Saturday Morning Confusion: Inside the real-time con that's hollowing out America | Opinion

Whenever a new poll comes out showing Trump’s abysmal ratings, public reactions follow a pattern. 

Public comments don’t question Trump’s dipshit approval rating. 

Rather, millions of people question the flip side: how does 38% of the nation still support such an obvious charlatan? 

Are supporters delusional? 

Suicidal?

Specifically, does MAGA not know that 15 million Americans, mostly their own, have now lost health insurance because of him? 

Can they not read the Walmart price tags they hold in their own hands? Do they not know he’s weakening the NATO alliance their granddads fought for, or that he single-handedly empowered one of the most dangerous regimes in the world?

The answer is ‘No, no, and no.’ Nearly 40% of the country—38%, to be exact— can’t connect the dots on who’s making their lives harder. 

We don’t need another study to figure out why, because it couldn’t be more obvious: As of May 12, 2026, 38% of the nation still supports Trump because 38% of the nation watches Fox News, purveyors of pure Trump propaganda. 

And compared to other consumers, Fox News viewers do not diversify their sources.

After the 2020 election, the Pew Research Center did a deep dive to learn what Americans heard, perceived and knew about it. Researchers found, for example, that 63% of Fox News viewers had given Trump an “excellent” rating on Covid. Trump suggested injecting bleach into unspecified orifices while over 1 million Americans died, yet Fox viewers thought he did an excellent job??

More accurately it was a con job, perpetrated by Fox News.

Fox News propaganda

Coming into the present news cycle, the Pope-Trump conflict illustrates the con in real time. Pope Leo XIV criticized Trump’s war with Iran by condemning leaders who manipulate religion for military gain. Trump, manifestly devoid of impulse control, immediately shot back on Truth Social that the Pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible for Foreign Policy” as if he were a political adversary. In follow up Fox News Digital interviews, Trump doubled down and refused to apologize as Fox hosts clapped like seals.

While most media outlets questioned Trump’s sanity for attacking the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion people, Fox dissembled with headlines like, “60 Minutes accused of using left-leaning Cardinals to bait Trump into feud with Vatican” and “Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump. When Trump dispatched Marco Rubio to patch things up with the Pope last week, most media reported that it didn’t work, but Fox called it a big success and applauded what a great job Rubio did.

Fox News even tried to accuse other media networks of intentionally ‘baiting’ a response from Trump. They invited Elise Stefanik onto the network to tell Pope Leo XIV to “stay out of politics,” while other guests labelled the Pope’s foreign policy views ‘wrong’ and ‘liberal.’ Sean Hannity questioned whether the Pope fully understood the Iran conflict, and several other Fox commentators questioned whether the Pontiff had “read the Bible” about geocomplexities in Iran. To be clear, not one Fox host questioned whether Trump had “read the map” before he delivered the Strait of Hormuz to the mullahs.

The First Amendment protects political speech but it does not protect fraud

The Pope example alone illustrates how MAGA is being lied to on a daily basis, but it’s just one example. Fox News serves up daily falsehoods about climate change, immigrants, public education, NATO, black crime, ICE, and the war in Iran to craft a pro-Trump narrative, assuming their lies are legally protected by the First Amendment as “political speech.”

Enough damage is now evident to challenge that legal assumption.

In 2010, Supreme Court republicans fast-tracked America’s slide into oligarchy when they ruled in Citizens United that corporate political donations were a form of free speech. Citizens United further clarified that, under the First Amendment, political speech warrants the “highest level of protection against government regulation” following the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan’s restatement, and an earlier ruling that any regulations on political speech must withstand the highest level of strict scrutiny.

But while First Amendment protection for political speech is old news, there’s another long-toothed maxim: The First Amendment does not protect fraud. In 2012, under United States v. Alvarez, the Court confirmed thatfraud is a ‘narrowly limited class of speech’ not entitled to First Amendment protection. In Alvarez, the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a law that made lying about military medals a crime, because no one gained a ‘material advantage’ from the lie. Unless someone is profiting from their false speech, the court ruled, there’s no actionable fraud—they’re simply lying. But false speech connected to economic gain on one side and economic harm on the other is fraud, legally unprotected under the First Amendment.

Under this definition, Fox News is engaged in classic consumer fraud. Fox admitted in the Dominion case that they lied to their viewers for profit, and paid out nearly $1 billion in settlement as a result. But their lies didn’t stop after that case, they continue to sell 24/7 Trump propaganda as ‘news.’ They are perpetrating the same fraud, one that hooks viewers, profiting Fox and their corporate backers, while materially harming victims by convincing them to vote against their own economic interests.

Under Supreme Court precedent, Fox News isn’t engaging in protected political speech. It’s engaging in commercial fraud. And the victims aren’t just Fox viewers, even though studies show they are harmed the most: the entire nation is enduring political violence, extreme division and rumblings of civil war because 38% of the country is being lied to.

Albert Einstein once said, “A people that were to honor falsehood…would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.” Is mere national survival a sufficient justification to return to requiring accuracy in the news? Is it legally sufficient to pass strict scrutiny? If it is not, after a Democrat-run Congress returns to the Fairness Doctrine, this high court will have elevated partisan interests to the point of national suicide.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the free Substack, The Haake Take.

Saturday Morning Confusion!

Guest Post: 

ALLAN:

For the Canadian haters out there that enjoy being against everything Carney does:

You seem to forget who Mark Carney actually is.

This is the guy who kept Canada out of the 2008 financial meltdown:

• Only G7 country that didn’t need bank bailouts

• Faster recovery than the US and Europe

• IMF used Canada as the stability model

Even Harper wanted to make him his Finance Minister.

Then the UK hired him as the first foreign Governor of the Bank of England in 300 years:

• Held inflation steady through the Eurozone crisis.

• Guided the UK through Brexit without a banking collapse.

• Earned the trust of every serious financial institution on earth.

Now here’s the part nobody wants to talk about: The fucking mess he inherited in Canada.

He walked into a country with:

• Some of the worst productivity growth in the OECD.

• A housing crisis caused by years of underbuilding and red tape.

• A permitting system so slow that investors literally avoid us.

• Delays in energy, mining and infrastructure that scare off capital.

• Population growth with no matching capacity build-out.

• Business investment fleeing to the US.

• Inflation was already elevated before he touched a thing.

• A government machine that insiders said was disorganized and unfocused.

That’s the starting point. Not a clean slate. A long-term mess.

And here’s what he’s been pushing since stepping in:

• A real productivity plan instead of slogans.

• Targeted investment that actually increases output.

• A national build-out of housing, energy, AI infrastructure and critical minerals.

• Fixing the broken permitting system so projects get approved in months, not geological time.

• Fiscal discipline that supports the Bank of Canada... instead of fighting it.

Markets have already reacted calmly to his signals because they trust he knows what he’s doing.

And here’s the part the public never sees.

I know people high up in the government. They all say:

• The place hasn’t been this organized in years.

• Carney runs a tight ship.

• He cuts through noise and forces execution.

• The internal standard jumped the moment he arrived.

What I find funniest is that Carney governs from the centre-right.

If he were actually a conservative, all the haters would love him.

That’s the human condition; we’re programmed for tribalism.

People love being “against.”

It’s easy.

Running an economy through global inflation, supply chain shocks and a decade of structural decay is not.

Let’s take a step back. Canada finally has someone at the wheel who’s actually done this before.

Twice!

Maybe instead of tearing him down for sport, we cut the man some slack and let him cook.

If you don’t like him, then don’t vote for him at the next election.

For now, it’s in all of our interests for him to succeed, especially when he’s the one flying the plane!

By Tony Young

Saturday Morning Confusion: ...HE'S GUILTY!

There are all sorts of theories going around about just what happened when that woman in Minnesota got shot by 'I.C.E.' cops... and we could go on about it from now until the cows come home... except for one thing!

He's Guilty!

Never mind that he stood in front of the woman's car... which was not recommended... and he was the only one who drew his gun...! 

(This freaked the woman out... and she attempted to get away by backing away from the cop... and then going forward and to the right to make an escape!) 

The cop would have seen her backing up... and when she went forward again, he didn't know if she would run him over or not... so instead of jumping out of the way... he shot her through the front windshield! (Since he had his gun out ANYWAY!)

NOW COMES THE GOOD PART!

In spite of everything else... the cop was morally wrong and legally right in shooting that woman... since he might have feared for his life! (Or maybe he just wanted to shoot someone!) 😉

THAT FIRST SHOT HIT HER IN THE TORSO... SO IT WASN'T THE FATAL SHOT!

BUT... Here's the kicker!

After the (justified?) first shot... she drove past him and was no longer a threat... since she was trying to leave... but he shot her in the head anyway through the lowered driver's door window...  to keep her from escaping!!!

THAT WAS THE ILLEGAL PART... (murder) IF NOTHING ELSE!

 

More Saturday Morning Confusion:

 

Saturday Mornng Confusion: OIL!!!!!!!

 Sal, is there any talk on social media about the US not needing Canadian oil anymore... because they now have Venezuelan oil?

Yes — there is chatter on social media and in public commentary about the idea that the United States might not need Canadian oil anymore if Venezuelan oil production were revived, but it’s very important to separate online speculation from economic and industry reality.

Here’s a clear snapshot of the situation as it’s being discussed online and in the news today:

🛢️ Social Media Themes

Popular posts on Reddit, X (Twitter), and LinkedIn show people talking about:

• Canadian oil’s importance to the U.S. — many users point out that Canada supplies by far the largest share of foreign crude to the U.S. — much more than Venezuela currently does. X (formerly Twitter)

• Speculation that Venezuelan oil could replace Canadian exports if Venezuela ramped up production. Some posts assume that once the U.S. controls Venezuelan oil infrastructure, Canadian barrels would no longer be needed. Reddit

• Debate about technical and practical limitations — for example, discussions about infrastructure, the type of crude, and how long it would take to restore Venezuelan output before any real displacement could happen. Reddit

Many of these posts are opinions, memes, or hot takes rather than evidence-based analysis.

📰 What the News and Market Analysts Actually Say

Here’s what reputable reporting and energy market data show:

🔹 Venezuela’s oil production is still far below what it historically was — even though it holds the world’s largest proven reserves, production is only a fraction of that because of sanctions, mismanagement, and infrastructure decay. Reuters

🔹 U.S. imports of Venezuelan oil are relatively small compared to Canadian imports. In 2024, U.S. crude from Venezuela averaged around ~222,000 barrels/day versus Canada’s multiple millions of barrels per day. X (formerly Twitter)

🔹 Venezuelan heavy crude could compete with Canadian heavy crude in Gulf Coast refineries if sanctions were eased and production increased, which the markets are watching as a possible risk to Canadian exports. But even then:

• It would take many years — and significant investment — to rebuild Venezuelan production capacity. Canadian Energy Centre+1

• Oil quality and refinery configuration matter; U.S. refiners are designed for specific mixes of light and heavy crude. S&P Global

🔹 Official U.S. policy statements have included rhetoric about not needing foreign oil, but analysts note that such comments are often negotiating tactics or political messaging rather than statements of economic fact. S&P Global

📊 Bottom Line

✔️ Yes, there is social media talk claiming the U.S. might not need Canadian oil if Venezuelan oil returns.

✔️ This talk is mostly speculative, politically charged, or based on hopes/concerns about energy markets.

✔️ Real-world economics and production realities make such a rapid shift extremely unlikely in the near term. The U.S. currently buys far more oil from Canada than from Venezuela, and Venezuela can’t instantly ramp up production even under new political control.

Saturday Morning Confusion!

 

Saturday Morning Confusion: Hello? Hello?

If the Trump gang gets their hands on CNN and puts Tucker Carlson in charge of it...

This is what you'll get, bunky!

GOD HELP THE UNITED STATES!!!!!

Saturday Morning Confusion:

 How can this kid play so good?

As for the "No Kings" protests, folks... it took a lot of money and planning... but the Perspective Research Department got a whole whack of pictures from around the States today!

Saturday Morning Confusion: U.F.O's.

Now that we have A.I., we have clear pictures of all those U.F.O.s!

Saturday Morning Confusion!

 The United States Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, has got me severely confused, folks!

An Ambassador means diplomacy... and diplomacy means diplomatic relations!

So why is this asshole under the impression that his job is to come up here to Canada and insult us!

Eh?

Saturday Morning Confusion:

 

Remember all the $-BILLIONS-$ Drumpf said he was bringing to the U.S. economy!

Saturday Morning Confusion!

I am old, and I just realized I still have so many unanswered questions!!!!! 

"I never found out who let the Dogs Out...where's the beef...how to get to Sesame Street... why Dora doesn't just use Google Maps...why eggs are packaged in a flimsy paper carton, but batteries are secured in plastic that's tough as nails...why women can't put on mascara with their mouth closed... why "abbreviated" is such a long word... why lemon juice is made with artificial flavor, yet dish-washing liquid is made with real lemons... why they sterilize the needle for lethal injections... and, why do you have to "put your two cents in" but it's only a "penny for your thoughts" where's that extra penny going to... why do "The Alphabet Song" and "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" have the same tune... and why did you just try to sing those two previous songs... and... just what is Victoria's Secret?"

?

SATURDAY MORNING CONFUSION !

 

Saturday Morning Confusion: Let it snow... let it snow... let it snow!

 

 BORED CANADIANS

AND FINALLY... ME CLEANING THE DRIVEWAY!