Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

As the 51st state, Canadians would instantly gain First Amendment rights because the U.S. Constitution automatically governs all American territory under the Equal Footing Doctrine. The Supremacy Clause would override existing Canadian statutes, making freedom of speech, press, and assembly near-absolute. This shift would permanently eliminate the Canadian Charter's...

jezscacuzz's profile picture

jeska 🇨🇦🦅🇺🇸

1,220 subscribers

10,636 просмотров • 3 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

MEET ASHIK SIDDIQUE. He is the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and he wants to abolish the United States Senate. Siddique has never accomplished anything that would justify placing him above the constitutional system he wants to dismantle. Yet socialism has given him the confidence to believe the problem is not his lack of experience. The problem is the structure of the country itself. Abolishing the Senate would erase equal representation for every state. California could dominate Wyoming. New York could overpower Nebraska. Political control would shift toward a handful of densely populated metropolitan areas, while smaller and rural states would lose one of their principal protections in the federal government. It would also eliminate the chamber responsible for confirming federal judges and Cabinet officials, approving treaties, conducting impeachment trials, and slowing legislation before temporary political majorities can force it through. And that is the real objective. The Senate frustrates radical movements because it prevents a narrow ideological majority concentrated in major cities from immediately transforming the entire country. Socialists call that undemocratic because they do not merely want representation. They want fewer obstacles between themselves and power. Siddique says the Senate was built for wealthy landowners. His solution is to destroy one of the central checks in the Constitution and dramatically expand the House instead. DSA has repeatedly promoted abolishing or weakening institutions that restrain raw majority power, including the Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court. This is why socialism should never be treated as a harmless demand for cheaper healthcare or higher wages. Its leaders are openly telling you they want to redesign the government, remove constitutional guardrails, and concentrate power where their movement believes it can win. Like many of the leader in the DSA, Ashik Siddique has built remarkably little. But he is ready to demolish quite a lot.
0:12

MEET ASHIK SIDDIQUE. He is the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and he wants to abolish the United States Senate. Siddique has never accomplished anything that would justify placing him above the constitutional system he wants to dismantle. Yet socialism has given him the confidence to believe the problem is not his lack of experience. The problem is the structure of the country itself. Abolishing the Senate would erase equal representation for every state. California could dominate Wyoming. New York could overpower Nebraska. Political control would shift toward a handful of densely populated metropolitan areas, while smaller and rural states would lose one of their principal protections in the federal government. It would also eliminate the chamber responsible for confirming federal judges and Cabinet officials, approving treaties, conducting impeachment trials, and slowing legislation before temporary political majorities can force it through. And that is the real objective. The Senate frustrates radical movements because it prevents a narrow ideological majority concentrated in major cities from immediately transforming the entire country. Socialists call that undemocratic because they do not merely want representation. They want fewer obstacles between themselves and power. Siddique says the Senate was built for wealthy landowners. His solution is to destroy one of the central checks in the Constitution and dramatically expand the House instead. DSA has repeatedly promoted abolishing or weakening institutions that restrain raw majority power, including the Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court. This is why socialism should never be treated as a harmless demand for cheaper healthcare or higher wages. Its leaders are openly telling you they want to redesign the government, remove constitutional guardrails, and concentrate power where their movement believes it can win. Like many of the leader in the DSA, Ashik Siddique has built remarkably little. But he is ready to demolish quite a lot.

The Undercurrent

34,516 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

RC-135 Deployments Signal Imminent Attack: Myths and Realities of Iran's Military Power The RC-135 is a family of large reconnaissance aircraft operated by the ISAF. These jets are designed for ISR missions, providing near real-time data to military commanders and national leaders. The primary variant focuses on detecting, identifying, and geolocating electromagnetic signals, such as communications, radar emissions, and electronic warfare activities. Based on past experience, the early arrival of these aircraft often signals that an attack may be very close. But what about Iran, what capabilities does it actually have? There are many myths surrounding Iran's military power. Here are some key points: 1. Israel did not overfly Iran during the 12-day war This is implausible. Most part of the munitions used included bombs like the GBU-28 and GBU-31, both with ranges under 25 km, which suggests they could only have been dropped from inside Iranian territory. 2. Iranian missiles have poor accuracy In 2025, several Iranian missiles were launched against targets in Erbil, Iraq, with excellent precision. During the 12-day war, Iran struck the Weizmann Institute and the Haifa refinery with high accuracy, as well as some Israeli launchers, all in an environment of heavy jamming. The truth is that Iranian missile accuracy depends on the model. Iran has missiles in its arsenal that are more than 15 years old, but there is no evidence that the precision of its modern anti-ship missiles is deficient. 3. Iranian air defenses are of very poor quality This cannot be stated with absolute certainty because they were never fully tested. Israel's ground sabotage operations were highly effective, successfully disabling radars and most short-range air defense systems. Iran does not keep its long- and medium-range air defenses permanently deployed, and consequently none of them were destroyed during the 12 days of war. 4. Iran has no radars capable of detecting stealth aircraft In 2024, Iranian radars locked onto Israeli F-35s while they were still over Iraqi territory. In 2025, Iranian-supplied radars integrated into missile batteries in Yemen also locked onto and fired at U.S. F-35s on multiple occasions, nearly downing one. 5. The high technology of U.S. ships and aircraft will paralyze Iranian weapons This would only happen if the Iranians turned their systems off, as reportedly occurred in the Venezuela case. So far, Iranian equipment has proven extremely resistant to interference. Shahed drones continue to operate accurately, and after years of Western efforts, they have not been successfully jammed. This will pose a major challenge for the Americans. 6. The U.S. Carrier Strike Group will easily crush the Iranian navy They would destroy Iran's large ships in minutes, but they would face enormous difficulty against mini-submarines, USVs, UAVs, UUVs, and fast attack craft equipped with missiles. In additional, the U.S. drones would not have complete freedom for target acquisition and would have to rely on LEO/ISR sats. Iran possesses drones like the Karrar, a jet-powered interceptor equipped with air-to-air missiles that can operate at 15,000 meters to deny U.S. drones freedom of action. The Israelis lost an unknown number of drones during the 12-day war, though losses were reported. Summary Does Iran have any advantage? At sea, against the current Carrier Strike Group and considering all of Iran's resources, I would say Iran holds an advantage, evidenced by factors such as missile range, number of containers, tubes, VLS cells, drones, mines, submarines, anti-ship missiles, and other assets. However, once the focus shifts from the sea to the air, the American advantage is overwhelming, both in satellite intelligence and in combat aviation. And this is the type of war the Americans know best.
0:14

RC-135 Deployments Signal Imminent Attack: Myths and Realities of Iran's Military Power The RC-135 is a family of large reconnaissance aircraft operated by the ISAF. These jets are designed for ISR missions, providing near real-time data to military commanders and national leaders. The primary variant focuses on detecting, identifying, and geolocating electromagnetic signals, such as communications, radar emissions, and electronic warfare activities. Based on past experience, the early arrival of these aircraft often signals that an attack may be very close. But what about Iran, what capabilities does it actually have? There are many myths surrounding Iran's military power. Here are some key points: 1. Israel did not overfly Iran during the 12-day war This is implausible. Most part of the munitions used included bombs like the GBU-28 and GBU-31, both with ranges under 25 km, which suggests they could only have been dropped from inside Iranian territory. 2. Iranian missiles have poor accuracy In 2025, several Iranian missiles were launched against targets in Erbil, Iraq, with excellent precision. During the 12-day war, Iran struck the Weizmann Institute and the Haifa refinery with high accuracy, as well as some Israeli launchers, all in an environment of heavy jamming. The truth is that Iranian missile accuracy depends on the model. Iran has missiles in its arsenal that are more than 15 years old, but there is no evidence that the precision of its modern anti-ship missiles is deficient. 3. Iranian air defenses are of very poor quality This cannot be stated with absolute certainty because they were never fully tested. Israel's ground sabotage operations were highly effective, successfully disabling radars and most short-range air defense systems. Iran does not keep its long- and medium-range air defenses permanently deployed, and consequently none of them were destroyed during the 12 days of war. 4. Iran has no radars capable of detecting stealth aircraft In 2024, Iranian radars locked onto Israeli F-35s while they were still over Iraqi territory. In 2025, Iranian-supplied radars integrated into missile batteries in Yemen also locked onto and fired at U.S. F-35s on multiple occasions, nearly downing one. 5. The high technology of U.S. ships and aircraft will paralyze Iranian weapons This would only happen if the Iranians turned their systems off, as reportedly occurred in the Venezuela case. So far, Iranian equipment has proven extremely resistant to interference. Shahed drones continue to operate accurately, and after years of Western efforts, they have not been successfully jammed. This will pose a major challenge for the Americans. 6. The U.S. Carrier Strike Group will easily crush the Iranian navy They would destroy Iran's large ships in minutes, but they would face enormous difficulty against mini-submarines, USVs, UAVs, UUVs, and fast attack craft equipped with missiles. In additional, the U.S. drones would not have complete freedom for target acquisition and would have to rely on LEO/ISR sats. Iran possesses drones like the Karrar, a jet-powered interceptor equipped with air-to-air missiles that can operate at 15,000 meters to deny U.S. drones freedom of action. The Israelis lost an unknown number of drones during the 12-day war, though losses were reported. Summary Does Iran have any advantage? At sea, against the current Carrier Strike Group and considering all of Iran's resources, I would say Iran holds an advantage, evidenced by factors such as missile range, number of containers, tubes, VLS cells, drones, mines, submarines, anti-ship missiles, and other assets. However, once the focus shifts from the sea to the air, the American advantage is overwhelming, both in satellite intelligence and in combat aviation. And this is the type of war the Americans know best.

Patricia Marins

30,566 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Even I wondered how CM Revanth Reddy confidently predicted 117 seats or more for the Congress while dismissing the claim that the BRS would win 78 seats based on surveys in same speech . It’s contradictory. Sources said, “firstly, there’s a clear difference between a prediction & a survey. First one is a political assessment. Second is measure public opinion at a given point in time. Secondly, the BRS’ 78-seat claim is based on the current 119-seat Assembly. Revanth Reddy’s prediction is for a post-delimitation scenario, where the Assembly is expected to expand to 182 seats. The internal joke was if they win 78seats in 2029, they still won’t form govt as that won’t be the majority post delimitation. May his words come true, sources giggled. Thirdly, I was told even BRS leaders themselves have repeatedly acknowledged that both delimitation and the possibility of One Nation, One Election remain on the table. Any survey internal or external of the next Assembly election has to account for those possibilities. Finally Let BRS respond. Another joke was there is an internal competition for who will send media invite first for press conference. As I was ending the conversation- tad came invite. “oh so Harish wasn’t fast this time”, sources laughed. Jokes apart, in the end, it comes down to one political reality that Telangana has demonstrated repeatedly: governments are often made or unmade in the final year, sometimes even in the last 6months before an election.
0:19

Even I wondered how CM Revanth Reddy confidently predicted 117 seats or more for the Congress while dismissing the claim that the BRS would win 78 seats based on surveys in same speech . It’s contradictory. Sources said, “firstly, there’s a clear difference between a prediction & a survey. First one is a political assessment. Second is measure public opinion at a given point in time. Secondly, the BRS’ 78-seat claim is based on the current 119-seat Assembly. Revanth Reddy’s prediction is for a post-delimitation scenario, where the Assembly is expected to expand to 182 seats. The internal joke was if they win 78seats in 2029, they still won’t form govt as that won’t be the majority post delimitation. May his words come true, sources giggled. Thirdly, I was told even BRS leaders themselves have repeatedly acknowledged that both delimitation and the possibility of One Nation, One Election remain on the table. Any survey internal or external of the next Assembly election has to account for those possibilities. Finally Let BRS respond. Another joke was there is an internal competition for who will send media invite first for press conference. As I was ending the conversation- tad came invite. “oh so Harish wasn’t fast this time”, sources laughed. Jokes apart, in the end, it comes down to one political reality that Telangana has demonstrated repeatedly: governments are often made or unmade in the final year, sometimes even in the last 6months before an election.

Naveena

22,132 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 ALERT AMERICA - WE HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT! FLORIDA DID NOT VOTE FOR AN ISLAMIC TAKEOVER A Foreign Islamic Government Just Opened an Investment Command Center in Miami – And No One Asked the People of Florida In February, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez proudly announced something no one in Florida voted for: “The Saudi Investment Promotion Authority is opening its first-ever Invest Saudi office right here in Miami.” He said this on stage at the FII Priority Summit — the Saudi state-backed investment conference often called “Davos in the Desert.” This year, it was held on American soil - in Miami - with Donald Trump and major global power brokers applauding. And in the middle of the ceremony, something unprecedented happened: Saudi Arabia officially planted its first sovereign investment office in Florida – and only its second in the United States. No legislation. No vote. No debate in the Florida House or Senate. No public oversight. A foreign government embedded itself in America’s economic system — and Miami’s mayor smiled for the cameras. 🚨 What Saudi Arabia Gains Inside the U.S. Through its $941B+ (approaching $1T) Public Investment Fund (PIF) and the Ministry of Investment, Saudi Arabia can now: Buy U.S. real estate Buy U.S. commercial buildings Buy into U.S. tech & AI Buy stakes in entertainment and sports Influence U.S. markets Host state-backed summits on U.S. soil Operate an official “Invest Saudi” office inside Miami This is unprecedented access for any foreign state. 🚨 And Saudi Isn’t Alone: Other Islamic Monarchies Are Already Deep Inside America While Florida opens the door for Riyadh, the UAE and Qatar have been quietly building massive U.S. economic empires - with no public approval. United Arab Emirates (UAE) Pledged $1.4 trillion in U.S. investments over 10 years (announced March 2025 under Trump). Mubadala (sovereign fund, $327B+) appointed its first head of Americas real estate in July 2025. Snapping up U.S. properties, tech, and infrastructure from New York to Silicon Valley. Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO) scouts U.S. innovation to convert into Emirati profit. 🚨 Qatar QIA ($557B fund) opened U.S. offices in New York (2015) and San Francisco. Has poured billions into Manhattan skyscrapers, Uber, Snapchat, and Hollywood. In May 2025, Qatar agreed to a $1.2 trillion economic exchange with the U.S. Includes the largest Boeing widebody order in history and $500B+ in new AI and energy investment. Americans are still blocked from owning Qatari media or strategic assets. 🚨 Combined Gulf Power Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar control well over $2.8 trillion in sovereign wealth — and are using it to buy influence across American sectors from sports to AI. None of this was approved by the American public. Now Ask the Only Question That Matters Can the United States open a government-backed “Invest America” office inside Riyadh, Dubai, or Doha? No. Absolutely not. It would be rejected instantly. These Islamic monarchies do not allow: U.S. ownership of their land U.S. ownership of their media U.S. ownership of government-adjacent real estate U.S. control of strategic infrastructure U.S. influence over their culture or policy A U.S. government investment office operating on their soil Americans in the Gulf can only work in sectors the regimes approve — never anything strategic. Yet Florida just opened its doors fully to them. Floridians Never Voted For This Florida residents didn’t approve this. The Legislature didn’t vote on it. The Governor didn’t authorize it. This was an elite decision made by Miami’s political and business class - turning the city into a playground for foreign sovereign wealth from Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha. A foreign government now has a permanent economic foothold in Florida, designed to: Deploy billions into U.S. markets Influence key American industries Expand Gulf reach into Latin America Position Miami as a foreign economic hub Increase U.S. dependence on Islamic monarchy capital 🚨 Not one Florida voter signed off. This Is About Sovereignty This is not about individuals or personal beliefs. This is about sovereignty, power, and national survival. No free nation survives when it allows foreign governments to do inside its borders what it cannot do inside theirs — especially governments that tightly restrict American access to their own markets. 🚨 So Ask Yourself Why is the United States allowing foreign influence that Gulf states would never tolerate? Why is Florida being used as the entry point? Why is Miami becoming the soft-power capital for foreign Islamic monarchies? Why are our leaders surrendering economic and technological leverage without public debate — to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar? And most importantly: Who gave them permission to sell off pieces of America without asking the American people?
0:12

🚨 ALERT AMERICA - WE HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT! FLORIDA DID NOT VOTE FOR AN ISLAMIC TAKEOVER A Foreign Islamic Government Just Opened an Investment Command Center in Miami – And No One Asked the People of Florida In February, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez proudly announced something no one in Florida voted for: “The Saudi Investment Promotion Authority is opening its first-ever Invest Saudi office right here in Miami.” He said this on stage at the FII Priority Summit — the Saudi state-backed investment conference often called “Davos in the Desert.” This year, it was held on American soil - in Miami - with Donald Trump and major global power brokers applauding. And in the middle of the ceremony, something unprecedented happened: Saudi Arabia officially planted its first sovereign investment office in Florida – and only its second in the United States. No legislation. No vote. No debate in the Florida House or Senate. No public oversight. A foreign government embedded itself in America’s economic system — and Miami’s mayor smiled for the cameras. 🚨 What Saudi Arabia Gains Inside the U.S. Through its $941B+ (approaching $1T) Public Investment Fund (PIF) and the Ministry of Investment, Saudi Arabia can now: Buy U.S. real estate Buy U.S. commercial buildings Buy into U.S. tech & AI Buy stakes in entertainment and sports Influence U.S. markets Host state-backed summits on U.S. soil Operate an official “Invest Saudi” office inside Miami This is unprecedented access for any foreign state. 🚨 And Saudi Isn’t Alone: Other Islamic Monarchies Are Already Deep Inside America While Florida opens the door for Riyadh, the UAE and Qatar have been quietly building massive U.S. economic empires - with no public approval. United Arab Emirates (UAE) Pledged $1.4 trillion in U.S. investments over 10 years (announced March 2025 under Trump). Mubadala (sovereign fund, $327B+) appointed its first head of Americas real estate in July 2025. Snapping up U.S. properties, tech, and infrastructure from New York to Silicon Valley. Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO) scouts U.S. innovation to convert into Emirati profit. 🚨 Qatar QIA ($557B fund) opened U.S. offices in New York (2015) and San Francisco. Has poured billions into Manhattan skyscrapers, Uber, Snapchat, and Hollywood. In May 2025, Qatar agreed to a $1.2 trillion economic exchange with the U.S. Includes the largest Boeing widebody order in history and $500B+ in new AI and energy investment. Americans are still blocked from owning Qatari media or strategic assets. 🚨 Combined Gulf Power Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar control well over $2.8 trillion in sovereign wealth — and are using it to buy influence across American sectors from sports to AI. None of this was approved by the American public. Now Ask the Only Question That Matters Can the United States open a government-backed “Invest America” office inside Riyadh, Dubai, or Doha? No. Absolutely not. It would be rejected instantly. These Islamic monarchies do not allow: U.S. ownership of their land U.S. ownership of their media U.S. ownership of government-adjacent real estate U.S. control of strategic infrastructure U.S. influence over their culture or policy A U.S. government investment office operating on their soil Americans in the Gulf can only work in sectors the regimes approve — never anything strategic. Yet Florida just opened its doors fully to them. Floridians Never Voted For This Florida residents didn’t approve this. The Legislature didn’t vote on it. The Governor didn’t authorize it. This was an elite decision made by Miami’s political and business class - turning the city into a playground for foreign sovereign wealth from Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha. A foreign government now has a permanent economic foothold in Florida, designed to: Deploy billions into U.S. markets Influence key American industries Expand Gulf reach into Latin America Position Miami as a foreign economic hub Increase U.S. dependence on Islamic monarchy capital 🚨 Not one Florida voter signed off. This Is About Sovereignty This is not about individuals or personal beliefs. This is about sovereignty, power, and national survival. No free nation survives when it allows foreign governments to do inside its borders what it cannot do inside theirs — especially governments that tightly restrict American access to their own markets. 🚨 So Ask Yourself Why is the United States allowing foreign influence that Gulf states would never tolerate? Why is Florida being used as the entry point? Why is Miami becoming the soft-power capital for foreign Islamic monarchies? Why are our leaders surrendering economic and technological leverage without public debate — to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar? And most importantly: Who gave them permission to sell off pieces of America without asking the American people?

Amy Mek

384,147 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

AOC's historical illiteracy is genuinely staggering even by her own low bar. The Senate was established in 1789 under the Constitution — Jim Crow laws didn't emerge until the late 19th century, roughly a hundred years later. She's off by an entire century and a completely different era of American history. What makes this particularly revealing isn't just the factual error — it's the pattern. She operates from a mental model where every American institution must be retroactively explained through the lens of racial oppression, so she just confidently asserts it as fact without even a cursory fact-check. The Senate wasn't "founded on Jim Crow." Jim Crow was a post-Reconstruction system of state and local laws. The Senate's structure — two per state — was a compromise between large and small states at the Constitutional Convention. You can critique that compromise on federalist grounds all day, but calling it Jim Crow is just making things up. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying the Roman Empire was founded on TikTok algorithms. Wrong century, wrong concept, wrong everything — but it feels right to her audience, and that's all that matters. The woman graduated from Boston University with a degree in economics and international relations. You'd think somewhere in those four years someone would have made her crack open a history book.
0:13

AOC's historical illiteracy is genuinely staggering even by her own low bar. The Senate was established in 1789 under the Constitution — Jim Crow laws didn't emerge until the late 19th century, roughly a hundred years later. She's off by an entire century and a completely different era of American history. What makes this particularly revealing isn't just the factual error — it's the pattern. She operates from a mental model where every American institution must be retroactively explained through the lens of racial oppression, so she just confidently asserts it as fact without even a cursory fact-check. The Senate wasn't "founded on Jim Crow." Jim Crow was a post-Reconstruction system of state and local laws. The Senate's structure — two per state — was a compromise between large and small states at the Constitutional Convention. You can critique that compromise on federalist grounds all day, but calling it Jim Crow is just making things up. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying the Roman Empire was founded on TikTok algorithms. Wrong century, wrong concept, wrong everything — but it feels right to her audience, and that's all that matters. The woman graduated from Boston University with a degree in economics and international relations. You'd think somewhere in those four years someone would have made her crack open a history book.

Tony Seruga

175,811 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Two Strong Contenders for Attorney General: Harmeet Dhillon & Alina Habba – Here’s Why Both Are Qualified With shifts at the DOJ, President Trump needs a fearless leader to restore the rule of law. Two standout America First names: Harmeet Dhillon (current Asst. AG for Civil Rights) and Alina Habba (former Acting US Attorney for NJ & Senior Advisor to the AG). Both are proven fighters. Here’s the breakdown. Harmeet Dhillon: Seasoned Constitutional Warrior - Dartmouth (A.B. Classics, editor of The Dartmouth Review) → UVA Law (J.D., Virginia Law Review) → Clerk for Judge Paul Niemeyer (4th Circuit) - Founded Dhillon Law Group (offices in CA, FL, VA, NJ) + Center for American Liberty - Battled Big Tech censorship, COVID mandates, Antifa violence, UC Berkeley free speech suppression, and defended religious liberty - Confirmed April 2025 as Asst. AG for Civil Rights (first Republican woman & Indian-American in the role). Already reforming the division to fight real civil rights abuses like antisemitism and DEI overreach. Elite credentials + deep DOJ experience. A polished litigator ready to lead at the highest level. Alina Habba: Fearless Loyalist & Jersey Fighter - Lehigh University (B.A. Political Science) → Widener Law (J.D.) - NJ roots: Law clerk for Superior Court judge → Partner at firms → Founded Habba Madaio & Associates in Bedminster, NJ - Rose as Trump’s personal attorney: Defended him in high-profile civil cases (E. Jean Carroll, NY business matters) and served as campaign advisor/spokesperson - Appointed Interim/Acting US Attorney for District of New Jersey (2025) — aggressively pushed immigration enforcement & anti-weaponization agenda in a tough blue state - Now Senior Advisor to the AG for U.S. Attorneys nationwide — hands-on experience managing federal prosecutors Raw tenacity, proven loyalty, and real-world execution under pressure. Both reject the weaponized DOJ of the past. Dhillon brings institutional depth, First Amendment expertise, and current high-level leadership — perfect for big-picture reforms on elections, Big Tech, and constitutional rights. Habba delivers street-level grit, direct Trump defense experience, and practical knowledge from running a major U.S. Attorney’s office while staying laser-focused on America First priorities. In Trump’s second term, the AG must drain the swamp, secure elections, enforce borders, and protect everyday Americans. Either would bring backbone and results. President Trump values loyalty + competence. Whichever he chooses — elevating Dhillon or tapping Habba — it signals fresh, fearless leadership at Justice. What’s your take? Dhillon’s credentials or Habba’s fight? Drop your thoughts below.
0:10

Two Strong Contenders for Attorney General: Harmeet Dhillon & Alina Habba – Here’s Why Both Are Qualified With shifts at the DOJ, President Trump needs a fearless leader to restore the rule of law. Two standout America First names: Harmeet Dhillon (current Asst. AG for Civil Rights) and Alina Habba (former Acting US Attorney for NJ & Senior Advisor to the AG). Both are proven fighters. Here’s the breakdown. Harmeet Dhillon: Seasoned Constitutional Warrior - Dartmouth (A.B. Classics, editor of The Dartmouth Review) → UVA Law (J.D., Virginia Law Review) → Clerk for Judge Paul Niemeyer (4th Circuit) - Founded Dhillon Law Group (offices in CA, FL, VA, NJ) + Center for American Liberty - Battled Big Tech censorship, COVID mandates, Antifa violence, UC Berkeley free speech suppression, and defended religious liberty - Confirmed April 2025 as Asst. AG for Civil Rights (first Republican woman & Indian-American in the role). Already reforming the division to fight real civil rights abuses like antisemitism and DEI overreach. Elite credentials + deep DOJ experience. A polished litigator ready to lead at the highest level. Alina Habba: Fearless Loyalist & Jersey Fighter - Lehigh University (B.A. Political Science) → Widener Law (J.D.) - NJ roots: Law clerk for Superior Court judge → Partner at firms → Founded Habba Madaio & Associates in Bedminster, NJ - Rose as Trump’s personal attorney: Defended him in high-profile civil cases (E. Jean Carroll, NY business matters) and served as campaign advisor/spokesperson - Appointed Interim/Acting US Attorney for District of New Jersey (2025) — aggressively pushed immigration enforcement & anti-weaponization agenda in a tough blue state - Now Senior Advisor to the AG for U.S. Attorneys nationwide — hands-on experience managing federal prosecutors Raw tenacity, proven loyalty, and real-world execution under pressure. Both reject the weaponized DOJ of the past. Dhillon brings institutional depth, First Amendment expertise, and current high-level leadership — perfect for big-picture reforms on elections, Big Tech, and constitutional rights. Habba delivers street-level grit, direct Trump defense experience, and practical knowledge from running a major U.S. Attorney’s office while staying laser-focused on America First priorities. In Trump’s second term, the AG must drain the swamp, secure elections, enforce borders, and protect everyday Americans. Either would bring backbone and results. President Trump values loyalty + competence. Whichever he chooses — elevating Dhillon or tapping Habba — it signals fresh, fearless leadership at Justice. What’s your take? Dhillon’s credentials or Habba’s fight? Drop your thoughts below.

🇺🇸Steve2A🇺🇸God🇺🇸Family🇺🇸Country🇺🇸

47,609 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

As a graphics engine coder I think when you look at a flickering bug like this one in the video below it’s not immediately obvious what is going on. The key here is observation - to study this flickering/bugged render carefully - what do we see? Firstly for me it was very obvious that nearly all of the scene shadows were flashing on and off - but (but!) there was a secondary issue where some buildings and parts of the sky were also flashing purple. Hmmmm. Interesting. I initially thought then this might be two separate bugs - but because the sky purple element could only based on full screen post fx and not 3D rendering I looked at this first with a few GPU captures to step through all our post processing to find the rendering stage which made these pixels turn purple: When I did this I found the colour 3D texture LUT grading that makes our different biomes have unique colour palettes was going very wrong - colours near 0 or 1 were wrapping and making the purple elements that we see in the said sky and base parts. The only way this could happen was if the texture was corrupt (which it was not) or if the 3D texture sampling was wrapping and not clamped as intended. That was the Eureka moment - because if the post fx had the wrong texture sampler then the disappearing shadows which also require an exact texture sampler for comparing depth might be also wrong because of the same kind of texture sampling issue! So with this idea that the engine was using the wrong texture samplers, but only in very high draw call scenes like the big base here I the looked at some engine limits and found the bug very quickly - a circular dx12 descriptor buffer for samplers running out over multiple frames, reusing the wrong data for new scenes inflight. Hence the flickering, as the GPU randomly got wrong samplers for some post textures or shadow depth. Easy to fix with triple limits for future expansion and also adding an assert/debug spam in case this limit is ever reached again - QA testers would see this message and report if they ever saw a flicker with this style of bug. My bug and my bad from 2017 porting NMS to DX12 without foreseeing how massively complex bases and our game would grow.
0:14

As a graphics engine coder I think when you look at a flickering bug like this one in the video below it’s not immediately obvious what is going on. The key here is observation - to study this flickering/bugged render carefully - what do we see? Firstly for me it was very obvious that nearly all of the scene shadows were flashing on and off - but (but!) there was a secondary issue where some buildings and parts of the sky were also flashing purple. Hmmmm. Interesting. I initially thought then this might be two separate bugs - but because the sky purple element could only based on full screen post fx and not 3D rendering I looked at this first with a few GPU captures to step through all our post processing to find the rendering stage which made these pixels turn purple: When I did this I found the colour 3D texture LUT grading that makes our different biomes have unique colour palettes was going very wrong - colours near 0 or 1 were wrapping and making the purple elements that we see in the said sky and base parts. The only way this could happen was if the texture was corrupt (which it was not) or if the 3D texture sampling was wrapping and not clamped as intended. That was the Eureka moment - because if the post fx had the wrong texture sampler then the disappearing shadows which also require an exact texture sampler for comparing depth might be also wrong because of the same kind of texture sampling issue! So with this idea that the engine was using the wrong texture samplers, but only in very high draw call scenes like the big base here I the looked at some engine limits and found the bug very quickly - a circular dx12 descriptor buffer for samplers running out over multiple frames, reusing the wrong data for new scenes inflight. Hence the flickering, as the GPU randomly got wrong samplers for some post textures or shadow depth. Easy to fix with triple limits for future expansion and also adding an assert/debug spam in case this limit is ever reached again - QA testers would see this message and report if they ever saw a flicker with this style of bug. My bug and my bad from 2017 porting NMS to DX12 without foreseeing how massively complex bases and our game would grow.

Martin Griffiths

72,828 просмотров • 1 год назад

Hi Maria Ressa I am addressing this long post to you here on X, knowing it will reach you directly. In a decade from now, you could ask any listener what they remember from your Harvard commencement speech, and the vast majority would only recall these shocking words from your 23-minute address. “Because I accepted your invitation to be here today, I was attacked online and called anti-semitic. By power and money”, Because they want power and money.” Words you carefully selected, reviewed, and edited for months, a speech that you describe was more difficult for you to prepare than your The Nobel Prize acceptance lecture. In the Ethics of The Fathers 1:11, Avtalyon, the great rabbinic sage from Jerusalem, in the 1st century BCE cautioned, "Sages, be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be carried off to a place of evil waters." Your words hold weight, and it's vital to avoid ambiguity and imprecision, as they can lead people astray. Your Nobel Prize celebrated your defense of free speech and your commitment to combating fake news and misinformation, and speaking truth to power. Your entire career and public role is to amplify the words of King Solomon in Proverbs “Words kill, words give life; they're either poison or fruit—you choose. You are a leading voice in warning of the danger of how conspiratorial words online can lead to physical hate offline. One of the most pernicious outcomes of social media is the record level of Antisemtic and hate speech targeted at Jews in 2024. Shockingly, during your commencement speech, you violated the values you espouse by allowing your words to be interpreted to fan the flames of age old tropes of Jew hatred of how they lust for money and power. While I acknowledge that your intention may not have been directed against Jews with money and power, but rather against those in politics, media, and business including Harvard Alumni, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who accused you of being antisemitic online, because they seek power and wealth, you knew that your words would easily be misconstrued. When you stood on that podium, it was your voice that was the power. Now it is the public that must demand a clarification to speak truth to your power. The President of Harvard Chabad, Rabbi Hershey Zarchi, was correct to ask you to clarify your words on stage, immediately after the speech, that he and many others found to be antisemitic and when you would not agree to publicly clarify, he did the most important public protest against your easily misconstrued words and walked off the stage. The walk off of the year, this time standing tall with truth to your power. You should clarify your words and explain what you meant and who you were referring to on one side and apologize for failing to be vigilant in avoiding language that inadvertently fuels bigotry, Jew hatred and discrimination. You also used similar words later in your speech to describe Mark Zuckerberg and the tech bros, controlling the world. When George Soros was named in political attack ads by the right, during the last presidential election cycle, it was rightfully called out by the left as antisemetic tropes. I wouldn’t otherwise include your words against Mark Zuckerberg as antisemetic tropes, as I believe his success and the power of Meta/ Facebook to be the fulfillment of what is possible in the USA. Considering how you were carefully vague on who you were referring to in your response to those calling you antisemitic, your attack on Mark Zuckerberg can also be misconstrued as another “Jew” controlling the world. Yes, it is horrible and unnerving to be accused of being Antisemitic, hate speech was hurled at you during your career from being accused of being part of the CIA to being a communist, you should relate personally to what has long been done to Jews no matter if they are rich, poor, exalted or downtrodden.
0:18

Hi Maria Ressa I am addressing this long post to you here on X, knowing it will reach you directly. In a decade from now, you could ask any listener what they remember from your Harvard commencement speech, and the vast majority would only recall these shocking words from your 23-minute address. “Because I accepted your invitation to be here today, I was attacked online and called anti-semitic. By power and money”, Because they want power and money.” Words you carefully selected, reviewed, and edited for months, a speech that you describe was more difficult for you to prepare than your The Nobel Prize acceptance lecture. In the Ethics of The Fathers 1:11, Avtalyon, the great rabbinic sage from Jerusalem, in the 1st century BCE cautioned, "Sages, be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be carried off to a place of evil waters." Your words hold weight, and it's vital to avoid ambiguity and imprecision, as they can lead people astray. Your Nobel Prize celebrated your defense of free speech and your commitment to combating fake news and misinformation, and speaking truth to power. Your entire career and public role is to amplify the words of King Solomon in Proverbs “Words kill, words give life; they're either poison or fruit—you choose. You are a leading voice in warning of the danger of how conspiratorial words online can lead to physical hate offline. One of the most pernicious outcomes of social media is the record level of Antisemtic and hate speech targeted at Jews in 2024. Shockingly, during your commencement speech, you violated the values you espouse by allowing your words to be interpreted to fan the flames of age old tropes of Jew hatred of how they lust for money and power. While I acknowledge that your intention may not have been directed against Jews with money and power, but rather against those in politics, media, and business including Harvard Alumni, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who accused you of being antisemitic online, because they seek power and wealth, you knew that your words would easily be misconstrued. When you stood on that podium, it was your voice that was the power. Now it is the public that must demand a clarification to speak truth to your power. The President of Harvard Chabad, Rabbi Hershey Zarchi, was correct to ask you to clarify your words on stage, immediately after the speech, that he and many others found to be antisemitic and when you would not agree to publicly clarify, he did the most important public protest against your easily misconstrued words and walked off the stage. The walk off of the year, this time standing tall with truth to your power. You should clarify your words and explain what you meant and who you were referring to on one side and apologize for failing to be vigilant in avoiding language that inadvertently fuels bigotry, Jew hatred and discrimination. You also used similar words later in your speech to describe Mark Zuckerberg and the tech bros, controlling the world. When George Soros was named in political attack ads by the right, during the last presidential election cycle, it was rightfully called out by the left as antisemetic tropes. I wouldn’t otherwise include your words against Mark Zuckerberg as antisemetic tropes, as I believe his success and the power of Meta/ Facebook to be the fulfillment of what is possible in the USA. Considering how you were carefully vague on who you were referring to in your response to those calling you antisemitic, your attack on Mark Zuckerberg can also be misconstrued as another “Jew” controlling the world. Yes, it is horrible and unnerving to be accused of being Antisemitic, hate speech was hurled at you during your career from being accused of being part of the CIA to being a communist, you should relate personally to what has long been done to Jews no matter if they are rich, poor, exalted or downtrodden.

Avraham Berkowitz

193,461 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Part One: Are you Libtards SURE you want to talk about Arlington? Are you sure you want to talk about the National Guard? I don’t believe you are… I’ve got the FIRE for your “smoke” 🔥 First off, this “Press Conference” is a part of a Military Occupation, Government in Exile, and Continuity of Operations all outlined in Military Laws, Orders, Regulations, Customs, paired with multiple Executive Orders with National Emergencies = Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs expand the Powers of the President known as Wartime Powers), Treaties, and bipartisan Federal Legislation. Second, the problem we have, too many know how to whine, complain, and distract people from how this Nation functions and operates = Legislation. 👉🏻 99.99999999% of Liberals. 👉🏻 85% of “Republicans.” The Military was founded first in this Nation. United States Army - June 14, 1775 War Articles (Military Law) - June 30, 1775 Continental Navy - October 13, 1775 Continental Marine Corps - November 10, 1775 Union Jack Flag (First Flag) - December 3, 1775 Declaration of Independence - July 4, 1776 United States Flag - June 14, 1777 Articles of Confederation - November 15, 1777 United States Constitution - September 17, 1787 Bill of Rights - December 15, 1791 Unconventional Warfare Publication by the Special Operations Command, April 2016, outlines a Government in Exile, which is a WWII History repeat operated by the United States Military. The Military Justice Act of 2016 is the United States Supreme Court clarifying Military Laws are separate from Federal. Liberals know NOTHING about our Military, Military History, Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, all while “claiming” to “support” them. “We the People” are the Government. The Declaration of Independence outlines our Rights as Americans fought and written and outlined by our Founders. The Constitution is a FRAMEWORK of how our Government is to operate and function to keep CONGRESS, our Representatives, in check. It’s been so jacked up for DECADES that 99% of people don’t even know what it’s supposed to look like. That’s fine. Only 1.7% to 1.9% fought each year during the Revolutionary War. Lead, Follow, or get the HELL out of the way. This “Press Conference” is FULL DISCLOSURE. “I will refer you to the Department of the Army.” “I will refer you to the National Guard.” “The Army has closed this issue.” This whole Arlington National Cemetery thing brings EVERYTHING from January 20, 2017, November 3, 2020, January 6, 2021, and January 20, 2021, FULL CIRCLE. “Be careful what you wish for.” - President Trump You heard the lady… “Refer to Arlington National Cemetery Rules and Regulations.” I also guess that's why on January 20, 2021, all these things took place: 1. National Guard on the perimeter of D.C., who were all the real National Guard, did NOT salute "Bidens" motorcade as it passed by. 2. The "National Guard" on the inside of the perimeter, seen up close on TV, their uniforms were ALL mismatched and NON-REGULATION, all Violations of Army Regulations 670-1. 3. "Biden" did not receive the traditional flight into D.C. on Air Force One by the United States Air Force as ALL other President-Elects. 4. 'Amazing Grace' was performed for "Biden" which is found in the Memorial Honors Army dot Mil. Page 9: ( 5. "Biden" raised his right hand and took Oath at 11:47 AM EST which is a violation of the 20th Amendment of the Constitution that specifically says: "The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." Keyword: shall THEN. I guess that's why every other President swore in from 12:01 to 12:05 PM EST.
4:07

Part One: Are you Libtards SURE you want to talk about Arlington? Are you sure you want to talk about the National Guard? I don’t believe you are… I’ve got the FIRE for your “smoke” 🔥 First off, this “Press Conference” is a part of a Military Occupation, Government in Exile, and Continuity of Operations all outlined in Military Laws, Orders, Regulations, Customs, paired with multiple Executive Orders with National Emergencies = Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs expand the Powers of the President known as Wartime Powers), Treaties, and bipartisan Federal Legislation. Second, the problem we have, too many know how to whine, complain, and distract people from how this Nation functions and operates = Legislation. 👉🏻 99.99999999% of Liberals. 👉🏻 85% of “Republicans.” The Military was founded first in this Nation. United States Army - June 14, 1775 War Articles (Military Law) - June 30, 1775 Continental Navy - October 13, 1775 Continental Marine Corps - November 10, 1775 Union Jack Flag (First Flag) - December 3, 1775 Declaration of Independence - July 4, 1776 United States Flag - June 14, 1777 Articles of Confederation - November 15, 1777 United States Constitution - September 17, 1787 Bill of Rights - December 15, 1791 Unconventional Warfare Publication by the Special Operations Command, April 2016, outlines a Government in Exile, which is a WWII History repeat operated by the United States Military. The Military Justice Act of 2016 is the United States Supreme Court clarifying Military Laws are separate from Federal. Liberals know NOTHING about our Military, Military History, Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, all while “claiming” to “support” them. “We the People” are the Government. The Declaration of Independence outlines our Rights as Americans fought and written and outlined by our Founders. The Constitution is a FRAMEWORK of how our Government is to operate and function to keep CONGRESS, our Representatives, in check. It’s been so jacked up for DECADES that 99% of people don’t even know what it’s supposed to look like. That’s fine. Only 1.7% to 1.9% fought each year during the Revolutionary War. Lead, Follow, or get the HELL out of the way. This “Press Conference” is FULL DISCLOSURE. “I will refer you to the Department of the Army.” “I will refer you to the National Guard.” “The Army has closed this issue.” This whole Arlington National Cemetery thing brings EVERYTHING from January 20, 2017, November 3, 2020, January 6, 2021, and January 20, 2021, FULL CIRCLE. “Be careful what you wish for.” - President Trump You heard the lady… “Refer to Arlington National Cemetery Rules and Regulations.” I also guess that's why on January 20, 2021, all these things took place: 1. National Guard on the perimeter of D.C., who were all the real National Guard, did NOT salute "Bidens" motorcade as it passed by. 2. The "National Guard" on the inside of the perimeter, seen up close on TV, their uniforms were ALL mismatched and NON-REGULATION, all Violations of Army Regulations 670-1. 3. "Biden" did not receive the traditional flight into D.C. on Air Force One by the United States Air Force as ALL other President-Elects. 4. 'Amazing Grace' was performed for "Biden" which is found in the Memorial Honors Army dot Mil. Page 9: ( 5. "Biden" raised his right hand and took Oath at 11:47 AM EST which is a violation of the 20th Amendment of the Constitution that specifically says: "The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." Keyword: shall THEN. I guess that's why every other President swore in from 12:01 to 12:05 PM EST.

Derek Johnson

91,513 просмотров • 1 год назад

FACT Check: Conservatives are attacking Biden saying he's requiring Americans Trapped in Israel, who want to leave, sign a promissory note to repay costs? FACTS: This has been US policy for at least 79 years! Although the United States government is requiring individuals who intend to be evacuated sign a promissory note (known as the form DS-5528), this has been a US policy going back to at least 1944. President Trump required those evacuated from foreign nations sign the same note and reimburse costs just like Biden is and all the previous presidents have since 1944. Here's what the US State Department website (which was active during Trump's President says about Form DS-5528? "Generally, individuals evacuated on a U.S. government-coordinated transport, including charter and military flights or ships, even if those transports are provided by another country’s government, must sign an Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note (Form DS-5528) note prior to departure. The Department of State uses the Form DS-5528 to document who got on which transport, and it lets us know how to contact evacuees for billing purposes. U.S. law requires that departure assistance to private U.S. citizens or third country nationals be provided “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable.” By taking a U.S. government coordinated transport, evacuees are obligated to repay the cost of their transportation. The amount billed to evacuees is based on the cost of a full fare economy flight, or comparable alternate transportation, to the designated destination(s) that would have been charged immediately prior to the events giving rise to the evacuation. Because different evacuation transports may go to different destinations, the cost of one transport may be different than another. We encourage people to leave on the first transport they are able and eligible to board." FACTS MATTER. Stop spreading misinformation.
0:13

FACT Check: Conservatives are attacking Biden saying he's requiring Americans Trapped in Israel, who want to leave, sign a promissory note to repay costs? FACTS: This has been US policy for at least 79 years! Although the United States government is requiring individuals who intend to be evacuated sign a promissory note (known as the form DS-5528), this has been a US policy going back to at least 1944. President Trump required those evacuated from foreign nations sign the same note and reimburse costs just like Biden is and all the previous presidents have since 1944. Here's what the US State Department website (which was active during Trump's President says about Form DS-5528? "Generally, individuals evacuated on a U.S. government-coordinated transport, including charter and military flights or ships, even if those transports are provided by another country’s government, must sign an Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note (Form DS-5528) note prior to departure. The Department of State uses the Form DS-5528 to document who got on which transport, and it lets us know how to contact evacuees for billing purposes. U.S. law requires that departure assistance to private U.S. citizens or third country nationals be provided “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable.” By taking a U.S. government coordinated transport, evacuees are obligated to repay the cost of their transportation. The amount billed to evacuees is based on the cost of a full fare economy flight, or comparable alternate transportation, to the designated destination(s) that would have been charged immediately prior to the events giving rise to the evacuation. Because different evacuation transports may go to different destinations, the cost of one transport may be different than another. We encourage people to leave on the first transport they are able and eligible to board." FACTS MATTER. Stop spreading misinformation.

Brian Krassenstein

904,508 просмотров • 2 лет назад

ALERT: Another Media hoax Trump: "Our whole country will end up being like Detroit if she's (Harris) your president." The local press and politician are going berserk here in Michigan. The Outrage! (Watch the Harris commercial during the Lions/Cowboys game today.) Except it's fake. A 6 second clip was ripped from 7,380 seconds of Trump's speech delivered to the Detroit Economic Club last week, and disseminated by a bumptious blowhard who thinks his colonoscopy is worthy of a tweet. But look closer (or watch below). As has become custom with the increasingly irrelevant media, Trump's statement was taken wildly out of context. Trump spoke at great length and quite clearly about how the auto industry thrived here until politicians, greedy corporate leaders, their lobbyists and the gullible media pushed for terrible trade deals that have allowed foreign nations to come in and take our markets, jobs and factories. Trump rattled off tariffs on US products in other countries. He rightly said this was happening not only with cars but with other American products with no reciprocal pushback from US political and business leaders. He railed against neo-liberal/neo-con globalists who are destroying our country's manufacturing base and gutting our cities. That, if we let them keep going, America ad a whole will suffer as Detroit has. That was his point. About an hour into his speech, Trump said if you elect Harris, you'll get more of the same: "Our whole country will end up being like Detroit if she's your president." The media ripped this 6 seconds and presented it in isolation. Misleading snippets. Ugly stuff. A true threat to democracy. What the press does not report: On Monday, before Trump's speech, ~2,500 Chrysler workers in Warren, Michigan were shown the door by their corporate masters, now headquartered in Europe. On Friday, after Trump's speech, ~2,000 Detroit Jeep workers we're put on extended "temporary" layoff. The press plays political games. And the corrupt politicians take them to lunch. They're running a hustle on us. I have attached the mayor of Detroit's tantrum tweet. Let's fact check him: + Detroit's crime data is heavily massaged to put it generously. Nevertheless, the Motor City remains rated as America's second most dangerous city. + Detroit's population would continue to be sinking if it weren't for the influx of illegal immigrants. + Detroit's tax revenues, when adjusted for inflation, are less than they were during the year of its historic bankruptcy. + Meanwhile, property taxes remain the highest of any major American city, and the schools among the worst. You are correct Mr. Mayor. You did that all by yourself.
0:24

ALERT: Another Media hoax Trump: "Our whole country will end up being like Detroit if she's (Harris) your president." The local press and politician are going berserk here in Michigan. The Outrage! (Watch the Harris commercial during the Lions/Cowboys game today.) Except it's fake. A 6 second clip was ripped from 7,380 seconds of Trump's speech delivered to the Detroit Economic Club last week, and disseminated by a bumptious blowhard who thinks his colonoscopy is worthy of a tweet. But look closer (or watch below). As has become custom with the increasingly irrelevant media, Trump's statement was taken wildly out of context. Trump spoke at great length and quite clearly about how the auto industry thrived here until politicians, greedy corporate leaders, their lobbyists and the gullible media pushed for terrible trade deals that have allowed foreign nations to come in and take our markets, jobs and factories. Trump rattled off tariffs on US products in other countries. He rightly said this was happening not only with cars but with other American products with no reciprocal pushback from US political and business leaders. He railed against neo-liberal/neo-con globalists who are destroying our country's manufacturing base and gutting our cities. That, if we let them keep going, America ad a whole will suffer as Detroit has. That was his point. About an hour into his speech, Trump said if you elect Harris, you'll get more of the same: "Our whole country will end up being like Detroit if she's your president." The media ripped this 6 seconds and presented it in isolation. Misleading snippets. Ugly stuff. A true threat to democracy. What the press does not report: On Monday, before Trump's speech, ~2,500 Chrysler workers in Warren, Michigan were shown the door by their corporate masters, now headquartered in Europe. On Friday, after Trump's speech, ~2,000 Detroit Jeep workers we're put on extended "temporary" layoff. The press plays political games. And the corrupt politicians take them to lunch. They're running a hustle on us. I have attached the mayor of Detroit's tantrum tweet. Let's fact check him: + Detroit's crime data is heavily massaged to put it generously. Nevertheless, the Motor City remains rated as America's second most dangerous city. + Detroit's population would continue to be sinking if it weren't for the influx of illegal immigrants. + Detroit's tax revenues, when adjusted for inflation, are less than they were during the year of its historic bankruptcy. + Meanwhile, property taxes remain the highest of any major American city, and the schools among the worst. You are correct Mr. Mayor. You did that all by yourself.

Charlie LeDuff

91,685 просмотров • 1 год назад

“IYALOJA GENERAL” IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Ever since the purported “installation” of a new ”Iyaloja” in Edo State by Mrs. Folasade Tinubu-Ojo, who styles herself the Iyaloja-General of Nigeria, I have been inundated with questions asking me to comment. Because of my ongoing investigation into the Edo State vs EuroAfrica CCI $250 Million deal, I initially held back. But after reviewing the Nigerian Constitution and relevant statutory frameworks, it is clear that the very concept and office of an Iyaloja-General is not only alien to Edo culture, but also illegal unconstitutional, and without statutory authority. Consequently, it has no legal power to confer titles in Edo State. Let us break this down carefully: 1. Is “Iyaloja-General” a constituted office? No. There is no federal constitutional or statutory office called “Iyaloja-General.” The 1999 Constitution (as amended) lists federal and state offices, commissions, and authorities. The title “Iyaloja-General” does not appear anywhere. It is a traditional or civil-society designation, not a public office created by law. 2. Do states have market women’s associations? Yes, but these are typically private associations, registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020. They enjoy legal personality but have no governmental authority. Some states, such as Lagos, have created state-level market councils by law, but this is not universal and is strictly state-specific. 3. In Benin, what regulates the Iyeki role? The Oba of Benin has made it clear: market leadership in Benin is guided by the Iyeki system, a traditional office. Traders in each market choose their Iyeki, and the Oba’s palace confirms the selection. Iyeki duties are cultural and administrative, rooted in Benin tradition. There is no Edo State statute that overrides this customary process. 4. What authority does an “Iyaloja-General” have in Edo? None. Under the Nigerian Constitution, there is no power for an “Iyaloja-General” to install market leaders in Edo. At best, such an appointment would carry weight only inside her private association, not within Edo’s traditional or legal framework. For context, Lagos State is considering a Market Authority Bill that proposes an advisory council where an Iyaloja-General may be mentioned. But that is Lagos State law, not federal law, and it does not extend to Edo. 5. How much is the Edo State Government backing this? Despite the Oba’s firm rejection of the Iyaloja concept in Benin, the so-called installation was hosted inside the Edo State Government House. Reports confirm that top officials attended: the governor’s sister (who's the "first lady" of Edo State, representing her brother), the Commissioner for Women Affairs, the Commissioner for Health (Dr Cyril Oshiomhole), and several others in Governor Okpebholo’s administration. During the event, promises of “2.5 million votes” for President Tinubu in the 2027 elections were openly made. That raises urgent questions: • Was this really a customary installation, or a political rally disguised as tradition? • Why has the Edo State Governor himself remained silent since? • Why did the state government lend institutional weight to an office that is neither constitutional, nor statutory, nor indigenous to Edo culture? 6. On the ethnic spin Some have tried to frame this as an ethnic quarrel. That is misleading. The Oba of Benin never reduced the matter to who was installed, but to what was being installed. His objection was categorical: the very concept of an Iyaloja-General is alien to Benin tradition. Therefore, even if it had been an Edo woman from Ogbe who was “installed,” it would still be wrong. This is a matter of legality and culture, not ethnicity. My conclusion From a legal perspective, the title “Iyaloja-General of Nigeria” is nonexistent in the Constitution. From a cultural perspective, it is alien to Benin tradition.
0:15

“IYALOJA GENERAL” IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Ever since the purported “installation” of a new ”Iyaloja” in Edo State by Mrs. Folasade Tinubu-Ojo, who styles herself the Iyaloja-General of Nigeria, I have been inundated with questions asking me to comment. Because of my ongoing investigation into the Edo State vs EuroAfrica CCI $250 Million deal, I initially held back. But after reviewing the Nigerian Constitution and relevant statutory frameworks, it is clear that the very concept and office of an Iyaloja-General is not only alien to Edo culture, but also illegal unconstitutional, and without statutory authority. Consequently, it has no legal power to confer titles in Edo State. Let us break this down carefully: 1. Is “Iyaloja-General” a constituted office? No. There is no federal constitutional or statutory office called “Iyaloja-General.” The 1999 Constitution (as amended) lists federal and state offices, commissions, and authorities. The title “Iyaloja-General” does not appear anywhere. It is a traditional or civil-society designation, not a public office created by law. 2. Do states have market women’s associations? Yes, but these are typically private associations, registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020. They enjoy legal personality but have no governmental authority. Some states, such as Lagos, have created state-level market councils by law, but this is not universal and is strictly state-specific. 3. In Benin, what regulates the Iyeki role? The Oba of Benin has made it clear: market leadership in Benin is guided by the Iyeki system, a traditional office. Traders in each market choose their Iyeki, and the Oba’s palace confirms the selection. Iyeki duties are cultural and administrative, rooted in Benin tradition. There is no Edo State statute that overrides this customary process. 4. What authority does an “Iyaloja-General” have in Edo? None. Under the Nigerian Constitution, there is no power for an “Iyaloja-General” to install market leaders in Edo. At best, such an appointment would carry weight only inside her private association, not within Edo’s traditional or legal framework. For context, Lagos State is considering a Market Authority Bill that proposes an advisory council where an Iyaloja-General may be mentioned. But that is Lagos State law, not federal law, and it does not extend to Edo. 5. How much is the Edo State Government backing this? Despite the Oba’s firm rejection of the Iyaloja concept in Benin, the so-called installation was hosted inside the Edo State Government House. Reports confirm that top officials attended: the governor’s sister (who's the "first lady" of Edo State, representing her brother), the Commissioner for Women Affairs, the Commissioner for Health (Dr Cyril Oshiomhole), and several others in Governor Okpebholo’s administration. During the event, promises of “2.5 million votes” for President Tinubu in the 2027 elections were openly made. That raises urgent questions: • Was this really a customary installation, or a political rally disguised as tradition? • Why has the Edo State Governor himself remained silent since? • Why did the state government lend institutional weight to an office that is neither constitutional, nor statutory, nor indigenous to Edo culture? 6. On the ethnic spin Some have tried to frame this as an ethnic quarrel. That is misleading. The Oba of Benin never reduced the matter to who was installed, but to what was being installed. His objection was categorical: the very concept of an Iyaloja-General is alien to Benin tradition. Therefore, even if it had been an Edo woman from Ogbe who was “installed,” it would still be wrong. This is a matter of legality and culture, not ethnicity. My conclusion From a legal perspective, the title “Iyaloja-General of Nigeria” is nonexistent in the Constitution. From a cultural perspective, it is alien to Benin tradition.

IZZY OMORUYI

23,701 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

What Will The International Community Say Now? When former President Mohamed Farmaajo engineered parliament’s extension of his term in 2021, he argued that he had not personally extended his mandate — that parliament had given him the extension. Last night, Prez Hassan Sheikh Mohamud made a similar argument in the attached video, stating that parliament, through the constitutional changes he spearheaded, had given themselves — as well as him and his cabinet — an additional year in office. This is despite his earlier public position that his mandate was four years and that even if the constitution were amended to provide for five-year terms, such changes would not apply to him, parliament, or his cabinet, but only to the next government. Below are selected quotes showing how the international community reacted in April 2021 when Farmaajo’s term extension was announced. I am wondering what they will say now, particularly given that U.S. Embassy Mogadishu, Somalia and UK in Somalia🇬🇧🇸🇴 representatives convened and facilitated three days of mediation talks. The African Union Peace and Security Council: “Condemns the actions of 12 April 2021 by the House of the People, which extended the mandate of the President and the Parliament, as effectively delaying the elections, thereby undermining unity and stability of the country, the nascent democratic and constitutional processes, which also threaten the relative peace and security, as well as the important gains that Somalia has made over the years with the support of the AU and other partners with huge sacrifices;” April 2021 — UN Security Council: “called on all parties to reject violence and resume dialogue as a matter of urgency and without precondition. They called on Somalia’s leaders to recognise and build upon the many areas of agreement already reached, to resolve their remaining differences and to put the interests of the people of Somalia first, within a Somali-owned, Somali-led electoral process, and with an agreed timetable, as soon as possible”; April 13, 2021 — European Union: “Yesterday, the Lower House of the Somali Parliament voted to a de-facto extension of the mandate of the President and the Federal Government by two years … This action undermines the longstanding effort, supported by the EU and the international community, to rebuild Somalia through consensus. The international community, including the EU, have repeatedly and publicly expressed that we could under no circumstances accept an extension of the government mandate, or any partial or parallel process related to the elections …The European Union believes that the passage and signing of this resolution will divide Somalia, impose additional delays and constitute a grave threat to the peace and stability of Somalia and its neighbours. It certainly does not serve the interests of the people of Somalia. April 13, 2021 — USA “The United States Opposes Federal Government Term Extensions Press Statement — Secretary of State “The United States is deeply disappointed by the Federal Government of Somalia’s decision to approve a legislative bill that extends the mandates of the president and parliament by two years. We have stressed repeatedly that … the United States does not support mandate extensions … Such actions would be deeply divisive, undermine the federalism process and political reforms that have been at the heart of the country’s progress and partnership with the international community, and divert attention away from countering al-Shabaab.” Also attached is a video and transcript of then-opposition leader imploring Somalia’s international partners to take a firm stand and call a spade a spade: “Friends of Somalia, we will advise them to be part of the solution. They should stand with where the solution lies, and they should tell any individual who is obstructing a solution: stop, you are not contributing to a resolution.” “Problems should not be allowed to drag on and fester…” says the then opposition leader HSM
0:32

What Will The International Community Say Now? When former President Mohamed Farmaajo engineered parliament’s extension of his term in 2021, he argued that he had not personally extended his mandate — that parliament had given him the extension. Last night, Prez Hassan Sheikh Mohamud made a similar argument in the attached video, stating that parliament, through the constitutional changes he spearheaded, had given themselves — as well as him and his cabinet — an additional year in office. This is despite his earlier public position that his mandate was four years and that even if the constitution were amended to provide for five-year terms, such changes would not apply to him, parliament, or his cabinet, but only to the next government. Below are selected quotes showing how the international community reacted in April 2021 when Farmaajo’s term extension was announced. I am wondering what they will say now, particularly given that U.S. Embassy Mogadishu, Somalia and UK in Somalia🇬🇧🇸🇴 representatives convened and facilitated three days of mediation talks. The African Union Peace and Security Council: “Condemns the actions of 12 April 2021 by the House of the People, which extended the mandate of the President and the Parliament, as effectively delaying the elections, thereby undermining unity and stability of the country, the nascent democratic and constitutional processes, which also threaten the relative peace and security, as well as the important gains that Somalia has made over the years with the support of the AU and other partners with huge sacrifices;” April 2021 — UN Security Council: “called on all parties to reject violence and resume dialogue as a matter of urgency and without precondition. They called on Somalia’s leaders to recognise and build upon the many areas of agreement already reached, to resolve their remaining differences and to put the interests of the people of Somalia first, within a Somali-owned, Somali-led electoral process, and with an agreed timetable, as soon as possible”; April 13, 2021 — European Union: “Yesterday, the Lower House of the Somali Parliament voted to a de-facto extension of the mandate of the President and the Federal Government by two years … This action undermines the longstanding effort, supported by the EU and the international community, to rebuild Somalia through consensus. The international community, including the EU, have repeatedly and publicly expressed that we could under no circumstances accept an extension of the government mandate, or any partial or parallel process related to the elections …The European Union believes that the passage and signing of this resolution will divide Somalia, impose additional delays and constitute a grave threat to the peace and stability of Somalia and its neighbours. It certainly does not serve the interests of the people of Somalia. April 13, 2021 — USA “The United States Opposes Federal Government Term Extensions Press Statement — Secretary of State “The United States is deeply disappointed by the Federal Government of Somalia’s decision to approve a legislative bill that extends the mandates of the president and parliament by two years. We have stressed repeatedly that … the United States does not support mandate extensions … Such actions would be deeply divisive, undermine the federalism process and political reforms that have been at the heart of the country’s progress and partnership with the international community, and divert attention away from countering al-Shabaab.” Also attached is a video and transcript of then-opposition leader imploring Somalia’s international partners to take a firm stand and call a spade a spade: “Friends of Somalia, we will advise them to be part of the solution. They should stand with where the solution lies, and they should tell any individual who is obstructing a solution: stop, you are not contributing to a resolution.” “Problems should not be allowed to drag on and fester…” says the then opposition leader HSM

Abdirashid Hashi

13,537 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

PRESS RELEASE 🚨 Title: Pakistani Activist State-Led Intimidation After Criticizing Punjab Leadership [Gujrat ,Pakistan 20-07-2025] A Pakistani social media activist Aladeen and political commentator is facing state-backed harassment, threats, and surveillance in response to public criticism of Punjab’s Chief Minister, Maryam Nawaz, and the provincial administration's handling of corruption, governance, and human rights concerns. In the past two weeks, the activist, who is choosing to remain temporarily anonymous due to ongoing death threats, has been vocal on digital platforms about: • Multi-billion rupee corruption scandals under the current Punjab government, • Administrative failure during recent monsoon flooding in the province, • And the alleged abduction of a political figure known as Sajid Chacha, raising concerns of enforced disappearances. As retaliation, the following events have taken place: • A fake First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against the activist by Punjab Police under vague allegations of "spreading social media unrest". • 20-07-2025 around 1:30 to 2:00, three police vehicles and one unmarked car carrying approximately 20 officers stormed the activist’s family residence in Gujrat. • The activist’s father was harassed, his national ID and mobile phone were confiscated, and he was ordered to appear before officials in Gujranwala. • The family continues to face psychological and physical intimidation from Pakistani intelligence services (ISI) in both Kharian and Gujranwala. • The activist reports receiving direct and indirect death threats and warns of a deliberate campaign to silence dissent using fear, coercion, and legal manipulation. “This is not just about me. This is about the increasing use of state power to silence voices that question corruption, abuse of power, or enforced disappearances. I will not be silenced by fear. I intend to pursue legal action in Europe and raise this matter before international human rights bodies,” the activist stated. The activist alleges that Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency, the ISI, is being misused to shield politicians and suppress lawful criticism. This raises serious questions about press freedom, civil liberties, and the rule of law in Pakistan. The activist has begun collecting legal documentation and has pledged to pursue international legal action against all involved officials and institutions, both in Pakistan and in European jurisdictions, where relevant laws allow legal recourse against torture, threats, and persecution. This case is part of a larger pattern of digital repression in Pakistan, where journalists, critics, and civil society members face threats, enforced silence, and exile for speaking truth to power. The activist calls upon: • The international community, • Human rights defenders, • Journalistic and legal networks, to closely monitor the situation in Punjab, demand accountability, and ensure protection of democratic rights and freedom of speech in Pakistan. Media Contact: Aladeen Cc Amnesty International South Asia, Regional Office Steve Hanke Ilhan Omar Claudia Webbe Mike Benz UN Human Rights Human Rights Watch Derek J. Grossman Jared Genser Sadiq Amini - صادق امینی Ben Linden PEN America Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10) Greg Casar Rep. Jimmy Panetta Rep. Johnny Olszewski Richard Medhurst Mario Nawfal Kasim Khan Jemima Goldsmith Darren J. Beattie 🌐 Larry Brilliant MD MPH FACPM 💛💙 Jeffrey Skoll Volker Türk Piers Morgan Mehdi Hasan
0:38

PRESS RELEASE 🚨 Title: Pakistani Activist State-Led Intimidation After Criticizing Punjab Leadership [Gujrat ,Pakistan 20-07-2025] A Pakistani social media activist Aladeen and political commentator is facing state-backed harassment, threats, and surveillance in response to public criticism of Punjab’s Chief Minister, Maryam Nawaz, and the provincial administration's handling of corruption, governance, and human rights concerns. In the past two weeks, the activist, who is choosing to remain temporarily anonymous due to ongoing death threats, has been vocal on digital platforms about: • Multi-billion rupee corruption scandals under the current Punjab government, • Administrative failure during recent monsoon flooding in the province, • And the alleged abduction of a political figure known as Sajid Chacha, raising concerns of enforced disappearances. As retaliation, the following events have taken place: • A fake First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against the activist by Punjab Police under vague allegations of "spreading social media unrest". • 20-07-2025 around 1:30 to 2:00, three police vehicles and one unmarked car carrying approximately 20 officers stormed the activist’s family residence in Gujrat. • The activist’s father was harassed, his national ID and mobile phone were confiscated, and he was ordered to appear before officials in Gujranwala. • The family continues to face psychological and physical intimidation from Pakistani intelligence services (ISI) in both Kharian and Gujranwala. • The activist reports receiving direct and indirect death threats and warns of a deliberate campaign to silence dissent using fear, coercion, and legal manipulation. “This is not just about me. This is about the increasing use of state power to silence voices that question corruption, abuse of power, or enforced disappearances. I will not be silenced by fear. I intend to pursue legal action in Europe and raise this matter before international human rights bodies,” the activist stated. The activist alleges that Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency, the ISI, is being misused to shield politicians and suppress lawful criticism. This raises serious questions about press freedom, civil liberties, and the rule of law in Pakistan. The activist has begun collecting legal documentation and has pledged to pursue international legal action against all involved officials and institutions, both in Pakistan and in European jurisdictions, where relevant laws allow legal recourse against torture, threats, and persecution. This case is part of a larger pattern of digital repression in Pakistan, where journalists, critics, and civil society members face threats, enforced silence, and exile for speaking truth to power. The activist calls upon: • The international community, • Human rights defenders, • Journalistic and legal networks, to closely monitor the situation in Punjab, demand accountability, and ensure protection of democratic rights and freedom of speech in Pakistan. Media Contact: Aladeen Cc Amnesty International South Asia, Regional Office Steve Hanke Ilhan Omar Claudia Webbe Mike Benz UN Human Rights Human Rights Watch Derek J. Grossman Jared Genser Sadiq Amini - صادق امینی Ben Linden PEN America Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10) Greg Casar Rep. Jimmy Panetta Rep. Johnny Olszewski Richard Medhurst Mario Nawfal Kasim Khan Jemima Goldsmith Darren J. Beattie 🌐 Larry Brilliant MD MPH FACPM 💛💙 Jeffrey Skoll Volker Türk Piers Morgan Mehdi Hasan

Aladeen

19,981 просмотров • 1 год назад

My Thoughts on Voter ID. I'm for it if we can even the playing field and cover the costs. Disenfranchisement is a problem. And no I'm not just talking about race. Elderly people, and low income people have more trouble obtaining necessary documents. 30 million people in the U.S. lack photo ID issued by local authorities, potentially depriving approximately 11% of the population of their right to vote under strict laws unless they can afford to obtain the necessary ID. And yes this means less black people vote: Approximately 24% of African-American voters of voting age lack necessary government-issued ID, compared to 8% of white voters, leading to unequal impacts on voting rights. Their race doesn't make them, not want an ID, but their economic status and area they live in (extra long lines, and inconvenient locations) make it more difficult to obtain. Solution: Make ID cards National and Free. If You can't get to a place to obtain a card, they will come to you. If you can't afford to obtain the appropriate documentation, they will help you. (This will be expensive, especially considering the fact that many people move often and their personal details change.). Is Voter ID Needed? Probably Not: The vast majority of voter ID laws in the United States target only voter impersonation, of which there are only 31 documented cases in the United States from the 2000–2014 period. All thing's equal that would equate to 210 cases in every 100 years, or 8 cases every presidential election. My Conclusion: The costs to make Voter ID Fair outweigh the minimal benefit based on historical data. But sure, if the government wants to raise the corporate tax rate a bit to pay for it, let's do it.
0:11

My Thoughts on Voter ID. I'm for it if we can even the playing field and cover the costs. Disenfranchisement is a problem. And no I'm not just talking about race. Elderly people, and low income people have more trouble obtaining necessary documents. 30 million people in the U.S. lack photo ID issued by local authorities, potentially depriving approximately 11% of the population of their right to vote under strict laws unless they can afford to obtain the necessary ID. And yes this means less black people vote: Approximately 24% of African-American voters of voting age lack necessary government-issued ID, compared to 8% of white voters, leading to unequal impacts on voting rights. Their race doesn't make them, not want an ID, but their economic status and area they live in (extra long lines, and inconvenient locations) make it more difficult to obtain. Solution: Make ID cards National and Free. If You can't get to a place to obtain a card, they will come to you. If you can't afford to obtain the appropriate documentation, they will help you. (This will be expensive, especially considering the fact that many people move often and their personal details change.). Is Voter ID Needed? Probably Not: The vast majority of voter ID laws in the United States target only voter impersonation, of which there are only 31 documented cases in the United States from the 2000–2014 period. All thing's equal that would equate to 210 cases in every 100 years, or 8 cases every presidential election. My Conclusion: The costs to make Voter ID Fair outweigh the minimal benefit based on historical data. But sure, if the government wants to raise the corporate tax rate a bit to pay for it, let's do it.

Brian Krassenstein

872,237 просмотров • 2 лет назад

So a lot has been said about Hearts players being assaulted without any evidence to back it up. Edited footage of the attached video, shows a Celtic fan pushing a Hearts player - I can't distinguish who but others will be able to - however, the edited footage does not tell the full story or context suiting the agendas of those posting it up. The attached video shows the full interaction between the Hearts player and Celtic fan - and here is my take on it along with references to Scots Law after speaking to an acquaintance within the field. The Celtic fan, like others on the pitch, can be charged with Breach of the Peace for simply entering the field of play and the Celtic fan in question will almost certainly face such a charge. However, here is where it gets sticky. He is not breaking the law by simply goading or laughing at the Hearts player and videoing it. Under Scots Law, if someone knocks your phone out of your hand and then proceeds to stamp on it repeatedly - as the Hearts player did - then they can be charged with criminal damage (vandalism under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995). Under section 52 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, vandalism is committed when someone “wilfully or recklessly” destroys or damages property belonging to another “without reasonable excuse.” A mobile phone clearly falls within “property belonging to another,” and repeatedly stamping on it generally satisfies the “without reasonable excuse” and “wilful or reckless” requirements. It doesn’t matter if the incident happens on public/private property or in this case on a football pitch. The person who stomps on the phone is still potentially facing a charge for vandalism, even if the Celtic fan seen here is committing a breach of the peace by entering the field of play. The breach of the peace charge would be dealt with separately, it doesn’t erase the Hearts player's criminal responsibility for trying to destroy the fan's property. The Celtic fan is then seen pushing the footballer away in order to stop them from destroying their phone/property and attempts to recover it before stewards pounce on him, that push may amount to lawful self-defence or defence of property if it's proportionate and immediate, which in this case seems to be the case. Under Scots law, force is allowed if there’s an imminent threat, that the force is necessary, and it’s not excessive. A brief, measured push to create distance or break contact is usually treated as reasonable, not criminal assault. The Hearts player fell into this category when he initially swatted the phone out of the fan's hand and so too did the fan by pushing the Hearts player away in an attempt to retrieve his property. But as soon as the Hearts player started stamping on the phone that is deemed excessive force. Legally, the fan's breach of the peace [invasion of the pitch and goading] doesn’t give the Hearts player a licence to destroy the fan's property; and the fan's efforts to protect his own property can be deemed lawful, as long as the force used is proportionate and immediate. And yet, given the nature of the pitch invasion and the media coverage of it - the Hearts player could ultimately dodge any charge not because he is not guilty of committing a crime, but because the COPFS apply the 'public interest' test - even if evidence exists, they may conclude that prosecution is not in the public interest because of factors such as: 1. The relatively low value of the phone vs wider consequences (a star player, media circus, club reputation) 2. The player’s status and the likely impact on the sport or club 3. Whether alternative measures (internal club sanctions, fines, apologies, civil settlement) are seen as “sufficient.” Prosecutors are not obliged to prosecute every technically guilty act. As for the fan, as mentioned earlier, his entry onto the pitch is deemed a Breach of the Peace and he would be charged, fined, and issued with a football banning order - with Celtic also potentially banning him for x number of years. Ps/ Much of this was told to me verbatim and I have put it into my own words as much as I can. I am not an expert in Scots Law, I do not profess to be, the above is as told to me by someone in Criminal Law. #celticfc #spfl
0:15

So a lot has been said about Hearts players being assaulted without any evidence to back it up. Edited footage of the attached video, shows a Celtic fan pushing a Hearts player - I can't distinguish who but others will be able to - however, the edited footage does not tell the full story or context suiting the agendas of those posting it up. The attached video shows the full interaction between the Hearts player and Celtic fan - and here is my take on it along with references to Scots Law after speaking to an acquaintance within the field. The Celtic fan, like others on the pitch, can be charged with Breach of the Peace for simply entering the field of play and the Celtic fan in question will almost certainly face such a charge. However, here is where it gets sticky. He is not breaking the law by simply goading or laughing at the Hearts player and videoing it. Under Scots Law, if someone knocks your phone out of your hand and then proceeds to stamp on it repeatedly - as the Hearts player did - then they can be charged with criminal damage (vandalism under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995). Under section 52 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, vandalism is committed when someone “wilfully or recklessly” destroys or damages property belonging to another “without reasonable excuse.” A mobile phone clearly falls within “property belonging to another,” and repeatedly stamping on it generally satisfies the “without reasonable excuse” and “wilful or reckless” requirements. It doesn’t matter if the incident happens on public/private property or in this case on a football pitch. The person who stomps on the phone is still potentially facing a charge for vandalism, even if the Celtic fan seen here is committing a breach of the peace by entering the field of play. The breach of the peace charge would be dealt with separately, it doesn’t erase the Hearts player's criminal responsibility for trying to destroy the fan's property. The Celtic fan is then seen pushing the footballer away in order to stop them from destroying their phone/property and attempts to recover it before stewards pounce on him, that push may amount to lawful self-defence or defence of property if it's proportionate and immediate, which in this case seems to be the case. Under Scots law, force is allowed if there’s an imminent threat, that the force is necessary, and it’s not excessive. A brief, measured push to create distance or break contact is usually treated as reasonable, not criminal assault. The Hearts player fell into this category when he initially swatted the phone out of the fan's hand and so too did the fan by pushing the Hearts player away in an attempt to retrieve his property. But as soon as the Hearts player started stamping on the phone that is deemed excessive force. Legally, the fan's breach of the peace [invasion of the pitch and goading] doesn’t give the Hearts player a licence to destroy the fan's property; and the fan's efforts to protect his own property can be deemed lawful, as long as the force used is proportionate and immediate. And yet, given the nature of the pitch invasion and the media coverage of it - the Hearts player could ultimately dodge any charge not because he is not guilty of committing a crime, but because the COPFS apply the 'public interest' test - even if evidence exists, they may conclude that prosecution is not in the public interest because of factors such as: 1. The relatively low value of the phone vs wider consequences (a star player, media circus, club reputation) 2. The player’s status and the likely impact on the sport or club 3. Whether alternative measures (internal club sanctions, fines, apologies, civil settlement) are seen as “sufficient.” Prosecutors are not obliged to prosecute every technically guilty act. As for the fan, as mentioned earlier, his entry onto the pitch is deemed a Breach of the Peace and he would be charged, fined, and issued with a football banning order - with Celtic also potentially banning him for x number of years. Ps/ Much of this was told to me verbatim and I have put it into my own words as much as I can. I am not an expert in Scots Law, I do not profess to be, the above is as told to me by someone in Criminal Law. #celticfc #spfl

Andy

39,093 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Whether you are a random person on X or Elon Musk, I urge you all to please read this post and stop using videos like this one to claim that Biden has an "open border policy": #1) The people in this video are already on American soil. The agents have a few options here. Detain them behind the razor wire or detain them in front of it, let the children cut themselves on razor wire or make sure they don't get cut. #2) In May President Biden issued an "asylum ban" which barred migrants from applying for humanitarian protection if they cross the border against the law or fail to first apply for safe harbor while crossing through another country on the way to the U.S. The US COURTS OVERTURNED IT. Biden also requested $3.5B for more border patrol agents and judges and lawyers. Republicans refused. #3) Let me explain to you all why the people in this video can't simply be put on a truck and driven back into Mexico and dropped off: a - They have a right to due process according to our Constitution. b - There are international laws indicating that we can't just drop people off from Honduras or Cuba or any other nation into Mexico. What if one of these people claimed they were from Canada? Should we drop them in Canada? c - How do we immediately prove that a person is not an American, or an Italian, or a Brazilian if they claim they are? Stop pretending that Biden isn't doing anything. Stop pretending that the immigration problem is simple. Stop pretending that this has not been a problem for decades. Understand that the surge of migrants isn't the fault of Biden but actually global geopolitical upheaval in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and other nations. Instead of pointing fingers and claiming that "Biden has an open border policy," when his policy is not much different than those we have had for the last 40 years, how about working together on comprehensive reform? So before you make another Tweet claiming Biden has an Open Border Policy, how about instead you provide actual solutions that are LEGAL, that should be implemented.
0:18

Whether you are a random person on X or Elon Musk, I urge you all to please read this post and stop using videos like this one to claim that Biden has an "open border policy": #1) The people in this video are already on American soil. The agents have a few options here. Detain them behind the razor wire or detain them in front of it, let the children cut themselves on razor wire or make sure they don't get cut. #2) In May President Biden issued an "asylum ban" which barred migrants from applying for humanitarian protection if they cross the border against the law or fail to first apply for safe harbor while crossing through another country on the way to the U.S. The US COURTS OVERTURNED IT. Biden also requested $3.5B for more border patrol agents and judges and lawyers. Republicans refused. #3) Let me explain to you all why the people in this video can't simply be put on a truck and driven back into Mexico and dropped off: a - They have a right to due process according to our Constitution. b - There are international laws indicating that we can't just drop people off from Honduras or Cuba or any other nation into Mexico. What if one of these people claimed they were from Canada? Should we drop them in Canada? c - How do we immediately prove that a person is not an American, or an Italian, or a Brazilian if they claim they are? Stop pretending that Biden isn't doing anything. Stop pretending that the immigration problem is simple. Stop pretending that this has not been a problem for decades. Understand that the surge of migrants isn't the fault of Biden but actually global geopolitical upheaval in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and other nations. Instead of pointing fingers and claiming that "Biden has an open border policy," when his policy is not much different than those we have had for the last 40 years, how about working together on comprehensive reform? So before you make another Tweet claiming Biden has an Open Border Policy, how about instead you provide actual solutions that are LEGAL, that should be implemented.

Brian Krassenstein

7,720,175 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Dear Dr. Sagar Preet Hooda, IPS Director General of Police, Chandigarh DGP Chandigarh Police Subject: Request for intervention regarding FIR No. 44 dated 19-04-2026 registered by East Sector 26 Police Station, Chandigarh 1. I write this letter through X with the sincere hope that it reaches your attention. The present issue concerns FIR No. 44 dated 19-04-2026 registered by East Sector 26 Police Station, Chandigarh against Professor Madhu Kishwar Madhu Purnima Kishwar and a few others under Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 196, 318, 336(1), 336(3), 336(4), 340, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Satinder Singh, who alleged that a video clip was being circulated by various social media users with misleading claims that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was receiving a facial massage from a woman. According to the complaint, several social media accounts amplified this allegedly false narrative. As understood, the complainant further stated that his preliminary verification revealed that the video was originally posted by one Pardeep Kaur Dhillon through Facebook, YouTube and Instagram accounts on 12 April 2026, and that the person in the video was actually Jaspal Singh Sarai, who was apparently receiving a facial massage from a woman. However, even a plain reading of the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence, much less a cognizable offence. Surprisingly, the police registered the FIR invoking an extraordinary range of provisions relating to identity theft, cheating, forgery, promoting enmity, defamation, public mischief, and even obscenity. 2. Let us briefly examine the applicability of each provision invoked in the FIR: (i) Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or unique identification feature. The fundamental question is: whose identity has Professor Madhu Kishwar allegedly stolen? Was it the identity of Satinder Singh? If not, what is his locus standi in lodging such a complaint? If the allegation concerns some other person, has that person complained? In the absence of any such complaint, how is an offence under this section made out? (ii) Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relates to cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource. Whom did Professor Madhu Kishwar allegedly impersonate? Who was deceived, and what wrongful gain or loss occurred? Did she impersonate Satinder Singh or any other person? If not, how does the complainant acquire locus standi under this provision? (iii) Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The complainant himself states that the video was originally posted by Pardeep Kaur Dhillon and depicted Jaspal Singh Sarai receiving a facial massage from a woman. The video, by any objective standard, contains no obscene or lascivious material. Neither individuals were nude, nor was any sexual act depicted. It was merely a professional facial massage. Professor Madhu Kishwar merely reposted the content on X. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 67 are entirely absent. (iv) Section 196 of BNS concerns promoting enmity between groups on grounds such as religion, race, language, place of birth, or residence, and acts prejudicial to communal harmony. How does reposting a video of a man receiving a facial massage — even assuming someone believed the man resembled Prime Minister Narendra Modi — amount to promoting enmity between groups or disturbing public harmony? The provision appears wholly inapplicable. (v) Section 318 of BNS deals with the offence of cheating. The essential ingredients of cheating require deception causing wrongful loss, delivery of property, or inducement to act or omit in a manner causing harm. How does reposting a social media video satisfy any of these ingredients? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi felt personally aggrieved, the complaint would have to come from him or an authorised representative. What is the locus standi of Satinder Singh or any unrelated third party in this matter? (vi) Sections 336(1), 336(2) and 336(3) of BNS These provisions deal with forgery involving false documents or electronic records. How does reposting a pre-existing video amount to creating a false document or forged electronic record? No document was fabricated. No electronic record was forged. Again, even assuming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the aggrieved person, why has no complaint been filed either by him or by any authorised representative? How does Satinder Singh acquire standing in such circumstances? (vii) Section 340 of BNS concerns fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document or electronic record. When there is no forged document at all, the provision itself cannot apply. Further, the alleged victim has neither filed nor authorised any complaint. In such circumstances, invocation of Section 340 appears entirely untenable. (viii) Section 353 of BNS concerns statements or reports intended to incite mutiny, offences against the State, public disorder, or inter-community violence. How can reposting a video of a man receiving a facial massage — even if someone attributes resemblance to Prime Minister Narendra Modi — possibly amount to incitement of mutiny, public disorder, or offences against the State? The invocation of this section is wholly unsustainable. (ix) Section 356 of BNS concerns defamation. However, Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 clearly provides that defamation can be prosecuted only by the aggrieved person. If the aggrieved person is a public servant, proceedings can be initiated only by a Public Prosecutor with prior sanction of the Central or State Government as the case may be. Neither Satinder Singh nor any unrelated individual has the legal standing to initiate such proceedings. 3. Dr. Hooda Ji, permit me to share a version of a well-known satirical anecdote about policing, which bears a striking resemblance to the present case, where Professor Madhu Kishwar is being compelled to endure the ordeal of criminal prosecution despite the absence of the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against her. A man sees an old friend running down the street — terrified, panting, and sweating. He stops him and asks, “What is wrong? Why are you running?” The friend replies, “The police are arresting all bulls!” The man says, “But you are not a bull. Why are you running?” The friend shouts back, “We both know I am not a bull. But by the time I prove it to the police and the courts, I will have spent the rest of my life in jail!” Terrified by hearing this, the other man also starts running. 4. Dr. Hooda Ji, I have heard that you are a competent, upright and distinguished officer. It is the solemn responsibility of senior officers of the IPS to prevent abuse of the criminal justice process and to ensure that policing does not degenerate into a spectacle in which criminal law is stretched beyond recognition to harass individuals for expressing views that may inconvenience those in power. 5. I therefore request your kind intervention to prevent the continued harassment and persecution of Professor Madhu Kishwar for her views on public issues, and to direct immediate closure of the case. 6. This letter has also been converted into video format and attached.👇 With Regards
0:20

Dear Dr. Sagar Preet Hooda, IPS Director General of Police, Chandigarh DGP Chandigarh Police Subject: Request for intervention regarding FIR No. 44 dated 19-04-2026 registered by East Sector 26 Police Station, Chandigarh 1. I write this letter through X with the sincere hope that it reaches your attention. The present issue concerns FIR No. 44 dated 19-04-2026 registered by East Sector 26 Police Station, Chandigarh against Professor Madhu Kishwar Madhu Purnima Kishwar and a few others under Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 196, 318, 336(1), 336(3), 336(4), 340, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Satinder Singh, who alleged that a video clip was being circulated by various social media users with misleading claims that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was receiving a facial massage from a woman. According to the complaint, several social media accounts amplified this allegedly false narrative. As understood, the complainant further stated that his preliminary verification revealed that the video was originally posted by one Pardeep Kaur Dhillon through Facebook, YouTube and Instagram accounts on 12 April 2026, and that the person in the video was actually Jaspal Singh Sarai, who was apparently receiving a facial massage from a woman. However, even a plain reading of the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence, much less a cognizable offence. Surprisingly, the police registered the FIR invoking an extraordinary range of provisions relating to identity theft, cheating, forgery, promoting enmity, defamation, public mischief, and even obscenity. 2. Let us briefly examine the applicability of each provision invoked in the FIR: (i) Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or unique identification feature. The fundamental question is: whose identity has Professor Madhu Kishwar allegedly stolen? Was it the identity of Satinder Singh? If not, what is his locus standi in lodging such a complaint? If the allegation concerns some other person, has that person complained? In the absence of any such complaint, how is an offence under this section made out? (ii) Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relates to cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource. Whom did Professor Madhu Kishwar allegedly impersonate? Who was deceived, and what wrongful gain or loss occurred? Did she impersonate Satinder Singh or any other person? If not, how does the complainant acquire locus standi under this provision? (iii) Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The complainant himself states that the video was originally posted by Pardeep Kaur Dhillon and depicted Jaspal Singh Sarai receiving a facial massage from a woman. The video, by any objective standard, contains no obscene or lascivious material. Neither individuals were nude, nor was any sexual act depicted. It was merely a professional facial massage. Professor Madhu Kishwar merely reposted the content on X. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 67 are entirely absent. (iv) Section 196 of BNS concerns promoting enmity between groups on grounds such as religion, race, language, place of birth, or residence, and acts prejudicial to communal harmony. How does reposting a video of a man receiving a facial massage — even assuming someone believed the man resembled Prime Minister Narendra Modi — amount to promoting enmity between groups or disturbing public harmony? The provision appears wholly inapplicable. (v) Section 318 of BNS deals with the offence of cheating. The essential ingredients of cheating require deception causing wrongful loss, delivery of property, or inducement to act or omit in a manner causing harm. How does reposting a social media video satisfy any of these ingredients? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi felt personally aggrieved, the complaint would have to come from him or an authorised representative. What is the locus standi of Satinder Singh or any unrelated third party in this matter? (vi) Sections 336(1), 336(2) and 336(3) of BNS These provisions deal with forgery involving false documents or electronic records. How does reposting a pre-existing video amount to creating a false document or forged electronic record? No document was fabricated. No electronic record was forged. Again, even assuming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the aggrieved person, why has no complaint been filed either by him or by any authorised representative? How does Satinder Singh acquire standing in such circumstances? (vii) Section 340 of BNS concerns fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document or electronic record. When there is no forged document at all, the provision itself cannot apply. Further, the alleged victim has neither filed nor authorised any complaint. In such circumstances, invocation of Section 340 appears entirely untenable. (viii) Section 353 of BNS concerns statements or reports intended to incite mutiny, offences against the State, public disorder, or inter-community violence. How can reposting a video of a man receiving a facial massage — even if someone attributes resemblance to Prime Minister Narendra Modi — possibly amount to incitement of mutiny, public disorder, or offences against the State? The invocation of this section is wholly unsustainable. (ix) Section 356 of BNS concerns defamation. However, Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 clearly provides that defamation can be prosecuted only by the aggrieved person. If the aggrieved person is a public servant, proceedings can be initiated only by a Public Prosecutor with prior sanction of the Central or State Government as the case may be. Neither Satinder Singh nor any unrelated individual has the legal standing to initiate such proceedings. 3. Dr. Hooda Ji, permit me to share a version of a well-known satirical anecdote about policing, which bears a striking resemblance to the present case, where Professor Madhu Kishwar is being compelled to endure the ordeal of criminal prosecution despite the absence of the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against her. A man sees an old friend running down the street — terrified, panting, and sweating. He stops him and asks, “What is wrong? Why are you running?” The friend replies, “The police are arresting all bulls!” The man says, “But you are not a bull. Why are you running?” The friend shouts back, “We both know I am not a bull. But by the time I prove it to the police and the courts, I will have spent the rest of my life in jail!” Terrified by hearing this, the other man also starts running. 4. Dr. Hooda Ji, I have heard that you are a competent, upright and distinguished officer. It is the solemn responsibility of senior officers of the IPS to prevent abuse of the criminal justice process and to ensure that policing does not degenerate into a spectacle in which criminal law is stretched beyond recognition to harass individuals for expressing views that may inconvenience those in power. 5. I therefore request your kind intervention to prevent the continued harassment and persecution of Professor Madhu Kishwar for her views on public issues, and to direct immediate closure of the case. 6. This letter has also been converted into video format and attached.👇 With Regards

M. Nageswara Rao IPS (Retired)

17,299 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад