The U.S. Constitution (the First Amendment especially) is treated as a sacred document by the elitist media -- until it gets in the way of black Democrat politicians getting a leg up on winning seats in Congress. A story posted to NPR Thursday by Ashley Lopez and Miles Parks, on the Supreme Court outlawing Louisiana’s race-based redistricting, “Thrown-out ballots and map confusion: Voters are losing the redistricting battle,” argued that upholding constitutional requirements risked making voters lose their faith in voting. After more than two decades working in elections, including four years as Virginia's top voting official, it takes a lot to surprise Chris Piper. But the frenzied redistricting battle of the past few months — including a congressional map in his home state thrown out by a court after people voted to approve it, and certain elections postponed in Louisiana and Alabama after mail ballots already went out — has done it. .... "The biggest impact on voters is confusion," Piper said. "'Where do I go vote? Who is even my elected representative? Or, which district am I even in?'... There's the potential for them to not know who they're voting for." Much of the focus of the ongoing redistricting war has been on which political party will come out on top in the race to control Congress. But it's voters who will pay a cost, say voting experts and voting rights advocates, in the form of discarded votes, diminished voting power and a democratic process that is increasingly complicated to navigate. NPR, like other liberal media outlets, often describe their own side's arguments in non-ideological terms -- people upset over the Republicans are "voting experts and voting rights advocates." NPR pitied some early voters. The Supreme Court decision struck down a Louisiana congressional map, and the state's Republican governor, Jeff Landry, postponed voting for U.S. House primaries so state lawmakers could enact new district lines. "Allowing elections to proceed under an unconstitutional map would undermine the integrity of our system and violate the rights of our voters, Landry said in a statement. His announcement came days before in-person early voting was set to begin — and well after absentee ballots were mailed to voters. Tens of thousands of absentee ballots had already been cast.... NPR ignored that Virginia had a similar dilemma with early voting, which was partly why the state's Supreme Court struck down the state's Democratic-backed redistricting scheme narrowly approved by voters. "This is sort of entering this cautionary danger zone for us as I look at everything that's happened in the last two weeks," Sarah Whittington, advocacy director at the ACLU of Louisiana, told NPR.... Whittington said rules changing at the last minute, for explicitly political reasons, drives home a sense that many people already feel: that the system is rigged against them. Again NPR ignored that over a million early voters in Virginia were denied being able to weigh in on the redistricting issue when casting their votes in the 2025 House of Delegates elections. Chris Melody Fields Figueredo — the executive director of Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which helps progressive groups pass policy changes — criticized the Virginia court for overturning the will of the people. The ballot measure drew 51.7 percent of the vote after the Democrats spent more than $70 million pushing it out on TV. On Thursday’s All Things Considered, reporter Sam Gringlas conjured up visions of Jim Crow II over moves by Louisiana Republicans to eliminate one of the state’s two majority-black districts in response to the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional, using talking heads to make his point. SAM GRINGLAS: For 91-year-old James Verrett, the ruling was a gut punch. He protested for voting rights after returning from military service abroad as a paratrooper, only to find Louisiana still treated him second class. JAMES VERRETT: I've been beaten with billy sticks, dogs and tear gas. But now, the Supreme Court and the state courts are making it back up to where it was. Rep. Cleo Fields, back in Congress, provided a blast from the past in more ways than one. GRINGLAS: ....Louisiana is one of several Southern states now slashing districts no longer protected by the VRA. From his Baton Rouge office, with a view of the state Capitol, Fields sees echoes of the late 19th century, when the Jim Crow era reversed gains in Black representation.

The three-letter networks' weekend of bad foreign policy hot takes continued on Saturday’s edition of Today as NBC chief international correspondent Keir Simmons hyped attempts to get Israel banned from the annual Eurovision singing competition for, among other things, its battle with Hezbollah that came about from allying with the U.S. in the Iran War on the grounds this allegedly makes Israel analogous to Russia. Simmons declared that, “Each May millions tune in, cheer for their favorite singing act and complain about the voting. But this year it's not just divided, it's deeply divisive. During Tuesday's semifinal—”   Ahead of the Eurovision finals, NBC's Keir Simmons hypes people trying to get Israel banned amid the nonsensical claim it is like Russia for, among other things joining the U.S. in fighting Iran, which Hezbollah decided to get involved in, "In the years since the October 7th… pic.twitter.com/rnvA1pufNv — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 16, 2026   After a clip of portions of the crowd chanting, “Stop the genoicide!” Simmons rolled on, “Israel's act faced protesters attempting to disrupt the performance.” He then showed Israeli competitor Noam Bettan taking it all in good stride, “I heard, first of all in the beginning, a lot of booing, and it's fine. It's part of the thing, and a few seconds passed, and I got a huge wave of unforgettable love and support.” As for Simmons, he did not explicitly blame Israel fighting alongside the U.S. for the cancelation demands, but he implied it when he omitted key information about Lebanon, “In the years since the October 7th Hamas attacks, Israel's war in Gaza, its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, and the current conflict in Lebanon has prompted five countries to boycott the competition.” “The current conflict in Lebanon” was started by Hezbollah. Lebanon was not part of the original joint U.S.-Israeli agenda, just like it wasn’t on Israel’s agenda after October 7 until Hezbollah decided to insert itself into the war. Nevertheless, Simmons moved on to suggesting all of that could put Israel in the same situation as Russia, “Slovenia, Ireland, and Spain will not even broadcast tonight's event. Once known for its escapism, Eurovision has long been a flashpoint. Russia was banned after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and rumors have flown in previous years that the Israeli government influences the results, promoting a mass voting campaign. NBC News asked the Israeli government about those claims. We have not heard back. Tonight's final may see more protests.” Simmons then played a clip of Denise Finke, who was described by NBC’s chyron as a “Vienna protest participant,” being more explicit with the Russia analogy, “I do not like the double standard that Israel is being held to. We are all kind of on the same opinion against Russia, and I think international law should be applied in the same way.” Equivocating, Simmons declared, “Events here in the Middle East impacting politics across Europe and even an event once designed to unite.” Finke appears to believe that a violation of international law is just anything she doesn’t like. Russia was banned from Eurovision because it launched an unprovoked war of aggression. Finke wants Israel banned because it fought back against the one waged against it. In other Saturday Today news, Joe Fryer did a brief recap of the week’s biggest stories, which included Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen grilling FBI Director Kash Patel about allegations of excessive drinking. Patel countered by claiming that Van Hollen was the one who was drinking margaritas with Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Both men have denied the claims the other made, but Fryer only highlighted Van Hollen’s.   NBC's Saturday 'Today' recounts Patel v. Van Hollen, but note how NBC wants to channel all of Van Hollen's denials of alcohol consumption -- but NOT Patel's denials. And sticking up for Kilmar. pic.twitter.com/kLxiy2sGSw — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 16, 2026   Here is a transcript for the May 16 show: NBC Today 5/16/2026 7:13 AM ET KEIR SIMMONS: Each May millions tune in, cheer for their favorite singing act and complain about the voting. But this year it's not just divided, it's deeply divisive. During Tuesday's semifinal— CROWD: Stop the genocide! SIMMONS: —Israel's act faced protesters attempting to disrupt the performance. NOAM BETTAN: I heard, first of all in the beginning, a lot of booing, and it's fine. It's part of the thing, and a few seconds passed, and I got a huge wave of unforgettable love and support. SIMMONS: In the years since the October 7th Hamas attacks, Israel's war in Gaza, its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, and the current conflict in Lebanon has prompted five countries to boycott the competition. Slovenia, Ireland, and Spain will not even broadcast tonight's event. Once known for its escapism, Eurovision has long been a flashpoint. Russia was banned after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and rumors have flown in previous years that the Israeli government influences the results, promoting a mass voting campaign. NBC News asked the Israeli government about those claims. We have not heard back. Tonight's final may see more protests. DENISE FINKE: I do not like the double standard that Israel is being held to. We are all kind of on the same opinion against Russia, and I think international law should be applied in the same way. SIMMONS: Events here in the Middle East impacting politics across Europe and even an event once designed to unite.

Watching President Trump's visit to China, with all its policy implications, is a fascinating lesson in global geopolitics. But curiously the media seems to be silent on just how America got to its current relationship with China in the first place. For those around in the day, there is still a strong memory of the lack of any American relationship with China when President Richard Nixon took office in January of 1969. America was then deep in the midst of the Cold War -- a war with all things Communist that had begun almost the moment World War II had ended. As time moved on Communist control of Eastern Europe was center stage. Eventually this included a decidedly hot war in Korea, followed by another in Vietnam. And it is almost an understatement that American policy makers of the day saw any relationship with Communist China—which had been openly assisting the North Koreans with their war against the Western ally of South Korea— as pretty close to treachery.  All of which contributed to a stunned world's reaction when, on the night of July 15, 1971, Nixon — he who had made his reputation as a decidedly hardline anti-Communist — appeared on the nation's television screens to announce, seemingly out of the blue, that he had directed his National Security Advisor, Dr. Henry Kissinger, to secretly visit Beijing and begin peace talks with Communist China and its decidedly infamous leader, Chairman Mao Zedong. And also reveal that Nixon himself would be traveling to China in person. Thus it was that for almost a week in February of 1972 Nixon, accompanied by First Lady Pat Nixon and a small entourage, visited China. They met the legendary Chairman Mao, who was already starting down the road to ill health. But ill health or not, Mao insisted on greeting Nixon, joking that  "I believe our old friend Chiang Kai-shek would not approve of this." Chiang, of course, was Mao's rival for the leadership of China, a decided fighter against Communism and for freedom who had been forced to abandon the mainland in favor of veritable isolation on the island of Taiwan. Mao also amused Nixon by joshing that "I voted for you during your last election."  Mao added, "I like rightists... I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power." Nixon loved it. To say the least, Nixon made the most of his visit. Specifically including a visit to the legendary "Great Wall of China." At the conclusion the two leaders issued the "Shanghai Communique" that had the two countries pledging that they would work together to normalize relations.  Nixon made a point while there of saying this:  This was the week that changed the world, as what we have said in that Communique is not nearly as important as what we will do in the years ahead to build a bridge across 16,000 miles and 22 years of hostilities which have divided us in the past. And what we have said today is that we shall build that bridge. Note well the line from Nixon that  said what was important was "what we will do in the years ahead to build a bridge across 16,000 miles and 22 years of hostilities which have divided us in the past. And what we have said today is that we shall build that bridge." Indeed, Nixon did just that. And notably, when the 1972 election rolled around, the American people signaled their approval, as Nixon won in a 49-state landslide. Which makes it particularly relevant and important that over the last few days, some 54 years later, a literal builder of great buildings, now President Donald Trump has arrived in Beijing to continue on with the bridge-building Nixon had vowed to begin on his opening-the-door trip to China all those many years ago. Not for nothing are observers calling this Trump trip, in the words of The Hill's Niall Stanage, the "most important foreign trip of President Trump's second term to date." Indeed that is so. All of which serves as a reminder of a truism in the world of American presidents. Once elected to a second term, with the reality of a limited number of days facing a term-limited President, Presidents not unusually are determined to make their legacy in history at moments exactly like Trump is now shaping his legacy in history. In this case by reaching out to the massive Asian country with billions of people and doing his best to treat it as a friend if not an ally. Will President Trump's China statecraft work? Decades from now will China and the United States be allies? Friends? Rivals? We shall see.  But one thing is certain. What Americans are seeing President Trump lead in China, whether the media wants to admit it or not, is the direct result of the work decades ago of President Richard Nixon. Nixon was the original architect of modern U.S.-China relations. And President Trump, he the guy who made a considerable success by building on the works of earlier New Yorkers with gleaming new skyscrapers, has continued Nixon's work. 

ABC’s recent history of blaming the United States, and especially the Trump administration, and not communism for Cuba’s ongoing economic disaster continued on Saturday’s Good Morning America as reporter Alex Presha and guest co-host Rachel Scott blamed American sanctions instead. Unfortunately, this time, they were also joined by CBS Saturday Morning and White House reporter Olivia Rinaldi, who claimed the U.S. was “plunging the country into darkness.” During his report on recent developments between the U.S. and Cuba, Presha declared, “[CIA Director John] Ratcliffe’s visit is happening in the midst of an economic crisis. The U.S. oil blockade and sanctions have caused a crippling energy shortage. Extensive blackouts across the country, sparking protests. Cubans banging pots and shouting, ‘Turn on the lights!’ The frustrations growing over the country's energy grid, now on the verge of collapse.”   ABC is, once again, blaming the United States and not communism for Cuba's problems. Reporter Alex Presha declared "The U.S. oil blockade and sanctions have caused a crippling energy shortage" while Rachel Scott later added "Yeah, those U.S. sanctions crippling that economy."… pic.twitter.com/jmMGKeayM7 — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 16, 2026   Presha continued, “Many Cubans are without power up to 22 hours a day, getting by in the dark with car headlights and flashlights. This week, Cuba’s energy minister declaring the country has no fuel and no diesel. President Trump has called Cuba a declining country in need of help. The U.S. State Department has made a public offer of $100 million in humanitarian aid, something Cuban officials are now mulling over. U.S. officials telling ABC News there are disagreements about how that money would be distributed.” Back live, Presha threw in another development, “Now, the U.S. has offered that humanitarian aid multiple times this month. Meanwhile, sources say the U.S. could announce an indictment of former Cuban president Raul Castro as soon as next week, Rachel.” As Presha left, Scott turned to fellow co-host Whit Johnson, “We just saw there in that piece, you were just in Cuba last week speaking to the foreign minister. I mean, what were your takeaways from being on the ground there? Johnson repeated Presha’s reporting of economic calamity before recalling, “He insisted that internal affairs are off the table in these discussions with the U.S. He said that there's no progress in those discussions, but it seems like the administration is determined to force change whether the Cuban government likes it or not.” Scott then echoed Presha, “Yeah, those U.S. sanctions crippling that economy,” while Johnson also chimed in with “yeah.” Meanwhile, Rinaldi at least mentioned why the DOJ is looking at indicting Raul Castro, “CIA Director John Ratcliffe's trip to Cuba came as sources tell CBS News the Trump administration is taking steps to indict Raul Castro, the 94- year-old former president of Cuba and brother of Fidel Castro, in connection with the downing of humanitarian aid planes 30 years ago.”   CBS reporter Olivia Rinaldi did something similar, "Cuba is in the midst of an energy crisis, fueled by the U.S. Blockade there, plunging the country in to darkness." pic.twitter.com/ETqDpxEo4H — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 16, 2026   However, she also avoided any mention of communism, “Cuba is in the midst of an energy crisis, fueled by the U.S. blockade there, plunging the country into darkness.” The truth is Cuba’s energy crisis predates Trump’s decision to seize Cuba-bound Venezuelan oil because communism fails as surely as the sun rises in the east. Here are transcripts for the May 16 shows: ABC Good Morning America 5/16/2026 8:15 AM ET ALEX PRESHA: Ratcliffe’s visit is happening in the midst of an economic crisis. The U.S. oil blockade and sanctions have caused a crippling energy shortage. Extensive blackouts across the country, sparking protests. Cubans banging pots and shouting, “Turn on the lights!” The frustrations growing over the country's energy grid, now on the verge of collapse. Many Cubans are without power up to 22 hours a day, getting by in the dark with car headlights and flashlights. This week, Cuba’s energy minister declaring the country has no fuel and no diesel. President Trump has called Cuba a declining country in need of help. The U.S. State Department has made a public offer of $100 million in humanitarian aid, something Cuban officials are now mulling over. U.S. officials telling ABC News there are disagreements about how that money would be distributed. Now, the U.S. has offered that humanitarian aid multiple times this month. Meanwhile, sources say the U.S. could announce an indictment of former Cuban president Raul Castro as soon as next week, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: Yeah, it could come. Alright, Alex, thank you. And Whit, we just saw there in that piece, you were just in Cuba last week speaking to the foreign minister. I mean, what were your takeaways from being on the ground there? WHIT JOHNSON: I mean, the big takeaway for me is the looming question: how much longer can this really last? I mean, when I was there last week, it was desperation. I mean, people we saw people actually sifting through the trash to try to find food. Twenty hour rolling blackouts. The gas stations were all closed. People were getting their gas on the black market. And now it's even worse a week later, and we're starting to see people pour out into the streets. They are demanding a change of some kind. When I spoke with the foreign minister, he insisted that internal affairs are off the table in these discussions with the U.S. He said that there's no progress in those discussions, but it seems like the administration is determined to force change. SCOTT: Yeah. JOHNSON: Whether the Cuban government likes it or not. SCOTT: Yeah, those U.S. sanctions crippling that economy. JOHNSON: Yeah. SCOTT: Okay, Whit, we appreciate your reporting on that. Great interview. *** CBS Saturday Morning 5/16/2026 8:14 AM ET OLIVIA RINALDI: There was a different island, this one 90 miles off the coast of Florida that U.S. officials visited this week. CIA Director John Ratcliffe's trip to Cuba came as sources tell CBS News the Trump administration is taking steps to indict Raul Castro, the 94- year-old former president of Cuba and brother of Fidel Castro, in connection with the downing of humanitarian aid planes 30 years ago. Cuba is in the midst of an energy crisis, fueled by the U.S. blockade there, plunging the country into darkness.

MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart joined PBS News Hour on Friday to recap President Trump’s recent trip to China and hype the idea that Chinese dictator Xi Jinping threw some “high-class shade” at Trump when he invoked the idea of the Thucydides Trap. Capehart was responding to The Altantic staff writer David Brooks suggesting the summit was relatively successful because there was no drama to come out of it when he declared, “I was asked earlier, you know, did the summit do more harm than good or no harm at all or less harm? And it didn't do more harm, but it didn't do any good.” He then moved on to hinting that Xi embarrassed Trump intellectually, but Capehart only ended up embarrassing himself, “I mean, I take all of your points, David. But, to me, as an American watching the American president go to Beijing, and then hearing the way the president has been talking about it, particularly this notion—I cannot pronounce the name of the Greek philosopher that the Chinese president mentioned, the what—”   Jonathan Capehart tells PBS that Xi Jinping mentioning the idea of Thucydides Trap to Trump was "that was some high-class shade of the Chinese president to—of the American president standing right there." Capehart also bumbled his own dunk by referring to Thucyidides as a… pic.twitter.com/okWyISbINQ — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 16, 2026   After Brooks and host Amna Nawaz then clarified Xi was talking about Thucydides and former Clinton Assistant Defense Secretary Graham Allison’s Thucydides Trap thesis, Capehart added, “Thucydides, yes. You know, that was a little—that was some high-class shade of the Chinese president to—of the American president standing right there.” First of all, Thucydides was a general and a historian, not a philosopher. Second of all, while Capehart promotes Xi's "shade," Allison’s thesis has two major problems. For one, Thucydides argued the Peloponnesian War came about because Sparta feared the rise of Athenian power. Allison uses this to analogize the U.S. as Sparta and China as Athens, but today, any Sino-American war will almost certainly come about because of China’s territorial aggression. Second, Allison’s thesis assumes that Chinese power is on an irreversibly upward trajectory, which is why Xi likes it so much. Capehart touched on this when he continued, “To your point about Xi Jinping feeling that China is ascendant, especially with an American president who has looked at the world in spheres.” There is a compelling case to be made that the reason why China is such a threat is not because it is an ever-increasing power, but because of its aging demographic nightmare; its power either already has or soon will have reached its apex, which will eventually put Beijing in a “now or never” dilemma. Moving on from Allison’s flawed thesis, Capehart rewrote more recent history, “Trump wants the Western Hemisphere. He seems to be perfectly fine with China exerting its influence in the Pacific, which is why, to my mind, his waffling on Taiwan is very troubling. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when there were some sacrosanct beliefs of the American president… that the United States would stand by Taiwan, rhetorically so far, never had to do it militarily. But it doesn't seem like that is the case. If the American president isn't willing to say, ‘Yeah, you know that—the $49 billion worth of arms, yes, we're down with that. We're still going to go for that.’” If Capehart wants to argue that the bipartisan decades-long policy of strategic ambiguity has outlived its usefulness, he is, of course, free to do so, but he can’t claim Trump’s adherence to it is something new. Also, Capehart’s $49 billion figure actually refers to the total of U.S. military sales to Taiwan since 2010. Trump 2.0 already signed off on $11 billion for Taiwan last year. The current controversy is over another $14 billion that Congress approved in January. Nawaz reined things in a little bit when she wrapped up the China portion of the segment, “I should say, despite what the president said, Senator Marco—or Secretary Marco Rubio said that the U.S. policy has not changed. So we will have to see how this all plays out in real terms.” Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: PBS News Hour 5/15/2026 7:37 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, how do you look at it? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I was asked earlier, you know, did the summit do more harm than good or no harm at all or less harm? And it didn't do more harm, but it didn't do any good. I mean, I take all of your points, David. But, to me, as an American watching the American president go to Beijing, and then hearing the way the president has been talking about it, particularly this notion—I cannot pronounce the name of the Greek philosopher that the Chinese president mentioned, the what— DAVID BROOKS Thucydides Trap. NAWAZ: Thucydides. CAPEHART: Thucydides, yes. You know, that was a little—that was some high-class shade of the Chinese president to—of the American president standing right there, to your point about Xi Jinping feeling that China is ascendant, especially with an American president who has looked at the world in spheres. Trump wants the Western Hemisphere. He seems to be perfectly fine with China exerting its influence in the Pacific, which is why, to my mind, his waffling on Taiwan is very troubling. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when there were some sacrosanct beliefs of the American president. We were there for Europe's defense and a strong proponent of NATO. That is now not so certain, and also that the United States would stand by Taiwan, rhetorically so far, never had to do it militarily. But it doesn't seem like that is the case. If the American president isn't willing to say, “Yeah, you know that—the $49 billion worth of arms, yes, we're down with that. We're still going to go for that.” And he did not do that. If I were the Taiwanese leader, I would be very worried. NAWAZ: I should say, despite what the president said, Senator Marco—or Secretary Marco Rubio said that the U.S. policy has not changed. So we will have to see how this all plays out in real terms.