Something very exciting happened last week, so I wanted to talk about it today instead of on the weekend. Trump signed an executive order to cut funding for National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service, two far-left organizations. In this post, we’ll take a look at some reasons why NPR and PBS needed to be defunded. Are they really as far left as conservatives say?

First, let’s see a news article from Daily Signal:

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday night axing taxpayer funding for “biased” news outlets NPR and PBS.

[…]Trump ordered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting board of directors and all executive departments and agencies to cease federal funding for NPR and PBS.

Brianna Lyman had a really good article at The Federalist with more reasons why NPR and PBS are just too far to the left to receive funding from taxpayers – especially since taxpayers just voted for Republicans in the 2024 elections.

Here is the full list:

1. NPR Refused To Cover Hunter Biden’s Laptop
2. 100% Of NPR’s ‘Editorial Positions’ Are Held By Registered Democrats
3. NPR Spread Tear Gas Hoax
4. NPR Editor Promoted Defense Of Looting
5. NPR Pushed Skin Color Emoji Conundrums
6. PBS Promoted Reparations
7. PBS Claimed Trump Lied About America’s Greatness
8. PBS Accused GOP Of Pushing ‘White Supremacy’
9. PBS Ran Anti-Republican Hit Piece
10. NPR Claimed No Evidence For Biden Family Corruption
11. NPR Buried Biden’s Declining Mental Acuity
12. NPR Accused GOP Of ‘Voter Suppression’ While Ignoring Democrat Schemes

Looking over that list, it just looks like NPR and PBS are propaganda outlets for the Democrat party. I don’t know what else to think about such obviously biased (and often flat-out false) news reporting.

Let’s look at a few. Here’s #1:

Perhaps the most egregious example of why NPR should be defunded — and should have been five years ago — is their refusal to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in the lead up to the 2020 election.

“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel said in a statement back in October 2020. A newsletter published by NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride claimed “there are many, many red flags in that New York Post investigation.”

As we all know know, the laptop was genuine. Even left-wing sources agree. The FBI had laptop since December 2019. They confirmed its authenticity in November 2019 by matching its device number to Hunter Biden’s iCloud ID. The Justice Department, in 2024, used laptop data as “self-authenticating” evidence in court, dismissing manipulation claims.

But NPR didn’t think it was a true story. Or maybe they didn’t want their political allies – the Democrat party – to look bad, before an election.

But are they really just Democrat party operatives? Look at #2:

NPR editor Uri Berliner previously reported that voting records showed “87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans.”

NPR’s Katherine Maher admitted it was a “concern” during a March Congressional hearing that all 87 positions are held by registered Democrats.

The evidence shows a strong connection to the Democrat party, so why are they getting taxpayer money right after the majority of the country voted Republican?

When it comes to monitoring media bias, the best source is the Media Research Center. And #12 talks about them:

According to NewsBusters’ Clay Waters, “PBS treated the RNC to 72% negative and 28% positive commentary” while the “DNC received far friendlier reception: 12% negative, 88% positive.”

So, if you look at the evidence, there’s no reasons for taxpayer dollars to go to organizations that are clearly biased towards the Democrat party. Next, we should remove all grants for universities, which have similar numbers of Democrats. They can operate, but why do they need taxpayer funding? Let them sink or swim in the free market by pleasing customers, like the rest of us have to.

Atheists are committed to an eternally existing, static universe. They cannot accept that the natural, material universe has a supernatural, spiritual cause. So it’s very important for Christians to have a stack of evidence ready to show that the universe – matter, space, energy and time itself – all have a beginning. So in this post, we’ll review a list of a half-dozen evidence, and look at one in detail.

First, let’s review what atheists think about the universe.

Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, and physical chemist Peter Atkins.

So for today’s post, I’ll start with my fun conversation where I play a game with Grok, to see who has the best list of evidences for a beginning of the universe. Initially, Grok had a mix of assertions  and evidence, instead of all evidence. But I kept pushing for specific observable evidences. Finally, I shared a 6th evidence, and challenged Grok to get a 6th of its own, and it did! Let’s see what we each came up with.

Here were my six evidences:

1. Redshift of distant galaxies: Shows expansion, implying a starting point.
2. Cosmic microwave background radiation: Remnant of the early universe’s hot origin.
3. Second law of thermodynamics: Increasing entropy requires a low-entropy beginning.
4. Abundance of light elements: Hydrogen/helium ratios match early nucleosynthesis.
5. Finite age of stars and galaxies: Stellar evolution points to a definite start.
6. Half-lives of radioactive elements (from Robert Jastrow’s “God and the Astronomers”): Presence of uranium-238 etc. suggests a finite-age universe.

Here are Grok’s six – the first 5 from my list, and the 1 he came up with to try to tie my list:

1. Redshift of distant galaxies: Observed expansion implies a singular start.
2. Cosmic microwave background radiation: Remnant of the early universe.
3. Second law of thermodynamics: Entropy indicates a low-entropy origin.
4. Abundance of light elements: Matches early universe nucleosynthesis.
5. Finite age of stars and galaxies: Stellar evolution shows a finite start.
6. Cosmic homogeneity and isotropy: The universe’s large-scale uniformity suggests a single origin event.

And Grok had references for his 6th one, just like I did for my 6th one.

So, you should at least know the core 5 that we agree on. And these are normal and natural for Christians to talk about. I wish we learned about them in church, from the pulpit, when studying different accounts of Creation in the Bible. Why not? I’m so wild, that I also think that the church should be teaching embryology, natural marriage, and basic economics from the pulpit. Not politics, but evidence related to how we navigate the world.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Anyway, here’s an article about one of the core 5 evidences from the J. Warner Wallace, writing at Cold Case Christianity.

He says:

In 1964, two American physicists and radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, made an important discovery. They were unable to eliminate the radio signal “noise” from their large antenna at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, regardless of where in the universe they tried to point their instrument. They consulted with colleagues to determine the cause of this noise. Another physicist suggested the noise might not be coming from the antenna at all. Instead they might be detecting the residual background radiation caused when the universe first came into being. Penzias and Wilson proved this to be correct, winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1978.

Numerous additional experiments and observations have since established the existence of cosmic background radiation, including data from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite launched in 1989, and the Planck space observatory launched in 2009. For many scientists, this discovery solidified their belief the universe had a beginning.

And of course, Wallace knows all the evidences, and he even has more.

When You’re Ahead, Get More Ahead

Here’s an illustration from his book “God’s Crime Scene”. Have you read it?

So, I hope this is helpful for all of you.

When you are talking to an atheist like a Bart Ehrman or a Bill Nye about evidence for a Creator and Designer, then it’s important that the score be 5-0. You need to win 5-0.

• origin of the universe (list the 5 core evidences)
• fine-tuning (list several examples from different areas)
• habitability (list examples for sun, solar system, earth-moon)
• fossil record (list some of the biological Big Bangs)
• origin of life (explain the building block and information)
• molecular machines (explain machines in the cell)

I guess that’s 6-0, but you get the idea. It needs to be a shut-out. Boys get along better after they have had a good fight, and you need to win that fight. You can be “gentle” and “reverent”, but you need to win that fight, so everyone understands what the truth is. Don’t make a big deal out of changing the person, just make sure that the scoreboard says what the scoreboard should say.

I found an interesting set of articles from a young woman who graduated from Pennsylvania State University. In one, she explains how a man she “hooked up” with treated her poorly. I think I’ve been able to figure out what her approach to relationships is. In this post, I’ll explain her approach, and then discuss how social conservatives should solve problems like abortion and single motherhood.

NOTE: Please do not contact or harass this woman, just leave her alone.

So, here’s the first, most important article:

As someone who considers themselves a feminist, and I always thought that being sexual and unashamed was liberating and empowering. And for that reason, I never stopped myself from doing what I wanted to do.

In the article, she explains what it feels like to be used for sex and then ghosted by a man. She says that he never got to know her, and that makes her feel bad. What did he know about her? She says that she appeared to him as “just some blonde blacked out drunk”. In the article, she describes lying awake next to him after sex, then getting up to walk home at 5:30 in the morning. And this is not the only toxic man in her life.

She says:

This applies to more than a few people from my past… I started to realize this lifestyle wasn’t working after I hooked up with a guy who thought New England was a state. And yeah, I still hooked up with him after finding out this knowledge about him… And I don’t know if that says more about him that he didn’t know or more about me since I was willing to overlook that fact just to feel desired for a night.

Because I do turn to other people for validation. When I think about it objectively, 90% of the reason I hook-up with anyone is to feel good about myself.

She calls the search for validation an “addiction”:

I am addicted to validation I got from getting with people. I needed that rush of dopamine. I needed to know I am wanted. I got addicted to hooking up. Cause it was the only thing that made me feel good about myself for a while. When I was feeling down, I turned to boys… that didn’t care about anything except what I look like. And I have been blessed/cursed with a pretty fast metabolism and a naturally larger than average chest. So I always have known I could default to my looks for validation. It’s the easiest thing to get recognition for. And I got addicted to being told I was hot, or pretty, or whatever.

In other articles, she explains what kinds of men she’s looking for.

She’s a strong Democrat.

There are two kinds of Republicans: the ignorant and the evil. Either they are uninformed and dumb or aware of the world and other cultures other than their own and just too corrupt or bigoted to care. It’s just that being a Republican seems to now stand for religious nuts, rich, rednecks, and racists. This current election cycle has only increased my deep seeded hatred for the right-wingers even more.

And I can’t help myself, but whenever I find out someone who I have been talking to or have been friends with is a Republican, I let out an audible “ugh, really?” I can not hide my disgust.

In another article, she explains that she’s an atheist:

If singing songs, praying or going to confession makes you feel better, by all means, do what you have to do to feel better. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone, do what you want to do. As an atheist, it doesn’t offend me. I just choose not to do it.

For example, at thanksgiving dinner this year my family wanted to say grace before eating, but they know where I stand when it comes to religion.

She came out of a Christian family.

In another post, she explains why she cheated on her boyfriend:

I wish I could say I don’t know why I did it, but that would be a blatant lie. I found myself in someone else’s bed because… I didn’t have feelings for you anymore. If you were enough for me, then you would have been. But you weren’t. I stopped craving your company. I felt guilty, sure, but not enough to stop me from doing it multiple times. I didn’t care about you or how you felt. And as my feelings started to fade, yours only seemed to get stronger. I know that stings, but it’s true.

So when I would go out in that extra-lowcut dress you loved when I wore it around you and a cute guy would ask me to dance or to go hangout on the porch, I wouldn’t mention you. I guess I got tired of turning people down when I didn’t feel like there was any “good” reason to. I missed my freedom. I missed the exciting feelings that come with flirting with someone new. The whole giddy honeymoon phase, getting butterflies whenever someone texts you, stalking them on Facebook and pretending you know nothing about them, finding yourself daydreaming about the next time you hang out in class. But I think I skipped a step before getting with someone new– breaking it off with you first.

She seems to be guided primarily by her feelings. If the feelings are gone, they’re gone. She doesn’t try to pick a good guy and invest in the relationship so that she builds something. I don’t think this is going to work for her to avoid bad men.

So, what kind of man is she looking for? She writes about how interested she is in “hot” guys in many of her articles. Guys with height, looks, tattoos, piercings, displayed wealth validate her more than guys who want to protect, provide, and lead her in moral and spiritual areas. I don’t think that the men she is choosing will treat her well – they just have too many options to focus on building something good with one woman.

She’s looking for a man who agrees with her on abortion and same-sex marriage. So, men like that don’t want to protect unborn children, and take responsibility for their choices. And a man who supports same-sex marriage is siding with selfish adults. Every same-sex relationship deprives a child of their bio-mom or bio-dad. That’s not a good man to build a stable marriage with.

Regarding religion, she’s uncomfortable with men who have definite exclusive views. Religion, for her, is not about truth at all. You shouldn’t make any exclusive claims that make people feel bad. Instead, just have your private religion that makes you feel better. She’s looking for men who will not lead her in moral and spiritual areas. That’s not a good man to date, either.

How is it working out for her?

Her worldview – feminism, atheism, socialism – doesn’t have the resources necessary for her to approach relationships in a way that will work for her, in the long run. She is not a Christian, pro-marriage, or conservative. The men she chooses are not Christians, pro-marriage, or conservative. This isn’t going to lead to a relationship that is faithful, exclusive and permanent. If that’s what she wants, then she is choosing the wrong people to get there. And even if she doesn’t want commitment now, she will some day. It’s better for her to focus on finding a good man now and building him up. Men make better husbands and fathers the sooner women get in there and support them at those goals.

I always urge young women to get a STEM degree and work in the private sector until they marry and have their first child. To make them think logically, take responsibility for engineering results, and to feel validated by their achievements. I wanted to see what her college major was – because I suspected that she did not do STEM. While searching, I stumbled upon her dating profile (posted on 9Gag by her), two Instagram pages full of selfies, a Tumblr blog of sexy photos, and an Only Fans page. Her LinkedIn page showed no current or previous work experience. To me, these things are clear signs that she is head straight for evil men who will hurt her.

Saving women from toxic masculinity

I think what we have to do is focus on her disappointment with the results of her own choices, and challenge her to change her worldview and relationship choices. She needs to stop rewarding the hot bad boys with free sex. There are good men out there who want to protect, provide and lead on moral and spiritual issues. She needs to be taught to focus on those good men.