Month: May 2025

Over Memorial Day weekend 2025, Woke Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson announced the celebration of “African Day.” Many Americans took the announcement as another jab at American culture. Particularly an insult to Memorial Day observances.

Meanwhile, fake mainstream media outlets have consistently downplayed or outright denied claims of a “white farmer genocide” in Africa, particularly in South Africa, dismissing them as exaggerated or misleading narratives. Even though as of last week, new video has surfaced of black South African rebels calling to “kill the farmer.” A go to chant specifically targeting white South African farmers.

Sponsor | https://www.purgestore.com | Use promo code DREW for 20% off and support The Gateway Pundit today!

Follow Drew on X: https://x.com/DrewHLive
Follow Drew on Rumble: https://rumble.com/DrewHernandez

The post Dems Push “Africa Day” On Memorial Day Weekend While Denying White Farmer Genocide | Drew Hernandez appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

It has been the better part of a year since Thomas Crooks tried to assassinate now-President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania — and we’re somehow just learning that he attempted to acquire explosives that could, depending on how they were used, take down an entire building.

The revelation came as part of a CBS News report last week with the title “Trump shooter Thomas Crooks’ emails reveal a student dreaming of a bright future. And contemplating a violent attack.” Gotta love that order.

Indeed, the look at his emails provided CBS’ writers with one of those opens only a feature writer could love:

Thomas Matthew Crooks had a lot on his mind in January 2024. 

The 20-year-old who, six months later, would open fire at President Trump at a Pennsylvania campaign rally — striking his ear and killing an audience member — was busy polishing his applications to transfer from community college to a four-year engineering program.

Crooks was gathering transcripts and asking friends to review his personal statement. 

He was also designing a bomb.

Oh. Yeah, kind of an important fact to throw into the mix.

Apparently, Crooks had placed an order for “more than two gallons of nitromethane from an online speciality fuel retailer using an encrypted email account.”

“Twelve days later Crooks’ purchase hadn’t shipped and he wanted to know why,” they reported.

So, he emailed the seller, Hyperfuels, to ask when it would arrive on Jan. 31, 2024.

“Hello, my name is Thomas. I placed an order on your website on January 19. I have not received any updates of the order shipping out yet and I was wondering if you still have it and when I can expect it to come,” he asked.

“Crooks used his community college email account to inquire about shipping, one of the few operational missteps that has allowed for a rare look into the dark side of this ambitious young student,” CBS reported.

Hyperfuels had been asked about the purchase last year and said merely that it was “aware of the whole situation.” It did not comment further for the piece.

But let’s talk about other stuff about Crooks! He got a 1530 on his SATs but had trouble with grammar and spelling. His favorite season was fall (according to an essay on the email account). He was a good student trying to save money by going to community college before transferring. He thought Trump’s nuclear weapons policies were misguided, and …

So, can we talk a bit more about that bomb stuff again? Because autumn is great and even 1530 SAT scorers can make grammatical errors here and there, but I think two gallons of nitromethane and whether or not it actually shipped to Crooks is more than a little important.

We here at The Western Journal did a little bit of Grok AI research into what could be accomplished with that. If he were to use it to make a backpack-sized bomb, say, it would have a lethal radius of up to roughly 30 feet.

However, let’s say he were to build a larger device with nitromethane as a starter and ammonium nitrate, a common ingredient in fertilizer — and in vehicle-borne bombs like the one that brought down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Only about 400 pounds of ammonium nitrate would need to be added to the nitromethane to make a bomb with a blast radius capable of destroying a small building.

Now, again, this depends on how much knowledge Crooks was able to obtain about explosives and how adroitly he was able to put such a device together. However, this apparently wasn’t a dumb young man. So, what’s the story there?

That’s what Pennsylvania lawyer Wally Zimolong would like to know. He’s the litigator who pursued Crooks’ record on behalf of America First Legal, a nonprofit that was founded by now-White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

“I think it raises a lot of important questions. Were they investigating anyone else? Are they still investigating?” Zimolong asked. “A year later we still don’t know enough.”

No, but we know that fall was Crooks’ favorite season. (“He waxed poetic about the fall weather and asked, ‘who doesn’t love the changing color of the leaves?’” CBS News noted.)

Again, this is the closest that anyone has come to assassinating a president or a presidential candidate since the attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life in 1981. Forty-three years passed between attempts — a veritable lifetime, given America’s turbulent history.

And for the most part, this attempt — including the shooter, the bungled Secret Service protection, and any other plots he may have hatched — has been mostly forgotten or memory-holed.

Even CBS News, reporting on the strange dichotomy between Thomas Crooks, A-student who loves sweater weather and Thomas Crooks, attempted assassin, seems to institutionally shrug: Well, what do you expect us to find? is the report’s subtext.

I don’t know — how about less foliage, more where-the-heck-did-that-nitromethane-go reporting? Can the institution from which Edward Murrow, William Shirer, and Walter Cronkite once sent their dispatches be roused to care a bit more about this?

Dan Rather once pressed the White House on a daily basis during the Watergate scandal to get the whole truth. Can CBS News not do the same now with the authorities and Thomas Crooks, when it’s crystal clear we aren’t being told the whole story?

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post New Info on Trump Shooter: Thomas Crooks Was Ordering Bomb Material That Could Take Down Entire Building, According to Estimate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio meet with Pope Leo XIV (Vatican Media/AP)

Ever since President Trump’s groundbreaking election victory in 2016, political pundits have been grasping at straws to try and predict his eventual successor.

As the founder and leader of the most demonstrably successful political revolution since World War II, President Trump’s shoes are enormous to fill.

Evidently, any notion that Mike Pence could serve on as President Trump’s successor was half-baked and ridiculous.

Left to his own devices, Pence practiced a completely different brand of conservative politics than President Trump.

Now and forever defined by his considerable cowardice regarding the 2020 election, Pence has been reduced to a political non-entity.

Another Republican formerly viewed as President Trump’s top potential successor, Governor Ron DeSantis, soiled himself by running an ill-advised, ill-fated, campaign against President Trump in the 2024 Republican Primary.

DeSantis has reached a dead-end, for now, politically, after finishing third overall in the 2024 Republican Primary, behind Nikki “Birdbrain” Haley.

On the contrary, two new, leading MAGA figures have strongly emerged, signifying the potential for real solidity in President Trump’s succession plan.

On May 4, when asked whom he views as his presidential successor, President Trump told NBC News,

“JD’s doing a fantastic job. I think he’s a fantastic, brilliant guy. Marco is great. A lot of Republicans are great. We have a lot of good people in this party. But certainly, if the VP is outstanding, I think that person would have an advantage.”

Notably, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were the lone figures President Trump named directly as his potential successors.

On May 4, The Gateway Pundit reported that Secretary Rubio now holds an unprecedented number of key positions in the Trump Administration. Secretary Rubio was recently named the Acting National Security Advisor, while serving simultaneously as USAID Administrator and Acting US Archivist.

On May 18, Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio represented the United States at Pope Leo XIV’s inauguration – gaining access to Pope Leo XIV in a private meeting in the Vatican.

With Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio sharing such a colossal, international stage, top political pundits began to speculate as to a Vance Rubio presidential ticket in 2028.

On May 20, prominent conservative Washington DC radio host, Larry O’Connor, joined longtime political commentator, Mark Halperin, to discuss the political futures of Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio.

“I think, obviously, Vance has the inside track. It would be a disaster for Vance and Rubio to run against each other. So, my hunch is that Rubio is angling for Vice President, and the Vance Rubio ticket would be unstoppable,” Larry O’Connor said.

In response, Mark Halperin wholeheartedly affirmed Larry O’Connor’s viewpoint, while speaking more to Secretary Rubio’s rising star.

“I think there is a possibility we have an unprecedented situation – where not only is Vance the frontrunner for president, wire-to-wire, but Rubio is the frontrunner for vice president, wire-to-wire,” Mark Halperin said.

“JD Vance and Marco Rubio could end up being a preordained ticket in 2028, unlike anything we have ever seen before. Rubio is one of the stars of this administration. Even if you don’t agree with his policies, his knowledge of policy – his rhetoric, his confidence – is winning over MAGA. Now, he is one of the heroes of the movement,” Mark Halperin said.

According to the latest national polling average from Race to the White House, Vice President Vance comfortably leads prospective 2028 Republican Primary polling, with 48% of respondents preferring Vice President Vance to the field.

Although Secretary Rubio was preferred by 5.3% of respondents, only Vice President Vance and Donald Trump Jr. eclipsed 10% support as the preferred candidate.

Evidently, Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio – President Trump’s top two cabinet members in the presidential line of succession – may likewise be poised to succeed President Trump in 2028.

The post VANCE RUBIO 2028 ‘Could Be A Preordained Ticket, Unlike Anything We’ve Seen Before’ – Political Analysis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump says, “God made me lose in 2020,” during his Memorial Day speech.

 

President Trump on Monday told an audience that God made him lose in 2020. And now he will see over the nation’s 250th birthday, the Olympics, and the World Cup, all being held in the US in the next four years while he is president.

There are no accidents with God.

President Donald Trump:  We’re going to have a big, big celebration, as you know, 250 years.

In some ways, I’m glad I missed that second term where it was because I wouldn’t be your President for that most important of all.

In addition, we have the World Cup and we have the Olympics.

Can you imagine? I missed that four years, and now look what I have… I have everything.

Amazing the way things work out. God did that. I believe that, too.

Via Midnight Rider:

Trump: “We’re going to have a big 250 year celebration. I missed that four years and now we have that and the World Cup and the Olympics. I missed that four years and now I have everything. Crazy the way things work out. I believe God did that.” pic.twitter.com/ZyKoIaSVNf

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) May 26, 2025

The post President Trump: “God Did That… Made Me Lose in 2020” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Tina Peters shares a Memorial Day Message to President Trump.

WOW – Here is Tina’s message with text below:

Here is Tina’s message to President Trump:

Dear President Trump:

When I first met you the first week in May, 2022, you told me, “When this is all over, you will be a hero.” Then you added, “You are a hero!”

Today I write from prison on Memorial Day 2025, with great sadness, not because I am in prison, but because my Navy SEAL son died defending this country. He was three weeks from going back to Iraq with SEAL Team 3 after serving nine long years, starting in 2008 when Obama was elected. He hated the fact that the administration mandated that his team train the enemy. He loved what he did on the team, but hated that the president would not let them be effective against the enemy.

He loved to base jump wing suit and taught many of the guys to do so. Remington Jordan Peters October 30, 1989 – May 28, 2017 died as part of the Navy Leap Frog Team that he served for two years. Most people do not know that in addition to duties as a SEAL, he trained and worked with other SEALs and army rangers to go after human traffickers.

Even though his double parachute failure on Memorial Day was officially labeled an accident, many know otherwise. Remington had over 900 jumps as an expert paratrooper and was an expert at everything he did. In B.U.D.S during his field team training, he was voted by his peers as Honor Man, ands given a one-of-a-kind rifle engraved with the Navy Trident, which if I’m considered a felon, I will not be able to keep.

Prison is very difficult for me because me and my family have always treasured liberty so much. My husband of 35 years, after me exposing the biggest scandal of election fraud, was taken from me illegally and died as a result. He had served in Viet Nam as a marine and was in a nursing home and moved out of my care.

The evil these criminals have done to me and my country grieves me so. The upcoming mid-term elections are always on my mind. We have to save Colorado as well as our elections. They thought by falsely accusing me and throwing me in jail and prison [they] would finally silence me, but all that I’ve experienced as a lung cancer survivor facing death, the excruciatingly painful death of my son, Remington, and the unrelenting harassment, persecution and taking my husband and facilitating his death, has all deepened my resolve to continue the fight.

When I met you in 2022, I was running for Colorado Secretary of State against Jena Griswold, the Obama protégé and his former election attorney in DC. I raised more money in the four months after I announced on our friend Steve Bannon’s show February 14, 2022 than all my Republican opponents combined. At 47% in the three-way race with even the corrupt press acknowledging I won, I came in close to last. We and the Cyber experts, some of who had authored the Mesa County Reports 1, 2 and 3 saw them change votes in real time.

I raised the $255,000 to pay for a recount, but Jena Griswold and Dominion Voting Systems violated [the] law in instructing election clerks to use images instead of voter verified paper ballots that the statute required. As we know from what I uncovered, the images are changed by manipulating illegal software in the voting machines. The reports are on my website Tinapeters.us.

Prison, Mr. President, is constant and agonizing stress. My mother is 96 years-old and another blow would be for her to die while I’m in here. I need to see that what I’ve contributed to exposing the theft of our elections is made right for the American people and I need to be out helping perfect that change.

The people responsible for putting me in here on a national level like Merrick Garland are done. But Jena Griswold, the one who deleted 29,000 2020 election records and more is running for Colorado Attorney General and the current Colorado AG Phil Weiser, who is responsible for putting me in here, is running for Colorado Governor.

Mr. President, I appreciate all you’ve done and I know that my request is just a small thing on the many global events that you have to be responsible for and to affect the change, but I ask for God’s mercy and direction in how I can be of further service to my country and regain my liberty.

Thank you so much and God bless you and keep you.

Tina M. Peters

Gold Star Mother and former Mesa County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder

La Vista Colorado Correctional Facility Inmate #203512

On this Memorial Day please remember Tina Peters, her son and her family.

…

[Message clipped] View entire message

The post This Will Break Your Heart: Tina Peters Sends Message to President Trump on Memorial Day appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Are 10 Full Pardons on the Horizon for Remaining J6 Defendants?

Peter Ticktin, Esq. & Ed Martin, U.S. Pardon Attorney and Director of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group.

By: Jason Sullivan for The Gateway Pundit Source: Unleashed.news

In the wake of the January 6 Capitol events, a narrative was swiftly constructed—one painting a picture of insurrection and widespread violence. However, emerging evidence and dedicated legal efforts are challenging this portrayal once and for all—seeking to uncover the truth and secure justice for those ensnared in the aftermath.

At the forefront of this effort stands Peter Ticktin, a lifelong friend and trusted attorney of President Donald Trump. In April 2022, President Trump personally tapped Ticktin to conduct a parallel investigation into what really happened on January 6. In a recent meeting, Ticktin has brought forward the cases of ten men—men he believes are innocent of any acts of violence against law enforcement—directly to Ed Martin, urging him to carefully consider full pardons for these patriots who have been relentlessly persecuted.

Ed Martin, now serving as U.S. Pardon Attorney and Director of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, was appointed as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia on January 20, 2025, immediately after President Trump was sworn in as President. However, his nomination for a permanent role faced opposition from several RINOs, including Senator Tom Tillis, who stated he would not support Martin’s nomination due to his positions on January 6-related defendants.

Despite these political roadblocks, the establishment’s plan has spectacularly backfired. Martin now holds even more power—not only as the U.S. Pardon Attorney, but also as the Director of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, giving him the authority to expose and dismantle the weaponization of intelligence and government agencies that ran rampant during what very well may have been a completely illegitimate occupation of the White House by the Biden Administration. And let’s not forget—the Auto-Pen scandal is just getting started, a symbol of just how deep the corruption may go. Martin has met and is working with Ticktin, calling him a great lawyer and listening to him because he recognizes Ticktin’s wisdom and resolve. While Martin now reviews these cases under serious consideration, he will also consult with Alice Marie Johnson, who was appointed as President Trump’s “Pardon Czar” in February 2025.

At work with the great lawyer ⁦@PeterTicktin⁩ He had done recommendations for pardons – I listened! Cuz he’s wise. pic.twitter.com/8Bvrt9vgjB

— Ed Martin (@EagleEdMartin) May 25, 2025

These ten men whose futures hang in the balance all received clemency but not full pardons for their involvement in the January 6, 2021 events. Their sentences were commuted to time served—but they did not receive full legal forgiveness, meaning they remain marked by felony records and face the severe consequences that come with it, including restrictions on Social Security benefits and veterans’ disability payments.

Yet not all of these men have been released. Despite the presidential clemency granted by President Trump, two activist judges—Judge Dabney Friedrich and Judge James Kelleher Bredar—are actively working to override the blanket pardon orders and keep these men locked in extended prison sentences. These judges are using unrelated weapons charges—charges that arose only because of subsequent FBI raids—to block the very clemency President Trump intended.

Let’s start with the first two—Dan Wilson and Elias Costianes—whose treatment exemplifies the injustices Ticktin is determined to correct:

Dan Wilson entered the Capitol wearing a gas mask, walked calmly through the Rotunda and Statuary Hall, and exited after just over 10 minutes. He never laid a hand on any officer, nor was he charged with any acts of violence. Yet after January 6, his home was raided by the FBI investigating the protests, and firearms were found—leading to weapons charges that were completely unrelated to January 6. Judge Dabney Friedrich is now using those charges to try to drag him back into prison, ignoring the clemency President Trump had intended.

Elias Costianes walked in peacefully and was never charged with any act of violence whatsoever. Like Wilson, his home was raided by the FBI investigating January 6, and he was charged with weapons violations that had no connection to the Capitol events. Judge James Kelleher Bredar is determined to block President Trump’s clemency and keep Costianes behind bars, despite the fact that he committed no violent crimes.

Remember Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon Shaman.”
While not one of these ten men, he illustrates how false the narrative has been. Chansley was literally escorted throughout the building by Capitol Police officers, including onto the Senate floor itself. The footage, narrated by Tucker Carlson and published by the New York Post, tells the real story:
Watch the video here.

The other eight men—Ben Martin, David Moerschel, Dominic Pezzola, Joe Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Zach Rehl, Kelly Meggs, and Stuart Rhodes—have also been harshly punished for their presence and beliefs, not for violence. In fact, aside from Pezzola forcibly taking a riot shield (without injuring anyone), none were even charged with violence against officers that day.

This is the critical fact the media refuses to acknowledge:
Not a single one of these ten men was convicted of physically injuring any law enforcement officer on January 6.
Instead, they have been locked away in the DC Gulag, subjected to inhumane conditions and psychological torture for nothing more than daring to question the election and stand up for their country.

The narrative the media immediately unleashed portrayed January 6 as a horrific, bloody insurrection, a day of “violent sedition” and “armed rebellion.” Day and night, they repeated the same script, hammering home a story meant to bury the truth and destroy those who dared to dissent.

But the reality was nothing like the images of a battlefield they sold to the American people. It was a peaceful demonstration—a gathering of citizens who came to pray, sing, and express their grievances. Gas canisters, flash bombs, and projectiles were relentlessly fired into the crowd, agitating and provoking them—turning what had been a calm, determined protest into a scene of chaos and confusion. Embedded instigators and infiltrators worked in the shadows, further fanning the flames and ensuring the narrative of “insurrection” would be broadcast to every American home.

The contrast with 1776 could not be clearer:

In 1776, Americans took up arms in a bloody revolution against tyranny, with musket balls and bayonets drawn, fighting for their freedom and independence.

On January 6, 2021, Americans walked to the Capitol, carrying flags and prayers, seeking to be heard by their government—only to be set up, provoked, and hunted down like criminals.

They walked between velvet ropes, took selfies, and were abandoned by a government determined to silence them—their lives upended not by violence they committed, but by the narrative crafted to destroy them.

Ed Martin’s team—George Pallas, Carolyn Stuart, Jon Moseley, and others—are working tirelessly to present these cases with precision and clarity. Ed Martin is listening carefully, taking these petitions under serious review—and together with Alice Marie Johnson, the Pardon Czar, they are deciding whether these men should finally be granted the justice that has so long eluded them.

Peter Ticktin has also described Ed Martin as a brilliant and fair-minded lawyer, committed to uncovering the truth and securing justice for those who have suffered unfairly.

Peter Ticktin said it best:

“We need to get our country back. These are real human beings who should no longer have to suffer. January 6 was not what people think it was—it was pre-planned by the left and perpetrated to cover up the stolen election.”

“Stopping the wrongs to these men is step 2 in getting our country back. Step 1 was getting President Trump re-elected via Too Big To Rig.”

This story is not finished—it is only just beginning.
Peter Ticktin is urging. Ed Martin is listening. The truth is finally being told.
This is a fight for the truth and for the soul of our nation.

Peter Ticktin, Esq.

Stay tuned.

Please visit www.unleashed.news and support our work by using the exclusive discount code: TheGatewayPundit for a permanent $5 discount on subscriptions.

Jason Sullivan is a Contributor-at-Large for The Gateway Pundit, Founder and Publisher of UNLEASHED.news, Founder of ResultsIncorporated.com, and lead investigator specializing in Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) and forensic investigations at The Ticktin Law Group.

The post The Tipping Point: January 6th Narrative Shattering as Trump Attorney Peter Ticktin Urges Ed Martin to Consider Full Pardons for Remaining J6 Patriots appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

«Authoritarianism in Nicaragua has reached another level. Can they strip you of your citizenship? If a Nicaraguan obtains another citizenship, will they cease to be Nicaraguan? This proposal, promoted by the Executive, now has the backing of the Legislature, the National Assembly, which is the equivalent of a congress or parliament. In other words, there is no real opposition.

These kinds of measures, stripping a citizen of their passport, initially happened to those who were openly opposed to the regime. But now, it goes beyond political or ideological reasons. What if a Nicaraguan, for example, has Italian or Spanish ancestry, or travels for work, wins a scholarship, or gets a promotion? Then, you’re either Nicaraguan, or you’re nothing else. This is reaching another level.

It’s a country that persecutes the opposition and placed the First Lady as Vice President.»

The regime of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo in Nicaragua has approved a constitutional reform that eliminates the possibility of dual citizenship for Nicaraguan nationals. According to the amendment of Articles 23 and 25 of the Constitution, any Nicaraguan who acquires another citizenship will automatically lose their Nicaraguan nationality.

This measure has raised concerns both nationally and internationally, as it affects thousands of Nicaraguans who have emigrated in search of better opportunities and could now find themselves in legal limbo after losing their original nationality. Furthermore, there are fears that this reform will be used as a tool to silence opposition voices and further consolidate the regime’s authoritarian power.

The international community and human rights organizations have expressed alarm over this decision, stating that it represents a violation of fundamental rights and a strategy to suppress political dissent. The reform still requires a second approval in the next legislative session to come into full effect.

In summary, the elimination of dual citizenship in Nicaragua is seen as yet another step in the erosion of civil and political liberties in the country, directly impacting citizens who seek to improve their quality of life beyond national borders.

The post Authoritarianism Reaches a New Low in Nicaragua appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Donald Trump saw a surprising increase in his support among Democrats, according to one new poll.

Quantus Insights found that the Republican commander-in-chief, long a polarizing figure that the vast majority of Democrats dislike, has risen 4 points with members of that party, per Newsweek.

The poll was taken on May 18-20 and had a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

While the increase was a pleasant surprise, Trump still has a mere 11 percent job approval with Democrats.

His disapproval rating among Democrats meanwhile fell from 91 percent to 87 percent.

Trump’s rising approval rating among Democrats comes as his general approval ratings have been ticking up. https://t.co/UJhTjlMWM0

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) May 23, 2025

Trump also benefited from a jump of 5 points among black voters, 27 percent of whom now approve of his work.

No other demographic had a statistically significant change in approval rating.

Social media users offered their theories as to why some Democrats seem to be coming around to Trump.

“Most people who are paying attention see Trump is doing a great job for our country. No thanks to Newsweek’s corrupt reporting,” one commenter said.

“Because there’s finally a politician, who is willing to do something for the little guy,” another added, “something the Democrats have claimed before, but have never shown us.”

“Who hijacked the Newsweek feed?” a third tongue-in-cheek comment read.

It’s not just Quantus Insights that has Trump up among Democrats.

In the most recent Civiqs and YouGov/Economist polls, Trump saw his approval rating rise from 5 percent to 6 percent among Democrats, according to Newsweek.

Last month, a CNN/SSRS poll found that when asked who would be doing a better job in the White House, 45 percent picked Trump, while 43 percent chose former Vice President Kamala Harris.

CNN pollster Harry Enten observed that “this looks a lot like the election result,” since Trump beat Harris by 2 points.

That means voters currently hold a similar level of support for Trump relative to November, at least according to that poll.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post They’re Losing Their Own Voters to Trump: Latest Polls Take Surprising Turn for Dem Voters appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century by Louise Perry. Polity, 176 pages.

The birth of my daughter radicalized me. Stereotypes of the next generation of young women as liberal and lonely, sexually liberated yet secretly miserable, were once just numbers. Now they wear a precious, familiar face. While the challenge of raising sons in the 21st century is not to be glossed over, the challenge of raising daughters is unique and distinct, particularly in the wake of the sexual revolution. Young women today have everything they once demanded—jobs, money, stigma-free sex, and dishwashers to boot—yet have found themselves not more fulfilled, but less. 

In her 2022 book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Louise Perry argued that the so-called sexual freedom of the 21st century has benefitted a few powerful men at the expense of most women, who find themselves spiritually impoverished by the liberal feminist approach to sex. Liberalism’s toothless response to rape and sexual abuse (consent!), the pornified minefield of casual sex, and especially the breakdown of traditional marriage have served only to make women less happy, not more free. In other words, the sexual revolution really was terrible for women, and those who pretend otherwise are foolish. A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century, Perry’s young adult edition of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, applies these lessons to practical scenarios for girls who wish to escape the debased culture of Tinder and OnlyFans but don’t know how. 

“Instead of asking ‘how can we all be free?’” as feminism did, “we must ask instead, ‘how can we best promote the wellbeing of both men and women, given that these two groups have different sets of interests, which are sometimes in tension?’” Perry writes. Or, put another way, what should mothers teach their daughters about sex, love, and marriage, since clearly, the liberal feminist line isn’t cutting it? 

While reading, I asked myself: Would I give this book to my daughter? 

Perry’s advice for young women is, by her own characterization, mostly the sort of thing her grandmother would have said. It is advice that should be painfully obvious, yet has not been taught to a majority of the last two generations of young women. She calls consent workshops “mostly useless” for preventing rape, scorns dating apps for lacking the built-in vetting of mutual friends, and asserts, somewhat provocatively, that a woman should “only have sex with a man [she thinks] would make a good father to [her] children.” Not because she actually wants him to father her children, interestingly, but because this is an effective rule of thumb. (The reader, surely, can surmise why.)

Pornography and casual sex occupy much of Perry’s treatment as key sources of female misery in the modern sexual landscape. Engagement in both is lauded by feminists as anti-patriarchal, yet it gratifies lustful men and degrades women: “The Hugh Hefners of the world are not threatened by ‘sexually liberated’ women,” Perry writes. “Quite the opposite, in fact. They are delighted to find themselves with a buffet of young women to feast on, all of them apparently willing to suffer mistreatment without complaint.” 

Sociology, of course, has been demonstrating this point for decades. Women naturally look for “identical qualities” in a hookup as in a husband, while men look for just the opposite, having low standards for casual sex and high ones for a spouse, Perry reports. While female biology is predisposed to be selective in sexual intimacy, male biology is the opposite. Perry attributes this intelligent design to evolutionary biology: Men cannot have babies. The effects on women in an era of sexual disenchantment are wretched. A woman who allows herself to be a casual partner will rarely be considered “marriage material” by the same man. If she gives it away for free—and everyone is telling her she must give it away, because it’s just sex—he will not simply grow to respect her later.

This is why, Perry argues, the traditional institution of marriage actually served women’s interests, balancing them against men’s natural physical dominance and freedom from the physical work of childbearing. Indeed, it is on the subject of marriage that Perry is at her most interesting. The advice only to sleep with a man whom you could respect enough to father your children dovetails with a pro-child approach to sexual politics, and not accidentally; Perry quite consciously reminds her reader that sex and children are inherently bound for women, contraceptives notwithstanding. These days, this is not as obvious as it should be: Young women reflexively separate romance from children, and are then perplexed when the long-term live-in boyfriend is indifferent to their personal quests for offspring. Female happiness requires sex and children to be made a package deal for men too, Perry argues.

Childbearing saves women not once but twice in Perry’s treatment. The second instance is in her revelation of where young women should turn for good advice, contra the secular rot: mothers.

“Feminism has a blind spot when it comes to motherhood,” Perry writes. “It has shut mothers out. That’s important, given that at least three-quarters of women become mothers.” And again: “It’s no coincidence that most of the feminists who opposed marriage never had children.” Perry does not mention Mary Wollestonecraft’s own gnarled relationship with motherhood and marriage, but the fact that the founder of feminism chased the father of her illegitimate child around Europe, so desperate for his approval that she twice attempted suicide, and was still ultimately rejected by him, seems relevant.

In the spirit of restoring motherhood to its rightful place of honor, Perry calls her advice what “most mothers would tell their daughters, if only they were willing to listen.” This raises a painful question: Why are daughters not willing to listen? More to the point, if they would not listen to their own mothers, would they listen to Louise? Perry anticipates this problem. She knows the real matriarchs in a young woman’s life are the women walking with them in daily struggles. Girls become women by mimesis—imitation. Whether they know it or not, Gen Z women are already imitating certain matriarchs; Perry’s goal is to encourage them to choose good ones. 

Perry is not a Christian, and she explicitly rejects traditionalism, the idea that a solution for our modern problems may be found by reinstating older ways of living. This leads to a muddled conclusion: Feminism needs to revive the nuclear family and the traditional role of the matriarch as model and teacher to young women, yet without rejecting certain post-’60s talismans, especially pre-marital sex and gay marriage.

Perry is right that young women should reject liberal feminism. But what she seeks to replace it with—a half-hearted endorsement of the wisdom of previous ages, cautiously dosed with assurances of pardon for modernity—is depressingly thin gruel. True, we cannot go backwards, and the past had its own issues that rival those of the present, yet the cure for liberal feminism cannot be simply a moderate version of the same. 

What is needed is not a softer feminism, but something entirely different: the sturdy love of real, Christian matriarchs. The solution to the sexual revolution is not a new book for daughters, but old virtues for mothers.

The post A New Book for an Old Problem appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones,
By Clare Morell, Forum Books,
pp. 256, $27.00

At this point in history, screen time for children can be considered “Lindy”—it has been done for a long time and seems to have staying power. The baby boomers tuned into Captain Kangaroo on weekday mornings. Gen Xers munched on cereal while watching The Electric Company. Millennials even learned a little bit of Spanish from Dora the Explorer. But somewhere along the way, screens—and our relationships with them—changed. It’s this change that inspired Clare Morell to write her debut book, The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones.

Morell, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, hasn’t always been a denizen of the ivory tower. Before joining EPPC, she worked at the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women. Before that, she worked in Guatemala, trying to improve the justice system for children who were victims of the worst crimes imaginable. She’s seen the dark side of the internet, and she doesn’t want her fellow parents to be fooled by ineffective online pornography blockers or Instagram’s supposedly safe teen accounts.

But The Tech Exit goes beyond the moral panic that pedophiles lurk around every digital corner. Through countless interviews with families from across the United States, Morell shows that smartphones and social media don’t just put kids in physical danger. They’ve changed everything about how children learn and socialize, and the negative effects on tweens’ and teens’ mental health have been enormous. When every school desk comes with a laptop and every friend group comes with a group chat, families can’t opt out of screens—or can they?

“Phones have reoriented kids’ greatest aspirations from a higher purpose to a cul-de-sac of self-involvement. Technology is habituating our children to lives of endless consumption,” Morell writes. “As parents, our job is to consider what is forming our children and to manage what they are being formed into. Every time we hand our children a screen, technology answers that question for us.”

Fortunately, per Morell, parents have more power than they think. She educates parents about online dangers they may not be aware of, from sextortion to cyberbullying, but she doesn’t just leave them with a list of “thou shalt nots.” Using the acronym FEAST, Morell shares a positive plan for families to exit tech (FEAST stands for Find Other Families; Explain, Educate, and Exemplify; Adopt Alternatives; Set Up Digital Accountability and Family Screen Rules; Trade Screens for Real-Life Responsibilities and Pursuits). It turns out that The Benedict Option for childhood technology use is the only option—Morell compares giving kids limited social media access to the harm reduction model of drug use. Even 15 minutes a day is too much, according to her research.

Morell is aware that her plan will strike many parents as impossible—after all, she takes an even stricter stance than author of The Anxious Generation Jonathan Haidt, to whose work she responds. That’s why she humbly and non-judgmentally lays out the stakes. Today’s children are more likely than ever before to be exposed to disturbing, violent, and/or sexual material. Haidt’s thesis, which has attracted much criticism, is that smartphones are making children more depressed, anxious, and lonely. Morell largely assumes that her reader has already bought into this thesis (she is much less concerned with showing graphs of kids’ porn use and sleep deprivation than Haidt). Knowing that a parent who has picked up The Tech Exit is a parent who is already concerned about these issues, she doesn’t waste time trying to convince the reader that the kids are not all right. She details the deaths of Nylah Anderson, a 10-year-old who accidentally killed herself after watching a TikTok video about the dangerous “blackout challenge,” and Walker Montgomery, a 16-year-old who committed suicide after being sextorted by an account posing as a teenage girl. The accounts are hard to read. Also hard to read are the firsthand accounts from parents of feeling like they “lost” their child to social media and video game addictions. But the families Morell talks to always get a happy ending—parents push through the tantrums from their children as they put them through screen detoxes. The children eventually get used to the new normal and are able to thrive.

Morell isn’t numb to the concerns of children and teens who will be “different” if they don’t have access to the same technology as their peers. “Your kid can’t be the only one,” Morell writes. “Children need friends who also aren’t on screens. And parents need to help their kids find those friends. When parents start coordinating with other parents to resist phones, the kids without phones naturally gravitate toward one another because they talk about in-person things.” Not having a smartphone is probably hardest for high-schoolers, who are often expected to log in to apps for homework and sports practice updates, but this isn’t a reason to cave, according to the parents whom Morell interviews. “If a ‘friend’ is so shallow that because you are not on the group text or social media chat, then you are dead to them and they won’t reach out separately to make sure you know about the social event, then that’s not a true friend,” one father says in the book. It’s the kind of lesson we all have to learn sooner or later.

The high-schoolers in the families Morell interviews aren’t totally tech-free. They shop for clothes online. They text with friends using so-called dumbphones. (Morell shares a list of non-smartphone alternatives in the appendix.) They watch movies with family and friends. Most importantly, they do buy into their parents’ ideas about protecting them from the internet (the “E” in FEAST). Sometimes the kids bellyache about the various hardships that come with being low-tech. But some of them even eschew smartphones as college students when they’re no longer bound by their families’ rules.

It’s almost incomprehensible how much of an advantage these Tech Exit kids will have in college and beyond. Their attention spans haven’t been ruined by TikTok. They’re entrepreneurial and well read. They have social skills and are comfortable interacting with adults. It’s a huge contrast from the innumerable headlines about the sorry state of college students today (many of whom can’t read entire books or complete a homework assignment without the help of artificial intelligence). It’s almost as if these Tech Exit kids will have bigger, better brains just by virtue of the fact they lived like the kids of the 1970s, not the 2010s. Is the issue really that simple? Could Morell’s thesis be the missing piece to raising happy, healthy kids?

Tech Exit families will still face hardships. Teen angst will arrive, whether a child has access to Snapchat or not. Children disobey, lie, and whine. Parents get things wrong. But eliminating tech eliminates such a web of horrors from a child’s life that it’s clearly worth it. Saying no to smartphones is saying yes to creativity, self-control, real-world experience—to “human flourishing,” as Morell writes. The alternative is grim. In the hit television series The White Lotus, one of season one’s main characters is a screen-addicted, friendless teen named Quinn. He’s staying at a gorgeous luxury resort in Hawaii—but when his iPhone and tablet are ruined by the ocean, so is his stay. He skulks around and convinces his dad to give him his phone so he’s not disconnected from his digital dopamine delivery system. Despite the beauty of the nature around him and the amazing activities available at the resort, Quinn is laser-focused on his devices. His character is presented as a weirdo in the show, but that’s the thing—Quinn doesn’t represent an outlier among American kids. Yet it’s never too late for any kid, even Quinn. Eventually, he realizes he’s ready to leave the screens behind and join the real world.

The so-called real world, that is. Internet reporters like writer Katherine Dee are right to point out that the lines between digital and corporeal are blurring, and that for whatever we’re losing, we’re gaining something too. The internet has enabled parents to earn a living without leaving their living rooms. It’s created marriages, friendships, and mom groups. Even so, some adults, including parents, are choosing to deactivate their social media accounts and get rid of their smartphones. (“How quitting social media saved my motherhood” and “This Brick Gave Me My Life Back (From My Phone)” are both posts written by parents in the burgeoning I-quit-tech-for-good-but-still-write-email-newsletters genre of Substack.) Using a dumbphone is not something Morell says Tech Exit parents have to do, but it’s the path she’s chosen for herself. She encourages as little screen use as possible for parents as well as children, giving examples of moms and dads who always opt for analog options (calculators, notepads, alarm clocks) and don’t have social media on their phones. But for the many parents who need to stay constantly connected for work via Slack, Teams, and a plethora of other apps, Morell does have a hopeful message: 

Far and above everything else a parent does when it comes to their own tech use, though, is simply putting their phone down and giving their children time and attention. Remember, they are watching us all the time. We are their models for everything, including tech use. Our children will value what we value. Let’s show them we value people more than phones.

Parents are only one piece of the puzzle—lawmakers need to step up and protect children too, Morell writes. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998 has failed, so she advocates for raising the age of “internet adulthood” (right now it’s 13) and giving age restriction policies real teeth, including for adult websites. Morell wants every state to have laws like Utah’s 2024 legislation requiring all devices belonging to minors automatically turn on adult content filters (“a phone user already has to enter their birth date to create an Apple or Google Account,” she explains). She wants to amend Section 230 so that social media companies actually take the removal of child sexual abuse material seriously.

Of course, Big Tech has an army of lobbyists who will fight to block all of these measures. None of these reforms will happen without parents pushing for them. Morell highlights moms like Julie Scelfo of Mothers Against Media Addiction (MAMA), Melanie Hempe of ScreenStrong, and the UK politico Miriam Cates. “Parents, we have to make noise for policymakers to hear us. Don’t take no for an answer. Don’t be afraid to open your mouth. It doesn’t need to be polished, and honestly, it’s best when it’s not,” Morell writes in a section titled “Just Be the Awkward Mom.” Mothers are banding together to make our nation’s food supply healthier and safer. Why not the internet? The dangers of the infinite scroll are harder to trace than those of glyphosate and Red 40, yet they’re just as real and much, much more contagious. 

“Social media use by even a few children in a school or organization creates a ‘network effect,’ so even those who do not use social media are affected by how it changes the entire social environment,” Morell wrote in The American Conservative in 2023. Some school boards have recognized this network effect and banned phones altogether—students can’t use their phones in classrooms, at their lockers, or in the lunchroom. If students break the rules, teachers confiscate their devices until the end of the school day. “Marc Wasko, the principal of Timber Creek High School in Orange County, which has 3,600 students, finds the policy has made a night-and-day difference. They saw a lot of bullying before… [S]tudents now look him in the eye and respond when he greets them. Teachers have remarked how students are more engaged during class time,” Morell writes. 

But public schools with such policies are rare. If there’s any way that The Tech Exit falls short, it’s by understating just how countercultural it is to give your kids a low-tech childhood. Unless a family has access to a rare public school system that bans phones, their best options are homeschooling or private school, both of which are costly. Morell points out in that same 2023 article that there is a “screen-time disparity” between lower income families and high-income families. Children from lower-income families spend about two hours more a day on screens than children from high-income families, according to one survey. This divide is only going to grow as more people learn more about the negative effects of screen time not only for children but for everyone. As X user @coldhealing put it, “In [less than] 10 years we’ll see screen time the same way we do food now. It will be a status symbol of the elite to consume less, and of a higher quality, while the poor gorge themselves on cheetos and AI-generated short-form vertical video.” 

Parents and policymakers who read The Tech Exit can consider themselves warned. It’s for good reason that Morell compares taming tech to battling a hydra. But she always brings her point back to the goal of exiting tech: creating a happy, healthy family life. The importance of that goal will never change, no matter how much our technology does.

The post Parent Power Versus Big Tech appeared first on The American Conservative.