The below screenshot is a real life example of Googles anti conservatives views.
Conservative Blogger
Wednesday, October 28, 2026
Katie Zacharia Breaks Silence: 'I Was Not Prepared for the Hostility'
Former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia told Newsmax on Tuesday that the media and Washington establishment made it difficult for her to do her job during her brief tenure in President Donald Trump's administration, saying she wanted to focus attention on his accomplishments rather than herself. In her first television appearance since leaving the White House after just five days, Zacharia told "Finnerty" that she encountered resistance as an outsider in Washington. "The media does not like outsiders and Washington, D.C., does not like outsiders," Zacharia said. "The media and all of Washington made it very difficult for me to do the job I set out to do," she added, explaining that she wanted to promote Trump's record ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. Zacharia also suggested she likely would still be press secretary had she not appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News program and "Fox & Friends" shortly before her departure. "I would hope so, and I would likely think I would be, Rob, but I can't know what would have happened otherwise, though it would be very likely," she told host Rob Finnerty. Zacharia said she was surprised by Hannity's questioning, which included scrutiny of her legal credentials and failure to pass the bar examination. "I'm just as perplexed about what happened, specifically with Sean Hannity," she said. She described previously enjoying a friendly relationship with Hannity, whose team had approached her earlier this year about potentially working as a California street correspondent. "I was not prepared for the hostility that I received," she said. Despite her brief tenure, Zacharia said she developed positive relationships with White House communications director Steven Cheung and Trump, whom she praised for his treatment of her. She also expressed appreciation for Trump's public defense of her around the time of her departure, when he suggested that dealing with hostile reporters was not worth the difficulties of the job. "He has been nothing but kind and gracious," Zacharia said. Zacharia said one of her principal objectives as press secretary was to improve coverage of Trump's campaign appearances, particularly in The Wall Street Journal. She said she was meeting with the newspaper's representatives on her last day in the job. "The intention of setting that meeting was I wanted to secure positive or at least fair headlines for President Trump on these midterm rallies," she said. Zacharia criticized the Journal's recent coverage of Trump's rallies and said she had hoped to engage directly with reporters covering his campaign appearances. "I wanted to sit down with them and meet them at every single rally where they traveled and give a positive quote or opinion about those rallies," she said. Although she is no longer press secretary, Zacharia made clear that she remains interested in serving Trump. "Absolutely. I would do so in a heartbeat," she said when asked whether she wanted to work for him again. Asked whether she would return as press secretary, Zacharia said, "I don't know if I'd say I want the old job back, though. If the president asked, as he did before, I would take it, Rob." Zacharia also endorsed former Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo as a possible successor. "I thought Maria Bartiromo was an excellent choice for President Trump," she said. "She is tough. She is loyal. She knows every little detail on the business side, but also on the political side." Axios reported earlier this month that Trump had considered Bartiromo before hiring Zacharia, but Bartiromo signaled she would decline. Zacharia praised Bartiromo's ability to challenge mainstream media coverage while remaining loyal to Trump. "I think she would be excellent at really holding the mainstream media and fake news accountable, while being loyal and also kind," she said. Zacharia, now back in California, hinted that she might have another opportunity ahead, although she offered no specifics. "I think what I can say is there is a lot of exciting things ahead, and I will always be an advocate for what he is doing," she said. When Finnerty suggested she appeared to have something lined up, Zacharia replied, "That's fair." Credit: newsmax.com |
Obama Admits the Truth About Obamacare
 |
While campaigning in Detroit this past Saturday, former President Barack Obama might have inadvertently slipped and spilled a long-held secret: The Affordable Care Act was a Trojan horse for single-payer healthcare. Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed “will finish the job we started with the Affordable Care Act and guarantee quality, affordable healthcare to every single American!” Obama exclaimed. So, Obama sought to put the nation onto a path to single-payer healthcare when he signed the Affordable Care Act into law after all! However, Obama knew that the United States was not ready for a single-payer system when the Affordable Care Act was being crafted. So, under the strategy of incrementalism, Obamacare was rolled out. It must be noted that President Obama promised that Obamacare would bend the healthcare cost curve down. He specifically said deductibles and premiums would decrease under the law. None of that occurred. Healthcare is more expensive than ever. This year, monthly premiums on the Affordable Care Act Marketplace are up nearly 60 percent, on average. Nevertheless, the abysmal performance of Obamacare is not causing people like Obama to humble themselves and ponder that maybe they don’t know how to micromanage the healthcare sector. Wrong. The new strategy is endless empathy. Video 13 years ago.
“Wanting everybody to have health care, how is that radical?” Obama asked. “Abdul shares my values of wanting everybody to get healthcare.” I want everybody to have healthcare. I think almost everybody wants everybody else to have healthcare. But wanting something cannot manifest it into existence. The real question should be whether the government can deliver high-quality healthcare to everybody for “free.” Based on history, the verdict is a resounding no. The Soviet Union could not do it. Canada cannot do it. The United Kingdom cannot do it. And neither can the United States. This is why I get incensed when people like Obama, who absolutely know that single-payer does not mean unlimited access to healthcare, mislead voters into believing that Medicare for All is a viable solution to their healthcare cost woes. First, Obama well knows that Medicare does not offer comprehensive coverage for “free.” Second, he surely knows that Medicare is already on the brink of insolvency and that offering Medicare to all Americans would be the nail in the coffin for a program intended to help senior citizens. Taxpayers having to foot your medical bills is over. I wish Obama were more transparent and honest and described single-payer as Medicaid for All because that would be a much more apt comparison. Medicaid is government-run healthcare, which means Medicaid comes with strings attached. Namely, you can only go to providers covered by Medicaid. Empowering the federal government to become the sole payer means that the federal government determines who gets access to what and when. The federal government is already $40 trillion in debt with $2-trillion annual deficits for years to come. The money to pay for universal healthcare, which is not “free,” does not exist. President Obama knows this, but as he did during the debate and discourse about Obamacare, he is not telling the whole truth. Credit: Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is editorial director at The Heartland Institute. |
Rubio Just Gave Cuban Diplomat Who Went After Mike Waltz’s Team a Lesson in FAFO
 |
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has signed paperwork ordering the expulsion of a Cuban diplomat from the United States following a confrontation at the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz announced. The official, Richard Tur de la Concepción, is the First Secretary of Cuba’s mission to the United Nations. He is accused of shoving an American diplomat and trying to grab his phone during a clash at UN headquarters. "He's gone. He is going to be on a plane to Havana within the next 24 hours," Waltz said in an interview with Fox News. "You lay a hand on an American here in the United States, President Trump, Secretary Rubio and myself, we're not gonna stand for it," added the ambassador. More than half of his heart, as they say, will soon be back in Havana.
Hopefully they toss a T-shirt on this guy that says 'I got in Mike Waltz's face and all I got was this stupid T-shirt' or some such variation. Bye, Felicia. Don't let the door hit ya. During a heated debate at the United Nations over the longstanding U.S. embargo on Cuba, Ambassador Waltz accused the Cuban regime of enriching its elites at the expense of ordinary citizens. His comments — which were accurate — prompted Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla to interrupt the speech. So upset was he that Parrilla approached the podium and called Waltz a liar. Waltz immediately blasted the minister, saying he would not intimidate him in America the way the communist regime tries to intimidate its political prisoners. "And I'm the representative of the United States of America," he shouted. "Back up!" "Back away. This isn't Havana. You're not going to intimidate me," Waltz added. "Do you understand who you're dealing with?"
Concepción understands. Or at least he will shortly. And he'll be back in his element, back in Havana, quite soon. While Waltz and the other Commie official were exchanging heated words, Concepción allegedly tried to grab the phone of the ambassador's spokesman, J.P. Freire, as he recorded the exchange. The New York Post described the incident as an "assault."
Cuban officials have not yet publicly responded to the expulsion order. The White House, following the incident with Waltz, his team, and the Cuban delegation, posted a cartoon image of the showdown captioned, "Not in the United States of America." Concepción won't be in the United States of America at all. Credit: redstate.com |
DOJ Charges James Comey Over 2016 Classified Leak
 |
What the charging papers allegeProsecutors say Comey arranged for aides to speak to a New York Times reporter about secret email‑scanning orders in October 2016. The government frames those conversations as transmitting national‑defense information to someone not entitled to receive it. The criminal information points to reporting that tracked details of internal FBI material. Comey has posted a video denying the charges, saying he is innocent. That pushback was predictable. The real question is whether the law backs him up. Why the DOJ filed a criminal information to “toll” the statute of limitationsRather than waiting for a grand jury, the Justice Department filed an information — a prosecutor‑signed charging document — to preserve the nine‑plus year window for these alleged crimes. The DOJ calls this a widely recognized practice. The defense calls it an odd and aggressive tactic meant to dodge the statute of limitations and revive an old, twice‑investigated matter that produced no charges before. That legal fight will be front and center: will a judge let the government go to a grand jury, or will the filing be tossed as a gamesmanship move? Politics, precedent, and why this mattersThis is not just another headline. Comey has been the subject of multiple criminal matters already, and his firing by President Donald Trump made him a central figure in the last decade’s political warfare. Conservatives who want accountability should cheer for evenhanded justice: if former leaders leaked classified information, they should face the same law everyone else does. At the same time, how the DOJ uses procedural tricks matters. If the government wins by clever filings rather than clear law, it sets a slippery precedent that could be used in future political fights. What to watch nextLook for whether prosecutors present the case to a grand jury and whether a judge finds the statute‑of‑limitations argument persuasive. Also watch for any sealed materials or reporter identities that remain hidden from public view. At base, this is a test of whether Washington finally treats leaks by a powerful insider the same way it treats leaks by less famous people. The American people deserve a fair, transparent outcome — not partisan theater. Hold the verdict to that standard. Credit: https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/ |
Ninth Circuit punts on 20K suspected noncitizen ballots to Judge Carter
The Ninth Circuit just told the Justice Department to take a seat — for now. In a 2-1 emergency ruling, the appeals court refused to order California to set aside roughly 20,000 mail ballots that the federal government says are tied to likely noncitizen voters. The panel called the DOJ’s rush “self‑constructed,” leaving the dispute for the district court to sort out while the election rolls keep turning.
What the Ninth Circuit actually decided
The court’s unsigned per curiam order said federal judges shouldn’t short‑circuit the normal process. Judges Mark J. Bennett and Gabriel P. Sanchez joined the disposition, stressing narrow appellate jurisdiction and the need to give the district court its chance. Their point was simple: emergency appeals are not an express lane when the district court hasn’t had enough time to act. Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatay dissented, arguing the federal government has a sovereign interest in protecting federal elections and that stopping possible illegal votes is within the courts’ power.
Why the fight matters for election integrity
This isn’t trivia. The DOJ and Homeland Security say they built a careful list by matching California voter rolls to immigration and Social Security records, then manually reviewing the leftovers. The department insists the list shows roughly 20,000 names likely to be noncitizens, and it warned that counting their ballots would dilute lawful votes. California officials and some county clerks push back, saying samples show bad matches and canceled registrations. The appeals court didn’t decide who’s right on the facts — it merely punted on the emergency request. Translation: the messy question of whether these ballots should be segregated is still very much live.
What happens next — and who should be nervous
The case goes back to U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, where the heavy lifting will occur. Expect fights over the government’s methodology, discovery about the commercial data and how matches were made, and, if the district judge rules either way, fast appeals. Meanwhile counties keep processing vote‑by‑mail ballots — operational reality that the Ninth Circuit cited — but also a reality that makes timing critical. The DOJ has also indicted dozens of noncitizens in related cases, which the department points to as proof this is not hypothetical. California’s leaders, however, insist the federal theory would let Washington micromanage state election administration. That’s a political dodge when the real question is simple: do we know who is legally eligible to vote?
Bottom line: procedure can’t be a shield
Courts are right to respect process. But procedure shouldn’t become a safe harbor for uncertainty when federal criminal laws and the integrity of ballots are at stake. The Ninth Circuit gave the district court the ball — now Judge Carter must move quickly, compel the evidence on how the list was made, and decide whether segregating suspect ballots is warranted. Voters and election workers deserve clarity, not legal limbo. If we value fair elections, timidity in the face of a real question about noncitizen voting is not an acceptable answer — and neither is pretending the problem will vanish if we wait long enough.
Credit: https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/
Tuesday, October 27, 2026
Trump: $1 Million for Voter Fraud Tips Ending in Convictions
President Donald Trump said Monday that people whose reports of voter fraud in past elections or the upcoming midterms lead to arrests and convictions would receive $1 million, making the announcement eight days before voters decide control of Congress on Nov. 3. "Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP," he wrote on Truth Social. Trump's statement does not identify an administering agency, funding source, or application process. It also does not explain what evidence would qualify, how competing claims would be evaluated, or whether the offer applies to state prosecutions, federal cases, or both. The announcement follows a separate initiative Trump and Vice President JD Vance unveiled last week to reward people who report suspected fraud involving taxpayer money and government programs. The Justice Department announced Oct. 20 that its Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program offers payments of $10,000 to $30,000 for information leading to criminal charges in qualifying cases. Awards are made at the department's discretion after charges are filed. The Treasury Department is committing $25 million to that program, which lets whistleblowers receive payments earlier than programs requiring a criminal case's final resolution, including forfeiture proceedings and appeals. Participants remain eligible for additional awards through other whistleblower programs. The initiative covers federal healthcare offenses and fraud involving government benefits, with priority given to hospice, home healthcare, daycare, and special services cases. Vance chairs the administration's Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, which targets fraud, waste, and abuse across the federal government's benefit programs. Trump also described a 1% commission on fraud uncovered during last week's Oval Office announcement. Monday's statement does not clarify whether the voter fraud offer would operate through the existing initiative or a separate program. The reward comes amid increased federal scrutiny of suspected unlawful voting. The Justice Department announced Oct. 19 that 28 lawful permanent residents in California faced election-related charges, including allegations of unlawful voting, fraudulent registration, and false statements during naturalization proceedings. Federal authorities arrested 11 people that day as part of Operation Protect the Vote, a coordinated effort involving all four federal prosecutors' offices in California. The defendants are presumed innocent unless proved guilty. Some defendants face felony charges carrying maximum penalties of five years in federal prison. Others face misdemeanor charges of unlawful voting by noncitizens, which carry a maximum sentence of one year in prison. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. But documented illegal voting remains rare, according to research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, which says many allegations ultimately reflect mistakes by voters or election administrators. Its review says alleged voter misconduct often proves baseless or exaggerated. The organization also warns that false fraud claims can make it harder for eligible American citizens to participate in elections. Theodore Bunker ✉Theodore Bunker, a Newsmax writer, has more than a decade covering news, media, and politics. © 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved. |
Jackie Singh's Stolen Valor Controversy Raises Bigger Questions About Media Credibility
You may have seen the name Jackie Singh popping up on X over the last few days. But if you're not a member of the military or veteran community, you may not have paid attention to the details and simply scrolled by. For those not in the know, Singh is known for her extreme left-wing independent journalism. As a brash and outspoken purveyor of progressive ideology, she has a background that many on the left do not — she served in the U.S. Army in an active combat zone. And she uses that detail to bludgeon any and all criticism of the policies she advocates. Except it was recently discovered that her own description of her background might not be based in reality. On October 17, before the University of Texas at San Antonio and U.S. Naval Academy football game, members of our armed forces put on a display of capabilities by rappelling from the rafters of the Alamodome. The same kind of display that has taken place at countless events over the years, and is used as a valuable training opportunity for our service members. Unfortunately, Air Force Tech. Sgt. Ian Patterson lost his life during the exercise, with the cause of the incident remaining under investigation. While this was a devastating loss to his family, the Air Force, and every American, our brave service members know it comes with the territory. All reasonable measures are taken to prevent the loss of life, but the reality is that when you’re doing a dangerous job, people will die. Even in training. And while it rarely makes the national news, this kind of thing happens on military bases all around the world every year. Predictably, Singh used this tragedy in an attempt to score cheap political points, and her rabid left-wing followers ate it up like fresh red meat. She was especially vocal in her attacks on the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, blaming him personally for the death. Backlash was swift and intense, with hundreds of people calling her out for her ghoulish behavior. Her response to many was some variation of “F*ck you, I’m a veteran.” Debate raged on in the replies until U.S. Marine Corps veteran Jeremy Knauff scrolled across the tweet. Appalled at what he saw, he began digging into Singh’s background, and once he got a hold of her service records, he concluded that her stories of combat service were greatly exaggerated. The more he dug, the worse it got. “She did serve and was briefly in Iraq, that much is true,” he explains, adding:
Knauff says he never had an opportunity to deploy to Iraq because he got out roughly a year before the Global War on Terrorism, known as the GWOT, began. His last deployment included a stint in Bosnia with the 26th MEU in 1998. “I absolutely loathe people like Jackie who engage in stolen valor, especially when they’re doing it for profit, because I lost brothers doing the things these frauds pretend they did. It’s a disgrace,” he explains. Brothers like Sergeant Todd Grant, who Knauff describes as “one of the best leaders I had the pleasure of serving with.” So he took action. It started with a tweet calling out Singh for using wildly embellished stories of her service to promote her role as an “investigative journalist,” but he also continued digging into her online activity and found even more disturbing behavior. “She bragged about her ‘extensive combat experience’ and supposed ability to kill people, made countless disparaging comments about critics who hadn’t served, and even outright threatened violence.” So he started capturing screenshots, and then published another tweet with more details of her service along with these screenshots, and tagged her. His tweets started getting lots of attention. Many retweeted them while others used the information to publish tweets of their own. Soon after that, other veterans who had served with Singh began sharing firsthand stories. By that evening, just a few hours later, the story had gone viral. Tens of thousands of tweets quickly filled the timeline and search results, which soon became hundreds of thousands of tweets. Singh lashed out. First accusing Knauff of working for Hegseth and the Department of War, and later resorting to legal threats and even threats of violence in her replies. Knauff, a PR expert who works primarily with entrepreneurs, says he does not, nor has he ever worked for Hegseth or the Department of War, noting:
It’s also worth noting that at the time of writing this article, USAA still had Singh listed on The National Military Monument, honoring her as a veteran. Knauff and others contacted USAA regarding this matter, but the company has not responded to their inquiries. That doesn’t seem to align with the behavior of a company that supposedly exists to serve veterans and active duty military. While Singh’s behavior is the lowest of the low, it’s just a symptom of a much larger problem. She’s just one of countless left-wing “journalists” who chose to push a hyperpartisan agenda rather than report factual information. She operates within a circle of self-described journalists like Ed Krassenstein, Leah Pfeiffer, David Pakman, and Jennifer Welch, to name just a few, who serve as the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party solely to dishonestly present their fake talking points as objective facts. And many command virtual armies of rabid followers driven by confirmation bias, who will gleefully attack anyone who debates their coverage, like a mob of vicious flying monkeys. Fortunately, in many cases, the impact of these “journalists” has waned in recent years, both because a majority of Americans can see through the deception and have grown tired of it, and because of what some suspect was the impact of USAID's dismantling on bot networks that may have been artificially propping them up. Singh’s X profile raises similar questions. Despite having over 94K followers, you’ll find very little engagement. Likes, replies, and retweets can be counted in double digits at best — far lower than would be typical for an account of this size. You can also see it with the various gun control groups, which would routinely amass thousands of likes, replies, and retweets before USAID was shut down; today, they receive almost no support and their replies are filled with criticism. While Jackie Singh is currently going viral for fraudulently misrepresenting her military service, the real story here is the massive network of self-proclaimed journalists pushing left-wing propaganda. I believe, as patriotic Americans, we have a duty to push back against this machine. That doesn’t necessarily mean taking a role in journalism ourselves, though that is one viable path. It could be as simple as discussing the facts of the issues, both online and in person, with the people in our circles. As Cliff Maloney so often explains, we need to get organized and take action at the grassroots level to take our country back from the people who hate it. Credit: Nate Jurewicz is a citizen journalist covering politics and real estate, both local to Florida and on a national level. He’s also a conservative political activist and aspiring politician. |
DOJ Tightens the Screws Even More on Ex-FBI Officials Over 2020 Election Hunter Biden Cover-Up
 |
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has added an obstruction charge to the case against two former senior FBI officials already accused of lying to Congress about their involvement in investigations related to Hunter Biden. In a superseding criminal complaint filed this week, prosecutors accuse Nicole Floris, the former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), and Bradley Benavides, its former section chief, of corruptly obstructing a House Judiciary Committee probe. The new count alleges that the duo provided false testimony in 2023 to conceal the task force’s engagement with Hunter Biden matters and impede the congressional investigation. According to the affidavit supporting the charges, Floris testified that she “did not” have any involvement in the Hunter Biden investigation and claimed “no personal knowledge of Hunter Biden ever being the subject of any discussion at the FITF." Benavides, for his part, told lawmakers he learned of the FBI’s possession of the laptop only from a Wikipedia article and insisted he had “absolutely not” known about it during his tenure there. The affidavit, however, tells a different story. Floris allegedly circulated a Senate report mentioning a possible Burisma bribe, signed off on internal assessments, and helped handle the FBI’s response after the New York Post published the laptop story in October 2020. The DOJ also said Benavides was in the mix. He spoke with colleagues about the laptop the same day the story broke and approved talking points suggesting it might be Russian disinformation.
A document in a batch of declassified files released by the White House in July shows that Floris claimed in a chat log, "I am basically running a shadow government inside the FBI right now." The new obstruction charge follows RedState's report that Floris and Benavides were charged with lying to Congress about their involvement in Hunter Biden-related investigations. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced those charges, suggesting that senior FBI officials who lie to Congress believe they are above the law. "Lying to Congress by anyone strikes at the heart of our democratic system, but when senior FBI agents lie to Congress believing they are above the law, it's time to bring the hammer of justice down on them," Pirro said. "When senior officials entrusted with safeguarding our nation's security choose deception over duty, they undermine the very institutions they swore to uphold."
The pair is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Prosecutors are entitled to investigate whether these agents misled Americans regarding the 2020 election. Lawyers for both Floris and Benavides have strongly denied the allegations and, of course, claim they are victims of political persecution. "The government’s reasons for charging Nikki are as transparent as they are unjust: to push a false narrative for a shot at political points," Floris' lawyers said in a statement. Benavides' attorney maintains that the charges are a "disgrace" and said his client is a "true patriot who devoted his career to protecting this country and its people." Floris and Benavides made their initial court appearance this past Friday. Because they were charged via a criminal complaint, the case requires a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., to return an indictment before it can move forward. Credit: redstate.com |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Google's Anti Conservative Cartoons
The below screenshot is a real life example of Googles anti conservatives views.
-
If she were White there would have been 🦗 An arbitrator has directed the Washington Post to rehire Karen Attiah, the opinion columnist wh...
-
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison testifies during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in the U.S. Capitol Bu...
-
European leaders are standing by sanctions against Russia despite President Donald Trump’s agreement with Russian Presi...
