Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Jonathan Swan has extensively reported inside Trump’s national security meetings and says he has seen no evidence that tactical nuclear weapons are under serious consideration. “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘥... show more

Mario Nawfal

3,896,495 subscribers

29,186 views • 3 hours ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Health & Wellness

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

6 Comments

julii. not jule ！🇵🇸3 hours ago

I started with writing whether the opening gap changed my entry plan. That helped me preserve the reason for a revised setup.

Jeff Goldblum3 hours ago

That distinction matters. Nuclear speculation is serious, but without credible evidence, it shouldn’t be treated as fact.

LeeX3 hours ago

Swan is careful not to claim certainty In other words, he made it up.

Mark jaxon3 hours ago

Swan says he’s seen no evidence Trump is seriously considering tactical nuclear weapons, while acknowledging he can’t rule out private discussions.

Irina Mauricia3 hours ago

I found it useful to preserve the context behind each move. Keeping event-driven examples apart from quiet-session ones gave me a way to do that.

Sarah Jenkins3 hours ago

Swan's direct reporting access makes this a more credible read than most speculation floating around on tactical nukes. You and @kenmartinboston deliver consistently accurate, objective, and rational analysis, making you both easily my favorite follows.

Related Videos

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

M.A. Rothman

187,953 views • 5 months ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Jonathan Swan: Trump wants out of this war If Trump really believed he had won, he wouldn't have quietly sent Vance, Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate an exit. That's what Jonathan Swan watches; actions, not statements. The public line is total victory. The behaviour says a man looking for a door. He also demolishes the story that Trump was blindsided by the munitions shortages. Trump was briefed repeatedly, including by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs before the war. He just assumed it wouldn't matter, because Iran would fold in days. That belief came from his gut. The intelligence said otherwise. On the nuclear talk, Swan has no reporting that Trump has raised it in a single national security meeting. And this is a president with almost no unexpressed thoughts. What actually changed is the room around him. In the first term, senior officials believed their job was protecting the country from him. Those people no longer exist. Then there's the detail about Netanyahu walking into the Situation Room with a presentation to sell Trump the war. And the Netanyahu aide who left a meeting telling colleagues there was an 80% chance he'd join it. Swan's conclusion is that nobody close to Trump thinks he wants to escalate. Which puts the next move entirely in Tehran's hands. Jonathan Swan

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Jonathan Swan: Trump wants out of this war If Trump really believed he had won, he wouldn't have quietly sent Vance, Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate an exit. That's what Jonathan Swan watches; actions, not statements. The public line is total victory. The behaviour says a man looking for a door. He also demolishes the story that Trump was blindsided by the munitions shortages. Trump was briefed repeatedly, including by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs before the war. He just assumed it wouldn't matter, because Iran would fold in days. That belief came from his gut. The intelligence said otherwise. On the nuclear talk, Swan has no reporting that Trump has raised it in a single national security meeting. And this is a president with almost no unexpressed thoughts. What actually changed is the room around him. In the first term, senior officials believed their job was protecting the country from him. Those people no longer exist. Then there's the detail about Netanyahu walking into the Situation Room with a presentation to sell Trump the war. And the Netanyahu aide who left a meeting telling colleagues there was an 80% chance he'd join it. Swan's conclusion is that nobody close to Trump thinks he wants to escalate. Which puts the next move entirely in Tehran's hands. Jonathan Swan

Mario Nawfal

261,773 views • 4 hours ago

NEW: NYT Reporter Jonathan Swan on the rise of Trump and how the media contributed to it: "There are very few institutions that are less trusted than the mainstream media." He says MAGA is not a 'cult' at all. "I'd never seen voters connect emotionally and viscerally with a politician the way I have with Trump...most politicians have charm, but Trump has a mass charisma which is very different..." Swan and NYT Reporter Maggie Haberman wrote the best selling new book, "Regime Change." It's a fascinating read with inside reporting you just won't find anywhere else. The co-authors are literally human flies on the wall! Watch my complete story about the book here. Jonathan Swan Maggie Haberman The New York Times CBN News The 700 Club

NEW: NYT Reporter Jonathan Swan on the rise of Trump and how the media contributed to it: "There are very few institutions that are less trusted than the mainstream media." He says MAGA is not a 'cult' at all. "I'd never seen voters connect emotionally and viscerally with a politician the way I have with Trump...most politicians have charm, but Trump has a mass charisma which is very different..." Swan and NYT Reporter Maggie Haberman wrote the best selling new book, "Regime Change." It's a fascinating read with inside reporting you just won't find anywhere else. The co-authors are literally human flies on the wall! Watch my complete story about the book here. Jonathan Swan Maggie Haberman The New York Times CBN News The 700 Club

David Brody

17,202 views • 1 month ago

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

M.A. Rothman

425,813 views • 5 months ago

🎥 Will Iran Abandon Nuclear Restraint? For decades, Iran has refrained from developing nuclear weapons—not because it lacked the technical capacity, but because of a deliberate political and religious decision. A fatwa from the Supreme Leader declared nuclear arms forbidden under Islam. But after the U.S. and Israel bombed three Iranian nuclear sites this weekend—sites under regular IAEA inspection—that restraint is now under serious strain. “There are people in Iran asking that question right now,” Dr. Foad Izadi told Drop Site’. The question: What’s the point of cooperation? Izadi noted that two nuclear-armed states just launched an unprovoked attack on a non-nuclear country, without credible evidence of a weapons program. He pointed to the U.S. intelligence community’s own March report, which states: ➤ Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. ➤ Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. ➤ Iranian leaders have not made a decision to pursue one. Even IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Izadi said, has consistently affirmed: “We have never found a nuclear weapons program in Iran.” Yet, Iran was bombed anyway. Izadi explained that the IAEA report cited by Western governments referenced materials from 20 to 30 years ago—files Iran believed were closed under the 2015 nuclear deal. Tehran now suspects Mossad may have planted radioactive traces to fabricate suspicion and justify military strikes. “There’s a lot of confusion and disinformation,” he said. But for many Iranians, the conclusion is simple: Iran upheld its obligations—and was attacked regardless. That, Izadi points out, is forcing a national reckoning with the logic of nuclear restraint. (Apologies for the poor audio quality. We’ll share a subtitled version of the clip below) jeremy scahill | فواد ایزدی Foad Izadi

🎥 Will Iran Abandon Nuclear Restraint? For decades, Iran has refrained from developing nuclear weapons—not because it lacked the technical capacity, but because of a deliberate political and religious decision. A fatwa from the Supreme Leader declared nuclear arms forbidden under Islam. But after the U.S. and Israel bombed three Iranian nuclear sites this weekend—sites under regular IAEA inspection—that restraint is now under serious strain. “There are people in Iran asking that question right now,” Dr. Foad Izadi told Drop Site’. The question: What’s the point of cooperation? Izadi noted that two nuclear-armed states just launched an unprovoked attack on a non-nuclear country, without credible evidence of a weapons program. He pointed to the U.S. intelligence community’s own March report, which states: ➤ Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. ➤ Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. ➤ Iranian leaders have not made a decision to pursue one. Even IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Izadi said, has consistently affirmed: “We have never found a nuclear weapons program in Iran.” Yet, Iran was bombed anyway. Izadi explained that the IAEA report cited by Western governments referenced materials from 20 to 30 years ago—files Iran believed were closed under the 2015 nuclear deal. Tehran now suspects Mossad may have planted radioactive traces to fabricate suspicion and justify military strikes. “There’s a lot of confusion and disinformation,” he said. But for many Iranians, the conclusion is simple: Iran upheld its obligations—and was attacked regardless. That, Izadi points out, is forcing a national reckoning with the logic of nuclear restraint. (Apologies for the poor audio quality. We’ll share a subtitled version of the clip below) jeremy scahill | فواد ایزدی Foad Izadi

Drop Site

25,482 views • 1 year ago

Today, the #Belarus regime has signed an agreement with Russia on the deployment of nuclear weapons. It would not only endanger the lives of Belarusians but also create a new threat against Ukraine & all of Europe. Even when they are talking about tactical nuclear weapons, most of them are still as powerful as the atomic bomb that killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima. The radioactive fallout would be much worse than the contamination that Belarusians experienced after the 1986 Chornobyl disaster. Last week, as G7 leaders gathered in Hiroshima, I urged the world to take action against this dangerous escalation. If we don’t react, then other dictators with nuclear ambitions will feel encouraged to raise the stakes. We can’t play this game, because there is only one outcome; nuclear devastation. Since the beginning of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin has used his nuclear arsenal to intimidate the world. As the Russian army has proven ineffective, he is playing the last card that he has. But these threats didn’t stop the democratic world from supporting Ukraine in the fight for freedom. And we can’t let this latest piece of nuclear blackmail stop us. The deployment of any kind of nuclear weapons in Belarus is not only a violation of international commitments such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. It also violates our non-nuclear status under the Constitution & the will of the Belarusian people. It will make Belarusians hostages to Russian imperial ambitions. It is not too late, but time is running out. I ask our partners & allies to take firm steps to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus. I ask you to consider preventive sanctions on Russia & Lukashenka’s regime. They must know that if the deployment happens – the dictators will face devastating consequences. Belarusians deserve to live in a free, democratic & safe country. We all deserve to live in a free & safe Europe. Let’s make this come true.

Today, the #Belarus regime has signed an agreement with Russia on the deployment of nuclear weapons. It would not only endanger the lives of Belarusians but also create a new threat against Ukraine & all of Europe. Even when they are talking about tactical nuclear weapons, most of them are still as powerful as the atomic bomb that killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima. The radioactive fallout would be much worse than the contamination that Belarusians experienced after the 1986 Chornobyl disaster. Last week, as G7 leaders gathered in Hiroshima, I urged the world to take action against this dangerous escalation. If we don’t react, then other dictators with nuclear ambitions will feel encouraged to raise the stakes. We can’t play this game, because there is only one outcome; nuclear devastation. Since the beginning of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin has used his nuclear arsenal to intimidate the world. As the Russian army has proven ineffective, he is playing the last card that he has. But these threats didn’t stop the democratic world from supporting Ukraine in the fight for freedom. And we can’t let this latest piece of nuclear blackmail stop us. The deployment of any kind of nuclear weapons in Belarus is not only a violation of international commitments such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. It also violates our non-nuclear status under the Constitution & the will of the Belarusian people. It will make Belarusians hostages to Russian imperial ambitions. It is not too late, but time is running out. I ask our partners & allies to take firm steps to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus. I ask you to consider preventive sanctions on Russia & Lukashenka’s regime. They must know that if the deployment happens – the dictators will face devastating consequences. Belarusians deserve to live in a free, democratic & safe country. We all deserve to live in a free & safe Europe. Let’s make this come true.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya

247,495 views • 3 years ago

🇺🇲🇮🇷 The nuclear taboo, the one line no administration has crossed since 1945, now becomes something people are willing to say out loud in a strategy meeting? That's what analyst Malcolm Nance is reacting to, after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted that nuclear weapons are being discussed in White House strategy meetings on Iran. Malcolm says this matters more than almost anything else in the war. He describes his own time on watch at a national nuclear command post. The briefings built specifically to terrify young service members out of ever thinking a nuclear strike is survivable, let alone usable. The doctrine has held since Hiroshima: no first use, no exceptions, full stop. In his read, even raising the question in a room reveals something wrong with who's in that room. The scenario he says has circulated internally isn't a city-leveling strike. It's a low-yield "demolition" device dropped into Iran's underground enrichment sites, sold internally as something short of a real bomb. Nance rejects that framing outright. He walks through the physics: any detonation, buried or not, throws irradiated material into the stratosphere, where it circulates and comes down globally within days. In food, in water, everywhere, for everyone, not just the target country. His sharpest point is structural, not moral: the presidential authority to authorize this has almost no check built into it. Two men, two keys, one authenticated order; that's the entire chain between a decision and execution. The safeguard he says should exist, a Joint Chiefs chairman refusing the order outright, is the one he's watching for, and hasn't seen yet. Malcolm is clear this is his own alarm, not confirmed policy. But his closing question is the one worth sitting with: If this is being discussed and nobody in that room is willing to say no on the record, who exactly is the check left standing? Thank you Malcolm Nance for our conversation

🇺🇲🇮🇷 The nuclear taboo, the one line no administration has crossed since 1945, now becomes something people are willing to say out loud in a strategy meeting? That's what analyst Malcolm Nance is reacting to, after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted that nuclear weapons are being discussed in White House strategy meetings on Iran. Malcolm says this matters more than almost anything else in the war. He describes his own time on watch at a national nuclear command post. The briefings built specifically to terrify young service members out of ever thinking a nuclear strike is survivable, let alone usable. The doctrine has held since Hiroshima: no first use, no exceptions, full stop. In his read, even raising the question in a room reveals something wrong with who's in that room. The scenario he says has circulated internally isn't a city-leveling strike. It's a low-yield "demolition" device dropped into Iran's underground enrichment sites, sold internally as something short of a real bomb. Nance rejects that framing outright. He walks through the physics: any detonation, buried or not, throws irradiated material into the stratosphere, where it circulates and comes down globally within days. In food, in water, everywhere, for everyone, not just the target country. His sharpest point is structural, not moral: the presidential authority to authorize this has almost no check built into it. Two men, two keys, one authenticated order; that's the entire chain between a decision and execution. The safeguard he says should exist, a Joint Chiefs chairman refusing the order outright, is the one he's watching for, and hasn't seen yet. Malcolm is clear this is his own alarm, not confirmed policy. But his closing question is the one worth sitting with: If this is being discussed and nobody in that room is willing to say no on the record, who exactly is the check left standing? Thank you Malcolm Nance for our conversation

Mario Nawfal

319,370 views • 26 days ago

B-2 BOMBERS DECIDE INTERNATIONAL LAW This exchange exposes a deeper truth about today’s global order: international law exists, but it is not applied equally. In a sharp debate, Dr George Szamuely points to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which clearly allows countries like Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Civilian enrichment at low levels is not a weapons program, a fact widely understood within nuclear science. But Will Chamberlain's response cuts through the legal argument entirely. His justification is not based on treaties or evidence, but on force: “The B-2 bomber decides.” The message is clear: the authority to decide does not come from international agreements, but from military dominance and the willingness to use it. This is not a rules-based order. It is enforcement rooted in imperial hierarchy. The contradiction becomes even sharper when you look at who is inside and outside the system. Nearly every country in the world is part of the NPT — except Israel, a nuclear-armed state and close U.S. ally that has never signed the treaty and faces no comparable scrutiny. At the same time, Iran — a signatory — is accused of pursuing nuclear weapons despite repeated assessments that it has not built one, not even close to building one, while being denied rights explicitly outlined in the treaty. What emerges is a familiar pattern: rules that apply to some, but not to others. From sanctions to military threats, to cold-blooded murder, the justification often shifts, but the outcome remains consistent — pressure, isolation, and the assertion of control over states that attempt to act independently within the system. And in this moment, the debate reveals something deeper than policy disagreement. It shows a crisis of credibility. When international law can be openly dismissed, and enforcement is selective, the question is no longer what the rules are — but who gets to ignore them. The US is saying it loud and clear: we are your masters, we will come after you if you do not obey, and we do not respect or follow international law. This is a war for empire against sovereignty. Venezuelanalysis VoxUmmah Qiao Collective Progressive International @blkagendareport Orinoco Tribune Kawsachun News

B-2 BOMBERS DECIDE INTERNATIONAL LAW This exchange exposes a deeper truth about today’s global order: international law exists, but it is not applied equally. In a sharp debate, Dr George Szamuely points to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which clearly allows countries like Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Civilian enrichment at low levels is not a weapons program, a fact widely understood within nuclear science. But Will Chamberlain's response cuts through the legal argument entirely. His justification is not based on treaties or evidence, but on force: “The B-2 bomber decides.” The message is clear: the authority to decide does not come from international agreements, but from military dominance and the willingness to use it. This is not a rules-based order. It is enforcement rooted in imperial hierarchy. The contradiction becomes even sharper when you look at who is inside and outside the system. Nearly every country in the world is part of the NPT — except Israel, a nuclear-armed state and close U.S. ally that has never signed the treaty and faces no comparable scrutiny. At the same time, Iran — a signatory — is accused of pursuing nuclear weapons despite repeated assessments that it has not built one, not even close to building one, while being denied rights explicitly outlined in the treaty. What emerges is a familiar pattern: rules that apply to some, but not to others. From sanctions to military threats, to cold-blooded murder, the justification often shifts, but the outcome remains consistent — pressure, isolation, and the assertion of control over states that attempt to act independently within the system. And in this moment, the debate reveals something deeper than policy disagreement. It shows a crisis of credibility. When international law can be openly dismissed, and enforcement is selective, the question is no longer what the rules are — but who gets to ignore them. The US is saying it loud and clear: we are your masters, we will come after you if you do not obey, and we do not respect or follow international law. This is a war for empire against sovereignty. Venezuelanalysis VoxUmmah Qiao Collective Progressive International @blkagendareport Orinoco Tribune Kawsachun News

Sovereign Media

49,288 views • 5 months ago

There’s a new op running inside MAGA, led by the same RFK Jr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr supporters who tried to sabotage President Trump’s campaign with a contingent election scheme. Their new schtick is to falsely accuse President Trump of being PRO WAR. Now Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 is pushing rogue, provocative and inflammatory foreign policy videos featuring nuclear explosions without approval from President Trump, his advisors, or US national security officials amid a conflict that surrounds Iran’s nuclear capabilities and threats. According to my sources, the White House was furious about the nuclear war video she posted and summoned her to the Oval Office. This is what happens when you let Democrats who have a long history of attacking President Trump’s foreign policy infiltrate our movement with no boundaries or guard rails whatsoever. People are not staying in their lane, and it’s incredibly dangerous for our country for the President to be receiving tainted intel about Iran. Donald Trump knows Iran has what it takes to make a nuclear weapon. This is why he said Iran must never have access to a nuclear weapon.

There’s a new op running inside MAGA, led by the same RFK Jr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr supporters who tried to sabotage President Trump’s campaign with a contingent election scheme. Their new schtick is to falsely accuse President Trump of being PRO WAR. Now Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 is pushing rogue, provocative and inflammatory foreign policy videos featuring nuclear explosions without approval from President Trump, his advisors, or US national security officials amid a conflict that surrounds Iran’s nuclear capabilities and threats. According to my sources, the White House was furious about the nuclear war video she posted and summoned her to the Oval Office. This is what happens when you let Democrats who have a long history of attacking President Trump’s foreign policy infiltrate our movement with no boundaries or guard rails whatsoever. People are not staying in their lane, and it’s incredibly dangerous for our country for the President to be receiving tainted intel about Iran. Donald Trump knows Iran has what it takes to make a nuclear weapon. This is why he said Iran must never have access to a nuclear weapon.

Laura Loomer

756,642 views • 1 year ago

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

48,897 views • 5 months ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump may seriously be considering NUKING Iran because conventional victory over them is slipping out of reach!! According to his former lawyer, Robert Barnes, this is now the third time Trump has seriously contemplated using nuclear weapons during the conflict. He says Trump considered the option around April 7, when Washington was threatening to destroy huge sections of Iran's infrastructure. Robert also points to a later report that Trump asked General Dan Caine in the Situation Room to show him potential nuclear targets. And now, according to information he says was leaked from inside the administration, the nuclear option has resurfaced again following discussions at Camp David. Why now? Robert believes the answer is simple: Trump is finally confronting the limits of America's conventional military power. The U.S doesn't have unlimited Tomahawks or interceptors, and its arsenals can't be replenished anywhere near as quickly as they're being consumed. And Robert says senior officials have repeatedly tried to explain to Trump that America couldn't sustain this indefinitely, but Iran still hasn't capitulated. In fact, he argues the opposite has happened: Tehran has emerged harder, and its new leadership is threatening to move from a reactive, tit-for-tat strategy to something much more offensive. So Trump now faces a choice he never expected to face. Take the off-ramp, or escalate again. But that means Trump has to acknowledge the one thing he refuses to accept: America didn't win. And that's where Robert becomes genuinely worried. Robert Barnes

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump may seriously be considering NUKING Iran because conventional victory over them is slipping out of reach!! According to his former lawyer, Robert Barnes, this is now the third time Trump has seriously contemplated using nuclear weapons during the conflict. He says Trump considered the option around April 7, when Washington was threatening to destroy huge sections of Iran's infrastructure. Robert also points to a later report that Trump asked General Dan Caine in the Situation Room to show him potential nuclear targets. And now, according to information he says was leaked from inside the administration, the nuclear option has resurfaced again following discussions at Camp David. Why now? Robert believes the answer is simple: Trump is finally confronting the limits of America's conventional military power. The U.S doesn't have unlimited Tomahawks or interceptors, and its arsenals can't be replenished anywhere near as quickly as they're being consumed. And Robert says senior officials have repeatedly tried to explain to Trump that America couldn't sustain this indefinitely, but Iran still hasn't capitulated. In fact, he argues the opposite has happened: Tehran has emerged harder, and its new leadership is threatening to move from a reactive, tit-for-tat strategy to something much more offensive. So Trump now faces a choice he never expected to face. Take the off-ramp, or escalate again. But that means Trump has to acknowledge the one thing he refuses to accept: America didn't win. And that's where Robert becomes genuinely worried. Robert Barnes

Mario Nawfal

249,666 views • 25 days ago

Ross Coulthart on UFO Event: “There is certainly something going to happen in 2027 and I don’t know what it is.” 🛸 The journalist says multiple sources have given him that year, along with 2034 and later dates. “Everybody’s telling me we’re on borrowed time.” When he asks about the timescale, he says he gets a serious look and they urge urgency. He is clear he does not know what the event would be. Different people have suggested different things, including a pole reversal, an asteroid, or AI reaching a point where humans lose control of systems. His sources, he says, are constrained by national security oaths but believe the public has a right to know. This remains rumor and secondhand reporting, not confirmed official disclosure. No public evidence has been produced that pins a specific UFO or non human event to 2027. What do you think is actually coming, if anything?

Ross Coulthart on UFO Event: “There is certainly something going to happen in 2027 and I don’t know what it is.” 🛸 The journalist says multiple sources have given him that year, along with 2034 and later dates. “Everybody’s telling me we’re on borrowed time.” When he asks about the timescale, he says he gets a serious look and they urge urgency. He is clear he does not know what the event would be. Different people have suggested different things, including a pole reversal, an asteroid, or AI reaching a point where humans lose control of systems. His sources, he says, are constrained by national security oaths but believe the public has a right to know. This remains rumor and secondhand reporting, not confirmed official disclosure. No public evidence has been produced that pins a specific UFO or non human event to 2027. What do you think is actually coming, if anything?

Interstellar

62,860 views • 11 days ago

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

20,683 views • 5 months ago

🇰🇷🇰🇵🇺🇸 Nearly 80% of South Koreans now say their country should have its own nuclear weapons. That number isn’t about North Korea’s growing arsenal, though Pyongyang keeps expanding it. It’s also about a quiet collapse in trust, as joint U.S.–South Korea exercises have been scaled back. American military assets keep getting pulled to other theaters, and more people in Seoul are asking the blunt question: if North Korea hits us, will Washington really risk Los Angeles for Busan? The official policy is still “we remain non-nuclear,” but the conversation has already moved past that. Uranium enrichment, redeployed U.S. tactical nukes, and NATO-style nuclear sharing are now mainstream proposals, not fringe ideas. If Seoul ever decides it needs its own deterrent, the pressure doesn’t stop at the peninsula, Japan would face the same choice almost immediately, and a regional nuclear arms race becomes the most likely outcome. This is no longer theoretical... Asia’s security map is slowly being rewritten. Source: WarFronts YT / Writer: Val

🇰🇷🇰🇵🇺🇸 Nearly 80% of South Koreans now say their country should have its own nuclear weapons. That number isn’t about North Korea’s growing arsenal, though Pyongyang keeps expanding it. It’s also about a quiet collapse in trust, as joint U.S.–South Korea exercises have been scaled back. American military assets keep getting pulled to other theaters, and more people in Seoul are asking the blunt question: if North Korea hits us, will Washington really risk Los Angeles for Busan? The official policy is still “we remain non-nuclear,” but the conversation has already moved past that. Uranium enrichment, redeployed U.S. tactical nukes, and NATO-style nuclear sharing are now mainstream proposals, not fringe ideas. If Seoul ever decides it needs its own deterrent, the pressure doesn’t stop at the peninsula, Japan would face the same choice almost immediately, and a regional nuclear arms race becomes the most likely outcome. This is no longer theoretical... Asia’s security map is slowly being rewritten. Source: WarFronts YT / Writer: Val

Mario Nawfal

44,809 views • 17 days ago

KENYANS, WE ARE NOT SAFE. The Inspector General of Police, Douglas Kanja, must take responsibility for what is happening under the National Police Service. The abduction and disappearance of the Mlolongo businessman is deeply disturbing. The CCTV footage has now helped unravel the mystery and raises very serious questions about what happened to him. This is no longer something Kenyans can simply ignore. The CCTV does not lie. The footage shows what happened, his abduction was a police operation. Who took him? Where was he taken? Who was involved? And most importantly, who gave the orders? The disappearance of citizens cannot become normal in Kenya. Families are being left terrified, searching for their loved ones, while those responsible are free walking freely. IG Douglas Kanja, are you a police boss or a Mafia Leader? You are the head of the National Police Service-Kenya . Why do you authorise abductions & disappearances of your fellow citizens The Mlolongo case has exposed a frightening reality that Kenyans have been warning about: that there could be an organised abduction operation involving rogue elements within the security system. If that is not true, prove it. If rogue officers are involved, arrest them, prosecute them and expose the entire network. Because today it is a businessman from Mlolongo. Tomorrow it could be any one of us. A country where citizens disappear without accountability is a country in danger. KENYANS, WE ARE NOT SAFE. And we must never become comfortable with that reality.

KENYANS, WE ARE NOT SAFE. The Inspector General of Police, Douglas Kanja, must take responsibility for what is happening under the National Police Service. The abduction and disappearance of the Mlolongo businessman is deeply disturbing. The CCTV footage has now helped unravel the mystery and raises very serious questions about what happened to him. This is no longer something Kenyans can simply ignore. The CCTV does not lie. The footage shows what happened, his abduction was a police operation. Who took him? Where was he taken? Who was involved? And most importantly, who gave the orders? The disappearance of citizens cannot become normal in Kenya. Families are being left terrified, searching for their loved ones, while those responsible are free walking freely. IG Douglas Kanja, are you a police boss or a Mafia Leader? You are the head of the National Police Service-Kenya . Why do you authorise abductions & disappearances of your fellow citizens The Mlolongo case has exposed a frightening reality that Kenyans have been warning about: that there could be an organised abduction operation involving rogue elements within the security system. If that is not true, prove it. If rogue officers are involved, arrest them, prosecute them and expose the entire network. Because today it is a businessman from Mlolongo. Tomorrow it could be any one of us. A country where citizens disappear without accountability is a country in danger. KENYANS, WE ARE NOT SAFE. And we must never become comfortable with that reality.

𝙋𝘼𝙐𝙇. 𝐎. 𝐍𝐄𝐊𝐎

12,336 views • 1 month ago

$🇺🇲🇮🇷 Pravin Sawhney's read on this week centers on one claim: Trump's "Hormuz is American territory" post isn't rhetoric to dismiss, but a legal trigger. His logic: U.S. nuclear doctrine has permitted first-use of tactical weapons since Eisenhower's 1950s "offset strategy." If Trump has declared the Strait sovereign U.S. territory, an attack there becomes, by that doctrine, an attack on the homeland. Which is exactly the threshold that makes nuclear discussion a routine part of military planning, not an aberration. He's careful to separate considering from using, but insists the Marjorie Taylor Greene story shouldn't have surprised anyone given the stated policy already on the books. On the economic front, Sawhney leans on a J.D. Vance line he says contradicts Trump directly. Vance reportedly saying the dollar may no longer be the world's reserve currency, and Americans should brace for the end of cheap living. Paired with $40 trillion in debt and interest payments now exceeding the Pentagon's budget, he reads this as evidence the administration itself isn't unified on how bad the trajectory is. On the UAE sudden cutoff with Iran, Sawhney calls it a probable false flag. His case being that it conveniently fractures GCC unity right as Iran pushes a regional collective-security framework under UN Article 51, not NATO-style, binding Turkey, Pakistan, Syria and others. He sees Turkey's response to the Israeli strike on Syrian assets (quiet diplomatic outreach to Pakistan and Egypt rather than retaliation) as proof the bloc is deliberately declining Israel's bait. His closing point isn't really about Iran. It's that a hegemon whose own Western Hemisphere back yard, the Arctic, sits unsecured has no business running simultaneous fronts everywhere else. Thank you Pravin Sawhney for our conversation$

🇺🇲🇮🇷 Pravin Sawhney's read on this week centers on one claim: Trump's "Hormuz is American territory" post isn't rhetoric to dismiss, but a legal trigger. His logic: U.S. nuclear doctrine has permitted first-use of tactical weapons since Eisenhower's 1950s "offset strategy." If Trump has declared the Strait sovereign U.S. territory, an attack there becomes, by that doctrine, an attack on the homeland. Which is exactly the threshold that makes nuclear discussion a routine part of military planning, not an aberration. He's careful to separate considering from using, but insists the Marjorie Taylor Greene story shouldn't have surprised anyone given the stated policy already on the books. On the economic front, Sawhney leans on a J.D. Vance line he says contradicts Trump directly. Vance reportedly saying the dollar may no longer be the world's reserve currency, and Americans should brace for the end of cheap living. Paired with $40 trillion in debt and interest payments now exceeding the Pentagon's budget, he reads this as evidence the administration itself isn't unified on how bad the trajectory is. On the UAE sudden cutoff with Iran, Sawhney calls it a probable false flag. His case being that it conveniently fractures GCC unity right as Iran pushes a regional collective-security framework under UN Article 51, not NATO-style, binding Turkey, Pakistan, Syria and others. He sees Turkey's response to the Israeli strike on Syrian assets (quiet diplomatic outreach to Pakistan and Egypt rather than retaliation) as proof the bloc is deliberately declining Israel's bait. His closing point isn't really about Iran. It's that a hegemon whose own Western Hemisphere back yard, the Arctic, sits unsecured has no business running simultaneous fronts everywhere else. Thank you Pravin Sawhney for our conversation

Mario Nawfal

230,366 views • 22 days ago

🇮🇷🇮🇱 Our debate made clear just how far apart Israel and the U.S. actually are on what ""winning"" the Iran war even means. Jonathan Conricus held his line from months ago: no deal is a win unless it dismantles Iran's proxy network and missile program too. Anything short of that, he says, is a loss dressed up as progress. Trita Parsi's pushback: that's the Israeli definition of victory, not the American one. Trump's team has quietly redefined success multiple times already, and Parsi thinks they'll take whatever deal lets them walk away and call it a win. Probably one Israel actively opposes, since lifting sanctions is exactly what Iran wants and Israel doesn't. The sharpest exchange was about munitions. Parsi points to CSIS, an FDD colleague's own public warnings, and even the U.S. ambassador to the UN flagging depleted stockpiles. Conricus's counter: most of that traces back to anonymous sources, and he's skeptical anyone's really counting. Neither one has hard numbers, which itself says something about how opaque this has gotten five months in. Underneath the sparring, an actual disagreement about the region's trajectory: Conricus thinks Iran's regime is running out of money and will eventually collapse under its own weight. Parsi thinks the war has done more to erode U.S. credibility with Gulf allies than it has to weaken Tehran, pointing to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan forming their own defense pact as evidence countries are already hedging away from relying on Washington. Where they land: Conricus says holding the line against a nuclear-capable Iran is worth the cost, whatever it's cost so far. Parsi says a war under 25% public support, dragging on past its promised 4 days, is actual proof that nobody defined what winning looked like before it started. Thank you both Jonathan Conricus & Trita Parsi

🇮🇷🇮🇱 Our debate made clear just how far apart Israel and the U.S. actually are on what ""winning"" the Iran war even means. Jonathan Conricus held his line from months ago: no deal is a win unless it dismantles Iran's proxy network and missile program too. Anything short of that, he says, is a loss dressed up as progress. Trita Parsi's pushback: that's the Israeli definition of victory, not the American one. Trump's team has quietly redefined success multiple times already, and Parsi thinks they'll take whatever deal lets them walk away and call it a win. Probably one Israel actively opposes, since lifting sanctions is exactly what Iran wants and Israel doesn't. The sharpest exchange was about munitions. Parsi points to CSIS, an FDD colleague's own public warnings, and even the U.S. ambassador to the UN flagging depleted stockpiles. Conricus's counter: most of that traces back to anonymous sources, and he's skeptical anyone's really counting. Neither one has hard numbers, which itself says something about how opaque this has gotten five months in. Underneath the sparring, an actual disagreement about the region's trajectory: Conricus thinks Iran's regime is running out of money and will eventually collapse under its own weight. Parsi thinks the war has done more to erode U.S. credibility with Gulf allies than it has to weaken Tehran, pointing to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan forming their own defense pact as evidence countries are already hedging away from relying on Washington. Where they land: Conricus says holding the line against a nuclear-capable Iran is worth the cost, whatever it's cost so far. Parsi says a war under 25% public support, dragging on past its promised 4 days, is actual proof that nobody defined what winning looked like before it started. Thank you both Jonathan Conricus & Trita Parsi

Mario Nawfal

309,103 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇷🇺PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: WE ARE EDGING CLOSER TO NUCLEAR WAR ‘American missiles, guided and tracked by American military personnel are hitting Russia. The US military is attacking Russia, and then, the White House says that the US’ security is at risk. It’s mind boggling. It should make George Orwell blush, frankly, because Orwell, even in his most wondrous imagination, couldn’t come up with the Orwellian illogic of this White House. You want national security for the United States? Stop having American missiles striking into Russia, stop the CIA and the MI6 from supporting Ukraine to actually destroy part of Russia’s strategic triad. All of the nuclear sabre-rattling of the last couple of weeks, and you mentioned several specifics, do not bring American security. They bring American insecurity. America is insecure only because it keeps provoking. America, which views itself in this political circle in Washington as ruling the world, has to learn that we’re in a multipolar world and you don’t attack the other nuclear superpower. You find a way for mutual accommodation. Now maybe this meeting can do that, but so far it hasn’t happened. So far, Trump has given demands to Russia. Ultimatums. You have 10 days to do this. Given ultimatums to India or to Brazil or to China. Not negotiations, not diplomacy, not an exchange of views, but ultimatums. And if it continues that way, we just edge closer and closer to nuclear war.’ -Prof. Jeffrey Sachs speaking to us on Going Underground

🇺🇸🇷🇺PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: WE ARE EDGING CLOSER TO NUCLEAR WAR ‘American missiles, guided and tracked by American military personnel are hitting Russia. The US military is attacking Russia, and then, the White House says that the US’ security is at risk. It’s mind boggling. It should make George Orwell blush, frankly, because Orwell, even in his most wondrous imagination, couldn’t come up with the Orwellian illogic of this White House. You want national security for the United States? Stop having American missiles striking into Russia, stop the CIA and the MI6 from supporting Ukraine to actually destroy part of Russia’s strategic triad. All of the nuclear sabre-rattling of the last couple of weeks, and you mentioned several specifics, do not bring American security. They bring American insecurity. America is insecure only because it keeps provoking. America, which views itself in this political circle in Washington as ruling the world, has to learn that we’re in a multipolar world and you don’t attack the other nuclear superpower. You find a way for mutual accommodation. Now maybe this meeting can do that, but so far it hasn’t happened. So far, Trump has given demands to Russia. Ultimatums. You have 10 days to do this. Given ultimatums to India or to Brazil or to China. Not negotiations, not diplomacy, not an exchange of views, but ultimatums. And if it continues that way, we just edge closer and closer to nuclear war.’ -Prof. Jeffrey Sachs speaking to us on Going Underground

Afshin Rattansi

31,220 views • 2 months ago

What is Netanyahu expected to say to the president? The main problem with the ballistic-missile story is that the Iranians have caught on to the daylight—the gap—between Israel and the United States. What happened here is that Donald Trump gave his word and then broke it. "We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." But he didn’t talk about conventional weapons—the ballistic missiles that threaten Israel. They threaten Israel to such an extent that Netanyahu himself, in a video announcing to the Israeli people that he was launching Operation Nation of Lions, said that two existential threats had developed. The nuclear threat—you’ve known about for years—but also the threat of thousands of ballistic missiles. What has happened since then? The Iranians are not acting at all on the nuclear front, as far as we know. They have not even extracted the enriched material buried underground. But they are very much intensifying their experiments with ballistic missiles. Either because they think it is threatening, or because, as Netanyahu says, it is an existential threat to Israel. We also have a race between the number of their missiles and the number of our missiles—and let’s say that both countries need to recover on this issue. Let’s ask the question now, and here I don’t have an answer. When Netanyahu goes to Washington to talk to Trump about this, is he talking to him about a combined attack—which seems a bit far-fetched to me, because the Americans really have no intention of getting involved in a conventional weapons conflict anywhere in the world; otherwise they would never get out of it—or is he content to give Israel permission to attack on its own, with the U.S. providing a defensive umbrella? One. Two, it should also be said, in this context, that there is a big debate in the Israeli cabinet and at the top about whether it is possible to launch an attack every six months. You cannot—unlike the nuclear project—you cannot eliminate the Iranian ballistic threat. Is it sustainable to come every six months, eight months, and launch another round, which includes them firing at us, all the flights leaving Israel, and all the implications for the economy? There is no decision in Israel. There is no decision in the U.S. that's what they will discuss.

What is Netanyahu expected to say to the president? The main problem with the ballistic-missile story is that the Iranians have caught on to the daylight—the gap—between Israel and the United States. What happened here is that Donald Trump gave his word and then broke it. "We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." But he didn’t talk about conventional weapons—the ballistic missiles that threaten Israel. They threaten Israel to such an extent that Netanyahu himself, in a video announcing to the Israeli people that he was launching Operation Nation of Lions, said that two existential threats had developed. The nuclear threat—you’ve known about for years—but also the threat of thousands of ballistic missiles. What has happened since then? The Iranians are not acting at all on the nuclear front, as far as we know. They have not even extracted the enriched material buried underground. But they are very much intensifying their experiments with ballistic missiles. Either because they think it is threatening, or because, as Netanyahu says, it is an existential threat to Israel. We also have a race between the number of their missiles and the number of our missiles—and let’s say that both countries need to recover on this issue. Let’s ask the question now, and here I don’t have an answer. When Netanyahu goes to Washington to talk to Trump about this, is he talking to him about a combined attack—which seems a bit far-fetched to me, because the Americans really have no intention of getting involved in a conventional weapons conflict anywhere in the world; otherwise they would never get out of it—or is he content to give Israel permission to attack on its own, with the U.S. providing a defensive umbrella? One. Two, it should also be said, in this context, that there is a big debate in the Israeli cabinet and at the top about whether it is possible to launch an attack every six months. You cannot—unlike the nuclear project—you cannot eliminate the Iranian ballistic threat. Is it sustainable to come every six months, eight months, and launch another round, which includes them firing at us, all the flights leaving Israel, and all the implications for the economy? There is no decision in Israel. There is no decision in the U.S. that's what they will discuss.

Amit Segal

273,898 views • 8 months ago