Iran War Day 224: Trump Says U.S. Won’t Attack Iran Before Midterms

President Trump said Thursday that the U.S. would not attack Iran before November’s midterm elections. In a post on Truth Social, the president wrote that “while Iran is in very bad condition, both Economically and Militarily, and while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect… we will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections.” In the same post, he also said that “productive discussions” were underway with Tehran. The statement comes following media reports earlier in the week that Trump was looking to restart combat operations imminently.

Also on Thursday, two Houthi missile attacks killed three people in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. The strikes targeted Riyadh’s international airport, and according to Saudi officials hit both the airport building itself and an aircraft belonging to state carrier Saudia. Thursday’s strikes follow similar attacks on Saudi airports conducted on October 6 and 7.

Oil prices eased slightly on Friday, with Brent crude trading at around $103 per barrel. According to AAA, the average price of regular gasoline in the United States is $4.37 per gallon.

The post Iran War Day 224: Trump Says U.S. Won’t Attack Iran Before Midterms appeared first on The American Conservative.

Watch the Hosts of ‘The View’ Openly Campaign for Texas Democrat James Talarico on the Air (VIDEO)

Screenshot: The View

This week, Ana Navarro, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest of the crew on ‘The View’ openly campaigned for far left Texas Democrat James Talarico on the air, in what seems to be a clear violation of FCC rules.

This has been happening a lot lately. Less than two weeks ago, Ana Navarro openly campaigned for a Democrat running for a House seat in Florida.

Trump’s FCC has been looking into these claims. It couldn’t be more obvious, could it?

The hosts are openly cheerleading for the Democrats to win.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

SUNNY HOSTIN: I think we will. I think we will see Texas go blue, actually.

I really do.

In September not only one but eight pollsters had Talarico ahead. 51 to 45 percent. That’s significant given a Democrat hasn’t won statewide office in 30 years. That same poll showed that he is leading Paxton among women, 56 percent to 40 percent. Among voters, 18 to 29, 66 percent to 22 percent. And among Hispanics 62 percent to 30 percent. We are talking about Texas. He is going to win this race.

GOLDBERG: We’ll see. We’ll see.

GOLDBERG: Remember. As – I’m sorry. As you guys pointed out the other day, we’ve seen this before. We have seen – I and suddenly some weird number comes out. And you’re going, ‘wait, what happened?’ So, fingers crossed.

ANA NAVARRO: You’re not kidding. 2016 left me scarred.

GOLDBERG: I know.

NAVARRO: We – Everyone was waiting for there to be fireworks.

HOSTIN: I have hope in Texas.

NAVARRO: And people should have hope. Hope alone won’t win an election. People got to turn hope into vote.

And I don’t think relying on polls and kind of just sitting back and getting complacent is something that nobody can afford to do if they want to see change.

Watch the video below:

The View is not a news program.

It’s a get-out-the-vote program for the Democrats.

The post Watch the Hosts of ‘The View’ Openly Campaign for Texas Democrat James Talarico on the Air (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Fox News President Issues Defiant Response to Trump’s Criticism: ‘It’s What We Do’

Fox News Media president Jay Wallace answered President Donald Trump’s complaint about the network’s interview of a controversial Democrat candidate with a short defense of the booking:

“Someone didn’t necessarily like that,” he said. “But that’s what we do.”

Wallace made the remark in a Tuesday report in the Beltway news outlet Axios. He was talking about Fox host Martha MacCallum’s Monday sit-down with Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan.

Wallace called the interview an example of the network airing programming different from what its core audience expects, Axios reported.

Trump had already put the objection in public. On Truth Social on Tuesday, he called the MacCallum interview “softball” and wrote that she never interviewed him that way.

“Fox is promoting the Dumocrats, not the Republicans and MAGA. They have totally lost their way!” he wrote.

White House officials had already called Fox that day to complain about the MacCallum segment, Axios reported.

These aren’t the first complaints about Fox. Senior Republican operatives contacted Fox producers and executives in early August, Axios reported, warning that favorable comments from Jesse Watters could help El-Sayed look moderate.

After El-Sayed beat an establishment-backed Democrat in the primary, according to liberal website The Daily Beast, Watters said, “You gotta respect Abdul because he beat the machine.”

El-Sayed put that line in a television ad and called Watters an “unlikely validator.”

Republicans were less worried after an Aug. 24 Watters interview that pressed El-Sayed on ICE, Medicare for All, and Sharia law, Axios noted. But they might have been unsettled the next day when Watters said, “I actually like Abdul. I probably shouldn’t like him, but I do.”

Fox said that August interview drew nearly 3.4 million viewers, the highest-rated cable-news primetime telecast of the month.

A Fox representative told Axios that Michigan GOP Senate nominee Rep. Mike Rogers was invited on Watters’ show and did not respond.

From Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, El-Sayed’s ads ran 129 times on Fox News, about twice as often as on ESPN, ad-tracking data cited by Axios showed. Michigan GOP strategist Dennis Lennox told Axios that El-Sayed was “on Fox every commercial break.”

[ic_related]

Polls have the race close, but El-Sayed ahead by 3.2 points, according to a RealClearPolling average. El-Sayed, a critic of Israel’s government, would be the first Muslim elected to the Senate if he wins.

On MacCallum’s show, he said, “I am going to have conversations with all kinds of folks.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Fox News President Issues Defiant Response to Trump’s Criticism: ‘It’s What We Do’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

How to Solve the ICE Manpower Problem

How to Solve the ICE Manpower Problem

Don’t listen to pro-amnesty Republicans.

President Trump Makes Healthcare Announcement In The Oval Office
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The mainstream media over the past few months have participated in a messaging onslaught that, if measured as paid advertising, would likely be as costly as a presidential campaign. The media blitz has one message: to convince people deportations are not doable.

This message is repeated by what I call the “Republican Amnesty caucus,” led by Rep. Maria Salazar of Florida, Rep. Bacon of Nebraska, and Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania. They insist our economy requires near-slave labor and that what the people voted for in 2024—the deportation of millions of illegal aliens—is too unwieldy, too rough, and something the American people would never actually support.

That diagnosis ignores a simple fact: It is of course possible to move millions of people across America’s borders and vast territory at great speed. After all, President Joe Biden managed to do it, albeit in the direction opposite what most Americans prefer. And it is possible to use military bases as staging areas, as the Biden administration did for Operation Allies Welcome, which brought in tens of thousands of barely vetted Afghans with just a few weeks of lead time. We also know that federal lands and airfields can be used at great scale for holding thousands of illegal aliens. The Biden administration did that too, with up to 2,000 illegal aliens at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn alone.

More importantly, we need to understand that remigration at scale requires us to abandon the political approach that treats the American people as an audience to fear or a constituency to be managed when it comes to this issue. The consultant class tells us that Americans won’t abide various “scenes,” and they harp on the ones they consider most uncomfortable to contemplate: an abuela being dragged away, parents being separated from children, etc. As if only those episodes were representative of remigration, and as if such individuals, unlike the rest of us, were somehow not subject to American law.

We must abandon the DC-driven approach that treats the American people as an audience to plan to, and instead enlist them in a great civic effort of which we are all a part. We won’t succeed otherwise—the effort is too big. And the mobilization of our fellow citizens in this cause would itself provide the proof that there is the political will to support it. The consensus is demonstrated by the mobilization, and the national mobilization is only possible because the consensus exists. There is no version of large-scale remigration that succeeds without both. Put more simply, Americans who voted for deportations should be asked to help carry it out. Many would. 

By mid-November, President Donald Trump should order the establishment of a Immigration Corps and aim to hire 250,000 Americans in three months to facilitate deportation logistics and support law enforcement in a number of well-defined, historically consistent ways. United behind this president, we patriotic Americans can do this together. 

Why is this necessary? There was never a version of success that included the linear scaling of traditional law enforcement capacity. Even the enlisting of sheriffs, one of our greatest tools, simply doesn’t get us there in time. We need to go directly to the American people. The very same people whom the Salazars and Thompsons of the world tell us won’t do the hard jobs. 

This is America. We are a country that can staff 19,000 volunteer fire departments, that can conduct local disaster relief efforts through a Cajun Navy and rebuild hurricane-ravaged towns with self-organized efforts run out of Walmart parking.

We can find Americans willing to drive vans, prepare records, and man weigh-station checkpoints. The assumption that everyone must remain a spectator is a peculiar concession to make before we have even asked for civic action.

Deportation at this scale requires an enormous amount of resources and mundane work. It requires planes and pilots, buses and drivers, mechanics, holding facilities, and medical staff. It requires bureaucratic records and competent administration. Somebody has to do all of it. Every immigration officer focused on solving one of those problems is an officer not available for enforcement.

We can look to the past for guidance here, and to understand what’s possible. Almost a century ago—on March 31, 1933—the Civilian Conservation Corps was created. By July 1, just three months later, it had roughly 275,000 recruits and 10,000 supervisors at 1,468 locations. At one point, recruitment approached 9,000 men a day. The U.S. government found work sites and moved people across the country at tremendous speed, with nowhere near the logistics capability our tax dollars countenance. 

In December 1941, the Civil Air Patrol organized civilian aviation skills for national service. Volunteers flew coastal patrols and carried messages. The country needed their experience and created an organization that could make use of it. We have repeatedly figured out how to put civilian skills to work whenever a national priority requires more capacity than the standing institutions possess. It is simply a function of political will. 

An Immigration Corps would apply existing skills and experience to the work in front of us. Retired dispatchers could coordinate vehicle schedules. Nurses could pick up extra shifts, while mechanics could take night shifts to ensure buses are available each morning. Clerks could prepare records under agency supervision. Full-time employees would provide continuity, with part-time staff filling the gaps. A useful contribution needn’t require a permanent career change.

Immigration officers would remain responsible for the majority of traditional arrests and enforcement decisions. But the Corps would take on civilian support duties, a subset of which would involve contact with potentially dangerous illegal aliens. Even the simple act of driving illegal aliens from a staging area to the airport would entail risk, given the high number of illegal aliens with additional criminal records. Americans will sign up anyway. 

Section 3161 of Title 5 already provides a staffing framework for temporary federal organizations, including appointments outside the competitive civil service. We’re familiar with this otherwise obscure statute because it was the exact authority used to stand up DOGE—Elon Musk’s government-efficiency project—at lightning speed. Beyond Section 3161, the government has additional authorities to further expedite hiring, waive certain onboarding requirements, and make direct appointments at speed. 

Of course, the government would need to pay people enough to make serving not just practical but reasonably attractive. A six-month assignment would not only need to cover half a year of household expenses, but offset the risk and opportunity cost for the average household. Fortunately, there is a market-moving amount of money at our disposal, because Congress used the 2024 election mandate that Trump earned to pass the Big Beautiful Bill. In signing that bill into law, Trump effectively signed a historic check for the detention and deportation of illegal aliens. 

By using available, and sometimes reobligated, sums to create an Immigration Corps, America would get not only the inherent benefits of remigration, but also the rewards of putting hundreds of thousands of young men and women to work for the most important political cause there is: who we are.

After establishing the Corps, the government should recruit through trade schools and veterans’ organizations and ask employers who support immigration enforcement to help workers take temporary assignments. Again, this is doable, whatever the Amnesty Republicans might say: the government hired half a million Americans to conduct the last census. Washington would also need to set up civilian-manned remigration centers across the country. The federal government already has a local footprint in most jurisdictions and every major city: post offices, Army recruiting centers, Coast Guard outposts, large federal office buildings, and the like.

There will be protests, vandalism, and maybe worse at some of the remigration facilities and hiring stations, at least for the first few weeks. That will give us the opportunity to hire even more Americans as security guards until the outrageous turns into the ordinary and the activists get bored and went home. What would then be revealed is the normal functioning of legitimate government by and for the people. It would also reveal that the path to success for the American right remains the legitimate use of state power at scale in the face of anti-federal resistance and the leftist rioters whose violence has become so normalized in this country.

Americans are entitled to decide who joins their political community. But preserving that right will take more than just voting for it. It will require true self-government and civic participation. Citizens who want immigration law enforced should tell their representatives they are prepared to serve and show up to help get it done. We have spent years asking whether Washington will act. It is time Washington asked something of us.

The post How to Solve the ICE Manpower Problem appeared first on The American Conservative.

Hormuz and the Looming Economic Catastrophe

Hormuz and the Looming Economic Catastrophe

The Trump administration is missing the bigger picture.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Holds A Press Conference
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In the classic martial arts film Enter the Dragon, Bruce Lee’s character is instructing a young, aspiring fighter. Irritated at the lack of progress his student is making, he points to the sky. “It’s like a finger pointing away to the moon,” he says as the student tries to focus on what his teacher is saying. “Don’t concentrate on the finger,” Lee says, slapping him on the head, “or you will miss all that heavenly glory.” The quote is derived from an old Buddhist text called the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, and the point is clear: Sometimes if you focus on what is immediately in front of you, you can miss the point entirely.

Something like this is happening in Washington, DC, right now. For almost two weeks, the debate around the progress or lack thereof in the Iran War has been focused on activity in the Strait of Hormuz. A whole host of maritime experts have emerged suddenly to inform us that the Trump administration has succeeded in reopening the crucial waterway to shipping. Maximalists are claiming that this means the United States has effectively won the war in the Middle East. Others are making the more modest claim that this reopening of the Strait will solve the looming energy crisis.

These were the two perspectives that most people who were not deeply involved in the debate heard. There was, however, a small but vocal minority who questioned whether the Strait had been opened at all. If Iran had effective fire control over the Strait in spring and summer, they asked, then why would they suddenly lose it now? Almost immediately after this question was raised, Iran settled the debate by striking an enormous number of ships: 12 and counting in less than a week.

To those of us who were paying attention, the whole exercise felt like looking at Lee’s finger as he points to the moon. As these debates unfolded, the market for U.S. Treasury debt continued an epic sell-off. Bloomberg quoted an investment banker who stated that Treasuries were “trading like a meme stock.” U.S. Treasury bonds have now experienced their worst long-run returns in history.

Treasury bonds are not just any old asset. For one, they are the debt of the U.S. government. If they become uninvestable, the capacity for Washington to live beyond its means through debt issuance is open to question. Treasuries are also the benchmark asset for the entire global dollar system that has allowed the U.S. to run enormous deficits for decades. If this asset starts “trading like a meme stock” and generating awful returns, foreigners will opt for something else. This week, the president of the German central bank stated that “the case for further diversification into gold remains significant.” People are talking.

In mid-September, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, posted an equation on X. Unusually for an obscure piece of algebra, the post garnered nearly 7 million views. The equation was a modified version of what economists call the “Taylor Rule,” a method that economists and central bankers use when setting central bank interest rates. In normal times, the equation factors in expected future inflation and how much slack is in the economy. But Ghalibaf’s equation—which he called the “Straits Taylor Rule” —included two new variables: the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb, the two waterways currently under fire from Iran and the Houthis in Yemen, respectively.

The equation is a stripped-down representation of Iran’s strategy. By controlling these waterways, Iran and its allied groups have gained control over the global energy market. By squeezing these chokepoints, Iran can assert de facto control over America’s financial markets by pushing up expected inflation. Central banks like the Federal Reserve realize that this is no mere bluff and have already started raising interest rates. Ghalibaf’s equation explains, to a very large extent, why American government debt is currently trading like a meme stock.  

Meanwhile, at the same time as these pressures are felt in American financial markets, the real economy is undergoing a squeeze too. Recent reports from the Energy Information Agency suggest that American heating-oil bills are expected to rise by 21 percent this winter. Diesel markets are entering into a genuine crisis, with President Donald Trump floating the prospect of banning diesel exports to ensure that there are no shortages. Diesel is the lifeblood of the American logistics chain. If there are shortages, trains and trucks will not run and goods will not be delivered to shelves. Trump has walked back the diesel export ban for now, after strong-arming the Europeans to dump their oil and diesel reserves, but there is every chance that this option appears back on the table as the crisis worsens. Food prices are rising too, with sugar prices looking particularly worrisome.

Once again, Ghalibaf outlined how this is part of Iran’s overall strategy. In an X post this week, the speaker published a rudimentary graph—coupled with a haunting image of a ghost—showing rising commodity prices and interest rates on one side, and falling consumer confidence, foreign interest in U.S. Treasuries, hyperscaler investment, and housing affordability on the other. The Iranians are not just trying to squeeze the American financial system—they are aiming to put extreme stress on the entire economy—and it looks increasingly like they intend on making this pressure felt before American voters go to the polls on November 3.

The Trump administration has become fixated on the Strait of Hormuz, seeing it as a decisive battlefield on which the U.S. can win the war. But the Strait is merely a means to an end. For Iran, that end is to slowly demolish the American economy and financial system until the pressure becomes too much and the U.S. backs off. The idea that you can “win” such a battle is delusional.

The Strait is merely the finger in Lee’s analogy. It is Iran’s overall economic strategy—the moon—that we should focus on. And when we do, we come to the worrying conclusion that by the time the Trump administration cries uncle, the damage done to the American economy and financial system will be so severe that it could take many, many years to recover.

The post Hormuz and the Looming Economic Catastrophe appeared first on The American Conservative.

Is Kemi Badenoch Reviving Tory Class War?

Is Kemi Badenoch Reviving Tory Class War?

The Conservative leader pledged to eliminate inheritance taxes on family estates.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch addresses delegates at the
UK Special Coverage
(Gary Roberts/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Last week, Britain’s Prime Minister Andy Burnham, in his speech to the Labour conference in Liverpool, turned the political clock back to the 1970s, complete with nationalization, big social spending, and attacks on landlords.

The Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, at her own party’s conference Wednesday, went even further back—to the Second World War, after which many stately homes and expensive houses had to be sold to pay death duties, helping to kill the Downton lifestyle.

Badenoch promised that if the Tories come to power, “nobody” in the UK will ever have to pay inheritance tax on the family home, the death duty of the 21st century.

Presumably, Earl Spencer, the brother of the late Princess Diana, will be able to hand on the family pile at Althorp, worth some tens of millions of pounds. Not only that, he will be able to shelter another million or so under Badenoch’s additional proposals for family wealth transfer.

This looks highly regressive. Only the wealthiest 5 percent of estates actually pay inheritance tax in the UK, because families can usually shelter around £1 million under the present rules. Inheritance tax is levied at 40 percent on any estate above £325,000, plus an additional £175,000 for homes being passed down to direct descendants. This overall amount is doubled for spouses or where the home is passed to children, hence the potential £1 million shelter (around $1.3 million).

This is big money in today’s Britain. The average house price in the UK is less than £300,000. It is only in central London postcodes and country estates that homes are worth significantly more than £1 million. Labour has done the math and concluded the old class-war Tory party is back in action. The Labour-affiliated general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Paul Nowak, remarked, “This is the same old Tory playbook: cutting taxes for their rich mates and leaving working people to pick up the bill.”

Badenoch’s move also undermines her promise to cut borrowing and pay down the national debt. Inheritance tax is scheduled to yield around £15 billion to the UK Exchequer by 2030. This would be vastly reduced by her asset exemption. Labour can legitimately ask where the money is going to come from to fill that black hole.

So, why has the Tory leader exposed herself to the charge that she has gone back to leading the “rich bastards’ party,” as the Conservatives used to be regarded in popular culture? Doesn’t she fear losing all those millions of voters who aren’t in the current inheritance-tax bracket?

Well, this is first of all a measure to shore up the core Conservative vote in the wealthier parts of the Home Counties of England. She is also banking on evidence that even people who don’t pay inheritance tax think it is unfair. People have already paid taxes on these assets, so why should they be robbed in death?

There is something in that. Yet the Badenoch giveaway is almost certain to perpetuate intergenerational inequality.

By far the biggest element of inheritance tax is the value of the family home. The inflation of this asset over the last 50 years has been a major contributor to wealth inequality in Britain. If this policy were implemented, inequality would likely be transmitted further down the generations by exempting this key asset from tax.

To repeat: Only people with very expensive homes are being rewarded under this plan. It is a major dilution of an asset tax that has been around essentially since the beginning of the last century, though under various different names: Estate Duty, Capital Transfer Tax and, since 1986, Inheritance Tax.

So, is class war back? It does kind of look like that. Until perhaps you look across the pond at the U.S., where the federal estate tax has an exemption of $15 million—$30 million for couples—which is 23 times the UK’s exemption. Moreover, inheritance tax does appear to be going out of fashion. It has been abolished in Canada and Australia and even in social-democratic Sweden and Norway (though the latter has a version of wealth tax).

This is partly because inheritance tax raises relatively little money and because it discourages saving and investment. Inheritance tax can force family businesses and farms to sell up just to pay the tax. This not only acts as a discouragement to entrepreneurship; it also means that the goodwill and commitment that are built into a family firm or farm are lost to society. The assets are often sold to corporations or to wealthy individuals who live abroad and don’t pay any inheritance tax in the first place. 

Moreover, inheritance tax and the British tax regime generally have become a disincentive for rich people to remain in or move to the UK. According to Bloomberg, Britain has lost nearly half of its billionaire wealth since Labour came to power—around £121 billion. Entrepreneurs like steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal have left the UK, citing inheritance-tax risks.

Maybe Badenoch is hoping to lure them back so that the government can recover the lost income-tax revenues. One of the recent departures, Chris Rokos, had been among Britain’s highest individual taxpayers, contributing £330 million to the public purse. No longer. Britons generally seem to hate billionaires, but when they’re gone, they take their taxes with them.

Badenoch is also hoping that other measures outlined in her speech—like cutting the benefits bill, cancelling net zero, building new prisons, halting illegal immigration, and building British defences—will appeal to middle-class British voters.

Her other objective was to paint the Tories’ main rivals on the right, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, as racists. “I don’t want to explain to my son when we’re watching our brilliant England team play football that some people don’t think our black players are English,” she said. It’s far from clear that Reform does define Britishness on the basis of race, but she is clearly rejecting any taint of ethnonationalism.

Reform UK has attacked Badenoch’s inheritance tax proposal as a desperate handout to a tiny wealthy elite, which they have characterized, Reform UK Shadow Chancellor Robert Jenrick’s words, as a policy for “the 2 percent.” Jenrick used to be Badenoch’s main rival for the Conservative leadership. Times change.

The post Is Kemi Badenoch Reviving Tory Class War? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Candidate Named ‘Hitler Mussolini Flores’ Wins Mayoral Election in Peru on Left-Wing Ticket

Screenshot

A Peruvian politician named Hitler Mussolini is on course to become mayor of a small town after winning a local election.

Hitler Mussolini Simeón Flores, a candidate for the left-wing Ahora Nación party, finished first in the mayoral race in Queropalca, a district in Peru’s central Huánuco region.

According to results published by Peru’s electoral authorities, Flores received 229 votes, securing 34.54 percent of the valid ballots cast.

His nearest challenger, Gaspar Benilde Osorio Zambrano of the Renovación Popular party, received 204 votes, while third-place candidate Itala Yovana Santillan Vara secured 187.

With all vote tally sheets counted, Flores has been declared the apparent winner, although his victory still awaits formal confirmation.

The Ahora Nación party is generally considered as left-wing, with a platform focused on tackling corruption and introducing universal healthcare.

However, it is the unusual name of this candidate that is attracting nternational attention.

There is no evidence that Flores shares their political beliefs of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

His unusual name is not the first to attract attention during a Peruvian election.

In 2018, a politician named Hitler Alba campaigned to return as mayor of Yungar, a small town in the Andes.

His campaign was complicated by a political opponent named Lennin, who attempted to prevent him from winning.

The bizarre episode even featured campaign slogans proclaiming that Hitler was returning.

Meanwhile, thousands of miles away in Africa, another politician with an equally remarkable name has even greater electoral success.

Adolf Hitler Uunona, a Namibian politician who is part of the ruling SWAPO party, won an overwhelming 85 percent of the vote in a 2020 local election.

Uunona, who has represented the Ompundja constituency since 2004, claimsthat his father had named him after the Nazi dictator without understanding the historical significance.

His political career continued uninterrupted, and in November 2025 he won reelection for a fifth consecutive term.

.

He has since dropped Hitler from his name, preferring to be known simply as Adolf Uunona.

The post Candidate Named ‘Hitler Mussolini Flores’ Wins Mayoral Election in Peru on Left-Wing Ticket appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Mike Rogers Pretty Much Mopped the Floor With Abdul El-Sayed in a Debate Tonight – Watch Some Highlights

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, the two candidates running for U.S. Senate in Michigan, had a debate tonight.

Let’s just say it was a good night for the Rogers campaign. He did very well and you can watch some highlights below.

In this clip, El-Sayed hits Rogers for having a home in Florida. Rogers reminds the audience that El-Sayed has a home in the United Arab Emirates, then says, ‘at least Florida is in the United States.’

In this clip, Rogers reminds the audience that El-Sayed is not actually a licensed doctor, despite claims from his supporters.

Here, Abdul El-Sayed is asked which country is a greater threat to the United States, Israel or Iran. It’s such an easy question and yet he refuses to answer.

In this clip, Rogers mentions the fact that El-Sayed’s mother worked for a group with ties to Al-Qaeda. Just brutal.

Finally, we’ll leave you with this video of a woman who claims to be a lifelong Democrat who is voting Republican for the first time, for Mike Rogers.

El-Sayed’s far left act served him pretty well in the Democrat primary.

It does not seem to be working in the general.

The post Mike Rogers Pretty Much Mopped the Floor With Abdul El-Sayed in a Debate Tonight – Watch Some Highlights appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Watch Marco Rubio Smack Around Reporters Asking About Claims of Trump ‘War Crimes’ by Amnesty International (VIDEO)

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was recently asked by some reporters to respond to claims by Amnesty International that the Trump administration and Israel are guilty of war crimes.

Rubio completely flipped the script, reminding these journalists that Iran has killed tens of thousands of their own people in recent months for merely protesting.

He pointed to the fact that the Iran regime sent people into hospitals to kill protesters who had injuries and in some cases, killed their doctors too.

Townhall has details:

On Thursday, Rubio was asked by reporters about the organization’s accusations that U.S. and Israeli actions in Iran constitute “war crimes.” His response was that perhaps Amnesty should focus on actual wrongdoers, like, say, Iran, whose regime has murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens in cold blood just this year. And that isn’t even to mention the roughly half-century the regime has spent spreading its chief export, global terrorism with the murder of innocent civilians as its chief goal…

“Amnesty International is a fraud,” the Secretary of State said. “You know what I think Amnesty International should be focused on? An Iranian regime that murdered, in cold blood, tens of thousands of people on the streets of Tehran and other parts of the country. What Amnesty International should focus on is how the Iranian regime goes into hospitals when protesters are injured and murders the people in their hospital bed and, by the way, sometimes murders the doctors or the nurses who treated them. So they should focus on them. Those are war crimes. Those are crimes against humanity. And those are crimes they’re committing against their own people.”

This comes as Secretary Rubio has made a habit of going after international bodies that have continually overstepped not only their mandates, but the bounds of national sovereignty. That includes sanctions on the International Criminal Court, as well as some of its leading officials individually.

Here’s the clip:

There’s nothing you can add to that. It’s a perfect response.

The post Watch Marco Rubio Smack Around Reporters Asking About Claims of Trump ‘War Crimes’ by Amnesty International (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

OOF! Black Commentator in Detroit Gives BRUTAL Response When Asked if Obama Campaigning for Abdul El-Sayed Will Make Any Difference (VIDEO)

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

A black commentator from Detroit named Adolph Mongo recently appeared on NewsNation and was asked if Obama campaigning with far left Democrat Abdul El-Sayed would make any difference in the black community, where support for El-Sayed is very low.

His response was pretty brutal. He said that he loves Obama but then talked about how you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

This is not what people at the El-Sayed campaign want to hear.

From NewsNation:

Former President Barack Obama’s upcoming campaign appearance with Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed may not be enough to win over skeptical Black voters in Detroit, according to a prominent political voice in the city.

Adolph Mongo, a longtime Detroit political commentator, told NewsNation’s Leland Vittert on “On Balance” that Obama’s support would not change his concerns about El-Sayed. Asked directly whether Obama campaigning for El-Sayed would make a difference with Black voters, Mongo responded: “No, no, it won’t. We love Obama. I love Obama.”

Obama is scheduled to appear with El-Sayed at an Oct. 24 rally in Detroit, which coincides with the first day of Michigan’s required early in-person voting period.

The former president’s appearance comes as Democrats work to consolidate support behind El-Sayed after a fiercely contested primary against Rep. Haley Stevens. NewsNation reported that Stevens outperformed El-Sayed in Wayne County, winning about 51% of the primary vote there compared with El-Sayed’s 45%.

El-Sayed ultimately defeated Stevens by less than 1 percentage point…

Watch the video:

There is another aspect to this story.

Abdul El-Sayed has actually been very critical of Obama’s presidency over the years.

Here he is in 2020 saying that the country is not better off after the eight years of Obama’s presidency.

That could make things a little awkward.

The post OOF! Black Commentator in Detroit Gives BRUTAL Response When Asked if Obama Campaigning for Abdul El-Sayed Will Make Any Difference (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.