Nevada lawmakers have advanced legislation aimed at curbing microplastic pollution in Lake Tahoe by restricting the sale and distribution of large plastic water bottles, a plastic bottle ban. Senate Bill…

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

The exoplanet K2-18b is generating headlines because researchers announced what could be evidence of life on the planet. The JWST detected a pair of atmospheric chemicals that on Earth are produced by living organisms. The astronomers responsible for the results are quick to remind everyone that they have not found life, only chemicals that could indicate the presence of life. The results beg a larger question, though: Can the JWST really ever detect life?

Let’s turn the sun into a telescope. In fact, we don’t have to do any work – we just have to be in the right spot.

The post RAPS Cat Sanctuary – A Forever Home For the Cats No One Wanted (with Video) by Dr. Karyn Kanowski BVSc MRCVS (Veterinarian) appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com. Did you know that there are more pet cats in Canada than dogs? In 2024, approximately 8.9 million felines were to be found in Canadian homes, compared to 8.3 million dogs.1 Unfortunately, there are also between 1.4 and 4.2 million stray and feral cats in the north,2 with Canadian shelters taking in around three times as many stray cats as dogs.3 Of these cats, some are safely returned to their relieved owners, and many find new, loving homes, but what about those cats who have been abandoned, surrendered, or born in the wild who, for a variety of reasons, are unsuitable or unlikely to be rehomed? Much of the time, these cats would be destined for euthanasia. Faced with obstacles like overcrowding, scarce resources, disease risk, and medical costs, most animal shelters need to adopt a ‘triage’ approach to the animals that come through their doors, and behavioral issues, health problems, physical defects, and old age can turn into a death sentence. This is partly due to financial constraints and lack of space, but also the ethical dilemma of leaving cats in short-term accommodation for extended periods. However, thanks to a very special group of people at the Regional Animal Protection Society in Canada, many of these cats are given the chance to live out their lives in peace and good health. The Evolution of RAPS During the 1980s, in response to the rising number of stray and feral cats in Richmond, Vancouver, a small group of dedicated cat lovers formed the Richmond Homeless Cats Society. These volunteers worked tirelessly to provide food, shelter, vet care, and, most importantly, spay/neuter services to the growing feline population. This group became the Richmond Animal Protection Society, who, in 2007, were awarded the City of Richmond Animal Shelter contract, where they established a no-kill policy. 2017 saw a final name change to the Regional Animal Protection Society, which better reflects the work they do for the wider community. This is NOT your typical cat shelter (Image By: Regional Animal Protection Society) The RAPS Cat Sanctuary To provide a long-term solution for cats who required long-term or permanent accommodation in the animal shelter, RAPS established its Cat Sanctuary in 1999. It is the only facility of its kind in Canada and one of the very few in North America. Knowing that their feline inhabitants were unlikely to be rehomed, the sanctuary is designed with permanent residents in mind. Even cats with illnesses such as feline leukemia and FIV are provided for in separate facilities to keep them and the other feline inhabitants safe. Home to more than 500 cats, the RAPS Cat Sanctuary is faced with a problem echoed by human healthcare: the rising medical costs of an ageing population. Many of the cats at the sanctuary are living with geriatric health issues such as dental disease, kidney problems, diabetes, arthritis, and hyperthyroidism, and treatment doesn’t come cheap. RAPS depends on donations and sponsorships, income from their thrift stores and fundraisers, and their hundreds of dedicated volunteers to provide the facilities, equipment, food, healthcare, and love these cats need. The cats at RAPS Sanctuary living extraordinary lives (Image By: Regional Animal Protection Society) How Is a Cat Sanctuary Different from a Shelter? Picture in your mind an animal shelter. Now erase that picture, because this sanctuary is so much more than a shelter. It is a veritable haven for cats to live their lives, not just bide their time. Verdant archways, sunny verandahs, high perches, and cozy cubbies provide space for cats to explore and stretch their legs and minimize the stress of shared habitats. Different personalities and temperaments are accommodated, and each cat is free to do as much – or as little – as they please. The sanctuary is also open to visitors, with entry fees helping to keep the organization running, and the interaction enriching both human and feline lives. Visitor numbers are carefully managed to ensure the cats do not feel overwhelmed, and strict guidelines ensure that the well-being of the feline inhabitants is put first. The cats at the sanctuary are available for adoption, should the right match present itself, but it is not the top priority here. In contrast to an animal shelter, where the primary focus is to find cats a forever home as quickly as possible, here at the RAPS Cat Sanctuary, they already have. Just a few of the many feline faces of RAPS (Image By: Regional Animal Protection Society) Visit the RAPS Cat Sanctuary website for more information on how you can support the wonderful work they do, including a one-off donation or monthly commitment, sponsoring a cat, volunteering at the sanctuary, corporate sponsorship, or visiting the cats. Sources https://www.statista.com/statistics/1015882/number-of-pet-cats-and-dogs-canada/ https://www.cwhc-rcsf.ca/docs/fact_sheets/Cats%20and%20wildlife.pdf https://aka-humane-canada-prod.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/attachments/clxui1vdo6s9611mqg2igdp4y-hc-animal-shelter-statistics-2021.pdf The post RAPS Cat Sanctuary – A Forever Home For the Cats No One Wanted (with Video) by Dr. Karyn Kanowski BVSc MRCVS (Veterinarian) appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com.

During oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, Justice Samuel Alito asked about the ages of Maryland elementary school students taught from LGBTQ books in their class.  “These books were approved for pre-K, which in Montgomery County could start as early as three if they are going to turn four that fall,” answered Eric Baxter, the attorney for a group of Maryland parents suing the Montgomery County public school system. He noted it goes up to the sixth grade.  Alito clarified, “So you’re talking about children in ages 5 to 11 or 4 to 11.” Here are four takeaways from today’s arguments. A decision is expected by the end of June. 1. Coersion or mere exposure? Age aside, the oral arguments before the Supreme Court centered on whether the books were mere exposure or coercion violating the religious beliefs of parents.  The Maryland LGBTQ book case before the Supreme Court?? is not just about the presence of books in a library.@becketfund attorney @esbax explains that the school board has required teachers to discuss the books in school.https://t.co/Ekbm92o9Da pic.twitter.com/ymBM4vlHRC— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 22, 2025 Later during the argument Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Alan Schoenfield, attorney for Montgomery County Public Schools. “You said that nothing in the policy requires students to affirm what is being taught or what is being presented in the books. Is that a realistic concept when you are talking about a five-year old?” Roberts asked. “Do you want to say, you don’t have to follow the teacher’s instructions? You don’t have to agree with the teacher?” Schoenfield framed this as similar to a 1943 Supreme Court precedent on the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Barnette v. West Virginia State Board of Education.  “I would point the court to Barnette. The kids were young. They were eight and 10, and the court made a distinction between being required to pledge allegiance and affirm a belief in a graven image and merely being required to remain passive during the pledge ceremony, and being instructed on what the pledge was, what the flag was and what it meant,” Schoenfield said.  Justice Neil Gorsuch followed, noting that teacher guidance says that if a student says a boy can’t be a girl, a teacher should respond that such a comment is “hurtful,” and you shouldn’t use negative words to talk about someone’s identity.   “Is that exposure, or is that something else for a 3-5-year-old?” Gorsuch asked.  Schoenfield replied, “These were recommended potential answers for questions that students might pose.”  Gorsuch followed, “Let’s say a teacher does as instructed and uses that. Is that exposure or is it coercion?” Schoenfield replied, “It is exposure to particular ideas in teaching students to be civil in the classroom.” 2. Pull your child from public school, if you don’t like it During the arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested to Baxter, the lawyer for the parents, that it’s not coercion because children can attend private schools or be homeschooled.  “Assuming there is no opt-out in this environment, are students being coerced into being in that school at all?” Brown asked.  “We could have set up a constitutional framework in which all students are required to attend public school. They have to go to public school,” Jackson continued. “In that situation, you would have a pretty strong argument that it burdens a parent’s religious exercise if a public school teaches a student something that contradicts a parent’s religious beliefs. … I’m struggling to see how it burdens a parent’s religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent disagrees with. You have a choice. You can put them in another situation. You can homeschool them. How is that a burden on the parent?” Baxter replied: “In the world we live in, most parents don’t have that option. We have two working parents. That’s the reality for our parents.”  Jackson countered, “In so many other constitutional doctrines, we don’t focus on whether people can afford to protect their rights.” 3. Are the books just there, or are kids being taught out of the books? Justice Clarence Thomas asked, “Are the books just there and no more, or are they actually being taught out of the books.”  Baxter affirmed the books were required to be taught since being introduced in August of 2022, and said the board of education suggested the books be used five times before the end of the school year. “One of the schools, the Sherwood school in June for Pride Month, said that they were going to read one book each day to celebrate Pride Month,” Baxter said. “That was the entire point of withdrawing the opt outs and removing even notifying parents who were not allowed to know, it was so that every student would be taught from the inclusivity textbooks.”  Plaintiffs suing on religious grounds including Catholic, Muslim, and Ukrainian Orthodox. Plaintiffs say they were initially offered the chance to opt out, but the school district reversed the offer. The school district has said it tried to accommodate, but the parent requests became unworkable.  The plaintiffs referred to the 1972 precedent of Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the high court held Amish families couldn’t be forced to send children to school after the eighth grade. Parents say they are asking for a far more narrow First Amendment accommodation. However, the Montgomery County school district contends this would mean no limit for accomodations.  4. Debating “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” Both Justices Alito and Sonia Sotomayor referred to one of the books, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about a same-sex wedding.  Sotomayor asked, “So, what you’re saying is that the exposure of children to the fact that two people are getting married is coercion, that two people of the same sex is coercion?”  Baxter clarified, “Our clients have not raised that objection.” Baxter stressed that the high court’s ruling in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex marriage, that “parents would be able to teach what this court called decent and honorable beliefs that same-sex marriage is immoral, according to their beliefs.” “It’s a far stretch from that for schools to compel students to attend,” he said.  Alito argued that the book “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” didn’t present a factual case to leave it up to the students.  “The book has a clear message. And a lot of people think it’s a good message, and maybe it is a good message. But it’s a message that a lot of people who hold onto traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with,” Alito said. “I don’t think anyone can read that and think, well this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men. … Everyone accepts this except for little Chloe who has reservations about this. And her mother corrects her. It has a clear moral message.”  Sotomayor later objected that she interpreted the book differently to mean that the little girl was worried her uncle would spend more time with his husband than her. The post 4 Takeaways as Supreme Court Hears Maryland LGBT School Books Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The White House has “18 proposals on paper” from foreign countries for trade deals, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday. “Again, these are proposals on paper that countries have proposed to the Trump administration and to our government,” Leavitt said. “You have Secretary Bessent, Secretary Lutnick, Ambassador Greer, Director Hassett and Peter Navarro, the entire trade team meeting with 34 countries this week alone.” She was referring to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and presidential counselor Peter Navarro. “We are moving at Trump speed to ensure these deals are made on behalf of the American worker and the American people,” Leavitt added. On Monday, Vice President JD Vance announced terms of reference for a trade deal with India. Leavitt said it was a “disservice” that the mainstream media did not cover that. “We know when we look at the numbers, the monetary trade barriers and the nonmonetary trade barriers from India, they have been ripping off the United States and American workers for a very long time,” Leavitt said. “So, the fact the vice president with [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi on that trip in India announced these terms of reference, which is essentially a framework to move the ball forward, to sign a good trade deal between our two nations, is great progress,” Leavitt continued, “and it speaks to the work ethic and the real labor that’s being put into this effort by the president’s trade team.” President Donald Trump announced on April 9 a 90-day pause on tariffs for more than 75 trading partners that did not retaliate. There is now a 10% baseline tariff rate on most imported goods. Chinese imports face an additional 125% tariff rate on top of existing tariffs because Beijing imposed retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. Hassett told “Fox and Friends” last week there are now “offers on the table” with 15 countries—though he declined to specify which—and negotiations are “moving fast.” Japan’s chief trade negotiator and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni both met with Trump last week to discuss deals. Trump said he had a “very productive meeting” with Japanese Economic Revitalization Minister Ryosei Akazawaas as well as with Meloni, who said she was “sure” the U.S. and European Union could reach an agreement. The post ‘Moving at Trump Speed’: White House Has 18 Trade Deal Proposals, Leavitt Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Carved into the stone of the Black Hills of South Dakota, four faces look down upon this great nation: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt. Four American heroes, revered, respected, and representing the noblest aspirations of the American people. The gentleman farmer-turned- general who took down the most powerful army in the world, then shepherded the newborn nation through its infancy. The folksy woodsman who freed a race of people and ensured the United States would move forward as one. The inventor, political philosopher, genius whose poetry turned a statement of independence into a declaration more powerful than any weapon against tyranny the world has ever known.The brash adventurer whose swagger and smarts best captures the can-do American spirit. This is America’s Mount Rushmore. Sadly, today’s Left and it appears the entire Democratic Party have carved in recent days their own Mount Rushmore: Luigi Mangione, Karmelo Anthony, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and Mahmoud Khalil. A cold-blooded killer who shot a father of two in the back because he didn’t like the American health care system. A cold-blooded killer who allegedly stabbed a fellow teenager in the chest because he felt challenged and disrespected. An illegal immigrant, MS-13 gang-member, alleged human trafficker, who happened to be put back on the wrong plane back to his home country. And did we mention he’s an accused wife beater? An operative of a terrorist organization that promotes the genocide of Jews, who led violent protests against Jewish students … a guest in our country, who allegedly lied on his visa application. These are the Left’s new heroes. This is the Left’s new Mount Rushmore. (Sorry, George Floyd. You’re yesterday’s news.) This Mount Rushmore has visitors … and souvenirs! Approximately three million people a year visit Mount Rushmore. Visitor numbers for the Left’s Mount Rushmore aren’t quite that. Yet. But you did have a U.S. senator travel 2,000 miles to visit Abrego Garcia, with a gaggle of House Democrats soon following. You did have thousands visiting the courthouse holding pro-Hamas Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, and tens of thousands gathering around the country to protest his arrest. You did have over 13,400 people visiting the GiveSendGo site of Karmelo Anthony, dropping enough coin to afford Anthony to not only pay his bail, but rent a $900,000 crib for his family and a hot new ride for himself. Over $455,000 raised because he stabbed a white kid in the chest. And you have countless women gathering at the courthouse to support and swoon over Luigi Mangione, the accused killer of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson, like he was the freshly single member of a boy band. Like the original Mount Rushmore, you can buy souvenirs for the Left’s Mount Rushmore. Don’t want a T-shirt of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt? You can get a St. Luigi T-shirt, mugs, and hats. Etsy’s full of “Free Mahmoud Khalil T-shirts. A website was set up to sell Karmelo Anthony swag. The phrase “Maryland Dad” is said with the same reverence by the media as “Honest Abe.” Luigi’s motto “Deny Defend Depose” is the Left’s new “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” A mountain of lunacy This isn’t even about Mangione, Abrego Garcia, Anthony or Khalil. Killers are going to kill, terrorists are going to terrorize and gangbangers are going to gangbang. They no more earned the adoration than Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt carved their own faces on Mount Rushmore. This isn’t even about the small fringe drawn to the worst among us. Even serial killers get love letters. This is about the mindset of the Left that tears down statues of our Founders but lifts up lowlifes. Who throw their lot in with Maryland Dad to spite the Orange Man. Who declare that because America’s a racist nation it’s OK for a black kid to plunge a knife into a white kid. How is it that despite the carnage MS-13 has done in the state of Maryland, one of its senators, Chris Van Hollen, went to El Salvador on our dime in a failed bid to win Abrego Garcia’s release. And even after the Department of Justice dropped a load of documents from the Prince George’s County Police Department’s gang unit further proving Abrego Garcia’s MS-13 ties, after the Tennessee Star reported how he was pulled over in 2022, suspected of human trafficking, after documents were released where his wife swore he repeatedly beat her, Van Hollen vowed to continue to fight for his release. And, indeed, met with him Thursday for a tropical sit-down as cozy as anything you’d see on “The Bachelor.” Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the “death camps” & “torture”, now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!? pic.twitter.com/r6VWc6Fjtn— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) April 18, 2025 We’re not talking about a lonely woman infatuated with a dreamy bad boy fantasizing about a Hallmark romance. (But enough about Taylor Lorenz.) We’re talking about a United States senator, an elected representative. And not some Squad Member either, but a white-haired patriarchal figure of the mainstream Democratic Party. A spirit, but not of 1776 A cynical part of me wants to say follow the money. If Al Capone could have politicians in his pocket, why not MS-13? But the pattern of the party’s embrace of illegal immigrants and violent criminals over their victims, terrorists over the terrorized, felons over the Founders, speaks to party lost in darkness. Given over to a foul spirit. The spirit that shouts “Free Abrego Garcia! Free Luigi Mangione! Free Karmelo Anthony! Free Mahmoud Khalil” we know well. Especially after this weekend. It’s the same spirit that shouted, “Free Barabbas.” Yes, we can join Jesus and say, “Forgive them, Father, for the know not what they do.” But like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt, we can swear “eternal vigilance” against this spirit that would tear this nation apart. The post The Left’s Mount Rushmore appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rubio Remaking the State Department

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2025. > For 2023 and 2024, for 2021 and 2022, for 2020. For 2019. For 2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)   ■ New on April 21, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Chris Matthews returns more unhinged than ever See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ April 14, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Media eat their own and rip Bill Maher for dining with Trump (Washington Examiner post) It’s hard to believe that our weekly Liberal Media Scream has been documenting the Washington press corps’ Trump Derangement Syndrome for about nine years and that we can find some new hypocrisy every single Monday to highlight. But thanks to the eagle eye of our partner Brent Baker, the vice president of the Media Research Center, we have one of the first examples of the liberal media trying to keep wandering members of the tribe in line. It happened Friday night after HBO talk show host and political comic Bill Maher described his recent dinner in the White House with President Donald Trump. Maher said it was a successful effort to break bread instead of just hurling insults at each other. But some in the media weren’t happy that the two met. Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, on Maher’s show, accused his host of falling into Trump’s “trap.” He scolded, “For him, this was a PR stunt, and in his view, you were a prop in that PR stunt.” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO: JOSH ROGIN, WASHINGTON POST: Counterpoint? You know, Bill, I think you’re right in saying that people make too much of this. OK, it’s not the Yalta Summit, you’re not Churchill, Kid Rock is not Stalin, Trump, sure as s***, isn’t FDR, OK? So yes, I believe too much has been made about this, but I think you’ve fallen into the trap. I think I represent 99% of the internet when I say this, is that you have played the game of proximity is principle, and what people are worried about — it’s not your motivation, we believe you, we love you, everybody loves Bill, right? So, I’m not questioning your motivation, I’m questioning Trump’s, OK? And if we can say that you went there in good faith, but maybe, just maybe he wasn’t there in good faith. I mean, you sold him on the Iran deal, and he took it in — I mean, give me a break, OK? So, the idea here is that your motivation is sound, but what’s the impact? And I think a lot of people out there, fans of yours, people who love you, people who are fans of you, like me, been fans of yours my whole life. BILL MAHER: You don’t have to patronize me, dude — ROGIN: OK. Fair enough. MAHER: I don’t know you, I never met you, not everybody has to like it. ROGIN: I’m just saying that this comes from a place of love. All I’m saying — MAHER: That’s what we said, there are people who didn’t want it to happen at all, you sound like one of them. It’s OK. ROGIN: No, no. MAHER: Did you hear what I said? ROGIN: Yeah. MAHER: What is the alternative to not talking? Just sitting at your lunch table and don’t talk to anybody? ROGIN: I’ve talked to him, I’ve interviewed Trump. Piers has interviewed Trump. MAHER: This was not an interview. This was not an interview. ROGIN: I agree with the principle of engagement. I’m just saying from his perspective, you have to understand, that people who out there know, all Americans know, that for him, this was a PR stunt, and in his view, you were a prop in that PR stunt. MAHER: The fact that you began your little rant with the internet — that tells me everything. You take your cues from the internet. Good luck! The internet is a cesspool that just wants to fight. ROGIN: I support what you’re trying to do. I’m just saying the expectation that Donald Trump is going to be changed by something — MAHER: I said in the piece I did not think that was going to happen. I love the people on either side who ignore the parts they don’t like. I just did it. It wasn’t like it was three weeks ago. Watch it again, maybe you’ll find something new in it. ROGIN: It’s not a judgment, but it’s a little bit of a judgment. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Josh Rogin displayed the reflexive attitude common in the Washington press corps that anyone who does anything which might ‘normalize’ President Donald Trump must be discredited. Bill Maher did a great job, however, of discrediting Rogin’s weak arguments.” Rating: FOUR out of five screams.   ■ April 7, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: CNN cheers X-rated comic dumped by press corps (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream puts the spotlight on CNN and its hosting of a left-wing comic so biased and X-rated that she was dumped from performing at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. CNN’s new show, Have I Got News For You, put the spotlight on one of its “captains,” Amber Ruffin, who reiterated the hatred of President Donald Trump that got her kicked out of the dinner. After her firing came up on the show, Ruffin added to her reasons why she hates the president and his team, claiming that they are “disappearing people to a prison in El Salvador.” She said, “I lost the gig because I was out here talking s***.” From Saturday’s airing of Have I Got News For You on CNN: HOST ROY WOOD JR: Amber offended the White House, as well as members of the White House Correspondents Association. Amber, following the tradition of Craig from Friday, was fired on her day off as she was uninvited from the White House Correspondents dinner when she said that she intended to make fun of the current administration. Amber, do you think you lost the gig because you said too early what you were going to do about going in on Republicans? AMBER RUFFIN: I mean, oh, my god, I could f***ing talk for the next three hours. But what I choose to say is it’s like I lost the gig because I was out here talking s***, and I think it’s a good thing that I lost the gig because I was going to show up there and act all the way out. Also, like, also, it’s not anyone’s fault because when I was hired, we were like, oh yeah, and we’ll give it to everybody. And I was like, beh. Then they started f***ing disappearing people to a prison in El Salvador. They rolled back f***ing civil rights. So I was like, if I make this equal, then I’m also a piece of s***. I can’t f***ing do that. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Ruffin demonstrated why she is totally inappropriate to provide comedic commentary about the political scene. She’s filled with vitriol and hate toward the man who the nation chose as its president. But she found her audience on CNN where she was cheered and applauded for her crude invective. A sad commentary on the state of CNN.” Rating: FIVE out of five screams   ■ March 31, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Trump has made Bob Woodward deranged (Washington Examiner post) President Donald Trump has done it. In just two short months, he has not only turned the liberal Washington Post into a TDS cesspool but made its most celebrated reporter nearly certifiable. How else can we explain Bob Woodward’s latest unhinged rant against Trump in which he claims that the billionaire businessman has a goal of ruining the economy? “Well, his end goal is it looks like he wants to destroy the economy,” said the 82-year-old reporter and author on a Washington Post podcast. For that, he wins this week’s Liberal Media Scream with five out of five screams. From the Post Reports podcast interview, recorded at Woodward’s home by Washington Post “national politics/democracy reporter” Colby Itkowitz, which was posted Friday night on YouTube: BOB WOODWARD: All these executive orders. I mean, he is, stood his ground and said this is what I’m going to do. I am shrinking. He and Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, his sidekick, are cutting the government, and look at what we are seeing. I mean, in some cases it’s done, as people have said with the chain saw, and we know from our personal lives or businesses that when you have to cut, that’s a really tricky undertaking, and you need to very carefully spell out what you’re gonna do and do it very slowly and be very certain that the impact is that they’re not secondary events that you trigger with — and look at what’s going on now. I think it’s one of the most dangerous times this country has ever faced. COLBY ITKOWITZ: What do you think Trump’s end goal is in all of this in the sledge-hammering the government tariff, putting tariffs on our allies like Canada, like what is the, what is his big end goal as president? WOODWARD: Well, his end goal is it looks like he wants to destroy the economy and that is a very dangerous undertaking. I mean, he states the motive is very positive, but look at what people are going through — having very negative impact. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “It’s one thing to contend that President Trump’s tariff policies are misguided and will harm the economy, but to charge that ‘he wants to destroy the economy’ is an attitude which reflects a particularly nefarious view of Trump. Does Woodward really think Trump is so awful that he has set out to intentionally ‘destroy’ the economy? That’s what he said and it fits with his very far-left perspective that reducing the size of government makes this ‘one of the most dangerous times this country has ever faced.’” Rating: FIVE out of five screams.   ■ March 24, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: All TDS on PBS as centrist calls Trump an ‘extortionist’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream provides the latest fodder for conservatives calling for an end to taxpayer support of public TV because of its anti-Right bias and disdain for President Donald Trump. In focus is the nightly PBS News Hour program that regularly features guests critical of Trump. For our example, it wasn’t the liberal on the show rapping Trump but the resident centrist, New York Times columnist David Brooks, who called the president an “extortionist” and “bully” for using his powers to get countries, companies, and people to do what he wants. “People call Trump a transactional politician, but he’s an extortionist. That’s actually a difference. There’s — a transaction is, we do a deal. Extortion is, I bully you until you give me what I want,” said Brooks. At issue was an earlier move by the White House to withdraw the security clearance of the Paul Weiss legal firm, which is close to Democrats. The firm agreed to do $40 million worth of pro bono work for causes favored by the White House to win back the clearance. From Friday’s PBS News Hour: HOST AMNA NAWAZ: We saw President Trump going after institutions, including Big Law, right, including universities, as you mentioned, where many of these guys went to school. And this week, we saw two big institutions take steps to comply with the demands of the Trump administration. We saw Paul Weiss agree to a settlement, essentially, that says they’re going to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services. Columbia University agreed to a list of demands so they don’t lose hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. Jonathan, what does this moment, these steps from these institutions say to you? JONATHAN CAPEHART: It says to me that our democracy is teetering. And I’ll focus on Perkins — I’m sorry — on Paul Weiss and the legal sphere. We have seen a complete capitulation by the legislative branch, the Republican majority, to what the president wants to do in the executive. And all our hopes for the maintenance of our democracy now rests with the judiciary. And in the olden days, before Trump, you would rely on these white shoe law firms like Paul Weiss to provide pro bono help to folks who are suing for redress, who want the courts to step in when Congress or the president goes overboard. When a Paul Weiss decides to pull back, when other big law firms like that decide to pull back, what does that mean in terms of the judiciary’s ability to stop a president like Trump? And that’s what’s so concerning to me about this piece of the capitulation. NAWAZ: David? DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, people call Trump a transactional politician, but he’s an extortionist. That’s actually a difference. A transaction is, we do a deal. Extortion is, I bully you until you give me what I want. And so that’s what we’re seeing here. Now, I put myself in the shoes of, say, the president of Columbia, the head of Paul Weiss. And I think, well, if I compromise with Trump, I’m hurting my institution. But if I lose $400 million, I’m also hurting my institution. These are real choices that people have to make. And I understand that. In the case of Columbia [University], I personally think the Trump requests or demands, whatever it is, are kind of reasonable, and Columbia should have done all this stuff five or 10 years ago. They really did get ideologically out of control. And if they’re publicly funded, partially publicly funded, then you’ve got a problem. And they created this problem. So I understand why. I got to save my university. I got to save $400 million. On the other hand, caving into an extortionist rarely pays off because he will say, ‘Oh, I take that. Here’s my next demand, here’s my next demand.’ And if you look at the history of Zelensky, Macron, people — all the people who’ve tried to cozy up to the extortionists, they all end up losing in the end. And so I think it’s time for the universities as a body — and we saw this with the Princeton president — to say no more deals. We are standing up because there will be a time — and, again, I don’t think this is quite the time to sort of beat down the Trump administration. There will be a time where everybody has to hold together and stand up and say, no, no more deals. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “A perfect reflection of how ‘diversity’ on PBS is all about gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and race, not political ideology. PBS’s panel of Capehart and Brooks, touted as offering perspective from the left and right, does not (Brooks agrees with the liberal Capehart 61% of the time per a Media Research Center analysis). Indeed, they regularly find commonality to denouncing President Trump. So much for PBS viewers hearing much of anything that challenges their liberal world view and disgust for all things Trump.” Rating: FOUR out of five screams   ■ March 17, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: NBC urges harsher Trump hate by Democrats (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a Sunday NBC panel mocking Democrats for failing to be harsher and faster in blasting President Donald Trump and his relationship with Tesla founder Elon Musk. On Meet the Press, there was a collective scream at the liberal party for dropping the ball in attacking Trump, which the panel clearly felt was in order when the president displayed Teslas at the White House. “Shocking,” they agreed, that Democrats didn’t work up a quick ad blasting Team Trump for essentially doing what former President Joe Biden did when he featured American-made vehicles on the South Lawn during a White House event. “Another missed opportunity,” said MSNBC senior Washington correspondent Eugene Daniels, who is president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: HOST KRISTEN WELKER: One of the striking moments of this week was the moment where President Trump basically had a car show at the White House. Teslas on display with Elon Musk. It comes as, of course, Tesla’s sales have been dropping. Elon Musk’s approval ratings, much lower than President Trump’s, by the way. The optics of this, Anna, is it complicated for the White House? ANNA PALMER, Punchbowl News: Well, it’s amazing that they’re doubling down on Elon Musk, because, to Cornell’s point, this is the opening for Democrats. They’re already starting to run ads featuring Elon Musk as the boogeyman. This gives them the B-roll and the visuals that you need to say that the White House is, you know, kind of mixing business with the work of the government. ….. POLLSTER CORNELL BELCHER: And the idea that what Biden did at the White House is similar to Trump basically being a salesman and hawking the Teslas on the front lawn of the White House is completely different. The ad writes itself. MSNBC’s EUGENE DANIELS: But Democrats aren’t doing it. Immediately, the next day, there should’ve been just, that ad, just showing it over and over again. WELKER: You’re saying another missed opportunity for Democrats. Shocking! DANIELS: Another missed opportunity to get on the same — BELCHER, DANIELS: Shocking that the Democrats are bad on messaging! DANIELS: But I mean, you know, like, when you talk to them behind the scenes, they explain the Elon of it all in a much better way than they do when they go on television. They don’t talk about him as an oligarch behind the scenes, right? They talk about him as someone who is, in their eyes, doing this, doing DOGE because he wants to help his businesses at the end of the day, right? They talk about that conflict of interest. That’s something that the American people actually understand, but they, again, continue to miss an opportunity to actually do that. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “So much for pretending there’s any separation between the Washington press corps and Democratic Party interests. Can you imagine journalists ever advising Republicans or Trump supporters on how to more effectively undermine a Democrat? Of course not.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ March 10, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Sunny Hostin tells Democrats fight or ‘people will die’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the return of one of America’s lefty pundits suffering most from Trump Derangement Syndrome, The View’s Sunny Hostin. Reacting to Rep. Al Green’s (D-TX) censure by Congress for his outbursts during President Donald Trump’s joint session address Tuesday, the hostile Hostin said the Democrats in the chamber should have joined him in rudely protesting Trump and stormed out in support. While virtually every other Democrat in the media is calling for a more level-headed approach to Trump, she went in the other direction, claiming without a shred of evidence that Trump’s policies will kill people. As a result, we give her outburst a rare five-scream trophy. The View on Friday: JOY BEHAR: Ten Democrats voted to censure Green. SUNNY HOSTIN: Do you want a list of the 10? BEHAR: Do you want to hear their names? HOSTIN: Yes, I do. BEHAR: Why go after them too? Go after the Republicans. HOSTIN: Because they don’t know how to fight and be part of an opposition party. Representative Green gave them the example. The Democrats are not meeting the moment. It is very clear that Medicaid is on the table. It is very clear that Social Security is on the table. It is very clear that people will die. The baby boomers, the civil rights generation, they knew what they had to do! They were willing to fight and die for their rights. This generation of Congress, they are not meeting the moment. This is an existential crisis! BEHAR: And also, I might point out some of them are from the most liberal states like New York, Hawaii, California. HOSTIN: They should be ashamed of themselves! They should have all walked out with him! Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “ABC News should be embarrassed by the daily left-wing drivel on The View. Even many Democrats were ashamed by Green’s antics, which went far beyond what any Republican has ever done during a presidential speech to Congress. So much for contending it’s Trump who has lessened decorum. Hostin is advocating more coarseness in politics. And ABC News is sanctioning it.” Rating: FIVE out of five screams.   ■ March 3, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS twists Trump press pool diversity as ‘sinister’ (Washington Examiner post) Here’s another reason for all the PBS and NPR critics to call for federal tax dollar defunding. Instead of cheering the expansion of media allowed into the White House press pool, PBS declared it a “sinister” move to censor the press. This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the outlet’s twisted view of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s decision to take charge of choosing who is in the daily pool that covers White House events for the rest of the press when there isn’t enough room for all, such as the near-daily back-and-forths President Donald Trump hosts in the Oval Office. She made the decision because she believed that the White House Correspondents’ Association was being too selective by favoring legacy media and barring new-age social media and conservative outlets. The old guard protested, though, in its first week of operation, the new pool remained heavy with legacy media. One exception was the Associated Press, which Trump’s team omitted because the news service won’t recognize the president’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, as the government has. In our example, PBS NewsHour co-anchor Amna Nawaz called the White House move an attack on the press, prompting contributor and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart to chirp that “we are in more sinister territory” with Trump and the media. Of course neither talked up former President Joe Biden’s move to take away the press passes of over 400 mainly conservative outlets or former President Barack Obama’s seizing of phone records from AP or others in his dragnet for leakers. From Friday’s PBS News Hour: AMNA NAWAZ: His continued attacks on the press, blocking the AP’s access from some White House coverage as well. You saw him take control of the White House, take control of the press pool that covers the president full time, makes sure everyone else knows what’s happening with the president. Peter Baker, of course, longtime Russia correspondent, said it reminded him of the Kremlin press pool takeover. And I just want to get your takes on where that sort of attack on the press stands and whether we’re in much more sinister territory now. JONATHAN CAPEHART: I do think we are in more sinister territory because you’ve got to look at what’s happening with AP, in light of his lawsuits against CBS, against ABC, threats, threatening the licenses of other broadcast entities. This is all part of a pattern of roughing up anyone he views as not either insufficiently loyal or people who have wronged him. And he looks at the press as an entity that has wronged him. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Imagine that. President Trump sees ‘the press as an entity that has wronged him.’ And he’s fighting back, which really upsets the legacy media despite the fact that nothing he has done has blocked the public from full access. It’s hardly ‘sinister’ just because the White House is allowing a more ideological diverse group of outlets to get access instead of just a few privileged and entitled journalists.” Rating: Three out of five screams.   ■ February 24, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Mike Johnson cuts off CBS bedwetting (Washington Examiner post) It took over two years for the Nixon-era Watergate scandal to bring on the constitutional crisis that led a president to resign. But hearing CBS describe President Donald Trump’s first month of moves the network doesn’t like shows this generation’s Watergate has already arrived. Even more than the Hollywood whining of Jane Fonda and others at Sunday’s Screen Actors Guild Awards, Jane Pauley’s CBS News Sunday Morning jumped head first into decrying Trump’s moves promised during a year on the campaign trail to drain the swamp as a constitutional crisis. “More than a half-century ago,” said CBS’s Robert Costa, “as the Watergate saga unfolded, President Richard Nixon had a standoff with the Justice Department and the courts” that the media declared a “constitutional crisis.” Now, he added, “that term, constitutional crisis, is back.” But amid the name-calling and historical hyperventilating in the show’s main story, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) offered a sense of calm and perspective. “I have been asked so many times, aren’t you uncomfortable with this? No. I’m not,” he said, making the CBS report our Liberal Media Scream of the week. From CBS News Sunday Morning: JANE PAULEY: With judges across the country pushing back against some of the Trump administration’s flurry of executive orders, there are those who ask: What would happen if the White House defies the courts and simply moves ahead with its plans? We’ve asked our Robert Costa to make some inquiries. ROGER MUDD, CBS ANCHOR, NOV. 4, 1973: Despite his powers as chief executive, his future is really in the hands of the other two branches of government: the courts and the Congress. ROBERT COSTA: More than a half-century ago, as the Watergate saga unfolded, President Richard Nixon had a standoff with the Justice Department and the courts. DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR, OCT. 20, 1973: In breathtaking succession tonight, the following historic events occurred. The president of the United States demanded that the attorney general fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The attorney general refused and resigned. COSTA: The tensions brought a certain phrase to the fore of the American conversation. JOHN CHANCELLOR, NBC ANCHOR, OCT. 20, 1973: The country in the midst of what may be the most serious constitutional crisis in its history. COSTA: Now that term, ‘constitutional crisis,’ is back. JULIAN CASTRO, former House Democrat from Texas: We’re headed toward a constitutional crisis. U.S. SENATOR ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): We’re fast barreling toward a constitutional crisis. COSTA: Many Democrats are sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump’s use of executive power. U.S. REP. SEAN CASTEN (D-ILL): The actions that Musk and his IT goons have taken, they’re illegal. COSTA: And some fear that Trump, who has shattered norms and who worked relentlessly to try to overturn the 2020 election, cannot be counted on to follow the courts. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I have been asked so many times, aren’t you uncomfortable with this? No. I’m not. COSTA: Most Republicans are shrugging off talk of a crisis. In fact, many are cheering as Trump overhauls the Justice Department and FBI, works with Elon Musk to fire thousands of federal employees and signs piles of executive orders. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “You know it’s a media-fueled effort to create a scandal when the journalist in question regurgitates Watergate. It’s what Costa and the Washington press corps see as their halcyon days of glory. And if the supposed scandal matches a current liberal Democratic talking point, so much the better, despite the lack of any real substance to the fearmongering.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ February 17, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Scott Pelley, now TV’s top Trump hater (Washington Examiner post) He has a lot of competition in the media, but few have as big a stage as 60 Minutes elder Scott Pelley. As he continues to step up his attacks on President Donald Trump and the new administration, Pelley is elbowing aside all others to emerge as Trump’s loudest TV critic. Never a fan of Trump, Pelley has taken his 60 Minutes perch at CBS to offer critical monologues of the president. People took notice even before Trump returned to the White House when Pelley ripped Trump’s Cabinet picks, saying, “Some nominees appear to have no compelling qualifications other than loyalty to Trump.” However, other than gnawing down his reading glasses, Pelley had no impact. All of Trump’s picks to get a Senate floor vote won. Then, on Sunday’s show, he opened with another hit on Trump, saying the president was in “defiance of the Constitution” with his agenda. Again, there was no impact since a day later, a federal judge expressed skepticism about any harm the president’s Department of Government Efficiency threatened. Each week, Secrets teams with the Media Research Center to choose the loudest liberal media scream, and Pelley won again this week. What’s more, Media Research Center Vice President Brent Baker gave Pelley’s rant a score of five out of five screams. That is a rare top score, but one we expect to see more of as the liberal media turns up the heat on Trump as it loses its influence on him and his White House. From the lead story on Sunday’s 60 Minutes: SCOTT PELLEY: It’s too soon to tell how serious President Trump is in defiance of the Constitution. In his first 28 days, he signed an order to nullify birthright citizenship for some — a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. And he has closed agencies and frozen spending that Congress mandated by law. Lower courts are holding up many of the president’s priorities, but nothing has risen to the Supreme Court, where these battles over presidential power could rewrite history. Presidents often push limits — FDR’s New Deal, for example — and voters in this last election wanted change. But the scope and speed of Trump’s reach for power may be unprecedented. One example is a 63-year-old agency created by Congress, codified in law and eviscerated by Trump in a matter of days. KRISTINA DRYE: People are really scared. I think that you know, 12 days ago, people knew where their next paycheck was coming from. They knew how they were going to pay for their kids’ daycare, their medical bills. And then, all gone overnight. PELLEY: “All gone, overnight,” for Kristina Drye and Adam Dubard — fired this month in the chaotic shutdown of foreign aid distributed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. More than 8,000 USAID employees were sent home by the administration. ADAM DUBARD: They’re not looking for competency. They’re not looking for — if you’re good at your job. They’re looking for pure loyalty tests, and if you don’t give it, you will be punished… … PELLEY: The world’s richest man had cut off assistance to the world’s poorest families. Musk spent nearly $250 million to get Trump and other Republicans elected. He collects billions in taxpayer dollars for his SpaceX rockets. ANDREW NATSIOS, FORMER USAID ADMINISTRATOR: I think we’re creating a system that violates the separation of powers and the checks and balances that are intended in the Constitution. PELLEY: Republican Andrew Natsios, former head of USAID, spoke to us in Washington, in part because he is not hearing public appeals to reason from fellow Republicans. PELLEY TO NATSIOS: How do you view this moment in history? NATSIOS: I don’t want to be too pessimistic. But it does appear we may be headed towards some sort of a constitutional crisis. I don’t, I hope that doesn’t happen. I pray it doesn’t happen. But it’s certainly concerning to me what’s going on in this city right now. PELLEY: Is the constitutional order breaking down? NATSIOS: We’ll see if they refuse to enforce a court order by the Supreme Court. If it gets to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules against the administration on something and they refuse to enforce it, then we will have a constitutional crisis. PELLEY: What happens then? NATSIOS: Well, I don’t know. PELLEY: No one knows. NATSIOS: No one knows. Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow, explained our pick: “Another hit to whatever remnants are left of 60 Minutes as some sort of dispassionate news magazine which offers a fair and balanced look at complicated issues. Pelley not only matched the Trump Derangement Syndrome of the left, he doubled down on it, presuming the absolute worst motives behind President Trump while taking cheap ideological shots at Elon Musk. This is Exhibit A in why federal spending has never been cut since the end of World War II: The media go to war to discredit anyone who takes on the spending behemoth.” Rating: Five out of five screams.   ■ February 10, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS airs extreme TDS, ‘starvation,’ ‘death’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a PBS freak panel of left-wing journalists spewing the most extreme anti-Trump analysis of the cost-cutting by the White House and efficiency agency headed by Elon Musk. While discussing the fate of USAID, which President Donald Trump’s team closed and shifted spending authority to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a reporter for National Public Radio warned to others nodding yes that the impact will be “poverty and increased starvation.” Then an Atlantic reporter, formerly with the Washington Post, said on the tax-subsidized PBS show Washington Week with The Atlantic that cutting by Trump and Musk of the federal world aid slush fund would lead to “cruelty and death.” The language used by the reporters are just two examples of the type of Trump Derangement Syndrome attacks on Musk and the president’s efforts to root out waste and fraud in government programs. From the February 7 edition of Washington Week with The Atlantic on PBS: ASTHMA KHALID, NPR: There’s something I think very strange at this moment of seeing the world’s richest man really sort of take a hatchet that will essentially take people who are already in the depths of poverty and, you know, increase starvation rates, or increase hunger rates, which is likely what will happen if USAID is entirely cut off.”… ANNE APPLEBAUM, THE ATLANTIC: It’s a test case for can agencies just be abolished without Congress having any say, but it’s also a test case of cruelty. You know, are Americans willing to accept a high level of cruelty and death just, you know, on the president’s whim, on Elon Musk’s whim. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Your taxpayer dollars at work: A journalist for taxpayer-funded National Public Radio and another journalist – both on taxpayer-funded PBS – relay the talking points, in their most extreme form, of the government employee union trying to discredit any reduction in federal spending. Instead of a rational assessment of efforts to trim spending, the two prove they are in the tank for the deep state, presuming starvation and death will result. And they wonder why so many don’t see them as serious sources of facts.” Rating: Five out of five screams.   ■ February 3, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Call on MSNBC for weekly Trump impeachment votes (Washington Examiner post) Have you heard this one? Democrats want to impeach President Donald Trump. This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a SiriusXM host demanding on left-leaning MSNBC that Democrats vote to impeach Trump weekly. “I hope some of them will start introducing impeachment articles every week,” said Tell Me Everything host John Fugelsang on MSNBC’s The 11th Hour last Friday. “Donald Trump was eligible for impeachment one minute into his inaugural address,” he said. “I think Democrats should start having a different guy come out every week and introduce new articles of impeachment, just to inspire people and show them that we’re doing something and let the record show for history we are fighting against this,” he added. In his first term, Trump was impeached twice, and Democrats thought that would end his political career. Of course, it only strengthened Trump, who won office again against somebody who voted for impeachment twice, former Vice President Kamala Harris. From Friday’s The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC, picking up as Fugelsang reacted to news CBS may make a financial settlement with Trump to end his lawsuit over misleading editing of its 60 Minutes interview with Harris, which followed an earlier financial settlement from Facebook over that platform removing him in 2021: John Fugelsang: They’re bribes. I mean, these are bribes. You know, Donald Trump was eligible for impeachment one minute into his inaugural address for violating the emoluments clause. CBS has got a big merger coming up. This is a bribe. … The Democrats are going to do what they did last time. They’re going to lick their wounds, slowly assemble, let Trump do some work for them, and they’re going to be talking a lot about education and healthcare. I hope some of them will start introducing impeachment articles every week. When the GOP was trying to repeal Obamacare 70 times, we laughed at them. But what they were doing in their impoverished state was consolidating the base, fundraising, and getting their messaging across. It worked for them. I think Democrats should start having a different guy come out every week and introduce new articles of impeachment, just to inspire people and show them that we’re doing something and let the record show for history we are fighting against this.” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “So much for even pretending to allow President Trump to have a chance to give voters what they voted for in electing him. MSNBC thinks it’s a legitimate and credible position to contend Trump had earned impeachment less than an hour past noon on Inauguration Day — well before he had signed a single executive order. So much for reflection and serious analysis from the press corps. But it is what Democrats and so many journalists like to do given this would be the third attempt to impeach him. Will they go zero-for-three?” Rating: Five out of five screams.   ■ January 27, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Vance schools CBS and bishops on illegal immigration (Washington Examiner post) America is learning pretty quickly that Vice President JD Vance is no pushover easily cornered on tough issues. In our latest Liberal Media Scream, we feature Vance’s retort to Catholic bishops and CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan over complaints that the Trump administration is being mean in its effort to deport criminal illegal migrants. Appearing on Face the Nation, Brennan sounded hurt that the administration would enter schools to find their targets. She cited complaints from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which funds efforts to settle illegal immigrants in America, as do other religious groups. Vance had clearly heard it all before and was quick to point out that protecting America and Americans, including migrants here legally, is President Donald Trump’s No. 1 job. Brennan worried that the administration’s policy has “a chilling effect, arguably, to people to not send their kids to school.” Vance reversed her spin to make his point: “I desperately hope it has a chilling effect on illegal immigrants coming into our country.” And when she cited concerns from the bishops, Vance said, “As a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns, or are they actually worried about their bottom line?” Clearly, it is going to be a tough four years for liberals in the media, such as Brennan, since Team Trump is ready and willing to parry the left media’s slant on major issues. From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about another area that you campaigned on quite a lot, and there was a flurry of activity on. And that has to do with immigration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week condemned some of the executive orders signed by President Trump, specifically those allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter churches and to enter schools. Do you personally support the idea of conducting a raid or enforcement action in a church service, at a school? VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Well, let me address this. Of course, if you have a person who is convicted of a violent crime, whether they’re an illegal immigrant or a non-illegal immigrant, you have to go and get that person to protect the public safety. That’s not unique to immigration. But let me just address this particular issue, Margaret, because, as a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. And I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns, or are they actually worried about their bottom line? We’re going to enforce immigration law. We’re going to protect the American people. Donald Trump promised to do that. And I believe the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, if they’re worried about the humanitarian costs of immigration enforcement, let them talk about the children who have been sex-trafficked because of the wide-open border of Joe Biden. BRENNAN: So, you personally support them going into schools and churches? VANCE: Let them talk about people like Laken Riley, who were brutally murdered. I support us doing law enforcement against violent criminals, whether they’re illegal immigrants or anybody else, in a way that keeps us safe. Let me ask this question, Margaret. Separate the immigration issue. If you had a violent murderer in a school, of course, I want law enforcement — BRENNAN: Of course. VANCE: — to go and get that person out. BRENNAN: Of course. VANCE: So, then what’s the point of the question? BRENNAN: You changed the regulation this week. That’s the point of the question: giving the authority to go into churches and go into schools. VANCE: Exactly. We empowered law enforcement to enforce the law everywhere to protect Americans. BRENNAN: But that also has a knock-on effect, a chilling effect, arguably, to people to not send their kids to school. VANCE: I desperately hope it has a chilling effect — BRENNAN: In the churches … VANCE: — on illegal immigrants coming into our country. BRENNAN: You think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are actively hiding criminals from law enforcement? VANCE: I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has, frankly, not been a good partner in commonsense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for. And I hope, again, as a devout Catholic, that they’ll do better. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Brennan went into the interview thinking she had the moral high ground and facts on her side, presuming it would be easy to show how badly misguided are so many Trump policies. But she ran into JD Vance, who delivered a master class in how to take on and undermine the premises of the Washington press corps.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ January 19, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: CBS sucks up to Biden to the end: ‘Did deliver’ (Washington Examiner post) Our final Biden-era Liberal Media Scream finds CBS News kissing up to President Joe Biden to the end, brushing aside all the polls and its own reporting to declare he was effective. “In many ways,” CBS chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes said, “he did deliver.” The media have resisted reporting on Biden’s mental and physical failings over his four unpopular years in office. And even on his last weekend in office, outlets such as CBS went out of their way to prop up a president who polls as one of America’s worst. From CBS News Sunday Morning: NANCY CORDES: In many ways, he did deliver. His administration oversaw the successful rollout of the COVID vaccines. The stock market steadily rose to record highs, while unemployment fell to a near-record low. Overseas, he expanded NATO, strengthened alliances in Asia with the goal of containing China, and cobbled together lasting support for Ukraine in its war against Russia. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The duty of a president is to defend what is best about America. CORDES: He did so while racking up major legislative victories, including massive new investments in clean energy and semiconductor manufacturing. BIDEN: I believe, to my core, there isn’t a single thing this country cannot do when we put our mind to it. CORDES: And he scored a win that eluded his predecessors: signing a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Going down with the ship, CBS and Cordes are still trying to convince people that despite the rejection of his presidency and his policies by the voters, Joe Biden really was a great president who delivered laudable accomplishments. The media and Biden do share at least one thing in common: In the eyes of much of the public, they are both losers.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ January 13, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS delights that Trump will forever be a ‘convicted felon’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is already anticipating the coming media hate that will greet President-elect Donald Trump when he enters office for a second time a week from today. No surprise, but biased liberal PBS “analyst” Jonathan Capehart isn’t just readying his anti-Trump talk for Inauguration Day. He is already looking to pour on the hate in every Trump story. On Friday’s PBS NewsHour, Capehart, who also hosts a poorly-rated MSNBC show, took delight in predicting that after being sentenced last week in a much-mocked legal case, Trump will forever be known as a “convicted felon,” and he wants every reporter to mention that in their stories about Trump. Cheered the talker, “What’s also great punishment is the sentencing today, where the judge said, you’re going to be president, you’re not going to go to jail, but you’re a convicted felon. And so for the rest of his life, any story written about him will have to mention the fact that he’s a convicted felon — if not on the first reference, definitely by the second reference.” From Friday’s PBS NewsHour: GEOFF BENNETT: But after, you know, being convicted of 34 felonies, there are people who look at this case, and they say that Donald Trump walks away with a punishment that is less than what one would receive for a speeding ticket. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Look, this case, this hush money case, was the case that everybody said was the crappy case of the four. Remember, Donald Trump was indicted four times, and this one was the least important, the shakiest. And yet it’s the one case where Donald Trump was held accountable, the one case where he was brought to trial before a jury of his peers in his hometown of New York City and was found guilty 34 times. I think that is great punishment. What’s also great punishment is the sentencing today, where the judge said, you’re going to be president, you’re not going to go to jail, but you’re a convicted felon. And so, for the rest of his life, any story written about him will have to mention the fact that he’s a convicted felon — if not on the first reference, definitely by the second reference. And that is fitting, that is right, that is just. Do I wish the other three cases had gone to trial and that he had faced accountability on those? Yes, but this will do. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Talk about petty immaturity. Capehart’s reaction to the judge’s sentence on Trump bared how much of the press corps’ hostility to Trump was always fueled by personal animosity as much as by disgust with conservative policies. So a smug Capehart gets joy from a court giving him the okay to apply a derogatory label to the incoming president.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ January 6, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC the sole #Joementia denier (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC’s Symone Sanders-Townsend as the media’s last denier that President Joe Biden has lost it. What’s crazier than the obvious is that she claims that it is incoming President-elect Donald Trump who suffers brain fog. Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Sanders-Townsend’s defense of the president who dropped out of his reelection campaign after his brain locked during a debate with Trump came just hours before his bizarre cursing rant about immigrants following a White House ceremony. “The question on the table is, ‘Is the president all they way there?’ And the answer is unequivocally yes,” Sanders-Townsend said on the show. The MSNBC host, in fact, charged it is Trump whose mental capacities should be questioned. Biden “can at least put a sentence together,” but “the president-elect is the one I am concerned about.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press: SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: Well, I was very surprised that when you asked the question about mental acuity he didn’t more forcefully push back. The question on the table is, “Is the president all the way there?” And the answer is unequivocally yes. Now, people can say that you feel as though President Biden might be a little too old to do the job, but he is doing the job. And his mental acuity is there. So, I think that there’s a conflation of two things here: his mental capacity and serving another four years as old as he is. But those are two separate things in my opinion. And, look, these people that have known Joe Biden their entire political lives, I know Joe Biden is like, “Can you all just please defend me a little more?” MARC SHORT: I think it hurt Democrats. It hurt Democrats in November to try to tell the American people something they could see with their own eyes wasn’t true. SANDERS-TOWNSEND: But it’s not true that the president doesn’t have the mental acuity. SHORT: Of course it is, Symone. The American people saw that for themselves in the debate— SANDERS-TOWNSEND: What are you saying? He can at least put a sentence together. The president-elect is the one I am concerned about because I recently talked to the president. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “Sanders is a last holdout, a true foolish believer. Virtually all of her colleagues, even those who pretended for years that Biden was fine, started to acknowledge, as soon as Biden was no longer the Democratic candidate for reelection, that he’s not all there. But not Sanders. She’s still in the tank and embarrassing herself, especially when suggesting it’s Trump who has the mental shortcomings.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   > Liberal Media Screams for 2023 and 2024 > Liberal Media Screams for 2021 and 2022 > For all of 2020. > For all of 2019. > For all of 2018. > For July through December 2017. > For January through June 2017. > For July through December 2016. > For January through June 2016. > For July to December 2015.