The Golden Globes completely snubbed popular conservative and independent podcasts when nominations were announced on Monday for the newly-created category, Best Podcast. Instead of including some of the most listened-to podcasts in the nation, the organization nominated mostly actors and comedians for the category. Nominees included “Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard,” Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy,” “Good Hang with Amy Poehler,” “The Mel Robbins Podcast,” NPR’s “Up First,” and “SmartLess” hosted by actors Jason Bateman, Will Arnett, and Sean Hayes. Notable snubs include “The Joe Rogan Experience,” widely known to be the most popular podcast in the nation and a chart topper across Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. Other huge conservative podcasts left out include “The Ben Shapiro Show” and “The Megyn Kelly Show.” Shapiro discussed being one of the 25 eligible podcasts for the nomination during an interview with Gold Derby last month. He said that in order for the country to unify, the other side needs to acknowledge the existence of conservatives. “I do think that it is necessary for people to sit at the same table and at least acknowledge that we’re all Americans together. Because if we can’t even do that, it’s going to be very difficult to have a country together,” he told the outlet. The Daily Wire host also noted how it was “really, really important” for podcasts to be recognized as a medium. Per the Golden Globes, the goal of the new award is to celebrate excellence in podcasting by recognizing their “quality, creativity, audience engagement, and impact.” Besides shutting out every conservative and independent podcast, the organization did not nominate any true crime shows, and kept the far-Left podcast “Pod Save America” off the list as well. The company said it would use “proprietary methodology designed to objectively evaluate podcasts,” based on metrics including audience reach/engagement, financial metrics, and platform visibility/market presence.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) declared her candidacy for the United States Senate seat currently held by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) — but Mark Halperin is saying she doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in the Lone Star State. Halperin, speaking with “AfterParty” host Emily Jashinsky, explained that Crockett was fighting an uphill battle in the reliably red state and would likely struggle to win a statewide election even if the Republican candidate was not ideal. WATCH: ?NEW: @MarkHalperin tells @emilyjashinsky Jasmine Crockett’s Senate hopes *DEAD IN WATER*? “Emily, a Democrat has not won a statewide office in Texas for over a quarter century. And if you’re asking me if Jasmine Crockett will be the Democrat who breaks that streak, the answer… pic.twitter.com/D6g3NqFwPX — Jason Cohen ?? (@JasonJournoDC) December 9, 2025 “Emily, a Democrat has not won a statewide office in Texas for over a quarter century. And if you’re asking me if Jasmine Crockett will be the Democrat who breaks that streak, the answer is no,” he began. He went on to say that it was certainly possible Crockett would make it through a Democratic primary, however unlikely an eventual win might be. “Maybe she’ll be the nominee, and if she is, the Republicans will rejoice because any of the three Republicans in the Republican primary can beat her, almost certainly,” Halperin continued. “Because again, there’s a profile that’s been bandied about for years of the kind of Democrat who could break this 35 — or whatever it is, I guess 31-year losing streak to win a statewide office in Texas, and that profile matches not at all with Jasmine Crockett.” Crockett’s campaign pitch thus far appears to be yet another lode from the same vein as much of her career so far in the U.S. House, largely built on direct and vocal opposition to anything President Donald Trump says or does.

The Justice Department will no longer pursue civil rights lawsuits based on “disparate impact theory,” the Trump administration announced Tuesday. The move comes after 50 years of government policy that encouraged lawsuits against “race neutral” policies without showing evidence of actual racial discrimination, the department said. Disparate impact theory is a framework that often assumes discrimination when there are different outcomes for different groups of people, even if there is no explicit discriminatory practice in place. “For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi. “No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.” The Justice Department issued a rule removing disparate impact from consideration under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prevents entities that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin from receiving federal money or support. “The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions.” The change comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in April that directed the federal government to stop using disparate impact theory in government policy and regulations. The order defined disparate impact theory as the “presumption” that “unlawful discrimination exists where there are any differences in outcomes in certain circumstances among different races, sexes, or similar groups, even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved, and even if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.” Trump said that this theory undermines America’s values of meritocracy and a colorblind society while also violating the Constitution. “It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals,” Trump wrote. Last year, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department was blocked from enforcing disparate impact claims against Louisiana.

The Charlotte City Council is being slammed for approving $3.4 million to hire a PR company to clean up the reputation of their public transportation after a string of recent stabbings. The city’s latest action comes after two widely-publicized stabbings, including one that ended fatally on Charlotte’s train system and sparked a national conversation on rising crime and lax prosecution in urban areas of the country. On Tuesday, Republican North Carolina Rep. Mark Harris called out the “pro-crime Democrats in Charlotte” for spending the cash on “misleading ads” rather than choosing to “invest in REAL safety to prevent another tragedy like Iryna Zarutska’s brutal murder.” “No amount of marketing will cause us to forget Iryna,” Harris wrote. Local radio host Nick Craig called out local leaders on X Tuesday for using the funds “on ads telling you everything is fine” rather than “fixing safety.” Pro-crime Democrats in Charlotte are doing everything they possibly can EXCEPT FOR ACTUALLY ADDRESSING CRIME. https://t.co/azb5FlLHoQ — Rep. Mark Harris (@RepMarkHarrisNC) December 9, 2025 Honduran illegal immigrant Oscar Gerardo Solorzano-Garcia allegedly stabbed a man using a “large fixed-blade knife” on a Charlotte train Friday, according to The Charlotte Observer. Solorzano-Garcia was deported on two separate occasions before the attack and had a lengthy rap sheet for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, destroying evidence, resisting arrest, using a false ID, along with convictions for robbery and illegal re-entry. It came just four months after the unprovoked murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, 23, in Charlotte by a man with at least 14 prior arrests for offenses such as armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Decarlos Brown Jr. served five years for the robbery, but got off on time served, probation, or community service in most of his other cases. He allegedly stabbed Zarutska repeatedly in the neck as she was commuting from her job at a local pizzeria. The Trump administration responded to Charlotte’s crime surge and sanctuary policies by deploying federal immigration agents to carry out what they dubbed “Operation Charlotte’s Web,” which resulted in hundreds of arrests of illegal immigrants.

Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) defended a recent video — during which she encouraged members of the military to question orders in real time — by tossing those same service members under the bus. Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, had joined five military veterans in making the video that circulated a few weeks earlier. In it, they called on service members to remember that they had the right and the responsibility to refuse to act on unlawful orders — all while heavily implying that such orders either would be or had already been given by President Donald Trump or War Secretary Pete Hegseth. During a recent interview, Slotkin claimed that she’d only made the video because an overwhelming number of military members had reached out to ask about it. WATCH: Elissa Slotkin claims Democrats made the ‘illegal orders’ video because a slew of military personnel were coming to them with concerns for months: “I don’t know if this is legal. I don’t know if I’d be held accountable later after this administration. I can’t get a straight… pic.twitter.com/Fe2AMPvMRg — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) December 8, 2025 “I mean, we made that video three weeks ago or whatever it was, certainly not thinking that the president would go high and right as we say at the Pentagon on it like that,” Slotkin said, suggesting that Trump’s response — to a video telling service members to potentially ignore his orders — had been the one thing that was out of line. “There was so many people coming to us who were on active duty, recent veterans, family members of service members, who were coming to us individually and saying two things,” she continued. “One, ‘I’m concerned I’m going to be sent in uniform to an American city — you know, like L.A., Chicago, Memphis — and I’m going to be asked to do things I either don’t think are legal, or I’m not trained for, and what do I do?'” “And then this fall, it really turned, and it became a lot of people who were involved in the operations around the Caribbean asking those same things,” she continued. “‘I don’t know if this is legal? I don’t know if I’d be held accountable later after this administration. I can’t get a straight answer about whether this is legal or not. What do you think we should do?'” “We were hearing that for months,” she added, “So that’s why we made the video.” Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who also participated in making the video, is facing additional scrutiny for his role since he is the only one who is a retired service member and therefore still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).