Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner got a Nazi tattoo in Croatia in 2007 while serving in the Marines – not just a swastika tat either, but a special skull and crossbones “Totenkopf” tattoo, similar to those worn by Hitler’s SS. He had the tattoo covered with new ink in late October 2025 only after it became a controversy during his emerging Maine U.S. Senate campaign. Notably, the offensive tattoo was not removed in a prolonged process of laser removal, but only covered up with another. What do the writers of the New York Times think of Platner’s Totenkopf tattoo? After all, the paper has spent years pushing the left’s most hypersensitive reactions to any signs of fascism, real or mostly imagined, on the part of Republican-identified figures, like Elon Musk’s so-called Nazi salute. Reporter Ryan Mac wrote in January 2025 under the headlines “Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation Over the Meaning of a Hand Gesture -- Speaking at a celebratory rally in Washington, Mr. Musk twice extended his arm out with his palm facing down, drawing comparisons to the Nazi salute”). Certainly the real deal, a deep cut of Nazism emblazoned on the chest of a candidate for U.S. Senate, would inspire true revulsion. Yet the same paper that went into such hysterics over nothings (even the “OK” hand gesture was suspected of links to “white power”) has greeted Platner’s Totenkopf with a shrug, as long as its owner has a chance to damage the Trump Administration by defeating moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins. It’s certainly not a dealbreaker for New York Times writer Frank Bruni, who announced his support for Platner, who appears to have wrapped up the nomination for the June Democratic primary, in order to kick Collins and help deprive Trump of his Senate cushion. Bruni made his blunt argument in his May 4 newsletter “If Democrats Have Appropriate Fear of Trump, They Will Elect Platner.” What Democrats have to fear from Sen. Collins, who actually voted to impeach Trump in 2021, is another matter. To be fair, Bruni wasn’t at the forefront of the Times’ feverish bouts of cancel culture, and has made occasional chiding noises about liberals’ overzealousness in their search for enemies (perhaps like calling everything they don’t like fascist?) But in a January 2025 “written online conversation” he hosted between business writer Bethany McLean and Nate Silver on Musk, Bruni argued that "Musk isn’t just a private citizen anymore; he’s a government official who might end up with an office in the West Wing. Shouldn’t we be talking about his stiff-armed salute — or whatever we’re calling it — at that rally on Monday in that context? What do you think it meant? And whatever was going on there, isn’t it incumbent on Musk in his new role with his new responsibilities to check his speech and spasms in a manner that forbids anyone from seeing a 'Sieg Heil' and flashing back to the Nazis?” Bruni went after Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s Christian tattoo in a recent column on April 13 to bolster his argument that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is a religious Crusader with a capital C based on Hegseth's Jerusalem Cross, “Deus Vult” tattoo: “Hegseth has a tattoo on his right biceps that says ‘Deus vult,’ Latin for ‘God wills it.’ He has described that phrase as a battle cry during the Crusades, which, of course, pitted Christians against Muslims." A December 2024 Times article claimed the Deus Vult motto had been used by white supremacists. (Platner’s literal white supremacist tattoo was not similarly linked). The Times doesn’t care that anti-Semitic leftist luminaries like podcaster Hasan Piker have praised Platner: “He was giving Hamas credit in 2014. What more do you f***ing want?” Indeed. Platner also sat for a podcast interview with antisemitic conspiracy theorist Nate Cornacchia, with Platner saying he was a “longtime fan.” But for the Times, Platner is just a jaunty “populist oysterman.” The paper has referred to Platner as “an oyster farmer and veteran” without even noting the specific Nazi tattoo he got while serving in the Marines.

MS NOW should be known as your channel if you're looking for overwrought racism metaphors. In a stunning segment on Saturday's The Weekend, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) unleashed an unhinged attack on the Supreme Court and its recent Voting Rights Act decision — comparing it to the Taney Court’s infamous 1857 Dred Scott ruling and declaring the Roberts Court “one of the most racist courts in American history.” Here was Morelle to co-host Eugene Daniels: “Jose [sic!], we’re fighting back . . .  Eugene, the Supreme Court, which by the way made the worst decision since the Taney Court came up with Dred Scott. I mean, this is the Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the most racist courts in American history, and it is disgraceful.” No MS NOW host was going to fact-check that nasty cartoon.  Morelle also ripped the Virginia Supreme Court for supposedly “completely reject[ing] the will of the Virginia voters” when it struck down the Democrat-led mid-decade redistricting referendum. (The "Yes" vote was 51.7 percent.)  But it wasn’t the court that disregarded the will of the voters — it was the Democrat-run legislature that disregarded the Virginia Constitution and its clear rules for adopting amendments. Morelle also falsely claimed that Louisiana’s governor paused primaries “despite votes having already been cast.” In fact, early voting in Louisiana had not begun when the governor suspended the congressional primaries to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In stark contrast, when Virginia Democrats pushed their mid-decade redistricting referendum in April, over 1.37 million early votes had already been cast. WATCH: Dem congressman on MS NOW calls John Roberts' Supreme Court among "most racist in history." pic.twitter.com/wcPyfkhZ9E — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) May 9, 2026 After Morelle has covered the whole pasture with manure, host Eugene Daniels could only helpfully asking Morelle how Democrats can amend New York’s constitution so they can do the exact same mid-decade gerrymandering they’re denouncing elsewhere. Sadly, Eugene missed that New York's governor already accomplished mid-decade gerryamandering in 2024. Morelle admitted that Democrats are actively working to rewrite New York’s constitution — the very thing they scream is illegitimate when Republicans do it. Daniels didn’t challenge any of the inflammatory rhetoric. He simply asked for a roadmap on how best to rig the maps in New York. This is peak Democratic-media hypocrisy: Compare courts enforcing constitutional rules to Dred Scott, cry about “the will of the voters” while ignoring that your own side pushed a referendum after more than a million votes were already in the books, and then openly plot to bypass your own state constitution. Equating the Supreme Court’s recent Voting Rights Act decision with the infamous Dred Scott ruling has apparently become a mandatory Democrat talking point. We’ve documented other Dems, as here and here, making that grotesque comparison in recent days. And sure enough, Morelle checked the box on MS NOW today. Note: Morelle also called co-host Eugene Daniels “Jose” before getting it right later. Whoops! Did a producer whisper in his ear? If a Republican had made such a gaffe? Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 5/9/26 7:25 am EDT EUGENE DANIELS: Congressman, you talked about changing the rules and changing the game. Republicans have also done that when it comes to mid-decade redistricting. It all started when President Trump told Texas lawmakers to find him five seats. They did that and set off this entire back and forth. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-backed redistricting plan that is both a blow to Democrats and kind of the process that we are operating within. When you, as someone who is in New York — it’s reported that you were involved in kind of pushing the redistricting effort there — when you’re looking at how Democrats and Republicans have been operating, that Republicans have been doing this over and over again. Even just this week you had Louisiana pause its primaries so that they could change the game and change the seats, as you said. When you look at that, what should Democrats be doing next, especially in New York? JOE MORELLE: Jose [sic!], we’re fighting back. We’re a little limited in New York because we cannot do mid-decade redistricting under our state constitution.  So I was asked by Leader Jeffries to go to Albany and meet with legislators and the governor earlier this week, which I did. I’m a former state legislator, and I have a lot of relationships.  So I urged them to begin the process, which is a two-year process, to change the state constitution because we have to fight back. I mean, what’s happened, and is astonishing, Eugene [did a producer whisper in his ear to correct the "Jose" gaffe?], you just mentioned it. In California and Virginia, Democrats changed district lines by asking the public whether they wanted that to happen, through referenda, which passed. And of course, in Virginia, apparently the courts in Virginia think it’s too late to change lines, so they’re willing to completely reject the will of the Virginia voters. But in southern states, in the past week, state legislatures by fiat have changed district lines that will likely lead to the elimination of black representation throughout the South, and they just did it. Doesn’t matter to them. And to your point, Louisiana’s already in the middle of their voting — they’ve already had the primary, they’re in the runoff stage — and the governor unilaterally said, no, we’re gonna follow the Supreme Court. Which, by the way, made the worst decision since the Taney Court came up with Dred Scott. And this is, the Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the most racist courts in American history, and it is disgraceful.  That [the VRA decision] is being respected, but the will of voters in Virginia and in California are being challenged by Republicans. It’s really unbelievable. So New York and other states are gonna have to fight back, ’cause there’s no alternative at this point. DANIELS: Congressman, really quickly, we’re out of time, but you mentioned that New York has to change its constitution. There are two ways to amend the constitution in New York to allow for something like this. Do you think that you guys should amend the constitution to allow for mid-decade redistricting in New York? MORELLE: Yes. There’s really one way. You have to pass a provision in two different legislatures. There needs to be an intervening election, which is why we can’t do it this year. We would need to wait for final passage and then a referendum by the people in 2027. So I think by the 2028 election, I think you’ll see new lines in New York.

Former DNC chairwoman and current ABC contributor Donna Brazile joined outgoing GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw and HBO’s Real Time host Bill Maher to show an amazing display of hypocrisy. In the span of only a couple of minutes, the short-tempered Brazile would claim that Republican redistricting efforts are “immoral,” but that Democratic efforts are what “voters decided.” Brazile also sought to add race into the conversation, “I come from one of those states that all of a sudden, the Supreme Court said, 'Well, we don't like partisan gerrymandering. No, we don't like racial gerrymandering.' So, one out of three voters in Louisiana is a black voter. One out of three. And they are now thinking of eradicating. So, that says people from some parts of Louisiana can represent New Orleans better than the folks who are representing—or Baton Rouge. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is unjustified.” Addressing Maher and Crenshaw, she continued, “Bill, let me just say this, and I saw what the congressman tweeted today after Tim Kaine—but here’s it—I’m old enough—”   Former DNC Chair/ABC contributor Donna Brazile thinks Louisiana redisctring after the SCOTUS's VRA ruling is "is immoral and it is unjustified," but when SCOVA threw out Virginia's referendum, "The voters decided, as you well know, in California, the voters decided in Virginia."… pic.twitter.com/xI85tvFjWz — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 9, 2026   After Maher sought to understand what Crenshaw had tweeted and some table crosstalk, Brazile changed her position on gerrymandering, “He's saying the constitution is—they made it based on the constitution. They made it based on—they said the voters were already voting when the state put this law into place. So, that the voters can decide. The voters decided, as you well know, in California, the voters decided in Virginia. Politicians should not choose their voters, but I have one more—” Maher interrupted, “Well, they have done it forever. We’ve—” An insulted Brazile snapped back, “Don't I know that, Bill?” Following some more crosstalk, Brazile went back to her first position, “When did my family get the right to vote, Bill? 1965. 61 years ago. So my daddy served in war and could not vote for that. My grandparents—my grandmother was 77 when she got the right to vote. Her husband—so we understand—” Maher interrupted again to rebuke Brazile’s tone, “Yeah, I'm on your side. Don't yell at me.” Brazile scoffed, “Oh, you’re on my side?” After Maher answered “Yeah, of course,” Brazile quipped, “I didn't know.” Eventually, Brazile allowed Crenshaw to say his piece, “If you are on the side of the Constitution, you're on the side of democracy. So, Congressman, I will let you describe why you went into Tim Kaine's ass today. He tried to put his entire side into another man's ass.” After objecting to Brazille’s phrasing, Crenshaw recalled his comments about Kaine, “He was making a case that the Supreme Court doesn’t know what it's talking about and that they’re misreading. I pointed out that he should—I know reading is time-consuming, but you might read the actual case that the Supreme Court wrote. It is very well written, it’s very logically written, it’s pretty irrefutable, and it was a 10-1 vote.”   The SCOVA ruling was 4-3. The map was 10-1, which is interesting given Brazile’s earlier laments about New Orleans and Baton Rouge being represented by someone outside the cities because it got that way by splitting dark blue Fairfax County into five districts, which means people far away from the Beltway would have been represented by a Beltway liberal. Crenshaw added, “They're making the case that, simply, the constitutional amendment was, in itself, unconstitutional because of the process they followed. That is what the Supreme Court argued. It was not about the ability to politically gerrymander.” That is correct. It is also worth noting that Brazile and Kaine’s objection that the decision was made after the vote is also gravely dishonest considering Virginia Democrats originally demanded the court follow precedent and wait until after the vote to make its ruling. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 5/8/2026 10:20 PM ET DONNA BRAZILE: I come from one of those states that all of a sudden, the Supreme Court said, “Well, we don't like partisan gerrymandering. No, we don't like racial gerrymandering.” So, one out of three voters in Louisiana is a black voter. One out of three. And they are now thinking of eradicating. So, that says people from some parts of Louisiana can represent New Orleans better than the folks who are representing—or Baton Rouge. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is unjustified. Bill, let me just say this, and I saw what the congressman tweeted today after Tim Kaine—but here’s it—I’m old enough— BILL MAHER: What did he tweet? I don't know. BRAZILE: Well, he’s going to have a— DAN CRENSHAW: Tim Kaine—Tim Kaine is wrong. [Crosstalk] BRAZILE: He's saying the constitution is—they made it based on the constitution. They made it based on—they said the voters were already voting when the state put this law into place. So, that the voters can decide. The voters decided, as you well know, in California, the voters decided in Virginia. Politicians should not choose their voters, but I have one more— MAHER: Well, they have done it forever. We’ve— BRAZILE: Don't I know that, Bill? The Constitution. 1787. [Crosstalk] 1787. The Constitution. When did my family get the right to vote, Bill? 1965. 61 years ago. So my daddy served in war and could not vote for that. My grandparents—my grandmother was 77 when she got the right to vote. Her husband—so we understand— MAHER: Yeah, I'm on your side. Don't yell at me. BRAZILE: Oh, you’re on my side? MAHER: Yeah, of course. BRAZILE: I didn't know. MAHER: You didn’t know? BRAZILE: If you are on the side of the Constitution, you're on the side of democracy. So, Congressman, I will let you describe why you went into Tim Kaine's ass today. He tried to put his entire side into another man's ass. CRENSHAW: Phrasing! You know, phrasing. You know, alright, he is the last ass I would go into. BRAZILE: Okay. CRENSHAW: But Kaine—he was making a case that the Supreme Court doesn’t know what it's talking about and that they’re misreading. I pointed out that he should—I know reading is time-consuming, but you might read the actual case that the Supreme Court wrote. It is very well written, it’s very logically written, it’s pretty irrefutable, and it was a 10-1 vote. BRAZILE: 4-3 in Virginia. CRENSHAW: They're making the case that, simply, the constitutional amendment was, in itself, unconstitutional because of the process they followed. That is what the Supreme Court argued. It was not about the ability to politically gerrymander.

The aliens have arrived. Look no further than The New York Post.  Here are the front page headlines from the Friday edition:                  OUT OF THIS WORLD  Pentagon releases dozens of UFO files offering transparency on ‘alien and extraterrestrial life’   The War Department released more than 160 files Friday related to sightings of UFOs dating back nearly 80 years ago This being the era of quickly updated electronic front pages, as the day progressed there was a new Post headliner:                      TRUTH IS OUT THERE Mysterious footage captures peculiar ‘eight-pointed star’ streaking across sky: UFO files   Mysterious footage released in the Pentagon’s UFO files on Friday appeared to capture a bizarre “eight-pointed star” streaking across the sky several years back. Alrighty! Got it! Newsmax, (full disclosure I am a Newsmax contributor) was also on its game, headlining:  Pentagon: Draw Your Own Conclusions on UFO Files So too, after looking a bit, it does seem that CNN has something on this. The CNN headline…which is a bit down in the weeds…reads:  Pentagon releases initial batch of declassified detailing UFOs       Fox, however, was on it, headlining:  Declassified Apollo moon docs describe unexplained mysteries, UFO lights 'like the Fourth of July'    The Washington Post had the story well down in its computerized version. As almost an aside, saying that President Trump wanted the files released for Americans to judge for themselves. So too did The New York Times write it up.  The obvious media question then is….where is the media waving any kind of red flag on this? Is it eye-rolling disbelief? Simple elitist skepticism that really this story is all about a Steven Spielberg extra-reel from that old ET movie? One suspects that the latter is the answer for the nonchalant way that media outside of The New York Post is dealing with this story. This is, presumably, how the thought goes in those sophisticated media bureaus when dealing with the UFO topic.  Suffice to say, there is no inside information available in this corner of the world. I haven’t heard from ET. But I do recall a long ago 1950’s era movie that I eventually caught up with as a kid that is titled The Day the Earth Stood Still. The plot: A flying saucer lands on the Mall in Washington D.C.. With, but of course, all you-know-what breaking loose as the President has it surrounded by soldiers and tanks.  But I do think that when there are enough U.S. space craft/computers/electronics zipping through space and sending back photos of “unexplained mysteries” and “UFO lights” that at a minimum should be arousing simple media curiosity in some sort of persistent fashion with more attention to be paid.  In short? Stay tuned. And if there really is a visit from space landing on the Washington Mall it may be better than a movie!  And The New York Post will be watching. Cue The Twilight Zone music.

After the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state’s 10-1 Democratic gerrymander on Friday, ABC Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl joined World News Tonight to omit why the court ruled the way it did. By contrast, CBS Evening News host Tony Dokoupil referenced the ruling that held state Democrats violated the rules in how the map was drawn and put to voters, but then national and White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe joined Karl in trying to tie Virginia’s ruling to Southern states’ redistricting after the Supreme Court’s VRA ruling. Karl began his report by teeing up a clip of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, “Today, a big blow to Democrats. With the midterms fast approaching, Virginia's Supreme Court struck down a new congressional map that would have created four House seats that Democrats likely would have won. Virginia voters approved the new map last month.”   ABC's Jonathan Karl reacted to SCOVA's redistricting ruling by portraying it as a GOP win vs. MAGA rigging, "President Trump called the decision a 'huge win for the Republican Party and America.' California Governor Gavin Newsom fumed that Republicans were overturning the will of… pic.twitter.com/35abirZGtZ — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 9, 2026   After a video of Jeffries declaring the result to be "a big victory for America and a big victory for democracy,” Karl continued, “But today, the court ruled that the Virginia legislature violated the state's constitution when it put the map on the ballot and struck it down. President Trump called the decision a "huge win for the Republican Party and America.’” By contrast, “California Governor Gavin Newsom fumed that Republicans were overturning the will of the voters, saying that's been their playbook in other states, too, writing, quote, ‘MAGA has rigged the system.’ This comes as both parties battle for advantage, an unprecedented race to redraw congressional lines before November's elections.  Accusations of rigging an election are extremely serious, but Karl just let Newsom’s statement stand without any rebuttal. How many timeas ABC said Trump did something “without evidence”? Instead, Karl moved on, and talking over B-roll footage of Louisiana mobs shouting, “Shut it down!” in the capitol hallways, continued, “Republican lawmakers are now racing to redraw districts in the Deep South. This was the scene today in Louisiana.” Also talking over footage of hooliganism in Tennessee, Karl added, “Republican effort there comes after the Supreme Court rolled back a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that led to majority black districts across the South.” Karl concluded by observing, “All this sets the stage for an all-out battle for control of Congress in November. Democrats are still considered the favorites to win back control of the House, but that effort just got a little harder. Meanwhile, Virginia Democrats say they will appeal today's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.” After Dokoupil’s introduction, which included a brief description of SCOVA’s reasoning, O’Keefe wrapped up his week of redistricting reporting by simply noting that the Virginia referendum “saw more than $80 million spent, 3 million votes cast, and would have given Democrats up to four more House seats after November's elections is now nullified, but late today, Virginia Democrats said they plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”   Meanwhile, CBS's Ed O'Keefe also seeks to conflate Virginia with GOP Southern states, "The Virginia decision comes as protests broke out in Louisiana today as legislators debated a new map that drops one of the state's two majority black districts. And it comes a day after chaos… pic.twitter.com/VBi4GwbEJF — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 9, 2026   Moving south, O’Keefe wrapped up, “The Virginia decision comes as protests broke out in Louisiana today as legislators debated a new map that drops one of the state's two majority black districts. And it comes a day after chaos erupted in Tennessee as Republicans voted to eliminate the state's only Democratic house seat. Tonight in Alabama the Republican governor signed a bill changing that state's map, but only if the Supreme Court grants permission. Republicans, as you said, now have the edge, Tony, in redrawn states but ultimately voters are going to decide who wins after November.” Virginia’s redistricting was a straight-up power play that got blocked. By contrast, for years, Democrats have grown accustomed to having legally guaranteed seats in the South because of the premise that racism is still as bad today as it was in 1965. When the Supreme Court said that is obviously not true, it opened the door for Southern states to draw their maps just like every other state has for decades. Here are transcripts for the May 8 shows: ABC World News Tonight 5/8/2026 6:41 PM ET JONATHAN KARL: Today, a big blow to Democrats. With the midterms fast approaching, Virginia's Supreme Court struck down a new congressional map that would have created four House seats that Democrats likely would have won. Virginia voters approved the new map last month. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: A big victory for America and a big victory for democracy. KARL: But today, the court ruled that the Virginia legislature violated the state's constitution when it put the map on the ballot and struck it down. President Trump called the decision a “huge win for the Republican Party and America.” California Governor Gavin Newsom fumed that Republicans were overturning the will of the voters, saying that's been their playbook in other states, too, writing, quote, “MAGA has rigged the system.” This comes as both parties battle for advantage, an unprecedented race to redraw congressional lines before November's elections.  CROWD: Shut it down! KARL: Republican lawmakers are now racing to redraw districts in the Deep South. This was the scene today in Louisiana. CROWD: Shut it down! KARL: Republican effort there comes after the Supreme Court rolled back a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that led to majority black districts across the South. All this sets the stage for an all-out battle for control of Congress in November. Democrats are still considered the favorites to win back control of the House, but that effort just got a little harder. Meanwhile, Virginia Democrats say they will appeal today's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. David. *** CBS Evening News 5/8/2026 6:40 PM ET ED O’KEEFE: Tony, a referendum that saw more than $80 million spent, 3 million votes cast, and would have given Democrats up to four more House seats after November's elections is now nullified, but late today, Virginia Democrats said they plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Virginia decision comes as protests broke out in Louisiana today as legislators debated a new map that drops one of the state's two majority black districts. And it comes a day after chaos erupted in Tennessee as Republicans voted to eliminate the state's only Democratic house seat. Tonight in Alabama the Republican governor signed a bill changing that state's map, but only if the Supreme Court grants permission. Republicans, as you said, now have the edge, Tony, in redrawn states but ultimately voters are going to decide who wins after November.