Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Although this is an obvious improvement, it is still unconstitutional. A license/permit is permission to engage in an activity that would otherwise be unlawful. Concealing a firearm is protected under the Second Amendment. Thus, any law infringing upon that right is facially invalid and can be disregarded as such.... show more

Witsit

23,997 subscribers

10,504 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🇵🇸🇮🇱A scene from Jerusalem today that needs no explanation—only honesty: A Palestinian bus driver beaten and cursed by a group of settler kids, standing there unable to defend himself… not out of fear—out of certainty. He knows that if he lifts a finger to protect himself, within two seconds he becomes: “a terrorist”… “an attacker”… “attempted stabbing”… “attempted ramming”… and the bullet is ready long before any “investigation.” In Jerusalem, the attacker is a protected settler child… and the victim is a Palestinian who must prove his innocence even when he is the one being beaten. This isn’t an incident. It’s a system: the aggressor is shielded, the assaulted is punished. This is how the city is run— and this is how the “law” looks when the law belongs to an occupier. Oppression doesn’t hide anymore… it hits in broad daylight, and everyone sees it.

🇵🇸🇮🇱A scene from Jerusalem today that needs no explanation—only honesty: A Palestinian bus driver beaten and cursed by a group of settler kids, standing there unable to defend himself… not out of fear—out of certainty. He knows that if he lifts a finger to protect himself, within two seconds he becomes: “a terrorist”… “an attacker”… “attempted stabbing”… “attempted ramming”… and the bullet is ready long before any “investigation.” In Jerusalem, the attacker is a protected settler child… and the victim is a Palestinian who must prove his innocence even when he is the one being beaten. This isn’t an incident. It’s a system: the aggressor is shielded, the assaulted is punished. This is how the city is run— and this is how the “law” looks when the law belongs to an occupier. Oppression doesn’t hide anymore… it hits in broad daylight, and everyone sees it.

SilencedSirs◼️

106,614 views • 7 months ago

While at an event in North Carolina, Vice President JD Vance said it is fine to disagree with the administration’s immigration policies, but those who engage in rhetoric that promotes violence against law enforcement “can go straight to hell” and are unworthy of a place in America’s political discourse.

While at an event in North Carolina, Vice President JD Vance said it is fine to disagree with the administration’s immigration policies, but those who engage in rhetoric that promotes violence against law enforcement “can go straight to hell” and are unworthy of a place in America’s political discourse.

A Man Of Memes

41,965 views • 6 months ago

American Muslim scholar, Hamza Yusuf co-founder of the Zaytuna College declares that “the whole concept of an ‘Islamic state’ is a fantasy in the minds of the modern Islamists” & confirms that the vast majority of Muslim states in history were “secular” (see above post for what he means by ‘secular’). As I recently argued in my Oxford Union debate - which we won - the reading into Islamic sources of the modern idea of a unitary legal ‘state’ (dawlah) over all of society, is an anachronism. It is the retrospective imposition of the European Westphalian nation-state concept onto traditional Islamic sources. The word ‘state’ (dawlah) is entirely absent from *all* Islamic sources of Shariah. As is the word ‘law’ (Qānūn) and as is the word ‘constitution’ (Distūr). It is thus impossible for the term ‘Islamic State’ to be anything other than a modernist reading. And Shariah is not a ‘law’ (the concept of unitary legal system did not exist) so there is no such thing as ‘Sharia law’. There is only Shariah (which means ‘the way’). Islam did not define any fixed notion of state, and hence the matter is left to the people to adopt within Islamic parameters. Here is my recent 10 minute Oxford Union debate speech which explains further:

American Muslim scholar, Hamza Yusuf co-founder of the Zaytuna College declares that “the whole concept of an ‘Islamic state’ is a fantasy in the minds of the modern Islamists” & confirms that the vast majority of Muslim states in history were “secular” (see above post for what he means by ‘secular’). As I recently argued in my Oxford Union debate - which we won - the reading into Islamic sources of the modern idea of a unitary legal ‘state’ (dawlah) over all of society, is an anachronism. It is the retrospective imposition of the European Westphalian nation-state concept onto traditional Islamic sources. The word ‘state’ (dawlah) is entirely absent from all Islamic sources of Shariah. As is the word ‘law’ (Qānūn) and as is the word ‘constitution’ (Distūr). It is thus impossible for the term ‘Islamic State’ to be anything other than a modernist reading. And Shariah is not a ‘law’ (the concept of unitary legal system did not exist) so there is no such thing as ‘Sharia law’. There is only Shariah (which means ‘the way’). Islam did not define any fixed notion of state, and hence the matter is left to the people to adopt within Islamic parameters. Here is my recent 10 minute Oxford Union debate speech which explains further:

أبو عمّار

13,298 views • 1 year ago

The man who studied law has now become a “witness to its total collapse.” Professor Ghanem Al-Attar holds a PhD in International Constitutional Law. In a just world, he would be in a lecture hall shaping the minds of future jurists. Today, however, in the “open-air prison” of Gaza, he moves through the rubble just to find a gallon of water. This is the ultimate irony of 2026: the very international law he specialized in has failed to secure his most basic human rights—water and safety. When a professor of law is forced to live under unlawful bombardment, it is not merely a personal tragedy; it is a global constitutional crisis. We are not only losing buildings, we are wasting the greatest minds of an entire generation. 🙌⚖️

The man who studied law has now become a “witness to its total collapse.” Professor Ghanem Al-Attar holds a PhD in International Constitutional Law. In a just world, he would be in a lecture hall shaping the minds of future jurists. Today, however, in the “open-air prison” of Gaza, he moves through the rubble just to find a gallon of water. This is the ultimate irony of 2026: the very international law he specialized in has failed to secure his most basic human rights—water and safety. When a professor of law is forced to live under unlawful bombardment, it is not merely a personal tragedy; it is a global constitutional crisis. We are not only losing buildings, we are wasting the greatest minds of an entire generation. 🙌⚖️

Mahmoud Massri | مَحْمُود 🇵🇸

117,962 views • 2 months ago

$When officiating the line of scrimmage, general philosophy is not to be overly technical and split hairs over very minor infractions (such as a receiver's hand slightly breaking the LOS). However, when an infraction is so egregious and obvious, a flag has to be thrown. Kadarius Toney is blatantly lined up offside and in the neutral zone. You rarely see an offsides penalty on the offense, but that is not because this play in #BUFvsKC isn't a foul. It is because a receiver rarely lines up offsides.$

When officiating the line of scrimmage, general philosophy is not to be overly technical and split hairs over very minor infractions (such as a receiver's hand slightly breaking the LOS). However, when an infraction is so egregious and obvious, a flag has to be thrown. Kadarius Toney is blatantly lined up offside and in the neutral zone. You rarely see an offsides penalty on the offense, but that is not because this play in #BUFvsKC isn't a foul. It is because a receiver rarely lines up offsides.

Gene Steratore

7,244,451 views • 2 years ago

"We don't obey the law of the land. We make the Kafir obey the law of Allah" This is the ideology of 'Islam' which every religious Muslim lives by. Why is 'Islam' not unconstitutional? Is this not enough to simply ban them?!

"We don't obey the law of the land. We make the Kafir obey the law of Allah" This is the ideology of 'Islam' which every religious Muslim lives by. Why is 'Islam' not unconstitutional? Is this not enough to simply ban them?!

Islam Invasion 🚨

15,299 views • 3 months ago

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE: They are gaslighting us again. Under the Second Amendment and MN Stat. 624.714, permit holders may legally carry firearms in public, including during protests. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public carry is a constitutional right. Carrying a firearm does not legally constitute "inciting

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE: They are gaslighting us again. Under the Second Amendment and MN Stat. 624.714, permit holders may legally carry firearms in public, including during protests. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public carry is a constitutional right. Carrying a firearm does not legally constitute "inciting

Brian Krassenstein

70,487 views • 5 months ago

When an infielder makes a play where he is out of control, bounce the throw. This ensures the ball can be caught…The worst that can happen is the runner is safe at 1b and DP is still in play…trying to make the long perfect throw could lead to an overthrow or an in between hop

When an infielder makes a play where he is out of control, bounce the throw. This ensures the ball can be caught…The worst that can happen is the runner is safe at 1b and DP is still in play…trying to make the long perfect throw could lead to an overthrow or an in between hop

Perry Hill

22,650 views • 2 months ago

🚨🚨 BREAKING – PAY ATTENTION 🚨🚨 If someone inside the FBI illegally leaked ICE operational data, they are facing criminal charges, loss of pension, and prison time. That part is obvious. But here’s the part people are pretending not to understand 👇 If you knew the information was stolen… If you knew it came from inside federal law enforcement… And you published it anyway to warn communities, disrupt operations, or obstruct enforcement… You are NOT protected. That crosses into aiding and abetting and potentially conspiracy. The First Amendment does NOT cover participation in an illegal scheme ⚖️ Stealing the data is a crime. Knowingly using stolen data to interfere with law enforcement is also a crime. This isn’t politics. This isn’t opinion. This is black-letter federal law. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

🚨🚨 BREAKING – PAY ATTENTION 🚨🚨 If someone inside the FBI illegally leaked ICE operational data, they are facing criminal charges, loss of pension, and prison time. That part is obvious. But here’s the part people are pretending not to understand 👇 If you knew the information was stolen… If you knew it came from inside federal law enforcement… And you published it anyway to warn communities, disrupt operations, or obstruct enforcement… You are NOT protected. That crosses into aiding and abetting and potentially conspiracy. The First Amendment does NOT cover participation in an illegal scheme ⚖️ Stealing the data is a crime. Knowingly using stolen data to interfere with law enforcement is also a crime. This isn’t politics. This isn’t opinion. This is black-letter federal law. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

A Gene Robinson

171,657 views • 6 months ago

🚨I DIDNT WANT to do it BUT I have too. You didn’t see this yet. The narrative that “he was just filming and the officers got angry” is false. The narrative that he was only trying to protect two women is also false. He, along with others, was actively interfering with a legitimate law-enforcement operation. That is why officers moved them off the street. That does not mean he deserved to die. When officers attempted to detain him, he resisted arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. He was armed and chose to insert himself into an active enforcement operation while resisting arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. An agent called out the presence of a firearm. During the attempt to secure it, the weapon discharged before the agent could declare the scene clear. Other officers, hearing a gun call and a gunshot while a suspect was resisting arrest, reacted according to their training. From their perspective, they were confronting an armed individual resisting arrest. That is why, immediately after the shooting, one officer urgently asked where the firearm was. He believed he had just engaged an armed suspect, because that is precisely the situation as it appeared in real time. He did not deserve to die. However, his actions, his decisions, and his criminal interference were contributing factors, alongside serious failures by the officers involved. I believe the shooting was unnecessary. I believe there were many alternative ways the situation could have been handled. I do not believe the officers were truly under lethal threat. Recklessness on all sides resulted in a man losing his life. Approximately 23 percent of ICE activity occurs in Texas, yet we do not see these outcomes there. Minnesota accounts for roughly 2 percent of ICE operations, yet has seen multiple shootings involving American citizens. The difference is organized resistance. Blue states have coordinated efforts designed to insert civilians into active ICE operations to interfere intentionally and directly. Interfering with law-enforcement operations is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Resisting arrest is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Within the Second Amendment community, there is a common saying: “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” It refers to choosing survival over moral victory. That same principle applies to interactions with law enforcement. Would you rather be right, or would you rather be alive? Make smart decisions when dealing with law enforcement. Survive the encounter. Then take the fight to court. Use every lawful platform available to expose misconduct. Name departments, supervisors, and officers. Demand accountability through evidence and process. But interfering with an active operation, resisting arrest, and doing so while armed creates a predictable and deadly outcome. Was it legal for him to be armed? Yes. Should citizens carry lawfully? Yes. Is it profoundly reckless to interfere with law enforcement and resist arrest while armed? Absolutely. When we carry firearms, we accept greater responsibility. That responsibility was neglected here. It is possible to support immigration enforcement while condemning reckless policing. It is possible to criticize law enforcement while also acknowledging the dangerous behavior of civilians. It is possible to recognize complexity, rapid escalation, human error, and shared responsibility in a fast-moving situation. He did not have to die. Liberty only survives when it operates within order. Nothing about this situation was orderly. When order collapses, lives are lost. He did not have to die.

🚨I DIDNT WANT to do it BUT I have too. You didn’t see this yet. The narrative that “he was just filming and the officers got angry” is false. The narrative that he was only trying to protect two women is also false. He, along with others, was actively interfering with a legitimate law-enforcement operation. That is why officers moved them off the street. That does not mean he deserved to die. When officers attempted to detain him, he resisted arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. He was armed and chose to insert himself into an active enforcement operation while resisting arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. An agent called out the presence of a firearm. During the attempt to secure it, the weapon discharged before the agent could declare the scene clear. Other officers, hearing a gun call and a gunshot while a suspect was resisting arrest, reacted according to their training. From their perspective, they were confronting an armed individual resisting arrest. That is why, immediately after the shooting, one officer urgently asked where the firearm was. He believed he had just engaged an armed suspect, because that is precisely the situation as it appeared in real time. He did not deserve to die. However, his actions, his decisions, and his criminal interference were contributing factors, alongside serious failures by the officers involved. I believe the shooting was unnecessary. I believe there were many alternative ways the situation could have been handled. I do not believe the officers were truly under lethal threat. Recklessness on all sides resulted in a man losing his life. Approximately 23 percent of ICE activity occurs in Texas, yet we do not see these outcomes there. Minnesota accounts for roughly 2 percent of ICE operations, yet has seen multiple shootings involving American citizens. The difference is organized resistance. Blue states have coordinated efforts designed to insert civilians into active ICE operations to interfere intentionally and directly. Interfering with law-enforcement operations is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Resisting arrest is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Within the Second Amendment community, there is a common saying: “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” It refers to choosing survival over moral victory. That same principle applies to interactions with law enforcement. Would you rather be right, or would you rather be alive? Make smart decisions when dealing with law enforcement. Survive the encounter. Then take the fight to court. Use every lawful platform available to expose misconduct. Name departments, supervisors, and officers. Demand accountability through evidence and process. But interfering with an active operation, resisting arrest, and doing so while armed creates a predictable and deadly outcome. Was it legal for him to be armed? Yes. Should citizens carry lawfully? Yes. Is it profoundly reckless to interfere with law enforcement and resist arrest while armed? Absolutely. When we carry firearms, we accept greater responsibility. That responsibility was neglected here. It is possible to support immigration enforcement while condemning reckless policing. It is possible to criticize law enforcement while also acknowledging the dangerous behavior of civilians. It is possible to recognize complexity, rapid escalation, human error, and shared responsibility in a fast-moving situation. He did not have to die. Liberty only survives when it operates within order. Nothing about this situation was orderly. When order collapses, lives are lost. He did not have to die.

A Gene Robinson

716,093 views • 5 months ago

Do you want to see something incredible? This is an excavation of a 1st century synagogue in the city of Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene. And it is extremely likely, that Jesus Christ visited and preached inside of this synagogue, And walked upon these floors.

Do you want to see something incredible? This is an excavation of a 1st century synagogue in the city of Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene. And it is extremely likely, that Jesus Christ visited and preached inside of this synagogue, And walked upon these floors.

Dr Manhattva

753,295 views • 6 months ago

🚨BREAKING: Another ICE agent has been caught on video illegally pointing a firearm at a U.S. citizen, in Lemonwood, California. In the video, an unmarked ICE vehicle is stopped in the middle of the road… no vehicles are in front of it, and nothing is preventing them from driving forward. Instead of continuing to drive down the road, the ICE agent is blocking a pickup truck from turning, while pointing a gun, out their window, directly at the driver of that truck. The truck backs up, but the agent still keeps the firearm pointed at the driver. Only AFTER people begin honking their horns does the agent lower their weapon, and drive away. The law states that pointing a firearm at someone is considered a serious threat of deadly force. It is only justified when an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that they are facing an immediate threat of death, or serious bodily harm. It is not legally allowed to be used to control traffic, and it is not legally allowed to be used as intimidation. And that’s exactly why this video should be alarming to you. The agent is not boxed in… nothing is preventing them from driving down the street. Meanwhile, the agent is the one preventing the truck from continuing its turn. And they are doing so while pointing a gun at the driver. So, the question becomes… What immediate threat justified the ICE agent to stop their car, and point a firearm at a U.S. citizen? Because we are seeing a growing pattern, of publicly documented incidents, where ICE agents point firearms at legal observers, journalists, and bystanders during enforcement encounters… when they are not facing an immediate threat of death. That is not how public safety works. Pointing a firearm at someone is one of the most serious things an officer can do, because it instantly escalates an encounter into a potential deadly force situation. And that is exactly why the law is supposed to restrict it. Every unnecessary drawn gun increases the risk of a wrong judgment, and a fatal mistake. And when there is no accountability, for when that line gets crossed, drawing a gun because the normal for every situation. And when it becomes normal, more people’s lives are put in danger.

🚨BREAKING: Another ICE agent has been caught on video illegally pointing a firearm at a U.S. citizen, in Lemonwood, California. In the video, an unmarked ICE vehicle is stopped in the middle of the road… no vehicles are in front of it, and nothing is preventing them from driving forward. Instead of continuing to drive down the road, the ICE agent is blocking a pickup truck from turning, while pointing a gun, out their window, directly at the driver of that truck. The truck backs up, but the agent still keeps the firearm pointed at the driver. Only AFTER people begin honking their horns does the agent lower their weapon, and drive away. The law states that pointing a firearm at someone is considered a serious threat of deadly force. It is only justified when an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that they are facing an immediate threat of death, or serious bodily harm. It is not legally allowed to be used to control traffic, and it is not legally allowed to be used as intimidation. And that’s exactly why this video should be alarming to you. The agent is not boxed in… nothing is preventing them from driving down the street. Meanwhile, the agent is the one preventing the truck from continuing its turn. And they are doing so while pointing a gun at the driver. So, the question becomes… What immediate threat justified the ICE agent to stop their car, and point a firearm at a U.S. citizen? Because we are seeing a growing pattern, of publicly documented incidents, where ICE agents point firearms at legal observers, journalists, and bystanders during enforcement encounters… when they are not facing an immediate threat of death. That is not how public safety works. Pointing a firearm at someone is one of the most serious things an officer can do, because it instantly escalates an encounter into a potential deadly force situation. And that is exactly why the law is supposed to restrict it. Every unnecessary drawn gun increases the risk of a wrong judgment, and a fatal mistake. And when there is no accountability, for when that line gets crossed, drawing a gun because the normal for every situation. And when it becomes normal, more people’s lives are put in danger.

Jesus Freakin Congress

128,777 views • 2 days ago

"When you know a law is being broken and you do nothing about it and have the power and authority to do so IN THE EYES OF THE LAW YOU ARE GUILTY"

"When you know a law is being broken and you do nothing about it and have the power and authority to do so IN THE EYES OF THE LAW YOU ARE GUILTY"

Stephanie 🇬🇧🇺🇸🦍

11,429 views • 9 months ago

Is it legal to call an ICE agent a “neo-Nazi piece of shit, un-American mother fucker”? Yes, explains that it’s your First Amendment right. The Supreme Court protects offensive profanity in political expression directed at officers of the law. FIGHT ICE LEGALLY:

Is it legal to call an ICE agent a “neo-Nazi piece of shit, un-American mother fucker”? Yes, explains that it’s your First Amendment right. The Supreme Court protects offensive profanity in political expression directed at officers of the law. FIGHT ICE LEGALLY:

Joe Walsh

29,744 views • 10 days ago

The Great Solar Flash is a catalyst like no other before, an energetic reboot for the Earth and humanity. It possesses the authority of cosmic law, which means that it aligns perfectly with the Divine Plan. 🔥✴️⚓️🌞

The Great Solar Flash is a catalyst like no other before, an energetic reboot for the Earth and humanity. It possesses the authority of cosmic law, which means that it aligns perfectly with the Divine Plan. 🔥✴️⚓️🌞

Sea

26,122 views • 2 months ago

Naughty sister-in-law teasing brother in-law calling him bhabhi. What started as a play now here it is.. Dominant Sister made sissy out of her husband and he is the super sissy of the house The best bhabi any sister-in-law can get Sissy life Happy Life

Sensitive content

Naughty sister-in-law teasing brother in-law calling him bhabhi. What started as a play now here it is.. Dominant Sister made sissy out of her husband and he is the super sissy of the house The best bhabi any sister-in-law can get Sissy life Happy Life

DOM Silkku

11,110 views • 1 year ago

And every single thing is recorded in 2021——2025 National Defense Authorization Acts… BEFORE anything was on “News” which means PRE—PLANNED… Outside of the fact the Law more than clearly shows we are still in a Partial Continuity of Government… Which means Congress are under a Military Government and Occupation, all theatre… For those who just cannot grasp that — it still accomplishes the mission… Expose Hypocrisy. When you look at all those who call PDJT a Dictator, Nazi, King, and Threat… Majority of those voted Yea on ALL the terminology in the DEFENSE BUDGETS for the Military that allowed it… Which is why 99.9999999% of “influencers” look unintelligent but should be charged with sedition for ignorantly misleading Americans with surface level nonsense… When there is a CLEAR answer via Law that is designed BIPARTISAN for ALL AMERICANS. Anyone who keeps the partisan up is missing the | 45 ——— 47 | which is Strategic and Special Operations due to the vast ignorance. 🫡♠️🇺🇸

And every single thing is recorded in 2021——2025 National Defense Authorization Acts… BEFORE anything was on “News” which means PRE—PLANNED… Outside of the fact the Law more than clearly shows we are still in a Partial Continuity of Government… Which means Congress are under a Military Government and Occupation, all theatre… For those who just cannot grasp that — it still accomplishes the mission… Expose Hypocrisy. When you look at all those who call PDJT a Dictator, Nazi, King, and Threat… Majority of those voted Yea on ALL the terminology in the DEFENSE BUDGETS for the Military that allowed it… Which is why 99.9999999% of “influencers” look unintelligent but should be charged with sedition for ignorantly misleading Americans with surface level nonsense… When there is a CLEAR answer via Law that is designed BIPARTISAN for ALL AMERICANS. Anyone who keeps the partisan up is missing the | 45 ——— 47 | which is Strategic and Special Operations due to the vast ignorance. 🫡♠️🇺🇸

Derek Johnson

11,499 views • 3 months ago

This is the regime’s response while it falsely claims in the media that it is ready to engage in dialogue with protesters. As you can see in this video, today the regime’s security forces arrested at least 11 people in Tehran in this manner. #Iran

This is the regime’s response while it falsely claims in the media that it is ready to engage in dialogue with protesters. As you can see in this video, today the regime’s security forces arrested at least 11 people in Tehran in this manner. #Iran

Masih Alinejad 🏳️

34,750 views • 6 months ago

"A concerned Catholic church member has shared an image showing a priest with a firearm..........." Stop with the misinformation, the man in the screenshot below is a military chaplain with a rifle sling to his back during service, and it is common in the warfront, due to the fact that the service is being held in a combat zone and attack can happen at any time. It is not a recent video/screenshot as the video was recorded years ago.

"A concerned Catholic church member has shared an image showing a priest with a firearm..........." Stop with the misinformation, the man in the screenshot below is a military chaplain with a rifle sling to his back during service, and it is common in the warfront, due to the fact that the service is being held in a combat zone and attack can happen at any time. It is not a recent video/screenshot as the video was recorded years ago.

Daoptimist⚓🌊🔥✨

489,469 views • 7 months ago

The UN charter stipulates that all security council resolution are legally binding under international law. And one of the conditions of being accepted into the UN is that member states should adhere to UN resolutions. Any country that is no consistent and regular in not abiding by interntaional law and UN resolutions, should indeed be expelled from the UN. Israel is the most flagrant abuser of UN resolutions. Israel behaves like a rogue state within the UN. Shouldn’t Israel now be expelled from the UN under international law?

The UN charter stipulates that all security council resolution are legally binding under international law. And one of the conditions of being accepted into the UN is that member states should adhere to UN resolutions. Any country that is no consistent and regular in not abiding by interntaional law and UN resolutions, should indeed be expelled from the UN. Israel is the most flagrant abuser of UN resolutions. Israel behaves like a rogue state within the UN. Shouldn’t Israel now be expelled from the UN under international law?

Mohamad Safa

37,698 views • 3 months ago