The South Dakota Republican Party on Friday turned its back on grassroots conservatives and the America First agenda by voting down a resolution to censure Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) over his repeated failure to advance President Donald Trump’s critical SAVE America Act.

The measure had already cleared the party’s Resolutions Committee, where it was approved after strong support from activists.

But when it reached the full convention floor, it was overwhelmingly rejected. Opponents reportedly argued that censuring Thune would “only help Democrats.”

According to the summary of the resolution:

“While there are many ways in which John Thune’s performance as Senate Majority Leader have been found wanting, his failure in regards to the SAVE America Act is his most glaring, and can not be ignored. It is for this reason that we, the elected representatives of the South Dakota Republican Party, find it regretfully necessary to censure South Dakota Senator and US Senate Majority Leader John Randolph Thune until such time as the SAVE America Act is officially signed into law.”

[…]

“In adopting this resolution, the South Dakota Republican Party makes it abundantly and unquestionably clear that South Dakota Senator and U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s failure in regards to the SAVE America Act is unacceptable. As such, the South Dakota Republican Party regretfully finds it necessary to issue an official censure of Senator Thune, to be withdrawn only at such a time as Senator Thune oversees the SAVE America Act being passed into law by passage through the U.S. Senate, and then being officially signed into law by President Trump.”

The resolution was submitted by Michael Stangeland of Minnehaha County and supported by Paula Mowry, Lawrence County Precinct 2 Committeewoman. It represented real grassroots frustration after years of Thune and Senate leadership slow-walking or outright blocking the very election security measures Trump ran on and won with.

President Trump has repeatedly made clear that the SAVE America Act is non-negotiable. The American people agree. South Dakota’s own legislature agreed. Yet Senate Majority Leader John Thune has treated it as optional.

The resolution passed the Resolutions Committee. Then the full convention killed it in a raucous voice vote.

Opponents argued the censure would only help Democrats. Help Democrats? By refusing to hold Thune accountable for blocking one of the most popular election integrity measures in the country, the delegates handed Democrats a free pass to keep exploiting weak voter laws.

According to Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio, “The South Dakota Republican Party just *rejected* a proposed censure of John Thune Didn’t even get a roll-call vote among the delegates.”

NEWS — The South Dakota Republican Party just *rejected* a proposed censure of John Thune

Didn’t even get a roll-call vote among the delegates https://t.co/FJ2c3pVrlM

— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) June 26, 2026

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Thune himself declared the SAVE America Act “dead… for now” just weeks ago. He admitted it failed to even secure 50 votes on the Senate floor and claimed there was no path forward without nuking the filibuster, something he has no interest in doing despite President Trump’s repeated calls.

Earlier this year, The Gateway Pundit also exposed Thune dismissing the massive grassroots pressure campaign for the bill as nothing more than “propaganda by ‘paid influencers.’”

The post OUTRAGEOUS! South Dakota GOP Delegates Protect RINO John Thune — Overwhelmingly Vote Down Censure Resolution After He Tanks the SAVE America Act appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Court of Appeal Denies CA AG Bonta’s Improperly Filed Effort to Fast-Track Invalidation of Shasta County’s Voter-Approved Election Integrity Measure

Citizens Locked in Legal Battle Against Their Own Government to Restore Election Integrity

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – (June 25, 2026) REDDING, CALIF. –  The California Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District today denied the State of California’s petition to invalidate Shasta County’s voter-approved election integrity measure, Measure B. The court declined to exercise its original jurisdiction “to review the challenged measure at this time” and directed the State to seek any expedited relief in the Shasta County Superior Court in the first instance.

“This is the third time Measure B’s opponents have dragged us into court to stop Measure B — and the third time they have failed,” said attorney Alexander H. Haberbush, lead counsel for the proponents.

“Rather than file in the Shasta County Superior Court — the court closest to the dispute and to the community it affects — Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber ran straight to an appellate court in Sacramento, demanding that the voters’ measure be struck down on an expedited schedule of the State’s own choosing, without a trial and without full briefing,” explained Haberbush, founder of The Lex Rex Institute, “The Court of Appeal refused and pointed the State to the very forum it had tried to skip — and it did so even though the County, which would ordinarily defend such a suit, had filed a statement of non opposition to the writ.”

In 2025, Shasta County Counsel sued to keep the citizen-qualified measure off the ballot, only to dismiss the case after its ex parte application was denied. Then a private opponent sought to block the measure before the June election, and the Superior Court rejected that attempt. Voters approved Measure B on June 2, 2026 by greater than 55-percent. Finally, before the results were even certified, AG Bonta sued to invalidate the measure. 

The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion the Superior Court had already reached months ago: this dispute belongs in the trial court and AG Bonta should have respected that.

“The State’s case rests on the claim that a charter county has no authority over its own elections — and it gets there by stretching a 1994 decision that had nothing to do with elections,” Haberbush added. “Defending charter-county authority is what the County should be doing. While we applaud this ruling, it is particularly disappointing that the County chose not to oppose the writ. At a minimum, it should have defended the authority of Shasta County’s own Superior Court to hear the case in the first instance — the very result the Court of Appeal reached today.”

The court’s denial was issued without prejudice, and it did not address the validity of Measure B. Under the order, the State may return to the Court of Appeal only after it has sought expedited relief in the trial court and the trial court has failed to act in a timely manner. The proponents — Laura Hobbs, Deidre Holliday, Kari Chilson, Jim Burnett, and Richard Gallardo, represented by the Lex Rex Institute — say they are prepared to defend the voters’ measure in that forum, as they have in every forum before it.

Support the Defense of Measure B

The legal defense of Measure B — a vital election-integrity measure approved by the voters of Shasta County — is ongoing. Members of the public who wish to help defend the voters’ decision can contribute to the defense here: VoteForB.com

Media Contact

For additional information or to interview Alexander H. Haberbush, Esq., contact Alex Bostic at ABostic@LexRex.org

The post Court of Appeal Denies CA AG Bonta’s Improperly Filed Effort to Fast-Track Invalidation of Shasta County’s Voter-Approved Election Integrity Measure appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A Minnesota Black Lives Matter Activist declared war on whites earlier this week in a social media post while whining about the upcoming closure of a dog park.

As Fox News reported, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board recently voted 8-1 to close the Minnehaha Off-Leash Dog Park by the end of the year due to concern that it is part of the Mni Owe Sni (Coldwater Spring) Traditional Cultural Place.

The Minnehaha Dog Park is a 6.6-acre riverfront area that features hiking trails. Dogs with required permits can roam freely.

Alpha News notes that the land is sacred to Dakota tribes and officials believe there are unmarked graves from the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.

“There was a concentration camp there at Fort Snelling, at the Bdóte area, and due to that, history there, there were a lot of relatives, ancestors who died over that winter,” Maggie Lorenz, executive director of Wakan Tipi Awanyankapi, told CBS Minnesota.

“Because of that, there were a lot of unmarked graves and burials around that area,” she added.

Chauntyll Allen, a St. Paul school board member and co-founder of Black Lives Matter (BLM) Twin Cities, was unhappy with the move to close the park and had a vile suggestion for the board.

“I don’t get why we don’t just make dog parks at White Christian cemeteries if White Christians are ok with it?” She wrote on Facebook.

“This is a simple fix. Leave the indigenous land sacred and p*ss on the White corpses.”

Such a disgusting post should come as no surprise considering Allen’s far-left activities earlier this year.

As Fox News notes, Allen is facing federal felony charges in connection with the Jan. 18 storming of Cities Church in St. Paul, where she was part of an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protest.

This church storming was led by disgraced former CNN hack Don Lemon. He was arrested by federal agents but later released.

Lemon has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to deprive religious freedom rights and a violation of the FACE Act.

The post BLM Activist Targets White Christians with a Disgusting Suggestion After Minneapolis Officials Move to Close Popular Dog Park appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Call it the Zohran Mamdani Effect. Or call it a familiar page out of the shopworn Democrat playbook.

Either way, it amounts to one of the most tedious recurring projects in American leftism. And one prays that voters have the good sense to reject it.

Friday on the social media platform X, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, widely regarded as a candidate for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, effectively acknowledged his party’s Mamdani-led leftward lurch by calling for a “national billionaires tax” and an “economic reset.”

On Tuesday, Democratic Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City enjoyed a clean sweep in the party’s congressional primaries. All three Mamdani-endorsed socialist candidates won their races, two of them handily.

Meanwhile, New York’s Democratic establishment reacted with alarm.

Newsom, whose presumptive 2028 campaign has already featured some high-profile gaffes, appears to have read the writing on the wall. The message? Move left or get left behind.

“It’s time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract,” Newsom wrote. “10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed. The system is fundamentally broken. The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code were written for a different set of Americans. It’s time for an economic reset.”

In an accompanying video, the governor added a few specifics. Newsom proposed, for instance, that proceeds from the tax would go toward a national public equity fund that gives all Americans a financial stake in the artificial intelligence industry.

But the crux of the message was exactly as we have heard from Democrats for decades: Tax the rich.

It’s time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.

10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.

The system is fundamentally broken.

The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code… pic.twitter.com/tLRbUId6yi

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 26, 2026

Newsom recently opposed a ballot measure that would enact a one-time 5 percent tax on Californians whose assets exceed $1.1 billion. In that case, nearly all new revenue would go toward health care, with the rest set aside for education and food assistance, according to NBC News.

Of course, when it comes to identifying the object of new tax revenue, one must always use the word “allegedly.”

Indeed, conservatives generally oppose taxes not because we hate health care and love billionaires. After all, Republicans have already had our reckoning with soaring prices and wealth disparities. We elected President Donald Trump in hopes that he would help fix the problem.

Conservatives generally oppose taxes because we know where the money goes. Rather than helping people in need, public money in recent decades has merely enriched the federal bureaucracy. No one can look at the suburbs of Washington, D.C. — the wealthiest in America —  and reach any other conclusion.

We have also witnessed perhaps the most egregious fraud scandal in the history of public expenditure.

Moreover, history tells us what happens each time socialists take power. Their cronies grow richer, while the people sink deeper into poverty.

In other words, to give Newsom his due, voters on both left and right do see a “fundamentally broken” system.

On the right, however, we refuse to ignore history by voting more money to leftists in government.

Of course, with Mamdani solidifying his hold on New York City politics, we can only hope that voters nationwide will reject the socialist message. Take one look at Newsom in that video, for instance, and trust your instincts. Does he look like a guy determined to help the least fortunate among us? Or does he look like a slick political chameleon?

Alas, the Cold War ended in 1991. No one under 40 can remember the ideological struggle between Western Civilization and Soviet-led Communism.

In the Age of Mamdani, therefore, a new generation must fight the same tedious battle.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Gavin Newsom Calls for ‘National Billionaires Tax’ to Trigger ‘Economic Reset’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The one thing conservatives could generally count on from Republicans was their consistent opposition to tax increases. But one GOP Senator has decided to toss that principle aside and join forces with one of America’s most notorious leftists.

On Tuesday, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) and Senator Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (D-MA) wrote an editorial published by the far-left New York Times, which outlined their plan to ‘save’ Social Security.

Moreno and Warren correctly note that Social Security is facing a major funding crisis. By late 2032, the fund from which most Social Security beneficiaries are paid will be severely depleted unless Congress takes action.

If Congress does nothing, Social Security benefits could be cut by more than 20 percent.

The Senators write that instead of reducing the benefits, the government should adopt what they call a common-sense solution: lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap.

Warren and Moreno say that this is one way to make the payroll tax and solve the Social Security funding crisis for “another generation.”

More From the New York Times:

For 2026, the payroll tax cap, or taxable maximum, is $184,500. Workers and their employers each pay 6.2 percent on wages up to that amount. (Self-employed individuals pay 12.4 percent.) Today, the maximum Social Security withholding for one worker is $22,878, or 12.4 percent of $184,500. Not a penny more, even if an individual’s salary far exceeds $184,500.

Since the vast majority of Americans make less than that, most people are paying Social Security taxes on 100 percent of their earnings, while the highest earners are paying on only part of theirs.

Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck than a wealthy corporate lawyer? This is doubly unfair in an economy in which top earners’ wages, over time, have pulled far ahead of those of the average worker.

According to one estimate, eliminating the payroll tax cap would inject around $3 trillion into the program over the next 10 years. Lifting the cap so that all income is treated the same would generate substantial revenue that would extend the solvency of Social Security for another generation.

But what Warren and Moreno do not tell readers is that lifting the payroll tax cap would result in the largest tax increase in more than four decades.

This proposal would have a particularly devastating impact on sole proprietors, and costs would fall entirely on working Americans.

Moreover, the plan is more radical than any tax hike Joe Biden proposed.

Here is the National Review with the damning details:

That would represent a $3.4 trillion tax hike over a decade. As a share of gross domestic product, it would be the largest tax hike in over 40 years — eclipsing Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, according to the Tax Foundation.

Not only would it represent a stunning betrayal of his own voters, as Moreno signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge against any tax increases — it would even violate the $400,000-a-year Joe Biden threshold for tax increases.

Such a massive tax increase would also have crushing economic effects. Employers who don’t want to absorb the increase in payroll taxes will have to hire fewer workers or keep wages lower. It would place a significant burden on small business owners who operate as sole proprietors and pay self-employment taxes. And at a time when affordability has become a major issue, these costs would fall entirely on working-age Americans.

What makes Moreno’s turn to the hard left more distressing is that he has been one of the Senate’s most reliable MAGA warriors, particularly on immigration.

Yet now he has joined a universally disgraced politician to betray. Hopefully, Moreno will soon see the error of his ways and run far away from Pocahontas.

The post With Friends Like This: GOP Senator Joins Forces with Elizabeth Warren to Push the Largest Tax Hike in Over FOUR DECADES appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Apparently, women having children is shocking to the leftists at The New York Times.

In an article titled “The Politics and Power of the Pregnancy Image,” by Vanessa Friedman, the paper frets over the image of pregnant MAGA icons.

The article points to specific examples of the visible pregnancies of prominent women in the Trump administration, including Second Lady Usha Vance, who is expecting her fourth child, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who recently gave birth to her second child, and podcaster Katie Miller, wife of Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in the Trump administration.

The paper cynically frames a normal stage in a family as deliberate political imagery.

From the pregnancies themselves to the mothers-to-be’s fashion choices, which the NYT suggests are deliberately tailored to emphasize a baby bump, the paper sees only political posture.

It suggests that it is an outward and visible attempt to personify a key part of the administration’s “family and fertility platform.” The piece notes the coincidence in timing of multiple high-profile MAGA pregnancies but treats it as symbolically potent.

They also contrast the feminine imagery of a mother to be as the counter/compliment to the more masculine imagery of MAGA men.

Per The New York Times:

If the bare-chested, muscled mixed martial arts fighters of the U.F.C. match that President Trump hosted on Flag Day were the poster guys for MAGA’s image of masculinity, then the pregnant women of Trump world are one half of their feminine counterparts. Along with the sheath-clad, lip-filled, pageant-haired Mar-a-Lago set, they offer an image of idealized womanhood that gives literal shape to the pronatalist movement.

The Times presents the pregnancies as “propaganda” that “humanizes the administration.”

Even more cynically, they quoted Jill Filipovic, the host of the “Week in Women” podcast, who seemed to hint at some sort of Handmaid’s Tale brainwashing must have gone into the decision, because how could a woman want to actually have a child?!

“It almost feels like a memo went out,” said Jill Filipovic, the host of the “Week in Women” podcast. “They have quite intentionally opted to present themselves as, ‘I am really pregnant, and this is what women were chosen to do,’ and they are happy to say that both with their looks and their mouths.”

“Together, the women have created a notably consistent, and somewhat paradigm-shifting, picture of the White House’s family and fertility platform,” Friedman added.

The Times specifically called attention to the dress Mrs. Vance wore on her podcast show “Storytime with the Second Lady,” noting that she was wearing “a stretchy coral dress that hugs her stomach.”

Again, as though to suggest a burgeoning wasteline that increasingly makes everything uncomfortable is actually just another opportunity to push a “pronatalist movement.”

Mrs. Vance pushed back against the bizarre obsession and criticism of her wardrobe, noting, “Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what the New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks!”

“In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good story with your kids on Storytime with the Second Lady.”

Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what the New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks! In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good…

— Second Lady Usha Vance (@SLOTUS) June 24, 2026

The post The New York Times Frets Over Republican Women Having Babies appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.