What would you say to a Congressman who has recently introduced a bill calling for the abolition of ICE, who has called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, was one of 158 Democrats who voted against the "Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act", refused to stand and acknowledge the memory of Laken Riley and Jocelyn Nungaray during President Trump's speech to a joint session of Congress, and admits that he has never called the family of a victim murdered by an illegal alien in his home state? Well, Sean Hannity had plenty to say to him. On last Friday night's edition of Hannity on Fox News, the host welcomed  Michigan Democrat Congressman Shri Thanedar and he did not hold back. He began the segment with a 2 and a half minute monologue, where he went over the above laundry list of issues, and added Thanedar's support for illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Hannity then went right after him. HANNITY: ..Just to be clear, the President's Joint Session speech when he honored the family of Laken Riley, murdered 24-year-old nursing student, murdered by an unvented illegal immigrant and honored little Jocelyn Nungaray's family, brutally raped and murdered, a 12-year-old girl, did you stand, ..did you give honor to that family that lost so much? THANEDAR: Look, Sean thanks for having me.. HANNITY: ..Did you stand or not?.. THANEDAR: I did not stand because the President.. HANNITY: You sat on your ass. ..I want to be clear. You sat on your ass and you wouldn't stand for families.. that lost children, a 12-year-old girl raped and murdered, and you couldn't stand for them because you were playing politics, is that right? I want this audience to know. THANEDAR: ..I would not stand for this President... HANNITY: You weren't standing for him, you are standing for the families that lost little girls that were murdered by the illegal immigrants that you want to remain in the country. Is that true or false? THANEDAR: ..Look, this President was using a tragedy -- HANNITY: ...What about those families....Have you ever picked up a phone? Because there are thousands of Americans that have been murdered and raped and victims of violent crime. Have you ever spoken to any? Have you ever called them to offer your condolences? Name one family.... THANEDAR: Look, every immigrant, everyone must follow American laws. Hannity kept trying. HANNITY: Have you ever picked up the phone and called a victim's family? THANEDAR: Look, I, I have talked to my constituents all the time.. HANNITY: Not a hard question... Have you ever picked up your phone and called them? Have you done that one time? THANEDAR: Look, I talk with my constituents all the time. My constituents have been terrorized by ICE... HANNITY: Have you ever called an American family that has been a victim, murdered, raped, tortured by an illegal immigrant? Yes or no Congressman... THANEDAR: I am sure I have met people.. HANNITY: I am sure I have met people, I'll take that as a no. If this was a boxing match, the refs would have stopped it, but Hannity then turned his attention to the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis.  HANNITY:.. That ICE agent was injured, did you know that? Do you know what the injuries were?.. THANEDAR: ..The only source of that information is DHS. And DHS Secretary lies. She lied to me on my face... HANNITY: ..You're saying the internal bleeding reports are lies? .. THANEDAR: I have seen no evidence of that. It is only coming from DHS... HANNITY: ..You're a lawmaker, do you believe in the rule of law and that a person is innocent until they're proven guilty..? THANEDAR: Absolutely... HANNITY: Then why did you call this ICE agent .. a murderer?.. THANEDAR: Look, lots of people saw that video. America saw that video... HANNITY:  ..If you believe in due process, why did you say he is a murderer? THANEDAR: Her last words were, 'I have nothing against you dude'. She said it in  a very civil matter. This person pulled out ... HANNITY: And then accelerated right at the officer, clear as day. Can't miss it. Then Hannity delivered the knockout punch. HANNITY: .. It is people like you that don't care about the American people. And then you attack the brave men and women. I was scrolling all of the victims of crime and you never lifted a phone to call one victim, one family. You call ICE Agents murderers and they are out there, they're putting their lives on the line...And now the threat level against them is up a whopping 8000% and I blame people like you for that. You insight them, with your incendiary comments, I find it nauseating. And you should be ashamed of yourself. THANEDAR: Well look, ICE is murdering people, murdering American citizens. They murdered a U.S. Citizen, a mom with three children. That's not acceptable. HANNITY: I see  a very different case than you. I saw a guy whose life was in jeopardy and he defended himself, that's the difference between us.  Good for Sean Hannity. This wasn't a TKO, this was a good old fashioned knockout, that exposed everything wrong with the left on these very crucial issues. 

The New York Times and its City Hall reporter Jeffery C. Mays attacked new Mayor Zohran Mamdani for not putting enough "affirmative action" in his new administration. Blacks make up about 23 percent of the population of New York City, so they expect him to be quota-conscious. The headline for this lecture:  None of Mamdani’s Deputy Mayors Are Black. It Has Become a Problem. Some Black and Latino leaders worry they are being denied access to power under Mayor Zohran Mamdani and that they may lose the ground they had gained under former Mayor Eric Adams. Mays lamented that "in his rollout as mayor, Mr. Mamdani has appointed five deputy mayors, none of them Black; one was Latino." Oh sure, Mamdani "announced Afua Atta-Mensah, who led his campaign outreach to Black voters, as the new chief equity officer and commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Equity and Racial Justice" and "reaffirmed his commitment to releasing a long overdue and mandated plan to address racial disparities in New York City." But as a man of color, he's not doing enough for the capital-B black people:  The moves were welcomed by Black and Latino leaders, but they still questioned Mr. Mamdani’s commitment to racial equity. Tyquana Henderson-Rivers, a well-known Black political consultant, said in an interview that she believed it was “damaging that there’s no Black deputy mayor.” “He already doesn’t have the best relationship with the Black community,” she said. “And it seems like he’s not interested in us because there’s no representation in his kitchen cabinet.” Mays pointed out that Mamdani’s Democrat predecessors Eric Adams and Bill DeBlasio did better, and then more complaints: “For someone who prides himself on being directly engaged with everyday New Yorkers, to be so tone deaf to the cries of Black and Latinos in the city for access to power is shocking,” said Kirsten John Foy, the president of the civil rights group Arc of Justice. “There are some very good people of color that have been appointed to some high-level positions, but those people are not at the center of the decision-making apparatus in this city.” Dora Pekec, a spokeswoman for the new mayor, said there's been diversity. "Out of 32 appointees so far, 18 have been Asian American, Latino, Middle Eastern or Black, she said." Apparently, only blacks are the real "people of color" who uniquely define "diversity." The best part is how the black leftists don't like Mamdani's radical network, "as if race doesn't matter." “It is acting out what Black people don’t like about the D.S.A.,” Ms. Henderson-Rivers said of the Democratic Socialists of America, of which Mr. Mamdani is a member. “And that’s acting as if race doesn’t matter.” Kyle Bragg, the former head of the powerful union Local 32BJ, wrote on Facebook that the Mamdani administration was the first in decades to not appoint a Black deputy mayor. He also attributed the lack of diversity to the “D.S.A.-aligned politics” of the left, where issues of class are given more weight than race. Mays brought in leaders of both the NAACP and the National Urban League to pile on Mamdani's inadequacies. Suddenly, Mayor Eric Adams doesn't look quite so bad to these fervent bean-counters. 

2028 Democrat presidential candidates should learn a lesson from California Governor Gavin Newsom. Anything less than denouncing ICE as a terrorist organization will quickly disqualify from any hope of winning the nomination from their increasingly deranged party base. Newsom made the intolerable error of backing down from his own press office's description of ICE as "state-sponsored terrorism" while speaking to Ben Shapiro on his podcast.  The New York Post's Brad Appleton described the scene on Thursday which incurred the wrath of the left in "Gavin Newsom backtracks on outrageous ICE claims made by his own team." Gavin Newsom appeared to backtrack on inflammatory rhetoric from his own press team during a tense interview with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro on Thursday. The California governor was grilled by Shapiro on his own podcast, “This Is Gavin Newsom,” in an exchange in which the two clashed over immigration enforcement, political rhetoric and gender identity. One of the biggest flashpoints came when the rumored presidential hopeful was confronted by Shapiro about the language his own office used about the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, which they called an act of “state-sponsored terrorism.” The incident has sparked national controversy and led to furious debate about law enforcement tactics and rhetoric surrounding federal immigration authorities. “Your press office tweeted out that it was state-sponsored terrorism,” Shapiro said, before pushing back on the characterization of federal agents. “Our ICE officers obviously are not terrorists,” Shapiro added. “Yeah, I think that’s fair,” Newsom agreed. The governor also said he “disagreed” that ICE should be abolished. The moment quickly went viral, with critics seizing on the exchange as evidence that the governor was at odds with messaging coming from his own communications team. Yes, the moment sure did go viral with such a fury that just from reading many of the comments on Bluesky, including from leftist journalists, it appears that Newsom's 2028 nomination is in dire jeopardy. One such journalist was Marisa Kabas, whose leftwing credentials includes writing stories for MSNBC, the Huffington Post, The New Republic, and Rolling Stone. She left no doubt on where she now stands on Gavin Newsom as a result of his (for now) backtrack:   Nathan Grayson, who was once a Washington Post columnist, tells us how he REALLY feels about Gavin Newsom:   Finally, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie joins in with the Newsom attacks by weirdly attacking Ben Shapiro's manhood: These are but a few of the plethora of Bluesky slams at Newsom for daring to deviate (for now) from the leftist script. Check out that site for yourself if you want to get an idea of the political conundrum Newsom has put himself into by attempting to sound reasonable. Exit Question: How long before Gavin the Chameleon backtracks on his backtrack?

MS NOW’s Ali Velshi’s weekend show is the place to go if you desire to hurl a Nazi analogy at the Trump administration. This Saturday, Godwin’s Law was fulfilled by progressive radio host Thom Hartmann, who compared the administration’s Minneapolis response to Hitler doing away with state autonomy in 1934. Velshi began by quoting Hartmann’s recent Substack article, “You said, could this be what the end of a would-be dictatorship looks like? In which you say, ‘They're doubling down,’ meaning the government, ‘because they know their time is limited, their attempt to turn America into a Russia-like police state is suddenly failing, and a reckoning is coming. Trump and his lickspittles look at the horizon and see mushroom clouds rising against a red sky, suggesting their season of power and brutality is about to turn on them.’”     He then added, “And I would say, Thom, that half the time I feel that that's right. Half the time I feel like they've overstepped, and the American people are ready to say, 'we've got the power to change this.'” Hartmann began his response by essentially repeating the essence of the quote Velshi read, “On the one hand you've got Trump about to lose some considerable power. Mark Pocan pointed this out on my program last week, Congressman Mark Pocan, that there are numerous Republicans who, once their primaries are done, which is, you know, kind of the April through July season, that will probably turn on Trump, at least according to what they're saying to him. But they're terrified of losing their primaries. So, he's got this maybe six-month window.” Then came the Hitler comparison, “On the other hand, if he can lock down state and local authority and just impose federal authority on Minneapolis, for example, he can do it anywhere. One year in from the time he was made chancellor of Germany in January of 1933, on January 30th, 1934, Hitler passed a law that basically stripped all the state governors who had been rebelling against what he was doing, very much like Minnesota is, stripped them of their authority and basically federalized the entire country. So what Trump is talking about is blowing up this essential federalism that the Founders created, where, you know, where the states have a relatively large amount of autonomy, 10th Amendment, and all that.” It is always a bit amusing whenever progressives discover the 10th Amendment, but in this case, it does not apply. Minnesota is still in charge of its own affairs, but immigration enforcement has always been a federal prerogative. Here is a transcript for the January 17 show: MS NOW Velshi 1/17/2026 10:06 AM ET ALI VELSHI: You said, could this be what the end of a would-be dictatorship looks like? In which you say, “They're doubling down,” meaning the government, “because they know their time is limited, their attempt to turn America into a Russia-like police state is suddenly failing, and a reckoning is coming. Trump and his lickspittles look at the horizon and see mushroom clouds rising against a red sky, suggesting their season of power and brutality is about to turn on them.” And I would say, Thom, that half the time I feel that that's right. Half the time I feel like they've overstepped, and the American people are ready to say, “We've got the power to change this.” THOM HARTMANN: I think you're absolutely right, Ali. It's great to see you, by the way. Thank you. VELSHI: Thank you, sir. HARTMANN: Thank you again. On the one hand you've got Trump about to lose some considerable power. Mark Pocan pointed this out on my program last week, Congressman Mark Pocan, that there are numerous Republicans who, once their primaries are done, which is, you know, kind of the April through July season, that will probably turn on Trump, at least according to what they're saying to him. But they're terrified of losing their primaries. So, he's got this maybe six-month window. And, you know, on the one hand. On the other hand, if he can lock down state and local authority and just impose federal authority on Minneapolis, for example, he can do it anywhere. One year in from the time he was made chancellor of Germany in January of 1933, on January 30th, 1934, Hitler passed a law that basically stripped all the state governors who had been rebelling against what he was doing, very much like Minnesota is, stripped them of their authority and basically federalized the entire country. So what Trump is talking about is blowing up this essential federalism that the Founders created, where, you know, where the states have a relatively large amount of autonomy, 10th amendment, and all that.

Her name was May Craig.  And she was, without doubt, a journalist’s journalist. Over the course of her reporting career Ms. Craig had covered both World War II and the Korean War. Then she moved on to American politics. All of that and she was unknown to the larger American public outside Washington until the Kennedy era and the advent of televised press conferences with the President and the then-White House press corps. Before the arrival of the telegenic young President John F. Kennedy, presidential press conferences were conducted in Oval Office scrums with no television. In fact, television itself didn’t exist en masse until after FDR had come and gone from the White House. And while his successors -- Truman and Eisenhower -- held press conferences, they were decidedly not held on live television. The concern in the day was that it was too risky for an American President to be taking questions on live television. It was the dawn of the terrifying nuclear age, and the belief was that if the President misspoke, the consequences could be horrific. But JFK felt that times had changed. The 1960’s were now here, and so was live television. So he made a point of changing the rules and for the first time Americans could witness a President being grilled by the press with no filter or editing coming between the President and his audience. JFK would motorcade over to an auditorium in the State Department, where he relished what quickly became a regular national TV show.  (The White House press room of today came about only in the Nixon era, when President Nixon ordered the famous White House swimming pool of FDR drained and covered over to accommodate the press. No small thing was that this removed the press from their previous hangout in the West Wing lobby where they could observe those who came and went to see the President. Nixon would have none of that, and government contractors were put to work building a floor in the drained pool, and the press room of today was born.) The participating press of the Kennedy era was highly aware that live television didn’t just cover the President -- it televised them as well. Thus they were extremely well-behaved. Not only were the American people watching them. So were their bosses. They quickly became a hot new television show. Which is where May Craig came in. She was edging towards her elderly years, but was never hesitant to ask her questions. Famously, on one occasion she stood up and politely accused the President’s administration of practicing “managed news,” asking why JFK felt the need to practice it. The President asked Craig what she felt she and the White House press corps should be getting from his administration, to which she replied: “I thought we should get everything we want.” The President smiled, nodded his head, and to the laughter of the press said “I think you should too, Miss Craig. I’m for that.” I actually remembered this episode from watching it live myself, geeky kid that I was. Amazingly that moment is now preserved on YouTube. But the point here? Contrast May Craig’s respectful, polite question to JFK with this report on a recent White House press conference held by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The headline:  Trump’s press secretary goes nuclear on journalist over ICE question: ‘You’re a left-wing hack’ The story in NJ.com reports:  White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s Thursday briefing went off the rails as she clashed with a reporter who criticized the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who killed Renee Good. The exchange began with The Hill’s White House columnist Niall Stanage questioning ICE’s tactics after an agent shot and killed Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. That prompted Leavitt to pose her own question to the White House columnist: 'Why was Renee Good unfortunately and tragically killed?' 'Because an ICE agent acted recklessly and killed her unjustifiably,' Stanage said. His response elicited a furious reaction from Leavitt. 'Oh, OK. So you’re a biased reporter with a left-wing opinion. You’re a left-wing hack,' Leavitt said. 'You’re not a reporter, you’re posing in this room as a journalist and it’s so clear by the premise of your question.' Suffice to say, the gulf between May Craig’s respectful back and forth with JFK and the belligerent, decidedly politicized attack on Press Secretary Leavitt from that The Hill reporter is oceanic. Craig was respectful and neutral in tone and substance. Stanage was seriously partisan, not to mention outright rude. Which goes to a much larger point. Too many people covering the Trump White House, whether in the White House or spread across the media around the country, are not about journalism. They are about left-wing, anti-Trump activism -- exactly as Leavitt said. Just one of the problems with this is that down the road, when Trump is long gone from the White House and a Democrat holds the Oval Office, the ground has been laid for right-wing activists to also masquerade as journalists covering the Democrat President and his/her administration. Which is to say, the old wisdom applies: “Be careful what you wish for.” And if and when the day arrives that the White House press room is filled with conservative activists masquerading as journalists, you will know where they got the idea.