❓What Happened: Federal spending records show U.S. taxpayers will fund nearly $1 million in June alone for congressional travel to Ukraine, with millions more allocated for State Department staff and logistics.
👤Who’s Involved: The U.S. Department of State, International-Business Center Tov, Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
⚠️Fallout: The spending raises concerns that Americans are footing the bill for congressional junkets that promote prolonged involvement in Ukraine’s war—while the conflict escalates dangerously, including a Ukrainian strike on Russian nuclear bombers.
📌Significance: The revelation fuels growing criticism that Congress is using taxpayer money to stage foreign trips supporting forever wars abroad, even as experts warn of rising nuclear risk.
IN FULL:
U.S federal government spending data reveals that the contracts to provide accommodations, transportation, and security for Congressional delegations traveling to Ukraine will cost American taxpayers nearly $1 million, at least, in the month of June. According to USASpending.gov—the federal government’s official website for tracking expenditure—the U.S Department of State entered into two contracts with an entity called International-Business Center Tov, a for-profit company that provides logistical and accommodation services for American lawmakers and other government officials.
In addition to the two contracts to source accommodations, transportation, and security for U.S. congressional delegations, the State Department will pay out at least another $4 million to International-Business Center Tov to source housing and provide other logistical services for its employees and other federal agency staff stationed in Ukraine. In 2024, the U.S. federal government paid out $7.3 million to the company, with $3.6 million paid in 2023. Meanwhile, a total of $5.2 million will be paid to International-Business Center Tov in 2025.
While it is routine for the State Department to contract with companies to source housing, hotel accommodations, transportation, and security for its overseas staff and official U.S. government delegations, the spending does raise concerns that taxpayer dollars are essentially subsidizing efforts by some members of Congress who wish to prolong Ukraine’s war with Russia. Congressional delegations (CODELs) are often sent to countries to conduct oversight of treaty obligations and U.S. government facilities; however, travel to Ukraine has been used by lawmakers like Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to actively push for continued war and additional American military aid.
Notably, both Graham and Blumenthal traveled to Ukraine on May 31 to meet with the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and other government and military officials. The next day, Ukraine launched an unprecedented drone strike operation targeting four military airbases deep inside Russia, reportedly damaging nuclear-capable strategic bombers and nuclear early warning aircraft. While Ukraine’s daring military operation appears to have been a success, experts warn it could significantly escalate Russia’s willingness to deploy nuclear weapons.
President Trump recently announced the nomination of attorney Emil Bove to fill one of two vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Let’s hope that Mr. Bove’s views on the Second Amendment were thoroughly vetted, because the vacancies on the Third Circuit provide a rare opportunity for President Trump to protect the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.
The Third Circuit covers the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. For many cases that do not go to the United States Supreme Court, it is the last word on some hotly debated constitutional issues arising in those states.
The court is currently evenly split with six Republican- and six Democrat-appointed active judges. President Trump now has the chance, with his two judicial appointments, to put the court firmly in Republican control. And that will make it unique among the federal circuit courts of appeal—a Republican-controlled court overseeing the rabidly anti-gun state of New Jersey and the mostly anti-gun state of Biden’s Delaware.
PROSPECT OF A LIFETIME.
This is the prospect of a lifetime for the Second Amendment movement. It goes beyond the mere potential to invalidate New Jersey’s bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines and its “sensitive places” (gun-free zones) laws, which are all issues currently pending before the Third Circuit. While those outcomes would be significant in their own right, their importance is enhanced by the “circuit splits” they would create with other courts of appeals.
The United States Supreme Court, for the most part, gets to pick and choose which cases it takes. One of the criteria it considers when deciding whether to take a case is whether the lower courts disagree about a legal issue the case presents—i.e., whether there is a circuit split. One of the reasons it has been so hard to get the Supreme Court to review Second Amendment cases is that it has been difficult to generate circuit splits.
The majority of the anti-gun states – states like California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, and Maryland – are in circuits with courts controlled by anti-gun judges, which means that when those anti-gun states’ laws are challenged, they tend to be uniformly upheld by the federal circuit courts where they are located. To compound the headaches for the Second Amendment movement, the anti-gun courts in those blue state jurisdictions cite to the anti-gun courts in the other blue state jurisdictions who in turn cite to the anti-gun courts in other blue state jurisdictions and so on… thereby creating an unvirtuous circle of anti-constitutionalism concerning the right to bear arms; and along with that no “circuit split” for the Supreme Court to resolve.
SNOPE V. BROWN.
We have seen this play out with the recent denial of Supreme Court review in Snope v. Brown, an ”assault weapons” case from Maryland.
Four votes are needed to grant review, and three Justices indicated they would have granted review (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch), while a fourth justice (Justice Kavanaugh) wrote a concurrence in the denial, indicating that the Court should consider this issue in the future but not yet. Had there been a circuit split, it would have been more difficult for Justice Kavanaugh and the other justices to justify putting off review in what should be a straightforward win for the Second Amendment.
But there is a light on the horizon. If the Third Circuit were transformed into a reliably pro-Second-Amendment court, the likelihood of generating circuit splits on Second Amendment issues would increase dramatically. This, in turn, would increase the opportunities for the Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment cases on the grounds of existing circuit splits.
The Third Circuit has shown signs that there are some strong judges who respect the right to bear arms already on the bench, as evidenced by its lopsided en banc ruling in favor of the Second Amendment in the Bryan Range v. Garland case. Mr. Range had been disarmed for a decades-old non-violent, welfare fraud offense due to the effect of a federal law, which disarms anyone convicted of a “felony” for life. The Third Circuit en banc ruled 13-2 that this gun control law violated the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Range.
It is imperative that President Trump appoint judges to the Third Circuit who are rock-solid on the Second Amendment. Of course, one nomination has already been made, and given the administration’s support of Second Amendment issues, we hope proper vetting was done, but there is still one nomination to go.
show less
President Trump recently announced the nomination of attorney Emil Bove to fill one of two vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Let’s hope that Mr. Bove’s views on the Second Amendment were thoroughly vetted, because the vacancies on the Third Circuit provide a rare opportunity for President Trump to protect the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.
❓What Happened: A court in Britain has convicted a man for burning the Islamic Quran during a protest outside the Turkish consulate, igniting backlash from free speech advocates who say the ruling revives the country’s defunct blasphemy laws.
👤Who’s Involved: Hamit Coskun, Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Judge John McGarva, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Free Speech Union.
🧾Key Quote: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that Parliament repealed,” said Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary.
⚠️Fallout: Coskun’s conviction under the Public Order Act for “religiously aggravated disorderly conduct” drew sharp criticism from civil liberties groups and sparked plans for a legal appeal, potentially reaching the European Court of Human Rights.
📌Significance: The case underscores growing concerns over free speech in the United Kingdom, where critics argue religious sensitivities are being prioritized over basic protest rights—particularly when it comes to Islam.
IN FULL:
A British court has found 50-year-old atheist Hamit Coskun guilty of a “religiously aggravated public order offence” after he publicly burned a copy of the Quran during a political protest in central London. Coskun, an Armenian-Kurdish asylum seeker who fled Turkey citing persecution, was convicted on Monday at Westminster Magistrates’ Court after a one-day trial.
The February 13 demonstration took place outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge, where Coskun shouted “Islam is religion of terrorism” and “F**k Islam” while holding the burning Islamic text over his head. Moments later, he was violently attacked by a passerby who appeared to slash at him with a blade and kicked him to the ground. That man is due to stand trial in 2027.
Despite claims from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that Coskun was not prosecuted for destroying the book in itself, but for the “disorderly” nature of burning the book, the case has reignited a fierce debate over whether the United Kingdom is reintroducing blasphemy laws by stealth. Initially, Coskun was charged with harassing the “religious institution of Islam,” with the charges being revised after public outcry.
Judge John McGarva acknowledged flaws in the original CPS charge, which referred to Islam “as if it was a person,” but upheld the revised charge. He rejected arguments from Coskun’s defense team that his protest was aimed at criticizing a religion, not its followers, and therefore protected speech.
“You don’t distinguish between the two,” McGarva insisted during sentencing. “I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.”
Coskun was fined £240 (~$325) and is currently in hiding.
The Free Speech Union (FSU) and the National Secular Society (NSS), both of which funded Coskun’s defense, condemned the ruling and announced plans to appeal. “This is deeply disappointing,” the FSU said in a statement. “Religious tolerance doesn’t require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers.”
Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary and former immigration minister, said the court’s decision “revives a blasphemy law that Parliament repealed,” adding: “Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir [Starmer] to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.”
The United Kingdom repealed its last formal blasphemy statutes in 2008, but recent prosecutions under the Public Order Act—particularly those involving Islam—have alarmed critics who argue religious protections are being selectively enforced.
Coskun, who had fled Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Islamist regime, testified that his protest was a direct response to government oppression in his home country. His lawyer, Katy Thorne KC, said the ruling effectively criminalizes any public burning of a religious book, regardless of motive or message, warning that it “chills the right of citizens to criticise religion.”
The FSU has pledged to appeal the ruling all the way to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.
❓What Happened: Ukraine has claimed its largest long-range drone strike of the war, targeting four Russian military airbases and damaging strategic nuclear-capable aircraft.
👥 Who’s Involved: Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Russian military.
📍 Where & When: Strikes occurred Sunday at airbases in the Irkutsk, Murmansk, Ryazan, and Ivanovo regions of Russia, with drones allegedly smuggled into the country over 18 months.
💬 Key Quote: “The ‘office’ of our operation on Russian territory was located right next to the FSB of Russia in one of their regions,” boasted Zelensky.
⚠️ Impact: Ukraine estimates $7 billion in damage to Russian aviation assets, while Russia reports multiple aircraft fires but claims all attacks were repelled.
IN FULL:
Ukraine has claimed responsibility for its largest long-range drone strike against Russia since their conflict began, targeting four military airbases deep inside Russia and reportedly damaging nuclear-capable strategic bombers and nuclear early warning aircraft. The operation, dubbed “Spider’s Web,” was carried out by Ukraine’s SBU security service and involved 117 drones, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The strikes, which Ukraine says took a year and a half to prepare, used drones smuggled into Russia and concealed in wooden cabins mounted on civilian trucks. These mobile launch platforms were positioned near Russian airbases, and the drones were deployed remotely. Among the targeted sites were airbases in the Irkutsk, Murmansk, Ryazan, and Ivanovo regions, with some locations thousands of miles from Ukraine.
Zelensky described the operation as “absolutely brilliant,” boasting that “the ‘office’ of our operation on Russian territory was located right next to the [Federal Security Service] of Russia in one of their regions.” He said that all Ukrainian personnel involved in the operation were safely evacuated before the strikes. The SBU estimates the damage to Russian aviation at approximately $7 billion, though these claims remain unverified.
Footage of Ukrainian FPV strike drones flying into Russian Tu-95 bombers this afternoon. pic.twitter.com/Dayx6dQgFn
Russia’s defense ministry acknowledged attacks on airbases in five regions, labeling them “terrorist acts.” While it claimed all attacks on military sites in Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur regions were repelled, it admitted that several aircraft caught fire in Murmansk and Irkutsk. Russian authorities claim that some suspects connected to the attacks have been detained.
Irkutsk Governor Igor Kobzev confirmed that drones were launched from a truck in the region, adding that the launch site had been secured. Russian media similarly reported that drones emerged from vehicles, with footage showing them flying out of a Kamaz truck near a petrol station.
Meanwhile, Ukraine reported a massive Russian drone and missile assault on its own territory, claiming to have neutralized 385 aerial targets out of 472 launched. This marks one of the largest single Russian drone offensives to date.
Experts warn that the “Pearl Harbor” moment could significantly escalate Russia’s willingness to deploy nuclear weapons. Dr. Stephen Hall, a lecturer at Bath University, noted that Russia’s 2024 nuclear doctrine notes that attacks on military infrastructure within Russia, which disrupt nuclear response actions, could be met with a nuclear response.
Arguably, America’s decades-long housing crisis was one of the issues that helped propel President Donald J. Trump into office—and rightly so. Decades of establishment failures (read: self-enrichment) have worsened an already dire situation. Soaring prices, stagnant wages, regulatory bottlenecks, and Bidenflation pushed home ownership further out of reach for ordinary people. Trump’s answer on the campaign trail has been consistent and correct: build more homes, and clear the roadblocks that make them unaffordable in the first place.
Under Biden, the home price-to-income ratio hit a record high. In 2022, a median-priced home cost 5.6 times more than the median household income. That’s the worst spread since the early 1970s. The reasons are obvious: inflation, interest rates, excessive taxes, environmental restrictions, and a shrinking supply of available homes.
Trump’s approach is straightforward: get Washington out of the way, and get America building again. Most Democrats, by contrast, seem to want to avoid this outcome. Despite finally admitting that Biden was an effective Oval Office vegetable, they still won’t repudiate Bidenomics. Naturally, they’re lashing out at private sector investment in the single-family rental (SFR) market—one of the few sectors offering working families a path to stability and home ownership.
Single-family rentals are not the problem. They’re part of the solution. They provide access to good neighborhoods and schools at a lower monthly cost than owning outright, which is often critical for my generation, especially those who graduated at the onset of the 2008 crisis and recently endured COVID lockdowns. Right now, renting can save families about 40 percent compared to mortgage payments. Even in a world where we want more home ownership, that matters.
Yet California, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina lawmakers are pushing legislation to cap the number of homes providers can own. These proposals are based on the false assumption that providers reduce housing supply. The data doesn’t actually support these claims, by the way. According to the Mercatus Center, institutional investors have never accounted for more than 2.5 percent of home purchases in a single quarter. That’s not exactly a takeover of the market.
Private investment increases the housing supply, creates jobs, and expands options. Attacking the private sector may score points on MSNBC, but it won’t build a single home.
Democrats are attempting to restrict the very actors capable of building, maintaining, and managing housing stock. This is a destructive approach to one of America’s biggest problems. Trump understands what’s required: deregulate, incentivize construction, and keep the government as far out of the situation as possible.
If Washington wants to help Americans become homeowners again, it should stop demonizing investors and remove obstacles. That means cutting bureaucracy, slashing taxes, rolling back zoning restrictions, and encouraging development. It means leadership with clarity and urgency—something the Biden White House never displayed.
Trump has. He’s laid out the blueprint. Americans need affordable homes. The private sector is best placed to deliver. All that’s required is the political will to stop worsening the problem.
Image by Pexels/Brett Sayles
show less
Arguably, America's decades-long housing crisis was one of the issues that helped propel President Donald J. Trump into office—and rightly so. Decades of establishment failures (read: self-enrichment) have worsened an already dire situation. Soaring prices, stagnant wages, regulatory bottlenecks, and Bidenflation pushed home ownership further out of reach for ordinary people. Trump’s answer on the campaign trail has been consistent and correct: build more homes, and clear the roadblocks that make them unaffordable in the first place.
show more
❓What Happened: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) concluded “Operation Patriot,” its largest enforcement action to date, arresting 1,461 illegal aliens across Massachusetts and Greater Boston—including hundreds of criminals shielded by sanctuary city policies.
👤Who’s Involved: ICE, Massachusetts sanctuary jurisdictions, Boston city officials, and criminal aliens including rapists, traffickers, and a known murderer.
🧾Key Quote: ICE sources say the operation was launched in direct response to Massachusetts and Boston’s sanctuary policies, which have obstructed ICE enforcement and led to increased collateral arrests.
⚠️Fallout: Of those arrested, 790 had criminal convictions or pending charges, while 277 had final deportation orders; local jurisdictions refused cooperation, and activists reportedly interfere with arrests on a near-daily basis.
📌Significance: The operation exposes the dangerous consequences of sanctuary policies, as ICE is forced to apprehend violent criminals on the streets rather than in jails—putting public safety and agents at greater risk.
IN FULL:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has executed its most expansive enforcement operation to date, arresting 1,461 illegal aliens across Massachusetts during a month-long sweep dubbed “Operation Patriot.” Agency sources confirmed that the operation, which concluded on Saturday, specifically targeted the state due to its aggressive sanctuary city policies—particularly those in Boston, where ICE detainers have been systematically ignored.
Of those arrested, 790 individuals had criminal convictions or open charges, while 277 had final deportation orders that had not been carried out due to a lack of local cooperation. Hundreds had previously been released from custody by sanctuary jurisdictions despite active ICE detainers.
The scale and complexity of the mission surpassed Operation Tidal Wave, which took place in Florida and previously held the record for the largest ICE enforcement action with 1,120 arrests.
“ICE has repeatedly warned that sanctuary policies will lead to collateral arrests,” a source said, referencing the fact that agents are often forced to arrest not just the primary target but others illegally present at the scene. The agency has stressed that such policies force enforcement into public neighborhoods rather than allowing for controlled transfers at local jails.
FOX News embedded with one of the 19 ICE teams operating across the state last Thursday. In just a few hours, agents arrested an international murderer, two child rapists—one of whom was living adjacent to a playground—a fentanyl trafficker, an adult rapist, and a child sexual assaulter. All of them had been residing freely within Massachusetts communities.
❓ What Happened: Center right Karol Nawrocki has triumphed in the Polish presidential elections, dealing a significant setback to globalist Prime Minister Donald Tusk and the European Union (EU) establishment.
👥 Who’s Involved: Karol Nawrocki, Donald Tusk, outgoing President Andrzej Duda, failed liberal candidate Rafał Trzaskowski, the EU, and U.S. President Donald J. Trump.
📍 Where & When: Poland, with Nawrocki’s win confirmed on June 1, 2025, following the second round of the presidential elections.
💬 Key Quote: “My Poland is a Poland without illegal migrants… where, instead of integration centers, there are deportation centers.” — Nawrocki.
⚠️ Impact: Nawrocki’s presidency will strengthen Poland’s conservatives, despite losing control of the legislature in late 2023, and challenge the agenda of the EU and Prime Minister Tusk, a former President of the European Council.
IN FULL:
Karol Nawrocki, the Law and Justice (PiS) Party-aligned center right candidate in the Polish presidential elections, has defeated Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, aligned with Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s globalist government. Nawrocki, 42, defeated Trzaskowski, 53, 50.89 to 49.11 percent. Trzaskowski prematurely declared victory after initial exit polls projected he would win the contest, only for late polls to reverse the candidates’ fortunes.
Nawrocki’s triumph is a body blow to Prime Minister Tusk, a former European Union (EU) president, who ousted Law and Justice at the head of an unwieldy coalition of globalist and left-wing parties in legislative elections at the end of 2023. Despite this victory, Tusk’s freedom of action had been limited by the outgoing conservative president, Andrzej Duda, wielding veto and pardon powers. Now, with another conservative candidate replacing Duda, the presidency will continue to constrain Tusk’s government for the remainder of its term.
Nawrocki is a colorful character. As a younger man, he participated in a prearranged brawl in a forest—which he described as “noble combat”—between two roughly 70-strong groups of soccer hooligans. He also pursued a career as a boxer, winning national tournaments, before switching career paths and earning a doctorate as a historian.
Currently, he is President of the Institute of National Remembrance and Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation, commemorating and investigating the crimes of the former Nazi and Communist occupation regimes. Contrary to insinuations from politicians such as Tusk that he is a Kremlin stooge, Nawrocki has had a Russian arrest warrant issued against him for his role in demolishing Soviet monuments in Poland.
Trzaskowski is unlikely to make another bid for the presidency now, with his failed run against Nawrocki following a failed attempt to unseat Duda, who is term-limited, in 2020.
❓What Happened: Republican support for gay marriage has significantly dropped, according to a recent Gallup poll, but Democratic support remains high.
👥 Who’s Involved: Gallup poll respondents, including Republicans, Democrats, and independents; Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
📍 Where & When: United States; Gallup poll released Thursday, May 29, 2025.
⚠️ Impact: The poll reflects a growing partisan divide on gay marriage and related moral issues, with implications for future legal challenges and cultural debates.
IN FULL:
Support among Republicans for same-sex marriage has dropped sharply over the past three years, according to a new Gallup poll released Thursday. The survey found that just 41 percent of GOP voters now back the legalization of gay marriage, a significant decline from 55 percent in 2021 and 2022.
In contrast, 88 percent of Democrats expressed approval for same-sex marriage, marking a 47-point gap between the two parties—the largest divide recorded since Gallup began polling on the issue in 1996. Among independents, 76 percent voiced support for gay marriage.
Historical data from Gallup shows that in 1996, only 16 percent of Republicans, 33 percent of Democrats, and 32 percent of independents supported the legalization of same-sex unions.
The new poll also highlighted differences in moral perceptions of gay and lesbian relationships. While 86 percent of Democrats said such relationships are morally acceptable, only 38 percent of Republicans agreed—a sharp drop from 56 percent in 2022. Among Americans who attend religious services weekly, 33 percent found same-sex marriage morally acceptable, with only 24 percent deeming gay and lesbian relationships socially acceptable.
The issue of same-sex marriage has also been revisited in legal debates. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, called for reconsideration of substantive due process precedents, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that established a constitutional right to gay marriage.
Thomas argued that the legal principle of substantive due process, which has been used to protect unenumerated rights like privacy and same-sex marriage, lacks constitutional grounding. He described it as “an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution,” and emphasized that such decisions should be revisited to determine whether other constitutional provisions might support the rights they claim to protect.
“Substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority,” Thomas wrote, adding that it has led to “constitutionally unmoored policy judgments.”
All eyes have been on Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, but Alex Soros’ meddling has gone largely unnoticed as his mingling with America’s elite makes headlines.
Alex’s involvement in the country was a long time coming.
His father George Soros had his flag planted there for decades. A nation plagued by corruption, George saw opportunity, and has used Ukraine to further his quest to spread his vision of a so-called “open society,” and attack his political opponents in the U.S.
The Open Society Foundations has invested at least $230 million Ukraine since 1991. Among George’s activities in Ukraine have included funding the Maidan Protests that led to the election of Petro Poroshenko. This was followed by George being put on Ukraine’s National Investment Council. The Council is now headed by Zelensky, and there’s been no reporting to indicate that George ever left it.
Since the war escalated, Alex has become a cheerleader for it, which he’s played an active role in, both trying to shape policy in America in the Biden administration to the benefit of Ukraine, and to cement a role for himself in a post-war Ukraine.
He’s boasted access – quite publicly, to the entirety of the Zelensky administration.
Alex has had at least four meetings with Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s “right-hand man” that he appointed to be Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine. In addition to being Zelensky’s Chief-of-Staff, he’s also part of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s higher command and control body.
Yermak has been is plagued by corruption allegations. Just a month after he became Chief-of-Staff, video surfaced showing his brother discussing appointments to government jobs, suggesting he could use position to get people those cushy jobs. An investigation into Yermak’s brother was later dropped by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, which the OSF were active supporters of the creation of.
The corruption whiff around Yermak? Alex doesn’t care; it’s a feature, not a bug. A greased wheel for a machine that thrives on chaos.
During Trump’s first term, Yermak was contacted by Giuliani, who urged him to open an investigation into Hunter’s role at Burisma, which he refused to cooperate in and personally advised Zelensky to not get involved in, protecting Joe Biden.
On December 9, 2023, Alex was invited by President Zelensky and his wife Olena Zelenska to speak at the first meeting of the “International Coalition of Countries for the Return of Ukrainian Children.” At the coalition meeting, Soros announced that OSF would partner with the Ukrainian First Lady’s foundation, The Olena Zelenska Foundation, and donated one million dollars to its projects.
Alex wrote in a tweet “Thank you President @ZelenskyyUa for inviting me back to #Ukraine to speak at the first meeting of the “International Coalition of Countries for the Return of Ukrainian Children.” Honored to partner with you on this important initiative to bring back the Ukrainian children — as many as 700,000 —stolen by Russia.”
It’s an amusing juxtaposition to comments Zelenesky made in 2020 when he tried to downplay Soros influence over Ukraine to the point of pretending to not even know who George Soros was; “I am not familiar with a person named Soros. I have never met him. The question of the influence of Mr. Soros on Ukraine – I do not feel it. I think this is all an exaggeration.”
That came after he had already bowed to Soros’s power early on.
Weeks after Zelensky was elected in 2019, the Ukraine Crisis Media Center (USMC) issued a statement of “red lines” Zelensky was not to cross – as if he wasn’t the real President.
The UCMC’s funding came from the Soros family’s International Renaissance Foundation, the Embassy of the United States, Kyiv, USAID, NATO, and other quasi-CIA groups with the vague professed purpose of “promoting democracy.”
The core demand was to “protect the values that Ukrainians fought for during the Revolution of Dignity” – a reference to the 2014 George Soros-backed “Maidan Uprising.” In 2014 George wrote an article calling for the “spirit of the Maidan” to be preserved.
The USMC was upset that Zelensky had appointed members of Viktor Yanukovych’s government (who lost to the Soros-backed Poroshenko). UCMC warned that any crossing of these “red lines” would lead to “political instability” and a “deterioration of international warnings,” reading more like a threat than a caution.
Among the red lines included Zelensky holding a referendum on the negotiations to be used with Russia on the principles for a peaceful settlement, negotiating with Russia without any members of their “Western partners,” initiating any actions that may contribute to the reduction or lifting of sanctions against Russia, and implementing policies against the International Monetary Fund.
Other red lines included any policies that would accommodate the nearly fifth of the country that’s Russian, such as preventing him from restoring Russian TV channels, disallowing him from reviewing Poroshenko’s language law that prohibits anyone from state positions if their knowledge of Ukrainian is insufficient, or supporting the Russian Orthodox Church (which Zelensky later banned, earning him a condemnation from Pope Francis).
But it had weight – and it was a reminder of who was really in charge.
Zelensky may have been democratically elected, but he didn’t do it alone if this group can have so much power in what he is and isn’t allowed to do. Considering Zelensky’s desire for seemingly endless war, which reached its peak during the epic White House showdown between him and Trump, his behavior does make more sense in this context. Zelensky has, to a t, followed the rules the USMC laid out for him.
And now that same level of influence is being wielded in Alex.
This is an excerpt from Matt Palumbo’s new book The Heir: Inside the (Not So) Secret Network of Alex Soros), published with permission exclusively for The National Pulse’s readers. Purchase a copy of this must-read book, here. Image via Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s on Flickr.
❓What Happened: The British government has committed to increasing defense spending to three percent of GDP by 2034, with an interim target of 2.5 percent by April 2027.
👥 Who’s Involved: Defence Secretary John Healey, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, former international development minister Anneliese Dodds, President Donald J. Trump, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.
📍 Where & When: NATO meeting scheduled for next month in The Hague, Netherlands.
💬 Key Quote: John Healey stated, “It allows us to plan for the long term. It allows us to deal with the pressures.”
⚠️ Impact: The increase in defense spending will be offset by cuts to foreignaid, and follows a pressure campaign from President Trump to have European NATO members pay more towards their continent’s defense.
IN FULL:
The British government has committed to raising defense spending to three percent of GDP by 2034, with an interim target of 2.5 percent by April 2027, according to Defence Secretary John Healey. Healey, of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, described the move as part of a “certain decade of rising defence spending” and expressed confidence in meeting the targets, stating, “It allows us to plan for the long term. It allows us to deal with the pressures.”
The announcement follows Prime Minister Starmer’s earlier pledge to strengthen Britain’s resilience in a “more dangerous world.” The British government is conducting a strategic defense review (SDR) to assess the roles, capabilities, and reforms needed for the armed forces. The review aims to ensure that the spending increases remain “deliverable and affordable” within the planned 2.5 percent trajectory.
Funding for the defense budget boost will come from a reduction in foreign aid, which will be cut from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of gross national income (GNI). The decision, which has angered many in Starmer’s leftist party, follows pressure from U.S. President Donald J. Trump to make European NATO members pay more towards their continent’s defense.
NATO leaders are preparing to meet in The Hague next month, where defense spending is expected to dominate discussions. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, speaking earlier this month in Dayton, Ohio, suggested that the alliance could agree on a collective target of five percent of GDP for defense spending.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
show more
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
.jpg){kind=link}
