Few options, some involving more flames than others.

Defending the destructive spending plaguing the federal government appears to be what The New York Times does best, which explains its nervous breakdown over President Donald Trump taking scissors to  Washington D.C.’s credit cards. ‘ The Upshot staff over at The Times were up in arms over the Office of Budget and Management’s January 28 memo ordering a temporary freeze on funding for federal programs across the government. The Times railed that the order “caused widespread confusion among agency officials and organizations that rely on federal support, including states, schools, hospitals and other nonprofits.” The Times listed 2,600 programs that were under review, but chose to highlight programs like Medicare and Head Start, which the Trump administration already insisted wouldn’t be affected. As Fox 5 summarized in an explainer, “Any payment required by law to be paid will be paid without interruption or delay.” In turn, “any program that provides direct benefits to Americans is explicitly excluded from the pause and exempted from this review process.”  What The Times buried in its data, however, was much of the billions in federal tax dollars are wasted on batty initiatives such as  environmental justice and endangered species conservation. Instead, the newspaper in typical form cast Trump like a villain out to just cut off the spigot for Americans who are reliant on critical subsidies: In sweeping up so many federal initiatives — even interest payments on the federal debt — it was unclear if the spreadsheet reflected oversights and accidental contradictions, or something closer to the administration’s full ambitions. The programs listed below, alongside dollar estimates for their annual spending in 2024, encompass much of how the federal government touches American life.  Below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the nutty leftist federal spending programs that were set to be under review that The Times chose to bury in its report. No worries, MRC Business has no problem doing the job the derelict Times should have done (NOTE: A federal judge briefly blocked the OMB memo from taking effect. The Trump administration later rescinded the memo, but stated that the executive order on the federal freeze was still in effect): This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented. — Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) January 29, 2025 $182 million for the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program (EJ TCGM) Purpose: “The goals of this program are to make awards for the design and management of a new Environmental Justice (EJ) competitive pass-through program where EPA will competitively select pass-through entities to provide grant funds via subawards to community-based nonprofit organizations, underserved and disadvantaged communities, and other EJ community stakeholders.” $6 million for the Civil Rights Training and Advisory Services (also known as Equity Assistance Centers) Purpose: “To provide technical assistance and training services to school districts and other responsible governmental agencies to cope with educational problems occasioned by race, sex, religion, and national origin desegregation.” $8 million for Endangered Species on Indian Lands Purpose: “To comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery plan, and to implement the Endangered Species Recovery on Indian lands.”  (No reported amount) — Indigenous Animals Harvesting and Meat Processing Grant Program Purpose: “The Indigenous Animals Harvesting and Meat Processing Grant Program (Indigenous Animals Grants) is designed to support the priorities Tribal nations have articulated to USDA throughout consultations in 2021 and 2022, including but not limited to support for traditional harvesting methods, indigenous species, and community protein processing operations.” (No reported amount) — Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program Purpose: “The purpose of the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program is to support efforts to achieve digital equity, promote digital inclusion activities, and spur greater adoption of broadband among certain covered populations defined by the Digital Equity Act." $521K for the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council Purpose: “To facilitate and administer regional programs to involve subsistence hunters of migratory birds in the management and regulation of migratory birds.” $16 million for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures  Purpose: “The objectives of this program are to support projects that protect, restore, and enhance wetland and upland ecosystems for the conservation of Migratory Birds. Funds support the work of the 23 Migratory Bird Joint Ventures which are independent regional partnerships formed under the auspices of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that guides the conservation of waterfowl and other migratory birds in North America.”  $8 million for the African Elephant Conservation Fund  Purpose: “To provide financial assistance to support projects that will enhance sustainable conservation programs to ensure effective, long-term conservation of African elephants.” $3 million for the Research Partnership on Climate Change and Transportation Purpose: “The climate and transportation research center shall advance the following research and technology goals: (1) support decarbonization of the transportation sector; (2) build resilience of transportation infrastructure, networks, and operations; (3) address climate and environmental injustices related to transportation; and (4) otherwise advance understanding of solutions to the nation’s climate change and transportation challenges.”  $5 million for the Environmental and Climate Justice Community Change Grants Program Purpose: “The objective of this program is to provide financial assistance to eligible entities to support environmental and climate justice efforts under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 138 which was added to the CAA by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.” And this doesn’t even scratch the surface of the federal waste your tax dollars are financing. But don’t expect the DEI fanatics over at The Times to be truly forthcoming about it.

The Panama Canal, far from being a relic of a bygone era, remains a critical asset that the United States cannot afford to ignore — especially when foreign adversaries like China are capitalizing on its strategic location.For more than a century, the canal has been vital to U.S. national security and economic interests. But when President Donald Trump recently made waves by suggesting that the U.S. should consider repurchasing it, many were quick to dismiss him as a provocateur. His remarks were not baseless, however, and he hasn’t been the first U.S. president to assert sovereignty over the critical trade route.Trump’s call to repurchase the canal was not a random or reckless suggestion — it was a recognition of the strategic importance of this vital asset.In 1976, Ronald Reagan declared, “The Panama Canal Zone is sovereign U.S. territory.” Following in Reagan’s footsteps, Trump declared in a series of Truth Social posts that the canal is a “vital national asset” due to its pivotal role in U.S. trade and military logistics. Indeed, the canal handles around 40% of the world’s cargo, with approximately 72% of its traffic tied to U.S. ports. This means that the U.S. depends on the smooth operation of the canal for both its economy and its security.Moreover, the canal plays a critical military role: It is the quickest route for U.S. naval ships to transfer between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, saving thousands of miles that would otherwise require a dangerous and time-consuming detour around South America. In times of crisis, those extra 8,000 miles make all the difference.History sets the stagePanama exists as an independent nation because of U.S. intervention. In 1903, when Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build the canal, the U.S. supported Panama’s independence, ensuring the new country would grant America control over the Canal Zone. The U.S. built the canal at a tremendous cost — both in dollars and in human lives — and the strategic importance of this waterway has never diminished.However, in the 1960s and ’70s, rising anti-colonial sentiments led to growing resentment in Panama toward U.S. control. Amid these tensions, the U.S. transferred control of the canal to Panama under the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty. Despite the good intentions of that agreement, the transfer of control has created a vacuum that other nations, most notably China, are eager to fill.China’s expansion demands a US responseChina’s growing influence in Panama is not just an economic concern — it’s a national security threat.China has been aggressively expanding its footprint in Latin America, and Panama has been one of its primary targets. Chinese companies now manage key ports along the canal, and Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has solidified Panama’s role as a critical part of China’s global strategy. Moreover, China is building a fourth bridge over the canal and has used telecommunications infrastructure to establish a firm presence in the region.The most worrying aspect of China’s involvement is its potential for military leverage. The Panama Canal is a chokepoint — a strategic vulnerability in global trade and military operations. If tensions between the U.S. and China were to escalate, Beijing could use its influence over Panama to disrupt U.S. access to the canal, with severe consequences for both U.S. trade and naval operations.Trump’s call to repurchase the canal was not a random or reckless suggestion — it was a recognition of the strategic importance of this vital asset.Under current circumstances, the canal’s control is increasingly falling under the sway of a nation that does not share U.S. interests. With Chinese tech companies like Huawei involved in the region and Chinese-built surveillance systems monitoring the canal, the risk of espionage or sabotage cannot be ignored.A threat to national sovereignty?While Panama’s president may assert that the canal “belongs to Panama,” the reality is that the canal’s significance extends far beyond Panamanian borders. It is a key asset in the global balance of power, and its strategic importance to U.S. national security cannot be overstated.Trump was right to bring it back into the spotlight. If we are to maintain our status as a global superpower, we must ensure that our vital trade routes and military chokepoints remain under friendly control.The Panama Canal is not a relic of American imperialism, as the media is attempting to portray — it is a linchpin in the U.S. economy and defense strategy. As China’s influence continues to grow in Latin America, we must re-evaluate our position on the canal. Trump’s stance may prove essential for safeguarding America’s future. The time to act is now, before the canal becomes yet another piece of infrastructure that is no longer in America’s sphere of influence.Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

The first press conference for the youngest White House press secretary in our nation’s history, Karoline Leavitt, went better than anyone expected. It also came with some truths uncovered by the Trump administration about what was happening in New Jersey under the Biden administration — specifically, the mysterious drones that plagued the skies for months. “Before I turn to questions, I do have news directly from the president of the United States that was just shared with me in the Oval Office, from President Trump directly, an update on the New Jersey drones,” Leavitt began. “After research and study, the drones that were flying over New Jersey in large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons. Many of these drones were also hobbyists, recreational, and private individuals that enjoy flying drones,” she continued. “In time, it got worse, due to curiosity. This was not the enemy,” she added. “Those are words directly from President Trump’s mouth,” Stu Burguiere tells Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Program.” “I don’t think he’s lied about it, and I don’t think he would. So I’m not shocked by where that landed.” However, they’re not totally convinced we’ve been given all the information available. “I’m not satisfied, and I know President Trump is not satisfied with these things either. That’s a good opening statement, what I’d like to see is the transparency of, ‘Here are the documents from the FAA approving these things,’” Glenn says. “I’d like to see the documentation,” he continues. “It would help, because we don’t trust anything anymore. I do trust Donald Trump to tell us the truth, because I do believe he answers to us. I do believe that he doesn’t have any ulterior motive.” Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Democratic National Committee will pick a new chair on Saturday to replace Jaime Harrison. Ahead of the party's election, MSNBC co-hosted an event Thursday with Georgetown University affording potential replacements with an opportunity to discuss their proposed messaging strategies and how they might win back the multitudes of voters the party has done its apparent best to alienate. All eight candidates for chair — among whom Minnesota's Ken Martin and Wiconsin's Ben Wikler are reportedly the front-runners — made abundantly clear during the forum that the Democratic Party will not jettison the failed identity-centered thinking and messaging that helped them lose the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress. MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart, who with former Biden campaign official Symone Sanders and former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki put questions to the candidates whenever the crowd was able to refrain from interrupting, asked, "How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat?" All the candidates raised their hands. "That's good. You all pass," said Capehart, who then stated as though it were a fact that President Donald Trump "consistently employed racist and misogynistic rhetoric on the campaign trail." — (@) Blaming racism and misogyny may have been an easy way to account for Harris' relative unpopularity; however, doing so deterred Democrats from addressing the issues actually driving voters away, such as their candidate's radicalism; Harris' positional weakness on important matters such as the cost of living, the fallout of open-border policies, and crime; her monomaniacal focus on attacking Trump; her choice of running mate; her candidacy's reliance on the effective voiding of the Democratic primary elections; the strength of her competitor's pitch; and the sense that a Harris administration would simply continue failing where former President Joe Biden left off. 'This DNC chair race is important for sending a signal to voters that Democrats have learned a lesson and will do things differently going forward.' For instance, rather than figure out why Harris' promise of legal dope wasn't enough to win over black male voters or why the very suggestion might come across as deeply offensive, former President Barack Obama presumed the once-reliable Democratic voting bloc just wasn't "feeling the idea of having a woman as president." Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost (Fla.), seeing similar polls indicating an aversion to Harris, suggested in October that "there's still a lot of this bigotry in this country in terms of sexism, in terms of racism, and we still have to work at getting over that." Democrats' allies in the media have played the same losing game. Ahead of her first failed presidential run, Harris suggested America might not be "ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States of America." ABC News dutifully raised the question, "Is Kamala Harris proof that America isn't ready for a woman of color as president?" Alicia Jones, a black Howard University alumna, told the liberal outfit at the time, "I didn't vote for Barack Obama just because he was black. I voted for him because he was smart. I voted for him because he had a record that showed me the things that he did. It didn't matter that he was only a senator for five minutes." "I think that what she did was dirty. And I think she's way beyond and way above what she did," Jones added, referring to Harris' statement. Following Harris' crushing defeat last year, Fox News resident Democratic commentator Juan Williams said, "I'm not sold on this idea that it was the cost of eggs." "I worry that it was, 'Well, I'm not voting for this woman.' Or 'I'm not voting for this black woman,'" said Williams. Williams' fellow panelists pointed out that the identity-centered explanation for Harris' loss was undercut by various factors, including Trump's simultaneous drop in support among whites and increase in support among black men and Hispanics, and by black male voters' stated reasons for ditching Democrats. Disputing German economist Isabella Weber's assertion that "many working Americans felt that Democrats had abandoned them with respect to their pocketbook struggles and ended up casting a ballot for Trump," the Nation's race-obsessive "justice correspondent" Elie Mystal adopted a similar line to Williams, claiming that Harris' loss was "not the economy, stupid. Trump ran on pure, unadulterated white identity politics and hate, and white-hot hate won." "This DNC chair race is important for sending a signal to voters that Democrats have learned a lesson and will do things differently going forward," Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told the Guardian. "If it sends a signal that we stand for the status quo and want to do everything the same, that will be a turnoff both to the Democratic base and to swing voters who want to see that Democrats are doing something different." By the candidates' show of hands, it appears that Democrats are keen to keep attributing past and future losses not to remediable messaging and policy issues but to imagined bigotry. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The off-ramp is clear. It’s a wonder that more Democrats don’t just take it.

Democrats will adjust as the sound-bite age fades into history. But it will be difficult.

ANOTHER Legacy Media Departure Makes It a 'Bad Week for Fans of Wholly Unearned Sanctimony'

Richard Grenell Heading to Venezuela to Let Them Know Their Gang Members Are Coming Home

Now This Is Funny: People Are Talking About That 404 Page for Kamala Harris' Website