Blog

Why Is That?… Not a Single Election Expert Has Been Able to Explain the “Drop and Roll” Phenomenon that Flipped the 2020 Election Late at Night to Joe Biden

It’s been nearly four years since Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election after several days of locked rooms, late-night ballot deliveries, and triple-counting ballots.

On November 18, 2020, The Gateway Pundit first posted the impossible numbers that swung the election to Old Joe.

Mysterious late-night ballot drops in every battleground state swung the election to Joe Biden. And subsequent ballot drops in perfect ratios of ballots to Trump and Biden solidified the results.

Every 2020 battleground state followed this same pattern.

The Gateway Pundit called this phenomenon the “Drop and Roll.”

No election expert has ever explained this because they cannot do so without raising the likelihood of fraud.

Keep reading

The New Censorship Isn’t Coming From The Left – It’s Coming From Everyone

One of the great ironies of American politics is that every movement swears it’s against censorship – right up until it has enough power to do some censoring of its own. It’s almost adorable.

For years, conservatives rightly criticized Big Tech, universities, corporate America, and legacy media for suppressing dissenting viewpoints. We argued that free speech wasn’t merely a constitutional protection; it was a moral principle. We insisted that bad ideas should be defeated in the marketplace of ideas rather than buried beneath bureaucratic decrees or algorithmic exile.

I agreed then. I still do. Which is why I’m beginning to ask a question that makes some people on my own side a little uncomfortable.

What happens when conservatives become just as tempted to use institutional power to silence people they don’t like? As a Black conservative, I’ve learned that free speech is one of those principles everybody loves until somebody they can’t stand starts talking. Then suddenly the Constitution comes with an asterisk.

Let’s be honest. Every political tribe has its favorite form of censorship.

The Left often dresses it up in the language of safety, inclusion, misinformation, or protecting vulnerable communities. The Right is increasingly tempted to justify it in the language of patriotism, protecting children, combating ideological indoctrination, or preserving public morality. Different vocabulary. Same temptation.

Power has an uncanny ability to convince us that our restrictions are simply common sense while everyone else’s are authoritarian. History suggests otherwise.

Free speech has never been tested by agreeable people saying agreeable things. It has always been tested by offensive people saying offensive things. Defending speech you already like requires no courage whatsoever. Defending speech you find irritating, misguided, or even insulting is where constitutional principles stop being bumper stickers and become convictions.

That’s why I find myself increasingly skeptical whenever anyone begins a sentence with, “I’m all for free speech, but…” I’ve learned that whatever follows “but” usually involves someone deciding which opinions deserve oxygen and which should be quietly escorted out the back door.

The First Amendment doesn’t ask whether an idea is popular. It doesn’t ask whether it polls well. It certainly doesn’t ask whether it might ruin someone’s afternoon on social media.

It simply assumes that a free people are capable of hearing competing ideas without requiring the government – or increasingly, private institutions acting under political pressure – to function as national hall monitors.

Some readers will immediately object. “But George, some speech really is dangerous.” Of course it can be.

Threats, criminal conspiracies, defamation, and direct incitement have long occupied well-established legal categories. That’s not the debate. The debate is whether we have quietly expanded the definition of “harm” until it now includes disagreement itself.

Somewhere along the way, Americans stopped saying, “I think you’re wrong.” Instead, we started saying, “You shouldn’t be allowed to say that.” Those are radically different civilizations.

One believes truth emerges through debate. The other believes truth must be protected from debate.

As conservatives, we should be especially careful here. For decades, we were the ones demanding viewpoint diversity on college campuses. We objected when bureaucrats decided which speakers were acceptable. We criticized technology companies for selectively enforcing their rules. We warned that concentrated cultural power eventually becomes political power.

Were we making a timeless argument? Or were we merely complaining because we happened to be losing? That’s the question history will eventually answer.

Winning elections should never cause us to abandon the principles that helped us win the argument in the first place.

One of the blessings – and frustrations – of being a Black conservative is that I don’t fit comfortably inside anyone’s political script. I’ve been called a sellout by people who think race should determine ideology. I’ve also occasionally been viewed with suspicion by people who assume conservatism requires intellectual conformity.

Both misunderstand what attracted me to conservatism. It wasn’t tribalism. It was liberty.

Liberty means accepting that people will often say things that offend us. Liberty means resisting the seductive belief that if we could only silence enough bad opinions, society would finally become peaceful. It never works that way.

Every censorship regime begins by promising to target only the truly dangerous voices. Eventually the definition of “dangerous” expands to include inconvenient voices, unpopular voices, and finally independent voices. That’s not a partisan observation. That’s human nature.

Politics changes. Power changes hands. The precedents you create today will almost certainly be used by your opponents tomorrow. Conservatives above all people should understand that.

Social media has only accelerated the problem. Every controversy now comes with an online firing squad. We don’t simply disagree anymore – we organize campaigns, demand apologies, contact employers, and measure victory by whether someone’s life has been sufficiently detonated before dinner.

Apparently we’ve replaced “I disagree” with “unsubscribe from his existence.” That’s not justice. That’s vengeance wearing business casual.

The Founders understood something we often forget. Freedom is messy. A republic is noisy. Open societies produce arguments, uncomfortable conversations, and occasionally spectacularly bad opinions.

The alternative isn’t harmony. It’s permission. Permission for whoever happens to hold power to decide which ideas deserve daylight. That bargain has never ended well.

Conservatives don’t strengthen their case by becoming more efficient censors than progressives. We strengthen it by demonstrating that our commitment to liberty survives even when liberty protects people we profoundly disagree with.

Otherwise, we’re not defending free speech. We’re simply negotiating whose turn it is to do the censoring. And that’s not conservatism. That’s just tribalism with better branding.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Governor Signs New Law Blocking ICE Access to Several Locations

Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey signed a new law on Aug. 5 attempting to block U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from accessing a variety of locations across the state.

Healey described the law, which names schools, daycares, hospitals, health centers, nursing homes, and courthouses as places ICE cannot access, as the strongest legislation in the country against ICE.

The official claimed that children in Chelsea, where she signed the legislation, have not been attending school for fear of ICE encounters, per a report from CBS News.

She also claimed that people have stopped going to the doctor’s office or testifying in court to avoid ICE.

“The law I’m signing today is a public safety law,” Healey told reporters at the signing event.

“I think we can agree that we need immigration reform in this country. We can agree we need controls at the border,” she continued.

Keep reading

WNBA Player Who Fouled Sophie Cunningham and Cried ‘White Privilege,’ Is Herself the Child of Privilege

DiJonai Carrington, the WNBA player who bashed Sophie Cunningham in the face and then accused the league of “white privilege” when she was handed a flagrant foul, was born to a privileged family and grew up attending extremely expensive private schools.

The Chicago Sky player was handed her punishment after delivering a clothesline flagrant foul against Indiana Fever star Sophie Cunningham on August 8. After being handed her foul judgment, Carrington posted “WHITE PRIVILEGE” in an August 9 social media post. Clearly, Carrington was claiming that her punishment was a result of Cunningham’s “white privilege,” and not a just punishment for her own actions.

So, who is DiJonai Carrington? Born in San Diego, California, the 28-year-old shooting guard is the daughter of former San Diego Chargers player Darren Carrington. She was drafted by the Connecticut Sun in the 2021 WNBA draft before being traded twice in the same season, moving from the Dallas Wings to the Minnesota Lynx in 2025. By 2026, she moved on once again, this time to the Chicago Sky. But before all that, Carrington was a child of privilege herself.

Carrington attended Horizon Christian Academy in San Diego, where she became a standout basketball player for the high school’s team. Horizon Christian Academy is a private school that charges nearly $16,000 a year in tuition.

After graduating from Horizon, she declared for Stanford University, where tuition is upwards of $90,000 a year. After four seasons, she moved to Baylor for one final season. Baylor charges around $65,000 in annual tuition.

Looking at her high-priced education, it certainly does appear that DiJonai Carrington also comes from a place of status and privilege.

On the other hand, Sophie Cunningham attended a public high school in Columbia, Missouri, before attending a state college, the University of Missouri, which charges a mere $16,000 a year in tuition. So, in the end, Sophie Cunningham didn’t pay as much for her entire college education as Carrington paid for just one year at Stanford.

So, the question is, exactly who had the “privilege” between them?

Keep reading

Ex-DSA Member Blows Whistle Over “Mob Tactics” Used On Dissenters, Debates Over Levels-of-Leninism

Former Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) organizer Jake Altman argues that over the past 10-15 years, the organization has transformed from a relatively pragmatic working-class social-democratic group into a much more radical movement driven by younger activists and open to more extreme ideas.

He describes internal pressure against dissenters, increasing openness to communism, and a demographic shift toward younger and more affluent, less experienced, and more radical members during an interview with The Free Press.

“When I joined in 2013, it was much more social democratic. It was very old, very white. In 2015 in Boston, it was a few older men and I who were the core of the old DSA chapter,” Altman explained. “It is night and day between DSA in even 2015 and now. It went from this, like you say, pretty moderate social-political group to a cultural juggernaut that it is today.”

“By 2014, a group called the Left Caucus was formed that advanced a lot of extreme views.”

“There were debates at the time about how much Leninism do we want to let into DSA. And these people, they eroded any resistance and any core of anti-communism that remained within DSA. Anti-communism became forbidden, right? This is a big evil thing, to be an anti-communist.”

“And you can’t hold this view without running all the old people who experienced the 20th century out of the organization. And I think that had to have been part of the calculus, that they didn’t want any internal resistance,” he said. “And so there were instances where people were – I think efforts were made to silence people who dissented.”

“I can speak from personal experience that if you dissent, there will be efforts to silence you. They use mob tactics, basically,” he said. “So if you speak out, they will coordinate and a bunch of people will jump on you and denounce you, smear you behind your back, do whatever it takes to try to discredit you if you speak out against them.”

“There was a local union in Ann Arbor who said it’s too far to vandalize and intimidate public officials, vandalize their homes and intimidate them. That is too far,” Altman said

“Immediately they received a swarm of people online responding to that statement, essentially saying, ‘You’re supporting genocide. Shame on you.’ Trying to turn their members against them and stir up animosity towards them with the effort of silencing them.”

“DSA itself makes a distinction – an important distinction – between paper members, who are people who give the organization their credit card and never come to a meeting, and cadre, who are hardcore activist members who show up to all the meetings and do all the work,” he said. “The cadre are incredibly radical. The paper members might be, you know, think AOC and Bernie Sanders are great and let’s get Medicare for All.”

Keep reading

Outrage Ensues as McKinney, Texas City Council DEFIES Residents and Approves Absolutely Massive New Islamic Center in UNANIMOUS Vote

The elites who run a large northern Dallas suburb have provoked national anger after ignoring the will of the people and submitting to political Islam.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, a brave Christian migrant who survived Sharia law in Iran walked straight up to the McKinney City Council and delivered a blistering, unfiltered warning that had the chamber erupting.

Eddie Isa (also referred to as Eri Issa / Edwin Isagholi), an Iranian-born Christian and self-described “Sharia law survivor,” stood before the packed August 4, 2026, meeting and told the council exactly what soft Westerners refuse to hear.

“I’m a Sharia law survivor from Iran,” he declared. “I’m TELLING YOU, this is a BAD idea, and you’re going to REGRET not listening to people like us who lived under Sharia law!”

Other brave McKinney residents spoke up as well, including this woman, who brought the house down with this epic speech that would make our Founding Fathers proud.

Keep reading

The Silver Lining: The Donald’s Impending Defeat in Iran May Finally Bring the Empire Home

It is damn obvious that Washington has lost Donald Trump’s idiotic war on Iran. After all, it is now five months since the opening salvos of Operation Epic Fury on February 28, which was advertised to last only 3-4 weeks. Instead, the conflict has settled into a grinding, inconclusive stalemate at best, and, more importantly, a strategic fiasco that reveals the bankruptcy of America’s entire Empire-based foreign policy.

The fact is, the War on Iran was misbegotten from the get-go because Iran posed no credible threat whatsoever to the homeland security of the United States. Period. Full stop.

In that regard, no American president has ever launched a war on such thin, specious grounds: The one and only reason for unleashing the bombers and missiles on February 28th was to honor the request of a so-called “ally” in furtherance of his desperate need to maintain a 61-vote coalition in the Knesset.

That’s right. The Donald took America to war lest Netanyahu be thrown from office, tried and convicted for years of egregious corruption and put behind bars where he belongs.

After all, on the eve of the strikes Iran possessed no nuclear weapons; no active weaponization program that had crossed the threshold of a deployable bomb; no blue-water navy capable of projecting power across oceans; not a single of long-range strategic bombers capable of dropping bombs anywhere, let along on the far side of the Atlantic; and no ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding the 2,000 kilometers to the Strait of Gibraltar – far, far short of Washington, D.C., or any American city at 10,000 kilometers or more distant from Tehran.

Likewise, Iran’s military budget at hardly $25 billion was a pittance (2.2%) relative to the Pentagon’s bountiful $1 trillion of annual rations – while its GDP of approximately $350 billion represented a tiny 1.1% of America’s $30 trillion economy.

Yet Ding Dong Donald and his Def Sec Gymboy Kegseth – all of the latter’s performative fitness videos and martial posturing notwithstanding – have flat-out managed to lose the war.

That is to say, the Pentagon is nearly out of critical munitions, meaning that short of a land invasion by US boots on the ground there is nothing left to do. Indeed, given Iran’s vast expanse, mountainous fortress like terrain and large, well trained and brutal IRGC militias, it would be a meat-grinder like no other; and surely one that even Bone-Spur Donald doesn’t have the stomach for (and appropriately so).

Keep reading

Wildfires Reveal the Risks of a Net Zero Electricity Grid as Climate Activists and Politicians Exploit Wildfire Tragedies says Friends of Science Society

Canada plans to spend $1 trillion on building out an east-west ‘clean energy’ power grid as part of its net zero climate plan, but Friends of Science Society says, while additional power generation is needed, net zero should not be the rationale, in this new video “Change Climate Change: Stop Net Zero Nonsense.” 

Canadian physicist, William van Wijngaarden, in a presentation for the International Climate Science Coalition shows there is no human-made climate crisis, thus no need for net zero targets. Wijngaarden says net zero goals will cause serious damage to society.

Part of that damage is the convoluted effort to “electrify everything” using so-called “clean energy.”

Footage of evacuees trying to navigate downed power lines in British Columbia show why “electrify now” and “electrify everything” to reach Net Zero climate targets is a bad idea, says Friends of Science Society. As reported by CBC on July 30, 2026, dozens of power poles, transmission lines, lines and transformers are down; large sections of British Columbia lost electrical power, as is happening in other wildfire locations. Without conventional ICE vehicles, people in a net zero EV world would be stranded.

As tragic wildfires rip through British Columbia, Ontario, Spokane, Oregon, and Europe, climate activist journos like some at Associated Press and Grist, and politicians like former Washington governor, Jay Inslee, wrongly exploit these tragedies, by conflating wildfire and human-caused climate change, says Friends of Science Society. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as explained in plain language by Roger Pielke, Jr., “The IPCC has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change.”

Keep reading

MORE FAUCI PHONE REVELATIONS: Newly Released Texts Show Biden Surgeon General Vivek Murthy Discussed Concerns About mRNA Shots Causing MUTATIONS in Developing Fetuses

Newly released text messages from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s government-issued iPhone expose yet another stunning example of the COVID regime’s two-faced messaging.

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Rand Paul (R-KY) released the January 25-26, 2021 text chain Monday as part of the initial dump from more than 34,000 texts and 522 voicemails recovered from Fauci’s government phone. The exchange is damning.

Fauci himself raised the alarm about the second dose, writing that because “many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.” Walensky replied that it was “definitely a good point, esp after dose two.”

Then Murthy piled on. In a follow-up text, the man who would soon become Biden’s Surgeon General responded to Fauci’s concern by adding: “I’ve been hearing the concern about the mRNA causing mutations in the developing fetus as well. That’s a really good point re the cytokine storm post second dose.”

The very next day, Murthy flagged a World Health Organization announcement advising against pregnant women taking the Moderna vaccine due to lack of data, asking Fauci and Walensky for their take because “I imagine we will all get asked about this.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Iran War Raises a Midterm Question: Who Decides When America Goes to War?

On July 23, President Donald Trump threatened to carry out his “biggest attack yet” on Iran after nearly two weeks of renewed U.S. airstrikes. That same day, the House voted 214–208 to direct the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran, while a parallel Senate effort failed 47–49. The contrast sharpened a question that has followed the conflict from the start: why can any president bring the United States deeper into another Middle Eastern war with so little meaningful involvement from Congress? The answer reaches beyond one administration, party, or operation to the functioning of American democracy itself.

Washington has long debated individual interventions while paying less attention to the expanding presidential authority that made them possible. Trump did not create this system; he inherited it. His presidency, however, exposed how much war-making power has accumulated in the executive branch and how far the country has moved from the constitutional balance the founders envisioned.

The Constitution’s principle is clear: decisions about war should not rest with one person. The president is commander in chief, but Congress received the authority to declare war because the framers feared concentrated power. Having lived under monarchy, they believed sending citizens to war required public debate, legislative consent, and political accountability.

That balance eroded from Korea through Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and numerous counterterrorism missions. Presidents claimed wider discretion to use force without explicit authorization; Congress sometimes delegated authority and sometimes declined to challenge its use. The presidency consequently grew stronger in war-making while Congress retreated toward the sidelines.

This was not one party’s project. Republicans expanded executive authority, and Democrats preserved it. Administrations criticized presidential overreach while out of power, then retained its advantages in office. Executive war power thus became one of Washington’s genuinely bipartisan projects.

Reducing the problem to Trump therefore misses the larger danger. Critics see his reliance on instinct, personal judgment, and a small advisory circle as uniquely risky; supporters call the same qualities decisive leadership. Neither view changes the constitutional principle: a democratic system should not depend on the personality of whoever occupies the Oval Office. Even capable presidents can make catastrophic mistakes when meaningful oversight disappears.

History demonstrates the risk. Few expected Vietnam to consume a decade of national life. Iraq began as a limited mission with defined objectives but cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, reshaped the Middle East, and left lasting regional consequences. Wars rarely begin by announcing how long or expansive they will become.

The United States now possesses unmatched military capabilities, global intelligence networks, and the ability to project force almost anywhere within hours. That makes executive flexibility valuable, but democratic oversight even more necessary. The faster a president can act, the stronger the institutions checking that power must be.

Keep reading