9 Feb, 2023 11:20

NATO member comments on F-16s for Kiev

A decision on actual delivery to Ukraine lies with the military bloc, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has said

The delivery of Polish F-16 fighter jets to Kiev’s forces ultimately depends on decisions by NATO, which has yet to reach any agreement on the issue, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has said.

However, nothing is completely off the table and “we shouldn’t exclude anything,” the premier added, speaking to Italian daily Corriere della Sera on Thursday.

Later in the day, on the sidelines of an extraordinary EU summit in Brussels, Morawiecki noted that if the bloc does decide to send fighter jets,Warsaw will not be “the first in line” to donate its planes and that this responsibility should fall on countries that have the most of them.

Morawiecki has previously stated that he is personally open to deliveries of US-made fighter jets to Ukraine, despite his Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak insisting that Poland has “too few of them.”

In Thursday's Corriere interview, the Polish leader also suggested that the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine presents “an existential threat for Poland and all of Europe,” and declared that defeating Russia is both a “Polish and a European reason of state.”

Last month the US, Germany and the UK announced that they would deliver dozens of Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Challenger 2 tanks to the Ukrainian army, as well as longer-range missiles. However, no Western nations have yet sent or announced deliveries of any fighter jets to Ukraine, with officials fearing Kiev could use these to strike Russian territory, potentially provoking a significant escalation of the conflict. The UK, however, has recently announced it would nevertheless provide training for Ukrainian pilots.

While a number of EU states such as France, Poland and the Netherlands have stated they are open to sending warplanes to Ukraine, the bloc’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, stated last week that the topic was a “highly controversial”issue for the union and suggested that its members should instead focus on fulfilling their promise of tank deliveries.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday that talks about fighter-jet deliveries to Kiev once again underline the growing involvement of Western countries in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. He reiterated Moscow’s position that such actions only serve to escalate and prolong it, and would lead to more bloodshed while failing to change the ultimate outcome of Russia’s military operation.

https://www.rt.com/russia/571219-poland-ukraine-f16-nato/

Bannons War Room

852K followers

1 hour ago

Bannon & Winters React To NYT Labeling War Room As #1 Show For Spreading ‘Misinformation.’

Kekkity a good listen! 9 minutes, really funny

https://rumble.com/embed/v26acea/?pub=4

>>18313915

Bannon War Room will get over 1 million views now, they are 852,000!When the NYTs put you down, you’re doing something right

PN>>18313663 (You), >>18313694, >>18313751, >>18313763, >>18313797 Anon Trying to remember the highlights. (Jim Jordan Questioning

Yoel Roth is an idiot, Social Media keeps on saying free speech violations only applies to Government, the FBI asked them to remove people or limit them on twitter. Heck the FBI, CIA etc have been running Twitter since the beginning

Regulation of Speech

Amdt1.7.2.4 State Action Doctrine and Free Speech

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress and not to the actions of private persons.1 As such, the First Amendment is subject to a state action (or governmental action) limitation similar to that applicable to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.2

The Supreme Court has stated that a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances, such as [1] when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function;[2] when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action; or [3] when the government acts jointly with the private entity.3 In addition, some private entities established by the government to carry out governmental objectives may qualify as state actors for purposes of the First Amendment. For example, in Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., the Court held that the national passenger train company Amtrak, though nominally a private corporation, qualified as an agency or instrumentality of the United States for purposes of the First Amendment.4 It did not matter, in the Court’s view, that the federal statute establishing Amtrak expressly stated that Amtrak was not a federal agency because Amtrak was established and organized under federal law for the very purpose of pursuing federal governmental objectives, under the direction and control of federal governmental appointees.5

Starting with the public function test, the Court extended the First Amendment to apply to the actions of a private party in Marsh v. Alabama, barring the punishment of a resident of a company-owned town for distributing religious literature.6 While the town was owned by a private corporation, it ha[d] all the characteristics of any other American town, including residences, businesses, streets, utilities, public safety officers, and a post office.7 Under these circumstances, the Court held that the corporation’s property interests did not settle the question8: [w]hether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town[,] the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free.9 Consequently, the corporation could not be permitted to govern a community of citizens in a way that restrict[ed] their fundamental liberties.10..

Apart from the factual circumstances presented by the company town that exercises powers traditionally and exclusively held by the government,23 the Court has sometimes applied the First Amendment against private parties if they have asufficiently close relationship to the government.24 Such circumstances may exist where a private company is subject to extensive state regulation—although government regulation alone is not sufficient to establish the state action requirement.25 Instead, the inquiry in such a case is whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.26 Accordingly, for example, in Manhattan Community Access Corp., the Supreme Court also held that the city’s selection of MNN and the state’s extensive regulation of MNN did not in and of themselves create state action.27…

>>18313104, >>18313135, >>18313141, >>18313242, >>18313565, >>18313596, PN>>18313580, >>18313596, >>18313663 (You), >>18313694, >>18313751, >>18313763, >>18313797 Anon Trying to remember the highlights. (Jim Jordan Questioning)

Wasn’t GIRA the website with the infinity sign mentioned by Q? Is this the same website? Or are they using another website

Rep. Ben Cline Pledges To Raise ‘Hell’ If Witnesses Don’t Comply With GOP Investigations.. A new subcommittee to bully the CI to cooperate

Short video 4 minutes

https://rumble.com/embed/v26afce/?pub=4

Rep Lunaon War Room

We Have Evidence MORE Social Media Platforms(not just Twitter) Were Secretly Communicating With Federal Government

They got this info on Jira because it was accidentally leaked from Stanford!!!

Kek x 10,000

Rep. Luna: We Have Evidence MORE Social Media Platforms - Not Just Twitter - Were Secretly Communicating With Federal Government.

https://rumble.com/embed/v26ag6k/?pub=4

Rep. Luna:Twitter Execs Perjured ThemselvesIn Congressional Hearing On Government Collusion.

Federal Govt+Private Companiesplus the DNChow is this even possible

https://rumble.com/embed/v26agnc/?pub=4