One-Party Ideology on Campus

posted by Larry S. Su at American Thinker 

In recent days, President Trump and his administration’s decision to withhold federal funding due to antisemitism from institutions like Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and Northwestern has dominated national headlines. However, the challenges facing the campuses are more than just antisemitism. The role of faculty, particularly those with liberal, progressive, or even radical ideologies, also deserve scrutiny.

Following the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Joseph Massad, a professor of Modern Arab Politics at Columbia University, described the attack as a “stunning success” for the Palestinian resistance, praising it as unprecedented in its scale. At a rally, Cornell history professor Russell Rickford called the attack “exhilarating” and “energizing,” stating it “challenged the monopoly of violence” and “shifted the balance of power.” Meanwhile, over 700 faculty members at the University of Michigan signed a statement that, while condemning the violence, also attributed it to what they called Israel’s “structural apartheid.”

These examples raise pressing questions: Why do the views of some faculty members diverge so sharply from those of the general public? How widespread are these liberal, progressive, or radical ideologies among faculty? What influence do these views have on students’ thinking and development?

As a college faculty member, I’ve spent the past two decades reflecting on the ideological shifts taking place in higher education. What prompted the urgent writing of this essay, however, was my recent experience at the 2025 Annual Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) in Baltimore. This conference, which is intended to showcase best practices and theories for teaching college-level writing, revealed a striking pattern: Among the hundreds of sessions offered, over 50 were focused on themes related to “anti-racism” and “social justice”: Contesting standard English as racist discourse, racial and linguistic justice in the writing classroom, anti-capitalist composition pedagogy, rhetorics of grievances as an approach to teaching writing, critical racial theory in writing, challenging hegemonic notions of gender through writing, and writing as resistance etc.

I teach at an urban community college, where I see firsthand how many students struggle with basic grammar, sentence structure, and foundational writing skills. Nationwide, about 40-60 percent of college students have to take remedial courses in writing, which means they need to catch up on skills they should have learned in high school. Given these challenges, it is both troubling and disheartening to see so many writing instructors prioritizing ideology over the core goals of writing instruction. Rather than focusing on essential skills such as constructing coherent arguments, conducting academic research, engaging with multiple perspectives, and mastering the conventions of academic discourse, many classrooms focus on texts primarily through the lens of racism, sexism, power structures, and Eurocentrism.

As a graduate student of English literature and now a professor teaching literature and composition, I have witnessed firsthand how progressive and radical ideologies have transformed disciplines such as English, history, sociology, ethnic studies, cultural studies, gender studies, feminist theory, and post-colonial studies over the past few decades. What I could not have anticipated was the extent to which these theories would influence not only academia, but society at large. Over the past thirty years, they have helped erode traditional notions of truth, objectivity, and authority; promoted deep skepticism toward the West and its values; and placed increasing emphasis on race, gender, identity, and cultural relativism.

How did we get here? In 1989-1990, the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) surveyed faculty across the country about their political affiliations. 42% identified as left leaning, 40% as moderate, and 18% as conservative. Nearly three decades later, the 2016-2017 HERI survey revealed a significant shift: 60% of faculty identified as either liberal or far left, while only 12% described themselves as conservative or far right.

More recent studies indicate that the ideological imbalance has only deepened. A 2023 study by Harvard University found over 77% of surveyed faculty identified as “very liberal” or “liberal,” with fewer than 3% identifying as “conservative” or “very conservative.” In 2024, Duke University reported 62% of faculty identified as liberal, 24% as moderate, and just 14% as conservative. A Yale University study the same year revealed 77% of faculty were registered Democrats or had actively supported Democratic causes, compared to only 3% affiliated with the Republican Party.

These numbers paint a troubling picture. The overwhelming dominance of liberal, progressive, and even radical viewpoints in academia stands in stark contrast to the ideological makeup of the general population, which has remained relatively stable for decades. According to several national polls, about 37% of Americans identify as conservative, 34% as moderate, and only 25% as liberal.

What are the impacts of a dominant, single ideology on campus culture and student development?

When liberal and progressive ideologies become the overwhelming norm in higher education, they can stifle and isolate moderate and conservative voices among both faculty and students. This undermines the university’s role as a space for the free and open exchange of diverse ideas.

When ideological content is prioritized over foundational academic instruction, it can erode academic rigor and limit students’ intellectual growth. Students may miss critical opportunities to develop essential skills in argumentation, research, and analytical thinking, skills that are vital for both academic success and professional readiness.

The long-term effects of ideological imbalance can shape students’ values and career paths. Those heavily influenced by progressive views during college may struggle to adapt to broader societal values once they enter the workforce.

What can be done to address the dominance of one-party ideology on campus?

• Promote intellectual diversity and open dialogue: Colleges must foster an environment where all viewpoints, including moderate and conservative ones, are welcomed and respected. Campuses should be spaces for the robust exchange of ideas, not ideological conformity.
• Offer a balanced and diverse curriculum: Each college or university should ensure that students are exposed to a wide range of theories and perspectives, especially on complex and controversial topics such as race, gender, identity, class, culture, and immigration.
• Hire diverse faculty based on merit and ideological variety: To support a truly inclusive academic environment, institutions must prioritize hiring faculty from diverse ideological backgrounds. This diversity should not be based on race or gender, but on academic merit and a commitment to varied intellectual traditions.
• Teach independent thinking and safeguard student autonomy: A central goal of higher education is to equip students with the skills to think independently. Colleges must ensure that students are not coerced into adopting any particular ideology and must establish clear policies for addressing concerns about faculty bias or misconduct.
• Engage alumni influence: Alumni are vital stakeholders in a university’s success. Their voices, reputations, and financial support can help push institutions to adopt more inclusive and balanced policies. Alumni advocacy can play a powerful role in encouraging curriculum reform and administrative accountability.
• Establish external oversight: Universities are not exempt from scrutiny. They must be held to professional and ethical standards by independent bodies. A nationwide oversight committee should be established to ensure transparency and accountability to protect the core mission of higher education.

To conclude, the growing dominance of one-party ideology on college campuses should deeply concern students, parents, educators, administrators, and policymakers alike. A truly open, intellectually diverse, and vibrant campus environment is essential for students’ intellectual, emotional, and ethical growth. We must return American higher education to its core mission: The pursuit of truth, rigorous scholarship, and the free exchange of ideas no matter where they originate.

X22, And we know, and more- June 4th

 

How Trump Led GOP From 2021 Despair to 2024 Triumph

posted by Byron York at Townhall 

The Republican Party was in desperate straits in the weeks following the 2012 presidential election. There were several reasons. One, its losing nominee, Mitt Romney, was a poor candidate whom a significant part of the GOP base, and an even more significant part of the overall electorate, did not want. Two, its opponent, President Barack Obama, appeared to have found the secret to assembling a permanent winning coalition. And three, Republican leaders worried, sometimes publicly and sometimes privately, that the party was on the wrong side of some key issues, especially immigration.

Just four years later, with Donald Trump's out-of-the-blue 2016 victory, everything changed. Republicans had a strong candidate. The Obama coalition was crumbling. And the GOP, under Trump, began to change positions on some important issues.

Four years after that, even though Trump lost to Joe Biden, some of the trends that favored Republicans continued. And then came 2024, when the weakening of the Democratic Party accelerated under Biden and then Kamala Harris, and Trump won a historic comeback victory.

A new report shows this extraordinary change -- from Republican despair in 2012 to triumph in 2024. It is not told from a GOP perspective; the report is by the progressive Democratic data-crunching firm Catalist, which sought to understand Democratic losses. But whatever the perspective, the analysts examined voter file information, precinct-level data, voting history, polls and other numbers to come up with the most comprehensive picture yet of who voted how in 2024.

What is particularly valuable is that Catalist then put the 2024 information in the context of data from the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. That way, we can see which direction each party was moving with individual groups of voters. Spoiler alert -- it's a feel-good story for Republicans.

The trends are striking. Just go through the Obama coalition -- especially black, Hispanic and young voters. In 2012, when Obama was on the ticket, 96% of black voters voted for the Democratic candidate. In 2016, the first year Trump was on the ticket, black Democratic support ticked downward to 93%. Then it fell to 89% in 2020, and then to 85% in 2024. Among black men, support for the Democratic candidate fell to 79%. Support levels were even lower among young black voters.

The trend looked a little different but was still impressive among Hispanic voters. In 2012, 68% of Hispanic voters chose the Democratic candidate. In 2016, that number actually went up to 70%. But then it fell to 63% in 2020 and 54% in 2024. That's quite a drop. And again, the levels were even lower among young Hispanic voters.

The move was similar among Asian voters -- 74% Democratic in 2012, 70% in 2016, 65% in 2020 and 61% in 2024.

Among young voters, the Catalist report included data only from 2020 and 2024, but among voters aged 18 to 29, support for the Democratic candidate fell from 61% to 55% in that time.

Apart from demographic categories, Catalist also looked at several groups of voters by voting frequency -- those who had voted in every one of the last four elections, those who had voted in three of them, in two, in one and those who had not voted in any of those four contests. In 2024, only the most loyal Democrats -- voting in four of four elections -- stayed with Kamala Harris in great numbers.

"Harris lost vote share among ... younger voters, men, voters of color, and infrequent voters," Catalist wrote. "Trump did particularly well among these groups of voters, even in comparison to other Republicans in recent years."

Remember, the Catalist analysts are progressive Democrats. They focused their report on the Democratic Party's decline from 2012 to 2024. But those Democratic losses were Republican gains. The story is as much the GOP's increasing appeal to formerly Democratic voter groups as it is the Democrats' loss. And the change in the Republican Party's standing among voters was enormous.

After Romney's 2012 defeat, the Republican National Committee commissioned an "autopsy" -- a report on what went wrong and how to fix it. Read today, the document's plaintive tone is striking. "Public perception of the party is at record lows," it said. "Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country."

The official GOP prescription was to join with Democrats on the issue of immigration. "We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too," the report continued. "We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only."

In one of the delicious ironies of history, the GOP accomplished its goal of broadened appeal to minorities and younger voters by aggressively ignoring the advice of the party's top officials and by embracing a candidate that some of the party's leaders rejected. Renewal came in the form of Donald J. Trump.

Trump led the party to win more votes from black voters, from Hispanic voters, Asian voters, young voters and voters who rarely, if ever, voted. And he did it while emphatically rejecting comprehensive immigration reform, which the 2012 GOP leaders believed would be their salvation. Trump rejected some other cherished Republican orthodoxies, too.

Most importantly, though, Trump succeeded among Republicans and then nationally by being a strong leader. It is safe to say he is a unique individual, both as a leader and as a man. There's no telling whether GOP gains will last beyond Trump's time in office. But for more than a decade, Trump has been building a Republican coalition that accomplished things the earlier GOP leaders thought impossible.

The Grand Deception of Islam as a Religion of Peace

posted by Janet Levy at American Thinker 

A database search of 12 million books published in the 300 years before 9/11 reveals only one instance of the phrase “Islam is a religion of peace.” It appears in fiction and is spoken by Ayatollah Mahmoud Haji Daryaei, an Iranian leader in Tom Clancy’s thriller Executive Orders.

But the dangerous notion that Islam is peaceful has been so frequently reiterated by world leaders, clerics, and the liberal media-academia complex that it has taken on the status of COWDUNG—a facetious near-acronym for ‘conventional wisdom of the dominant group.’

Denying 1,400 years of history, these apologists would have us believe that extremist Islam is a perversion. Their sanitized version presents Islam’s prime motif of violent jihad—or religious war against infidels—as an individual’s “inner struggle” for spiritual growth.

To expose these falsehoods—which have circled the globe before the truth even got out of bed—conservative authors Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin wrote Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam. First published in 2017, the bestselling book saw a second edition and faced an Amazon ban in 2019. (Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and many terror manualsremain available.)

In light of Robinson’s early release from a British prison a few days ago, an overview of this important book seems fitting. The authors assert that the key to understanding what the Koran signifies to Muslims is naskh, an interpretive guideline indicating that in the Koran, what comes after negates what precedes it. Later verses remain valid even if they contradict earlier ones.

By presenting the Koran in reverse chronological order, the authors allow us to see how quotes on peace and the absence of compulsion in religion that Islam’s apologists cherry-pick hold little significance because they precede more violent dictates. The authors utilize a widely popular 1930 translation of the Koran by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, a British convert to Islam, while shedding light on a deception it created. More on that later.

Their 101-page introduction outlines the history of Mohammed’s religion and its misrepresentation after 9/11. It mentions that in the 19th and 20th centuries, authors as diverse as Winston Churchill and Samuel Huntingtoncould openly criticize Islam as frenzied and violent. British Prime Minister William Gladstone (1809-98) proclaimed that “So long as there is this book, there will be no peace in the world.”

The authors indicate that there were two phases in the Prophet’s life, each corresponding to different sections of the Koran. In the first phase, Mohammed lived in Mecca with a few followers and no power; the related section is benevolent and peaceful. In the second phase, following the Hijra to Medina, he emerged as a powerful warlord focused on conquest; the Koranic section for this phase is overtly violent and abrogates what is stated in the first.

During the first phase, survival required Mohammed to foster good relations with the Meccan tribes. Therefore, he preached tolerance, presented himself as peaceful, and refrained from discussing jihad. However, respect for other religions faded once he gained power. He executed defeated tribes and demanded either conversion or submission to Islam.

The oft-quoted ayat as-sayf—or Verse of the Sword (Koran 9:5) from the chapter titled Surat at-Tawbah—which sanctions the massacre of infidels, comes from the latter phase of Mohammed’s life. It abrogates 120 earlier ayats, including Koran 2:256, which speaks of “no compulsion in religion.” To Muslims, Mohammed’s later words represent the unchanging word of Allah. The authors’ reverse presentation exposes the deception of apologist quote masters.

Mohammed’s religion expanded only after he integrated robbery and killing into it. Thus, war and plunder are intrinsic to Islam. The authors state that “strive in Allah’s way” always refers to jihad, and “gardens” to Paradise, the reward for jihadis. Those words inspire today’s terrorists as much as they did medieval warriors.

Unlike Buddhism or Christianity, whose founders advocated love and peace, Islam has often been linked to bloodshed and subjugation. As a result, after 9/11, it became crucial for Islam to present a gentler image to the world, which still struggles to connect with a religion tied to violence by a warlord. Many world leaders became unwitting accomplices in this deception.

To prevent reckless attacks on large Muslim communities within their borders and to appear fair while pursuing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Western leaders such as George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, and Tony Blair began to express platitudes about Islam being inherently peaceful. Shortly thereafter, religious leaders joined this initiative. Islamists allied with left-leaning figures in the media and academia to weaken Westerners’ resistance to Islam.

The authors note how post-9/11 academic works relied on a deception that had been practiced from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century. Before World War II, the available translations of the Koran, some by non-Muslims, were chronological and reflected the true intent of Islam.

The most popular was one by James Medows Rodwell. Flipping through its pages, one might think the chapter numbers are hopelessly jumbled. However, it follows a chronological order, concluding with the most violent chapters, 9 and 5. Robinson and McLoughlin argue that anyone reading the Koran in English during that time would have understood that the peaceful verses were annulled and that, toward the end of his life, Mohammed was calling for “genocide and apartheid.”

But by the 1950s, with the increase of Muslim immigrants to the West, the Rodwell translation was “crowded out” by the Pickthall version, which is not only turgid but also obscures the intent with a neat yet misleading chapter numbering. The chapters themselves follow the non-chronological, traditional presentation, written a few years after Mohammed’s death and based on recitations by those who had reportedly memorized the previously unwritten revelations.

Many of these memorizers, the fiercest warriors of Islam, were dying in battle. Fearing that the revelations might be lost, early Muslims recorded various recitations. This resulted in many versions, which were ultimately unified into one in Arabic that is now accepted as the final word.

The authors claim that the Pickthall translation lacks the necessary information “to make sense of the illogical ordering of the chapters.” They contend that its publication in an Everyman’s Library edition, which replaced the Rodwell version, was part of a “wider movement of the educated elite submitting to Muslim demands to frame Islam” to accommodate Islamic supremacists.

They say that, nevertheless, the elite, had they been careful readers, could not have missed Islam’s belligerence. Introductions to both translations note the fearsome early wars to establish a Caliphate. The authors suggest that the publication of several confusing, chronology-concealing translations from the 1990s onward was deliberate. This “thicket of misleading Koran translations provided the background” against which “the Grand Lie” that Islam is peaceful flourished.

After 9/11, self-proclaimed moderate Muslim leaders—some of whom had visited the White House, advised the Pentagon, and lectured FBI cadets on a peaceful Islam—continued to inform Muslims living in the U.S. that their ultimate goal was to transform America into an Islamic state. Their moderation and patriotism were merely a façade for conquest.

Robinson and McLoughlin’s book contains all the background needed to see past the Grand Lie and understand that a) Muslims are to remain in perpetual jihad until the world is converted or subjugated; b) they are to besiege, enslave, or kill non-Muslims; c) they are not to make friends with Jews or Christians; d) they are to wage war even if they find it hateful; and e) they may deceive infidels without fear of sin.

The authors write: “Muslims around the world must laugh at the freedom-loving, democracy-loving West, where our elected leaders can lie to us blatantly about the doctrines and history of Islam.” Their book—a bold attempt to stop the lying—is a must-read for the free world.

Thanks Democrats, for Inviting Terrorism Into America

posted by D.W. Wilbur at Townhall 

Let there be no doubt about it, our country right now is a walking time bomb, and Americans face a heightened threat inside our own country never before experienced.  After four years of the Biden Administration’s open border policy there are millions of illegal aliens inside America that we have no clue who they are, nor anything about them.  Tens of thousands of them from countries that are no friend of ours.  We have experienced an invasion from hostile forces, and they pose an existential threat to the safety and security of every single American.

While it would be easy to lay the blame for this at the feet of Joe Biden, the reality is that Joe Biden didn’t really have a clue what was going on.  Biden was once described by Democrat Senate icon Teddy Kennedy as the “dumbest U.S. senator”, so he’s never been the brightest individual to ever occupy the White House.  But from the day he moved into the Oval Office his cognitive mental state was such that he truly wasn’t aware most of the time of what was being done in his name, or going on around him.  Joe Biden was a figurehead, a “front man” for others whose agenda was to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America.

So who do we blame for placing Americans at such risk from terrorist attacks inside our own country?  Well you can start with the Democrat Party who knowingly covered up for Joe Biden’s mental frailty for four years.  They are the co-conspirators in committing the most egregious crimes against the American people ever perpetrated.

The Biden Administration truly was a ‘presidency by committee’, with many of the former aides of Barack Hussein Obama handpicked to fill the key positions in the White House.  Along with the Democrat leadership in Congress and the Senate who certainly knew what was going on – or should have - and were willing accomplices in what is fast becoming the worst political scandal in American history.

With the most recent terrorist attack that occurred in Boulder, Colorado by an individual who should not have been in this country to begin with, Americans are at risk of more future attacks by any number of so-called lone wolfs, or terrorist organizations who have secreted their people into the United States for just that purpose, to attack and kill Americans.

Terrorists don’t even need bombs or guns to kill Americans, all they have to do is just hop behind the steering wheel of a vehicle and drive into the first crowd of people they see, as was done on New Year’s Eve in New Orleans.  Along with the technological advances with drones that can be outfitted with weapons that make it possible to attack groups of Americans from above.  Or perhaps just to start a bunch of fires and keep our first responders busy trying to keep America from burning to the ground.  All that takes is a can of gas and a book of matches.

Our critical infrastructure which we rely upon for everything is practically obsolete in many ways, as well as highly vulnerable.  We have tens of thousands of military-aged Chinese males who entered the country during the Biden years who likely are here under orders from the Chinese Communist Party.  And very likely with specific instructions to attack our electrical grid and other important infrastructure targets once the order comes from Beijing.

The only political group in our country whose sole motivation is raw political power is the Democrat Party.  They have already proven over and over that for them party takes priority over everything else, including the safety of the American people.

Time and again the Democrats have shown indifference towards what’s good for America, they are only motivated by what’s good for the Democrat Party.  How else would one explain why they opened up our borders to illegal aliens from all corners of the planet?  Including who knows how many terrorists.  All one has to look at is the number of people detained at our border during Biden’s time in office who were on the Terrorism Watch List.  How many terrorists slipped into our country by other means, and how many are among the so-called “got-aways” as described by the U.S. Border Patrol?

One is too many, but I fear the number is in the tens of thousands who are here with one purpose in mind, to commit acts of terrorism and kill Americans.  And who’s to blame?  The Democrat Party is responsible, no one else.

The next time an illegal alien commits a heinous crime, the rape and murder of a young American woman, the sexual molestation of a child, or an act of terrorism, look no further for the root cause than to the Democrat Party.  They alone allowed the invasion of the United States of America.  They alone must be held accountable by the Justice Department where applicable.  And they must be held accountable at the ballot box in November, 2026.   

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

About The FBI “Prohibited Access” Files

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

Many articles are being written and much typeset is being exhausted by people talking about the recent revelations that the FBI has a designated information silo called “prohibited access” within its record keeping system.  Allow me to jump this readership well into the future and give you a cliff notes summary of the logical conclusion(s).

The FBI needs a filing system for information designated “Prohibited Access” because the FBI handles extremely sensitive covert operations, including spies both foreign and domestic, within its agency.  The storage of extremely sensitive national security information is not the issue.

Prior to 2007, in the olden days, the files and information were under lock and key in secure rooms, with access only available to the FBI director.

The issue is that since around 2007, the “Prohibited Access” definitions have expanded as FBI leadership began using the designation to hide information that was detrimental to their interests.  The issue is the type of information hidden within the now electronic system, is evidence of activity the FBI conducts that they don’t want the American people to know about.

Jumping you ahead of the curve, there’s even a level of FBI information assembled that exceeds the “Prohibited Access” qualification.  That information is transferred to CIA vaults that are available due to the same legislative authority that empowers the CIA to operate without any oversight [other than the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)].  The CIA is the “sister agency” to the FBI.

I finally understood what my research was indicating, after I was informed of these processes while in Washington DC.  The justification for an information black hole, what I call silos, stems from a DC worldview around “the continuity of government.”

In order to protect you, me and the American people from something that might harm our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – ie., our democracy,” various systems were constructed to control information that would be detrimental to the continuity of government.  Ultimately all of the mis-dis-malinformation controls from DHS are justified under the same type of mindset and practices.

EXAMPLE: If Hitler were running for President, those who carry responsibility to protect the American form of government from Hitler, could engage an intelligence community operation to protect us from Hitler.  If a foreign power was helping Hitler, the same intelligence community operation would conduct a counterintelligence operation against the threat that Hitler represented.

All of these “continuity of government” concepts and practices were generally exercises and academic theories with DC systems behind them, until: (#1) our government passed the Patriot Act; and (#2) the Intelligence Community (CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD et al) replaced the theoretical “Hitler” with the very real person, Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was defined as the existential threat to the continuity of government, therefore all operations against Trump to preserve the continuity of government were warranted.

One of the operations was Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was given the task of covering up all of the activity that came before him.  The elements of Mueller’s investigation, the actual information that could expose govt elements of the targeted decision making, was then filed in this FBI invisible place designated “Prohibited Access.”

Margot Cleveland is subsequently asking if John Durham had access to these “prohibited files” during his investigation? However, that is a moot point, a dead end because: (#1) John Durham was never authorized to look at the inside government activity behind RussiaGate; and (#2) only the government activity behind RussiaGate is within the ‘prohibited files.’

Former CIA Director, President George Herbert Walker Bush, is the modern founding father who constructed the ‘continuity of government’ system (see funeral envelopes). Former President Barack H Obama is the person who weaponized it, “by the book“.

The last note on this “Continuity of Government” aspect to consider is what comes next?

Well, if you carry out the objective to its logical conclusion, at some point Artificial Intelligence will be needed to protect the American public from the defined threats.  AI becomes the insurance policy.

Elon Musk says he wants to ‘fire’ Republican politicians in midterm elections after calling Trump’s budget bill “a disgusting abomination.”

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

I said when the alignment first took place, there would come a point when Elon Musk turned on President Trump and attempted to split MAGA into oppositional teams so that Musk could achieve his agenda.  Elon Musk is currently mining for team members.

[Source]

Elon Musk supports President Donald Trump by putting the House and Senate in control of Democrats?

See this for what it is.

Elon Musk has an agenda, and it has nothing to do with DOGE or spending. Y’all already know what his agenda is, many of you just didn’t want to believe it.

Trump Administration Rescinds Biden-Era Guidance Forcing Hospitals To Perform Abortions

 IMO: As an adopted person, my sister too I'm personally offended by abortion practices

Pro-life organizations and doctors celebrated the end of the Biden-era expansions as a win for women and babies.

he Trump administration officially rescinded Biden administration-era guidance that attempted to force hospitals to perform abortions in violation of pro-life states’ protections this week because it does “not reflect the policy of this Administration.”

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced on Tuesday that it will do away with former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra’s demands that hospitals perform abortions as “stabilizing” procedures, even if state law prohibits abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of a woman.

“CMS will continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy,” the statement declares.

CMS also promised to “rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.”

The Ronald Reagan administration enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in 1986 to stop hospitals from turning away patients based on their inability to pay the expenses. The law requires adequate treatment for an “unborn child” but also explicitly does “not preempt any State or local law requirement, except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with” EMTALA.

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, however, the CMS, at the behest of an executive order, expanded EMTALA to include abortion as a routine “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.”

The Democrat regime then weaponized its redefinition of the law against Idaho for prohibiting abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or if a physician deems it necessary to save the mother’s life.

The Biden administration’s attack on the pro-life law made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 in 2024 to toss the case back to the leftist San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice, however, formally dropped the Biden administration’s EMTALA attack on Idaho less than three months before CMS repealed the guidance.

Pro-life organizations and doctors celebrated the end of the Biden-era expansions as a win for women and babies.

“As a board-certified ob-gyn for over 30 years, the administration’s change in stance is welcome news for both of my patients—a pregnant woman and her unborn child—whose lives are both prioritized by EMTALA. This coercive effort by the prior administration to subvert existing laws to promote abortion was never necessary, as EMTALA has never been confusing for me or my obstetric peers,” Dr. Ingrid Skop, vice president and director of medical affairs at Charlotte Lozier Institute, wrote. “Every state pro-life law already permitted physicians to intervene immediately in a pregnancy emergency to protect a woman’s life. Although I do not perform elective abortions, I have always been able to provide quality care in obstetric emergencies, seeking to preserve the lives of both mother and child.”

https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/04/trump-administration-rescinds-biden-era-guidance-forcing-hospitals-to-perform-abortions/

Turns Out 'Mentally Stable' Young Men Can't Stand 'Neurotic, Dictatorial' Democrat Party

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Statistician Nate Silver, who describes himself as an unregistered voter who votes for Democrat candidates a majority of the time, recently dug into the reasons behind young men’s growing disinterest in the Democratic Party—a trend that has Democrat strategists frantically searching for both explanations and solutions. 

The problem, however, for the left — as the rational among us see, daily — is that Democrats traumatized by President Donald Trump 2.0 are far more obsessed with trashing all things Trump than with trying to right the Democrat Party ship, which continues to sink because of their own intentional doing.

Silver suggested that a significant challenge for Democrats may be that an increasing percentage of young men are turned off by the party's irrational political rhetoric.

Not to slight Silver, but "duh." 

And on the flip side, mentally unstable voters — many of whom appear to be willfully uninformed — are easy to spot in public. Comedian and Fox News personality Jimmy Failla summed it up perfectly:

I didn't need a poll to know they are unwell. Just drive around, and see some them wearing a mask in their car, and you know who they're voting for and you know they're not OK.

Incidentally, my favorite variation of the above, and we've all seen them, are shoppers strolling through stores wearing masks that cover their mouths but not their noses. 

Who is that supposed to protect? I wonder — yet I don't want to know the answer.

Recent polling reveals Americans largely think the Democratic Party is rudderless and ineffective, according to three new polls — also a no-brainer — as reported by Blaze Media on Monday:

There is unlikely a Democrat now in Washington, D.C., unaware of just how unpopular and distrusted their party has become in recent years, particularly under the co-captaincy of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — whose average disapproval ratings according to RealClearPolitics are 46.1% and 28.6%, respectively.

The disapproval rating for the party as a whole was 58.3% as of May 25, according to polling by the Economist and YouGov.

[...]

A new CNN survey conducted by SSRS and published Sunday revealed just how worthless the Democratic Party has become in the eyes of most Americans: Only 16% of Americans regard the Democrats as the party with strong leaders. By way of comparison, 40% of respondents characterized the GOP as the "party with strong leaders."

Silver surmised:

I don’t doubt that some of Democrats’ problem with young men is that they’re seen as what in the poker world we’d call “nits”: neurotic, risk-averse, sticklers for the rules, always up in everyone’s business.

In my research for "On the Edge," I found that risk tolerance is something of an understudied personality trait, but the two truisms are that men generally have a higher risk tolerance than women and younger people are more risk-tolerant than older ones.

I don't doubt Silver's above observation as mostly true — at least in a general way — but even more importantly, a growing percentage of younger voters (along with a growing percentage of voters of color) have figured out that the Democrat Party is driven more by its hatred of all things Donald Trump and less by whatever love it might have for America as we know it.

Toss in the reality that the Democrat Party offers zero solutions — only scaremongering nonsense — and it doesn't take a proverbial rocket scientist to see why people across multiple demographics are walking away from the Democrats in droves. 

Let's hope Democrat politicians and their lapdog media hacks continue to do exactly what they're doing, and that Donald Trump, hopefully driven by constitutional conservatism vs. populism, continues to win for the American people.