Month: June 2026

For centuries, the Catholic Church has dedicated the month of June to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. This longstanding tradition far predates modern cultural observances and stems from deep theological and devotional roots centered on Christ’s love, mercy, and call to reparation.

Historical and Devotional Origins

The devotion to the Sacred Heart developed over centuries but gained particular momentum through the visions of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 1670s. In these apparitions, Jesus revealed His Heart—surrounded by thorns, crowned with a cross, and burning with love—as a symbol of His infinite charity for humanity. He requested a special feast in honor of His Heart, to be celebrated on the Friday following the octave of Corpus Christi (which typically falls in June), along with practices of reparation for sins and indifference toward His love.

Pope Pius IX extended the Feast of the Sacred Heart to the universal Church in 1856. Over time, the entire month of June became associated with this devotion, encouraging the faithful to meditate on the Heart of Christ as the source of divine love, the model for human hearts, and an invitation to personal consecration. Practices include daily prayers, First Friday devotions, acts of reparation, and enthronement of the Sacred Heart in homes.

This is a response to Christ’s explicit requests in the private revelations approved by the Church. The Sacred Heart represents God’s initiative in loving humanity first—despite sin—and calling people to respond with love, fidelity, and conversion. Popes have repeatedly promoted it as a remedy for coldness of heart, secularism, and moral disorder.

In honor of America’s 250th anniversary, the U.S. bishops will consecrate the nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus this June.

Catholics can join through First Fridays: receive the Eucharist on the first Friday of the month for 9 months.

Start tomorrow. Go to Mass. pic.twitter.com/L5qMf7i5he

— CatholicVote (@CatholicVote) February 6, 2026

Recent Emphasis: National Consecrations and Renewal

In 2026, marking the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence, the U.S. bishops consecrated the nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on June 11. This act underscores the devotion’s enduring relevance as an anchor for individuals, families, and societies amid cultural upheaval.

Many Catholic voices have explicitly called for “reclaiming June” for the Sacred Heart, noting that the month “belonged to the Church first.” This reflects a desire to prioritize contemplation of Christ’s self-giving love over competing secular narratives.

June and Contemporary Observances

Pride Month (often associated with LGBTQ+ visibility and rights) also occurs in June, commemorating the 1969 Stonewall riots. The first Pride marches followed in 1970, and it gained official presidential recognition decades later.

In recent years, many political parties and governments have aggressively promoted Pride Month by flying LGBTQ flags on public buildings, schools, and official properties — often with no equivalent recognition or display for Christianity, the Sacred Heart, or other religious traditions. To many believers, this selective elevation of one modern ideological movement while sidelining the faith that shaped Western civilization and the calendar itself feels not only imbalanced but actively hostile to the Christian roots of society. It underscores a broader cultural shift that privileges certain contemporary identities over the historic Christian understanding of human dignity, love, and sexuality.

Then two distinct realities claim the calendar: one rooted in ancient Christian revelation about divine love incarnate in Jesus Christ, the other in 20th-century social and political movements. From a Catholic perspective, the Sacred Heart devotion offers a timeless vision of human dignity, sexuality, marriage, and identity grounded in creation, redemption, and the call to holiness. It presents love not primarily as self-expression or affirmation of desires, but as sacrificial, ordered, and oriented toward God and neighbor as revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

Christian teaching holds that every person is loved by God and possesses inherent dignity as made in His image. The Sacred Heart calls all—regardless of struggles—to repentance, mercy, chastity according to one’s state in life, and transformation by grace. It does not “exclude” but invites conversion of heart, viewing disordered inclinations (like any sin) through the lens of redemption rather than celebration or identity definition.

35 Newly Appointed Metropolitan Archbishops All Over The World Receive the Pallium.

On June 29, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, 35 newly appointed Metropolitan Archbishops from around the world will gather for one of the most significant ceremonies in the Catholic… pic.twitter.com/JVdGeZuizr

— Uche is a girl (@UcheMaryOkoli) June 29, 2026

Why the Consecration Endures

June’s consecration to the Sacred Heart persists because it flows from the Church’s liturgy, saints, and magisterium—not transient cultural trends. Christ’s Heart symbolizes:

• Redemptive love: Pierced on the Cross for salvation.
• Eucharistic intimacy: Inviting union through the sacraments.
• Reparation: Healing societal wounds through prayer and fidelity.
• True identity: Found in relationship with the Creator, not self-constructed categories.

Bees (a common symbolic or punning reference in some devotion circles) evoke industriousness, order in the hive, and sweetness of honey—mirroring souls gathered around the Heart of Christ, producing virtue and fruitfulness in the Church’s life.
The devotion calls the faithful to “bee” (be) consecrated, offering their lives to Jesus rather than to passing ideologies.

Ultimately, June belongs to the Sacred Heart because the Church has long seen in it a fitting time—near the feasts of Corpus Christi and the Sacred Heart itself—to contemplate the burning love that created and redeems the world. This reality claims precedence for believers not through cultural power, but through fidelity to revelation.

In an age of contested meanings of love and identity, the pierced yet triumphant Heart of Jesus stands as an unchanging refuge: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

Catholics are encouraged to pray the Act of Consecration to the Sacred Heart, observe First Fridays, and live out that love in their families and communities—making June a month of deeper conversion rather than concession to the spirit of the age.

Read more:

The Catholic Church Breaks Historical Record, Surpassing 1.422 Billion Baptized Members for the First Time

The post June Belongs to the Sacred Heart of Jesus: A 350-Year Catholic Devotion, Not Pride Month appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Continued negotiations between the United States and Iran appeared to be in limbo Monday as the memorandum of understanding–stipulated ceasefire period entered its 12th day.

President Donald Trump on Monday morning posted to Truth Social that “IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” Anonymous officials told various outlets[LINK(S)] Monday that the U.S. would “stand down” and halt attacks on Iran to allow for negotiations to continue. The White House said Monday that Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff would travel to Doha. 

Nevertheless, there have not yet been any official confirmations from the U.S., Iran, or Qatar that talks will occur. An U.S. official told the Financial Times that “technical talks are slated to continue on all areas of the MOU” and Reuters reported from anonymous sources earlier on Monday that mediators would meet Tuesday in Doha. Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, however, reported Monday that the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said that technical working group talks in Doha were not scheduled and not yet been confirmed. Gharibabadi said that Iran’s consultations with Qatar were continuing.

Iranian media reported that Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf called his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, on Sunday to indicate that Iran is “seriously pursuing” the goal of “ending [Israel]’s occupation” and ensuring its “withdrawal” from Lebanese territory, referring to “the first clause of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding between Iran and the U.S.”

Speaking to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper Sunday, Lebanon’s Speaker of Berri slammed the recent framework deal between Lebanon and Israel, which was brokered by the American Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The deal seeks to involve Lebanese forces in the “disarmament” of Hezbollah. Berri said that the agreement could “incite internal divisions and draw the Lebanese into a confrontation among themselves,” and said that any effort to separate Lebanon from the deconfliction track outlined by Vice President J.D. Vance and Iranian negotiators in Switzerland would prolong Israeli occupation.

The price of Brent Crude oil was $72.60 Monday morning, while AAA reported the national average price of regular gas at $3.86 per gallon.

The post Iran Negotiations Day 12: Status of U.S.–Iran Talks Unclear appeared first on The American Conservative.

 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito authored the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision on mail-in ballot deadlines on Monday, blasting the majority’s disregard for federal law.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the US Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 that federal law does not require mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day.

The lawsuit challenging the mail-ballots was filed by the Republican National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

Fake conservative Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, arguing that the Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be received five days after election day complies with the federal election day statute. Chief Justice Roberts sided with Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Justice Alito writes in the dissenting opinion, “Federal law designates ‘the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November’ as ‘election day,’ 3 U. S. C. §21, and provides that elections for federal office must be held on that date,” noting that the electorate must, in accordance with federal election-day statutes, make its choice on election day.

“If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated,” he continues. “The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement.”

He further argues that the definition of “election” in “election day” is the “expression of the electorate’s choice,” making it necessary that the final submission and collection of ballots must occur on one election day, not five days after, as permitted by Mississippi law.

“Back when all voting occurred in person, the voters went to the polls on election day. They then completed ballots and turned them over to election officials. When the polls closed, those officials had in their possession a fixed collection of ballots, and taken together, those ballots embodied the electorate’s collective choice,” he writes.

Today, the use of mail-in voting, he writes, “cannot change the fact that under federal law, the electorate’s collective choice must still be authoritatively expressed on election day.”

“The Court disagrees and concludes that the election-day statutes merely require that each individual cast a vote on or before election day. See ante, at 9. But if that is all that the election-day statutes require, there is no sense in which the electorate as a whole can be seen as making its choice on election day. Rather, the electorate’s choice would be made piecemeal over an extended period prior to election day, and that prospect is blatantly contrary to what the election-day statutes demand,” he writes. “Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days. The election-day statutes require that federal elections occur on that date.” Alito further notes that under Mississippi’s law, allowing ballot collection to continue for five days after election day, “the ‘election’ is not held until the end of that period” in violation of federal law.

Coney Barrett, however, wrote in the majority opinion, “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”

“Due dates for absentee ballots have shifted over time. During the Civil War, States that allowed absentee voting imposed an election-day deadline for ballot receipt,” Coney Barrett further argued. “But during World War I, States began counting absentee ballots received after election day.”

But Alito debunks Coney Barrett’s claim, writing, “Even when the Civil War took soldiers hundreds of miles from their usual polling places, election day still meant ballot-collection day,” and “regardless of the method a State used, each State continued to mandate that poll workers, whether on the field or ‘back home,’ received soldiers’ ballots by election day.” This includes votes that were mailed, distributed and collected by election commissioners, and polling places that were administered by military officers on the battlefield as ways of ensuring federal law was complied with.

“During the World Wars,” he continues, “Congress and at least nine States allowed absentee ballots to arrive after election day in certain situations.” Alito describes the wartime practices of a handful of states as “short-lived outlier rules,” which “shed little light on the original meaning of ‘election’ in the election day statutes,” as only two states allowed ballots to arrive after election day by 1977.

“Although post-election-day deadlines have become more widespread in the last five decades, these developments postdate the last election-day statute by over 50 years and the first statute by over a century. These late-intime practices therefore count for little when discerning the timing restrictions that Congress imposed when it enacted those statutes,” he adds, highlighting the legislative intent behind the election day statutes.

Alito further slams the majority opinion, writing. “Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences. The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.”

“Today’s decision is inconsistent with the terms of the election-day statutes, contemporary election-law principles, two centuries of historical practice, and the case law on the question presented. It opens up and fails to resolve a host of questions for state election officials and courts. And it creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government,” he concludes.

The post Alito Blasts Mail-in Ballots Received After Election Day in Dissent to SCOTUS Allowing Mail-in Ballots to Be Received AFTER Election Day appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) has sent a direct and forceful letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding swift action to end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) racket for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals now that the Supreme Court has cleared the path in Mullin v. Doe.

In the June 27 letter, Schmitt thanked Mullin and the Department for their excellent work implementing President Trump’s America First policies to restore border security and put American citizens first. He zeroed in on the Supreme Court’s ruling that reversed lower-court injunctions blocking the terminations of TPS designations for Haiti and Syria.

“With those injunctions lifted, the Department now has clear authority to proceed with the terminations and deportations previously announced for Haitian and Syrian nationals,” Schmitt wrote.

“These designations covered a substantial population—roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals and several thousand Syrian nationals—whose TPS-based protection from removal and work authorization will end once the terminations take effect.”

He urged the Department to act promptly to finalize the terminations so deportations can begin in an orderly and timely manner. Schmitt also called for clear communication on the voluntary departure process through the CBP Home mobile app, which allows individuals to report their departure, receive travel assistance and a financial stipend, and leave without arrest or detention.

Data as of March 31, 2025, shows the staggering scale of the TPS program overall: 1,297,635 individuals from 17 countries. Venezuela alone accounted for 605,015, followed by Haiti at 330,735, El Salvador, Ukraine, Honduras, and others. Syria had 3,860 under the program.

Schmitt’s comments came after former Ohio Gov. John Kasich publicly urged Congress to intervene and extend TPS protections for Haitians following the Supreme Court ruling.

Sen. Schmitt has a better idea.

“I’ve got a better idea. TPS became another mass-migration loophole. The Supreme Court has now lifted the blockade. It’s time to act. Therefore, I am calling on DHS to move fast, finalize the President’s TPS terminations, and deport those who no longer have legal status. Temporary means temporary.”

I’ve got a better idea.

TPS became another mass-migration loophole. The Supreme Court has now lifted the blockade. It’s time to act.

Therefore, I am calling on DHS to move fast, finalize the President’s TPS terminations, and deport those who no longer have legal status.… https://t.co/m1NyIltRYs pic.twitter.com/byB19hWMmd

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) June 28, 2026

 

Schmitt’s push for rapid deportations also comes as DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has taken a markedly different tone regarding some TPS recipients.

Mullin suggested Sunday that migrants who qualify under existing immigration law could pursue permanent legal status rather than remain under a program intended to be temporary.

Read more:

Markwayne Mullin Says the 350,000 Haitians and Syrians Under TPS Can Apply For Permanent Residence to Avoid Deportation After Supreme Court Ruling (VIDEO)

 

The post Sen. Eric Schmitt Calls on DHS Sec. Markwayne Mullin to ‘Move Fast’ and Deport Hundreds of Thousands Under TPS appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 that federal law does not require mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day.

The lawsuit challenging the mail-ballots was filed by the Republican National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion and said state laws allowing mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day do not conflict with federal law.

Chief Justice Roberts joined Amy Coney Barrett and sided with the liberal justices.

“A Mississippi law permits the counting of absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. We must decide whether the federal election-day statutes preempt Mississippi’s law. They do not,” Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.

“Due dates for absentee ballots have shifted over time. During the Civil War, States that allowed absentee voting imposed an election-day deadline for ballot receipt,” Coney Barrett said.

Recall that earlier this year Conservative Justice Samuel Alito blasted the endless counting of mail-in ballots during oral arguments.

“We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the second of which is ‘day.’ Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington’s birthday, Independence Day, birthday, and Election Day,” Alito said.

“They are all particular days. So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase ‘Election Day,’ I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place,” Alito added.

Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical during the oral arguments.

BREAKING…please check back for updates.

The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Federal Law Does NOT Require Mail-In Ballots to Be Received by Election Day – Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts Side with Liberal Justices appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Ex-Arizona Cardinals Kicker and Arizona RINO Congressional Candidate Jay Feely came out in defense of mass migration and DACA during his GOP Primary Debate last week. 

Feely faces Arizona State Representative Joseph Chaplik, the only Trump-aligned candidate in the race, in the July 21 Primary election. Mail-in voting started on June 24.

Despite his pro-amnesty stance, a history of close ties to the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation, support for Barack Obama, and attacks on Trump, Feely was endorsed by Trump, leaving Arizona Trump supporters scratching their heads.

During the debate on Thursday, when the candidates were asked about Obama’s controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which gives amnesty to illegal aliens who arrived in the US as children, Feely appeared to defend the program.

Chaplik responded to the question of “How do you balance the humane behavior there with coming down hard on criminals?” by emphasizing the need to continue strict immigration enforcement. “The criminals, the violent drug dealers, the rapist, the murderers that are in our country, we need to get them out immediately,” he said.

Chaplik continued, “We need to make sure that we have strong workforce labor, but the criteria is American. We do not want anti-American people in this country. It does not help our country. And so, when people come across that border, and they’re chanting ‘Death to America, that’s not the person I want working in the fields, and I don’t want that person working anywhere in this country.”

However, Feely described DACA as “personal to me,” declaring his love for immigrants. He then pointed to his own record of bringing Haitian immigrants into the country.

“We went down to Haiti after the earthquake and started doing programs down there, building homes and churches, and there was a young man who was our translator, and we decided to help him and bring him here legally, got an education visa, put him into college at Grand Canyon University, and gave him an opportunity,” Feely said. He further called for the immigration process to be made “easier” so that more foreigners can come into the country to replace American workers and reshape our culture.

WATCH:

It makes one wonder what his stance is on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian aliens and the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to strip TPS from 350,000 Haitians.

Chaplik on Thursday applauded the Supreme Court for making the “correct ruling this morning against TPS Amnesty.” He further slammed Feely for admitting to working with nonprofits to help smuggle Haitian aliens into the country to receive amnesty. During an appearance on local KTAR’s “Outspoken with Bruce and Gaydos” podcast, Feely openly admitted, “I go and bring those people to those NGOs that are helping them, right? But I believe it should be legally. I have 12 people in the program right now for amnesty to come across from Haiti.”

WATCH:

“Unlike my opponent, Jay Feely, who has actively supported this policy in opposition to the Trump administration and admitted to working with NGOs to bring large numbers of migrants into the country, I will always stand up for American sovereignty and strong borders,” Chaplik said.

I stand with the Trump Administration and am glad to see the Supreme Court make the correct ruling this morning against TPS Amnesty.

Unlike my opponent, Jay Feely, who has actively supported this policy in opposition to the Trump administration and admitted to working with NGOs… https://t.co/9V3pTplLqC

— Rep. Joseph Chaplik (@JosephChaplik) June 25, 2026

We don’t need any more pro-amnesty Republicans.

Feely has not commented publicly on the Supreme Court ruling or what he thinks should happen to Haitians who are here under the Obama-era TPS.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Feely condemned Trump’s “derogatory” 2024 comments about Haitians eating dogs and cats in Ohio and even defended Haitians eating pets and swans.

“When you go down there in Haiti, and you spend a lot of time, like I have, you understand that when somebody has no food at all, that they’re going to find whatever it is, whether it’s a dog, a cat, anything in Haiti,” he said. “If somebody who did that in Haiti comes here and sees a swan and says, ‘Oh, that might make a good meal,’ Feely continued, awkwardly chuckling while trying to defend the third-world methods taking place in America.

MORE:

HUH? “That Might Make a Good Meal!” – Trump Backed AZ Congressional Candidate Jay Feely Defends Haitians Eating Pets, Calls Trump’s Comments “Derogatory” (VIDEO)

The post (VIDEO) Pro-Amnesty RINO AZ Congressional Candidate Jay Feely Defends DACA, Points to His Record of Importing Haitians Under TPS in GOP Debate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

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

If you’re sick of watching interest charges devour your paycheck like a starving pit bull on a steak, pay attention, because we’re going to talk about the closest thing to free money the banks have ever been forced to cough up.

Right now, a handful of cards are handing out 0% interest for up to 21 months on both new purchases and balance transfers. No tricks, no “gotcha” in the fine print that only a Harvard lawyer can decode — just pure, uncut breathing room.

These aren’t fly-by-night outfits; they’re the big, boring banks your grandma trusted, the ones with vaults thicker than a politician’s skull and fraud protection that actually works when some teenager in Romania tries to buy a jet ski with your number.

You move your existing debt over in the first 60–90 days and suddenly that $8,000 at 24% is sitting pretty at zero. Do the math — that’s two grand you don’t flush down the toilet.

Picture this: next Christmas rolls around and you’re not sweating bullets. You buy the gifts, book the trip, fix the furnace, whatever, and nothing bleeds interest for almost two years while you pay it down on your terms.

Good credit? You’re in like Flynn. Fair credit? A couple of these will still roll out the red carpet. The application takes five minutes, and half the time you get an answer before your coffee gets cold.

Most have no annual fee — none, zero, zip — so the card can sit in your wallet earning dust or earning rewards, your call.

Some of these beasts even waive late fees completely. Miss a payment because life exploded? No $40 spanking and no credit-score gut punch. That alone is worth its weight in gold-plated titanium.

When the intro period ends, the ongoing rate is sane — not the 79% loan-shark nonsense you see on late-night TV. Plus you’re stacking cash back, travel miles, or points on groceries, gas, and everything else you were going to buy anyway.

You’re looking at 21-month runways. That’s long enough to kill off revolving debt, remodel the kitchen, or fund the side hustle without paying a dime in interest if you play it smart.

Fraud? They’ve got real-time alerts, one-tap card freeze, and zero liability. Your money is safer than a squirrel’s nut stash under six feet of snow.

Balance-transfer fees are posted in plain English up front — usually 3% or less — so there’s no “surprise” that makes you want to throw your laptop out the window.

Bottom line: these deals are the financial equivalent of finding a loaded wallet on the sidewalk with a note that says “keep it.”

You keep scrolling past these offers and nothing changes. You click, fill out the short form, and suddenly you’re the one in control instead of the credit-card companies. 

A tip: Don’t just apply for one card – apply for three at one time and see which get approved.

Stop wrestling with interest charges that grow faster than a teenager’s gaming habit. Grab one of these 0% offers before the bean counters wake up and kill them.

One click here, five minutes, and you just handed yourself a raise you’ll feel every single month. 

Your move. The clock’s ticking, and these intro periods won’t last forever.

The post How to Legally Stiff-Arm Interest Charges for Almost Two Years and Pocket Thousands Like a Boss appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A video showing an African migrant exposing himself to women and young children on a beach in Italy has gone viral, bringing a spotlight on the horrors of mass migration in Europe. 

Horrifying footage shows the African migrant standing in front of families and young children while pleasuring himself on the beach (VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED).

Anti-mass migration activist Tommy Robinson shared the clip on X, writing, “‘New normal’ scenes at the beach in ‘Modern Europe.’”

Another widely circulating video, though unconfirmed, appears to show the man facing the wrath of the locals, who pummeled him over the obscene display. One woman can be seen actually stepping in to defend the individual.

WATCH:

According to Genoa-based Italian newspaper Il Secolo XIX, the incident occurred last Sunday on Pegli beach in Genoa, Italy. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” one local told the outlet:

A video filmed on the public beach of Pegli, next to the Bagni Mediterranee, with the voices of children playing on the shore in the background , and a man at the center of the scene pulling down his underwear and masturbating as if nothing had happened in front of an audience of mostly families.

This video, published by the Hispanic online portal Ok Diario, garnered nearly 40 million views on TikTok alone in just a dozen hours , quickly going viral. Someone called the police, and when they arrived, the man was identified and reported for indecent exposure in a public place. He is a legal immigrant in Italy. The beach was shocked, especially by the man’s extreme naturalness. He didn’t even seem particularly upset by the fact that at the end of the video, people were seen filming him and removing him from the beach.

“It happened Sunday on the public beach to the right of the sailing club next to us,” a member of Bagni Mediterranee in Pegli confirmed to Secolo XIX . “We noticed it because we heard people screaming and then the commotion afterward, when they called the patrols. With people sleeping everywhere and extreme situations these days, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know where this guy ended up, or whether he was alone as he appeared or with someone else nearby, but as you can see from the video, everything he did was in broad daylight and in front of the children, who can be heard shouting. Tell me if the situation we’re falling into is normal.” 

President of the Regional Council of Liguria and former Deputy Mayor of Genoa Stefano Balleari addressed the incident in a video statement on Facebook.

A man committed obscene acts on the beach in front of families and children. This took place in Pegli, Genoa.

“What happened cannot and must not be downplayed or swept under the rug. It is not merely a serious incident; it is something that wounds the very sense of civil coexistence and the respect due to others,” Balleari said. “Our beaches, squares, and public spaces must remain places of serenity, safety, and freedom—especially for the youngest among us. It is right that those responsible for such behavior be identified, reported, and held fully accountable for their actions. Respect for the rules, for human dignity, and for communal life is non-negotiable.”

He continued, “To those who try to turn this into a political controversy, I offer a simple reply: this is not about Right or Left; it is about the respect due to families, children, and citizens. Defending the decency and tranquility of our community is not a political battle; it is a duty toward the citizens.”

WATCH:

The post FAFO: Italian Locals Pummel African Menace After He Begins M*sturbating in Front of Young Children and Families at Beach in Genoa (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senator Chuck Schumer got a rude awakening Sunday at the New York City LGBTQ Pride parade when the far-left crowd turned on him, with a loud chorus of boos.

Footage from the parade shows Schumer walking as boos erupt from the crowd.

Schumer has spent years trying to promote himself as a strong ally to the movement, pushing seemingly endless progressive legislation on gender, same-sex marriage, and other LGBTQ-focused policies.

Despite the frigid response to his presence, Schumer busted out a megaphone and addressed the crowd.

“I was the first senator to ever march in this parade. 1999. I haven’t missed one yet,” he declared.

WATCH:

#NewsAlert: Chuck Schumer Booed At Pride Parade – Base Turns On Him

Chuck Schumer took to walking in the New York City LGBTQ Pride parade this weekend and his voters let him know how they felt about him. Despite being the leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus and an advocate… pic.twitter.com/NQbg55OwPp

— A New Wave Right (@ANewWaveRight) June 28, 2026

Despite that record, the far-left base at one of the biggest Pride events in the country made it clear they no longer see him as one of their own.

WATCH:

@NY1 @InsideCityHall @PodSaveAmerica Chuck Schumer getting booed at NYC Pride pic.twitter.com/bHV6XL7Um2

— ladybird (@LadybirdMV) June 28, 2026

The incident comes as the Democrat Party continues to be split between its establishment wing and an increasingly radical activist base.

Schumer, who has held leadership positions for years, has faced growing criticism from the left for not being progressive enough on several fronts.

JUST NOW: Senator Chuck Schumer got brutally BOOED by the crowd at the NYC LGBTQ Pride parade.

Even his own far-left base hates him now.
Chuck’s career is FINISHED!

Absolutely ZERO remorse. pic.twitter.com/z1UcUzsXXe

— Zay Unfiltered (@zayunfilteredX) June 28, 2026

The boos at Sunday’s parade and the state’s Democrat primary last week have sent a clear message that not even longtime allies are safe from the far-leftists consuming the party.

The post Chuck Schumer Gets Viciously Booed by His Own Side at the NYC Pride Parade (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Last week, I reported in The Gateway Pundit on the surprising public endorsement New York Attorney General Letitia James gave to President Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton.

During an MSNBC interview, James criticized Acting DNI Bill Pulte and expressed support for Clayton, describing him as a respected legal professional. For many in the MAGA movement, the praise immediately raised eyebrows.

Why would one of President Trump’s most aggressive political and legal adversaries be publicly praising one of his nominees? Now another piece of the puzzle has emerged.

It turns out James didn’t merely praise Clayton on national television. She also sent him a formal three-page letter personally thanking him for his “leadership.”

On May 5, 2025, while Clayton was serving as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James wrote directly to him regarding the Justice Department’s intervention in Lost Lake Holdings, LLC v. Town of Forestburgh.

In the letter, James praised Clayton’s office for filing a Statement of Interest supporting the plaintiffs in the Fair Housing Act case.

“I commend your office for making clear… that the federal government will not stand by when such rights are infringed,” James wrote.

She concluded the three-page letter by thanking Clayton personally:

“Thank you for your leadership and for your commitment to justice in this important case.”

The correspondence was subsequently reported by the Times Union, which noted that James reached out to Clayton’s office specifically to commend the federal government’s intervention in the case.

By itself, there is nothing improper about one government official praising another over a legal matter.

But viewed together with James’s later public comments supporting Clayton’s DNI nomination, the documented record shows that this was not an isolated compliment. James has now praised Clayton in both a formal official letter and on national television.

Given Letitia James’s history of false prosecutions against President Trump, that documented history naturally raises serious concerns among Trump supporters.

The Bigger Concern Isn’t One Letter

The concern for many conservatives goes beyond this single letter. Jay Clayton’s résumé is the résumé of a quintessential institutional lawyer. He spent decades at Sullivan & Cromwell, one of New York City’s most prestigious law firms. He later chaired the Securities and Exchange Commission. He then became U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Throughout his career, Clayton has occupied positions at the highest levels of New York’s legal and financial establishment.

Supporters of President Trump have spent years arguing that many of America’s most powerful institutions – including portions of the intelligence community, federal law enforcement, Wall Street, elite law firms, and state prosecutors – operate within the same interconnected establishment culture.

This may help explain James’s repeated praise of Jay Clayton. The issue is not whether Clayton acted appropriately in the Forestburgh case. The issue is whether his long career inside elite legal institutions reflects the type of leadership many Trump voters believe is needed to reform those same institutions.

Important Questions for the Confirmation Process

President Trump clearly believes Clayton is qualified to serve as Director of National Intelligence, praising his legal ability and urging the Senate to confirm him quickly.

But was President Trump aware of Letitia James’s relationship and comfort with this nominee?

How independent is Clayton from the legal and political establishment in which he has spent nearly his entire professional life?

How does Clayton view the intelligence bureaucracy? Does he believe meaningful institutional reform is necessary?

These are all legitimate questions for any nominee to one of the nation’s most sensitive national security positions.

Trump supporters have watched Letitia James pursue legal action against the President for years.

When that same public official repeatedly expresses confidence in one of his nominees, many naturally want to understand why. The documented record now includes both James’s MSNBC comments and her formal written commendation of Clayton’s leadership.

That does not answer every question. It does, however, make those questions worthy of asking.

As the Senate considers Clayton’s nomination to lead America’s intelligence community, one issue may ultimately matter more than his impressive résumé. Clayton must convince skeptical conservatives that he is prepared not merely to manage America’s institutions – but, why an unethical pubic official like Letita James is so comfortable with him serving as Director of National Intelligence.

Joel Gilbert is a Los Angeles-based film producer and president of Highway 61 Entertainment. He is the producer of the new film Roseanne Barr Is America. He is also the producer of: Dreams from My Real Father, The Trayvon Hoax, Trump: The Art of the Insult, and many other films on American politics and music icons. Gilbert is on Twitter: @JoelSGilbert.

The post Letitia James Praised Jay Clayton for his “Leadership” in Personal Letter, as MAGA Revolt Against DNI Nominee Intensifies appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.