“Undeniable at This Point” – Elon Musk Weighs in on Joe Biden’s Open Borders

On Friday venture capitalist David Sachs from The All-In Podcast weighed in on Joe Biden’s open borders policies that have allowed some 10 million illegal aliens to walk across the US southern border since he entered the White House in January 2021.

Biden’s policy is open borders. Everything else is noise.pic.twitter.com/mwZM1rZHaV

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) January 26, 2024

Of course, David is correct.

Joe Biden’s first act as president was to end construction of the Trump border wall and open the floodgates to the world.
The invasion was planned.

Elon Musk commented on David’s post, “That is undeniable at this point.”

Biden’s policies are open chaos.
Joe and his puppet masters believe your country does not belong to you.

That is undeniable at this point https://t.co/yUnqNDQmfh

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 27, 2024

The post “Undeniable at This Point” – Elon Musk Weighs in on Joe Biden’s Open Borders appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

State GOP Condemns Their Republican Senator for Bipartisan Border Deal, Threatens to Go Further if He Doesn’t Back Out

Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma has been scolded by the Oklahoma Republican Party for what the party said was his support of a deal that will be produced in the Senate to address concerns about the leaky Southern Border.

The bipartisan deal, which is not yet final, would hand President Joe Biden the authority to shut the border when it is considered to be overwhelmed, according to Politico.

Former President Donald Trump has voiced his opinion in a Truth Social post that read, “A BAD BORDER DEAL IS FAR WORSE THAN NO BORDER DEAL!”

Lankford, who has been the lead Republican negotiator on any Senate agreement that is developed, told CBS he is upbeat about the deal.

“I do feel very positive about it because even the initial feedback has been good,” Lankford told “Face the Nation,” adding that criticism of the deal is based on “internet rumors.”

But back home in Oklahoma, storm clouds are brewing over the deal.  Republican state Sen. Dusty Deevers posted on X the text of the resolution slapping Lankford’s knuckles for his role in the deal.

“Resolution Condemning & Censoring Senator Lankford’s Open Border Deal” as approved by the OKGOP State Committee members on January 27, 2024. pic.twitter.com/peVqHAfIpt

— Dusty Deevers (@DustyDeevers) January 27, 2024

The resolution opens by saying Lankford is partnering with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in “an open border deal to allow 5,000 illegal immigrants a day to enter and work in the United States.”

It adds that  Lankford “playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship, but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger.”

The resolution says that “authorizing several thousand people to invade our border before any action can be taken is contrary to the oath that Senator Lankford took to the Constitution and therefore outside of the area that he is authorized to negotiate in.”

The resolution says that the state’s Republican Party “strongly condemns Senator James Lankford, if and to the extent that he continues these actions, and calls upon him to cease and desist jeopardizing the security and liberty of the people of Oklahoma and of these United States.”

Further, it says that “until Senator Lankford ceases from these actions the Oklahoma Republican Party will cease all support for him.”

Trump ally Roger Stone chastised Lankford on X.

.@SenatorLankford went from being a border hawk before the last Republican senatorial primary to being in favor of allowing more than 5000 illegals to cross every day. What do they have on him ? pic.twitter.com/WEL3kXgc7V

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) January 28, 2024

The diminutive Senator from Oklahoma Lil’ @SenatorLankford is being blackmailed over his cover up of Child sex abuse at Falls Creek to support open borders -Oklahomans must demand his resignation! #Oklahoma https://t.co/qNmhheR2Ef

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) January 28, 2024

Former GOP state Chairman Anthony Ferate said in a post on X that the meeting was not legally convened.

“Today an extreme faction of the @officialOKGOP held a meeting without providing an official call to all members of the State Committee, including me, to attack Senator @jameslankford. Any vote taken by the OKGOP today was not legitimate and definitely does not represent the voice of all Oklahoma Republicans,” he wrote.

In a statement, party vice chairman Wayne Hill said the state committee is “committed to holding elected Republicans accountable to the standards set forth in the OKGOP platform which supports limited legal immigration,” according to Newsweek.

“It is our hope that Sen. Lankford will acknowledge the direction of the state committee and do all in his power to defend our border from the current invasion,” he said.

Hill noted the divide in the party, saying, “the grassroots movement in Oklahoma is strong and growing, because we take action and not provide empty promises.”

Hill called Ferate “a protector of the old guard of establishment Republicans” and “out of touch with the pulse of our OKGOP state committee membership.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post State GOP Condemns Their Republican Senator for Bipartisan Border Deal, Threatens to Go Further if He Doesn’t Back Out appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

SHOCKER: $40 Million Earmarked for Military Ammunition Stolen by Corrupt Ukraine Officials

The Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) has uncovered a massive procurement fraud involving approximately $40 million, funds intended to purchase military ammunition.

The SSU announced that the scheme implicated several high-ranking officials within the Ministry of Defense and management figures from Lviv Arsenal, an arms supplier, the Boston Globe reported.

Lviv Arsenal received advance payment for the ammunition in August 2022, but the shells were never delivered.

Instead, the allocated funds intended for buying 100,000 mortar shells were transferred to a foreign commercial entity and subsequently rerouted to another affiliated organization in the Balkans without delivering any ammunition.

“After receiving the funds, the company’s management transferred part of the money to the balance sheet of a foreign commercial structure that was supposed to deliver the ordered ammunition to Ukraine,” the statement said.

“However, it did not send a single artillery shell to our country, and took the received funds into the shadows, transferring them to the accounts of another affiliated structure in the Balkans.”

The fraud is a blow to Ukraine’s military efforts and its reputation among international allies, notably in Washington and Brussels, where ongoing discussions about European Union membership and continued financial and military assistance are sensitive to issues of governance and corruption.

The SSU claimed that the embezzled funds were from the state budget, not foreign aid.

The SSU’s investigation has led to the issuance of “notices of suspicion” to five individuals, a precursor to formal legal proceedings in Ukraine. Among the accused are former and current officials from the Defense Ministry, including Oleksandr Liev and Toomas Nakhkur, as well as Yuriy Zbitnev, head of Lviv Arsenal and a former presidential candidate.

One suspect was detained while attempting to cross the Ukrainian border. Those involved face up to 12 years in prison if convicted.

Boston Globe reported:

The fraud took place under former defense minister Oleksii Reznikov, who was ousted last year amid several high-profile allegations of corruption in the ministry, particularly the purchase of food and jackets for the military at inflated prices. Reznikov, who wasn’t personally implicated in any malfeasance, declined to comment.

A defense official familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak about the case to the media, said, “this is not a new case,” as the ministry filed a criminal report to law enforcement about the stolen $40 million in May 2023, after the shells were not delivered. Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian news outlet, reported many details about the case in July.

The stolen funds have been seized, the agency said, adding that “the question of their return to the budget of Ukraine is being resolved.”

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a recent Pentagon report has brought to light that over $1 billion in military aid sent to Ukraine by the United States has not been properly accounted for.

The Defense Department report, which was presented to Congress, reveals serious lapses in the tracking of critical weapons systems amidst heated congressional debates regarding additional support for Ukraine.

The unaccounted-for arsenal includes advanced shoulder-fired missiles, sophisticated kamikaze drones, and state-of-the-art night vision devices.

These items are classified as “high-risk” due to their advanced technology and the ease with which they could be transported and potentially fall into the wrong hands.

According to the report, of nearly 40,000 arms delivered to Ukraine, a substantial proportion has not been adequately monitored.

The report added, “It was beyond the scope of our evaluation to determine whether there has been diversion of such assistance. The DoD OIG now has personnel stationed in Ukraine, and the DoD OIG’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service continues to investigate allegations of criminal conduct with regard to U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.”

Austin, however, claimed that there was no evidence of misuse regarding the weapons in question.

Corruption is rampant in Ukraine.

According to an unnamed senior adviser to Zelenskyy, people at the top are “stealing” like there is no tomorrow and Ukraine’s president faces pressure to root out corruption as its allies continue to give the country everything it asks for, as reported by Time Magazine.

In January 2023, several high-ranking officials were removed from their positions. This group includes a top presidential adviser, four deputy ministers — two of whom were defense officials — and five regional governors.

As per the disclosure by senior government official Oleg Nemchinov, the following individuals have been relieved of their duties:

Deputy Prosecutor General Oleskiy Symonenko
Deputy Minister for Development of Communities and Territories Ivan Lukerya
Deputy Minister for Development of Communities and Territories Vyacheslav Negoda
Deputy Minister for Social Policy Vitaliy Muzychenko
Regional Governors of Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kyiv, Sumy, and Kherson

The Ministry of Defense previously announced the resignation of Deputy Minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov, who was responsible for the army’s logistical support. This followed allegations of signing food contracts at exorbitant prices.

Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov resigned in September in what Reuters referred to as a “wartime shakeup” of Zelenskyy’s Cabinet.

Reports that people in the Ukrainian government are “stealing” come as President Joe Biden and U.S. lawmakers face pushback from taxpayers about their blank check policy toward funding a war with no end in sight.

Last year, the Pentagon revealed that an overestimation in the value of weapons sent to Ukraine over the past two years has resulted in an extra $6.2 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money earmarked for the Eastern European country. This figure is approximately double what was originally estimated and allegedly will be utilized for future security packages.

Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh provided clarification on the nature of the error, explaining that the military services had used the replacement cost rather than the book value of equipment pulled from Pentagon stocks and sent to Ukraine.

According to Singh, the error was identified during a detailed review of the accounting process.

“We discovered inconsistencies in equipment valuation for Ukraine. In a significant number of cases, services used replacement costs rather than net book value, thereby overestimating the value of the equipment drawn down from U.S. stock and provided to Ukraine,” Singh said at a news briefing.

This corruption scandal emerges at a critical juncture, with the Biden regime’s request for an additional $60 billion in aid for Ukraine facing scrutiny in Congress.

GOP lawmakers are demanding greater oversight to ensure the appropriate use of US funds. Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, the US has committed over $46.3 billion in security assistance to Ukraine.

In July 2023, Senate Democrats rallied to oppose the establishment of a new office intended to audit taxpayers’ money sent to Ukraine as military aid.

The opposition to the creation of the Office of the Lead Inspector General for Ukraine Assistance saw forty-five Democrats, including every member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, voting against the amendment, according to New York Post.

Independent Senators Angus King (Maine) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont), as well as Republican Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky), also sided with the Democrats.

This move saw several key Democrats, including Jacky Rosen (Nevada), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), and Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), preventing the amendment from reaching the necessary 60-vote threshold.

The post SHOCKER: $40 Million Earmarked for Military Ammunition Stolen by Corrupt Ukraine Officials appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Revolt of the Marine Generals (2024)

In 1947–1949, there was a struggle between the Army and the Navy as they were required by law to unify themselves and a new, separate, independent Air Force under a singular Secretary of Defense.

It was high stakes and high drama as the original proponent of the merger, James V. Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense, started to have second thoughts about the merger, and then possibly had a mental breakdown and was replaced by President Truman.

Forrestal fell, jumped, or was pushed out of the high tower at Bethesda Naval Medical Center while he was recovering.  Forrestal’s death is a mystery that has never been fully resolved.

Which was to deliver the Atom Bomb?  The B-36 vs. the U.S.S. United States. Air Force Photo and U.S. Navy concept sketch by Bruno Figallo

The debate at the time was not only the subordination of the formerly independent Navy and Army to a Secretary of Defense, but about the mission of atomic bombing.

The new Air Force wanted a new long-range bomber for the atomic mission, the Navy wanted a new, super aircraft carrier for the same mission.  The Air Force, supported by the Army won, despite high drama and intrigue by Navy staff and their opponents in Army and the Air Force.

The Air Force bomber went into production – but a few years later, the Navy did get a consolation prize and started receiving new super carriers, named the Forrestal Class, but they were not intended to replace the Air Force in the nuclear mission.

In modern times, a significant brouhaha is in progress and growing – but over a much more mundane and obscure topic.  The debate is growing fierce over which Service should be the lead for smaller, amphibious warfare vessels and craft.

This topic is very important for operations in the Western Pacific to deter and if necessary, defeat Chinese actions.  Until very recently, this is a topic neither the Marines, Navy, nor Army were paying close attention to.

Lieutenant General Karsten Heckl currently serves as the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, and the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, USMC Photo by Cpl. Tia Carr

The Marines want their own rides

There has been a growing frustration of Marine Corps leadership with the Navy.  The amphibious ships of the U.S. Navy are large and capable, but are limited in number and too big to support the Marine plans for rapid movement of small units among different islands to defeat the Chinese.

The Marines have had a growing sense of being an inconvenience to “big” Navy and want their own wheels or in this case hulls to significantly supplement the Navy.

This is like a family with only one car but multiple adult family members with their own work schedules.  However, this family is large, well-funded, and have life or death decisions to make in their jobs.  This is not simple squabbling over resources.

The Marines are demonstrating leadership by making hard choices and divesting in capabilities like tanks which they have had for years.  The Marine Commandant made a hard decision and said if they need tanks, they’ll ask Army tank units for tank support.  A rare example of leadership in the partisan DOD where Services rarely walk away from long standing capabilities.

The Marine Corps Light Amphibious Warship (LAW)/U.S. Navy Landing Ship Medium (LSM) Sea Transport Solutions Image

But a new capability that the Marines have never really had before are smaller amphibious warfare vessels (called the Light Amphibious Warship LAW by the Marine Corps current requirement, the Navy is now calling it the Landing Ship Medium (LSM)) and they want their own.

Currently they are communicated as a Navy/Marine requirement, but it’s clearly meant to be Marine focused and perhaps even Marine Corps operated.

Navy not meeting the Marine requirements

In current times the “larger” amphibious force levels in big Navy have hovered at just over 30 ships (down from about 60 at the height of the Reagan buildup).  In the past, the Navy has placed emphasis on the Amphibious Warfare portion of the Fleet, but the Secretary of the Navy has been at odds with Congressional mandates to grow the size of the Navy.

Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro has been accused of “…Ignoring the Law…” with his plans submitted to Congress that demonstrate 38 large amphibious ships at some vague point in the distant future (potentially 2050).

I have never seen such a mess of different plans before in my national security service.  It is also not helpful that the U.S. Navy lost a key amphibious warfare ship, USS Bon Homme Richard, in a pierside fire in 2020.

Comparison of different shipbuilding plans, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress. January 22, 2024, Congressional Research Service

Under the confusing list of different shipbuilding plans, the Navy might have six of the LAWs in service or on order by 2030.  This is a long way away for what is supposed to be a relatively simple, non-developmental, off the shelf acquisition of commercial vessels painted Navy gray or Marine green.

The absolute chaos of different plans is also possibly representative of the cancerous effect of “woke-ism” on the professionalism of the Department of Defense Staff.  The slow pace of new vessels for the Marines is at crisis levels.

Army surrenders the watercraft mission space, now wants back in

 The tragedy of the Army saga has been the melodramatic theatrics and indecision of the Army.  Since World War II, the light amphibious warfare and transport mission set had been an Army Mission in which Army would provide support to all the Services.

Army carried out this watercraft mission with enthusiasm and gusto – until the Peace Dividend of the Clinton years.  This once mighty vessel and boat force evaporated.

During the disastrous Secretary Gates/Admiral Mullins tenure when the DOD budget was self-eviscerated without a commensurate cut in mission, the Army bailed on the Joint High Speed Vessel Program as a cost savings measure.

The Navy took the five Army vessels, and the now Navy-only program has expanded significantly as an intra-theater high speed transport which is very useful.

It lacks the beaching capability of the LAW so it doesn’t quite deliver the capability the Marines are looking for.  Army’s poor budget decision left Army avoiding the Western Pacific watercraft role – a role traditionally encumbered by Army.

US Army Photo, Maneuver Support Vessel Light
DOD Photo, Balikatan Exercise in the Philippines 2023.  US Army HIMARS Missile Launcher landed from U.S. Army landing craft, utility USAV Calaboza (LCU 2009) on Basco Island.  From this island, the HIMARS and other Missile Types can control the ocean gap between Taiwan and the Philippines.

Even more fecklessly, the Army, while touting its Multi-Domain Operational (MDO) concept made the calamitous decision in July 2019 to totally walk away from the world of amphibious watercraft.

I was at a meeting with an Army General in July 2019 who gave an important briefing on MDO.  Afterwards, I pointed out to him that his MDO slides looked like a 1980s tank battle in Germany – baffling for an MDO concept supposed to be oriented toward the Western Pacific.

I further pointed out that his peer Generals had just decided to sell off and totally divest of the watercraft mission set.  What good would Army be to the Joint fight if they had no watercraft?

He paused, made a call, and this set off a yearlong debate in which Army decided it was returning to the light amphibious transport world (Congressional intervention helped).  The Army is back in, full speed ahead, with the Maneuver Support Vessel Light as wells as a medium version and a heavy version that are more capable than the Marine Corps LAW.

What’s the way ahead?

The inter-service arguing on the way ahead on small amphibious warfare vessels is reaching a culminating point.  The DOD is now at a point where multiple Services and programs are competing for the watercraft mission.  I’ve never seen this level of gnashing of teeth and disagreement over who has the Service lead on a topic.

This should have been an Army mission set, but Army has been climbing out of a deep hole on this topic.   Navy is doing an excellent job with the High-Speed Transport, but that’s a different mission set then what the Marines are looking at.

The Marines are leading the fight and have a clear requirement and are moving forward with strong support.  The Marines are running over the Navy in their semi-revolt as the Navy tries to get some firm footing and get its shipbuilding master plan together.

The Services went from nobody paying attention to the problem set to three Services claiming the mission.  Might be time for another council of Generals and Admirals to avoid any further bloodshed in a modern revolt over a topic no one seemed to care about only a few years ago.  The Chinese are not waiting for an answer on this.

The post The Revolt of the Marine Generals (2024) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Pelosi Faces Chorus of Boos at NFL Game Amidst Political Tensions

In a display of public sentiment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi encountered a less-than-warm welcome as she attended the AFC Championship game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens. Accompanied by her husband Paul Pelosi, the couple arrived in a black SUV on a Sunday afternoon only to be met with a chorus of boos from the crowd.

The incident, which took place on January 28th, 2024, has sparked discussions about the current political climate and the public’s perception of political figures. Despite being born and raised in Baltimore, Pelosi’s appearance at the game seemed to stir controversy among fans. This reaction could be indicative of the broader national mood, where political leaders are increasingly scrutinized for their affiliations and actions.

NEW: Nancy Pelosi floats new conspiracy theory by suggesting that *Russia* could be behind the liberal pro-Palestine protesters and calls for an investigation.

> Indoctrinate students in college with liberalism.

> They do exactly what their liberal professors teach them.

>… pic.twitter.com/reGTPJDs2X

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 29, 2024

Pelosi, who has represented California in Congress for decades, has had to navigate her loyalties between the Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers. Her presence at the game, intended as a leisurely outing, quickly turned into a moment of political theater. It is worth noting that when her husband was hospitalized following a violent attack at their home in 2022, one of his first comments upon waking was about the Ravens’ victory, highlighting the couple’s personal connection to the team.

The boos that echoed as Pelosi and her husband walked past the crowd, smiling despite the audible disapproval, underscore the polarizing nature of American politics today. The public’s reaction can be seen as a reflection of the discontent that some citizens feel towards their elected officials, regardless of their intentions or personal affiliations.

Nancy Pelosi gets booed as she shows up to the Chiefs v Ravens game in Baltimore.

Read: https://t.co/pMGI8DN6EC

— PENNSYLVANIA IS TRUMP (@RED_IN_PA) January 28, 2024

Also in attendance at the game were celebrities such as Taylor Swift, who celebrated alongside Brittany Mahomes, wife of the Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes. Swift’s enthusiastic support for her boyfriend Travis Kelce, a player for the Chiefs, stood in stark contrast to the reception Pelosi received. This juxtaposition of celebrity adoration against political rebuke speaks volumes about the current cultural landscape.

The event raises questions about the role of politicians in public spaces and whether they can ever truly be separated from their political personas. As Pelosi and her husband attempted to enjoy the game, the boos served as a reminder that the public eye never wavers, and every appearance is subject to scrutiny.

As the nation continues to grapple with deep political divisions, instances like these serve as a barometer for public opinion. The vocal disapproval directed at Pelosi may well be a sign of the challenges that lie ahead for politicians seeking to bridge the gap with constituents who feel disconnected from their representatives.

In conclusion, the reaction to Pelosi’s attendance at the NFL game is a testament to the charged atmosphere surrounding American politics. It is a reminder that for figures like Pelosi, the intersection of personal interest and public service is fraught with potential for criticism and underscores the need for ongoing dialogue and understanding between elected officials and the people they serve.

The post Pelosi Faces Chorus of Boos at NFL Game Amidst Political Tensions appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Senator Lankford Defends Controversial Bill Allowing Entry to Illegal Immigrants and Funding Two Wars Thousands of Miles Away

Screenshot: FOX News

Senator James Lankford appeared on Fox News Sunday regarding a hotly debated border security bill that has stirred controversy across party lines.

The bill, criticized for allowing entry to thousands of illegal immigrants and funding conflicts abroad, was a major point of discussion between Lankford and host Shannon Bream.

Bream dove straight into addressing the contentious rumors surrounding the bill, confronting Lankford with Senator Ted Cruz’s assertion that the bill would normalize an “invasion” level of 5,000 people crossing the border daily. This figure translates to approximately 155,000 illegal immigrants each month, amounting to an annual total of 1.8 million.

According to information obtained by FOX News reporter Bill Melugin, the deal includes:

— Mandatory detention of all single adults.

— Mandatory “shut down” of border once average daily migrant encounters hits 5,000. Importantly, this 5,000 number includes 1,400 CBP One app entries at ports of entry per day, and roughly 3,600 illegal crossings per day.

— How is that enforced? Once the 5,000 threshold is hit, a new authority is codified into law that requires Border Patrol to immediately remove illegal immigrants they catch without processing. They would not get to request asylum, they would immediately be removed. This includes removals back to Mexico, and deportations to home countries. This would be a *massive* change from current policy, which is that once an illegal immigrant reaches US soil, they must be processed via Title 8 and allowed to claim asylum. Under this new authority – they are not processed, and they are mandatorily immediately removed once the “shut down” threshold is reached.

— This “shut down” also takes effect is there are 8,500 migrant encounters in a single day.

— The “shut down” would not lift the next day. It wouldn’t lift until daily encounters are reduced to under 75% of the 5,000 threshold for at least two weeks. This means the “shut down” authority would not lift until two weeks of an average of less than 3,750 migrant encounters per day.

— Some family units will be released with ATD (Alternatives to Detention, ankle monitors etc).

— New removal authority to immediately remove all migrants who do not have valid asylum claims, which will be determined within 6 months rather than the years long process we have right now.

— Any migrant caught trying to cross twice during “shut down” phase would be banned from entering US for one year.

— US will need agreement with Mexico for MX to take back non-Mexican illegal immigrants. This hasn’t been ironed out yet.

Lankford countered, insisting that the legislation’s ultimate goal is to reduce illegal crossings to zero, claiming that there is no amnesty involved and that the bill would bolster border patrol resources, increase detention capacities, and streamline the asylum process to ensure swift deportations.

Lankford: Right now, there’s Internet rumors, which is all that people are running on. It would be absolutely absurd for me to agree to 5,000 people a day. This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day. There’s no amnesty. It increases the number of border patrol agents. It increases asylum officers. It increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and then deport individuals. It ends catch and release.”

“It focuses on additional deportation flights out. It changes our asylum process so that people get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard and then get returned back to their home country. This is not about letting 5,000 people in a day. This is the most misunderstood section of this proposal.

“Let me tell you briefly what it is. In the last four months, we’ve had seven days that we had less than 5,000 people. This is set up for if you have a rush of people coming at the border, the border closes down, and no one gets in.”

“This is not someone standing at the border with a little clicker saying, I’m going to let one more in. We’re at 4,999. And then it has to stop. It is a shutdown of the border, and everyone actually gets turned around. Okay, that’s the focus that we have right now: how do we actually intervene in this administration and turn people around, not let people in?”

The bill, as described by Lankford, includes mechanisms to shut down the border in the event of a surge in crossings. Bream pressed Lankford on the nuances of this mechanism, referencing reports that the border would close only after a rolling average of 5,000 crossings over a week, with a potential for reopening.

Bream: So, there may be some initial measurement. You get to that rolling, 5000 in a week, and then it’s zero from that point on. But there is some initial measurement. Our Bill Melugin is reporting that the number would dial back then to about 3750 a day at the border. And then, once you hit that for about two weeks, the gates would open again. Can you confirm or deny that?

Lankford: Yeah, again, it’s not gates opening. That’s a misunderstanding of the bill itself. It’s about how many we can process and actually deport. When you raise the standard for people coming across, when you increase the detention beds, when you increase deportation flights, you’re not letting people in. And people are thinking about how the Biden administration is running it now.

Right now, the Biden administration is allowing, for instance, 1500 people a day just to come to the ports of entry, get a work permit, and get released into the country. People coming between ports of entry get what’s called a notice to appear and get released in the country. All of that stops. We’re focused on how many people we can process quickly and then deport out of the country, not release into the country.

It would be absolutely absurd for anyone to be able to propose something to say, “We’re just going to slow the number of releases.” We’re focused on how do we actually enforce our border and get us back to zero people actually crossing the border illegally. Every administration has struggled to be able to get the authorities in place to be able to actually enforce our border.

The interview also touched on concerns from Senator Michael Bennet regarding immediate work permits for asylum seekers. Lankford defended the bill’s stance, stressing that only those who’ve gone through a strict evaluation and are likely to be granted asylum would receive work permits.

Shannon Bream also questioned Lankford about the rationale behind presenting an immigration and foreign policy bill during an election year. She pointed out that critics of the bill argue it would allow President Biden to claim a legislative victory despite him already possessing executive powers and laws at his disposal that are not being enforced.

Bream: A lot of Republicans are saying he has things [Biden] could use now, executive powers and laws that are not being enforced. So, why give him this in an election year? The cover of this deal that critics say is still going to let a lot of people in, but he gets to take a victory lap that he’s gotten something done.

Lankford: Yeah, well, it’s definitely not going to let a bunch of people in. It’s focused on actually turning people around on it. It is interesting. Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel, and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So, we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give you money for this. We want to change in law.’ And now, it’s interesting a few months later when we’re filing it at the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding. I actually don’t want to change in law because it’s a presidential election year.’ We all have an oath to the Constitution. And we have a commitment to say we’re going to do whatever we can to be able to secure the border.

The segment sparked reactions from conservative commentator Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump Jr.

Charlie Kirk wrote, “Senator Lankford stands by the bill! One of the best things to come out of this border debate is the DC Uniparty has admitted we have the logistical capability of closing the border. It’s a choice to leave it open to invasion. We must keep emphasizing this point.”

Donald Trump Jr. wrote, “This is total BS from this RINO. Lankford is cutting a deal with Dems to fund Zelenskyy with billions, while giving a mass amnesty to illegals. That’s why we oppose his shitty deal. Anyone who supports it deserves a primary. Why is it so hard to just secure the damn border???”

Meanwhile, the Oklahoma GOP party passed a resolution on Saturday to censure U.S. Senator James Lankford for his involvement in an outrageous border security deal with Democrats.

The resolution passed with immediate effect, states that the party will withhold all support for Senator Lankford until he ceases his involvement with the proposed legislation.

WATCH:

The post Senator Lankford Defends Controversial Bill Allowing Entry to Illegal Immigrants and Funding Two Wars Thousands of Miles Away appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Trump Will Win

Trump Will Win

The fundamentals simply do not favor Biden.


Credit: Evan El-Amin

So, who really believes Joe Biden and his running dogs in the liberal media when they say things are actually OK? What tiny percentage of Americans are they talking to?

Gloom consumes America. Some 73 percent of respondents say the United States is on the wrong track, the highest portion since 1989, when that polling question was first asked. In similar polls, there’s been a prolonged downward trend in Americans’ satisfaction with the direction of the country, from a peak of 71 percent in 1999 to just 22 percent today. Biden’s 39 percent approval is the lowest of any president running for a second term a year out from the election. Inflation hit 8.9 percent. The cost of rent and food rose two or three times as much as incomes.

Truth be damned. A whole intellectual industry has developed to support Joe, making excuses as to why the dumb Americans in the heartland don’t see the glories of Bidenomics. The industry has come up with three explanations. Let’s see if they make sense.

It’s the Media, Stupid. This is part of a bigger problem, presupposing most of the American interior is made of dummies who believe everything they hear on places like talk radio. Never mind kitchen table economics; it’s all in your head, idiot.

Referral Syndrome. This hypothesis comes from the Wall Street Journal, which speculates Americans see so many mass shootings, so much immigration chaos, so many overdose deaths, and proxy wars they simply feel bad about everything (which, economy aside, does not bode well for the incumbent). So when pollsters ask their views on the economy, they get a negative response, because people just feel overwhelmingly negative.

Fatalism. Pretending the economy is just dandy wouldn’t be complete with some candy from Paul Krugman. The New York Times’ resident soothsayer claims all is well if only you could see things from the perspective of a rich New Yorker who writes gibberish for a living. Krugman also postulates Trump supporters who believe Biden stole the 2020 election are so apocalyptic they skew the whole nation’s outlook on other issues.

While the inflation rate may be declining somewhat, the cost of food and transportation is still higher than pre-Covid levels. The problem for Joe is these are not problems of perception; they are disasters surrounding real, concrete home economics. We’re left with the conclusion that the economy really may be treating the bulk of non-coastal Americans poorly, the ones for whom high mortgage interest rates mean the difference between a home of their own and scraping by to pay the (rising) rent.

It is these people who will vote Trump, or stay home, but are unlikely to vote for the Biden record on the economy. People know when they can both afford to feed the kids and pay the rent and when they cannot.

In this environment, for the first time since President Grover Cleveland’s non-consecutive run in 1892, voters face the choice of two functional incumbents, two candidates running on their recent performance in the White House. One was president during a time when wages rose faster than inflation, when the stock market was strong, when home loan rates were accessible, and one wasn’t. But it is more than dollars and common sense that will see Trump win in a fair election—it is his understanding of the America that he rode to victory in 2016 and near-victory in 2020.

Think of Hillbilly Elegy if you want to take the shortcut. Or, as another pundit put it, “Trump rode a wave of pessimism to the White House—pessimism his detractors did not share because he was speaking about, and to, an America they either didn’t see or understood only as a caricature. But just as with this year, when liberal elites insist that things are going well while overwhelming majorities of Americans say they are not, Trump’s unflattering view captured the mood of the country.”

Trump’s thesis may be truer today than it was the first time he ran on it—polls show most young people never expect to earn what their parents do now, and deaths of despair continue to rise. People tend to notice when they are doing better in an economy, and when they are not.

Immigration under Trump was simple, and matched a large number of Americans’ thoughts: We may have enough. As Trump said, “A nation without borders is not a nation at all. We must have a wall. The rule of law matters!” Yet under Biden a pattern of curtailment of immigration, thought once labeled racism, is now edging toward policy in sanctuary cities. We may have enough.

Biden, in a way, should be thanked for drawing such a stark contrast between his immigration policy and Trump’s, and what the coastal elite minority hold true and what the majority of inner Americans believe and will express by voting for Trump.

They understand that, wall hyperbole aside, enforcing borders is a requirement of nationhood. Check out the shelters and sidewalks of Manhattan and Chicago, where it is obvious Biden’s immigration policy is a failure. Trump’s message was crudely delivered but astonishingly accurate—at least to those willing to see through the former to the latter. Call him a bigot, or a racist, or even a fascist, but he was right about controlling the border. In fact, every other country in the world does so for itself.

More broadly, there are a lot of Americans who believe immigrants threaten jobs and security. They believe we should bring our troops home from places like Iraq and let other nations such as Ukraine fend for themselves. They believe Hunter and Joe Biden sold influence to Ukraine and China and they believe a deep state exists. They want education but don’t want college to be free to those who won’t repay their loans. They believe welfare encourages people to not work, and Social Security won’t be there for those who do. They want to own guns. And although they are the base, they are not alone. Trump’s backing from college-educated Republicans doubled to 60 percent over the course of last year.

Outside the mainstream media, no one is buying the “end of democracy” claim. The simplest counterargument is that if Trump does not believe in the system, why is he following its rules and campaigning? Wouldn’t a wanna-be dictator, you know, act more dictatorial?

Same for J6. Wouldn’t a proper insurrection, as opposed to a protest-turned-tantrum, have some political path toward success? The J6 “insurrectionists” simply walked back out of the Capitol building on their own, and their supposed leader, Trump, did the same with the White House two weeks later. If that was a potential end-of-democracy event, it was a pretty lame one.

If Trump wanted to be a dictator, he had four years to cement his rule; he did not, and anyone willing to think about it knows that. Rowdy dittoheads amok in the Capitol for an hour or two is not the same as tanks on the Ellipse. If anything, the use of lawfare to jail or drive an opponent off the ballot seems as undemocratic as anything else. Hypocrisy is an ugly thing to build an election strategy around.

Trump’s voters look for America and worry they see a future Brazil. Their detractors blame the Electoral College, or talk radio, or ignorance, or Putin. So are Trump’s win in 2016 and likely win in 2024 inexplicable? Try again.

The post Trump Will Win appeared first on The American Conservative.

Charter Case Challenges School Secularism

Charter Case Challenges School Secularism

A Catholic school in Oklahoma seeks to restore the American tradition of publicly funded religious schools.


Credit: PUWADON SANG

If there is one legal case that readers should be following but probably haven’t heard much (or anything) about yet, it is the case concerning St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma City. 

As you’d guess from the name, St. Isidore is a Catholic virtual school. Rather than forming as a private school, St. Isidore applied to become a publicly-funded charter school in the state of Oklahoma. As the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending the state agency that approved the school in the pending lawsuits, explains, “In Oklahoma, the Charter Schools Act allows private entities…to contract with a public sponsor and operate charter schools in the state. Although the Oklahoma Act requires charter schools to be ‘nonsectarian,’ the Free Exercise Clause requires that religious entities have the same ability to operate charter schools as nonsectarian entities.” 

The above quotation explains the terms of the legal fight ahead. Opponents of the school argue that public funding of a religious school violates the First Amendment by establishing religion with public funds. Supporters of the school respond that the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a particular religion—creating a state-sponsored church to the exclusion of other denominations—and in no way prevents the government from funding religious organizations. To exclude religious schools while funding secular schools is arguably a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment by discriminating against schools with a religious character.

While the case is fairly new, it is set to become a major, attention-grabbing legal battle that will have greater ramifications for religion in America than any case in recent memory. It is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in the next year or so. The case of St. Isidore has the potential to reverse the novel, un-American, and erroneous implementation of a “wall of separation between church and state” that has plagued this country for nearly a century.

Where does the country currently stand on public funding for religious schools? In 2023, the Supreme Court made a decision in Carson v. Makin paving the way for the St. Isidore case. In Carson, the state of Maine had a voucher program that would pay for rural families who lived far away from public schools to send their children to private schools. The program, however, excluded religious schools. The Supreme Court held that allowing vouchers for religious schools did not violate the Establishment Clause, and that paying for secular private schools but not religious schools disfavored religion and violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Carson, citing an earlier case, noted that “it is clear that there is no ‘historic and substantial’ tradition against aiding [private religious] schools….”

If the Supreme Court held that Maine’s program could not exclude religious schools from its voucher program, there is reason to hope that the same logic will be applied in the case of St. Isidore. Carson laid the groundwork for a return to the traditional American principle that there is no law preventing the public funding of religious schools and that treating private religious schools less favorably than secular ones violates the Constitution. 

There is a historical question looming behind the disagreement over St. Isidore: Does the American tradition prohibit the public funding of religious schools? The answer is clearly “no.” In fact, the very origin of publicly-funded schools is religious in nature. With the increase of Catholic immigration to the United States in the 19th century, Protestants worried about the spread of the Roman creed. The public funding of the first systematic “public schools” was a response to this. These schools were not secular: “The schools employed Protestant hymns, prayers, and the King James Bible.” There is no legitimate argument, then, that the American tradition excludes the public funding of religious schools.

Yet for over a century, American culture has moved toward secularization—and the law went with it. Since the 1940s, the interpretation of the First Amendment has continually leaned toward greater exclusion of religion from public life. 

Many Americans have accepted the secular worldview that forces religion into the purely private sphere. They have accepted the false narrative that the First Amendment means no religious activity or organization may have anything to do with public life or receive public funding. The public role of religion in the American republic has been largely forgotten in the modern world.

Thankfully, some conservatives are waking up and taking on the challenge. The St. Isidore case is a heartening example of this. Organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Initiative have banded together to provide public support and legal aid to the cause. 

Progressives have caught on to the fact that conservatives are actually refusing to cede further ground to the secular agenda and are in fact fighting back. Despite the left’s insinuations, this is not some dark conspiracy. This is simply a matter of conservative, religious, patriotic Americans putting their energy and their resources into taking a stand for the common good.

Conservatives should be bold and have hope. Religion has a place in the public conversation and the public square. Secular crusaders have been successful in rewriting the law and history regarding religion over the last century. Yet traditionally minded scholars, lawyers, and citizens are fighting back.

The post Charter Case Challenges School Secularism appeared first on The American Conservative.

Microsoft-Backed Chinese Company Works With Sanctioned Groups

Microsoft-Backed Chinese Company Works With Sanctioned Groups

Wicresoft, started in 2002 by Microsoft and the Shanghai Municipal Government, conducts business with at least three companies sanctioned by the U.S. government over national security concerns and human rights violations.

Tech giant Microsoft owns nearly a quarter of a China-based company whose clients and partners include companies sanctioned by the United States government.

As of late 2023, Microsoft owned 22 percent of Shanghai Wicresoft Co. Ltd. (Wicresoft for short), a technology services and software company that began in 2002 as a joint venture between the U.S.-based tech giant and the Shanghai Alliance Investment Co., the venture capital arm of the Shanghai Municipal Government. To get Wicresoft off the ground, Microsoft invested $4 million in exchange for 50 percent ownership of the joint venture and pledged to become the China-based company’s first client, according to a 2002 report from the Wall Street Journal.

Since then, Wicresoft’s clientele has grown. At least three of these clients, however, are sanctioned by the United States due to national security concerns and the companies’ alleged involvement in human rights violations against Uyghurs and other minorities in the Xinjiang province.

One of these Wicresoft clients is SenseTime Group Ltd., or SenseTime, a Hong Kong-based company that is “incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability,” per the company’s financial reports. SenseTime’s website claims it is “a “leading AI software company focused on creating a better AI-empowered future through innovation.” 

Since 2018, Wicresoft has been a supplier and contractor for SenseTime. A job posting from Wicresoft in December 2023 for a position related to image and video data annotation claims that Wicresoft has more than 300 consultants embedded at SenseTime, working on a wide range of projects, “from early-stage research and development to late-stage implementation.” In an article published by 51CTO in December 2022 covering the International Digital Services Conference in Shanghai, claimed Wicresoft “has accumulated product, technology and industry experience through extensive cooperation with SenseTime Technology, laying a solid foundation for artificial intelligence applications in product development and industry integration.”

SenseTime Group Ltd appears on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) sanctions list with a CMIC designation, which stands for “Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies.”

The Non-SDN Chinese Military Industrial Complex (CMIC) list began under the Trump administration with Executive Order 13959 in November of 2020. The Trump administration used the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act’s Communist Chinese Military Companies (CCMC) list to create the new sanctions program that prohibits Americans from purchasing or selling publicly traded securities of persons or entities that were involved in the “military, intelligence, and other security apparatuses” of the Chinese government. Nevertheless, a CMIC listing does not prohibit transactions that do not involve the exchange of publicly traded securities.

The Biden administration has amended the Trump-era CMIC sanctions regime, but has kept most of the program in place. In June 2021, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14032, which placed the CMIC under the authority of the Treasury Department and expanded the government’s authority to list entities that “facilitate repression or serious human rights abuse.” As of last spring, the Center for a New American Security claimed that 68 entities are on the CMIC list.

CMIC sanctions “are sanctions intended to prevent US companies, particularly technology companies, from assisting wittingly or unwittingly, the development of advanced Chinese weapons systems,” explained former Trump administration Treasury and Commerce official Adam Korzeniewski in an email to The American Conservative. “Penalties typically involve fines, but can include criminal investigations and seizures.”

The reason for the U.S. sanctions regime against China? “China develops weapon systems meant to counter U.S. capabilities, are willing to supply weapons to adversaries, and regularly conducts espionage against the U.S.,” Korzeniewski wrote.

OFAC’s records show SenseTime was listed on December 10, 2021. It described SenseTime as a “Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Company” that “operated in the surveillance technology sector of the PRC’s economy” and “developed facial recognition programs that can determine a target’s ethnicity, with a particular focus on identifying ethnic Uyghurs. When applying for patent applications, Shenzhen SenseTime Technology Co. Ltd. has highlighted its ability to identify Uyghurs wearing beards, sunglasses, and masks.”

A SenseTime subsidiary, Beijing SenseTime Technology Development Co.,  is also on the United States Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) Entity List. “The Entity List,” Korzeniewski wrote, “lists specific foreign persons—which definition can include persons, companies, organizations, associations, etc.—that require special license for export, import, and/or transfer, specifies what kind of licensure and the conditions for that business.” Not only does this business activity require U.S. government approval, but the government also restricts what is done with goods and services with U.S. origin down the line.

SenseTime Group Ltd. reports indicate that Beijing SenseTime Technology Development Co. is indeed one of its mainland-based subsidiaries, and discusses how Beijing SenseTime Technology Development Co. receives preferential corporate tax treatment from the Chinese government. A BIS rule posted in the Federal Register in October of 2019 claims that Beijing SenseTime Technology Development Co. is “implicated in human rights violations and abuses in the implementation of China’s campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention, and high-technology surveillance against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups”

Cloudwalk Technology Co. Ltd. (Cloudwalk) is another Wicresoft client that has found itself sanctioned by the CMIC and Entity List.

CloudWalk was added to the CMIC list in December 2021 for its development of technology designed to surveil ethnic minorities, including Tibetans and Uyghurs. The Treasury Department said in a December 2021 release that CloudWalk and the other targeted companies “actively support the biometric surveillance and tracking of ethnic and religious minorities in China, particularly the predominantly Muslim Uyghur minority in Xinjiang.”

“Cloudwalk has developed facial recognition software designed to track and surveil members of ethnic minority groups, including Tibetans and Uyghurs, and alert authorities if too many individuals gather in specific locations,” the Treasury Department release continued. 

In 2018, Cloudwalk entered into an agreement with the Zimbabwean government to install a mass surveillance network, which included provisions that required the Zimbabwean government to transmit data back to Cloudwalk’s operations in China so that Cloudwalk might be able to “improve the ability of its facial recognition software to recognize individuals based on skin pigmentation,” the Treasury department added.

The BIS added Cloudwalk to the Entity List in May of 2020, according to the Federal Register. Cloudwalk and six other entities, the BIS claimed, are “enabling activities contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States.” The BIS also alleged that “these entities have been implicated in human rights violations and abuses in the implementation of China’s campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention, forced labor and high-technology surveillance against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups,” just like SenseTime.

Though TAC could not determine the duration of the relationship, Wicresoft Vice President Zhang Xiaohua at a Shanghai conference in 2020 boasted about Wicresoft’s relationship with Cloudwalk. “[Wicresoft] is carrying out cutting-edge technology cooperation in various fields and directions with high-tech giants and unicorn companies such as Microsoft, Baidu, SenseTime, and CloudWalk,” a Google-translated report from China Daily paraphrasing Zhang’s remarks read.

Another Wicresoft partner, a Chinese-government-backed voice recognition and AI developer, iFlyTek, found itself on the BIS’s Entity List in October 2019 for its alleged participation in the oppression of the Uyghurs. Zhang, according to China Daily, boasted of Wicresoft’s relationship in 2020. “Wicresoft has attracted and trained a large number of technical talents and business experts, and has incubated an AI intelligent voice laboratory, which has become a highly valuable business for high-tech companies such as Tencent, Alibaba, AutoNavi, Intel, iFlytek, etc. Consulting and technical services partner,” the Google-translated report claims. 

While Zhang highlighted Wicresoft’s business with several sanctioned entities at the Shanghai conference in 2020, he boasted most of all about the company’s relationship to Microsoft. “Zhang Xiaohua said that Wicresoft and Microsoft have cooperated for nearly 20 years,” the Google-translated report from China Daily claims. “Wicresoft services have penetrated into the R&D and operation of Microsoft’s full line of technology and software products.”

“At the same time, it has fully participated in the industrial design and R&D of high-tech intelligent hardware in the Microsoft Asia Hardware Center,” China Daily continued, and has “fully participated in the establishment and management of the Shanghai laboratory, one of Microsoft’s three AI&IOT laboratories in the world.”

While the summary of the sanctions regimes above show Microsoft is not in violation of these sanctions by holding a substantial stake in Wicresoft, the proposition that Microsoft can own, create, invest in, partner with, and ultimately profit from a company that provides Microsoft-like services to sanctioned actors, which in certain cases would require Microsoft to get the approval of the U.S. government to do business with, seems quite the racket.

Microsoft, Korzeniewski claimed, is acting “against the spirit of the sanctions regime.”

Roger Robinson, the former Chairman of the Congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, told TAC, “there appears to be no question that Microsoft has deliberately averted its eyes from U.S.-sanctioned corporate human rights abusers that Wicresoft regards as valued ‘clients’, among them SenseTime, IflyTek and CloudWalk.”

Companies often avoid sanctions, Korzeniewski explained, by sometimes “using neutral, third-party entities in states allied or friendly with the U.S. and the sanctioned foreign person(s).”

“Before mass globalization of financial services in the contemporary sense,“ Korzeniewski continued, “U.S. persons would use front companies or other illicit means, like U.S. persons who helped Soviet industry in the 1920s.“

“Sanctions work with enforcement,“ Korzeniewski argued. “However, these sanctions also increase the cost of efforts to evade or find work arounds for all the parties in general. Sanctions primarily affect the behavior of U.S. persons and allied states obeying such sanctions.“ To make sanctions more effective, Korzeniewski told TAC that “sanctions must be continuously reevaluated for adherence and effectiveness. The U.S. can expand sanctions so that current work arounds no longer are acceptable.“

“Make no mistake, continuing this calloused disregard for these, and perhaps other, Chinese corporate human rights offenders implicates Microsoft’s brand and corporate reputation,” Robinson continued. “It would do well to shed its investment in Wicresoft forthwith.”

The post Microsoft-Backed Chinese Company Works With Sanctioned Groups appeared first on The American Conservative.

Trump Aide Dismisses Rumors of RFK Jr. as Potential VP Pick, Labels Report as “Fake News”

A top aide to former President Donald Trump has firmly denied recent speculations about environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. being considered as a potential vice presidential candidate.

Chris LaCivita, a senior advisor to Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, took a strong stance against the rumors, categorically ruling out any possibility of such an alliance.

The news comes following a report from The New York Post suggesting that members of Trump’s inner circle had been exploring the possibility of partnering with RFK Jr.

However, LaCivita’s recent statement has put an end to these rumors. In a post made on Saturday, he expressed his unequivocal stance on the matter.

“This is 100% FAKE NEWS – NO ONE from the Trump Campaign ever approached RFK jr (or ever will) – one of the most LIBERAL and radical environmentalists in the country. For all the fake news- update your stories,” LaCivita wrote on X.

This is 100% FAKE NEWS – NO ONE from the Trump Campaign ever approached RFK jr (or ever will) – one of the most LIBERAL and radical environmentalists in the country. For all the fake news- update your stories. https://t.co/HYBJLqSux0

— Chris LaCivita (@LaCivitaC) January 28, 2024

According to a report from The Post, ““Trump operatives expressed an interest in Kennedy early on, but it was all premature,” said one person familiar with the matter, adding that it was “right out of the box when Bobby announced” in April 2023 he was running for president. “Anything’s possible. I wouldn’t write it off by any means,” the insider continued.”

Recent polling posted at Real Clear Politics confirms that a Trump-Robert Kennedy, Jr. ticket would win over 60% of the vote. Joe Biden would be a distant second and would suffer the historic loss he deserves.

Today, America is at a crossroads. There is only one man who can lead us back to our foundation, to law and order, to a rational foreign policy, to a thriving country that respects its border.

As The Gateway Pundit reported last week, If President Trump needs to take on Robert Kennedy, Jr. to ensure a united win in November, then he should not hesitate to make that happen.

The post Trump Aide Dismisses Rumors of RFK Jr. as Potential VP Pick, Labels Report as “Fake News” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.