Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Brown University didn’t “get caught committing a crime.” They got caught doing something worse in the public eye… controlling narrative while demanding trust. Here are the facts that cannot be hand-waved away. Multiple independent posts surfaced showing that Brown University operates an extensive campus surveillance system… hundreds of cameras…...

99,373 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨Breaking.. Multiple police officers in Cumberland County, North Carolina identified AS ILLEGALS! Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce's Correction Officer has been arrested by ICE! He also admitted in this interview more officers had to be let go for being illegal…in America.😳 "I was told he's illegally in the United States" This should stop people mid-scroll. Law enforcement officers are entrusted with firearms, arrest authority, and access to families and children. They are supposed to be among the most heavily vetted employees in government. Yet this post claims officers were later identified as being in the country illegally and arrested by ICE. If that is accurate, it raises a serious question that cannot be ignored. How does someone pass background checks, identity verification, and hiring review for law enforcement while lacking legal status? That is not a partisan question. That is a systems question. If immigration status was missed, what else was not verified. If this was discovered only after arrest, how many others were never caught. If agencies cannot confirm who they hire, how can the public be asked to trust the process. This is why people react so strongly to posts like this. Not because of outrage. Because it exposes a credibility gap. The issue is not the headline. The issue is vetting. The issue is accountability. The issue is whether standards are being enforced consistently. If the people enforcing the law are not fully verified themselves, public confidence erodes fast. That is the conversation this post triggers.

A Gene Robinson

125,529 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi | Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate who is representing TMC, Kapil Sibal says, "...This case is an exception, and that is why I have come here. Because the mainstream media is reporting on the court case in a different way, they are reporting that our petition has been dismissed. This is wrong in itself... The TMC's claim in the High Court was that this circular is wrong... the High Court said that this circular is correct. When we came to the Supreme Court, we decided that we would not challenge the circular. But we will request the Supreme Court to implement it... The circular states that the EC has received information from many places that there are going to be some problems in every booth during the election... This is why the EC has decided that every booth will have a nominee from the central government..." He adds, "We stated in the Supreme Court that their own circular says if you want to keep a nominee from the central government, then do so, but keep a nominee from the state government as well. Randomise that as well... The Supreme Court noted that we were challenging the circular there, but we clarified that we are not challenging the circular anymore. We are saying that it should be implemented... Now we have hope. The Supreme Court said, and this is an order, that the EC will follow the circular issued by them both in letter and spirit... What is written is that there will be a nominee from the state government and a nominee from the central government... The mainstream media that is running it is saying that our petition has been dismissed. This is completely wrong... give them the right information..."

ANI

73,840 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

‼️ Donald Trump just posted the video saying any immigrant that comes to America and demand we change our culture is not an immigrant, they are an invader and must be removed “Just so we we’re clear, if a foreigner comes to your country and demands that you accept their culture as your culture or demands that you change your beliefs, that is not a foreigner, that is not an immigrant. What that is, is an invader. That is someone that is coming over to your space to take over and invade it. So when you sit there and you look at what's happening in New York, you look at what's happening in Texas, you look at what's happening in the places where these people came from, you look at Somalia, you look at all of these individuals who are being put into a position of power who support this type of invasion. You need to understand what's coming next. - They will take away our weapons - They will tell us that we cannot eat certain foods - They will tell us that we cannot go to certain places - They will tell that our women that they have to wear certain clothes - They will tell them that they have to dress modest. They will forced them to do a lot of different things. - You will have to deal with people praying in the middle of the street while you're driving and stopping you and invading your movement, your space You need to understand what's taking place in America so that you can understand that these people are not coming here with good intentions. This is not me saying that I hate people. This is me basically saying, look, if you like the fact that America is a free place where you get the freedom to believe in what religion you want to, to believe in. If you get the freedom to decide what you want to do as long as nobody is getting hurt. If you love that part of America, the freedom of choice part of America, you need to understand when people come over and they say that you don't have a choice, they probably should go because you don't get to tell us what to do in our own country. It's not being rude. It's just saying, hey, look, this country was built in a way where everybody can come here and feel happy and feel blessed. And enjoy the fact that this is a free nation, not a nation that will be enslaved by any Foreigner invading it”

Wall Street Apes

88,662 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

The DarkHorse Podcast

696,633 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

NIGERIA NO BE JUNGLE: YOU NO FIT RUN COUNTRY WITH GUESS WORK INSTEAD OF LAW Nigeria is not a jungle, and it should not be run like one. Yet that is the direction we appear to be drifting toward. Yesterday, Daily Trust published a report claiming that the new tax law had been paused. Shortly after, Taiwo Oyedele responded and said the report was fake news. To defend its position, Daily Trust released a video (part, attached). But after watching that video carefully, there is nowhere Taiwo Oyedele clearly said that the law had been paused. That detail matters, because words carry weight, especially in matters of law and public policy. The real issue, however, is not whether the word “pause” was used. The real issue is that Daily Trust missed an opportunity to ask the most important question Nigerians are asking right now. As of 15th January, 2026 (yesterday while doing the report) if the final version of the tax law is still not ready, which law are businesses, tax officers, and ordinary Nigerians expected to use today? That is the question that should have been addressed directly and clearly, instead of turning the conversation into a media back-and-forth. This situation goes far beyond headlines or fake news claims. What we are seeing is a breakdown of legal process. The Act Authentication Act is very clear. It says that only what the Government Printer publishes is legal proof of a law that has been passed (Listen to Taiwo saying exactly this). But in practice, that process has been disrupted. The Government Printer printed a version of the law. Lawmakers then said that version was not what they passed. They rejected it, collected the printed copies, and stopped the public from buying them. Meaning it was not ready. What is happening now is even more troubling. Nigeria is attempting to run a major reform on guesswork. The logic appears to be: let us start implementing, and whatever finally comes out will probably align with what we are already doing. That is not governance. That is not how a country run by intellect behaves. That is how the animal kingdom operates, acting first and adjusting later. Serious countries do the opposite. They finalize the law, publish it, make it available, and only then enforce it. Some people try to downplay the issue by saying the differences are minor. They argue that tax rates have not changed, deadlines are the same, and the main structure remains intact. That argument is weak. In law, there is no such thing as a minor change when the final text is disputed. One word can change meaning. One clause can affect rights and obligations. Courts do not judge intentions or explanations; they judge the exact text of the law placed before them. Without a settled and published text, enforcement rests on uncertainty. In this context, suggesting a pause in implementation is not unreasonable. When the final gazette is missing, the official version is withheld, and even regulators admit uncertainty, caution is sensible. What is wrong is attributing that position to someone who did not clearly say it. Claiming that Taiwo Oyedele declared a pause is not supported by the video Daily Trust released. A more honest framing would have been to ask a simple question: which law do you expect Nigerians to use when the final version is not ready? This is even more important because tax law is an annual, year-based system. When 15 days of 2026 are already gone, the entire law becomes unsettled if it is meant to start in 2026. You cannot operate a law that is designed to cover a full year and then attempt to backdate it after uncertainty. That is not how law works, and it is not how serious countries operate. What this entire episode does is make Nigeria look like a country where law no longer carries weight. A place where laws are announced before final agreement, where official copies are hidden, where implementation begins on hope, and where certainty is replaced with assurances. That is not reform. That is disorder. No serious country operates like this. This is not an attack on any individual or institution. It is a warning. You cannot demand compliance, build trust, or attract investment when the law itself is unsettled. A country is governed by law, not belief; by text, not hope; by process, not improvisation. Anything else is not governance. It is chaos disguised as reform.

DonAza

19,649 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Dr P Arora (Pooja Arora) and I spoke about cancel culture and common knowledge, the topic of my new book: When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . . Me: Yeah, so cancel culture is one of the phenomena that has surrounded what’s sometimes called the Great Awokening. It’s a humorous term based on the Great Awakening, which was an era in American history where there was a huge multiplication of Protestant churches and of religious fervor in the 19th century. That was the Great Awakening, and so the joke is it’s the Great Awokening, probably starting maybe around 2014, but then it really exploded in 2020 in the United States with the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. But anyway, cancel culture, which is not restricted to the left, to wokeism—and in fact, in the United States in the last year, we’ve seen an eruption of cancel culture from the populist MAGA Trumpian right, especially after the killing of Charlie Kirk—where the same things that were happening in woke culture, namely someone would have a tweet or a comment that seemed disrespectful of the dominant ideology, and they would get threatened, they would get censored, they would get fired. So in my book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows, one of the chapters is called The Cancelling Instinct. It’s a bit of a play on my book, The Language Instinct. It just asks the question: since it is not only the woke left, but it can also be the MAGA right—and to say nothing of the fascist right or the Nazi right—to repress speech, the question is why? Why do we feel the urge to shut up people we disagree with? Particularly since one of the principles of the Enlightenment, and of science and democracy, is that you need to have free speech, because none of us is infallible. The only way we make progress is that people—everyone—express an opinion; other people are free to criticize those opinions; and it is in the crucible of debate and criticism that we see which ideas are good, which ones are true, which ones are errors that we should discard. I suggest the reason that there is such an urge to cancel is that we all are—we live by moral norms, not just by laws where the police will arrest you and put you on trial and put you in jail if you break a law. And that happens. But we have many more norms of how we live our lives, where people don’t do something because, you know, everyone knows you don’t do it. Why does everyone know? Well, everyone knows that everyone else knows you don’t do it. You don’t walk around naked. You don’t eat mashed potatoes with your hands. You don’t insult people to their faces. You don’t point out—if someone is overweight or has a speech impediment—there are dozens of these norms. And some of the norms are: you don’t make racist comments. You don’t make comments that demean women or gay people. What upholds these norms? Common knowledge. They exist because everyone knows they exist, which means that if it appears that a norm is threatened—crucially, in a public arena where it could be common knowledge—then there is an urge to punish that person, but also publicly. That is, in an arena of common knowledge. That is where everyone can see the punishment, and everyone can see everyone else seeing the punishment. That’s what’s necessary to prop up a norm, and that, I think, gives rise to the urge to censor and cancel, often in highly public ways. Now, in the old days, it used to be that there were public hangings and public crucifixions and burnings at the stake. The electronic equivalent is the internet petition with 600 signatures or the social media shaming mob, but I think the underlying psychology is the same. Now, in some cases, this could be positive. That is, it really is good that we don’t insult each other to our faces, that we don’t tell racist jokes, which were very common when I grew up. On the other hand, in arenas like science, democracy, the rule of law, the truth is more important than social harmony, and the whole point of scholarship, academia, of science is that you find the truth even when the truth seems uncomfortable. And so cancel culture can get in the way of our collective effort to acquire knowledge.

Steven Pinker

63,515 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

DocumentingLibs

67,644 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen