The Elitist Media’s Sunday shows run a tight choreography, avoiding certain uncomfortable and inconvenient subjects in near unison. If it doesn’t fuel Trump derangement, it doesn’t run. The result being that many important political stories don’t get discussed because they might lead to the “wrong” kind of political discussion. Such is the case with the Minnesota fraud raids. These have gone largely uncovered, save for an item on NBC Nightly News. You can rest assured that the Sunday shows would be all over the feds potentially investigating a GOP vice presidential nominee (and his Attorney General) due to allegations of massive public assistance fraud. This item would run at the top of the shows, and Republicans would be dragged in for hostile interviews.  However, there is no such coverage for Tim Walz, or for the ongoing fraud investigation. There are no Democrats booked with the expectation that they’ll be asked to explain allegations of fraud just six months from the midterm election. Likewise, the Department of Justice’s indictment of multiple senior government officials in the Mexican state of Sinaloa, home to the notorious cartel formerly headed by “El Chapo” Guzmán, starting with the state’s governor. Only PBS News Hour deigned to do a brief item on the indictments, but not a second to spare on the rest of the broadcast nightlies or on the Sunday shows.   The clinching of the Maine Senate Democratic nomination by controversial Nazi-adjacent candidate Graham Platner. The networks didn’t touch Maine Kampf or his Totenkopf (Nazi SS “death’s-head”) tattoo with a ten-foot pole, and neither did the Sunday Shows. Except, that is, in passing by Jake Tapper as he interviewed former Congressman Barney Frank, now living in Maine. The Sunday shows have avoided talking about Graham Platner like the plague. Tapper breaks the ice- not in a panel discussion or standalone segment on State of the Union, but in a brief question to former Rep. Barney Frank. pic.twitter.com/VCLQ0C3W8K — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 3, 2026 JAKE TAPPER: You live in Maine, uh, where the establishment Democratic senate candidate that you endorsed, the governor, Janet Mills, just dropped out to make way for her Progressive challenger, Graham Platner. Um, do you see that as a rejection of the Democratic establishment by voters? Why did that happen, do you think? BARNEY FRANK: Look, Donald Trump- we originally thought was a joke, and then he turned out to be very good at one thing: exploiting voter discontent. And so he won an election based on that. And since then, it's gone back to being a joke. The man is imploding. He has no program that he's seeking to adopt. I think Platner actually shares with Trump this capacity for, uh, making the most out of, out of, uh, the anger that people feel. Uh, what I'm afraid of is that he won't be able to translate that into enough votes, but, uh, I am concerned that among some in my party, there's a kind of, there has been a flavor-of-the-month tendency. So that somebody who's new and hasn't been able to do much is somehow preferred over people who understand the importance of hard work to get controversial things adopted. That’s it. No discussion of the party’s growing embrace of anti-semitism and tolerance of such candidates, or of Platner’s varied defenses of the Totenkopf tattoo and unearthed social media posts. Again, imagine a scenario where it is a Republican wearing a Totenkopf and having to explain past social media posts. There is a long history that suggests we’d never hear the end of it. All of which is a reminder that if it weren’t for double standards, there’d be none at all.  

The Elitist Media continue to provide aid and comfort to Cuba’s communist regime ahead of a potential action by the United States. This time, it’s Trump-deranged ABC News performing crisis communications for a brutal regime on its last legs. Watch as correspondent Matt Rivers whitewashes the regime, hypes its May Day anti-American march, and propagates the idea that the energy embargo is the source of Cuba’s ills (click "expand" to view transcript): Trump-deranged ABC News joins in the whitewashing of Cuba's communist dictatorship ahead of a potential action from by United States. Garbage was rotting along crumbling Havana streets well before the oil embargo. pic.twitter.com/oA8gzEA64p — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 3, 2026 MATT RIVERS: Just after dawn along the Malecón, Havana's famed coastal highway filled with Cubans all marching, all headed toward the same place. So that building right there is the U.S. Embassy here in Havana. And today, the Cuban government is surging hundreds of thousands of people right past its front door with a clear message: the Cuban government is not backing down.  It was an anti-imperialist March, says the government, in the face of a U.S. administration more determined than ever to topple the government that's ruled this country for nearly seventy years. DONALD TRUMP: Cuba is a failing nation, and we're going to do this, and we may stop by Cuba after we're finished with this. RIVERS: The Trump administration has explicitly not taken military action off the table to achieve that goal, but announced new sanctions on Cuban leadership Friday, increasing pressure on them to step down. Cuba's foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, calling those new sanctions “collective punishment on the Cuban people.” MARCO RUBIO: Those serious economic reforms are impossible with these people in charge. It can't happen. And these people in charge aren't just economically incompetent. They have rolled out the welcome mat to adversaries of the United States to operate within Cuban territory against our national interest, with impunity. RIVERS: But for now, the pressure campaign has focused on one main thing: oil. A U.S. Embargo wiped out nearly 60% of Cuba's oil import supply in a matter of days. Now, in Havana, as night falls, the lights often don't come on.  The only lights on on the street right now are the ones that are powered by batteries. And this is the new norm. There's not a single neighborhood in all of the city of Havana that has not been affected by these blackouts. And the longer this country goes without getting enough oil, the worse this gets.  Upstairs from the street, mom Idania cooks on a propane stove- hamburger, rice and beans by flashlight. Yet again, that's most nights here. IDANIA IN SPANISH: Everything’s a crisis. RIVERS: It's a crisis, she says. It's incredibly stressful. There's no schedule to eat, to cook. You can't plan your life. It's horrible. After dinner, it's homework by flashlight. Lantern in one hand, pencil in the other. Daylight in Havana reveals more challenges. The smell of rotting trash wafting through the streets.  With no gas to run the trash trucks, there's piles of trash like this all over the city, not just in poorer places, but also right here. That building is the Ministry of Tourism. The tight shot suggests that this was a massive protest, but it was not. A handful of protesters marched across tight streets so as to create the appearance of mass participation in support of the presence of Cuba’s real ruler Raúl Castro. Actual video of the march differs from what Rivers laid out for ABC viewers.

On last night’s The Weekend: Primetime on MS NOW, legal analyst and law professor Paul Butler delivered an astonishing assessment of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Voting Rights Act. Analogizing it to the Dred Scott decision -- that garbage in heavy rotation -- Butler made the absurd claim: “It’s like the Dred Scott decision, where the Court said that the black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect. The Supreme Court is saying that the black voter and the brown voter has [sic] no rights that it respects.” He also argued the ruling was worse than Plessy v. Ferguson, claiming that Plessy at least required formal equality under “separate but equal,” whereas this decision means “black and brown votes don’t have the same power as white votes.” Co-host Ayman Mohyeldin responded by saying Democrats must make this a central part of their 2028 campaign. He listed priorities including doing away with the filibuster, Supreme Court reform [a euphemism for court packing], implementing the Voting Rights Act in a new legal framework, police reform, social justice reform, and even trying to abolish the Electoral College— something that would likely have backfired in 2024, since Trump comfortably won the popular vote. Co-host Catherine Rampell then asked what remedies Democrats could realistically offer, explicitly suggesting court packing as one possibility, since the Supreme Court appears to be blocking tools like majority-minority districts. WATCH: MS NOW says SCOTUS just told black and brown voters they “have no rights that it respects.” pic.twitter.com/llR2OMSFZI — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) May 3, 2026 Butler replied that Congress and states can no longer create majority-minority districts. He offered little in the way of institutional solutions, instead closing on a faith-based and almost fatalistic note: “A lot of black people are just leaning on our history, saying, we got through enslavement, we got through Jim Crow, somehow we’ll get through this.” This closing evokes the long tradition of faith-based endurance rooted in black historical resilience—the spirit found in spirituals, civil rights-era rhetoric, and “We Shall Overcome.” The segment stands out for how quickly it moved from activist political demands to resigned historical fatalism. We take a more positive view of the Court's decision, recalling Chief Justice John Roberts' famous words in 2007: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend: Primetime 5/2/26 7:08 pm EDT AYMAN MOHYELDIN: Yeah, so where does this take the civil rights fight now, Paul? I mean, if you, when you kind of take a big picture approach and take a step back, where do you see the fight for trying to ensure the full rights of black and brown people in this country to vote—and have their votes actually weigh as they should go? PAUL BUTLER: Ayman, that's a really difficult question. In some ways, this is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions on race ever. It's actually worse than Plessy v. Ferguson. MOHYELDIN: Wow. BUTLER: Plessy actually required formal equality—separate, but equal. With this case, black and vrown votes don't have the same power as white votes. It's like the Dred Scott decision, where the Court said that the black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect. The Supreme Court is saying that the black voter and the brown voter has [sic] no rights that it respects. MOHYELDIN: I think Democrats going forward have to make this a central part of whatever they campaign on. Whether it's doing away with the filibuster, Supreme Court reform, finding ways to implement the Voting Rights Act in a new legal framework—has to be core to what they run on.  And if you're not a Democratic candidate in 2028 who's willing to make that core to your campaign—police reform, social justice reform, voting rights reform, perhaps even trying to do -- I know it's hard -- but trying to do away with the Electoral College. I think those are the things that the base of the party wants. CATHERINE RAMPELL: But to Paul's point, it's hard for me to even understand what the remedy is that Democrats could offer here, aside from like packing the Court.  Or is there some -- if the Supreme Court is saying that the Constitution does not allow something like the Voting Rights Act to protect the recognition of vlack and brown votes, where do Democrats even go? What do they offer? BUTLER: So that part—the creation of majority-minority districts—the Supreme Court has said that can no longer be done. Congress can't change that, states can't change that.  So, Ayman, I mean, you ask where do we go from here? A lot of black people are just leaning on our history, saying, we got through enslavement, we got through Jim Crow, somehow we'll get through this.

Last weekend's attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner reignited the liberal media's political rhetoric/violence blame game, as they looked to pin it all on Donald Trump and the right, of course. That M.O. was in full swing on the opening segment of CNN's The Arena Saturday. Host Kasie Hunt and her panel presented a totally one-sided 10-minute segment that began with a question designed to attack Donald Trump. HUNT: Is rhetoric to blame for political violence? And if so, whose fault is it? The attack on the White House Correspondents Dinner has kicked off this same debate.... And once again, the blame game is on. It was on all right, with a predetermined winner. Next came some short clips from the New Yorkers. REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: There is a level of rhetoric that is too far, right. We would never say someone should commit an act of violence. HOUSE MINORITY LEADER HAKEEM JEFFRIES: And this so-called White House Press Secretary wants to lecture America and lecture us about civility. Get lost. Clean up your own house, before you have anything to say to us. A most interesting choice of Democrats for Hunt to highlight on the issue of violent rhetoric. Back in January of 2025, Jeffries declared that Democrats will 'fight' the Trump agenda 'in the streets', which many called a 'Maxine Waters moment', a reference to the Congresswoman's 2018 urging of people to go after members of the first Trump administration. They were just spinning him out of suggesting "maximum warfare all the time" on gerrymandering. As for AOC, back in 2019, she told a New York radio show that marginalized communities "have no choice but to riot." Of course Hunt made no mention of any of this, and soon CNN's Jamal Simmons (former comms director for Vice President Kamala Harris) weighed in, and the attacks on Trump began. SIMMONS: We've got to tamp down the rhetoric. The rhetoric has gotten too hot. And the President, United States, made excuses after he made jokes about Paul Pelosi being hit by a hammer, who was Nancy Pelosi's husband. Simmons made no mention of the fact that two days after the attack on Pelosi, Trump called the attack a "terrible thing." Simmons went on to cite Trump's pardoning of those convicted for January 6th, and his early support of ICE Agents involved in the Minneapolis shootings, as examples of promoting violence. And then, when it was Republican Shermichael Singleton's turn, who tried to exit the blame game, although he said it was easy.  SINGLETON: Look, there's also violence and rhetoric that's been legitimized on the other side. Now, I don't want to do the both sides thing because I can easily just do what Jamal just did.  SIMMONS: Name the times that Democrats- SINGLETON: Folks on the left have done X, Y, and Z. I'm not going to use this moment to do that, because that's a part of the problem.  Simmons then attacked Trump again, before Hunt took over, bringing up Pelosi again. SIMMONS: I do not believe that broad brush most Republicans excuse violence that when it occurs, there's a particular Republican who does it. That is the problem. HUNT: As far as the President of the United States is concerned, he said, quote, we'll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco, how's her husband doing, anybody know? And then, of course, there was the incident where there were horrible attacks on state legislators in Minnesota and the message from the President was not sympathy. In fact, after the June 2025 shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers, where one was killed, Trump posted on Truth Social, "“Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America.”  Hunt would then bring up Trump's questionable attempt to show how strong his supporters backed him in the 2016 race. HUNT: It's also worth also reflecting on what the President said when he was first running for this office, which was that the people who supported him did so, so fervently that he could walk down Fifth Avenue and shoot someone. This is the imagery he brings into the conversation, and they would still be with him. Hunt did not mention that when Barack Obama was running for President in 2008, while speaking at a fundraiser, he reportedly said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." She did not mention Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who in 2019 proclaimed that his testosterone sometimes makes him want to punch Trump. Nor did she mention the aforementioned comments from Maxine Waters, or Joe Biden twice saying that he wished he could take Trump out beyond the school gym and beat the hell out of him.  This segment was designed to be bash and blame Donald Trump alone for all violent political rhetoric and actions, and so it was a normal Saturday on CNN, assassination attempts be damned. 

On the very last day of April, PolitiFact finally dared to upset their liberal donors and found a Democrat to be “Mostly False” for the first time in 2026. Okay, technically, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats.  Sanders claimed that as a result of that "Big Beautiful Bill," fifteen million Americans "have been thrown off the healthcare that they need." PolitiFact noted that there are estimates that 15 million will eventually lose Obamacare coverage or quit it as too pricey, but it's only been a decline of about a million in the last year. We could quibble that people refusing work requirements for Medicaid that kick in next year aren't being "thrown off" Medicaid, and people finding the premiums too pricey also aren't "thrown off." But it's the way leftists talk, that some Snidely Whiplash Republican is always ruining people's subsidies.  But the socialists can't be too angry. Overall, Sanders has only been rated "Mostly False" or worse in 47 of 180 fact checks on the "Truth-O-Meter," or 26 percent of the time. Since he's been "Mostly True" or "True" in 84 of 180 fact checks, he's just shy of 50 percent "true." The day before brought another shocker: PolitiFact rated a Trump claim as "Mostly True," for his claim that "We are right now producing more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined." PolitiFact ruled that if you include all liquids and not just crude oil, he's kinda correct.  It's the first rating on the True side since October 18, 2024, when the claim was: Kamala Harris “supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners and illegal aliens.” That was "Mostly True," even if we'd say true-true. That was their only deviation in putting Trump on the True side in 2024, when Trump landed on the False side 68 times. They had a 68 to 1 tilt against Trump, while Harris in 2024 had a false-true ratio of 10 to 10. That matches her overall record: 28 on the True side, 28 on the False. Include the "Half Trues," and she was on the False side in 28 of 65 checks (43 percent). Over the 524 days between "Mostly Trues," PolitiFact threw 21 "Pants on Fire" ratings at Trump. Harris has never been "awarded" one. That's now 224 "Pants" rants overall for Trump, more than 19% of his total. Overall, 899 out of 1,156 "fact checks" have been "Mostly False" or worse -- 77.7 percent of the time. By the way, PolitiFact hasn't checked Barack Obama since June 2, 2021 -- almost five years. Since 2017, just seven checks -- three on the True side, three Half True, and ONE Mostly False. For the first four months of 2024, then the Republicans were rated “Mostly False” or worse in 29 of 44 fact checks (66 percent). The Democrats getting one now out of 13 makes their False fraction 7.7 percent. There’s a disparity in the number of fact checks of 44 to 13, or more than three to one, and the disparity in “False” warnings is 29 to 1.