Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
#Obedientclassics #JurekadelMar is doing the full program that makes an #obedientthursday perfectly ๐๐๐คฎ#Piss #Pee #Puke #Vomit #anal #Pissinass #Pissinmouth #ass #milk #milkpuke #filthy #chudai #gangbang #BWC
157,888 views โข 7 months ago โขvia X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
Related Videos
![๐ฝ Minimal, Firsthand Legacy Witnesses? ๐ฝ (Sorry for the Debbie Downer posts but I think most people wanna hear the truth and not have smoke blown up their ass. We're all aware of folks who do that. Maybe...in the Senate, "we have a problem that there's not been quite enough of what members in the Senate would say are firsthand sources with direct involvement in the Legacy program." ~Former Senate Staffer, Kirk McConnell (In August 2024, I was told the following by a contact: "I donโt think firsthand whistleblowers are on our horizon. Tons of credible sounding second hand, though. Some with decent credentials or rank, but none with particularly great (credentials or rank), however." I shared that on here but most people didn't wanna hear it. I'm lucky to have contacts who give it to me straight, with zero hype. Some hope? "I don't think that we have to be so discouraged by the defeat of the UAPDA for the third time." ~McConnell ~~~ Kirk McConnell: "First, let me say that I'm greatly encouraged by Mr. Rep. Eric Burlison comments. He's a he's a politician. He has a way better sense of, you know, having his finger on the pulse of the Congress and the nation than I do. "I will also say that I, respectfully, don't agree with my friend Karl Nell. I don't think that we have to be so discouraged by the defeat of the UAPDA for the third time. I think there's a lot of reasons for hope that this issue, is not gonna be in a significant down cycle. And that's what I certainly hope. As we've seen from Mr. Burlison, there is certainly a lot of energy in the house among members of the Oversight Committee, and that in itself is encouraging. "You know, I hope that what I'm about to say is not true, but I think it might be, and I definitely feel that this is maybe the case in the Senate: That maybe we have a problem that there's not been quite enough of what members in the Senate would say are firsthand sources with direct involvement in the Legacy program. Looking back on history, my sense is that Congress undertakes these really historically important investigations when it is broadly clear that there's a there there and they know kind of what the outcome [will] be, at least in its broad strokes. "You know, you think about Watergate, the Church/Pike committees, Iran Contra, all of these are examples where Congress was finally moved to not take no for an answer and to just go full-speed and full-depth into exhaustive investigations when they knew that it had to be done, and that there was a pony at the end, you know, there was something very significant at the end of the process. "So, I have been getting this feedback as well from folks I've worked with in the Senate, that there needs to be more firsthand witnesses. And how do you encourage that? I think we also hear that there's quite a number of other people out there that could come forward. Their concern, though, is, as we've seen, they feel that there's not, by any means, sufficient whistleblower protections, and that despite the existence of protections in the law on paper, that really doesn't get at the problem. And that they're fearful of losing their careers, their security clearances, which translates into their careers, and that they're gonna suffer immense, legal expenses and perhaps legal jeopardy. So I think whistleblower protection is extremely important. "That said, it's really hard to get whistleblower protections passed in Congress. And so you have a kind of Catch-22, and I think that's the kind of problem that needs to be overcome, incrementally. So, I also would say that it's obvious that Congress is heavily influenced by public opinion, of course, and it's really important to keep up the pressure. But that in turn, you know, the public is motivated by what they see in the news and what they hear about from from experts, and therefore, you know, that's another dependency here, "But on that score, you know one of our panelists here, Dr. Anna Brady-Estevez, I loved when she, with a bright smile on her face, has said repeatedly that, in a sense, disclosure has already happened, or is certainly happening. A significant fraction of the population believes that we are being visited by non-human intelligence and that this belief is only likely to grow. The scientific community is much more friendly to this issue than in the past. "I would also say that the NHI itself gets a vote here, and they drive a lot of this. How much interaction are they going to....how much are they going to expose what they're doing and what they're doing here? And yet, at the same time, we've got an awful lot of people out there now with the ability to, and the interest in, detecting and tracking and trying to document what is happening out there. You think about efforts like the Galileo Project, Garry P. Nolan at the The Sol Foundation and Stanford, Beatriz Villarroel and the astrophysics community, and many others are tracking fundamental aspects of this problem. And a number of scientists and engineers working on new physics concepts to explain UAP characteristics and behavior is unprecedented. You know, you think about Skywatcher as another example of a private initiative. "There's also the experiencer community, you know, the people who have had actual direct interactions, and certainly a large number of folks who report abduction experiences, who retain the ability to communicate with NHI. This can be used, and is very likely to be used or exploited to gain insight into physics and intentions and so forth. "So, I'm actually on the optimistic side. I think with work and perseverance of groups like this, we can continue to amp up the interest and the pressure on the part of the American people, and that will translate into action by the government."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1980025049777349118/amplify_video_thumb/1980011021243682817/img/yRuIlAW3fwiN2NSV.jpg)
![Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full: "Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question. There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community. [Presenter: What is Occidentalism?] Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage. This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them. [Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?] Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers. [Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?] Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers... [Presenter: Kill the future?] Kill the future, yes! Why? [Presenter: But who is killing whom?] You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey. [Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...] Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe... [Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?] But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers. [Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?] I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen. [Presenter: So what do we do?] Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage. [Presenter: Including the Russians?] Everyone. [Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?] I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction. [Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.] But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other? [Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?] No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal. The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are. [Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalitionโฆ] Yes, and what was the response? [Presenter: None.] Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors. [Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.] The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle. [Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".] Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas. When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel? The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1718201487132885246/amplify_video_thumb/1718102257437458432/img/nm5gd_FnM_-fNIJb.jpg)
7:15
Sensitive content
โผ๏ธSHOCKING: Erika Kirk CAUGHT Doing Weird Shit With UNDERAGE Girls AgainโThis Sure Doesn't Help Her Beat Those GROOMING Allegations!๐ฑ This video is from two high school girls who are part of Turning Point USAโs Club America program. They were invited to the grand opening of TPUSAโs Las Vegas HQ where Erika gave a speech. While they were outside near the food truck, Mikey McCoy noticed them and brought them over to meet Erika. What happened next is raising a lot of eyebrows โ especially in light of the ongoing grooming allegations surrounding Erika. The girls described Erika immediately grabbing both of them and pulling them into an extremely tight, long bear hug with both arms. One of the girls said she was so shocked she started crying and her whole body was shaking while Erika just kept squeezing her. She said it felt intense". In my opinion, way too intense for someone she had never met before. Erika then signed both of their shirts, kept complimenting them, and told them how cute their shirts were. The girls were visibly overwhelmed and emotional afterward โ one of them called her mom crying right after. Who grabs two random underage high school girls theyโve never met before and bear-hugs them that hard? Especially someone already facing serious allegations about inappropriate behavior with minors โ including allegedly grooming her own best friend Tracy_ officially's daughter (who btw now works as Erikaโs assistant). This is the same pattern people have been warning about. Erika seems to have a very specific way of interacting with young girls that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. This is also the exact type of predatory behavior that sex traffickers use to gain the trust of their victims. The grooming allegations were already bad enough. This kind of behavior isnโt helping her case at all. Watch the full clip below and tell me if this seems normal to you. My channel is under coordinated attack to bankrupt and silence this investigation into the Charlie Kirk assassination. If you believe in independent journalism and want the truth to keep coming, your support right now is everything. Donate Here: CC: Candace Owens
Project Constitution
609,755 views โข 1 month ago
!["If [Ross] had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard." ~Murgia Lockheed, Landing Drones, Stupor, and Trump Did think this would be another LAP (Long-Ass Post), but here it is. Ross Coulthart: "It's been a very interesting week with the public response to the comments that I've made on the show that I do with my friend and colleague,Bryce Zabel, "Need to Know," where we discussed what I've been told by my sources, multiple sources, by the way, that Lockheed Martin was indeed behind the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 with the USS Nimitz battle carrier group." Let's rewind: This is what Ross and Bryce said on the @Coulthart_Zabel episode uploaded on July 6th. My comments in ( ). Ross: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." Bryce: "Ooookay." Ross: "The Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to? This is the issue. Why is the United States government now participating - at White-House, executive level, in collusion with the national-security state - to keep secret the fact that they've made these advances? I suspect it's because they've realized that they're being overtaken by their foreign adversaries, and they don't want you to know that." Bryce: "Okay, the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin. Well, in some respects, given how insane the Tic Tac behaved during the Nimitz, where it went from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, then I would say, well there's one for the U.S. team. Obviously, we have some good stuff out there, if that's the case, right?" Ross: "How much of that is being shared with the actual Defense Department that's responsible for the defense of the United States? This is the kind of questions that Congress should be asking." Bryce: "So you're saying Lockheed Martin might - or anybody, but Lockheed Martin in this particular case - has a Tic Tac that they are testing, and have been testing, and have access to." (One can argue that when Bryce said LM has a Tic Tac that they've been testing, that could include the possibility that it's an NHI craft they somehow acquired and not something they built. That would go against my "Ross is flip flopping" allegation.) Bryce: "But they might not have shared it with the Defense Department of the United States? Which probably paid for it in their trillion-dollar budgets. That's kind of mind-blowing in itself." Ross: "Those are the questions I think Congress should be asking. I mean, what I'm saying, basically, is..." Bryce: "Why are you saying this, by the way? Where did you? Where is this from? How do we know this? What's going on?" Ross: "I'm...I'm sorry, Bryce, I can't go there." ~ Bryce: "Frankly, the only major row that you and I have ever had, which was over eminent domain, and who can... Is it not possible that that legislation has eminent domain in it as an issue that the government would be able to go seize potential things from private enterprise, if the government, in fact, thought that Lockheed Martin had a Tic Tac? Wouldn't we want to go seize it?" Ross: "Bloody hell we would. Exactly. But that hasn't happened. And, you know, I can tell you, David Grusch has told them exactly where to look. Jake Barber has told them exactly where to look. This is why I just found it, in many ways, I find it absurd that we're still debating the issue whether the NHI technology recovery is real. Of course it's real!" (I think/suspect it's real. But if I'm gonna play journalist, I need to see proof before I say, "Of course it's real!" Or, "I know it's real." Walk me into the building and show me. I don't think this has happened with Ross so a debate is still warranted, IMO.) Bryce: "This thing you just said about Lockheed Martin. Is this the first time you've said that in public, or have you said that before?" Ross: "Look, there's been speculation for a while that it's Lockheed Martin, but I'm now very, very sure that it was Lockheed Martin. And I think the Tic Tac is part of two, at least two different platforms that Lockheed's been working on. Different platforms that they've been working on. And it's technology that, until very recently, most of Congress was completely unaware of." (To me, that sounds like Ross is saying, that whatever LM is working on, they built it.) Bryce: "Well, I just hope, if there's a war with China or a war with NHI, I just hope Lockheed Martin remembers who helped pay for it, and they're on our side. That's what I would say." Ross: "Well, I hope they are. I don't think we can have any expectation, though, unless the public demands answers, that we're going to get the truth." Full post here: ~And more from yesterday's "Reality Check"~ @MeaganOurada reads a question: "You recently mentioned the Tic Tac was a produced/manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but you never mentioned if it was under autonomous flight or piloted." (This shows that others took Ross's original comments as LM manufacturing a Tic Tac and not figuring out how to fly an NHI Tic Tac that they somehow had acquired.) Ross: "That's a good question, and I'll be honest with you, I don't know for sure." (Here was a chance for Ross to say, "I didn't mean to suggest it was 100% produced/manufactured by Lockheed, just that it was one possibility. The other is they operated a NHI Tic Tac that they had acquired.) Ross: "I have been told previously that when Tic Tacs... You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is, there are NHI Tic Tacs." (We don't know that for sure, and later on, Ross adds that they are "suspected" to be NHI.) Ross: "A lot of people seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That's not the case at all." (A few people who follow me thought that but I think the overwhelming majority realize that Ross didn't say that.) Ross: "What I was told, and I'm reasonably sure that this is the case, is that Tic Tac was being operated by Lockheed Martin, and it's conceivable that that was being operated neuro-meditatively, psionically, by a human psionic, which is what I understand, is the way that these retrieved, non-human craft are being operated." ("Reasonably sure" and "operated," is different than what he said on N2K: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." I think most people took that as: "I now now, categorically, that Lockheed built a Tic Tac and that's what Fravor chased in 2004." That's why you saw such a pushback from people on social media.) Ross: "It's not clear to me, though, whether this is a craft that was built by Lockheed Martin, or whether it is Lockheed Martin testing the use of neuro-meditative signaling, as our friends at Skywatcher called it, to operate one of these craft. I just can't answer that question, specifically." (If Ross would have said this in the N2K episode and didn't use the word, "categorically," I think the reaction would have been, "Oh, that's interesting." I'm still skeptical that Lockheed has ANY role in the 2004 Tic Tac incident but I'll keep my mind open.) Ross: "All I can do is tell you what I've been told by my multiple sources, which is that the operation of the Tic Tac was being controlled, on the day, by Lockheed Martin." (Again, if he had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard. I hope humans have developed the ability to control a Tic Tac and make it perform like what was reported on November 14th, 2004. But, again, I'm skeptical. The SPY-1 radar on the USS Princeton tracked objects for a week or so, leading up to the encounter Fravor and the others had with the Tic Tac. Were all of those objects LM-controlled craft? Seems unlikely. In 2019, at UFO MegaCon, Kevin Day said that on around November 10th, he started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasnโt really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to 'higher authorities' and maintained track of them. They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, 'extremely bizarre.' His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts. They were. ~ Just going through all the possibilities I can think of.... Did LM "hijack" or summon one of those craft, psychically, and "make it" have an encounter with Fravor and Friends? Or, maybe none of the above? Maybe it was a NHI craft and had nothing to do with LM? Remember, Fravor said it looked like it might be docking with a submerged object, so maybe that's why it was in that specific area? To me, that suggests NHI.) Ross: "Now I want to say here, let's be really clear about this: There is always the possibility that sources that talk to a journalist like me may be maligned. They may indeed be running some kind of psyop." (I know he has said that kind of thing in the past but I wish Ross had reiterated that point in the N2K segment. I have heard from a few people who think that's exactly what's happening here. And also, if his sources are so sure LM was involved and "operating" a Tic Tac, to me, it would make sense that they would also know whether it was a Tic Tac LM acquired or...a Tic Tac LM manufactured, based on reverse engineering the real thing.) Ross: "And of course I've taken that (disinformation/psyop) into consideration in asking the question. The difficulty is, I can't go into the detail, for very obvious reasons, about who these sources are and why I think so strongly that those sources are telling me the truth. And I can tell you, there are a lot of people who are assuring me that I'm flat wrong. And that's fine. But let's have a discussion about this." (Well now that "categorically" seems be to off the table, we can discuss it. BTW, back in 2019 on my blog, Dave Beaty ๐บ๐ฆ and I discussed the possibility that the Tic Tac was human tech. I know others have discussed that, too, so it's not a new idea.) ~Ross then switches gears to the drones~ Ross: "And also, let's talk about what I think was actually another of the major points that I was trying to make in the course of that conversation I had with Bryce. Which is that there is an obvious contradiction between what the White House has said - that these were FAA-authorized drones operating [in] the continental United States in November, December, January - and what the U.S. Air Force has said. Which is two senior generals, one former, one serving commander of NORTHCOM, NORAD, responsible for the defense of the United States northern aerospace, stated categorically, on the record, that they have no idea who is responsible for those drone craft that were hovering over the continent of the United States. That's an obvious, logical contradiction." (In the March 16th episode of 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker., we learned... Retired four-star general, Mark Kelly, went up to the roof and saw drones over Langley, from the size of a quadcopter up to the size of a small car. General Glen VanHerck (now retired) is the former commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes" that we can't track the drones over Langley or see where they originated. "It's a capability gap. Certainly, they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options but they don't have an answer right now." General Gregory Guillot is the current commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes," that, "the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and track the threat." Could we detect drones flying into Langley today? "At low altitude, probably not, with your standard FAA or surveillance radars. I don't think we know entirely what happened. It is alarming." And, as I've (Joe) been saying forever, a big problem was/is the rules of engagement that detail when and how you can shoot down drones. VanHerk: "It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense or urgency.") ~ Ross: "And if the president, think about this... If the president...it's actually a good point that actually supports the possibility that I might, in fact, be right, and that my sources are in fact telling me the truth. If the president is telling the American public they don't need to worry about these drones - drones which we know are operating anomalously, with anomalous characteristics - then what the hell is going on? It implies he's been briefed. (Okay, what Ross is saying here: If you combine the president telling us not to worry about the drones, along with these drones making anomalous maneuvers, it bolsters his claim that LM (and others) has advanced tech that can also be used in drone tech. And that the president has been briefed about this advanced tech. But the problem with that line of thinking is, when you look at what eyewitnesses have said about the drones (or whatever they were), in 99% of the cases, the only anomalous behavior was their ability avoid detection and go stealth. That's the low observability part of the UAP five observables that Lue Elizondo popularized. But no 90-degree turns or anything like that. I don't think anything the generals or Trump said bolsters the idea that Lockheed was involved with the Tic Tac in 2004.) Ross: "Just to add more smoke to the fire, earlier on today, I had a message from a guy in New Jersey who has seen one of these drones land in a New Jersey backyard. He was illegally pointing a laser beam at one of these drones, which you should not do. Naughty. Even if they are NHI or whatever they are." (I wish Ross had said, "a guy in New Jersey who CLAIMS he has seen one of these drones land." Ross was in Barcelona when recording this episode of Reality Check so there was no time for him to vet this story. It's such an outlier from everything else we have heard about the drones that I think we should remain skeptical about if it actually happened. Does this person have photos or videos? Are there any other eyewitnesses?) Ross: "This is what he told me: "I was beaming [the drones] one night around midnight, and the one flew straight over my backyard, stopped slightly above, and to my left, and seemed to sink down into the trees along the little street on the side of my house. The next thing I see is this rectangle-looking, box-like thing floating just above the street, about the size of an old Ford station wagon. It was the most incredible, starkly-lit thing I've ever seen. I've never seen colors so radiant, so intensely liquid-like in my life. Several shades of blues with oranges and yellows like intense neon lights. "'It scared the hell out of me, and I moved away from the window so it couldn't see me. I slowly poked my head around the window, and it followed every move I made. It knew I was watching it. I would pull back and it came up the street. I would move into the window and it moved back down the street. It was like we were synchronized, and I was completely freaked out to the point that I quickly ran into my kitchen and considered hiding under my sink, of all things. I found myself in some sort of stupor, like I was being drugged, confused and slowed down. So I went to my bedroom and got my point two five, and just laid back in bed. I awoke the next morning, still holding the pistol.' ~End Alleged Eyewitness Account in NJ~ Ross: "Something really anomalous that has no visible means of propulsion is landing in New Jersey, and your president is telling you he's not concerned about it. Yet, two generals responsible for the defense of the United States aerospace are telling you they're concerned about it, and they don't know what these objects are. Why is the president not concerned? And why are two U.S. Air Force generals, presumably, not briefed into what the president is briefed into? Think about that." (Allegedly landed in NJ. I don't think Trump knows more than the generals, and I don't think he was briefed into a program that they were left out in the cold on.) ~~~ @MeaganOurada reads another question: "Even if Ross seems confident that Tic Tac is U.S. tech, does he think it's a reverse engineering tech from NHI, or a tech 100% created by humans?" Ross: "As I've mentioned earlier, we're not saying all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. And it's quite clear that some Tic Tacs are indeed non-human intelligence, or suspected to be non-human intelligence. But what we're talking about are objects that are showing the five observables, doing maneuvers and operating in ways that don't conform to terrestrial craft. "I can't answer the question, definitively, whether they are constructed by Lockheed Martin, or whether it's Lockheed Martin operating a recovered, retrieved craft." (Again, if he had said that in the N2K segment, there may have been less pushback. Did his sources not explain that aspect of the claim? Pretty important detail.) Ross: "Because what I've been told, and what jakebarber told me in the interview that you've all watched, hopefully, on NewsNation, is that there have been retrievals of craft, including Tic Tacs. So, why is it a surprise to people that a contractor, that I'm alleging is directly involved in the Legacy program, is involved in operating these craft." (Because when Ross spoke about this the first time, he made no mention of LM OPERATING the Tic Tac in the 2004 incident . If he didn't mean that Lockheed had BUILT or MANUFACTURED it, he should have made that clear. He must understand this.) Ross: "And moreover, why would we necessarily expect that people, even those flying in the carrier battle group, would actually know about this or be briefed into this?" (We didn't, and don't, expect that, and have been discussing it for the last 6 or so years.) Ross: "It would have been a really good idea if they were going to test this technology against the carrier battle group, to have let the people know." (Which people? How many? Fravor said they had around 6000 people on the Nimitz and Princeton, combined. If it was SAP-level, classified technology, they would've had to read all those people into the program before the test. Not realistic, IMO.) Ross: "And I think people need to be reminded that my good friend, Kevin Day, who I know disputes the possibility that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin... In my book, Kevin Day told me - and he said this in many, many interviews - that when, I think it was the admiral in charge of the carrier battle group, was told about the Tic Tac, he didn't seem very alarmed. Why not? Why aren't people asking these questions? Why was the commander of a carrier battle fleet - that was suffering incursions by anomalous objects doing the five observables during a hugely important and sensitive naval exercise - why wasn't he concerned about those craft? Think about it." (When I met Keven in 2019, he left the door slightly open to the possibility that it was our tech. And I can't find anything about an admiral onboard the Princeton in Ross's book, "In Plain Sight." The only thing that resembles that claim is this excerpt about the captain. I also wrote about the captain in my blog in 2019.) From In Plain Sight... Kevin Day recalls asking his captain on the Princeton afterwards what he thought the object was. 'He told me, โI think the objects were spontaneously forming ice falling from spaceโ.โ Day laughs at the absurdity of such a conclusion. His captain left him with the clear impression he knew a lot more than he was letting on about the phenomenon." From My Blog in 2019... "November 14th, theyโre doing air defense exercises, also known as ADEX. Day pulls Captain Smith aside and tells him about the contacts that he and the others had been tracking and that heโs worried about 'safety of flight' because they could have a mishap with one of these craft as they conduct their exercises. Day highly recommended that they go check them out. Smith agreed and told him to take the Fast Eagle flight and 'go get โem.' Day said, โin the back of my mind, I was like, hell yeah! Weโre going to intercept these things!โ (audience laughs) It turned out to be his very last intercept in the Navy." (So, apparently, the captain WAS concerned leading up to the encounter. More from my 2019 blog...) "Voorhis shared that his captain had started a rumor that the objects were spontaneously forming ice in the atmosphere. He said he and his buddies would all sit there, smoke and say, 'Yeah, right.'" (For me, none of that is enough to suggest that the captain knew LM or some other humans/military/USG were behind the Tic Tac events. Maybe the captain thought it was something alien but didn't want the sailors to lose focus for their upcoming role in Iraqi Freedom? Or, maybe he was scared of the possibility of a non-human intelligence among us? I don't know. I'm not positive, but I think Ryan Graves mentioned one of his superiors giving a muted reaction to some of the UAP events they were facing on the East Coast.) ~ "Commander David Fravor responded to me: the Tic Tac 'was not Lockheed Martin', according to him. He seemed very confident and matter-of-fact." ~Jesse Michels Ross: "Let me first say I have nothing but admiration for David Fravor. He's given service to his country, he's a patriot, and he deserves respect and recognition for that. I'm not getting involved in a stash with a person who's done so much, honorably, for his country. It's not, though, outside the realm of possibilities. In fact, I think it would be extremely unlikely that, if there is, as I know there is, a compartmented, secret program where Lockheed Martin is one of the primary contractors operating retrieved, non-human technology and attempting to reverse engineer that technology, there is absolutely no way that David would be briefed into that, unless it was absolutely necessary for the doing of his job." (I've been saying this for several years and I agree 100%.) Ross: "As we all know, when the government wants to protect a secret, it compartmentalizes it. Even if you have a Top-Secret classification - which I'm sure David probably had - it's also compartmentalized. And that's how the U.S. keeps its secrets. And I've spoken to people, literally in institutions in the United States, one of whom knows about the program, and the other of whom is in an adjoining office and has absolutely no idea. "I've had a situation where I've spoken to the head of a government agency that ought properly to have known about the Legacy program. That head of a government agency was not informed about the fact that we are recovering non-human craft and attempting to reverse engineer that technology." (Journalistically speaking, I would say, "The head of a government agency was not informed about the CLAIM that we are recovering non-human craft." No way for Ross to know that's a fact unless he's been read in to the program to see for himself. Belief? Yes. Knowing? No. I harp on this all the time and it's a pet peeve of mine because I think it's important.) Ross: "A person two rungs down was the person that the Legacy program was using to gate keep inside that institution. It's really interesting how they compartmentalize all of this. And so, absolutely no disrespect to David Fravor or my good friend, Kevin Day, but they're good men. The simple fact is, compartmentalization works." (Again, I agree 100%. If Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence, and deputy director of the DIA, was denied access, then there's a very good chance David Fravor was, too.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1944857237375344663/amplify_video_thumb/1944522778964832256/img/b83qGkeX31f9dB-V.jpg)
![Itโs outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. โYou have to admire the chutzpah,โ wrote one columnist. โDonald Trump describing the BBC as โcorruptโ while threatening to take legal actionโฆ.The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so itโs safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.โ But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trumpโs remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBCโs bias, which concluded that the BBC had โspliced together two clipsโ to create โthe impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.โ Americans might think this story doesnโt concern them because itโs about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBCโs longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescottโs independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBCโs CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. โThe Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,โ writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescottโs report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an โinsurrectionโ that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trumpโs speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. โIt may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,โ he noted, โbecause there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.โ Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trumpโs remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. โMr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,โ he notes. And yet โthe BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.โ Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBCโs fact-checking program, โBBC Verify.โ One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as โmisinformationโ and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBCโs Director General, Tim Davie, said, โDisinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,โ shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBCโs first โdisinformationโ reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its โSocial Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.โ Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. โBBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britainโs major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,โ notes Prescott. โThe central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.โ Adds Prescott, โthe entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.โ Another example of the BBCโs bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. โIn March 2024,โ writes Prescott, โthere was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.โ Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didnโt cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced โa surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,โ celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the womenโs category, and published an article last year headlined, โTransgender woman guilty of rape after night out.โ Wrote the reporter, โLexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.โ More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBCโs former chief writer, says she was โforced outโ in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. โMy view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,โ he writes. โIndeed, I would argue that the Executiveโs attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.โ All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. โBBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,โ writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. โThe problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when thereโs so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it โ just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBCโs output is in doubtโฆโ What, then, explains the BBCโs fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1988024092369580483/amplify_video_thumb/1988021879752585217/img/pOLnED3lYtZKTBP9.jpg)
