There is a heated Democratic primary for Congress in NYC’s District 12.

Micah Lasher vs. Alex Bores.

Vote for Bores.

He has led the way in opposing the use of artificial intelligence in the schools.

Micah Lasher was the NYC Department of Education’s chief lobbyist during the Bloomberg era. Lasher helped get the charter cap lifted repeatedly and making it legal to co-locate charters in public schools for free. 

None of this was good for public schools, which saw charter freeloaders wedged into their buildings and taking away prime space.

 Lasher then went on to head the NYC chapter of StudentsFirst, the pro-charter organization founded by Michelle Rhee. 

He is no friend to public schools.

Now, Bloomberg is spending $10M to get him elected to Congress. That explains why there are so many Lasher ads air on local TV.

 Meanwhile, Bores has been a leader in the battle to regulate AI, and in the Legislature co-sponsored the RAISE Act, the strongest state bill so far requiring large AI developers to have a safety plan to prevent widespread harm and destruction.  As a result, according to NPR, “super PACs tied to investors in ChatGPT maker OpenAI unleashed a torrent of spending aimed at torpedoing his campaign.”   If Bores loses, this may discourage other candidates in the future from taking a strong stance on the need to rein in AI. 

 

Tulsi Gabbard recently resigned as director of national intelligence, in charge of nearly a score of intelligence agencies. At her co formation hearing, she answered questions about her ties to a cult leader, and she responded that she was unfairly tarnished because of her Hindu faith. She was duly confirmed.

Jon Swaine of The Washington Post remained curious about her ties to a man of mystery in Hawaii named Chris Butler. Butler was the leader of a breakaway Hare Krishna group, called the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF). Gabbard’s parents had senior posts in Butler’s group.

Swaine interviewed former members of Butler’s group, who told him that “Butler controlled his followers’ major life decisions and demanded total obedience and secrecy.”

In November 2025, Swaine spoke to one of Gabbard’s campaign workers, Rebecca Saltzburg, who assured him that Tulsi took instructions from no one.

Nine months later, Saltzburg called him to say she wanted to talk. She had had a falling-out with SIF, and she decided to talk to Swaine.

She turned over hundreds of emails between Gabbard and someone at SIF who gave her instructions while she was in Congress.

Their content was extraordinary.

Dozens of attached memos appeared to document directives and advice for Gabbard from her time in Congress. Some contained instructions on what legislation she should propose, which policies she should embrace and how she should conduct herself on television. They had an air of authority. A memo about a proposal to partition war-torn Iraq into three states quoted an unnamed person as saying it was “time for TG to come up with this idea…”

Swaine asked Saltzburg about the identity of the person who was telling Gabbard what to say and which policies to support.

When I asked Saltzburg about this, she seemed amused. It was Butler, of course, she said. No one else could speak to Gabbard like that, she added. Saltzburg said the memos were unattributed precisely to mask Butler’s identity if they ever became public.

Saltzburg eventually shared more than 25,000 emails and files to Swaine, showing the relationship between Gabbard and SIF.

A number of emails to Gabbard gave her instructions that she followed precisely.

An Oct. 12, 2015, memo labeled “CNN Wolf Blitzer Talking points (Final)” contained this language about reports that she had been asked by Democratic leadership not to attend a presidential debate: “It’s not a ‘boohoo, I don’t get to go to the party’ situation, Wolf.” I dug up the clip of her appearance that day and found that she had used the line almost verbatim: “The issue here is not about me saying boo-hoo, I’m going to miss the party.”

The limited remarks attributed to Gabbard in the memos appeared to show her enthusiastically embracing the guidance. “TG: That’s perfect, that line right there,” said one transcript labeled “Iraq notes — call.” A line attributed to “TG” in another transcript said, “That’s a great way to put it.”

Here’s another example of Tulsi Gabbard complying with instructions from SIF:

A January 2015 memo documented an unnamed adviser’s proposal to attack John F. Kerry, then secretary of state, for saying violent activity by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda was rooted not in Islam but in “alienation, poverty, thrill seeking and other factors.” If that were true, the adviser said sarcastically, the way to deal with terrorists would be to “give them a trophy, a big hug, increase their self-esteem, give them a good paying job.”

In a Fox News interview later that day, Gabbard repeated the Kerry quote and gave a similar mocking punch line. “If that’s really the cause, then the solution would be give them a trophy, give them a hug, give them a good-paying job,” she said…

The time frame of documents we reviewed meant they could not show whether Gabbard continued receiving guidance after she left Congress and eventually joined the Trump administration. But I found echoes of years-old guidance in her more recent remarks. One phrase in particular stood out.

In 2014, Hoen emailed Gabbard a statement for posting online that said Gabbard made every decision through the prism of “the safety, security, and freedom of the American people.” She repeated that phrase in the first paragraph of her 2024 memoir, and after she was nominated by Trump, Gabbard made it her mantra, using it in her Senate confirmation hearing, her inaugural statement as DNI, her presentation of this year’s annual threat assessment and many other occasions.

On May 20, having received no answers from Gabbard to my questions for two months, I emailed her, her press secretary and her chief of staff. I let them know we planned to proceed with a story about her association with Butler. I again invited Gabbard to address my questions.

Two days later, Fox News reported that Gabbard — whose departure had been rumored for months — would be leaving the position of DNI this month because her husband had been diagnosed with a rare bone cancer. Some commentators observed that she still had a promising political future, maybe even more so because she was not aligned with Trump on the Iran war and other unpopular policies.

Jeff Bezos has done his best to defang the great newspaper he bought. He’s done his best to avoid alienating Trump.

But the newspaper still has some great and fearless reporters.

Cait Conley is a highly decorated military veteran running for Congress in New York’s District 17. This district covers parts of Westchester County and Rockland County, including Mt. Kisco and Ossining.

The primary election is tomorrow.

Republicans want to keep incumbent Mike Lawler in office. Trump visited the district to help Lawler. Republicans even created a phony political group–“Progressive Champions PAC”–to fund attack ads against Cait Conley.

Simon Rosenberg recently interviewed Conley:

Simon Rosenberg:
Welcome everyone. Simon Rosenberg, Hopium Chronicles, back with another great event today. Joining me is Cait Conley who’s running in NY-17, working to flip one of the most flippable seats in the country. Cait, welcome. Thanks for being with us today.


Cait Conley:
Are you kidding me, Simon… thank you for having me and thank you for highlighting this race and the importance of this race for the country.


Simon Rosenberg:
Well, listen, we’re going to get to the specifics of the primary in a second, but just tell us your story. Let’s start by talking about, you know, your’e a fourth generation member of your community. You’ve got a pretty storied military record. Walk us through the story and why you decided to run for Congress.


Cait Conley:
Yeah, so, very proud come from blue collar roots that go back here in the district for generations. To my great grandfather and grandfather who worked in the Montrose Brickyard to my dad, born and raised in southern Dutchess County as a construction worker. To my mom, born in Peekskill, who worked for the U.S. Postal Service for 48 years, serving communities up and down the Hudson Valley. And so it is really the values that my family and my community instilled in me — of service and standing up for what’s right, and doing the work that led me to pursue this path of public service.

I was a junior in high school when the terror attacks on 9/11 happened and our community got hit really hard. And so it was that — that inspired me to go off to West Point… that and Demi Moore and G.I. Jane, the 1997 classic… but went off, graduated the top of my class, and then went off and served 16 years as an active duty Army Officer. I deployed overseas six times. I had the privilege of a lifetime leading America’s sons and daughters in defense of this nation… was one of the first women in special ops leadership.
And then [in] my last two years in the Army, I was actually at the White House. I served as a Director for Counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff — the first two years of Biden and then went off and served as a senior executive at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency where we work to ensure the nation’s critical infrastructure security, including election security. I led the election security mission for 2024, pushed back on Trump’s lies that 2020 was rigged or stolen.

And Simon, so much of why I’m doing this today is because after everything I’ve seen and done, to truly believe that the greatest threat to America and to our future is coming from within our own borders right now, you know, I’m watching the country that I was willing to die for, that I’ve lost countless friends defending, becoming something I barely recognize. And Mike Lawler’s been complicit in that.


Simon Rosenberg:
Well, big time, actually. I mean who I think Mike Lawler was the first incumbent that Trump did a campaign event for, just in the last few months. That’s how important Mike Lawler is to Donald Trump — that he was the first person that he did in a campaign event for in this reelection period. So this is a deep ally and friend of Trump’s in one of these districts that we simply have to flip if we’re going to regain the House.
I’m having you on today because something’s happened in the race. I mean, we traditionally don’t get involved in primaries unless there are sort of special circumstances. And what’s happened across the country in recent months is Republicans have decided that they’re going to try to pick our candidates and not let the voters or the party pick our candidates. They’ve decided that they don’t want you to be the nominee, even though you’re ahead in the polls. They’re now running ads against you to sort of degrade you and take you down. Can you talk a little bit about what’s happened, and why all of a sudden it’s important that Democrats rally behind you?


Cait Conley:
Simon, right now, Mike Lawler and MAGA Republicans are so scared to have Mike Lawler face me in November because they know I will beat him… that they stood up a super PAC to run $1.5 million in attack ads against me, lying about my service and record to try to influence and direct the outcome of this Democratic primary. I have to tell you, if they think they’re going to intimidate me, they have no idea who they are messing with. And if they think they’re going to change the hearts and minds of voters here in New York 17, They are grossly underestimating them.
Because voters here are going to see through it. And I will tell you, though, them doing this is a reflection of how much the Republicans know I will beat Mike Lawler in November. They are so desperate to try to avoid that, they’re pouring everything they have to try to stop me here in the primary. But we’re not going to let them succeed.


Simon Rosenberg:
And in fact, a poll came out yesterday. It showed you up by 10 points in the primary. And I want to just be as clear as I possibly can about this to the audience here.

Republicans would only spend money against a candidate like Cait, like they’ve been doing in other places around the country, if their research assessed that Cait would be beating, would beat Mike Lawler and would be much more likely to beat Mike Lawler. They’re not doing this because they’re bored or they have tons of money flowing around. They’re doing this because they’re scared of her and they don’t want to run against her in November. So this is a confirmation that she is the strongest candidate, which is why we’re rallying for her today and asking the Hopium community in an emergency fundraising drive that we’re kicking off this afternoon to support her to make sure that she prevails in this primary, which is next week, right? Six days away.


Cait Conley:
Simon, I am so grateful because I will tell you right now, right, with the 1.5 million dollar infusion and attack ads in this final week they are out spending me and outreaching voters almost two to one. And so with that, now we’ve got to do as much as we can to tell voters the facts and to make sure that voters are making informed decisions, not being swayed by the political dirty tricks that MAGA is trying to throw at them. This is a fight I know I can win, but I can’t win it alone. And so the help, Simon, is so appreciated because, as you can imagine, we plan for a lot of things in this campaign, but a $1.5 million attack campaign by MAGA Republicans was not one of them… And what we’re being told is that is the floor, not the ceiling. So that number could keep going up and up…
We’re not backing down. We’re working hard to reach voters. But I will say defending democracy is a team sport and asking for folks’ help, putting the jersey on, getting out in the field with me because as you said, the voters of New York 17 and Democrats should know the truth and make their decisions based on that. Republicans shouldn’t get to pick what Democrat they face in November and that’s what they’re trying to do.


Simon Rosenberg:
I will say, you know, they’ve spent more than 1.5 million in some of these other races. They spent 1.7 million against Bob Brooks in Pennsylvania… in the millions down in Texas. So, I think you’re right. I mean, this is a sign of their desperation right… they know in the House the national tide is moving against them, and they’re now trying to pick candidates in these key late primaries that they’re much more likely to beat.
And so, you know, Cait, it’s an affirmation for you. Even though you’re a first time candidate, of the strength of your candidacy. And I want to ask one last thing before you go… I can’t keep you too long… you’re six days away from your election. You’ve got to be out with voters. How have you found the retail part of this? I mean, you’d been a soldier and a warrior for our country, you’d served in government, you know, going out and just being with people is sort of a new thing. I mean, how is that part of the campaign been for you?


Cait Conley:
Simon, in so many ways it’s very similar to leading soldiers. Right, as an Army Officer, your job is to go out and to tackle problems, remove obstacles so that your team, your unit can achieve the mission, can be successful. I think it’s a similar mission and responsibility as an elected official. You’re still a public servant. You’re there to serve. And with that, your job is to go out there, and government’s job is to solve problems. And what I’ve felt over the last year plus on the campaign trail is hope. What people are craving is hope that America’s best days are still ahead of us and that America can work for working people. And to have leaders that they can believe in again, where the dysfunction can end and we can get back to doing the necessary work to solve people’s problems. And so in that way, it really is the same.

It’s serving this country. It’s serving our community. It’s working hard to make sure America’s best days are still ahead of us.

In the 1790s, when George Washington was President, he lived in a house in Philadelphia with nine slaves. The house is now part of the National Park Service. The city of Philadelphia approved an exhibit of panels that told the story of the President’s House.

After Trump ordered the removal from federal sites of signage and exhibits that “disparaged” American history, the National Park Service replaced the Philadelphia exhibit with its own signage.

The city sued and won in federal district court. In appeal, a federal appeals court affirmed the power of the federal government to control the exhibits on the site.

WHYY in Philadelphia reported on the decision.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

https://share.google/NXK2OD6xIFegOuWoe

By David Reinking and Peter Smagorinsky

Every day we read about people asking, “At what grade level does my child read?” “Is it true that 54% of adults in the U.S. read below a sixth-grade level?” “Have reading scores dropped an entire grade level since the pandemic?”

The assumption behind these questions is test scores are precise indicators of reading ability, like scientific laboratory measurements. But like blood pressure levels — in which there is agreement about what’s being measured — they are variable and open to interpretation. 

Despite the subjectivity and lack of agreement in defining reading, grade level and ability, grade-level reading ability is often mistakenly viewed as determined by a precise, stable test score, one that does not take into account factors such as students’ health and hunger in their testing performance. Not everyone agrees on what is salient at a particular grade level, leading to subjectivity in weighting phonics knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension, the ability to synthesize a theme and recognize an author’s point of view in a given passage, or some combination of such things. 

Standardized tests are typically the basis for establishing grade level. But test scores themselves don’t indicate grade level, which is a creation of an interpreter. That’s why different tests don’t always produce the same grade level. A student who tests at fourth grade in one state may test at the third or fifth grade when moving to another state using a different test. In short, different tests or standards can produce different grade levels.

David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia. He is an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. (Courtesy)

David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia. He is an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. (Courtesy)

The National Assessment of Educational Progress calls itself “the nation’s report card” even to the point of using the phrase on its website and then having it repeated as if it is an established fact. It is often invoked in commentaries on grade levels. But it wasn’t designed for that purpose. NAEP itself states that “NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards (e.g., state or district assessments). NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution.”

But that hasn’t stopped many policy makers and journalists from trying to connect a NAEP test score to a grade level. Giving in to political pressure and rejecting recommendations from authorities in developing tests, in 1990 NAEP officials did introduce four tiers of reading achievement: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient and Advanced. These levels were established solely using subjective judgment about what’s expected of children tested at a specific grade level.

Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English. (Courtesy)

Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English. (Courtesy)

Then, they set equally subjective cut scores to establish boundaries between these four levels. States often use a parallel model for their own tests. In Virginia, student performance is measured on a 0–600 scale, with proficiency set at 400-499 and advanced at 500 or above. It’s hard to imagine that a meaningful difference exists between a student scoring 499 (proficient) and 500 (advanced).

Much confusion is also centered in interpreting whether “basic” is acceptably normal or if it is reasonable to expect all students to be “proficient.” Many commentators, some of whom have a vested interest in arguing that there is a reading crisis, argue the latter. Some have promoted the false idea that “proficient” is grade-level reading, which it absolutely is not. Then, they wrongly argue that two-thirds of American students are reading below grade level by counting “basic” scores as below grade level.

Another way to illustrate the problem is to simply rename NAEP’s subjective categories as “below average,” “average,” “above average” and “far above average.” Then, approximately 60% of students are reading at or above an average score, and only 40% (instead of the usually expected 50%) of students are below average. Presto, much of the reading crisis disappears. As further evidence against a crisis, there has been relatively little variation in NAEP reading scores since 1992, even if an upward trend began retreating around 2015 with many plausible but unconfirmed explanations.

A number of educators have debunked the conclusions of NAEP misinterpreters. Yet, the dogged belief persists that everything can be reduced to subjective interpretations of test scores divided into hierarchical categories that can be falsely, if conveniently, converted to grade levels. 

We are concerned whenever we encounter all-too-common misinformation about grade-level reading ability. When misinformation becomes disinformation offered by those who use grade-level reading ability to advance political, polemical or ideological agendas, we become concerned about how faith in test scores lends them to manipulation and deception to help create the crisis that critics have historically claimed is engulfing schools, only to be saved by their favorite solutions. 


David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English.

I remember from my childhood in Houston the annual celebration of Juneteenth. It was entirely a Black event, not acknowledged by whites.

Now it is a federal holiday, signed into law by President Biden. The timing was fortuitous. Such a law would not likely be passed by the current Congress and would never be signed by Trump.

Heather Cox Richardson posted this history of Juneteenth yesterday. I enjoyed reading it (a day late), and I think you will too. I learned lots that I did not know about the history of this day.

She writes:

Today is the federal holiday honoring Juneteenth, the celebration of the announcement in Texas on June 19th, 1865, that enslaved Americans were free.

That announcement came as late as it did because while General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant of the U.S. Army on April 9, 1865, it was not until June 2 that General Edmund Kirby Smith surrendered the Trans-Mississippi Department, the last major army of the Confederacy, to the United States, in Galveston, Texas. Smith then fled to Mexico.

Seventeen days later, Major General Gordon Granger of the U.S. Army arrived to take charge of the soldiers stationed in Texas. On that day, June 19, he issued General Order Number 3. It read:

“The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor.”

Granger’s order referred to the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, which declared that Americans enslaved in states that were in rebellion against the United States “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons.” Granger was informing the people of Galveston that, Texas having been in rebellion on January 1, 1863, their world had changed. The federal government would see to it that, going forward, white people and Black people would be equal.

Black people in Galveston met the news Order No. 3 brought with celebrations in the streets, but emancipation was not a gift from white Americans. Black Americans had fought and died for the United States. They had worked as soldiers, as nurses, and as day laborers in the Union army. Those who could had demonstrated their hatred of enslavement and the Confederacy by leaving their homes for the northern lines, sometimes delivering valuable information or matériel to the Union, while those unable to leave had hidden wounded U.S. soldiers and helped them get back to Union lines.

But white former Confederates in Texas were demoralized and angered by the changes in their circumstances. “It looked like everything worth living for was gone,” Texas cattleman Charles Goodnight later recalled.

In summer 1865, white legislators in the states of the former Confederacy grudgingly ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished enslavement except as punishment for a crime. But they also passed laws to keep freedpeople subservient to their white neighbors. These laws, known as the Black Codes, varied by state, but they generally bound Black Americans to yearlong contracts working in fields owned by white men; prohibited Black people from meeting in groups, owning guns or property, or testifying in court; outlawed interracial marriage; and permitted white men to buy out the jail terms of Black people convicted of a wide swath of petty crimes and then to force those former prisoners into labor to pay off their debt.

Congress refused to readmit the southern states with the Black Codes in place, and in December 1865, Americans added the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Six months later, Texas freedpeople gathered on June 19, 1866, to celebrate the anniversary of the coming of their freedom with prayers, speeches, food, and socializing.

By then, congressmen had turned to guaranteeing that states could not pass discriminatory laws against citizens who lived in them, laws like the Black Codes. In 1866 they wrote and passed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Its first section established that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It went on: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

That was the whole ball game, the one that would put teeth behind the principles in the Emancipation Proclamation. The federal government had declared that a state legislature—no matter who elected it or what voters called for—could not discriminate against any of its citizens or arbitrarily take away any of a citizen’s rights. Then, like the Thirteenth Amendment before it, the Fourteenth declared that “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article,” strengthening the federal government.

Rather than accept this new state of affairs, leading white southerners decided they would rather remain under military rule. So in March 1867, Congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act, calling for southern voters to elect delegates to new state constitutional conventions. And, for the first time in U.S. history, they mandated that Black men could vote in those elections.

Three months later the federal government, eager to explain to Black citizens their new voting rights, encouraged “Juneteenth” celebrations, and the tradition of Juneteenth began to spread to Black communities across the nation. The next year, the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution remade the United States of America.

In 1865, Juneteenth was a celebration of freedom and the war’s end. In 1866 it was a celebration of the enshrinement of freedom in the U.S. Constitution after the Thirteenth Amendment had been ratified. In 1867, Juneteenth was a celebration of the freedom of Black men to vote, the very real power of having a say in the government under which they lived.

Celebrations of Juneteenth declined during the Jim Crow years of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but as Black Americans from the South spread across the country during and after World War II, they brought Juneteenth with them. By the 1980s, Texas had established Juneteenth as a state holiday. Other states followed, and in 2021, thanks in part to pressure from activist Opal Lee, Congress made Juneteenth a federal holiday and President Joe Biden signed the measure into law.

But throughout our history, those determined to preserve a government that discriminates between Americans according to race, gender, religion, ability, and so on, have embraced the idea that true democracy requires skewing the vote toward the wealthy and white men. They have also insisted, as former Confederates did in the late 1860s, that any laws protecting the equal rights of minorities discriminate against the white majority.

Today, those voices are, once again, gaining traction. One hundred and sixty-one years after Juneteenth was established, we are in danger of losing the new nation that it celebrated—one that would honor the equality of all Americans.

Blogger G.F. Brandenburg is upset about Trump’s disastrous deal with Iran. All the sanctions on this rogue state will be lifted, and Iran agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for only 60 days. After 60 days, Iran and Oman will decide about the management of that vital body of water, through which moves about 20% of the world’s oil.

Brandenburg calculates how much money these two nations will haul in if they require ships to pay a toll. Annually, we are talking of revenues worth billions.

Only days ago, the Trump administration began dismantling a federal program to monitor the oceans, for no apparent reason. When Congress saw what was happening, some Republicans were aghast. The program to remove the monitors has been canceled, at least temporarily.

Just goes to show you what happens when Republican members of Congress grow a spine.

Maxine Joselow of The New York Times reported:

The Trump administration is abandoning its plan to dismantle a $368 million ocean monitoring system critical to understanding climate change and marine ecosystems, bowing to a bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill.

The National Science Foundation had said in May that it would begin removing hundreds of underwater instruments this month that collect data on coastal flooding, marine heat waves and other climate and weather events.

But the agency announced on Thursday that it will pause efforts to take apart the system, known as the Ocean Observatories Initiative, while convening an expert panel to determine its future.

Michelle H. Davis of “Lone Star Left” closes out her coverage of the Texas Republican convention. Her incisive reporting demonstrates the lunacy and cruelty that now dominate Texas Republicans. Well, at least they didn’t adopt a resolution to give the death penalty to any woman who dared to have an abortion. That’s something.

She writes:

The Republican Party of Texas is a party of hate and a party of cruelty. They were built in smoky back offices and pulpits in the early 1970s on the Moral Majority and the New Right. Then, they conquered Texas through the shady legal maneuverings of Tom DeLay and Karl Rove. The men at the top built an empire of corruption and theft. Theft of our water, theft of our clean air, theft of our labor. 

Texas Republicans have long had everything they’ve wanted. For decades, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer. But it’s not enough. They have to keep people voting for them somehow. Dumb down education. Appeal to the most extreme elements. That’s all they have left. 

In 1964, the John Birch Society found its moment at the Republican National Convention. Barry Goldwater didn’t fully embrace them. But he didn’t reject them either. When Nelson Rockefeller stood at that podium and named the John Birch Society alongside the Ku Klux Klan as examples of extremism that the party should refuse, the crowd booed him off the stage. Goldwater then declared, “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”

Goldwater was a total shit.

The Birchers never went away. And over the next sixty years, what was once considered the lunatic fringe became the Republican mainstream. The “deep state.” The “new world order.” Conspiracies about globalists, infiltrators, and enemies within. It’s the same playbook.

Which brings us to the 2026 Republican Party of Texas Convention.

The “Abolish Abortion” plank failed the final vote in the platform. That’s the one that would have handed the death penalty to any woman who received abortion care. Any woman. A minor. A rape survivor. Doesn’t matter. But don’t mistake that for a victory, because the men who stood on that convention floor and pushed for it are still on the ballot. Including: 

  • Rep. Bret Money (R-HD02). You can donate to his Democratic opponent, Fatima Muse, HERE
  • Rep. David Lowe (R-HD91). You can donate to his Democratic opponent, Yisak Worku, HERE

But what did pass on the platform? 

Banning IVF. Banning Sharia Law. 

In 2026, the Birchers write the Republican Party platform. 

Why IVF? Well, because they say this is a person:

But, actually, that ⬆️ is a mouse embryo I found on Google. But if women who are struggling with fertility are not allowed to have IVF in Texas anymore. 1- It will eventually spread to other states, and 2- what kind of repercussions will come from this? 

America already has a history of this. 

  • The Indian Adoption Project, beginning in the early 1950s, adopted Native children out primarily to non-Indian families to reduce reservation populations. By the time Congress finally acted, approximately one-third of all American Indian children had been removed from their homes. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 was the legislative response, and the right has been trying to gut it ever since.
  • Between 1998 and 2008, nearly 30,000 Guatemalan-born children were adopted by US parents. The US Embassy in Guatemala knew as far back as 1995 that birth mothers’ lives were threatened if they tried to reclaim their children. Guatemala shut it down in 2008.

The Evangelical Christian adoption movement has a documented history of manufacturing an “orphan crisis” to justify removing children from living parents in developing countries. Even Erika Kirk had an orphanage in Romania, which she was later accused of sex trafficking children out of

Banning Sharia Law? 

First of all, they already tried this in the 2015 Legislative session during the last time Muslim panic swept the state of Texas. During that time, Beth Van Duyne, the then-mayor of Irving, was directly responsible for the statewide outrage and upset. This was simialar to the Muslim panic after 9/11. Maybe, not that bad. But the Republicans go back and forth between which marginalized group they hate most each year. This year, it happens to be Muslims. 

When you Google “What is Sharia Law,” you get a lot of different answers, so hear it directly from Rep. Salman Bhojani (D-HD92): 

From the Republicans’ perspective, it really boils down to ignorance and bigotry. Just like the “Show Me Your Papers” bill. Just like the DEI bans. Same rhyme, different verse. 

All the Texas transplants, pretending to be Texans

Now, don’t get me wrong, we love our transplants. They add to the vibrant culture that makes our state so unique. But nothing chaps my hide more than a bunch of dudes that moved here in their 40s rambling on about how THEY represent Texas values more than ME. Like, sirs, I have a grandfather and a great-uncle in the square the day JFK got shot, and they were both born in Dallas.

And all of these Republicans, the wealthy ones, who came here to get into politics or nepo-baby their way into their daddy’s corporation that came to Texas for the low taxes, they think the Texas spirit is all about taking as much as you can for yourself, while screwing everyone else at the bottom, and hurting anyone different from you. 

Senate Majority Leader Tan Parker, born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stood at that podium and invoked the Alamo. He talked about faith, family, liberty, and the God-given right of free people to govern themselves. He said Texas is proof that freedom works. 

Parker has been rated as one of the most dangerous anti-choice legislators in Texas. He’s endorsed by both Texas Right to Life and Texas Alliance for Life. His legislative priorities in 2025 centered on capital markets packages and making Texas a hub for financial services, because when women are dying from abortion ban complications, and Texas has a maternal mortality rate that rivals that of developing nations, but Parker’s focus is on helping rich people move their money here faster. 

The man flew in from Pennsylvania, wrapped himself in the Texas flag, invoked the memory of the men who died at the Alamo, and has spent nearly two decades making life harder for the working Texans he claims to represent.

Same thing with Dannie Goober yesterday

The rest of the planks we covered mostly passed. 

The full platform will be posted on the Republican Party of Texas website in the coming weeks. Read it. Share it. Make sure every voter in your life knows exactly what these people are planning.

Because we already know what’s coming in the 90th Legislative Session. They’ve written it down for us. Frozen embryos have more rights than the mothers who made them. Muslims are the designated enemy of the cycle. A Texas that looks less like the state we love and more like the fever dream of a John Birch Society pamphlet from 1962.

They are telling us exactly who they are.

The question is whether we’re going to let them keep doing it.

We can stop them by flipping the Texas House. Democrats need a net gain of just 14 seats to break Republican control, and the candidates to do it are on the ballot right now. 

The line in the sand is at the ballot box.

This audio is a bit more than eleven minutes. It is worth listening to for Heather Cox Richardson’s view of Trump’s agreement with Iran. She points out that before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open, and Iran was burdened by heavy sanctions.

The agreement opens the Strait for 60 days, after which Iran and Oman will decide how it is managed. Richardson suggests that Iran intends to control the Strait and impose tolls.

The U.S. agreed to help raise $300 billion to rebuild Iran and also unfreeze Iran’s bank accounts.

And, most significantly, all sanctions on Iran will be removed.

This is a very good deal for Iran.

Maybe Trump should have sent experienced diplomats to negotiate, instead of Jared Kushner and Howard Lutnick, both real estate developers.