Someone get Bernie Sanders on the phone, quick. A billionaire is trying to buy our elections. Oh wait, never mind. This billionaire is spending his money trying to get Democrats elected, so it’s OK.

George Soros, the original Dr. Evil, has poured more than $100 million into the midterm elections, in an effort to help the Democrats win.

You will not hear any complaints from Bernie, AOC, or any of the other Democratic Socialists (communists) who constantly complain about billionaires influencing our elections.

The New York Post reports:

George and Alex Soros have funneled staggering $103M into midterms so far, on track to shatter spending record

Billionaire Democratic kingmaker George Soros spent a staggering $102.8 million in the midterm election cycle — reportedly making him the largest individual donor to date and chief architect of the party’s seismic shift toward the radical left.

With the November elections still more than four months away, Soros could shatter his own spending record of $128 million set during the last midterms four years ago, when he was the biggest single donor.

“Money talks, and Soros money says the most insidious, unconstitutional, costly tax hikes in American history are on the table,” said Douglas Kellogg, state projects director for Americans for Tax Reform.

Soros is a “wannabe Bond villain,” responsible for the radical takeover of the Democratic Party, he added.

Only a fraction of this cycle’s contributions — $793,800 — were made in the 95-year-old mega donor’s name, a review of publicly available Federal Election Commission data reveals.

Almost all of the money — $102 million — was funneled through the Democracy Political Action Committee, the super PAC Soros launched in 2020, which acts as the family’s main political arm, obfuscating efforts to know which radical candidates the clan is propping up.

More from NewsBusters:

The news comes after it was reported in April that Soros kicked off his 2026 spending with $50 million. The level of Soros’ expenditures signals that the 95-year-old leftist billionaire isn’t exactly riding off into the sunset for retirement despite formally handing control over his multibillion-dollar philanthropic empire to his more radical son Alex. In fact, the elder Soros has proven beyond any doubt that he has no intention of ceasing his attempts to buy political outcomes that comport with his utopian ideals.

This is just a reminder that when Bernie and AOC say they’re ‘fighting the oligarchy’ it doesn’t mean what they say it does.

Some billionaires are more equal than others.

The post WHAT HAPPENED TO FIGHTING THE OLIGARCHY? Billionaire George Soros Pours $100 Million Into Midterms for Democrats appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

It’s hardly a new phenomenon, sadly, when Hollywood stars kiss up to China. Usually, they don’t even try to bother letting facts get in the way.

Ah, but that’s where Edward Norton and Ted Danson went wrong. The “Fight Club” and “Cheers” star decided to simp for Beijing’s energy policy on the latter’s podcast this week, with the two libs declaring that China was on its way to being the “first petro-zero economy.”

The problem there: Not only is China not there yet, it’s the world’s biggest carbon-emitter and its largest user of coal, and it’s only getting worse.

But, you know, other than that…

Norton, apparently not terribly bright without imaginary friend Brad Pitt along with him, was the one who made the “first petro-zero economy” quote in a condemnation of “American exceptionalism,” because apparently exceptionalism equals renewables, or something.

“They are going to be the first electro-superpower,” he said of China.

“Which we could have been,” Danson interjected. “And now we’re going to have to buy it from them when this [Donald Trump] goes away and we come to our senses. We won’t have that industry like China does.”

Norton agreed.

“And by the way, it’s both sides of the aisle,” Norton said. “In the state of California, we have now the most regressive policy toward residential solar, distributed solar collection, and storage… but even under Gavin Newsom.”

Of course, this is because you can’t build a millimeter of air in California without 62 different permits, and you basically can’t change a lightbulb without changing a law, but one digresses. When the People’s Republic of Sacramento is being brought forth as an argument as to why centrally planned Chinese energy policy is kicking our butts, it’s hard to take you seriously.

As Norton went on to point out, “This is a state that should be energy independent… This is a state that should have gigawatts of residential distributed solar.”

To be fair, he gives both Florida and Texas — under Republican governors — credit for getting stuff done. But then he says that “if you get to travel” to other places — assumedly like China — you get to see that stuff can get done on green energy.

“We have this enduring narrative of American exceptionalism, like of, America’s ‘alpha,’ of America’s cultural superiority,” a rambling Norton said.

“And the question is, and I don’t think people fully grasp the degree to which we’re going to ghettoize ourselves as an energy state, in terms of education, in terms of health. We’re not anywhere near the top of what other people are experiencing. And if we embrace this idea of pride in regression, where is that going to take us? It’s not going to take us into a place that we’re happy about for our kids.”

Edward Norton rejects “American exceptionalism” and praises China as more eco-friendly than the West:

NORTON: China is on its way to being the first, petro-zero economy. They are going to be the first electro-superpower.

TED DANSON: Which we could have been. And now we’re… pic.twitter.com/JGObkC3dwR

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) June 26, 2026

Wow, man. Wow. Deep. Also? False.

China is hands-down the world’s largest energy consumer, representing about a third of consumption in 2023. According to Our World in Data, most of that — over 25,000 terawatt-hours of the 42,756 terawatt-hours it produces — comes from coal. Only 9 percent of the total comes from renewables of any sort, and that’s including nuclear power.

In the United States, yes, we have a slightly lower percentage of our power from renewables — 8.2 percent. However, most of our energy doesn’t come from coal but from cleaner petro-sources, with oil (9,949 terawatt-hours) and gas (9,022 terawatt-hours) being the top two sources. We consume less than one-tenth of China’s coal — 2,196 terawatt-hours.

So, China is nowhere near becoming “the first electro-superpower.” To the extent they might have more electric cars, those cars are powered by coal consumption. (China only burned up a little over 8,000 terawatt-hours of coal at the turn of the century.) The United States’ reliance on every form of carbon power except natural gas, which is relatively clean, has been either steady or decreasing.

However, “if you get to travel” and you get the Beijing propaganda treatment like Hollywood stars tend to get, you’ll believe anything about the country’s Sinofuturist façade, including the fake news that they’re some green-energy powerhouse. Maybe if Norton spent a little more time in China — like California, where he’s intimately familiar with how central planning ruins everything, including renewable energy — he’d realize this is a hoax and stop rah-rah-ing Beijing’s energy policies.

The difference is that the moment he said this in China, the Chinese government would have him locked up on some specious charges. You can’t make a pretend “first electro-superpower” omelette without breaking a few eggs, after all.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Hollywood Libs Pour Love on Beijing, Tout China as ‘First Petro-Zero Economy,’ But Facts Show Different Story appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily blocked Harris County from spending taxpayer dollars on legal services for individuals facing federal deportation proceedings, marking a significant victory for state officials seeking to curb what they view as the misuse of public funds.

The order, issued Friday, halts further spending from Harris County’s Immigrant Legal Services Fund while litigation continues over whether the program violates the Texas Constitution. Although the court has not issued a final ruling on the merits, it concluded there is “serious doubt” about the program’s constitutionality and ordered the county to suspend additional disbursements until further notice.

The decision sends a clear message that local governments cannot use taxpayer money to advance politically driven immigration policies without constitutional scrutiny.

Harris County’s Deportation Defense Fund

Harris County established the Immigrant Legal Services Fund in 2020 with an initial $2 million appropriation to provide free legal representation for individuals in federal immigration proceedings. Since then, county leaders have continued funding the program, including a recent $1.34 million allocation to nonprofit organizations representing individuals facing deportation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenged the latest expenditure, arguing that using public funds for this purpose violates the Texas Constitution’s prohibition against granting public money for private purposes. The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the constitutional questions raised are substantial enough to justify immediately halting the spending while the lawsuit proceeds.

A Check on Local Government Overreach

For years, Harris County officials, led by County Judge Lina Hidalgo and the Democratic majority on Commissioners Court, have embraced progressive immigration policies that critics argue exceed the proper role of county government.

Rather than focusing taxpayer resources on traditional local responsibilities such as public safety, infrastructure, flood control, and essential services, county leaders chose to finance legal representation for individuals facing removal under federal immigration law.

Supporters describe the program as ensuring due process. Critics counter that it effectively transforms local government into an advocate against federal immigration enforcement using taxpayer dollars.

Governor Greg Abbott welcomed the court’s decision, stating:

“The Texas Supreme Court rules, for now, that Harris County cannot use tax dollars to fund illegal immigrant legal challenges to deportation.”

The temporary injunction represents an important check on local governments that attempt to circumvent state policy through taxpayer-funded activism.

No Constitutional Right to Taxpayer-Funded Immigration Lawyers

Unlike criminal defendants, individuals in civil immigration proceedings are not constitutionally entitled to government-funded legal counsel. While immigrants remain free to hire private attorneys or obtain assistance from charitable organizations, critics argue taxpayers should not be compelled to finance those legal services.

With Houston confronting ongoing challenges involving crime, homelessness, transportation infrastructure, and disaster preparedness, many Texans question whether millions of public dollars should instead be directed toward defending individuals against federal deportation proceedings.

Attorney General Paxton’s lawsuit reinforces the principle that local governments cannot simply redefine their responsibilities by subsidizing activities that conflict with state law or exceed constitutional limitations on public spending.

A Broader Pattern of Sanctuary Policies

The Harris County case reflects a broader trend in progressive jurisdictions across the country.

Rather than formally refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, many local governments have created publicly funded deportation defense programs that critics view as de facto sanctuary policies financed through taxpayer dollars.

Supporters argue these programs promote fairness and due process. Opponents contend they undermine immigration enforcement, delay lawful removals, and divert scarce public resources away from essential government functions.

The Texas Supreme Court’s stay signals that courts may be willing to scrutinize whether such expenditures satisfy constitutional requirements governing the use of taxpayer funds.

National Implications

The implications of the Harris County case could extend well beyond Texas.

More than two dozen cities, counties, and several states—including California, New York, Washington, Illinois, Oregon, and Massachusetts—have established publicly funded deportation defense programs, collectively committing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to provide legal representation for individuals facing removal proceedings.

Many of those programs operate under state constitutions and statutory frameworks that differ significantly from Texas law. Nevertheless, the Harris County litigation highlights a potential vulnerability for similar initiatives nationwide: whether taxpayer-funded immigration defense serves a sufficiently clear public purpose to justify the expenditure of public funds.

If Texas ultimately prevails, lawmakers and attorneys general in other conservative-leaning states may pursue comparable constitutional challenges or enact legislation restricting local governments from financing deportation defense programs.

The Road Ahead

The Texas Supreme Court’s order is only a temporary stay while the underlying lawsuit proceeds through the appellate process. The court has not issued a final decision on whether Harris County’s program violates the Texas Constitution.

Still, the ruling represents a significant early victory for state officials challenging the legality of taxpayer-funded immigration defense.

For many Texans, the case raises a broader question about the proper role of local government. Public funds are intended to support core governmental responsibilities such as roads, law enforcement, emergency services, schools, and infrastructure.

As litigation continues, the case is likely to become one of the most closely watched legal battles over the intersection of immigration policy, local government authority, and taxpayer protections.

Read more

The post Texas Supreme Court Blocks Harris County from Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Illegal Immigrants’ Deportation Defense appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A powerful earthquake has devastated parts of Venezuela, reducing buildings to rubble, knocking out communications, and leaving families desperately searching for missing loved ones.

In the days following the disaster, I contacted numerous Venezuelans through missing-person posts and databases created to help families locate relatives. Several of those individuals responded, sharing firsthand accounts of their experiences during and after the disaster.

Their eyewitness testimonies, originally sent to me in Spanish and translated into English via Google Translate, paint a picture not only of a devastating natural disaster but of a country whose emergency response systems had already been hollowed out long before the ground began to shake.

Among those I spoke with was Jorge Perdomo, who spent two days trying to locate his best friend, Edison Jesús Morales, after all communication with him suddenly stopped.

Jorge told me Edison had lived through “the most terrifying moment of his life,” describing his survival as “a miracle from God.”

Two days later, Edison finally managed to make contact.

“Brother, don’t worry. I’m okay,” he told Jorge. “I went through hell.”

Edison described being inside a three-story home when the earthquake struck.

“The apartment was shaking like when you shake a matchbox,” he recalled. “That’s exactly what it was like.”

Water tanks and heavy barrels were thrown around as the building violently shook before he and those inside were finally able to escape.

“Nothing happened to us, thank God,” he said. “But it’s really bad.”

Buildings were destroyed throughout La Guaira, one of the areas hardest hit by the earthquake.

While Edison survived, Jorge said what happened after the earthquake revealed an even bigger problem. When I asked whether the government’s response had made a difference, Jorge answered without hesitation.

“Unfortunately, it would have been the same.”

“In the end, we see the reality of what happened.”

According to Jorge, rescue operations were crippled because communities simply lacked the equipment needed to save lives.

“There is no machinery and no light to support people at night or during the day,” he said.

Instead, he explained, ordinary Venezuelans became the rescue crews.

“We Venezuelans were the ones who solved it.”

He said neighbors dug through collapsed buildings themselves.

“People pulled others out with their hands because they did not have tools.”

Hospitals, he said, faced similar problems.

“There was no medicine or supplies,” Jorge explained.

Instead, ordinary Venezuelans themselves “managed to fill the hospitals with medicine,” despite those being resources “the government itself should provide.”

His account reflects what many survivors near the epicenter described.

International coverage has largely focused on Caracas, but the capital sits roughly 100 miles from the earthquake’s epicenter. Communities much closer to the disaster have suffered extensive damage, while widespread power outages and communications failures have made it nearly impossible for many families to contact loved ones or share images of what has happened. Online reports from residents in the affected areas closely mirror the accounts shared with me.

One resident wrote that an apartment building had completely collapsed.

“All the floors collapsed,” the person said. “We don’t know if there are people trapped in the rubble. We’re taking refuge in the school.”

Another resident described severe structural damage inside a home.

“The whole room is cracked, as is a column in another room, but the most affected one even has a cracked ceiling.”

Another report simply read:

“Building collapse.”

For Jorge, however, the greatest tragedy was not simply the earthquake itself. It was what decades of corruption had left behind.

“The government obviously has us in a bad state, whether Maduro is there or not,” he said.

Later, he added:

“There are no changes. Everything remains the same, and sometimes even worse.”

“As long as those who were with Maduro remain in command, this country will continue going to ruin.”

Those comments reflect a broader frustration shared by many Venezuelans. Despite possessing some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, survivors described communities without heavy rescue equipment, emergency lighting, adequate medical supplies, or even basic tools needed to pull people from collapsed buildings.

Money and humanitarian aid can arrive after a disaster. But when roads, infrastructure, communications systems, emergency equipment, and government institutions have deteriorated over many years, survivors told me those resources often cannot reach the people who need them most.

The Trump administration has already committed assistance to the Venezuelan people. But there is only so much foreign aid can accomplish when the institutions responsible for responding to disasters have been weakened for years.

The message I have heard repeatedly from the Venezuelans who contacted me is that this tragedy reflects something much larger than a natural disaster. The earthquake exposed the consequences of years of corruption, mismanagement, and institutional decay.

If anything good can come from a tragedy in which thousands are feared dead, tens of thousands remain missing, and countless families still cannot reach loved ones, survivors hope it is that the world recognizes how severely years of government corruption weakened Venezuela before disaster struck.

When governments become systems of entrenched authoritarian corruption, public institutions often deteriorate while those in power preserve themselves. For years, Venezuelans have warned about that reality.

When the earthquake struck, many told me they felt the consequences immediately—not because the earth shook, but because when it did, there was almost nothing left to help them.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela Earthquake Survivors Say They Were Forced to Rescue Victims With Their BARE HANDS After Government Failed Them appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a major win for the pro-life movement, the House Appropriations Committee approved language last week that prohibits any federal funds in the Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations bill from being used to conduct or support research involving human fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions.

The provision directly targets the use of tissue from aborted babies in experiments funded by the Department of Defense.

“None of the funds provided in this Act may be used to conduct or support research using human fetal tissue if such tissue is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion,” the bill text states.

This development follows an investigation by White Coat Waste that exposed how the Pentagon had been awarding grants for disturbing animal experiments involving parts from aborted human fetuses.

Those experiments included implanting fetal fingers, scalps, skin, organs, bone marrow, thymus, and liver tissue into mice and monkeys to create “humanized” animal models.

On March 20, the four chairs of the House Pro-Life Caucus sent a formal letter to the leaders of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee urging them to include the language.

The signers were Rep. Robert F. Onder, Jr., Rep. Kat Cammack, Rep. Christopher H. Smith, and Rep. Michelle Fischbach.

The letter highlighted a specific Biden-era DOD grant to the University of Wisconsin-Madison totaling $1,724,662. Part of that funding was sub-awarded to support research using fetal tissue obtained from aborted babies.

The funding period was still active, raising concerns that similar research could continue.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth Vows to Investigate Biden-Era Pentagon Funding for Gruesome Animal Testing Using Aborted Fetal Tissue

The Pro-Life Caucus chairs noted that the Trump administration had already taken decisive action at the National Institutes of Health.

In January, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya announced that the NIH would no longer support research using human fetal tissue from elective abortions.

The letter argued that Congress should extend this protection to all federally funded medical research, including that conducted by the Department of Defense.

On Wednesday, the full House Appropriations Committee approved the FY2027 Defense Appropriations Act by a vote of 34 to 27.

The critical fetal tissue restriction was part of the “Calvert #2 (Republican En Bloc)” amendment package, which passed 32 to 25.

This package also included blocking DEI and CRT programs in the military.

The post Pro-Life Victory: House Committee Passes Amendment to Defund Pentagon Research Using Tissue from Aborted Babies appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Mythos will get around.

Back in March, news arose that the US Donald J. Trump administration had ‘blacklisted’ AI Anthropic for being a National Security risk.

Later in May, the administration moved to forbid Anthropic’s plan to expand the Mythos AI Tool for the same reason.

Read: Trump Administration Fights Anthropic’s Plan To Expand Mythos AI Tool That Could Cause Doomsday ‘If It Falls in the Wrong Hands’

Read: CEO of Blacklisted AI Company Anthropic, Dario Amodei Says His AI Models ‘May Have Gained Consciousness’ and Are Exhibiting Signs of Anxiety – Gets Trolled by Elon Musk

Today, the US has partially scrapped its export ban on Anthropic’s most advanced artificial intelligence model.

Politico reported:

“The release clears the way for a select group of more than 100 companies and agencies to gain access to the Mythos 5 model, two weeks after the administration imposed restrictions, amid fears that the software could be used to launch cyberattacks. But a second advanced Anthropic model, called Fable 5, remains blocked.

Meanwhile, pressure from the White House led Anthropic’s leading competitor, OpenAI, to limit the release of its most advanced model this week because of similar cyber concerns.”

Since June 12, we’ve been working closely with the US government to restore access to Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5. Today, the government notified us that Mythos 5, our strongest cybersecurity model, can be redeployed to a set of US organizations that operate and defend critical…

— Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) June 27, 2026

Trump signed an executive order rejecting mandatory federal controls on AI, asking tech companies to submit new models to a voluntary government review before making them available.

“Conversations between Anthropic and the administration are expected to continue through the weekend on restoring access to Fable, according to a person who was granted anonymity to describe the private discussions.”

“The conversations have also focused on determining a standardized framework to evaluate cases of suspected security bypasses in the future, the person said, beyond just addressing the recent episode.”

Read more from June 13th:

U.S. Orders Anthropic to Disable Its Latest AI Model for Foreign Users Over Security Concerns

The post Anthropic’s AI Export Ban on Claude Mythos Tool Partially Lifted by Trump Administration appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.