Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, NJ didn’t suddenly decide concealed carry was a great idea. The State was forced to allow it. .Attorney General Jennifer Davenport Matt Platkin reacted as expected: knee-jerk, sloppy, and hostile. His response was so extreme that major parts of it are STILL in...

DawnFantasia_NJ's profile picture

Dawn Fantasia

8,370 subscribers

11,053 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

“We are all at the mercy of the bottom 20 % of people in America.” “The rules and laws that we follow, they all exist because of the behavior of the bottom 20%.” “The taxes we all pay on our income and on our purchasing, they only exist to support the bottom 20%.” “Greatest risk to the property that you own and to the wellbeing of you and your family members and the people you love is that bottom 20 % of people.” “The public places that used to be really nice and used to be really fun to hang out at or comfortable to be in, they're not anymore because of this bottom 20%.”
1:10

“We are all at the mercy of the bottom 20 % of people in America.” “The rules and laws that we follow, they all exist because of the behavior of the bottom 20%.” “The taxes we all pay on our income and on our purchasing, they only exist to support the bottom 20%.” “Greatest risk to the property that you own and to the wellbeing of you and your family members and the people you love is that bottom 20 % of people.” “The public places that used to be really nice and used to be really fun to hang out at or comfortable to be in, they're not anymore because of this bottom 20%.”

Wall Street Mav

95,946 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

This is actually crazy Chad Bianco reveals how Democrats got voters to pass letting people steal up to $850 with no consequences Democrats knew voters would never vote for it, so instead they named it “The Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative” and voters were tricked into voting for it “Prop 47 made felonies, misdemeanors, misdemeanors, infractions, or not crimes anymore. It increased the, the level of theft to where it was a crime to that $950 threshold. And so that enabled just crime to just run rampant. It. It was profitable now to be a criminal, and there was no consequence” He says Gavin Newsom did this deception on purpose, “Never would the voters agree to that — The voters would never, ever, ever go for that -1 So what they did is they let you pass it and they gave you this sheet of paper and a ballot next to it with yes or no. And they said, ‘do you want safe schools and safe streets?’ And you said, yes, I do. And you said Yes. And that's what Prop 47 was. It was the Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative that our attorney General Kamala Harris at the time, our Secretary of State” “They lied to us and convinced us as voters to make that a law. And the thing that happens after that is that law can never be changed unless the voters change it. The lawmakers in Sacramento can't change a law that the voters put into place. So they lied to us. But why are they allowed to put deceiving descriptions on these laws? Because government made their own another law that said it was okay to lie to you.” Democrats are the party of criminals
2:08

This is actually crazy Chad Bianco reveals how Democrats got voters to pass letting people steal up to $850 with no consequences Democrats knew voters would never vote for it, so instead they named it “The Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative” and voters were tricked into voting for it “Prop 47 made felonies, misdemeanors, misdemeanors, infractions, or not crimes anymore. It increased the, the level of theft to where it was a crime to that $950 threshold. And so that enabled just crime to just run rampant. It. It was profitable now to be a criminal, and there was no consequence” He says Gavin Newsom did this deception on purpose, “Never would the voters agree to that — The voters would never, ever, ever go for that -1 So what they did is they let you pass it and they gave you this sheet of paper and a ballot next to it with yes or no. And they said, ‘do you want safe schools and safe streets?’ And you said, yes, I do. And you said Yes. And that's what Prop 47 was. It was the Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative that our attorney General Kamala Harris at the time, our Secretary of State” “They lied to us and convinced us as voters to make that a law. And the thing that happens after that is that law can never be changed unless the voters change it. The lawmakers in Sacramento can't change a law that the voters put into place. So they lied to us. But why are they allowed to put deceiving descriptions on these laws? Because government made their own another law that said it was okay to lie to you.” Democrats are the party of criminals

Wall Street Apes

99,370 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Velupillai Prabhakaran, the Tamil Eelam national leader and leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), being asked about his views on the Sinhalese people and the ethnic conflict itself. (2002) “As far as we are concerned in this war, we have seen so much destruction. I tell this to my cadres also. Even now, the Sinhalese people and the Sinhalese politicians, the only reason why they came to the peace process in the first place is that we are tired of being beaten up and they are tired of continuously beating us up. Usually, the ones who are beaten up come for peace, but here they come for peace because they are tired of beating us up. This is what I’m trying to say to them. Instead of pointlessly trying to fight for something they have no connection to, they don’t even have one small plot of land that belongs to them there. So they are going and fighting for something that doesn’t even belong to them in the first place. By trying to do so, they are getting killed, and because of that they are destroying themselves economically for trying to wage this war. Their people are also suffering because of that tremendously. Instead of killing each other, both can separate peacefully and both can prosper. But until they understand this, I have to keep them in check. Other than that, I have no anger towards the Sinhalese people. They are simply suffering due to their own mistakes.”
1:16

Velupillai Prabhakaran, the Tamil Eelam national leader and leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), being asked about his views on the Sinhalese people and the ethnic conflict itself. (2002) “As far as we are concerned in this war, we have seen so much destruction. I tell this to my cadres also. Even now, the Sinhalese people and the Sinhalese politicians, the only reason why they came to the peace process in the first place is that we are tired of being beaten up and they are tired of continuously beating us up. Usually, the ones who are beaten up come for peace, but here they come for peace because they are tired of beating us up. This is what I’m trying to say to them. Instead of pointlessly trying to fight for something they have no connection to, they don’t even have one small plot of land that belongs to them there. So they are going and fighting for something that doesn’t even belong to them in the first place. By trying to do so, they are getting killed, and because of that they are destroying themselves economically for trying to wage this war. Their people are also suffering because of that tremendously. Instead of killing each other, both can separate peacefully and both can prosper. But until they understand this, I have to keep them in check. Other than that, I have no anger towards the Sinhalese people. They are simply suffering due to their own mistakes.”

Tamil Guerilla 📕 ☭

23,425 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Scott Jennings puts it’s perfectly. He calmly reminds the deranged Libs that the Epstein story is about Bill Clinton and the Dems, and it’s been that way for 15+ years. Epstein was a Democrat donor, and directly assisted the Dems in trying to damage Trump. Epstein was literally feeding lines to Democrat politicians in the middle of congressional hearings via text. They had an Epstein group chat. Epstein was part of the Democrat elite. This story has been about Clinton and the Dems the entire time. The Dems used to think so also, considering they called this a conspiracy theory for the last decade, until a few months ago. If there was every anything about Trump, it would have been released before he reached the bottom of the escalator in 2015, the Comey FBI would have leaked it, and the Dems would have brought it up at some point while Biden was in office. But none of that happened. Why? Because Epstein leads to the Dems, and people like myself have been trying to warn the world about it for 10+ years. We were called conspiracy theorists. The Dems/MSM covered up this story for ov r a decade, and now they think they are all the sudden the experts on the subject? Adorable.
0:33

Scott Jennings puts it’s perfectly. He calmly reminds the deranged Libs that the Epstein story is about Bill Clinton and the Dems, and it’s been that way for 15+ years. Epstein was a Democrat donor, and directly assisted the Dems in trying to damage Trump. Epstein was literally feeding lines to Democrat politicians in the middle of congressional hearings via text. They had an Epstein group chat. Epstein was part of the Democrat elite. This story has been about Clinton and the Dems the entire time. The Dems used to think so also, considering they called this a conspiracy theory for the last decade, until a few months ago. If there was every anything about Trump, it would have been released before he reached the bottom of the escalator in 2015, the Comey FBI would have leaked it, and the Dems would have brought it up at some point while Biden was in office. But none of that happened. Why? Because Epstein leads to the Dems, and people like myself have been trying to warn the world about it for 10+ years. We were called conspiracy theorists. The Dems/MSM covered up this story for ov r a decade, and now they think they are all the sudden the experts on the subject? Adorable.

Clandestine

186,024 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

They signed it. Amendment Bill No. 3 is law now, and the thing we said would happen has happened, in the quiet, procedural way these things always happen. No drama. A signature. The machinery moved exactly as it was built to move. Understand what was actually done here. This was a conversion of a term limit from a constitutional guarantee into a negotiable inconvenience. Section 328 was meant to be the lock on the door. They have shown us the lock was only ever as strong as the willingness of the people holding the keys to respect it. There will be those who tell you this is legal. They will be technically correct and entirely beside the point. Legality is not the same as legitimacy. A process can follow every step and still hollow out the thing it claims to protect. The Constitution was amended by the exact people the Constitution was written to restrain. That is not the rule of law. That is the rule of whoever holds the pen. I want to be careful about despair, because despair is the goal. A population that believes nothing can change is a population that has agreed to be governed without consent. So let me say the useful thing instead of the bitter one. Constitutions are not defended in the moment they are broken. They are defended in the long years afterward, by people who refuse to accept that the breaking was normal. The record matters. Who voted. Who signed. Who stayed silent. Who said, plainly and for the record, that this was wrong. History is not written by the people who hold the pen today. It is written by the people who kept count. Keep count.
2:16

They signed it. Amendment Bill No. 3 is law now, and the thing we said would happen has happened, in the quiet, procedural way these things always happen. No drama. A signature. The machinery moved exactly as it was built to move. Understand what was actually done here. This was a conversion of a term limit from a constitutional guarantee into a negotiable inconvenience. Section 328 was meant to be the lock on the door. They have shown us the lock was only ever as strong as the willingness of the people holding the keys to respect it. There will be those who tell you this is legal. They will be technically correct and entirely beside the point. Legality is not the same as legitimacy. A process can follow every step and still hollow out the thing it claims to protect. The Constitution was amended by the exact people the Constitution was written to restrain. That is not the rule of law. That is the rule of whoever holds the pen. I want to be careful about despair, because despair is the goal. A population that believes nothing can change is a population that has agreed to be governed without consent. So let me say the useful thing instead of the bitter one. Constitutions are not defended in the moment they are broken. They are defended in the long years afterward, by people who refuse to accept that the breaking was normal. The record matters. Who voted. Who signed. Who stayed silent. Who said, plainly and for the record, that this was wrong. History is not written by the people who hold the pen today. It is written by the people who kept count. Keep count.

Tawonga Kurewa

10,243 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

All of the truly evil people claim that Charlie Kirk said the Civil Rights Act should be abolished. Demons don't count on people looking at the context. Charlie was a good man who was good on the issues, and everything that people decry from him as racist, sexist, islamiphobic, claustrophobic, glossophobic, or any other ist or phobe don't realize that his arguments are not what they make them out to be. Kirk believed that the intent of the Civil Rights Act was good, but the wording of it lead to a whole lot more than what it intended and now we have grown men beating the best women in the world at sports they train their whole lives for in the name of equality. We have Asian and White people being denied scholarships and university entrance because they need more blacks in those spots instead. And people will continue to believe that Charlie was a card carrying klansman because what they have heard is that he didn't like the consequences of the Civil Rights Act. The left does this all the time. Countless examples. Floyd was murdered. Michael Brown said "hands up, don't shoot". Trayvon was walking home with a bag of Skittles. They are evil, and they try to bend your mind to their reality because you are a useful idiot. You alone are nothing, but you in the hivemind can move mountains for them. They will kill you and lie on your legacy so that millions are not only okay with your execution, but they rejoice in it.
1:30

All of the truly evil people claim that Charlie Kirk said the Civil Rights Act should be abolished. Demons don't count on people looking at the context. Charlie was a good man who was good on the issues, and everything that people decry from him as racist, sexist, islamiphobic, claustrophobic, glossophobic, or any other ist or phobe don't realize that his arguments are not what they make them out to be. Kirk believed that the intent of the Civil Rights Act was good, but the wording of it lead to a whole lot more than what it intended and now we have grown men beating the best women in the world at sports they train their whole lives for in the name of equality. We have Asian and White people being denied scholarships and university entrance because they need more blacks in those spots instead. And people will continue to believe that Charlie was a card carrying klansman because what they have heard is that he didn't like the consequences of the Civil Rights Act. The left does this all the time. Countless examples. Floyd was murdered. Michael Brown said "hands up, don't shoot". Trayvon was walking home with a bag of Skittles. They are evil, and they try to bend your mind to their reality because you are a useful idiot. You alone are nothing, but you in the hivemind can move mountains for them. They will kill you and lie on your legacy so that millions are not only okay with your execution, but they rejoice in it.

Ian Miles Cheong

14,443 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Devin Nunes explains various charges that are likely to be brought against Comey and company "On Comey, the answer is for this, it's very specific, and it's over whether or not he lied on this one part. The larger part is whether or not you can bring a Grand Conspiracy case. And there's the law, which is, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, but there's also a term in there called misleading. And what a lot of these guys did is they made up things using intelligence that didn't exist, but acted like they knew something that actually wasn't there, and they lied and misled the American people. And by doing that, all the times they testified before Congress, the Senate, they lied over and over and again with this, oh, we've seen something, we can't tell you about it because it's classified. But what do we now know by everything that's been declassified is, is that they didn't have any intelligence on Russia colluding with Trump. In fact, the only intelligence that they had is that the Russians were very well aware of Clinton's plan. And they actually not only thought Clinton was going to win, but likely preferred that she would win. So going back to the cover up of her missing emails that, by the way, are still missing, they all got involved in this plan. They all got the FBI exercise. They were able to go spy on the Trump campaign. They were able to then get the Mueller witch hunt going, that then led to the Ukraine. Remember, that dies off, then you have the fake whistleblower and the Ukraine impeachment. I mean, that means a whole investigation in and of itself. We now know the latest information that happened on January 6th now with agents that were out there, the pipe bombs, all this other stuff that is, who broke the windows that I asked when I was in Congress, I really wanted to know that. But most importantly, Maria, who's the victim in this? The victim is President Trump and his family. They raided Mar-a-Lago. That's a problem and we need answers to that
1:58

Devin Nunes explains various charges that are likely to be brought against Comey and company "On Comey, the answer is for this, it's very specific, and it's over whether or not he lied on this one part. The larger part is whether or not you can bring a Grand Conspiracy case. And there's the law, which is, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, but there's also a term in there called misleading. And what a lot of these guys did is they made up things using intelligence that didn't exist, but acted like they knew something that actually wasn't there, and they lied and misled the American people. And by doing that, all the times they testified before Congress, the Senate, they lied over and over and again with this, oh, we've seen something, we can't tell you about it because it's classified. But what do we now know by everything that's been declassified is, is that they didn't have any intelligence on Russia colluding with Trump. In fact, the only intelligence that they had is that the Russians were very well aware of Clinton's plan. And they actually not only thought Clinton was going to win, but likely preferred that she would win. So going back to the cover up of her missing emails that, by the way, are still missing, they all got involved in this plan. They all got the FBI exercise. They were able to go spy on the Trump campaign. They were able to then get the Mueller witch hunt going, that then led to the Ukraine. Remember, that dies off, then you have the fake whistleblower and the Ukraine impeachment. I mean, that means a whole investigation in and of itself. We now know the latest information that happened on January 6th now with agents that were out there, the pipe bombs, all this other stuff that is, who broke the windows that I asked when I was in Congress, I really wanted to know that. But most importantly, Maria, who's the victim in this? The victim is President Trump and his family. They raided Mar-a-Lago. That's a problem and we need answers to that

Svetlana Lokhova

25,150 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

This couple is having a wedding that will reflect who they are. They openly don’t seem to care if anyone will actually go or not. I think weddings are a celebration for everyone to join in for a special day. But I also think that offending guests before they even go might be a decision that will turn in a decision full of regret. So here’s my take on this. The way I see it is that they are going to be disappointed. I know others might argue and say that it’s selfish for the guests to not go because of the conditions set forth by the bride and groom, however it goes both ways. If they know guests won’t like the conditions of the wedding, then maybe they should compromise a little. I think they should give people options. I feel that this is going to show the bride and groom who is actually their real friends and who aren’t in their eyes. They won’t care if the guests don’t like the wedding rules, they are going to expect them to go because they think that their attendance shows that they care and that they are local.
3:03

This couple is having a wedding that will reflect who they are. They openly don’t seem to care if anyone will actually go or not. I think weddings are a celebration for everyone to join in for a special day. But I also think that offending guests before they even go might be a decision that will turn in a decision full of regret. So here’s my take on this. The way I see it is that they are going to be disappointed. I know others might argue and say that it’s selfish for the guests to not go because of the conditions set forth by the bride and groom, however it goes both ways. If they know guests won’t like the conditions of the wedding, then maybe they should compromise a little. I think they should give people options. I feel that this is going to show the bride and groom who is actually their real friends and who aren’t in their eyes. They won’t care if the guests don’t like the wedding rules, they are going to expect them to go because they think that their attendance shows that they care and that they are local.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

300,719 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.
1:45

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

Kyle Becker

5,835,051 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Andy Burnham, "I've had experience of trying to give care in 15 minute slots because that is what councils say that is all they can afford" "It's fine if the needs are moderate and you can complete the task in that time slot" "But what if they're not?" "What if the needs are moderate or severe and you try and do everything within 15 minutes" "I can tell you from experience, that can be a recipe for chaos" "And it leaves the staff in a difficult position, because they are told if they have a problem and cant complete what they're doing, ring 999" "That can be a really frightening experience. Because it often isn't the case that that person needs hospitalisation. You can say its the worst place they can end up" "But once that process is under way its very difficult to stop the drag of the system into hospital and everything that comes from that" "That's worse for the NHS and the staff who work there as well. It's a lose lose situation" "Because often people spend a long time A&E, a long time in hospital, then fit to be discharged but can't be discharged, it just is a pressure the NHS struggles to meet" "Today 6 million people over 65 are going to A&E every year" "In 2010 it was 3 million" "Last month 13,600 were medically fit to be discharged but couldn't be" "3,000 people every single day receive corridor care" "They used to be in winter pressures, but they're year round now" "And staff in the NHS are trying to deal with those pressures every single day" "And there is talk of burnout with NHS staff"
2:59

Andy Burnham, "I've had experience of trying to give care in 15 minute slots because that is what councils say that is all they can afford" "It's fine if the needs are moderate and you can complete the task in that time slot" "But what if they're not?" "What if the needs are moderate or severe and you try and do everything within 15 minutes" "I can tell you from experience, that can be a recipe for chaos" "And it leaves the staff in a difficult position, because they are told if they have a problem and cant complete what they're doing, ring 999" "That can be a really frightening experience. Because it often isn't the case that that person needs hospitalisation. You can say its the worst place they can end up" "But once that process is under way its very difficult to stop the drag of the system into hospital and everything that comes from that" "That's worse for the NHS and the staff who work there as well. It's a lose lose situation" "Because often people spend a long time A&E, a long time in hospital, then fit to be discharged but can't be discharged, it just is a pressure the NHS struggles to meet" "Today 6 million people over 65 are going to A&E every year" "In 2010 it was 3 million" "Last month 13,600 were medically fit to be discharged but couldn't be" "3,000 people every single day receive corridor care" "They used to be in winter pressures, but they're year round now" "And staff in the NHS are trying to deal with those pressures every single day" "And there is talk of burnout with NHS staff"

Farrukh

19,411 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

This was at La Jolla Cove in La Jolla California. These people are swimming at the Cove but there is a good amount of Sea lions there. 😳 You can see one of the Sea lions almost run over a kid as it is trying to get back in the water and you can hear a voice over the loudspeaker telling people to please keep their distance from all the Sea lions. People argued about this saying that little beach was always meant for kids to swim at and has been that way for 40 years. But many others said that it has obviously changed and now we have Sea lions there and they should leave those Sea lions in peace and go find another beach. To me, the ocean, that is their home. There are plenty of other beaches to use. The people should be the ones to move, not the Sea lions. 💯 What is your opinion? Should they just keep it the way it is, let people around the Sea lions or should they close this small beach cove to the public in order to allow the Sea lions to be in peace?
0:26

This was at La Jolla Cove in La Jolla California. These people are swimming at the Cove but there is a good amount of Sea lions there. 😳 You can see one of the Sea lions almost run over a kid as it is trying to get back in the water and you can hear a voice over the loudspeaker telling people to please keep their distance from all the Sea lions. People argued about this saying that little beach was always meant for kids to swim at and has been that way for 40 years. But many others said that it has obviously changed and now we have Sea lions there and they should leave those Sea lions in peace and go find another beach. To me, the ocean, that is their home. There are plenty of other beaches to use. The people should be the ones to move, not the Sea lions. 💯 What is your opinion? Should they just keep it the way it is, let people around the Sea lions or should they close this small beach cove to the public in order to allow the Sea lions to be in peace?

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

221,424 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨🚨🚨"Democracy" is a Psyop!!! "You ask a hundred people on the street, what kind of government is America supposed to be? 99% of them will tell you, a democracy. America is supposed to be a democracy. But THAT'S A LIE. That's an illusion. The word democracy is not written into the Constitution at one time. It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers hated the idea of a democracy. They thought it was the worst form of government there is. And I agree with them, because in a democracy, 51% of the people control 49% of the people. If you're part of the 49%, you're not free. America was founded as a constitutional republic, and in that constitutional republic that we have, 99% of the people can't take away the rights of 1%. You have your rights because you were born with them. You have God given human rights that nobody can take away from you—the government, the majority, no matter who they are. I can't take away your rights. And that's what our founding fathers gave us. But the psychological operations that they do to us, they make us believe that we're a democracy and that majority rules, you see? And they want you to believe that."
1:15

🚨🚨🚨"Democracy" is a Psyop!!! "You ask a hundred people on the street, what kind of government is America supposed to be? 99% of them will tell you, a democracy. America is supposed to be a democracy. But THAT'S A LIE. That's an illusion. The word democracy is not written into the Constitution at one time. It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers hated the idea of a democracy. They thought it was the worst form of government there is. And I agree with them, because in a democracy, 51% of the people control 49% of the people. If you're part of the 49%, you're not free. America was founded as a constitutional republic, and in that constitutional republic that we have, 99% of the people can't take away the rights of 1%. You have your rights because you were born with them. You have God given human rights that nobody can take away from you—the government, the majority, no matter who they are. I can't take away your rights. And that's what our founding fathers gave us. But the psychological operations that they do to us, they make us believe that we're a democracy and that majority rules, you see? And they want you to believe that."

Red Pill USA

760,134 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨 NEW: Fox’s Brit Hume on judge throwing out Comey and James indictments: “I think the White House is right in calling this a technicality. The judge didn’t rule on the merits in any way and did not say they are legally deficient.” “What they said was the wrong person brought them, someone who should not have been in the position to do that. That seems to me to be something that can be corrected and it’s possible, even likely, that these charges will be reinstated.” “That doesn’t mean that they will prevail in the end.. but so far what we have is the dismissal for now on what really is a bit of a technicality.”
0:38

🚨 NEW: Fox’s Brit Hume on judge throwing out Comey and James indictments: “I think the White House is right in calling this a technicality. The judge didn’t rule on the merits in any way and did not say they are legally deficient.” “What they said was the wrong person brought them, someone who should not have been in the position to do that. That seems to me to be something that can be corrected and it’s possible, even likely, that these charges will be reinstated.” “That doesn’t mean that they will prevail in the end.. but so far what we have is the dismissal for now on what really is a bit of a technicality.”

TV News Now

260,556 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

A pair of friends were roadtripping for hours. Before they knew it, it was already beginning to get dark, they keep driving though. It’s now 3am, and they aren’t sure where they are. They look on the map and determine they are somewhere in the Appalachian mountains. The trail is thick with fog, it’s hard to see. The passenger starts being concerned, warning the driver that they aren’t supposed to be here and this isn’t where they wanna be. He makes the driver turn around so the can get away as far as possible. Was this a wise move on their behalf, being out in the trails in Appalachia in the middle of the night?
2:07

A pair of friends were roadtripping for hours. Before they knew it, it was already beginning to get dark, they keep driving though. It’s now 3am, and they aren’t sure where they are. They look on the map and determine they are somewhere in the Appalachian mountains. The trail is thick with fog, it’s hard to see. The passenger starts being concerned, warning the driver that they aren’t supposed to be here and this isn’t where they wanna be. He makes the driver turn around so the can get away as far as possible. Was this a wise move on their behalf, being out in the trails in Appalachia in the middle of the night?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

565,263 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Democrats in Colorado are preparing to permanently end farming in the state “This would be the end of farming and ranching and private (farm) land ownership in Colorado” “There's something happening in Colorado which is not so good. The corridor of people that don't understand the rural lifestyle that live in all the cities in Colorado are controlling that state. This would be the end of farming and ranching and private land ownership in Colorado. Because what they propose is that they want to set up a committee that cannot have any farmers and ranchers on the committee to decide what happens to our public lands and private lands in the name of conservation. They want to be able to say that any, put any species on the state endangered species list, which would dictate what you can do on your land if you have that species on there. So they could just say, oh, this squirrel is endangered. And now you have 400 restrictions on your property that you can't use it. You for this. You can't cut down this tree. You can't move cattle in this area. This is activist environmental proposal to take over that entire state. Because if they get control of that, they can literally dictate the use of any land, public or private, in the name of conservation.”
1:07

Democrats in Colorado are preparing to permanently end farming in the state “This would be the end of farming and ranching and private (farm) land ownership in Colorado” “There's something happening in Colorado which is not so good. The corridor of people that don't understand the rural lifestyle that live in all the cities in Colorado are controlling that state. This would be the end of farming and ranching and private land ownership in Colorado. Because what they propose is that they want to set up a committee that cannot have any farmers and ranchers on the committee to decide what happens to our public lands and private lands in the name of conservation. They want to be able to say that any, put any species on the state endangered species list, which would dictate what you can do on your land if you have that species on there. So they could just say, oh, this squirrel is endangered. And now you have 400 restrictions on your property that you can't use it. You for this. You can't cut down this tree. You can't move cattle in this area. This is activist environmental proposal to take over that entire state. Because if they get control of that, they can literally dictate the use of any land, public or private, in the name of conservation.”

Wall Street Apes

649,056 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

NBC News legal analyst Danny Cevallos on what the ICE officer’s cellphone video showed: “It’s evidence that both the driver and the passenger, her wife, was out of the car, were confrontational with police. Now, that doesn’t mean you conclude they were being violence or aggressive or anything, but it fits into the calculus. Consider, for example, instead if they had, yes, sir, right away, sir, well, that goes into the calculus, too. Everything is a factor in the escalation of force formula. And if people are being — citizens are compliant to orders, that’s a different analysis than whether they are, in this case, not being openly violent towards the officers, but taunting them, being aggressive. It all factors into the calculus. It certainly doesn’t mean if they are being unfriendly to the officers that the officers can use deadly force, and it may not go that much to whether or not the officer in that moment perceived he was in fear of imminent serious physical harm sufficient to warrant the firearm.” “I’ll just add, also, if this was a car stop, and ICE agents have limited ability to initiate car stops, but if they suspect obstruction of their own duties, which there are several federal statutes that would apply to that, criminal statutes, they may be able to initiate a car stop. And you hear one saying get out of the car. That includes the right, since a sort case from long ago, to order people out of the car, even if not suspected to be dangerous or anything like that. So, you may have a lawful exit orders. Those are things that factor into the many different factors that everyone will be looking at in determining whether this was a justified use of force.”
1:46

NBC News legal analyst Danny Cevallos on what the ICE officer’s cellphone video showed: “It’s evidence that both the driver and the passenger, her wife, was out of the car, were confrontational with police. Now, that doesn’t mean you conclude they were being violence or aggressive or anything, but it fits into the calculus. Consider, for example, instead if they had, yes, sir, right away, sir, well, that goes into the calculus, too. Everything is a factor in the escalation of force formula. And if people are being — citizens are compliant to orders, that’s a different analysis than whether they are, in this case, not being openly violent towards the officers, but taunting them, being aggressive. It all factors into the calculus. It certainly doesn’t mean if they are being unfriendly to the officers that the officers can use deadly force, and it may not go that much to whether or not the officer in that moment perceived he was in fear of imminent serious physical harm sufficient to warrant the firearm.” “I’ll just add, also, if this was a car stop, and ICE agents have limited ability to initiate car stops, but if they suspect obstruction of their own duties, which there are several federal statutes that would apply to that, criminal statutes, they may be able to initiate a car stop. And you hear one saying get out of the car. That includes the right, since a sort case from long ago, to order people out of the car, even if not suspected to be dangerous or anything like that. So, you may have a lawful exit orders. Those are things that factor into the many different factors that everyone will be looking at in determining whether this was a justified use of force.”

Curtis Houck

178,278 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten