The United States Supreme Court handed down two opinions which continue its precedent of protecting women and girls from the ongoing incursion of “trans women” into their athletic endeavors. NBC’s coverage of those rulings can best be described as mournful.  Watch the report in its entirety, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, June 30th, 2026 (click "expand" to view transcript): WATCH: @NBCNightlyNews mourns the Supreme Court rulings affirming state prohibitions of men in women's school sports. Note the ACLU attorney saying "it's not about winning trophies, it's about learning life lessons." HALLIE JACKSON: To that other landmark ruling now, this one a… pic.twitter.com/F74cm6B9Vn — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 1, 2026 HALLIE JACKSON: To that other landmark ruling now, this one a win for President Trump- with the conservative majority ruling states can ban transgender women and girls from playing on female sports teams. Here’s Stephanie Gosk. STEPHANIE GOSK: Tonight, President Trump calling it a “big win” while civil rights advocates slam it as a blow to transgender rights. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority upholding state laws banning transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams in public schools. Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing: “allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.” But the ACLU representing the two transgender athletes in the case calling it “devastating.” JOSHUA BLOCK: It's not just about winning trophies; it’s about learning life lessons. GOSK: 27 states currently ban transgender women and girls from participating in female sports, with an NBC News poll last year showing over 75% of Americans support those bans.  Macy Petty Charles celebrating today’s decision. She competed against a transgender athlete and hopes more states would pass bans. MACY PETTY CHARLES: I would hope that it would embolden every state to protect those female athletes and I hope that they themselves are emboldened today to take action- to speak up for what they know is right. GOSK: But critics of the ruling see a silver lining.  So you see it as a loss, but not as big of a loss as it maybe could have been? BLOCK: Absolutely. They didn't write a ticket, you know, for the other side to claim that you can discriminate against transgender people in all other contexts. JACKSON: Stephanie is joining us now and Steph, for states that do allow transgender athletes in women's sports, they can keep that in place, right? GOSK: Yeah, Hallie. This Supreme Court decision does not compel them to change their laws. But there are already lawsuits in some of those places to try and force bans. Hallie. JACKSON: Stephanie Gosk. Thank you. NBC put forth a lot of effort into making the report appear to look balanced. But the framing belied NBC’s bias in favor of the transgender position- especially Stephanie Gosk’s citation of the ACLU calling the opinion “devastating.” Then there was the ACLU attorney’s flippant quote: “It's not just about winning trophies; it’s about learning life lessons.” Unfortunately, many of these girls learned painful lessons they didn’t ask for by being thrown into events with biological males passing themselves off as females. In some cases, they suffered significant physical harm. From Fox News back in 2023: A North Carolina high school volleyball player said she suffered significant and long-term physical and mental injuries last fall when she was spiked in the face by a transgender athlete who was able to compete on a girls’ team because of a policy put in place by the state’s high school athletic association.  Payton McNabb, a senior at Hiwassee Dam High School in Murphy, N.C., spoke out for the first time about her injuries on Wednesday during a press conference where she called on state legislators to pass the Fairness in Women's Sports Act that would prohibit biological males from competing on girls’ sports teams, citing her own experience.  "Due to the North Carolina High School Athletic Association policy of allowing biological males to compete against biological females my life has forever been changed," McNabb said.  This part of the debate was deliberately left out of NBC’s report, as was the plight of women forced to share locker room and bathroom facilities with male athletes. These deliberate omissions were performed in service of casting transgenders as the true, pure victims of the kind of legislation upheld by the Supreme Court. The report closed out with various presentations of silver linings for advocates of the 25% side of a 75/25 issue as acknowledged by NBC. Slop like this might be deemed to be necessary in order for NBC parent company Comcast to hold its perfect Human Rights Campaign equality score. But it further helps to undermine the credibility of the Elitist Media, already at an all-time low.   

On Tuesday’s CNN This Morning, the short morning show focused heavily on the trials and tribulations of the Democratic Socialists of America and their rise, with candidates being nominated across the country, including in NYC last week and possibly in Colorado this week. In one of many segments on socialism and the Democrat Party, Cornish asked her panel about GOP’s labeling of the DSA as communists and said, “Do you think it's weird they're skipping straight to communism?”  After a segment on the possible election of a DSA candidate in Colorado, the show returned to Democratic socialists with talk of radical New York House District 13 candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier and her past social media posts:  So, the posts include favorable references to communism, Marxist ideology, and authoritarian communist figures. She says she has grown considerably since those posts. And when asked about President Trump accusing her of being a communist, she said this.   On Tuesday's CNN This Morning, Audie Cornish asked why some Republicans call DSA candidates communists: "Do you think it's weird they’re skipping straight to communism? ... And I just wonder why you can't just critique socialism as is, and you have to go straight to communism?" pic.twitter.com/87ObRQXMP1 — Nick (@nspin310) June 30, 2026   After a soundbite played from a Chevliar love-fest on MS NOW last week, USA Today White House Correspondent Francesca Chambers returned to comments President Trump made on the “threat of communism,” which led to Cornish to respond as she posed a question to the group: “Do you think it's weird they're skipping straight to communism?” Cornish then showed a graph of the unpopularity of socialism, which she said showed, “Americans in general don't view it all that much better than they did in 2010,” before she returned to question the use of “communism”: And I just wonder why you can't just critique socialism as is, and you have to go straight to communism? Former George W. Bush administration official Ashley Davis said communism was “much easier to understand,” to which Cornish responded, “Sounds scarier?” Davis and fellow panelist and Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha responded in unison: “Yeah.” Cornish then joked, “Straight back to the '50s (...) Love it!”   Ironically, later in the show, Cornish interviewed DSA-aligned Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed and asked about AI. She said El-Sayed "talked about public takeover" of AI companies, which El-Sayed disagreed with, as he called his idea "AI under democracy." She then… pic.twitter.com/VSI2dUtv9A — Nick (@nspin310) June 30, 2026   After she decried the use of communism to describe the DSA, Cornish had an interview with DSA-aligned Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. In the interview, Cornish asked El-Sayed about A.I., as she said, “You have talked about public takeover, if I have that right? Or privatization.” El-Sayed took issue with the label of “public takeover,” and said the phrase he wanted to use was “A.I. Under Democracy.” He then continued and used the same “public takeover” line: I mean democracy is, like, you know, public takeover of government. Sounds like “seize the means of production” but with extra steps. Cornish then asked, “Who would run the company, the government or the people who own the company?” In an answer that did not clear anything up nor help Cornish’s point that DSA candidates are definitely not communists, El-Sayed made fun of the notion of a “takeover”: I think that if you have a technology that is going to vastly change the nature of the economy, it's really important that you have democratic oversight of that technology. So, if we call that a takeover, then we've had a takeover of a lot of different things. But I think democracy is a good thing (...) El-Sayed may have answered Cornish’s “skipping straight to communism” question. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning June 30, 2026 6:33:51 AM Eastern AUDIE CORNISH: A CNN K-File investigation uncovered deleted social media posts from Democratic congressional nominee Darializa Avila Chevalier's old Twitter account.  So, the posts include favorable references to communism, Marxist ideology, and authoritarian communist figures. She says she has grown considerably since those posts. And when asked about President Trump accusing her of being a communist, she said this. (Cuts to video) DARIALIZA AVILA CHEVALIER (D-NY, NOMINEE FOR NY-13): You know, I think that is - that framing is one that I've been very proud to be able to say I don't respond to. One in which I have been very intentional to say, I won't be reactive. (...) 6:36:56 AM Eastern CORNISH: No, seriously, I wrestle with this because also it's -- I would think it's fair game. If Democrats can go scrubbing for old tweets where you find out there are Republican candidates who have said things that are racist, doesn't it - isn't it fair game to go after somebody who has said, abolish police, or said things that actually are even directly related to policy? , FRANCESCA CHAMBERS: I think regardless of what are in these social media posts from any candidate, that President Donald Trump and the Republican Party are going to make this argument about these Democratic socialists as alleged communists one way or another. I mean, he's made it, you know, very clear, going back to his comments on Friday, when he was at a religious conservative conference and he spent most of his speech, by the way, talking about this, talking about the threat of communism. Explaining about how Democrats are going to try and offer you free stuff. And that might sound good for a couple of years. CORNISH: Do you think it's weird they're skipping straight to communism? Like isn't - I just want to show: positive opinions of socialism. In 2010, yes, there's movement from Democrats. Democrats now view socialism more favorably. But Americans in general don't view it all that much better than they did in 2010. CHUCK ROCHA: Right. CORNISH: And I just wonder why you can't just critique socialism as is, and you have to go straight to communism. ASHLEY DAVIS: Communism is much more, if you're just branding them, and [To Rocha] you know this as a communicator for campaigns, it's much easier to understand. CORNISH: Sounds scarier? DAVIS AND ROCHA: Yeah CORNISH: Straight back to the '50s. DAVIS: Yeah. CORNISH: Love it. Ok. Well - (...) 6:58:28 AM Eastern CORNISH: One issue I care about a lot on this show is A.I. and its effect on the economy to come. You have talked about public takeover, if I have that right? Or privatization. ABDUL EL-SAYED (D-MI, CANDIDATE FOR US SENATE): Takeover was not the word. If you want to use that word. CORNISH: Oh, what word do you want to use. EL-SAYED: A.I. under democracy. I mean democracy is, like, you know, public takeover of government. CORNISH: Who would run the company, the government or the people who own the company? EL-SAYED: I think that if you have a technology that is going to vastly change the nature of the economy, it's really important that you have democratic oversight of that technology. So, if we call that a takeover, then we've had a takeover of a lot of different things. But I think democracy is a good thing. And A.I. is a scary new technology, while democracy is a very tried and true old technology. And I'm just saying that you should have democracy overseeing the way A.I. is being deployed. (...)

Not all the Supreme Court verdicts released this week went Trump’s way, but the ones that did, the liberal media spared no grief over. MS NOW’s Ali Velshi, on the congealed propaganda slop disguised as his talk show The 11th Hour, started off Monday’s episode lamented over the Court’s decision on Trump v. Slaughter, which ruled that the president can indeed fire commissioners of executive agencies without cause.  Trump “won the kind of sweeping power that is more typically held by kings than presidents,” Velshi, dramatically proclaimed in his opening monologue.  He then explained how certain government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, from which Rebecca Slaughter was removed, work: “Their jobs are essentially to be government watchdogs, to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress.”  Now, it’s not clear whether Velshi ever passed a fifth grade government class -- he only holds an honorary Doctorate of Laws from a Canadian university -- but the enforcement of the laws falls to the executive branch, not the legislative or judicial. As the head of the executive branch, according to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, President Trump holds the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.”     The position of Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission has no special exemption from this statute, so the President is at liberty to appoint someone to that job. It logically follows that the president may also fire a person holding that office.  But according to Velshi, this simple logic promotes a dangerous theory: In ruling in Trump's favor, [the Supreme Court] is promoting the Unitary Executive Theory, a concept that's found all over Project 2025. The Unitary Executive Theory seeks to massively expand the power of the presidency, proposing that the President has far broader authority over the executive branch than he currently has. The decision gets us one step closer to handling - handing authoritarian power to a person who aspires to be an authoritarian, and that was the intended result.  These are the same people who beat their chests and gnashed their teeth over D.O.G.E. firing useless government bureaucrats, the removal of Scott Pelley from CBS, and any other personnel changes they can even tangentially tie to Trump. In their minds, once people they like get into any kind of job, they should be able to hold it forever, no matter how unqualified or downright harmful they end up being for the company, agency, or government. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MS NOW's The 11th Hour with Ali Velshi 6/29/26 11:01:32 ALI VELSHI: It is Monday, June the 29th, 127 days until the midterm elections. And today, at the hands of the Supreme Court, Donald Trump lost one tool in his voter suppression arsenal, one personal vendetta, and the ability to freely meddle in the federal reserve, for now.  But he didn't lose everything. In one unusual case, he won the kind of sweeping power that is more typically held by kings than by presidents.  (...) 11:03:28 Cook's case is tricky for Trump because the Supreme Court sees the Federal Reserve as a 'quasi-private, uniquely structured entity.' It stands apart from other federal agencies in the government's domain.  That's why this second case that the Supreme Court decided today is the thornier one, the one that will have broader implications going forward. The woman at the center of that second case is named Rebecca Slaughter. She was originally appointed by Donald Trump to fill a vacant seat on the Federal Trade Commission. After Slaughter completed her first seven-year term, Biden renominated her. But when Trump returned to office last year, he swiftly fired Slaughter and the other Democratic Commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya.  In a few moments, I'm going to speak to the former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, who served alongside both Slaughter and Bedoya. But listen to what Khan's initial reaction was when I spoke to her about this last year, just days after the two commissioners were fired:[Cut to interview] LINA KHAN: This is blatantly illegal. That's the first thing to know that the law is crystal clear, that commissioners can only be fired if they do something egregiously wrong, if they engage in malfeasance, neglect of duty, some type of inefficiency. So there's no gray zone here. What the administration is trying to do by firing them violates the law.[Cut back to live] VELSHI: Now, you may not think much about the Federal Trade Commission, or the National Labor Relations Board, or the Merit Systems Protection Board on a daily basis, but their work is essential in making society function in all sorts of ways.  There are about two dozen agencies like these. Their jobs are essentially to be government watchdogs, to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress. They're responsible for regulating safety standards, overseeing worker protections, protecting consumers and businesses alike. The list goes on.  These agencies are established by Congressional statute, and they were intended to be independent, to operate outside of political influence. While their officers are often appointed by a president, they're often led by people who are experts in their field. And for the past century, it's been understood that the heads of these agencies don't serve at the whim of the president.  When Congress created the Federal Trade Commission in 1914, it included a provision that commissioners could only be removed for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.' Two decades later, after then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire a man named William Humphrey, the Supreme Court upheld that law and said that the president does not have 'Illimitable power of removal.' That case is known as Humphrey's Executor v. the United States. And for 91 years that was the law.  President could not fire the leaders of independent agencies without cause. Until today. The six conservative Justices who make up the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that Trump can fire Slaughter, expanding the powers of the presidency as we know it. Slaughter spoke about her concerns earlier today: [Cut to video] REBECCA SLAUGHTER: What I'm worried about the most is the way the agencies that are going to use tools that were set up to be applied, applied neutrally, without fear or favor, instead, to create enormous fear by wielding incredible favors at the President's behest.[Cut back to live] VELSHI: But the Supreme Court has unleashed something even more serious than that. In ruling in Trump's favor, it is promoting the Unitary Executive Theory, a concept that's found all over Project 2025. The Unitary Executive Theory seeks to massively expand the power of the presidency, proposing that the President has far broader authority over the Executive Branch than he currently has. The decision gets us one step closer to handling - handing authoritarian power to a person who aspires to be an authoritarian, and that was the intended result. On social media, Donald Trump called it a, 'BIG WIN,' all capitals. He said the quiet part out loud, calling the decision 'The greatest increase in presidential power in the last 100 years.' 'The greatest increase in presidential power in the last 100 years.' That's not a good thing.

CNN is slowly realizing it stepped on a rake when it chose to cry Apocalypse! for months to spook Americans about prices going to the stratosphere because of the Strait of Hormuz chaos. CNN Business economics reporter Elisabeth Buchwald published a piece on June 25 with a headline that said the quiet part out loud: “Inflation topped 4% in May, but the worst may be over.” Wait! So in other words, all that CNN crystal “bull” about oil not seeing $70 prices again until 2032 could have potentially just been a load of mindless media dreck? Perish the thought! Buchwald chose to shoehorn some common sense into the economic debate, underscoring why the media’s fixation on volatile energy prices artificially inflated by war jitters didn’t comport with reality. “But when stripping out gas and food prices, two of the most volatile components tracked, so-called core inflation rose at a much more muted annual rate of 3.4% from 3.3% in April.” It stands to reason, as MRC Business had been arguing for months, that prices will more than likely ease significantly once the Iran War is settled and schizophrenic commodity traders cool their jets over access to the Strait of Hormuz. For all the bluster to the contrary, the U.S. and global oil benchmarks in particular (West Texas Intermediate and Brent) are currently hovering around $70 a barrel.  With this context in mind, it’s worth reminding readers that CNN is the same network that ran this stupid headline April 2, “$200 oil isn’t as crazy as it sounds.” Buchwald herself tried to refurbish the inflation story as far back as March when CNN’s narrative over Trump tariff-driven inflation spikes never materialized. Buchwald moved the goalposts, pivoting from Trump tariff fears to blaming the Iran war for potentially sending prices skyrocketing. “Inflation held firm last month — but the war with Iran could change that,” read Buchwald’s March 11 headline. Now, as Buchwald inadvertently suggests, the ensuing Middle East conflict didn’t help CNN’s case against the president at all in retrospect.  Relatively speaking, the price fluctuations as a result of the Iran War completely paled in comparison to the 9.1 percent inflation rate under President Joe Biden in June 2022, which happened without an international war to boot.  In response, Buchwald is apparently getting a head start on the crow eating as prices begin to head south and undercut CNN’s doom-mongering once again:  Meanwhile, spending and income rose faster than economists anticipated last month … Another positive development: personal savings ticked up slightly in May after dwindling for months as consumers spent more on gas … In a separate report from the Commerce Department, US gross domestic product, which measures all the goods and services produced in the economy, was revised higher to 2.1% from 1.6% in the third estimate. Buchwald is clearly aware CNN lost the argument, especially since her employer chose to feature the network’s obnoxious gas price ticker on-screen and on the website homepage before reducing its visibility when the metric started going south. Talk about peak narrative management!

Will Hollywood ever tire of the extremely worn-out closeted gay Christian trope? If Netflix’s Big Mistakes is any sign, the answer is a very clear “no,” as main character Nicky/Reverend Nicholas (Dan Levy) lies to his congregation about being a “practicing” gay man who sneaks his male lover into his rectory for secret, overnight rendezvous. Nicky is a pastor at Glenview Community Church, and after service in Episode 1, he walks down a short path from the church straight to his home where his secret lover is waiting for him, only to almost be caught by the church’s secretary, whom he has no problem lying to: Netflix's 'Big Mistakes' preaches Hollywood's favorite Gospel- The closeted Christian pastor. #BigMistakes pic.twitter.com/zrFE8PwaWd — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) June 30, 2026 Nicky: Because while you might reach that island and finally see those gardenias, will it have been worth it in the end if their sweet smell is corrupted by the smoke billowing in from the bridge you burned to get there? On that uplifting note, everybody, I would like to remind you that this is a fire-free zone, okay? Okay? We have a lot of hardwood flooring. If you wanted to contribute to the food drive, Rose would be happy to take your name. Hi, Helen. Tareq: You organize your drawers like a serial killer. Nicky: Yeah, that's the intention. Hi. F*ck. Rose: Reverend Nicholas! Nicky: Yeah. Rose? Oh, we're just letting ourselves in now, huh? We might need to chat about boundaries a little bit, Rose. Rose: The door wasn't locked. Nicky: Well, okay. Rose: Did I hear something, though? Nicky: No, I was just on the phone. Rose: Oh. The sponsorship team can do Friday. Nicky: Okay, great. Well, that could have been an email, but thank you for letting me know, and I'll see you tomorrow, okay? Rose: Okay. Nicky: Bye-bye. We later learn Glenview Community Church has no problem with Nicky being gay. But he’s expected to be “non-practicing,” which makes sense for someone leading a Bible-based church since the Bible clearly forbids homosexuality. Instead of Nicky applying at one of the many Protestant churches that ignore those parts of the Bible and allow “practicing” gay ministers, he figured it was fine to deceive his congregation and disrespect their rules: Netflix drama 'Big Mistakes' thumbs its nose at Christianity and the Bible with closeted gay pastor deceiving his congregation by having secret rendevous with his lover. pic.twitter.com/0JkAxPcVJb — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) June 30, 2026 Tareq; Did I tell you I'm being honored by Out and Loud next month for the work that I do for them? Raising money for queer people so that they can be "out and loud"? Nicky: Mm-hmm. You've mentioned that a few times. Tareq: And yet, I can't surprise my boyfriend at work because according to his church, he can be gay but can't have a boyfriend. Nicky: They expect me to be nonpracticing, yeah. Tareq: I wanna practice with my non-practicing boyfriend, not be in my mid-thirties keeping our relationship a secret from our friends and family. Nicky: You had one job last summer, and that was to fix my roof. And you got greedy, okay? And now look at us. Tareq: I couldn't help myself. I got a thing for The Book of Mormon. Nicky: Do ya? Tareq: Yeah. Nicky: Well, I'm not Mormon, so… Tareq: I know, but you kinda dress like one. Nicky: I told you, as soon as my mom's campaign is done, I'm gonna find a new congregation. And we can, you know…practice outwardly and loudly. Tareq: I believe you, okay? Nicky: For as long as we'd like. Tareq: Okay, I'm gonna book that cruise this year, with or without you. Nicky: And I can't wait to go on that cruise with you. I can't wait to get norovirus together. Tareq: That's the best part! Nicky’s mother Linda (Laurie Metcalf) is running for Mayor, so he wants to delay transitioning to a new church now that he has a boyfriend in order to avoid causing controversy for her. She, however, urges him to have sex, telling him she believes his grandmother was secretly a lesbian and that avoiding intimacy for a long time can harden a person. “I think that you have made some very selfless decisions in your life,” she tells her son, “But if I'm being honest, sometimes I get scared that your closest relationship is with God. And don't take this the wrong way, honey, but God isn't touching your body for pleasure.” Lovely. When Nicky climbs back into bed with his lover one night and stares at a portrait of an angel on his wall, the discussion turns to religion and homosexuality. Nicky says he likes to think the angel is “pretty progressive” and that watching them have sex is the “most fun she’s had in years.” When Tareq asks why, “religion has such a problem with two people who are in love with each other,” Nicky answers, “Because God is perfect, but the people who interpret him are not.” Netflix dramedy 'Big Mistakes' claims millions of Biblical scholars across centuries are wrong on homosexuality. Jokes that an angel in a portrait is "progressive" and watching the pastor have sex with his lover is "the most fun she's had in years." #BigMistakes @netflix pic.twitter.com/cxCt3TnKLx — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) June 30, 2026 Tareq: Where were you? Nicky: Hmm? Tareq: Where were you? Nicky: I had a parishioner in the hospital with double pneumonia. Tareq: Hmm. Who was it? Nicky: Jessica. Uh, Jessica's uncle. Do you… Tareq” I don't know… Nicky: Hmm. You might not have met him. Go back to bed. Tareq: I've really been enjoying staying over here the past few nights. Nicky: Me too. Tareq: You're worried she's been judging us? Nicky: I like to think she's pretty progressive. This is the most fun she's had in years. Tareq: Why is it that religion has such a problem with two people who are in love with each other? Nicky: Because God is perfect, but the people who interpret him are not. Big Mistakes would have us believe Nicky is both a rebel and a reverend and that the only real problem is everyone else’s “imperfect interpretation.” Millions of biblical scholars for centuries have consistently agreed that Scripture clearly prohibits homosexuality, from Leviticus to Romans to the words of Jesus on marriage. Paul even warns in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” Look, we get that everyone is deserving of love and kindness. We all sin. Who someone sleeps with should really be no one else's business but theirs (and not something to Pride Parade about), except when it's in a Christian church leadership capacity. Hollywood needs to lay off the attacks on Christianity and Christians' personal beliefs about the sin (not the sinner) based on God's Word. Nicky’s convenient rationalizations also feel like the same boring, performative shrug Hollywood has been offering for years. Do better, writers.