Disgraced Former Democrat Mayor and Pride Leader ARRESTED AGAIN in Texas on New Child Sex Crime Charges – Three More Victims Step Forward After Initial Grooming Scandal

 

Former Gettysburg Mayor Chad-Alan Carr is taken into custody by law enforcement after authorities tracked him to Texas following the issuance of a warrant (Anderson County Sheriff’s Office, Palestine, TX)

Former Gettysburg Borough Mayor Chad-Alan Carr, a Democrat who proudly led the local LGBTQ Pride organization, has been arrested AGAIN in Texas on horrifying new child sex crime charges.

As The Gateway Pundit reported back in March, this radical left-wing activist abruptly resigned as mayor after less than three months in office, citing some vague “personal legal matter.”

Days later, Pennsylvania authorities arrested him on initial felony charges for allegedly grooming and sexually exploiting a minor he met through his community theater work.

Carr, who also served as president of Gettysburg Pride, was the face of pushing LGBTQ events in the historic Pennsylvania town.

According to court documents, Carr allegedly groomed a 16-year-old boy he met through high school musical productions in Gettysburg around 2011-2013.

The victim, now an adult, reported that Carr solicited explicit photos, engaged in video sex acts via Skype, and shared his own nude images while pressuring the teen for more.

Carr reportedly described the interactions as “late-night talks.”

Carr was released on $100,000 bail.

Now, just weeks later, he is back in handcuffs, this time in Anderson County, Texas.

Last Thursday, Adams County Sheriff’s Office issued a fresh warrant after three additional victims came forward, accusing Carr of sexual assault and soliciting explicit images from minors.

Investigators tracked the 48-year-old Democrat to Texas, where he had fled following his release on bail in the first case.

The Adams County Sheriff’s Office coordinated with the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office, which took Carr into custody without delay. Anderson County authorities even provided bodycam footage of the arrest to local Pennsylvania media outlet WGAL.

WATCH:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/disgraced-former-democrat-mayor-pride-leader-arrested-again/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/program-under-far-left-boston-mayor-michelle-wu/

Blue double standards: California’s Swalwell case

 The party that brags it’s the champion of #MeToo suddenly discovered its moral compass — right when the cameras were rolling.

Media outlets across the country lit up in mid-April with the same jaw-dropping headline: California’s top Democrat contender for governor had just been forced out of the race over explosive sexual misconduct accusations. In a matter of hours, Rep. Eric Swalwell lost every major endorsement, watched his campaign collapse, and was effectively tossed into the political dumpster. On the surface it looked like another MeToo reckoning in a party that loves to lecture the rest of us about women’s rights. But scratch the surface, and the real story is far uglier — a textbook case of Blue double standards.

California’s 2026 gubernatorial race was already shaping up as a nightmare for Democrats. Golden State voters are fed up with years of progressive experiments that delivered sky-high taxes, rampant homelessness, and a cost-of-living crisis that’s driving families out. For the first time since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011, Republicans have a genuine shot at flipping the state red.

Recent polls told the tale. Conservative TV host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco were trading the top spots with support in the 14–17 percent range. Democrats were scattered behind them, with Swalwell — until the scandal hit — polling as the strongest in the fragmented Blue field. 

Don’t forget California’s peculiar “jungle” primary system. All candidates run on one ballot in June. The top two vote-getters — regardless of party — advance to November. That means the general election could feature two Republicans, two Democrats, or one of each. With the Democrat vote split among a half-dozen hopefuls, the math was already terrifying for the party of Gavin Newsom. A strong Republican showing could lock them out entirely.

Then came the bombshell. In the first week of April, detailed allegations of sexual assault and misconduct poured out — including claims from a former staffer who said Swalwell assaulted her in a New York hotel room. More women came forward with stories of inappropriate messages, unwanted advances, and worse. Within days Swalwell suspended his gubernatorial bid and later resigned from Congress. Democrat leaders raced to distance themselves. House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for him to drop out. Nancy Pelosi said the allegations should be handled “outside of a gubernatorial campaign.” Labor unions and Sen. Adam Schiff yanked their endorsements almost overnight. The party that brags it’s the champion of #MeToo suddenly discovered its moral compass — right when the cameras were rolling.

Here’s where the hypocrisy stings. Swalwell wasn’t some fringe backbencher; he was a high-profile Trump critic and reliable foot soldier in the fight against MAGA America. Democrats had promoted him, fundraised for him, and positioned him as a future star — until the public found out. The speed of the cancellation wasn’t about principle. It was about damage control. Sexual misconduct was apparently tolerable behind closed doors when it stayed inside the Blue tent. The moment it became a national story, Swalwell became radioactive.

Democrat strategists wasted no time seeing the silver lining. Swalwell’s support — concentrated among certain Democrat voters — can now be redirected to whichever Blue candidate emerges strongest. That consolidation could be the difference between a two-Republican November ballot and one that still gives Democrats a fighting chance. In a fragmented field, his sudden exit might have been the best thing to happen to the party’s long-term math.

Whether the timing was pure coincidence or a calculated storm remains an open question. What isn’t open to debate is the double standard. The same Democrats who spent years preaching zero tolerance for misconduct were perfectly comfortable carrying water for one of their own — until the voters could see it. California’s jungle primary just got a whole lot more interesting, and the Blue wall is showing fresh cracks. If the people of the Golden State are truly tired of the hypocrisy and the failed policies that come with it, November could finally deliver the red reset they’ve been waiting for.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/blue_double_standards_california_s_swalwell_case.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/alert-doj-launches-investigation-swalwell/

NYPD Jonathan Diller case: If this isn’t murder, the word has lost its meaning

 We do a lot of traveling but never went to new York.  do I want to?  Hell no.

How many more funerals does it take for the killer of a New York City police officer to be brought to justice?

If Guy Rivera isn’t guilty of murder, then what do we call the killing of Jonathan Diller?

Because that’s what it was.

Jonathan Diller was 31 years old — a husband, a father, a New York City police officer, later posthumously promoted to detective. By every account, he was deeply in love with his wife, Stephanie, and devoted to their young son.

In a matter of seconds, all of that was taken.

He was shot during a traffic stop in Queens — a routine interaction. The shooting was captured on video, along with the screams of a police officer dying in the street.

Officer Diller didn’t make it home that night — and he never would.

His wife didn’t just lose her husband. She lost the love of her life. Their son lost his father. He will grow up knowing him through stories, photographs, and medals — never through memories of his own.

That is what this “manslaughter” case is really about.

Rivera — a man with 21 prior arrests — was convicted of first-degree aggravated manslaughter and other charges, but not murder.

Not murder.

So again, what do we call it when someone guns down a police officer?

Because when a repeat offender — someone the system has cycled through again and again — pulls a gun and shoots an officer during a lawful stop, ordinary people don’t hear legal technicalities.

When the verdict was read, Rivera smiled. Not relief — satisfaction. The same face Detective Diller saw before he was shot. If that doesn’t chill you, it should. Because that is exactly what getting away with murder looks like.

No matter what the verdict says, people see it for what it is.

And they are asking how we got here.

How did we reach a point where a man with that kind of record was still on the street? Still able to come face-to-face with Diller?

How many chances does someone get before the system admits what they are?

And how many lives must be destroyed before we stop pretending these are isolated failures instead of a pattern?

Because this isn’t just about one case.

It never is.

I saw this long before New York.

On April 4, 2009, three Pittsburgh police officers were shot and killed in an ambush. I was working in the courts at the time.

A coworker’s husband — a Pittsburgh police officer — had worked with the fallen officers. I went with them to the memorial service and one of the burials.

I will never forget what I saw.

Three buses waited outside Zone 5, filled with officers in dress blues. Polished badges. Faces quiet and set. The rest of us wore black — suits, ties, mourning bands across badges.

No one spoke.

You could feel it before we even moved.

When the buses pulled out, motorcycle officers moved with precision — blocking intersections, stopping traffic, then rotating back into position.

And we never slowed.

Not once.

Mile after mile through the city.

Washington Boulevard. Shadyside. Into Oakland.

Busy streets filled with lights and traffic — and everything stopped for them.

Inside the bus, voices were barely above a whisper.

I remember one officer saying, “It couldn’t have happened to nicer guys.”

It didn’t feel real.

As we approached the University of Pittsburgh, people stopped what they were doing. Conversations died mid-sentence. Some stood frozen. Others placed their hands over their hearts.

And then they began to salute.

Not because anyone told them to.

Because they understood.

At the cemetery, the reality hit in a way words never could.

As one officer was laid to rest, the echo of gunfire carried from another burial nearby — another fallen officer receiving a 21-gun salute at the same time.

I remember the riderless horse.

I remember the sound of taps.

And I remember something I will never forget — grown men collapsing over the coffin of their friend. Strong men, broken by grief so raw it stripped everything else away.

That was a country that understood loss.

That understood sacrifice.

That understood exactly what had been taken from those families.

And now?

Now we debate what to call it.

Now we downgrade, reinterpret, and explain away.

As the funerals keep coming, what message does that send — not just to the public, but to every officer putting on a uniform?

Because there is already a target on their backs.

And every time the system fails to hold violent repeat offenders accountable, that target grows.

Every time we blur the line between what is and what we wish it to be, that target grows.

I fear for them.

I fear for their families.

For the wives who will get the knock on the door.

For the children who will grow up with folded flags instead of fathers.

For the parents who will bury their sons and daughters.

How many more funerals does it take?

At what point do we say enough?

At what point do we stop pretending this is complicated?

Because some things are not complicated.

A man with a long criminal history shoots a police officer during a lawful stop.

A wife loses her husband.

A child loses his father.

If that isn’t murder, then the word has lost its meaning.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/if_this_isn_t_murder_the_word_has_lost_its_meaning.html

California Targets Nick Shirley

 Looks like a bunch of Corrupt Dirty Bastards are running California and don't want the truth out

California Democrats are rushing to criminalize the very kind of investigative journalism that exposed alleged massive fraud in taxpayer-funded Somali “learning” daycare centers and other immigrant support programs. Rather than clean up the waste, Sacramento has chosen to shield the perpetrators. Assembly Bill 2624 would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by fines up to $10,000 and potential jail time, to publish images or personal information of “immigration support services providers,” their employees, or volunteers if done with the “intent to threaten, harass, or incite violence.” Additionally, courts could issue content-removal orders forcing platforms to take down the material.

Supporters call it “anti-doxxing.” In reality, it is a textbook content-based restriction on speech and press that cannot and should not survive First Amendment scrutiny.

The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects not merely the right to speak but the right to gather news and publish truthful information on matters of public concern, especially when taxpayer dollars are at stake. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court established that even harsh criticism of public programs and officials is shielded unless it involves provable falsehoods made with actual malice. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) went further: the publication of lawfully obtained information on matters of public importance enjoys full protection even if the underlying source obtained it improperly. Citizen journalists filming public-facing operations at government-funded facilities engage in core protected activity. Federal appellate courts, including the First Circuit in Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), have repeatedly affirmed the right to record government officials and publicly funded activities in public spaces without prior permission.  Simply, quoting the Court in Glik:

...the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw... [T]he Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas... An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that "[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news 'from any source by means within the law.' The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs." Moreover, as the Court has noted, "f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because '[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression."  Glik at pp 8-9 [citations omitted].

AB 2624 collapses under strict scrutiny, the demanding standard that applies to content-based speech restrictions. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 2015). First, the law operates as a classic prior restraint. By authorizing pre-trial content takedown orders, the bill inverts the heavy presumption against suppressing speech that the Framers wrote into the First Amendment. Near v. Minnesota (1931); New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). Prior restraints are permissible only in the narrowest circumstances, such as imminent national-security threats.  Protection from public embarrassment and continuation of protected corruption do not qualify. 

Second, the bill’s core prohibition hinges on vague, subjective terms such as “intent to harass.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down laws that criminalize speech based on such open-ended standards because they chill protected expression and invite selective enforcement. Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972); Counterman v. Colorado, 2023). In Counterman, the Court made clear that even “true threats” require proof of subjective intent to threaten violence, not merely reckless disregard or a subjective feeling of harassment. AB 2624’s “harass” language sweeps far more broadly, giving bureaucrats and judges unfettered discretion to label legitimate investigative footage as criminal.

Third, the bill engages in blatant viewpoint discrimination. It singles out immigration support services for special protection amid recent exposés of alleged fraud in precisely those programs. Governments may not enact speech restrictions that target disfavored speakers or messages while leaving similar conduct by favored groups untouched. Reed; Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011). The timing, rushed forward after Nick Shirley’s videos went viral, makes the discriminatory purpose unmistakable.

The bill is plagued by other legal infirmities. It directly conflicts with California’s strong whistleblower protections, particularly the Whistleblower Protection Act, and provisions of the Labor Code (§ 1102.5). Those statutes shield employees and contractors who disclose (or reasonably believe they are disclosing) violations of law, including fraud in publicly funded programs. Whistleblowers inside these immigration support nonprofits often document wrongdoing precisely by recording video, taking photos, or sharing records that include images or personal information of staff and volunteers, the exact material AB 2624 would criminalize or subject to takedown orders. The bill contains no carve-out for good-faith disclosures or journalistic or whistleblower activity. Enforcement would therefore punish the very conduct the state otherwise encourages and protects, creating an irreconcilable statutory conflict and further chilling protected speech.

These infirmities compound because California’s own Constitution provides even stronger free-speech and press protections than the Federal First Amendment, protecting the right to “freely speak, write, and publish.” Article I, Section 2(a).  The bill’s legislative findings attempting to justify reduced public-record access fall far short of the narrow-tailoring requirement. Taxpayers have a compelling interest in scrutinizing how their money is spent on programs serving non-citizens. Shielding the recipients of public funds from documentation is the antithesis of constitutional tailoring.

California already has general anti-doxxing and true-threat statutes that can address genuine unlawful threats and even harassment without creating a special protected class for politically favored nonprofits. AB 2624 goes much further: it effectively deters citizens from filming and publishing truthful footage of public interactions at facilities suspected of fraud. That is not privacy protection. It is narrative control.

This fits a familiar Sacramento pattern. When the ruling class dislikes what citizens discover about failing schools, street chaos, or slush-fund NGOs, it rewrites the rules to make discovery illegal. From campus speech codes to agricultural “ag-gag” laws and now this, the goal is always the same: shield favored constituencies from accountability.

If signed by Governor Newsom, AB 2624 will face swift federal-court challenges from journalists, transparency advocates, and civil-liberties organizations. The First Amendment does not and should not permit the state to declare a special class of untouchables whose public activities may no longer be documented by citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

Nick Shirley’s investigations and videos do not constitute "harassment"; they are the modern equivalent of the pamphleteers and investigative reporters the Founders sought to protect. California Democrats’ reckless attempt to silence scrutiny of taxpayer-funded programs is not merely bad policy; it is a direct assault on the constitutional foundations of self-government. The voters should remember who tried to ram it through.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/04/california_targets_nick_shirley.html

Appeals Court Orders Boasberg to End His “Intrusive” Criminal Contempt Investigation of Trump Related to Alien Enemies Act

 This piece of Shit should be out of a job?

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday voted 2-1 to end Judge James Boasberg’s criminal contempt inquiry related to the Trump Administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.

The three-judge panel ordered Boasberg to end his “intrusive” contempt probe of the Trump Administration.

Judge’s Rao (Trump) and Walker (Trump) ordered Boasberg to end his inquiry.

Judge Childs (Biden) dissented.

Last March Boasberg granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the Trump administration from deporting thousands of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

Boasberg then threatened to hold Trump officials in contempt for not bringing some of the world’s most vicious killers, criminals, and rapists back to the United States.

Judge Boasberg said he found probable cause to hold the Trump Administration in criminal contempt of court for defying his order to turn around planes carrying dangerous Venezuelan gang members.

In a 46-page opinion, Judge Boasberg said the Trump Administration showed willful defiance that amounts to criminal contempt.

In December Boasberg made it clear that he was not backing off from his planned contempt hearings and threatened to pierce through attorney-client privilege in his order denying the government’s motion to reconsider.

Last year, a three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted Boasberg’s contempt hearings.

Judges Rao (Trump), Walker (Trump) granted an administrative stay pending further order of the court.

Judge Childs (Biden) would have denied the motion for an administrative stay.

Boasberg recently took the next step toward ‘contempt prosecution’ after he revived his criminal contempt inquiry against President Trump over Alien Enemies Act deportations.

The Justice Department recently disclosed that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem greenlit the deportation flights in March despite Boasberg’s emergency order.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/breaking-appeals-court-blocks-boasbergs-criminal-contempt-inquiry/