If Jackson thinks criticisms of judges are ‘attacks on democracy,’ then what does she make of actual leftist threats against conservative justices?
INVESTIGATIONS
The Three Decade Story of Social Media in a Nutshell and What is the Best X Alternative
The birth of social media was arguably in 2002 when Friendster was launched. A year later, MySpace arrived and every Gen X’er, including me, and many Millennials jumped on board. Facebook came in 2004 and has been ever-present for over 20 years. And how about YouTube? Started in November 2005 and sold just 11 months later to Google for $1.6B! I know that today it’s worth a lot more. Current estimates put a value of $500B on YouTube. But making over a billion dollars in 11 months sounds like good money to me!
A year later in 2006 Twitter appeared and then Instagram in 2010. With Instagram we also see a big markup. Eighteen months late, it was bought by Facebook for $1B. At the time, Instagram was a 13-person start-up. It is now a global leader in social media. Could it have succeeded without the Mark Zuckerberg magic? We will never know.
Jump forward to 2025. Twitter has now become X after Elon Musk bought it in 2022 for $44B. And only last month xAI, valued at $80 billion in the deal, bought X for $30 billion. This brings the whole issue of AI and data and privacy into the equation but I want to look at who the other players are in the social market first.
The competitors to X are Instagram, Facebook, GETTR, Truth Social, Parler, Minds and Gab. But with censorship running rampant during the Covid tyranny, a number of platforms promoted themselves as free speech activists. This removes Instagram and Facebook (both owned by Mark Zuckerberg who has now suddenly converted to being a free speech activist … but only for US users). So let’s look at the main free speech players in chronological order.
Minds was the first of a raft of free speech-oriented social media platforms launched in 2015. Minds has been described as more privacy-focused than its competitors and is open source. Some high-profile figures promoted Minds at its 2020 NYC “MINDS: Festival of Ideas”. But Minds remains a niche player that has never really proved a mainstream alternative to the big players. Most recent usage figures from Similar Web are 470,000 visits per month.
Gab launched in August 2016 and then had a full public launch 9 months later. Gab has actively been building and supporting its own server infrastructure. This is a smart move to protect from being shut down but it has meant slower growth. In 2020, Gab migrated to itsr own in-house servers. Gab has suffered from its minimal moderation which has meant it is unable to have an app on Apple or Google app stores. Most recent usage figures from Similar Web are 4.7M visits per month.
Parler was launched in August 2018, billing itself as an unbiased and free speech alternative to larger social media platforms. Conservatives quickly praised Parler for offering a free speech alternative to Twitter and Facebook. Parler’s user base grew massively in 2020 and became the most well known Twitter alternative platform but, after it was accused of coordinating Jan 6, it was removed from the Apple store and Google play store.
And soon after, on January 10th, Amazon Web Services cancelled its hosting and it went offline. It restarted a month later after moving its domain hosting to Epik and a year later was back on Google and Apple app stores. Near the end of 2022, Kanye West agreed to buy Parler but it fell through.
At the time, George Farmer was the CEO. George is the husband of Candace Owens and his father was Treasurer of the UK’s Conservative Party, and life peer in the House of Lords. In April 2023, Parler was acquired by Starboard and was temporarily shut down prior to a relaunch. Eight months later it was sold to another group and relaunched in February 2024. Most recent usage figures from Similar Web are 275,000 visits per month.
Next up is GETTR which was launched on 4th July 2021 by President Donald Trump’s former senior advisor Jason Miller. While Gettr explicitly identifies itself as supporting free speech and opposing censorship, the site moderates user content to at least some extent. It has been available as an app from Apple and Google from the very beginning. Most recent usage figures from Similar Web are 1.4M visits per month.
And the newest kid on the block is Truth Social launched by President Trump in October 2021. President Trump had been banned from Twitter/X in January 2021 and, in true Trump fashion, he started his own social media company. Within a year it was available to download as an app from Apple and Google app stores. Most recent usage figures from Similar Web are 30M visits per month.
So, what is the conclusion to understanding this avalanche of social media options?
Gab sometimes feels overwhelmed with anti-Jewish posts. and only US users can sign up to its paid pro option.
Minds seems to lack traction despite being around for a decade.
Parler has been launched for the 3rd time and so the jury is still out on its future success.
Truth has a large user base but has restrictions on streaming and other capabilities.
GETTR seems to have stood the test of time. It is available on the app stores (unlike Gab). It has great live streaming capabilities (unlike Truth Social) and has never gone down or changed hands (unlike Parler). And of course GETTR has one of the most well-known MAGA advocates ever, Stephen K Bannon. WarRoom streams on GETTR and SKB uses GETTR exclusively so if you want to follow the MAGA architect then GETTR is the place to be.
The post The Three Decade Story of Social Media in a Nutshell and What is the Best X Alternative appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
TikTok Sent Europeans’ Personal Data to China, Hiding Transfers From Users, EU Regulators Say
TikTok must pay a €530 million ($600 million) fine after Irish regulators said Friday that the Chinese-owned video-sharing app illegally sent European users’ data to China.
TikTok, whose EU headquarters is in Ireland, violated the 27-nation bloc’s data protection rules by transferring personal data of European users to China without proper safeguards, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) announced following a four-year investigation. The regulators also found that between 2020 and 2022, TikTok failed to disclose to users that Chinese staffers could access user data, Politico reported.
The fine comes as TikTok has long faced scrutiny over its alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party. President Donald Trump has voiced national security concerns, though he has extended the deadline until June 19 for TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. If TikTok still does not divest, it will face a total ban in the United States.
While TikTok has for years denied storing European or American user data on servers in China, the platform admitted in April that it had in fact stored “limited [European] user data” in the Communist country. The Irish regulators said they are taking the revelation “very seriously” and are weighing “what further regulatory action may be warranted,” according to Politico.
The penalty includes €485 million for the unlawful data transfers and €45 million for a lack of transparency, making it the third-largest fine under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, Politico reported. TikTok has six months to bring its data handling into compliance or suspend all transfers to China, the regulators said.
“TikTok failed to verify, guarantee and demonstrate that the personal data of [European] users, remotely accessed by staff in China, was afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU,” DPC deputy commissioner Graham Doyle said in a statement.
TikTok said it strongly contests the Irish commission’s findings and plans to appeal.
The post TikTok Sent Europeans’ Personal Data to China, Hiding Transfers From Users, EU Regulators Say appeared first on .
Here Are 12 Reasons Why NPR And PBS Deserved To Be Defunded
‘No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize.’
No, Trump Did Not Just Bring Back Segregation to Schools
Once again, the mainstream media is distorting the facts. Following the Justice Department’s recent dismissal of a decades-old desegregation case in Louisiana, critics rushed to frame the action as a rollback of civil rights or, worse, a return to racial segregation in schools. But the facts do not support this narrative.
In 1966, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to desegregate schools in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The resulting federal consent decree mandated the dismantling of the district’s racially segregated school system.
By 1975, the court found the district had achieved integration. However, the case remained open for decades due to administrative oversight, including the death of the presiding judge, and no formal court action was ever taken to close it.
In April 2025, as part of a broader review of dormant cases, the DOJ under the Trump administration formally moved to dismiss the order.
According to a joint filing with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, there had been “zero action by the court, the parties or any third-party” in nearly 50 years.
The DOJ’s official press release, titled “Justice Department Dismisses Half Century Old Louisiana Consent Decree,” stated: “No longer will the Plaquemines Parish School Board have to devote precious local resources over an integration issue that ended two generations ago,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon.
For the school district, remaining under the outdated court order meant compiling and submitting annual data to the DOJ on hiring practices, student discipline, and demographics. It imposed a bureaucratic burden on a small district with fewer than 4,000 students.
Local officials described the process as time-consuming and unnecessary, diverting limited staff and resources from more pressing educational needs.
For the DOJ, maintaining the inactive case consumed time and attention that could be better directed toward active civil rights enforcement.
Despite these facts, critics quickly claimed the dismissal would lead to “resegregation.”
Civil rights groups and commentators cited research suggesting that school districts released from federal oversight often become less racially diverse over time.
But this interpretation stretches the meaning of “segregation” beyond its legal and constitutional definition. And the fact that a school becomes less diverse does not meet the definition of segregated.
To be clear, there is no law, under Trump or any other administration, that allows public schools in the United States to reinstate racial segregation.
Segregation in public education was struck down in 1954 by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education and remains unconstitutional today.
Any attempt by a school district to segregate students by race would be swiftly challenged and overturned in court.
So, what does “resegregation” really mean in these criticisms? It does not refer to a return to legally mandated racial separation. Rather, it describes de facto racial imbalance, schools becoming predominantly one race not by law or policy, but due to residential patterns, school zoning, and economic factors.
If a mostly Black neighborhood feeds into a local school, that school may have a majority-Black student body, but that is not segregation under the law.
Some academic studies have found that districts released from federal desegregation orders sometimes see reduced racial diversity. But correlation does not equal causation.
These shifts often result from the end of court-ordered policies—such as busing, racial quotas, or transfer schemes—meant to artificially balance school demographics to match national racial ratios.
Without these mandates, schools tend to reflect the natural racial and economic makeup of their local neighborhoods. Ending a dormant desegregation order does not cause segregation; it simply acknowledges that the district is no longer violating the Constitution.
More than 130 school districts across the South remain under similar DOJ desegregation orders. The Trump administration has signaled interest in reviewing more of these long-dormant cases.
In sum, the DOJ’s action in Louisiana was a routine legal closure of a resolved case. It does not change the law, repeal civil rights protections, or allow racial discrimination in education. Misrepresenting legal housekeeping as racial backsliding only sows distrust and distracts from the real work of improving educational outcomes.
The post No, Trump Did Not Just Bring Back Segregation to Schools appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
‘Keanu, you owe me’: UFC coach claims Keanu Reeves stole his technique for ‘John Wick’ fight scene
A beloved UFC trainer and coach accused actor Keanu Reeves of taking some of his unique techniques and using them in a movie.
Firas Zahabi is a legendary coach who runs the Tristar Gym in Montreal, Canada. Outside of owning the gym, Zahabi is most known for training former welterweight champion and all-time UFC great Georges St-Pierre.
During a podcast, Zahabi recalled teaching a student before finding out his name is Keanu. Upon learning that the student was Lebanese just like him, Zahabi wondered why someone of his ethnic background would have that name. Zahabi said the student informed him that actor Keanu Reeves was born in Beirut, and his parents were fans.
This jokingly shocked Zahabi, who said that Reeves “years ago, he stole one of my moves.”
Zahabi joked that he could not believe that a fellow Lebanese person would bite his style without crediting him. Zahabi said, in particular, that a scene from “John Wick: Chapter 2” used a jujitsu move he called the “web guard,” where one counters an opponent by jumping in the air and pulling them to the ground.
“It was a great move, it’s called the web guard. I used to call it the web guard. I used to rush people punching and kicking and then whenever they would grab a hold of me, if they grabbed me with an underhook, I would jump web guard. If I grab them with an underhook, I could also do it, so it didn’t matter to me, which is what I loved. As soon as we tied up, I could get the fight to the ground.”
Firas Zahabi (left) and former UFC champion Georges St-Pierre in 2018. Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images
Zahabi showed a scene from the movie, known as the museum fight scene, and juxtaposed it with footage of his own technique in the gym.
“I put this move out of circulation,” Zahabi went on. “But then a man by the name of Keanu Reeves, the man actually dared to rip me off.”
‘When the white man steals from me, I’m not so upset. I expect it! But a fellow Lebanese?’
While most of his comments appeared to be in jest, Zahabi still fully went down the path of claiming Reeves, and assumedly his fight choreographer for the film, Chad Stahelski, had stolen his technique without crediting him.
He also made jokes that were sure to offend some.
“Now, I’m used to the white man stealing from me, but if he’s a fellow Lebanese, that’s the problem. Now that I know he’s a fellow Lebanese, I must insist that I collect from him. When the white man steals from me, I’m not so upset. I expect it! But a fellow Lebanese? This cannot go unpunished. He jumps web guard in the movie. Long story short, Keanu, you owe me massari.”
While Reeves was born in Lebanon, his parents are English and Hawaiian, which may change Zahabi’s feelings on the matter.
Stahelski reportedly started MMA in the early 1990s, however, while Zahabi did not start his martial arts journey allegedly until 1998.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Belichick’s cringe interview: 24-year-old girlfriend’s outburst sparks escort rumors
On April 27, 2025, Bill Belichick, the former New England Patriots head coach and current University of North Carolina football coach, appeared on “CBS Mornings” to promote his book, “The Art of Winning: Lessons from My Life in Football.”
Belichick attended the interview with his 24-year-old girlfriend, Jordon Hudson, in tow. Hudson, a former cheerleader and Miss Maine USA contestant, is listed as the chief operating officer of Belichick Productions.
At one point, CBS correspondent Tony Dokoupil noted Hudson’s attendance and described her as a “constant presence.”
He asked Belichick, “You have Jordon right over there. Everybody in the world seems to be following this relationship. … How did you guys meet?” But before Belichick could respond, Hudson interrupted from off-camera with a stern, “We’re not talking about this.”
Dokoupil pressed, but Hudson remained firm in her stance.
Liz Wheeler plays the “painful, cringey clip” of the moment.
Liz says it’s pretty clear who’s running the show, and it’s not Bill Belichick.
What makes Hudson’s response even weirder is that the story of how they met is already out.
“In February 2021, Belichick was traveling from the Boston area to Florida seated next to Hudson, then a college student and cheerleader. Sources say during that trip, Belichick leaned in to ask about Hudson’s schoolwork, specifically her deductive logic textbook,” Liz reads from an International Business Times article.
“Their conversation quickly became engaging with the pair diving into discussions about logic and reasoning. Belichick was reportedly so impressed that he signed the inside cover of her textbook, inscribing, ‘Thanks for giving me a course on logic,’ along with his signature. This gesture captured in a photo later obtained by TMZ marked the beginning of a connection that would quietly grow over the following years,” Liz continues.
“First of all, a photo is not just later obtained,” she corrects. “If it’s in her textbook, it was given to TMZ by Jordon Hudson … because she somehow and for some reason wanted their relationship to be public.”
Regardless, there’s almost certainly more to their relationship than just a serendipitous plane encounter.
Liz mentions a now-deleted social media post on X alleging Hudson, under a different last name but with the same first name and picture, was a high-end escort.
While unverified, if true, it would perhaps “explain not only the reticence to talk about how they met but also this weird, toxic, really disordered dynamic,” says Liz.
Another factor fueling speculation about the true origins of their relationship is Belichick’s friendship with Robert Kraft — the owner of the New England Patriots, who in 2019 was charged with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution.
“I’m not saying [Hudson] is a prostitute … but all of the elements that would exist if that allegation were true seem to be true in this case,” says Liz.
To see the clip of the Belichick’s interview and hear more of Liz’s commentary, watch the episode above.
Want more from Liz Wheeler?
To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Kimmel, Pritzker Claim GOP Knows ‘Full Well Which Side’ Lincoln Would Be On Today
Over the next couple of years, the late night comedy shows will become a stomping ground for 2028 Democratic presidential hopefuls and on Thursday, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel helped kick start that process by welcoming Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker to the show. Together the two would implicitly accuse Republicans of racism by claiming they “know full well” Abraham Lincoln would be a Democrat today and explicitly as Pritzker recalled his 2018 campaign message of “Everything we care about is under siege by a racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic president of the United States.”
Pritzker’s speech that has liberal pundits swooning took place in New Hampshire, which led Kimmel to quip that the only reason a politician visits New Hampshire is because they want to run for president. Eventually, Kimmel asked, “I know this is not an announcement that you would make now, but can I ask you this? Is—what is it, like, three years and eight months too far in advance even to be thinking about something like that?”
Before he gave the standard politician answer where he declared he does not know his future plans, Pritzker declared, “Listen, I’m governor of the great state of Illinois, the land of Lincoln, I might add. He would be a Democrat if he were alive today.”
Kimmel agreed, “He would, yes. They like claiming him,” which led Pritzker to add, “Yeah, they do. But they’re not anything like him.”
Subtly playing the race card, Kimmel continued, “They know full well which side he would be on. Although, at like 200 years old, he might be watching Fox News.”
Later, Kimmel returned to Pritzker’s speech, “Well, let me ask you about something specific that you said in the speech, and I think this is the thing that got people fired up. You said, ‘It is time to fight everywhere and all at once.’ You called for mass protests. There are mass protests today. What does that mean, fight everywhere and all at once? What should we do?”
Pritzker began by falsely claiming, “I think everybody understands that, at this point, we’ve got an authoritarian in office. He’s essentially tearing apart the things that really matter to working families across the United States, and nobody’s stopping him. Congress is under the control of his party. They’re all paying homage to him at all times. No one’s willing to break with him, even though they’re taking away health care from millions of people across the United States and threatening Social Security.”
His solution was to simply make more noise:
The only thing, in my view, that we really can do on a national level is let them know about our displeasure because none of those Republicans in Congress, you know, are—they know they’re up for re-election in 2026. And if they don’t know how much resistance there is out there in their own districts, then they’re just going to keep following Donald Trump and doing whatever he wants. So, we’ve got to be out there loud, proud, stand up, speak out, and today, I think you saw that all across the United States. I think it’s appropriate it’s May Day, but it’s mayday, everybody. It is literally. Time to fight.
Kimmel then wondered, “I assume you’ve met the president?”
Pritzker then got more explicit in his allegations of racism:
I was invited to the White House. In fact, when I first got elected, I was governor-elect and he invited all the new governors to the White House. And I have to say, I contemplated whether to go or not… because I’d run an entire campaign where every chance I got—in fact, I started a lot of my speeches by saying, ‘Everything we care about is under siege by a racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic president of the United States.’ … but I got invited because I was governor-elect and with the other governors-elect. And that’s where I really met him. And oddly, he spent a lot of time, you know—I don’t know, talking to me, seemingly interested in being my friend. It was very odd.
Not nearly as odd as a billionaire governor citing May Day, the day where hard-left, anti-capitalist types frequently resort to violence, including rioting, and highway closures as a good “time to fight.”
Here is a transcript for the May 1-taped show:
ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live!
5/2/2025
12:23 AM ET
KIMMEL: I know this is not an announcement that you would make now, but can I ask you this? Is — what is it, like, three years and eight months too far in advance even to be thinking about something like that?
PRITZKER: Listen, I’m governor of the great state of Illinois, the land of Lincoln, I might add. He would be a Democrat if he were alive today.
KIMMEL: He would, yes. They like claiming him.
PRITZKER: Yeah, they do. But they’re not anything like him.
KIMMEL: They know full well which side he would be on.
PRITZKER: Exactly.
KIMMEL: Although, at like 200 years old, he might be watching Fox News.
…
KIMMEL: Well, let me ask you about something specific that you said in the speech, and I think this is the thing that got people fired up. You said, “It is time to fight everywhere and all at once.” You called for mass protests. There are mass protests today.
PRITZKER: Yeah.
KIMMEL: What does that mean, fight everywhere and all at once? What should we do?
PRITZKER: I think everybody understands that, at this point, we’ve got an authoritarian in office. He’s essentially tearing apart the things that really matter to working families across the United States, and nobody’s stopping him. Congress is under the control of his party. They’re all paying homage to him at all times. No one’s willing to break with him, even though they’re taking away health care from millions of people across the United States and threatening Social Security.
So, I guess, you know, the question is, what can you do in that circumstance? And the only thing, in my view, that we really can do on a national level is let them know about our displeasure because none of those Republicans in Congress, you know, are — you know, they know they’re up for re-election in 2026. And if they don’t know how much resistance there is out there in their own districts, then they’re just going to keep following Donald Trump and doing whatever he wants.
So, we’ve got to be out there loud, proud, stand up, speak out, and today, I think you saw that all across the United States. I think it’s appropriate it’s May Day, but it’s mayday, everybody. It is literally –
KIMMEL: Yeah, it is.
PRITZKER: Time to fight.
KIMMEL: I assume you’ve met the president?
PRITZKER: I did meet the president, yeah. I was invited to the White House. In fact, when I first got elected, I was governor-elect and he invited all the new governors to the White House. And I have to say, I contemplated whether to go or not, but he’s president of the United States. This is 2018, 2019, rather. Well, late 2018, and I thought about, you know, whether to go because I’d run an entire campaign where every chance I got — in fact, I started a lot of my speeches by saying, “Everything we care about is under siege by a racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic president of the United States.”
KIMMEL: You meant him, right?
PRITZKER: Yeah. And — yeah, he wasn’t going to invite me to Thanksgiving dinner for sure, but I got invited because I was governor-elect and with the other governors-elect. And that’s where I really met him. And oddly, he spent a lot of time, you know — I don’t know, talking to me, seemingly interested in being my friend. It was very odd.
Dem Rep. Eric Swalwell Vows Use of ‘Subpoena Power’ to Investigate Whether Elon Musk’s Starlink Rigged Election For Trump (VIDEO)
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell has stoked a conspiracy theory Elon Musk used his Starlink satellite network to rig the 2024 presidential election for Trump.
During an appearance with a left-wing podcaster, Swalwell was asked about the integrity of the previous election and the role that Starlink may have played.
The host remarked:
The enemies allegedly stole U.S. data. The leak came through Elon Musk’s Starlink. I mean, I’m sure you’ve heard people, based on all of this information that’s happened since then, wonder if 2024 was secure. But more importantly, Representative, about 2026 and 2028, can you talk about that a little bit? Do you have concerns?
Swalwell, who is best known for being honey-trapped by a Chinese spy named Fang Fang, responded:
Elon Musk has done nothing in the last five months to make me think that we shouldn’t ask questions about what the hell he was doing in 2024.
Maybe we gave him too much of the benefit of the doubt, you know, after the election, but the way that he’s conducted himself with DOGE, and the way that, you know, he’s exposed us to so many hackers outside.
The way that he’s taken data, you know, from Americans, from our records — whether it’s Social Security or health care records, the only way that we can understand, you know, what the hell Elon Musk has been doing is to be in the majority.
Swalwell added that being in the majority would give Democrats “subpoena power,” which he would use to investigate the spurious allegations.
Watch the clip below:
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) stokes 2024 election denial on a far-left podcast (check the host’s shirt) and vows to use “subpoena power” on @elonmusk about whether Starlink gave election data to the Russians if Democrats win the midterms
“Elon Musk has done nothing in the last 5… pic.twitter.com/mt35ud4OKA
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) May 1, 2025
While it is unclear exactly what Swalwell and the host are actually suggesting, many leftists theorized in the wake of his election victory that Musk’s Starlink satellite network was used to manipulate the election results.
The Telegraph explained at the time:
Left-wing conspiracy theorists have claimed the 2024 US presidential election was “stolen”, as posts falsely alleging Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network was used to manipulate the result spread on social media.
Claims that 20m votes in the election have “disappeared” or that Starlink was used to interfere with vote-counting machines have been shared by thousands of people across X, Threads and TikTok.
A nine-minute video claiming states had used “Starlink in order to tally up or count ballots” had more than 100,000 likes, 55,000 shares and had been viewed almost 900,000 times on TikTok. The video falsely claimed: “This is why the numbers don’t make sense.”
Similar claims that Mr Musk, a Trump ally, may have used Starlink to tamper with the election have spread widely across Threads, the social network owned by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, as well as on X, which is owned by Mr Musk and was previously known as Twitter.
Back in March, Swalwell’s fellow California Democrat Maxine Waters shared a similar theory that Musk’s “high-technology ass “interfered with the election results.
“We don’t know everything that Elon Musk has done, with his high technology ass,” Waters said at the time.
“We don’t know what he’s been accused of by some as it may relate to the election, but we’re not going to give up in investigating and finding out.”
The post Dem Rep. Eric Swalwell Vows Use of ‘Subpoena Power’ to Investigate Whether Elon Musk’s Starlink Rigged Election For Trump (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Democrats Sink to NEW LOW — Now They’re Defending Illegal Alien Human-Smuggling Stash Houses
It was only a matter of time… Democrats are now defending illegal alien human-smuggling stash houses.
On Wednesday, crazy leftist lawmaker Becca Balint (D-VT) lectured Congress on how ICE had raided the wrong home in an Oklahoma raid and terrorized a family with young children.
Apparently, Democrats made it their mission this year to defend violent, wife-beating, gangbanging illegals from deportation from the country.
After all, wife-beaters, human traffickers, and illegal alien gangbangers are people too!
Here is her rant during a House committee hearing.
Rep. Becca Balint: The morning of Thursday, April 24, about 20 armed federal agents broke into a home occupied by a family of U.S. citizens in Oklahoma City who had just moved there two weeks prior from Maryland. ICE agents, mistaking the current occupants for the former, broke down the door, terrorized the family, and they repeatedly said, we are citizens. You have the wrong people. We are citizens.
It happened in the middle of the night. Three children at gunpoint were forced outside. This was all a colossal mistake. The names on the warrant did not match the people who lived in the house. This is what we have created here.
This is Trump’s America. This is what my colleagues are trying to fund with this bill. Armed federal agents breaking into homes, even of US Citizens, traumatizing them, taking their possessions. This is Trump’s America… Open your eyes! Wake the hell up!
WATCH:
Wrong.
The April 24 Oklahoma ICE operation was a lawful, court-authorized action explicitly targeting a property, that was a hub for human smuggling, not specific individuals, as falsely suggested by media reports.
The day prior to the search warrant issuance and the day of the… https://t.co/uIEuTO0zZ2
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) May 1, 2025
Poor Becca was immediately slapped with a community note using KOMO News as its source: “The April 24 Oklahoma ICE operation was a lawful, court-authorized action explicitly targeting a property that was a hub for human smuggling, not specific individuals, as falsely suggested by media reports.”
And later, Homeland Security released a statement on the Oklahoma raid in response to the outspoken Vermont Democrat.
Here is their response to Rep. Balint and fellow Democrats.
Wrong.
The April 24 Oklahoma ICE operation was a lawful, court-authorized action explicitly targeting a property, that was a hub for human smuggling, not specific individuals, as falsely suggested by media reports.
The day prior to the search warrant issuance and the day of the search warrant, HSI agents conducted surveillance, and confirmed via utility records that a member of the Lima Lopez Transnational Criminal Organization was still paying utilities at the residence.
The warrant, issued by a Federal Judge was based on an 84-page affidavit detailing probable cause that the address served as a “stash house” for human smuggling, authorizing the seizure of evidence such as electronic devices and documents, regardless of who was present.
The warrant targeted the property itself, not specific individuals, and its execution was not contingent on the presence of any person. HSI, with Oklahoma state police support, executed the warrant with precision, seizing electronic devices as authorized.
This court-authorized search was a critical strike against a dangerous human smuggling network in furtherance of our mission to protect American communities from the chaos unleashed by the Biden administration’s open-border policies. This is an ongoing investigation, and we have not ruled out current occupants involvement in the smuggling ring.
Democrats are now defending human smugglers.
It only took 100 days of Donald Trump back in office for Democrats to show the world who they really are.
The post Democrats Sink to NEW LOW — Now They’re Defending Illegal Alien Human-Smuggling Stash Houses appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.