After destroying their “golden goose” Caitlin Clark, the WNBA produces the worst ad campaign ever.
Last week, Caitlin Clark won the most votes in the WNBA for the All-Star game but was unable to celebrate. Clark was too injured to compete.
After two years of getting hammered on the court, Clark was not able to play at the WNBA All-Star game.
Can you guys remember a star male athlete getting treated this badly by the league as a whole? Not one team, basically every team. This is year two now of this for Caitlin Clark. Not rookie hazing. So many cheap shots: pic.twitter.com/RhnuStkbzY
The WNBA has no problem with athletes in the league absolutely crushing Caitlin Clark on the court. They don’t seem to realize that Clark brought millions to the game.
When Clark is out, the viewership in the entire league is half of what it is when she is in.
The WNBA will destroy Clark and keep their welfare league rather than experience the benefits of having Clark in the league.
The WNBA will destroy the ice princess to protect the obscure welfare league that it’s become comfortable with. They’d rather destroy Caitlin Clark than experience her benefits. pic.twitter.com/06lvejMHYF
Some are calling for Caitlin Clark to start a new league.
Caitlin Clark should leave the WNBA and start her own league. Give other top players small equity stakes. The players could own the league in conjunction with media partners. It’s a no brainer, honestly. She’s worth more than entire WNBA: pic.twitter.com/CexKTlyWkM
On Thursday President Trump toured the renovation of the Federal Reserve Building in Washington DC with Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
The cost of the renovations of the building complex has ballooned from by over one billion dollars since the project was started, from $1.9 billion to over $3.1 billion.
Almost immediately after President Trump paused in front of the cameras, he called Powell out for going more than one billion over budget. “The 2.7 is now 3.1 [billion],” Trump said.
Powell disagreed and interrupted, saying, “I’m not aware of that.” That’s when Trump pulled out the receipts with a document from the Fed.
Powell then tried to argue with Trump and say he’s wrong because Trump included a building that was “part of the overall” renovation, said Trump.
Powell said he does not expect additional cost overruns, but “we’re ready for them,” and “we have a little bit of a reserve that we may use.”
“We expect to be finished in 2027,” he added.
Watch the exchange below:
Following this humiliating exchange with Fed Chair Powell, reporters met with top Trump finance officials outside of the building complex.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins challenged the Trump officials on the total costs on the Federal Reserve renovation project.
This was a mistake.
After Jay Powell contradicted President Trump on the cost of the Federal Reserve renovations, I asked Trump’s budget chief and deputy chief of staff about the numbers: pic.twitter.com/PU2DQpdQL0
President Trump’s OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta later produced the goods for the fake news media.
According to Mark Paoletta,
“President Trump is 100% correct in the numbers he used on his tour of Federal Reserve (FRB) site yesterday.
FRB documents show FRB 2022 Budget (below) adopted in November 2021 was $1.4 Billion for the Eccles & 1951 Building portion of the FRB HQ project and a total budget for all three buildings comprising the FRB HQ (including the Martin building) of $1.8 Billion.
FRB 2025 Budget (below) shows costs for Eccles and 1951 are now $2.5 billion – a more than $1 Billion cost overrun for the current project (all incurred after Trump 45) and bringing the total cost of the Fed’s HQ renovation for all three buildings to $3.1 billion.
President Trump visited the FRB to try to encourage Jerome Powell to finish this job without any more cost overruns and to get it done quickly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Mark included these two projections.
The project was originally approved to cost $2.4 billion.
The project today is costing over $3.1 billion as Trump stated yesterday during his on camera confrontation of Jerome Powell.
Powell was not honest with the public. Jerome Powell is a disaster and has to go!
Here is Mark Paoletta’s tweet fact-checking CNN hack Kaitlan Collins.
President Trump is 100% correct in the numbers he used on his tour of Federal Reserve (FRB) site yesterday.
FRB documents show FRB 2022 Budget (below) adopted in November 2021 was $1.4 Billion for the Eccles & 1951 Building portion of the FRB HQ project and a total budget for… https://t.co/54IzoACGhlpic.twitter.com/yRZ8iGWBAV
President Trump speaks to reporters at the White House. Photo by Jordan Conradson.
President Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday that he believes Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell will finally recommend lowering the interest rates, following his visit to the Fed’s DC headquarters, where he met with Powell on Thursday.
The Gateway Pundit reported on a fiery exchange between Trump and Powell where the Fed Chairman tried to argue with Trump in front of the cameras.
Powell said he does not expect additional cost overruns, but “we’re ready for them,” and “we have a little bit of a reserve that we may use.”
President Trump spoke to reporters at the White House on Friday before departing for Turnberry, Scotland, where he plans to spend the weekend at his Trump golf courses.
“I think we had a very good meeting,” the President said, noting that Powell’s building renovation is “out of control.”
“He said, ‘congratulations, the country is doing really well.’ And I got that to mean that I think he’s going to start recommending lower rates.“
The 12-member Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will meet next week, on July 29 and 30, to discuss policy decisions, including whether or not to lower interest rates.
WATCH:
Trump: I think that Jerome Powell– I think we had a very good meeting. Forgetting about the building, that’s out of control. But I think we had a very good meeting on interest rates, and he said to me– now, I don’t know if he’s going to say this on Thursday, but he said to me very strongly, “the country is doing well.” He said, “congratulations, the country is doing really well.” And I got that to mean that I think he’s going to start recommending lower rates.
The FOMC meeting comes as Jerome Powell also faces a lawsuit by investment firm Azoria Capital, arguing that FOMC meetings are illegally closed to the public and seeking to bar the FOMC from closing its next meeting.
Azoria Capital CEO and founder James Fishback told Fox Business, “The public deserves to know what’s going on, and hiding behind an exemption as an excuse is unacceptable, and in our case, it is illegal.”
“If the FOMC’s July 29-30, 2025, meeting is allowed to proceed in secret, it will unlawfully deprive Azoria and the American public of timely access to deliberations that may reveal improper political motives behind the FOMC’s decisions,” a draft of the lawsuit reads. It also outlines concerns that the Fed “is maintaining high interest rates to undermine President Donald J. Trump and his economic agenda.”
(Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message below and working with them through the links below which benefits Gateway Pundit. We appreciate your support!)
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr set the internet ablaze when a video surfaced of him using methylene blue while on a flight.
Methylene blue is just now getting widespread attention, however, according to The New York Post:
In recent years, celebrities, wellness influencers and biohackers have touted methylene blue for several off-label uses, claiming it can boost energy levels and metabolism, enhance cognitive function and combat aging — though evidence remains limited.
Early research suggests that methylene blue may have antioxidant properties that help reduce toxic proteins in the brain, potentially aiding in the prevention of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Some studies also indicate that the drug may help delay skin aging by stimulating the production of collagen and elastin, reducing cellular damage and promoting wound healing.
WHAT IS METHYLENE BLUE?
First used in the 1800s as a textile dye, visionary physician Paul Ehrlich discovered methylene blue’s antimicrobial properties against malaria—making this the first synthetic drug in modern medicine. Today, this century-old compound is FDA-approved for methemoglobinemia (a condition in which the blood can’t carry oxygen properly) but has garnered renewed interest for its off-label applications, particularly in enhancing mitochondrial function, combating neurodegenerative diseases, and as adjunct treatment of long COVID.
How methylene blue works and its “off-label” uses:
Energy Backup:Methylene blue acts like a “backup generator” for your cells’ energy factories (mitochondria). When part of the energy production line (specifically “Complex I”) breaks down—due to toxins, disease, or aging—methylene blue moves electrons directly to later stages of the energy-making process, allowing cells to keep producing energy (ATP) even when parts of the system are damaged.
Oxidative Stress Reduction:It acts like a molecular sponge, soaking up harmful molecules called reactive oxygen species (ROS) that damage cells. By neutralizing these destructive molecules, it reduces oxidative stress—a key contributor to aging and diseases like Alzheimer’s. It also blocks caspase-6, an enzyme that drives brain inflammation and kills neurons in Alzheimer’s patients. Think of it as a two-in-one protector: it calms oxidative damage while stopping the enzyme that fuels brain cell death.
Promising Off-Label Applications:
Neurodegenerative diseases:Low doses enhance cerebral metabolism, improving outcomes in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s models. It also reduces swelling in traumatic brain injury victims.
Chronic fatigue and Long COVID:Due to its ability to reduce oxidative stress and promote mitochondrial function, methylene blue shows promise in relieving long COVID symptoms.
Septic shock and vasoplegic syndrome:By inhibiting nitric oxide synthase, it restores vascular tone.
RECHARGE your cells with the first-ever combination of Methylene Blue and Urolithin A. Experience enhanced cognitive function and ultimate mitochondrial health.
From sharper thinking to stronger cells, Methylene Blue enhances how your brain and body perform by enhancing mental clarity and focus, supporting blood flow, and increasing ATP production.
Urolithin A promotes healthy aging by activating mitophagy. Mitophagy helps the body to recycle and rebuild mitochondria (the powerhouses of your cells) and enhances the benefits of Methylene Blue.
Note: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice or used as a substitute for professional healthcare guidance. It is your responsibility to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines regarding the purchase, possession, and use of prescription medications.
The Deep State house of cards is collapsing — and DNI Tulsi Gabbard just lit the match.
During an interview on OANN with former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused the Obama Administration and its loyal media mouthpieces of orchestrating and perpetuating a “historic lie” to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidency before it even began.
As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier this week, Gabbard’s second explosive document release contains indisputable evidence: Barack Obama not only knew the Russia Collusion narrative was bogus — he ordered it.
The so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), rushed out in January 2017, was a politically motivated hit job — a fabricated intelligence document, pushed by CIA Director John Brennan, and blessed by Obama himself — designed to frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset.
During a surprise appearance at Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s briefing, Gabbard called out the media to their faces:
TULSI: “I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I’m asking you in the media to conduct honest journalism — and for the American people to see for yourselves.”
But instead of owning up to their role in pushing Obama’s fake narrative, the so-called “mainstream” media scrambled to bury the truth.
CNN’s Response? PANIC. The network infamously known for breathlessly reporting the Steele dossier and pushing the Russia hoax cut the feed as Gabbard detailed Obama’s criminal involvement.
TULSI: “I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I’m asking you in the media to conduct honest journalism and the American people to see for yourselves…”
In a follow-up interview with Rep. Matt Gaetz on OANN, Gabbard pulled no punches.
MATT GAETZ: It’s been several days since your monumental release of documents tying President Obama, his CIA director, and his DNI to Russia hoax fabrications. What do you think so far about the public’s reaction and the media’s reaction?
TULSI GABBARD: Well, I think a lot of the public—first of all, thanks for having me on your show, Matt—I think we’ve seen a lot of people, if you look across social media, those who’ve been following this closely, they’re not surprised at the revelation. But we are surprised, I think, that we have found the evidence that proves that this Obama-led intelligence community assessment was a contrived document, knowingly made using fake or substandard intelligence, in order to drive this conclusion that President Obama wanted to see—which was that Russia helped Donald Trump get elected in 2016, or at least aspired to.
This directly contradicted every other intelligence community assessment—every other assessment that came from the intelligence community for the last several months prior, both before the 2016 election as well as immediately after.
But I want to focus here on the media’s response, because this has been really what is most striking. When you look at outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Politico—you’ll see in these outlets either total and complete silence, or, for those choosing to cover it, they are not actually pointing to the documents and the revelations that were released—that we released last week and this week—exposing the truth about this manufactured intelligence assessment.
Instead, they’re saying, “Oh, well, President Obama’s office says this is bizarre,” or focusing on these other issues that have nothing to do with the core, very disturbing revelation that we released. That, frankly, has to do not with Democrats or Republicans—but with the integrity of our democratic republic. It’s a serious issue that should concern every American. It should concern every serious news outlet.
I can only conflate their silence or attempts at misdirection as one thing: they’re afraid to tell the truth. Because if they tell the truth, they’ll have to remind the American people that over those four years—both during President Trump’s election, after the election, and in the years of President Trump’s first administration—they furthered the lie. They printed what the deep state actors in the intelligence community—and the John Brennans and James Clappers of the world—told them to print. Some even won Pulitzer Prizes for it.
In order for them to cover this honestly and objectively—and simply report the truth that we released in these documents—they would also have to admit their culpability in furthering this historic, historic, historic lie.
WATCH:
Director of National Intelligence @DNIGabbard believes the media printed the lies pushed by the Obama Administration to further the contrived narrative that Russia meddled in the 2016 Election to help Trump. Now, the media is silent because they know in covering the truth they… pic.twitter.com/CuBuVc37HD
Christine Zenino from Chicago, US, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Glacier retreat is one of the concepts often used to support the climate crisis narrative.
However, while there is clear evidence that glaciers have been retreating over the past 70 years, and according to NOAA, global average temperatures have risen approximately 1.1°C since the late 1800s, this does not, in itself, prove the existence of a climate crisis.
Globally, the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) reports over 30 meters of cumulative ice loss among long-term reference glaciers since 1950, with annual losses exceeding 1 meter water equivalent in recent years.
NOAA data shows glacier loss rates increased from -171 mm per year in the 1980s to -889 mm per year in the 2010s.
The WGMS currently tracks about 60 climate reference glaciers across 19 mountain regions, supported by field data from 500 glaciers and satellite data from approximately 200,000 more.
Although most glaciers have been retreating since the 1950s, glaciers naturally advance and retreat over time. Many glaciers were advancing from the 1950s to 1970s due to cooler conditions, and most reached their maximum extent during the Little Ice Age in the 1800s.
While glacier retreat is well documented, whether it constitutes a “climate crisis” is far less certain.
Glaciers have naturally advanced and retreated for centuries due to climate variability, making it difficult to treat current trends as uniquely alarming. The global average temperature rise of approximately 1.1°C since the 1800s is relatively modest and not unprecedented in paleoclimate records.
Regional impacts of glacier melt also vary, some areas may face reduced water availability, while others may benefit from increased runoff.
Many human and ecological systems have the capacity to adapt, further complicating the crisis narrative.
Ultimately, labeling glacier retreat a crisis depends on subjective judgments about risk, urgency, and acceptable change. Research on normative science supports this view, showing that value-laden conclusions are often framed as empirical findings, what Former EPA scientist Robert Lackey terms “stealth policy advocacy.”
The very term “climate crisis” embeds a normative judgment, implying unproven assumptions about human causation, moral obligation, and the urgency of intervention.
Funding structures that reward alarming portrayals of climate data reinforce these assumptions, turning scientific inquiry into institutional advocacy for predetermined policy goals.
For scientific researchers, there are clear economic incentives to support the climate crisis narrative.
According to the Heritage Foundation, federal funding for climate change research rose from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This funding structure creates strong financial motivation to frame findings in ways that support crisis-driven policy.
Lackey identifies this trend as a form of “normative science”, information developed or interpreted based on an assumed, often unstated, preference for particular policy outcomes.
He warns that public policy issues are frequently presented as purely scientific questions, without acknowledging the underlying value judgments embedded in the framing.
Climate change, he notes, is a prominent example of this phenomenon. Supporting this concern, researchers Wojick and Michaels found that federal funding exerts systematic influence on research outcomes, where the prospect of funding influences the result in a way that benefits the funder.
As a result, scientific claims often rest on embedded assumptions that cannot be empirically tested but still shape the direction of policy and public perception.
According to research on funding patterns, funding bodies operate on several unexamined premises, such as the assumption that climate change constitutes a “crisis” requiring intervention – but this represents a subjective value judgment about what constitutes an acceptable versus unacceptable state of nature.
No empirical science can determine what climate conditions “should” exist.
The climate crisis narrative assumes that human behavior is both the primary cause of and solution to climate change. It presupposes that climate change is a problem, that human intervention is both possible and desirable, and that humanity has a moral obligation to alter natural climate systems.
This framework embeds a series of philosophical and political positions, namely, that climate change is inherently harmful, that it can be controlled by human action, and that such control is necessary, while presenting these normative assumptions as if they were scientific conclusions.
The funding structure reinforces this by institutionalizing value-laden premises under the guise of objective research.
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a nonprofit known for challenging climate crisis narratives, reported “If a young climate researcher wants to build a career today, their chances of getting government funding for their research proposals is directly proportional to how seriously they portray the threat of global warming.”
The interaction between funding structures, institutional pressure, and the framing of climate science directly influences how glacier retreat is interpreted.
In congressional testimony, Dr. Judith Curry described “enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus,” driven by federal funding agencies, universities, and professional societies, amounting to institutional enforcement of specific assumptions.
This pressure shapes how data, including glacier melt, is presented and understood. Critics argue that even funding categories reflect this bias.
As David Wojick noted, “The CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] paradigm says the warming is mostly due to the carbon cycle.
The natural variability paradigm says it may be largely due to solar cycles,” yet funding structures overwhelmingly support the former while marginalizing the latter.
When only one paradigm receives institutional backing, the interpretation of glacier retreat as evidence of a climate crisis becomes not just a scientific assessment, but a product of selective support and constrained debate.
After the International Court of Justice ruled this week that countries are required to cut emissions in the name of climate change, the White House gave a simple reply: “America first.”
Any decision from the court is non-binding, but far-left advocates are hopeful it will cause a chain reaction, leading to “domestic lawsuits” and “other legal actions,” according to the Associated Press.
The case was reportedly brought before the United Nations’ highest court by small island countries, seeking to force international standards onto larger governments.
When Axios reached out to the White House Monday regarding potential penalties the United States could face, the response was direct.
“As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans,” Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement.
Spot on. We cannot be sucked into global affairs — and follow edicts from other countries — as we rebuild our own domestic infrastructure.
Hence, Trump’s move to withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords — something he’d already done in his first term, but had to do again after former President Joe Biden reversed it.
“[The ICJ case] specifically calls out the responsibility of industrialized nations to take the lead in limiting emissions,” Axios reported.
Are we supposed to believe that countries like China and Russia are going to have their feet held to the fire on pollution? The target seems to be the United States. Why? Because we have far-left lawmakers willing to throw trillions of dollars at an issue that hasn’t even been fully settled.
First, it was “global warming” because the polar caps were melting, setting up an ice age. Then the argument shifted to temperatures getting hotter, and the phrase was switched to climate change. Every time a doomsday event was predicted, it got pushed off. “The Day After Tomorrow” never came. That’s red flag number one.
Red flag number two is the potential money-laundering aspect. After laundering tactics were exposed inside the USAID by Elon Musk’s DOGE team, what’s to stop climate change funding from being used as a personal piggy bank?
During the Obama years, the firm Solyndra had the federal government cosign a loan for over $500 million in solar technology before it went under, Forbes reported.
The same Forbes piece highlighted how several similar firms were given hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, yet they all failed. Where did the money go?
Even CNN had to admit earlier this month that Americans are less concerned with climate change than they have been in years.
CNN’s chief data analyst Harry Enten showed a poll that asked: “Are Americans afraid of climate change?
“And the answer is: Americans aren’t afraid of climate change,” he said, citing network data going back decades. “Climate activists have not successfully made the case to the American people.”
The numbers showed that people who are ‘greatly worried about climate change’ was initially going up, but then it took a massive dip in 2025. The percentage went all the way down to levels from the year 2000.
When asked if climate change would have an “effect on my home area,” only 17 percent of all adults said yes, with Democrats polling at a mere 27 percent. Independents were even lower at 16 percent, and Republicans were at 6 percent.
“This is across the aisle in terms of the percentage,” Enten added. “They may worry about it in the abstract, but when it comes to their own lives, they don’t worry.”
Environmental regulations are important for clean air, clear skies, and fresh water — but not at the expense of accountability and national autonomy.
Especially when it has devolved into a cult-like religion, where extremists are willing to perpetrate violence to get their way.
Americans are tired of the preaching. They’re tired of the alarmism. But most importantly, they’re tired of having their pockets picked when so many other issues need the country’s undivided attention.
During the 2016 Presidential Election we were chastised for reporting on Hillary’s poor health. This week DNI Tulsi Gabbard provided evidence that we were absolutely spot on.
(One of my first posts at TGP was a story of Hillary taking off weekends.) On August 15, 2016 we reported that Hillary was taking weekends off while candidate Trump was a machine.
By reviewing the activities of Presidential candidates Trump and Clinton a new phenomenon has appeared. While Trump continues to smash Clinton in attendance at events, Hillary appears to have decided to take weekends off.
Clinton took the weekend of August 6th and 7th off and she decided to take three days off this past weekend August 12th through 14th. She also has no events scheduled to participate in this coming Thursday through Saturday August 18th through 20th. This in essence would mean another three days off after three days of events scheduled starting today. In total Clinton has taken 7 days off in August out of the first 14 days and is scheduled to continue with this approach through at least this coming Saturday.
Donald Trump on the other hand has taken only two days off in August, Sunday August 7th and Sunday the 14th. Trump has 7 days where he has participated in more than one campaign event.
This article was the top story in the country as it appeared on Drudge as the headline. (This was back when Drudge led the news cycle and before it turned far-left radical.)
This led to more and more reporting on Hillary’s horrible health culminating in reports of a doctor traveling with her and Hillary needing help up stairs and more leading up to 9-11.
On that day Hillary left an event at Ground Zero and got up and mysteriously walked out with what appeared to be a doctor. A citizen reporter caught what happened next on his cell phone.
Now we know why Hillary really fell out and had to be tossed into that van
It’s been revealed that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton was on strong tranquilizers for psycho-emotional problems and was suffering from ischemic heart disease. pic.twitter.com/6AFZtON1fq
Earlier this week, DNI Gabbard shared that the media lied about Hillary’s health. She was as bad off as we reported.
Gabbard reported that “DNC emails that detail evidence of Hillary’s ‘psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness,’ and … a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers.”
.@DNIGabbard: The House report details information Russia had on Hillary Clinton, including “DNC emails that detail evidence of Hillary’s ‘psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness,’ and … a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers.” pic.twitter.com/k3a77dMiHg
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 23, 2025
The media seemingly lies about everything and has done so for years.
The war made Zelensky famous – and the corruption of the Kiev regime made him infamous.
The mainstream media – and people who give credence to their reporting – live in an upside-down world.
Take Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky, for example: described as a ‘new Winston Churchill’, a heroic figure of nearly mythological standing.
In real life, Zelensky is a ‘president’ whose mandate ended more than a year ago, who leads a via martial law a regime packed with real-life Nazis, rampant corruption, censure of the press, outlawing of opposition parties, arresting or exiling popular opponents… the list goes on – and don’t even get us started with his widely rumored substance abuse.
Now, all of a sudden, the world’s MSM is slowly but surely turning a cold shoulder to the ‘moderately successful comedian’.
The reason is simple: the Kiev regime was reportedly on the verge of being struck by corruption investigations targeting the close circle around Zelensky.
So, they fast-tracked a bill defanging the anti-corruption agencies NABU and SAPO, subjecting them to the control of the Presidency via the prosecutor general.
Everyone and their uncle came public to protest, including the European Union and the US.
Watch: Trump once again suggests US military aid funds to Ukraine were stolen.
Trump suspects that Kyiv has misused the funds provided by the Biden administration for arms purchases.
Listen to this bit: “Biden gave away $350 billion worth of equipment or cash, worse than equipment, cash. So, we want to find out about that someday, I guess, right? But they were supposed to buy their own equipment, but I have a feeling they didn’t spend every dollar on the equipment, but they are brave.”
And the subservient press also felt free to unleash on the Kiev regime.
Politico reported on the ‘insidious and corrosive adversary from within — the country’s own semi-autocratic leadership’.
“This is what opposition lawmakers and civil society activists have been arguing for months, as Ukraine’s presidential administration has been grabbing more power, weakening other governing and regional institutions — including the country’s parliament — while also intimidating critics in a bid to silence them with hue-and-cry campaigns or by labeling them as Russian stooges.
They say the extent of this democratic backsliding became clearer this week after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gutted Ukraine’s two key anti-corruption agencies, which had been zeroing in on top government officials. The move prompted the first country-wide street protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022.
In Kyiv, hundreds of protesters gathered near the presidential complex while crowds of veterans, active-duty soldiers and civilians gathered in dozens of other towns, including Lviv and the frontline cities of Odesa and Dnipro. Despite the rallies, Zelenskyy approved the new law, which will hand substantial authority over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) to the politically appointed prosecutor general.”
Several men wearing MILITARY UNIFORMS show up at Kiev protest tonight
They’re holding banners calling Zelensky and his right-hand man Yermak “murderers of democracy” and “traitors to Ukraine”
Reuters lionized the young protesters against Zelensky:
“Their energy has created a festival-like atmosphere tinged with focused anger outside the office of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, whose image as a tireless wartime leader has been tarnished by his moves to curb anti-corruption agencies.
‘I think now that I’m 18, I have a certain responsibility’, Morhun, a native of eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk, said late on Wednesday amid the din of a second night of the biggest protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.”
“My father didn’t die for this!”
A young Ukrainian protests in Kiev against Zelenskys increasingly despotic Dictatorship. pic.twitter.com/HGkLvtRGgB
And an opinion piece in The Telegraph calls for Zelensky to resign – something unthinkable even a few weeks ago.
“A new Ukrainian president would mark a reset moment – especially if he or she was ready to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine, a key demand of the Kremlin’s and, ironically enough, also of the EU.
Zelensky has played an epic role in saving his country from destruction. Now there is a danger of his imitating his corrupt predecessors, and he should step aside, for Ukraine’s sake.”
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Finally, it appears that Zelensky has capitulated to the protests and the pressure from the West, and canceled his own anti-corruption reforms.
“Bill 13533, presented by Zelensky as urgent, restores all procedural powers and guarantees the independence of NABU and SAP, reports the anti-corruption bureau.
The bill submitted by Zelensky states that the Prosecutor General and his deputies have no right to give instructions to SAP prosecutors. It also says that SAP employees report only to the head of SAP and his deputies.
According to the bill, the Prosecutor General is prohibited from giving instructions to NABU detectives.
[…] All the provisions that were canceled by the bill adopted by the Rada on Tuesday, signed by Zelensky himself, have been restored.”
