Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

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

Nitish Rajput exposed SSC Exam process, So they put 2.5 crore defamation case against him for exposing them This is not about one video or one individual, it raises much larger question about free speech, transparency and right to question public system that affect millions 🙏🏻

Voice of Hindus

200,327 subscribers

116,246 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

2.5 crore defamation case against Nitish Rajput just for exposing the SSC Exam tender corruption We need to support him, otherwise in future, no one will make video on corruption🙏🏻

2.5 crore defamation case against Nitish Rajput just for exposing the SSC Exam tender corruption We need to support him, otherwise in future, no one will make video on corruption🙏🏻

Voice of Hindus

141,244 views • 5 months ago

Nitish Rajput explained it exceptionally well that how this is not just about one case, they need a strong network and operating model to Convert and brainwash even a single adult Hindu girl to join ISIS. It takes courage to speak the truth, Hats off to Nitish Rajput 👏

Nitish Rajput explained it exceptionally well that how this is not just about one case, they need a strong network and operating model to Convert and brainwash even a single adult Hindu girl to join ISIS. It takes courage to speak the truth, Hats off to Nitish Rajput 👏

`

69,009 views • 4 months ago

She didn’t answer the question because this isn’t about the files. If it were, releasing millions would actually count for something. A law that forces millions of pages, photos, and videos into the public record is not a cover up. It is the opposite of one. This is not about transparency. It’s about finding anything that can be used to politically damage Trump, even if it means pretending disclosure is concealment.

She didn’t answer the question because this isn’t about the files. If it were, releasing millions would actually count for something. A law that forces millions of pages, photos, and videos into the public record is not a cover up. It is the opposite of one. This is not about transparency. It’s about finding anything that can be used to politically damage Trump, even if it means pretending disclosure is concealment.

Jeffery Mead

78,119 views • 5 months ago

‘They want to brand me a terrorist and put me behind bars.’ AZM condemns the political persecution of Dr Rahmeh Aladwan. With every arrest, she is proven right. This is not about one woman. One NHS doctor. One Palestinian. This is about whether Britain still has free speech.

Anti-zionist Movement

18,066 views • 3 months ago

🚨Breaking… I have obtained video footage of Don Lemon speaking gleefully about what he describes as “secret operations”, stating they cannot disclose where they’re going. Let’s be clear about why this matters. When a civilian openly discusses covert or non-disclosed operations tied to enforcement activity, it raises serious federal questions about coordination, interference, and prior knowledge. That is not journalism. That is not commentary. That is potential evidentiary material. The video speaks for itself. I’m releasing it so the public can judge intent, knowledge, and context. Transparency cuts both ways. Video coming. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove #RuleOfLaw #Evidence #FederalLaw #Transparency #AStoneGroove #JournalismOrActivism

🚨Breaking… I have obtained video footage of Don Lemon speaking gleefully about what he describes as “secret operations”, stating they cannot disclose where they’re going. Let’s be clear about why this matters. When a civilian openly discusses covert or non-disclosed operations tied to enforcement activity, it raises serious federal questions about coordination, interference, and prior knowledge. That is not journalism. That is not commentary. That is potential evidentiary material. The video speaks for itself. I’m releasing it so the public can judge intent, knowledge, and context. Transparency cuts both ways. Video coming. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove #RuleOfLaw #Evidence #FederalLaw #Transparency #AStoneGroove #JournalismOrActivism

A Gene Robinson

878,129 views • 5 months ago

They caught this thief and as they were about beating him, he told them that he's a Shatta fan so they played Shatta Wale songs for him to dance and later made him to work.. is this cool or not?

They caught this thief and as they were about beating him, he told them that he's a Shatta fan so they played Shatta Wale songs for him to dance and later made him to work.. is this cool or not?

Tunchi BYK_99🇬🇭🌍

40,089 views • 2 months ago

DOOCY TIME: “So, since Liberation Day, there’s about $175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund $175 billion of it?” President Trump: “Well, think of, it — think of it, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so, I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that, keep the money or don’t keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So, they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people. And what they do, they don’t even talk about it. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked also to make you feel good. I said, what about all the money that we’ve taken in? Sir, they don’t discuss that. How crazy is that?”

DOOCY TIME: “So, since Liberation Day, there’s about $175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund $175 billion of it?” President Trump: “Well, think of, it — think of it, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so, I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that, keep the money or don’t keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So, they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people. And what they do, they don’t even talk about it. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked also to make you feel good. I said, what about all the money that we’ve taken in? Sir, they don’t discuss that. How crazy is that?”

Curtis Houck

518,601 views • 4 months ago

"For those people out there who say, 'Well, I just don't like those people either' ... You could be next. ... This is not about any one individual, this is about our rights as Americans, and our right to have a justice system where choices about prosecuting are made without fear or favor."

"For those people out there who say, 'Well, I just don't like those people either' ... You could be next. ... This is not about any one individual, this is about our rights as Americans, and our right to have a justice system where choices about prosecuting are made without fear or favor."

George Conway 👊🇺🇸🔥

78,882 views • 10 months ago

One of the most talked-about storylines this weekend was Christian Alshon and Tyra Black’s mixed doubles run. Mixed doubles is always one of the most debated formats in pickleball, with the common criticism being that it turns into “mixed singles,” where the man dominates the court. This case was no different. We saw posts claiming Christian took too much space, that Tyra looked unhappy, and that the match felt more like two-on-one. And yet, they won the entire tournament. So it raises the question: when money is on the line, is it acceptable for the man to take over? Or is it better to lose while keeping things more equitable? ⚖️

One of the most talked-about storylines this weekend was Christian Alshon and Tyra Black’s mixed doubles run. Mixed doubles is always one of the most debated formats in pickleball, with the common criticism being that it turns into “mixed singles,” where the man dominates the court. This case was no different. We saw posts claiming Christian took too much space, that Tyra looked unhappy, and that the match felt more like two-on-one. And yet, they won the entire tournament. So it raises the question: when money is on the line, is it acceptable for the man to take over? Or is it better to lose while keeping things more equitable? ⚖️

The Kitchen Pickleball 👨🏻‍🍳

19,852 views • 5 months ago

🚨 CHARLIE KIRK NAILED IT FLAWLESSLY: "It's not Islamophobia to notice that a man who wants to globalize the intifada is about to run America's largest and once greatest city. It's not Islamophobia to notice that Muslims want to import values into the West that seek to destabilize our civilization...It's cultural suicide to stay silent." Do NOT let this pro-Islam communist tell us who we are and what to do! "Islamists do not believe in freedom of speech, period. You cannot question Muhammad, you cannot make fun of him, you cannot question the state." "Islam is not compatible with Western civilization, period. I'm not talking about individual. We're talking about the macro ideology where many of them gather together and what that metastasizes into." He was so spot-on 🙏🏻

🚨 CHARLIE KIRK NAILED IT FLAWLESSLY: "It's not Islamophobia to notice that a man who wants to globalize the intifada is about to run America's largest and once greatest city. It's not Islamophobia to notice that Muslims want to import values into the West that seek to destabilize our civilization...It's cultural suicide to stay silent." Do NOT let this pro-Islam communist tell us who we are and what to do! "Islamists do not believe in freedom of speech, period. You cannot question Muhammad, you cannot make fun of him, you cannot question the state." "Islam is not compatible with Western civilization, period. I'm not talking about individual. We're talking about the macro ideology where many of them gather together and what that metastasizes into." He was so spot-on 🙏🏻

Eric Daugherty

742,598 views • 10 days ago

Trump: So, yeah, I’m very much for crypto because it’s not a question of a personal thing. I let my kids do whatever the hell they do. They can do it. I don’t talk to them—ever talk to them—about it. I’m allowed to. I think I’m allowed. I waived my salary. George Washington had two desks. One was for business and one was for the presidency.

Trump: So, yeah, I’m very much for crypto because it’s not a question of a personal thing. I let my kids do whatever the hell they do. They can do it. I don’t talk to them—ever talk to them—about it. I’m allowed to. I think I’m allowed. I waived my salary. George Washington had two desks. One was for business and one was for the presidency.

Acyn

175,370 views • 8 days ago

Tambuwal’s release once again spotlights how Nigeria’s justice operations. Yahaya Bello’s case takes the question of selective justice to another level. From a public vow by the EFCC boss to prosecute him, to an appeal court restoring 14 properties and ₦400 million, the outcome raises doubts about whether the fight against corruption is about truth or about protecting the powerful. #Tambuwal #nigeriannews #Efcc #atruthatatime

Tambuwal’s release once again spotlights how Nigeria’s justice operations. Yahaya Bello’s case takes the question of selective justice to another level. From a public vow by the EFCC boss to prosecute him, to an appeal court restoring 14 properties and ₦400 million, the outcome raises doubts about whether the fight against corruption is about truth or about protecting the powerful. #Tambuwal #nigeriannews #Efcc #atruthatatime

Mimi

10,058 views • 11 months ago

Her literally exposing them, that all 4 of them dgaf about her and don't want to acknowledge her - even though they owe her their career almost as much as to Teddy, is insane. And kpop community is so quiet about this, if you are not BTS you can get away with so much shit

Her literally exposing them, that all 4 of them dgaf about her and don't want to acknowledge her - even though they owe her their career almost as much as to Teddy, is insane. And kpop community is so quiet about this, if you are not BTS you can get away with so much shit

t⁷ saw bts

975,416 views • 3 months ago

Grip̶t- GriFt are a wannabe Fox News. They pretend to care about free speech to push a hateful agenda. Yet far right protesters go to libraries to take books off shelves, and GriFt haven't condemned it once - so much for "defending free speech". Stand against their division.

Grip̶t- GriFt are a wannabe Fox News. They pretend to care about free speech to push a hateful agenda. Yet far right protesters go to libraries to take books off shelves, and GriFt haven't condemned it once - so much for "defending free speech". Stand against their division.

People Before Profit

260,705 views • 2 years ago

RFK Jr. to Democrat: “I appreciate you… for actually giving me an opportunity to answer your question, which NONE of your colleagues have done.” “They’ve all SHUT ME UP, and they’ve talked about ‘science,’ but science is about debate.” “They give a little speech that they can go and MARKET for FUNDRAISING, and then they DON’T ALLOW me to answer the question.” And with that, Kennedy fully exposed the whole hearing as PERFORMATIVE outrage. The clip just below this one is the perfect example. Democrats had a script, and the second Kennedy refused to play by their rules, they immediately started yelling and talking over him. Every damn time.

RFK Jr. to Democrat: “I appreciate you… for actually giving me an opportunity to answer your question, which NONE of your colleagues have done.” “They’ve all SHUT ME UP, and they’ve talked about ‘science,’ but science is about debate.” “They give a little speech that they can go and MARKET for FUNDRAISING, and then they DON’T ALLOW me to answer the question.” And with that, Kennedy fully exposed the whole hearing as PERFORMATIVE outrage. The clip just below this one is the perfect example. Democrats had a script, and the second Kennedy refused to play by their rules, they immediately started yelling and talking over him. Every damn time.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,252,248 views • 2 months ago

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN CANADA A Western government is now openly talking about restricting access to foreign platforms because citizens are speaking in ways the authorities don’t like. When governments decide which opinions are acceptable… when they label dissent as “harm”… when they frame speech itself as a security threat… That is not protection. That is control. The moment a state claims the power to decide what its population is allowed to hear, read, or say — democracy itself is weakened. Citizens raising concerns about immigration, culture, or national identity are not criminals. They are participants in public debate. Free societies do not silence disagreement. They tolerate it — even when it is uncomfortable. Because once censorship begins, it never stays limited to one issue. The real question now is simple: Who decides what is “acceptable speech” — the people, or the government?

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN CANADA A Western government is now openly talking about restricting access to foreign platforms because citizens are speaking in ways the authorities don’t like. When governments decide which opinions are acceptable… when they label dissent as “harm”… when they frame speech itself as a security threat… That is not protection. That is control. The moment a state claims the power to decide what its population is allowed to hear, read, or say — democracy itself is weakened. Citizens raising concerns about immigration, culture, or national identity are not criminals. They are participants in public debate. Free societies do not silence disagreement. They tolerate it — even when it is uncomfortable. Because once censorship begins, it never stays limited to one issue. The real question now is simple: Who decides what is “acceptable speech” — the people, or the government?

Jim Ferguson

147,046 views • 4 months ago

The Message Is Clear: Shut Up or Pay Up In closing arguments, Eric Coomer’s attorney said the quiet part out loud: “We want him to quit talking.” That’s what this trial was really about, not defamation, but intimidation. They want to silence anyone who questions the narrative. From Smartmatic’s lawsuit against Fox News in 2021 to Dominion's settlements with media outlets like Newsmax, the strategy has been the same: Threaten, sue, silence. Mike Lindell didn’t back down. He kept talking about elections, about free speech, about the First Amendment. And he got sued for it. This isn’t just about Mike or MyPillow. It’s about YOU. If they can go after him for speaking, they can come after anyone. That’s what Lawfare is. That’s why this trial matters. Free speech isn’t for sale. And we’re not backing down:

The Message Is Clear: Shut Up or Pay Up In closing arguments, Eric Coomer’s attorney said the quiet part out loud: “We want him to quit talking.” That’s what this trial was really about, not defamation, but intimidation. They want to silence anyone who questions the narrative. From Smartmatic’s lawsuit against Fox News in 2021 to Dominion's settlements with media outlets like Newsmax, the strategy has been the same: Threaten, sue, silence. Mike Lindell didn’t back down. He kept talking about elections, about free speech, about the First Amendment. And he got sued for it. This isn’t just about Mike or MyPillow. It’s about YOU. If they can go after him for speaking, they can come after anyone. That’s what Lawfare is. That’s why this trial matters. Free speech isn’t for sale. And we’re not backing down:

LindellTV

82,011 views • 1 year ago

When basic expressions of faith need permission in workplaces and even examination halls, it raises serious questions about boundaries. It is disappointing to see such situations where companies introduce policies that restrict personal expressions of belief. Reports around Lenskart suggested that wearing a kalava or tilak required permission or was limited, though later clarification stated that such rules had already been removed. But the larger question remains. What is the actual issue with something like a kalava or tilak? How does it impact work or professionalism? This is not just about one company. It raises a broader concern about whether individuals should be asked to compromise on their personal or religious identity for jobs or exams. Respect should be consistent. If something feels unacceptable in one context, it should be treated the same way across all. Jai Hind.Jai Bharat 🇮🇳

When basic expressions of faith need permission in workplaces and even examination halls, it raises serious questions about boundaries. It is disappointing to see such situations where companies introduce policies that restrict personal expressions of belief. Reports around Lenskart suggested that wearing a kalava or tilak required permission or was limited, though later clarification stated that such rules had already been removed. But the larger question remains. What is the actual issue with something like a kalava or tilak? How does it impact work or professionalism? This is not just about one company. It raises a broader concern about whether individuals should be asked to compromise on their personal or religious identity for jobs or exams. Respect should be consistent. If something feels unacceptable in one context, it should be treated the same way across all. Jai Hind.Jai Bharat 🇮🇳

Praffulgarg

20,718 views • 2 months ago

My question to the Chancellor today about her ‘inadvertent error’ in not getting her license to rent out her house. 👇 Rachel Reeves, as Chancellor, is in charge of HMRC who would be pursuing the public over an ‘inadvertent error’ but she expects to get away with that excuse herself. It is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.

My question to the Chancellor today about her ‘inadvertent error’ in not getting her license to rent out her house. 👇 Rachel Reeves, as Chancellor, is in charge of HMRC who would be pursuing the public over an ‘inadvertent error’ but she expects to get away with that excuse herself. It is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.

Esther McVey

164,580 views • 8 months ago