CartoonDems

 

Steve Hilton to Newsmax: California Race Is Winnable

 Steve Hilton, the Republican nominee for California governor, told Newsmax on Wednesday he believes he can win the election.

Hilton said the state has suffered under 16 years of one-party rule while his opponent, Xavier Becerra, is barely campaigning.

"He's so afraid of actually making a mistake," Hilton said on "Finnerty." "He's barely even going outdoors in this campaign.

"He's worse than Biden in the basement. He's not trying to earn anyone's vote."

While polls continue to show Hilton trailing Becerra, he believes his message is starting to resonate with voters.

"When you look at some of the polls from the establishment polling organizations that use the same methodology year after year after year, there's still a big gap between me and Becerra," Hilton said.

"But some of the other polls, the people involved in the billionaires tax are showing a much smaller gap since we started campaigning, since the end of the primary, instead of that kind of number that you see there," he added.

While Hilton conceded he still trails Becerra, he believes the race might be in the single digits.

"There's no question this is an uphill battle," Hilton said. "But we feel that this is a winnable race."

"Every single day I'm out there, I get people coming up to me saying, 'I'm a lifelong Democrat, but this year I'm voting for you because we got to have a change.' He's nowhere," Hilton added.

"We're out there with positive, practical things that will make life better for people," Hilton continued. "Something's happening in California. I'm not sitting here saying, yes, we're definitely going to win. But the idea that he's definitely going to win, that's not right either."

Credit: Newsmax.com 

A Male Karen Tries to Harass Nick Shirley at Airport, Is Summarily Exposed As Know-Nothing Ignoramus

Independent journalist Nick Shirley was harassed at an airport — many commenters claimed it was Salt Lake City International Airport, but that has not been confirmed — in a viral video he posted to social media late Wednesday afternoon.

It isn’t only that the unnamed guy was obnoxious; it’s also that he turned out to be clueless about what he was angry about and utterly unable to explain himself. It would be funny, except we know there are all too many similar people out there who are just like him, and they’re allowed to vote.

If brains were required to submit your ballot, this self-described "liberal cuck” might be ruled ineligible:

As Shirley explained to the guy, he and other investigative journalists have uncovered massive amounts of fraud in California, Minnesota, and elsewhere, and prompted congressional hearings. So when this harasser said “shame on you," Nick had a simple question: “Why?”

The man refused to answer — over and over again. When asked by Shirley which fraud he wished hadn’t been uncovered, the dude could just repeat the same phrase: “You know!”

No, I honestly don’t.

I have a theory, though: This male Karen is a know-nothing liberal who is aware he’s supposed to be angry at Nick Shirley, but he has no idea why. He’s just been trained like a seal by the mainstream media and the narrative he’s been sold that Nick is a bad person. 

 

 

He might know that when Shirley uncovered severe graft in the Golden State, Gov. Gavin Newsom didn’t thank him — he mocked him, which tells you everything you need to know about Gov. Hair Gel. (See: Newsom Tries to Shame Nick Shirley for Investigating CA Fraud; Shirley Smokes Him With Brutal Reply.)

The pathetic episode reminds me of a conversation I had with someone whose identity is not relevant; let’s just say it’s a person who I don’t need to get hostile with for various reasons. I note that just in case you’re wondering, “What the heck are you doing talking to this nitwit in the first place?”

Here’s how the conversation went down not long after the tragic assassination of TPUSA Co-Founder Charlie Kirk. Person A: “Well, I certainly don’t condone violence, but I also do not support what he stood for.”

“And what was that?” I asked.

Person A: Silence. 

She had no freaking clue what he stood for; she just knew that CNN and the New York Times didn’t like him. That was enough. She finally sputtered out a line similar to that used by Shirley’s aggressor: “Well, you know.”

Needless to say, I only engage with Person A when I absolutely have to.

One reason I often write about the fake news media is that I believe it is truly dangerous to the republic. Most of the liberals I know are staggeringly uninformed because they rarely venture outside the Misinformation Machine bubble. I would bet that a lot of conservatives know exactly what the NYT and the Washington Post are peddling on a given day, but our lib counterparts would never dare to check Fox News or RedState — they can’t handle it.

Most of them honestly believed all the way up to the Debate Heard Round the World that Joe Biden was sharp as a tack, because MS NOW told them so.

Shirley has exposed plenty of fraud in recent times, and now he can add exposing a bitter, willful ignoramus leftie to his résumé.

Credit:  https://redstate.com/

 

The Essex Files: Newsom Admits Outdoor Dining Bans Were 'Insane' — but the Damage Is Already Done

 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently acknowledged that his administration’s early COVID-19 restrictions on outdoor dining were “insane.” The admission has drawn predictable attention, yet it changes little about the record. 

Those rules, along with prolonged school closures and other sweeping limits, imposed real costs on families, businesses and public health while delivering uncertain benefits.

Newsom’s government treated outdoor seating as a major transmission risk long after evidence showed the virus spread far more readily indoors. Restaurants that invested in heaters, tents and open-air setups still faced shutdowns or severe capacity limits. 

NEWSOM ADMITS COVID DECISIONS “WERE INSANE IN HINDSIGHT” Gavin Newsom says California’s beach closures and delays in reopening some schools went too far, calling them mistakes in hindsight. #WashingtonEye https://t.co/FM7FaP57W9

— Washington Eye (@washington_EY) September 18, 2026

The policy reflected a broader preference for centralized control over measured responses that weighed both viral risk and the harm of isolation, lost livelihoods, and disrupted education.

Florida under Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) took a different path. DeSantis moved earlier to reopen schools and keep businesses operating with fewer blanket bans. Florida prioritized protecting the elderly and medically vulnerable while allowing younger, healthier residents to resume normal activity. The approach accepted that COVID-19 would circulate and focused resources where mortality risk was highest rather than attempting to suppress every case through indefinite restrictions.

Outcomes reflected those differences. Multiple analyses of excess deaths and age-adjusted COVID mortality during the pandemic years showed higher rates in several high-restriction blue states than in Florida and other states that reopened sooner. New York under then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo recorded especially heavy losses early on, compounded by the decision to return COVID-positive patients to nursing homes. 

How disgusting to hear Gavin Newsom call his COVID lockdowns “insane” and hide behind “hindsight.” I said it at the time — in March 2020 — and his state is STILL suing Calvary Chapel San Jose. When I’m governor, MY COVID Accountability Commission will make him and the rest of them PAY.

— Steve Hilton (@SteveHiltonx) September 19, 2026

California’s prolonged restrictions correlated with significant excess mortality as well, even as the state maintained some of the strictest rules in the country. Florida’s excess death rates compared favorably despite an older population and higher rates of certain comorbidities.

These gaps were not solely the product of demographics or hospital capacity. Policy choices mattered. Extended school closures in California contributed to learning loss and mental-health declines among children, costs that remain measurable years later. 

Below Video 5 Years Ago. 

Small businesses that could not survive months of limited or zero revenue closed permanently. Outdoor dining bans exemplified the pattern: highly visible, politically costly measures that later proved hard to defend on scientific grounds.

In this clip Newsom says big school districts like LA "refused to open" during Covid. As governor, he had the power to make them open. He CHOSE not to. He bowed to unions. School districts in Florida also tried to say no to opening and Gov. DeSantis made them. That's leadership.

— Karol Markowicz (@karol) September 18, 2026

Newsom’s recent comments concede the outdoor dining rules went too far. That recognition is useful only if it prompts a clearer accounting of the full policy suite. Blanket lockdowns, mask mandates of uncertain value in community settings, and delayed school reopenings extracted a steep price. 

States that treated the virus as a serious but manageable threat, rather than an emergency requiring open-ended emergency powers, generally recorded better overall results on excess mortality and economic recovery.

Public health decisions during a novel pathogen involve trade-offs. Suppressing transmission at all costs proved neither sustainable nor optimal. Florida’s model of targeted protection and earlier restoration of normal life avoided some of the excesses visible in California and New York.  

Newsom’s admission on one narrow policy does not rewrite the broader record. Voters and future policymakers should examine the comparative data rather than accept late-stage reframing as sufficient accountability.

The pandemic tested governance under uncertainty. Those who kept restrictions calibrated to actual risk and updated them as evidence accumulated served their residents better than those who treated every restriction as a moral imperative. The outdoor dining episode is a small but telling example of the larger pattern.

Credit:  https://redstate.com/

 

Scott Jennings Creates a Stir on CNN Setting the Record Straight on the Greenland Deal

 

No one is like Scott Jennings. The Salem Radio host and CNN contributor took the CNN panel to school numerous times this week, including once when he slapped down the press for saying the Greenland deal will never happen and that Denmark is somehow slipping away from its good graces. That's not the case, as the nation’s prime minister demonstrated at the United Nations:

He rubbed their noses in it, and they deserved every single second of this.

Scott Jennings forces the CNN panel to acknowledge the fact that despite all of their hysteria over President Trump’s vision for Greenland, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen herself heaped praise… pic.twitter.com/cVNrhYN0vZ

— Overton (@overton_news) September 23, 2026

JENNINGS: “It was a momentous thing.”

“And for a year and a half or almost two years now, I’ve been listening to everyone have a complete and total hysterical meltdown about this, about how we’ve ruined our relationship with Denmark, about how this has weakened Europe and weakened NATO, blah, blah, blah.”

“If you listen to her speech today, it could not have been more pro-American and pro-Trump and pro national security, and it was perfect!”

“And it got done despite all of the hysteria.”

“So when I hear the same hysteria, people coming out here and claiming somehow we’ve decimated the entire Iranian military, and that means they’re winning…I somehow feel like maybe, just maybe, we’re on the right track!”

He also tossed another hand grenade into the CNN tent over President Trump booting CNN, Politico, and MSNBC from the White House:

Scott Jennings does it again.

The CNN panel went into a tailspin, scrambling to justify banning President Trump from social media the moment Jennings compared it to Trump restricting the press from the White House.

It was immediate mental gymnastics.

He nailed the root of… pic.twitter.com/CBsXD20Wod

— Overton (@overton_news) September 22, 2026

Recommended

The designated conservative hitter on CNN never misses. 

This was one of Scott’s most savage lines all from this year.

CNN: “Scott, do you agree with Trump that Mamdani has great potential?”

SCOTT JENNINGS: “Potential? Yeah. He has the potential to, you know, bring about the downfall of America…sure.”

[Cracks up] pic.twitter.com/6b3x9ueL6T

— Overton (@overton_news) September 22, 2026

For the college kids out there, watch this video and you can skip your Econ class this afternoon. pic.twitter.com/k9RxQ37f4L

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) September 17, 2026

Credit: https://townhall.com/ 

 

Not So Fast, My Friend: Lib Hopes of Trump's WH Media Ban Getting Tossed Got Trashed Today

 

That’s a development I didn’t expect, given how the courts have combated the Trump White House. The media ban on CNN, Politico, and MSNBC, which have been banned from campus since September 18, will remain in effect. We know about the other major networks stopping pool coverage in a show of solidarity — Fox News joined the chorus. We know a lawsuit was filed, bracing for the inevitable slapdown by some district judge, because why should we expect any different, right? But that didn’t happen today. The media ban remains in effect for now (via NYT):

🚨 NOW: The judge has REFUSED to IMMEDIATELY reinstate CNN, MSNOW and POLITICO to the White House after the federal hearing concluded

Instead, the judge said he'll issue a ruling at some point

The White House RIPPED IN to these outlets for publishing NATIONAL SECURITY threats…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 23, 2026

A federal judge on Wednesday declined to issue an immediate ruling on the White House’s ban against CNN, MS NOW and Politico after hearing arguments from the two sides in the case, leaving the ban in place for the time being.

Federal judge orders White House to restore access to media outlets Trump banned

 

Judge Timothy J. Kelly of U.S. District Court in Washington said he would rule “as soon as possible” on the ban.

The ban dates to last Friday, when Mr. Trump declared in a Truth Social post that he would bar CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House because of their reporting. On Saturday, journalists for each outlet were denied access to White House grounds, and by Monday, the outlets had sued the administration, arguing the ban was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

To express support for the banned outlets, other media companies pulled back from their routine coverage of presidential events. The television pool — five networks that share the responsibility of providing and distributing television coverage of the president — suspended that coverage starting Monday. The New York Times and The Washington Post also said they would limit publication of photos taken from the president’s events as part of a broader effort among journalists to boycott in support of the barred journalists. NPR stopped using audio from White House events, according to an internal memo viewed by The Times.

Judge Kelly seemed skeptical of the administration’s arguments in the hearing on Wednesday.

A lawyer for the media outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous, told the judge that Mr. Trump’s repeated statements that he had imposed the ban because he took exception to journalism from certain media organizations made him “our lead witness.” Mr. Boutrous said such a rationale infringes on the outlets’ constitutional rights. “He keeps proving our point,” Mr. Boutrous said.

A lawyer for the administration, Michael Velchik, countered that the outlets were embracing an “absurd interpretation of the First Amendment.” He said the affected outlets mistakenly thought they could “knowingly publish classified information” while still enjoying “privileged access to the White House complex.” He argued that access to the White House is a “privilege, not a right.”

So, the media and liberal America thought this ban would be tossed today. Not so fast, my friend. 

Credit: https://townhall.com/

Trump and Melania welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping and Madame Peng to U.S., launching 3-day visit

 

In a display of diplomatic grand pageantry, President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan to the United States on Wednesday, launching a three-day state visit aimed at managing the balance of power between the world’s two largest economies.

Out of respect, President Trump broke standard protocol by personally greeting the Chinese delegation on the tarmac upon their arrival at Joint Base Andrews — a rare gesture for a U.S. president — signaling a strong commitment to bilateral diplomacy.

The visit marks President Xi’s first state visit to Washington, D.C., in eleven years, following reciprocal summitry after Trump traveled to Beijing earlier in May.

The formal White House ceremonies will take place on Thursday morning on the South Lawn, where nearly 500 members of the U.S. Armed Forces will assemble alongside military honor guards, the U.S. Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps.

Following a traditional presidential salute and the playing of both national anthems, the opening events will conclude with a joint military flyover featuring a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber flanked by four F-22 Raptors overhead.

This Week’s Agenda

Both leaders are expected to deliver remarks exemplifying the necessity of open communication and economic stability, setting the stage for bilateral talks covering topics such as trade, artificial intelligence (AI) safeguards, export controls and regional security issues.

 

Parallel to the executive summit, the diplomatic agenda highlights soft-power engagement led by the two first ladies.

Following the Thursday morning ceremony, Melania and Madame Peng are scheduled to visit the Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art to tour historical collections and celebrate cultural exchanges between the two nations.

On Thursday evening, President Trump and the First Lady are set to host Xi and Madame Peng for a black-tie State Dinner in the East Room, attended by top business leaders, cabinet officials, and foreign dignitaries. The itinerary will culminate on Friday morning with tea in the Red Room, followed by a joint visit to the National Archives to view foundational U.S. documents.

Credit:  https://www.oann.com/

 

Elon Musk Eyes Stake in Paramount‑Warner Deal, Left Will Roar

 Semafor just dropped a doozy: Paramount Skydance executives quietly discussed asking Elon Musk to join a syndicate of equity investors as the company tightens the financing for its planned acquisition of Warner Bros. The outreach is reported but not confirmed, and both Paramount and Mr. Musk have declined to comment. Still, the timing matters — the merger just cleared a major legal hurdle with a settlement from state attorneys general, and now Paramount needs deep pockets to close the deal.

Why Elon Musk’s name suddenly matters in the Paramount‑Warner deal

The simple fact is money talks. Larry Ellison has already personally guaranteed roughly $40 billion of the equity backing this transaction, and that kind of family financing got the deal this far. Paramount executives reportedly tossed around Mr. Musk’s name as one of several wealthy individuals who could join a funding group. If Musk does put cash on the table, it would change who holds real leverage over the combined company that would own CBS, HBO, Paramount+, and yes, CNN.

What Musk could mean for media and editorial control

Make no mistake: this isn’t just a finance story. It’s about who gets to shape big newsroom cultures. Mr. Musk is the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla and owner of X — a man who has never been shy about debating media bias or pushing free‑speech arguments. The left’s immediate panic over a possible Musk stake says more about their fear of losing a cozy monopoly on influence than it does about any proven threat. And if Musk were to invest, conservatives should expect a lot fewer scripted outrages and a lot more questions on the record.

Regulatory risks, newsroom reactions, and the media circus ahead

There are real checks in place. The settlement with state attorneys general included protections aimed at maintaining editorial independence, and any material change in ownership could prompt fresh scrutiny from regulators and watchdogs. Also, the outreach to Mr. Musk is only talk for now — no term sheet, no signed papers, no change in ownership. Still, watch the SEC filings and any updated court papers closely. If a billionaire with a bullhorn buys a stake in a company that owns legacy news brands, the left will scream, the press will stage itself as heroic, and the rest of us will watch the ratings tumble or soar.

At the end of the day, this development is a test of two things: whether media empires stay safe in a small circle of donors, and whether free markets — yes, even billionaire investors — can inject some balance into the newsroom ecosystem. If Mr. Musk signs on, the left will howl and the media narrative will scramble. If he doesn’t, the story still exposes how fragile impartiality is when massive sums of money decide who controls the microphone. Either way, conservatives should pay attention and be ready to force a little accountability into the conversation.

Credit:  https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/

Vance and Dr. Oz Cancel 315,000 Obamacare Enrollments, Hunt $2.2B

 

The White House announced a sweeping crackdown on Obamacare fraud this week, and hardworking Americans should be relieved that the rule of law is finally being applied to the federal Marketplace. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services says roughly 315,000 enrollments affecting about 760,000 people were canceled and another 419,000 are being re‑verified in a fraud purge aimed at reclaiming taxpayer money abused under the previous administration. This is about protecting advance premium tax credits, defending honest taxpayers, and restoring integrity to the Marketplace.

The administration’s sweep and what it uncovered

Vice President J.D. Vance and CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz led the announcement as part of the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, laying out a program‑integrity operation that aims to recover about $2.2 billion in improper premium tax credits. Officials flagged suspicious patterns—missing Social Security numbers, unreachable contacts, zero claims and zero prescriptions—that point to systemic problems, not mere paperwork glitches. Conservatives should cheer a government willing to pull the plug on bogus enrollments instead of letting waste and abuse become the new normal.

 

Phantom enrollees, broker gaming, and the Biden-era mess

Dr. Mehmet Oz called many of the accounts “phantoms,” and the evidence of broker‑driven signups and lax verification shows how the program was gamed for profit while taxpayers footed the bill. Vice President Vance put it plainly: “We’re actually making sure that the people receiving Obamacare subsidies are actually entitled to receive them.” If Biden administration officials relaxed rules and turned a blind eye to broker misconduct, they must be held accountable for turning ordinary relief programs into a cash pipeline for insiders.

What this means for taxpayers and the insurance market

Recovering $2.2 billion in advance premium tax credits is real fiscal stewardship that protects middle‑class families already squeezed by inflation and higher premiums. Removing phantom enrollees will also force insurers and regulators to confront the true cost of the risk pool, which conservatives have argued should be transparent and properly verified. The temporary moratorium on new federally‑facilitated Marketplace agent registrations and hundreds of broker termination notices are exactly the kind of enforcement actions long overdue.

Due process, transparency, and the next fights to expect

Cynics will scream about wrongful cancellations, and critics rightly warn the government must not toss legitimate people off plans without fair notice and appeal; conservatives should insist on both strong enforcement and clear due process. The next battles will be administrative appeals and likely litigation, but Republicans must demand CMS publish the criteria and state breakdowns, show how many cancellations are reversed, and expose who profited from past lax oversight. If Washington wants respect and trust, it starts with rooting out fraud, enforcing the rules, and making sure taxpayers see the outcomes.

Credit:  https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/

 

CartoonDems