正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

A Harvard scientist testified today and basically said: "𝑾𝒆'𝒓𝒆 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒘𝒐𝒌𝒆 𝒂𝒕 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒅, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒈𝒖𝒚𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝑪𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒅𝒂 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒏 𝑫𝑬𝑰 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚!" Harvard is telling us that!🤣

Vesper

17,056 subscribers

44,670 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治喜剧

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Dwyane Wade talking about the Miami Heat Big 3 forming said: “𝑩𝒓𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒛𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒎.” Later saying, “𝑵𝒐𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒚 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒕, 𝒎𝒚 𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕, 𝒎𝒚 𝒇𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕- 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒅. 𝑩𝒓𝒐𝒏’𝒔 𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕. 𝑵𝒐 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏.” Wade knew he had to sacrifice his greatness/style of play to cater to LeBron. In this interview he says it was hard for him to adjust because he believed at the time he was the best in the world. Unfortunately, that is the ONLY way to win with LeBron everyone has to sacrifice for him since he is NOT versatile and needs the ball at all times. Wade goes on to say “nobody wanted” them to join, somehow Bron convinced Wade to bring him in and teach him how to win in the city he had built. Wade has some regret in his voice even saying, “the game of basketball didnt want it.” Looking back they know they CHEATED the game and started something that no era every thought to do. (Team up with other stars in their prime to take the easy route to win.) 🤔 (7PM in Brooklyn)

Dwyane Wade talking about the Miami Heat Big 3 forming said: “𝑩𝒓𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒛𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒎.” Later saying, “𝑵𝒐𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒚 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒕, 𝒎𝒚 𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕, 𝒎𝒚 𝒇𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕- 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒅. 𝑩𝒓𝒐𝒏’𝒔 𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕. 𝑵𝒐 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏.” Wade knew he had to sacrifice his greatness/style of play to cater to LeBron. In this interview he says it was hard for him to adjust because he believed at the time he was the best in the world. Unfortunately, that is the ONLY way to win with LeBron everyone has to sacrifice for him since he is NOT versatile and needs the ball at all times. Wade goes on to say “nobody wanted” them to join, somehow Bron convinced Wade to bring him in and teach him how to win in the city he had built. Wade has some regret in his voice even saying, “the game of basketball didnt want it.” Looking back they know they CHEATED the game and started something that no era every thought to do. (Team up with other stars in their prime to take the easy route to win.) 🤔 (7PM in Brooklyn)

Jacob

2,041,894 次观看 • 2 年前

💥BREAKING: Powell just spoke at Harvard for one of his final appearances as Fed Chair. Here is everything he said. 👇 - The Federal Reserve will not cut interest rates this year. A rate hike is still on the table. Inflation must come back to 2% and that will not change. - US debt levels are manageable today but the debt is growing much faster than the economy. That is a problem if it continues. - The Federal Reserve must stay completely free from political pressure. He warned the next Fed chair to never allow any government to use the Fed for political goals. - The US banking system is much stronger and safer today than it was before the 2008 financial crisis. - Artificial intelligence will eliminate some jobs but will also create new ones and improve living standards over time. - He is very optimistic about the long term future of the US economy. But says right now is genuinely a difficult time for young people entering the job market.

💥BREAKING: Powell just spoke at Harvard for one of his final appearances as Fed Chair. Here is everything he said. 👇 - The Federal Reserve will not cut interest rates this year. A rate hike is still on the table. Inflation must come back to 2% and that will not change. - US debt levels are manageable today but the debt is growing much faster than the economy. That is a problem if it continues. - The Federal Reserve must stay completely free from political pressure. He warned the next Fed chair to never allow any government to use the Fed for political goals. - The US banking system is much stronger and safer today than it was before the 2008 financial crisis. - Artificial intelligence will eliminate some jobs but will also create new ones and improve living standards over time. - He is very optimistic about the long term future of the US economy. But says right now is genuinely a difficult time for young people entering the job market.

Crypto Rover

75,229 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨 3I/ATLAS: COMET… OR SOMETHING WATCHING US? 🚨 Harvard scientist Avi Loeb, known for exploring bold and unconventional ideas, says 3I/ATLAS is “most likely” a natural comet — yet even he acknowledges that a few strange anomalies don’t match what we usually see. In a recent interview, things took an even more mysterious turn. When asked what an alien civilization would even want from Earth, Loeb simply said it’s like “a blind date of interstellar proportions.” His advice? Observe first… judge later. So here we are… witnessing a visitor from another star system pass through our solar system — truly a once-in-a-lifetime moment. A comet? A probe? A cosmic “gift” we never saw coming? Whatever it is, this moment is a rare chance to learn what lies beyond our little world. #3IATLAS #3i_atlas #AviLoeb #spacemystery

🚨 3I/ATLAS: COMET… OR SOMETHING WATCHING US? 🚨 Harvard scientist Avi Loeb, known for exploring bold and unconventional ideas, says 3I/ATLAS is “most likely” a natural comet — yet even he acknowledges that a few strange anomalies don’t match what we usually see. In a recent interview, things took an even more mysterious turn. When asked what an alien civilization would even want from Earth, Loeb simply said it’s like “a blind date of interstellar proportions.” His advice? Observe first… judge later. So here we are… witnessing a visitor from another star system pass through our solar system — truly a once-in-a-lifetime moment. A comet? A probe? A cosmic “gift” we never saw coming? Whatever it is, this moment is a rare chance to learn what lies beyond our little world. #3IATLAS #3i_atlas #AviLoeb #spacemystery

Astronomy Vibes

59,058 次观看 • 8 个月前

This is exactly why I don’t buy the whole soulmate narrative in soaps. It holds absolutely no weight as seen today! They recycle the same lines for every love interest. 'I love you more than I’ve ever loved anyone' Emmerdale has basically copied and pasted that script. Charity said the exact same thing to Vanessa, and honestly, I could believe it then as that relationship was well written and Charity actually portrayed that, it felt earnt. With Mack, the relationship has been forced by circumstance from the start. There’s been no development that justifies these grand declarations of undying love. The writers keep telling us they're soul mates at what point do we believe it? The relationship is dead and the producer really needs to get a grip - it has not landed whatsoever.

This is exactly why I don’t buy the whole soulmate narrative in soaps. It holds absolutely no weight as seen today! They recycle the same lines for every love interest. 'I love you more than I’ve ever loved anyone' Emmerdale has basically copied and pasted that script. Charity said the exact same thing to Vanessa, and honestly, I could believe it then as that relationship was well written and Charity actually portrayed that, it felt earnt. With Mack, the relationship has been forced by circumstance from the start. There’s been no development that justifies these grand declarations of undying love. The writers keep telling us they're soul mates at what point do we believe it? The relationship is dead and the producer really needs to get a grip - it has not landed whatsoever.

L ♊️

21,073 次观看 • 1 个月前

Patrick Bet-David Noticing Some Amazing Coincidences With These College Protests, Things Like Both Election Year Protests started around the same time: The George Floyd BLM riots happened in May 2020 Now in May 2024, College Protests are happening The media is repeating the exact same lines, “If one student dies” David “If one student dies, it's as if they want this” “The date is May 26th, you can Google this, 2020, when George Floyd died and all they needed was a story like that. They need chaos. Today is May 2nd. We are roughly a little over three weeks away from that date with George Floyd.” Now Breaking Down The Money Trail: Do you know what percentage of the revenue that Harvard got in their endowment in 2021 came from actual tuition of students trying to get a degree from Harvard? Tuition, degree, Harvard. What do you think it is? A lot of people say, well, $60,000, $70,000 a year. $80,000, that's how they make their money. Really? Only 10% of their endowment came from actually doing their job, educating students. Do you know 39% came from donations? Do you know 10% came from gifts? Do you know nearly 49% of the money Harvard got in 2021 is from donations and gifts? Only 10% is from students. So let me ask you a question. Let's paint a picture here. Let's just say, let's just say the professor of Harvard, the dean, the president of Harvard, of Columbia, their assistant says, Mr. President, we have two people waiting for you on hold. Line one is, your number one student's parents. How much money did they give us last year? I think outside of the tuition, around $300,000. Who's on line two? George Soros. Oh, oh, tell Mr. Jackson, the number one student's parents, I'll call him back. Please put Mr. Soros through. Hello, Mr. Soros. How can we help you? Oh, because you gave so much money and da-da-da-da-da and all these other endowment money being given to them. FYI, let me go a little bit deeper for you. Do you know China, since 2019, 2018, they've given roughly $400 million to universities in America. Do you know what university they gave the most money to? 70 million went to Harvard. Who's Harvard's number one customer? Students? Or these people that are giving massive donations to them, who's their number one customer? It's very strange when you sit there and you ask yourself, why are they doing nothing about it? Why are they okay with Palestine flags going up and not America's flag going up? It's because we're not asking the right question. The moment we find out who the number one customer is, that gives the most money, it gives you a lot of perspective to realize, if you ran A, you do construction, you're a general contractor. You have two clients. One of them gave you $50 million of business to big buildings last year. The other one gave you $10 million. Which client is more important to you? So why are people confused? These professors, these professors that we're all trusting our kids with who hate America, we're supposed to spend that kind of money and send our kids there that are being controlled by the people that are giving the donations who hate America, and we're supposed to be okay with that. Yeah, I think we're naive. I think we need to start exposing and talking about some of this stuff. I'm going to put the link below for you to watch. But I wonder. Who do you think, from all the stuff that I just said to you, who do you think is their number one customer? You? The students? The parents? Or those people that are giving the most donation to these guys? I don't think it's a tough question to ask, but I want to ask you, what do you think? Comment below.” This is a summary of what’s being said, there’s much more good details in the video.

Patrick Bet-David Noticing Some Amazing Coincidences With These College Protests, Things Like Both Election Year Protests started around the same time: The George Floyd BLM riots happened in May 2020 Now in May 2024, College Protests are happening The media is repeating the exact same lines, “If one student dies” David “If one student dies, it's as if they want this” “The date is May 26th, you can Google this, 2020, when George Floyd died and all they needed was a story like that. They need chaos. Today is May 2nd. We are roughly a little over three weeks away from that date with George Floyd.” Now Breaking Down The Money Trail: Do you know what percentage of the revenue that Harvard got in their endowment in 2021 came from actual tuition of students trying to get a degree from Harvard? Tuition, degree, Harvard. What do you think it is? A lot of people say, well, $60,000, $70,000 a year. $80,000, that's how they make their money. Really? Only 10% of their endowment came from actually doing their job, educating students. Do you know 39% came from donations? Do you know 10% came from gifts? Do you know nearly 49% of the money Harvard got in 2021 is from donations and gifts? Only 10% is from students. So let me ask you a question. Let's paint a picture here. Let's just say, let's just say the professor of Harvard, the dean, the president of Harvard, of Columbia, their assistant says, Mr. President, we have two people waiting for you on hold. Line one is, your number one student's parents. How much money did they give us last year? I think outside of the tuition, around $300,000. Who's on line two? George Soros. Oh, oh, tell Mr. Jackson, the number one student's parents, I'll call him back. Please put Mr. Soros through. Hello, Mr. Soros. How can we help you? Oh, because you gave so much money and da-da-da-da-da and all these other endowment money being given to them. FYI, let me go a little bit deeper for you. Do you know China, since 2019, 2018, they've given roughly $400 million to universities in America. Do you know what university they gave the most money to? 70 million went to Harvard. Who's Harvard's number one customer? Students? Or these people that are giving massive donations to them, who's their number one customer? It's very strange when you sit there and you ask yourself, why are they doing nothing about it? Why are they okay with Palestine flags going up and not America's flag going up? It's because we're not asking the right question. The moment we find out who the number one customer is, that gives the most money, it gives you a lot of perspective to realize, if you ran A, you do construction, you're a general contractor. You have two clients. One of them gave you $50 million of business to big buildings last year. The other one gave you $10 million. Which client is more important to you? So why are people confused? These professors, these professors that we're all trusting our kids with who hate America, we're supposed to spend that kind of money and send our kids there that are being controlled by the people that are giving the donations who hate America, and we're supposed to be okay with that. Yeah, I think we're naive. I think we need to start exposing and talking about some of this stuff. I'm going to put the link below for you to watch. But I wonder. Who do you think, from all the stuff that I just said to you, who do you think is their number one customer? You? The students? The parents? Or those people that are giving the most donation to these guys? I don't think it's a tough question to ask, but I want to ask you, what do you think? Comment below.” This is a summary of what’s being said, there’s much more good details in the video.

Wall Street Apes

1,115,563 次观看 • 2 年前

🤔President Trump mentioned LARRY SUMMERS today. Who is he? Well he was the Dean of Harvard where Epstein had an office as well. Most people may know his character from “The Social Network” film but he is much more than simply that. Summers was also the Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton from 1999-2001. He was also Director of the National Economic Council for Obama from 2009-2011. Hewas heavily involved with crafting “Recovery” policy after the 2008 Lehman crash. He was integral in “Overseeing” the Frank-Dodd Act which…spoilers… was written by Wall Street lobbyists. Summers met with Epstein multiple times between 2011-2016 and a few of which were at his Manhattan townhouse. Gates was present for one in 2011. Supposedly they were there to discuss the creation of philanthropic funds that NEVER MATERIALIZED. Summers said “He regrets meeting with Epstein”…sure sure. Interesting how these incredibly wealthy Wall Street BANKSTERS that work for insanely wealthy universities like Harvard…find themselves in governmental positions regardless of who is in office to dictate policy beneficial to Wall Street. He also HELPED REPEAL GLASS-STEAGALL in 2001 which led to almost ALL of the 2008 crisis when it allowed lending and trading to be done under one banking roof without proper reserves..it removed the firewall. It ended up costing American citizens 787 Billion in TARP and punished the American savers and rewarded those who placed us in that position. Privatizing the gains and SOCIALIZING THE LOSSES. These people aren’t smart than us…they are just corrupt money changers who change the laws to their benefit.

🤔President Trump mentioned LARRY SUMMERS today. Who is he? Well he was the Dean of Harvard where Epstein had an office as well. Most people may know his character from “The Social Network” film but he is much more than simply that. Summers was also the Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton from 1999-2001. He was also Director of the National Economic Council for Obama from 2009-2011. Hewas heavily involved with crafting “Recovery” policy after the 2008 Lehman crash. He was integral in “Overseeing” the Frank-Dodd Act which…spoilers… was written by Wall Street lobbyists. Summers met with Epstein multiple times between 2011-2016 and a few of which were at his Manhattan townhouse. Gates was present for one in 2011. Supposedly they were there to discuss the creation of philanthropic funds that NEVER MATERIALIZED. Summers said “He regrets meeting with Epstein”…sure sure. Interesting how these incredibly wealthy Wall Street BANKSTERS that work for insanely wealthy universities like Harvard…find themselves in governmental positions regardless of who is in office to dictate policy beneficial to Wall Street. He also HELPED REPEAL GLASS-STEAGALL in 2001 which led to almost ALL of the 2008 crisis when it allowed lending and trading to be done under one banking roof without proper reserves..it removed the firewall. It ended up costing American citizens 787 Billion in TARP and punished the American savers and rewarded those who placed us in that position. Privatizing the gains and SOCIALIZING THE LOSSES. These people aren’t smart than us…they are just corrupt money changers who change the laws to their benefit.

Johnny St.Pete

51,216 次观看 • 1 年前

Former NBA player Austin Rivers on his podcast recently said: “𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒎𝒚𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 70𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 80𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 90𝒔.. 𝑰 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒐𝒑 25 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 [𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕]” Bench players talkin' like starters, I hate it… I am getting SICK of these has-been NBA players talking crap about past legends. I don’t know if it’s for the clout or if they are ACTUALLY this delusional. Hey Austin Rivers let me remind you, in your prime a 15 PPG JJ Redick started over you and made you a bench player.. since you’re so ignorant of the past ill list all the point guards that would SCHOOL you in each era you just disrespected: 1970s: Walt Frazier Oscar Robertson Jerry West Pistol Pete Earl Monroe Nate Archibald 1980s: Magic Johnson Isiah Thomas John Stockton Mark Price Sidney Moncrief Dennis Johnson Mark Jackson Derek Harper 1990s: Gary Payton Jason Kidd Penny Hardaway Tim Hardaway Allen Iverson Kevin Johnson Steve Nash Rod Strickland Sam Cassell Ron Harper Nick Van Exel That is JUST 25 point guards that would run you off the court. You wont get anywhere near top 25 overall 😂🤣 Please educate yourself before you disrespect the past like this ✌🏻

Former NBA player Austin Rivers on his podcast recently said: “𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒎𝒚𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 70𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 80𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 90𝒔.. 𝑰 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒐𝒑 25 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 [𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕]” Bench players talkin' like starters, I hate it… I am getting SICK of these has-been NBA players talking crap about past legends. I don’t know if it’s for the clout or if they are ACTUALLY this delusional. Hey Austin Rivers let me remind you, in your prime a 15 PPG JJ Redick started over you and made you a bench player.. since you’re so ignorant of the past ill list all the point guards that would SCHOOL you in each era you just disrespected: 1970s: Walt Frazier Oscar Robertson Jerry West Pistol Pete Earl Monroe Nate Archibald 1980s: Magic Johnson Isiah Thomas John Stockton Mark Price Sidney Moncrief Dennis Johnson Mark Jackson Derek Harper 1990s: Gary Payton Jason Kidd Penny Hardaway Tim Hardaway Allen Iverson Kevin Johnson Steve Nash Rod Strickland Sam Cassell Ron Harper Nick Van Exel That is JUST 25 point guards that would run you off the court. You wont get anywhere near top 25 overall 😂🤣 Please educate yourself before you disrespect the past like this ✌🏻

Jacob

131,241 次观看 • 1 年前

We begin with the tough message—one might even say a rebuke—that is coming today from the White House to Israel, over the fact that Trump views the killing of Ra’ad Sa’ad on Saturday in Gaza as a violation of the agreement, Amit. Well, first of all, this reminds me a bit of the Rabin era, when journalists who wanted a hawkish message against Arafat would latch onto Eitan Haber, and when they wanted a dovish message, they would latch onto Shimon Peres. There are all kinds of actors in the White House. Some of them are telling us tonight: there are disagreements among us. There were those who really liked it, and those who really didn’t like it. Not because they wanted Ra’ad Sa’ad to go on living happily ever after, but simply because of the sensitive timing and what some of the mediators might say. Now, one needs to pay attention to what Barak was talking about—namely, what people in the White House are thinking. What was said in the actual conversation? Well, in that conversation, as I understand it—again, I wasn’t a fly on the wall, so I’m saying what I’ve heard—what was said… Right, Barak published that they basically said this harms the ceasefire. But as I understand it, in the conversation itself, not what people in the White House think, but what was actually said—what they said was: please coordinate with us when you carry out military operations. That’s what I understand happened in the conversation. Not a call from Donald Trump himself, but a call from senior officials. Israel, in terms of results—and here I have to say something encouraging—did not update the White House beforehand that it was going to assassinate Ra’ad Sa’ad, and that is very important in light of all the talk claiming that Israel is a client state, a vassal, and all this sudden concern that we’re going to become the 51st state under the U.S. flag. As long as the message is conveyed that Israel does not compromise on its security and eliminates these agents of death when necessary, then, you know what—if there are already disagreements with the friendliest administration in history, let them be about that. If it has to be said in Vegas, as they supposedly say in the White House: whether there is a Plan B, and whether Hamas will really be dismantled and disarmed voluntarily by the mediators say whatever you want against us, they say. But on the other hand, a reminder: everyone who spoke against us and said we would not get twenty hostages back eventually fell, because in the end the house always wins and in this case, the White House. The entire gap between Israel and the U.S. regarding Gaza is that in Israel they believe it will simply take Trump a few more weeks to understand that his vision—that Hamas will disarm—will not happen, and then he will allow Israel to act militarily on its own against Hamas, because no one else will do it in its place. And this, among other things, is what Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago at the end of the month is about.

We begin with the tough message—one might even say a rebuke—that is coming today from the White House to Israel, over the fact that Trump views the killing of Ra’ad Sa’ad on Saturday in Gaza as a violation of the agreement, Amit. Well, first of all, this reminds me a bit of the Rabin era, when journalists who wanted a hawkish message against Arafat would latch onto Eitan Haber, and when they wanted a dovish message, they would latch onto Shimon Peres. There are all kinds of actors in the White House. Some of them are telling us tonight: there are disagreements among us. There were those who really liked it, and those who really didn’t like it. Not because they wanted Ra’ad Sa’ad to go on living happily ever after, but simply because of the sensitive timing and what some of the mediators might say. Now, one needs to pay attention to what Barak was talking about—namely, what people in the White House are thinking. What was said in the actual conversation? Well, in that conversation, as I understand it—again, I wasn’t a fly on the wall, so I’m saying what I’ve heard—what was said… Right, Barak published that they basically said this harms the ceasefire. But as I understand it, in the conversation itself, not what people in the White House think, but what was actually said—what they said was: please coordinate with us when you carry out military operations. That’s what I understand happened in the conversation. Not a call from Donald Trump himself, but a call from senior officials. Israel, in terms of results—and here I have to say something encouraging—did not update the White House beforehand that it was going to assassinate Ra’ad Sa’ad, and that is very important in light of all the talk claiming that Israel is a client state, a vassal, and all this sudden concern that we’re going to become the 51st state under the U.S. flag. As long as the message is conveyed that Israel does not compromise on its security and eliminates these agents of death when necessary, then, you know what—if there are already disagreements with the friendliest administration in history, let them be about that. If it has to be said in Vegas, as they supposedly say in the White House: whether there is a Plan B, and whether Hamas will really be dismantled and disarmed voluntarily by the mediators say whatever you want against us, they say. But on the other hand, a reminder: everyone who spoke against us and said we would not get twenty hostages back eventually fell, because in the end the house always wins and in this case, the White House. The entire gap between Israel and the U.S. regarding Gaza is that in Israel they believe it will simply take Trump a few more weeks to understand that his vision—that Hamas will disarm—will not happen, and then he will allow Israel to act militarily on its own against Hamas, because no one else will do it in its place. And this, among other things, is what Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago at the end of the month is about.

Amit Segal

24,626 次观看 • 7 个月前

Charlie Kirk and Turning Point. A Special Relationship with London and the UK - Kirk's impact on Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge. By John Mappin In December 2018, a chance introduction, sparked a pivotal moment at London’s Royal Automobile Club, where my wife Irina and I hosted Charlie Kirk, and introduced the founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) to the UK. The exclusive evening was billed as “A Gathering of Political Genius,” it did not disappoint. The initiative was supported by Nigel Farage, and was backed by Robin Birley, Lord and Lady Tyrone Plunket, Amanda Eliasch, and Peter Southall. That night we launched Turning Point UK (TPUK), and forged priceless connections that helped to amplify TPUSA’s global momentum. The gathering highlighted Charlie’s vision. Today Charlie’s influence has helped to reelect President Trump and has totally changed the way that the US government interacts with universities like Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge in combating the culturally deadly “woke mind virus.” Foreign students who are expecting to attend Harvard and other US Universities this autumn/fall who are not able to get visas today, to study in the USA are rapidly finding out that the rules of engagement have changed in US universities. Two weeks ago, joining Charlie in London and at his Oxford Union debate, I witnessed personally how his political power has soared. Today he commands a whole new level of influence. By December 2018, TPUSA, founded in 2012 with Bill Montgomery, already boasted a £6 million budget and had thousands of US campus chapters. In May 2025, TPUSA has over 1,000+ staff and over $100 million in annual donations. President Trump’s administration is amplifying Charlie’s impact—his endorsements are now highly sought after. Charlie’s rumoured role in J.D. Vance’s Senate and VP ascent is factual. Our 2018 London gathering remains well remembered example of British and American minds championing of freedom and it played a part in TPUSA’s rise both as a powerful political activist and as a vital force reshaping global education. Irina and I, and our respective families have been passionate about conservative values for several generations, but that December 2018 night in London, we saw in Charlie as did many of our friends, a trailblazer for sanity. Our gathering drew Britain’s conservative elite, thanks to internet platforms we turned TPUK’s London launch into a global event as many of our US friends were able watched the event online in as well. Several saw Turning point as an opportunity to export sane educational philosophy in their own countries and globally. Charlie, with Candace Owens, both at their most erudite, championed free markets and intellectual freedom. Thoroughly inspiring our British audience that night they laid the groundwork for influencing university policy not just in Britain, we all saw and witnessed the worldwide potential. Princess Gloria Von Thurn und Taxis heard about the London event, in Germany and immediately invited Kirk and Owens to her Palace at Regensburg. His Grace the Duke of Marlborough, James Marlbourough invited them both to visit him at Blenheim Palace and later participated in TPUK fundraising events in London. With help from TPUK, Charlie went on to establish chapters in Oxford, Sussex, and King’s College London, leveraging TPUSA’s rallies and viral media. His extraordinary ability to build and create an organisation and his validation of sanity where possible has fuelled his rise. Spending much valued private time with him in London and Oxford two weeks ago it was clear to me that Charlie has retained his all-too-familiar humility: “I don’t consider myself smarter than anyone else, I just work on the premise that I will outwork everyone else.” And work hard he certainly does. This was true in 2018 and is even truer now in 2025. The precision with which Charlie flips between direct and instantaneous communication with the White House, dynamic dinner subjects raised by his close coterie of London friends (while they plan the next surgical dismantling of the woke mind virus), and the hands-on management of his organisation and immediate team, is actually, awe-inspiring. Hard work is Charlie’s hallmark, and a perspicacity that seems to allow him to see exactly which issues the US voter cares deeply about. All this is totally confounding to the planners of the destructive agenda that assails mankind, Charlie is a conservative kingmaker. His podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, with 100 million downloads yearly, makes his support vital for MAGA candidates. His posts on X highlight his role in GOP races, amplifying his policy influence. Charlie’s role in J.D. Vance’s rise is telling. In 2022, his backing helped Vance secure Trump’s endorsement, clinching Ohio’s Senate seat. In 2024, Charlie’s advocacy at TPUSA’s People’s Convention, where Vance won a 43% straw poll, and well reported lobbying of Trump led to Vance’s VP selection on July 15, 2024, hailed by conservative leaders. With 3,500+ chapters by 2024, TPUSA’s Professor and School Board Watchlists reshaped US campuses. TPUK’s “campus clash” events in London, Nottingham, and Brighton, drawing millions online and challenging progressive academic dominance. Charlie’s recent 2025 Oxford and Cambridge visits, including the Oxford Union debate, which I attended, were electrifying. His defence of traditional values and critique of policies like the Civil Rights Act showcased a commanding presence, invigorating TPUK’s Oxford chapter and influencing university policy discussions. Charlie, part of President Trump's inner circle , drives these efforts, rallying students for intellectual freedom. His 2024 “You’re Being Brainwashed” tour, with two billion social media views, aided Trump’s victory, amplifying his policy influence. Trump’s 2025 appointment of Charlie to the Air Force Academy Board of Visitors aligns TPUSA with efforts to restore educational values. On Harvard Campus, TPUSA empowers students to challenge progressive dominance, shaping governmental approaches. In 2025, Trump’s administration targets “woke” programs, pressuring Harvard’s leadership. Harvards unwillingness to comply with basic US Homeland Security requests now seems to be placing its foreign students in an extremely tough position. It is our hope that the friendships forged in London, now battle-hardened against “woke” insanity, are indeed fuelling an educational renaissance in America, Oxford and Cambridge, and at all the world’s leading universities. Perhaps this is a unique and possibly divine manifestation of the much vaunted Special Relationship between the US and the UK. If so, long may it prevail. ----- * John Mappin is a commentator and entrepreneur known for his common sense views on cultural and political issues. Charlie Kirk Turning Point USA Turning Point UK 🇬🇧 Donald J. Trump JD Vance Elon Musk Nigel Farage MP Tucker Carlson Alex Jones Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump Harvard University Oxford Union The Cambridge Union Karoline Leavitt Daniel Ogoloma

Charlie Kirk and Turning Point. A Special Relationship with London and the UK - Kirk's impact on Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge. By John Mappin In December 2018, a chance introduction, sparked a pivotal moment at London’s Royal Automobile Club, where my wife Irina and I hosted Charlie Kirk, and introduced the founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) to the UK. The exclusive evening was billed as “A Gathering of Political Genius,” it did not disappoint. The initiative was supported by Nigel Farage, and was backed by Robin Birley, Lord and Lady Tyrone Plunket, Amanda Eliasch, and Peter Southall. That night we launched Turning Point UK (TPUK), and forged priceless connections that helped to amplify TPUSA’s global momentum. The gathering highlighted Charlie’s vision. Today Charlie’s influence has helped to reelect President Trump and has totally changed the way that the US government interacts with universities like Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge in combating the culturally deadly “woke mind virus.” Foreign students who are expecting to attend Harvard and other US Universities this autumn/fall who are not able to get visas today, to study in the USA are rapidly finding out that the rules of engagement have changed in US universities. Two weeks ago, joining Charlie in London and at his Oxford Union debate, I witnessed personally how his political power has soared. Today he commands a whole new level of influence. By December 2018, TPUSA, founded in 2012 with Bill Montgomery, already boasted a £6 million budget and had thousands of US campus chapters. In May 2025, TPUSA has over 1,000+ staff and over $100 million in annual donations. President Trump’s administration is amplifying Charlie’s impact—his endorsements are now highly sought after. Charlie’s rumoured role in J.D. Vance’s Senate and VP ascent is factual. Our 2018 London gathering remains well remembered example of British and American minds championing of freedom and it played a part in TPUSA’s rise both as a powerful political activist and as a vital force reshaping global education. Irina and I, and our respective families have been passionate about conservative values for several generations, but that December 2018 night in London, we saw in Charlie as did many of our friends, a trailblazer for sanity. Our gathering drew Britain’s conservative elite, thanks to internet platforms we turned TPUK’s London launch into a global event as many of our US friends were able watched the event online in as well. Several saw Turning point as an opportunity to export sane educational philosophy in their own countries and globally. Charlie, with Candace Owens, both at their most erudite, championed free markets and intellectual freedom. Thoroughly inspiring our British audience that night they laid the groundwork for influencing university policy not just in Britain, we all saw and witnessed the worldwide potential. Princess Gloria Von Thurn und Taxis heard about the London event, in Germany and immediately invited Kirk and Owens to her Palace at Regensburg. His Grace the Duke of Marlborough, James Marlbourough invited them both to visit him at Blenheim Palace and later participated in TPUK fundraising events in London. With help from TPUK, Charlie went on to establish chapters in Oxford, Sussex, and King’s College London, leveraging TPUSA’s rallies and viral media. His extraordinary ability to build and create an organisation and his validation of sanity where possible has fuelled his rise. Spending much valued private time with him in London and Oxford two weeks ago it was clear to me that Charlie has retained his all-too-familiar humility: “I don’t consider myself smarter than anyone else, I just work on the premise that I will outwork everyone else.” And work hard he certainly does. This was true in 2018 and is even truer now in 2025. The precision with which Charlie flips between direct and instantaneous communication with the White House, dynamic dinner subjects raised by his close coterie of London friends (while they plan the next surgical dismantling of the woke mind virus), and the hands-on management of his organisation and immediate team, is actually, awe-inspiring. Hard work is Charlie’s hallmark, and a perspicacity that seems to allow him to see exactly which issues the US voter cares deeply about. All this is totally confounding to the planners of the destructive agenda that assails mankind, Charlie is a conservative kingmaker. His podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, with 100 million downloads yearly, makes his support vital for MAGA candidates. His posts on X highlight his role in GOP races, amplifying his policy influence. Charlie’s role in J.D. Vance’s rise is telling. In 2022, his backing helped Vance secure Trump’s endorsement, clinching Ohio’s Senate seat. In 2024, Charlie’s advocacy at TPUSA’s People’s Convention, where Vance won a 43% straw poll, and well reported lobbying of Trump led to Vance’s VP selection on July 15, 2024, hailed by conservative leaders. With 3,500+ chapters by 2024, TPUSA’s Professor and School Board Watchlists reshaped US campuses. TPUK’s “campus clash” events in London, Nottingham, and Brighton, drawing millions online and challenging progressive academic dominance. Charlie’s recent 2025 Oxford and Cambridge visits, including the Oxford Union debate, which I attended, were electrifying. His defence of traditional values and critique of policies like the Civil Rights Act showcased a commanding presence, invigorating TPUK’s Oxford chapter and influencing university policy discussions. Charlie, part of President Trump's inner circle , drives these efforts, rallying students for intellectual freedom. His 2024 “You’re Being Brainwashed” tour, with two billion social media views, aided Trump’s victory, amplifying his policy influence. Trump’s 2025 appointment of Charlie to the Air Force Academy Board of Visitors aligns TPUSA with efforts to restore educational values. On Harvard Campus, TPUSA empowers students to challenge progressive dominance, shaping governmental approaches. In 2025, Trump’s administration targets “woke” programs, pressuring Harvard’s leadership. Harvards unwillingness to comply with basic US Homeland Security requests now seems to be placing its foreign students in an extremely tough position. It is our hope that the friendships forged in London, now battle-hardened against “woke” insanity, are indeed fuelling an educational renaissance in America, Oxford and Cambridge, and at all the world’s leading universities. Perhaps this is a unique and possibly divine manifestation of the much vaunted Special Relationship between the US and the UK. If so, long may it prevail. ----- * John Mappin is a commentator and entrepreneur known for his common sense views on cultural and political issues. Charlie Kirk Turning Point USA Turning Point UK 🇬🇧 Donald J. Trump JD Vance Elon Musk Nigel Farage MP Tucker Carlson Alex Jones Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump Harvard University Oxford Union The Cambridge Union Karoline Leavitt Daniel Ogoloma

John Mappin

40,824 次观看 • 1 年前

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,284,988 次观看 • 1 个月前

$"I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."$

"I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."

Joe Murgia

22,530 次观看 • 2 个月前

Very powerful testimony by dr. Sabine Hazan "Thank you, senator. It's an honor to be here. The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story and will tell the story of COVID nineteen. And this is why as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative." "Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early twenty twenty, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools as opposed to the PCR which is just a little piece of the virus." "We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to forty five days. It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID nineteen in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin." "But unfortunately, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome. So therefore, vitamin c, d, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into in full transparencies to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew. 04/02/2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical trial." "In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, z pack, vitamin c, d, and zinc as treatment or hydroxychloroquine, vitamin c, d, and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, doctor Hazan. Exemption is denied. You must do a full on clinical trial. Here's the letter." "System pressures delayed us, and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit. This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter." "Remember, I do clinical trials for a living and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media. I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID but never got COVID. That bacteria is called bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics." "In fact, when you turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning, and it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of bifidobacteria. We published this paper, the lost microbes of COVID nineteen." "It took eight months to publish. If you follow the bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin c actually increases bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin c is important when you take when you take care of viruses and, you know, you've all experienced taking vitamin c for a cold." "Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin c, if we give it to patients before and after, it increased the bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug because Ivermectin, we noticed, also increased the bifidobacteria within twenty four hours of taking it." "Why Ivermectin? If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters, brothers in the microbiome." "So I published. I knew that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria, but I said, nah. I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's gonna be too controversial. So I published a hypothesis that maybe what I was observing on the frontline treating patients with COVID, noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from ivermectin, was basically maybe ivermectin increased bifidobacteria." "The hypothesis on ivermectin was the most read hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on. When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December twenty twenty, at the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome." "I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro beating 6,000 abstracts. That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson." "This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing maybe killing bifidobacteria is why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of bifidobacteria from the vaccine." "What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of bifidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of bifidobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative." "If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems. So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID. Amongst them are vaccine studies. Yes." "I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First, postpartum depression drug, drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people. Clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs. These guidelines were not followed during the pandemic." "And because of that, everyone is affected. COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. Interference with research affects all of us. This should not be political." "Science is a story that evolves. It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge. Having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science. Thank you."

Very powerful testimony by dr. Sabine Hazan "Thank you, senator. It's an honor to be here. The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story and will tell the story of COVID nineteen. And this is why as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative." "Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early twenty twenty, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools as opposed to the PCR which is just a little piece of the virus." "We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to forty five days. It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID nineteen in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin." "But unfortunately, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome. So therefore, vitamin c, d, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into in full transparencies to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew. 04/02/2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical trial." "In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, z pack, vitamin c, d, and zinc as treatment or hydroxychloroquine, vitamin c, d, and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, doctor Hazan. Exemption is denied. You must do a full on clinical trial. Here's the letter." "System pressures delayed us, and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit. This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter." "Remember, I do clinical trials for a living and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media. I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID but never got COVID. That bacteria is called bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics." "In fact, when you turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning, and it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of bifidobacteria. We published this paper, the lost microbes of COVID nineteen." "It took eight months to publish. If you follow the bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin c actually increases bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin c is important when you take when you take care of viruses and, you know, you've all experienced taking vitamin c for a cold." "Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin c, if we give it to patients before and after, it increased the bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug because Ivermectin, we noticed, also increased the bifidobacteria within twenty four hours of taking it." "Why Ivermectin? If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters, brothers in the microbiome." "So I published. I knew that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria, but I said, nah. I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's gonna be too controversial. So I published a hypothesis that maybe what I was observing on the frontline treating patients with COVID, noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from ivermectin, was basically maybe ivermectin increased bifidobacteria." "The hypothesis on ivermectin was the most read hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on. When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December twenty twenty, at the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome." "I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro beating 6,000 abstracts. That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson." "This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing maybe killing bifidobacteria is why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of bifidobacteria from the vaccine." "What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of bifidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of bifidobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative." "If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems. So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID. Amongst them are vaccine studies. Yes." "I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First, postpartum depression drug, drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people. Clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs. These guidelines were not followed during the pandemic." "And because of that, everyone is affected. COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. Interference with research affects all of us. This should not be political." "Science is a story that evolves. It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge. Having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science. Thank you."

Camus

127,765 次观看 • 1 年前

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)

Joe Murgia

30,311 次观看 • 7 个月前

"Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." 🤬 What The F**k, Chuck? 🤬 (Make sure you read my comments in ( ). After Dylan Borland testified last month, I wrote this: ) "The most troubling thing is his visit to the ICIG. Seems the whole system is f**king corrupt." (Today, he shared more details, and it's much worse than I thought. When he told the ICIG he wanted to testify to Congress under oath, the reply was: ) "You already did that, and you're not doing it again." 🖕🖕🖕 (And the advice from the attorney who urged Borland to go to the ICIG?) "Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." (This is very troubling. Especially if the person who said that was Charles "Chuck" McCullough.) ~ Borland: "So I get a phone call after Dave [Grusch] testifies, and they notify me, 'Hey, Dylan, we want you to go the IG.' And I said, 'All right. What about?' They're like, 'You know, this stuff.'" George Knapp: "They, meaning who? Congress?" Borland: "Uh, a staffer, and Dave. and an attorney, that you guys are aware of. I don't know if I can say their name. But an attorney you guys are aware of." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "I think, just yeah, that's good." (The only attorney that I'm aware of who fits the bill is: Charles McCullough, who was the first ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) and also the attorney for David Grusch. If it's him, that's very concerning. As you watch the clip, or read my transcript, you'll see why. And the ICIG was Thomas Monheim, who was also in that position when Grusch filed his whistleblower complaint, which he deemed, "urgent and credible." Monheim resigned in January of 2025.) ~ Borland: "All right. Um, and they're like, 'Go to the IG.' And I said, 'Am I safe? Is it what the country needs?' [And they said,] 'Yes, yes.' And I said, 'All right, let's make it happen.' And I go the IG. That was in, I wanna say September or October. I actually have the date for you guys if you need it. But I went there in 2023, late summer, early fall of 2023 and I go through the IG process. "And to be honest with you, out of everything, I really feel like the IG process was the worst. I think the people at AARO genuinely cared. But, my opinion, going through the IG and the questions they asked me, the things that were said to me made me feel like that was a fishing expedition. And the only thing they cared about was finding out how much I actually knew." Corbell: "Wow. That is highly disappointing." Borland: "It was very disappointing being in that room with the conversation and statements that were being made to me. Like, when somebody's asking you a question and the IG government employee cuts them off and says, 'You don't ask him that question' and then looks at me and tells me, 'You don't answer that question.' Yeah. "When they ask you, 'What do you want out of this?' And verbatim, direct-quote, on film. By all means, go get the recording, because they said they recorded it. But they said, 'What do you want out of this?' And I said, 'I want to look Congress in the eyes, tell them the truth under oath, so when I die I can answer for this and know I did my job.' And the response was, 'As far as we're concerned, you already did that, and you're not doing it again.' So..." Knapp: "So is this the actual Inspector General or..." Borland: "The ICIG, yes. I have his card at my house." (Again, Monheim.) Knapp: "You went through the whole thing." Borland: "I went through the whole thing." Knapp: "Who else is there?" Borland: "So, ICIG, assistant director, director, [government] attorney on my right." Corbell: "So you try to do this right. You go to ICIG, and you literally feel like that they are just trying to pump you to figure out how much you know, how dangerous you are to the Legacy program." Borland: "In my opinion, looking back on this, yes. Because, the way they ask[ed] questions, the statements they made to each other, the statements they made to me, 100% seemed like they wanted to find out how much I knew. And at the end of this, which you're aware of the conversation I had with the attorney, it was. 'You are credible, not urgent. Go disappear in the winds. Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything. Your entire...everything you said,' which goes back to what we talked...I mean, I talked about my childhood in there. I was told, everything I talked about in that room, now is up for executive review. And I brought up to the attorney, 'I talked about my childhood, is that now up for it? I talked about unclassified information, readily available on the internet.' And they said, 'Dylan, every single thing you talked about is now subject to executive review. Do not go outside of those bounds.'" Knapp: "Your whole life." Borland: "Pretty damn much." (If this is McCullough being referred to here, I have a problem with it. Borland took the advice of McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer by going to ICIG and it turned out to be a 💩 show. Now he's telling Borland to disappear and leave it all behind? WTF?) Corbell: "It's like a great way to lock somebody down if you want to kind of intake their whole whistleblower story, what they know, and then say, 'Now that you've testified to ICIG, you have to walk away.'" Knapp: "Well you realize they say that, and that this has been, in essence, a waste of time, that you walked into sort of a trap. I mean, I can imagine how depressing it would be." Borland: "Depressing. It pissed me off, because I was already blacklisted from the IC. And I told the attorney that, I told the IG that. Like, I already know that there are things that are in place for me, getting jobs, working in this field, that, years back, are in play. And it's happened to me since I've gone to the IG, which goes back to retaliation. Like, technically, I'm still being retaliated against." Knapp: "The Inspector General's office is there to hear about wrongdoing and things that shouldn't be happening in the agencies that it oversees." Borland: "I...you would think, but this is now me being black pilled, and there's a joke amongst all the military guys, which is: The JAG isn't for you, the JAG is for the DOD. The IG isn't for us, the IG is for the government. And that's the way I feel now." (The Air Force JAG (Judge Advocate General) corps provides comprehensive legal services to the U.S. Air Force and Space Force. ~AI) Knapp: "Did you share this with the attorney who had been advising you about seeing these guys? We're not saying who it is." Corbell: "I think with the client, I just think you're not supposed to do that. It's not like a big secret, I'm just trying to be respectful." Borland: "I made it aware to them that the statement that he had made to me was of grave concern. It made no sense. And I had asked, 'How do I do DOPSR? Because I do not trust this process at all anymore.' And, basically, from that point, I was completely shut out for over a year, a year and a half.' Corbell: "I think lawyers are...try to protect their clients. You know, I don't think it's nefarious. I think that they're just trying to do...or guide their client in what's best for their well being." Knapp: "Yeah, well, especially somebody who has been around and knows what could happen." Corbell: "Knows his stuff. That's unfortunate. Borland: "Don't disagree." (I would like to know why McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer sent Borland to the ICIG? Did they have any idea this would happen? And was it McCullough who shut out Borland for a year and a half? If so, why? Nefarious shouldn't be ruled out.)

"Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." 🤬 What The Fk, Chuck? 🤬 (Make sure you read my comments in ( ). After Dylan Borland testified last month, I wrote this: ) "The most troubling thing is his visit to the ICIG. Seems the whole system is fking corrupt." (Today, he shared more details, and it's much worse than I thought. When he told the ICIG he wanted to testify to Congress under oath, the reply was: ) "You already did that, and you're not doing it again." 🖕🖕🖕 (And the advice from the attorney who urged Borland to go to the ICIG?) "Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." (This is very troubling. Especially if the person who said that was Charles "Chuck" McCullough.) ~ Borland: "So I get a phone call after Dave [Grusch] testifies, and they notify me, 'Hey, Dylan, we want you to go the IG.' And I said, 'All right. What about?' They're like, 'You know, this stuff.'" George Knapp: "They, meaning who? Congress?" Borland: "Uh, a staffer, and Dave. and an attorney, that you guys are aware of. I don't know if I can say their name. But an attorney you guys are aware of." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "I think, just yeah, that's good." (The only attorney that I'm aware of who fits the bill is: Charles McCullough, who was the first ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) and also the attorney for David Grusch. If it's him, that's very concerning. As you watch the clip, or read my transcript, you'll see why. And the ICIG was Thomas Monheim, who was also in that position when Grusch filed his whistleblower complaint, which he deemed, "urgent and credible." Monheim resigned in January of 2025.) ~ Borland: "All right. Um, and they're like, 'Go to the IG.' And I said, 'Am I safe? Is it what the country needs?' [And they said,] 'Yes, yes.' And I said, 'All right, let's make it happen.' And I go the IG. That was in, I wanna say September or October. I actually have the date for you guys if you need it. But I went there in 2023, late summer, early fall of 2023 and I go through the IG process. "And to be honest with you, out of everything, I really feel like the IG process was the worst. I think the people at AARO genuinely cared. But, my opinion, going through the IG and the questions they asked me, the things that were said to me made me feel like that was a fishing expedition. And the only thing they cared about was finding out how much I actually knew." Corbell: "Wow. That is highly disappointing." Borland: "It was very disappointing being in that room with the conversation and statements that were being made to me. Like, when somebody's asking you a question and the IG government employee cuts them off and says, 'You don't ask him that question' and then looks at me and tells me, 'You don't answer that question.' Yeah. "When they ask you, 'What do you want out of this?' And verbatim, direct-quote, on film. By all means, go get the recording, because they said they recorded it. But they said, 'What do you want out of this?' And I said, 'I want to look Congress in the eyes, tell them the truth under oath, so when I die I can answer for this and know I did my job.' And the response was, 'As far as we're concerned, you already did that, and you're not doing it again.' So..." Knapp: "So is this the actual Inspector General or..." Borland: "The ICIG, yes. I have his card at my house." (Again, Monheim.) Knapp: "You went through the whole thing." Borland: "I went through the whole thing." Knapp: "Who else is there?" Borland: "So, ICIG, assistant director, director, [government] attorney on my right." Corbell: "So you try to do this right. You go to ICIG, and you literally feel like that they are just trying to pump you to figure out how much you know, how dangerous you are to the Legacy program." Borland: "In my opinion, looking back on this, yes. Because, the way they ask[ed] questions, the statements they made to each other, the statements they made to me, 100% seemed like they wanted to find out how much I knew. And at the end of this, which you're aware of the conversation I had with the attorney, it was. 'You are credible, not urgent. Go disappear in the winds. Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything. Your entire...everything you said,' which goes back to what we talked...I mean, I talked about my childhood in there. I was told, everything I talked about in that room, now is up for executive review. And I brought up to the attorney, 'I talked about my childhood, is that now up for it? I talked about unclassified information, readily available on the internet.' And they said, 'Dylan, every single thing you talked about is now subject to executive review. Do not go outside of those bounds.'" Knapp: "Your whole life." Borland: "Pretty damn much." (If this is McCullough being referred to here, I have a problem with it. Borland took the advice of McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer by going to ICIG and it turned out to be a 💩 show. Now he's telling Borland to disappear and leave it all behind? WTF?) Corbell: "It's like a great way to lock somebody down if you want to kind of intake their whole whistleblower story, what they know, and then say, 'Now that you've testified to ICIG, you have to walk away.'" Knapp: "Well you realize they say that, and that this has been, in essence, a waste of time, that you walked into sort of a trap. I mean, I can imagine how depressing it would be." Borland: "Depressing. It pissed me off, because I was already blacklisted from the IC. And I told the attorney that, I told the IG that. Like, I already know that there are things that are in place for me, getting jobs, working in this field, that, years back, are in play. And it's happened to me since I've gone to the IG, which goes back to retaliation. Like, technically, I'm still being retaliated against." Knapp: "The Inspector General's office is there to hear about wrongdoing and things that shouldn't be happening in the agencies that it oversees." Borland: "I...you would think, but this is now me being black pilled, and there's a joke amongst all the military guys, which is: The JAG isn't for you, the JAG is for the DOD. The IG isn't for us, the IG is for the government. And that's the way I feel now." (The Air Force JAG (Judge Advocate General) corps provides comprehensive legal services to the U.S. Air Force and Space Force. ~AI) Knapp: "Did you share this with the attorney who had been advising you about seeing these guys? We're not saying who it is." Corbell: "I think with the client, I just think you're not supposed to do that. It's not like a big secret, I'm just trying to be respectful." Borland: "I made it aware to them that the statement that he had made to me was of grave concern. It made no sense. And I had asked, 'How do I do DOPSR? Because I do not trust this process at all anymore.' And, basically, from that point, I was completely shut out for over a year, a year and a half.' Corbell: "I think lawyers are...try to protect their clients. You know, I don't think it's nefarious. I think that they're just trying to do...or guide their client in what's best for their well being." Knapp: "Yeah, well, especially somebody who has been around and knows what could happen." Corbell: "Knows his stuff. That's unfortunate. Borland: "Don't disagree." (I would like to know why McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer sent Borland to the ICIG? Did they have any idea this would happen? And was it McCullough who shut out Borland for a year and a half? If so, why? Nefarious shouldn't be ruled out.)

Joe Murgia

13,066 次观看 • 9 个月前

This Max Blumenthal interview with Tim Dillon connects a lot of dots. Blumenthal describes how Charlie Kirk's TPUSA began to platform anti-Zionist figures, allowing for discussion of Israel's slaughter in Gaza. Following this, Netanyahu called Kirk personally to offer funding, but Kirk turned him down. Blumenthal says, "After Charlie Kirk was killed... Netanyahu wouldn't stop posting about him. Like minutes after he was killed when his body was still warm, Netanyahu was posting about him, interrupting his seven-front war in the Middle East and his global assassination spree where... he's trying to kill people even inside a US ally in Qatar." This interview with Max Blumenthal was posted to Tim Dillon's YouTube channel today, September 13, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So Charlie Kirk has to answer to his own grassroots base. And you can hear he's starting to make some noises. He's talking about October 7th possibly being an inside job. Israel let it happen in order to carry out long-term political goals. He starts to question whether Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli Mossad agent at a time when... the Epstein files were becoming an uncomfortable issue for Trump. "And it all blew out into the Open at TPUSA's July Youth Summit... Tucker gave... a speech. I mean that was the seminal moment. But it wasn't just Tucker. Megyn Kelly had started questioning Israel, and she's on stage calling Jeffrey Epstein a Mossad agent with comic Dave Smith, who, like myself, is a Jewish anti-Zionist, but he more comes from kind of the libertarian world. "So he was a welcomed on stage to debate a Zionist propagandist who works for Newsweek, Joshua Hammer... [But] that's not something you want, especially at this point if you are like a pro-Israel enforcer. And Dave Smith was openly talking about the slaughter of children in Gaza, and the crowd was cheering in this cathartic way. Then Tucker comes out, says... you should have your citizenship yanked if you fight for a foreign army. "Hundreds and hundreds, thousands of American Jewish youth go to Israel and fight for their army instead of our own. So that's a direct blow to not just the Israel lobby, but like the whole concept of Jewish communal life as it's understood by its leadership. Then Tucker calls out Bill Ackerman, who's one of the biggest Netanyahu money men inside the U.S. who's pulling strings at Harvard... getting their funding pulled unless they crack down on Palestine activism. And he questions Bill, he calls him a scam artist and said, 'How did he make $9 billion? Like where did it come from?' "And Bill Ackman, the next day, he couldn't really answer the question. He published like, a 5,000-word meltdown Twitter post trying to defend his financial investments. It was just bonkers. I'd never seen anything like it. And it was all Charlie Kirk's fault for sanctioning, for giving basically the people what they wanted. And after that he started getting publicly attacked. Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, the two biggest Zionist enforcers in the media, who are very close to Netanyahu, biggest forces lobbying Trump to wage war on Iran, went off on TPUSA, said we can't be having a Big 10 if it includes kooks. "Laura Loomer, we all know who she is, she publicly attacked Charlie Kirk and said he basically had to step down. He was getting attacked in pro-Israel media. What we didn't know what, which I learned is in private, the pressure was even more intense. He was being bombarded with text messages and at some point Netanyahu personally called him and offered to basically fund his organization to new levels that he never even imagined. Which meant, you know, Zionist Israeli takeover complete, like, recapture of TPUSA, an organization they basically helped create. "And Charlie Kirk turned him down. After Charlie Kirk was killed, we know Netanyahu wouldn't stop posting about him. Like minutes after he was killed when his body was still warm, Netanyahu was posting about him interrupting his seven front war in the Middle east and his global assassination spree where he's, he's trying to kill people even inside a US ally in Qatar."

This Max Blumenthal interview with Tim Dillon connects a lot of dots. Blumenthal describes how Charlie Kirk's TPUSA began to platform anti-Zionist figures, allowing for discussion of Israel's slaughter in Gaza. Following this, Netanyahu called Kirk personally to offer funding, but Kirk turned him down. Blumenthal says, "After Charlie Kirk was killed... Netanyahu wouldn't stop posting about him. Like minutes after he was killed when his body was still warm, Netanyahu was posting about him, interrupting his seven-front war in the Middle East and his global assassination spree where... he's trying to kill people even inside a US ally in Qatar." This interview with Max Blumenthal was posted to Tim Dillon's YouTube channel today, September 13, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So Charlie Kirk has to answer to his own grassroots base. And you can hear he's starting to make some noises. He's talking about October 7th possibly being an inside job. Israel let it happen in order to carry out long-term political goals. He starts to question whether Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli Mossad agent at a time when... the Epstein files were becoming an uncomfortable issue for Trump. "And it all blew out into the Open at TPUSA's July Youth Summit... Tucker gave... a speech. I mean that was the seminal moment. But it wasn't just Tucker. Megyn Kelly had started questioning Israel, and she's on stage calling Jeffrey Epstein a Mossad agent with comic Dave Smith, who, like myself, is a Jewish anti-Zionist, but he more comes from kind of the libertarian world. "So he was a welcomed on stage to debate a Zionist propagandist who works for Newsweek, Joshua Hammer... [But] that's not something you want, especially at this point if you are like a pro-Israel enforcer. And Dave Smith was openly talking about the slaughter of children in Gaza, and the crowd was cheering in this cathartic way. Then Tucker comes out, says... you should have your citizenship yanked if you fight for a foreign army. "Hundreds and hundreds, thousands of American Jewish youth go to Israel and fight for their army instead of our own. So that's a direct blow to not just the Israel lobby, but like the whole concept of Jewish communal life as it's understood by its leadership. Then Tucker calls out Bill Ackerman, who's one of the biggest Netanyahu money men inside the U.S. who's pulling strings at Harvard... getting their funding pulled unless they crack down on Palestine activism. And he questions Bill, he calls him a scam artist and said, 'How did he make $9 billion? Like where did it come from?' "And Bill Ackman, the next day, he couldn't really answer the question. He published like, a 5,000-word meltdown Twitter post trying to defend his financial investments. It was just bonkers. I'd never seen anything like it. And it was all Charlie Kirk's fault for sanctioning, for giving basically the people what they wanted. And after that he started getting publicly attacked. Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, the two biggest Zionist enforcers in the media, who are very close to Netanyahu, biggest forces lobbying Trump to wage war on Iran, went off on TPUSA, said we can't be having a Big 10 if it includes kooks. "Laura Loomer, we all know who she is, she publicly attacked Charlie Kirk and said he basically had to step down. He was getting attacked in pro-Israel media. What we didn't know what, which I learned is in private, the pressure was even more intense. He was being bombarded with text messages and at some point Netanyahu personally called him and offered to basically fund his organization to new levels that he never even imagined. Which meant, you know, Zionist Israeli takeover complete, like, recapture of TPUSA, an organization they basically helped create. "And Charlie Kirk turned him down. After Charlie Kirk was killed, we know Netanyahu wouldn't stop posting about him. Like minutes after he was killed when his body was still warm, Netanyahu was posting about him interrupting his seven front war in the Middle east and his global assassination spree where he's, he's trying to kill people even inside a US ally in Qatar."

Sense Receptor

79,092 次观看 • 10 个月前

The world took a giant leap forward into totalitarianism yesterday as the Brazilian government blocked X, formerly Twitter, and threatened to fine its citizens $8,900 per day if they use it. Brazil, the world's sixth largest nation by population, now joins North Korea, China, and Iran in the list of countries that have banned X. It is the 12th largest economy in the world and the superpower of the global South. It doesn’t matter whether or not you care about Brazil. Its totalitarianism is at risk of spreading around the world. Yet neither President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, nor anyone else in the US government has formally denounced the censorship. That’s probably because Biden, Harris, and Democrats not only support the censorship but have also been directly funding it. Of course, there is authentic demand for censorship from within Brazil, and it is ultimately up to the Brazilian people to reverse the nation’s descent into totalitarianism. Brazil’s powerful government-funded news media corporations have been urging censorship, which benefits President Lula’s ruling Workers’ Party. It’s up to Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco to impeach the Supreme Court Justice turned dictator, Alexandre de Moraes. At the same time, the Biden administration and Democrats have played an influential role in instigating censorship in Brazil. The FBI went to Brazil and gave its Supreme Court justices advice on how to censor its population. The US government has been funding many of the NGOs in Brazil that have demanded censorship since the election of a populist president there in 2018. And when I testified before Congress in May of this year, the Democrats on the committee and their witness defended Brazil’s censorship. And Pacheco yesterday affirmed his support for Moraes. After the election of populist president Jair Bolsonaro in 2018, the US government funded pro-censorship organizations that demanded censorship. Moraes yesterday openly defended censorship to prevent “extremist populist groups” from coming to power. As United States Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr noted yesterday, that’s a direct violation of the Brazilian constitution, which explicitly protects political speech. As such, the totalitarian takeover of Brazil is a model for what the Democrats and the legacy news media want for the whole world. Pro-censorship scholars at Stanford and Harvard, Democrats in Congress, and the US news media have long recognized that the First Amendment is an obstacle to their plans. And so they have supported censorship efforts by nations with weaker free speech protections, like Brazil, Britain, Australia, and the European Union, to censor and even block X. It’s important that we fight back. We need to show our support for free speech. I urge my Brazilian friends to stay on the platform. Everyone knows that it would be extremely difficult for Moraes to enforce his insane decree, much less fairly and equally. Proof of this comes from the fact that the Brazilian government and the ruling Workers’ Party are still using X, which means they are also using VPNs to evade their own ban. Brazil is thus not just a dictatorship but a lawless one. Its leaders are behaving like the hypocritical pig leaders in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. And independent Brazilian politicians including Senator Eduardo Girão, Congressman Marcel Van Hattam, and Vice Governor of Minas Gerais, Mateus Simões are all resisting the ban and posting on X. “I never imagined myself practicing and propagating civil disobedience,” said Simões, “but censorship cannot be tolerated, ever.” If you’re not already a premium subscriber to X, please consider becoming one. If you can do more, please consider subscribing to Public. And if you can do even more than that, please make a tax-deductible donation to the free speech movement here: Biden and Harris and other political leaders must denounce what is happening. It’s incredible that the only US government official to criticize Brazil’s dictators is the FCC’s Brendan Carr. Congress must hold hearings. People around the world should recognize Brazil’s banning of X as an attack on free speech everywhere. Everyone is at greater risk of totalitarianism when major countries like Brazil succumb to it. The good news is that the whole world is watching and many in the legacy news media in Brazil are denouncing the government’s ban on X. It’s not too late to turn things around. The world took a giant leap toward dystopia yesterday. But a worldwide free speech movement can pull Brazil back. It’s time to make 1984 and Animal Farm fiction again.

The world took a giant leap forward into totalitarianism yesterday as the Brazilian government blocked X, formerly Twitter, and threatened to fine its citizens $8,900 per day if they use it. Brazil, the world's sixth largest nation by population, now joins North Korea, China, and Iran in the list of countries that have banned X. It is the 12th largest economy in the world and the superpower of the global South. It doesn’t matter whether or not you care about Brazil. Its totalitarianism is at risk of spreading around the world. Yet neither President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, nor anyone else in the US government has formally denounced the censorship. That’s probably because Biden, Harris, and Democrats not only support the censorship but have also been directly funding it. Of course, there is authentic demand for censorship from within Brazil, and it is ultimately up to the Brazilian people to reverse the nation’s descent into totalitarianism. Brazil’s powerful government-funded news media corporations have been urging censorship, which benefits President Lula’s ruling Workers’ Party. It’s up to Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco to impeach the Supreme Court Justice turned dictator, Alexandre de Moraes. At the same time, the Biden administration and Democrats have played an influential role in instigating censorship in Brazil. The FBI went to Brazil and gave its Supreme Court justices advice on how to censor its population. The US government has been funding many of the NGOs in Brazil that have demanded censorship since the election of a populist president there in 2018. And when I testified before Congress in May of this year, the Democrats on the committee and their witness defended Brazil’s censorship. And Pacheco yesterday affirmed his support for Moraes. After the election of populist president Jair Bolsonaro in 2018, the US government funded pro-censorship organizations that demanded censorship. Moraes yesterday openly defended censorship to prevent “extremist populist groups” from coming to power. As United States Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr noted yesterday, that’s a direct violation of the Brazilian constitution, which explicitly protects political speech. As such, the totalitarian takeover of Brazil is a model for what the Democrats and the legacy news media want for the whole world. Pro-censorship scholars at Stanford and Harvard, Democrats in Congress, and the US news media have long recognized that the First Amendment is an obstacle to their plans. And so they have supported censorship efforts by nations with weaker free speech protections, like Brazil, Britain, Australia, and the European Union, to censor and even block X. It’s important that we fight back. We need to show our support for free speech. I urge my Brazilian friends to stay on the platform. Everyone knows that it would be extremely difficult for Moraes to enforce his insane decree, much less fairly and equally. Proof of this comes from the fact that the Brazilian government and the ruling Workers’ Party are still using X, which means they are also using VPNs to evade their own ban. Brazil is thus not just a dictatorship but a lawless one. Its leaders are behaving like the hypocritical pig leaders in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. And independent Brazilian politicians including Senator Eduardo Girão, Congressman Marcel Van Hattam, and Vice Governor of Minas Gerais, Mateus Simões are all resisting the ban and posting on X. “I never imagined myself practicing and propagating civil disobedience,” said Simões, “but censorship cannot be tolerated, ever.” If you’re not already a premium subscriber to X, please consider becoming one. If you can do more, please consider subscribing to Public. And if you can do even more than that, please make a tax-deductible donation to the free speech movement here: Biden and Harris and other political leaders must denounce what is happening. It’s incredible that the only US government official to criticize Brazil’s dictators is the FCC’s Brendan Carr. Congress must hold hearings. People around the world should recognize Brazil’s banning of X as an attack on free speech everywhere. Everyone is at greater risk of totalitarianism when major countries like Brazil succumb to it. The good news is that the whole world is watching and many in the legacy news media in Brazil are denouncing the government’s ban on X. It’s not too late to turn things around. The world took a giant leap toward dystopia yesterday. But a worldwide free speech movement can pull Brazil back. It’s time to make 1984 and Animal Farm fiction again.

Michael Shellenberger

6,231,300 次观看 • 1 年前

THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION The leading proponent of water fluoridation was the Chief Toxicologist of the Manhattan Project, the group who developed the atomic bomb & needed enormous amounts of fluoride to do so His task was to help US Govt from being charged for fluoride pollution "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by fluoride fumes in (the New Jersey) area... the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride." - Lt. Col. Cooper B. Rhodes to General Leslie Groves, May 2, 1946 Declassified documents reveal that the publication of scientific information collected by atomic energy commission scientists that could increase the chance of litigation against the bomb program by workers or down wind communities was forbidden *information which would invite or tend to encourage claims against the Atomic Energy Commission or its contractors, such portions of articles to be published should be reworded or deleted." ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Oct 8, 1947 If water fluoridation was found to be harmful, the US bomb program, as well as many other flouride polluting industries would have been open to massive litigation Fluoride is an industrial waste product The first suggestion of water fluoridation came from the same Mellon institute that insisted asbestos was safe, after being tasked by the aluminum industry to cover for their fluoride pollution Many workers from factories in the aluminum industry have developed emphysema from airborne fluoride exposure Very few dentists are aware that the fluoride in public water supplies, a pharmaceutical grade product, is an industrial waste from the Florida Phosphate industry In the 1950s this industry was being sued by farmers and citizens living near those plants because it was kiIIing their cattle and crops Today, the Florida phosphate industry is prevented from having to dispose their flouride waste in a toxic waste dump because they ship it around the country in tanker trucks and dump it in our water supply Immediately after water fluoridation began, there was movement against it, led by Dr. George L Waldbott, who was also warning early on about of the dangers of emphysema from smoking He was smeared in the media and forgotten In the 1990s, the Senior Toxicologist of the EPA, Dr. William Marcus, said that the results of the cancer tests that had been done on fluoride were manipulated He said fluoride given to rats had produced bone cancer and liver cancer Dr. Marcus was fired and a federal judge ruled it was because of his outspoken opposition to fluoride Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, from the Forsyth Dental Institute, (who was a former proponent of fluoride), had helped invent a new technology for studying the neurotoxicity of chemicals, and found with a study, to her surprise, that very modest doses of fluoride cause lower IQ in chiIdren Within days of learning that her study was accepted for publication, Dr. Mullenix was fired from Forsyth Dental Center and never received grants ever again to continue her research She went from being an industry funded leading neuro toxicologist, at a Harvard affiliated Institute, to being ostracized and ignored RFK Jr is right! We need to remove fluoride from our public water supply. It is far past time!

THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION The leading proponent of water fluoridation was the Chief Toxicologist of the Manhattan Project, the group who developed the atomic bomb & needed enormous amounts of fluoride to do so His task was to help US Govt from being charged for fluoride pollution "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by fluoride fumes in (the New Jersey) area... the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride." - Lt. Col. Cooper B. Rhodes to General Leslie Groves, May 2, 1946 Declassified documents reveal that the publication of scientific information collected by atomic energy commission scientists that could increase the chance of litigation against the bomb program by workers or down wind communities was forbidden *information which would invite or tend to encourage claims against the Atomic Energy Commission or its contractors, such portions of articles to be published should be reworded or deleted." ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Oct 8, 1947 If water fluoridation was found to be harmful, the US bomb program, as well as many other flouride polluting industries would have been open to massive litigation Fluoride is an industrial waste product The first suggestion of water fluoridation came from the same Mellon institute that insisted asbestos was safe, after being tasked by the aluminum industry to cover for their fluoride pollution Many workers from factories in the aluminum industry have developed emphysema from airborne fluoride exposure Very few dentists are aware that the fluoride in public water supplies, a pharmaceutical grade product, is an industrial waste from the Florida Phosphate industry In the 1950s this industry was being sued by farmers and citizens living near those plants because it was kiIIing their cattle and crops Today, the Florida phosphate industry is prevented from having to dispose their flouride waste in a toxic waste dump because they ship it around the country in tanker trucks and dump it in our water supply Immediately after water fluoridation began, there was movement against it, led by Dr. George L Waldbott, who was also warning early on about of the dangers of emphysema from smoking He was smeared in the media and forgotten In the 1990s, the Senior Toxicologist of the EPA, Dr. William Marcus, said that the results of the cancer tests that had been done on fluoride were manipulated He said fluoride given to rats had produced bone cancer and liver cancer Dr. Marcus was fired and a federal judge ruled it was because of his outspoken opposition to fluoride Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, from the Forsyth Dental Institute, (who was a former proponent of fluoride), had helped invent a new technology for studying the neurotoxicity of chemicals, and found with a study, to her surprise, that very modest doses of fluoride cause lower IQ in chiIdren Within days of learning that her study was accepted for publication, Dr. Mullenix was fired from Forsyth Dental Center and never received grants ever again to continue her research She went from being an industry funded leading neuro toxicologist, at a Harvard affiliated Institute, to being ostracized and ignored RFK Jr is right! We need to remove fluoride from our public water supply. It is far past time!

ĐⱤØ₲Ø🇺🇸

68,985 次观看 • 1 年前