What is happening in schools today is that school administration are creating two sets of rules depending upon which group of children they want to benefit. Thus, we have an educational system based on power and not principle.

Across America, parents are watching as the same administrator who is defending a child’s ‘right’ to bodily autonomy for their own medical choices is simultaneously denying another child (also theirs) parental supervision.

This type of discriminatory treatment of children creates outrage because it views them not as individual children deserving of similar protection, but as political pawns to further the agenda of the progressive movement.

Hey, Teacher, Leave the Kids Alone

In area after area, families are experiencing the repercussions of rules being applied selectively to support those complaining the loudest, resulting in both liberty and fairness taking a back seat.

Subscribe now

Read more

Gavin Newsom’s press office called the lawyers fighting this law Voldemort’s law firm.

That tells you everything you need to know about how seriously they are taking the lawsuit.

Nick Shirley is an independent journalist from Utah who films videos exposing welfare fraud in California. He goes to locations where he believes fraud is taking place, films what he sees, and publishes it. His work has been viewed millions of times and has documented real fraud in government programs.

California passed a law specifically designed to stop him.

Come to DeSkooled for the latest on Nick Shirley’s lawsuit and everything else the institutional establishment does not want you to know. This is your Learing Center discount, named after the Minnesota welfare fraud scheme where government money funded fake learning centers while the system looked the other way. 50% off through September 1st.

Get 50% off for 1 year

The Stop Nick Shirley Act, officially named Assembly Bill 1100 and signed by Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, creates a new legal mechanism that allows anyone enrolled in certain government assistance programs to demand that journalists take down videos featuring them. If the journalist refuses, California can levy a $4,000 fine per violation.

Shirley described the practical effect on Fox News.

“If one of these people was enrolled in this new program and we go film a video where we think alleged fraud might be taking place, they gave us a written demand. We therefore cannot publish the video. If we do, we’ll then get a $4,000 fine.”

That is not a hypothetical. That is the law as written. A journalist who films what he believes to be fraud in a public location can be legally silenced if the subject of the video files a demand. The fine mechanism makes continued publication financially ruinous for an independent journalist operating without a corporate legal team backing him up.

Then the timeline of how the law came to exist makes it worse.

According to the lawsuit, Nick Shirley’s videos caught the attention of the attorney general’s office. Shortly afterward, Rob Bonta’s wife introduced a bill specifically targeting Shirley’s ability to operate. A journalist films government fraud. The government responds by passing a law named after the journalist to stop him from filming government fraud.

Newsom’s press office dismissed this as protecting immigrant service workers from doxing, threats, and harassment.

Nick Shirley films people collecting government benefits at public locations. He does not publish their home addresses. He does not call for anyone to be harmed. He films what he believes is fraud and publishes it.

The legal team fighting this called it existential for the First Amendment. They are right. If California can pass a law that allows subjects of journalism to demand takedowns and levy fines, the mechanism does not stop with Nick Shirley. Every journalist who films government programs, every independent content creator who documents waste and fraud, every citizen journalist operating without corporate protection faces the same threat.

The lawsuit is filed. The fight is heading toward the Supreme Court if necessary.

DeSkooled covers the war on independent journalism and what the institutional establishment does to people who expose what it wants hidden. 50% off with the Learing Center discount.

Upgrade your subscription today and follow Nick Shirley on X to support the fight directly.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Is a mother who strangled her three children the same thing as an innocent woman burned in Salem?

That is the claim circulating today. Collin Rugg posted the clip Sunday afternoon. A woman in a Hello Kitty robe looks into her phone and announces that America is running a witch trial. Lindsay Clancy, she says, is being framed. Critics are the new inquisitors. The names they use now are crazy, stupid, whore, and ugly. Then she smiles and thanks them for noticing.

The irony does not need a caption. Rugg gave it one anyway.

Support Deskooled and get 50 percent off for a year. Paid subscribers get the full archive and early access.

Get 50% off for 1 year

She Already Did It

Here is the fact the robe cannot absorb. Clancy’s own lawyers do not say she was framed. They do not say Patrick Clancy did it. They do not say the children died some other way. The defense told a Massachusetts jury she killed Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. The fight was over criminal responsibility. Postpartum psychosis. Bipolar illness. A voice. An 18-minute break from the moral universe.

A hung jury on Friday was not an acquittal. It was not a finding that someone else committed the act. It was twelve people who could not agree whether the woman who did it should be punished for it.

So what, exactly, is the frame?

TikTok has spent the trial building a second case the courtroom never tried. The husband did it. The husband staged the jump. The husband is the witch. Witches on the app cast “justice spells.” Pink rallies gathered outside Plymouth Superior Court. A GoFundMe for the parents cleared a million dollars. None of that required the smallest proof that Clancy was innocent of the physical act. It required a story that felt better than three dead children and a mother who admitted the mechanics.

Salem Was About Innocence

The Salem comparison only works if the accused did not do the thing. That was the whole horror. Neighbor grudges, spectral evidence, girls pointing, a court that treated visions as proof. People died for crimes that never happened.

Clancy’s children died. Their bodies were in the basement. Exercise bands. A suicide jump. Paralysis. Years of hospital notes. A trial that ran more than a month. A defense that spent its capital on her mind, not on a phantom killer.

When did “she’s being framed” become the slogan for a case where the defense already conceded the killings?

Call that what it is. Not history. Costume.

The robe video does not stop at Salem. It turns the comment section into a dating theory. Men who reject the frame are not looking at evidence. They are boys pulling pigtails. They were told to like girls and cannot reconcile the feeling. They want to overpower. They should try kickboxing. Or a marathon. Something productive.

Three children are dead and the rebuttal is that critics need a hug.

That is not analysis. That is a classroom script with the names swapped. Woman equals accused innocent. Male criticism equals secret desire plus cruelty. Facts are optional if the gender roles line up.

The Feed Taught the Lines

Nobody needed a history degree to reach Salem. They needed a feed that already taught them which story to drop onto every female defendant. Schools and media spent a generation drilling one lesson: when a woman is in the dock, look first for the patriarchy that put her there. Witch hunts. Framed girls. Mean boys. Believe the vibe.

Then a labor-and-delivery nurse kills her own children and the lesson still fires. The facts bounce off it. Hospital notes from days later that describe her as calm, cooperative, denying voices, and looking forward to rehab do not matter. Patrick’s testimony that he was at CVS does not matter. The defense concession does not matter. The script is older than the evidence.

Public schooling did not invent this clip. It built the habit. Learn the approved narrative. Apply it everywhere. Treat contradiction as persecution. Call the person who notices a witch.

The result is a grown woman telling the internet that pointing at a triple homicide is the same as lighting a pyre in 1692. She lists the slurs. She performs the martyrdom. She ends by claiming the insults as a badge. The children do not get a line.

What a Hung Jury Did Not Say

Friday’s mistrial did not baptize the conspiracy. Eleven jurors, the defense says, leaned toward no criminal responsibility. One would not. That is a fight about illness and intent. It is not a finding that Clancy was an innocent scapegoat. District Attorney Timothy Cruz still has to decide on a retrial. The September 29 hearing is still on the calendar. The charges are still murder.

The robe video wants a different verdict. No evidence, therefore witch. Doubt the frame, therefore inquisitor. Like the girl. Hate the girl. Pull the pigtails.

None of that is how a serious culture talks about dead five-year-olds.

The cheap move is to laugh and scroll. The harder one is to notice how many adults now speak fluent classroom myth and think it is courage. Salem was a warning against spectral evidence. This clip uses Salem as spectral evidence. Feel the injustice. Skip the basement. Call the critic a boy who cannot get a date.

Cora, Dawson, and Callan cannot comment. They do not have a TikTok. They do not get to say whether their deaths were a witch hunt or a crime. The grown-ups who should know the difference put on a robe instead and thanked the internet for calling them names.

That is not solidarity. That is a lesson plan that outlived the lesson.

Get 50% off for 1 year

He has lung cancer. He has prostate cancer. He is 86 years old. He cannot physically attend city council meetings to make his case in person.

So Victor Fleming, disabled Air Force veteran, did the only thing left available to him. He spent $3,000 from his Social Security check on a billboard near Aurora Avenue in North Seattle.

It reads: “Would the last taxpayer to leave the Emerald City change the name to The Blue Tarp City of Thieves, Druggies, and Shooters?”

He put his name on it. He put his phone number on it.

Subscribe to DeSkooled now and support independent coverage of what is actually happening in America. This is your “Learing Center” discount, named after the Minnesota welfare fraud scheme where government money funded fake learning centers while the system looked the other way. Same government. Same failure. Different city.

50% off for a limited time!

Get 50% off for 1 year

Fleming has lived near Aurora Avenue since 1955. He watched the neighborhood transform over seven decades from a place where you could leave your door open into a place where he has cameras everywhere and every person walking by with a backpack is a question mark. Half a dozen tents visible from his street. Drug activity. Crime. Prostitution.

He tried calling the mayor’s office. He tried the city council. He tried everyone.

He said he always gets some person or an AI that says we will call you back. But they never do. Particularly when they find out that what he wants to talk about is not pleasant for them.

So he bought a billboard.

He got approximately 150 calls after it went up. All but two were supportive. Some offered to help pay to keep it running. People recognized what he put into words that city officials have been carefully avoiding for years.

The city will tell you crime is down. And citywide numbers do show some improvement. Seattle hit a record 74 homicides in 2023 and numbers have been declining since. But the West Precinct saw violent crime jump 9% and robberies spike 28% in the first half of 2026. In Wallingford a wine bar was burglarized seven times since it opened in January 2025. Near Alki Beach the Fourth of July brought fireworks thrown at cars and homes by a crowd that included a 16-year-old who was arrested.

The citywide statistics and the lived experience of people on Aurora Avenue are two completely different realities. Officials point to the big number. Victor Fleming lives in the specific number.

He is not asking for utopia. He is asking for a city that returns his calls.

Seattle’s city government spent years embracing policies that its own supporters now quietly admit enabled the behavior that drove taxpayers and businesses out of neighborhoods like the one Fleming has lived in since 1955. They called anyone who complained about it a bad person. They called the problems systemic. They called for more money, more programs, more government.

Victor Fleming called his Social Security check and bought a billboard.

He is the last taxpayer warning the city that more are on their way out behind him.

DeSkooled covers what is actually happening in American communities while the institutions that were supposed to protect them look the other way.

50% off for a limited time!

Subscribe now.

Get 50% off for 1 year

For the first time in decades, the only method that has proven effective in getting Pyongyang to stop moving forward with developing nuclear weapons, is direct dialogue.

The same diplomatic establishment that has been lecturing Americans for years about “strategic patience,” are now being forced to face the reality of another round of direct talks with the North Korean regime by President Trump.

The web of endless rounds of summitry and sanctions theater, created by these diplomatic elites, is about to be put to the test by a man who views North Korea as a problem to be solved, not as an ongoing career development opportunity for U.S. diplomats.

This shift highlights how previous administrations allowed a nuclear standoff to become background noise while the regime continued to develop new weapons capabilities.

What’s the optimal strategy moving forward?

Subscribe now

Read more

Watch the video above, the segment starts around the 9:41 mark.

Coleman teaches a course at the University of Austin called the Legacy of Slavery.

That alone should tell you something about where American higher education has drifted. A serious course on slavery taught outside the ivory tower’s usual script, at a university built specifically because the existing system stopped being honest.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases. For a limited time, new annual subscribers get 50 percent off their first year.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Coleman noticed something as a professor that should make every parent paying tuition somewhere else furious. Students perk up at certain readings. They fall asleep at others. And you learn to pay attention to which is which.

What perked them up wasn’t a diversity statement or a guilt-driven lecture. It was Thomas Sowell’s essay on the real history of slavery.

According to Coleman, it was news to his students, genuine news, that slavery had existed across nearly every civilization on earth for thousands of years, not confined to two races in one country for three centuries. Sowell’s essay opens with a line that hits like a gut punch once you actually sit with it: if slavery had been limited to two races in one nation for three hundred years, it would not be one-tenth as great a moral evil as it actually was.

Why would anyone want to shrink a tragedy that size down to something smaller and more convenient?

Coleman’s answer is the uncomfortable part. People understate the true scope of slavery when doing so serves a present-day political purpose. Not because the truth is boring. Because the truth doesn’t fit the narrative certain institutions have built their entire moral authority on.

**What Eighteen-Year-Olds Actually Want**

Here’s what should embarrass every school district still teaching a flattened, single-country version of slavery’s history. These are not activists. These are ordinary 18-year-old freshmen with no ideological stake in the outcome, and the material that grabbed them wasn’t propaganda from either direction. It was scope. Scale. Global context nobody had ever bothered to give them before.

That’s not indoctrination. That’s just information withheld.

Coleman’s bigger point cuts even deeper into how the American education system operates. He argues these books need to be assigned not just in universities but in high schools, long before students arrive on a college campus already primed with a single, narrow storyline they’ve never been allowed to question.

Ask yourself why that hasn’t already happened.

Part of the answer is structural. The people who decide what gets taught in most public schools are the same institutions with the biggest incentive to keep the narrative simple. A curriculum built on nuance and global historical scope doesn’t generate the same emotional currency as one built on a tidy, one-directional story of victims and villains. Complexity doesn’t fundraise as well.

Sowell himself spent decades getting attacked, mocked, and misrepresented by the same intellectual class that now can’t explain why an entire new generation is discovering him anyway, not through assigned reading lists, but through clips, essays passed around outside the system, and professors like Coleman willing to actually teach the full picture.

The kids are noticing what the institutions spent years hoping they wouldn’t. Real history is more complicated, more devastating, and honestly more respectful of what actually happened than the simplified version they were handed in a public school classroom.

That’s the real threat here, and it has nothing to do with politics. It’s a generation of students realizing they were given a smaller, safer story than the one that actually happened.

The next time someone insists slavery education can’t handle more context, remember what happened in Coleman’s classroom. The students didn’t shut down. They leaned in.

Get 50% off for 1 year

California Governor Gavin Newsom just signed a bill that tells you everything about what state Democrats are actually trying to hide. Critics have nicknamed it the Stop Nick Shirley Act, and the nickname fits better than anything the bill’s sponsors are willing to admit publicly.

Nick Shirley is the independent journalist and YouTuber whose investigations into fraud at immigration nonprofits, fake healthcare providers, and taxpayer funded organizations helped fuel the opposition to this law in the first place. His work is exactly why California lawmakers decided this bill needed to exist.

Upgrade your subscription to support the DeSkooled substack.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Newsom signed the legislation dubbed the Stop Nick Shirley Act into law on Saturday, expanding the state’s Safe at Home address confidentiality program to certain nonprofit employees who assist people with the immigration system. [The Post Millennial]

The law was introduced in February by Democratic Assemblywoman Mia Bonta and is set to take effect on October 1, 2027.

What The Bill Actually Does To Journalists

Supporters are framing this as simple protection against doxxing and harassment. The details tell a very different story.

Under its sweeping privacy provisions, journalists such as Shirley could face substantial fines, and potentially jail time, if they publish personal information now protected under California law. [Town Hall]

That is not a minor administrative tweak buried in state code. That is a direct threat aimed at the exact kind of investigative reporting that has exposed fraud in California’s immigration and homeless service programs for years.

Why would a state need to criminalize publishing public information about organizations receiving public tax dollars, unless there is something in those organizations’ books that officials would rather nobody ever see?

These are organizations funded with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year for immigration services, and the law effectively makes them a protected class in California.

The people spending public money just got a legal shield against the people trying to find out how that money is being spent.

The Timing Nobody Should Ignore

This bill did not emerge in a vacuum. Newsom signed it days after a chief of staff for a Democratic assemblywoman interrupted Shirley’s sidewalk interview at the Capitol and launched a crude personal attack on him. [The Daily Caller]

That sequence of events speaks for itself. A state lawmaker’s own staffer resorted to insults rather than answering Shirley’s questions about where taxpayer money was going. Within days, the governor signed a law that could put Shirley in legal jeopardy for continuing to ask those same questions.

The bill’s main sponsor, Mia Bonta, is married to California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta. [PJ Media] Draw your own conclusion about how comfortable that family arrangement should make anyone feel about this law’s real purpose.

Thousands Showed Up Anyway

California Republicans and free speech advocates did not let this pass quietly. Days after Newsom signed the bill, Shirley showed up at the California State Capitol to fight it, and a rally in his support drew thousands of people. [Daily Signal]

Shirley made clear this fight is not over, telling the crowd that this is not the end, this is just the beginning, and he has since suggested he may be willing to test the new law himself, setting up a potential legal showdown. [Town Hall]

That is not the posture of someone backing down. Critics have accused Newsom and state Democrats of knowingly advancing an unconstitutional law specifically to slow down investigations into fraud problems state and local government programs have allowed to fester. [Daily Signal]

Follow Nick Shirley Directly

If you want to see exactly what this law is trying to shut down, follow Nick Shirley on X at the handle nickshirleyy. His investigations are the reason California lawmakers felt the need to write a bill with his name attached to it in the first place, and he has said clearly that this fight is only getting started.

Newsom’s office insists the law only protects immigration workers from doxxing and threats. A press statement from his team put it plainly, claiming the bill does nothing more than that. [Daily Signal]

Given everything surrounding the bill’s timing, its sponsors, and exactly who stands to lose the most from continued scrutiny, that explanation is going to be a hard sell to anyone paying attention.

Get 50% off for 1 year

If you have been on the free list at DeSkooled and have been meaning to upgrade, today is genuinely the last day. 35% off ends at midnight tonight. Now read this.

Another school year has begun.

Somewhere this week a kindergartner is being introduced to racial justice frameworks instead of the alphabet. Somewhere a middle schooler is being quietly encouraged to explore a gender identity their parents know nothing about. Somewhere a high school history class is teaching students that Western civilization is the source of the world’s suffering rather than the civilization that ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade and put a man on the moon.

Somewhere a teacher is spending class time on pronouns instead of the subject they were hired to teach. Somewhere a university is collecting $80,000 in federally subsidized tuition for a degree that leads nowhere and bears no accountability for the outcome. Somewhere a military officer is sitting in a Harvard classroom absorbing globalist ideology instead of warrior training.

And somewhere a homeschool family just finished their entire academic day in two hours and spent the rest of the afternoon outside.

This summer DeSkooled covered all of it. Pete Hegseth cutting Harvard off from military education. Konstantin Kisin explaining how sixty years of lying about history produced a generation that despises its own civilization. 274,000 Texas families overwhelming a school choice program because three times more parents want out than the state can afford to help. Elmo getting a racial justice curriculum. The Afghanistan ban on girls education compared to what American schools are doing to boys. Matt Gaetz and Brandon Gill calling out the federal student loan machine that funds all of it.

The school year is starting. The problems are not going away.

DeSkooled exists because parents deserve honest coverage of what is happening to their children’s education and someone needs to keep saying it out loud.

35% off ends at midnight tonight. No extensions.

Upgrade your subscription today and be here when the next fight starts.

Get 35% off for 1 year

We are seeing what seems like the classic case of a long-time Washington insider rehashing old talking points to describe regular executive actions as part of a larger plot to commit lawlessness.

What we find particularly disgusting about this phenomenon is how closely the permanent civil service and partisan operatives have become aligned. Claims made by these individuals frame ordinary attempts to establish order and eliminate wasteful practices as rehearsal for later crimes.

And at the same time, they ignore the numerous abuses committed during the last several administrations. We cannot explain this behavior as mere happenstance; there is a common thread running through all of this.

Projection Playbook in Action

Mr. Cobb frames accountability backwards, implying that any attempt to secure borders, review audited agencies, or review intelligence failures from the past represents some type of evidence of future crimes.

Subscribe now

Read more

If you have been on the free list at DeSkooled and have been meaning to upgrade, now is a great time. 35% off through September 1st. Now read this.

Soon the buses roll. The alarm clocks go off at six in the morning. The backpacks get loaded. And millions of American children file back into buildings where they will spend 35 hours every week for the next nine months.

Then come home with homework.

Think about what that actually means. Six to seven hours a day managed in classrooms of 30 children moving at the pace of the slowest learner. Stopping for attendance, announcements, transitions, standardized test prep, and administrative procedures that have nothing to do with learning. Then a backpack full of work to finish at home because 35 hours was not enough.

If your child is ahead they still complete the homework. Their time is wasted and their curiosity is punished with busywork. If your child is behind they sit at the kitchen table struggling through material they did not understand the first time, usually with a parent sitting next to them trying to reteach it from scratch.

Which means you are homeschooling in the evenings whether you chose to or not. You just also surrendered 35 hours a week to have someone else do it worse first.

Meanwhile the average homeschooled student finished their entire academic day in two to three hours this morning. The rest of their day belonged to them. Music. Nature. Reading for pleasure. Learning a trade. Being a child. Their standardized test scores run 15 to 25 percentile points higher than public school peers consistently regardless of family income or parental education level.

274,000 Texas families applied to leave the public school system this year. Only 90,000 spots were available. The waiting list tells you everything about what parents actually think of the institution their tax dollars fund.

The buses roll tomorrow. Some families already figured out a better way.

DeSkooled covers the education system nobody in the mainstream press will describe honestly. 35% off through September 1st.

Upgrade your subscription today and help us keep covering what the education establishment does not want parents to figure out.

Get 35% off for 1 year

Get 50% off for 1 year

Support the Deskooled substack by upgrading your subscription.

Something strange has been happening to Flock Safety cameras across the country this summer, and it isn’t a technical glitch.

In Winona, Minnesota, all eight of the city’s automated license plate readers vanished between July 29 and August 1. Officers found the metal poles sawed off near the base and discarded in the weeds. The camera units themselves were gone, and as of this writing, none have been recovered. The estimated damage runs about $24,000.

Winona isn’t alone. Duluth, Columbia Heights, West St. Paul, North Branch, Faribault, Plymouth, Edina, Anoka County — cameras in all of these Minnesota communities have been vandalized, stolen, or formally removed by local decision in the last few months. In West Virginia, a 20-year-old named Wesley Jackson was arrested and charged with two felonies after deputies say they caught him on business security footage cutting down a Flock camera near Morgantown. When a local news station posted about his arrest, nearly 20,000 people flooded the comments with tongue-in-cheek alibis, insisting he’d been fixing a homeless shelter roof or serving soup at a kitchen at the exact time in question.

Whatever you think of the method, it’s worth sitting with why so many ordinary people are cheering it on.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Let’s be completely clear about one thing first: destroying government property is a felony, and it should be. Jackson and his co-defendant are each facing two felony charges and posted $15,000 bonds. That’s not a slap on the wrist, and nobody reading this should walk away thinking property destruction is a smart or safe way to make a political point. It isn’t. If you have a problem with Flock cameras in your town, the fight belongs at your city council meeting, not at the base of a pole with a set of bolt cutters.

But understanding why people feel pushed toward that pole matters too.

Flock Safety has installed more than 120,000 of these cameras nationwide, feeding license plates, vehicle descriptions, and location data into a searchable database available to thousands of law enforcement agencies. Supporters point to real results — solved homicides, recovered stolen vehicles, located missing people. Winona police themselves credited the cameras with helping locate a homicide suspect. Nobody serious is arguing these tools have never caught a criminal.

The trouble is what happens when the tool gets used for something other than catching criminals. Officers in multiple departments have been caught running searches for personal reasons that had nothing to do with an active case — checking up on an ex, tracking a family member. A Colorado woman was wrongly accused of package theft when an officer told her he was “100 percent” certain Flock footage proved it, only walking it back after she produced her own GPS data. That’s the nightmare version of this technology: a permanent, searchable record of where your car has been, built without a warrant, reviewed by whoever has the login.

And that’s where the unease starts to look a lot less like paranoia.

China’s social credit system didn’t arrive in one dramatic announcement. It built itself out of exactly this kind of infrastructure — cameras, databases, location tracking, all justified one reasonable-sounding public safety win at a time, until the pieces added up to a surveillance apparatus that could follow a citizen’s entire life. Nobody is claiming America is there. But the raw material — a nationwide, privately built, searchable log of where every scanned car has been — is the same raw material that system runs on. Is it really unreasonable for someone to look at 120,000 cameras with no warrant requirement and ask where the line actually is?

That’s the question Winona’s police department itself seemed to land on. After the theft, the city announced it would not be replacing the cameras. In its statement, the department acknowledged the tool had been useful, but said its use had “contributed to growing concerns about trust in policing.” That’s a police department, not a protest group, conceding that the technology cost more in public trust than it delivered in solved cases.

Glenn Beck made a similar point, minus any sympathy for the bolt cutters. Vandalizing a camera “might make for a viral video,” he wrote, but the city will just replace it and use the incident to justify even more surveillance. His argument is that the fix isn’t destruction, it’s policy: local ordinances that ban government-connected plate readers outright or strictly limit how long the data can be kept, real answers from sheriffs about who has access to the database, and enforcement of the warrant requirements the Fourth Amendment already promises.

That’s the version of this fight worth having. Not a felony charge and a bolt cutter, but a packed city council meeting and a city that decides, the way Winona just did, that it isn’t worth it.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Rory McIlroy had no problem being vocal. He called Bryson DeChambeau’s behavior after the penalty “performative drama” and said he has absolutely no desire to defend him on social media.

Such a blunt public rebuke from one major champion to another sends shockwaves throughout professional sports right now, especially since most sports claim they value actual competition above carefully-crafted image manipulation.

The Real Game Played Out Beyond the Penalties

McIlroy’s statement says much more than just a general distaste. Rather than a reaction of distaste from a competitor, McIlroy signaled a larger refusal within certain circles of golf to accept players that won’t conform to their idea of the way a golfer should behave quietly and on-camera.

Subscribe now

Read more

The video clip statement made by the DSA Co-Chair was a deliberate and strategic effort to deny legal rights to economic activities.

In this case, double digit investments were at issue. At the same time leave all other governmental powers intact.

A Selective Menu of Rights

As stated above, the way the DSA approaches the U.S. Constitution has always been based on a cafeteria line model.

The DSA Co-Chair video reference to the lack of explicit Constitutional textual support for investment gains is merely one example of how the DSA advances its own reading of the Constitution.

The same people who advocate for broad readings of Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to permit redistribution are now calling for a much narrower reading of those very same clauses to bar investment gains.

As previously stated, this is not due to a desire to be faithful to the text of the Constitution. Rather, it is a part of a larger political agenda where capital needs to remain vulnerable in order for political control to grow without limitation.

Subscribe now

Read more

If you have been on the free list at DeSchooled and have been meaning to upgrade, 35% off through September 1st. Now read this.

When Texas launched its Education Freedom Accounts program this year, 274,000 families applied on the first day alone.

There were only 90,000 spots available.

That is not demand for a government program. That is a revolt. Nearly three times more families wanted out of the public school system than the state could afford to help escape it. The waiting list tells you everything about what parents actually think of the institution their tax dollars fund.

The homeschool population in America now sits at roughly 3.5 million students, around 6% of all school age children, and it has grown every year since the pandemic. These are not fringe families. They are nurses, teachers, engineers, and factory workers who looked at what was happening inside public school buildings and decided their children deserved better.

What are they running from?

Secret gender transitions without parental knowledge. Racial justice curricula starting in kindergarten. Sesame Street partnering with CNN to explain protest movements to five year olds. 35 hours a week of classroom time that still sends children home with homework they struggle through alone. Standardized test scores that have declined for a decade while per pupil spending hit record highs.

What are they running toward?

Two to three hours of focused daily instruction. Test scores 15 to 25 percentile points higher than public school peers. Children who finish their academic work and spend the rest of their day as children. Families who rediscovered that education belongs to them and not to the institution.

Connecticut tried to stop them by requiring government notification before withdrawal. The families showed up at 4am to testify against it.

The revolution is not coming. It is already here.

DeSchooled covers every battle in this fight, the legislative threats, the policy wins, the families making the leap, and the institutions trying to stop them. 35% off through September 1st.

Upgrade your subscription today and help us cover the most important education story in a generation.

Get 35% off for 1 year

Thomas Sowell has listened to the “reasons” (excuses) for race-based grade and test score gaps in american education for over forty years. He has never believed a word of it.

Watch the video above.

While college presidents and provosts, diversity, equity & inclusion professionals, and media panelists claim that racial differences in grades and standardized test scores are due to a culture of bias against minorities in educational institutions and classrooms, sowell has written and spoken for most of his life about how skin Color is irrelevant to students’ academic achievement; that preparation determines academic success; and that when students enter schools where their preparation cannot be matched, the outcome is inevitable regardless of students’ ethnicity.

In his 1989 book “Choosing a College,” sowell wrote about how black students at MIT whose math sat scores were above the national average had clearly demonstrated math skills well above the norm. By objective standards, those students were clearly prepared for an engineering program at a good technical school. Instead, they were competing with MIT students whose preparation ran well ahead of theirs. As such, they were at a disadvantage when compared to the rest of the students at MIT.

When a student finds themselves in a situation like that -- with superior preparation but inferior competition -- what happens to that student?

Sowell claimed that if that student attended a good engineering school that was geared toward students who have similar levels of preparation to theirs, then the student would thrive. The reason why they would thrive is not because black students cannot learn engineering; rather, it is because their above-average preparation would have allowed them to excel in an environment that acknowledged the validity of their preparation, not because learning engineering was outside of their capabilities.

Law professors have since supported Sowell’s claims. Legal scholar Richard Sander conducted extensive research on affirmative action in law schools and documented what sowell stated. In sander’s research, after controlling for both academic credentials and tier of law school attended, he discovered that black students and white students attending similar-ranked law schools passed the bar exam at virtually identical rates. However, the racial disparity only appeared when students were mismatched; i.e., placed in schools with a higher ranking than their preparation warranted, resulting in significantly lower grades and ultimately passing fewer students than other groups of students.

This is not a story about bias in grading. This is a story about misplacement.

The numbers supporting this statement are hard to refute. Data examined by law professors shows that the median GPA of a black law student is approximately 6.7% percentile rank of that of white law students attending the same tier of law school. Approximately 7.5% of black law students achieved gpas equal to or greater than that of the white median.

Numbers like those are commonly cited by educators and commentators arguing that there is systemic bias throughout classrooms across the country. Sowell’s response has always been the same. Don’t assume that there is systemic bias in grading based upon where these students are enrolled in relation to their actual preparation.

Why does Sowell’s argument infuriate so many members of academia?

Because it eliminates the villain that many members of academia need. It is much easier to place blame on individual professors, curricula, and systems than to question whether the placement itself created conditions under which a student would likely fail. Sowell has never denied the existence of racism in America. What he has consistently rejected is the idea that all gaps in educational outcomes must be evidence of systemic bias, especially when a more logical and more thoroughly-supported alternative explanation exists.

Academic grades were never about the student sitting in class based upon their skin Color. Grades were about where the student was placed academically according to their actual level of preparation. Sowell made this argument decades ago. The available data continues to prove him correct.

Nick Shirley, investigative journalist that previously brought to light widespread fraud of over $110 million against a daycare system operating in Minnesota was able to uncover large-scale fraud involving several pharmacies in Queens, NY that were allegedly receiving money through a massive kickback scheme. The journalists investigation along with the Center for Medicare Services (CMS) administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz uncovered evidence of an organized group of adult day care centers and pharmacies that were allegedly using Medicare and Medicaid funds for services not required.

For all the stories behind each fraud network that Shirley has investigated click here. Upgrading to our premium subscription will give you access to the deeper dive articles that mainstream media outlets will not report.

The amount of money being taken in is difficult to understand. According to Shirley’s investigation into Flushing, Queens, there is alleged to be over $190 million in fraudulent activity taking place among adult day care centers and pharmacies working together to submit false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. Based upon additional information available within the overall scope of Shirley’s investigation, the estimated total could exceed $310 million if all of the other scams are considered.

How would something such as this occur?

Based upon Shirley’s reporting, the adult day care centers involved in the scam were offering “kick-backs” ranging from $100 to the elderly individuals participating in the scheme in exchange for allowing those seniors to obtain prescription medication at associated pharmacies, and/or bringing in additional friends/clients to utilize their adult day care services. As reported by Shirley, the individuals running these organizations have ties to the Korean and Chinese organized crime groups which use the Medicaid funding dollars for their own financial gain and pass a portion of that money back to the senior citizens used to create the false Medicare/Medicaid claims.

In one example of how the organization worked center by center – Shirley met face-to-face with the owners/operators of Sunrise Senior Service, one of the facilities reportedly raking-in over $44 million in fraud. One of Sunrise Senior Service’s clients outside of her residence told Shirley that she had been paid a “kick-back” herself; however, prior to speaking with Shirley the owner/operator of Sunrise Senior Service denied any wrongdoing. Records obtained by Shirley through a Freedom of Information Act request show the center claimed 7900 patients in one year alone — given its size and layout it appears unlikely that the facility could provide medical services to that number of people. This is not an isolated incident. While Shirley was investigating portions of this issue, federal authorities were also moving forward.

This is not an isolated incident. While Shirley was investigating this part of the story, federal authorities were already ahead of him. In February, prosecutors charged Inwoo Kim and Daniel Lee in a separate but related $120 million Medicare and Medicaid fraud scheme, also centered on an adult day care and pharmacy operation in the same neighborhood. Kim owned Royal Adult Daycare and Happy Life Inc. Lee served as program director at Happy Life. Both allegedly paid kickbacks to patients who filled prescriptions at their pharmacy while also billing for medically unnecessary services.

Regarding the extent of the problem Dr. Oz said, “Queens is a hotbed for this type of activity.” He further stated, “Social adult daycares in Queens generate approximately $2.1 billion per year.” That is just one category of service, in one county, generating enough income for it to become an easy target for scammers.

Why has this continued?

As Shirley has asked publicly – why should hardworking American taxpayers continue paying for government programs intended to assist the elderly and vulnerable when fraudsters continue exploiting those programs for their own financial gain? With increasing support from officials willing to take action based on his findings – including Dr. Oz physically accompanying him during filming -- Shirley’s latest expose is no different.

Ilhan Omar has become one of the strangest stories about finances in Congress this year, and viral videos mocking her numbers have made the underlying investigation harder to ignore.

Watch the video above for one creator’s breakdown of just how implausible the math is.

Get 50% off for 1 year

According to her own congressional financial disclosures, Omar’s net worth reportedly increased from a modest base to somewhere between 30 and 40 million dollars in roughly a year. That is not a typo. Estimates vary; Quiver Quant puts it closer to 18 million and Trump has cited figures as high as 40 million, but every version of this story follows a similar pattern: a member of Congress paid a public servant’s salary somehow amassed wealth that successful executives in the private sector would envy.

Much of Omar’s wealth appears to stem from her husband Tim Mynett’s business activities, including Rose Lake Capital, a venture capital firm whose value reportedly skyrocketed from near zero in 2023 to somewhere between 5 and 25 million dollars in just one year. The firm’s own promotional material had claimed its officers managed roughly 60 billion dollars in prior assets. Then scrutiny increased, and the names and bios of all nine officers were quietly removed from LinkedIn.

Why the Timing Matters So Much

This is not happening in isolation. Omar’s sudden financial windfall surfaced at exactly the same time Minnesota has been engulfed in a large fraud scandal, with federal, state, and congressional investigators looking into as much as 9 billion dollars that may have been stolen from programs such as daycare centers and other services meant to help vulnerable families.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer was direct when he announced that his committee would scrutinize Mynett’s business ventures. “We want to know: who’s funding this? And who’s buying access?” he said. That’s as straightforward as an oversight letter from Congress gets, and it coincides directly with a broader fraud crisis in Minnesota.

Trump escalated the pressure even more, posting directly on Truth Social that Omar is worth “over $30 Million Dollars” and flatly asserting that “there is no way such wealth could have been accumulated, legally, while being paid the salary of a politician.” He also confirmed that both the DOJ and Congress were actively reviewing her finances.

The Joke That’s Rooted in a Real Problem

The videos going viral mocking Omar’s numbers, sticky notes covering an office door, someone holding up a t-shirt joking about the heat, exaggerated claims about a mysterious “Learning Center,” are clearly comedic exaggeration rather than a documented news report. But there’s a very real premise behind the joke: Minnesota’s fraud crisis has already implicated daycare centers and other education-adjacent nonprofits that allegedly diverted public money meant for children into personal enrichment schemes.

That’s exactly the kind of failure DeSkooled has tracked for years: public money meant to educate and support children instead enriching the people running the programs, while actual classrooms and daycare seats go underfunded.

A Sale Worth Making the Joke Pay Off

Since jokes about “Learing Centers” are flying thick and fast this week, we’re going with it. Limited time only: get 50% off a paid subscription with our own back-to-school “Learing Center” sale, real education content, no inflated net worth required.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Women today are canceling female Uber drivers to avoid one set of risks; meanwhile, some insist that women need to escape an entirely different set of dangers.

In doing so, each ride becomes a grim form of gambling that demonstrates just how much human instinct has become distorted.

The Female Driver Paradox

Lauren Southern was defending her preference for using female Uber drivers to reduce the chances she might be murdered. At the same time Michael Knowles was noting his wife’s tendency to cancel female drivers due to safety concerns.

Both were working within the same broken system but reaching opposite conclusions. The idea that we have made “progress” is false.

We have reached this point because society is unwilling to consider the statistically relevant patterns found in crimes committed by males and females and instead places emotional considerations above reason.

It seems especially ridiculous when you think of it in terms of neither woman’s choice is driven by prejudice. One woman believes that there may be opportunities for opportunistic violence presented by male drivers.

The other believes that male drivers may present a coordinated (or distracting) threat to her safety because of women. There is empirical evidence in crime statistics involving driver incidents that support both beliefs.

To pretend that the debate is settled through slogans about equality only serves to make the next ride more hazardous for passengers.

So what does happen if every rider must perform these calculations prior to confirming a trip?

Subscribe now

Read more

A Florida teachers union spent years building a political machine instead of a functioning school system. The state’s largest school district is now paying the price.

Florida’s largest teachers union just got handed a blunt assessment of its own priorities, and the criticism didn’t come from a random parent on social media. It came from labor organizers watching the union lose its own members.

Become a paid subscriber for the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

As United Teachers of Dade scrambled to survive a decertification vote, Freedom Foundation representative Beattie summed up exactly why the union found itself in that position in the first place. “If United Teachers of Dade spent half as much time paying attention to their members’ interests as they have been pushing a political agenda with Randi Weingarten and running for office with Charlie Crist, they probably wouldn’t even be in this position,” Beattie said.

Why does it take a labor watchdog group pointing out the obvious before a teachers union starts asking whether its members actually feel represented?

The Numbers Tell the Real Story

This wasn’t a hypothetical concern. Under Florida’s SB 256, teachers unions now have to gather signed cards of interest from at least thirty percent of their membership just to stay on the certification ballot, and maintain at least sixty percent dues-paying membership annually to avoid new elections altogether. UTD scraped by with 58.4 percent membership at one point, close enough to trigger real panic inside the union’s leadership.

That’s not a coincidence born from unfair legislation alone. It’s what happens when a union spends years functioning more like a political action committee than a professional organization focused on classroom outcomes. UTD’s own president, Karla Hernández-Mats, ran for lieutenant governor against DeSantis in 2022. That’s a fairly direct illustration of where the union’s institutional energy has been pointed, and it’s not toward reading scores or classroom management.

Here’s the sharp point worth sitting with. Teachers didn’t stop needing representation. What a growing number of them apparently stopped wanting was a union whose public identity revolves around opposing a sitting governor rather than advocating for better outcomes in their own classrooms.

The Curriculum Fights Tell the Same Story

This pattern shows up well beyond union politics too. Florida courts have already ruled against teachers union claims that curriculum transparency requirements created some unbearable burden on staff, with an administrative law judge noting that the union’s own president couldn’t identify a single media specialist actually harmed by the rules she was suing over. State education commissioner Manny Diaz put it plainly, calling the lawsuit a waste of members’ dues on a fight to keep parents from knowing what their own children are being taught.

That fight over transparency matters because it goes directly to what’s actually happening inside classrooms. Individual teachers, speaking candidly on camera in recent viral clips, have described exactly the kind of ideological drift transparency laws were designed to expose, one openly reflecting on how her own curriculum had been built entirely around a narrative of oppression rather than a balanced accounting of history, calling for an end to what she described as mass indoctrination in her own words. Another commentator lamented that schools no longer even teach the genuinely good things that came out of Western civilization, treating that omission as deliberate rather than accidental.

Isn’t it worth asking why a union fighting so hard against basic curriculum transparency would have anything to hide from parents in the first place?

What Actually Serves Students Gets Left Behind

None of this means unions serve no purpose. Even critics of UTD’s political focus acknowledge that unions in counties like Miami-Dade helped build support among teachers for merit pay systems, and research shows that kind of buy-in matters for whether those programs actually improve student performance. The problem was never collective bargaining itself. It’s what happens when an organization meant to represent working teachers gets pulled toward statewide political campaigns and away from the actual classroom conditions its members show up to every day.

That’s the deeper failure DeSchooled has tracked for years now. Public education keeps losing ground not because parents suddenly stopped caring about their children’s schooling, but because the institutions meant to serve students, from unions to curriculum boards, kept prioritizing ideological battles over the basic mission of preparing kids to read, think critically, and understand their own country’s history honestly.

How many more decertification votes and courtroom defeats will it take before teachers unions start asking whether their own members actually want what they’re fighting for?

Zohran Mamdani isn’t the only symptom of where a generation of campus-educated activists has landed. Look at Columbia University this year, where the student group CUAD posted “Marg bar Amrika,” Persian for “Death to America,” directly to social media. When the platform forced the post down, the group didn’t apologize. They doubled down, stating plainly that “the sentiment still stands.”

Become a paid subscriber for the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

That’s not a fringe incident happening in some dark corner of the internet. That’s a university-recognized student organization, operating on one of America’s most prestigious campuses, openly declaring hostility toward the country funding the very institution educating them. Scholars for Peace in the Middle East director Asaf Romirowsky put it plainly, arguing that students on visas who actively support terrorism and chant for America’s destruction should face real consequences, including deportation.

Why does it take outside advocacy groups to say what university administrations refuse to say themselves?

The Economic Illiteracy Runs Just as Deep

A resurfaced clip of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now going viral again seven years after it first aired, shows exactly how this ideological environment produces confident graduates who can’t explain basic economics. In the same Firing Line interview where she famously claimed unemployment was low “because everyone has two jobs,” a claim that doesn’t hold up against how the unemployment rate is actually calculated, AOC also declared flatly that “capitalism has not always existed in the world and it will not always exist in the world.”

That clip resurfacing years later isn’t nostalgia. It’s a reminder that the confusion wasn’t a one-time slip from a nervous freshman congresswoman. It’s the predictable output of an educational pipeline that rewards ideological confidence over actual economic literacy, then hands graduates a national platform to repeat it.

Here’s the sharp point worth sitting with. AOC holds a bachelor’s degree in economics. That degree didn’t stop her from making a claim about unemployment statistics that economists across the political spectrum, including plenty on the left, immediately flagged as simply wrong.

The Ideological Bubble Doesn’t Stop at Politics

This same campus culture has produced an entire generation of young women fluent in a specific vocabulary of grievance, one that treats basic biological and social realities as oppressive constructs to be dismantled rather than facts to work with. It’s the same environment that raised a generation of young men without a coherent framework for masculinity, and left plenty of young women just as confused about what they actually want from relationships and family life.

That’s exactly the gap Pearl Davis, better known online as JustPearlyThings, has built a massive following addressing. Davis doesn’t pretend the modern dating and family landscape is working the way campus feminism promised it would. She’s argued directly that career-first messaging left a generation of women isolated and disillusioned, telling audiences plainly that women are happier prioritizing family and children over career in the long run. Whatever people think of her more provocative positions, Davis is one of the few major voices willing to tell young women honestly that the promises they were sold in a gender studies seminar didn’t match what actually makes people fulfilled.

Isn’t it telling that a self-taught YouTube commentator with no university funding behind her has built a bigger, more engaged audience among young women than most official campus feminist organizations, simply by saying things that match lived experience instead of theory?

A System Producing Confident Graduates Who Can’t Explain the Basics

Put these threads together and a pattern emerges. Students chanting for America’s destruction while attending American universities. A sitting congresswoman with an economics degree who can’t correctly explain what drives unemployment. An entire ideological framework around gender and family that left so many young people disillusioned that outside voices like Davis had to build platforms specifically to fill the gap official institutions left empty.

None of this happened by accident. It’s the output of an education system that prioritizes ideological conformity over rigorous, fact-based instruction, producing graduates who can recite the correct grievances fluently while getting the actual facts, whether about economics, history, or basic biology, embarrassingly wrong.

How many more viral clips of confident misinformation does it take before parents start asking what exactly their tuition dollars are actually buying?