Family of Teen Murder Suspect Karmelo Anthony Plans to Use Portion of $400K in Donations for New Home and Private Security After ‘Racist Threats’

Austin Metcalf was allegedly stabbed by Karmelo Anthony on April 2 during an athletic event in Frisco, Texas. (@EndWokeness / X screen shot)

The family of 17-year-old murder suspect Karmelo Anthony revealed to use a portion of the $400,000 in online donations—originally raised for legal defense—to buy a new home and hire private security, citing “racist threats” they claim to have received following the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf, a 17-year-old student and beloved member of his high school’s football team.

The shocking revelation came during a court hearing in which Anthony’s bond was reduced from $1 million to $250,000 by Judge Angela Tucker of the 199th Judicial District Court, with only 10% required for his release.

With the donation pot overflowing, Anthony is expected to be released imminently, free to await trial from the comfort of his family’s home—soon to be a new one, thanks to donations from far-left sympathizers, activists, and others buying into the narrative of victimhood.

During a recent court hearing, Andrew Anthony, the teen’s father, admitted that the hefty sum raised for the legal defense fund would also fund their relocation and security measures, citing alleged “racist threats” after their address was leaked online, according to the Daily Mail.

Daily Mail reported:

During the hearing, prosecutors asked his father Andrew Anthony why he could not use the more than $415,000 in donated funds for his son’s defense to pay the original $1million bond, which was reduced to $250,000 on Monday.

Just 10 percent of that amount must be paid, meaning Anthony will likely be free very soon.

Andrew Anthony said the fund was to be used for Anthony’s legal defense. But he also disclosed that the cash would be used for security and to help the family move after the threats they have allegedly faced since the killing.

The revelation comes after a spokesperson for the family said they can’t leave their after their address was leaked online, leading to ‘graphic and racist threats,’ which included images of ‘black children with knives stuck in their head.’

Anthony’s attorney Michael Howard said, regarding the money: ‘It would be disingenuous to say there isn’t money… But it is not a bond fund. This family needs to be able to survive.’

The accused teen killer is expected to post bond later on Monday. He will have to wear an ankle monitor and won’t be able to leave his parents’ home without permission from Judge Angela Tucker.

At the time of this writing, the donation for Austin Metcalf’s family stands at $347,679, raised primarily through a GoFundMe page set up by his father, Jeff Metcalf.

For the suspect, Karmelo Anthony, the donation total is reported as $428,022, collected via a GiveSendGo fundraiser. This indicates that Karmelo’s family received at least $80,000 more than Anthony’s.

Austin Metcalf tragically died in his twin brother’s arms after being stabbed in the chest at a school track meet earlier this month. According to the arrest report, Anthony was sitting under another school’s tent when Metcalf asked him to move.

An altercation followed, and Anthony reportedly unzipped his bag, threatened Austin, and then stabbed him directly in the heart with a black knife.

Witnesses say Anthony fled the scene and was later arrested. His only explanation? “He put his hands on me. I was protecting myself.”

But here’s what’s not being said loudly enough: Anthony brought a knife to a high school track meet.

The post Family of Teen Murder Suspect Karmelo Anthony Plans to Use Portion of $400K in Donations for New Home and Private Security After ‘Racist Threats’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

“Actions that Aren’t Immediately Visible Do Not Equate to Inaction” — FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino Breaks Silence Amid Mounting Conservative Scrutiny of Bureau Leadership

Credit: @FBIDirectorKash / X

Dan Bongino, the FBI Deputy Director, took to social media with a carefully worded update in what appears to be a subtle attempt to restore the trust between the bureau’s current leadership and conservatives.

This message from the Deputy Director comes at a time when conservatives are growing increasingly impatient and vocal about the lack of accountability.

High-profile voices like Rudy Giuliani, General Mike Flynn, and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton have all publicly called out the DOJ and FBI’s leadership for what they see as a lack of action, transparency, and willingness to right past wrongs.

Bongino, who was appointed to help clean house at a deeply compromised FBI, offered a candid look into his fifth week on the job:

Week 5 Updates:

-Thank you for following this account. I’m traveling this week to some of your FBI field offices to gather information on necessary reforms, and to hear from the workforce. The Director and I have prioritized reforms while also making sure the work being done to ensure the safety of the Homeland, continues.

-I posted this last week but I want to reiterate it. The Director and I are working on a number of significant initiatives to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated, and that many of your open questions are answered. We fully understand that some of the actions and initiatives we’ve taken may not immediately appear to fit into the puzzle. And that leaves a vacuum at times, filled by others. But accountability requires information, and people WITH information. I’ll say again, I’m NOT asking you to “trust me,” because I’m not in the “trust me” business. I’m in the “show me results” business.

-Actions that aren’t immediately visible do not equate to inaction. And I’ll be candid here, it’s tough not being able to respond to critical or laudatory comments. But, that’s what I signed up for as an employee of the tax payer. I need to let the results speak for themselves on many of these matters because that’s what you’re paying me to do. I know you’ve been let down in the past. You’re owed better. And we’re going to produce it.

God bless America, and all those who defend Her.
-Dan

Week 5 Updates:

-Thank you for following this account. I’m traveling this week to some of your FBI field offices to gather information on necessary reforms, and to hear from the workforce. The Director and I have prioritized reforms while also making sure the work being done to…

— Dan Bongino (@FBIDDBongino) April 14, 2025

The post “Actions that Aren’t Immediately Visible Do Not Equate to Inaction” — FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino Breaks Silence Amid Mounting Conservative Scrutiny of Bureau Leadership appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

EU Reverses Course and Is Now Willing to Renegotiate Trade Deal with US

Last Thursday, the European Union announced they would suspend retaliatory tariffs on America for 90 days. This comes a day after President Trump elected to suspend tariffs on more than 75 countries for the identical number of days.

“We want to give negotiations a chance… if negotiations are not satisfactory, our countermeasures will kick in,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement.

Von der Leyen also reiterated that she wants America to accept a zero-for-zero trade offer on industrial goods. As TGP reported, the bloc believes will help address some of Trump’s concerns.

But it’s not likely to satisfy Trump. Moreover, von der Leyen did not mention accepting American agricultural products, which the snobby EU views as poisonous and inferior to theirs.

On Monday, EU Trade Chief Maros Sefcovic announced he seeking a fair deal on tariffs with the United States.

Sefcovic made the announcement on X.

Earlier today he met with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Ambassador Jamieson Greer for trade negotiations.

The EU remains constructive and ready for a fair deal – including reciprocity through our 0-for-0 tariff offer on industrial goods and the work on non-tariff barriers. Achieving this will require a significant joint effort on both sides. 2/2

— Maroš Šefčovič (@MarosSefcovic) April 14, 2025

The EU trade chief hopes to come to agreement on a fair deal including 0-for-0 tariff offer on industrial goods and the work on non-tariff barriers.

The EU is hoping this is enough to please the Trump administration.

Over the past decade EU exports have surged 44% to the US.

Here is a chart from EuroNews of US imports from the EU in 2024.

The post EU Reverses Course and Is Now Willing to Renegotiate Trade Deal with US appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Trump’s Free-Speech Warrior?

Trump’s Free-Speech Warrior?

Behind the curtain with Darren Beattie, one of the new president’s most provocative personnel picks.

(U.S. Department of State)

“Everything is possible with Donald Trump,” one State Department source familiar with the hiring told The American Conservative. 

This person was speaking of the shock retention of Darren Beattie as the acting undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. Amid the blitzkrieg—“days of thunder” as the former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon has put it—of policy shake-ups, outré cabinet selections, and vintage populist bluster that have characterized the new administration in its early months, perhaps no move is more “Trump 2.0” than the elevation of Beattie. 

Because after years in the veritable digital wilderness (where his profile only grew, and, some might say, became a legend), Beattie is back in the saddle at Washington. 

Ousted from the White House speechwriter’s office in late summer 2018 during Donald Trump’s first stint in power, the original scandal that did Beattie in now seems downright passé—like something that the key Trump backer Elon Musk might post out unedited in 2025, and or Vice President J.D. Vance would engage with on X. Beattie’s (even then openly Googleable) address to the obscure H.L. Mencken Club was excavated by CNN, and he was sacked from the Trump team by establishment apparatchiks that are a far rarer, more cowed breed in Trump’s second tour as president. 

In the years since, the scandal (perversely for opposition-minded, liberal journalists) seems to have served only to bolster Beattie’s myth and enhance his profile. 

Few figures showcase the flipside of cancellation in American life better than Beattie; few notables better embody the “post-woke” moment America has supposedly now entered. In exile, 2018–25, Beattie founded Revolver News: a no-holds-barred right-wing aggregator that aimed (with no small success) to supplant Drudge Report, which many in the Trump fold see as utterly wayward. Beattie became a “friend of the show” on Bannon’s instrumental War Room podcast, where he cultivated a Strangelovian presence and mystique. 

I’ve known Beattie for years. During the previous administration, I would greet him as “my favorite Biden administration official” for his service on the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, which extended into the 46th president’s term. A shotgun appointment in the helter-skelter final days of the first Trump tour, it would take a year before the Democrats either got around or figured out how to fire him. 

Behind closed doors, as a government official or as a civilian philosopher, Beattie is careful, diplomatic, even reserved. Bar none, he was the most professional, ideologically-committed interlocutor I dealt with in the early Trump White House, which otherwise could be characterized, with few qualifications, as a shocking clown show of mandarins who had little idea, and little real interest in, why Donald Trump had just been elected president.

But this characterization of Beattie the person—surgical, not garrulous—may shock those only familiar with Beattie the persona. In a way, his story and style are inescapably 2020s: Bolt-from-the-blue exclusives with Imran Khan, the jailed Pakistani cricket star-turned–prime minister–turned-opposition leader, “for the ’gram” are interspersed with cartoon degradations of the Dispatch editor Jonah Goldberg. Both are put to the side when working for the U.S. secretary of state.    

When Beattie initially shot to attention, in the 2015–16 era, he was the only non-tenured academic in the country publicly to endorse Trump for president. It was a considerable risk. Beattie had been a math prodigy at UChicago before pivoting to a political theory PhD at Duke, where he later taught. A protege of the Leo Strauss guru Nathan Tarcov, Beattie’s choices meant breaks not only with the well-worn (if precarious) path of American academia, but also with the malfunctioning conservative clerisy that Trump’s rise has so humiliated. 

There are other details that are peculiar about Beattie. Originally from Denver, he was actually partially reared in Palau, the Micronesian island even few State Department officials could locate on a map. His father was recruited to be a supreme court justice in that republic. (Elon Musk could only dream that the U.S. judiciary were so anarcho-capitalist.) In private correspondence over the years, one gets the sense from Beattie that upon his return to the States, he barely recognized the country he had left behind. What motivates his politics then is perhaps unsurprising, and perhaps little different than many of the “forgotten men and women” the president says he represents. 

But why this job, why this role and why now?

To allies, it’s no real surprise. Beattie is perhaps a better fit here than he ever was at the speechwriter’s office, a den of influential but often thankless work. In comments on the circuit in 2016, Beattie made clear that his shock support for Trump was based on two reasons: the future president’s revolution in Republican foreign policy, and the then-candidate’s adamance on the immigration issue. 

Most of all to some of his now-colleagues, Beattie vaulted to prominence by insisting that  sponsoring “color revolutions” in foreign countries is a staple of contemporary U.S. statecraft and heavily insinuating the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol was an inside job. The latter claim’s prominence peaked with a 60 Minutes interview with Senator Ted Cruz asking publicly, “Who is Ray Epps?”

Nor on the third leg of the traditional Trumpian stool, reforming “free” trade, has Beattie been bashful. 

Writing in National Review in 2017, Beattie argued, 

[BLOCK]From the immediate abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to the recent ‘hire American buy American’ executive order, to the strong likelihood of serious and important steps to renegotiate NAFTA, there is much in President Trump’s actions thus far in his term to encourage his economic-nationalist base.[/BLOCK]

He continued, 

[BLOCK]Conservatives and libertarians who remain shackled to a Cold War economic ideology ought to take note that Milton Friedman himself stated that his chief purpose was not to advocate for one specific economic agenda over another but rather to protect individual liberties and free enterprise from the threats of concentrated power.[/BLOCK]

“Protecting individual liberties” appears to have become Beattie’s self-justification in recent years.

To friends, Beattie has praised (with some apparent surprise) the leadership of his boss, Marco Rubio. The secretary has deployed Beattie as the tip of the spear on what is increasingly being termed “free speech diplomacy” by not only the Seventh Floor at Foggy Bottom, but also the vice president’s office. (See Vance’s “shock and awe” address at the 2025 Munich Security Conference denouncing European speech and democratic controls.) 

Rubio’s own commitment to free speech appears robust enough that he hasn’t sacked Beattie for past baiting comments about the now-secretary. (Beattie’s allies would insist he was in “shock jock” mode, but critics might complain that it’s convenient that he gets to pick and choose).

This is no sideshow work. Beattie appears to be in the thick of it. In late March, Trump’s government made clear that there would be no free trade agreement with the lumbering post-Brexit British state if London didn’t comply with free speech standards. An article in the Telegraph to this effect roiled Westminster, despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s surprisingly convivial relationship with Trump. 

The vulnerability here, of course, is that the administration is cracking down in parallel on criticism of Israel’s forever war in Gaza and the broader Middle East. The risk for free speech warriors in this administration is the appearance of hypocrisy, and building a two-tiered moral system. Beattie, the political philosopher, is said to see it pragmatically: You don’t throw out the good with the bad, and such decisions are above his pay grade.

Which raises the question: Is he playing the long game, and in DC to stay?

Beattie decamped to South Florida, the world headquarters of Republican exile, in the Biden years. Is this second tour a victory lap or the start of something bigger? Not yet 40, the president is twice his age. Might Beattie ride the rails of government for years and administrations to come? It’s suddenly a startling plausibility. 

The administration is unlikely to subject him to any Senate confirmation battle (although seeing Beattie joust with certain members of the upper chamber would be must-watch). If the Trump personnel carousel starts revving up again, anyone who survives could profit. Indeed, if Trump eventually dispenses with National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, State Department Policy Planning Director Michael Anton is seen as a ringer for the role. Could Beattie replace Anton?

Whatever the contingencies, Beattie’s bet on Donald Trump might only now be maturing.

The post Trump’s Free-Speech Warrior? appeared first on The American Conservative.

TGP Update and Correction Regarding the San Bernardino Community Service Center

The Gateway Pundit recently shared a story regarding The San Bernardino Community Service Center, Inc. (SBCSC) and Mr. Emilio Amaya, its executive director.

The Gateway Pundit has removed the article due to several unsupported claims.

Specifically, claims characterizing San Bernardino Community Service Center, Inc. as a nonprofit that assists illegal aliens to register to vote in the US were without evidentiary support.

TGP apologizes to Mr. Emilio Amaya, and the San Bernardino Community Service Center, Inc., for the unsupported statements made about them.

The post TGP Update and Correction Regarding the San Bernardino Community Service Center appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Iran, Trump Should Ignore Netanyahu

On Iran, Trump Should Ignore Netanyahu

A nuclear deal with Tehran would serve U.S. interests.


Credit: KPG-Ivary

President Trump has made a habit of dropping major news when Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House. In early February, during a joint news conference with the Israeli leader, Trump debuted his plan for the U.S. to take over Gaza and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Last week, with Netanyahu making an emergency trip to Washington to discuss tariffs, Trump broke the news that direct negotiations with Iran over the country’s nuclear program would begin in Oman over the weekend.

“Everyone agrees that doing a deal is preferable to doing the obvious,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, the “obvious” referring to military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. There was one person in the room, sitting just a few feet away, who has made clear over and over again that he would prefer that obvious option: Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump is making the right call by kickstarting diplomacy to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon through diplomacy advances U.S. interests in the Middle East. A new accord would not only put Iran’s nuclear program in a box, but give Washington a better shot at retrenching from a region of declining strategic importance. The president would be smart to ignore Netanyahu’s advice about the talks and the contours of a potential deal. 

Netanyahu, the longest-serving premier in Israeli history, has an extensive history of providing counsel to U.S. policymakers that turns out to be at odds with U.S. interests. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Netanyahu said there was “no question” that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He famously said that taking out Saddam’s regime would “have enormous positive reverberations on the region” and lead to a democratic uprising in Iran. As almost everyone now agrees, that advice has proven to be spectacularly wrong.

Since 1995, Netanyahu has been warning that an Iranian nuclear weapon was just around the corner. Thirty years later, Tehran has yet to develop an atomic bomb, though Netanyahu has pushed for policies that make Iran more likely to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. Netanyahu opposed President Obama’s signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka, the Iran nuclear deal), which curbed the country’s program. And he encouraged Washington to pull out of the deal despite Iran’s compliance with it, which Trump did in 2018. One reason Trump is having difficulty getting a new, better deal is that Tehran understandably fears another U.S. abnegation.

Netanyahu is touting the so-called “Libya model” as the basis for a U.S. position on a deal with Iran. This seems like a bad faith recommendation, a poison pill designed to kill negotiations. Netanyahu knows Iran would never agree to take the steps that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi announced in late 2003. Bowing to Western pressure, Tripoli dismantled its nuclear program in exchange for the promise of sanctions relief. Less than a decade later, NATO provided air cover as a rebel militia overthrew the Libyan government and, ultimately, captured and killed Gaddafi in gruesome fashion. Iran would be foolish to take the same path. Even if the “Libya model” didn’t lead to a collapse of the Islamic Republic, it would involve Tehran’s giving away all its negotiating leverage.

The Trump administration should recognize that demanding the full dismantlement of Iran’s civilian nuclear program serves Netanyahu’s interests, not America’s. The United States has already done more than enough to support Israel’s war on Gaza since Hamas’s October 7 atrocities, providing roughly $30 billion in military support. The costs of U.S. support go beyond the financial expenditure. The State Department has warned that U.S. support for Israel has galvanized terrorist organizations’ recruitment efforts and ignited anti-American sentiment. As the U.S. wages war against Yemen’s Houthis, who are attacking ships in the Red Sea to protest Israel’s assault on Gaza, Washington is in the midst of a dramatic military buildup in the region, moving missile defense systems and long-range stealth bombers from Asia to the Middle East. While such moves may be aimed at deterring Iran and forcing it to the negotiating table, they also heighten the risks of regional conflict.

A new nuclear deal would allow the United States to reduce its military footprint in the Middle East. The original accord may not have been perfect, but it placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program and put inspectors on the ground. With Iran considerably weakened over the last year and a half, its incentives to develop nuclear weapons are considerably higher—and so is its willingness to negotiate.

President Trump thus has an opportunity to pull the Middle East back from the brink of regional conflagration. Even before the ongoing military buildup began a few weeks ago, there were some 40,000 U.S troops in the region. A war with Iran would put them at grave risk. A deal with Iran would significantly mitigate that risk—and provide an opportunity to bring them home.

A new Iran deal would also stymie proliferation risks. If Tehran were to acquire nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and other regional rivals might seek to build nuclear weapons of their own, igniting a dangerous arms race with dire implications for global security.

The Trump administration has made clear that the alternative to an Iran nuclear deal is war. Such a conflict would further destabilize a Middle East already in chaos. Moreover, since the American people reelected Trump in part because they viewed him as the anti-war candidate, a new Forever War against Iran could tank his approval ratings. If the administration truly intends to prioritize peace and the interests of the American people, it should resist Netanyahu’s attempts to undermine diplomacy with Iran.

The post On Iran, Trump Should Ignore Netanyahu appeared first on The American Conservative.

Will Trade Policy Be America First’s Iraq War?

Will Trade Policy Be America First’s Iraq War?

There are better and worse ways to do things, and there is no reason to dig in on the worse ways.

(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

There’s a fine line between conviction and partisanship. A helpful rubric is whether you have stopped asking the question, What if we’re wrong? 

The Iraq War is an example of choice around The American Conservative’s offices, for good reason. That misadventure’s architects ignored credible criticisms of the project from start to finish, from disqualifying examination of the “intelligence” about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research to the CIA’s opposition to “debaathification” (perhaps the only worthwhile major analysis that organ has produced in its entire history). The results were predictable and have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, not least in these pages (please subscribe!). Such an error, defended and persisted long past its expiration date, is permanently damaging to an ideological tendency, even discrediting.

Of course, nobody has the market cornered on this kind of thing. The “Liberation Day” tariff package, of which I offered a qualified defense earlier this week, has not been what you’d call a smashing success. Nor is the anomie limited to Trump’s opponents. (Anyway, doctrinaire neoliberals’ carping about tariffs simpliciter is undercut in large part by that crowd’s quietness about Joe Biden’s trade protectionism, which built on measures from the first Trump administration.) Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase and so not exactly a bastion of economic heterodoxy, was broadly supportive of the Trump tariff policy at the beginning of the administration. Lately, however, he has argued that the iteration we got is misguided, and has started to make gloomy noises about the chances of a recession. Of course, a recession may well have been in the offing anyway—it has been a decade, give or take, since there was a natural correction to the economy—but there are more and less politically painful ways to stop the run and slide into second base.

I support tariffs, broadly speaking, as one of the tools in the protectionist policy kit; as noted before, for better or worse, tariffs are currently the least politically constrained tool available. There is a case to be made even for radical changes in tariff policy. Yet statesmanship is the craft in which the ideal meets the real. Sometimes something, even something that should be done, because of quirks of circumstance or execution, doesn’t work very well. Trump has shown a willingness to cut bait when the fish aren’t biting or are threatening to capsize the boat; improvisation is going to be part of any effort to reorient a system as massive as the world economy. 

But improvisation is not a good in itself, and the current approach to trade policy seems to threaten to elevate it to the pantheon; it is not encouraging that the final Liberation Day rate card was settled only the night before its announcement, or that Trump’s cabinet seems at odds with itself over what the tariff message actually is. (It is worth emphasizing that the uncertainty per se is in large part what is roiling markets.) The tariffs that arguably made the most sense, on high-technology goods from China, have been given an exemption, albeit a temporary one per a new Sunday missive from the White House. This isn’t inspired pragmatism; this is a disco. Entrenching this approach threatens to become America First’s Iraq War—an avoidable catastrophe that renders permanent political damage to the camp, constricting future bites at the apple of power.

Just because a situation is dire and urgent—as I have argued it is—does not mean that things can’t be done in better or worse ways. The White House has not made its case well to the American people and has done little to mitigate the disruption its policy was bound to cause. Time is short, and some amount of damage may be irrevocable, but there is still some room to maneuver. A clear, unified message about ends and means, probably spearheaded by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has emerged as the most serious, articulate voice for Trump economic policy; an implementation timetable; abstention from ad-hoc carveouts: These would go a long way. Nor is there any reason to dismiss out of hand the pending trade deal negotiations shaken from the global tree, so long as they do not actually fundamentally undercut the program. 

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” These words, widely attributed to George W. Bush’s advisor Karl Rove, should haunt every policymaker. Hubris does not take a side.

The post Will Trade Policy Be America First’s Iraq War? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Parents in Burlington, Massachusetts Furious After Students as Young as 11 Were Asked Sexually Explicit Questions in Survey

Public school students in Burlington, Massachusetts were recently given a survey to fill out and some parents are fuming because it included questions that are sexually explicit.

The survey was given to high school students and middle school students, some as young as 11 years old.

Parents are also mad because they were told that they could opt their children out of receiving the survey, but it was sent to all students.

The Boston Herald reported:

Massachusetts parents ‘livid’ after schools give survey on sexual activity, gender identity to students who opted out

Local parents who opted their kids out of a student survey about sexual activity and gender activity are “livid” after the district still gave the survey to them.

Burlington parents have now filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education in the wake of survey-gate, claiming the district violated the “Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment” by giving the questionnaire to students against their parents’ wishes.

The controversial survey last month that was given to both middle and high school students in Burlington Public Schools had questions about: sexual intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity, sexting, experiences with sexual assault, alcohol use, and more.

“Sexual intercourse includes vaginal sex which is when a penis goes inside of a vagina, oral sex which is contact between the mouth and genitals, anal sex which is when the penis goes inside an anus (butt), and use of toys or props (vaginal or anal). Have you ever had sexual intercourse?” reads one of the survey questions to the middle and high schoolers.

The topics would make an adult blush:

Parent David Hanafin is one of those parents. He wrote an email to district officials after his middle-school child was required to take the survey, even though he had opted out.

“Asking an 11-year-old kid questions about anal or oral sex is disgusting,” Hanafin wrote. “There is no benefit to this… I was assured that my kids were opted out of these exercises for good.”

Why does the school even need this information about their students? And how the heck do they expect an 11 year old to respond to such questions?

Burlington Massachusetts parents should keep an eye on their children’s homework surveys! https://t.co/mDrU3dkZcR

— KelseaPark (@KELSEAAPARK) April 14, 2025

The parents have every right to be angry about this. Whoever approved this should be let go.

The post Parents in Burlington, Massachusetts Furious After Students as Young as 11 Were Asked Sexually Explicit Questions in Survey appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Liberal Journalist Taylor Lorenz Fangirls Over Accused Murderer Luigi Mangione (VIDEO)

Taylor Lorenz is an independent journalist but she is not part of the fringe. She has worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post.

With that in mind, it was disturbing to see her getting positively giddy as she discussed accused murderer Luigi Mangione on CNN and said that she could imagine some women describing him as attractive and ‘a morally good man.’

It’s also amazing that this happened on a CNN show supposedly about political extremism. The host of the program recently said that all of the extremism is coming from the right and that there is no equivalent on the left.

FOX News reported:

Taylor Lorenz’s ‘heinous’ defense of Luigi Mangione as a ‘morally good man’ disgusts X users

Ex-Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz continued her defense of alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO murderer Luigi Mangione in what many viewed as a “beyond vile” segment on CNN Sunday.

Lorenz spoke to “MisinfoNation” host Donie O’Sullivan about Mangione’s appeal to people, particularly for women. Mangione became something of a folk hero to the far-left after he was arrested for the murder of Brian Thompson, with some viewing it as a comeuppance for the greedy insurance industry.

“Here’s this man who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart, he’s a person who seems like he’s this morally good man, which is hard to find,” Lorenz teased in a snippet that was shared on X.

Lorenz, an independent journalist and former Washington Post reporter known for her numerous online controversies, was among those who appeared to sympathize with Thompson’s assailant last year. At one point, she posted, “People wonder why we want these executives dead,” in response to news about Blue Cross Blue Shield no longer covering anesthesia for the full length of some surgeries.

Watch:

Taylor Lorenz on Luigi Mangioni: “Here’s this man who, who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart — he’s a person that seems like a morally good man, which is hard to find.”pic.twitter.com/jnlnOAfqkP

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) April 13, 2025

People were not impressed.

Taylor Lorenz is genuinely — and I mean this in an absolute clinical sense — sociopathic. Can’t believe she had as long a run as she did in respectable journalism.

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) April 14, 2025

Taylor Lorenz laughing about the assassination of an innocent man is the same Taylor Lorenz who just last year was crying about how all the people who go out in public without a mask were trying to kill her.

— Joel Engel (@joelengel) April 14, 2025

The more I think about that @donie interview with Taylor Lorenz the more astonished I am that they were laughing when talking about a guy who shot a man in the back in cold blood.

What the hell was @CNN thinking?

— RBe (@RBPundit) April 14, 2025

Psychotic wench Taylor Lorenz gushes over Luigi Mangione, calls him a “morally good man,” and brags that fan-girling a murderer has led to the biggest audience growth she’s ever had. The CNN “journalist” sits and laughs along. Just an utterly depraved display all around. https://t.co/EJkaZNSGEy

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) April 13, 2025

same vibe https://t.co/ZeEh4hTjej pic.twitter.com/86UravveF8

— G (@stevensongs) April 13, 2025

What is wrong with her? Luigi Mangione is accused of killing an innocent man by shooting him in the back. Why do these lefties try to make him out to be a hero?

The post Liberal Journalist Taylor Lorenz Fangirls Over Accused Murderer Luigi Mangione (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.