Menu

Element5 Digital, Unsplash

How to Reform Schools of Education

What progressives have seized, conservatives can seize back.

Sep 17, 2025 Daniel Buck

LinkedInXFacebook

EmailPrint

To argue that schools of education have gone bonkers is akin to penning an op-ed that the Titanic sank. The fact is given. Does anyone dispute it?

The most-assigned books and essays for prospective teachers are a heady mixture of race essentialism, gender theory, and outright Marxist kookery. Trainees learn much of critical-consciousness raising, Marxist praxis, and gender as a performative act but little of classroom management, curricular sequencing, or instructional practice. Unsurprisingly, research into the impact of these programs finds that teachers who attend them are no more effective than alternatively trained or even untrained career transitioners.

Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers.Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers. Many leaders of the terroristic Weather Underground found refuge in them, for example. And, since then, along with a handful of law schools, education schools have introduced into public consciousness many of conservatives’ bugaboos, from critical race theory to microaggressions and white fragility.

The scholarship that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic.The scholarship—a gracious thing to call it—that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic. Skim any education-school publication list, and you’ll find a mess of auto-ethnographies, case studies, and glorified op-eds championing the latest progressive classroom intervention. Notably absent are randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, or meta-analyses proving the theories actually work.

Education schools are indeed, as a former Harvard president once called them, a “kitten that ought to be drowned.” Such disdain is typically how conservatives discuss them: Schools of education delenda est. Or they follow Milton Friedman’s recommendation to abolish licensure policies and let the market sort it out.

A former classical-school administrator turned education columnist, I come to you, dear reader of the Martin Center, with a different request. The K-12 education system in America has a personnel problem. Were education schools reformed instead of razed, they could very well help. As the mill that produces America’s corps of teachers, the university could—dare I say must—assist in the reformation of elementary and secondary schools.

Imagine for a moment that we had an auto-pass button for legislation and made school choice universal across the nation tomorrow. Who would staff these classrooms? Who would fill administrative roles? Who would write the curricula, run the professional organizations, and make the local policy? The exact same left-leaning corps of school personnel who presently run the system.

Moreover, ask any classical-school administrator or even standard district principal who wants a returned focus to academics, and he’ll tell you that staffing is one of his greatest difficulties. All prospective teachers have gone through university teacher prep, and it’s difficult to deprogram them. Well-intentioned administrators must choose between untrained, unvetted career transitioners (a gamble) or teachers who are credentialed but education-schooled (also a gamble).

What if, instead of dismantling schools of education or undoing any licensure requirements—both politically unlikely and with their own tradeoffs—we instead reform them? We can (and should) use the rightful power of state governments over public university systems to form education schools into a better mold.

There are two avenues for reformation: correct the existing institutions or build separate ones. Look down each, and, as Robert Frost’s narrator observes, both roads for reform are just as fair.

The first avenue is to force the existing institutions into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold. Purify the source, and the stream will run clear. Florida has already begun setting the framework to make such a policy play. Last year, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1291, which prohibits teacher-prep programs from grounding themselves in “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.”

The first avenue is to force existing education schools into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold.A report from the Claremont Institute found that those radical theories are precisely what the University of Florida was teaching future educators. Critical race theorists and other radical authors litter the syllabi. Practical manuals of instruction are few.

Other red states could follow Florida’s example. Instead of prohibiting instruction on controversial issues at the K-12 classroom level, which is difficult to prevent, target education schools. In Wisconsin, there are 13 public education schools and 421 public schools. Which is easier to surveil?

Practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.The left happily leverages public policy to force their worldview into schools of education. Illinois’s Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, for example, instruct teachers to provide their students with opportunities for “student advocacy,” to use activities with the aim of “raising consciousness,” and to always center their “social justice work.” Why not instead mandate that teachers learn about the best research into classroom management, study the basics of cognitive science, and read celebrated thinkers of the liberal-arts tradition?

There are plenty of practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory that would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.

A more popular approach, and one that policymakers are likely to pursue, is the creation of new institutions. Several already exist. Most notably, Hillsdale College and the University of Dallas both provide master’s degrees in classical education, and their graduates staff the rapidly growing classical-education movement. But because these are small programs at private, Christian institutions, their impact is inherently limited.

Menu

Element5 Digital, Unsplash

How to Reform Schools of Education

What progressives have seized, conservatives can seize back.

Sep 17, 2025 Daniel Buck

LinkedInXFacebook

EmailPrint

To argue that schools of education have gone bonkers is akin to penning an op-ed that the Titanic sank. The fact is given. Does anyone dispute it?

The most-assigned books and essays for prospective teachers are a heady mixture of race essentialism, gender theory, and outright Marxist kookery. Trainees learn much of critical-consciousness raising, Marxist praxis, and gender as a performative act but little of classroom management, curricular sequencing, or instructional practice. Unsurprisingly, research into the impact of these programs finds that teachers who attend them are no more effective than alternatively trained or even untrained career transitioners.

Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers.Since at least the 1960s, schools of education have housed some of our most radical thinkers. Many leaders of the terroristic Weather Underground found refuge in them, for example. And, since then, along with a handful of law schools, education schools have introduced into public consciousness many of conservatives’ bugaboos, from critical race theory to microaggressions and white fragility.

The scholarship that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic.The scholarship—a gracious thing to call it—that such schools produce often reads like the sweaty rantings of a schizophrenic. Skim any education-school publication list, and you’ll find a mess of auto-ethnographies, case studies, and glorified op-eds championing the latest progressive classroom intervention. Notably absent are randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, or meta-analyses proving the theories actually work.

Education schools are indeed, as a former Harvard president once called them, a “kitten that ought to be drowned.” Such disdain is typically how conservatives discuss them: Schools of education delenda est. Or they follow Milton Friedman’s recommendation to abolish licensure policies and let the market sort it out.

A former classical-school administrator turned education columnist, I come to you, dear reader of the Martin Center, with a different request. The K-12 education system in America has a personnel problem. Were education schools reformed instead of razed, they could very well help. As the mill that produces America’s corps of teachers, the university could—dare I say must—assist in the reformation of elementary and secondary schools.

Imagine for a moment that we had an auto-pass button for legislation and made school choice universal across the nation tomorrow. Who would staff these classrooms? Who would fill administrative roles? Who would write the curricula, run the professional organizations, and make the local policy? The exact same left-leaning corps of school personnel who presently run the system.

Moreover, ask any classical-school administrator or even standard district principal who wants a returned focus to academics, and he’ll tell you that staffing is one of his greatest difficulties. All prospective teachers have gone through university teacher prep, and it’s difficult to deprogram them. Well-intentioned administrators must choose between untrained, unvetted career transitioners (a gamble) or teachers who are credentialed but education-schooled (also a gamble).

What if, instead of dismantling schools of education or undoing any licensure requirements—both politically unlikely and with their own tradeoffs—we instead reform them? We can (and should) use the rightful power of state governments over public university systems to form education schools into a better mold.

There are two avenues for reformation: correct the existing institutions or build separate ones. Look down each, and, as Robert Frost’s narrator observes, both roads for reform are just as fair.

The first avenue is to force the existing institutions into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold. Purify the source, and the stream will run clear. Florida has already begun setting the framework to make such a policy play. Last year, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1291, which prohibits teacher-prep programs from grounding themselves in “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.”

The first avenue is to force existing education schools into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold.A report from the Claremont Institute found that those radical theories are precisely what the University of Florida was teaching future educators. Critical race theorists and other radical authors litter the syllabi. Practical manuals of instruction are few.

Other red states could follow Florida’s example. Instead of prohibiting instruction on controversial issues at the K-12 classroom level, which is difficult to prevent, target education schools. In Wisconsin, there are 13 public education schools and 421 public schools. Which is easier to surveil?

Practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.The left happily leverages public policy to force their worldview into schools of education. Illinois’s Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, for example, instruct teachers to provide their students with opportunities for “student advocacy,” to use activities with the aim of “raising consciousness,” and to always center their “social justice work.” Why not instead mandate that teachers learn about the best research into classroom management, study the basics of cognitive science, and read celebrated thinkers of the liberal-arts tradition?

There are plenty of practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory that would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.

A more popular approach, and one that policymakers are likely to pursue, is the creation of new institutions. Several already exist. Most notably, Hillsdale College and the University of Dallas both provide master’s degrees in classical education, and their graduates staff the rapidly growing classical-education movement. But because these are small programs at private, Christian institutions, their impact is inherently limited.

There are two avenues for reformation: correct the existing institutions or build separate ones. Look down each, and, as Robert Frost’s narrator observes, both roads for reform are just as fair.

The first avenue is to force the existing institutions into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold. Purify the source, and the stream will run clear. Florida has already begun setting the framework to make such a policy play. Last year, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1291, which prohibits teacher-prep programs from grounding themselves in “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.”

The first avenue is to force existing education schools into a more classical, or at least a more practical, mold.A report from the Claremont Institute found that those radical theories are precisely what the University of Florida was teaching future educators. Critical race theorists and other radical authors litter the syllabi. Practical manuals of instruction are few.

Other red states could follow Florida’s example. Instead of prohibiting instruction on controversial issues at the K-12 classroom level, which is difficult to prevent, target education schools. In Wisconsin, there are 13 public education schools and 421 public schools. Which is easier to surveil?

Practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.The left happily leverages public policy to force their worldview into schools of education. Illinois’s Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, for example, instruct teachers to provide their students with opportunities for “student advocacy,” to use activities with the aim of “raising consciousness,” and to always center their “social justice work.” Why not instead mandate that teachers learn about the best research into classroom management, study the basics of cognitive science, and read celebrated thinkers of the liberal-arts tradition?

There are plenty of practical training resources grounded in serious research and proven theory that would set young teachers up for success in the classroom.

A more popular approach, and one that policymakers are likely to pursue, is the creation of new institutions. Several already exist. Most notably, Hillsdale College and the University of Dallas both provide master’s degrees in classical education, and their graduates staff the rapidly growing classical-education movement. But because these are small programs at private, Christian institutions, their impact is inherently limited.

More recently, the Goldwater Institute created a civics fellowship for teachers at Arizona State University to attend and learn more about America’s founding, fundamental ideals, and mechanics of government. A quickly replicable program, it’s a useful model but still limited in scope.

Among the most promising institutions are those such as the storied James Madison program at Princeton University and the upstart Hamilton Center at the University of Florida. A handful of these programs at larger institutions with a greater cultural footprint would quickly have a noticeable impact.

If each red state were to create similar institutions—especially if they included an education track focusing on training classical or liberal-arts teachers—a robust network would quickly form. Existing schools would have a larger pool from which to pull employees. More would move into administrative roles in large public-school systems or found their own schools, bolstering the supply side of school choice. Each could produce scholarship, host conferences, and establish publications to offset the noxious ideologies leaking out of schools of education.

A network of such institutions would essentially foster a Gramscian counter-march through the institutions, creating a critical mass of classically trained, or at least practically minded, leaders at all levels of American education.

Along both paths of reform, it’s worth briefly addressing what alternative teacher prep ought to include. Research shows that only content knowledge and experience correlate with teacher efficacy. You can talk pedagogy and “best practices” all day, but they have little impact if teachers lack both subject knowledge and real classroom experience.

A revamped education program would spend far more time filling the minds of future teachers with math, science, literature, and history.A revamped education program would spend far more time filling the minds of future teachers with math, science, literature, and history—the best that has been thought and said—and less time discussing classroom practice in the abstract. When future teachers do learn pedagogical practices, the work must be unapologetically practical. How do you write a good quiz? What do you do if a student throws a book at another student? How do you command respect in a room of 25 thirteen-year-olds?

The personnel problem may be the single greatest source of American educational woes. The natural corollary to that assertion is that reforming education schools may be the most consequential solution. Simultaneously a source of opportunity and pessimism, the state of teacher prep in America is already so abysmal that even modest changes could cause significant improvements for students. Schools of education have already hit the iceberg. The question now is whether lawmakers, regents, and university administrators send for lifeboats.

Daniel Buck is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the director of the Conservative Education Reform Network, and a former teacher and school administrator.

Death Threats Against the Right: Will France See Its Own Charlie Kirk Murder?

ustm66 on Pixabay 

Far-left intimidation grows in France, but authorities seem indifferent.

• Hélène de Lauzu

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution: Democracy’s Enemy Within

A court pushback against the German agency’s overreach offers a symbolic win—but leaves the core threat of its existence untouched.

The Silent Majority Will Be Silent No Longer

Last Saturday’s Unite the Kingdom rally in London follows an encouraging pattern from across Europe—left-behind voters, sick to death of uncontrolled mass migration, are finding their voice.

Gladwell’s Confession on Trans Sports and Intellectual Dishonesty

The sociologist hasn’t changed his mind about trans people; he has simply acknowledged that he hid his true opinion out of cowardice.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk in the United States could well incite further acts of violence. In France, for several weeks now, prominent figures on the Right have been explicitly targeted by the far Left and subjected to death threats. Despite growing awareness that an attack could happen at any moment, the judicial authorities remain wilfully indifferent. Lacking any sense of responsibility, they are allowing these individuals to live in fear.

By coincidence, on the very day that we learned with horror and astonishment of the murder of Charlie Kirk on the Utah Valley campus, French essayists Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern, known for their fight against the transgender lobby, announced the release of a video intended to alert their supporters to the dangers they have been facing for many months and the inaction of the authorities.

Since the publication of their essay Transmania, which exposes the delusions of transgender ideology and the deadly strategy of its supporters, the two women have been the target of repeated death threats and have found the slogan “a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist), a bullet” posted, tagged and shouted everywhere they go.

The death of Charlie Kirk—and moreover, the murky links between his murderer and the transgender community—deeply resonated with them. They denounce the transgender terrorism, which has proven its existence through several sordid killings.

On September 10th, Dora Moutot posted on X:

Just today, someone announced that we would be targeted with bullets on September 10th. But on the other side of the Atlantic, it was Charlie who took the bullets, shot down like a rabbit in front of the crowd during his conference by a mentally ill person whose brain was probably eaten away by wokeism. Charlie will never come back.

This news traumatises me. Really. I’m afraid that tomorrow it will be Marguerite or me.

For both women, it’s obvious: the same thing could happen in France. And it could happen all the more so because the authorities are in denial.

On September 11th, the day after Charlie Kirk’s death, Moutot and Stern published a video denouncing the Paris public prosecutor’s decision to dismiss a complaint they had filed against an ‘anti-fascist’ website that had explicitly threatened them with death. “In the open letter published by an anti-fascist website, these people admit to attempted murder. They claim to have burned down a building where Marguerite Stern was supposed to give a lecture, and they say they are coming armed to our rallies,” Dora Moutot told Le Figaro. However, the courts dismissed their complaint on the grounds that “the investigation did not identify the person who committed the offence.” The open letter is still online. They protested, but the prosecutor upheld the decision not to proceed—raising serious suspicions of political hostility in the decision.

Their lawyer, Louis Cailliez, decided to publicise this judicial scandal. The entire procedure was botched, not to say sabotaged. The names and numbers of the suspects given to the investigators contained altered letters or numbers, preventing any identification or prosecution. Cailliez pointed out no fewer than eleven glaring errors. He reported them to the public prosecutor’s office, which nevertheless refused to reverse its decision and closed the case.

Moutot and Stern are not the only ones affected. On X, calls for violence targeting French right-wing influencers have multiplied. They are explicit and unequivocal but do not seem to alarm the authorities.

Erik Tegnér, editor-in-chief of the conservative investigative magazine Frontières, has personally experienced this. Physically attacked while on holiday in Brittany with his fiancée during the summer, he now lives under repeated threats from a Moroccan Islamist who has been prosecuted and convicted but released. Interviewed on CNews in the days following Charlie Kirk’s death, he spoke with painfully restrained emotion about the constant danger he faces: “I’ve had to completely change my life, my habits, etc. I find myself in a situation where even my fiancée wants to move away, she’s completely paralysed,” he explained. The police themselves say they are concerned because the Moroccan is only required to report to the authorities once a week. The rest of the time, he is out of their control—ready to stab his target at any moment. At the beginning of October, Tegnér is preparing to publish an explosive, well-documented report on French mayors who are promoting Islamism, which is likely to cause him further trouble.

In the face of this distressing reality, the authorities remain in denial. In an attempt to bring about change, several conservative MPs, members of Identité Libertés (IdL), Marion Maréchal’s party, called on Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau to take action and protect these men and women who are risking their lives because they defend opinions considered heterodox and, as such, punishable by death in the eyes of the Left.

“Damien Rieu [a right-wing commentator] has requested protection from the Home Office, Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern are under threat, and Erik Tegnér is being threatened by an Islamist who is still at large!” thundered MP Eddy Castermann, spokesman for IdL, on the conservative radio station Radio Courtoisie a few days ago.

To ensure their protection, Eddy Casterman and the two other Identité-Libertés MPs who co-signed the text, Thibaut Monnier and Anne Sicard, are calling for emergency measures. First and foremost: a reassessment of the threat by the Anti-Terrorism Coordination Unit (UCLAT). “Some of the individuals mentioned have already requested protection from the UCLAT. To date, despite being particularly exposed to a risk to their lives, none of them are receiving protection from the sub-directorate for the protection of persons,” the MPs explain.

At a time when the government is looking to make budget savings and is considering removing the police protection still enjoyed by certain ministers who left their official posts long ago, this would be an easy way to reallocate public funds. But for the moment, there is no indication that the threat is being taken seriously. Will someone have to die in France before anything is done?

Helena de Lauzun

In response to the heartbreaking assassination of Charlie Kirk, millions of Americans have been inspired to take action to save our country and return to their faith. In his short lifespan of 31 years, he had a monumental impact on our country, and it was on display during his memorial service, which attracted over 200,000 supporters and featured speakers such as President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, commentator Tucker Carlson, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and several other cabinet members.

It was an incredible tribute to a life well lived, to a man who had the right priorities of God, family, and country. Unfortunately, his passing has exposed tremendous hate and unmistakable evil within the Democratic Party.

This animosity was on display in the U.S. House of Representatives in the aftermath of his assassination. A call for prayer by the U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) was opposed by Democrats who vocally denounced her wonderful idea.

Eventually, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to honor Charlie Kirk with the support of 215 Republicans and 98 Democrats. It offered sympathy to his family, denounced his assassination and honored Kirk as a “courageous American patriot” who “lived out his faith with conviction, courage, and compassion.”

Sadly, 60 Democrats either voted “present” or did not vote for the resolution. Even worse, 58 Democrats voted against this worthwhile resolution, including U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

disgusting speech to her colleagues, she said Kirk’s “rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans.” Ocasio-Cortez claimed that the resolution would “bring great pain” to African Americans who experienced “segregation, Jim Crow and the legacy of bigotry.”

In response to her comments, the Executive Producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” Andrew Kolvet said, “Her words were disgraceful. Congress couldn’t even unite to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk, an American hero. That’s shameful.”

Of course, Kolvet is right, Ocasio-Cortez lied about Charlie Kirk. He was not a racist, and, as the resolution noted, he worked “tirelessly to promote unity.”

This is why Kirk offered progressives an opportunity to debate him on college campuses throughout the country. He treated all of them with respect and dignity, giving them the biggest platform he could offer.

His proposal of debate and wholesome discussion was met by violence and a bullet from a deranged leftist. It ended his life, but not his life’s work, which will now soar to new heights and have even greater influence.

Currently, his organization, Turning Point USA, has 3,500 high school and college chapters, but, as of September 18, 2025, Turning Point had received 62,000 requests for new chapters.

In the aftermath of his assassination, Turning Point USA will become an even more powerful organization. This is distressing to the hateful Democrats, who will continue to demonize Charlie Kirk.

For example, U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) said she voted against the Kirk resolution because he was a racist. She compared the resolution to the Confederacy. In a CNN interview, she said, “Just like we made sure those Confederate relics were taken down…the idea of a new age relic being propped up is something I could not subscribe to.”

Crockett’s comments were both defamatory and reprehensible. If Crockett cared about the truth she could have asked CNN analyst Van Jones, a diehard Democrat, who was feuding with Charlie Kirk in the days before his assassination.

On CNN, Jones revealed that he received a text from Kirk one day before his murder. In the text, Kirk offered him “a respectful conversation about crime and race” on his program. Kirk also promised that he “would be a gentleman as I know you would be as well…We can disagree about the issues agreeably.”

Jones was incredibly impressed by the offer, noting that “Charlie Kirk and I were not friends. At all.” He said, “In the past week and a half, just watching people talk about civil wars and censorship and all this stuff coming out of his death, I just thought it was important to let people know. Don’t put that on Charlie Kirk.”

Jones remarked, that on “The last day of his life, he was reaching out to have not more censorship, (but) more conversation, more dialogue, with somebody who, honestly, was one of his adversaries, me.”

Fortunately, Jones came to understand the greatness of Charlie Kirk. He should educate the ignorant U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who has been making vile statements about Charlie Kirk ever since his assassination.

Omar called Kirk “hateful,” and shared a video that “Kirk was Dr. Frankenstein, and his monster shot him through the neck.” This behavior is disgraceful, but not surprising for a politician who advocates more for radical Islam and her home country of Somalia than for the United States of America.

Omar declared that Kirk’s legacy should be relegated to “the dustbin of history,” and wished the nation would “hopefully move on and forget the hate that he spewed every single day.”

Well, sorry to disappoint you, Representative Omar, but his legacy will continue to expand in the years ahead. As Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff, said in his comments at Charlie Kirk’s memorial, his enemies “have no idea the dragon you have unleashed.”

As Miller said, the left has “nothing to offer, but bitterness.” He encouraged those who will continue his legacy to be “worthy” of his “sacrifice” and to defeat the “forces of darkness and evil.”

Ultimately, the effort to silence Charlie Kirk and demonize his legacy will fail miserably. As Vice President J.D. Vance noted, the memorial for Charlie Kirk was not a “funeral, but a celebration and a revival.”

Kirk’s impact on our country will extend beyond politics into religion and culture. It will lead to not only more Republicans, but more Christians, more traditional families, and more love of the United States of America. Well done, Charlie Kirk. 

Jeff Crouere, New American Prophet

Einstein advocated socialism, a system that crushes innovation and mandates conformity. Clearly, brilliance is contextual. But assuming he said it, it’s a great quote on blind obedience.

*******

The claim that either you must forgive an unrepentant monster OR be consumed by hatred is an illogical false alternative. It’s entirely possible to refuse mercy to the guilty while remaining a peaceful and serene person. In fact, it fosters inner peace and serenity to name evil for what it is, treat it as such, refusing to pretend otherwise–and then move on.

Forgiveness of the unforgivable isn’t something that will enhance your inner peace; self-delusion is never the road to mental health.

Some people reply that you cannot move on with your life if you don’t forgive.

Why do you have to pretend that a monster isn’t a monster in order to move on with your life?

It’s a tribute to your lost or murdered loved one to call a spade a spade, in defense of the victim.

*******

A meme says: “The left hated Charlie Kirk because they say he was transphobic and homophobic. The left love Palestinians who are openly transphobic and homophobic.”

Good points. You have to understand: Leftists in power care nothing for gays, trannies, blacks, women or anyone else they elevate to a victim status. Leftists and “Democrats” elevate demoralized, vulnerable or downtrodden people in order to advance their own money and power, something they could never acquire without exploiting others via the coercion and manipulation of government. And the poor saps who cheer these 21st century Communists on simply do it to virtue-signal, to gain approval from others who are as clueless and misinformed as they are.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Former Vice President Kamala Harris falsely stated during a Tuesday appearance on “The View” that the 2024 presidential election was the “closest” of the 21st century.

The closest election in the 21st election was the Election of 2000, when former President George W. Bush won the Electoral College 271-266 electoral votes against former Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore. During her appearance on “The View,” Harris insisted that she hardly lost to President Donald Trump despite not winning a single swing state and becoming the first Democrat in two decades to lose the popular vote.

“This is unprecedented, think about this. There’s a race for president of the United States, the current sitting president is running for reelection. Three-and-a-half months from the election, he decides not to run,” Harris said. “The sitting vice president then takes the mantle, running against a former president of the United States who had been running for ten years with 107 days before the election. And by the way, another piece of what is unprecedented and a bit historical about that race, it is the closest presidential race in the 21st century in terms of the outcome.”

Aside from the 2000 election, the 2020 presidential election also had a narrower margin than 2024. During the 2020 election, former President Joe Biden won 74 more electoral votes than Trump, while Trump attained 86 more electoral votes than Harris in 2024.

Harris credited her loss with only having 107 days to launch her presidential race against Trump after Biden dropped out on July 21, 2024. She wrote in her new book, “107 Days,” that she grew frustrated with Biden and his staff for allegedly under-appreciating her.

The former vice president also wrote that while former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was her first choice to be her running mate, she did not pick him because she did not think voters would support a gay man.

Nicole Silverio, Daily Caller

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Billionaire megadonor George Soros has funneled more than $80 million to organizations that praised terrorists or urged protest violence in America, according to a new report by the Capital Research Center.

The Capital Research Center report said Soros— through his Open Society Foundation—has distributed tens of millions to groups that engage in or endorse actions that meet the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism. The revelations come as authorities investigate left-wing organizations for a possible connection to the Sept. 10 murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University.

Since 2020, the Open Society Foundation has given $400,000 to the Center for Third World Organizing, which boasts it “threw down with people in the streets” during the George Floyd riots, Capital Research Center noted. Center for Third World Organizing has consolidated radical groups into its hub, including the Ruckus Society, whose founders and training materials endorse tactics that “may be outside of the law,” Capital Research Center says. The network also includes the BlackOUT Collective, which co-authored a pro-Hamas guide that glorifies the Oct. 7 attacks and references a Ruckus Society manual promoting tactics like property destruction and blockades.

The Open Society Foundations also provided $1,850,000 to Dream Defenders and $18 million to Movement for Black Lives, which collaborated with BlackOut Collective to create the pro-Hamas guide, according to Capital Research Center’s report.

Soros’ foundations have given $200,000 to Dissenters, another co-author of the alleged pro-Hamas guide. Dissenters is listed as an endorser of the Shut It Down for Palestine coalition, which praises shutting down highways, bridges and targeting Israeli arms producers, according to Capital Research Center, and partners with the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee to promote illegal avoidance of taxes tied to U.S. defense activities.

A spokesperson for the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee told the Daily Caller News Foundation that it “generally agrees” with the statement that the group “advise[s] activists on how to illegally avoid paying some of their taxes to the IRS so as not to fund U.S. national security activities,” but said they do not have any specific comments regarding the report.

The Sunrise Movement has received at least $2 million from Open Society and promoted the Stop Cop City/Defend the Atlanta Forest coalition, linked to Antifa-associated anarchist terrorism, according to the report. Dozens of coalition members have faced domestic terrorism and racketeering charges for actions such as arson, property destruction, and assaults on law enforcement. Sunrise encouraged donations to the Atlanta Solidarity Fund, which prosecutors allege provided bail, legal defense, and materials like ammunition, drones, and surveillance equipment, Capital Research Center wrote.

Center for Third World Organizing, Ruckus Society, BlackOUT Collective, Dream Defenders, Movement for Black Lives, Dissenters, the Sunrise Movement, and Stop Cop City/Defend the Atlanta Forest coalition did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Shut It Down for Palestine could not be reached for comment.

“The Open Society Foundations does not fund terrorism. Our activities are peaceful and lawful, and our grantees are expected to abide by human rights principles and be in compliance with the law,” a spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Our work is solely dedicated to strengthening American democracy and upholding the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution.”

President Donald Trump has stated that Soros and his son, Alex, should face federal racketeering charges or be put in jail.

“George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in August. “Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country!”

Following the assassination of Kirk—which investigators are probing as a politically motivated attack—dozens of House Republicans called for the formation of a select committee on “The money, influence, and power behind the radical Left’s assault on America and the rule of law.”

The president also announced on Wednesday that he is designating Antifa a “major terrorist organization,” calling the far-left group a “sick, dangerous, radical Left disaster” and urging investigations into its financial backers.

Melissa O’Rourke, AMAC Newsline

“I’ve never talked to a Democrat who ever wanted to listen. They start to glitch out if you try.” — Sasha Stone.

This past summer, I tried to open a line of communication with a West Coast relative. We exchanged a few letters. I tactically steered the conversation away from the political. Here was the closer salvo from my relative:

Jimmy, on a completely personal level, and in different times, I think we could have been very good friends. At this point in our history, I find what you say in your blogs and Kunstlercast to be outrageous, deceptive, and ugly. I disagree with almost everything you hold dear politically, and even if, for instance, we agree about the horrors of Big Pharma, your worship of Kennedy makes me ill. Your language falls right into all the clichés of the far right ideologies I loathe.Maybe someday things will change. For now, this is the last you’ll be hearing from me.

Frankly, what stung most keenly was the accusation that my language fell “into all the clichés of the far right ideologies. . . .” I like to think that I am allergic to clichés, though it’s possible that I am deluded about that. If anything, the dynamic collective thought disorders of our time present themselves in astonishingly fresh ways — for instance, a Supreme Court nominee who can’t define what a woman is. (Makes you kind of wonder how such a mind could parse Article Two of the Constitution.)

Mostly, I would have liked to know what those “far right ideologies” are, exactly, but it looks like I will never find out now. Maybe it is being opposed to censorship. . . or against Ukraine’s entry into NATO. . . or wanting coherent procedure for foreigners seeking to enter the USA. . . or keeping biological men out of the women’s swim lanes. . . or saying that ivermectin is a safe and effective anti-viral med. . . or supposing that people charged with felonies should not be released to the streets without significant cash bail. Stuff like that.

As it happened, we were not discussing these matters in our brief correspondence, but I was at something of a disadvantage since I am a professional writer who posts his opinion for public scrutiny and my relative is not. Of course, I describe what is a pandemic of broken family relations in our country. And social relations. I have been cancelled by most of my old friends, too, and I’m quite sure that I am not a special case. I am mystified by what these relatives and old friends actually believe these days. When we were hippies back in the day, they were very much opposed to war, turned-off by attempts at censorship, and deeply averse to the dark operations of the CIA and FBI. Now, they seem avid for intel ops and hoaxes, eager for war, and all-in for censoring ideas that make them feel “unsafe.”

There are various useful theories for this state-of-affairs, all pretty cross-compatible. Strauss and Howe’s Fourth Turning template of generational cycles explains a lot. Elizabeth Nickson has some fine insights about the extreme discontents of women these days leading them to summon political demons. Mattias Desmet, the Belgian psych professor has his Mass Formation theory, which states that societal anxieties provoke aligned “radical intolerance” among a populace. I recommend Wendy Williamson’s recent blog discussion of The Law of Reversal. Joseph Tainter’s classic, The Collapse of Complex Societies lays out the pitfalls of our “over-investments in complexity.” I wrote a book in 2005 titled The Long Emergency which describes the drawn-out collapse of our techno-industrial economy — the widespread apprehension of which helps define the societal anxieties described by Dr. Desmet that bring on his “Mass Formation Psychosis.”

All these theories tend to imply an inflection point where our assumptions about human progress get undermined, provoking an intense loss of faith in institutions and authorities, resulting in epochal socio-political disorder. Wouldn’t you agree we are seeing exactly that now? That the net effect of all this is of a society driven insane. Surely, the craziness is amplified by the novel connectivities of the Internet and exacerbated by many other high-tech innovations from ubiquitous camera surveillance to cryptocurrency to drone warfare.

In our country these days, all of this has apparently produced two camps at war psychologically, now verging on something like a hot civil war. One camp calling itself “progressive” insists on a roster of ideas, policies, and practices that look patently absurd, abusive of the public interest, and hostile to the values of Western Civ. The other camp styles itself as “conservative” seeking to preserve Western Civ and the advancement of our so-called way of life — an ever growth-seeking high-tech economy.

Personally, I doubt that the latter is possible. I believe we’re due for a pretty serious time-out from the sort of economic “growth” we enjoyed the past two-hundred years. That high-tech mega-fiesta has thrown off a lot of entropy, which is now working hard to slow things down and make us stop a lot of what we are doing. It manifests in many ways, but most vividly by flinging us into social disorder, turning what had been communication and correspondence into a rising babel that is driving us crazy. That is exactly why it is so hard to talk to our relatives and old friends. But mark this: there is a time coming when we will get tired of being crazy, and then things will go differently for us. We’ll start talking again.

James Howard Kunstler

Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, blasted House Democrats who voted against a resolution condemning the murder of conservative leader Charlie Kirk, telling Newsmax that partisan “pettiness” prevented the chamber from presenting a united front against political violence.

Appearing Monday on “National Report,” Fallon contrasted last week’s vote on the Kirk resolution with a recent unanimous House measure denouncing the killing of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman.

“We had the unfortunate killing of the state representative in Minnesota, and that resolution condemning that act of political violence passed unanimously,” Fallon said. “This is what Charlie Kirk’s resolution should have been like as well. But unfortunately, it wasn’t because some Democrats just can’t bring themselves to really embrace unity.”

Kirk, co-founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, was killed earlier this month in what authorities have described as an act of political violence.

Fallon said that while not everyone agreed with Kirk’s views, “that doesn’t mean you can’t come together and condemn political violence and condemn his killing and honor his legacy because he focused on discourse. He wanted us to have debate. He wanted us to have a spirited exchange of ideas in the public square. And what’s wrong with that?

“That’s going to make our republic stronger. And an act of evil took him away from us, and we should have come together as a chamber.”

Instead, Fallon said, 58 Democrats opposed the measure, which passed the GOP-led House.

“Unfortunately, 58 Democrats chose really pettiness and ignorance,” he said.

Fallon also paid tribute to Kirk’s widow, Erika, whose public forgiveness of the suspect moved him deeply.

“His legacy is going to live on,” Fallon said. “His wife, Erika, really is a true inspiration — to forgive the evil killer is something that, I mean, she’s a better Christian than I. That is amazing.”

Newsmax TV

An effort to recognize a Palestinian State was at the center of United Nations meetings on Monday, but years of conflict have taken a toll: Now most Israelis and Palestinians are both pessimistic that two states could ever coexist side-by-side, and Palestinians are increasingly supportive of armed resistance. 

The UN meetings come as a handful of Western countries, including close U.S. allies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, as well as France, have formally recognized the concept of a Palestinian State, but without a concrete plan to bring about that reality. France and Saudi Arabia jointly hosted an international peace conference in support of the two-state solution on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings in New York this week. 

The souring of public opinion dims the prospects for the two peoples to live alongside one another and threatens to undermine the European effort to secure a two-state solution. Prematurely pressuring Israel to end the war and accept a two-state solution may also encourage continued militancy in the Palestinian territories, including Gaza, experts and polling data suggest.

Increasing pessimism on both sides

The percentage of Israelis who are pessimistic about the prospect of coexisting alongside an independent Palestinian state is at  record levels since Pew Research first began asking the question in 2013. In that year, 50% of Israeli citizens said that peaceful coexistence with such a state was possible.

By 2025, following the Oct. 7 terrorist attack by Palestinian terror group Hamas and after two years of war in Gaza to eliminate the group, the share of Israelis that believed peaceful existence was possible had declined to 21%. 

Regular polling of Palestinians is more difficult to obtain, but generally appears to follow a similar pattern. In the most recent polling from 2024, just one-third of Palestinians surveyed in both the West Bank and war-torn Gaza supported a two-state solution. 

Additionally, more than half of those Palestinians surveyed said an “armed struggle” was the most effective way to end the Israeli occupation of purported Palestinian territories and to establish an independent Palestinian state, a statistic that illustrates the difficulty of achieving a lasting peace under current circumstances.

Terrorist elements in Palestinian groups given opportunities to regroup

Victoria Coates, first-term Deputy National Security Advisor to President Trump and Vice President of the Heritage Foundation’s foreign policy institute, told Just the News that efforts to reach a diplomatic settlement before the conflict is over may undermine long-term peace that would benefit both the Israelis and the Palestinian people.

“From my perspective, historically, a lot of the problem we have is that the Palestinians have never been definitively defeated by Israel,” Coates told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast on Sunday.

“There’s always been so much outcry from the international community that you do get to some kind of negotiated settlement that lets the terrorist elements within the Palestinians regroup,” she continued. 

But, in the country’s early days, Israel was in constant conflict with more than just the Palestinians. The Jewish state was surrounded on all sides by Arab enemies that viewed the State of Israel as an illegitimate authority imposed by colonial governments. However, after multiple wars, Israel and its Arab neighbors established a permanent, if sometimes tenuous, peace. Coates said this was because Israel decisively defeated its challengers before diplomacy could take place.  

Coates said the Israel-Palestine struggle is “so different from what happened with the Arab nations, who, in 1973, decided they were tired of attacking Israel because they had lost.” She noted that those Arab states, including Egypt and Jordan, “definitively lost all of those wars from 1948 to 1973.” 

Coates: Resolution comes by defeating Hamas

“But that resolution to the issue, and I think the most important thing for the Palestinians, even more than Israel, is to bring a resolution to this situation, and that comes by defeating Hamas.”

The European powers leading the charge to recognize a Palestinian state for the first time—led by the United Kingdom and France—did so out of frustration with the deadlocked peace negotiations and after seeing the chance of a two-state solution slipping away because of that deadlock. 

However, far from encouraging a ceasefire in the conflict that has raged in the Gaza Strip for nearly two years, U.S. officials and the president warn that the European efforts will only encourage Hamas to continue fighting, prolonging the conflict that has devastated Gaza.

“You’re rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don’t think they should be rewarded,” President Donald Trump told reporters last month. 

Trump also previously criticized French President Emmanuel Macron’s July 24 vow to officially recognize a Palestinian state while downplaying the impact that European countries would have on the ongoing ceasefire and hostage negotiations, saying it wouldn’t “change anything.” 

Several countries have long advocated for a two-state solution, a proposal that would see an independent Israel and Palestine coexist alongside one another as homelands for their respective peoples. 

But the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, which is a designated terrorist group in the United States, has brutalized the notion that a peaceful coexistence is within immediate reach. Despite attempts by the United States to mediate a hostage rescue and ceasefire, negotiations between the sides have stalled, with no end to the conflict in sight. 

French, UK proposals do not empower “moderate” Palestinians

Both the French and the British argue that moving to formally recognize a State of Palestine – teaming up with Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Arab states – is important for charting a path forward for a post-conflict Gaza and West Bank that preserves the dream of a two-state solution.  

However, the polling data suggests that the Americans are probably correct in assessing that recognition of a Palestinian state directly impedes the negotiation process, confirming the views of a majority of the Palestinian people that armed resistance is not only necessary but effective. 

“Rather than empowering moderate Palestinians, as the Europeans hope would happen, it would have the opposite effect,” David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who focuses his research on Israel and Palestine, previously told Just the News. 

“Not only is there no credible moderate Palestinian leadership, this action as a result of a war Hamas started would prove to the Palestinians that they can only achieve independence through violence, and Hamas will be crowned as the deliverer of Palestinian statehood,” May added. 

In an official statement in response to the Europeans bestowing recognition on a Palestinian state, Israel said the plan “does not promote peace, but, on the contrary, further destabilizes the region and undermines the chances of achieving a peaceful solution in the future.” 

In retaliation for the decision, the Israeli government is currently weighing further annexations of West Bank territory that would make up the core of any future Palestinian state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also delivered a defiant promise: “A Palestinian state will not be established.” 

Netanyahu: Rewarding terror

“I have a clear message to those leaders who recognize a Palestinian state after the horrific massacre of October 7: you are granting a huge reward to terror,” Netanyahu said in a statement on Sunday after the coalition of English-speaking countries announced they would recognize Palestine. 

“And I have another message for you: It will not happen. There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan,” he added, referring to the Jordan River, which separates the West Bank territory from the country of Jordan. 

The terrorist group Hamas said that the recognition from the UK and others marks “a victory for Palestinian rights and the justice of our cause,” The Telegraph reported. 

Just the News

A coordinated offensive unfolded with precision September 2 against five scientists questioning the popular media’s most sacred bogeyman — the hypothesis that human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide threaten to overheat the planet.

The scientists attacked had written a report published in July by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”

Delivering virtually identical narratives, proclaiming that 85 “climate experts” had discredited the DoE report, were CBS, NPR, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Reuters and others.

Language in the news reporting was nearly indistinguishable, and the focus identical: a number (“85” or “dozens”), a designated group (“scientists” or “experts”) and a verdict (“flawed,” “lacks merit,” “full of errors”). This is not the natural variance of independent newsrooms pursuing a story. This is the result of a shared press release, a common source or a backroom agreement to push a common storyline.

It was a master class in singing the same tune that would make any propaganda ministry proud — a calibrated flash mob of climate-fear messaging in an explicitly partisan tone.

Fooling the Public

The first volley of the assault was a classic ad hominem attack. The authors of the DoE report, five of the world’s most distinguished and academically rigorous researchers of climate issues, were immediately branded as the “Trump Team.”

This is a deliberately dishonest tactic. The authors — doctors John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer — are not political operatives. They are scientists with decades of experience and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications.

Dr. Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the Department of Energy under President Obama, a fact conveniently omitted from most of the media’s hit pieces. Drs. Christy and Spencer are world-renowned for developing the first global temperature dataset from satellites, for which they received NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

No mention that Ross McKitrick is a Canadian academic with no political ties. No mention that Judith Curry stepped away from academia partly because of the politicization of climate research and previously had been much sought after for her research into hurricane intensity.

Most critically, the authors themselves have stated that there was no oversight or compulsion from anyone in any government department during the creation of their report. They say they crafted the report independently, with no interference from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. But the media gloss over that. Instead, the scientists are derided as the “Trump team.”

In stark contrast to the vilified DoE authors, the 85 individuals who signed the critical letter were anointed as “climate experts” and “leading scientists.” Yet, the list of signers is padded with individuals whose specializations are, to put it generously, tangential to the core issues of climate science.

The strategy is clear: assemble a gaggle of academics, label them “climate experts” and use the sheer number to create an illusion of overwhelming scientific consensus against the DOE report.

Sell Lies, Instill Fear With a ‘Black Mirror’

Adding to the theater, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has announced a panel to review the DoE report. But here’s the twist: The panel is headed not by a climate scientist, but by a biologist. Out of the panel’s members, only a few have direct expertise in atmospheric science. Yet the announcement was trumpeted as if the nation’s top climate experts were mobilized.

Predicting catastrophe is a media business model. NPR warned of “irreversible” sea-level rise in 2023, ignoring tide gauge records that show no acceleration beyond historical norms. News outlets regularly report on “unprecedented” floods, yet data indicate no uptick in floods due to climate change.

If everybody believed climate impacts were manageable, the case for sweeping carbon taxes, bans on fossil fuels and subsidies for wind and solar energy would collapse. That’s why the DoE report — noting forecasting uncertainty, adaptation possibilities and economic trade-offs — is so threatening. It undermines a narrative of an “existential” threat or imminent collapse. So, the media did not debate the five scientists; they sought to destroy them and their report. Not with data, but with labels.

This is a psyops initiative like that depicted in the Netflix dystopian series “Black Mirror.” The media outlets are not mirrors reflecting reality; they are black screens projecting a manufactured one. They have become instruments of a political agenda, sacrificing journalistic integrity to enforce a specific viewpoint on climate change. They operate not as individual watchdogs but as a wolf pack. They decide what you should think and seek to broadcast it in unison until you do.

I’d encourage you to read the DoE report for yourself or at least countervailing opinions of it. Scrutinize the credentials of those who attack it. Ask the hard questions that the journalists refuse to. The black mirror can only hold power over you if you consent to stare into it. It is time to look away and see the world as it is, not as they tell you it is.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂alition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India