Author: patriotsheart

EXCLUSIVE: Keystone Cops or Cover-Up? How Arizona AG Kris Mayes Has Handled Investigation Involving Fellow Democrat – Governor Katie Hobbs

Posted on by patriotsheart

EXCLUSIVE: Keystone Cops or Cover-Up? How Arizona AG Kris Mayes Has Handled Investigation Involving Fellow Democrat – Governor Katie Hobbs

How the Hobbs-Sunshine Referral Became a Criminal Investigation —and the 2-Year Fight Over Who Would Conduct It

By Linda Brickman

From “Reporter” Mayes to “Reported” on Mayes – Part 1

SECTION 1 — ONE REFERRAL. TWO PROSECUTORS.

It began with a question.

On June 5, 2024, Arizona State Senator T.J. Shope referred allegations involving Sunshine Residential Homes to both (Democrat) Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and (Republican) Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell.  (The alligations were connected to Democrat Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs.)

Shope was not announcing that a crime had been committed.  He was asking prosecutors to determine whether the allegations warranted investigation.  AG Mayes answered quickly.

The next day, June 6, Chief Counsel Nick Klingerman of the Attorney General’s Criminal Division wrote Shope that the division was statutorily authorized to investigate the allegations in his referral.

The Attorney General’s Office would open a criminal investigation.

So far, fairly straightforward.

Then came June 7.

Mayes wrote directly to Mitchell, acknowledging that Shope had referred the matter to both offices and that Mitchell was planning — or had already begun — her own investigation. Mayes also noted that Mitchell had contacted Arizona Auditor General Lindsey Perry about coordinating their work.

Then Mayes drew a line.  “It would not be appropriate or in the best interest of the state to conduct parallel investigations into the same matter.”

Mayes warned that a separate Maricopa County investigation could jeopardize the integrity of the criminal investigation her office intended to pursue. She told Mitchell that if the Attorney General’s Office needed assistance from either Mitchell or the Auditor General, Mayes’s office would reach out.

Mayes sent a similar message to Auditor General Perry that same day. Perry’s assistance with Mitchell’s investigation, Mayes wrote, was not needed by the Attorney General’s Office at that time.

In forty-eight hours, the story had changed.  The question was no longer simply: Should the Sunshine allegations be investigated?

Mayes had already answered that.  Yes.

The new question was: Who should be doing the investigating?

And that question would become considerably more complicated.  Because Rachel Mitchell did not step aside.

SECTION 2. MITCHELL SAYS NO

Mayes may have wanted one investigation.  Rachel Mitchell had other plans.

On June 11, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell responded to Mayes and made clear that her office would continue its own investigation into Sunshine Residential Homes and would prosecute if the evidence warranted prosecution.

Mitchell’s concern went beyond jurisdiction.  She warned that public confidence mattered, particularly when the allegations touched Arizona’s highest elected officials. She told Mayes that insisting on being the sole investigator could deepen public distrust rather than resolve it.

Now Arizona had something unusual: 

  • Two elected prosecutors.
  • One set of allegations.
  • And neither one was leaving.

Mayes maintained that parallel investigations could compromise the integrity of her criminal investigation and create unnecessary duplication. That concern was not frivolous. Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould publicly agreed that multiple agencies interviewing the same witnesses and requesting the same records could complicate or slow an investigation.

But Mayes’s attempt to take control of the investigation immediately drew another kind of scrutiny.

On June 10, State Representative David Livingston demanded that Mayes recuse herself.

Livingston argued that Maricopa County’s elected county attorney possessed independent prosecutorial authority over offenses committed within the county and accused Mayes of attempting to claim jurisdiction over an investigation involving Governor Hobbs, the Arizona Democratic Party, Sunshine Residential Homes and DCS.

That was Livingston’s accusation, not an established finding.

But he pointed to an undisputed fact that would become central to the controversy:

Mayes had not merely opened her own investigation. She had asked another elected prosecutor not to conduct hers.

Livingston also challenged Mayes’s reliance on Arizona law concerning the Auditor General. Mayes had argued that because the Attorney General supervises prosecutions arising from Auditor General investigations, a separate Mitchell-Auditor General investigation should not proceed. Livingston countered that Arizona law also authorizes the Auditor General to work with county attorneys and that the County Attorney’s prosecutorial authority had not simply vanished because the Attorney General entered the case.

So, what began as a referral about possible wrongdoing involving a foster-care provider had become something else:

A Dispute Over Investigative Control.

And that distinction matters.

There is no evidence simply from these letters that Mayes was trying to protect Katie Hobbs.  There is also no question that Mayes attempted to prevent a parallel investigation by Mitchell and the Auditor General.  Those are two very different statements.  The first requires evidence of motive.

The second is contained in Mayes’s own correspondence.  And Mitchell refused.

Which leaves an obvious question:

Why was control of the Sunshine investigation important enough for Arizona’s Attorney General to tell two other investigative offices to stand down almost immediately after opening her own case?

Before attempting to answer that question, however, we need to understand what had landed on the prosecutors’ desks in the first place.

Because Sunshine Residential Homes was not simply another state contractor.

  • There was money.
  • There were political contributions.
  • There was a state contract.
  • And there was one very unusual rate increase.

SECTION 3. FOLLOW THE MONEY — AND THE RATE HIKE

Why did Sunshine Residential Homes attract the attention of two prosecutors in the first place?

Because the chronology was difficult to ignore.

Sunshine Residential Homes operated approximately 30 group homes in Maricopa County for children removed from their families by the Department of Child Safety. It was one of the largest providers of group-home beds in Arizona.  It was also politically generous.

Before Katie Hobbs became Governor, Sunshine donated $200,000 to the Arizona Democratic Party shortly before the 2022 election.

     Then came the inaugural celebration.

Sunshine contributed $100,000 to Hobbs’s inaugural fund. Sunshine CEO Simon Kottoor served on Hobbs’s inaugural committee, personally contributed to her campaign, and his company presented Hobbs with an award approximately one month before the election.

  • Political contributions, of course, are not crimes.
  • Neither is serving on an inaugural committee.

The problem was what happened next…

In December 2022, Sunshine requested a rate increase from the Department of Child Safety.  DCS denied the request in February 2023.

Sunshine tried again in May.  This time, the request was approved.

And according to reporting at the time the controversy erupted, Sunshine was the only group-home provider under the Hobbs administration to receive an individual rate increase outside the routine contract-renewal process.

Eventually, 52 other providers received increases during regular contract negotiations in June 2024.  But Sunshine had received its special increase earlier.  That sequence produced the question that landed on Senator Shope’s desk:

Did political money have anything to do with the government money that followed?

No prosecutor had answered that question when Shope made his referral.  And the existence of contributions followed by favorable state action does not, by itself, prove bribery, fraud or pay-to-play.

But Shope believed the circumstances were serious enough to ask prosecutors to examine possible violations involving bribery, fraud, procurement, conflicts of interest and the expenditure of state funds.  Mayes agreed that the allegations warranted a criminal investigation.  So did Mitchell.  And that brings us back to the peculiar part of this story.

If both prosecutors agreed there was enough here to investigate, why did Arizona’s Attorney General believe only one of them should be doing it?

There was another complication…

The person at the top of the administration being examined was not merely another public official.  She was Governor Katie Hobbs — a fellow Democrat.

That fact does not establish a conflict.  But it made public confidence in the independence of the investigation particularly important.  And it made what happened next impossible to dismiss as a simple bureaucratic disagreement.  Because the dispute over Sunshine did not end in June 2024.

Two years later, the case was still open.

SECTION 4. TWO YEARS LATER — STILL OPEN

Mayes wanted one investigation… Arizona eventually got more than one.

By 2026, the Attorney General’s investigation remained active. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell was conducting her own investigation into the same underlying allegations. And in February, the Arizona House retained independent outside counsel to review records, conduct interviews and report findings concerning the Sunshine-DCS controversy.

Nearly two years after Mayes first told Mitchell that parallel investigations were not in the state’s best interest, Mitchell was still investigating…And Mayes still had not finished hers.

Then another unusual development surfaced.

By April 2026, Mayes’s investigators had requested an interview with Governor Hobbs. Hobbs publicly declined to say whether she would agree to one, although she continued to deny wrongdoing and said she expected the investigation ultimately to confirm that she had not been involved in DCS’s decision concerning Sunshine.

By July 30, there was still no interview date.

Mayes’s office had reportedly been seeking an interview with Hobbs for much of the year, while the Governor’s Office and Attorney General’s Office remained in discussions about whether and when that interview would occur.  Then, on August 3, Mayes offered the clearest indication yet that something was coming.

She said her office was “near the end of the investigation” and promised an announcement before the November election. She would not say whether that announcement would include information obtained directly from Hobbs, who still had not agreed to sit for the requested interview.

That creates another curious question.  If the investigation was nearly finished, how could investigators reach a final conclusion about allegations touching the Governor’s administration without first obtaining the Governor’s account?

Perhaps they can … Perhaps documents and other witnesses provide the answers investigators need.

More than two years later, Arizona still does not know what Mayes’s investigation found — or why a case important enough to ask other investigators to step aside has taken this long.

And the Legislature did exactly what Mayes initially argued against:

It brought in another investigator.

The House retained outside counsel in February 2026 to independently examine the Sunshine matter, review records and conduct interviews.  So, the IRONY is difficult to miss.

In June 2024, Mayes warned that multiple investigations could jeopardize the integrity of the case.

By 2026, multiple investigations were exactly what Arizona had.

And the original question remained unanswered:  What happened between Sunshine Residential Homes, the Hobbs Administration and the Department of Child Safety?

But now another question belongs beside it:  What happened inside the investigation itself?

SECTION 5. THE CLOCK IS TICKING

Mayes’s promised pre-election announcement adds one final complication:

Both Mayes and Hobbs are seeking reelection.

That does not prove political interference.

But after more than two years, Arizona voters are entitled to something simpler:

AN ANSWER!

  • Did political contributions influence the treatment Sunshine Residential received?
  • Why did Mayes initially seek to prevent Mitchell from conducting a parallel investigation?
  • And what has the Attorney General’s investigation ultimately found?
  • Was anyone being protected — or did the handling of the investigation create the appearance of a cover-up?

Mayes says an announcement is coming BEFORE Election Day.

Until then, the Sunshine Case Remains Open. So Do the Questions.

Keystone Cops or Cover-Up?

By Linda Brickman

©2026 Linda Brickman. All Rights Reserved.

Coming NEXT IN THE KRIS MAYES FILE…

PART 2 — ARIZONA’S ATTORNEY GENERAL GOES TO WAR WITH WASHINGTON

Forty-Eight Lawsuits Against Trump — and a Legal Network That Was Preparing Before Election Day

The post EXCLUSIVE: Keystone Cops or Cover-Up? How Arizona AG Kris Mayes Has Handled Investigation Involving Fellow Democrat – Governor Katie Hobbs appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

NEW: Senator Ron Johnson Reveals Fauci Deleted His Contact List from His iPhone Likely to Cover Up Text Messages (VIDEO)

Posted on by patriotsheart

Senator Ron Johnson on Wednesday said he believes Dr. Fauci deleted his contact list from his iPhone to cover up his text messages.

On Monday, Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul released the first batch of text messages from Dr. Fauci’s Covid-era iPhone.

The text messages revealed that Fauci privately knew that the Covid vaccine caused miscarriages in pregnant women.

Fauci covered up the data that revealed an 82% miscarriage rate in women vaccinated during the first trimester.

The Gateway Pundit reported in 2022 that VAERS showed a 4070% increase in miscarriages and stillbirths since the mRNA rollout.

Last month, the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations obtained a copy of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s COVID-era iPhone as it continues its investigation into the federal government’s handling of the pandemic and Fauci’s past lies to Congress.

On Monday, Senator Johnson released the first batch of texts from January 2021, and it reveals that Dr. Fauci had concerns about the Covid vaccine for pregnant women.

The first batch of texts was between Dr. Fauci, former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and Biden’s Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy.

Fauci said a second dose of the mRNA Covid vaccine “theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”

On Wednesday, Senator Ron Johnson revealed that Fauci deleted his contact list likely to cover up the 34,000 text messages.

“What’s odd about it, Benny, is there are only three contacts in this contact list. Every other text has a phone number attached,” Ron Johnson said to conservative podcast host Benny Johnson.

“So it indicates to me that Anthony Fauci or somebody deleted his contact list. So now we’ve got to trace and find out who are those phone numbers to,” Johnson said.

“We’ll get the phone numbers,” he added.

WATCH:

The post NEW: Senator Ron Johnson Reveals Fauci Deleted His Contact List from His iPhone Likely to Cover Up Text Messages (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

More Evidence China Is Trying to Stop from Cracking Open

Posted on by patriotsheart

China is Trying to Stop from Cracking Open

Gordon Chang shares:

China is not rising. It’s not even stable. It’s in distress. The CCP is trying to keep the country from cracking open.

He bases his comment on this commentary:

They are not buying cars, they are not buying watches, they are not buying USDA prime beef.

I don’t know who is in the ear of @POTUS on China…- but it’s spent and can’t come through..
– No idea where @RushDoshi @jonczin & @CFR_org are coming up with their “rising China premise”

This is consistent with our post five days ago when we started with what Gordon Chang said –

China is broke. China’s rulers are desperate. Bad things are going to happen in that country.

If anyone would know, Gordan Chang would know.

This is the report Gordan is referring to –

Beijing is launching a wave of aggressive revenue-raising measures to fill its empty state coffers. Instead of addressing structural economic flaws, the regime’s solution is a ruthless tax dragnet targeting wealth everywhere it can find it.

On top of auditing ultra-rich offshore trusts, Chinese mainland authorities have now begun enforcing a 20% personal income tax on Hong Kong insurance policies—triggering immediate panics and sharp sell-offs across Asian financial markets.

Domestically, desperate local bureaus in cities like Shenzhen are using big-data tracking to force citizens to repay COVID-era unemployment benefits and pandemic allowances, while hitting businesses with corporate back-taxes dating back decades.

From raiding private insurance policies to squeezing ordinary workers, Beijing is treating private assets as its own open piggy bank.

When an authoritarian state squeezes both global investors and its own struggling populace just to stay solvent, economic stability becomes purely an illusion.

We reported earlier that China’s economy was cracking.

China’s economy was praised as the model for the Western world. Then, a few years back, it began to turn sour.  President Trump’s first administration did a number on China, which is why they wanted him gone.  This alone may be why China was involved in the COVID outbreak in 2019-20 (as reported in the book, The Steal – Volume I: Setting the Stage).

In 2023, the world began to see China’s economy falter.  We reported on a piece at the Business Insider.

It’s been clear for years that the Chinese real-estate market has been in trouble. China has a population of 1.4 billion, but it has built housing for a population of 3 billion, according to expert estimates. Many of the mega-developments became empty monuments to Beijing’s insatiable desire for growth. In Shenyang, farmers have taken over a development of empty mansions for cattle grazing.

At that time, real estate giant Evergrand began reporting problems, and it finally dissolved a few years ago.

China’s Evergrande Files for Bankruptcy – World Economy in Dangerous Shape

Now the value of real estate in China is collapsing to its lowest prices in at least the last 20 years.

In response, the government instituted a law saying that it will not allow some people to leave the country, maybe.

🚨 China Just Made “Maybe” a Crime. Now Everyone Is a Flight Risk.

Beijing has quietly redrawn the line between citizen and suspect, and it did it with a single word.

Under China’s new Regulations on Exit and Entry Administration, effective September 15 but already being trialed at some ports, one term appears again and again: “may.” Not “did.” Not “will.” May. If an official decides you “may endanger national security, interests, industrial security, or technical security,” you can be barred from leaving the country. Nowhere does the text define what “may endanger” actually means.

That vagueness is the point. The power to stop you at the border has been pushed all the way down the chain, provincial governments, the Commerce Ministry, even county-level offices can now decide who flies and who stays. As geopolitics scholar Chen Wen-chia puts it: you’re no longer flagged for what you did, but for what someone imagines you might do.

This is the machinery of a paranoid state, jumping at its own shadow. China has flipped its legal logic from punishing crimes after the fact to preventing exit before anything happens. State firms are reportedly already tightening travel approvals for staff. Those labeled a “threat” abroad can be blocked from leaving for six months to three years after they return.

Why now? Because the regime is scared. With the economy sagging and public anger simmering, Beijing fears its own people voting with their feet, and fears even more what they say when they come back. Engineers in semiconductors, AI, and finance should read the fine print: you may be next on the watchlist.

The message to 1.4 billion people is chillingly simple: the door is closing, and no one will tell you why. (Aric’s note: Regarding China’s current population, some analyses and experts believe it is far smaller than the official figures claim, though the actual data remains unclear.)

If you’re planning to leave China, understand the rules before they understand you.

ACI — Aric Chen | Insights

Editor’s note: The video is a related news segment from the World News I anchor.

Now China is going after people’s and insurance companies’ money.

The post More Evidence China Is Trying to Stop from Cracking Open appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In Extremely Rare Move, Pirro Convenes Special Grand Jury After Clash with Trump Over Reflecting Pool Case

Posted on by patriotsheart

Official press conference featuring a woman speaking into a microphone, with a police officer in the background and flags displayed behind them.

US Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro, in a rare move, convened a special grand jury to investigate big cases, according to The Washington Post.

A special grand jury can issue a report even if prosecutors don’t bring charges.

The special grand jury will be overseen by Steven Vanderveldon, the same prosecutor who investigated former Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

The purpose of the special grand jury is still unclear.

The decision to convene a special grand jury comes after President Trump and Jeanine Pirro clashed over the US Attorney’s move to drop the Lincoln Reflecting Pool criminal cases.

President Trump last Friday afternoon called on US Attorney Jeanine Pirro to ‘revisit’ the Reflecting Pool vandalism case after she asked a judge to dismiss the charges against former Olympian David Hearn.

The Justice Department on Friday dismissed the Lincoln Reflecting Pool vandalism case against David Hearn.

David Hearn, the former Olympian who was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for destruction of property for vandalizing the Lincoln Reflecting Pool in June, was indicted by a grand jury on felony charges last month.

Hearn is a three-time Olympic canoeist.

Hearn was charged with felony destruction of government property. He was facing 10 years in prison.

Pirro dropped the case and said the damage to the Lincoln Reflecting Pool was the result of “flawed installation by the contractor.”

Earlier this month, President Trump blasted Pirro for dropping the vandalism cases and said she “choked.”

“Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after and went after her department,” Trump said. “And I guess she choked. I don’t know what the hell happened.”

Later that day, Pirro was spotted walking into the West Wing with a box of evidence.

US Attorney Jeanine Pirro seen walking in and out of White House to meet with President Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (screenshots via CNN)

The post In Extremely Rare Move, Pirro Convenes Special Grand Jury After Clash with Trump Over Reflecting Pool Case appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Rupert Lowe Is Holding Britain’s Right Hostage

Posted on by patriotsheart
UK Special Coverage

Rupert Lowe Is Holding Britain’s Right Hostage

Can Reform UK’s Nigel Farage come to an amiable settlement with his former political ally?

BRITAIN-POLITICS-VOTE
UK Special Coverage
Photo by PETER POWELL / AFP via Getty Images

Rupert Lowe, the Restore Britain leader who is much applauded among sections of the American right, has just offered to lay down his arms and end the civil war on the British right. Or so he would have us believe.

In a 12-minute video directed to Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage, Lowe invited his ex-boss to come together, provided his former colleagues accepted a seemingly reasonable-sounding series of policy demands on immigration, demographic change, criminal justice, economic self-sufficiency, and the composition of a future government. What Lowe refused to spell out, however, was exactly what Restore would do in return.

Would the party completely dissolve, folding itself back into the warm Faragean embrace? Would it just stand down candidates in 2029, but stay around as a fallback option for those of the rightist persuasion in future? Does Restore want an electoral pact perhaps, picking out certain seats in which to drop its top guys to secure a place in Parliament at the cost of not splitting the vote nationwide? The latter seems to be the deal of offer, but we don’t have many details on how Lowe wants to handle things.

The video was far less an olive branch from Team Lowe than a hostage negotiation. Restore has smashed the British right, which even on its radical end was rather united, into a screeching, angry, bloodthirsty mess, with years-long friendships murdered on the altar of “I’m more right-wing than you.” If the future of the country is at stake, as both Reform and Restore believe, then Restore is holding a rather sharp knife to Lady Britannia’s throat.

In an ironic twist, Lowe clearly understood the efficacy of vote-splitting on the right, when he stood down as a Brexit Party candidate in Dudley North in 2019, making way for Boris Johnson’s Conservatives, arguing he was putting country before party. As I wrote in the Pimlico Journal in February, “Lowe was able to see this logic in 2019, but does not seem to see it in 2026, when the stakes are far higher, and the reward much greater. Why did Lowe feel that Johnson’s Conservatives were worth endorsing, yet Farage’s Reform has to be resisted?”

Restore cannot win political power, but it may well be able to take enough votes away to cost Reform a majority at the next election, with results ranging from 7 to 9 percent in recent by-elections and the Manchester mayoral election, and polls putting them somewhere between 3 and 9 percent nationally. For now, Restore has serious leverage, but I, and many others, have seen the energy slowly dissipate. The disappointment in Makerfield, where outlets like the Lotus Eaters indulged Restore supporters’ delusions of capturing “20 percent” of the vote, was a tipping point. I’ve started to note a number of small, radical nationalist accounts on X declaring that their allegiance has returned to Reform as the only legitimate and possible political solution.

So if you’re someone in Restore who’s actually quite smart and has political ambitions, now is the time to start putting some contingency plans into action. Here is a quick rundown of the power players in the party.

At the organizational center is Alistair Harrison, Lowe’s lieutenant, who effectively runs Restore behind the scenes. It’s difficult to imagine Farage being bossed around by his own apparatchik. Harrison represents the all-consuming hostility toward Nigel Farage; from his perspective, it would be better to burn the entire country down to spite his opponents rather than to let them win.

In contrast, the party’s chief spokesman Charlie Downes is far more politically savvy. The 25-year-old is primarily a creature of the online right: ambitious, media-conscious, and determined to turn internet influence into real political power. Along with his Restore colleague Harrison Pitt and aligned commentator Connor Tomlinson, he represents the other side of Restore’s coin. This faction was probably the driving force behind the intervention. The video allows Restore to appear statesmanlike if the offer is turned down, while creating a possible escape route for those who don’t want to be trapped inside a permanent anti-Farage protest party. 

This strategy, however, is built on one essential premise: that Restore is to the right of Reform. If you’re an outside observer, this seems to be the case. Lowe is constantly praised for being “more based” and less “weak sauce” than Nigel. But that perspective pulls the wool over the eyes of Restore’s voters. Restore has mastered the art of sounding hardcore while never actually being so. For example, the second point in the video is a demand to restore Britain’s “demographic security.” Lowe dwells on the fact that white Britons will soon become a minority in their country, and that this must not be allowed to happen. A fair and reasonable point. But the immediate actual demand, other than a campaign of mass deportation, is to clamp down on cousin marriage and to ban halal slaughter, the burqa, and sharia councils.

The “Islamification” of Britain may be an issue, but these measures do not constitute a demographic policy. They wouldn’t determine immigration levels, citizenship, family visas, or emigration. Restore performs a bait-and-switch on its supporters by announcing a maximally powerful objective, allowing them to infer a radical, nationalist program. When pressed on how it will achieve this, however, Restore retreats into far safer arguments on Islam, integration, and contentious cultural practices.

In contrast, Reform has moved consistently in a radical but serious direction since 2024. Mass deportations are now explicitly party policy, despite Farage’s dismissal of them almost two years ago (which Restore supporters think is somehow relevant today). Whenever pressed, the party has gone further and harder rather than retreating. Reform now promises to remove every illegal migrant, along with legal migrants who live in social housing or otherwise fail their economic tests. The party is also demanding an end to the two-tier anti-white system that exists in Britain now, including the repeal of the Equality Act. Nigel Farage is not weak on demographics; he’s been criticizing the change in the composition of Britain’s population for many years.

Probably the only area of serious policy difference in which Restore is pushing a harder line than Reform is Restore’s demand to denaturalize and deport relatives or associates who knowingly concealed grooming-gang crimes. This desideratum and Restore’s push for a referendum on the death penalty are practically the only issues on which the two parties disagree. 

The strangest condition introduced by the video is Restore’s demand that no minister from previous Conservative governments can serve in a new cabinet. The targets in Reform are obvious, with the only two fitting the bill being their Shadow Chancellor Robert Jenrick and Shadow Education Secretary Suella Braverman. As I wrote in the Pimlico Journal, “both of them are among the very few Conservative party politicians who, while in office, attempted to tackle mass migration, and found themselves time and time again thwarted by the Civil Service, and more importantly by the Prime Minister.” Braverman even addressed the question of ethnicity and demographics while still a Tory, arguing that “for Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity.”

While Lowe in essence demands that Jenrick and Braverman be sacked, he has asserted that he is perfectly happy to work with the Conservatives. He declares that there is “no issue” between him and the Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, and that “the Tories are not the problem”—although he knows that the Conservative party is still crowded with those who were responsible for 14 years of failure in office. Lowe even accepted a Conservative spot on the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament. This contradiction has fueled the conspiratorial speculation that Restore is effectively a Tory operation designed to neutralize Reform.

It would be wise for Farage to entertain Restore’s overture in order to end a pointless civil war, but foolish to accept a demand that those who crossed the floor to join his team be thrown out and to return Lowe to the inner machinery of Reform after six months of destructive political warfare. At the same time, Farage is taking his own hard line: He has said that Lowe firing Downes, who has made remarks characterized as antisemitic, is a precondition for talks.

A workable settlement might entail carving off Great Yarmouth as a fiefdom for Lowe (given the fact that he would be likely to win it at the next election anyway), thus enabling Lowe to campaign independently as effectively a pressure group on the right on the death penalty, citizenship reform, and those few other areas where differences between Reform and Lowe exist. A return to the pre-February status quo could allow Lowe’s influence without dictating Reform policy. 

From the perspective of Reform, Farage needs to establish what Lowe is actually prepared to concede. Reform will then see whether Lowe’s video marks the beginning of potential reconciliation, or merely Restore’s tactical retreat.

The post Rupert Lowe Is Holding Britain’s Right Hostage appeared first on The American Conservative.

Worst Coach in Worst League Says “Kindness Will Win!… I Stand by Them, Everyone Else Can GO TO HELL!!”

Posted on by patriotsheart

Worst Coach in Worst League Says “Kindness Will Win! I Stand by Them, Everyone Else Can GO TO HELL!!”

Stephanie White of the Indiana Fever tried to address calls for her resignation after she stood up for the girl on the opposing team who nearly took the head off of her star player, Sophie Cunningham.

White shared a message before her team’s game on Tuesday night.

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Indiana Fever Coach Stephanie White just went BERSERK and told people “GO TO HELL” after she got called out for not backing Sophie Cunningham enough when she was brutally attacked

“Kindness will win! I stand by them, everyone else can GO TO HELL!!”

“I take PERSONALLY any suggestions that I don’t 100% always have my player’s back!”

“I didn’t see the play in real time. I went straight to a press conference…Was it egregious? Absolutely. When you have a chance to watch that over and over and over on replay, you can see that. I didn’t have that in real time!”

YIKES…

The entire speach was bizzarre.

Pundits critiqued White’s message and noticed something.

Stephanie White says she “didn’t see the play in real time.”

Look at the photo. Then listen to the video.

The footage shows her standing on the sideline, facing the play as Sophie Cunningham is hit in the face. Now, days later, Sophie and Caitlin are defending White while repeating the same language White has leaned on throughout this controversy: “outside noise,” “unity,” “keeping the main thing the main thing.”

That is what makes this so frustrating.

The criticism did not come from nowhere. People reacted to White’s own words, the video, and the way she initially defended DiJonai Carrington’s competitiveness after Sophie took the hit.

Now the conversation has somehow shifted from White answering for that response to Sophie and Caitlin protecting White from the people who questioned it.

The “outside noise” did not create this controversy.

The outside noticed it.

The calls for White to be fired continue.  She unfortunately shows she doesn’t like her stars, Caitlin Clark and Sophie Cunningham, then claims she does and tells those who see it differently to “Go to Hell”.

The post Worst Coach in Worst League Says “Kindness Will Win!… I Stand by Them, Everyone Else Can GO TO HELL!!” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Hierarchy of Power: National Guard vs. Department of War in the Matter of Colonel Leslie Zyzda-Martin—and Countless Others

Posted on by patriotsheart

Image: Wikimedia Commons (A U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft assigned to the 127th Wing, Michigan National Guard, flies in formation behind a KC-135 Stratotanker assigned to the 128th Air Refueling Wing, Wisconsin National Guard, June 5, 2023.)

The case of Colonel Leslie Zyzda-Martin, an Air National Guard officer removed from command at Wisconsin’s Volk Field Air National Guard Base in 2021, exemplifies the troubling ambiguities surrounding jurisdiction and accountability within military structures.

The circumstances of her removal, which coincided with her disciplinary action against a subordinate for distributing explicit images, have raised questions about the motives behind her removal.

On August 1, The Gateway Pundit reported on the incident. In the subsequent years, attempts to uncover the reasons behind her removal have met with silence from officials at the Pentagon and Wisconsin state lawmakers, including the governor. The Department of War (DoW) has brushed aside the issue, suggesting that they either have no sway over the National Guard or fully disregard pleas for assistance.

What could lead them to assert that they have no control over the National Guard? As stated in federal statutory law under 10 U.S. Code § 10501, “There is in the Department of Defense the National Guard Bureau, which is a joint activity of the Department of Defense.” Can it be written more clearly that the War Department would have authority over the NGB, given that the federal agency responsible for the administration of the National Guard as a joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force operates within the War Department?

Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that the authority over the Guard varies based on whether the units are operating under state or federal jurisdiction. When the Guard is federalized for national defense, the President of the United States has supreme authority. In contrast, during local state operations, each state governor acts as the commander-in-chief.

Title 10 establishes federal command and control when National Guard members are ordered into federal service. Title 32, by contrast, operates as a federal-state hybrid model: Guard members remain part of the federally recognized National Guard and its federal reserve-component structure, while everyday command and control is exercised through the governor and state adjutant general.

This arrangement does not make Title 32 service purely state-controlled. Federal law, regulations, funding, standards, and oversight continue to govern significant aspects of Guard administration and operations, while the state adjutant general exercises day-to-day authority within that federal framework.

Federal officials, therefore, cannot reasonably invoke the National Guard’s state status as though it creates a blanket jurisdictional wall.

According to 32 U.S. Code § 314, “the adjutant general of each State…shall make such returns and reports as the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, and shall make those returns and reports to the Secretary concerned or to any office designated by him.”

In this context, consider the process of promotions in the Guard. The governor, through the state adjutant general, first promotes an officer at the state level. However, this promotion must receive formal federal recognition (emphasis mine), which is approved by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate (or the Secretary of Defense, depending on the rank) to be considered valid under federal law.

This system highlights the nature of authority in the promotion process, as evidenced by an examination of a memo regarding the promotion status of a member of the Army National Guard. Notably, the letter originated from the Department of Defense rather than the National Guard itself. Consequently, in this example, it is clear that promotions within the Guard are ultimately confirmed at the federal level.

The balance of authority is further illustrated by an incident in California. In June 2024, the Los Angeles Times reported that a California National Guard officer under investigation by the Inspectors General of the California Guard had displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer.

However, a phone call from the Pentagon changed everything. The Secretary of the Air Force’s (emphasis mine) Inspector General (SAF/IG) overturned the findings, and the officer involved was subsequently promoted. It was noted that “the office has the authority to overrule decisions by state inspectors general, but California Guard officials say that rarely happens.” Nevertheless, it does happen, once again demonstrating who has ultimate authority.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Lt. Col. Ryan Sweazey (USAF-Ret.), the founder of Walk the Talk Foundation, an organization dedicated to advocating for and safeguarding whistleblowers. The former F-16 fighter pilot previously served as an Inspector General in the Air Force. In his perspective, “The assertions being made by current DoW and Air Force leadership that they have no purview over matters within the National Guard are, at best, half-truths and, at worst, intentional misrepresentations of fact in order to deflect responsibilities in this and other important matters.” For him, “The former Air Force Inspector General’s unsolicited intervention in the aforementioned California Guard case is very recent and very irrefutable proof of that.”

To provide another example of federal intervention, The Gateway Pundit also spoke to an unnamed Guardsman who had submitted a Religious Accommodation Request (RAR) concerning the 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate. Initially, the request received approval from the state, traveling through the National Guard before reaching the Department’s Surgeon General (emphasis mine) where it was ultimately denied. Who had the final authority? Was it the state or the federal apparatus? Furthermore, who bears the burden of correcting this injustice? It’s the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR/NR), a federal (emphasis mine) administrative review body.

Additionally, in 2021, former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin responded to an inquiry from Oklahoma Governor J. Kevin Stitt. Regarding the unlawful 2019 COVID-19 shot mandates for members of the Oklahoma Army National Guard and Air National Guard, he instructed that all members of the Oklahoma Army and Air National Guard must adhere to the COVID-19 vaccine compliance deadlines and requirements set by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force (emphasis mine), as mandated by Presidential authority under title 32, U.S. Code, section 110.

Image: Screenshot of Letter to Oklahoma Governor J. Kevin Stitt, November 2021

What distinguishes that exercise of federal authority from a request to review a contested command relief that produced zero substantiated findings?

Apart from these examples, what about a military line of duty (LOD) determination? It is a formal inquiry that assesses whether a service member’s injury, illness, or disease occurred while they were on duty, thereby determining their eligibility for medical care, disability compensation, and veterans’ benefits. Examples of determinations for Guard members provided to the author illustrate that the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force (emphasis mine) intervene when it chooses to, and when it prefers not to, it claims it’s a matter for the Guard. It’s the same within the Inspector General system.

Another anonymous Guardsman pointed out, “Governors would have no militia without the fully federally funded Title 32 technicians and Active Guard Reserve, [adding that] state leaders like to wave their ‘state rights’ hand in protest but fail to push the protest far enough to fund it themselves.” This sentiment underscores the troubling dynamic in the relationship between state and federal powers.

What stands out most in each situation is the unsettling reality that, when it serves their interests and proves convenient, federal agencies appear to play both sides.

In the case of Zyzda-Martin, this raises questions about the integrity of their actions. Could there be something in her situation that might cause embarrassment for the Department of the Air Force—or the Wisconsin governor—if they intervened? Were laws and regulations genuinely adhered to concerning her investigations and her removal from command?

As the investigation unfolds, it is imperative that both the Department of War and state officials recognize their roles and responsibilities, ensuring that transparency prevails over ambiguity. At this point in time, the Wisconsin Air National Guard is effectively undermining the Department of the Air Force by operating under a thin guise of autonomy. Given the numerous instances of federal involvement in Guard affairs, there is no justification for their lack of response.

J.M. Phelps emailed a series of questions directly to Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, SAF Inspector General Lt Gen David Lyons, National Guard Bureau Chief Gen. Steven Nordhaus, and others.

The inquiries were as follows:

View Fullscreen

Skip to PDF content

Responses were not received by press time.

 

 

 

The post Hierarchy of Power: National Guard vs. Department of War in the Matter of Colonel Leslie Zyzda-Martin—and Countless Others appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

World Health Organization Warehouse Destroyed in Dnipro, Ukraine – WHO Had Already Begun Evacuations

Posted on by patriotsheart

Last week, a World Health Organization (WHO) warehouse in Dnipro, Ukraine, was “struck and destroyed,” according to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of WHO.

In a statement published on X, Tedros claimed that no casualties had been reported and that a team of “a WHO staff member and drivers” was able to evacuate 130 of approximately 300 pallets” earlier in the day, suggesting that the WHO potentially knew of the attack before it occurred.

The warehouse is said to have “held humanitarian medical supplies intended for frontline health facilities — primarily WHO emergency health supplies.”

A community note was added to the post attributing the attack to Russia; however, the WHO statement on the attack fails to identify a specific attacker.  The sources cited by X Community Notes link to Politico, Ukrainska Pravda, Kyiv Independent, The Independent, and Liga.net, but none cite any specific source attributing the attack to Russia.

The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets, posted on X that “Russia struck a WHO humanitarian warehouse in Dnipro storing essential medicines intended for hospitals and frontline areas.  Russia must be held fully accountable for such attacks.”

The WHO appeared to have had foreknowledge of the attack, as it had initiated an evacuation of supplies beforehand; however, the WHO statement makes no mention of the source of the attack.  A “bot swarm” of accounts responded to the WHO’s statement, calling for the WHO to name Russia as the perpetrator, but to no avail.

BRICS News on X, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Watcher.Guru account, posted, “JUST IN:  Russia Strikes WHO warehouse in Ukraine,” but did not cite a source for the claim.

President Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization when he reassumed the Oval Office on January 20th, 2025, with Executive Order 14155, saying, the “World Health Organization ripped us off, everybody rips off the United States.  It’s not going to happen anymore” in reference to the roughly $500 million the United States had been contributing, compared to China’s $39 million.

The post World Health Organization Warehouse Destroyed in Dnipro, Ukraine – WHO Had Already Begun Evacuations appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

OF COURSE: Mamdani Linked Anti-Rent Activist Grew Up as a Child of Wealth and Privilege (VIDEO)

Posted on by patriotsheart

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

An anti-rent activist named Tracy Rosenthal, who has direct connections to the Zohran Mamdani campaign and administration, grew up in a million dollar apartment in Manhattan with her father, a Grammy winning recording artist.

Rosenthal now lives in a $2,300 dollar a month apartment in Brooklyn, but has not paid rent for years. Her previous landlord was foreclosed on, and now the bank is trying to remover her and other tenants for living in the building as squatters.

Meanwhile, Rosenthal makes videos and public appearances where she teaches people how to screw their landlords out of rent.

She is another communist nepo-baby who has lived a life of total wealth and privilege, while pretending to be a working class hero.

The New York Post reports:

A rent-striking, rising-star radical orchestrating the Mamdani administration’s socialist housing agenda is the daughter of a famed music studio owner who recorded rock legends like David Bowie, the Ramones, Blondie, Lou Reed, Sonic Youth, the Foo Fighters and Coldplay, The Post has learned.

While framing herself as a champion of the proletariat, Tracy Rosenthal grew up in a trendy $1.7 million NoMad pad with elite access to the music industry — attending the Grammys at least twice with her dad, four-time winner Steven Rosenthal.

Her father recorded hit albums by some of the world’s biggest artists at the Magic Shop, the SoHo studio he founded in 1988, including Coldplay’s 2008 “Viva la Vida,” which sold more than 10 million copies worldwide; the Foo Fighters’ 2014 “Sonic Highways,” for which he was interviewed in the band’s HBO docuseries; and Bowie’s final album, 2016’s “Blackstar.”

Yet despite her first-class upbringing, she’s been on a four-year “rent strike” since moving back to New York City after a stint in Los Angeles — because the Bolshevik bugged out after spotting a cockroach in her hip $2,300 a month Bed-Stuy apartment…

She said the landlord refused to hire an exterminator, and after finding out the building had more rental units than were legally approved and was facing foreclosure, she organized with the other tenants to eventually stop paying rent, stiffing the owner of at least $108,000 on her unit alone.

In the video below from Stu Smith, Rosenthal talks to an audience about methods for not paying rent:

Tracy Rosenthal’s Strategy: Build Toward a “General Rent Strike” and Create a Crisis Big Enough to Force Concessions

This is one of the more revealing Tracy Rosenthal clips because she is explaining how she thinks the movement can force systemic change.

Asked what mass rent nonpayment would actually look like, Rosenthal describes a “long term strategy” of building enough scale to create the kind of “crisis” necessary to extract major political concessions.

“One way of thinking about abolishing rent is a permanent and general rent strike.”

Watch:

These people are so entitled. She thinks she has a ‘right’ to live in an apartment that doesn’t belong to her and not pay rent.

And she’s another child of privilege. Why are so many of them like this?

The post OF COURSE: Mamdani Linked Anti-Rent Activist Grew Up as a Child of Wealth and Privilege (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Fox News’ John Roberts Admits He Developed Pericarditis After His Third COVID Shot — and It Got Worse After the Fourth

Posted on by patriotsheart

Screenshot

Fox News correspondent and America Reports co-anchor John Roberts has publicly acknowledged that he developed pericarditis, inflammation of the lining around the heart, after his third COVID-19 shot, and that the condition worsened after he took a fourth dose.

The startling disclosure appeared in a newly circulated video clip, with Roberts recounting the sequence in his own words.

After years of mandates, booster campaigns and lectures from Washington’s so-called experts, another prominent media figure is now publicly describing a serious medical condition that arose following vaccination.

And the history here is impossible to ignore.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported in October 2021 that Roberts deleted a post questioning the long-term effectiveness of COVID vaccines following Colin Powell’s breakthrough infection and death.

After receiving immediate backlash, Roberts defended the vaccines and declared: “I plan to get a booster as soon as possible.”

Now Roberts says pericarditis developed after his third shot and worsened after the fourth.

“I remember when I got the boosters, I developed pericarditis, and then that went away. Then, when I had the second booster, it came roaring back again. So, you know, the body reacts differently to these things depending on who you are,” Roberts said.

WATCH:

The admission, circulating widely from on-air comments and related discussion, lands years after federal officials and corporate media spent 2021–2022 aggressively pushing mRNA boosters while downplaying or delaying clear warnings about myocarditis and pericarditis risks.

Roberts, who has previously disclosed heart issues including a pacemaker implanted in early 2022 and later treatment for atrial fibrillation that he linked in part to “that whole COVID thing,” described the inflammation appearing after the third shot and intensifying following the fourth. He has taken four doses total.

The post Fox News’ John Roberts Admits He Developed Pericarditis After His Third COVID Shot — and It Got Worse After the Fourth appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.