President-elect Donald Trump pledged to purge bureaucrats who push the left-wing the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda and could otherwise obstruct his policy agenda. Now, following a landslide victory, he’s finally going to get his chance. The Biden administration launched its whole-of-government approach to DEI with a pair of executive orders that left no agency unmarred by the left-wing ideology, even capturing institutions essential to America’s defense, intelligence gathering, and foreign policy operations. Federal bureaucrats now expect Trump to sign an executive order shuttering DEI offices and operations throughout executive agencies. In total, agencies under the Biden administration are believed to have planned or taken an estimated 500 actions intended to embed and promote DEI. An ongoing series of Daily Wire investigations highlighted how the federal government has been captured by the DEI agenda, documenting some of the most extreme ways in which the ideology impacted the operations of the federal government. DEI officials in each agency enlisted federal employees across the government to form “affinity groups” and “employee resource groups, identity-based employee organizations that effectively serve as far-left activist nodes within America’s executive agencies. The affinity groups had support from the Office of Personnel Management, the federal government’s human resources department, which said that affinity groups “support agency efforts to strategically advance DEI.” The Trump administration could use these affinity groups to expedite its DEI purge, using membership lists to identify bureaucrats who use their post to advance woke ideology — and who could potentially seek to obstruct Trump’s agenda. Trump will have the authority to shut down DEI offices throughout the federal government, but formally ending the infrastructure used to push the ideology within the executive branch may not be sufficient on its own to purge the doctrine from the bureaucracy. Former Trump administration official Ben Carson told The Daily Wire that bureaucrats would often attempt to defy the president’s orders when they personally disagreed with them. “Their tendency would be to try to slow-walk things that they disagreed with,” Carson explained. The America First Policy Institute’s James Sherk, a former Trump administration official, outlined how bureaucrats worked to block the president’s agenda through a combination of underperformance, obfuscation, and “outright insubordination.” “Some career employees went beyond withholding information — they actively misrepresented the facts about what agencies could, or could not, do,” Sherk explained in a report for AFPI, adding that other bureaucrats “would flatly disregard political appointees’ directions and instead do what they thought best. Such insubordination and intransigence occurred commonly in some agencies and infrequently in others.” Former White House Director of Operations for Presidential Personnel James Bacon asserted that bureaucracy’s ability to sidestep the president undermines the will of the American people, who expect those who they elect to have the power to change and enact policy. “If the policies stay the same no matter who you elect, that’s when democracy is dead,” Bacon contends. “The founders chose Congress and the Supreme Court as the check on executive power, not the president’s staff.” Media outlets documented this same bureaucratic resistance in the early days of the Trump administration, with Bloomberg News writing that “officials have found it best to simply delay implementation of new initiatives in hopes they may be modified or canceled” in a piece titled “Washington Bureaucrats Are Quietly Working To Undermine Trump’s Agenda.” The Washington Post reported that Trump faced “resistance from within” as federal agents worked to halt the president’s policy agenda. “Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives,” the outlet reported. The reports from former Trump administration officials and members of the media alike indicate that scrapping DEI on paper may not truly mark the end of the ideology and its influence on the federal government. But the Trump administration is also expected to conduct a purge of bureaucrats who may otherwise attempt to obstruct the president’s policy agenda and work to maintain the influence of DEI and far-left ideology within the government. Trump has announced that he will reissue his “2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove woke bureaucrats.” The order in question would reclassify tens of thousands of bureaucrats and make them fireable by the executive. These bureaucrats work under about 4,000 political appointees chosen by the president in conjunction with his Presidential Personnel Office. But, unlike these appointees, the bureaucrats maintain their employment across presidential administrations — even those they may be hostile towards. The executive order, which Trump signed but which could not be fully implemented before he left office, would remove civil service protections from those bureaucrats, who some say are excessively difficult to fire. It is only one of the ways that Trump could potentially ensure that the executive agencies comply with his policies, however. As president, Trump will also be able to work with Congress to rescind funding from agencies he deems bloated or insolent, offering him another lever to use against bureaucrats who he believes may undermine his agenda. The impending effort from the incoming Trump administration has reportedly already sent shockwaves throughout the administrative state. “I would say there is a general feeling of dread among everyone,” one bureaucrat said. “We are absolutely having conversations among ourselves about whether we can stomach a round two.”​​

'Outsider and disruptor'

A new poll shows that today’s parents are reinventing the definition of their “village” when it comes to raising their children. The survey results gathered from 2,000 parents of kids under 7, showed that 86% believe they have a different type of support system today than their own parents did. 78% agreed that the definition […] The post How Americans are Reinventing ‘The Village’ It Takes to Raise a Child: New Poll appeared first on Good News Network.

How to Revive the Lost Art of Scratch Cooking

We've got the simple answer, and the atomic-level explanation.

It’s been less than two weeks since former President Donald Trump vanquished Vice President Kamala Harris, setting the stage for his return to the White House in January. Yet even though their preferred candidate lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College, the liberal media are already taking swipes at Trump’s initial Cabinet picks, an early indication that the press plans to hound the new President’s every move. And if you’re feeling a little deja vu, it’s because we saw the exact same thing eight years ago, after Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. As NewsBusters carefully documented at the time, liberal reporters and commentators savaged Trump’s first group of appointees as “radical” and “racist” “ignoramuses” who “disdain the missions of their assigned agencies.” One of Trump’s first selections in 2016 was campaign guru Steve Bannon as a top White House advisor. The media were displeased. On the November 14, 2016 World News Tonight, ABC’s Tom Llamas blasted Bannon as “a champion of the alt-right, a conservative movement many say is fueled by racism, sexism and anti-Semitism.” Over on NBC, anchor Lester Holt accused Trump of “lifting a man with ties to white nationalists into the heart of the White House.” “There is nothing to laugh about when the President-elect has picked a white supremacist with ties to terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to be his senior advisor,” The Root’s Jason Johnson seethed on CNN’s Newsroom. “People need to be concerned, and people need to push back against this kind of presidency.” Liberal journalists didn’t much care for his choice for National Security Advisor either, branding Lt. General Michael Flynn as “divisive,” “controversial” and “ignorant.” On NBC’s Today, Steve Kornacki warned: “To call this divisive might be understating the case.” “Look, Michael Flynn — General Flynn — has made fair criticisms of how this administration dealt with the rising threat that became ISIS,” former NBC host David Gregory allowed on CNN’s New Day. “But then, you jump the shark into this kind of Islamophobia — to indict — to say that Islam is a political ideology — what he has said — and not a religion; to indict four billion Muslims around the globe — I mean, that’s just short-sighted, ignorant thinking.” The reception was just as chilly for Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, tapped to be Attorney General. “Trump Atty General Pick Dogged by Racism Allegations,” screamed CNN’s on-screen graphic on November 18. “He referred to organizations like the NAACP and some other civil rights groups as being, quote, ‘un-American and Communist-inspired,’” NBC’s Peter Alexander fretted during a live update on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, November 18. On NBC’s Sunday Today (November 20), Bloomberg’s John Heilemann complained: “There are millions and millions of non-white Americans, who are looking at the group, not because it’s so white, but also because if you take those people together — Bannon, Flynn and Sessions — all three of them have a history of being involved at a minimum racially insensitive endeavors. Having said racially insensitive things, and to some people worse than that....That’s a hardline group, on immigration, on foreign policy, on politics....that’s an ideological group and that’s a hardline group.” Over on Fox News Sunday, liberal commentator Juan Williams took his own shot: “You have people who I would say don’t fit into exactly a team of rivals, but to many people a team of radicals.” The next morning, Heilemann popped up on CBS This Morning to hit the race theme again: “It is a very monochromatic group....I think it would be a smart thing for the Trump team to move to get some diversity, in order to, kind of, reassure the many millions of Americans who are a little worried.” After a Thanksgiving respite, Trump’s selections — and the media’s tart takes — resumed. On November 29, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell blasted the choice of Representative Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services: “Donald Trump makes more cabinet picks, including the man who intends to blow up ObamaCare.” Millionaire reporters acted as if wealth was disqualifying. “Trump campaigned against Wall Street and he also said he was going to drain the swamp, yet he’s filling his cabinet with billionaires, millionaires, and some Washington insiders,” ABC correspondent Tom Llamas scoffed on Good Morning America, December 1. “You know, before the election was over, before election night and right after, I described the Trump group as a pirate ship. Well, some of these nominees it looks like it’s a pirate yacht,” political analyst Matthew Dowd quipped on the same program. “Mr. Trump’s choice of [Steve] Mnuchin for Treasury and billionaire businessman Wilbur Ross for Commerce signals a turning away from candidate Trump’s attacks on Wall Street corruption,” correspondent Major Garrett echoed on CBS This Morning. Liberal reporters didn’t just resist Trump’s picks on television and in print; they also took their insults to Twitter. “Ben Carson may not know housing policy or how to run an agency but he's a world-class scammer,” New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait tweeted December 5, after the neurosurgeon and former GOP presidential candidate was picked to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Yet another calamity — contemptuous choice for critical dept. Wonder if Carson would like a housing expert to perform brain surgery on him,” sneered New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman in his own tweets the same day. “Trump choice of Carson will spell calamity for poor but not just poor. It betrays utter ignorance about cities and economic development.” The media also had an icy reception for Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, tapped to head the Environmental Protection Agency. “The President-elect filled more administration posts today, putting a global warming skeptic in charge of protecting the environment,” CBS’s Scott Pelley fumed on December 7. Reporter Nancy Cordes offered her own slam: “The Sierra Club said today, ‘Having Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA is like putting an arsonist in charge of fighting fires.’” The next morning, Today co-host Matt Lauer teased the Pruitt story: “Environmental disaster? Controversy sparked by President-elect Trump’s pick to run the EPA....His position on climate change putting a dark cloud over his nomination.” On CNN’s New Day, host Chris Cuomo launched the sleaziest attack: “He’s [Scott Pruitt] not accepting the science....Either you accept the science or you don’t....People thought the world was flat....People thought blacks and whites shouldn’t marry. People thought blacks shouldn’t be equal. That doesn’t mean you accept it as fact....” “Fast-food billionaire Andrew Puzder is Trump’s pick for Labor Secretary, and another potentially problematic confirmation. The CEO of Carl’s Jr and Hardee’s, Puzder said raising the federal minimum wage means cutting jobs,” NBC’s Katie Tur derided on that evening’s Nightly News. “Some Democrats called it a war on labor.” On December 13, NBC found fault with Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. On Today, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell derided Tillerson as “a Texas oil man with no government experience and deep ties to Vladimir Putin” and “the first person nominated for Secretary of State in modern history with no public sector experience.” On Nightly News, correspondent Richard Engel reported from Moscow: “The Kremlin couldn’t be happier with the way Trump’s cabinet is shaping up, especially with Rex Tillerson as potential Secretary of State.” “Objectively speaking, we’ve never had an administration that’s spewed this kind of open anti-Muslim rhetoric, starting at the top with Donald Trump,” The Daily Beast’s Dean Obeidallah worried on CNN’s New Day on December 9. “He’s building a dream team of anti-Muslim hate there.” “I wish I could say that Ben Carson was the only person who didn’t have experience in his area,” the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin mocked on MSNBC’s AM Joy December 11. “What we have are ignoramuses, billionaires and a few generals....This is pretty frightful stuff. You have loads of people who have never been in government who don’t understand the difference between business and government.” Slate’s Chief Political Correspondent and CBS contributor Jamelle Bouie wrote a scathing piece bashing Trump’s Cabinet selections. “To run the government, he has picked men and women who disdain the missions of their assigned agencies, oppose public goods, or conflate their own interests with that of the public,” Bouie opined. “And as a cadre of tycoons, billionaires, and generals, Trump’s executive branch is a rebuke to the idea that government needs expertise in governing,” Bouie continued. “It’s the antimatter cabinet — an ungovernment brought forth by reactionary hostility to the idea of the public, a throwback to the industrial oligarchy that eventually brought American democracy to its knees....These appointments look like something beyond an expression of hostility to government: They look like a betrayal.” The New York Times elevated that same hostile message to its front page on December 18. “Seven men and one woman named by Mr. Trump to run vast government agencies share a common trait: once they are confirmed, their presence is meant to unnerve — and maybe even outright undermine — the bureaucracies they are about to lead. Some of those chosen — 17 picks so far for federal agencies and five for the White House — are among the most radical selections in recent history,” asserted correspondent Michael Schear. You can hear more than echoes of the media’s 2016 temper tantrums in their reactions to Trump’s 2024 Cabinet picks. It suggests we’re in for another four years of hyper-drama, with the media elite once again engaged in daily fistfights with a White House aiming to bust up the old establishment’s grip on power. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.  

Does character still matter in our politicians? Yes, it does, but not in the same way it did in the past. “Character is on the ballot.” This is a common refrain from pundits and voters alike during any election season. But is that still true today? For many evangelicals and conservatives, the answer is “yes” — just not with the same weight it held in the past. 'Who will support policies that reflect the character we want to see in our society?' Since Donald Trump entered the mainstream political scene in 2015, evangelical Christians and conservatives have faced growing criticism. Observers note our opposition to Bill Clinton in the late 1990s after his sex scandal and then point to our support for Trump, a man with his own flaws and controversies. They ask, “What gives?” Are we hypocrites seeking only power? Is it a matter of having “our guy” in office while condemning “the other guy”? I don’t think so. There’s more to it. My co-host on "The Bully Pulpit" podcast, Eric Teetsel, has a theory about what’s changed. In the 1990s, the political landscape was different. Back then, the gap between Republican and Democratic policies was not as stark as it is today. On key issues like abortion, Democrats insisted it should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Both parties supported border security. Foreign policy views were more aligned than divided. The differences were there, but they weren’t chasms. In this environment, character often served as the tiebreaker. Without a deep policy divide, integrity, honesty, and moral standing carried considerable weight in determining which candidate better represented the country’s values. For evangelicals, and voters in general, character was a critical factor because it provided insight into a candidate’s potential for leadership in a relatively aligned political field. Small scandals could derail campaigns because, in a landscape of similar policy positions, they served as differentiators. Think about Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign-ending scream; it seemed unbecoming for a presidential candidate. That standard feels almost unthinkable today. The ground has shifted dramatically since then. Today, we are faced with deeply contrasting policy platforms. The issues are no longer primarily debates over taxes or spending; they have become ideological battlegrounds. We’re at odds over fundamental moral questions that shape the future of society — marriage, gender ideology, religious freedom, unrestricted abortion, censorship, national security, and more. The differences between parties aren’t incremental; they’re categorical. In this polarized environment, the personal character of candidates no longer stands out as much. Moral shortcomings and scandals are now common across the political spectrum, leaving us without any truly “ideal” candidates. With candidates often leveling out on character flaws, policy has emerged as the clear differentiator. To be clear, we still want leaders with strong character. But when both parties present candidates with moral failings, we must prioritize other factors. For many, the question has become, “Who will support policies that reflect the character we want to see in our society?” This shift is not about justifying sin or minimizing integrity; it’s about the stakes in today’s political landscape. Policies reflect values that will shape the future, determine rights and freedoms, and frame the moral fabric of the nation. When policies differ as dramatically as they do now, the battle lines are clearer. For example, many evangelicals supported Donald Trump not out of blindness to his flaws but because his policies align more closely with their convictions than those of the opposing platform. The same logic applies to future candidates who may not be flawless role models but who will champion policies that align with our values and safeguard freedoms. So is this hypocrisy? I don’t believe so. It’s a recalibration in light of the changed world around us. People often throw around accusations of hypocrisy without accounting for how the political landscape has evolved. This isn’t about excusing moral failures; it’s about weighing them differently in an era when the stakes are impossibly high. Evangelicals aren’t saying that personal integrity in a leader is unimportant. But we have come to a place where the character of a candidate’s policies often speaks more to the future of the nation than does personal perfection. Policies reflect a form of collective character. They determine the moral and ethical direction of society. While we still want leaders who can set a positive example, the truth is we can no longer afford to focus solely on personal lives. Today, policies reflect values that will shape the future, determine rights and freedoms, and frame the moral fabric of the nation. So does character matter? Absolutely. But in today’s climate, the character that matters most is embedded in the policies our leaders support. That’s not hypocrisy; it’s an adaptation to a political landscape where our values face unprecedented challenges. In this environment, we must weigh the complete character of a candidate — both his personal life and the values his policies will bring to the country. For evangelicals, voting isn’t just about picking a person; it’s about choosing policies that align with biblical truths and protecting the foundations that allow the gospel to flourish. Today, the character of policy speaks louder than the individual character of a candidate. That’s a choice we’re making for the sake of our children, our communities, and our faith.

'DEAL With It'! Ex MLB-Star Jonathan Lucroy Comes Out Swinging About Being Conservative and OH HELL YEAH

James Clyburn Likens Trump to Hitler and Mussolini, Cavuto Offers Gentle Pushback: ‘A Little Hyperbolic’