Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Another one #pisstrashed #pissmarked #pisstagged why do I ❤️ it so much? Explain pervs. #piss #gaypiss #pissmarker #pissmarking #pisswhereyouwant #pisstag #pisstagging #publicurination #publicpiss #pisspig #gaypig #ws #watersports #gayws #gaywatersports #thepisspig #gaypublic

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Zeudi: Thank you for following and supporting me all this time even though I haven’t really done anything and even if my content is basically nothing. It’s hard to understand why I have this support, and believe me, it’s not because of my sexuality—there are so many lesbians in this world, and probably on Twitch too. I want to say this to journalists, because apparently people are still saying that I exploit my sexuality. Anyway… They say: ‘She’s ugly, she can’t do anything.’ That’s what they say. Maybe because she’s a lesbian? What does that have to do with it? My goodness. But it’s fine like this. You see, there are many lesbians who stream but don’t reach the numbers I reach in Italy—then maybe abroad they reach numbers much higher than mine. I hope that one day there will be another woman who reaches the same goals as me, even being completely different from me, to show that someone can be appreciated regardless of everything. I also want to say hi to the Chambers! I want to greet Christina and Amber and invite them to do a live with me, because for example they’re amazing. They’re also lesbians, but that doesn’t mean they have success because they’re lesbians—it’s because people like them and because they’re great girls. They’re beautiful, and I like the way they live in the world, with their energy and the good vibes they give to everyone. So I always support other women, especially girls who work hard like them, and I’m really happy to know them through a screen—but I hope one day to meet them in person. I’m sending you a big hug. I know it was Cristina’s birthday and I wished her a happy birthday. Chat: Don’t forget to save the live. Zeudi: No, I won’t forget. How do you say it? I won’t forget the live. I don’t know, I think so. ‘Won’t’ is the negation of ‘will’? I don’t know. Yes, I won’t forget to save the live. See? I’m learning something. Guys, I’m heading off—thank you so much, everyone. See you at the next live. There’s also Patrizia Cavalli, thank you. I love you. A big kiss. Bye beauties. Good night or good morning, depending on your perspective and where you’re watching from. So, have a good day, good afternoon, and good night. ❤️❤️❤️

Korslayage

20,409 views • 3 months ago

––Mathias Döpfner: Sam, is it actually true that your kind of favorite book is The Beginning of Infinity of Dieter Deutsch? Sam Altman: Yeah, I think if I had to pick one favorite book, I would pick that. ––Mathias Döpfner: Why is that so fascinating? Can you explain that? Sam Altman: Even if you don't read the whole thing, the first like 40-50 pages are, I think, the most wonderfully optimistic take on why, even in a world with AI, we're never going to run out of things to do and ways to be useful and problems to solve and things to explore. But I also think it explains so beautifully how we got here and why the relatively simple process that we've followed throughout human history got us to this incredible place. ––Mathias Döpfner: Okay, that's good, because David Deutsch, I think, is going to be our last virtual guest, at least tonight. David Deutsch is a physicist and scientist from Oxford University. And I think also you have disagreements with him about the possibility that artificial intelligence is transforming into superintelligence with consciousness, perhaps even. He thinks it cannot be the case. You think it should be the case. Here he is, David Deutsch. Welcome. And perhaps you can elaborate a little bit on that disagreement, but also why you admire Sam Altman. Sam Altman: Well, I don't care about that. I just want to hear your disagreement. David Deutsch: Okay, I can tell you. Well, on my computer, I keep a list of progress that has been achieved where I had previously been sure that it wasn't yet possible. One of the items I'm embarrassed to admit was the World Wide Web. Another was that I thought that no computer program would be able to sustain open-ended conversation on general subjects in natural language unless that program was an AGI, an artificial general intelligence. So it would have, I prefer to call, explanatory creativity. ChatGPT proved me wrong. It's not an AGI, and it can converse. That ability was a side effect of another, namely knowledge. The Eliza chatbot in the 1960s used little more than the words and phrases you told it. ChatGPT can chat about anything drawing on a vast body of knowledge, which was a phenomenally useful combination. For some people, too useful. They think they're speaking to a person, an AGI, just as the first users of Eliza treated it as if it were a person. Which brings me to a widespread myth of the Turing test. In reality, Alan Turing never proposed a test or benchmark for AGI. His imitation game wasn't a test of ethics, but a thought experiment to torpedo the intuition that machines can't think. Indeed, there can be no benchmark, because to be general, an AGI must be capable of choosing to remain silent. This is already a proof that AGI cannot be made via existing approaches, while those can and must be judged by benchmarks. Conversely, if something outputs a new explanation, you can't test for whether it created that or a human did, even you yourself when you administered the test. In Edison's phrase, there's the inspiration part, which only humans and AGIs can do, and the perspiration part, from which AGIs can liberate us. So, if there's no test, how do we know that humans are general intelligences? By telling their story. Human thought doesn't consist of mechanically converting motivations into actions, prompts into output. It's mainly about choosing motivations. Just as science is not extracting theories from data, it's seeing a problem, guessing explanations, criticizing and testing them. So how can you tell whether something is doing that? You can't, always. Sometimes it really is a bot you're chatting to, but when you have no explanation saying that you yourself are a bot, or that humans in general are, it's rational to assume that they aren't. Some people have fun questioning whether Einstein really created the theory of relativity or only assembled it mechanically from a smorgasbord of existing ideas. We know he created it because we know his story, what problems he was addressing, and why. Just as we know that Sam Altman, without having to write any code, brought ChatGPT into existence as a product and a phenomenon by having the intuition and the gumption to know that this was the right thing for humanity to try next. Nothing can program a computer to have such intuitions, yet. Sam Altman: Can I ask one question? David Deutsch: My guess. Sam Altman: You mentioned Einstein and general relativity, and I agree, I think that's one of the most beautiful things humanity's ever figured out. Maybe I would even say number one. And Einstein had a story, we knew what he was working on. If in a few years, GPT-8 figured out quantum gravity and could tell you its story of how it did it and the problems it was thinking about and why it decided to work on it, would But it still just looked like a language model output, but it was the real, it really did solve it. Would you call it like, then would you say, I appreciate that you keep a list of things you're wrong about. I do too. But would that be enough to convince you? David Deutsch: I think it would. Yeah. Sam Altman: All right. I'll take you up... David Deutsch: It's crucial here. Sam Altman: I agree to that as the test. ––Mathias Döpfner: David, thank you so much for joining us and thank you for your uplifting words and have a great evening. David Deutsch, a pioneer of quantum computing, one of the most brilliant thinkers of our times. Thank you for joining.

Deutsch Explains

63,456 views • 11 months ago

Everybody loves Tina. This was the biggest day of her life. The day everything changed for her and the suffering truly ended. This was a very happy day. Let me explain… ✂️ Tina was dog number 521 that I’ve had sterilized. 🐶 During her lifetime she had been heavily bred. It is likely that she had 40-50 puppies 💵 A dog like this is just seen as a cash machine. 🧑🏽‍⚕️Her operation was a little more complicated than most. She had several cysts and a scarred uterus. 🛌 She has been in big pain recovering for the last few days. She couldn’t eat and could barely walk for first 48 hours. ✅ Tina is back to herself today and healing up well. She is getting pain medication and vet treatment throughout. So why is this all such good news? 🥰 For the first time in her life Tina is truly free. She’ll never be bred again for puppies. 🐶 She was in heat last month. So there is now no danger she can even get accidentally pregnant. 📈 It’s another part of her recovery journey fully ticked off. Any surgical procedure is a risk but she has recovered well. 5️⃣2️⃣1️⃣ That’s how many dogs I’ve now done including Tina. If you imagine how many puppies and how much suffering that will stop in the future you can see why it is key. 📊 I’m trying to do about 120 in the month of May alone. The cost about $40-50 each. 🤞 I know I share a lot of dog feeding and dogs who have great recovery stories. That’s what people love. Nobody is really interested in this side of things (the sterilizing) because it isn’t glamorous or all that interesting after you have seen 1-2 of them. Nothing is more important though. My dream is to get to a place where I can do 1000s of these every day around the world. It’s only one operation for one beautiful dog but I hope that helps explain the most important part of my mission. The best day of Tina’s life even if she is in pain 🥰

Niall Harbison

506,946 views • 3 years ago

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.

Darwin to Jesus

57,779 views • 4 months ago

Hasan is blackpilled on California politics following yesterday's election results where 0 of his preferred candidates found success "Everyone's a reactionary in this god d*mn state..California is literally a red state..it's over..so f'in joever" "Nancy Pelosi cooked it..California is over for me..Saikat Chakrabarti is not even close..Scott Wiener at 44%..Chudofornia is real, Redofornia..Cattlefornia..incredibly bad results so far" "For the LA mayoral race, what this shows me, Los Angelinos want someone to K homeless ppl..what a straight up n*ked disapproval of progressive politics in the state, in the city..to be fair, we didn't have a lot of great candidates" "SF is f'd not bc they did not like Saikat, it's F'd bc Scott Wiener is at 44%..I don't ever want to talk about SF ever again for the rest of my life..good luck with that..guy who literally lied about saying, Israel did a gen*cide..it is what it is" "The more cars u have, the more chudy the city is..no public transit..no close quarters to one another..massive wealth disparity..it's just f'in rich liberals who want g*y techno fascism..Peter Thiel is the perfect candidate for SF" "I sincerely believe Tom Steyer would be in first (if he called out Israel gen*cide)..ur a billionaire, it's difficult for any self respecting progressive to be like ok that's my guy..but if there was something that he could have put out there that would have absolutely been a cut above" "There probably is very low youth turnout..reason why vote went the way that it did..youth turnout is 5%, they dgaf" "It's ok, I didn't endorse Tom Steyer, I didn't endorse anyone in the mayoral race..I told u what u could do as a defensive vote..there's a reason why I didn't endorse Tom Steyer, Nithya Raman..I had my own personal hangups..I would have much rather preferred Nithya Raman opposed to Spencer Pratt..Steyer over Becerra as well..I mean I have a lot of great Ws so far" "Buddy ur a couple days out from ending it all (responding to tweet mocking him for his candidates losing)..what are u talking about"

yeet

122,404 views • 2 months ago

why do janjing keep saying “ชื่นใจ (chun-jai)” these days? where did it come from? (#JanJingjing) simple definitions: - ชื่น (chun) means delighting/pleasing/uplifting - ใจ (jai) means heart - ชื่นใจ (chun-jai) means feeling happy and delighted at heart - ชื่นใจแจน/จิง (chun-jai jan/jing) means making jan/jing feel happy / delighting jan/jing at heart origin: 260702 Hotwave Krub (vid 1; 🐯: then we have to do it 🦊: do what? to delight jan? aftermath: the phrase has gone viral where, - e.g., even bonnie mentioned it in her live (vid 2) 💜: i go refill [janjingjing] all the time, so so much (i.e., refill in this context is like recharging via content). like “to make jan happy?” the phrase is then also used by janjing themselves to tease one another - e.g., jingjing swapped the original “chun-jai-jan” to “chun-jai-jingjing” for jan’s punishment (vid 3) 🐯: these days, people keep saying the phrase “to delight jan,” right? but, today, the winner (i.e., jingjing herself) wants “to delight jingjing.” 🦊: what should i do? 🐯: well it’s up to p’ to create [something]! 🦊: i don’t know~ you have to instruct me~ i just follow~ i’m a robot~ i just follow~ 🐯: hug until i’m delighted 🦊: 🫂 is this right? 🐯: i’m not that delighted yet 🦊: then what should i do to delight you? 🐯: tightly! 🦊: ok tightly~ 🫂 therefore, this explains the whole “delighting” saga in the past two days - e.g., after jan accidentally kissed jingjing on the cheek (vid 1 in mention) 🐯: what was that just now?? to delight jingjing??? her face is soooo red!!! -e.g., after this, jingjing posted (pic 1 in mention) 🐯: p’jan is so dazzling todayyyyyy🥰 she (secretly) did “delighting jingjing” for real hehe i’m pleased 55666666666666655 - e.g., janjing’s conversation about “delighting jing” the day after (pic 2 in mention) 🦊: last night, i dreamed about “delighting jing.” it was only a dream, right?🫠 (i.e., jan is trying to deny that it happened) 🐯: huh? 🦊: if that was real, p’ guess p’ would have to get “delighted” back 🐯: ok then don’t get bored [of me]🚨 so let’s look forward to more “chun-jai”ing jan and jing 😜❤️🩷🤟🏻

²²

59,830 views • 1 month ago

Dear “Nique at Nite,” or whatever you call yourself, If you think footage of me talking to an officer somehow proves that I lied, and you genuinely believe this is some sort of “gotcha” moment, you are gravely mistaken. Almost to the point that I feel sorry for you. The fact that I apparently left this much of an impression on you is becoming bizarre. I got underneath your skin because I did my job, I did it well, and my reporting went further than yours. Further than anyone’s. The truth went further than YOUR narrative. And when the trial finally happened, what came out in that courtroom lined up with what I had been reporting for the entire past year. That really made you angry, didn’t it? Because MONTHS later, you are still sitting around replaying footage of me at the courthouse and pretending that a video of me TALKING TO AN OFFICER is somehow evidence that I lied. It’s called main character syndrome. And you have it bad. So since you’re apparently still obsessing over this interaction, let me explain what was actually happening. A bunch of people were talking to this officer. I spoke to him and told him that I understood it was still early in the trial, but the judge’s order stated that no one was supposed to be on the premises before 6:00 AM. I FOLLOWED THE JUDGE’S ORDER. When I arrived, people were already crowding in front of the building well before that restriction was up. So which is it? Do you want people to follow the rules? Do you want the law and the judge’s orders followed correctly? Or do you only care about those things when they benefit you? Wasn’t your entire argument supposedly about EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL? Then everyone should be held to the SAME rules. I wasn’t the only person who was cut out that morning. And when I spoke to that officer, other people were AGREEING WITH ME because I specifically brought up the judge’s order and said that the people who actually followed the rules deserved a fair chance too. And no, I never brought up color. That’s what YOU do. And guess what happened? I stayed. I waited. I was let in not long afterward. And I never experienced another issue while I was there. Why? Because I followed the rules. I was getting up at 2–3 AM every single day to make sure I had an opportunity to get into that courtroom. I put in the work. I followed the rules. I showed up. And I reported what happened. So please, get over yourself. Find someone else to obsessively pick apart, because if THIS is the “evidence” you have been reduced to months later—footage of me calmly speaking to an officer about people following a judge’s order—you have done absolutely nothing to prove your ridiculous narrative about me. You’ve only proven how badly you still need that narrative to be true.

Sarah Fields

41,633 views • 3 days ago

#TicketToHeaven #GeminiFourth #เจมีไนน์โฟร์ท 💭: since you’ve previously worked with GeminiFourth in Moonlight Chicken was there any moment when you felt, “hooo they’ve really grown a lot as actors..” Phi Aof: the first clear thing we see in the change is the maturity of both of them, in responsibility and in being actors. its clearly visible that they’ve gone through many different experiences working in the industry. even tho its only around two years, they came back in a more grown up form, a more understanding form and are more sensitive overall in how they approach this work. what feels different and clearly grown up is their way of thinking about acting. the characters has very high stakes in taking on such risky and challenging roles and the characters background is very heavy. the audience will likely already have seen how much the characters has to go through and how intense it is. it requires drawing from personal life experience or imagination and investing emotional energy into this series quite a lot. but both of them are very ready to jump into those situations and enjoy it. that is clearly the growth we see (🥹👏🏻) : and what remains consistent is that working with Fourth is very fun bc he’s the type of person who says “i understand phi. i dont understand phi. what is this? i cant find it, i cant think of it, please explain phi.” it becomes very fun bc there’s internal debate in his head like “why am i thinking this?” we slowly help each other find the answer in each scene. after acting, we check “is it okay? i think its like this. what do you think Fourth?” : In the scene at the end of EP2 where the character walks into the bathroom, we talk with Fourth about what Fourth thinks is going on. what Fourth is thinking. Fourth doesnt need to tell me either bc only Fourth knows what will happen in that bathroom. so we let Fourth interpret it by himself. its up to Fourth. from my point of view, i see it one way, but Fourth as Tanrak, Fourth knows the character better than me, so Fourth might think in another way as well (😭👏🏻)

𝗚𝗲𝗺 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝘆 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵🌻

14,232 views • 1 month ago

Just Sasha❤️ “I would like to start by saying that what is happening in Greece is sad, and I believe that each of us, from the position we hold, has a responsibility to speak up. Because how long will innocent lives keep being lost just because someone doesn’t like the jersey another person is wearing or the team they support? Then we go to the stadiums and everyone says “let this be the last time,” we all hold a minute of silence, and then it happens again—why? We have experienced this many times in recent years. A mother waits at home for her child to return, and he never comes back. A mother loses her child because he simply went to do this. Until when will it be a problem what jersey someone wears, which team someone supports, where someone can walk, and what they are allowed to say? We live in the most beautiful country in the world. All of us have a responsibility, each from our own position, to protect sport. Sport is for these children you see here. It is meant to unite people, to fill stadiums and arenas so that we can all enjoy ourselves. The reality is that one team will win and another will lose. One year someone will be doing well, the next year they may not be. Not everyone can win. But the issue is not victory or defeat—the issue is understanding how long young people will continue to lose their lives in the name of the team they support. I don’t know who needs to intervene. I don’t know what needs to be done. I am not the person responsible. I simply felt that I had to say this because we truly play basketball for the people. We want people in the arenas, we want them full—fans of our team and of the others as well. But it is sad and unfair, and everyone needs to reflect on their responsibilities. How much longer? We are in 2026, and this has been happening for 40 years, from what I have read and what I know. At some point, all of this must stop. I wanted to say it because it is truly sad and unfair.“ #vezenkov #olympiacosbc #paobc #greece

Basketballmaniacs_

16,846 views • 5 months ago

One of the most encouraging conversations I had in Red Deer was with the Alberta snowbirds from Yuma. These are Albertans who spend part of the winter in places like Arizona, and instead of checking out politically while they were away, they helped turn Yuma into one of the most unexpectedly inspiring little hubs of the independence movement. In this conversation, they explain that their Yuma team held six pop-up signing events, and at one of the bigger turnouts they saw roughly 350 people show up, with only a handful of canvassers trying to keep up. That is not a gimmick. That is real support showing up in the middle of another country because Albertans abroad still care deeply about what happens back home. That is why this matters. A lot of people saw the Yuma story as a funny social media moment. But it is actually much more than that. It is a sign that this movement has reached a level of mainstream visibility where ordinary Albertans are no longer waiting for permission, no longer hiding their support, and no longer treating independence as some fringe theory that only gets discussed in private. They are carrying it with them wherever they go. Arizona, Mexico, Hawaii, even farther afield. That tells you something important: this idea is alive in people now. It travels with them. It is becoming part of their identity. The Yuma team also makes another point that matters. They were not calling themselves heroes. They said they were just tough Albertans who were not going to put up with any more nonsense. That is exactly the spirit behind a lot of this movement. Not celebrity. Not performance. Not paid activism. Just regular Albertans deciding to do something real because they believe this can actually happen. And in the conversation I say exactly that: the reason so many people are out there, whether in Arizona heat or Alberta wind, is because we genuinely believe this can happen. That is a big part of why the Yuma story hit so hard online. It gave people a visible example of momentum. It showed that support is not confined to one town, one rally, or one demographic. It showed that even when Albertans are temporarily outside the province, they are still emotionally and politically invested enough to organize, collect signatures, and encourage others. That kind of behavior only happens when a movement starts to feel real. People do not go to that kind of effort for something they think is doomed. And yes, a few naysayers tried to mock it or imply there was something improper about collecting signatures outside Canada. But that criticism mostly reveals how weak and short-sighted the opposition is. An Albertan with Alberta identification is still an Albertan wherever he or she happens to be standing. There is nothing absurd about that. In fact, it would be absurd to suggest that Albertans somehow lose their political rights the moment they cross a border for a holiday. The mockery never really landed because it was rooted more in reflexive sneering than in serious thought. What the Yuma story really symbolizes is critical mass. When people start setting up pop-up canvassing events not just in Alberta but around the world, it means the movement is no longer surviving on theory alone. It means people feel momentum. It means they want to be part of it. It means they can picture success. And that encouragement matters, because political movements grow when ordinary people start seeing visible signs that victory is possible. That is why this was such an important little segment. It was not just about Yuma. It was about proof that Alberta independence is spreading, normalizing, and becoming something more and more people believe can actually be done.

Jon Alberta Patriot

16,854 views • 4 months ago

One of the most significant conversations I had in Red Deer was not with a longtime political activist, a public figure, or someone who lives and breathes this stuff every day. It was with ordinary Albertans who told me they had never really been involved in politics before. They said they had never canvassed. Never stepped forward publicly like this. Never imagined they would be out on the side of the road waving flags and speaking openly about Alberta independence. And yet there they were. That matters. It matters because movements do not become real when the loudest voices get louder. They become real when regular people, people who used to stay out of politics entirely, start feeling that the situation has become too important to ignore. That is what I think this moment represents. These were not people looking for a hobby or some political tribe to join. They were people who felt that Alberta may be staring at a rare window of opportunity, and that if we let it slip through our fingers, we may never get another one like it again. That is a very different kind of energy. It is one thing for committed independence supporters to keep making the case year after year. It is another thing entirely when people who were never engaged before begin to say: This is our chance. We cannot waste it. We may not get another one. That tells me the movement is moving beyond its old boundaries. It also helps explain why this issue hits so deeply for so many families. A lot of these people are not motivated by abstract theory. They are thinking about their kids, their grandkids, their cost of living, their ability to build a future here, and whether Alberta will remain a place where ordinary people can still prosper and live with a sense of freedom and dignity. When people like that start showing up, it means the issue has become personal. And once something becomes personal, it gets much harder for the political class to dismiss it as fringe. That may be the deeper significance of what is happening. The independence movement is no longer just being carried by the usual voices. It is pulling in people who had almost given up on politics entirely. People who had tuned out. People who thought nothing would ever change. People who are now saying that maybe this is the moment when Albertans finally have to stop waiting for Ottawa to fix things and start taking responsibility for their own future. Agree or disagree with them, that is not something to laugh off. That is a sign of a population beginning to wake up. And when ordinary people start believing that this may be their last real chance to change the direction of their province, that is when movements become powerful. That is when they stop being theoretical. That is when they become hard to ignore.

Jon Alberta Patriot

17,680 views • 4 months ago

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.

Grant Smith Ellis

27,665 views • 1 year ago

Sometimes I sit and look around without blinking, trying to understand how everyone's mentality works or how one person comes to feel inferior to another. Although I spend hours analyzing everyone's behavior and way of communication, I cannot realize the superior way of thinking of some people. Why do they think they are superior to others or why do they show ignorance and criticism towards individuals who, in terms of mentality and humanity, are perhaps much more developed than them? But no one can explain the way of thinking of those around. However, I would like to give my opinion about each kind of individual involved in such a conversation. For those who think they are superior to others... Take a break from your daily lives to look in the mirror without the mask you wear daily in front of others. Look closely at yourself without embarrassment or prejudice and analyze every element of your life that makes you who you are. Ask yourself if the way you treat others would you like to be applied to you. Think before you open your mouth and criticize, nobody and nothing is perfect in the world. Look and think before you speak and accuse. Those who think they are inferior I tell you this.... Look carefully in the mirror and see the beauty that defines your existence. Not the clothes, not the money, not the social status, not the nationality, not the physical appearance, not the years of advanced education, not the social life and not the profession you profess will make you beautiful and wonderful. But your humanity and soul show who you really are and how valuable you are. And you don't have to be important for someone else, be important for yourself, for your happiness, for your future, for what you believe and what you love. Love yourself before you love anyone else, accept your own flaws and love what you stand for. You are perfect exactly as you are, look and love what you see in the mirror because that reflection is the definition of the beauty of the soul and the uniqueness that you possess. Be yourself and learn to love what you stand for, you are a star that shines forever. Army no one knows what tomorrow will bring and no one can change what yesterday was but I what I can say is that we can all live today, live in the moment and enjoy every day like is the last one. With no regrets or resentment, no hatred or sadness but just a smile, a smile so bright that will melt even the coldest heart. Be yourself, love yourself ❤️ Because I love you 🌹

Jimin Chim♡ ⁠~⁠♪

37,000 views • 2 years ago

"Multiple members of Congress received a briefing from an agency task force (it's the FBI). All of that info. will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw [that] we can't explain." ~Luna (I think Luna did an excellent job on tonight's Real Time - Overtime with Bill Maher. Transcript and my thoughts below.) ~ Bill Maher: "The first question is for you. Do you think we are headed, Congresswoman, for a full disclosure and transparency about UAPs, which we used to call UFOs? I do. I mean, I think it was just this week, didn't they start a website for releasing this information?" Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: "From my understanding, they're gonna put it on the National Archives (website), but if they've booked the website... So I actually head up the Disclosure Task Force in Congress on Declassification of Federal Secrets. And what I will tell you is, there's something..." Maher: "So that's why you know so much stuff (audience laughs)? I see." Luna: "(laughs) I'm a nerd. In all seriousness, there's some things that we can't explain, and there is a problem with over-classification. But also, when you have duly-elected members of Congress being denied access, that's a problem, because we're supposed to be the, you know, check and balance on some of these agencies. And so, you'll see some interesting stuff. The federal government will ever come out and tell you what to believe." Maher: "I think they're here." Luna: "Well, there's definitely stuff that we can't explain." Maher: "I'm not shy about it." Paul Begala: "I'm still searching for intelligent life on Earth, so I'll be very (audience and Luna laugh)... I'm not into that." (Begala saying he's, "not into that" most likely means he's ignorant on the subject. IMO, anybody who takes the time to look at the decades of evidence, with an open mind, will be "into" the possibility that another intelligence is sharing this planet with us.) Luna: "I think we're in a big Universe." Maher: "Well, you may not be into that, but they're into you, okay?" Begala: "Ohhh." Maher: "I mean, whether you want [to] believe it or not, things..." Begala: "Why do they always put the probes there? If they're that sophisticated, can't they just like, scan us or something?" (Maybe they're trying to extract semen from a prostate orgasm to help with their hybrid/breeding program? Not a new theory.) Maher: "But, you know, but see, there's...okay. But if you want to be serious about it, there was an era where we heard a lot about probing. That ended." (Has it ended? I'd love to hear from experiencers and people like hypnotherapist/researcher, Yvonne Smith, who works with experiencers, to hear what people are saying about their experiences nowadays.) Maher: "Because, I mean, we never heard about any of it before we got nuclear weapons. Right after the nuclear bomb went off in 1945, suddenly, the aliens were like, maybe we ought to pay attention to these people." (Not exactly true.) Luna: "Well, there were reports of sightings and whatnot dating back into even, you know, for many, many, many, many centuries." Maher: "If you're talking about some of the stuff like what we see in the hieroglyphics and drawings, it could be, yes, it could be like they built the pyramids. That's true." (Absolutely no need to jump to the hypothesis that whatever is here (aliens?) built the pyramids. We just know that sightings and abduction cases go back to before the atomic age.) Luna: "Well, I think that there's a lot of theories, but based on what we're seeing, evidence-wise, there is one specific agency where multiple members of Congress, to include myself, received a briefing from. All of that information will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw in that briefing we can't explain." (Luna has spoken to Matt Laslo and others about being briefed by the FBI about UAP but the FBI effort was first reported in February 2025 by Politico: "FBI agents who are part of a secretive group investigating the surge of 'unidentified anomalous phenomena,' what the government uses to refer to UFOs... "The existence of the FBI’s informal working group on the issue has not been disclosed publicly before." Link to article in replies... ~~~ Maher: "But, I mean, if I can get back to the anal probing, um...." (Everybody laughs/smiles.) Luna: "Odd topic." Maher: "It seems like there was a time where they needed to do that to find out about if they...I mean, like so many people have this, almost the exact same recollection. Maybe it's some psychological phenomenon that we don't realize, but people, independently, seem to have this kind of vague memory, and (laughs) they lost a little track of time. Maybe it was the GHB (date-rape drug. ~Joe), I don't know (audience laughs). But, it seemed like the aliens were trying to find out: What makes these people tick? Who are these humans? And then, I think, they got that information. "And in the last ten, twenty, years, it's not been that. What it's been has been very, very serious people. I'm talking about military people, who are constantly saying, 'We see things we cannot explain. Either China has a weapon we don't know about, which is unlikely, or it's just something you're gonna have to tell me what it is.' (Very serious (including military) people have been reporting these things for decades. It's just getting a lot more coverage in the media now, and more people who have had access to classified data are speaking up.) Luna: "What we've seen in the briefings... And I actually asked this question to Secretary Clinton, as she was actually going to, had she won her election, be in charge of disclosure and actually releasing some of this information. And she thinks that the American people - I think this is one of the most bipartisan things in Congress, currently, and bicameral in the Senate as well - but we should be able to release the information that we have, specifically pertaining to this and let the American people decide what it is. "Look, some of it is balloons, some of it is drones, and then there's a portion of it that we can't explain where you have credible people from all walks of life confirming it. And I will tell you, based on the evidence that we have seen, there's something there." Maher: "And credible people, not just in the military, but in government, including Democrats." Begala: "I was struck by what President Obama said, and I agree with it. The vastness of the Universe is such that the arithmetic makes it pretty likely." Maher: "Right!" Begala: "And, the vastness of the Universe is such, it's pretty unlikely that we're gonna cross paths. And I think that's also true." (Well, as I've said (and others have, too), we don't know if "they" (whatever "they" turns out to be) are traveling any great distance to get here or need to "cross paths" with us. They may have been here the entire time and consider Earth their home, just like we do.) Begala: "I mean, it's just, it seems to... I'm a skeptic, but I like what you're doing, Congresswoman. Put it all out, let people decide. I'm a skeptic. Maybe you can persuade me?" Luna: "I think this gets into a deeper...if you have time listen to the Joe Rogan podcast I did. But this gets into a deeper discussion on where you are at ,spiritually. And I think there's just a lot that we have, and can't explain." (IMO, I don't think our spiritual beliefs or "where you are at, spiritually," has anything to do with what we're dealing with. As I've said before, I think the phenomenon is just part of the natural world that we don't yet understand or comprehend.) Luna: "But look, my biggest concern and why I got involved is because I had the Department of Defense at the time tell me that we were not allowed access, and I have the highest clearance possible." (She has a TS-SCI clearance. That doesn't mean she has access to, or is read into, every compartment where various Special Access Programs (SAPs) reside, or that she has a need-to-know for everything. Some feel every member of Congress should have access to everything. Others disagree. We've also heard about the DoE, which, supposedly, has their own levels of clearance. Also, in 2020, as I worked on my Wilson/Davis MegBlog, I made a cold call to someone who was the executive secretary of the Special Access Program Oversight Committee in the mid-90s.) ~Begin MegaBlog Excerpt~ "I spoke with a former military man mentioned in the Wilson/Davis documents who, in theory, also should have had access to every SAP during a specific portion of his time with the government. He told me, "that there may be levels of secrecy people don’t know about." ~End MegaBlog Excerpt~ ~~~ Luna: So if you have a duly-membered, elected-member of government - not just myself, but other members - being denied access, you have this aspect of then, who's really in control? If we're writing the checks, if you have the Pentagon failing audits...denying access, this is a problem. And so, there is this aspect of government transparency, going back to, how do we actually fix this country, and you have to start with transparency." Begala: "I'm with you on that." (Audience applauds.)

Joe Murgia

146,499 views • 5 months ago

𝐕𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨: 𝐋𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐋𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐀𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐬 𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 A viral video circulating on social media shows a woman lamenting the demolition notice served on her property in Lagos State allegedly just two months after moving in. In the video that surfaced online on Monday, the yet-to-be-identified woman cried as she recounted the ordeal. A picture of a demolition notice dated May 7, 2024, was also attached to the video. She said, "We bought that property in February, and we've only been there for two months. All the hard work, all the sleepless nights, everything... If you're in Lagos, you'll know how much property in Eti Osa costs. "Each time my son sees me crying, he will always ask me why I am crying. How do I explain this to our son? What do I tell my children? I'm trying so hard to be strong, but this is very painful. "I don't wish for anybody to work so hard and face something like this. I don't." The video, which was shared on on Monday by Spotlight Abby, tweeting with the handle #Spotlight_Abby, has garnered reactions from netizens, with some sympathising with the couple and others criticising the decision to invest in Lagos real estate citing recent incidents of demolitions. It also raised concerns about the need for thorough due diligence before investing in real estate in the state. One Nneka Busy Body tweeting as #Nnekabusybody wrote, "While this is sad I’m a bit confused. With the uncertain investment landscape of Lagos and everything we see and read about, you still went and bought property in Lagos in 2024? How? Why?" Another user tweeting as #ideniyor wrote, "She and her husband deserve it. They bought a land without lawyers and due diligence. Cry me a river. The seller landed a fast one on them." This is not the first time property demolitions in Lagos have sparked controversy. PUNCH reported last week that residents of Mende Estate Villa in the Maryland area of Lagos State decried the demolition of their multimillion-naira houses in the area by the state government while seeking compensation for a new shelter. Speaking on the incident, the state commissioner for the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, Tokunbo Wahab, disclosed that the government issued the residents of Mende Villa Estate two demolition notices in 2021 and 2023. On Wednesday, Wahab, in a post on also hinted that illegal builders whose houses are demolished may soon be asked to pay for the demolition. Credit: X|Spotlight_Abby

Punch Newspapers

136,642 views • 2 years ago