WSJ Finally Covers NC Train Stabbing… as ‘MAGA Talking Point’

 by John Nolte

The far-left Wall Street Journal finally found the Charlotte, NC, train stabbing worth covering, but only as a “MAGA talking point.”

This is really something coming from an outlet that identifies as a “newspaper”:

A good-faith search of the Wall Street Journal site confirmed that, although the story has made headlines since the weekend, this is the outlet’s first story touching it. “Woman’s Stabbing Death Becomes MAGA Talking Point,” reads the print headline.

“Conservative political figures, including Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, have shared footage of the deadly attack and used it to paint Democrats as ‘soft on crime,’” the Journal whines.

Then the Journal accidentally condemns itself…

“On Monday, nearly three weeks after the fatal stabbing and as it gained national attention…” which the Journal ignored until Tuesday, then decided the story was nothing more than a MAGA talking point.

Here’s the real headline the Journal chose not to print… The Journal goes on to report that Charlotte’s Democrat mayor, Vi Lyles has “called for bipartisan legislation to stop repeat offenders who, she said, don’t face consequences for their actions.” Then she admitted, “What we know is that his was a tragic failure by the courts and magistrates.”

How in the hell is the headline not: Mayor Admits Fatal Train Stabbing ‘Tragic Failure’ of System ???

Iryna Zarutska was slaughtered because Democrats deliberately created a judicial system that releases violent criminals back on the streets. That’s why this beautiful 23-year-old woman is dead. The man accused of murdering her in cold blood is who he is. The Democrat-run system in Charlotte’s Mecklenburg County knew what he was and still released him onto an unsuspecting public.

They had him.

They knew what he was capable of.

They still let him go multiple times.

Iryna Zarutska’s murder was not only easily preventable… it was predictable. No one could predict it would be her, but based on the suspect’s background, he was the equivalent of a werewolf — and it was only a matter of time before he ripped someone to shreds just because.

The regime media do not want to cover this obscenity in the way it should be covered — as one of those incidents that crystallizes a systemic failure — because it makes their Democrat Party look bad and aids and abets President Trump’s righteous push to quell a violent crime crisis in Democrat-run cities as he has done in Washington, DC.

The Wall Street Journal and Axios and the like think making an issue of this poor girl’s murder is not only worse than the murder, but worse than the stupid and dangerous Democrat Party’s soft-on-crime policies that caused this predictable murder and countless other preventable victims: cashless bail, district attorneys who refuse to prosecute, turning felonies into misdemeanors, and this entire defund the police mentality.

Reducing violent crime is easy. You lock up violent criminals. Yes, it’s that easy. It really is.

Everyone deserves a fair trial and vigorous defense. The bleeding heart liberal in me believes that, believes it is better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to prison. But once that person is convicted, and we know that they are capable of violence, sexual crimes, or have committed serial felonies, you throw away the key. Period.

Mayor Lyles, who just won the Democrat mayoral primary and will likely win reelection, said of this stabbing: “We will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness and mental health.”

Yes, actually, we can arrest our way out of these issues. In fact, it is not only easy to arrest our way out of these problems, that is the only way to end these problems.

But the Wall Street Journal doesn’t care about a butchered woman or saving the next butchered woman. It cares only about its status among the corrupt and degenerate elite.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2025/09/10/nolte-far-left-wall-street-journal-finally-covers-nc-train-stabbing-as-maga-talking-point/

Watch Norah O’Donnell’s Justice Barrett ‘Interview’ To Understand How The Media Lie

By: Shawn Fleetwood

Image Credit

CBS News/YouTube 

It’s no secret that CBS’s Norah O’Donnell is a left-wing activist masquerading as a straight-shooting journalist. So, it wasn’t exactly shocking to watch her employ Democrat Party talking points to smear the Supreme Court during her recent interview with Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Released on Sunday, the roughly hour-long discussion was seemingly marketed as a detailed look at Barrett’s upcoming book, which promises to explore the Trump appointee’s experiences on the high court, thoughts on the law, and how the judiciary operates. But it’s clear after watching the exchange that O’Donnell had a much more sinister goal in mind than simply hearing the justice’s thoughts on such matters.

From beginning to end, O’Donnell treated the “interview” as an opportunity to try and discredit the Supreme Court and its rulings that she unmistakably disagrees with. One of the ways she did this was by painting the high court as nothing more than a rubber stamp for President Trump — a strategy displayed within the first few minutes of the interrogation.

After claiming Trump appointed her to “cement a conservative legal revolution,” O’Donnell asked Barrett if she is “concerned about the narrative of this court — that it is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

The “question,” of course, isn’t really a question at all. It’s a Democrat accusation intentionally couched in the form of a question to give the impression that O’Donnell’s dishonest framing of the issue is undeniably true (even though it isn’t).

And it’s a tactic O’Donnell continued to embrace throughout the rest of the interview.

The CBS host probed Barrett on if the “reputation of the Supreme Court matter[s] to you” and how the “Supreme Court make[s] sure that it appears and works in an apolitical manner.” The suggestion, as it seems, is that the court is damaging its credibility in the eyes of the public by ruling on cases in ways Democrats like O’Donnell find unfavorable.

One of the more deceptive examples of this scheme came later in the discussion when O’Donnell asked Barrett if SCOTUS risks undermining its credibility by regularly siding with Trump in cases that come before the court’s emergency docket — a situation O’Donnell (unsurprisingly) declined to mention stems from leftists’ lawfare against the administration.

“Do these repeated emergency or shadow docket interventions by the Supreme Court risk undermining public trust, especially if they are perceived to be politically motivated and favorable to President Trump?” O’Donnell asked.

See how this works, folks? When Trump criticizes rogue judges for usurping the authority of the executive branch, it’s an attack on the independence of the judiciary. But when leftists like O’Donnell try to undermine the Supreme Court for issuing constitution-based rulings, it’s a noble service in the name of “democracy!”

But lobbing accusatory questions is only one of the many dishonest tools O’Donnell wielded throughout her interrogation of Barrett.

The CBS host also employed a long-used media tactic of citing unnamed “experts” or “scholars” to attempt to provide some semblance of legitimacy to her phony queries and their deceptive framing. When discussing the current administration, for instance, O’Donnell demanded Barrett respond to “observers” (aka left-wing critics) who claim Trump “is pushing the boundaries of executive power [and] may be overreaching and [that] the Supreme Court is not providing an adequate check on that.”

For her part, Barrett was evidently having none of it.

During multiple exchanges in the interview, the Trump appointee calmly shot down O’Donnell’s dishonestly framed questions in a very “bless your heart” fashion.

For example, when O’Donnell asked Barrett why the Supreme Court won’t permit rogue lower courts’ overreaching injunctions against Trump to remain in place until the merits can be heard by the high court, Barrett eloquently disputed the CBS host’s apparent insinuation that the president’s policies are unlawful.

“We have to answer these interim questions when they come,” Barrett said. “I think you’re assuming that in a lot of these questions, the president is likely to lose on the merits. But remember, all of these judgments, these are legal questions that we have to make our best judgments about. And these cases necessarily reflect our view, tentative though it is at the time, that the president is likely to succeed on the merits.”

“[W]hen you look at the docket of the court, you are likely to see that it is a mirror of whatever the domestic issues are in the country at the time,” the justice added.

O’Donnell faced further embarrassment in the discussion’s concluding minutes. Shortly after struggling to remember how many amendments the Constitution has, the CBS host’s interrogation tactics seemingly got poor reviews from Barrett, who appeared to suggest O’Donnell’s dishonestly framed “questions” highlight the “biggest misconception about the Supreme Court.”

“I think the biggest misconception about the Supreme Court — and I think it kind of underlies some of the questions that you’ve raised, which come from outside the court — is that the court is just a partisan institution,” Barrett said. “I can understand why people think that, especially because justices come after nomination by the president and confirmation from the Senate. But that is not how the court functions.”

The entire discussion is quite remarkable and definitely worth watching in its entirety. Not only does it further expose O’Donnell for the lying partisan she is, but it provides a clear-cut example of how the media operate as a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

There is not an interview, “news” segment, or story they won’t distort, manipulate, or flat-out lie about in order to advance their agenda. That’s as true today as it’s ever been, and until these partisan frauds actually do their jobs in an honest and objective way, they deserve to be called out for it time and again.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/08/watch-norah-odonnells-justice-barrett-interview-to-understand-how-the-media-lie/

'Democrats must denounce socialism, not help rebrand it'

 Is there anything more dangerous to America than political extremism? The answer is yes — and that would be extremism disguised as moderation.

Every commonsense Democrat knows that socialism and antisemitism have no place in the party — not if they want it to win, let alone serve the public interest. Why, then, are some moderates focused less on rejecting these ideas than on finding ways to camouflage them?

This is exemplified by a public letter to Zohran Mamdani from the moderate Democratic group Third Way last week, imploring him to “end [his] affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America” in order to help the party “win in places much more purple and red than New York City.”

The letter rightly lays out the radicalism of the DSA platform: abolishing prisons, disarming police, abolishing the U.S. Senate and nationalizing businesses, to name a few. But it implies that the danger is one of perception, not substance. As if the problem with these ideas is that voters might notice them.

Make no mistake, Mamdani has fully embraced the DSA’s ideas throughout his career. No reasonable person would trust his half-hearted attempts to distance himself from the worst of them now. The only responsible action for Democrats is to state with moral clarity that Mamdani and his ideas have no place in the Democratic Party.

Yet that is not happening. The response to his primary victory from party leaders has been, by and large, a chorus of silence. While many undoubtedly hope he loses in November, they aren’t willing to say it, lest they upset the leftward fringe of their base. That is not leadership; it is an abdication of leadership.

This new posture takes the abdication further. Democrats are making the cynical calculation that if the wolf cannot be forced out, they’ll dress it in sheep’s clothing. But rebranding radicals is worse than doing nothing. It not only forfeits the chance to stop them; it helps them in their effort to hijack the party by offering them a free PR makeover.

This betrays one of the most immutable lessons of history — do not appease those seeking to conquer you. Without the courage of your convictions, you have nothing. You allow yourself to be redefined and replaced by the strongest insurgent. And right now, that’s the Democratic socialists.

The party and the country desperately need moderates with backbone, and they are out there. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) has called for Mamdani’s expulsion from the party. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) has also stood boldly against his extremism.

Not long ago, voices like theirs defined the Democratic Party. In the Clinton years, moderates stiff-armed the far left and proved that government could be strong without being overbearing — that markets could be free but fair and that the American Dream could be expanded without resorting to socialist handouts.

That was the promise of moderation: a genuine third way between two poles, not a halfway house between the left and the far left.

The stakes of returning to this are much greater than whether Democrats can win in purple districts. The stakes are America itself. What is the future of a country that oscillates furiously between two fringe visions for its future? Neither the far left nor the far right represent the majority of Americans. Where is the courage to speak for that majority?

The problem with socialism is not one of perception but, of reality. The Democratic Party at its best stood for truth and fought boldly to expand America’s promise. That is the tradition worth reclaiming.

Democrats today must decide whether they will be the party that confronted socialism with courage, or the one that flinched when it mattered most.

Nancy Jacobson is a co-founder and CEO of No Labels. Holly Page is a co-founder of No Labels and former senior director of the Democratic Leadership Council. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5495127-political-extremism-threat-america/

Charlie Kirk: The American People Have Had It With the Media's Double Standard On Race

CHARLIE KIRK FIRES BACK AT VAN JONES

"The attacker said, quote, 'I got that white girl.' The moment we make them live up to their own standard, they start to cry foul." — @charliekirk11 pic.twitter.com/mAN4CCI1lH

— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) September 9, 2025

Charlie Kirk comments on reactions from the left, including sympathy for the murderer from CNN's Van Jones, to the racial angle of the murder of a Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina.

"In reality we’re asking a very simple question, Mr. Jones, will you apologize for all the criminal justice reform you pushed forward that allowed these 14-time criminal offenders to walk the streets? You are the architect and designer of constantly feeling bad for the criminal—criminals who then kill more people like Irina Zarutska," Kirk said.

"And by the way, I didn’t bring up race. The attacker said, quote, 'I got that white girl.'"

"People say, Why does race matter? Oh, it matters because you made us care about race in the summer of 2020," Kirk said. "Looks like you’ve got to live up to your own rules. The second we make you live up to your ridiculous paradigm, you collapse like a house of cards."

CHARLIE KIRK: Van Jones was talking about me, and there are so many lies involved in what he said.

First of all, I never said the first part of what he claimed. I did say the second part, but this is a very important thing to focus on. Van Jones is saying I should be ashamed of myself.

And just a reminder—the murder of Irina Zarutska. Did you know that the attacker said, quote, “I got that white girl”? The attacker racialized this, just for the record.

Now, do you notice that the media suddenly tries to play the moral high ground when we make them live up to the standard they created—the construct they forced, the paradigm they constituted under George Floyd? The moment we make them live up to their own standard, they start to cry foul. As soon as we do that, they say, “Oh, Charlie Kirk is racializing this.”

And by the way, Van Jones also has a major lie embedded into this whole thing. Listen carefully. Race hustler, Marxist Van Jones—by the way, Van, you’re welcome on my program. I’ll treat you well. I’ll give you an uninterrupted opening statement.

Van Jones, if you want to talk about black crime and urban decay, you’re always welcome here. Because even though you’re an expert in race hustling, I’ve been around the block a couple times. I know your tricks, and they don’t work here. Your magical spells don’t work here. Your little hocus-pocus—"you are racist"—that doesn’t work here. We’ve got holy water here.

VAN JONES: For Charlie Kirk to say, “We know he did it because she’s white,” when there’s no evidence of that—it’s just pure hate-mongering. It’s wrong. Then he says that if something like that had happened the other way, there would be sweeping changes imposed on society. Where is the George Floyd Policing Act? It didn’t pass, even when you had a white police officer kill a black man on live television, the whole world saw it. There were no sweeping changes. In fact, not one law was passed at the federal level. We don’t know how to deal with people who are hurting in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people hurt people. What happened was horrible. Someone like Charlie Kirk should be ashamed of himself. No one mentioned race—white, black, or anything—except him.

CHARLIE KIRK: OK, so there’s a lot there. First of all, when Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of Minnesota, was asked repeatedly by the media whether there was racial animus involved in Derek Chauvin’s actions against George Floyd, he said no. They dodged the question. There is no evidence Chauvin acted racially. If you think he did, then you’re a racist, injecting racial fantasies and mythologies into a situation where they don’t exist.

And by the way—just if you’re taking notes, Media Matters—George Floyd overdosed. You can write that down, take it to the bank.

Anyway, that’s not what this is about. Here is the tweet I sent out:

“If a random white person simply walked up and stabbed a nice law-abiding black person for no reason, it would be an apocalyptically huge national story used to impose sweeping political changes on the whole country.”

Of course, this is true. Everybody knows this is true. Our media thirsts for stories like this.

Imagine a white guy sitting on a bus, and a black woman is just on her phone. Suddenly, the white guy takes out a knife and stabs her in the neck repeatedly. How do you think the media would react? We’d have protests. I’ll tell you right now—there would be a hundred burned Wendy’s around the world -- in every city. It would be so much, they’d start burning the Denny’s.

They use Emmett Till seventy years later because it was a horrifying murder of an innocent black person by hateful whites. It’s so rare they had to go back seventy years. But when a white person is murdered, we don’t burn down the country. But when George Floyd overdosed on drugs, it was Floydapalooza. But for the opposite? We only have to go back one day.

Literally, there was another. You know, several happened just last week. Another white girl was murdered by a black person in Alabama—a woman butchered walking her dog. There was also one in South Carolina, and one in Virginia. That is four white women in the American South recently butchered by black criminals.

So we step back and ask: what’s really going on here? Van Jones is acting like I said something I didn’t say, when in reality we’re asking a very simple question: Mr. Jones, will you apologize for all the criminal justice reform you pushed forward that allowed these 14-time criminal offenders to walk the streets? You are the architect and designer of constantly feeling bad for the criminal—criminals who then kill more people like Irina Zarutska.

And by the way, I didn’t bring up race. The attacker said, quote, “I got that white girl.”

People say, “What does race matter?” Oh, it matters because you made us care about race in the summer of 2020. Looks like you’ve got to live up to your own rules. The second we make you live up to your ridiculous paradigm, you collapse like a house of cards.

Here are the comments from Van Jones:

NEW: CNN panel shows sympathy for the man who stabbed Iryna Zarutska in the throat, shames people for calling it a racist attack.

Van Jones claimed there was no evidence that Zarutska was attacked because she was white.

Audio footage, however, reveals the man bragged about how… pic.twitter.com/G1ayTS7Vmk

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 9, 2025

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/09/10/charlie_kirk_the_american_people_have_had_it_with_the_medias_double_standard_on_race.html

Obamacare destroyed the health insurance market, Trump is rebuilding it

 

By Jack Hellner

For years, the Democrats have maintained their goal to take away freedom of choice on health care, wanting government health care for all. The misnamed “Affordable Care Act” took away freedom of choice, forcing everyone to buy a Rolls Royce policy, which obviously made premiums skyrocket.

Democrats continually lied, saying that if you liked your plan and doctor you could keep them, and they intentionally lied when they said Obamacare would substantially lower premiums. What a joke!

The bill had thousands of pages of regulations, and took away lifetime and annual limits, which meant small- and medium-sized companies couldn’t afford the risk, leaving large companies with a captive audience.

The results of Obamacare are obvious. Health insurance is much more unaffordable. In 2009, a policy for individuals cost an average of $92.43 per month, and family coverage was $349.36 per month, according to BLS data. The average cost of individual coverage in 2025 is $621 per month, or up 480%, which is 431% higher than the 49% overall inflation rate from 2009 to 2025. The average cost of family coverage in 2025 is $2,026 per month, or up 575%, which is 526% higher than the 49% overall inflation rate from 2009 to 2025.

Yet, most people posing as journalists and other Democrats continue to intentionally lie to the public that Obamacare has made health insurance more affordable.

Thankfully, we now have a president who understands freedom of choice and more competition is the way to make things more affordable, not complete government control:

Trump unlocks cheaper healthcare plans that could save American families thousands of dollars

President Donald Trump just took a pivotal step to make healthcare affordable again.

On Sept. 4, his administration announced that most Americans will now be eligible to buy what are known as ‘copper plans’ on the ObamaCare exchanges. Before this reform, nearly all Americans were legally barred from buying these much more affordable plans. But now working families can get the plans they need at a price they can afford – and many uninsured people will likely get covered as a result.

 

The president is fixing one of the fundamental problems with ObamaCare. That law forced Americans who get their insurance on the individual market to buy costly plans, and in the 11 years since the law went into effect, they’ve gotten even pricier.

Biden and the Democrats couldn’t get enough people to sign up for Obamacare, so they kept ratcheting up subsidies and income eligibility levels.

Here’s more, from Sally Pipes at Newsmax:

Thanks to Obamacare, Insurance Fraud Irresistible

According to a new study by the Paragon Health Institute, an astounding number of patients with premium-free exchange plans filed no claims whatsoever last year.

[snip]

It’s hard not to interpret this situation as anything but evidence of widespread fraud enabled by the enhanced premium subsidies green-lit by Democrats in 2022.

First, some background. As part of the pandemic-era American Rescue Plan Act, the Biden administration made exchange premium subsidies even more generous than the Affordable Care Act envisioned. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act extended those enhanced subsidies through the end of this year.

One consequence of this policy is that anyone earning between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty level now has access to effectively zero-cost insurance.

That creates a strong incentive for insurers and brokers to enroll as many of these people in exchange plans as possible. They can claim the federal premium subsidies — and the enrollee can ostensibly get free coverage.

According to the study, there were a whopping 12 million individuals who fell into this category last year. That's a more than three-fold increase from just three years prior, before Biden's enhanced subsidies went into effect.

How much is this scheme costing taxpayers?

The Paragon study estimates that in 2024 alone, $40 billion in federal subsidies were paid to health insurance companies on behalf of patients who received no medical care.

This looks like these policies have generated massive fraud. How is it possible that over 50% of people, 12 million, covered by Obamacare didn’t use health insurance at all and insurers were paid $40 billion for that coverage?

Are we really supposed to believe that 12 million people who have these policies didn’t get shots, didn’t pick up prescriptions, didn’t go to urgent care or emergency rooms, didn’t get their no cost physicals, and didn’t get mammograms?

Of course, if Trump and other Republicans want to investigate Obamacare for fraud, they will be accused of wanting to take away health insurance from people and causing people to die. Those are the standard talking points in all elections.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/09/obamacare_destroyed_the_health_insurance_market_trump_is_rebuilding_it.html