Author: patriotsheart

For decades, foreign students have been able to come to the United States on a student visa and stay in the country for decades, as long as they were still enrolled in a class or two. That ends now.

Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has announced a new set of rule changes to the student visa program, first and foremost, the amount of time that a foreign student can spend here. They’re limiting it to four years, the amount of time typically needed to obtain a college degree.

The changes were made in July, but this is getting noticed now because the new policy goes into effect next month.

This system has been abused for years by people who come here and never leave. The changes are long overdue.

The DHS put out this press release:

Trump Administration Issues Final Rule to End Foreign Student Visa Abuse

Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the publication of a final rule that officially eliminates the “duration of status” loophole that allowed foreign students, exchange visitors, and media representatives to remain in the United States indefinitely without routine government oversight.

The new regulation establishes a fixed period of admission for nonimmigrant visa holders in F, J, and I classifications. This decisive shift restores integrity to the nation’s immigration system, combats rampant visa abuse, and strengthens national security through regular vetting. A fixed period of admission is currently in place for many other types of nonimmigrant visas.

“For nearly half a century, the outdated ‘duration of status’ system has compromised national security and created an environment ripe for immigration fraud,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. “For decades, foreign students have been admitted into the U.S. indefinitely, allowing thousands to abuse our immigration system by perpetually enrolling in courses to avoid having to leave the U.S. By implementing clear, finite limits on these visas, the United States is reclaiming its ability to properly screen, vet, and monitor individuals within our borders. This final rule ensures that foreign students remain focused on their primary purpose: completing their studies and returning home.”

Since 1978, foreign students have been admitted into the U.S. for an unspecified period, enabling thousands to become “forever students” by perpetually enrolling in courses to avoid departure. The final rule ends this exploitation through several major reforms:

• Fixed Admission Caps: Nonimmigrant students (F visas) and exchange visitors (J visas) will be admitted for the length of their specific program, not to exceed a maximum period of four years.
• Mandatory Federal Extensions: Visa holders requiring additional time to complete an academic program must formally apply for an Extension of Stay (EOS) directly through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This transitions oversight from university staff back to federal authorities and subjects applicants to biometric vetting, background checks, and fraud screenings.
• Reduced Departure Grace Period: The time allowed for F-1 students to prepare for departure, transfer schools, or change status following graduation is reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
• Program Change Restrictions: The rule introduces strict limitations on academic changes.

This is going to have a serious, positive effect. It will definitely cut down on the number of people in the country illegally.

The post Trump DHS Announces HUGE Change to Student Visa Program That Will Stop the Practice of ‘Endless College’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Politics

The Illusion of Law

Judges will not save our republic.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Law is power with lipstick. 

Contra Chief Justice John Roberts, judges are not really umpires calling balls and strikes. The rules and precedents they must interpret are too diffuse and contradictory; choosing which to prioritize or rely upon is a bit like looking out over a crowd and picking your friends. Decisions of the United States Supreme Court are better understood as corroborative. Majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions alike are the product of subjective reasoning, often telling us more about the priorities and predilections of their authors than the objective meaning of the law itself. 

Take constitutional interpretation. One school of thought, most prominently advanced by Justice Antonin Scalia, is “originalism”—that is, the notion that the text must be read and understood as the contemporary public would have read and understood it. A competing perspective endorses a “living constitution” whose meaning evolves in the manner as circumstances change. Chief Justice Earl Warren captured the essence of this view in the opinion he authored on Trop v. Dulles (1958): the Constitution, he wrote, “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Both methodologies can be defended; different people find them compelling for different reasons. Justices can switch back and forth depending on what result is desired in a particular case. Consistency is not required. As the bard says, the wish is often father to the thought.

Statutory interpretation is similarly plagued by contradictory canons: the Plain Meaning Rule v. Legislative Purpose. Judicial precedents are sometimes confined to the specific facts of the case, and sometimes applied broadly according to a decision’s rationale. Justices can and do apply both approaches to reach results they applaud.

The principle of stare decisis instructs the Justices to resist overturning precedents. But the doctrine is more a mood than a command. The Supreme Court abandons or affirms precedents as it pleases.

Practicing lawyers know judges are not bloodless, impartial umpires. This is why they “forum shop” (that is, look for favorable jurisdictions in which to plead their cases) and tailor arguments to individual judges based on the latter’s interpretive proclivities.

And the ultimate tendency is for the law to reinforce, rather than constrain, the exercise of political power. The paradigmatic case here is Trump v. United States (2024), in which the Supreme Court crowned the president with atextual or counter-textual constitutional immunity for presidential crimes. The decision imbued the occupant of the White House with vast powers, including the implied ability to launch whatever wars he sees fit, kill criminal suspects without evidence, spend or impound billions of dollars, and rule by decree.

The venerated Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes acknowledged in The Common Law that judging is not defined by Aristotelian logic:

[BLOCK] The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. [/BLOCK]

The equally legendary Justice Benjamin Cardozo expressed a similar view of judging in The Nature of the Judicial Process: “The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their course, and pass the judges by.”

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes went perhaps the furthest to remove the lipstick from the law: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Judges, then, are not our salvation—and they never were. Our republic can only make meaningful, lasting improvements through the action of the citizenry. Americans must use their votes and their advocacy to constrain an overpowered presidency and make Congress again the first branch among equals, as the Constitution’s authors intended. 

As a final consideration, let us look at the war powers the President has been able to seemingly effortlessly usurp from Congress. Taking cures from the latter’s supine impotence, the Court has mostly refused, in the modern era, to rule on questions that implicate the balance of such powers between the executive and legislative branches. But it was not always this way.

In Little v. Barreme (1804), it ruled that President John Adams lacked legal authority to order the capture of ships sailing from French ports. Congress had authorized seizing vessels traveling to French ports, and the executive order exceeded that statutory limit. Further, the Court declared that Captain George Little could be held personally liable in damages for following an illegal presidential order.

In contrast, it is unimaginable in today’s monarchical White House that President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, or their military subordinates would be held legally accountable for murdering hundreds of suspected drug traffickers without trial in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific. The execrable “King can do no wrong” principle of the monarchies our forefathers sought to consign to the ashbin of history is, unfortunately, back in the saddle in the United States.

The post The Illusion of Law appeared first on The American Conservative.

Latin America

Expert Panel: Trump’s Latin America Policy Won’t Stop Drugs

The Quincy Institute hosted a Tuesday discussion of the Trump administration’s fight against “narco-terrorism.”

Photo by ULISES RUIZ / AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration’s Latin America policies are too simplistic for the complicated problems facing the region, a panel of restraint-oriented foreign policy experts concluded Tuesday.

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft gathered Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, co-director of the Corruption, Networks, and Transnational Crime Research Center (CONTRA) at George Mason University, Isabel Pereira Arana, senior coordinator for drug policy at the Center for Law, Justice and Society (Dejusticia), and Lee Schlenker, research associate in the Quincy Institute’s Global South program, for a forum on the Trump administration’s policy toward crime and narcotics in Latin America. The panelists discussed potential issues with the United States’ decision to pursue a militarized approach to problems in the region, including the elasticity of criminal operations and the collateral damage an overreliance on coercion tends to produce.

Schlenker argued that an overly securitized strategy for confronting organized crime and drug production neglects root causes such as local poverty. In many areas of Colombia that are heavily involved in the growing of the coca plants used to produce cocaine, for example, the crop is one of the only ways local populations can make a good living. Increasing development in these rural regions can provide alternatives to coca production for their citizens and increase accessibility for the national government, which struggles to consistently control remote areas of the countryside.

Schlenker also noted that a military- and law enforcement–first approach does not address the political and financial networks that enable cartels to continue their illegal activities. 

“There are security challenges,” Schlenker said, “but they need to be paired with real efforts to actually have opportunities and alternatives and state presence and legal institutions and efforts to combat corruption and impunity and collusion with business and political executives that enable these illicit economies to thrive.

Another issue with the Trump administration’s fixation on drugs is that it neglects the diversification of organized crime into other areas of the economy, noted Correa-Cabrera. “We’re dealing with criminal networks in a complex adaptive ecosystem that are criminal, but that are not connected with drugs only,” she said. “That’s something that U.S.–Mexico cooperation is never going to deal with.” 

Correa-Cabrera argued that Trump’s demands and threats are forcing Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum to pursue a suboptimal, drug-focused strategy to appease Washington, rather than effectively attacking the most vulnerable parts of the cartel economy. Allowing countries like Mexico more independence in their counter-cartel campaigns would probably yield more success than demanding they subordinate their policies to the American “War on Drugs”-style approach.

As Pereira explained, militarizing the problem can also backfire. Given the resilience and mobility of criminal networks, cartels are often able to adapt and even expand their operations if the other underlying problems aren’t addressed. “We’re going to see numerous expressions of the balloon effect,” Pereira said. “Once a market is pressed here, it displaces over there. But it’s not just the geographic displacement…. Technology also seems to respond to pressures from interdiction and the market.” Today an acre of coca produces far more cocaine than it did 30 years ago, as growers and the manufacturing process have become more efficient to cope with fumigation and other supply-chain disruptions.

For the panelists, this adaptability helps explain why decades of drug-war policies have failed to eliminate either the supply of narcotics or the criminal organizations that profit from them. Military force may temporarily disrupt cartels and fumigate coca fields, but the underlying business just shifts elsewhere. A more effective policy, these experts argued, would combine targeted security cooperation with rural development, financial enforcement, measures to strengthen local institutions, and a broader campaign against corruption. Unless the Trump administration adopts such an approach, they warn, its efforts may merely shift the ways and places in which organized crime operates, rather than actually defeating it outright.

The post Expert Panel: Trump’s Latin America Policy Won’t Stop Drugs appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

Without a U.S. Deal, Iran May Wind up a Mideast Outcast

Tehran’s reliance on the Houthis complicates relations with Riyadh.

“Trump will not reach an agreement with us. We will put up with him until his term ends.” That recent quote was from Majid Shakeri, an advisor to Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. 

Tehran is signaling that it is not waiting for a better offer. It is waiting for January 20, 2029. While that posture is understandable, Iran may find that such a policy comes with unexpected downsides as other regional actors figure out their own relations with Iran.

Shakeri’s quote and the broader signaling by Iran are hardly surprising. They confirms what many, including The American Conservative’s senior editor Andrew Day, suspected after the launch of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran in February 2026, the assassination of the influential moderate figure Ali Larijani, who had been secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and the body’s subsequent reshuffle: Iran’s government has grown more hardline in its orientation toward the U.S.

Larijani’s successor, Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, was recently dismissed and replaced by Mohsen Rezaei, a high-ranking veteran IRGC figure. Zolqadr was seen as close to Ghalibaf, who led the Iranian delegation in talks with Vice President J.D. Vance in Islamabad.

So, an advisor to the man who led negotiations now voices opposition to negotiations, and the man he advises has been knocked down a peg amid the rising prominence of an IRGC hardliner. That latter development was likely no accident. As reported by Amwaj Media, by removing Zolqadr, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei may have sought to curb Ghalibaf’s influence.

Obviously, the rhetorical adjustments reflect the shifting balance of power within the Iranian system. And the reshuffle does not seem to indicate any underlying turmoil or loss of competence and institutional memory. Rezaei, like Ghalibaf, is a figure with deep military experience and political ambitions, having unsuccessfully run for the presidency as a relatively pragmatic conservative .

Beyond the personnel reshuffles, however, lies a reality that transcends domestic politics. Shakeri may not be the most influential figure within the Iranian system, but he reflects a growing consensus in Tehran: There is no point in future negotiations with the Trump administration unless Iran’s non-negotiable conditions are first satisfied: economic relief, an end to the wider regional war—including threatening statements against Iran—and withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region. Until those terms are met, Zolqadr said this weekend, the Strait of Hormuz stays effectively closed.

The logic is brutally simple. Why would Iran rescue a president who started a war—twice—during active negotiations on the nuclear standoff? From Tehran’s perspective, the United States chose conflict over diplomacy. The administration escalated, miscalculated, and now finds itself stuck. None of the United States’ war aims have been achieved. The Iranian government remains in place and much emboldened, with its highly enriched uranium still under its control, and now also with control of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical energy trade chokepoint.

Iran certainly does not see itself as a defeated party, and its leadership is willing to inflict maximal costs and humiliation on Trump. Is it any wonder why, after the U.S., together with Israel, bombed the country, assassinating its political and military leaders and killing more than 1,000 civilians? Iranian leaders simply do not see it as their responsibility to provide Washington with a graceful off-ramp.

Iran’s decision to stiffen its negotiating posture, however, is not vengeance for its own sake. Tehran appears to have concluded that Washington is simply too dysfunctional to honor any agreements. The memorandum of understanding, signed with Pakistani and Qatari mediation, required the U.S. to remove sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets. As Washington failed to fulfill these provisions, Tehran assessed that it had not acted in good faith and was using the ceasefire to replenish depleted stockpiles to relaunch the war. Tehran has come to see Washington as simply agreement-incapable—at least so long as Donald Trump occupies the White House.

So Iran will manage the process of “neither war nor peace,” as Shakeri has put it. The winning approach, in its view, is denial, ambiguity, and strategic patience—bleeding American political will while betting on a future president less mercurial than Trump.

Not everybody is convinced of the merits of this strategy. Mohammad Ali Shabani, a seasoned London-based Iran analyst, remarked that the former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s own “no war, no deal” posture led to “war followed by a terrible deal.” Shabani mocked those who now “spin more limbo as a masterful scheme to force Trump’s hand.”

And this time, Iran may find itself in an even more vulnerable position—not only because of the U.S., but also because of regional powers. As long as there is no deal with Washington, Tehran will have to rely on its proxies and allies, such as the Houthis in Yemen and Shiite militias in Iraq, to keep inflicting costs on the world economy as leverage against the Trump administration.

But that risks incurring the hostility of other states. The closure of Bab-el-Mandeb to Saudi vessels by the Houthis, for instance, antagonizes Saudi Arabia, which is looking for new allies to help bolster its security. The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement—recently signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey—is conceived as a hedge against multiple sources of regional instability, including Israel. But it’s also built around protecting Saudi Arabia from Houthi missile and drone threats.

Iran may find that its budding strategy of waiting out the Trump administration, rather than striking a deal, leaves it more isolated in the Middle East. Its continued reliance on the Houthis as a pressure lever against the U.S. and Israel could complicate Iranian integration with the Mecca pact nations.

As other regional players lay the groundwork for a new Middle East, Tehran should be mindful of the ways that continued enmity with the U.S. could leave it isolated from its neighbors.

The post Without a U.S. Deal, Iran May Wind up a Mideast Outcast appeared first on The American Conservative.

Rabbis on Monday urged New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to stop painting Israel as the Evil Empire because of the toll his remarks are taking on innocent New York City Jews.

The meeting between 10 Jewish leaders and the Muslim pro-Palestinian mayor came against a backdrop of rising anti-Semitism in New York City. Anti-Jewish hate crimes rose 8.5 percent through the first seven months of the year, New York Police Department officials said last week, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The rabbis collectively sought to have Mamdani tone down his rhetoric on Israel.

“There were rabbis from across the entire spectrum of our Jewish community, and yet no one gave the message to the mayor, ‘Everything is going great,’” Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said, according to the Forward.

Jacobs said lashing out at Israel and calling for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu make life worse for everyday people.

“Everyone agreed that the current course can’t go on,” Jacobs said. “The way he vilifies Israel, and so constantly, is really causing harm.”

Jacobs said he urged Mamdani to shift his tone, according to The New York Times.

“I’m happy to work in partnership with your administration, but Mr. Mayor, you are 90 percent of what could be different here,” he said.

He recalled telling Mamdani, “If instead of vilifying Israel, you spoke constructively, in measured tones — that would move the needle more than anything else, and I’m hopeful you’ll use that power.”

“There was no tiptoeing around the elephant in the room,” Rabbi Jonathan Leener, leader of the Prospect Heights Shul, a liberal modern Orthodox synagogue in Brooklyn, added to The New York Times.

“The mayor’s comments have ramifications and he needs to be aware of how in the current climate, that just adds to the temperature and creates an environment that I think a lot of Jews feel vulnerable in,” he said.

Leener said he wants Mamdani to protect Jewish citizens and not incite hate.

“That should be his focus and not making comments unnecessarily about the conflict,” Leener said. “Or having a bit more nuance around it. That it’s not just good versus evil.”

Others said Mamdani need not change his opinions, just his tone.

“If he is going to criticize Israel or speak for Palestinian freedom, which I do regularly, then it really matters that there is complexity in his message,” Rabbi Rachel Timoner of Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn said.

“We can’t vote there, we don’t have any ability to change what’s happening, yet people are profiling us and spewing hate at us because they’re angry at the Israeli government,” she added.

Some rabbis bristled that Mamdani carefully selected who attended the meeting.

Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz, of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, a Modern Orthodox synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, said he was not invited, according to the Jewish Chronicle.

“My initial reaction is it’s classic Mamdani. He has no interest in the serious work of rebuilding his relationship with the Jewish community,” he said.

“He wants to feign interest in the Jewish community but is only ready to meet with Jews whom he picks and chooses as ideologically comfortable,” he said.

“Turns out, even they are fed up with him,” he continued, referring to news accounts that the rabbis who met with Mamdani urged him to watch his language.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post 10 Rabbis Confront Mamdani Over His Role in Fanning Flames of Anti-Semitism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Clark County Judge Mary Kay Holthus on Thursday once again dismissed the Nevada 2020 alternate electors case after years of lawfare.

Nevada’s Democrat Attorney General Aaron Ford is expected to appeal.

In December 2020, Republican electors in Nevada cast ballots for Donald Trump.

Nevada cast procedural votes for President and Vice President to preserve the Trump campaign’s legal challenges.

The Trump campaign asked Trump electors to cast their votes as litigation makes its way through the system, as we saw in the 1960 election with Nixon vs Kennedy.

In 2024, Judge Mary Kay Holthus dismissed the case against the 6 Nevada GOP electors.

The judge said Clark County was not the appropriate venue to bring the charges against the electors. The judge agreed that the case should have been brought in Carson City.

The Nevada Supreme Court last year revived the Trump 2020 alternate electors case days after President Trump issued sweeping pardons of allies and attorneys.

In a unanimous 6-0 decision  the Nevada Supreme Court overruled the lower court’s decision and revived the Trump electors case.

Nearly three years ago, Nevada’s Democrat Attorney General Aaron Ford announced charges against 6 Trump 2020 alternate electors.

When the Democrats cast alternate electors, it’s called ‘dueling electors.’ When the Republicans cast alternate electors, it’s called ‘fake electors’ and indictments come down from crooked Democrat attorneys general.

Six Trump electors were indicted on felony charges by a grand jury in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Nevada.

“When the efforts to undermine faith in our democracy began after the 2020 election, I made it clear that I would do everything in my power to defend the institutions of our nation and our state,” Aaron Ford said in a statement. “We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged. Today’s indictments are the product of a long and thorough investigation, and as we enter into litigation, I am confident that our judicial system will see justice done.”

“Among those charged are some of the top officials from the Nevada Republican Party, including Nevada Republican Party Chairman Michael McDonald, Nevada Republican Party National Committeeman Jim DeGraffenreid, Clark County Republican Party Chairman Jesse Law, and Storey County Clerk Jim Hindle, as well as Republican operatives Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice.” ABC News reported.

“Each of the defendants have been charged with felonies including offering a false instrument for filing, offering a forged instrument, and offering a false instrument titled “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Nevada” to the President of the Senate; the Archivist of the United States; the Nevada Secretary of State; and the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.” the outlet said.

On Thursday, Judge Mary Holthus agreed with the defendants and ruled that is was their right to challenge the official election results.

The judge said that the defendants did not intend to deceive government officials.

“The fact that Defendants openly announced both their actions and their asserted purpose, rather than concealing their conduct or attempting to secretly induce governmental reliance, weighs against a reasonable inference that they acted with fraudulent intent,” Holthus wrote in her ruling.

The post Judge Dismisses Nevada Trump 2020 Alternate Electors Case After Years of Lawfare appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a move that may draw the ire of abortion facilities, it appears that progressive journalist Don Lemon is taking a peculiar approach to his ongoing legal issues.

In January, Lemon made waves when he joined a mob that crashed a Minneapolis church service, causing all sorts of chaos — and legal fallout.

Lemon and his posse interrupted the congregation, and for his actions, the former CNN host would find himself charged with civil rights crimes.

Five months ago, a trans shooter killed 2 people at a Minneapolis church and wounded 30 more.

That makes what Don Lemon and his leftist thugs did at another Minneapolis church even more disgusting. pic.twitter.com/8anm7I5uL9

— Christian Tweets (@JesusSavesUs777) January 19, 2026

This would all eventually come to a head on Aug. 7, when Lemon had his day in court.

Perhaps unsurprisingly to his critics, Lemon made sure to tell the judge all about how unfairly he was being treated and how his indictment should be thrown out.

Part of that defense strategy, however, could have disastrous and unintended consequences for Lemon’s progressive, pro-abortion allies, at least according to one legal expert who spoke with the Daily Signal.

Part of Lemon’s defense aims to overturn part of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, also known as the FACE Act.

The FACE Act is a law that protects both abortion clinics and churchgoers from outside harassment, especially the physical blocking and disruption of the facilities.

Lemon specifically wants the church protections overturned as part of his defense strategy.

Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, tells the Daily Signal, however, that if the court overturns the church protections of the FACE Act, it actually opens up a legal avenue for the entire act — abortion facility protection and all — to be challenged.

And the irony is not lost on Dys, who noted that should Lemon’s motion succeed, “It would be one of the greatest ironies of the universe that it was Don Lemon that was responsible for invalidating the very law that was put in place to protect abortion clinics in this country.”

“I’m surprised that he would want to inflict that damage to a law that has protected abortion clinics around the country,” Dys added.

Critics of the FACE Act may actually welcome Lemon’s motion — even if they would rather he not get off — because many legal pundits believe that the FACE Act can largely be weaponized by whatever administration is in power.

Former President Joe Biden’s pro-abortion administration, for example, almost exclusively used the FACE Act to target pro-life advocates and sidewalk counselors, while ignoring church and pregnancy center harassers who could’ve easily also been prosecuted under the FACE Act.

The attempts to overturn part of the FACE Act are not the only defense in Lemon’s back pocket.

According to CBS News, Lemon’s legal team is claiming that his indictment should be tossed because it was targeted harassment from President Donald Trump’s administration.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Legal Expert: Don Lemon’s Legal Battle Could Have Devastating Unintended Consequences for Abortion Clinics appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Margaret Cho is one of those stand-up comedians who has become less funny as she has gotten older and more woke, which is a shame because she wasn’t too bad back in the 1990s.

Today, she comes off as a humorless scold, and a far left one, naturally.

During a recent appearance on a podcast, she talked about how if you make jokes about trans people, trans people die. The host doesn’t challenge her on this at all, he just nods along, as if what she is saying is completely normal. It isn’t.

Breitbart News has details:

Comedienne and actor Margaret Cho attacked policies aimed at curbing transgender ideology, even going as far to say we are in a “trans genocide.”

Cho shared her thoughts on the issue during an appearance on the Who’s With Me? podcast.

“It’s really scary and the way our government treats trans lives. You know, insane bathroom laws and identity laws, or taking people’s driver’s licenses,” she said. “It seems endless whether it’s re-legalizing conversion therapy. Supreme Court on down. You have all of these things that, you know, we’re in the middle of a trans genocide, and we have to do anything that we can to stop it. We have to make sure that trans people are safe and then start working on restoring equality to their lives.”

In the same interview, she took other comedians to task for cracking jokes about transgender ideology.

“I think trans lives has become a very big thing in comedy, because they want to contest it. They don’t understand that when you take trans lives lightly in a comedy routine, trans people die, and they don’t have that understanding. There are real consequences to your actions, because they don’t affect you personally, but this will affect a trans person’s life,” Cho said.

Here’s the video:

Comedian Margaret Cho: “When you take trans lives lightly in a comedy routine, trans people die.” pic.twitter.com/REEN6DdVwt

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) August 12, 2026

Wokeism is the death of comedy. These comments from Margaret Cho are proof.

Once a comedian starts thinking this way, it’s over.

Can you even imagine someone like George Carlin or Richard Pryor talking this way? It’s impossible.

The post Supposed ‘Comedian’ Margaret Cho Says if You Make Jokes About Trans People, Trans People Die (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The New York Post just did a story about how New York’s Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul is spending upwards of $7 million in taxpayer dollars on the legal bills of illegal immigrant youths in the state.

When the Post promoted the story on Twitter/X, Hochul jumped in and bragged about it.

Why is it that every single Democrat is so determined to let the public know that they care more about people in the country illegally than they do about American citizens?

This is the story from the New York Post:

Hochul shells out over $7M to cover legal bills for 1,400 migrant children in NY

Gov. Kathy Hochul announced the Empire State will be shelling out over $7 million to cover the legal bills for more than 1,000 unaccompanied migrant children across New York.

The $7.25 million in funding will cover an estimated 1,400 migrant kids facing removal proceedings, including about 250 in detention, the governor said at a press conference in Manhattan alongside Mayor Zohran Mamdani and state Attorney General Letitia James.

The announcement came after the Trump administration let its contract with a network of about 100 providers working with migrant kids nationwide lapse in July.

“It’s cruel. It’s illegal. And for nearly two decades our federal government required by law that these children be protected when they cross the border,” Hochul railed.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, passed during President George W. Bush’s tenure, required the US government to provide legal representation for kids in deportation proceedings.

Children caught crossing into the US alone are generally entrusted to the federal government and placed in the care of an adult sponsor, typically a parent, relative or family friend by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

So the New York Post tweeted this story out:

Hochul shells out over $7M to cover legal bills for 1,400 migrant children in NY https://t.co/OSZVDPJNbI pic.twitter.com/P2iIgqtWgP

— New York Post (@nypost) August 13, 2026

And Hochul retweeted it, commenting, “Damn right I did.”

Damn right I did. https://t.co/PDTeIZOaQR

— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) August 13, 2026

Democrats do this every time.

So she chose illegals over American children who need help. https://t.co/tQTPY8Kvyh

— Spitfire (@RealSpitfire) August 13, 2026

Apparently @GovKathyHochul is the governor of illegal aliens, not the people of New York… https://t.co/hsXkMCSIHw

— Tony Shaffer (@tspooky) August 13, 2026

She’s actually proud of spending your money on illegal aliens.. Yes, she is that stupid.#HochulsGottaGo https://t.co/tGWw8qPmCq

— Steve McLaughlin (@SteveMcNY) August 13, 2026

Democrats sure love to be generous with other people’s money.

The post New York Governor Kathy Hochul BRAGS About Spending Millions of Tax Dollars on Legal Bills for Illegal Immigrant Children appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Dearborn, Michigan police are in full panic mode.

Police Chief Issa Shahin released a desperate video message urging residents to stay away from Tuesday’s Aug. 18 city council meeting because “anti-Islam protesters,” including activists planning a “Christian Crusader March” to “Stop Islamification,” are expected to show up and exercise their First Amendment rights.

“Please stay home,” Shahin said.

Dearborn Police Chief Issa Shahin says individuals and organizations from outside the community may travel to the city for an anti-Islam demonstration. Police will deploy an “enhanced presence” and have prepared what the department describes as a comprehensive security plan.

Shahin claims the expected demonstrators are coming to provoke residents, manufacture a confrontation and generate publicity.

Shahin: “Individuals and groups from outside our community may come to the Dearborn City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 18th. We’ve been monitoring the situation closely and coordinating with our state and federal partners. We have a plan in place, and you will see an enhanced presence of police officers.

But here’s my direct ask of our residents: Please stay home.

These groups that are coming here are coming for one reason, and that’s to provoke a reaction and generate attention. If nobody shows up to react, they have nothing. The most powerful thing that this community can do is refuse to give them an audience.”

WATCH:

Dearborn has become ground zero for the demographic and cultural transformation of America. The city is now majority Arab and heavily Muslim. Outdoor Islamic calls to prayer blast through neighborhoods.

Mayor Abdullah Hammoud previously told a Christian resident he was “not welcome” in the city.

Pro-Hezbollah and Iranian-linked imagery has appeared at local processions. And just weeks ago, activist Jake Lang was attacked during the city’s massive Arbaeen procession, an event that featured flags of U.S.-designated terrorist groups according to monitoring organizations.

Related stories:

• In April 2024, Jim Hoft reported on participants chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” during an Al-Quds Day gathering: “Muslims Chant ‘Death to America!’ on Al-Quds Day Protest in Dearborn, Michigan”.
• In September 2025, the outlet covered Mayor Abdullah Hammoud’s confrontation with Christian resident Ted Barham during a City Council meeting: “Dearborn’s Muslim Mayor Boots Christian Minister from City Council Meeting”.

The post Dearborn Police Chief BEGS Residents to “PLEASE STAY HOME!!” Ahead of Aug. 18 Council Meeting as Fed-Up Americans Plan to Confront Islamic Stronghold appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.