Over the weekend, the White House posted a compilation of social media videos of Europeans visiting the US for the first time to watch the World Cup and marvel at the beauty of America.

Europeans are all over social media apologizing to Americans for believing lies about the US pushed out by the media.

The White House posted a compilation of Europeans going crazy over American food, free refills, air conditioning and the beautiful landscape.

Visitors from England, Scotland, Italy, France, and other countries were told that the US is dangerous and falling apart.

They were also told that Americans are rude, nasty, and lazy.

However, when the Europeans landed in the US, they were amazed by the hospitality and generosity.

The Europeans absolutely fell in love with the US and Americans!

The Scots and the Tartan Army took over Boston and drank the pubs dry.

Scotland’s on FIRE

The Tartan Army Boston takeover continues pic.twitter.com/1BsWV95j3x

— ITV Football (@itvfootball) June 18, 2026

One British man perfectly said, “If you want to hate the US, listen to the media. If you want to love the US, just drive across it.”

A British woman visiting one of the US national parks could not believe her eyes: “Americans, your country is so beautiful!”

Another British man was in disbelief: “If I had never come to the USA, I would have never actually seen what actually goes on in America! I actually love it here! People are just too nice! What is going on?!”

“The world finally gets it,” the White House said.

WATCH:

The post “The World Finally Gets It” – White House Posts Compilation of Europeans Visiting US For World Cup Marveling at the Greatness of America (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Woke CNN anchor Victor Blackwell used his weekend program “First of All” to attack the Declaration of Independence claiming it is “soiled” by a racial slur targeting Native Americans ahead of the 250th celebration of America’s freedom. In the segment, Blackwell attempted to contrast the famous affirming that “all men are created equal” with a lesser-known passage condemning “merciless Indian Savages” as a threat on the frontier.

He told viewers that even he had only recently become aware of that section, arguing that Americans are taught to revere the document’s ideals while overlooking its explicit dehumanization of Indigenous people while dismissing the historical context of indians being used by the British to brutally attack American colonies including innocent women and children. Blackwell then introduced so-called Native American activist and writer Rebecca Nagle to discuss what the language of the Declaration has meant for Native communities over generations. Nagle said Americans are “programmed” to celebrate the Declaration’s lofty ideals without reckoning with what she described as the founders’ deep hatred for Indigenous people.

She argued that the phrase “merciless Indian Savages” helped justify violent policies and dispossession, and that its presence in a founding document continues to shape public attitudes toward Native nations. On social media, Nagle later noted that her appearance on “First of All” was intended to spotlight how a racial slur embedded in the Declaration still affects Native people today.

The discussion aired as the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of its founding, a milestone Blackwell said should prompt a fuller accounting of the country’s treatment of Native peoples. Blackwell emphasized that acknowledging the slur does not mean discarding the Declaration, but rather confronting the contradictions between its rhetoric of equality and the reality of exclusion.

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 Woke CNN Clowns Trash America 250 & The Declaration of Independence appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The U.S. Supreme Court held Monday that law enforcement officers conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain cell phone users’ precise Location History data from Google using a geofence warrant.

In a 6-3 decision in Chatrie v. United States, the Court ruled that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location information, even when that data is stored by a third-party technology company such as Google. The ruling represents one of the Court’s most significant digital privacy decisions since its 2018 Carpenter decision involving historical cell-site location data.

Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Jackson separately concurring.

Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred only in the judgment, while Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined in part by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett also filed a separate dissent.

This builds directly on the landmark Carpenter v. United States (2018) decision, which already required warrants for cell-site location information (CSLI).

The Court made clear that Google’s even more precise and sweeping Location History data — which logs a user’s location every two minutes or so, within about 20 meters, and can even reveal elevation and which floor of a building someone is on — deserves at least the same protection.

The case, Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112), arose from a May 20, 2019, armed robbery of a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Police had surveillance footage and witness statements but no suspect. On June 14, they obtained a Virginia magistrate’s geofence warrant directed at Google.

The warrant targeted a 150-meter radius around the credit union. It used Google’s infamous three-step process:

• Step 1: Google hands over anonymized location data for all devices inside the geofence for 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after the robbery.
• Step 2: Officers narrow the list; Google then provides more anonymized data (inside and outside the geofence) for a longer two-hour window.
• Step 3: Officers narrow again; Google turns over names, phone numbers, and identifying info for the final short list.

Google ultimately produced three users’ identifying information. One was petitioner Okello Chatrie, whose data showed him entering the geofence area about ten minutes before the robbery and heading toward a residential area right after.

Chatrie was later charged federally with robbery and firearms offenses. He moved to suppress the Google data, arguing the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

The district court agreed the warrant “plainly violates” the Fourth Amendment but denied suppression under the good-faith exception. A divided Fourth Circuit panel and then the en banc court affirmed on different grounds, with judges splitting evenly on whether a search even occurred.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on the search question and left the warrant’s validity (particularity and probable cause at each step) for the Fourth Circuit to decide on remand.

The Court systematically rejected the government’s arguments:

Location History is more revealing than the CSLI at issue in Carpenter. It is finer-grained, more frequent, and can show elevation. It creates an “encyclopedic” and “detailed” portrait of a person’s movements and associations — familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual.

Even “short-term monitoring” (here, just two hours) can reveal a “wealth of detail” about a person’s life, the Court noted, citing Justice Sotomayor’s Jones concurrence. The government cannot claim a free pass for limited-duration data when it can cherry-pick exactly which hours it wants from Google’s all-encompassing database.

The third-party doctrine does not save the government. As in Carpenter, this information is not “truly shared” in any normal sense. Google users turn on Location History for their own benefit (Timeline, recommendations, personal journal), often after repeated prompts warning that devices “will not work correctly” otherwise. They do not expect Google to hand it over to police on demand.

The post Supreme Court Rules Police Conduct a Fourth Amendment “Search” When Grabbing Your Google Location History Data Through Geofence Warrants appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito authored the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision on mail-in ballot deadlines on Monday, blasting the majority’s disregard for federal law.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the US Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 that federal law does not require mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day.

The lawsuit challenging the mail-ballots was filed by the Republican National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

Fake conservative Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, arguing that the Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be received five days after election day complies with the federal election day statute. Chief Justice Roberts sided with Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Justice Alito writes in the dissenting opinion, “Federal law designates ‘the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November’ as ‘election day,’ 3 U. S. C. §21, and provides that elections for federal office must be held on that date,” noting that the electorate must, in accordance with federal election-day statutes, make its choice on election day.

“If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated,” he continues. “The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement.”

He further argues that the definition of “election” in “election day” is the “expression of the electorate’s choice,” making it necessary that the final submission and collection of ballots must occur on one election day, not five days after, as permitted by Mississippi law.

“Back when all voting occurred in person, the voters went to the polls on election day. They then completed ballots and turned them over to election officials. When the polls closed, those officials had in their possession a fixed collection of ballots, and taken together, those ballots embodied the electorate’s collective choice,” he writes.

Today, the use of mail-in voting, he writes, “cannot change the fact that under federal law, the electorate’s collective choice must still be authoritatively expressed on election day.”

“The Court disagrees and concludes that the election-day statutes merely require that each individual cast a vote on or before election day. See ante, at 9. But if that is all that the election-day statutes require, there is no sense in which the electorate as a whole can be seen as making its choice on election day. Rather, the electorate’s choice would be made piecemeal over an extended period prior to election day, and that prospect is blatantly contrary to what the election-day statutes demand,” he writes. “Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days. The election-day statutes require that federal elections occur on that date.” Alito further notes that under Mississippi’s law, allowing ballot collection to continue for five days after election day, “the ‘election’ is not held until the end of that period” in violation of federal law.

Coney Barrett, however, wrote in the majority opinion, “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”

“Due dates for absentee ballots have shifted over time. During the Civil War, States that allowed absentee voting imposed an election-day deadline for ballot receipt,” Coney Barrett further argued. “But during World War I, States began counting absentee ballots received after election day.”

But Alito debunks Coney Barrett’s claim, writing, “Even when the Civil War took soldiers hundreds of miles from their usual polling places, election day still meant ballot-collection day,” and “regardless of the method a State used, each State continued to mandate that poll workers, whether on the field or ‘back home,’ received soldiers’ ballots by election day.” This includes votes that were mailed, distributed and collected by election commissioners, and polling places that were administered by military officers on the battlefield as ways of ensuring federal law was complied with.

“During the World Wars,” he continues, “Congress and at least nine States allowed absentee ballots to arrive after election day in certain situations.” Alito describes the wartime practices of a handful of states as “short-lived outlier rules,” which “shed little light on the original meaning of ‘election’ in the election day statutes,” as only two states allowed ballots to arrive after election day by 1977.

“Although post-election-day deadlines have become more widespread in the last five decades, these developments postdate the last election-day statute by over 50 years and the first statute by over a century. These late-intime practices therefore count for little when discerning the timing restrictions that Congress imposed when it enacted those statutes,” he adds, highlighting the legislative intent behind the election day statutes.

Alito further slams the majority opinion, writing. “Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences. The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.”

“Today’s decision is inconsistent with the terms of the election-day statutes, contemporary election-law principles, two centuries of historical practice, and the case law on the question presented. It opens up and fails to resolve a host of questions for state election officials and courts. And it creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government,” he concludes.

The post Alito Blasts Mail-in Ballots Received After Election Day in Dissent to SCOTUS Allowing Mail-in Ballots to Be Received AFTER Election Day appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

For centuries, the Catholic Church has dedicated the month of June to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. This longstanding tradition far predates modern cultural observances and stems from deep theological and devotional roots centered on Christ’s love, mercy, and call to reparation.

Historical and Devotional Origins

The devotion to the Sacred Heart developed over centuries but gained particular momentum through the visions of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 1670s. In these apparitions, Jesus revealed His Heart—surrounded by thorns, crowned with a cross, and burning with love—as a symbol of His infinite charity for humanity. He requested a special feast in honor of His Heart, to be celebrated on the Friday following the octave of Corpus Christi (which typically falls in June), along with practices of reparation for sins and indifference toward His love.

Pope Pius IX extended the Feast of the Sacred Heart to the universal Church in 1856. Over time, the entire month of June became associated with this devotion, encouraging the faithful to meditate on the Heart of Christ as the source of divine love, the model for human hearts, and an invitation to personal consecration. Practices include daily prayers, First Friday devotions, acts of reparation, and enthronement of the Sacred Heart in homes.

This is a response to Christ’s explicit requests in the private revelations approved by the Church. The Sacred Heart represents God’s initiative in loving humanity first—despite sin—and calling people to respond with love, fidelity, and conversion. Popes have repeatedly promoted it as a remedy for coldness of heart, secularism, and moral disorder.

Recent Emphasis: National Consecrations and Renewal

In 2026, marking the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence, the U.S. bishops consecrated the nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on June 11. This act underscores the devotion’s enduring relevance as an anchor for individuals, families, and societies amid cultural upheaval.

Many Catholic voices have explicitly called for “reclaiming June” for the Sacred Heart, noting that the month “belonged to the Church first.” This reflects a desire to prioritize contemplation of Christ’s self-giving love over competing secular narratives.

June and Contemporary Observances

Pride Month (often associated with LGBTQ+ visibility and rights) also occurs in June, commemorating the 1969 Stonewall riots. The first Pride marches followed in 1970, and it gained official presidential recognition decades later.

In recent years, many political parties and governments have aggressively promoted Pride Month by flying LGBTQ flags on public buildings, schools, and official properties — often with no equivalent recognition or display for Christianity, the Sacred Heart, or other religious traditions. To many believers, this selective elevation of one modern ideological movement while sidelining the faith that shaped Western civilization and the calendar itself feels not only imbalanced but actively hostile to the Christian roots of society. It underscores a broader cultural shift that privileges certain contemporary identities over the historic Christian understanding of human dignity, love, and sexuality.

Then two distinct realities claim the calendar: one rooted in ancient Christian revelation about divine love incarnate in Jesus Christ, the other in 20th-century social and political movements. From a Catholic perspective, the Sacred Heart devotion offers a timeless vision of human dignity, sexuality, marriage, and identity grounded in creation, redemption, and the call to holiness. It presents love not primarily as self-expression or affirmation of desires, but as sacrificial, ordered, and oriented toward God and neighbor as revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

Christian teaching holds that every person is loved by God and possesses inherent dignity as made in His image. The Sacred Heart calls all—regardless of struggles—to repentance, mercy, chastity according to one’s state in life, and transformation by grace. It does not “exclude” but invites conversion of heart, viewing disordered inclinations (like any sin) through the lens of redemption rather than celebration or identity definition.

Why the Consecration Endures

June’s consecration to the Sacred Heart persists because it flows from the Church’s liturgy, saints, and magisterium—not transient cultural trends. Christ’s Heart symbolizes:

• Redemptive love: Pierced on the Cross for salvation.
• Eucharistic intimacy: Inviting union through the sacraments.
• Reparation: Healing societal wounds through prayer and fidelity.
• True identity: Found in relationship with the Creator, not self-constructed categories.

Bees (a common symbolic or punning reference in some devotion circles) evoke industriousness, order in the hive, and sweetness of honey—mirroring souls gathered around the Heart of Christ, producing virtue and fruitfulness in the Church’s life.
The devotion calls the faithful to “bee” (be) consecrated, offering their lives to Jesus rather than to passing ideologies.

Ultimately, June belongs to the Sacred Heart because the Church has long seen in it a fitting time—near the feasts of Corpus Christi and the Sacred Heart itself—to contemplate the burning love that created and redeems the world. This reality claims precedence for believers not through cultural power, but through fidelity to revelation.

In an age of contested meanings of love and identity, the pierced yet triumphant Heart of Jesus stands as an unchanging refuge: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

Catholics are encouraged to pray the Act of Consecration to the Sacred Heart, observe First Fridays, and live out that love in their families and communities—making June a month of deeper conversion rather than concession to the spirit of the age.

Read more:

The post June Belongs to the Sacred Heart of Jesus: A 350-Year Catholic Devotion, Not Pride Month appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The US Supreme Court on Monday said President Trump cannot fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

The high court, in a 5-4 vote ruled that Trump cannot remove Cook.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

“To accept any of those arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Thomas dissented.

Lisa Cook filed a lawsuit against President Trump, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell after Trump fired her last summer.

The Trump Administration previously asked the US Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court blocked Trump from firing Lisa Cook.

DOJ Solicitor General John Sauer, in his petition to the Supreme Court, said the lower courts have interfered with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.

A federal appeals court previously rejected President Trump’s bid to fire Lisa Cook.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, said Lisa Cook can remain a Federal Reserve Governor, allowing her to vote during last month’s interest rate meeting at the Fed.

Lisa Cook apparently owns three properties, and she allegedly committed mortgage fraud on all three properties.

According to housing regulator Bill Pulte’s first criminal referral, Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud by lying on her mortgage application and falsifying bank statements when she designated her out-of-state Atlanta condo as her “primary residence”—just two weeks after taking a loan on her Michigan home, which she also claimed as her “primary residence.”

Last August, Pulte sent a second criminal referral on Lisa Cook after she was allegedly caught lying about a third property.

Lisa Cook’s attorneys laughably claimed there would be an inflation crisis if Trump were allowed to fire Cook.

President Trump responded to the Supreme Court’s decision to reject his effort to fire Lisa Cook.

“The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis, we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP” Trump said.

The post Supreme Court Says President Trump Cannot Fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook – Trump Responds appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.