Month: April 2025

RFK Jr: «And clearly, there are industries. This comes from an environmental toxin, and someone

The post RFK Jr on Autism: “Someone Profited” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In 1919, Lenin formed the Communist International, COMINTERN. Its stated purpose was to promote Communist revolutions worldwide. Its actual function was to allow the Soviet Union, when caught meddling in another country’s internal affairs, to say, “Oh, that’s not us, that’s the COMINTERN. We don’t control them.” In Lenin and Stalin’s Russia. Right. 

Historically, it has been harder for parties on the right to work across national boundaries. Most of those parties were and are nationalist, and nationalism makes for uncomfortable international bedfellows. Each wants most of the blanket. But today we see nationalist conservative parties such as Germany’s Alternative for Germany, France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, and Britain’s Reform Party facing issues that cross national boundaries. Not only could they benefit from working together; in some cases the challenges can only be met by doing so. We need a Conservative International, or CONINTERN. 

Three cases illustrate the point. The first is immigration. The United States and Britain can deal with illegal or other undesirable immigration on their own. President Donald Trump is doing so in the U.S., and the same Channel that saved Britain from the French and German armies could stop the immigrants if the British government had the will to do so. But Europe finds itself in a different situation. The migrants must be stopped at the borders of Europe itself. Once they get in, they will find some weak-kneed government that will allow them to remainstay. Europe’s open internal borders then permit them to move wherever the welfare payments are best. A CONINTERN could coordinate national responses in those countries that choose not to be overrun by people who will never acculturate. 

The dimensions of the migrant threat will only grow. A combination of birth rates, climate change, state failure, and economic disasters will create a massive flow of people from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern over the remainder of the century. It will be the equivalent of the Volkerwanderung, the movement of whole peoples, that brought down the Roman Empire. Conservatives throughout what is left of Christendom will need to work together to stop it. A CONINTERN could develop both the means for effective defense and the will to employ those means, something not to be expected from establishment political parties. At least for Europe, only a trans-national approach will work.

A second threat that needs a CONINTERN to counter it is the coming world-wide debt and financial crisis. All around the world, both governments and individuals are living 

beyond their means and piling up ever-greater heaps of debt in order to do so. At some point, lenders will panic and stop lending at rates anyone can afford. When the disco ball goes dark, the party will be over in dramatic fashion. Imagine a world with no credit.

Populist conservative parties have a common interest in preparing for the collapse. Some will be in power, and they will have to advance effective solutions to remain in power. (Note to President Trump: this means you). Others, out of power, can win elections by being the only kid on the block with a credible response. Thankfully, I’m not an economist—an economist is someone who makes you an offer you can’t understand—but I think that when people panic, only one thing remains certain: Gold is valuable. By working out gold-based solutions before the crisis hits, real conservative parties can position themselves to grab the golden snitch. A CONINTERN would be ideal for that purpose. 

A third challenge already facing populist conservatives in some countries, especially Britain, is the existence of a large Lumpenproletariat that lives on the dole. I’m talking about physically and mentally able people in economies facing labor shortages. They live on welfare because they are allowed to do so. Not only are they a financial burden on the state—see debt crisis, above—the fact that their lives have no purpose leads to drugs, violence, and despair. We do people who can work no favors when we save them from having to work. 

Here, a policy solution is easy to envision. It is restoring the old Protestant distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. The latter are those who can work but won’t. All the state need do is cut off their welfare payments. 

But populist conservatives face a political challenge doing that: many of the undeserving poor vote for populist conservatives. Here, a CONINTERN could pioneer a trans-national drive to restore the dignity of labor. Conservatives’ belief in the local and small-scale could help create a new Arts and Crafts movement. Schools could put more emphasis on learning a trade. Deregulation could allow ordinary people with skills to easily set up shop. Here, a CONINTERN would function as a forum where people with similar values could share ideas and experience-based knowledge of what works and what doesn’t. 

Let’s steal an idea from Comrade Lenin and create a CONINTERN. It will add to his miseries in hell and please Czar Nicholas II in heaven. 

The post It’s Time for a CONINTERN appeared first on The American Conservative.

Pope Francis, born Jorge Bergoglio, died Monday morning at the age of 88 at his Vatican residence, per an official statement.

The late pontiff had undergone a lengthy hospital stay following an attack of bronchitis in February.

Arrangements for the funeral and subsequent conclave, at which the College of Cardinals will select the next pope, are forthcoming.

Francis, a divisive figure known for controversial statements, was elected the first leader of the Catholic Church from the New World in March 2013, following the late Pope Benedict XVI, broadly viewed as a conservative.

The post Pope Francis Dead at 88 appeared first on The American Conservative.

US Vice President JD Vance meeting Pope Francis at the Casa Santa Marta a day before his death (Credit: Vatican)

Pope Francis (born Jorge Mario Bergoglio), the first Latin American pontiff, passed away Monday morning at the age of 88.

The Vatican’s Camerlengo of the Apostolic Chamber, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, announced that the Pope died at 7:35 AM in Vatican City.

“Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father,” Farrell said in a statement.

“His entire life was dedicated to the service of the Lord and of His Church. He taught us to live the values of the Gospel with fidelity, courage, and universal love, especially in favor of the poorest and most marginalized. With immense gratitude for his example as a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, we commend the soul of Pope Francis to the infinite merciful love of the One and Triune God.”

He has been discharged from hospital, but told to rest for another two months (Credit: ANTONIO MASIELLO/GETTY IMAGES)

In February, Francis, long criticized by conservatives for steering the Church into left-wing political activism rather than defending tradition and morality, began suffering from a serious respiratory infection, which has now developed into double pneumonia—an aggressive infection that inflames both lungs.

A Vatican statement confirmed that the pope underwent a chest CAT scan, revealing the onset of double pneumonia.

The statement added, “polymicrobial infection, which has arisen in the context of bronchiectasis and asthmatic bronchitis, and has required the use of corticosteroid and antibiotics, makes the therapeutic treatment more complex.”

“A follow-up chest CT scan, to which the Holy Father was subjected this afternoon—prescribed by the Vatican medical team and the medical staff of the “A. Gemelli” Polyclinic Foundation—revealed the onset of bilateral pneumonia, requiring additional pharmacological therapy.”

“Nevertheless,” the press release adds, “Pope Francis remains in good spirits.”

Previous reports indicate that Pope Francis himself is deeply worried about his survival.

RadarOnline.com reveals that the 88-year-old pontiff has reportedly informed his aides that he “won’t survive” and is “preparing for death” while he battles pneumonia in the hospital.

Doctor Alfieri, head of his medical team revealed yesterday (25) that Francis came to be so close to death at certain point that doctors considered ending his pneumonia treatment so he could just die in peace.

“The doctor said it was the pope’s personal nurse, Massimiliano Strappetti, who urged the medical team to keep up the treatment in the wake of the vomiting episode.”

After a grueling battle against double pneumonia and a bout of kidney failure in the hospital for 38 days, Pope Francis returned to the Vatican in March.

The doctors have warned that it will still take a long time for Francis to fully heal.

The Pope was prescribed another two months of rest at the Vatican, and he is to avoid large or stressful meetings.

In his brief balcony appearance, Francis’ face ‘looked swollen’, but he was not using oxygen and was breathing on his own.

According to Vatican News, in 1957, while in his early 20s, Jorge Mario Bergoglio underwent surgery in his native Argentina to remove part of his lung following a severe respiratory infection.

As he aged, Pope Francis continued to experience recurring respiratory issues, including a bout of influenza and lung inflammation that forced him to cancel a scheduled visit to the United Arab Emirates in November 2023.

On Easter Sunday morning, just a day before his death, Pope Francis held a brief private meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance at the Casa Santa Marta shortly after 11:30 a.m.

According to the Holy See Press Office, the meeting lasted only a few minutes and served as an opportunity to exchange Easter greetings.

The Vatican has released the second edition of the Ordo Exsequiarum Romani Pontificis, introducing significant changes to the funeral rites of a pope, “including how the Pope’s mortal remains are to be handled after death.”

Among the most notable updates is a new procedure for confirming the death of the Holy Father, which now takes place in a chapel rather than the room where he passed. The Pope’s body is immediately placed in the coffin following this ritual.

Archbishop Diego Ravelli, Master of Apostolic Ceremonies, emphasized that Pope Francis had requested a simplified funeral that centered on the Church’s faith in the Resurrection of Christ.

“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”

This story has been updated with additional information.

The post BREAKING:​ Pope Francis Dies at 88, Vatican Announces appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Facing a packed room at the capital Quito’s Hilton Colón, where Ecuador’s electoral body (CNE) has set up a bustling command center, twenty special forces—balaclava-clad and armed to the teeth—flank a table of five empty seats where results will soon be certified. It’s past 8 p.m. on election night, amid a militarized, state-of-emergency presidential run-off, and polls closed three hours ago. To the surprise of regional observers, left-populist runner-up Luisa González just said she won’t assent to Daniel Noboa’s re-election, which by this point has become all but assured. With 80 percent of nearly 14 million votes counted, ubiquitous screens beam the incumbent’s lead in all but five of the country’s 24 provinces, surpassing the million-vote mark nationally and reaching an impressive 12-point lead.

The CNE head’s rubber-stamping address concluded, she joins a suffocating gaggle down the atrium. The security detail tracks her every step as she urges reporters and observers alike to disown “Luisa’s” denialist antics. They seamlessly adjust formations around their asset, scoping out exits at every turn.

Armbands and patches mark the intimidating members of this elite commando as Amazon counterinsurgents, rangers in an indigenous-soldiers unit, veterans of urban combat, or officers trained in “Krav Maga” self-defense tactics. This war readiness is an unmistakable deterrent. Under the threat of endless narco-crime, the Ecuadorean state stands armed, too—and ready to defend the nation, and the election results, at rifle point.

Noboa triumphed on Palm Sunday, and profane analogies to the gospels would befit a less devout nation than Ecuador. Tight polling had tensed the race, viewed as “round four” of a multi-stage face-off against González that began nearly two years ago. In early February this year, Noboa’s first-round lead was a photo-finish 0.17 points. Even his run-off margin of 3.66 percent against González in November 2023, historically large at the time, stands now trebled. Still, despite his rising popularity and the state forces available to him, Noboa has been chided for lacking a long-term governing vision amidst Ecuador’s travails with drug-related violence.

The country was long an outlier of safety and quiet in an otherwise perilous region. Yet by the time Noboa took the reins, Ecuador had become Latin America’s most violent hotspot, spiraling downward in a state of failure that began under left-wing strongman Rafael Correa, who fled corruption charges in 2017, took asylum in Belgium, and was later sentenced in absentia for bribery. Amidst a global surge in cocaine production, transnational crime has found in Ecuador’s Pacific shores a convenient transit point for the white stuff. Homicide rates stood at nearly 50 per 100,000 when Noboa took over, with Mexican cartels, the Albanian mafia, and their Ecuadorean acolytes engulfing the coast. Emigration has spiked, sending Ecuadorean illegals across the U.S. border. Human capital has shrunk in a climate of fear.

The climate worsened in August 2023, when Colombian hitmen killed law-and-order candidate Fernando Villavicencio on the stump, propelling Noboa’s candidacy that year. Months later, after Noboa assumed office, hooded gunmen stormed a TV station and threatened to shoot the prime-time anchors point-blank. Around the same time, a high-security prison riot erupted after an assassin had broken free. Noboa declared an “internal armed conflict” against twenty-two “organized delinquent groups” (GDOs), not unlike the emergencies the region’s caudillos of yesteryear would proclaim, and that human rights discourse now depicts as obvious pretexts invoked to wage ruthless civil wars and amass power and privilege. The term “guerrilla” wouldn’t misrepresent the warfare tactics these delinquent groups often use. Dealing with them as domestic terror threats, as the state has done since a referendum last year beefed up the government’s extradition and penitentiary clout, is exactly what many Ecuadorians want.

Noboa is known as the scion to a business empire, but statesmanship runs in the family, too. His grandfather, Gustavo Noboa, was president in the early 2000s, and in the 1850s, a more distant ancestor led a liberal revolution. Yet the political ambition that seemed an inbred family trait went frustrated under his father Álvaro’s failed bids for the presidency. Daniel has had better luck in politics, and though he has won elections to the highest office, and despite his party ADN rebranding to center the man himself, his outsider aura from 2023 hadn’t waned in this year’s elections. Highways were strewn and windows adorned with cutouts of him, and transcending the “politics of old” was again a near-constant refrain. At Noboa’s poor debate performance three weeks ago, the shibboleth seemed to mask his lack of preparation and cocky underestimation of González.

Even against a left-populist opponent, Noboa’s form of bourgeois, personality politics apparently did not cost him undecided voters. Miami-born, with degrees from Harvard, Northwestern’s Kellogg School, New York University, and George Washington University, he rolled into his polling station on Sunday near his downtime estate, close to Guayaquil, with his blonde influencer wife and two cartoonishly polished kids in tow.

Noboa’s campaign team kept composure and wisely let the pettiness, ineptitude, and unpopularity of others do their work for them. González has been widely seen as wanting to roll out the red carpet for Correa’s return from exile through a last-ditch attempt to overturn the 2020 bribery ruling. She is also rumored to have a child with the former president, her mentor. The unproved theory was peddled during the campaign homestretch by Erik Prince of Blackwater, a U.S. military contractor whose defense deals with the Ecuadorean state were on the line in this election. Noboa’s ex-wife lashed out at the president to El País, the Spanish left-wing daily, but her interview seemed to fall on deaf ears. Portrayals of Noboa as a lawless, megalomaniac despot were amped up as well, to no apparent effect. Inviting Puerto Rican reggaeton star Tito el Bambino to his closing rally in Guayaquil, in contravention of culturally protectionist rules for campaign season, was doubtless a legal misstep, but largely viewed as harmless, even humorous. A damning profile of Noboa by John Lee Anderson of The New Yorker a few months back was effectively disowned by aides as a hit job, and similarly flopped beyond elite circles.

One reading of Noboa’s shock win is that his time in office, though disappointing to many, was too short for any perceived inadequacies to matter. His record on security was somewhat positive, but improvements are hardly noticeable to most Ecuadorians. Timid declines in homicides were offset by surging extortions and kidnappings. Ecuador’s legal quandaries have worsened, even as the global kerfuffle around the detention last year at Quito’s Mexican embassy of Jorge Glas, Correa’s former VP and corruption accomplice, seems to have subsided, pending an ICJ ruling. Noboa is increasingly portrayed as Bukele-on-the-Andes by progressive outlets and human rights lobbies, especially after a group of Afro-descending kids thought to be on the narco-pipeline were disappeared by an army squad at an anti-drug raid in Guayaquil. After welcoming with open arms refugees from nearby Venezuela, which González pounded him for, Noboa has pledged to swiftly deport the lawless ones. The proposal out-polls González’s idea of community-based watchmen patrols (gestores de la paz). Her ties to Venezuela’s left-wing president Nicolás Maduro remained a liability even after claiming that increasing deportations to Venezuela would require recognizing the strongman’s sham reelection from last summer. Her rival’s promise to do it without formal recognition is close to the legal truth, and was believed by most Ecuadoreans.

Noboa’s timid successes on the economy, where he trailed his adversary, similarly failed to register, and these days the perennial bugaboo of neoliberalism isn’t as salient a problem as it once was. His platform was often limited to opposing Luisa’s toying with de-dollarization, which Ecuadoreans correlate with the instability and inflation of the 1990s sucre. Ecuador is no longer on the verge of payroll default, as when Noboa first took office, but the fiscal situation remains worrying. Noboa weaved together a message of improving safety and prosperity, a correlation Ecuadoreans largely feel. He emphasized that organized crime, not individual bad apples, fuel the crime epidemic—and that he knows how to solve the problem. Yet short of an ambitious bargain with Washington—whose support for Ukraine and Israel he has condemned—Noboa’s security agenda may continue to lack cash for DEA-style, first-world operations.

Up until the sunny humidity of campaign season, Ecuador was hit by droughts. The mass blackouts its largely hydroelectric system produced dinted Noboa’s popularity, and his misplaced embrace of EU-style environmentalism offers room for improvement in his full-length term. His 2023 election was synced with plebiscites on mineral extraction where he tacked to zealot conservationism, leaving the open boulevard of extractive developmentalism to González. Ecuador’s fiscal straits and the rise in prominence of fracking and aggressive extraction should change that, especially since illegal mining has gone on anyway in some areas. The latter has fed corrupt politicians and endangered indigenous communities and biodiversity more than a responsible strategy of vetting, contracting, and observing international protocols ever would.

Another cloud hanging over Noboa’s campaign was the potential backlash to his war on drugs, which risks being seen as slow-moving, costly, and tyrannical. Reams of academic research have shown that military-grade, scorched-earth operations against cartels often prove ham-fisted and counter-productive. That literature recommends instead surgical jobs to take out the bloodiest assassins even at the cost of leaving small-scale urban traffickers in place. Several of Noboa’s advisors, though mostly confident that González’s overtures to a tacit, pacifying deal with the GDOs would prove self-defeating, worried that his 2023 voters would have second thoughts and come to question his depiction of the proposed conciliation as ushering in a “narco-state.” Those voters may yet turn against Noboa. Innocents are bound to die in the crossfire, and survivors likely to change their vote, when an all-out war is declared against the drug peddlers.

Of course, Ecuadoreans didn’t weigh these arguments in the same ways that academics do, since crime for them is not an abstraction but embedded in their daily lives. With their president’s mission far from complete, they are not for switching horses midstream, and they palpably trust the unrelenting and uncompromising character they sense in Noboa and no other Ecuadorian leader. The outsider president, furthermore, openly acknowledges the rot in the bowels of state and promises to drive it out.

Beyond Ecuador, Noboa remains unclassifiable. If his tough-on-crime aura earned him parallels with Bukele, the ample mandate he has now secured is already fodder for louder accusations of authoritarianism. Yet his election can’t be read in normal global terms, and labeling him “conservative” or “right-wing,” as much of the Spanish-speaking press does, isn’t right. Noboa is, if anything, a centrist and a pragmatist, and international observers should understand that his reputation and apparent ideology comes filtered through the abnormal prism of crime-related politics.

Noboa’s personalism and ideological ambiguity on major issues has been deliberate. His political strength lies in a palpable impatience with dogma and a preference for boldness and sovereign decision. Noboa was depicted in a recent New Yorker piece doggedly asking advisors for options on building a high-security prison… in Antarctica. Aside from an informal chat at his West Palm Beach estate in March, Noboa has not yet officially met with President Donald Trump, but has already touted goodwill from the U.S. leader. When the time comes, the mutual paeans traded in the Oval will have been written in advance. 

Given Noboa’s untapped right-populist potential, some of his aides are working to squeeze him into the molds of disciplined partisanship, if not professional politicking. Yet a traditionally right-wing line is a risky bet, given the unpopularity of conservatism in the wake of his predecessor, Guillermo Lasso. But it’s not clear how long he can sustain his vagueness on social and moral matters, even if his crusade against crime proves successful. Neither of the races he has won was fought on culture battlelines, but hot-button culture-war issues can bubble up in Ecuadorian politics. Correa, for instance, officially put binary sex over gender identity and re-affirmed the sanctity of life, and he got credit for keeping closed the Pandora’s box of hyper-progressivism, but the moves also lowered the salience of culture issues in future elections. Noboa eschews ideology out of a deeply-held instinct, not a contingent calculus, but if a progressive challenger arises, he may have to pick up the banner of traditionalism—and risk alienating young voters who would otherwise favor his tough-on-crime approach.

Aligning with Trump and the global anti-woke wave would therefore bring political costs, at least potentially, so Noboa would rather keep the focus on security, meaning he has every incentive to crack down on crime. Senior voters thought to have swung the election in Noboa’s favor, meanwhile, are already sold on rightism. 

Noboa, of course, needs to consider voters of all ages and ideologies as he navigates political challenges. Voting abstention is not really a choice in Ecuador, where casting a ballot is compulsory on penalty of $47 or losing access to public services. Noboa is not inclined to engineer bold ideological policies, and he seems for now to lack the organizational super-structure on which he could one day outsource the job. Rallying his people against the scourge of violence, meanwhile, seems a wise move. If he can pull it off, he’ll not only guarantee his continued electoral viability, but his status as a transformational figure.

The post ‘Ecuador’s Bukele’ Is His Own Man appeared first on The American Conservative.

With one quasi-win at the Supreme Court and one still evolving at a lower immigration court, it is safe to call it a soft 2–0 for President Donald Trump on immigration matters. The courts did not significantly curtail Trump’s power as desired by the left, but also did not allow the creation of a constitutional black hole in El Salvador that would have greatly increased his power. Of course, there are still big questions to be addressed as appeals play out.

An immigration judge recently ruled the Trump administration can deport Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a decision that comes a month after his arrest marked the start of the federal government’s crackdown on foreign students. The U.S. revoked Khalil’s green card under a little-used part of immigration law: The United States can take away green cards from legal permanent residents, as well as student visas, simply if “the Secretary of State determines that the applicant’s activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.”

No due process is directly provided by the law per se, though in the instant case Khalil’s lawyers filed a habeas corpus motion to stay his deportation; hence the recent trial before an immigration judge in Louisiana. Rubio accused Khalil of participating in protests he described as antisemitic and supportive of Hamas. Foreigners who come to the United States and do such things, he stated, will have their visas or green cards revoked and be kicked out. 

“This is not about free speech,” Rubio said. “This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card.” Rubio has teed up some 300 foreign students to have their visas revoked.

Though Khalil has at least two appeals pending (one in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals and one in New Jersey, where he was first detained) the lower immigration court just sent a powerful signal to the Trump administration if you consider Khalil’s case a kind of “proof of concept” for the use of the Secretary of State’s unilateral power to revoke green cards and visas. The court did not challenge this, and in fact affirmed the Trump administration’s argument that Khalil’s beliefs threaten national security and justify his deportation, in line with precedent. The court also ignored any larger First Amendment issues in its decision. The win though could be weakened overall by helping establish a right to habeas corpus for future cases (see the discussion of the Garcia case below). You can expect the government to move quickly now to deport the remaining students whose visas have already been revoked.

The Supreme Court ruled on a companion case, creating another (though more arguable) “win” for Trump. The court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return to the United States of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien who was deported to El Salvador due to an “administrative error” and remains locked up there. The court wrote, “The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen, entered the U.S. illegally 15 years ago and claimed asylum. A federal judge in 2019 gave him protection from being deported because of concerns for his safety if he were to return to El Salvador. Gracia had been accused of being a member of MS-13, a charge later dropped. He was granted a withholding of removal by the court and married an American citizen. Then, just recently, Garcia was deported on a flight with men alleged by the Trump administration to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

Though Garcia seems ultimately albeit slowly to be on the way back to the United States, the court’s decision may still be seen as a win for Trump. As in the Khalil case, the court left untouched the larger question of whether the Trump administration’s use of the two-centuries-old Alien Enemies Act was legal. That opens the door to future uses of the Act to speedily deport illegal aliens. The “loss” part of the decision is that the Court did allow that Garcia was entitled to some due process. The act on its face provides for none, and that’s what makes it so attractive to the Trump administration with its plans for large-scale deportations. Unlike the 47,000 illegals now in custody, aliens rounded up under the Act did not appear due a day in court before an immigration judge to plead their case. The act appeared to allow ICE to move arrestees straight from their apprehension to a flight out of the United States.

Not so, said the Supreme Court, in granting Garcia the right to challenge his detention via habeas corpus filed in the United States, even though he is actually in the custody of the sovereign nation of El Salvador. (The habeas right has been generally supported by post-9/11 rulings for prisoners stuck in Saudi prisons by U.S. request.) That’s the bad news for those supporting Trump. The good news is the habeas petition must be filed where the alien is locked up in America (primarily Trump-friendly Louisiana and Texas), which seems to preclude broad injunctions from more liberal East Coast courts and ultimately narrow the scope of judicial review. (Cases will also need to be brought on an individual basis rather than as a class-action lawsuit.) And, since even ICE admits Garcia was deported in error, it is good that he may eventually be released from El Salvador. The Trump administration is slow-walking that process, mockingly and defiantly.

There’s another “win” for Trump in the Court decision about Garcia’s return to the U.S., a change in one word from the lower court decision. The lower court ordered Trump to “effectuate” Garcia’s return. The Supreme Court directed the Trump administration instead to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release. The wording change shows the Court still wishes to show deference to the administration on matters of foreign affairs, choosing a lower standard of action, and also removing the time limits to action the lower court tried to impose. “Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review,” the government’s lawyers argued. Weakened, the case was returned to the lower court.

The Department of Homeland Security emphasized that latter portion of the order in its response: “SCOTUS agreed with us that the District Court improperly interfered with the President’s foreign affairs power. The District Court was overbearing and, as SCOTUS said, should clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” The justices “made clear that a district court judge cannot exercise Article II foreign affairs powers,” the White House advisor Stephen Miller wrote.

This struggle between the Trump administration and the courts, with each side claiming authority over the immigration laws, is far from over. The recent decisions duck tough questions about First Amendment rights in the Khalil case and the validity of the Alien Enemies Act in the Garcia and other cases. Some of the ancillary issues, particularly the rights to an American court-based due process for persons held overseas, echo the legal struggles of the post-9/11 era, when the Bush administration unsuccessfully argued enemy combatants held in Gitmo and elsewhere abroad had no access to American courts. That case law may yet prove controlling in what is happening with deportations now from the United States to foreign prisons. It is clear enough the Supreme Court isn’t ready to rubber-stamp either the lower courts’ or the administration’s positions.

“Beyond the specifics of implementation,” writes POLITICO, “the administration’s maneuvering appears to represent a concerted effort to evade longstanding American law by intentionally sending people to a legal black hole with no process, no rights and no recourse.” The government argued unsuccessfully at the time of 9/11 that American courts lacked jurisdiction to review detentions at Guantanamo, and that the president was free to ignore both national and international law governing the treatment of detainees. We’ll see if that stands on immigration where it fell in the War on Terror.

The post Trump’s Qualified Wins on Immigration appeared first on The American Conservative.

Israel is willing to ignore President Trump and proceed with a targeted strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

According to sources who spoke with Reuters Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to disregard Trump’s preference not to strike Iran and instead focus on diplomatic routes for blocking Iran’s nuclear program.

Their report states:

Over the past months, Israel has proposed to the Trump administration a series of options to attack Iran’s facilities, including some with late spring and summer timelines, the sources said.

The plans include a mix of airstrikes and commando operations that vary in severity and could set back Tehran’s ability to weaponize its nuclear program by just months or a year or more, the sources said.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Trump told Netanyahu in a White House meeting earlier this month that Washington wanted to prioritize diplomatic talks with Tehran and that he was unwilling to support a strike on the country’s nuclear facilities in the short term.

But Israeli officials now believe that their military could instead launch a limited strike on Iran that would require less U.S. support. Such an attack would be significantly smaller than those Israel initially proposed.

U.S. and Iranian negotiators held a second round of preliminary talks in Rome on Saturday.

Details of the conversations have yet to be publicly released, although it has been reported that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff met and held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

On Thursday, Trump said he was not “in a rush” to pursue military action against Iran.

“I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death,” Trump said. “That’s my first option.

”If there’s a second option, I think it would be very bad for Iran, and I think Iran is wanting to talk.”

Meanwhile, a senior Iranian security official warned that any attack would lead to a “a harsh and unwavering response from Iran.”

“We have intelligence from reliable sources that Israel is planning a major attack on Iran’s nuclear sites,” the official was quoted as saying.

“This stems from dissatisfaction with ongoing diplomatic efforts regarding Iran’s nuclear program, and also from Netanyahu’s need for conflict as a means of political survival.”

The post REPORT: Israel Willing to Ignore Trump and Proceed With ‘Limited Attack’ on Iranian Nuclear Facilities appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The best news about “The View” would be its cancellation. That’s a day many Americans eagerly await. But the second-best news has arrived, and it’s still a win for the nation’s sanity.

According to Entertainment Weekly, “The View” is on hiatus, with no new episodes until April 22, as the hosts take their annual spring holiday break.

The U.K. Daily Mail also reported on the show’s sudden absence, noting that it sparked confusion among the few viewers who actually look forward to fresh content.

This is so, so close to the news that everyone wants to hear about “The View,” or at least everyone with a room-temperature IQ. A full cancellation would be ideal, but a break — however temporary — is a welcome start.

It’s still great news for America, but it’s not quite the best news we could get when it comes to “The View.” At the very least, the show’s absence gives us a brief reprieve from its toxic drivel.

For years, “The View” has been a cesspool of liberal propaganda, slobbering over leftists while spitting on anyone who dares to disagree with their warped world view.

Take their reaction to President Donald Trump’s inauguration as just one glaring example. Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, the token “Republican” on the show, whined that Trump’s speech was too “Christian nationalist,” a pathetic attempt to smear his patriotism.

Then there’s Sunny Hostin, who unleashed a vilely racist, post-election rant blaming white people for Trump’s victory. And she seemed to be almost proudly dripping with racial resentment on live TV.

Joy Behar’s antics are just as vile. Not long ago, she was forced to humiliate herself on air, admitting she lied about Elon Musk and begging him not to sue her, exemplifying the sort of “integrity” one can expect from this farcical show.

The show’s hatred for Biblical Christianity is palpable. They mock traditional values at every turn, sneering at anything that doesn’t fit their progressive agenda.

Yet, in a delicious twist of hypocrisy, they’re more than happy to take the days off that come with Easter, a holiday rooted in the very faith they deride.

It’s good news for America’s collective IQ that “The View” is off the air, even temporarily. The show does nothing but drag down discourse with its brain-dead takes.

In fact, one could even argue that it’s also a small win for the reputation of liberals everywhere. “The View” doesn’t exactly win over non-leftists. It just alienates them with its smug, one-sided rants.

All this show does is pander to leftists, offering a safe space for their worst impulses while demonizing everyone else. It’s a master class in division, not dialogue.

Eventually, a day will come when no one remembers that this show, made by idiots for idiots, ever existed. It will all be forgotten, and on that day, the world will heal just a little bit.

“The View” has spent decades platforming the most unhinged voices on the left, from Whoopi Goldberg’s absurd hot takes to Ana Navarro’s endless Trump-bashing.

Their hiatus might be temporary, but it’s a reminder that even the most insufferable shows can’t run forever. America deserves better than this garbage.

So, while we wait for the day “The View” is canceled for good, let’s savor this brief silence. It’s a small victory for reason in a world that desperately needs it.

Here’s hoping the next break is permanent. Until then, enjoy the peace — your TV screen and your sanity will thank you.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post People Tune in to ‘The View,’ Get Second Best News Possible on That Brain-Dead Liberal Lovefest appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

WWE Hall of Famer and WrestleMania headliner Joe Anoa’i, better known by his stage name Roman Reigns, came out as a supporter of President Donald Trump ahead of this weekend’s big event.

The former WWE world champion explained the reason he voted for Trump in an interview with Vanity Fair.

“I support our president. Trump is one of those guys where he’s got a vast history and a huge background,” Reigns said, explaining that the choice was “very clear.”

“He’s been in entertainment. He’s been in big business, politics. At this point, I’m supporting a bright future for our country. Positive and competent leadership. For us to be what we’re supposed to be, to be a world leader and carry that respect and do what a world power like us should be doing.”

Reigns explained that he does not support everything Trump does, for example, he doesn’t like him publicly taking aim at political foes.

“It’s like he needs that adversary,” Reigns explained. “He needs that opposition to bounce off of. He needs that competitive motivation or something.”

Still, when given a choice between Kamala Harris and Trump, there was no contest for Reigns.

“One person was giving us information. One person was answering questions, so it wasn’t that hard.”

Liberal fans, as expected, took to social media to cry about Reigns’ admission.

An X user named Lisa Greene made a compilation video of the funniest meltdowns.

A saga in 2 minutes about the IWC meltdown over Roman Reigns supporting President Trump

Peak mental illness you won’t see in any other fandom

Enjoy. pic.twitter.com/4JL7S8YyQq

— Lisa Greene (@aerith_greene) April 18, 2025

Of course, many fans were thrilled to hear that the superstar supports our president.

ROMAN REIGNS SUPPORTS TRUMP

MY BRAND IS WINNING OMG!!! pic.twitter.com/yu9JlrdZks

— Xaviaer DuRousseau (@XAVIAERD) April 17, 2025

The post WWE Hall of Famer and WrestleMania Headliner Roman Reigns Comes Out as Trump Supporter Ahead of Big Event appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This article originally appeared on WND.com

Guest by post by Bob Unruh

The government cannot take your property just because you were an innocent bystander to someone else’s alleged crime.

A family owned plumbing corporation in Illinois is being forced into court after cops confiscated a company truck when it was hit in a traffic accident, and have refused to return it to the owners. For more than a year.

The Liberty Justice Center has released a report on the fight against the Winnebago County sheriff’s office and the local state’s attorney, “for illegally seizing and indefinitely holding – for 15 months so far – the property of First Supply, LLC, simply because it was an innocent bystander to an auto accident.”

“The government cannot take your property without a warrant or warrant exception—let alone indefinitely and without giving you any way to get it back—just because you were an innocent bystander to someone else’s alleged crime,” explained Loren Seehase, of LJC. “We look forward to vindicating the Fourth Amendment rights of First Supply and all innocent crime victims and bystanders.”

Company lawyer Brittney Corrillaud said, “It was hard enough to have our delivery driver be involved in a fatal car accident. But to indefinitely lose our truck to impoundment hampers our ability to make a profit and pay our employees. We never could have expected that months would pass without getting it back, and now we pay thousands of dollars a month extra just to serve our customers. To add insult to injury, we’ve spent hours trying to retrieve our property only to be passed from person to person at the state’s attorney’s office, ignored by the prosecutor, and offered no support.”

The war was triggered in January 2024 when an alleged drunk driver ran a red light and crashed his vehicle into a First Supply delivery truck which was stopped, legally, at a stop light.

“Tragically, the driver’s passenger was killed on impact. First Supply was in no way responsible for the accident—but the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office seized First Supply’s truck from the scene as evidence, without a warrant, and without any exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless seizure,” the report said.

Then, in months following, while First Supply complied with the law enforcement investigation, the truck remained locked up.

At one point a sergeant said the sheriff’s investigators were finished with the truck, but still the truck was not released.

The traffic case even was dismissed without the truck’s release, and then a new criminal case was filed.

“During this entire process, neither the sheriff’s office nor the state’s attorney’s office contacted First Supply to return the truck. In fact, at no point during this entire ordeal has either office provided First Supply a process, procedure, or even a timeline as to when it can get its truck back,” the legal team charged.

So for 15 months the company has been paying for a truck it cannot use, as well as a replacement.

LJC said it now has a lawsuit pending over the confiscation of the vehicle, and it cites the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.

Copyright 2025 WND News Center

The post ‘Indefinitely Holding’: Cops Seize Plumbing Company’s Truck Without a Warrant, Refuse to Give it Back appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.