Month: January 2026

Foreign Affairs

Rand Paul Checks Marco Rubio On War

The Secretary of State couldn’t answer one of the most basic questions.

(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Donald Trump said in 2016 to the Republican National Convention, “We must abandon the failed policy of nation-building and regime change.”

Earlier this month, after the current administration launched a war against Venezuela and ousted—one might say changed the regime of—President Nicolás Maduro, Trump said, “We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

U.S.-led regime change in Venezuela seemed to fly in the face of Trump’s prior warnings against regime change wars. But the president’s defenders said this was a different kind of military operation, unlike the Iraq, Libyan and Syrians interventions Trump had once bemoaned.

In fact, Team Trump even went so far as to say that the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela wasn’t really even a war at all.

That’s the thinking Secretary of State Marcio Rubio brought when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.

When asked by committee member Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) why the administration waged war against Venezuela without consulting Congress, as the Constitution demands, Rubio said that it was merely a “law enforcement operation,” not a war.

Paul asked, describing the actions the U.S. took against Venezuela, “If a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?”

Rubio replied, “I will acknowledge you’ve been very consistent on all these points the entire career, no matter who’s in charge.” Paul has posed similar challenges to the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations foreign policy actions in the past.

Rubio continued, “So I will point to two things. The first is it’s hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don’t recognize as a head of state indicted in the United States.”

Paul pressed on: “My question would be if it only took four hours to take our president, it’s very short. Nobody dies on the other side. Nobody dies on our side. It’s perfect. Would it be an act of war?” 

Rubio did not answer directly and still insisted that the U.S. somehow did not commit an act of war.

“We just don’t believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of war,” Rubio told the committee, still citing the quickness and efficiency of the operation.

Paul pressed even further, trying to get a basic answer to his basic question, “But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies, few casualties, they’re in and out, boom, it’s a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war?”

This time Paul didn’t wait for another non-answer from Rubio.

“Of course it would be an act of war,” he continued (emphasis added). “I’m probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So, I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument. One-way arguments that don’t rebound, that you can’t apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments.”

Rubio’s bad argument was not new. The Vietnam War was never an officially declared war but a “police action” similar to Rubio’s “law-enforcement operation.” But trying telling a Vietnam vet that it wasn’t a war, or the families of those who lost loved ones there.

Was the recent U.S. war against Venezuela like Vietnam? Not remotely. Was Venezuela even like the more recent U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria that Western non-interventionists criticize? It was not. Wars can be different.

But it was a war, something Paul was right to point out to Rubio in that setting.

Congress was originally supposed to elect what kinds of wars America should get into, great or small. Instead, neoconservatives like Rubio and hawks of different stripes not only insist that Congress does not need to be consulted, but have redefined America’s wars as anything but actual wars to justify these actions outside of normal constitutional and moral parameters. They wage language wars to dismiss real ones.

That’s exactly what Rubio was doing and why he couldn’t give a straight answer.

In 1965, the United States went to war in Vietnam, no matter what it was called. In 2001, the U.S. went to war with Afghanistan. In 2003, the U.S. did the same in Iraq. In 2011, a U.S.-led war ousted President Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. “We came, we saw, he died,” the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later boasted of America’s Libyan war.

Imagine if Russia’s President Vladimir Putin came, saw, and helped carry out the same acts against the United States and its president, Donald Trump? What might that be called? Whether or not any foreign country might be capable of doing this is separate from the question.
In Marco Rubio’s defense, he is simply the latest government leader to make excuses for why yet another American war really wasn’t. Kudos to Rand Paul for not letting him get away with it.

The post Rand Paul Checks Marco Rubio On War appeared first on The American Conservative.

UK Special Coverage

The Great Fragmentation of UK Politics

“Shattered” Brits are embracing populism of right and left with the enthusiasm of the convert.

UK Special Coverage

The British are a famously phlegmatic nation, not given to revolutionary fervor or radical politics. The UK is the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world and has had a remarkably stable political system dominated by two class-based parties, Labour and Conservative, for the last century. 

Brits have a healthy disrespect for politicians and love to laugh at the antics of the pompous elites who tell them how to live their lives. But their grounding has been in stability and common sense, not getting too “het up” about politics. “Keep Calm and Carry On”, as the wartime slogan put it.

Until now.

Britain is het up about politics, very het up. The Labour–Tory centrist duopoly has been shattered.  Old political allegiances have been broken. Voters are angry, really angry,  in a way unseen even in the contentious 1970s, when the trade unions turned the factories of Britain into a battleground from which they never fully recovered. Margaret Thatcher may have seemed radical to many, but the Tory prime minister of the 1980s was essentially a centrist suburbanite committed to the political and social consensus.

The new party of the right is a very different creature. From almost nowhere two years ago, Reform UK, led by a right-wing maverick and left-wing hate figure, Nigel Farage, has broken through the “uniparty”, as he calls the Labour–Conservative duopoly.

Reform stands for the mass detention and repatriation of illegal immigrants; a “net zero” cap on legal migration to the UK; resumption of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea; and an end to transgender ideology in schools. It is currently in a strong position to win next month’s crucial Gorton and Denton by-election in what used to be one of Labour’s safest seats.

But it won’t be without a fight. The Green Party, led by a left-wing populist, Zack Polanski, is coming up fast in this Manchester seat. The Greens are appealing to the large Muslim population here by foregrounding opposition to “genocide” in Gaza. The Greens’ deputy leader, Mothin Ali, famously shouted “Allahu Akbar” after his victory speech in a 2024 council election.

Under Polanski’s leadership, the Greens have largely sidelined the environment in favor of policies welcoming more refugees, nationalizing large parts of the economy, imposing punitive wealth taxes and moving towards “a world without borders”. Gorton and Denton is looking like a microcosm of the Great Fragmentation of UK politics.

The latest opinion poll on UK-wide Westminster voter attitudes from Find Out Now has Reform UK leading with 29 percent, followed by the Green Party with 19 percent. Labour and the Conservatives are tied for third place with 17 percent. The old centrist party, the Liberal Democrats, have 11 percent. Other polls place the Greens lower, but Labour’s collapse is a rebuke to the Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who won what looked like a landslide election victory only 18 months ago. In reality, it was more a vote against the chaotic Conservatives than a positive vote for Labour.

Starmer has become even more unpopular than his Tory predecessor, Rishi Sunak; more unpopular than Donald Trump; more unpopular even than Liz Truss, the former Tory PM who caused a crisis in the bond markets with her ill-thought-out budget in 2022. The Starmer administration has plumbed new depths of governmental chaos with a dozen major U-turns in as many months.

Broken promises not to raise taxes have caused a crisis of trust and damaged economic growth. The PM’s failure to stop migrant boats crossing the Channel has infuriated British voters, who are not instinctively racist but feel that allowing 50,000 undocumented young men—often from countries mired in violence—to enter the country illegally every year is simply irresponsible.

The cost of living continues to rise. Domestic fuel costs are some of the highest in the world. Starmer has allowed welfare spending to soar inexorably and unaffordably. The National Health Service has failed to improve its dismal performance despite huge investments of public funds. Starmer’s promise to hold a national inquiry into the mass rape of white girls by mainly Pakistani grooming gangs has yet to materialize, a year after Elon Musk on X shamed the British establishment into addressing this long-running scandal.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have lost a raft of former cabinet ministers to Reform, including the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, the former leadership contender Robert Jenrick, and the former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi. The Conservative Party’s leader, Kemi Badenoch, has won plaudits for her recent performance in Parliament, but her party has lost so many key figures that people now say Reform looks like the Tory party in exile.

The roots of the Great Fragmentation in UK politics lie deep. In July, the polling organization More in Common published the results of a mega-survey of 20,000 British adults. Its conclusion was that Britain is simply “shattered”. The public feel exhausted and on the verge of psychological breakdown.

Seven in 10 voters believe the country is on the wrong track. Nearly 9 in 10 have lost faith in politics. Nearly half say they are “surviving, not living” because of the raging cost of living (median earnings in Britain are 30 percent lower than in the U.S.). Skepticism about politicians has morphed, in many cases, into “deep-seated contempt”, say the pollsters. And it is not just politicians. Brits no longer respect the police, the judiciary, journalists or business leaders.

Many voters are furious at the way both Labour and the Conservatives colluded in facilitating mass immigration despite voters repeatedly saying they opposed it. Net migration to the UK rose to nearly 1 million in 2023 under the Conservatives. This influx has been transforming the culture of England and creating introverted multicultural enclaves in many big cities, such as Manchester. The pollsters concluded that Britain is ready, for the first time in modern history, to “roll the dice on something new”.

Most of the legacy media still seem to think that all this fragmentation is a temporary phenomenon and that normal service will be resumed before the next general election. After the 2024 general election, commentators, including the BBC’s former political editor Andrew Marr, opined that the election of Labour would presage a period of “stable and sensible government” after the chaotic Tory years, bringing a tide of investment to Britain as a haven from Trumpian madness in America and the rise of the far right in Europe.

He could not have been more wrong. Britain may be a newcomer to confrontational populist politics, but it is learning fast, and with the enthusiasm of the convert. The Brits have learned to live dangerously.

The post The Great Fragmentation of UK Politics appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

War on Iran Could Provoke a ‘Shiite Jihad’

An attack on the regime would invite serious blowback.

As recent American military deployments to the Middle East and President Donald Trump’s escalatory rhetoric have heightened speculation of an imminent attack on Iran, there are increasing signs that such action would trigger a regional and even global “Shiite jihad,” particularly should the U.S. take out Iran’s clerical leadership. This would present a new phenomenon which is likely to pose daunting security challenges, not least for the United States itself.

In a recent speech, the secretary-general of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Sheikh Naim Qassem, warned that a new war on the Islamic Republic would engulf the entire region. The assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in particular would have dire regional and even global implications, given the large masses of Shiite Muslims who subscribe to the Wilayat al-Faqih doctrine, according to which Khamenei is leader of the Islamic ummah.

“A war on Iran this time will ignite the region,” Qassem declared, and any harm done to Khamenei “would be an assassination of stability and of the situation in the region and the world, due to the spread of the supporters and advocates of the Wali al-Faqih [Khamenei].”

These statements should be taken seriously, not least given what one could call the “modern-day empowerment” of regional Shiite players. In order to better understand this dynamic, it is worth revisiting the early 1980s, which witnessed the attacks on the Marine barracks and the American embassy in Beirut. Those operations were conducted prior to the actual emergence of Hezbollah as an organization; a group under the name Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. But it is widely believed that the group that became Hezbollah was behind the operations, with support from Iran.

Notwithstanding the fact that Syria is now governed by a Sunni leadership after decades of being under Alawite rule, Shiite players in the region are today in a stronger position compared to the early 1980s. The toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq gave the Shiite majority in that country privileged status; armed Shiite factions form the backbone of the Popular Mobilization Units that play an integral role in the state security apparatus. In Yemen, the Houthis—who are also considered Shiites—have emerged as a force to be reckoned with. Hezbollah for its part still retains the capability to inflict serious damage, despite being badly battered in the recent war with Israel.

This effectively translates into a “Shiite force multiplier” superior to that of the early ’80s, when Shiite factions still succeeded in conducting anti-American operations with devastating results. (The Marine Barracks attack alone led to the death of almost 250 U.S. servicemen.)

Indeed, ominous warnings have come out of both Iraq and Yemen as the region braces itself for another potential war on Iran, this time initiated by the United States. The leader of the Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah (not to be confused with the Lebanese Hezbollah), Abu Hussein al-Hamidawi, pledged “total war” if Iran were to come under attack: “We affirm to the enemies that war against the [Islamic] Republic will not be a walk in the park. But rather, you will taste the bitterest forms of death, and nothing will remain of you in our region.”

Most concerningly for the United States, there are strong indicators that Iraqi Shiite factions will conduct operations similar to the Marine Barracks and American embassy attacks that occurred in Beirut. Telegram accounts reveal that Kataib Hezbollah has recruited individuals to conduct suicide missions. According to these accounts, other Iraqi Shiite factions have promised to retaliate by targeting foreign embassies and U.S. bases and interests in Iraq.

The Houthis have released video footage that appears to warn of a resumption of maritime attacks in the Red Sea.

At the same time Khamenei’s status as “the leader” in the eyes of a significant segment of Shiites worldwide heightens the risk of an individual radicalization effect should he be targeted. In other words, Shiites across the globe who subscribe to the Wilayat Al-Faqih doctrine would become more prone to self-radicalization if Khamenei were killed. This would potentially open the door to Shiite “lone wolf” attackers. This would be a new phenomenon; individual attacks associated with Islamist jihadi ideology have always been perpetrated by Sunnis inspired by the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Given the difficulty security agencies in the United States and other Western nations have faced when dealing with lone wolves, the prospect of this happening should be a cause of major concern.

An attack on Iran may very well plant the seeds of a regional and even global “Shiite jihad,” which will become even more likely in the event of Khamenei’s assassination. This would mark a major shift in the threat landscape facing the United States and other Western nations that could take part in a war against Iran. (The EU blacklisting of the Revolutionary Guards raises the question of whether European nations may join such a war.) The nature of the confrontation would change from geopolitical, with the enemy identified as “Iran and its network of proxies,” to religious, with the enemy being a more widely dispersed “Shiite jihad.” That would be a dramatic development, essentially embroiling the United States in a religious war.

The post War on Iran Could Provoke a ‘Shiite Jihad’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

Another bombshell indictment has ripped the mask off America’s so-called “justice system,” and this time the rot allegedly runs straight through the black robe.

Federal prosecutors have charged four Detroit-area insiders, including a sitting Michigan judge, in what authorities describe as a years-long scheme to loot incapacitated individuals and their estates, stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from people the court was supposed to protect.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the defendants are:

• Nancy Williams, 59
• Attorney Avery Bradley, 72
• Judge Andrea Bradley-Baskin, 46
• Dwight Rashad, 69

Bradley-Baskin is the daughter of Avery Bradley and currently serves as a judge on Michigan’s 36th District Court.

All four were charged by federal indictment with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Prosecutors also charged Bradley with wire fraud, Bradley, Bradley-Baskin, and Rashad with multiple counts of money laundering, and Bradley-Baskin with making a false statement to federal investigators.

The indictment lays out jaw-dropping examples of alleged abuse:

• $70,000 in ward funds allegedly used by Bradley-Baskin to buy an ownership stake in a local bar
• $203,000 from a ward’s legal settlement allegedly split between Bradley, Williams, and Rashad — without a single dollar benefiting the ward
• Williams allegedly paid Rashad rent for wards who never lived in his facilities
• Bradley-Baskin allegedly used embezzled estate funds to lease a new Ford Expedition for two years

DOJ said in the press release:

According to the indictment, probate courts regularly appoint guardians and conservators to manage the personal and financial affairs of adults, known as wards, who have been found by the court to lack the capacity to do so themselves.

Guardians and conservators are fiduciaries who are obligated to act in the best interests of their wards.

The indictment alleges that Nancy Williams owned Guardian and Associates, an agency that was appointed as a fiduciary by the Wayne County Probate Court for incapacitated wards in over 1,000 cases.

Avery Bradley is an attorney, who, along with his daughter (and fellow attorney) Andrea Bradley-Baskin, operated a law firm that often represented Guardian and Associates in Wayne County Probate Court and otherwise practiced regularly in that court.

Bradley-Baskin is currently a district judge on Michigan’s 36^th District Court. Dwight Rashad operated a series of group homes and residential facilities for elderly individuals, including wards, who needed support and care.

The indictment alleges that the four defendants conspired to systematically embezzle funds from wards, and to obtain and retain money for themselves that rightly belonged to the wards and the wards’estates.

The indictment sets forth numerous examples of the co-conspirators working together to misappropriate money belonging to wards. In one instance, Bradley-Baskin is alleged to have used $70,000 in a ward’s funds to purchase an ownership stake in a local bar.

In another, Bradley, Williams, and Rashad are alleged to have taken for themselves some $203,000 in funds from a ward’s legal settlement, with none of the money being used to benefit the ward.

Williams is alleged to have paid Rashad rent for wards who did not live in one of Rashad’s homes.  Bradley-Baskin, in yet another case, is alleged to have used money embezzled from the estate of a ward to pay a two-year lease on a new Ford Expedition for herself.

“We respect the authority that covers a black robe. This state judge and her cronies allegedly abused that high honor for personal gain by preying on the needy protected by the court. This would be a grievous abuse of our public trust,” said U.S. Attorney Gorgon.

“Regardless of a person’s position in society, no one is above the law. These four defendants allegedly conspired to steal from some of our most vulnerable citizens — looting bank accounts, exploiting legal authority, and profiting off those who relied on them for care and protection,” said Jennifer Runyan, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office.

“Let me be clear: if you prey on the vulnerable, we will find you and bring you to justice. Finally, I want to recognize our FBI Detroit Area Corruption Task Force, alongside our partners at the IRS Criminal Investigations Detroit Field Office, for their dedicated work on behalf of these victims, as well as the Wayne County Probate Court for bringing this matter to our attention and assisting the investigation.”

“No matter who you are, or what your position is, it is entirely unacceptable to help yourself to money that is not yours. What makes these allegations so disturbing is that the victims are part of very vulnerable population and trusted the accused to act in their best interest,” said Karen Wingerd, Special Agent in Charge, Detroit Field Office, IRS Criminal Investigation.

“IRS-CI is proud to work alongside our law enforcement partners to protect the financial well-being of the vulnerable and root out those who threaten their security.”

The post BLACK ROBE CORRUPTION: Michigan Judge and Three Co-Conspirators Accused of Looting Hundreds of Thousands from Incapacitated appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump on Friday evening nominated Brett Matsumoto as the next Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“For many years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, under WEAK and STUPID people, has been FAILING American Businesses, Policymakers, and Families by releasing VERY inaccurate numbers,” Trump said on Truth Social.

“That is why I FIRED the former Commissioner, and am pleased to nominate the very talented Brett Matsumoto as the next Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Brett was a Supervisory Research Economist for the BLS, but is now serving as a Senior Economist on the Trump Council of Economic Advisers, like he did in my First Term,” Trump said.

“I am confident that Brett has the expertise to QUICKLY fix the long history of issues at the BLS on behalf of the American People. Brett Matsumoto is a Brilliant, Reputable, and Trusted Economist who will restore GREATNESS to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Congratulations Brett!” Trump added.

President Trump previously fired the Biden-appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) after she ‘faked’ the jobs numbers before the 2024 election to try to boost Kamala Harris’s chances of a victory.

Last summer Dr. Erika McEntarfer was promptly fired after an abysmal July jobs report. The US only added 73,000 jobs in July and the previous months were all revised down.

Trump nominated conservative economist Dr. E.J. Antoni to replace McEntarfaer as the next Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner but he ultimately withdrew the nomination.

Dr. E.J. Antoni is a favorite guest on the Bannon War Room. E.J. Antoni is currently the Chief Economist and Richard Aster Fellow, in the Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget.

Antoni’s work has been featured in a variety of news outlets, including Fox News and Fox Business, Wall Street Journal, Townhall, Bloomberg, Daily Caller, National Review, CNBC, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Breitbart, The Federalist, and The War Room.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt revealed the White House pulled Dr. Antoni’s nomination as head of BLS because he didn’t have the votes.

RINO Senators Collins and Murkowski did not meet with Antoni.

“We will be announcing a replacement nominee very soon,” Karoline Leavitt said.

The post President Trump Announces Next Commissioner of Bureau of Labor Statistics to Replace Toxic Biden Holdover appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Through the centuries, many Christians have made the mistake of trying to guess the exact date of the Parousia. I will avoid that error. Christ’s Second Coming will arrive in God’s good time.

I will, however, propose that the Antichrist may already have walked among us for decades.

In an op-ed titled “MAGA’s War on Empathy,” published Thursday by The Atlantic, former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — yes, Hillary Clinton, of all people — opined on what she regarded as the abandonment of Christian principles by Christian leaders, only to discover that those same Christian leaders regard her disapproval as a badge of honor, including one Christian leader’s friend who, on the social media platform X, declared, “I’ve never been more proud of my guy.”

Anyone who suffers through Clinton’s op-ed will come away deeply impressed by its lack of substance. At its core lies a tired liberal refrain: we (liberals) are good, and they — President Donald Trump and his supporters — are not. Clinton has done little more than echo that refrain by using her (misapplied) concept of empathy.

Citing recent violent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minneapolis, Minnesota — in the first paragraph, she even mentioned 37-year-old anti-ICE activist Alex Pretti, killed on Saturday during a confrontation with federal agents — Clinton built a particularly weak straw man (MAGA hates empathy) to compose a piece littered with ad hominem attacks.

“This crisis also reveals a deeper moral rot at the heart of Trump’s MAGA movement,” she wrote. “Whatever you think about immigration policy, how can a person of conscience justify the lack of compassion and empathy for the victims in Minnesota, and for the families torn apart or hiding in fear, for the children separated from their parents or afraid to go to school?”

Trump, of course, has done exactly the opposite. In fact, he has shown compassion both for Pretti and for 37-year-old Renee Good, who also lost her life earlier this month after attempting to obstruct an ICE operation.

Those facts, however, did not stop Clinton from attacking the president and his supporters, including prominent Christian voices.

First, she attacked pastor Ben Garrett for failing to endorse open borders and affirm LGBT lifestyles.

Then, she took Christian podcaster and author Allie Beth Stuckey to task for Stuckey’s concept of “toxic empathy.” Stuckey even wrote a 2024 book by that title: “Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion.”

“Leadership and the Sin of Empathy,” a book by “extremist pastor” Joe Rigney, also incurred Clinton’s wrath. Rigney, too, has committed the sin — in Clinton’s eyes — of being “an ally of the influential Christian nationalist Douglas Wilson.”

Stuckey, Rigney, and Wilson responded directly on X. Stuckey and Rigney expressed gratitude that someone as vile as Clinton had singled them out for disapprobation.

When Hillary Clinton is writing 6,000 word op-eds in the Atlantic attacking warnings against toxic empathy… you know you’re over the target. Keep. Going.

— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) January 29, 2026

Hey @canonpress, I’m going to need you to reprint the cover of Leadership and the Sin of Empathy with @HillaryClinton‘s enthusiastic endorsement. pic.twitter.com/fkKA4QUMYr

— Joe Rigney (@joe_rigney) January 30, 2026

Meanwhile, Wilson joked about the number of people in Clinton’s orbit who have died mysterious deaths.

As it now appears that Hillary is aware of my existence, and is not exactly a fan, I wanted to state on the record that I am feeling upbeat, and am not downcast or depressed in any way.

— Douglas Wilson (@douglaswils) January 30, 2026

Brian Sauvé, a self-described friend of Ben Garrett, wrote that he has “never been more proud of my guy.”

Hillary Clinton wrote a hit piece that included my friend @tompawnbadil in her list of villains.

I’ve never been more proud of my guy.

— Brian Sauvé (@Brian_Sauve) January 30, 2026

In other words, those Christian leaders would think of themselves as lost souls if they ever earned Clinton’s approval.

What lessons, therefore, might we draw from Clinton’s eyebrow-raising op-ed?

First, her premise has already fallen into obsolescence. A new video, released this week, has exposed Pretti not as an innocent victim but as a raging anti-ICE lunatic.

Second, Stuckey and Rigney had it right — and Clinton wrong — about the nature of empathy. Compassion, of course, is a good thing. But liberals always direct their concerns toward inappropriate objects. They show empathy for criminals, not victims, for illegal immigrants, not American citizens. And they work their foot soldiers into a frenzy so as to foment riots on behalf of the unworthy. What Clinton calls “empathy,” we call “emotional manipulation.”

Finally, and above all, the sight of Clinton opining on the meaning of Christianity convinces me that there is at least a five percent chance that she is the Antichrist (Readers may read into that comment whatever degree of hyperbole they deem accurate).

For one thing, one always cringes when an abortion supporter presumes to lecture others about the Word of Life.

But one may detect Clinton’s actual hostility to Christianity in multiple sources. She has, for instance, said derogatory things about it in interviews as recently as last year.

The strongest piece of evidence pointing to Clinton as a phony Christian, however, comes from her endorsement of Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.”

In that book, Hoffer argued that the substance or purpose of mass movements makes no difference. What matters is that the “true believer,” often for psychological or socio-economic reasons, wishes to lose himself or herself in a transcendent cause. To support his thesis, Hoffer analyzed fascism, communism, and … early Christianity.

During the 2016 campaign, according to the Washington Post, Clinton recommended “The True Believer” to her senior staff. She thought it would help them understand Trump’s appeal.

In the end, of course, only God knows our hearts. But Clinton posing as an authority on Christianity sure does give the impression of supernatural deception.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Hillary Clinton’s Hit Piece Against Several Christian Leaders Doesn’t Get the Response She Was Hoping for: ‘I’ve Never Been More Proud’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar is running for governor of Minnesota to succeed Tim Walz. This is not a rumor. It has been widely reported.

From The Hill:

Klobuchar launches bid for Minnesota governor

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Thursday officially threw her hat in the ring to run for governor of Minnesota.

“Minnesotans, we’ve been through a lot,” she wrote on the social platform X. “And I believe this moment calls for grit, resilience, and faith in each other. I believe we must stand up for what’s right. And fix what’s wrong. Today, I’m announcing my candidacy for Governor.”

Klobuchar, in a video message, referred to the June assassination of state Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman (D), a shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis that left two children dead and more than a dozen injured, and the fatal shootings of residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration officials this month, as part of what the state’s residents have “been through.”

“Three thousand [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents on our streets and in our towns, sent by an administration that relishes division,” she added, referring to President Trump.

The aspect of this story that is not being reported, is the belief by many that if Klobuchar wins the race for governor, she will appoint Tim Walz to fill her vacant senate seat.

Under such an arrangement, Klobuchar and Walz would just be switching seats. Journalist Liz Collin of Minnesota talked about this on Watters’ World last night.

PJ Media has details:

Jesse Watters reacted with surprise, prompting Collin to add more context about Klobuchar’s own announcement.

“Also interesting to note that Senator Klobuchar, in her announcement, did not mention President Trump today by name,” Collin said. “She did say that she was going to root out fraud, but that’s hard for many of us to believe. She’s been a senator for nearly 20 years.” Collin added that Klobuchar “has been silent, uh, on the issue of Somali fraud in Minnesota, Jesse.”

Watters pressed the point directly, asking, “Wait, so Liz, are you saying there’s a deal between Walz and Amy?” He followed up, “She’s gonna appoint him to be a senator?” Collin stopped short of making an accusation, but she could not dismiss the idea. “It is a possibility, and I thought the word choice in that interview last night was quite interesting,” she said.

Watch the clip:

BREAKING: Journalist @LizCollin reports that WALZ and KLOBUCHAR may have made an INSIDE DEAL to appoint him as SENATOR

“Governor Walz you’ll notice, was careful to say he will not run for public office again. However, he could be appointed to a Senate seat.” pic.twitter.com/8Q3Ko52j2z

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) January 30, 2026

Would this arrangement surprise anyone? It’s just the sort of thing you would expect these Democrats to do.

The post RUMOR: Amy Klobuchar Running for Minnesota Governor, Will Appoint Tim Walz to Her Vacant Senate Seat (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

CNN ‘media analyst’ Brian Stelter is defending his former network colleague Don Lemon, after his arrest for being part of the mob that invaded a church last week.

According to Stelter, Lemon was doing journalism, and everyone benefited from his reporting inside the church.

Stelter also claims that the arrest was only made because ‘MAGA loyalists’ were putting pressure on the DOJ.

NewsBusters reports:

Over the course of roughly two hours, numerous CNN faces rallied to Lemon’s defense by citing his work badgering congregants and the pastor as “insightful” to the point that America is “better off for” Lemon having gone along and exercised a “foundational” tenet of “democracy.” More broadly, Lemon’s YouTube page was heralded as having yielded “opinionated” “videos” and “straightforward journalism.”

A longtime friend to the Black Lives Matter movement, News Central co-host Sara Sidner first reacted by calling this “a stunning move” that “cannot be overstated,” leading chief media analyst Brian Stelter to immediately defend Lemon and even praise his actions…

No word on whether Stelter considers lecturing the pastor and congregants about their supposed lack of true Christianity his kind of interview. Of course, he phrased those believing Lemon shouldn’t be absolved of scrutiny as “MAGA loyalists.”

Transcript by Curtis Houck on Twitter/X:

“Lemon has said all along that he was there not as an activist, but as a journalist. In fact, he was saying those words and repeating that out loud when he was inside the church….He was careful not to have his camera crew walk into the church until there was a disruption. And I would urge people to go online, actually watch the YouTube videos, see how it all went down.

I think Lemon’s reporting from inside the church was very valuable. As a viewer, I learned a lot about how it happened, how it all went down. He interviewed some of the protesters in real time, yes. He also interviewed some of the worshippers, and I thought their comments were really insightful about what they went through, about how troubled, how scared they were by the disruption. At the same time, like I said, you learned a lot from the protesters about why they decided to show up there, believing that one of the — the pastors at the church also worked for ICE.

So, this video on YouTube, this is the real focal point. This video, of course, happened on a Sunday morning. This video was then streaming for everyone to see. And by Monday, the day after that incident, there was a lot of online outrage on the right. Many calls from MAGA loyalists to have Lemon arrested.”

See the video below:

CNN’s Brian Stelter insists Lemon wasn’t there as “an activist” to disrupt a Minnesota church like “MAGA loyalists” want you to think, but provide “insightful” and “very valuable” journalism b/c he “interviewed some of the worshippers”…

“Lemon has said all along that he was… pic.twitter.com/b877TqIYx6

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 30, 2026

How utterly predictable. Stelter is completely ignoring Lemon’s behavior in the church. He was clearly there as an activist. He thought the journalism act was going to provide him cover.

The post OF COURSE: CNN’s Brain Stelter Goes Into Overdrive Mode to Defend Don Lemon After Arrest, Claims He Was Doing Journalism (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Three illegal aliens were arrested for opening fire on a Texas freeway and shooting at a family in a road rage incident.

Two of the aliens, Anthony Acevedo and Jose Alarcon-Sanchez were arrested after they fired their weapons from the Margaret McDermott Bridge on New Year’s Eve.

The third alien, Anderson Derce Lara, was arrested after he opened fire on a Texas family in a road rage incident in November.

The illegals posted the shocking shooting footage to social media.

WATCH:

Fox 4 News reported:

Two men have been arrested in connection with a viral New Year’s Eve gunfire incident on a downtown bridge, while a third man has been charged in a separate road-rage shooting involving children, Dallas police announced Wednesday.

The investigation began after social media videos, viewed worldwide, showed individuals firing weapons from the Margaret McDermott Bridge on Interstate 30. Detectives recovered more than 100 shell casings from the scene, just west of the city’s downtown core.

Police identified the suspects in the bridge shooting as Anthony Acevedo, 20, and Jose Alarcon-Sanchez, 18, both residents of Grand Prairie. Investigators determined that Alarcon-Sanchez had been arrested by Grand Prairie police for a similar offense in that city during the early morning hours of New Year’s Day.

Both men face charges of discharging a firearm in certain municipalities, a Class A misdemeanor. Acevedo has since been released on bond, while Alarcon-Sanchez remains in custody on an immigration hold.

The post SHOCK VIDEO: Illegal Aliens Arrested After Opening Fire on Texas Freeway appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Saudi Arabia said it will not allow the use of its airspace for any military attack against Iran. This geopolitical move has surprised many, since Saudi Arabia has historically been an ally of the United States and a major oil partner as well.

While both Iran and Saudi Arabia are Islamic nations, each represents the cradle of a different branch of Islam. Saudi Arabia is the cradle of the Sunni current, including Wahhabism and Salafism, two strands of Islamic fundamentalism, while Iran is the cradle of the Shiite branch, which also, of course, has its own forms of extremism.

This

The post Saudi Arabia Bars Airspace for Attacks on Iran (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.