Radical Democrat Mayor Karen Bass just admitted on camera that she’s willing to hand voting rights to non-citizens in Los Angeles.

Bass responded to a question about far-left Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez’s push to let non-citizens vote in local elections by declaring: “Well, I think we need to explore it.”

The exchange, which took place during a Politico California Playbook discussion, laid bare the Democrats’ desperate endgame.

Soto-Martínez, who has endorsed Bass, wants to rewrite the city charter to allow non-citizens – including those here illegally – to cast ballots in city council and school board races. Bass didn’t shut it down. She didn’t call it unconstitutional. She didn’t say it would destroy election integrity.

Instead, she leaned in.

Bass tried to soften the blow by claiming some cities only let “legal” non-citizens who pay taxes vote, but she quickly pivoted to defending sanctuary city policies she rammed through even after Trump’s first election.

California Bureau Chief Melanie Mason:
Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who has endorsed you, wants to explore ways to let non-citizens vote in city elections. I know that some cities already do this, but, you know, politics is all about timing. With Donald Trump in the White House, is this the right time for Los Angeles to go down this path?

Karen Bass:
Well, I think we need to explore it. Now, I’ve not seen exactly what he’s calling for. I have a little familiarity with what happens in other cities. For example, some cities will allow people to vote in city council and school board elections because they pay local taxes. But they are not necessarily undocumented. They might be here completely legally but have not finished the citizenship process. So, we’ll wait and see.

But, you know, I mean, some questioned that around sanctuary cities too. But we made that into law even though Trump had been elected. And it was because our population of vulnerable immigrants were terrified. That provided a measure of security for a minute. And no one anticipated we’d have the military roll up on us.

WATCH:

WTF?! LA Mayor Karen Bass confirms she might move to allow noncitizens to VOTE in elections

“We need to explore it!”

Pass the SAVE AMERICA ACT, if they can let noncitizens vote locally, they can EASILY CHEAT and let them slip through the cracks to vote federally! pic.twitter.com/gONY9OIop6

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 21, 2026

The post THEY’RE NOT HIDING IT ANYMORE: Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass Comes Out and Says She’s Open to Letting NON-CITIZENS Vote in City Elections – “We Need to Explore It!” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Fahima Egeh Mahamud, the woman already tied to the infamous $250+ million Feeding Our Future scandal that stole hundreds of millions in federal funds meant for children’s meals, has now been slapped with fresh federal charges for allegedly pocketing $4.6 million more in a separate daycare subsidy fraud scheme.

Mahamud, owner of the Future Leaders Early Learning Center in south Minneapolis near George Floyd Square, was charged Wednesday with wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States, according to court documents.

According to the charging document, Mahamud allegedly used her Minneapolis childcare center, Future Leaders Early Learning Center, as a vehicle to funnel taxpayer cash through fraudulent claims.

Federal prosecutors allege that between January and July 2021, Mahamud submitted more than $826,000 in reimbursement claims to Feeding Our Future for meals supposedly served to children, while the actual operation allegedly served only a fraction of the claimed meals.

The DOJ further alleges that fake meal count sheets, fabricated child rosters, and inflated invoices were used to justify the reimbursements.

And that wasn’t all. According to prosecutors, Mahamud later submitted over 13,000 claims to Minnesota’s Child Care Assistance Program, seeking reimbursement for childcare services where required co-payments had allegedly not been collected, resulting in approximately $4.6 million in improper reimbursements.

Federal investigators also allege that taxpayer money was diverted for personal enrichment, including real estate purchases and transfers to affiliated business entities.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported on Mahamud’s initial arrest, highlighting how her center was swimming in taxpayer cash under the Tim Walz administration while hard-working Americans got stuck with the bill. Nick Shirley himself posted: “UPDATE: Minnesota fraudster has been arrested before she tried to flee to the UK… Goodbye fraudster, you will not be missed.”

UPDATE: Minnesota fraudster has been arrested before she tried to flee to the UK

Her daycare “Future Leaders Early Learning Center” was involved in the Feeding Our Future scam and had received $3.67 million in CCAP funding in 2025

Goodbye fraudster, you will not be missed:) pic.twitter.com/zREQ78uJ5a

— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) February 19, 2026

Court documents indicate that on February 10, 2026, Mahamud notified the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth and Families that she was abruptly closing her center.

Just days later, she was found to have booked a ticket to the UK, with a return ticket scheduled for Feb. 20, 2026, according to KARE 11. She was then arrested.

The post Somali-Linked Daycare Owner from Massive Feeding Our Future Scandal Hit with Fresh Federal Charges for Stealing $4.6 MILLION Meant for Kids’ Meals appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, who also served as U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, joined The Patriot Perspective to discuss his new book, China’s War on Faith, and delivered a blunt warning about the threat Communist China poses to the United States, religious freedom, and Western civilization.

Brownback, who served as U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom during President Donald Trump’s first term, called the Chinese Communist Party “the most significant adversary we’ve faced in the last century.”

That warning should shape how Americans view one of the greatest policy scams of the modern era: the so-called green transition.

For years, the American people were told that solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and battery mandates were necessary to save the planet. Politicians framed green energy as a moral cause, not just an economic program. Anyone who questioned the agenda was accused of denying science, opposing progress, or standing in the way of a cleaner future.

But beneath the slogans, China was building the supply chains.

American taxpayers were forced to subsidize green-energy programs that often strengthened China’s manufacturing power. Washington attacked American oil, gas, pipelines, and drilling while promoting industries dependent on Chinese minerals, Chinese processing, Chinese factories, and Chinese-controlled supply chains.

The green transition did not end foreign dependence. It simply changed who benefited from it.

China understood the game better than America’s political class. Beijing did not need to convince American voters to love communism. It only needed American leaders to accept climate ideology so extreme that the United States would weaken its own energy sector and create massive demand for products China dominates.

Solar energy is one of the clearest examples. China has become the world’s dominant producer of solar panels and the materials needed to build them. Electric vehicles present the same problem. Batteries require minerals and components that China heavily controls through mining, refining, processing, and manufacturing. Wind turbines also rely on rare earth elements and industrial materials tied to Chinese production.

The American taxpayer was told this was an environmental revolution. China saw it as an economic opportunity.

The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act made this problem worse by pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into green-energy subsidies. These subsidies were promoted as investments in the future, but the practical effect was to increase demand for industries where China holds enormous leverage. 

While American families struggled with inflation, higher utility bills, and rising costs, Washington pushed them to fund a green agenda that often benefited foreign supply chains more than American workers.

Brownback’s warning about China’s war on faith connects directly to this broader threat. The Chinese Communist Party does not merely seek economic strength. It seeks control over people, belief, information, technology, and global institutions. A regime that persecutes Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners, and dissidents should not be trusted to power America’s energy future.

The green scam was never just about climate policy. It became a transfer of wealth, leverage, and industrial power away from the United States and toward Communist China.

America needs clean air, clean water, reliable energy, and real environmental stewardship. But environmental policy should serve American families, American workers, and American security. It should not become an excuse to destroy domestic energy while rewarding China.

For more exclusive interviews & videos like this one, subscribe to The Patriot Perspective YouTube channel. [HERE]

The post EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: How China Used the Green Scam to Win American Taxpayer Dollars appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo —a self-described progressive sociologist and leader of the left-wing Semilla movement— published an open letter and a video message addressed to the nation celebrating the departure of Attorney General Consuelo Porras and the appointment of Gabriel Estuardo García Luna as the new head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP).

Porras, a veteran prosecutor with eight years in office, had long been a thorn in the side of Arévalo’s administration.

In his letter, Arévalo portrayed her departure as the end of the alleged “capture” of the MP by “political-criminal networks,” accusing her of protecting corruption while persecuting so-called “reformers.”

This narrative reflects a classic strategy of the Hispanic American left: portraying justice institutions as enemies of change in order to justify placing political allies in power and advancing an ideological agenda under the discourse of “institutional recovery.”

Arévalo’s letter

Arévalo invoked the legacy of his father’s public letters and attributed the 2023 electoral victory and the protests led by indigenous sectors to an alleged citizen resistance against sabotage by traditional elites.

He harshly criticized Porras’ administration, which was accused of facilitating organized crime, drug trafficking, and abuses of power, citing cases against figures such as prosecutor Virginia Laparra, journalist José Rubén Zamora, and his own indigenous allies Luis Pacheco and Héctor Chaclán.

He also recalled his failed attempts to remove her —including public calls for her resignation and political maneuvers blocked in Congress— and presented García Luna’s selection as a “new dawn” achieved through legal and institutional means.

However, Arévalo, whose party holds limited influence in Congress, appears to devote more energy to justifying this political confrontation than to delivering concrete results in response to growing concerns over economic growth, security, and employment.

Nor should it be ignored that the letter omits a fundamental element: Porras operated within a constitutional framework specifically designed to protect the justice system from Executive interference. That institutional independence exists as a safeguard against the kind of state politicization that has historically characterized numerous ideological governments across Hispanic America.

The narrative of the “Pact of the Corrupt”

What happened is not new. Arévalo and his allies have repeatedly used the concept of the so-called “Pact of the Corrupt”: an alleged network of politicians, business leaders, and judicial operators protecting impunity within the State.

That framework served as a campaign slogan and now functions as a tool of political legitimization. However, conservative sectors believe the term has become a useful label to discredit traditional institutions, business actors, and center or center-right figures who defend stability, legal certainty, and anti-communist values.

Porras was the target of international sanctions promoted by various Western governments and international organizations. Even so, she consistently maintained that the prosecutor’s office was investigating legitimate cases of fraud and irregularities, including proceedings related to the Semilla party, such as allegations concerning anomalies in signature collection.

Her defenders argue that Porras’ true “political sin” was resisting the model promoted by the now-defunct International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, an international structure that many conservative sectors viewed as a form of foreign interference with selective application of justice.

During her administration, the MP was accused of weakening specialized prosecution offices and anti-corruption structures. Her supporters respond that several of those units had become deeply politicized and operated with ideological bias.

Meanwhile, conviction rates for serious crimes —such as extortion, homicide, and organized crime— remained low, a structural problem that existed before Porras and continues to affect the country under the current administration.

The Arévalo administration filed hundreds of corruption complaints, but many did not move forward under the MP’s leadership, fueling accusations of institutional obstruction.

The question remains valid: were these genuine accountability efforts, or the use of state institutions to harass political adversaries and consolidate power?

The new era: reform or revenge?

Gabriel Estuardo García Luna, a career judge and academic, now assumes office promising to restore institutional credibility and strengthen the fight against crime.

Arévalo presents his arrival as a victory for the popular will and the democratic process. However, for critical sectors, the appointment also raises legitimate concerns about the future independence of the MP.

There are fears that the MP could prioritize investigations against conservative actors, business leaders, or former officials, while minimizing politically sensitive matters for the ruling party.

Although some see a possible shift toward “high-impact” cases, Hispanic America’s experience shows that many judicial reforms promoted by left-wing governments ultimately lead to selective enforcement of the law, weakening of institutional checks and balances, and pressure on independent economic sectors.

Porras’ departure closes a period marked by strong tensions between the MP and the Executive branch. Conservatives fear that this new scenario will further reduce checks on presidential power, especially considering Arévalo’s limited legislative strength and his dependence on fragile political alliances.

Corruption, ideology, and institutional risks

Corruption problems in Guatemala are real, deep, and structural. Their roots include institutional weakness, poverty, drug trafficking, political capture, and limited state capacity. Reducing that crisis exclusively to the figure of one attorney general oversimplifies a far more complex reality.

Guatemala continues to rank poorly in international transparency and governance indexes, reflecting the accumulated failure of multiple administrations and political elites.

Conservative sectors maintain that a sustainable fight against corruption requires truly independent justice institutions, legal certainty, economic freedom, strengthening of the rule of law, and individual responsibility —not merely ideological discourse or identity-based political mobilization.

For many critics, the risk is that Arévalo’s project will end up replacing one form of institutional capture with another: an MP more aligned with the Executive’s priorities.

Questions remain open. Will the so-called “new dawn” produce real results in security, justice, and transparency? Or will it simply consolidate a new political elite under a reformist discourse?

Recent experience across Hispanic America —including cases such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua— shows that many leaders who promised to dismantle “corrupt pacts” ultimately weakened institutional checks and concentrated power.

Although Porras’ administration was surrounded by controversy, portraying her departure exclusively as the country’s liberation from “evil networks” reduces a complex national problem to a simplified political narrative.

The true fight against corruption requires strengthening institutions against any factional capture, defending the rule of law, and guaranteeing opportunities and security for all citizens, not only for those who share the political vision of the government in power.

The post The Open Letter from President Bernardo Arévalo to Guatemalans: The Usual Left-Wing Rhetoric to Consolidate Power appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As comedian Stephen Colbert prepares to exit the late-night stage following a disastrous run at CBS, he refused to bow out with grace and instead used his last gasp to take a parting shot at President Donald Trump.

Colbert interviewed his Comedy Central mentor Jon Stewart during Tuesday’s episode of “The Late Show,” and the arrogance displayed by both men served as yet another reminder of why Colbert was dismissed.

Stewart gushed over his protege, calling him “just a tremendous human and one of my favorite people,” adding that “he can do whatever he wants to do,” which drew the usual mindless applause.

And rather than acknowledge that it was time for Colbert to move on, Stewart did what came naturally: He blamed Trump.

“The ubiquitous bloviating of the commander-in-chief has put us all, as defined as who we are in opposition to him, and it’s just a ridiculous framing,” Stewart claimed. “It’s a minute portion of the joy machine that you call your show. And it’s annoying.”

“Close your eyes and dream,” he added. “The day that the electorate in this great nation we call home repudiates this putrid administration, the day that that happens, my brother, my brother, there will be — and I mean this — the day that that happens, there will be a joyful noise from the bowels of this great country that will make Hungary’s repudiation of Orban look like an Amish Sabbath.”

In a YouTube extended portion of his interview with Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart claims it is “a ridiculous framing” to view the late night shows as Trump opposition, yet he urges the audience to “Close your eyes and dream. The day that the electorate in this great nation we call… pic.twitter.com/TcWb1EzZ4Y

— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 20, 2026

Talk about out of touch. Stewart might as well have screamed “I’m smarter than you,” given his vocab choice. He also lied about the political bias currently infecting the entertainment industry.

Back in October 2024, at the height of the presidential race, the Media Research Center reviewed every joke told on late-night programs from Sept. 3 to Oct. 25. Researchers examined hosts like Colbert and Stewart, along with ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel and NBC hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.

The result? Almost 100 percent of the jokes targeted Trump.

It wasn’t the president, or the public, who gave them this legacy. These comics willingly, night after night, attacked Trump and his supporters as if the world was coming to an end.

Kimmel infamously shed crocodile tears following Trump’s 2024 victory and later made comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk that nearly got him cancelled.

In addition, he described First Lady Melania Trump as having the “glow of an expectant widow,” just days before an assassination attempt was made against the president at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Does that sound like a group of apolitical comedians who just want to bring joy to the masses?

Colbert inherited a massively successful brand that went back decades with David Letterman. He was handed a built-in audience to blend with his own niche following from the “Colbert Report.”

He was paid millions to attract younger viewers, while still honoring traditions of the past.

Colbert had all the tools to be successful, yet he failed because he alienated half his audience from the jump.

Every late-night comic, from Colbert and Kimmel to Fallon and Conan O’Brien, has constantly praised Johnny Carson as their idol. Yet they disrespect his memory by siding with one political party and treating political correctness like it’s a religion.

Carson was more beloved than all of them combined because he kept his politics out of it. The king of late night even laid out a blueprint for his success during a 1984 interview with Barbara Walters.

“I think one of the dangers if you are a comedian, which basically I am, is that if you start to take yourself too seriously and start to comment on social issues, your sense of humor suffers somewhere,” he declared.

“Some critics have said that our show doesn’t have great sociological value, it’s not controversial, it’s not deep. But ‘The Tonight Show’ basically is designed to amuse people. To make them laugh.”

Jay Leno, who succeeded Carson as host of “The Tonight Show,” said his politics were a mystery and that he would “equally make fun of everybody.”

Actor Vince Vaughn also highlighted late night comedy’s problems back in March, saying that, “Podcasts have gotten so much more popular with less production, less writers, less staff… People want authenticity… So people just rejected it because it didn’t feel authentic. It felt like they had an agenda. It stopped being funny.”

As America enters the podcasting age, these biased late-night hosts will likely fade into obscurity, and in the end, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post The Last Leg of Stephen Colbert’s Far-Left Farewell Tour Reminds Us Exactly Why CBS Canceled Him appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.