Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Department of Education has found California in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws for allowing male athletes to compete in women’s sports.

The finding on June 25 follows investigations launched earlier this year into both the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which is the governing body for high school sports in the state, and the California Department of Education.

The inquiries, opened in February and April, focused on whether California’s School Success and Opportunity Act conflicts with Title IX, the law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal dollars.

The California law, in effect since 2014, allows students to participate in sports programs and use sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms based on their preferred gender identity rather than biological sex.

CIF has stated that it intends to continue following state law, even as President Donald Trump warned that doing so could jeopardize its federal funding.

As a result of Wednesday’s noncompliance finding, the U.S. Education Department outlined a series of required actions that state authorities must implement within 10 days.

Those include directing schools to adopt biology-based definitions of “male” and “female”; restoring titles, awards, and records to female athletes who were displaced by male competitors in girls’ events; and sending personalized letters of apology to each affected female athlete on behalf of California for the discrimination they had suffered.

Failure to comply, the U.S. Education Department warned, could be met with enforcement actions, including referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for legal proceedings.

The state agencies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The announcement comes just weeks after CIF crowned two champions in girls’ track and field events at the state meet, where a transgender athlete took first place in both the high jump and triple jump. The male student, who also finished second in the long jump, shared the podium with female competitors under a new rule that allows all athletes to receive medals based on their placement if no transgender athlete had competed.

“The CIF values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code,” the federation said in a statement ahead of the championship matches.

In March, in a rare change of tone, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, described the current policy as “deeply unfair” during an episode of his own podcast. Speaking with conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, Newsom agreed with Kirk’s argument that Democrats had become out of touch with many Americans by insisting that transgender athletes should compete based on gender identity.

“I revere sports, and so the issue of fairness is completely legit,” Newsom told Kirk. He has not yet proposed any changes to the law since the show aired and has drawn criticism from members of the Democratic Party, including pro-LGBT state lawmakers.

Citing the governor’s remarks, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon condemned the state’s continued enforcement of the policy.

“Although Governor Gavin Newsom admitted months ago it was ‘deeply unfair’ to allow men to compete in women’s sports, both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation continued as recently as a few weeks ago to allow men to steal female athletes’ well-deserved accolades and to subject them to the indignity of unfair and unsafe competitions,” McMahon said in a statement.

“The Trump Administration will relentlessly enforce Title IX protections for women and girls, and our findings today make clear that California has failed to adhere to its obligations under federal law.

“The state must swiftly come into compliance with Title IX or face the consequences that follow.”

Israel claims that its military campaign against Iran has resulted in the targeted killing of at least 14 scientists. Although these were key figures, the reality is that this is unlikely to completely halt any potential nuclear ambitions.

Speaking to The Associated Press, Israel’s ambassador to France has declared that assassinations would make it “almost” impossible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons with what infrastructure might remain. Other assessments say that all of this set back the Islamic Republic’s program by a mere months.

And of course, nuclear scientists are replaceable – and it remains that the country’s nuclear energy program has always been large, and a top national priority.

Also important is that on Wednesday Iran belatedly confirmed the death of Maj. Gen. Ali Shadmani, who succumbed to injuries sustained during Israeli airstrikes last week.

Shadmani had been appointed on June 13 to lead the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which coordinates operations between Iran’s regular military and the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

He filled the top spot following the death of his predecessor, Lt. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid, in Israel’s earlier attacks that took the lives of several senior commanders.

Israel had called Shadmani Iran’s ‘War-Time Chief of Staff’ upon claiming his death in a targeted operation last week. But Tehran has only now issued official confirmation of his death.

Additionally:

At least 35 Air Defense Force personnel were killed in the Israeli attacks between June 13 and Tuesday, Iran’s semi-official Student News Network (SNN) said today.

SNN published the names of those who were killed. Among them were two brigadier generals, seven colonels and three lieutenant colonels.

Below are some further casualty figures in Iran following what Trump dubbed the ’12-day war’:

At least 627 people were killed in Iran during its conflict with Israel in the period between June 13 and June 25, Iranian state media outlet IRIB reported on Wednesday, citing the country’s health ministry.

At least 4,870 other people were injured during that time, IRIB said.

The health ministry said 86% of the victims died at the scene of Israeli attacks, as cited by IRIB.

Currently a ceasefire is held, and Iran is assessing the damage – and likely rapidly trying to replenish losses both in terms of personnel and equipment and infrastructure.

Meanwhile The GrayZone’s Max Blumenthal weighs in on where things stand regarding Trump’s statements saying Iran’s nuclear program has been completely destroyed…

Only the most deluded Trump cultists believe Orange McCain destroyed Iran’s nuclear program, or that it’s possible to do so in a Top Gun-style raid

Even Israeli nationalists admit Trump’s attack was a PR stunt, complimenting a leaked DIA assessment, satellite imagery and more https://t.co/HMrnkujJDJ

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) June 25, 2025

Among Iran’s first pressing tasks will be to quickly try to reconstitute its destroyed anti-air defenses, given that Israeli warplanes apparently achieved total domination and freedom of action over Western Iran’s skies.

Authored by Maureen Steele via AmericanGreatness.com,

The Constitution wasn’t suspended… it was sidelined, buried under emergency powers, executive orders, and fear, while Americans barely noticed the quiet coup…

Let’s get this out of the way first.

No, the Constitution wasn’t officially suspended in 1933. But it was gagged, blindfolded, and tied to a chair while the federal government handed itself sweeping emergency powers and redefined “freedom” into a kind of bureaucratic improv comedy routine.

They didn’t declare martial law on paper because that would have looked bad. Instead, they declared it in practice and gave it a haircut, a press pass, and a desk job. Most Americans never noticed. Most still don’t.

The story begins with a “banking emergency.” On March 6, 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 2039, effectively closing the banks. This wasn’t a request—it was a national lockdown of the financial system. Within days, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act, which amended the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 to allow the president to seize private property and control commerce even in peacetime. You read that right. The original act was intended for use against foreign enemies during wartime. Roosevelt’s administration simply redefined the term “enemy” to include American citizens. That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s a matter of historical record. You can read it here and here. This wasn’t martial law with tanks in the streets. It was something more insidious: the silent transfer of authority from constitutional governance to executive fiat, wrapped in the language of patriotic crisis management.

Then came House Joint Resolution 192 in June of that same year. This little piece of legal sorcery declared that debts could no longer be paid in gold. Instead, all gold was to be surrendered to the Federal Reserve, and the American public would now transact in fiat currency—Federal Reserve Notes. In one move, Roosevelt erased the gold standard domestically, outlawed the most stable form of lawful money, and replaced it with an I.O.U. The people didn’t protest. They complied. It was all for the good of the nation, they were told. Never mind that their savings were now denominated in debt-backed paper. Never mind that the Constitution says only gold and silver shall be legal tender. Never mind that the American people’s wealth was effectively nationalized with the stroke of a pen.

By 1938, the Supreme Court put the nail in the coffin. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins may sound like a mundane case about trains and trespass, but the decision fundamentally altered the legal landscape of America. Prior to Erie, federal courts operated under general common law principles—those ancient foundations rooted in natural law and the rights of man. After Erie, federal courts were now confined to statutory law. In other words, judges would interpret the rules written by bureaucrats and legislatures, not derive justice from first principles. The Constitution didn’t vanish overnight. It just became irrelevant in practice. What mattered now was what the statute said. If Congress wrote a law giving an agency the right to inspect your property, seize your earnings, or regulate your behavior, the courts would uphold it, even if it made a mockery of the Bill of Rights.

So no, martial law was never formally declared. But we’ve been living under a continuous state of emergency ever since. Roosevelt’s national emergency was never truly repealed. Instead, it became the precedent for every president that followed. As of this writing, there are at least 41 ongoing national emergencies in effect, some of them decades old. You can find the full list here. The 9/11 emergency is still active. The COVID emergency was extended multiple times before it was quietly phased out. New emergencies are declared regularly over foreign sanctions, trade disruptions, and cyber threats. Each declaration unlocks a set of executive powers that bypass the normal constitutional process. Congress almost never intervenes to end them. The public barely registers their existence. The result is a legal environment in which emergency governance is the norm, not the exception.

Why does this work? The answer lies in psychology. When people feel threatened, they surrender liberty for safety. The fight-or-flight part of the brain takes over. Critical thinking shuts down. This is not speculation. It’s basic neuroscience. Governments have long known that fear makes citizens more compliant. Tell them the banks are collapsing, the virus is coming, the terrorists are plotting, or the climate is boiling, and they’ll accept almost anything in the name of protection. Even the erosion of their most sacred rights. Once that pattern is set, it becomes permanent. Americans have been conditioned to believe that constitutional protections are optional—valid only when convenient and subject to immediate cancellation when the sirens start blaring.

Now let’s talk about the legal sleight of hand. Most Americans assume they live under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. But the courts increasingly operate under a hybrid system of statutory and administrative law, often enforced through what is functionally maritime law. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the gold-fringed flag in most courtrooms. That’s not just decoration. It’s a symbol of admiralty jurisdiction, meaning you’re not in a constitutional court. You’re in a corporate tribunal. And speaking of corporations, the United States is defined in 28 U.S. Code § 3002(15)(A) as a federal corporation. You are not a sovereign individual under natural law. You are a legal entity—an asset tracked by a Social Security number and collateralized against the national debt.

From Roosevelt to Biden, every president has expanded these powers. Truman declared emergency powers during the Korean War. Reagan authorized secret continuity of government plans. Bush signed the Patriot Act. Obama embedded indefinite detention into the NDAA. Trump launched Operation Warp Speed and accelerated the surveillance state through Palantir and FISA. Biden renewed and expanded nearly every emergency he inherited. The mechanisms of control don’t change. Only the branding does.

And here we are. The Constitution is still there, printed in pocket-sized booklets and waved around at rallies. But in most courtrooms, classrooms, and government buildings, it has all the force of a museum artifact. They didn’t suspend it. They just bypassed it. They didn’t tear it up. They just buried it under 90,000 pages of federal regulations. And when someone like you or me points this out, we’re called extremists, radicals, or conspiracy theorists. That’s fine. History is full of people who were slandered for telling the truth too early.

But the Constitution doesn’t give you rights. It recognizes the rights you already have. The paper is not the source. You are. And no act of Congress, no executive order, no foreign or domestic emergency can erase what God has written into your being. They can only convince you to forget it.

Until you remember.

Hunter Biden, the crackhead son of former President Joe Biden who was sitting in on meetings in the waning months of his father’s administration, is being sued by his lawyers for unpaid bills “substantially in excess of $50,000,” according to a new complaint filed against him on Monday. 

“This is breach of contract action against Mr. Biden for unpaid legal fees,” reads the complaint filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by Winston & Strawn LLP – which notes that the 55-year-old bagman-in-chief hired the firm “to represent him in several complex matters, including criminal trial in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,” and that the firm provided him “with extensive legal services in those matters which generated a substantial amount of fees.”

According to the law firm, Hunter has dodged “repeated” efforts to collect those fees.

“Although a portion of those fees have been paid, Mr. Biden presently owes [Winston & Strawn] substantially in excess of $50,000 in fees and interest that are due and payable,” reads the complaint. “Despite repeated requests for payment, Mr. Biden has failed to pay the amounts he owes.”

“This action is brought to enforce [Winston and Strawn’s] contract rights against Mr. Biden through judgment for the amount due, and lien on all Mr. Biden’s assets.”

The firm includes a copy of Hunter’s “engagement contract” signed on Dec. 23, 2022, which details representation “with respect to any congressional oversight and investigation events in which you are involved, help your coordinate the work of other attorneys, advisors, related parties on pending issues and communications strategy, and assist in the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and US Attorney for the District of Delaware.”

As the NY Post notes, Hunter’s attorney Abbe Lowell – who has since left Winston & Strawn, has an hourly rate of $1,510,” and that billing rates for other attorneys and services at the firm range from $230 to $1,945 an hour. 

The firm says it has “devoted substantial resources to defend” Hunter, which generated “substantial legal fees.” 

“While some of Mr. Biden’s bills were paid between March 2023 and October 2024, a substantial amount remains due and owing,” reads the filing. “Mr. Biden never objected to any of W&S’s invoices for the legal services rendered to him.”

“As of April 30, 2025, the outstanding amount due, when factoring in invoiced amounts and interest, is substantially in excess of $50,000.”

An initial hearing in the case has been scheduled for Sept. 19. 

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Federal Reserve has adopted a draft proposal to ease a key capital requirement for the nation’s largest banks, aiming to reduce regulatory pressure that discourages them from holding low-risk assets such as U.S. Treasurys and to make it easier for these institutions to act as intermediaries in the Treasury market during times of stress, when liquidity is most needed.

At a public board meeting in Washington on June 25, Fed governors voted 5-2 to advance a long-awaited plan to modify the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR)—a post–2008 financial crisis safeguard that requires global systemically important banks (GSIBs) to hold capital against all assets, regardless of risk. The proposal will now be published in the Federal Register and will be open for public comment for 60 days.

Fed chair Jerome Powell, speaking before the vote, endorsed the proposal and pointed to the banking sector’s overall strength. But he warned that the current leverage rule may be over-calibrated, potentially discouraging banks from holding safe assets and contributing to market strain.

“In the case of the leverage ratio, over-calibration may lead to diminished liquidity in the Treasury markets and other unintended consequences,” Powell said. “A leverage requirement functions best when it is generally a backstop to risk-based capital requirements,” Powell continued, adding that when leverage requirements are binding, they can discourage banks from participating in lower-risk lower-return activities that support the U.S. financial system and economy, such as Treasury market intermediation.

The proposed rule would replace the current flat leverage buffer of 2 percent at the parent bank level and 6 percent at the subsidiary level with a variable buffer based on each bank’s systemic risk score.

That change would reduce total capital requirements for America’s biggest banks by about 1.4 percent, according to Fed staff estimates. While capital requirements for bank subsidiaries would fall by a much larger 27 percent, most of that capital would remain locked within the banking group due to holding company rules and would not be available for shareholder payouts.

The reductions apply to Tier 1 capital—the core capital that includes common stock and retained earnings—used as a primary buffer to absorb losses during times of financial stress.

Supporters of the proposal say that the current version of the leverage rule has become too rigid—penalizing banks for holding safe assets and discouraging them from helping stabilize financial markets during periods of stress. Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who spearheaded the effort, called the recalibration a “sensible and timely” fix that restores the eSLR’s original purpose.

“The proposal will help to build resilience in U.S. Treasury markets, reducing the likelihood of market dysfunction and the need for the Federal Reserve to intervene in a future stress event,” Bowman said in prepared remarks. “We should be proactive in addressing the unintended consequences of bank regulation, including the bindingness of the eSLR, while ensuring the framework continues to promote safety, soundness, and financial stability.”

Fed governor Christopher Waller likewise endorsed the plan, saying that the current rule fails to distinguish between risky and safe assets.

“The leverage ratio treats a Treasury bond the same as a junk bond, but we know they’re not the same,” Waller said in prepared remarks, adding that the currently calibrated eSLR serves not as a backstop but as a binding requirement for some banks, imposing “unintended consequences for bank health,” with the added potential to impede market functioning.

“Re-working that incentive structure to address these unintended consequences of the current calibration makes sense,” said Waller, who also voted for the proposal.

Oppositions

Two Fed governors voted against the measure, warning that easing the rule could weaken safeguards that protect the banking system in a crisis.

Governor Michael Barr, the Fed’s former top regulatory official, criticized the proposal for significantly reducing bank-level capital and potentially encouraging firms to take on more risk or return capital to shareholders rather than expanding Treasury market activity.

Barr, who previously served as the Fed’s top regulatory official, said in prepared remarks that the proposal would significantly reduce capital across the banking system: by $210 billion at the holding company level, $280 billion at bank subsidiaries, $73 billion in total loss-absorbing capacity, and $132 billion in long-term debt requirements.

“Taken together, these changes would significantly increase the risk that a GSIB bank would fail, orderly resolution would not be possible, and the Deposit Insurance Fund would incur higher losses,” he said, referring to the fund at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which is used to protect depositors and cover losses when insured banks collapse. Barr warned that with less capital on hand, large banks would be vulnerable in a crisis, potentially leaving the financial system—and taxpayers—more exposed.

Governor Adriana Kugler also opposed the measure, saying she might have supported a narrower recalibration at the holding company level but could not back the deeper capital cuts proposed for bank subsidiaries.

“Broker-dealers, not banks, are the subsidiaries of the G-SIB organizations that play the most critical role in intermediating Treasury markets through market making and securities financing activities,” Kugler said in prepared remarks. “Banks do not play the same role, and I am not convinced that the benefits to Treasury market intermediation from the change at the bank-level justify the significant proposed reductions in tier 1 capital requirements, especially in light of the potential for elevated financial stability risk.”

The proposal also invites public comment on potential alternatives, including whether to exclude certain Treasury assets entirely from the leverage ratio calculation, to further address concerns around U.S. Treasury market intermediation.

As he had hinted on several previous occasions, FHFA Chair Bill Pulte said he had ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prepare a proposal to include cryptocurrencies as assets in the risk assessment of single-family mortgage loans.

The order directs Fannie and Freddie to “only consider cryptocurrency assets that can be evidenced and stored on a US-regulated centralized exchange.”

After significant studying, and in keeping with President Trump’s vision to make the United States the crypto capital of the world, today I ordered the Great Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prepare their businesses to count cryptocurrency as an asset for a mortgage.

SO ORDERED pic.twitter.com/Tg9ReJQXC3

— Pulte (@pulte) June 25, 2025

The move is intended to help mortgage seekers who have crypto assets qualify for loans, and comes amid a collapse in the number of mortgage applications in recent years as the US experiences a housing crisis. 

Pulte hinted at today’s notice in a statement on X from June 23, when the FHFA head said his agency will “study the usage of [sic] cryptocurrency holdings as it relates to qualifying for mortgages.”

While homeownership has remained relatively stable over the last 50 years in the US, with around 62% of the population owning homes, the number of new applicants has seen a sharp decline in recent years forcing a record number of young Americans to live with their parents or to be stuck in rental purgatory for decades.

The number of mortgage originations dropped to near record lows in the middle of 2024 and has improved little in the first quarter of 2025, with rates still viewed as sky high by most consumers. The drop in originations, and particularly in refinancing, has been attributed to several factors. 

Firstly, the supply of housing is not growing sufficiently to address demand. Construction is lagging, more housing is being purchased by investors,rather than by would-be homeowners, and elderly homeowners are still living at home rather than moving to senior living accommodations. 

Borrowing is also getting more expensive, and many have attributed the slump in originations to the Federal Reserve’s higher interest rates to combat inflation. Pulte has frequently criticized the Fed’s rate policies, going so far as to call for the resignation of Chair Jerome Powell, who will be testifying before Congress on June 26. 

Amid these headwinds, Pulte is looking for ways to make borrowing more feasible for homeowners, and crypto has emerged as possible wildcard. 

While some boutique lenders already allow borrowers to use their crypto as collateral, study and acknowledgement from the FHFA would represent a major step forward for crypto adoption, particularly amid flagging mortgage application numbers. 

According to CoinTelegraph, acknowledging crypto officially at the FHFA could open up sizeable federal lending programs for more borrowers. In 2024, the FHA alone issued over 760,000 single-family mortgages worth $230 billion. 

Until Jan. 23, 2025, most banks couldn’t offer crypto-backed loans or mortgages due to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121, a banking rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission that required financial institutions to count cryptocurrencies as a liability rather than an asset on their balance sheet. The rule was repealed quickly after President Donald Trump took office. 

Still, loans secured through federal programs like FHA, VA and USDA currently do not let borrowers use their crypto as collateral. Indeed, some federal loans may not even allow dollar liquidations from crypto sales to be used for down payments, according to 99Bitcoins editor Sam Cooling. 

Personal finance expert Andrew Lokenauth said that would-be homeowners looking to buy with their Bitcoin proceeds need to “be careful to document everything and save the paperwork.” 

Bitcoin advocates lauded Pulte’s openness to Bitcoin (BTC), with some stating that there are already features that lenders prefer — e.g., a transparent paper trail — built into the digital asset.

Mitchell Askew, an analyst at Bitcoin mining-as-a-service Blockware, said that the asset’s liquidity and transparent custody, namely its public blockchain, make it a “perfect collateral” for home loans. 

CJ Konstantinos, founder of Bitcoin mortgage and bond company People’s Reserve, said that Bitcoin could further help derisk the mortgage-backed securities market the FHFA oversees by regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “This is a no brainer.”

There are already a small number of lenders that let borrowers offer up their crypto as collateral, but they are few and far between. These cater more toward the investor class of home buyers and carry risks some may not be ready to stomach.

Milo (formerly MiloCredit) approves loans for borrowers instantly, but they first need to show that they have enough crypto to cover the entire value of the loan. Milo CEO Josip Rupena said that many clients were buying their second homes, vacation properties or investment properties.

“Many have strong incomes, but traditional banks wouldn’t have qualified them for the full value of these homes,” he said. 

Strike, another company offering Bitcoin-collateralized loans, states that there are some risks to crypto loans in their current form. Volatility is a major factor. If BTC’s price decreases dramatically, the loan-to-value rate increases, “which can trigger margin calls or liquidations — forced sales at inopportune times.”

Lenders are open to risk as well. One commenter stated, “The risk models for this will be insane. Traditional mortgages assume relatively stable income and assets. Now you’re dealing with borrowers whose net worth can swing 50% in a week. How do you stress-test a portfolio when your collateral includes everything from Bitcoin to random DeFi tokens?”

But crypto ownership in the US is growing increasingly common, with lawmakers and regulators in Washington moving apace to implement rules and legal frameworks that are friendly to the industry. 

Recent studies show that crypto is no longer just the remit of uber-rich crypto bros but is increasingly seen as a legitimate retail asset among normal investors. Some 20% of Americans, around 65 million people, are estimated to now own crypto, according to the National Cryptocurrency Association’s “2025 State of Crypto” report.

Their investments aren’t astronomical either; some 74% of crypto portfolios in the US are worth less than $50,000. 

Allowing crypto for downpayments or as collateral could unlock homeownership for the growing number of investors if Bitcoin joins the list of other securities they can use to get a mortgage. 

Authored by Larry Sand via AmericanGreatness.com,

The fact that many children are ditching America’s public schools is undeniable. Most recently, Nat Malkus, Deputy Director of Education Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, reported that while chronic absenteeism spiked during the COVID pandemic, it remains a serious problem.

In 2024, rates were 57% higher than they were before the pandemic. (Students who miss at least 10% of the school year, or roughly 18 days, are considered chronically absent.)

Malkus goes on to explain that in 2018 and 2019, about 15% of K–12 public school students in the U.S. were chronically absent—a number so high that numerous observers and the U.S. Department of Education are labeling it a “crisis.”

In total, nearly one in twelve public schools in the United States has experienced a “substantial” enrollment decline over the last five years.

The problem is especially egregious in our big cities. In Los Angeles, more than 32% of students were chronically absent in the 2023-2024 school year.

In Chicago, dwindling enrollment has left about 150 schools half-empty, while 47 operate at less than one-third capacity.

Additionally, schools identified by their states as chronically low-performing were more than twice as likely to experience sizable enrollment declines as other public schools.

In February 2025, FutureEd disclosed that data from 22 states and the District of Columbia for the 2023-24 school year show significant differences across grade levels, with absenteeism particularly severe in high school.

“In most states, 12th graders have the highest rates of chronic absenteeism, often far exceeding state averages. In Mississippi, for example, the overall absenteeism rate was 24%, but among seniors, it soared to 41%. Several other states have senior absenteeism rates above 40%, with rates in the District of Columbia and Oregon exceeding 50%.”

FutureEd also reports that kindergartners have disproportionately high rates of chronic absenteeism.

Yet another analysis of data from three states—North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia—shows that, before the COVID pandemic, 17% of students were chronically absent; however, by 2023, long after schools had to cope with new variants and hybrid schedules, that figure had risen to 37%.

The question then becomes, why is this happening?

Many kids have no interest in attending school. A 2024 report from Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation, which surveyed over 1,000 Gen Z students aged 12 to 18, found that only 48% of those enrolled in middle or high school felt motivated to attend school. Only half said they do something interesting in school every day. Similarly, a 2024 EdChoice survey indicates that 64% of teens said school is boring, and 30% perceive it as a waste of time.

It’s not just teens who are unhappy with their school. According to a Gallup poll published this past February, 73% of 1,005 adult respondents were dissatisfied with the quality of public education in the U.S., the highest dissatisfaction rate since the survey began and a 5-point increase from last year’s rate of 68%. In 2001, dissatisfaction was at 57%.

Another reason for the decline in students is that people, particularly in urban areas, are having fewer children than in the past. In fact, 80% of metropolitan areas are experiencing a downward trend in the number of children aged 14 and younger.

One of the ironies of the situation is that while enrollment declines, fewer schools are closing. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics found that in 2014-15, the closure rate—the share of schools nationwide that were open one year and closed the next—was 1.3%. In 2023-24, the rate was just .8%.

What steps can we take to rectify this distressing situation?

Due to the declining school population, schools must be consolidated. Schools, such as those in Chicago, that are only half or a third full need to be closed. Some students may have to take a bus to school, but that’s not an onerous task.

There is also a problem with teacher quality. With declining student numbers in schools, teachers will likely face layoffs. Ideally, the lowest-performing teachers should be the first to be eliminated. However, restrictive union contracts stipulate that layoffs must be based on seniority.

Ultimately, parents must take responsibility for their children’s education. They can choose to homeschool or enroll them in a local microschool. A study shows that parent-led tutoring efforts in Oakland “produced similar gains in reading for young students as instruction from classroom teachers—a nod that could inspire similar efforts in other districts.”

Also, there are currently 76 private school choice programs in 35 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Overall, 45% of the nation’s 49.6 million students are eligible to participate in a private school choice program. However, just 1.2 million students partake in one.

Too many Americans have become overly dependent on government-run schools, many of which are underperforming. Therefore, for the sake of their children, parents must take responsibility for their education, just as they do for their food, clothing, and shelter. By doing so, they can change the course of their children’s lives.

Israel’s military chief of staff as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have spoken up following President Trump’s words before Wednesday’s NATO summit which declared Iran’s nuclear program ‘obliterated’.

The Israeli military agrees, saying that the program suffered “systemic” damage and was set back years due to both the Israeli warplane attacks, as well as the large-scale US B-2 bomber raids on three main facilities.

The military further declared that IDF’s goal of the “immediate existential threat” from Iran has been met.

Trump too said Wednesday, “Last weekend, the United States successfully carried out a massive precision strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities and it was very, very successful.”

Netanyahu has also offered his agreement – at least on the Fordow site:

The US’ strike on the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran has eliminated critically important infrastructure and rendered it inoperable, with attacks by the US and Israel setting back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on behalf of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC).

“The devastating US strike on Fordow destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years,” the statement reads.

It noted that this “achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material.”

Interestingly, the Israeli side is also confirming the use of ground commandos that breached Iran during the 12-day conflict.

Commando units, along with the Israeli Air Force, carried out “deception” tactics that helped Israel gain control of Iran’s airspace as well as other strategic goals, the IDF’s Zamir revealed further.

Zohran Mamdani, a self-identified far-left democratic socialist, has secured the Democratic nomination for New York City mayor after defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. His sweeping far-left progressive platform—centered on government-run grocery stores, free public buses, universal childcare, defunding the police, protecting criminal illegal aliens, and rejecting President Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda—has triggered renewed concerns over ideological extremism in the dangerous sanctuary city. More broadly, it has reignited fears of communism spreading across the nation.

People in New York started Googling what Socialism was after the polls closed

Lol. Lmao even. pic.twitter.com/xqyerSgUhD

— Inverse Cramer (@CramerTracker) June 25, 2025

The current mayor, Democrat Eric Adams, is expected to appear on the November ballot as an independent candidate. His challenger on the Republican ticket is Curtis Sliwa—a radio personality and founder of the Guardian Angels anti-crime patrol—who previously lost to Adams in the 2021 mayoral race.

Tuesday’s news of foreign-born Zohran Mamdani defeating Cuomo in the Democratic primary sent shockwaves through political circles on X, sparking widespread concern over the rise of anti-American far-left extremism.

Unsurprisingly, New Yorkers are not impressed with foreign-born Mamdani’s endorsement of a communist leader.

There were even some discussions by X users that resurfaced the Communist Control Act of 1954, a federal law aimed at outlawing the Communist Party and restricting Communist activity in the US at the height of the Cold War and McCarthy era.

If we are serious about defending the Republic then this needs to happen. Citizenship is a privilege and not a right for every third world invader dragging demonstrably doomed paradigms with them. @KristiNoem
Deport communists now, from wherever the came. https://t.co/eapOEDzAje

— ErikDPrince (@realErikDPrince) June 25, 2025

If he ever gets elected, Trump can imprison and remove him from office under the Communist Control Act of 1954 pic.twitter.com/qeV3W7zaAF

— Bushie 🇺🇸🗽 (@OldNewRight) June 25, 2025

Communist control Act of 1954 would like a word

— Brittany Rae (@legitbrittFLA) June 25, 2025

Google search trends for “Communist Control Act of 1954” exploded…. 

“More than that, the Naturalization Act stipulates that if anyone expresses revolutionary communist sympathies within 5 years of becoming a citizen, that is prima facie evidence he lied during the naturalization process. His citizenship should be stripped immediately,” X user tantum noted. 

More than that, the Naturalization Act stipulates that if anyone expresses revolutionary communist sympathies within 5 years of becoming a citizen, that is prima facie evidence he lied during the naturalization process. His citizenship should be stripped immediately https://t.co/xrzbcRXYlH

— tantum (@QuasLacrimas) June 25, 2025

And this…

Libertarian Karlyn Borysenko emphasized that Republicans aren’t taking the radical left seriously. She said, “Maybe we need a little bit of accelerationism—maybe we need a socialist mayor to show people the potential reality we’re dealing with,” adding, “Well, might that be very painful for New York City, well yeah…” 

What I think about the incoming Socialist
Mayor of New York City. pic.twitter.com/3ciadAPr67

— Karlyn Borysenko, anti-communist cult leader (@DrKarlynB) June 25, 2025

Meanwhile, on the opposite coast in Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass is a literal Marxist—and look at how that sanctuary city turned out.

Mexican rioters in LA called several Waymo self-driving cars to their location and then set them ablaze, unleashing a vast cloud of poisonous smoke into the air. Where is the National Guard? pic.twitter.com/y8rPD7Mvcf

— Way of the World (@wayotworld) June 9, 2025

According to Polymarket, NYC has fallen… 

And guess what could make a comeback?

. . . 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Its inter-agency members sought to sabotage the Russian-US rapprochement…

Reuters reported in mid-June that the Trump Administration had recently disbanded a secret inter-agency working group overseen by now-dismissed National Security Council members tasked with formulating strategies for coercing Russia into concessions to Ukraine.

According to their three unnamed US official sources, Trump’s hitherto refusal to escalate American involvement in the conflict led to this initiative losing steam, though he could still potentially reverse gears in the future.

At any rate, what’s most significant about Reuters’ report is that it confirms that a secret group of officials from the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) was set up to manipulate Trump into pressuring Russia, which could have worsened tensions had it succeeded. Just as significantly, however, was its failure to do so thus far. Nevertheless, the plans that they devised could still be implemented by subversive deep state elements and therein lies the problem.

According to Reuters, “Ideas ranged from tailored economic deals designed to peel some countries out of Russia’s geopolitical orbit to covert special operations efforts”, the first scenario of which included a proposal to “incentivize” Kazakhstan into cracking down on Russia’s evasion of Western sanctions. That country has been drifting Westward for some time already, which could pose challenges for Russia and China as explained here in summer 2023, but it doesn’t appear that anything came from that scheme.

The second scenario, however, might have speculatively been connected to Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes against Russia in early June. No one can say for certain whether or not Trump knew about this in advance, but Reuters’ revelation about the existence of this previously unreported “deep state” working group lends credence to those of his supporters who claimed that he didn’t. After all, it’s entirely possible that this was orchestrated by them without his knowledge, which he might have told Putin.

There’s also the possibility that these “covert special operations efforts” included the two false flag plots in the Baltic Sea that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service recently warned about.

Although they claimed that these are joint British-Ukrainian efforts, it can’t be ruled out that the aforementioned subversive “deep state” elements within that working group could have either played a role in their planning and/or might have had a detailed plan ready for pressuring Trump into escalating against Russia afterwards.

This secret “deep state” inter-agency working group’s disbandment therefore raises hopes of peace with Russia and might partially account for the Trump Administration’s latest pragmatism towards it.

The Secretary of Defense recently announced that aid for Ukraine will be slashed in the next budget while the Secretary of the Treasury warned against new anti-Russian sanctions. Trump then opposed more such sanctions at the G7, blocked efforts to lower the Russian oil price cap, and stood up Zelensky.

While it’s premature to celebrate the preceding moves since Trump could always flip-flop on his own or be manipulated into escalating, they’re nevertheless positive developments for peace.

It remains to be seen whether he’ll stay the course, but what’s important is that he’s back to his pragmatic approach that was briefly disrupted by a period of angry posts about Putin.

The best-case scenario is that he proudly defies the “deep state” by finally coercing Ukraine into Russia’s demanded concessions for peace.