ENDLESS ESCALATION: Biden Regime To Allow American Private Military Contractors To Deploy to Ukraine
June 27, 2024
Lately it seems that every day we are faced with yet another escalation by the Joe Biden administration from hell towards a military confrontation with Russia.
Days after Biden began allowing Kiev to fire US-supplied long range missiles on Russian territory, it now surfaces that he is about to allow American PMC companies to fight in the Ukraine war.
That’s American boots on the ground. And worse – on the side that’s being decimated by the overwhelmingly superior Russian air force, artillery, missile and drone capabilities.
Prepare the body bags.
US officials ‘familiar with the matter’ have disclosed that the administration will lift a ‘de facto ban’ on American military contractors deploying to Ukraine.
The current report say the deployments would be ‘to help the country’s military maintain and repair US-provided weapons systems’ – but we know how these things change, and furthermore, once they enter the theater of war, in whatever capacity, they will instantly become priority targets for all Russian firepower.
This is another significant shift towards war in the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy.
“The policy is still being worked on by administration officials and has not received final sign-off yet from President Joe Biden, officials said.
‘We have not made any decisions and any discussion of this is premature’, said one administration official. ‘The president is absolutely firm that he will not be sending US troops to Ukraine’.”
The change in policy is likely to be enacted this year,
“US-provided military equipment that has sustained significant damage in combat has had to be transported out of the country to Poland, Romania, or other NATO countries for repairs, a process which takes time. US troops are also available to help the Ukrainians with more routine maintenance and logistics, but only from afar via video chat or secure phone—an arrangement that has come with inherent limitations, since US troops and contractors are not able to work directly on the systems.”
The idea is to allow experienced, US government-funded contractors in Ukraine means to fix damaged, high-value equipment much faster.
While there are to be ‘risk mitigation plans’ to decrease threats to their employees, there is absolutely no guarantee that this will work.
In the Ukraine war, the threat of attack is not contained near the frontlines. Even the deep rear areas are constantly pounded by missiles and drones – so American boots in the ground will be in deadly danger all the time.
“Current and former officials familiar with the discussions about deploying contractors to Ukraine emphasized that the policy change will not result in the kind of overwhelming American contractor presence there that existed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, it would likely result in anywhere from a few dozen to a couple hundred contractors working in Ukraine at a time.”
Partial Gag Order on Trump is a Debate Trap… Biden Still in Total Panic Mode (VIDEO)
June 27, 2024
Judge Juan Merchan lifted some of his unconstitutional gag order provisions of President Trump, but he deviously left in place a gag on Trumps ability to talk about NY prosecutors which includes the DOJ shill Matthew Colangelo. This is a trap. CNN will most certainly try to trick President Trump into violating this gag order during the debate. It is election engineering at its worst.
We also have the must see video of the Georgia judge who attacked a cop. See for yourself why she just got kicked off the bench.
Newsmax Runs Disclaimer About 2020 Election Results During Trump Interview (VIDEO)
June 26, 2024
Newsmax ran a disclaimer in their chyron about the 2020 election results being “legal and final” during an interview with former President Donald Trump.
As Trump spoke, a caption appeared on the screen saying, “Please Note: Newsmax Accepts the 2020 Election Results as Legal and Final.”
During the interview, host Corey Lewandowski asked Trump about his plans regarding the Middle East.
“What do we do with Hezbollah, Sir?” Lewandowski asked. “What’s the plan? And I know you don’t wanna give away all the strategy, but I’m sure you’ve got an idea of the way you would handle that.”
“Well, it’s Hamas, it’s Hezbollah, it’s 28 different cells of terror, they call them,” Trump replied.
Trump continued, “And once we get it going and once we’re in power – and we have to be because we’re not gonna have a country. If we don’t win this election, November 5th, if we don’t win this election, we won’t have a country left, Corey. We’re not gonna have a country and you know that better than anybody.”
Trump: “Once we’re in power — and we have to be, because we’re not gonna have a country left. If we don’t win this election, we won’t have a country left. We’re not gonna have a country.” pic.twitter.com/cNyzTxOlum
At this point, despite Trump not mentioning anything about the election being stolen, the chyron appeared on the screen.
“We’re laughed at,” Trump continued. “They think we’re fools. They can’t believe that Biden is the president. And we’re gonna turn that around. We’re gonna it around very fast.”
Trump did not mention the 2020 election results at any point during the rest of the interview.
Newsmax has been sued by Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic for defamation after they aired claims that the election was stolen.
SpaceX May Have to Rescue NASA Astronauts Stranded in the International Space Station Due to Boeing Starliner’s Multiple Helium Leaks: REPORT
June 26, 2024
Two NASA scientists are currently stranded in orbit aboard the International Space Station, due to multiple helium leaks in the Boeing Starliner that should have brought them back to Earth 13 days ago.
Now speculation arises that rival company SpaceX may be called upon to rescue Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams.
The Astronauts’ mission on the Starliner was launched on June 5, and they were only to remain at the ISS for nine days.
Now, troubles with the spaceship mean that their return date is still uncertain, as NASA scrambles ‘furiously’ to solve the problem.
“Boeing-rival SpaceX could potentially end up being tapped to ultimately bring them home aboard its Crew Dragon spaceship.
The outcome would serve as a severe blow to troubled aerospace giant Boeing, which has spent about $1.5 billion in cost overruns — beyond its initial $4.5 billion contract with NASA — in hopes of making Starliner a second option to reach the ISS.”
The Starliner docked in the ISS.
NASA and Boeing insist that the current Starliner problems don’t warrant the need for SpaceX to lend a hand.
“The SpaceX ship, which recently ferried four astronauts to the ISS in March, is capable of carrying two to four passengers at a time, but it can fit additional occupants in an emergency.”
Elon Musk’s SpaceX served as the sole commercial company approved to transport astronauts and cargo to the space station since 2020.
“NASA most likely delayed the return trip home so that they could spend more time studying the craft while it’s still attached to the ISS to learn more about what went wrong and how to avoid it for its next mission.”
After a series of delays in the launch, NASA and Boeing managers knew of a Helium leak, but deemed it too small to pose danger to the mission.
But during the launch and flight up to the ISS, other leaks developed, so the situation ‘remains fluid’.
This is hardly the first time Astronauts or Cosmonauts have been stranded in space. The last NASA astronaut stranded in space was American Frank Rubio, after problems with the Russian Soyuz capsule that took him to the ISS. He ended up staying 371 days in Space.
Breaking: Supreme Court Rules Horribly on Most Important Free Speech Case in a Century – Murthy v. Missouri with Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft as 1 of 5 Top Plaintiffs Is Rejected by Court
June 26, 2024
Outside the Supreme Court after oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri with co-plaintiffs Jay Bhattacharya, Jill Hines, and Jim Hoft, March 18, 2020.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES HORRIBLY ON MURTHY V. MISSOURI – The Most Important Free Speech Case in a Century!
In a stunning 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden Administration’s policy of deleting, suppressing, and deplatforming specific people, topics, and ideas, is immune from suit leaving no one able to challenge it in court.
The ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, came down with the following key decision: “Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.”
In sum, the court rules that the two different types of parties, states and individuals harmed by these government policies, do not have ‘standing’ to sue. This case procedurally related to the request for a preliminary injunction for the government to stop the censorship regime while the case was going on.
This decision will make the trial court action in this case more difficult but, insiders say, not impossible. “It’s a horrible decision, but the underlying case at the lower court marches forward. The Gateway Pundit is dedicated to fighting the government for the free speech rights of everyone, we are committed to ultimate victory,” said John Burns, General Counsel for the Gateway Pundit.
In addition, Justice Coney Barrett let the government off the hook for the censorship regime the government created and maintained. Here’s the key passage:
“platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.”
There were no “complexities in the evidence” – the evidence was clear: the FBI, White House, and other officials were specifically directing, demanding, and coercing social media companies to take down posts that related to topics they wanted suppressed.
Here are some of the key topics brought out in discovery that the government was most interested in suppressing, generally:
These are the topics the Supreme Court is now enabling the government to once again suppress.
Justice Sam Alito said, in dissent, “this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”
And instead of standing for the First Amendment, these six: Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor stood for speech suppression. SHAME!
The Supreme Court is making it procedurally impossible for a citizen or a state to challenge the government’s ability to silence your digital speech. The practical consequence of this decision is to re-open the floodgates of social media censorship and speech suppression.
Thank You to US Senator Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry for launching this investigation! Thank you to Attorney John Sauer for his brilliant work in moving this case forward. And a special thanks to Missouri AG Andrew Bailey and Louisiana AG Liz Murrill who led the efforts at the US Supreme Court oral arguments in March. They are true free speech champions.
The case presented three key issues for the nation’s highest court to resolve: 1) whether the plaintiffs had standing, which is a legal concept meaning that the courts allow that person to claim an injury, 2) whether the government’s urging social media companies to deplatform, delete, and suppress the content of specific citizens and topics such as Hunter Biden’s laptop, vaccines, voter fraud in the 2020 election, COVID policy, among others, were violations of the first amendment, and 3) whether the terms of the trial courts injunction, meaning a court order for the government to stop suppressing speech while the case was ongoing, was proper.
Because of the way legal appeals are procedurally handled, the appeal to the Supreme Court is styled as Murthy v. Missouri, but the underlying case at the trial court is Missouri v. Biden, even though they are all legal actions originating out of the same case.
On March 18, 2024, the US Supreme Court heard arguments from Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga representing The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft , the state of Missouri, the state of Louisiana, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Jill Hines (“Free Speech Plaintiffs”) in our case against the Biden Administration and an army of government agencies.
Before all of the appeals, the case originally started after the States of Missouri and Louisiana, joined by The Gateway Pundit and the other individuals, noted above, alleged that the Biden White House and DOZENS of federal officials and agencies were conspiring with and/ or coercing Social Media Companies such as Facebook, Twitter and others to censor the speech of MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, particularly during COVID and the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2020 Presidential Election.
The evidence clearly showed – and even Mark Zuckerberg admitted to this, that the FBI pressured Facebook to take down the Hunter Biden laptop story – in true Fascist manner, the Feds worked with or otherwise demanded that Big Tech police the speech that they disagreed with and that went against the government’s approved party dogma.
The Gateway Pundit and the other Plaintiffs initially sought out a preliminary injunction and were able to acquire a substantial amount of evidence in support of that injunction. You may recall that, probably not coincidentally, on July 4, 2023, Federal Judge Terry Doughty issued an order granting Gateway Pundit, et al’s motion for the preliminary injunction, preventing the government from working with Big Tech to censor Americans’ speech while the full lawsuit was being battled (likely to be a multi-year period). The government immediately appealed this Order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the injunction was improper and that the plaintiffs lacked the proper authority to challenge government action.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals substantially agreed with the good guys, and the scheming government tyrants were left with no choice but to appeal their case yet again – this time to the Supreme Court of the United States.
A variety of left-wing groups shamefully came out to side with the government, on the side of suppressing citizen speech, in the name of combatting ‘disinformation.’ including Stanford University, Senator Mark Warner, and a small group of far-left Secretaries of State. Those siding with free speech included America’s Frontline Doctors, Americans for Prosperity, Atlantic Legal Foundation, Charlie Kirk, Claremont Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education “FIRE”, Steven Crowder, journalist Matt Taibbi.
The Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief siding with neither party.
Lawyers involved with the case told the Gateway Pundit that from oral arguments it became clear there was a core 3-3 split on the court, with Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, firmly on the side of letting the government suppress speech. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared to be on the side of free speech. The case, they believed, hinged on the way in which Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts ruled.
The appeal was filed with the Supreme Court on September 14, 2023, so it has taken over nine months to get a decision on this issue, primed before the height of the 2024 election cycle, where the Biden Administration was gearing up to use these expansive powers once again to police social media to suppress news, views, and commentary of citizens it disliked.
In March, the champions for each side made their case at oral arguments in person before the assembled Supreme Court.
Gateway Pundit founder and publisher Jim Hoft and Gateway Pundit attorney John Burns were present at the oral arguments.
In March, Jim Hoft interviewed his fellow individual free speech plaintiff-respondents in the Murthy v. Missouri case.
See HERE for the interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
See HERE for the interview with Dr. Martin Kulldorff.
Each of these individuals is a spectacular advocate for the First Amendment and freedom from tyranny. We hope you can take the opportunity to watch these highly inspiring interviews, which offer firsthand accounts from these exceptional Americans who have and continue to fight against government censorship and oppression.
FREEDOM ISN’T FREE – and neither is fighting tyrants. The Gateway Pundit needs your help. PLEASE DONATE TO GATEWAY PUNDIT’S legal fund to help our fight against illegal censorship – both governmental AND private.
We rarely ask for donations for ourselves at TGP. Please help us to continue our fight for truth.
########################################
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
