What did I learn from a year at New College? Reform efforts in American higher education need to be aligned with what matters to a flourishing civilization. What do matter—what, in other words, remain overwhelmingly reliable and powerful propellants of civilization—are parenting, families, K-12 preparation, sports and business endeavors, educational norms, faith communities, work, cultural leadership, literary life, and public reverence for the past and our inherited institutions. This means that if places such as New College are to make an impact, they have to reach beyond the classroom.

One thing that some of the new Christian faculty at New College did this year was to start a C.S. Lewis Society, where we met biweekly for lunch with students, staff, faculty, and community members to discuss faith in contemporary society. The college also connected better to elite high schools in Florida, through teacher training, dual enrollment, and student debate and essay contests. New College will soon launch a masters in educational leadership to take the reconquista into K-12 education. Its public-speaker series offers mostly conservative speakers to an audience in Sarasota overflowing with liberal ones. It has initiated a long overdue partnership with the local business community for internships and recruitment. It has low-level sports teams that bring energy without the farce of big-time college athletics.

These initiatives at least take aim at high-impact pathways for human betterment rather than fixating on the classroom. They depend importantly on administrative leadership that consults with but is in no way bound by the faculty. The faculty will slouch in the back seat, griping like spoiled teenagers. But with grownups at the wheel, the institution could make real progress. Writ large, that’s a car that could take you places.

Bruce Gilley is presidential scholar-in-residence at the New College of Florida and the author, most recently, of The Case for Colonialism.

It takes me about eight minutes to walk across the campus of the New College of Florida, where I just concluded a year as a visiting professor. There are rare sightings of students, a grand total of 800, who dart in and out from under the palm trees like white ibises. The clock bell on the astroturf in front of the library can be heard from the waterfront all the way to the student dorms. The all-faculty email list for the 100 or so scholars emits messages such as: “Is anyone having trouble with the Internet?”

Despite its minuscule size, the Sarasota college attracted 17 separate articles or op-eds in the New York Times in 2023 and hundreds more in the mainstream American media as a whole. That journalistic attention has not abated, perhaps because New College is now seen as the anti-Harvard. The Guardian newspaper serves up a steady diet about the right-wing horrors unfolding here. Every few weeks, another media storm arises: a heated debate in Tallahassee over the college’s budget or an over-medicated administrator exposing himself off-campus. The latest indignation is the college’s scotched plans to reclaim the architecturally integrated Ringling Museum in its midst, as well as a University of South Florida campus to the north, clear evidence of a search for lebensraum.

The AAUP has been churning out a steady stream of op-eds about the “intellectual reign of terror” at New College.Long-form essays of astonishing detail continue to appear. The Chronicle of Higher Education weighed in with 8,000 words, or 10 words for every student, in April. Politico is about to serve up a novella, as well. Meanwhile, the very busy American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has been churning out a steady stream of op-eds, censures, and interviews about what they call an “intellectual reign of terror” at New College. All hands on deck, as they say.

The Left’s obsessive focus on New College tells us more about the manias of the intellectual establishment than about the likely impact of this tiny institution.Make no mistake: The efforts by Florida governor Ron DeSantis to revive an intellectually moribund higher-education sector in the state, including his reconquista at New College, are worthy acts. But the Left’s obsessive focus on New College tells us more about the manias of the intellectual establishment than it does about the likely impact of this tiny institution—or, for that matter, about the entire 12-university state system in Florida and its 430,000 students.

To understand why, let me borrow the language of statistics. While the policy changes undertaken in Florida are reliable or dependable drivers of better outcomes in the sense of being effective means to improvement, their magnitude is small and is overwhelmed by other factors. In terms of a metaphor, while you can depend on the fact that an oil change will help your your car move forward, having enough gas and being a competent driver matter more.

Policy shifts, in other words, are not sufficient to improve education and perpetuate a flourishing civilization. Other factors are more important, such as family and cultural norms. In the case of New College (or the entire Florida system), the policy shifts are not even complete oil changes, more like a top-up of fresh Castrol. Gainesville may actually be going backwards under its new “anti-racist” president. So why the panic?

One theory is that the Left’s hysteria over Florida and New College is simply misinformed. American college campuses, including, alas, New College, are not changing anytime soon in terms of their substantive cultures or the ideas they offer. The old oil will continue to circulate for a long time to come. The baby steps achieved so far in Sarasota have required a Herculean effort, combining top-level political support, a muscular board of trustees, and a determined president and administration. All this for 800 students, and still the results are only partial. If this is a “model,” then the news is not good. What kind of war room would be required to transform a larger institution?

I dearly wish that the Left’s fixation with New College were justified. But academic cultures are slow to change. Faculty radicals still wield enormous influence at the college. While President Richard Corcoran shuttered a comatose gender-studies program (sample thesis: “The Female Nonwhite Dancing Body and the White Male Gaze”) and has hired a few dozen scholars who actually deserve the name, the faculty remains decidedly hostile to efforts to inject intellectual diversity and professional accountability into the place.

The faculty committee, for example, is so antagonistic and dysfunctional that they could not convince anyone to stand for chair during the past year. When the long-tenured historian David Harvey eventually agreed to take on the thankless role (one he had previously held), only 30 of the faculty voted in favor, while 50 abstained and 23 voted against. Harvey is suspected of collaborationist tendencies. This is the behavior of children.

I dearly wish the Left’s fixation with New College were justified. But academic cultures are slow to change.In late May, the faculty passed an illegal and pointless “resolution” against immigration enforcement on campus. It then nominated as one of the three academic division chairs a Mexican radical who has become the face of La Resistencia and whose scholarly record consists of nothing but campus activism.

This sends red flashing lights to any non-leftist scholar considering a career at the college, especially because DeSantis leaves office next year, and Corcoran is a politician who could be called away at any moment. In short, New College is about as likely to become a “conservative bastion” as is NPR.

The safest bet is that there will never be any public university in the United States whose faculty is even remotely politically balanced.The good news is that it might not matter as much as we suppose. The malign effects of that old oil in misshaping higher education may be overstated, despite the pretensions of the professoriate. Cultural reproduction now takes place largely outside of universities: in the alternative media, in churches, in sports teams, in parent groups, in the workplace, and of course in the practice of adult reading. If Florida’s higher-education sector really were “ground zero of the culture wars,” as one AAUP Bolshevik asserted, then we might be more concerned about the resilient monoculture at New College. In the actual present, such a concern would be ill-informed.

Even if New College quickly became a successful model of an intellectually diverse and rigorous institution and scaled up to its planned 1,400 students and 200 faculty, it might merely be cited by the state’s professoriate as a reason to dig in elsewhere. “You have your conservatives in Sarasota,” they would assert, echoing the common fallacy that having a few token conservatives makes a place intellectually diverse.

The fact is, we just don’t know how this will play out. The safest bet is that there will never be any public university in the United States whose faculty is even remotely politically balanced, much less intellectually diverse. A recently released nationwide survey of faculty from 2020 showed that 40 percent described themselves as socialists, Marxists, activists, or radicals.

To be fair, many on the right may be equally ill-informed about the degree of change at New College, as well as the possibilities. They cling to a classical ideal of campus life that is about 3,000 years out of date. Even our best students today are woefully unprepared, and becoming more so, for a serious liberal-arts education. Digital dementia is the great challenge of our time, and it is rendering discussions about syllabi frankly quaint. There is as much chance of a Socratic experience erupting in Sarasota as of fresh sulfur flares on Mount Kilimanjaro.

Not that we shouldn’t try. I was part of a faculty group at New College this year that fashioned an honors track in the new general-education program known as … um … well … the Socratic Experience. But the Right, including myself, has as much work to do as the Left in tamping down hopes about what can be accomplished, and thus what is at stake.

A second theory for the furor over New College is that it is a form of psychological displacement. The enormous trauma on the left surrounding its unexpected loss of hegemony in American intellectual life since 2016 may have caused a redirection of those passions to soft targets such as New College. If the “Trumpocene” has gotten you down, there is nothing like a good old-fashioned campus rally to restore mental tranquility. You can even bring your own tambourine.

Again, some on the right may be engaging in similar psychological displacement reflecting frustration with the spread of woke ideology. I admit that my last contribution to the Martin Center belied such frustrations. But to rest one’s hopes on a tiny liberal-arts college is like asking a moped to deliver a shipping container. Only the major vessels, such as the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Florida, have any hope of success.

If New College is the extent of the reconquista then the broader cause is lost.This year’s commencement speaker, Alan Dershowitz, declared while visiting that “American higher education can survive without Harvard. It cannot survive without New College.” Actually, if New College is the extent of the reconquista then the broader cause is lost. The fact that Dershowitz then used his commencement-speaker bully pulpit for an ill-conceived rant against Woke suggests that maybe the cause would be better off without New College, as well. If conservatives are so tone-deaf or egotistical that they trample on the most beautiful day in a young person’s life in pursuit of change then something is wrong with this model.

Many on the right were enraged when gender theorist Judith Butler came to New College in February. But Butler will have her audience, and critical responses to her flummery, such as mine, show how such events can have the opposite effects as intended “outside the room,” which is where it matters. Out there, gender madness is being reversed, followed by climate madness, immigration madness, and DEI madness. This is not because the universities have become more plural places of late, quite the opposite. The professors simply don’t matter as much as we thought.

What did I learn from a year at New College? Reform efforts in American higher education need to be aligned with what matters to a flourishing civilization. What do matter—what, in other words, remain overwhelmingly reliable and powerful propellants of civilization—are parenting, families, K-12 preparation, sports and business endeavors, educational norms, faith communities, work, cultural leadership, literary life, and public reverence for the past and our inherited institutions. This means that if places such as New College are to make an impact, they have to reach beyond the classroom.

One thing that some of the new Christian faculty at New College did this year was to start a C.S. Lewis Society, where we met biweekly for lunch with students, staff, faculty, and community members to discuss faith in contemporary society. The college also connected better to elite high schools in Florida, through teacher training, dual enrollment, and student debate and essay contests. New College will soon launch a masters in educational leadership to take the reconquista into K-12 education. Its public-speaker series offers mostly conservative speakers to an audience in Sarasota overflowing with liberal ones. It has initiated a long overdue partnership with the local business community for internships and recruitment. It has low-level sports teams that bring energy without the farce of big-time college athletics.

These initiatives at least take aim at high-impact pathways for human betterment rather than fixating on the classroom. They depend importantly on administrative leadership that consults with but is in no way bound by the faculty. The faculty will slouch in the back seat, griping like spoiled teenagers. But with grownups at the wheel, the institution could make real progress. Writ large, that’s a car that could take you places.

Bruce Gilley is presidential scholar-in-residence at the New College of Florida and the author, most recently, of The Case for Colonialism.

Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He’s demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are now arguing. They’re just weeks away. If this sounds familiar, it’s because the same people have been making the same claim since at least the 1990s. It’s a lie.

In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest. If the US government knew Iran was weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, we’d be at war already. Iran knows this, which is why they aren’t building one. Iran also knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.

So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change — young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government. Virtually no one will say this out loud. America’s record of overthrowing foreign leaders is so embarrassingly counterproductive that regime change has become a synonym for disaster.

Officially, no one supports it. So instead of telling the truth about their motives, they manufacture hysteria: “A country like Iran can never have the bomb! They’ll nuke Los Angeles! We have to act now!” They don’t really mean this, and you can tell they don’t by what they omit. At least two of Iran’s neighbors — both Islamic nations — already have nuclear weapons. That fact should scare the hell out of Mark Levin.

Yet for some reason he never mentions it. How come? Because it’s not the weapons he hates. It’s the ideology of the Iranian government, which is why he’s lobbying to overthrow it. It goes without saying that there are very few Trump voters who’d support a regime change war in Iran. Donald Trump has argued loudly against reckless lunacy like this. Trump ran for president as a peace candidate. That’s what made him different from conventional Republicans. It’s why he won. A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters. It would end his presidency. That may explain why so many of Trump’s enemies are advocating for it. And then there’s the question of the war itself. Iran may not have nukes, but it has a fearsome arsenal of ballistic missiles, many of which are aimed at US military installations in the Gulf, as well as at our allies and at critical energy infrastructure.

The first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans. It could also collapse our economy, as surging oil prices trigger unmanageable inflation. Consider the effects of $30 gasoline. But the second week of the war could be even worse. Iran isn’t Iraq or Libya, or even North Korea. While it’s often described as a rogue state, Iran has powerful allies. It’s now part of a global bloc called BRICS, which represents the majority of the world’s landmass, population, economy and military power. Iran has extensive military ties with Russia. It sells the overwhelming majority of its oil exports to China. Iran isn’t alone.

An attack on Iran could very easily become a world war. We’d lose. None of these are far fetched predictions. Most of them comport with the Pentagon’s own estimates: many Americans would die during a war with Iran. People like Mark Levin don’t seem to care about this. It’s not relevant to them. Instead they insist that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, regardless of its purpose. They know perfectly well that Iran will never accept that demand. They’ll fight first. And of course that’s the whole point of pushing for it: to box the Trump administration into a regime change war in Iran.

The one thing that people like Mark Levin don’t want is a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran, despite the obvious benefits to the United States. They denounce anyone who advocates for a deal as a traitor and a bigot. They tell us with a straight face that Long Island native Steve Witkoff is a secret tool of Islamic monarchies. They’ll say or do whatever it takes. They have no limits. These are scary people. Pray that Donald Trump ignores them.

Tucker Carlson

Editor’s Note: I’d love to see regime change in Iran, assuming there are few civilian casualties.  However, Carlson makes a good case for avoiding war with Iran.  Our enemies would relish it.  Russian and China would likely get involved, perhaps militarily.  War with Iran is simply too risky and uncertain.  A/D

We spent decades kicking that rusted can, telling ourselves the road would hold if we just bought more time. But now the can is gone. It rusted through, crumbled into dust. The road behind is littered with the ruins of old promises, and ahead lies a choice.

No easy paths. No shortcuts.

One direction follows the same broken trail, it feels familiar, but hollow. The other, a quieter road through unknowns, dappled with light but demanding more of us.

This isn’t just a political moment. It’s a human one.

Some will see this image as the common man. Others might see the last leader who tried to drag a broken system back to its feet.

Either way, the choice remains: do we keep trying to salvage the unsalvageable? Or do we walk forward — without the can — into whatever comes next?

The road’s still there. The only question now is whether we have the courage to walk it.

EBH

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Wednesday said Elon Musk’s sharp criticism of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” was “flat wrong,” but that he did not take it personally.

Musk on Tuesday torched the GOP spending package on X, calling it “a disgusting abomination,” which the speaker said was a complete 180 from what he had indicated in private just a day earlier.

Johnson and other House Republicans spoke to reporters Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill, where they addressed a variety of topics, including the future of the spending bill.

“I consider Elon a friend,” Johnson told reporters. “It’s curious to me what happened this week. Elon and I had a great conversation—about a half hour long talk— on Monday,” Johnson explained. “We talked about the Big Beautiful Bill.”

He recalled that Elon had questioned how a spending bill could be both big and beautiful, and that he had tried to answer the question.

Johnson said he pointed out that there is an unprecedented $1.6 trillion in spending cuts in the bill and a “record level of savings,” as well as “great policy prescriptions.”

“I explained to him what we’re doing, and that this is just the beginning—you can’t do it all in one bill!” Johnson exclaimed. “It took Congress decades to get to this situation, it’s going to take us a little while to get out of it,” the speaker added. “But we have a very specific plan to do that.”

Johnson told reporters that Musk seemed “encouraged” by his words, and when the conversation turned to the midterm elections, the billionaire said, ‘I’m gonna help. We’ve got to make sure the Republicans keep the House majority.”

The speaker said Musk had expressed concern that if Democrats take the majority in 2026, they’ll immediately move to impeach President Trump.

“The president needs four years to do all this reform—not two years,” Johnson said.

“Elon and I left on a great note,” the speaker continued, “and then yesterday, 24 hours later, he does a 180, and he opposed the bill. It surprised me, frankly. I don’t take it personal.”

Johnson said that policy differences should not be taken personally, but stressed “I think he’s flat wrong. He’s way off on this.”

The speaker also told reporters that he feels very confident about the midterm elections because when the “Big Beautiful Bill” is passed, “every single American is going to do better.”

“I have NO concern whatsoever, I am absolutely convinced we are gonna win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American people and fulfilling our campaign promises,” he said.

Johnson said he called Musk last night, but he didn’t answer.

“I hope to talk to him today,” he told reporters, insisting, “I’m not upset about this.”

The speaker added that he speaks with President Trump “multiple times a day” and that the president “is not delighted that Elon did a 180” on the Big Beautiful Bill.

“I don’t know what happened in 24 hours,” Johnson said. “Everyone can draw their own conclusions about that.”

Meanwhile, on X Wednesday, Musk posted a series of tweets expressing concern about the national debt.

“Interest payments already consume 25% of all government revenue,” the former DOGE chief wrote in response to a post about the United States’ annual budget deficit skyrocketing to over $2 trillion per year. “If the massive deficit spending continues, there will only be money for interest payments and nothing else! No social security, no medical, no defense … nothing.”

In response to Musk’s post, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) pointed out that “Congress continues to add to the debt at an astounding rate of $2 trillion per year—with our national debt growing faster than our economy.”

The senator added, “unless we turn this around quickly, our debt and deficit will increasingly threaten our ability to fund the basic operations of government.”

Musk responded: “This is debt slavery for the American people.”

Update:

In a mid-afternoon X post Wednesday, Musk made clear that he was unpersuaded by any GOP defenses of the Big Beautiful Bill.

“Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok!,” Musk wrote. “KILL the BILL.”

Debra Heine, American Greatness

The Senate has opened its hearing process to decide whether to approve President Donald Trump’s nominations of judges to the federal bench.

Senators on the Judiciary Committee opened the review of a judge appointed to an appeals court and several others to district courts.At the outset, reported Politico, political posturing got underway with Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reminding Democrats that former President Joe Biden often had the support of opposition Republicans for his nominees. “Elections, as we all know, have consequences,” said Grassley. “I worry that partisanship will hamper these efforts.”

His comments may have been a dig at Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the ranking Democrat on the committee who previously commented he might attempt to hinder the nomination process for Trump appointments.

Durbin and Grassley also got into a back-and-forth over the Trump administration’s decision to prevent the American Bar Association from providing official input into the selection process. The administration characterized the bar as favoring liberal candidates.

Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to ABA President William Bay, “Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations.”

Grassley reminded senators that while the bar has no official standing in the process, it is always free to submit information it deems important, and senators could consider or ignore the bar as they desired.

Trump’s nominee for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Whitney D. Hermandorfer, faced intense scrutiny in the opening hearing. The position on the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court bench is one of only a few appeals court seats Trump may be able to nominate. Democrats pointed to what they saw as her limited experience at the appellate level, while Republicans appeared pleased at her overall legal experience.

Hermandorfer currently works as the director of the strategic litigation unit for the Tennessee attorney general.

Jim Mishler ✉

Jim Mishler, a seasoned reporter, anchor and news director, has decades of experience covering crime, politics and environmental issues.

Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires—so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal’s lust, men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them.—Ayn Rand

Freedom requires a price to be paid by every generation.

1. While most of America remains blissfully uniformed by our establishment press, the world’s two greatest superpowers are being manipulated by Dark Forces inside and outside our government, into a major military confrontation that no country wants, and no sane person would ever want.

2. I have no role in the Trump Administration, but over a long career in the active uniformed military, specifically military intelligence, I have made it a point to cultivate many sources of information around the world. From what I can piece together, I want to share my deep concerns about who is behind this march to war, and my recommendations for how our nation and the West can avoid a major military confrontation with Russia.

3. I believe that the American Deep State is staffed by those with a deep, visceral, and irrational hatred for Russia, and these persons have conspired to box in President Trump’s decision making through the Russiagate Hoax. During the time the Soviet Union was expanding and infiltrating our government, I was an outspoken anti-communist, but, despite the lies told by our Deep State, Russia is not the Soviet Union and Putin is not Stalin. Even today, years after the Russiagate Hoax has been exposed, President Trump’s efforts to bring peace are met with resistance. The Establishment Press, deeply influenced and even sometimes controlled by our Deep State, labeled President Trump and those who work for him “Putin’s Puppets” to goad him into taking unwarranted and aggressive steps against Russia. These voices from the establishment press reflect the views of the Deep State, not the American People, and not the MAGA movement, and should be completely disregarded, if not mocked.

4. During almost all of the post-World War II period, and certainly since the establishment of the CIA in 1947, these unelected dark establishment forces have acted to destabilize the world, bringing death, famine, assassinations, violence, coups, riots, revolutions, and destruction to our planet. Currently, these forces are working to provoke Russia into a major — perhaps a final — military conflict with the West.

5. This provocation has many forms. Most recently, it involves the surprise drone attack on the Russian federation strategic arsenal, said to affect 40 bombers, or about a third of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet. Since Russian and American strategic bombers are generally required by agreement to be visible to satellite surveillance, never before has anyone engaged in an attack on these visible targets. If Russian bombers can be attacked with impunity, so can American bombers. By this action, the Ukrainian Government has not just weakened Russia, it has jeopardized America. Thus, those in the Ukrainian government who ordered these strikes have made themselves enemies not just of Russia, but of the United States. Making matters worse, this unwarranted attack was followed by Ukrainian attacks on the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Russia and Crimea.

6. I do not believe that the recent escalation against Russia’s strategic bomber fleet was authorized by or coordinated with President Trump. Rather, it is my view that the Deep State is now acting outside of the control of the elected leadership of our nation. I believe that these persons in our Deep State are engaged in a deliberate effort to provoke Russia into a major confrontation with the West, including the United States. The time is now to take aggressive action against those who abuse their authority as government employees to manipulate the elected leadership of our nation.

7. Growing up in an Irish Democrat family in Rhode Island, I was only about five when John Kennedy was assassinated, but our family viewed John Kennedy as a hero. Not just for my family, one of our most beloved Presidents, John F. Kennedy, in 1961, found himself manipulated by earlier versions of these same Deep State forces when they attempted to manipulate President Kennedy to launch Air Force planes to attack Cuba after the failed invasion, resulting in an open conflict with both Cuba and the Soviet Union. In President Kennedy’s June 1963 speech at American University declaring his vision of peace with the Soviet Union, he declared himself to be an enemy of this Deep State, which by all indications then retaliated by participating in his assassination five months later in Dallas. The American Deep State is not only a threat to peace, but a threat to the President.

8. President Trump has already faced at least two assassination attempts. If there is one person who I believe has the character and love for our nation to rid our government of these forces, it is President Trump. After the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, President Trump displayed the type of personal courage that those of us who have served in the military deeply admire. With great affection for the President, I now urge him to risk the wrath of the Deep State once again by taking actions to purge enemies of our nation within our agencies and departments. Removing such persons from power is absolutely necessary to achieve the type of peace he described during his campaign and the beginning of his Administration.

9. Once President Kennedy realized he was being manipulated, and opposed because he sought peace, he removed Allen Dulles as Director of Central Intelligence, and several of his assistants. I urge President Trump to immediately clean house of any in government who had prior knowledge of or participated in any way in the Ukrainian attack on the Russian federation strategic bombers, and to go further by immediately declaring an end to any support for the Ukraine War. President Trump is right: this is not “his” War. I urge him to recall all open and covert military and other government personnel from Ukraine. I urge him to have all those personnel removed and interrogated by the FBI or the military to learn of their possible participation in unauthorized military activities. Any Americans who have aided and abetted Ukraine’s attacks should be investigated for violation of American law, and prosecuted as necessary.

10. I also believe President Trump should distance himself from certain Western leaders such as German Chancellor Fred Merz, who have acted and spoken in an irresponsible manner with respect to the Ukraine War. If there are countries in Europe who wish to provide military assistance to Ukraine, that is their concern, and they should not be surprised by President Putin’s response to their actions against Russia. If such leaders want to lead their nations to war by persisting in such irresponsible behavior, they will go it alone.

11. I urge President Trump to also distance himself from demonstrated war mongers in our own government, chief among whom is U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham. Those who love wars fought by others are no friends of America, and have no entitlement to be friends of the President.

12. Finally, I urge the American people to stand prayerfully and resolutely with President Trump as he cleans house and acts in pursuit of the type of peace which President Kennedy embraced. Peace is not the normal state of man. Freedom requires a price be paid by every generation. It is time to recommit our nation to both.

Ltd. General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.)

The “true sign of adulthood” is multifaceted and subjective, but generally revolves around taking responsibility for one’s actions, becoming financially independent, and developing a sense of self-awareness. It’s about embracing independence, managing personal finances, and making informed decisions that shape one’s life and impact others. 

Elaboration:

• Financial Independence: This includes managing your own income, paying bills, budgeting, and saving for the future. 
• Responsibility: Taking ownership of your actions, their consequences, and the decisions you make. 
• Self-Awareness: Understanding your own desires, feelings, and biases, and how they influence your behavior. 
• Emotional Maturity: Developing the ability to regulate emotions, handle stress, and build healthy relationships. 
• Personal Growth: Continuously learning, adapting, and evolving as an individual. 
• Physical and Mental Well-being: Prioritizing health, rest, and overall well-being. 

Business Insider

10 Signs You’re A Grown-Up Who Knows How To Adult, According …

Oct 9, 2024 — 3. Ending a night out early. … As we age, getting a good night’s rest becomes a more elusive event than in our younger years. According to a study …

YourTango

12 Signs You Are a Psychologically Mature Adult – YouTube

Jul 24, 2024 — we appreciate how easily we may get sad when we’re in fact angry anxious when there’s a specific thing that concerns us or stern and proud when we’r…

YouTube · 

The School of Life

Exploring the True Markers of Adulthood and Emotional Growth | by Ahsan Mangal | Medium

Feb 8, 2024 — The ability to handle financial responsibilities is frequently the starting and finishing point of the traditional adult measuring stick. But it’s on…

Medium · 

Ahsan Mangal

What Makes Someone an Adult? | Psychology Today

Nov 30, 2023

Psychology Today

Business Insider

10 Signs You’re A Grown-Up Who Knows How To Adult, According …

Oct 9, 2024 — 3. Ending a night out early. … As we age, getting a good night’s rest becomes a more elusive event than in our younger years. According to a study …

YourTango

12 Signs You Are a Psychologically Mature Adult – YouTube

Jul 24, 2024 — we appreciate how easily we may get sad when we’re in fact angry anxious when there’s a specific thing that concerns us or stern and proud when we’r…

YouTube · 

The School of Life

Exploring the True Markers of Adulthood and Emotional Growth | by Ahsan Mangal | Medium

Feb 8, 2024 — The ability to handle financial responsibilities is frequently the starting and finishing point of the traditional adult measuring stick. But it’s on…

Medium · 

Ahsan Mangal

What Makes Someone an Adult? | Psychology Today

Nov 30, 2023

Psychology Today

The Trump administration has taken steps to free police and fire departments from the Biden administration’s onerous consent decrees.

The Trump administration has dropped the Biden administration’s push for onerous consent decrees on police and fire departments. These legal settlements micromanaged police operations and mandated DEI-based hiring and promotion practices.

“These radical requirements seem disconnected from how police departments actually work,” said Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon on Friday. “They tie officers’ hands and make communities less safe.”

The proposed consent decrees required departments to change how they tested prospective hires, increasing the share of black and female candidates hired.

Dhillon also warned that consent decrees drain resources, saying, “Once a judge imposes a consent decree, cities typically spend $10 million or more each year to comply with endless legal demands.”

Such money could instead go toward actually policing our streets.

Data on DEI

DEI practices have been pushed on police departments by Democrat presidents for decades, and economists have studied how such decrees impact the effectiveness of police forces, particularly when they change or eliminate testing standards to reshape the racial or gender makeup of departments.

There can, however, be advantages to hiring minority officers. In many cases, residents of minority communities are more likely to cooperate with officers who share their background. Minority officers can also serve undercover more effectively.

Consent decrees increase minority hiring by eliminating or reducing intelligence test standards. Since all new hires take these tests, the practice risks lowering the quality of new hires across the racial spectrum. Such recruiting has led to increased crime rates, and the largest increases have occurred in more heavily minority areas.

The effect is quite significant. On average, cities that had consent decrees for hiring imposed on them saw their violent and property crime rates falling relative to other cities before the consent decrees and rising relative to other cities afterward. The average yearly decline relative to other cities before the consent decree was -5.3 percent for violent crime, and the average yearly increase afterward was 4.8 percent.

Police departments that hired more black officers after changing their hiring rules also tended to lower their hiring standards the most. A 1 percent increase in the share of black officers correlated with a 4 percent rise in property crime and an almost 5 percent increase in violent crime. These crime spikes hit hardest in areas with the largest black population.

Affirmative Action for Women

In contrast to race-oriented affirmative action, which lowers standards for everyone, affirmative action for women sets lower strength, speed, and size standards that apply only to female applicants. Last year, as Los Angeles battled its worst fires in history, the fire department’s highly paid diversity head faced backlash when asked if she was strong enough to carry someone’s husband out of a fire. Her response: “He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire.”

For police, changing strength standards has some offsetting effects. Hiring more women for male-designated positions reduces the number of available slots for men, so lowering physical standards for women results in more competition for the remaining slots for men and thus tends to result in men meeting stricter standards.

Affirmative action for women does not significantly affect crime rates. The change in the quality of male recruits helps offset the lower requirements for women.

Technology and new operating procedures can offset some differences between men and women. Cars can replace foot and bicycle patrols. Two-officer units can replace single-officer units, but that shift reduces the area law enforcement can cover. Eliminating foot patrols also weakens local connections, as officers spend less time building relationships with the communities they serve.

My research suggests that increasing the number of black male cops slightly reduces police shootings of civilians. But more female officers increased shootings of civilians.

Why? Criminals are more likely to assault officers whom they think they can overpower. Every 1 percent increase in the share of women on a police force is associated with a 15 to 19 percent increase in the number of assaults on police..

John R. Lott, Jr., The Federalist