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.

The Department of Justice has launched a federal grand jury investigation in Manhattan targeting Neville Roy Singham, the China-based Marxist tech tycoon whose fortune has bankrolled a vast network of pro-communist, anti-American activist groups for years.

According to Fox News, citing sources familiar with the matter, the grand jury in the Southern District of New York has already begun issuing subpoenas for bank records and financial documents.

The investigation, authorized by Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and led by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, is examining potential wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes tied to the movement of roughly $278–285 million through Singham’s elaborate dark money web since 2017.

Fox News outlet:

The grand jury action follows a Fox News Digital investigation published in mid-March, documenting how Singham pumped $285 million from his base in Shanghai into a Goldman Sachs philanthropy fund and two shell corporations that then fed the money into a constellation of nonprofit organizations, media operations and activist groups pushing sectarian division, identity politics and support for socialist politicians.

The investigation is examining the movement of the money in Singham’s financial network and attempting to determine if Singham, the organizations he funded or their leaders committed wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering or other financial crimes, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Prosecutors have presented evidence to the grand jury, which has issued subpoenas seeking bank records and other financial documents from organizations in Singham’s network. Federal prosecutors use grand jury subpoenas as an investigative tool to compel the production of documents and testimony as they determine whether sufficient evidence exists to pursue criminal charges.

The investigation marks a major escalation after years of mounting concerns from Republicans in Congress over Singham’s financial support for organizations promoting socialist, communist, and anti-American causes while allegedly maintaining close ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Singham, the founder of ThoughtWorks, reportedly amassed a fortune after selling the software consulting company for approximately $785 million before relocating to Shanghai. Since then, he has become the subject of numerous investigations and congressional inquiries over allegations that he financed a sprawling network of activist groups and media organizations advancing pro-Beijing narratives.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Singham has operated as a major funding vehicle for radical leftist causes. In May, far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker accidentally admitted on air that Singham has been bankrolling “a lot of political movements in the country, a lot of activism.”

Piker was speaking after Treasury and DOJ scrutiny hit groups tied to Singham’s network, including a Cuba solidarity convoy that delivered aid to the communist regime.

Earlier, in September 2025, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna called on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to immediately freeze all of Singham’s assets, warning that the billionaire was using American nonprofits to fund anti-American political movements on behalf of foreign interests.

Congressional Republicans, including Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, Sen. Tom Cotton, and others, had already raised alarms about Singham’s $278+ million dark money empire spreading CCP-aligned propaganda through U.S. tax-exempt organizations. House committees investigated. Letters were sent. Yet under the previous administration, little meaningful action followed.

The post DOJ Launches Grand Jury Investigation into Far-Left Millionaire Neville Roy Singham’s Dark Money Machine Funding Marxists and Chaos appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 to allow President Trump to fire Biden-appointed Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and other political appointees from executive branch agencies. 

Last March, President Trump fired both Democratic commissioners at the FTC. The Supreme Court previously allowed Trump to fire Slaughter, but today’s decision overturns Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, giving Trump lawful authority to fire agency heads across the executive branch.

Justice Clarence Thomas previously blasted the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision.

“Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people . . . Our tolerance of independent agencies in Humphrey’s Executor is an unfortunate example of the Court’s failure to apply the Constitution as written. That decision has paved the way for an ever-expanding encroachment on the power of the Executive, contrary to our constitutional design,” Justice Thomas wrote.

“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Humphrey’s has for decades been a result in search of a rationale.”

More from the Hill:

In an expansion of presidential power, the ruling gives Trump the right to sack Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee who took center stage in his quest to set aside constraints on his removal authority.

It formally overturns the high court’s 1935 landmark decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which laid the groundwork for certain agencies across the executive branch to enjoy a degree of independence from the White House. These agencies regulate vast swaths of American life, including labor disputes, federal employee rights, workplace discrimination, credit unions, product recalls, plane accidents and more.

“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Beyond the FTC, the decision stands to impact roughly two dozen multimember agencies across the government, allowing a president to install appointees who fit his political mold.

Trump responded to the ruling, calling it “one of the most important ever.”

“It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” he said:

BIG WIN just moments ago at the Supreme Court, in the Slaughter Case, confirming Presidential Power in our Country to remove Executive Branch Officers and Agency Appointees, or Representatives, under Article II. This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s. It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

In a follow-up post, Trump wrote, “To show the importance of the Slaughter Case, 90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!”

The post JUST IN: Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Humphrey’s Executor Case, Says Trump Can Fire Biden-Appointed FTC Commissioner – Trump Responds! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A video showing an African migrant exposing himself to women and young children on a beach in Italy has gone viral, bringing a spotlight on the horrors of mass migration in Europe. 

Horrifying footage shows the African migrant standing in front of families and young children while pleasuring himself on the beach (VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED).

Anti-mass migration activist Tommy Robinson shared the clip on X, writing, “‘New normal’ scenes at the beach in ‘Modern Europe.’”

Another widely circulating video, though unconfirmed, appears to show the man facing the wrath of the locals, who pummeled him over the obscene display. One woman can be seen actually stepping in to defend the individual.

WATCH:

According to Genoa-based Italian newspaper Il Secolo XIX, the incident occurred last Sunday on Pegli beach in Genoa, Italy. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” one local told the outlet:

A video filmed on the public beach of Pegli, next to the Bagni Mediterranee, with the voices of children playing on the shore in the background , and a man at the center of the scene pulling down his underwear and masturbating as if nothing had happened in front of an audience of mostly families.

This video, published by the Hispanic online portal Ok Diario, garnered nearly 40 million views on TikTok alone in just a dozen hours , quickly going viral. Someone called the police, and when they arrived, the man was identified and reported for indecent exposure in a public place. He is a legal immigrant in Italy. The beach was shocked, especially by the man’s extreme naturalness. He didn’t even seem particularly upset by the fact that at the end of the video, people were seen filming him and removing him from the beach.

“It happened Sunday on the public beach to the right of the sailing club next to us,” a member of Bagni Mediterranee in Pegli confirmed to Secolo XIX . “We noticed it because we heard people screaming and then the commotion afterward, when they called the patrols. With people sleeping everywhere and extreme situations these days, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know where this guy ended up, or whether he was alone as he appeared or with someone else nearby, but as you can see from the video, everything he did was in broad daylight and in front of the children, who can be heard shouting. Tell me if the situation we’re falling into is normal.” 

President of the Regional Council of Liguria and former Deputy Mayor of Genoa Stefano Balleari addressed the incident in a video statement on Facebook.

A man committed obscene acts on the beach in front of families and children. This took place in Pegli, Genoa.

“What happened cannot and must not be downplayed or swept under the rug. It is not merely a serious incident; it is something that wounds the very sense of civil coexistence and the respect due to others,” Balleari said. “Our beaches, squares, and public spaces must remain places of serenity, safety, and freedom—especially for the youngest among us. It is right that those responsible for such behavior be identified, reported, and held fully accountable for their actions. Respect for the rules, for human dignity, and for communal life is non-negotiable.”

He continued, “To those who try to turn this into a political controversy, I offer a simple reply: this is not about Right or Left; it is about the respect due to families, children, and citizens. Defending the decency and tranquility of our community is not a political battle; it is a duty toward the citizens.”

WATCH:

The post FAFO: Italian Locals Pummel African Menace After He Begins M*sturbating in Front of Young Children and Families at Beach in Genoa (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.