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。

Alberta will continue being a place where free speech is defended. Cases across Canada —like the high-profile disciplinary proceedings of Dr. Jordan Peterson Dr Jordan B Peterson, nurses, and other professions— demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence. Today our government... unveiled Bill 13 "the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act", which if passed, would: ☑️ Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction. ☑️Restrict mandatory training unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training. ☑️Create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs. Read our full announcement here:show more

Danielle Smith

434,650 subscribers

291,153 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

喜剧新闻政治教育

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

A nurse with 25 years of service should not lose her career over lawful opinions shared online. Yet that is exactly what Cath Simpson is facing. In August, Cath will stand before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Not because of any complaint about her care of patients, but because of views she expressed as a private citizen. The Free Speech Union is defending Cath because this case is about more than one nurse. It is about whether professional regulators should police competence and conduct, or people's lawful beliefs and opinions. We support the Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill to stop this kind of overreach. But until the law changes, people like Cath need defending. If you believe professionals should be judged by how they do their jobs, not by their private political views, please make a contribution today. Stand with Cath. Donate here:

A nurse with 25 years of service should not lose her career over lawful opinions shared online. Yet that is exactly what Cath Simpson is facing. In August, Cath will stand before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Not because of any complaint about her care of patients, but because of views she expressed as a private citizen. The Free Speech Union is defending Cath because this case is about more than one nurse. It is about whether professional regulators should police competence and conduct, or people's lawful beliefs and opinions. We support the Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill to stop this kind of overreach. But until the law changes, people like Cath need defending. If you believe professionals should be judged by how they do their jobs, not by their private political views, please make a contribution today. Stand with Cath. Donate here:

🗣 Free Speech Union ✊

10,354 次观看 • 2 个月前

On the silencing of the British professional classes: The British state has always delighted in turning the working class, and their legitimate concerns, into mincemeat. More recently (the last 30 years) it has found it can similarly turn the professional classes into hamburger – limitations that squat upon our key institutions, stifling their ability to signal the economic & demographic decline Britain is experiencing at pace. The UK has over 90 professional regulatory bodies covering most forms of respectable work. Everyone from medical doctors to the Bar of England & Wales, from Members of Parliament to nurses, was entrusted to third-party regulatory steering entity which regulated what professionals, and their professional bodies may do and say – increasingly this is private conduct outside of professional work. These regulators, and hundreds of other permanent state bodies, are recent creations. There is also the Climate Change Committee (2008) with its net zero policy and SAGE (2009) who recommended placing Britain under house arrest for two years, the Office for Budget Responsibility (2010) – capable of ousting prime ministers if their budget is not approved, by way of the Bar Standards Board (2006). In the passing 30 years, every professional you can imagine was given a legislatively enshrined body to limit his agency on political grounds, and, create statutory responsibilities to monitor and promote equality and diversity in their industry, or at least, never to be seen to oppose it. I discussed this, and my essay England Is Under Attack, on British Thought Leaders in April 2025 – excerpt here.

On the silencing of the British professional classes: The British state has always delighted in turning the working class, and their legitimate concerns, into mincemeat. More recently (the last 30 years) it has found it can similarly turn the professional classes into hamburger – limitations that squat upon our key institutions, stifling their ability to signal the economic & demographic decline Britain is experiencing at pace. The UK has over 90 professional regulatory bodies covering most forms of respectable work. Everyone from medical doctors to the Bar of England & Wales, from Members of Parliament to nurses, was entrusted to third-party regulatory steering entity which regulated what professionals, and their professional bodies may do and say – increasingly this is private conduct outside of professional work. These regulators, and hundreds of other permanent state bodies, are recent creations. There is also the Climate Change Committee (2008) with its net zero policy and SAGE (2009) who recommended placing Britain under house arrest for two years, the Office for Budget Responsibility (2010) – capable of ousting prime ministers if their budget is not approved, by way of the Bar Standards Board (2006). In the passing 30 years, every professional you can imagine was given a legislatively enshrined body to limit his agency on political grounds, and, create statutory responsibilities to monitor and promote equality and diversity in their industry, or at least, never to be seen to oppose it. I discussed this, and my essay England Is Under Attack, on British Thought Leaders in April 2025 – excerpt here.

Michael Reiners

25,733 次观看 • 9 个月前

JUST IN: FIFA President Gianni Infantino breaks silence, says decision to lift the suspension of USA's Folarin Balogun had nothing to do with President Trump's call. Read his statement below: "I have seen the public comments regarding the decision of the independent Fifa Disciplinary Committee related to the suspension of Folarin Balogun, and I would like to reiterate a fundamental principle of Fifa’s governance. Fifa’s judicial bodies are independent. They operate autonomously, apply the Fifa Disciplinary Code, and decide cases based on the applicable regulations and the specific facts before them. Their independence is essential to the credibility and integrity of football, and this must always be respected. Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the Fifa World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues. During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving Fifa’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how Fifa’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold. I read the decisions of the Fifa Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree. What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them. Whether we personally like a decision or not is irrelevant. Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of Fifa at all times."

JUST IN: FIFA President Gianni Infantino breaks silence, says decision to lift the suspension of USA's Folarin Balogun had nothing to do with President Trump's call. Read his statement below: "I have seen the public comments regarding the decision of the independent Fifa Disciplinary Committee related to the suspension of Folarin Balogun, and I would like to reiterate a fundamental principle of Fifa’s governance. Fifa’s judicial bodies are independent. They operate autonomously, apply the Fifa Disciplinary Code, and decide cases based on the applicable regulations and the specific facts before them. Their independence is essential to the credibility and integrity of football, and this must always be respected. Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the Fifa World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues. During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving Fifa’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how Fifa’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold. I read the decisions of the Fifa Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree. What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them. Whether we personally like a decision or not is irrelevant. Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of Fifa at all times."

Collin Rugg

731,571 次观看 • 1 个月前

South Carolina PCA pastor says the church must dig in harder on DEI even as the secular world abandons it, because "God demands it" and there is no "room for diverse opinions" on whether Christians must pursue it. JP Sibley of New City Fellowship Orangeburg preaches: "DEI stands for diversity, equity + inclusion. Diversity. Seems like a good thing. Equity, fairness. Seems like a good thing. Inclusion. Seems like a good thing. But today, many laws and practices that promote these things are being torn down. And we need to be honest that this has an effect on many of us. It has an effect on how we feel, our safety. Maybe we feel unwanted. Maybe we feel insecure about our job or our family or what we're going to do or where we're going to be. We live in an increasingly segregated world, brothers and sisters. And so it is more important now than ever that God's kingdom pursues diversity and equity and inclusion. Maybe the government shouldn't demand it. I don't wanna get into politics, but God demands it. The church of Christ should be diverse. The church of Christ should not be segregated. Amen? The church of Christ should not be segregated. And it's more important now than ever that we face these divisions. Many of them are political and deeply held beliefs, I know. And there's room for diverse opinions about how should we handle these things in our society. But what there's not room for is: should we seek diversity, should we seek equality [sic], should we seek inclusion. How we go about it may be different, but in the church, in God's kingdom, we should set the example to the world. We should be, as Dr. King said, the headlight shining the way, directing, and he said, but it turns out the church is usually the tail light, catching up to the culture in terms of these things of equality and diversity."

South Carolina PCA pastor says the church must dig in harder on DEI even as the secular world abandons it, because "God demands it" and there is no "room for diverse opinions" on whether Christians must pursue it. JP Sibley of New City Fellowship Orangeburg preaches: "DEI stands for diversity, equity + inclusion. Diversity. Seems like a good thing. Equity, fairness. Seems like a good thing. Inclusion. Seems like a good thing. But today, many laws and practices that promote these things are being torn down. And we need to be honest that this has an effect on many of us. It has an effect on how we feel, our safety. Maybe we feel unwanted. Maybe we feel insecure about our job or our family or what we're going to do or where we're going to be. We live in an increasingly segregated world, brothers and sisters. And so it is more important now than ever that God's kingdom pursues diversity and equity and inclusion. Maybe the government shouldn't demand it. I don't wanna get into politics, but God demands it. The church of Christ should be diverse. The church of Christ should not be segregated. Amen? The church of Christ should not be segregated. And it's more important now than ever that we face these divisions. Many of them are political and deeply held beliefs, I know. And there's room for diverse opinions about how should we handle these things in our society. But what there's not room for is: should we seek diversity, should we seek equality [sic], should we seek inclusion. How we go about it may be different, but in the church, in God's kingdom, we should set the example to the world. We should be, as Dr. King said, the headlight shining the way, directing, and he said, but it turns out the church is usually the tail light, catching up to the culture in terms of these things of equality and diversity."

Woke Preacher Clips

39,958 次观看 • 1 年前

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.

Alicia Garcia

33,744 次观看 • 7 个月前

UPDATE: Dr. Widdowson Speaks Out After Arrest: “Warning Sign of Growing Totalitarianism in Canada” After being arrested at the University of Lethbridge and released from custody with what a $600 trespass ticket, Dr. Frances Widdowson called on Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to restore freedom of expression on Alberta’s campuses. “It’s my views that make them see it as necessary to have me removed and charged with trespass,” said Dr. Widdowson, who has been vocal about the lack of evidence in the alleged mass graves of Indigenous children found in Kamloops, B.C. “Premier Danielle Smith, if you don’t act in this case, you’re never going to act. You need to let universities know that freedom of speech on their campuses is an incredibly important value," she urges. "If we can’t have freedom of speech on our university campuses, we’re not going to be able to disseminate knowledge to young people, train professionals properly, or have the bulwark against authoritarianism that we need in this society.” Earlier today, Dr. Widdowson was arrested after returning to campus despite a trespass notice issued by the university, which had cited concerns that her presence posed a risk to the health and safety of some students. Follow Media Bezirgan for more.

UPDATE: Dr. Widdowson Speaks Out After Arrest: “Warning Sign of Growing Totalitarianism in Canada” After being arrested at the University of Lethbridge and released from custody with what a $600 trespass ticket, Dr. Frances Widdowson called on Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to restore freedom of expression on Alberta’s campuses. “It’s my views that make them see it as necessary to have me removed and charged with trespass,” said Dr. Widdowson, who has been vocal about the lack of evidence in the alleged mass graves of Indigenous children found in Kamloops, B.C. “Premier Danielle Smith, if you don’t act in this case, you’re never going to act. You need to let universities know that freedom of speech on their campuses is an incredibly important value," she urges. "If we can’t have freedom of speech on our university campuses, we’re not going to be able to disseminate knowledge to young people, train professionals properly, or have the bulwark against authoritarianism that we need in this society.” Earlier today, Dr. Widdowson was arrested after returning to campus despite a trespass notice issued by the university, which had cited concerns that her presence posed a risk to the health and safety of some students. Follow Media Bezirgan for more.

Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦

65,201 次观看 • 4 个月前

Blood Isn't Charity...It Is A 48 Billion Dollar Industry That's In High Demand. Dr Lee Merritt, MD Serious Ethical Lines Are Erased, As People Seek Out 'Young Blood' To Reverse Aging. The Practice Of Harvesting Organs & Tissue Is More Dark & Sinister Than Anyone Wants To Admit. Most people think blood donation is all charity…but it’s actually a billion-dollar industry. There are even studies discussing how infusing younger blood benefits older people — a concept that raises serious ethical questions. And when it comes to controversial topics like organ & tissue markets, the story is far bigger & darker than what we’re told. From The Study: Young Blood Rejuvenates Old Bodies: Exploited natural resources such as gold & oil have often been external to human beings, but now they may become internal. Previously people worked in factories, now they may become factories. No doubt, biological material has been conceived of as waste or natural resources previously, but that was mainly excess material such as tissue samples & removed tumors. Hence, the rejuvenating effect of blood may result in a commodification of blood & disrupt well-established traditions of altruism-based donation, undermining the well-established organization of blood donation. Young blood is sought after because it has demonstrated its potential in mitigating aging-related symptoms, promoting cell growth & repair, & restraining age-associated chronic inflammation & fibrosis in older individuals. Young blood effectively reverses age-related gene expressions in a diverse range of cell types (51 in total) derived from the 20 main organs & tissues of the elderly. From The Study: Trafficking In Human Organs: The desperate need for organ transplantation surgeries has given rise to a lucrative, transnational criminal enterprise that enables organ seekers to purchase organs from donors. This enterprise, commonly referred to as organ trafficking, is a global phenomenon. Even though it is illegal in most countries, trafficked organs account for billions into the trillions of dollars. “Organ Trafficking” is an umbrella term that covers a number of unethical & illegal practices. It consists of any of the following activities: Removing organs from living donors without valid consent. Transportation, manipulation, transplantation or other use of such organs. Healthcare professional, public official, or employee of a private sector entity to facilitate or perform such removal or use. Soliciting or recruiting donors or recipients, where carried out for financial gain or comparative advantage. “Trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ removal” The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of the removal of organs. 👇Human Trafficking For The Removal Of Organs👇 👇Trafficking In Human Organs: An Overview👇 👇Young Blood Rejuvenates Aging Organs👇 Speaker: Dr Lee Merritt, MD Video: WR

Blood Isn't Charity...It Is A 48 Billion Dollar Industry That's In High Demand. Dr Lee Merritt, MD Serious Ethical Lines Are Erased, As People Seek Out 'Young Blood' To Reverse Aging. The Practice Of Harvesting Organs & Tissue Is More Dark & Sinister Than Anyone Wants To Admit. Most people think blood donation is all charity…but it’s actually a billion-dollar industry. There are even studies discussing how infusing younger blood benefits older people — a concept that raises serious ethical questions. And when it comes to controversial topics like organ & tissue markets, the story is far bigger & darker than what we’re told. From The Study: Young Blood Rejuvenates Old Bodies: Exploited natural resources such as gold & oil have often been external to human beings, but now they may become internal. Previously people worked in factories, now they may become factories. No doubt, biological material has been conceived of as waste or natural resources previously, but that was mainly excess material such as tissue samples & removed tumors. Hence, the rejuvenating effect of blood may result in a commodification of blood & disrupt well-established traditions of altruism-based donation, undermining the well-established organization of blood donation. Young blood is sought after because it has demonstrated its potential in mitigating aging-related symptoms, promoting cell growth & repair, & restraining age-associated chronic inflammation & fibrosis in older individuals. Young blood effectively reverses age-related gene expressions in a diverse range of cell types (51 in total) derived from the 20 main organs & tissues of the elderly. From The Study: Trafficking In Human Organs: The desperate need for organ transplantation surgeries has given rise to a lucrative, transnational criminal enterprise that enables organ seekers to purchase organs from donors. This enterprise, commonly referred to as organ trafficking, is a global phenomenon. Even though it is illegal in most countries, trafficked organs account for billions into the trillions of dollars. “Organ Trafficking” is an umbrella term that covers a number of unethical & illegal practices. It consists of any of the following activities: Removing organs from living donors without valid consent. Transportation, manipulation, transplantation or other use of such organs. Healthcare professional, public official, or employee of a private sector entity to facilitate or perform such removal or use. Soliciting or recruiting donors or recipients, where carried out for financial gain or comparative advantage. “Trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ removal” The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of the removal of organs. 👇Human Trafficking For The Removal Of Organs👇 👇Trafficking In Human Organs: An Overview👇 👇Young Blood Rejuvenates Aging Organs👇 Speaker: Dr Lee Merritt, MD Video: WR

Valerie Anne Smith

130,964 次观看 • 1 年前

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,800 次观看 • 3 个月前

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker

ScotNews

20,333 次观看 • 2 年前

WATCH: FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff's Opening Remarks to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Tuesday, February 6, 2023 Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and distinguished members of the select subcommittee: Good morning. My name is Greg Lukianoff, and I am the CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or “FIRE,” where I’ve worked for 23 years. FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit that uses litigation, scholarship, and public outreach to defend and promote the value of free speech for all Americans. We proudly defend free speech regardless of a speaker’s viewpoint or identity, and we have represented people across the political spectrum. I’m here to address the risk AI and AI regulation pose to freedom of speech and the creation of knowledge. We have good reason to be concerned. FIRE regularly fights government attempts to stifle speech on the internet. FIRE is in federal court challenging a New York law that forces websites to “address” online speech that someone, somewhere finds humiliating or vilifying. We’re challenging a new Utah law that requires age verification of all social media users. We’ve raised concerns about the federal government funding development of AI tools to target speech including microaggressions. And later this week, FIRE will file a brief with the Supreme Court explaining the danger of “jawboning” — the use of government pressure to force social media platforms to censor protected speech. But the most chilling threat that the government poses in the context of emerging AI is regulatory overreach that limits its potential as a tool for contributing to human knowledge. A regulatory panic could result in a small number of Americans deciding for everyone else what speech, ideas, and even questions are permitted in the name of “safety” or “alignment.” I’ve dedicated my life to defending freedom of speech because it is an essential human right. However, free speech is more than that; it’s nothing less than essential to our ability to understand the world. A giant step for human progress was the realization that, despite what our senses tell us, knowledge is hard to attain. It's a never-ending, arduous, necessarily de-centralized process of testing and retesting, of chipping away at falsity to edge a bit closer to truth. It’s not just about the proverbial “marketplace of ideas”; it’s about allowing information—independent of idea or argument—to flow freely so that we can hope to know the world as it really is. This means seeing value in expression even when it appears to be wrongheaded or useless. This process has been aided by new technologies that have made communication easier. From the printing press, to the telegraph and radio, to phones and the internet: each one has accelerated the development of new knowledge by making it easier to share information. But AI offers even greater liberating potential, empowered by First Amendment principles, including freedom to code, academic freedom, and freedom of inquiry. We are on the threshold of a revolution in the creation and discovery of knowledge. AI’s potential is humbling; indeed, even frightening. But as the history of the printing press shows, attempts to put the genie back in the bottle will fail. Despite the profound disruption the printing press caused in Europe in the short term, the long-term contribution to art, science, and again, knowledge was without equal. Yes, we may have some fears about the proliferation of AI. But what those of us who care about civil liberties fear more is a government monopoly on advanced AI. Or, more likely, regulatory capture and a government-empowered oligopoly that privileges a handful of existing players. The end result of pushing too hard on AI regulation will be the concentration of AI influence in an even smaller number of hands. Far from reining in the government’s misuse of AI to censor, we will have created the framework not only to censor but also to dominate and distort the production of knowledge itself. “But why not just let OpenAI or a handful of existing AI engines dominate the space?” you may ask. Trust in expertise and in higher education—another important developer of knowledge—has plummeted in recent years, due largely to self-inflicted wounds borne of the ideological biases shared by much of the expert class. That same bias is often found baked into existing AI, and without competing AI models we may create a massive body of purported official facts that we can’t actually trust. We’ve seen on campus that attempts to regulate hate speech have led to absurd results like punishing people for simply reading about controversial topics like racism; similarly, AI programs flag or refuse to answer questions about prohibited topics. And, of course, the potential end result of America tying the hands of the greatest programmers in the world would be to lose our advantage to our most determined foreign adversaries. But with decentralized development and use of AI, we have a better chance of defeating our staunchest rivals or even Skynet or Big Brother. And it’s what gives us our best chance for understanding the world without being blinded by our current orthodoxies, superstitions, or darkest fears. Thank you for the invitation to testify and I look forward to your questions. 🎥: Weaponization Committee

WATCH: FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff's Opening Remarks to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Tuesday, February 6, 2023 Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and distinguished members of the select subcommittee: Good morning. My name is Greg Lukianoff, and I am the CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or “FIRE,” where I’ve worked for 23 years. FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit that uses litigation, scholarship, and public outreach to defend and promote the value of free speech for all Americans. We proudly defend free speech regardless of a speaker’s viewpoint or identity, and we have represented people across the political spectrum. I’m here to address the risk AI and AI regulation pose to freedom of speech and the creation of knowledge. We have good reason to be concerned. FIRE regularly fights government attempts to stifle speech on the internet. FIRE is in federal court challenging a New York law that forces websites to “address” online speech that someone, somewhere finds humiliating or vilifying. We’re challenging a new Utah law that requires age verification of all social media users. We’ve raised concerns about the federal government funding development of AI tools to target speech including microaggressions. And later this week, FIRE will file a brief with the Supreme Court explaining the danger of “jawboning” — the use of government pressure to force social media platforms to censor protected speech. But the most chilling threat that the government poses in the context of emerging AI is regulatory overreach that limits its potential as a tool for contributing to human knowledge. A regulatory panic could result in a small number of Americans deciding for everyone else what speech, ideas, and even questions are permitted in the name of “safety” or “alignment.” I’ve dedicated my life to defending freedom of speech because it is an essential human right. However, free speech is more than that; it’s nothing less than essential to our ability to understand the world. A giant step for human progress was the realization that, despite what our senses tell us, knowledge is hard to attain. It's a never-ending, arduous, necessarily de-centralized process of testing and retesting, of chipping away at falsity to edge a bit closer to truth. It’s not just about the proverbial “marketplace of ideas”; it’s about allowing information—independent of idea or argument—to flow freely so that we can hope to know the world as it really is. This means seeing value in expression even when it appears to be wrongheaded or useless. This process has been aided by new technologies that have made communication easier. From the printing press, to the telegraph and radio, to phones and the internet: each one has accelerated the development of new knowledge by making it easier to share information. But AI offers even greater liberating potential, empowered by First Amendment principles, including freedom to code, academic freedom, and freedom of inquiry. We are on the threshold of a revolution in the creation and discovery of knowledge. AI’s potential is humbling; indeed, even frightening. But as the history of the printing press shows, attempts to put the genie back in the bottle will fail. Despite the profound disruption the printing press caused in Europe in the short term, the long-term contribution to art, science, and again, knowledge was without equal. Yes, we may have some fears about the proliferation of AI. But what those of us who care about civil liberties fear more is a government monopoly on advanced AI. Or, more likely, regulatory capture and a government-empowered oligopoly that privileges a handful of existing players. The end result of pushing too hard on AI regulation will be the concentration of AI influence in an even smaller number of hands. Far from reining in the government’s misuse of AI to censor, we will have created the framework not only to censor but also to dominate and distort the production of knowledge itself. “But why not just let OpenAI or a handful of existing AI engines dominate the space?” you may ask. Trust in expertise and in higher education—another important developer of knowledge—has plummeted in recent years, due largely to self-inflicted wounds borne of the ideological biases shared by much of the expert class. That same bias is often found baked into existing AI, and without competing AI models we may create a massive body of purported official facts that we can’t actually trust. We’ve seen on campus that attempts to regulate hate speech have led to absurd results like punishing people for simply reading about controversial topics like racism; similarly, AI programs flag or refuse to answer questions about prohibited topics. And, of course, the potential end result of America tying the hands of the greatest programmers in the world would be to lose our advantage to our most determined foreign adversaries. But with decentralized development and use of AI, we have a better chance of defeating our staunchest rivals or even Skynet or Big Brother. And it’s what gives us our best chance for understanding the world without being blinded by our current orthodoxies, superstitions, or darkest fears. Thank you for the invitation to testify and I look forward to your questions. 🎥: Weaponization Committee

FIRE

127,842 次观看 • 2 年前

Examining the Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Ciara Kelly and Janssen Pharmaceuticals In recent discussions about medical ethics and transparency, the name of Dr. Ciara Kelly has emerged, particularly concerning her connections with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The issue of conflicts of interest in the medical field has garnered significant attention, as it poses critical questions about the integrity of healthcare professionals and the implications for patient trust. Dr. Ciara Kelly is a notable figure in the medical community, known for her contributions to health advocacy and her role as a commentator on health issues. As a respected physician, she has used her platform to inform the public on various health matters, ranging from chronic diseases to public health policies. However, recent revelations about her financial ties with Janssen have prompted scrutiny, raising alarms about potential biases in her commentary and recommendations. Understanding Conflicts of Interest A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s professional actions may be influenced by personal financial interests. In the medical field, this can raise ethical concerns, especially when it comes to prescribing medications, endorsing treatments, or providing public health guidance. Transparency is essential; physicians must disclose any financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies to maintain the trust of their patients and the public. The Connection to Janssen Reports suggest that Dr. Kelly has received funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals for various projects, possibly including research and speaking engagements. This financial relationship could both enhance her work and present challenges regarding impartiality. Critics argue that such ties can lead to a preference for certain medications or therapies, undermining the objective nature of medical advice. The Implications for Healthcare Conflicts of interest like those associated with Dr. Kelly and Janssen raise important questions about the integrity of healthcare communications. Patients rely on healthcare professionals to provide unbiased and evidence-based recommendations, particularly when it comes to complex decisions about treatment options. If a physician's commentary is influenced by financial relationships, it may compromise the quality of care and patient autonomy. The Importance of Transparency Transparency is key in navigating potential conflicts of interest. Disclosures should be clear, accessible, and comprehensive, enabling patients and the public to understand the potential influences on a physician's recommendations. Health institutions, professional organisations, and regulatory bodies must enforce stringent guidelines to ensure that all healthcare providers disclose any financial ties to pharmaceutical companies or other entities that could influence their clinical judgment. Moving Forward with Integrity As Dr. Ciara Kelly's situation evolves, it serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding ethical standards in the medical field. Healthcare professionals must navigate their relationships with pharmaceutical companies carefully, prioritising patient welfare and maintaining trust. The emergence of conflicts of interest in medicine calls for continued dialogue and rigorous scrutiny, emphasising that the ultimate goal should always be to provide the best possible care for patients, free from undue influence. In an era where information is readily available, patients deserve the assurance that the advice they receive is grounded in sound ethics and a commitment to their health, unmarred by conflicting interests. The medical community must remain vigilant, encouraging transparency and accountability to foster trust and ensure that healthcare remains a noble profession focused entirely on patient care.

Examining the Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Ciara Kelly and Janssen Pharmaceuticals In recent discussions about medical ethics and transparency, the name of Dr. Ciara Kelly has emerged, particularly concerning her connections with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The issue of conflicts of interest in the medical field has garnered significant attention, as it poses critical questions about the integrity of healthcare professionals and the implications for patient trust. Dr. Ciara Kelly is a notable figure in the medical community, known for her contributions to health advocacy and her role as a commentator on health issues. As a respected physician, she has used her platform to inform the public on various health matters, ranging from chronic diseases to public health policies. However, recent revelations about her financial ties with Janssen have prompted scrutiny, raising alarms about potential biases in her commentary and recommendations. Understanding Conflicts of Interest A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s professional actions may be influenced by personal financial interests. In the medical field, this can raise ethical concerns, especially when it comes to prescribing medications, endorsing treatments, or providing public health guidance. Transparency is essential; physicians must disclose any financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies to maintain the trust of their patients and the public. The Connection to Janssen Reports suggest that Dr. Kelly has received funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals for various projects, possibly including research and speaking engagements. This financial relationship could both enhance her work and present challenges regarding impartiality. Critics argue that such ties can lead to a preference for certain medications or therapies, undermining the objective nature of medical advice. The Implications for Healthcare Conflicts of interest like those associated with Dr. Kelly and Janssen raise important questions about the integrity of healthcare communications. Patients rely on healthcare professionals to provide unbiased and evidence-based recommendations, particularly when it comes to complex decisions about treatment options. If a physician's commentary is influenced by financial relationships, it may compromise the quality of care and patient autonomy. The Importance of Transparency Transparency is key in navigating potential conflicts of interest. Disclosures should be clear, accessible, and comprehensive, enabling patients and the public to understand the potential influences on a physician's recommendations. Health institutions, professional organisations, and regulatory bodies must enforce stringent guidelines to ensure that all healthcare providers disclose any financial ties to pharmaceutical companies or other entities that could influence their clinical judgment. Moving Forward with Integrity As Dr. Ciara Kelly's situation evolves, it serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding ethical standards in the medical field. Healthcare professionals must navigate their relationships with pharmaceutical companies carefully, prioritising patient welfare and maintaining trust. The emergence of conflicts of interest in medicine calls for continued dialogue and rigorous scrutiny, emphasising that the ultimate goal should always be to provide the best possible care for patients, free from undue influence. In an era where information is readily available, patients deserve the assurance that the advice they receive is grounded in sound ethics and a commitment to their health, unmarred by conflicting interests. The medical community must remain vigilant, encouraging transparency and accountability to foster trust and ensure that healthcare remains a noble profession focused entirely on patient care.

Eleanor Mcgee

28,715 次观看 • 1 年前

60 years ago, Ronald Reagan gave Americans a warning that has stood the test of time. This is from Reagan's "Time for Choosing" speech: "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." "You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course." ... "Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as 'the masses.' This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, 'the full power of centralized government'--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy." ... "They say we are always 'against' things, never 'for' anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." ... "Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin." ... "Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment." ... "You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all." "You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, 'There is a price we will not pay.' There is a point beyond which they must not advance." ... "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." Doesn't it feel like Reagan is speaking to us TODAY?

60 years ago, Ronald Reagan gave Americans a warning that has stood the test of time. This is from Reagan's "Time for Choosing" speech: "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." "You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course." ... "Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as 'the masses.' This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, 'the full power of centralized government'--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy." ... "They say we are always 'against' things, never 'for' anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." ... "Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin." ... "Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment." ... "You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all." "You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, 'There is a price we will not pay.' There is a point beyond which they must not advance." ... "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." Doesn't it feel like Reagan is speaking to us TODAY?

Kyle Becker

104,422 次观看 • 2 年前

State-of-the-Art Control Room at Swasthya Bhawan Taking a decisive step toward a transparent and broker-free healthcare system in West Bengal, today a High-Tech Control Room has been inaugurated at the Swasthya Bhawan. This facility will serve as the central hub for monitoring all Government Hospitals across the State in real-time. Our mission is clear: to eliminate the menace of the "Dalal Raj" that has plagued our Hospitals for too long. Through advanced surveillance and analytical monitoring, we will now track unusual activities and patterns within hospital premises. If individuals are found loitering without purpose or cause, they will be promptly identified and dealt with according to the law. To further ensure safety & security of Healthcare Professionals & Patients and to streamline Hospital Operations, we are introducing a new Badge System, so that People can clearly be identified and segregated as per their their purpose in the vicinity. By segregating the crowd, we will easily distinguish those who have no business being on Hospital premises. I have personally visited several Hospitals and witnessed the dedicated service of our Doctors, Nurses and Health Workers. They deserve a safe, secure and professional environment. We are committed to provide that. This is a significant shift toward a safer, technology-driven and patient-centric Healthcare system for the people of West Bengal.

State-of-the-Art Control Room at Swasthya Bhawan Taking a decisive step toward a transparent and broker-free healthcare system in West Bengal, today a High-Tech Control Room has been inaugurated at the Swasthya Bhawan. This facility will serve as the central hub for monitoring all Government Hospitals across the State in real-time. Our mission is clear: to eliminate the menace of the "Dalal Raj" that has plagued our Hospitals for too long. Through advanced surveillance and analytical monitoring, we will now track unusual activities and patterns within hospital premises. If individuals are found loitering without purpose or cause, they will be promptly identified and dealt with according to the law. To further ensure safety & security of Healthcare Professionals & Patients and to streamline Hospital Operations, we are introducing a new Badge System, so that People can clearly be identified and segregated as per their their purpose in the vicinity. By segregating the crowd, we will easily distinguish those who have no business being on Hospital premises. I have personally visited several Hospitals and witnessed the dedicated service of our Doctors, Nurses and Health Workers. They deserve a safe, secure and professional environment. We are committed to provide that. This is a significant shift toward a safer, technology-driven and patient-centric Healthcare system for the people of West Bengal.

Suvendu Adhikari

56,180 次观看 • 1 个月前

Right now our experience of the internet is in jeopardy. More than half of our interactions online and onchain come from non-human actors who are not identifiable, not accountable, not verifiable. That means as we look toward a stablecoin payment and AI agent enabled future, how are we going to facilitate payments if we don't know who we're paying? How will applications, display advertising, recommendations work if the counterparty who's interacting with those interfaces and in those digital spaces can’t identify itself as agent or human, or specific human? Or for things like onchain incentives, how can we ensure that tokens and value are arriving at the right users if we cannot tell Sybil accounts and redundant addresses from unique human beings? So for all of these use cases and more, things that touch enterprise and government as well, which we can get into later, we have a very glaring need to bring a layer of identity and trust to the internet that was originally built as a system, a network to communicate amongst computers, but lacked an identity system to acknowledge their users. That's the problem that we are solving with Billions Network. How can we make it really easy for you and the agents who serve you to prove who you are, your traits and capabilities and qualifications, in any space, physical or digital? What that means is that today Billions Network is the first universal human and AI network built with mobile first verification, so you can prove who you are and your agents can prove who they are, starting with comfortable experiences on the devices you already own. So no proprietary hardware. We do not rely on centralized servers to collect user data. Rather, your information, the sensitive data that makes you you, stays securely on your device. And we use zero knowledge proofs as a way to prove traits about you, such as the fact that you're over the age of 21, without revealing that sensitive personal data, such as what your exact birth date is. Source: Billions CEO Evin McMullen evin speaking at House of Chimera Spaces Event Dec 3, 2025

Right now our experience of the internet is in jeopardy. More than half of our interactions online and onchain come from non-human actors who are not identifiable, not accountable, not verifiable. That means as we look toward a stablecoin payment and AI agent enabled future, how are we going to facilitate payments if we don't know who we're paying? How will applications, display advertising, recommendations work if the counterparty who's interacting with those interfaces and in those digital spaces can’t identify itself as agent or human, or specific human? Or for things like onchain incentives, how can we ensure that tokens and value are arriving at the right users if we cannot tell Sybil accounts and redundant addresses from unique human beings? So for all of these use cases and more, things that touch enterprise and government as well, which we can get into later, we have a very glaring need to bring a layer of identity and trust to the internet that was originally built as a system, a network to communicate amongst computers, but lacked an identity system to acknowledge their users. That's the problem that we are solving with Billions Network. How can we make it really easy for you and the agents who serve you to prove who you are, your traits and capabilities and qualifications, in any space, physical or digital? What that means is that today Billions Network is the first universal human and AI network built with mobile first verification, so you can prove who you are and your agents can prove who they are, starting with comfortable experiences on the devices you already own. So no proprietary hardware. We do not rely on centralized servers to collect user data. Rather, your information, the sensitive data that makes you you, stays securely on your device. And we use zero knowledge proofs as a way to prove traits about you, such as the fact that you're over the age of 21, without revealing that sensitive personal data, such as what your exact birth date is. Source: Billions CEO Evin McMullen evin speaking at House of Chimera Spaces Event Dec 3, 2025

Billions Network

30,916 次观看 • 8 个月前

Those who shun violence perish in violence. Modern Hindu society has consciously shunned violence, even retaliatory, as a result Hindus have become sitting ducks and been suffering genocide everywhere. The propagation of pacifism by Jains and Baudhs earlier, and later by Vaishnavites and Gandhi made courageous Hindus into cowards which had caused, and has been causing, immense harm to Hindus and India. Eschewing violence altogether is self-destructive. Curiously, while the vast majority of Hindus are non-vegetarians a vast majority of them (non-vegetarian Hindus) tremble on seeing blood. It is so, not because they are innately coward but because they are not exposed, rather avoid getting exposed, to controlled violence such as taking part in meat making by killing animals. Violence is nature of the nature. Therefore, such low level of tolerance of Hindus to violence is dangerous for their own defence and survival. Hindu religion does not impose non-violence on its followers except may be in the case of ascetics. While ahimsa is a general saying it is superseded with himsa (violence) in order to protect once dharma which includes protection of self, family, near and dear, property and community. Here is an age-old Hindu commandment: अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: What the Jains, Baudhs, Vaishnavites and Gandhi preach or are preaching is against the very teachings and doings of our Devi-Devatas including all Vaishnava avataras. Therefore, Hindus imbibing the unnatural ahimsa (non-violence) is Anti-Hindu and self-destructive. As regards the role of violence elsewhere in the world, even the US Constitution recognised and ordains through the Second Amendment thereto the importance of the ability to inflict violence which reads as, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Hence, it is critically important that Hindus –– irrespective age and gender, vegetarian or non-vegetarian –– must lose the fear of blood and get accustomed to its spilling so as to cultivate courage. They must practice slaughter of chickens and goats frequently, which they can do by buying a live chicken from local chicken shops and cut it there itself. Additionally, groups of Hindus (friends and relatives) should meet frequently and organise contributory community feasts सामुदायिक भोजन in local Temple premises or at any other convenient place where they should offer bali of chickens and/or goats for the Deity or before an image of Kali or Durga Mata witnessed by all. It is important to take children along for all such activities. Watch this clip👇

Those who shun violence perish in violence. Modern Hindu society has consciously shunned violence, even retaliatory, as a result Hindus have become sitting ducks and been suffering genocide everywhere. The propagation of pacifism by Jains and Baudhs earlier, and later by Vaishnavites and Gandhi made courageous Hindus into cowards which had caused, and has been causing, immense harm to Hindus and India. Eschewing violence altogether is self-destructive. Curiously, while the vast majority of Hindus are non-vegetarians a vast majority of them (non-vegetarian Hindus) tremble on seeing blood. It is so, not because they are innately coward but because they are not exposed, rather avoid getting exposed, to controlled violence such as taking part in meat making by killing animals. Violence is nature of the nature. Therefore, such low level of tolerance of Hindus to violence is dangerous for their own defence and survival. Hindu religion does not impose non-violence on its followers except may be in the case of ascetics. While ahimsa is a general saying it is superseded with himsa (violence) in order to protect once dharma which includes protection of self, family, near and dear, property and community. Here is an age-old Hindu commandment: अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: What the Jains, Baudhs, Vaishnavites and Gandhi preach or are preaching is against the very teachings and doings of our Devi-Devatas including all Vaishnava avataras. Therefore, Hindus imbibing the unnatural ahimsa (non-violence) is Anti-Hindu and self-destructive. As regards the role of violence elsewhere in the world, even the US Constitution recognised and ordains through the Second Amendment thereto the importance of the ability to inflict violence which reads as, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Hence, it is critically important that Hindus –– irrespective age and gender, vegetarian or non-vegetarian –– must lose the fear of blood and get accustomed to its spilling so as to cultivate courage. They must practice slaughter of chickens and goats frequently, which they can do by buying a live chicken from local chicken shops and cut it there itself. Additionally, groups of Hindus (friends and relatives) should meet frequently and organise contributory community feasts सामुदायिक भोजन in local Temple premises or at any other convenient place where they should offer bali of chickens and/or goats for the Deity or before an image of Kali or Durga Mata witnessed by all. It is important to take children along for all such activities. Watch this clip👇

M. Nageswara Rao IPS (Retired)

15,430 次观看 • 1 年前

Romania’s presidential election was annulled, triggering intense political debate both domestically and internationally. I spoke with 🇷🇴 George Simion 🇲🇩, president of the country’s largest opposition party, about the implications of this unprecedented decision and about the report released last week by the U.S. Congress addressing concerns over free speech and foreign influence in democratic processes in Europe. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Rep. Jim Jordan, recently conducted an investigation into what it described as a growing “censorship–industrial complex.” The inquiry examined coordination between governments, supranational institutions, and major technology platforms in moderating online content. Particular attention was given to the European Union’s Digital Services Act (#DSA), a landmark regulation that came fully into force in 2024 and imposes strict obligations on large online platforms to combat illegal content, disinformation, and systemic risks. According to the Committee’s findings, EU institutions—including the European Commission—played a significant role in shaping content moderation policies across major platforms. The report argues that, under the framework of the Digital Services Act, social media companies faced substantial pressure to remove or limit content deemed harmful or misleading, raising concerns among critics about the potential suppression of dissenting voices. The report further claims that digital regulatory interventions and content moderation measures affected political discourse surrounding at least eight elections across six #EU countries. Supporters of the DSA maintain that these measures are necessary to protect democratic processes from foreign interference, coordinated disinformation campaigns, and extremist content. Critics, however, argue that such powers risk being misused in ways that could limit political pluralism and free expression. The debate now centers on a fundamental question: how can democracies protect elections from manipulation (from those in power) while also safeguarding freedom of speech and political competition? Gold Institute for International Strategy General Mike Flynn Călin Georgescu OFFICIAL ACCOUNT Alianța pentru Unirea Românilor #Georgescu #Romania

Romania’s presidential election was annulled, triggering intense political debate both domestically and internationally. I spoke with 🇷🇴 George Simion 🇲🇩, president of the country’s largest opposition party, about the implications of this unprecedented decision and about the report released last week by the U.S. Congress addressing concerns over free speech and foreign influence in democratic processes in Europe. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Rep. Jim Jordan, recently conducted an investigation into what it described as a growing “censorship–industrial complex.” The inquiry examined coordination between governments, supranational institutions, and major technology platforms in moderating online content. Particular attention was given to the European Union’s Digital Services Act (#DSA), a landmark regulation that came fully into force in 2024 and imposes strict obligations on large online platforms to combat illegal content, disinformation, and systemic risks. According to the Committee’s findings, EU institutions—including the European Commission—played a significant role in shaping content moderation policies across major platforms. The report argues that, under the framework of the Digital Services Act, social media companies faced substantial pressure to remove or limit content deemed harmful or misleading, raising concerns among critics about the potential suppression of dissenting voices. The report further claims that digital regulatory interventions and content moderation measures affected political discourse surrounding at least eight elections across six #EU countries. Supporters of the DSA maintain that these measures are necessary to protect democratic processes from foreign interference, coordinated disinformation campaigns, and extremist content. Critics, however, argue that such powers risk being misused in ways that could limit political pluralism and free expression. The debate now centers on a fundamental question: how can democracies protect elections from manipulation (from those in power) while also safeguarding freedom of speech and political competition? Gold Institute for International Strategy General Mike Flynn Călin Georgescu OFFICIAL ACCOUNT Alianța pentru Unirea Românilor #Georgescu #Romania

Rob Roos 🇳🇱

26,785 次观看 • 6 个月前

Censorship is not the solution. Albanese needs to deal with the failures of our immigration policy and intelligence agencies. Hate Crime laws were introduced into Parliament last year. The ones introduced this week will be just as ineffective. At the time I said they were unnecessary because State Governments deal with violent crimes. The new laws did nothing to stop the Bondi terror attack. As pointed out in the speech, the laws were designed to crack down psychological acts not violent acts. In particular the threshold for committing a crime was reduced from “intent” to “carelessness.” This makes the Hate Crime laws dangerous because they threaten freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. Last year, People First was one of a few parties that stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. If you would like to help push back against government overreach please sign up today at or

Censorship is not the solution. Albanese needs to deal with the failures of our immigration policy and intelligence agencies. Hate Crime laws were introduced into Parliament last year. The ones introduced this week will be just as ineffective. At the time I said they were unnecessary because State Governments deal with violent crimes. The new laws did nothing to stop the Bondi terror attack. As pointed out in the speech, the laws were designed to crack down psychological acts not violent acts. In particular the threshold for committing a crime was reduced from “intent” to “carelessness.” This makes the Hate Crime laws dangerous because they threaten freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. Last year, People First was one of a few parties that stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. If you would like to help push back against government overreach please sign up today at or

Gerard Rennick

26,393 次观看 • 7 个月前