Blog

Dem Senate Candidate Talarico Says He’d Oppose Mullin for DHS, Calls Illegal Alien Students ‘Most Patriotic’

During an interview in Dallas, Texas, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico said he would vote against Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s nomination to lead the Department of Homeland Security, saying he would oppose any nominee unwilling to dismantle Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he called a “secret police force.”

Appearing on The Bulwark Podcast with host Tim Miller, Talarico was asked directly, “Would you vote against Markwayne Mullin for a cabinet position?” He responded, “I would be a no on any potential secretary who is not willing to tear down this secret police force and replace it with an agency that’s actually focused on public safety.”

Talarico elaborated on his position by referencing his background, stating, “Before I was a politician, I was a public school teacher in San Antonio, Texas, on the west side of the city, and I taught a lot of undocumented students, and those students tended to be my most patriotic students.” He continued, “They understood something about this country that a lot of us who are native born forget: that this is supposed to be the land of opportunity, that this is supposed to be the place where dreams come true.”

He characterized those students as having “believed in this country, even when this country didn’t believe in them,” and argued that current enforcement actions are harmful, saying, “The fact that we have the most powerful politicians in the country terrorizing my former students and their families—people who work hard every day to contribute to this economy and to this country—to me, is immoral. It’s unconscionable. It’s unacceptable, and it has to end.”

Talarico also outlined what he described as an alternative approach to immigration enforcement, stating, “We should be cracking down on the cartels, not our communities. We should be deporting gang members, not small business owners. We should be hunting down human traffickers, not moms and babies.” He added that “Both parties have failed us on this issue over the last 30 years,” including “the failures of my party” and “the failures of the Biden administration.” He said those failures “opened the door to this extremism” and led to “masked men and unmarked vehicles kidnapping people off our street.”

He concluded: “Texans and Americans are just looking for leaders who are going to hold two things in their mind at once, being pro immigrant and pro security. We’ve been told those are mutually exclusive, and they’re not.”

Keep reading

Rewriting Revolutionary History: Is Jamie Raskin Even Capable of Honesty?

The late Scott Adams had a way of describing a certain group of Democratic operatives and lawmakers that seemed fitting as I watched and rewatched an exchange between Representatives Jim Jordan and Jamie Raskin.

Adams said that while all Democrats lie, there is a small group of them who seem to assume the mantle of tier-one fibbers. These are the ones who are capable of saying the most verifiably dishonest things, and do so with a straight face that makes it look like even they believe what they are saying. 

I believe Jamie Raskin may have been among them (I’m not 100% sure), along with Eric Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, James Clapper, and John Brennan, and perhaps others. 

The reason such a group exists, Adams theorized, was that, in order for Democrats and the legacy media to make some of their most outlandish hoaxes stick, they needed a special group of people who can convincingly say something that is completely untrue and just keep repeating it until the public starts to think it is true.

Adams observed that you never hear from these people all at once, but when it’s their turn, they step in like a designated hitter and slug away with their fabrications. 

I thought of Adams’ comments when I saw Raskin in action at a hearing conducted by the House’s Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government on March 18. That’s when he claimed that Thomas Paine, the founding father and author of “Common Sense,” was an “undocumented immigrant.” 

Keep reading

Analysis: Nearly Half of Immigrant Households in U.S. Are on Welfare

Nearly half of households headed by immigrants, those legally and illegally living in the United States, are on one or more forms of welfare, a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis of Census Bureau data reveals.

The CIS analysis looked at the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement to learn which countries have the most immigrant welfare-users in the U.S.

Overall, about 47 percent of households headed by immigrants are on one or more forms of welfare. When the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional Child Tax Credit is included as welfare, that percentage rises to 54 percent.

Meanwhile, just 28 percent of households headed by native-born Americans are on welfare, and just 31 percent are on welfare that includes both tax credits.

Countries with the highest welfare-users in the U.S. include Afghanistan, 87 percent, the Dominican Republic, 78 percent, Guatemala, 77 percent, Honduras, 75 percent, and Mexico, 67 percent.

Meanwhile, immigrant households from Korea, the United Kingdom, Canada, and India have the lowest welfare usage among the nation’s immigrant population.

Keep reading

Orban Announces Will Block All EU Measures For Ukraine Until Oil Transit Restored

Hungary remains one of the lone Ukraine-skeptic EU/NATO members which actually has a lot of leverage, resulting in bolder and bolder pronouncements being issued by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of late.

He has newly made clear this week that Hungary will block all EU summit decisions in Ukraine’s favor until oil Russian flows resume. There’s ongoing controversy centered on the contested Druzhba pipeline and the central European nation’s vital flows from Russia.

“We would like to get the oil, which is ours, from the Ukrainians, which is now blocked by the Ukrainians, I did not support any kind of decision here, which is in favor of Ukraine … [as long as] the Hungarians are not able to get the oil which belong to us,” Orbán stated.

Obran has already blocked a proposed €90 billion ($103 billion) loan for Ukraine as well as efforts to slap new sanctions on Moscow, despite the pleadings, pressure, and interventions from other EU leaders.

“I will never support any kind of decision here which is in favor of Ukraine,” Orbán made clear at an EU meeting Thursday. “The Hungarian position is very simple. We are ready to support Ukraine when we get our oil, which is blocked by them,” Orbán underscored further.

Budapest has accused Ukraine of intentionally leaving the pipeline in a state of disrepair after Kiev alleged that Russia struck it. Ukraine has been charged with seeking to indirectly punish Hungary and squeeze its energy supplies.

Keep reading

United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Canada Will Now Join US to Keep the Strait of Hormuz Open

The leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Canada have now signaled they will join the United States in a coalition to secure and keep open the critical Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil chokepoint the bloodthirsty Iranian regime has turned into a terrorist kill zone.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the radical Islamic mullahs in Tehran launched a desperate campaign of economic terrorism after U.S. and Israeli strikes hammered their nuclear sites and terror infrastructure.

Iran mined the strait, attacked unarmed commercial vessels, targeted oil facilities, and effectively closed the waterway that carries nearly 20-25% of the world’s oil supply.

President Trump refused to let America shoulder the entire burden alone. He blasted the freeloading “allies,” took to Truth Social, and demanded that nations dependent on Middle Eastern oil step up and send warships.

“Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated,” Trump said.

He even threatened to “finish off” Iran and let NATO and Asia handle the mess if they wouldn’t get in gear. As we reported, the initial responses from Europe were weak and uninspiring, classic globalist foot-dragging.

Now, with Iran’s attacks growing more brazen and the Strait’s security directly tied to global oil flows, those same allies are signaling that they are prepared to stand with the United States.

That does not yet mean all seven countries have announced warship deployments.

The joint statement so far supports that they have formally backed efforts to keep passage open and are ready to contribute, while some governments are still working through what their exact role will be.

Britain, for example, has been publicly discussing possible deployments, including ships and mine-countermeasure assets, but final national commitments appear to remain in motion.

Keep reading

Air Force Special Operations Wants Backpack-Sized Kamikaze Drones

The U.S. Air Force is seeking small, backpack-portable one-way attack drones for its special operations forces, according to a request for information (RFI) posted this week.

“Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and Special Tactics units currently lack a purpose-built First-Person View (FPV) unmanned capability,” the RFI notes. “This deficit restricts the force’s ability to employ FPV systems in specialized mission sets and limits the development of standardized Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures essential for modern, high-intensity conflict.”

According to the RFI, AFSOC wants the drones to be capable of striking targets up to 12 miles away with a fragmentation warhead weighing 3 to 6.5 pounds. The system must be launch-ready in under three minutes and able to operate in GPS-denied environments.

“This system needs to integrate Global Positioning System (GPS), 4G/LTE/5G cellular connectivity, true frequency hopping between bands, and an optional repeater to extend operational range to over 20 kilometers,” the RFI said.

The systems are expected to integrate with handheld controllers and the Android Team Awareness Kit, or ATAK, used by small military units for battlefield awareness and targeting.

Companies have until April 17 to respond to the RFI. 

The Pentagon plans to spend $1.1 billion over the next 18 months on its Drone Dominance program, an initiative launched in December aimed at testing and purchasing more than 200,000 drones of various sizes by January 2028, Owen West, the Pentagon’s senior adviser on the program, said during a March 5 congressional hearing.

The program is intended in part to build a domestic industry around small drones to enable higher production volumes at lower costs.

In its initial phase, the Pentagon is paying about $5,000 for each “Group 1” drone, Drone Dominance program manager Travis Metz said during the hearing. He added that by the end of the program the goal is to “get down to less than $2,000 for a one-way kamikaze attack drone.”

Keep reading

Is “Taxation Without Representation” Occurring in 2026? Massive School District Bond Fraud Uncovered Across the US

Perhaps no phrase is used more to describe the grievances of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution than “No taxation without representation!

Mark Maloy, a historian wrote “While the exact phrase did not appear until 1768, the principle of having consent from the people on issues of taxation can be traced all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Magna Carta was one of the first steps in limiting the power of the king and transferring that power to the legislative body in England, the Parliament. Parliament had the power to levy taxes. When King Charles I attempted to impose taxes on the English people by himself in 1627, the Parliament passed the Petition of Right the following year, which stated that the subjects of the king “should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.”

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights from 1689 helped to form the basis of the British constitution (which is not a single document, but a combination of written and unwritten agreements). The British constitution protected the rights of Englishmen. English colonists in North America believed that they had the same rights as Englishmen. In North America, colonists formed their own colonial governments under charters from the king and regulated their own forms of taxation through their colonial legislatures. For many decades, these colonies enjoyed an extended period of benign neglect as the English parliament let them handle taxation on their own.

In Great Britain in the eighteenth century, there were no income taxes because it was viewed as too much of a government intrusion into the lives of the people. Instead, taxes were placed on property and on imported and exported goods. Money from these taxes helped to pay for public goods and services and supported the government’s military for defense.

In North America, the British colonies regulated their own tax system in each individual colony. These taxes, though, were exceedingly low, and the colonies did not have a professional military to support. Instead, they used a volunteer militia system to defend their towns and homes from attacks along the frontier.

In 1754, the French and Indian War broke out in North America. During the war, the British sent their military to help defend the colonies. The war spread across the globe and became known as the Seven Years’ War. Following Britain’s victory in 1763, the British national debt greatly increased. They now had a larger empire that needed to be defended. In light of this tenuous situation, and since the North American colonists benefited directly from the British military during the war, Great Britain looked to levy taxes on the colonists to raise revenue for the Crown.

In Massachusetts in 1764, James Otis published a pamphlet titled “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” which argued that man’s rights come from God and that governments should only exist to protect those natural rights. He believed that any attempt to tax the colonists without their consent violated the British constitution. Here, Otis made a compelling argument for the need for representation in any taxation on the colonies: “no parts of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed without their consent; that every part has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature; that the refusal of this would seem to be a contradiction in practice to the theory of the constitution.”

Colonists wrote pamphlets protesting taxes and explaining their views. Daniel Dulaney the Younger from Maryland wrote this one in 1765.

Keep reading

Court backs city censorship: Ontario appeal ruling blocks ‘Woman = Adult Female’ ad

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled against the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP) in a high-profile free speech case, siding with the City of Hamilton’s decision to reject a controversial bus shelter ad.

The case stems from a 2023 attempt by CHP to purchase advertising space on Hamilton transit shelters. The proposed ad featured a smiling woman alongside the message: “Woman: An Adult Female.”

City officials blocked the ad, arguing it could offend transit users, a decision CHP challenged through judicial review before ultimately appealing to Ontario’s top court.

That challenge has now failed.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the city’s authority to control messaging in public advertising spaces even where that control intersects with constitutionally protected expression.

The ruling effectively shuts down CHP’s argument that a political party has the right to publicly promote what it describes as the biological, biblical, and dictionary definition of a woman in a public forum.

CHP leader Rod Taylor blasted the decision, calling it a blow to fundamental freedoms.

He argued that the ruling undermines core Charter protections, including freedom of speech, press, conscience, and association, and warned that ideological pressure is now influencing both legislatures and the courts.

The party says it will continue advocating for what it calls “truth and freedom,” despite the setback.

In today’s Canada, even defining a word can land you in court — and still lose.

Keep reading

MSNOW Cutting Some ‘News’ Shows to Focus on Anti-Trump Resistance Programming

MSNOW, the left wing network formerly known as MSNBC, is dropping the charade of being a ‘news’ network to focus on their real money maker, which is anti-Trump resistance TV shows.

This is actually a smart move for them.

People who watch MSNOW are not going there for news, they watch to have their anti-Trump biases confirmed. They watch to cheer on as the hosts insult Trump and all things Republican.

NewsBusters reported:

Rating MS DOWN? MS NOW Shakes Up Network Line Up, Anchors Out

After being cast out into the wilderness by NBCUniversal last year, things didn’t appear to be going well for the rebranded “MS NOW.” On Wednesday, a shakeup was announced that saw daytime completely reshaped with two anchors losing their seats with at least one already announcing that she had quit, Morning Joe experiencing some shrinkage, while a new face would appear during the 11th Hour, among other shifts.

Going down the line up, first, Morning Joe will be losing an hour. After spending some time at an inflated four hours of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski shrieking at the camera, the purported preferred morning show for Washington D.C. insiders would be returning to just three hours.

Anchor Stephanie Ruhle will be leaving The 11th Hour and taking over that lost hour from Morning Joe, as well as the following one. Meaning her time slot would be 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

One of the more noteworthy line items in the shakeup was Ana Cabrera losing her position as an anchor of the 11a a.m. slot, and her announcement that she would be leaving the company.

Keep reading

ChatGPT Helped Transgender Teen Plan School Shooting: 8 Dead

An 18-year-old transgender teenager in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, is alleged to have used AI model ChatGPT in the run-up to a February 10 school shooting that killed eight people, including her mother, her 11-year-old brother, five students and an education assistant, before she took her own life. OpenAI had already flagged and banned one of Jesse Van Rootselaar’s accounts months earlier for “misuses of our models in furtherance of violent activities,” yet did not alert police. According to a civil claim filed in British Columbia, roughly a dozen employees identified the chats as signalling imminent risk, leadership refused to contact law enforcement, but the shooter later opened a second account and continued planning.  

What Happened in Tumbler Ridge?

The massacre began at home. Police said Van Rootselaar killed her mother and sibling before going to a school in Tumbler Ridge, where an educator and five students were shot dead. Two others were hospitalised with serious injuries. Reuters described it as one of Canada’s worst mass killings. Police also said they had previously removed guns from the home and were aware of the teenager’s mental health history. 

That would already be a story of institutional failure. But the AI angle makes it worse. OpenAI later admitted it had banned Van Rootselaar’s ChatGPT account in June 2025 after detecting violent misuse. The company said it considered referring the case to law enforcement, but decided the activity did not meet its threshold because it could not identify “credible or imminent planning.” Months later, eight people were dead. 

OpenAI then told Canadian officials that, under its newer and “enhanced” law-enforcement referral protocol, the same initial account ban would now be referred to police. That is an extraordinary concession. It amounts to an admission that the safeguard in place at the time was inadequate to the risk in front of it. 

The Lawsuit Against OpenAI / ChatGPT

The most serious details now sit inside a civil claim brought by the family of a surviving victim. The filing alleges that Van Rootselaar, then 17, spent days describing gun-violence scenarios to ChatGPT in late spring or early summer 2025. It says the platform’s monitoring system flagged those conversations, routed them to human moderators, and that approximately 12 OpenAI employees identified them as indicating an imminent risk of serious harm and recommended that Canadian law enforcement be informed. The claim alleges leadership refused that request and merely banned the first account. 

The same filing alleges the shooter later opened a second OpenAI account, used it to continue planning a mass-casualty event, and received “mental health counselling and pseudo-therapy” from ChatGPT. It further alleges the chatbot equipped the shooter with information on methods, weapons, and precedents from other mass casualty events. These are allegations, not proven findings, but if they are even broadly accurate, the case is not simply about a product being misused. It is about a company building an intimate, persuasive machine that could flag danger, simulate empathy, and still fail to stop the person it had already flagged. 

The filing also accuses GPT-4o of being deliberately designed in a more human, warmer, more sycophantic style that could foster psychological dependency and reinforce users rather than redirect them. These claims fit a wider concern now being raised by researchers, families, and even some people inside the industry: a chatbot that is rewarded for being agreeable can become dangerous precisely when a human being most needs resistance. 

Keep reading