Login
As it stands, liberal Arizona voting laws have paved the way for non-citizens, whether they are legal or not, to register for and cast a ballot in the 2024 presidential election.
The Gateway Pundit spoke to retired U.S. Air Force master sergeant Nick Kupper, who is one of several state legislature candidates vying for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives’ District 25. While the voting laws do not affect his run for office, he is gravely concerned about the upcoming presidential race.
“In Arizona,” Kupper said, “even if the state can’t verify whether you’re a citizen, people can still assert that they are citizens.” While these individuals are not allowed to vote in Arizona elections, they can still vote in the federal election. “They can still vote for the president,” he explained.
In an April 16 post on X, Kupper pointed out that “In 2020 Biden got 73% of the federal only votes & Trump lost AZ by 10K votes. There are now over 32K federal only voters in AZ which would give Biden 15K more votes than Trump in 2024.”
In AZ you don’t have to be a citizen to vote for president. In 2020 Biden got 73% of the federal only votes & Trump lost AZ by 10K votes.
There are now over 32K federal only voters in AZ which would give Biden 15K more votes than Trump in 2024.
We need to follow… https://t.co/UBVkbgnlFu
— Nick Kupper (@kupper4arizona) April 16, 2024
“I think it’s pretty telling that the current president is allowing, enabling, and encouraging people to come across the border, as I’m sure he and his administration know that these kinds of rules are on the books in Arizona,” he said. “This has to change, because Arizona is a huge player in the federal election.”
In addition, Kupper said, “When censuses are being done, they’re not only counting the citizens of Arizona but also counting noncitizens and illegals.” He explained that anyone who lives in a home is included in the census. “This not only shapes voting districts in Arizona, but it can also count towards how many electoral votes can get apportioned to the state,” he pointed out. “And Democrat strongholds are the ones that tend to benefit the most from this.”
With that, Kupper said he considers any talk about illegal border crossings to be “multifaceted.” On the one hand, he recognizes a growing humanitarian concern for migrants who are risking their lives to “reach the land of opportunity.” Many are being exposed to dangerous cartels, smugglers, and traffickers in their quest to reach America.
And on the other hand, Kupper also recognizes there are thousands of bad actors and many deceived immigrants trying to do the same. These include drug smugglers, sex traffickers, terrorists, and more.
Whether they are legitimately seeking a new home or they are here for nefarious reasons, Kupper said, “Arizona has had enough illegal immigrants come across the border to equal eight percent of the state’s population.”
For Kupper, “this is an invasion.” He also pointed out that the Biden administration has done nothing to curb the massive flow of illegal immigration into the country. What’s more, many may be receiving flyers from a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Mexico, instructing them to vote for Joe Biden in the upcoming U.S. election. Meanwhile, other NGOs are providing the path to get here.
Here’s the translation of the last two sentences:
“Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in the United States.
We need another four years of his mandate to stay.” https://t.co/rHNECRO5Un
— Nick Kupper (@kupper4arizona) April 16, 2024
“Encouraging them to come across the border to vote for Joe Biden isn’t all sunshine and roses,” he said. “It’s illegal in most circumstances, and many can’t find legitimate employment once they’re here, because they’re illegal,” he explained. “They’re being sold a bad bill of goods.”
And according to him, “Conservatives are getting the short end of the stick, [because] “Democrat policies are overtly hurting Republicans more than they are Democrats.” He explained, “statistically, people paying the most into the tax system for all the programs that enable illegal immigrants are Republicans.”
The post In the Race to the White House, Illegals Will Be Casting Votes in the Crucial Swing State of Arizona appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Through the lens of tens of thousands of service members and veterans affected by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s 2021 COVID-19 military shot mandate, an important question arises: Did the Department of Defense, specifically the Secretary of Defense, mandate a “toxic exposure risk activity” (TERA)?
It’s a question being asked increasingly more often by people like whistleblower Trey Fleming and Dr. Crisanna Shackelford. Previously speaking under a pseudonym, the whistleblower’s name is Sonny Fleeman III, a combat veteran and Rating Veteran Services Representative for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Fleeman revealed himself on a video podcast with Feds for Freedom.
Like Fleeman, Dr. Crisanna “Shack” Shackelford is a veteran. She is also founder and CEO of realreactions.org. They are working to expose that the COVID-19 shots contain toxins that can be claimed as a toxic exposure risk under the 2022 Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act.
Fleeman told The Gateway Pundit that exposure to burn pits, toxins in improvised explosive devices (IED), chlorine bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, burning oil wells, and Agent Orange used during the Vietnam war topped the list of widely recognized cases of toxic substances within the PACT Act.
But what does the PACT Act say about those who have clearly been injured by the so-called COVID-19 vaccine, he and Dr. Shackleford questioned, also pointing out what has recorded by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concerning the Moderna injection. “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,” the report states. And according to Dr. Robert Malone, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used within COVID-19 “vaccines” is a toxin.
SARS-CoV-2 direct cardiac damage through spike-mediated cardiomyocyte fusion
More evidence of Spike as a toxin.https://t.co/ytUpbNRX3k
— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) September 1, 2021
Interestingly, within the toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) provisions for veterans to obtain a screening for their toxic exposures, the policy states, “Vaccines and medications in general are not considered participation in a TERA [under the PACT Act] because there is no scientific or medical evidence that supports the conclusion that vaccines and medications administered to Service Members have resulted in long-term adverse health effects.”
Dr. Shackelford said, “this is shocking given how much is known about the toxicity of the ‘gene therapy’ injection and known adverse health effects.” For her, “the fact that the VA would disenfranchise our service members who were mandated to take this injection raises critical questions.”
The policy being enforced by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is easily debunked, according to Dr. Shackelford. Her straightforward, but oft-ignored, explanation should “raise the alarm bell” for those who continue to deny countless stories of the gene therapy’s toxic adverse side effects. According to her, it’s undeniable: “The spike protein that the body is forced to make from the injection—in and of itself—is toxic.”
Consider the plight of Army Corporal Karolina Stancik who has suffered more than one heart attack, a mini-stroke, and several neurological maladies after being forced roll up her sleeve and get the shot. Yet, in a case like hers, the VA would maintain that “…vaccines and medications, in general, are not considered participation in toxic exposure risk activity because there are no long-term adverse health effects supported by science.”
“This very issue of toxic exposure and the known mechanisms of injury such as Karolina’s must be acknowledged, and those responsible must ensure that disability compensation for this toxic exposure occurs,” she said.
In December 2023, Fleeman explained that “veterans with vaccine injuries are excluded from receiving a VA examination and medical nexus opinion under the PACT Act—and more specifically under the TERA provisions.” And according to Dr. Shackelford, the exclusion is “fraudulent” and the “willful ignorance” needs to be exposed.
From the start, it was illegal for the Pentagon’s policy to say that the Comirnaty and EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines were interchangeable. “This cannot be refuted, “Dr. Shackelford said, adding that “it was undeniably an illegal mandate for this reason and more.” With that, the question remains: did the Department of Defense, specifically the Secretary of Defense, mandate a TERA?
According to Dr. Shackelford, “If the VA was forced to concede that the so-called vaccine, or gene therapy per the Moderna SEC filing, is toxic, all bets would be off for the Department of Defense.” This must be addressed by Congress at some point, she argued, adding that “the mandate for COVID-19 injections represented a forced toxic exposure with catastrophic implications for our national security and defense readiness.”
Because of concern about reprisals, Fleeman emphasized that his views don’t reflect those of the VA.
The post EXCLUSIVE: Whistleblower Who Exposed A Blatant Oversight in the VA’s Policy for Veterans With Vaccine-Related Injury Goes Public appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Located 400 miles off the coast of China, Kadena Air Base is largely considered the hub of U.S. airpower in the Asia-Pacific region. However, as claims about military leadership rise, its combat mission could be compromised.
The Gateway Pundit spoke to Jamie Walker, an Air Force member who has devoted many years to the defense of America. The service member used a pseudonym because of concern about reprisals and emphasized the views shared do not reflect those of the Department of Defense or Department of the Air Force.
While inside sources have shared the same experiences, Walker has also been a witness to the “highly toxic and lethal command culture” at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. Having worked for several commands in a variety of environments throughout a lengthy career, the service member has “never seen a level of dysfunction, mismanagement, and lack of oversight, as is chronically resident at the air base.”
Walker places the blame at the feet of the base’s special operations wing leadership. In the service member’s opinion, “Leadership is stagnant, risk-averse, and nearly always absent on official business trips, essentially doing nothing more than attempting to survive wing command because it’s the last steppingstone to general officer.”
“They’re never here, they’re leading by proxy,” Walker revealed. “They leave it to their deputies, to their staff.” As a result, “people who have no business being empowered are being given great empowerment in nearly every aspect of military affairs, often far beyond their capabilities, expertise, or experience.”
For Walker “This allows corrosion to fester and the subsequent decay allows vast overreach.” General Service (GS) civilian employees, and even civilian contractors, are being “given excessive power because command will not shoulder the responsibility,” the Air Force officer explained.
“Many of these unqualified people are making decisions that have an impact on unit climate and culture, and they’ve never even served in the military,” Walker lamented. “Some are even leading in areas that would require a clinical or educational background they do not possess.”
“Because they’re leading the people who are actually educated and credentialed in the field and who are the experts, their authority over them is questionable at best,” Walker said. “Their actions and demeanor are also toxic, and this combination requires them to rule with an iron fist to maintain control through fear.”
“This leadership by proxy has led to the mismanagement and misallocation of resources and personnel,” Walker said, adding that “the problem is magnified because there is a lack of oversight [from senior military leadership].” The circumstances have also enabled “fraud waste and abuse, and a culture of fear and frequent reprisal,” according to the member of the Air Force.
“There are daily examples of risk aversion by commanders ceding their power to lower ranking leaders, and even civilians, in an effort to avoid the decisions they should be making,” Walker said. “They’re doing the bare minimum to survive and move up, and they’re avoiding any responsibility for their subordinates’ actions.”
“We’re giving up our capabilities and training tools, destroying our special operations advantage,” Walker disclosed. “An understanding of special operations missions, vision, goals, and priorities no longer exists [at the 353rd Special Operations Wing],” according to the officer, warning that “this kind of mismanagement increases risk to the security of the Indo-Pacific theater.”
If senior military leadership fails to keep these things in order, and refuses to get operationally focused, Walker questions what impact their lack of ownership and cohesive strategy could have on America’s ability to deter strategic adversaries like China and North Korea.
Mission Jeopardized
Air Force Col. (Ret.) Rob Maness, a former bomber squadron commander with more than 30 years of service, expressed to The Gateway Pundit, “There is a very fine line between leaders delegating authority effectively and leadership by proxy.” Having served as a wing commander, he asserted that “personal leadership effectiveness required constant effort and flexibility.”
Maness understands that wing commanders are required to travel a lot, and for this reason, he said “it’s up to us to be the person on the base that gets the least amount of sleep.” Responsibility to his or her command must be prioritized. “If a commander is not out with the troops, even on the night shifts, on a consistent basis, his or her leadership feels remote or even non-existent,” he explained.
“Wing command also requires the mentorship and development of strong leaders in squadron command, group command, and vice wing positions by the person in the wing commander position,” he pointed out. “Those individuals are the face of command leadership, and if they are weak in these areas, can and do as much damage to mission accomplishment as the most senior commander.”
For Maness, command is about two things: being successfully prepared to complete the combat mission or completing the combat mission. “When tasked to do so,” he said, “a commander who is failing to lead as appears to be the case here [with Walker’s example], the mission is in jeopardy.”
Solution Forestalled
Emphasizing that his views don’t reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army for fear of reprisals, Army Major Grant Smith said, “The scientific-technocratic methodologies of the managerial elite running our institutions have always had serious drawbacks.”
“In the private sector, these drawbacks are mitigated by the coordinating information provided by profit and loss,” he said. “Absent this information, government bureaucracy, including Department of Defense (DOD) is incapable of performing optimally towards achieving real-world objectives and always has been.”
According to Maj. Smith, “Walker’s comments demonstrate something has changed.” In the past, he said, “structural limitations were somewhat mitigated by having people in the positions of the most influence in the military being those who had served and commanded at all prior echelons.”
But now, Maj. Smith said, “Many of these commanders are de-facto subservient to bureaucrats with zero actual military experience, let alone command experience at echelon.” In his opinion, “A functional military can’t emerge from such a perverse constellation of incentives.”
In conclusion, he said, “The recent decision by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to discard the Schedule F concept indicates the federal bureaucracy is already making moves to forestall any political solution to this dire situation.” He explained, “[The Schedule F] concept would have streamlined the removal of incompetent—or even malicious—members of the civilian workforce in position to functionally dictate policy to commanders at echelon.”
The post ‘Highly Toxic Lethal Command Culture’ at Kadena Air Base Could Weaken U.S. Power in the Pacific appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, 38 military chaplains are challenging Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s authority to issue the 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate and its implementation, which are largely considered illegal and unconstitutional by those who have sought relief from its tyrannical enforcement.
The Gateway Pundit spoke to Arthur A. Schulcz Sr., retired Vietnam War veteran, and lead attorney in Alvarado v. Austin. On December 29, 2023, he said, the chaplains filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ dismissal of their claims for an injunction against continued retaliation for requesting religious accommodation and the District Court’s dismissal of their constitutional and statutory claims.
The Fourth Circuit said the claims were moot, meaning the courts could not provide a remedy because the military had allegedly fixed the chaplains’ concerns regarding the vaccine.
On March 21, the chaplains filed an application for injunctive relief with the Supreme Court to protect them during the petition process and thereafter. The group of chaplains is calling for the cessation of retaliatory actions used against them for refusing to get the jab on the grounds of religious objection.
And on Friday, April 26, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to stay, or pause, the policies that have continued to impact these chaplains’ careers.
Schulcz said, “The Department of Defense (DOD) has waged an insurgency against Congress by not returning these chaplains to their pre-mandate status as required by Congress’s December 22, 2023, order to rescind the mandate.” According to Schulcz, “the mandate did nothing more than attempt to serve as a purge of those who believe in following conscience, violating the First and Fifth Amendments and statutory protections of all service members.
“All the rules were changed,” he said. “There was no intent to grant any religious accommodations, [and] that should shake every citizen’s faith in the military leadership.”
According to Schulcz, “The volunteer military is in danger of being destroyed by people who have no respect for the law or persons, especially religious liberty, and that is illustrated in our case.” It is his hope that the Supreme Court will intervene and “do its duty to uphold the law.”
Schulcz asked, “What institution do you turn to if the Supreme Court essentially says your conscience doesn’t matter or if the Court ignores obvious untruths from our military leaders and deliberately ignores what Congress has said DOD must do?”
According to him, “rescinding the mandate should mean restoring military personnel to their status before the mandate was issued, and that hasn’t been done.” He pointed out, “One of the primary issues in our case is whether the Secretary of Defense can lie to Congress and the courts without accountability.”
Following the rescission of the vaccine mandate, “adverse actions” from the files of those who requested religious accommodations are supposed to be removed. “But this is not true,” Schulcz said. While discipline actions like a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) have been removed, he pointed out that “the Secretary has not returned our chaplains and others to the status quo.”
He explained, “We have people that have failed promotion twice because of the bad fitness reports they received after filing for religious accommodation request, [noting that] two failures of promotion below the grade of Lieutenant Colonel or Commander in the Navy subject you to separation at the government’s whim.”
“We have chaplains whose reports during Covid guarantee they will not be promoted,” Schulcz noted. “One of our chaplains had his career destroyed during the ‘voluntary’ phase of the vaccine for questioning his commander about telling the troops the vaccine was voluntary and then punishing them for not volunteering,” he added. “But that chaplain’s job was to advise the commander of ethical and moral issues.”
Schulcz also pointed out, “the DOD has not been challenged over the fact that people have been hurt by lowered efficiency reports, missed schooling, etc., [adding that] all these things are forbidden by Section 533 [of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)].”
“What the mandate reveals and what we challenge is a complete disregard for the law,” he argued.
“Even now, the Secretary refuses to acknowledge anything was wrong,” said Schulcz, “If Congress said ‘rescind,’ the Secretary’s job is to salute and say, ‘yes, Congress,’ then examine the damage that’s been done and do something to fix it.”
But according to Schulcz, Austin has not done that. “Thus, his disobedience and lying to Congress is a matter the courts can and must be addressed,” he said. “Otherwise, woe to us as a nation.”
“Afterall, the right of conscience is integral to who we are as a nation and integral to the First Amendment, and this administration is doing what has never been done before,” shared Schulcz. “[It’s] substituting itself for God as the source of authority that determines right and wrong, and good and evil.”
“I deeply understand that the American fighting man and woman is a treasure and a blessing,” Schulcz said. “The American fighting man is unique, [because] they are the keystone in fulfilling the last stated objective for forming the Constitution, “to preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”
For him, “the word ‘blessings’ is not a political or legal term.” Rather, he said, “The word reflects the fact that our founders knew our liberty was given to us as a gift by the Divine Providence to whom they appealed in the Declaration of Independence—a bold statement made by men with no army, no navy, no arms industry, no finances, and no friends except the Divine Providence to whom they appealed.”
“Their conscience compelled them to oppose the tyrant who denied the liberty and rights they had become accustomed to and were guaranteed in their law and history, rights they believed came from the Divine Creator,” Schulcz said, pointing out that “freedom of conscience is necessary for every First Amendment right.”
For chaplains in today’s military, he said, “their conscience is formed by faith and protected by Section 533 [of the NDAA], which Mr. Austin has ignored…a grave breach of the public trust.”
“Pastors played key roles in our War for Independence,” Schulcz shared. “The British called them the Black Robed Regiment.” Considering this, he said, “How fortunate that once again we have pastors in uniform defending ‘the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.’”
Schulcz prays for a just decision to be made by the Supreme Court, one that recognizes the case is not moot and reinforces the public’s trust in the nation’s courts because they enforce the rule of law for all, including the government.
The post Taking the Secretary of Defense to Task, Military Chaplains Are Asking the Supreme Court to Simply Enforce the Rule of Law appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Vaunce News 