Last week on Blessed.News and The Gateway Pundit’s Inside J6 Podcast, we covered the tragic story of Darrell Neely, a conservative talk-show host who was wrapped up in the persecutions of peaceful protesters in Washington DC.  Neely revealed that since being released, he was left to fend for himself on the streets while being isolated in homeless shelters due to his attendance of the J6 rally and the harsh and defamatory coverage from the Mockingbird Media, labeling him and the others as “insurrectionists.”  No one was charged under 18 USC 2383, the statute criminalizing insurrection.

New video footage has emerged showing a Metropolitan Police Department SUV dropping someone off shortly before the discovery of a pipe “bomb” at the DNC.  Julie Kelly disclosed the video on her X account while Conservative Rumble podcast host and former USSS agent Dan Bongino reacted.  This new footage begs the questions of who planted the bomb, who was this man dropped off by Metro, and why is there no footage of the park benches in the corner shots?

Lastly, during the J6 exclusive interview, I sat down with political prisoner Jake Lang, who has gone more than 1300 days now without a trial and celebrated his last three birthdays in prison.  This was a heartbreaking-yet-inspiring video from the young J6er who has since started funds to assist fellow J6ers with their legal fees  and to assist imprisoned J6ers with commissary funds so they can obtain simple necessities like clean clothes, healthy foods, and toiletries.

Since the podcast, we believe Lang was put back in “the Hole” after just getting out from a 40-day stint in solitaire confinement indoors for 23-hours per day.  He has not been convicted of any crimes to this point.

The post INSIDE J6 Podcast with Special Guest Jake Lang – Over 1300 Days in Prison – Now BACK in ‘The Hole’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The clash between Brazil’s unbridled Judiciary and the social media platform X may be about to end, but its billionaire owner, Elon Musk, vows to exact ultimate revenge.

For months, the X platform has been dodging what it sees as clearly unconstitutional and illegal requests – not to mention secret – requests by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes to censor or otherwise disclose private information regarding users that are political enemies of the judge.

Musk has resisted these requests and has openly defied the man who has become the real power in the shadows in Brazil – never mind socialist President Lula da Silva.

Just last week, X decided to close its operations in Brazil after the Supreme Court threatened to jail its legal representative in the country.

Now, although X is the most downloaded app in the country, it’s about to be blocked – to the chagrin of millions of users.

Associated Press reported:

“A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Wednesday threatened to shut down the local operations of X, formerly Twitter, unless its billionaire owner Elon Musk names a legal representative in Brazil within 24 hours.

The order from Justice Alexandre de Moraes is the latest development in an ongoing feud with Musk’s platform. The company clashed with de Moraes earlier this year over free speech, accounts associated with the far-right and misinformation on the platform, and it claims to be a victim of censorship.”

Of course, when mocking birds at the AP talk about ‘far-right’ accounts, we know it was no such things – but rather people who openly opposed Justice Moraes and his unelected ruling of the country.

The threats of prison against X’s representative led Musk to remove all remaining staff from the south American country.

“The Supreme Court on Wednesday notified X of de Moraes’ order in a reply to a post from the company’s global government affairs account on the social platform.”

The court said that “in case of non-compliance with the determination, the decision could bring about suspension of the social media network’s activities in Brazil”.

Musk’s reaction was swift, as he posted an AI image of a Moraes look-alike in robe, cuffed and imprisoned.

One day, @Alexandre, this picture of you in prison will be real. Mark my words. pic.twitter.com/ZkHExAwQxm

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2024

Read more:

The Crackdown: Brazilian Communist Supreme Court Issues Arrest Warrants for Opposition Leaders Including a Comedian and a Journalist

The post Brazil’s Tyrant Justice Moraes To Take X Platform Out of the Country – Musk Posts Meme Vowing To See Him Behind Bars appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guest Post by Pro-life Leader Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life

Recent headlines are all about Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance predicting on a Sunday morning talk show that, if re-elected, President Donald Trump would veto any national bill banning abortion.

As is so often the case with the legacy media, they were asking the wrong question.

In the current political climate, such a pro-life bill would not make it to Trump’s desk. Congress doesn’t have the political will, and the filibuster creates a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

So asking a question like NBC’s Kristen Welker asked is setting up a scenario that is totally devoid of reality.

Another unlikely scenario is a Democrat-controlled Congress sending to Trump the Women’s Health Protection Act, a radical piece of legislation that would undo every pro-life law in the nation.

I wonder why they didn’t ask about that.

I am still waiting for the interview in which the media ask about the actual pro-life measures that will be within the President’s power from day one, all of which he did in his first term. For instance:

• Will you reinstate the expanded Mexico City policy, which so efficiently kept U.S. tax dollars from flowing to abortion profiteers overseas?
• Will you reinstate the rule barring any organization that receives Title X funds for family planning from discussing abortion with their clients?
• Will you continue to appoint federal judges who understand that the right to life is fundamental to our Constitution?
• Will you have the United States once again sign on to the life-affirming Geneva Consensus Declaration?
• Will you again defund the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), which peddles abortion ideology in 150 nations?
• Will you reinstate the office of Conscience and Religious Freedom within the Department of Health and Human Services?

But, of course, the Trump-hating media are not interested in making the President seem reasonable to pro-life and pro-choice people alike, by reminding them that he supports pro-life measures that most Americans likewise support.

Anti-Trumpers don’t want to remind pro-life people of what he actually accomplished, because that might encourage rather than suppress the pro-life vote.

We already have the tools we need to change public policy in a second Trump term to better protect the unborn.

We need freedom of speech, so we can educate people on abortion; freedom of religion to activate churches to protect the unborn; freedom of assembly to allow for pro-life marches, rallies, protests and prayer vigils; and, importantly, existing pro-life laws, which actually keep some money away from abortion businesses and protect some babies.

These tools already are in our arsenal, but the Democrats want to take them away from us. They’re throwing peaceful pro-lifers in prison, censoring pro-life speech, trying to shut down pregnancy centers and canceling pro-life politicians.

President Trump is the best person to protect the tools we need in order to end abortion. We don’t need him to give pro-life speeches or commit to signing bills – like a national ban on abortion – that aren’t going to come to his desk in the first place.

We have to get him elected, because if the Democrats have their way, the pro-life movement will not have the political freedom to protect any babies.

And yet here we are, over the weekend and today, arguing on social media and in the press about whether we can support President Trump because, as some say, he’s “backing away” from the pro-life position.

In reality, the choice before us is not between President Trump and somebody better. It’s between President Trump and somebody worse. It’s between President Trump, who made it possible for states to protect the unborn, as many of them now do and will continue to do, and Kamala Harris, who wants to take away the ability of states to protect the unborn by making abortion a fundamental constitutional right.

I often say that mothers do not choose abortion because they have freedom of choice, but because they have no freedom and no choice. In this election, if we want to preserve our freedom to protect life, there is only one choice.

The post Frank Pavone: Let’s Stop Asking the Wrong Questions About Trump and Abortion appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guest Post by Miriam Judith

A Former Massachusetts police officer has been accused of murdering a 23-year-old pregnant woman whom he had allegedly been sexually abusing since she was just 15-years-old.

According to NBC Boston, Mathew Farwell was federally indicted on Wednesday for allegedly strangling Sandra Birchmore to death in her apartment back in February 2021 and then staging her death to appear as a suicide. This occurred shortly after Birchmore informed Farwell that he was the likely father of the child she was carrying.

The two met back when Birchmore was a member of the Stoughton Police Explorers Academy which she began in 2010 when she was 12 years old and continued until 2016.

According to the report, Farwell is one of three officers accused of having inappropriate sexual relations with the woman, however, Farwell is the only one who has been accused of sexually abusing Birchmore while she was still underage. While the former officer admitted to having sex with the minor when she was 16, likely hoping that the age of consent laws would yield him a lesser charge, he denied any sexual abuse taking place before then.

However, prosecutors accused Farwell of asking Birchmore to delete any evidence of his sexual activity with her prior to her being 16-years-old, and allegedly researched how to delete the data from his own phone.

Stephen Kelleher who is an assistant special agent in charge of FBI Boston made the following statement, “Let me be clear, Matthew Farwell’s gun and badge did not grant him the authority to ignore the Constitution, and they certainly did not entitle him to sexually abuse and rape a child before killing her and her unborn baby in an attempt to cover up his alleged crimes.”

Farwell’s charges include one count of killing a witness or victim, as well as one count wire fraud. If found guilty he faces a minimum sentence of life in prison.

State investigators originally ruled Birchmore’s cause of death as a suicide, which has been contradicted by the family pathologist reports which allegedly suggest that the woman was killed. The family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the town of Stoughton.

Police Chief Donna McNamara’s full statement:

“The day after Sandra Birchmore was found dead in her Canton apartment, I ordered a lengthy and aggressive internal affairs investigation, the instructions of which made it clear that no stone should be left unturned. The Stoughton Police Department has supported other agencies and worked with other agencies, including the FBI investigation that today resulted in a murder indictment that concluded that Sandra was killed. The alleged murder of Sandra is a horrific injustice. The allegations against the suspect, a former Stoughton Police Officer, represent the single worst act of not just professional misconduct but indeed human indecency that I have observed in a nearly three-decade career in law enforcement. It has been my life’s work over these past three years to ensure that justice was served. As I have stated previously, Sandra Birchmore received no justice during her life. It is imperative that justice be served in her death, and today’s actions appear to bring our society one step closer to justice.”

The post Former Massachusetts Police Officer Arrested for Killing Pregnant 23-Year-Old Sandra Birchmore, Who He Allegedly Sexually Abused Since She Was a Minor appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As someone with a degree in Misesian (Austrian) economics, I find that Kamala Harris has given me an unlimited supply of ill-informed economic policies to tear apart. Take, for instance, her proposed ban on grocery price gouging. Such a policy is almost certain to lead to shortages, as it disrupts the natural market mechanisms that balance supply and demand. Moreover, the concept of “profit-driven inflation” is fundamentally flawed. Inflation is not caused by corporate greed but is, in fact, a monetary phenomenon. The real culprit behind inflation is the Biden administration’s reckless expansion of the money supply, soaring debt, and excessive government spending.

Under Biden, the M2 money supply—which includes cash, checking deposits, and easily convertible near money—has ballooned. In 2019, the M2 money supply was approximately $15.4 trillion. By 2024, it had surged to around $21.02 trillion, representing an increase of nearly 36%. This unprecedented growth in the money supply is the primary driver of the inflation we’re experiencing today, not the actions of individual companies.

The basic law of supply and demand tells us that when supply increases while demand remains the same, prices go down. The same principle applies to money. When the government prints more money, the value of each dollar—its buying power—decreases. This is why your grocery bills are much higher now than they were under Trump.

Kamala’s proof of price gouging relies on a questionable calculation that she believes shows milk producers increased prices beyond the decades-high inflation created by the Biden administration. First off, production quantities are set months in advance of when products will be sold. As a result, prices are set based on expectations about future inflation. So, while inflation may have been 5% when production was underway, analysts rightly anticipated that inflation would be higher by the time the products reached the market, and therefore, they set the prices accordingly.

The reason socialism fails is because governments are backward-looking, while companies have to be forward-looking. The government, after the fact, has the benefit of perfect data and no skin in the game. They then analyze retrospectively the actions of corporations and decide what the companies did wrong. Another issue with the government is that they intentionally use limited information to arrive at a desired narrative. For example, when they claimed gasoline companies made record profits in the second year of the pandemic, they ignored the fact that these same companies suffered incredible losses in the first year of the pandemic because no one was driving. The companies average those gains and losses and arrive at a normal average profit. The Kamalites, however, just look at the gains, ignore the losses, and claim higher-than-usual profits.

Capping prices and forcing companies to sell at a price lower than what they believe the market price should be will inevitably result in shortages. Companies will simply stop producing a product if the government forces them to sell it at a price lower than the cost plus a normal profit. Moreover, the government should not have the authority to determine what constitutes a “normal” profit because it lacks the detailed information that corporations gain through countless interactions between buyers and sellers, happening millions of times every day.

Another point the Biden White House misses is that profits were higher in nominal terms because of inflation. The number of dollars was higher than the previous year, but those dollars were worth less than before. So, when you take a normal 3-8% profit margin and multiply it by the 13% inflated dollars, you end up with a staggering number, which Kamala and Joe claim was price gouging. In reality, it wasn’t price gouging—it was just the normal effects of inflation.

When oil prices go up, the price of everything else follows. Joe Biden’s approach of insulting Saudi Arabia and refusing to engage with them as Trump did caused oil prices to rise. Add to this the Bidenflation factor, and costs skyrocketed. To stay in business, companies had to charge prices that covered the added costs from Biden’s policies plus a normal profit margin, which, once again, resulted in big, scary numbers. Kamala’s response was to raise the minimum wage, which accounts for 20%-40% of prices. So, raising the minimum wage further increased prices…

Getting back to the milk example Kamala is harping on: Her portrayal is that big, greedy, Republican-voting milk companies gouged the price of milk because they supposedly hate children and families and want kids to underperform in school for some reason. According to this narrative, the milk companies all spontaneously decided to call each other and say, “Let’s raise the price of milk really high.” And apparently, they chose this exact moment in history to do it because, for some reason, they had never thought of it before.

If the narrative that big, evil corporations raised prices out of greed were true, then it should also be true that nice, kind, children-loving, Democrat-voting farmers and small milk producers would be selling milk at a lower price. However, if you look at prices at big-box stores like Target and Walmart, everything, including milk, is actually cheaper than at mom-and-pop stores. This shows that the antitrust narrative falls apart. Big-box stores, large producers, and commercial farms end up dominating the sector because they are more efficient and can sell goods cheaper than small producers. If this weren’t the case, small producers would enter the market, sell at lower prices, and make more money—but they can’t.

Kamala’s economic policies are the exact answers you’d get from a five-year-old. If you ask a child, “Milk is really expensive, what should the government do?” your kid might say, “The government should make them sell it cheaper.” As much as you love your children, you probably don’t let them make major decisions for your family. It would be just as misguided to have them write national economic policies.

The post No, Kamala, There is no Profit-Driven Inflation appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.