Month: May 2025

Lucy Connolly

The Trump administration is working hard to secure freedom of speech for the people of Great Britain under their socialist government.

According to The Telegraph, the State Department has confirmed it is “monitoring” the situation of Lucy Connolly, a 41-year-old childminder who was imprisoned for over three years for remarks she made about illegal migrants living off the British taxpayer..

Connolly, who is the wife of a Conservative Party councillor, wrote on the X platform that she would not care if protesters “set fire” to hotels housing illegal migrants.

“If that makes me racist, so be it,” she wrote.

One foolish post, deleted almost immediately, leads to a 31-month prison sentence

31 months – just think about that. A young mother, torn away from her 12 year old daughter over a social media post.

Unpleasant? Yes. Worthy of a lengthy prison sentence? NO.

Free Lucy Connolly. pic.twitter.com/H1LanrOBM7

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) May 24, 2025

She was later imprisoned for 31 months at the behest of Keir Starmer’s socialist government, which launched a nationwide crackdown following widespread demonstrations over the murder of young girls in Southport by a young Islamist.

“We can confirm that we are monitoring this matter,’ said a State Department spokesperson.

“The United States supports freedom of expression at home and abroad, and remains concerned about infringements on freedom of expression.”

Meanwhile, The Telegraph also revealed that Trump had sent five officials to the U.K. to meet with pro-life activists who had also been persecuted by the Starmer regime.

The officials, who came from the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) travelled to London to “affirm the importance of freedom of expression in the UK and across Europe.”

Britain and the U.S. have long had a so-called “special relationship,” with the two countries recently signing a trade agreement lifting levies on cars and other key industries.

WATCH: President Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer Announce Historic Trade Deal

Keir Starmer has met with Trump on multiple occasions and has offered him a second state visit, an honor never before bestowed on an American president.

However, the issue of freedom of speech remains a significant thorn in the relationship, with Vice-President J.D. Vance even bringing it up during an Oval Office meeting back in March.

“We do have of course a special relationship with our friends in the UK and also our European allies, but we also know there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British,” Vance said.

“What the British do in their own country is up to them – but also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens,” he continued.

“We’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that,” Starmer responded.

WOW! JD Vance CALLS OUT British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to his face:

“I said what I said. There have been infringements on Free Speech that actually affect not just the British people, but also American technology companies and American citizens.”

pic.twitter.com/FfGoaAQkCg

— Cillian (@CilComLFC) February 27, 2025

The post Trump Pressures U.K. to Release Political Prisoner Lucy Connolly — While Also Sending Team to Investigate Keir Starmer’s Free Speech Crackdown appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Baltic countries —Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania— have signed an agreement to increase their defense spending to 5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) starting in 2026.

This commitment, formalized at the Amari Air Base in Estonia on May 23, 2025, responds both to growing geopolitical tensions with Russia and to demands from U.S. President Donald Trump for NATO allies to increase their military investments.

The decision by the Baltic countries stems from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have intensified their efforts to strengthen their defense capabilities.

Their geographic proximity to Russia and their history as former Soviet republics make them a critical NATO flank. According to Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur, the current security situation demands a significant increase in military spending— a stance supported by the leaders of the three countries during the Amari meeting.

In recent years, the Baltics have observed a rise in Russian activities, including airspace incursions, military exercises near their borders, and hybrid operations such as cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns.

In 2024, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda warned about the rise in “Russian sabotage on NATO territories,” highlighting the need for a coordinated response. This context has led the Baltics to prioritize deterrence, with investments in advanced systems like HIMARS rockets and air defense systems.

The Amari agreement also reflects pressure from the United States, NATO’s leading power, for its allies to reach a 5% of GDP military spending level.

This demand, driven by the Trump administration, has sparked debate within the Alliance, as NATO’s current threshold is 2% of GDP— a level many countries have yet to meet.

The Baltics, however, already far exceed this minimum. In 2022, Lithuania allocated 2.47%, Estonia 2.12%, and Latvia 2.07% of their GDP to defense, according to NATO data. In 2024, Estonia announced plans to reach 3.7% by 2026, while Lithuania aims for a 5% to 6% range between 2026 and 2030. Latvia, for its part, decided in May 2025 to raise its spending to 5%, reallocating resources and optimizing government efficiency.

Raising defense spending to 5% of GDP implies a significant financial effort. In Latvia, Prime Minister Evika Siliņa noted that budget cuts, new revenue sources, and possibly a higher deficit will be required.

Estonia, according to its Prime Minister Kristen Michal, plans to fund the increase without new taxes, using EU funds, cuts in the public sector, and strategic borrowing. Lithuania, which has already committed 0.25% of its GDP to military support for Ukraine, seeks to balance its defense ambitions with economic stability.

These investments are not focused solely on traditional weaponry. The Baltics are strengthening their capabilities in cybersecurity, electronic defense, and military mobility.

For example, Latvia will allocate 42% of its 2025 defense budget to developing military capabilities, including HIMARS systems and air defenses.

In addition, the three countries are advancing the synchronization of their power grids with continental Europe, a project to be completed by February 2025 to reduce energy dependence on Russia.

While the Baltics lead with their 5% commitment, NATO shows a clear divide. Countries like Poland— which will allocate 4.12% of its GDP in 2025— and Lithuania, with plans to reach 6%, contrast with nations like Spain, which barely reaches 1.09%.

Countries closer to Russia prioritize traditional defense, while others, such as Spain, focus their efforts on cybersecurity and disaster prevention.

The Amari meeting also served to prepare for the NATO summit in The Hague in June 2025, where defense spending will be a central issue. The Baltics will advocate for a widespread increase in military budgets, supporting previous proposals like Poland’s to raise NATO’s minimum to 3%.

A question arises: Is it sustainable for small economies like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to assume such high military spending? The reallocation of resources and borrowing could jeopardize essential services like healthcare, education, or pensions, affecting their citizens.

The Baltic strategy highlights the need for a more coordinated European approach, where the burden of defense does not fall disproportionately on the smallest and most vulnerable nations.

It is true that today’s threats are increasingly complex— from cyberattacks to disinformation— but NATO’s real strength will depend not only on how much is spent, but on how investments are made and how security priorities are balanced with social needs.

The post The Baltic Countries Commit 5% of Their GDP to Defense Starting in 2026 in Response to Russian Threats and NATO Demands appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Macron gets beat-up by his wife Brigitte.

Emmanuel Macron has gone through a public humiliation as he arrived for a state visit to Vietnam.

As the door of the airplane were opened, the whole world could see his controversial wife Brigitte smacking in the face.

Macron took a look and saw that he was being filmed, so he smiled and pretended nothing had happened.

But as the power couple descended the plane’s stairs, Brigitte refused to hold his hand, leaving the French President with a tense face and a clenched fist in sheer tension.

MACRON GETS FACEPALMED BY HIS WIFE

As he landed in Vietnam, cameras caught Brigitte Macron reaching out and shoving his face just before he stepped off the plane.

The French president looked momentarily stunned before smoothing it over with a wave.

His office first denied… pic.twitter.com/BmVZBX450q

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 26, 2025

Macron slapped by his wife Brigitte. pic.twitter.com/cZDzdgPZnq

— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) May 26, 2025

Brigitte Macron, who used to be little Emmanuel’s teacher before becoming his wife in a controversial move, has been a perpetual source of embarrassments for Emmanuel.

She was caught laughing out of time during a visit to the Holocaust Memorial, and spent time suing French journalists who have reported that she is actually a man.

Macron had a tense face and a clenched fist after his public humiliation.

#BreakingNews (but also kind of slapping):

In a plot twist no one saw coming — not even Macron — the French President Emmanuel #Macron‘s husband slapped him in the face.

Macron’s reaction after being slapped. pic.twitter.com/N83VerFQJ9

— ArshadAyyub (@mgarshad142) May 26, 2025

This is a developing story. Check back for more.

Read more:

Peter Sweden: IT’S SPREADING – Massive Farmers Protest in Germany (Video)

The post WATCH: Macron’s Wife Brigitte Smacks Him in the Face as They Arrive in Vietnam, Refuses To Hold His Hand appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Photo via Fox

Much remains unknown after at least eleven people were injured Sunday night in a shooting incident reportedly from a dock near Little River, South Carolina.

One officer suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the leg and is in stable condition.

A crowd reportedly fled into a waterway amid the gunfire which was reported at approximately 10 pm on Sunday.

According to reports on the Citizen app, “A description from police indicated a gunman, described as a man in his 20s wearing all-black, opened fire from the dock.” Curiously, no media is reporting the incident as a mass shooting or mentioning the description of the suspect. Perhaps the incident or the possible race of the shooter does not fit their narrative.

Many on social media speculate that the party boat in the clip below may have been somehow involved in the shooting, though none of this has been confirmed.

Police have deemed the shooting to be an “isolated incident” without releasing additional information on possible suspects or motives.

Per Daily Mail:

Horry County Fire Rescue transported at least 11 injured people to local hospitals. It is unclear how many of those victims were shot.

Police said they received reports of several others being taken to hospitals in personal vehicles.

Community members are urged to stay away from the area as it is still an active scene.

The HCPD believes the shooting was an isolated incident and there is no further risk to the community, according to an 11pm police update.

This is a developing story. 

The post 11 Injured in Little River, South Carolina Memorial Day Weekend Shooting appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Not long before the presidential election, I wrote a column in these pages characterizing Joe Biden as a “temporary king” in the tradition of J.G. Frazer’s Golden Bough. The idea was that just as in ancient Babylonian society where, to avoid catastrophe, the real king temporarily abdicated the throne to a foolish imposter who was sacrificed at the end of his short reign, the Democratic party had given over the presidency to Biden until it could find a more permanent leader. Evidently, the Kamala Harris mumbo jumbo in November didn’t work—Biden is still at the center of the party—and I find my mind returning once again to Frazer.    

These days though I see Biden less as a temporary king and more as the Rex Nemorensis, the priest of the sacred grove of Diana at Nemi. Anyone who has dipped into The Golden Bough is probably already familiar with the most famous figure in Frazer’s study of magic and religion, so I will be brief. This king, whose job it was to guard a sacred tree near Lake Nemi, held one of the most precarious offices in the ancient world. “He was a priest and a murderer,” Frazer writes. And he was perpetually in fear for his life: “A candidate for the priesthood could only succeed to office by slaying the priest, and having slain him, he retained office till he was himself slain by a stronger or a craftier.”

Frazer has it that this barbarous office was a relic of a time when the rites of magic preceded the practice of religion. But, he adds, that collapsed world of belief is not so different from our own; indeed, ours was built on its ruins. In 12 mad, fascinating, and frankly sometimes unreadable volumes, he holds forth on the subject, attempting to demonstrate that the motives behind an institution such as the Rex Nemorensis “have operated widely, perhaps universally, in human society, producing in varied circumstances a variety of institutions specifically different but generically alike.” 

Now, that is casting a very wide net, but there’s something undeniably attractive about this whole Key to All Mythologies exercise, even if Frazer’s facts are sometimes goofy. And I think it is fair to say that he is not only on to something about the past, but also the present. The office of Rex Nemorensis still exists, more or less, to this day. Its current occupant is Joe Biden.

For how much longer, who can say. Biden became king of the wood in a strange manner. The former king, Barack Obama, abandoned the sacred tree after plucking its bough in 2008 and slaying Hillary Clinton (who, as the events of 2016 made clear, did not understand what had occurred). Obama’s departure left the grove open to a band of robbers and ruffians who aspired to the sacred priesthood. None was stronger or more brutish than Biden, who, right up until early 2020, hacked away at his competitors for the royal title. Of course, once he became king, no crowned head ever lay uneasier.

All throughout his presidency, Biden fought off challengers for the title. Some hoped that senility would be his downfall, but even the insane can hold a sacred office. When Biden was forced to drop out of the race last summer—and it appeared as if Harris had finally dealt him the death stroke—fate intervened, and the defeat was not to be. Biden is still the king, and his party (along with its camp followers) are still trying to cut him down—to replace with a new king. But Biden is a tough old man, and the fight will likely continue beyond the grave. (Ronald Reagan, for example, was still the Republican Rex Nemorensis well into Donald Trump’s first term.) Even in Biden’s enfeebled state, someone stronger or craftier than he has yet to show his face in the wood.

“It is a sombre picture, set to melancholy music,” Frazer writes of the aged priest’s struggle to maintain his kingship, “the background of forest showing black and jagged against a lowering and stormy sky, the sighing of the wind in the branches, the rustle of the withered leaves under foot, the lapping of the cold water on the shore, and in the foreground, pacing to and fro, now in twilight and now in gloom, a dark figure with a glitter of steel at the shoulder whenever the pale moon, riding clear of the cloud-rack, peers down at him through the matted boughs.”

I can almost see it now: Joe Biden, stalking through the old-growth forest just outside Wilmington, trembling and carrying a drawn sword, peering warily about him as if at every instant he expects to be set upon by an enemy. Such is the reward of the priesthood.

The post Joe Biden, Rex Nemorensis appeared first on The American Conservative.

In the arena of great power rivalry, where arsenals are inventoried and economic output meticulously weighed, one domain remains undervalued yet quietly decisive: information. 

Different states manage the flow of information differently. The United States, with its devotion to pluralism, prizes a cacophony of voices—free, unfiltered, and often discordant. China, by contrast, composes a coherent national message with the precision of a single baton, wielding a centralized propaganda apparatus not merely as a mouthpiece, but as a pillar of statecraft. 

This is not merely a cultural divergence; it is a strategic asymmetry. While it may be tempting to cast this contrast in moral terms, policymakers must resist the comforts of ideological certainty. The ability to manage perception at scale shapes power itself. Realpolitik demands we recognize that before the clash of armies or the contest of markets, there is a quieter battlefield—one that conditions and partially determines the fate of the former contests.

In moments of geopolitical tension—be it tariff escalation or regional brinkmanship—Beijing’s informational cohesion acts as a force multiplier, enabling it to act with velocity and unanimity. Washington, meanwhile, must navigate a democratic din, where competing narratives dilute momentum and fracture resolve. The United States must begin to factor this asymmetry into its calculus. Decisions cannot be measured by economic or military rationale alone—they must be filtered through the structural realities of informational coherence and the political will it enables.

The truth is, even when strategies make perfect sense on paper—militarily calibrated or economically sound—they often falter if divorced from considerations of public reception. Take the tariff war, for example. Zoom in on the raw numbers, and the case seems airtight: The U.S. could inflict disproportionate pain on China by restricting access to its market. After all, it’s far easier to reroute supply chains than to repurpose an entire industrial ecosystem built around outbound trade (we should know this!). As interdependent as the relationship might be, if we forget about information, the U.S. seems able to punch hard. But strategy, like architecture, must rest on solid terrain—in this case, the ground of public opinion. And here, the unstable foundation is one that policy technocrats tend to overlook. America does have the tools to strike, but do we have the scaffolding to sustain such contests? Less so. 

When push comes to shove, the Chinese government doesn’t flinch—it steers. How long did it take for the U.S. to unravel? Before the tariff truce, when China’s commerce ministry spokesperson told the world that “China will fight to the end if the U.S. side is bent on going down the wrong path,” a classmate of mine scoffed, reading the statement as a sign of hyper-ideological posturing. What he, and many dismiss, is that such a posture was incredibly logical. Even if China was set to economically suffer more, they knew that the U.S. was more likely to budge. 

For the China-watchers who are obsessed over maritime maneuvers, this may not be quite perceptible. But for those who know about Xi Jinping’s ambitious securitization efforts, as well as the use of the propaganda machinery to temper reform under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao, this all makes sense. Especially after the Tiananmen trauma, weiwen—“stability maintenance”—has been not just a slogan but a governing obsession. “Without a stable environment, we can accomplish nothing and may even lose what we have gained,” Deng told President George H.W. Bush in 1989. 

As much as we may resist the thought, the uncomfortable reality is this: Even when facing less material pain, the United States is more likely to blink — because it lacks the narrative cohesion to endure. Acknowledging this isn’t defeatism; it’s realism. The real kind. For all the virtues of our political system—and they are many—invoking democratic ideals does little when the terrain shifts beneath us. 

Just consider what this might mean militarily. We couldn’t sustain Vietnam once public opinion turned. And yet, many of today’s leaders speak with unwarranted confidence about weathering a protracted conflict over Taiwan. What’s needed now isn’t bravado, but calm reflection. What we can do to reduce the cohesion/information gap should command as much attention, if not more, than fighter jets.

When I asked about the challenge China’s propaganda system poses to U.S. policy formulation, Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt—arguably the most vocal proponent of an America First foreign policy—brushed off the concern. “I think they are very vulnerable, actually,” he told me after stepping off stage at POLITICO’s Security Summit. “Forty percent of the world’s consumers live in the United States. Their entire economy is based on selling to us. We’ve got a lot of leverage.” Schmitt continued, “They’re worried. You’ve seen protests in the streets, youth unemployment is high—I actually think President Trump is doing the right thing.” 

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, the hawkish Chairman Emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, struck a similar tone. In response to the same question, he said, “The tariffs are going to open more markets in China. If they’re a stick for better behavior, to deescalate tensions, that’d be a good thing. I’m not totally optimistic that’ll happen, given Xi’s ambitions.” He added, 

“I do think he looks at Ukraine—and that it hasn’t gone so well for Putin—and that factors in. But they have a long-term plan, and it’s very clear to me what that is. We need to provide deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, especially through the AUKUS program…”

We’ve heard some of that before. Although I completely understand why these answers would be given to a journo, we should hope this isn’t all our leaders are thinking about—maybe the tone changes in the SCIF room? 

As America Firsters rightly search for measures to better compete with China, we should take a high dose of prudence. As it stands, China’s elites know us better than we know them. Alexis de Tocqueville and Edmund Burke, for instance, are widely read by senior CCP cadres. Our leaders, on the other hand, may (or may not) be able to recite a Sun Tzu quote or two.

Whenever someone dares to say there’s something to learn from China—or, heaven forbid, expresses a glimmer of intellectual respect—some will cry “China sympathizer.” Ignore them. That happened to Henry Kissinger too, and he was no fool. The U.S. shouldn’t abandon its commitments to free speech and open debate. But if America wants to stay strong, we must shed the arrogance that has long dulled our strategic edge. 

Knowing our adversary isn’t appeasement. Caution isn’t cowardice. We are stumbling blind into a contest we claim to be ready for. And China may be more ready than many assume.

The post How China’s Propaganda Machine Reinforces Its Power appeared first on The American Conservative.

In what can be called a victory speech over failed neoconservative foreign policy, President Donald Trump proclaimed the end of 30-some years of existing foreign policy in the Mideast. The ideology dragged the U.S. through pointless wars from Libya to Yemen is now dead.

At an investment conference in Riyadh, in a speech little-commented on by the mainstream media, Trump said, “In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionalists [sic] were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”

For the first time since the First Gulf War in the 1990s, America is not fighting in the Middle East. Trump arranged a fragile ceasefire with Yemen, where multiple U.S. presidents have waged a proxy war against Iran. Trump is withdrawing American troops from Syria, became the first American president in 25 years to meet with a Syrian leader, and announced alongside his speech the end of sanctions against that country. He is finally negotiating with Iran toward some sort of nuclear deal to replace the one he unilaterally canceled in his first term. Progress has not always been in a straight line, but there has been progress.

One need only to look back on the past decades to see the difference. The United States once overtly supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, leading to thousands of deaths on both sides. Pivoting, the U.S. invaded Iraq in 1991 after Saddam moved into Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was threatened, saved from war by U.S. intervention because of its oil reserves, which the U.S. was then fully dependent on. In the neocon spasms following 9/11, America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, launching a nation-building plan in both countries to displace national governments with American puppet states and local Islamic traditions with Western ideas on women and society.

Those nation-building actions gave support to warnings issued by Al Qaeda and ISIS that the west sought to neuter Islam and turn the Middle East into a part of a new global empire. Rumors circulated that American troops in Iraq were issued maps of the Syrian border ahead of plans to turn the massive military to sweep west into Syria and Lebanon following the “conquest” of Iraq. As that war brought Iran into the fight, U.S. troops were deployed to Syria, the Turks threatened invasion, and Russian intervention complicated the struggle. ISIS rose to replace Al Qaeda. The U.S. began a war in Libya, overthrowing another ugly but stable government, leading to chaos which continues to this day. Massive streams of refugees flowed into Europe. Yemen dissolved into anarchy and civil war. The Afghan war threatened to spill into Pakistan.

Though actual numbers can never be known, the Costs of War Project estimates over 940,000 people died directly as a result of violence due to American foreign policy in the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. An additional 3.6–3.8 million died indirectly due to factors like malnutrition, disease, and the breakdown of healthcare systems related to these conflicts. The total death toll, including both direct and indirect casualties, is estimated to be between 4.5 and 4.7 million. The Costs of War Project also highlights the significant displacement caused by these conflicts, with an estimated 38 million people displaced since 2001. Some 7,000 U.S. military service members died. The Project estimates the wars cost the U.S. over $8 trillion. Afghanistan today is again ruled by the Taliban, Iraq by Iranian proxies. Nation-building was a complete failure. The broader neoconservative interventionist policy failed.

Indeed, the best summation of America’s decades long policy in the Middle East is Trump’s.

Words are easy, actions often much harder. So what is next? Trump stated his “fervent wish” that Saudi Arabia follow its neighbors, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, in recognizing Israel. He said a nuclear deal is within sight with Iran, adding he “never believed in having permanent enemies.” Both are hard asks.

But in a sign of what may be the most significant change alongside the new foreign policy, Trump met the new leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former Al Qaeda jihadist (one makes peace with one’s enemies, not one’s friends) who led a rebel alliance that ousted Bashar al-Assad. Trump posed for a photograph with al-Sharaa and the Saudi crown prince that “dropped jaws in the region and beyond.”

“In recent years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins,” Trump added in support of his growing realpolitik approach.

Syria is now at a crossroads. The end of sanctions will give the country its first chance at economic breathing room in 14 years. Al-Sharaa has invited American energy companies to exploit Syria’s oil. But the ball is still in the Syrian court. Syria must decide whether to reject Iranian terrorist support and stop providing a safe haven for those fighters. Gulf leaders have rallied behind the new government in Damascus and want Trump to do the same, believing it is a bulwark against Iranian influence. Pressure will come from the United States for Syria to cut its ties with Russia and dismantle the Russian bases and enclaves there. Although al-Sharaa has confirmed his commitment to the 1974 disengagement agreement with Israel, Trump will no doubt seek his support for the Abraham Accords. He’ll also want Syria to assume responsibility for ISIS detention centers in Northeast Syria.

There is a lot to talk about and many difficult steps ahead, but a start is a start. With Trump making clear that the goals of fostering human rights, nation-building, and democracy promotion have been replaced by a pragmatic emphasis on prosperity and regional stability, Syria has its opening. “I am willing to end past conflicts and forge new partnerships for a better and more stable world, even if our differences may be profound,” Trump said.

The post The End of Neoconservatism appeared first on The American Conservative.

A memo with talking points apparently went out to the leftwing media following Wednesday’s fiery Oval Office meeting between President Trump and the South African President.

During big news events, a phenomenon occurs where the leftwing media not only pushes the same narrative across every network, but in many cases, they read the same script. They would have us believe it’s a coincidence, but they’re clearly reading talking points, likely provided by the Democratic Party.

One example of this was after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went before the US Congress and demanded billions of dollars and weapons to continue his war with Russia. As The Gateway Pundit reported, Liberal hack reporters in unison began comparing Zelensky to Winston Churchill on every cable news channel.

This time, they were given the word “ambush.”

Here are some of the lines cable TV was pushing in their orchestrated attack after Trump’s epic Oval Office exchange with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa:

“Another dramatic scene in the Oval Office today. The tense confrontation, President Trump ambushing the President of South Africa.”
Up next, another Oval Office meltdown. President Trump ambushing the President of South Africa.”
“President Trump is being accused of conducting something of a diplomatic ambush of South Africa’s President in the Oval Office.”
“President Trump orchestrated another Oval Office ambush today.”
“Today, Donald Trump meeting with the President of South Africa and attempting to ambush and humiliate that leader.”
“Zelensky territory, where, essentially, he was a bit ambushed inside the Oval Office.”
“It felt like an ambush in there, kind of like the President Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office.”
“This was an ambush. It was orchestrated.”
“Cyril Ramaphosa brought his best diplomatic self to this meeting, but nothing could have prepared him for this multimedia ambush.”
“It started as, to some degree, an ambush.”

Via @WesternLensman on X:

The Gateway Pundit reported on the so-called ambush where President Trump called Ramaphosa on the clear lie that White genocide is non-existent in Africa.

He played an explosive video showing South Africans calling for the genocide of White Afrikaners during the meeting after Ramaphosa told reporters that President Trump is wrong about the genocide and needs to “listen” to South Africans.

Trump played the explosive clip, which also featured the burial sites for over a thousand White farmers who were murdered in the ongoing genocide.

WATCH:

The post WATCH: “Oval Office Ambush” – Hilarious Compilation Shows Mainstream Media Hacks Parroting EXACT SAME Talking Points on Trump’s Explosive Meeting with South African President Last Week appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Democrat strategists are struggling to come to terms with President Donald Trump’s decisive rightward shift of the electorate in last year’s election that saw him win the popular vote and all seven swing states in a historic victory.

Credit: Joe Rogan Experience/Youtube

The New York Times published the first installment of a deep dive into the Democrats’ efforts to figure out and correct what went wrong in an election the report described as “a defeat that felt like both a political and cultural rejection.”

Among the Democrats’ problems is how to reach young men lost to President Trump. Reporter Shane Goldmacher reported on a proposed $20 million study that would “study the syntax, language” attractive to young men, like an anthropological study.

Excerpt from the Times report:

For now, Democratic donors and strategists have been gathering at luxury hotels to discuss how to win back working-class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places.

The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democratic support among young men, especially online. It is code-named SAM — short for “Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan” — and promises investment to “study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.” It recommends buying advertisements in video games, among other things.

“Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone,” it urges.

In reaction to a gobsmacked CNN reporter, Andy Kaczynski, Donald Trump, Jr posted the classic Steve Buscemi/30 Rock meme, “How do you do, fellow kids?”

Democrats after spending $20 million trying to figure out how to talk to guys. https://t.co/VZuGO2noBq pic.twitter.com/zkIXR0BVm2

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 25, 2025

In a separate article, Goldmacher reported on Trump moving the electorate to the right (excerpt):

All told, Mr. Trump has increased the Republican Party’s share of the presidential vote in each election he’s been on the ballot in close to half the counties in America — 1,433 in all — according to an analysis by The New York Times.

It is a staggering political achievement, especially considering that Mr. Trump was defeated in the second of those three races, in 2020.

By contrast, Democrats have steadily expanded their vote share in those three elections in only 57 of the nation’s 3,100-plus counties.

These counties, which we are calling “triple-trending,” offer a unique and invaluable window into how America has realigned — and still is realigning — in the Trump era. They vividly show, in red and blue, the stark changes in the political coalitions of the two parties.

The scale of Mr. Trump’s expanding support is striking. While roughly 8.1 million Americans of voting age live in triple-trending Democratic counties, about 42.7 million live in Republican ones.

Even more ominous for the Democrats are the demographic and economic characteristics of these counties: The party’s sparse areas of growth are concentrated almost exclusively in America’s wealthiest and most educated pockets.

Goldmacher posted illustrations of the Trump shift:

All told, Trump has improved every election in 1,433 of the nation’s 3,100+ counties — even as he lost in 2020.

Democrats have expanded their vote share continuously in only 57 counties.

But the demographics are even more revealing…

Gift link:https://t.co/KINfJds7X5

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) May 25, 2025

Earlier last week, Times reporter Teddy Schleifer reported on Democrats spending big money to “find the next Joe Rogan” (excerpt):

Six months after the Democratic Party’s crushing 2024 defeat, the party’s megadonors are being inundated with overtures to spend tens of millions of dollars to develop an army of left-leaning online influencers.

At donor retreats and in pitch documents seen by The New York Times, liberal strategists are pushing the party’s rich backers to reopen their wallets for a cavalcade of projects to help Democrats, as the cliché now goes, “find the next Joe Rogan.” The proposals, the scope of which has not been previously reported, are meant to energize glum donors and persuade them that they can compete culturally with President Trump — if only they can throw enough money at the problem.

Fox News host and former Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany mocked the Democrats’ efforts, noting that Rogan and other influential podcasters now supporting Trump had been driven from the Democratic Party in recent years:

Democrats are reportedly planning to spend tens of millions of dollars trying to “find the next Joe Rogan.”

They have a spreadsheet with 26 different proposals!

Here is what they miss – what my friend @alexbruesewitz told me: “All of the podcasters that Trump sat with were… pic.twitter.com/DiZT5ncQO2

— Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) May 22, 2025

Bonus flashback: The Kamala Harris campaign scored an own goal safety trying to appeal to men pairing Harris’ vice presidential nominee Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to talk politics over a game of Madden NFL a week before the election–on a Sunday afternoon when real NFL games were being played:

Gov. Walz and @AOC are playing Madden and talking about Trump’s Project 2025https://t.co/YgblzmPLbO pic.twitter.com/26NcMzlukl

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) October 27, 2024

The post Report: Struggling Democrats’ Proposed $20 Million Study on How to Reach Young Male Voters Lost to President Trump: “Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Charles’ speech to Canadian Parliament may cause friction with Donald J. Trump.

Ailing King Charles will travel tomorrow to British Commonwealth member Canada, for a two-day visit in which he will deliver a Tuesday speech before the Canadian parliament.

Charles, who is the Head of State in Canada, has sparked fear among British officials of ‘causing offence to US President Donald Trump’ with his speech open that nation’s parliament.

GB News reported:

“The King will deliver the ‘speech from the throne’ in Ottawa on Tuesday, a ceremonial role last performed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in 1957.”

However, the Monarch visit happens in the midst of great geopolitical tension between Canada and the United States.

“’British ministers have been trying to persuade the Canadian government to keep Charles free of any controversy around Donald Trump’, a Commonwealth source looped in on discussions revealed to The Times.”

Canada wants to insert the King into the diplomatic tensions with the US.

But Ottawa insists to bring the King into the diplomatic spat.

Canada is angry that Trump slapped them with trade tariffs, and has repeatedly suggested that they should be the 51st US state.

“Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney, the former Bank of England governor, rode a wave of anti-Trump sentiment to win a stunning election victory in April.”

King Charles’s speech in Ottawa will rely on the advice of Canada’s government.

“’There will be a strong subtext, and the Canadians are very keen to see that’, Professor Philip Murphy, director of history and policy at the University of London, told The Times.

[…] ‘By having him there they can stress that the UK is on Canada’s side in any trade confrontation with the US’, he explained.”

Prime Minister Carney defied Trump at the White House by saying that his country ‘won’t be for sale, ever’.

“The PM explained to Sky News that his invitation to Charles and Camilla was “not coincidental” and ‘a clear message of sovereignty’.”

TRUMP: …but never say “never”

CARNEY: (sotto voce) Never. Never. Never. Never. Never pic.twitter.com/g7Lz4fhHRR

— Ron Pragides  (@mrp) May 6, 2025

Read More:

Buckingham Palace Fuming After Prince Harry Says He ‘Doesn’t Know How Long King Charles Will Have’ in Shocking Interview

The post British Government Officials Afraid King Charles’ Tuesday Speech in Canadian Parliament May Offend Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.