Month: March 2026

Takimag

Lowe Brand Recognition

Can Britain’s new right-wing challenger rise above the spoiler level?

TakiMag

Have you ever heard of Rupert Lowe? If not, don’t worry; you’re not alone. Supposedly, he’s going to be Great Britain’s next prime minister, although the people of Great Britain don’t seem to know that yet. 

When shown a photo of Lowe in a recent poll, 92 percent of ordinary voters didn’t know who he was. Dismissive of such numbers, his most fervent supporters have begun filming themselves approaching random people in the street and asking if they know who their pin-up is. Incredibly, they all not only answer Yes!, but also all turn out to be planning to vote for him. 

The adoring narrative of Rupert’s fanbase is that “Lowemosexuality” is spreading across the UK every bit as uncontrollably as AIDS once did. The dismissive narrative of the numbers is the precise reverse; this time last year, 14 percent of voters knew who Lowe was, compared to only 8 percent today. This contrasts to only 14 percent who proved unable to recognize the Reform UK Party leader Nigel Farage when shown an image of the man. 

As Nigel Farage is the politician Rupert Lowe hopes to replace as the leader of Britain’s political right, having been ejected from Reform UK last year for supposedly being too “extreme” for Nigel’s electoral tastes, Rupert evidently still has his work cut out to replace his old boss’s affections amongst the UK voter-base. Can he really possibly succeed in queering them all into Lowemosexuals too?

Lowe has been getting admirers pumped recently for two main reasons. Firstly there was the independent inquiry into Britain’s ongoing Pakistani rape-gangs scandal, which, as an elected MP, he organized. Sadly, though, this has suffered an almost total mainstream media blackout, due to its incendiary testimonies from victimized white girls about being kept as sex-slaves in cages and shipped away Pakistan-wards to be gang-raped by the grateful relatives of various “British” Muslims. 

Secondly, last month, Lowe launched his new rival party to take on Farage’s Reform UK, called Restore Britain. Rather than simply reforming the UK (a technocratic name for the nation barely used until recent decades), Rupert wishes to be more ambitious, and to actively restore the country back to what it once was, even in terms of calling it Britain again, like everyone always used to do. 

The two rival outfits’ monikers sound quite similar to the ear. A more distinctive name for Lowe’s vehicle may have been “The 1996 Party”, this being the year to which he clearly wishes to “Restore” Britain. May 1997 was when the Blair-Demon was summoned by a duped national electorate, before systematically transforming the country into Hell-Above-Ground. 

The chief damage Tony Blair and his New Labour coven did to Lowe’s homeland was demographic, by deliberately throwing open the borders, thereby to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” and create a gigantic imagined loyal client electoral base to return Labour to power indefinitely, much as the Democrats have tried to do in America. In 1996, which can now be retrospectively perceived as the final year of British social normality, net immigration was 55,000; by 2023, when it hit its peak, net immigration was 906,000. 

Farage’s main proposed solution is to stop too many more outsiders coming in, aiming for something called “Net Zero Immigration.” Lowe thinks this akin to merely accepting managed decline, however, preferring to eject millions more than come in, under a regime of “Net Negative Immigration”, of which he has promised “The scale would embarrass Donald Trump.” And, as Donald Trump is not very easily embarrassed, that would make it an impressively large-scale process indeed.

Lowe has no sympathy for boat-people, reportedly pledging to store them in tents on a Scottish island and “let the midges do their work.” He calls Farage’s Net Zero aim “weak, weak, weak”, as “the barbarians are already in the gates.” As certain elements already in the country now appear to have formed their own Islamist sharia-patrol cavalry regiments and begun riding through the streets of captured English citadels like Manchester, chasing away apostates whilst the conquered police watch on and do nothing, Rupert may have a point. How long before they’re doing the same thing on camel-back?

Lowe is quite open that “I advocate the mass deportation of entire communities,” an idea which proved too inflammatory for Farage, leading to him ejecting Lowe from the party (allegedly by falsely accusing him of various crimes). Opponents use such quotes to make Lowe sound like an evil racist, or even a crypto-fascist, but which “entire communities” does he mean? The same ones whom his rape-gangs inquiry has exposed as mass abusers of native British children, whom they consider expendable and detestable white trash. As Lowe says:

I support deporting foreign communities if they knew of the rape-gangs and did nothing. They are complicit, and if foreign/dual nationals enabled this evil to take place? They will be deported under a Restore Britain Government. If a Pakistani woman knew her husband was sexually torturing a young white girl, and did nothing? Said nothing? She can go back to Pakistan. No apologies from me. It is astonishing that Farage does not agree.

But not all those responsible can be put in a big cannon and fired back to Islamabad. What about all those guilty native white people like police-chiefs, politicians, and social workers who also knew about the rape-gangs and did nothing, because, in the post-1997 Blairite Yookay, to be accused of “racism” was more than your life was worth? 

Maybe Lowe would make it more than their life was worth not to blow the whistle in future, promising a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty for “the most heinous crimes”. If such a punishment could be applied retrospectively to Blair himself, Lowe’s pro-hanging campaign would definitely win: Even the Muslims would vote “Yes” for that one after the Iraq War.

To launch Restore Britain, Lowe released an online video showing him walking around his farm and saying many admirable things like these:

On a farm you don’t think in election cycles or headlines or polling. You think in seasons, you think in generations, in what you leave behind to those who come after you … because there are no easy fixes … What is necessary will be incredibly painful, but for the first time in a very long time, voters will have a genuine alternative which is truthful with them about the scale of what now has to be done … Restore Britain will not just stop mass immigration, we will reverse it … If that means millions go, then millions go … The state has definitively become the enemy of the people. Restore Britain will burn away suffocating taxes on work and enterprise. We will slash unnecessary regulation. We will dismantle bloated quangos [unelected bureaucracies] and the overbearing HR culture. We must crush parasitic Britain … Britain is not just an economy … Britain is a people, our people …. This is Britain and we will do things our way.

“We will do things our way”—including by banning the burka, sharia law, cousin-marriage and halal slaughter. I agree with every word. But would I actually vote for him? Hypothetically, yes. Practically, no—at least not yet. 

In the immediate aftermath of Lowe’s launch, one Twitter poll showed 70 percent of respondents would now vote Restore, compared to only 20 percent voting Reform. Excellent. But, despite Elon Musk endorsing Lowe personally, Twitter is not reality, most Brits are not even on it, and those that are tend to be much more obsessive about their politics. If 70 percent of the 8 percent of hyper-aware people who actually know who Rupert Lowe is vote Restore, not Reform, all that will realistically do is split the right-wing vote and allow some nightmare left-wing coalition of Labour, Green and Islamists in.

Ideally, as a deeply depressed, Blairism-hating Englishman, I’d vote Restore, as their policies are the best, as in most hardline. A politician honest enough to actually say, “This will be f—ing horrible, but if we don’t do it, things will get even worse” wins my respect. But, despite Farage previously saying mass deportation was “a political impossibility,” compared to the other (admittedly appalling) mainstream parties, Reform UK’s manifesto is still significantly better, and its huge lead over Restore in the polls surely insurmountable. As things stand, I will pragmatically vote Reform.

As the next British general election approaches, probably in 2029, Lowe’s most useful function may be to force Farage to tack way further to the right by threatening to steal away his previous core voters—Nigel has already backtracked and undertaken to enact 600,000 deportations following Lowe’s expulsion, besides pinching other Restore policies—before then nobly standing his candidates down immediately prior to the vote itself to avoid probable left-wing disaster. 

Overall, despite what his online acolytes may be saying, Lowe is not really very likely to be the UK’s next prime minister at all. But, should Nigel Farage win that role, and his halfway measures prove insufficient, Lowe, or someone like him, could plausibly end up with a role in the next government after that. The one good thing about life in the post-Blair, post-1997, diversity-worshipping UK, is that Lowemosexual adoption is now very much both legal and possible. 

The post Lowe Brand Recognition appeared first on The American Conservative.

Takimag

Paul Ehrlich, Estimated Prophet

The modern Malthusian had conviction, if nothing else.

TakiMag

It is curious how at least three prominent entomologists strayed into human affairs in the twentieth century, as if the world of insects were too narrow for them. Alfred Kinsey, who studied gall-wasps, became the most famous sexologist of his time; Edward Wilson, who knew more about ants than anyone in history, founded sociobiology, the theory that evolution explained social organization which in turn explained human behavior; and Paul Ehrlich, the lepidopterist who became the Cassandra of population growth. 

It is true that man shares 60 percent of his DNA with the fruit-fly, Drosophila, but that does not mean that man is largely insect, despite how he might appear seen in the street below from the top of a very tall building. 

Ehrlich, who died recently aged 93, was the object of much pent-up mockery in his obituaries. In 1968, he wrote that there would be mass famine in the 1970s and it was too late to avoid it. Hundreds of millions would definitely die of hunger. 

At least no one could accuse Ehrlich of having been mealy-mouthed. He did not merely project into the future, claiming that if x continued, y would happen, not being able to say whether x would continue; he said that because of x, y had become inevitable. He stuck his neck out and predicted events within a timeframe; he was not like one of those economists who tells us that the stock market will either go up or go down.

Apart from having read his famous book, The Population Bomb, soon after it first came out, and what I have since read in his obituaries, I know little of Ehrlich, and therefore cannot speculate as to whether he was pleased or sorry that his dire predictions turned out to be (so far) mistaken. I know from experience that there is a pleasure to be had from contemplating future catastrophe, and moreover everyone likes to be proved right (“I told you so”). Let the heavens fall, so long as my warnings prove to have been correct. 

There are, perhaps, good reasons why an entomologist should have been a predictor of population disaster. Everyone knows what the expression “a plague of locusts” means, and for certain worshippers of Nature, man is little more than a plague of locusts. Destructive population explosions of insects, particularly in larval form, are by no means rare. I sit in my garden as I write this, where, a few years ago, an explosion of the population of the caterpillars of a moth newly introduced into Europe from China, the box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis), decimated and left for dead all the box trees. Very shortly afterwards, untold numbers of the moth, rather pretty individually (being cream colored with gold edging, a bit like the Oval Office), but like something out of a Hitchcock film when in such quantities, invaded the house and covered the walls of our bedroom. I cannot say why, exactly, but the sensation of moths fluttering about your face while you try to get to sleep is not merely unpleasant, but sinister.

Anyhow, we thought that our box trees were done for, but in fact they have recovered excellently, ready for the next explosion of the population of the box tree month. (We in Europe have also recently imported a species of stink bug, the tiger mosquito, and the Asiatic hornet from China, but that is a small price to pay for cheap goods.) I am not sure what is the lesson for humanity to be drawn from the box tree moth; the Bible does not say, “Go to the box tree moth, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise.” 

Perhaps going to insects like this is precisely what Ehrlich did, and there are no facts or data from which it is impossible to draw the wrong conclusions. 

Ehrlich was a Malthusian. The Reverend Thomas Malthus was a Church of England clergyman (by all accounts a very nice man) who was unfitted for survival, or at any rate advancement, in the Church because he was born with a hare lip and cleft palate—only the former was reparable in those days—which limited his capacity for public speaking. He became a professor of political economy instead.

His basic idea was that population tended to grow geometrically while the means of subsistence grew only arithmetically. As Gertrude put it in her account of Ophelia’s death, “long it could not be.” Either epidemic, war, or famine, or just possibly a restraint in human behavior would check population growth, as the absence of box trees would inhibit the population of the box tree moth. This seemed a compelling argument. 

Karl Marx detested Malthus, seeing in him an apologist of inescapable mass poverty, but he was much influenced by him nevertheless (as was Darwin), and made precisely the same mistake that Malthus made. Malthus thought that only one variable, the size of population, would change, and did not realize that the productive capacity of the land and industry could more than compensate for the growth in population. Marx did not see this either: He thought the majority of the population was destined for immiseration, leading eventually to a cataclysm, after which everything would be all right.

Ehrlich was a Malthusian; and the problem with Malthusianism is that, however many times you expel it from your thoughts, it returns. True, the catastrophe has not happened yet; but still, one thinks, it will happen at some unspecified time in the future.  Even if the population fails to grow, each person will consume ever more resources which, being finite, will run out. This thought returns to one’s mind even as one resists it; it will never be finally refuted. 

When, in 1986, I travelled through Niger, in the Sahel, it was very poor; its population was 6 million. It is now 26 million, so clearly famine, epidemic, and war, let alone restraint, have not kept the population in check. Except for Africa, the panic about population is now about its decline, not its increase. Whether this panic is more justified than was the one about overpopulation, I leave to people of the future to decide.

Two things are certain, however. The first is that mankind cannot get anything just right. The second is that man is the only species that derives pleasure from contemplating its own extinction.

The post Paul Ehrlich, Estimated Prophet appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

Why Trump Can’t Get Asian Allies to Help in Iran

U.S. partners don’t trust Washington to pursue a coherent strategy.

As U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran continue, Washington is once again turning to its friends and allies to help manage the fallout.

For Japan and South Korea, two of America’s closest allies in Asia, the stakes are immediate. Both depend heavily on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has managed to effectively close, and both have already felt the shock in the form of rising oil prices and market volatility.

Yet as calls have emerged from Washington for a more direct role—escort missions, minesweeping, or other maritime support—Tokyo and Seoul are showing hesitation. That hesitation is not without precedent. Two decades ago, during the Iraq War, both countries faced a similar dilemma. Back then, however, they ultimately chose to support the United States despite serious domestic and legal constraints.

There are certainly many reasons for caution with Iran, not least the domestic political risks and the combustibility of a conflict unfolding in what some describe as a “Hormuz kill box.” But above all, what has changed is not simply the nature of the conflict. It is the level of trust in American leadership.

During the Iraq War, Japan and South Korea were led by very different governments. Japan’s Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was an unabashed champion of the U.S.–Japan alliance, while South Korea’s President Roh Moo-hyun entered office with a more skeptical view of Washington and a desire for greater autonomy, including over wartime operational control.

In both countries, public opposition to supporting U.S. war efforts in the Middle East was intense. South Korea witnessed large-scale protests, while in Japan, constitutional constraints forced the government to tightly define the scope of its involvement.

And yet, both governments contributed. Japan dispatched roughly 550 Self-Defense Forces personnel under the Iraq Special Measures Law, formally for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in non-combat areas, while separately providing logistical support through refueling missions in the Indian Ocean. South Korea deployed some 3,600 troops at its peak, making it one of the largest foreign contributors after the United States and Britain. These were not politically easy decisions. They were taken at real domestic cost.

The difference lay in how Washington approached its allies. The Bush administration, whatever its faults, treated alliance management as part of the war effort. It invested real effort in assembling and sustaining a coalition, cajoled key allies, and gave governments enough political cover to present their support as part of a broader international effort. Even a controversial war was wrapped in a narrative that allies could repeat without immediately collapsing under domestic scrutiny.

That sense of shared purpose is far less evident today.

In recent days, President Donald Trump has alternated between urging countries to help secure the Strait of Hormuz and boasting that the United States does not, in fact, need their assistance. This is not merely a stylistic inconsistency. For allied governments, it raises a basic question: Is the U.S. pursuing a strategy, or acting on the impulses of one mercurial man?

Without clear war aims, participation becomes politically indefensible. Is the objective to degrade Iran’s military or change its regime? How long might such a mission last? What does success look like? These are not academic questions. They are political realities that leaders in Tokyo and Seoul must confront in nations already wary of Trump’s unpredictability and heavy-handed treatment of allies.

If Iraq offered a precedent for participation, it also offered a warning. What began as a defined intervention evolved into long, costly engagements with uncertain endpoints. That experience has not been forgotten. If anything, it has made policymakers—and their publics—more cautious about being drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict with no clear off-ramp.

This is why persuasion and clarity matter more today. Yet through most of Trump’s tenure, Washington has treated even close partners as objects of economic pressure, whether through tariffs, cost-sharing demands, or blunt negotiations over investment.

None of this severs alliances, of course. But it erodes trust and makes it harder for allied governments to ask voters to bear risk for a partner that often sounds like a creditor.

The way this crisis has unfolded only sharpens that hesitation. Unlike the long diplomatic buildup that preceded the Iraq War, the current escalation has left allies reacting to events rather than shaping them. They are being asked to consider military engagement in a situation in which they had little say, under conditions that remain fluid.

Even if one assumes that the Iran gambit is ultimately aimed at squeezing China further, the burden it places on Japan and South Korea is difficult to justify.

During the Iraq War, Tokyo and Seoul ultimately supported Washington despite deep reservations, in part because they could present that decision as participation in a broader strategic enterprise. Today, the reluctance is a sign of diminished confidence. Allies are not necessarily refusing to help. They are simply refusing to guess.

If Washington wants more from its closest partners in Asia, it will have to rebuild that confidence. That means offering clarity where there is now ambiguity, consultation where there has been surprise, and a sense of shared purpose in place of shifting demands.

Until then, hesitation may come to define the relationship for years to come.

The post Why Trump Can’t Get Asian Allies to Help in Iran appeared first on The American Conservative.

Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, hand-picked by President Trump to assist Kash Patel in reforming the embattled FBI, found himself at the center of a heated public confrontation on Saturday.

The incident unfolded when Bongino was confronted by Joseph Phillip Daniel, a conservative Christian preacher previously featured on The 700 Club, alongside Ivan Raiklin, a constitutional attorney and former Army Green Beret.

“Don’t be a coward, Dan,” Daniel shouted as security moved in to intervene.

“You’re going to be trespassed from the property, okay?” the security warned.

But Daniel continued, invoking religious language and pressing Bongino to take more aggressive action against the “deep state.”

Joseph Phillip Daniel: “God’s watching you, man. Remember, we reap what we sow. God’s watching us. Go all out against the deep state. Don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid of Satan, man.”

The confrontation appeared to strike a nerve. Visibly irritated, Bongino fired back, flipping the challenge onto his accuser.

Dan Bongino: “Why don’t you volunteer yourself? Why don’t you do it?”

When Daniel insisted he was ready to step up and even claimed he was planning to run for Congress, Bongino doubled down.

Joseph Phillip Daniel: “I’m telling you, I’m ready. I’m ready to be in Congress.”

Dan Bongino: “Why don’t you put your name on it… go volunteer.”

Joseph Phillip Daniel: I’m ready. I’m filing. I’m not afraid of Hillary. I’m not. God bless you, man.

WATCH:

Bongino Sold Out – Bongino Betrayed Us – The American Deep State Cult Is Still Free!

The Spirit led me to confront Dan Bongino tonight here in Florida. @DBongino #JesusIsKing #JesusIsLord #LockHerUp

Watch: pic.twitter.com/LyXqfI1BsP

— JesusFirst1776 (@JosephPDaniel7) March 22, 2026

But the confrontation didn’t stop there.

Raiklin escalated the situation further, launching a barrage of accusations at Bongino and calling him a “pedophile protector.”

Dan Bongino: “Go volunteer… You won’t do s***.”

Raiklin responded with profanity-laced insults, shouting, “I was a cop for nine years. You are a pedophile protector,” before adding further expletives as Bongino was escorted away.

WATCH:

EXCLUSIVE

Dan Bongino confronted by @IvanRaiklin and former police officer about his resignation and his stance Iranian strikes.

WARNING: Strong Language. pic.twitter.com/gRynl7lB7L

— Enrique Tarrio (@NobleOne) March 22, 2026

The post Dan Bongino ERUPTS After Being Confronted for Being a “Coward” Against the Deep State: “You’re a P*dophile Protector” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A banner advertising a new Muslim area in a California cemetery was draped over a 9/11 memorial, angering local residents.

The owner of the cemetery apparently gave permission for the banner to be put up but did not realize it would be placed over the memorial. It was taken down after people voiced their outrage.

Do you think this was an innocent mistake?

NBC News in the Bay Area reports:

Concord cemetery removes banner draped over 9/11 memorial after backlash

A banner draped over a 9/11 memorial, which was advertising a new Islamic portion of a Contra Costa County cemetery, was removed after receiving backlash.

The owner of the Memorial Gardens Cemetery said he recently sold a portion of the property to an Islamic family who plans to open memorial garden. He said he gave them permission to put up signage but did not authorize them to drape it over the 9/11 installation.

He ordered it to be removed as soon as he learned about it. Workers took it down just before noon, but many said it should have never been placer at the 9/11 memorial site in the first place.

Danny Kimmel, a Concord resident, said the banner advertising an Islamic memorial garden was draped over the 9/11 memorial located in front of the cemetery where his mother is buried.

“I felt a punch to the gut type of thing,” he said. “To see that sign on that memorial is kind of nutty is my thoughts.”

The Kimmels are a blue star family. Danny’s older brother was killed in Vietnam, and he said his mother would be rolling in her grave if she saw the banner.

See the video report below:

A new Islamic banner was draped over a 9/11 memorial at Contra Costa County cemetery in Concord, California

“That banner has caused a huge uproar —felt like punch to the gut type of thing”

The owner of the cemetery gave the Muslim family permissions to hang the banner but… pic.twitter.com/q7IHcbqQzZ

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 21, 2026

How does something like this happen by accident?

A banner draped over a 9/11 memorial, which was advertising a new Islamic portion of a Contra Costa County cemetery, was removed after receiving backlash. https://t.co/uexCpnYUWc pic.twitter.com/nFcTAbTLgb

— NBC Bay Area (@nbcbayarea) March 21, 2026

Too many people have forgotten the scope and horror of 9/11, which is why it is important to highlight stories like this one when they happen.

Our country must never forget.

The post Locals Furious After Islamic Banner is Draped Over 9/11 Memorial in California Cemetery (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Rachel Maddow, the queen of the Russia collusion hoax, was brought onto MSNOW tonight to react to the death of former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led the pointless investigation that came up with nothing.

According to Maddow, Mueller confirmed her anti-Trump conspiracy theories. She actually doubled down on the hoax during the segment. Maddow made a fortune pushing this lie to her audience and yet she has never been forced to apologize or faced consequences of any kind.

She even suggests that Mueller’s findings were shut down by then attorney general Bill Barr, who she claims outmaneuvered Mueller politically.

Mediaite has details:

Maddow joined The Weekend: Primetime on Saturday to share her thoughts on Mueller, hours after he died at the age of 81. The MS NOW veteran was complimentary of Mueller overall, but said his two-year probe into Trump failed to land a devastating blow because Barr “outplayed” Mueller.

“There’s a reason on a day like this, we need to remind people what was in Mueller’s report — what were the results of his investigation — and that’s because of a failure on his part,” Maddow said. “That is because once his investigation and his report were concluded, he was just wildly outmaneuvered by a really serpentine Attorney General named Bill Barr, who played really dirty pool when it came to the handling and release of the information from Mueller’s investigation.”

She continued:

I don’t know if he was blindsided by it or if he thought Barr was a good guy and would be a straight shooter on this, but Barr absolutely buried him in terms of in terms of the impact of of that report. And given the way that bill Barr became attorney general, Mueller and his team should have seen that coming.

If they did see it coming, they should have come up with a way to outmaneuver Barr while he was outmaneuvering them, and they didn’t.

Here’s the video:

Rachel Maddow on the truth of the Mueller Report: “They found definite absolutely conclusive evidence that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump become president. The Trump campaign was aware of it and expected to benefit from it and they took steps to… pic.twitter.com/FdWytj281U

— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) March 22, 2026

James Comey was just subpoenaed to testify in a new probe of the hoax.

DOJ officials should consider making Rachel Maddow testify under oath as well. She was clearly fed insider information from somewhere, no matter how incorrect it all was.

The post MSNOW’s Rachel Maddow Eulogizes Robert Mueller by Doubling Down and Insisting That RussiaGate Was Real (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Residents of Staten Island are fuming over news that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is planning to build a large homeless shelter for men in a residential area on their island.

Staten Island is much more politically conservative than Manhattan and people who live there are convinced that this is being done to punish them for voting the wrong way.

Would it really surprise anyone if it was discovered that this was truly being done out of spite?

The New York Post reports:

Staten Islanders rage at Mamdani as NYC approves homeless shelter: ‘He wants to screw us’

New York City approved plans for an all-male homeless shelter in the middle of the residential South Shore of Staten Island – proof of Mayor Mamdani’s hatred for the forgotten and conservative borough, locals told The Post.

Fed-up residents believe the 160-bed shelter coming to the corner of Arthur Kill and Richmond Valley Road in Charleston will bring crime, drugs and loitering, and see the move as yet another insult from the socialist mayor.

“A hundred percent he wants to screw us because we vote conservative,” said Bruce Daniele, whose gym business Intoxx Fitness is across the street from the planned shelter.

The South Shore of Staten Island voted heavily for Andrew Cuomo in the 2025 mayoral election.

The shelter will house employed and unemployed single men, and provide services to help them find jobs and “stabilize their lives,” the city Department of Homeless Services told The Post.

New York Republicans have pointed out that the location is completely wrong for practical reasons.

From the Gothamist:

In a March 5 letter to Erin Dalton, the city’s social services commissioner, local Councilmember Frank Morano — along with Assemblymember Michael Reilly, state Sen. Andrew Lanza and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis – called for the city to reconsider the plan. In the letter, the Republican lawmakers cited “questions about whether this site is appropriate” for homeless individuals “to help rebuild their lives,” citing limited access to public transportation at the site. The officials also raised concerns about safety and other impacts on surrounding small businesses, and what they called a lack of “engagement” and transparency from the developer and city agencies involved.

“New York City’s shelter system plays a vital role in assisting individuals in crisis,” the letter said. “But that mission can only succeed when facilities are placed in locations where residents can realistically access employment, transportation, social services, and supportive community infrastructure.”

Why not put the shelter in Brooklyn with all the hipsters who voted for Mamdani?

Wouldn’t that make more sense?

The post Zohran Mamdani Angers People of Staten Island With Plans to Build All-Male Homeless Shelter in Residential Area appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senator Roger Marshall was on Newsmax‘s “America Right Now” with host Tom Basile on Saturday. He defended President Trump’s America First Agenda.

He criticized the Democrats for the partial government shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland Security.

Basile and Senator Marshall also discussed the ongoing conflict in Iran.

“From your perspective, what would you like to see accomplished before we pull back?” Basile asked.

“I think we need to fulfill the President’s four goals. It’s so clear exactly what the President has laid out, and I think we are 90 percent there,” Marshall said.

“He laid out that we want to destroy Iranian missiles, their nukes, their navy, and prevent them from being able to arm and train terrorists in the future,” Senator Marshall continued.

“So, again, very successful mission so far. Complement our military, mourn the loss of 13 American soldiers, and maybe another dozen seriously injured,” Marshall said.

“The last 10 percent may be as hard as the first 90 percent,” Marshall continued.

“I want to move over to the standoff on Capitol Hill. National security threats continue to rise, but that standoff over DHS funding with the Democrats continues,” Basile said.

“We’ve had multiple terror attacks tied to Islamist activity,” Basile continued.

“In the last few weeks, travelers are now seriously feeling this as well,” Basile said of long lines at airport security.

“Senator, are we any close to a deal here?” Basile asked.

Senator Marshall blasted the Democrats for defunding the security of our country.

“So, remember, the Democrats are the defund the police party. The Republicans are the party of secure border and law and order,” Marshall said.

“I think it’s important to remind folks that President Trump sent the Democrats an offer, and they sat on it for 18 days,” Senator Marshall said.

“We want President Trump’s policies to stay in place,” Marshall said.

“We should be asking them why won’t you fund DHS? Why are you the defund the police political party?” Marshall asked of Democrats.

Watch:

The post Senator Roger Marshall Defends President Trump’s America First Agenda, Blasts Democrats for Not Funding DHS – (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Democrat Texas Senate nominee James Talarico is catching heat after declaring that illegal immigrants were his “most patriotic” students when he worked as a public school teacher.

In a recent live interview on The Bulwark Podcast with host Tim Miller, Talarico boasted about his time teaching in San Antonio and how illegal aliens were more patriotic than Americans.

“Before I was a politician, I was a public school teacher in San Antonio, Texas, on the west side of the city, and I taught a lot of undocumented students, and those students tended to be my most patriotic students,” Talarico claimed.

Talarico didn’t stop there. He doubled down, claiming these illegal aliens “understood something about this country that a lot of us who are native born forget,” calling America “the land of opportunity” and “the place where dreams come true.”

The liberal candidate added that they “believed in this country, even when this country didn’t believe in them,” while ripping Trump-era immigration policies as “immoral” and “unconscionable” for “terrorizing my former students and their families.”

WATCH:

Texas Democrat U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico says illegal aliens are more patriotic than Americans.

TALARICO: “I taught a lot of undocumented students and those students tended to be my most patriotic students.” pic.twitter.com/j6Ht3vuorq

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 21, 2026

The remarks have been slammed on social media as a direct insult to every American citizen, legal immigrant, veteran, and taxpayer who actually loves this country.

This isn’t the only wild take from the candidate.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, in the same interview, the self-described Presbyterian seminarian and “devout Christian” defended his 2021 claim that “God is nonbinary.”

When pressed about “God’s sausage” in reference to his earlier House floor speech, Talarico said, “Listen, I know that I was being provocative with that comment. Uh, I made it on the floor of the Texas House when the extremists in the Texas legislature were trying to pick on kids who were different. While maybe provocative politically, I don’t think it’s controversial theologically. Most Christians believe God is beyond gender.”

WATCH: Texas Democrat Senate Nominee James Talarico Defends Claim That ‘God Is Nonbinary’ When Asked About ‘God’s Sausage,’ in Sickening and Bizarre Interview

President Donald Trump ripped the God comments on Fox News, calling them “the insult to Jesus” and labeling Talarico “beyond woke” and “grossly incompetent.”

The post WATCH: Democrat Texas Senate Candidate James Talarico Claims Illegal Aliens are More Patriotic Than Americans appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Democrats in the state of Connecticut oppose the SAVE America Act because they don’t support the idea of having to show a photo ID in order to vote, but they recently passed a law in the state that requires photo ID to recycle aluminum cans.

You could not make this up.

Like some other states, Connecticut gives a ten cent return on empty containers instead of five cents, so people have been crossing into the state to recycle there and cash in on the higher return. The fix for this was photo ID.

But they won’t do this for voting.

FOX News reports:

Connecticut Dems demand IDs to recycle cans but reject GOP efforts to verify citizenship at polls

Connecticut Democrats recently rushed through an emergency anti-fraud law requiring bottle redemption centers to collect a copy of a person’s driver’s license when they cash in more than 1,000 cans or bottles in a day — a document demand that Republicans say undercuts the party’s attacks on voter-ID rules.

Earlier this month, an emergency certification bill, SB 299, was introduced by top Democratic leaders in the state’s legislature. It was later passed in both chambers in late February and was signed by Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, on March 3.

It requires people wishing to recycle cans for money to present a copy of their driver’s license, put in place because the state has had issues with non-residents crossing its border to take advantage of its higher return rate of 10 cents a can instead of five cents. The issue was reportedly causing the state to lose significant revenue…

“In Connecticut, it seems that they are committed to securing recycling, but not to securing elections,” said Anna Pingel, America First Policy Institute’s Campaign Director for Secure Elections. “Requiring photo ID to collect cash from recycling but opposing photo ID to cast a vote tells you everything you need to know about the hypocrisy of politicians fighting against commonsense legislation like the SAVE Act. What is more important to safeguard—bottles or ballots?”

Both of Connecticut’s senators voted against the SAVE America Act.

In Connecticut, Dems just RAMMED THROUGH an emergency bill FORCING PEOPLE TO SHOW ID at recycling centers.

The kicker? BOTH Dem Senators from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy are AGAINST showing an ID to vote and are against the SAVE America Act. pic.twitter.com/JJUikgMAyu

— The Constitutional Conservative (@TheCCShowcast) March 21, 2026

Is anyone in the media going to ask Connecticut lawmakers to explain this?

The post BEYOND PARODY: Connecticut Democrats Pass Bill Requiring Photo ID to RECYCLE CANS But Won’t Support the SAVE America Act appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.