled to Syria; her brothers are now on trial. (RELATED: Import the Third World, Become the Third World) The evidence paints a deliberate act. Ryan disappeared on May 22, 2024. A week later, her body was found in wetlands near Lelystad, bound, gagged, and with water in her lungs. Digital messages and DNA evidence underpin prosecutors’ claim that her father directed the killing and her brothers executed it. The alleged motive is not ambiguous: Ryan’s ordinary assimilation into Dutch norms was treated as an intolerable breach of family honor. (RELATED: Why Is Italy Killing Its Women?) Domestic-violence models assume gradual escalation and individual actors. Honor violence can erupt suddenly, collectively, and in response to one perceived moral transgression. More troubling still is that Ryan had sought help. Local reporting suggests she once fled her home barefoot, telling neighbours she feared her father intended to kill her. She was placed under police protection, which was later withdrawn. Dutch authorities have not fully explained why. The sequence reveals a blind spot in Western risk-assessment frameworks. Domestic-violence models assume gradual escalation and individual actors. Honor violence can erupt suddenly, collectively, and in response to one perceived moral transgression. When Western institutions misread these signals, even a well-designed system can fail at the moment it is needed most. (RELATED: How Sweden’s Demographic Winter Turned It Into Europe’s Rape Capital) The Al-Najjar case also illustrates a larger structural challenge within Western immigration systems. Asylum and refugee pathways increasingly admit families without any meaningful examination of whether the social codes they carry align with the civic expectations of the host society. The assumption that integration happens automatically — and that cultural conflicts dissolve upon contact with liberal norms — has proved overly optimistic. Honor-based violence is not created by migration, but it is enabled when humanitarian admission is combined with minimal vetting, inconsistent integration requirements, and political reluctance to confront value clashes openly. Illegal migration compounds the problem by placing entire families outside formal oversight, leaving women at risk and largely invisible to authorities. The asylum model is designed to protect the vulnerable, yet in practice can import the pressures that endanger them. (RELATED: Trump’s Third-World Ban Misses the One Thing That Actually Matters) Across the West, similar cases appear — not frequently, but frequently enough to challenge the belief that these impulses remain geographically contained. In the United States, a 17-year-old Iraqi-American girl survived after classmates intervened while her parents attempted to strangle her outside a high school; prosecutors cited her refusal of an arranged marriage as the trigger. In the Netherlands, a Kurdish-Dutch woman named Roshin was murdered by relatives who saw her divorce as a provocation rather than a personal choice. Sweden saw a pregnant young woman strangled by her Somali-born partner, allegedly out of fear his family would reject the relationship and the unborn child. And in Australia, a Pakistani-Australian woman was stabbed in a suburban shopping center car park for choosing a partner outside her family’s religious expectations, an act prosecutors described as an attempted honor killing. Earlier cases, including the murders of Saman Abbas in Italy and Aqsa Parvez in Canada, underline a consistent pattern: when a young woman’s autonomy conflicts with an inherited code of obedience, geography alone does not prevent violence. Part of the difficulty Western governments face in addressing this phenomenon is that their own systems obscure it. Police departments routinely categorise honor-based incidents under generic domestic-violence headings. Prosecutors often pursue them without referencing ideological motives. Courts tend to avoid mentioning honor or religious pressure even when relatives invoke them directly. In consequence, honor killing rarely appears in European or North American crime statistics. The lack of data reflects not the absence of cases but an institutional reluctance to name the motive, creating a statistical blind spot in which policy cannot effectively operate. To understand the motive, one must look at the regions where honor-based violence is most prevalent. In Pakistan, authorities recorded 1,553 honor-related murders between 2021 and 2024, including 392 in 2023, while NGOs estimate more than 1,000 cases annually due to underreporting. In Iran, IranWire documented 186 honor killings in 2023 and 136 in the first nine months of 2024, many involving teenage girls killed by fathers or brothers who received minimal sentences. Jordan officially reports 15-20 such murders yearly, though researchers note significantly higher numbers in tribal regions. Iraq saw protests after the father of 22-year-old Tiba Al-Ali strangled her for living independently, yet little legislative change followed. And Turkey recorded 331 femicides in 2022, many tied to honor codes. These patterns endure because in several countries the legal system itself — often shaped by Islamic jurisprudence — mitigates or excuses honor killings. In Iran, a father who kills his daughter cannot be executed under qisas, which treats him as her guardian, resulting in comparatively light sentences. In Jordan, until recent reforms, Articles 340 and 98 reduced penalties for killings committed in a “fit of fury,” long interpreted to include honor crimes. In Pakistan, the “forgiveness” clause allowed families to pardon the perpetrator. And in parts of Iraq and the Gulf, honor killings fall under “defence of family honor,” often receiving reduced charges. These are not historical footnotes; they are active legal frameworks influencing sentencing outcomes today. None of this is an argument for suspicion toward immigrant families. It is an argument for candor, for acknowledging that certain patriarchal norms do not reliably disappear upon relocation. They require deliberate countermeasures: clear legal definitions, specialised policing, mandatory integration frameworks, and a willingness to confront cultural practices that conflict with individual rights. Minimising these tensions leaves vulnerable women exposed to preventable harm. The Al-Najjar case shows the stakes. Ryan believed she had reached a society where autonomy was protected. The Netherlands, in principle, offered exactly that. What it could not shield her from was the worldview that travelled with her family — a worldview that read her independence not as maturity but as defiance. Liberal democracies can preserve their values only if they recognise when those values are being quietly contested inside their own borders. Without that clarity, they risk protecting freedom in theory while losing it in practice. READ MORE from Kevin Cohen: In Minnesota, Echoes of Failed Somali Experiment in Europe How Sweden’s Demographic Winter Turned It Into Europe’s Rape Capital The Vanishing Englishman: Inside the Schools Forecasting the UK Future

Prison is the closest thing we have to a truth serum. Most politicians, the moment they touch the floor of a cell, start to sing. A couple of days ago, the man who elevated Pedro Sánchez to the leadership of the Socialist Party (PSOE) — and later to the presidency of the Spanish government — was jailed. That man is José Luis Ábalos, former cabinet minister and former secretary of organization of the PSOE. Betrayed by Sánchez and by his own party, he recorded several interviews before entering prison in which he reveals a good portion of the government’s corruption schemes. The press is publishing them in installments, so every morning the Moncloa Palace wakes up to a fresh shock. Spaniards oscillate between hilarity and indignation. He is the second Secretary of Organization of the PSOE to end up behind bars: a few months ago, Santos Cerdán — the man Sánchez handpicked to replace Ábalos — was also imprisoned. And just days ago, together with Ábalos — the man widely known in Spain as Sánchez’s “inventor,” the one who built his rise inside the party — Sánchez’s adviser Koldo was also jailed. Koldo, who served as his bodyguard, driver, and all-purpose fixer, had one particular advantage: he recorded virtually every conversation. As a result, his audio archive has become the year’s greatest hit in Spanish courts. (RELATED: Spanish Socialist Is a Problem for NATO) The Ábalos-Koldo-Cerdán affair is only the latest in a long list of corruption cases under investigation involving Sánchez’s friends, his wife, and his wider family network. He won’t resign. He’s laughing in Spaniards’ faces. The man who has been president since 2018 was accused by his own party’s leadership in 2016 of ballot tampering and internal warfare. The greatest mistake of 21st-century Spanish socialism was not expelling him from the PSOE at that moment. (RELATED: Spain’s Far‑Left Dictatorship Has Become a Reality) Instead, he stayed on as a rank-and-file member and embarked on a grassroots road tour across Spain in a now-famous Peugeot 407, visiting dozens of local party branches and collecting support. Koldo (now in prison) was at the wheel. Sitting in the car with Sánchez were his two friends and allies, Ábalos (now in prison) and Santos Cerdán (also in prison). They spent months racking up thousands of miles until Sánchez ran again in the primaries — to the shock of the party establishment — and won amid renewed allegations of ballot fraud. Koldo has now claimed that Sánchez illegally financed his primary campaign with money from his father-in-law, who amassed his fortune through a nationwide network of brothels. (RELATED: Imagine if Biden Did What Spanish Prime Minister Has Done) From jail, Ábalos has also begun pulling the thread. He has accused Sánchez’s wife of participating in a major corruption and kickback scheme; he has accused Sánchez of secretly sending him to receive Delcy Rodríguez at Madrid airport, despite knowing she was banned from entering the EU; he has accused Sánchez of secretly meeting with the former leader of ETA to bargain with the terrorist group for their support in the 2018 no-confidence vote that allowed him to seize power without calling elections. And this is only the beginning. In any other country, this government would have fallen long ago due to incompetence, corruption, and the simple fact that neither Sánchez nor his ministers can walk down a street anywhere in Spain without being booed or insulted. In this climate, a journalist asked Sánchez today how he felt now that Ábalos — his friend, confidant, and senior trusted official — was sleeping in prison, charged with serious crimes. His answer: “From a personal standpoint, Ábalos was a complete stranger to me, a complete stranger.” And he didn’t immediately burst out laughing, which is remarkable. All of Spain has seen the leaked text messages where he sends Ábalos warm hugs, tells him he misses him (after firing him), and offers him his full support. And now he claims he barely knew the man. Through his son, Ábalos has now revealed that Sánchez offered him a blank check in exchange for keeping quiet. Too late. In any other country, this government would have fallen long ago due to incompetence, corruption, and the simple fact that neither Sánchez nor his ministers can walk down a street anywhere in Spain without being booed or insulted. Recall that when Sánchez visited New York in September for the U.N. General Assembly, Spanish activists parked an advertising truck outside the building with his face and the slogan “Sánchez, corrupt” — the same slogan that follows him around Spain. From Juan Magán to, more recently, the reggaeton star Anuel AA, there is not a single major concert in Spain that isn’t interrupted by the crowd chanting “Pedro Sánchez, son of a bitch,” to the bewilderment of the artists. It is time the world outside Spain learns what is happening in one of Europe’s major nations. And it is time to remember that Sánchez perfectly embodies postmodern socialism: fully capable of wrecking institutions, the opposition, and social harmony in order to cling to power. And in his case, the Moncloa Palace still shields him from the judicial investigations closing in. And when he is caught red-handed, the lie comes effortlessly: “From a personal standpoint, he was a complete stranger to me.” The joke in Spain now is that his wife  — charged with five crimes — may soon follow Ábalos’s path. Should that happen, no one doubts Sánchez would say: “From a personal standpoint, my wife was a complete stranger to me.” READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Truly, Spectacularly Stupid Purchases This Black Friday Maduro Is a Mustachioed Turkey With Bird Flu (and Deserves No Pardon) The Incomprehensible Failure of My Attempts to Woo Sydney Sweeney

Syrian overtures to broker a detente with the United States and de-escalate with Israel have turned out to be hollow, thanks to Syria. Mere weeks ago, Syrian leader Ahmed Al-Sharaa stated in an interview that he hopes “that Syria is no longer looked at as a security threat” but instead “as a geopolitical ally” to the United States. But the plain fact is that Syria is what it always was: a force hostile to American and Israeli interests. First, al-Sharaa is allowing Jamaa al-Islamiyya (JI) to operate in Syria. JI is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its armed wing (the al-Fajr Forces) has fought Israel since the 1980s from Lebanon. It had partnered with both Hamas and Hezbollah against the Jewish State, and operates along the Syria/Lebanon border. (RELATED: I am a Muslim: Reject the Muslim Brotherhood) JI has recently built up its capabilities in Syria and was able to plant IEDs and start planning rocket attacks against Israel. After Israel arrested two of these terrorists in their beds, JI, in an apparent premeditated terrorist attack, wounded six IDF soldiers in a firefight before the IDF killed three of the terrorists. Two of the IDF soldiers were critically wounded, with one being saved by doctors after a bullet hit his heart. Of note here is that, according to an Israeli report, members of Syrian intelligence helped orchestrate the terrorist attack, as well as attacks on the Druze in southern Syria. If true, this should be a game-changer for how Israel and the U.S. should approach Syria in the future. (RELATED: Syrian Bedouin and Druze Feuds Escalate to Regional Conflict) This observation reiterates what is already well known: that Syria is harboring much more than just JI, and that these jihadi forces are very close to Israel’s border. Another interesting detail is that a mere two days before the above terrorist attack, an Israeli reservist in the Golan Heights observed that “ISIS, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Iranians and regime forces are here [in the Golan Heights].” This observation reiterates what is already well known: that Syria is harboring much more than just JI, and that these jihadi forces are very close to Israel’s border. In fact, Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, has disclosed in a recent meeting with the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the Houthis and other terrorist groups are operating in Syria, and that the Houthis are planning to invade Israel via the Golan Heights. (RELATED: Houthi Senior Officials Killed in Renewed Israeli Airstrikes) This follows reporting in the Israeli press that another one of the Jewish State’s archenemies, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), is ramping up the presence of its military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, in Syria, especially in Palestinian refugee camps close to Damascus. This is notable as Syrian leader al-Sharaa has appointed a liaison with the PIJ, suggesting that the new regime has given the terrorist group legitimacy and safe harbor. The reporting indicated that the PIJ may be taking advantage of the current U.S. pressure prohibiting Israel from bombing Syria. The PIJ was formed in 1981 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. It receives support from both Iran and Hezbollah, and has partnered with Hamas at various times, including in executing the October 7 attack on Israel. The U.S. declared it a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997, and also designated its Secretary General, Ziyad al-Nakhalah, as a specially designated global terrorist in 2014. Others that have declared the PIJ as a terrorist organization include: Australia, Canada, the EU, Israel, New Zealand, and the UK. PIJ’s first leader was assassinated by the Mossad in 1995 in Malta. The increased activity of JI, the Houthis, the PIJ, and others put into question the Syrian regime’s willingness to vanquish terrorism from within its borders. According to one analysis, 22 of Al-Sharaa’s senior commanders are jihadists. While a senior Trump administration official has recently confirmed that Syria will be in a coalition to defeat the Islamic State, it should be noted that Al-Sharaa’s previous group, Al-Nusra, broke with the Islamic State over finances, not ideology. With all the other jihadist groups operating in Syria, does Syria’s promise to partner with the U.S. against the Islamic State actually mean anything? (RELATED: Syria’s New Leader Will Bring Jihad Not Peace) Meanwhile, Israel continues to defend its historical claims and strategic interests in the Golan Heights. Since December 2024, the IDF has remained in nine locations inside the part of the Golan Heights previously held by Syria, including Mt. Hermon. On Israel’s continued presence in southern Syria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “We attach immense importance to our capability here, both defensive and offensive,” while a senior Israeli official stated a comprehensive deal with Syria is “not in the cards right now.” The lack of a diplomatic breakthrough is Syria’s fault. Israel is currently willing to withdraw from southern Syria only in exchange for a full peace deal, something al-Sharaa is not willing to give. Unless and until Syria is willing to sign a full peace with Israel and truly sever all ties with terrorist groups, Israel should continue to hold the line in the territories it took from Syria since December 2024, including the highly strategic Mt. Hermon. Unless and until real and durable change occurs in Syria, Israel and the U.S. should view Syria as a hostile force in the region. READ MORE from Steve Postal: ‘Mamdani the Hater’ Slanders Jews and Judaism Will Trump Get Saudi Arabia to Join the Abraham Accords? Kazakhstan Joins the Abraham Accords. Will Others in Central Asia Follow?

December 1, 2025 Now, for a few humble thoughts on the first day of the last month of 2025. First, if I ever have another life to live, please, dear God, remind me that the huge rivers of money I had coming in for the last 30 years or so can and will end. This means I MUST save more. Mr. Buffett put it well: no matter how much you are saving, save more. Save it in gold. Save it in real estate. Save it in BRK. But save it you must. I got used to seeing immense checks pouring in month after month. I thought that gusher would slow down — but certainly not end. It has ended, though. And it was incredibly lucky that, for reasons of maniacal egomania and just plain chance, I did have some savings. Not enough, and I have some scary, terrifying moments: the worst moments of my life. I did manage to look at the bright side. I realized that my goddess wife was my overwhelmingly most important asset. As long as I had her by my side, I was still alive. But please, dear pals and readers, learn from my mistakes. No amount of vainglory in show-off spending is worth even a tiny fraction of the pain of the fear of homelessness. My parents were always a bit frugal except when it came to my sister’s and my education. They were smart. I have been stupid. As my smart sister says, “Hollywood encourages foolish behavior. Brooklyn does not.” Next: Your spouse is everything. If you treat her right and she treats you right, your life will work out fairly well. Not perfectly, but incomparably better than otherwise. Three, keep your friends through all kinds of weather. It’s not just important to have loyal friends for all of your life. It is essential. Old age is a lonely time for too many of us. Our spouse and our friends are all that stands between despair and death. Fourth, do not trust the government to take care of you. The horrific “war on drugs” has kept way too many of us from the basic meds we need to stay sane. The “war on drugs” is trench warfare against man’s ability to develop meds that keep us from suicidal pain. It is a disgrace. I will write more later. READ MORE from Ben Stein: Mr. and Mrs. Bureaucrats, Show Us Some Mercy How to Break Inflation’s Back The Best Thing in Life

from The People’s Voice: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Jim Hᴏft, The Gateway Pundit: The Trump administration has officially declared open season on fake news, and the corporate media is absolutely losing it. On Friday, the White House rolled out a brand-new transparency tool: the “Media Bias Tracker,” a permanent feature on the WhiteHouse.gov website designed to chronicle the nonstop lies, distortions, hoaxes, and misleading narratives pumped […]