Blog

SCOTUS Blocks California School Policy Hiding Kids’ ‘Gender Presentation’ From Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for California parents seeking to protect their children from LGBT ideology in state schools on Monday.

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated a stay (“pause”) issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a December injunction by a California-based district court judge. That permanent injunction prohibited enforcement of a California policy that permitted or forced school employees to “mislead[] the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school.”

In his order, District Judge Roger Benitez, a Bush 43 appointee, further required California officials to notify school personnel of his ruling and to include in materials for parents and faculty a statement acknowledging parents’ “federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

California parents’ victory was short-lived, however, because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals froze Benitez’s order a few weeks later. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate court’s three-judge panel of Democrat appointees claimed that state officials “have shown that ‘there is a substantial case for relief on the merits,’” and said it was “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision prompted plaintiffs to file an application with SCOTUS, in which they requested that the high court vacate the 9th Circuit’s stay and allow Benitez’s injunction to take effect.

In its unsigned opinion, SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs’ request to vacate the 9th Circuit’s injunction “with respect to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not ‘justified under the governing four-factor test.’” The high court noted that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to remain in place.

The court’s order does not apply to the plaintiff teachers suing over the policy, however. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the plaintiffs’ application in full.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Keep reading

Britain and Europe are struggling economically; their response? Regulate the world

It used to be said that the sun never set on the British Empire, so far-flung were its possessions. Britain has long since retreated from most of those territories, most recently, and controversially, in its attempt to relinquish control of the Chagos Islands. Yet even as it sheds physical dominion, Britain appears increasingly eager to export something else: its laws and regulations. 

In that project, it is joined enthusiastically by its former partners in the European Union. If the Old World has one major export left, it is bureaucracy.

The most obvious current target is X, Elon Musk’s platform, and its Grok AI tool. Some users of questionable taste quickly discovered that Grok could be used to generate deepfake images of celebrities in revealing attire. More seriously, it was alleged that the technology had been used to generate sexualised images of children. In response, last month the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, citing potential failures to prevent illegal content. The possible penalties are severe, ranging from multi-million-pound fines, based on the company’s global revenue, to a complete ban on the platform in the UK.

Senior British officials were quick to escalate the rhetoric. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall publicly condemned X and emphasised that all options, including nationwide blocking, were on the table. The message was unmistakable; compliance would be enforced, one way or another.

Two days later, X announced new restrictions to prevent Grok from editing images of real people into revealing scenarios and to introduce geo-blocking in jurisdictions where such content is illegal. Ofcom described these changes as “welcome” but insufficient, insisting its investigation would continue. Meanwhile, pressure spread outward. Other governments announced restrictions, and the European Commission expanded its own probes under the Digital Services Act. What began as a British enforcement action quickly morphed into coordinated global pressure, effectively pushing X toward worldwide policy changes.

This is the crucial point. British regulators were not merely seeking compliance for British users. They were pressing for changes to X’s global policies and technical architecture to govern speech and expression far beyond the UK’s borders. What might initially have been framed as a failure to impose sensible safeguards on a powerful new tool has become a test case for whether regulators in one jurisdiction can dictate technological limits everywhere else.

This pattern is not new. Ofcom has already attempted to extend its reach directly into the United States, brushing aside the constitutional protections afforded to Americans. Since the Online Safety Act came into force in 2025, Ofcom has adopted an aggressively expansive interpretation of its authority, asserting that any online service “with links to the UK,” meaning merely accessible to UK users and deemed to pose “risks” to them, must comply with detailed duties to assess, mitigate, and report on illegal harms. Services provided entirely from abroad are explicitly deemed “in scope” if they meet these criteria.

The flashpoints have been 4chan and Kiwi Farms, two US-based forums notorious for unmoderated speech and even harassment campaigns. In mid-2025, Ofcom initiated investigations into both for failing to respond to statutory information requests and for failing to complete the required risk assessments. It ultimately issued a confirmation decision against 4chan, imposing a £20,000 fine plus daily penalties for continued non-compliance, despite the site having no physical presence, staff, or infrastructure in the UK.

Rather than comply, the operators of both sites filed suit in US federal court, arguing that Ofcom’s actions violate the First Amendment and that the regulator lacks jurisdiction to enforce British law against American companies. The litigation frames the dispute starkly: whether a foreign regulator may, through regulatory pressure, compel changes to lawful American speech.

That question has now spilt into US politics. Senior American officials have criticised Ofcom’s posture as an extraterritorial threat to free speech, and at least one member of Congress has threatened retaliatory legislation. What Britain views as online safety increasingly appears, from across the Atlantic, to be regulatory imperialism.

Keep reading

Bill Clinton Asked About Salacious Hot Tub Photo During Epstein Deposition

The House Oversight Committee on Monday released video of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Epstein depositions.

Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed to testify before the Oversight Committee after Chairman James Comer moved forward with holding them in criminal contempt of Congress.

During the deposition in Chappaqua, New York, last week, Clinton was asked about the salacious photo of him in a hot tub with an alleged Epstein trafficking victim.

The Justice Department in December released a new batch of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking cases.

The trove of documents was released after a federal judge in New York recently ordered the release of Jeffrey Epstein documents related to a 2019 sex trafficking case.

President Trump recently signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law to release all files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

The new trove of documents included never-before-seen photos of Bill Clinton in a hot tub, swimming with a mystery woman.

The individual’s face was redacted which means she is either a sex-trafficking victim and or a minor.

Keep reading

Joe Biden’s DOJ Caught Wiring $2 Million ‘Gift Grant’ Straight to Fani Willis While She Persecuted Trump

Investigative journalist John Solomon said newly obtained documents indicate that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis coordinated with federal officials while pursuing charges against President Donald Trump and his allies in Georgia.

“Today we told you that new documents we got showed that Fannie Willis was recording, was working secretly behind the scenes with the Biden Justice Department, the Biden White House and the j6 Democrats to create a double jeopardy, double drain on Donald Trump’s supporters by creating a similar indictment to Jack Smith, but in Georgia to move resources and lawyers and attention span and divide it,” Solomon said.

He argued that the collaboration resulted in parallel prosecutions that placed additional legal and financial strain on Trump and those charged alongside him.

“We have we’re supposed to have a justice system that avoids double jeopardy,” Solomon said. “But in this case, you can see the plot being created by these lawyers and by the collaboration.”

Solomon also referenced concerns previously raised by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan regarding funding tied to Willis’ office.

“Today, we raise a question, or we provide some evidence to a question that Jim Jordan raised about a year ago, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, he believed that Fani Willis’s prosecution of Trump was being underwritten by the Justice Department because he saw a stream of funding,” Solomon said.

According to Solomon, documents show that the Justice Department offered Willis a grant during the period when she was building her case against Trump and 18 co-defendants in Georgia on conspiracy and racketeering charges.

Keep reading

California Child Molester With Three Life Sentences Paroled Under Newsom-Backed Law, Then Re-Arrested On New Charges

In California, justice is a revolving door—but only if you’re the criminal. Victims, meanwhile, are left standing outside wondering when their nightmare will return. The Golden State’s progressive experiment in “rehabilitation” has produced no shortage of cautionary tales, but few as stomach-turning as what unfolded this month in Sacramento.

A 64-year-old man who spent decades behind bars for unspeakable crimes against children was granted his freedom. Not because he’d served his time. Not because new evidence exonerated him. But because California decided that monsters deserve second chances too.

David Allen Funston was convicted in 1999 on 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation. His hunting ground was the suburbs of Sacramento, where he prowled neighborhood streets in his car, searching for prey. His weapons of choice: Barbie dolls and candy. His victims: at least eight children—seven girls and one boy—ranging in age from three to seven years old.

One victim, a five-year-old immigrant girl who barely spoke English, was assaulted and abandoned fifty miles from her home. The judge who sentenced Funston called him “the monster parents fear the most.” The court handed down three consecutive life sentences.

Keep reading

Epstein deposition videos show Bill Clinton shaking and furious Hillary pounding the table to storm off: ‘I’m done with this’

Dramatic new footage of the Clinton depositions released by the powerful House Oversight Committee shows how a frustrated Hillary Clinton nearly stormed out after firebrand Rep. Lauren Boebert snapped an unsanctioned photo of her. 

The former secretary of state got into epic shouting matches with MAGA firebrands during her sworn testimony last week, while her husband, whose hands were shaking throughout his deposition, finally gave answers to longstanding questions about his ties to late sex predator Jeffrey Epstein.

“I am done with this if you guys are doing this, I’m done,” a shocked and furious-looking Hillary raged after one of her attorneys raised concerns about a photo of her that appeared online.

“You can hold me in contempt from now until the cows come home,” she fumed. “This is just typical behavior.”

Boebert (R-Colo.) copped to taking a photo of Hillary, but claimed to have done so before the hearing kicked off. Hillary vented that “it doesn’t matter, we all are abiding by the same rules.” 

Keep reading

US Death Toll From Iran Operation Rises to 6 Troops

Six U.S. service members have been killed in action in the U.S. war with Iran, as of March 2.

The Pentagon announced that the remains of two military members have been recovered.

“U.S. forces recently recovered the remains of two previously unaccounted for service members from a facility that was struck during Iran’s initial attacks in the region,” said U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in a statement on X.

“Major combat operations continue. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification.”

So far, 18 U.S. service members have been seriously wounded, a CENTCOM spokesperson said.

The U.S.–Israeli military strikes on Iran have destroyed 11 ships belonging to the Iranian regime, according to the Pentagon.

“Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO,” CENTCOM said in a March 2 statement on X.

The military went on to say that the Iranian regime had used those ships to harass and attack international ships moving through the Gulf of Oman for years.

“Those days are over,” CENTCOM said. “Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global economic prosperity for more than 80 years. U.S. forces will continue to defend it.”

The conflict is far from over, according to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said in a same-day interview that more attacks on Iran are ahead.

“I’m not going to give away the details of our tactical efforts, but the hardest hits are yet to come from the U.S. military,” Rubio told reporters before briefing senior members of Congress on the conflict.

“The next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now.”

The secretary of state said there are currently no diplomatic talks with Iran, although “we always have people that reach out from inside of governments.”

“You don’t know if they’re authorized to reach out or not. They’re suffering a tremendous amount of damage,” he said.

As of the afternoon, Rubio told reporters that the Trump administration’s objectives are to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, including its missile manufacturing and launch capabilities, but that these objectives can be achieved without American boots on the ground in Iran.

“Right now, we’re not postured for ground forces, but obviously, the president has those options,” Rubio said. “He’s never going to rule out anything.”

President Donald Trump told The New York Post that he hasn’t ruled out sending service members to Iran if necessary. 

Keep reading

Left-wing ideology is being encoded into AI systems to censor “wrongthink”

In 2021, a group of researchers dramatically departed OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. Led by Dario Amodei, OpenAI’s former vice president of research, they cited deep concerns about “AI safety.” The company was moving too fast, they warned, prioritising commercial interests over humanity’s future. The risks were said to be existential. These Effective Altruists were going to do things the right way.

Their solution? Start a new company called Anthropic, premised on building AI “the right way” with “safety” (that word will become a recurring theme), and “proper guardrails.” They initially raised hundreds of millions (today, that number is in the tens of billions) from investors who bought the pitch: we’re the good guys preventing runaway artificial general intelligence (“AGI”).

Noble, right? Except these supposed guardrails against AGI have become pretty much impossible to quantify. What we do have is an incredibly sophisticated content moderation system that filters inquiries and commands through a Silicon Valley thought bubble. It doesn’t seem like they’re trying to prevent AGI from destroying humanity, but instead, to prevent you from challenging the core tenets of their political philosophy.

Go ahead and try to generate content questioning climate ideology, the trans agenda, voter ID laws or election integrity, and watch the “safety” guardrails kick in.

This isn’t about preventing Skynet. It’s about making sure AI parrots the right opinions and associates with the right kind of people.

Now that Anthropic is its own technology giant of an AI company, they are facing the same critiques from true believers in the space. Amodei has put his principles on hold to allow for foreign investment from Gulf states with a poor human rights track record. However, the company remains guided by a secular progressive “philosopher” whose values remain entirely detached from America’s founding ideas.

Keep reading

Should People Be Free To Deal With the Department of War?

In a February 27 post titled “You Should Have Moral Qualms about Anthropic’s Claims,” Hoover Institution senior fellow and foreign policy scholar Amy Zegart challenged the ethics of a company named Anthropic. What I found refreshing is that a defense contractor’s CEO had a strong enough belief in his ethics that he was willing to forego a lucrative contract. According to Zegart, I should have moral qualms about that. I don’t and I’ll say why.

Anthropic had told the Department of War that it did not want its products used for either autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. According to Zegart, the Pentagon stated that it did not contemplate such uses. But that wasn’t enough for Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, who stated that he could not “in good conscience” accept the War Department’s assurances. Here’s Brendan Bordelon in a February 26 news item in Politico:

[Secretary of War] Hegseth met with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Tuesday to deliver a warning — give the military unfettered access to its Claude AI model by Friday evening or else have the government label it a “risk” to the supply chain. The designation, typically reserved for foreign firms with ties to U.S. adversaries, could ban companies that work with the government from partnering with Anthropic.

Hegseth threatened Anthropic with designating it as a risk to the supply chain. With that label, Anthropic could be forbidden, as noted above, from working with companies that work with the government. Hegseth also, though, threatened to invoke the Defense Production Act to compel Anthropic to work with the Defense Department. A risk to the supply chain and, at the same, a firm that Hegseth wants to use? Hmmm. Bordelon quotes Dean Ball, whom he identifies as a former AI advisor in the Trump administration, noting the obvious contradiction. Said Ball, “You’re telling everyone else who supplies to the DOD you cannot use Anthropic’s models, while also saying that the DOD must use Anthropic’s models.”

Zegart cites the Politico article but doesn’t mention this contradiction. Instead, she goes after Anthropic and CEO Amodei. She writes:

There is a serious ethical question about whether one company, elected by nobody, with its own normative agenda as well as substantial global investors and customers, should be dictating the conditions of the most essential government role: protecting the lives of Americans.

But she misstates the issue. Anthropic isn’t trying to dictate the conditions of this essential government role. Anthropic is simply stating what its own limits are. If the Pentagon can find another supplier, it is free to do so and, indeed, has already done so. OpenAI has stepped up to take Anthropic’s place.

Moreover, why does Zegart think it’s important that Anthropic is elected by nobody? Does Zegart really think that companies that contemplate working with the Department of War should be elected by somebody.

Keep reading

Lawyers Scramble When Bill Clinton Asked if He Thinks Epstein Killed Himself – Hillary Says Epstein “Mysteriously Died”

Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared doubtful that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in the depositions with the House Oversight Committee last week, with Bill seeming unsure as his lawyers attempted to evade the question and Hillary flat out describing his death as “mysterious.”

Bill and Hillary previously refused to testify before the House Oversight Committee, leading to an attempt to hold the two in contempt of Congress, and they finally agreed to sit for interviews.

Bill Clinton, in his deposition, denied that Trump engaged in any wrongdoing and actually appeared to defend Trump when the Democrats attempted to bait him into saying Trump was implicated in Epstein’s crimes.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) said last week that the Clintons did not appear to believe the government line that Epstein killed himself.

Epstein apparently killed himself in a facility known for its stringent security measures, while the prison guards failed to do mandatory checks on Epstein. The guards were also asleep, falsified records to cover their negligence, and the cameras were reportedly not working.

The New York City medical examiner concluded that Epstein died by suicide via hanging. However, as The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned forensic pathologist hired by Epstein’s family, observed the autopsy and noted injuries more consistent with homicidal strangulation, including fractures of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage. But FBI Director Kash Patel dismissed this evidence last year, saying he’d never seen it!

When Luna asked Bill Clinton if he believes that Epstein committed suicide in prison, Clinton’s attorneys stepped in and tried to prevent the question from being asked until Luna finally reworded it, asking Clinton if Epstein was suicidal.

Clinton uncomfortably responded, “I don’t know. I only know what the medical finding was. I’ve accepted it in my own mind. I don’t know what happened.” He further stated, “none of us know” what actually happened.

Keep reading