CURE

Closing out National Reading Month, we’re reminded that childhood literacy is the foundation for lifelong success. Thank you @SLOTUS for helping spark a love of reading in the next generation.

Eugenicist. The one word that captures her essence. Definition: A person who advocates for the genetic improvement of the human population through selective breeding, sterilization, or the elimination (by prevention or destruction) of those deemed "unfit," defective, or burdensome — often targeting the poor, disabled, large families, or certain racial/ethnic groups. Margaret Sanger embodied this perfectly: she didn't just promote birth control for individual choice; she explicitly pushed it as a tool to "weed out the unfit," called killing infants in large families "the most merciful thing," and worked to reduce reproduction among those she considered human weeds.

What happens when pro-choicers see a video on basic fetal development?

On this Palm Sunday, as we remember Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey—humble, faithful, and fully trusting in God's plan—I'm reminded that even in uncertain times, our call is to walk in obedience and faith. Holy Week has begun. Let’s fix our eyes on the King who came to serve and save. #PalmSunday

🚨 WATCH: I told my Democrat colleagues the truth about abortion— how half of abortions in Ohio last year were performed on black women and how an estimated 20 million black babies have been killed in the womb since Roe v. Wade. They hated hearing the truth so much that they ridiculously accused me of violating "all the rules" of the Ohio House. But I will not shut up about the genocide of the unborn in my community.

Tennessee House passes HB 754 (70-21): Gender clinics must report stats on transition procedures (age, sex, county, type) for public annual report. Insurers covering gender surgeries/hormones must also cover detransition care. Awaits Senate vote.

@Nickibnhistory @AP The world realized that it had made a mistake; all are slowly moving back to normalcy. This ideology is dead; some still have not gotten the memo.

@CUREpolicy @AP I would correct you and say the correct word is MEN. But there very well may be just one man.

BREAKING: Trans women athletes are banned from the Olympics by a new IOC policy on female eligibility. apnews.com/article/ioc-ol…

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Biological males are now officially barred from competing in women's sports at the Olympics. The International Olympic Committee has announced that, starting with the 2028 Los Angeles Games, eligibility for the women's category will be limited to biological females — verified by a one-time genetic test (checking for the SRY gene). This move protects fairness, safety, and the integrity of women's competition. Next thing you know they will create the Trans Olympics — a competition where athletes of all "imaginary gender identities" can compete without restrictions and all must win because you cannot hurt anybody's feelings. That way, all of the "they-them, she-her and the he-him's" can participate freely, and we can finally stop forcing biological females to compete against biological males.

Trans women are officially banned from competing in women’s sports at the Olympics cbc.ca/9.7142798

Revolutionary Tourism: Inside the $600M marriage of dark money and far-left agitprop foxnews.com/us/revolutiona… #FoxNews

The Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony reached the lowest point in 2024. On the world's biggest stage, performers — including men dressed as women — staged a scene that millions of Christians recognized as a deliberate mockery of the Last Supper. Take a moment to think of what they did! The Last Supper was the sacred final meal Jesus Christ shared with His disciples the night before His crucifixion. He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, “This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Then He took the cup and declared, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins.” That moment symbolized His coming sacrifice on the cross, the establishment of the New Covenant, and the offer of redemption and salvation for all humanity. What was broadcast to billions was not innocent artistic expression — it was a grotesque parody that treated one of Christianity’s most holy events with contempt. This is not “inclusion.” It reflects a perverse ideology that refuses to stop at personal pretense and instead demands the desecration of what over two billion Christians hold sacred. The world should reject this, not celebrate it.

@people Let me correct the title @people Biological Males Barred from Competing at the Women’s Olympic Events Ahead of 2028 Los Angeles Games Stop lying to people.

Transgender Women Barred from Competing at Olympics Ahead of 2028 Games in Los Angeles people.com/transgender-wo…

The Land of Education Freedom.

@SkyNews @RobHarris They are simply banning males from female sports, that's all.

Grok has kindly generated an analysis of this NBC News article on the Ohio State University investigation: The NBC News article shows noticeable bias, primarily through its framing, word choice, and selective emphasis. Key facts reported (accurate): The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Civil Rights Division led by Harmeet Dhillon, has launched a Title VI compliance review into Ohio State University College of Medicine’s admissions practices. This was inadvertently revealed by a social media photo posted by Dhillon. The review requests detailed admissions data from 2019–2026 to check for potential race-based discrimination, following the 2023 Supreme Court ruling banning race-conscious admissions. Ohio State has stated it is fully compliant with federal law and has already eliminated its DEI office. Evidence of bias: The headline and lead focus heavily on the “photo reveal” as an embarrassing mistake rather than the substance of the investigation. Loaded language describes the DOJ’s actions as shifting toward “conservative causes,” “gutting” traditional priorities, and highlights Dhillon’s conservative background and provocative statements like “DEI delenda est.” The piece frames enforcement of race-neutral admissions as partisan or controversial, while downplaying Ohio State’s denial of any wrongdoing and its compliance claims. Overall tone treats the probe as politically motivated rather than a legitimate application of civil rights law. This is a classic example of narrative bias through emphasis and loaded wording, even though the core facts are correct. Grok is helping with bias language detection by breaking down the article into factual content versus framing devices, loaded terms, and selective emphasis. This approach highlights how media can shape perception without fabricating facts.

The Justice Dept. has launched an investigation into admissions policies at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, according to the university and a social media post by the head of the department’s Civil Rights Division. nbcnews.com/politics/justi…

@NBCNews You mean making it a crime for biological males to use women’s bathrooms — even in private businesses? This is a proper title for your story: “Idaho bill would make it a crime for biological males to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms — even in private businesses” There’s no epidemic of women using men’s bathrooms. There are no transgender dogs, donkeys, or lions. Why? Because they don’t exist — they’re biological males who dress up as women. To each their own, but they are not a different sex or gender. People are free to believe whatever they want, but biology and reality don’t care about your perception.

Idaho lawmakers are considering a bill that would make it a crime for transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity — even inside privately owned businesses. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/s…

BREAKING: Kentucky Senate just passed a bill banning taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot measures. The vote was 29–8. It already passed the House 75–16. It now goes to Governor Andy Beshear. Anyone violating this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Christine Lagarde’s keynote assertion that energy disruptions from the ongoing Middle East conflict may last for years, with economic consequences unfolding only gradually, represents a textbook example of macroeconomic myopia. It overlooks the fundamental mechanics of global crude-oil supply, the swing-producer role of Gulf OPEC members, and the decisive influence of U.S. presidential diplomacy on production decisions. As an oil-market and financial analyst with decades of experience tracking physical supply dynamics, cartel behavior, and geopolitical leverage, I view this assessment as detached from how the oil complex actually operates. Supply shocks are not immutable geological or political constants; they are frequently resolved through rapid, incentive-driven adjustments once key actors align. Historical Precedent: Trump’s 2018 Intervention and the Rapid Supply Response The clearest illustration is the 2018 episode, when President Trump directly engaged Saudi Arabia and OPEC+ to offset anticipated supply losses from renewed U.S. sanctions on Iran and Venezuelan collapse. The sequence and outcomes are instructive: Pre-request baseline (early-to-mid June 2018): Brent crude averaged approximately $74–$77 per barrel amid tightening balances. OPEC+ was still operating under prior restraint agreements, with Saudi Arabia producing around 10 million barrels per day (bpd) following compliance with earlier cuts. Global spare capacity existed but was being withheld. Trump’s outreach (June 5–30, 2018): The U.S. quietly requested an additional ~1 million bpd from Saudi Arabia and select OPEC producers. On June 22, OPEC+ formally agreed to raise collective output by roughly 700,000–1 million bpd. Trump’s public June 30 tweet to King Salman explicitly requested up to 2 million bpd and claimed agreement. At the time, the market interpreted this as credible pressure from Washington. Production ramp and time lag: Saudi Arabia responded within weeks. Output rose sharply through July and August, with the kingdom pushing toward record levels. By November 2018, Saudi crude production had reached 11.1 million bpd—an increase of more than 1 million bpd from the pre-ramp baseline. Broader OPEC+ supply followed suit, with the full incremental barrels reaching the market within 1–3 months of the June decision. Price impact: Brent peaked near $86 per barrel in early October 2018 (roughly 3–4 months after the OPEC+ agreement), driven partly by lingering Iran-sanction fears. However, the added supply, combined with rising U.S. shale output, produced a swift reversal. By December 2018—just 5–6 months after Trump’s intervention—Brent had collapsed to approximately $57 per barrel. The price relief was not instantaneous, but it materialized far faster than multi-year forecasts would suggest, demonstrating how incremental supply from low-cost Gulf producers can rebalance the market once diplomatic channels are activated. This episode was not an anomaly. Saudi Arabia, as de-facto swing producer with historically 2–3 million bpd of spare capacity, has repeatedly shown willingness to adjust output when U.S. strategic interests and bilateral relationships align—particularly under administrations that maintain close ties with Riyadh and the wider Arab OPEC bloc. Application to the Current 2026 Context In the present scenario, where Iran’s role in regional energy flows has been materially disrupted, Lagarde’s warning of protracted, multi-year shocks assumes stasis in OPEC+ decision-making. Once the conflict involving Iran reaches resolution—a development that appears increasingly probable under the current U.S. administration—the dynamics will shift dramatically. President Trump has already demonstrated, in both his first term and recent months, an ability to secure incremental barrels from Gulf producers at relatively low political cost. Arab OPEC nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait) hold the overwhelming majority of global spare capacity and have strong incentives to cooperate: preserving U.S. security partnerships, supporting stable global growth, and protecting long-term market share against higher-cost non-OPEC supply. A post-resolution outreach would likely trigger a production ramp analogous to 2018—potentially 1 million bpd or more within 1–3 months—flooding the market with low-cost crude and rapidly alleviating price pressures. The economic consequences would not “gradually become apparent” over years; they would be visible in futures curves, refinery margins, and headline inflation within quarters, not years. Lagarde’s perspective is emblematic of a broader institutional blind spot among central bankers and macroeconomists. Oil is not a textbook commodity governed solely by aggregate demand elasticities and long-term investment cycles. It is a strategic asset shaped by spare capacity, cartel cohesion, and high-level diplomacy. Models that project multi-year energy shocks without incorporating these variables systematically understate the speed with which markets can rebalance when political will and physical capacity converge. The 2018 precedent is not ancient history; it is a repeatable template. Once the current geopolitical overhang is removed, expect Gulf producers to respond as they have before—swiftly, pragmatically, and in volumes sufficient to restore equilibrium far sooner than consensus forecasts anticipate.

@EDSecMcMahon Alert: Denver Public Schools continues operating an LGBTQ+ Education Advisory Council using taxpayer funds, including a dedicated official page on their district website (dpsk12.org). This follows your office’s prior Title IX violation findings against Denver regarding all-gender bathrooms and their LGBTQ+ Toolkit. Details here: dpsk12.org/page/lgbtq-edu…

@AP @AP I think you meant to say “Man.”

Grok generated a clear analysis of the original @AP headline: Original Title: "Trans women athletes are banned from the Olympics by a new IOC policy on female eligibility" What's wrong with it (clear breakdown): "Banned from the Olympics" — This is inaccurate and sensational. The policy does not ban anyone from participating in the entire Olympic Games. It only restricts eligibility for the female category. Biological males (including trans women who went through male puberty) can still compete in the male category if they meet the qualification standards. "Trans women athletes" — This uses gender-identity language as the primary descriptor, framing the issue around self-identified gender rather than biological sex. It treats "trans women" as a separate third category instead of acknowledging they are biologically male. Overall effect — It creates the impression of a total exclusion or persecution ("banned from the Olympics"), which is activist-style framing. This evokes sympathy and controversy while downplaying the actual purpose: protecting the female category from retained male physiological advantages (strength, speed, power, etc.). The subtitle or body often clarifies it somewhat ("excluded from women's events"), but the main headline misleads for emotional impact. The IOC's actual policy (announced March 26, 2026) limits the female/women's category to biological females, confirmed via a simple one-time SRY gene test. Athletes with the SRY gene (typically indicating male development) are ineligible for female events but remain eligible for male/open categories. Better Rewritten Title (accurate and neutral): "IOC limits Olympic women's events to biological females under new female eligibility policy" Other strong, clear alternatives: "IOC restricts women's Olympic category to biological females via SRY gene test" "New IOC policy bars biological males from competing in Olympic women's events" "Olympic female category now open only to biological females, per IOC announcement" These versions are precise: they focus on the category being protected (women's/female), use biological terms where relevant, and avoid implying a total ban from the Games. They state what the policy actually does without spin.