Below is my column in the Hill on the effort to end the federal subsidy for National Public Radio, an effort that was greatly advanced by the testimony of its Chief Executive Officer. After imploding at a House hearing, NPR’s Katherine Maher even lost HBO’s Bill Maher who now supports defunding NPR. The Democrats hope to peal off a couple Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to continue to fund the outlet. The pitch is to again mouth “assurances” that NPR will adopt more balanced coverage, the same assurance given for over a decade as the liberal bias at the outlet only became more pronounced.
Here is the column:
“This is NPR.”
Unfortunately for National Public Radio, that proved all too true this week. In one of the most cringeworthy appearances in Congress, Katherine Maher imploded in a House hearing on the public funding of the liberal radio outlet.
By the end of her series of contradictions and admissions, Maher had made the definitive case for ending public funding for NPR and state-subsidized media.
Many of us have written for years about the biased reporting at NPR. Not all of this criticism was made out of hostility toward the outlet — many honestly wanted NPR to reverse course and adopt more balanced coverage. That is why, when NPR was searching for a new CEO, I encouraged the board to hire a moderate figure without a history of political advocacy or controversy.
Instead, the board selected Katherine Maher, a former Wikipedia CEO widely criticized for her highly partisan and controversial public statements. She was the personification of advocacy journalism, even declaring that the First Amendment is the “number one challenge” that makes it “tricky” to censor or “modify” content as she would like.
Maher has supported “deplatforming” anyone she deems to be “facsists” and even suggested that she might support “punching Nazis.” She also declared that “our reverence for the truth might be a distraction [in] getting things done.”
As expected, the bias at NPR only got worse. The leadership even changed a longstanding rule barring journalists from joining political protests.
One editor had had enough. Uri Berliner had watched NPR become an echo chamber for the far left with a virtual purging of all conservatives and Republicans from the newsroom. Berliner noted that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans.
Maher and NPR remained dismissive of such complaints. Maher attacked the award-winning Berliner for causing an “affront to the individual journalists who work incredibly hard.” She called his criticism “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”
Berliner resigned, after noting how Maher’s “divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR” that he had been pointing out.
For years, NPR continued along this path, but then came an election in which Republicans won both houses of Congress and the White House. The bill came due this week. Much of NPR’s time to testify was exhausted with Maher’s struggle to deny or defend her own past comments.
When asked about her past public statements that Trump is a “deranged, racist sociopath,” she said that she would not post such views today. She similarly brushed off her statements that America is “addicted to White supremacy” and her view that the use of the words “boy and girl” constitute “erasing language” for non-binary people.
When asked about her past assertion that the U.S. was founded on “black plunder and white democracy,” Maher said she no longer believed what she had said.
When asked about her support for the book “The Case for Reparations,” Maher denied any memory of ever having read the book. She was then read back her own public statements about how she took a day to read the book in a virtue-signaling post.
She then denied calling for reparations, but was read back her own declaration: “Yes, the North, yes all of us, yes America. Yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations. Yes, on this day.” She then bizarrely claimed she had not meant giving Black people actual money, or “fiscal reparations.”
When given statistics on the bias in NPR’s hiring and coverage, Maher seemed to shrug as she said she finds such facts “concerning.”
The one moment of clarity came when Maher was asked about NPR’s refusal to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. When first disclosed, with evidence of millions in alleged influence-peddling by the Biden family, NPR’s then-managing editor Terence Samuels made a strident and even mocking statement: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
Now Maher wants Congress to know that “NPR acknowledges we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively and sooner.”
All it took was the threat of a complete cutoff of federal funding.
In the end, NPR’s bias and contempt for the public over the years is well-documented. But this should not be the reason for cutting off such funding. Rather, the cutoff should be based on the principle that democracies do not selectively subsidize media outlets. We have long rejected the model of state media, and it is time we reaffirmed that principle. (I also believe there is ample reason to terminate funding for Voice of America, although that is a different conversation.)
Many defenders of NPR would be apoplectic if the government were to fund such competitors as Fox News. Indeed, Democratic members previously sought to pressure cable carriers to drop Fox, the most popular cable news channel. (For full disclosure, I am a Fox News legal analyst.)
Ironically, Fox News is more diverse than NPR and has more Democratic viewers than CNN or MSNBC.
Berliner revealed that according to NPR’s demographic research, only 6 percent of its audience is Black and only 7 percent Hispanic. According to Berliner, only 11 percent of NPR listeners describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative. He further stated that NPR’s audience is mostly liberal white Democrats in coastal cities and college towns.
NPR’s audience declined from 60 million weekly listeners in 2020 to just 42 million in 2024 — a drop of nearly 33 percent. This means Democrats are fighting to force taxpayers to support a biased left-wing news outlet with a declining audience of mainly affluent white liberal listeners.
Compounding this issue is the fact that this country is now $36.22 trillion in debt, and core federal programs are now being cut back. To ask citizens (including the half of voters who just voted for Trump) to continue to subsidize one liberal news outlet is embarrassing. It is time for NPR to compete equally in the media market without the help of federal subsidies.
If there was any doubt about that conclusion, it was surely dispatched by Maher’s appearance. After years of objections over its biases, the NPR board hired a CEO notorious for her activism and far-left viewpoints. Now, Maher is the face of NPR as it tries to convince the public that it can be trusted to reform itself. Her denials and deflections convinced no one. Indeed, Maher may have been the worst possible figure to offer such assurances.
That is the price of hubris and “this is NPR.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
In the mid-1980s my job required me to spend some time in South Carolina, and not close to any of the larger cities like Columbia or Charleston. I was afraid I wouldn’t be able to keep up with national news in any substantive way. I then found NPR for the first time and was relieved. Until I listened to its assorted ‘news’ reports and discovered that it was almost totally anti-whatever the President at the time (Ronald Reagan) was doing. So in my experience all the problems with NPR being one-sided against conservatives and Republicans and so forth were well-established 40 years ago.
Jonathan Turley, can you share a link to your Facebook account please?
There is simply no justification for continued federal monetary funding for public tv and radio. When the “public” media was founded, there were only a few tv stations and there was, in particular, a need for education-oriented tv. That is actually how our local tv station was established. Now, there are hundreds of choices with many different niche focuses. There is no rationale for our tax money being used to subsidize one.
Due To Tough Economy, Professional Tesla Bomber Forced To Take Second Job As Bernie Rally Attendee
PORTLAND, OR — Even people with the most secure jobs in booming industries reported feeling the widespread financial squeeze, with one local Tesla bomber forced to take a second job as a Bernie Sanders rally attendee.
Devin Hansbrough, a successful Tesla dealership firebomber, said that while gigs for George Soros and various NGOs have been steady, they aren’t enough anymore. He now works a side job being paid to attend Bernie rallies to pull in extra income. “Every little bit of money helps,” he said. “I had my biggest month of bombing Teslas ever in March, but with how expensive everything is these days, it just made sense for me to pick up a part-time job going to Bernie rallies just to make ends meet. Fortunately, I enjoy both jobs, so it’s not too much of a hassle.”
Hansbrough explained that he now supplements his nightly bombing raids on Tesla locations with weekend trips to Bernie Sanders’s public appearances. “It keeps me busy,” he said. “I’ll wake up around noon in my parents’ basement, spend a few hours making Molotov cocktails, do some surveillance on the next Tesla dealership I’ve been given directions to vandalize, torch some Cybertrucks, and plan my travel to Bernie’s next speaking engagement to pick up another paycheck. It’s not a bad gig, plus it helps me pay for my soy lattes and avocado toast.”
Jonathan: I guess you really aren’t interested in the legal news–probably because DJT lost badly in the courts last week. While DJT crows about the 107 EOs he has issued there have already been over 150 lawsuits filed and in most of the cases TROs have been granted against DJT’s unlawful orders. And those flurry of TROs came last week. Here are just some of them:
–A federal judge issued a TRO stopping DJT from shuttering the VOA
–In DC a federal judge stopped DJT from shutting down the CPFB
–On Friday two different federal judges stopped DJT from blacklisting 2 law firms
–In Boston a federal judge ruled a Tufts doctoral candidate cannot be expelled from the country without a court order
It was not a good week for DJT in the courts. No doubt, if DJT had won a significant victory you would be crowing about it. Since that didn’t happen you want to deflect by talking about defunding NPR. Good luck with that one!
Dennis – none of this is “stopped” just delayed.
That is why the entire country knows this is lawfare.
Your not going to win, and you know it.
The president can cut waster fraud and abuse. While venue shopped left wing courts have said otherwise.
Do you really beleive there is a chance int he world that SCOTUS will cay “no the president can not cut waste fraud and abuse”
The supreme court is never going to say the president can not deport illegal aliens = must less say he can not deport violent gang members. exported from a hostile foreign power.
The supreme court is never going to say the president can not fire anyone in the executive.
It is possible that the Supreme court might say there are i’s to dot and t’s to cross.
But they will not say that the president does not have executive power.
You KNOW this. You KNOW that you are going to lose.
You will declare victory if you delay things enough – yet what has that fixed ?
You will declare victory when the court utterly rejects you – so long as it says – there is an i to be dotted or a t to be crossed.
But all you are doing is changing the near 50:50 political divide in the country slowly to 70:30 against those that are finding a loosing battle to delay the inevitable, without even a principle to be standing on, and against the will of a super majority of people.
There are only going to be a handful of court decisions that matter – the three of 4 supreme court decisions that put an end to theis nonsense.
And the only question is whether the decision will be 6-3 or 9-0
Further Trump won several cases this week.
And got a few excellent dissents in others.
Libertarians have been trying to cut federal agencies for over 100 years.
They have been trying to cut federal spending for over 100 years.
Trump will succeed in what he is attempting, but he will fall short of what should be cut.
“Trump will succeed in what he is attempting, but he will fall short of what should be cut.”
He MAY succeed to the extent you postulate, and I fervently hope that he does, but I do not think that is preordained. The voting public is notoriously fickle; polls showing that Democrats are currently heavily in popular disfavor changes that characteristic not at all. Trump needs to show results that are positive, or at worst, neutral, before midterms, or his prospects for success could deteriorate very rapidly. If he becomes wildly unpopular because a large number of Americans are suffering badly (in spite of the fact that even the most positive corrections inevitably result in at least temporary pain for many), the faults in his personality may well be brought to the fore, and then all bets are off, imo.
John Say posted: Libertarians have been trying to cut federal agencies for over 100 years.
More precisely: Exactly like Democrats and Republicans have promised to do if elected, Libertarians have also promised to cut federal agencies if elected
There is a LOT of ground between political promises and actually doing that.
Perhaps worse, there are the political promises made to get voted into office, and then reneging on delivering those promises once elected for newer, more important political reasons. Republicans and Democrats do that as well once elected on their promises.
As Libertarians cannot convince enough people to get elected (and can make wild promises as they know they will never be elected and expected to deliver), we don’t know if they would also do the same as Republicans and Democrats if they ever were elected.
“More precisely:”
Not more precisely. What defines libertarians is individual liberty. That means less government, more individual freedom and more individual responsibility for their own lives.
SOME Republicans SOMETIMES share limited govenrment and individual as a value.
Conversely democrats believe that magically more government means more individual liberty – something that has NEVER been true.
Rarely Democrats value cutting waste fraud and abuse in govenrment – NEVER do they seek to cut government.
Please name a single time that democrats actually sought to reduce government – to eliminate an agency or office or department or even to eliminate a bad law ?
Progressives do not beleive in individual liberty – they beleive in a random and arbitraty collection of logic defying rights for which they are perfectly willing to sacrfice fundimental rights such as free speech.
The Woke beleive – religiously in the right to be whatever sex you wish to be regardless of nature – and to impose that beleif on others in violation of their rights.
Libertarians accept that you can beleive whatever you want – no matter how delusional – so long as you do not impose that belief on others by force. Progressives do not accept that they are not free to violate the rights of others when they are at odds with their beliefs.
“Exactly like Democrats and Republicans have promised to do if elected”
Not at all exactly – regardless – very few democrats or republicans keep that promise.
Whatever else you might beleive about Trump right now he is trying to keep that propmes and progressives are using everything in their arsenal legal or not to thwart that.
“Libertarians have also promised to cut federal agencies” – this is NOT a libertaian promise – it is a libertarin principle.
“There is a LOT of ground between political promises and actually doing that.”
Correct – as noted – Trump is trying to keep the promises – including cuttng spending and limited govenrment that got him elected.
“Perhaps worse, there are the political promises made to get voted into office, and then reneging on delivering those promises once elected for newer, more important political reasons. Republicans and Democrats do that as well once elected on their promises.”
Correct – but that is NOT what Trump is doing right now.
Trump has taken pretty strong action to accomplish – not a few platform items, but ALL of his platform promises.
The promises that got him elected.
“As Libertarians cannot convince enough people to get elected”
There is no ideology that can convince enough people to get elected. The values of Americans are too varied.
Politicians who are RARELY truly ideological – not even progressive politicians – put together a platform of promises. designed to have enough things that enough people support to get electioned, and not enough things that people oppose to lose.
Then most when elected do not deliver – because the promises were just some collection made into a platform designed to get elected.
I do not beleive Trump is an ideologue – I think he beleive some maybe most of what he promised. But not all of it.
But Trump is a business man who KNOWS that if you do not deliver on your promises you lose your clients.
That said Trump is a pragmatist – his promises are not based on ideology as much as a combination of policies that he thinks will work well together AND get him elected.
“make wild promises as they know they will never be elected and expected to deliver”
Trump is changing that and that poses an enormous problem for democrats.
The UAW has just gone all in for Trump. That is MAJOR – unions have been OWNED by democrats for a century.
They were a core – possibly the core of Democrats base. And democrats are buring that base to the ground – because they have never truly delivered for Unions. Trump is delivering. He is not delivering regulations that favor unions, or laws that favor unions.
He raised the standard of living for working class people – including unions in his first term and he is fighting the left to do that at large scale this term.
“we don’t know if they would also do the same as Republicans and Democrats if they ever were elected.”
You don’t. Libertarians do. Libertarians do not get elected very often – but on occasion they do.
Aad when they do they fight and to the extent they are able they deliver limited government.
The core problem libertarians have is that no one seeks to rent power that Libertarians will eliminate.
Few are going to contribute to a libertarian political campaign – because should libertarians win – they will get nothing but the warm feeling of supporting limited government. They will not get the jobs libertians are going to cut. They will not get the contracts libertarians are going to cut.
I would also note that is one of the huge problems that the left has in their take over of the institutions.
As we see from DOGE few govenrment contracts go to republicans. 12 years of rule interupted briefly buy Trump has left almost all government spending chanelled to democrats and neocons – which just as labor is moving to republicans neocons are moving to democrats.
Congress is not declaring holy war against Trump’s spending cuts – because few of the republican majority are getting their oxe gored – and those that are are trying not to attract attention – No Republican wants to Be DOGE’s next Stacy Abrahms, of Hillary Clinton.
Getting millions are the government teat.
This did not come about because republicans are less corrupt that democrats – though there are structualr reasons they are a bit less corrupt than democrats. But more because we have had a long period during which they did not get the oportunity to practice corruption.
I would note that variations on this are why it is ALWAYS a bad idea for one ideology or party to dominate institutions.
There will always be a sea change eventually and when that occurs, the absence of political an ideological diversity in those institutions will make sweeping them away much easier – their political support base will be much narrow, They will have few on the other side with anything to lose.
So your argument is that libertarians are no different than other politicians they just have not been found out as liars because they can not win elections ?
Maybe you should consider that libertarians don’t win elections because they would keep their promises and that would end trillions of dollars worth of rent seeking.
It is odd – because libertarians are pretty much the only political party that does not want to “eat the rich”.
Republicans and democrats rail about the OTHER PARTIES Rich and Powerful interests – whether they are billionaires of Billion dollar companies. While pretending they have none of their own. It is absolutley hillarious watching Democrats rant about the political contributions of Musk and Adleson, when Democrats got almost 3 times as much money from Billionaires and big business.
Regardless, both democrats and republicans engage in rent seeking – even if Democrats do more.
Libertarians love billionaires and wnat everyone to aspire to be one. They are fans of big business.
But they are completely opposed to rent seeking. They do not care if Billionaires and big business TRY to engage in rent seeking.
That is just how free markets work – when government swells. But libertarians seek to end rent seeking by shrinking government.,
So with few exceptions – big business and billionaries do not like or fund libertarians.
There is no return on investment.
DJT is in your head and on your mind 24/7. We are 4.5% into the term 47th President of the United States. There are 1460 more days and all of these “unlawful” EOs will work their way through the system and will be resolved.
Just think, the President now has the entire DOJ on his side and thousands and thousands of attorneys. He has the power to dry up funding for those states who refuse to follow federal law. Then, there are the goodies that every congressional representative and senator wants to bring back to their constituents. They are easy to deep six.
I am not worried a bit. He will lose a few cases, but he will ultimately win the majority.
Meanwhile, the slush funds for the leftwing NGOs is drying up and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth and domestic terrorism. That must mean they lost their queen.
Meanwhile, in the UK, a three-year-old has been suspended from daycare for being “transphobic.” The UK is cooked.
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1906465828259643830
OT, Turkey is now mimicking Iran: calling for the destruction of Israel. This after a day of hundreds of thousands of protesters against Erdogan after a court ordered the arrest of his political rival, the major of Istanbul.
“In Erdogan’s Turkey, there is no justice, no law, and no freedom. Israel does not need Erdogan’s ridiculous moral sermons. Israel acts to defend itself and its citizens against real threats and actual attacks – and it will continue to do so,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry stated.
https://allisrael.com/fm-sa-ar-slams-anti-semitic-dictator-erdogan-after-turkish-president-wishes-may-allah-destroy-zionist-israel
Remind me again, why is America paying for NATO?
America does not pay for NATO.
Nobody “pays” for NATO.
NATO does not collect money from any countries for defense.
The NATO treaty is simply a mutual defense pact, wherein each country agrees to spend at least 2% of their GDP on their own defense systems. Most countries meet this target. The US is currently at about 3.5% of GDP, but Poland beats the US at about 4.1%.
Article 5 of the treaty requires all countries to respond to the defense of any country that requests assistance.
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once.
The US invoked Article 5 on September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks on the World Trade Center.
EVERY other NATO country responded and sent troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US national debt was $5.8T in 2001. Now it’s $37T. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is 123%. We spend more on national debt interest than on defense. Dude, we’re bankrupt. Now the name of the game is insider looting, which is what Musk and Trump are trying to stop, much to the chagrin of the looters.
America does not pay for NATO.
America does not pay for the defense budget.
Did America pay for Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, World War II, etc., Einstein?
Oh, —- no, America does not pay for NATO.
America doesn’t spend a penny on defense.
Remind me again, why is America paying for NATO?
Remind us why you’re outraged after NATO nations fought our Gulf War and then our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Did we forget to tell them “Not your war!”?
They fought our war? How many of THEM died in “our” war? How much did they spend on “our” war? How much oil does Europe get from the ME vis a vis how much we receive?
Hullbobby said: They fought our war? How many of THEM died in “our” war?
I’m guessing that, like most Americans of service age, you chose to never spent a day fighting our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that went on for 20 years. But it’s curious that you act as being incredulous that any of those NATO allies died in those wars.
The UK lost about 500 KIA, Canada about 200… can you name our NATO allies who fought beside us in our wars that DIDN’T suffer KIAs fighting beside us?
Cross off Poland, Georgia, Norway, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Spain, Latvia, etc if you want to attempt to prepare that list…
America pays for NATO and it well may be time to stop until Turkey is out.
Turkey must be removed from NATO or the U.S. must leave.
Oldman–
Thanks for that about Turkey. I have wondered if letting them know that they are actually Greeks more than Turks might impact their thinking.
When DNA testing became popular many Turks were shocked to learn they were ethnic Greeks. Erdogan was enraged and claimed the reports were part of a conspiracy to destabilize Turkey. It wasn’t but it could become one. It must be a shock to discover you are actually a member of a nationality that you look down on and have held in contempt.
“I am Turk!!!” “Nope. Just another Greek.”
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
– President Andrew Jackson
________________________________
“[The judiciary has] neither force nor will, but merely judgement….”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
Federalist 78 (Excerpted)
“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.”
“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.”
“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
“It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks.”
– Alexander Hamilton, 1788
Excuse me folks, but I’m losing count
Pete Hegseth is taking his 3rd wife to classified meetings for what? Go and post your thoughts.
Bill Clinton didn’t take his 30th mistress to any meetings.
Obama didn’t take any of his former “customers” to meetings.
JFK took Marilyn Monroe to his birthday party.
Martin Luther Kinky left his girlfriends in the hotel room and never took his mistresses to church.
Randi Weingarten doesn’t take its husband/wife/whatever to meetings at all.
Jilly Biden LED a cabinet meeting!!!
Didn’t they find the nuclear launch codes in Monica’s closet? I forget.
I believe so. I do believe you are correct.
Pete Hegseth is taking his 3rd wife to classified meetings for what? Go and post your thoughts.
The Oval Office House Plant had his 2nd wife, The First Babysitter, running the annual Biden White House cabinet meeting. Post your thoughts!
The Oval Office House Plant said his crackhead, felon son was his most trusted national security advisor. Post your thoughts!
The Oval Office House Plant took that son on Airforce Two to Communist China, Ukraine, and Russia to get rich (both of them). Post your thoughts!
Want to do the Clintons next? Post your thoughts!
Decades ago NPR had a neat program called Science Friday. It was interesting and fun. Sometimes they had a science quiz and listeners could call in and answer. Winners were asked what they did for a living and it seemed a lot of them were lawyers. The host remarked on it and thought it odd that so many lawyers were answering science questions. His guest said that it was not odd because lawyers often were generalists in their interests and tended to have at least some knowledge of many things outside of law.
I think the lawyers posting here will likely think that is true, or it seems so to me.
NPR used to be better before it turned into a sort of Volkischer Beobachter.
I think the district court judges will soon learn that stupid overreach decisions like this are a little bit like keying a Tesla. There can be consequences.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/just-obama-judge-san-francisco-blocks-president-trump
The federal judiciary has been busy destroying its reputation and the respect America once had for it.
This just in: a federal judge has ruled that Jesus of Nazareth must uncrush the head of the serpent and restore sin and death to all mankind (h/t the Bee). This is the same judge, it turns out, that ruled God overstepped his authority in expelling Adam and Eve from the Garden. He also ruled that Trump is no longer president because he (the judge) voted for Kamala. Additionally, this same federal ruled that Trump must restore Goldberg to the signal chat. He later ordered Congress to pass legislation increasing the top marginal tax bracket to 150% for those earning over $100,000.
After the flurry of orders described above, Trump stepped down from being POTUS so he could take a new job as a federal district judge where he would have more power to run the Executive Branch.
I’m waiting for a piss ant federal judge to rule that you don’t have to keep receipts for your deductions since the Federal Government doesn’t keep receipts for its expenditures.
Yet another judge who thinks he is President.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/new-federal-judge-blocks-trump-admin-firing-intel
These people are judt begging for Congress and the President to kick dome black-tobed behinds.
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
___________________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was a Great American President.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST enforce his rendition of “The Lincoln Era,” close the border, rescind rebel sanctuary cities, compassionately repatriate all illegal and unassimilable aliens, revoke birthright citizenship, make English the sole official language, commence a war to defeat the rebellion, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, “smash” rebel printing presses, networks, podcasts, and social media platforms, and imprison political opponents and rebel judges, all in order to save, not the Union, but the Nation, eradicate the communist American welfare state, and place America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including absolute freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and minimal taxation and regulation, alongside infinitesimal constitutional government.
(SARC/ON)
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST enforce his rendition of “The Lincoln Era,”
George, you Confederate Rebel Commie: you post your Confederate screed almost daily. Are you hoping for a SECOND civil war – and getting your racist confederate Democrat ass kicked for a SECOND time?
Young and Kansas is the following from JTN good enough?
Chuck Grassley unveils legislation to clarify scope of judicial reach
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Monday introduced a bill that seeks to clarify the role of the judicial branch and limit federal court orders by ending universal injunctions.
The legislation comes after Republicans have pushed back on multiple court rulings and federal judges’ use of universal injunctions, including ones that block President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders.
The bill, titled the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025, would amend the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act to allow restraining orders to be immediately appealed and limit court orders to only impact people in the case.
“For a number of years, but particularly in the last few months, we’ve increasingly seen sweeping orders from individual district judges that dictate national policy,” Grassley said in a statement. “Our Founders saw an important role for the judiciary, but the Constitution limits judges to exercising power over ‘cases’ or ‘controversies.’
“Judges are not policymakers, and allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous,” he continued. “The Judicial Relief Clarification Act clarifies the scope of judicial power and resolves illegitimate judicial infringement upon the executive branch. It’s a commonsense bill that’s needed to provide long-term constitutional clarity and curb district courts’ growing tendency to overstep by issuing sweeping, nationwide orders.”
Supreme Court Justices, including those appointed by a Democratic president, have indicated support for abolishing universal injunctions. Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 told a Northwestern University Law School audience that “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process.”
The bill is co-sponsored by 21 Republican senators, including Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Jim Justice of West Virginia, Steve Daines of Montana, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.
S Meyer, it sounds like a much needed piece of legislation. It will be fiercely opposed by the Dems because they like judicial overreach while Trump is potus, but perhaps it can be attached to something they really want.
S. Meyer–
Grassley’s proposals sound great and very much needed. There are other ideas that are good as well. Professor Glenn Reynolds who has a blog at Instapundit.com and a substack has favored three-judge panels for injunctions against the government, one circuit court judge and two district judges from different districts.
A clever idea is being initiated by Rep. Andy Biggs from Arizona. He notes that judges serve during good behavior which is different from impeachment.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/house-republican-proposes-alternative-method-remove-bad-judges-bypass-senate
He wants to use it to remove judge Boasberg from the deportation cases. I haven’t looked into this enough to have an idea how it will turn out but the Constitution does say judges serve during good behavior and that does seem different from impeachment.
I am glad to see Congress beginning to consider many things to deal with these rogue judges. Maybe this get around to abolishing the DC courts. They are too close to avoid contamination.
“Chuck Grassley unveils legislation to clarify scope of judicial reach”
Congress needs a more considered approach when passing legislation along with placing limitations on all their legislation
“The federal judiciary has been busy destroying its reputation and the respect America once had for it.”
Those activist judges must have their heads three feet up their rectums not to realize how close they are to generating massive public support for Congressional initiatives to provide a clear mechanism for their removal. The Constitution does not provide for literal lifetime tenure nor does it require impeachment for removing judges, it merely stipulates that they will serve “during Good behaviour”. By a plain reading of Article II, Section 1, that also applies to SCOTUS justices. Frankly, I would prefer that we not come to that pass; it would be vastly preferable to me for that aspect of the separation of powers to remain mostly voluntary, but it is the road those judges appear to be determined to force us to take. Who knows how SCOTUS would rule on Congress exercising that power when their own tenures might well be put into jeopardy as a result? That could truly be a Constitutional crisis.
Joseph,
“would be vastly preferable to me for that aspect of the separation of powers to remain mostly voluntary, but it is the road those judges appear to be determined to force us to take. Who knows how SCOTUS would rule on Congress exercising that power when their own tenures might well be put into jeopardy as a result? That could truly be a Constitutional crisis.”
That is my thought as well and it is why I hope Roberts steps in and rights the ship.
But I think these judges are so soaked with critical legal theory they are incapable of changing before Congress and the President have to hammer changes into the judiciary.
Pete Hegseth calls for more steep cuts.
He wants steep cuts in the number of steps in Alcoholic Anonymous 12 step recovery program.
I’ll drink to that !!!!
And henceforth, all AA meetings will be conducted via Signal
So funny I forgot to laugh.
He is also recommending steep cuts to the 10 Commandments.
Particularly the ones about lying and adultery.
Hardy har har. Funnier than a screen door on a submarine (eye-roll).
Why is a Chile General visiting West Point Military Academy?
Because of NPR (eye roll).
If this were West Point, there would not be Chilean flags flying. BTW, Prussia’s Glory was a military march written by Piefke in 1871 after Prussia’s victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War.
It was fun to see that desiccated trout stewing in her own juices….completely inedible….or credible….she was amazingly adept at burying herself …this was must see TV.
Jonathan: The knives on the right are out for NPR. Years ago you, MTG and the MAGA crowd called for defunding public broadcasting. And that call is in “Project 2025” that states “All Republican Presidents have recognized that public funding of domestic broadcasts is a mistake” and after its creation “public broadcasting immediately became a liberal forum for public affairs and journalism”. While during the campaign DJT claiming he didn’t he didn’t know anything about Project 2025 he has followed every one of its proposals. He and Elon Musk are demanding that NPR be defunded.
Now I get my radio news every morning from our local NPR affiliate. Why? Because it provides both national and international news coverage. It also has local programming that covers city issues and the state capitol. The kind of wide coverage you don’t get from local commercial outlets where any news is interrupted every few minutes by ads from law firms or car dealerships. You don’t have to put up with that on NPR. In our city surveys show as many 40-45% of self identified conservatives listen to our NPR affiliate because it is fairly objective in its coverage. If funding were cut off we would sorely miss our local NPR station.
Now you claim funding for NPR should be cut off “based on the principle that democracies do not selectively subsidize media outlets”. FACT CHECK: That’s false. What about the BBC? The British government spends close to $100 a year per citizen on the BBC. We spend $1.50 per citizen per year on the CPB. I’d say we are getting a bargain!
You also falsely claim “We have long rejected the model of state media? How can you say that with a straight face? Fox News, where you work, is as close to “state media” as you can get. The DJT regime is a revolving door for Fox personalities–from Pete Hegseth, Kimberly Giulfoyle to Dan Bongino, DJT’s pick for deputy director of the FBI. Last month Fox tapped DJT’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, to hot a new weekend show. In his second term DJT has hired no fewer than 21 former Fox News and/or Fox Business alums for various positions in his administration. That revolving door is incestuous and shows that Fox has become the de facto DJT regime “state media”–only rivaled by Goebbels Nazi run state media!
Give me NPR over Fox News any day!
Dennis McIntyre: Jonathan: The knives on the right are out for NPR… Give me NPR over Fox News any day!
Of course Dennis: NPR been knifing Republicans on your behalf for DECADES – long before you and NPR had the excuse “BBBBUUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!.
Why WOULDN’T you prefer NPR when they ensure 100% of their editorial staff are your fellow Soviet Democrats propagandizing for the Democrats?
Even if your “BBBBBBUUUUTTTTTT….. MUH FOX!!!!!” were 100% true – NPR gets taxpayer money to be propagandists. Fox does not depend on government taxpayer welfare to stay in business.
Buy some more tote bags. 1
PBS should be next. No reason for federal government to be subsidizing it either.
Reality does have a well known liberal bias
^ Meaningless statement ^
Commenters dropping in from the Democrat Borg to refer to themselves as “liberals”, and their NPR channel is reality is an excellent illustration of how they’re created their own reality within the Democrat Borg.
Aside from its role as the propaganda arm of the DNC, NPR should also be despised for another effect of its creation: the disappearance of classical music from local radio. At one time, the local university stations in my area — e.g., WUOM FM in Ann Arbor and WDET FM in Detroit — devoted a large part of its programming to classical music. Now that programming has disappeared from those stations. Even where still preserved in some of the NPR network, it has greatly declined. Our culture has been profoundly diminished by that loss. Arguably, classical European music is the highest from of art Western Civilization achieved. We are now cut off from it.
“She then denied calling for reparations, but was read back her own declaration: “Yes, the North, yes all of us, yes America. Yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations. Yes, on this day.” She then bizarrely claimed she had not meant giving Black people actual money, or “fiscal reparations.”
***********************
It’s got that Peter “I did not know the man” at the cock’s crow kinda feel to it, eh?