A private arbitrator has ordered The Washington Post to rehire an opinion columnist who made social media posts that an editor at the paper found “beyond the pale” following the assassination of Charlie Kirk last September.

The New York Times reported that Sarah Miller Espinosa, the arbitrator, said in a written decision Thursday that The Post “did not have good and sufficient cause” to terminate columnist Karen Attiah and “violated” its labor agreement.

“The Washington Post failed to establish the grievant engaged in gross misconduct,” Espinosa wrote, according to a copy of the decision shared with the Times by Attiah’s lawyers.

Following the murder of Kirk at a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025, Attiah posted on the social media platform Blue Sky, “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence.”

She added in another post, “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”

It is not clear what violence she believes Kirk espoused.

Newsweek reported that in another post, Attiah attributed the quote, “Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot” to Kirk.

A week later, she wrote: “Hey everyone, in the heat of things, I originally saw this quote in a piece in the Nation, and their quote has since been updated to specify that it was specific to Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, etc. But Kirk’s clearly anti-black statements speak for themselves.”

Adam O’Neal, then the opinion editor at The Washington Post, said in testimony before the arbitrator, according to a transcript of the hearing obtained by the Times, that he read Attiah’s posts the morning after Kirk’s murder.

JUST IN: The Washington Post has fired race hustler Karen Attiah. pic.twitter.com/lPKOfHFR8M

— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) September 15, 2025

He then sent a message to human resources manager Wayne Connell stating, “Karen’s social media feed yesterday and today is beyond the pale, completely unacceptable for someone associated with Opinions.”

The paper fired Attiah on Sept. 11, 2025. The columnist then brought a wrongful termination suit against the Post in arbitration.

During her testimony, Attiah defended her social media posts, saying that they were part of her work for The Post, “commenting on our discourse on political violence.”

The Times noted, “Arbitration is generally considered binding in most disputes, though courts have occasionally overturned decisions after courtroom findings of fraud or other improprieties. The Post’s labor agreement says that arbitration is binding, though both the company and the employee retain their legal rights.”

Attiah posted on social media on Monday in response to the arbiter ruling in her favor, “The Washington Post fired me last year for speaking the truth after Charlie Kirk’s killing. I fought back.”

BREAKING:

The Washington Post fired me last year for speaking the truth after Charlie Kirk’s killing. I fought back.

I’m happy to announce: I won my case against the Washington Post.

They have been ordered to reinstate me immediately. https://t.co/TISoTvFFO9

— Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) August 24, 2026

“I’m happy to announce: I won my case against the Washington Post. They have been ordered to reinstate me immediately,” she added.

The Times reported that Attiah will receive back pay from the time of her firing.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Washington Post Ordered to Re-Hire Columnist Who Made ‘Beyond the Pale’ Comments on Day of Charlie Kirk’s Assassination appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

What happens when the maoists get power? pic.twitter.com/em7CfZgnoK

— Victor Nieves (@ItsVictorNieves) August 24, 2026

Hassan Piker is playing dress-up like he is Mao Zedong.

The same Mao Zedong who is responsible for 65,000,000 deaths in China.

Now the DSA has a Maoist faction that says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too moderate to run for President.

The Gateway Pundit reported,

There is apparently a ‘Maoist’ faction of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), called the ‘Liberation Caucus’ and according to them, far left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too ‘moderate’ to run for president in 2028.

This is going to be news to the millions of Americans who see AOC as a leading figure of the radical left. She is still a member of the DSA chapter in New York City.

If AOC is a moderate, what does that say about the rest of them?

FOX News reports:

AOC blasted as too moderate by Maoist DSA faction as 2028 buzz grows

The Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) Liberation Caucus is rejecting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as a potential candidate for Democrats in the 2028 presidential election, arguing she is too far removed from the socialist agenda.

“Liberation condemns Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s continued retreat from socialist politics and rejects any effort to present her as the future presidential standard-bearer for DSA, or for the broader socialist movement,” the DSA Liberation Caucus wrote in the statement.

DSA slammed Ocasio-Cortez as an “opportunist” and condemned her vote to defend Israel’s right to exist and for not holding firm as an anti-Zionist.

What do you think will happen if Democrats win elections and the Maoists get into power? What will they have in store for you, your children, and your grandchildren?

It’s not a trick question, and they aren’t hiding the answer.

The post Victor Reacts: Democrats Openly Praise Mao Zedong: What Happens If They Get Power? (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a rare interview, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas hit back at leftists who believe black people can’t be conservative.

Clarence Thomas sat down for an interview with Senator Ted Cruz on the “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast.

Justice Thomas slammed the idea that black people cannot be conservative.

“We had this saying [that there are] only two things I have to do: stay Black and die,” Justice Thomas told Ted Cruz.

“That was a retort to people who had these sort of requirements for us, these these mandates for us because of our skin color,” he said.

“But at any rate, they think that here’s the way you’re supposed to think. Again, here’s your skin color. There’s this kind of deterministic view that you’re supposed to think this because we say so,” Thomas said.

Justice Thomas the left sees him as a “walking contradiction.”

“And I, of course, declined that invitation. And so now that means that something, that I’m a walking contradiction because I’ve deviated from their perception of what I should think,” Justice Thomas said to Ted Cruz.

Clarence Thomas was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991.

WATCH:

The post In Rare Interview, Clarence Thomas Hits Back at Leftists Who Believe Black People Can’t Be Conservative (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Activists pushing to end abortion are fighting back hard after four of their members were arrested for publicly protesting abortion.

The arrests occurred on Aug. 15 near the Alamo in San Antonio, where the abortion abolitionists were holding signs in a public area, according to The Christian Post.

The signs and protests attracted the attention of several Texas Department of Public Safety officers who accused the group of protesting outside a “designated free speech zone.”

In one video uploaded to social media, a DPS officer could be seen threatening to arrest the group unless they “comply.”

BREAKINGPeople demonstrating at the Alamo to end abortion were ARRESTED for being outside the designated “FREE SPEECH ZONE”. Why does the Alamo have “free speech zones” when the Alamo is described as a historically public space?

Follow:@Carlos__Turcios@DallasExpress pic.twitter.com/ytjUQHPQne

— Carlos Turcios (@Carlos__Turcios) August 16, 2026

“All right, you’ve got five minutes to comply to the rules,” the officer said. “If you choose not to, you’ll be asked to leave. If you don’t leave, you’ll be arrested for criminal trespass. Do you understand? I’ll take that as you understand. I’ll see you in five minutes, 9:52.”

Texas attorney CJ Grisham of Texas Gun Rights is representing the protesters.

“When we told them that we have a First Amendment right in a traditional public forum like a sidewalk, they ordered them to leave and gave them a trespass warning if they didn’t,” he told The Christian Post.

When the officer returned, four protesters were arrested for criminal trespass based on what Grisham termed “unconstitutional and unlawful orders.”

Grisham took issue with the orders because the officers were “enforcing rules propagated by the Alamo Trust, the private organization that manages the Alamo property on behalf of the state of Texas.”

“There was no ordinance,” he told the newspaper. “They were only enforcing rules.”

According to the San Antonio Express-News, the Alamo’s official site rules “limit demonstrations to a designated free speech zone.”

“The area is marked by a large star engraved with a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: ‘Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech,’” the paper reported.

To the activists’ credit, they tried standing in the “freedom circle,” as it’s called, but they could barely fit inside it:

Grisham told The Christian Post that his “next step” is to “get the charges dismissed or fight them in court.” Either way, he intends to eventually sue.

“The big cities are run by anti-Christian leftists and the police do their bidding,” he said. “The police will do anything for a paycheck, including following these unconstitutional rules and enforcing them to the point of violence. It’s a sad state of affairs how far our law enforcement community has fallen from their oath.”

In the meantime, he sent a letter to Texas General Land Office Commissioner Dawn Buckingham asking her to look into this matter.

This latest incident comes a month after a Fort Worth police officer threatened to arrest several evangelists during a public event, as The Christian Post reported. The threats infuriated the Trump administration, which fired back with a formal letter raising concerns about viewpoint discrimination.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Christian Abortion Protesters Fight Back After Texas Arrests appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is threatening to cut electricity supplies to the U.S. amid the ongoing trade war with President Donald Trump.

Ford said Monday that “everything is on the table” after Washington imposed 50 percent tariffs on roughly $20 billion of Canadian goods.

Ontario currently supplies enough electricity to power approximately 1.5 million American homes and businesses, particularly in neighboring states including Michigan, Minnesota and New York.

“We power 1.5 million homes and businesses,” Ford said. “Everything’s on the table. I’ll do whatever it takes.”

He also threatened to completely halt exports of critical minerals from Ontario.

“I’ll cut them off,” he said. “You won’t get a grain of sand out of Ontario.”

BREAKING: Canada threatens to cut off all electricity and critical minerals to the US, including high-grade nickel and uranium, if the Canada-US trade war worsens, per AP.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford says “I’ll cut them off… You won’t get a grain of sand out of Ontario,” adding…

— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) August 24, 2026

Among the resources flowing south are high-grade nickel and uranium refined in Ontario, materials with significant importance to American manufacturing, energy production and national security.

“What would they do without the high-grade nickel that we ship down to the U.S.?” Ford asked.

Ford suggested Canada could eventually go even further by using its enormous supplies of oil and potash as leverage against Washington.

The threats come after trade negotiations between the two countries collapsed Friday.

Prime Minister Mark Carney walked away from negotiations after deciding that Trump’s demands were unacceptable.

President Trump tried in recent days to use an untested legal power to force Canada to swallow trade concessions. Instead, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney quit the negotiations.

50 percent U.S. tariffs took effect early Saturday on an array of Canadian products. Carney said… pic.twitter.com/5OzMcMwMGb

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 24, 2026

The U.S. has since imposed its new 50 percent tariffs, while Canada announced retaliatory tariffs scheduled to begin September 8.

Trump responded to Ford’s threats on Monday with a blistering attack on both the Ontario premier and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

“Lots of ‘bluster’ from Doug Ford, who is the Premier of the Canadian Province of Ontario, but who is better known as the less charismatic, intelligent, and overall unimpressive brother of the late, great, Rob Ford,” Trump wrote.

“America has been carrying Canada for decades, but no longer! The U.S.A. will always be far bigger, richer, and stronger than Canada.”

Trump: “Lots of ‘bluster’ from Doug Ford, who is the Premier of the Canadian Province of Ontario, but who is better known as the less charismatic, intelligent, and overall unimpressive brother of the late, great, Rob Ford. America has been carrying Canada for decades, but no… pic.twitter.com/KLWZ5Dybf3

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 24, 2026

It is not the first time that Ford has made such threats.

Last year, he vowed to make Americans feel “pain like they have never felt before” over a separate trade dispute and has suggested targeting red states that voted for Trump.

The post Ontario Premier Threatens to Cut Electricity to U.S. — Trump Warns Consequences for Canada Will Be ‘Far WORSE’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections.

Earlier this month, US District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, expanded her previous block on President Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting.

The Boston-based Judge previously blocked President Trump’s March 2025 executive order, specifically his attempt to create a federal voter list.

In March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.

“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” the executive order said.

“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error. Yet the United States has not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that, for example, prohibit States from counting ballots received after Election Day or prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote,” the executive order said.

“Several Federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 1015 and 611, prohibit foreign nationals from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections,” Trump said.

Judge Talwani previously said, “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

On August 11, Judge Talwani blocked the US Postal Service from implementing Trump’s executive order that would make mail-in ballots more secure.

On Monday, the high court paused Judge Indira Talwani’s ruling that blocked key parts of President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in ballots.

The three liberal justices, Kagan, Jackson and Sotomayor, dissented.

CNBC reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with President Donald Trump for now in his effort to impose sweeping new restrictions on distributing mail ballots, putting on hold a lower-court ruling that had blocked key parts of the plan ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The justices, over three dissents, paused a ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston that prevented the Trump administration from carrying out portions of a March executive order involving the U.S. Postal Service and voter eligibility lists.

The decision is an interim victory for Trump and does not resolve the underlying legality of his order.

And it does not immediately clear the way for the new mail-ballot system to take effect. A separate injunction Talwani issued on Aug. 11 still bars the Postal Service from implementing the procedural changes for the Nov. 3 elections. The administration would need to overcome that order as well.

This is a breaking story…please check back for updates.

The post MAJOR BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds President Trump’s Executive Order Restricting Mail-in Voting Ahead of Midterms appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.