In the latest in Berkeley lunacy, Campus Reform is reporting, “A Berkeley-based bookstore tied to a communist organization appeared on the University of California, Berkeley campus on April 2, displaying a poster depicting President Donald Trump as Adolf Hitler.”

A disgusting image designed to minimize the actual Holocaust and insult the 47th President of The United States showed Communist members of “Revolution Books” tabling with a sign reading “Mein Trumpf” a disgusting reference to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

“Revolution Books describes itself as an “intellectual, political, and cultural center” for revolution on its official website. The bookstore has locations in Berkeley and New York and is associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party, which advocates for revolution and a change to a communist system in the United States.”

This insane Communist revolutionary organization was founded by Bob Avakian.

Avakian promoted something known as “New Communism”; he was also involved with the group known as The Black Panther Party.

Despite all the evidence conflicting, Avakian continues to promote the lie that President Trump is a fascist.

As if this wasn’t crazy enough, “the store’s inventory includes progressive and socialist literature, as well as children’s books such as And Tango Makes Three, which depicts a same-sex penguin couple raising a chick.”

“Revolution Books has appeared on the UC Berkeley campus multiple times, according to students. John Paul Leon, president of the Turning Point USA chapter at UC Berkeley, said the group has previously confronted conservative students.”

Leon also provided video footage to Campus Reform showing the Communists claiming, “We’ve got to confront Trump’s MAGA fascism.”

“Leon also stated that every time he tries to discuss with them, “they outright refuse.’” A similar sentiment was reported by another anonymous student, who said that after asking them why the group opposed Trump, they refused to answer.”

In other words, they can make baseless anti-Trump statements but can’t debate their ideas civilly.

Berkeley defended this on First Amendment grounds despite the fact that they would likely shut down someone making the same statements about a Liberal icon like Obama or Biden.

Berkeley, like many campuses across America, remains leftist and radical.

The post Commie Group at UC Berkeley Campus Displays Poster Depicting President Trump As Hitler appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has referred the “Nannygate” scandal involving corrupt Rep. Eric Swalwell to the Department of Homeland Security for criminal investigation several years ago, but the case has come under renewed scrutiny following Joel Gilbert’s exposé at The Gateway Pundit.

Homeland Security posted the update on X:

USCIS has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization.

@USCIS has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation.

No one is above the law, including a member of Congress.

USCIS has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization.@USCIS has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation.

No one is above the law, including… https://t.co/yFE4DeI3aC

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) April 12, 2026

The entire Nannygate scandal exploded thanks to the tireless work of Gateway Pundit contributor and investigative filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who filed detailed federal complaints with DHS and the FEC back on February 16, 2026.

In his bombshell TGP report published March 21, 2026, “Eric Swalwell ‘Nannygate’ Explodes: DHS and FEC Complaints Allege Illegal Alien Employment and Misuse of Campaign Funds for Childcare,” Gilbert laid out the damning evidence.

Read Gilbert’s report below:

On February 16, 2026, I filed two well-documented federal complaints against Congressman Eric Swalwell, one with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS/ICE), and another with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Together, these filings raise serious questions about whether Swalwell engaged in illegal patterns of conduct that reflect his disregard for federal law and a potential abuse of campaign funds for personal benefit.

At issue are two distinct but closely related allegations: first, that Swalwell continued employing a foreign national nanny illegally for two years after her legal work authorization expired; and second, that he illegally used campaign funds to cover what appear to be ongoing personal childcare expenses totaling more than $300,000.

Taken together, these allegations suggest a sustained pattern in which legal requirements were well understood by Swalwell, and then ignored for personal gain. I published both complaints on SwalwellisDisqualified.com.

The DHS/ICE Complaint: Alleged Employment of an Unauthorized Worker

In 2022, Eric Swalwell and his wife employed a Brazilian national, Amanda Barbosa, as a live-in Au Pair under the J-1 visa program. Barbosa resided in the Swalwell household and provided full-time childcare for their three young children. In 2022, Barbosa was paid approximately $46,929.70 for her services by Swalwell’s campaign under “Childcare for Campaign Events”.

Critically, Barbosa’s J-1 visa, and thus her legal authorization to work, expired at the end of December 2022. The Swalwells were fully aware of this deadline. In fact, earlier in 2022, they attempted to secure permanent work authorization for Barbosa by filing a federal labor certification (ETA-9089), which required a formal job posting in The Washington Post. Their advertisement outlined a demanding, full-time nanny position which included:

• taking care of 3 kids & help satisfy kids’ physical, emotional, intellectual, & social needs
• assist w/care of dog, organize kids’ play activities, drive kids to appts & activities
• household cleaning &laundry, prep kids’ meals, Mon to Fri, 7A to 4P, Wknd work time

The Swalwell’s permanent work authorization application was denied by the Department of Labor.

As I document in my DHS complaint, rather than replacing Barbosa with a legally authorized worker when her J-1 Visa expired, the Swalwells appear to have continued employing her as a live-in nanny for two additional years in 2023 and 2024, despite the absence of any publicly available evidence of renewed work authorization. They curiously kept her “off the books” of the Swalwell campaign during this time.

In my DHS complaint, I present multiple categories of evidence that indicate Barbosa remained actively employed by the Swalwells in 2023 and 2024 after her J-1 visa expired, including:

• Social media activity – showing Barbosa regularly engaged in childcare, travel, and family events with the Swalwell household throughout 2023 and 2024
• Professional records – including Barbosa’s LinkedIn profile where she lists herself as a full-time childcare provider in the United States from 2021 to present
• Financial records – including campaign-related childcare payments to Barbosa in 2022 and then again in 2025 in Swalwell’s FEC filings

In the complaint, I ask federal authorities to investigate whether this conduct violated immigration laws, visa regulations, tax obligations, and labor laws, and for them to determine if it involved an illegal conspiracy between Swalwell and his wife Brittany.

The FEC Complaint: Campaign Funds for Personal Childcare

The second complaint, filed with the Federal Election Commission, addresses a separate but equally serious issue: whether Eric Swalwell illegally used campaign funds from donors to pay for his regular personal childcare expenses.

Federal election law is clear under 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b): campaign funds may not be converted to personal use. Campaign funds may only be used for expenses that arise directly from campaign activity and would not exist otherwise. Personal expenses, those that would exist regardless of candidacy, are strictly prohibited.

In 2022, Swalwell sought formal guidance from the FEC on whether he could use campaign funds to pay for childcare. The Commission’s response to Swalwell was explicit: such expenses are permissible only if they are tied to specific campaign events and are properly documented. As allege in my complaint, Swalwell disregarded that guidance and instead subsidized his candidate’s personal household expenses.

In my FEC complaint, I detail a five-year pattern of Swalwell childcare-related expenditures from 2021 through 2025 that appears to reflect regular ongoing household childcare rather than campaign-specific needs, with total childcare-related disbursements exceeding $300,000 over five years. These payments were recurring weekly, consistent in amounts, and structured like a payroll. Several red flags include:

• Lack of documentation by Swalwell to the FEC tying payments to specific campaign events
• Year-round, continuous childcare coverage
• Reimbursement structures suggesting personal expenses being funneled through the campaign
• Payroll tax reimbursements consistent with a full-time employment relationship

Abuse of Office for Personal Gain by Eric Swalwell

Taken together, my DHS and FEC complaints outline a consistent pattern:

1. Swalwell at first sought to comply with the law (labor authorization application, request for FEC advisory opinion)
2. Then the law said “no”, imposing clear limitations (denial of work authorization, denial of regular childcare expenses)
3. But Swalwell’s conduct continued anyway, in violation of the legal decisions and in blatant disregard of the law

Employing a foreign national without valid work authorization, if proven, would reflect a willingness by Swalwell to ignore immigration and labor laws that public officials are sworn to uphold. Despite being a former deputy district attorney, Eric Swalwell appears to have a problem with immigration law. In his campaign for governor of California, he vows to expel ICE, while working to defund DHS in congress.

Campaign contributions meanwhile are donated for political purposes, not to finance a candidate’s private household expenses. If Swalwell used campaign funds to maintain a full-time nanny or subsidize routine childcare, it would represent a fundamental breach of trust.

These allegations come at a pivotal moment. Eric Swalwell is a candidate for governor of California, a role that demands not only policy leadership but also credibility, integrity, and respect for the law. In a statewide campaign, issues of honesty and transparency, respect for the law, misuse of donor funds, and personal accountability are central.

At its core, my complaints amount to a test of whether the rule of law applies equally to those who seek to govern. The allegations I detail, if substantiated, would demonstrate a sustained pattern of conduct by Swalwell in which his legal obligations were acknowledged, clarified, and then ignored. These are not technical violations.

They relate to judgment and integrity. It appears Eric Swalwell has neither. He should withdraw from the governor’s race while these investigations are ongoing.

The post USCIS Confirms It Referred Corrupt Dem Rep. Eric Swalwell’s ‘Nannygate’ Scandal to DHS for Criminal Investigation, as First Reported by The Gateway Pundit’s Joel Gilbert appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The race for the next California governor has been thrown into turmoil after Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign effectively collapsed under the weight of mounting sexual assault allegations and a complete loss of party support.

With every major Democrat endorsement now withdrawn, the race has rapidly shifted focus to the remaining candidates. At the top of that list for Democrats is former Representative Katie Porter—but her own record is now facing renewed scrutiny.

As previously reported by TGP, Swalwell’s political standing deteriorated almost overnight, leaving a sudden vacuum in a race he once led. That shift has elevated Porter into a leading position among Democrat contenders. However, unlike the narrative being pushed by much of the media, Porter’s background is not without controversy.

Porter has faced longstanding allegations stemming from a contentious divorce with her ex-husband, Matt Hoffman. According to court documents and reporting, both Porter and Hoffman filed domestic violence restraining orders against each other following a 2013 altercation.

Hoffman made serious accusations at the time, alleging that Porter engaged in physical and verbal abuse. His claims included allegations that Porter struck him, caused injury during domestic disputes, and engaged in degrading behavior.

Among the most widely cited claims were that Porter allegedly dumped a boiling pot of potatoes on him during an argument and shattered household items in a way that caused injury.

People make allegations against each other after messy divorces quite often, but if Hoffman, Porter’s ex-husband, was lying, it would not add up. Specific stories, like a boiling pot of potatoes, are much harder to fabricate and consistently maintain than general claims. At the same time, they would still be difficult to definitively prove.

Porter has consistently denied these allegations, and her campaign has pushed back aggressively, arguing that Hoffman later walked back aspects of his claims.

However, the situation remains disputed. Hoffman himself later stated to Fox News Digital that he did not recant the allegations, directly contradicting claims made by Porter’s campaign.

The legal battle between the two included competing restraining orders, police involvement, and a broader dispute over custody and conduct during their separation. Ultimately, the case unfolded in the context of a highly contentious divorce, with both parties accusing each other of abusive behavior.

In addition to the domestic dispute allegations, Porter has also faced significant criticism from former staffers who have accused her of fostering a toxic workplace environment. 

Reports describing emotionally abusive management practices have surfaced over time, adding another layer of concern about her leadership style.

One resurfaced video further fueled that narrative, showing Porter angrily rebuking a staff member who moved into a video shot during a call with then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, telling the unidentified staffer to “get out of my f****** shot.”

Taken together, these issues raise significant questions about the current state of the Democrat primary field. With Swalwell effectively pushed out, the assumption that remaining candidates would present a clean alternative is now being challenged.

The broader political implications are difficult to ignore. Democrats in California are now navigating a race where the leading figures are increasingly defined by controversy rather than policy.

That dynamic could reshape both the primary and the general election, particularly in a state that often sets the tone for national political trends.

For now, Porter remains a central figure in the race. But as scrutiny intensifies, the question is no longer just who replaces Swalwell—it is whether any of the remaining candidates can withstand the level of examination that comes with leading a statewide campaign.

The post WHAT’S IN CALIFORNIA’S WATER? Katie Porter, Another California Democrat Governor Candidate, Is Haunted by Serious Abuse Allegations appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In the wake of President Trump’s decisive second-term victory, the Democratic Party finds itself in full retreat mode. The old playbook, full of shoving Woke extremism, drag queen story hours, and open borders down America’s throat, backfired spectacularly.

So now they’re trying a new tactic: pretending to be one of us. No more rainbow flags and “defund the police” chants in public.

Instead, they’re courting centrists, independents, and – most brazenly – the very heart of the MAGA base: churchgoing white Christians, Baptists, Evangelicals, and everyday folks who still believe in the God of the Bible.

Nowhere is this deception more obvious than in the 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race. Texas hasn’t sent a Democrat to statewide office since 1994, yet the party is all-in on James Talarico, their freshly minted nominee for the Class II seat currently held by Sen. John Cornyn.

Talarico, a 36-year-old state representative and Presbyterian seminarian, is being sold as a “man of deep faith” – a Lord-begging, Scripture-quoting Texan who supposedly shares the values of Sunday-morning pew-sitters across the Lone Star State. Don’t buy it. This is classic wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing territory, straight out of Matthew 7:15.

Talarico doesn’t hide his church membership. He’s been at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian in Austin since he was a toddler, and he frames every policy through a distorted Christian lens.

“Love thy neighbor” becomes his justification for open borders and taxpayer-funded abortion. He preaches that Jesus was a “feminist” and twists the Annunciation story to claim Mary’s consent somehow endorses abortion rights.

He’s called God “non-binary,” insisted trans kids are “God’s children,” and defended access to abortion for transgender minors. His home church flies rainbow flags, pushes reproductive “justice,” and has a long track record of ordaining gay clergy and sheltering illegal immigrants.

This is not the Christianity that built Texas or America. Baptists and Evangelicals – the most populous faith groups in the country – overwhelmingly reject these positions.

They believe life begins at conception, marriage is between one man and one woman, and biological sex is not a social construct.

Talarico’s brand of faith is mainline Presbyterian progressivism: heavy on social justice rhetoric, light on actual biblical orthodoxy.

He rails against “Christian nationalism” while hijacking Jesus’ words to bless every item on the Democratic wish list – from gender ideology to wealth redistribution.

The broader Democratic strategy is clear. After years of alienating religious voters, party operatives have decided to “faith-wash” their agenda.

They’re flooding church-adjacent spaces with talk of compassion and neighborly love while quietly advancing policies that shred the family, redefine human dignity, and mock traditional morality.

In Texas, this isn’t subtle. Talarico’s viral clips quote Scripture to defend LGBTQ+ causes and abortion access – exactly the issues ordinary believers see as direct assaults on God’s design. It’s lip service wrapped in a seminarian’s collar.

Make no mistake: this is a trap. Democrats aren’t converting to traditional values – they’re co-opting the language of faith to peel off just enough church voters to flip a red state purple.

They know Texas remains a GOP stronghold. They know the Christian base decides elections here. So they’re donning the sheep’s clothing, hoping believers won’t notice the ravenous policy wolf underneath.

Texas Christians have seen this movie before. Progressive “faith leaders” have spent decades whitewashing tombs – beautiful on the outside, full of dead men’s bones inside (Matthew 23:27). T

alarico’s campaign is the latest chapter: a Trojan horse rolled straight into the sanctuary, promising “higher values” while delivering the same radical agenda that lost them the White House.

The 2026 Senate race is still months away, but the warning lights are flashing. Real faith doesn’t bend Scripture to fit the latest Woke fad. Real American Christian heritage – forged by Baptists, Evangelicals, and generations of believers – defends life, family, and liberty without apology. Don’t let the Democrats’ new church tour fool you. They aren’t coming to pray with you. They’re coming to convert you – to their side.

Texas voters, keep your eyes open. The wolves are in the flock, and they’re wearing clerical collars this time.

Mike Robertson is a U.S. domestic and foreign policy analyst and commentator, with more than 30 years of law enforcement experience in some of the toughest neighborhoods. You may follow him on X at @Mike_for_MAGA and Reddit.

The post Faith Facade: Democrat Talarico Targets Texas Believers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), a secular advocacy organization founded in 1947, has filed two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging both agencies illegally withheld public records related to monthly Christian prayer services organized by their respective department heads.

The suits, filed March 23, 2026, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., are procedural in nature and do not directly challenge the constitutionality of the prayer services.

They are the fourth and fifth FOIA lawsuits AU has filed against the Trump administration, following earlier suits against the Departments of Health and Human Services, State, and Veterans Affairs over implementation of the president’s February 2025 executive order aimed at eradicating anti-Christian bias in the federal government.

The prayer services began in May 2025, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth organized the first “Secretary’s Christian Prayer and Worship Service” during a workday at the Pentagon auditorium.

The event was broadcast live on the Department of War’s internal television network, and all department employees were invited to attend. Hegseth’s pastor, Brooks Potteiger of Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a congregation of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, delivered the first address. The services have continued monthly since.

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer launched a parallel initiative at the Department of Labor in December 2025, citing Hegseth’s services as her inspiration.

At the inaugural DOL service on December 10, Chavez-DeRemer spoke of her Catholic faith and said the country would “probably need a little more prayer” as it marked its 250th year. The services have also continued monthly at Labor.

When a federal agency organizes an official event, it generates a paper trail subject to FOIA, meaning any member of the public can formally request those records.

AU submitted requests to both agencies in December 2025 seeking communications with employees, contractors, and other agencies about the services; costs; the time employees spent coordinating them; invited speakers and transcripts; and any internal complaints. Under FOIA, agencies are legally required to respond within 20 business days.

When neither agency did, AU sued to compel disclosure. The records AU is demanding almost certainly exist. Invitations were drafted and distributed, making them government records subject to FOIA.

The Pentagon auditorium requires staffing, audio-visual support, and security, all of which generate cost records. Bringing in outside speakers requires correspondence or contracts.

The services were broadcast on DOD’s internal network, which requires technical coordination that produces documentation. Any employee who filed a formal objection would have generated a complaint record.

The gap between AU’s legal argument and its public statements is worth noting. The legal basis of the current suits is entirely procedural, as agencies did not respond to records requests on time.

But AU’s public statements go further, with President and CEO Rachel Laser accusing Hegseth and Chavez-DeRemer of abusing government positions and taxpayer resources to impose religion on federal workers, and claiming that even voluntary services carry implicit coercion because employees may feel pressure to attend to appease superiors.

That coercion argument is an assertion, not an established fact. AU has not produced evidence that any employee was disciplined or penalized for not attending. A court ruling on the FOIA suits will not address it.

The FOIA suits appear to be a first step toward a more substantive constitutional challenge. However, despite its widespread use in political debate, the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, and therefore has no legal standing. Consequently, claiming that a prayer service violates the separation of church and state would have no legal weight in court.

If the records reveal significant taxpayer expenditure on the services, evidence of employee pressure through official channels, or internal complaints that were ignored, that material could form the factual foundation for an Establishment Clause lawsuit. Without the records, such a case would be speculative.

The strategy of filing a FOIA request, suing when agencies do not comply, then using the documents to build a larger case, is a standard litigation approach for advocacy organizations.

Whether that larger case could succeed is another question. The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District substantially strengthened the right of government employees to engage in personal religious expression in their official capacity. In that case, a public-school football coach who prayed on the field after games was found to be protected under the First Amendment.

A Cabinet secretary holding voluntary prayer services in a government building is on comparable or stronger legal ground. Any Establishment Clause challenge would face that precedent directly and would likely fail before the current court.

The services have continued through the U.S. military operation in Iran. At a recent Pentagon service, Hegseth read a prayer delivered by a military chaplain to troops who had captured former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro: “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.”

He told attendees that the monthly gathering was all the more fitting given what tens of thousands of Americans were doing at that moment.

The most probable outcome of the current litigation is that a court will order the agencies to produce the requested records, as courts routinely compel FOIA compliance regardless of the subject matter involved. AU will then assess whether those records support a constitutional challenge.

Any future challenge would have to rest on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, a significantly narrower legal standard than the phrase implies, and one the current Supreme Court has interpreted with increasing deference to religious expression.

Given the Supreme Court’s direction on religious liberty, the prayers will almost certainly continue.

The post The Phrase “Separation of Church and State” Has No Legal Standing — So Why Are They Suing? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.