Tune into the left wing media on almost any given day and chances are that you'll get to see the bashing of ICE and their agents, whether from hosts or from guests, who are often encouraged by the host to go full steam ahead, usually by failing to challenge any accusation made against ICE. That was the case on Saturday's edition of Politics Nation on MS NOW, but there was also an added irony to what took place, involving the Epstein Files. Host Al Sharpton -- who seems to very rarely ask a follow-up question that isn't scripted -- started his interview with Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-California), who is also a gubernatorial candidate in the state, by asking him about the current partial government shutdown, which of course centers around the funding of ICE, and it was exactly what you might expect. SWALWELL: No one wants to pay for another public execution. ICE is running around our communities, Rev. They think they're invincible. The bodies are piling up. No single person has been fired after executing a nurse named  (Alex) Pretti and a mom named (Renee) Good. No one's even been reprimanded. There's been no slap on the wrist, not even like a thumbs down on their socials. Maybe an ICE agent who was involved could lose their paycheck just for the day that this occurred. That hasn't happened... Of course Sharpton did not pursue the "bodies are piling up" claim, or anything else. Sharpton knows something about making wildly false allegations! And both men predictably left out that there is a civil rights investigation under way in the Pretti shooting, and two ICE agents were placed on leave last Friday, for possibly lying about the shooting of a Venezuelan national in Minneapolis in January. Nobody would expect Rev. Sharpton to ask Swalwell about the old story of star high-school quarterback Jamiel Shaw, a black man killed in California in 2008 by an illegal immigrant and gang member. Some bodies are more worth mentioning than others.  Sharpton then played an exchange between Swalwell and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons during hearing earlier in the week, but asked no question about it. Instead he asked if Swalwell has confidence in Lyons, or "Is It ICE that needs to be purged." Guess which one he chose?  SWALWELL: ICE needs to go. And Rev, we just had the Super Bowl in the Bay Area. And again, as fans came together to celebrate to support local businesses, these guys were trying to intimidate, you know, our black and brown community. And they have told us they target people based on the color of their skin and the accents that they speak. And so until the roving patrols are gone, until the body cameras are worn, until the masks come off and the identification comes out and the qualified immunity is taken away, I'm not going to vote to pay for it...  Again, pertinent information ignored. In September of 2025, a 6-3 decision from The U.S. Supreme Court allowed ICE to continue their raids in Los Angeles, with Justice Kavanaugh adding, "apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a relevant factor." Next Sharpton turned to last  week's House Judiciary Committee hearing, which included heated back and forth between Attorney General Pam Bondi and Democrats on the committee, which included questions on the Epstein Files, and asked Swalwell about the testimony. SWALWELL: You don't have to be a dad of a little girl to want to protect the little girls who were sexually abused by Donald Trump's friends. And I am a dad of a little girl, and so I'm going to continue to seek justice on this. And I watched those women victim survivors behind the Attorney General, and all they wanted to do was have somebody from the Department Of Justice talk to them, for somebody from the Department of Justice to show they care... So, a journalist might have asked Swalwell if, as the father of a little girl, someone who wants to protect little girls from sexual abuse, does that only apply to his unproven accusations against Donald Trump's friends? What about the thousands of illegal aliens and gang members taken off the street by ICE all over the country, including child rapists and sex offenders. The irony is so stark, it should have been gnawing at Sharpton and and Swalwell as well. 

Saturday’s The Weekend on MS NOW offered Nancy Pelosi a predictably puffy platform, with little or no challenge from the hosts, to promote sweeping and alarm-raising claims about U.S. politics. That's including the specter of 2026 elections failing to happen, inflammatory allegations about federal enforcement actions in Minnesota, an unsparing juxtaposition of two Republican figures, and the suggestion that all Europeans would welcome Democrats taking the House in 2026—a victory she claimed to be an “absolute certainty.” Pelosi, speaking from the Munich Security Conference, claimed that European leaders are deeply worried about whether the United States will even hold its elections in 2026! PELOSI: They’re most concerned about the election. Is it going to happen? I assured them . . . We will win, that we will have an election, it will be safe. Rather than push back, co-host Eugene Daniels took Pelosi’s premise and amplified it to include domestic concern as well. "There are a lot of people [here] that have a lot of concerns about that right now." Treating the possibility of canceled or disrupted elections as a legitimate concern for Americans was presented without skepticism, context, or evidence by the hosts. Pelosi also used the appearance to draw a sharp contrast between Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Munich speech, which she said was “well received,” and Vice President JD Vance’s speech last year, which she called “really insulting.” That contrast went unchallenged. Perhaps Pelosi was sincere, but she might also have been trying to stir the Republican pot. If Rubio and Vance were to face each other in a ’28 primary, the Vance ad writes itself: “Marco Rubio: Endorsed by Nancy Pelosi.” MS NOW Lets Pelosi Claims Ride : Election Doubts, ICE 'Assassinations,' Vance Snub pic.twitter.com/kT9dLs3RJS — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) February 14, 2026 Democratic-aligned groups have in recent cycles attempted to shape Republican primaries by elevating certain GOP candidates they believed would be easier to defeat in a general election. Yet MS NOW’s hosts showed no interest in exploring whether Pelosi’s praise carried similar strategic implications. Later in the interview, Pelosi escalated her rhetoric about Trump interfering with fair elections. PELOSI: Don’t put anything past [Trump] as we saw on January 6th when the President of the United States personally incited an insurrection in our country. He’s capable of any bad thing. That broad characterization of President Trump was allowed to stand without clarification. Perhaps most striking was Pelosi’s assertion about enforcement actions in Minnesota: PELOSI: Two of their community were shot dead, assassinated, by this administration. Such a serious allegation — implying politically intentional killings, not a split-second struggle — passed without follow-up or demand for context. Pelosi also claimed Europeans would find a Democrat House victory in ’26 and a Speaker Hakeem Jeffries a “relief” and a “consolation.” Yet Trump and the GOP enjoy support in parts of Europe, including Italy, Poland and Hungary. Once again, no pushback from the hosts. MS NOW provided an entirely uncritical arena for Pelosi’s narrative to unfold — from existential election fears to unfounded accusations and strategic Republican snubs — without the challenges that conservative guests regularly encounter on the same network--on the rare occasions they're invited to appear! Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 2/14/26 7:27 am ET JACKIE ALEMANY: While President Trump's policies are unpopular here at home, he's also rattling allies abroad.  At the Munich Security Conference, Germany's chancellor warned the U.S. cannot go it alone, noting NATO membership benefits the U.S. as well as Europe. A short time ago at the conference, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. wants to preserve its alliance with Europe.  MARCO RUBIO: In a time of headlines heralding the end of the transatlantic era, let it be known and clear to all that this is neither our goal nor our wish. Because for us Americans, our home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe.  ALEMANY: Joining us now from Munich, House Speaker Emerita and California Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi. Thank you so much for joining us this morning.  NANCY PELOSI: My pleasure. It's quite a day here. Secretary Rubio's speech was well-received. It was a little bit condescending to the Europeans: we're willing to be with you as long as you agree on certain things.  But nonetheless, well received, and they were happy. Compare this to Vice President Vance's speech last year, which was really insulting. This was much better.  EUGENE DANIELS: Speaker Emerita, I'm curious what you're hearing from our allies and the folks that you're talking to over there at the conference about our domestic policy?  Because sometimes Americans, as things are happening here, whether it's what's happening in Minnesota or immigration writ large, we think that we're the only ones having that conversation. But I'm curious how our allies overseas, in the conversations you're having, how are they kind of taking in what's happening in our country right now?  PELOSI: Well, what they're most concerned about is the election. Is it going to happen? I said, you have parliamentary system, we have presidential. Parliamentary systems can call elections when they want or not. And presidential, in the history of our country, we've never deviated from having our elections on time.  And so I assured them, you can be certain of that, that Democrats will take the House of Representatives. And that gives them some relief about how we go forward. Because it's, you know, we had so many shared values along the way. They don't see it that way now.  But the prospect of a Speaker, Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, is a consolation to them as it is to all of us.  But I have given them absolute certainty that we will win, that we will have an election, it will be safe, and that we will have an agenda to go forward that they will be very proud of, that is consistent with our values for America's working families.  DANIELS: On the election, the president said that we will absolutely have voter ID, whether or not Congress gets on board or not. You have the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, going down and helping to execute a search warrant to grab 20,000 2020 ballots from Fulton County. They are, you know, looking at, in Puerto Rico, looking at their machines. There seems to be a lot happening. But you are sure, and you are telling our allies, and I assume telling the American people that there might be shenanigans. But we will have an election in 2026 because there are a lot of people that have a lot of concerns about that right now.  . . .  PELOSI: You know what? We don't agonize. We organize. And we have litigation. We have lawyering in terms in addition to in the courts, but at polling places and the rest. We have legislation, and we're going to fight him on the SAVE Act for the voter ID. It's just not right. And there are many Republicans in the country who know it's not right because it's inconvenient for them as well as it is for married women in the country.  . . .  And really, you know, people are concerned they're going to send in ICE and the National Guard, this or that. Don't put anything past [Trump], as we saw on January 6th when the President of the United States personally incited an insurrection in our country. He's capable of any bad thing.  . . .  JONATHAN CAPEHART: Speaker Pelosi, to your point about people have to know, I'm just wondering your impressions of the people of Minneapolis and Minnesota writ large, their reaction to the president's ICE tactics on the streets of Minneapolis and in that state. Are you impressed by them? Are they a role model for the country?  PELOSI: Well, I'm very impressed by them. I'm sorry for them. I pray for them. Because two of their community were shot dead, assassinated, by this administration.  . . .  ALEMANY: Speaker Emerita, before we're out of time, I want to ask you about Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. When she first arrived in Congress in 2019, there were obviously some public tensions between you and her and the Squad over strategy, and the way that the Democratic party should conduct themselves and navigate the Trump administration.  She's recently emerged as a more prominent voice for the party. She spoke at the security conference. I'm not sure if you were able to catch her, but she talked about democracy and authoritarianism.  I'm wondering if you have been mentoring her or offering her any guidance as she's expanding her portfolio and taking a broader leadership role within the party.  PELOSI: No. I'm pleased with it. I'm glad she's here. You know, they canceled our House trip, the bipartisan trip. The Speaker canceled it like an hour or two before we were supposed to leave, but some of us managed to get here anyway.  All I said, and people say you have this tension. We didn't have any tension. All I say is, if you want to be a legislator and pass bills, it's important to have the votes to do it. It doesn't help to go online and criticize the people that you want to have because they're not as progressive as you are.  She's been a star, eloquent, forceful, and the rest, and she gets along very well with Hakeem Jeffries. They have a New York connection. But I'm so glad she's here and all the other members who are here.... ALEMANY: Do you think she should be running for, would you encourage her to run for a higher office, which is what a lot of the speculation is, that she's potentially setting herself either up for a Senate run or a 2028 presidential run?  PELOSI: Do you know how many times I've been asked that question about so many people, mostly Gavin Newsom here, because he was here as well. I always just leave those things up to people and when they want my help or my suggestion, they'll ask me. 

Former network news star Katie Couric actually interviewed a Republican – Sen. Rand Paul – on her YouTube show, and the senator tried to take a moderate tone in contrast to Couric’s extremist DNC talking points. Couric cited a CBS News number. "Senator, if ICE agents were truly talking about the worst of the worst, as the president likes to say," she began. "Less than 14 percent of nearly 400,000 immigrants arrested by ICE in President Trump's first year back in the White House had charges or convictions for violent criminal offenses, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security document obtained by CBS News." Liberals can't do the math that even if you accept this claim, that's 56,000 violent criminals.  Many network reports (in addition to CBS) have tried to harp on the notion that Trump is somehow failing if violent criminals aren't 100 percent of the deported. Then they play games and don't count people charged with violent crimes, or convicted in other countries of violent crimes. Paul said "the facts make a difference." Jesse Watters pointed out how Katie Couric pushed Sen. Rand Paul on CBS's report that only 14 percent of 400,000 migrants arrested in Trump's first year back were violent criminals. Paul points out that matters if your family is victimized by someone who should have been removed. pic.twitter.com/isr6wfG38x — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) February 14, 2026 COURIC: So isn't all this talk about ridding the country of violent criminals a massive overstatement, if less than 14 percent, again, of the 400,000 immigrants being arrested had charges or convictions for violent criminal offenses? SEN. RAND PAUL (R-Ky.): Well, I think the facts make a difference. And so that's one of the questions we will ask. And so when you come to Minneapolis, if they have a policy that says, oh, we're not going to turn over from our jails nonviolent prisoners, people who are, I don't know why you're in prison if you're nonviolent, but maybe you have a drug crime that's a nonviolent. COURIC: I think there are plenty of nonviolent people in prison. PAUL: But the thing is, that's not their policy. Their policy is we will turn no one over. So you can be, you beat somebody half to death, you get an assault charge, and you're in jail for a couple years, and somehow you're getting out on parole, and you're not going to be turned over and you're illegal…. I've got a problem with that, and so do probably most independents and Democrats. But that's what we have to ascertain. And the thing is, is that's not the policy of Mayor Frey. He did not come forward and say, we're not going to turn over nonviolent prisoners. He just simply said, we're not going to cooperate at all. Paul discussed his sense of the polls: "I think most people are in the middle. I think most people actually hate what the use of force that they saw with Alexander Pretti. But I think if you ask them, if a guy's committed rape and he's in prison, and he's going to get out, do you want him deported? I think people would say, hell yes, he ought to be deported." Couric couldn't accept this common-sense majority position -- perhaps in deference to her liberal fans -- so Paul kept bringing the common sense.  COURIC: Let me say that though, what about the 14%? Such a low percentage of 400,000 people. PAUL: If your daughter gets raped by the guy that gets back out and he's one of the 14%, I don't think you're going to quibble about whether it's 14 or 64. What I'm saying is, if you're not going to turn over anybody, then that's 0%. I don't think the percentage, it makes a halfway argument to how much effort we have. But if Minnesota is not going to turn over anybody, the whole argument, whether it's 14 or 86, doesn't mean anything. So if they're not turning over anybody, then inevitably there are, and there are many emotional cases. The Laken Riley case of a guy that had been arrested, should have been deported. He was a thug, he was arrested multiple times up in New York. The government paid to send this thug to look for a job in Atlanta. It was almost like, we'll give you a bus ticket so your crime committing person will send you to some other state. But to Laken Riley's family, it was a big deal, and it is a big deal to people who care about what happened to her, that if that person had been deported. Now you might tell me that person's an anomaly, he's only one in 100, but up in Laken Riley's family, I don't care if it's one in 100. The one in 100 people who are violent, if that's a number, or if it's 14 in 100, we want them deported.

In the latest episode of Apple TV+'s Shrinking ("D-Day"), which ironically aired during National Marriage Week, a heartwarming scene between Harrison Ford's Paul and high-school senior Alice (Lukita Maxwell) turns sour when she declares she wants kids but no husband, because marriage is a "sexist construct." Cue the eye rolls. This isn't clever writing. It's Hollywood's calculated jab at society's cornerstone, courtesy of liberal elites pushing so-called "empowerment" while dismantling family values. Paul is a therapist who Alice looks up to as her mentor and counselor. When discussing Alice’s future, the conversation turns to marriage and family, as she declares she wants children, but not a husband, because she believes marriage is a “sexist construct”: Apple TV's comedy #Shrinking declares marriage is a "sexist construct" during #NationalMarriageWeek. @AppleTV @MarriageWeekUSA @HarrisonFordLA #ValentinesDay #ValentinesDay2026 pic.twitter.com/G1DOGDXFL5 — Dawn Slusher (@BlondeBlogger) February 14, 2026 Paul: Least now you know, you can get it through it on your own if you have to. But hear this. You never have to. Alice: Good. 'Cause, I mean, I'm about to go to college, and that's gonna be insane. And then there will be work stuff and marriage. Actually, never doing that. That's a sexist construct. Or, sh*t, babies. Well, I guess I could do that. I did raise Dad. One might discount this babble as what Gen Z thinks is their newfound "conventional wisdom." But marriage isn't sexist. It's the ultimate equalizer. When done right, it's about unconditional love, commitment, and partnership. It lets men and women thrive together, raise kids responsibly, and build stable homes. Mountains of evidence show married couples are happier, healthier, and wealthier. Bad people can abuse any institution, but that doesn't make marriage itself flawed. Hollywood's propaganda-normalizing anti-marriage mantras in lighthearted scenes targets impressionable teens. It convinces girls that ditching marriage leads to fulfillment, not loneliness, with Netflix and cats as your only companions. This erodes bonds, encouraging delayed or skipped marriage, and it's fueling America's crisis: plummeting marriage and birth rates. Marriage rates are collapsing. The U.S. rate hit 6.1 per 1,000 in recent data, down sharply from historical highs. This decline isn't harmless. Out-of-wedlock births are 40% of all U.S. births, with about 34% of kids in single-parent families. Economist Melissa Kearney, author of The Two-Parent Privilege, shows kids from married two-parent homes have far better outcomes: lower poverty (often just 5% in married households vs. much higher in single-parent ones), better academics, and reduced behavioral issues. Children are more likely to be exposed to violence, crime, and abuse when there is just one parent, and children in married households perform much better academically. Crime surges where families fracture. The Institute for Family Studies' 2023 Stronger Families, Safer Streets report found cities with high single-parent households had 48% higher total crime, 118% higher violent crime, and 255% higher homicides (across 600+ cities, 2015–2019). In Chicago, high-single-parent areas saw 137% higher total crime, 226% higher violent crime, and 436% higher homicides -- patterns tied to father absence, even controlling for poverty and race. Delayed marriages hammer fertility, down to 1.6 kids per woman in 2024, well below the 2.1 replacement level. Fewer births mean populations shrink which leads to slower growth, stalled innovation, strained entitlements for seniors, and weaker social ties with fewer family connections. Shows like Shrinking aren't progressive, they're regressive, chipping away at America's strength. What they call "sexist construct" is actually America’s saving grace. We must push back: tax incentives for marriage, education on its benefits, and calling out this anti-marriage propaganda. Because if we let Hollywood continue to redefine family, we'll all pay a heavy price.

Most hard core liberals, especially in the media, take it as a matter of absolute faith that President Donald Trump is the puppet of Russian president Vladimir Putin. However, an article published in a very surprising source has shattered that myth. The Atlantic magazine, yes that Democrat-loving periodical, published an article on Friday that destroyed that notion. And the two authors of the piece can't be written off as ill informed. Both Thomas Graham and Alan Cullison are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition, Graham is the author of "Getting Russia Right" and Cullison was a former Moscow correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Their article,"Putin Didn’t Know How Good He Had It," sweeps away the sacred liberal belief that Putin somehow controls Trump. In fact, they make a strong case that it was in large part due to Trump that Putin and Russia are currently in a very bad position on the world scene. For decades, Russian President Vladimir Putin railed against the world that the United States built after the Cold War. In his account, an international order run by a single power would hinder Russia and produce needless conflict, especially when that power was as self-serving and duplicitous as America. Now Donald Trump is dismantling the order that Putin had so long abhorred, and a new multipolar world is emerging in its place. Putin had thought he could rise to the top of such a system, in which raw economic and military might outweigh diplomacy and alliances. But he was mistaken: The norms and institutions of the postwar order actually masked Russia’s vulnerabilities. Putin has gotten the world he wished for—and it’s threatening to crush him. And if you are still clinging to the absurd notion that Putin somehow controls a compliant Trump then you (hello, Atlantic readers) have taken a fatal overdose of the thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier as Graham and Cullison continue to reveal the reality of the situation. Putin also assumed that a multipolar world would free him from American interference. And indeed, Trump has accommodated Moscow in some ways. His conciliation does not, however, extend to Russia’s energy sector, the foundation of its economy: Last fall, Trump levied wide-ranging sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, the country’s two largest oil producers. The U.S. has also ramped up enforcement against shadow tankers, threatening a primary channel that Russia has used to sidestep sanctions on its oil sales. Trump’s plans to revive Venezuela’s petroleum sector might likewise hurt Russia. Executing those plans may prove more complicated than Trump anticipates, but they could drive Russia’s oil prices below what its federal budget can sustain. Moscow is at the mercy of an American president who circumvents traditional channels of power and obliterates the constraints that once regulated their use. For example, Trump could attempt to use his recently constituted Board of Peace to bypass the United Nations Security Council—and Russia’s veto—and muscle through his preferred policy in the Middle East, eroding Moscow’s influence in the region. Thanks to decisions by both Trump and Putin, moreover, the two powers no longer have any functional arms-control agreements. Without these, Trump could choose to accelerate his “Golden Dome” missile-defense program, which Russia fears could undermine its own nuclear deterrence. Trump’s disdain for international alliances and norms has also begun to reshape Europe in a way that may exacerbate Russia’s weakness. As U.S. security assurances wane, European countries are developing their hard-power capabilities. Germany has committed 100 billion euros to modernize its military, and Poland is building up its armed forces with a goal of amassing 300,000 troops. Putin has long wanted to split the U.S. and Europe. But he might soon find that the continent—which collectively dwarfs Russia in population and wealth—poses a significant challenge even if it doesn’t belong to a U.S.-dominated alliance. This should dispel the idea that Trump is merely Putin's puppet. However, never underestimate the liberal aptitude for self-deception. The same poor souls fully expected the Mueller Report to prove Trump-Russia collusion, when that report revealed no vast conspiracy, were still unable to let go of their delusions. However, it is refreshing to see cold reality splashed directly on the faces of the Atlantic readers.