Weaponizing The FCC

Everything about Trump & Company is geared toward one goal... power!

They weaponized grants... changed the name of the railroad station and I'll release the money!

If you don't turn over your voter rolls… we invade your state with ICE & DHS!

Then of course there is us... stop trans healthcare with we cut funding!

The Justice Department... DEI lawsuits.

And now the FCC!

The patterns you're seeing—leveraging federal funds or regulatory power to secure specific political or cultural outcomes—have indeed become a central part of the administration's "America First" strategy... extortion!

US agency investigating if ABC's 'The View' violated equal time rules for political candidates

Reuters

By David Shepardson

February 7, 2026

Summary

    • FCC said in January late-night, daytime talk shows were no longer exempt from equal time rules

    • Trump has repeatedly pushed FCC to go after broadcast networks

    • FCC chair said in September he was considering probe into ABC talk show

The Federal Communications Commission is opening an investigation into whether ABC's "The View" daytime talk show violated equal time rules for interviews with political candidates after an appearance by a Democratic Texas Senate candidate this week, a source told Reuters on Saturday.

[…]

President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed Carr to take action against U.S. broadcasters and criticized networks for what he views as one-sided coverage. The move is the first significant step by the FCC to go after networks for interviews with political candidates.

Gee… are they going after any conservative talk shows? Nope! The Hill writes,

TALK SHOWS WERE PREVIOUSLY EXEMPT

Until January, talk shows have qualified for the equal opportunities exemption as genuine news interviews, ever since the FCC Media Bureau granted an exemption to the interview portion of Jay Leno’s "The Tonight Show" in 2006. Networks have relied on the ruling as a precedent for recent interviews with political candidates.

[...]

"Like many other so-called 'investigations' before it, the FCC will announce an investigation but never carry one out, reach a conclusion, or take any meaningful action," she said. "This is government intimidation, not a legitimate investigation."

But is anyone surprised Trump & Company are attacking liberal shows? The LA Times reports,

For years, hosts of “The View,” ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” have freely parried with high-profile politicians without worrying about being subjected to the so-called “equal time” rule, which requires broadcasters to bring on a politician’s rival to provide balanced coverage and multiple viewpoints.

With the new guidance, the FCC appears to take a dim view of whether late-night and daytime talk shows deserve an exemption from the “equal time” rules for stations that transmit programming over the public airwaves. The move comes amid FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s campaign to challenge broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC in an effort to shift more power to local broadcasters, including conservative-leaning television station groups such as Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group.

But the FCC seems to be blind to talk radio! Talkers writes about the FCC ignoring talk radio.

According to a piece in , the Federal Communications Commission’s recent Guidance on Equal Opportunity Issues was pointed toward broadcast TV license holders and not radio is because, as FCC chairman Brendan Carr states, “There wasn’t a relevant precedent that we saw that was being misconstrued on the radio side asimg that wasn’t part of anything in that decision. It was focused on the potential misreading of precedents on the broadcast TV side. Of course, as you know, the rule applies to broadcast, radio and TV, but that one was focused on those TV precedents.” The memo to broadcast TV was relative to the 1996 bona fide news interview exemption that came about in the wake of an interview Jay Leno did with then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on “The Tonight Show.” The FCC Media Bureau ruled that “The Tonight Show” did not have to give Schwarzenegger’s opponent equal time because that interview segment qualified as a bona fide news interview. This matter doesn’t seem to be a big one for news/talk radio since news/talk stations are viewed as news outlets, on top of the fact that most talk radio hosts would love the opportunity to interview candidates with whom they might not personally agree.

I think that it is only the FCC thinks talk-radio as news!

Talk radio isn't a target of FCC's 'equal time' notice, Brendan Carr says

The FCC chair says the problem lies with TV broadcasters' interpretation of the rules.

Politico Pro

By: John Hendel

01/29/2026

FCC Chair Brendan Carr said he’s not worried about enforcing political fairness from radio stations the same way he is with late-night and daytime TV.

Carr made waves last week by saying TV hosts must comply with rules requiring they give similar airtime to candidates of both parties. Lawyers have been puzzling over whether, or how, it would apply to talk radio, a traditional bastion of conservative voices. On Thursday, Carr said he didn’t see any reason to similarly press radio stations — although the same underlying rules apply.

TV broadcasters have spent years claiming an exemption from these rules in a way Carr hasn’t seen in the radio world, according to the agency leader.

“If you're fake news, you're not going to qualify as the bona fide news exception,” Carr said during a press conference after the agency’s monthly meeting?

And why is it? Is it because most talk radio shows are conservative?

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) writes on his government web-site,

In his letter to Webre and Boone, Blumenthal highlighted eight recent investigations and complaints by the FCC under Chair Brendan Carr that appear to focus on newsrooms and broadcast stations that may be disfavored by President Trump.

“Each of these eight actions single out media broadcasters that faced the wrath of President Trump during his Presidential campaign, including actual litigation or outright threats of investigations in retaliation for perceived negative coverage,” Blumenthal wrote. “This exclusive targeting to the apparent benefit of the President is further reflected in the fact that other media broadcasters, particularly allies of the President, have not faced any similar scrutiny.”

Blumenthal’s letter describes Carr’s apparent break from FCC’s past legal interpretations and guidance, including Carr’s own positions prior to becoming Chair of the FCC. The letter requests information and seeks documents about the legal standards that the FCC is now operating under. The letter also asks for information about what investigations the Commission has recently opened, including whether there are inquiries focusing on media entities favored by President Trump that have engaged in the same activities as those targeted by Carr.

It seems that Trump & Company have a very narrow definition of news based on political views.

Lies, Lies, And More Lie... Yes, I'm Talking About ICE

What does it mean when you cannot trust your government? It seems like one lie after another is coming form DHS!

Feds are not telling the truth about shooting of Marimar Martinez, attorney says

“We live in a strange time right now. We cannot trust our federal government,” attorney Chris Parente said.

NBC Ch 5 Chicago

By Charlie Wojciechowski 

February 11, 2026

An attorney representing a Chicago woman who was shot by a federal agent in the fall said the government is not telling the truth about her case and directed the public to look at newly released evidence to see for themselves.

“We live in a strange time right now. We cannot trust our federal government,” attorney Chris Parente said.

Parente represents Marimar Martinez, a Chicago Montessori teacher who was shot several times by Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum on October 4 last year.

However, evidence show it different!

In an attempt to clear Martinez's name, her attorneys filed a multi-million civil lawsuit on her behalf on Wednesday.

“To have your own government call you something as hurtful as a domestic terrorist when you know you are not, is simply unacceptable,” Parente said.

Late Tuesday night, the US Attorney’s office released a trove of evidence related to the shooting, including body camera video from those officers inside their vehicle.

On the video, one of the officers and be heard saying, “it’s time to get aggressive and get the [expletive] out of here.”

Thirty seconds later, another officer calls in that “we’ve been struck” then shots can be heard.

It is one lie after another, they lied about Ms. Good, they lied about Mr.Pretti!

Marimar Martínez lawyers say officials ‘created a culture of violence’ among agents

By Jason Meisner

Chicago Tribune

February 11, 2026

Lawyers for Marimar Martínez, the Chicago woman shot by a Border Patrol agent in October, said Wednesday newly released evidence in the case demonstrates how Trump administration officials “have created a culture of violence among their agents” where the shootings of U.S. citizens are “embraced, celebrated and promoted.”

Investigative materials made public Tuesday showed that after shooting Martínez five times on Oct. 4, Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum joked about it in a text chat with colleagues, was called a “legend” by one of his fellow agents, and even received praise directly from his boss, Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino, as Martínez lay badly wounded in a hospital.

“As Marimar was fighting for her life, Greg Bovino was promoting the agent without any investigation being done into the shooting,” Martínez’s lead attorney, Christopher Parente, said in a statement Wednesday ahead of a news conference at a downtown law office.

One of the things about lawsuits is the "Right of Discovery"

After the shooting, Parente said, government officials immediately attacked Martínez, saying she had a history of doxing federal agents and had posted threats on social media, including one specifically that said in Spanish: “Hey to all my gang let’s (expletive) these mother(expletive) up, don’t let them take anyone.”

But investigative reports released by Parente on Wednesday showed that threat had been posted by someone else unrelated to Martínez.

The DHS agents lied for the start!  ABC Chicago 7 reports that Ms. Martinez is filing a civil lawsuit,

While all criminal charges have been dismissed against Martinez, the I-Team is learning more about an open criminal investigation into the shooting, and the agent who fired those five shots.

[...]

Contradicting Evidence

It was Oct. 4 near 39th Street and Kedzie Avenue on the Southwest Side when footage from a Border Patrol agent's body-camera starts recording, after Martinez had followed the agents for several blocks, honking her horn.

While the footage has been referenced in court, the public is now able to see it for the first time.

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum Jr. can be seen driving an SUV, along with three other agents as passengers; all of the agents' faces were blurred by the government.

I would like to point out that honking a horn is not a crime. Honking your horn is not a death sentence!

Surveillance footage reviewed by the I-Team shows Martinez was on the driver's side of the agents' vehicle when Agent Exum can be seen swerving the SUV's steering wheel in her direction. He then stops the car, steps out and fires five shots.

But...

"I got out (of the vehicle) so we could defend," Exum says. Then, multiple agents can be heard warning him to stay quiet.

"Hey, hey, since we're recording, keep it... Keep everything out, you're good man," one agent tells him.

"You don't give statements to anybody," another agent can be heard telling Exum. "Absolutely no statements at all, no statements, you keep your mouth shut."

You think that they just realized that "screwed the pooch"

"You can see the bullet went back to front, which is not only inconsistent with (Agent Exum's) statement to the FBI that all five shots went through the windshield," Parente said, "but it's also extremely troubling that he's shooting at a fleeing vehicle, which is a violation of the Border Patrol's published use of force policy."

Wait a minute... the agent said she was driving towards him?????

With the public getting its first look at evidence in the case on Wednesday, one thing that's still locked in federal custody is Martinez's car she was driving the day of the shooting.

That's because more than four months later, the federal government still possesses her vehicle due to an "ongoing and pending criminal investigation" into the shooting by the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Bend, Indiana, according to court testimony and filings reviewed by the I-Team, as well as Martinez's attorneys.

On cross-examination at the November hearing, Parente disputed Exum's version of events, citing FBI reports stating it was not a supervisor, but Exum who initiated the request for the vehicle repair.

Why? Maybe because the damage doesn't match what the agents said?

Mother Jones writes,

Newly released body camera footage further undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to falsely portray Marimar Martinez—who was shot multiple times by Border Patrol agent Charles Exum in October—as a “domestic terrorist.” Federal prosecutors shared three videos on Tuesday evening after a federal judge ruled last week that the footage and other evidence could be made public.

Martinez’s shooting caused nationwide outrage, particularly after it was revealed that Exum had bragged about shooting Martinez. “Read it,” he wrote in one message after being sent an article about the incident. “5 shots, 7 holes.” He continued: “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.”

[...]

The videos released on Tuesday shed further light on why prosecutors dropped charges against Martinez rather than try to bring a case against her to trial.

The newly released evidence is also part of a pattern. It is one of many examples of DHS immigration agents lying and providing false information to justify shootings and other uses of excessive force against US citizens and immigrants. These claims have collapsed again and again once DHS is forced to defend them in court. 

The current adminstration is okay with lies, as long as it is their lies.

House Democrats ask Trump administration if any Jan. 6 rioters are now working for ICE

CBS News

By Scott MacFarlane

January 13, 2026

Nearly one year after the mass pardon of more than 1,500 Trump-supporting Capitol riot defendants, members of a House committee are investigating whether any of the pardoned rioters are now working for President Trump's administration in the fast-growing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

In a three-page letter sent Monday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi and obtained by CBS News, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee has requested all "records, documents, memos, and internal communications regarding the solicitation and hiring of anyone charged or investigated for actions in connection to the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol."

The committee's Democrats also said it remains unclear how many January 6 defendants "have been invited to join the ranks of this Administration, including among the masked Department of Homeland Security agents and officers."

If you want thugs you hire thugs!

Raskin's inquiry said, "Who is hiding behind these masks? How many of them were among the violent rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6th and were convicted of their offenses?"

DHS Noem & DOJ Bondi both said that there weren't any!

At least one Capitol riot defendant has secured a high-ranking post in the Justice Department: Jared Wise, who is serving as an agency adviser.

I repeat my question: What does it mean when you cannot trust your government?

Born This Way

[Editorial]

This morning I wrote about the legal battle that is just over the horizon, and now I want to write about another one that we, as the trans community, will inevitably face.

Many conservatives believe that being trans or LGBTQ+ is a choice. Science, however, shows that it is not a choice—it is an inherent trait, shaped by biology and development.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no one may be discriminated against, and courts have consistently ruled that it protects people based on race, gender, and other protected classes. Unfortunately, for the trans community, those protections are not yet fully recognized at the highest level. Lower courts have begun ruling that we are covered under the 14th Amendment—but the Supreme Court has yet to make a definitive ruling.

One of the key sticking points in these legal battles is whether being LGBTQ+ is a choice or an inherent trait. Until the Supreme Court addresses this question directly, our rights remain vulnerable.

There is a growing research that shows that it is not choice but we were “Born this way!”

Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity

Endocrine Practice

Volume 21, Issue 2, February 2015

Aruna Saraswat MD, Jamie D. Weinand BA, BS, & Joshua D. Safer MD

INTRODUCTION

Gender identity is a fundamental human attribute that has a profound impact on personal well-being. Transgender individuals are those whose lived and identified gender identity differs from their natal sex. Various etiologies for transgender identity have been proposed, but misconceptions that gender identity can be altered persist. However, clinical experience with treatment of transgender persons has clearly demonstrated that the best outcomes for these individuals are achieved with their …

[…]

CONCLUSION

Current data suggest a biologic etiology for transgender identity. Studies of DSD patients and neuroanatomical studies provide the strongest evidence for the organic basis of transgender identity. Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity...

There is a growing body of evidence that support us.

*** Note: Just because there might be a biological cause to being trans, it does not mean it is the only way we are trans. It is just one of many ways. ***

---

Science Daily:

Gene variants provide insight into brain, body incongruence in transgender

Date:

February 5, 2020

Source:

Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University

Summary:

Some of the first biological evidence of the incongruence transgender individuals experience, because their brain indicates they are one sex and their body another, may have been found in estrogen receptor pathways in the brain of 30 transgender individuals.

---

Journal of Clinical Medicine:

Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity

Abstract

Transgender people report discomfort with their birth sex and a strong identification with the opposite sex. The current study was designed to shed further light on the question of whether the brains of transgender people resemble their birth sex or their gender identity. For this purpose, we analyzed a sample of 24 cisgender men, 24 cisgender women, and 24 transgender women before gender-affirming hormone therapy. We employed a recently developed multivariate classifier that yields a continuous probabilistic (rather than a binary) estimate for brains to be male or female. The brains of transgender women ranged between cisgender men and cisgender women (albeit still closer to cisgender men), and the differences to both cisgender men and to cisgender women were significant (p = 0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively). These findings add support to the notion that the underlying brain anatomy in transgender people is shifted away from their biological sex towards their gender identity.

---

PubMed

Is there a biological component in gender identity?

Natalia S Fernández 1, Rosa Fernández 2, Marcelino Gómez-Balaguer 3, Mireia Mora 4, Julio Guerrero-Fernández 5, Amadora Moral-Martos 6

Abstract

Introduction: Gender identity is each person's internal sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum, which may (cisgender) or may not (transgender) coincide with the sex assigned at birth. The multiple difficulties experienced by transgender individuals constitutes a risk factor for mood disorders and self-harming behaviors. However, knowledge about biological influences on gender identity development has the potential to reduce the stigmatization of gender minorities.

---

Okay, what does all this mean? Absolutely nothing! Scientifically, it strongly suggests that gender identity is not a choice—but in legal terms, the only authority that ultimately matters is the nine justices sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court.

If they rule that being trans is an inborn trait, then we may be protected under the 14th Amendment. Notice I said “may be protected”—because, from my experience working with lawyers at CHRO and legal nonprofits, there is never a definite “yes” or “no” but rather “In my opinion.” At the end of the day, the Supreme Court justices could decide to ignore all the medical data and declare, “It’s a choice.”

And "We're screwed!"

A Showdown Is Coming

[Editorial]

I don’t know when or where, but it will be in a Southern state, and it will involve a challenge by a Northern trans woman.

Somewhere, sometime soon, a trans woman is going to be arrested for using the bathroom. That arrest will trigger a court battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court—potentially resulting in a ruling as significant as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

The court battle will be about “states’ rights,” echoing the very issue that caused the Civil War.

The state of Connecticut lists me as “female” on my birth certificate.

States such as Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and others have passed laws restricting bathroom use to individuals whose sex assigned at birth matches the facility’s designation.

And that, my friends, is where the clash is going to happen.

The U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment states that any right not explicitly defined in the Constitution is reserved to the states. Nowhere does it grant the federal government the power to assign sex at birth. Therefore, it must be a state’s right. Again, the state of Connecticut says I am “female” on my birth certificate.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

The showdown will occur when a trans woman from Connecticut walks into a women’s bathroom in another state and is arrested. The rest will be legal history. It will make or break the trans community. Will we be able to travel freely across this nation without fear of arrest and imprisonment simply for being ourselves? Can one state control our very existence while directly contradicting another state that legally recognizes our self-identification?

The Fugitive Slave Act was the law that contributed to the start of the Civil War. It required free states to return escaped slaves to their owners. At the time, if a slave reached a “free state,” they were considered free. After the law passed, slave hunters came north to reclaim Black individuals, and the northern states resisted.

Now, we face a similar division. Northern states are saying, under our law, this person is female and this person is male. Southern states are asserting their own definitions of womanhood.

The showdown at High Noon will be: does a state’s right to define its citizens travel with them when they visit other states? And what authority does a birth certificate hold—does it define someone universally, or only within the state that issued it?

[/Editorial]

Those Damn Libs…

[Editorial]

The Republicans blame everything on the Democrats from immigration to the price of electricity!

Here in Connecticut the Republicans blame it on the Public Benefits Charge which adds about $40 to $80 per month to the bill. But the real thing that is hurting Connecticut electric rate is Millstone! You see at the Republicans urging the state entered into an agreement to buy Millstone power at a fixed rate! That adds another $40 to $70 per month to the bill!

Then we have the price of energy, especially to the price of natural gas! The national average residential electricity rate has hit roughly 18.05 cents per kWh, a 5.4% increase over last year!

How are the Republicans going to stop the price of natural gas from going up?

Then we have Trump’s tariffs! Yup, as a result of Trump’s tariffs on Canada some of the Providences imposed a 25% tariff on energy exports!

The future doesn't look much better because of the war on renewables. The Trump’s moves to block offshore wind projects—including projects like Revolution Wind that Connecticut was counting on—will have a massive impact on our future rates. By killing off the very projects meant to provide cheap, local power and reduce our dependence on expensive natural gas, Trump wants us to be locking us into higher prices for years to come.

But the Connecticut Republicans have been hamming away at the Democrats for the price of electricity! When it is really beyond anything one state can do!

In the late ‘90s the buzz word was "Deregulation!" They forced the utilities to sell off their only income producing power plants and now we are at the whim of the suppliers! And as we add more regulations like how long an outage can be is added expenses to the utilities! They have to bring in extra crews at outrageous hourly costs to just sit around just in case of an outage!

So the next time you hear Republicans harping on the cost of electricity as them how? The Public Benefits Charge is only a small fraction of the increases in the price of electricity!

[/Editorial]

Mini-Post: A New Low

As more and more cities and towns ban the Pride flag. The feds are right behind them!

NYC officials plan to reraise pride flag at Manhattan’s Stonewall monument after Trump administration removed it

The Trump administration in January issued guidance drastically limiting the types of flags that could be displayed at NPS-managed sites.

Politico

By Gregory Svirnovskiy

02/10/2026

New York City officials plan to reraise a pride flag at the federal monument at Stonewall in Manhattan, setting up a potential fight with the White House at the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement nearly 60 years ago.

Federal officials quietly took the flag down after the Trump administration in January issued guidance drastically limiting the types of flags that could be displayed at sites managed by the National Park Service. But Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal said in an interview Tuesday that he and other New York City-area politicians would reraise the flag at the federal monument Thursday.

“I think it’s important that we speak out and stand up for the community, frankly, just as our forebearers, who exhibited much more courage back in 1969,” he said. “This is not a moment for our community to stand by idly as attempts to undermine our history are put forward by Trump and the federal administration.”

Mark my words... marriage is next on their radar.