(Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message below and working with them through the links below which benefits Gateway Pundit. We appreciate your support!)

On Sunday night you felt fine.

It’s been a great weekend. Kids and grandkids gave you big hugs, the kind that presses a warm little face into you and stays there. Maybe they came over to the house. Snacks on the coffee table. Toys on the rug. Everybody breathing the same air for hours.

You feel fine on Monday, too. Fine enough to finish the dishes and relax with a walk.

Then Tuesday hits.

Your throat feels raw. Your temperature climbs. The kids are gone but they left you with something. A fever, a sore throat and desire to stay in bed.

The closest contact of the week was that hug, right when the kids had a bunch of school germs to pass along. You didn’t feel it when you said goodbye. You feel it midweek when they’re gone.

Too late to start looking

A lot of people wait until that Tuesday to dig for cough syrup. Or they call the clinic. Or they sit in a waiting room full of people with the same cough.

By then the fever is already high. And you feel terrible.

What Americans can keep ready

The Wellness Company’s Contagion Emergency Kit is a doctor-prescribed kit for when a respiratory bug hits, stocked at home so you aren’t starting from an empty shelf when the fever comes.

Inside:

• Oseltamivir (generic Tamiflu)

• Budesonide (generic Pulmicort) vials plus a nebulizer

• Nobel Prize-winning Ivermectin (12 mg compounded tablets)

• Hydroxychloroquine

• Azithromycin (generic Z-Pak)

• Emergency guidebook

• Virtual consultation access

Get this and you’re not paying for a Tuesday scramble and a clinic wait. You’re paying once for a labeled kit on the shelf before the next bug hits.

Who stands behind it

The Contagion Emergency Kit comes from the Wellness Company and doctors like Dr. Peter McCullough, who told the truth during the COVID pandemic. The Kit is LegitScript certified. Dispensed by a licensed U.S. pharmacy after a licensed provider reviews your form.

People write about having the kit when flu hits, skipping the crowded waiting room, and keeping it ready when grandkids bring germs home.

What people say

“I am very grateful to have the Contagion Kit because I have upper respiratory infections most winters. Now I can use my kit when I get sick instead of going to the doctor office, clinic or even the ER.” — Karen M.

“It’s a great benefit & service to have medication in hand & a physician ready to advise in a medical emergency when it can take a week or more to get an appointment with a traditional physician. No waiting at the pharmacy either!” — Steven D.

“I feel so much better since getting my kits, there have been stories about different outbreaks around the world even in the States. Now I have peace of mind, if something happens and I need them, I have them.” — Michael W.

Get the Contagion Emergency Kit on your shelf and make sure you’re feeling better before the next weekend visit.

Note: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice or used as a substitute for professional healthcare guidance. It is your responsibility to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines regarding the purchase, possession, and use of prescription medications.

The post When the Weekend Hug Turns Into a Tuesday Fever: What Americans Keep Ready appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A 29-year-old mother is facing four felony counts of child neglect after police say she left her four young children, including a two-month-old infant and a two-year-old toddler, alone in a North Miami Beach apartment so she could sail to the Bahamas on a three-night Carnival cruise.

Nathalie Belizaire boarded the Carnival Conquest out of PortMiami on September 25. While she was at sea, first responders forced their way into her residence and found all four children unsupervised, huddled together in a bathroom, according to NBC 6 South Florida.

The ages of the other two children are 7 and 9.

This is not a parenting lapse. This is a mother who, according to the arrest report, chose a buffet line and a lido deck over a two-month-old baby.

The case broke because the father of the infant, Lether Bazile, saw a WhatsApp story Belizaire posted on Thursday that “appeared to be a cruise ticket purchase.”

Belizaire told him the children would be with their great-grandmother.

They were not.

Bazile went to the apartment on Saturday, heard children’s voices, saw a television on through the blinds, and called 911. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue and North Miami Beach police forced entry. The four kids were inside with no adult present, WSVN reported.

Great-grandmother Denise Wilkes told investigators Belizaire said she would drop the children off because she was going out of town, and never showed. Belizaire’s brother, Steven Borgella, told police she texted him Saturday evening “instructing him to check on her children.” Police said repeated attempts to reach Belizaire herself failed,

She was on a cruise ship. The infant was born in July.

When the Carnival Conquest returned to PortMiami on September 28, U.S. Customs and Border Protection took Belizaire into custody as she stepped off the ship and handed her to North Miami Beach police. She declined to give a statement and invoked her right to remain silent.

She now faces four counts of child neglect without great bodily harm, a third-degree felony in Florida carrying up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine per count.

In bond court Tuesday, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Mindy Glazer read the allegations and did not hide her reaction.

“You cannot make this up,” Glazer said. “It says she went on a cruise and left her children home alone,” according to CBS Miami.

“Who leaves four little kids alone to go on a cruise? The poor kids were home alone!”

When Belizaire’s attorney called it “only an allegation,” the judge cut him off: they arrested her disembarking from the cruise ship. “We are just grateful nothing worse happened to those kids.”

“The baby was born in July of this year. Who leaves a baby alone like that?”

ALERT: Judge utterly shocked to find out a mother allegedly left her 4 kids at home alone, including a 2-month-old baby, to go on a 3-night Carnival cruise in the Bahamas.

29-year-old Nathalie Belizaire told her children’s father, Lether Bazile, that she would drop the kids off… pic.twitter.com/FeTgCpuG9Y

— E X X ➠A L E R T S (@ExxAlerts) September 29, 2026

Bond was set at $10,000. She was ordered to stay away from the children. She walked out of Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center Tuesday night covering her face and refusing questions. The children were placed with the Florida Department of Children and Families.

Four felony counts. A two-month-old. Ten thousand dollars. Back on the street before the weekend.

WATCH:

The post North Miami Beach Mom Ditches 2-Month-Old Infant and Three Other Kids to Party on a Carnival Cruise for Three Days — Judge: “You Cannot Make This Up” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This article originally appeared on Iran So Far Away and was republished with permission.

There is something deeply familiar about the latest attack on Iran’s reformists by Fars News, the media outlet affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Fars has accused reformists of helping Washington sustain its pressure campaign by publicly arguing that sanctions are hurting Iran, negotiations are necessary, nuclear concessions may eventually have to be made, and military escalation would be costly. Fars News contends that reformists are undermining Iran by signaling to Washington that U.S. pressure is working.

To anyone accustomed to the Islamic regime’s political theater, however, there is another way of looking at this spectacle.

The harder the IRGC attacks the reformists, the easier it becomes for those same reformists to present themselves abroad as courageous moderates standing against the regime’s darkest forces.

The denunciation itself becomes a credential. In Persian, there is an expression for this kind of political window-dressing: “ghahramaan-saazi,” or “hero manufacturing.”

This doesn’t mean every clash between reformists and hardliners is staged. They fight over social controls, over who gets the spoils, over tactics and turf. Lesser-known reformists, those on the lower rungs of the reformist hierarchy, have been known to be sidelined or even jailed, but none of that changes the core reality.

Reformism here isn’t an exit from the Khomeinist system; it’s a career path within it. Yet none of that changes the fundamental point that mainstream reformism arose from within the Islamic regime and works inside the system not to replace it, but to redirect its machinery toward their own factional interests, leveraging the system rather than dismantling it.

Western analysts of the Khomeinist political system have described reformists and other so-called modernizers as very much operating within the system, maintaining the continued existence of the Khomeinist regime.

That distinction is routinely blurred in the West, where the vocabulary of Tehran politics is translated into categories that are far more familiar than they are accurate.

The hardliners are treated as the Iranian equivalent of the political right, the reformists as a kind of liberal opposition, and every dispute between them as though it were a conventional democratic contest between competing visions of government. It simply is not.

The more important dividing line is often between those competing within the Islamic regime and those who question the legitimacy or continued existence of the system itself.

This is precisely where the reformist faction becomes so useful internationally. Hardliners tend to say what they mean in language that Western audiences find abrasive.

They speak openly about revolutionary ideology, military power, resistance, hostility toward Israel, distrust of the United States and the preservation of the revolutionary order.

They make relatively little effort to sound reassuring to Western ears. Whatever else may be said about them, Western governments generally understand whom they are dealing with.

The reformist performs a very different function. He speaks the language of negotiation, moderation, dialogue, engagement, civil society and mutual understanding. He knows how Western diplomats think, understands what vocabulary travels well through universities and think tanks, and instinctively recognizes the almost irresistible desire of Western governments to believe that somewhere inside the Islamic Republic there is a reasonable partner waiting to be strengthened.

The difference in tone can be enormous, but a difference in tone should not automatically be mistaken for a difference in ultimate political allegiance.

Indeed, the history of Iran’s nuclear diplomacy illustrates the point exceptionally well. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was negotiated under Hassan Rouhani, with Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif becoming its most recognizable Iranian architect.

Zarif was extraordinarily effective in Western settings because he was everything an IRGC commander was not: polished, fluent in English, educated in the U.S., comfortable with Western journalists and diplomats, and capable of expressing Tehran’s interests in a vocabulary his interlocutors found familiar.

Yet Zarif was not negotiating against the Islamic regime. He was its foreign minister, acting on behalf of its government and within a negotiating process that ultimately required the political space permitted by Iran’s supreme leadership.

This should have been obvious, but the distinction became strangely difficult to maintain once Western policymakers became invested in the narrative of “moderates versus hardliners.”

Rouhani and Zarif came to represent an Iran with which the West could supposedly do business, while some Mullahs and the Revolutionary Guards represented the Iran that diplomacy was meant to contain.

The result was a political framework in which strengthening the reformists increasingly became synonymous with encouraging moderation in Iran itself, even though the people being described as moderates remained senior officials of the Islamic Republic.

Zarif’s history in American foreign-policy circles predates the JCPOA and helps explain why he became such an effective interlocutor.

During his years at the United Nations, he participated in unofficial and semi-official diplomacy with American officials and policy specialists, and in 2005 he took part in a dinner discussion on Iran’s nuclear program with former US nonproliferation official Robert Einhorn at an event sponsored by the International Crisis Group and hosted by its board member George Soros.

The important fact is that reformist and senior officials of the Khomeinist regime became adept at presenting the Islamic Republic to the West in a language the West wanted to hear.

Their value did not depend on any secret cabal; it lay in their talent for putting lipstick on a pig, making the same regime seem more reasonable, more polished, and easier for Western audiences to accept.

This isn’t a genuine contest over the country’s direction, but a division of roles. One side supplies the menace; the other supplies the reassurance.

The reformist doesn’t undo the hardliner; he refines the delivery, so the same system looks negotiable. What reads abroad as conflict works in practice as theater: The frightening extreme and the calming alternative, with the underlying order left untouched.

The Fars News commentary illustrates that division of roles almost perfectly.

Beneath the rhetoric, the argument is not over the survival of the Islamic Republic, but over how its interests should best be advanced: how Tehran should negotiate, how much leverage it should preserve, what concessions it might make, and how diplomacy should be balanced against military pressure.

As Iran International notes, the dispute is increasingly about the scope and conduct of negotiations, not about whether the regime itself should remain in place.

Those are important disagreements, but they are disagreements over the management of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy. They should not automatically be confused with a struggle between the Islamic Republic and an opposition seeking an entirely different political order.

Instead of asking what Iranians outside the system want, Western policymakers too often reduce Iran to a contest among its own factions: Rouhani, Zarif, or Khatami versus the Revolutionary Guards.

Once the debate is limited to which insider should prevail, the Islamic Republic has already succeeded in setting the boundaries of the conversation and Western imagination.

The post Manufacturing the Opposition: Iran’s Reformist Ruse appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Texas Democrat James Talarico was recently caught in an undercover video admitting that his position on transgenderism and children has not changed at all. Earlier this month, he tried to claim that he had moderated his position on this issue but not many people bought it.

This is one of those 80/20 issues, maybe even closer to 90/10, that the Democrats just refuse to let go of, no matter how clear the public makes it that they are against it.

Talarico takes it to the next level by trying to claim the moral high ground on this, even when almost no one in the country sees it that way.

Breitbart News reports:

Texas Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico told a woman posing as a supporter on Sept. 13 that his position on transgender issues “hasn’t changed,” according to an undercover video clip.

The recording, captured at Houston’s Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, shows the Democrat responding to a woman who asked whether he would defend her “niece who is trans” and her ability to compete in women’s sports, the Daily Wire reported.

Talarico assured her he would carry his legislative record into the Senate.

“Always,” he said. “The way I fought for trans kids in the legislature is how I will fight for them in the U.S. Senate. And my position hasn’t changed.”

The candidate added that transgender sports eligibility should be handled locally and insisted his approach remained the broadest in the field.

“I still think these should be local decisions, sport by sport, athlete by athlete, and I think I have the most inclusive policy of any candidate who’s running,” Talarico said. “So I know things are getting clipped and stuff, but my views, my position hasn’t changed.”

See the video below:

James Talarico Caught On Camera Saying His Transgender Views Haven’t Changed

“The way I fought for trans kids in the legislature is the way I will fight for them in the U.S. Senate. My position hasn’t changed,” he said on Sept. 13. pic.twitter.com/qdiKT1oBWA

— Jacob Wheeler (@JWheelertv) September 29, 2026

James Talarico is what a far-left Democrat consultant thinks a Christian is.

It baffles the mind that he’s not polling at zero.

The post CAUGHT ON TAPE: James Talarico Admits That His Position on Transgenderism and Children Has NOT Changed (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, is now arguing that prosecutors failed to prove she killed her three children, a notable shift following her mistrial on three first-degree murder charges. During Tuesday’s hearing, Reddington claimed the prosecution presented a “total and complete lack of evidence” establishing that Clancy killed 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan.

“This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington told Judge William Sullivan while seeking a required finding of not guilty. “Where is the evidence that she did this?” Reddington asked, later adding, “Where is the admission?” and “Where does she say that she did this?”

The argument represented a departure from the trial strategy, during which the defense did not dispute that Clancy killed the children but maintained that postpartum psychosis left her not criminally responsible. Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called the new argument “laughable” and cited Clancy’s presence alone with the children, cellphone and surveillance evidence, and her DNA on the exercise bands used in the killings.

The September 4 mistrial followed more than 38 hours of deliberations, with 11 jurors favoring a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible and juror Michael Desronvil supporting conviction. Desronvil is now facing public criticism from Reddington, who rejected the term “lone holdout” and labeled him “the obstructionist juror,” while also accusing him of having an “agenda.”

Clancy’s defense has requested an inquiry into Desronvil’s cell phone use, questionnaire responses and conduct during deliberations, although Desronvil disputes allegations that he ignored reasonable doubt. Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, has characterized Reddington’s actions as “brutal reprisals” and an attack on the constitutional jury system.

Sponsor | https://www.purgestore.com | Use promo code DREW for 20% off and support The Gateway Pundit today!

Follow Drew on X: https://x.com/DrewHLive
Follow Drew on Rumble: https://rumble.com/DrewHernandez

The post Lindsay Clancy Lawyer Now Arguing She Didn’t Murder Her Kids? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.