Tag: Donald Trump

Lawmakers’ Desertion Is Soros Funded

Over 50 Democrat legislators recently fled their home state of Texas and took up temporary residence in the ultra-blue states of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts.

While the who, what, and why of their ill-advised departure continue to be hammered out, the how may be of particular importance to Texans and the country at large.

It appears as though the absconders may have received an assist in their runaway efforts from none other than George Soros, Beto O’Rourke, and possible others.

More than a mere political stunt, the performance act is a frontal assault on the legislative process and blatant mockery of our governmental system.

These state lawmakers swore an oath to serve the people. Needless to say, showing up for the job is a prerequisite. Abandoning their posts and hiding out in various other states is a breach of their core obligations.

They have one major goal in mind: To thwart a constitutionally mandated redrawing of a congressional map, which is necessitated by Texas’s population growth and the societal values of the region.

This quorum-impeding antic is racking up quite a bill. Private jets, luxury hotels, and logistical support for the runaway legislators has been costly. However, the tab is evidently being picked up by the Soros-backed Texas Majority PAC and O’Rourke’s Powered by People PAC.

The involvement of Soros and O’Rourke is particularly concerning. Soros, through his various foundations, has poured millions into radical causes over the past decades, causes that have eroded America’s shared societal values.

O’Rourke is a failed political candidate, who appears to be chasing fame and seeking relevance. His group reportedly has a $3.5 million war chest, much of which has apparently been funneled into covering the legislative duckers’ airfare, lodging, and possibly the $500 per day fines, which every lawmaker faces for dodging the legislative session.

Despite how the mainstream media characterize it, this is not grassroots activism. Rather, it is a cynical ploy on the part of Democrats to have their betrayal of voters paid for and the desired unearned power placed in their hands.

Texas has seen its population explode over the past decade, with millions of residents being added and additional congressional seats being warranted.

Texas is a red state powered largely by conservative principles, such as smaller government, religious liberty, and individual autonomy. Voters in the Lone Star State have repeatedly rejected the left’s agenda of open borders, higher taxes, and radical social policies. The proposed congressional maps reflect these realities.

The truth is the Democrat’s hypocrisy is in plain view. Gerrymandering, or the redrawing of lines on congressional maps, which set unnatural boundaries and carve out slivers of one-party voters, has been the hallmark of Democrats for years now.

Look no further than the states of Illinois and New York. Maps were redrawn prior to elections to secure power for Democrats, with the goal of maintaining it indefinitely.

What Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican majority in Texas are doing is not a moral equivalent. Rather, the governor and the legislators are utilizing a tool that is at their disposal to bring the congressional map up to current representative standards.

Gov. Abbott has correctly ordered the Texas Rangers to investigate potential bribery charges. If O’Rourke’s PAC is covering fines or personal expenses for the renegade Democrat lawmakers, it may be in violation of Texas’s election laws. House rules explicitly bar the use of campaign funds for personal expenses.

Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against O’Rourke’s group alleges that funds are being misused for private jets, hotels, and dining expenses. In the lawsuit, he has accused the political group of misleading donors by claiming contributions would be used for political purposes, when instead the money is being used for what the AG has characterized as “lavish personal expenditures” for AWOL lawmakers.

Atty. Gen. Paxton also claims that O’Rourke promised to cover fines for Democrats if they broke quorum. Additionally, he has petitioned to have 13 of the lawmakers removed from office for their roles in stalling the redistricting plan, and he is seeking a court declaration to allow Gov. Abbott to call special elections in order to fill the seats of missing Democrats.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, has the FBI assisting in the apprehension of the illicitly absent lawmakers.

Ironically, back in 2021 a group of Democrats tried to pull off a similar stunt, fleeing the scene in order to block election integrity measures. They returned empty-handed, their grandstanding achieving nothing.

In the current version of the same ploy, Democrats are hoping to run out the clock on a legislative process that they cannot legitimately outmaneuver.

Staying out of state until December 2025 would cost Democrats more than $3.2 million in fines.

December 2025 also happens to be the filing deadline for candidates to register for the 2026 midterms. Congressional maps would have to be set by that point, and no further redistricting could take place.

These absentee lawmakers are shirking their responsibilities, wasting taxpayer dollars, and undermining the foundations of representative government.

Democrat legislators have chosen to game the system.

May honorable leaders right the wrongs.

Men Competing in Women’s Sports Ultimately Headed to the Supreme Court

In a recent podcast with Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, California Governor Gavin Newsom stated that it is “deeply unfair” for boys to compete against girls in athletic contests.

The governor’s “unfair” admission appears to have been a momentary opinion, since he soon changed direction regarding female athletes in his state.

President Donald Trump had made the subject of prohibiting biological male athletes from competing in women’s sports a key issue in the 2024 election campaign. President Trump recently suggested that he may cut federal funding to California if the state continued to allow biological male athletes to compete against females.

Gov. Newsom was informed that California’s policies are in violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally-funded educational program.

In February 2025, the Department of Education began an investigation into the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which oversees sports at more than 1500 high schools. These are schools at which the policy of allowing male transgender students to compete against females has continued.

In May 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation into whether California was violating the civil rights of female students in connection with the implementation of the same policies.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outlined a list of demands for California, which must be met if the state wishes to continue to receive federal funding. Sec. McMahon noted that California must fulfill a list of actions or risk the loss of education funding.

The Department of Education’s investigation indicated that the California Department of Education (CDE) and the CIF are in violation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination in education. This is because the state’s policies allow males who identify as females to participate in women’s sports.

Should the State of California decide not to comply with Title IX and fail to prohibit participation by biological males, it will lose federal funding.

The administration has proposed a resolution agreement that would require California to change its policies. The Golden State has 10 days to accept the proposed resolution agreement. If it does not, the Department of Education will refer the matter to the DOJ for further proceedings.

Under the resolution agreement, California must:

– Alter its guidance that allows participation in sports based on gender identity.

– Issue written apologies to each female athlete who took second place to a biological male athlete.

– Restore misappropriated sports records, titles, and awards to the female athletes who would otherwise have attained them.

– Adopt binary biology-based definitions for the terms “male” and “female.”

– Conduct an annual certification ensuring compliance with Title IX.

In analyzing this issue from a legal perspective, it is difficult to see how the U.S. Supreme Court could not be the final arbiter in this matter.

Several states have already passed laws restricting participation, based on sex assigned at birth. Other states are facing legal challenges that assert discrimination.

As legal battles have ensued, courts have reached differing conclusions when reviewing challenges surrounding the placement of restrictions on transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. Legal challenges have invoked both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some federal courts have rendered rulings that base discrimination on gender identity. Other courts have ruled that the restriction of teams based on biological sex does not violate legal protections.

Courts have also been divided in rulings that concern the application of the Equal Protection Clause with regard to laws and policies that involve gender identity in differing contexts.

President Trump’s Executive Order 14201, which seeks to ban biological males from female sports across all educational levels, brings an additional layer to the legal complexity.

In my legal opinion, the issue of biological male athletes competing in women’s sports necessitates a High Court decision, because of the need for a thorough analysis and ultimately a clear definitive ruling.

The direct involvement of the Supreme Court, regarding the manner in which Title IX and other anti-discrimination laws are applied to transgender athletes, is essential, due to the conflicting legal interpretations of multiple federal courts as well as the societal ramifications that will inevitably flow from the High Court’s decision.

Impeachment Is the Remedy for Judges Who Usurp Authority

In a recent blatantly illegal ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge interfered with the legitimate powers of the president.

In his ruling, District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration not to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals who pose a danger to our country.

In an apparent attempt to thwart President Donald Trump’s agenda, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking judicial intervention in halting the removal of terrorist gang members from the United States.

Within a few hours of the filing, Judge Boasberg issued a ruling complying with the left’s request. He granted a restraining order that sought to prevent the administration’s implementation of the president’s proclamation for a time period of 14 days.

In a further overreach, the judge ordered an aircraft that was en route to deport the illegal immigrants to return back to the U.S.

“Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States however that is accomplished,” Judge Boasberg wrote.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the judge’s order “disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In an emergency filing, the Trump administration appealed the order with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals so that Judge Boasberg’s order would be placed on hold.

The appeal noted that if the order were allowed to stand “district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action just upon receipt of a complaint.”

Interestingly, the president hadn’t yet signed a proclamation on the matter at the time the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and other left-wing groups.

The Trump administration was correct to point out the fact that halting a presidential act before it has been announced would neutralize the executive branch.

The Venezuelan nationals in question happen to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an international gang that has officially been declared by the Trump administration to be a terrorist organization.

The gang became part of a national news story following last year’s armed takeover by TdA of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. It continues to victimize numerous other cities across the country.

TdA is linked to a narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela and sponsored by the Nicolás Maduro regime. Members continually exhibit unspeakably brutal behavior and are additionally involved in the facilitation of human trafficking, drug peddling, kidnapping, extortion, and other heinous activities.

In order to protect the public from the Venezuelan gang, President Trump has done what other presidents before him have also done. He has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Within his capacity as chief executive of the nation, President Trump possesses the explicit power, designated in Article II of the Constitution, to identify threats to the country and act accordingly to protect the American people.

In the proclamation, President Trump asserted that the regime of Venezuelan President Maduro “is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

Judge Boasberg has ordered members of the TdA gang to be brought back into our country. It is important to note this is the same judge who was in charge of the FISA Court, when that court was used to illegally spy on President Trump.

Judge Boasberg’s March 15 order was issued after Venezuelan gang members were already in transport via plane to the country of El Salvador.

“Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country,” El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted on X.

He added, “They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable).”

In response to Judge Boasberg’s order, President Bukele posted the following: “Oopsie… Too late.”

Congress is the branch that has within its power the ability to impeach federal judges who abuse their authority. It has done so in the past.

To this end, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-TX, indicated in a post on X that he will be filing the necessary paperwork to impeach Judge Boasberg.

Elon Musk reposted the tweet and wrote that the impeachment is “necessary.”

In my legal opinion, if ever there were a case in which a judge was deserving of impeachment, this is it.

Unfortunately, activist judges have increasingly been intruding upon executive authority.

Judge Boasberg’s ruling is one of the most egregious examples of the violation of the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers — that crucial system of checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government.

Judge Boasberg, you’ve earned it. And for the good of the country, hopefully you will soon own it.

Elon Musk and the Dog Days of DOGE

During the 2024 campaign cycle, then-GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump promised voters that when he took the oval office for the second time he would enlist the help of Elon Musk to assist him in ridding the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Musk is the entrepreneur extraordinaire that with his forward-thinking approaches to electric vehicles and rocket technology was able to transform the automobile and aerospace industries.

He is also the individual that was able to take the social media platform Twitter, christen it with the new name of “X,” and take it to the level of being one of the most influential platforms ever to exist. In so doing, he not only liberated the media landscape, he accomplished the seemingly impossible.

In 2021 he secured the Time magazine title of “Person of the Year.” About Musk, the then-Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal wrote, “Person of the Year is a marker of influence, and few individuals have had more influence than Musk on life on Earth, and potentially life off Earth too.”

It’s difficult to imagine an equally qualified person that would be willing and able to take on the fiscally challenging responsibilities.

During the campaign, Trump had told the Economic Club of New York that he planned to create “a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms.”

Following his historic victory, the president fulfilled his promise and set up a government efficiency commission, with Musk being given the assignment of running it. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was born.

It’s just what Trump voters had wanted. And judging from their reactions, it was exactly what the Democrats and the mainstream media feared.

The surprise is how good DOGE has been at exposing the corrupt use of taxpayers’ money.

In the decades-old tradition of leftists and fringe radicals, a mind massage of the public psyche is once again in the works. This time propaganda is being disseminated in the form of an endless repetition of a falsely-scripted phrase, which was likely created via focus groups.

Like the past not-so-catchy “existential threat to democracy” slogan that droned on and on in an effort to undermine President Trump’s reelection bid, Democrats and their media allies have an old new phrase with which to program people’s minds: the equally vapid “constitutional crisis.”

However, the real crisis that our country is facing is a fiscal one. A little clarification of the words “deficit” and “debt” is in order, two words that are routinely and unfortunately incorrectly used interchangeably.

In 2024 our nation had a deficit(spending beyond our means and having a shortfall in revenue so that we are unable to pay our bills) of almost $2 trillion.

The deficit amount simply gets added to the national debt(the money our country owes), which is currently more than $36 trillion.

The reality is that President Trump’s appointment of Musk to conduct a search-and-disclose expedition of a bloated bureaucratic executive branch is necessary, lawful, and constitutional.

President Trump named Musk in accordance with what Section 202 of Title 18 of the United States Code labels a “special government employee.”

Musk’s appointment is nothing new. Previous administrations have also had industry experts fill similar roles. Article II of the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint individuals to assist in carrying out the administration’s agenda.

As a result of his role as a defense contractor, Musk already holds high-level government security clearances. The rocket and satellite technology that he oversees has been used by the Department of Defense as well as many other departments of the U.S. government. And his Starlink satellite internet system has been invaluable in helping to assist domestic disaster relief efforts.

Democrats have been ignoring voters’ pleas for a more efficient and honest government. A recent survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates indicated that 79% of the participants wanted Washington’s reckless borrowing and spending to be curtailed.

The DOGE quest for efficiency also includes serious efforts to reduce regulations. During President Trump’s first term, he had ordered that two old regulations would be eliminated for every new regulation created. His new approach in his second term is that for each new regulation, 10 regulations must be identified for elimination.

This appears to be the first time that an administration is actually scrutinizing the entire executive branch in earnest.

Why all the hysteria, anger, and crocodile tears from so many in the Democrat Party, federal offices, government agencies, liberal media, and activist organizations?

It’s only logical that the president, who is the chief executive of the executive branch, has the right and the duty to examine how agencies of the executive branch of government are spending federal dollars.

Certain parties are acting as if they want bureaucratic abuses to remain secret.

Guess it’s okay to sit back and enjoy the histrionics as long as we pray for DOGE’s success and our beloved country’s future.

The Ashes of the California Wildfires

On the morning of January 7, 2025, a brush fire in the hills above Los Angeles quickly transformed into an inferno.

Tens of thousands of people were evacuated, while hundreds of thousands were on pins and needles as they awaited the impending evacuation orders.

The first fire would come to be known as the Palisades Fire.

A few hours later the Eaton Fire would ignite in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Later in the night the Hurst Fire would erupt in the northern San Fernando Valley.

The following morning the Woodley Fire would emerge in the central San Fernando Valley.

And Los Angeles hadn’t seen the last of the fires yet.

Needless to say, numerous homes burned to the ground. Many people suffered injuries. And some individuals tragically lost their lives.

Two prominent leaders have dared to speak bluntly about the contributing causes of the calamity that occurred in Los Angeles: former LA mayoral candidate Rick Caruso and President elect Donald Trump.

— Caruso is a former commissioner for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. He is also the owner of the Palisades Village Mall, located in the heart of the community that has been decimated by the wildfires.

Caruso’s daughter’s home was destroyed in the blaze, and he himself was evacuated from his home. As the flames were breaking out in his beloved neighborhood, he noticed something that defied comprehension. The fire hydrants were devoid of even a drop of water.

“There’s no water in the fire hydrants,” Caruso exclaimed, his voice revealing his exasperation.

“This is a window into a systemic problem of the city,” he said.

“The real issue to me here is two-fold. We’ve had decades to remove the brush in these hills…and the second is, we’ve got to have water. My understanding is the reservoir was not refilled in time…to keep the hydrants going…”

— President elect Trump had previously warned California Gov. Gavin Newsom that he needed to better manage the state’s forests in order to prevent wildfires.

In 2018, then-President Trump chastised Newsom over the burned-out remains of the town of Paradise.

“You’ve got to take care of…the floors of the forests,” Trump said.

Two years later Trump spoke out again after a new round of fires had inflicted severe harm on California. He talked about cleaning the forest floors, removing leaves and fallen trees, and preventing the igniting of the brush and forest debris.

The president elect recently used a post on X to comment on the current fires in Los Angeles.

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” he posted.

He also used his Truth Social account to wake up Gov. Newsom, writing, “…I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!”

Angelinos are far from happy with their government leaders.

— Despite fire warnings, Mayor Karen Bass flew to Africa to attend Ghana’s presidential inauguration on the day that the fire broke out; this after meteorologists warned that a “recipe for fire” was on track to strike LA.

— LA city officials reportedly failed to cut off electricity to power lines. Video footage from the Palisades Fire showed sparks flying as power lines came down.

— Officials in Los Angeles County had reportedly refused to refill reservoirs with the water that would ultimately be needed to flow to fire hydrants.

More information about the catastrophic failures of leadership will no doubt emerge in the coming days.

Out here in California, prayer is all we have. And yet it’s everything.

If your heart is able, please join in prayer for safety, solace, and strength for the people of the City of Angels.

May God’s blessings flow from the ashes.

“I will give them a crown to replace their ashes, and the oil of gladness to replace their sorrow, and clothes of praise to replace their spirit of sadness.” (Isaiah 61:3)

ABC News and Stephanopoulos Give Trump an Early Christmas

ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos recently settled a lawsuit with President elect Donald Trump.

The terms of the agreement have the defendants in the suit forking over $15 million to the incoming prez, the money being designated for a future presidential library or similar foundation.

Also included in the settlement is a forced payment of $1 million of Trump’s legal fees and a big crow-eating apology.

Trump had filed a lawsuit over an interview that Stephanopoulos had conducted with South Carolina congressional representative Nancy Mace.

During the Mace interview, the former Clinton administration operative repeatedly made the false allegation that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil case that was initiated by E. Jean Carroll and took place in a New York courtroom earlier in the year.

Rep. Mace, a rape survivor herself, was being interrogated on her endorsement of Trump, and Stephanopoulos was evidently trying to paint her as a hypocrite. She felt personally attacked by Stephanopoulos and was brave enough to directly take him on at the time.

“I live with shame,” she said. “And you’re asking me a question about my political choices, trying to shame me as a rape victim — I find it disgusting.”

Most viewers did as well. ABC News had a serious problem from that moment on.

Shortly after the interview aired, Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against both the network and the anchor.

Stephanopoulos subsequently appeared on a politically friendly late-night show with host Stephen Colbert, posturing about the then-pending defamation legal action and boasting that he would not be “cowed out of doing my job because of a threat.”

All things considered, the most compelling part of the Trump win came in the portion of the settlement in which both ABC News and Stephanopoulos agreed to issue apology statements, expressing regret surrounding the case.

Both the settlement agreement and apology statements have already had far-reaching effects. Stephanopoulos has deactivated his X account and left the platform.

While the settlement has been heralded by center-right folks, it has also been viewed as the end of Western Civilization by the compromised media crowd and woke mob gang.

Regarding the settlement, reporter Oliver Willis wrote on Threads, “This is actually how democracy dies.”

Sharon Waxman, editor in chief of the Hollywood trade outlet TheWrap, wrote. “This is both confusing and disheartening. #Disney and #ABC caving to Trump.”

Democrat attorney Marc Elias posted, “Knee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience.”

CNN media analyst Brian Stelter asked on X, “Why did ABC agree to pay and apologize? The network won’t say. It could have kept fighting in court, but decided to pay $$ to end the dispute and make the case go away.”

NPR TV critic Eric Deggans wrote on his X account, “Wow. Feels like one more mainstream news organization bending the knee.”

Keith Olbermann sarcastically posted, “What a great look @abc News.”

Left leaning legal analyst Allison Gill, known online as Mueller, She Wrote posted, “This is so gross.

Why not depose him [Trump]?” she asked. “The case wouldn’t cost more than $15M and ABC would have won if they bothered fighting.”

Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid characterized the settlement as “the cowardice of legacy media out to make profit, rather than uphold principle.”

Here in the United States, a 1964 landmark Supreme Court case made it far more difficult for public figures, as opposed to ordinary folks, to sue for defamation. This is not the case in many other parts of the world.

In my opinion, reform in this area of the law is long overdue.

The timing of the ABC-Stephanopoulos settlement is interesting to say the least. It occurred a few short days after U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid ordered the president elect, and more importantly Stephanopoulos, to submit to depositions of four hours in length.

The ABC News-Stephanopoulos settlement sends a powerful message. It is one that says news personalities, especially those who work for far-left media outlets, can no longer broadcast false claims in the cavalier manner that they have become accustomed to.

An early Christmas present for those who value truth in news reporting.

Goodbye to MSNBC

Media and technology conglomerate Comcast is spinning off cable news network MSNBC from its roster, along with a number of other cable networks.

The company announced it will create a new publicly traded entity, which will house MSNBC and NBCUniversal’s additional cable television networks.

Comcast is giving the new company an apt moniker, “SpinCo.”

Unveiling of the plans are shaking up the media landscape and sending shock waves through the network’s offices.

It all came to a head when MSNBC lost over half its viewers following the electoral triumph of President elect Donald Trump.

An additional ratings drop occurred after Joe Scarborough, host of the network’s program “Morning Joe,” revealed that he and wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski had recently met with President elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, ostensibly to “restart communications.”

The ratings tank and spin-off talk had Scarborough questioning his own future employment with the channel.

“I could be completely wrong. We could all be fired a year from now. You never know what’s going to happen tomorrow,” he said on his show.

There are a number of reasons that the spin-off is happening. First up is the fact that streaming is clobbering cable. Execs are understandably concerned about the steady increase in cord cutting that has taken place, especially among the younger demographic. This segment of viewers is accustomed to having non-bundled options and is partial to streaming media.

Comcast has also let it be known that current chairman of NBCUniversal Media Group Mark Lazarus will be named SpinCo’s CEO. Sources have indicated to Variety that Lazarus spoke to an audience of concerned staffers and talent, which included MSNBC personalities Rachel Maddow, Chris Jansing, and Katy Tur.

MSNBC will evidently be joined by the business news network CNBC in being detached from NBC News.

Since the two networks will no longer be a part of NBC, attendees at the meeting with Lazarus reportedly expressed concerns about whether the use of familiar symbols, which have been used by MSNBC for decades, will be allowed to continue.

In a shocking admission, Lazarus said that because of the spin-off he wasn’t sure whether MSNBC would have to give up its current image, identity, or home.

“Everyone is in a panic because everything is up in the air,” one MSNBC source told The New York Post.

Journalists at the network CNBC are coming apart at the seams at the prospect of being separated from NBC’s news division. This is because MSNBC routinely shares reporting, and a significant part of the network’s daytime schedule uses correspondents from NBC News.

Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent and chief Washington correspondent for NBC News, has anchored a daily MSNBC show since 2008. And MSNBC’s Katy Tur and José Díaz-Balart have dual roles as journalists for NBC News as well.

Lazarus was unable to answer questions about MSNBC’s newsgathering and whether the cable news outlet would have to develop its own capability for collecting and verifying news, which is a daunting task to say the least.

The idea of giving MSNBC a makeover has been tossed around for a long time. The network wasn’t always the far-left echo chamber that it is today.

Back in 1996 it originally launched as a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC (although Microsoft would later divest its stake in the TV network).

Like fellow cable networks had previously done, MSNBC would go on to broaden its horizons by doing political coverage as well as opinion-oriented programming. A variety of viewpoints were represented on its programs, ones that ranged across a spectrum from Phil Donahue on the left to Tucker Carlson on the right.

Oh the good ol’ days, when there was a fairly clear line of demarcation between hard news and editorial opinion. That line served a number of important purposes, including a commitment to truth and accuracy in the conveyance of national and international information as well as an adherence to a journalistic code of ethics.

It could be that the good ol’ news days are going back to the future. And the sport of intellectual sparring will make its own separate comeback.

Let’s all stay tuned in whatever new media way is preferred. And may the Truth win out.