Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Daily Caller

Celebrities Do Not Have The Political Star Power They Thought They Did

Published

6 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Bob Rubin

Oprah Winfrey’s hypocrisy and Robert De Niro’s suggestion that he might to leave the United States are reminders that, at the end of the day, celebrities are just people — with no greater understanding of the political landscape than anyone else.

Their declarations of doom and gloom have become background noise in a country that is tired of being talked down to. For years, celebrities have wielded their platforms like megaphones, hoping to sway voters and shape public opinion.

Yet, despite their drama and declarations, their political star power appears to be waning.

Take Oprah Winfrey, for example, who found herself embroiled in controversy after it was revealed her organization  accepted a significant amount of money to conduct a townhall with Vice President Kamala Harris. But now, critics are left asking: Did Oprah’s endorsement even move the needle for voters? Was there anyone genuinely on the fence about Harris who decided, “You know what, if Oprah’s on board, I’m in”?

The fallout from this has only further eroded trust in celebrity endorsements.

Then there are the celebrity escape plans. Robert De Niro, for example, suggested in 2016 he might leave the United States if Trump won.

But what is truly laughable is the hypocrisy of the countless celebrities who back in 2016 shouted: “If Trump wins, I’m out of here!” Cher and others were loud and proud about their disdain for a Trump presidency. Yet, when the moment came, they stayed put — clinging to their mansions in the United States rather than booking flights to Canada.

It begs the question: Why the double standard? If America under Trump is as terrible as they claim, why not leave? Or is it that, deep down, they know there is no better place to live than the United States?

Celebrities threatening to leave the country have become as predictable as award-show standing ovations. These threats serve less as genuine convictions and more as performative gestures meant to energize their social media followings. Yet, the average American sees right through it.

For most working-class voters, celebrity complaints ring hollow when they come from people who enjoy wealth and freedom. The idea that Robert De Niro, who became famous portraying gritty, tough-as-nails characters, feels so aggrieved by election outcomes that he might move abroad is almost comical.

Moreover, the notion that these stars believe their opinions hold more weight than the average American’s is a glaring example of Hollywood’s elitism. Their proclamations of moral superiority may resonate in the echo chambers of coastal cities, but for the rest of the country, it is just noise.

And here is the kicker: President-elect Donald Trump now has more followers on X than Taylor Swift, one of the biggest pop stars on the planet. The fact that Trump has outpaced the ultimate celebrity in social media influence shows that America is not as enamored with Hollywood elites as it once was.

A larger question looms: Do celebrity endorsements even matter in politics anymore? Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign surely thought so when it brought in Oprah, but the results suggest otherwise. Harris’ historic unpopularity has not been bolstered by celebrity star power.

In fact, it could be argued that Hollywood endorsements hurt more than they help. Many Americans see them as out of touch, self-serving or even condescending. After all, why should a multimillionaire actor or singer have any more influence over an election than a small business owner in Ohio or a teacher in Texas?

As Trump’s return to the White House sends shockwaves through the liberal establishment, perhaps it is time for Hollywood to take a hard look in the mirror. Their star power no longer carries the political weight it once did. Americans are increasingly skeptical of those who claim to speak for the “common man” while living in gated communities and vacationing in the South of France.

The truth is, America is not perfect, but it is far from the dystopian nightmare Hollywood claims it will become under conservative leadership. And maybe, just maybe, it is time for these celebrities to stick to what they do best — entertaining — and leave the politics to the people.

Bob Rubin is the Founder and President of Rubin Wealth Advisors. Learn more about him by visiting www.rubinwa.com.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

‘The DNA Of Our Foreign Policy’: How USAID Hid Behind Humanitarianism To Export Radical Left-Wing Priorities Abroad

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Thomas English

Behind the veil of humanitarian aid, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) doled out billions in taxpayer dollars to engage in left-wing social engineering abroad — from rampant LGBT advocacy to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and tech censorship.

President John F. Kennedy established USAID in 1961 to, in his words, “provide generously of our skills, and our capital and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom.” The agency, though, has reinterpreted Kennedy’s mission statement to mean that Ecuador suffers from a lack of drag shows, that Peruvian comic books are too light on transgender representation, that the Serbian workplace is insufficiently welcoming to the homosexual community — while also offering social media platforms a host of creative tactics to suppress those who disagree with USAID’s social agenda.

“It’s probably one out of every three grants is totally insane left-wing nonsense … USAID has always been somewhat left, but when the Biden administration started, you can clearly see a huge uptick in spending,” Parker Thayer, who researches federal spending at Capital Research Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The amount of lunatic, fringe grants goes up dramatically. For example, if you go to USAspending[.gov] and search for the keyword ‘transgender,’ the graph is basically a vertical line when you hit 2021. It’s kind of remarkable.”

He also emphasized his discovery of a $13 million grant for an Arabic-language translation of “Sesame Street,” calling it “something else, man.”

Other programs include a $2 million grant for funding sex-change procedures in Guatemala, $500,000 for LGBT inclusion in Serbian workplaces, $70,000 for a DEI-themed musical in Ireland, a transgender clinic in Vietnam, a similar clinic in India,  $46,000 in HIV care for transgender South Africans, $1.5 million more for South African children to “learn through play,” $20,000 Bulgarians to enjoy a vaguely-defined “LGBT-related event” — programs for which former USAID Administrator Samantha Power said “a big pot of money” wasn’t enough.

These and other programs were the vehicle through which Power went about “working LGBT rights into the DNA of our foreign policy,” a priority she emphasized to Harvard students in 2015 during her tenure as U.S. Ambassador to the United States.

“One of the most common complaints you will get if you go to embassies around the world — from State Department officials and ambassadors and the like — is that USAID is not only not cooperative; they undermine the work that we’re doing in that country,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who assumed control over USAID on Monday, said. He condemned the agency’s more questionable programs as not only a waste of taxpayer dollars, but a diplomatic liability.

“They are supporting programs that upset the host government for whom we’re trying to work with on a broader scale,” he said.

Beyond pro-LGBT funding, former President Joe Biden’s USAID offered social media platforms a “disinformation primer,” a 100-page document providing guidance for countering “disinformation” through increased fact-checking and censorship — policies it said would make platforms more “democratically accountable.”

The document credits some of its content suppression tactics to the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a now-defunct agency that operated under the State Department. To “counter disinformation,” GEC recommended ginning up “moral outrage” against content that “violates [the] sacred value” of what it considers “the truth.”

Biden seemed to heed GEC’s guidance on moral outrage during the height of the pandemic in 2021, accusing Facebook of “killing people” by insufficiently censoring anti-vaccine content on the platform. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg recalled during his Jan. 10 appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” an instance when the Biden administration pressured him to censor a satirical meme about vaccine side effects. Biden later walked back his accusation against Facebook in an interview with CNN.

The USAID-funded primer also recommended “advertiser outreach,” a strategy that would financially throttle agency-disfavored informational outlets by informing advertisers of potential damage to brand reputation.

“[Advertisers] inadvertently are funding and amplifying platforms that disinform. Thus, cutting this financial support found in the ad-tech space would obstruct disinformation actors from spreading messaging online,” the Disinformation Primer reads. “Efforts have been made to inform advertisers of their risks, such as the threat to brand safety by being placed next to objectionable content.”

The document further characterized the legacy media’s recent decline “leading to a loss of information integrity,” which thereby justifies USAID’s efforts to combat those “casting doubt on media.”

“It leads to a loss of information integrity. Online news platforms have disrupted the traditional media landscape. Government officials and journalists are not the sole information gatekeepers anymore … Because traditional information systems are failing, some opinion leaders are casting doubt on media, which, in turn, impacts USAID programming and funding choices,” the document continued.

USAID also faced intense congressional scrutiny in 2023 after allegations emerged that its PREDICT program and subsequent grants to EcoHealth Alliance potentially funneled U.S. taxpayer funds into gain-of-function coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — which raised questions about USAID’s possible role in contributing to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul complained that USAID refused to hand over documents pertaining to the allegations and the agency’s funding habits.

“The response I got from your agency was: ‘USAID will not be providing any documents at this time.’ They’re just unwilling to give documents on scientific grant proposals — we’re paying for it, they’re asking for $745 million more in money. We get no response,” Rand said. “We’re not asking for classified information. We’re not asking for anything unusual. 20 million people died around the world … and you won’t give us the basic information about what grants you’re funding — should we be funding the Academy of Military Medical Research in China?”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Rand’s transparency concerns after announcing he was the USAID’s new acting director Monday, calling the agency “completely uncooperative.”

 

“They’re one of the most suspicious federal agencies that exists,” Thayer told the DCNF, suggesting the agency’s reputation for being opaque is justified. “It’s kind of a character trait for USAID to be less than transparent.”

Thayer explained that, in his research, USAID is selective in its transparency. The grants he called “complete nonsense,” such as the “Sesame Street” translation, “are very specific about what they’re doing. And the ones that are vaguely humanitarian-sounding are usually written like someone put a sociology textbook through a word randomizer then just took whatever it spat out and put it on the page. They are so full of jargon words that they’re basically incomprehensible, even to people who understand what the jargon words are supposed to mean.”

“I got $1.1 million for a study of youth rural migration in Morocco,” he added. “I literally — I cannot help you in understanding what that could possibly mean. I have no idea what that means.”

Elon Musk, the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), claimed that he and President Donald Trump agreed to shutter the agency entirely during an X Spaces conversation early Monday morning. Rubio emphasized in a Tuesday interview with Fox News that he does not intend to “get rid of foreign aid,” but is considering whether USAID ought to be housed under State Department or remain an autonomous agency.

“This is not about getting rid of foreign aid,” Rubio said. “There are things we do through USAID that we should continue to do, that make sense. And we’ll have to decide: Is that better through the State Department, or is that better through a reformed USAID? That’s the process we’re working through … but they’re completely uncooperative. We had no choice but to take dramatic steps to bring this thing under control.”

Continue Reading

Business

Things Are Going From Bad To Worse For The Permanent Bureaucratic State

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

Welcome to the D.C. Thunderdome.

Thanks to DOGE and four wunderkind coders in Treasury’s basement, Americans learned this week that their government sent millions to fund a “DEI musical” in Ireland, a “transgender comic book” in Peru, electric vehicles in Vietnam, and an Anthony Fauci exhibit at the NIH Museum.

Faster than Ludicrous+ mode on a Tesla, the Trump admin’s new code bros are sifting through the financial ledger of America’s spending. Just 20 days in office and the new administration has saved the American taxpayer billions of dollars — exactly what Trump promised on the campaign trail. And as the president’s third week unfolded, news worsened for Democrats and America’s permanent bureaucratic state. 

It seems the permanent bureaucracy borrowed the U.S.S.R.’s media playbook, funneling millions to left-wing news organizations such as The New York Times, Politico and Reuters. Evidently it wasn’t enough that a Republican in the newsrooms of our state-run media outlets, PBS and NPR, is rarer than a cogent sentence from Kamala.

Democrats, meanwhile, have decided that this Deathstar boondoggle of government spending at its worst is the hill they want to die on. Conservatives watched with glee as Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Chuck Schumer, et al, led the Charge of the Lightweight Brigade to USAID’s former headquarters. Cue dopey chant: “wE Will wiN!” (2025 update—no, you didn’t).

Before all the spending porn (as the great Louisiana wag, Senator John Kennedy dubbed it), Democrats’ opinion polls were in the gutter, with a disapproval rating of 57%.

Do the Dems think rushing to the barricades to defend out-of-control spending will earn them the respect and admiration of the American public? Expect their approval ratings to continue to sink like the Hindentanic.

USAID is just the beginning.

Wait until DOGE bites into the Department of Defense, which has never passed an audit.

In 2019 while on reserve duty at the Pentagon, I was thrown into yet another meeting chockablock with PowerPoint slides, so beloved by our military. This particular meeting was to cover the results of a service-wide audit. To summarize about 187 slides and 2 hours: we failed.

All the top brass in the room somberly listened to the auditors describe $5 billion worth of missing aircraft engines, leases for buildings and land that did not exist, accounting systems closer in age to the abacus than a modern spreadsheet, and miles of missing debits and credits.

As the most junior officer in the room, I kept quiet but closely studied the faces of my superiors. They too, kept quiet, only murmuring “next slide” as disaster after financial disaster was flashed across the screens.

My inner fiscal hawk prayed that the service chief would flip the table over and channel  Col. Nathan “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH” Jessep. But he remained impassive and the meeting dissolved with a whimper and no plans for reform.

That night leaving D.C., I happened to bump into a very senior republican senator at Reagan National Airport and thought it my civic duty to share the (unclassified) events of earlier in the day. I told the venerable appropriator that the audit had revealed billions in waste, fraud, and abuse, and even suggested he should make a request to see the failed audit for himself.

(In the hindsight afforded by three years working in the U.S. Senate, I now know how utterly naive this moment was).

He paused a moment, then said, “Well, you know how these things are. That’s Washington for you.”

I felt sick at the time, which is likely the same feeling many Americans are having this week as they see the grift laid bare in our nation’s capital.

But the good news is that Trump and his DOGE team have restored the hope that government might be right-sized and returned to solid financial footing.

On Friday, when he was asked about the job Elon Musk is doing, the President remarked, “I think we’re going to be very close to balancing budgets for the first time for many years.”

What a tantalizing prospect — a government that spends within its means may truly bring about the golden age of America promised in the president’s inaugural address.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

Continue Reading

Trending

X