In the latest example of anti conservative bias, a student government impeached its president due to his ties to TPUSA, according to a report from Campus Reform.

“Iowa State University’s Student Government voted to impeach President Colby Brandt during its Feb. 19 meeting for his affiliation with the Campus Victory Project.”

The Campus Victory Project is connected to TPUSA and helps students find leadership positions on campus.

If it was MoveOn.org, or another left wing group that the student was connected with, its doubtful he would be facing impeachment.

As usual, conservatism and patriotism are under attack on American campuses.

The student group impeached him on many “accounts,” including “Violation of the Oath of Office, claimed that Brandt failed to perform his duties “for the benefit of all students.”

“Brandt was also charged with Failure of a Representative, which claimed that he did not represent all students due to his obligations to CVP.”

Of course, they are simply claiming this and drumming up other accusations due to his affiliation with TPUSA.

Brandt declined to comment to Campus Reform, but instead is holding off till the student government Supreme Court adjudicates.

It was alleged during a meeting that the student group which impeached Brandt is not openly partisan in favor of left wing and Democrat causes.

“Any student who needs assistance or wants to create a project on the inclusivity, diversity, equity, and accessibility needs on campus can count on us,” the committee description states.

The assault on the rights of conservatives and free speech continues despite doublespeak about inclusivity.

One can hope that Brandt wins his case and remains in the position he rightfuly deserves.

The post Outrageous! Iowa State University Student President Impeached Due To Connection With Conservative Groups appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

“What we’ve effectively done is handed over a curriculum to the people on the left here, and they have just indoctrinated. Twelve thousand hours hours is about the amount of time a kid spends in school,” John Droz told The Gateway Pundit in an interview.

Droz is a physicist who retired from regular employment at age 34 and has been involved in education for more than 20 years. He applies his skills of scientific inquiry to analyze how the K-12 education system has gone wrong, both in failing students academically and in indoctrinating them into Marxism. In 2012, he spoke on the subject before the U.S. House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee.

“They’re indoctrinated with left-leaning ideology, whether it’s in history, whether it’s in mathematics, whether it’s in English, but particularly in science,” he said, explaining that he believes the ideology has come to dominate not only the social sciences but even the hard sciences and mathematics. He described the current curriculum as teaching liberal ideology that is anti-American and anti-science.

The greatest defense against any ideology is reason, but Droz argues that children are no longer being taught to reason. In fact, the traditional “Scientific Method” (the linear five- to seven-step process often found on classroom posters) is being replaced in many states by a framework called the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Proponents of the NGSS argue that the new “Practices” approach is more inclusive. They believe that by focusing on how students’ own observations and cultural backgrounds relate to science, rather than memorizing a Western-standardized five-step list, they can better engage students from diverse backgrounds.

There is a substantial body of literature coming out of Harvard and other top universities on the concept of scientific racism, which NGSS is meant to counter. Proponents argue that the classical five-step scientific method acts as a “filter.” They claim it prioritizes a specific Western, linear way of documenting results and often ignores Indigenous knowledge or communal observation styles.

They further argue that because it is rooted in a historical tradition associated with the Enlightenment, it can make students from other cultures feel like “guests” in a house they did not build. Some also describe the traditional “Scientific Method” as a “dumbed-down” version of reality.

The formal scientific method dates back approximately 400 to 500 years and has been used in the construction and development of major inventions and innovations, from the steam engine to the moon landing to toaster pastries and Starlink. If it were merely a “dumbed-down” version of something superior, it is reasonable to argue that this would have been demonstrated by now.

Droz refers to NGSS as “Not Good Science.” In reviewing available materials, I was unable to identify a specific invention or innovation developed using NGSS as a methodological framework. No satellite has ever been launched based on inclusion.

He explained that around 2010 a group drafted two documents: the NGSS, which outlined science standards for each grade level, and a 400-page companion document called the Framework, which provided explanations. The Framework introduced “Three-Dimensional Learning” and emphasized a shift toward “Practices.” Inclusion and diversity are discussed in Chapter 11.

Teams consisting of a scientist from the National Academy of Sciences, a representative from an organization called Achieve, and a teacher affiliated with the National Science Teachers Association presented these standards to state boards of education. As of today, 48 states and the District of Columbia have adopted standards based on A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council 2012).

A 2013 report by the Fordham Institute evaluated the science standards of all 50 states and assigned grades. Fordham rated the NGSS a C and ranked it 23rd among the 50 standards evaluated. Among the criticisms voiced by the Fordham Institute was: “The NGSS’s focus on ‘practices,’ on what students do, too often comes at the expense of what students know… The standards frequently fail to integrate the mathematics that is essential to any serious study of physics and chemistry.” Despite this evaluation, 20 states had standards rated higher than the NGSS but adopted the NGSS anyway.

In conclusion, Droz said that the problems in K-12 education will not be fixed unless someone addresses them. “The universities get most of the attention, and I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that the schools are the real problem.”

Children are in school all day, five days a week, nine months per year, for twelve years. “We have approximately 4 million graduates a year,” Droz said, arguing that what the left has arranged is that “these people who are graduating are, number one, instilled with a whole extensive amount of Marxist ideology, and number two, they’ve been trained to be non-thinkers, so we have unthinking progressives.”

He said that shortly after graduation, they become voters. “If you just look at the statistics and say, let’s say if we’re adding 3 million Marxist, non-thinking Marxist voters to the voting rolls every year, what are the implications of that to America?”

The post Twelve Thousand Hours of Indoctrination: How K-12 Education Went Wrong appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senator Mike Lee was on “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo to discuss the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections.

Senator Lee also commented on the armed man who was shot dead after breaching security at Mar-A-Lago early Sunday morning. President Trump was in Washington, DC when this occurred.

“Your reaction to what has taken place overnight?” Bartiromo asked.

“This is tragic. It’s fortunate that President Trump was not in danger, and that the President of course, is well secured,” Lee said.

Senator Lee blasted the left for their violent rhetoric and explained that it is contributing to violent actions targeting the President.

“Nonetheless, it’s alarming. When you look at the rhetoric that is coming out and the attacks that follow,” Lee continued.

“The far left’s aggressive rhetoric that they are using over and over again, which frankly, isn’t warranted anywhere. But, nonetheless, we are grateful that the President is safe, and hope that these things stop,” Lee said.

“Senator, let me switch gears. You are one of the architects of the SAVE America Act. This is an Act that will require voters to show ID before they vote. Are you expecting to do a talking filibuster this upcoming week, to debate the SAVE Act on the floor?” Bartiromo asked.

Senator Lee explained that the SAVE America Act has widespread support with the American people and should be passed to protect elections and voter integrity.

“We absolutely need the SAVE America Act. 85 to 90 percent of Americans agree that people ought to have to establish that they are citizens to vote in US elections, and they should have to show up on polling day with a photo ID,” Lee said.

“I also believe that with a bill this popular, we really owe it to the American people when we consider it, to make any Senators wishing to filibuster, to actually speak,” Lee said.

“Filibuster in this circumstance should require them to go to the Senate floor, seek recognition, and start speaking until they are no longer able,” Lee continued.

“As far as the timing of it, that’s gonna be complicated a little bit by the fact that Democrats shut down the Department Homeland Security and then left for the Munich Security Conference,” Lee explained.

Watch:

Today on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, Utah Senator Mike Lee @SenMikeLee reacted to the breaking news of an armed man shot outside Mar-A-Lago earlier this morning. Senator Lee also spoke about the SAVE America Act. @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/pHtLvjYFdp

— SundayMorningFutures (@SundayFutures) February 22, 2026

The post Senator Mike Lee on the SAVE America Act – “We Absolutely Need the SAVE America Act. 85 to 90 Percent of Americans Agree” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Many media outlets are reporting that the Supreme Court ordered President Donald Trump to stop levying tariffs. However, the reality is more nuanced and does not prevent Trump from imposing tariffs altogether. The Court ruled only that he could not levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA); however, the president has several other options available.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s emergency tariffs imposed under IEEPA, ruling that he had exceeded his authority. For his broadest actions, including the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs and the “Trafficking Tariffs” on Mexico and Canada, the administration argued that because IEEPA permits the president to regulate importation during a national emergency, he could unilaterally impose tariffs.

The Court rejected that argument. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the power to regulate does not automatically include the power to tax, which is what a tariff is, and that if Congress intended to grant such taxing authority, the statute needed to explicitly reference tariffs or duties. Because IEEPA does not, those specific tariffs were ruled unlawful.

Within hours of the decision, President Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, announcing a new global tariff initially set at 10 percent and later raised to 15 percent. That provision authorizes import surcharges of up to 15 percent to address serious balance-of-payments deficits for 150 days. The temporary authority gives the administration time to design replacement measures and signals that tariff policy will remain unsettled as congressional elections approach.

The ruling leaves unresolved whether the government must refund more than $134 billion collected under the invalidated tariffs. The Justice Department previously indicated refunds would be issued if the tariffs were struck down, but President Trump said the issue could remain tied up in court for years.

Importers who paid the duties are legally eligible to seek repayment, while downstream businesses that absorbed higher costs may pursue compensation. Some customs brokers expect importers to sell refund claims to hedge funds at a discount for immediate cash, with legal disputes and administrative backlogs slowing the process.

Tariffs have become a significant revenue source for the federal government. In January, the Treasury collected roughly $28 billion in import taxes, accounting for about 5 percent of federal revenue that month.

As rates shift, Brazilian goods previously subject to 50 percent tariffs will fall to 15 percent, and Vietnamese imports will also see reductions. Lower rates could reduce import costs in the short term and widen the trade deficit as companies accelerate shipments, while uncertainty may weigh on capital spending.

Many Americans complain about higher prices for imported goods, and Democrats are using tariffs as a midterm election issue. However, removing the tariffs would not resolve the problems they were meant to address, as the United States maintains it has valid grounds to demand changes in trade behavior and long-standing trade patterns from major partners.

Since his 2024 campaign, President Trump has promoted tariffs as part of a “Buy American” policy to return manufacturing to U.S. soil and as national-security measures, arguing that economic security is national security. That rationale has focused particularly on China, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.

The primary goal of the China tariffs is decoupling. By imposing tariffs of 60 percent or more on Chinese goods, the administration aims to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains, punish intellectual property theft, and shrink the trade deficit. It also accuses China of failing to stop the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals to Mexican cartels and argues that dependence on Chinese manufacturing for electronics and pharmaceuticals creates a strategic vulnerability.

The administration further contends that decades of trade deficits functioned as a wealth transfer that helped fund China’s military buildup. By restricting export income through high tariffs, it seeks to strain Beijing’s budget and force the CCP to choose between domestic spending and the PLA’s 2027 modernization goals, including hypersonic weapons and expanded naval capabilities. Tariffs are also intended to limit revenue flowing to Chinese firms producing dual-use technologies with military applications.

Regarding Mexico, the administration has designated six drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and argues that the Mexican government has allowed safe havens for fentanyl production and human trafficking. The 25 percent tariffs are presented as a national-security measure to pressure Mexico to dismantle cartel networks and secure its side of the 2,000-mile border against what the president calls an invasion of illegal aliens.

The administration describes the cartels as a paramilitary threat and maintains that Mexico must treat drug production and trafficking as a war-level issue. President Trump has stated that if Mexico does not deploy stronger measures, including military force, the United States will use tariffs to offset the social and security costs imposed on American communities.

On Canada, the administration argues that lax visa and border policies have created a security vulnerability along the northern border. The White House claims Canada allows a backdoor entry point for Chinese nationals, terrorists, and unvetted illegal aliens who then cross into the United States. Tariffs of 10 to 25 percent on non-energy goods are described as a security surcharge intended to pressure Canada to strengthen vetting and border enforcement.

Regarding the European Union, the administration frames tariffs in terms of reciprocity. President Trump argues that the EU maintains higher barriers on American cars and agricultural products while exporting its own goods to the United States under more favorable terms, and he says tariffs are necessary to level the playing field.

He also ties the issue to NATO and industrial capacity, contending that if European allies do not pay their fair share for collective defense while maintaining trade barriers, it weakens the American industrial base. He argues that a hollowed-out manufacturing sector threatens the country’s ability to defend itself and its allies.

The Court’s ruling was narrow. It limited the use of IEEPA but did not eliminate other statutory authorities. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act permits tariffs on goods that threaten to impair national security, and the Court did not address that authority. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft. Both remain legally available.

By shifting its rationale to Section 232 and other statutes, the administration is positioning these tariffs to withstand future court challenges, arguing that national security includes secure borders, resilient supply chains, and protection against adversaries that benefit from U.S. markets.

The post Media Misrepresentation: Supreme Court Did Not Order Trump to End Tariffs appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

It is a bad day to be an America-hating liberal!

While the mainstream media and the woke elite constantly try to apologize for our great nation, our hockey players competing in Winter Olympics, Italy are proving that the roaring spirit of this country is still alive and well.

Fresh off their dramatic gold medal win over Canada at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan, the United States’ first men’s Olympic hockey gold in 46 years, American players reportedly erupted in celebration inside the locker room to none other than “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)” by country music legend Toby Keith.

The iconic 2002 anthem, written in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and inspired in part by Keith’s veteran father, has long served as a rallying cry for American pride, military strength, and national resilience.

And on Sunday, it became the soundtrack to Olympic victory.

The viral video was posted by Team USA’s Charlie McAvoy for the NHL Bruins.

WATCH the incredible moment here:

Team USA jams out to “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue”pic.twitter.com/yVuJmdQv6F

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 22, 2026

Earlier, star forward Jack Hughes, who plays for the New Jersey Devils in the NHL, not only scored the game-winning goal but also delivered a heartfelt patriotic message following the epic triumph.

“This is all about our country right now. I love the USA. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable. The U.S. are a hockey brotherhood. It’s so strong, and we had so much support from ex-players. I’m so proud to be American today,” Hughes told NBC.

Hughes continued, “Unreal game by our team. It’s just a ballsy, gutsy win. That’s American hockey right there. That’s a great Canadian team, but we’re the USA. We’re so proud to be American. Tonight was all for the country.”

You can bet the radical left and the legacy media are absolutely fuming over this. For years, they have tried to brainwash the youth into believing that patriotism is a dirty word.

They have celebrated athletes who turn their backs on the flag. But Team USA just boldly rejected that garbage narrative on the world stage.

The post WATCH: Unapologetic Patriots! Team USA Belts Out Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” in EPIC Display of American Pride! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.