California’s Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta has changed the originally-straightforward language used to describe to voters a ballot measure to require voter ID, reframing the proposal in negative terms in an apparent effort to prevent the its passage.California is just one of the Democrat-controlled states fiercely fighting Republican efforts to ensure that only eligible voters are able to cast ballots by establishing voter verification requirements.Attorney General Bonta, who is tasked with creating and publishing a voter information guide describing the proposals voters will pass judgement on in November’s election, originally summarized Proposition 39 as an enhanced means of identifying voters and verifying that they are citizens:“ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.“Under current law, when registering to vote, individuals must state under penalty of perjury that they are United States citizens and provide information to verify their identity (e.g., birthdate, driver’s license or Social Security number). This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that:voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail;the State provide voter identification cards on request; andelections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”That’s not the explanation of the proposal that will be mailed to voters, however. In the vein of Democrats’ narrative that requiring voters show identification is, somehow, voter suppression, AG Bonta’s revised summary in the final version of the information guide now tells voters that the proposal “prohibits citizens from voting” and “invalidates” ballots:“PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelop. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”And, in line with Democrats’ claims that voters will be disenfranchised because it’s too difficult to obtain identification, the new summary edits out the previous mention that the proposal requires California to “provide identification cards on request.”The actual text of the proposal also mandates that identification cards be provided free of charge:“Upon request by an eligible voter, the state shall provide, at no charge, a voter ID card for use in casting a ballot.”Republicans in the state are denouncing the new wording of AG Bonta’s voter information summary for being blatantly manipulative and an effort to rig the result by giving voters the false impression that the proposition would prevent eligible citizens from voting. Despite fearmongering by Democrat politicians, such as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who claim requiring a photo ID to vote is racist, voter ID has strong support from more than three-fourths of minorities. Fully 83% of all U.S. adults – and even 71% of Democrats – approve of voter ID, according to a Pew Research survey.California isn’t the only Democrat-led state that’s been exposed using biased language in an apparently effort to mislead voters, however. Earlier this year in Virginia, Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger's redistricting ballot measure included heavy-handed commentary suggesting that opposing the measure would be a vote in support of existing unfairness.As CNSNews reported in February, the text of the ballot question posed to voters in the then-upcoming April 21, 2026 special election declared the current redistricting process “unfair” – but only until Democrats in power redistrict Virginia’s map overwhelmingly in their favor (emphasis added):“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”Instead of restoring fairness, the measure was actually designed to boost Democrats’ congressional district advantage from 6-5 currently to 10-1.While the redistricting referendum passed, a Circuit Court judge ruled that the referendum's ballot question related to redistricting was "flagrantly misleading" and legally defective. Upon appeal, the voter-approved redistricting scheme was ultimately voided by the Virginia Supreme Court.

PBS News Hour's special foreign correspondent Simona Foltyn filed another pro-Hezbollah report from Southern Lebanon, keyed to Lebanon’s president visiting the White House after a trilateral agreement between Israel, the United States, and Lebanon, meant to reduce the power of Hezbollah, the terrorist state within Lebanon. Foltyn wasn’t just recounting events but spinning her own foreign policy.Simona Foltyn: The Lebanese government has agreed to make peace with Israel, but there's little hope for that here among the ruins of a war that has yet to stop. We're in Nabatieh, once a bustling commercial town, now devastated by Israel's punishing aerial campaign.Mohammed Awada, Nabatieh, Lebanon, Resident (through interpreter): The shops are all gone, and Nabatieh, as you see, is mostly destroyed. With these strikes, they set us back 10, 15, 20 years for Nabatieh to return to what it once was.As usual, Foltyn’s sympathies (and PBS’s Lebanon-Israel coverage in general) strongly appear to reside with the Iran-backed terrorists of Hezbollah. She's there to channel the views of "Many here," the ones who hate Israel. Foltyn: Many here do still support Hezbollah, in spite of the group's decision to reenter the regional war last March in support of its ally Iran. Mohammed is against Lebanon's deal with Israel, which he sees as a capitulation to Israeli and U.S. demands.She denigrated the agreement stating Lebanon must disarm Hezbollah, the “state within a state” that’s reduced the official Lebanese government to a shell.Nada Hamadeh Moawad, Lebanese Ambassador to the United States: The trilateral framework we signed today is a first step on the road to restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity, securing a permanent and final cessation of hostilities, enabling our people to go back to their land.Foltyn: But not much is left to return to. Israel has continued to raze border villages to create a depopulated buffer zone. Rights groups say such systematic demolitions could amount to war crimes. A tragic-seeming anecdote followed about a school principal killed by an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon, a woman whose husband, according to Foltyn, “feels that Lebanon's deal with Israel has come at the expense of justice for victims like his wife.”PBS's Foltyn confidently condemns Israel tactics in Lebanon: "This is where Ghandour was hit by an Israeli drone while on her way back from her village driving away from the front line. So it's difficult to imagine how she would have been perceived as a threat to Israeli forces." pic.twitter.com/n04kSA5sAu— Clay Waters

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart welcomed New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to Wednesday’s taping of The Weekly Show podcast to continue his bizarre new habit of admitting the DSA radicals are nuts but also not caring. According to both Stewart and Mamdani, democratic socialism isn’t worth freaking out about because it is basically the same thing as your local library or fire department. Yet, Stewart also didn’t know why people were freaking out over Mamdani’s embrace of price controls.Stewart asked Mamdani about the reaction to the rise of “democratic socialism” and wondered why it was so negative, “So in some respects, is it about the priorities that you have are about quality of life for those, even if they don't make —  because universal pre-K or universal child care, or those kinds of things, you know, de Blasio might have brought that up or, you know, it's not something that—I think that the caricature of democratic socialism is that you're a different, it's a completely different ideology than those that we have seen, or is it perhaps just a different nomenclature than we've seen?” Jon Stewart claims "I think that the caricature of democratic socialism is that you're a different, it's a completely different ideology than those that we have seen or is it perhaps just a different nomenclature than we've seen?"Zohran Mamdani then answers that he's no… pic.twitter.com/nmuEMAsU7F— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 23, 2026 Mamdani began to respond, “I think part of it is that words have lost their meaning over time.”Stewart then interrupted to better articulate his original question, “There we go. That's— this is where I'm getting to is, is it really about the labels?”Mamdani agreed, “I think if you go back to some of the Democrats that we most admire: FDR, LaGuardia, you will see a lot of democratic socialist principles in their vision. And if you think about a lot of what we've come to accept as just the facts of life across our country, a lot of it is also still driven by democratic socialist principles.”He then tried to sanitize his radical program by claiming, “Now if today, you and I were to introduce the idea of a building that lends out books for free, we would be slandered in the same way that so many new ideas are slandered today. And yet that's the library and the same thing with the fire department, the same thing with public schools.”Mamdani also tried to claim the city's subway system as socialism in practice, “I think at its best, the New York City subway is an illustration where no matter how much money you have in your pocket, you understand that if you want to get from point A to point B, best way is to get on that train.”Of course, when people warn of the rise of the DSA, they are not talking about the belief that every city needs a fire department. They are talking about more radical ideas like price controls, which is what Stewart wanted to hype. Later on in the interview, he wondered, “So what about what you're trying to deliver has been slightly more complicated than what you thought it would be, you know, we can walk through it. Housing. So you were able to get through a rent freeze, a two year rent freeze, yes?” From the fire department to price controls, Stewart later hypes "So you were able to get through a rent freeze, a two year rent freeze, yes?" pic.twitter.com/8n1Hi9D0F7— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 23, 2026 Mamdani misleadingly replied, “Yeah. The independent Rent Guidelines Board established a two year rent freeze for over two million New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized housing.”On the very day this episode was released, a collection of landlords sued, claiming the independent board’s decision wasn’t actually that independent and alleged Mamdani unduly influenced the decision that could break their bottom lines.For his part, Stewart tried to have it both ways, “Right. And again, not when they — people immediately cried communism, it's not unprecedented. The two years is unprecedented, but this has been done for one year by other mayors.”On Monday’s episode of The Daily Show, Stewart admitted that DSA radicals are out of touch on some issues such as abolishing prisons or the border. Later in the episode, he brought that up with Mamdani, who claimed that different socialists have different opinions. That is the real answer to Stewart’s question of why the DSA has gotten the reaction it has. It is not that people are overly concerned about how much it will cost to take the bus in New York. It is positions that are so extreme, even Jon Stewart can’t avoid talking about them. The fact that Stewart is aware of the problem but chooses to minimize it or ignore it says more about him than it does the people responding to the rise of the DSA. Jon Stewart asks Mamdani if he's comfortable with DSA 'abolish prisons and borders' positions.Mamdani: "If you have more than one socialist in a room and there isn't disagreement, then you don't have more than one socialist in a room.""'I'm comfortable with disagreement." pic.twitter.com/Qn9VoOOO5P— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) July 22, 2026 Here is a transcript for the July 22 show:Comedy Central The Weekly Show7/22/2026JON STEWART: So in some respects, is it about the priorities that you have are about quality of life for those, even if they don't make —  because universal pre-K or universal child care, or those kinds of things, you know, de Blasio might have brought that up or, you know, it's not something that—I think that the caricature of democratic socialism is that you're a different, it's a completely different ideology than those that we have seen, or is it perhaps just a different nomenclature than we've seen?ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think part of it is that words have lost their meaning over time. STEWART: There we go. That's— this is where I'm getting to is, is it really about the labels? Is—MAMDANI: I think if you go back to some of the Democrats that we most admire: FDR, LaGuardia, you will see a lot of democratic socialist principles in their vision. And if you think about a lot of what we've come to accept as just the facts of life across our country, a lot of it is also still driven by democratic socialist principles. Now if today, you and I were to introduce the idea of a building that lends out books for free, we would be slandered in the same way that so many new ideas are slandered today. And yet that's the library and the same thing with the fire department, the same thing with public schools. And it's to say that a lot of politics has been a debate about who deserves what? And I would prefer a politics that debates how we can deliver that to everyone. And to deliver it at a standard that is so good that no matter how much money in your pocket, you opt for that. And I think at its best, the New York City subway is an illustration where no matter how much money you have in your pocket, you understand that if you want to get from point A to point B, best way is to get on that train.…STEWART: So what about what you're trying to deliver has been slightly more complicated than what you thought it would be, you know, we can walk through it. Housing. So you were able to get through a rent freeze, a two year rent freeze, yes?MAMDANI: Yeah. The independent Rent Guidelines Board established a two year rent freeze for over two million New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized housing. STEWART: Right. And again, not when they — people immediately cried communism, it's not unprecedented. The two years is unprecedented, but this has been done for one year by other mayors.MAMDANI: Yeah, they have done it in the past. Yeah. 

California’s Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta has changed the originally-straightforward language used to describe to voters a ballot measure to require voter ID, reframing the proposal in negative terms in an apparent effort to prevent the its passage.California is just one of the Democrat-controlled states fiercely fighting Republican efforts to ensure that only eligible voters are able to cast ballots by establishing voter verification requirements.Attorney General Bonta, who is tasked with creating and publishing a voter information guide describing the proposals voters will pass judgement on in November’s election, originally summarized Proposition 39 as an enhanced means of identifying voters and verifying that they are citizens:“ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.“Under current law, when registering to vote, individuals must state under penalty of perjury that they are United States citizens and provide information to verify their identity (e.g., birthdate, driver’s license or Social Security number). This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that:voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail;the State provide voter identification cards on request; andelections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”That’s not the explanation of the proposal that will be mailed to voters, however. In the vein of Democrats’ narrative that requiring voters show identification is, somehow, voter suppression, AG Bonta’s revised summary in the final version of the information guide now tells voters that the proposal “prohibits citizens from voting” and “invalidates” ballots:“PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelop. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”And, in line with Democrats’ claims that voters will be disenfranchised because it’s too difficult to obtain identification, the new summary edits out the previous mention that the proposal requires California to “provide identification cards on request.”The actual text of the proposal also mandates that identification cards be provided free of charge:“Upon request by an eligible voter, the state shall provide, at no charge, a voter ID card for use in casting a ballot.”Republicans in the state are denouncing the new wording of AG Bonta’s voter information summary for being blatantly manipulative and an effort to rig the result by giving voters the false impression that the proposition would prevent eligible citizens from voting. Despite fearmongering by Democrat politicians, such as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who claim requiring a photo ID to vote is racist, voter ID has strong support from more than three-fourths of minorities. Fully 83% of all U.S. adults – and even 71% of Democrats – approve of voter ID, according to a Pew Research survey.California isn’t the only Democrat-led state that’s been exposed using biased language in an apparently effort to mislead voters, however. Earlier this year in Virginia, Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger's redistricting ballot measure included heavy-handed commentary suggesting that opposing the measure would be a vote in support of existing unfairness.As CNSNews reported in February, the text of the ballot question posed to voters in the then-upcoming April 21, 2026 special election declared the current redistricting process “unfair” – but only until Democrats in power redistrict Virginia’s map overwhelmingly in their favor (emphasis added):“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”Instead of restoring fairness, the measure was actually designed to boost Democrats’ congressional district advantage from 6-5 currently to 10-1.While the redistricting referendum passed, a Circuit Court judge ruled that the referendum's ballot question related to redistricting was "flagrantly misleading" and legally defective. Upon appeal, the voter-approved redistricting scheme was ultimately voided by the Virginia Supreme Court.

As the war with Iran picks back up in its intensity, NBC’s Seth Meyers falsely declared on Wednesday’s episode of Late Night that President Trump is bragging about his war crimes in public like a game show host. At the same time, Meyers refused to call Iran’s actual war crimes what they are.During his opening monologue, Meyers quoted a recent Trump Truth Social post, “President Trump announced in a post today on Truth Social that if Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. will, quote, ‘bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant.’ You know, presidents used to hide their war crimes.’” Seth Meyers accuses Trump of bragging about war crimes, "President Trump announced in a post today on Truth Social that if Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. will, quote, 'bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant.' You know, presidents used to hide their… pic.twitter.com/k7Wy5LWw84— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 23, 2026 He then explained, “Trump announces them like he's explaining the rules to a game show. ‘All right, remember, for every ship you shoot at, we'll destroy one power plant. Top five answers on the board. Let's play.’"Bombing bridges and power plants have precedence in recent American military history because they are not inherently war crimes. The late night comedy shows are not fans of Trump’s Iran policy, but that does not mean they have to indirectly smear the troops by labeling Trump’s orders that they are expected to carry out as war crimes when they are not.However, shooting at or blockading neutral shipping definitely is, and that is what Iran has spent most of this war doing. Here is a transcript for the July 22-taped show:NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers7/23/202612:38 AM ETSETH MEYERS: President Trump announced in a post today on Truth Social that if Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. will, quote, “bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant.” You know, presidents used to hide their war crimes. Trump announces them like he's explaining the rules to a game show. "All right, remember, for every ship you shoot at, we'll destroy one power plant. Top five answers on the board. Let's play."