The Ethan Klein Hasan Piker Destiny Situation Is Crazy
PDS Published 08/19/2025
-
That is the latest controversy that involves not just Destiny and Hasan, but also Ethan and Hila Klein.
Because it all starts when Hasan made a remark many believed targeted Hila:
“Any kind of violence that Israeli settlers or the Israeli military experiences in the West Bank is literally legal, okay? It is legal resistance against an occupying military force. I cannot, I cannot repeat this enough.” (0:03-0:21)
Israel is engaging in an apartheid, which is a crime of itself. Israel is doing a genocide in Gaza and an apartheid in the West Bank. Two crimes in and of itself. And every type of armed resistance against both the settlers and also the Israeli occupying force, doesn’t matter if it’s your favorite podcaster’s wife that participated in these raids, the violence that Palestinians engage in in an act of resistance against this occupying force is literally legal.” (1:05-1:39)
Right, he was talking in general about current ongoing violence there, but the callout to “your favorite podcaster’s wife” has gotten a lot of attention, because Hila previously served in the IDF.
And, if you need a little background on this, for quite a while now, Hasan and Ethan and Hila have been publicly very at odds over their clashing views on this conflict.
And Hila saw Hasan’s latest remark and accused him of calling for violence against her specifically, with Ethan later echoing that, posting a video yesterday saying: []
“Why even include a specific person who hasn’t served in the military in 20 years? Why does he mix up past and present tense while he is discussing this, you know? Is this a responsible use of his words and platform? Don’t you think that even if what you are saying is true, and you meant that only people in that raid would deserve violence, is invoking a specific person really appropriate and true, and doesn’t that have the risk of provoking the craziest people in your audience to think that it may be a good idea to kill my wife?” (1:28-2:08)
This ended up generating a ton of attention online, and you even had the likes of Destiny discussing Hasan’s comment in a chat, and writing:
“I honestly think you could perfectly justify attacking/killing Hasan IRL for statements like this.”[]
And that obviously escalated this situation to a new level, people now calling out Destiny for condoning violence.[][]
Hasan also tweeting:
“this sociopathic cult leader is actively telling his audience that it's moral to kill me in real life because i said Palestinians have a legal right to resist against an illegal occupying force conducting a raid.”[]
“when ANYONE joins an occupying force & participates in a raid in illegally occupied territory(wb), the occupied ppl have a legal right to defend themselves through armed struggle.”[[
And he also addressed Destiny on stream Sunday:
“That’s definitely actionable, I’m pretty sure. It’s also pretty weird that this guy gets to have a YouTube account.” (1:22-1:30)
“Like, that is a real death threat. What I’m saying is not a death threat at all. What I’m saying is just what the law is right now.” (14:30-14:40)
Right, with him arguing he was not even trying to give an opinion, just discuss international law and acts of resistance.
With him also claiming that many people were taking his initial remark out of context and that he by no means was trying to condone or encourage violence against Hila Klein.
“There is no point where I have said violence against someone who is not actively in combat is permissible. I don’t believe that, that is illegal. And also immoral. It is a big reason why I also advocate against what Israel is doing. I have also specified that IDF veterans are not valid military targets.” (9:05-9:26)
“If someone were to attack Hila Klein right now of course they should go to jail. What kind of idiocy is this?” (17:30-17:37)
And when people asked him why address this, right, why feed into people dragging him into drama, he said:
“It has led to people issuing active death threats to their communities against me. I think it’s a little bit different then immature online gossip slop. At what point does it turn into a real crime? I think this is the point where it has turned into a real crime. Will you consider it to be something behind online gossip slop when I get deplatformed or when I get killed, potentially?” (22:37-22:58)
Saying it is the goal of the people going after him to get him banned and fully deplatform him.
And in terms of platforms, in the video Ethan ended up posting on Monday, he took aim at what content Twitch platforms in general, arguing the site allows too many calls for political violence, including from Hasan.
And suggesting that since neither Twitch or Amazon are doing anything, the sponsors who advertise there should.
“If you use Twitch, if you are watching, when you get an ad, write them and say, I would like to know why you are spending your dollars to support violent extremism? Why are you supporting a platform that sanctions, protects, safeguards, encourages, language like what Hasan just deployed against Hila.” (12:37-12:58)
So that is where we are on this one today, right, and it comes as these discussions about what kind of content platforms like Twitch and YouTube allow just keep coming up, on where they are meant to draw the line when it comes to politics and other controversial objects.
Which actually brings us to creators speaking out against a different platform: Roblox.
-
The massive gaming platform Roblox has spent the last week trying to put out the fires caused by the accusations that it’s a haven for child predators.
We talked about this last week so here’s the real quick recap:
A creator named Schlep was banned from Roblox after a series of videos where he “catches” child predators.
Him and his team pretend to be a kid, some creeps approach them, they take the convo to discord before eventually meeting up.
At those meetups cops are there and arrests are made.
Around the same time Schlep was booted from the platform, Roblox announced that vigilantism was banned.
All of which led to a crazy amount of pushback from the community and then Roblox made things worse:
It announced that it was restricting social hangouts that include things like bedrooms and bathrooms to 17+ users who were ID-verified.
Creators like KreekCraft -- who is one of the biggest creators in the space -- wrote in a tweet:
“This is a crazy hill to die on. Roblox "bathroom" games are sex games. Making them 17+ doesn't solve the issue. 17 year olds are still minors. Roblox is still allowing kids to be in these games. Holy shit just ban the damn games. Nobody wants sex games on the platform.” []
(It was so controversial that around the same time he left the Roblox partner program alongside many others).
Then Roblox scrambled with a wave of announcements, such as a statement to clarify their “Policy on Romantic and Sexual Content.”
Now the policy that bans romantic and sexual content also applies to anything that IMPLIES sex.
On top of that they’re going to prevent anyone under the age of 13 from accessing content that is unrated, as well as new tools to try and clamp down on violations.
Then over the weekend, Roblox CEO David Bah-zoo-kee made a video as part of a normal “State of the game” he does for the company.
It’s titled “Update on Our Safety Initiatives”
In it they don’t seem to directly address the accusations that many of the games on the platform are clearly inappropriate for minors.
Instead, they call them “Sensitive topics,” with a leader at Roblox saying:
“This launch was really about giving parents more visibility and more choice into the things that our youngest users are engaging with on the platform.” @7:09
“What that means is that for super sensitive topics that families might have very different opinions or might want to approach with their kids in very sensitive ways, we can’t just guarantee that stuff is handled in a developmentally appropriate way on our platform. So we’re giving parents the choice to enable access to games that are primarily themed around those topics or not. They’re default unavailable for U-13s just to start from a palace in our safety-centric perspective avnd let the parents change that if they feel for their family and their kid Roblox is the place to engage in any of these topics.” @7:24
The video is almost 45 minutes long and they go into a lot more things, such as why they want to ban vigilantism, explaining the scale of their platform, and the efforts the company allegedly makes with organizations to tackle child predators.
But overall the video did not go over well with the community.
For proof of that you just look at the Community Note posted on Bah-zoo-kee’s announcing this video.
“Roblox has a history of ignoring child predator issues, silencing critics , and even suing those who expose them (Ruben Sim). Now they're threatening legal action against Schlep for helping get predators arrested.”[]
(The Ruben Sim situation is from years ago, but even more recently Roblox has gone after people like Schlep with Cease and Desist letters).
But for many one of the biggest issues was the company’s refusal to just make certain games 18+ and sticking with 17+.
It had so much push back that the company then announced it was “considering” limiting stuff to 18+.
Which -- once again -- got a lot of push back.
Schlep was furious that they were just “CONSIDERING” this change.
While KreekCraft wrote:
“Making these games 18+ solves the problem of inappropriate content for minors I guess. But I still don't think virtual sex games should be on the platform.”
It also doesn’t help that users are reporting that these spaces can still be found on the platform.
Which, to be fair, Roblox did say it would take time to crack down.
But beyond community backlash, this situation is also causing financial and maybe even legal trouble for Roblox.
Right, over the past 5 days its stock has dropped almost 9%.
Which is pretty dramatic for such a short period of time.
In a news release, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said:
"Due to Roblox's lack of safety protocols, it endangers the safety of the children of Louisiana. Roblox is overrun with harmful content and child predators because it prioritizes user growth, revenue, and profits over child safety."
This suit is also backed up by experienced Louisiana police forces they say they have dealt with.
For example, Livingston Parish Sheriffs claim that they’ve had MULTIPLE cases that involved Roblox.[]
In one instance, a man was using a voicehanger to sound like a young girl.
HOWEVER, they also added that no arrests have been made in relation to the platform.
Regardless, the lawsuit is moving forward and one big thing Louisiana claims is that Roblox doesn’t really have an age-verification process that works.
And because of that, minors are exposed to adult content.
In response, Roblox has said that it’s working on a more robust age-verification system.
On top of that, they deny that they purposefully make the platform dangerous, saying in a statement:
"While no system is perfect, Roblox has implemented rigorous safeguards - such as restrictions on sharing personal information, links, and user-to-user image sharing - to help protect our community.”
"Unfortunately, bad actors will try to circumvent our systems to try to direct users off the platform, where safety standards and moderation practices may differ. We continuously work to block those efforts and to enhance our moderation approaches to promote a safe and enjoyable environment for all users."
This isn’t the only lawsuit Roblox is tackling right now.
Over in Iowa a suit was filed last month after a 13-year-old girl was allegedly contacted on Roblox, partook in adult content, and then eventually kidnapped and trafficked.
That case actually led to a man facing statutory rape charges in Tennessee, with Iowa prosecutors expecting to file similar charges.
Needless to say, this is a PR nightmare for Roblox.
Which is why it’s not surprising to see a petition going around for Roblox’s CEO to step down.
Granted, it probably won’t go anywhere, but it’s a good way to see how mad the community is.
What do you think the company needs to do to “fix” this?
Is it really just as simple as blocking a ton of content for people under the age of 18?
-
Yesterday may have been an absolutely historic day in the path towards peace in Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Either that or it was yet another meeting that looks good on paper but will ultimately yield no results, and no one actually has any idea how to end this fucking thing.
Right, as we talked about yesterday, Trump held a massively important summit at the White House with Ukrainian President Zelensky and a bunch of other top European leaders.
And, at least based on what’s been reported, things seem to have gone pretty well — at least by Trump standards.
There were no major blow-ups, everyone largely appeared to present a unified front, and, for the most part, they all agreed on the next big steps.
But, I mean, that by itself is pretty significant — there were absolutely zero assurances things would go well after Trump and Zelensky’s last catastrophic meeting.
And given the fact that Trump gave Putin a literal red carpet welcome for their Alaska meeting last week.
A meeting that resulted in Trump going back on several of his key positions and then doing a Fox News media tour, where he repeatedly praised Putin.
And while yesterday’s summit certainly seems to have been a solid first step, it’s just that: a first step.
Currently, there doesn’t appear to be a clear path forward, and, as The Washington Post reported:
“European officials also warned the road to any settlement seems long, and they acknowledged they still have much to hammer out with the administration about what the U.S. role might look like.”[]
With French President Emmanuel Macron also telling reporters after the event:
“It is a step.”
But adding, “We are very far from declaring victory.”
Now, as for what actually did go down yesterday, as expected, the meeting focused on two major overarching themes:
1) Setting up direct negotiations between Putin and Zelensky, and 2) figuring out what security guarantees the U.S. and European nations would give Ukraine if it agreed to a future deal to end the war.
Right, starting with a potential meeting between Putin and Zelensky, according to reports, that was an area of common ground that the leaders talked about at length.
And that’s no surprise — Trump and European leaders have long called for such a meeting, and Zelensky has previously said he would attend.
But the big question is whether Putin will get on board.
Now Trump, for his part, has repeatedly insisted that he thinks Putin will get on board.
Arguing that he has a good relationship with the Russian president and he believes that Putin will eventually agree because Trump wants him to.
But Russia has painted a very different picture, with Putin’s foreign policy adviser pushing back on Trump’s claims after the meeting in Alaska, saying that the two men had agreed only to “explore the possibility” of such a meeting.
And according to reports, Trump continued to push that narrative yesterday.
And at one point, he could be heard on a hot mic telling Macron:
“I think he wants to make a deal for me. Do you understand that? As crazy as it sounds.”
Then, during another dramatic moment, he reportedly left the meeting to CALL Putin so they could discuss the possibility of future meetings.
With Trump later writing on Truth Social that he had called Putin and quote:
“began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy.”[]
Adding that after that, he would hold a trilateral meeting between himself and the two leaders.
But, again, Russian officials appeared to downplay expectations for a potential meeting.
With Russia’s Foreign Minister telling state-run media that the country isn’t against a bilateral meeting, but that “any contacts involving top officials should be prepared very carefully.”
And then, to further undermine the possibility of talks being held soon, we saw Russia launching massive strikes on Ukraine just hours after the White House summit.
And while there were no immediate reports of fatalities, Ukrainian officials said that the strikes had targeted energy and transport infrastructure.
Calling the strikes “systematic terrorist attacks” that were a “direct violation of international humanitarian law."
Now, as for the security guarantees for Ukraine, while the European leaders and Trump were also able to find common ground there, that whole situation is a lot stickier.
Right, as we mentioned yesterday, ahead of the summit, Trump told reporters that European allies would be the “first line of defense” and that the U.S. would be “involved” and “help them out.”
But, at the time, he didn’t provide any more specifics — including whether or not the U.S. could consider sending its own troops.
And it didn’t seem like European leaders got any significant information in their meeting about how specifically the U.S. would be involved.
Though some European leaders expressed optimism that Trump had promised to provide at least some kind of post-war security assurance for Ukraine, even if the details remain unclear.
This including Zelensky himself, who said at a press briefing:
“It is important that the United States is sending a clear signal that it will be among the countries helping to coordinate and will also be a participant in the security guarantees for Ukraine. I believe this is a major step forward.”
And although we didn’t get any specifics, one possibility that has been tossed around — including during the meeting yesterday — is this idea of a guarantee similar to NATO’s Article 5 on collective mutual defense.
Which is the central tenet of the organization and states that an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all of them.
But it’s unclear exactly how NATO members could offer Ukraine Article 5-like protections without pissing off Russia, which has strongly opposed allowing Ukraine to join the alliance.
And even though it wouldn’t technically be joining NATO, giving Ukraine “Article 5-like” protections would effectively give the country the number one most important benefit of NATO membership.
I mean, the Russians literally shot down that idea BEFORE the meeting even started yesterday, with a Foreign Ministry spokesperson saying in a statement that the country:
“categorically rejects any scenario that envisages the appearance in Ukraine of a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries.”
So all of that remains very hazy, and as of recording, Trump hasn’t really provided any more clarity in his public remarks since the meeting.
With him writing on Truth Social:
“During the meeting we discussed Security Guarantees for Ukraine, which Guarantees would be provided by the various European Countries, with a coordination with the United States of America.”[]
And we also didn’t get a whole lot more from the nearly half-hour-long interview he did on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss the summit.
And there, Trump mostly just reiterated that he had made a vague commitment of security guarantees:
“When it comes to security, they're willing to put people on the ground. We're willing to help them with things, especially probably if you could talk about by air because there's nobody has the kind of stuff we have.” 13:56 - 14:08
Now, notably, his comment there about helping Ukraine “by air” appears to be a reference to providing aerial capabilities rather than a physical presence of U.S. troops, because Trump appeared to rule out the possibility during the interview as well:
HOST: “Mr. President, what kind of assurances do you feel like you have that going forward, and you know, past this Trump administration, it won't be American boots on the ground defending that border?”
TRUMP: “Well, you have my assurance and I'm president and I'm I'm just trying to stop people from being killed.” 10:09 - 10:28
With Trump also touching on that again during this back-and-forth about the idea of Article Five-like protections:
HOST: “But Mr. President, but you got the Article 5 protections though for Ukraine. So they're not going to be a part of NATO, but you still got them.”
TRUMP: “We're not. So they're not going to be a part of NATO, but we've got the European nations and they'll frontload it. And they'll have some of them — France and Germany, a couple of them, UK — they want to have, you know, boots on the ground.” 8:42 - 9:02
Now, very notably here, this is just what Trump is saying right now — none of this is written in stone.
Though, that said, Zelensky did tell reporters after yesterday’s meeting that he expects the security details to hashed out very soon, saying:
“Security guarantees will probably be 'unpacked' by our partners, and more and more details will emerge. All of this will somehow be formalised on paper within the next week to 10 days.”
Now, that said, given everything that’s going on, that might be an overly optimistic timeline.
Especially because, again, it’s VERY hard to imagine that Russia would be O.K. with NATO member countries sending military forces to Ukraine.
And given that one of the main goals of yesterday’s meeting is to get Putin to agree to sit down with Zelensky, then they really have to tread carefully here.
Though, on that note, despite his repeated past assurances, Trump did raise the possibility that Putin wouldn’t want to make a peace deal during the Fox & Friends interview:
“I think I think Putin is tired of it, I think they're all tired of it, but you never know. We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks. That I can tell you. And we're going to see where it all goes. It's possible that he doesn't want to make a deal.” 9:06 - 9:21
But, in addition to security assurances, there are numerous other factors that would go into Putin’s decision about whether or not to take a deal.
Right, Russia has repeatedly rejected calls for a ceasefire while a peace deal is negotiated.
And while Trump previously pushed for that idea, after his meeting with Putin last week, he made the surprise announcement that he was dropping that demand.
Still, many European leaders have insisted it is a necessary precondition.
With the German Chancellor even saying before the meeting that no meaningful talks could even take place without a ceasefire.
But, according to The New York Times, while both the German leader and Macron argued for the importance of a ceasefire, “neither pressed it to the point that it antagonized Mr. Trump or opened fissures in their unified front.”
Adding that European leaders “all but acquiesced to Mr. Trump’s abandonment of a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine as a condition for further talks.”
Still, we did see left-leaning outlets widely reporting that the European leaders were ultimately able to steer Trump away from at least some of Putin’s views and undo the ground the Russian leader gained with him last week.
Right, for example, after his meeting with Putin, Trump told Zelensky that the Russian president wants Ukraine to cede its control of its eastern Donbas area in exchange for ending the war.
So, heading into yesterday’s summit, there were a lot of concerns that Trump would try to push Ukraine into a land-for-peace deal.
But the German Chancellor told reporters that the territory issue didn’t even come up at the summit.
Though, notably here, we saw some right-leaning outlets like seemingly trying to push back on that.
With Fox News reporting that:
“During the meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy were pictured viewing a map outlining the front lines of the war and the Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia, about 20% of the country.”
And going on to assert that “Trump may have used the map to discuss with Zelenskyy which regions he could realistically part with in order to obtain peace.”
But, of course, that’s just pure speculation — there are literally any number of reasons the two men would need to look at a war map…
But that’s where we are with this one for now, and of course, this is a developing situation, and we’re going to continue to keep a close eye on it.
-
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is activating millions of his country’s militia members in response to what he called “extravagant, bizarre, and outlandish threats" from the United States.
With him possibly referring there to the $50 million US bounty on his head – or perhaps the trifecta of American warships currently heading in his country’s direction.
But a good place to start explaining this whole situation is back in 2020, when the Trump administration accused Maduro and more than a dozen top Venezuelan officials of planning to ”flood the US with cocaine in order to undermine the health and wellbeing of [the] nation.”[]
With the White House announcing charges against them including narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and corruption and offering cash rewards for information leading to their arrest, including up to $15 million for Maduro himself.
The Biden administration then raised the amount to $25 million – the same amount the US offered for the capture of Osama bin Laden after 9/11.[]
And earlier this month, the Trump administration doubled the bounty to $50 million – this as it has alleged that Maduro is actually the leader of Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles.
Which led to the White House announcing new sanctions against that organization and adding it to the country’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.
Which makes it just the latest drug cartel to be designated one ever since Trump signed an executive order directing the State Department to start doing so back in February.
With this seemingly the first step in realizing his long-held ambition to bring the military down on the cartels.
Right, Trump reportedly asked about bombing drug labs in Mexico during his first term.
And the idea of taking military action against cartels really picked up steam during his 2024 campaign.
And so a couple weeks ago, Trump reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to start using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels.
With this also being yet another example of Trump proving willing to use the military to do a job typically done by law enforcement.
Though, notably, in this case, it’s not entirely without precedent.
Right, in 1989, George H.W. Bush sent more than 20,000 troops into Panama to arrest its leader, Manuel Noriega, who had been indicted in the United States on drug trafficking charges.
With the UN General Assembly condemning the action as a “flagrant violation of international law.” []
And in the 1990s, the military assisted Colombian and Peruvian antidrug law enforcement activities by sharing information about civilian flights suspected of carrying drugs.
But when Colombia and Peru started shooting down those planes, the Clinton administration halted the assistance. []
And the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel published an opinion saying that military officers giving information they knew would be used to shoot civilian aircraft could be putting themselves at risk of later prosecution.
So naturally, Congress just changed the law to allow for that type of assistance. []
But even still, it’s not clear that Trump has the legal authority to do whatever he may have in mind.
Right, the administration has argued that because the cartels it wants to target are now considered terrorist organizations, it now has the power to take military action.
But while Congress has authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda, for example, that doesn’t extend to anyone the White House considers a terrorist. []
And so, according to the New York Times, that might mean military action against cartels would have to rely on a claim about the president’s constitutional authority to act in national self-defense – which might be a stretch. []
Though, notably, we’ve seen the administration getting rid of the safeguards that are meant to keep it from taking unlawful military action.
Right, in February, for example, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the DoD’s top lawyers in charge of giving nonpolitical advice about domestic and international legal constraints on the armed forces.
And then, the administration has also largely sidelined the Office of Legal Counsel – which I mentioned before – and its job is basically deciding whether proposed policies are legal or not.
But in any case, with all that, what we’re now seeing is the military stepping up its presence in the region.
Right, several warships have now reportedly been deployed to the southern Caribbean.
With one US official telling Reuters that about 4,000 sailors and Marines are expected to be committed to the administration's efforts in the region; []
Which, of course, brings us back to Maduro saying he’s deploying 4.5 million members of the country’s militia – calling them prepared, activated, and armed.[]
And while that number may be inflated – I mean, Venezuela’s total population is less than 30 million – it still definitely makes this whole situation even more of one to keep an eye on.
And we’ll see where it goes.
Get Current! Sign up at Current and use code PHIL50 to get $50! and unlock tools like a paycheck advance, credit building, and more. Terms and conditions apply.
Go to Brain.fm to get 30 days of free access to science-backed music that really works.
-
The Texas state legislature just turned into a prison, and its own lawmakers are the inmates.
Because yesterday, over 50 Democratic state lawmakers returned from their two-week self-imposed exile, giving Republicans the quorum they need to hand Trump five more Congressional seats with a gerrymandered map. [B roll, 01:21]
With the Democrats receiving this warm welcome from supporters as they walked into the State House. [Same B roll]
[Clip, 01:04 - 01:10]
But when they filed into the chamber to resume their work, Speaker Dustin Burrows announced that the doors to the building would be locked, and the returning Democrats had an ultimatum. [B roll, 01:07]
Either they sign this permission slip allowing them to leave the Capitol under 24-hour Department of Public Safety escort to ensure they don’t flee the state again, [Screenshot, 00:10]
Or they remain trapped there, on the House floor, until the chamber reconvenes Wednesday to pass the gerrymandered map. [B roll, 00:06 - 00:10]
So begrudgingly all of the Democrats signed their slips, all apparently except for one: Nicole Collier [Colley-er] from Fort Worth. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:42 - 01:50] Caption: “I thought about that little child in me, when I felt like something was unfair, I didn’t know what to do but to stand.”
[Clip, 01:39 - 01:46] Caption: “I’m tired of being pushed around and told what to do when I disagree with the actions of our government.”
[Clip, 01:24 - 01:36] Caption: “This is just one little petty way of showing that they have the upper hand, but they didn’t realize that I’m just as stubborn as they are, and I’m refusing to back down.”
So while everyone else left, she stayed, saying DPS officers locked the doors and had a fun little slumber party with her.
[Clip, 00:13 - 00:17] Caption: “As you can see, it’s empty in here.”
[Clip, 00:39 - 01:02] Caption: “Initially I was only allowed to stay in the chamber, but since the first, I guess since the first order, I am allowed to go to my office. So I can go from my office with an escort by the sargeants, and DPS will be outside of my office, and then I can come back down to the floor with an escort from the sargeant’s office.”
[Clip, 01:07 - 01:13] Caption: “I’m sure I’ll fall asleep eventually, whether that’s in my chair or on the floor.”
And that’s exactly what she did, sleeping on the House floor last night and waking up this morning to discover that yes, this is all real. [Post]
With two fellow lawmakers, Gene Wu [Woo] and Vince Perez joining her in solidarity and posting a photo of their snacks, which included dried peaches, freeze-dried grapes, popcorn, and instant ramen. [Post]
Meanwhile, protesters gathered outside, demanding her release. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:19 - 00:24]
And eventually, videos appeared to show them having gotten inside the House. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:17 - 00:22]
But later, the Democrats released video appearing to show law enforcement arresting the protesters and clearing them out of the building. [B roll]
Also, the lawmakers who left the Capitol described the strange experience of being under constant escort.
With one telling the AP an officer went with her to a staff lunch, followed her down the hall for restroom breaks, and tailed her throughout her drive back to her apartment in Austin. [Quote, find “tailed”]
Then, he came inside, watched TV with her, and tucked her into bed before telling bedtime stories — I’m KIDDING.
Anyway, if everything goes the way it’s expected to, this new Congressional map should pass tomorrow.
Though the Democrats have promised to challenge it in court, so this battle is certainly not over.
-
Rather than giving exams, new teachers coming into Oklahoma are being given one - meant to weed out what officials call “woke indoctrinators.”
ALT INTRO: New teachers in Oklahoma will have to take an “anti-woke” exam before they’re allowed in classrooms.
Right, according to Oklahoma’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters, incoming teachers from blue states will be given an “America-first” exam before getting their state certification to teach.
The test, reportedly developed by Praeger University, will consist of 50 questions on topics like US government, religion, and gender.
Walters initially announced this plan in a state education board meeting last month - as a response to what he called a “dramatic increase” in teachers arriving thanks to the up to $50,000 in bonuses the state is offering to address their crippling teacher shortage. []
But in this case, he’s specifically pointing to teachers coming from New York and California.
Whose teaching standards are “antithetical” to Oklahoma’s, according to Walters. []
Who added in a statement,
"As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from the radical leftist ideology fostered in places like California and New York.” []
“They are trying to warp the minds of our kids to turn them into social justice warriors, instead of kids that are getting the most of their god given talents to go get a good job, to go live a fulfilling life.” []
Despite weeks of promises that a release of the full test is coming soon, we’ve yet to see more than a few example questions.
In fact, Walters reportedly told the education board that its members will not have a chance to review the test before it’s implemented. []
And that’s despite the fact that teachers will be required to get every question right on this test before being allowed to teach this school year - which has already started in some districts. []
As for the samples that were released, they include multiple choice questions like:
“What are the first three words of the Constitution?”
“Why is freedom of religion important to America’s identity?”
“What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?” []
Which are topics that you’d also see covered in the US citizenship test - which new Oklahoma educators are already required to pass to get their certificate.
But the test also reportedly includes questions about gender - with CNN reporting that one of the proposed questions asks teachers to select which chromosome pairs determine biological sex. []
And Marissa Streit, CEO of PragerU, told CNN that several of the questions on the test are focused on, quote, “undoing the damage of gender ideology.”
Now, as you can imagine, there’s been a bit of pushback to this whole situation.
With the president of one of the largest teacher’s unions in the country, the American Federation of Teachers, calling this a “MAGA loyalty test” and saying it will, quote, “be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage.” []
She then took aim at Walters specifically - saying,
“His priority should be educating students, but instead, it’s getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him.”
And she may not be totally offbase there - Walters has been a fairly controversial figure in education for a while now.
We’re talking distributing Bibles in schools as well as backing a proposal to teach high-schoolers that there were discrepancies in the 2020 election.
Not to mention his failed attempt to create the nation’s first public religious charter school in Oklahoma - which resulted in a deadlocked Supreme Court earlier this year.
But there were other opponents to this “anti-woke teacher test” - including the president of the nonprofit National Council for the Social Studies, who said,
“State boards of education should stay true to the values and principles of the U.S. Constitution. Imposing an ideology test to become a teacher in our great democracy is antithetical to those principles.” []
Even state legislators within Oklahoma are pushing back - with Democrat Representative John Waldron, who’s also the Oklahoma Democratic Party chairman and a former teacher himself, calling this test “political posturing.”
Adding,
“If you want to see a textbook definition of indoctrination, how about a loyalty test for teachers. It’s a sad echo of a more paranoid past.”
And he went on to repeat the concerns about the existing teacher shortage - saying that there definitely isn’t a flood of teachers coming to Oklahoma from blue states like Walters claims and a policy like this is just going to make the shortage problem worse.
But Team Trump’s battle against “woke education” doesn’t stop in Oklahoma - this goes all the way up to the federal level and the painfully shortstaffed Department of Education.
-
The Education Department has flipped the meaning of civil rights on its head, and now we’re watching it implode.
Right, and for context, the department’s Office for Civil Rights investigates complaints made against schools, colleges and universities.
But even before Trump entered the White House, the Office had a backlog of around 20,000 cases, so when he came in and fired about half of its staff, everyone expected that number to grow. [Headline/image]
With Education Secretary Linda McMahon getting grilled about it during a Senate hearing a couple months ago. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 06:19 - 06:33, 06:43 - 06:54] Caption: [Linda McMahon:] “Not only are we reducing the backload, but we are keeping up with what’s coming out with a reduced staff because we’re doing it efficiently.” [Murray:] “if you don’t have the staff you can’t do them, so …” [Linda McMahon:] “Excuse me. If you have an efficient staff …” [Murray:] “My question is: what is the current backlog?” [Linda McMahon:] “Current backlog is probably about — let’s see, I’m looking at my numbers now — about 2,500 cases.”
Except it turns out that twenty-five-hundred number? It may actually be more like twenty-five-thousand. [[Quote, find “25,000”]
This according to The Washington Post, which just obtained internal data from the Department, and the rate at which the caseload is growing is astounding.
Right, in four years under Biden, the backlog grew by about 16,000 cases. [Quote, find “16,000”]
In less than five months under Trump, it grew by about 5,000, bringing the total to 25,000. [Quote same link, find “5,000”]
So with such little staff, some attorneys reportedly have as many as 300 cases, making it impossible to devote attention to most of them. [Quote, find “300”]
And when cases are resolved, reportedly 90% of them are just dismissed, typically without so much as an investigation. [Quote same link, find “90%”]
But that’s not to say the Trump administration isn’t aggressively pursuing any cases.
Because sources say the Civil Rights Office has prioritized conservative grievances with anti-Semitism, transgender people and wokeness.
And when you compare its work now to its work last year, black is white, up is down — in the words of Naomi Klein, we’ve entered the mirror world.
Right, under Biden, the office investigated schools accused of treating non-white students unfairly.
Under Trump, it’s investigating 45 colleges for allegedly discriminating against white people by working with the PhD Project, a program that seeks to help Black, Hispanic and Native American students earn doctorates in business. [Headline/image]
Under Biden, the office ordered a school district to abandon its Red Skins mascot because it created a hostile environment for Native American students. [Quote, find “hostile”]
Under Trump, the same office deemed it illegal to ban the mascot because doing so erases the history of Native American tribes. [Headline/image]
Under Biden, the office warned schools that failure to accommodate transgender students was illegal sex discrimination under Title IX [9]. [Headline/image]
Under Trump, the office warns them that allowing trans women and girls into female bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams violates Title IX. [Headline/image]
So you have an Education Department spokesperson telling The Post:
“President Joe Biden’s OCR [Office for Civil Rights] protected racial exclusion, permitted schools to push gender ideology on students, and even fought to keep sexually explicit material in school libraries. The Trump Administration has reoriented enforcement to protect students and families.” [Quote]
