In a classic example of judicial overreach timed to protect the Democrat mail-in voting machine, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani has ordered the Trump administration to scramble and defend the U.S. Postal Service’s new Federal Ballot Mail rules by 8 a.m. Tuesday morning.

In a Sunday order, Talwani directed the administration to defend the U.S. Postal Service’s new federal ballot-mail regulations by 8 a.m. Tuesday.

That deadline is nearly 16 hours earlier than what the plaintiffs themselves requested.

The left-wing organizations challenging the regulations had asked that the Trump administration be given until 11:59 p.m. Tuesday, August 25, to file its opposition, according to their emergency motion.

Talwani instead moved the deadline up to 8 a.m. and declared that USPS had “created the emergency.”

If the Trump administration says it needs until Thursday to respond, Talwani said she will temporarily block formal publication of the regulations while the court considers the emergency motion.

The rule is scheduled to be formally published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 26.

Talwani has not yet ruled that USPS violated her previous injunction. Sunday’s order merely establishes an extraordinarily accelerated briefing schedule on the plaintiffs’ motion.

The emergency fight erupted after the Postal Service transmitted its final ballot-mail rule for publication on Friday.

The plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Legal Defense Fund, and other left-wing advocacy organizations, accused USPS of “flouting” Talwani’s August 11 preliminary injunction.

They are asking Talwani to declare that the final rule has no force or effect for any election held on or before November 3, prohibit USPS from taking additional preparatory steps, and force the agency to file weekly compliance reports.

The new regulations took effect on August 21. USPS explained that delaying the effective date could prevent the agency from implementing the safeguards in time for the November midterm elections if the courts eventually lift the existing injunctions.

However, the Postal Service’s final rule explicitly acknowledges Talwani’s injunction and states that USPS will not implement the regulations for the 2026 election unless the government first obtains relief from the courts.

“If the government obtains timely relief from the injunctions,” the agency wrote, implementation could begin immediately and give election officials as much time as possible to comply.

In other words, USPS finalized the system but agreed not to activate it for the November election while the injunctions remain in effect.

The new regulations require ballot-mail envelopes to include the official Election Mail logo, meet automation standards, and carry unique Intelligent Mail barcodes.

State election officials would also be required to submit information through the Federal Ballot Mail Portal, including:

• The name of the person receiving a mail-in or absentee ballot
• The voter’s address
• The unique barcode printed on the outbound ballot envelope
• The unique barcode printed on the return ballot envelope
• The state of the originating election office

USPS employees would review outbound ballot mail before accepting it. Mailings that fail to satisfy the standards would be returned to the authorized election official for correction.

The verification provisions apply to outbound ballots sent by election officials. The final rule specifies that the same verification section does not apply to completed ballots returned by individual voters.

Apparently, requiring election officials to provide basic identifying information and uniquely track ballots through the mail is now considered such a grave “emergency” that Trump administration attorneys must prepare a federal court response before breakfast Tuesday.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Talwani issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on August 11 preventing USPS from implementing the relevant section of Trump’s election-integrity executive order for the November election.

Talwani claimed that the executive branch lacks authority to regulate elections and argued that the administration’s safeguards could create “confusion” and “chaos.”

The Gateway Pundit also reported that a First Circuit panel refused to pause Talwani’s earlier, narrower injunction covering 23 Democrat-led states and Washington, D.C.

However, Trump-appointed Judge Joshua Dunlap rejected part of the majority’s reasoning and concluded that the states’ alleged injuries involving federal citizenship information were “speculative and hypothetical.”

In a separate case, the Trump administration scored a significant victory before the D.C. Circuit.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the appeals court stayed an order issued by Judge Emmet Sullivan in litigation involving the NAACP and a settlement left over from the chaotic 2020 election.

The D.C. Circuit found USPS had made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed and could suffer irreparable harm if prevented from finalizing the regulations before the midterms.

That separate appellate victory did not eliminate Talwani’s injunction.

Now the same Obama judge who blocked the safeguards is demanding that the Trump administration defend the finalized regulations nearly 16 hours earlier than even the plaintiffs requested, while threatening to halt publication if government lawyers ask for more time.

The post Obama Judge Indira Talwani Orders Trump Admin to Defend USPS Mail-Ballot Integrity Rules by 8 a.m. Tuesday — Claims Postal Service “Created the Emergency” After Final Rule Dropped appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Saturday, Florida beachgoers watched a dramatic scene unfold as a small plane made an emergency ocean crash landing.

Twenty-three-year-old Faith Tenkley was on her way from Fort Myers, Florida, to the Bahamas to pick up her family in a Piper PA30 series twin-engine propeller plane. As she neared Boca Raton, one of her engines failed, forcing her to take emergency action.

Tenkley told Gulf Coast News she’s been a pilot for four years.

About 15 miles west of Boca, she said she started having mechanical issues. Her initial plan was to make an emergency landing at Boca’s airport. She then said her landing gear broke, and she figured it would be a bad idea to try and land on the runway since the plane still had a lot of fuel and a hard landing could spark a fire.

By this time, Tenkley said the right engine on the twin-engine plane had failed, and she decided it was safer to land in the water. She said she had to dodge buildings near the coast and paddleboarders, but managed to find an empty spot next to the beach. Tenkley said the landing in the ocean was smooth and a lifeguard got to her within a minute, with the fire rescue boat close behind.

WPBF reports that initially, Tenkley hoped to be able to make an emergency landing at  Boca’s airport but became aware that her landing gear was broken and worried a fire could be sparked.

By this time, the right engine on the twin-engine plane had failed, said decided it was safer to land in the water. She had to dodge buildings near the coast and paddleboarders, but managed to find an empty spot next to the beach.

The landing in the ocean was smooth. A lifeguard got to her within a minute, and the fire rescue boat was close behind, she said.

Video of the landing can be seen here.

Tenkley was comforted by a lifeguard following the rescue.

The Boca Raton Police Department that, while injuries were reported, she was taken to an area hospital as a precautionary measure.

“The sole occupant of the plane was transported to an area hospital as a precaution. The Boca Raton Police Marine Unit and the U.S. Coast Guard remain on scene while the FAA is en route. The public is asked to please not attempt to approach the immediate area.”

11:10 am: The sole occupant of the plane was transported to an area hospital as a precaution. The Boca Raton Police Marine Unit and the U.S. Coast Guard remain on scene while the FAA is en route. The public is asked to please not attempt to approach the immediate area. pic.twitter.com/9TKaJ448II

— Boca Raton Police (@BocaPolice) August 22, 2026

The post Dramatic Emergency Ocean Landing by Skilled Young Pilot Stuns Florida Beachgoers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In 2025, one of the worst shootings in Australia’s history unfolded in Sydney as two terrorists slaughtered at least 15 Jewish beachgoers who were celebrating Hanukkah. Now, the commission established to address antisemitism is facing controversy after a witness speaking before the group has questioned Israel’s right to even exist.

The Gateway Pundit reported that two men stepped out of a vehicle on Campbell Parade, near Bondi Pavilion, and opened fire at Bondi Beach at roughly 6.40 pm on December 14, 2025.  Witnesses report that more than 30 shots were fired and multiple people were injured in the attack, including two police officers and a child.

Police discovered several suspicious items in the vicinity of the incident. This included an improvised explosive device.

Following the deadly antisemitic terrorist attack, the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was established.

The Commission’s terms of reference focus on four main areas:

• Investigating the nature, prevalence, and drivers of antisemitism in Australian institutions and society (including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalization).
• Making recommendations to help law enforcement, border control, immigration, and security agencies better tackle antisemitism (including improved guidance and training).
• Examining the specific circumstances of the Bondi Beach terrorist attack itself.
• Making broader recommendations to strengthen social cohesion in Australia and counter the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism.

Rita Jabri Markwell, a Sydney-based solicitor, researcher, and policy adviser to the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, spoke before the commission to discuss the framework she helped develop to identify and address all forms of hate speech. Markwell, however, would not affirm Israel’s right to exist.

Per Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

Following a lengthy and at times emotive cross-examination about the framework, Commissioner Virginia Bell AC SC asked Ms Markwell if she would “accept that there is a legitimacy to the existence of the state of Israel” at the time of the United Nations General Assembly’s recognition of the state of Israel in 1948.

“I don’t think I have a view particularly on the time of that declaration, but I know that if you were to ask me now whether I think that the state has legitimacy I, as a human rights lawyer, I don’t think that any state that relies unlawful occupation and apartheid and genocide could be said to be a legitimate state,” Ms Markwell said in response.

“I think that there really needs to be, and this is just a political opinion, but I think there needs to be serious thought as to how we fulfil every human’s human rights in that region.”

Nicholas Bender, who is counsel representing various Jewish communal organizations, cross-examined Markwell. He questioned her extensively about her views on Zionism, including a Substack post in which she characterized it as a form of violent extremism involving dehumanization and related aspects of her dehumanization/hate-speech framework.

Watch the tense cross-examination of Markwell below:

This cross-examination of Rita Jabri Markwell of the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism & Social Cohesion was indeed starkly revealing.

For some, it seems, nothing will ever be enough. A Jewish person can completely oppose the actions of… pic.twitter.com/pbDfwzOary

— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) August 20, 2026

The post Not The Bee: Witness at Australian Antisemitism Royal Commission Questions Israel’s Right to Exist appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Democrats’ dream of making Puerto Rico a state to enhance their political position is sure to encounter significant resistance from the island’s residents, who aren’t interested in their political games.

The issue of Puerto Rican statehood has been a hot topic on the island for decades, with numerous referendums on the matter proposed and sometimes boycotted by opponents. But now, with the likes of Kamala Harris opening her mouth on the matter, this issue has come back closer to the forefront.

Last week, Fox News interviewed Puerto Rico natives to ask for their thoughts on the U.S. territory. Needless to say, they were not enthusiastic.

Many pointed out that if Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, became a state, taxes would rise, and the cost of living would skyrocket.

This would make life unaffordable for millions, especially since the average income for Puerto Ricans is lower than that of any state in the union. Moreover, Puerto Rico operates under a different federal tax structure.

“I don’t think it should be a state,” Carly, a Puerto Rico native who now lives in Connecticut, told Fox News. “I don’t want them to do to Puerto Rico what they did to Hawaii.

“I don’t want taxes to spike. People’s wages here are really low to maintain life here.”

“It wouldn’t benefit us to become a state…Everything would become more expensive than it already is, and locals have already been struggling for a while now,” Alejandra from San Juan, Puerto Rico, told Fox News.

“It would make stuff even worse,” she added.

WATCH:

Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly reject statehood in Fox News Digital interviews, citing fears of economic collapse, higher taxes, and the erosion of their cultural identity.

Residents on the island and in the mainland U.S. pushed back hard on the idea of becoming the 51st state —… pic.twitter.com/vbnsfllZ9D

— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) August 23, 2026

Other Puerto Ricans cited what they viewed as the mistreatment of Puerto Ricans by the U.S. Government, along with President Trump, as reasons to oppose statehood.

“We really don’t have much of a say on what goes on in the states,” a person from San Juan going by the name Boo explained. “So if we become a state, how would that change?”

“There’s a lot of controversy with the… especially the president right now,” she added. “We don’t want to be a part of that, for sure.”

Some suggested that instead of becoming a state, Puerto Rico should seek independence and become its own country.

“I believe we have the full potential to become an independent country,” Angelie from San Juan told Fox News. “We have been colonized for so long.”

If Puerto Rico were to become a state, Democrats would almost certainly pick up two new Senate seats. Polling and election results show that Puerto Ricans consistently vote for Democratic candidates.

Thankfully, the Puerto Rican voters are prioritizing their own interests over the left’s pursuit of permanent political power.

The post SORRY DEMS: Puerto Ricans Reveal Why They Want No Part of Becoming America’s 51st State (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Squatters taking over private property are wreaking havoc throughout the country and causing nightmare scenarios for homeowners. Wyoming is delivering a solution that is already showing results.

Challenges for property owners vary by location because laws differ widely across U.S. states, and owners often face complicated, lengthy, and expensive battles to recover what is rightfully theirs. In many U.S. jurisdictions, once someone has been inside for even a short time and claims residency or changes the locks, police often refuse to remove them, treating it as a “civil matter.”

Owners are then forced to go through formal eviction court instead of a simple trespass arrest. Eviction lawsuits can take weeks to months. Owners must file paperwork, properly serve notice, attend hearings, and sometimes wait for a sheriff’s lockout.

Legal fees, court costs, and lost rent or use of the property add up quickly and can be prolonged by delaying tactics used by squatters, including false claims of tenancy, requests for continuances, and appeals.

Further, owners must prove ownership and lack of permission. Squatters can sometimes counter the owner’s claim by producing fake leases or utility bills, or by claiming they were given verbal permission, shifting the burden back on the owners to gather evidence.

Additionally, if an owner is able to regain possession, they often face extensive property damage and cleanup costs.

Some states have passed laws in recent years. In Florida, HB 621 provides near-immediate sheriff removal via owner affidavit and includes criminal penalties, including felonies for fake documents or significant damage.

Georgia passed the  Squatter Reform Act, HB 1017, which criminalizes squatting and shortens the process for removal.

A report at Cowboy State Daily reveals that a recent change to Wyoming law that allows law enforcement agencies to remove squatters from homes if the homeowner can show they’re there illegally already seems to be working.

Squatters meet resistance with red state push to protect homeowners | Fox News

The prospective Wyoming law would make squatting that involves property damage a felony offense punishable by up to 10 years and a $10K fine

Wyoming is the latest state to push legislation giving… pic.twitter.com/LpKZqfQqUb

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) November 20, 2024

Per Cowboy State Daily:

A couple accused of moving into a locked-up home and selling off the owner’s possessions allegedly told the homeowner they were squatters, they have rights, and he couldn’t do anything about it.

Then they were arrested and taken to the Laramie County Detention Center.

Senate File 6, which passed into law in February 2025 without a signature from Gov. Mark Gordon, makes squatting a criminal offense in certain circumstances.  Those include the unwanted people not being current or former tenants, co-owners, family members or romantic partners.

Cap City News reports, “According to affidavits filed by a deputy with the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office, Crystal Curiel and Salvador Curiel-Aviles were caught breaking into a south Cheyenne property, reportedly to live there and make a profit selling valuables inside.”

“Curiel was charged with felony burglary, property destruction and theft. Curiel-Aviles was also hit with burglary and property destruction charges, as well as a felony charge for forgery.”

The post Wyoming is Delivering a Solution to Combat the Squatter Epidemic appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a stunning display of radical left extremism, the influential German newspaper taz (Die Tageszeitung) has published a column that openly contemplates “forms of resistance – if necessary of a violent nature” against a potential AfD-led state government.

The piece, written by taz editor Jens Uthoff and published August 21, 2026 under the title “Antifaschismus und Militanz: Weckruf zur Wehrhaftigkeit” (“Antifascism and Militancy: A Wake-Up Call for Defensiveness”), comes as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) surges in polls ahead of the September 6 state election in Saxony-Anhalt.

Uthoff writes that executive power in a German state “could soon fall into the hands of the AfD.” Therefore, he declares, “it is imperative to deal with forms of resistance – if necessary of a violent nature.” He frames this as a defensive reaction to a supposed “right-radical coup attempt” rather than left-wing aggression, while carefully denying any “violence romanticism.”

Let’s be crystal clear: the AfD is currently polling between 40 and 43 percent in Saxony-Anhalt – far ahead of the establishment CDU. If voters hand the party a majority or a governing role in free, secret, and general elections, the left’s answer, according to this national newspaper, is to start discussing physical violence.

As the Ostdeutsche Allgemeine (and similar outlets) correctly noted the next day, this is not some fringe blogger ranting. This is a major left-wing editorial voice treating the possibility of citizens voting the “wrong” way as justification for contemplating violence against an elected government.

Political Violence Is Not a Metaphor

Political violence means beatings, attacks, kidnappings, and yes – murder. That is the historical reality of leftist “militancy” from the Spartacists of 1918–19 through the Red Army Faction and today’s Antifa street thugs. Uthoff’s carefully worded column pretends this is complex and defensive. In practice, it signals that the left will not accept a democratic outcome it dislikes.

This is not isolated. German authorities have already recorded a sharp rise in left-motivated violent crimes targeting AfD politicians, offices, and supporters – arson attacks on vehicles and party facilities, physical assaults, and constant intimidation. The AfD has become the primary party target of left-wing political violence.

Yet mainstream German media and the establishment parties continue their “firewall” against the only serious opposition to open borders, mass migration chaos, and the green energy disaster that is crushing German industry and households.

History Repeats: Left Violence Breeds Backlash

In 1918–19, German leftists rejected the democratic Weimar Republic and launched violent Spartacist uprisings aimed at imposing Soviet-style rule. They failed – and helped create the conditions for the Freikorps and the later militarization of politics. Uthoff and his allies appear determined to replay the same script: refuse to accept the will of the voters, then cry “fascism” when the backlash arrives.

The AfD’s program – secure borders, deportation of criminal foreigners, energy realism, and national sovereignty – operates fully within Germany’s constitutional order. No serious observer claims the party plans a “coup.” The only “coup” on the table is the left’s refusal to live with election results.

The New Program of the Left: Murdering the Opposition

For years, the Western left has insisted that “punching Nazis” is acceptable and that anyone to the right of the Greens is essentially Hitler. Now a major newspaper is casually discussing physical violence, ie murder, against a party that is simply winning free elections in eastern Germany. The same voices that scream about “threats to democracy” when the AfD rises are the ones contemplating extra-legal force against it.

Violence has no place in a civilized democracy. The proper response to a party you dislike is to defeat it at the ballot box – not to prepare terrorism and murder when voters reject your failed policies on immigration and the economy.

The German people in Saxony-Anhalt (and increasingly across the country) are voting AfD because the establishment has failed them. If the left’s answer is to talk about beating, attacking, and murdering, then the real threat to German democracy is not the AfD. It is the radical left that can no longer tolerate the people having a say.

The post SHOCK: German Leftist Rag TAZ Calls for MURDER to Stop AfD From Winning Free Elections appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.