The Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Michigan has a trio of candidates on the ballot, including radical left-winger Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. Thursday afternoon, El-Sayed was a guest on CNN's The Arena, where Host Kasie Hunt, treated him like a Republican, repeatedly raising issues that made El-Sayed uncomfortable, and pressing him when he didn't answer the question asked. It was very unusual. Hunt began by asking if he can win a general election in the purple state of Michigan should he win the primary, noting some party leaders are concerned about that. When he stressed he'd support "Medicare for All" (nationalized health care) as a Senator, Hunt fired back, "The reality is there's no way Medicare for All passes Congress if Democrats don't control the Senate. And if you don't win that Senate seat in Michigan, it's very hard to see how Democrats win the Senate at all." Hunt then moved on to El-Sayed's criticism of President Trump, noting that he won Michigan in 2024, "Is there anything that he's done in this second term in office that you can identify as being good for the country?" Wow. This from a woman who routinely criticizes the President. Hunt then turned her attention to comments he has made about women and his opponent, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, and played an ad attacking him for it. Rather than address its contents, and Hunt's question of whether he regrets things he's said about women, his response was to point out who he says paid for the ad, UDP, an AIPAC super PAC. This led to Hunt to the topic of Israel, and she continued to press her guest. HUNT: Do you believe Israel has a right to exist? EL-SAYED: It's interesting because nobody's ever asked me whether or not I believe Palestine has a right to exist.... Israel exists. HUNT: You say it exists, but does it have a right to? EL-SAYED: I didn't say that. I just said the question of Israel's existence is not a question. I'm not I'm not going to play this gotcha game about whether or not it has a right to exist. HUNT: You're not going to play the gotcha game, but you're not going to say you think Israel has a right to exist. EL-SAYED: The question about whether or not Israel has a right to exist is actually quite secondary to whether or not they have a right to our tax dollars. And people don't ask that question in good faith. Then Hunt pressed him on his deleted tweets which called for defunding police, which really hit a nerve. Hunt asked: "I also wanted to ask you about some of the tweets that you deleted, as you were in the course of this race, just before, around this question of defunding the police, this is also something likely to come up in a general election should you win this primary. Do you stand by what you had previously said that that police,  in support of defunding the police, or do you believe police should be funded? She later asked, "Why did you delete the tweets"? El-Sayed shot back: "I deleted all the tweets because I didn't want them to be taken out of context, like this, o that you could distract from the actual conversation that Michiganders really want to have." Then more pressing from Hunt. HUNT: I think the question is just if you're leading, would you fight to defund the police or would you not? EL-SAYED: I've already told you what I did. Judge me by my work....And I think this debate about 2020 and the ways that tweets are going to play are really nice on CNN, if you want to get clicks. HUNT: So voters shouldn't look at the fact that you deleted the tweets as evidence that you no longer were for  the things that you said then? After more back and forth Hunt concluded with, "I understand, but you deleted the tweets, right? That's what I'm asking you. I'm asking you about an action that you took, okay." And after asking if Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has endorsed El-Sayed, will be campaigning with him, she asked him about one of his earliest supporters Hasan Piker, who has said America deserved 9/11: "You also, of course, have campaigned alongside Hasan Piker. Do you believe that the statements that he has made about September 11th are accurate?" An impressive display by Hunt, but why? Maybe she too believes that if El-Sayed wins the primary, he and the Democrats will lose the Michigan Senate seat they currently hold.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses the subject of free speech head on. As follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This reminder comes as, for the 250th time, America gets ready to celebrate the Fourth of July. And in that doing, it is decidedly worth a look back to see the thoughts of the nation’s Founding Fathers when it comes to a free press. Or, as it is referred to in today’s world, “the media.” It is particularly worthwhile to take a look back at the writings and activities of one Founder in particular. That would be the venerable and wise Benjamin Franklin. The liberal journalist and author Walter Isaacson wrote a decidedly noteworthy book on old Ben. The one that is appropriate for this annual July 4th celebration is Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. Isaacson makes a point of discussing Franklin’s relationship to the creation of a free press and the larger world we call the media.  Key to this creation was what Franklin termed “The Junto Club”. The Benjamin Franklin Historical Society defines the Junto Club as follows: “In the fall of 1727 Benjamin Franklin and a group of friends founded the Junto Club also known as the Leather Apron Club. The 12 members were tradesmen and artisans who met Friday evenings to discuss issues of morals, politics or natural philosophy. The club lasted 38 years. Franklin proposed that the group be formed of “ingenious men –a physician, a mathematician, a geographer, a natural philosopher, a botanist, a chemist, and a mechanician (engineer)”. Isaacson also notes: “Franklin was doing modestly well as one of three printers in a town that would naturally have supported only two. But he had learned from his apprentice days in Boston that true success would come if he had not only a printing operation but also his own content and distribution network.” Franklin had competition in this area, however. A publisher named Andrew Bradford. Isaacson writes: “Franklin decided to take Bradford on, and over the next decade he would succeed by building a media conglomerate that included production capacity (printing operations, franchised printers in other cities), products (a newspaper, magazine, almanac), content (his own writings, his alter ego Poor Richard’s, and those of his Junto), and distribution (eventually the whole of the colonial postal system).” In other words, long, long before the arrival of the 20th and 21st century and the media companies built in today’s world by men with names like Rupert Murdoch (Fox), Chris Ruddy (Newsmax), William S. Paley (CBS), David Sarnoff (NBC) or Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Jobs (Apple), there was old Ben Franklin in his very competitive fashion launching a media company of his own. Designed specifically by Franklin to embrace the technology of the day (printers), and then content (a newspaper, magazine and an almanac.) Now? So now America - and the modern world - swims in a media ocean of newspapers, television and radio networks. Not to mention computers! The technological descendants of Ben’s printers. The bottom line? Even though there are those griping about this, that or another media outlet (including me!), this July 4th is a good moment to stop and understand just how fortunate we Americans are. Fortunate to live in a country where a free press and all that that means -- for the good, bad and indifferent -- allows them to read, write and broadcast what they chose. Said another way? Long live a free press. And God Bless America. Happy Fourth of July. 

On Tuesday, Washington Post local breaking news reporter Dana Hedgpeth penned an article entitled “Three words in the Declaration of Independence paint a cruel picture of Natives.” However, while Hedgpeth was eager to remind everyone this meant the Declaration’s “ideals were not extended to everyone,” the historical context she provided for the “merciless Indian savages” passage was quite thin. Hedgpeth, whose bio refers to her as “a Native American journalist” who has “covered topics including Native Americans and their history," begins by setting up the story of “McKaylin Peters, a 24-year-old Native American graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, still recalls when she first heard the words ‘merciless Indian savages.’”  She then adds,  “She cringed when the teacher read a passage deep in the Declaration of Independence: ‘He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.’” Ahead of America 250, she also claims, “Peters and other Native American scholars and tribal leaders are reflecting on the Founding Fathers’ use of the derogatory description for Indigenous people in 1776. Many note that while the Declaration promises that ‘all men are created equal,’ its ideals were not extended to everyone.” Hedgpeth also claimed, “The document’s portrayal of Indigenous people helped establish a moral and legal framework that justified decades of devastating U.S. policies toward Native communities, according to historians.” She also quoted Peters as saying, “It’s a reminder that this country was built by declaring us less than human. When the Declaration of Independence calls us that, it’s a message that Native youth sadly still hear today in classrooms, policy debates and in how society talks about us.” Eventually, Hedgpeth got to some historical context. The first interesting tidbit she provided undermined her central argument, although she didn’t appear to realize it, “[Thomas] Jefferson described Indigenous people as just, honorable and noble — a sharp contrast to the widespread European belief that Indigenous people were inferior.” So, where did this idea come from? While the common image of 18th century warfare is two armies standing in a field about a hundred yards apart and firing at each other, frontier warfare was something entirely different: Repeated violence between Indigenous people and settlers also helped shape the ideology behind the description, including the French and Indian War and Dunmore’s War in 1774, when Virginia colonists fought the Shawnee and Mingo to expand into the Ohio Valley, according to historians. In the summer of 1776, as the Declaration was drafted and adopted, a lesser-known conflict unfolded when Cherokee warriors attacked frontier settlements across parts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Colonists responded by burning more than 50 Cherokee towns and driving Native people from their homes. By 1776, the Founding Fathers ‘understood their need to accuse the king of what they considered the ultimate crime — partnering with Indigenous peoples and arming them,’ said Ned Blackhawk, a Native American author and Yale University historian. ‘So they created this vilification in the Declaration that, in many ways, was at odds with their experience of living alongside Natives for generations.’ Jefferson’s praise for the natives is not inconsistent with the grievance against the crown. Frontier warfare did not begin in 1774 or even the French Indian and War. Contrary to Blackhawk’s assertion, for several decades, the reality of frontier warfare with the French and their native allies saw the destruction of villages as the Declaration passage in question says. Surely, one can understand why the colonists would be angry at the king for now allying himself with such tribes. It was a trend that would continue during the Revolutionary War. Hedgpeth closed out her article by quoting Center for Native American Youth at the Aspen Institute, Tracy L. Canard Goodluck. Underneath a picture of her wearing a shirt that said ‘“Merciless Indian Savages’ – Declaration of Independence’ she wrote:  ‘Those words served the purpose back then as a way to dehumanize Native people in this country,’ said Goodluck. ‘We need to change that narrative. We’re still here. We’re doctors, lawyers, teachers and political leaders.  ‘I am that merciless Indian savage who my ancestors prayed for to do great things.’ Goodluck is not “that merciless Indian savage.” She may think she is turning the table on Jefferson and the country, but she is not. They say war is hell, but frontier warfare was another level of hell. You cannot understand Jefferson’s writing without the historical knowledge of the reality of frontier warfare up through 1776. If the Washington Post wants to teach nuanced and complicated history then that should extend both ways.

Gross political opportunism, poorly disguised as caring for a colleague. Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) took to X to hound his New Jersey colleague, GOP Rep. Tom Kean, after his return to work after being hospitalized for depression: "I believe every person should have access to mental health support, including paid time off and sick leave. Congressman Kean has opposed these very benefits for all workers that Members of Congress get. It’s time for that to change." Kim’s mean-spirited partisan hackery was at least expected. Less defensible was PBS News Hour’s “journalism” Tuesday. Reporter Lisa Desjardins: Our Kyle Midura caught up with the congressman today to ask about his pledge of transparency. Producer Kyle Midura: Does this experience changed how you think about access to health care, mental health services more generally? When you committed to full transparency, was the extent of that always going to be one floor speech? Are you going to open up at some point, take questions? PBS producer Kyle Midura hassles Rep. Kean, recently hospitalized for depression: "Has this experience changed how you think about access to health care, mental health services more generally?" pic.twitter.com/r1craxT46u — Clay Waters

On Tuesday afternoon's On the Line show, during a discussion of the Supreme Court decision upholding bans on transgender participation in women's sports, MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin claimed that Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion is "not talking about science," and it  "speaks of hate, not of jurisprudence." MS NOW host Alicia Menendez put on the leftist spin by declaring that the decision is a "major blow to transgender rights." She soon went to MS NOW contributor Kimberly Atkins Stohr, who asserted: "There is ample evidence that transgender girls and women playing sports pose not -- neither a competitive nor a physical risk to cisgender athletes, which is basically the basis upon which Justice Brett Kavanaugh based much of his decision." MS NOW Sees 'Hate' in Clarence Thomas Comments on Males in Women's Sports pic.twitter.com/wB5WlYjcIK — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) June 30, 2026 She soon complained about "fearmongering" by conservatives: ... trans women who are receiving hormone therapy are either the same or sometimes at a lower level of -- of endurance, ability, strength, jump height, all the measures of sports that they're not putting anyone in danger competitively or physically. Yet these are the talking points that conservatives have been using and have found to be politically useful in fearmongering against trans people. And now the court has sort of embraced that rationale absent evidence. That's the part that is really troubling for me. Toward the end of the segment, Menendez brought up Justice Thomas's words: Lisa, you wanted to talk about Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion. I want to read you just a little bit from it, and then you'll unpack for me why it matters. He argued, quote, "A man does not have to be -- does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes that he is a woman," and, quote, "men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe they are." This goes beyond the legal scope of the case. These are like right-wing talking points that are showing up in his concurrence. Rubin soon complained: He's not talking about science. He's citing sort of like philosophical articles for the proposition that sex is immutable, that it's binary that man, woman, boy, and girl are terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. And here I'm quoting from his concurrence, to use language to obscure reality, to show, quote, "indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals." She then argued that the other majority members were trying to distance themselves from Justice Thomas's choice of words, and concluded by claiming that his argument was based on "hate." Here's Rubin: Now, I was wondering earlier today when I read the majority opinion, it goes out of its way to say that people on both sides of this issue are worthy of respect, whether they identify as trans women or as cisgender, biologically born females. "Everybody who wants a space on that playing field is worthy of respect." And that stuck out to me because that's not something we've heard this court say this week about other disfavored litigants. And I wondered: Why did Justice Kavanaugh include that? That's why. Because that statement and Justice Thomas's concurrence is one that even the justices in the majority want nothing to do with because it speaks of hate, not of jurisprudence. Transcript follows: MS NOW's On the Line June 30, 2026 1:38 p.m. Eastern ALICIA MENENDEZ: This morning, the Supreme Court delivered a major blow to transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with Idaho and West Virginia, upholding their bans on trans athletes and women's and girls sports, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing that, quote, "schools may determine eligibility for women's and girls sports based on biological sex." (...) KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR, MS NOW POLITICAL ANALYST: There is ample evidence that transgender girls and women playing sports pose not -- neither a competitive nor a physical risk to cisgender athletes, which is basically the basis upon which Justice Brett Kavanaugh based much of his decision. In fact, it shows evidence -- the growing amount of evidence, because still there are still studies going on, and we're still figuring this out, as Sotomayor points out. But that points that trans women who are receiving hormone therapy are either the same or sometimes at a lower level of -- of endurance, ability, strength, jump height, all the measures of sports that they're not putting anyone in danger competitively or physically. Yet these are the talking points that conservatives have been using and have found to be politically useful in fearmongering against trans people. And now the court has sort of embraced that rationale absent evidence. That's the part that is really troubling for me. (...) MENENDEZ: Lisa, you wanted to talk about Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion. I want to read you just a little bit from it, and then you'll unpack for me why it matters. He argued, quote, "A man does not have to be -- does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes that he is a woman," and, quote, "men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe they are." This goes beyond the legal scope of the case. These are like right-wing talking points that are showing up in his concurrence. RUBIN: And it doesn't even embrace the science. I mean, both sides here had scientific experts -- one for the plaintiffs essentially saying that trans athletes who take puberty blockers are no differently situated than cisgender women. The folks who are defending the statutes that were anti-trans athletes said, "No, actually, there is a biological difference between the two that has nothing to do with circulating testosterone, and it is like an immutable physical difference between the two, regardless of what side you take on that." That's not what Clarence Thomas is citing. He's not talking about science. He's citing sort of like philosophical articles for the proposition that sex is immutable, that it's binary that man, woman, boy, and girl are terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. And here I'm quoting from his concurrence, to use language to obscure reality, to show, quote, "indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals." Now, I was wondering earlier today when I read the majority opinion, it goes out of its way to say that people on both sides of this issue are worthy of respect, whether they identify as trans women or as cisgender, biologically born females. "Everybody who wants a space on that playing field is worthy of respect." And that stuck out to me because that's not something we've heard this court say this week about other disfavored litigants. And I wondered: Why did Justice Kavanaugh include that? That's why. Because that statement and Justice Thomas's concurrence is one that even the justices in the majority want nothing to do with because it speaks of hate, not of jurisprudence.