Protestors Rally In Milwaukee After Judge’s Arrest By The FBI

The Trump Admin Arrests Dangerous, Power-Hungry Judge And The Media Has A Total Meltdown

Courts

Crime

Democrats

gangs

Judges

Leftists

Legacy Media

Liberals

Matt Walsh

Milwaukee

Opinion

President Trump

Wisconsin

Collective cries of anguish echoed through the heavens this past weekend. You may have heard the sound. It was the sound of trauma. Of heartbreak. Of great moral outrage. It was the sound of the Left-wing hacks in sports media reacting to Shedeur Sanders, the son of former NFL star Deion Sanders, being drafted into the the NFL a little bit later than most people expected.
For some background and context, Shedeur Sanders is a quarterback who played for The University of Colorado where his dad, Deion Sanders, is the head coach. For months, most analysts projected that he would be selected in the first round of the NFL draft, which began on Thursday and ran for three days and seven total rounds. But the prognosticators in sports media are about as credible, and have about as good a track record, as the political prognosticators in the news media. Which is to say they&#8217;re full of crap most of the time. So Shedeur was not drafted in the first or even second round. Instead he didn&#8217;t come off the board until the fifth round, when he was drafted by the Cleveland Browns — who selected a different quarterback, some other players, a water boy, a cheerleader, and a janitor before they finally got around to drafting Shedeur.
Why does any of this matter? Well, it doesn’t matter. But to the commentators in sports media, it was a national tragedy. Shedeur’s brief draft slide was ESPN’s 9-11. It was the NFL Network’s Pearl Harbor. They’ll never forget where they were when it happened. They were shell shocked. Dumbfounded. Grief stricken. 
Here are two very short clips that should give you a pretty good idea of how they were covering the news:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Charles Davis and the NFL Network crew and Mel Kiper" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yw9CHR0lCsc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;It&#8217;s disgusting. I don’t get it. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s never happened before. I just want to reach out and give him a hug. This is such a tough time for him.&#8221;
To be clear, they aren’t talking about someone who survived a school shooting. They&#8217;re talking about an already wealthy and famous athlete who had to wait a day longer than expected to be drafted into the NFL and get paid millions of dollars to play football. This is like weeping in the street because a trust fund baby got the wrong color Ferrari for her sweet 16. Most of the human population would kill just for the chance to experience this kind of &#8220;disappointment.&#8221; But the sports media treated Shedeur like a holocaust survivor.
All of this would just be kind of funny and embarrassing but not worth discussing. After all, sports media embarrasses itself in some form pretty much every day. They embarrass themselves even more often than the news media, if you can believe it. But what makes this whole spectacle something worse, and perhaps more notable, is the reason why the sports media were so outraged.
They — very predictably — made it about race. It was decided that Shedeur Sanders fell in the draft because he&#8217;s black.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1584-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
As an article in The Root put it in “<a href="https://www.theroot.com/i-am-a-leader-i-forge-my-own-path-shedeur-sanders-mak-1848432864" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shedeur Sanders</a> not getting drafted in the first, second or third rounds of the NFL draft is like when that white cashier scrunches up her face and drops change in your hand instead of running the risk of touching you. Was she a racist Karen, or is that how she treats all customers? It’s a racism Rorschach test.”
Never mind the question of how else a cashier is supposed to transfer change from her hand to yours. What do you want her to do? Stroke your arm gently as she sensuously places one coin at a time into your palm? Personally I prefer that she just drop the change into my hand so we can both move on with our lives. But that’s how I interpret the “racism Rorschach test.” On the other hand, for the race hustlers, when it comes to the racism Rorschach test, the answer is always yes. And that’s why lots of commentators in sports media jumped in to make it about race. Here&#8217;s another brief highlight reel: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 Racism" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q-CyAJFyOVw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
That was Ryan Clark, Emmanuel Acho, and Skip Bayless — three of the most prominent sports commentators in the country. All of them agree that this came down to race. Skip is practically in tears over it. Emmanuel says he was up all night “muling&#8221; about it, whatever the hell that&#8217;s supposed to mean. I assume the word he was reaching for was “mulling.” But the other thing about sports commentators is that they are, for the most part, fantastically stupid.
Stephen A Smith was also outraged. He was tweeting in a frantic hysteria all weekend, repeatedly invoking Colin Kaepernick and alleging that there was &#8220;collusion&#8221; at play, just as there was, allegedly, to keep Kaepernick out of the league.
And it wasn&#8217;t just sports commentators. Jamaal Bowman, the former congressman famous only for pulling a fire alarm, put out a video on Saturday claiming that Shedeur’s fate is more evidence that &#8220;America continues to fear strong black men.” 
He also said this:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 Jamaal Bowman" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q3DwXgvB3cI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Now, given that I have an audience of intelligent people — certainly more intelligent than Jamaal Bowman, who has the approximate IQ of a rubber spatula — I probably don&#8217;t need to explain that these racism complaints are totally asinine.
If you think that Shedeur wasn’t drafted in the first round because he&#8217;s black, you’ll have to explain why the guy selected number one overall is black. Also the guy selected number two is black. So was the guy selected number three. So was the guy selected number six, number seven, number eight, number nine, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and so on. There were 32 selections in the first round. All but five of them were black. And this ratio held up through the entire draft, just as it did in last year&#8217;s draft, and the year before that, and before that, and before that, for decades. Which is why only 25% of the players in the NFL are white. All of the rest are black, or some other racial minority.
The vast majority of NFL players are black. The vast majority of the biggest stars are black. The highest paid player in the league is black.
So where is the racism coming into play? Is it that black players are held to a higher standard? Are black players scrutinized and penalized and criticized more? No, definitely not. Deshaun Watson — a black quarterback — was credibly accused of sexual assault by over 20 women and yet was still given the richest contract in league history after all of these accusations were made public. There are black players in the league who have been involved in all manner of scandals and crimes and alleged crimes. The Baltimore Ravens selected a player in the second round of this year’s draft who was accused of rape in high school and college. He’s also black. But they needed an edge rusher, and the kid has talent, so they overlooked the rape stuff. That&#8217;s how NFL teams operate. They don&#8217;t care about the color of your skin or crimes on your rap sheet. They only care if you can help them win games. Winning is the only thing that matters. The Ravens most legendary player of all time, a black man, was charged with double murder. A year later he won Super Bowl MVP. Nothing matters in football but winning. Which is what I love about football, actually. It&#8217;s the ultimate meritocracy.
Shedeur suffered his tragic drop, for which all of humanity weeps and the heavens cry out for justice, because he&#8217;s not a great prospect. He&#8217;s a pretty good prospect, but not great. He’s not as talented as a lot of the guys who went before him. Also, to make matters much worse, he’s a high maintenance diva with an ego bigger than any room he walks into. According to lots of reports, that&#8217;s exactly how he came across in his pre-draft interviews with various teams. This is a guy who had a room custom built just for the draft night broadcast with the word “legendary” painted all over the walls. He hosted a draft party where he performed some rap songs — apparently he moonlights as a rapper — and walked around with a giant brief case full of cash.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Star: Shedeur Sanders threw a MASSIVE party to celebrate being drafted by the Browns.
Sanders performed his hit rap songs and flexed over $100K in cash during the event.
So many celebrities were in attendance as well.
Cleveland drafted a superstar 👀 <a href="https://t.co/zqKZZVNCqe">pic.twitter.com/zqKZZVNCqe</a>
&mdash; Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFL_DovKleiman/status/1916572629386887611?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
At the NFL scouting combine, he said he doesn’t even need to explain why an NFL team should draft him. 
There&#8217;s no question that Shedeur deserves it, according to Shedeur. Listen:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 Sanders Speaks" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QfpmX-Oxyn0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
If you aren&#8217;t ready to change your culture, don&#8217;t draft him. That was his message to teams considering drafting him. A message that was apparently heard loud and clear.
This is, of course, the opposite of what you want to say in a job interview. Employers are looking for candidates who will fit their workplace culture, not candidates who demand that the culture change for them. Imagine walking into an interview and saying, &#8220;Hey, if you hire me, I’m going to need you to change your whole culture and the entire way that you do business. That&#8217;s how special I am.” That’s a surefire recipe for getting laughed out of the room. The only real mystery here is how this jackass managed to find any team dumb and desperate enough to draft him. But it’s Cleveland we&#8217;re talking about. Dumb and desperate is their brand. It turns out they actually won&#8217;t have to change their culture at all.
In any case, in this story we find the real tragedy of the Left-wing race hustle. We find what really makes it so harmful. Which is that it constantly destroys opportunities for much more productive conversations. So many teachable moments have been wasted over the past several years because the usual suspects injected their racial victimization narrative into it, completely derailing what could have otherwise been a useful discussion.
In this case we could have been talking about the value of humility. And we could use more conversations about humility, as it falls second only to chastity as the most underrated virtue of our time. Shedeur comes from a generation that has been thoroughly brainwashed into the religion of self-worship. And his dad is Deion Sanders, who is one of the prophets of that religion. But in the real world, you can only get away with being a narcissistic nightmare if you’re extremely talented and gifted — if the weight of your ego is still somehow outweighed by your skills. Even then, you’re only getting away with being a narcissist. It certainly isn&#8217;t helping you. And eventually, as your skills fade — as they will for everyone, no matter your line of work — this equation may not work out in your favor anymore. The thing about a narcissist is that their skills, their talents, their physical gifts — whatever it is that’s causing people to put up with their nonsense — won’t last forever. But narcissism, unchecked, will last forever. Or at least until death. In fact, it will probably even grow with age, like a tumor.
So the lesson is that, no matter how talented you are, it’s better to be humble. There are two kinds of people in this world, after all. The humble, and those who will be humbled. As Christ explains to us in the Beatitudes. Better to be in the first group than the second. That’s the lesson we could take from this. But instead we’re hearing again about racism. Because why talk about real issues, when you can talk about fake ones. If the media had a motto, that would be it.

2025 NFL Draft – Rounds 4-7

Another Dumb ‘Racism’ Scandal Takes Over The NFL

Another Dumb 'Racism' Scandal Takes Over The NFL

Blacks

College Football

Deion Sanders

ESPN

Football

Racism

Sports

Normally, I don&#8217;t consider myself much of a trendsetter, especially when it comes to the online discourse among middle-aged cosmopolitan liberal women. To the extent that these people talk about me at all, it&#8217;s usually to call me a misogynist or to praise my brief appearance on &#8220;Dancing with the Stars.&#8221; In any event, on a typical day, they certainly aren&#8217;t reading my social media feeds and watching my podcast in order to pick up new lingo. We can be certain of that much.
So I was more than a little surprised to see an article that was just published by The Guardian, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">entitled</a>, &#8220;Now comes the ‘womanosphere’: the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican.&#8221; According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this article</a>, the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; is: 
<blockquote>&#8220;An organized effort to create &#8230; an alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences – one of the few demographics that has, until now, leaned substantially Democratic.
This new &#8216;womanosphere&#8217; includes Brett Cooper’s channel as well as lifestyle magazines like the Conservateur and Evie, Candace Owens’s Club Candace, Alex Clark’s Maha (“Make America Healthy Again”) talkshow Culture Apothecary, conservative Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey’s Relatable, and swimmer turned anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines’s podcast Gaines For Girls.&#8221;</blockquote>
Before we get into the substance of this article, such as it is, I need to pull up something I wrote online a few weeks ago. <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1907550102605946958" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here&#8217;s what I wrote</a> at the time: 
<blockquote>We hear a lot about the &#8216;manosphere.&#8217;I think it’s time we start talking about the womansphere and the corrosive effect that these shrill, toxic feminist influencers are having on the minds of young women and their marriages.</blockquote>
So there you have it. Long before The Guardian demanded that everyone start talking about the &#8220;womanosphere,&#8221; I was demanding a public conversation about the &#8220;womansphere.&#8221; All they did was add an &#8220;o&#8221; in the middle, to change womansphere to woman-o-sphere, and then they completely changed the meaning of the word, as I was using it. To me, the womansphere are the anti-man, bitter feminists on TikTok. To them, the womanosphere is a collection of the most normal, and pleasant women you’ll ever meet. And of course the other problem is that no one at The Guardian knows what the word &#8220;woman&#8221; means. But other than that, you can&#8217;t deny the striking similarity between these two made-up words. If The Guardian actually made any money, this is the part where I&#8217;d start demanding royalties. But in this case, I&#8217;ll let it slide. As the old saying goes, great minds think alike. And the not-so-great minds just steal everything and pass it off as their own.
But I don&#8217;t want to dwell on how much money The Guardian owes me, even though it&#8217;s obviously substantial. The bigger issue with the article — as with everything else published by The Guardian — is the content. The tone for this particular hit piece is set right in the headline. We&#8217;re supposed to see the Right-wing &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; as somehow nefarious and sinister because it encourages women to be &#8220;thin and fertile,&#8221; as The Guardian puts it. These two words — &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; — are like kryptonite to the staff of The Guardian, apparently. Now, you might observe that words like &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; are just ways of describing someone as &#8220;healthy.&#8221; And you might wonder what&#8217;s so bad about the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; encouraging women to be thin, fertile, and healthy. 
But all you&#8217;ll get from The Guardian is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this paragraph</a>: 
<blockquote>The type of woman these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white – though they try to avoid overt racism. &#8230; Anyone who falls outside of this narrow mold is subject to relentless mocking and disparagement.</blockquote>
Just to be clear here, the &#8220;narrow mold&#8221; that The Guardian is complaining about is simply being healthy, feminine, and attractive to males. (They do add that you have to be white as well, but they contradict themselves in the same breath, because one of the commentators they attack in this hit piece is Candace, who last I checked is not white). So all we&#8217;re left with is the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane that literally billions of women throughout all of human history have fit through. That&#8217;s the virtually impossible standard that you have to meet, if you don&#8217;t want to be &#8220;relentlessly mocked and disparaged&#8221; by the online &#8220;womanosphere.&#8221;
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1583-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
We all know why The Guardian believes that only a small subset of the female population can qualify as healthy. For one thing, they believe that men can become women. So that probably skews their perspective a bit, given that trans-identifying males aren&#8217;t usually paragons of physical fitness. Additionally, it&#8217;s long been established that Left-leaning individuals, wherever they are in the world, tend to be less healthy. 
Not too long ago, there was a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5893220/#:~:text=Findings%20from%20cross%2Dsectional%20studies,report%20better%20self%2Drated%20health." target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> from researchers at Harvard and Columbia which found that: 
<blockquote>Findings from cross-sectional studies conducted in Japan and Europe have reported that individuals expressing a conservative ideology (as compared to liberal ideology) tend to report better self-rated health. In the USA, it has been reported that Republicans are less likely to report poor health in comparison to Democrats.</blockquote>
These findings shouldn&#8217;t surprise us, because an ideology that doesn&#8217;t care about personal responsibility isn&#8217;t going to have the healthiest followers. The only people who are surprised, apparently, are the writers for The Guardian. But in their confusion, they do manage to hint at one point that&#8217;s worth thinking about, which is this: The Left has decided to give the Right a monopoly on advocating for healthy lifestyles. It&#8217;s true that if someone these days promotes health, fitness, marriage, family life, et cetera, then we can assume that they&#8217;re probably conservative. All of that has become Right-wing coded. But that&#8217;s only because the Left has gone to war against everything healthy and normal. The Right is not dominating this issue because they&#8217;re mind-controlling women. They&#8217;re dominating the issue because the Left has abandoned it.
As this article continues, The Guardian doubles down on its attempt to make &#8220;being healthy&#8221; sound like an act of terrorism. 
At one point, they quote a piece from &#8220;Evie,&#8221; and then they have a coronary over it. So <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here&#8217;s the line</a> from Evie, followed by The Guardian&#8217;s meltdown:&#8220;&#8216;Our reproductive organs are made for just that – creating new life – not warding off sperm and altering our insides to make conception close to impossible,” read a recent Evie piece. 
Though some young women may recoil when conservative men like JD Vance and Elon Musk opine on birthrates and fertility, outlets like Evie are able to repackage a similar message in a more approachable way. Maggie Bullock, a women’s magazine veteran who co-writes the Spread, a newsletter about the industry, said she saw outlets like Evie as trying to be something of a &#8216;gateway drug&#8217; into more extreme conservative ideologies. &#8216;Like, we’re nice and we’re pretty and we’re not that radical, don’t worry, we’re just telling you the truth,&#8217; she said. &#8216;It feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.'&#8221;
So here we have Evie magazine stating that women&#8217;s reproductive organs are intended for reproduction. And The Guardian devotes about a thousand words to declaring how outrageous this statement is, even though it&#8217;s probably the least controversial thing that anyone can say in the English language. They even bring in an alleged expert — a &#8220;women&#8217;s magazine veteran&#8221; — to establish that Evie magazine is essentially a &#8220;gateway drug&#8221; to extremism, because they don&#8217;t think women should sterilize themselves.
What&#8217;s especially amusing about the accusations that this article makes — against Brett Cooper, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Allie Beth Stuckey, Alex Clark, and so on — is that, first of all, the article wants us to see these women as a dark and sinister force. But I know all of them. Allie I’ve known for years. Riley I&#8217;ve met a few times. I went on Alex’s show a few months ago. Brett and Candace are both friends. They are some of the nicest, most cheerful people you&#8217;ll ever meet.
The article uses words like “scary&#8221; to describe them, which is just hilarious from my vantage point. Or the vantage point of anyone who has watched any of their shows. Although I will say that Alex forced me to drink raw milk when I was on her show, and that was deeply disturbing, and also dangerous to my health. But aside from that, it was not a very scary experience.
The other thing is that all of them of course have jobs. And yet The Guardian concludes that all of these women, in reality, want women to be nothing but &#8220;submissive homemakers&#8221; who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women">never leave the home</a> for any reason: 
<blockquote>While the women behind these outlets all have different styles and tactics, they are mostly aligned in their desire to return to a gender-essentialist worldview: women as submissive homemakers, men as strong providers.</blockquote>
First of all, any time you hear a phrase like &#8220;gender-essentialist&#8221; being used unironically, you can immediately stop paying attention to the person who says it. The term is nonsense because everyone, in a sane world, is a &#8220;gender essentialist.&#8221; Everyone should understand that gender is an essential concept, because it&#8217;s what allows human beings to reproduce. It also dramatically affects human behavior in every significant way. So if someone calls you a &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; the appropriate response is &#8220;yes, I am.&#8221; And by the way, the Left is also &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; albeit in a completely demented way. They don&#8217;t understand the concept of gender, but they certainly obsess over it, as you may have noticed. They take their fake genders extremely seriously over there. It is an essential concept in their worldview. Just in a very confused way.
The other irony here is that it&#8217;s The Guardian that wants these women — like Brett Cooper and Candace Owens — to be silent, apparently. They’ve written a gigantic article about how all of these women should shut up and stop expressing their views. Apparently they can&#8217;t grasp the idea that, as I&#8217;ve said many times, different people can choose to do different things. I&#8217;ve gone on record many times saying that, in general, women should prioritize raising families, and men should prioritize providing for their families. That doesn&#8217;t mean that women should never have a career under any circumstances. And obviously, all of the women that The Guardian is attacking in this article, would also agree with that statement, because they all have lucrative careers of their own.
We could go on for the next hour picking apart this article, but it&#8217;s honestly not worth the time. But it is worth noticing one aspect of this issue that The Guardian doesn&#8217;t talk about. Throughout all of this angst and misdirected, incoherent frustration, the one thing The Guardian doesn&#8217;t do is grapple with the fact that the alternative to the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; has already been tried. And it has completely and utterly failed. The alternative to the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane espoused by Brett, Candace, and company is the lane of Left-wing secular feminism where women find their purpose in the workplace and either reject family and marriage altogether, or place it second in importance to the pursuit of professional success. It’s the lane where a woman doesn&#8217;t submit to her husband, but instead submits to her employer — who as it happens is often also a man. It’s the lane where a woman is so committed to her independence and autonomy that she will purchase it with the blood of her own children, which is the whole point of abortion.
We&#8217;ve tried the feminist approach for a few generations. It is actually the new thing. The trendy thing.The narrow thing. And how has it worked out? Divorce rates have skyrocketed. The institution of the family is in shambles. And, by all available metrics (including the prevalence of antidepressants), women (and men) are miserable. Here&#8217;s just one indicator. For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked women if they&#8217;re happy with how they&#8217;re being treated by &#8220;society,&#8221; whatever that means exactly. And in 2022, Gallup <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/numbers-women-society" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recorded</a> the lowest level of satisfaction among women since they began asking the question. Yes, after all of the alleged advancements in &#8220;women&#8217;s rights&#8221; over the last twenty years, women believe they&#8217;re more oppressed than ever.
But you don&#8217;t need Gallup to tell you that. You can either talk to women who made the decision to enter the workforce, or you can go on TikTok. Every day there&#8217;s another viral video of some young woman in tears because she went out into the working world and found it horrifically dreary, depressing, and demoralizing. We’ve seen the alternative to women being thin and fertile and prioritizing their families. It has been a disaster. We got millions of broken homes, millions of dead children, and millions of extremely depressed but allegedly liberated women to show for it.
The traditional approach has thousands of years of success under its belt. The new approach crashed and burned 30 seconds after takeoff. The Guardian is using the lame new &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; branding to suggest the opposite — they want to suggest that this is some dangerous new Right-wing ideology. But it&#8217;s not. It happens to be the ideology that clearly works best for everyone, including women. It’s the philosophy that built human civilization and maintained it and helped it thrive for millennia, up until the last several decades. The Guardian might not know what women are, or what they want. But these women do. And the more the Left mocks them for wanting to be healthy and to raise families, the more women will turn away from Leftism, until the only women left supporting Democrats are men with wigs on. That is the Democrat Party&#8217;s absolute worst nightmare. And with every garbage article like this one, that nightmare for Democrats — otherwise known as progress to the rest of us — is becoming more and more real by the day.

The Guardian Newpaper To Stop Using Elon Musk’s Social Media Platform

The Left Uncovers The Sinister Conspiracy Pushing Women To Be Healthy And Happy

Brett Cooper

Candace Owens

Feminism

Riley Gaines

The Guardian

Traditional Marriage

Women

You will not find a legal theory that&#8217;s done more damage to this country in the last half century than the idea of &#8220;disparate impact.&#8221; Whether you realize it or not, this is a legal concept that has almost certainly impacted your life at some point, along with the lives of millions of other people. In short, disparate impact allows people to sue whenever a policy — whether it&#8217;s a government policy, or the policy of a private business — has a disproportionate effect on certain demographics. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the policy is intended to be discriminatory. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the policy is completely neutral, on its face. All that matters is whether the policy affects some demographics more than others.
To give just one example: If a written test for a police academy contains basic math questions — questions which are not racist in any way — the test is still considered to be illegal under the disparate impact theory if, say, 80% of black applicants fail it. The only way to survive a lawsuit under this theory is to prove that, in reality, the disparate impact is strictly necessary for some important purpose of the business or organization. 
In practice, especially in places like New York and California, this is extremely difficult to prove. After all, we&#8217;ve been told meritocracy is now a racist concept. Why do police officers need to understand that two plus two equals four, anyway? A lot of jurors actually think like this, especially the ones who won&#8217;t venture outside unless they&#8217;re wearing two masks and a portable ventilator. Therefore, most companies and government agencies, in the end, have decided to simply water down their standards, in order to avoid the possibility of litigation. Disparate impact was the precursor for affirmative action and &#8220;equity&#8221;, as it&#8217;s called today. Mediocrity has become the norm because it&#8217;s enforced by law.
We&#8217;ve all been conditioned to accept this status quo since the 1960s, even though it&#8217;s obviously contrary to basic principles of fairness and morality. Several administrations have come and gone, both Democrat and Republican, and disparate impact has remained untouched. But very abruptly, that changed yesterday, when the Trump administration issued an executive order formally <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/">ending</a> disparate impact in this country, in all contexts.
The order is called &#8220;RESTORING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND MERITOCRACY&#8221; and, among other things, states: &#8220;disparate-impact liability has hindered businesses from making hiring and other employment decisions based on merit and skill.&#8221;
Therefore, according to the order signed by the president:
<blockquote>It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.</blockquote>
Yes, there will be inevitable legal challenges to this executive order. Yes, Congress should immediately pass this executive order into law in order to insulate it, as much as possible, from Obama-appointed judges in Washington. But even as it stands, already, this executive order is a major step towards reforming America&#8217;s failing institutions. It&#8217;s part of a broader effort by this administration to end the era of racial grievance, which has made a husk out of everything it touched. In particular, it&#8217;s helped destroy the educational system in this country, which is now fixated on spreading propaganda instead of teaching students the skills they need to survive and function in society. Universities currently spend most of their time administering affirmative action programs, and teaching students about the evils of white supremacy and colonialism. It&#8217;s a complete waste of time — actually, it&#8217;s even worse than a waste of time — and everyone knows it.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1582-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Now the Trump administration, with this executive order on disparate impact, is doing something about it. And it&#8217;s clear that the administration had the education system in mind yesterday when they issued this executive order, because on Wednesday, the administration also took several other actions aimed at reforming America&#8217;s colleges. One of those executive <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reforming-accreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">orders</a>, for example, is called &#8220;REFORMING ACCREDITATION TO STRENGTHEN HIGHER EDUCATION.&#8221; 
The text of this order points out that the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate in this country currently stands at just 64%. Yes, just 64% of undergraduates currently finish college on time.
Additionally, roughly 25% of undergraduate programs and 40% of graduate programs ultimately yield a negative return on investment for students. The Trump administration is therefore requiring an overhaul of the process through which schools are accredited. If schools can&#8217;t demonstrate a commitment to merit, instead of racial discrimination, then they won&#8217;t be accredited anymore. And for many universities, that would be a death knell. They&#8217;d immediately lose access to billions of dollars in federal funding for Pell Grants and student loans.
This is why, during the campaign, Donald Trump <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-accreditors-executive-order-universities-4e4366cc?mod=hp_lead_pos1">referred</a> to the accreditation process as his &#8220;secret weapon.&#8221; It&#8217;s a way to use the established powers of the federal government to compel schools to start upholding basic educational principles. For generations, the government hasn&#8217;t used these powers. We&#8217;ve allowed pretty much every school — from community colleges to Harvard — to get away with scamming their students, discriminating along racial lines, and teaching useless classes about &#8220;decolonizing Shakespeare&#8221; or whatever. At the same time, tuition has increased exponentially because the federal money has kept flowing, in the form of easy student loans. Then, to make matters worse, college students — many of them Left-leaning — have taken this loan money and refused to repay it. In other words, people who didn&#8217;t go to college are directly subsidizing people who spent four years earning useless degrees, and then became deadbeats who are unable (or unwilling) to pay their debts.
This fraud was enabled by the Biden administration, as you probably remember. In fact, even when the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration was breaking the law, they still refused to compel college graduates to pay off their loans.
Yesterday, however, the Trump administration ended this state-sanctioned fraud. They&#8217;re now beginning the collections process on these deadbeats — including federal employees who are about to have their pensions frozen. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
White House press sec. Karoline Leavitt on defaulted student loan payments being sent to collections on May 5: “The government can and will collect defaulted federal student loan debt by withholding tax refunds, federal pensions and even their wages.” <a href="https://t.co/40ymqY435M">https://t.co/40ymqY435M</a> <a href="https://t.co/NbEgvs9o2h">pic.twitter.com/NbEgvs9o2h</a>
&mdash; ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1914736600547746069?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
It&#8217;s a simple principle that everyone understands: If you borrow money, you should repay it. But Democrats attempted to suspend this principle during the last election campaign because they thought it would resonate with voters. And in some areas of the country, it did resonate. There&#8217;s a reason Joe Biden won the state of Virginia, where all of the so-called &#8220;public servants&#8221; live. But as it happens, the rest of the country wasn&#8217;t happy about assuming the debts of these alleged &#8220;public servants.&#8221; So they won&#8217;t have to assume those debts anymore.
There were other executive orders and actions that the Trump administration took yesterday concerning universities. For example, one order <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/transparency-regarding-foreign-influence-at-american-universities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">requires</a> that universities disclose any foreign funding they might be receiving. The attorney general is tasked with overseeing compliance with this requirement as a matter of &#8220;national security.&#8221; This is a measure that&#8217;s obviously long overdue, especially after we learned that Joe Biden was stashing classified documents in his office space at the University of Pennsylvania&#8217;s &#8220;Penn-Biden Center,&#8221; which was funded extensively by the Chinese. Everyone knows that, for a long time, major universities in this country have been openly operating like de facto embassies for various countries that hate us. And now they could face criminal prosecution for doing so.
Another order that the president signed yesterday implements new procedures to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/white-house-initiative-to-promote-excellence-and-innovation-at-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">improve</a> the quality of education at so-called &#8220;historically black colleges and universities,&#8221; which have struggled significantly in comparison to most other schools in the country. For many years, the federal government has simply flooded these schools with money, without any concern for how they&#8217;ve been wasting it. Now, pursuant to this executive order, the Trump administration will seek to &#8220;increase the private-sector role, including the role of private foundations&#8221; in funding these schools. In other words, the taxpayers won&#8217;t have as big a role.
All of these changes are necessary because, under the current arrangement, the university system in this country is failing. As a result, a lot of people — myself included — have made the rational decision to forgo college altogether. Bloomberg just published a lengthy report on this trend. Their report focuses on an 18-year-old student who just graduated from high school in Madison, Ohio, which is 45 minutes east of Cleveland. According to this student, neither he nor any of his male classmates will attend a four-year-university. They&#8217;re <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-04-21/why-american-men-think-it-s-not-worth-going-to-college-anymore?embedded-checkout=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opting out</a> of going to college, for one reason or another.
<blockquote>In this corner of the Midwest—where the median household income is $78,000 and the largest city is 47,000-strong Mentor—the share of men age 18-24 enrolled in college dropped by more than 15 percentage points in the decade through 2023, the biggest decline in any large county in the US. The average slide, by comparison, was about 3 percentage points. In 2013 half of the young men in Lake County were enrolled in college; 10 years later, that number was only 1 in 3, according to a Bloomberg Businessweek analysis of US Census Bureau data. Men opting out of college isn’t a new phenomenon: Women have outnumbered men in undergraduate enrollment for about 40 years, and the gap continues to widen. Almost half of women age 25-34 have earned a bachelor’s degree, according to Pew Research Center data; for men the rate is 37%. Between 2011 and 2022, the number of Americans attending college dropped by 1.2 million, with men accounting for almost the entirety of that drop. &#8230;. When Jennifer Schuller became president in 2023 of Lake Erie College, the only four-year college in Lake County, the drop in enrollment was palpable: She inherited a $5.6 million deficit. In the previous decade, the student body—which is majority men—had decreased by almost 20%.</blockquote>
As much as I may criticize the university system and as much as I encourage young people to not see college as the necessary default option right out of high school, I still maintain that this is not a decline worth celebrating. It&#8217;s a completely understandable decline, of course. Universities and colleges have done this to themselves. They&#8217;ve wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and all they&#8217;ve done is churn out a useless product that more and more people are foregoing because it&#8217;s too expensive and pointless. It&#8217;s completely rational for millions of students to stop attending these schools. That&#8217;s true. But ultimately, that&#8217;s not the outcome we should want. A functioning country should be able to offer 18-year-olds a variety of good schools to attend, if they want to master some highly specialized skill — whether it&#8217;s engineering or programming or medicine or whatever. That should always be an option for certain students. But we don&#8217;t have that anymore.
We have a system where, even if you&#8217;re a very smart individual who could theoretically become a doctor, you stand a very real chance of being denied admission to a medical school simply because you&#8217;re white, or because you have the wrong political beliefs. And if you&#8217;re confronted with that possibility, and you&#8217;re 18 years old, why would you bother with the whole process? Why not take a guaranteed job where your skills will pay you, right away? Why subject yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and years of indoctrination, especially if it may not pay off — for reasons that are both completely unfair and completely outside your control?
Young people are asking these questions. And the only correct answer is to tell them that this insanity is coming to an end. Otherwise, the education system will continue to fail.
The good news is that finally — for the first time in a very long time — some action is being taken on this front. The other day we <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-lawyers-promoting-child-indoctrination-to-scotus-were-absolutely-humiliated" target="_blank" rel="noopener">talked</a> about efforts by elementary schools to indoctrinate children into the gender cult, and how it looks like the Supreme Court is about to put an end to those policies. Now we&#8217;re talking about how the Trump administration just issued an all-out blitz of executive orders that are designed to restore merit and competence to all of America&#8217;s institutions, including its universities. This is progress. It&#8217;s not a guarantee that these institutions will be saved — Harvard in particular is fighting back, as you&#8217;d expect — but it&#8217;s a start.
The truth is that the education system can either teach students, or it can attempt to brainwash them into the religion of leftism. Those are the options. There is no middle ground. And if there&#8217;s one thing this week has made clear, it&#8217;s that the current administration — unlike every other administration in recent history — understands that choice very well.

Trump To Sign Executive Order To Bolster AI Education, Workforce

The Education System Is Failing, But Change Is Coming

American Universities

College

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Education

Student Loan Cancellation

Student Loans

If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days, from elementary school on up, one of the first things they will tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold. Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns and made-up genders.
To call this phenomenon &#8220;unnatural&#8221; would be a vast understatement. It&#8217;s obviously engineered. Teachers and school boards are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases without their parents&#8217; knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it&#8217;s very clear that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls.
After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute the minds of elementary-school-age children. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments yesterday, “Mahmoud v. Taylor” could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings of this generation.
Before we review the oral arguments, here is some background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in Maryland — introduced a new &#8220;gender and sexuality curriculum.&#8221; Initially, students (or their parents) could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn&#8217;t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it&#8217;s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here&#8217;s an image from one book that children are introduced to.
<div id="attachment_911559" style="width: 690px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-911559" class="wp-image-911559 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg" alt="Screenshot: What Are Your Words?" width="680" height="446" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U-300x197.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />Screenshot: What Are Your Words?</div>
This is what&#8217;s apparently known as an &#8220;LGBT storybook.&#8221; This one&#8217;s called, “What Are Your Words?” As you can see, one line of dialogue reads, “My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a nonprofit, reported on some other books that were included in this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-scotus-back-parents-when-it-comes-to-lgbtq-storybooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new curriculum</a>:
<blockquote>[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes &#8216;intersex flag,&#8217; &#8216;drag queen,&#8217; &#8216;underwear,&#8217; &#8216;leather,&#8217; and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to &#8216;make sense.&#8217; Teachers are instructed to say doctors only &#8216;guess&#8217; when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.</blockquote>
When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about &#8220;sex work&#8221; and &#8220;gender transitioning&#8221; by Left-wing activists posing as teachers, the school district told them they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the parents as bigots. All these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this indoctrination. They didn&#8217;t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1581-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Which brings us to yesterday&#8217;s oral arguments. I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito, because it gets to the core of the issue. Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about homosexuality, transgenderism and so on. (To be clear, that&#8217;s what the school district is doing. They&#8217;re not merely providing these books in the school library. Teachers are actively telling students to read the books as part of class.) The truthful answer to Justice Alito&#8217;s question is simple: The Left understands that, if the LGBT movement is going to survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age.
But the school district can&#8217;t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district&#8217;s superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible it would be, at a practical level, for the school district to allow students to opt out of this curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes sense. It gets so bad that, at the end of his rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the hell this guy is talking about. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 alito, whats the big deal" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q118nmS1g2s?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
As best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that, because students might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum, it&#8217;s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there&#8217;s a chance that they&#8217;ll hear about the materials that are discussed in these gay adventure books.
But this ignores a couple of obvious points.The big one is that, when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect, as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever. The teacher is in a position of authority. It&#8217;s much easier for a 5-year-old to discount something another 5-year-old says, than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher he&#8217;s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it&#8217;s an argument for not having these materials in the school to begin with. Which of course is the correct answer. But either way, it is not an argument against allowing parents to opt out.
The lawyer for the school district knows this but he can&#8217;t admit it. So he ends up confusing everyone in the room with a bunch of doublespeak. This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. Listen to this moment where Justice Gorsuch points out that, in Montgomery County, teachers are told to actively correct students who dare to suggest that men can&#8217;t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute &#8220;coercion.&#8221; The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here&#8217;s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 gorsuch, coercion, correcting himself" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3sWOLDR4Q0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, &#8220;a boy can&#8217;t be a girl.&#8221; And then the lawyer states that it&#8217;s not &#8220;coercive,&#8221; in any way, for the teacher to correct the student&#8217;s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.
Even when he&#8217;s not contradicting himself, the school district&#8217;s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case. 
Here&#8217;s his opening statement, for example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 beginning with mr shonfeld" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkw27dw9T5g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there&#8217;s no difference between teaching elementary-school students about wars, and teaching them that boys can become girls. Telling students about the War of 1812 is just like telling them that it&#8217;s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.
One of the ways we know this isn&#8217;t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there&#8217;s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That&#8217;s because it&#8217;s understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence. Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it&#8217;s grounded in reality. On the other hand, gender ideology is just that — ideological.
This lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That&#8217;s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you&#8217;d expect, she did not disappoint. Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points, just by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children, because she takes the Left&#8217;s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 can just go to private school" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y-FJrhGbwrw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there&#8217;s no &#8220;burden&#8221; on these parents, apparently. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;burden&#8221; to have to pay more money, and change your child&#8217;s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she&#8217;s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she&#8217;s wrong. And then she goes quiet and they move on.
Here’s one more clip from these arguments, involving Justice Alito questioning the school board&#8217;s lawyer. He follows up on this logic, about how the parents can supposedly just go to a private school. He begins by talking from the perspective of one of these parents:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 alito, too bad" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hgRo17KtvU8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when &#8220;sparks fly,&#8221; so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district&#8217;s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They&#8217;re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they&#8217;re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won&#8217;t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn&#8217;t work that way. And it appears the Montgomery County school district, and school districts all over the country, are about to discover that.
This is not a close case. That&#8217;s why even the far-Left outlet Vox <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250422191725/https://www.vox.com/scotus/409921/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor">reported</a>: 
<blockquote>The Supreme Court’s &#8216;Don’t Say Gay&#8217; argument went disastrously for public schools.</blockquote>
At the moment, the most likely outcome is that, when very young children are involved, parents will retain the right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology, or any other extreme ideology that conflicts with their established religion. Everyone can see this coming.
And just to underscore that, yesterday Randi Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers&#8217; unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn&#8217;t read these books in the classroom. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 Randi" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/luc0jWbW_HA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
We all know that Randi Weingarten isn&#8217;t saying this because she believes it. She&#8217;s maybe the most calculating political operative in the country, after Nancy Pelosi. But Weingarten understands when the Left is overplaying its hand. She knows that they&#8217;re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she&#8217;s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.
Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there&#8217;s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we&#8217;ve discussed many times, are now extremely unpopular. They have alienated the entire country, to the point that they may have cost Democrats the last election. The only way an ideology like this can survive is by targeting children before they&#8217;re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That&#8217;s their only viable play. And in a few short months, after this case is inevitably decided against the public school system of Montgomery County, it&#8217;ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Parental Rights Regarding LGBTQ Books In Schools

The Lawyers Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely Humiliated

Books

Brett Kavanaugh

Children's Books

Elementary Schools

gender ideology

Ketanji Brown Jackson

LGBTQ

Neil Gorsuch

Parents rights

Samuel Alito

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Virginia

On January 24, 2017, just four days after Donald Trump was inaugurated for his first term in office, the FBI sent two agents to the White House to interrogate Trump&#8217;s national security adviser, Michael Flynn. It wasn&#8217;t billed as an interrogation at the time; they convinced Flynn that it was just an opportunity for a friendly chat. But in retrospect, their goal could not have been any more clear: They wanted to manufacture a pretext to secure Flynn&#8217;s termination. Getting rid of Flynn would enable the FBI to continue to conduct a series of fraudulent investigations into the Trump administration. It would insulate the bureau from any kind of large-scale reform. And it would help the FBI spread the narrative that the Trump administration was secretly working for Russia in some way.
Therefore, the FBI asked Flynn a few questions in the White House. Then they convinced Mike Pence that Flynn had lied to them — even though to this day, no one can explain what exactly Flynn said, because the conversation wasn&#8217;t recorded. In any event, Pence took the FBI&#8217;s word for it. Michael Flynn was fired after less than a month. His tenure as national security advisor was the shortest in American history.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1580-the-coordinated-hit-job-on-pete-hegseth-must-be-exposed-and-defeated-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
What happened to Michael Flynn is worth recalling this week because it was not a one-off. This wasn&#8217;t a random act of sabotage by some unelected, shadowy officials. It was, in fact, standard operating procedure. It is the default response of a bureaucracy that feels threatened. They will come up with a smear campaign, launder it through sympathetic media outlets, and ultimately pressure the decision-makers to get rid of their target. Eight years ago, this is precisely how they got rid of Michael Flynn. And right now, it&#8217;s how they&#8217;re trying to destroy Donald Trump&#8217;s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.
From the moment Hegseth was nominated, there was a concerted effort to smear him as an alcoholic who was too inexperienced to do the job. It was almost like the Brett Kavanaugh hearings all over again. Anonymous accusations began surfacing every other day. We were even told, if you can believe it, that Pete Hegseth once celebrated St. Patrick&#8217;s Day, live on the air on &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends.&#8221; That was supposed to be profoundly scandalous. In reality, the point of that fake scandal was never to convince anyone of anything. Instead, the point was to send a message to the incoming Trump administration. The message was that the most powerful forces in Washington did not want Pete Hegseth to be confirmed. They wanted Donald Trump to pull his nomination and select someone more conventional — someone who would be more responsive to the needs of defense contractors, for example.
But Trump didn&#8217;t abandon Hegseth&#8217;s nomination. He decided, after what happened in his first term, to trust his own instincts and stand by his selection. The result has been predictable. Just a few months into Donald Trump&#8217;s term, Hegseth&#8217;s enemies have begun yet another smear campaign. And like the campaign to oust Michael Flynn, it&#8217;s not meant to withstand any kind of scrutiny. The point is to move quickly, create panic, and ultimately pressure the White House to fire Hegseth.
It&#8217;s not exactly a subtle operation. Yesterday morning, NPR came out with this story, which directly states the outcome they want to achieve: 
<blockquote>Exclusive: The White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as defense secretary.</blockquote>
According to NPR:
<blockquote>The White House has begun the process of looking for a new leader at the Pentagon to replace Pete Hegseth, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. This comes as Hegseth is again mired in controversy over sharing military operational details in a group chat.</blockquote>
So here we have an unnamed source — just one person, who&#8217;s described only as a &#8220;U.S. official&#8221; — stating that the White House is planning to fire Pete Hegseth. And based on this one nameless official, who supposedly serves somewhere in the United States government, the narrative has been set. Pretty much every outlet picked up this story: They&#8217;re all trying to convey the perception that Hegseth&#8217;s removal is a foregone conclusion.
Meanwhile, there&#8217;s a steady drip of new information that&#8217;s supposedly even more damning than the last hit piece. Tune into CNN, and they&#8217;ll tell you that Hegseth needs to be removed because of a new Signal chat that&#8217;s suddenly been uncovered. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Ex Hegseth aide" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NWXmVI-Ge94?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Before we go into the specifics, I need to make it clear that I was a fan of the Hegseth pick when it was initially announced. But after seeing this unrelenting smear campaign that started before he was confirmed and hasn&#8217;t let up since, I am now an even bigger fan of the pick. It&#8217;s clear that the establishment sees this guy as a threat to their agenda. He&#8217;s in a position to do extraordinary damage to their interests. And it seems like he&#8217;s already doing a lot of damage — which is why he needs to stay in his position at all costs.
And as you saw, Donald Trump doesn&#8217;t need to be told that. He understands exactly what CNN and the rest of the corporate press are doing. The coverage is breathless and fast-moving because you&#8217;re not supposed to scrutinize it. If you think about it for five seconds, you&#8217;ll realize that — as was the case with Michael Flynn — the hysteria makes absolutely no sense.
To recap: The case against Pete Hegseth is that the national security adviser, Mike Waltz, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-national-security-story?author=Ben+Shapiro&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+National+Security+Story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mistakenly added</a> Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, to a classified group chat about a U.S. military strike. Even if this is true — even if we pretend for a moment that a rabidly anti-Trump journalist, with extensive ties to the deep state was somehow &#8220;accidentally&#8221; added to a highly sensitive group chat — it&#8217;s still not remotely clear why Pete Hegseth should be fired as a result. He&#8217;s not the one who made the mistake.
The next alleged scandal, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/us/politics/hegseth-signal-chat.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> by The New York Times, concerns a Signal chat that involved Hegseth and a dozen other people, including his lawyer, his wife Jennifer and his brother Phil, who works at the Pentagon. The chat, which was called &#8220;Defense Team Huddle,&#8221; also reportedly included Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick, two former Hegseth advisers who were just fired after a leak investigation. Supposedly, during this chat, Hegseth again discussed war plans involving Yemen, although no one&#8217;s sure exactly what was communicated.
Now, under the circumstances, it would be reasonable to wonder if Dan Caldwell or Darin Selnick might have had a role in placing this story in the New York Times. After all, they were just fired from the Pentagon for leaking. They were both members of this group chat. And now they&#8217;re publicly attacking Pete Hegseth&#8217;s Defense Department, and implying that the Pentagon wants to pursue a reckless war with Iran.
As it relates to unelected operatives in the Pentagon, that may be true. I&#8217;m not in a position to dispute that claim. But anyone who&#8217;s paying attention to what Pete Hegseth is doing, both in public and in private, knows that he&#8217;s going to do everything he can to prevent that outcome.
Here&#8217;s what <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QTwlqbkbos" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hegseth told</a> Fox News earlier this month:
<blockquote>[Trump] is dead serious that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. &#8230; He&#8217;s said that for 20 years, he&#8217;s been consistent, that is clear. He&#8217;s dead serious that he wants it done at the negotiating table, he wants it done peacefully, and that&#8217;s why he&#8217;s going straight to these talks, he&#8217;s set that deadline. &#8230; But he&#8217;s also dead serious that if we can&#8217;t figure this out at the negotiating table then there are other options, to include my department to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear bomb.</blockquote>
In other words, his primary objective is not to attack Iran. It&#8217;s a peaceful, diplomatic resolution.
A couple of days later, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a> that, in private, Hegseth had personally helped avert a military strike on Iran that could&#8217;ve spiraled into World War III:
<blockquote>Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions. &#8230; Inside the Trump administration, some officials were becoming skeptical of the Israeli plan. In a meeting this month — one of several discussions about the Israeli plan — Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, presented a new intelligence assessment that said the buildup of American weaponry could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want. A range of officials echoed Ms. Gabbard’s concerns in the various meetings. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and Vice President JD Vance all voiced doubts about the attack</blockquote>
That report was published on April 16. It states, very clearly, that Hegseth had helped stop a military attack on Iran, which could&#8217;ve easily devolved into all-out warfare.
Four days later, on April 20, the Times published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/us/politics/hegseth-yemen-attack-second-signal-chat.html">a story</a> outlining Hegseth&#8217;s second Signal chat, which is supposedly grounds for his termination. In other words, we get a new scandal, right after Hegseth enrages the defense contractors that would&#8217;ve made many millions of dollars, if not more, from an all-out conflict with Iran. And then, hot on the heels of the new scandal, we get an unverified, barely-sourced report about how the White House is looking to replace Hegseth.
At this point, I can only assume that&#8217;s another fake smear. It would be a disastrous mistake for Trump to cave to the pressure and offer up his Defense Secretary as a sacrifice. It&#8217;s the kind of mistake that could derail his entire presidency. And it would be a major victory for establishment Washington, which is becoming increasingly desperate by the day.
You can see the signs everywhere. Here&#8217;s one of them: On Monday, four more Democrat lawmakers made a <a href="https://thepostmillennial.com/four-dems-denied-meeting-with-kilmar-abrego-garcia-after-flying-to-el-salvador#google_vignette" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pilgrimage</a> to El Salvador to visit that MS-13 gangbanger, following the visit by Senator Chris Van Hollen that we discussed last week. The lawmakers were Robert Garcia of California, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, and Maxine Dexter of Oregon. These politicians, like the rest of the Washington establishment, are pulling out all the stops to defend their open borders, globalist agenda. Making a martyr out of Abrego Garcia, and a scapegoat out of Hegseth, is all part of that plan.
To be clear, I see no indication that this is going to work. It doesn&#8217;t look like this MS-13 gangbanger is going to be returned to the United States, any more than it looks like Pete Hegseth is about to be replaced by another Raytheon board member. The idea that the White House is planning to cave to the demands of establishment Washington, at the moment, seems like yet another fabrication from the corporate press. For the sake of the world, which wouldn&#8217;t exactly benefit from nuclear armageddon, it should remain a fabrication and nothing more.

Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth Meets With El Salvador Minister Of National Defense Rene Merino Monroy At The Pentagon

The Coordinated Hit Job On Pete Hegseth Must Be Exposed And Defeated

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Michael Flynn

New York Times

Pete Hegseth

The Swamp

Washington D.C.

Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth

Family Of Karmelo Anthony Hosted The Most Disgusting Press Conference I’ve Ever Seen

Austin Metcalf

High School

Karmelo Anthony

Lawyer

Murder

Race

Texas

Fayez Sarofim & Co. U.S. Men’s Clay Court Championship – Final Day

Leftists Demanded Police Body Cams. Now They Regret It.

Michigan

Ohio

Police

video

Before it&#8217;s possible to discuss any policy position that&#8217;s supposedly &#8220;progressive,&#8221; the first step is always to escape the world of euphemisms and start talking, in explicit detail, about what&#8217;s actually happening. This might sound straightforward, but every single organ of the Left is committed to making sure you don&#8217;t do this. They would much rather you debate the abstract concept of &#8220;a woman&#8217;s right to choose,&#8221; for example, than discuss how children are dismembered and discarded like trash. They would also prefer that you use terms like &#8220;gender-affirming care,&#8221; instead of discussing chemical castration. And on and on. Euphemisms are one of the most potent tools these people have. They are everywhere, in every single debate on every issue. And in every case, they&#8217;re a gross misrepresentation of reality. They need to be neutralized immediately before any actual discussion can begin.
To that end, take <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/14/hungary-poised-to-adopt-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-lgbtq-gatherings">this headline</a> from the other day. It ran in The Guardian: 
<blockquote>Hungary passes constitutional amendment to ban LGBTQ+ gatherings.</blockquote>
The Associated Press ran a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/hungary-pride-ban-amendment-orban-gay-rights-lgbtq-155ec12cbbde7cc6be0f96adb323de77">similar story</a>:
<blockquote>Hungary passes constitutional amendment to ban LGBTQ+ public events, seen as a major blow to rights.</blockquote>
The article explains that Hungary&#8217;s parliament just overwhelmingly passed an amendment that will outlaw, &#8220;public events by LGBTQ+ communities.&#8221;
If you&#8217;re just skimming these headlines, this might seem like a surprising development. You might wonder: What are &#8220;public events by LGBTQ+ communities,&#8221; exactly? And what precisely is an &#8220;LGBTQ+ gathering?&#8221; If you take these headlines literally, then it sounds like the government of Hungary has just made it illegal for gay people to appear in public, for any reason. It&#8217;s a total crackdown on figure skating, musical theater and art exhibitions. Gay people can&#8217;t even get together and watch “Glee” reruns on the couch without getting hauled to prison. This is the current state of Hungary, if you believe The Guardian and the Associated Press.
In reality, of course, Hungary has not banned gay people from assembling in public. What they&#8217;ve banned are disturbing and morally objectionable public displays of sexual hedonism that can easily be observed by children. That includes Hungary&#8217;s annual pride parade. Pull up any footage of this parade that&#8217;s posted online, and you&#8217;ll quickly see exactly what I&#8217;m talking about. Here&#8217;s some of it, or at least the parts we can play. This is from Budapest several years back:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Budapest gay pride" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hMLRsBLKnEU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And again, this is the most sanitized footage I could play. This is what the corporate press means when they say Hungary has banned &#8220;LGBTQ events&#8221; and &#8220;LBGTQ gatherings.&#8221; This is the truth behind the euphemism. They mean that Hungary has banned public indecency that everyone — including children — can see. In fact, in many cases, these public displays are explicitly directed at children. This is what &#8220;pride parades&#8221; always entail, as we&#8217;ve discussed dozens of times on this show.
If you actually look at the text of the amendment that just passed in Hungary — and again, it was an overwhelming vote in Hungary&#8217;s parliament, passing by a margin of 140 to 21 — then you&#8217;ll immediately understand why it passed. This is not simply an amendment about &#8220;pride parades&#8221; or &#8220;gay gatherings&#8221; or anything like that. It&#8217;s not, as the Associated Press claims, an amendment that constitutes a &#8220;major blow to rights.&#8221; In reality, it&#8217;s the exact opposite.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1577-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
This amendment, with very forceful and unapologetic language, affirms the right of everyone — and in particular children — to enjoy public spaces without being confronted by someone else’s sexual obsessions. As far as I know, this is the first major piece of legislation, and certainly the first constitutional amendment, to explicitly state that gay and trans activists are not, in fact, the only people on the planet with rights that deserve protection. Until relatively recently, that didn&#8217;t need to be spelled out.
Here&#8217;s the National Review&#8217;s <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hungary-approves-constitutional-amendment-banning-public-lgbt-events/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">summary</a> of the amendment:
<blockquote>The amendment forbids LGBT pride parades that conservative lawmakers argued threatened the well-being of children. One of its provisions specifically declares that children’s rights to moral, physical, and intellectual development supersede the right to peaceful assembly and almost every other right, except the right to life. Hungarian authorities are also allowed to use facial recognition software to identify and potentially fine demonstrators at the newly prohibited pride parades if they are held in defiance of the law.</blockquote>
Yes, this amendment — which codifies a law passed by the parliament a few weeks ago — states that a child has a right to be protected physically, morally, and spiritually, and that this right supersedes the right of gay people to celebrate their sexuality in the town square. That&#8217;s exactly the right way to frame this situation. It&#8217;s certainly the honest way to frame it.
Virtually all of our cultural and political debates, regardless of the particular topic, ultimately come down to a battle of competing rights and interests. That&#8217;s not how you normally see policy debates framed, but it&#8217;s the truth. Even something as simple as a speed limit involves weighing various rights and interests. On the one hand, you have people&#8217;s reasonable interest in traveling to their destination quickly. On the other hand, you have people&#8217;s reasonable interest in not being killed in a high-speed car accident. These two interests are obviously in tension. If we wanted absolute safety on the highway, we&#8217;d set the speed limit to 5 miles per hour. But we don&#8217;t do that, because we&#8217;ve decided that other interests are more important. Every functioning society has to weigh competing interests like this, in every single area of policy.
The only way to sort through this mess is to come to some kind of understanding about which rights are most fundamental. With this amendment, Hungary has decided that, apart from the right to life, the most fundamental right is a child&#8217;s &#8220;right to protection and care for their adequate physical, mental and moral development.&#8221; You can agree or disagree with this philosophical claim — and of course I strongly agree with it. But regardless of your particular stance on the issue, you can&#8217;t deny that, at the very least, they are dealing with these questions in a clear and coherent way.
The opponents of the amendment, on the other hand, are not responding coherently. Instead, they&#8217;re reacting in exactly the kind of hysterical manner you would expect. They&#8217;re lying about the content of the amendment, as we just discussed. They&#8217;re also setting off smoke bombs in Hungary&#8217;s parliament and blocking the entrance to government buildings. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 smoke bombs protests" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QSWKwOCVHOc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is the response you expect from people who know they have no actual argument. They&#8217;ll blockade buildings. They&#8217;ll spread propaganda that has no basis in reality. They&#8217;ll detonate smoke bombs in parliament. But the one thing they won&#8217;t do — because they can&#8217;t do it — is rationally explain why you&#8217;re wrong, and they&#8217;re right. In this case, these LGBT activists simply cannot articulate any reason to oppose this amendment. And there are a couple of reasons for that. One of the reasons, of course, is that these so-called &#8220;pride parades&#8221; are indefensible, morally and practically. Every sane person knows that they should be banned from public streets. Anyone who&#8217;s ever seen footage of one of these parades understands this.
But the more fundamental issue is that, even if the pride parades weren&#8217;t bizarre, explicit, and objectionable, these activists would still have a problem. Put simply, the Leftist conception of human rights gives no real basis for objecting to this constitutional amendment. These people believe that rights are social constructs, codified by the government. They generally reject the idea that rights come from God. After all, it&#8217;s hard to make the case that the right to abort a baby created by God somehow comes from God. But if rights are social constructs, then society can abolish a right just as easily as it creates it. And that&#8217;s exactly what&#8217;s happened here. Hungary, through its democratically elected government, has decided that the absolute right to gay pride displays no longer exists in their culture. As a result, it makes no sense for the Leftist to object.
They can&#8217;t say that the rights of LGBT people are being infringed in Hungary. How could they? The right doesn&#8217;t exist anymore. There is no authority higher than society and government (according to them), and those authorities have spoken on the matter. That&#8217;s all there is to it.
In other words, gay activists are melting down in Hungary right now because they&#8217;re realizing, if only subconsciously, that their ideology can be erased just as quickly as it took hold. As it turns out, a fiction that&#8217;s maintained by a patchwork of laws and government policy can also be eliminated by law and government policy. And it&#8217;s not just the so-called LGBT community in Hungary that&#8217;s coming to this realization. In this country, as we&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtFCCDy__os" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a>, &#8220;pride parades&#8221; are also facing serious problems, mainly because the major sponsors are pulling out and people are losing interest. They&#8217;re going door-to-door in San Francisco right now to cover a multimillion-dollar funding shortfall for their pride events this summer. In every respect, these people are now weak and desperate.
If there were ever a moment to implement a Hungary-style ban on &#8220;pride parades&#8221; in this country, now is that time. Yes, activists in this country would inevitably act out, just like they&#8217;re doing in Hungary. But there are some things that are a lot more important than the feelings of screeching Left-wing protesters. One of them is the right of children to grow and develop and have their innocence protected. Hungary is now finally enforcing that right. For the benefit of every child in this country, we should do the same.

Protest Against Amendment Banning Pride In Budapest, Hungary

LGBT Activists Panic After This Huge Move In The Fight To Protect Children

Europe

Hungary

Parade

Parliament

Pride

Young boy jumping in mid-air

The ‘Experts’ Are Finally Admitting That ADHD Is A Scam

The 'Experts' Are Finally Admitting That ADHD Is A Scam

Boys

Children

Drugs

kids

Middle School

Teenagers

MixCollage-14-Apr-2025-05-21-PM-3053

Matt Walsh Breaks Down The Deceptive Propaganda In ‘Adolescence’ Netflix Show

England

Great Britain

Movies

Netflix

Stabbing

United Kingdom

Violent Crime

Here&#8217;s a headline that, if you&#8217;ve been making car insurance payments over the last few years, might seem pretty hard to believe. It turns out that average auto insurance premiums actually declined in March, month-over-month. Yes, for many people, premiums have gotten cheaper, even as car prices have remained high. Inflation has seemingly been defeated, at least in this particular industry. The declines were particularly steep in Florida, where insurers like Geico, Progressive and State Farm are cutting rates by as much as 10%. But there&#8217;s no question that this is a nationwide phenomenon. Insurance rates are down by roughly 1% across the board — which might not sound like a lot, but it&#8217;s a big difference from the typical double-digit increases that we&#8217;ve been seeing lately. When you go from 15-point average increases to a 1% decrease, you&#8217;re saving a lot of money, relatively speaking.
So why is this happening, exactly? Ask ten different people and you&#8217;ll probably get ten different answers. And all of them might be right, at least partially. But here&#8217;s one theory. It could be that insurance rates are going down because our roads are getting safer. And maybe our roads are getting safer because two grand Left-wing experiments — the BLM &#8220;de-policing&#8221; movement and the open borders agenda — have both finally come to an end.
Each of these movements clearly made driving significantly more dangerous, in their own way. Beginning in 2020, of course, BLM convinced police departments to stop enforcing laws — including traffic laws. And the effect was immediate. By one estimate, 35% more black people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2021, as compared with 2019. In other words, a lot of black motorists suddenly realized that they could drive however they wanted. They&#8217;d no longer be pulled over for supposedly &#8220;driving while black,&#8221; which was something they imagined was happening all the time. And they took full advantage of the situation. Insurance companies had to deal with the carnage that followed.
Along the same lines, as we&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezo_P2uRNWY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a> before, the flood of illegal aliens into this country under the Biden administration has led to a lot of drunk-driving collisions, which have wiped out entire families in some cases. Many of these illegal aliens don&#8217;t have driver&#8217;s licenses, and they refuse to obey the rules of the road. In the tiny town of Springfield, for example, one resident recently <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/us-news/influx-of-wild-driving-haitian-migrants-turning-streets-of-springfield-ohio-into-combat-zone/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimated</a> that she sees 8 to 10 traffic accidents per day. Haitian migrants, which now make up around one-third of the population, routinely drive into buildings and onto sidewalks. They&#8217;ve mowed down children and elderly women, with total impunity. One of these Haitian migrants <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/us-news/influx-of-wild-driving-haitian-migrants-turning-streets-of-springfield-ohio-into-combat-zone/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ran over</a> Kathy Heaton, a 71-year-old grandmother, while she was collecting her garbage cans. She died in the street, after an impact that was so severe that her socks were literally removed from her feet. The driver wasn&#8217;t even prosecuted.
This era of impunity is now over. Police departments are no longer being overrun with BLM mobs. Border security is being enforced again. The result is that the prices that American citizens have to pay — both in terms of dollar amounts, and lives that are lost — are coming down. It turns out that, when you have a society that enforces laws, everyone benefits.
The White House seems to understand this. That&#8217;s why, every other day, we&#8217;re hearing about a new plan to reduce the cost of these kinds of externalities for Americans.
Here&#8217;s the latest example. The New York Times is now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/migrants-deport-social-security-doge.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reporting</a> that the Trump administration is canceling the Social Security numbers of foreign nationals who, for one reason or another, were allowed into this country during Joe Biden&#8217;s presidency:
<blockquote>The Trump administration has moved aggressively to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were allowed into the country under President Biden. &#8230; Now, the administration is taking drastic steps to pressure some of those immigrants and others who had legal status to “self-deport” by effectively canceling the Social Security numbers they had lawfully obtained. &#8230; The goal is to cut those people off from using crucial financial services like bank accounts and credit cards, along with their access to government benefits.</blockquote>
According to the Times, thousands of &#8220;convicted criminals and suspected terrorists&#8221; are among the foreign nationals who just had their Social Security numbers revoked. Yes, apparently the Biden administration provided &#8220;convicted criminals and suspected terrorists&#8221; with Social Security numbers, so that they could obtain government benefits. The Biden administration determined that this course of action was preferable to just deporting these people, or throwing them in prison. Now the Trump administration is changing that policy.
Again, this will have the effect of reducing payments by taxpayers to people who shouldn&#8217;t even be here. It will also make our roads and our communities a lot safer, in all likelihood. More than anything else, this is what Americans voted for in the last election. If Republicans are going to remain in power in Washington, and avoid a Democrat takeover of Congress in the midterms next year, then this kind of thing has to continue. And more importantly, Congress has to start supporting it. That&#8217;s how we can ensure that the cost of living will continue dropping.
A large part of that equation is reducing government spending, which Congress controls. As we all know, when the government spends trillions of dollars every year, that money is either coming from taxpayers, or it&#8217;s being printed and borrowed (which reduces the value of the money we&#8217;re all holding). Either way, we&#8217;re losing a lot of money in the process. At the moment, it appears that a small contingent of Republican lawmakers in Congress recognizes that this arrangement needs to change, at least to some degree. They just held out for assurances that the next spending bill will slash one-point-five trillion dollars from the budget. And after a lot of hand-wringing, they apparently received those assurances. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 budget framework resolution" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fnwMlNZgVZ8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So there were two plans here, for a spending bill to fund the government. The Senate plan, which passed over the weekend, would only reduce the deficit by around four billion dollars. That&#8217;s basically nothing compared to the new House framework, which demands a minimum of one-point-five trillion dollars in deficit reduction.
But here&#8217;s the problem: Even this new framework isn&#8217;t binding. It just sets a broad outline for future negotiations between the House and Senate, which still need to finalize a budget. And several members of Congress — most notably Thomas Massie of Kentucky — believe that this deal is worth about as much as the paper it&#8217;s printed on. Thomas Massie has been in office for more than a decade, and he understands how Congress works. He knows that it&#8217;s one thing for lawmakers to promise spending cuts. But it&#8217;s a completely different matter for them to agree on a bill that actually cuts spending. Here&#8217;s what Massie told a reporter after the framework was announced:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Thomas Massie" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C5z901MgYh0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What&#8217;s surprising here isn&#8217;t anything Thomas Massie is saying. What&#8217;s surprising is that so few Republicans in Congress are agreeing with him. The reason voters elected Republicans to control both chambers of Congress, along with the White House, is that they want government spending and the cost of living to come down. That&#8217;s one of the top issues in every exit poll. And now that Donald Trump is doing that — or attempting to do it — Congress is refusing to codify any of his cuts into law. If a Democrat becomes president, he could override all these DOGE cuts in a day-one executive order.
And by the way, no matter what you think of Trump&#8217;s tariffs, Massie makes a good point. Why hasn&#8217;t Congress held a vote on them? Tariffs are a form of taxation. They have the potential to significantly raise the cost of goods in the United States, among other effects. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to tax. Even if you approve of the tariffs, you should still want Congress to vote on them, for the simple reason that they&#8217;ll be harder to overturn in a future administration. On the other hand, if you&#8217;re skeptical of tariffs, a congressional vote would allow for a full debate on the issue. Instead of unilateral announcements from the White House, we&#8217;d be able to hear the arguments on each side.
But the GOP leadership in Congress hasn&#8217;t displayed any interest in holding a vote on tariffs. In fact they&#8217;ve blocked a vote on the topic. And they haven&#8217;t held votes on the DOGE cuts or any other significant spending cuts. In fact, they still haven&#8217;t reined in any of the trillion dollars&#8217; worth of spending in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which was full of giveaways to environmentalist groups and NGOs. Why exactly hasn&#8217;t any of that waste been rolled back? Why is no one bothered to even talk about it? Really congress has not codified any of Trump’s executive orders at all, which means they’re all susceptible to being overturned with the stroke of a pen by the next administration. Where is congress?
When it comes to spending, if you ask Missouri Congressman Eric Burlison, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, he&#8217;ll say that Republicans aren&#8217;t actually serious about cutting spending. Like Massie, he thinks the spending cuts will never actually happen. Here&#8217;s what he said:
<blockquote>I think that this town has got a lot of snakes in the grass who don&#8217;t want to accomplish it, and anyway that they can they&#8217;re going to stop it from happening. And I want to ensure we don&#8217;t end up in a place where we let the president down in that regard.</blockquote>
Whatever Donald Trump makes of the deal, at the moment, it looks like Republican voters might be let down. We&#8217;re talking about raising the debt ceiling by a historic amount, and potentially spending more than the Biden administration ever did. And we&#8217;re doing it at a time when we&#8217;re initiating a broader trade war, which means that we&#8217;ll have less access to money to borrow. This is not a recipe for a stable economic situation going forward. In separate interviews, Thomas Massie and Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas outlined what&#8217;s at stake here. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Massie and Arrington" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NYky0gMHiCg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Even if you listen to that rhetoric and conclude that it&#8217;s overblown, or that there&#8217;s really no cause for concern, the fundamental point remains: Republicans ran on a platform that involved lowering the cost of living, which includes lowering taxes and government spending. If Republicans cannot deliver on that very simple promise, they will not be in power for very long. And they will be replaced by a party that&#8217;s even more committed to more taxes and government spending. 
This particular spending bill won&#8217;t be finalized for several weeks, in all likelihood. Between now and the moment this legislation is finalized, it&#8217;s hard to imagine that anything in Congress is more important than holding GOP leadership to their promise on these spending cuts — and pushing them further, for as many cuts as possible. If Republicans (and their voters) stay focused on that goal, they will have achieved something that the party has promised for decades, but failed to deliver. They will have permanently reduced the size of the American government, for the benefit of everyone living in this country. The White House is clearly committed to this goal. Now it&#8217;s time for every Republican in Congress — not just Thomas Massie and a few others — to follow suit.

Menu