PBS News Hour guest and anti-Trump activist Miles Taylor of “Anonymous” media fame whined about President Trump’s top adviser calling the Democratic Party a domestic extremist organization in an August 27, 2025 segment: “That’s really, really scary language.” So it’s fascinating how often PBS itself uses similar “really scary” hostile labeling habits against conservatives but almost never against liberals, as a new Media Research Center study reveals. MRC analysts counted up the “left-wing” and “right-wing” style ideological labels used by anchors, reporters, and contributors on the PBS News Hour regarding American politics from December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2025. PBS News Weekend programs were not included.   KEY FINDINGS: ■ PBS staff used 44 variations of "far-right" labels and only 4 of "far-left" labels, a ratio of 11:1. ■ PBS staff also used mere "right-wing" and "left-wing" labels at a disparity of 17-12. So overall, the labeling disparity was 61-16. ■ The figures remained uneven after President Trump signed the bill rescinding federal funding from PBS and NPR on July 24, with 11 variations of “far-right” labels and 2 of “far-left” ones. Overall, the post-July 24 labeling disparity was 17-9. (Note: Coverage of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk began September 10, 2025, which may have skewed the post-July 24 raw figures somewhat toward balance.) Even those stark figures understate the full extent of PBS’s slant. Many of the “left” labels came with important context: Some were used by PBS staff while claiming denial that the label applied. Generic “left” labels were sometimes mentioned in tandem with a similar “right” label (i.e. “whether you’re far left or far right…”). Many examples occurred of attribution -- promoting someone outside PBS calling a person or group left-wing, not PBS itself.  By contrast, “right” labels were almost exclusively hostile descriptions emanating straight from the mouths of reporters and other PBS personalities. While some of the targets earned their extreme epithets, like “far right” for neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes, others tagged included members of Congress, Elon Musk, and critics of the left-wing pieties of the new Pope. This year’s labeling disparity matched the pattern documented in our campaign-year study last December, confirming the PBS News Hour’s place as the most slanted of all the networks in terms of labeling. Not even the July 2025 loss of federal funding stopped it. Some examples:   “Far-right” labels vs. “far-left” labels: 18-3 The April 4, 2025, show intro by co-anchor Amna Nawaz made sure to tie Trump to unflattering epithets: “The president removes more top national security officials, drawing praise from far-right conspiracy theorist and Trump ally Laura Loomer.” Nawaz on July 9, 2025 said: “Now some of President Trump’s far-right allies are frustrated that the administration appears to be ready to move on from the Epstein investigation.” Nawaz on August 13, 2025 described Laura Loomer as “the controversial far-right activist who has the president’s ear,” one of many epithets directed toward the controversial figure. Veteran reporter Judy Woodruff on October 22, 2025 benignly labeled the radical-left podcaster Mahdi Hasan “liberal,” preserving the harsh descriptions for his opponents. Woodruff: “And in July, Jubilee released an episode of "Surrounded" with liberal commentator Mehdi Hasan. Clips quickly ping-ponged around the Internet showing Hasan confronting 20 far-right conservatives.” One of the very few “far-left” labels came on August 19, 2025 from special correspondent Simon Ostrovsky, and even that was an attribution: “While most Republicans and most Christians still support Ukraine, there's a subculture on the right and on the far left who are increasingly hostile, according to Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion And democracy.”   “Hard right” vs “hard left” labels: 4-0 Reporter Lisa Desjardins said during the jockeying for the House Speaker position on January 3, 2025: “To become Speaker of the House, [Rep. Mike] Johnson needed 218 votes, and, initially, he received only 216. Three Republicans voted against him, voted for someone else. And those members were members of the hard right. All three of them, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Keith Self of Oklahoma, prominent fiscal hawks, they care about the debt and deficit….” There were no examples of “hard-left” labels within the confines of the study.   “Extreme” right vs. “extreme” left labels: 8-1 On June 9, 2025, former News Hour White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez, now at the left-wing network MS NOW, claimed that “President Trump has a long history of amplifying messages and figures embraced by white supremacists and other domestic extremists….” On December 13, 2024, David Brooks provided the sole use of “extreme” to describe the left, and it took the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Brooks noted how “progressive elites on the very extremes [had gone] off the fringes.”   “Hard-line” right vs. “hard-line” left labels: 14-0 Just as in the previous News Hour labeling study, not a single “hard-line” leftist was to be found on PBS, only on the right, and especially concerning Trump’s enforcement of immigration law. Nawaz reported on January 22, 2025: “Day by day, the president’s hard-line immigration policy is taking shape. A new executive order targeting migrants at the southern border comes as the U.S. military is beefing up its presence there.” Bennett’s show introduction from April 3, 2025 promised to show “How the Trump administration has restarted the practice of family detention as part of its hard-line immigration policies.” And Nawaz noted “hard-line conservatives” had refused to support Trump’s budget framework in an April 10, 2025 report.   “Right wing” vs “left wing” labels: 17-12 On Valentine’s Day 2025, alleged PBS conservative David Brooks showed no love for Trump’s DOGE cost-cutting attempts: “And so what we're seeing is not populism. What we're seeing is a sort of Ivy League right-wing nihilism.” Co-anchor Geoff Bennett issued a theologically dubious pronouncement about new Pope Leo XI’s politically correct social media on May 9, 2025: “And his posts have suggested that he supports protecting immigrants, reducing gun violence, combating climate change, certainly in line with the Gospel, maybe not in line with right-wing politics.” Bennett opened the September 10, 2025 show, following the assassination of conservative activist and Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk: “The influential right-wing activist Charlie Kirk is shot and killed at an event in Utah.” One of the few genuine “left-wing” labels (without context) came from co-anchor Bennett on September 23, 2025, and even that was a semi-defense of the labeled group, a deserving target: “President Trump is targeting the left-wing Antifa movement, labeling it a domestic terrorist organization, even though no such designation exists under U.S. law.”   Labeling Disparity by Guests: 34-19. The disparity held to a less extreme extent with the guests PBS invited into the studio or who appeared remotely to pontificate on current news. Once again, many of the “left-wing” mentions came with strong caveats. A September 17, 2025 guest, former FBI agent turned MS Now commentator Asha Rangappa, used the term only to defend the left. “There is left-wing political violence, but compared to other politically motivated violence, it is not the largest percentage of the instances that we have seen.”   Sidebar: The labeling bias reached overseas as well. PBS staffers issued many unflattering labels to tar Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Israel, including two figures fairly obscure in America: Israel’s national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich were each planted with the same “far right” label four times.   METHODOLOGY: MRC analysts tabulated every use of the phrases “far right, “hard right,” “right wing, “far left,” “hard left,” “left wing,” “extreme,” “hard-line” (and all variations of those phrases, i.e. with or without hyphens or spaces) pertaining to political figures, policies, and movements in American politics, that were said on air by PBS News Hour personalities (anchors, reporters, commentators, and occasional substitute commentators) between December 1, 2024 – November 30, 2025. Labels spoken by guests were also tallied. Names of organizations were not included. Clips of politicians or other talking heads using the phrases were not included.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a foreign-born, Biden-appointed, lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy — decided in March to indefinitely block the enforcement of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military, suggesting it likely violated their constitutional rights.Reyes, formerly of the Feminist Majority Foundation, suggested in her March 18 ruling that the "Military Ban is soaked in animus" and that it was her responsibility as a judge to keep the executive branch at heel, despite acknowledging the "pernicious" nature of judicial overreach.On Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed the administration a big win: a 2-1 decision staying Reyes' order and greenlighting enforcement of the ban.'We're done with that s**t.'Citing the Supreme Court's June 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on sex-rejecting genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors, U.S. Circuit Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao — both appointed by President Donald Trump — ruled that War Secretary Pete Hegseth's ban on trans-identifying military members likely did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or trigger any form of heightened scrutiny."In Skrmetti, the Supreme Court held that a law prohibiting the use of hormones to treat gender dysphoria in minors 'classifies on the basis of medical use' and thus does not discriminate based on either sex or transgender status," Katsas wrote for the majority. "The same reasoning would seem to cover the Hegseth Policy, which classifies based on the medical condition of gender dysphoria."Even if the policy contained a classification triggering some form of heightened scrutiny, Katsas emphasized that "decades of precedent establish that the judiciary must tread carefully when asked to second-guess considered military judgments of the political branches."RELATED: 'Not medicine — it's malpractice': Trump HHS buries child sex-change regime with damning report Photo by Daniel Knighton/Getty Images Katsas noted further that the policy was "likely constitutional because it reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests," such as cost issues, unit cohesion, and military readiness. Trump noted in his Jan. 27 executive order titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness":Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false "gender identity" divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. The Pentagon subsequently released guidance stating that "military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service," and took steps to begin giving those with gender dysphoria the boot.Katsas suggested that Reyes' claim that the Pentagon's policy did not advance legitimate interests was more or less baseless — that she:"gave no sound reason for overriding the Secretary's considered judgment";premised her claim that "medical studies now overwhelmingly conclude that gender dysphoria is highly treatable" on a "declaration from one doctor who simply stated, in one sentence and without citations, that 'gender dysphoria is highly treatable'"; and"downplayed evidence of greater mental-health issues faced by transgender individuals."The court also rejected Reyes' suggestion that the policy is rooted in animus against transvestites, noting that she "looked beyond the Hegseth Policy itself to derive animus from various statements made by the President or other officials" — an approach the Supreme Court has previously rejected.The dissenting judge on the panel, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, lashed out at her colleagues, claiming in a 27-page dissent — which reads like a work of LGBT activist literature — that the majority's decision "makes it all but inevitable that thousands of qualified servicemembers will lose careers they have built over decades, drawn up short by a policy that would repay their commitment and service to our nation with detriment and derision.""The majority grants this stay in the face of all evidence to the contrary," continued U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard. "We should not accord deference to the military when the Department itself carelessly relied on no more than blatant animus."According to Pillard, the Pentagon's decision to oust gender-dysphoric individuals from the military was "based on nothing more than negative attitudes about transgender identity." She also clutched pearls about various comments from elements of the Trump administration, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth's May 6 remarks stating, "No more dudes in dresses; we're done with that s**t.""Because the Hegseth Policy is openly fueled by animus towards transgender people and defendants have not shown that it is based on military considerations, it fails even the most deferential form of equal protection review," wrote Pillard.Following the appellate court's ruling, Hegseth shared a cartoon to social media depicting him kicking a bearded man in a dress out of the Department of War. The transvestite depicted in the cartoon is holding a box containing a book titled "DEI Military" and an LGBT flag.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Though Department of Homeland Security officials continue to bravely execute their deportation mandate, they have been met with a great deal of threats against their safety. In fact, a recent high-profile incident is only the latest example of what has reportedly been an 8,000% increase in death threats against immigration enforcement officials. On Tuesday, twin brothers were arrested in Abescon, New Jersey, after allegedly issuing death threats to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in general and to a high-profile DHS spokeswoman in particular, according to a DHS press release. 'We are NOT afraid of you.'The pair are accused of calling on people to "shoot ICE on sight" on social media. They also allegedly threatened to hang DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.RELATED: Illinois, Gov. Pritzker have released almost 1,800 violent illegal aliens back onto the streets in defiance of ICE, DHS says Ricardo Antonio Roman-FloresDepartment of Homeland Security“Let this be a warning to anyone who dares threaten or attack our brave law enforcement officers,” said acting ICE Director Todd Lyons. “We will find you, we will arrest you, and we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. We are NOT afraid of you.""The extreme rhetoric of the news media, sanctuary politicians, and activists is leading directly to our law enforcement officers facing an 8,000% increase in death threats against them. If you threaten our law enforcement or DHS officials, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”RELATED: This Southern sanctuary city is next on the list for federal immigration law enforcement Firearms and ammunition found at the scene of the arrest. Department of Homeland SecurityEmilio Roman-Flores is charged with unlawful possession of an assault weapon, possession of prohibited weapons, conspiracy terroristic threats, criminal coercion, threats, and cyber harassment.His twin brother, Ricardo Antonio Roman-Flores, is charged with conspiracy terroristic threats. The pair were held at Absecon Police Department upon their arrest. Both are United States citizens.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The conservative legal outfit American Center for Law and Justice filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against a public school district in New York after a teacher allegedly subjected seventh graders to pornographic materials on multiple occasions.The complaint, filed on behalf of two parents and their minor children, alleges that "under the guise of an art lesson," Bridgette Gates — a teacher with the Watertown City School District who "resigned as an art teacher, ... was rehired as an English teacher, and remains on administrative leave," according to Syracuse.com — intentionally exposed around 100 students to "pornographic and sexually explicit imagery over a two-week period in September 2025, without providing any advance notice to parents or offering an opportunity to opt out."'It's almost criminal.'According to the complaint, Gates directed her students at Case Middle School to visit the gallery on the Keith Haring Foundation website using their school-issued Chromebooks during class time.At the time of publication, the gallery contained various sexually explicit images and images of bodily mutilation, including multiple cartoons and paintings depicting men masturbating; a cartoon depicting a man with a fist-tipped penis; a cartoon depicting a man being choked by his penis; a painting mocking the martyrdom of St. Sebastian, depicting him with an erection and impaled by multiple airplanes; a painting of a character with a mouth in the place of an anus; and a painting of a penis wearing a wig.The deviant agitprop was created by Keith Haring, a hallucinogenic drug-abusing homosexual activist who died of AIDS-related complications in 1990.A spokesperson for the Haring Foundation told Artnet that it is aware of the conservative group's response to the alleged incident at the school and acknowledged that some of Haring's images may be inappropriate for some audiences.The lawsuit alleges that Gates acknowledged that "some of the images were inappropriate" yet told her 12- and 13-year-old students to "ignore them and be mature." Gates allegedly continued showing the images to kids despite signs of unease and resistance.RELATED: Elementary school teacher allegedly possessed thousands of files of child sex abuse material Photo by Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg via Getty Images After learning of the content in late September, concerned parents contacted the teacher, school administrators, and local law enforcement.Stephanie Boyanski, a plaintiff as well as the parent of one of the plaintiff students, told WWNY-TV in September, "It's almost unbelievable.""It's almost criminal," said Heather Trainham, another parent.Plaintiff parent Jessy Roberts noted that her son "knew it was inappropriate, but he wasn't sure if he should speak out or not, because they're of authority."'Schools are not free to override that authority or to "correct" the family’s moral instruction.'In the face of parental backlash and concerns raised at school-board meetings, Gates was reportedly placed on paid administrative leave, the assignment link was removed from Google Classroom, and the district admitted to parents that students had "come across inappropriate content." There was, however, no apology from the district.The ACLJ sent a letter on Nov. 21 to Larry Schmiegel, superintendent of the school district, stating that "because of the District's lax monitoring of its curriculum and teachers, and its deliberate choice to shield the teacher from accountability, the harm done to Mses. Boyanski and Roberts' children is irreparable and ongoing."The legal group demanded that Gates be issued a formal reprimand; that the school adopt a policy not to show children sexually explicit content without parental notification and to provide an opt-out if future curriculum includes such content; and to provide counseling for kids impacted by the images — and provided the district with a Dec. 1 deadline to act.The lawsuit filed this week requests that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York declare that the school violated parents' First and 14th Amendment rights; bar the district from repeating its error; require the district to implement age-appropriate safeguards; and award damages for the alleged constitutional violations.The district did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment."Parents should not be forced to choose between public education and their family’s values. The Constitution draws a bright line: Parents, not the state, decide how and when their children are introduced to sexual content," the ACLJ said in a release. "Schools are not free to override that authority or to 'correct' the family’s moral instruction through compulsory exposure to explicit material. When officials discard that line, the courts must restore it."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Grammy-winning artist and his band will perform more than 80 shows across 14 countries. The post Joe Jackson’s Busy 2026: New Rock Album, ‘Hope and Fury,’ and Tour appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Only one song stayed at the top for 3 weeks or more. And thus, no less than 37 singles reached #1 that year. Several musical acts had more than one. The post The Number One Singles of 1966: Good Vibes appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Dallas Cowboys Writer More Upset Sheriff Grady Showed Kid's Mugshots Than the Actual Shoplifting Heist

Dem Who Wore Pink Latex Gloves in Viral COVID Meltdown Wants RFK Jr Impeached for Ignoring the ‘Science’

There He Goes Again: CA Judge Once More Tries to Clip Trump Admin's National Guard Wings

While Workout Buddy is still the most convenient option for tracking workouts, having to lug around the iPhone is burdensome enough to warrant a change.