Connect with us

Biden Administration

“Orwellian Ministry Of Truth” OUTSED – Judge BLOCKS Biden Officials, Agencies From Contacting Social Media Companies

Published

on

A federal judge in Louisiana has prohibited a number of federal departments and officials from communicating with social media companies in an effort to control content.

The preliminary injunction results from a lawsuit brought by the states of Louisiana and Missouri, as well as two prominent opponents of the Covid-19 lockdown regime, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford.

“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” wrote US District Judge Terry A. Doughty. “The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.”

President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the US Election Assistance Commission, the FBI and the entire Justice Department, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services are among the numerous individuals and organizations who are subject to the injunction.

Social media censorship has affected Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, two of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration that criticized the lockdown regime. For example, the pair claims their censorship-triggering statements included assertions that “thinking everyone must be vaccinated is scientifically flawed,” questioning the value of masks, and stating that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity. 

While Covid-19 censorship is the case’s main focus, it also involves the Justice Department’s attempts to stifle coverage of Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” in the lead-up to the 2020 election. To that charge, Doughty gave support.

The injunction provides significant support for claims that government officials conspired with social media companies to censor speech that contradicts official narratives, almost exclusively targeting conservative viewpoints.

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration: Harvard’s Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Stanford’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya 

“The evidence thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” wrote Doughty in a 155-page ruling. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.”

“The White House defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified,”

 wrote Doughty. “Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied.”

Doughty quoted communications from administration officials to social media company employees, saying they represent “examples of coercion exercised by the White House defendants.” Here’s a small sampling:

  • “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.”
  • To Facebook: “Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.” 
  • “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH”
  • “Hey folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed. ASAP

The judge pointed out that the threats to alter the social media regulation system coincided with the badgering and that these threats carried extra weight because they were made while Democrats were in control of both the White House and Congress.

Federal District Judge Terry Doughty speaks at his 2017 confirmation hearing (YouTube)

The accusation and bureaucracy that surrounded the project support the claim that social media platforms and the government were working together. “Many emails between the White House and social-media companies referred to themselves as ‘partners.’ Twitter even sent the White House a ‘Partner Support Portal’ for expedited review of the White House’s requests,” wrote Doughty, a 2017 Trump nominee. 

A long list of agencies and people are now barred from contacting social media platforms with “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

“If there is a bedrock principal underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” wrote Doughty.

Biden Administration

U.S. Announces $725 Million Military Aid Package for Ukraine

Published

on

Washington, D.C. — The United States is poised to deliver an additional $725 million in military aid to Ukraine, signaling continued support for Kyiv’s efforts to defend against Russian aggression. The latest package, confirmed by two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity, includes counter-drone systems and munitions for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).

Notably, the package raises questions about whether it includes the coveted Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a longer-range missile that Ukraine has repeatedly requested to target deeper into Russian-controlled territory. However, the officials declined to confirm whether ATACMS would be included.

In addition to munitions, the aid package features anti-personnel landmines, which Ukraine is using to counter Russian and North Korean ground forces, particularly in contested areas like Russia’s Kursk region.

President Joe Biden remains resolute in using all funds allocated by Congress for Ukraine’s military support before the end of his administration in January. Before Monday’s announcement, approximately $7.1 billion in military assistance had been provided, drawn from Pentagon stockpiles.

While the Biden administration continues to bolster Ukraine, questions loom about the incoming Trump administration’s approach to the conflict. President-elect Trump h as promised to “end the conflict,” potentially signaling a shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

In a noteworthy development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested last week that NATO membership for Ukrainian-controlled territories could help end the “hot stage of the war.” This remark signals a potential softening in Ukraine’s stance as it seeks to balance territorial integrity with international support.

HIMARS munitions have been a linchpin in Ukraine’s defense strategy, enabling precision strikes on Russian targets. The possible inclusion of ATACMS in this package could extend Ukraine’s reach, putting more strategic Russian positions at risk. Meanwhile, the addition of counter-drone systems underscores the escalating drone warfare in the region, as both sides employ drones for surveillance and strikes.

The use of anti-personnel landmines reflects Ukraine’s tactical efforts to slow Russian advancements, particularly in areas where conventional defense lines have proven difficult to maintain.

The aid announcement comes amid heightened speculation about U.S. foreign policy under the incoming Trump administration. While President Biden has championed robust support for Ukraine, critics argue the ongoing assistance risks overextending U.S. resources. Trump’s pledge to “end the conflict” could signify a more isolationist approach, raising concerns among Ukraine’s allies about the continuity of U.S. support.

As the war grinds on, Ukraine remains reliant on Western military aid to sustain its defenses and reclaim lost territory. The latest U.S. package underscores Washington’s strategic commitment, even as domestic and international pressures mount.

Whether the new administration will maintain this trajectory remains uncertain, but for now, the U.S. remains a steadfast partner in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty.

SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

U.S. Government Has Sent $239 Million to Taliban Since 2021 Due to State Dept’s Vetting Failures, Report Reveals

Published

on

The U.S. government has inadvertently sent at least $239 million to the Taliban in development assistance since 2021, according to a new report. The oversight occurred because the State Department failed to properly vet award recipients.

Less than a year after it was reported that the Taliban established fake nonprofits to siphon millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, a new investigation by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reveals that the terrorist group has received hundreds of millions in development assistance due to inadequate vetting by the State Department. Since the 2021 U.S. military withdrawal, at least $239 million have likely filled the Taliban’s coffers.

The State Department’s divisions known as Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) disbursed the funds to implement development projects aimed at supporting American foreign policy and national security goals in Afghanistan.

Investigators found that the State Department failed to comply with its own counterterrorism partner vetting requirements before awarding at least 29 grants to various local entities. The agency has a system in place to identify whether prospective awardees have a record of ethical business practices and is supposed to conduct risk assessments to determine if programming funds may benefit terrorists or terrorist-affiliates before distributing American taxpayer dollars. However, in the more than two dozen cases examined, the agency neglected these procedures and failed to maintain proper records.

“Because DRL and INL could not demonstrate their compliance with State’s partner vetting requirements, there is an increased risk that terrorist and terrorist-affiliated individuals and entities may have illegally benefited from State spending in Afghanistan,” the SIGAR report states. “As State continues to spend U.S. taxpayer funds on programs intended to benefit the Afghan people, it is critical that State knows who is actually benefiting from this assistance in order to prevent the aid from being diverted to the Taliban or other sanctioned parties, and to enable policymakers and other oversight authorities to better scrutinize the risks posed by State’s spending.”

The watchdog identified issues with 29 awards distributed by DRL and INL. For instance, DRL failed to properly screen the recipients of seven awards totaling about $12 million. INL did not provide any supporting documentation for 19 of its 22 awards totaling about $295 million, making it impossible to determine if they complied with vetting requirements. The State Department acknowledged that not all its bureaus have complied with document retention requirements, complicating the assessment of the magnitude of its transgressions. INL cited “employee turnover and the dissolution of the Afghanistan-Pakistan office” as reasons for not retaining records.

Given the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, SIGAR emphasized the importance of U.S. government activities adhering to laws, regulations, and policies intended to prevent transactions with terrorists.

Besides establishing fraudulent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to loot significant portions of the $3 billion in humanitarian aid the U.S. has provided Afghanistan since the Biden administration’s abrupt military withdrawal, the Taliban has also accrued millions by charging taxes, permit fees, and import duties. This money has flowed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department arm known for its corruption, which received $63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement this year. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government’s international broadcasting service, also disbursed funds.

The United Nations has received $1.6 billion in U.S. funding for Afghanistan, and a significant percentage of that money likely went to the Taliban, according to a federal audit. The U.S. government does not require the UN to report on taxes, fees, or duties incurred on American funds for activities in Afghanistan, further complicating accountability.

SOURCE: SIGAR REPORT

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

US Announces $1.7 Billion in New Security Assistance for Ukraine

Published

on

The United States announced on Monday a new tranche of military aid for Ukraine valued at approximately $1.7 billion. This package includes critical air defense munitions and artillery rounds that Ukrainian forces have urgently requested.

The assistance package comprises $200 million in equipment drawn from existing U.S. military stocks, ensuring rapid deployment to the battlefield. Additionally, it includes around $1.5 billion in new orders, which will take longer to reach Ukraine, according to a statement from the Defense Department.

Key Components of the Aid Package

The new security assistance will provide Ukraine with:

  • Various types of air defense munitions to shield against Russian strikes
  • Artillery rounds
  • Ammunition for HIMARS precision rocket launchers
  • Multiple types of anti-tank weapons
  • Other crucial capabilities

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed deep gratitude in a social media post, thanking U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Congress, and the American people for their continued support. Zelensky emphasized that the aid includes items “critical to strengthening Ukrainian defenders, as well as funding to sustain previously committed equipment from the United States.”

Zelensky visited special forces in the border region of Kharkiv on Monday. Moscow’s forces launched a surprise ground offensive in this region in May but failed to make significant progress. The Ukrainian leader observed firsthand how the ongoing assistance from the U.S. helps to save lives and protect citizens from Russian attacks.

The United States has been a pivotal military supporter of Ukraine, committing over $55 billion in weapons, ammunition, and other security assistance since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Before late April, Washington had announced limited new aid for Ukraine this year, with only a $300 million package made possible through Pentagon savings on other purchases. After months of intense debate, Congress finally approved large-scale funding for Kyiv in April, authorizing $95 billion in aid, including $61 billion specifically for Ukraine.

Despite the new aid, Ukrainian forces are facing significant challenges. On Monday, Russia claimed its forces had captured the village of Vovche in eastern Ukraine, marking the latest in a series of front-line advances by Moscow.

The Ukrainian military reported that it had repelled six Russian attacks on the Kharkiv front line over the past day, including at Vovchansk, a small town that Russian forces have targeted since May. As the conflict grinds through its third year, neither side has managed to gain a decisive advantage, although Moscow’s forces have made recent gains.

Continue Reading

Trending