The DeVory Darkins Show - Democrats drops DARK WARNING for America as Newsom Program BLOWS UP

Episode Date: May 11, 2026

Democrats drops DARK WARNING for America as Newsom Program BLOWS UP. This comes as Sen. Corey Book admitting out loud that they plane to pack the Supreme Court. Also, Gavin Newsom baby2baby program gets exposed for expensive diaper for taxpayers.EPISODE SPONSOR: Go to http://ninelineapparel.com and use code DEVORY to save 15%. FOLLOW ME:⁠https://www.x.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.rumble.com/c/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://devory.wtf.tv⁠BUY ME A COFFEE:⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/devorydarkins⁠SHOP OUR MERCH STORE:⁠https://store.devorydarkins.com⁠BUSINESS INQUIRIES:⁠[e-mail]⁠

So Democrats have issued another dark warning this morning in their interviews when mainstream media by admitting out loud that they plan to pack the Supreme Court all because the recent rulings have not gone in their favor. And Gavin Newsom once again is being exposed for his latest program that gives free diapers to newborns. But the math doesn't add up on this. Let's start with what Senator Cory Booker had to say about the Supreme Court. Take a listen. Well, you take me to my next question because this decision has revived the debate. within the Democratic Party about potentially adding more seats to the Supreme Court. Would you, Senator, support an effort to add more seats to the Supreme Court to expand the court?

Well, remember, there's a corrupt shadow hanging over the Supreme Court. Some of these same members that are voting on decisions like this are accepting gifts from billionaires. We have RVs, lavish vacations. It's a corrupt court. The highest court in their land has the lowest ethics laws. Number two is that the Supreme Court clearly within our power, I lead one of these pieces of legislation with Senator White House and others to give term limits to Supreme Court members that could go a long way in carrying this. The Supreme Court desperately needs reform. It is a corrupt court.

And in my opinion, it is a court that needs reform. And I will continue to lead on those things. Now, before we get into my commentary on the stories today, I just want to give a big shout out to all the mothers who watch our channel. Happy Mother's Day to you. God bless you and your family, and I hope you are recognized and acknowledge for the value that you bring. All right, let's continue. Let me break this down. Senator Booker is laundering a raw power grab through the language of ethics reform.

Okay, it's a total lie. The court is only corrupt because it ruled against his own party's interest. That's what's happening here. And that's why he wants term limits for justices he can't control, but not for Congress, who obviously continues to get reelected 30, 40, 50 years. Isn't that interesting? Matter of fact, who we will get to later in this video, Representative Clyburn out of South Carolina,

he's 85 years old and running for re-election. Make it make sense. But Senator Booker continues his assault on the Supreme Court. Take a listen. Quote, allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every event. context. Do you think race should be used as a factor to draw congressional lines?

So first of all, this court is profoundly hypocritical. They said we can do, you can use race and immigration stops. So this is not about race. This is about stripping political power from millions of people and obviously this decision would result. And they knew this in stripping political power and representation from African Americans. This is why people like court, Booker, politicians like Cory Booker, rather, are disrespectful to our intelligence. The premise that he is hoping to achieve here, or that he's really pushing, is that black political power only exists when the government sorts its citizens by race and draws district lines by race and makes decisions based on race.

That political power within the black community can only exist if the government discriminates against other groups. How disrespectful is that to the black community and their value? You know, what kills me so much when we have to talk about black issues on the show is how racist the Democrat Party really is and what they truly think of black people. They think we're less than. They think we're not intelligent. We don't know what a computer is.

We can't get a driver's license. And we cannot have any political leverage unless you skew the system in our direction. And then you have to throw on top of that, that you have pundits on CNN claiming that the black vote or black political power is not existent because of redistricting. Take a listen. You literally are taking Memphis, which is a city with black voters, and you split it in three, stretching 3,000 miles. Who's the current Democrat congressman? Is it a black congressman? Just because black people are allowed to like people that don't look like them?

Exactly. And that is the point I wanted you to make. Because just because you're not going to have a black congressman, why is it that a Republican? can't do just as well representing black voters is a Democrat. Why does your race? Why does your race determine your politics?

It doesn't. It doesn't. No. Just be, you're making my point, actually. The assumption is black people, no, no, no. The assumption is black people will only elect black people. No, black people are smart enough to elect. No, let me finish.

Black people only. Let's just let Ashley Ferris. Black people will elect people who will actually represent them, who have their best interest in heart. And what Republicans have done in Tennessee is dismantled the power for black people to have their voice.

Okay, let's just pause and just hear exactly what she's trying to communicate. According to her, this move by Tennessee prevents black people from voting, which it does not actually. Every Tennessean still has exactly one vote. Loyalty without results isn't representation. It's actually a political party taking advantage of a group, particularly the black community. That's exactly what Democrats have done for decades on end. I mean, listen, this is not even a partisan take. Think about 1964 and where black people were, especially when you talk about what's going on in their home,

and then fast forward to today, do the calculation. Are they better off? Is the family better off? Are marriages better off? What about abortions? What about the economics of it all? Financially? Education-wise, it seems like we've taken a huge step backwards and we continue to vote for Democrats.

How do you make sense of that? especially if you are a Democrat voter who happens to be black. Okay, but she continues to say this. They did the same thing in Texas because they said they thought Latinos were going to swing for Republicans. There are black people that are represented. I'm black and I got a Republican president right now. Black people don't elect black people based on race. They elect people that are aligned with their moral, their beliefs and justice.

And the Indians just took that away from them in Tennessee and in other states. I just disagree that the only. person, the only kind of a politician who can elect black people in Congress, must be a Democrat. This is just an artificial. That's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. Black voters are still fully franchised and go vote for who are they want. That's not what I'm saying.

It just doesn't have to be a Democrat. She doesn't want to admit the truth that the Democrat Party today is still focusing on race as a variable in everything that they do. And they're hypocrites when they do it. Because if it's a Republican black woman, they're not trying to hear it. We saw what happened in Virginia. We're going to see what's going to happen in Tennessee because this district could potentially go to a black woman who is a Republican. It's funny how to go silent when that happens.

But if she was black and she was a Democrat, we're all in. It's peak hypocrisy and, of course, select of outrage, which is another term as well. Okay, so let's go to Representative Clyburn because South Carolina, due to their updated redistricting, he's going to lose his seat. So as a response to all of this and the ruling from the Supreme Court, he's in in alignment with the talking points that we are now in a Drem Crow 2.0 error. Take a listen. The Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, he called the Supreme Court's decision to weaken the Voting Rights Act, as it were, quote, another step towards resurrecting the Jim Crow South. Georgia Democratic Senator Rafael Warnock said it was a, quote, 21st century version of Jim Crow in new clothes. Do you agree? Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive.

The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly, 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario.

Absolutely, I agree. So much so that I've been saying this now for the last four or five years. And people have been looking at me as if I'm crazy or something. In fact, he is crazy. But you know who isn't crazy? Nine line apparel. This is the clothing brand that you see me wearing in a lot of my episodes. Because I believe in what they stand for what their mission is.

They're straight out of Savannah, Georgia, American-owned, military-owned and operated. And I believe in their slogan, what you wear says a lot about you. So if you're looking for a clothing brand that you can take pride in, shop nine line apparel, scanning QR code you see here on the screen. Use promo code DeVoree and you'll get 50% off your next purchase. That's 15% off. That's nine line apparel.com. I think we heard enough from this update.

Again, guys, this is another warning. What Democrats would do when they gain power? So all the people who are melting down about this current administration, what is the alternative? The alternative is a political party who's going to pack the Supreme Court, open the border again, and go after parental rights, boys and girls sports, you know the whole thing. Okay, I think I've set it up. Let's go to our next story. And this is California Governor Gavin Newsom being exposed once again

because he has announced a program called Golden State Start that gives 400 free diapers to every newborn at a participating California hospital. Sounds good. But when you lift up the hood, you find out that this is another waste of tax payer dollars. Let's first hear the announcement and we'll show you. Take a look. You know exactly what I'm holding in my hand. Diapers. We'll be distributing 40 million free diapers this year to new families to address one of the real cost challenges they face, the affordability of diapers.

So to understand why this is another waste and to show the incompetence of the governor is just to look at the numbers itself. 7.4 million last year, 12.5 million this year. That is $20 million committed. For what? 400 diapers per family at a participating hospital, which is about 60 different hospitals. Okay. They base this problem. Okay.

And I tell you all the time, Democrats, they manufacture problems that really don't exist. They say that a typical family spends about $100 per month on items per child. That is a problem. So here's their solution. Okay. Well, when we look at their solution and the actual map to it, let's take a look. Newson is spending $20 million for 400 diapers per baby. 400,000 babies are born in California per year, which brings the math to 50 cents per diaper.

But if you were to get in your car and go over to Walmart or Costco, for an example, you can get diapers at 10 cents, 16 cents per diaper. So what does that mean? Taxpayers in California are paying 2.5 to 5x what a parent would spend at Costco for diapers. So how do you make sense of that exactly? How do you justify that increase? This is what affordability looks like. It's not a slogan.

It's a box. It's a box of diapers. It's addressing the essential and essential for any new parent, for any new family. Yeah, that's what he says affordability looks like. But the alternative here could be just giving these families $100 in cash, which means they would be able to get $500 to $600, diapers instead of the 400. And also it would cut out the nonprofit middleman, no overhead, no CEO salary, no administrative fees. And mom gets to pick the brand that she wants for her baby.

Again, compare it. You want the government to pay 50 cents, meaning the Californians and their tax dollars? Or do you want the parent to only have to spend 15 cents on average? You just can't make this up. Here's Steve Hilton going actually to the store and proving this to be a scam. Watch. All right. So Gavin Newsom is taking $20 million of your money to send 100,000 babies, 400 diapers. That works out at 15 cents per diper. We just came into Target to check out what you could buy it for in the store. Here you go. Just check this one out here. $162.26 that works out at 16 cents per diaper. Gavin Newsom's diapers are three times more

expensive. This isn't even Costco. Why is it three times more expensive for Gavin Newsom to send diapers to 100,000 babies than just leaving the money in the bank accounts of the parents and the first place because it's going to some total bullshit nonprofit, which cronies of his are going to make money, and that is what is wrong with California, instead of just cutting taxes so you can afford diapers and sending it out in this ridiculous bureaucratic scheme. Now, if you're in support of the surface level reason for this, you don't have a problem. But when you start doing the research, you find out that this was more of an A-plus photo op, and then it collapsed within 48 hours. You find out that there are direct conflict of interest concerns, a state,

contract to a nonprofit whose co-CEO sits on the first partner's board. Yeah, Gavin Newsom's wife of her nonprofit. The math doesn't work. We already went over that. And again, it only lasts for five weeks. They would be better off just depositing $100 in cash to newborns or their parents, rather. And so that's where we're at with this. All right.

Final story here is the president sat down for an interview, full measure, had a couple statements I want to react to. Let's start with the first one. Your Justice Department is investigating the NFL for moving a lot of viewers from free broadcast television to more expensive pay programming like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Peacock, and YouTube where the NFL makes more money. Do you think this is price gouging on America's favorite sport? Should the government do anything about it? It's tough. It's tough. You've got people that love football. They're great people. They don't make enough money to go and pay this. It's tough. And they could be killing the golden goose. I mean, they have that stupid

kickoff thing that you can't watch, it's unwatchable. I hate the games where they, you know, they have the new phony kickoff. I don't think it's any safer. I hope college football doesn't do that. Do you know what I'm talking about? I'm not a big football. You are not a football fan. These people know what I'm talking about. That, you know, they ruin the game. But they have to be careful because, you know, others have tried this and all of a sudden you don't have a sport anymore. Probably will. Government will step in and do something. There's something very sad when they take football away from many, many people.

Very sad. I don't like it. So do you think the government will step in and do something? But I don't like it. I don't like it. They're making a lot of money. They could make a little bit less. They could let the people see.

You have people that live for Sunday. They live. They can't think about anything else. And then all of a sudden they're going to have to pay $1,000 a game. It's crazy, so I'm not happy about it. This story in particular is when the DOJ should get involved with larger corporations. Because it's obvious what's happening here. I mean, why do I have to on Monday go to one channel and pay $50?

Then on Thursday, I got to go to another channel, pay another $50. And then Saturday, I got to pay another channel and pay $30. And then on Sunday, I still can't pay one subscription to see all games. It's split. I mean, this is ridiculous at this point. Everybody knows that. And you can't blame the corporations because it's capitalism, right? Now, this is where the government should step in and say, hey, listen, we're all for capitalism, free markets.

Go right on ahead. But what you're not going to do is gain this system in a way where the consumer is literally paying $200, $300 a month just to watch football. That's outrageous. And so what the solution could be, I don't know the legal terms on that. I wouldn't even know the legal strategy. But I think something should be done. I think that's fair to say. All right, let's go to this next clip.

Watch. Anytime you have mail-in voting, you're going to have a rigged election. Anytime you're not using voter ID, the Democrats don't want. They're fighting us on the Save America Act. Anytime you don't have, when somebody says, we don't want voter identification, that means they want to cheat. Then they say, we don't want citizenship. We don't want proof of citizenship. They don't want it to be a part of the voting process.

And yet, when it comes to. of voting. The interesting thing is 97% of the Republicans want voter ID. But if you had the Republicans and the Democrats together, 86% want. Now, let's be objectively fair here. I don't even think Democrats are the problem as it relates to the Save America Act getting passed. It's Republicans at this point. And they've demonstrated that time and time again. Leader Thune has no ability to whip any votes at this point. He's always been against it or has he always had a negative attitude about it as far as it passing. And it's hypocrisy. There's certain things that they'll pass in the still of the night that are ridiculous, no hesitation. But when it comes to this,

now, I mean, it's a total joke. And I think Congress is more of a problem here than anything else. Now, again, I'll show you both sides. So let me go back to Representative Clyburn because he did respond to the president today in his interview with Jake Tapper regarding the same America Act. Here's what he said. Something else did the president watch. He's been trying to force the Senate to pass the SAIVA. I would ask anybody, take a look at the SAIVA and then take a look at my book, the first eight, because that book will tell you exactly what they did after the Civil War, after bringing reconstruction to an end, and initiated Jim Crow.

I already discussed the whole Jim Crow situation earlier in the video, but, you know, again, Some of these issues should not be as partisan as they are. And both sides are obviously guilty of it. No doubt about that. And you'd hope that we could get back to a point of our country where at least the people can unify around certain issues without their tribalism getting in the way. And I think a secure border, I think boys playing and gross sports, I think low taxes. You know, I think these are a few issues that just make sense to me. And definitely voter ID. I mean, you have to have an ID for everything except voting in our elections.

It's fascinating. Okay. One more clip for you, and this is just really icing on the cake. Watch. As straightforward as securing the border seemed to be once you got into office, it almost implies that another president could reverse it as quickly. Is there any way to protect against that in the future? Yeah, vote Republican.

It's very simple. I would actually add on to that. Vote Republican, especially candidates. that are not backed by the establishment. I think that would be the way to go, if that makes sense. But listen, we're at the end of the video here. So give me your thoughts about everything that was discussed. The dark warning from Corey Booker that they will pack the court,

meaning the Supreme Court, this whole thing regarding redistricting and calling it Jim Crow. And then you have this whole Gavin Newsom being exposed for another scheme against taxpayers in California. Just share your thoughts and everything you got in the comments section below. And please don't forget to like, share, to our channel. If you want more updates, click on the next video because it's coming up right now.