Newsbusters

As Harvard University files their lawsuit against the Trump administration, the rest of the elite Regime institutions circle the wagons. NBC Nightly News ran an exclusive interview with Harvard’s president that could best be described as crisis comms, seeking to shape public opinion ahead of litigation.

Watch the beginning of the interview, with anchor Lester Holt’s framing:

LESTER HOLT: Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its push to reshape higher education, with President Trump signing an executive order making changes to the university accreditation bodies and another calling for a review of colleges’ financial ties with foreign donors. It comes as the Harvard University president is speaking out for the first time since the school sued the federal government.

Did you have to take a deep breath before you agreed to file a lawsuit? That’s a big step. Especially given who you are suing.

ALAN GARBER: It is a big step. And it was more than one deep breath.

HOLT:That was a tough one?

GARBER: It was tough.

HOLT: Harvard president Alan Garber on campus today reflecting on the university’s showdown with the Trump administration, over its demands that the school accept government-ordered changes. Harvard accusing the administration of illegally withholding $2.2 billion in federal funding as a form of leverage. Among the list of the federal government demands, eliminate DEI programs, make broad changes to admissions and hiring practices. At the center of it all, allegations anti-semitism on campus went unchecked.

I don’t recall anyone interviewing the presidents of the many universities that entered into consent decrees with the Trump administration over DEI, hiring practices, and antisemitism. Now that one of the crown jewels of the elite establishment has decided to fight back, NBC is all too happy to lend a hand and a platform.

Part of the purpose of this public relations campaign is to attempt to establish Trump’s college reforms as some form of government overreach, and to establish that this overreach is some unique and novel abuse of power. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was just last year that the Biden Department of Education attempted to forcibly impose the trans agenda on our public schools. A proposed Title IX rewrite made lunch program monies conditional to bathroom accommodations for “trans” students, and sought to impose biological men competing in women’s sports. No one so much as attempted to bother to report on those encroachments.  

Likewise the matter of Harvard’s endowment, whether earmarked or not, never came up. The real issue here isn’t academic freedom but whether the American taxpayer should continue to fund these programs, NBC tongue bath notwithstanding.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the NBC Nightly News on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2024:

LESTER HOLT: Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its push to reshape higher education, with President Trump signing an executive order making changes to the university accreditation bodies and another calling for a review of colleges’ financial ties with foreign donors. It comes as the Harvard University president is speaking out for the first time since the school sued the federal government.

Did you have to take a deep breath before you agreed to file a lawsuit? That’s a big step. Especially given who you are suing.

ALAN GARBER: It is a big step. And it was more than one deep breath.

HOLT:That was a tough one?

GARBER: It was tough.

HOLT: Harvard president Alan Garber on campus today reflecting on the university’s showdown with the Trump administration, over its demands that the school accept government-ordered changes. Harvard accusing the administration of illegally withholding $2.2 billion in federal funding as a form of leverage. Among the list of the federal government demands, eliminate DEI programs, make broad changes to admissions and hiring practices. At the center of it all, allegations anti-semitism on campus went unchecked. 

Is this really about anti-semitism?

GARBER: I would say that at Harvard, we have a real problem with anti-semitism. We take it very seriously, and we are trying to address it. There’s no doubt about the severity of that problem. We don’t really see the relationship to research funding at Harvard and other universities. They are two different issues.

HOLT: GARBER said he had no choice but to fight back against what he believes is government overreach.

GARBER: What they are indicating is that they want to directly review who we hire on our faculty. That has implications for what kinds of views can be expressed on campus. They also want to be able to tell us who we need to fire. And they also want to intervene in our admissions processes. That is what we are objecting to.

HOLT: You’re taking on the most powerful man in the world.

GARBER: We are defending what I believe is one of the most important linchpins of the American economy and way of life, our universities.

HOLT: How much pain can Harvard absorb here?

GARBER: We don’t know how much we can actually absorb. But what we do know is that we cannot compromise on basic principles like defense of our First Amendment rights.

HOLT: Is this bigger than Harvard at this point?

GARBER: Of course it’s bigger than Harvard, because we look at what’s at risk here. And what’s at risk is the excellence of higher education in the United States, and in particular, the research mission of many of our universities which play such a vital role in the U.S. economy and in the health and well-being of the American people.

HOLT: One of Harvard’s programs at risk due to the funding freeze is tuberculosis research. If funding were to be turned on, how quickly could you get back to work?

SARA FORTUNE: It’s a hard question. Because today, we could start relatively quickly. Ten days from now, you know, as the network unravels, the damage becomes irrevocable.

HOLT: Is this a fight you can win?

GARBER: I don’t know the answer to this question. But the stakes are so high that we have no choice.

HOLT: In a statement, The White House criticized GARBER’s comments and said President Trump is standing up for every student denied an education or safe campus because left-wing universities fail to protect their civil liberties.”

 

As the Left celebrates Earth Day or Climate Week, George and Alex Soros are the most prominent financiers of this secular crusade. Joseph Vazquez of MRC Business and Matt Palumbo of Bongino Report discuss their latest deep dive into the Soros empire, titled “Eco-Kingpins: How the Soros Empire Funds and Steers the Global Climate Change Agenda.”

 

At 94 years old, leftist billionaire George Soros has established the blueprint for how his enormous Open Society Foundations, fueled with $32 billion of his fortune, will continue fulfilling his dark vision throughout the world under the leadership of his more extreme son Alex. Part of that vision involves using the ever-evolving specter of climate change as a springboard to impel the world towards a New World Order.

MRC Business tallied 345 groups around the world that the Soros empire has bankrolled between 2016 and 2023 that have acted as conduits for his vision, with some groups even holding sway in the most powerful international governing bodies, including the United Nations. They committed an enormous $193,895,617 in climate/environment spending. In the case of the Soros climate agenda, leftist philanthropy devolves into radical misanthropy. Humans are viewed as a blight on the planet. 

It’s radical enough to involve dramatic action to go with their dramatic predictions of planetary death. Soros-backed eco-extremist groups like the notorious Sunrise Movement are infamous for publicly disturbing the peace and intimidating politicians to do their bidding, even if it means blocking roads and streets and causing great disruptions to do it. 

Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

 

Just the News’s John Solomon and Steven Richards dropped a new bombshell Tuesday night that illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the liberal media’s beloved “Maryland man,” was driving an SUV in a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop “owned by a man who was himself deported after pleading guilty to smuggling illegal aliens in 2020.”

The two cited “court and Homeland Security Department intelligence documents” that, in this now-infamous traffic stop in which Abrego Garcia asserted the vehicle belonged to his boss and he had been driving men from Houston, Texas to Maryland for construction work.

“The El Salvadoran was driving a black 2001 Chevrolet Suburban and said he was transporting his passengers to Maryland from Texas for construction work, although the state trooper found no luggage in the SUV,” they explained.

This alleged boss — Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes — “was sentenced to 18 months in prison for smuggling fellow illegal aliens in the United States after he was stopped by law enforcement in Mississippi in a car with passengers from Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras”

“Homeland Security records indicate Hernandez Reyes’ ‘deport order’ was reinstated in March 2021, as his 18-month sentence was nearing its end…It is unclear what relationship Abrego Garcia has with Hernandez Reyes. Though he told the Tennessee trooper the vehicle was owned by his boss, Just the News has been unable to confirm whether Abrego Garcia actually worked for Hernandez Reyes,” they added.

To read their full report, click here.

The liberal ladies of ABC’s The View loved abortion so much that they actively decried and denounced President Trump’s plan to increase America’s birth rate, on Wednesday. Between cries of global overpopulation and cries of racism, the shrieking liberals tried to make every argument under the sun against more babies being born.

As The View’s lead crone, Whoopi Goldberg opened the show with a mocking tone as she introduced the topic (Click “expand”):

So, as birth rates continue to decline in America, the White House is looking into offering $5,000 cash bonuses, expanded access to IVF along with other incentives to women to have more babies. I am incredibly insulted by this because clearly they don’t know how women’s bodies work, and they don’t know what it costs to raise a child or just have a child.

(…)

So I’m supposed to say to you all – and are you ready for this? What do you think of this proposal? Does it address the reasons why perhaps people aren’t having children these days? But aren’t you excited about it?!

Goldberg, a detached multimillionaire, couldn’t understand how much $5,000 could help some people. “$5,000? I don’t know what $5,000 is supposed to do!” she shouted.

The show’s usually feeble conservative, Alyssa Farah Griffin actually pushed back on Goldberg at one point and noted that countries like France and Italy also gave mothers a one-time payment for giving birth. “It ain’t $5,000, though!” Goldberg snapped at her.

Goldberg was correct, those countries did not give out a one-time payment of $5,000. France gives the parents a one-time grant of €1,066.30 or $1,207.88 or births and €2,132.58 ($2,414.92) for adoptions. There were reports of Italy offering similar funds. The Associated Press also reported that teachers in liberal Maryland were trying to get $1,000 baby bonuses passed.

 

 

Pretend independent Sara Haines, who once said pro-lifers should die of cancer, argued against increasing America’s birth rate because, “I feel that the Earth is overpopulated.”

“Then why do they want us to have more babies?” huffed elderly Joy Behar, seemingly confusing Haines stating her opinion with that of conservatives. “They want us to have more babies because it affects not only the workforce but paying into entitlement programs,” Haines explained.

Of course, staunchly racist Sunny Hostin wanted to “reframe the issue a little bit” and hint that increasing America’s birth rate was all some subtle racist plot:

HOSTIN: And so, when I looked into that, they’re saying that the U.S. birth rate is declining, however, in 2024 there was a one percent increase in U.S. births, but that increase was with Hispanic mothers and Asian mothers. Aha! So, they don’t seem to be concerned about that increase. They seem to be more concerned about a decrease in other populations.

BEHAR: Say it!

HOSTIN: No, I think I’ve said enough.

[Laughter]

BEHAR: White children! I’ll say it!

Alyssa Farah Griffin pushed back on Hostin’s suggestions of racism by simply asking for Hostin’s sources and any quotes to back up her assertions. This appeared to short circuit Hostin, who started stuttering as she frantically looked at her talking points cards. She couldn’t cite any legitimate sources:

FARAH GRIFFIN: What’s that based on though?

HOSTIN: Well, it’s – it’s – it’s – it’s – it’s just – it’s just – it’s just based – it’s just based on – on a study.

HAINES: They want more people to pay in.

HOSTIN: The other thing I will say —

FARAH GRIFFIN: But have they said that anywhere? I feel like we have to be fair.

HOSTIN: Yeah, it’s just – it’s just – it’s just a – it’s just a – it’s just a study.

BEHAR: Fair to who?

FARAH GRIFFIN: Have they said this is just to target only white families?

HOSTIN: Oh, I didn’t say that. I just gave the stats. I just gave the stats.

Hilariously, as Hostin was trying to argue that she wasn’t suggesting racism was the motivation, Behar started obviously blowing up Hostin’s spot. “You have to read between the lines,” she argued to Farah Griffin. “They aren’t going to say it.”

Hostin went on to argue that people should be skeptical of ideas about increasing America’s birth rate simply because it was something conservatives cared about:

And so also, when I think about who’s advocating. Project 2025, remember that? Which was tied to the Heritage Foundation, the think tank that led Project 2025, they open up the Project 2025 before anything else talking about family issues. The first chapter promises to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. And the Heritage Foundation in particular has been researching this issue for over two years and is preparing to release a report in the coming weeks on how it believes the administration should counter declining birth rates.

What Hostin was demonstrating was the fact that The View really only accepted one view, as NewsBusters recently exposed with a study of the guests they invited on the show.

The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:

ABC’s The View
April 23, 2025
11:02:48 a.m. Eastern

WHOOPI GOLDBERG [in a mocking tone]: So, as birth rates continue to decline in America, the White House is looking into offering $5,000 cash bonuses, expanded access to IVF along with other incentives to women to have more babies.

[Laughter]

BEHAR: Why?!

GOLDBERG [in a mocking tone]: And – Okay.

[Laughter]

I am incredibly insulted by this because clearly they don’t know how women’s bodies work, and they don’t know what it costs to raise a child or just have a child.

[Applause]

$5,000? I don’t know what $5,000 is supposed to do! And it’s not even $5,000 because you have to cut it in half because you have to pay taxes on it! So, they’re offering you $2500 [claps mockingly] to have a baby! Now, don’t forget about all the stuff they’ve cut!

BEHAR: We have of a list that.

GOLDBERG [in a mocking tone]: Yes, you have a list! So I’m supposed to say to you all – and are you ready for this? What do you think of this proposal? Does it address the reasons why perhaps people aren’t having children these days? But aren’t you excited about it?!

(…)

11:05:08 a.m. eastern

SARA HAINES: But I’m one of those people that I feel that the Earth is overpopulated, so when it comes to —

BEHAR: Then why do they want us to have more babies?

SUNNY HOSTIN: Hmmm!

HAINES: They want us to have more babies because it affects not only the workforce but paying into entitlement programs.

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: The social safety net.

HAINES: But what I would say this is a short — they’re missing the greater point. A.I. is going to be a problem for our entitlement problems way before the birth rate –

HOSTIN: What entitlement programs?

FARAH GRIFFIN: The social safety net.

HAINES: Social Security. If you have less people working in the workforce you have less people paying into a system that eventually has to pay out — it’s going to bankrupt the social services. The problem here is A.I. is going to defeat that way before our birth rates are. So, they’re missing something greater. They have to rework our social system.

BEHAR: Well, they have to tax billionaires for one thing and corporations, maybe they would have more money to spend.

HAINES: Yeah.

[Applause]

FARAH GRIFFIN: Donald Trump has actually floated taxing billionaires.

BEHAR: He floated?

FARAH GRIFFIN: He suggested.

BEHAR: He floats a lot of things.

HOSTIN: [In audible] people who make more than a million dollars a year as well; he wants to tax.

FARAH GRIFFIN: I actually generally support this policy. That may surprise you guys.

The number one concern I hear from young people they want to have kids but don’t think they could afford it. And we could argue whether it’s enough money or not, the 5,000, but both Italy and France do this. You get a one-time payment when you have a child and what it could do toward —

GOLDBERG: It ain’t $5,000, though!

FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, it could go to the out-of-pocket costs for delivering a child which range between 1,500 and 3,000. If you put it in a 529 savings account when that child is born, by the time they’re 18 you’ll have twice that, you’ll have about $10,000 based on current market conditions. We also have policies like this in place. We have the child tax credit which gives you a tax credit back for the number of children you have and the earned income tax credit.

Because of this idea that our social safety net, so Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid rely on the younger population keeping up with the older population so they can pay into it. But here’s my caveat, this would apply to gay couples, not just to women who have children, and to adoptive parents, not just people who have children naturally.

And finally, they said that they’re going to look into the ways to lower the cost of IVF. I’m going to need to see it to believe it, but it is too expensive. So many women deal with infertility and they do need to find a way to lower the cost.

HOSTIN: I want to reframe the issue a little bit, because when I look at something like this, these proposals, I want to know why and I want to know who’s making them. And so, when I looked into that, they’re saying that the U.S. birth rate is declining, however, in 2024 there was a one percent increase in U.S. births, but that increase was with Hispanic mothers and Asian mothers. Aha! So, they don’t seem to be concerned about that increase. They seem to be more concerned about a decrease in other populations.

BEHAR: Say it!

HOSTIN: No, I think I’ve said enough.

[Laughter]

FARAH GRIFFIN: What’s that based on though?

BEHAR: White children! I’ll say it!

HOSTIN: Well, it’s – it’s – it’s – it’s – it’s just – it’s just – it’s just based – it’s just based on – on a study.

HAINES: They want more people to pay in.

HOSTIN: The other thing I will say —

FARAH GRIFFIN: But have they said that anywhere? I feel like we have to be fair.

HOSTIN: Yeah, it’s just – it’s just – it’s just a – it’s just a – it’s just a study.

BEHAR: Fair to who?

FARAH GRIFFIN: Have they said this is just to target only white families?

HOSTIN: Oh, I didn’t say that. I just gave the stats.

BEHAR: You have to read between the lines.

HOSTIN: I just gave the stats.

BEHAR: They aren’t going to say it.

HAINES: Yeah, but it’s about economics. They’re wanting people to pay in.

HOSTIN: I’m just giving facts.

And so also, when I think about who’s advocating. Project 2025, remember that? Which was tied to the Heritage Foundation, the think tank that led Project 2025, they open up the Project 2025 before anything else talking about family issues. The first chapter promises to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. And the Heritage Foundation in particular has been researching this issue for over two years and is preparing to release a report in the coming weeks on how it believes the administration should counter declining birth rates.

So, I just leave that with all of you because I think –

HAINES: There are global declining birth rates though.

HOSTIN: But I think when we’re talking about the United States, we need to think about the who’s proposing it and why.

HAINES: They want future consumers.

(…)

President Donald Trump’s first 100 days haven’t even been completed yet and CNN is already whipping out “Great Depression” from scare porn to describe the current stock market under his administration. No, you didn’t misread that. 

“We’re suddenly talking about the Great Depression when discussing Trump’s stock market,” read the insane April 22 headline of CNN Business Executive Editor David Goldman’s latest anti-Trump flapdoodle. “Trump’s stock market is throwing off some jaw-dropping statistics. How extraordinary? We’re now making comparisons to the Great Depression,” he continued.

Making freakishly outlandish claims seems to be a trend for Goldman, as he’s the same so-called journalist who blurted in February that the “jury is decidedly out on how much federal spending” under President Joe Biden “contributed to inflation — if at all.” Also, in Goldman’s view March 10, Trump was allegedly responsible for ruining America’s so-called “nearly five-year economic boom.” In essence, it isn’t a surprise he found some more tomfoolery to belch onto the CNN website.

“Stocks are on the rebound Tuesday, bouncing back from another miserable day on Wall Street. But American financial markets are sounding all sorts of alarm bells that one day in the green can hardly overcome,” doom mongered Goldman. “That’s because investors have been sending a clear message: President Donald Trump’s trade war is making America an unsafe place to invest.”

Of course, this was just before stocks surged the next day on news that Trump could potentially relieve tariffs on China following a potential deal. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged 1,100 points early Wednesday morning before easing to an over 500 point gain, with the S&P 500 climbing two percent and the Nasdaq Composite rallying 3 percent, according to CNBC. The world is ending!

We’re in “Great Depression” mode, didn’t you know! “Even with a modest rebound on Tuesday – major indexes rose over 2% each – Trump has a long way to bounce back to avoid history,” Goldman blathered. For goodness’ sake, even oil giant company Chevron CEO Mike Wirth stated the same day Goldman’s drivel was released that there were “no signs that” his company sees “at this point that we are in or close to a recession.”

But in Goldman’s world, we skipped the “recession” part and went straight to shoe-horning fears of another 1929 “Depression” crash under Trump into narrative, when the Dow nosedived from its Roaring 20s highs to a chilling 89 percent below its peak. 

Goldman’s pathetic stock market agitprop is the end result of what happens when a journalist willfully gulps down every blue pill the Biden regime gave them like a sucker and gets turned into a mindless propaganda bot that spits out whatever anti-Trump talking points are downloaded into their prefrontal cortex.

Two important developments in education occurred over the last week. One was a sign of the problem we have. The other was a sign of the solution.

The sign of the problem, to which hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will provide the correct answer, falls under the headline of sex education.

The court has just heard Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which families from a variety of faiths — Muslims, Jews, Christians — are fighting imposition by the Board of Education in Montgomery County, Maryland, requirements that children learn material about gender ideology.

Per the Becket Fund, which is representing these families, the schools have some 20 books as part of their curriculum that “champion pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children.”

We’re talking about material that seeks to legitimize the notion of gender ambiguity and transgenderism.

Not surprisingly, religious parents have objected and requested the opportunity to pull their children from sessions when this material is taught.

As reported by the Becket Fund: “These parents are simply asking to be notified when the books will be read to their children and to be given an opportunity to opt out.”

The Montgomery County school board rejected this request, insisting that they cannot notify parents and allow the children to skip these sessions.

Hence the lawsuit, in which the parents claim, according to Becket, “the Board is violating the parents’ inalienable and constitutionally protected right to control the religious upbringing of their children, especially on sensitive issues concerning family life and human sexuality.”

The buzzword that defines the mindset of those insisting on forcing this material as part of the school curriculum is “inclusion.”

According to one blogger from the National Women’s Law Center, this is “a case that goes far beyond legal arguments and into the heart of what it means to build inclusive, affirming public schools, particularly for LGBTQIA+ students.”

It is barely comprehensible that so many, including those with power in the Montgomery County Board of Education, have so totally lost the meaning of religious freedom.

Inclusiveness in America means that all are included under our constitutional protection to practice one’s religion as they see fit. It does not mean that a bureaucrat, or anyone else, decides what is right and just for everyone and coerces all to accept their world view.

As George Washington wrote in his famous letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island, then a tiny minority in the country, in 1790:

“For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection shall demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. … Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

How can something so basic to our country have become so confused and lost?

One explanation is how dramatically things have changed. We have become a nation far more diverse ethnically and religiously than ever, while having to deal with monolithic public school systems and powerful teachers unions.

There is only one answer. Freedom. Liberation. Returning power to parents to choose how to educate their children.

And here is the good news, the sign of moving toward solution.

Texas is on the verge of enacting one of the nation’s most far-reaching school choice programs. It just passed in the Texas State House — a $1 billion allocation for vouchers for parental choice in grades K-12.

This provides for up to $10,000 per student, $30,000 for those with disabilities, and $2,000 for home schoolers. Special consideration in allocation of vouchers will be given to children from low-income households and those with disabilities.

Meanwhile, federal legislation has been introduced to provide $10 billion in tax credits for contributions to nonprofits that offer private education vouchers/scholarships.

Today, religious freedom and education freedom are becoming one and the same.

Star Parker is founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. 

If you were to sell your car and donate the money to charity, there are plenty of worthy organizations you could choose to support. However, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell had one less worthy organization in mind during Tuesday’s edition of The Last Word: NPR.

During a wider segment on Elon Musk and declining Tesla sales, O’Donnell gushed over the liberal outlet that may soon see its federal handout taken away:

 

 

A CNBC poll showed how that brand destruction in the United States has hurt Tesla’s ability to sell to the very people who were the most enthusiastic customers for electric cars and Teslas. Liberal Democrats were the buyers, especially in California, that made Tesla a successful business and pushed the Tesla stock price up to the point where Elon Musk became the richest person in the world thanks to the buying power of liberals who are now trading in their Teslas, selling their Teslas, and, in many cases, just giving them away, as Sheryl Crow did in donating her Tesla to NPR for them to turn into cash to support the truth-telling mission of National Public Radio.

As NPR fights to retain its federal money, it has admitted its “truth-telling mission” did not apply to Hunter Biden’s laptop. One also has to wonder what defending looting has to do with truth-telling. NPR has also changed its tone on several months of its own reporting just so it could contradict President Trump when he echoed their phrasing. It has labeled the idea that COVID leaked from a lab “one of the biggest” pandemic-related conspiracies. One could go on, but this article has to end before it turns into a 1,000 page book.

Sign the petition to help us defund another MSNBC in PBS and NPR at defundpbsnpr.org.

Here is a transcript for the April 22 show:

MSNBC The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell

4/22/2025

10:14 PM ET

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: A CNBC poll showed how that brand destruction in the United States has hurt Tesla’s ability to sell to the very people who were the most enthusiastic customers for electric cars and Teslas. Liberal Democrats were the buyers, especially in California, that made Tesla a successful business and pushed the Tesla stock price up to the point where Elon Musk became the richest person in the world thanks to the buying power of liberals who are now trading in their Teslas, selling their Teslas, and, in many cases, just giving them away, as Sheryl Crow did in donating her Tesla to NPR for them to turn into cash to support the truth-telling mission of National Public Radio.

Wikipedia handles the leftist propagandists at National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) with kid gloves, all while it bars editors from citing nearly every right-leaning media source. 

The online encyclopedia revealed its true colors when it rated NPR and PBS as “generally reliable” in its permissible sources list for editors, despite ample evidence of the two publicly-funded media outlets’ flagrant bias. But Wikipedia rated every single right-leaning media outlet included in the list as “blacklisted,” “deprecated,” “generally unreliable” or “no consensus.” Both NPR and PBS are partially funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and have been under the gun in Washington, D.C. due to their leftist bias and public funding. 

[Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America] 

Last Thursday, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle met up with actor Rainn Wilson of The Office fame on his Soul Bloom podcast to discuss, among other things, the lack of trust in the news media. According to Ruhle, history began when Donald Trump decided to enter politics because she argued that he and his allies have spent their time trying to discredit the media in their attempt to remove people who challenge them.

Wilson simply asked, “40 percent of Americans don’t trust mainstream media. Why is that? How did we get here?”

Instead of looking inward, Ruhle saw a conspiracy at work, “Listen, we are seeing a huge loss in trust of all of our institutions. It’s the media, it’s medicine, it’s banking. It’s a huge problem. Because when you think about democracy and all of these pillars, they need to stand tall. They need to stand strong. And sort of losing that trust is not by accident, it’s by design.”

 

 

She noted, “If you remember when President Trump was running the first time, Steve Bannon once said, ‘the goal is to blow the whole thing up.’”

Republican distrust in the media has been on the steady decline. The last time GOP trust in the media was above 40 percent was 2003, back when Trump was still a Democrat. The last time it was above 30 percent was 2015. For independents, trust in the media has only been above 40 percent one time since 2009. So, clearly there is more than just a MAGA influence operation going on.

Nevertheless, Ruhle added, “And so I think that you’ve got mistakes made or things starting to slip while at the same time there’s a concerted effort to destroy the media because the media, the media, the news media is, in my opinion, the last light of defense of holding power accountable.”

Ruhle also claimed, “President Trump won and tons of people were shocked or angry or frustrated, and they’re tuning out. And at the same time you have the Elon Musk media machine because they want you to leave traditional media and they want you to go to X, which is a bastion of misinformation. Where there is no fact checking. So it’s a perfect storm of people saying, ‘I’m angry, I’m frustrated, I’m tuning out, I’m disconnecting.’”

Still, Ruhle insisted, “we have to simply cover what this White House is doing. And I think if we do that, right, there’s that saying, you know, trust is gained in raindrops and it’s lost in buckets, and it’s not a—yes. You’re not incorrect that the media has lost trust.”

Ruhle never did explain how she and her colleagues could go about regaining that trust. Wilson would go on to push back and claim that the media’s intense desire to hold Trump accountable contrasts with the lack of intensity they showed during the Biden years. While Wilson sought be a gracious host and spare Ruhle from criticism on that front, the truth is that Ruhle was one of the Biden economy’s biggest cheerleaders and acknowledging that mistake could be a good first step.

Here is a transcript for the April 17 show:

Soul Bloom

4/17/2025

22 Minutes, 2 Seconds

RAINN WILSON: 40 percent of Americans don’t trust mainstream media. Why is that? How did we get here?

STEPHANIE RUHLE: Listen, we are seeing a huge loss in trust of all of our institutions. It’s the media, it’s medicine, it’s banking. It’s a huge problem. Because when you think about democracy and all of these pillars, they need to stand tall. They need to stand strong. And sort of losing that trust is not by accident; it’s by design.

If you remember when President Trump was running the first time, Steve Bannon once said, “The goal is to blow the whole thing up.”

And so I think that you’ve got mistakes made or things starting to slip while at the same time there’s a concerted effort to destroy the media because the media, the media, the news media is, in my opinion, the last light of defense of holding power accountable.

Right? And you had a bit of a perfect storm, right? President Trump won, and tons of people were shocked or angry or frustrated, and they’re tuning out. And at the same time, you have the Elon Musk media machine because they want you to leave traditional media and they want you to go to X, which is a bastion of misinformation.

WILSON: Yeah.

RUHLE: Where there is no fact-checking. So it’s a perfect storm of people saying, “I’m angry, I’m frustrated, I’m tuning out, I’m disconnecting.” And then you have a force—

WILSON: Yeah. Yeah.

RUHLE: Pushing it. And, but even in the last two weeks, what we need to do is just cover what’s happening in America, right? We have to cover Democrats trying to figure out what their lane is and how they’re gonna get back on their feet.

And we have to simply cover what this White House is doing. And I think if we do that, right, there’s that saying, you know, trust is gained in raindrops and it’s lost in buckets, and it’s not a—yes. You’re not incorrect that the media has lost trust.

Don’t want some creepy man to flash his no-no bits in your young daughter’s face?

Suck it up, bigot! 

The North Kansas City YMCA in Missouri is seemingly defending a man who reportedly entered the women’s locker room and exposed his penis to a 7-year old girl and her mother. 

In an interview with Fox 4, the mother says she and her daughter had just finished swimming lessons on April 12, where she estimates “hundreds of children were present.”

The duo had entered the women’s locker room to change, when she suddenly heard a man’s voice. They exited their stall to find the creep standing there, fully naked.

“Honey, I’m a woman,” the man allegedly snapped, when the mother asked what the hell he was doing there. She claims she and her daughter weren’t the only ladies subjected to the predatory incident.

But preying on children is apparently acceptable behavior, according to YMCA, who has a track record of banning girls for asking not to change in front of men.

They almost seem proud of it.

“Individuals are allowed to use the locker room or restroom that they identify with,” stated their local branch in a defensive response to Fox 4. 

“The safety and well-being of all of our members is a priority,” they insisted…. Just not as much of a priority as placing the feelings of pervs in dresses above the safety of young girls.