CAIR Running 'Coordinated National Campaign' To Promote Pro-Terrorist, Anti-Israel Materials in US Public Schools, Investigation Finds

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is running a "coordinated national campaign" to spread pro-terrorist, anti-Israel materials into U.S. public schools, beyond the previously reported programs in Pennsylvania and Delaware, according to a new investigation.

The post CAIR Running 'Coordinated National Campaign' To Promote Pro-Terrorist, Anti-Israel Materials in US Public Schools, Investigation Finds appeared first on .

EXCLUSIVE: Governor Hopeful Highlights Record Of Cracking Down On Chinese Communist Pot
play icon

EXCLUSIVE: Governor Hopeful Highlights Record Of Cracking Down On Chinese Communist Pot

An outside spending group supporting former Republican Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall’s run for governor rolled out a new ad Friday highlighting the gubernatorial candidate’s work to crack down on foreign adversaries owning American land, including illegal Chinese Communist Party-affiliated marijuana operations. The Oklahoma Conservative Coalition, a pro-McCall super PAC, spotlights the former Speaker’s legislation […]

Time to pump the brakes on Big Tech’s AI boondoggle



America already learned a lesson from the Green New Deal: If an industry survives only on special favors, it isn’t ready to stand on its own.

Yet the same game is playing out again — this time for artificial intelligence. The wealthiest companies in history now demand tax breaks, zoning carve-outs, and energy favors on a scale far greater than green energy firms ever did.

Instead of slamming on the accelerator, Washington should be hitting the brakes.

If AI is truly the juggernaut its backers claim, it should thrive on its merits. Technology designed to enhance human life shouldn’t need human subsidies to survive — or to enrich its corporate patrons.

An unnatural investment

Big Tech boosters insist that we stand on the brink of artificial general intelligence, a force that could outthink and even replace humans. No one denies AI’s influence or its future promise, but does that justify the avalanche of artificial investment now driving half of all U.S. economic growth?

The Trump administration continues to hand out favors to Big Tech to fuel a bubble that may never deliver. As the Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip pointed out earlier this month, the largest companies once dominated because their profits came from low-cost, intangible assets such as software, platforms, and network effects. Users flocked to Facebook, Google, the iPhone, and Windows, and revenue followed — with little up-front infrastructure risk.

The AI model looks nothing like that. Instead of software that scales cheaply, Big Tech is sinking hundreds of billions into land, hardware, power, and water. These hyperscale data centers devour resources with little clarity about demand.

According to Ip’s data: Between 2016 and 2023, the free cash flow and net earnings of Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft rose in tandem. Since 2023, however, net income is up 73% while free cash flow has dropped 30%.

“For all of AI’s obvious economic potential, the financial return remains a question mark,” Ip wrote. “OpenAI and Anthropic, the two leading stand-alone developers of large language models, though growing fast, are losing money.”

Andy Lawrence of the Uptime Institute explained the risk: “To suddenly start building data centers so much denser in power use, with chips 10 times more expensive, for unproven demand — all that is an extraordinary challenge and a gamble.”

The cracks are already beginning to show. GPT-5 has been a bust for the most part. Meta froze hiring in its AI division, with Mark Zuckerberg admitting that “improvement is slow for now.” Even TechCrunch conceded: Throwing more data and computing power at large language models won’t create a “digital god.”

Government on overdrive

Yet government keeps stepping on the gas, even as the industry stalls. The “Mag 7” companies spent $560 billion on AI-related capital expenditures in the past 18 months, while generating only $35 billion in revenue. IT consultancy Gartner projects $475 billion will be spent on data centers this year alone — a 42% jump from 2024. Those numbers make no sense without government intervention.

Consider the favors.

Rezoning laws. Data centers require sprawling land footprints. To make that possible, states and counties are bending rules never waived for power plants, roads, or bridges. Northern Virginia alone now hosts or plans more than 85 million square feet of data centers — equal to nearly 1,500 football fields. West Virginia and Mississippi have even passed laws banning local restrictions outright. Trump’s AI action plan ties federal block grants to removing zoning limits. Nothing about that is natural, balanced, fair, or free-market.

Tax exemptions. Nearly every state competing for data centers — including Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Nebraska — offers sweeping tax breaks. Alabama exempts data centers from sales, property, and income taxes for up to 30 years — for as few as 20 jobs. Oregon and Indiana also give property tax exemptions.

RELATED: Big Tech colonization is real — zoning laws are the last line of defense

Photo by the Washington Post via Getty Images

Regulatory carve-outs. Trump’s executive order calls for easing rules under the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other environmental statutes. Conservatives rightly want fewer burdens across the board — but why should Big Tech’s server farms get faster relief than the power plants needed to supply them?

Federal land giveaways. The AI action plan also makes federal land available for private data centers, handing prime real estate to trillion-dollar corporations at taxpayer expense. No other industry gets this benefit.

Stop the scam

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) put it bluntly: “It’s one thing to use technology to enhance the human experience, but it’s another to have technology supplant the human experience.” Right now, AI resembles wind and solar in their early years — a speculative bubble kept alive only through taxpayer largesse.

If AI is truly the innovation its backers claim, it will thrive without zoning exemptions, tax shelters, and federal handouts. If it cannot survive without special favors, then it isn’t ready. Instead of slamming on the accelerator, Washington should be hitting the brakes.

Trump Reclassifying Marijuana Would Be A Huge Political Blunder

Legalizing or downgrading the classification of pot was not a campaign promise by Trump, but was instead apparently raised by a donor at a fundraising event.

Virtual schooling a viable alternative? Thank woke teachers, school closures, and AI



There is a revolution under way in American education that has prompted pearl-clutching on the part of establishmentarians and excitement among families frustrated with the status quo.

The Trump administration's shake-up at the Education Department, the president's war on DEI, and recent successes on the school-choice front certainly have changed the game, particularly where brick-and-mortar schooling is concerned. The revolution, however, is also being waged online, where disruptors are challenging expectations regarding what is possible for at-home instruction.

The Oklahoma State Department of Education announced on Tuesday that it is partnering with the American Virtual Academy, a fully online K-12 preparatory school that is now in the approval process for tuition to be paid for by the Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit program and apparently already has approval for school choice scholarships in several other states.

"Left-wing indoctrination in schools poses a serious threat to our students, and parents deserve more options for their kids," OSDE Superintendent Ryan Walters said in a statement. "We are proud to be one of the first states in the country to do this."

The school's president, Damian Creamer, recently spoke to Blaze News about his academy and about the environment that made this alternative both viable and desirable for some families.

Creamer noted that the pandemic was "very much an eye-opener for a lot of people — getting an inside peek into what is actually going on in the public school system."

RELATED: America's largest teachers' union declares war on the Trump administration, will use kids as foot soldiers

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

When the classrooms were shuttered and schooling temporarily went online, largely at the urging of teachers' unions, parents across the country were afforded a glimpse into the kinds of leftist propaganda being fed to their kids. It is hard to overstate how much this drove the popular backlash in recent years over DEI, critical race theory, and other forms of wokeness.

"The families are saying, 'Hey, that's not what we signed up for, and that's not what we expect. We want our kids to be taught how to think critically. We want them to learn how to read. We want them to learn how to write. We want them to learn arithmetic,'" said Creamer. "Yes, education is where minds are shaped — and if you're going to shape our child's mind, you better make sure that you're not going against our values as a family."

These concerns have prompted many Americans to turn to at-home instruction, which is reportedly America's fastest-growing form of education.

According to the National Home Education Research Institute, there were 3.1 million homeschooled K-12 students in the 2021-2022 school year, up from 2.5 million in spring 2019. Forbes indicated last year that estimates put the number of American homeschooled students at nearly 4 million kids nationwide. As multiple states do not require notification when parents decide to educate their children at home, the number might be much higher.

'We had to get moderation in there quickly.'

The National Center for Education Statistics revealed in a September 2023 publication that the top reasons parents gave in a 2019 survey for homeschooling were: concerns about the school environment; to provide religious instruction; to provide moral instruction; to emphasize family life together; dissatisfaction with schools' academic instruction; to provide a nontraditional approach to education; and/or to help with their child's special needs.

The spike in recent years also appears to have been driven by ruinous school closures, sporadic teachers' union strikes, and the politicization of the classroom.

The AVA started off as the Bridge School, which Creamer indicated had initially catered to athletes and child actors, providing those with roving lifestyles individualized, remote learning solutions. The AVA, however, has a distinctly conservative orientation.

Creamer noted that the idea behind the AVA was not only to provide kids with a high-quality education based on a research-based curriculum and to jettison the customary leftist gobbledygook but to help prepare a generation of productive citizens: "Let's teach them how to be great Americans. Let's teach them to love their country. Let's teach them about the founding principles of our country."

While there are many options when it comes to at-home instruction, Creamer, whose online charter school Primavera is presently in hot water over student test scores, suggested that the unstructured "nomad" style — where parents effectively ad-lib instruction on the go — isn't for everyone.

Some of the families exploring the educational landscape where "there really is no rhyme or reason" may alternatively "choose a virtual school like American Virtual Academy where it's a fully accredited school; it's got a curriculum that's going to lead to a diploma" qualifying them to get into college, he said.

When asked about whether AVA has any plans to get students engaged socially, especially given the risk of isolation when leaving in-person learning, Creamer told Blaze News, "We do, and they socialize every day in the school."

Utilizing AVA's proprietary platform, students and parents alike form pods and clubs, and all of the academy's teachers have their own homerooms. However, just like in the physical classroom, there are rules online.

"Everything is moderated — has to be moderated. Just trust me, we've done it where it wasn't moderated, and that was bad. We had to get moderation in there quickly," said Creamer.

In addition to online social engagements, AVA is planning get-togethers in the real world, including a family, faith, and freedom day event in Arizona, and field trips to the nation's capital as well as to places of civic and historical consequence.

While providing opportunities for student and parent interaction, Creamer noted that "a lot of parents are putting their kids into virtual school because of the socialization" at school — because they don't want their kids getting "into things they don't want their kids to be involved with."

Creamer, who is also the CEO of the e-learning company StrongMind, noted that digital learning is particularly viable now on account of artificial intelligence.

"When the student sets up their profile, that profile — we're learning about the student," said Creamer. "We know where they're at academically. We're benchmark-testing the students so we can see, academically, what they know and what they don't know and where they're at grade level."

Extra to calibrating the learning experience on the basis of an individual student's academic strengths and weaknesses, AI agents can take into account the student's like, dislikes, and career aspirations and offer them a bespoke experience with the aim of maximizing engagement.

"Education like this is where we can start to really move the needle now," said Creamer.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In Latest Term, Supreme Court’s ‘Conservative Majority’ Plays By The Left’s Rules

The Supreme Court continues to grant legitimacy to the leftist revolution that has overtaken and transformed most aspects of our nation.

Supreme Court Deals Blow To Deep State Control In Ruling Against EPA

The D.C. Circuit is essentially the judicial branch version of 'trust the experts,' the only difference being that these judges do not actually have any expert knowledge that makes them more equipped to decide court cases.

Secularists think they won at the Supreme Court — but they’ll lose in the end



The Supreme Court disappointed Christians when it deadlocked in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond.

The justices' 4-4 split keeps in place the ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court that St. Isidore of Seville Virtual School may not operate as a charter school in the state — for now, anyway.

Denying American families access to the winning combination of a Catholic charter school is not only unconstitutional but also unconscionable.

The court’s “non-decision decision” came about, in part, because Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. Barrett did not explain her reasons, but her close ties to Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Clinic and her friendship with a chief adviser to the school likely played a role.

How this happened

In the face of progressive accusations of unethical behavior, the justices recently agreed to a code of conduct that represents “a codification of principles” governing their conduct. Importantly, a justice is “presumed impartial” and “has an obligation to sit unless disqualified.” The code adds, presciently, that “the absence of one Justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an evenly divided Court — potentially preventing the Court from providing a uniform national rule of decision on an important issue.”

Back in 2003, Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett once served as a law clerk, denied a motion for his recusal based on his friendship with then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a named party in a case before the Court.

"The people must have confidence in the integrity of the Justices, and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot-faults," Scalia wrote.

In any event, what is done is done. And more importantly, Barrett’s recusal is not binding for future cases.

The victory that wasn’t

Secularists and opponents of school choice have been celebrating the outcome, even though split decisions do not constitute binding legal precedent.

As Notre Dame Law Professor and Supreme Court scholar Richard Garnett observed, “The do-nothing denouement in this particular round of litigation does not preclude other courts, in other cases, from vindicating the no-discrimination rule and permitting religious schools to participate in charter-school programs.”

Garnett is right. The twin religion clauses of the First Amendment — the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause — permit certification of religious schools like St. Isidore’s as charter schools.

Take, for example, the court’s recent decisions involving the Free Exercise guarantee and school choice initiatives. When the court struck down the “No-Aid” provision in Montana’s state constitution that excluded religious schools and families from a publicly funded scholarship program for students attending private schools, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed the Free Exercise Clause’s demand for fairness.

“A state need not subsidize private education,” he observed. “But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Similarly, in Carson v. Makin, the court found that Maine violated the Constitution when it excluded religious schools from participating in a voucher program for rural students. Roberts, again writing for the court, explained that “the State pays tuition for certain students at private schools — so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.”

No clause against faith

Allowing religious schools such as St. Isidore’s to participate in a state’s charter school program is merely a natural application of this principle of fairness. But what about the Establishment Clause?

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued that certifying St. Isidore’s as a charter school would violate the Establishment Clause.

His argument has some appeal, particularly for secularists who want public schools to have a virtual monopoly over America’s educational system. Granted, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause prohibits public schools from providing religious instruction. Private schools, by contrast, are free to do so. Charter schools receive public funding, but they are privately established and controlled schools with minimal regulatory oversight by the government.

Consequently, charter schools are not state actors. And because they are not state actors, a charter school’s endorsement of any particular religion does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Success secularism can't match

Charter schools currently exist in 45 states and the District of Columbia. A recent study reveals that charter-school students “show greater academic gains than their peers in traditional public schools.” The study also found that “charter students in poverty had stronger growth, equal to seventeen additional days of learning in math and twenty-three additional days of learning in reading, than their [traditional public school] peers in poverty.”

As for the benefits of a Catholic education, Catholic school students “continue to outpace public schools in math and reading, while public school student achievement has not returned to pre-pandemic levels and reading scores continue to decline following a sobering trend last reported in 2022.”

Denying American families access to the winning combination of a Catholic charter school, then, is not only unconstitutional but also unconscionable.

The split decision affirming the Oklahoma Supreme Court means that families in the Sooner State cannot yet benefit from the stellar Catholic education offered by St. Isidore's as a charter school.

Still, it needs repeating: The order does not set precedent. The question of whether the Constitution allows a state to exclude religious schools from its charter program is not settled.

A call for clarification will likely be before the court soon and, with a full bench, we should expect that principles of fairness and religious freedom will prevail.

Trump keeps endorsing the establishment he vowed to fight



Donald Trump’s endorsement of Karrin Taylor Robson in December marked one of the most baffling moves of his political career. Still riding the momentum of his victory, Trump pre-emptively backed a known RINO for Arizona governor — nearly 19 months ahead of the 2026 primary. The endorsement fit a troubling pattern: early-cycle support for anti-Trump Republicans who hadn’t lifted a finger for the movement, while stronger MAGA candidates waited in the wings.

If Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises, he needs to reassert deterrence against weak-kneed incumbents and withhold endorsements in open races until candidates prove themselves.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help.

Arizona illustrates why MAGA must push back hard on Trump’s errant picks. Robson, a classic McCain Republican, publicly criticized Trump as recently as 2022. She ran directly against MAGA favorite Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial primary. Maybe she could merit a reluctant nod in a general election, but nearly two years before the primary? With far better options available?

And indeed, better options emerged. Months later, Rep. Andy Biggs — one of the most conservative voices in Congress and a staunch Trump ally — entered the race. The Arizona drama had a partially satisfying resolution when Trump issued a dual endorsement. But dig deeper, and the story turns sour.

Top Trump political aides reportedly worked for Robson’s campaign, raising serious questions for the MAGA base. Their loyalty seemed to shift only after Robson refused to tout Trump’s endorsement in her campaign ads.

Which brings us to the million-dollar question: Why would Trump endorse candidates so subversive that they feel embarrassed to even mention his support?

The Robson episode is an outlier in one way: Most establishment Republicans eagerly shout Trump’s endorsement from the rooftops. Yet the deeper issue remains. Without MAGA intervention, Trump keeps handing out endorsements to RINOs or to early candidates tied to his political network — often at the expense of better, more loyal alternatives.

A pattern of bad picks

Some defenders claim Trump backs incumbents to push his agenda. That theory falls apart when so many of those same RINOs openly sabotage it.

Take Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Jen Kiggans (R-Va.). Both received Trump’s endorsement while actively working against his legislative priorities — pushing green energy subsidies and obsessing over tax breaks for their donor class. These aren’t minor policy differences. These are full-spectrum RINO betrayals.

Trump wouldn’t dare endorse Chip Roy (R-Texas) for dissenting from the right, so why give cover to Republicans who consistently undermine his mandate from the left?

And don’t chalk this up to political necessity in purple districts. Trump routinely gives away the farm in safe red states, too.

Here's a list of Trump’s Senate endorsements this cycle, straight from Ballotpedia — and it’s not comforting.

You’d struggle to find a single conservative in this bunch. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, and Jim Risch of Idaho all represent the globalist mindset that Trump’s base has spent years fighting. So why did Trump hand them early endorsements — before they even faced a challenge? What exactly is he getting in return?

Well, we know what his loyalty bought last cycle.

After Trump endorsed Mississippi’s other swamp creature, Roger Wicker, against a MAGA primary challenger in 2024, Wicker walked into the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee — and now he’s stalling cuts to USAID. That roadblock has helped keep the DOGE rescissions package from reaching the president’s desk.

Wicker isn’t the only one. Several of Trump’s endorsees have publicly criticized his tariff agenda. Whether or not you agree with those tariffs, the pattern is telling. Trump only seems to call out Republicans who dissent from the right. Meanwhile, the ones who oppose him from the left collect endorsements that wipe out any hope of a MAGA primary.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, grassroots candidates still can’t gain traction — and Trump’s endorsements are a big part of the problem.

Instead of amplifying insurgent conservatives, Trump often plays air support for entrenched incumbents. He clears the field early, blasting apart any challenge before it forms. That’s how we ended up stuck with senators like Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) — both from red states — who routinely block Trump’s nominees and undermine his priorities.

Trump endorsed both Tillis and Cassidy during the 2020 cycle, even as grassroots conservatives geared up to take them on. In fact, almost every red-state RINO in the Senate has received a Trump primary endorsement — some of them twice in just 10 years. That list includes Moore Capito, Graham, Hyde-Smith, and Wicker.

Saving red-state RINOs

What’s worse than endorsing RINOs for Congress in red states? Endorsing RINOs for governor and state legislature.

Yes, Washington is broken. Even in the best years, Republicans struggle to muster anything more than a narrow RINO majority. But the real opportunity lies elsewhere. More than 20 states already lean Republican enough to build permanent conservative power — if we nominate actual conservatives who know how to use it.

The 2026 election cycle will feature governorships in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, to name just a few. These races offer a chance to reset the Republican Party — state by state — with DeSantis-caliber fighters.

Instead, we’re slipping backward.

RELATED: Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Trump has already endorsed Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor — nearly two years before the election. In most red states, Donalds would look like an upgrade. But Florida isn’t most red states. Florida is the citadel of conservatism. It deserves a contested primary, not a coronation. Donalds hasn’t led the way DeSantis has — either nationally or in-state — so why clear the field this early? Why not at least wait and see whether DeSantis backs a candidate?

And don’t forget about the state legislatures.

Freedom Caucuses have made real gains in turning GOP supermajorities into something that matters. But in Texas, House Speaker Dustin Burrows cut a deal with Democrats to grab power — then torched the entire session. Conservative voters are eager to remove Burrows and the cronies who enabled him.

We’ll never drain the swamp this way

This is where Trump should be getting involved — endorsing against the establishment, not propping it up.

Instead, he’s doing the opposite.

Trump recently pledged to back Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows and his entire entourage of RINO loyalists — just because they passed a watered-down school choice bill that also funneled another $10 billion into the state’s broken public-school bureaucracy.

The same pattern holds in Florida.

The House speaker there, Daniel Perez, has consistently blocked Governor Ron DeSantis’ agenda, including efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement — policies that are now a national model. Despite this, Perez cozied up to Byron Donalds. Donalds returned the favor, but refused to take sides in the Perez versus DeSantis clashes. He also ducked the fights against Amendments 3 and 4. So what exactly qualifies Donalds to become Trump’s handpicked candidate in the most important red state in America?

This new paradigm — where candidates secure Trump endorsements just by parroting his name — has allowed RINO governors and legislators to push corporatist policies while staying firmly in Trump’s good graces. They wrap themselves in the MAGA brand without lifting a finger to advance its agenda.

That’s not the movement we were promised.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help. We can’t keep celebrating Trump’s total control of the GOP while hand-waving away the RINOs, as if they’re some separate, unaccountable force. Trump has the power to shape the party. He could use it to clean house.

Instead, he keeps using it to protect the establishment from grassroots primaries.

At the very least, he should withhold endorsements until candidates prove they can deliver on the campaign’s promises. Don’t hand out golden Trump cards before they’ve earned them.

Mr. President, please don’t be such a cheap date.

Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal leaves religious liberty twisting in the wind



The U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlock last week left intact the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling against St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — a failure of constitutional courage and a setback for educational freedom.

The tie lets stand a decision that discriminates against faith-based institutions by denying them the same public charter school opportunities extended to secular organizations. It rests on a misguided reading of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and ignores the protections guaranteed by the Free Exercise clause.

Families deserve more than crumbling bureaucracies and ideological indoctrination. They need real alternatives — the kind private and parochial schools have offered for generations.

Plaintiffs, including the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, made a compelling case: Excluding St. Isidore solely because of its Catholic identity violates the Constitution.

In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot deny religious organizations access to public benefits otherwise available to all. Charter schools, while publicly funded, operate independently and serve as laboratories of innovation. St. Isidore committed to meeting Oklahoma’s curriculum standards and serving any student who applied. Its disqualification stemmed from one reason alone: its religious mission.

That’s religious discrimination, plain and simple.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court misread the Establishment Clause, and the U.S. Supreme Court failed to correct the error. The clause doesn’t forbid religious organizations to participate in public programs. It forbids the state to establish an official religion — not from offering families the freedom to choose a Catholic education within a public framework.

St. Isidore wouldn’t force anyone to adhere to Catholic doctrine. It would simply give parents another option — one grounded in a Judeo-Christian worldview and committed to academic excellence. Banning that option undermines pluralism and silences voices that have historically delivered high standards and moral clarity in American education.

Meanwhile, public education in the United States teeters toward collapse. Students trail their peers globally. In some districts, basic literacy remains out of reach. Families deserve more than crumbling bureaucracies and ideological indoctrination. They need real alternatives — the kind private and parochial schools have offered for generations.

Faith-based schools routinely outperform their government-run counterparts. Instead of blocking them from public charter programs, states should welcome their success and harness their model. Innovation doesn’t threaten the system. It might save it.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, despite claiming to be a Republican, sided with liberal secularists in opposing St. Isidore. His legal brief warned of “chaos” and raised alarm over hypothetical funding for “radical Islamic schools” — a tired slippery-slope argument that ignores the core issue of equal treatment under the law.

RELATED: This red-state attorney general has declared war on the First Amendment

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Drummond abandoned conservative principles like school choice and religious liberty. Instead, he backed those who place rigid interpretations of church-state separation above fairness. His stance helped fuel the Supreme Court’s deadlock and undercut Oklahoma families seeking diverse educational options.

The Supreme Court’s failure to resolve this question, due in part to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal, leaves a constitutional gray area: Can states bar religious organizations from public programs that remain open to everyone else?

Parents deserve the right to choose schools that reflect their values — whether religious or secular. By excluding St. Isidore, the state has effectively declared that faith-based institutions are second-class citizens. That’s not just bad policy. It’s a dangerous precedent in a nation founded on religious liberty.

The founders never intended to wall off religion from public life. They saw the Christian faith and Judeo-Christian values as cornerstones of strong, free societies. Most early American schools were church-run. Today, the pendulum has swung too far to the left. Progressive bureaucrats attack the very moral foundations that made America successful in the first place.

If we want to make America great again, we need to reclaim those values and push back against the cultural nonsense that sidelines faith.

If we want to reverse the decline of American education, we need more choices — not fewer. This fight isn’t over. Oklahoma will keep defending parental rights and religious freedom. The St. Isidore case remains unfinished business — and we intend to finish it. Faith-based schools must have the freedom to educate our children without unconstitutional restrictions.