Checking in on the Democratic Socialists of America

Some people have claimed to see the effect, but it’s never been confirmed because it’s mostly happening at wavelengths too short for the human eye.

MRC Watchdogs churn out breaking news on a daily basis. Don't miss Today's Highlights, where you can keep up with the top MRC content, whether it's the latest study on media bias, a glaring omission from the elitist media, or how the Big Tech companies are serving up the same leftist spin as the media.  Top Stories: 110 to 4: 'Independent Fact Checkers' PILE ON Trump, Spanberger Gets a Free Pass 8 to 0: Google News Rages Against Trump, Pushes Left-Leaning Media Undercutting SOTU SOTU Democrats Don't Stand 'to Protect American Citizens' Trump's Approval Dips to ~42% Despite Major Wins—Blame 92% Hostile Media Smear Campaign   110 to 4: 'Independent Fact Checkers' PILE ON Trump, Spanberger Gets a Free Pass Extreme 110-to-4 imbalance, a 27-to1 ratio:  Fact-checkers ran 110 checks on Trump’s speech vs. only 4 on Gov. Spanberger’s response. All four Spanberger claims were rated accurate or supported; Trump’s were relentlessly attacked. Major outlets ignored Spanberger entirely NPR (28 on Trump, 0 on Spanberger), CNN (22–0), FactCheck.org (22–0).  Opposite standards on the same platforms PolitiFact: Trump got 9 hits like “exaggeration,” “wrong,” “no evidence.” Spanberger’s 3 claims? All praised—“research supports,” “accurate,” “early data supports.” Nitpick Trump, rubber-stamp Spanberger, NYT ran 29 checks on Trump, including pedantic sports nitpicks, yet rated Spanberger’s $1,700 tariff claim “Mostly true.” Textbook double standard: exhaustive attacks on one side, gentle treatment on the other.   8 to 0: Google News Rages Against Trump, Pushes Left-Leaning Media Undercutting SOTU Stark 8-0 bias in top stories Google News promoted 8 left-leaning articles and 0 right-leaning ones in its top coverage of Trump's SOTU—zero balance, all from outlets like NYT, Guardian, NPR, and NBC (per AllSides ratings). Gatekeeping shuts out conservatives In the top 20 stories analyzed the morning after the speech, Google acted as a "digital gatekeeper," excluding right-leaning media entirely while elevating left-leaning sources that undercut Trump. Negative framing dominates Headlines derided Trump’s address as "tedious, tiresome," "littered with false and misleading claims," highlighted Democratic boycotts/protests (e.g., 12+ lawmakers skipping), and emphasized empty seats or mood shifts against Trump. Even "neutral" coverage tilts left The lone center-rated outlet (BBC) buried positives (like U-S-A chants for hockey stars) and focused on conflicts (e.g., ejections, confrontations), while multiple NYT pieces painted Trump as defensive, villainizing Democrats, or on the attack.   SOTU Democrats Don't Stand 'to Protect American Citizens' Direct challenge met with silence Trump explicitly asked Congress to stand if they agreed: "The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens." Republicans stood and cheered; Democrats remained seated in silent rejection. Trump calls out shame on sanctuary policies While pushing to end "deadly sanctuary cities" that shield criminal illegal aliens (including "drug lords, murderers"), Trump rebuked Democrats twice: "You should be ashamed of yourselves, not standing up" and "And you should be ashamed of yourselves." They stayed seated. Clear choice: Prioritizing illegals over citizens By refusing to stand for citizen protection over illegal aliens—and amid over 70 Democrats boycotting the address entirely—Democrats signaled they side against American safety on border security, crime, and fentanyl dangers, as Trump highlighted. These points capture the article's core indictment: Democrats' non-standing visually demonstrated opposition to putting American citizens first.   Trump's Approval Dips to ~42% Despite Major Wins—Blame 92% Hostile Media Smear Campaign Achievements Overlooked Amid Record Negativity Trump delivered big policy wins closing out the year, yet his approval fell from ~50% early in his term to under 42% (per Decision Desk HQ averages)—thanks to relentless media attacks ignoring successes. Legacy TV News Delivers 92% Negative Assault In the first 100 days of Trump's second term, ABC, CBS, and NBC hammered him with 92% negative coverage on their flagship evening shows—reaching 19+ million viewers nightly and far worse than his first term. Big Tech News Apps Bury Conservative Voices Apple News featured zero right-leaning outlets in 620 top stories in January 2026; Apple, Google, MSN, and Yahoo pushed anti-ICE, left-leaning narratives on key events like the Minn shooting—starving conservatives of fair exposure. AI Defaults to Anti-Trump Attacks + CNN Ignores Victims Google and Meta AI automatically slam Trump as a liar even on vague queries; CNN skipped the White House Angel Families event honoring victims of illegal immigrant crime, earning Press Sec. Leavitt's "total disgrace" label for agenda-driven blackout.    

If Donald Trump put on a black robe tomorrow and issued an opinion in an intellectual property dispute between two tech companies, no one would treat it as binding law. So why are we expected to treat judicial policymaking on immigration and national security as untouchable — especially when lower courts now openly defy higher courts?One of the most damaging misconceptions in American government holds that the Supreme Court is “supreme” over the political branches in all things. At most, its supremacy runs within the judicial hierarchy: It can overrule lower federal courts. The same goes for the courts of appeals, which are supposed to bind district courts within their circuits.If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?That system, however, increasingly operates as a one-way ratchet for left-wing political outcomes.On February 6, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finally reaffirmed a basic legal principle: Illegal aliens seeking admission are not entitled to enter the country, demand release, and then litigate their way into residency while living freely inside the United States. The court upheld long-standing precedent and the plain text of U.S. immigration law, which requires detention of inadmissible aliens pending disposition of their cases.Congress enacted that provision in 1996 for an obvious reason: to prevent people from entering illegally, receiving a notice to appear, and then disappearing into the interior.Unlike American criminals who are entitled to bond hearings, illegal aliens are not being prosecuted for a crime. They can always voluntarily depart and live freely in their home countries. Being detained is a consequence of their initial invasion and their desire to litigate their way into our country.Then came the district courts.Just three days after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso-based George W. Bush appointee, ordered the release of aliens in five cases on the theory that they had “established roots” in the United States. What, then, was the point of the Fifth Circuit ruling? Cardone claimed in one case that it “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”Likewise, on February 9, Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion. “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote — about an illegal alien who entered the country in 2024.Pause there.The Fifth Circuit had just ruled that detention is mandated by statute even in cases involving aliens who entered long ago (including plaintiffs from 2001 and 2009). Yet a district judge somehow concluded that ruling does not apply to someone who crossed illegally in 2024. Worse, how can a district judge claim the Fifth Circuit did not account for the “constitutional” question when the appeals court’s ruling necessarily presumes ICE’s conduct is constitutional?RELATED: The Fifth Circuit cracks down on the asylum excuse factory ozgurdonmaz via iStock/Getty ImagesThese judges are cherry-picking language from select Supreme Court opinions about aliens with “established ties” while ignoring the far stronger body of law recognizing that illegal entrants have no right to remain in the country against the national will. The idea that someone can break into the country, evade enforcement long enough to create “ties,” and then use that evasion as a legal shield makes a mockery of popular sovereignty and of the Declaration’s first principles.This also demonstrates, again, why the Trump administration cannot comply its way out of judicial supremacism. Even when it wins in higher courts, lower-court judges can repackage the same result in a new case and keep obstructing enforcement. Why should Trump defer reflexively to congressionally created judges who refuse to defer even to their own superiors within the judiciary?That point came into focus in Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent from his court’s decision to halt the deportation of a Peruvian family while the appeal proceeds. Referring to the Ninth Circuit as a “wackadoo” court, VanDyke described what he said has become an automatic practice: granting stays of removal even when Supreme Court immigration precedent clearly points the other way.In effect, he argued, the court uses procedural orders and an ever-expanding shadow docket to nullify precedent without formally issuing rulings that openly defy it.Because of the circuit’s heavy caseload, VanDyke wrote, judges adopted a “convenient, but unwritten, practice” of granting preliminary relief in the form of administrative stays pending review. Those stays often remain in place until the merits are decided. The result, he said, is a system that “disregard[s] Supreme Court precedent and award[s] automatic, extended stays of removal in utterly meritless immigration appeals.”Defenders of the Ninth Circuit might say the court is overloaded and must rely on lengthy interim stays. VanDyke’s point, however, is that this indulgence appears uniquely generous in deportation cases. As he put it, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue sounds like “a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity.”His satirical version of the court’s approach was devastating:We are… ("You get a stay!")… sincerely shocked… ("You get a stay!")… by the… ("You get a stay!")… number of… ("You get a stay!")… utterly… ("You get a stay!")… meritless… ("You get a stay!")… immigration petitions… ("You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!")… that are filed… ("You get a stay!")… in our court. ("Everyone gets a stay!").That is the point. When it comes to many liberal judges — who still dominate too many panels — law is often just a vehicle for politics. They will reach the result they want by whatever procedural route is available. You cannot simply “out-appeal” a judiciary willing to ignore controlling law while pretending not to.RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge? Valerii Evlakhov via iStock/Getty ImagesA Politico review of thousands of ICE detention cases found that at least 360 judges rejected ICE’s broader detention policies in more than 3,000 cases, while just 27 judges backed those policies in about 130 cases. The overwhelming pattern is plain: Judges are sidelining the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Supreme Court’s plenary power doctrine, which affirms broad executive authority over the detention and removal of illegal aliens.No Supreme Court ruling, by itself, will stop judges committed to creative procedural sabotage.Lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is grimly fitting that in an era when invaders are encouraged to dictate terms to citizens, inferior courts now side with them while dictating terms to superior courts.If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

Furious Ilhan Omar Demands Probe After Her Radical SOTU Guest Is Arrested—She Might Look Familiar to You

Kitchen tech has mostly been dominated by large AC appliances, but here are some cool USB gadgets that offer great quality-of-life improvements.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wrapped up his two-day visit to China on Thursday hailing "good cooperation" with Beijing but pointing to overcapacity by Chinese exporters that have taken a growing share of German markets. Merz, on his first visit to China as chancellor,...

The president and CEO of the World Economic Forum, Borge Brende, said on Thursday he was stepping down, a few weeks after the forum launched an independent investigation into his relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Iran's refusal to discuss its ballistic missile program a "big problem" and an "unsustainable threat" to the American home front ahead of Thursday's indirect nuclear talks in Geneva, the third round this month between Washington and Tehran.

[View Article at Source]If we want serious solutions to mass public violence, we must first confront the facts honestly and debate them openly.