Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by Kevin Roberts via The Epoch Times,

The Republican establishment doesn’t know it yet, but last weekend was a watershed moment for their party.

On April 20, House Republican leadership facilitated passage of a foreign-aid package that sends roughly $60 billion to Ukraine, $26 billion to Israel and Gaza, $8 billion to Taiwan, and exactly zero dollars to the southern border. The bill has since passed the Democrat-led Senate and was signed by President Joe Biden.

The vote will be remembered for the choice Republican leadership made to brazenly reject its own voters in favor of the “uniparty” in Washington, DC.

In a move that can only be described as “McConnell-esque,” House Republican leadership teamed up with Democrats to overrule the position of their own conference, their voters, and the will of the American people. Democrats on the House Rules Committee made an unprecedented move by crossing the party line and overruling Republican opposition in committee, signaling an end to the typically Democrat versus Republican battle and the beginning of the conservative versus “uniparty” war.

The disconnect between the Swamp and small-town America could not be more profound. How can a political party be so tone-deaf to the plight of the everyday American suffering under inflation, crime, and societal rot? How can a Republican-led House prioritize the borders of another country over our own border, even as American citizens are killed by illegal immigrants? How can so-called fiscally responsible Republicans sign off on what is now $174 billion in direct Ukraine aid with a national debt of $34 trillion, more than $250,000 for every American household? And how can House Speaker Mike Johnson, who had pledged repeatedly that no foreign-aid legislation would advance without first securing the border, so quickly be steamrolled by the Establishment?

In their desire to send billions of dollars to a conflict that our commander-in-chief has still, to this day, offered no plan for winning, the GOP’s leadership not only spurned their party’s own supporters but overlooked an opportunity to appeal to independent Americans frustrated by both political parties.

According to recent polling that The Heritage Foundation conducted with RMG Research, an overwhelming three out of four swing voters opposed sending any additional aid to Ukraine without also allocating funds for our own border. A majority (56 percent) of swing voters in key battleground states thought that the $113 billion the United States had already committed to Ukraine was too much.

The entire Heritage enterprise fought for over a year and half on this issue. Heritage Action engaged our millions of grassroots members to voice their concerns to their representatives. Scholars at The Heritage Foundation presented a national security alternative package that included limited military aid to Ukraine but made border security the central focus. In an unprecedented move, we even issued a “key vote” on our legislative scorecard against Speaker Johnson’s convoluted rule, which was a gimmick that lowered the threshold to a simple majority (not a supermajority under suspension) and provided political cover for members to vote against individual pieces without jeopardizing the package.

Powerful interests were aligned against us, however, and we lost on the day. Though we lost this battle, all signs indicate that we are winning the war for the soul of the GOP. A majority (112) of Republicans voted against Ukraine aid on April 20. Younger and newer members are particularly fed up with leadership’s conciliatory approach and manipulative tactics that have led us to this point. The average age of the Senate Republicans who voted “nay” is 59, while the average age of those who voted “yea” is 66. The average “nay” vote has been in office since just 2016, while the average “yea” vote has been in Washington since 2010. The same dynamic was true with the recent $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill.

This generational shift can be ignored by the “uniparty,” but it’s not going away. Newer, younger representatives want a choice, not an echo, and increasingly they’re adopting a populist form of conservatism that champions “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” above all else. In other words, they want a GOP that puts America first, something a government in any healthy republic would do. They want a GOP that acknowledges the reality that America is a nation in decline but is not yet too late to save.

As Ronald Reagan said in his 1980 address accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention, “For those who have abandoned hope, we'll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!”

And that brings us to the importance of this year’s election.

In 2016, despite staunch opposition from the GOP leadership, Donald Trump rejected the Washington consensus and initiated a generational realignment in American politics. If the conservative movement leans into the politics and policies President Trump made successful, the American people will again have the opportunity this fall to accelerate a new consensus in Washington, DC. This is why I remain optimistic about the future of our great nation.

The GOP establishment’s actions this past week portend the end of the GOP establishment, not its survival. Conservatives will win the soul of the GOP and with it the hearts of the American people.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Dexter Taylor, a software engineer and resident of Brooklyn, NY, took on gunsmithing as a hobby during the Covid-19 lockdowns.  He was already familiar with machining and found himself fascinated by the project, so he set out to learn the skills needed.  Taylor researched ATF rules regarding the building of firearms and wanted to follow them carefully.  Sadly, however, the state of New York has its own laws which leftist governments believe supersede federal law and the Constitution.  

Because Taylor was apparently not officially licensed as a gunsmith in NY, authorities decided to raid his home and arrest him for possession of gun parts (including 80% lowers) which are legal federally but require a smithing certificate in the state (a legal gray area which is being contested).  Taylor was easy to find because he purchased all the parts with his own credit cards thinking he was protected under ATF rules.

ATF rules state that the building of guns for personal use including 80% lowers and related parts is legal as long as the person does not build those weapons to sell.     

Taylor's lawyer, Vinoo Varghese, noted that the case is a difficult one in New York, hinting at the leftist bias within NY courtrooms when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.  In fact, Varghese suggested that when Judge Abena Darkeh took over the case she was oddly hostile towards the defense.  He mentions that she interrupted his opening statements multiple times, claiming that he could not use 2nd Amendment arguments in her courtroom:

"She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'"

Of course, the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights surpasses the authority of the State of New York and the courtroom of Judge Abena Darkeh.  New York progressives might like to think their state is a separate country from the US with its own rules, but it's not.  It's clear that this is a situation in which an activist judge is seeking to make an example out of a law abiding citizen with no previous criminal record.  The goal is to send a message that blue states are going to fabricate their own rules when it comes to gun rights regardless of constitutional precedent. 

Varghese hints in a recent interview that the Judge is married to the "biggest fundraiser" for the Brooklyn DA, which may present a conflict of interest.  Also, Joe Biden has made the issue of "Ghost Guns" a primary target for his administration the past few years.  To date, the use of ghost guns in criminal acts in the US is statistically negligible.  It's simply not a problem that needs the attention of the White House. 

NEW: Brooklyn man convicted over his gunsmithing hobby after the judge says that the 2nd Amendment 'doesn't exist in this courtroom'

‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.' - Judge… pic.twitter.com/cgfPO4ANnm

The defense also asserted that the Judge pressured the jury to come back with a guilty verdict, which they did, convicting Taylor of a list of offenses including: 

Second-degree criminal possession of a loaded weapon, four counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, five counts of criminal possession of a firearm, second-degree criminal possession of five or more firearms, unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, violation of certificate of registration, prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers.  Two lesser charges, including third-degree criminal possession of three or more firearms and third-degree possession of a weapon, were not voted on.

Keep in mind that in the vast majority of states in the US all of these charges sound ridiculous.  Possession of a loaded weapon?  Unlawful possession of pistol ammunition?  What?

Taylor now faces 10-18 years in prison and he awaits sentencing in Rikers Island, one of the worst prisons in the country.  The case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court, where a number of gun cases involving 80% lowers are awaiting decision.  New York's habit of punishing good people while letting criminals go free is becoming an epidemic, and it's likely a primary reason why the state is now suffering a net loss of hundreds of thousands of residents every year.     

US officials are deeply alarmed at new reports that China is greatly expanding its economic, diplomatic, and possibly even military presence in the island paradise region of the Caribbean, just off America's doorstep. 

Newsweek says it has in its possession leaked documents which show China has established a sprawling economic zone and outpost on Antigua and Barbuda, and has "secured privileges that resemble those of a small state."

This means that from this location lying just 220 miles from the US Virgin Islands, Beijing could expand its espionage capabilities, akin to what is already happening in nearby Cuba, where China is in negotiations with the Cuban government to establish a new joint military training facility on the island.

Image via US State Department

United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which is based in Doral, Florida (near Miami) and oversees US operations and security in Central and South America and the Caribbean, says that China is likely using its state-owned enterprises to conduct intelligence-gathering, just as in other parts of the world.

"Given the breadth of investment into logistics infrastructure China has made in the Caribbean, we are concerned that China could task its state-owned enterprises and diaspora to conduct intelligence or influence operations against the U.S. and our partners in the region for military purposes," SOUTHCOM said in a statement.

"Those concerns are further heightened when you consider the Chinese Communist Party's practice of targeting, recruiting and bribing officials," it continued.

The leaked corporate documents reviewed by Newsweek indicate the following:

This natural paradise on the island of Antigua, where officials will study the thoughts of Xi Jinping, is about to be razed for a Chinese-run special economic zone. According to documents reviewed by Newsweek it will have its own customs and immigration formalities, a shipping port and a dedicated airline and will be able to issue passports. It will establish businesses offering everything from logistics to cryptocurrencies, facial surgery to "virology."

Already this has had a chilling effect in some places locally:

Increasingly, people were afraid to speak out about the flourishing relationship especially if they did business through the China-built shipping port in St. John's, she told Newsweek: "Everybody feels like their testicles are in a vise; that if you say the wrong thing, if you align yourself the wrong way, you're putting yourself in danger," Isaac said. "At night, I switch on my alarm and say my prayers."

"China, its state-owned companies and aligned private businesses are expanding rapidly in the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda and in other Caribbean countries in this strategic region long known as 'America’s third border,' according to a Newsweek investigation of government and corporate documents as well as interviews with Antiguan leaders," the publication continued.

PM Gaston Browne of Antigua meets with President Xi Jinping in Beijing, January 2024. handout

But Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne has rejected Newsweek's reporting as follows: "This cold war rhetoric going back to the relationship between the USSR and the USA, they are now trying to create and trying to use this sensational speculation that the PRC (People’s Republic of China) is now trying to use Antigua and Barbuda as a base.

"This is utter nonsense,” Browne continued while emphasizing "we will never ever enter into any arrangement with any country to hurt another. Much less to hurt a country like the United States in which we are so dependent on their tourism, we are dependent on their trade and investment." He added: "It will be like hurting ourselves. So protecting the US is protecting our own national interest."

Some analysts have speculated that China's interest in the Caribbean is related to the standoff over Taiwan and that Beijing wishes to counterbalance the global geopolitical chessboard. For example, the level of US military and intelligence infrastructure in place across the South China Sea and among Washington's regional allies not far off China's coast, even firmly entrenched on the island of Taiwan, are already immense and growing. For American national security officials, Monroe Doctrine assumptions are still alive and well, and deeply ingrained. It appears Beijing is significantly challenging that.

Authored by Joseph M. Hanneman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

John Earle Sullivan, the onetime racial-justice activist and provocateur who filmed the deadly shooting of Ashli Babbitt at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was sentenced to six years in federal prison by a judge in Washington D.C.

Activist John Earle Sullivan reacts to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt that he filmed outside the Speaker's Lobby at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Sam Montoya/Special to The Epoch Times)

Mr. Sullivan, 29, of Tooele, Utah, did not receive the 87 months recommended by federal prosecutors for his role on Jan. 6. But his 72-month sentence was well beyond the 30 months his defense attorney recommended.

The sentence meted out on April 26 by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth brought to a close the more than three-year prosecution of Mr. Sullivan, one of the most recognizable Jan. 6 figures. He was arrested on Jan. 14, 2021—one of the first Jan. 6 suspects taken into custody by the FBI.

Judge Lamberth sentenced Mr. Sullivan to serve two years of supervised release after his prison term and ordered him to pay $2,520 in restitution and special assessments.

Mr. Sullivan came to the Jan. 6 events in Washington trailed by filmmaker Jade Sacker, who has since published a documentary about the liberal Mr. Sullivan and his conservative activist brother James.

Although media continue to report that Mr. Sullivan dressed as a Trump supporter on Jan. 6, that wasn’t true. On Jan. 5, he posted a widely shared photo of himself to social media donned in a Trump ball cap. He did not wear Trump gear on Jan. 6.

Mr. Sullivan was found guilty by a District of Columbia jury in November 2023 of obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder and aiding and abetting, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a dangerous weapon, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds with a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon on Capitol grounds, disorderly conduct in a restricted building or grounds, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

Judge Lamberth denied Mr. Sullivan’s motion for release from jail pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on the constitutionality of the felony obstruction of an official proceeding charge used against at least 353 Jan. 6 defendants.

The High Court heard oral arguments in that case on April 16 and is expected to rule by late June.

‘I’ve Got a Knife’

The weapon that brought Mr. Sullivan enhanced felony charges was a retractable dual-edge Smith & Wesson M&P tactical knife—something Mr. Sullivan boasted about to the crowd outside the Speaker’s Lobby, where Ms. Babbitt was shot at 2:44 p.m.

“Let me through, I’ve got a knife,” Mr. Sullivan said as he moved through the dense crowd, according to his video. “I’ve got a knife.”

Once he reached the left side of the Speaker’s Lobby entrance, Mr. Sullivan lobbied Capitol Police Officer Kyle Yetter to abandon his post—for his own safety.

“Bro, I’ve seen people out there get hurt,” Mr. Sullivan said. “I don’t want to see you get hurt.”

As soon as Mr. Yetter, Capitol Police Sgt. Timothy Lively, and Officer Christopher Lanciano moved away from the door that they had been guarding, Mr. Sullivan urged the men around him, “Go! Go! Let’s go! Get this [expletive],” according to his video.

A short time later, Mr. Sullivan was the first to call out the presence of Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, who crept along the other side of the entrance with his Glock pistol pointed toward the crowded hallway.

“There’s a gun! There’s a gun! There’s a gun!” Mr. Sullivan shouted as the service weapon became visible on his video screen.

The exact moment Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd fired his Glock 22 pistol at Ashli Babbitt at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (JaydenX/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

Mr. Sullivan’s video showed Mr. Byrd repeatedly placing his finger on the trigger of his gun and removing it before he lunged forward and fired the weapon at Ms. Babbitt, who had just begun climbing into a broken outside window of the doorway.

In an interview filmed moments later by Infowars employee Sam Montoya, a highly agitated Mr. Sullivan said he believed he saw Ms. Babbitt die.

‘I Have the Video’

“She climbed in the window and then she got shot right here in the neck,” Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Montoya. “I got it all. I’ll post the video. I have the video. I have the video of the guy with the gun and then shoot her. …I have it all. I was right at the door.”

As it turned out, Ms. Babbitt was still alive as Capitol Police officers carried her head-first to the ground floor of the Capitol. Even as she was loaded into an ambulance, Ms. Babbitt bled profusely from the upper chest wound caused by Mr. Byrd’s bullet. She was pronounced dead at 3:15 p.m. at MedStar Washington Hospital Center.

Mr. Sullivan was paid $90,000 by several media outlets for the use of his Jan. 6 video, money that was seized by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Prosecutors said Mr. Sullivan’s Jan. 6 conduct was a continuation of the violent rhetoric he expressed during the civil unrest in 2020 after the controversial death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Mr. Sullivan dubbed himself “Jayden X” and “Activist John,” and operated a website called “Insurgence USA.”

“Going into winter of 2020, Sullivan began to advocate for a violent dismantling of the government,” prosecutors wrote in their 45-page sentencing memorandum. “In one Instagram post, Sullivan posted, ‘We will have live updates on the location for tonight’s purge. Spread the message. Let the electoral purge commence.’

“In December 2020, Sullivan tweeted, ‘Riots are meant to bring change, so purge the world with fire,’ and, ‘An armed revolution is the only way to bring about change effectively.’”

Mr. Sullivan’s sentencing memo said his behavior on Jan. 6 was not reflective of the kind of man he is.

“Those who know him from church, from social interactions, and from his supportive family all enthusiastically commend him as a decent, honest man of integrity, good faith and devotion to those in his world,” defense attorney Steven Kiersh wrote.

“John Sullivan’s conduct on January 6, 2021, was clearly a deviation from the person that is reflected in his background,” Mr. Kiersh wrote. “His conduct on that day is not reflective of the totality of the kind, decent and generous man that he is.”

Mr. Kiersh said his client’s mental health has markedly declined since he was jailed following his jury trial. He asked Judge Lamberth to take that into consideration when crafting a sentence.

“Mr. Sullivan has been held in protective custody and in virtual isolation throughout the duration of his incarceration,” Mr. Kiersh wrote. “Undersigned counsel meets with defendant regularly at the D.C. Jail and has seen a dramatic decrease in his mental stability and his overall physical presence.

Jan. 6 defendant John Sullivan shares a kiss with filmmaker Jade Sacker in the Capitol Rotunda on Jan. 6, 2021. She shot Jan. 6 footage of Mr. Sullivan for a documentary. (U.S. Capitol Police/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

“Counsel has repeatedly spoken with the D.C. Jail’s legal counsel regarding defendant’s status but has been told there is nothing that can be done to remove his protective custody housing status due to concern for his physical safety,” Mr. Kiersh said.

Mr. Sullivan was born in Galax, Virginia, in July 1994 and adopted by an Army lieutenant colonel and his wife. He earned the rank of Eagle Scout before graduating from high school in Stafford, Virginia.

He moved to Kearns, Utah, in order to pursue his dream of becoming an Olympic speed skater, according to court records. Injuries forced him to abandon his quest for the Winter Olympics.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

During Thursday’s deliberations at the U.S. Supreme Court on former President Donald Trump’s immunity claim, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that a decision in the case has future implications for whether future presidents are shielded from vicious cycles of malicious prosecution that could effectively end the presidency as we know it.

In the course of two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments on April 25, justices on the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a ruling by a federal appeals court that rejected President Trump’s claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president.

President Trump was indicted by special counsel Jack Smith in August 2023 on charges of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Pleading not guilty, the former president has argued that he should receive absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that fell within the scope of his official duties. The exception to this immunity, he has argued, is if Congress impeaches and convicts him on charges.

A federal appeals court rejected that argument, claiming that presidents must face prosecution for alleged criminal wrongdoing.

The question that is now before the Supreme Court is: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”

During Thursday’s deliberations, the justices weighed the claim of absolute immunity that, if adopted, would stop Mr. Smith’s prosecution of the former president dead in its tracks.

Several conservative justices suggested they favor imposing limits on the prosecution of former presidents, while highlighting the importance of the case for the future.

Justice Kavanaugh said that when presidents are subject to prosecution, history shows that it’s not going to stop.

“It’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president ... and the next president and the next president after that.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said that the court is “writing a rule for the ages,” along with Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Kavanaugh all said that their concern was not so much the case against President Trump, but rather the effect of the ruling on future presidencies.

“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” Justice Kavanaugh said.

‘Rule for the Ages’

Former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who argued for Mr. Smith, said that the framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law.

Mr. Dreeben also said that the crimes President Trump is charged with—including allegedly participating in a scheme to enlist dueling electors in battleground states won by President Joe Biden to cast alternate slates of electoral votes for him—weren’t a part of the president’s official duties.

Attorney D. John Sauer, who argued for President Trump, told the justices that without presidential immunity from criminal charges, the “presidency as we know it” will be changed, contending that the looming threat is that a decision to deny immunity would “destroy” presidential decisionmaking at a time in the nation’s history when it needs to be bold.

Mr. Sauer argued that the impact of the case would have implications far beyond the question at hand, raising the hypothetical prospect of President Biden facing charges of encouraging illegal immigration with his border policies.

Justice Kavanaugh expressed concern about the future implications of the case, warning of the prospect of a vicious cycle of malicious prosecutions that could hamper presidents for years to come.

Mr. Drebeen contended that the laws currently on the books have not shown they are prone to abuse, telling the high court that “we’ve lived from Watergate through the present, through the independent counsel era with all of its flaws, without these prosecutions having gone off on a runaway train.”

Justice Kavanaugh argued that the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies were all “hampered” by investigations, while suggesting that holding a president accountable is less important than protecting the functioning of the presidency.

He raised the question of the “risk” of a “creative prosecutor” using “vague” statutes against a commander-in-chief, telling Mr. Dreeben that this case has “huge implications” for the presidency, and that he was “very concerned about the future.”

Justice Kavanaugh cited the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, as “one of the Court’s biggest mistakes” because it “hampered” presidential administrations. He argued that when former presidents are subjected to prosecution, this risks triggering a vicious cycle of vindictive prosecutions.

“What would the reaction be if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person?” he asked.

“Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him?”

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Former President Donald Trump criticized Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s bid for presidency in the 2024 elections, pointing out his progressive stances on climate, guns, border, and energy.

“RFK Jr. is a Democrat ‘Plant,’ a Radical Left Liberal who’s been put in place in order to help Crooked Joe Biden, the Worst President in the History of the United States, get Re-Elected,” President Trump wrote in an April 26 Truth Social post.

“A Vote for Junior’ would essentially be a WASTED PROTEST VOTE, that could swing either way, but would only swing against the Democrats if Republicans knew the true story about him. Junior' is totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet...”

“I lived with RFK Jr. in New York and watched him convince Governor Cuomo to make Environmental moves that were outright NASTY,” he wrote in another post.

“Upstate New York was not allowed to drill or frack as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others ripped off New York Energy. Because of this, prices have skyrocketed all over that part of the Country, but especially Upstate New York and New England.”

The former president pointed out that New York’s energy costs are the “highest in the U.S.” except for California. President Trump insisted he prefers President Biden over Mr. Kennedy as the United States “would last a year or two longer prior to collapse - But it would be dead either way.”

“I’d even take Biden over Junior,” Mr. Trump added.

President Trump had criticized Mr. Kennedy in March along similar lines, calling him the “most Radical Left Candidate in the race” late last month. Calling RFK Jr. a “big fan of the Green New Scam, and other economy killing disasters,” he suggested Mr. Kennedy could take away votes from President Biden.

Mr. Kennedy initially wanted to challenge President Biden for the Democratic Party nomination. However, he alleged that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was “rigging the primary” by not allowing any challenge against the current administration. In October last year, he announced running for the 2024 presidential race as an independent.

RFK Jr. claimed in a social media post that the DNC attacked him as they feared he would be a “spoiler candidate” in the election. He said Democrats were spending “millions” to take down his campaign and that they “never expected” his movement to gain the momentum it has.

Stefanie Spear, the Kennedy campaign’s press secretary, says both Republican and Democrat parties are unable to “understand a candidate who does not fit into conventional political categories.”

“We are neither right nor left, neither liberal nor conservative,” she said in a statement to The Epoch Times. RFK Jr.’s key policy positions “defy those categories. Is ending the forever wars liberal, or conservative? How about freeing agencies from corporate capture? Ending the chronic disease epidemic? Protecting free speech?”

“The DNC and GOP try to pigeonhole our candidates as liberals or conservatives, which perpetuates the divisiveness that has paralyzed our political system. Both are screaming, ‘He’s one of THEM!’ Our ticket represents the broad majority who have unsubscribed from the right-left paradigm.”

Kennedy’s Policy Positions

In a Truth Social post, President Trump also criticized RFK Jr.’s vice president pick, Silicon Valley lawyer Nicole Shanahan.

Ms. Shanahan, 38, was formerly married to Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google. She helped fund Mr. Kennedy’s Super Bowl ad campaign which cost $7 million. A day after Mr. Kennedy announced Ms. Shanahan as his running mate, she sent $2 million to the Kennedy campaign as a contribution.

"His Chief ‘Funder’ is the V.P. Candidate that nobody ever heard of, except her ex-husband, who’s been stripped of a big chunk of cash,” President Trump wrote in the post.

“She puts herself down as a businesswoman, or maybe a doctor, and actually, I guess you could say that she’s right. Her business was doing surgery on her husband’s wallet! She’s more Liberal than Junior’ by far, not a serious person, and only a Pot of Cash to help get her No Chance Candidate on the Ballot.”

Among the several policy issues raised by Mr. Kennedy, the Independent candidate recently said he is going to file a lawsuit challenging the potential ban of TikTok in the United States.

President Joe Biden recently signed a bill requiring Beijing-based ByteDance to sell off its TikTok business. If the company fails to do so, the app will be banned from U.S. app stores and web-hosting services.

“Don’t be fooled—the TikTok ban is not about China harvesting your data. That’s a smoke screen. Intelligence agencies from lots of countries, especially ours, are harvesting your data from everywhere all the time,” RFK Jr. said in an April 26 post.

President Biden has won endorsement from members of the Kennedy family including Rory Kennedy, Mr. Kennedy’s sister, who raised concerns that RFK Jr.’s campaign could end up siphoning off votes from President Biden in the upcoming elections.

In another X post, he slammed the DNC for treating him “as if I am President Biden’s big challenge.” However, “his real problem is not me.”

President Biden’s “real problem is $4 milk, $4 gas, $6 loaf of bread, and the fact that this generation of American kids are never going to own their own home,” he said.

According to a recent The Economist/YouGov poll, both President Trump and President Biden garnered 43 percent support each from likely voters for the presidential race. RFK Jr. is lagging behind with just three percent support.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz expressed support in an interview for Ukraine’s latest conscription-related policy of refusing consular services for draft-aged men aged 18-60. The form of assistance that Warsaw provides Kiev in returning these draft-dodgers depends on the regime, but he implied that his country might hunt down and deport them. This reading is predicated on him calling their service a “civic duty” and saying that Poles are “outraged” seeing these men hanging out in cafes.

Late last year, “WaPo Amplified The Arguments Of Ukrainian Draft Dodgers Right As Zelensky Wants More Conscripts”, which suggested some sympathy for their plight in being forced to fight. Meanwhile, this piece here from around the same time analyzed the dilemma that EU countries would face if Ukraine requested that they deport these draft-dodgers, some of whom have refugee status, while these two surveys in March and April show that mutual Polish-Ukrainian perceptions are worsening.

Accordingly, Poland could come under some foreign media pressure if it forcibly deports those Ukrainian men within its territory who Kiev calls up to serve after previously allowing them to live in the country, including as refugees.

Additionally, average Ukrainians might begin to hate Poles if they interpret this move as being driven by a nationalist desire to punish them for changing the country’s demographics.

The end result could be that Poland ruins its reputation in the West and Ukraine just to fuel this doomed conflict.

About that, the country’s new coalition government is liberal-globalist and thus earned applause from their fellow travelers who currently control most of the West, but some factions among the latter might strongly disagree in principle with deporting Ukrainians (including refugees) to the front. Likewise, this same government wanted to improve ties with Ukraine that soured at the end of their conservative-nationalist predecessor’s tenure, but this would only benefit the regime at the expense of its people.

“The US’ Long-Delayed Aid To Ukraine Might Prevent Its Collapse But Won’t Push Russia Back”, and no amount of draft refugee meat that Poland or whoever else throws into the grinder will change that.

The military-strategic dynamics decisively favor Russia due to its victory in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with NATO. It therefore wouldn’t make a difference even in the impossible event that all estimated 860,000 adult Ukrainian men living in the EU were deported to the front.

The only potential benefit to this policy is if the conservative-nationalist opposition relieves some of their pressure upon Tusk’s liberal-globalist government if he deports all Ukrainian draft-dodgers from Poland.

He’d risk some foreign media pressure and further worsening average Ukrainians’ views of Poles, but he might gamble that this is worth it, especially if it’s positively spun by some of his liberal-globalist peers abroad as “solidarity with the cause” of defeating Russia. Tusk might then gain more than he’d lose.

Authored by John Cody via ReMix News,

In the run-up to major elections across the West, including the U.S. presidential election and the EU parliament elections in June, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned that conservatives face unprecedented pressure from liberals, who are lashing out over fears they may lose power.

During his speech at the third annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest, Hungary, Orbán described five methods of oppression being deployed by liberals to silence the opposition, with the Hungarian prime minister noting that some of the most advanced forms of oppression, including court action and intelligence service spying, are already being deployed against conservatives across the West.

1. Change the meaning of words

The first step Orbán describes is liberal actions designed to change the meaning of words and phrases in order to mislead the people, with the issue of migration being the most substantial example of this trend.

“The first step of progressive liberals, their oppression, is to make normal mean the exact opposite. War is peace. That is what progressives still say today. The Peace Facility. That’s the name of the Brussels financial fund from which the most destructive weapons are sent to the front. Migration is a resource, they say, while crime is rising, the threat of terror is increasing and trust is being drained from our societies,” said Orbán.

Orban noted that Hungary has been able to withstand this sea change, making it a “unique location in all of Europe.”

“It is the fact that, while the whole of Europe is being swamped by an ocean of progressive liberalism, a conservative island has survived (in Hungary), an Island of Deference, defying the liberal tide, the Brussels blast, and the Washington hurricane. Not only defying but surviving, even thriving, even succeeding, even triumphing and triumphing again and again.”

2. Invert everything that is normal

The second step on the path to liberals maintaining power is to invert everything that is normal, including sexuality, education, family life, love of country, and ethnic homogeneity.

“The second step is to start spreading this inverted normality by state means. Anyone who thinks otherwise is problematic. There is something wrong with that. Anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or insane. The perception must be that listening to them would lead to some fatal disaster,” said Orbán.

This method helps tear families apart, mock cultural and national traditions, and normalize behavior that up until just a few decades ago was considered beyond the pale, Orbán told the conference, adding that liberal subversion had led to “crashing birthrates, soaring divorces, broken families, and a failing education system that focuses more on ideology than academic greatness.”

“All of this is fertile breeding ground for left-wing parties to thrive and paint conservatives and the right as “backward” and deserving of political suppression and even outright violence,” he said.

3. Make the right into a “security threat”

The next step is to create an aura of “danger” around right-wing and conservative views, which will help the state justify any action taken against conservatives. In the United States, this includes, for example, portraying supporters of Donald Trump as terrorists, or equating any right-wing view as “Nazi.”

“You are made to believe that you hold dangerous views and that you are also a security risk. They send some kind of democracy watchdog at you, which then finds out that you do not share the views of normality they preach, and are therefore a radical whose freedom of speech can be safely restricted,” Orban said.

This particular step has played out across social media, where conservatives and the right face enormous censorship. However, NGOs and organizations, many of whom are lavishly funded by governments, corporations, and billionaire oligarchs such as George Soros, are actively working to silence and persecute conservatives. As Remix News has reported, they are deeply embedded in the major social media networks, and work to police conservative thought and views.

Demonizing conservatives was also evident just last week in Brussels after another conservative conference in which Orbán and many other high-profile politicians from Europe were speaking, was shut down by the local mayor citing public safety concerns.

It took the lawyers of the National Conservatism conference to file last-minute motions in Belgium’s top administrative court to ensure the conference could continue for its second day.

4. The press goes on the attack

In the fourth step, the liberal press targets you, often personally, while the state turns civilians into a mob of informers, Orbán warned.

“They deploy activists who use legal means to silence you. Then, the often anonymous profiles on the internet come to denounce you on social media, while a plethora of civilians bombard the courts and state bodies with complaints and denunciations,” he added.

5. Send the authorities in

“And if you still have the stomach for it, and if you’re still standing, the fifth step is for the public authorities to spring into action. They receive so many complaints and denunciations that they are obliged to investigate you, unfortunately, so they become the private institutions of the progressives,” the Hungarian prime minister explained.

“They will find that the accusations of the press, the concerns of the watchdogs, are well founded, they will prosecute yo,u and you will eventually be silenced by state means. That is what they do to Hungary in Brussels, and that is what they do to conservatives in progressive, liberal European capitals.”

Orbán noted that the same thing was happening in the United States where the judiciary was being utilized in an attempt to get President Trump off the ballot for the upcoming presidential election.

He also pointed to the German government’s actions against the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Due unique laws in Germany, the authorities have been able to label the AfD a “definite case of right-wing extremism” in key eastern states. In turn, this gives intelligence services authority to monitor communications, including phone calls, messages, and emails, between AfD politicians and members — all without a warrant.

“This is what happened in the European Union when they tried to ban Tucker Carlson by administrative means. It is happening in Germany, where political parties are being monitored by the secret services. And it happened in Finland when they wanted to condemn a politician and a bishop for quoting Scripture. Ladies and gentlemen, that is where we are.”

A new era for Europe

The Hungarian leader expressed hope, however, that the tide could turn should the people desire it at the forthcoming polls across the West, including the European Parliamentary elections in June.

He said the elections could help “end an inglorious era of Western civilization” and help defeat a “progressive liberal hegemony” that has only served to bring “war, chaos, and unrest” to Europe, as well as a collapsing economy and confusion to the world.

Instead, the European electorate could vote in favor of a new “world spirit” that promotes nation-state sovereignty as its core principle.

“In that world, national interest will determine the movement of states, and each independent nation will act in its own national interest. I also believe that in a sovereign world order, the real sovereign is the people, as our guests would say, popular sovereignty.

“I hope that it will no longer be NGOs of all kinds, big business, media outlets, dubious experts, and out-of-touch academics who tell us what is right and what should be done, but elected representatives and politicians elected by the people.”

In a rallying cry to fellow conservatives, Orbán urged them to “saddle up, arm up, take to the battlefield, and let the electoral battle begin,” calling for a “return to the peaceful and secure path that made the West great.”

“Make America Great Again, Make Europe Great Again. Go, Donald Trump! Go, European sovereignists!”

Read more here...

A survey by YouGov conducted on April 24 has found that six in ten people in the United Kingdom think that the Rwanda plan will not be effective in stopping migrants from crossing the English Channel between France and the UK.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the following chart, this figure rises to over seven in ten respondents among Labour voters and Lib Dem voters.

While Conservatives were more tied, only a third of the party's politically-aligned respondents said that they thought the Rwanda plan would be effective.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In a different survey, carried out by think tank British Futures in collaboration with Focaldata, respondents were asked what would be needed in order for the Rwanda scheme to count as a success.

Four in ten respondents said that they would need to see small boat arrivals at least halve and evidence that people were deterred by the threat of removal to Rwanda to consider the plan successful.

Only a quarter of respondents said that getting a plane to take off carrying migrants from the UK to Rwanda would be their idea of success, while another quarter of respondents said that they were opposed to the Rwanda scheme and could not envisage a successful outcome from it.