‘Universal’ paid leave sounds good, but in practice, it forces everyone onto the same track: working early, institutional childcare early.
INVESTIGATIONS
Study: Private School Choice Makes Even Public Schoolers More Likely To Earn College Degrees
The effect of Ohio’s scholarship program reinforces why states should continue to expand school choice for all families.
‘Pride Month’ Meets Its Match: Christian Group Cooks Up ‘Hetero Awesomeness’ Plan for State Capitol During June
If you really think about the seven deadly sins, you realize that they all involve not feelings, but self-obsessed behavior.
Small wonder, therefore, that those who celebrate their own sexual proclivities each June call the annual event “pride month.”
By contrast, a new “Hetero Awesome Fest,” scheduled for June 20 and 21 near the state Capitol in Boise, Idaho, and promoted by the group Heterosexual Awesomeness, which has formal 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit, represents the perfect Christian antidote to self-obsessed pride, for the festival’s lighthearted title alone demonstrates that its organizers and supporters do not take themselves too seriously.
According to NBC News, the idea for a Heterosexual Awesomeness Month originated with 47-year-old Mark Fitzpatrick, father of six children and owner of the Old State Saloon in the Boise suburb of Eagle.
In fact, in an Instagram video last week, Fitzpatrick explained how he came up with the idea.
“I was thinking to myself, ‘What could we do to celebrate in June that would be different than what’s going on downtown? Can we be different than what Pride has been celebrating every June? What if we celebrated God’s design for sexuality? What would that look like?’ And within a few seconds, I thought, ‘Man, heterosexuality is awesome,’” he said.
Of course, Fitzpatrick has adopted this lighthearted approach in response to an actual danger.
Needless to say, LGBT individuals deserve love and pose no threat by virtue of their sexual proclivities alone. But the radical LGBT agenda does pose a very serious cultural threat.
“This isn’t just another festival,” a female voice said in a promotional video also shared to Instagram last week. “It’s a movement — a celebration of faith, family, and freedom.”
“We’re looking for sponsors, volunteers, bands and speakers! Come celebrate traditional family values!” the Old State Saloon wrote in a corresponding post.
Meanwhile, Fitzpatrick shared a similar message in an email to NBC.
“The Hetero Awesome Fest and Heterosexual Awesomeness Month aim to celebrate the traditional family unit and address concerns about cultural trends influenced by liberal progressivism,” he wrote. “Our event is not about targeting any group but about raising awareness of practices we find troubling, such as the encouragement of ‘gender transitions’ among children or their exposure to inappropriate content.”
Indeed, those “cultural trends” have shown recent signs of reversing themselves.
For instance, major corporations have begun to withdraw financial support for gratuitous LGBT celebrations like “pride month.”
President Donald Trump’s administration has also taken aim at some of the grotesque injustices associated with transgender ideology.
In short, high tide for self-obsessed pride might already have come and gone. May the ascent of Christian humility finally help wash away those deadly sins.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
The post ‘Pride Month’ Meets Its Match: Christian Group Cooks Up ‘Hetero Awesomeness’ Plan for State Capitol During June appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Harvard Law Review Launches Leak Probe
On the hunt: As the Trump administration probes Harvard Law Review over our report on its race-based policies, the journal is launching its own investigation—to identify the leaker of the damning internal documents spelling out those policies.
“The journal’s top editors asked members of the law review last week to come forward with any information that might help identify the leaker, writing, ‘The information contained in the article should not have been shared,'” the Free Beacon‘s Aaron Sibarium reports. “‘We are looking into the matter,’ the editors said Friday in an email. ‘Our inboxes and offices are open to anyone with information about these recent events.'”
Our only question is: Will they consult with Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon in this leak investigation?
The aggressive response is a new one when it comes to how the Harvard Law Review handles leaks. The journal “did not launch any kind of probe when 19 editors did exactly that in December 2023, after the journal voted to kill a controversial piece by a Palestinian scholar, Rabea Eghbariah, that accused Israel of genocide, according to a person with firsthand knowledge of the matter.”
READ MORE: Harvard Law Review Hunts For Leaker in Wake of Free Beacon Report
Spring cleaning: During the Biden administration, a little-known State Department office doled out roughly $1 million to nonprofit groups to probe alleged Israeli human rights abuses. The administration shut the program down before the entity behind it—the Office of Global Programs, part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)—could disburse the money, but left the office’s grantmaking authority in place. Not anymore.
The Trump State Department, led by Marco Rubio, “will close down the Office of Global programs, eliminating a 38-person staff of career bureaucrats and transferring remaining grant programs to regional offices,” our Adam Kredo reports.
“The move is part of a broader effort to align federal bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom with the Trump administration’s policy priorities,” writes Kredo. “When it comes to DRL’s grantmaking power, the administration believes that regional offices staffed with political and diplomatic appointees are less likely than career agency employees in Washington, D.C., to contradict those priorities.”
Never meet your heroes: Harvard refers to education lecturer Diana Buttu as an “international human rights” lawyer who served as “the only female negotiator” in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But she’s taken on other roles over the years, our Chuck Ross reports, like Palestinian Liberation Organization spokeswoman and all-around Hamas shill.
“In an Oct. 22, 2024, interview,” Ross writes, “Buttu praised Hamas as a ‘movement for freedom, for liberation,’ and hailed its leader, Yahya Sinwar, after his assassination in an Israeli drone strike. ‘The Israelis will never understand what it means to die a hero,’ she said of Sinwar.”
Buttu will teach courses on “Women Leaders” and “Negotiation Skills” in June, according to Harvard’s website. She’ll do so as the school “tries to assuage concerns over enabling anti-Semitic and anti-Israel fervor. Harvard released a report on Monday that acknowledged it has ‘mainstreamed and normalized’ anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias in course work through faculty hiring decisions and other aspects of campus life.”
READ MORE: Harvard ‘Human Rights’ Lecturer Fawned Over ‘Hero’ Hamas Leader
Away from the Beacon:
- Tim Walz, best known for running a “mean pick six,” says Kamala Harris picked him as her running mate to talk to white men. “I could code talk to white guys watching football, fixing their truck, doing that. … I was the permission structure to say, ‘Look, you can do this and vote for this.'” Instead, minorities fled the Democratic Party.
- Don’t blame the “unprecedented power outage that hit the Iberian peninsula this week” on renewable energy—instead blame it on “the management of renewables in the modern grid,” reports Reuters. Got that?
- The United States and Ukraine have officially signed their long-awaited minerals deal, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday evening.
The post Harvard Law Review Launches Leak Probe appeared first on .
Noncitizen Voting And Voter Fraud Schemes: DOJ Investigates Voting Crimes Across Multiple States And Elections
Within the last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it charged multiple individuals with illegally voting as noncitizens in American elections. The DOJ also revealed a foreign national pleaded guilty to conspiring in a voter registration fraud scheme. As my colleague Beth Brelje reported, the DOJ announced Monday that 45-year-old Akeel Abdul Jamiel was […]
Harvard Law Review Hunts For Leaker in Wake of Free Beacon Report
As the Trump administration launches multiple probes of the Harvard Law Review in the wake of a Washington Free Beacon report on the journal’s race-based policies, the law review itself will be conducting its own investigation—not into the evidence of discrimination revealed by dozens of documents, but into who leaked those documents to the Free Beacon.
The journal’s top editors asked members of the law review last week to come forward with any information that might help identify the leaker, writing, “The information contained in the article should not have been shared.”
“We are looking into the matter,” the editors said Friday in an email. “Our inboxes and offices are open to anyone with information about these recent events. We will update you with developments.”
The editors, including Harvard Law Review president G. Terrell Seabrooks, also suggested that they had no plans to jettison their discriminatory policies in light of the Free Beacon’s report, which was based on a trove of documents revealing that the journal selects articles for publication—and students for editorial positions—based in part on the applicant’s race.
“We do not anticipate these developments altering our day-to-day operations,” the editors told their colleagues.
The letter, which praised each editor’s “natural brilliance” and assured them that “you belong in this organization,” underscored the mix of defiance and anxiety that has characterized Harvard’s response to the report.
Hours after the report went live, every student at the law school received an email from Faculty, Alumni, & Students Opposed to Racial Preferences, a group represented by former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, ordering them to preserve documents that the group plans to subpoena for a pending discrimination complaint against the law review.
The law school condemned the email the next day and said it was “investigating all aspects of these communications.” In a move that surprised practicing litigators, it also implied that no student at the law school—even those in possession of the documents—was required to preserve the materials.
“The requested litigation hold is not legitimate,” Stephen Ball, Harvard Law School’s dean of students, wrote in a message to the school. Lawyers who reviewed the message said it was a brazen violation of legal norms that could result in sanctions for both students and the university.
“I’m surprised that Harvard Law School is taking the position that documents do not need to be preserved,” said Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel and a former official in the Justice Department’s civil rights division. “The consequences for students applying to the bar if a judge later disagrees with Harvard and the students destroy documents could be significant.”
By Monday the law school appeared to have abandoned that position. A few hours after the Free Beacon asked for comment, the Harvard Law Review told all editors to preserve documents pursuant to the litigation hold, which had also been sent to the university’s general counsel, Jennifer O’Connor, and to the interim dean of Harvard Law School, John Goldberg.
A spokesman for the law school, Jeff Neal, told the Free Beacon that “Harvard takes seriously every valid litigation hold request it receives.” He declined to comment on whether the law school was investigating any students over the hold.
Harvard sued the Trump administration last month in an effort to unfreeze the more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts that the government has put on pause. The freeze came after Harvard refused to comply with a list of demands from the White House’s anti-Semitism task force, which is investigating the Ivy League school over alleged violations of civil rights law.
While the law review claims to be independent of the university, the probes announced this week will examine the relationship between the two, including “financial ties” and “oversight procedures.” Depending on what they find, the law review’s policies could be grounds for the Trump administration to revoke even more aid.
Harvard, the nation’s wealthiest university, has been in the GOP’s crosshairs since its response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which included a mealy-mouthed statement that downplayed the violence and appeared to draw an equivalence between Israel and the terrorists who invaded it. Citing the importance of free speech, it also declined to discipline students and professors who called for the destruction of the Jewish state.
The inaction was a stark contrast to how Harvard had policed other offensive statements—not involving Jews—in the past. At a congressional hearing in December 2023, Republicans assailed the double standard and asked the university’s former president, Claudine Gay, whether calls for the genocide of Jews constitute bullying or harassment.
“It depends on the context,” Gay replied. Facing blowback for the hearing as well as reports that she had plagiarized in over half of her published works, she resigned a month later.
The law review’s response to the Free Beacon report reveals a similar double standard. Announcing its investigation into the leak, the journal claimed that leaking information about internal editorial processes violated law review policy. But it did not launch any kind of probe when 19 editors did exactly that in December 2023, after the journal voted to kill a controversial piece by a Palestinian scholar, Rabea Eghbariah, that accused Israel of genocide, according to a person with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
In interviews with the Harvard Crimson, several of those editors claimed that the law review had violated its own editorial processes in order to kill the piece. Some also leaked documents to the Nation and the Intercept purporting to show irregularities in the decision-making process, reports that were contested by other editors. The law review took no action against the editors and did not launch an investigation, the person familiar with the matter said.
A more brazen incident came in March 2024 when two journal editors participated in a panel about the controversy hosted by the Bell Collective for Critical Race Theory, an official Harvard student group whose aims include “ending the US-backed Israeli settler-occupation and genocide in Palestine.” The journal’s president at the time, Sophia Hunt, explicitly blessed their participation, telling law review members in an email that “editors retain the autonomy to discuss their personal experiences on the Review.”
The Harvard Law Review did not respond to a request for comment.
The confidentiality requirement isn’t the only policy the journal has been lax about enforcing. The law review’s selection procedures appear to violate its own non-discrimination policy, which states that the law review “does not tolerate discrimination … in all matters with respect to Harvard Law School students selected as editors.”
“Any editor or staff member who engages in discriminatory behavior may be subject to disciplinary action,” the policy reads, “up to and including removal.”
That language would appear to implicate every member of the journal’s “holistic review committee”—including the law review’s president—which selects nearly half of all student editors and in 2021 made the “inclusion” of “underrepresented groups” its “first priority.”
The committee will consider factors such as “race, socioeconomic background, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability,” a resolution adopted by the journal reads. It will also recognize “the importance of … candidates’ intersectional identities.”
The post Harvard Law Review Hunts For Leaker in Wake of Free Beacon Report appeared first on .
THUNDERDOME RECAP: Ana Navarro Crosses a Red Line
A wild episode of The Thunderdome, more commonly known as CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, featured multiple heated exchanges of ideas. Most importantly, it saw bitter The View panelist Ana Navarro cross a bright red line.
After the obligatory opening segment on the GDP report with concomitant recession hype, the discussion shifted to reports of the Tesla board allegedly opening a search for a new CEO to replace Elon Musk. Scott Jennings, fresh from expressing his desire to acquire farmland during a Michigan Trump rally, recalled a Cabinet secretary (Bessent, if I had to guess but what do I know) citing the development of IT as the biggest DOGE development. This absolutely triggered former Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson:
Another Abby Phillip ref stoppage and warning after Scott Jennings triggers Gretchen Carlson over DOGE making IT improvements at an unnamed Cabinet agency (I suspect Treasury) pic.twitter.com/2fhvACDzJX
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 1, 2025
GRETCHEN CARLSON: Most Americans would agree that they want to get rid of fraud and waste. And now you’re saying that the greatest accomplishment of DOGE…
SCOTT JENNINGS: No, It’s an accomplishment.
CARLSON: …is that they- that- they’ve solved IT problems?
JENNINGS: And I talked- and I spoke to another cabinet secretary yesterday who said this has been a, quote, “wonderful accelerant.”
CARLSON: So what?
JENNINGS: This continues the program continues.
CARLSON: Politicians say whatever they say, to be able to put on a good face.
JENNINGS: Why are you so angry?
CARLSON: I’m not angry. I’m- I’m frustrated.
JENNINGS: You look enraged. I don’t understand.
CARLSON: I’m frustrated like most Americans, because we want to know where the cuts are.
ABBY PHILLIP: Gretchen. Gretchen. Let me just let me just hit pause here. I mean, look. People get worked up at this table, yourself included, all the time. Let’s not call people angry when they’re simply making a point.
JENNINGS: But she’s very upset.
PHILLIP: I just have to say that because. Because I think.
CARLSON: No. I’m frustrated. Because you’re blaming it on IT.
PHILLIP: Let’s deal with- let’s deal with the…
JENNINGS: I’m not blaming anything. I’m saying it was a good byproduct of what they did.
PHILLIP: Scott and Gretchen, just give me one second, OK? Let’s deal with the issues at hand. We don’t have to, you know, say you’re angry or, you know, this. She’s just making a point. Okay?
CARLSON: Thank you.
If you’re keeping score, that’s a ref stoppage and a scolding from Abby Phillip- as often happens when a liberal is on the ropes. Something that happens way too often. This closed out the segment and had Phillip teasing the next, on immigration. Most interestingly, her reference of MS-13 gangbanger Kilmar Abrego García as “that man that was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.” Interesting choice to drop the “Maryland”.
The immigration segment fell along familiar lines, with the panel liberals advocating for Abrego, and with conservatives arguing in favor of strong border security. Here, Jennings shone:
ANOTHER Abby Phillip ref stoppage as Scott Jennings schools the panel on Kilmar Abrego-Garcia and his tattoos. pic.twitter.com/72OqWxZOk1
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 1, 2025
JENNINGS: Several things. Number one, the children that you mentioned were not deported. They went with their mothers. Their mothers requested that the children come with them. So their mothers were deported because they were illegal aliens.
ANA NAVARRO: And they didn’t get due process.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: And so, and so they went so- so, so there’s really two choices here. Split the family or keep the family together. The U.S. government’s policy here was to let the mothers decide. The mothers decided to take the children. That’s number one on the Garcia case. Effectively what you all are arguing for, passionately, and what Democrats are passionately arguing for is for the President of the United States to re-import a dangerous member of a transnational terrorist organization who has clear affiliations with a gang that commits heinous atrocities. That is not what he was elected to do. And whether you bring him back here or not, I’m just going to explain to you the politics of this through telling you what the Speaker of the House(SIC), Hakeem Jeffries, did today, which is that he told his members, “please, for the love of God, stop going to El Salvador and dying on this hill. The politics of this could not be worse for the left and worse for Democrats, because the president knows he was elected to protect us from MS-3. And that is what they are doing.
ANA NAVARRO: Yeah, but none of the things you just said have been proven.
JENNINGS: But what do you say about the tattoos?
NAVARRO: I say that what trump said yesterday was an absolute lie.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Are you saying the MS-13 that Donald Trump claims are legitimate tattoos on this guy are true? Are you saying the photoshop is true?
JENNINGS: Are you- are you a tattoo truther? I mean, I don’t understand.
NAVARRO: Wait, are you a photoshop denier?
RAUL REYES: You’re getting away from the issue.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Yeah, we are getting away from the issue. Scott. The- the- the picture of his knuckles does not say MS 13-
JENNINGS: The symbols.
PHILLIP: Okay. Yeah. Let me just explain to people what we’re talking about here.
NAVARRO: That has not been proven either. Scott. None of the things you have said.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: They have not said so in court.
PHILLIP: So let me just explain to people what we’re talking about here. There are symbols on his knuckles. None of them say MS-13. However, this administration has decided that they symbolize something related to MS-13, which is disputed by a lot of people including gang–
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I am going to move on. I’m going to move on. Because this is not a conversation about the tattoos.
Navarro and Jennings were going back and forth about the exchange on tattoos between President Trump and ABC’s Terry Moran, and whether the superimposed MS-13 on a photo of “Maryland Dad’s” hand is legitimate. Abby Phillip went in with another stoppage and wrapped the discussion up.
Still on immigration, Shermichael SIngleton tries to explain how “Maryland Dad” was found to be a gangbanger, but not being able to get in a word edgewise. He let Phillip have it.
WATCH: @MrShermichael is fed up with constant interruption, is interrupted AGAIN as he lays out the initial factual basis leading to Kilmar Abrego Garcia to be found a gang member. LET SHERMICHAEL COOK pic.twitter.com/tmdJVNCinL
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 1, 2025
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON: Can I…?
PHILLIP: No no no no no. Hold up.
SINGLETON: Why do we always have to play this game of interrupting people when they’re talking?
PHILLIP: OK. But you’re saying…
SINGLETON: What’s the point of me being on the show, if I can never finish my freaking point?
PHILLIP: Okay…
SINGLETON: This is getting really annoying, Abby.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
SINGLETON: Everyone else has made their statements. I have yet to say anything.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Okay?
SINGLETON: I mean, Jesus.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
NAVARRO: So angry. As Scott was saying. Ha ha ha.
SINGLETON: Because I have a point of view to make here as well.
PHILLIP: Everybody, hang on just one second. Shermichael, let me- let me ask you a question. The question is, has the government presented evidence in court that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13?
SINGLETON: And my response…
PHILLIP: ANd the answer is no. That has not happened in court. But it doesn’t mean that they have not made those claims publicly. It doesn’t mean that those claims are not. In police reports. It doesn’t mean that they’re not in police reports.
SINGLETON: In 2019,
PHILLIP: They’re just not statements that were made in a court case.
SINGLETON: In 2019, the immigration judge at the time believed the Prince Georges County gang unit and the evidence that they presented before that judge at the time that Mr. Garcia did indeed belong to a gang. This is not my opinion. You can- people can Google this crap. They can Google this. CBS reported on this. If a judge believes it in 2019, is it now all of a sudden not true?
REYES: Judge granted him a withholding of removal.
SINGLETON: I acknowledge that fact. I acknowledge that fact.
PHILLIP: Which is a different issue. Hold on, hold on, hold on.
SINGLETON: But- but the point remains that a judge found the evidence to be credible that Mr. Garcia did indeed belong to a gang. So now all of a sudden, we’re not not going to believe judges?
PHILLIP: Okay. The judge found-
SINGLETON: We can’t have it both ways.
PHILLIP: I don’t- I don’t want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but my- my only point is that the government has not presented beyond the the the police report. They have not presented the evidence to prove that he belonged to this gang.
SINGLETON: So the police reports are not considered evidence before a court of law? Do judges not- do judges not consider police reports? What are we saying?
PHILLIP: Shermichael, what is- what was the- what was the original…
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It is relevant…
PHILLIP: Hold on. I actually want Shermichael to finish the point.
SHERMICHAEL: It absolutely is relevant to the argument from the administration, which is that Mr. Garcia belonged to a gang, as one of the reasons of deporting him out of the country. You guys are sitting here saying there’s no truth to this, there’s no facts to this. That’s not true.
Credit to Singleton for quickly recovering after speaking up over the constant interruptions. And we learn that the reason for those interruptions is so Phillip can speak over Singleton and try to shut down any talk of evidence of Abrego Garcia being a gangbanger.
It was at this point shortly thereafter that Navarro reset her “days without cheapshotting Marco Rubio” counter to zero. What ensued afterwards was absolutely wild, as Singleton and Navarro get into a shouting match over which ethnic group had it worse:
THE PROBLEM WITH OVERTALK AT THUNDERDOME: Ana Navarro and Shermichael Singleton have a huge blowout over historic immigration vs slavery. Shermichael may not have heard Ana say “other than Black”, but her condescending “act all indignant” was WAY over the line. pic.twitter.com/kUES1vO0fb
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 1, 2025
SINGLETON: We do not have unlimited resources…
PHILLIP: I think a lot of Americans…
SINGLETON: to take care of other people.
NAVARRO: There’s a hell of a lot of people, other than the Black people who were brought here as slaves, who came to this country illegally. There are a lot of different-
SINGLETON: They are not the same as Black people who were brought here against our will.
NAVARRO: That’s exactly what I just said. I said there is a lot of people…
SINGLETON: They decided to walk their butt across the border. There’s a big difference.
NAVARRO: …OTHER than Black people.
SINGLETON: There is a big difference. There is a big difference, Ana.
NAVARRO: That’s exactly what I just said. That’s exactly what I just said, Shermichael.
SINGLETON: There’s a big difference.
PHILLIP: Shermichael and Ana…
NAVARRO: We’re gonna act indignant. That’s exactly what I just said.
SINGLETON: It’s not about acting indignant.
NAVARRO: You just heard me say “other than the Black people who came as slaves.”
SINGLETON: You are- you are acting as though you have the moral high ground here.
NAVARRO: There are a lot of people, from many countries, that came here illegally.
PHILLIP: Shermichael, I think you actually misheard what she- think you misheard what she said.
NAVARRO: No, he purposely misheard it.
PHILLIP: She- she said…
SINGLETON: I purposely misheard. So now you’re in my brain?
PHILLIP: Shermichael, listen to me for just a second.
SINGLETON: Is that where we’re going?
PHILLIP: Shermichael, listen to me for a second.
NAVARRO: You think I would say- I, who have advocated for black people…
PHILLIP: Ana, please stop.
NAVARRO:.. my entire life and say something like that?
SINGLETON: Because you’ve advocated for black people. Great. Congratulations. Last time I checked, I’m black. You’re not.
PHILLIP: Okay, Shermichael.
NAVARRO: That’s right. I’m Latino, and my people are being racially profiled. And unfairly treated.
SINGLETON: And do I have to remind you of the history of my people? If you want to go there?
PHILLIP: Shermichael…
SINGLETON: Do you really want to go there?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We’re going to go to break. Raul Reyes, thank you for joining us. Everybody else hang tight. We’ll be right back.
By the time that Phillip realized the segment got away from her, it was too late. Navarro and Singleton were already at each other’s throats. The thing is, and upon review of the transcript, Navarro was right in that she said “other than” Black people and Phillip was right in that Singleton misheard Navarro.
It was dumb for Navarro to compare the risks and perils inherent to illegal immigration to the outright horrors of chattel slavery. But Navarro took it a step further by mocking Shermichael’s (misplaced) outrage, and then by suggesting that Shermichael intentionally misheard her- imputing ill will, and doing so the entire time with a condescending tone. The segment spiraled out of control and Phillip ended up throwing the towel and going to break. The whole thing could have been avoided had Navarro just shut up when Phillip said “Ana, please stop.”
By the way, I have to question the kind of standard that throws Girdusky off the set for making the pager joke to Mehdi Hassan, but allows Navarro to remain and probably return after that sordid exchange. As I explained on X, with regard to Navarro’s reaction:
To understand Navarro’s reaction to Singleton, you have to understand the creation of an artificial “Latino” identity on the basis of shared oppression, as a peer to Black identity. @Gundisalvus’ scholarship here is essential: https://t.co/SzLKaGbrN5
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 1, 2025
The show ended with light bonding in mockery of Tampon Tim Walz, but the earlier avoidable fireworks hung thick in the air. Thunderdome, indeed.
Tim Walz Claims He Was Chosen as Running Mate for Kamala Harris Because He Could ‘Code Talk’ to White Guys (VIDEO)
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made an appearance at the Harvard Kennedy School this week and told people that he was picked to be Kamala Harris’ running mate because he could ‘code talk’ to white guys.
That strategy didn’t work out too well for the Harris campaign, did it? Democrats lost men of all races by a wide margin. In fact, the Democratic party is struggling to figure out how to win back male voters who have deserted them in record numbers.
Tim Walz went on to compliment Harris as one of the most qualified candidate to ever run for president, showing just how out of touch he really is.
The New York Post reports:
Tim Walz says Harris picked him for VP to ‘code talk to white guys’
Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz continued a self-described “listening tour” across the country at a Harvard Kennedy School forum on Monday night, ruling out a 2028 presidential bid and revealing why former Vice President Kamala Harris chose him as her running mate.
Walz said Harris chose him, in part, because “I could code talk to white guys watching football, fixing their truck” and “put them at ease.” The Minnesota governor described himself as the “permission structure” for white men from rural America to vote for Democrats.
“I think I’ll give you pretty good stuff, but I’ll also give you 10% problematic,” Walz added when pushed by moderator Brittany Shepherd, an ABC News national political reporter, about why he didn’t take that message to cable news to reach a larger audience. Walz laughed off criticism over inconsistencies in his background on the 2024 campaign trail, describing himself as a “knucklehead.”
Walz told CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this month that he was considering a third bid for Minnesota governor but was not thinking about running for president in 2028. When asked by Shepherd to explain, Walz said the Democratic Party should run a collective 2028 presidential campaign.
Here’s the video:
WALZ: I was picked for Kamala’s VP so “I could code talk to white guys.”
“I was the permission structure to say, look, you can vote for this.”
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 30, 2025
It’s amazing that this person tried to accuse JD Vance and Trump of being weird. Walz has the market cornered on weirdness.
The post Tim Walz Claims He Was Chosen as Running Mate for Kamala Harris Because He Could ‘Code Talk’ to White Guys (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Illegal aliens aren’t just ‘guests’ — they’re future voters
After visiting a nearby resort filled with opulent wokesters, I couldn’t help but notice the signs proclaiming, “Love, not hate, makes America great.” I suspect the signs were meant to remind us of Donald Trump’s supposed nastiness for deporting as many as 50,000 illegal immigrants — most with criminal records. According to the left, such a policy makes Trump a fascist — maybe even the latest incarnation of Hitler.
A “nicer” leader, we’re told, would allow these illegal immigrants — including convicted rapists and other lowlifes — to remain in the country, at least until they exhausted multiple judicial appeals or committed a few more crimes. Why stop there? Let them vote in local elections, receive public assistance, education, and health care. After all, they supposedly enrich our society — or so Democrats insist, as they work tirelessly to provide all these forms of taxpayer-funded hospitality.
When virtue signalers clutch their pearls over Trump’s treatment of ‘nice illegal rapists,’ I have to wonder if they’re playing dumb.
But why did Democratic presidents we’re supposed to venerate — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — get a free pass for far harsher deportation records? Clinton expelled close to a million illegal aliens with minimal judicial involvement, even boasting about his deportations during his re-election campaign. Obama, the left’s beloved heartthrob, threw out over four million illegal immigrants, aided by Trump’s current border czar Tom Homan, all without major interference from Democratic-appointed judges.
Compared to Clinton and Obama, Trump’s deportation numbers look paltry, especially given the legal and media warfare waged against him.
Even as recently as 2006, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — now screaming about Trump’s “cruelty” — eagerly pushed for building a border wall. Thirty years ago, few Democratic senators would have voted against it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), back then, warned against flooding the country with unskilled foreign labor that would hurt America’s most vulnerable workers. Obama himself praised tougher immigration controls. In 2006, Democrats still held some loyalty to their working-class base. They understood that saturating American communities with third world lumpenproletariat — not to mention foreign gangs — would devastate the working class.
That was before Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), and Rachel Levine became the faces of the rebranded Democratic Party.
Since then, both national parties have swapped electoral bases. Republicans moved away from country-club elites and realigned with the white — and increasingly Hispanic — working class. Democrats abandoned their traditional blue-collar support to embrace progressive white women, the LGBTQ lobby, government bureaucrats, black militants, and now, the cause of illegal immigrants.
For Democrats, the strategy is simple: expand the non-working-class base. Biden’s administration opened the border to as many as 10 million illegal aliens, and anyone with a functioning brain can see why.
Yet, when virtue signalers clutch their pearls over Trump’s treatment of “nice illegal rapists,” I have to wonder if they’re playing dumb. Do they really not know why their party flooded the country with illegal aliens? Do they honestly think slogans about “love” explain why Democrats fight tooth and nail to keep even convicted criminals from deportation?
Every illegal immigrant represents a potential future Democratic voter. If Trump’s administration was allowed to make moral distinctions among the “undocumented,” Democrats might lose too many future loyalists. Better, from their view, to defend even a wife-beating, MS-13-affiliated “Maryland man” than risk losing tomorrow’s votes.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. Maybe the Democratic cheering squad doesn’t know — or care — how radically its party reversed itself on immigration. Maybe leftists assume their Democratic heroes always held the same radical social views as Tim Walz and Hakeem Jeffries.
Most live in the present, parroting whatever slogans the media and party elites hand them. If journalists and historians hide the truth, these activists show little curiosity to uncover it.
Meanwhile, the media and judicial attacks on Trump’s supposedly “Nazi-like” immigration policies continue to erode public support. Trump now polls negatively even on immigration, the very issue that propelled him into the White House.
If this delusion holds, Democrats may succeed in securing nearly all of their future voters.
Inside Trump’s plan to make the FBI great again
From its founding more than a century ago, the FBI has been regarded as the premier law enforcement agency in the world. But during my time as an acting section chief at FBI headquarters, I saw firsthand how the bureau lost its way over the past four years, weaponizing against law-abiding American citizens solely based on their politics.
Now, with President Donald Trump’s return to the White House and a new FBI director in charge, the bureau has a chance to reclaim its legacy. Here’s how.
Kash Patel’s focus on getting back to basics and focusing on the mission is exactly what the FBI needs.
Under Joe Biden, FBI leadership turned the bureau into a political weapon, sacrificing public safety in the process. Top officials redirected personnel and resources away from genuine threats, including foreign terrorism and Chinese espionage, and toward prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants.
While violent crime surged across the country, the FBI prioritized ideological targets. Agents scrutinized traditional Catholic services, harassed parents who spoke out at local school board meetings, and carried out Attorney General Merrick Garland’s unprecedented order to raid President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago.
No more waste
Most FBI employees serve the public with integrity. But Director Kash Patel needs to act swiftly to fire the bad actors who damaged the bureau’s credibility in recent years. He should also dismiss any career personnel who resist or slow-roll President Trump’s tough-on-crime agenda.
The Department of Government Efficiency is reviewing every agency to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse — and it must make a long stop at the Hoover Building. Patel should cut unnecessary travel and rein in wasteful spending, especially inflated payments to confidential human sources.
The bureau — or the DOGE — should also conduct a full audit of contracts with outside organizations, just as other agencies have already begun to do.
Get out of DC
But more than just overspending on unnecessary travel, the FBI can be reorganized to promote more efficiency — not just for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars, but for the sake of ensuring speed and effectiveness in enforcing the law. For instance, the Bureau could easily do without the intelligence branch and merge its personnel and mission into other FBI units.
The FBI is not an intelligence agency. It is, rather, a law enforcement agency that uses intelligence. The bureau should not try to be a domestic version of the CIA.
Any reorganization should also move FBI headquarters out of Washington, D.C. Right now, about one-third of FBI personnel work in the Washington area. That’s a terrible idea.
Threats to our country are not concentrated in and around the District of Columbia. FBI headquarters should be moved to Huntsville, Alabama, Quantico, Virginia, or to other established FBI locations outside the Beltway. This would save taxpayer money, refresh the culture at the bureau, and enhance the quality of life for FBI personnel and their families.
Revive merit-based hiring
For future hiring and recruitment, Patel should ensure the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the bureau and reinstate merit-based hiring. The bureau’s DEI office was shut down after President Trump’s election in November, but Patel must make sure that the diversity scourge does not return under a different name.
We need the best and the brightest at the FBI — regardless of what they look like — so that they can protect every American of every race, color, and creed.
Director Patel has already brought about a sea change at the bureau. Applications for new agents are breaking records, signaling renewed public trust in the bureau. a The FBI has already apprehended three of the top 10 most wanted criminals in just three months — after finding zero in total last year. The FBI has also brought to justice one of the terrorists who killed 13 Americans during President Biden’s abandonment of Afghanistan.
These results show that Patel’s focus on getting back to basics and focusing on the mission is exactly what the FBI needs.
The road ahead
More work remains — not just over the next four years, but well beyond. Long-term reform requires congressional action. Lawmakers must strengthen legal penalties for FBI employees who abuse their positions, whether for personal gain or to serve a political agenda.
Congress also has a duty to impose serious oversight. Without it, the bureau will repeat the abuses of the recent past.
The FBI remains one of America’s most powerful institutions, with a long record of service and sacrifice. With strong leadership and sound policy, it can rebuild trust — and become better than ever.