正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Holy Fu@K‼️ Please make sure everyone you know sees this segment with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts — the organization behind Project 2025. ————— QUESTION: Is your organization going to accept the results of the 2024 presidential election, regardless of the election results. ANSWER: Yes, if there isn’t massive...

cwebbonline's profile picture

Christopher Webb

158,879 subscribers

2,850,439 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

喜剧新闻政治教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Steven Erickson Charles 的头像
Steven Erickson Charles2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele I was screaming at his lies ! Project 2025 must not succeed!

Christopher Webb 的头像
Christopher Webb2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele Scream it from the rooftops.

Maddened Ranter 的头像
Maddened Ranter2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele Read Project 2025 in its entirety- it is a forced theocracy with built in bigotry.

Christopher Webb 的头像
Christopher Webb2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele Thank you. I haven’t read all 900 pages, but I’ve read a pretty good chunk of it. It must be defeated in November.

D. Earl Stephens 的头像
D. Earl Stephens2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele Why not ask this evil bozo why they don't round up the millions of radical rightwing MAGAs, some of whom violently attack our country, and others who go after our vote, our rights and our Democracy. THEY are the ones who are damaging America.

Brown Eyed Susan 的头像
Brown Eyed Susan2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele Isn't he the guy who was giving fake money to homeless people so they'd get arrested?

Christopher Webb 的头像
Christopher Webb2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele No. Different guy.

STAY FOCUSED AMERICA 🌴🥥🌊💙🌻 的头像
STAY FOCUSED AMERICA 🌴🥥🌊💙🌻2 年前

@cardon_brian @SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele I’m still in shock

Christopher Webb 的头像
Christopher Webb2 年前

@cardon_brian @SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele I woke up to this madness.

Skip Dillard 的头像
Skip Dillard2 年前

@SymoneDSanders @AliciaOnMSNBC @MichaelSteele If there were such thing as a #ChristianTaliban we’ve found them….

相关视频

NEW: Sen. Adam Schiff acts like a child and figuratively covers his ears while questioning Pam Bondi about the 2020 election. SCHIFF: “Was there massive fraud affecting the result of the 2020 election? Yes or no?” BONDI: “Senator, I’m glad you asked that question. If you’ll let me answer what I saw in Pennsylvania—” SCHIFF: “No, I asked a simple question about massive fraud. I can only tell you what I saw. I know you want to answer a different question, but my question is, can you tell us whether there was massive fraud affecting the results of the 2020 election? Yes or no? Was there or was there?” BONDI: “Let me tell you what I saw when I went—” SCHIFF: “That’s not my question. So you can’t answer that question. You can’t speak that even easy truth to us, let alone to the president. So let me ask you a different question.”
0:37

NEW: Sen. Adam Schiff acts like a child and figuratively covers his ears while questioning Pam Bondi about the 2020 election. SCHIFF: “Was there massive fraud affecting the result of the 2020 election? Yes or no?” BONDI: “Senator, I’m glad you asked that question. If you’ll let me answer what I saw in Pennsylvania—” SCHIFF: “No, I asked a simple question about massive fraud. I can only tell you what I saw. I know you want to answer a different question, but my question is, can you tell us whether there was massive fraud affecting the results of the 2020 election? Yes or no? Was there or was there?” BONDI: “Let me tell you what I saw when I went—” SCHIFF: “That’s not my question. So you can’t answer that question. You can’t speak that even easy truth to us, let alone to the president. So let me ask you a different question.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,392,818 次观看 • 1 年前

There is so much at stake in this election, and, ultimately, the question before us is: What kind of country do we want to live in? The beauty of a democracy, as long as we can hold on to it, is that each of us has the power to answer that question.
0:58

There is so much at stake in this election, and, ultimately, the question before us is: What kind of country do we want to live in? The beauty of a democracy, as long as we can hold on to it, is that each of us has the power to answer that question.

Kamala Harris

32,989,813 次观看 • 1 年前

NEW: Ted Cruz stumps CNN’s Kaitlan Collins with a history lesson after she tried gaslighting him on accepting election results. 🔥🔥🔥 Collins: Do you plan to object or will you accept the results regardless of who wins the election? Cruz: I think that's actually a ridiculous question. Cruz: I tried to look through history and precedent, and the best precedent I could find was the election of 1876 between Rutherford B Hayes and Samuel Tilden. And what happened there? There were serious allegations of voter fraud. Congress didn't throw its hands up and say, you know what? CNN demanded that, accept the results no matter what. So ignore the fraud. What did Congress do in 1876? How did the president handle it? What did Congress do in 1876? You can't answer. Can you answer my question? Why are you refusing to answer my question? Collins: I'm conducting the interview with all due respect.
2:31

NEW: Ted Cruz stumps CNN’s Kaitlan Collins with a history lesson after she tried gaslighting him on accepting election results. 🔥🔥🔥 Collins: Do you plan to object or will you accept the results regardless of who wins the election? Cruz: I think that's actually a ridiculous question. Cruz: I tried to look through history and precedent, and the best precedent I could find was the election of 1876 between Rutherford B Hayes and Samuel Tilden. And what happened there? There were serious allegations of voter fraud. Congress didn't throw its hands up and say, you know what? CNN demanded that, accept the results no matter what. So ignore the fraud. What did Congress do in 1876? How did the president handle it? What did Congress do in 1876? You can't answer. Can you answer my question? Why are you refusing to answer my question? Collins: I'm conducting the interview with all due respect.

Collin Rugg

1,553,116 次观看 • 2 年前

Marco Rubio just got HEATED after Democrat Rep. Sara Jacobs tried to bait him into answering a question about the 2020 election. Rubio didn’t fall for it — instead he made Jacobs look foolish by reminding her of the actual role of the Secretary of State and the very committee she sits on. JACOBS: “One last question for you. Mr. Secretary, who won the 2020 presidential election?” RUBIO: “I’m not here to answer that. Talking about 2020...this is a foreign affairs committee!” JACOBS: “Okay great. You can’t answer the question, even though we all know that President Biden won...” RUBIO: “No! I don’t answer the question because as Secretary of State, I do not participate in domestic political issues.” JACOBS: “This is not about Domestic political issues, this is about our democracy.” RUBIO: “It most certainly is! You’re asking me to opine. Just like I don’t do campaign rallies, because as Secretary of State we’re not supposed to.” “That’s been the long tradition of the department. And YOU should know that if you’ve been on this committee for any period of time.”
1:31

Marco Rubio just got HEATED after Democrat Rep. Sara Jacobs tried to bait him into answering a question about the 2020 election. Rubio didn’t fall for it — instead he made Jacobs look foolish by reminding her of the actual role of the Secretary of State and the very committee she sits on. JACOBS: “One last question for you. Mr. Secretary, who won the 2020 presidential election?” RUBIO: “I’m not here to answer that. Talking about 2020...this is a foreign affairs committee!” JACOBS: “Okay great. You can’t answer the question, even though we all know that President Biden won...” RUBIO: “No! I don’t answer the question because as Secretary of State, I do not participate in domestic political issues.” JACOBS: “This is not about Domestic political issues, this is about our democracy.” RUBIO: “It most certainly is! You’re asking me to opine. Just like I don’t do campaign rallies, because as Secretary of State we’re not supposed to.” “That’s been the long tradition of the department. And YOU should know that if you’ve been on this committee for any period of time.”

Overton

86,163 次观看 • 2 个月前

WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION? Luke Gromen asks: "Why can't the most powerful military in the world reopen the Strait of Hormuz?" Perhaps the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth can answer this question or a military expert like Halsey English from the video below? Or does someone else here know the answer to this question?
1:02

WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION? Luke Gromen asks: "Why can't the most powerful military in the world reopen the Strait of Hormuz?" Perhaps the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth can answer this question or a military expert like Halsey English from the video below? Or does someone else here know the answer to this question?

Mark

22,682 次观看 • 5 个月前

In a recent interview, Howard Stern asked celebrated singer-songwriter Paul Simon a deeply personal question: “Is there a God? Because I need to know. I’m getting older. Is this it for me? Am I going to die, and that’s it? Or am I going somewhere?” Then Howard added, “Please answer this in a serious manner.” That’s a really important question—one that everyone should eventually ask. And I want to give an answer. Not my answer, because my personal opinion isn’t any more or less important than anyone else’s. What matters is God’s answer to that question, and we find it in the pages of the Bible. Check out this video..
4:03

In a recent interview, Howard Stern asked celebrated singer-songwriter Paul Simon a deeply personal question: “Is there a God? Because I need to know. I’m getting older. Is this it for me? Am I going to die, and that’s it? Or am I going somewhere?” Then Howard added, “Please answer this in a serious manner.” That’s a really important question—one that everyone should eventually ask. And I want to give an answer. Not my answer, because my personal opinion isn’t any more or less important than anyone else’s. What matters is God’s answer to that question, and we find it in the pages of the Bible. Check out this video..

Greg Laurie

32,653 次观看 • 1 年前

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."
3:18

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

116,060 次观看 • 4 个月前

Engineers and salespeople think in completely different ways. - Engineers: "If you ask them a question, a hundred percent of them will try and think of what is the correct answer to that question." - Salespeople: "If you're a salesperson, your first thought isn't: what's the answer? It's: why are you asking me that question?" "And so if you have an engineer talking to a good sales guy, it's going to upset them. Because they're often not gonna answer the question." "The guys who are good at the job get rejected, because you don't like them. And then the people who are terrible at it, those are the ones that ended up getting hired." "These CEOs just wanna take a guy who failed the engineering test, put a clean shirt on him and make him the head of sales." benahorowitz.eth with Brian Halligan
1:27

Engineers and salespeople think in completely different ways. - Engineers: "If you ask them a question, a hundred percent of them will try and think of what is the correct answer to that question." - Salespeople: "If you're a salesperson, your first thought isn't: what's the answer? It's: why are you asking me that question?" "And so if you have an engineer talking to a good sales guy, it's going to upset them. Because they're often not gonna answer the question." "The guys who are good at the job get rejected, because you don't like them. And then the people who are terrible at it, those are the ones that ended up getting hired." "These CEOs just wanna take a guy who failed the engineering test, put a clean shirt on him and make him the head of sales." benahorowitz.eth with Brian Halligan

a16z

173,173 次观看 • 5 个月前

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.
5:43

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 次观看 • 2 年前

#WATCH | Delhi | In the Lok Sabha, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh says, "... Few members of the Opposition have been asking how many of our aircraft were shot down? I feel their question does not adequately represent our national sentiments. They have not asked us how many enemy aircraft our Armed Forces shot down. If they must ask a question, it should be whether India destroyed terrorist bases, and the answer to that is, yes... If you have a question to ask, it should be whether the Operation Sindoor was a success. The answer is yes. Were terror heads destroyed? Yes. If you have a question to ask, ask this: Were any of our brave soldiers harmed in this operation? The answer is, no, none of our soldiers were harmed..."
3:09

#WATCH | Delhi | In the Lok Sabha, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh says, "... Few members of the Opposition have been asking how many of our aircraft were shot down? I feel their question does not adequately represent our national sentiments. They have not asked us how many enemy aircraft our Armed Forces shot down. If they must ask a question, it should be whether India destroyed terrorist bases, and the answer to that is, yes... If you have a question to ask, it should be whether the Operation Sindoor was a success. The answer is yes. Were terror heads destroyed? Yes. If you have a question to ask, ask this: Were any of our brave soldiers harmed in this operation? The answer is, no, none of our soldiers were harmed..."

ANI

79,763 次观看 • 1 年前

Now on the author of “the Project” David A. Graham of the Atlantic joins to answer the question “What exactly is in Project 2025?” and how much of it is being rolled out right now?
2:46

Now on the author of “the Project” David A. Graham of the Atlantic joins to answer the question “What exactly is in Project 2025?” and how much of it is being rolled out right now?

Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸

25,145 次观看 • 1 年前

Gavin Newsom Administration can’t even answer basic questions about hospice fraud taking place in California California Assemblyman David Tangipa “I was looking at this letter in response to some of the congressional investigations that have been happening. So it says in the letter that CDPH convenes a multi-agency hospice fraud task force with partners including California HHS Agency, DHCS, the California Department of Social Services at the DOJ's Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elderly Abuse. So the question that I just wanted to ask too is what was the role that the task force played in these recent arrests and investigations?” “We would have to get back to you” Question after question, they can’t answer anything We all know the reason. They’re all complicit California Democrats don’t investigate fraud because they’re involved in the fraud
1:24

Gavin Newsom Administration can’t even answer basic questions about hospice fraud taking place in California California Assemblyman David Tangipa “I was looking at this letter in response to some of the congressional investigations that have been happening. So it says in the letter that CDPH convenes a multi-agency hospice fraud task force with partners including California HHS Agency, DHCS, the California Department of Social Services at the DOJ's Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elderly Abuse. So the question that I just wanted to ask too is what was the role that the task force played in these recent arrests and investigations?” “We would have to get back to you” Question after question, they can’t answer anything We all know the reason. They’re all complicit California Democrats don’t investigate fraud because they’re involved in the fraud

Wall Street Apes

29,026 次观看 • 3 个月前

Vance: If you ask the question, what is the exact right number of immigrants for the United States to let in, it is just very specific on the context. If you go back to the 1920s, the United States passed an immigration reform act and that effectively cut down immigration to close to 0 for 40 years in this country What is the exact number of immigrants in America should accept in the future? Right now, the answer is far less than we have been accepting. We have got to become a common community again. And you can't do that when you have such high numbers of immigration, which is one of the reasons why we have the immigration policy we do.
1:52

Vance: If you ask the question, what is the exact right number of immigrants for the United States to let in, it is just very specific on the context. If you go back to the 1920s, the United States passed an immigration reform act and that effectively cut down immigration to close to 0 for 40 years in this country What is the exact number of immigrants in America should accept in the future? Right now, the answer is far less than we have been accepting. We have got to become a common community again. And you can't do that when you have such high numbers of immigration, which is one of the reasons why we have the immigration policy we do.

Acyn

551,937 次观看 • 9 个月前

Today I asked Democrats’ hand-picked pro-abortion witnesses one thing: Do you support abortion up to the moment of birth? Why did these “experts” work so hard not to answer a simple question? Could it be because their answer is “yes”?
3:45

Today I asked Democrats’ hand-picked pro-abortion witnesses one thing: Do you support abortion up to the moment of birth? Why did these “experts” work so hard not to answer a simple question? Could it be because their answer is “yes”?

John Kennedy

216,853 次观看 • 3 年前

It is very much an issue for you Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺. If neo-Nazis keep finding something to like in your party, the answer is not to get huffy at the question. The answer is to ask: why do Nazis like what we stand for? Start there, and work backwards.
1:25

It is very much an issue for you Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺. If neo-Nazis keep finding something to like in your party, the answer is not to get huffy at the question. The answer is to ask: why do Nazis like what we stand for? Start there, and work backwards.

Aaron Smith

23,886 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨 JD VANCE JUST ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT AT MARCH FOR LIFE: "Let me just say, my friends, that we have to be clear. We can NOT be neutral. Our country cannot be indifferent about whether its next generations live or die!" "Because think about it. What ultimately gives meaning and life to the United States of America, this is not a new question. Every civilization has been forced to answer it." "You march today, we march today, because you have an answer to this question about what kind of civilization we are, and about what kind of civilization we are going to become in the future."
1:06

🚨 JD VANCE JUST ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT AT MARCH FOR LIFE: "Let me just say, my friends, that we have to be clear. We can NOT be neutral. Our country cannot be indifferent about whether its next generations live or die!" "Because think about it. What ultimately gives meaning and life to the United States of America, this is not a new question. Every civilization has been forced to answer it." "You march today, we march today, because you have an answer to this question about what kind of civilization we are, and about what kind of civilization we are going to become in the future."

Eric Daugherty

20,126 次观看 • 6 个月前

There Should Be People Going to Prison Michael Laws, 8 Dec 2022: "We now know that whether you're vaxxed or not, it doesn't stop transmission, and the question you ask, is when did they know that? And if the answer to that question is we knew it before we put in the mandates, there should be people going to prison. Because that would then mean that you purposefully lied to all of us."
4:03

There Should Be People Going to Prison Michael Laws, 8 Dec 2022: "We now know that whether you're vaxxed or not, it doesn't stop transmission, and the question you ask, is when did they know that? And if the answer to that question is we knew it before we put in the mandates, there should be people going to prison. Because that would then mean that you purposefully lied to all of us."

Coronavirus Plushie

43,863 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨FBI Director Kash Patel confirms a definitive answer on whether FBI sources were present during J6 is coming soon. Says it will “surprise and shock” everyone. “I told you I would get you the definitive answer. And we have. We are in the process of working with our partners to divulge that information.” “The answer to that question will surprise and shock people because of what past FBI leaders have said about it.”
2:02

🚨FBI Director Kash Patel confirms a definitive answer on whether FBI sources were present during J6 is coming soon. Says it will “surprise and shock” everyone. “I told you I would get you the definitive answer. And we have. We are in the process of working with our partners to divulge that information.” “The answer to that question will surprise and shock people because of what past FBI leaders have said about it.”

Benny Johnson

904,964 次观看 • 1 年前