(Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message below and working with them through the links below which benefits Gateway Pundit.
The post Freedom from Interest Payments Starts Now — 0% APR Until 2028 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Mamdani's New York City.
The post MAMDANI’S NYC: Con Edison Shuts Off Power to 10,000 Customers in Queens as Temps Soar Over 100 Degrees appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
You may have read the article from the New York Post about the FBI enlisting a close insider to California Governor Gavin Newsom to wear a wire and record conversations within Newsom’s circle. However, did you overlay the timeline? Remember, there is no possibility this FBI wired surveillance of Gavin Newsom would take place without […]
The post Lisa Monaco and Merrick Garland Organized Wire Recording Surveillance of Gavin Newsom in June of 2024 appeared first on The Last Refuge.
The White House is trying to break a fireworks record on Saturday—but doing so will likely cost taxpayers a pretty penny.The Trump administration has not communicated how much the July 4 celebration will cost, or who is expected to foot the bill for the pyrotechnics display. There has been no public record of the company behind the show, Pyrotecnico, receiving a standard government contract for the job, as has been the case with Washington’s previous July 4 celebrations.In lieu of concrete digits, NOTUS’s Anna Kramer reached out to several fireworks companies for a rough estimate on the show’s price tag. They projected the cost in the millions.“You’re talking a many multimillion-dollar production, without a doubt,” James Woods, the director of sales at Pyro Shows in Tennessee, told NOTUS. Pyro Shows assisted in one of the previous world record-setting fireworks displays in Dubai in 2014.Woods told NOTUS that some of the individual shells used in the upcoming celebration could cost anywhere between $50 to $1,000. NOTUS estimated that if even “3 percent of the devices used in this show cost $50, that would total $1.3 million for those devices alone.”This year, the Freedom 250 celebration has promised a record-shattering 40-minute display beginning at 10:30 p.m. that will use more than 860,000 explosives. They’ll be set off along the Reflecting Pool, as well as in West Potomac Park and off of eight barges on the Potomac River.The current record is held by the Iglesia Ni Cristo, a church in the Philippines that earned the Guinness World Record title in 2016 for lighting 809,000 fireworks during a New Year’s Eve event.Another fireworks professional, Kellner’s Fireworks owner Bob Kellner, hypothesized that even if the entire record-setting show were composed of “filler” shells (the cheapest explosives possible, sold for around $2 a pop), the display would still cost a minimum of $1.7 million. But only hitting that bare minimum is highly unlikely, as more sophisticated fireworks cost significantly more.There is just one federal record offering details about the upcoming semiquincentennial. A document from the Interior Department, dated December 2025, dedicated $1.5 million to Garden State Fireworks to run the display. But that was months before Donald Trump promised to launch “the LARGEST FIREWORKS SHOW IN HISTORY” on Independence Day 2026.NOTUS reported that Garden State Fireworks has been responsible for the capital’s July Fourth show for the last decade, and typically receives a contract between $250,000 and $300,000 for the display.
The Supreme Court just issued the ruling on birthright citizenship that we all expected. This is a decision that could have been a historic victory for this country if Republicans were anywhere near as effective and as ruthless as the Left is when it comes to selecting Supreme Court justices. Democrats pick judges who return ...
Today, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s Day One executive order canceling the right to birthright citizenship. Good. That executive order declared that children born in the U.S. would not be considered citizens if their parents were living in the country illegally or were visiting the country on temporary visas.The executive order never took effect. It was quickly blocked by multiple lower courts because it appeared to directly conflict with the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”The Trump regime appealed the lower-court rulings, contending that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision had been misunderstood for more than a century. The administration argued that the drafters of the amendment were focused on guaranteeing citizenship for the children of former slaves—and that the amendment was never intended to extend citizenship to the children of people who weren’t living in the country legally.Trump and his Solicitor General, who argued this case before the Court, also said that narrowing birthright citizenship was necessary to prevent “birth tourism” — the practice of immigrants coming to the U.S. to give birth here and obtain citizenship for their child.Trump has been vowing to try to change the law since entering politics in 2015, arguing the 14th Amendment was written specifically to enshrine the rights of freed slaves. His critics have countered that it was always designed to apply to the children of immigrants too. An 1898 Supreme Court decision confirmed that U.S.-born children of immigrant parents are entitled to American citizenship.Today, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the deeply-rooted understanding that virtually everyone born on American soil is automatically a U.S. citizen was enshrined in the Constitution with the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote. “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. We keep that promise today.”In another era, this would have been a no-brainer. No constitutional lawyer I know thought the Court would decide otherwise. The lower federal courts had consistently and unanimously ruled against Trump.Had Trump won, it would have probably caused panic among recent immigrants and their families. Although Trump has insisted his policy would apply only to future births, it was far from clear that the logic of any win for Trump wouldn’t apply retrospectively if a future president (JD Vance? perish the thought) wanted to go there.What I find troubling is that the decision was 5 to 4 rather than unanimous or nearly so, as it should have been.Only five of the nine justices ruled against Trump on constitutional grounds. Brett Kavanaugh dissented on statutory grounds; while agreeing that Trump’s executive order was unlawful, he argued that the court should have resolved the case under federal immigration law rather than the Constitution.The Court’s three most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito — dissented. Thomas wrote for the group: “The Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed Blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”Pure and utter claptrap.Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito are so far to the right of America that their views on this case and other matters should be presumed bonkers. Yet what’s particularly sobering is that Trump is only one justice away from having a Supreme Court majority that would have gone his way on this absurd reading of the 14th Amendment.Clearly, the Supreme Court must be changed — either by expanding the number of justices or by invoking term limits on Supreme Court justices. The Constitution would permit both remedies.Perhaps the best thing about today’s majority decision is that it’s such a direct repudiation of Trump, who has long taken a personal interest in the issue. During his 2024 campaign, he made curtailing birthright citizenship a key element of his immigration platform.When the high court heard arguments on the case in April, Trump took the unprecedented step of showing up in person for the hearing, making him the first sitting president ever to attend a Supreme Court argument. For the Court to so directly reject his position today is surely a humiliation for Trump.Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org
Reactions were mounting among legal analysts Tuesday after the Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order.The divided court ruled in a 6-3 majority decision in Trump v. Barbara, upholding the 14th Amendment and blocking Trump's efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship, "but the Court split 5-4 on whether a future Congress could do what President Trump could not," CNN reported.Legal experts and political commentators weighed in on the high court's decision."A shockingly close call on how to read plain English in the first sentence of a constitutional amendment," Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News, wrote on X."It was struck down 6-3 decision, although only 5-4 on the Constitutional question. Four justices would have rewritten the Constitution's plain text and ignored centuries of precedent on the scope of birthright citizenship. Thankfully, they were the minority," immigration attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote on X."Glad the right-wing court including two Trump justices upheld birthright citizenship but the fact that there are four justices who would happily let it be overridden tells you everything about the importance of Dems rebalancing this extremist Court going forward," journalist and commentator Mehdi Hasan wrote on X."Everyone should be extremely concerned that birthright citizenship was 5-4 and not unanimous," Mueller, She Wrote podcaster Allison Gill wrote on Bluesky."Jesus, three dissenting votes on birthright just might be the most insane part of this court's entire awful term," MS NOW host Chris Hayes wrote on Bluesky.
