Month: July 2025

In 2022, The Gateway Pundit shared the story of J6 political prisoner Troy Smocks, a black man from Texas, while he was being held in the DC “Gitmo” with other defendants for the events that unfolded at the Capitol on January 6.

He was incarcerated with a diverse group of Trump supporters who were white, black, Hispanic, Arab, Christian, Jewish, straight, and transgender.

Smocks’ race, however, has not stopped the Left from accusing him of being a white supremacist.

He was not accused of any violent acts, yet he was arrested like a terrorist at gunpoint by an FBI SWAT team.

Troy spent a year enduring inhumane treatment by his jailers and defamation of his character by the media.

Troy recently shared his case with various AI platforms to show the breadth and depth of the disturbing treatment and coverage of the case and how a civil lawsuit against them might unfold.

---

Write a legal analysis based on the civil lawsuit case filings herein. Include all facts within the civil complaint with particular attention to Texas Code 2.122 and United States v. Di re. Consider all the arguments inclusive of the mailbox and admissions by the defendants. Consider federal enclave statutes and U.S. Constitutional exclusive jurisdiction and “like” authority pursuant to 18 USC 7 and 13.

CHAT GPT:
Legal Analysis: Smocks v. United States (Case No. 4:22-cv-01028-ALM) – FTCA, Jurisdiction, and Statutory Compliance

I. INTRODUCTION
This analysis addresses Plaintiff Troy Anthony Smocks’ civil complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States. The Plaintiff alleges multiple tortious violations, primarily challenging the legality of his arrest and search on January 15, 2021, in Dallas, Texas, by federal agents acting on a warrant from the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff claims violations of both federal and Texas law, invoking key statutory and constitutional provisions, including:
• Texas Code of Criminal Procedure § 2.122;
• 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13, 3046;
• Rule 4(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;
• Constitutional doctrines of exclusive jurisdiction and federalism;
• And United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948), which clarified limits on federal officer jurisdiction within states.

---

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts, as taken from all filings, reveal:
• On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff published political content on Parler.
• On January 14, 2021, FBI agents obtained a search warrant from the Eastern District of Texas based on a criminal complaint and arrest warrant issued by a D.C. magistrate.
• On January 15, 2021, federal agents executed the warrant at Plaintiff’s residence in Dallas, Texas, detained him, and later transferred him to federal custody without apparent state extradition proceedings.
• Plaintiff challenges the federal agents’ authority to execute the arrest in Texas without Texas peace officer involvement or extradition procedures.

---

III. JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS UNDER FTCA
The United States has sovereign immunity unless expressly waived. The FTCA provides such a waiver only if administrative remedies are exhausted and the claim falls within the scope of a tort “actionable under local law.” (28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674).
• Exhaustion Defense: The United States argued the Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for claims involving the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). However, Plaintiff invoked the mailbox rule, submitting affidavit and USPS tracking to show mailing of Form-95s. Courts (see Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932); Custer v. Murphy Oil, 503 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2007)) recognize the presumption of delivery upon mailing, rebutting the Defendant’s non-delivery argument.

---

IV. FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE WARRANTS IN TEXAS
A. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure § 2.122
This statute distinguishes between “peace officers” and “special investigators” (i.e., federal agents). Federal agents are not peace officers and can only arrest under Texas law for felony state offenses or under specific federal mandates (e.g., Secret Service for presidential protection). Plaintiff argues this excludes FBI and DHS agents from independently executing federal arrest/search warrants in Texas without cooperation from state peace officers.

B. Rule 4(c)(2), Fed. R. Crim. P. and 18 U.S.C. § 3046
Rule 4 and § 3046 state a federal warrant may be executed anywhere a federal statute authorizes.
Plaintiff argues 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 & 13 limit such execution to federal enclaves or areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction. These provisions define the federal “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction,” excluding most state territory unless ceded to the federal government.

C. U.S. v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948)
In Di Re, the Supreme Court held that federal officers must operate within state boundaries in accordance with state law unless expressly authorized otherwise by statute. This supports Plaintiff’s position that federal officers must defer to Texas procedures in Texas territory unless they are in a federal enclave or jurisdiction is federally exclusive.

---

V. VIOLATION OF EXTRADITION PROCEDURES
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure § 51.13 and 18 U.S.C. § 3182 (Uniform Criminal Extradition Act) require state judicial process prior to transferring arrestees out of state. Plaintiff contends the failure to obtain a Texas court’s involvement before transporting him to D.C. violates both state sovereignty and federalism principles outlined in Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (1922).

---

VI. FEDERAL TORT VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
Plaintiff raises claims including:

• Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass – Arguing federal agents violated Texas tort law by arresting him without proper jurisdictional authority.
• Invasion of Privacy and Emotional Distress – Based on conduct during the raid and subsequent transportation.
• Negligence and Willful Disregard for Law – For violating statutory constraints under federal and Texas law.
The Defendant responded these are barred by sovereign immunity or civil privilege under Texas Penal Code 9.51, which protects law enforcement officers executing valid warrants. However, if Plaintiff proves the agents lacked authority to act without state involvement, then such privilege defenses may not apply.

---

VII. MAILBOX RULE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS
The Plaintiff asserts that his administrative claims were submitted to all agencies (FBI, DOJ, DHS, USMS) simultaneously via USPS, and that lack of a return receipt does not defeat presumption of delivery. The Defendant has not rebutted this with sufficient evidence to overcome the Hagner
presumption, and failure to address specific claims like Claim 32 may constitute judicial admission or waiver under Barber v. S.D.B. Dev.

---

VIII. AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORT
Texas Senator Bob Hall filed an amicus curiae brief reinforcing Plaintiff’s statutory interpretation of Texas Code § 2.122 and asserting the Plaintiff was arrested in violation of Texas and federal law. He contends that allowing unilateral federal arrests in Texas undermines state sovereignty and due process protections, especially when state law was circumvented and no Texas peace officer was involved.

---

IX. CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff’s core legal theory is not a challenge to his conviction, but a challenge to how federal agents conducted an arrest and search in Texas, allegedly without legal authority under both Texas and federal law. Based on the authorities cited:

• If federal agents acted without statutory jurisdiction under Texas Code § 2.122 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13, then Plaintiff’s claims may fall outside the FTCA’s exceptions.
• United States v. Di Re reinforces the necessity of state compliance unless Congress has expressly authorized federal action.
• Defendant’s failure to address these claims on the merits, combined with the mailbox rule
defense, may undermine their procedural dismissal efforts.

Accordingly, there is substantial legal support for Plaintiff’s argument that his arrest and search may have been ultra vires, in violation of clearly defined jurisdictional boundaries.

---

Would you like a motion drafted or a summarized version suitable for inclusion in a court filing?

GOOGLE GEMINI:

Legal Analysis of Troy Anthony Smocks’ Civil Lawsuit Against the United States

This legal analysis examines the civil lawsuit filed by Troy Anthony Smocks (Plaintiff) against the United States of America (Defendant), drawing upon the Civil Complaint, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and an Amicus Curiae Brief from Texas State Senator Bob Hall. The core of the Plaintiff’s claims revolves around alleged unlawful arrest, detention, and related torts, with significant focus on the interplay between state and federal jurisdiction, particularly regarding Texas Penal Code § 2.122, federal enclave statutes, and specific U.S. Code sections, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13, and the precedent set by United States v. Di Re.

Factual Background of the Civil Complaint

Plaintiff Troy Anthony Smocks initiated this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), asserting jurisdiction based on the United States being liable under Texas law as if it were a private person1111. He alleges that all administrative remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) have been exhausted (2). Venue is claimed to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas, where the Plaintiff resides, or where the alleged acts or omissions occurred(3).
The Complaint details several claims of causation:

• Assault and Abduction: Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted and abducted at gunpoint from his
Dallas, Texas, residence by the Defendant, violating Texas Penal Code §§ 20.01(1) and 22.01(a)(2) and (3). This is specifically linked to retaliatory political viewpoint and voter affiliation(4). The abduction is further defined as restraining a person with intent to prevent liberation by secreting or holding them where they are not likely to be found, or by using or threatening deadly force(5).
• Unlawful Trespass and Property Claims: The Defendant is accused of unlawfully trespassing on Plaintiff’s private property (residence, Toyota Tundra, and Jaguar XF) and unlawfully claiming possession of other property, in violation of Texas Penal Code §§ 3.05 and 31.03(a)(b)(1),(e)(4)(A)(6).
• Invasion of Privacy: Plaintiff asserts an invasion of his private affairs, specifically intrusion upon his seclusion or solitude(7).
• Voter Protection Law Violation: The Defendant allegedly retaliated against the Plaintiff in violation of Texas Election Code § 276.001(a)(8).
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm: Plaintiff claims the Defendant caused intentional infliction of emotional harm under Texas law(9).
• Dangerous Environment: The Defendant is accused of knowingly creating a dangerous or deadly environment for the Plaintiff’s custodial confinement and housing(10).

The Defendant, identified as a Federal Corporation, operated through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI (specifically Special Agent Kendrick Chumak), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the United States Marshals Service (USMS)(11).

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

The United States moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)(12). The Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over portions of the Complaint because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies(13). Other claims, the Defendant asserts, fall outside
the limited waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA because a private individual would not be liable under the circumstances(14). The Defendant characterizes Plaintiff’s claims as baseless and brought in bad faith, demanding almost $2.5 billion in damages (15).

The Defendant’s factual background highlights Plaintiff’s social media posts on Parler leading up to January 6, 2021, where he made threats and encouraged actions related to the “Stop the Steal”rally(16). The FBI initiated surveillance, and an arrest warrant was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia based on threats in interstate communications (18 U.S.C. § 875(c))(17). A search warrant for Plaintiff’s residence and vehicle was obtained in the Eastern District of Texas(18). The Defendant details the arrest on January 14, 2021, involving federal agents and an armored vehicle, and Plaintiff’s subsequent transport and detention(19). Plaintiff later pleaded guilty to threats in interstate communications (18 U.S.C. § 875(c))(20). At sentencing, the court noted Plaintiff’s lack of remorse and the broad reach of his threats(21).

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Response contends that the Defendant neglected to address the merits of the lawsuit (22). Plaintiff argues that the Defendant’s voluntary disclosure of information creates a duty to disclose the whole truth(23). The Plaintiff requests judicial notice of a collateral attack by way of habeas corpus, where Plaintiff was allegedly arrested for “non-criminal conduct” and “Constitutionally protected First
Amendment political speech”(24).

A central argument in the Plaintiff’s response is that federal agents acted outside their extraterritorial authority and in violation of federal and state statutory laws, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13, 3046, and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure § 2.122(25). The Plaintiff cites the Department of Justice Criminal Manual

Chapter 664 as supporting the claim that he was unlawfully abducted and kidnapped(26). The Plaintiff emphasizes that the issuance and execution of warrants must strictly comply with statutory formalities, citing United States v. Martin, 600 F.2d 1175, 1179 (5th Cir. 1979) (27). The Plaintiff asserts that federal statutory law prohibits federal agents from executing arrest warrants beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as controlled by 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13 (28).

Amicus Curiae Brief of Texas State Senator Bob Hall

Senator Bob Hall’s amicus curiae brief supports the Plaintiff’s position regarding the interpretation of Texas Penal Section 2.122 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (TCCP) in conjunction with Articles 14.01(a) and 14.06(d) and (g)(3) of the TCCP (29). The brief emphasizes the importance of ensuring Texas law is enforced to respect individual rights, particularly in matters of arrest and extradition from areas under Texas state sovereignty (30). The brief also cites United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948), in relation to legal principles at stake (31).

Legal Analysis of Key Issues

Texas Code § 2.122 and United States v. Di Re

Texas Penal Code § 2.122, titled “NO ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT,” generally prohibits arrests without a warrant, with certain exceptions(32). The Plaintiff and Amicus Curiae argue that the federal agents’ arrest of Smocks violated Texas law, contending that the arrest was unlawful because it did not adhere to Texas statutory requirements (33). The Amicus Curiae brief directly supports the Plaintiff’s position regarding the interpretation of Texas Penal Section 2.122 in conjunction with other TCCP articles related to arrest and extradition (34).

The citation of United States v. Di Re (35) is crucial. In Di Re, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of a federal statute, the validity of an arrest by federal officers for a federal crime is determined by the law of the state where the arrest takes place. The Plaintiff and Senator Hall’s brief appear to argue that because the federal agents’ actions did not comply with Texas arrest procedures, the arrest was unlawful under the Di Re principle. This suggests that even with a federal warrant, state law formalities regarding execution might still apply, particularly in areas of state sovereignty.

Federal Enclave Statutes and U.S. Constitutional Exclusive Jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13)

The Plaintiff’s Response directly invokes 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13, arguing that federal agents acted outside their “extraterritorial authority” and in violation of these statutes (36).

• 18 U.S.C. § 7 (Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined): This statute defines the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, which generally refers to areas under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the federal government (e.g., federal enclaves like military bases, national parks). The Plaintiff’s argument implies that his arrest occurred outside such a federal enclave and thus outside the “jurisdiction of the United States” as understood under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs the execution of warrants (37).

• 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction): This statute, known as the Assimilative Crimes Act, makes state law applicable to conduct committed within areas of exclusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction when no federal law covers the conduct. The Plaintiff’s use of this statute, alongside 18 U.S.C. § 7, suggests an argument that if the arrest occurred outside a federal enclave, or if federal law did not explicitly authorize the method of arrest in a non-enclave, then state law should govern the lawfulness of the arrest.

The Plaintiff asserts that federal statutory law prohibits federal agents from executing federal arrest warrants beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as controlled by 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13, where “Exclusive” and “Extraterritorial” jurisdiction are defined (38). This suggests that the Plaintiff is arguing that his Dallas residence was not a federal enclave, and therefore, state law arrest procedures should have been followed, or that the federal agents exceeded their authority in a non-federal jurisdiction.

Mailbox Rule and Admissions by the Defendants

While the term “mailbox rule” is explicitly mentioned in the user’s prompt, it does not appear in the provided document content. The “mailbox rule” typically pertains to contract law, establishing when an acceptance of an offer is effective upon dispatch. Its relevance to this civil tort claims suit is not evident from the provided documents.

However, the Plaintiff’s Response does address “admissions by the defendants.” The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant, by voluntarily disclosing information, has a duty to disclose the “whole truth” (39). This appears to be an argument for judicial admissions, where a party’s statements or actions in litigation can be taken as admitted facts. Specifically, the Plaintiff points to the Defendant’s characterization of the January 6th event as an “insurrection” while, according to the Plaintiff, the government’s own admission concedes no insurrection occurred (40). Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant neglected to disclose the fact of Mr. Smocks’ habeas corpus claim, where the Plaintiff was arrested for “non-criminal conduct” and “Constitutionally protected First Amendment political speech” (41). This suggests the Plaintiff views these omissions and inconsistencies as admissions that undermine the Defendant’s position.

Conclusion

The legal analysis reveals a complex civil tort claims suit where the Plaintiff asserts significant violations of his rights stemming from his arrest and detention. The central arguments revolve around the alleged non-compliance of federal agents with state and federal laws concerning arrest procedures, particularly Texas Penal Code § 2.122 and the principles of United States v. Di Re. The Plaintiff’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13, and the concept of federal enclave jurisdiction, underscores a jurisdictional dispute over the lawfulness of the federal agents’ actions within what the Plaintiff asserts was Texas state territory. The Plaintiff also attempts to leverage the Defendant’s disclosures and omissions as “admissions” to support his claims of unlawful conduct. The outcome of this case will likely hinge on the Court’s interpretation of the interplay between federal and state law in the context of federal arrests conducted outside
traditional federal enclaves.

MICROSOFT COPILOT AI:

Legal Analysis of the Civil Lawsuit

#### **Introduction**
The civil lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Troy Anthony Smocks raises significant constitutional and statutory concerns regarding the legality of his arrest by federal agents in Texas. The case hinges on the interpretation of **Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.122**, **United States v. Di Re**, and federal enclave statutes under **18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13**. The Plaintiff argues that his arrest violated Texas law, federal jurisdictional limits, and constitutional protections.

---

#### **Key Legal Issues**
1. **Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.122**
Texas law explicitly limits the authority of federal agents in executing arrests within the state. **Article 2.122** states that certain federal investigators are **not deemed peace officers** under Texas law and may only exercise arrest powers for felony offenses. The Plaintiff contends that his arrest did not meet these criteria and was therefore unlawful.

2. **United States v. Di Re (332 U.S. 581, 1948)**
This Supreme Court case established that federal agents must comply with state law when executing
arrests unless Congress explicitly provides otherwise. The Plaintiff argues that his arrest violated **Texas Penal Code § 2.122**, which requires state peace officers to be involved in arrests within Texas jurisdiction.

3. **Federal Enclave Jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13)**
Federal jurisdiction applies in **exclusive federal enclaves**, such as military bases or federal buildings. However, the Plaintiff was arrested at his private residence in Texas, which does not fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Under **18 U.S.C. § 13**, federal law incorporates state law in areas where the federal government has jurisdiction. The Plaintiff argues that Texas law should have governed his arrest.
—

#### **Factual Background**
– The Plaintiff attended the **January 6, 2021, rally** in Washington, D.C., but did not participate in the Capitol unrest.

– Federal agents conducted **pre-seizure surveillance** of the Plaintiff at his **gated residential community** in Dallas, Texas.

– On **January 15, 2021**, approximately **30 heavily armed federal agents** executed a **military- style raid** on his residence.

– The Plaintiff was **forcibly detained** in near-freezing temperatures, dressed only in underwear.

– Federal agents **transported the Plaintiff to a federal enclave** without following Texas extradition procedures.
—
#### **Legal Arguments**
1. **Violation of Texas Arrest Procedures**
– The Plaintiff argues that federal agents **lacked authority** to arrest him without involvement from Texas peace officers.
– **Texas Penal Code § 2.122** requires state law enforcement participation in arrests within Texas.

2. **Failure to Follow Extradition Laws**
– The Plaintiff was **transported across state lines** without compliance with **Texas extradition statutes**.
– Under **United States v. Di Re**, federal agents must adhere to state law when executing arrests.

3. **Federal Enclave Jurisdiction Does Not Apply**
– The Plaintiff was arrested at his **private residence**, not a federal enclave.
– **18 U.S.C. § 7** defines federal jurisdiction as applying to **specific federal properties**, which does not include private residences.
—
**Conclusion**
The Plaintiff’s legal arguments challenge the **lawfulness of his arrest** under Texas law and federal jurisdictional statutes. If the court finds that federal agents **exceeded their authority**, the Plaintiff may have grounds for relief based on **state sovereignty, due process violations, and improper
extradition procedures**. The case underscores the **tension between federal enforcement actions and state legal protections**.

The post J6 Political Prisoner Troy Smocks Asks AI to Analyze His Civil Lawsuit Against the United States – Finds He May Have Grounds for Relief appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Too Little Too Late: Caitlin Clark received the ESPY last night for being the WNBA player of the year.

Last night at the ESPY awards, Caitlin Clark was named the WNBA Player of the Year.

The ESPY’s @WNBA Player of the Year

congrats, Caitlin Clark pic.twitter.com/x1ch6l9c2y

— Indiana Fever (@IndianaFever) July 17, 2025

This award is long overdue.

Unfortunately the WNBA is a broken and self-destructive league and it has broken Caitlin Clark.  The players, the coaches, the refs, and league management are the worst in the sports world.  It appears that they want to destroy their golden goose Caitlin Clark at times.  This award is too little too late. 

The jealous and egotistical monsters in women’s basketball (and yes, many are sexist and racist too) hated Caitlin Clark, not because she was mean, or had a big ego, or was racist… they hated her because she was the greatest and they were not going to let her be that in their league.  They were all jealous and hateful.

But no matter what they did, they couldn’t stop her.  Here is Clark scoring 9 points in less than a minute in a game earlier this year.

Here is a cleaner video of Caitlin going bananas. Just insane. pic.twitter.com/TJom6tG5fa

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) June 14, 2025

Clark, the greatest scorer and point producer when adding in points off of assists, was the best women’s basketball player in NCAA history.  She crushed NCAA scoring records and she brought a fan base bigger than any woman’s basketball player in US history with her to the WNBA.

The below chart shows how Clark is in a league of her own when adding points scored and points off of assists together.

Unfortunately, the WNBA didn’t want her or welcome her.  Clark suffers greatly in games in numerous ways.  The below example is how the players and the refs abuse Clark.

In this series, Clark is poked in the eye by the opposing player after grabbing and pulling Clark all game long.  When she wasn’t able to stop Clark, she poked her in the eye.  Then the opposing player assaulted her and pushed her.  Clark tried to get away but another opponent punched Clark in the back and then another player crashed Clark to the floor.  None of Clark’s teammates stood up for her when this happened.

Umm this angle is pic.twitter.com/tyMSWooUir

— Jess (@FeverBandwagon) June 18, 2025

The result of this exchange was a foul on the girl who slammed Clark on the floor, and a foul on Clark!

Here is evidence. Photos don’t lie. The finger pointing, the punch in the back and the push after she gets hit in the eye. And Caitlin Clark was given a technical on this non basketball play. https://t.co/f0vNJTMV1C pic.twitter.com/mtXNel01zz

— CCFC- (@sohali2012) June 22, 2025

The greatest shooter in the history of the game is pummeled by opposing players, game, after game, after game.

Caitlin Clark Takes a beating out on the floor, Do you think it’s because she is White or because she is better than they are? pic.twitter.com/6cJsRBQ1m6

— Johnny Midnight (@its_The_Dr) May 29, 2025

This week Clark was injured again and may miss the All-Star game.  Clark has never missed a game since high school until this year in the WNBA.

Clark has already dealt with multiple injuries this season, missing 10 games in total — nine in the regular season and then the Commissioner’s Cup championship. She missed five games with a left quad strain and later sat out five more after injuring her left groin. This is uncharted territory for Clark, who did not miss any playing time for injury reasons at Iowa or during her WNBA rookie year.

While Clark was out earlier this year, the WNBA lost half its audience.

WNBA Panics as Attendance Collapses with Caitlin Clark Injury

Last year, the WNBA members on the Olympic Committee and the nasty coach of the WNBA’s Minnesota team (Cheryl Reeve), prevented Clark, the best player in the country from being on the Olympic team.  It was the worst decision in Olympic history in decades.  Clark could have brought so many more viewers to the game.  But they kept her off the team.

Clark, who was the leading voter-getter for the WNBA’s All-Star game, was provided an opportunity to trade All-Star players on her team with the other team.  Instead, she traded away her coach, which was Minnesota’s nasty coach Cheryl Reeve.

TRADE ALERT

Caitlin Clark and Napheesa Collier have decided to trade COACHES!

That means Cheryl Reeve will now coach Team Collier and Sandy Brondello will lead Team Clark

2025 @ATT WNBA All-Star pic.twitter.com/LtcZs273SY

— WNBA (@WNBA) July 8, 2025

Clark is a fighter.  She handles all the challenges with grace.  But her games have gotten too difficult to watch because of the horrible players, refs, coaches and league.

In her last game the refs were again horrible.  They are seriously the worst.  Players can pummel the WNBA’s golden goose and they are never called for a foul.  Clark touches someone and immediately gets called for a foul.

Broadcast team breaks down every foul defenders are allowed to get away with on Caitlin Clark pic.twitter.com/985PVBvwH8

— Clark Report (@CClarkReport) July 13, 2025

This is all on the worst league in world history.  This happens all the time. It’s gotten to the point where basketball fans and fans of Caitlin Clark have had enough. It is no longer fun to watch. It’s like watching a boxer get pummeled with one hand tied behind his back.

HOW IS CAITLIN CLARK GETTING GRABBED W NO FOUL??? pic.twitter.com/LkhobeEaVV

— LeLakers 2⃣3⃣ (@LeLaker) June 25, 2025

The abuse happens every game.

The worst refs in the worst league in sports watch Caitlin Clark get crushed and no foul WTH. ⁦@gatewaypundit⁩ pic.twitter.com/0QeUGtdtor

— Joe Hoft (@realJoeHoft) August 18, 2024

The league’s front office, the coaches, the refs, the other players and her own teammates have been heartless, jealous and abusive to Clark who has carried the league since her first day.

In her last game Clark finally came undone. The refs were terrible then one ref said something totally nasty to the league’s Golden Goose.

I gotta know what this ref said, because Caitlin Clark flipped a switch real quick…

She was pissed. pic.twitter.com/APFkAe1q9d

— Jon Root (@JonnyRoot_) July 16, 2025

Now the WNBA wants to honor Clark – Unfortunately it’s too little too late. Nobody wants to watch this abuse. Nobody.

The post TOO LITTLE TOO LATE: Caitlin Clark Named WNBA Player of the Year After Suffering a Year of Shocking Abuse first appeared on Joe Hoft.

The post TOO LITTLE TOO LATE: Caitlin Clark Named WNBA Player of the Year After Suffering a Year of Shocking Abuse appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Mike Rowe, the champion of the folks who get dirty for a living and are proud of it, revealed on social media that he received a “dress for success” lecture from his mom.

According to a post Rowe wrote on Facebook, his mom fretted that when Rowe attended the recent Energy and Innovation Summit in Pittsburgh, his attire might have clashed with the suits of the important folks attending.

Rowe’s post said that after explaining he would wear a suit, Momma Rowe revealed she knows her boy.

https://t.co/DuXTTzfQAl

I’m leaving Pittsburgh, on a flight to Denver, reflecting on the last 36 hours. The Energy and Innovation Summit has just concluded, where I was invited to sit on a panel and address a room full of big shots. When my mother learned I’d be attending an…

— The Real Mike Rowe (@mikeroweworks) July 16, 2025

“‘Good,’ she said. ‘Do you have one that isn’t made of rubber?’” Rowe quoted her as saying, noting that she did not want him appearing in public like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“‘I wouldn’t want you to embarrass yourself like that little man from Ukraine. The one who went to the White House dressed like a cat burglar,’” Rowe quoted her as saying.

He also quoted her as saying she did not want his attire compared to “that big, bald Senator who always wears short pants and sweatshirts,” referring to Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

Rowe also received instructions on speaking to President Donald Trump.

“‘If you talk to the President, tell him to be careful with all the AI stuff. I don’t need a computer that writes my next book for me!’” Rowe quoted his mom as saying.

“I did meet the President, who said he didn’t recognize me with a suit on. He was familiar with my foundation, congratulated me on predicting the widening skills gap seventeen years ago, and thanked me for my continued efforts to help close it. I told him it was a privilege to do so, and thanked him for the autographed bathrobe I auctioned off for $45,000 ten years ago,” he said, noting that he told Trump he has raised and given away scholarships worth $12 million.

“The President seemed delighted. If I had more time, I would have asked him to sign my tie and put it up for sale today, but there was a line of people behind me, and I didn’t want to press my luck,” he wrote.

Rowe noted that beyond all the talk, there was a serious point that is beginning to be understood.

“It’s taken seventeen years, but there is now an undeniable awareness in C-suites across the country that we have a massive problem to overcome – a problem that has nothing to do with our ability to create jobs, and everything to do with our ability to create enthusiasm for those jobs,” he wrote.

“It’s an awkward point to make, especially at an event that’s celebrating the creation of so much new opportunity, but there’s no getting around it – if we don’t have enough workers to fill the jobs that are open today, we’ll never be able to fill the jobs we create tomorrow,” he wrote.

Mindful of his mother’s concern about his attire, Rowe added, “John Fetterman was there… He strongly supported the need to unleash all forms of energy and reinvigorate the skilled trades. He did so in short pants and a black sweatshirt.”

During his presentation, Rowe noted that new technology jobs are fine until the next wave hits.

“We’ve been telling kids for 15 years to code. ‘Learn to code,’ we said,” Rowe noted. “Well, AI is coming for the coders. They’re not coming for the welders. They’re not coming for the plumbers.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Mike Rowe’s Mother Had an Important Warning for Him Before He Met Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

(Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like those presenting a sponsored message below and ordering through the links below, which benefits Gateway Pundit. We appreciate your support!)

Since 1913, the IRS has claimed an annual portion of Americans’ hard-earned money.

But that century-old tradition may be coming to an end.

Jim Rickards—a 50-year government insider who has advised the CIA, Treasury, and Federal Reserve—believes President Trump is on the verge of abolishing income tax for most Americans.

“Get ready,” Rickards warns, “there’s a realistic chance Donald Trump could axe the income tax. And investors who understand why could make a fortune in the months ahead.”

The average family currently pays around $10,000 annually to the federal government. Imagine what you could do with that extra money each year!

Trump has publicly said he will replace the income tax with tariffs.

But according to Rickards, the president’s plan could soon take a giant leap forward, thanks to a massive $150 trillion economic windfall. One that could transform our economy while eliminating the federal deficit.

This unprecedented move could trigger a wave of prosperity unlike any in American history—and a once in a lifetime opportunity for investors who act quickly.

To learn which sector is positioned to create a new generation of wealth, watch our exclusive interview with Jim Rickards now.

The post Government Insider: “Trump to Break IRS’s Stranglehold on Americans” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Rep. Maria Salazar’s (R-FL) dignity act isn’t just amnesty for millions of law-breakers who work in the United States, but further analysis of the bill has shown that it could exempt “the worst of the worst.”

The Gateway Pundit reported that Salazar, nine other RINOs, and ten Democrats introduced the “Dignidad (Dignity) Act” to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are currently living and working in the United States.

She even admitted that “yes, they broke the law, but someone gave them a job because they needed those workers.”

HERE WE GO: RINO Congresswoman Maria Salazar Introduces Bipartisan Mass Amnesty “Dignity Act” to Provide “Earned Opportunity” for Millions of Illegals to Stay and Work – “Yes, They Broke the Law, but…” (VIDEO)

This comes after President Trump told reporters that he supports a “work deal” for illegal aliens and said that they’re “working on legislation.” Former Congresswoman and current Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-Deremer, who introduced a version of the bill in 2023, said they are working on “streamlining” illegals through work visa programs. It is currently unclear if Trump supports this bill.

The bill would give a seven-year legal status, which can be renewed, to illegal aliens and grants “legal status and a path to permanent residency” to so-called “dreamers.” Salazar said, “over 10 million people, or more” illegal aliens will benefit, while repeating the Democrat talking point that “we will not have food by this Friday” without them. 

In return for paying, on average, $1,000 per year (almost nothing), not taking advantage of Medicare/Medicaid, and contributing 1% of their salary to the United States Treasury, illegals “will never be deported,” Salazar said.

But it’s even worse than that. According to Article III Project Senior Counsel Will Chamberlain, “everyone gets to stay” under the bill, including criminals. They also “don’t have to pay payroll taxes,” he said.

The basic way to understand Maria Salazar’s amnesty bill is this:

If you came in to the country before Biden was inaugurated, you get to stay.

If you were under 18 when you came into the country, for whatever reason – you get a 4-year path to citizenship.

If you were over 18, you get what is effectively permanent residency with no path to citizenship, and you don’t have to pay payroll taxes.

Not joking. The only deportable aliens will be criminal aliens and aliens that came in under Biden. Everyone else gets to stay.

You were told that Dreamer status was for those unfortunate people brought to the United States as young children.

Not so. If you came on your own volition as a 17-year-old, you’re a Dreamer under her bill.

You were told that Dreamer status was for those unfortunate people brought to the United States as young children.

Not so. If you came on your own volition as a 17-year-old, you’re a Dreamer under her bill.

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) July 16, 2025

After reviewing the entire 260-page bill, Chamberlain posted a thread, outlining the most egregious example of who this bill exempts from deportation: El Salvadoran MS-13 gangster and wife-beater Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Full thread below:

Under @RepMariaSalazar’s bill, the wife-beating illegal alien MS-13 gang banging human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia could be granted citizenship by a future Democrat administration, with no further changes to American law.

A thread with citations explaining how.

Let’s start with the basics of his admissibility. Abrego Garcia entered the United States in 2011 at the age of 16.

That makes him eligible for the Dreamer program under the bill. It doesn’t matter that he came on his own volition.

At this point, you might note that he hasn’t been continuously present in the United States because he was removed to El Salvador.

Lucky for Kilmar, there’s an exception to the continuous presence requirement if you were previously removed.

You might say – well, wait, isn’t he a member of MS-13? Shouldn’t that bar him from entering the country.

Well, yeah, it should. The problem is that the bill actively bars law enforcement from using federal or state gang databases to determine whether someone is a gang member.

Well, surely, you’d say, the wife beating would bar our friend Kilmar from the program.

The problem is allegations of domestic violence aren’t enough. He would have had to be convicted of domestic violence. And even then, he could still get by, if he could demonstrate that he committed the crime because he was himself a victim of…domestic violence OR sexual assault OR child abuse OR neglect OR human trafficking.

But what about the human trafficking, you might say? Certainly someone involved with bringing illegal migrants from Texas to Maryland can’t be eligible for Dreamer status.

Think again. The law gives the DHS secretary the discretion to waive the provision making human smugglers inadmissible “for humanitarian purposes, for family unity, or because the waiver is otherwise in the public interest.” That’s a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

All Kilmar would have to do to be eligible for the program is to sign up for an “education program” that assists people in either getting a GED or a technical credential.

Literally nothing.

If Kilmar got a technical degree, or was employed for three years out of a four-year period, he would get lawful permanent residence, and be eligible to apply for citizenship.

Under @RepMariaSalazar‘s bill, the wife-beating illegal alien MS-13 gang banging human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia could be granted citizenship by a future Democrat administration, with no further changes to American law.

A thread with citations explaining how. pic.twitter.com/N9n3vyeG3y

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) July 16, 2025

This is a developing story. 

The post Rep. Maria Salazar’s Mass Amnesty “Dignity Act” Provides Pathway to Citizenship for MS-13 Member Kilmar Garcia and Other Violent Criminals appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

 

The Pentagon pulled roughly a dozen senior Defense Department officials from the Aspen Security Forum on Monday, July 14, 2025, just hours before the event was set to begin the next day. The decision marked a sharp break from decades of Pentagon participation in what was once considered one of the premier national security conferences in the United States.

The withdrawal signals a deeper realignment of American military priorities, shifting away from globalist ideology and toward America First principles. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s move underscores the administration’s commitment to refocusing the military on its core mission of national defense, rather than supporting globalist, liberal, or ideological agendas.

Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson made the administration’s position unmistakably clear. “The Department of Defense has no interest in legitimizing an organization that has invited former officials who have been the architects of chaos abroad and failure at home,” he said. Wilson described the forum as promoting “the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States,” emphasizing that such values are “antithetical to the America First values of this administration.”

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell emphasized the military’s renewed focus on combat effectiveness, stating, “The department will remain strong in its focus to increase the lethality of our warfighters, revitalize the warrior ethos, and project peace through strength on the world stage.” This marks a decisive break from what Hegseth has called the prior administration’s “experiments” in left-wing ideology, initiatives that, in his view, distracted the military from its core mission.

At the heart of the dispute is a clash between two visions of American foreign policy. The Pentagon’s America First doctrine prioritizes warfighting capability and national defense. In contrast, the Aspen Institute promotes a liberal globalist worldview centered on multilateral engagement and global governance. A closer examination of the Institute’s major donors reveals a network of foundations committed to advancing globalist policies that often conflict with American sovereignty and conservative principles.

Among these donors, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stands out as one of the most influential globalist organizations funding liberal causes worldwide. As the second-largest contributor to the World Health Organization, providing $638.2 million, the Foundation has played a pivotal role in shaping international health policy.

Because more than 80% of WHO’s budget comes from voluntary donations, donors like Gates wield disproportionate influence over decisions that many argue should remain under the authority of sovereign governments. Critics have described this model as “global health imperialism,” claiming it imposes ideological agendas under the guise of public health and circumvents democratic accountability.

Gates has consistently opposed national control over healthcare policy. The foundation also promotes supranational digital ID systems, partnering with Mastercard and GAVI to link vaccination records to cashless payment platforms. Through initiatives like ID2020, Gates advances biometric identity programs tied to health and education, building global surveillance infrastructure that sidesteps democratic oversight.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York, another of the Forum’s donors, has long funded the liberal legal framework advancing progressive policy goals under the guise of nonpartisanship. Since 1994, Carnegie has given nearly $7 million to groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Immigration Forum, both of which support mass immigration, amnesty, and opposition to border enforcement. Carnegie also funded the now-defunct ACORN, a radical community organizing network notorious for voter registration fraud and anti-capitalist activism.

Carnegie’s current $18 million “Political Polarization Research Program” frames conservative perspectives as drivers of division while promoting liberal policy agendas as solutions to national challenges. The foundation has given over $3.65 million to the Brennan Center for Justice, a group that opposes voter ID laws, supports automatic voter registration, and challenges election integrity efforts under the banner of “voting rights.” Through its Press Forward Initiative, Carnegie also leads a $500 million coalition to fund left-leaning journalism, all while claiming to support democracy.

Other Aspen Institute donors share similar ideological goals. The Raikes Foundation, for example, focuses explicitly on “racial equity,” “democracy,” and “building a robust multiracial democracy” through its Resourcing Equity and Democracy portfolio. It funds Planned Parenthood, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and organizations that aim to fundamentally transform American institutions. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation promotes government-run healthcare, endorses COVID lockdown policies, and drives DEI initiatives throughout the medical field.

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with $13.9 billion in assets, is a major funder of liberal and anti-capitalist causes. It supports climate activism, abortion which it frames as “reproductive rights”, and “democracy” initiatives that advance liberal internationalism. The now-defunct S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation directed millions to the Windward Fund, a fiscal sponsor for environmentalist projects linked to the left-leaning Arabella Advisors network, and also supported groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Immigration Law Center.

This network of liberal foundations exemplifies the globalist ideology the Pentagon rejected at Aspen. These organizations leverage private wealth to build supranational governance systems that bypass national sovereignty and democratic oversight while promoting liberal social and economic agendas worldwide.

They elevate global institutions over American security interests, concentrate power in unelected elites, and champion social engineering that undermines traditional American values. The Pentagon’s withdrawal from the Aspen Security Forum marks a decisive rejection of this globalist framework in favor of a defense posture rooted in national sovereignty and America First principles.

The post Pentagon Withdraws from Aspen Conference: Exposing the Liberal Mega-Donor Network Behind Globalist Defense Summit appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on Sunday that the DOJ is reviewing reports that Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA) was involved in a violent riot and doxxed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

The alleged incident occurred during a ICE criminal warrant operation at a marijuana farm in Carpinteria, California.

ICE was conducting enforcement operations at two marijuana farms operated by Glass House Brands Inc. in Carpinteria and Camarillo when chaos unfolded. “More than 500 rioters attempted to disrupt operations,” and one even “fired a gun at law enforcement,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a press release.

The Gateway Pundit reported that Carbajal was at the scene and claimed that he was there to fulfill his “congressional oversight responsibilities.” However, ICE announced on Sunday that “Carbajal was part of a violent mob of protestors attempting to obstruct federal law enforcement as they executed a criminal search warrant at a marijuana facility.”

During the riot, rocks were hurled at agents, leaving “at least one ICE employee who was left bloody,” and “the congressman doxed that same ICE employee by sharing his business card with members of the violent mob,” the agency further alleged, citing reports from agents on the ground.

JUST IN: ICE Announces that Rep. Salud Carbajal DOXXED ICE employee who was “Left Bloody” by Left-wing Rioters at California Pot Farm – Carbajal Shared Agent’s Business Card with Violent Mob

It can be recalled that Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was charged with three counts related to forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers at the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark last month. If convicted on all three charges, she faces a maximum of 17 years in prison!

Video from the incident clearly shows Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver screaming at and physically assaulting federal agents by shoving them and hitting them with her body repeatedly. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was also there, fighting for the release of dangerous criminal aliens.

McIver pleaded not guilty at her arraignment hearing on June 25.

If Carbajal was, in fact, participating in the violent riot, which injured ICE agents, and jeopardizing the lives of agents by doxxing them, he could face similar consequences.

Hopefully, the DOJ will actually take action to deter criminals like Carbajal and other Democrats encouraging violence against law enforcement.

Blanche said on X,

We take all allegations of inciting violence or doxing of federal employees very seriously—no one is above the law, and members of Congress are no exception. We are reviewing reports from the protest. If substantiated, we will pursue every appropriate legal avenue to protect our law enforcement officers and uphold the rule of law.

We take all allegations of inciting violence or doxing of federal employees very seriously—no one is above the law, and members of Congress are no exception. We are reviewing reports from the protest. If substantiated, we will pursue every appropriate legal avenue to protect our… https://t.co/0DDPuxPBX3

— Todd Blanche (@DAGToddBlanche) July 14, 2025

Carbajal fired back, attacking ICE and claiming that the group was “peaceful” and targeted by ICE:

This is a blatant attempt to distort what occurred in Carpinteria. DHS and ICE conducted their raid using a disturbing and disproportionate level of force, both on the farm workers they were targeting and the peaceful protesters who gathered to defend their neighbors. I witnessed agents, in full military gear, fire smoke canisters and other projectiles into a crowd of peaceful civilians. Just before I arrived at the scene, witnesses told me the agents threw a stun grenade into the crowd. Several civilians were injured, including a child.

This aggressive behavior in a normally quiet part of the Central Coast sparked alarm across our community, prompting a flood of calls and messages to my office from concerned citizens. I went to the scene to seek answers and represent my constituents.

ICE’s claims of “doxxing” and “violent mobs” are familiar deflection tactics designed to distort public perception and to evade accountability for their aggressive actions in our community.

This is a blatant attempt to distort what occurred in Carpinteria. DHS and ICE conducted their raid using a disturbing and disproportionate level of force, both on the farm workers they were targeting and the peaceful protesters who gathered to defend their neighbors. I witnessed… pic.twitter.com/iETpaYTgxm

— Rep. Salud Carbajal (@RepCarbajal) July 14, 2025

This is a developing story. 

The post Deputy AG Todd Blanche Signals Investigation into Rep. Salud Carbajal for Doxxing ICE Agent and Participating in Violent Mob – Carbajal Responds, Says Mob “Gathered to Defend Their Neighbors” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Fired and disgraced Jim Comey had two children working in the DOJ until yesterday when  Maurene Comey was reportedly fired by the DOJ.

Her brother-in-law is reportedly still with the DOJ.  When will he be fired as well?

Corrupt Jim Comey’s daughter Maurene is finally gone.

The Justice Department on Wednesday fired Maurene Comey from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where she most recently led the prosecution of Sean “Diddy” Combs, multiple sources told ABC News.

This was long over due.  Maurene Comey was not only involved in the P. Diddy case, she also was involved in the Jeffrey Epstein case and the Ghislaine Maxwell cases.  Ultimately, Diddy was not found guilty of any child sex trafficking crimes with Maurene running the case.

We also know that Maurene Comey was blocking the release of documents in the Epstein case.

ROGER STONE Asks President Trump to Release DOJ Court Filings in Epstein Case that the DOJ, Including Jim Comey’s Daughter Maurene, Is Keeping Sealed

Also, Maurene Comey was part of the DOJ’s team that claimed that they lost the video of Epstein’s cell from the night of his death and then discovered the DOJ had the video the next day.  (We recently learned that this video has been altered.)

REMINDER: Jim Comey’s Daughter Maurene Reported that the Video of Epstein’s Cell on Night of His Murder Was Lost and Then Found

Maurene is finally gone.  With her goes her conflict of interest from being James Comey’s daugther.

However, this is not the only Comey family member working for the DOJ on big cases.

Jim Comey’s son-in-law, Troy Edwards, was a prosecutor on the Oath Keepers Jan 6 trial where Biden’s corrupt DOJ claimed based on bogus evidence that the Oath Keepers intended to commit an insurrection on Jan 6.

Edwards was quoted by the BBC in this case:

The post Jim Comey’s Daughter Maurene Finally Fired from DOJ – When Will They Fire Comey’s Son-in-Law Who Prosecuted Jan-6ers as Well? first appeared on Joe Hoft.

The post Jim Comey’s Daughter Maurene Finally Fired from DOJ – When Will They Fire Comey’s Son-in-Law Who Prosecuted Jan-6ers? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guest post by Gregory Lyakhov

In states like New York, where education policy is often entangled with politics, school choice has become a polarizing topic. Progressive lawmakers, such as NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, have opposed charter schools, voucher programs, and even co-location policies that allow high-performing charter schools to use available space in public school buildings.

But while these policy debates play out, students in underserved communities remain trapped in underperforming schools with limited paths to success.

Against this backdrop, the work of Jessica Bartnick and her nonprofit, the Foundation for C.H.O.I.C.E. (Consider How One Individual Changes Everything), presents a compelling case for why grassroots mentorship and practical guidance matter more than slogans or ideological purity.

Founded in Dallas, Texas in 2014, Bartnick’s organization has made significant strides in supporting low-income high school students who often fall through the cracks of the education system. The Foundation’s 27-week, one-on-one mentoring program helps students navigate the college admissions process, secure scholarships, explore career paths, and develop critical life skills.

The program focuses on students from working-class families—many of whom are from single-parent homes or households where English is not the primary language. These are the very students who are most affected by the failures of public education and who are often overlooked in mainstream education reform efforts.

What sets Foundation for C.H.O.I.C.E. apart is its direct, practical impact. On average, each student mentored through the program secures over $60,000 in college funding. Beyond that, students are connected with businesses aligned with their interests, gaining real-world exposure to professional environments they might never encounter otherwise.

Whether shadowing medical professionals or participating in mock interviews at corporate offices, these experiences not only demystify the professional world—they also give students a reason to believe they belong in it.

Contrast this with the situation in New York. Despite spending more than $36,000 per student—more than any other state—the city’s public schools remain plagued by low test scores, high absenteeism, and declining student engagement.

Charter schools like Success Academy, which enroll a student population that is 98% minority and largely low-income, have demonstrated that dramatic academic gains are possible. Yet leaders like Mamdani continue to oppose their expansion, citing ideological concerns and claiming that school choice drains public funds.

In truth, charter schools operate with less funding per student than traditional public schools, and their success challenges the notion that more money alone can solve deep-rooted education problems.

Mamdani’s approach includes policies that sound inclusive on paper but do little to address academic performance. His support for the “People’s Budget,” which allocates millions to initiatives like increasing teacher diversity and funding inclusivity conventions, ignores the basic reality: children in failing schools need access to strong instruction, safe environments, and clear paths to higher education—not more bureaucracy.

Jessica Bartnick’s model offers a sharp contrast. As a private school parent and conservative, she fully embraces the core idea of school choice: that families, not the government, should be empowered to choose the best educational path for their children. Her organization doesn’t just criticize the system; instead, it builds an alternative for students to thrive within it.

Her copyrighted curriculum is used to train mentors from all backgrounds—no teaching certificate required—so they can guide students in everything from FAFSA applications to SAT prep to college interviews. The results speak for themselves: since its founding, Foundation for C.H.O.I.C.E. has supported more than 6,000 students and is on track to serve 2,000 more by 2030.

If liberal states like New York are serious about equity, they must reconsider their hostility to school choice and organizations like Bartnick’s. Denying families access to high-performing alternatives—whether charters, scholarships, or structured mentorships—doesn’t promote fairness. It entrenches failure.

Public school systems alone cannot meet the complex needs of all students. Grassroots nonprofits that deliver measurable, lasting change deserve greater attention and support. Bartnick’s work proves that when you give students guidance, access, and belief in their potential, they rise to the challenge. New York’s education policy must stop prioritizing ideology over outcomes. It’s time to learn from success stories like Foundation for C.H.O.I.C.E.—and build more of them.

The post Foundation for C.H.O.I.C.E. Empowers Students Betrayed by Public Schools and Unions appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The public transportation system in New York City is vital for the daily lives of millions of residents. However, the rising insecurity in the subway is causing fear and concern among the population. While New Yorkers suffer the consequences, the Democratic government insists on manipulating the numbers and downplaying the severity of the problem, delaying the necessary actions to guarantee passenger safety.

It is time to recognize the reality: crime in the subway has increased, and only with real commitment and decisive actions can we restore the public’s trust.

The Real Situation

The post Growing Insecurity in New York City Subway appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.