Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Bangladesh deserves serious statecraft. Instead, it has got a headline-chasing interim figure who treats India as a prop. The Soros-lackey chameleon called Md Yunus. Muhammad Yunus Even in his last speech as Chief Adviser of the Government of Bangladesh, another gratuitous sermon on India, the headline-chasing head sprinkled his...

69,974 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Los Angeles Dodgers second baseman Tommy Edman was asked about the role Jesus plays in his life. And his answer cuts straight to the thing most athletes never say out loud. "He's my Lord and Savior. Not only that, also my teacher. I try to study scripture each day and learn more about Jesus every day and kind of model my life after him. My performance in the game or whatever's happening isn't my identity. Rather, as a disciple of Jesus. That's the foundation of my life and it kind of makes me who I am." That one sentence deserves to sit for a moment. My performance in the game is not my identity. That is one of the hardest things for any athlete to actually believe. The entire sports world is built around performance. Your value is your numbers. Your worth is your contract. Your identity is your stats. And Tommy Edman looked at all of that and said: none of that is who I am. He is a disciple of Jesus. That is his identity. The baseball is just what he does. He also said something that reveals how he maintains that foundation. He studies scripture every day. Not weekly. Not when he feels like it. Every day. And he is actively trying to learn more about Jesus and model his life after Him. That is discipleship. That is not a Sunday morning posture. That is a daily practice of sitting at the feet of the teacher and asking to become more like Him. In a culture that attaches worth to performance and identity to achievement, Tommy Edman is building his life on something that does not move when the batting average drops. "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). Is your identity built on what you do or on who Jesus says you are? This is what it looks like when someone refuses to let their performance define them. Tommy Edman plays for the Los Angeles Dodgers, one of the most watched teams in baseball, and he said plainly that his identity has nothing to do with what happens on the field. He is a disciple of Jesus. That is it. That is who he is. And he studies scripture every day to stay rooted in that truth. Pray for Tommy Edman and pray that more athletes build their identity on Jesus instead of their jersey number.

Tevin Macharia Mukabana

55,421 views • 2 months ago

#WATCH | Hyderabad, Telangana: AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi says, "As far as our party is concerned, we condemn what happened to Deepu Chandra Das and Amrit Mandal, and we support whatever steps the Government of India is taking to ensure that the relationship with Bangladesh remains stronger." "Bangladesh was created on secular Bangla nationalism, and there are 20 million minorities who are not Muslims who live in Bangladesh...I sincerely hope that the tensions don't escalate between India and Bangladesh, and whatever is happening in Bangladesh in terms of what happened to the sad incident of Dipu Chandra Das and Amrit Mandal is contrary to their own constitutional mandate, and I hope that Mr Yunus will ensure that all the minorities living in Bangladesh are protected. But at the same time, we must remember that the stability in Bangladesh is very important for security of India, especially Northeast. A popular revolution has happened in Bangladesh, and we hope that when the elections are held in February, the relationship between India and Bangladesh will improve for good. And we must also remember that ISI, China and all these forces which are inimical to India are now in Bangladesh...But at the same time, please understand that we cannot forget what is happening in our country. On December 24, a labourer from West Bengal was lynched in Odisha's Sambalpur. A tribal boy doing MBA in Uttarakhand was beaten up, Angel Chakma. He died...So these are all clear examples of how when the rule of law breaks and majority-run politics overtakes everything, these lynchings happen, which we have to condemn."

ANI

22,871 views • 7 months ago

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Hopewell Chin’ono

67,842 views • 9 months ago

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

RadiantFilm

27,723 views • 6 months ago