This article originally appeared on vigilantfox.com and was republished with permission.

Jimmy Kimmel will finally return to the air on Tuesday night, after his show was briefly yanked for falsely labeling Kirk’s suspected assassin as “one of them” in a distasteful dig at conservatives.

Democrats rushed to defend Kimmel, calling it a “First Amendment issue.” But Bill O’Reilly says that story is, frankly, bullsh*t. The real free speech story, he argues, is what these mainstream networks have been doing for years.

NewsNation’s Leland Vittert asked O’Reilly if he thinks Kimmel will apologize on his first show back since last Tuesday. O’Reilly blunted said “no,” and Vittert agreed.

After briefly noting that Kimmel’s punishment was a bit too harsh, he turned the tables on the “freedom of speech” narrative itself — branding the left’s spin on it as complete BS.

“Look, this [Trump v. Kimmel] story is bogus,” O’Reilly told Vittert. “The [real] story is that Disney and Kimmel, for three years, would not put on a non-liberal voice on his program.”

“You talk about no freedom of speech and expression? That story has been totally ignored,” O’Reilly lamented. “And it’s not just ABC. It was CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. Okay? They will not put any non-liberal voice on the air.”

O’Reilly recalled how, before the Trump era, he was booked regularly on mainstream networks. Now, he says he and other conservatives have been deliberately excluded from those programs — something he called “Putin stuff.”

“This whole freedom of speech BS is coming from the far left to make Kimmel a victim and to make Trump a villain when, for ten years, they have BANISHED all traditional conservative thought and discourse on all of their programs.”

“All of them,” O’Reilly continued. “They don’t want non-liberal voices. That is Putin stuff!”

Find more stories like this at VigilantFox.com

The post Bill O’Reilly RIPS APART the ‘Free Speech’ Spin Surrounding Jimmy Kimmel With One Brutal Fact appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The US Secret Service announced Tuesday they had disrupted an illicit telecom threat near the United Nations.

The illicit network could have blacked out cell service, shut down cell towers, and jammed 911 calls in New York City and the surrounding area.

According to FOX News the seizure is the largest of its kind.

The investigation has been ongoing for months by the Secret Service made the announcement this morning before President Trump is scheduled to speak at UN headquarters in New York City.

The US Secret Service released this video on Tuesday morning.

Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office Matt McCool announced that the Secret Service has uncovered and dismantled a large network of fraudulent cellular devices in the New York Tri-State area capable of enabling encrypted communications and threatening local infrastructure.

Special Agent Matt McCool: Hello. My name is Matt McCool, and I’m the Special Agent in charge of the Secret Service, New York Field Office. We are making this announcement as a matter of public interest given timing, amount, and concentration of material recovered during a recent Secret Service protective intelligence investigation.

Following multiple telecommunications related imminent threats directed towards senior US government officials this spring, the US Secret Service began a protective intelligence intelligence investigation to determine the extent and impact these threats could have on protective operations. This was a difficult and complex effort to identify the source of these fraudulent calls and the impact on the Secret Service protective mission. During this period, we leveraged technical assistance and support of federal partners, including Homeland Security Investigations, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

We also received phenomenal support from our state and local law enforcement partners to include the NYPD. The investigation led us to the New York Tri-state area, where investigators discovered tens of thousands of co-located and networked cellular devices capable of carrying out nefarious telecommunications attacks. These devices allowed anonymous encrypted communications between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises, enabling criminal organizations to operate undetected.

This network had the potential to disable cell phone towers and essential eventually shut down the cellular network in New York City. These devices were concentrated within 35 miles of the global meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, now underway in New York City.

Given the timing, location, and proximity and potential for significant disruptions to the New York telecom system, we move quickly to disrupt this network. To be clear, these recovered devices no longer pose a threat to the New York Tri-state area.

We will continue working identifying those responsible in their intent, including whether their plan was to disrupt the UN General Assembly and communications of government and emergency personnel during the official visit of world leaders in and around New York City.

Forensic examinations of the equivalent of 100,000 cell phones worth of data is underway. Early analysis indicates cellular communications between foreign actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement. Given the sensitivity and complexity of this investigation, we are not able to go into specifics at this time. This is an open and active investigation, and we have no arrest to announce today. Rather, this announcement is designed to safeguard critical infrastructure and responsibly provide the public what we can at this time.

The post BREAKING: Secret Service Dismantles Illicit Telecom Threat in NYC Before General Assembly Where Trump Will Speak – Could Have Blacked Out Cell Service and Jammed 911 Calls – SIM Cards Tied to Foreign Governments appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

It is United Nation’s General Assembly week in New York City. That means traffic will be worse than usual as international leaders make their way to the UN headquarters in New York City.

French President Emmanuel Macron was one of the unlucky normies who had to wait for President Trump to pass.

New York City Police blocked French President Emmanuel Macron’s motorcade from moving to let President Trump pass.

President Macron dialed President Trump for assistance but that didn’t work either.

This was not the reception President Macron was expecting.

It is not clear who took the video. We are working to find out more.

NYPD stops Macron’s motorcade for Trump to pass

After a short unsuccessful chat with a cop, the French prez dialed Trump for assistance – but that didn’t work either pic.twitter.com/sVLgnsXNKy

— RT (@RT_com) September 23, 2025

Macron was forced to walk back to the French Embassy.

President Trump

The post New York City Cops Stop French President Macron’s Motorcade to Let Trump Pass – Macron Is Forced to Walk to French Embassy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guest post by Joel Gilbert

When he was shot, Charlie Kirk was answering questions at a TPUSA campus event, engaging in the very essence of what conservatives believe in – debate. He welcomed dissent and even gave priority for those who disagreed with him to “come to the front of the line”.

“Prove me wrong” was the message emboldened twice on the tent above Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, signaling that an open exchange of ideas was encouraged.

For Kirk, the marketplace of ideas was central to his understanding of democracy, where disagreements could be hashed out through conversation, persuasion, and ultimately, elections.

One of the defining traits of the modern left is its emotional inability to tolerate disagreement. Rather than engaging in debate, many leftists respond with outrage, dismissal, and personal or even physical attacks when confronted with opposing viewpoints.

For leftists, political differences are not seen as part of a democratic conversation but as threats to identity or morality, making dialogue itself unbearable.

This is why conservatives so often encounter friends or relatives who walk out of a room, hang up the phone, or sever relationships when faced with views that challenge their own.

Their reaction is not intellectual but emotional, rooted in a belief that opposition to their views is inherently “hate” and therefore intolerable.

Assassin Tyler Robinson’s behavior reflects the disturbing alternative leftist view. In a text exchange with transitioning boyfriend Lance Twigg, Robinson admitted to killing Kirk and justified it by first writing, “I had enough of his hatred”.

To Robinson, Kirk’s mere act of speaking represented “hate,” making Kirk’s dialogue intolerable. In Robinson’s leftist worldview, lethal violence was a normal and logical response to disagreement with Kirk’s opinions.

Robinson’s next sentence in his text exchange with Twigg, “Some hate can’t be negotiated out” epitomizes the leftist mindset. Opposing views are inherently “hate,” so negotiation (dialogue) is impossible, and silencing becomes the only option.

While Robinson’s choice of murder was extreme, the anger behind it is not far removed from the everyday experiences that conservatives report as left-leaning individuals shut down dialogue entirely when confronted with opposing views.

This ideological divide reflects a broader cultural clash. Conservatives see speech as the cornerstone of democratic engagement, debating policies, winning arguments, and letting elections reflect those ideas.

The left, increasingly, frames disagreement as “hate,” a narrative pushed heavily since the Obama era, where dissent from his policies was often branded by the Democrats and the media as racism or bigotry rather than political disagreement.

This “hate” framing around opposition to Obama fueled the rise of cancel culture, where missteps, jokes, or even simple misunderstandings became grounds for professional and personal destruction.

Comedian Roseanne Barr’s cancellation in 2018 was the first big example. Despite her lifelong civil rights advocacy and Jewish background, a comedic political tweet ended her career. There could be no understanding nor forgiveness.

When my 2012 film Dreams from My Real Father about Barack Obama’s real biological origins and ideological roots was released, I received countless emails from viewers describing how leftist relatives would storm out of the room after just ten minutes of the film. They could not emotionally tolerate having their worldview challenged.

The Kirk-Robinson conflict played out recently in Bakersfield, California.

On April 10, 2024, leftist activist Rhiddi Patel threatened to kill the entire Bakersfield City Council, declaring on camera during a public comments forum, “We’ll see you at your house, we’ll murder you.”

She was arrested and now faces 21 felony charges, with her trial scheduled for November 10, 2025. Will a California jury convict her?

This brings us back to TPUSA. When I first met Charlie Kirk in 2012, his vision was to bring conservative ideas onto college campuses through student Q&A events. At the time, it seemed like a great idea.

But thirteen years later, the ideological climate on U.S. campuses has shifted so dramatically that TPUSA events are now met with open hostility, framed by leftist students as “provocations” that “spread hate.”

In this environment, TPUSA may need to reconsider whether its campus events approach still achieves its goals, or if it’s time to rethink the battlefield altogether.

The clash between Charlie Kirk’s open invitation to debate and Tyler Robinson’s violent rejection underscores the most fundamental divide in American politics today.

“The gun was pointed at him, but the bullet was aimed at every one of us”, President Trump said at Kirk’s memorial. One side believes free speech is democracy’s lifeblood, while the other increasingly views opposing free speech as an intolerable, even dangerous, threat.

For a democracy to survive, it requires a commitment to dialogue, persuasion, and peaceful disagreement. The alternative leads only to intimidation, silencing, and violence, a path toward civil war that threatens the republic and freedom itself.

Joel Gilbert is a Los Angeles-based film producer and president of Highway 61 Entertainment. He is the producer of the new film Roseanne Barr Is America. He is also the producer of: Dreams from My Real Father, The Trayvon Hoax, Trump: The Art of the Insult, and many other films on American politics and music icons. Gilbert is on Twitter: @JoelSGilbert

The post Charlie Kirk Versus Tyler Robinson: The Shooting Was Over the Battle for Free Speech appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The mask slipped again.

Failed presidential hopeful Kamala Harris confessed in her upcoming memoir, 107 Days, that Pete Buttigieg was her “first choice” for running mate during last year’s election, but she chickened out because he’s gay.

In excerpts published by the far-left rag The Atlantic, Harris whines about how Buttigieg “would have been an ideal partner—if I were a straight white man.”

“But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, ‘Screw it, let’s just do it.’ But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.”

So much for Democrats being the party of “inclusion.” Behind closed doors, Harris admits what conservatives have been saying for years: identity politics is nothing more than a tool to manipulate voters, and even Democrats don’t trust the country to accept their own rhetoric.

Responding to Harris’ remarks, Buttigieg told Politico on Sept. 18 that he was “surprised” by the passage and argued that Americans deserve “more credit” than assuming they would reject such a ticket.

“You just have to go to voters with what you think you can do for them,” he said. “Politics is about the results we can get for people and not about these other things.”

It can be recalled that Harris had not won a nationwide primary vote before becoming the nominee. Kamala Harris was chosen only when Joe Biden dropped out.

When pressed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Harris delivered her trademark word salad and denied discriminating against Buttigieg, while in the very same breath admitting his sexuality was a “real risk.”

Rachel Maddow:
I guess I’d ask you to just elaborate on that a little bit. It’s hard to hear—with you running as, you know, the first woman elected Vice President, a Black woman, and a South Asian woman elected to that high office, very nearly elected President—to say that he couldn’t be on the ticket effectively because he was gay. It’s hard to hear.

Kamala Harris:
No, that’s not what I said—that he couldn’t be on the ticket because he is gay. My point, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for President of the United States against someone like Donald Trump, who… it was no floor… to be a Black woman running for President of the United States, and, as a vice-presidential running mate, a gay man—with the stakes being so high—it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk.

No matter how… I’ve been an advocate and an ally of the LGBT community my entire life. It wasn’t about any prejudice on my part. But we had such a short period of time, and the stakes were so high.

I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant. I think America is—and would be—ready for that. But when I had to make that decision, with two weeks to go, and maybe I was being too cautious, I’ll let our friends… we should all talk about that. Maybe I was. But that’s the decision I made. With everything else in the book, I’m being very candid about that—with a great deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have been a risk.

WATCH:

Kamala on not picking Pete Buttigieg as her VP: “To be a black woman running for the President of the United States and as a Vice Presidential running mate, a gay man, with the stakes being so high, I realized it would be a real risk.” pic.twitter.com/Wg0wuYqolo

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 23, 2025

Related story:

She’s Turning on Everyone: Cackling Kamala Harris to Publish Private Messages Showing Gavin Newsom Snubbed Her Endorsement

The post Kamala Harris Admits She Snubbed Pete Buttigieg as VP Pick Because He’s Gay – “Too Big of a Risk” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.