Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Kenyon Martin Almost Throws Hands With Nick Young For Being Disrespectful… Tells Him “STFU, You A Child” During Coach Popovich Legacy Talk‼️ Nick Throw Hands Professionally, Kenyon Gonna F-Around and Get Put To Sleep‼️🥴🤛🏿 #KenyonMartin #NickYoung #Fight #Disrespectful #FunniestVideos #stunner #worldstar #Trending #Viral #Unbelievable #Interview #Conversation Mr. Sauce Talk

RealSauceTalk's profile picture

Mr. Sauce Talk

1,835 subscribers

13,352 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

#KenyonMartin#NickYoung#Fight#Disrespectful
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Snoop Dogg has repeatedly described the 1996 Tupac-Nas encounter (around the MTV VMAs in New York, in Central Park or Bryant Park) as a tense moment he witnessed firsthand that nearly went sideways‼️ In his accounts, Pac saw Nas and confronted him about a diss track targeting Nas, Jay-Z, and Biggie‼️. Nas replied that he had no beef, loved Pac, and they shook hands or hugged‼️. Snoop claimed Nas “didn’t want none” but was deep—about 100 guys with guns circling them‼️while Pac remained oblivious‼️. Snoop said he spotted the threat (hands in pockets) due to his “gang-bang mentality.”‼️ Pac walked off thinking he’d punked Nas; Snoop saw it as Nas letting them slide because of the numbers‼️. Both sides handled it respectfully‼️. Nas has countered that Snoop got key details wrong‼️. Nas said he (not Pac) engaged amid high tension after the awards show, partly tied to a run-in involving his brother Jungle‼️. Rumors of Makaveli disses were circulating, and Nas wanted to check the temperature‼️. Their conversation was substantive: Pac thought Nas had dissed him on “The Message”; Nas clarified he hadn’t targeted Pac and had heard Pac was dissing him in clubs‼️. Pac said they were brothers who shouldn’t clash‼️. They planned to continue talking in Las Vegas, but Pac was shot before that happened‼️. Nas described a dangerous situation where greater heads prevailed and mutual respect won out‼️not one side being punked or purely scared‼️. Napoleon of the Outlawz, who was present and close to the exchange, further undercuts Snoop’s version‼️. Nas walked up with a small group (around half a dozen) while the Outlawz/Death Row side was deep (dozens, including New Jersey affiliates; Napoleon carried a .357 and said many on their side were strapped)‼️. Both sides were prepared and violence was a real risk, but Nas approached boldly‼️. The talk was mature and respectful‼️Pac indicated he would remove the diss verses about Nas after returning from Vegas (which never happened)‼️. They shook hands and hugged‼️. Napoleon has stated Snoop was not close enough to hear the conversation or be in the immediate circle; in some accounts he does not recall Snoop being there at all (or places him off to the side at best)‼️. Young Noble (also Outlawz and present) has said the same‼️: Nas walked up, their side outnumbered Nas’s group roughly 30–40 to a handful, the exchange was direct but resolved maturely (Pac sweating, Nas cool)‼️, and Snoop’s retelling is the wildest and most inaccurate‼️. Snoop did not arrive with Pac’s group and may have misread the larger contingent‼️. Snoop was in New York with the Death Row contingent for the VMAs, so he was in the broader orbit, but the accounts from Nas and the Outlawz place him outside the actual circle‼️. This is a clear case where Snoop’s narration did not fully check out‼️. He has told the story multiple times, centering his close observation and the “Nas was deep/scared but restrained” angle‼️, which Nas and those standing right there dispute on initiation, numbers, proximity, and tone‼️. Other instances where Snoop’s recollections have been corrected⁉️: On Drink Champs, Snoop claimed Nas originally had a verse on Tupac’s “Got My Mind Made Up” (All Eyez On Me) that was later removed‼️. Daz Dillinger, who produced the track, corrected him‼️: Nas was never on that song‼️. The original lineup was Daz, Kurupt, Method Man, Redman, Inspectah Deck, and Lady of Rage‼️. Snoop appears to have mixed it up with a different Dogg Pound-related track involving Nas‼️. Outlawz members have more broadly called out Snoop for revisionist storytelling around Tupac-era events, but the park meeting and the All Eyez On Me claim are among the clearest public corrections‼️💯.
4:41

Snoop Dogg has repeatedly described the 1996 Tupac-Nas encounter (around the MTV VMAs in New York, in Central Park or Bryant Park) as a tense moment he witnessed firsthand that nearly went sideways‼️ In his accounts, Pac saw Nas and confronted him about a diss track targeting Nas, Jay-Z, and Biggie‼️. Nas replied that he had no beef, loved Pac, and they shook hands or hugged‼️. Snoop claimed Nas “didn’t want none” but was deep—about 100 guys with guns circling them‼️while Pac remained oblivious‼️. Snoop said he spotted the threat (hands in pockets) due to his “gang-bang mentality.”‼️ Pac walked off thinking he’d punked Nas; Snoop saw it as Nas letting them slide because of the numbers‼️. Both sides handled it respectfully‼️. Nas has countered that Snoop got key details wrong‼️. Nas said he (not Pac) engaged amid high tension after the awards show, partly tied to a run-in involving his brother Jungle‼️. Rumors of Makaveli disses were circulating, and Nas wanted to check the temperature‼️. Their conversation was substantive: Pac thought Nas had dissed him on “The Message”; Nas clarified he hadn’t targeted Pac and had heard Pac was dissing him in clubs‼️. Pac said they were brothers who shouldn’t clash‼️. They planned to continue talking in Las Vegas, but Pac was shot before that happened‼️. Nas described a dangerous situation where greater heads prevailed and mutual respect won out‼️not one side being punked or purely scared‼️. Napoleon of the Outlawz, who was present and close to the exchange, further undercuts Snoop’s version‼️. Nas walked up with a small group (around half a dozen) while the Outlawz/Death Row side was deep (dozens, including New Jersey affiliates; Napoleon carried a .357 and said many on their side were strapped)‼️. Both sides were prepared and violence was a real risk, but Nas approached boldly‼️. The talk was mature and respectful‼️Pac indicated he would remove the diss verses about Nas after returning from Vegas (which never happened)‼️. They shook hands and hugged‼️. Napoleon has stated Snoop was not close enough to hear the conversation or be in the immediate circle; in some accounts he does not recall Snoop being there at all (or places him off to the side at best)‼️. Young Noble (also Outlawz and present) has said the same‼️: Nas walked up, their side outnumbered Nas’s group roughly 30–40 to a handful, the exchange was direct but resolved maturely (Pac sweating, Nas cool)‼️, and Snoop’s retelling is the wildest and most inaccurate‼️. Snoop did not arrive with Pac’s group and may have misread the larger contingent‼️. Snoop was in New York with the Death Row contingent for the VMAs, so he was in the broader orbit, but the accounts from Nas and the Outlawz place him outside the actual circle‼️. This is a clear case where Snoop’s narration did not fully check out‼️. He has told the story multiple times, centering his close observation and the “Nas was deep/scared but restrained” angle‼️, which Nas and those standing right there dispute on initiation, numbers, proximity, and tone‼️. Other instances where Snoop’s recollections have been corrected⁉️: On Drink Champs, Snoop claimed Nas originally had a verse on Tupac’s “Got My Mind Made Up” (All Eyez On Me) that was later removed‼️. Daz Dillinger, who produced the track, corrected him‼️: Nas was never on that song‼️. The original lineup was Daz, Kurupt, Method Man, Redman, Inspectah Deck, and Lady of Rage‼️. Snoop appears to have mixed it up with a different Dogg Pound-related track involving Nas‼️. Outlawz members have more broadly called out Snoop for revisionist storytelling around Tupac-era events, but the park meeting and the All Eyez On Me claim are among the clearest public corrections‼️💯.

(st_ides)

73,447 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

Jon Bernthal says one of the most controversial decisions of his career was giving Shia LaBeouf a platform after abuse allegations because he believed a real friend doesn’t disappear when someone hits rock bottom. “I heard the allegations and I was heartbroken.” “There’s a red line for me. If you put your hands on a woman or a child i can’t be down with you.” “For two years we barely spoke.” “Then I heard he was sober, married, and about to become a father.” “I reached out and said, ‘Maybe it’s time for you and me to have another talk.’” “Everybody around me said, ‘This is the worst idea in the world. You cannot do that.’” “But being a friend isn’t about turning your back on somebody when they’ve done something deplorable.” “Your job as a friend is to make sure they never do it again.” “I didn’t want to exonerate him.” “I didn’t want to save him.” “I wanted to check on him and see whether he was actually doing the work.” “After the episode came out, I got an enormous amount of backlash.” “For the first time as a public person, I experienced real hatred.” “But I don’t regret it.” “I’ve had people reach out saying they were heading down the same path.” “They said hearing that conversation made them get sober, get help, and change.” “There are places that help victims after abuse.” “But who’s talking to the broken young men before they become abusers?” “Who’s telling them, ‘Stop. Get help. Change your behavior before you destroy someone else’s life.’” “I stand by that conversation.”
9:44

Jon Bernthal says one of the most controversial decisions of his career was giving Shia LaBeouf a platform after abuse allegations because he believed a real friend doesn’t disappear when someone hits rock bottom. “I heard the allegations and I was heartbroken.” “There’s a red line for me. If you put your hands on a woman or a child i can’t be down with you.” “For two years we barely spoke.” “Then I heard he was sober, married, and about to become a father.” “I reached out and said, ‘Maybe it’s time for you and me to have another talk.’” “Everybody around me said, ‘This is the worst idea in the world. You cannot do that.’” “But being a friend isn’t about turning your back on somebody when they’ve done something deplorable.” “Your job as a friend is to make sure they never do it again.” “I didn’t want to exonerate him.” “I didn’t want to save him.” “I wanted to check on him and see whether he was actually doing the work.” “After the episode came out, I got an enormous amount of backlash.” “For the first time as a public person, I experienced real hatred.” “But I don’t regret it.” “I’ve had people reach out saying they were heading down the same path.” “They said hearing that conversation made them get sober, get help, and change.” “There are places that help victims after abuse.” “But who’s talking to the broken young men before they become abusers?” “Who’s telling them, ‘Stop. Get help. Change your behavior before you destroy someone else’s life.’” “I stand by that conversation.”

gomi

948,423 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

‼️EXPOSED: Nick Shirley Caught LYING About Being In New York On The DAY Charlie Was Assassinated — Which BLOWS UP Andrew Kolvet's Alibi 😱 Nick Shirley was not in New York City on September 10th. He was in Utah. A video he posted from the Orem train station that same day captures the ticket agent announcing the location over the PA system in the background, placing him near the scene of the assassination. The next day, September 11th, he filmed himself at Salt Lake City International Airport. The scenery outside the window matches exact public photos of that airport terminal. Both clips destroy his repeated claim that he had already returned to New York and that the segment he did with Andrew Kolvet on The Charlie Kirk Show that morning was live. If Nick was still in Utah on both the 10th and the 11th, the interview could not have been live. That removes the only real-time alibi Andrew Kolvet has offered for his movements that day. It also raises more questions about Nick’s own story. He claimed Charlie texted him the night of the 9th inviting him onto the show on Thursday the 11th, and that he had originally planned to livestream the UVU event in person before last-minute obligations forced him to New York. Charlie himself was scheduled to appear at Charis Bible College in Colorado on the 11th. So why would Charlie be trying to get Nick to come on his show and do an interview with him on a day Charlie himself had a prior obligation? The partial text screenshot Nick released leaves out the full conversation. Also in the September 10th train station video, Nick was already pushing the fedslop narrative that radical left and Antifa were responsible for Charlie's death — even before a single fact about the shooter or motive was public. I can now confidently state that i believe that Nick was inserted into the CK timeline to sell the official fedslop story to Gen Z that “crazy leftists” killed Charlie, long before any evidence supported it as well as to help create an fake alibi for Andrew Kolvet. That is not organic journalism. That is a jacketed asset doing exactly what he was put there to do. The official story is collapsing under the weight of the evidence. Receipts matter. Locations matter. Timelines matter. Do your own research, trust your instinct and believe what your own eyes are telling you. Do not blindly follow whatever your favorite podcaster is tells you. Shoutout to my amazing researcher KK for helping me research and put together this story. This gal is the best and you guys definitely want to be following her. CC: Nick shirley Candace Owens
25:10

‼️EXPOSED: Nick Shirley Caught LYING About Being In New York On The DAY Charlie Was Assassinated — Which BLOWS UP Andrew Kolvet's Alibi 😱 Nick Shirley was not in New York City on September 10th. He was in Utah. A video he posted from the Orem train station that same day captures the ticket agent announcing the location over the PA system in the background, placing him near the scene of the assassination. The next day, September 11th, he filmed himself at Salt Lake City International Airport. The scenery outside the window matches exact public photos of that airport terminal. Both clips destroy his repeated claim that he had already returned to New York and that the segment he did with Andrew Kolvet on The Charlie Kirk Show that morning was live. If Nick was still in Utah on both the 10th and the 11th, the interview could not have been live. That removes the only real-time alibi Andrew Kolvet has offered for his movements that day. It also raises more questions about Nick’s own story. He claimed Charlie texted him the night of the 9th inviting him onto the show on Thursday the 11th, and that he had originally planned to livestream the UVU event in person before last-minute obligations forced him to New York. Charlie himself was scheduled to appear at Charis Bible College in Colorado on the 11th. So why would Charlie be trying to get Nick to come on his show and do an interview with him on a day Charlie himself had a prior obligation? The partial text screenshot Nick released leaves out the full conversation. Also in the September 10th train station video, Nick was already pushing the fedslop narrative that radical left and Antifa were responsible for Charlie's death — even before a single fact about the shooter or motive was public. I can now confidently state that i believe that Nick was inserted into the CK timeline to sell the official fedslop story to Gen Z that “crazy leftists” killed Charlie, long before any evidence supported it as well as to help create an fake alibi for Andrew Kolvet. That is not organic journalism. That is a jacketed asset doing exactly what he was put there to do. The official story is collapsing under the weight of the evidence. Receipts matter. Locations matter. Timelines matter. Do your own research, trust your instinct and believe what your own eyes are telling you. Do not blindly follow whatever your favorite podcaster is tells you. Shoutout to my amazing researcher KK for helping me research and put together this story. This gal is the best and you guys definitely want to be following her. CC: Nick shirley Candace Owens

Project Constitution

265,565 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce

50 Cent put Charlamagne on notice in real time when the Drake Super Bowl talk came up‼️💯. On "The Breakfast Club", 50 dropped that Drake had turned down the Super Bowl multiple times (he and others have referenced two or three occasions)‼️. Charlamagne’s face and immediate reaction told the story‼️he was caught off guard and started trying to reframe it on the spot‼️. 50 didn’t let the pivot slide‼️. He pointed out the obvious: if Jay-Z (via Roc Nation’s partnership with the NFL) was actually offering Drake the stage and Drake was the one saying no, that undercuts the pure “Jay is just hating Drake” narrative that a lot of people lean on‼️. You can’t run the “he’s blocking him out of spite” story and also claim the offers were real without the logic falling apart‼️. 50 checked that framing right there‼️. Then the conversation shifted to 50’s own situation, and he confirmed what he’d said before: Jay didn’t want him on the 2022 Super Bowl LVI halftime show either‼️. Roc Nation allegedly tried to keep him off the bill‼️. Eminem refused to do it without 50, so they had to bring him in as the “surprise.” 50 has been consistent on this‼️he’s said if it was up to them, he wouldn’t have been there‼️. He frames it as culture being competitive, but notes that when it crosses into blocking business opportunities (especially when the other side isn’t even competing for current chart slots or relevance in the same way), it stops making sense‼️. This isn’t isolated‼️. Jay has a track record of using industry position and leverage for personal or competitive reasons rather than pure merit‼️: - The long-running tension with 50 goes back years and has included business and platform issues beyond just music‼️. - Damon Dash has repeatedly accused Jay of interfering in deals and opportunities that would have paid him, describing a pattern of stepping on things when money was on the table‼️. - Historical examples include the way power dynamics played out around Roc-A-Fella splits, artist placements, and access during peak Roc years. Jay has never been shy about leveraging his position‼️whether through labels, streaming (Tidal), sports, or the NFL partnership‼️. The idea that Jay-Z “didn’t play a part” in the Drake–Kendrick situation is pure nonsense‼️. Roc Nation has shaped Super Bowl halftime selections for years‼️. Kendrick getting the 2025 New Orleans slot right in the middle/aftermath of the biggest beef in years wasn’t some neutral coincidence, especially with the cultural and streaming impact of “Not Like Us.”‼️ Jay later claimed it was simply because Kendrick was having a monster year and insisted it wasn’t about the battle‼️. That defense is convenient‼️. When the person controlling one of the biggest stages in music hands it to one side of an active, highly publicized war while the other side has previously turned the same stage down, pretending there’s zero connection or influence requires willful blindness‼️. The power is real, the history of selective use of that power exists, and the Super Bowl decisions sit right in the middle of both‼️. 50’s point lands because he’s lived both sides of it: the competitive culture "and" the business blocking‼️. When Charlamagne tried to keep the narrative tidy in the moment, 50 simply wouldn’t let the contradiction stand‼️. Watch the pattern‼️💯
3:27

50 Cent put Charlamagne on notice in real time when the Drake Super Bowl talk came up‼️💯. On "The Breakfast Club", 50 dropped that Drake had turned down the Super Bowl multiple times (he and others have referenced two or three occasions)‼️. Charlamagne’s face and immediate reaction told the story‼️he was caught off guard and started trying to reframe it on the spot‼️. 50 didn’t let the pivot slide‼️. He pointed out the obvious: if Jay-Z (via Roc Nation’s partnership with the NFL) was actually offering Drake the stage and Drake was the one saying no, that undercuts the pure “Jay is just hating Drake” narrative that a lot of people lean on‼️. You can’t run the “he’s blocking him out of spite” story and also claim the offers were real without the logic falling apart‼️. 50 checked that framing right there‼️. Then the conversation shifted to 50’s own situation, and he confirmed what he’d said before: Jay didn’t want him on the 2022 Super Bowl LVI halftime show either‼️. Roc Nation allegedly tried to keep him off the bill‼️. Eminem refused to do it without 50, so they had to bring him in as the “surprise.” 50 has been consistent on this‼️he’s said if it was up to them, he wouldn’t have been there‼️. He frames it as culture being competitive, but notes that when it crosses into blocking business opportunities (especially when the other side isn’t even competing for current chart slots or relevance in the same way), it stops making sense‼️. This isn’t isolated‼️. Jay has a track record of using industry position and leverage for personal or competitive reasons rather than pure merit‼️: - The long-running tension with 50 goes back years and has included business and platform issues beyond just music‼️. - Damon Dash has repeatedly accused Jay of interfering in deals and opportunities that would have paid him, describing a pattern of stepping on things when money was on the table‼️. - Historical examples include the way power dynamics played out around Roc-A-Fella splits, artist placements, and access during peak Roc years. Jay has never been shy about leveraging his position‼️whether through labels, streaming (Tidal), sports, or the NFL partnership‼️. The idea that Jay-Z “didn’t play a part” in the Drake–Kendrick situation is pure nonsense‼️. Roc Nation has shaped Super Bowl halftime selections for years‼️. Kendrick getting the 2025 New Orleans slot right in the middle/aftermath of the biggest beef in years wasn’t some neutral coincidence, especially with the cultural and streaming impact of “Not Like Us.”‼️ Jay later claimed it was simply because Kendrick was having a monster year and insisted it wasn’t about the battle‼️. That defense is convenient‼️. When the person controlling one of the biggest stages in music hands it to one side of an active, highly publicized war while the other side has previously turned the same stage down, pretending there’s zero connection or influence requires willful blindness‼️. The power is real, the history of selective use of that power exists, and the Super Bowl decisions sit right in the middle of both‼️. 50’s point lands because he’s lived both sides of it: the competitive culture "and" the business blocking‼️. When Charlamagne tried to keep the narrative tidy in the moment, 50 simply wouldn’t let the contradiction stand‼️. Watch the pattern‼️💯

(st_ides)

120,931 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

Get Rich or Die Tryin’(released February 6, 2003) is 50 Cent’s (Curtis Jackson) major-label debut and one of the biggest commercial and cultural explosions in hip-hop history‼️💯. The Story Behind the Album⁉️ In the late 1990s, 50 signed with Columbia Records through Jam Master Jay’s development deal‼️. He recorded his intended debut, "Power of the Dollar" (which included the provocative single “How to Rob,” name-checking other rappers)‼️. In May 2000, just before it was set to drop, he was shot nine times outside his grandmother’s house in Queens (including hits to the face, chest, and arm)‼️. The attack was widely linked to his earlier track “Ghetto Qur’an,” which referenced Queens drug figure Kenneth “Supreme” McGriff‼️. He survived but was dropped by Columbia‼️. While recovering, he linked with producer Sha Money XL and recorded relentlessly in a Long Island house/studio that functioned as a safe house‼️. The mixtapes "Guess Who’s Back⁉️" and "50 Cent Is the Future" (with G-Unit) created massive street buzz‼️. Eminem heard the material, flew 50 out, introduced him to Dr. Dre, and they signed him to a roughly $1 million joint deal with Shady/Aftermath/Interscope‼️. Much of the album was cut quickly (some key tracks in intense LA sessions with Dre)‼️. It mixed gritty street narratives, survival stories, and radio-ready hooks over polished production (Dre, Eminem, and others)‼️. Standouts include “In Da Club,” “21 Questions,” “P.I.M.P.,” “Many Men (Wish Death),” “Heat,” and “Wanksta.” “Many Men” almost got cut for tempo reasons until Dre (and Tony Yayo) insisted it stay‼️. The album was rushed out slightly early due to bootlegging fears‼️. It debuted at No. 1 with around 872,000 first-week sales, spent multiple weeks at the top, became the best-selling album of 2003, and has been certified 9× platinum in the U.S. (with global sales estimates around 12 million)‼️. It turned 50 into a superstar almost overnight and helped shift the sound and energy of early-2000s mainstream rap‼️. In August 2023, while performing as a surprise guest on 50’s Final Lap Tour at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, Cole told the crowd: “Get Rich or Die Tryin’ is the best album of all time‼️. I don’t give a fuck what you talking about… It’s "Get Rich or Die Tryin’ at number one and it’s "Thriller" at number two, and I love Michael Jackson.”‼️ Few other major artists have made the exact same absolute “best of all time” declaration in public. Fat Joe has called it “one of the greatest albums of all time” (even while acknowledging past beef that made him initially avoid it)‼️. Nas has praised it as a game-changer‼️. It regularly appears on “best of the 2000s,” classic debut, and all-time hip-hop lists, but Cole’s onstage statement is the clearest high-profile endorsement of it as *the* greatest album period‼️. Jay-Z saw 50’s arrival coming and warned his Roc-A-Fella circle‼️. In a 2013 "Breakfast Club" interview, he recalled telling artists in the studio: “I’m telling you man, y’all got a chance right now to flood it, put out a lot of music, because 50 Cent is coming.” Four months later “In Da Club” hit and “it was over.”‼️ Young Guru (Jay’s longtime engineer) confirmed a similar moment during "The Blueprint 2" sessions: Jay walked in when the whole crew was present and said something like, “Yo, this dude 50, y’all gonna have to deal with him in the next couple months.”‼️ Guru described it as a clear warning that “another power [was] coming.”‼️ Memphis Bleek has also referenced the heads-up‼️. Jay recognized 50’s talent (especially his hooks and intensity) early and treated the impending arrival as an inevitability that his camp needed to respond to by staying active‼️. 50 has acknowledged the story positively, noting Jay knew he would always find a way‼️.
2:30

Get Rich or Die Tryin’(released February 6, 2003) is 50 Cent’s (Curtis Jackson) major-label debut and one of the biggest commercial and cultural explosions in hip-hop history‼️💯. The Story Behind the Album⁉️ In the late 1990s, 50 signed with Columbia Records through Jam Master Jay’s development deal‼️. He recorded his intended debut, "Power of the Dollar" (which included the provocative single “How to Rob,” name-checking other rappers)‼️. In May 2000, just before it was set to drop, he was shot nine times outside his grandmother’s house in Queens (including hits to the face, chest, and arm)‼️. The attack was widely linked to his earlier track “Ghetto Qur’an,” which referenced Queens drug figure Kenneth “Supreme” McGriff‼️. He survived but was dropped by Columbia‼️. While recovering, he linked with producer Sha Money XL and recorded relentlessly in a Long Island house/studio that functioned as a safe house‼️. The mixtapes "Guess Who’s Back⁉️" and "50 Cent Is the Future" (with G-Unit) created massive street buzz‼️. Eminem heard the material, flew 50 out, introduced him to Dr. Dre, and they signed him to a roughly $1 million joint deal with Shady/Aftermath/Interscope‼️. Much of the album was cut quickly (some key tracks in intense LA sessions with Dre)‼️. It mixed gritty street narratives, survival stories, and radio-ready hooks over polished production (Dre, Eminem, and others)‼️. Standouts include “In Da Club,” “21 Questions,” “P.I.M.P.,” “Many Men (Wish Death),” “Heat,” and “Wanksta.” “Many Men” almost got cut for tempo reasons until Dre (and Tony Yayo) insisted it stay‼️. The album was rushed out slightly early due to bootlegging fears‼️. It debuted at No. 1 with around 872,000 first-week sales, spent multiple weeks at the top, became the best-selling album of 2003, and has been certified 9× platinum in the U.S. (with global sales estimates around 12 million)‼️. It turned 50 into a superstar almost overnight and helped shift the sound and energy of early-2000s mainstream rap‼️. In August 2023, while performing as a surprise guest on 50’s Final Lap Tour at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, Cole told the crowd: “Get Rich or Die Tryin’ is the best album of all time‼️. I don’t give a fuck what you talking about… It’s "Get Rich or Die Tryin’ at number one and it’s "Thriller" at number two, and I love Michael Jackson.”‼️ Few other major artists have made the exact same absolute “best of all time” declaration in public. Fat Joe has called it “one of the greatest albums of all time” (even while acknowledging past beef that made him initially avoid it)‼️. Nas has praised it as a game-changer‼️. It regularly appears on “best of the 2000s,” classic debut, and all-time hip-hop lists, but Cole’s onstage statement is the clearest high-profile endorsement of it as *the* greatest album period‼️. Jay-Z saw 50’s arrival coming and warned his Roc-A-Fella circle‼️. In a 2013 "Breakfast Club" interview, he recalled telling artists in the studio: “I’m telling you man, y’all got a chance right now to flood it, put out a lot of music, because 50 Cent is coming.” Four months later “In Da Club” hit and “it was over.”‼️ Young Guru (Jay’s longtime engineer) confirmed a similar moment during "The Blueprint 2" sessions: Jay walked in when the whole crew was present and said something like, “Yo, this dude 50, y’all gonna have to deal with him in the next couple months.”‼️ Guru described it as a clear warning that “another power [was] coming.”‼️ Memphis Bleek has also referenced the heads-up‼️. Jay recognized 50’s talent (especially his hooks and intensity) early and treated the impending arrival as an inevitability that his camp needed to respond to by staying active‼️. 50 has acknowledged the story positively, noting Jay knew he would always find a way‼️.

(st_ides)

34,349 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce

Times Are Definitely Changing ‼️ This Video Of An American Citizen Opposing Sending His Daughter To Die For The Elite’s Wars Has BLOWN UP, Over 1.4 Million Likes In Just A Couple Days This is a MUST LISTEN. This has really resonated with people to explode & go this viral “Let me get this right. You wanna pass a law to draft my daughter to send to another one of your foreign ****** wars for something you created so your arms manufacturers can make more money for your banker friends. Did I get that ****** solid right or not? Now wrong elephant breath. My daughter will not be joining the military any way, shape, or form unless it's to fight this ****** war that this government has started against its people. See how simple that is? The very fact that you don't understand the societal ****** rules about women and children, let me school you a little bit. Now the fact of the matter is you can't make your fucking recruitment numbers because your recruiters told so many lies like, oh, yes. You get the condo on the beach when you join up. Oh, you get to start here, but we're gonna switch you to what you really want later. And the biggest ****** up the ******, the VA will take care of you if you got hurt. Hey. The reason you can't meet the recruitment goals is because these young men have already voted with their ****** feet. They're not gonna ****** fight. And the fact that you think you're gonna get the women to fight, let me put it to you this way. It was one thing when you oppressed us with unbelievable ****** taxes. One thing, because we were living in nice homes and still eating pretty good. It's another thing when you spied on us to the degree that you did and made us realize that we don't have any freedom. It's another thing when you not only wrecked the ****** economy, but you fucking did it in such a way where you spent so much ****** money that went to special interest groups that the people never had a chance to benefit from it. And now when you have people that are homeless eating canned goods out of the back of their ****** car? You know what? They may do that for themselves, but they're not their kids are not gonna go through that. ******, you're gonna find out what people will do for their ****** children. You protect women and children because it's a societal norm. It has nothing to do with being sexist or unequal in any way. The fact is you should always protect people that are weaker themselves and always stand up for the right ****** thing. And the right ****** thing here is if my daughter is gonna be in a war, she's not gonna have to go to a ****** foreign country to fight it. ****** your taxes, ****** your withholding. ****** your FEMA. ****** your IRS. ****** you. ****** your corrupt congress. ****** your corrupt presidents. ****** your entire election process. You know, I could go on forever, but let's face it. The world's not gonna live that long before a fucking meteor solves a problem for us. So ****** you. And if anybody doesn't like what I'm saying, you know what you can do. If you do like what I'm saying, give me a hell yeah in the comments because our women aren't gonna fight a ****** war for some ****** corrupt government”
2:30

Times Are Definitely Changing ‼️ This Video Of An American Citizen Opposing Sending His Daughter To Die For The Elite’s Wars Has BLOWN UP, Over 1.4 Million Likes In Just A Couple Days This is a MUST LISTEN. This has really resonated with people to explode & go this viral “Let me get this right. You wanna pass a law to draft my daughter to send to another one of your foreign ****** wars for something you created so your arms manufacturers can make more money for your banker friends. Did I get that ****** solid right or not? Now wrong elephant breath. My daughter will not be joining the military any way, shape, or form unless it's to fight this ****** war that this government has started against its people. See how simple that is? The very fact that you don't understand the societal ****** rules about women and children, let me school you a little bit. Now the fact of the matter is you can't make your fucking recruitment numbers because your recruiters told so many lies like, oh, yes. You get the condo on the beach when you join up. Oh, you get to start here, but we're gonna switch you to what you really want later. And the biggest ****** up the ******, the VA will take care of you if you got hurt. Hey. The reason you can't meet the recruitment goals is because these young men have already voted with their ****** feet. They're not gonna ****** fight. And the fact that you think you're gonna get the women to fight, let me put it to you this way. It was one thing when you oppressed us with unbelievable ****** taxes. One thing, because we were living in nice homes and still eating pretty good. It's another thing when you spied on us to the degree that you did and made us realize that we don't have any freedom. It's another thing when you not only wrecked the ****** economy, but you fucking did it in such a way where you spent so much ****** money that went to special interest groups that the people never had a chance to benefit from it. And now when you have people that are homeless eating canned goods out of the back of their ****** car? You know what? They may do that for themselves, but they're not their kids are not gonna go through that. ******, you're gonna find out what people will do for their ****** children. You protect women and children because it's a societal norm. It has nothing to do with being sexist or unequal in any way. The fact is you should always protect people that are weaker themselves and always stand up for the right ****** thing. And the right ****** thing here is if my daughter is gonna be in a war, she's not gonna have to go to a ****** foreign country to fight it. ****** your taxes, ****** your withholding. ****** your FEMA. ****** your IRS. ****** you. ****** your corrupt congress. ****** your corrupt presidents. ****** your entire election process. You know, I could go on forever, but let's face it. The world's not gonna live that long before a fucking meteor solves a problem for us. So ****** you. And if anybody doesn't like what I'm saying, you know what you can do. If you do like what I'm saying, give me a hell yeah in the comments because our women aren't gonna fight a ****** war for some ****** corrupt government”

Wall Street Apes

1,049,427 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

🎙️ Austin Rivers: "I don't like to give one person all the credit, because it's unity with that team, but Kon Knueppel has raised everyone's play." "My favorite attribute about him is there's no cool in him. He has no cool. He doesn't play cool. There's nothing about him that wants to be cool. He don't care. He goes out there and competes every single game. He plays hard." "Even though he's not a great defender, he tries. He works hard. He plays hard. He competes. He hits big shots. He doesn't have bad body language. When he misses, he doesn't throw his head. He's just solid." "When you talk about LaMelo (Ball) and everything that he brings—he's a little bit more eccentric and all these different things—and Brandon Miller, then you get this kid that comes in here and he's balling his ass off to the point where they're like, 'Hold up, we gotta get our sh-t straight. This guy's f-cking hooping.' And now they're all playing this way, and they're playing the right way." "I saw a play the other day: Knueppel drives, passes it to Brandon Miller. He had a good shot, but there was a better one next to him. Pump fakes, passes. Gives it up. I'm like, that play would have never happened before. They're playing good-to-great basketball now." "The coach, everyone gets a hand in the pot to take credit—I just firmly believe Kon Knueppel, just by example of how he plays and who he is as a person and just how he moves, just being solid and steady around a bunch of guys who were talented as hell and had every tool in the box, but they needed THAT. And I think that's been the biggest surprise." "We were talking about this draft for the All-Star thing, for the Rising Stars Challenge, and I was talking to T-Mac and those guys, and (Carmelo Anthony)'s like, 'I'm drafting Knueppel because I know he's gonna be one of the few guys in the Rising Stars that's not gonna come in here and play cool. He's gonna just compete. That's just who he is.'" "That's why that Duke team was so good—because Cooper's the same way. This draft class has guys who compete; they're dogs. That 'cool' sh-t is like... we got a very exciting young generation of guys who really wanna hoop. Cooper is not like, that dude—half his game is based off motor, you know what I mean? These guys are dogs. VJ (Edgecombe) is a dog." "Like, we haven't had this in—I don't know—the last draft class we've had where I've seen this. So it's exciting, and it's turning teams that we thought were like 5-6 years away—where Charlotte's like, 'Uh oh, here it is, it's coming.' You see it now." "That was the biggest surprise being around them, seeing when the coach would talk, everyone's in the huddle listening, seeing LaMelo direct stuff. I'm like, 'whoa, I've never seen this.' Like, it's happening. It's exciting." Full segment on The Russillo Show: — —
3:11

🎙️ Austin Rivers: "I don't like to give one person all the credit, because it's unity with that team, but Kon Knueppel has raised everyone's play." "My favorite attribute about him is there's no cool in him. He has no cool. He doesn't play cool. There's nothing about him that wants to be cool. He don't care. He goes out there and competes every single game. He plays hard." "Even though he's not a great defender, he tries. He works hard. He plays hard. He competes. He hits big shots. He doesn't have bad body language. When he misses, he doesn't throw his head. He's just solid." "When you talk about LaMelo (Ball) and everything that he brings—he's a little bit more eccentric and all these different things—and Brandon Miller, then you get this kid that comes in here and he's balling his ass off to the point where they're like, 'Hold up, we gotta get our sh-t straight. This guy's f-cking hooping.' And now they're all playing this way, and they're playing the right way." "I saw a play the other day: Knueppel drives, passes it to Brandon Miller. He had a good shot, but there was a better one next to him. Pump fakes, passes. Gives it up. I'm like, that play would have never happened before. They're playing good-to-great basketball now." "The coach, everyone gets a hand in the pot to take credit—I just firmly believe Kon Knueppel, just by example of how he plays and who he is as a person and just how he moves, just being solid and steady around a bunch of guys who were talented as hell and had every tool in the box, but they needed THAT. And I think that's been the biggest surprise." "We were talking about this draft for the All-Star thing, for the Rising Stars Challenge, and I was talking to T-Mac and those guys, and (Carmelo Anthony)'s like, 'I'm drafting Knueppel because I know he's gonna be one of the few guys in the Rising Stars that's not gonna come in here and play cool. He's gonna just compete. That's just who he is.'" "That's why that Duke team was so good—because Cooper's the same way. This draft class has guys who compete; they're dogs. That 'cool' sh-t is like... we got a very exciting young generation of guys who really wanna hoop. Cooper is not like, that dude—half his game is based off motor, you know what I mean? These guys are dogs. VJ (Edgecombe) is a dog." "Like, we haven't had this in—I don't know—the last draft class we've had where I've seen this. So it's exciting, and it's turning teams that we thought were like 5-6 years away—where Charlotte's like, 'Uh oh, here it is, it's coming.' You see it now." "That was the biggest surprise being around them, seeing when the coach would talk, everyone's in the huddle listening, seeing LaMelo direct stuff. I'm like, 'whoa, I've never seen this.' Like, it's happening. It's exciting." Full segment on The Russillo Show: — —

r/CharlotteHornets

128,401 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

lee minho was born to be the leeknow he is. he loves to show off, he loves to attend fashion shows, he loves to get compliments, he loves to show his work and show stays his dancing and cover songs so he could let us hear his voice, without auto tone without editing, just him and his mic. he have said twice that hes only that happy, giggly and chatty only when hes with stays, either during concerts or fansigns. the perfectness in him isnt enough for him and he's gladly working harder for more. he worked so hard even tho he's already perfect and amazing but it just doesn't satisfy him which proves how determined he is, how passionate and loving he is to his career. he lives such a healthy life, very mature mindset and a big love for his career. he loves it, he would love to be included, involved, being filmed and all attention on him. even tho his career has been the most successful, he will always continue on improving and wanting more, his greed and need to grow more and become more and more powerful and talentful always amaze me. im so happy to witness such... fascinating person who worked hard ever since he was a child, different jobs until he found the place that he belongs to. you cant blame anyone who's pointing out this very obvious, hateful and envious mistreatment. i just want to see him shine and do the thing he absolutely love and live for. leeknow's career will always be there in history, i love a man who is very happily doing the thing he always wanted to do. lee minho you will always be loved, cherished and famous. no matter how his own company tries to exclude him out of almost every content they post, people will always talk about him. he will always find himself trending and loved. dont think that he wants to be treated like that, he wouldn't work hard, practice everyday, go to vocal lessons and still try new dancing styles just to be neglected. he would love to be seen, heard, loved, adored, cherished, treasured, respected, noticed, treated nicely, cared for, appreciated, recognized, praised, cheered for and known. please know that you ARE by so many people all around this big giant world. my favorite precious, amazing, loved, hardworking, sweet boy. the love of my life i love you so much 🤍
1:42

lee minho was born to be the leeknow he is. he loves to show off, he loves to attend fashion shows, he loves to get compliments, he loves to show his work and show stays his dancing and cover songs so he could let us hear his voice, without auto tone without editing, just him and his mic. he have said twice that hes only that happy, giggly and chatty only when hes with stays, either during concerts or fansigns. the perfectness in him isnt enough for him and he's gladly working harder for more. he worked so hard even tho he's already perfect and amazing but it just doesn't satisfy him which proves how determined he is, how passionate and loving he is to his career. he lives such a healthy life, very mature mindset and a big love for his career. he loves it, he would love to be included, involved, being filmed and all attention on him. even tho his career has been the most successful, he will always continue on improving and wanting more, his greed and need to grow more and become more and more powerful and talentful always amaze me. im so happy to witness such... fascinating person who worked hard ever since he was a child, different jobs until he found the place that he belongs to. you cant blame anyone who's pointing out this very obvious, hateful and envious mistreatment. i just want to see him shine and do the thing he absolutely love and live for. leeknow's career will always be there in history, i love a man who is very happily doing the thing he always wanted to do. lee minho you will always be loved, cherished and famous. no matter how his own company tries to exclude him out of almost every content they post, people will always talk about him. he will always find himself trending and loved. dont think that he wants to be treated like that, he wouldn't work hard, practice everyday, go to vocal lessons and still try new dancing styles just to be neglected. he would love to be seen, heard, loved, adored, cherished, treasured, respected, noticed, treated nicely, cared for, appreciated, recognized, praised, cheered for and known. please know that you ARE by so many people all around this big giant world. my favorite precious, amazing, loved, hardworking, sweet boy. the love of my life i love you so much 🤍

mimilee

15,127 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

💊 Sometimes, The Truth is a Hard Pill to Swallow 💊 "There's no indication that (firsthand whistleblowers who claim they worked hands-on an NHI craft) are, at this moment, willing to come forward. If people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." ~Corbell (This is not the sensational and misleading "stuff" that tends to go semi-viral in this community. But it's reality. It sucks, but I'd rather hear the truth than have smoke blown up our asses. That's why I asked. Will this post spread like wildfire? Probably not.) "What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen." ~Corbell (the "me" in that quote is not Corbell and is clarified in the full version below.) ~~~ Joe Murgia: "Have you, or do you know of anybody else, who has claimed to have, spoken to the witness I described earlier: Somebody who claims to have worked in a program for a decent amount of time, and who had hands-on a craft, and said, 'Yeah, I worked on it, and my conclusion was, after three years,' or whatever, 'this was a non-human craft'"? Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Yes! I know people in an official capacity who have interviewed with people that exactly fit this description, and I have pushed on them, being like, 'What is it going to take for someone like that to come forward, publicly?' And by the way, that was part of an ICIG investigation where people of that level were communicated with, and I know exactly who is doing that back and forth." (I'd love to know more about that ICIG investigation. Is it related to what Grusch claimed?) Corbell: "And here's the deal, man. They said to me, 'What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen. It just not gonna happen.' (If those folks are sharing that information with Corbell, it appears that it's not classified. So those investigators should be able to tell us what they told Corbell. Will they? Probably not. On the flip side, those people who spoke to Corbell could get around the classified aspect by offering up a hypothetical: "Jeremy, if witnesses like that exist, and have spoken to me, why would they destroy their whole lives and go public? Just because they were told they needed to speak with me? Again, hypothetically speaking.") Corbell: "There has to be somebody who's so upset with something surrounding this, that they're just like, gonna try to burn it all down. And usually those people never make it to the starting point, you know? If they're coming from that attitude. People that work in those programs are so highly monitored with polygraphs, and, you know, their family lives, making sure they're stable. "If you remember, all the way back, looking to Lazar, why did he get not called back for The Program? It was because they found out his wife was cheating on him and he became a security risk. That's how security clearances work, is you have to have a stable family life. So people that would break from the fold, that are feeling all that type of pressure and just try to burn the whole house down? Dude, they're going to find out they're in that mental state way prior to them ever being able to get to the starting point. "So it's a long way to say, yeah, man, the Holy Grail? Yeah, I know about those conversations. I've talked to people on both sides of those conversations." (Both sides to me means that Corbell is saying he DID talk to the people who interviewed the whistleblowers and the actual whistleblowers themselves. That's not the biggest takeaway from what he said, but it would be nice to know if he or George Knapp have spoken directly to those firsthand folks and aren't just hearing it second hand.) Corbell: "The thing is, there's no indication that people like that are at this moment willing to come forward. And in fact - I can't go further than that - but in fact, if people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." (What's changed to where Corbell doesn't think it's possible any more? That's extremely important to know.) Murgia: "And just to be clear, you're talking about other people have had the conversations with those whistleblowers?" Corbell: "Yes." Murgia: "Not you?" Corbell: "Well, what I'm admitting to is that, in official capacity, there are people doing this investigation that have conveyed to me their direct, official debriefing with individuals in those programs. Like, working on the technology, currently. Non-human technology. So I know these people have had those investigatory roles and had those briefings and took the information because of the ICIG, you know, reports." (That makes it seem like it was more than just a hypothetical, which I mentioned earlier.) Murgia: "Cool." Corbell: "Yeah, I wish I could help more on that, guys, you know?" (If you've been waiting for those types of hands-on, firsthand folks to come forward, you need to adjust your expectations after seeing what Corbell said. I have. Some will decide they're tired of waiting and leave this field. Others, who are interested in the phenomenon and not just relying on what happens with witnesses, will always be here. And we still have a hearing coming in September where we will, hopefully, learn new and interesting information from firsthand witnesses who we have never heard from before.)
2:55

💊 Sometimes, The Truth is a Hard Pill to Swallow 💊 "There's no indication that (firsthand whistleblowers who claim they worked hands-on an NHI craft) are, at this moment, willing to come forward. If people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." ~Corbell (This is not the sensational and misleading "stuff" that tends to go semi-viral in this community. But it's reality. It sucks, but I'd rather hear the truth than have smoke blown up our asses. That's why I asked. Will this post spread like wildfire? Probably not.) "What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen." ~Corbell (the "me" in that quote is not Corbell and is clarified in the full version below.) ~~~ Joe Murgia: "Have you, or do you know of anybody else, who has claimed to have, spoken to the witness I described earlier: Somebody who claims to have worked in a program for a decent amount of time, and who had hands-on a craft, and said, 'Yeah, I worked on it, and my conclusion was, after three years,' or whatever, 'this was a non-human craft'"? Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Yes! I know people in an official capacity who have interviewed with people that exactly fit this description, and I have pushed on them, being like, 'What is it going to take for someone like that to come forward, publicly?' And by the way, that was part of an ICIG investigation where people of that level were communicated with, and I know exactly who is doing that back and forth." (I'd love to know more about that ICIG investigation. Is it related to what Grusch claimed?) Corbell: "And here's the deal, man. They said to me, 'What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen. It just not gonna happen.' (If those folks are sharing that information with Corbell, it appears that it's not classified. So those investigators should be able to tell us what they told Corbell. Will they? Probably not. On the flip side, those people who spoke to Corbell could get around the classified aspect by offering up a hypothetical: "Jeremy, if witnesses like that exist, and have spoken to me, why would they destroy their whole lives and go public? Just because they were told they needed to speak with me? Again, hypothetically speaking.") Corbell: "There has to be somebody who's so upset with something surrounding this, that they're just like, gonna try to burn it all down. And usually those people never make it to the starting point, you know? If they're coming from that attitude. People that work in those programs are so highly monitored with polygraphs, and, you know, their family lives, making sure they're stable. "If you remember, all the way back, looking to Lazar, why did he get not called back for The Program? It was because they found out his wife was cheating on him and he became a security risk. That's how security clearances work, is you have to have a stable family life. So people that would break from the fold, that are feeling all that type of pressure and just try to burn the whole house down? Dude, they're going to find out they're in that mental state way prior to them ever being able to get to the starting point. "So it's a long way to say, yeah, man, the Holy Grail? Yeah, I know about those conversations. I've talked to people on both sides of those conversations." (Both sides to me means that Corbell is saying he DID talk to the people who interviewed the whistleblowers and the actual whistleblowers themselves. That's not the biggest takeaway from what he said, but it would be nice to know if he or George Knapp have spoken directly to those firsthand folks and aren't just hearing it second hand.) Corbell: "The thing is, there's no indication that people like that are at this moment willing to come forward. And in fact - I can't go further than that - but in fact, if people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." (What's changed to where Corbell doesn't think it's possible any more? That's extremely important to know.) Murgia: "And just to be clear, you're talking about other people have had the conversations with those whistleblowers?" Corbell: "Yes." Murgia: "Not you?" Corbell: "Well, what I'm admitting to is that, in official capacity, there are people doing this investigation that have conveyed to me their direct, official debriefing with individuals in those programs. Like, working on the technology, currently. Non-human technology. So I know these people have had those investigatory roles and had those briefings and took the information because of the ICIG, you know, reports." (That makes it seem like it was more than just a hypothetical, which I mentioned earlier.) Murgia: "Cool." Corbell: "Yeah, I wish I could help more on that, guys, you know?" (If you've been waiting for those types of hands-on, firsthand folks to come forward, you need to adjust your expectations after seeing what Corbell said. I have. Some will decide they're tired of waiting and leave this field. Others, who are interested in the phenomenon and not just relying on what happens with witnesses, will always be here. And we still have a hearing coming in September where we will, hopefully, learn new and interesting information from firsthand witnesses who we have never heard from before.)

Joe Murgia

53,949 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)
3:29

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)

Joe Murgia

30,311 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Allow me to make something absolutely clear to all of you. And yes, I am angry. I am independent. I am not the mainstream media. That means I have more freedom in what I do. I am beholden to no one. The mainstream media is careful. They’re controlled. They stay safe. I do not. I have the freedom to report every fact I find, even when it makes people angry. During the Anthony case, I was able to expose bad actors because I put in the work. That meant hours of investigating, collecting documentation, and gathering information. It was also how I was able to warn people that witnesses were being doxxed and that the family was being threatened. Through all of this, I became friends with Jeff. Jeff is a father grieving a murdered son. He was dragged through the mud and muzzled, unable to speak. I spent hours with him on the phone, sometimes late into the night. He would vent. Sometimes he would cry. But worst of all, none of his feelings could be publicly known. He was swatted six times. Meghan was also swatted. People can argue over intent, but the reality is that sending armed police to someone’s home repeatedly creates a dangerous situation for that family. Austin was called “worm food.” People mocked a murdered child. Charleston White said, “He should have killed both of them.” This disgusting rhetoric went on for a year while Jeff was unable to speak publicly or defend his dead son. That is why I told Jeff that when the gag order was lifted and the trial was over, I would give him an interview. Unlike the mainstream media, he would have the freedom to say whatever he wanted without interruption. He would not have had that freedom anywhere else. I could not care less what people think about that decision. I knew things would be clipped and taken out of context. They’ve been doing it since the beginning. That was never a surprise to me. This interview was for Jeff. It was not for them. It was not for you. It was to allow Jeff to finally get every ounce of anger, sadness, grief, rage, and pain off his chest. I’m glad we did it. If you are angry at me for it, then you do not understand grief. If you are angry because you think I should have controlled the interview more, then you do not understand the pain he has lived with for the last year. My goal was simple: give him the microphone, step back, and let him talk. Most people seem to understand that. Some do not. Many are angry that I gave Jeff the freedom and platform to express thoughts he has been forced to keep buried for an entire year. As for the clips being shared out of context, I want everyone to hear the full context. Yes, Jeff called Karmelo a “watermelon felon.” No, he did not say it because he is racist. He said it while sarcastically mocking the people who constantly clip words out of context and chase viral moments. They have spent a year calling him racist. His point was that if they wanted something to clip and spread around the internet, he’d give them exactly what they were looking for. That is the context. And I don’t blame him. If you’re angry that I gave him a platform to say what he wanted, I truly do not care. I don’t even know how to explain how much I do not care. I love the Metcalf family. I love Jeff. And this is what he wanted. For once, Jeff got to do what HE wanted to do. He is the father of a dead son who spent a year being told to stay quiet while people lied about him, mocked his family, and celebrated his pain. I warned all of you how evil some of these people are. I’ve known it for the past year. The Metcalf family has lived it, and so have I. These people do not just threaten to kill you. They threaten to destroy you. They threaten your family. They are not above threatening children. We already knew this. Now many of you are finally seeing it for yourselves. And if a few words from a grieving father are enough to outrage you, then you might want to grow a thicker skin.
2:19

Allow me to make something absolutely clear to all of you. And yes, I am angry. I am independent. I am not the mainstream media. That means I have more freedom in what I do. I am beholden to no one. The mainstream media is careful. They’re controlled. They stay safe. I do not. I have the freedom to report every fact I find, even when it makes people angry. During the Anthony case, I was able to expose bad actors because I put in the work. That meant hours of investigating, collecting documentation, and gathering information. It was also how I was able to warn people that witnesses were being doxxed and that the family was being threatened. Through all of this, I became friends with Jeff. Jeff is a father grieving a murdered son. He was dragged through the mud and muzzled, unable to speak. I spent hours with him on the phone, sometimes late into the night. He would vent. Sometimes he would cry. But worst of all, none of his feelings could be publicly known. He was swatted six times. Meghan was also swatted. People can argue over intent, but the reality is that sending armed police to someone’s home repeatedly creates a dangerous situation for that family. Austin was called “worm food.” People mocked a murdered child. Charleston White said, “He should have killed both of them.” This disgusting rhetoric went on for a year while Jeff was unable to speak publicly or defend his dead son. That is why I told Jeff that when the gag order was lifted and the trial was over, I would give him an interview. Unlike the mainstream media, he would have the freedom to say whatever he wanted without interruption. He would not have had that freedom anywhere else. I could not care less what people think about that decision. I knew things would be clipped and taken out of context. They’ve been doing it since the beginning. That was never a surprise to me. This interview was for Jeff. It was not for them. It was not for you. It was to allow Jeff to finally get every ounce of anger, sadness, grief, rage, and pain off his chest. I’m glad we did it. If you are angry at me for it, then you do not understand grief. If you are angry because you think I should have controlled the interview more, then you do not understand the pain he has lived with for the last year. My goal was simple: give him the microphone, step back, and let him talk. Most people seem to understand that. Some do not. Many are angry that I gave Jeff the freedom and platform to express thoughts he has been forced to keep buried for an entire year. As for the clips being shared out of context, I want everyone to hear the full context. Yes, Jeff called Karmelo a “watermelon felon.” No, he did not say it because he is racist. He said it while sarcastically mocking the people who constantly clip words out of context and chase viral moments. They have spent a year calling him racist. His point was that if they wanted something to clip and spread around the internet, he’d give them exactly what they were looking for. That is the context. And I don’t blame him. If you’re angry that I gave him a platform to say what he wanted, I truly do not care. I don’t even know how to explain how much I do not care. I love the Metcalf family. I love Jeff. And this is what he wanted. For once, Jeff got to do what HE wanted to do. He is the father of a dead son who spent a year being told to stay quiet while people lied about him, mocked his family, and celebrated his pain. I warned all of you how evil some of these people are. I’ve known it for the past year. The Metcalf family has lived it, and so have I. These people do not just threaten to kill you. They threaten to destroy you. They threaten your family. They are not above threatening children. We already knew this. Now many of you are finally seeing it for yourselves. And if a few words from a grieving father are enough to outrage you, then you might want to grow a thicker skin.

Sarah Fields

213,517 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Aspiring California governor Katie Porter sees support plummet after TV outburst | Alexa Cimino, Daily Mail Former Congresswoman Katie Porter has seen a noticeable drop in support for her 2026 California gubernatorial bid after video of her lashing out during a TV interview went viral, a new poll shows. Porter, who had polled at 17 percent in August, now sits at just 11 percent, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll released this week. The poll was conducted between October 20 and 27, shortly after Porter's tense televised interview with CBS California reporter Julia Watts. It also follows a resurfaced clip of Porter berating a staffer during a 2021 call with Biden administration officials. The poll found Porter's image ratings have turned negative, with 33 percent of voters viewing her unfavorably compared to 26 percent favorably. Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco now leads the field with 13 percent support. However, the race remains wide open, with 44 per cent of voters still undecided. Porter remains the top Democratic contender, but the poll indicates her campaign may need to rebuild momentum following the controversy. During the exchange with Watts, Porter pushed back against questions about appealing to Trump voters and criticized the tone of the interview as 'unnecessarily argumentative.' In the now-viral conversation, Porter was being probed about current Gov. Gavin Newsom's attempt to redistrict California to benefit Democrats - and what she would say to California Trump voters whom Watts said she will 'need to win.' Porter seemed to disagree as she furrowed her brow and asked: 'How would I need them in order to win, ma'am?' Watts stood her ground. 'Unless you think you're going to get 60 percent of the vote. You think you'll get 60 percent? Everyone who did not vote for Trump will vote for you?' the reporter asked. 'If it is me versus a Republican? I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump,' Porter said, after laughing at Watts' initial question. The reporter then pointed out that California's electoral system involves a primary in which several candidates from all parties compete, with the top two candidates moving on to the general election. With that in mind, Porter was pressed on what would happen if her general election opponent was another Democrat. 'I don't intend that to be the case,' she responded. Watts then questioned how Porter could be sure that a Democrat-on-Democrat general wouldn't happen. The question prompted the former congresswoman to get increasingly annoyed, as she said she would build support and cited her experience representing Orange County in Congress, which is a swing district. 'But you just said you don't need those Trump voters,' Watts retorted. With that, Porter finally began to crack, starting to gesture with her hands and questioning Watts' interview. 'Well you asked me if I needed them to win. I feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative, what is your question?' At that point, Watts returned to the original question of wanting to know what Porter would say to Trump voters who were against Newsom's redistricting efforts. 'I'm happy to say that, it's the "do you need them to win" part that I don't understand,' the Democrat responded. She ultimately became fed up with the questions. 'I don't want to keep doing this, I want to call it. Thank you,' she said, suggesting she was about to walk out. 'You're not going to do the interview with us?' Watts asked. 'Nope, not like this, I'm not,' Porter replied. 'Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.' Watts said that 'every single candidate' had gone through a similar interview, with Porter responding: 'I don't care.' 'I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation in which you ask me about every issue on this list and if every question, you're gonna make up a follow up question, we're never going to get there,' Porter continued. Porter indignantly claimed she 'never had to do this before' as she was daring herself to walk out on Watts, who again pointed out that every other candidate had done the same interview. 'I'm me. I'm running for governor because I'm a leader, so I am going to make-' she said before Watts asked: 'So you're not going to answer interview questions from reporters?' Watts then tried to bring the interview back to her list of questions, but Porter refused. 'I don't want to have a negative experience with you and I don't want this all on camera,' Porter said. Watts agreed that she didn't want to have a negative experience either, but she would 'love to continue to ask these questions so that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels about every one of these issues that they care about and redistricting is a massive issue.' The clip was blasted across social media and pounced on by Porter's electoral rivals on both sides. The day after her exchange with Watts, a video from 2021 resurfaced showing Porter sharply reprimanding a staffer during a virtual meeting with a Biden administration official. Porter had recorded a meeting with then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to support the Biden administration in July 2021. An unedited version of the video showed that several minutes into the conversation, a female staffer wearing a facemask ducked into view and a few minutes later could be seen rifling through some items in the background. 'Get out of my f***ing shot,' Porter yelled as she noticed the aide, who said she simply wanted to correct something the congresswoman had said about electric vehicles. 'OK,' Porter replies, clearly irritated. 'You also were in my shot before that. Stay out of my shot.' Later on in the video call, in which Porter touted the Biden administration's climate agenda and promoted electric vehicles, the then-congresswoman reportedly also complained to Granholm that she had not yet visited the White House despite raising a 's**t ton' of money for Biden. 'Never been there,' she lamented. 'Some of my colleagues [have been] there three, four times. I don't fit in the photo-op for some reason.' She also moaned about being out of touch with Biden officials. 'I'm like the least in-connection with the White House member of Congress,' Porter reportedly said, prompting Granholm to try to assuage her. 'That is not true,' the then-Energy Secretary could be heard saying, according to Politico. The final, edited version of the webinar that was published by the Department of Energy, did not include the exchanges. Porter later acknowledged that her conduct toward the staff member was 'inappropriate' and admitted she could have handled the situation more effectively.
0:47

Aspiring California governor Katie Porter sees support plummet after TV outburst | Alexa Cimino, Daily Mail Former Congresswoman Katie Porter has seen a noticeable drop in support for her 2026 California gubernatorial bid after video of her lashing out during a TV interview went viral, a new poll shows. Porter, who had polled at 17 percent in August, now sits at just 11 percent, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll released this week. The poll was conducted between October 20 and 27, shortly after Porter's tense televised interview with CBS California reporter Julia Watts. It also follows a resurfaced clip of Porter berating a staffer during a 2021 call with Biden administration officials. The poll found Porter's image ratings have turned negative, with 33 percent of voters viewing her unfavorably compared to 26 percent favorably. Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco now leads the field with 13 percent support. However, the race remains wide open, with 44 per cent of voters still undecided. Porter remains the top Democratic contender, but the poll indicates her campaign may need to rebuild momentum following the controversy. During the exchange with Watts, Porter pushed back against questions about appealing to Trump voters and criticized the tone of the interview as 'unnecessarily argumentative.' In the now-viral conversation, Porter was being probed about current Gov. Gavin Newsom's attempt to redistrict California to benefit Democrats - and what she would say to California Trump voters whom Watts said she will 'need to win.' Porter seemed to disagree as she furrowed her brow and asked: 'How would I need them in order to win, ma'am?' Watts stood her ground. 'Unless you think you're going to get 60 percent of the vote. You think you'll get 60 percent? Everyone who did not vote for Trump will vote for you?' the reporter asked. 'If it is me versus a Republican? I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump,' Porter said, after laughing at Watts' initial question. The reporter then pointed out that California's electoral system involves a primary in which several candidates from all parties compete, with the top two candidates moving on to the general election. With that in mind, Porter was pressed on what would happen if her general election opponent was another Democrat. 'I don't intend that to be the case,' she responded. Watts then questioned how Porter could be sure that a Democrat-on-Democrat general wouldn't happen. The question prompted the former congresswoman to get increasingly annoyed, as she said she would build support and cited her experience representing Orange County in Congress, which is a swing district. 'But you just said you don't need those Trump voters,' Watts retorted. With that, Porter finally began to crack, starting to gesture with her hands and questioning Watts' interview. 'Well you asked me if I needed them to win. I feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative, what is your question?' At that point, Watts returned to the original question of wanting to know what Porter would say to Trump voters who were against Newsom's redistricting efforts. 'I'm happy to say that, it's the "do you need them to win" part that I don't understand,' the Democrat responded. She ultimately became fed up with the questions. 'I don't want to keep doing this, I want to call it. Thank you,' she said, suggesting she was about to walk out. 'You're not going to do the interview with us?' Watts asked. 'Nope, not like this, I'm not,' Porter replied. 'Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.' Watts said that 'every single candidate' had gone through a similar interview, with Porter responding: 'I don't care.' 'I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation in which you ask me about every issue on this list and if every question, you're gonna make up a follow up question, we're never going to get there,' Porter continued. Porter indignantly claimed she 'never had to do this before' as she was daring herself to walk out on Watts, who again pointed out that every other candidate had done the same interview. 'I'm me. I'm running for governor because I'm a leader, so I am going to make-' she said before Watts asked: 'So you're not going to answer interview questions from reporters?' Watts then tried to bring the interview back to her list of questions, but Porter refused. 'I don't want to have a negative experience with you and I don't want this all on camera,' Porter said. Watts agreed that she didn't want to have a negative experience either, but she would 'love to continue to ask these questions so that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels about every one of these issues that they care about and redistricting is a massive issue.' The clip was blasted across social media and pounced on by Porter's electoral rivals on both sides. The day after her exchange with Watts, a video from 2021 resurfaced showing Porter sharply reprimanding a staffer during a virtual meeting with a Biden administration official. Porter had recorded a meeting with then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to support the Biden administration in July 2021. An unedited version of the video showed that several minutes into the conversation, a female staffer wearing a facemask ducked into view and a few minutes later could be seen rifling through some items in the background. 'Get out of my f***ing shot,' Porter yelled as she noticed the aide, who said she simply wanted to correct something the congresswoman had said about electric vehicles. 'OK,' Porter replies, clearly irritated. 'You also were in my shot before that. Stay out of my shot.' Later on in the video call, in which Porter touted the Biden administration's climate agenda and promoted electric vehicles, the then-congresswoman reportedly also complained to Granholm that she had not yet visited the White House despite raising a 's**t ton' of money for Biden. 'Never been there,' she lamented. 'Some of my colleagues [have been] there three, four times. I don't fit in the photo-op for some reason.' She also moaned about being out of touch with Biden officials. 'I'm like the least in-connection with the White House member of Congress,' Porter reportedly said, prompting Granholm to try to assuage her. 'That is not true,' the then-Energy Secretary could be heard saying, according to Politico. The final, edited version of the webinar that was published by the Department of Energy, did not include the exchanges. Porter later acknowledged that her conduct toward the staff member was 'inappropriate' and admitted she could have handled the situation more effectively.

Owen Gregorian

151,178 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Days ago, I was honored to interview Marcus Coleman, the father of Dalilah Coleman, who was severely injured after an illegal immigrant driving a semi-truck crashed into the vehicle she was in. This interview will be featured in my upcoming documentary, "The Illegal Highways," where we discuss not only how illegal immigrants are able to get behind the wheel of a semi-truck, but also the Americans who have suffered because of it. Marcus describes in great detail the evening he received a call that his five-year-old daughter had been in an accident. At first, he was unsure of the seriousness of the situation. It wasn’t until he received another call from EMS stating that his daughter was being airlifted to the hospital that he realized her condition was far worse than anyone could have imagined. He openly explains the confusion that persisted until he finally laid eyes on his daughter. Hospital workers couldn’t find her at first because she had been admitted under an alternate name, and he grew increasingly frustrated with the lack of help locating his child. I could never imagine what he experienced as a father — walking into a hospital and seeing his frail daughter connected to machines, watching her condition initially get worse. In the video attached, I clipped out six minutes of him describing his experience of watching his daughter barely survive this ordeal, including multiple health scares that many thought she would not overcome. Thankfully, she is alive, but she is not the same little girl as before. Today, she is seven years old, non-verbal, and can only walk with assistance. I met Marcus in D.C. because he has been working with the federal government to help draft legislation that would curb illegal immigrants from obtaining CDLs and strengthen enforcement — all with the objective of preventing another tragedy like Dalilah Coleman's. The full interview was over an hour long. Of course, with a documentary, you only see a small percentage of it. However, I wanted to write this to express to the world what I took away from this experience. It is not often that you find people who are willing to sacrifice for a greater cause. Marcus isn’t trying to chase fame or run for office; he’s just trying to do the right thing. When I asked him what it was like being at the State of the Union and having the President acknowledge their situation, he explained that he sees these moments as part of the process and not as moments of excitement. This response I can completely understand. He would rather have a happy and healthy daughter than anything else in the world. His family was forced into this position by systemic failures, which the documentary will explain. As Marcus put it in the interview, he’s doing the job that politicians should be doing. The man is sacrificing his time, flying back and forth between California and Washington, D.C., to fight for a greater purpose. I found him to be a very honorable and genuine man who is striving to create a safer world for Americans. Most importantly, he is a man of strong Christian faith who openly acknowledges that it is his faith that has kept him together throughout this entire ordeal. One of the most powerful stories he told me was about meeting the man who almost killed his daughter. He had so much anger and hatred toward him — until he looked into his eyes. He saw a young man, a soul, and decided at that moment to forgive and let go of that rage. He chose to forgive him, but not to forget. Not forgetting has allowed him to fight for a greater cause. This documentary isn’t about dehumanizing anyone, including the illegal immigrants behind the wheel. I understand — more than the average person — how many of these men are brought to America under false pretenses and are essentially indentured servants who have to drive a truck twice as long as the average American trucker. The purpose of making this film is to tell the stories of the people caught up in this systemic failure. We often lose sight of the families who wake up every day knowing they will never talk to their spouse, sibling, or child ever again. I want their stories heard around the world so that we, the American public, also don’t forget that there are real innocent lives at stake. I am still crowdfunding for this project. If you’d like to support it, you can donate on GiveSendGo:
6:26

Days ago, I was honored to interview Marcus Coleman, the father of Dalilah Coleman, who was severely injured after an illegal immigrant driving a semi-truck crashed into the vehicle she was in. This interview will be featured in my upcoming documentary, "The Illegal Highways," where we discuss not only how illegal immigrants are able to get behind the wheel of a semi-truck, but also the Americans who have suffered because of it. Marcus describes in great detail the evening he received a call that his five-year-old daughter had been in an accident. At first, he was unsure of the seriousness of the situation. It wasn’t until he received another call from EMS stating that his daughter was being airlifted to the hospital that he realized her condition was far worse than anyone could have imagined. He openly explains the confusion that persisted until he finally laid eyes on his daughter. Hospital workers couldn’t find her at first because she had been admitted under an alternate name, and he grew increasingly frustrated with the lack of help locating his child. I could never imagine what he experienced as a father — walking into a hospital and seeing his frail daughter connected to machines, watching her condition initially get worse. In the video attached, I clipped out six minutes of him describing his experience of watching his daughter barely survive this ordeal, including multiple health scares that many thought she would not overcome. Thankfully, she is alive, but she is not the same little girl as before. Today, she is seven years old, non-verbal, and can only walk with assistance. I met Marcus in D.C. because he has been working with the federal government to help draft legislation that would curb illegal immigrants from obtaining CDLs and strengthen enforcement — all with the objective of preventing another tragedy like Dalilah Coleman's. The full interview was over an hour long. Of course, with a documentary, you only see a small percentage of it. However, I wanted to write this to express to the world what I took away from this experience. It is not often that you find people who are willing to sacrifice for a greater cause. Marcus isn’t trying to chase fame or run for office; he’s just trying to do the right thing. When I asked him what it was like being at the State of the Union and having the President acknowledge their situation, he explained that he sees these moments as part of the process and not as moments of excitement. This response I can completely understand. He would rather have a happy and healthy daughter than anything else in the world. His family was forced into this position by systemic failures, which the documentary will explain. As Marcus put it in the interview, he’s doing the job that politicians should be doing. The man is sacrificing his time, flying back and forth between California and Washington, D.C., to fight for a greater purpose. I found him to be a very honorable and genuine man who is striving to create a safer world for Americans. Most importantly, he is a man of strong Christian faith who openly acknowledges that it is his faith that has kept him together throughout this entire ordeal. One of the most powerful stories he told me was about meeting the man who almost killed his daughter. He had so much anger and hatred toward him — until he looked into his eyes. He saw a young man, a soul, and decided at that moment to forgive and let go of that rage. He chose to forgive him, but not to forget. Not forgetting has allowed him to fight for a greater cause. This documentary isn’t about dehumanizing anyone, including the illegal immigrants behind the wheel. I understand — more than the average person — how many of these men are brought to America under false pretenses and are essentially indentured servants who have to drive a truck twice as long as the average American trucker. The purpose of making this film is to tell the stories of the people caught up in this systemic failure. We often lose sight of the families who wake up every day knowing they will never talk to their spouse, sibling, or child ever again. I want their stories heard around the world so that we, the American public, also don’t forget that there are real innocent lives at stake. I am still crowdfunding for this project. If you’d like to support it, you can donate on GiveSendGo:

Adam B. Coleman, Proud Father & Imperfect Man

30,461 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Dear Labour, 16 years olds don’t need the vote. They need adults to do their duty and act in their best interests, rather than putting ballot papers in their hands and telling them they’re “bright enough” to do it themselves. Despite what Starmer wants you believe, 16 year olds do not (and should not) bear the same responsibilities as adults: • A 16 year old can drink with a meal in a pub or restaurant, but only if the alcohol is purchased by someone over 18. • A 16 year old can get married, but only with their parents’ consent. • A 16 year old is considered to lack the necessary capacity so cannot enter into legal contracts, except in very limited circumstances. • A 16 year old can join the military, but only with parental consent — is heavily criticised as we are also the only European country to allow minor enlistment. • Nearly all employed 16-17 year olds do not pay taxes — they must must earn more than £242 per week to pay National Insurance, so they would have to work at least 38 (£6.40 p/h) hours per week to meet the threshold They must also exceed £12.57K per year to pay income tax, which is incredibly unlikely. For the few that do — like child actors — there are also usually adults around them (eg. accountants, managers, parents) who support and represent their interests as they are usually not responsible enough to do it themselves. • Just because 16 year olds can have sex, that still doesn’t make them adults — the abundance of evidence on the sexual exploitation of 16-17 year olds demonstrates their vulnerability, while legislation extends to them the same child protective powers as with younger children. Why? Because they are children. No matter how smart or mature a 16 year old may seem, they are still a child, and it is a failure of our protective duty to burden them with adult responsibilities. To lower the voting age to 16 is to allow children to be considered ‘legal adults’ before they’re ready. I know first-hand the damage that can be caused by treating a child like an adult before their time. At 16, I was legally homeless and under social services. I worked three jobs to survive, sofa-surfed through my A-Levels, showered at school, and survived off the kindness of friends and teachers. When Votes at 16 activists talk about the teenagers to whom ‘adult responsibilities’ apply and should be given a vote, they are describing my life. But where they believe lowering the voting age gives ‘a seat at the table’, all I see is a mechanism by which adults and services will be able to shirk their protective duties to vulnerable kids. I remember being told so often by my social workers that I was “smart enough” to do things on my own. The fact that I was “bright” and “mature” was weaponised against me to force me to take on burdens that I neither wanted nor was ready for. I will never forget sitting in ‘Multi Agency Meetings’ sobbing for someone to help me. I will never forget being told that it was “my actions that led me to where I was”. I will never forget my local council, social workers, and other professionals using legal loopholes to shirk their duties towards that vulnerable 16 year old child. 16 and 17 year olds like me – the ones that campaigners point to as the ‘model example’ of young people who should be allowed to vote – don’t need a vote to be “empowered”. It isn’t empowering to expect children to act like adults, and it does far more damage than good to force teenagers further into a legal grey area. Parliamentary decisions do affect young people. However, it is the job of the legislature to make decisions for the people, and it is the duty of adults to make decisions in the best interests of children. It is a failure of our protective duty to burden children with adult duties because they’re “smart enough to handle it”. If the only way you can win the next election is by putting ballot papers shouldn’t be put in the hands of babes, then you shouldn’t be in government.
2:51

Dear Labour, 16 years olds don’t need the vote. They need adults to do their duty and act in their best interests, rather than putting ballot papers in their hands and telling them they’re “bright enough” to do it themselves. Despite what Starmer wants you believe, 16 year olds do not (and should not) bear the same responsibilities as adults: • A 16 year old can drink with a meal in a pub or restaurant, but only if the alcohol is purchased by someone over 18. • A 16 year old can get married, but only with their parents’ consent. • A 16 year old is considered to lack the necessary capacity so cannot enter into legal contracts, except in very limited circumstances. • A 16 year old can join the military, but only with parental consent — is heavily criticised as we are also the only European country to allow minor enlistment. • Nearly all employed 16-17 year olds do not pay taxes — they must must earn more than £242 per week to pay National Insurance, so they would have to work at least 38 (£6.40 p/h) hours per week to meet the threshold They must also exceed £12.57K per year to pay income tax, which is incredibly unlikely. For the few that do — like child actors — there are also usually adults around them (eg. accountants, managers, parents) who support and represent their interests as they are usually not responsible enough to do it themselves. • Just because 16 year olds can have sex, that still doesn’t make them adults — the abundance of evidence on the sexual exploitation of 16-17 year olds demonstrates their vulnerability, while legislation extends to them the same child protective powers as with younger children. Why? Because they are children. No matter how smart or mature a 16 year old may seem, they are still a child, and it is a failure of our protective duty to burden them with adult responsibilities. To lower the voting age to 16 is to allow children to be considered ‘legal adults’ before they’re ready. I know first-hand the damage that can be caused by treating a child like an adult before their time. At 16, I was legally homeless and under social services. I worked three jobs to survive, sofa-surfed through my A-Levels, showered at school, and survived off the kindness of friends and teachers. When Votes at 16 activists talk about the teenagers to whom ‘adult responsibilities’ apply and should be given a vote, they are describing my life. But where they believe lowering the voting age gives ‘a seat at the table’, all I see is a mechanism by which adults and services will be able to shirk their protective duties to vulnerable kids. I remember being told so often by my social workers that I was “smart enough” to do things on my own. The fact that I was “bright” and “mature” was weaponised against me to force me to take on burdens that I neither wanted nor was ready for. I will never forget sitting in ‘Multi Agency Meetings’ sobbing for someone to help me. I will never forget being told that it was “my actions that led me to where I was”. I will never forget my local council, social workers, and other professionals using legal loopholes to shirk their duties towards that vulnerable 16 year old child. 16 and 17 year olds like me – the ones that campaigners point to as the ‘model example’ of young people who should be allowed to vote – don’t need a vote to be “empowered”. It isn’t empowering to expect children to act like adults, and it does far more damage than good to force teenagers further into a legal grey area. Parliamentary decisions do affect young people. However, it is the job of the legislature to make decisions for the people, and it is the duty of adults to make decisions in the best interests of children. It is a failure of our protective duty to burden children with adult duties because they’re “smart enough to handle it”. If the only way you can win the next election is by putting ballot papers shouldn’t be put in the hands of babes, then you shouldn’t be in government.

Samantha Smith

106,851 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

"What [Grusch is] saying is credible." ~Lacatski Did Lacatski See the Craft? Is the Crash Retrieval Program Illegal? Also, Lying for National Security...and Darkness (One of the most important books you can buy is, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Lacatski, Kelleher, and George Knapp. This interview (which includes L, K & GK) is one of my favs.) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "What are your thoughts on David Grusch and what he said at that hearing?" Dr. James Lacatski: "I don't know Mr. Grusch. Never met him. I was asked, almost verbatim, the same question by a congressional office to me. A telephone conversation. And I said, 'I don't have a comment. What he's saying is credible.' Now, let me do say one thing that I never witnessed, and I don't know if Colm ever witnessed this. But I never saw any of what I would consider illegal activities. I saw security procedures that are paramount, but not illegal activities. So, I don't concur with that. But, it's reasonable what he's saying, and that's what I told them." Corbell: "Okay, it's reasonable, that we have UFOs we're reverse engineering, that there are biologicals associated with those craft." Lacatski: "Well, we didn't cover biologicals because I can't say anything about that. Uh." Corbell: "Why can't you say, you don't know, or?" Lacatski: "Uh. I can't say anything about that, Jeremy (laughs)." Corbell: "Okay, no, that's great, that's great. So just another question about that, right?" Lacatski: "Well, let me tell you. These books are loaded with questions because someone criticized me, gave me a three rating on 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.' Wait 'til they read this one. They said, 'It's textbook-like.' Well, in a sense, they are. They're a learning instrument. And one thing, and I don't know if I discussed this with you, Colm, but I was gonna put, like a textbook, questions in the back of each chapter. What do you think and what do you... Just for the... Now, I wasn't going to give an answer sheet to them. But basically, I think that people really need to delve deeper into the books they have." Corbell: "The big question with David Grusch was there like, well, he didn't see a UFO. Now you're in a meeting in the Capitol Hill, and you're telling them, 'We have a UFO, we've gotten inside of it.' Did you see it yourself?" Lacatski: "Can't answer that." Corbell: "Okay, but if the answer was no, you could answer that, right?" (This is a really important answer. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼) Lacatski: "No, that comes...goes back to something that occurred, a similar question, very similar to your question. It wasn't asked by you, but it was asked to Colm, and he said, 'We found no smoking gun.' That is the standard answer we're to give. So I could say 'No,' and it still not be the truth. So the thing is, security is paramount, we followed the rules, and there's a good reason to follow them." (In other words, they can lie to protect national security. And THAT is why Admiral Wilson will say stuff like, Eric Davis? Never met him. When, in fact, Davis met and interviewed Wilson in October of 2002. But the crash retrieval program they discussed is one of the most sensitive programs on the planet. And thus, the lies from Wilson. Corbell really tried his best to push Lacatski. What's the reason for not being able to talk about some of this stuff?) Corbell: "Yeah, you can't tell me that good reason. We've talked about that. You can't give me that good reason, but you're alluding to a really good reason why you can't tell me more about biologics, UFOs, exploitation. You can only say what you said. I get that. I wish you could give me a good reason, because it makes me very suspicious. It makes people like me very suspicious. But what is it? Is the reason so dark, is it so disturbing?" Lacatski: "Oh, I see. If you want my opinion on that, I see no darkness at all here."
3:46

"What [Grusch is] saying is credible." ~Lacatski Did Lacatski See the Craft? Is the Crash Retrieval Program Illegal? Also, Lying for National Security...and Darkness (One of the most important books you can buy is, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Lacatski, Kelleher, and George Knapp. This interview (which includes L, K & GK) is one of my favs.) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "What are your thoughts on David Grusch and what he said at that hearing?" Dr. James Lacatski: "I don't know Mr. Grusch. Never met him. I was asked, almost verbatim, the same question by a congressional office to me. A telephone conversation. And I said, 'I don't have a comment. What he's saying is credible.' Now, let me do say one thing that I never witnessed, and I don't know if Colm ever witnessed this. But I never saw any of what I would consider illegal activities. I saw security procedures that are paramount, but not illegal activities. So, I don't concur with that. But, it's reasonable what he's saying, and that's what I told them." Corbell: "Okay, it's reasonable, that we have UFOs we're reverse engineering, that there are biologicals associated with those craft." Lacatski: "Well, we didn't cover biologicals because I can't say anything about that. Uh." Corbell: "Why can't you say, you don't know, or?" Lacatski: "Uh. I can't say anything about that, Jeremy (laughs)." Corbell: "Okay, no, that's great, that's great. So just another question about that, right?" Lacatski: "Well, let me tell you. These books are loaded with questions because someone criticized me, gave me a three rating on 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.' Wait 'til they read this one. They said, 'It's textbook-like.' Well, in a sense, they are. They're a learning instrument. And one thing, and I don't know if I discussed this with you, Colm, but I was gonna put, like a textbook, questions in the back of each chapter. What do you think and what do you... Just for the... Now, I wasn't going to give an answer sheet to them. But basically, I think that people really need to delve deeper into the books they have." Corbell: "The big question with David Grusch was there like, well, he didn't see a UFO. Now you're in a meeting in the Capitol Hill, and you're telling them, 'We have a UFO, we've gotten inside of it.' Did you see it yourself?" Lacatski: "Can't answer that." Corbell: "Okay, but if the answer was no, you could answer that, right?" (This is a really important answer. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼) Lacatski: "No, that comes...goes back to something that occurred, a similar question, very similar to your question. It wasn't asked by you, but it was asked to Colm, and he said, 'We found no smoking gun.' That is the standard answer we're to give. So I could say 'No,' and it still not be the truth. So the thing is, security is paramount, we followed the rules, and there's a good reason to follow them." (In other words, they can lie to protect national security. And THAT is why Admiral Wilson will say stuff like, Eric Davis? Never met him. When, in fact, Davis met and interviewed Wilson in October of 2002. But the crash retrieval program they discussed is one of the most sensitive programs on the planet. And thus, the lies from Wilson. Corbell really tried his best to push Lacatski. What's the reason for not being able to talk about some of this stuff?) Corbell: "Yeah, you can't tell me that good reason. We've talked about that. You can't give me that good reason, but you're alluding to a really good reason why you can't tell me more about biologics, UFOs, exploitation. You can only say what you said. I get that. I wish you could give me a good reason, because it makes me very suspicious. It makes people like me very suspicious. But what is it? Is the reason so dark, is it so disturbing?" Lacatski: "Oh, I see. If you want my opinion on that, I see no darkness at all here."

Joe Murgia

29,413 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce