Search

Under the leadership of this supreme commander, we are bringing home tens of thousands of our best soldiers. In this way, we are increasing the size of the joint forces and redirecting the focus where it belongs: on the defense of the homeland and our hemisphere, while simultaneously surpassing every global threat. The United States will bring home tens of thousands of its soldiers who are currently stationed in bases abroad, announced U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hagseth at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia. (translated)

Krzysztof Adam Kowalczyk in his article points out that the message from President Karol Nawrocki and his decision to sign the law regarding excessive profits of fuel companies does not end the political game of accusations, as by setting conditions for Donald Tusk, the president emphasizes the need for an immediate reduction in fuel prices. (translated)

Sikorski confirms to Olejnik that there will be no fuel at 5.19: - the president expects that the price of gasoline will be 5.19 as Donald Tusk promised during the campaign - let him write a complaint to his patron, who started the war in the Persian Gulf And where can one write a complaint about a deceitful, promise-breaking, and completely unreliable government? Anyone, anything? (translated)

As long as Serbia lives in myths and denies its responsibility for the aggression against Croatia, I do not expect any progress. The problem is not only the connection with Russia but also on the internal level where the catharsis in society has not even begun. The Greater Serbian myth still lives on. The European Commission must be aware of this. (translated)

Mr. Nawrocki, Unfortunately, I listened to this hmmm "message" and checked it against the documents. And, as usual, I have a problem. A big one. Because when you set aside the gestures, the teleprompter, and the political phrases, what remains is a series of facts mixed with half-truths, altered chronology, forecasts presented as certainties, and accusations that are not even confirmed by the documents of your own Office and a mass of other manipulations. Step by step. "The campaign promise of fuel at 5.19." No. Mr. Donald Tusk’s specific statement about 5.19 PLN was made in JUNE 2022. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for August 8, 2023. Only then did the election campaign begin in the sense of the Electoral Code. But it gets much more interesting with your quote... In the message, you connected 5.19 PLN, "one simple decision," and... a VAT reduction 🤦‍♂️ However, in the original statement about 5.19, Tusk talked about the MARGINS of Orlen and Lotos. And in a later statement about "one decision," he also talked about limiting Orlen's profits. Not about VAT! 🤦‍♂️ You are manipulating the Prime Minister's statement, and you are using the institution of the Address to the Nation for that... Exactly the same version about VAT was spread by Mr. Bogucki in the morning, but in his case, nothing surprises me anymore. A coincidence? Let’s move on. You claim that your project would cause "an immediate drop in fuel prices of over 2 PLN." Meanwhile, your OWN justification explicitly states that the mechanism DOES NOT START when the law comes into force. First, specific market conditions must occur. Then the Council of Ministers MAY issue a regulation. Only then does the mechanism begin to work. Where is the "immediate" here? Did you read your "own" project? Or are you just repeating this nonsense from Mr. Przydacz? Moreover, earlier materials from KPRP talked about an ESTIMATE of 1.70–2.60 PLN 🤦‍♂️ In the address, the estimate has already turned into a guaranteed effect 🤦‍♂️ Next, you say that the project is "good for the budget"... Meanwhile, your own justification predicts a loss of up to 600 million PLN just from the retail sales tax and further, unestimated costs of any potential excise tax reduction. I ask again - did you read your own project? Because you probably didn’t write it manually... Even more interesting. In the address: "The government bears full responsibility for fuel prices." In the justification of your project: market disruptions have an "objective character and are independent of entrepreneurs and the government".... So please decide. Full responsibility of the government or factors independent of the government? Because both versions cannot be true at the same time 🤦‍♂️ "The Marshal of the Sejm freezes the project." The project was submitted on September 18. On the same day, it was directed to the Legislative Office and BEOS. Then for opinions and consultations. Moreover, KPRP talked about the possibility of "freezing" as early as September 17 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ THE DAY BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SEJM! So first, a narrative about freezing was created, and only later did the Marshal receive the bill 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Are you communicating with the rest of the "experts" in your office?? Next, we hear that the government deliberately keeps prices high because it wants to profit from VAT and dividends from Orlen. Proof? None was provided! A higher price may mean higher nominal VAT revenues. Orlen can pay dividends to shareholders. But one does not imply the other: this is NOT proof that the government deliberately keeps fuel prices high. This is attributing a motive without providing evidence 🤦‍♂️ Then you sign the law and say: "Every zloty obtained from this law must be spent on reducing fuel prices." A moment earlier, you conceded that the law DOES NOT CONTAIN a mechanism for passing that money on to reduce prices 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Exactly. So it "mustn't." This is your political demand, not the legal effect of the signed law 🤷‍♂️ Moody’s? Yes. Here, the fact is a fact: Poland's rating was lowered from A2 to A3. But why was there no information that at the same time, the outlook was changed from negative to STABLE? Why does the rating decision then create a vision that "tomorrow there may not be enough for pensions and armaments"? (translated)

Unfortunately, the president succumbed to Donald Tusk's government and SIGNED the bill on extraordinary profits of fuel companies. I voted against this bill and was counting on a veto. Why? Because this bill, in addition to the tax (which will still be paid by consumers) and filling the government's coffers, does not eliminate the real causes of this high prices. The true cause of these high prices is, firstly, the EU climate policy and the associated taxes, which Morawiecki agreed to, and which were intensified and continued by Donald Tusk. Secondly, the obstinacy of the Polish government, which in view of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is neither looking for nor even trying to find alternative suppliers. These are the real causes of today's expensive fuel, which neither the Polish government nor - as it seems - the Presidential Palace wants to solve. Today, the president removed his image responsibility for expensive fuel, bowed to the government, but did not solve the real causes of the problem. Prices will temporarily drop a bit, but we will still have expensive fuel and another tax to pay. Because if we were to consider today the signing of the bill by Karol Nawrocki as justified, we would have to admit that Donald Tusk's solution was good. It was not. (translated)

Now it's short balls. CPN cost 2 billion a month, and fuel prices barely dropped by one złoty. 4 billion will last for two months, meaning not even until Christmas. Even after a drop of one złoty, prices at stations will still be frightening and, moreover, will be higher than before the March CPN!!! If @donaldtusk wanted to make it 5.19 zł, the cash would last for two weeks. He is in deep trouble! (translated)

Dorota Wysocka-Sznepf definitely deserves her title of high priestess of propaganda. She knows perfectly well that the electoral procedure was a classic trap set for @NawrockiKn. The backers of Onet hoped that he would fall into it, and then it would be possible to heat up the narrative that "the court confirmed the allegations of Harłukowicz and Stankiewicz." Why? 1) The court in the 24-hour electoral procedure does not conduct an investigation. It only examines whether there were obvious lies or just "assumptions" and opinions. 2) Texts written based on anonymous sources, hypotheses, and questions are constructed in such a way that the lawsuit in the electoral procedure would be dismissed on formal grounds. 3) If Nawrocki had filed a lawsuit, he would most likely have lost it procedurally. The entire pro-Platform machinery - with such "journalists" at the helm - would immediately declare success: "The court dismissed Nawrocki's lawsuit!" suggesting to the audience that since the lawsuit was dismissed, the allegations were true. The salon's misfortune was that Nawrocki's team saw through this game. That’s why there was no lawsuit then, and instead today we have an ordinary civil trial, in which the journalists of Onet are slowly finding the ground burning beneath their feet. (translated)

This is a question that we ponder and discuss every day. However, it seems that it would negatively impact gasoline prices, which would increase somewhat, while diesel prices would decrease somewhat. Meanwhile, President Trump confirmed on Wednesday that the ban on diesel fuel exports imposed by his administration is still under consideration. (translated)

Hahaha, YouTuber Tusk got upset about Nawrocki's veto: “Nawrocki vetoed 45 bills in his first year. Kwaśniewski used his veto 35 times in 10 years. Exactly over 10 years, Nawrocki, if he had two terms, would have used the veto 450 times.” Hahaha, he would use it even 1000 times if you write bad laws and smuggle in legislative inserts XD (translated)