While design houses give you a great understanding in to what you may accomplish as a final result- carry out certainly not be actually misleaded through appeals. Even more focus should be actually laid on understanding how the house satisfies our demands and also just how it may be personalized to come to be a home that provides for the requirement of our household. https://practicalhomes.com.au/home-and-land-packages-Sydney/
Write a comment...
Recent PRO gabs
The fundraiser and general whirlwind around the White mom who's supposed to be evil for saying the most popular word in the English language is not exclusively about her or about that word.
Yes, it certainly begins with supporting her against the anti-White mob hellbent on destroying her and her family's lives.
Then it becomes defiance against the system that feeds us that word a million times a day, but destroys any White person who repeats it.
The reason the anti-White mob is in an existential meltdown right now is because the fastest and easiest way to ruin a White person's life is to capture that White person uttering the single most uttered word amongst Black people.
But this event has officially set that playbook on fire.
This was always going to happen, it was just a matter of when.
For generations, we've lived this supercharged double-standard regarding two syllables. We've watched, time and again, as Black defendants use “he called me the same word I call myself, my family, and all of my friends, so I had no choice but to kill him” as a legal defense in murder trials - and had it taken seriously.
We see the result of that conditioning in the conversation around every case of Black-on-White violence posted online. “Well did the White kid say the favorite word of the thirteen Black kids who stomped him to death before they stomped him to death? Because if he did then it's fine that they stomped him to death.”
All the while, White people are told that we have pathological “fragility” by the same people who think murder is a reasonable response to a single spoken word, even if the murderer didn't hear it, but thinks, perhaps, that the dead White kid might have been thinking it in his head.
“But muh historical-” No. No one cares. It's over. That's the whole point.
Moving past those two syllables, we've spent the last three decades watching anti-White hatred become an accepted field of academic study and government/corporate policy - and a lucrative career path/dedicated sector of the economy where people are enriched for dehumanizing Whites.
Of course, the anti-White mob expects this all to go unanswered. They expect us to quietly comply with our planned extinction. And that's where this moment in time becomes about more than just the White mom on the Minnesota playground who stopped someone else's child from stealing and was then harangued by a playground-dwelling Somali kidnapper and rapist. Where it becomes about more than just the word she said that the anti-White mob finds more offensive than the kidnapping and raping of a minor done by the playground-dwelling Somali who recorded her.
It becomes about us coming together. Finally.
Donors know nearly nothing about this particular mom. But it doesn't matter. They're not running her through a checklist of their personal morality to make sure that every decision she's ever made aligns with their personal worldview. They're not getting caught up in minutiae, optics, or self-doubt. They're done with the moral and emotional manipulation.
It doesn't matter if this isn't the “perfect” vehicle. There's no such thing. This is the vehicle that arrived. It moves us in the right direction, and that's more than can be said for those who choose to watch through the window as it drives away.
It matters less how it happens and more that it happens.
We're sending a message that the White Guilt narrative must die.
We are - and this is what scares the anti-White mob more than anything - making the choice to take our own side.
What you're witnessing isn't a fundraiser.
You're witnessing White Guilt begin to die.
You're witnessing White Guilt begin to die.
Nobody had to stand with Israel to make this happen.
Nobody had to cast a vote for colorblind Republicans.
This was about White people sending a message to anti-White America.
Fuck you!
Nobody had to cast a vote for colorblind Republicans.
This was about White people sending a message to anti-White America.
Fuck you!
Help keep Gab onlineBe a free speech hero!
Something you should take away from recent developments is that a large swath of “right wing” coded online influencers believe saying a forbidden word is worse than murdering someone.
For years, the pattern has held. A White person makes a comment, sometimes crude, sometimes merely unfashionable. A video is clipped, stripped of context, and cast into the digital coliseum. The crowd demands penance. Doxing follows. Then come the sponsors, the employers, the journalists. The result is always the same: apology, groveling, ruin.
This is not justice, it never was. It is a moral spectacle, a purification ritual for the postmodern West, where the cleansing agent is White submission. The apology is not meant to be accepted, but to affirm the guilt of the group. The goal is not reconciliation, but re-education, humiliation, silence.
But this time, with the case of Shiloh Hendrix, the script cracked. Her personal details were posted online. She received death threats. Her children were targeted. And yet, she did not capitulate. She did not appear on camera with quivering voice and downcast eyes. She launched a fundraiser.
And White people responded.
Not the media, not the institutions, not the credentialed class, but ordinary White people. Tens of thousands poured in to support her. The platform, GiveSendGo—not GoFundMe, which routinely bans dissidents—reported over $250,000 raised in days. These were not donations. These are the stirrings of something new. Each dollar said, “We see what you are doing, and we are done pretending.”
This is more than a defense of one woman. It is a rejection of the moral framework that made her a target. The Hendrix affair is not the first of its kind. But it is one of the first to end differently. No apology. No resignation. No collapse. Instead: resistance. And that, more than anything else, signals a shift.
White guilt was never a natural sentiment; no people naturally hate themselves or push for their own demographic extinction. It did not emerge organically from conscience or history. It was manufactured, ritualized, and weaponized. It was imposed from above by alien elites who seized control of the institutions of education, media, and culture, and rewrote morality to make one group, the White population, the permanent villain in its own homeland.
From the youngest age, White children are taught to associate their identity with conquest, slavery, cruelty, and destruction. They are told to dissociate from their own heritage, to feel shame for the achievements of their ancestors, to distrust their instincts, and to question the legitimacy of their very existence. They are instructed to love all others, but never themselves.
This is not ethics. It is psychological warfare.
And like all systems built on repression, it only works if it remains unquestioned. The moment it is challenged, seriously, openly, defiantly, it begins to fall apart. The power of White guilt lies in silence, not argument. Once someone says aloud, “I do not feel guilty,” the illusion weakens for everyone else.
That is what the Hendrix fundraiser represents. Not a defense of one person, but a refusal to obey the narrative. It is one thing to quietly disagree with the orthodoxy. It is another to act on that disagreement. The act of giving money in defiance of the media’s command is a political gesture far more radical than voting. It is an act of moral rejection. And tens of thousands just performed it.
This would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Even five years ago, the weight of institutional guilt still compelled submission. But something has changed. The spell is weakening. The repetition no longer works. The words no longer bind. The system still speaks in the language of shame, but fewer and fewer are listening.
The idea that Whites must apologize for existing is no longer sacred. It is simply absurd. And once absurdity is exposed, mockery follows. Then rejection. Then reversal.
We are witnessing the early stages of that reversal.
The ritual is breaking. And with it, the spell of White guilt.
When guilt dies, politics begins. The moral paralysis ends. The silence breaks. And what replaces it is not chaos, but clarity. Once Whites stop apologizing for who they are, they begin to ask the forbidden questions. Who benefits from our shame? Who profits from our dispossession? Why are we the only people on Earth forbidden to speak in our own name?
White identity politics is the answer to those questions.
It is not supremacy. It is not hatred. It is not a call to dominate others. It is simply the political expression of collective interest. Every other group has it. Every other group is allowed it. Only Whites are told that to speak as a group is to commit a crime. But the spell is fading, and with it, the power of that prohibition.
Once the guilt disappears, it becomes obvious. We are a people. We have a shared past, a shared destiny, a right to exist and a right to continue existing. We are not just individuals with private lives. We are part of a greater whole. And like all peoples, we have interests that must be protected.
This is why White identity politics is inevitable. In any multiracial society, politics becomes tribal. Interests diverge. Groups form. Coalitions compete. The only people told to sit out this contest are Whites. The only people who believe they can remain neutral are those still under the spell.
But neutrality is a luxury of those not under attack. That time is over. Every institution in the West now operates openly against the long-term interests of Whites. From immigration to education to media representation to the redefinition of national identity, every policy moves in one direction, toward our reduction, our silencing, our replacement.
To oppose this is not extremism. It is survival. It is not radical to defend what every group defends by instinct. It is only considered radical because the system has criminalized our normality.
But that is changing. Each time someone like Hendrix refuses to collapse, each time the crowd responds with support instead of shame, the political ground shifts. The taboo weakens. The future opens.
What comes next is not a return to the past, but the forging of something new, an explicit, unapologetic, and moral politics of White identity.
What happened with Shiloh Hendrix is not an isolated moment. It is part of a larger pattern, one that grows stronger with each passing year. In case after case, when Whites are smeared, vilified, or threatened, the response is no longer retreat. It is support. It is solidarity. It is an instinctive, growing resolve to take our own side.
We saw it with the Covington boys, when a group of Catholic school students were slandered across every major news outlet for a crime they did not commit. The footage was selectively edited, the truth buried, the children’s faces splashed across the internet as villains of the week. And yet the response was not surrender. It was a legal counterstrike and eventual vindication.
We saw it with Kyle Rittenhouse, who was hunted across every media platform as a domestic terrorist, despite clear video evidence of self-defense. He was doxed, threatened, and prosecuted. But millions supported him. Donations poured in. The truth won in court, and more importantly, it won in the minds of countless Americans who saw what the system really is.
We saw it again when corporate giants like Bud Light and Target made open mockery of the cultural and sexual values of the American heartland. The response was not just outrage, it was organized, economic retaliation. Boycotts worked. Stocks dropped. Executives panicked.
In every case, something important happened. Whites, once atomized and demoralized, began to show signs of collective nerve. They acted in defense of their own, even if they could not always articulate why. They stopped backing down. They stopped assuming they were guilty. They started pushing back.
This is the slow emergence of White political consciousness. Not yet unified, not yet fully articulate, but undeniably present. It no longer takes manifestos or movements to activate it. A single slandered face, a single act of defiance, is enough. And each time it happens, the reflex strengthens.
These reactions are not driven by ideology. They are driven by instinct, tribal, ancestral, moral. They are not about hate. They are about loyalty. They are about fairness. They are about survival.
What we are witnessing is not a backlash. It is an awakening.
White identity politics is not just strategic. It is not merely a reaction to demographic decline or institutional hostility. It is rooted in something deeper, something moral. At its heart is the principle that every people has the right to exist, the right to continuity, the right to its own space in the world.
To say that Whites have collective interests is not to deny the same of others. It is to affirm the most basic moral symmetry. What is legitimate for everyone else is legitimate for us. No more, no less.
Love of one’s own is not a sin. It is the foundation of every functioning society. It begins in the family. No decent father loves the neighbor’s child more than his own. No sane mother sacrifices her child’s future for the approval of strangers. What is natural at the familial level is no less natural at the national or civilizational level.
The same moral instinct that binds a parent to a child also binds a people to its heritage. To defend your nation, your culture, your memory, is not selfish. It is sacred.
And yet this basic moral code has been inverted. We are told that to love our own is exclusionary, that to preserve our culture is oppressive, that to secure our future is an act of violence. But only White people are told this. No one lectures the Chinese about ethnonational continuity. No one tells Africans that tribal loyalty is backward. No one scolds Jews for preserving their identity. The taboo is selective. The double standard is absolute.
That is why the system is unsustainable. It demands that Whites abandon instincts that every other group is allowed to honor. It demands that we surrender the very morality we are told to uphold.
But real morality does not require self-abolition. Real morality is rooted in order, loyalty, and the defense of one’s own. The deeper we dig, the more clearly we see, White identity politics is not a threat to moral order. It is a return to it.
White guilt is dying. The institutions still speak its language, but the people no longer believe. The slogans ring hollow. The shame has worn thin. More and more, the system demands apology and receives only silence. Or resistance. Or laughter.
What rises in its place is not bitterness. It is clarity.
White identity is legitimate. White interests are real. White survival is non-negotiable. These are not radical claims. They are foundational truths, long suppressed, now returning to the surface. No society can endure without some form of identity. No people can endure without some form of pride.
This is not about nostalgia. It is not about restoring the world of yesterday. That world is gone. What remains is the task of building something new, something rooted in memory but aimed at the future. A politics not of apology, but of affirmation. Not of resentment, but of renewal.
The rise of White identity politics is not a threat to others. It is a restoration of balance. It is the correction of a moral distortion that demanded one people dissolve itself for the comfort of all others. That era is ending.
And the signs are everywhere. In every boycott. In every defiant fundraiser. In every quiet conversation that dares to name what cannot be named. There is a growing majority, not yet organized, not yet fully conscious, but already forming.
The next political realignment will not be between Left and Right. It will be between those who kneel and those who stand. And we are learning to stand.
We do not ask permission. We do not beg for place. We are not going anywhere.
The future belongs to those who know who they are.
Via: https://x.com/CCrowley100/status/1918324426463997964
This is not justice, it never was. It is a moral spectacle, a purification ritual for the postmodern West, where the cleansing agent is White submission. The apology is not meant to be accepted, but to affirm the guilt of the group. The goal is not reconciliation, but re-education, humiliation, silence.
But this time, with the case of Shiloh Hendrix, the script cracked. Her personal details were posted online. She received death threats. Her children were targeted. And yet, she did not capitulate. She did not appear on camera with quivering voice and downcast eyes. She launched a fundraiser.
And White people responded.
Not the media, not the institutions, not the credentialed class, but ordinary White people. Tens of thousands poured in to support her. The platform, GiveSendGo—not GoFundMe, which routinely bans dissidents—reported over $250,000 raised in days. These were not donations. These are the stirrings of something new. Each dollar said, “We see what you are doing, and we are done pretending.”
This is more than a defense of one woman. It is a rejection of the moral framework that made her a target. The Hendrix affair is not the first of its kind. But it is one of the first to end differently. No apology. No resignation. No collapse. Instead: resistance. And that, more than anything else, signals a shift.
White guilt was never a natural sentiment; no people naturally hate themselves or push for their own demographic extinction. It did not emerge organically from conscience or history. It was manufactured, ritualized, and weaponized. It was imposed from above by alien elites who seized control of the institutions of education, media, and culture, and rewrote morality to make one group, the White population, the permanent villain in its own homeland.
From the youngest age, White children are taught to associate their identity with conquest, slavery, cruelty, and destruction. They are told to dissociate from their own heritage, to feel shame for the achievements of their ancestors, to distrust their instincts, and to question the legitimacy of their very existence. They are instructed to love all others, but never themselves.
This is not ethics. It is psychological warfare.
And like all systems built on repression, it only works if it remains unquestioned. The moment it is challenged, seriously, openly, defiantly, it begins to fall apart. The power of White guilt lies in silence, not argument. Once someone says aloud, “I do not feel guilty,” the illusion weakens for everyone else.
That is what the Hendrix fundraiser represents. Not a defense of one person, but a refusal to obey the narrative. It is one thing to quietly disagree with the orthodoxy. It is another to act on that disagreement. The act of giving money in defiance of the media’s command is a political gesture far more radical than voting. It is an act of moral rejection. And tens of thousands just performed it.
This would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Even five years ago, the weight of institutional guilt still compelled submission. But something has changed. The spell is weakening. The repetition no longer works. The words no longer bind. The system still speaks in the language of shame, but fewer and fewer are listening.
The idea that Whites must apologize for existing is no longer sacred. It is simply absurd. And once absurdity is exposed, mockery follows. Then rejection. Then reversal.
We are witnessing the early stages of that reversal.
The ritual is breaking. And with it, the spell of White guilt.
When guilt dies, politics begins. The moral paralysis ends. The silence breaks. And what replaces it is not chaos, but clarity. Once Whites stop apologizing for who they are, they begin to ask the forbidden questions. Who benefits from our shame? Who profits from our dispossession? Why are we the only people on Earth forbidden to speak in our own name?
White identity politics is the answer to those questions.
It is not supremacy. It is not hatred. It is not a call to dominate others. It is simply the political expression of collective interest. Every other group has it. Every other group is allowed it. Only Whites are told that to speak as a group is to commit a crime. But the spell is fading, and with it, the power of that prohibition.
Once the guilt disappears, it becomes obvious. We are a people. We have a shared past, a shared destiny, a right to exist and a right to continue existing. We are not just individuals with private lives. We are part of a greater whole. And like all peoples, we have interests that must be protected.
This is why White identity politics is inevitable. In any multiracial society, politics becomes tribal. Interests diverge. Groups form. Coalitions compete. The only people told to sit out this contest are Whites. The only people who believe they can remain neutral are those still under the spell.
But neutrality is a luxury of those not under attack. That time is over. Every institution in the West now operates openly against the long-term interests of Whites. From immigration to education to media representation to the redefinition of national identity, every policy moves in one direction, toward our reduction, our silencing, our replacement.
To oppose this is not extremism. It is survival. It is not radical to defend what every group defends by instinct. It is only considered radical because the system has criminalized our normality.
But that is changing. Each time someone like Hendrix refuses to collapse, each time the crowd responds with support instead of shame, the political ground shifts. The taboo weakens. The future opens.
What comes next is not a return to the past, but the forging of something new, an explicit, unapologetic, and moral politics of White identity.
What happened with Shiloh Hendrix is not an isolated moment. It is part of a larger pattern, one that grows stronger with each passing year. In case after case, when Whites are smeared, vilified, or threatened, the response is no longer retreat. It is support. It is solidarity. It is an instinctive, growing resolve to take our own side.
We saw it with the Covington boys, when a group of Catholic school students were slandered across every major news outlet for a crime they did not commit. The footage was selectively edited, the truth buried, the children’s faces splashed across the internet as villains of the week. And yet the response was not surrender. It was a legal counterstrike and eventual vindication.
We saw it with Kyle Rittenhouse, who was hunted across every media platform as a domestic terrorist, despite clear video evidence of self-defense. He was doxed, threatened, and prosecuted. But millions supported him. Donations poured in. The truth won in court, and more importantly, it won in the minds of countless Americans who saw what the system really is.
We saw it again when corporate giants like Bud Light and Target made open mockery of the cultural and sexual values of the American heartland. The response was not just outrage, it was organized, economic retaliation. Boycotts worked. Stocks dropped. Executives panicked.
In every case, something important happened. Whites, once atomized and demoralized, began to show signs of collective nerve. They acted in defense of their own, even if they could not always articulate why. They stopped backing down. They stopped assuming they were guilty. They started pushing back.
This is the slow emergence of White political consciousness. Not yet unified, not yet fully articulate, but undeniably present. It no longer takes manifestos or movements to activate it. A single slandered face, a single act of defiance, is enough. And each time it happens, the reflex strengthens.
These reactions are not driven by ideology. They are driven by instinct, tribal, ancestral, moral. They are not about hate. They are about loyalty. They are about fairness. They are about survival.
What we are witnessing is not a backlash. It is an awakening.
White identity politics is not just strategic. It is not merely a reaction to demographic decline or institutional hostility. It is rooted in something deeper, something moral. At its heart is the principle that every people has the right to exist, the right to continuity, the right to its own space in the world.
To say that Whites have collective interests is not to deny the same of others. It is to affirm the most basic moral symmetry. What is legitimate for everyone else is legitimate for us. No more, no less.
Love of one’s own is not a sin. It is the foundation of every functioning society. It begins in the family. No decent father loves the neighbor’s child more than his own. No sane mother sacrifices her child’s future for the approval of strangers. What is natural at the familial level is no less natural at the national or civilizational level.
The same moral instinct that binds a parent to a child also binds a people to its heritage. To defend your nation, your culture, your memory, is not selfish. It is sacred.
And yet this basic moral code has been inverted. We are told that to love our own is exclusionary, that to preserve our culture is oppressive, that to secure our future is an act of violence. But only White people are told this. No one lectures the Chinese about ethnonational continuity. No one tells Africans that tribal loyalty is backward. No one scolds Jews for preserving their identity. The taboo is selective. The double standard is absolute.
That is why the system is unsustainable. It demands that Whites abandon instincts that every other group is allowed to honor. It demands that we surrender the very morality we are told to uphold.
But real morality does not require self-abolition. Real morality is rooted in order, loyalty, and the defense of one’s own. The deeper we dig, the more clearly we see, White identity politics is not a threat to moral order. It is a return to it.
White guilt is dying. The institutions still speak its language, but the people no longer believe. The slogans ring hollow. The shame has worn thin. More and more, the system demands apology and receives only silence. Or resistance. Or laughter.
What rises in its place is not bitterness. It is clarity.
White identity is legitimate. White interests are real. White survival is non-negotiable. These are not radical claims. They are foundational truths, long suppressed, now returning to the surface. No society can endure without some form of identity. No people can endure without some form of pride.
This is not about nostalgia. It is not about restoring the world of yesterday. That world is gone. What remains is the task of building something new, something rooted in memory but aimed at the future. A politics not of apology, but of affirmation. Not of resentment, but of renewal.
The rise of White identity politics is not a threat to others. It is a restoration of balance. It is the correction of a moral distortion that demanded one people dissolve itself for the comfort of all others. That era is ending.
And the signs are everywhere. In every boycott. In every defiant fundraiser. In every quiet conversation that dares to name what cannot be named. There is a growing majority, not yet organized, not yet fully conscious, but already forming.
The next political realignment will not be between Left and Right. It will be between those who kneel and those who stand. And we are learning to stand.
We do not ask permission. We do not beg for place. We are not going anywhere.
The future belongs to those who know who they are.
Via: https://x.com/CCrowley100/status/1918324426463997964
What you're witnessing isn't a fundraiser.
You're witnessing White Guilt begin to die.
You're witnessing White Guilt begin to die.
President Trump has signed an executive order ending taxpayer funding for NPR and PBS.
Our tax dollars will no longer fund left-wing propaganda.
Our tax dollars will no longer fund left-wing propaganda.
Grow Your Business on GabGet the word out about what you have to offer with Gab Ads. Creating an ad campaign on Gab for your business is quick and easy. Login to the Gab Ads dashboard to get started.
Late night EO just signed by @realdonaldtrump, and I gotta say, this is why we always speak up, people:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) receive taxpayer funds through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.
At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize. The CPB's governing statute reflects principles of impartiality: the CPB may not "contribute to or otherwise support any political party." 47 U.S.C. 396(f)(3); see also id. 396(e)(2).
The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.
I therefore instruct the CPB Board of Directors (CPB Board) and all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS.
Sec. 2. Instructions to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (a) The CPB Board shall cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my Administration's policy to ensure that Federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage. The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding.
(b) The CPB Board shall cease indirect funding to NPR and PBS, including by ensuring that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS. To effectuate this directive, the CPB Board shall, before June 30, 2025, revise the 2025 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria and the 2025 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria to prohibit direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS. To the extent permitted by the 2024 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, the 2024 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, and applicable law, the CPB Board shall also prohibit parties subject to these provisions from funding NPR or PBS after the date of this order. In addition, the CPB Board shall take all other necessary steps to minimize or eliminate its indirect funding of NPR and PBS.
Sec. 3. Instructions to Other Agencies. (a) The heads of all agencies shall identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS.
(b) After taking the actions specified in subsection (a) of this section, the heads of all agencies shall identify any remaining grants, contracts, or other funding instruments entered into with NPR or PBS and shall determine whether NPR and PBS are in compliance with the terms of those instruments. In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the head of the relevant agency shall take appropriate steps under the terms of the instrument.
(c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine whether "the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio (or any successor organization)" are complying with the statutory mandate that "no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment . . . on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." 47 U.S.C. 397(15), 398(b). In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate corrective action.
Sec. 4. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any agency, person, or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other agencies, persons, or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 1, 2025.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) receive taxpayer funds through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.
At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize. The CPB's governing statute reflects principles of impartiality: the CPB may not "contribute to or otherwise support any political party." 47 U.S.C. 396(f)(3); see also id. 396(e)(2).
The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.
I therefore instruct the CPB Board of Directors (CPB Board) and all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS.
Sec. 2. Instructions to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (a) The CPB Board shall cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my Administration's policy to ensure that Federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage. The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding.
(b) The CPB Board shall cease indirect funding to NPR and PBS, including by ensuring that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS. To effectuate this directive, the CPB Board shall, before June 30, 2025, revise the 2025 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria and the 2025 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria to prohibit direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS. To the extent permitted by the 2024 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, the 2024 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, and applicable law, the CPB Board shall also prohibit parties subject to these provisions from funding NPR or PBS after the date of this order. In addition, the CPB Board shall take all other necessary steps to minimize or eliminate its indirect funding of NPR and PBS.
Sec. 3. Instructions to Other Agencies. (a) The heads of all agencies shall identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS.
(b) After taking the actions specified in subsection (a) of this section, the heads of all agencies shall identify any remaining grants, contracts, or other funding instruments entered into with NPR or PBS and shall determine whether NPR and PBS are in compliance with the terms of those instruments. In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the head of the relevant agency shall take appropriate steps under the terms of the instrument.
(c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine whether "the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio (or any successor organization)" are complying with the statutory mandate that "no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment . . . on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." 47 U.S.C. 397(15), 398(b). In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate corrective action.
Sec. 4. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any agency, person, or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other agencies, persons, or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 1, 2025.
Why TF are we still funding PBS and NPR???
During an interview with Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard admitted that it was extremely satisfying to be able to revoke the security clearances of Hillary Clinton.
https://modernity.news/2025/05/02/tulsi-gabbard-and-megan-kelly-revel-in-revoking-hillary-clintons-security-clearance/
https://modernity.news/2025/05/02/tulsi-gabbard-and-megan-kelly-revel-in-revoking-hillary-clintons-security-clearance/
• • •