Thursday, July 31, 2025

The Fall of Ugly Liberal Chicks


I can imagine that headline getting a lot of people upset – you’re not supposed to call people ugly – but some people are ugly and everyone knows it. I’m not talking exclusively physically, though that’s a big part. A good-looking woman, for example, can be rendered completely unattractive if she’s stupid or, I assume, liberal (it’s never really happened, in my dating experience, as most liberal women could easily pose for “before” photos for any number of ailments and afflictions, so them being attractive is only theoretical).

The thing about liberal women is they seem to have deliberately chosen to be ugly, at least in a lot of cases. And the left, in general, has embraced unattractiveness as a weird flex, likely to make themselves feel better about the unfortunate aftermath of bad, drunken haircuts and the decision to stretch their ear lobes to fit a Frisbee.

In the last few years, as pioneered by the step-daughter of Kamala Harris – leftists corporations wanted to suck up to Harris, as they assumed she’d be president one day, gave the closest thing she’ll ever have to a kid of her own the “worthless millennial” equivalent of a board seat on Burisma: a modeling contract – has covered her body with stupid, small and disconnected tattoos. This somehow became a trend – like they smoked meth, then on a dare played paintball and agreed to let someone with a tattoo gun put whatever idiotic thing they could think of on their bodies everywhere they’d been shot, all while snorting fentanyl. 

Honestly, look it up. The only way these people could be dumber would be to…actually, no matter what I come up with, it’s being done. 

There has never been a better time to be ugly in America than the last 10 years. Amazon, Dove, Ulta Beauty and pretty much every “fashion” brand that is not European in origin has embraced “models” just the side of type-2 diabetic with unibrows, giant guts and hairy legs. People who get winded standing up and need a minute to catch their breath before the pose and say, “You know I look good,” as they waddle to the kitchen to grab another bag of cool ranch Doritos. 

But I’m not judging. Ok, I am judging. I’ve never had to look away from the TV more than in the last few years, as people either chosen because they’re repulsive or because they’ve chosen to make themselves repulsive have appeared in all their high-definition glory on my giant TV screen. Some of these people frighten house plants and animals, while others contribute to bulimia. 

None of it is on accident – you don’t pick a dude with a 5-o’clock shadow in a dress to be the “new face of beauty” because you don’t want to sicken a large percentage of the audience, you do it as a deliberate thumb in their eye (or at least to make them wish for one so they don’t have to see what is on the TV).

American Eagle looked at that and went in the other direction. Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren had cornered the market on models with gravitational pulls and “women” with penises, and American Eagle noticed a hole in the market. They filled it with Sydney Sweeny, the 27-year-old actress who should spend more time trying to convey character-based thoughts with her eyes if she wants to have a long career in Hollywood and a body that makes no red-blooded American male care that she can’t yet. 

Naturally, the C.H.U.D. brigade lost their collective mind. 

Liberals were upset because they’d successfully badgered normal people into pretending “everyone is beautiful” or people are “healthy and sexy at any size” and all the other hippie crap they’ve been pushing that everyone knows is garbage but since they only ever listen to other liberals, were under no threat of ever hearing out of fear of being excommunicated from the progressive left.

Sweeny’s boobs and butt broke the dam. Even effeminate Democrat “men” couldn’t deny that she’s attractive. They’d spent years being cuckold into pretending a guy who “tucked it back real far” was every bit a “real woman” as someone built like Sweeny. Yet, none of these people ever actually dated any “trans women” because they knew it was a lie. It’s one thing to go along with saying it, it’s another to be seen in public with it.

Sweeny’s ads gave these people, and all normal people, the opportunity to be normal again, if only for a moment. The left-wing harpies screaming “NAZI PROPAGANDA” were met with all the enthusiasm Playboy found when they got rid of nudity for a while and made a man pretending to be a woman a “playmate,” which is to say they were greeted like a fart in a car on a hot day. 

Some truths are universal. And while they can be shouted down and threatened into submission for a while, they cannot be chased out of human nature because they are a part of human nature. If we were all as ugly as Democrats would love to make the “standard of beauty,” we would have gone extinct centuries ago. Thank God we are not. Thank God for beauty. And yes, thank God for leftists desperately trying to force everyone to pretend the genuinely unattractive is anything but, because it separates them from the rest of the herd and leaves normal people alone in reality.

Best Democrats only date themselves, not only because they are the epitome of ugly, inside and out, but because it means they have less time to inflict themselves on normal people. And ridding as much of our lives of those awful creatures is, with the exception of them all renouncing their citizenship and leaving the hemisphere together, the best gift they can give us.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way…



Never-Trumper at NYT Admits: Trump’s Presidency ‘Much More Successful’ Than Expected

A ‘never-Trump’ conservative and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens is admitting he was wrong about Trump’s presidency, acknowledging its huge successes.

Stephens appears to have found it impossible to deny reality, despite suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

In a recent column, Stephens admitted Donald Trump’s presidency has been ‘more successful’ than he expected.

Fox News reported:

New York Times columnist and longtime critic of President Donald Trump, Bret Stephens, admitted that the Trump administration is having more success than he expected.

In a column published Tuesday, Stephens marveled at Trump’s recent slew of successes, saying that the president’s term has had a better turn since his first 100 days in office.

“Egads! After a disastrous first 100 days, Donald Trump is starting to have a much more successful presidency. This is not what we, his foam-at-the-mouth critics, had planned or perhaps secretly hoped for,” he wrote.

Stephens, who’s described himself as a “Never Trump conservative,” listed Trump’s accomplishments – and pointed out whether he’s achieved them through good policy or sheer luck.

Among Trump’s positive policies, the columnist pointed to Trump getting NATO countries on board with increased defense spending.

“Far from destroying the Atlantic alliance, as his critics feared, Trump may wind up being remembered for reviving and rebalancing it, to the advantage of both sides,” he added.

He even praised Trump for “courageous policy.” Namely, the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities last month.

Negative rhetoric about Trump doesn’t fly when the American people can see with their own eyes, and Stephens knows this.

READ: Trump: “Nancy Pelosi Should Be Investigated for Insider Trading”



Source: 

The Daily Fetched - Fetching Your News

X22, And we Know, and more- July 31

 



NIH’s New Rules Try to Curb Tech Abuses but Miss the Structural Rot in Research Funding

 

By J. Scott Turner  |  July 30, 2025  |  Minding the Campus

The Trump War on Science™ delivered a new body blow. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) put out new guidance for researchers applying for grant funding. From September, proposals for new and ongoing research projects would be scrutinized for inordinate use of AI tools like ChatGPT in writing the proposals. Even worse, the NIH would limit researchers’ submissions to only six proposals per year.

Naturally, Science magazine is wringing its hands. The new limits could “hinder researchers in need of funding.” It will significantly hamper researchers’ “survival strategy.” Many researchers “are going to be screwed over by this new policy,” and it will “squash collaborations like bugs.” To add insult to injury, the NIH has advanced this guidance just as the Trump administration is “creating yet another hurdle for researchers even as it slashes science budgets.” Oh, the humanity!

What to do? Contrary to conventional wisdom, the problem facing modern science is not a lack of funding; it is too much funding. The academic sciences are the beneficiary of a nearly $100 billion annual stream of government revenue, a substantial slice of it flowing out of the NIH. This funding stream has been increasing exponentially since 1950, with a doubling time of roughly seven years. For that exponentially rising flood of money, scientific discovery has not grown exponentially, but has ticked along at a fairly steady pace, seemingly indifferent to the rising floods of money being “invested” in it.

[RELATED: MIT Prof Slammed for HHS Report on Gender Care—But Science May Be on His Side]

What that flood of money has done is build a network of perverse incentives that have shifted the entire ethic of science, away from the pursuit of discovery to the pursuit of funding. Where funding had once been the means to the end of discovery, funding is now the end itself. Careers are no longer shaped by what scientific discoveries a scientist has made, but by how much research revenue a scientist generates for the university or institute that employs them. The scientist quoted in the Science article who worried about his “survival strategy” was not being hysterical; he was being realistic. In the modern academic environment, if you don’t bring in enough dollars to satisfy your employer, you don’t have a career.

This is why the life of an academic researcher is mostly consumed by the writing of grant proposals, which consumes a disproportionate amount of a scientist’s time and effort. A proposal once submitted has a low probability of being funded, on the rough order of one-in-four for the National Science Foundation (NSF), to roughly one-in-ten for the NIH. When the whole point of the scientific enterprise has become pulling in revenue, the strategy researchers must pursue is simultaneously rational and perverse. If a proposal has a one-in-ten chance of being funded, the gambler’s strategy is clear: submit at least ten proposals a year in the hope that one is funded. This is why scientists find themselves chained to the soul-crushing regimen of the “grants treadmill,” a never-ending scramble for funding that leaves little time, energy, and space for the creative thought that is the foundation of scientific discovery.

Hence, the twin aims of the new NIH guidance, which was prompted by a rise in the number of grant submissions they were receiving, with at least one investigator submitting forty proposals in NIH’s annual grant funding cycle. Given that scientists on the grants treadmill are already stretched very thin, the increasing submissions would have to have had help, which seems to have been coming from increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, to do the heavy work of proposal writing.

Like everything else in academia, AI is upending traditional ways of doing scientific research. Nature magazine has been exploring science and the new age of AI since 2023. Like any tool, AI can be useful. It can crawl the published literature and provide useful summaries of past research. It can comb through datasets, large and small, and highlight patterns that may elude human scrutiny. Use of AI by researchers in writing and summarizing papers, analyzing data, and writing up results is also on the rise, more so among the younger cohorts of researchers. Like any tool, though, AI can also be abused. It can generate realistic-looking imagery, for example, or highlight features in images that can deceive or distort, something which recently cost Marc Tessier-Lavigne his presidency at Stanford University.

Most seriously, LLMs are derivative, creating narrative out of what has already been published. This poses special challenges for scientists, whose job is to discover new knowledge, which by definition will not provide data for an LLM to parse, or to approach old problems in creative ways, which by definition have not been thought about previously. When sufficient data are lacking, LLMs have been known to “hallucinate,” making up fake narratives and fake references when they cannot find real ones to incorporate. Narratives generated by LLMs are also easily recognizable: they are conspicuously dull and anodyne, lacking the ineffable spark that indicates a creative mind at work. And AI can be a creativity killer, reducing the diversity of ideas in collaborative brainstorming for new ideas. And there is the alarming phenomenon of AI models bursting out with racist and Neonazi rants.

The NIH’s latest guidance responds to a real problem: the use of AI to generate research grants to game the odds of landing a funded research grant. The NIH’s motivation is pure—increasing numbers of dull and derivative AI-facilitated research proposals will only burden the NIH’s already strained apparatus for evaluating them.

[RELATED: These Top Science Officials Love the Copy-Paste Function]

The NIH has the diagnosis wrong, though. It’s not AI that is the problem here; it is the network of perverse incentives that makes scientists’ choice to use AI as a grant-generating tool the rational strategy. Failing to see the problem of these perverse incentives will doom the effort to failure, as it has in the past. Setting arbitrary limits on the number of proposals a scientist can submit has been tried before, at the NSF. Scientists, acting rationally, if perversely, in their self-interest, fought back and got the restrictions lifted. Their actions did nothing to remedy the perverse incentives that strap scientists to the grants treadmill, making them willing serfs in a system that is built to suppress them, not liberate them to explore science’s “endless frontier.” I predict a similar outcome for NIH’s current attempt.

What is needed is to dismantle the perverse network of incentives that leads to irrational decision-making, such as pursuing grant money as the principal driver for science, and deleterious behaviors that follow, like strapping oneself voluntarily to the grants treadmill. There are alternative models out there for research funding, but these are generally the exception to the prevailing model of research grants. A better solution would be to make these alternative models the rule, not the exception. That they have not is an indicator of an entirely different set of perverse incentives, these applied to institutions, not scientists.

But that is another story, for another day.

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/07/30/nihs-new-rules-try-to-curb-tech-abuses-but-miss-the-structural-rot-in-research-funding/

Follow Scott Turner on X and visit our Minding the Science column for in-depth analysis on topics ranging from wokeism in STEM, scientific ethics, and research funding to climate science, scientific organizations, and much more.

Reject the Moral Blackmail of the Marxist/Jihadi Axis


Apparently, the Gazans are starving, though you wouldn’t know it from the pictures of the Palestinian fatsos in the background of the kids with chronic wasting diseases that the Cecil B. DeMilles of Pallywood are trying to pass off as victims of Israeli meanness. The nerve of those Jews – it’s always the Jews, you know – for fighting back against a bunch of psychotic Marxist/jihadi freaks who initiated this war with a rape/killing spree and are now crying like little girls because they are righteously getting their behinds kicked. Israel should ignore the invertebrates and double down on defeating them.

We are solemnly informed by the moral illiterates of the left and its regime media adjuncts that we must care about Palestine’s children, though there is no Palestine, nor should there ever be. But it’s baffling why we are supposed to care more about Palestine‘s children than the Palestinians do. The Palestinians care about them not at all – if they cared about them, they wouldn’t raise them into adult semi-human savages, nor would they start wars they can’t win. But of course, losing is their strategy – they want to lose so hard and so badly that the tofu-spined cowards of the West invert the moral paradigm and force the righteous retribution to stop and the rule of the terrorists to be preserved.

Count me out of that bizarre, evil moral calculus. Israel must win, unequivocally and hard. If the Palestinians want to eat, they can release the hostages. Again, none of us is under any moral obligation to care more about them than they care about themselves.

But, of course, the argument that the Palestinians should not have started the war, and should not perpetuate it by keeping innocent Israelis that they kidnapped and tortured for nearly two years in their grim dungeons, is now officially off-limits. We’re seeing a coordinated pushback against the idea of expecting the Palestinians to release the hostages if they want the war to end. We are not supposed to state the obvious, that the Palestinians can end this war by ending their captivity of the innocents anytime they want. Naturally, the sorry, feminine likes of David French have weighed in in favor of adopting a civilizational cuckold strategy, making the Christian Case for Total Submission to Muslim Supremacism. 

We’re told this is an immoral argument for reasons that are never explained. It’s actually a strong argument that normal people understand and therefore must somehow be put off-limits. It’s so effective because it’s so obviously true that the Marxist/jihadi alliance must declare it unspeakable. It’s akin to someone accused of racism countering that some of his best friends are minorities. That’s a great argument that one is not racist, and therefore it’s an argument that cannot be made because it undermines the whole morally bankrupt premises of the accusations. It’s the same here. Their whole narrative strategy is based on the idea that Palestinians lack any kind of agency or ability to control the savage impulses of their seventh-century ideology, and the second you point out that they could end their pain in an instant, you utterly neutralize the Marxist/jihadi narrative.

It’s always amusing how they attempt to use the language of morality to try to get us to surrender to the forces of immoral Marxist/jihadi barbarism. It works on a lot of people, because a lot of people are stupid, but the greatest insult is not their epithets but that they think it might actually work on us. They must think we are as stupid as their supporters.

They want to leverage your conscience to make you do what they want, living out that popular meme where the smug femboy tells you that you should be doing something because Jesus said so, even though he holds Christians in contempt. But our morality is not a suicide pact, in this case, a suicide pact that we never entered into and that is being presented to us as a fait accompli, complete with the expectation that we will participate in it because of reasons and shut up, racist colonialist.

That’s why it’s important to be utterly indifferent to their ham-handed attempts to distract from the fact that they want to see all the Jews murdered and the barbarians take over Israel. And after that’s done, they want to murder the rest of us in the West. Some of the dumber ones will even go off-script and tell you that, but for some reason, you’re morally obligated not to believe it. Remember, globalizing the intifada doesn’t mean going on a mass killing spree around the globe. It means hugging or something, and if you think any differently, you’re a racist colonialist.

No. 

Our enemies have no moral standing. Everything they say is a lie. We cannot let them morally browbeat us into choosing suicide. The ugly truth is that Jews can’t die in enough numbers for their enemies to stop hating them. But that also applies to those of us who are not Jewish. Our Marxist/jihadi enemies would not break stride if they made their Holocaust II fantasy come true (their perverse fantasy of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” means free of breathing Jews) and would immediately get onto killing the rest of us. That’s why I’m going to side with civilization and continue to advocate for the total destruction of the Marxist/jihadist enemy.

The Gazans are enduring hardships, but this is not a bug. It is a feature. Bad things should happen to people who start wars, particularly with grotesque rape and murder sprees. This tends to discourage future wars, but understand that the Marxist/jihadi doesn’t want to discourage future wars. The Marxist/jihadi wants to win future wars and intends to do so by morally hamstringing those fighting against it.

Israel should have cut off all food, water, and power to Gaza on October 7. That’s how sieges work. It should have attacked with unrestrained fury until the enemy was completely annihilated. That’s how wars are fought, with the objective being victory. It’s how they’ve always been fought throughout history. When did it suddenly become the duty of the side winning a war to start taking care of the enemy’s logistical needs during the war? I find it bizarre that not only would some people expect the forces of civilization to fight in a manner unknown to human beings before last week – somehow the righteous besieger is now responsible for the logistic support of those resisting the siege – but that people within the scope of civilization would accept this concept.

We are under no moral obligation to allow the enemies of civilization to survive. That means finish Hamas. If their families suffer as a result of their conduct, they are free to relieve that suffering by total and unconditional surrender. Enemies of humanity must be defeated. Anybody who is a friend of the swamp of human waste known as Hamas is an enemy of humanity.

The only way we can lose the war against the semi-human savages of Marxist/jihadi barbarism is to choose to be defeated. That choice manifests as refusing to win the war in the way that human beings have won wars for 5,000 years. The choice to embrace brand-new rules and norms that have never existed within the history of conflict, which somehow shield the aggressor from righteous retribution, is a suicidal one, and we must have no part of it.

Remember, the Marxist/jihadi axis and their pathetic, morally illiterate American and other Western allies would gleefully cheer as you are actively exterminated. If we submit to their moral blackmail, they will have the chance to exterminate you actively, and they will do it. The only way they can defeat you is if you are both weak and stupid enough to submit. Reject the aptly named David French and his fellow submissives.

The answer to the Gaza problem is to annihilate Hamas and anybody helping it. It is to inflict righteous retribution such that no one dares start another war. This is what history teaches. This is the way.



Donald Trump Versus The Epstein Smear: A Cultural Icon Stands Tall


Despite relentless attacks from the media, political opportunists, and a never-ending stream of conspiracy peddlers, President Donald J. Trump stands tall, not just as a sitting president but as a larger-than-life figure who has shaped American culture for decades, whether he dominated commercial real estate or redefined television and beauty pageants.

No matter how much desperate critics try to tie him to the long-dead disgrace of Jeffrey Epstein, the facts remain stubborn: Trump never needed Epstein, never relied on him for power or pleasure, and never bowed to the corrupt elite who orbited Epstein’s dark world.

This isn’t just about defending Trump; it’s about setting the record straight.

Before he became president, Donald Trump was already a household name. He didn’t owe his fame to anyone, whether lobbyists or donors—and certainly not to anyone like Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump’s rise was built in full view of the public: bold real estate moves that reshaped skylines, a television empire that made boardroom drama must-watch TV, and his ownership of the Miss Universe Organization, which transformed global beauty pageants into high-gloss, headline events. Trump curated a brand of unapologetic masculinity, success, and dominance, without leaning on anyone else’s shadowy connections.

Unlike the political class Epstein surrounded himself with, Trump was never on the leash of any so-called kingmaker.

When the Department of Justice—under Attorney General Pam Bondi—released its first batch of “Epstein Files” in early 2025, conservative and liberal camps alike braced for bombshells. The media generated anticipation; social media influencers posed with black DOJ binders; and conspiracy theorists floated the wildest possibilities.

But once the files landed, the “revelations” were largely redacted, recycled, or legally non-actionable. Trump’s name? It appeared, but only in unverified, incidental mentions. There were no allegations against him and no evidence of wrongdoing or connections to Epstein’s criminal activity.

The Department later clarified that there was no Epstein “client list”—a hard fact that undercut the entire smear campaign.

While critics obsess over Trump’s distant and unproven ties to Epstein, it’s important to remember who truly had a disgraceful White House sex scandal. Bill Clinton—once celebrated as a charismatic leader—became a national embarrassment after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when he shamed the Oval Office with adulterous and inappropriate conduct, including the widely mocked cigar incident. That episode alone permanently stained his legacy.

But Clinton’s ties to Epstein go far deeper. Flight logs show the former president took multiple trips to Epstein’s private island, often without a full security detail or an explanation for his visit. Despite repeated questions, Clinton has never fully accounted for those visits, fueling suspicion about the nature of his relationship with Epstein.

In stark contrast, Donald Trump’s connection was brief and distant. He was never accused of personal misconduct nor dragged into a public scandal tied to Epstein’s criminal activity. While Clinton’s scandals played out on the world’s stage, Trump built an empire, untarnished by the kind of shame that continues to haunt Clinton.

Let’s be blunt: Trump didn’t need Epstein. He wasn’t one of those hollow men in Washington who begged Epstein for introductions to models or backroom power players.

By the time Epstein was amassing influence among the global elite, Trump already had the world’s most-watched show on NBC. He already had access to every A-list room in Manhattan. He had his own planes. His own women. His own power.

Nevertheless, scenting blood in the water, the legacy media is trying to tie Trump to Epstein. The latest report is that Trump once sent Epstein a risqué birthday card. The claim had no verifiable source and no physical evidence. Trump responded with a multi-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, accusing the outlet of knowingly spreading falsehoods to damage his presidency.

Let’s be honest: if the media had any real dirt on Trump from the Epstein files, they would’ve dropped it years ago. That they’re now stretching for decade-old rumors proves how little they actually have.

It’s not just Democrats, though. After the DOJ seemed to do an about-face on a promise of transparency, some of Trump’s own supporters, including conservative influencers, expressed confusion or frustration. However, for those who understood the legal landscape, the DOJ’s position made sense. Bondi learned that the documents she reviewed offer nothing new: no list, no names, no photos, and most importantly, nothing that threatens Trump.

Trump’s decision to support the DOJ’s position wasn’t retreat, it was realism. The real story was overblown from the start.

From the beginning, Trump broke every precedent by giving members of his base unparalleled access, not only to himself, but to his family and inner circle. No U.S. president has ever granted grassroots influencers this kind of direct line to the heart of power.

Many of these so-called MAGA influencers have used this rare privilege to build personal brands, rake in profits, and grow massive followings, sometimes at the expense of truth and unity. They have benefited enormously from associating with Trump.

What’s truly unforgivable is that some of these MAGA stars have betrayed that trust. Instead of pushing the President’s message and uniting the base, they use their influence to spread confusion, amplify the left’s narrative, and muddy the waters around key issues like the Epstein allegations. Some have even hosted large-scale events that further spread the Epstein smear, actively damaging the movement from within.

Leaders like Susie Wiles and Stephen Miller need to advise President Trump to cut off access to these disloyal actors. They must be made to understand they’ve been caught and exposed for what they really are—frauds who threaten to tear apart the movement from inside.

True loyalty means standing firmly behind the President with clear, consistent support, not exploiting insider access for personal gain or advancing the opposition’s agenda.

While Trump remains focused on leadership and delivering results for America, these disloyal, fake influencers cannot be allowed to continue wielding influence without consequences. The future of the movement depends on rooting out those who do not have the President’s best interests at heart.

Conclusion: The Facts Speak for Themselves

As of July 2025, here’s what the record shows:

  • Trump was never on a “client list.” The DOJ confirms no such list exists.
  • Trump’s name appeared only in incidental, unverified ways.
  • There is zero evidence—none—that he participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
  • Trump has taken legal action to defend his name, while others have stayed silent or hidden behind lawyers.

He didn’t rise to power on Epstein’s coattails. He didn’t attend those infamous island parties. He didn’t need to. Unlike the establishment types who were drawn to Epstein, Trump has always been his own man.

And for those still trying to smear him with fantasy and projection, the message is simple:

You’ve had six years. If you had something real, the world would know by now.



Think the George Floyd 'Racial Injustice' Protests Were Insane? What If Obama Gets Indicted?


Former President Barack Obama will not face charges for treason, sedition or any other crime in the wake of newly disclosed intel. Whether Obama's actions, if true, meet the elements of a crime is, of course, one thing. But this is not the primary reason Obama has little to worry about.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims newly uncovered documents show how Obama and intelligence officials worked during the 2016 presidential campaign to help elect former Secretary of State and Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. Gabbard contends that Obama's director of national intelligence, FBI head and CIA knowingly used false and sketchy evidence and sources to help Clinton distract from the growing controversy over her unsecured basement server, a likely violation of the Espionage Act. They did so by concocting a fake attention-drawing scandal: Candidate Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.

Gabbard contends the intelligence community never believed the Russian interference, which is not in dispute, was intended to help elect Trump. After the election, according to Gabbard, Obama and top intel officials suddenly and hurriedly issued a new intelligence assessment -- by overruling career intelligence staffers -- and concocted another false narrative: Russia interfered to orchestrate an illegitimate victory for illegitimate President-elect Trump.

If true, this is one of the biggest political scandals in American history, if not the biggest. Whether or not it leads to the criminal charges against top officials in the Obama administration, this must be thoroughly investigated and exposed. It raises serious questions about the Obama administration, his intelligence officials and how the media could have happily parroted the narratives "Russia hacked our election" and "Trump colluded with Russia."

Why does Obama need not fear charges? The race card.

Consider the protests after the death of George Floyd. Floyd, a career violent criminal, was full of drugs, resisted arrest and was subdued by a restraint technique taught in the Minneapolis Police Academy. (For the truth about the death of Floyd, watch the documentary "The Fall of Minneapolis," available for free on YouTube.)

Yet, much of the country went crazy over this supposed example of anti-black police "systemic racism." The trial was televised. Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell, a black man, took pains in his opening statement to say that the police, in general, were not on trial and that the Minneapolis Police Department, in general, was not on trial. The prosecutor said this individual cop, Derek Chauvin, was on trial for actions taken and not taken in connection with the death of Floyd. This prosecutor never even implied Chauvin was motivated by Floyd's race, and Chauvin was not charged with a hate crime.

Nevertheless, Floyd's death triggered the largest "racial injustice" protests in American history. There were an estimated 10,000 protests in hundreds of cities and towns, with 5% to 7% involving violence. Approximately 26 million people protested, 25 people were killed, 2,000 police officers were injured, and billions of dollars in insured and uninsured property damage occurred.

This occurred because of an assumption that Floyd's death was connected to his race. The police in recent years kill more whites and unarmed whites than blacks and unarmed blacks. (Hard-to-watch videotapes of Tony Timpa and Kelly Thomas, two white men who died after their respective encounters with police, are available on YouTube.)

This media indifference of whites who die in police encounters creates the false impression that unarmed black men are routinely killed by cops. A poll in Police magazine found that 50% of those self-described as "very liberal" assumed the police in 2019 killed 1,000 unarmed black men. The actual number, according to the Washington Post database: 12.

Given the reaction to the death of Floyd, one can only imagine the outcry if Obama, the first black president -- notwithstanding the evidence and the law -- were indicted by the "racist" Trump Justice Department.

When Trump was twice impeached and prosecutors relentlessly charged and prosecuted Trump, Democrats and much of the media chanted, "No one is above the law."

Therefore, if Gabbard's charges are true, and if Obama's actions meet the elements of a crime, then justice should be pursued. If not, the mob wins. But should Obama be charged, what happened during the summer of 2020 will look like a picnic.



Teachers moving from ‘progressive states’ into Oklahoma to be vetted by pro-Constitution test



The Oklahoma State Department of Education will roll out an assessment to test teachers moving in from “progressive states” to ensure they have a strong grasp of the U.S. constitution before they are given a teaching credential for the Sooner State.

The test will evaluate educators on their knowledge of the Constitution, understanding of American exceptionalism, and “grasp of fundamental biological differences between boys and girls,” according to a news release from the department.

The assessment is expected to be implemented before the start of the coming school year, a department official told The College Fix.

“As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from radical leftist ideology that California and New York have fostered,” state Superintendent Ryan Walters said in a statement provided to The Fix.

“Teachers who move from these states will not be receiving a teaching certificate unless they pass our new assessment through PragerU.”

PragerU is a conservative organization committed to promoting American values. The group did not respond to The College Fix’s request seeking comment.

Some have argued the new assessment may deter teachers from moving to Oklahoma.

Heather Peske, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, told EdWeek the test “could be a deterrent for some teachers moving to Oklahoma who don’t want to get embroiled in politics.”

“Already, the state struggles with its teachers crossing the border into New Mexico, Colorado, or Texas, where they can typically make more money. The average teacher salary in Oklahoma is $61,686, according to a 2025 National Education Association estimate,” EdWeek reported.

The department labeled New York and California “progressive states,” but has yet to spell out publicly all of the states it considers left-leaning that would fall under this category.

According to its news release, the department is committed to “fostering an America First education rooted in truth, patriotism, and core values.” It added the goal of the test is to ensure “classrooms remain places of learning, not indoctrination.”

“If you want to teach here, you’d better know the Constitution, respect what makes America great, and understand basic biology,” Walters stated. “We’re raising a generation of patriots, not activists, and I’ll fight tooth and nail to keep leftist propaganda out of our classrooms.”

PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said in a news release the assessment “will stop extreme leftist ideologues from harming children and ensure teachers champion America’s greatness and future potential.”

The Oklahoma State Department of Education has teamed up with PragerU in the past. In 2023 they worked to provide educational materials for Oklahoma students, but the state’s largest school districts opted out of using them, KOCO news reported.

The test is one of many reforms Superintendent Walters has put in place. Walters has also “updated social studies standards aimed at strengthening civics and constitutional studies across every grade” in order to give students a “pro-America education,” Fox News reported.

MORE: Only 9 Republican professors found across 9 humanities departments at Oklahoma State University

IMAGE CAPTION & CREDIT: A teacher in the classroom / Flickr

https://www.thecollegefix.com/teachers-moving-from-progressive-states-into-oklahoma-to-be-vetted-by-pro-constitution-test/

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter