PATRIOT SALE: 74% Off VIP Memberships! Celebrate American Greatness!

While conservatives at NewsBusters and elsewhere celebrate a major win as the House passed a rescission package that would claw back $1.1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the liberal media didn’t greet that as a big deal at all. The New York Times and The Washington Post had no story at all in the A sections of their papers. The Wall Street Journal offered a front-page blurb and a cursory seven-paragraph article on page A-3. ABC and NBC didn’t get to it, while CBS gave it a brief mention on CBS Evening News Plus, underlining the “underserved” and rural folks. It's about 20 seconds, with pro-PBS protest signs on video:  JOHN DICKERSON: Local NPR and PBS affiliates are one step closer to losing major funding, as House Republicans narrowly approved President Trump's proposal to take back nearly $9.5 billion in previously allocated federal funding. Stations in rural and underserved areas are particularly vulnerable. If you merely looked at the PBS News Hour website, it looks like they skipped their own story. But it’s buried inside a piece by congressional reporter Lisa Desjardins headlined “What lawmakers said about Sen. Padilla being forcibly removed from DHS news conference.” Desjardins relayed ”I am told that one who switched his vote, Don Bacon, switched his vote because he was guaranteed by House leadership that this PBS money would be restored in the fall. There are many who are skeptical that will actually happen.” On NPR’s All Things Considered, congressional reporter Deirdre Walsh announced they were "mainstream" media: “In Trump's second term, there's really been a broad effort as part of his sort of culture wars to label mainstream media organizations. Public media are uniquely vulnerable in this environment.” On the 6 pm top-of-the-hour newscast, NPR media reporter David Folkenflik uncorked this Truth vs. Falsehood passage:  Conservative activists have been pushing for such a move for decades, saying NPR and PBS have a liberal bias. The networks reject that, saying they seek fairness in reflecting and covering the American experience.

On Wednesday's Deadline: White House show, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace twice spread misinformation to her viewers as she greatly understated public support for deportations by misquoting a recent Pew poll. While speaking with correspondent Jacob Soboroff about recent ICE raids on farms in Ventura County, California,  Wallace brought up the poll from March and asserted: This is where there is scant public support. Pew Research -- which last asked a question of the public in March -- only 15 percent of Americans support deporting undocumented immigrants who have a job; 14 percent of Americans support deporting the parents of children who were born here; nine percent support deporting people who came to this country as immigrants (she meant "children"); and only five percent of all Americans support deporting someone married to a U.S. citizen. As if ICE agents couldn't have been raiding such workplaces in search of immigrants with criminal records, she added: "I imagine that the people who work there behind you -- they are definitely all in the first category. They have a job, so 85 percent of all Americans oppose deporting people like the workers if they happen to be illegal who work in the fields behind you." About 20 minutes later, she brought up the poll again as she spoke with Mara Gay, editorial board member of The New York Times. Wallace claimed: But this is the actual size of the number of Americans who support deporting people with a job -- just 15 percent of our fellow Americans. That means about 35 percent of Trump voters don't support that. Fourteen percent of Americans support deporting people who are parents of children that were born here. Nine percent support deporting people who came here as children, and only five percent of all Americans -- which means 45 percent of Trump's own base opposes deporting people married to a U.S. citizen. To see how much Wallace mangled the poll, let's look at the overall numbers: The tiny number overall sounds like the MSNBC position that none should be deported:  About half of U.S. adults (51%) say some immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, compared with 32% who say all should be deported. Some 16% say none should be deported. Nearly all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (96%) say at least some immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, compared with 71% of Democrats and Democratic leaners. ...A greater share of Republicans than Democrats who favor some deportations say immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported if they have committed nonviolent crimes (67% vs. 42%) or have arrived in the last four years (63% vs. 32%). When it comes to those who have committed violent crimes, nearly all Republicans and Democrats (97% each) say this group should be deported. Pew asking for exceptions like "they have a job" or "parents who have children here" is looking for sympathetic exceptions, but Trump has focused first on removing immigrants with criminal records. Wallace suggested deportations are very unpopular, but that's not what the overall Pew poll demonstrates. . Gay talked up the notion that Americans are becoming afraid that they will be impacted by the ICE raids and the use of the military: MARA GAY, THE NEW YORK TIMES: And I think now that we're seeing that playing out, there are Americans in those communities, citizens -- people across the country who are starting to have second thoughts. I mean, now that we're seeing, you know, children -- WALLACE: Including a bunch of people that voted for him. GAY: -- being ripped from their -- including people, I mean, right, so the reality is actually quite devastating. And so I do -- I do think we're starting to see public sentiment shift because this isn't just about immigration -- it's also obvious of course that Donald Trump is using immigration as an excuse to strengthen his own powers and test the Constitution. And we see that with his deployment of the military, so you've got to have Americans out there who are thinking, "Well, today it's immigrants -- well, tomorrow it could be me or my kid who's out in the street protesting because they're at college." Or they just feel like it's their constitutional right to do so as it is, and they're devastated by what's happening to their country. Are they going to be harmed by a member of their own military? I mean, what is happening here? PS: Speaking of extremely selective polling choices, Wallace also put on screen the latest Quinnipiac poll of Trump's job approval rating -- a shocking 38 percent approval to 54 percent disapproval. But the RealClearPolitics collection of approval-rating polls shows that is an outlier. The RCP average of recent polls is minus-3, not minus-16. Oh, and this is the same show where Wallace suggested the Trump administration posting a message to urge Americans to help them stop "foreign invaders" (illegal immigrants) sounded like Vladimir Putin.  Transcripts follow: MSNBC's Deadline: White House June 11, 2025 4:08 p.m. Eastern NICOLLE WALLACE: This is where there is scant public support. Pew Research -- which last asked a question of the public in March -- only 15 percent of Americans support deporting undocumented immigrants who have a job; 14 percent of Americans support deporting the parents of children who were born here; nine percent support deporting people who came to this country as immigrants (she meant "children"); and only five percent of all Americans support deporting someone married to a U.S. citizen. I imagine that the people who work there behind you -- they are definitely all in the first category. They have a job, so 85 percent of all Americans oppose deporting people like the workers if they happen to be illegal who work in the fields behind you. Are you seeing evidence of that public opposition to deporting these folks? JACOB SOBOROFF (from a farm in Ventura County, CA): Oh, of course. There were rallies on the streets here in Ventura County yesterday immediately after this happened. (...) 4:28 p.m. WALLACE: But this is the actual size of the number of Americans who support deporting people with a job -- just 15 percent of our fellow Americans. That means about 35 percent of Trump voters don't support that. Fourteen percent of Americans support deporting people who are parents of children that were born here. Nine percent support deporting people who came here as children, and only five percent of all Americans -- which means 45 percent of Trump's own base opposes deporting people married to a U.S. citizen. MARA GAY, THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER: I mean, I think the entire immigration issue has kind of gotten away from both parties and just America in general. I am starting to wonder how much of an issue in last year's election immigration was simply a proxy for anger over the economy. Americans clearly are suffering not just with inflation but with housing crisis -- you have adult children who aren't doing as well as their parents. There's a lot of anger about the consolidation of capital -- about billionaires -- so you think about that kind of populism and how Donald Trump was able to channel it into an anti-immigrant rhetoric. And so I think through that lens we did see people voting on immigration in a way, but I think the reality now of, first of all, this is terrible for the economy. So -- even putting aside the humanitarian aspect of this, you know, now, he said, "Yes, I'm going to go after people who are criminals," but he's going after wide communities here. And I think now that we're seeing that playing out, there are Americans in those communities, citizens -- people across the country who are starting to have second thoughts. I mean, now that we're seeing, you know, children -- WALLACE: Including a bunch of people that voted for him. GAY: -- being ripped from their -- including people, I mean, right, so the reality is actually quite devastating. And so I do -- I do think we're starting to see public sentiment shift because this isn't just about immigration -- it's also obvious of course that Donald Trump is using immigration as an excuse to strengthen his own powers and test the Constitution. And we see that with his deployment of the military, so you've got to have Americans out there who are thinking, "Well, today it's immigrants -- well, tomorrow it could be me or my kid who's out in the street protesting because they're at college." Or they just feel like it's their constitutional right to do so as it is, and they're devastated by what's happening to their country. Are they going to be harmed by a member of their own military? I mean, what is happening here?

Two anti-immigration enforcement protesters who blocked New York City traffic this week have been revealed as long-time activists, with one participating in protests since the 1980s.The two activists were filmed on Tuesday morning blocking traffic on Houston Street in Lower Manhattan. One of the New Yorkers in the stopped traffic, a mother, pleaded with the activists to move out of the way so she could get to work. The activists instead told her there was nothing they could do, with one even laughing at the idea that she had a job to get to.'We were preventing the cars from driving into the marchers. There were at least 10,000 of them behind us.'The two activists, who were part of a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arresting illegal immigrants, were identified by the Daily Mail as individuals who have been involved in left-wing activism for years.One activist, identified as Karen Ramspacher, is a 60-year-old who has engaged in activism since at least 1989. As the Daily Mail noted, Ramspacher was quoted in a 1989 issue of OutWeek magazine about being arrested at an abortion rights protest.In 2002, Ramspacher, then part of a group called ACT UP, was quoted in a report about a protest against the Coca-Cola Company. The ACT UP activists were described by the Nation as "an organization known for civil disobedience and surprise protests."In a 2020 article from the Cut, Ramspacher was quoted on her view of activism."What activism does is it focuses your attention and turns your fear into something good," Ramspacher told the outlet.Also according to the Daily Mail, Ramspacher was pictured at the 2017 25th Annual Dyke March for lesbian rights and the 2022 Women's March in Washington, D.C.RELATED: 'I have a kid!' Anti-ICE protester mocks mother for trying to go to work amid protests Photo by DAVID DEE DELGADO/AFP via Getty Images Ramspacher justified impeding the NYC traffic this week in an interview with the Daily Mail, saying it was "a temporary, momentary interruption to the regular flow of traffic" in order to "bring attention and express people's concerns about this dangerous situation we find ourselves in where the military and ICE agents are going into the communities and taking our friends and family members."The veteran activist said that she and the male protester were not necessarily blocking traffic, but rather "we were preventing the cars from driving into the marchers. There were at least 10,000 of them behind us."Ramspacher also said in the interview that she did not know the male protester, despite both holding onto the same bicycle when blocking traffic. That man was identified by the Daily Mail as Trevor Britvec, who also has a history of activism in the city.RELATED: Illegal alien resists arrest, punches ICE agent in NYC melee, according to DHS Photo by DAVID DEE DELGADO/AFP via Getty Images The U.K. outlet cited public records showing that Britvec sued New York City over alleged civil rights violations by the NYPD in July 2020 at a Black Lives Matter protest.Britvec was also allegedly arrested in September 2020 but had his charges dismissed. He was part of a subsequent lawsuit against New York City with other BLM protesters, resulting in a settlement with the city. Britvec was awarded $115,000, the Daily Mail reported.Interestingly, in the video from earlier this week, Britvec mocked a desperate mother over having to go to work:"Oh no, not work," the male protester said sarcastically to reporter Savanah Hernandez, who filmed the ordeal. "I care so much," Britvec joked, making a mockery of the mother's situation.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Federal prosecutors are pressing charges against a South Carolina Republican lawmaker following a months-long investigation into heinous pornography allegedly depicting children as young as toddlers. Republican state House Representative Robert John "R.J." May has been charged with a 10-count indictment for allegedly distributing child sexual abuse material. He was arrested on Wednesday after months of speculation surrounding the search of a house belonging to May in August 2024 by Homeland Security officers. Prosecutors have demanded that May not be given bail because he lives at home with his wife and two children, who are allegedly close to the same age as the children in the case. He has never publicly addressed the speculation about the search, as one political opponent, Brian Duncan, said in an interview.“We thought that R.J. May would probably come out a long time ago ... and just say something about the search,” he said. Duncan has launched a last-minute write-in campaign in May's South Carolina District 88 in light of the latest developments in the investigation of May. RELATED: GOP Rep. Cory Mills explains why he was married by a radical Islamic cleric Photo by Brett Carlsen/Getty ImagesAccording to the State, Homeland Security Investigations officials seized from May's home a laptop, a tablet, four cell phones, four hard drives, four SD cards, two DVD-Rs, and 19 thumb drives. The search was executed after the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was tipped off by a social messaging app called Kik, which had flagged several graphic child pornography videos linked to the username "joebidennnn69."This account was connected to May's home IP address and mobile device, where investigators "found at least 10 videos depicting child sexual abuse that were shared from the account," according to a DOJ press release. Federal prosecutors alleged that May used several different usernames "to exchange 220 obscene files containing extremely graphic footage of children and toddlers engaged in sex acts on the messaging app Kik over five days last spring," the New York Post reported.The Associated Press reported that May's defense lawyer suggested that "someone could have used the Wi-Fi password that was shown on a board behind a photo May’s wife may have posted online." Prosecutors have demanded that May not be given bail because he lives at home with his wife and two children, who are allegedly close to the same age as the children in the case. If convicted, May faces a minimum of five years and up to 20 years in federal prison, a fine of $250,000, and at least five years of supervised release following any period of imprisonment. RELATED: Stolen valor? Veterans dispute Cory Mills’ record: 'He fooled a lot of us' Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty ImagesMay has been described as a "hardline conservative" in the past and was the founder of the House Freedom Caucus. “We as legislators have an obligation to ensure that our children have no harm done to them,” May said at a January 2024 debate about gender-related interventions for minors.May is running a formally unchallenged re-election campaign for a third term in the 88th District, though Duncan has taken the unusual step of initiating a write-in challenge. Duncan, a business owner and a 20-year Air National Guard veteran, said that he would have run sooner had he known about the charges. “I know it’s an uphill battle, but the flip side of that is the people of District 88 have absolutely no choice,” Duncan said.It is unclear when May will next appear in court.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In a monologue on "The View," host Joy Behar pondered the shared birthdays of President Donald Trump and the United States Army on Saturday. Trump will turn 79 on June 14, the same day as the Army's 250th anniversary. Both will be celebrated in Washington, D.C., on Saturday with a grand military parade through the nation's capital. Although most people understand that Trump had no control over the day he was born, making the shared birthdays remarkably serendipitous, Behar seemed to imply that the joint celebration was too convenient to be coincidental. 'He’s so tricky, planning his own birthday on the same date as the Army’s.'"Tanks will be rolling through the nation's capital, along with 7,000 marching soldiers to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States Army," Behar said. "There will also be 'No Kings' demonstrations around the country to protest Trump. And it happens to be his 79th birthday. What a coincidence."RELATED: Tim Walz grilled for comparing ICE agents to 'Nazi Gestapo'Joy Behar finds it weird that Trump shares a birthday with the Army: “Tanks will be rolling through the nation's capital to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Army. And it happens to be his 79th birthday, what a coincidence!” pic.twitter.com/C9lQFb1TRh— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 13, 2025 Behar quickly became the subject of online scrutiny from politicos and pundits who poked fun at the absurdity of her remarks."That Trump," Vince Coglianese, host of "The Vince Show," joked on X. "He’s so tricky, planning his own birthday on the same date as the Army’s."RELATED: Pete Hegseth defends deployment of troops in response to anti-ICE riotsThe Army has arrived in Washington, DC for the parade this weekend celebrating their 250th Anniversary ??? pic.twitter.com/eywo4OCnlI— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 13, 2025 The hysteria didn't stop there. Behar and her co-hosts went on to criticize the military parade itself, comparing it to military displays from dictatorial countries and saying it "harkens World War II propaganda." "When I think of military parades, I think of Russia. I think of North Korea," Sara Haines said. "I have these visuals of people saluting and doing things, and that's just not what I think of when I think of the U.S."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

California Gov. Gavin Newsom's victory did not last long after an appeals court temporarily halted a ruling that had been made in the Democrat's favor just hours later. Newsom had filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for sending the National Guard and a battalion of U.S. Marines into the rioting in Los Angeles, and on Thursday, a judge ruled in his favor. United States District Judge Charles Breyer said that Trump had acted unconstitutionally in the order. 'Clearly, there’s no invasion, there’s no rebellion. It’s absurd.' Newsom patted himself on the back and went on the attack rhetorically against President Donald Trump. "The courts have ruled. The Guard will be back under my command — and Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow," wrote the governor. The governor spoke to reporters outside of the San Francisco federal courthouse, haranguing Trump and accusing Republicans in Congress of abrogating their constitutional duty to check the power of the executive branch. — (@) That was short-lived when the administration appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and got an emergency ruling to return command of the National Guard to the president. “If it weren’t for me getting the National Guard into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now!” wrote the president in part after the appeals ruling.Critics of the president's order have claimed that the rioting in Los Angeles was not violent enough to meet the standard where the president would be justified in sending troops to quell the uprising. “Clearly, there’s no invasion, there’s no rebellion. It’s absurd," said Newsom. RELATED: Trump obliterates Gavin Newsom's latest accusation — and produces the receipts Photo by RINGO CHIU/AFP via Getty Images Breyer had agreed and ruled that the president had violated the 10th Amendment and improperly assumed the emergency powers. "The Court must determine whether the president followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," Breyer said. "His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the governor of the state of California forthwith."California Attorney General Rob Bonta has claimed that the president's true aim was to use the military to oppose all protests against him. “The president is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him. It’s not just immoral — it’s illegal and dangerous,” said Bonta. “Local law enforcement, not the military, enforce the law within our borders."Breyer was nominated to the court by former President Bill Clinton and is the brother to former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The 1979 album shows the influence of punk, reggae and jazz, and the lyrics often flowed from her still-in-process romantic and artistic collaborations. The post ‘Broken English’: The Return of Marianne Faithfull appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

PATRIOT SALE: 74% Off VIP Memberships! Celebrate American Greatness!

PATRIOT SALE: 74% Off VIP Memberships! Celebrate American Greatness!