TICKETS GOING FAST: America First – Ground Zero Conference Set for Aug. 9-10 in Las Vegas — Gateway Pundit Hosts Powerhouse Lineup Featuring Lara Logan, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, Gen. Mike Flynn, Dr. Simone Gold, Mike Davis, Wayne Allyn Root, Peter Ticktin, Roger Stone, Mike Lindell, Joe Hoft, David Clements, and More!

Mark Your Calendars and Purchase Your Tickets Today!

The Gateway Pundit is hosting a truly historic MAGA conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 9-10 at the Ahern Luxury Hotel.

The Gateway Pundit is bringing several American icons to Las Vegas in August for the much anticipated America First – Ground Zero Conference at the Ahern Hotel.

Conservative heroes are gathering under one roof where we will honor their courage and sacrifices. The Gateway Pundit’s founder Jim Hoft says, “This is one conference you won’t want to miss! We proudly stand with these American heroes, the ones the mainstream media has forgotten. And we are thrilled to bring together many of the greatest minds in the American MAGA movement.”

Don’t miss your chance to be a part of the America First-Ground Zero Conference.

You won’t want to miss this.

We have an amazing line-up and we are adding to it every day. Mike Davis from the Article III Foundation will speak on Saturday and Mike Lindell will share his amazing story and spiritual journey on Sunday.

Joe Hoft and Attorney David Clements will speak on election integrity.

And popular radio host Wayne Allyn Root will also be speaking at the conference.

The beautiful and brilliant Lara Logan will host the conference this year.

We have more exciting news to share with you in the days ahead. Stay tuned!

 Please check the America First – Ground Zero Conference website for more details.

** Get your early bird tickets today!

Our planning committee includes: Jim Hoft, Don Powers, Joe Hoft, and Katie O’Malley.


Tickets for Admission
** Purchase  Your Tickets Here.
Early Bird – General Admission:
Tiered Ticket Class. You can select tickets from the active tier.

Early bird pricing $99

Enjoy access to dynamic speaking events, live entertainment, and a variety of exhibitor booths. Take advantage of the paid bar while exploring the event. Standing room only.


Premium Pass – An Elevated Experience –
Early Bird pricing $347


VIP All Access Early Bird – The Ultimate Experience

VIP-The Ultimate Experience
Early Bird Pricing $447 — These tickets are going fast!

** Purchase  Your Tickets Here.

A block of rooms has been set aside at The Ahern until July 31st. Please use the code Pundit when booking.

Become a sponsor for special perks!

Read more about that here.

And stay tuned— We will have several more exciting updates to report on in the days ahead.

The post TICKETS GOING FAST: America First – Ground Zero Conference Set for Aug. 9-10 in Las Vegas — Gateway Pundit Hosts Powerhouse Lineup Featuring Lara Logan, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, Gen. Mike Flynn, Dr. Simone Gold, Mike Davis, Wayne Allyn Root, Peter Ticktin, Roger Stone, Mike Lindell, Joe Hoft, David Clements, and More! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

TOO EMBARRASSING TO AIR: Comedian Reveals Kamala Harris Gave Such a ‘Weird’ and Disastrous Interview That It Never Saw the Light of Day

Kareem Rahma (Screenshot: Forbes)

Former Vice-President-turned-perpetual-gaffe-machine Kamala Harris just added another entry to her blooper reel, and this one was apparently so disastrous that even her own handlers begged to deep-six it.

TikTok star Kareem Rahma, host of the series Subway Takes, revealed on Forbes’ “Top Creators” show that a 2024 sit-down with Harris was spiked after she unleashed a “really, really bad” hot-take: “Bacon is a spice.”

Rahma — a practicing Muslim who doesn’t eat pork — said the remark was so baffling, tone-deaf, and politically radioactive that both sides mutually agreed never to let America see the tape.

Kamala Harris gave an answer so bad, even a left-leaning influencer feared it would tank her campaign and ruin his reputation in the process.

Rahma told Forbes editor Steven Bertoni that Harris’ staff originally pitched a harmless gripe about people taking their shoes off on airplanes. At the last minute, campaign staffers hit the panic button, swapped topics, and forced the veep to riff on bacon instead — a decision Rahma tried to stop in real time.

The result, he said, was a nonsensical word-salad so awkward it risked alienating Muslim voters and anyone with basic culinary knowledge.

Kareem Rahma:
Her take was really confusing and weird—and not good. So, we mutually agreed that we shouldn’t publish it. I got lucky, because I didn’t want to be blamed for her losing.

Steven Bertoni:
Her take was that bad?

Kareem Rahma:
It was really, really bad. It didn’t make any sense. I can tell you.

Steven Bertoni:
Yeah, tell me.

Kareem Rahma:
It was “bacon as a spice.”

Steven Bertoni:
Bacon as a spice? Do you think that was her opinion, or do you think she had a research group trying to figure something out—

Kareem Rahma:
Research group. Originally, the take that I was pitched was great—it was that she doesn’t like to take her shoes off on airplanes… I was like, “100% disagree. You better be taking the shoes off.” I wear Birkenstocks and socks on an airplane so I can flip those mother-effers right off the minute I get on.

[…]

Kareem Rahma:
No, that’s awful. That’s disgusting. That’s not even a take. I would never, ever, ever do that. But yeah, at the last minute, I think the research group said, “This makes you look rich and snobby, and you need to appeal to the American people.” So she went with the bacon. I tried to pause the interview and say, “Trust me, we shouldn’t do the bacon thing.” And I was overridden by this guy—maybe her Deputy Campaign Manager or something.
He said, “We’re doing bacon.” I said, “All right, we’ll do bacon.” An hour later, I got a call: “We can’t do bacon.” I said, “I know you can’t do bacon.” Then I tried to cut it into something else. It just wasn’t working. And I was like, “You know what…?”

Steven Bertoni:
So they overrode the bacon themselves?

Kareem Rahma:
First they rode the bacon, then they overrode the bacon. Then I tried to override their override by saying, “I didn’t just do all this work for no reason. I’m going to make it work.” And then I did make it work. Then they were like, “This makes her look—” And I said, “Whose fault is that?” Then I thought, “If I post this, a lot of people are going to be mad at me. If I don’t post it, I still have a cool photo with Kamala Harris.”

WATCH:

The post TOO EMBARRASSING TO AIR: Comedian Reveals Kamala Harris Gave Such a ‘Weird’ and Disastrous Interview That It Never Saw the Light of Day appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senate Republicans Smash Fundraising Record by Eye-Popping Margin

Senate Republicans’ main outside groups raised more than $85 million in the first half of 2025, blowing past every previous off-year mark.

Axios reported Tuesday that the Senate Leadership Fund and its nonprofit partner, One Nation, more than doubled the total they posted over the same stretch in 2023.

The two groups now hold $83 million in cash on hand, according to internal figures shared with Axios.

SLF has $29 million in the bank — triple last year’s level and five times its 2021 mid-cycle balance.

The surge follows South Dakota Sen. John Thune’s rise to Senate GOP leader after a decade of Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell at the helm.

President Donald Trump is “more involved than ever,” SLF executive director Alex Latcham told Axios.

“We’re working with [the White House] to identify and vet Senate candidates,” Latcham said, calling the link an asset “as we navigate some of these primaries.”

He added that talks about controlling the Senate with the West Wing occur at a “regular cadence, whether it’s in person, over the phone.”

SLF plans to pour money into races well before Labor Day, breaking from traditional late-cycle blasts.

Early ad buys have already launched in Georgia, North Carolina, Maine, Alaska, and Nebraska, with a Texas blitz imminent in support of Sen. John Cornyn.

Latcham credited Thune’s aggressive travel schedule and donor calls for the cash haul, saying the team is targeting new donors.

“Obviously, you’ve got the crypto community, which is more engaged in politics writ large,” he told Axios.

The $85 million figure towers over the $38 million SLF and One Nation posted in the same period two years ago.

Strategists say the cash will help defend the GOP’s narrow Senate edge and expand the map in 2026.

The groups are already backing incumbents and scouting challengers in expected battlegrounds.

“What will not change is that SLF will continue to be the preeminent outside group dedicated to, you know, keeping and expanding the Senate Republican majority,” Latcham said.

With Trump leaning in and donors opening wallets, Republicans are hopeful a financial edge could cement their hold on the chamber beyond the next election cycle

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Senate Republicans Smash Fundraising Record by Eye-Popping Margin appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Majority in the U.S. Still Supports Deporting Illegal Immigrants

Deport all immigrants who are here illegally: 55% according to The New York Times, 64% from Marquette, 57% from CBS News, and 56% from ABC News — with a slightly different question.

So what you’re basically seeing here is a very clear indication that a majority of Americans, in fact, when asked this direct question — which I believe gets to the heart of their feelings — do want to deport all immigrants who are here illegally.

There’s no arguing with these different numbers because they are all essentially the

The post Majority in the U.S. Still Supports Deporting Illegal Immigrants appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Can Trump Manage What Obama Couldn’t?

Can Trump Manage What Obama Couldn’t?

Stepping back from hegemony’s obligations while keeping its benefits is harder than it looks.

Las,Vegas,-,Feb,2:,Donald,Trump,(c),Speaks,With

Credit: Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock

By some measures, these have been the most successful weeks of President Donald Trump’s second term. He has achieved his biggest legislative victory, securing substantial immigration enforcement funding without an accompanying amnesty and averting an across-the-board tax increase neither the economy nor the Republican congressional majorities were likely to withstand.

Trump also scored his biggest win yet at the Supreme Court, limiting the nationwide injunctions by district courts that have vexed his administration. His military strikes against Iran have yet to produce Iraq War 2.0, and the ceasefire between Israel and the Islamic Republic has so far held. NATO members are boosting their defense spending commitments. The stock market has even come to terms with the uncertainty behind the Trump tariffs, with investors seeing trade deals rather than trade wars as the ultimate point.

At the same time, it doesn’t feel like success to some who voted for Trump in order to bring to life a new Republican Party different from what the country has seen for most of the past quarter-century. From growing debt to rumors of amnesty, they wonder if they fell asleep sometime after Election Day 2024 and woke up to George W. Bush’s third term rather than Trump’s second.

When the long knives came out for Bridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy said to be behind the Pentagon pausing the transfer of some scarce munitions to Ukraine out of concern for American stockpiles, Trump said nothing publicly. Then he announced there would be further defensive weapons, as Russia continues to hammer Ukrainian territory.

The more relevant comparison than Bush the younger is Barack Obama. This might be surprising, since Trump has dedicated much of his political career to erasing Obama’s legacy (though the grudge match with Joe Biden takes greater precedence the second time around). Trump and Obama are inextricably linked, but mostly in a negative way.

One thing they both have in common, however, is their shared belief that foreign entanglement doesn’t store up national treasure, but spends it down. They specifically both believe that much, perhaps most, of what the United States has attempted to do in the Middle East over the past two decades has come to naught. 

Not long after his own Iran adventure, Trump complained to reporters about Bush blowing up the Middle East while in office. Trump assigned poor marks to Obama’s presidency too, but on that much they would agree. It is hard to imagine either Obama or Trump being elected president if it weren’t for the folly of Iraq and their willingness to label the war a colossal mistake.

But here is the other thing they have in common. While both Obama and Trump want America to stop being the world’s policeman, in both cases there is a limit to how bad they are willing to let the neighborhood get. They want to shed the costs of hegemony and primary without giving up the perceived benefits of being the hegemon. 

The costs of these contradictions under Obama were borne in Libya. For Trump, it is still early. He clearly understands the risks of an endless proxy war with Russia better than most in Washington, but is earnestly seeking an end to hostilities rather than simply cutting Ukraine off.

As a conservative, I held Obama to a higher standard than merely  being better than the worst excesses of Bush-era neoconservatism; supporting him meant accepting setbacks and even defeat on so many other issues that he needed to be perfect on foreign policy. He was not. 

I can therefore understand why antiwar progressives and libertarians feel the same way about Trump. But Trump and Obama are different from Bush in ways that matter, even if not different enough, and even if they have paved the way for the rise of advisers who would go further still.

Trump has always gotten a bad rap on Russia–Ukraine because of the Trump-Russia obsessions of the first term. It has been clear for some time that he wants a peace deal between the two countries and has been tougher on Vladimir Putin and Voldymyr Zelensky based on which leader seemed to be the greater obstacle to a negotiated settlement at the time.

To the extent that Trump has given Putin more leeway, it is because he is trying to wring concessions from the party currently winning the war. Russia has more leverage, while Ukraine is in effect a protectorate. But Putin’s continued aggression has finally exhausted Trump’s patience. Trump is now willing to try sticks rather than carrots, which has always been part of his diplomatic approach.

Whether Trump can still wind down this war by borrowing from Biden’s bag of tricks remains to be seen. But Biden and Obama, much less Bush, aren’t the names Trump wants to be associated with in history.

The post Can Trump Manage What Obama Couldn’t? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Time for Kennedy to kill the USPSTF

Time for Kennedy to kill the USPSTF

An obscure HHS task force is pushing faulty race and gender ideology on doctors.

Senate Holds Confirmation Hearings For HHS Secretary Nominee Robert Kennedy
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

One of President Donald Trump’s signature campaign promises was cleaning out the “deep state,” the bureaucratic combinations that leverage their position in the little-known corners of the federal government to attack the values and way of life of everyday Americans. One festering corner of woke bureaucracy that should draw the attention of the Trump administration has just been exposed, thanks to a Supreme Court case decided at the end of last month. 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a little-known advisory body of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but it plays an important role in American healthcare law: Recommendations by the USPSTF must be covered in nearly all health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act. It has used that authority to launder left-wing ideological orthodoxy into its preventive care recommendations, from gender theory (referring to women as “individuals born with a cervix”) to critical race theory (urging doctors to take into account “systemic racism”).

Established in 1984 to make recommendations to general practice physicians and public health bodies on preventive care, the USPSTF became far more important after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 gave its recommendations statutory force. The ACA mandates that

A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of “A” or “B” in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The most controversial recommendation from the USPSTF is its endorsement of preventive prophylaxis for HIV, commonly known as PrEP, for individuals at risk of infection with that disease. This population consists almost entirely of sexually active gay men, which has led a number of Christian employers who provide insurance to protest that the ACA (and its instrument, the USPSTF) are requiring them to subsidize activities they oppose on moral and religious grounds.

But the USPSTF has also, since the beginning of the Biden administration, been quietly engaged in a project of reconfiguring itself into an instrument of social justice and advocacy of left-wing ideological priors in both the private practice of medicine and in public health. In 2021, the task force released two reports detailing its plans to transform its procedures for choosing, studying, and recommending preventive services.

The first, titled “Actions to Transform US Preventive Services Task Force Methods to Mitigate Systemic Racism in Clinical Preventive Services,” laid out a proposal for “iterative changes to US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) processes, methods, and recommendations and enact a commitment to eliminate health inequities for people affected by systemic racism.” These recommendations include a commitment to “describe race as a social construct with origins in slavery, oppression, exploitation, and discrimination and describes various frameworks related to racism,” to “develop an inclusive language guide as one of its steps to address systemic racism,” and to prioritize research and recommendation topics “that have high potential for advancing health equity or addressing systemic racism.”

The second report, “USPSTF Approach to Addressing Sex and Gender When Making Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services,” is equally sinister. The report notes that making recommendations based on biological sex is vital for the practice of good medicine, but asserts that self-identification takes precedence over biological fact:

Frequently, USPSTF recommendations are sex-specific, most commonly based on the biological basis of the preventive service. For example, cervical cancer screening recommendations apply to females (individuals born with a cervix), and prostate cancer screening recommendations apply to males (individuals born with a prostate). However, many people have gender identities that differ from their sex assigned at birth. Transgender people, who were assigned male sex at birth but identify as women, or who were assigned female sex at birth but identify as men, are examples of such individuals, but there are also people with gender nonconforming or nonbinary identities who do not identify as either a man or a woman.

The report details that the task force will, as a result, end references to men and women and replace them with gender-neutral language or other “appropriate” terms such as “individuals with breasts.” The USPSTF also pledged to prioritize transgender and other populations of sexual minorities in selecting topics for research, as well as promising to hand over any relevant research and draft recommendations to gender activists for review and comment:

Once a draft research plan is created, the USPSTF will seek review by transgender, gender nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and intersex individuals and groups with specific expertise in representing these populations, as appropriate. Input will be incorporated into the final research plan.

These plans have been executed over the course of the intervening years. In a 2022 recommendation for screening adolescents for anxiety, despite noting that research shows black children are less likely to develop anxiety , the USPSTF nevertheless concluded that doctors should show them special attention because 

adverse childhood experiences influence the likelihood of experiencing mental health conditions such as anxiety. Adverse childhood experiences may result from a complex interaction of familial, peer, or societal factors, including racial discrimination. These adverse childhood experiences may be blatant or subtle (eg, microaggressions) but are potentially traumatic events that, in the context of historic trauma, structural racism, and biopsychological vulnerability, can worsen mental health outcomes.

 The language of “pregnant persons” replaced “pregnant women” in USPSTF recommendations for herpes screening, cancer prevention, and suicide prevention.

In 2024, the task force completed an additional milestone towards its social justice goals: the release of a comprehensive “Health Equity Framework” that would embed critical race and gender theory into every facet and stage of its operations. Like the preceding reports on gender and racism, the Health Equity Framework promises to put woke ideological considerations as the top priority, “using health equity as a prioritization criterion and engaging a diverse group of stakeholders” to shape “the entirety of its recommendation-making process.”

These frameworks continue to apply to USPSTF work undertaken during the second Trump administration. In April of this year, the task force issued a recommendation that physicians pay special attention to breastfeeding black women because of the “lasting psychological impact and stigma of enslaved Black women being forced to act as wet nurses.”

The task force is packed with Biden administration appointees devoted to the ideological capture of medicine. For example, one of the members of the board, Alicia Fernández, MD is the associate dean of Population Health and Health Equity at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the founder of UCSF’s Latinx Center of Excellence. In a speech she gave after receiving the school’s Chancellor Award for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Leadership—Faculty, Fernández described her life’s work as “contributing to social justice through teaching, through research, and through clinical care.”

The continued occupation of an important advisory body in HHS—one that has the capacity to force private health insurers to cover services and procedures—by left-wing activists would be a grave oversight by the Trump administration, which has promised to end these kinds of left-wing abuses of the administrative state. Thankfully, that need not be the case. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has already shown his willingness to clean up HHS advisory bodies, replacing the department’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Conveniently, the remedy is likely to be simple and unimpeded by the judicial strangulation that has so often met the Trump administration’s attempts to rein in the administrative state. A recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with the authority of the USPSTF under the Affordable Care Act ruled that “the Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect.” 

The administration’s power to end these abuses and replace the task force members with professionals committed to the non-ideological practice of medicine has already been affirmed by the highest court in the land. It’s past time for Kennedy to heal the wounds woke deep state appointees have inflicted on HHS and start from scratch with an objective, non-ideological USPSTF.

The post Time for Kennedy to kill the USPSTF appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Jeffrey Epstein Cover-Up Continues

The Jeffrey Epstein Cover-Up Continues

This latest betrayal of MAGA may be the biggest yet.

Patrick McMullan Archives

Nothing to see here.

That’s now the U.S. government’s line on the sex-trafficking of minors by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and his now-imprisoned accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

This week, the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation released a memo closing the case. The agencies had concluded, notwithstanding widespread suspicions, that Epstein hadn’t blackmailed any prominent people. Additionally, they had determined that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” the memo said. 

MAGA influencers weren’t having it. “Assuming this leaked Epstein Files memo is true, then we all know this is a shameful coverup to protect the most heinous elites,” wrote Rogan O’Handley—aka “DC Draino”—on X.

I’m not familiar with Mr. Draino’s oeuvre, but I share his general suspicion that a cover-up is afoot. So does Justin Amash, a former U.S. representative from Michigan. “The official account from the DOJ and FBI on Jeffrey Epstein does not come across as credible,” Amash wrote on X, adding that “it seems highly likely something is being covered up here.”

Amash didn’t elaborate on why he found the memo to lack credibility, but much in it raises eyebrows. 

Explaining why further disclosures would be inappropriate, the memo declares the agencies “will not permit the release of child pornography.” FBI Director Kash Patel made a similar point on a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, saying the bureau would not release videos of sexual crimes, since doing so would re-injure the victims.

But no reasonable person wants or expects such videos to be publicized. Rather, concerned citizens want to know whether any perpetrators, other than Epstein and Maxwell, are depicted in those videos or mentioned in evidentiary files. The main excuse for not releasing additional materials is an obvious red herring.

In fairness, maybe the government found no evidence that other perpetrators were involved. Indeed, the memo says that a “systematic review” of available evidence “revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’” 

This claim should meet extreme skepticism, and for multiple reasons. 

First, Attorney General Pam Bondi has not only acknowledged that Epstein had a client list but said in February that it was in her possession. After Fox News host John Roberts asked if the DOJ would be “releasing a list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients,” Bondi answered, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”

Second, “client list” in this case functions as shorthand for the names of Epstein’s criminal associates. Whether or not Epstein kept an actual list of such associates, investigators should find out if they exist and, if so, who they are—and they should tell us, the American people, what they find.

Third, Epstein and Maxwell probably did not act alone. The latter was convicted of sex-trafficking, while the former was indicted for it (and died before he could stand trial). Yet the memo claims, “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.” Whom, then, did they traffic their victims to?

One implication of the memo’s implausible claim is that the Trump administration can’t publicize all the evidence without wrongly implicating innocent people. Donald Trump himself made this point on Fox News in 2024, when he expressed hesitancy about releasing the Epstein files on grounds that “you don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phony stuff in there.”

To be sure, the administration should avoid casting a dark cloud over every person with whom Epstein ever associated—a cloud that would be immense, overshadowing heads of state, members of royal families, intelligence chiefs, eminent academics, and business tycoons.

But a dark cloud already hangs over the heads of Epstein’s known associates—including the billionaire Bill Gates, Britain’s Prince Andrew, and Trump himself—and the best way for the government to clear their names would be to conduct a full and transparent investigation.

That’s assuming, of course, that their names would be cleared. In the cases of Gates and Andrew, the assumption is dubious. The latter beclowned himself in a disastrous BBC interview in 2019, when he denied ever having met Virginia Giuffre, who had accused him of sleeping with her when she was a teenage “sex slave” of Epstein and Maxwell. A photograph of Andrew with his arm around a young-looking Giuffre didn’t stop the prince from denying any recollection of the relationship.

Gates, for his part, “got to know” Jeffrey Epstein “beginning in 2011, three years after Mr. Epstein, who faced accusations of sex trafficking of girls, pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor,” the New York Times reported in 2021. A Wall Street Journal report from 2023 may shed light on why Gates maintained the relationship despite reputational risks. “Jeffrey Epstein discovered that Bill Gates had an affair with a Russian bridge player and later appeared to use his knowledge to threaten one of the world’s richest men,” the Journal wrote.

Apparently, Epstein really did blackmail powerful people—yet the DOJ/FBI memo asserts there was “no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.”

More important than the question of who Epstein blackmailed is whether he blackmailed them on behalf of a third party. Many suspect that he worked for one or more intelligence agencies—a suspicion not without evidence, though the memo doesn’t address the matter. Indeed, Epstein himself reportedly boasted that he worked for Mossad, Israel’s national intelligence agency.

Epstein’s connections to foreign governments, including foreign intelligence agencies, are legion. Robert Maxwell, the father of Ghislaine, was almost certainly an Israeli spy. Epstein met dozens of times with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who headed the Military Intelligence Directorate and the Israel Defense Forces before rising to the premiership.

Epstein also had ties to U.S. intelligence, some suspicious and others simply bizarre. The journalist Vicky Ward reported in 2019 that Alexander Acosta—the U.S. prosecutor who cut a sweetheart plea deal with Epstein in 2007—told Trump officials that unnamed authorities had pushed him to back off the sex-trafficking case because Epstein, in their words, “belonged to intelligence.”

As for the bizarre: Despite being a college dropout, a 21-year-old Epstein landed a job at the prestigious Dalton School, headed at the time by Donald Barr, a former officer of the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency. Decades later, when Epstein died in prison, Donald’s son Bill Barr, a former CIA analyst, was head of the Department of Justice.

The DOJ/FBI memo waves away suspicions that Epstein was murdered, asserting that he “committed suicide in his cell.” And the agencies released hours of prison footage to prove that no suspicious individuals entered that cell (although one minute appears missing, the footage doesn’t actually show Epstein’s cell, and the public initially had been told that prison cameras malfunctioned the night he died). Even if Epstein did kill himself, his death is a major scandal: Wittingly or not, the government allowed perhaps its most high-value prisoner—one who held, within his own skull, incriminating information on the world’s most powerful people—to die in federal custody.

You don’t have to be a chronic conspiracist to conclude this whole thing stinks. Senior Trump officials—including Bondi, Patel, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino—have promised total transparency on Epstein. Instead, we got insults to our intelligence and a memo that smells, to this columnist, like a cover-up.

The post The Jeffrey Epstein Cover-Up Continues appeared first on The American Conservative.

Six Months After California Wildfires, Less Than 100 Building Permits Have Been Issued in Los Angeles

The wildfires that ravaged southern California and destroyed thousands of homes in the Pacific Palisades and other neighborhoods happened six months ago, and yet, less than 100 building permits have been issued.

Adam Carolla’s predictions from January are coming true.

The rebuilding process has been so slow that many people in the area have decided to sell their destroyed homes rather than try to rebuild.

How is it even possible that so little has been done?

From KTLA News:

It’s been six months since wildfires devastated Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other parts of Southern California, and a prominent local figure has called out political leaders for what he sees as a lack of action.

Developer Rick Caruso took to social media on Monday to lambast local government officials for “endless red tape” causing what he calls a lack of progress in rebuilding after the fires. Caruso challenged Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for that position in 2022.

“Thousands of homes were destroyed, and yet fewer than 100 building permits have been issued after six months,” he wrote alongside a video promoting his nonprofit Steadfast LA. “Does anyone believe this is rapid rebuilding?”

Caruso does cite some progress — power lines will be rebuilt underground, for instance — though he also criticizes officials for a focus on “lofty rhetoric” instead of answers for fire victims and tangible action on the ground.

It looks like nothing has been done, other than clearing some debris.

LA Mayor Karen Bass is too busy fighting Trump and ICE to do anything else.

Governor Gavin Newsom is just as useless. How do these people still have their jobs?

The post Six Months After California Wildfires, Less Than 100 Building Permits Have Been Issued in Los Angeles appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Socialist Professor in Texas Wants University of Houston Renamed as ‘George Floyd University’ (VIDEO)

You may not have heard that the ‘Socialism 2025’ conference happened over the weekend. To no one’s surprise, many of the attendees were far left college professors.

One prof in attendance suggested that the University of Houston should be renamed ‘George Floyd University’ among a laundry list of other crazy things.

These people do not believe in the United States of America as founded. They want to tear the country down and remake it in their image.

FOX News reported:

Socialist Texas professor calls for University of Houston to be renamed ‘George Floyd University’

University of Houston professor David McNally proposed renaming his school to “George Floyd University” and abolishing tuition and grades at the Socialism 2025 conference Saturday.

While wearing a keffiyeh, McNally spoke on a panel in Chicago about what fighting the state would look like in the “context of growing an insurgent mass movement.” Among McNally’s ideas for the “de-stateification” of the University of Houston, which is a public university, included honoring Floyd after his highly publicized death in May 2020.

“We would open the university up in such a way that it becomes a resource of the broader community,” McNally said. “And I can tell you with great confidence that in the Third Ward of Houston, that means that we will be renamed the George Floyd University.”…

McNally also recounted his experience of watching the George Floyd Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020, where he saw police officers being overwhelmed by protesters.

“All of a sudden you got a glimpse of what it means when we control the streets because the cops were backing off. They were completely outnumbered,” McNally recalled. “You begin to sense what happens when the balance of social forces, even in one small situation, shifts and how the horizons of possibility change. For that period of time, that part of downtown Houston was not in their hands anymore. It was in our hands. It was in insurgent hands.”

See the video below:

If people in higher education want to know why so much of their federal funding is currently facing such scrutiny, this is one of the main reasons. People do not want to support this anti-American lunacy with their tax dollars anymore.

The post Socialist Professor in Texas Wants University of Houston Renamed as ‘George Floyd University’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Iran Cyber Threat Is Real

Image: jaydeep_, Wikimedia Commons

This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire.

By Terry Thompson
Real Clear Wire

The Iran Cyber Threat Is Real—And Our Phones Are Making It Worse

U.S. intelligence agencies are on high alert after CNN reported that Iran is actively preparing cyberattacks aimed at critical government and military infrastructure. But the real threat may already be inside the wire — not from foreign hackers at a keyboard, but from mobile phones unknowingly or deliberately carried into the nation’s most sensitive facilities. The devices we carry every day are now among our greatest national security vulnerabilities.

Despite years of post-9/11 investments in hardened infrastructure, the federal government has been remiss in investing in a sensor network to keep pace with the risks of wireless technology now embedded in daily life.

When the first iPhone was introduced in 2007, it ushered in a new era of hyper-connected mobility. Since then, innovation has continued to explode, bringing countless benefits but also exposing serious vulnerabilities.

However, our most secure government facilities are wide open to wireless threats.

Today, up to 90% of secure government facilities rely on little more than the honor system and self-reporting to keep unauthorized wireless devices — mobile phones, smartwatches, rogue transmitters — out of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Special Access Program Facilities (SAPFs), and other high-security zones. In an age of Pegasus spyware and remote malware, this should be interpreted as national security malpractice.

The modern smartphone is a traitor’s dream — portable, powerful, and everywhere. It records audio and video, transmits data instantaneously via WiFi, Bluetooth, and cellular networks, and it connects to everything — from commercial clouds to encrypted chat apps. And yet, these devices are routinely brought into facilities housing classified intelligence data, most often undetected and without consequence post-exfiltration.

Take the case of Asif W. Rahman, a former CIA analyst who held a top-secret security clearance and was recently sentenced to three years in federal prison for photographing classified information and transmitting it to unauthorized recipients, who then posted the material to social media. Snapping and sharing photos of classified government documents using a smartphone is stunningly simple, with no high-tech espionage or daring break-ins.

Every week brings new examples like this. Individuals inside the Department of Defense and State Department have been caught photographing screens, copying documents, and walking classified data right out the door. These are crimes of opportunity enabled by lax enforcement and outdated security.

If a wireless intrusion detection system (WIDS) were in place, the device would have triggered an alert and stopped these breaches before they became major national security failures.

Now, with Iran probing for cyber vulnerabilities, the risk of insiders being exploited or coerced into facilitating digital breaches through personal devices has never been higher. And it can happen without a trace if the right wireless defenses aren’t in place.

In 2023, the Secretary of Defense issued a memo directing all DOD components to install WIDS to monitor for unauthorized devices. The technology works. It detects any device that emits a wireless signal, such as phones, smartwatches, or even printers with WiFi, inside a restricted area. Yet the directive remains largely unfunded and unenforced.

Make no mistake: near-peer adversaries, terrorist groups, and criminal syndicates are exploiting wireless threats to their advantage. They don’t need sophisticated tradecraft and specialized technologies. They simply need to compromise and leverage someone with access and a phone. And with thousands of secure facilities across the country, that opportunity presents itself every day.

In light of the latest intelligence warnings, we need to fund wireless intrusion detection across all SCIFs and SAPFs and educate agency leaders on the vulnerabilities posed by modern smartphones.

We need to hold bad actors accountable — not retrospectively or as part of a congressional committee hearing but by making sure they never have the opportunity to compromise the integrity of national security in the first place.

The U.S. government has spent billions building concrete walls, locked doors, and network-specific defenses around our secrets. But in 2025, secrets aren’t stolen with a crowbar; they’re stolen with an app. Until we treat the wireless threat with the same seriousness, those secrets will remain just one text message or compromised phone away from unauthorized disclosure of Classified National Security Information.

You can’t protect your most sensitive state secrets if you are blind to the threat. Without action, these vulnerabilities will only grow more dangerous — and more missions and lives may come at risk.


Col. Terry Thompson (U.S. Air Force, ret.), was a war planner at the Pentagon and a wing commander at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

The post The Iran Cyber Threat Is Real appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.