With conservatives back in power, public media is getting back to what it really excels at. No, not objective, impartial reporting. If NPR and PBS focused on that, they wouldn’t need to be so good at their side hustle: desperately lobbying Congress not to defund them. Now that they’re good at. The lobbying efforts have worked every time conservatives have had power, going back to when President Lyndon Johnson created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the late 1960s.  Every Republican president after Johnson has tried to defund, dissolve, or reform public broadcasting. Yet the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is still standing, and NPR and PBS remain unreformed. Weak Republican members of Congress always sweep in at the last second to save public media’s bacon. That is true even for some congressmen who sit in +30 and +40 GOP districts in states as red as Oklahoma and West Virginia, but who nonetheless act as if they’re afraid of their own shadow. Sources tell me that NPR’s biggest member stations are taking the threat so seriously this year that they have produced an internal document that foresees four outcomes—and strategizes for each: 1. Congress claws back all funding immediately; 2. All funding is clawed back after two years; 3. Congress only cuts back half the funding; 4. Congress maintains the status quo. This time it must not work. The only shadow congressmen should see is that of a White House operative knocking on their door. NPR and PBS covered themselves in infamy with their leftist bias while reporting on the 2020 and 2024 elections. According to a study the Media Research Center published last month, “PBS staff used 162 variations of ‘far right’ labels and only six ‘far left’ labels, an astounding ratio of 27 to 1.” Yamiche Alcindor, PBS’s White House correspondent between 2018 and 2022, used her public broadcasting job to practice activism for far-left causes rather than journalism. During the 2020 election, she defended the riots by Black Lives Matter, an organization founded by Marxists who admit they are intent on “dismantling” America’s “organizing principle,” and claimed Donald Trump had no evidence when he rightly called it a “movement to distort American ideals.” A year later she complimented the newly elected Biden as a “moral, decent man.” Then, in a final thumb in conservatives’ eyes, last year NPR hired as its CEO the egregious Katherine Maher, who thinks that “our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done.” During the 2024 election, PBS and NPR again presented Trump as a dangerous threat to the republic and democracy, and Kamala Harris as a steady politician who was, they insisted, not all that liberal. That may be how many progressives view Trump and Harris—in part because that’s how the liberal media, including NPR and PBS, describe them—but more than half the electorate weren’t fooled. And unlike the equally liberal MSNBC, NPR and PBS are funded by all taxpayers, by blue America and red America. They have an obligation to be nonpartisan and impartial. But they will be frantically knocking on doors on the Hill this year because they’ve given up on that, and Trump has returned to power. Uri Berliner, an NPR editor for 25 years, wrote in a 2024 essay for the Free Press that it was in fact Trump’s political advent that finally broke NPR. “His election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair.” Tough coverage“ veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.” Before Trump, the audience was more balanced, Berliner says: 26% were conservative. But after a decade of anti-Trump stridency, only 11% of NPR’s audience today describes itself that way. “Now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America,” wrote Berliner, who ended up leaving NPR. Ironically, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s lobbying campaign will revolve around the needs of rural folks. Past efforts relied on the educational value of public broadcasting (“It’s for the children,” George Will once wrote ruefully). This year, the effort will cynically focus on local coverage and emergency services in rural communities. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes to local stations about 70% of the over half a billion taxpayer dollars that Congress appropriates annually for it, Brooke Gladstone, host of On the Media, reminded me last week. “Those stations play crucial roles, especially in rural areas, in news deserts,” and to partner with “emergency services in their areas,” she said. Gladstone interviewed me for the WNYC-produced show that runs on public stations across the country. She accurately presented my views and was a pro who did not stoop to gotcha questions. When I asked the following day if I could record a further explanation of my views, she broke her own precedent and allowed it. Here’s what I said: “If some local communities have disaster-response and weather-related needs that the market does not supply a solution to, state and local governments can devise and set up systems that take care of the problem, on a much cheaper basis than the entire public broadcasting apparatus, and without the attendant ills that accompany the present system.” Gladstone tenaciously defended NPR and PBS, and we exhausted ourselves parrying back and forth for longer than an hour, only 10 minutes of which got on air. The public broadcasters must lobby Congress, she said at one point, “to defend the funding against the quadrennial attack!”  “Why not just be less biased? Why not just be objective in reporting the news?” I asked in response. There are already some bills in Congress that defund NPR or dissolve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The latter is the best approach. But whatever happens, everyone must understand that this is the year to finally right this wrong. Originally published by the Washington Examiner. The post End the Corporation for Public Broadcasting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“It is not enough in life that one succeed,” the droll economist John Kenneth Galbraith is supposed to have said. “Others must fail.” We’re at a moment, in this week before Donald Trump’s second inauguration, when the 45th and soon-to-be 47th president is succeeding at just about every enterprise he undertakes, while his political and ideological opponents are failing in spectacularly visible fashion. This time, Trump won the popular vote with a percentage that, rounded off, is identical to those of former Presidents Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy, and Harry Truman. National polls show him with majority approval, something he never achieved before. This year, in contrast to 2017, there are no plans for a counter-inaugural parade or moves by journalists or politicians to style themselves “The Resistance.” Trump secured the reelection of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in the narrowly divided House by limiting Republicans’ dissenting votes to exactly one. His controversial appointees, at this moment, appear headed for confirmation in the 53-47 Republican Senate. The lawsuits that Democrats hoped would disqualify him from running or prevent him from winning have crashed and burned. No one takes seriously the Manhattan kangaroo court verdicts against him. Former special counsel Jack Smith’s assertions that he could have convicted him are undercut by the Supreme Court’s unanimous overturning of Smith’s prosecution of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Shunned eight years ago by his presidential predecessors, by Wall Street and by incumbent leaders in just about every establishment institution, Trump will be inaugurated this time with Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg on the podium. Leaders of the past, meet the wave of the future. In the meantime, outgoing President Joe Biden is tarred by his pardon, contrary to repeated promises, of his son Hunter Biden. His heavy spending policies, hailed as a second New Deal, and his open-door immigration policies, hailed as humanitarian, produced inflation and a flood of illegal immigrants, which would have doomed his candidacy even if he had been at full strength and which ended up dooming Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign. His botched withdrawal from Afghanistan plunged his job approval below 50%, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Hamas’ attack on Israel in 2023 obscured his constructive initiatives with allies in Asia and the Pacific. Biden was elected in 2020 as an experienced insider who would respect experts’ consensus over Trump’s maverick impulses. But the experts have had a bad decade. They insisted on masking schoolchildren on playgrounds and closed schools too long, setting back learning, especially for disadvantaged children. They suppressed evidence that COVID-19 resulted from a Chinese lab leak because it would have embarrassed the man who proclaimed, “I represent science.” Enlightened experts called for lenient prosecutors and defunding the police as violent crime spiked and repeated shoplifting became routine in cities like New York City and San Francisco. Misleadingly named “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs proliferated on campuses and in corporations until their iatrogenic effects were documented in The New York Times Magazine. Most spectacularly, the horrifying fires raging in California seem likely to discredit the liberal Democrats who have a political monopoly there. It’s too early to say exactly the extent to which official negligence is responsible. But even if you blame climate change, California’s concentration on green policies, such as banning gasoline-powered vehicles, have little effect on climate, while failure at mitigation, such as keeping reservoirs filled and clearing combustible brush, have proved disastrous. This moment will not last forever. Trump’s unorthodox appointees, including Pete Hegseth, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, even if confirmed, could crash and burn within months. The macroeconomy may yield unpleasant surprises. So could foreign crises. Trump will enter the White House, as Democrats note, five months older than Biden was four years ago, and his astonishing robustness and resilience on the campaign trail may not last. But the possibility also exists that Trump’s leadership may seem successful and generate more support for what is now a Trump Republican Party. Behind the narrowness of his 49.9%-48.4% popular vote margin is polling evidence that 2024 nonvoters, especially among young Hispanic and black people, have soured on Democrats and trended halfway toward Trump Republicans—and could go the full way if Trump seems successful. It’s a truism that presidents’ parties suffer reverses in off-year elections, but it’s not inevitable. Presidents’ parties’ losses were zero or limited in 1934, 1954, 1962, 1970, 1978 and 2002, and were mostly due to redistricting in 1982. And the schedule of upcoming contests looks mildly favorable to Trump and Republicans. Virginia and New Jersey elect governors this fall, with incumbents term-limited. In 2021, Republican Glenn Youngkin won with nearly 51% in Virginia, and Republican Jack Ciattarelli almost won with 48% in New Jersey. In retrospect, both results look like a premonition of 2024. In November 2024, Trump won 46% in these supposedly safe Democratic states, similar to what Harris won in the target state of Arizona. He made double-digit gains in suburbs with many Hispanic and Asian voters. In the 2026 Senate elections, Democrats are defending three incumbents in target states that Trump carried and two more in closer-than-expected Virginia and New Hampshire. Only one Republican is up in a Biden-Harris state: Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who won handily in 2020 after trailing in polls all fall. In the excruciatingly closely divided House of Representatives, only three Republican incumbents represent districts carried by Harris, while 13 Democrats represent districts carried by Trump. Redistricting, which was based on 2012-20 results, no longer favors Republicans, but they have new targets in heavily Hispanic and Asian districts that trended heavily toward Trump in 2024. These details matter, but less than the basic question of whether the president and his party are perceived as in sync with how the world works. Voters in 2024, faced with a choice between the two immediately preceding presidencies, opted for the supposedly eccentric Trump over the supposedly expert-guided Biden-Harris. There is no guarantee that the verdict is permanent, and one must remember the British politician Enoch Powell’s maxim that all political careers end in failure. But for the moment, Trump is succeeding, and his opponents are failing. If that success continues—a big “if”—Trump could establish an enduring political template as, I have argued, former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton did before him. We’ll see. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post For Now at Least, Trump Is Succeeding While His Opponents Fail appeared first on The Daily Signal.

To Stop Wildfires, Burn Wokeism

Thursday’s confirmation hearing for treasury secretary nominee Scott Bessent carries immense importance, given the fragile state of America’s fiscal foundation. You would expect senators to focus on treasury-related questions. However, instead of addressing the consequences of Janet Yellen financing U.S. debt at the short end of the yield curve or the challenge of refinancing nearly $7 trillion in the coming months, senators chose to grandstand and indulge in self-serving rhetoric.Bessent opened his statement by highlighting his “only in America” story of achieving the American dream and his determination to preserve it for future generations. He also emphasized the need to secure supply chains, shift from wasteful government spending to productive investments that grow the economy, and maintain tax cuts to prevent massive tax hikes on Americans.Responding to one senator’s question, Bessent said he often relies on the principle 'no data, no opinion.'One of the most encouraging aspects of the hearing was Bessent’s repeated focus on Main Street and small businesses. He acknowledged Wall Street’s strong performance in recent years and emphasized the need for a Main Street and small business-led recovery to drive growth and economic strength.Bessent also recognized the excessive concentration in the U.S. banking system. He noted that regulations implemented after the Great Recession have burdened smaller community banks, hindering their formation and operations. These policies have also increased systemic risk by consolidating assets among larger financial institutions. His acknowledgment of the need for policies that prioritize Main Street over Wall Street is both refreshing and essential.In response to a question from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) about central bank digital currencies — a digital version of the U.S. dollar that could be controlled and programmed by the Federal Reserve and the government — Bessent expressed opposition. He sees no need for the United States to adopt a CBDC, a stance that likely reassures many Americans concerned about potential threats to individual freedoms.Oddly, much of the discussion, particularly from the Democratic senators, was centered around tax policy versus spending, with the senators refusing to acknowledge their starring role in the overspending, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased government revenue, or that collections are not a deficit driver — spending is.We have a tough road ahead. The Biden administration has left the United States with a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 120% and a deficit at 6%-7% of GDP — levels typically seen during wartime, not in a period of “economic expansion.” Combined with a strong dollar, substantial foreign asset holdings, and other factors, returning to a sustainable and prosperous economic path will require careful execution.Bessent brings extensive experience across Wall Street, central bank advisory roles, and other economic arenas, equipping him with the qualifications and temperament needed to navigate this uncertain terrain. Responding to one senator’s question, Bessent said he often relies on the principle “no data, no opinion.”Bessent’s confirmation should proceed smoothly, but the real test lies ahead as he takes on the daunting task of stabilizing America’s financial foundation.

We're ALL Dictators Now! Twitter Turns the 'President Biden Declares' Graphic Into HILARIOUS Memes

Research suggests that alcohol causes cancer through at least five different mechanisms.

Linda Perry, the music producer and singer, once thought motherhood wasn’t in her future. “I didn’t want to have a child,” she confessed. But everything changed when her daughter, Rhodes, came into her life. For someone who did not want to have children, Linda Perry now talks about her daughter at every chance she gets. This time, Perry is celebrating the creativity of her 9-year-old, who is already making waves with her storytelling and artistic talents. “She’s going to be a star,” Perry proudly shared. Linda Perry and her ex-wife Sara Gilbert support Rhodes’ passions Linda Perry/ImageCollect Rhodes’ creative abilities are no surprise, given her upbringing in a household filled with creative talents. Perry, along with her ex-wife Sara Gilbert, has built an environment where Rhodes can explore her talents freely. From writing her own plays to accompanying Perry in the studio, it is clear that Rhodes is thriving and she is discovering her passions at the same time. Linda Perry has affirmed that she would do everything possible to support Rhodes’ passion. Perry also ensures that her daughter stays grounded, despite growing up in a family with roots in the entertainment industry. Rhodes’ exposure to creative pursuits from a young age has only amplified her love for storytelling and performance.  “Our job right now is to balance that out, to make sure, keep her grounded,” the singer added. Linda Perry and daughter/Instagram Rhodes is a blessing to Linda Perry For Linda Perry, motherhood has been transformative. Initially unsure of her ability to be a parent, she now sees Rhodes as her greatest blessing. “I didn’t think I was capable of being a parent, but Rhodes saved me,” Perry revealed in a previous interview. Linda Perry/ImageCollect Watching her daughter grow and become more creative as each day passes has been a source of joy and pride for Linda Perry. The singer puts effort into teaching her and hopes her daughter thrives not only in her talents but also in life. By nurturing Rhodes’ creativity while keeping her grounded, Perry is shaping a future star and showing that love and support can unlock limitless potential. Next up: Madonna Gets Social Media Talking With Sultry Bedroom Snaps In Tiny Dress And Leather Boots The post Linda Perry Shares That Her 9-Year-Old Daughter, Rhodes, Will Be A ‘Star’ appeared first on DoYouRemember? - The Home of Nostalgia. Author, Peace A

ATLANTA—A Georgia man suffering a mental health crisis wandered into a Sealy Mattress facility, and his body was found locked inside the back of a truck there about a week later, his family says in…

Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol said on Friday the coffee giant will cut jobs to optimize its support teams as part of the company’s ongoing turnaround efforts.The details of the job cuts, to be announced…

President-elect Donald Trump engaged in a phone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping shortly before his upcoming inauguration, marking a significant moment in U.S.-China relations.The discussion,…