On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that she recommended charges related to a pair of leaks.

“Politicization of our intelligence and leaking classified information puts our nation’s security at risk and must end. Those who leak classified information will be found and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” Gabbard said in a post on X.

“Today, I referred two intelligence community LEAKS to the Department of Justice for criminal referral, with a third criminal referral on its way, which includes the recent illegal leak to the Washington Post,” she added.

Gabbard was alluding to a disclosure on Iran and Israel to The Washington Post, which she referenced in March when announcing her inquiry into various leaks to the media.

The post did not disclose any further information, including who may have been the subject of the referrals. It remains to been seen whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its FBI look into the matter and decide whether charges are warranted.

“These deep-state criminals leaked classified information for partisan political purposes to undermine POTUS’ agenda. I look forward to working with [the DOJ] and [the FBI] to investigate, terminate and prosecute these criminals,” Gabbard concluded.

A combat veteran and former House lawmaker from Hawaii, Gabbard was confirmed by GOP-led Senate to become the director of national intelligence in President Donald Trump’s administration in mid-February via a 52-48 vote.

One month later, Gabbard vowed to track down leakers within the vast U.S. Intelligence Community, which has 18 members that include the CIA, National Security Agency, military branches, and the FBI.

“Our nation’s Intelligence Community must be focused on our national security mission. Politically motivated leaks undermine our national security and the trust of the American people, and will not be tolerated,” Gabbard said at the time in a threat posted to X.

“Unfortunately, such leaks have become commonplace with no investigation or accountability. That ends now. We know of and are aggressively pursuing recent leakers from within the Intelligence Community and will hold them accountable,” she continued.

Gabbard then listed some “recent examples of unauthorized leaks” within the Intelligence Community that resulted in disclosures to The Washington Post, HuffPost, and The Record. She also mentioned a “leaker within the IC sharing information about the U.S. – Russia relationship with NBC.”

She concluded that X thread by saying: “Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.”

The probe was announced before The Atlantic’s Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg first reported that he gained access to a Signal group chat group in which leading Trump administration officials discussed plans for airstrikes on Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

In the ensuing fallout, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz took responsibility for the breach, which has been linked to the “automated suggestion” feature on his iPhone. But the Trump administration denied there was classified information in the conversation and the president has stood by Waltz.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that she recommended charges related to a pair of leaks.

“Politicization of our intelligence and leaking classified information puts our nation’s security at risk and must end. Those who leak classified information will be found and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” Gabbard said in a post on X.

“Today, I referred two intelligence community LEAKS to the Department of Justice for criminal referral, with a third criminal referral on its way, which includes the recent illegal leak to the Washington Post,” she added.

Gabbard was alluding to a disclosure on Iran and Israel to The Washington Post, which she referenced in March when announcing her inquiry into various leaks to the media.

The post did not disclose any further information, including who may have been the subject of the referrals. It remains to been seen whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its FBI look into the matter and decide whether charges are warranted.

“These deep-state criminals leaked classified information for partisan political purposes to undermine POTUS’ agenda. I look forward to working with [the DOJ] and [the FBI] to investigate, terminate and prosecute these criminals,” Gabbard concluded.

A combat veteran and former House lawmaker from Hawaii, Gabbard was confirmed by GOP-led Senate to become the director of national intelligence in President Donald Trump’s administration in mid-February via a 52-48 vote.

One month later, Gabbard vowed to track down leakers within the vast U.S. Intelligence Community, which has 18 members that include the CIA, National Security Agency, military branches, and the FBI.

“Our nation’s Intelligence Community must be focused on our national security mission. Politically motivated leaks undermine our national security and the trust of the American people, and will not be tolerated,” Gabbard said at the time in a threat posted to X.

“Unfortunately, such leaks have become commonplace with no investigation or accountability. That ends now. We know of and are aggressively pursuing recent leakers from within the Intelligence Community and will hold them accountable,” she continued.

Gabbard then listed some “recent examples of unauthorized leaks” within the Intelligence Community that resulted in disclosures to The Washington Post, HuffPost, and The Record. She also mentioned a “leaker within the IC sharing information about the U.S. – Russia relationship with NBC.”

She concluded that X thread by saying: “Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.”

The probe was announced before The Atlantic’s Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg first reported that he gained access to a Signal group chat group in which leading Trump administration officials discussed plans for airstrikes on Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

In the ensuing fallout, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz took responsibility for the breach, which has been linked to the “automated suggestion” feature on his iPhone. But the Trump administration denied there was classified information in the conversation and the president has stood by Waltz.

“}]] 

The post Tulsi Gabbard Targets ‘Deep-State’ Intelligence Leakers With Criminal Referrals appeared first on Spin Politico.

You may have noticed that most of the headlines right now revolve around President Trump and the Republicans. It’s almost as though the Democrats don’t exist.

That’s because they don’t. They have almost lost the will to resist, as you have Bernie Sanders and AOC taking private jets to large venues.

Democrats are struggling for what their message ought to be, so they have unleashed a new term.

It is “Dark Woke,” which is going to go about as well as “Dark Brandon” did.

Just a few years ago, at a NASCAR race, people started chanting “F*** Joe Biden” and a woman who was covering that race then suggested the crowd was actually chanting, “Let’s go, Brandon!”

Republicans started using the slogan “Let’s go Brandon” to imply “F*** Joe Biden.” And then the Biden administration, trying to seize the language back, put out memes of old Joe Biden with laser eyes calling him “Dark Brandon.” Or they put up memes of him with his sunglasses, grinning, and they called it “dark.”

It didn’t go well because he then physically died in the middle of the race and dropped out. In fact, it went very poorly.

So now they’re trying “dark” again. They think that just by adding the word “dark” to things, that makes it cool.

Dumb.

They’re obviously trying to copy the Elon Musk memery of “Dark MAGA.” And so now they have “dark woke.”

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show

According to The New York Times, “There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool.”

That was a really, really short period of time. (There was a point in time when I was significantly closer to weighing 150 pounds. It was a moment, and then it went away.)

The Times continued:

Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in the waning days of Brat summer. She went on the popular podcast “Call Her Daddy.” Tim Walz’s outdoorsy drip led to a Chappell Roan-inspired camo trucker hat. The mems were flowing, and the party’s mood was high.

You’ll recall that even by the end of Brat summer, it was pretty much over for Kamala Harris. The “Call Her Daddy” appearance was a giant failure and cost her a bunch of money.

Tim Walz was never a bro. Nobody ever saw Tim Walz as a bro, unless the bros were hanging out at a high school musical production using jazz hands.

But now, apparently, Democrats are in search of a new memery. The New York Times writes:

As liberals try to get their groove back, some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric aimed at winning back voters who have responded to President Trump’s no-holds-barred version of politics. It’s an attempt to step outside the bounds of the political correctness that Republicans have accused Democrats of establishing. And it requires being crass but discerning, rude but only to a point. Online, it has a name: “Dark woke.”

“Republicans have essentially put Democrats in a respectability prison,” said Bhavik Lathia, a communications consultant and former digital director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party. “There is an extreme imbalance in strategy that allows Republicans to say stuff that really grabs voters’ attention, where we’re stuck saying boring pablum. I see this as a strategic shift within Democratic messaging — I’m a big fan of ‘dark woke.’”

What exactly is “dark woke?”

The Times again:

During a meeting of the House Oversight Committee last May, Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, found herself in a spat with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, after Ms. Greene made a jibe about “fake eyelashes” that the chair, Representative James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, declined to prosecute under the committee’s rules on decorum.

“Mr. Chair, a point of order,” Ms. Crockett said. “I’m just curious, just to better understand your ruling. If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach blonde bad built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?”

Ms. Crockett’s moment became a meme. It was printed on T-shirts. It got her an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel. And now, Democratic strategists say, it has become a perfect example of “dark woke.”

Democrats are very much in love with this sort of stuff.

And it ain’t gonna get them out of their morass.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

You may have noticed that most of the headlines right now revolve around President Trump and the Republicans. It’s almost as though the Democrats don’t exist.

That’s because they don’t. They have almost lost the will to resist, as you have Bernie Sanders and AOC taking private jets to large venues.

Democrats are struggling for what their message ought to be, so they have unleashed a new term.

It is “Dark Woke,” which is going to go about as well as “Dark Brandon” did.

Just a few years ago, at a NASCAR race, people started chanting “F*** Joe Biden” and a woman who was covering that race then suggested the crowd was actually chanting, “Let’s go, Brandon!”

Republicans started using the slogan “Let’s go Brandon” to imply “F*** Joe Biden.” And then the Biden administration, trying to seize the language back, put out memes of old Joe Biden with laser eyes calling him “Dark Brandon.” Or they put up memes of him with his sunglasses, grinning, and they called it “dark.”

It didn’t go well because he then physically died in the middle of the race and dropped out. In fact, it went very poorly.

So now they’re trying “dark” again. They think that just by adding the word “dark” to things, that makes it cool.

Dumb.

They’re obviously trying to copy the Elon Musk memery of “Dark MAGA.” And so now they have “dark woke.”

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show

According to The New York Times, “There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool.”

That was a really, really short period of time. (There was a point in time when I was significantly closer to weighing 150 pounds. It was a moment, and then it went away.)

The Times continued:

Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in the waning days of Brat summer. She went on the popular podcast “Call Her Daddy.” Tim Walz’s outdoorsy drip led to a Chappell Roan-inspired camo trucker hat. The mems were flowing, and the party’s mood was high.

You’ll recall that even by the end of Brat summer, it was pretty much over for Kamala Harris. The “Call Her Daddy” appearance was a giant failure and cost her a bunch of money.

Tim Walz was never a bro. Nobody ever saw Tim Walz as a bro, unless the bros were hanging out at a high school musical production using jazz hands.

But now, apparently, Democrats are in search of a new memery. The New York Times writes:

As liberals try to get their groove back, some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric aimed at winning back voters who have responded to President Trump’s no-holds-barred version of politics. It’s an attempt to step outside the bounds of the political correctness that Republicans have accused Democrats of establishing. And it requires being crass but discerning, rude but only to a point. Online, it has a name: “Dark woke.”

“Republicans have essentially put Democrats in a respectability prison,” said Bhavik Lathia, a communications consultant and former digital director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party. “There is an extreme imbalance in strategy that allows Republicans to say stuff that really grabs voters’ attention, where we’re stuck saying boring pablum. I see this as a strategic shift within Democratic messaging — I’m a big fan of ‘dark woke.’”

What exactly is “dark woke?”

The Times again:

During a meeting of the House Oversight Committee last May, Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, found herself in a spat with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, after Ms. Greene made a jibe about “fake eyelashes” that the chair, Representative James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, declined to prosecute under the committee’s rules on decorum.

“Mr. Chair, a point of order,” Ms. Crockett said. “I’m just curious, just to better understand your ruling. If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach blonde bad built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?”

Ms. Crockett’s moment became a meme. It was printed on T-shirts. It got her an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel. And now, Democratic strategists say, it has become a perfect example of “dark woke.”

Democrats are very much in love with this sort of stuff.

And it ain’t gonna get them out of their morass.

“}]] 

The post The ‘Dark Woke’ Rises — And Trips Over Itself appeared first on Spin Politico.

Meta’s Oversight Board expressed indignation at the social media giant for its January policy overhaul that axed fact-checking and eased restrictions on discussions about immigration and gender identity.

The independent oversight board railed against the company for implementing the changes “hastily” with supposedly no transparency about “what, if any, prior human rights due diligence” was performed.

Zuckerberg acknowledged that previous content moderation efforts had resulted in “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

President Trump had frequently criticized Facebook during his first term, culminating in his platform suspension following the January 6, 2021, Capitol events — a ban eventually lifted as he launched his successful 2024 campaign.

Since President Trump’s election to a second term, the Meta CEO has been working to mend fences and roll back a decade of content policies that prohibited “hate speech” and supposed misinformation that conservatives have long criticized as biased.

As part of the January policy overhaul, Meta scrapped its U.S. fact-checking program, replacing third-party partnerships with a Community Notes tool similar to Elon Musk’s X, per Reuters.

In addition, Meta removed restrictions on “hate speech” towards LGBT individuals, and also announced it would stop proactively scanning platforms for “less severe policy violations,” instead focusing its automated systems only on serious content like terrorism and child exploitation.

Among its 17 recommendations, the board requested that Meta improve enforcement of its bullying policies while clarifying which hateful ideologies remain banned.

The board expressed concern about potential impacts in countries experiencing conflicts, urging Meta to “assess whether the changes could have uneven consequences globally.”

Despite the success of Community Notes on X, the Oversight Board still requested that Meta assess the new tool’s effectiveness and release reports every six months.

Meta said it would respond to the board’s 17 recommendations within 60 days.

The board did uphold Meta’s decisions to allow some controversial content, including posts discussing transgender people’s access to bathrooms, while requiring the removal of posts with racist slurs.

A Meta told Reuters the company welcomed decisions “that leave up or restore content in the interest of promoting free expression,” but did not address rulings calling for content removal.

Despite tensions, Meta has so far committed to funding the Oversight Board through 2027, allocating at least $35 million annually over the next three years, placed in an Irrevocable Trust designed to protect the board’s independence.

Oversight Board Co-Chair Paolo Carozza stated, “We have no reason to think that Meta is soured on the board or planning to make any large-scale structural changes in terms of its commitment with the board.”

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Meta’s Oversight Board expressed indignation at the social media giant for its January policy overhaul that axed fact-checking and eased restrictions on discussions about immigration and gender identity.

The independent oversight board railed against the company for implementing the changes “hastily” with supposedly no transparency about “what, if any, prior human rights due diligence” was performed.

Zuckerberg acknowledged that previous content moderation efforts had resulted in “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

President Trump had frequently criticized Facebook during his first term, culminating in his platform suspension following the January 6, 2021, Capitol events — a ban eventually lifted as he launched his successful 2024 campaign.

Since President Trump’s election to a second term, the Meta CEO has been working to mend fences and roll back a decade of content policies that prohibited “hate speech” and supposed misinformation that conservatives have long criticized as biased.

As part of the January policy overhaul, Meta scrapped its U.S. fact-checking program, replacing third-party partnerships with a Community Notes tool similar to Elon Musk’s X, per Reuters.

In addition, Meta removed restrictions on “hate speech” towards LGBT individuals, and also announced it would stop proactively scanning platforms for “less severe policy violations,” instead focusing its automated systems only on serious content like terrorism and child exploitation.

Among its 17 recommendations, the board requested that Meta improve enforcement of its bullying policies while clarifying which hateful ideologies remain banned.

The board expressed concern about potential impacts in countries experiencing conflicts, urging Meta to “assess whether the changes could have uneven consequences globally.”

Despite the success of Community Notes on X, the Oversight Board still requested that Meta assess the new tool’s effectiveness and release reports every six months.

Meta said it would respond to the board’s 17 recommendations within 60 days.

The board did uphold Meta’s decisions to allow some controversial content, including posts discussing transgender people’s access to bathrooms, while requiring the removal of posts with racist slurs.

A Meta told Reuters the company welcomed decisions “that leave up or restore content in the interest of promoting free expression,” but did not address rulings calling for content removal.

Despite tensions, Meta has so far committed to funding the Oversight Board through 2027, allocating at least $35 million annually over the next three years, placed in an Irrevocable Trust designed to protect the board’s independence.

Oversight Board Co-Chair Paolo Carozza stated, “We have no reason to think that Meta is soured on the board or planning to make any large-scale structural changes in terms of its commitment with the board.”

“}]] 

The post Meta Oversight Board Fumes As Facebook Ends Censorship Initiatives appeared first on Spin Politico.

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum’s patience ran out during a Wednesday segment when American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten interrupted her — and called her “sweetheart” — before she was forced to backpedal and eventually apologize.

MacCallum brought Weingarten in as a guest on “The Story,” where she asked about issues raised by a current case before the United States Supreme Court — Mahmoud v. Taylor — that involves a group of parents demanding an “opt out” for certain LGBTQ-themed lessons in the Montgomery County School District in Maryland. While Weingarten said that she could not comment directly on the case, she said that she was happy to talk about the broader issues at hand.

The Fox News anchor pointed to the dismal test scores recorded across the board at that particular school district, and asked why the schools were more worried about mandating books about pronouns than about ensuring that kids were actually learning to read, write, and understand mathematics.

“Look at this. I mean this — if this isn’t a failure that needs to be so much more important than whether or not you’re reading a book about your pronouns. This is the Maryland rankings,” MacCallum said. “Fourth graders, these same little kids who’ve had these books, you know, fed to them at a very young age, their reading ranked in 2013, they were second in the nation in Maryland. 2024, 20th. Math, 16th in the nation, plummeting down to 39th. So if I were a parent in this district, I would be saying, ‘Please, please leave these books out of the picture teach my child to read and to do math okay, and let’s focus on why we’re there.’”

Weingarten argued that scores were going up in Massachusetts and down in Florida — which she claimed was proof that Florida’s anti-“woke” model was not working and that throwing more money at education was the answer. MacCallum pushed back, saying that Newark, New Jersey — where per capita student funding was among the highest in the nation — suggested otherwise.

WATCH;

After repeating over and over that she’s fighting for respect for women, awful union boss Randi Weingarten then sounds like an old 1970’s Lou Grant calling Martha McCallum “sweetheart”:pic.twitter.com/YgsD5JHDC1

— MARK SIMONE (@MarkSimoneNY) April 22, 2025

But as MacCallum was trying to make her point, Weingarten attempted to shut her down: “Martha, Martha, sweetheart, sweetheart, listen to me —”

“Please don’t call me sweetheart,” MacCallum objected, clearly fed up.

“I’m sorry — my bad,” Weingarten backpedaled, but continued to claim that education problems could be fixed with more money.

MacCallum, referencing the state of Mississippi, pointed out that what was done with that money was also important. “Well, one of the things that they’ve done in Mississippi is to expand choice. They’re also doing something really important in Mississippi, which is to expand teacher training,” she said.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum’s patience ran out during a Wednesday segment when American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten interrupted her — and called her “sweetheart” — before she was forced to backpedal and eventually apologize.

MacCallum brought Weingarten in as a guest on “The Story,” where she asked about issues raised by a current case before the United States Supreme Court — Mahmoud v. Taylor — that involves a group of parents demanding an “opt out” for certain LGBTQ-themed lessons in the Montgomery County School District in Maryland. While Weingarten said that she could not comment directly on the case, she said that she was happy to talk about the broader issues at hand.

The Fox News anchor pointed to the dismal test scores recorded across the board at that particular school district, and asked why the schools were more worried about mandating books about pronouns than about ensuring that kids were actually learning to read, write, and understand mathematics.

“Look at this. I mean this — if this isn’t a failure that needs to be so much more important than whether or not you’re reading a book about your pronouns. This is the Maryland rankings,” MacCallum said. “Fourth graders, these same little kids who’ve had these books, you know, fed to them at a very young age, their reading ranked in 2013, they were second in the nation in Maryland. 2024, 20th. Math, 16th in the nation, plummeting down to 39th. So if I were a parent in this district, I would be saying, ‘Please, please leave these books out of the picture teach my child to read and to do math okay, and let’s focus on why we’re there.’”

Weingarten argued that scores were going up in Massachusetts and down in Florida — which she claimed was proof that Florida’s anti-“woke” model was not working and that throwing more money at education was the answer. MacCallum pushed back, saying that Newark, New Jersey — where per capita student funding was among the highest in the nation — suggested otherwise.

WATCH;

After repeating over and over that she’s fighting for respect for women, awful union boss Randi Weingarten then sounds like an old 1970’s Lou Grant calling Martha McCallum “sweetheart”:pic.twitter.com/YgsD5JHDC1

— MARK SIMONE (@MarkSimoneNY) April 22, 2025

But as MacCallum was trying to make her point, Weingarten attempted to shut her down: “Martha, Martha, sweetheart, sweetheart, listen to me —”

“Please don’t call me sweetheart,” MacCallum objected, clearly fed up.

“I’m sorry — my bad,” Weingarten backpedaled, but continued to claim that education problems could be fixed with more money.

MacCallum, referencing the state of Mississippi, pointed out that what was done with that money was also important. “Well, one of the things that they’ve done in Mississippi is to expand choice. They’re also doing something really important in Mississippi, which is to expand teacher training,” she said.

“}]] 

The post ‘Don’t Call Me Sweetheart’: Disgusted Fox News Anchor Fires Back At Teachers Union Prez appeared first on Spin Politico.

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 “unnatural” would be a vast understatement. It’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’ knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it’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 “gender and sexuality curriculum.” 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’t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it’s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here’s an image from one book that children are introduced to.

Screenshot: What Are Your Words?

This is what’s apparently known as an “LGBT storybook.” This one’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 new curriculum:

[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes ‘intersex flag,’ ‘drag queen,’ ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ 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 ‘make sense.’ Teachers are instructed to say doctors only ‘guess’ when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.

When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about “sex work” and “gender transitioning” 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’t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

Which brings us to yesterday’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’s what the school district is doing. They’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’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’t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district’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:

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’s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there’s a chance that they’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’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’s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it’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’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’t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute “coercion.” The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here’s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:

Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, “a boy can’t be a girl.” And then the lawyer states that it’s not “coercive,” in any way, for the teacher to correct the student’s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.

Even when he’s not contradicting himself, the school district’s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case.

Here’s his opening statement, for example:

Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there’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’s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.

One of the ways we know this isn’t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there’s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That’s because it’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’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’s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you’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’s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:

Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there’s no “burden” on these parents, apparently. It’s not a “burden” to have to pay more money, and change your child’s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she’s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she’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’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:

This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when “sparks fly,” so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district’s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They’re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they’re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won’t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn’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’s why even the far-Left outlet Vox reported: 

The Supreme Court’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ argument went disastrously for public schools.

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’ unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn’t read these books in the classroom. Watch:

We all know that Randi Weingarten isn’t saying this because she believes it. She’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’re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she’s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.

Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there’s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we’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’re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That’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’ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

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 “unnatural” would be a vast understatement. It’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’ knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it’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 “gender and sexuality curriculum.” 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’t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it’s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here’s an image from one book that children are introduced to.

Screenshot: What Are Your Words?

This is what’s apparently known as an “LGBT storybook.” This one’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 new curriculum:

[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes ‘intersex flag,’ ‘drag queen,’ ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ 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 ‘make sense.’ Teachers are instructed to say doctors only ‘guess’ when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.

When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about “sex work” and “gender transitioning” 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’t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

Which brings us to yesterday’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’s what the school district is doing. They’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’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’t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district’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:

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’s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there’s a chance that they’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’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’s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it’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’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’t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute “coercion.” The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here’s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:

Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, “a boy can’t be a girl.” And then the lawyer states that it’s not “coercive,” in any way, for the teacher to correct the student’s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.

Even when he’s not contradicting himself, the school district’s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case.

Here’s his opening statement, for example:

Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there’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’s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.

One of the ways we know this isn’t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there’s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That’s because it’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’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’s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you’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’s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:

Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there’s no “burden” on these parents, apparently. It’s not a “burden” to have to pay more money, and change your child’s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she’s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she’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’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:

This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when “sparks fly,” so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district’s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They’re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they’re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won’t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn’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’s why even the far-Left outlet Vox reported: 

The Supreme Court’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ argument went disastrously for public schools.

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’ unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn’t read these books in the classroom. Watch:

We all know that Randi Weingarten isn’t saying this because she believes it. She’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’re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she’s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.

Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there’s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we’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’re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That’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’ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

“}]] 

The post The Lawyers Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely Humiliated appeared first on Spin Politico.

President Donald Trump mocked China on Tuesday for its pollution, which represents a sizable share of the world’s waste.

Trump posted a series of photos to his Truth Social account that showed islands of floating bottles, plastics, and other waste in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The president called the mess “A Gift from China.”

China is one of the foremost polluting countries, commonly ranking near the top on lists of nations that produce the most waste that finds its way into the natural environment. China was number four on a list of “highest ocean plastic waste polluters in 2025” put together by the United Kingdom’s GreenMatch.

China produces 71,000 metric tons of plastic waste that ends up in the ocean, according to GreenMatch. China ranked just behind Malaysia, which produces 73,000 metric tons. The Philippines and India took the top two spots at 360,000 metric tons and 130,000 metric tons, respectively.

China’s plastic manufacturing sector is the largest in the world and contributes to its chronic appearance at the top of pollution lists.

“China is responsible for 32% of global plastic materials production in 2021, making it the world number one plastic producer by far. China is followed by the world’s second largest plastic producing region: North-America, they are responsible for 18% of the plastic production. In Europe, the plastic footprint is 15%,” according to hydration company Aquablue.

The International Trade Administration reported in 2023 that “China discharged 55.7 billion cubic meters of wastewater in 2021, 28.7% of which originated from industrial sources.”

“The PRC’s sludge volume could reach 90 million tons by 2025, according to the PRC’s National Development of Reform and Commission. … China’s sludge has low organic matter but possesses high silt and heavy metal content levels,” the Trade Administration said.

The evidence of China’s substantial waste is obvious. In 2022, the world’s largest buildup of plastic waste in the ocean floated between California and Hawaii. A study of the plastic island found that China was a top contributor. Waste from China was estimated to make up 32% of the plastic in the floating mound. Japan was the largest contributor to the monstrosity, responsible for an estimated 34% of the plastic waste.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

President Donald Trump mocked China on Tuesday for its pollution, which represents a sizable share of the world’s waste.

Trump posted a series of photos to his Truth Social account that showed islands of floating bottles, plastics, and other waste in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The president called the mess “A Gift from China.”

China is one of the foremost polluting countries, commonly ranking near the top on lists of nations that produce the most waste that finds its way into the natural environment. China was number four on a list of “highest ocean plastic waste polluters in 2025” put together by the United Kingdom’s GreenMatch.

China produces 71,000 metric tons of plastic waste that ends up in the ocean, according to GreenMatch. China ranked just behind Malaysia, which produces 73,000 metric tons. The Philippines and India took the top two spots at 360,000 metric tons and 130,000 metric tons, respectively.

China’s plastic manufacturing sector is the largest in the world and contributes to its chronic appearance at the top of pollution lists.

“China is responsible for 32% of global plastic materials production in 2021, making it the world number one plastic producer by far. China is followed by the world’s second largest plastic producing region: North-America, they are responsible for 18% of the plastic production. In Europe, the plastic footprint is 15%,” according to hydration company Aquablue.

The International Trade Administration reported in 2023 that “China discharged 55.7 billion cubic meters of wastewater in 2021, 28.7% of which originated from industrial sources.”

“The PRC’s sludge volume could reach 90 million tons by 2025, according to the PRC’s National Development of Reform and Commission. … China’s sludge has low organic matter but possesses high silt and heavy metal content levels,” the Trade Administration said.

The evidence of China’s substantial waste is obvious. In 2022, the world’s largest buildup of plastic waste in the ocean floated between California and Hawaii. A study of the plastic island found that China was a top contributor. Waste from China was estimated to make up 32% of the plastic in the floating mound. Japan was the largest contributor to the monstrosity, responsible for an estimated 34% of the plastic waste.

“}]] 

The post Trump Is Right: China Is Literally Building An Island Made Of Trash appeared first on Spin Politico.

As if being a country music star and successful businessman weren’t enough, John Rich has a new mission.

The singer is working to raise awareness about the dangers of child sexual extortion, or “sextortion” – a form of harassment wherein an offender coerces or tricks a minor into sending them sexually explicit images or videos, and then threatens to release the content unless the child furnishes more sexual content or some form of payment. As The Daily Wire reported, sextortion has led dozens of young boys to commit suicide.

On Wednesday, Rich is teaming up with the Department of Homeland Security to host an X Space that he says is the most vital information he’s ever put out on social media. Rich will be joined by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent Dennis Fetting. It will air live at 8 p.m. Eastern on Rich’s X account, @JohnRich. 

7CST tomorrow night, a livestream event with @DHSgov and myself, right here on my @x channel for parents and teens. This is a VERY important presentation if you have kids. Please watch the video for details, and please repost pic.twitter.com/Fl2RHduTdM

— John Rich (@johnrich) April 22, 2025

Rich said he’ll be acting as the “sit-in parent on behalf of American parents,” asking all the important questions you’d want to know. 

“Spend 60 minutes watching it. It will change the way you perceive what’s going on around your kids,” Rich told The Daily Wire. “It can save your kid’s life. It could definitely save their future.”

Rich has been an advocate for children for years now, testifying before the Tennessee House of Representatives in 2022 about removing pornography and obscene content from K-12 schools in the state. Asked if there was a specific moment he felt he had to do something about child exploitation and abuse, Rich replied: “When I became a dad.” 

Still, Rich only learned about child sextortion a few months ago, after his wife and 15-year-old son attended a talk on the subject by Homeland Security Agent Dennis Fetting.

Rich and his wife immediately changed the settings on their kids’ technology. Rich’s marketing mind also kicked in, and he got to work thinking about how he could spread the word to as many parents as possible

“I was astonished not only by what he said, but how my wife reacted to it and my son,” he recalled. “So I went into the DHS.gov site and looked up Know2Protect,” he said. “I read through that and went, ‘This needs to be seen by everybody.’”

Then, he shot Fetting an email.

“I do know Secretary Kristi Noem — but she’s rather hard to get on the phone these days, so I didn’t go to her with this,” he said with a chuckle. “I actually called the local DHS agency in Tennessee and said, ‘Hey, it’s John Rich. Here’s the idea: I wanna get with an agent, do a live stream on X, other platforms as well, where we can get this broad message out.’ I said, ‘I know you’ve got a website, but people are too busy. They’re not gonna go looking up a website. Let’s put it right in front of them and let’s have a conversation, more than a seminar.’”

The Trump administration listened to him, kicked it up the flagpole extremely quickly, and Noem signed on immediately.

“It’s one great thing about the Trump administration — on top of a lot of great things — they’re accessible,” he said, adding that “They want to have a positive impact.”

“They wanna work with you, and they’re listening. They’re listening to the general public.”

“I’m fully aware of the dangers that are out there for our kids right now — it’s totally different than when I grew up,” Rich said. “They are being targeted on apps, video games, social media — places you would never dream of, on innocent-sounding games like Roblox, Minecraft, things like that, where predators are acting like they’re another kid and they’re creating a relationship with your kid, and then they lower the boom, then they start to extort and extort.”

“They do everything from force the kids to send nude pictures of themselves, to take pictures of their parents’ credit cards front and back so they can extort money,” Rich continued. “They threaten them with killing their family, burning their house down, posting the pictures all online.”

“It results in kids, some of them becoming suicidal — it’s a major, major problem,” he said. “So to me, millions of parents needed to hear about this.” 

Rich underscored how Homeland Security, in his experience, was eager and open to listening to him and put things into action. He encouraged others to use their platforms in this space. In particular, he called on celebrities to speak out — but he’s not optimistic that Hollywood will rise to the occasion.

“A lot of what Hollywood’s been about is the exploitation of children,” Rich said. “So, they would have to put something out that rebuts their own stances.”

“I mean, that’s just the truth. I’m sorry, that’s hard to hear, but that’s really what it is,” he said. “If you look at the way they sexualize children in Hollywood, that’s not theory anymore. That’s part of the ethos.”

It’s up to parents, Rich said, to educate their children on the dangers of sextortion.

“You put fear into your son or daughter about not playing in the street. Do you put fear into your son or daughter about not talking to strangers, or don’t take a pill if somebody hands you one, or whatever it might be? Of course you do,” Rich said. “That’s part of being a good parent.”

“Well, now it’s time to put fear into them, a healthy fear about what they’re dealing with online, and do not trust anybody that you don’t know personally online,” he added. 

Rich hopes that his livestream is just the beginning of a longer conversation, and a continued awareness campaign.

“This needs to be a viral moment in America,” he said. “Parents need to have a viral moment with what’s gonna happen tonight on this live stream. The livestream will be recorded and posted to YouTube and Rumble. It’s gonna live on forever and ever.”

You can watch the X Space tonight, live, at 8 p.m. Eastern, on Rich’s X account.

Related: Dozens Of Teen Boys Take Their Own Lives As Online Sextortion Cases Spike

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

As if being a country music star and successful businessman weren’t enough, John Rich has a new mission.

The singer is working to raise awareness about the dangers of child sexual extortion, or “sextortion” – a form of harassment wherein an offender coerces or tricks a minor into sending them sexually explicit images or videos, and then threatens to release the content unless the child furnishes more sexual content or some form of payment. As The Daily Wire reported, sextortion has led dozens of young boys to commit suicide.

On Wednesday, Rich is teaming up with the Department of Homeland Security to host an X Space that he says is the most vital information he’s ever put out on social media. Rich will be joined by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent Dennis Fetting. It will air live at 8 p.m. Eastern on Rich’s X account, @JohnRich. 

7CST tomorrow night, a livestream event with @DHSgov and myself, right here on my @x channel for parents and teens. This is a VERY important presentation if you have kids. Please watch the video for details, and please repost pic.twitter.com/Fl2RHduTdM

— John Rich (@johnrich) April 22, 2025

Rich said he’ll be acting as the “sit-in parent on behalf of American parents,” asking all the important questions you’d want to know. 

“Spend 60 minutes watching it. It will change the way you perceive what’s going on around your kids,” Rich told The Daily Wire. “It can save your kid’s life. It could definitely save their future.”

Rich has been an advocate for children for years now, testifying before the Tennessee House of Representatives in 2022 about removing pornography and obscene content from K-12 schools in the state. Asked if there was a specific moment he felt he had to do something about child exploitation and abuse, Rich replied: “When I became a dad.” 

Still, Rich only learned about child sextortion a few months ago, after his wife and 15-year-old son attended a talk on the subject by Homeland Security Agent Dennis Fetting.

Rich and his wife immediately changed the settings on their kids’ technology. Rich’s marketing mind also kicked in, and he got to work thinking about how he could spread the word to as many parents as possible

“I was astonished not only by what he said, but how my wife reacted to it and my son,” he recalled. “So I went into the DHS.gov site and looked up Know2Protect,” he said. “I read through that and went, ‘This needs to be seen by everybody.’”

Then, he shot Fetting an email.

“I do know Secretary Kristi Noem — but she’s rather hard to get on the phone these days, so I didn’t go to her with this,” he said with a chuckle. “I actually called the local DHS agency in Tennessee and said, ‘Hey, it’s John Rich. Here’s the idea: I wanna get with an agent, do a live stream on X, other platforms as well, where we can get this broad message out.’ I said, ‘I know you’ve got a website, but people are too busy. They’re not gonna go looking up a website. Let’s put it right in front of them and let’s have a conversation, more than a seminar.’”

The Trump administration listened to him, kicked it up the flagpole extremely quickly, and Noem signed on immediately.

“It’s one great thing about the Trump administration — on top of a lot of great things — they’re accessible,” he said, adding that “They want to have a positive impact.”

“They wanna work with you, and they’re listening. They’re listening to the general public.”

“I’m fully aware of the dangers that are out there for our kids right now — it’s totally different than when I grew up,” Rich said. “They are being targeted on apps, video games, social media — places you would never dream of, on innocent-sounding games like Roblox, Minecraft, things like that, where predators are acting like they’re another kid and they’re creating a relationship with your kid, and then they lower the boom, then they start to extort and extort.”

“They do everything from force the kids to send nude pictures of themselves, to take pictures of their parents’ credit cards front and back so they can extort money,” Rich continued. “They threaten them with killing their family, burning their house down, posting the pictures all online.”

“It results in kids, some of them becoming suicidal — it’s a major, major problem,” he said. “So to me, millions of parents needed to hear about this.” 

Rich underscored how Homeland Security, in his experience, was eager and open to listening to him and put things into action. He encouraged others to use their platforms in this space. In particular, he called on celebrities to speak out — but he’s not optimistic that Hollywood will rise to the occasion.

“A lot of what Hollywood’s been about is the exploitation of children,” Rich said. “So, they would have to put something out that rebuts their own stances.”

“I mean, that’s just the truth. I’m sorry, that’s hard to hear, but that’s really what it is,” he said. “If you look at the way they sexualize children in Hollywood, that’s not theory anymore. That’s part of the ethos.”

It’s up to parents, Rich said, to educate their children on the dangers of sextortion.

“You put fear into your son or daughter about not playing in the street. Do you put fear into your son or daughter about not talking to strangers, or don’t take a pill if somebody hands you one, or whatever it might be? Of course you do,” Rich said. “That’s part of being a good parent.”

“Well, now it’s time to put fear into them, a healthy fear about what they’re dealing with online, and do not trust anybody that you don’t know personally online,” he added. 

Rich hopes that his livestream is just the beginning of a longer conversation, and a continued awareness campaign.

“This needs to be a viral moment in America,” he said. “Parents need to have a viral moment with what’s gonna happen tonight on this live stream. The livestream will be recorded and posted to YouTube and Rumble. It’s gonna live on forever and ever.”

You can watch the X Space tonight, live, at 8 p.m. Eastern, on Rich’s X account.

Related: Dozens Of Teen Boys Take Their Own Lives As Online Sextortion Cases Spike

“}]] 

The post How Country Star John Rich Teamed Up With Kristi Noem To Combat Child Sextortion appeared first on Spin Politico.

A twice-deported illegal alien who killed a young couple in a drunk driving accident was set to be let out of a California prison more than six years early.

Oscar Eduardo Ortega-Anguiano, a Mexican national, was charged with manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison after he killed Anya Varfolomeev and Nicholay Osokin in a drunk driving accident in Orange County, California, in November 2021.

The young couple was burned alive after Ortega-Anguiano barreled into their vehicle while high, drunk, and driving nearly 100 miles per hour. The family was notified by the state that the illegal alien was set to be released from prison after serving just over one-third of his ten-year sentence.

Anya Varfolomeev’s father decried the planned early release of the illegal alien. “It’s disgusting. You have two young, unbelievable future, productive American citizens killed for nothing and that illegal immigrant who already has been deported twice is going to be released again? For what?” Anatoly Varfolomeev said. “If even he is deported, he will come back.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has placed an immigration detainer on the illegal alien, and after public backlash, Governor Gavin Newsom’s press office has announced that the state will be honoring the request.

“After being deported in 2013, this individual unlawfully re-entered the US & committed heinous crimes,” the governor’s press office said in a post on X. “CDCR will again coordinate with ICE — as they have w/ 10,000+ inmates — to transfer him before release.”

Ortega-Anguiano will face new federal charges from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for illegally reentering the United States after having previously been deported.

“My office has filed a felony immigration charge against this defendant. He faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted for 8 USC 1326,” Bill Essayli, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California wrote on X. “If the State of California will not seek the full measure of justice against this individual, the [Department of Justice] will.”

My office has filed a felony immigration charge against this defendant. He faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted for 8 USC 1326.

If the State of California will not seek the full measure of justice against this individual, the @TheJusticeDept will. https://t.co/wTuQdun1as

— US Attorney Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) April 23, 2025

“This is absolutely unconscionable. What about Justice for these teens? What about the rights of their parents?” Attorney General Pam Bondi said on X, adding that the DOJ “will work with ICE to make sure this illegal alien receives full punishment for his crimes.”

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

A twice-deported illegal alien who killed a young couple in a drunk driving accident was set to be let out of a California prison more than six years early.

Oscar Eduardo Ortega-Anguiano, a Mexican national, was charged with manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison after he killed Anya Varfolomeev and Nicholay Osokin in a drunk driving accident in Orange County, California, in November 2021.

The young couple was burned alive after Ortega-Anguiano barreled into their vehicle while high, drunk, and driving nearly 100 miles per hour. The family was notified by the state that the illegal alien was set to be released from prison after serving just over one-third of his ten-year sentence.

Anya Varfolomeev’s father decried the planned early release of the illegal alien. “It’s disgusting. You have two young, unbelievable future, productive American citizens killed for nothing and that illegal immigrant who already has been deported twice is going to be released again? For what?” Anatoly Varfolomeev said. “If even he is deported, he will come back.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has placed an immigration detainer on the illegal alien, and after public backlash, Governor Gavin Newsom’s press office has announced that the state will be honoring the request.

“After being deported in 2013, this individual unlawfully re-entered the US & committed heinous crimes,” the governor’s press office said in a post on X. “CDCR will again coordinate with ICE — as they have w/ 10,000+ inmates — to transfer him before release.”

Ortega-Anguiano will face new federal charges from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for illegally reentering the United States after having previously been deported.

“My office has filed a felony immigration charge against this defendant. He faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted for 8 USC 1326,” Bill Essayli, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California wrote on X. “If the State of California will not seek the full measure of justice against this individual, the [Department of Justice] will.”

My office has filed a felony immigration charge against this defendant. He faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted for 8 USC 1326.

If the State of California will not seek the full measure of justice against this individual, the @TheJusticeDept will. https://t.co/wTuQdun1as

— US Attorney Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) April 23, 2025

“This is absolutely unconscionable. What about Justice for these teens? What about the rights of their parents?” Attorney General Pam Bondi said on X, adding that the DOJ “will work with ICE to make sure this illegal alien receives full punishment for his crimes.”

“}]] 

The post California Nearly Freed A Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Drunk Driver — Now Newsom Is Backtracking appeared first on Spin Politico.

The Tennessee General Assembly sent two bills cracking down on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to Republican Governor Bill Lee’s desk on Tuesday as the legislative session came to a close.

One bill would ban publicly funded universities and state and local governments from maintaining DEI offices, while the other bill would prohibit those same entities from making hiring decisions based on race. Both bills passed with overwhelming Republican support.

“DEI violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson said on Tuesday. “We don’t need DEI in our state, Mr. Speaker. We need to hire people and promote people based on their merit. Diversity is a wonderful thing and it will happen. But we’re not going to make diversity the number one objective when we’re trying to serve our constituents and hire good people to take care of our constituents. It will be based on qualifications and merit.”

Johnson was the prime Senate sponsor of both the “Dismantling DEI Departments Act,” which prohibits DEI offices for publicly funded entities, and the “Dismantle DEI Act,” which bans public entities from making hiring decisions based on DEI.

“We want to make sure that we are not discriminating when it comes to hiring people at all levels of government in the state of Tennessee. Similarly, we want to make sure that we are not discriminating when it comes to delivering services to our constituents,” Johnson said from the Senate floor on Tuesday. 

The “Dismantling DEI Departments Act” passed the Senate 26-6 and the House 72-25, while the “Dismantle DEI Act” passed the Senate 27-6 and the House 73-24.

The Dismantling DEI Department Act would prohibit state government departments or agencies, county governments, city governments, and public universities “from maintaining or authorizing an office or department that promotes or requires discriminatory preferences in an effort to increase diversity, equity, or inclusion,” according to a summary of the bill.

Its companion bill, the “Dismantling DEI Act,” would prohibit those same entities from basing hiring decisions on characteristics like race and sex, “rather than on individual merit, qualifications, veteran status, or lawful eligibility criteria.”

DEI has been a hot topic in the state in recent weeks, especially at major universities like Vanderbilt, which was accused of “concealing” its DEI programs in violation of President Donald Trump’s executive order for universities that receive federal funding to eliminate DEI programs.

After pressure from Senator Marsha Blackburn, Vanderbilt confirmed that it would be continuing to take steps to get rid of DEI at the university.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

The Tennessee General Assembly sent two bills cracking down on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to Republican Governor Bill Lee’s desk on Tuesday as the legislative session came to a close.

One bill would ban publicly funded universities and state and local governments from maintaining DEI offices, while the other bill would prohibit those same entities from making hiring decisions based on race. Both bills passed with overwhelming Republican support.

“DEI violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson said on Tuesday. “We don’t need DEI in our state, Mr. Speaker. We need to hire people and promote people based on their merit. Diversity is a wonderful thing and it will happen. But we’re not going to make diversity the number one objective when we’re trying to serve our constituents and hire good people to take care of our constituents. It will be based on qualifications and merit.”

Johnson was the prime Senate sponsor of both the “Dismantling DEI Departments Act,” which prohibits DEI offices for publicly funded entities, and the “Dismantle DEI Act,” which bans public entities from making hiring decisions based on DEI.

“We want to make sure that we are not discriminating when it comes to hiring people at all levels of government in the state of Tennessee. Similarly, we want to make sure that we are not discriminating when it comes to delivering services to our constituents,” Johnson said from the Senate floor on Tuesday. 

The “Dismantling DEI Departments Act” passed the Senate 26-6 and the House 72-25, while the “Dismantle DEI Act” passed the Senate 27-6 and the House 73-24.

The Dismantling DEI Department Act would prohibit state government departments or agencies, county governments, city governments, and public universities “from maintaining or authorizing an office or department that promotes or requires discriminatory preferences in an effort to increase diversity, equity, or inclusion,” according to a summary of the bill.

Its companion bill, the “Dismantling DEI Act,” would prohibit those same entities from basing hiring decisions on characteristics like race and sex, “rather than on individual merit, qualifications, veteran status, or lawful eligibility criteria.”

DEI has been a hot topic in the state in recent weeks, especially at major universities like Vanderbilt, which was accused of “concealing” its DEI programs in violation of President Donald Trump’s executive order for universities that receive federal funding to eliminate DEI programs.

After pressure from Senator Marsha Blackburn, Vanderbilt confirmed that it would be continuing to take steps to get rid of DEI at the university.

“}]] 

The post ‘Don’t Need DEI In Our State’: Republicans Move To Close Government, University DEI Offices appeared first on Spin Politico.

Ben Shapiro traveled to war-torn Kyiv this week for an exclusive 60-minute face-to-face interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Speaking in front of the Saint Sophia Cathedral, Shapiro questioned Zelensky on several topics, including his tense March meeting with President Donald Trump, the substantial amount of American taxpayer money Ukraine is receiving, and prospects for peace with Russia.

The interview will be released in two parts on the Ben Shapiro Show on Thursday and Friday.

I traveled to Ukraine to interview President Zelensky. Part 1 of our conversation drops tomorrow on The Ben Shapiro Show. pic.twitter.com/3jvUIU9m5s

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) April 23, 2025

Shapiro announced the interview on his show on Wednesday, stating that he took a 10-hour ride from Warsaw, Poland, to the Ukrainian capital to meet with Zelensky and “get the answers the American people deserve.”

In an interview teaser, Shapiro asks Zelensky if he thinks he could have handled the contentious February meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance better.

“The meeting in the Oval Office, it did not help Ukraine,” Zelensky said in his response.

Shapiro also asks Zelensky about the $200 billion his country has received from the United States and the concerns Americans have about where the money is ending up.

“There’s nothing to hide,” Zelensky claimed. “We are absolutely open.”

Shapiro’s interview comes as Trump pressures Russia and Ukraine to take his “final offer” peace plan.

On Wednesday, Trump took to Truth Social to slam Zelensky for making “very harmful” comments to the Washington Post over not legally recognizing Russia’s occupation of Crimea.

“This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Huseein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion,” Trump wrote.

Trump called the situation in Ukraine “dire” and said that Zelensky can “have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.”

Trump added that the parties are “very close” to a deal and urged them to, “GET IT DONE.”

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Ben Shapiro traveled to war-torn Kyiv this week for an exclusive 60-minute face-to-face interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Speaking in front of the Saint Sophia Cathedral, Shapiro questioned Zelensky on several topics, including his tense March meeting with President Donald Trump, the substantial amount of American taxpayer money Ukraine is receiving, and prospects for peace with Russia.

The interview will be released in two parts on the Ben Shapiro Show on Thursday and Friday.

I traveled to Ukraine to interview President Zelensky. Part 1 of our conversation drops tomorrow on The Ben Shapiro Show. pic.twitter.com/3jvUIU9m5s

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) April 23, 2025

Shapiro announced the interview on his show on Wednesday, stating that he took a 10-hour ride from Warsaw, Poland, to the Ukrainian capital to meet with Zelensky and “get the answers the American people deserve.”

In an interview teaser, Shapiro asks Zelensky if he thinks he could have handled the contentious February meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance better.

“The meeting in the Oval Office, it did not help Ukraine,” Zelensky said in his response.

Shapiro also asks Zelensky about the $200 billion his country has received from the United States and the concerns Americans have about where the money is ending up.

“There’s nothing to hide,” Zelensky claimed. “We are absolutely open.”

Shapiro’s interview comes as Trump pressures Russia and Ukraine to take his “final offer” peace plan.

On Wednesday, Trump took to Truth Social to slam Zelensky for making “very harmful” comments to the Washington Post over not legally recognizing Russia’s occupation of Crimea.

“This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Huseein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion,” Trump wrote.

Trump called the situation in Ukraine “dire” and said that Zelensky can “have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.”

Trump added that the parties are “very close” to a deal and urged them to, “GET IT DONE.”

“}]] 

The post Ben Shapiro Probes Zelensky In Ukraine As Clock Ticks On Peace Deal appeared first on Spin Politico.