A private entity constructed by the Biden administration to perform semiconductor research and chock full of Biden administration members is being terminated.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced Monday that that the National Institute of Standards and Technology will operate the National Semiconductor Technology Center, booting the National Center for the Advancement of Semiconductor Technology Center, known as Natcast.

As noted by the New York Post, the CHIPS Act called for the Commerce Department’s NSRTC to dole out $11 billion in semiconductor research funding. But what was not required was the way in which Natcast was created to provide soft landings for Biden administration employees, Lutnick said.

“From the very beginning Natcast served as a semiconductor slush fund that did nothing but line the pockets of Biden loyalists with American tax dollars,” he said, according to a news release on the Commerce Department’s website.

“The Biden Administration had no authority to manipulate legislation in a way that would allow them to establish, staff, and govern a corporation to act as a government agency. Ending this illegal relationship between Natcast and the NSTC will ensure that the Commerce Department keeps control of taxpayer funds and delivers investments and benefits for all Americans,” he said.

Lutnick said the deal Biden’s team cut to ship $7.4 billion to Natcast is illegal and is that the spigot is being turned off.

The release said that from the start, the venture was polluted by politics: “In an effort to skirt clear legal restrictions prohibiting government agencies from establishing corporations, the Biden-era Commerce Department officials handpicked individuals friendly to the Biden Administration to serve on a ‘Selection Committee’ that, in turn, chose who would form the entity that the Department anticipated would serve as the operator of the NSTC.”

“The Selection Committee included Jason Matheny (who held several roles in the Biden White House), Don Rosenberg (a partner at a venture capital firm whose portfolio companies received at least $117 million in federal grants), and Brenda Wilkerson (a self-described advocate for ‘social justice for underrepresented communities in technology’),” the release said.

The release said the connection continued after Natcast was formed.

“The Biden Administration then stacked Natcast with former Biden officials. The majority of Natcast’s executives, and a few of its trustees, previously held formal positions either within the Commerce Department itself or as members of the Industrial Advisory Committee, which advised the Commerce Department on CHIPS Act implementation,” the release said, and walked officials of the new entity through the incorporation process.

“Rather than establishing these operations within the Department, however, Biden Administration officials spent significant time, effort, and resources creating an unaccountable, outside entity — Natcast — to administer taxpayer funds,” Lutnick’s letter to Natcast informing it of the decision said

“Then, on January 16, 2025 — just days before President Trump’s inauguration — Natcast and the Biden Administration executed an agreement in an attempt to sever democratic accountability for Natcast,” Lutnick wrote.

The letter noted that at that time, the Biden administration handed Natcast $7.4 billion in advance payments.

“The agreement further attempts to remove any discretion the Department has in disbursing this funding. Instead, it requires the Department to issue payments annually and whenever Natcast meets certain milestones. And rather than allowing the government to terminate for convenience, as is standard in government contracts, the agreement limits the government’ s authority to terminate for certain reasons and under certain procedures — purporting to tie future administrations’ hands,” the letter explained.

“These actions do not just give the appearance of impropriety; they flout federal law.”

“The Department under the Biden Administration had no specific legal authorization to establish Natcast as it did — the CHIPS Act does not contain a provision specifically permitting the creation of a corporation to serve as the operator of the NSTC. In sum, the Biden Administration’s creation of Natcast for the purpose of operating the NSTC violated the lawful limits on the federal government’s authority,” the letter continued.

Lutnick wrote that “Ending this illegal relationship will ensure efficient use of taxpayer funds and continued American leadership in the semiconductor industry, and it will return responsibility — and accountability — for faithfully executing the CHIPS Act to the Department, as Congress intended.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Trump Admin Yanks $7.4 Billion Deal from Entity ‘Illegally Created’ by the Biden Admin appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a remarkable underwater operation, divers recently undertook the restoration of the iconic Christ of the Abyss, marking its 70th anniversary. This bronze statue, submerged off the coast of San Fruttuoso in the Ligurian Sea, has long been a symbol of faith, maritime heritage, and resilience, attracting divers and pilgrims from around the world.

The restoration project, carried out by a team of expert divers and conservators, involved meticulous cleaning of the statue to remove marine deposits and ensure its preservation for future generations. The operation required careful planning and specialized techniques, reflecting Italy’s

The post Italy Honors the 70th Anniversary of the Christ of the Abyss with Deep-Sea Restoration appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On July 24, 2024, pro-Palestinian protesters removed all three American flags from the flagpoles outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., replaced them with Palestinian flags, and burned at least one American flag alongside an effigy of Netanyahu. According to U.S. Park Police, two of the three flags taken down were burned by protesters.

That will never happen again, because President Trump has signed an executive order criminalizing the burning of the American flag. Just hours after the order was signed, a man was arrested near the White House for setting fire to a flag.

We win! We got our country back. Thank you, President Trump.

On August 25, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to prosecute acts of American flag desecration when such acts violate existing laws or incite violence. The order emphasizes the flag as a sacred national symbol of freedom and unity and notes that burning it is a provocative act that can incite unrest or be used by foreign nationals to threaten Americans.

Under the order, the Attorney General is instructed to prioritize enforcement of criminal and civil laws against flag desecration when linked to crimes such as violence, hate crimes, property destruction, or violations of civil rights.

Federal agencies are also directed to refer potential violations to state and local authorities under laws such as disorderly conduct, open burning restrictions, or property destruction statutes. The Department of Justice may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of First Amendment exceptions in this area.

Additionally, the order authorizes immigration penalties, allowing visas, residency, or naturalization to be denied or revoked, and permitting deportation of foreign nationals who desecrate the flag under applicable federal law. Standard severability and implementation provisions ensure the order remains effective even if portions are challenged.

Trump, in his executive order, urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to find a case that could challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling on flag burning. His order directly tests a landmark decision: the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, in which the Court ruled 5-4 that burning the American flag is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and Antonin Scalia.

A man was arrested in Lafayette Park outside the White House on Monday evening after setting fire to an American flag, just hours after President Trump signed an executive order directing prosecutions for flag desecration. The U.S. Secret Service detained the individual around 6:15 p.m. and turned him over to the U.S. Park Police, which made the arrest for violating a regulation prohibiting open fires in public parks.

The man, who identified himself as a U.S. Army veteran with more than 20 years of service, said he was protesting Trump, calling him an “illegal fascist president,” and defended his actions as protected under the First Amendment. Trump’s new order instructs the Justice Department to pursue cases of flag desecration by citing state and local laws, and allows immigration penalties for foreign nationals involved in such acts.

In recent years, flag burning has increased in frequency, particularly during anti-Trump, anti-ICE, and pro-Hamas demonstrations. Examples include anti-Israel protests in Washington, D.C., in July 2024 during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Congressional address; flag burning at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 2024; and a July 4, 2024, protest in New York City’s Washington Square Park.

At Union Station in Washington, D.C., pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas demonstrators removed American flags, hoisted Palestinian flags, and burned an American flag alongside an effigy of Netanyahu. Even Vice President Harris condemned “any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas” and “the burning of the American flag,” showing bipartisan opposition. More recently, in June 2025, anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles were seen waving Mexican flags while burning American flags in response to federal immigration raids.

Over the years, numerous polls have measured American attitudes toward banning flag burning. While results vary depending on wording and timing, support for restrictions has consistently outweighed opposition. In 1989, Gallup found 71% in favor of a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to prohibit flag burning, though that number declined to around 62–63% in the 1990s. A 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll still showed 56% support.

More recent surveys reflect ongoing division: a 2020 YouGov poll found 49% thought flag burning should be illegal while 34% said it should be legal; a 2021 Knight Foundation/Ipsos poll showed only 31% agreed it should be allowed.

Republican support for restrictions remains strongest—67% back a constitutional amendment compared to 49% of Democrats. Similarly, 51% of Republicans support outright prohibition compared to 39% of Democrats, and 67% favor revoking citizenship for flag-burners, a position supported by only 29% of independents and about 25% of Democrats. Overall, two-thirds of conservatives favor a flag-burning amendment, nearly double the support among liberals at 35%.

The post Burn a Flag, Go to Prison, Get Deported: New Executive Order appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Last week, a judge ordered the Fulton County Board of Commissioners to seat two Republican Party nominees: Jason Frazier and Julie Adams.  The two were nominated in May but have yet to be seated.

Two of the Democrat members, Dana Barrett and Mo Ivory, were able to thwart Commissioner Bridget Thorne’s motion to confirm the two Republican appointees.  Because of the absence of three other members on the seven-member board, the motion was blocked in a 2-2 vote.

On August 4th, Judge David Emerson ordered the two nominees be confirmed as per Georgia law, which states that the the board’s members “shall be appointed” by the “chairperson of the county executive committee of the political party” of whichever party has the “largest number of votes in this state for members of the General Assembly”.

In that order, Judge Emerson stated, “The respondent Board of Commissioners (BOC) contends the “shall” is not mandatory, but rather “directory”, and that the county commissioners can exercise discretion to reject any nominee for any reason.”

The commissioners filed a request to reconsider, which was denied.  So they filed an emergency motion with the Georgia Supreme Court, who moved the docket to the Georgia Court of Appeals.  The appeals court denied the motion as well.

Today, at 9am, a hearing will take place regarding the two members who voted against the appointments, and a third who was not present but is also refusing to appoint the two despite the Court’s orders.

Commissioners Dana Barrett, Mo Ivory, and Marvin Harrington still refuse to vote for the appointments.

Barrett, who has served on the board since November 2022, took to Instagram to post a video calling Frazier and Adams, the Republican nominees, “election deniers” and acknowledging that the Court has ruled against her and her colleagues.  “Our elections are under attack,” she said, before invoking Texas and President Trump’s movement to eliminate universal mail-in balloting and untrustworthy black-box voting machines.

1 of 2 Clips:

Three Fulton County Board of Commissioners REFUSE to vote to appoint two lawfully nominated Republican members, calling them “election deniers”.

A Superior Court Judge has ruled, twice, that they must be seated citing Georgia Law that says they “shall be… pic.twitter.com/ltoR7V0vb5

— CannCon (@CannConActual) August 27, 2025

Commissioner Mo Ivory also posted her thoughts to Instagram, saying she’s “standing on [her] principles, whether the millage rate or about MAGA Republicans…nobody can force me to vote “yes” on something that I have the discretion to use my research…to make a decision.”

“It’s dangerous to start opening the door to judges telling elected officials how they should vote,” she continued.  Ironically, the very board she is obligated by law to appoint has been told that it’s members’ votes to certify an election are ceremonial.

Commissioner Bridget Thorne, a seasoned poll manager for almost a decade before her election to the BOC, responded to the partisan members during last week’s vote:

Commissioner @1fultonthorne responds with the fire, mentioning one of the GOP board members being denied was sued because she refused to certify an election without doing her due diligence in the May 2024 primary.

From Marc Elias’s own Democracy Docket:

“Julie Adams, who… https://t.co/eiI2ZQyJnd pic.twitter.com/94otzpd6xU

— CannCon (@CannConActual) August 27, 2025

Marc Elias’s own Democracy Docket notes that Adams is being labeled an election denier because she refused to vote to certify a Georgia primary election in May 2024 because she felt she was not provided enough information to ensure the election was legitimately run:

“Julie Adams, who currently serves on the Fulton County Board of Elections and Registration, was at the center of May 2024 controversy when she refused to certify the county’s primary election results. Adams, a prominent election denier with ties to the far-right Election Integrity Network (EIN), refused to certify her county’s primary election because she claimed she didn’t have access to all information about the voting process in order to verify the results. “

This isn’t a new theme in Fulton County.

In the 2020 Presidential Election, Mark Wingate, then a member of the same Fulton County Board of Elections, was denied chain of custody documents from the election before certifying the election.

Fulton Co not only wouldn’t provide chain of custody documents to citizens for transparency, but they WOULDNT PROVIDE IT TO THEIR OWN CERTIFYING BOARD.

Like I said months ago: Fani is ABSOLUTELY prosecuting the wrong people on the wrong side of this.

Fulton County was flat… https://t.co/fCmeYSNw42 pic.twitter.com/EKrniYB5f8

— CannCon (@CannConActual) April 2, 2024

Worse yet, Wingate was also told the county elections department was unable to operate their new BlueCrest sorter machines.  They were intended to be used for automatic signature verification given the influx of mail-in ballots.  When he inquired as to how to county handled signature verification then, he was told: “We didn’t do any”.

THERE IT IS.

Testimony today, under oath, from Fulton County Registrations and Elections Board Member Mark Wingate.

Fani Willis now KNOWS that NO signature verification was done in Fulton. That 147,000 ballots that, BY LAW, are invalid.

This influence NOT JUST THE… pic.twitter.com/4J8KwAVi8V

— CannCon (@CannConActual) April 2, 2024

The post [VIDEO] Fulton County Board of Commissioners Defy Court Order – Refuse to Appoint Republican Election Board Nominees – Contempt Hearing Today appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday morning and repeatedly refused to answer when host Joe Scarborough asked him if more police would reduce crime in the city.

The entire conversation was predicated on the idea that Trump may send federal forces to the crime-torn city and Scarborough was trying so hard to tee up the ball for Johnson, almost outright urging him to give the obvious answer, but Johnson just refused to respond.

When he finally did offer an answer, it was all about other issues like affordable housing and social welfare spending. He is such a disaster of a mayor.

FOX News has details:

Chicago mayor repeatedly dodges MSNBC questions about whether city needs more police

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson dodged repeated questions from MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Tuesday about whether an increased police presence in the city would help cut down on crime.

“Do you believe that the streets of Chicago would be safer if there were more uniformed police officers on the streets of Chicago?” Scarborough asked Johnson.

Scarborough posed the question to the liberal Chicago mayor multiple times. Johnson instead emphasized the need for expanded social programs, including affordable housing.

“I believe the city of Chicago and cities across America would be safer if we actually had, you know, affordable housing. Look, I’m not saying—” Johnson began, before Scarborough cut him off, noting it wasn’t the question he had asked.

Scarborough pressed again, asking if more officers would reduce crime. Johnson said it shouldn’t be narrowed down to police alone, calling that an “antiquated approach.”

“Are you hearing what I’m saying?” Scarborough pressed again.

Watch the video. This is painful:

Brandon Johnson repeatedly refuses to say that more cops on the streets of Chicago would help reduce crime.

For four minutes. https://t.co/LXwebeGiZX pic.twitter.com/33M1Kwl8Yi

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) August 26, 2025

Trump has put Democrats in an impossible position where they actually have to deny reality. It’s truly something to behold.

The post Watch Chicago Mayor Johnson Repeatedly Refuse to Answer When Asked if More Police Would Reduce Crime in the City (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.