Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

BBCQT, Welsh Labour & Plaid Cymru faced direct & uncompromising scrutiny for imposing significant, deeply unpopular policies without any democratic mandate or consultation with the Welsh electorate. Rhun's notably muted, evasive & hesitant response was particularly revealing!

20NPHartleyHare's profile picture

Hartley ap Hare 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇬🇧

2,366 subscribers

19,834 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“I’m Not Able To Buy Food... Delivery To My Home Is Prohibited... I Have People Bringing Me Food”: EU Sanctions Trap Former Colonel Jacques Baud Former Swiss Colonel Jacques Baud delivers a stark account of the immediate, personal consequences of EU sanctions, revealing their profound humanitarian and legal impact. Baud describes being cut off from basic necessities: “I’m not able to buy food for instance… nobody is allowed to provide me with any kind of resources.” A concrete example underscores this: a friend’s attempt to order him food from Switzerland was blocked, proving “any delivery to my home is even prohibited.” He now relies on direct handouts to eat. The sanctions create an inescapable trap. Baud explains, “I’m not allowed to travel in the EU, meaning that I’m not even allowed to go back to my country… if I were in my country, I could not come back to the place where I live.” He criticizes the authorities for a process that bypasses due process. While Switzerland “failed to understand the consequence,” the EU’s bureaucratic machinery leaves him powerless: to get a “humanitarian” exemption merely “to buy food,” he must petition an administration that is currently “idle,” leaving him with “no resource whatsoever.” Baud’s ordeal exposes a fundamental flaw in the EU’s system: the ability to wield political sanctions as a blunt instrument against individuals within its own borders, erasing legal protections and imposing a form of extrajudicial house arrest without trial, charge, or democratic accountability.
4:59

“I’m Not Able To Buy Food... Delivery To My Home Is Prohibited... I Have People Bringing Me Food”: EU Sanctions Trap Former Colonel Jacques Baud Former Swiss Colonel Jacques Baud delivers a stark account of the immediate, personal consequences of EU sanctions, revealing their profound humanitarian and legal impact. Baud describes being cut off from basic necessities: “I’m not able to buy food for instance… nobody is allowed to provide me with any kind of resources.” A concrete example underscores this: a friend’s attempt to order him food from Switzerland was blocked, proving “any delivery to my home is even prohibited.” He now relies on direct handouts to eat. The sanctions create an inescapable trap. Baud explains, “I’m not allowed to travel in the EU, meaning that I’m not even allowed to go back to my country… if I were in my country, I could not come back to the place where I live.” He criticizes the authorities for a process that bypasses due process. While Switzerland “failed to understand the consequence,” the EU’s bureaucratic machinery leaves him powerless: to get a “humanitarian” exemption merely “to buy food,” he must petition an administration that is currently “idle,” leaving him with “no resource whatsoever.” Baud’s ordeal exposes a fundamental flaw in the EU’s system: the ability to wield political sanctions as a blunt instrument against individuals within its own borders, erasing legal protections and imposing a form of extrajudicial house arrest without trial, charge, or democratic accountability.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

268,678 views • 8 months ago

Pilot sounds alarm over Transport Canada’s sweeping new medical privacy mandate ✈️ Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 Not only does the policy represent a sweeping infringement on personal privacy, but its rollout was rushed and secretive, done without consultation or meaningful notice. On December 9, Transport Canada quietly introduced a new mandatory privacy notice and declaration tied to pilot medical examinations, then made it effective the very next day. With no advance warning or stakeholder consultation, roughly 60,000 licensed pilots across Canada were suddenly required to consent to the collection and review of their most sensitive personal health data or risk losing their medical certification; with it, their ability to fly. One commercial pilot says the scope and coercive nature of the policy raise serious privacy and civil liberty concerns that extend far beyond aviation. “There was no lead time. There didn’t appear to be any stakeholder consultation,” he said. “Our union was very surprised by it. Even Transport Canada doctors were surprised—they didn’t know it was coming.” Unlike the previous declaration, described as a short, focused paragraph, the new notice authorizes access to an expansive range of medical information. This includes laboratory results, pharmacy records, and entire medical record systems, without clear limits on timeframe or scope. “It says ‘including but not limited to’ and then proceeds to list everything I can personally think of when it comes to medical health,” the pilot explained. “There’s no start date. There’s no end date. And it authorizes Transport Canada to collect information from third parties, which also aren’t defined.” The implications are largely unprecedented. It means that theoretically, anyone, past or future, could access a pilot’s entire medical history. Since health data cannot be reset like a credit card, its value on the black market is staggering. The partially anonymous pilot stresses that his objections are not about evading medical scrutiny. “We care deeply about fitness to fly and public safety,” he reiterated. “This isn’t about getting out of proper screening. It’s about proportionality, oversight, and consent.” What has further fueled distrust is the timing and method of rollout. It was done during the Christmas season, when there is limited staffing at both Transport Canada and pilot unions, and was buried in dense, fine-print government documentation. “If you don’t sign it, your medical is discontinued,” the pilot said. “You don’t get stamped. You don’t fly, anywhere in Canada. That’s coercive pressure when your livelihood is on the line.” Transport Canada has since circulated a revised privacy notice, narrowing third-party access and softening language around suspensions. However, pilots organizing through argue the revisions still leave the door open to unacceptable data overreach. Federal MP Dan Albas has formally called for the policy to be suspended pending a full privacy review, citing both the lack of consultation and the magnitude of the data being demanded. For the pilot who spoke out, the issue extends beyond aviation. “If this were another industry, I’d still be concerned,” he said. “We need to think about the trajectory. If this is a test case for broader biometric or medical surveillance, Canadians should be paying attention.”
10:47

Pilot sounds alarm over Transport Canada’s sweeping new medical privacy mandate ✈️ Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 Not only does the policy represent a sweeping infringement on personal privacy, but its rollout was rushed and secretive, done without consultation or meaningful notice. On December 9, Transport Canada quietly introduced a new mandatory privacy notice and declaration tied to pilot medical examinations, then made it effective the very next day. With no advance warning or stakeholder consultation, roughly 60,000 licensed pilots across Canada were suddenly required to consent to the collection and review of their most sensitive personal health data or risk losing their medical certification; with it, their ability to fly. One commercial pilot says the scope and coercive nature of the policy raise serious privacy and civil liberty concerns that extend far beyond aviation. “There was no lead time. There didn’t appear to be any stakeholder consultation,” he said. “Our union was very surprised by it. Even Transport Canada doctors were surprised—they didn’t know it was coming.” Unlike the previous declaration, described as a short, focused paragraph, the new notice authorizes access to an expansive range of medical information. This includes laboratory results, pharmacy records, and entire medical record systems, without clear limits on timeframe or scope. “It says ‘including but not limited to’ and then proceeds to list everything I can personally think of when it comes to medical health,” the pilot explained. “There’s no start date. There’s no end date. And it authorizes Transport Canada to collect information from third parties, which also aren’t defined.” The implications are largely unprecedented. It means that theoretically, anyone, past or future, could access a pilot’s entire medical history. Since health data cannot be reset like a credit card, its value on the black market is staggering. The partially anonymous pilot stresses that his objections are not about evading medical scrutiny. “We care deeply about fitness to fly and public safety,” he reiterated. “This isn’t about getting out of proper screening. It’s about proportionality, oversight, and consent.” What has further fueled distrust is the timing and method of rollout. It was done during the Christmas season, when there is limited staffing at both Transport Canada and pilot unions, and was buried in dense, fine-print government documentation. “If you don’t sign it, your medical is discontinued,” the pilot said. “You don’t get stamped. You don’t fly, anywhere in Canada. That’s coercive pressure when your livelihood is on the line.” Transport Canada has since circulated a revised privacy notice, narrowing third-party access and softening language around suspensions. However, pilots organizing through argue the revisions still leave the door open to unacceptable data overreach. Federal MP Dan Albas has formally called for the policy to be suspended pending a full privacy review, citing both the lack of consultation and the magnitude of the data being demanded. For the pilot who spoke out, the issue extends beyond aviation. “If this were another industry, I’d still be concerned,” he said. “We need to think about the trajectory. If this is a test case for broader biometric or medical surveillance, Canadians should be paying attention.”

Rebel News

33,222 views • 7 months ago

To allow genocide to continue: those who oppose genocide must be silenced, intimidated, threatened, repressed. The IHRA definition of antisemitism labels those who oppose genocide as Racists. The states perpetrating the genocide then criminalise workers for speaking out against Israeli, British and US wars and genocide. THAT is its REAL role: WE MUST CHALLENGE IT! In Britain and across the “western” NATO countries, thousands of doctors, lawyers, teachers, workers and citizens are under legal attack for defending Palestine. I was suspended after criticising Israel’s actions in Gaza, and the US-Israeli and British war on Iran. Police arrested me at my home, leaving my children to look after each other. This is the third time I’ve been targeted by the police and I have faced multiple vexatious complaints and attacks at work - all coming from the state and the zionist lobby working hand in glove with our government. The management are complicit and collaborate in creating this politically repressive environment. In every case of police and workplace harassment, it is the “IHRA definition of antisemitism” that is being used as a benchmark to adjudicate what is “legitimate speech”. The definition was designed as a data gathering tool, and was never intended to become a law, or to be used in this way. Theresa May adopted it for the UK together with Nicola Sturgeon in 2016 without any consultation. The major political parties followed suit (including Plaid Cymru, SNP, Liberal, Labour and the Greens). It was pushed on police forces, schools and colleges, and Wes Streeting has been pushing it actively into the heart of the NHS. So now we have a situation in which existing laws (Public order act, professional regulatory frameworks, university regulations and constitutions) are being interpreted in its light, and the IHRA definition is therefore being “applied” as “law” - to silence legitimate speech on Palestine, and criticism of Israeli, US and British genocide. *How to help*: £30,000 needed for the first stage of the legal challenge 👉 *Donate:* Please donate and forward on. Justice depends on our ability to speak out.
6:52

To allow genocide to continue: those who oppose genocide must be silenced, intimidated, threatened, repressed. The IHRA definition of antisemitism labels those who oppose genocide as Racists. The states perpetrating the genocide then criminalise workers for speaking out against Israeli, British and US wars and genocide. THAT is its REAL role: WE MUST CHALLENGE IT! In Britain and across the “western” NATO countries, thousands of doctors, lawyers, teachers, workers and citizens are under legal attack for defending Palestine. I was suspended after criticising Israel’s actions in Gaza, and the US-Israeli and British war on Iran. Police arrested me at my home, leaving my children to look after each other. This is the third time I’ve been targeted by the police and I have faced multiple vexatious complaints and attacks at work - all coming from the state and the zionist lobby working hand in glove with our government. The management are complicit and collaborate in creating this politically repressive environment. In every case of police and workplace harassment, it is the “IHRA definition of antisemitism” that is being used as a benchmark to adjudicate what is “legitimate speech”. The definition was designed as a data gathering tool, and was never intended to become a law, or to be used in this way. Theresa May adopted it for the UK together with Nicola Sturgeon in 2016 without any consultation. The major political parties followed suit (including Plaid Cymru, SNP, Liberal, Labour and the Greens). It was pushed on police forces, schools and colleges, and Wes Streeting has been pushing it actively into the heart of the NHS. So now we have a situation in which existing laws (Public order act, professional regulatory frameworks, university regulations and constitutions) are being interpreted in its light, and the IHRA definition is therefore being “applied” as “law” - to silence legitimate speech on Palestine, and criticism of Israeli, US and British genocide. *How to help*: £30,000 needed for the first stage of the legal challenge 👉 *Donate:* Please donate and forward on. Justice depends on our ability to speak out.

The Communists

39,355 views • 3 months ago

people always say, "why is your syndra build so weird"? (mandate + stormsurge + shadowflame + cryptbloom) it's so that I can go around 1shotting people like the lobby admin IN CHALLENGER while still having haste/speed for fights, without EVER having to rely on my teammates to make plays. with tier 3 sorcs buff next patch, my build will be even more OP. don't buy disgusting rocketbelt / blackfire for "more rotations" or "mobility" when you can get the job done in 1 rotation with so much mpen that you deal true damage. and if your enemies manage to survive, your 2nd rotation is still up super fast with mandate and they can't play the game. FULL BUILD ORDER: your first 2 items are ALWAYS imperial mandate and stormsurge, with sorcerer's shoes. The purchase order depends on matchup. can 1shot: go stormsurge first, with a faerie charm to proc JoaT can't 1shot: go mandate first for more E's. prioritize 3 amp tombs and faerie charm for mana / jack. 3rd item: always shadowflame. 4th item: cryptbloom default. You deal true damage to every1 in the game with this purchase, or VERY close to it. 4th item alternative: seeker's armguard -> cryptbloom, or upgrade to zhonya's if needed (vs zed,fizz,qiyana,etc.) 5th item: deathcap/zhonyas/banshees. Final Item Insight: if you bought zhonya's or banshees, chances are you don't have Deathcap in your build. Honestly, i make it this far in like 1% of games, because my build is EXTREMELY good at closing games out. But if this happens to you, just sell shadowflame or stormsurge for deathcap when you can afford it. I prefer to keep stormsurge if i need movespeed, otherwise if I have flash/ghost then I sell stormsurge and keep shadowflame. Alternatively, if you are GIGA rich, you can sell your boots for deathcap (you need summs or else u are too slow). Another possibility is selling mandate for Cosmic Drive for speed/durability, so your build could look like: DCAP, Shadowflame, Stormsurge, Cosmic Drive, Zhonyas, Cryptbloom (no boots) RUNES: In 90% of games, go Comet, Manaflow, Transcendence, Scorch, with Cashback, Jack of all Trades. Your first 2 items are cheap, getting full utilization of Cashback ASAP. In 10% of games, vs unkillable matchups (yasuo,ekko,galio,any tank), go First Strike, Cashback, Triple Tonic, Jack of All Trades, Manaflow, Transcendence. EXPERT RUNES: Swap out manaflow band for Axiom Arcanist. You need to be VERY good at mana management to take this greedy option. When you deal true damage, 12% increased R damage is A LOT. And I have noticed this rune singlehandedly get me kills and win me games I had no business winning where my team was 5-10k gold down, just because you can transcend Syndra's damage limits and 1v9. And no, I NEVER go oom after mandate is purchased since that's when your passive starts refunding a ton of mana. But before mandate, you might go oom if you use too many abilities without getting a Splinter stack out of it. Syndra is uniquely able to go this build because she has mana sustain, whereas every other mage doesn't. Abuse for free LP.
0:24

people always say, "why is your syndra build so weird"? (mandate + stormsurge + shadowflame + cryptbloom) it's so that I can go around 1shotting people like the lobby admin IN CHALLENGER while still having haste/speed for fights, without EVER having to rely on my teammates to make plays. with tier 3 sorcs buff next patch, my build will be even more OP. don't buy disgusting rocketbelt / blackfire for "more rotations" or "mobility" when you can get the job done in 1 rotation with so much mpen that you deal true damage. and if your enemies manage to survive, your 2nd rotation is still up super fast with mandate and they can't play the game. FULL BUILD ORDER: your first 2 items are ALWAYS imperial mandate and stormsurge, with sorcerer's shoes. The purchase order depends on matchup. can 1shot: go stormsurge first, with a faerie charm to proc JoaT can't 1shot: go mandate first for more E's. prioritize 3 amp tombs and faerie charm for mana / jack. 3rd item: always shadowflame. 4th item: cryptbloom default. You deal true damage to every1 in the game with this purchase, or VERY close to it. 4th item alternative: seeker's armguard -> cryptbloom, or upgrade to zhonya's if needed (vs zed,fizz,qiyana,etc.) 5th item: deathcap/zhonyas/banshees. Final Item Insight: if you bought zhonya's or banshees, chances are you don't have Deathcap in your build. Honestly, i make it this far in like 1% of games, because my build is EXTREMELY good at closing games out. But if this happens to you, just sell shadowflame or stormsurge for deathcap when you can afford it. I prefer to keep stormsurge if i need movespeed, otherwise if I have flash/ghost then I sell stormsurge and keep shadowflame. Alternatively, if you are GIGA rich, you can sell your boots for deathcap (you need summs or else u are too slow). Another possibility is selling mandate for Cosmic Drive for speed/durability, so your build could look like: DCAP, Shadowflame, Stormsurge, Cosmic Drive, Zhonyas, Cryptbloom (no boots) RUNES: In 90% of games, go Comet, Manaflow, Transcendence, Scorch, with Cashback, Jack of all Trades. Your first 2 items are cheap, getting full utilization of Cashback ASAP. In 10% of games, vs unkillable matchups (yasuo,ekko,galio,any tank), go First Strike, Cashback, Triple Tonic, Jack of All Trades, Manaflow, Transcendence. EXPERT RUNES: Swap out manaflow band for Axiom Arcanist. You need to be VERY good at mana management to take this greedy option. When you deal true damage, 12% increased R damage is A LOT. And I have noticed this rune singlehandedly get me kills and win me games I had no business winning where my team was 5-10k gold down, just because you can transcend Syndra's damage limits and 1v9. And no, I NEVER go oom after mandate is purchased since that's when your passive starts refunding a ton of mana. But before mandate, you might go oom if you use too many abilities without getting a Splinter stack out of it. Syndra is uniquely able to go this build because she has mana sustain, whereas every other mage doesn't. Abuse for free LP.

Strompest

474,169 views • 28 days ago

🇺🇸 Before extending my wishes for a blessed Christmas to all, a few reflections on the growing divide between the European Union and the United States. The topic was discussed by a Dutch news outlet with a pro-EU perspective (video). But it warrants some deeper reflection. The European Union is quick to attribute its problems to external forces: to Putin, to Trump, to “foreign disinformation.” Yet anyone willing to look honestly will see that much of what is going wrong in Europe today is the direct result of choices made by the EU itself—structural, ideological, and institutional. As early as 2005, citizens in the Netherlands and France drew a clear line. They voted against the European Constitution. That signal was not respected. Instead, largely the same substance was introduced through a different route via the Lisbon Treaty. Legally permissible, perhaps—but politically and democratically deeply problematic. It marked the beginning of a profound breach of trust between European citizens and European institutions. In 2016, this pattern repeated itself. The Dutch electorate voted “no” to the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement. Once again, the outcome was set aside through an additional declaration. The solemn promise that Ukraine would never become an EU member and that military involvement was excluded later proved to be of little value. The message was clear: democratic input is accepted only when it aligns with the preferred course. This points to a deeper issue: the EU’s democratic deficit. The European Commission is not directly elected, yet it holds the exclusive right of legislative initiative. The European Parliament cannot introduce legislation on its own. National parliaments often receive EU proposals late in the process and have limited ability to amend or reject them. Power continues to concentrate at a level increasingly insulated from direct democratic accountability. This shift is reinforced by the European Court of Justice. EU law effectively takes precedence over national law, including constitutional law. Through ever-expanding interpretations of the treaties, competencies steadily migrate toward Brussels without an explicit democratic mandate. Member states have few meaningful tools to reverse this trend. Economically, the EU has made fundamental errors as well. The introduction of the euro brought together economies with vastly different levels of productivity, debt, and fiscal discipline. The policies of the European Central Bank cannot suit all member states simultaneously. The result has been inflation, growing wealth inequality, and declining purchasing power—particularly in fiscally responsible countries. National governments bear the consequences, yet possess little monetary sovereignty. On top of this, the EU has imposed an energy transition insufficiently grounded in economic reality or global competition. High energy costs and excessive regulation have eroded the competitiveness of European industry. Investment is leaving, production is relocating, and the cost of living is becoming unaffordable for a growing share of the population. The same pattern appears in migration and border policy. The issue is not only scale and lack of control, but also cultural impact. Large-scale immigration without effective integration undermines social cohesion. European culture—shaped by history, traditions, values, and shared norms—is under pressure. Culture is not secondary. *Politics is downstream from culture.* When the cultural foundation erodes, political instability inevitably follows. This is reflected in tensions around security, education, housing, healthcare, and the loss of a shared societal framework. At the same time, the EU continues to layer regulation upon regulation. Small and medium-sized enterprises—the backbone of the European economy—are increasingly burdened by complex, costly, and often ideologically driven obligations. Entrepreneurship gives way to bureaucratic survival. Agriculture faces a similar top-down approach. Farmers are confronted with far-reaching measures imposed without realistic alternatives or sufficient public support. Food security is treated as an afterthought, even though the Covid crisis demonstrated just how vulnerable Europe has become. Strategic autonomy begins with energy *and* food. Fundamental freedoms are also under pressure. Under the banner of combating disinformation, authorities increasingly seek to define what may and may not be said, even as it becomes clear in hindsight that official EU positions on Covid, climate policy, and geopolitics were often incomplete or incorrect. At the same time, citizens’ privacy is curtailed in the name of security, while the European Commission itself operates with striking opacity. Trust erodes when those who govern fail to lead by example. Public funds are also used to finance NGOs that influence or implement policies the EU itself cannot formally pursue. This circumvents democratic oversight and weakens accountability. In foreign policy, the EU is evolving into a geopolitical actor without a clear democratic mandate. Sanctions, arms deliveries, and strategic decisions with far-reaching consequences are made with little public debate. The relationship between EU defense initiatives, NATO, and national armed forces is increasingly unclear. For decades, the EU has presented itself as a project of peace and prosperity. Yet in recent years, diplomacy in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has largely been replaced by escalation and sanctions. These sanctions have primarily harmed European citizens through reduced purchasing power and economic security, while serious peace initiatives have been ignored—or even actively undermined. The fundamental problem of the European Union is not external, but internal: a system that concentrates ever more power, provides ever less accountability, and grows ever more distant from the citizens it claims to represent. The Tower of Babel is wobbling. Rather than assigning blame elsewhere, European leaders must look in the mirror, accept responsibility, and return to first principles: economic cooperation through the internal market, respect for national democracies, cultural sovereignty, and a realistic, diplomatic foreign policy—including support for genuine peace negotiations. I wish everyone a blessed Christmas. 🎄✝️
10:29

🇺🇸 Before extending my wishes for a blessed Christmas to all, a few reflections on the growing divide between the European Union and the United States. The topic was discussed by a Dutch news outlet with a pro-EU perspective (video). But it warrants some deeper reflection. The European Union is quick to attribute its problems to external forces: to Putin, to Trump, to “foreign disinformation.” Yet anyone willing to look honestly will see that much of what is going wrong in Europe today is the direct result of choices made by the EU itself—structural, ideological, and institutional. As early as 2005, citizens in the Netherlands and France drew a clear line. They voted against the European Constitution. That signal was not respected. Instead, largely the same substance was introduced through a different route via the Lisbon Treaty. Legally permissible, perhaps—but politically and democratically deeply problematic. It marked the beginning of a profound breach of trust between European citizens and European institutions. In 2016, this pattern repeated itself. The Dutch electorate voted “no” to the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement. Once again, the outcome was set aside through an additional declaration. The solemn promise that Ukraine would never become an EU member and that military involvement was excluded later proved to be of little value. The message was clear: democratic input is accepted only when it aligns with the preferred course. This points to a deeper issue: the EU’s democratic deficit. The European Commission is not directly elected, yet it holds the exclusive right of legislative initiative. The European Parliament cannot introduce legislation on its own. National parliaments often receive EU proposals late in the process and have limited ability to amend or reject them. Power continues to concentrate at a level increasingly insulated from direct democratic accountability. This shift is reinforced by the European Court of Justice. EU law effectively takes precedence over national law, including constitutional law. Through ever-expanding interpretations of the treaties, competencies steadily migrate toward Brussels without an explicit democratic mandate. Member states have few meaningful tools to reverse this trend. Economically, the EU has made fundamental errors as well. The introduction of the euro brought together economies with vastly different levels of productivity, debt, and fiscal discipline. The policies of the European Central Bank cannot suit all member states simultaneously. The result has been inflation, growing wealth inequality, and declining purchasing power—particularly in fiscally responsible countries. National governments bear the consequences, yet possess little monetary sovereignty. On top of this, the EU has imposed an energy transition insufficiently grounded in economic reality or global competition. High energy costs and excessive regulation have eroded the competitiveness of European industry. Investment is leaving, production is relocating, and the cost of living is becoming unaffordable for a growing share of the population. The same pattern appears in migration and border policy. The issue is not only scale and lack of control, but also cultural impact. Large-scale immigration without effective integration undermines social cohesion. European culture—shaped by history, traditions, values, and shared norms—is under pressure. Culture is not secondary. *Politics is downstream from culture.* When the cultural foundation erodes, political instability inevitably follows. This is reflected in tensions around security, education, housing, healthcare, and the loss of a shared societal framework. At the same time, the EU continues to layer regulation upon regulation. Small and medium-sized enterprises—the backbone of the European economy—are increasingly burdened by complex, costly, and often ideologically driven obligations. Entrepreneurship gives way to bureaucratic survival. Agriculture faces a similar top-down approach. Farmers are confronted with far-reaching measures imposed without realistic alternatives or sufficient public support. Food security is treated as an afterthought, even though the Covid crisis demonstrated just how vulnerable Europe has become. Strategic autonomy begins with energy *and* food. Fundamental freedoms are also under pressure. Under the banner of combating disinformation, authorities increasingly seek to define what may and may not be said, even as it becomes clear in hindsight that official EU positions on Covid, climate policy, and geopolitics were often incomplete or incorrect. At the same time, citizens’ privacy is curtailed in the name of security, while the European Commission itself operates with striking opacity. Trust erodes when those who govern fail to lead by example. Public funds are also used to finance NGOs that influence or implement policies the EU itself cannot formally pursue. This circumvents democratic oversight and weakens accountability. In foreign policy, the EU is evolving into a geopolitical actor without a clear democratic mandate. Sanctions, arms deliveries, and strategic decisions with far-reaching consequences are made with little public debate. The relationship between EU defense initiatives, NATO, and national armed forces is increasingly unclear. For decades, the EU has presented itself as a project of peace and prosperity. Yet in recent years, diplomacy in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has largely been replaced by escalation and sanctions. These sanctions have primarily harmed European citizens through reduced purchasing power and economic security, while serious peace initiatives have been ignored—or even actively undermined. The fundamental problem of the European Union is not external, but internal: a system that concentrates ever more power, provides ever less accountability, and grows ever more distant from the citizens it claims to represent. The Tower of Babel is wobbling. Rather than assigning blame elsewhere, European leaders must look in the mirror, accept responsibility, and return to first principles: economic cooperation through the internal market, respect for national democracies, cultural sovereignty, and a realistic, diplomatic foreign policy—including support for genuine peace negotiations. I wish everyone a blessed Christmas. 🎄✝️

Rob Roos 🇳🇱

47,917 views • 8 months ago

Katie Telford, Katie Telford as Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been a central figure in a series of controversies that paint a troubling picture of governance under her watch. Her role in several high-profile controversies reveals significant issues of incompetence, lack of transparency, and questionable ethics within the Trudeau administration. One of the most glaring issues involving Telford is the WE Charity scandal. This scandal centers on the Canadian government awarding a $912 million student grant program to WE Charity, an organization with close ties to the Trudeau family. While Telford was not the central figure in this scandal, her position within the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) during this period made her complicit in the fallout. Both Telford and Trudeau faced intense scrutiny for failing to recuse themselves from the decision-making process, despite these connections. The scandal raised serious questions about conflicts of interest and the overall decision-making process within the PMO, revealing a troubling lack of ethical governance and transparency. Additionally, Telford's role came under scrutiny during allegations of foreign election interference, particularly concerning attempts by the Chinese government to influence Canadian elections. Her responsibilities included managing sensitive political information related to these allegations. The Liberal government’s handling of these serious issues, under her watch, has been criticized for a lack of decisive action and transparency. This failure to address the allegations adequately highlights broader concerns about the integrity of the political process and the administration's commitment to safeguarding democratic principles. The controversy surrounding moving expenses further complicates Telford’s record. She, along with her colleague Gerald Butts, was required to repay moving expenses deemed "unreasonable" by the government. While this may seem like an administrative issue, it contributes to a broader narrative of potential misuse of public funds by high-ranking officials. Such incidents, though perhaps not directly involving personal misconduct, reflect poorly on the fiscal responsibility and ethical standards within the PMO, adding to the accumulation of criticisms against Telford. Telford’s tenure as Trudeau’s Chief of Staff has also been marked by general political criticism. Opposition parties and critics frequently target her influence and decisions within the PMO. These criticisms, while sometimes broad or speculative, suggest a pattern of political maneuvering and possibly unethical behavior. Her long tenure in this position has made her a focal point for criticism regarding the broader issues of political dysfunction and the erosion of public trust in the administration. Social media platforms and public discourse often blur the lines between fact and speculation, and while they may contain mixed information about Telford’s involvement in political decisions or her personal life, the persistent themes of lack of transparency and ethical concerns are significant. Public figures in high-stakes roles are often subject to intense scrutiny, and Telford’s involvement in these controversies reflects broader problems within the Trudeau administration. In conclusion, while there may not be direct personal scandals involving Katie Telford, her role in significant political controversies and administrative missteps paints a picture of a troubled administration characterized by mismanagement and ethical lapses. The accumulation of controversies associated with her role reveals systemic issues within the Trudeau government, contributing to an environment of diminished trust and accountability in Canadian politics.
3:36

Katie Telford, Katie Telford as Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been a central figure in a series of controversies that paint a troubling picture of governance under her watch. Her role in several high-profile controversies reveals significant issues of incompetence, lack of transparency, and questionable ethics within the Trudeau administration. One of the most glaring issues involving Telford is the WE Charity scandal. This scandal centers on the Canadian government awarding a $912 million student grant program to WE Charity, an organization with close ties to the Trudeau family. While Telford was not the central figure in this scandal, her position within the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) during this period made her complicit in the fallout. Both Telford and Trudeau faced intense scrutiny for failing to recuse themselves from the decision-making process, despite these connections. The scandal raised serious questions about conflicts of interest and the overall decision-making process within the PMO, revealing a troubling lack of ethical governance and transparency. Additionally, Telford's role came under scrutiny during allegations of foreign election interference, particularly concerning attempts by the Chinese government to influence Canadian elections. Her responsibilities included managing sensitive political information related to these allegations. The Liberal government’s handling of these serious issues, under her watch, has been criticized for a lack of decisive action and transparency. This failure to address the allegations adequately highlights broader concerns about the integrity of the political process and the administration's commitment to safeguarding democratic principles. The controversy surrounding moving expenses further complicates Telford’s record. She, along with her colleague Gerald Butts, was required to repay moving expenses deemed "unreasonable" by the government. While this may seem like an administrative issue, it contributes to a broader narrative of potential misuse of public funds by high-ranking officials. Such incidents, though perhaps not directly involving personal misconduct, reflect poorly on the fiscal responsibility and ethical standards within the PMO, adding to the accumulation of criticisms against Telford. Telford’s tenure as Trudeau’s Chief of Staff has also been marked by general political criticism. Opposition parties and critics frequently target her influence and decisions within the PMO. These criticisms, while sometimes broad or speculative, suggest a pattern of political maneuvering and possibly unethical behavior. Her long tenure in this position has made her a focal point for criticism regarding the broader issues of political dysfunction and the erosion of public trust in the administration. Social media platforms and public discourse often blur the lines between fact and speculation, and while they may contain mixed information about Telford’s involvement in political decisions or her personal life, the persistent themes of lack of transparency and ethical concerns are significant. Public figures in high-stakes roles are often subject to intense scrutiny, and Telford’s involvement in these controversies reflects broader problems within the Trudeau administration. In conclusion, while there may not be direct personal scandals involving Katie Telford, her role in significant political controversies and administrative missteps paints a picture of a troubled administration characterized by mismanagement and ethical lapses. The accumulation of controversies associated with her role reveals systemic issues within the Trudeau government, contributing to an environment of diminished trust and accountability in Canadian politics.

Vote Canada

73,438 views • 1 year ago

Criminal Tactics, Political Targets: A Dangerous Moment for Oldham Cllr Lewis Quigg tried to do something unremarkable at Oldham Council. The Reform UK councillor proposed an amendment urging government to bar convicted criminals from public office. Basic democratic safeguarding that should have passed without comment. Instead, it triggered something revealing. Irish Immy, a convicted heroin dealer and cop killer's getaway driver, now turned political candidate, decided to publish a video response. Most of the content was his standard sewage. But buried in the bile was something more calculated. Immy demonstrated casual knowledge of a councillor's private movements and daily routine. Arooj Shah's associate's criminal history should remove any ambiguity. He has previous convictions for online intimidation, including claims of "scouts" following Labour Party critics home. When someone with that record publicly signals knowledge of an elected representative's private life, the meaning is unmistakable. The message conveyed is simple: you are visible, your movements are known, and you are being watched. Either criminal intimidation of elected representatives gets confronted immediately, or it becomes standard practice. Either democratic safeguarding matters, or it doesn't. Unfortunately, when it comes to Oldham, Andy Burnham's proven rape gang protecting Greater Manchester Police, are also proven to protect allies of the Labour Party. _________ This Campaign Lives or Dies on Numbers Everything I publish is free. That’s deliberate. Truth behind a paywall can be dismissed. Truth that circulates freely becomes dangerous. That is why I refuse to lock this work away and why its survival depends on numbers, not noise. Institutions do not fear lone critics. They absorb them. Ignore them. Wait them out. What they fear is scale. Ten thousand people reading the same facts. Fifty thousand people who cannot be caricatured, isolated, or quietly dismissed. Numbers create visibility. Numbers create protection. Numbers turn one voice into something that carries weight. Supporting me isn’t about perks or access. It isn’t charity. It’s mass. Each supporter adds to the count that makes this work harder to bury, harder to smear, and harder to shut down. 🔴 Subscribe to the newsletter - it’s free. That alone matters. If you can afford it, support the work from just 75p a week or £30 for the full year. 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 Institutions only respond when they see numbers they can’t ignore. And numbers are the one thing they can’t silence. - Raja Miah MBE
1:54

Criminal Tactics, Political Targets: A Dangerous Moment for Oldham Cllr Lewis Quigg tried to do something unremarkable at Oldham Council. The Reform UK councillor proposed an amendment urging government to bar convicted criminals from public office. Basic democratic safeguarding that should have passed without comment. Instead, it triggered something revealing. Irish Immy, a convicted heroin dealer and cop killer's getaway driver, now turned political candidate, decided to publish a video response. Most of the content was his standard sewage. But buried in the bile was something more calculated. Immy demonstrated casual knowledge of a councillor's private movements and daily routine. Arooj Shah's associate's criminal history should remove any ambiguity. He has previous convictions for online intimidation, including claims of "scouts" following Labour Party critics home. When someone with that record publicly signals knowledge of an elected representative's private life, the meaning is unmistakable. The message conveyed is simple: you are visible, your movements are known, and you are being watched. Either criminal intimidation of elected representatives gets confronted immediately, or it becomes standard practice. Either democratic safeguarding matters, or it doesn't. Unfortunately, when it comes to Oldham, Andy Burnham's proven rape gang protecting Greater Manchester Police, are also proven to protect allies of the Labour Party. _________ This Campaign Lives or Dies on Numbers Everything I publish is free. That’s deliberate. Truth behind a paywall can be dismissed. Truth that circulates freely becomes dangerous. That is why I refuse to lock this work away and why its survival depends on numbers, not noise. Institutions do not fear lone critics. They absorb them. Ignore them. Wait them out. What they fear is scale. Ten thousand people reading the same facts. Fifty thousand people who cannot be caricatured, isolated, or quietly dismissed. Numbers create visibility. Numbers create protection. Numbers turn one voice into something that carries weight. Supporting me isn’t about perks or access. It isn’t charity. It’s mass. Each supporter adds to the count that makes this work harder to bury, harder to smear, and harder to shut down. 🔴 Subscribe to the newsletter - it’s free. That alone matters. If you can afford it, support the work from just 75p a week or £30 for the full year. 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 Institutions only respond when they see numbers they can’t ignore. And numbers are the one thing they can’t silence. - Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

25,042 views • 8 months ago

Debatable and concerning statement submitted to the Congressional Hearing Committee by Donald Lu, and here's why! The essence of his statement suggests a profound disconnect between his perspective and the realities faced by both congressmen and the people of Pakistan. Lu's comments seem like attempts to obscure the truth, indicating a belief that the intricacies and challenges of the political situation in Pakistan can be overlooked or underestimated. Lu omits several critical issues in his statement to the committee. He fails to address the allegation of the election symbol being stolen from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, a significant point of contention. Moreover, the illegal imprisonment of Imran Khan, PTI's leader, and his senior leadership is absent from his narrative. This oversight extends to the broader crackdown on PTI's political and social media workers, with thousands reportedly being illegally detained in a targeted effort to suppress PTI's presence and influence in the political arena. Another glaring issue Lu overlooks involves the electoral process itself, including the large-scale abduction of the proposers of candidates, the snatching of nomination papers, and the deprivation of 10 million overseas Pakistanis of their right to vote electronically. Such actions raise serious concerns about the integrity of the electoral process and the ability of the people's mandate to be accurately reflected. Moreover, the blocking of PTI's apps and websites, alongside the reported takeover of polling stations, further compounds the allegations of electoral malfeasance. The abrupt changes in the leads of PTI candidates, with reported instances of losing by thousands of votes after initially leading, point to a disturbing manipulation of the election results. The modifications made to Form 45, which are critical in the tabulation of votes, have also been called into question by the Pakistani countrymen. Amendments to this document have been used as the way to rig the results on a large scale, undermining the democratic process and the will of the people of Pakistan. The issues raised in response by the congressmen and the Pakistanis to Lu's statement quiet rightly so, indicate a deeply flawed electoral process, marred by illegal actions and manipulations intended to disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate and skew the results in favor of the intended interests. Thus, Lu neglecting to mention the aforementioned concerns and the aiding and abetting by the United States in the above suggests a pressing need for transparency, accountability, and reform in the electoral process to ensure that the mandate of the people of Pakistan is respected and accurately represented.
0:25

Debatable and concerning statement submitted to the Congressional Hearing Committee by Donald Lu, and here's why! The essence of his statement suggests a profound disconnect between his perspective and the realities faced by both congressmen and the people of Pakistan. Lu's comments seem like attempts to obscure the truth, indicating a belief that the intricacies and challenges of the political situation in Pakistan can be overlooked or underestimated. Lu omits several critical issues in his statement to the committee. He fails to address the allegation of the election symbol being stolen from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, a significant point of contention. Moreover, the illegal imprisonment of Imran Khan, PTI's leader, and his senior leadership is absent from his narrative. This oversight extends to the broader crackdown on PTI's political and social media workers, with thousands reportedly being illegally detained in a targeted effort to suppress PTI's presence and influence in the political arena. Another glaring issue Lu overlooks involves the electoral process itself, including the large-scale abduction of the proposers of candidates, the snatching of nomination papers, and the deprivation of 10 million overseas Pakistanis of their right to vote electronically. Such actions raise serious concerns about the integrity of the electoral process and the ability of the people's mandate to be accurately reflected. Moreover, the blocking of PTI's apps and websites, alongside the reported takeover of polling stations, further compounds the allegations of electoral malfeasance. The abrupt changes in the leads of PTI candidates, with reported instances of losing by thousands of votes after initially leading, point to a disturbing manipulation of the election results. The modifications made to Form 45, which are critical in the tabulation of votes, have also been called into question by the Pakistani countrymen. Amendments to this document have been used as the way to rig the results on a large scale, undermining the democratic process and the will of the people of Pakistan. The issues raised in response by the congressmen and the Pakistanis to Lu's statement quiet rightly so, indicate a deeply flawed electoral process, marred by illegal actions and manipulations intended to disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate and skew the results in favor of the intended interests. Thus, Lu neglecting to mention the aforementioned concerns and the aiding and abetting by the United States in the above suggests a pressing need for transparency, accountability, and reform in the electoral process to ensure that the mandate of the people of Pakistan is respected and accurately represented.

Sher Afzal Khan Marwat

92,621 views • 2 years ago

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

13,561 views • 3 months ago

Interesting piece Tinashe. However Britain’s economic challenges cannot be attributed solely to net zero policies or cultural changes that you referred to as”woke”. Weak productivity growth, underinvestment, housing constraints, an ageing population and, crucially, Brexit have all played significant roles over many years. Brexit introduced new trade barriers with Britain’s largest market, reduced labour mobility and created additional costs for many businesses, all of which have weighed on growth. The contrast with the United States is also more complex than you suggested. America’s dominance in AI and technology is the product of decades of investment, deep capital markets, world class universities and a culture of entrepreneurship that predates Donald Trump. It is difficult to compare Britain’s performance with America’s without acknowledging that Britain chose to leave a major economic bloc while the United States continued to benefit from a vast integrated domestic market. Barack Obama was shocked that Britain made the foolish decision of leaving the EU, and it has contributed to its decline as promised by the then governor of the Bank of England, Markey Carney who is now the Canadian Prime Minister. Concerns about growth, regulation and risk taking that you raised are valid, but cultural debates around universities, gender issues and “wokeness” do not by themselves explain economic performance. Economic growth is driven far more by investment, trade, innovation, skills and productivity than by culture war issues. Your argument that wealthy families are abandoning British universities and that large numbers of Britons are leaving for economic reasons would require substantial evidence. British universities remain among the most sought after in the world, and the UK continues to attract significant numbers of international students despite Brexit. Britain needs faster growth, higher productivity and greater investment. These challenges can’t be explained primarily through net zero policies and cultural change while overlooking the economic consequences of Brexit, which remains one of the most significant structural changes to the British economy in recent decades. Below is former British Prime Minister David Cameron warning British citizens about the dangers of leaving the EU before they made that decision. Many of the warnings he gave before the referendum have since come to pass. That, in my view, does far more to explain Britain’s current economic difficulties than arguments about cultural wokeness. Brexit fundamentally altered Britain’s trading relationship with its largest market, introduced new barriers to trade and labour mobility, and created economic headwinds that continue to be felt today. Any serious discussion about Britain’s economic challenges must grapple with that reality. That said, I enjoyed reading your piece, and thank you for initiating these debates. They help us think more deeply, question our assumptions and dig further into the evidence.
0:58

Interesting piece Tinashe. However Britain’s economic challenges cannot be attributed solely to net zero policies or cultural changes that you referred to as”woke”. Weak productivity growth, underinvestment, housing constraints, an ageing population and, crucially, Brexit have all played significant roles over many years. Brexit introduced new trade barriers with Britain’s largest market, reduced labour mobility and created additional costs for many businesses, all of which have weighed on growth. The contrast with the United States is also more complex than you suggested. America’s dominance in AI and technology is the product of decades of investment, deep capital markets, world class universities and a culture of entrepreneurship that predates Donald Trump. It is difficult to compare Britain’s performance with America’s without acknowledging that Britain chose to leave a major economic bloc while the United States continued to benefit from a vast integrated domestic market. Barack Obama was shocked that Britain made the foolish decision of leaving the EU, and it has contributed to its decline as promised by the then governor of the Bank of England, Markey Carney who is now the Canadian Prime Minister. Concerns about growth, regulation and risk taking that you raised are valid, but cultural debates around universities, gender issues and “wokeness” do not by themselves explain economic performance. Economic growth is driven far more by investment, trade, innovation, skills and productivity than by culture war issues. Your argument that wealthy families are abandoning British universities and that large numbers of Britons are leaving for economic reasons would require substantial evidence. British universities remain among the most sought after in the world, and the UK continues to attract significant numbers of international students despite Brexit. Britain needs faster growth, higher productivity and greater investment. These challenges can’t be explained primarily through net zero policies and cultural change while overlooking the economic consequences of Brexit, which remains one of the most significant structural changes to the British economy in recent decades. Below is former British Prime Minister David Cameron warning British citizens about the dangers of leaving the EU before they made that decision. Many of the warnings he gave before the referendum have since come to pass. That, in my view, does far more to explain Britain’s current economic difficulties than arguments about cultural wokeness. Brexit fundamentally altered Britain’s trading relationship with its largest market, introduced new barriers to trade and labour mobility, and created economic headwinds that continue to be felt today. Any serious discussion about Britain’s economic challenges must grapple with that reality. That said, I enjoyed reading your piece, and thank you for initiating these debates. They help us think more deeply, question our assumptions and dig further into the evidence.

Hopewell Chin’ono

32,497 views • 2 months ago

.Marjorie Taylor Greene Trump capitalized on Obama's recovery for three years, claiming credit until the pandemic struck. Faced with his first real test, he fell flat on his face. He prioritized golf over leadership while thousands of Americans died from COVID-19. We need attention-seeking, Putin sympathizers as much as we need another pandemic. Your attempt to rewrite history by glossing over the previous administration's catastrophic failures is audacious. You all want us to forget 2020 existed. Here's the lowdown: - Unemployment soared from a 50-year low of 3.5% in February to 14.7% by April as the pandemic forced businesses to shut or scale down. - By the end of Trump's term, the U.S. lost 2.9 million jobs, marking the first presidency since Hoover to end with fewer jobs than it started with. - Public federal debt jumped from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion. - The economy shrank by 3.4% in 2020, the steepest decline since 1947. On the pandemic front, Trump's response faced heavy criticism: - He consistently underplayed the virus, likening it to the flu and suggesting it would just vanish. - His campaign rallies, lacking in social distancing and mask mandates, were tagged as potential super-spreader events. - Trump's golf outings during the pandemic's early days were seen as a sign of his crisis mismanagement. - A slow response to mobilize essential supplies for healthcare workers, including a delayed invocation of the Defense Production Act, led to critical shortages. The economic impact hit small businesses hard: - Many had to shut permanently due to lockdowns and decreased consumer spending. - The CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program aimed to help, but faced criticism over its deployment and accessibility for the neediest businesses. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows that very well. She took PPP the amount of $182,300, which was later forgiven with interest, totaling $183,504. Transitioning to the Biden era came with its own set of hurdles: - Trump's delayed election concession hampered the formal transition process, including crucial pandemic response briefings. - The January 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters disrupted the Electoral College result certification, sparking national security worries. - Biden took over a nation grappling with the pandemic's health impacts and in dire need of economic and societal healing. In essence, Trump's tenure concluded with the U.S. entrenched in a health crisis, economic slump, and polarized political scene, leaving the Biden administration to tackle the pandemic's ongoing challenges and to kickstart to recovery of a destroyed economy. This still overlooks his dealings with the Taliban, bypassing the Afghan government, which had been bolstered with hundreds of billions of dollars in training and arms. He opted to negotiate with the Taliban, a move that led to the Afghan government's collapse. He freed their leader along with 5,000 soldiers, while reducing U.S. forces to 2,500, all without a clear exit strategy for May 2021. This act served as a parting gift to Putin, cornering Biden into either redeploying 10,000 troops to continue an endless conflict or withdrawing to avoid Taliban aggression. That’s what Republicans are hoping slips your mind: They’d prefer you overlook the sheer incompetence of a president who's been indicted four times, impeached twice, and still only served one term. They're trying to erase 2020 from memory. But we won’t let that happen. Integrity, truth, and justice should be the pillars of our public conversation, not baseless accusations and distorted facts. One shall not LIE! We are not FOOLS! Joe Biden's tenure as President has been marked by substantial achievements and a determined effort to address the complex challenges he inherited from the Trump administration. Upon taking office, Biden was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic, a fragile economy, and deeply entrenched political divisions. Despite these challenges, his administration has made remarkable strides, affirming the United States' position as a global leader and a resilient nation. Biden's Achievements: Economic Recovery: Biden's policies have spurred a robust recovery, adding 15 million jobs to the U.S. economy, a record for any president in three years. This achievement is particularly notable given the economic turmoil at the pandemic's peak. Infrastructure Investment: The passage of a landmark infrastructure bill, a feat that had eluded previous administrations, will modernize the nation's infrastructure, creating jobs and improving quality of life for Americans. Climate Action: Biden has made the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history, demonstrating leadership in addressing the global climate crisis. Healthcare and Veterans: His administration has worked to lower drug prices and improve healthcare for veterans, addressing longstanding issues in veterans' care. Gun Safety Law: Biden achieved what hadn't been done in 30 years by passing significant gun safety legislation, reflecting his commitment to addressing gun violence. Economic Indicators: Under his leadership, the U.S. has seen the longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century, along with a record-high stock market and surging consumer sentiment. Recovery from Global Inflation: Biden's policies have also contributed to a faster recovery from global inflation than many other nations, showcasing the effectiveness of his economic strategies. Obstruction by Republicans: Despite these achievements, Biden's efforts have been consistently obstructed by Republicans, who have chosen to block meaningful legislation at every turn. This obstructionism is not just about thwarting Biden's agenda; it's aimed at creating hardship for Americans, hoping it will translate into political gains for Trump in 2024. Strength and Resilience: Folks, the narrative that the U.S. is a nation in decline is categorically false. The accomplishments of the Biden administration, in the face of significant adversity, underscore the nation's strength and resilience. These achievements, along with Biden's proactive measures on immigration, border security, and international relations, reaffirm the U.S. as the strongest nation globally, capable of leading with integrity and innovation. Conclusion: The contrast between the forward momentum under Biden and the stagnation and division fostered by obstructionist Republicans is clear. The achievements of the Biden administration, particularly in areas handed off in turmoil by the previous administration, highlight a government working tirelessly for the betterment of its people and standing firm on the world stage. The path forward requires continued leadership that builds on these successes, not regressive policies that seek to undo this progress for political points. #BidenomicsIsWorking #Bidenomics
0:30

.Marjorie Taylor Greene Trump capitalized on Obama's recovery for three years, claiming credit until the pandemic struck. Faced with his first real test, he fell flat on his face. He prioritized golf over leadership while thousands of Americans died from COVID-19. We need attention-seeking, Putin sympathizers as much as we need another pandemic. Your attempt to rewrite history by glossing over the previous administration's catastrophic failures is audacious. You all want us to forget 2020 existed. Here's the lowdown: - Unemployment soared from a 50-year low of 3.5% in February to 14.7% by April as the pandemic forced businesses to shut or scale down. - By the end of Trump's term, the U.S. lost 2.9 million jobs, marking the first presidency since Hoover to end with fewer jobs than it started with. - Public federal debt jumped from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion. - The economy shrank by 3.4% in 2020, the steepest decline since 1947. On the pandemic front, Trump's response faced heavy criticism: - He consistently underplayed the virus, likening it to the flu and suggesting it would just vanish. - His campaign rallies, lacking in social distancing and mask mandates, were tagged as potential super-spreader events. - Trump's golf outings during the pandemic's early days were seen as a sign of his crisis mismanagement. - A slow response to mobilize essential supplies for healthcare workers, including a delayed invocation of the Defense Production Act, led to critical shortages. The economic impact hit small businesses hard: - Many had to shut permanently due to lockdowns and decreased consumer spending. - The CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program aimed to help, but faced criticism over its deployment and accessibility for the neediest businesses. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows that very well. She took PPP the amount of $182,300, which was later forgiven with interest, totaling $183,504. Transitioning to the Biden era came with its own set of hurdles: - Trump's delayed election concession hampered the formal transition process, including crucial pandemic response briefings. - The January 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters disrupted the Electoral College result certification, sparking national security worries. - Biden took over a nation grappling with the pandemic's health impacts and in dire need of economic and societal healing. In essence, Trump's tenure concluded with the U.S. entrenched in a health crisis, economic slump, and polarized political scene, leaving the Biden administration to tackle the pandemic's ongoing challenges and to kickstart to recovery of a destroyed economy. This still overlooks his dealings with the Taliban, bypassing the Afghan government, which had been bolstered with hundreds of billions of dollars in training and arms. He opted to negotiate with the Taliban, a move that led to the Afghan government's collapse. He freed their leader along with 5,000 soldiers, while reducing U.S. forces to 2,500, all without a clear exit strategy for May 2021. This act served as a parting gift to Putin, cornering Biden into either redeploying 10,000 troops to continue an endless conflict or withdrawing to avoid Taliban aggression. That’s what Republicans are hoping slips your mind: They’d prefer you overlook the sheer incompetence of a president who's been indicted four times, impeached twice, and still only served one term. They're trying to erase 2020 from memory. But we won’t let that happen. Integrity, truth, and justice should be the pillars of our public conversation, not baseless accusations and distorted facts. One shall not LIE! We are not FOOLS! Joe Biden's tenure as President has been marked by substantial achievements and a determined effort to address the complex challenges he inherited from the Trump administration. Upon taking office, Biden was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic, a fragile economy, and deeply entrenched political divisions. Despite these challenges, his administration has made remarkable strides, affirming the United States' position as a global leader and a resilient nation. Biden's Achievements: Economic Recovery: Biden's policies have spurred a robust recovery, adding 15 million jobs to the U.S. economy, a record for any president in three years. This achievement is particularly notable given the economic turmoil at the pandemic's peak. Infrastructure Investment: The passage of a landmark infrastructure bill, a feat that had eluded previous administrations, will modernize the nation's infrastructure, creating jobs and improving quality of life for Americans. Climate Action: Biden has made the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history, demonstrating leadership in addressing the global climate crisis. Healthcare and Veterans: His administration has worked to lower drug prices and improve healthcare for veterans, addressing longstanding issues in veterans' care. Gun Safety Law: Biden achieved what hadn't been done in 30 years by passing significant gun safety legislation, reflecting his commitment to addressing gun violence. Economic Indicators: Under his leadership, the U.S. has seen the longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century, along with a record-high stock market and surging consumer sentiment. Recovery from Global Inflation: Biden's policies have also contributed to a faster recovery from global inflation than many other nations, showcasing the effectiveness of his economic strategies. Obstruction by Republicans: Despite these achievements, Biden's efforts have been consistently obstructed by Republicans, who have chosen to block meaningful legislation at every turn. This obstructionism is not just about thwarting Biden's agenda; it's aimed at creating hardship for Americans, hoping it will translate into political gains for Trump in 2024. Strength and Resilience: Folks, the narrative that the U.S. is a nation in decline is categorically false. The accomplishments of the Biden administration, in the face of significant adversity, underscore the nation's strength and resilience. These achievements, along with Biden's proactive measures on immigration, border security, and international relations, reaffirm the U.S. as the strongest nation globally, capable of leading with integrity and innovation. Conclusion: The contrast between the forward momentum under Biden and the stagnation and division fostered by obstructionist Republicans is clear. The achievements of the Biden administration, particularly in areas handed off in turmoil by the previous administration, highlight a government working tirelessly for the betterment of its people and standing firm on the world stage. The path forward requires continued leadership that builds on these successes, not regressive policies that seek to undo this progress for political points. #BidenomicsIsWorking #Bidenomics

Human☮🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🌊

16,052 views • 2 years ago

.@JDVance1 Your attempt to rewrite history by glossing over the previous administration's catastrophic failures is audacious. You all want us to forget 2020 existed, remember what he handed down to Biden: Trump surfed on Obama's successes only to fall flat on his face when his presidency faced its first real test. Firstly, the notion that choosing not to run for reelection means President Biden cannot justify remaining in office is fundamentally flawed. The decision to step down from a reelection campaign can be influenced by various factors, including personal choice, political strategy, or a desire to pave the way for new leadership. It does not inherently indicate an inability to fulfill current presidential duties. Historical precedents, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision in 1968, demonstrate that a president can choose not to seek reelection while still effectively serving out their term. Secondly, your claim that not running for reelection would be a clear admission that President Trump was right about Biden's mental fitness is disingenuous nonsense. There is no direct correlation between choosing not to run and mental fitness. President Biden has undergone medical evaluations and has been declared fit to serve by his medical team. Moreover, President Biden has consistently stated that he feels fit to serve and would only step down if he faced a serious health issue or if it was clear he could not win the election. Lastly, your assertion that "there is no middle ground" insults our intelligence. Political decisions, especially those involving running for office, are rarely black-and-white. There are many considerations, including party strategy, personal health, and public opinion. Suggesting there is no middle ground is foolish. Here's the lowdown: - Unemployment soared from a 50-year low of 3.5% in February to 14.7% by April as the pandemic forced businesses to shut or scale down. - By the end of Trump's term, the U.S. lost 2.9 million jobs, marking the first presidency since Hoover to end with fewer jobs than it started with. - Public federal debt jumped from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion. - The economy shrank by 3.4% in 2020, the steepest decline since 1947. On the pandemic front, Trump's response faced heavy criticism: - He consistently underplayed the virus, likening it to the flu and suggesting it would just vanish. - His campaign rallies, lacking in social distancing and mask mandates, were tagged as potential super-spreader events. - Trump's golf outings during the pandemic's early days were seen as a sign of his crisis mismanagement. - A slow response to mobilize essential supplies for healthcare workers, including a delayed invocation of the Defense Production Act, led to critical shortages. The economic impact hit small businesses hard: - Many had to shut permanently due to lockdowns and decreased consumer spending. - The CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program aimed to help, but faced criticism over its deployment and accessibility for the neediest businesses. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows that very well. She took PPP the amount of $182,300, which was later forgiven with interest, totaling $183,504. Transitioning to the Biden era came with its own set of hurdles: - Trump's delayed election concession hampered the formal transition process, including crucial pandemic response briefings. - The January 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters disrupted the Electoral College result certification, sparking national security worries. - Biden took over a nation grappling with the pandemic's health impacts and in dire need of economic and societal healing. In essence, Trump's tenure concluded with the U.S. entrenched in a health crisis, economic slump, and polarized political scene, leaving the Biden administration to tackle the pandemic's ongoing challenges and to kickstart to recovery of a destroyed economy. This still overlooks his dealings with the Taliban, bypassing the Afghan government, which had been bolstered with hundreds of billions of dollars in training and arms. He opted to negotiate with the Taliban, a move that led to the Afghan government's collapse. He freed their leader along with 5,000 soldiers, while reducing U.S. forces to 2,500, all without a clear exit strategy for May 2021. This act served as a parting gift to Putin, cornering Biden into either redeploying 10,000 troops to continue an endless conflict or withdrawing to avoid Taliban aggression. That’s what Republicans are hoping slips your mind: They’d prefer you overlook the sheer incompetence of a president who's been indicted four times, impeached twice, and still only served one term. They're trying to erase 2020 from memory. But we won’t let that happen. Integrity, truth, and justice should be the pillars of our public conversation, not baseless accusations and distorted facts. One shall not LIE! We are not FOOLS! Joe Biden's tenure as President has been marked by substantial achievements and a determined effort to address the complex challenges he inherited from the Trump administration. Upon taking office, Biden was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic, a fragile economy, and deeply entrenched political divisions. Despite these challenges, his administration has made remarkable strides, affirming the United States' position as a global leader and a resilient nation. Biden's Achievements: Economic Recovery: Biden's policies have spurred a robust recovery, adding 15 million jobs to the U.S. economy, a record for any president in three years. This achievement is particularly notable given the economic turmoil at the pandemic's peak. Infrastructure Investment: The passage of a landmark infrastructure bill, a feat that had eluded previous administrations, will modernize the nation's infrastructure, creating jobs and improving quality of life for Americans. Climate Action: Biden has made the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history, demonstrating leadership in addressing the global climate crisis. Healthcare and Veterans: His administration has worked to lower drug prices and improve healthcare for veterans, addressing longstanding issues in veterans' care. Gun Safety Law: Biden achieved what hadn't been done in 30 years by passing significant gun safety legislation, reflecting his commitment to addressing gun violence. Economic Indicators: Under his leadership, the U.S. has seen the longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century, along with a record-high stock market and surging consumer sentiment. Recovery from Global Inflation: Biden's policies have also contributed to a faster recovery from global inflation than many other nations, showcasing the effectiveness of his economic strategies. Obstruction by Republicans: Despite these achievements, Biden's efforts have been consistently obstructed by Republicans, who have chosen to block meaningful legislation at every turn. This obstructionism is not just about thwarting Biden's agenda; it's aimed at creating hardship for Americans, hoping it will translate into political gains for Trump in 2024. Strength and Resilience: Folks, the narrative that the U.S. is a nation in decline is categorically false. The accomplishments of the Biden administration, in the face of significant adversity, underscore the nation's strength and resilience. These achievements, along with Biden's proactive measures on immigration, border security, and international relations, reaffirm the U.S. as the strongest nation globally, capable of leading with integrity and innovation. Conclusion: The contrast between the forward momentum under Biden and the stagnation and division fostered by obstructionist Republicans is clear. The achievements of the Biden administration, particularly in areas handed off in turmoil by the previous administration, highlight a government working tirelessly for the betterment of its people and standing firm on the world stage. The path forward requires continued leadership that builds on these successes, not regressive policies that seek to undo this progress for political points. #BidenomicsIsWorking #Bidenomics
0:30

.@JDVance1 Your attempt to rewrite history by glossing over the previous administration's catastrophic failures is audacious. You all want us to forget 2020 existed, remember what he handed down to Biden: Trump surfed on Obama's successes only to fall flat on his face when his presidency faced its first real test. Firstly, the notion that choosing not to run for reelection means President Biden cannot justify remaining in office is fundamentally flawed. The decision to step down from a reelection campaign can be influenced by various factors, including personal choice, political strategy, or a desire to pave the way for new leadership. It does not inherently indicate an inability to fulfill current presidential duties. Historical precedents, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision in 1968, demonstrate that a president can choose not to seek reelection while still effectively serving out their term. Secondly, your claim that not running for reelection would be a clear admission that President Trump was right about Biden's mental fitness is disingenuous nonsense. There is no direct correlation between choosing not to run and mental fitness. President Biden has undergone medical evaluations and has been declared fit to serve by his medical team. Moreover, President Biden has consistently stated that he feels fit to serve and would only step down if he faced a serious health issue or if it was clear he could not win the election. Lastly, your assertion that "there is no middle ground" insults our intelligence. Political decisions, especially those involving running for office, are rarely black-and-white. There are many considerations, including party strategy, personal health, and public opinion. Suggesting there is no middle ground is foolish. Here's the lowdown: - Unemployment soared from a 50-year low of 3.5% in February to 14.7% by April as the pandemic forced businesses to shut or scale down. - By the end of Trump's term, the U.S. lost 2.9 million jobs, marking the first presidency since Hoover to end with fewer jobs than it started with. - Public federal debt jumped from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion. - The economy shrank by 3.4% in 2020, the steepest decline since 1947. On the pandemic front, Trump's response faced heavy criticism: - He consistently underplayed the virus, likening it to the flu and suggesting it would just vanish. - His campaign rallies, lacking in social distancing and mask mandates, were tagged as potential super-spreader events. - Trump's golf outings during the pandemic's early days were seen as a sign of his crisis mismanagement. - A slow response to mobilize essential supplies for healthcare workers, including a delayed invocation of the Defense Production Act, led to critical shortages. The economic impact hit small businesses hard: - Many had to shut permanently due to lockdowns and decreased consumer spending. - The CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program aimed to help, but faced criticism over its deployment and accessibility for the neediest businesses. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows that very well. She took PPP the amount of $182,300, which was later forgiven with interest, totaling $183,504. Transitioning to the Biden era came with its own set of hurdles: - Trump's delayed election concession hampered the formal transition process, including crucial pandemic response briefings. - The January 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters disrupted the Electoral College result certification, sparking national security worries. - Biden took over a nation grappling with the pandemic's health impacts and in dire need of economic and societal healing. In essence, Trump's tenure concluded with the U.S. entrenched in a health crisis, economic slump, and polarized political scene, leaving the Biden administration to tackle the pandemic's ongoing challenges and to kickstart to recovery of a destroyed economy. This still overlooks his dealings with the Taliban, bypassing the Afghan government, which had been bolstered with hundreds of billions of dollars in training and arms. He opted to negotiate with the Taliban, a move that led to the Afghan government's collapse. He freed their leader along with 5,000 soldiers, while reducing U.S. forces to 2,500, all without a clear exit strategy for May 2021. This act served as a parting gift to Putin, cornering Biden into either redeploying 10,000 troops to continue an endless conflict or withdrawing to avoid Taliban aggression. That’s what Republicans are hoping slips your mind: They’d prefer you overlook the sheer incompetence of a president who's been indicted four times, impeached twice, and still only served one term. They're trying to erase 2020 from memory. But we won’t let that happen. Integrity, truth, and justice should be the pillars of our public conversation, not baseless accusations and distorted facts. One shall not LIE! We are not FOOLS! Joe Biden's tenure as President has been marked by substantial achievements and a determined effort to address the complex challenges he inherited from the Trump administration. Upon taking office, Biden was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic, a fragile economy, and deeply entrenched political divisions. Despite these challenges, his administration has made remarkable strides, affirming the United States' position as a global leader and a resilient nation. Biden's Achievements: Economic Recovery: Biden's policies have spurred a robust recovery, adding 15 million jobs to the U.S. economy, a record for any president in three years. This achievement is particularly notable given the economic turmoil at the pandemic's peak. Infrastructure Investment: The passage of a landmark infrastructure bill, a feat that had eluded previous administrations, will modernize the nation's infrastructure, creating jobs and improving quality of life for Americans. Climate Action: Biden has made the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history, demonstrating leadership in addressing the global climate crisis. Healthcare and Veterans: His administration has worked to lower drug prices and improve healthcare for veterans, addressing longstanding issues in veterans' care. Gun Safety Law: Biden achieved what hadn't been done in 30 years by passing significant gun safety legislation, reflecting his commitment to addressing gun violence. Economic Indicators: Under his leadership, the U.S. has seen the longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century, along with a record-high stock market and surging consumer sentiment. Recovery from Global Inflation: Biden's policies have also contributed to a faster recovery from global inflation than many other nations, showcasing the effectiveness of his economic strategies. Obstruction by Republicans: Despite these achievements, Biden's efforts have been consistently obstructed by Republicans, who have chosen to block meaningful legislation at every turn. This obstructionism is not just about thwarting Biden's agenda; it's aimed at creating hardship for Americans, hoping it will translate into political gains for Trump in 2024. Strength and Resilience: Folks, the narrative that the U.S. is a nation in decline is categorically false. The accomplishments of the Biden administration, in the face of significant adversity, underscore the nation's strength and resilience. These achievements, along with Biden's proactive measures on immigration, border security, and international relations, reaffirm the U.S. as the strongest nation globally, capable of leading with integrity and innovation. Conclusion: The contrast between the forward momentum under Biden and the stagnation and division fostered by obstructionist Republicans is clear. The achievements of the Biden administration, particularly in areas handed off in turmoil by the previous administration, highlight a government working tirelessly for the betterment of its people and standing firm on the world stage. The path forward requires continued leadership that builds on these successes, not regressive policies that seek to undo this progress for political points. #BidenomicsIsWorking #Bidenomics

Human☮🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🌊

94,526 views • 2 years ago

Every street HUSTLER knows the trick. Keep them looking at the CARDS, and they’ll never see the hand in their POCKET. Now watch ANDY BURNHAM. It’s the oldest hustle going. THREE-CARD MONTE. And it was never a one-man job. The dealer keeps your eyes on the cards. Find the lady. Except you can't. It was RIGGED before you stepped up. There's a friendly face who seems to be winning, to make you trust it. That's the SHILL. They let you win a small hand early, a bus fare, a pub cut, just enough to keep you playing. While every eye is on the dealer, his PICKPOCKETS work the crowd. The game was never the point. The game was the DISTRACTION. That's this government. Burnham is the DEALER. The pints, the DJ sets, the tea skits, that's him keeping your eyes on the cards and while you watch the show, the rest of them are in your pockets. Climate money, MOVED. Taxes, COMING. Your vote, quietly LIFTED while you clapped. Because he's gone on the BBC and ruled out an election. Not NEVER. Not NOW. Watch that word. It all builds to the moment he says YES, the second the numbers say he'll WIN. Watch for one word. MANDATE. The day he says it, the election is coming. A media unit costing up to £872,000 a year to make him look fun. Alastair Campbell's old spin job waiting to be filled. Number 10 stacked with the people who ran his campaign. That's not an accident. That's the CREW. The timing matters. Take over just before Parliament breaks for summer and you’ve got weeks of headlines with little day-to-day scrutiny. Call an election straight after and the campaign extends that window even further. Up to twelve weeks of PR before voters get their say. Coincidence? Or exactly how the trick was meant to be played? Now watch him dress it up as democracy. He told the BBC he faced the public in Makerfield. Here's what he left out. The sitting MP RESIGNED to clear the seat for him. His party BLOCKED him from a different one first. And six weeks earlier, REFORM won every single ward there. Emptied for him. Chosen for him. In Reform country. Held on his own celebrity, 24,937 votes. That's the entire democratic basis on which he runs a country of 68 MILLION. That's not facing the public. That's a STITCH-UP with a rosette on. The part he'd rather you forgot. When the Tories last swapped leader without a vote, one man was loudest. Only one possible response, he said. We need a general election. That man was ANDY BURNHAM. An outrage when it was someone else. Now it's his seat, and suddenly you don't want a say. Pick the right card and the dealer just CHANGES THE RULES. He says you don't want an election. 57% DO. A majority want one inside a year. He's not misreading the room. He's waiting for it to fall for him first. So keep watching the cards if you like. Or look at whose hand is in your POCKET.
1:30

Every street HUSTLER knows the trick. Keep them looking at the CARDS, and they’ll never see the hand in their POCKET. Now watch ANDY BURNHAM. It’s the oldest hustle going. THREE-CARD MONTE. And it was never a one-man job. The dealer keeps your eyes on the cards. Find the lady. Except you can't. It was RIGGED before you stepped up. There's a friendly face who seems to be winning, to make you trust it. That's the SHILL. They let you win a small hand early, a bus fare, a pub cut, just enough to keep you playing. While every eye is on the dealer, his PICKPOCKETS work the crowd. The game was never the point. The game was the DISTRACTION. That's this government. Burnham is the DEALER. The pints, the DJ sets, the tea skits, that's him keeping your eyes on the cards and while you watch the show, the rest of them are in your pockets. Climate money, MOVED. Taxes, COMING. Your vote, quietly LIFTED while you clapped. Because he's gone on the BBC and ruled out an election. Not NEVER. Not NOW. Watch that word. It all builds to the moment he says YES, the second the numbers say he'll WIN. Watch for one word. MANDATE. The day he says it, the election is coming. A media unit costing up to £872,000 a year to make him look fun. Alastair Campbell's old spin job waiting to be filled. Number 10 stacked with the people who ran his campaign. That's not an accident. That's the CREW. The timing matters. Take over just before Parliament breaks for summer and you’ve got weeks of headlines with little day-to-day scrutiny. Call an election straight after and the campaign extends that window even further. Up to twelve weeks of PR before voters get their say. Coincidence? Or exactly how the trick was meant to be played? Now watch him dress it up as democracy. He told the BBC he faced the public in Makerfield. Here's what he left out. The sitting MP RESIGNED to clear the seat for him. His party BLOCKED him from a different one first. And six weeks earlier, REFORM won every single ward there. Emptied for him. Chosen for him. In Reform country. Held on his own celebrity, 24,937 votes. That's the entire democratic basis on which he runs a country of 68 MILLION. That's not facing the public. That's a STITCH-UP with a rosette on. The part he'd rather you forgot. When the Tories last swapped leader without a vote, one man was loudest. Only one possible response, he said. We need a general election. That man was ANDY BURNHAM. An outrage when it was someone else. Now it's his seat, and suddenly you don't want a say. Pick the right card and the dealer just CHANGES THE RULES. He says you don't want an election. 57% DO. A majority want one inside a year. He's not misreading the room. He's waiting for it to fall for him first. So keep watching the cards if you like. Or look at whose hand is in your POCKET.

BanksyCat

80,830 views • 1 month ago

DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT JP LEDWABA MAY HAVE MISLEAD THE JSC YESTERDAY. The conduct of the judiciary is increasingly coming under intense public scrutiny, and not without reason. When judges appear on live platforms and present narratives that are misleading, it does not merely raise eyebrows it strikes at the very heart of public trust in the justice system. What is even more concerning is the perception that, instead of confronting serious allegations with transparency and decisiveness, elements within the judiciary appear to close ranks and protect one another, even under a cloud of suspicion. This concern is amplified by the apparent posture of the current leadership of the judiciary. There is a growing sentiment that the office of the Chief Justice is being used, not as a beacon of accountability, but as a shield to defend colleagues irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations they face. The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interview involving Deputy Judge President JP Ledwaba has only deepened these concerns. During the proceedings, he asserted that the allocation of the IPHC succession matter to Judge Dipuo Phahlane was based on an agreement between the parties. This claim has been categorically denied by the legal representatives of the affected parties, who maintain that no such consent oral or written was ever given. This contradiction is not a minor procedural dispute; it goes to the core of judicial integrity and case allocation protocols. By his own admission, a case management judge may not preside over a trial without the consent of all parties. If such consent did not exist, as alleged by the lawyers, then the basis upon which the matter was allocated becomes highly questionable. The critical question is, on what authority or understanding did JP Ledwaba rely when making that allocation and why did he mislead the JSC yesterday. The seriousness of this issue was underscored during the interview itself, where Advocate Ngcukatobi repeatedly pressed for clarity. His line of questioning made it clear that this was not a peripheral matter it was a decisive issue that speaks directly to the credibility and suitability of a candidate for higher judicial office. An honest and forthright answer was required; anything less risks being interpreted as evasive or misleading. The situation becomes even more troubling when viewed alongside the timeline of the bribery allegations involving Judge Phahlane. Both she and JP Ledwaba acknowledge that her involvement in the matter began in 2022. However, it is known that an anonymous tip detailing serious allegations and explicitly naming relevant individuals, including Judge Phahlane was submitted to the judiciary in late 2021. Notably and of serious concern, this correspondence was also directed to the Deputy Judge President himself. This raises a fundamental and unavoidable question: why would JP Ledwaba proceed to allocate a matter to a judge who had already been implicated in serious allegations brought to his attention months earlier? Was due diligence conducted? Were the allegations assessed or verified before such a decision was made? Or were they simply disregarded? Further compounding the issue are claims made by Phahlane to Sandlana when she suggested personal proximity to the Judge President or influence in judicial allocations. If there is any truth to assertions that relationships played a role in the assignment of cases, then the implications are profound and deeply damaging to the credibility of the judicial system and more specifically JP Ledwaba himself. It is therefore imperative that the President, the Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice, and members of the Judicial Service Commission engage seriously with these issues. A full and transparent examination of the facts including all related communications is essential.
4:21

DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT JP LEDWABA MAY HAVE MISLEAD THE JSC YESTERDAY. The conduct of the judiciary is increasingly coming under intense public scrutiny, and not without reason. When judges appear on live platforms and present narratives that are misleading, it does not merely raise eyebrows it strikes at the very heart of public trust in the justice system. What is even more concerning is the perception that, instead of confronting serious allegations with transparency and decisiveness, elements within the judiciary appear to close ranks and protect one another, even under a cloud of suspicion. This concern is amplified by the apparent posture of the current leadership of the judiciary. There is a growing sentiment that the office of the Chief Justice is being used, not as a beacon of accountability, but as a shield to defend colleagues irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations they face. The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interview involving Deputy Judge President JP Ledwaba has only deepened these concerns. During the proceedings, he asserted that the allocation of the IPHC succession matter to Judge Dipuo Phahlane was based on an agreement between the parties. This claim has been categorically denied by the legal representatives of the affected parties, who maintain that no such consent oral or written was ever given. This contradiction is not a minor procedural dispute; it goes to the core of judicial integrity and case allocation protocols. By his own admission, a case management judge may not preside over a trial without the consent of all parties. If such consent did not exist, as alleged by the lawyers, then the basis upon which the matter was allocated becomes highly questionable. The critical question is, on what authority or understanding did JP Ledwaba rely when making that allocation and why did he mislead the JSC yesterday. The seriousness of this issue was underscored during the interview itself, where Advocate Ngcukatobi repeatedly pressed for clarity. His line of questioning made it clear that this was not a peripheral matter it was a decisive issue that speaks directly to the credibility and suitability of a candidate for higher judicial office. An honest and forthright answer was required; anything less risks being interpreted as evasive or misleading. The situation becomes even more troubling when viewed alongside the timeline of the bribery allegations involving Judge Phahlane. Both she and JP Ledwaba acknowledge that her involvement in the matter began in 2022. However, it is known that an anonymous tip detailing serious allegations and explicitly naming relevant individuals, including Judge Phahlane was submitted to the judiciary in late 2021. Notably and of serious concern, this correspondence was also directed to the Deputy Judge President himself. This raises a fundamental and unavoidable question: why would JP Ledwaba proceed to allocate a matter to a judge who had already been implicated in serious allegations brought to his attention months earlier? Was due diligence conducted? Were the allegations assessed or verified before such a decision was made? Or were they simply disregarded? Further compounding the issue are claims made by Phahlane to Sandlana when she suggested personal proximity to the Judge President or influence in judicial allocations. If there is any truth to assertions that relationships played a role in the assignment of cases, then the implications are profound and deeply damaging to the credibility of the judicial system and more specifically JP Ledwaba himself. It is therefore imperative that the President, the Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice, and members of the Judicial Service Commission engage seriously with these issues. A full and transparent examination of the facts including all related communications is essential.

Modibe Vladimir Modiba

43,921 views • 4 months ago

Being an influencer does matter. The government is mobilizing resources for “La Nicholette,” while other missing women in Sinaloa remain forgotten. Selective attention is also a form of violence. Federal and state authorities are working together in the search for Nicole Pardo Molina, an influencer known as “La Nicholette,” who was kidnapped on Tuesday, January 20, in the Isla Musalá neighborhood of Culiacán, an incident captured on her own vehicle's dashcam. The Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection (SSPC), Omar García Harfuch, reported this Thursday during the presidential morning press conference that authorities have already begun investigating and tracking the vehicles involved in the kidnapping, in coordination with the Sinaloa State Attorney General's Office. “We are working with the Attorney General's Office… the vehicles involved are already being tracked, and we will provide timely updates until her recovery,” the official stated from Puebla. After the video of the exact moment armed men intercepted the young woman and forced her into another car in front of her lilac Cybertruck was widely circulated, the Alba Protocol, a mechanism for the immediate search for missing women and girls, was activated in an attempt to locate her alive. However, the case has generated public debate and questions due to the extensive media coverage it has received, particularly because of "La Nicholette's" visibility on social media, in contrast to the persistent situation of violence and disappearances faced by other women in Sinaloa and throughout the country. Civil society organizations and groups of relatives of missing persons point out that, while every case deserves attention, media coverage and the institutional response seem to focus more intensely on public figures, which contrasts with the historical attention given to women without high profiles. Although there are no official figures compiled for each case that would allow for a direct comparison at this time, media outlets have noted that hundreds of women were reported missing or kidnapped in Sinaloa during 2025, a context of sustained violence that extends beyond this individual incident. The debate is taking place in a country where groups like the so-called "searching mothers" have for years highlighted the need for broader and more sensitive public policies that address the crisis of disappearances, including women, with the same urgency regardless of their social or media profile. As of press time, authorities have not reported any arrests related to the case nor the whereabouts of Nicole Pardo Molina, who remains missing while the search operation continues. . . . . . . DEA HQ Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo Omar H Garcia Harfuch Ioan Grillo El Huaso All Source News Illicit Investigations LagunaSegura SEMAR México AltoMando GN MEXICO Cartel Insider NarcoGuerraMX Oficial @aic_07 Carlos Loret de Mola Seguridad Pública Sinaloa Latinus Milenio FBI ICE en Español Rubén Rocha Moya InSight Crime InSight Crime_es Luis Chaparro Miguel Fernández Grupo Fórmula El Universal FGR México HEARST crux1469 La Saga
0:45

Being an influencer does matter. The government is mobilizing resources for “La Nicholette,” while other missing women in Sinaloa remain forgotten. Selective attention is also a form of violence. Federal and state authorities are working together in the search for Nicole Pardo Molina, an influencer known as “La Nicholette,” who was kidnapped on Tuesday, January 20, in the Isla Musalá neighborhood of Culiacán, an incident captured on her own vehicle's dashcam. The Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection (SSPC), Omar García Harfuch, reported this Thursday during the presidential morning press conference that authorities have already begun investigating and tracking the vehicles involved in the kidnapping, in coordination with the Sinaloa State Attorney General's Office. “We are working with the Attorney General's Office… the vehicles involved are already being tracked, and we will provide timely updates until her recovery,” the official stated from Puebla. After the video of the exact moment armed men intercepted the young woman and forced her into another car in front of her lilac Cybertruck was widely circulated, the Alba Protocol, a mechanism for the immediate search for missing women and girls, was activated in an attempt to locate her alive. However, the case has generated public debate and questions due to the extensive media coverage it has received, particularly because of "La Nicholette's" visibility on social media, in contrast to the persistent situation of violence and disappearances faced by other women in Sinaloa and throughout the country. Civil society organizations and groups of relatives of missing persons point out that, while every case deserves attention, media coverage and the institutional response seem to focus more intensely on public figures, which contrasts with the historical attention given to women without high profiles. Although there are no official figures compiled for each case that would allow for a direct comparison at this time, media outlets have noted that hundreds of women were reported missing or kidnapped in Sinaloa during 2025, a context of sustained violence that extends beyond this individual incident. The debate is taking place in a country where groups like the so-called "searching mothers" have for years highlighted the need for broader and more sensitive public policies that address the crisis of disappearances, including women, with the same urgency regardless of their social or media profile. As of press time, authorities have not reported any arrests related to the case nor the whereabouts of Nicole Pardo Molina, who remains missing while the search operation continues. . . . . . . DEA HQ Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo Omar H Garcia Harfuch Ioan Grillo El Huaso All Source News Illicit Investigations LagunaSegura SEMAR México AltoMando GN MEXICO Cartel Insider NarcoGuerraMX Oficial @aic_07 Carlos Loret de Mola Seguridad Pública Sinaloa Latinus Milenio FBI ICE en Español Rubén Rocha Moya InSight Crime InSight Crime_es Luis Chaparro Miguel Fernández Grupo Fórmula El Universal FGR México HEARST crux1469 La Saga

THE INFO STREAM

28,715 views • 7 months ago

Resurrecting this dead issue to activate women against the right at this existential moment in the immigration fight needs to be shut down. Recent polling has One Nation around 31% of the primary vote with immigration being the single biggest reason voters are backing them. That’s where the public’s attention is and that’s where the momentum is coming from. Immigration restriction exists under a social license, allowing unpopular or poorly thought-through policies has previously destroyed the right in Australia. Hanson’s EasyTax proposal in the 1998 federal election ruined One Nation electorally at a time when immigration was equally as salient a concern as today. It is entirely plausible we see a repeat of this with abortion. Abortion is a low-salience issue. Australians don’t rank it among their top political concerns, and it is nowhere near the vote mover that immigration has become. A February 2026 Redbridge poll for The Australia Institute (N=2,010) found 62% support access to abortion services, with another 25% supporting it in limited circumstances. Only 8% oppose it outright. Even among One Nation voters themselves, a substantial majority support access in at least some circumstances. Even if your concern is solely with sex-selective abortion, it has been empirically demonstrated that certain migrant communities (particularly from India and China) exhibit notably higher rates of early induced abortion, including patterns consistent with sex-selective practices that produce skewed sex ratios at birth far above the natural level. Australian-born women show lower rates. But regardless of the nuance of your preferred ban, attempts to legislate in this area walks a tightrope. The distinction between opposing sex-selective abortion and restricting abortion rights more broadly is unlikely to survive media coverage or partisan campaigning. Opponents will almost certainly present it as an attack on women’s bodily autonomy, regardless of the narrower intent and the electoral apocalypse will ensue. The left can no longer rely on accusations of racism to halt growing opposition to mass immigration. Instead, it is attempting to recast the right as anti-women, sexist and anti-abortion. That is particularly risky when women have been moving towards One Nation in significant numbers, and in some polls more than men. Australia has largely avoided the political gender divide seen elsewhere. Why hand opponents a wedge issue when the public is already delivering a mandate on immigration? The opportunity to secure meaningful change on immigration, demographics and our existential problem is rare and may not come again. Turning a low-priority social issue into a central political battle risks everything by energising opponents and distracting from the issue that created the momentum in the first place. Keep the focus on immigration. Don’t squander momentum when it is finally translating into political leverage. Have your vote of conscience as Labor and Liberals have done but don’t risk it as National platform or an artificial right wing position.
2:50

Resurrecting this dead issue to activate women against the right at this existential moment in the immigration fight needs to be shut down. Recent polling has One Nation around 31% of the primary vote with immigration being the single biggest reason voters are backing them. That’s where the public’s attention is and that’s where the momentum is coming from. Immigration restriction exists under a social license, allowing unpopular or poorly thought-through policies has previously destroyed the right in Australia. Hanson’s EasyTax proposal in the 1998 federal election ruined One Nation electorally at a time when immigration was equally as salient a concern as today. It is entirely plausible we see a repeat of this with abortion. Abortion is a low-salience issue. Australians don’t rank it among their top political concerns, and it is nowhere near the vote mover that immigration has become. A February 2026 Redbridge poll for The Australia Institute (N=2,010) found 62% support access to abortion services, with another 25% supporting it in limited circumstances. Only 8% oppose it outright. Even among One Nation voters themselves, a substantial majority support access in at least some circumstances. Even if your concern is solely with sex-selective abortion, it has been empirically demonstrated that certain migrant communities (particularly from India and China) exhibit notably higher rates of early induced abortion, including patterns consistent with sex-selective practices that produce skewed sex ratios at birth far above the natural level. Australian-born women show lower rates. But regardless of the nuance of your preferred ban, attempts to legislate in this area walks a tightrope. The distinction between opposing sex-selective abortion and restricting abortion rights more broadly is unlikely to survive media coverage or partisan campaigning. Opponents will almost certainly present it as an attack on women’s bodily autonomy, regardless of the narrower intent and the electoral apocalypse will ensue. The left can no longer rely on accusations of racism to halt growing opposition to mass immigration. Instead, it is attempting to recast the right as anti-women, sexist and anti-abortion. That is particularly risky when women have been moving towards One Nation in significant numbers, and in some polls more than men. Australia has largely avoided the political gender divide seen elsewhere. Why hand opponents a wedge issue when the public is already delivering a mandate on immigration? The opportunity to secure meaningful change on immigration, demographics and our existential problem is rare and may not come again. Turning a low-priority social issue into a central political battle risks everything by energising opponents and distracting from the issue that created the momentum in the first place. Keep the focus on immigration. Don’t squander momentum when it is finally translating into political leverage. Have your vote of conscience as Labor and Liberals have done but don’t risk it as National platform or an artificial right wing position.

auspill

141,594 views • 2 months ago

Calvary Greetings to you Reno Kirikiri, Thank you for your take on this topical issue, which I am sure you know you riddled with historical inaccuracies and deliberate deceit. Your response is a sad example of a historical mythomaniac, who types so many words to seem intelligent but the statements lack substance or reasoning and panders to less IQ’ed bigoted sycophants. My tweet was simple and direct: MKO Abiola and his wife, Kudirat Abiola, were murdered in cold blood, and despite the outright confession that Abiola won the June 12 election, the so called “Yoruba ronu” (Yoruba Bigots) who continue to launch bigoted unpatriotic attacks on other tribes in Nigeria, have remained cowardly silent, showing no outrage but instead launching attacks on Peter Obi. Instead of providing a valid response, you decided to dance around the issue, offering a rambling narrative that neither correlates with my tweet nor makes any substantive point. You mentioned NADECO as “Lukumi Yoruba” evidence of proactivity. Even though Lukumi has nothing to do with Nigeria, yes, NADECO played a critical role in opposing military dictatorship, but NADECO was not an exclusively Yoruba movement. Prominent non Yoruba members included Commodore Dan Suleiman (Middle Belt), Air Commodore Ndubisi Kanu (Igbo), Chief Solomon Asemota (Edo), Dr. Arthur Nwankwo (Igbo), Chief John Odigie-Oyegun (Edo), and Chief Anthony Enahoro (Edo). The struggle against the June 12 annulment was NATIONAL, not a tribal effort. The entire NIGERIA, voted for Abiola. You conveniently omitted this to push a tribal narrative. Your claim that Afenifere waged an economic war that led to the Failed Banks Tribunal is a distortion of history. The Failed Banks Tribunal was established to address financial mismanagement and corruption in the banking sector, not as a response to any supposed ECONOMIC WAR. This is a deliberate falsehood aimed at rewriting history. You listed the names of Yoruba martyrs under Abacha’s regime, but this was nothing more than an emotional appeal, irrelevant to the discussion. Again, PANDERING. My tweet was about the current lack of outrage over the confirmed murder of MKO Abiola and the betrayal of his mandate today because of an illiterate certificate forging criminal drug baron. Your defense of General Babangida is particularly concerning. You suggest that his “atonement” by supposedly manipulating events to bring Obasanjo to power somehow absolves him of his role in annulling Nigeria’s freest and fairest election. This is a criminal bigoted thinking and not wisdom. So if someone steals from the whole country and kills an Ijaw man while at it, he should be freed because he shared the money with another Ijaw man This is why I insist that you’re low IQ’ed. You argue that the Yoruba chose to bury the hatchet as a sign of wisdom, not cowardice. But wisdom does not mean silence in the face of injustice. The Niger Delta for example, keeps agitating for resource control, despite political settlements. The silence you call “wisdom” is, in fact, cowardice. Finally, my tweet highlighted the hypocrisy of those who remain silent on the Abiola injustice, yet find their voices only when it comes to attacking Peter Obi. Your response did nothing to address this core issue. Instead, you engaged in a lengthy diversion without any substance. You cannot continue to pander to bigots and attempt to gaslight those who dare to ask difficult questions. If you wish to engage in an intelligent convo, do so with facts and clarity, not with misdirection, lies and tribal pandering. Sadly, YOU ARE ALWAYS PANDERING and Nigerians are tired of political pandering chameleons. Get a Job, “dem no know your gbedu again.”
6:01

Calvary Greetings to you Reno Kirikiri, Thank you for your take on this topical issue, which I am sure you know you riddled with historical inaccuracies and deliberate deceit. Your response is a sad example of a historical mythomaniac, who types so many words to seem intelligent but the statements lack substance or reasoning and panders to less IQ’ed bigoted sycophants. My tweet was simple and direct: MKO Abiola and his wife, Kudirat Abiola, were murdered in cold blood, and despite the outright confession that Abiola won the June 12 election, the so called “Yoruba ronu” (Yoruba Bigots) who continue to launch bigoted unpatriotic attacks on other tribes in Nigeria, have remained cowardly silent, showing no outrage but instead launching attacks on Peter Obi. Instead of providing a valid response, you decided to dance around the issue, offering a rambling narrative that neither correlates with my tweet nor makes any substantive point. You mentioned NADECO as “Lukumi Yoruba” evidence of proactivity. Even though Lukumi has nothing to do with Nigeria, yes, NADECO played a critical role in opposing military dictatorship, but NADECO was not an exclusively Yoruba movement. Prominent non Yoruba members included Commodore Dan Suleiman (Middle Belt), Air Commodore Ndubisi Kanu (Igbo), Chief Solomon Asemota (Edo), Dr. Arthur Nwankwo (Igbo), Chief John Odigie-Oyegun (Edo), and Chief Anthony Enahoro (Edo). The struggle against the June 12 annulment was NATIONAL, not a tribal effort. The entire NIGERIA, voted for Abiola. You conveniently omitted this to push a tribal narrative. Your claim that Afenifere waged an economic war that led to the Failed Banks Tribunal is a distortion of history. The Failed Banks Tribunal was established to address financial mismanagement and corruption in the banking sector, not as a response to any supposed ECONOMIC WAR. This is a deliberate falsehood aimed at rewriting history. You listed the names of Yoruba martyrs under Abacha’s regime, but this was nothing more than an emotional appeal, irrelevant to the discussion. Again, PANDERING. My tweet was about the current lack of outrage over the confirmed murder of MKO Abiola and the betrayal of his mandate today because of an illiterate certificate forging criminal drug baron. Your defense of General Babangida is particularly concerning. You suggest that his “atonement” by supposedly manipulating events to bring Obasanjo to power somehow absolves him of his role in annulling Nigeria’s freest and fairest election. This is a criminal bigoted thinking and not wisdom. So if someone steals from the whole country and kills an Ijaw man while at it, he should be freed because he shared the money with another Ijaw man This is why I insist that you’re low IQ’ed. You argue that the Yoruba chose to bury the hatchet as a sign of wisdom, not cowardice. But wisdom does not mean silence in the face of injustice. The Niger Delta for example, keeps agitating for resource control, despite political settlements. The silence you call “wisdom” is, in fact, cowardice. Finally, my tweet highlighted the hypocrisy of those who remain silent on the Abiola injustice, yet find their voices only when it comes to attacking Peter Obi. Your response did nothing to address this core issue. Instead, you engaged in a lengthy diversion without any substance. You cannot continue to pander to bigots and attempt to gaslight those who dare to ask difficult questions. If you wish to engage in an intelligent convo, do so with facts and clarity, not with misdirection, lies and tribal pandering. Sadly, YOU ARE ALWAYS PANDERING and Nigerians are tired of political pandering chameleons. Get a Job, “dem no know your gbedu again.”

AMB. SERAH IBRAHIM

171,944 views • 1 year ago

Ezra Levant: Thanks to floor crossers, Carney can now ram through his spy bill Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The answer? It is a direct assault on parliamentary democracy and your freedoms. Last year, Mark Carney won the election with just 43 percent of the vote. That delivered him 169 seats out of 343 in the House of Commons, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. Canadians deliberately gave him a minority government. Sometimes voters do that on purpose, wanting to keep a politician on a shorter leash and force him to work with Parliament rather than dominate it. But Carney was not content with the verdict of the electorate. While the political establishment spent years warning that Donald Trump might refuse to accept election results, Carney set about changing his own. By persuading a string of opposition MPs to cross the floor, he secured the majority Canadians had declined to give him at the ballot box. The obvious question is why? Justin Trudeau governed for nearly a decade without a formal majority, relying on NDP support to pass budgets and survive confidence votes. There was little reason to believe Carney could not have done the same. Ezra’s answer is that Carney wanted something more than legislative support. He wanted the ability to shut down parliamentary scrutiny itself. That is now on full display. Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The legislation would compel technology companies to retain user data for up to a year and make that information available to government authorities. Civil liberties advocates have raised serious concerns about privacy, government overreach and the expansion of state surveillance powers. The concerns are hardly theoretical. Canadians have already witnessed a government willing to freeze bank accounts and invoke extraordinary powers during the trucker protests. Mark Carney himself, while living in Europe at the time, wrote in The Globe and Mail that Ottawa should take a harder line against convoy participants and their supporters. It is therefore not surprising that critics view Bill C-22 as part of a broader push toward greater state control. What makes the situation particularly troubling is not only the substance of the legislation but the manner in which it is being advanced. The government has introduced a motion declaring that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22 will be pushed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable. In plain English, the normal rules are being set aside. Committee members will have just 30 minutes to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Any remaining amendments will be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. The legislation will then move rapidly through report stage and third reading with strictly limited speaking time for opposition parties and virtually no opportunity for extended scrutiny. For a bill that constitutes one of the most significant expansions of government surveillance powers in Canadian history, Parliament is being afforded remarkably little time to examine the details. Professor Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading experts on technology law and digital policy, has publicly criticized the government’s approach. Geist argues that hearings are being cut short, amendments are being rushed through without proper discussion, and the public is being denied the transparency normally expected during the legislative process. His warning is not about partisan politics but about the erosion of parliamentary accountability. This is why Carney needed those extra seats. The issue is not merely that opposition MPs crossed the floor. It is what those additional seats are now being used to accomplish. This is a double violation of democratic principles: first, altering the balance of Parliament after voters had already spoken; and second, using that altered balance to restrict Parliament’s ability to debate, amend and scrutinize legislation. The implications extend beyond a single bill. Across Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, governments are increasingly embracing online surveillance measures, age-verification requirements and expanded regulatory control over digital spaces. These initiatives are almost always presented as necessary protections for children or public safety, yet they also require citizens to surrender more privacy and give governments more information about their online activities. It is a stark contrast to the vision of technological progress championed by figures such as Elon Musk, who promote innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and the expansion of human potential. One approach sees technology as a tool of freedom and advancement. The other increasingly treats it as something to be monitored, regulated and controlled. This is what an unchecked majority can look like under Mark Carney: Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, debate curtailed, privacy placed at risk and major legislation rushed through with minimal scrutiny. Canadians deserve better. The democratic process only matters if it is respected when it becomes inconvenient. If Parliament is no longer permitted to properly examine legislation, question witnesses or challenge the government of the day, then the institution itself is diminished. That should concern every Canadian regardless of political affiliation.
12:13

Ezra Levant: Thanks to floor crossers, Carney can now ram through his spy bill Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The answer? It is a direct assault on parliamentary democracy and your freedoms. Last year, Mark Carney won the election with just 43 percent of the vote. That delivered him 169 seats out of 343 in the House of Commons, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. Canadians deliberately gave him a minority government. Sometimes voters do that on purpose, wanting to keep a politician on a shorter leash and force him to work with Parliament rather than dominate it. But Carney was not content with the verdict of the electorate. While the political establishment spent years warning that Donald Trump might refuse to accept election results, Carney set about changing his own. By persuading a string of opposition MPs to cross the floor, he secured the majority Canadians had declined to give him at the ballot box. The obvious question is why? Justin Trudeau governed for nearly a decade without a formal majority, relying on NDP support to pass budgets and survive confidence votes. There was little reason to believe Carney could not have done the same. Ezra’s answer is that Carney wanted something more than legislative support. He wanted the ability to shut down parliamentary scrutiny itself. That is now on full display. Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The legislation would compel technology companies to retain user data for up to a year and make that information available to government authorities. Civil liberties advocates have raised serious concerns about privacy, government overreach and the expansion of state surveillance powers. The concerns are hardly theoretical. Canadians have already witnessed a government willing to freeze bank accounts and invoke extraordinary powers during the trucker protests. Mark Carney himself, while living in Europe at the time, wrote in The Globe and Mail that Ottawa should take a harder line against convoy participants and their supporters. It is therefore not surprising that critics view Bill C-22 as part of a broader push toward greater state control. What makes the situation particularly troubling is not only the substance of the legislation but the manner in which it is being advanced. The government has introduced a motion declaring that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22 will be pushed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable. In plain English, the normal rules are being set aside. Committee members will have just 30 minutes to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Any remaining amendments will be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. The legislation will then move rapidly through report stage and third reading with strictly limited speaking time for opposition parties and virtually no opportunity for extended scrutiny. For a bill that constitutes one of the most significant expansions of government surveillance powers in Canadian history, Parliament is being afforded remarkably little time to examine the details. Professor Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading experts on technology law and digital policy, has publicly criticized the government’s approach. Geist argues that hearings are being cut short, amendments are being rushed through without proper discussion, and the public is being denied the transparency normally expected during the legislative process. His warning is not about partisan politics but about the erosion of parliamentary accountability. This is why Carney needed those extra seats. The issue is not merely that opposition MPs crossed the floor. It is what those additional seats are now being used to accomplish. This is a double violation of democratic principles: first, altering the balance of Parliament after voters had already spoken; and second, using that altered balance to restrict Parliament’s ability to debate, amend and scrutinize legislation. The implications extend beyond a single bill. Across Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, governments are increasingly embracing online surveillance measures, age-verification requirements and expanded regulatory control over digital spaces. These initiatives are almost always presented as necessary protections for children or public safety, yet they also require citizens to surrender more privacy and give governments more information about their online activities. It is a stark contrast to the vision of technological progress championed by figures such as Elon Musk, who promote innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and the expansion of human potential. One approach sees technology as a tool of freedom and advancement. The other increasingly treats it as something to be monitored, regulated and controlled. This is what an unchecked majority can look like under Mark Carney: Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, debate curtailed, privacy placed at risk and major legislation rushed through with minimal scrutiny. Canadians deserve better. The democratic process only matters if it is respected when it becomes inconvenient. If Parliament is no longer permitted to properly examine legislation, question witnesses or challenge the government of the day, then the institution itself is diminished. That should concern every Canadian regardless of political affiliation.

Rebel News

29,493 views • 2 months ago