Better than all the rest, etc

President Donald Trump ripped into “Meet the Press” anchor Kristen Welker — and her home network, NBC News — in a Sunday evening post on his Truth Social platform panning their coverage of his administration and saying that they were focusing on all the wrong things. Trump, who spoke with Welker himself by phone on Sunday, said that she had “wasted my administration’s time” by focusing on stories that were less important and failing to address the serious issues facing the country. pic.twitter.com/EfyMuL1VJx — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 30, 2025 “Kristen Welker’s entire first half hour of the Lowly Rated Meet the Fake Press this morning, was devoted to the boring Signal Witch Hunt,” Trump began. He went on to note that Welker, like the anchors and many of the guests on the other networks’ Sunday talk shows, had spent a fair amount of time on the Signal chat group that had included a number of top Trump administration officials — and, accidentally, Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg — in a discussion about a recent attack on Houthi terrorists. “She doesn’t want to talk in detail about anything that matters like how well we are doing against the Houthis, substantive Peace Talks with Russia and Ukraine or, Iran, Iran, Iran,” Trump continued. “She wastes my Administration’s time by talking to them about ‘NOTHING.'” “Why can’t NBC, one of the Worst Broadcasters on Television, hire people that are honest and credible?” Trump asked, before pivoting to blame leadership at the network. “The reason they don’t is because their Chairman, Brian Roberts, is a pathetic Loser, who is petrified of the Left, and always will be. Comcast’s MSNBC and NBC have fought me for years, spending almost all of their waking hours making up Fake Stories — and look, I’m PRESIDENT, with really high Poll Numbers and Great Accomplishments. Good job Brian!”

On Sunday, President Donald Trump said that he reluctantly plans to meet with Bill Maher, a liberal comedian who has been very critical of him over the years. Maher revealed during a recent episode of his “Club Random” podcast that he took up a proposal from Kid Rock — a rock star who supports Trump — to meet with the president. On Truth Social, Trump said he would go through with the get-together as a favor to Kid Rock. “I got a call from a very good guy, and friend of mine, Kid Rock, asking me whether or not it would be possible for me to meet, in the White House, with Bill Maher, a man who has been unjustifiably critical of anything, or anyone, TRUMP. I really didn’t like the idea much, and don’t like it much now, but thought it would be interesting,” Trump said. “The problem is,” Trump added, “no matter how much he likes your Favorite President, ME, he will publicly proclaim what a terrible guy I am, etc., very much like the Democrats at my recent Address to the Joint Session of Congress, where I stated, correctly, that no matter what I said or did, they wouldn’t stand, they wouldn’t applaud, they wouldn’t smile or laugh and, certainly, they wouldn’t be in any way ‘nice.'” He ended the post by saying: “Who knows, though, maybe I’ll be proven wrong? In any event, I’m doing a favor for a friend. I look forward to meeting with Bill Maher, Kid Rock and, I believe, even the Legendary [UFC CEO] Dana White will be present. It might be fun or, it might not, but you will be the first to know!” Trump did not provide a date for when the meeting will take place. Maher, who has in the past been the subject of litigation filed by Trump and levied very harsh criticisms of the president, said that he expected to make people on the Left upset over the planned meeting. But the comedian emphasized that his side did lose the election and that people should talk despite their differences. “It’s an honor to be invited to the White House under any circumstance,” Maher said.

Jason Ritter learned from one of the best physical comedians of all time, his dad, John Ritter. Tragically, John died suddenly in 2003 at age 54, leaving behind an incredible comedic legacy. Jason remembers his dad fondly and followed in his footsteps with a very successful Hollywood career. Jason currently stars in the Matlock reboot alongside the incomparable Kathy Bates. The cast reunited for a screening at the PaleyFest L.A. and for a panel discussion on March 23. Per People, Jason Ritter talked about not only his dad but his father’s famous co-star, Don Knotts. Just like John, Don mastered comedy and made millions laugh. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Matlock (@matlockcbs) Jason Ritter Recalled Meeting Don Knotts As A Child Although he never met Andy Griffith, who starred in the original Matlock, Jason Ritter did meet Don Knotts, one of Andy’s former co-stars on the Andy Griffith Show. Don and John worked together on Three’s Company, one of John’s most famous roles. Jason Ritter said of Don Knotts, “As a kid, I definitely met him a bunch of times, and then I saw him a couple of times. But I think most of the times I ran into him were after my dad passed, at various events and things like that, or TV Land Awards, I think at some point.” Jason said he really became “conscious” of Three’s Company following Norman Fell and Audry Lindley’s exit as Mr. and Mrs. Roper. When Don Knotts joined the cast as Ralph Furley, Jason Ritter immediately became a huge fan. He said, “He made me laugh so much. And his facial expressions and just his whole vibe was so funny to me on that show. And so it was a thrill for me to see him, to meet him.” This story’s featured image is by Gregg DeGuire/WireImage via Getty. The post John Ritter’s Son Jason Shares Fond Memories Of “Three’s Company” Star Don Knotts appeared first on InspireMore.

What the hell is this

Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen. You’re chatting with a friend about this, that, and the other thing — carefully steering clear of politics, just like always. You both know you don't see eye to eye when it comes to today’s contentious political landscape, so you do your best to keep things light. But then, out of nowhere, the forbidden topic appears. It sneaks into the conversation, innocently enough — until suddenly, it’s front and center. I knew my friend Jeffrey didn’t like Trump, so I always tried to avoid politics when we talked. But somehow, I found myself on the phone with him getting a lecture on “how bad Trump is for democracy.” What happened? All I did was mention a film I thought we both appreciate: “Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin.” With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: ‘political immaturity.’ I genuinely believed it was a safe topic. We’re both Christians, both admirers of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his courageous stand against Hitler and the Nazis. We also share respect for Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer many consider the definitive biography and which inspired the film adaptation. Plus, Jeffrey knows I was Metaxas’ radio producer for many years. So really, I thought we were on solid, non-controversial ground. But Jeffrey immediately jumped in to point out that Bonhoeffer’s descendants don’t support Eric Metaxas — because Metaxas supports Trump. That, in his view, proved just how awful Trump is and, dare I say it, how Hitler-like. From there, it was only a short leap to his inevitable conclusion: Trump is bad for democracy. I calmly responded that descendants of historical figures, while entitled to their opinions, are just as influenced by the culture of their time as anyone else. Then I added what I considered the most glaring problem with his argument: the United States isn’t a democracy — we’re a constitutional republic. I suggested that, in many ways, democracy can be a lousy form of government. After all, it allows 51% of the people to impose their will on the other 49%, forcing them to live under rules they didn’t choose and might not benefit from. In my quick tutorial on democracy versus the American system, I didn’t even get into the brilliance of the framers’ creation of the Electoral College — a safeguard that gives individual states real power and influence. To my surprise, Jeffrey actually agreed with me on that point. But then he pivoted, arguing that Trump was just doing whatever he wanted — like sending back all the “asylum-seekers” who crossed the border during Joe Biden’s presidency. I asked him how he knew all 15 million migrants (give or take) were asylum-seekers. Who vetted them? And I reminded him that Trump had nearly been blocked from deporting even the worst of the worst — violent criminals — by an unelected judge from ... well, somewhere. Then I said, “It’s hard to imagine the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ even appearing in the same sentence these days.” That didn’t go over well. I listed just a few of the issues Democrats continue to support. I left out the wide-open borders — which my friend seemed fine with, even after I brought up the rise in sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and inner-city crime — and focused on other examples. I mentioned sex-change procedures for children, drag queen story hours in public libraries, and men competing in women’s sports. That’s when Jeffrey cut me off. “Of course I don’t agree with those things,” he said. And then came the words every far-left friend says when he's on the brink of losing an argument to inconvenient facts: “Let’s just agree to disagree.” End of discussion. Since Jeffrey is a friend, I let the conversation fizzle out. We exchanged a few more pleasantries and then said our goodbyes. But not long after I hung up, I realized how disingenuous “agree to disagree” can be in a discussion or debate. That phrase shuts down dialogue. It signals that neither side will reconsider his position and, worse, that neither side is allowed to keep making his case or challenging the other’s facts. What struck me even more was how casually Jeffrey used the phrase — not just with me, but seemingly with his own party. It was as if he could personally find things like child gender surgeries or men in women’s locker rooms repugnant — especially as a Christian — but still wave it all off because Democrats “stand up for the little guy.” To avoid making waves, many Christians stepped onto the slippery slope of so-called “political correctness” years ago. The idea was simple: Being on the “right side” of politics meant standing up for marginalized people. And what Christian wouldn’t want to be seen doing that? After all, didn’t the Bible and the saints speak out for the disadvantaged? But over time, political correctness evolved. Or rather, it escalated. “PC” gave way to “woke,” and suddenly we were all expected to embrace a new worldview — one in which anyone with a shred of sanity and compassion would naturally join the swelling ranks of the awakened. Christians, of course, were included in that expectation — if they knew what was good for them and wanted to belong to the era’s grand new “Awokening.” So what’s next? With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: “political immaturity.” When you ignore common sense to do whatever you are told is “correct” and “woke,” you have not matured into rationally thinking for yourself. You might start with a wish to "go along to get along," and now you are being led around and told what to think and do like somebody's child. The only hope for America over these next few critical years is a true Great Awakening to the truth within the church that can lead to a foundational restoration within this great country. Optimistically speaking, if we take this route, future generations might look back and say with joy: “Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen!” Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

President Donald Trump has an overall approval rating of 50%, with an equal percentage disapproving of the job he is doing, according to a CBS News survey released on Sunday.