Connect with us


GOP Sends Clear Message: Ukraine’s Cash Flow Stops Now!

GOP Sends Clear Message: Ukraine's Cash Flow Stops Now!

( – Almost 20 Republican lawmakers and senators have expressed their opposition to Congress’ proposal of approving an additional $24 billion in aid for Ukraine, bringing the total amount of U.S. funding provided to Ukraine to at least $135 billion since its war with Russia began.

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), leading the group of six senators and twenty-three House members, sent the following letter to Shalanda Young, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget:

“The American people deserve to know what their money has gone to. How is the counteroffensive going? Are the Ukrainians any closer to victory than they were 6 months ago?

What is our strategy, and what is the president’s exit plan? What does the administration define as victory in Ukraine?

What assistance has the United States provided Ukraine under Title 10? It would be an absurd abdication of congressional responsibility to grant this request without knowing the answers to these questions.

For these reasons—and certainly, until we receive answers to the questions above and others forthcoming — we oppose the additional expenditure for war in Ukraine included in your request.”

Vance stated in a post that it “became clear that America is being asked to fund an indefinite conflict with unlimited resources” during the Biden administration’s briefing on Ukraine on Wednesday.

He posted, “Enough is enough. We, together with my colleagues, say no to these and future requests.”

One of the signatories, Lee, stated on social media that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “came up with an astounding estimate of $100 billion,” on top of the $113 billion already spent, when senators questioned how much the U.S. would have to spend on the Ukrainian conflict over the next 14 months.

The roughly $113 billion did not even “reflect the full picture,” according to the letter.

Congress must know how much the U.S. has spent on this battle to use its appropriations authority wisely. However, most members are still in the dark about this.

“It is challenging to think of a good reason for this ambiguity,” they stated in their writing.

“Your request cites President Biden’s pledge that ‘we will stand with Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty for as long as it takes.’ Andrew Desiderio of PunchBowl News has received a background quote from a senior administration official stating the White House ‘won’t be bashful about going back to the Congress beyond the first quarter of next year.’…

These statements imply an open-ended commitment to supporting the war in Ukraine of an indeterminate nature, based on a strategy that is unclear, to achieve a goal yet to be articulated to the public or the Congress.

For these reasons — and certainly, until we receive answers to the questions above and others forthcoming — we oppose the additional expenditure for war in Ukraine included in your request.”

The letter signatories included:

– Rand Paul from Kentucky
– Mike Lee from Utah
– Mike Braun from Indiana
– Roger Marshall from Kansas
– Tommy Tuberville from Alabama
– Roger Williams from Texas
– Paul Gosar from Arizona
– Clay Higgins from Louisiana
– Dan Bishop from Texas
– Harriet Hageman from Wyoming
– Bill Posey from Florida
– Bob Good from Virginia
– Warren Davidson from Ohio
– Eli Craine from Arizona
– Anna Paulina Luna from Florida
– Jeff Duncan from South Carolina
– W. Gregory Steube from Florida
– Beth Van Duyne from Texas
– Josh Brecheen from Oklahoma
– Lance Gooden from Texas
– Andy Ogles from Tennessee
– Mary E. Miller from Illinois
– Andy Biggs from Arizona
– Byron Donalds from Florida
– Russell Fry from South Carolina
– Michael Cloud from Texas
– Troy Nehls from Texas

Reps. Matt Gaetz (F.L.), Tim Burchett (T.N.), Mike Garcia (C.A.), and Kat Cammack (F.L.) are among the other Republican senators and representatives who have stated their opposition to additional assistance for Ukraine, according to the Washington Post.

Even though the majority of Republicans in the House and Senate have stated that they support increasing aid to Ukraine, there are now enough opponents to complicate those plans, which will be addressed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

Additionally, a few signatories declared they would not change their minds.

Marshall (R-KS) declared on Thursday that he would not even go to Zelensky’s arranged meeting:

“I will not support another cent going to Ukraine. At a time when our nation is facing a historic debt crisis, a wide-open southern border with fentanyl, Chinese military-aged nationalists, known terrorists, and cartels pouring into our country, I can’t even understand how this body can justify sending another blank check to Zelenskyy.

The U.S. is hemorrhaging money we do not have to pay for this war while the E.U. and other leaders on the world stage are absent.

Since the war began, American taxpayers have blindly been forced to give Ukraine over $113B, and we have no idea where that money has gone.

There is no strategy, no exit plan, and no accountability from Zelenskyy. My priority is securing our American homeland, not sitting through another charade.

For those reasons and a litany of others, I will not be attending today’s meeting.”

Democrats and Biden administration officials, though, are confident that Congress would eventually grant the extra $24 billion; just this week, Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley pledged their support for “as long as it takes.”

Earlier last week, during a press briefing, Milley stated that the United States and its allies could continue the war because they are “rich.”

“Can we continue to do this? The short answer is yes, we can continue to do this, and the United States and its allied countries are rich, powerful, with significant resources, military resources that are capable of sustaining this fight, in President Biden’s words, as long as it takes,” he said.

Additionally, McConnell, who favors giving Ukraine more funding, shared a picture of Zelensky arriving at the Senate on X and said he was “proud” to have him visit the Capitol.

“I was proud to welcome President @ZelenskyyUa to the Capitol this morning and hear firsthand about the status of Ukraine’s counteroffensive. American support for Ukraine is not charity. It’s in our own direct interests – not least because degrading Russia helps to deter China,” he posted.

In the end, it is the American taxpayer who will be forced to foot the bill for what seems to be a never-ending war.

Copyright 2023.


Former Democrat Tops NH Trump VP Poll


In an electrifying and unexpected development, a new poll from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center reveals that former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii tops the list of preferred running mates for former President Donald Trump. This strategic choice underscores Trump’s commitment to broadening his appeal and strengthening his base with an unconventional but highly effective candidate.

Tulsi Gabbard, who initially ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, courageously left her party two years later to become an independent. Now, she emerges as the favorite among nearly a quarter (24%) of New Hampshire voters who are not supporting President Biden. Gabbard’s ability to connect with a diverse electorate and her staunch opposition to the far-left agenda make her a powerful ally for Trump.

Gabbard’s support stands seven points ahead of biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, indicating a strong preference for Gabbard’s unique blend of political independence and principled leadership. This shows that voters are looking for leaders who are willing to stand up against the establishment and fight for American values.

Ramaswamy, along with other notable figures like Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have endorsed Trump, yet Gabbard’s lead suggests a deeper resonance with voters seeking a fresh and unifying voice. Her conservative principles, military background, and dedication to freedom and the Constitution make her an ideal running mate for Trump.

Trump’s consideration of Gabbard is a testament to his strategic thinking and commitment to broadening his appeal. Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq War and an officer in the Hawaii National Guard, brings a wealth of experience and a compelling personal story as the first Samoan-American elected to Congress. Her transition from a progressive Democrat to an independent has been marked by her steadfast dedication to fundamental freedoms, resonating with many conservatives who feel disenfranchised by the current political climate.

In a Fox News town hall in February, Trump hinted that Gabbard was on his short list for running mates. Her praise for Trump, acknowledging his resilience and willingness to fight against the Washington establishment, underscores a shared commitment to challenging the status quo and defending American values against the encroachment of socialism and government overreach.

Gabbard’s familiarity with New Hampshire, a crucial swing state, adds another layer of strategic advantage. Her presence in the state during her 2020 presidential run and her support for Republican candidates in 2022 have cemented her popularity among voters who are tired of the same old politics and crave genuine change.

By considering Gabbard as a running mate, Trump demonstrates his ability to think outside traditional party lines and appeal to a broader coalition. This bold move could be the key to uniting the nation behind his campaign, bringing together a diverse group of voters eager for a leader who prioritizes American values and freedoms.

As the 2024 election approaches, the prospect of a Trump-Gabbard ticket promises an exciting and dynamic campaign. This powerful combination of leadership, experience, and dedication to conservative principles is poised to capture the imagination and support of Americans from all walks of life, ensuring a strong and united front against the progressive agenda threatening our nation’s future.


POLL: Would you support Tulsi Gabbard for VP?


Continue Reading


SCOTUS Sides With “Three Strikes” Laws in Support of Second Amendment


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on May 23 in favor of the federal government in a case pivotal to the enforcement of a federal three-strikes gun law aimed at ensuring repeat offenders are appropriately penalized. This ruling reinforces the principle that those who repeatedly break the law, particularly with violent felonies or major drug offenses, should face stringent consequences, thereby protecting law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Justice Samuel Alito, a stalwart defender of constitutional principles, authored the majority opinion in Brown v. United States, consolidated with Jackson v. United States. In a remarkable alignment, the decision saw a blending of ideologies, with one liberal justice joining the majority and a conservative justice siding with the dissenters. This highlights the importance and clarity of the case beyond traditional ideological divides.

Federal law rightly prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) of 1984 was a significant step to address the disproportionate number of crimes committed by repeat offenders. The ACCA mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for individuals found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm if they have three or more prior convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies committed on separate occasions.

The recent Supreme Court ruling ensures that the severity of the law remains intact. It emphasizes that sentences under the ACCA should be based on the laws in effect at the time of the original convictions, maintaining the law’s integrity and original intent to deter habitual criminals. This is a win for those who believe in the Second Amendment and the rule of law, ensuring that dangerous individuals are kept from undermining our right to bear arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett stood firm in the majority, reflecting their commitment to upholding strict penalties for career criminals. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined parts of the dissent, showcasing the robust debate within the court. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for their liberal leanings, also contributed to the discourse.

Justice Alito’s opinion clarified that the ACCA’s requirement for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence remains for those convicted of illegal firearm possession if they have a history of serious drug offenses or violent felonies. The definition of a “serious drug offense” includes state crimes that carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years and involve a controlled substance as defined by the Controlled Substances Act.

Alito highlighted that state crimes qualify as serious drug offenses if they involved a drug listed on federal schedules at the time of the original conviction, not based on any subsequent changes to those schedules. This prevents loopholes that could otherwise allow habitual offenders to evade justice based on technicalities, thus preserving the stringent measures intended by the ACCA.

The government’s interpretation aligns with the ACCA’s objectives, focusing on the inherent risk and seriousness of certain offenses likely committed by career criminals. This approach ensures that those with a history of significant drug or violent offenses face enhanced penalties, protecting society and upholding the sanctity of the Second Amendment by ensuring firearms do not end up in the hands of dangerous individuals.

Justice Jackson’s dissent argued for applying the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearms offense, a perspective that the majority rightly found unconvincing given the ACCA’s clear intent and context.

This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in March 2022’s Wooden v. United States, affirming that multiple convictions from a single criminal episode do not count as multiple under the ACCA. The current deliberations on Erlinger v. United States, which question whether a judge or jury should decide on the application of enhanced sentencing, continue to underscore the Court’s dedication to ensuring fair yet firm justice.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision is a significant victory for the pro-Second Amendment community, reinforcing the importance of strict penalties for repeat offenders. This decision ensures that the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms are protected by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to society.


Supreme Court: Illegal Immgrants Can Be Detained Without Bond

POLL: Do you support this ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States?


Continue Reading


HILARIOUS: Biden Not On the Ballot in Ohio… Yet


In a delicious twist of irony, President Biden—who has tried to block former President Trump from appearing on ballots in several states—might himself be excluded from the Ohio ballot come Election Day. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued this hilarious warning on Tuesday, showcasing yet another instance of Democratic incompetence and hypocrisy.

Despite receiving weeks of warnings from LaRose’s office and the state legislature, the Ohio Democratic Party has hilariously bungled their way into potentially disqualifying Biden from the ballot. LaRose, a Republican, pointed out that the Democratic Party has yet to offer any solution that complies with existing law.

Ohio’s election law requires parties to certify their presidential candidates at least 90 days before Election Day. But in a move that screams “amateur hour,” the Democratic Party plans to certify Biden at its national convention in Wisconsin on August 19, just 75 days before the election—blatantly flouting the law.

“I’ve said from here to Colorado that it’s in the best interest of voters to have a choice in the race for president. I’m also duty-bound to follow the law as Ohio’s chief elections officer,” LaRose stated, barely containing his exasperation.

“As it stands today, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee will not be on the Ohio ballot. That is not my choice. It’s due to a conflict in the law created by the party, and the party has so far offered no legally acceptable remedy,” he continued, likely shaking his head in disbelief.

“The Ohio House speaker said today there won’t be a legislative solution, so I’ve sent a letter to Ohio Democrats’ chair seeking (again) a solution that upholds the law and respects the voters. I trust they’ll act quickly,” he finished, probably chuckling at the absurdity of it all.

Ohio Democrats previously floated the idea that Ohio could accept a “provisional certification” for Biden’s candidacy, but LaRose quickly shut down this laughable suggestion, pointing out that state law makes no such allowances.

LaRose emphasized that either the state legislature must change the law to allow Biden’s certification, or the Democratic Party must get its act together. Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, another Republican, bluntly stated that lawmakers won’t bail Biden out. “There’s just not the will to do that from the legislature,” Stephens told reporters, likely with a smirk.

Even Democratic Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo couldn’t hide her frustration with her own party’s ineptitude, stating, “We’ve seen the dysfunction here in this place. And I think we’ve seen that folks have not been able to put aside partisanship and hyper-partisanship and infighting.… I think at this point, you’re probably going to see either, you know, some sort of inner party effects or perhaps court action.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine assured voters that Biden would be on the ballot come November, arguing that if the legislature doesn’t act, then it’s “going to be done by the court.”

Ohio Democrats have yet to respond to LaRose’s Tuesday letter. The irony of Biden’s predicament—potentially being excluded from the ballot while having sought to exclude Trump—is nothing short of poetic justice. This fiasco is a fitting testament to the chaos and mismanagement that has become the hallmark of the Democratic Party.



POLL: Will Biden be the Democrat nominee in November?


Continue Reading