Month: March 2026

It’s like the surface of Mars, out there.

Down under, out in parts of the West Australian coast, the skies exploded in a blood-red color ahead of the arrival of Tropical Cyclone Narelle that’s hammering the country.

For many, the crimson skies felt disturbing or even ‘apocalyptic.’

NO, that’s not a filter! The sky turned an eerie shade of red in Western Australia as dust filled the air ahead of Tropical Cyclone Narelle. pic.twitter.com/dCQ2hjFluI

— AccuWeather (@accuweather) March 28, 2026

The images went viral around the world,

OMINOUS VIEWS : Footage from another angle highlights more eerie skies over Western Australia just before Tropical Cyclone Narelle made landfall, engulfing Denham in orange and red from dust on March 27. pic.twitter.com/6Mg1B126Qc

— FOX Weather (@foxweather) March 29, 2026

The New York Post reported:

“’Incredibly eerie outside, and everything is covered in dust. Not a lot of wind yet’, Shark Bay Caravan Park wrote in a Facebook post capturing the phenomenon on Friday.

The skies in other parts of the region were cloaked in an unusual but far less terrifying orange radiance due to swirling dust clouds kicked up by the powerful storm.”

Apocalyptic orange skies engulf Shark Bay, Western Australia as Tropical Cyclone Narelle closes in turning day into a haunting orange haze pic.twitter.com/LkOjh8YSGi

— Surajit (@surajit_ghosh2) March 28, 2026

“Some reports said strong winds kicked iron-rich soil into the atmosphere, which, combined with the diffused sunlight, created a sort of filter that muted most color wavelengths except red.”

Tropical Cyclone Narelle

The Department of Fire and Energy Services in Western Australia have released footage from the past 24 hours of the severe impacts from Narelle.

200km/hr winds were recorded at Learmonth Airport near Exmouth, with major flash flooding occurring in the… pic.twitter.com/JfxzLzO4KG

— Chyno News (@ChynoNews) March 27, 2026

Ex-Tropical Cyclone Narelle barrelled down the WA coast, leaving a trail of destruction in her wake.

Communities in the state’s north face a massive clean-up after the system reached category 4 at its peak. pic.twitter.com/hMgFMnN4kc

— 10 News Perth (@10NewsPER) March 29, 2026

Read more:

Under a Blood-Red Sky: Geomagnetic Storm Causes Intense Auroras in North America and European Regions – Sky Explodes in Crimson over Russia and Ukraine

The post WATCH: Australian Skies Turn Fiery Red as Tropical Cyclone Narelle Hits appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The post Seat to Watch: Connecticut’s 5th District Erupts in Firestorm Over GOP Ben Proto’s Embattled Leadership appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Donald J. Trump spoke to reporters on Air Force One Sunday night on his return trip to Washington, D.C. from a working weekend in Florida. One subject Trump spoke about was the White House ballroom, apparently in response to a hit piece by the New York Times attacking the ballroom’s design. Trump held up several large photo representations of the updated ballroom design while also telling reporters that the military is building a “massive complex” under the ballroom.

The East Wing of the White House, which Trump had demolished last year to make way for the ballroom, sat atop the underground Presidential Emergency Operations Center, also referred to as the bunker, that was built in the 1940s during World War II and has been periodically upgraded.

Trump said the new military construction was revealed as a result of a lawsuit opposing the construction of the ballroom, something Trump spoke about earlier in a Truth Social post on January 25. At that time, Trump blamed the lawsuit for forcing the revelation that the military was involved, but did not get into details (excerpt):

I’m building, on top of everything else that I am doing, one of the greatest and most beautiful Ballrooms anywhere in the World, with more than 300 Million Dollars of Great American Patriots’ money, and working closely with, right from the beginning, the United States Military and Secret Service.

…Additionally, in this instance, it is being done with the design, consent, and approval of the highest levels of the United States Military and Secret Service. The mere bringing of this ridiculous lawsuit has already, unfortunately, exposed this heretofore Top Secret fact. Stoppage of construction, at this late date, when so much has already been ordered and done, would be devastating to the White House, our Country, and all concerned. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Reuters White House reporter Steve Holland posted a photo from Air Force One:

President Trump on AF1 displays drawings of ballroom pic.twitter.com/I2MUuvsl8T

— Steve Holland (@steveholland1) March 30, 2026

Video queued to ballroom discussion:

Transcript excerpt:

“Now, the military is building a a big complex under the ballroom, which has come out recently because of a stupid lawsuit that was filed, but the military is building a massive complex under the ballroom and that’s under construction and we’re doing very well. So, we’re ahead of schedule. It’s part of it. And the ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what’s being built under the military, including from drones and including from any other thing. the glass uh on the windows, you see the big windows, the glass is uh extremely thick. It’s high grade bulletproof glass. So, all of the windows are bulletproof. Uh I think the Times wrote to you some of the windows are fake. We have no fake windows. They said they talked about a stairway in the south. We don’t have a stairway in the south. That was replaced a long time ago. But this is a a view of it from the north. And that’s if you see it, it fits in with the White House. It’s almost a twin to the White House. It’s uh something we just wanted to pay tribute to the White House. And so that fits in beautifully…”

In an acknowledgment of the new era of warfare, Trump also told reporters that in addition to being bulletproof, the ballroom is designed to be drone proof.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt ripped the New York Times earlier Sunday about the hit piece on the ballroom, “The New York Times had three random people who have “studied fine arts,” “long written about urban planning,” and never built anything to write an article criticizing the new White House ballroom. President Trump and his lead architect have built world-class buildings around the world, and they are ensuring the People’s House finally has a beautiful ballroom that’s been needed for decades — at no expense to the taxpayer.”

The New York Times had three random people who have “studied fine arts,” “long written about urban planning,” and never built anything to write an article criticizing the new White House ballroom.

President Trump and his lead architect have built world-class buildings around… https://t.co/qAl2gk6hDA pic.twitter.com/vRH9U6mes0

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) March 29, 2026

The post President Trump Reveals Military Building “Massive Complex” Under Ballroom appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.



At a March news conference on so called “street safety”, NYC Mayor Zoran Mamdani told reporters the city was “making clear that no one is above the law” even as he called ICE “an entity that should be abolished,” denouncing it as “rogue” and “reckless” and saying it “delivers nothing toward the furthering of the cause of public safety.”

Mamdani has also backed “No Kings” protests against the Trump administration, portraying them as a way for New Yorkers who believe “ICE has no place in our city” to show they are part of a growing coalition demanding “decency, dignity and humanity” in immigration policy.

The comments come while on March 8th, 83‑year‑old Air Force veteran Richard Williams was shoved from a platform onto the tracks at Manhattan’s Lexington Avenue–63rd Street station and later died of his injuries on March 17, according to police and local reports.

Authorities say the suspect, 34‑year‑old Honduran national Bairon Posada‑Hernandez (also reported as Bairon Hernandez), has been deported from the United States four times, was in the country illegally, and has a lengthy criminal record that includes numerous prior charges.

He was arrested on March 10 and initially charged with attempted murder and assault, but prosecutors in Manhattan later upgraded the case to second‑degree murder after the medical examiner ruled Williams’ death a homicide.

The killing has sparked anger on social media and among Republican lawmakers, who accuse New York’s sanctuary policies and Mamdani’s refusal so far to comment directly on the case of enabling a “serial criminal.”

Sponsor | https://www.purgestore.com | Use promo code DREW for 20% off and support The Gateway Pundit today!

Follow Drew on X: https://x.com/DrewHLive
Follow Drew on Rumble: https://rumble.com/DrewHernandez

The post Zohran Mamdani Calls To Abolish ICE As Illegal Aliens Murder New Yorkers | Drew Hernandez appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to hear oral arguments on a case which turns directly on the question of birthright citizenship. Specifically, the Court will determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s naturalization provision, which states “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” mandates an automatic grant of citizenship upon anyone, including the children of illegal aliens, born on U.S. soil – or if the clause, more sensibly read, applies to children born of citizens only (with limited exceptions). The case, which is being filed under the name Trump v. Barbara, is one of potentially groundbreaking import – poised to be potentially among the most important decisions, with far-reaching political ramifications, in generations.

The case arose in the aftermath of the Trump administration’s adoption of Executive Order No. 14,160 (“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”), which was issued on the first day of the President’s second term in January of last year. Immediately, that executive order was challenged by liberal-leaning district courts, resulting in a nationwide preliminary injunction which never allowed the order to go into effect. Last year, in the case Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 judgment split along party lines that nationwide injunctions, at least tailored to the kind of policy underlying this particular EO, were unconstitutional. In that regard, the Court struck down part of a legal stopgap which indirectly affected the policy of birthright citizenship without having to confront the underlying issue on the merits head on. This hedge strategy has been typical of the Roberts
Court, which, despite having a putative Republican-majority, has chosen to repeatedly avoid addressing what it considers “hard-charging” or “politically controversial” questions on the merits. The politics underlying this strategy are interesting: though conservatives have a hard-lock on the Supreme Court for the first time in decades, they have generally shirked from “rocking the boat” on major policy questions.

Unlike their liberal counterparts, conservative judges in the vein of John Roberts have justified their obsequiously deferential approach under the pretext of stare decisis, even though much of the precedent that approach necessarily upholds is foundationally liberal precedent, and thus in the final analysis does not pass true constitutional scrutiny based on the original meaning, intent, and plain meaning of the law. As a result, major constitutional problems – such as the issue of birthright citizenship – are often kicked down the road, sometimes for generations, rather than squarely addressed upfront in a decisive and expeditious manner. The problem with this reticent approach is that it allows problems, such as the issue of birthright citizenship, to suppurate – only creating more problems over the course of time. Judges must realize that choosing not to opine on an important policy question is itself a decision of policy: neutrality is no magic substitute that allows judges to escape politics forever. Case in point: the President’s Executive Order has been in limbo for well over a year now. Without a decision on the merits, the law becomes murky and unclear. In these scenarios, judges and legislators are forced to then guess what the law is supposed to mean, which rarely leads to desirable outcomes. The failure to provide clarity in the law and act with decisiveness thus creates a negative feedback loop: rather than go away, small problems compound into bigger problems. And opponents who stand on the other side of the issue begin to sense that uncertainty. This unduly gives them more opportunities to exploit pitfalls while sowing even further doubt into the constitutional process itself. Doubt and confusion alienate would-be supporters while strengthening the resolve of opponents, who rightly deem indecision as weakness.

This, in a nutshell, elaborates a fundamental philosophical distinction in the general approach between conservatives and liberals. Liberal-majority courts historically have ruled on the merits of an issue, resulting in landmark decisions that have engineered the law in a leftward direction, as so many Warren Court decisions – named after the most impactful Chief Justice of the twentieth century – have borne out, each decision building off the last.

Conservatives, as regularly exemplified by the Roberts court era, tend to uphold the overwhelmingly liberal precedent on which the major canons of modern constitutional law are grounded. It has been the Roberts’ court modus operandi to pass the buck rather than rule squarely on major constitutional questions. If it absolutely must confront an issue, it tends to limit its ruling to the case at hand rather than make a dispositive judgment for all similar cases and controversies. And although that posture has softened a bit over the last several years, bolstered by President Trump’s three nominations from the first administration, which paved the way for Roe v. Wade’s overturn, something that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago, the institutional prejudice towards inertia and tepidity remains strong.

This tepidity explains why the birthright citizenship question, which is a straightforward constitutional analysis, has remained adrift in a sea of doubt for nearly a century and a half. The Fourteenth Amendment was one of three post-Civil War amendments designed to confer constitutional rights upon newly emancipated slaves. Its originators surely were not contemplating giving additional rights to tens of millions of illegal aliens from all over the world when they drafted its naturalization provision. If the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had known that their handiwork would, a century and a half later, be manipulated by political opportunists to grant the privilege of citizenship to anyone under the sun, including violent criminals and hordes of individuals who did not speak the English language and had no desire to assimilate into the American way of life, there is no doubt that they would have made the clause airtight to prevent those exploitations from later springing up.

Having said that, the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment’s architects is derived by the language in the provision which expressly states that those rights are contemplated only for those individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This is not a partial grant of jurisdiction, as in the cases of foreign visitors to the United States, whether on work visas or simply here for travel. No, the clause envisioned that individuals born on American soil must be fully (not partially) within the jurisdiction of American laws already. This is only possible if those contemplated persons’ parents were fully within the ambit of American law and hence were citizens before the fact – through naturalization or birthright.

So, the relevant legal question is not whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment grants birthright citizenship. But whether individuals born on American soil ought to be automatically granted citizenship on the basis of birthright, regardless of their parentage. In other words, it presents a constitutional inquiry that turns on the core meaning of citizenship by birthright. Wong Kim Ark, an over century-old case that is often claimed by liberal critics as a purported justification to keep the status quo, does not address the core question of birthright citizenship as applied to illegal aliens, and is bad law either way. In Wong Kim Ark, the High Court declared that children born on U.S. soil of lawful resident aliens may be accorded citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the case did not consider whether children born of individuals who circumvented the laws of the United States could be automatically granted citizenship. That distinction between lawful and unlawful residents is key: the landmark decision that supposedly is the be and end all ace-in-the-hole supporting liberal critics’ objections to the President’s Executive Order even outlines that its ruling applies to lawful residents only, excluding unlawful residents from the process entirely. That said, there are also plenty of reasons to consider that decision outdated or even bad law too, offering additional support for the argument that the original intention of the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to confer birthright citizenship automatically.

No other first world nation automatically gives citizenship by birthright, bolstering the historical and legal arguments in support of the President’s position. What is more, practical necessities dictate a dramatic course correction in policy: at no other point in American history, nor perhaps in the history of the modern Western world, has any country ever been asked to absorb as many migrants as America has – somewhere between 13 and 50 million – at once. The logistics make this assignment near-impossible. It is downright impractical to expect that America’s institutions – from public welfare programs to hospitals, roadways, and schools – could withstand taking on this extreme burden without buckling under the pressure. The institutions simply lack the bandwidth to take these people on, even if there was a desire to do it. But there is no desire. This brings us to the most important factor in a democratic system: the will of the People. And, overwhelmingly, majorities in both parties have made clear that they do not want this policy. In an age of extreme polarization, a hardline stance against illegal aliens is remarkably one such policy that enjoys wide-ranging support among large swaths of the electorate, as revealed in far too many public polls to count.

In short, birthright citizenship – at least in its revisionist construction – is something that the Constitution’s founders never contemplated. It is also not supported by the text of the naturalization clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor even Wong Kim Ark supports. The people do not want it; the Constitution patently forbids it. The Supreme Court must therefore strike it down, and uphold the President’s Executive Order, lest it wish to also have its legitimacy further eroded by once again sadly hedging and thereby, handing its moral authority over to the Left – at which point it will have no authority left to either preserve the Constitution or its own institutional integrity, the two reasons it recurrently and meekly cites as the basis for pursuing its disreputable strategy of appeasement.

By Publicola

The post High Court Set To Hear Oral Argument This Week On Birthright Citizenship Case appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A 23-year-old U.S. Marine is in federal custody after allegedly stealing and selling military equipment from Camp Pendleton in California.

A grand jury has indicted Corporal Andrew Paul Amarillas for stealing and selling weapons of war, which include a Javelin missile system and over 2 million rounds of M855 ammunition.

Court documents alleged Amarillas stole the weapons from Camp Pendleton while he served as an ammunition technician specialist at the School of Infantry-West from 2022 to 2025.

AZ Family reported that Amarillas allegedly stole the weapons and proceeded to sell them to co-conspirators in his home state of Arizona.

Insane haul of war weapons Marine, 23, is accused of stealing from California military base https://t.co/08hztCkHwY pic.twitter.com/IL2bNQ9kqA

— New York Post (@nypost) March 30, 2026

Per The LA Times:

A U.S. Marine formerly stationed at Camp Pendleton is now in federal custody, charged with stealing weapons of war — including a shoulder-fired missile system — with the intent to resell them in Arizona, according to court documents.

Cpl. Andrew Paul Amarillas is accused of using his position as an ammunition technical specialist at the School of Infantry West at the San Diego base to access and steal military property, including at least one Javelin missile system, military-grade ammunition and other weapons-related material, between February 2022 and November 2025. Investigators say he transported the stolen weapons and ammunition to his home state of Arizona, where he sold them to a network of co-conspirators, who then resold the equipment to others.

Authorities described the items as strictly controlled and dangerous, posing a threat to civilians and law enforcement. Some but not all of the stolen material has been recovered.

“The objects of the conspiracy were to steal property and ammunition from the U.S. military and sell stolen U.S. military property and ammunition to others to earn money,” read the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in March.

The theft comes just weeks after The Gateway Pundit reported that officials at U.S. Army Fort Campbell revealed that four Skydio X10D Drone Systems were stolen from the 326th Division Engineer Battalion building.

Officials at Fort Campbell announced that the suspects behind the drone theft have been identified and had access to the building where the drones were stored at the base.

READ:

UPDATE: Army ID’s Two Suspects Connected to Drone Theft at Fort Campbell

The post U.S. Marine Accused of Stealing Javelin Missile System and Large Quantities of Ammo from California Base appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Politics

Is the University of Florida Shutting Down College Republicans over Israel Criticism?

Accusations that the group is antisemitic don’t hold up.

On March 14, the University of Florida announced it was disbanding its College Republicans organization, saying the action was due to an “antisemitic gesture” by a member of the club. However, this explanation was immediately called into question, with the club stating that the student responsible for making the gesture (a Nazi salute) was not a member. 

Many began to suspect that the university was attempting to use the episode as a pretext to target a conservative club for its commitment to a principled non-interventionist, America First foreign policy. Additionally, it became unclear whether the university even had the proper authority to shut down the group, which filed a lawsuit against the university to prevent its disbandment.

The allegations of antisemitism against the University of Florida College Republicans (UFCR) originated with Sloan Rachmuth, a Laura Loomer-esque activist known for attacking populist-conservative figures such as Charlie Kirk, J.D. Vance, and Tucker Carlson (as well as Carlson’s family). On March 12, Rachmuth tweeted several images, including a picture of two people doing a Nazi salute, including the individual at the center of the controversy; a picture of a UFCR meeting (which was open to the public) in which that individual seemed to be present; and a third image purported to show that the individual is on the board of an entirely separate UF club, “Uncensored America.” None of these images points to antisemitism being rife within UFCR. Nevertheless, these allegations ostensibly motivated the university to take punitive action against the group. 

Not only were these allegations of antisemitism against UFCR flimsy at best, but there is ample evidence that the group’s members are not antisemitic. The vice president, Evan Weinzimer, is himself Jewish. Asked for comment by The American Conservative, Michael Andre, the president, condemned antisemitism whilst affirming the importance of free speech. The group reiterated that the student who made the Nazi salute is not a member.

Compounding the spuriousness of the allegations against UFCR was the sloppiness displayed in disbanding the club. One needs to understand recent disputes among college conservatives across America to see the problem.

Following the near-collapse of the historic College Republican National Committee, several national College Republican organizations have competed to become its official successor. The two largest of these organizations are the College Republicans of America (CRA) and the National Federation of College Republicans (NFCR). Of these two, the CRA has a reputation for being more populist in its domestic views and non-interventionist in its foreign policy views, and it has historically been very supportive of Donald Trump. Meanwhile, the NFCR has been viewed as much more representative of the pre-Trump GOP, and it is alleged that the group’s leader, Rachel Howard, campaigned for Nikki Haley in 2024, based on a picture of her amidst Haley supporters during the 2024 Iowa caucus. 

This split is relevant to the UF–UFCR dispute, as when the university shut down the group, it cited the Florida subgroup of NFCR, which would have the authority (under certain circumstances) to close affiliated chapters. However, UFCR is affiliated with the CRA, not NFCR, so it is unlikely that the university and the NCFR had the authority to shut it down. On these grounds, UFCR is currently engaged in litigation against the school.

Since the allegations of antisemitism made against the UFCR are spurious, and considering that the attempt to shut down the club was sloppy and possibly illegal, one wonders why exactly UF felt the need to act as dramatically as it did. Were there other issues at play?

An obvious one pertains to foreign policy, specifically the internal debate occurring within the Republican Party about whether to take an internationalist approach to foreign policy or an America First and non-interventionist approach. This debate is intricately connected with the subject of Israel and the American–Israeli relationship, which conservatives increasingly see as deleterious to U.S. interests and America’s model of republican self-government. These debates have been turbocharged by the start of the Iran War and the perception of many that the White House launched the war for Israel or due to Israeli pressure.

Within the GOP, the divide on foreign policy is generational, with polls revealing that young Republicans stand out as particularly non-interventionist and critical of Israel compared to older party members, causing visible apprehension among GOP leaders. At the same time, many young conservatives feel that the party leadership is using their votes to promote a foreign policy at odds with their views and America’s national interest.

This non-interventionism and criticism of the U.S.–Israel relationship can certainly be found among members of the UFCR, leading to speculation that these views, rather than non-existent antisemitism, were the cause of UF’s decision to disband the club. “The club has a reputation of being anti-war, anti-interventionist, and having a negative view of Israel’s current actions and, yes, their involvement with our government,” Andre, the president, told TAC. “Having that reputation, it would be extremely hard for us to dismiss any claims that our foreign policy stances are part of our deactivation.” 

This view—that the foreign policy views of the club led to UF’s actions against it—is bolstered by UF’s initial statement announcing its intent to disband the club. “When the FFCR is ready, the university will also assist it with reactivating the Local CR under new student leadership,” the university announced, suggesting that it would attempt to reconstitute the College Republicans club at a future date under new leadership amenable to the Florida subgroup of the more hawkish and establishment-linked NFCR, rather than under the aegis of the more dovish and populist CRA. Such a move would represent a state-funded university weighing into the debate between different College Republicans organizations on the side of the more hawkish faction.

Anthony Sabatini, a Lake County commissioner and lawyer representing UFCR in the suit against the university, seemed to indicate that there is evidence pointing to UF acting against the club due to its stances on foreign policy. “I’m not at liberty to disclose publicly everything we had, but we basically already have evidence confirming that this was a plot that they put together in conjunction with both the university and some outside influence, some outside entities to try to shut them down based on them having an America First viewpoint,” Sabatini told TAC. 

If this is indeed the case, and as UF is a state university in a red state, the deactivation of the UFCR would represent the best example of what is referred to as the “Republican Samson Option,” wherein hawkish Republicans would rather destroy the party and the conservative movement than concede defeat to younger, more dovish elements (the name is a reference to Israel’s nuclear doctrine of massive retaliation in the event of an acute security crisis). Many younger conservatives justifiably feel, due to both the outright hostility shown by many higher-ups in the party to their foreign policy views and the liberality with which hawkish voices throw around accusations of antisemitism at critics of the contemporary U.S.–Israel relationship, that hawks within the party view them, rather than the left, as the enemy.

Navigating this generational transfer of power within the Republican Party, and with it the transformation of the Republican Party into a non-interventionist party, will certainly be a challenge for many conservative organizations. However, if hawkish factions of the right are willing to use state power (in this case, through a state university) to try to silence Republican doves, it suggests that conservative hawks may indeed try to execute a “Republican Samson Option” to prevent non-interventionists from inheriting the conservative movement and moving the country in an America First direction.

Of course, if UF’s actions were indeed taken for reasons concerning foreign policy, it would not be the first example of state-backed pro-Israel censorship on behalf of the foreign policy establishment. “First they came for Columbia Palestine activists, and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a Columbia Palestine activist,” a libertarian Florida college student wryly remarked to TAC. “Then they came for the College Republicans.”

When asked for comment, the University of Florida said that it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The final hearing for a preliminary injunction will be held on April 31.

The post Is the University of Florida Shutting Down College Republicans over Israel Criticism? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Culture

Chuck Norris, Patriot: Rest in Peace

Obituaries have understated how much the late martial-arts star meant for Americans in the armed services.

Somewhere on or near the Persian Gulf an American serviceman is at this moment scribbling a Chuck Norris joke (some call them Norris “facts”) on a porta-potty wall. It may be one everyone has heard a thousand times but still smiles at in the worst of conditions, or something new, to be repeated as it works its way across the Gulf on hangar walls and in mess halls, written on the sides of weapons to be dropped, or just passed on verbally as troops crouch in some bunker. It will make the men laugh even as the air raid sirens try (and fail—it is a Chuck Norris joke after all) to drown it out.

If you’re one of the handful of people on earth who has never heard a Chuck Norris joke, here’s a couple: Chuck Norris doesn’t have a bearskin rug in his den; he’s just convinced the bear to lie still. Chuck Norris can light a fire by rubbing two ice cubes together. Chuck Norris doesn’t flush the toilet; he scares the s**t out of it. Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door. There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live. Chuck Norris does not cough; nothing escapes Chuck Norris. Death once had a near–Chuck Norris experience.

In the end, Chuck did of course pass away, just about a week ago at 86. During his life he made some pretty cool martial arts movies, and some mediocre ones that almost slipped into self-parody. He pioneered a genre, and paved the way for Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme, and others. The many obituaries written about Norris touch on all this, but seem to fail to understand how much he will be missed within America’s armed forces. Norris occupies a curious place in American cultural memory in general, where the boundaries between real military service, cinematic heroism, and internet mythology blur into something larger than the man himself. To write about Chuck Norris and the military is to navigate not only his actual biography, but also the symbolic role he has come to play, a figure representing discipline, toughness, and an idealized version of American virtue.

The thousands of jokes Norris spawned (“When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, he already had three missed calls from Chuck Norris”; “Chuck Norris beat the sun in a staring contest”) helped hold American soldiers together. When in Iraq with the State Department, I spent time at one small helicopter base where an entire office door was devoted to nothing but Chuck Norris jokes, hundreds of them written in every color of mil-issue Sharpie. If you wanted to add one, it had to pass the laugh test among all the soldiers waiting there, or you were shamed into sitting back down. Nothing, except maybe the old M*A*S*H* reruns, seems to show the funny side of war, but it is there.

And this helicopter base was a place where soldiers needed Chuck. You would wait there, sometimes hours of forever, for a storm to pass, or a mission to be scrubbed, or something to be fixed, or anyone more important than you to arrive late. The TV was often broken, or tuned to some Middle East soccer match nobody cared about because U.S. military TV was down. WiFi had barely been invented, and someone had thrown away any naughty magazines left behind. Chuck got you through it, making people laugh via his memes through some of the darkest and dullest times. The Norris door from Iraq was eventually taken back to the U.S., where it lives on in the hands of a private collector.

None of the current Norris obituaries really emphasize enough the time the real man spent traveling to remote combat outposts, starting in Kosovo right through Afghanistan. He was sponsored by USO to spend time with troops far enough out there or in dangerous enough places not to see USO shows very often. My colleague got to attend one, and explained Chuck spent only a few minutes on stage and most of his time mingling with people, often famously putting soldiers into a headlock when they asked for a selfie. He acted as if he had nothing else to do in the world but hang out in Fallujah (“Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch; he decides the time”), and he was loved for it.

One other reason Norris was so popular was because of his unabashed conservative politics, which matched those of most of the soldiers and stood out from the other Hollywood entertainers USO would bring out. Not only did Chuck endorse Ronald Reagan before most of the soldiers were born, he went on to stump for Trump 1.0 long after most made it home. But Chuck also believed and spoke sincerely about conservative issues with a small “c,” not candidates but the Second Amendment, Christianity, and support for law enforcement. (“Chuck Norris got pulled over by police once. He let the cop go with a warning.”) It was this way of thinking that earned him the scorn of much of left-leaning Hollywood.

For example, Variety, the liberal Hollywood trade newspaper, remembered Chuck this way: 

Chuck Norris was a great action star — but politics may overshadow his legacy. In nearly every Norris movie, he’s muscling into a foreign land or othered community, kicking a bunch of a—, completing his mission and hitting the road — or neutralizing the new threat that came into his town. An all-American loner has to gun down outsiders who threaten his way of life, or go to another country to make sure justice is done.

Like the U.S. in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran—hint, hint?

The obit goes on to say in 1993 Norris took on the title role in the TV series Walker, Texas Ranger, about a modern lawman “who always does what’s right, even if he doesn’t have a warrant or is quick to just kill the bad guys… the black-and-white, right-and-wrong simplicity of ‘Walker’ is cop-aganda.”

Then, in case you still did not get it, Variety ends its by saying that all this 

seems less fun in a year in which our country is funneling money into bombing Iran and ICE agents are acting like one-man militias. Given our nation’s divisions in morality, information literacy, and overall sense of reality, it’s easier to see Norris’ characters as justification for a fringe conspiracy movement rather than a moral standing… his legacy transitions from escapism to dangerous propaganda.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) responded on X on behalf of so many of us, writing, “Chuck Norris spent an enormous amount of time celebrating what was great about America with those who kept us free and safe. And you showed in your arrogance why we hate Hollywood.”

Chuck is in heaven now, where he said to God “Hey, you’re in my seat.” Chuck Norris—the actor, the humanitarian, the jokester—passed away peacefully, knowing he had made the lives of an uncountable number of servicemembers a little better. R.I.P.

The post Chuck Norris, Patriot: Rest in Peace appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

Why Do U.S. Presidents Keep Risking Foreign Quagmires?

Domestic pressures result in foreign adventures.

During the past three-quarters of a century, beginning in 1950 and continuing right through to the current war with Iran, U.S. presidents repeatedly have risked involvement in conflicts that resulted in military quagmires with disappointing endings. Why do presidents keep repeating the same mistakes in the name of “national security”? 

By 1950, the U.S. government had taken then-poor South Korea out of the U.S. defense perimeter. The United States had withdrawn its forces after the Second World War, because the Joint Chiefs of Staff became resigned to the fact that non-strategic South Korea would eventually come under the influence of the Soviet Union because of its proximity to the opposing superpower. This exclusion North Korea took as a green light to invade the South. In response, President Harry Truman panicked and, without getting a congressional declaration of war or any congressional approval, rushed U.S. air and naval forces to help the South Koreans and then later added large ground forces. The American and South Korean forces repelled the invasion back to roughly the 38th parallel, the original boundary between North and South. Then the worst mission creep in American military history occurred.

Bedazzled with success, Truman then succumbed to General Douglas MacArthur’s plan to go north of the 38th parallel to liberate North Korea from communism, despite Chinese warnings not to come near the Yalu River, the border between China and North Korea. As the U.S. military disregarded the clear signals, the threatened Chinese launched a massive invasion of Korea, pushing allied forces back to close to the 38^th parallel. Truman, unable to extricate himself for two long years of continuing slaughter on both sides, chose not to run for re-election because of the unpopular war. He then turned the tar baby over along with the presidency to General Dwight Eisenhower, who wisely called it quits.

Military quagmires in Vietnam in the 1960s and early 1970s, the 20-year loss to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the debacle in Iraq are fresher in the public mind. Virulent anticommunism—after China fell to the communists in 1949 and after the Korean War—pressured the Democratic Party to fear losing Vietnam, as Truman had been blamed for losing China. President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated war in an economic and strategic backwater that he knew in advance would probably end poorly. Again, a president’s political career suffered from the lingering pointless slaughter. When Richard Nixon took over, he delayed fulfilling his pledge to withdraw until after his reelection because he didn’t want to be blamed for the first losing American war; tens of thousands of American and Vietnamese lives were lost in those four years.

The long failures in Afghanistan and Iraq are even fresher in the public mind. Instead of merely trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and degrade Al Qaeda after 9/11, President George W. Bush, disregarding British and recent Soviet failures to remodel the “graveyard of empires” through military force, engaged in a nation-building Afghan war that he had purported to despise. He also peddled the lie that Saddam Hussein in Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 and would likely give his alleged (but nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, all as an excuse to invade. The invasion turned into a counterinsurgency nightmare that created more terrorists, including the even more virulent ISIS, which rampaged across the region. Again, it was very difficult for subsequent presidents to get out of military tar pits once the U.S. military was in them.

So, the lesson for U.S. presidents should be to be wary of intervening in places where an escalation trap exists—that is, where the president must escalate or be blamed for losing the war when things don’t initially meet stated expectations.

Although we don’t know for sure, it seems that President Donald Trump—bedazzled by the quick attack on Venezuela to kidnap Nicolas Maduro and favorable publicity received for plinking boats in the drug war—was convinced by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that starting a massive air campaign against Iran would avenge alleged Iranian attempts to assassinate Trump and that decapitating the leadership would lead to regime change.

Trump has seemed surprised that the 47-year-old institutionalized regime was more entrenched than he thought and that, when threatened with regime change, it would pull out all the stops to save itself by threatening oil shipments to the world through the Strait of Hormuz and attacking Israel and the Gulf Arab states with drones and missiles. Now, Trump is escalating by sending thousands of Marines and Army troops to join the 50,000 already in the region—threatening to conquer Iranian oil facilities on Kharg Island to pressure Iran to open the strait, or perhaps to use them directly on the shores to open it.

Trump has now entered the escalation trap. He can’t credibly say he won the war unless the strait is opened. But attempts to eliminate the threat to the waterway and keep it open near a hostile Iran may result in a long war involving higher American casualties in an already unpopular war or blowback from Iranian-linked terrorism against U.S. targets for a long time, including on American territory.

But it is not all Trump’s fault. The trouble started after the Second World War. During that war, defense production had to be more massive than in any previous war. After the war ended, defense industries outside of cities lobbied for continued production during peacetime, creating a permanent defense industry (sometimes called the military-industrial complex or MIC) for the first time in American history. Then after the Korean War, a large army was retained during peacetime, another first in U.S. history. This not only gave plenty of business to the MIC, but also made it more convenient for the president to start wars without congressional approval, as the Constitution still requires. The MIC and the pressure on the president to intervene everywhere and anywhere in the world with a large standing military—which gives him the capacity to do so—have been underlying factors in all the quagmires since the Second World War.

The post Why Do U.S. Presidents Keep Risking Foreign Quagmires? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Bank of America is paying $72.5 million to settle a federal lawsuit claiming it enabled sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The lawsuit claimed Bank of America ignored “obvious red flags” while doing business with Epstein and his associates, according to the New York Post.

The bank, so the lawsuit claimed, could have brought law enforcement down upon Epstein sooner if it had adopted a see-no-evil policy. Epstein died in 2019 in a federal jail while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Bank of America has agreed to pay $72.5 million to victims of Jeffrey Epstein who accused the bank of ignoring “numerous red flags” that facilitated the trafficking of young girls. https://t.co/9KNi8OJDWq

— FOX 4 NEWS (@FOX4) March 28, 2026

Bank of America is the third bank to settle a lawsuit linked to Epstein. JPMorgan Chase ponied up for $290 million. Deutsche Bank settled for $75 million.

In a statement, a Bank of America representative said, “While we stand by our prior statements made in the filings in this case, including that Bank of America did not facilitate sex-trafficking crimes, this resolution allows us to put this matter behind us and provides further closure for the plaintiffs,” according to The New York Times.

Bank of America became Epstein’s bank after JPMorgan cut ties with him.

The settlement would pay “all women who were sexually abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, or by any person who is connected to or otherwise associated with Jeffrey Epstein or any Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking venture, between June 30, 2008 and July 6, 2019, inclusive,” according to CNBC.

Lawyers estimate “that there are at least 60 women who were victimized by Epstein between” those dates, the filing said.

The lead plaintiff  alleged that after meeting Epstein in 2011, and through 2019, “Epstein sexually abused Jane Doe on at least 100 occasions, including but not limited to, forcibly touching her, forcibly raping her, and forcing her to engage in sexual acts with other women for his own depraved sexual gratification.”

The suit says that in May 2013, the woman, known in court papers as Jane Doe opened a bank account at Bank of America at the direction of Epstein’s accountant and an immigration attorney to defraud immigration officials.

Three banks. Three settlements. Zero prosecutions.

JPMorgan: $290 million.
Deutsche Bank: $75 million.
Bank of America: settled today.

Every bank that banked Epstein has now paid survivors.

Not a single executive has been charged.

— Epstein File Search (@epsteinsearchin) March 17, 2026

“At the heart of the Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking venture was facilitated and enabled by [Bank of America] helping Epstein avoid regulators’ scrutiny and providing Epstein with withdrawal and wire services, all so Defendant could profit from Epstein and his associates,” the filing about the settlement said.

“Lead Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s assistance to Epstein’s sex trafficking enterprise prevented the authorities from discovering his illegal scheme and increased the size and scale of Epstein’s access to and control of victims, causing damage to members of the Class,” the filing said.

BANK OF AMERICA SETTLES EPSTEIN-LINKED CASE FOR $72.5M, NO TRIAL

The quiet payout raises fresh questions about accountability and transparency, as one of the world’s largest banks avoids a prolonged courtroom battle over alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein. #WashingtonEye pic.twitter.com/Dg9wpyRgDC

— Washington Eye (@washington_EY) March 28, 2026

The lawsuit said Epstein paid Jane Doe’s  expenses using a Bank of America account, and held her status as animmigrant  “over her head, until her ultimate escape when Jeffrey Epstein died,” according to CBS.

Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer for the victims, said the deal  was “one more step on the road to much deserved justice,” according to the BBC.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Bank of America to Pay $72.5M Settlement Over Epstein Lawsuit appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.