Border Czar Kamala Harris visited the southern border in Douglas, Arizona, on Friday and claimed that she will “do more to secure our border” after creating the worst border crisis in history.

We know this isn’t true because if she had any intention of securing the border, she would do it now.

As President Trump has repeatedly said, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could close the border immediately by signing an executive order.

President Trump decried Kamala’s planned visit on Thursday, saying, “She should save her airfare. She should go back to the White House and tell the president to close the border.” He continued, “Instead, she’s going there to try and convince people that she wasn’t as bad as everybody knows she was. She was the worst in history!”

“She Lost 325,000 Children” – Trump Slams Kamala Harris’ Open Border Policies in Press Conference Ahead of Kamala’s Arizona Border Visit (VIDEO)

Kamala, in her speech, blamed Trump for the open border, claiming he "tanked" the so-called border security bill that she and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer backed, which would give amnesty to illegals and still allow millions to cross the border each year.

Notably, while claiming that she will pursue criminal charges against illegal border crossers, Kamala makes it clear that she will continue to do nothing to stop bogus asylum claims and the influx of illegal immigrants through ports of entry. "If someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses our border unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum," Kamala says, implicitly stating that nothing will change. If illegals self-surrender to Border Patrol agents and claim asylum, they will still be allowed into the country, as they currently are under Biden and Harris.

After processing and not deporting illegals at the border, a Kamala Harris Administration will continue to take these people to airports and bus stations to be transported around the country.

Harris made an appearance at the border for a few minutes to take some photos and make it look like she cares. She also delivered remarks at Cochise College on Friday, ironically, with "Border Security and Stability" signs behind her.

WATCH:

Harris: And as President, I won't only bring back the border security bill that Donald Trump tanked, I will do more to secure our border. To reduce illegal border crossings, I will take further action to keep the border closed between ports of entry. Those who cross our borders unlawfully will be apprehended and removed and barred from reentering for five years. We will pursue more severe criminal charges against repeat violators, and if someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses our border unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum While we understand that many people are desperate to migrate to the United States, our system must be orderly and secure. And that is my goal. And that is my goal.

Harris toured Trump's border wall, which she's previously called racist, for only a few minutes for the cameras:

National Border Patrol Council VP Art Del Cueto slammed Kamala's last-minute "Hail Mary before the election." "she was there for 20 minutes for a photo op. That's all she did," Del Cueto said.

In contrast, President Trump has visited the border countless times over the last eight years and "stood there for over an hour in over 100-degree heat with victims of families from illegal aliens, and he spoke to reporters," he said.

Del Cueto: She didn't speak to agents. She spoke to two members of management, and I'm going to tell you, I bet money that even those two members—I feel bad for them because I guarantee you they didn't even want to be there. But she spoke to these two members of management, and she was there for 20 minutes for a photo op. That's all she did. President Trump actually cares, and he's actually gone down there and met with boots on the ground, and he's done it multiple times for long times every single time he's been there. This is just nothing but a complete photo op. That's all it is, it's her Hail Mary, before the election.

The post WHAT A JOKE! Kamala Harris Claims She Will Finally Secure The Border if She Wins: “Our System Must be Orderly and Secure” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This article originally appeared on WND.com

Guest by post by Bob Unruh

‘This is an attempt to interfere with the work of Abundant Hope Pregnancy Resource Center as it offers life-giving help to vulnerable women.’

America’s abortion industry almost always describes itself as a health service, or health care, and claims abortions are a “medical procedure.”

It’s actually a billion dollar industry, and that now has been confirmed, according to a report from LifeNews, in a lawsuit by an abortion business that sued a pregnancy help center, which is located next door, essentially for stealing customers.

The report, originally from Operation Rescue, said the lawsuit is from Four Women, a Massachusetts abortion supplier against Abundant Hope Pregnancy Center, also known as Attleboro Women’s Health Center.

“The abortion business is accusing Abundant Hope of unlawful practices aimed at interfering with women seeking abortions,” according to the report.

The lawsuit by FW claims the “center engages in deceptive advertising and uses technologically advanced methods to reach abortion-vulnerable women, preventing moms from obtaining abortions.”

The report explains the abortion business is complaining that the pregnancy center promotes “appointments in connection with abortion care,” but actually, “It only takes a few seconds of perusing the pregnancy resource center’s professional website to see offerings of material resources and emotional and spiritual support.”

Specifically, “there are offerings for counseling and Bible-based abortion recovery as well as free pregnancy testing and ultrasound imaging.”

The report confirmed, “No indication is given on the website that a woman can schedule an abortion.”

The legal filing alleges that the pregnancy center intercepted communications between women and the abortion business and then called them.

However, the action notes that the abortion business turned in no complaints to police.

“There is no way to know whether these alleged electronic communications with patients are true and accurate,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, “or whether patients simply got confused about the contacts they had made as they searched online. Of course, those are not the only two possibilities.”

Newman noted, “This legal action is proof that women are changing their minds when receiving hopeful, truthful alternatives. This is an attempt to interfere with the work of Abundant Hope Pregnancy Resource Center as it offers life-giving help to abortion vulnerable women and to women traumatized from past abortions.”

Abortion for all, of course, has been one of two key agenda points for the Biden-Harris administration, and Kamala Harris has promised that it will become even more important if she is elected, as she wants to destroy the Senate filibuster process in order to impose her abortion regime on the entire nation.

Copyright 2024 WND News Center

The post Abortion Business Sues Pregnancy Health Center – for Stealing Its Customers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Gateway Pundit reported on New York City professor Shellyne Rodriguez who went viral for a pattern of disturbing behavior.

First, Rodriguez vandalized a pro-life table at Hunter College and cursed out students.

PROFESSOR GONE WILD: Pro-abortion professor Shellyne Rodriquez curses at pro-life students and vandalizes table at Hunter College. pic.twitter.com/QNspuXB4KK

— Students for Life of America | Pro-Life Gen (@StudentsforLife) May 17, 2023

Then, after being confronted by a New York Post reporter about the incident, she threatened the reporter and raised a machete to his neck.

“Get the f*ck away from my door, or I’m gonna chop you up with this machete!” she shouted.

“Get the f*ck away from my door! Get the f*ck away from my door!” she shouted before slamming her front door.

According to the New York Post, the professor followed the reporter and cameraman outside and threatened them.

Rodriguez, who pleaded guilty to harassment and menacing, is at it again.

Wearing a ‘Police Murder People’ t-shirt now being hawked online, she recently led a pro-Palestine crowd outside the Brooklyn Museum in chanting, “Our ancestors dreamed of us slitting the master’s throat.”

As Rodriguez raged from the stage, the supportive crowd mindlessly chanted her unhinged statements.

Watch (language warning):

NYC, Sept. 20 — Shellyne Rodriguez, the far-left academic who put a machete to the throat of a NYPost reporter last year, lead a crowd outside the Brooklyn Museum in chanting: “Our ancestors dreamed of us, slitting the masters throat.” Video by @L2FTV: pic.twitter.com/iEwl5UhZtz

— Andy Ngo ️‍ (@MrAndyNgo) September 21, 2024

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley wrote about Rodriguez in his newest book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” and noted, “She is the very face of an age of rage.”

The post Professor Who Held Machete to Reporter’s Throat Now Leading Pro-Palestine Crowd in Violent Chants of ‘Slitting the Master’s Throat’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a stunning rebuke to Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a federal judge has ruled that he cannot certify the results of the 2024 election if any counties withhold certification due to allegations of fraud.

In the recent federal court case involving American Encore and Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Secretary of State, Judge Michael T. Liburdi issued an order on a challenge to the Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM).

The plaintiffs contended that the manual’s “Speech Provision” and “Canvass Provision” violated the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Arizona voters, specifically claiming it disenfranchised voters by allowing election officials to suppress speech and exclude votes from counties that fail to timely certify their results.

The Speech Provision in the manual explicitly prohibits actions like “raising one’s voice” or using “offensive language” at polling places, which plaintiffs argue could easily be weaponized to silence free speech under the guise of preventing voter intimidation.

Judge Liburdi acknowledged these concerns but noted the state’s intent to ensure orderly polling places. Plaintiffs contended that this rule was overly broad and amounted to unconstitutional censorship, which could have chilling effects on free speech not only near polling places but across the state.

On the Canvass Provision, the plaintiffs claimed that giving the Secretary of State the authority to proceed with the state canvass without counting votes from any county that failed to certify results in time was unprecedented and posed a significant risk of disenfranchising voters.

The plaintiffs cited the 2022 election in Cochise County, where election officials delayed certifying results, as an example of how this rule could be misused to throw out legally cast votes.

In the judge’s ruling, they referred to the “Winter factors,” which come from a 2008 Supreme Court case, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and are used to evaluate whether a court should issue a preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction is a court order that temporarily halts a specific action while a case is ongoing, preventing potential harm or injustice.

The Court concluded that all four Winter factors weighed decisively in favor of granting the Plaintiffs preliminary relief. As a result, the Court has issued an injunction preventing the Defendants from enforcing the controversial Canvass Provision during the course of the ongoing litigation.

The Winter test, derived from the Supreme Court case Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., establishes the criteria for courts to grant preliminary injunctions. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, (2) a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.

Here, the Court found that the Plaintiffs met all four prongs:

1. • Likelihood of Success on the Merits: The Court determined that the Plaintiffs presented strong legal arguments suggesting that the Canvass Provision, which allows the Arizona Secretary of State to exclude county votes from the state’s final tally if a county withholds certification, is unconstitutional. This provision potentially disenfranchises entire counties and undermines the integrity of the electoral process. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had a strong chance of succeeding in proving that this provision violated federal law and the Constitution.

• • Irreparable Harm: The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument that enforcing the Canvass Provision would cause irreparable harm to Arizona voters by depriving them of their constitutional right to have their votes counted. Once voters are disenfranchised, the harm cannot be undone after the fact, making this a key factor in favor of the Plaintiffs.

• • Balance of Equities: The Court weighed the potential harms to both sides and found that the harm to voters and counties if the Canvass Provision were enforced outweighed any inconvenience to the Secretary of State. The ability to certify election results must be balanced with the need to ensure that those results are accurate and representative of all votes cast. In this case, the balance of equities tipped in favor of preventing potential disenfranchisement.

• • Public Interest: Finally, the Court determined that the public interest favored halting the Canvass Provision’s enforcement. The integrity of the electoral process and the right of all eligible voters to have their voices heard are paramount in a democratic society. Allowing the provision to remain in place during the legal proceedings could undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections.

As a result of these findings, the Court ruled to enjoin, or temporarily block, the enforcement of the Canvass Provision while the case proceeds.

This means that until the final resolution of the case, the Arizona Secretary of State will be prohibited from certifying statewide election results if any counties withhold certification due to fraud or other concerns.

BREAKING: A federal judge in Arizona just ruled that the Democrat Secretary of State can NOT certify the results of the 2024 election if any counties withhold certification due to fraud

“Plaintiffs allege that the plain terms of the Canvass Provision require the Secretary to… pic.twitter.com/cD9862KRTZ

— George (@BehizyTweets) September 28, 2024

You can read the ruling below:

The post Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Democrat Secretary of State from Certifying 2024 Election if Counties Withhold Certification Due to Fraud appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guest post by JoeHoft.com and from AbleChild – republished with permission.

28-year-old Natalie A. Bartock of Butler Pennsylvania died from toxicity from a cocktail of prescribed psychiatric drugs.

Bartock’s doctor who prescribed the deadly cocktail of drugs and the pharmacy that filled the prescriptions have settled a civil suit with the decedent’s estate.

Having those responsible pay through the nose is great, but the real question is why wasn’t the doctor and pharmacist criminally charged for Bartock’s death?

But before unveiling the death-inducing cocktail of prescribed psychiatric drugs that was provided to Bartock over a two-year period, it seems appropriate to reflect on the criminal charges that women receive when murderous crimes are committed while taking these deadly cocktails, while those prescribing walk free.

First, it’s difficult to forget the heartbreaking 2001 case of Texas mother, Andrea Yates. Yates had been prescribed the following cocktail of psychiatric drugs, Trazodone (antidepressant), Haldol (Antipsychotic) Effexor (Antidepressant) and Wellbutrin (antidepressant).

Yates’ psychiatrist, Mohammed Saeed, prescribed Yates the antidepressant Effexor at 450mg – twice the recommended maximum dose- one month before Yates drowned her five children in the home bathtub.

Ironically, Yates had complained of having intense homicidal hallucinations while on the drug and, too late for Yates, in 2005, Wyeth Pharmaceutical added a warning about homicidal ideation associated with Effexor. Furthermore, in 2004 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added suicidality as a side effect of all antidepressants.

Unfortunately, Yates did not benefit from the FDA’s warnings and was found guilty of the murders and is spending the rest of her life in a psychiatric hospital in Texas. Like Yates, a mother in Massachusetts, Lindsay Clancy, currently is facing criminal charges for killing her three small children and like Yates, was drugged out of her mind.

According to Clancy’s attorney, Kevin J. Reddington, Clancy is not guilty of the criminal charges and places blame directly on the psychiatric mind-altering drug cocktail Clancy had been prescribed in the two months leading to the killings. Clancy had unbelievably been prescribed 13 mind-altering psychiatric drugs between October and January 2022-2023.

Given all that is known about the serious side effects associated with the mind-altering antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other psychiatric drugs, it is unconscionable that Clancy’s psychiatrists have not been charged for the murders.

It’s time for those responsible for these horrific crimes to be held responsible. And while it’s unfortunate that in the case in Butler, PA, failed to hold Bartock’s doctor criminally responsible, going after the doctor and pharmacy civilly is a good start.

The following is a list of the drugs Bartock had been prescribed, causing her death of drug toxicity, including oxymorphone, alprazolam, carisoprodol, tramadol and trazodone that she received for 738 days from March 19, 2016, through May 11, 2018.

The mind-altering drugs that Bartock had been prescribed include, 1,320 325-milligram pills of oxycodone/acetaminophen (PAIN), 3,240 50-milligram pills of tramadol (OPIOD Seizures), 1,530 300-milligram pills of gabapentin (Anti-convulsant), 1,620 1-miligram pills of alprazolam (Benzodiazepine – Anti-anxiety), 740 350-milligram pills of carisoprodol (muscle relaxer), 210 100-milligram pills of trazodone (Antidepressant), 180 10-milligram pills of zolpidem (Insomnia), 116 30-milligram pills of duloxetine (SNRI Antidepressant) and 60 5-milligram pills of oxymorphone ER (Opioid). This drug cocktail averages out to 12.2 highly addictive pills per day.

Let’s consider now what Bartock could have mentally and emotionally experienced as known side effects associated with this cocktail of mind-altering drugs. Hypomania, aggression, anger, terminal insomnia, abnormal dreams, agitation, suicidal ideation, hallucinations, depression, behavior changes, psychosis, confusion, depersonalization, disinhibition, inappropriate behavior, and paranoid reaction to name a few.

These side effects are no different than what probably was experienced by Andrea Yates and Lindsay Clancy. But what stands out is the fact that the women carrying out the murderous acts are charged criminally, while the doctors…the medical experts who carelessly prescribed the cocktails of mind-altering drugs never are held responsible for providing what surely could be argued is the weapon used in the crimes…the drug cocktails.

Bartock’s civil suit settlement on behalf of her estate is a good start, but too much information now is known about the serious adverse events associated with prescription psychiatric drugs for those doctors and pharmacists to remain free from responsibility for irresponsible prescribing.

Only the possibility of being criminally charged for harmful prescribing will bring an end to out-of-control psychiatric drugging. It’s time.

Be the Voice for the Voiceless

Every dollar you give is a powerful statement, a resounding declaration that the struggles of these families will no longer be ignored. Your generosity today will echo through generations, ensuring that the rights and well-being of children are fiercely guarded. Don’t let another family navigate this journey alone. Donate now and join us in creating a world where every child’s mind is nurtured, respected, and given the opportunity to thrive. As a 501(c)3 organization, your donation to AbleChild is not only an investment in the well-being of vulnerable children but also a tax-deductible contribution to a cause that transcends individual lives.

The post ABLECHILD: Death by Drug Cocktail Demands Criminal Charges for Prescribers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.