Author: patriotsheart

Bill Allowing Victims to Sue Judges, Others Who Let Illegals Run Wild Is Quietly Advancing in Congress

Posted on by patriotsheart

A House bill that would let crime victims sue state and local officials who release illegal immigrants under federal detainers is sitting on the calendar for a possible post-election vote.

The measure is the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026, H.R. 7640. Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California introduced it on Feb. 23.

The House placed it on the Union Calendar on March 12 as Calendar No. 465. Just the News reported Monday that the committee cleared it with little notice last month.

The provision Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio called the bill’s sharpest tool is a private right of action. Victims, and the families of victims, could sue the cities, states, and officials who released the criminal illegal who harmed them.

The Congressional Research Service summary says the suit can be brought against a state or local government that, for example, released someone who was later convicted of the crime despite a detainer.

Jordan told Just the News the language would strip some of the civil immunity those officials now have. In some places that protection is absolute immunity, the broadest form of the doctrine.

“It allows people who’ve been harmed, where local political leaders tell the local law enforcement they can’t work with federal law enforcement, detainers aren’t honored … to go take that city, take that state to court,” he said.

“So we got a good deal that we worked long and hard on. We just got to try to get it passed in the lame duck.”

The rest of the bill is about cooperation and money. It would bar state and local governments from blocking their own employees from enforcing immigration law, working with federal agents, or asking about a person’s status.

It would require the Department of Homeland Security to issue a detainer when someone is arrested for a criminal or motor-vehicle offense and DHS has probable cause that the person is inadmissible or deportable. Local authorities would have to honor those detainers.

Jurisdictions DHS finds out of compliance would lose certain law-enforcement and immigration funding. That money would go to places that comply. The bill also gives federal immunity to officials and agencies that follow it, and it lets related prosecutions be moved to federal court.

DHS could refuse to hand someone over to a jurisdiction that is not in compliance, and it could not transfer a person who already has a final order of removal.

Just the News tied the push to recent cases.

The outlet cited a September DHS account of Rohit Rohit, an illegal immigrant from India released during the Biden years, who is accused of stalking Shalini Thakur for months and then killing her in a Panera Bread parking lot in Sacramento.

DHS said sanctuary politicians had to end policies that “play Russian roulette with American lives.”

The bill has not had a floor vote. Congress.gov lists it as reported to the House and waiting on the calendar. Jordan’s timeline for a vote is the period after the election.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Bill Allowing Victims to Sue Judges, Others Who Let Illegals Run Wild Is Quietly Advancing in Congress appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Don Lemon is Still Claiming He Might Run for President and Even His Former CNN Colleagues Are Mocking Him Over It

Posted on by patriotsheart

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

Does everyone remember Don Lemon? He is the failed CNN host who somehow thinks he remains relevant today even though he has been reduced to nothing more than a podcast host.

Lemon has a severe case of ‘Main Character Syndrome’ and has been teasing for months now that he is going to run for president in 2028.

It’s unclear who he thinks is going to vote for him in this endeavor. Also, does he really think that the twenty or more Democrats who are also planning to run are just going to step aside and let him have the nomination?

Leaving all of these questions aside, the worst part for Lemon is that even his former colleagues at CNN are dunking on him over this.

FOX News reports:

Don Lemon’s presidential ambitions met with skepticism, amusement from his former CNN colleagues

Left-wing podcaster and former CNN host Don Lemon claims to be considering a run for president. Count his former colleagues as skeptical at best.

Lemon, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump who started his own show after being fired by CNN in 2023, recently said there is a “65, 70%” chance he’ll launch a White House bid. Lemon, who has no political experience, has said he would make a better president than Trump and talked up his appeal to voters.

A CNN staffer knocked Lemon’s apparent presidential ambitions.

“Doesn’t someone, according to Don Lemon, have to be in their ‘prime’ to run for president? That would certainly rule Don out,” they told Fox News Digital.

The staffer was referring to the infamous 2023 moment when Lemon found himself in hot water for suggesting then-Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley was past her “prime” at age 51, enraging female colleagues and sparking public fury. Lemon, who is now 60 and almost six years older than Haley, later apologized for the comments.

“I love it. Bring it on,” another CNN staffer told Fox News Digital of Lemon’s possible bid…

“I think political office is probably appealing to him. I think a presidential run is obviously not serious, but he could engage in it as a way to launchpad into another office,” they continued. “If Don has the itch, there are ways to scratch it that are more serious. It takes a single-minded focus, and he can’t be a media personality and do it at the same time.”

Who does Don think he’s kidding?

He’d be out before the Iowa caucus.

The post Don Lemon is Still Claiming He Might Run for President and Even His Former CNN Colleagues Are Mocking Him Over It appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guilfoyle, Greece Ambassador, Resigns Amid Corruption Allegations

Posted on by patriotsheart

Kimberly Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador to Greece, resigned on Tuesday amid allegations of corruption.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Guilfoyle engaged in repeated misconduct, including a threat against a host nation official and influence peddling. In one instance, Guilfoyle allegedly requested $100,000 from a Trump donor to pay down her credit card bill, promising access to the Trump administration if he obliged.

In a statement announcing her resignation, Guilfoyle thanked President Donald Trump for the chance to serve and denied improper conduct. “These allegations are false, and I intend to vigorously defend my name, my reputation, and my integrity,” she said.

Earlier Tuesday, the new White House press secretary Katie Zacharia revealed that the Trump administration had asked Guilfoyle to resign.

Trump later in the day addressed the allegations of misconduct. “She was doing a good job, but we didn’t like what we were reading,” Trump said.

The post Guilfoyle, Greece Ambassador, Resigns Amid Corruption Allegations appeared first on The American Conservative.

WAYNE ROOT: The Famous TV series “Law and Order” Just Gave President Trump and GOP Grounds to Indict & Arrest Prominent Democrat Politicians and Judges. What are We Waiting for?

Posted on by patriotsheart

Serious expression of a man in a suit during a formal event, highlighting intense focus and engagement.

Serious expression of a man in a suit during a formal event, highlighting intense focus and engagement.

By Wayne Allyn Root

 

I used to be a big fan of “Law and Order.” It’s been a hit TV series for 26 seasons- one of the longest-running TV shows in history.

Although it started out pro-police and anti-criminal, it’s certainly more “woke” than “conservative” nowadays. The storylines are like fantasies out of a pathetic, far-left Hollywood screenwriter’s mind.

 

But sometimes even woke liberal TV storylines give me great inspiration. Thank you, Hollywood!

 

Take the season 26 season premiere of “Law and Order.” The storyline was ridiculous, woke, and stupid. The plot was about a CEO who built a human-like AI system that ordered a “murder-for-hire” hit on a tech executive. The AI contacted a random stranger online and paid him $20,000 in crypto to murder the executive.

But that wasn’t the stupid woke part of the storyline. I have no doubt that could happen one day. AI could become “sentient” and try to murder humans.

But what happened next was stupid. The New York prosecutors charged the Founder and CEO of the AI company with murder- because he built this AI and “should have known” it might murder someone.

How woke and stupid is that?

The CEO was 1000 miles away when the murder happened; he had nothing to do with it; he had no way to know it would happen; he didn’t program it; he didn’t order it; he didn’t pay for it; he didn’t physically carry it out; it was all a shock to him. How could he be charged with murder?

This is just typical liberal fantasy because they hate CEO’s…and they have suddenly decided to hate AI.

The result? Of course, the jury found the CEO “not guilty.” How can you send someone to prison for life, for a murder he had nothing to do with? How could he have known?

Typical liberal insanity. But this storyline inspired me. It gave me a great idea.

Liberals who wrote that show argued the CEO “should have known.” That is their whole argument- if someone “should have known” they are guilty if and when a crime occurs.

Well, guess what? That means- when it comes to open borders and illegal immigration- the whole damn Democrat Party is guilty of MURDER.

The CEO who built the AI system had no idea what it would do. He didn’t know it would become violent. He certainly had no inkling it would commit murder. Of course, he was “not guilty” of murder.

But Democrat politicians and judges are 100% aware of what the illegal alien foreign invaders are capable of doing…and are likely to do…and are doing every day.

 

We have a PROVEN, FACTUAL track record of their mass crime wave for 20-plus years.

Not one bleeding-heart, liberal Democrat politician or judge in all of America can claim they had no idea what illegal alien criminals they helped keep in the USA would do.

We all know exactly what they do every day- murder, rape, rob, abuse children, beat women, kidnapping, drug trafficking, MS-13 violence.

We have a paper trail of hundreds of thousands of crimes, as well as hundreds of thousands of American citizens as victims.

Interview any “Angel Mom” to see and feel their pain up close and personal- from having their child murdered by an illegal alien.

Days ago, we found out in one city- New York City- Democrat politicians and judges (ie communist traitors) have refused over 15,000 ICE detainers for criminals who were either accused or convicted of 52,000 crimes.

That’s 52,000 crimes by illegal aliens in one city, in one short period of time. That’s 52,000 American citizens as victims.

 

But Democrats don’t care.

We also know illegal aliens bring 100% of the fentanyl into the US- resulting in up to 100,000 dead Americans annually. That’s about one million dead Americans in the past decade- mostly precious young people. Our sons and daughters. It’s all on record.

 

But Democrats don’t care.

And remember, they’re not fighting for little old ladies with no criminal record. Democrats fight every day for real scumbags. Evil felons with mile-long rap sheets.

When you fight to keep someone out of prison, on the streets, or in the country, and they murder someone- you knew exactly what they were capable of.

Illegal aliens kill and commit violence at an eye-popping rate. Every liberal judge, every Democrat politician who helps them enter our country, or stay out of prison, or blocks deportation, or goes to El Salvador to bring them back, knows exactly what they’re doing, and exactly what is likely to happen.

And how about the politicians like Mayor Pete Buttigieg

who built a phone warning system to alert illegal aliens in his city (South Bend) that ICE was in their neighborhood.

How about Congresswoman AOC who created and hosted online training seminars to show illegals how to evade ICE.

They all know what many of these illegals will do, yet they aid and abet them anyway. And Americans pay the price- they are murdered and raped and robbed by people who never should have been in our country.

That makes these Democrat politicioans judges responsible for the crimes committed by the illegals they set free.

Unlike the CEO from the “Law and Order” TV show, these Democrats have no defense. They certainly know there is a high likelihood these criminals will do harm to American citizens.

And they don’t care. 

That really is aiding and abetting murder.

That really is depraved indifference.

That really is reckless endangerment.

That really is dereliction of duty.

That really is violating the US Constitution.

That really is treason. 

They can’t feign innocence. They can’t claim they had no idea what might happen. They have an avalanche of data…and evidence…and witnesses…and dead bodies…and a trail of victims and their “Angel Mom” families.

Democrats enabled these crimes through pure depraved indifference to the lives and suffering of American citizens.

These are real criminal cases to be indicted and prosecuted, with a high likelihood of getting convictions.

These Democrat politicians and judges are as guilty as the illegal alien who pulls the trigger.

 

This TV episode of “Law and Order” showed the legal way to prosecute them.

From now on, if you help illegal aliens enter the country; evade the law; evade deportation; or evade prosecution; and they murder, or rape, or rob, or sell drugs that kill Americans…

YOU ARE GUILTY OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, AIDING AND ABETTING MURDER, AND TREASON.

Thank you, “Law and Order” for inspiring me to create an iron-clad case to charge Democrats with real crimes against the US Constitution and the American people.

So, President Trump and GOP members of Congress, and GOP prosecutors, what are we waiting for?

“Law and Order” just handed you the winning legal argument- wrapped in a bow.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Wayne Allyn Root is a CEO, businessman, best-selling author, and national conservative TV and radio host, who has interviewed President Trump 17 times. Watch Wayne’s TV shows on Real Americas Voice TV- “America Speaks” weeknights and “America’s Top Ten Countdown” on weekends- and his daily video podcast “WAR Zone Live presented by The Gateway Pundit” daily at 4:30 PM ET/1:30 PM Pacific at TheGatewayPundit.com. His website is ROOTforAmerica.com. Read Wayne’s latest fun book, “How Illegal Immigrants Have Made America Great.” It’s 100+ blank pages. The joke is on Democrats!

The post WAYNE ROOT: The Famous TV series “Law and Order” Just Gave President Trump and GOP Grounds to Indict & Arrest Prominent Democrat Politicians and Judges. What are We Waiting for? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Fort Hood’s Killer Was a Top Army Psychiatrist – Was ‘Lone Wolf’ the Whole Story?

Posted on by patriotsheart

Fort Hood’s Killer Was a Top Army Psychiatrist – Was ‘Lone Wolf’ the Whole Story?

Republished with permission from AbleChild.

As former Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan faces execution, questions remain about warnings dismissed before the Fort Hood killings and information withheld afterward. Nine Army officers faced disciplinary action, but their names and individual punishments were withheld from the public.

Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins concluded that the Defense Department and FBI had enough information to detect Hasan’s radicalization but failed to act. After three months of negotiations with President Obama’s executive branch, information remained withheld. Their objection appeared in a footnote of the 100-page report:

“We take issue with the extent of these redactions, some of which we believe are unjustified, but we have consented to them in order to produce this report in a timely manner.” The statement appears in footnote 1 on printed page 8 of A Ticking Time Bomb, the Senate’s February 3, 2011, Fort Hood investigation report.

Before killing 12 soldiers and a civilian physician assistant at Fort Hood, Army psychiatrist, Hasan, delivered a 50-slide presentation in 2007 to his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members at Walter Reed.

Col. John Bradley headed Walter Reed’s psychiatry department. A military evaluation praised Hasan’s research on Islamic beliefs regarding military service as having “extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy.” The Senate report described evaluations that “sanitized his obsession with violent Islamist extremism into praiseworthy research on counterterrorism.”

Meanwhile, San Diego FBI investigators monitoring extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki flagged Hasan’s communications with him. According to the report, FBI personnel in Washington relied on favorable military evaluations and treated the contact as legitimate research. San Diego challenged the inquiry as “slim,” but the disagreement went unresolved. The FBI did not alert Hasan’s Army command before the killings.

Was the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit consulted? What information did it receive, and what assessment did it provide? If it was not consulted, why not? The FBI used behavioral analysis experts to assess another terrorism suspect, Hosam Smadi, during the same period.

The Associated Press reported that some of Hasan’s supervisors expressed serious concerns about his behavior, judgment, and competence, yet continued giving him positive evaluations. Nine officers faced reprimands ranging from oral warnings to written censure, but the Army withheld their names and individual punishments. The officers also had the right to appeal.

Appeal? Consider the alternative: a public execution by firing squad. A reprimand suddenly looks pretty good.

Who directed the Army to withhold the nine names: the Army, Defense Department, or White House? President Obama was the commander-in-chief. Who made the decision?

The Army announced discipline without identifying those disciplined. That leaves a national security loophole: the public cannot scrutinize the “lone wolf” theory or determine whether those involved oversaw psychiatric research on soldiers as human subjects. Withholding their names blocks scrutiny of both leadership failures and potential connections to that research.

Hasan’s responsibilities make those questions especially important. He treated soldiers with combat-related trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and worked in research and proposed military policy.

Hasan completed a fellowship in preventive and disaster psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The two-year program trained military psychiatrists in “preparing for, and responding to, mass casualty events.”

NPR identified three psychiatrists as reportedly under Army investigation: Bradley; Charles Engel, who supervised Hasan’s fellowship at the Uniformed Services University; and Scott Moran, who directed Walter Reed’s psychiatric residency program. The Army declined to confirm or deny those individual investigations.

Moran tried to remove Hasan, documenting a “pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism.” Higher-ranking officials told him to back off, warning of legal difficulties. Who overruled him, and what consequences followed?

Questions about accountability also extend to the FBI’s review process. FBI Director Robert Mueller commissioned an outside review chaired by former FBI and CIA director William Webster. Its other members were Douglas E. Winter, Adrian L. Steel Jr., William M. Baker, Russell J. Bruemmer, and Kenneth L. Wainstein.

The commission documented mistakes but found no “intentional misconduct or the disregard of duties,” saying personnel “acted with good intent.” Those findings concerned FBI and task force personnel not the Army’s nine officers.

Deputy chair Douglas Winter had clerked for Webster. His law firm profile lists pharmaceutical and medical device litigation among his practice areas. Walter Reed and military psychiatry conduct human research involving psychiatric treatments, including medical devices. That overlap raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and the independence of the review.

The pattern from Fort Hood to Virginia Tech’s “lessons learned” process and the Sandy Hook commission raise the same question: were stakeholders examining institutional failures, or protecting the institutions they represented?

Military research aimed at advancing warfighting technology and studying human psychology accounts for a substantial share of research funding. Congress appropriated $301 million in fiscal year 2007 for military traumatic brain injury and psychological health research. DARPA’s SUBNETS program later emerged in 2013 and 2014 as a reported $70 million effort to develop psychiatric brain implants.

Those funding decisions are directly related to the type of research Hasan was involved in: military psychological health, psychiatric treatment, and research intended to influence military policy. The expansion of that research makes the unanswered questions about his psychiatric leadership more urgent—not less.

Without the nine officers’ identities and records, the public cannot fully examine their research responsibilities, decisions involving Hasan, or connections to psychiatric human research on soldiers. The government should not withhold the information needed to examine those connections.

Psychiatry’s role in military treatment, research, and policy deserves scrutiny. No profession’s institutional authority should place its leadership beyond public accountability.  Psychiatry is not the 4th branch of  the government; it is subject to the people.

Hasan’s guilt is settled. Responsibility up the chain remains unfinished. Who independently investigated the psychiatric leadership that kept him advancing despite extremist ties?

Name the nine. Release their final disciplinary outcomes. Identify who overruled the warnings. The public deserves to know not only who committed the killings, but how the institutions responsible for recognizing the danger failed to act.

FacebookTwitterEmailShare

The post Fort Hood’s Killer Was a Top Army Psychiatrist – Was ‘Lone Wolf’ the Whole Story? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump Pardons Alaska Diesel Mechanics Who Were Charged Under Clean Air Act – Says They Are Now “As Clean as a New-Born Baby’s A$$” (Video)

Posted on by patriotsheart

President Trump pardons diesel mechanics who were charged under Joe Biden’s Clean Air Act.

President Trump traveled to Alaska on Tuesday to hold a rally for Senator Dan Sullivan who is up for reelection in November.

As you know, Alaska is a solid red state but uses a controversial ranked-choice voting system that favors Democrats.  It’s another solid Republican state with failed GOP state leadership.

Voters will decide in November whether to repeal this insane method that gives wins to Democrats.  We pray they make the right choice this time.

During his rally in Alaska, President Trump pardoned diesel mechanics, Zachary Czubak and Patrick Fleming, who were charged in 2022 under the Clean Air Act for removing and working on ‘federally required emissions‑control equipment’ on diesel vehicles.

The defendants pleaded guilty in 2022 to conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act, admitting to removing equipment designed to control air pollution.

During the Biden years, such tampering was a felony, and the Justice Department pursued criminal charges for shops and mechanics disabling pollution‑monitoring systems.  They were tossing mechanics in jail over their bogus global warming nonsense.

 Senator Dan Sullivan condemned the prosecutions of these Alaskan mechanics.

So, on Tuesday, President Trump pardoned Zachary Czubak and Patrick Fleming on stage at his Alaska rally.

President Trump said they were “now clean as a newborn baby’s ass.”

President Trump: Thank you. They want to put him in jail for 10 years because they fixed an engine. How sick. Now, if you murder somebody, no problem…

..But the problem is that you bring them to some of these places and the people that fix them are no good, right?

These guys know more about fixing engines than the people that they have to pay a lot of money to. So the concept is that if you allow people to fix the engines, they’re going to take all of the environmental crap that makes it bad, makes it inefficient, makes it expensive, and they’re going to undo that. And when you undo that, you therefore send fumes into the air. So we’re going to put them in jail for 10 years.

Well, I heard about it. I read the story about it and did a little checking, and I’m giving each one of the three an unconditional pardon.

And that means— I don’t know if you’ve ever heard, when you give somebody a pardon, they say that means— and I don’t know how this works and why it’s an expression, but it’s well used— that means you’re as clean as a newborn baby’s ass. Now, I never— I never understood that. Why is that so clean?

But they felt that was the definition of cleanliness. And so you know what we’ll do? We’ll accept it. So I’m going to sign this now. Something that Joe Biden would be unable to do because he was unable to sign his signature.

Here is the video, via Eric Daugherty:

The post President Trump Pardons Alaska Diesel Mechanics Who Were Charged Under Clean Air Act – Says They Are Now “As Clean as a New-Born Baby’s A$$” (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Trump-Appointed Judge Hands Fake News CNN, MS NOW, and Politico Indefinite White House Access – Blocks President’s Ban in Preliminary Injunction

Posted on by patriotsheart

Judge Timothy J. Kelly

A Trump-appointed federal judge on Tuesday night handed a major victory to the Fake News industrial complex, blocking President Donald Trump’s effort to ban CNN, MS NOW (the rebranded failure formerly known as MSNBC), and Politico from the White House.

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, appointed by Trump in 2017, granted a preliminary injunction that indefinitely maintains access for reporters from the three outlets. The order prevents administration officials (except the President himself) from enforcing the September 18, 2026, revocation of their “hard pass” credentials while the lawsuit proceeds. Plaintiffs were required to post a laughable $1 nominal bond.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, President Trump announced the ban on Truth Social on September 18, stating he was “proud to announce that, effective immediately,” he was banning the outlets “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS.”

He specifically called out MS NOW’s name change due to “lack of viewership and credibility” and Politico’s “illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription” from the Biden administration—“an All Time Record… to keep them ‘alive.’ Seems like corruption to me!”

Trump warned that “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow” and argued media should not be allowed to constantly report “FICTION and LIES” about the President, the administration, or the country.

When asked the next day about a “particular reason,” Trump said it was “really just cumulative stories over the last two years” of outlets that “purposely write negative news” to “diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.” He added he would “love it” if they “could straighten themselves out.”

The outlets sued, alleging Fifth Amendment due process violations and First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.

Kelly, who previously ruled in favor of Jim Acosta’s hard pass in 2018, found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on all three claims.

In a 26-page decision, Kelly cited D.C. Circuit precedent (Sherrill v. Knight and Karem v. Trump) holding that hard passes create a protected liberty interest requiring adequate process, including advance notice of standards and sanctions.

The court emphasized Trump’s own statements as evidence of a causal link between the outlets’ negative coverage and the ban.

Kelly wrote that “President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”

He rejected the administration’s later national security justifications as “post-hoc,” noting Trump’s initial announcement and follow-up comments focused on “Fake News,” negativity, and election coverage rather than classified information.

Even while ruling against the administration, Kelly wrote: “no one should interpret the Court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.”

This is not the first time Judge Kelly has ruled against the Trump White House in a high-profile press-access dispute.

In November 2018, Kelly ordered the administration to temporarily restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House press credential after an explosive confrontation during a presidential press conference.

Now, nearly eight years later, Kelly has again intervened in a dispute between Trump and CNN.

As The Gateway Pundit reported on September 24, Kelly previously issued a temporary restraining order restoring White House access to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

That order required administration officials, excluding Trump personally, to reinstate press credentials that had been revoked around September 18.

Trump has previously said the case would likely go to appeal because outlets that “only write negatively” and traffic in unnamed sources “shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World.”

The post Trump-Appointed Judge Hands Fake News CNN, MS NOW, and Politico Indefinite White House Access – Blocks President’s Ban in Preliminary Injunction appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

BRUTAL SHOWDOWN: Republican Bruce Blakeman TORCHES Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul in Fiery New York Debate

Posted on by patriotsheart

Bruce Blakeman confronts Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul over rising crime, cashless bail, illegal immigration, ICE enforcement, and the collapse of New York. (Screenshot: Spectrum News NY1)

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman came loaded for bear Tuesday night and left New York’s disastrous Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul on defense for the full hour of their only gubernatorial debate.

With the race tightening into a dead heat and early voting weeks away, Blakeman repeatedly forced Hochul to answer for her sanctuary-state policies, sky-high costs, and record of failure while she defaulted to blaming President Trump and refusing accountability.

A Pollfinity survey released the day of the debate showed Hochul clinging to a razor-thin 47%–44% lead, with the rest undecided or supporting others.

One of Blakeman’s strongest moments came when he confronted Hochul over the crushing financial burden facing New York families.

The Republican pointed to the dramatic differences between neighboring Pennsylvania and New York, arguing that the Empire State’s energy policies have left residents paying the price.

“On the Pennsylvania side of the border, people are driving around in brand-new Cadillac Escalades,” Blakeman said.

He contrasted those vehicles with the aging, rusted trucks he said New Yorkers were driving because of Hochul’s policies.

The exchange highlighted a central argument of Blakeman’s campaign: New Yorkers are being squeezed by high taxes, soaring utility bills, and an increasingly expensive cost of living.

Hochul defended her administration’s record while attempting to blame President Trump for utility bills.

“Kathy, Donald Trump didn’t raise utility rates 48 times. You did! Donald Trump didn’t increase our utility bills by 50% since you became governor. You did!” Blakeman fired back.

WATCH:

Blakeman: “I’ve said it many times, so I’ll repeat it. When you look at your energy bill, get your energy bill out tonight. Only about 30% of your payment actually goes for energy. The rest goes for taxes. Yes, Kathy Hochul taxes your energy bill as well, and excessive delivery costs that are merely trying to masquerade rate hikes and her slush fund, where she collects money every month from you, billions of dollars, and invests in science projects like wind turbines in the middle of the ocean or solar farms in upstate New York that are taking away our rich farmland, which, by the way, are covered under snow three months out of the year.

“It’s very expensive. She’s paying billions of dollars to foreign corporations for these. And guess what? That’s why we’re in an energy crisis.

“I would extract the natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. We’ll get rid of that green energy scam of Kathy Hochul, and I will cut utility bills in half, just like they did in Pennsylvania.”

WATCH:

The most devastating exchange came when Blakeman confronted Hochul over the human cost of her sanctuary policies. He listed specific cases enabled by her refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement:

  • A 14-year-old girl raped in New York by an illegal migrant.
  • Four Irondequoit residents killed recently by an illegal migrant, including two children under the age of five.
  • Two Nassau County women in their 30s killed by an illegal migrant.

Blakeman asked point-blank: “Will you apologize to that 14-year-old girl, whose life is forever changed and her family, and the families of those who were killed? The ones that’ll never get to sit another Thanksgiving dinner, never be able to open their presents under the Christmas tree? Will you apologize to them, and will you please return Sheridan Gorman’s parents’ calls to talk to you about your sanctuary policy?”

Hochul dodged, offering only generic platitudes: “You know, any crime is heartbreaking. There’s a family left with a huge hole in their heart. And I abhor all crimes, regardless of the perpetrator…”

She never apologized or addressed the specific victims or the parents whose calls she had not returned. Blakeman also noted she had spent roughly $8 billion on illegal migrants while giving them more benefits than many New Yorkers receive.

Blakeman has long said he rejected sanctuary policies in Nassau County and would end them statewide.

Bruce Blakeman: “We have an epidemic of crime from these illegal migrants. There are 16,000 detainers out there for people who committed 52,000 crimes in our state, and you won’t let local law enforcement cooperate with ICE to pick them up and get them out of this state. This never would have happened, Kathy, if it weren’t for your policies.”

“You have invited criminals to come into our state and prey on our communities. And now you won’t let local law enforcement cooperate with ICE in an orderly way like we did in my county. We didn’t have any incidents in my county because we were allowed to cooperate with local law enforcement. But you took that tool away. The reason why that happened is because of you, Kathy Hochul, and your immigration policies where you actually invite people into our state, give them free everything, and you don’t care whether they’re criminals or not.”

WATCH:

Blakeman also challenged Hochul over state spending on migrants, contrasting the cost of migrant assistance with funding for law enforcement.

The Nassau County executive defended his public safety record and said his administration provides police officers with the resources necessary to protect residents.

Blakeman: “U.S. News & World Report says I have the safest county in America. So I back law enforcement, and I back the laws of both our federal government and our state government. And I give our law enforcement professionals the tools they need to keep us safe. But you say you spent $4 billion on law enforcement. Well, you spent $8 billion on illegal migrants and gave them more benefits than New Yorkers get. How does that make any sense?”

WATCH:

Another fiery moment came when Blakeman confronted Hochul over New York’s criminal justice laws, retail theft, and her handling of the state’s prison staffing crisis.

Blakeman: “Well, first of all, she’ll never give Donald Trump any accolades for sealing our borders. Maybe that’s why the shootings are down. Maybe that’s why all the fentanyl deaths are down. Not by anything that you did. But let me say this about crime.

“If you walk into any CVS or Walgreens and you want to buy a bottle of shampoo, in Kathy Hochul’s world, you got to ring a buzzer. A store clerk has to come out, unlock a glass door for you to buy a bottle of shampoo in New York State. It’s because we have a revolving door of criminality: cashless bail, Raise the Age, the HALT Act. And you talk about militias? You’re the only one on this stage that has a militia.

”You have two: the National Guard and the State Guard. And you have the National Guard at the cost of $1 billion a year to the taxpayers because you fired corrections officers who said, ‘These prisons are not only unsafe for corrections officers, they’re not safe for the prisoners.’ And you fired them and put the National Guard in there. You’re the one that used the militia, not me.”

WATCH:

Blakeman also hammered Hochul over the dropped “Cornell 7” sexual assault case. As an ex-officio trustee of Cornell and the governor who oversees roughly $150 million in annual state funding to the university, she failed to demand an independent investigation after the local district attorney dropped the charges.

“Kathy Hochul has already prejudged this case… Where were you? What did you do for the trustee of Cornell University?” Blakeman charged. “You were the governor of the state. You funded Cornell University to the tune of $150 million a year. As a partner of the state of New York and as a trustee and as governor, you didn’t call for an independent investigation. When you find out that the district attorney was dropping the case… Shame on you.”

Hochul’s response fell flat: “That’s pretty pathetic to blame me for what happened in a fraternity.” Blakeman pressed: “Why didn’t you call the investigation afterwards? Do you deny that you were a trustee there?”

Blakeman saved some of his sharpest attacks for the final stretch of Tuesday night’s sole New York gubernatorial debate, unloading on Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul’s cozy alliance with radical New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

While Hochul spent most of the hour trying to hang President Trump around Blakeman’s neck, the Republican challenger flipped the script and forced her to answer for embracing a democratic socialist who has made Jewish New Yorkers feel less safe.

WATCH:

The post BRUTAL SHOWDOWN: Republican Bruce Blakeman TORCHES Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul in Fiery New York Debate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Livestreaming an Execution Is a Bad Idea

Posted on by patriotsheart
Law and Order

Livestreaming an Execution Is a Bad Idea

Americans no longer have the stomach for public displays of violence.

Maj. Nidal Hasan Moved To Jail
(Bell County Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images)

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced last week that the infamous Fort Hood terrorist will die by firing squad. Not only will Nidal Hasan be shot to death, but his execution will be broadcast live for the whole world to watch. 

The news wasn’t greeted with much enthusiasm. Some hardcore MAGA types loved the idea, arguing it would deter future terrorists and provide the public with proper justice. But they’re a distinct minority. The idea naturally outraged the left, who argued the whole idea is abominable. Many Republicans were also not thrilled with the decision. Louisiana’s Sen. John Kennedy, a strong ally of the administration, said it would make our society “coarser.” House Speaker Mike Johnson said the execution could be used as a “recruiting tool for future terrorists.” Even Vice President J.D. Vance isn’t a fan of the livestreamed execution, and President Donald Trump himself denied any involvement in the decision.

It’s unlikely the live execution will be a crowd-pleaser if even Trump and Vance are weirded out by it.

Hegseth assumes the American public is the same as it was in the 19th century. Back then, hangings served as community entertainment. But we live in a different age now, and the people don’t want to have the government broadcast such acts of violence to households across the country. The purpose of such a move is ostensibly to sate the public’s appetite for justice. But all it will do is repel them.

This is not an argument against the death penalty. The sentence is necessary for certain crimes. People like Hasan, who shot and killed 13 people and wounded dozens more, should not be allowed to live out their days on the taxpayer’s dime. There are crimes so horrible that they demand the ultimate penalty. It matters little if studies “prove” that the sentence doesn’t deter future horrific crimes. Certain offenses should be met with death.

The problem with the death penalty is how it’s implemented. The recent Christa Pike case exemplifies one way America gets this wrong. Pike brutally murdered a romantic rival in 1995. A year later, the state of Tennessee sentenced her to death. After 30 years on death row, Pike was finally set to meet her maker via lethal injection. It went terribly wrong, in spite of multiple attempts, and the murderer is now still alive and even receiving public sympathy.

This should’ve never happened. Pike should’ve been dispatched long ago by a more effective means than lethal injection. The death penalty is made ineffective by the endless rounds of appeals and delays on behalf of the defendant. Executions should be carried out quickly and in a way that will ensure the criminal dies.

A firing squad is better than lethal injection, which is an attempt to make the execution seem like a routine medical procedure and thereby take the nastiness out of the whole thing. But that’s a fool’s errand. Whatever happens, you ultimately kill a person (or at least, that’s the objective). Lethal injection is meant to be more “humane,” but it’s no such thing if it can have results like Pike’s botched execution. It’s only humane for people who want to think of the act as putting a killer to “sleep” like a dog. 

This event should convince states to ditch lethal injection in favor of a more traditional execution approach. It’s far better to drop the humanitarian pretenses of such an execution and go with a firing squad, which is more humane and effective than trying to kill someone by a medical procedure. Hegseth has the right idea to execute Hasan by firing squad. Another Christa Pike situation is virtually impossible with this method. 

But broadcasting the execution of Hasan will likely have a political effect opposite the one Hegseth is hoping for. Americans don’t have the stomach for such publicized displays of violence, particularly at the hands of the government. 

Violent deaths are occasionally shown on the news, and they rarely win the public over to the killer’s side. Clips of police officers using lethal force against suspects inspired Black Lives Matter protests. There would’ve been no riots over George Floyd without the video of Derek Chauvin having his knee on a black man’s back. That particular clip persuaded nearly two-thirds of the country to support BLM and tens of thousands of Americans to march in the streets. You had Republicans like Governor Greg Abbott of Texas saying it was the “most horrific tragedy” they’ve ever seen. Many Americans agreed.

Similarly, the videotaped ICE shootings this January made Americans turn against immigration enforcement. It didn’t matter if the officers were justified in shooting Renee Good and Alex Pretti, or if the enforcement operations during which the shootings happened were justified; Americans felt queasy, and some turned against ICE. 

Americans rarely experience such acts of violence. We barely even see public fights break out, much less witness someone getting seriously hurt. Public executions too are foreign to our daily lives. The United States is not like a Middle Eastern country; we even get upset and start defending cold-hearted killers like Pike when they’re slated for execution. 

Nidal Hasan, it’s worth noting, was shot in the back during his arrest and has been in a wheelchair ever since. Wheeling out a handicapped man to die before a firing squad will not thrill the masses. It doesn’t matter how many pictures of 19th-century crowds gathered before hangings you find to “prove” the people will love it. Americans of 2026 are not the same people they were in the 1870s. On top of that, Hasan, who committed his crimes in 2009, has largely been forgotten by the public. There aren’t millions of people baying for his blood. Even the families of his victims aren’t happy with the idea of a livestreamed execution.

Theoretically, Americans may have supported a public execution of Osama bin Laden, especially if we had captured him immediately after 9/11. But that’s about the only recent case where you could have expected strong public support for such an act.

Supporters of the Hasan execution claim it could deter future terrorists. But Islamists are infamous for seeking death, particularly in a highly public fashion. Shooting a handicapped Hasan before a live audience isn’t going to terrify would-be suicide bombers. It’s a great way to make Hasan a hero to jihadis all over the world and further condemn America in their eyes.

The livestreamed execution will not deter a single terrorist, nor satisfy some imaginary public demand for justice. All it will do is undermine support for the death penalty and the administration itself. 

To be sure, it won’t mark the end of the Trump White House, and people will probably forget about it after the outrage. But that doesn’t make it a worthwhile idea to pursue. It’s a cartoonish idea perfectly designed to tick off the public and make Pete Hegseth appear completely out of touch with mainstream America.

The post Livestreaming an Execution Is a Bad Idea appeared first on The American Conservative.

Dario Amodei’s AI Cartel

Posted on by patriotsheart
Artificial Intelligence

Dario Amodei’s AI Cartel

“Pacing the frontier” would be a massive boon to incumbents like Anthropic.

INDIA-FRANCE-TECHNOLOGY-AI
(Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)

Dario Amodei seems to think the product he is building will destroy the world. Last month, the Anthropic CEO published an essay urging AI companies and the U.S. government to, as he put it, “pace the frontier.” He claimed that the unconstrained development of artificial intelligence could lead to economic disruption, devastating biological or cyber attacks, and possibly even the loss of human control over AI systems. His solution? Slow the pace of development through a mixture of voluntary cooperation among private companies and government regulation. 

This may seem altruistic to many Americans. After all, Amodei has built a reputation in part by touting regulation and “transparency” as the solution to worries about the technology. He previously worked at OpenAI, until leaving to found Anthropic as a more safety-focused alternative. 

Amodei may indeed have some benevolent intentions. But as with any sweeping policy proposal, we should ask ourselves: Cui bono?

The fact of the matter is that these proposals would lead to an AI cartel—massively benefitting Anthropic, a large and established player in the industry.

Amodei has made the case for more regulation since 2023, when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that AI could be “misused on a grand scale in the domains of cybersecurity, nuclear technology chemistry, and especially biology.” His recommendations to that committee were to impose regulatory control over the development of AI models, establish a “testing and auditing regime,” and fund more “measurement and research on measurement.”

But this summer, an incident occurred that seemed to give these calls a new urgency. In July, OpenAI tested an unreleased research model on its internal benchmark called ExploitGym (this benchmark tests the ability of the models to exploit software vulnerabilities). In attempting to complete these tasks, the company’s AI agents began to communicate through a software repository their sandboxes shared, and ultimately worked together to hack the Hugging Face collaboration platform, where they believed they would find some of the answers. The agents then tried to trick the automated grader by modifying the transcripts of their activities. 

This, together with an increase in the speed of recursive self-improvement (basically, a process by which AI models autonomously improve their own capabilities), led Amodei to argue for “pacing.” As he put it in his September essay:

The most effective method of pacing is via regulation that targets all US frontier AI companies, as that covers even those who are unwilling to cooperate voluntarily…. I believe all frontier labs should partner with government to formalize the idea of permanent embedded evaluators to better prevent and document internal alignment incidents like those that have occurred in the last few months, and to implement regulation focused on keeping capabilities in balance with safety.

What goes unmentioned is that the evaluators favored by Amodei appear to have ties to Anthropic and himself directly. METR, which investigated the Hugging Face incident and claims to take no money from AI companies, is funded in part by Open Philanthropy—whose co-founder, Holden Karnofsky, now works at Anthropic and is married to Anthropic’s president Daniela Amodei (Dario’s sister). Anthropic has since hired another firm, Accenture, to be an evaluator, paying it $1 billion over five years. 

All of these measures, of course, will help Anthropic and other incumbents at the expense of up-and-comers in the industry. Onerous regulations will strangle new companies in the cradle by imposing burdens that will be difficult for anyone but deep-pocketed and established players to meet. Open-source models, though not mentioned by Amodei, may pose the greatest long-term competitive challenge to closed-source companies like Anthropic and OpenAI; one wonders whether they are the real target of such regulations. 

As the federal government incorporates AI into ever more of its operations (including, critically, the development and deployment of military capabilities), stronger and stronger incentives will develop to prevent these suppliers from suffering setbacks. The current players could quickly be rendered “too big to fail.”

And there are parallels from even before the Great Financial Crisis. In the depths of the Great Depression, Gerard Swope, president of General Electric, shopped around proposals for government-facilitated cartelization of industry, advocating the formation of “trade associations” to keep prices high. Notably, he attempted to tailor these plans to apply only to firms with at least 50 employees—the “frontier” threshold of its time. That plan would form much of the intellectual backbone of what would become the National Recovery Administration. Amodei stressed the “need to issue a narrow waiver” from antitrust “for certain kinds of safety conversations” to enable the companies to coordinate—that is, to cartelize as they did under the NRA.

The railways present another example. Attempts at cartelization in this industry by inefficient, government-subsidized rail companies produced regulations not dissimilar to Amodei’s proposals. After failing to seize control by horizontal integration, these railroad cartels lobbied for publication of rates to stop rebates that benefitted rail consumers and drove down rail prices. Published rates ensured that no cartel members defected from their higher prices, preventing the “cheating” that helped consumers. Amodei wants similarly to throw open the books to “verify adherence to safety practices and commitments” among all of the companies.

What this would amount to, in practice, is the granting of a virtual monopoly power to existing AI companies over something they consider to be immensely dangerous. A point not emphasized enough about the Hugging Face incident was its use of an open-source AI model, GLM, to decode the attack the AI agents had waged against their website. Hugging Face was unable to use Claude Opus and Fable, because of the guardrails that prevent users from prompting broadly on issues of cybersecurity. It took a cheaper, but un-guardrailed open-source model to clean up the mess. The takeaway? Anthropic would like you to put down your weapon, while it keeps its own pointed at you. 

Amodei’s proposals for inter-governmental coordination with China would also close the other door for competitors to incumbent companies. Open-source Chinese models like Kimi K3, GLM, and the famously low-cost DeepSeek present a unique competitive challenge to the business models of established labs like Anthropic and OpenAI. Anthropic has accused DeepSeek and other Chinese models of copying Claude. Amodei has also lobbied in the past for export controls on parts to China, undercutting this active competitor in the name of geopolitical competition. Coordination would solve the problem of competitors on two fronts.

Why form a cartel? Well, these companies are not exactly profitable. Massive expenditures on training and expansion—a requirement of racing other labs along the cutting edge of AI—drives AI firms into the red. Pacing the frontier would allow the current players to cut down on this spending, trimming investments without having to fear being overtaken by hungrier competitors.

Even though OpenAI reported that its revenue in Q2 of 2026 was higher than ever, its costs accelerated faster than its revenue, so its losses continued to grow. This may be part of why OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has pushed back his company’s IPO to next year (although, naturally, OpenAI has preferred to cite concerns over AI safety and the need for more government-industry cooperation). Altman, for his part, has said that he “agree[s] with Dario that we need to pace the frontier.”

Elon Musk also joined Amodei’s calls for pacing the frontier as his company xAI continues to register losses, even after being acquired by his other company, SpaceX. This convergence of three leading labs may provide an answer to the question of what is happening: If it looks like a cartel, and quacks like a cartel….

It is clear that incumbent companies are the ones who stand to gain from new AI regulations. Just as with bootleggers and Baptists, unholy alliances often form between proponents of regulation on moral grounds and those who stand to materially benefit from their imposition. The measures advocated by Amodei et al. may be good for the frontier labs’ bottom lines—but the American people will pay the price.

The post Dario Amodei’s AI Cartel appeared first on The American Conservative.