'No b*** j** for you': State House silences Republican for reading smut Democrats fought to keep in elementary schools
The Democratic deputy speaker of the Connecticut House silenced a Republican colleague during debate over the state budget on Monday, thereby proving her point: Some of the content in the Constitution State's public schools is far too obscene to be read even before a crowd of adults.
While important, Republican state Rep. Anne Dauphinais' concerns about pornographic content in elementary school libraries would normally be irrelevant to a state budget.
However, in an apparent effort to limit public scrutiny, Democratic lawmakers Trojan-horsed legislation into the Connecticut budget that would greatly restrict concerned parents' ability to have sexually graphic content, LGBT propaganda, and other inappropriate materials removed from school libraries.
'Parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries.'
In addition to painting resident "school library media specialists" as the experts on what content American children should consume, the legislation:
- prohibits the removal, exclusion, or censoring of any book on the basis that "a person with a vested interest finds such book offensive";
- prohibits the removal of content or the cancellation of library programs on the basis of "the origin, background or viewpoints expressed" therein;
- demands that library materials and programs be excluded only for "pedagogical purposes or for professionally accepted standards of collection maintenance practices";
- bars challengers of offensive content from favoring or disfavoring "any group based on protected characteristics";
- requires challengers to file their grievances with a school principal and provide their name, address, and telephone number;
- requires a review committee, weighed heavy with educational personnel, including a librarian and a teacher, to make the determination; and
- requires the offensive material to remain available in the school library until a final decision is made.
In the wake of the controversial budget's passage on party-line votes and Gov. Ned Lamont's (D) subsequent indication that he plans to sign it, Dauphinais told Blaze News that "if it should pass, parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries."
RELATED: Texas bans explicit content in schools — and Democrats are not happy
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D). Photographer: Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Some of the books at issue made an appearance during a February press conference where Dauphinais, state Sen. Henri Martin, and other Connecticut Republicans underscored the need for greater parental control. Among the books cited for their sexually graphic content were "Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human (A Graphic Novel)" by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan, and Cory Silverberg's "You Know, Sex: Bodies, Gender, Puberty and Other Things."
'Let's try to keep some decorum.'
During the budget debate in the state House, Dauphinais, the ranking member of the Children's Committee, provided a better sense of the kinds of obscenities to which state schools are exposing Connecticut children.
After warning onlookers with children to remove them, Dauphinais read an excerpt from Lauren Myracle's book "l8r, g8r," saying, "Have you ever given Logan a blow job? No blow job for you, missy? What about plain old sex?"
The material appeared to make some of Dauphinais' colleagues across the aisle uneasy, even though they were effectively fighting to protect kids' access to it.
Dauphinais, among the Republican lawmakers who stressed that parents should have a say in whether obscene content remains in school libraries, also read from the book, "Me and Early and the Dying Girl," quoting a character as saying, "'Are you gonna eat her p***y?' 'Yeah, Earl, I'm going to eat her p***y.'"
Democratic Deputy Speaker Juan Candelaria interrupted the conservative Republican, banging his gavel and saying, "Madam, I would ask that if we not try to use that type of language in the chamber. Let's try to keep some decorum."
Candelaria asked Dauphinais to refrain from uttering such words out of respect for children and for "others that might get offended."
Dauphinais, who previously suggested that an adult reading such books to kids outside of school would justifiably be accused of "grooming," responded to Candelaria, "This is in elementary school libraries, approved by the very individuals that are supposed to be the experts."
The CT Mirror reported that Democratic state Rep. Larry Butler expressed outrage — not with the fact that such books are in Connecticut school libraries but that Dauphinais read from them.
'It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there.'
"I will tell you that in my 18 years here, I have never seen the demonstration of such vulgarity tonight, reaching the lowest level that I've ever seen in this chamber," said Butler. "When we're talking about books in libraries, that's one thing. You could just mention a book."
State House Majority Leader Jason Rojas said, "I think it just threw people off quite a bit to hear that kind of language being used on the floor."
RELATED: Parents fight evil in schools — and seek justice at the Supreme Court
Photo by OLIVER CONTRERAS/AFP via Getty Images
Republican state Sen. Rob Sampson told Blaze News, "If Democrats thought this policy was defensible, they wouldn’t have buried it in a 700-page budget. They're shielding graphic, sexually explicit content in school libraries — and they know parents wouldn't stand for it if they saw it in the light of day."
"The irony?" continued Sampson. "When my colleague read a passage from one of these books aloud, they ruled it out of order. If it's too obscene for the House floor, it's too obscene for a school. This isn't about banning books — it's about protecting kids."
"Democrats claim these books are fine for kids in schools, but too explicit for adults in the House Chamber," said Dauphinais. "They’re choosing pornography over parents — and then call us crazy for speaking out. I am appalled but not surprised."
When asked whether this is the end of the story now that the budget has passed, Sampson told Blaze News, "There's still a chance to strip this garbage out of the budget, but it'll take a spine from the governor and a spotlight from the press."
Dauphinais told Blaze News that there is presently uncertainty over whether Lamont can veto the legislation as it is not a budget item.
"It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there," said the Republican. "The maneuver was putting it in a budget where it didn't belong."
"Because it doesn't have dollars attached to it, we're told that that's not something that he's able to veto," added Dauphinais.
To undo the legislation, a new bill may be needed.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Texas takes aim at free speech — with a Republican trigger finger
If someone said a state was attacking the First Amendment, most conservatives would assume it was California or New York. But shockingly, it’s Texas — the supposed conservative bulwark — that’s threatening free speech.
Texas House Bill 366, now pending before the state Senate, targets “digitally altered” political ads. But its vague wording and draconian penalties risk criminalizing satire, parody, and grassroots messaging — the very tools conservatives use to fight media bias and elite narratives. Texans must reject this betrayal of core constitutional principles.
HB 366 treats satire, memes, and parody as threats, even though they’ve become essential weapons in the right’s arsenal.
HB 366, sponsored by former Republican Speaker Dade Phelan, requires disclaimers for any political ad containing “altered media” if the originator spends more than $100. The penalty? A Class A misdemeanor and up to a year in jail.
Supporters claim the law would curb AI-generated deepfakes that mislead voters. But the bill doesn’t narrowly target malicious deception — it swings wildly, threatening legitimate political speech.
Conservatives agree that deepfakes pose real risks. A video of Trump endorsing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could confuse voters. But HB 366 isn’t a scalpel — it’s a sledgehammer. It treats satire, memes, and parody as threats, even though they’ve become essential weapons in the right’s arsenal.
The bill’s flaws are obvious. “Altered media” can mean anything — a high-tech AI fake or a Photoshopped image of Phelan in a cowboy hat. The $100 threshold? Pocket change in the world of online ads. That barely covers a few boosted X posts or a Canva subscription. The law targets ordinary citizens, not professional propagandists.
Enforcement falls to the Texas Ethics Commission, which will find itself chasing down conservative meme-makers. Post a viral cartoon mocking your opponent? Forget the fine print and face jail time. That’s not transparency — it’s censorship backed by handcuffs.
State Rep. Shelley Luther, one of the few real conservatives in Austin, nailed it: “We’re banning political memes and giving people up to a year in jail for failing to attach a disclosure to a cartoon.”
She’s right. Memes are a modern megaphone. They slice through corporate media spin and Big Tech suppression. From “Let’s Go Brandon” to Trump’s dance clips, they connect with voters in a way that no white paper or campaign ad ever could.
Under HB 366, a well-timed meme could land you behind bars.
What’s Phelan’s motivation here? He blames the rise of deepfakes. In this case, it's personal. A 2024 mailer featured an altered image of him hugging Nancy Pelosi. But instead of toughening up, he decided to muzzle political ridicule. State Rep. Nate Schatzline called the bill “anti-American.” He’s right. The First Amendment doesn’t make exceptions for thin-skinned Republicans.
HB 366 hands more power to the elites — media gatekeepers, tech censors, and government bureaucrats — to decide what counts as “deceptive.” Conservatives, once again, will be the first targets. As Jefferson warned, “An unjust law is no law at all.” This bill insults the Constitution and the voters it claims to protect.
Instead of punishing citizens, lawmakers should narrowly target AI-generated deepfakes created with the intent to deceive. Use civil penalties, not jail time. Raise the spending threshold to $10,000 to focus on major players, not patriots with PayPal accounts. And educate voters to spot deception — don’t criminalize dissent.
Texas is the last place conservatives should expect to fight for free speech. But if this bill passes, no red state is safe. HB 366 doesn’t just endanger Texans — it threatens the digital backbone of the conservative movement.
Memes, satire, and humor have carried our message where mainstream channels won’t. Let’s not let bad law do what the left couldn’t: silence us.
Southern Poverty Law Center attacks Turning Point USA with 'cheap smear' in latest hysterical 'extremism' report
Liberal activists and their fellow travelers in business, government, and media frequently cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on what qualifies as a hate group or an extremist organization.
That's despite — or because of — the SPLC's heavy left-wing bias, the frequency with which it smears law-abiding conservatives as "extremists," and its link to alleged domestic terrorism.
'First, they wanted you to affirm, and then they wanted you to celebrate, and then they wanted you to participate.'
Exuding liberal sanctimony with an air of legitimacy helps keep the SPLC — a nonprofit sued numerous times for defamation, accused by one former staffer of exaggerating hate to "bilk" donors, and given an F-rating by Charity Watch — awash in cash.
After all, what's not to like when the SPLC largely fundraises on the premise that it is "exposing hate and injustice"?
True to form, the SPLC smeared agential conservatives in its latest annual hate and extremism report.
This time around, the smear merchants focused their attack on Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, characterizing it as a pro-Christian extremist group with an "authoritarian vision for the country that threatens the foundation of our democracy."
But Kirk wasn't having it, responding in a statement that "the SPLC has added Turning Point to their ridiculous 'hate group' list, right next to the KKK and neo-Nazis, a cheap smear from a washed-up org that's been fleecing scared grandmas for decades."
"Their game plan? Scare financial institutions into debanking us, pressure schools to cancel us, and demonize us so some unhinged lunatic feels justified targeting us," continued Kirk. "But it's 2025, and nobody with a functioning brain buys their garbage anymore. The SPLC is a laughingstock, a hollowed-out husk of an organization that's been exposed as a grift time and time again."
According to the SPLC — whose recent top targets include Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok fame and the parental rights advocacy group Moms for Liberty — TPUSA is "emblematic" of the American political right's supposed embrace of "aggressive state and federal power to enforce a social order rooted in white supremacy" against a backdrop of "patriarchal Christian supremacy dedicated to eroding the value of inclusive democracy and public institutions."
RELATED: Own the hate: Why patriots should wear the 'hate group' smear with pride
RomoloTavani/iStock/Getty Images Plus
When trying to make the case that TPUSA somehow is an extremist outfit or at the very least extremist-adjacent, SPLC contributor Rachael Fugardi, aided by a pair of DEI-credentialed researchers, noted that Kirk:
- dared to link the health of liberty in America to the religiosity of its people;
- suggested that Democrats love what God hates;
- championed motherhood and suggested women should get married and start having children at a younger age;
- highlighted that in the case of non-straight activism, "First, they wanted you to affirm, and then they wanted you to celebrate, and then they wanted you to participate. And if you don't, they are willing to destroy your life";
- suggested that Americans should buy weapons and ammunition; and
- warned that "native born Americans are being replaced by foreigners."
The report also clutched pearls over TPUSA's supposed encouragement of "parents to be fearful the government was harming their children in schools" and its criticism of critical race theory and LGBT propaganda in the classroom.
'DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors.'
This desperate attempt on the part of the SPLC to paint Kirk and TPUSA as extreme might have less to do with the conservatives' views and more to do with their political effectiveness in changing minds and curbing the abuses of the left — as well as their alignment with President Donald Trump.
TPUSA videos notched billions of views in the lead-up to the 2024 election — and it was at this precise time that its members were engaging young Americans on college campuses across the country and promoting Trump. That momentum and engagement still have not tapered off.
Kirk stressed on X, "Being on their list is a badge of honor. It means they're terrified that we're so effective. Keep crying, SPLC — America’s done with your scam."
While evidently worried about TPUSA, the SPLC also warned of the "merging of anti-immigration and anti-LGBTQ+ activism with fear of demographic displacement" and framed efforts to dismantle the racist DEI regime as a campaign to "whitewash American society and protect white supremacy."
Yet, a study published late last year by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University concluded that "DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment."
RELATED: Damning study reveals what DEI does to people — and unsurprisingly, it's really bad
Race-obsessive activist Ibram Kendi, originally Ibram Henry Rogers. Photo by Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for Netflix
Having evidently missed or ignored this damning insight into the divisive and dangerous nature of DEI, the SPLC claimed that DEI initiatives "are essential in ensuring pluralism, reducing inequities that spur division, and promoting democracy."
Working off the basis that DEI is necessary — and necessarily good — the leftist outfit attacked those attempting to eliminate it, including Moms for Liberty, normalcy advocate Robby Starbuck, Republican states and officials, and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo.
The SPLC also conducted a number of drive-by hits in its annual report, deeming, for instance, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom a "hate group" and suggesting that reports indicating the Obama administration worked to debank conservative clients was somehow a "false narrative."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Media Champion Alleged Gangbanger Accused Of Bringing Loaded Gun To A Bronx School
'Disgusting': Did DC outlet take BRIBES for positive coverage?
An alarming development from the depths of the media swamp has been brought to light by UnHerd’s Emily Jashinsky, who dropped a bombshell this week: Leaked documents expose Punchbowl News for offering corporations “editorial influence” — for the right price.
Jashinsky posted a brief overview of the expose on X, writing: “Breaking Points got ahold of a leaked pitch deck from Punchbowl News. The document reveals how they allow corporations to buy influence over editorial decisions.”
“WH told us several subscriptions were canceled by the Trump admin as well. We also have their numbers: They’ve charged corporate sponsors $210,000 for a week of email ads. You can see the pricing sheet, with subscriber numbers and open rates below,” Jashinsky continued.
Christopher Bedford, Blaze Media’s D.C. correspondent and senior editor for politics, isn’t surprised in the slightest.
“It’s the new journalism, same as the old journalism,” Bedford tells Matthew Peterson and Jill Savage on “Blaze News Tonight.”
“Punchbowl are essentially unregistered lobbyists,” he continues. “If Punchbowl was good at its job, then corporations wouldn’t actually need to hire lobbyists, they would be able to read that newsletter, maybe pay a premium.”
“What they often do, they push these different issues, advocacy things, they push their agenda, they spread Capitol Hill gossip, which is, you know, fun, but not necessarily that helpful, and they create all these false cliffs and these false deadlines,” he adds.
But that’s not all.
“Their reporting has been suffering,” Bedford explains. “Pedaling influence, selling influence, it’s kind of the game. And for so much of Washington, it’s really disgusting.”
Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?
To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
No, Being Raised By A ‘Group Of Pals’ Isn’t Better Than Having A Mom And Dad
Katherine Maher gaslights about NPR's bias, claims cutting off federal funds undermines free speech
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday directing the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and relevant agencies to terminate federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.
While Trump's top reason for cutting off NPR and PBS was their unmistakable political bias, he also noted that government's funding of news media is "not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence."
NPR chief executive Katherine Maher apparently decided that the best way to respond to the threat of losing federal funding was to continue gaslighting the American people, characterizing Trump's executive order as an "affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR" and suggesting that her newsroom is politically neutral.
Maher — who wrote in a December 2010 NDI blog post, "Control over the flow of information in a closed society can be tantamount to control over the state" — vowed in a statement Friday to "challenge this executive order using all means available."
Less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants directly from the CPB and other federal sources; however, numerous CPB-funded public radio stations in NPR's syndication network pay for its programming. Consolidated financial statements show that the organization secured over $96.1 million in "core and other programming fees" in 2023, $93.2 million in 2022, $90.4 million in 2021, and $92.5 million in 2020.
Despite acknowledging that "significant financial support" comes from private sources, Maher suggested the loss of federal funding would be calamitous, equating it with an attack on constitutionally protected speech rights.
'An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR.'
"This is not about balancing the federal budget. The appropriation for public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, represents less than 0.0001% of the federal budget," wrote Maher. "The president's order is an affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR and locally owned and operated stations throughout America to produce and air programming that meets the needs of their communities. It is also an affront to the First Amendment rights of station listeners and donors who support independent news and information."
Maher noted further that Trump's "action jeopardizes the national airing of beloved programming and essential news such as NPR's iconic hourly 'Newscast,' 'Morning Edition,' and 'Tiny Desk Radio.'"
On Thursday, the White House highlighted past reports that cast doubt on whether at least one of the shows Maher singled out as "essential news" deserves that label or federal funding.
"Morning Edition" noted in a piece ahead of Independence Day in 2021 that the Declaration of Independence "is a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies." Two years earlier, the same show issued an editor's note warning that the Declaration of Independence "contains offensive language."
Maher concluded her statement by asserting that NPR has "high standards," that her colleagues seek to "present issues fairly and without bias," and that NPR "will continue to tell the stories of our country and the world with accuracy, objectivity, and fairness."
Maher continued pushing the neutrality claim Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation," telling talking head Margaret Brennan that the NPR newsroom "would really take issue" with its characterization by Trump as politically biased.
Trump is far from the only person to call out NPR's heavy political skew.
After working for 25 years at NPR, Peabody Award-winning business editor Uri Berliner noted last year that "an open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR."
'Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground.'
"That wouldn't be a problem for an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience," continued Berliner. "But for NPR, which purports to consider all things, it's devastating both for its journalism and its business model."
Maher stressed to Brennan that she doesn't make editorial decisions at NPR and added, "We have an extraordinary Washington desk. And our people report straight down the line."
Berliner revealed that 87% of the Washington, D.C., editors and reporters at NPR were registered Democrats and none were registered Republicans.
While Maher appears to be strategically downplaying her team's bias, she might be unable to recognize their bias on account of her own. The NPR CEO revealed her remoteness from the political center when she previously:
- rejected the idea of "radical openness," which she associated with a "white male Westernized construct";
- stated "our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done";
- claimed "America is addicted to white supremacy";
- tweeted during the Black Lives Matter riots, "I mean, sure, looting is counterproductive. But it's hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people's ancestors as private property"; and
- writing in September 2020, "Let's be clear here too: I am a white woman. I already got the leg up. ... My race is consistently an advantage."
'No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies.'
"If we were to see a claw-back of these funds, which we know is part of the conversation from a rescission standpoint, or if we were to see that the stations were no longer able to participate in their membership dues, that would be damaging," Maher told Brennan.
In his executive order, Trump emphasized that "Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump orders Corporation for Public Broadcasting to end funding for NPR and PBS: 'Outdated and unnecessary'
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday directing the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and relevant agencies to terminate federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service — not exactly the news that socialists may have wanted to hear on May Day.
"The CPB Board shall cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my Administration's policy to ensure that Federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage," wrote Trump. "The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding."
Trump also targeted the liberal outfits' indirect federal funding, directing the CPB — which has an operating budget of over $535 million for fiscal year 2025 — to ensure that "licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS."
The loss of this indirect funding will be the more devastating.
While NPR claims that less than 1% of its annual operating budget comes in the form of grants directly from the CPB and other federal sources, multitudes of CPB-funded public radio stations in NPR's massive syndication network pay for its programming.
Blaze News previously reported that consolidated financial statements show that the organization secured over $96.1 million in "core and other programming fees" in 2023, $93.2 million in 2022, $90.4 million in 2021, and $92.5 million in 2020.
"These station programming fees are one of NPR's primary sources of revenue," noted the media outfit. "The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution."
PBS similarly receives taxpayer dollars indirectly from CPB-funded public TV stations that pay for its programming.
According to PBS, its flagship "News Hour" program, for instance, receives roughly 35% of its "annual funding/budget from CPB and PBS via national programming funds — a combination of CPB appropriation funds and annual programming dues paid to PBS by stations re-allocated to programs like ours."
A spokesman for PBS, which has over 330 member television stations, indicated earlier this year that the organization receives 16% of its funding directly from the federal government each year.
"Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage," Trump noted in his order, titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media."
That is certainly not the case with NPR and PBS.
The Media Research Center conducted a study from June 1, 2023, to Nov. 30, 2024, analyzing political labels used by anchors, reporters, and contributors on PBS' "News Hour." PBS staff threw around the term "far right" or some variation thereof 162 times but used the term "far left" only six times.
PBS reporters and guests routinely deemed social conservatives and Trump-adjacent Republicans as "extreme" or "extremists," and liberally applied the "fascist" label to Trump or his policies.
Meanwhile, the organization clamped down on unfavorable characterizations of failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and other Democrats, writing the "Marxist" and "communist" labels off as "slurs."
Another MRC study published last year tallied every comment made by PBS journalists during the Republican and Democratic national conventions. Of the 191 minutes of PBS commentary on the Republican National Convention, 72% of opinionated comments were reportedly negative, and only 28% were positive. The PBS' DNC coverage was alternatively sycophantic.
NPR's bias is similarly so substantial that Peabody Award-winning business editor Uri Berliner was willing to throw away 25 years at the outfit just to call it out.
Berliner, a liberal who characterized himself as something akin to the stereotypical NPR listener — "an EV-driving, Wordle-playing, tote bag-carrying coastal elite" — noted in an April 2024 op-ed that NPR had effectively transformed into a Democratic propaganda machine, working strenuously to "damage or topple Trump's presidency," in part by "hitch[ing] our wagon to Trump's most visible antagonist, [then-]Representative Adam Schiff," and amplifying the Russia collusion hoax.
'Neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.'
In addition to boosting "Russiagate" propaganda, Berliner noted that NPR — where 87% of the Washington, D.C., editors and reporters were registered Democrats and none were registered Republicans — evidenced its unmistakable bias with its coverage of the COVID-19 lab leak theory and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, both of which the network downplayed.
The White House highlighted other examples indicating an ideological bent at NPR, noting for instance that it:
- declared the Declaration of Independence to be a document with "flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies";
- apologized for calling illegal immigrants "illegal";
- concern-mongered about the choice of young men to abstain from masturbating to pornography;
- "routinely promotes the chemical and surgical mutilation of children as so-called 'gender-affirming care' without mentioning the irreversible damage caused by these procedures"; and
- "suggested doorway sizes are based on 'latent fatphobia.'"
The White House similarly blasted PBS for its bias, noting that it produced a documentary making the case for reparations and produced a movie celebrating a transvestic teen's "changing gender identity."
— (@)
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has long written about the need to defund public broadcasting, previously told Blaze News that NPR and PBS "gave up any attempt at appearing impartial or objective in any way," adding that in the case of NPR, the choice of Katherine Maher as CEO was a crystal-clear message that things won't soon change for the better.
"Maher, on the record, is calling Trump racist. She was an enthusiastic supporter of Kamala Harris," said Gonzalez. "She's on the record as saying the First Amendment and our obsession with truth is getting in the way of consensus. Well, gee — that's the CEO of NPR. Anything else you need to know?"
Trump noted that "no media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize."
"The CPB's governing statute reflects principles of impartiality: the CPB may not 'contribute to or otherwise support any political party,'" continued the president. "The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens."
In addition to emphasizing the biased nature of NPR and PBS, Trump noted that the ubiquity of media alternatives precludes any need for taxpayers to continue the liberal outfits.
'Trump is working to ensure taxpayer dollars are no longer wasted on progressive pet projects.'
"Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence," added the president.
Trump further directed the heads of all federal agencies to "identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS," and tasked Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to investigate the liberal outfits for possible employment discrimination.
Trump gave the CPB board until June 30 to effectuate his order.
When NPR learned of a draft for the order, it stated earlier this month, "Eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would have a devastating impact on American communities across the nation that rely on public radio for trusted local and national news, culture, lifesaving emergency alerts, and public safety information."
"We serve the public interest. It's not just in our name — it's our mission. Across the country, locally owned public media stations represent a proud American tradition of public-private partnership for our shared common good," added the liberal outfit.
PBS CEO Paula Kerger reportedly said last month than an order to defund her organization would "disrupt the essential service PBS and local member stations provide to the American people."
The CPB, which is not a federal agency, has already filed suit against Trump because the White House attempted to fire three of its board members.
"Because CPB is not a federal agency subject to the President's authority, but rather a private corporation, we have filed a lawsuit to block these firings," the corporation said in a statement obtained by CNN.
The CPB is likely to seek to block this effort as well.
The White House noted that "President Trump is working to ensure taxpayer dollars are no longer wasted on progressive pet projects, but rather used to benefit hardworking Americans."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘Nakedly racist’ new film: Ryan Coogler's ‘Sinners’ inspires Karmelo Anthony defenders
The debate surrounding Karmelo Anthony has predictably erupted into one of race, with Anthony’s supporters painting the victim, Austin Metcalf, as the perpetrator because of the color of his skin.
“We don’t actually know what Karmelo Anthony was thinking, but the narrative that they’re presenting is that, ‘Well, Austin Metcalf is a representative of whiteness, and if he’s a representative of whiteness, then all of the sins of whiteness, all of this slavery, systemic oppression, cultural hegemony, and all of these things are a part of Austin Metcalf’s fault,’” Jack Posobiec tells Jason Whitlock on “Jason Whitlock Harmony.”
“This is, as you always say, this is the idea of collective justice and collective guilt, which is not biblical. It is not Christian. This is a very primitive version of thinking. This is the way the world was — it was tribal — right before Christ came along,” he continues.
And that’s exactly what a new film by Ryan Coogler called ‘Sinners’ does — sends us back to a tribal world where black people and white people only saw each other for the color of their skin.
“What does that do? That divides people,” Posobiec tells Whitlock. “I guess that’s good for donations, right, in the same way that in ‘Sinners,’ it’s good for the box office.”
“But you know what? It’s bad for the country, and unfortunately it’s going to create more Austin Metcalfs,” he warns.
“I’m interested in what Hollywood is targeting at young black people,” Whitlock chimes in, adding, “I found this movie ‘Sinners’ to be the most nakedly racist movie that I’ve ever seen. That’s my takeaway, and it’s akin to ‘Birth of a Nation.’”
“We’ve listened to black people and black historians talk about the evilness of ‘Birth of a Nation’ and what it did,” he continues. “And I don’t disagree with them. It was programming and propaganda.”
“But this is the most nakedly racist. This movie ‘Sinners’ says white people are the devils. It’s as if Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam wrote this movie in 1930,” he adds.
Want more from Jason Whitlock?
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories