正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

🚨🚨 BREAKING REPORT: Caught on camera in Winston-Salem admitting DEI didn’t stop… it just got rebranded If city officials openly say they’re “changing the words so the work continues,” that’s not inclusion — that’s evasion. 🧨 RENAME ≠ REPEAL If the function is the same, swapping “DEI” for “belonging”...

SloanRachmuth's profile picture

Sloan Rachmuth

52,611 subscribers

36,162 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Weingarten: It’s really only the Congress that can abolish the Department of Education. So, what the president can do is make government basically ineffective—not work—by a thousand cuts. And that’s what they’re doing. So, if you essentially fire the entire staff, or 80% of the staff, of Social Security, and somebody needs to get a Social Security card, they’re not going to be able to get it in a timely way. If you fire everybody who’s doing hurricane watch, you’re not going to have hurricane watch… The same is true in terms of education. If you fire everybody, or you make it unfeasible for it to work, then none of the laws that are supposed to be effectuated by the department will work. So, if Title I is supposed to go to a high school in Staten Island, and they’re supposed to get $5 million that goes there, and all of a sudden it doesn’t, and they don’t have the money, then that means the programs go away. That means the reading programs, the computer programs, the after-school programs—all the programs that are funded by Title I, and every schoolteacher in America understands what that means—they go away. The same goes for the programs for kids with disabilities under IDEA. If a school system, or a school—because these things go directly to schools—if the funding goes away, a kid doesn’t get physical therapy or occupational therapy
2:59

Weingarten: It’s really only the Congress that can abolish the Department of Education. So, what the president can do is make government basically ineffective—not work—by a thousand cuts. And that’s what they’re doing. So, if you essentially fire the entire staff, or 80% of the staff, of Social Security, and somebody needs to get a Social Security card, they’re not going to be able to get it in a timely way. If you fire everybody who’s doing hurricane watch, you’re not going to have hurricane watch… The same is true in terms of education. If you fire everybody, or you make it unfeasible for it to work, then none of the laws that are supposed to be effectuated by the department will work. So, if Title I is supposed to go to a high school in Staten Island, and they’re supposed to get $5 million that goes there, and all of a sudden it doesn’t, and they don’t have the money, then that means the programs go away. That means the reading programs, the computer programs, the after-school programs—all the programs that are funded by Title I, and every schoolteacher in America understands what that means—they go away. The same goes for the programs for kids with disabilities under IDEA. If a school system, or a school—because these things go directly to schools—if the funding goes away, a kid doesn’t get physical therapy or occupational therapy

Acyn

613,564 次观看 • 1 年前

Suozzi: When something crazy is being proposed—something outlandish—we need to fight and resist. But when something addresses the concerns of the American people, we need to find common ground and get things done. This isn’t just about the election in 2026 or the election in 2028. It’s about right now. It’s about making people’s lives better now. A lot of people will say, “Well, the Republicans didn’t do that. They didn’t help Biden get things done. They didn’t work across party lines when they controlled the House.” And that’s true. It was the least productive Congress in modern history… But just because that’s what they did doesn’t mean that’s what we should do. It’s not just about winning. It’s about trying to move the country forward, solve problems, and make people’s lives better. This business isn’t worth it for the ego or just for the competition—“I’m right, you’re wrong; I win, you lose.” It’s only worth it if we’re actually making the world a better place to live in. We need to call out the Republicans when they do crazy stuff, when they’re extreme. But we also need to work with them when we can find ways forward to make our country a better place to live in.
1:54

Suozzi: When something crazy is being proposed—something outlandish—we need to fight and resist. But when something addresses the concerns of the American people, we need to find common ground and get things done. This isn’t just about the election in 2026 or the election in 2028. It’s about right now. It’s about making people’s lives better now. A lot of people will say, “Well, the Republicans didn’t do that. They didn’t help Biden get things done. They didn’t work across party lines when they controlled the House.” And that’s true. It was the least productive Congress in modern history… But just because that’s what they did doesn’t mean that’s what we should do. It’s not just about winning. It’s about trying to move the country forward, solve problems, and make people’s lives better. This business isn’t worth it for the ego or just for the competition—“I’m right, you’re wrong; I win, you lose.” It’s only worth it if we’re actually making the world a better place to live in. We need to call out the Republicans when they do crazy stuff, when they’re extreme. But we also need to work with them when we can find ways forward to make our country a better place to live in.

Acyn

47,870 次观看 • 1 年前

Louisiana’s U.S. Senator just called Louisiana’s Governor Stupid, on CNN without saying his name. So I’ll just make it plain. Now I don’t agree with Kennedy on much, but the governor of the 50th ranked state going on a colonizing expedition doesn’t benefit the people of Louisiana. At this point, if you’re a Republican, I can’t even take you seriously when it comes to the people you vote for. There’s no way to spin leadership that consistently fails to improve the quality of life in our cities, our state, or this country. What’s being exposed is a lust for power — not a desire to serve or help people. I’ve been saying the same thing for years: we can send them all home. It doesn’t take magic. It takes resources, organizing, and people willing to stop settling. The numbers are already here. Share if you care. That’s how we expose them.
2:23

Louisiana’s U.S. Senator just called Louisiana’s Governor Stupid, on CNN without saying his name. So I’ll just make it plain. Now I don’t agree with Kennedy on much, but the governor of the 50th ranked state going on a colonizing expedition doesn’t benefit the people of Louisiana. At this point, if you’re a Republican, I can’t even take you seriously when it comes to the people you vote for. There’s no way to spin leadership that consistently fails to improve the quality of life in our cities, our state, or this country. What’s being exposed is a lust for power — not a desire to serve or help people. I’ve been saying the same thing for years: we can send them all home. It doesn’t take magic. It takes resources, organizing, and people willing to stop settling. The numbers are already here. Share if you care. That’s how we expose them.

Gary Chambers

110,756 次观看 • 6 个月前

We need to call a thing what it is. Black tax dollars are fueling an economy that too often leaves Black people out. In an all-Black neighborhood, not one Black face on the crew fixing the roads we paid for. That’s not a coincidence—it’s a system. This is taxation without representation. It’s time for Black elected officials to hold the line: no more contracts without Black representation. Until there’s equity in who gets the work and who benefits from our tax dollars, we must use every bit of our power to shift resources toward our people. In a state that’s 34% Black, a parish that’s 48% Black, and a city that’s 56% Black, it is unacceptable for public dollars to keep flowing to companies that shut Black workers out. We can’t force them to hire us—but our leaders don’t have to keep voting to fund them either. And every time somebody brings up crime in our communities, I’m going to bring up jobs. We fund the building of white wealth every day while being told to “fix our own problems.” That’s not just wrong—it’s corporate welfare. You take money from one community, invest it in another, and then blame the first for the outcomes. If you want to fix crime, start by funding our businesses, hiring our people, and treating our communities like they are equal in investment. Stop asking us to fix the symptoms while you keep feeding the disease.
2:32

We need to call a thing what it is. Black tax dollars are fueling an economy that too often leaves Black people out. In an all-Black neighborhood, not one Black face on the crew fixing the roads we paid for. That’s not a coincidence—it’s a system. This is taxation without representation. It’s time for Black elected officials to hold the line: no more contracts without Black representation. Until there’s equity in who gets the work and who benefits from our tax dollars, we must use every bit of our power to shift resources toward our people. In a state that’s 34% Black, a parish that’s 48% Black, and a city that’s 56% Black, it is unacceptable for public dollars to keep flowing to companies that shut Black workers out. We can’t force them to hire us—but our leaders don’t have to keep voting to fund them either. And every time somebody brings up crime in our communities, I’m going to bring up jobs. We fund the building of white wealth every day while being told to “fix our own problems.” That’s not just wrong—it’s corporate welfare. You take money from one community, invest it in another, and then blame the first for the outcomes. If you want to fix crime, start by funding our businesses, hiring our people, and treating our communities like they are equal in investment. Stop asking us to fix the symptoms while you keep feeding the disease.

Gary Chambers

52,555 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨 25-YEAR TEACHER TORCHES THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ON CAMERA - “THE STATE CAN SHOVE IT” A veteran teacher looks straight into the camera and says she’s done pretending. After 25 years in the classroom, here’s what she says she doesn’t care about anymore: • Homework: because kids either get it or they don’t, and homework fixes nothing • Dress codes: “I’m just glad you’re here” • Attendance: if parents don’t know where their kid is, that’s not a teacher problem • Cursing: she says she has better things to do than write kids up • State testing: one day, one test, zero reflection of real learning Her argument is simple: teach the kids who show up, stop policing nonsense, and stop letting the state reduce education to a standardized score. She ends it by saying the state can take its test and shove it. Is this the realest teacher in America - or exactly what’s wrong with schools today?
1:44

🚨 25-YEAR TEACHER TORCHES THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ON CAMERA - “THE STATE CAN SHOVE IT” A veteran teacher looks straight into the camera and says she’s done pretending. After 25 years in the classroom, here’s what she says she doesn’t care about anymore: • Homework: because kids either get it or they don’t, and homework fixes nothing • Dress codes: “I’m just glad you’re here” • Attendance: if parents don’t know where their kid is, that’s not a teacher problem • Cursing: she says she has better things to do than write kids up • State testing: one day, one test, zero reflection of real learning Her argument is simple: teach the kids who show up, stop policing nonsense, and stop letting the state reduce education to a standardized score. She ends it by saying the state can take its test and shove it. Is this the realest teacher in America - or exactly what’s wrong with schools today?

HustleBitch

426,889 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨An ICE agent illegally pulled over a car in Farmingdale, Maine… without probable cause… and tried to tell people, legally in the U.S., that they don’t have the right to stay. The agent says, on video, “Just because you came to this country and applied for asylum… doesn’t mean you get to stay here.” Except… it literally does. That’s not an opinion. That’s the law. If you apply for asylum, you have a legal right to remain in the United States while your case is processed. Period. So what just happened here? An armed federal agent pulled over a vehicle, without probable cause, misstated the law, and tried to intimidate people out of rights they legally have. That’s a constitutional violation. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to stop and detain someone. You don’t get to pull people over just because you feel like it or because of who they are. And Maine law enforcement has already made this clear in other cases… if there’s no probable cause, you don’t get to hold someone. That’s a basic constitutional protection. Then there’s due process… Asylum seekers are in a legal process. They are not “illegal” for being here. The government itself allowed them in while their cases are pending. So, when an ICE agent tells them they don’t have the right to stay… That’s not just wrong, that’s the government lying about your rights to your face. And when the people in the car pushed back… when they actually knew the law… The agent left. Because he never had the legal authority to begin with. This is the pattern we keep seeing… People with legal status being stopped, questioned, detained, or targeted anyway. Even recent reporting out of Maine shows asylum seekers, with no criminal records, being stopped during enforcement operations, and taken. They test the line… cross it… and hope nobody notices. That’s how intimidation works. And no one is holding them accountable.
0:25

🚨An ICE agent illegally pulled over a car in Farmingdale, Maine… without probable cause… and tried to tell people, legally in the U.S., that they don’t have the right to stay. The agent says, on video, “Just because you came to this country and applied for asylum… doesn’t mean you get to stay here.” Except… it literally does. That’s not an opinion. That’s the law. If you apply for asylum, you have a legal right to remain in the United States while your case is processed. Period. So what just happened here? An armed federal agent pulled over a vehicle, without probable cause, misstated the law, and tried to intimidate people out of rights they legally have. That’s a constitutional violation. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to stop and detain someone. You don’t get to pull people over just because you feel like it or because of who they are. And Maine law enforcement has already made this clear in other cases… if there’s no probable cause, you don’t get to hold someone. That’s a basic constitutional protection. Then there’s due process… Asylum seekers are in a legal process. They are not “illegal” for being here. The government itself allowed them in while their cases are pending. So, when an ICE agent tells them they don’t have the right to stay… That’s not just wrong, that’s the government lying about your rights to your face. And when the people in the car pushed back… when they actually knew the law… The agent left. Because he never had the legal authority to begin with. This is the pattern we keep seeing… People with legal status being stopped, questioned, detained, or targeted anyway. Even recent reporting out of Maine shows asylum seekers, with no criminal records, being stopped during enforcement operations, and taken. They test the line… cross it… and hope nobody notices. That’s how intimidation works. And no one is holding them accountable.

Jesus Freakin Congress

56,369 次观看 • 2 个月前

Message to the GOP, stop proposing new bills to force Governors like Gavin Newsom to stop providing benefits to illegal migrants, it’s ALREADY ILLEGAL. We need our laws ENFORCED Title 8 Section 1621: It is ILLEGAL for aliens to claim federal, state and local benefits Title 8, Section 1621 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. § 1621) is part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). It addresses the eligibility of aliens for certain federal, state, and local public benefits. Ineligibility for Certain Benefits: Unauthorized aliens (those not lawfully present in the U.S.) are generally not eligible for: Federal public benefits (e.g., welfare programs like TANF, Medicaid, SNAP). State or local public benefits (e.g., housing assistance, unemployment benefits, or other state-funded programs) This applies unless a state passes a law after August 22, 1996, explicitly allowing such benefits (The only exceptions to this are EMERGENCY situations, which is not what’s happening in Sanctuary Cities) “What really irritates me it's that Republicans in the Congress are trying to propose bills to try to get, you know, certain Democrat governors to stop certain programs and things that they're doing. But a lot of these bills that they're proposing are not the solution. We already have laws on the books that need to be enforced. For example, Governor Newsom is giving illegal immigrants health care benefits that is illegal under Title 8, Section 1621. But yet you have Republicans in Congress trying to propose bills to crack down on it, even though all they have to do is go to Donald Trump, go to the White House, tell him to enforce Title 8, Section 1621. And Governor Newsom is therefore forced to stop giving illegal aliens benefits, as well as some of these other states.” “They already have a lot of tools at their disposal to fight the nonsense that's going on today. And the last thing we need sometimes is a new bill or a new law. Sometimes all we need to do is look, have someone look at what laws are on the books with a magnifying glass and to just tell them, look, here are the tools at your disposal. Here's what you can do about all this crap that's happening that's affecting the populace. Democrats are robbing the people, and here's what you can do about it”
1:26

Message to the GOP, stop proposing new bills to force Governors like Gavin Newsom to stop providing benefits to illegal migrants, it’s ALREADY ILLEGAL. We need our laws ENFORCED Title 8 Section 1621: It is ILLEGAL for aliens to claim federal, state and local benefits Title 8, Section 1621 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. § 1621) is part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). It addresses the eligibility of aliens for certain federal, state, and local public benefits. Ineligibility for Certain Benefits: Unauthorized aliens (those not lawfully present in the U.S.) are generally not eligible for: Federal public benefits (e.g., welfare programs like TANF, Medicaid, SNAP). State or local public benefits (e.g., housing assistance, unemployment benefits, or other state-funded programs) This applies unless a state passes a law after August 22, 1996, explicitly allowing such benefits (The only exceptions to this are EMERGENCY situations, which is not what’s happening in Sanctuary Cities) “What really irritates me it's that Republicans in the Congress are trying to propose bills to try to get, you know, certain Democrat governors to stop certain programs and things that they're doing. But a lot of these bills that they're proposing are not the solution. We already have laws on the books that need to be enforced. For example, Governor Newsom is giving illegal immigrants health care benefits that is illegal under Title 8, Section 1621. But yet you have Republicans in Congress trying to propose bills to crack down on it, even though all they have to do is go to Donald Trump, go to the White House, tell him to enforce Title 8, Section 1621. And Governor Newsom is therefore forced to stop giving illegal aliens benefits, as well as some of these other states.” “They already have a lot of tools at their disposal to fight the nonsense that's going on today. And the last thing we need sometimes is a new bill or a new law. Sometimes all we need to do is look, have someone look at what laws are on the books with a magnifying glass and to just tell them, look, here are the tools at your disposal. Here's what you can do about all this crap that's happening that's affecting the populace. Democrats are robbing the people, and here's what you can do about it”

Wall Street Apes

37,130 次观看 • 1 年前

Tom Homan drops the mic on CNN’s Jake Tapper after he attempted to frame ICE as doing things “differently” under the Trump administration. “The laws are EXACTLY the same…If they don’t like what ICE is doing, CHANGE the law.” TAPPER: “Well, I think some of the issues that they’ve raised have to do with ways that ICE is doing its job differently now than they were doing it, even in the first Trump administration…” HOMAN: “The laws are exactly the same. Let’s talk about the masks.” “You don’t see ICE wearing masks inside the airports because they’re not on the street arresting criminals. You got the agitators who cross the line and threaten ICE agents.” “The same people in the Democratic Congress that want ICE to take off the masks are the same people who say ICE is going to shoot people inside airports. I mean, you can’t have it both ways!” “So if you want ICE to take the masks off, the threat level has to decrease. It’s an 8,000% increase in threats against ICE officers. And that’s because a lot of the rhetoric coming from the Hill.” “Stop calling ICE Nazis and racists. Stop saying they’re going to shoot people inside airports. That’s going to drive the threat level down. And we can talk about masks.” “So, you know, we got to work together on this, but ICE is doing the same thing they’ve done during the 40 years I’ve been doing it. Again, they’re enforcing the laws that they enacted. If they don’t like it, change the law.” “The law hasn’t changed. The difference is, under the last four years of Joe Biden, they weren’t enforcing the law. Now ICE is actually enforcing the law, doing their job, and they don’t like it. If they don’t like what ICE is doing, change the law.”
1:41

Tom Homan drops the mic on CNN’s Jake Tapper after he attempted to frame ICE as doing things “differently” under the Trump administration. “The laws are EXACTLY the same…If they don’t like what ICE is doing, CHANGE the law.” TAPPER: “Well, I think some of the issues that they’ve raised have to do with ways that ICE is doing its job differently now than they were doing it, even in the first Trump administration…” HOMAN: “The laws are exactly the same. Let’s talk about the masks.” “You don’t see ICE wearing masks inside the airports because they’re not on the street arresting criminals. You got the agitators who cross the line and threaten ICE agents.” “The same people in the Democratic Congress that want ICE to take off the masks are the same people who say ICE is going to shoot people inside airports. I mean, you can’t have it both ways!” “So if you want ICE to take the masks off, the threat level has to decrease. It’s an 8,000% increase in threats against ICE officers. And that’s because a lot of the rhetoric coming from the Hill.” “Stop calling ICE Nazis and racists. Stop saying they’re going to shoot people inside airports. That’s going to drive the threat level down. And we can talk about masks.” “So, you know, we got to work together on this, but ICE is doing the same thing they’ve done during the 40 years I’ve been doing it. Again, they’re enforcing the laws that they enacted. If they don’t like it, change the law.” “The law hasn’t changed. The difference is, under the last four years of Joe Biden, they weren’t enforcing the law. Now ICE is actually enforcing the law, doing their job, and they don’t like it. If they don’t like what ICE is doing, change the law.”

Overton

73,510 次观看 • 3 个月前

They took this man’s property… not because they needed it… but because they wanted it. He built something worth roughly $400,000… his land, his investment, his future. The county steps in under eminent domain… claims it’s for a fire station. Public use. Public good. Sounds clean… sounds lawful. But watch what actually happened. They forced him out… cut him a check for $175,000. Not market value. Not fair value. Half. Then… just months later… They flip the same property. No fire station. No public use. Luxury development. And suddenly that same land is worth hundreds of thousands more… A $675,000 gain… off land they took from a private citizen under the authority of the government. That’s not development. That’s not planning. That’s conversion of private property using state power. And here’s where it gets serious… A judge steps in… looks at the facts… and says what should’ve been said from the beginning: You cannot take someone’s property under eminent domain for one purpose…and then turn around and use it for something completely different just to make money. So what happens next? The court doesn’t just slap the city on the wrist. The judge orders them to make it right. Not politically right… not cosmetically right… Legally right. That means undoing the damage… compensating based on actual value… because what was taken wasn’t just land……it was equity… leverage… opportunity… and control over one’s own future. This is what people miss about eminent domain. It’s one of the most powerful tools government has…and when it’s abused… it stops being public service and starts looking like state-sanctioned taking for profit. If the facts are as stated… the court saw it for exactly what it was. Not a mistake. A misuse of power. And that’s why the ruling hit as hard as it did. #AStoneGroove
1:40

They took this man’s property… not because they needed it… but because they wanted it. He built something worth roughly $400,000… his land, his investment, his future. The county steps in under eminent domain… claims it’s for a fire station. Public use. Public good. Sounds clean… sounds lawful. But watch what actually happened. They forced him out… cut him a check for $175,000. Not market value. Not fair value. Half. Then… just months later… They flip the same property. No fire station. No public use. Luxury development. And suddenly that same land is worth hundreds of thousands more… A $675,000 gain… off land they took from a private citizen under the authority of the government. That’s not development. That’s not planning. That’s conversion of private property using state power. And here’s where it gets serious… A judge steps in… looks at the facts… and says what should’ve been said from the beginning: You cannot take someone’s property under eminent domain for one purpose…and then turn around and use it for something completely different just to make money. So what happens next? The court doesn’t just slap the city on the wrist. The judge orders them to make it right. Not politically right… not cosmetically right… Legally right. That means undoing the damage… compensating based on actual value… because what was taken wasn’t just land……it was equity… leverage… opportunity… and control over one’s own future. This is what people miss about eminent domain. It’s one of the most powerful tools government has…and when it’s abused… it stops being public service and starts looking like state-sanctioned taking for profit. If the facts are as stated… the court saw it for exactly what it was. Not a mistake. A misuse of power. And that’s why the ruling hit as hard as it did. #AStoneGroove

A Gene Robinson

197,320 次观看 • 3 个月前

Question from journalist: “France says that they will support Palestinian statehood in the next short while. You’ve described that as a reward for Hamas here. Other countries like Australia are also walking down this path. Not quite there yet. How much of this is a reward for Hamas, and how much of it is actually countries like those who have repeatedly said Israel does have a right to defend itself, but are now struggling to stomach what they’re saying you and your military are doing in Gaza?” -- Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Response: “Well, first of all, those who say that Israel has a right to defend itself are also saying, but don’t exercise that right. When we do what any country would do, faced with this genocidal terrorist organization that has performed the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, I think we’re actually applying force judiciously. And they know it. They know what they would do if they’re right next to Melbourne or right next to Sydney. You had this horrific attacks. I think you would do it, at least what we’re doing, probably─ maybe not as efficiently and as precisely as we’re doing it. We’ve lost quite a few soldiers in that effort. But, that’s the first thing. I think that, the second thing you ask is a Palestinian state. Well, the assumption, the prevailing assumption, in this, is that the problem that we have with the Palestinians is the absence of a Palestinian state. And if they were given a Palestinian state, they would stop the efforts to destroy the Jewish state. But the Palestinians were offered a state many times, including in the partition resolution, and they turned it down. They were offered statehood by my predecessors with lavish, lavish concessions. They turned it down. Because the Palestinians are not about creating a state; they’re about destroying a state. That’s why they opposed the Jewish national movement to create a state. It’s called Zionism. They opposed it before the inception of the Jewish state, and they’ve opposed it since. They’ve opposed it when they had Judea and Samaria, the West Bank and Gaza in their whole. They didn’t say, let’s start, let’s create a state there. They didn’t say that, because, again, their goal is the destruction of a state. It defies imagination or understanding how intelligent people around the world, okay, including seasoned diplomats, government leaders and respected journalists, fall for this absurdity. It’s so easy to verify, you know. And look at the PA. Okay. Look at the Palestinian National movement today is divided between two forces: The Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria, and Hamas in Gaza. Okay. Hamas in Gaza had a de facto state. It had a state and it used it to launch a war of terror against Israel, because their doctrine, that is, that the destruction of Israel should proceed with forceful and direct military and terrorist moves. That’s what they did on October 7th. That’s what they’ll do again if we don’t destroy them. The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, says, ‘No. First, Israel has to be reduced to indefensible boundaries. You’ve got to get them out. With the ICC, with the UN, with the Security Council resolutions: Drive them to indefensible boundaries and then deliver the blow, because Israel is too strong in its present configuration.’ These discussions are open. They’re held. Anybody─ you don’t need Israeli Intel for it, believe me. You can just scour the web, you’ll find it. Okay. So they have no difference about the goal. That’s why the Palestinian children in Judea and Samaria and the Palestinian children, that is, the Palestinian children under the PA, and the Palestinian children under Hamas are educated with exactly the same textbooks. That’s why the PA calls its public squares against mass killers of Jews. That’s why they have pay for slay: The more Jews you murder, the more you get paid. Or your family gets paid. I mean, so that that’s the crux of the problem. The real reason that this conflict persists is not because of the absence of a Palestinian state, but the persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish state in any boundary. Now, when you give them a Palestinian state, when they haven’t abandoned the goal of destroying the Jewish state, all you’re doing is you’re making, you’re bringing the next war closer. Again, Hamas had a state. You just brought the war closer. And if you did the same thing in Judea and Samaria, right above Tel Aviv, enveloping Jerusalem, some say cutting Jerusalem into two, that’s all that’s gonna happen. You’re going to have the radicals again take it over, Iran, take it over, and start a state from improved boundaries, start a war with improved boundaries. That’s not going to happen. I think the solution to this problem is that the Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves in the places where they live, and none of the powers to threaten Israel. They should obviously reform their whole education system. They should reform their whole historical outlook and say, ‘All right, you know, we accept that Israel is here to stay,’ not as a fact, as a physical or geographic fact, but as a fact of historical equity. You know, if they want to live here, next to us, they have to stop seeking our destruction. And to give them an independent state, with all the trimmings, is to invite a future war and a certain war. And that’s something that, today the Israeli public forcefully opposes. Before the war, by the way, it was about, you know, a third [for a Palestinian state] / two thirds [against], in the overall population. Probably 60 [against a Palestinian state]/40 for a state. Or even more, against [a state] in the Jewish population. But now it’s changed more dramatically [to more against a state]. I mean, we had a vote in the Knesset, a few months ago, about the possibility, you know, of having a Palestinian state. And the result was 99 to 9. 99 to 9. And that covers a very broad spectrum. And today most of the Jewish public is committed – is against the Palestinian state for the simple reason that they know it won’t bring peace, but it’ll bring war. To have uh, European countries, and Australia, march into that rabbit hole – just like that, fall right into it ─ and buy this canard is disappointing. And I think it’s actually shameful. But it’s not going to change our position. Again, we will not commit national suicide to get a good op-ed for two minutes. We won’t do that. Thank you very much.”
6:53

Question from journalist: “France says that they will support Palestinian statehood in the next short while. You’ve described that as a reward for Hamas here. Other countries like Australia are also walking down this path. Not quite there yet. How much of this is a reward for Hamas, and how much of it is actually countries like those who have repeatedly said Israel does have a right to defend itself, but are now struggling to stomach what they’re saying you and your military are doing in Gaza?” -- Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Response: “Well, first of all, those who say that Israel has a right to defend itself are also saying, but don’t exercise that right. When we do what any country would do, faced with this genocidal terrorist organization that has performed the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, I think we’re actually applying force judiciously. And they know it. They know what they would do if they’re right next to Melbourne or right next to Sydney. You had this horrific attacks. I think you would do it, at least what we’re doing, probably─ maybe not as efficiently and as precisely as we’re doing it. We’ve lost quite a few soldiers in that effort. But, that’s the first thing. I think that, the second thing you ask is a Palestinian state. Well, the assumption, the prevailing assumption, in this, is that the problem that we have with the Palestinians is the absence of a Palestinian state. And if they were given a Palestinian state, they would stop the efforts to destroy the Jewish state. But the Palestinians were offered a state many times, including in the partition resolution, and they turned it down. They were offered statehood by my predecessors with lavish, lavish concessions. They turned it down. Because the Palestinians are not about creating a state; they’re about destroying a state. That’s why they opposed the Jewish national movement to create a state. It’s called Zionism. They opposed it before the inception of the Jewish state, and they’ve opposed it since. They’ve opposed it when they had Judea and Samaria, the West Bank and Gaza in their whole. They didn’t say, let’s start, let’s create a state there. They didn’t say that, because, again, their goal is the destruction of a state. It defies imagination or understanding how intelligent people around the world, okay, including seasoned diplomats, government leaders and respected journalists, fall for this absurdity. It’s so easy to verify, you know. And look at the PA. Okay. Look at the Palestinian National movement today is divided between two forces: The Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria, and Hamas in Gaza. Okay. Hamas in Gaza had a de facto state. It had a state and it used it to launch a war of terror against Israel, because their doctrine, that is, that the destruction of Israel should proceed with forceful and direct military and terrorist moves. That’s what they did on October 7th. That’s what they’ll do again if we don’t destroy them. The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, says, ‘No. First, Israel has to be reduced to indefensible boundaries. You’ve got to get them out. With the ICC, with the UN, with the Security Council resolutions: Drive them to indefensible boundaries and then deliver the blow, because Israel is too strong in its present configuration.’ These discussions are open. They’re held. Anybody─ you don’t need Israeli Intel for it, believe me. You can just scour the web, you’ll find it. Okay. So they have no difference about the goal. That’s why the Palestinian children in Judea and Samaria and the Palestinian children, that is, the Palestinian children under the PA, and the Palestinian children under Hamas are educated with exactly the same textbooks. That’s why the PA calls its public squares against mass killers of Jews. That’s why they have pay for slay: The more Jews you murder, the more you get paid. Or your family gets paid. I mean, so that that’s the crux of the problem. The real reason that this conflict persists is not because of the absence of a Palestinian state, but the persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish state in any boundary. Now, when you give them a Palestinian state, when they haven’t abandoned the goal of destroying the Jewish state, all you’re doing is you’re making, you’re bringing the next war closer. Again, Hamas had a state. You just brought the war closer. And if you did the same thing in Judea and Samaria, right above Tel Aviv, enveloping Jerusalem, some say cutting Jerusalem into two, that’s all that’s gonna happen. You’re going to have the radicals again take it over, Iran, take it over, and start a state from improved boundaries, start a war with improved boundaries. That’s not going to happen. I think the solution to this problem is that the Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves in the places where they live, and none of the powers to threaten Israel. They should obviously reform their whole education system. They should reform their whole historical outlook and say, ‘All right, you know, we accept that Israel is here to stay,’ not as a fact, as a physical or geographic fact, but as a fact of historical equity. You know, if they want to live here, next to us, they have to stop seeking our destruction. And to give them an independent state, with all the trimmings, is to invite a future war and a certain war. And that’s something that, today the Israeli public forcefully opposes. Before the war, by the way, it was about, you know, a third [for a Palestinian state] / two thirds [against], in the overall population. Probably 60 [against a Palestinian state]/40 for a state. Or even more, against [a state] in the Jewish population. But now it’s changed more dramatically [to more against a state]. I mean, we had a vote in the Knesset, a few months ago, about the possibility, you know, of having a Palestinian state. And the result was 99 to 9. 99 to 9. And that covers a very broad spectrum. And today most of the Jewish public is committed – is against the Palestinian state for the simple reason that they know it won’t bring peace, but it’ll bring war. To have uh, European countries, and Australia, march into that rabbit hole – just like that, fall right into it ─ and buy this canard is disappointing. And I think it’s actually shameful. But it’s not going to change our position. Again, we will not commit national suicide to get a good op-ed for two minutes. We won’t do that. Thank you very much.”

Max 📟

77,213 次观看 • 11 个月前

🚨 SANCTUARY CITIES JUST GOT A WAKE-UP CALL Tom Homan has just put America’s far-left mayors on notice — and he didn’t mince words. Sanctuary cities, he said, are “sanctuaries for criminals.” So the response is not retreat — it’s escalation. Homan confirmed that ICE will now “flood the zone” in Democrat-run cities that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement. If local officials won’t allow dangerous criminals to be picked up quietly inside jails, ICE will go into neighbourhoods, streets, and worksites instead. That’s the trade-off sanctuary politicians just made. Release offenders back into the community? Then enforcement comes into the community. Block ICE from jails? Then ICE comes to doorsteps. This is not random enforcement — it is consequences. Sanctuary policies didn’t protect immigrants. They protected violent criminals, traffickers, and fugitives. Now the shield is gone. And across America’s blue-state cities, the political class is about to learn what happens when federal law finally gets enforced again.
0:52

🚨 SANCTUARY CITIES JUST GOT A WAKE-UP CALL Tom Homan has just put America’s far-left mayors on notice — and he didn’t mince words. Sanctuary cities, he said, are “sanctuaries for criminals.” So the response is not retreat — it’s escalation. Homan confirmed that ICE will now “flood the zone” in Democrat-run cities that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement. If local officials won’t allow dangerous criminals to be picked up quietly inside jails, ICE will go into neighbourhoods, streets, and worksites instead. That’s the trade-off sanctuary politicians just made. Release offenders back into the community? Then enforcement comes into the community. Block ICE from jails? Then ICE comes to doorsteps. This is not random enforcement — it is consequences. Sanctuary policies didn’t protect immigrants. They protected violent criminals, traffickers, and fugitives. Now the shield is gone. And across America’s blue-state cities, the political class is about to learn what happens when federal law finally gets enforced again.

Jim Ferguson

362,661 次观看 • 6 个月前

White House World Cup taskforce executive director Andrew Giuliani weighs in on FIFA v. Jersey over transportation costs: Of the $100 million transportation grant that went out a month ago, $10.4 million went to New York/New Jersey. If you assume that there are 30,000 fans that are going to MetLife stadium over 8 games, that’s over 40 dollars per rider. If it’s 40k riders, that’s over 30 dollars per rider; I think the president has really done everything he can to really look at it and say we are doing what we can to make sure that for those that are going to be using public transit during the World Cup, the government really hasn’t forgotten about them. The president also wanted to highlight we’re not here to fix longterm problems that may exist in the state of New Jersey with their transit, or the city of New York or the state of New York. This is for the World Cup. Q: Is it acceptable for tickets from Penn Station to MetLife Stadium to be above $100? Look, I am going to make sure we’re focusing on what the President has done to make sure it can be affordable.
1:39

White House World Cup taskforce executive director Andrew Giuliani weighs in on FIFA v. Jersey over transportation costs: Of the $100 million transportation grant that went out a month ago, $10.4 million went to New York/New Jersey. If you assume that there are 30,000 fans that are going to MetLife stadium over 8 games, that’s over 40 dollars per rider. If it’s 40k riders, that’s over 30 dollars per rider; I think the president has really done everything he can to really look at it and say we are doing what we can to make sure that for those that are going to be using public transit during the World Cup, the government really hasn’t forgotten about them. The president also wanted to highlight we’re not here to fix longterm problems that may exist in the state of New Jersey with their transit, or the city of New York or the state of New York. This is for the World Cup. Q: Is it acceptable for tickets from Penn Station to MetLife Stadium to be above $100? Look, I am going to make sure we’re focusing on what the President has done to make sure it can be affordable.

Sophia Cai

255,137 次观看 • 3 个月前

Ottawa’s Obsession with Censorship: The Liberals Want to Make Your Opinions Illegal “So this bill will affect what people can say and write on the internet?” asked MP Andrew Lawton. “It would be possible that someone could commit a hate crime on the internet. Certainly,” replied Justice Minister Sean Fraser. And there it is. Straight from the Justice Minister’s mouth, the Carney government is coming for your tweets. That exchange didn’t happen in a newsroom or a press conference. It happened inside Parliament, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Lawton pressed him, trying to get a simple answer. Could something that’s perfectly legal to say online today become illegal if Bill C-9 passes? Fraser dodged, mumbled about “context,” and then finally admitted what we all suspected: yes, absolutely. But don’t worry, he said, this will only target “the willful promotion of hatred.” That’s supposed to make you feel better. Except his government changed the definition of hatred. They quietly deleted the Supreme Court’s language about “an emotion of an intense and extreme nature,” a definition that’s stood for 35 years and replaced it with something mushy and subjective. Now it’s just “vilification or detestation stronger than dislike.” In other words, if you say something a Liberal finds distasteful, congratulations, you might be guilty of hate speech. Lawton even gave him a chance to clarify. He asked if this could lead to the same nightmare we’ve seen in the UK, police knocking on people’s doors over tweets. Fraser dismissed the comparison as “inaccurate,” as if Canada is somehow morally immune from government overreach. Right. Because every government that’s censored speech always starts by promising they’ll “never go too far.” Here’s what’s actually happening: the Liberals are building an internet police force, not for child predators or scammers, but for opinions. They call it compassion, inclusion, safety, all the usual buzzwords. But underneath the soft language is the hard truth: they want the power to criminalize dissent. This is what passes for justice reform in 2025. Not fixing bail. Not cleaning up the streets. Not jailing repeat violent offenders. No... their priority is making it “easier to lay charges” for what Canadians say. So, to recap: crime is out of control, the courts are backed up, and the Justice Minister’s big idea is to go after Facebook posts. That’s not justice — that’s control disguised as virtue.
5:38

Ottawa’s Obsession with Censorship: The Liberals Want to Make Your Opinions Illegal “So this bill will affect what people can say and write on the internet?” asked MP Andrew Lawton. “It would be possible that someone could commit a hate crime on the internet. Certainly,” replied Justice Minister Sean Fraser. And there it is. Straight from the Justice Minister’s mouth, the Carney government is coming for your tweets. That exchange didn’t happen in a newsroom or a press conference. It happened inside Parliament, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Lawton pressed him, trying to get a simple answer. Could something that’s perfectly legal to say online today become illegal if Bill C-9 passes? Fraser dodged, mumbled about “context,” and then finally admitted what we all suspected: yes, absolutely. But don’t worry, he said, this will only target “the willful promotion of hatred.” That’s supposed to make you feel better. Except his government changed the definition of hatred. They quietly deleted the Supreme Court’s language about “an emotion of an intense and extreme nature,” a definition that’s stood for 35 years and replaced it with something mushy and subjective. Now it’s just “vilification or detestation stronger than dislike.” In other words, if you say something a Liberal finds distasteful, congratulations, you might be guilty of hate speech. Lawton even gave him a chance to clarify. He asked if this could lead to the same nightmare we’ve seen in the UK, police knocking on people’s doors over tweets. Fraser dismissed the comparison as “inaccurate,” as if Canada is somehow morally immune from government overreach. Right. Because every government that’s censored speech always starts by promising they’ll “never go too far.” Here’s what’s actually happening: the Liberals are building an internet police force, not for child predators or scammers, but for opinions. They call it compassion, inclusion, safety, all the usual buzzwords. But underneath the soft language is the hard truth: they want the power to criminalize dissent. This is what passes for justice reform in 2025. Not fixing bail. Not cleaning up the streets. Not jailing repeat violent offenders. No... their priority is making it “easier to lay charges” for what Canadians say. So, to recap: crime is out of control, the courts are backed up, and the Justice Minister’s big idea is to go after Facebook posts. That’s not justice — that’s control disguised as virtue.

Dan Knight

30,959 次观看 • 9 个月前

“If the Secretary of State says we’re not running it, and the UN Ambassador says we’re not running it, and then the President says we are running it, obviously they’re not on the same page. And the fact that we’ve taken this very risky, very aggressive move to arrest a foreign leader and then determine that it’s our job to determine the political and economic future of this country with zero people on the ground, and we can’t even get our story straight, is not a good sign.” “We’re in day three of this thing and it’s a total mess. And anyone who’s being honest has to admit that it’s a total mess. And the hypocrisy is obvious, because if he says it’s about law enforcement, then why are the ships still there? Because we already got the guy. And if he says it’s about oil, well, we don’t use our military to grab oil from countries. And by the way, it’s not our oil. It’s the Venezuelans oil. And if they violated a contract, then that’s not what the U.S. military is for.”
0:58

“If the Secretary of State says we’re not running it, and the UN Ambassador says we’re not running it, and then the President says we are running it, obviously they’re not on the same page. And the fact that we’ve taken this very risky, very aggressive move to arrest a foreign leader and then determine that it’s our job to determine the political and economic future of this country with zero people on the ground, and we can’t even get our story straight, is not a good sign.” “We’re in day three of this thing and it’s a total mess. And anyone who’s being honest has to admit that it’s a total mess. And the hypocrisy is obvious, because if he says it’s about law enforcement, then why are the ships still there? Because we already got the guy. And if he says it’s about oil, well, we don’t use our military to grab oil from countries. And by the way, it’s not our oil. It’s the Venezuelans oil. And if they violated a contract, then that’s not what the U.S. military is for.”

Josh Rogin

49,390 次观看 • 6 个月前

Trump claims tariffs will make America rich again, but that’s not how it works. Tariffs aren’t paid by other countries—they’re paid by Americans. It’s not a tax on countries like China; it’s a tax on the stuff we buy. Here’s how it works: when the government puts a tariff on something, it raises the price of that product. The idea is to make imported goods more expensive so people buy American-made products instead. Sounds good, right? The problem is, most things we use in the U.S. are made overseas, and it would take years—or even decades—to make them here. And in some cases, it might never happen because it costs too much to produce those goods locally. For example, if something costs $50 and a tariff adds $5, the new price is $55. That extra cost comes out of your pocket. This can cause inflation, making everything more expensive, and people either stop buying or have to spend more because there are no cheaper options. So, who gets the money from tariffs? The U.S. government collects it, but it’s not paid by China or any other country. It’s paid by you—the American consumer. The U.S. can’t tax other countries directly, so the burden falls on taxpayers here. Tariffs can work if the product being taxed is already made in the U.S. For example, if China floods the market with super-cheap goods that hurt local manufacturers, tariffs can make those imports more expensive, giving American businesses a chance to compete. But slapping tariffs on goods we don’t make here—or won’t make for years—just makes things more expensive for everyone. That’s why no president has wanted to be known as a "tariff president." They knew tariffs are really just taxes on Americans and can backfire politically. If tariffs drive up prices and hurt voters’ wallets, it could mean big trouble in the next election. Republicans might certainly lose in 2026.
1:57

Trump claims tariffs will make America rich again, but that’s not how it works. Tariffs aren’t paid by other countries—they’re paid by Americans. It’s not a tax on countries like China; it’s a tax on the stuff we buy. Here’s how it works: when the government puts a tariff on something, it raises the price of that product. The idea is to make imported goods more expensive so people buy American-made products instead. Sounds good, right? The problem is, most things we use in the U.S. are made overseas, and it would take years—or even decades—to make them here. And in some cases, it might never happen because it costs too much to produce those goods locally. For example, if something costs $50 and a tariff adds $5, the new price is $55. That extra cost comes out of your pocket. This can cause inflation, making everything more expensive, and people either stop buying or have to spend more because there are no cheaper options. So, who gets the money from tariffs? The U.S. government collects it, but it’s not paid by China or any other country. It’s paid by you—the American consumer. The U.S. can’t tax other countries directly, so the burden falls on taxpayers here. Tariffs can work if the product being taxed is already made in the U.S. For example, if China floods the market with super-cheap goods that hurt local manufacturers, tariffs can make those imports more expensive, giving American businesses a chance to compete. But slapping tariffs on goods we don’t make here—or won’t make for years—just makes things more expensive for everyone. That’s why no president has wanted to be known as a "tariff president." They knew tariffs are really just taxes on Americans and can backfire politically. If tariffs drive up prices and hurt voters’ wallets, it could mean big trouble in the next election. Republicans might certainly lose in 2026.

Simon Ateba

50,084 次观看 • 1 年前

When a place like Lexington loses a plant, folks talk about “3,200 jobs gone.” But that doesn’t even begin to cover it. If you’ve ever lived in a small ag town, you know exactly what it means: It’s not just the plant. It’s the truckers, the feed guys, the vets, the school, the diner, the whole rhythm of the place. All tied to cattle. All tied to that plant. And now it’s just… gone. The thing is, none of this is surprising. Tyson saw the herd shrinking same as we did. National inventory’s at a 70-some-year low. Everybody saw it coming. But they didn’t pivot. They didn’t help fix it. They just pulled the plug and moved on. And now everyone’s scrambling to figure out where the cattle go, how far the trucks have to drive, how many drivers we’re short, whether the other plants can even keep up. That’s not a supply chain — that’s a house of cards. This is why we started going direct. Why we stopped waiting. Why we built it small and regional and local. Because this kind of thing? We knew it was coming. And to the folks in Lexington — I know what it feels like. We’ve seen it up here in North Idaho too. One decision in a boardroom states away and your whole town gets hollowed out. Tyson’s not coming back to save anybody. Neither are the other three. So don’t wait for a fix. Don’t wait for permission. Start building now. That’s what my family did. That’s what we’re still doing. Save Beef. Save Local Communities.
2:30

When a place like Lexington loses a plant, folks talk about “3,200 jobs gone.” But that doesn’t even begin to cover it. If you’ve ever lived in a small ag town, you know exactly what it means: It’s not just the plant. It’s the truckers, the feed guys, the vets, the school, the diner, the whole rhythm of the place. All tied to cattle. All tied to that plant. And now it’s just… gone. The thing is, none of this is surprising. Tyson saw the herd shrinking same as we did. National inventory’s at a 70-some-year low. Everybody saw it coming. But they didn’t pivot. They didn’t help fix it. They just pulled the plug and moved on. And now everyone’s scrambling to figure out where the cattle go, how far the trucks have to drive, how many drivers we’re short, whether the other plants can even keep up. That’s not a supply chain — that’s a house of cards. This is why we started going direct. Why we stopped waiting. Why we built it small and regional and local. Because this kind of thing? We knew it was coming. And to the folks in Lexington — I know what it feels like. We’ve seen it up here in North Idaho too. One decision in a boardroom states away and your whole town gets hollowed out. Tyson’s not coming back to save anybody. Neither are the other three. So don’t wait for a fix. Don’t wait for permission. Start building now. That’s what my family did. That’s what we’re still doing. Save Beef. Save Local Communities.

Acme Acres

31,233 次观看 • 7 个月前

Here it is: A hidden camera bombshell: a Democrat ballot-harvesting NGO chief Joel Caldwell—caught on tape admitting it all. Atlanta, Georgia, rigs elections, including the 2020 election. • They pay people to illegally ballot harvest. • They bribe ballot counters and election officials. • They forge and falsify ballots. And Atlanta mayor straight up stole the election. He says it all himself—on tape. Joel Caldwell: “That’s what happened in 2020, ‘cause that’s when the ballots—they started stuffing them ballots and people stuffing them ballots, and they got videotape of them, but nobody talks about it. They wanted—that’s why Trump was making that big deal about it, because you got—you see it on videotape. It’s like, come on. We see the man pull up and put a hundred ballots in this box. You know? You can’t do that sh*t. So groups was paying people to do just that. Drop—drop off.” He continues: That’s why Democrats fight to death against voter ID laws. Joel Caldwell: “That’s why the Republicans are always trying to fight the ballot—you know, that’s all—that’s the argument of the whole thing, is because Republicans, they’re the ones who put out that kind of stuff, so they want to do, like, ID—voter IDs and stuff. Democrats are, you know, fighting voter ID laws. You know. So, it’s that two-sided thing. That’s what they’re fighting over. Republicans are trying to say, like, “Hey, look, we got the proof of this sh*t,” You know? And the Democrats are like, well, we don’t want voter ID laws, and we want to make it where you can just drop your ballot off. Online voting—different things they try to come up with.” 📝Pass the SAVE America Act,
9:17

Here it is: A hidden camera bombshell: a Democrat ballot-harvesting NGO chief Joel Caldwell—caught on tape admitting it all. Atlanta, Georgia, rigs elections, including the 2020 election. • They pay people to illegally ballot harvest. • They bribe ballot counters and election officials. • They forge and falsify ballots. And Atlanta mayor straight up stole the election. He says it all himself—on tape. Joel Caldwell: “That’s what happened in 2020, ‘cause that’s when the ballots—they started stuffing them ballots and people stuffing them ballots, and they got videotape of them, but nobody talks about it. They wanted—that’s why Trump was making that big deal about it, because you got—you see it on videotape. It’s like, come on. We see the man pull up and put a hundred ballots in this box. You know? You can’t do that sh*t. So groups was paying people to do just that. Drop—drop off.” He continues: That’s why Democrats fight to death against voter ID laws. Joel Caldwell: “That’s why the Republicans are always trying to fight the ballot—you know, that’s all—that’s the argument of the whole thing, is because Republicans, they’re the ones who put out that kind of stuff, so they want to do, like, ID—voter IDs and stuff. Democrats are, you know, fighting voter ID laws. You know. So, it’s that two-sided thing. That’s what they’re fighting over. Republicans are trying to say, like, “Hey, look, we got the proof of this sh*t,” You know? And the Democrats are like, well, we don’t want voter ID laws, and we want to make it where you can just drop your ballot off. Online voting—different things they try to come up with.” 📝Pass the SAVE America Act,

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

1,030,527 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨🇺🇸🇬🇧 REP LUNA CALLS OUT ELIZABETH WARREN’S PLAN TO BRING SURVEILLANCE TECH TO AMERICA You can get arrested in the UK for posting the wrong meme. That’s not a joke. That’s where digital ID and speech laws have landed them. Rep. Luna just lit up AmFest with a warning: this isn’t some sci-fi plot. It’s already happening in Europe. Journalists jailed. Women attacked while leaders look the other way. And now, digital ID is creeping into the U.S., with Elizabeth Warren leading the charge. Luna: "We know the dangers of digital ID and what it could mean. It doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right. If they don't like what you're saying, they can silence you. And yet, we just had Speaker Johnson, of which I'm very proud to say, that he has committed to going to literal war with the Senate if they do not codify in the appropriations process a permanent ban in digital ID. And that is exactly what we need to maintain freedom in this country." Source: RSBN, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna
1:16

🚨🇺🇸🇬🇧 REP LUNA CALLS OUT ELIZABETH WARREN’S PLAN TO BRING SURVEILLANCE TECH TO AMERICA You can get arrested in the UK for posting the wrong meme. That’s not a joke. That’s where digital ID and speech laws have landed them. Rep. Luna just lit up AmFest with a warning: this isn’t some sci-fi plot. It’s already happening in Europe. Journalists jailed. Women attacked while leaders look the other way. And now, digital ID is creeping into the U.S., with Elizabeth Warren leading the charge. Luna: "We know the dangers of digital ID and what it could mean. It doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right. If they don't like what you're saying, they can silence you. And yet, we just had Speaker Johnson, of which I'm very proud to say, that he has committed to going to literal war with the Senate if they do not codify in the appropriations process a permanent ban in digital ID. And that is exactly what we need to maintain freedom in this country." Source: RSBN, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna

Mario Nawfal

80,618 次观看 • 6 个月前

Words of affirmation: 🧸: we don’t really… 🦋: do excessive compliments? Not sure what you call it 🧸: it’s more whatever we feel at the time, we say it then. It’s not something that’s intended, it’s whatever in the head, we just say it then. That’s the style, it’s not like a planned ‘thank you’ kinda thing. For example, if P’Lena does something little like dropping me home, buying me snacks, or ordering me food, I’d be like ‘thank you’. That’s our normal reaction. 🦋: that’s right. We both really understand each other’s wavelength/vibe. For instance, if I feel down while working, she’s the first one that knows and can sense my wavelength before anyone else (before manager and mum). So I feel lucky to work with someone who understands how I feel. *says thank you to Miu* 🧸: it’s not even intentional. To be honest, I didn’t know I’d be able to read her, but it’s more that I approach her when I feel her face is a little strange (from normal). Like when she’s sat still getting her makeup done and not doing anything, I’ll approach and know how to handle (the situation). It’s not a sudden approach, where I want to make her feel bad, but approached her to let her know I care about her, I understand her, and I’ll be there to help her kinda thing. 🦋: we’re like this for each other. When she’s like that I can also feel it and I’ll ask if she’s okay and if she wants to correct it (adjustments)
1:53

Words of affirmation: 🧸: we don’t really… 🦋: do excessive compliments? Not sure what you call it 🧸: it’s more whatever we feel at the time, we say it then. It’s not something that’s intended, it’s whatever in the head, we just say it then. That’s the style, it’s not like a planned ‘thank you’ kinda thing. For example, if P’Lena does something little like dropping me home, buying me snacks, or ordering me food, I’d be like ‘thank you’. That’s our normal reaction. 🦋: that’s right. We both really understand each other’s wavelength/vibe. For instance, if I feel down while working, she’s the first one that knows and can sense my wavelength before anyone else (before manager and mum). So I feel lucky to work with someone who understands how I feel. *says thank you to Miu* 🧸: it’s not even intentional. To be honest, I didn’t know I’d be able to read her, but it’s more that I approach her when I feel her face is a little strange (from normal). Like when she’s sat still getting her makeup done and not doing anything, I’ll approach and know how to handle (the situation). It’s not a sudden approach, where I want to make her feel bad, but approached her to let her know I care about her, I understand her, and I’ll be there to help her kinda thing. 🦋: we’re like this for each other. When she’s like that I can also feel it and I’ll ask if she’s okay and if she wants to correct it (adjustments)

Shez.

45,745 次观看 • 7 个月前

Martin Scorsese explains why money doesn't mean anything to him: "When I’m dealing with a Hollywood film, that means I have to do a certain kind of subject matter that will make a certain amount of money. If I decide to make less money, that means I can take a risk on subject matter. So the only criterion on the films I’m willing to take risks on is that it be truthful, that it be honest about your own feelings and truthful to what you know to be the reality around you or the reality of the human condition of the characters. If it’s something that’s not honest, not truthful, then it’s a problem. If you don’t believe in it, why are you making it? You’re going to offend people to make some money? What for? It doesn’t mean anything. The money doesn’t mean anything. All that matters is the work, just what’s up on the screen. So that’s it. I’m not like some great person who’s out there undaunted, fighting off all these people." (From Scorsese's interview with Anthony Decurtis, 1990) Clip from: After Hours (1985) Director: Martin Scorsese
1:22

Martin Scorsese explains why money doesn't mean anything to him: "When I’m dealing with a Hollywood film, that means I have to do a certain kind of subject matter that will make a certain amount of money. If I decide to make less money, that means I can take a risk on subject matter. So the only criterion on the films I’m willing to take risks on is that it be truthful, that it be honest about your own feelings and truthful to what you know to be the reality around you or the reality of the human condition of the characters. If it’s something that’s not honest, not truthful, then it’s a problem. If you don’t believe in it, why are you making it? You’re going to offend people to make some money? What for? It doesn’t mean anything. The money doesn’t mean anything. All that matters is the work, just what’s up on the screen. So that’s it. I’m not like some great person who’s out there undaunted, fighting off all these people." (From Scorsese's interview with Anthony Decurtis, 1990) Clip from: After Hours (1985) Director: Martin Scorsese

DepressedBergman

21,602 次观看 • 1 年前