Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

As requested, I'm posting the whole video, which makes it even look worse. ➤ He compares guns to cars. False equivalence. Cars are built for transport. Guns are built to injure or kill. Car deaths fell sharply because of regulation and engineering. He argues to tolerate gun deaths instead... of regulating to reduce them. ➤ He sets up a straw man: “you’ll never get gun deaths to zero.” Nobody claims zero. Other rich countries got firearm-homicide rates down to tiny fractions of the U.S. using basic laws. Latest UNODC/OWID data show Western Europe around ~0.1–0.3 per 100k, with Sweden an outlier ~0.4 per 100k; the U.S. is ~4.4 per 100k. That’s an order of magnitude gap. ➤ Country snapshots (firearm homicide, per 100k, latest 2021–2023 window): • UK: typically ~0.02–0.07 • Germany: ~0.05–0.10 • France: ~0.20–0.35 • Italy: ~0.20–0.40 • Spain: ~0.05–0.10 • Netherlands: ~0.15–0.30 • Poland: ~0.05–0.10 • Sweden: ~0.35–0.45; Europe avg ≈ 0.16 per 100k. U.S.: ≈ 4.4. ➤ His core line wasn’t “out of context.” It is the context: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment… That is a prudent deal.” He is explicitly pricing in dead civilians as acceptable. ➤ “Guns protect against tyranny” collapses under law and force. The president can deploy federal troops and federalize the Guard under the Insurrection Act. That is the explicit statutory exception to Posse Comitatus. Rifles in civilian hands do nothing against armored units, ISR drones, electronic surveillance, and lawful military deployment. This is not theory; it’s black-letter authority and modern capability. ➤ Practical reality: a semi-auto rifle can’t contest air assets, armored vehicles, signals intelligence, or coordinated urban operations. Modern doctrine and tools end such resistance quickly. RAND and U.S. Army War College analyses document how sensors, drones, armor, and comms make small-arms resistance futile against a modern force. ➤ Translation: the long clip makes him look worse because it shows a considered position, not a slip. He equates public-health regulation with tolerating preventable deaths, waves away working policies other countries use, and sells a fantasy about “tyranny” that modern law and military reality render void.show more

Pete

24,107 subscribers

20,596 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von Pete

Petevor 1 Jahr

Not to mention that firearms are the leading cause of death among children in the United States.

Profilbild von 👌🦾FELLASTIC😻😼🇭🇺🇪🇺

👌🦾FELLASTIC😻😼🇭🇺🇪🇺vor 1 Jahr

Best summary

Profilbild von Ignacio

Ignaciovor 1 Jahr

Entire clip is actually 3 minutes

Profilbild von Pete

Petevor 1 Jahr

And?

Profilbild von Ignacio

Ignaciovor 1 Jahr

That you didnt actually post the entire clip

Profilbild von Pete

Petevor 1 Jahr

And?

Profilbild von Antares

Antaresvor 1 Jahr

You're retarded.

Profilbild von Pete

Petevor 1 Jahr

I would look into the mirror if I were you.

Profilbild von Nemanja Vujcic (Немања Вујчић)

Nemanja Vujcic (Немања Вујчић)vor 1 Jahr

As a European, and as a man who doesn't own guns (and has no interest in ever owning one), I am inclined to agree with you. However, what I see is that, if we remove suicides, the chance of gun death is approx. 50% lower than dying in a car crash, in the USA. Those numbers don't rise to a "national emergency" kind of threat that the left makes them to be. On the other hand, I do agree that "guns as protection for other rights" argument is very weak. The way I see it, Americans have 400 million guns. A totally insane number. If I lived in the USA, today, I would probably feel the need to get one myself, simply because of knowing that so many thugs are armed.

Ähnliche Videos

Listen carefully to this, because he’s right. Throughout this whole tragic affair, I can hand on heart say, I have tried to do exactly what former President Obama suggests. He recognizes that while BOTH sides MUST take responsibility for this senseless disregard for life, we have to speak to THIS MOMENT and in this moment, Benjamin Netanyahu MUST recognize that the answer to this 70 year old problem is NOT to kill innocent Palestinians. Now he will claim, he does not intend to kill innocent civilians and while technically, it’s a statement like ‘I did not have sex with that woman’. He knows that his words disingenuous. He is hiding behind intent, by seeing those civilians as having little to no value, in comparison with the military objective. He believes it acceptable to kill 200 civilians to kill 1 Hamas operative. He claims his sole intent is to kill the Hamas operative, the 200 dead civilians is an ‘unfortunate’ consequence of war. By any measure, this is fundamentally WRONG and violates the so called rules of war, which he seems to think should not apply to Israel, given the attack on Israeli civilians. That’s NOT how it works. The truly sinister thing is, HE KNOWS THAT, but he’s doing it anyway. The end result is, the Israeli civilians will still be dead, he will still have to answer for why HE and the IDF FAILED to protect those murdered and taken hostage. In addition, now it would seem he may have to answer questions as to whether the IDF also contributed to the deaths of some of those civilians. There appears to be the unverified suggestion, that commanders in the field invoked the ‘Hannibal Directive’. This is a controversial policy dating back from 2001 - 2014. It was a military policy that stipulated the use of maximum force in the event of a soldier being kidnapped. It stated, “You will open fire without constraints, in order to prevent the abduction,” even at the risk of killing a captive soldier. There appears to be evidence from survivors of the Hamas attack that a number of those killed, died as a result of crossfire between the terrorists and the IDF. Also, there are claims that’s some of the severe structural damage was as a result of IDF tank fire, which explains the intense fire damage in some instances. LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. It is impossible to verify ANY of these claims without an independent inquiry. We can say with some confidence, this will never happen. The IDF will likely investigate themselves and find no evidence any of this happened. However, it will not stop soldiers and survivors speaking out. The question will be if the government can silence their voices. This is unquestionably a disastrous conflict in which as ever, the innocent pay the highest price. The only person that can stop the continuing slaughter is the POTUS. Without US military assistance Israel can’t continue.

Listen carefully to this, because he’s right. Throughout this whole tragic affair, I can hand on heart say, I have tried to do exactly what former President Obama suggests. He recognizes that while BOTH sides MUST take responsibility for this senseless disregard for life, we have to speak to THIS MOMENT and in this moment, Benjamin Netanyahu MUST recognize that the answer to this 70 year old problem is NOT to kill innocent Palestinians. Now he will claim, he does not intend to kill innocent civilians and while technically, it’s a statement like ‘I did not have sex with that woman’. He knows that his words disingenuous. He is hiding behind intent, by seeing those civilians as having little to no value, in comparison with the military objective. He believes it acceptable to kill 200 civilians to kill 1 Hamas operative. He claims his sole intent is to kill the Hamas operative, the 200 dead civilians is an ‘unfortunate’ consequence of war. By any measure, this is fundamentally WRONG and violates the so called rules of war, which he seems to think should not apply to Israel, given the attack on Israeli civilians. That’s NOT how it works. The truly sinister thing is, HE KNOWS THAT, but he’s doing it anyway. The end result is, the Israeli civilians will still be dead, he will still have to answer for why HE and the IDF FAILED to protect those murdered and taken hostage. In addition, now it would seem he may have to answer questions as to whether the IDF also contributed to the deaths of some of those civilians. There appears to be the unverified suggestion, that commanders in the field invoked the ‘Hannibal Directive’. This is a controversial policy dating back from 2001 - 2014. It was a military policy that stipulated the use of maximum force in the event of a soldier being kidnapped. It stated, “You will open fire without constraints, in order to prevent the abduction,” even at the risk of killing a captive soldier. There appears to be evidence from survivors of the Hamas attack that a number of those killed, died as a result of crossfire between the terrorists and the IDF. Also, there are claims that’s some of the severe structural damage was as a result of IDF tank fire, which explains the intense fire damage in some instances. LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. It is impossible to verify ANY of these claims without an independent inquiry. We can say with some confidence, this will never happen. The IDF will likely investigate themselves and find no evidence any of this happened. However, it will not stop soldiers and survivors speaking out. The question will be if the government can silence their voices. This is unquestionably a disastrous conflict in which as ever, the innocent pay the highest price. The only person that can stop the continuing slaughter is the POTUS. Without US military assistance Israel can’t continue.

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

93,272 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨BREAKING: Once again, ICE agents are admitting, on camera, that Renee Good was not shot in self-defense. In the video, a U.S. citizen is driving when he sees ICE agents. He stops his car, exits, and begins blowing a whistle… a lawful act protected by the First Amendment. An agent approaches him. The man backs away, does not interfere, does not block agents, and does not make physical contact. Despite this, the agent says: “Do you think this is a big game? Is this a game to you guys? That’s why that lady got hurt the other day.” That statement matters. The agent is threatening a U.S. citizen with lethal force for protected speech. That is illegal. Law enforcement cannot threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against civilians for exercising First Amendment rights. He said this to a man who was unarmed, on foot, and not posing any immediate threat. By the agent’s own words, Renee Good was not shot because of self-defense, but because she was drawing attention to ICE’s presence. That is not a lawful justification for using deadly force. This video shows constitutional violations in real time: • First Amendment retaliation • Threats of violence without legal cause • Abuse of authority under color of law I don’t know how many more videos need to come out before accountability happens. When federal agents threaten to kill Americans for making noise, the law has already been broken… and the Constitution is being treated as optional.

🚨BREAKING: Once again, ICE agents are admitting, on camera, that Renee Good was not shot in self-defense. In the video, a U.S. citizen is driving when he sees ICE agents. He stops his car, exits, and begins blowing a whistle… a lawful act protected by the First Amendment. An agent approaches him. The man backs away, does not interfere, does not block agents, and does not make physical contact. Despite this, the agent says: “Do you think this is a big game? Is this a game to you guys? That’s why that lady got hurt the other day.” That statement matters. The agent is threatening a U.S. citizen with lethal force for protected speech. That is illegal. Law enforcement cannot threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against civilians for exercising First Amendment rights. He said this to a man who was unarmed, on foot, and not posing any immediate threat. By the agent’s own words, Renee Good was not shot because of self-defense, but because she was drawing attention to ICE’s presence. That is not a lawful justification for using deadly force. This video shows constitutional violations in real time: • First Amendment retaliation • Threats of violence without legal cause • Abuse of authority under color of law I don’t know how many more videos need to come out before accountability happens. When federal agents threaten to kill Americans for making noise, the law has already been broken… and the Constitution is being treated as optional.

Jesus Freakin Congress

1,232,380 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨Another day, another video of ICE agents illegally demanding a U.S. citizen prove their citizenship, in Brownsville, TX. In the video, ICE agents have a U.S. citizen boxed in with their vehicles. After demanding that he show his ID, the U.S. citizen asks if he is free to go, and then tells them to get the F away from his car. Instead of going back to their own cars, the agents tell him to “chill”… after they had already illegally detained him and demanded identification. The U.S. citizen then gets out of his car, to record the agents’ license plates, and one of the ICE agents has the audacity to say: “Sir, please don’t interfere with our investigations.” Interfere with what investigation? He WAS the investigation. If they’re letting him leave, then there is nothing left for him to “interfere” with. Recording government agents, in public, is protected by the First Amendment, and they don’t get to invent an “investigation” to discourage someone from filming. And this is becoming a pattern. ICE agents are stopping whoever they want… and demanding papers. But that is not how constitutional rights work. ICE didn’t have reasonable suspicion that he had committed an immigration violation… since he is a U.S. citizen. So, detaining him, and demanding that he identify himself, violates his Fourth Amendment rights. U.S. citizens are not required to prove their citizenship, to any law enforcement, simply because they were stopped and questioned. And that’s what makes these encounters so dangerous. When U.S. citizens refuse to comply with these unlawful demands, we’ve repeatedly seen ICE agents escalate the situation with physical force. Citizens have been shoved, dragged from vehicles, pinned to the ground, and pepper sprayed after refusing unlawful demands, or asserting their constitutional rights. And a right isn’t a right if exercising it means you risk being assaulted by the very government that’s supposed to protect it. This isn’t just about immigration anymore. It’s about whether every American can exercise their constitutional rights without fearing they’ll be met with intimidation, violence, or retaliation from federal agents. If federal agents can stop U.S. citizens, demand they prove who they are without lawful justification, and then escalate when people refuse… Then nobody’s constitutional rights are safe.

🚨Another day, another video of ICE agents illegally demanding a U.S. citizen prove their citizenship, in Brownsville, TX. In the video, ICE agents have a U.S. citizen boxed in with their vehicles. After demanding that he show his ID, the U.S. citizen asks if he is free to go, and then tells them to get the F away from his car. Instead of going back to their own cars, the agents tell him to “chill”… after they had already illegally detained him and demanded identification. The U.S. citizen then gets out of his car, to record the agents’ license plates, and one of the ICE agents has the audacity to say: “Sir, please don’t interfere with our investigations.” Interfere with what investigation? He WAS the investigation. If they’re letting him leave, then there is nothing left for him to “interfere” with. Recording government agents, in public, is protected by the First Amendment, and they don’t get to invent an “investigation” to discourage someone from filming. And this is becoming a pattern. ICE agents are stopping whoever they want… and demanding papers. But that is not how constitutional rights work. ICE didn’t have reasonable suspicion that he had committed an immigration violation… since he is a U.S. citizen. So, detaining him, and demanding that he identify himself, violates his Fourth Amendment rights. U.S. citizens are not required to prove their citizenship, to any law enforcement, simply because they were stopped and questioned. And that’s what makes these encounters so dangerous. When U.S. citizens refuse to comply with these unlawful demands, we’ve repeatedly seen ICE agents escalate the situation with physical force. Citizens have been shoved, dragged from vehicles, pinned to the ground, and pepper sprayed after refusing unlawful demands, or asserting their constitutional rights. And a right isn’t a right if exercising it means you risk being assaulted by the very government that’s supposed to protect it. This isn’t just about immigration anymore. It’s about whether every American can exercise their constitutional rights without fearing they’ll be met with intimidation, violence, or retaliation from federal agents. If federal agents can stop U.S. citizens, demand they prove who they are without lawful justification, and then escalate when people refuse… Then nobody’s constitutional rights are safe.

Jesus Freakin Congress

37,733 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

Terri Green

13,029 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Dan Osborn is running for U.S. Senate in Nebraska, and his new “common sense” gun proposal should worry every gun owner. He wants people who own so-called “assault-style” rifles — AR-15s, M16s, AKs, and anything he decides fits that category — to take a mental health exam every five years and re-register their guns just to keep what they already legally own. But here’s the part that makes the entire proposal fall apart. The shooting he keeps using to justify it was committed with a shotgun. Not an AR-15. Not an AK. Not an M16. A shotgun. So his plan wouldn’t have stopped the very tragedy he’s using to sell it. That’s not policy. That’s emotion dressed up as “common sense.” And it gets worse. Osborn says he checked with law enforcement and one gun owner who supposedly had no issue with the idea. One guy. A sample size of one. Meanwhile, the Nebraska Firearm Owners Association — with over 26,000 members — called the proposal an attack on individual liberty. Because a right you have to renew every five years isn’t a right. It’s a subscription. And the government can cancel a subscription. Today it’s AR-15s. Tomorrow it’s shotguns. Then five years becomes three. Then the exam changes. Then the people deciding whether you’re “mentally fit” to keep your rifle are the same people who never wanted you to have it in the first place. This is how gun control works: pick the scary word, ignore the facts, call it common sense, and make law-abiding gun owners beg permission to keep what they already own. Shop the “America” hat at:

Dan Osborn is running for U.S. Senate in Nebraska, and his new “common sense” gun proposal should worry every gun owner. He wants people who own so-called “assault-style” rifles — AR-15s, M16s, AKs, and anything he decides fits that category — to take a mental health exam every five years and re-register their guns just to keep what they already legally own. But here’s the part that makes the entire proposal fall apart. The shooting he keeps using to justify it was committed with a shotgun. Not an AR-15. Not an AK. Not an M16. A shotgun. So his plan wouldn’t have stopped the very tragedy he’s using to sell it. That’s not policy. That’s emotion dressed up as “common sense.” And it gets worse. Osborn says he checked with law enforcement and one gun owner who supposedly had no issue with the idea. One guy. A sample size of one. Meanwhile, the Nebraska Firearm Owners Association — with over 26,000 members — called the proposal an attack on individual liberty. Because a right you have to renew every five years isn’t a right. It’s a subscription. And the government can cancel a subscription. Today it’s AR-15s. Tomorrow it’s shotguns. Then five years becomes three. Then the exam changes. Then the people deciding whether you’re “mentally fit” to keep your rifle are the same people who never wanted you to have it in the first place. This is how gun control works: pick the scary word, ignore the facts, call it common sense, and make law-abiding gun owners beg permission to keep what they already own. Shop the “America” hat at:

Colion Noir

39,563 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

MUST WATCH 🔴🔴 Islamic regime mouthpiece Mohammad Marandi threatens total war against the U.S., vows full scale retaliation over even a “token strike,” warns of shutting the Strait of Hormuz, sinking commercial ships, destroying oil and gas infrastructure, targeting trillions of dollars in non military U.S. assets, collapsing Gulf monarchies within hours, igniting chaos across West Asia and the Caucasus, and triggering a global economic crash Mohammad Marandi: “Yes, that is something that the Americans have put to the Iranians, that we will carry out some token strike and you can carry out some token strike. The Iranians said no. The Iranians have responded to the Americans that even a token strike will be met with full force, and the reason is twofold. One is that even a token strike is an act of war. But more importantly, I think, is the fact that the Iranians recognize that if the United States is allowed to carry out some limited strike, that only opens the door for future strikes. Four months down the road, some false flag operation will be carried out somewhere in Europe, somewhere in North America, somewhere in our region. Mossad will kill a few Israelis or something like that, and then they will blame Iran. Then there will be more threats against the country and attacks, or they will stage more riots or hire people to bring chaos to some city in Iran. Then again Trump will come in to save the Iranian people by murdering Iranian people. This is something that the Iranians are saying we cannot tolerate. So it has to end now. If the United States attacks, whether it is symbolic or whether it is a major assault, the Iranians are going to launch an all-out assault. It will be directed toward U.S. bases. Of course, it will be directed toward the U.S. Navy, but it will also be directed toward all U.S. interests across the region. That can mean many things that are non-military, and that means trillions of dollars of assets will be targeted. The Iranians have already spoken about shutting the Strait of Hormuz, which is very easy to do. It is not just about the strait itself that can be shut down. They can sink the ships that go through the strait. They have thousands of anti-ship missiles based in the Persian Gulf that can destroy everything in the Persian Gulf region. They can destroy the ports. They can destroy the oil and gas facilities. They can destroy the pipelines. And they can do the same outside the Strait of Hormuz and in the Indian Ocean. So if there is war, I believe that the oil and gas trade across West Asia and the Caucasus will come to an end, and that will lead to a global economic crash. U.S. assets in the region will, of course, be targeted. Those Arab countries that host U.S. bases, which are as we speak being used to plan against Iran, will be complicit. I do not think these Arab regimes will last more than a few hours or a few days or at most a few weeks. Some of these entities have passport-holding populations of a few hundred thousand to a million, and foreign workers outnumber citizens 5 to 1 or 10 to 1. Most of the foreign workers are adult males. So if there is chaos, I think the regimes will collapse, and that will change the map of the region permanently. From my understanding, it would be insanity for President Trump to attack Iran. But Trump is surrounded by Israeli supporters. Congress and the Senate are controlled by Israeli supporters. The Epstein documents give us a very small view into the ugly reality of the ruling class. So even though it is insanity, it is quite plausible that an attack will happen.”

MUST WATCH 🔴🔴 Islamic regime mouthpiece Mohammad Marandi threatens total war against the U.S., vows full scale retaliation over even a “token strike,” warns of shutting the Strait of Hormuz, sinking commercial ships, destroying oil and gas infrastructure, targeting trillions of dollars in non military U.S. assets, collapsing Gulf monarchies within hours, igniting chaos across West Asia and the Caucasus, and triggering a global economic crash Mohammad Marandi: “Yes, that is something that the Americans have put to the Iranians, that we will carry out some token strike and you can carry out some token strike. The Iranians said no. The Iranians have responded to the Americans that even a token strike will be met with full force, and the reason is twofold. One is that even a token strike is an act of war. But more importantly, I think, is the fact that the Iranians recognize that if the United States is allowed to carry out some limited strike, that only opens the door for future strikes. Four months down the road, some false flag operation will be carried out somewhere in Europe, somewhere in North America, somewhere in our region. Mossad will kill a few Israelis or something like that, and then they will blame Iran. Then there will be more threats against the country and attacks, or they will stage more riots or hire people to bring chaos to some city in Iran. Then again Trump will come in to save the Iranian people by murdering Iranian people. This is something that the Iranians are saying we cannot tolerate. So it has to end now. If the United States attacks, whether it is symbolic or whether it is a major assault, the Iranians are going to launch an all-out assault. It will be directed toward U.S. bases. Of course, it will be directed toward the U.S. Navy, but it will also be directed toward all U.S. interests across the region. That can mean many things that are non-military, and that means trillions of dollars of assets will be targeted. The Iranians have already spoken about shutting the Strait of Hormuz, which is very easy to do. It is not just about the strait itself that can be shut down. They can sink the ships that go through the strait. They have thousands of anti-ship missiles based in the Persian Gulf that can destroy everything in the Persian Gulf region. They can destroy the ports. They can destroy the oil and gas facilities. They can destroy the pipelines. And they can do the same outside the Strait of Hormuz and in the Indian Ocean. So if there is war, I believe that the oil and gas trade across West Asia and the Caucasus will come to an end, and that will lead to a global economic crash. U.S. assets in the region will, of course, be targeted. Those Arab countries that host U.S. bases, which are as we speak being used to plan against Iran, will be complicit. I do not think these Arab regimes will last more than a few hours or a few days or at most a few weeks. Some of these entities have passport-holding populations of a few hundred thousand to a million, and foreign workers outnumber citizens 5 to 1 or 10 to 1. Most of the foreign workers are adult males. So if there is chaos, I think the regimes will collapse, and that will change the map of the region permanently. From my understanding, it would be insanity for President Trump to attack Iran. But Trump is surrounded by Israeli supporters. Congress and the Senate are controlled by Israeli supporters. The Epstein documents give us a very small view into the ugly reality of the ruling class. So even though it is insanity, it is quite plausible that an attack will happen.”

Open Source Intel

131,196 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I spoke with Prof. Arora (Pooja Arora) about how the postwar norm against aggressive war drove decades of declining violence—and how today’s “might makes right” politics, embraced by leaders like Putin and Trump, now threaten that hard-won peace. Me: The norm that countries do not go to war except in self-defense and with authorization of the UN Security Council has been rejected both by Putin and Trump. Of course, there were often violations of that in the past, including the United States invading Iraq, for example. So it’s not as if that norm was always followed. But still, it was a change from hundreds—maybe thousands—of years of history, and that norm, I think, does deserve credit for the decline of interstate and great-power war since World War II. In my books The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now, I’ve plotted the rate of battle deaths since 1946. I don’t know if my image is reversed or not—whether it goes left to right from your point of view—but it goes down. It has ups and downs, and in the last couple of years, because of the wars you pointed to—Ukraine, Gaza, and even more so East Africa, in Sudan and Ethiopia—there has been an uptick. Still, that uptick has not wiped out all the progress we’ve made. We are still at a more peaceful time than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. We’re back to around the late 1990s level. But it has gotten somewhat worse, and it could get worse still if that norm is permanently shattered. It is certainly being threatened. We don’t know whether it will reassert itself—given that Ukraine has been very costly to Russia, and given that Donald Trump says a lot of things he doesn’t do. I still think it’s unlikely the United States will apply military force in Greenland. But there’s no question the norm is being threatened, and I do think it’s a serious risk to world peace. Pooja Arora: It just appears that realism is back with a bang, and that “might makes right” may win. Me: Well, it is back, certainly. And the Trump administration is very explicit about that. They have basically said “might is right.” The question is, will that prevail? It might. On the other hand, there were good reasons to have the liberal international order—namely, that it prevented war. And wars, as the bumper sticker from my childhood said, are not healthy for children or other living things. There are huge disadvantages to war. Countries get tired of them. People revolt against governments that engage in them. We’re seeing that in Iran right now. One grievance is that the ayatollahs have wasted national resources on proxy wars across the Middle East at the expense of their people. There could very well be a backlash in the United States if it gets involved in wars and American soldiers start losing their lives. So yes, there is a definite movement toward what’s called realism. I think it’s a bad term, because I don’t think it’s particularly realistic. It’s actually quite realistic to believe that avoiding stupid wars is a much better path to prosperity and well-being. Still, cynical, zero-sum competition is being embraced by major world leaders. The question is whether the disadvantages will ultimately bring the liberal international order back. The European Union is still committed to it, as is much of the rest of the world, East Asia. So it’s not dead—but it is certainly threatened.

I spoke with Prof. Arora (Pooja Arora) about how the postwar norm against aggressive war drove decades of declining violence—and how today’s “might makes right” politics, embraced by leaders like Putin and Trump, now threaten that hard-won peace. Me: The norm that countries do not go to war except in self-defense and with authorization of the UN Security Council has been rejected both by Putin and Trump. Of course, there were often violations of that in the past, including the United States invading Iraq, for example. So it’s not as if that norm was always followed. But still, it was a change from hundreds—maybe thousands—of years of history, and that norm, I think, does deserve credit for the decline of interstate and great-power war since World War II. In my books The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now, I’ve plotted the rate of battle deaths since 1946. I don’t know if my image is reversed or not—whether it goes left to right from your point of view—but it goes down. It has ups and downs, and in the last couple of years, because of the wars you pointed to—Ukraine, Gaza, and even more so East Africa, in Sudan and Ethiopia—there has been an uptick. Still, that uptick has not wiped out all the progress we’ve made. We are still at a more peaceful time than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. We’re back to around the late 1990s level. But it has gotten somewhat worse, and it could get worse still if that norm is permanently shattered. It is certainly being threatened. We don’t know whether it will reassert itself—given that Ukraine has been very costly to Russia, and given that Donald Trump says a lot of things he doesn’t do. I still think it’s unlikely the United States will apply military force in Greenland. But there’s no question the norm is being threatened, and I do think it’s a serious risk to world peace. Pooja Arora: It just appears that realism is back with a bang, and that “might makes right” may win. Me: Well, it is back, certainly. And the Trump administration is very explicit about that. They have basically said “might is right.” The question is, will that prevail? It might. On the other hand, there were good reasons to have the liberal international order—namely, that it prevented war. And wars, as the bumper sticker from my childhood said, are not healthy for children or other living things. There are huge disadvantages to war. Countries get tired of them. People revolt against governments that engage in them. We’re seeing that in Iran right now. One grievance is that the ayatollahs have wasted national resources on proxy wars across the Middle East at the expense of their people. There could very well be a backlash in the United States if it gets involved in wars and American soldiers start losing their lives. So yes, there is a definite movement toward what’s called realism. I think it’s a bad term, because I don’t think it’s particularly realistic. It’s actually quite realistic to believe that avoiding stupid wars is a much better path to prosperity and well-being. Still, cynical, zero-sum competition is being embraced by major world leaders. The question is whether the disadvantages will ultimately bring the liberal international order back. The European Union is still committed to it, as is much of the rest of the world, East Asia. So it’s not dead—but it is certainly threatened.

Steven Pinker

89,098 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

MSNBC reports “BREAKING NEWS” after one of their anchors had a 15-minute phone call with President Trump. Here’s what he revealed to Stephanie Ruhle: • “He said that Iran was two weeks away from having a nuclear bomb and they would use it.” • “He said that we could leave the war right now, we could walk away tomorrow because we have just decimated most of the country and their power. But he said the regime would rebuild. It would take him about 10 years. But that’s not an acceptable situation, which is why he thinks we should stay.” • “He said absolutely none of our allies in NATO have helped with support as it relates to the war. He said we don’t need their help, but they’ve proven themselves to be a paper tiger.” • “He says Zelensky is very difficult to deal with. He says Zelensky is more difficult to deal with than Putin is. And he said Putin has also shown that he’s not afraid of Europe, at this point, or our European allies.” • “He said originally [Republicans] wanted to run against Jasmine Crockett [for the Texas Senate], but Talarico can be easily defeated, whether it’s Ken Paxton or John Cornyn.” • “He referred to Talarico as a ‘whack job.’” • “He said [the ballroom] is under budget and ahead of schedule… They plan to have future inaugurations in that ballroom since it’s going to be drone-proof and bulletproof.” • “I asked him about those comments he made about Gavin Newsom and dyslexia. I gave him the opportunity to sort of take those comments back… He didn’t take the comments back.” • “He said [Democrats] are the ones standing in the way of funding [DHS]. ‘If you don’t like your long line at the airport, look no further than Democrats.’ And that’s not a surprise that he would say that.”

MSNBC reports “BREAKING NEWS” after one of their anchors had a 15-minute phone call with President Trump. Here’s what he revealed to Stephanie Ruhle: • “He said that Iran was two weeks away from having a nuclear bomb and they would use it.” • “He said that we could leave the war right now, we could walk away tomorrow because we have just decimated most of the country and their power. But he said the regime would rebuild. It would take him about 10 years. But that’s not an acceptable situation, which is why he thinks we should stay.” • “He said absolutely none of our allies in NATO have helped with support as it relates to the war. He said we don’t need their help, but they’ve proven themselves to be a paper tiger.” • “He says Zelensky is very difficult to deal with. He says Zelensky is more difficult to deal with than Putin is. And he said Putin has also shown that he’s not afraid of Europe, at this point, or our European allies.” • “He said originally [Republicans] wanted to run against Jasmine Crockett [for the Texas Senate], but Talarico can be easily defeated, whether it’s Ken Paxton or John Cornyn.” • “He referred to Talarico as a ‘whack job.’” • “He said [the ballroom] is under budget and ahead of schedule… They plan to have future inaugurations in that ballroom since it’s going to be drone-proof and bulletproof.” • “I asked him about those comments he made about Gavin Newsom and dyslexia. I gave him the opportunity to sort of take those comments back… He didn’t take the comments back.” • “He said [Democrats] are the ones standing in the way of funding [DHS]. ‘If you don’t like your long line at the airport, look no further than Democrats.’ And that’s not a surprise that he would say that.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,151,682 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Paul Verhoeven on whether the events that take place in "Total Recall" (1990) are real or just a dream: "It is both. To be honest, that’s what I want. I made the movie in a way that it would be true on both levels, and I spent a lot of time to get that. If you want a scientific explanation, you know, of course, in quantum mechanics there is a very interesting principle, the principle of uncertainty, Heisenberg’s principle. If you have a big object and if you try to measure the place of the object and the velocity of the object at the same time, the more precisely you measure velocity the less precise place gets. So that’s the principle. That means, of course, that there are different realities possible at the same moment. What I wanted to do in 'Total Recall' is to do a movie where both levels are true. I mean for me, of course, the film anyhow has to do with two realities, one being the reality of going as a secret agent to Mars and discovering that there is a problem, and solving the problem, which is starting the nuclear reactor and helping the guerrillas and destroying Cohaagen. The second level of the movie, of course, is that from the moment that he goes into the Rekall chair ‘til the end it’s a dream, and I tried to make that second level work throughout the whole movie. So there’s the dream level which starts when he gets into the chair and the thing is in his neck, and that would go throughout the whole movie, so in the next scene where they say, Oh, there’s a problem, there’s a big glitch here, that would be already the dream, of course. That’s where the dream starts. And the next scene where they are fighting and stuff would be part of his dream, convincing him that it is real, because there is a glitch but that would be part of the program. It would be built into the program to make him accept the fact that it’s real, but it’s a dream. If you look at the movie, if you haven’t seen it, or for the second time, you’ll see that the whole program that’s set up at the beginning when he goes to the Rekall office and he talks to this guy who sells him the program on Mars, you’ll see that he gets everything that he wants: he gets the trip to Mars, he gets the girl, the exotic girl, he ki!!s the bad guys, and he saves the entire planet. That’s what he does. And that’s basically the dream. Even halfway through the movie, you may remember, this other guy comes in, Dr. Edgemar, and tells him that he’s in a dream, that he’s still in the Rekall chair, and then Arnold says, “If I’m there, I can ki!! you.” And he puts a gun to his head and the guy says, “Sure, no problem for me, big problem for you, because you will be psychotic from now on because the walls of reality will fall apart. One moment you will be the savior of the rebel cause, the next moment you’ll be Cohaagen’s bosom buddy, but in the end—you will even have these strange fantasies about alien civilizations—but at the end you will be lobotomized.” And then if you see the movie, you realize that all these things happen. I mean he is lobotomized at the end. That’s why at the last shot, when they are so happy and kissing each other, it slowly fades to white, which for me meant, “OK, there he goes. That’s the end-that’s the dream—they lobotomized him.” And all the other things happened, he finds the alien civilization, he rescues the planet, he finds the good girl, he k!!ls the bad guys, but it’s a dream. Now, of course you can see it as a reality, too. So at the end of the movie, getting to white means either it’s a happy ending or he loses his brains . . . which is probably also a happy ending, I don’t know. That was basically what l wanted—that at the end there would be two possibilities, and they would be both true—for me they are both true—it’s not either one or the other. It’s not that either it’s a dream or it is a reality. It is a dream and it is a reality. And I think they’re both there." (Paul Verhoeven's interview with Chris Shea & Wade Jennings, 1992) P.S: On this day, 36 years ago, "Total Recall" (1990) premiered in Los Angeles, California, USA.

Paul Verhoeven on whether the events that take place in "Total Recall" (1990) are real or just a dream: "It is both. To be honest, that’s what I want. I made the movie in a way that it would be true on both levels, and I spent a lot of time to get that. If you want a scientific explanation, you know, of course, in quantum mechanics there is a very interesting principle, the principle of uncertainty, Heisenberg’s principle. If you have a big object and if you try to measure the place of the object and the velocity of the object at the same time, the more precisely you measure velocity the less precise place gets. So that’s the principle. That means, of course, that there are different realities possible at the same moment. What I wanted to do in 'Total Recall' is to do a movie where both levels are true. I mean for me, of course, the film anyhow has to do with two realities, one being the reality of going as a secret agent to Mars and discovering that there is a problem, and solving the problem, which is starting the nuclear reactor and helping the guerrillas and destroying Cohaagen. The second level of the movie, of course, is that from the moment that he goes into the Rekall chair ‘til the end it’s a dream, and I tried to make that second level work throughout the whole movie. So there’s the dream level which starts when he gets into the chair and the thing is in his neck, and that would go throughout the whole movie, so in the next scene where they say, Oh, there’s a problem, there’s a big glitch here, that would be already the dream, of course. That’s where the dream starts. And the next scene where they are fighting and stuff would be part of his dream, convincing him that it is real, because there is a glitch but that would be part of the program. It would be built into the program to make him accept the fact that it’s real, but it’s a dream. If you look at the movie, if you haven’t seen it, or for the second time, you’ll see that the whole program that’s set up at the beginning when he goes to the Rekall office and he talks to this guy who sells him the program on Mars, you’ll see that he gets everything that he wants: he gets the trip to Mars, he gets the girl, the exotic girl, he ki!!s the bad guys, and he saves the entire planet. That’s what he does. And that’s basically the dream. Even halfway through the movie, you may remember, this other guy comes in, Dr. Edgemar, and tells him that he’s in a dream, that he’s still in the Rekall chair, and then Arnold says, “If I’m there, I can ki!! you.” And he puts a gun to his head and the guy says, “Sure, no problem for me, big problem for you, because you will be psychotic from now on because the walls of reality will fall apart. One moment you will be the savior of the rebel cause, the next moment you’ll be Cohaagen’s bosom buddy, but in the end—you will even have these strange fantasies about alien civilizations—but at the end you will be lobotomized.” And then if you see the movie, you realize that all these things happen. I mean he is lobotomized at the end. That’s why at the last shot, when they are so happy and kissing each other, it slowly fades to white, which for me meant, “OK, there he goes. That’s the end-that’s the dream—they lobotomized him.” And all the other things happened, he finds the alien civilization, he rescues the planet, he finds the good girl, he k!!ls the bad guys, but it’s a dream. Now, of course you can see it as a reality, too. So at the end of the movie, getting to white means either it’s a happy ending or he loses his brains . . . which is probably also a happy ending, I don’t know. That was basically what l wanted—that at the end there would be two possibilities, and they would be both true—for me they are both true—it’s not either one or the other. It’s not that either it’s a dream or it is a reality. It is a dream and it is a reality. And I think they’re both there." (Paul Verhoeven's interview with Chris Shea & Wade Jennings, 1992) P.S: On this day, 36 years ago, "Total Recall" (1990) premiered in Los Angeles, California, USA.

DepressedBergman

66,465 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Iran war, day 89! Trump keeps breaching the ceasefire! Just how compromised is Oman? -4 American vessels, attempted to cross the SOH without coordinating with IRGC security forces -They were warned, and following their disregard, warning shots were fired at them, forcing them to turn back. -4 drones were fired as warning shots Meanwhile, Kosher media lies as usual and claims: -that IRGC fired 4 one-way drones at a U.S. commercial ship! -The U.S. military shot down all the drones and attacked another Iranian drone launching unit on the ground before it launched in Bandar Abbas, the official added -no mentions of the 4 invader vessels attempting to breach iran’s control of the SOH, and failing miserably! Per Reuters, the U.S. military has executed new strikes on an Iranian military facility that “posed a threat to U.S. forces and commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz”. -no mention of the U.S. military invasion of a sovereign territory. However, -U.S. official told CBS News the Iran ceasefire holds following tonight's strikes. -interesting how no accusation was made against Iran breaching the ceasefire despite kosher media’s bs claims. Analysis: The U.S. is testing out Iran’s ability to strike U.S. ships with limited breaches to gauge where Iran is striking from each time. Iran isn’t providing a predictable pattern and is sticking to its protocol of warnings, warning shots, and then on standby to escalate. Ynet Hebrew news on Iran’s demand for compensation: Tehran sets new conditions - the US must pay $300 billion in compensation! -Trump/Israel keep raising the price for a peace deal How is Trump’s bs blockade working out? Per WSJ: Despite the naval blockade, Iran continues to sell its oil! -The ship-to-ship transfer of oil in the middle of the sea reveals Iran's main strength and the main reason for its ability to resist US pressure for a long time. -Per the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Tehran earned about $31 billion in oil revenues from China last year. -this is conservative figure as most of sales are unaccounted for -The Chinese government explicitly ordered local companies not to comply with US sanctions against five Chinese refineries. And now Iran is selling its oil and maximum capacity, at higher prices. Pre war oil was at $70/b. It’s around $100/b. Trump did that! Nobody fears Trump’s bs blockade, sanctions and tariffs! Trump keeps barking anyway! Trump reserved the right to now wipe out Oman and finish off Iran! -I thought Iran was already beat according to Trump! As for Oman: Oman can be considered the most staunch supporter of the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf region. The first military agreement between the two countries was signed in 1980. Currently, 26,000 American air force units are stationed on the territory of this Arab state. In addition, U.S. military aviation units assigned the private security firm DynCorp International to guard various parts of the base, including aircraft hangars, fuel storage, ammunition depots, automobiles, and administrative buildings. Oman hosts multiple US military bases: -the bases of the Navy in Rycote, Sit Lahsa and Muscat. -the U.S. air force bases are in al-Hasib, Siba, Markaz Tamarid, and masir. -the air force base in masir and the port of Matra are permanent bases of the US armed forces. -Oman hosts the command post of the US air force. -From American air bases in Oman, drones (UAVs) are periodically flown over the territories of many countries, up to Afghanistan. Iran for whatever reason trusted Oman as a mediator state at one time. Trump said he is not sure the U.S. should sign a deal to end the war with Iran if Saudi Arabia and other gulf slave states don't agree to join the Abraham Accords! They owe it to us he says! Kosher media calls out Netanyahu’s bs! "Haaretz" quoting an Israeli field officer: Netanyahu's claim of killing 600 Hezbollah fighters in recent weeks is laughable

Iran war, day 89! Trump keeps breaching the ceasefire! Just how compromised is Oman? -4 American vessels, attempted to cross the SOH without coordinating with IRGC security forces -They were warned, and following their disregard, warning shots were fired at them, forcing them to turn back. -4 drones were fired as warning shots Meanwhile, Kosher media lies as usual and claims: -that IRGC fired 4 one-way drones at a U.S. commercial ship! -The U.S. military shot down all the drones and attacked another Iranian drone launching unit on the ground before it launched in Bandar Abbas, the official added -no mentions of the 4 invader vessels attempting to breach iran’s control of the SOH, and failing miserably! Per Reuters, the U.S. military has executed new strikes on an Iranian military facility that “posed a threat to U.S. forces and commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz”. -no mention of the U.S. military invasion of a sovereign territory. However, -U.S. official told CBS News the Iran ceasefire holds following tonight's strikes. -interesting how no accusation was made against Iran breaching the ceasefire despite kosher media’s bs claims. Analysis: The U.S. is testing out Iran’s ability to strike U.S. ships with limited breaches to gauge where Iran is striking from each time. Iran isn’t providing a predictable pattern and is sticking to its protocol of warnings, warning shots, and then on standby to escalate. Ynet Hebrew news on Iran’s demand for compensation: Tehran sets new conditions - the US must pay $300 billion in compensation! -Trump/Israel keep raising the price for a peace deal How is Trump’s bs blockade working out? Per WSJ: Despite the naval blockade, Iran continues to sell its oil! -The ship-to-ship transfer of oil in the middle of the sea reveals Iran's main strength and the main reason for its ability to resist US pressure for a long time. -Per the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Tehran earned about $31 billion in oil revenues from China last year. -this is conservative figure as most of sales are unaccounted for -The Chinese government explicitly ordered local companies not to comply with US sanctions against five Chinese refineries. And now Iran is selling its oil and maximum capacity, at higher prices. Pre war oil was at $70/b. It’s around $100/b. Trump did that! Nobody fears Trump’s bs blockade, sanctions and tariffs! Trump keeps barking anyway! Trump reserved the right to now wipe out Oman and finish off Iran! -I thought Iran was already beat according to Trump! As for Oman: Oman can be considered the most staunch supporter of the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf region. The first military agreement between the two countries was signed in 1980. Currently, 26,000 American air force units are stationed on the territory of this Arab state. In addition, U.S. military aviation units assigned the private security firm DynCorp International to guard various parts of the base, including aircraft hangars, fuel storage, ammunition depots, automobiles, and administrative buildings. Oman hosts multiple US military bases: -the bases of the Navy in Rycote, Sit Lahsa and Muscat. -the U.S. air force bases are in al-Hasib, Siba, Markaz Tamarid, and masir. -the air force base in masir and the port of Matra are permanent bases of the US armed forces. -Oman hosts the command post of the US air force. -From American air bases in Oman, drones (UAVs) are periodically flown over the territories of many countries, up to Afghanistan. Iran for whatever reason trusted Oman as a mediator state at one time. Trump said he is not sure the U.S. should sign a deal to end the war with Iran if Saudi Arabia and other gulf slave states don't agree to join the Abraham Accords! They owe it to us he says! Kosher media calls out Netanyahu’s bs! "Haaretz" quoting an Israeli field officer: Netanyahu's claim of killing 600 Hezbollah fighters in recent weeks is laughable

Truth_teller 🇷🇺

32,618 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

#41 "WAR PIGS" BLACK SABBATH (SIP OZZY) 🧵ON JANUARY 6, 2021, AT EXACTLY 4:03 P.M. (16:03 MIL) DONALD J. TRUMP WALKED ONTO THE ROSE GARDEN AND ADDRESSED THE NATION... THIS WASN’T JUST A SPEECH IT WAS A LEGAL SIGNAL A PROCLAMATION AND HE WENT "OFF SCRIPT" TO DELIVER IT! 🔥 THIS WASN’T FOR THE PUBLIC... IT WAS FOR THE DEEP STATE AND THE MILITIA! THOSE OF US PAYING ATTENTION, PICKED UP ON IT RIGHT AWAY AND BEGAN DIGGING! AFTER RECEIVING A REPORT FROM DNI JOHN RATCLIFFE (MADE KNOWN TO PUBLIC ON 1/7), TRUMP DID WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES: HE ISSUED A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION EXACTLY AS OUTLINED UNDER 10 U.S. CODE § 334: A MANDATORY NOTICE BEFORE FEDERAL FORCES OR MILITIAS CAN BE DEPLOYED UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT. READ THAT AGAIN: THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEPLOY MILITARY FORCES UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT WITHOUT FIRST ORDERING THE INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE PEACEFULLY. TRUMP GAVE THAT ORDER! “GO HOME IN PEACE.” THOSE WORDS WEREN’T JUST CALMING LANGUAGE. THEY WERE A LEGAL TRIGGER! ACCORDING TO U.S. MILITARY LAW (10 U.S.C. § 334) THE PRESIDENT MUST FIRST “BY PROCLAMATION, IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE AND RETIRE PEACEABLY.” HE DID THAT! ON CAMERA! AT THE ROSE GARDEN! AT 4:03 P.M.! AGAIN... TO THOSE WHO NEEDED TO KNOW, THE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED: WE ARE AT WAR. I KNOW WHAT YOU DID. STAND DOWN. HE DIDN’T HAVE TO SAY “INSURRECTION ACT.” HE DIDN’T HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THE NEXT MOVE. HE COULD HAVE SIGNED A PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY ACTION DOCUMENT, A 'P.E.A.D.', WHICH IS PRE-WRITTEN FOR EXACTLY THESE SCENARIOS. AND IF HE DID, THEN YES... CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAW OF WAR MAY HAVE BEGUN THAT VERY DAY! SOME STILL ASK: “IF TRUMP TOOK ACTION, WHY LET IT ALL HAPPEN?” REMEMBER THIS: WASHINGTON, D.C. WAS AN OCCUPIED TERRITORY. WAS IT CHINA? ISRAEL? RUSSIA? OR JUST THE DEEP STATE? DOESN’T MATTER. THE ENEMY WAS IN CONTROL. AND TRUMP KNEW IT! HE TOOK OVER CONTROL OF D.C. AND THE UNITED STATES AND GAVE THE POWER BACK TO YOU! THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! FINAL THOUGHT: TRUMP OBEYED THE LAW. HE GAVE THE PROCLAMATION. HE TOLD THE MILITIA TO STAND DOWN. HE CHECKED THE BOX REQUIRED BY 10 U.S.C. § 334. THE REST? CLASSIFIED. SHARE THIS. ARCHIVE THIS. THEY NEVER THOUGHT YOU’D UNDERSTAND THE SIGNAL. BUT NOW YOU DO. READ IT YOURSELF... 👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽 ⚖️ LEGAL BRIEF: PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION REQUIREMENT UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN INVOKE THE INSURRECTION ACT AND DEPLOY THE MILITARY OR FEDERALIZE THE MILITIA, HE IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO FIRST ISSUE A PUBLIC PROCLAMATION ORDERING INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE. 🔹 CITED LAW: ▶️ 10 U.S. CODE § 334 — PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE “WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY TO USE THE MILITIA OR THE ARMED FORCES UNDER THIS CHAPTER, HE SHALL, BY PROCLAMATION, IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE AND RETIRE PEACEABLY TO THEIR ABODES WITHIN A LIMITED TIME.” THIS STATUTE IS PART OF CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 10, WHICH COVERS THE INSURRECTION ACT. IT SERVES AS THE MANDATORY PROCEDURAL TRIGGER THE PRESIDENT MUST FOLLOW BEFORE DEPLOYING MILITARY FORCE. 🔹 RELATED PROVISIONS: •10 U.S. CODE § 251 – WHEN A STATE REQUESTS FEDERAL AID •10 U.S. CODE § 252 – WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT IS OBSTRUCTED •10 U.S. CODE § 253 – WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE DENIED •10 U.S. CODE § 254 – TO SUPPRESS REBELLION THESE DEFINE WHEN THE INSURRECTION ACT MAY BE USED — BUT § 334 DEFINES HOW IT MUST BE INITIATED: WITH A PUBLIC PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE! IT’S MILITARY PROTOCOL! THE SPEECH WASN’T FOR CNN OR CBS OR ABC IT WAS FOR THE RECORD! FOR THE LAW! FOR HISTORY! AND NOW, YOU KNOW! WWG1WGA

#41 "WAR PIGS" BLACK SABBATH (SIP OZZY) 🧵ON JANUARY 6, 2021, AT EXACTLY 4:03 P.M. (16:03 MIL) DONALD J. TRUMP WALKED ONTO THE ROSE GARDEN AND ADDRESSED THE NATION... THIS WASN’T JUST A SPEECH IT WAS A LEGAL SIGNAL A PROCLAMATION AND HE WENT "OFF SCRIPT" TO DELIVER IT! 🔥 THIS WASN’T FOR THE PUBLIC... IT WAS FOR THE DEEP STATE AND THE MILITIA! THOSE OF US PAYING ATTENTION, PICKED UP ON IT RIGHT AWAY AND BEGAN DIGGING! AFTER RECEIVING A REPORT FROM DNI JOHN RATCLIFFE (MADE KNOWN TO PUBLIC ON 1/7), TRUMP DID WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES: HE ISSUED A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION EXACTLY AS OUTLINED UNDER 10 U.S. CODE § 334: A MANDATORY NOTICE BEFORE FEDERAL FORCES OR MILITIAS CAN BE DEPLOYED UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT. READ THAT AGAIN: THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEPLOY MILITARY FORCES UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT WITHOUT FIRST ORDERING THE INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE PEACEFULLY. TRUMP GAVE THAT ORDER! “GO HOME IN PEACE.” THOSE WORDS WEREN’T JUST CALMING LANGUAGE. THEY WERE A LEGAL TRIGGER! ACCORDING TO U.S. MILITARY LAW (10 U.S.C. § 334) THE PRESIDENT MUST FIRST “BY PROCLAMATION, IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE AND RETIRE PEACEABLY.” HE DID THAT! ON CAMERA! AT THE ROSE GARDEN! AT 4:03 P.M.! AGAIN... TO THOSE WHO NEEDED TO KNOW, THE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED: WE ARE AT WAR. I KNOW WHAT YOU DID. STAND DOWN. HE DIDN’T HAVE TO SAY “INSURRECTION ACT.” HE DIDN’T HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THE NEXT MOVE. HE COULD HAVE SIGNED A PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY ACTION DOCUMENT, A 'P.E.A.D.', WHICH IS PRE-WRITTEN FOR EXACTLY THESE SCENARIOS. AND IF HE DID, THEN YES... CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAW OF WAR MAY HAVE BEGUN THAT VERY DAY! SOME STILL ASK: “IF TRUMP TOOK ACTION, WHY LET IT ALL HAPPEN?” REMEMBER THIS: WASHINGTON, D.C. WAS AN OCCUPIED TERRITORY. WAS IT CHINA? ISRAEL? RUSSIA? OR JUST THE DEEP STATE? DOESN’T MATTER. THE ENEMY WAS IN CONTROL. AND TRUMP KNEW IT! HE TOOK OVER CONTROL OF D.C. AND THE UNITED STATES AND GAVE THE POWER BACK TO YOU! THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! FINAL THOUGHT: TRUMP OBEYED THE LAW. HE GAVE THE PROCLAMATION. HE TOLD THE MILITIA TO STAND DOWN. HE CHECKED THE BOX REQUIRED BY 10 U.S.C. § 334. THE REST? CLASSIFIED. SHARE THIS. ARCHIVE THIS. THEY NEVER THOUGHT YOU’D UNDERSTAND THE SIGNAL. BUT NOW YOU DO. READ IT YOURSELF... 👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽 ⚖️ LEGAL BRIEF: PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION REQUIREMENT UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN INVOKE THE INSURRECTION ACT AND DEPLOY THE MILITARY OR FEDERALIZE THE MILITIA, HE IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO FIRST ISSUE A PUBLIC PROCLAMATION ORDERING INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE. 🔹 CITED LAW: ▶️ 10 U.S. CODE § 334 — PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE “WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY TO USE THE MILITIA OR THE ARMED FORCES UNDER THIS CHAPTER, HE SHALL, BY PROCLAMATION, IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE INSURGENTS TO DISPERSE AND RETIRE PEACEABLY TO THEIR ABODES WITHIN A LIMITED TIME.” THIS STATUTE IS PART OF CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 10, WHICH COVERS THE INSURRECTION ACT. IT SERVES AS THE MANDATORY PROCEDURAL TRIGGER THE PRESIDENT MUST FOLLOW BEFORE DEPLOYING MILITARY FORCE. 🔹 RELATED PROVISIONS: •10 U.S. CODE § 251 – WHEN A STATE REQUESTS FEDERAL AID •10 U.S. CODE § 252 – WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT IS OBSTRUCTED •10 U.S. CODE § 253 – WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE DENIED •10 U.S. CODE § 254 – TO SUPPRESS REBELLION THESE DEFINE WHEN THE INSURRECTION ACT MAY BE USED — BUT § 334 DEFINES HOW IT MUST BE INITIATED: WITH A PUBLIC PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE! IT’S MILITARY PROTOCOL! THE SPEECH WASN’T FOR CNN OR CBS OR ABC IT WAS FOR THE RECORD! FOR THE LAW! FOR HISTORY! AND NOW, YOU KNOW! WWG1WGA

SirOliverPollock(KAIZER)😎 🧐 🤫

66,030 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Trump frames putin’s refusal to stop killing people as a tactical "position" that’s totally understandable because “starting a war back up is hard work”. Reporter: Did Russia agree, or did putin agree to a ceasefire to allow a referendum to take place? Trump: Not a ceasefire, and that's one of the points that we're working on right now. No, not a ceasefire. He feels that, look, you know, they're fighting, and to stop and then to, if they have to start again, which is a possibility, he doesn't want to be in that position. I understand that position. The President feels strongly about that, or something, but I think we're finding ways that we can get around that. But I understand President putin from that standpoint. You know, you have to understand the other side. And, you know, I'm on the side of peace, I'm on the side of stopping the war. So, but I think that's, uh, that's a problem that's going to get solved here.” Trump is effectively acting as putin’s press secretary, explaining away Russia's refusal to stop the killing as a reasonable "business position" rather than a violation of international law. 'The President feels strongly about that, or something.' OR SOMETHING?? 😂 'It’s a problem that’s going to get solved here.' Yeah, right after we figure out what the 'something' is. He sounds like a guy trying to explain the plot of a movie he only saw the trailer for. In high-stakes diplomacy, "feelings" aren't usually a substitute for policy, and "or something" suggests the details are irrelevant to him. By ending with "it's going to get solved," he uses his classic "trust me" closing. This is a tactic to avoid explaining how it will be solved, especially when the "how" involves agreeing with the "other side”.

Trump frames putin’s refusal to stop killing people as a tactical "position" that’s totally understandable because “starting a war back up is hard work”. Reporter: Did Russia agree, or did putin agree to a ceasefire to allow a referendum to take place? Trump: Not a ceasefire, and that's one of the points that we're working on right now. No, not a ceasefire. He feels that, look, you know, they're fighting, and to stop and then to, if they have to start again, which is a possibility, he doesn't want to be in that position. I understand that position. The President feels strongly about that, or something, but I think we're finding ways that we can get around that. But I understand President putin from that standpoint. You know, you have to understand the other side. And, you know, I'm on the side of peace, I'm on the side of stopping the war. So, but I think that's, uh, that's a problem that's going to get solved here.” Trump is effectively acting as putin’s press secretary, explaining away Russia's refusal to stop the killing as a reasonable "business position" rather than a violation of international law. 'The President feels strongly about that, or something.' OR SOMETHING?? 😂 'It’s a problem that’s going to get solved here.' Yeah, right after we figure out what the 'something' is. He sounds like a guy trying to explain the plot of a movie he only saw the trailer for. In high-stakes diplomacy, "feelings" aren't usually a substitute for policy, and "or something" suggests the details are irrelevant to him. By ending with "it's going to get solved," he uses his classic "trust me" closing. This is a tactic to avoid explaining how it will be solved, especially when the "how" involves agreeing with the "other side”.

Yasmina

62,866 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,723 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

🚨BREAKING: An ICE agent threatened to kill a U.S. citizen for driving through a neighborhood, in Cold Spring, Minnesota. In the video, a woman is in her car when an agent walks towards her, with his hand on his gun, in the middle of the street. He tells her that if she comes near him with her car, it will be “the last thing that you do.” In other words… a federal agent just threatened to execute a U.S. citizen for driving down a public street. She immediately points out that she wasn’t even close to him and tells him to get out of the road. Instead, the agent escalates. He stands directly in front of her vehicle, hand still on his gun, and tells her she cannot reverse or leave the street. Except there’s just one problem… He never identifies a crime. He never states a lawful order. He simply blocks her car and starts issuing threats. That’s an illegal detention. Then, he contradicts himself… He told her she can’t back up… and seconds later screams at her to “back the f*ck up.” The agent then walks to the side of her car and begins shining a flashlight directly into her face, with his hand still on his gun. When she tells him to get the light out of her face and back off, he moves directly in front of her car again and repeats the threat: “Do not hit me. This is your first and last warning.” Again… she hasn’t moved. Her car is still in reverse, and she repeatedly tells him to take his hand off his gun. She even says: “I’m not going to hit you!” And yet, the agent keeps escalating, screaming the same accusation over and over… as if he’s trying to manufacture a justification to shoot her. This is the exact same tactic we’ve already seen in multiple shootings involving ICE/Border Patrol… where federal agents step in front of vehicles and then claim they feared for their lives when the driver tries to leave, like they told them to do. Blocking a vehicle, threatening deadly force, illegally detaining a citizen, and creating a scenario where a shooting can be justified after the fact… Is not only dangerous, it’s illegal. Because when armed federal agents start threatening to kill people for driving down their own street, more people are eventually going to end up dead… And they will call it “self-defense.” And removing Kristi Noem isn’t going to change that.

🚨BREAKING: An ICE agent threatened to kill a U.S. citizen for driving through a neighborhood, in Cold Spring, Minnesota. In the video, a woman is in her car when an agent walks towards her, with his hand on his gun, in the middle of the street. He tells her that if she comes near him with her car, it will be “the last thing that you do.” In other words… a federal agent just threatened to execute a U.S. citizen for driving down a public street. She immediately points out that she wasn’t even close to him and tells him to get out of the road. Instead, the agent escalates. He stands directly in front of her vehicle, hand still on his gun, and tells her she cannot reverse or leave the street. Except there’s just one problem… He never identifies a crime. He never states a lawful order. He simply blocks her car and starts issuing threats. That’s an illegal detention. Then, he contradicts himself… He told her she can’t back up… and seconds later screams at her to “back the f*ck up.” The agent then walks to the side of her car and begins shining a flashlight directly into her face, with his hand still on his gun. When she tells him to get the light out of her face and back off, he moves directly in front of her car again and repeats the threat: “Do not hit me. This is your first and last warning.” Again… she hasn’t moved. Her car is still in reverse, and she repeatedly tells him to take his hand off his gun. She even says: “I’m not going to hit you!” And yet, the agent keeps escalating, screaming the same accusation over and over… as if he’s trying to manufacture a justification to shoot her. This is the exact same tactic we’ve already seen in multiple shootings involving ICE/Border Patrol… where federal agents step in front of vehicles and then claim they feared for their lives when the driver tries to leave, like they told them to do. Blocking a vehicle, threatening deadly force, illegally detaining a citizen, and creating a scenario where a shooting can be justified after the fact… Is not only dangerous, it’s illegal. Because when armed federal agents start threatening to kill people for driving down their own street, more people are eventually going to end up dead… And they will call it “self-defense.” And removing Kristi Noem isn’t going to change that.

Jesus Freakin Congress

416,340 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨BREAKING: Border Patrol agents violently pulled a U.S. citizen PASSENGER from a vehicle, slamming him to the ground… Then shouted that he had a gun, even though he didn’t. In Tucson, Arizona, state troopers pulled over a vehicle. While they were stopped on the side of the road, the state trooper called Border Patrol because the PASSENGER appeared to be Hispanic. When Border Patrol arrived, the situation immediately escalated to agents smashed both passenger-side windows. One agent tried to hit the phone out of the driver’s hand, who was recording, as they violently ripped the backseat passenger out of the vehicle, and threw him onto the ground, while multiple agents pin him down. Then, an agent ordered the driver out of the vehicle. She responded, “I didn’t do anything.” The agent replied, “Step out or you are going to get tackled.” At that point, at least three agents already had the passenger pinned, with his hands behind his back, when another agent suddenly yelled, “Gun!” A fourth agent responded, “He has a gun?” The driver immediately yells back, “NO! He has NO gun. WE HAVE NO WEAPONS!” The agent, closest to the car, was startled by this, appearing to forget the driver was still inside… and filming. That’s when he reached into the vehicle, grabbed her phone, threw it from her hand, and attempted to pull her out of the car. There is a lot going on in this video, so let’s break this down… First… you don’t get to detain people based on how they look. The Fourth Amendment requires individualized, reasonable suspicion. Not “he looked Hispanic.” Second… a passenger, during a traffic stop, is not automatically required to identify themselves, or hand over ID. Law enforcement needs a lawful basis… like reasonable suspicion that that specific person committed a crime… to demand identification. Third… even when someone is lawfully detained, they are only required to comply with lawful orders tied to THAT detention. A passenger doesn’t lose constitutional protections just because someone else was pulled over, while driving. Fourth… the First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement, in public, while they’re doing their job. Knocking a phone away, or throwing it because someone is filming, is violating that constitutional right. And finally, any use of force… breaking windows, pulling someone out of a car, and restraining them… has to be objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. That requires specific, articulable facts, not assumptions about identity. This wasn’t a checkpoint. It wasn’t a border stop. This was a traffic stop where a PASSENGER became the target because of how he looked. And if that’s enough to trigger federal agents breaking windows, and violently pulling U.S. citizens out of cars… then every single person should be demanding answers, and accountability. Because this could’ve ended with another U.S. citizen dead… And next time, that U.S. citizen could be you.

🚨BREAKING: Border Patrol agents violently pulled a U.S. citizen PASSENGER from a vehicle, slamming him to the ground… Then shouted that he had a gun, even though he didn’t. In Tucson, Arizona, state troopers pulled over a vehicle. While they were stopped on the side of the road, the state trooper called Border Patrol because the PASSENGER appeared to be Hispanic. When Border Patrol arrived, the situation immediately escalated to agents smashed both passenger-side windows. One agent tried to hit the phone out of the driver’s hand, who was recording, as they violently ripped the backseat passenger out of the vehicle, and threw him onto the ground, while multiple agents pin him down. Then, an agent ordered the driver out of the vehicle. She responded, “I didn’t do anything.” The agent replied, “Step out or you are going to get tackled.” At that point, at least three agents already had the passenger pinned, with his hands behind his back, when another agent suddenly yelled, “Gun!” A fourth agent responded, “He has a gun?” The driver immediately yells back, “NO! He has NO gun. WE HAVE NO WEAPONS!” The agent, closest to the car, was startled by this, appearing to forget the driver was still inside… and filming. That’s when he reached into the vehicle, grabbed her phone, threw it from her hand, and attempted to pull her out of the car. There is a lot going on in this video, so let’s break this down… First… you don’t get to detain people based on how they look. The Fourth Amendment requires individualized, reasonable suspicion. Not “he looked Hispanic.” Second… a passenger, during a traffic stop, is not automatically required to identify themselves, or hand over ID. Law enforcement needs a lawful basis… like reasonable suspicion that that specific person committed a crime… to demand identification. Third… even when someone is lawfully detained, they are only required to comply with lawful orders tied to THAT detention. A passenger doesn’t lose constitutional protections just because someone else was pulled over, while driving. Fourth… the First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement, in public, while they’re doing their job. Knocking a phone away, or throwing it because someone is filming, is violating that constitutional right. And finally, any use of force… breaking windows, pulling someone out of a car, and restraining them… has to be objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. That requires specific, articulable facts, not assumptions about identity. This wasn’t a checkpoint. It wasn’t a border stop. This was a traffic stop where a PASSENGER became the target because of how he looked. And if that’s enough to trigger federal agents breaking windows, and violently pulling U.S. citizens out of cars… then every single person should be demanding answers, and accountability. Because this could’ve ended with another U.S. citizen dead… And next time, that U.S. citizen could be you.

Jesus Freakin Congress

228,008 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,487 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Today we have heard some outstanding speeches from NATO ally leaders. However, this one from the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, was the one that spoke to me for sure. I think it’s time to stop pretending to ourselves that the U.S. is anything but an impediment to solving this existential threat, to the welfare and safety of all our citizens. Let me quote Sun Tzu's The Art of War. ‘All warfare is based on deception’ and for sure, Putin has waged a war of deception. He projected the historical power of the mighty Red army in a bid to quickly overrun Ukraine. He attempted to do it with untrained poorly equipped troops, on out of date rations. Putin rolled the dice thinking NATO would not commit troops to help defend Ukraine and he was right. What he didn’t plan for, was the lion spirit of the Ukrainian people and the ingenuity of their military engineers. Their work with drones and sea drones has redefined battlefield strategy. Once allies started providing javelin anti-tank missiles and supporting artillery, the game changed. They prevented the Russians from achieving air superiority? And the Russian Black Sea Fleet had to retreat from port. It is testament to the Ukrainian army and air force, Russia has been held back against all the odds. Let’s be clear, the military has achieved what it has, not because of us, but in-spite of us. We have only given them enough weapons to hold the bear back, not to evict it. There were constant delays, waiting on artillery shells, HIMARS and ATACMS, as well as tanks and F16s. WE HAVE LET THEM DOWN. Yet these brave men and women have innovated and made do, to defend not only their country, but our borders too. WE OWE THEM BIG TIME. Not with words and sympathy, but with the proper tools to get the job done. America has disgracefully walked away and aligned with our enemy. The U.S. president’s pet, Elon Musk along with JD Vance, have meanwhile actively supported far right political parties in Europe. Then Vance had the audacity to turn up and lecture us on our own doorstep. What was our answer? ‘Please don’t hurt us’. This week, we see a slow procession of European leaders making the pilgrimage to the court of Mad King Don for a humiliation session. Pardon my French but ‘f*ck that’, it’s time to stand tall and tell Trump to ‘f*ck right off’ and if it were me. I’d tell him to take his airbases with him too and cancel all military arms contracts. If he wants access to Ukrainian minerals that’s fine. Ukraine HAS NO DEBT with the U.S. They simply have the thanks of a grateful nation. There was no loan agreement. If he wants mineral rights, then provide an arms package as a down payment for future revenues. Leave the deal on the table for a week and if it’s not signed, pull the deal. Then they get nothing and in addition, no bids will be accepted from US companies for the reconstruction of Ukraine after the war. Now that’s the art of the deal. As for NATO allies, Trump is walking away regardless, so Europe needs to get its act together NOW. Seize Russian assets and use the funds to fire up the European military industrial base. This will create jobs and growth, while capacity is expanded in all countries with an arms manufacturing capability. In the meantime, we already have the ability, especially if Poland steps up, to defend against any increased Russian aggression. The British military has already said, if it were needed, we would meet that threat head on today. If this collective approach is taken, the Russian army in Ukraine could be crushed just as crushed the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. It’s time to show the Americans their services are no longer required. Then when the war is over, we can look to promote the Euro as the new global reserve currency. No harm in ambition I say. We need to believe in ourselves. It’s time to get the job done and show the world FAFO. There’s only one village idiot in this town and it’s not Zelenskyy. I rest my case.

Today we have heard some outstanding speeches from NATO ally leaders. However, this one from the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, was the one that spoke to me for sure. I think it’s time to stop pretending to ourselves that the U.S. is anything but an impediment to solving this existential threat, to the welfare and safety of all our citizens. Let me quote Sun Tzu's The Art of War. ‘All warfare is based on deception’ and for sure, Putin has waged a war of deception. He projected the historical power of the mighty Red army in a bid to quickly overrun Ukraine. He attempted to do it with untrained poorly equipped troops, on out of date rations. Putin rolled the dice thinking NATO would not commit troops to help defend Ukraine and he was right. What he didn’t plan for, was the lion spirit of the Ukrainian people and the ingenuity of their military engineers. Their work with drones and sea drones has redefined battlefield strategy. Once allies started providing javelin anti-tank missiles and supporting artillery, the game changed. They prevented the Russians from achieving air superiority? And the Russian Black Sea Fleet had to retreat from port. It is testament to the Ukrainian army and air force, Russia has been held back against all the odds. Let’s be clear, the military has achieved what it has, not because of us, but in-spite of us. We have only given them enough weapons to hold the bear back, not to evict it. There were constant delays, waiting on artillery shells, HIMARS and ATACMS, as well as tanks and F16s. WE HAVE LET THEM DOWN. Yet these brave men and women have innovated and made do, to defend not only their country, but our borders too. WE OWE THEM BIG TIME. Not with words and sympathy, but with the proper tools to get the job done. America has disgracefully walked away and aligned with our enemy. The U.S. president’s pet, Elon Musk along with JD Vance, have meanwhile actively supported far right political parties in Europe. Then Vance had the audacity to turn up and lecture us on our own doorstep. What was our answer? ‘Please don’t hurt us’. This week, we see a slow procession of European leaders making the pilgrimage to the court of Mad King Don for a humiliation session. Pardon my French but ‘fck that’, it’s time to stand tall and tell Trump to ‘fck right off’ and if it were me. I’d tell him to take his airbases with him too and cancel all military arms contracts. If he wants access to Ukrainian minerals that’s fine. Ukraine HAS NO DEBT with the U.S. They simply have the thanks of a grateful nation. There was no loan agreement. If he wants mineral rights, then provide an arms package as a down payment for future revenues. Leave the deal on the table for a week and if it’s not signed, pull the deal. Then they get nothing and in addition, no bids will be accepted from US companies for the reconstruction of Ukraine after the war. Now that’s the art of the deal. As for NATO allies, Trump is walking away regardless, so Europe needs to get its act together NOW. Seize Russian assets and use the funds to fire up the European military industrial base. This will create jobs and growth, while capacity is expanded in all countries with an arms manufacturing capability. In the meantime, we already have the ability, especially if Poland steps up, to defend against any increased Russian aggression. The British military has already said, if it were needed, we would meet that threat head on today. If this collective approach is taken, the Russian army in Ukraine could be crushed just as crushed the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. It’s time to show the Americans their services are no longer required. Then when the war is over, we can look to promote the Euro as the new global reserve currency. No harm in ambition I say. We need to believe in ourselves. It’s time to get the job done and show the world FAFO. There’s only one village idiot in this town and it’s not Zelenskyy. I rest my case.

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

892,058 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr