Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Utter nonsense! What you pass off as factual reporting is nothing more than regime propaganda, and Trump knows it. Let me spell it out. 1) You claim Rwanda violated the accord because Uvira fell into M23 hands. That is flat-out false. The offensive on Uvira began after two straight... days of failed Kinshasa coalition offensives aimed at capturing Bukavu. Presidents Kagame and Tshisekedi flew to Washington even as fighting raged south of Bukavu, including the Burundian army’s bombardment of Kamanyola on Rwanda’s border. You deliberately strip away that context (Kinshasa’s ceasefire violations) and present the response as the original breach. That’s not journalism. That’s narrative laundering. 2) In your so-called “probing questions,” you obsessively demand Rwanda’s withdrawal, yet you have never once asked when the DRC will fulfill its written obligation to neutralize the FDLR. It’s right there in the accords: the DRC neutralizes the FDLR first; Rwanda lifts its defensive measures second. Black on white. You erase the first condition and endlessly hammer the second. That is willful distortion. Again, you have zero integrity. 3) Even when you interviewed Burundi’s president, you conveniently avoided the ongoing violence and siege against the Banyamulenge, carried out with the involvement of his own army. You’ve also never confronted his ally Tshisekedi about the Wazalendo militias he armed — militias that operate alongside Burundian and Congolese troops while terrorizing civilians and committing documented atrocities. Not once do you acknowledge that these groups, alongside the FDLR, are explicitly required to be neutralized under the Washington Accords. What kind of journalist claims to care about civilians while systematically ignoring their worst abusers? Hariana, you’re not a journalist. Trump figured that out. December 4, 2024, was the last time he let you ask a question. Remember this? 👇 You exposed yourself, and since then he’s iced you. Same story with that U.S. lawmaker who recently brushed you off. (see video below) This is what happens when people realize you’re manufacturing reality! Cc: Albert Rudatsimburwa 🇷🇼 , Bojana Coulibaly, Ph.D. African Sir. Uracyaryamye Rosette Uwase Robert Cyubahiro McKenna Andrew M. Mwenda Minister of Food and Drinks🇷🇼 Akech Andrewshow more

Isabelle Karake

1,887 subscribers

30,876 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

36,857 просмотров • 15 дней назад

I remember you well: You may not remember me, but I remember you very clearly. That very day when you surrounded our car with Kalashnikovs. You forced us out of the vehicle, searched our bodies under the pretext of “security,” and humiliated us. You were looking inside the car for “threats to security”; security that, apparently, was hidden in the phones of a few ordinary citizens, while the smallest details of your own information were never hidden from foreign intelligence services. I asked you: Why? You were drunk on power, backed by military-grade bullets. Your only reply was one sentence: “Shut up.” When you found nothing in the car or our phones, you furiously slammed the car body, not to search it, but to frighten us even more, us, your own fellow citizens. Now I see the drone attack footage on your checkpoint. And before anyone says “karma,” let me be very clear: This is not the karma of your actions. It is simply the consequence of the same violence, the same humiliation of people, and the same illusion of power that you have lived with for years. And now, for me, you are no longer compatriots, nor do I have even a moment of mourning left for you. 🎥 A video of attacks on the forces of the Islamic Republic regime #IranWar2026 #IranRevolution2026

I remember you well: You may not remember me, but I remember you very clearly. That very day when you surrounded our car with Kalashnikovs. You forced us out of the vehicle, searched our bodies under the pretext of “security,” and humiliated us. You were looking inside the car for “threats to security”; security that, apparently, was hidden in the phones of a few ordinary citizens, while the smallest details of your own information were never hidden from foreign intelligence services. I asked you: Why? You were drunk on power, backed by military-grade bullets. Your only reply was one sentence: “Shut up.” When you found nothing in the car or our phones, you furiously slammed the car body, not to search it, but to frighten us even more, us, your own fellow citizens. Now I see the drone attack footage on your checkpoint. And before anyone says “karma,” let me be very clear: This is not the karma of your actions. It is simply the consequence of the same violence, the same humiliation of people, and the same illusion of power that you have lived with for years. And now, for me, you are no longer compatriots, nor do I have even a moment of mourning left for you. 🎥 A video of attacks on the forces of the Islamic Republic regime #IranWar2026 #IranRevolution2026

پری‌سا

39,991 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

ICE agents: you’re being played. That “$50,000 bonus” you were sold? It’s not a bonus. It’s a leash. It’s paid out in pieces over five years—and the fine print is the punchline: if you quit or don’t hit crazy performance targets, you don’t just lose what’s left… you are forced to pay it back. That’s not an incentive. That’s a trap. And here’s what you can’t pay back or outrun: your family, your friends, and your neighbors will remember what you did. The fear. The humiliation. The harm you inflicted. You’re being asked to do things that will follow you long after the politicians move on to the next lie. So hear this plainly: walk away now. Don’t trade your conscience for money you’ll never see. Don’t let a “bonus” turn into a debt—and don’t let this become the story you spend the rest of your life trying to justify to the people who know you best. If you still have a choice, make it. Choose decency. Choose law. Choose people. Help fight the ones that don’t quite:

ICE agents: you’re being played. That “$50,000 bonus” you were sold? It’s not a bonus. It’s a leash. It’s paid out in pieces over five years—and the fine print is the punchline: if you quit or don’t hit crazy performance targets, you don’t just lose what’s left… you are forced to pay it back. That’s not an incentive. That’s a trap. And here’s what you can’t pay back or outrun: your family, your friends, and your neighbors will remember what you did. The fear. The humiliation. The harm you inflicted. You’re being asked to do things that will follow you long after the politicians move on to the next lie. So hear this plainly: walk away now. Don’t trade your conscience for money you’ll never see. Don’t let a “bonus” turn into a debt—and don’t let this become the story you spend the rest of your life trying to justify to the people who know you best. If you still have a choice, make it. Choose decency. Choose law. Choose people. Help fight the ones that don’t quite:

Joe Walsh

203,164 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Shut the fuck up, Kate. First it was "Liam wrote me notes" now suddenly it’s a whole fucking book???? Which one is it? You can’t even keep your lies straight. Every time your views drop, the story changes, notes letters, books, journals, whatever it takes to keep milking his name. And don’t even start with the handwriting because it’s not his. We’ve been over this. Anyone who’s seen Liam’s real writing knows it doesn’t even come close. On top of that, Liam never called the people he actually loved by their full names... not once. Every single person he truly cared about, he had nicknames and shortened names for and all of that has been out in the open for years. But suddenly he’s writing out "Kate Cass" in some fake-ass notebook like it’s a fucking diary entry? Get the fuck out of here. And let’s talk about why you even replied to that comment saying "he literally hated her." If he loved you so much, like you won’t shut the fuck up about, why did that hit so hard you had to grab your little prop and make a video? Because deep down, you know it’s the truth. He couldn’t stand you. He was drowning while you partied, and now you’re still here trying to rewrite history with fake receipts. You sit there, bragging like a clown, chewing Chinese food on camera, turning Liam’s death into your flex. That isn’t grief. That isn’t love. That isn’t healing. That’s exploitation. That’s bragging. That’s lying. Liam didn’t write you a journal. He didn’t write you a book. He didn’t write you shit. You wrote yourself into his story because without him, you are fucking nothing. You weren’t his safe place, Kate you were and still ARE his fucking curse. #JusticeForLiam #StopExploitingLiam

Shut the fuck up, Kate. First it was "Liam wrote me notes" now suddenly it’s a whole fucking book???? Which one is it? You can’t even keep your lies straight. Every time your views drop, the story changes, notes letters, books, journals, whatever it takes to keep milking his name. And don’t even start with the handwriting because it’s not his. We’ve been over this. Anyone who’s seen Liam’s real writing knows it doesn’t even come close. On top of that, Liam never called the people he actually loved by their full names... not once. Every single person he truly cared about, he had nicknames and shortened names for and all of that has been out in the open for years. But suddenly he’s writing out "Kate Cass" in some fake-ass notebook like it’s a fucking diary entry? Get the fuck out of here. And let’s talk about why you even replied to that comment saying "he literally hated her." If he loved you so much, like you won’t shut the fuck up about, why did that hit so hard you had to grab your little prop and make a video? Because deep down, you know it’s the truth. He couldn’t stand you. He was drowning while you partied, and now you’re still here trying to rewrite history with fake receipts. You sit there, bragging like a clown, chewing Chinese food on camera, turning Liam’s death into your flex. That isn’t grief. That isn’t love. That isn’t healing. That’s exploitation. That’s bragging. That’s lying. Liam didn’t write you a journal. He didn’t write you a book. He didn’t write you shit. You wrote yourself into his story because without him, you are fucking nothing. You weren’t his safe place, Kate you were and still ARE his fucking curse. #JusticeForLiam #StopExploitingLiam

Iris

39,494 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Dad’s home! 🏠 Because it’s one of the most frequent questions I receive, here’s your periodic reminder that your baby doesn’t forget you when you go to work. There’s a developmental milestone known as object permanence and sometimes parents overthink it. In a nutshell it’s the understanding that things continue to exist even when they’re out of sight - and it typically develops somewhere between 6-9 months. Does that mean you cease to exist (to your baby) when you go to work or the grocery store? It can be kind of a scary thought to new parents. The answer, even before the development of object permanence, is no. But it may mean that (even for your toddler) you’re misattributing adult forms of memory to your little one. Infants and toddlers both live very much in the moment and are still developing the type of robust narrative memory we possess as adults. So while you’re gone, it’s not that you cease to exist. It’s more a case of “out of sight, out of mind.” Will they recognize you when you return? Will they be excited to see you? I’ll let this beautiful video from beingritty on IG show you the answer.

Dad’s home! 🏠 Because it’s one of the most frequent questions I receive, here’s your periodic reminder that your baby doesn’t forget you when you go to work. There’s a developmental milestone known as object permanence and sometimes parents overthink it. In a nutshell it’s the understanding that things continue to exist even when they’re out of sight - and it typically develops somewhere between 6-9 months. Does that mean you cease to exist (to your baby) when you go to work or the grocery store? It can be kind of a scary thought to new parents. The answer, even before the development of object permanence, is no. But it may mean that (even for your toddler) you’re misattributing adult forms of memory to your little one. Infants and toddlers both live very much in the moment and are still developing the type of robust narrative memory we possess as adults. So while you’re gone, it’s not that you cease to exist. It’s more a case of “out of sight, out of mind.” Will they recognize you when you return? Will they be excited to see you? I’ll let this beautiful video from beingritty on IG show you the answer.

Dan Wuori

30,425 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

This is called the sonder effect. It’s the realization that every stranger you see has an inner life as rich, layered, and emotionally real as your own. The person walking past you is not just “a woman in a red coat” or “some guy in traffic.” He has a past, private fears, people he misses, routines he hates, memories that still sting, and plans he has not told anyone yet. Most of the time, our brains simplify other people into background. Not because we are cruel, but because we have to move through the world from inside our own point of view. Sonder is what happens when that illusion breaks for a second. You stop seeing people as scenery and start seeing them as entire worlds. That is what makes it powerful. It does not just make the world feel bigger. It makes you more humble, more patient, and a little more aware of how much you do not know about the people around you. For one second, the background characters disappear. And everyone becomes real.

This is called the sonder effect. It’s the realization that every stranger you see has an inner life as rich, layered, and emotionally real as your own. The person walking past you is not just “a woman in a red coat” or “some guy in traffic.” He has a past, private fears, people he misses, routines he hates, memories that still sting, and plans he has not told anyone yet. Most of the time, our brains simplify other people into background. Not because we are cruel, but because we have to move through the world from inside our own point of view. Sonder is what happens when that illusion breaks for a second. You stop seeing people as scenery and start seeing them as entire worlds. That is what makes it powerful. It does not just make the world feel bigger. It makes you more humble, more patient, and a little more aware of how much you do not know about the people around you. For one second, the background characters disappear. And everyone becomes real.

Sovey

12,469 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Iran, Firing missiles and drones at the UAE to prove you haven't surrendered is in and of itself a form of surrender. It's what you do when the actual levers, as yours, are gone. Trump announced Project Freedom on Sunday night. CENTCOM announced two American vessels had transited the Strait successfully. Your 14 points peace proposal, submitted over the weekend, was swatted away by Washington. Your ports have been blockaded since April 13. The Hormuz stranglehold you spent decades cultivating as your ultimate insurance policy is now being directly challenged by 15,000 American troops and over a hundred aircraft. The UAE, who absorbed more than 90% of your missiles and drones, has been quietly and determinedly rebuilding its rebound story since the ceasefire. Flights are normalizing, investors are trickling back, and the mood in Abu Dhabi and Dubai is visibly shifting from relief to momentum. On Monday, that momentum had a face: “Make It In The Emirates”, the country's biggest industrial expo, opened as a statement that the UAE had turned a page. That's what the ADNOC tanker and the Fujairah port attacks were about: Disrupt the story. It failed. You wanted to tell America that you own Hormuz. If the US escorts ships through it, the Gulf will bleed. You, watching the American military architecture around Iran and reading it as preparation for a second round, wanted to pre-empt a second round and make any decision in that regard more expensive before it gets made. You wanted to tell your exhausted and broken people, who are watching your regime being stripped of its supreme lunatic, its proxies and its nuclear shield, that you still fight, and that you haven’t gone quiet. It is an enormous amount of strategic objectives to load onto a drone or a missile. That gap between what you are trying to say and what you actually have left to say it with, is the real story of Monday’s attack. Iran, You fired at something you could no longer reach. And in that single fact, you told us more about your condition than a hundred diplomatic cables ever could.

Iran, Firing missiles and drones at the UAE to prove you haven't surrendered is in and of itself a form of surrender. It's what you do when the actual levers, as yours, are gone. Trump announced Project Freedom on Sunday night. CENTCOM announced two American vessels had transited the Strait successfully. Your 14 points peace proposal, submitted over the weekend, was swatted away by Washington. Your ports have been blockaded since April 13. The Hormuz stranglehold you spent decades cultivating as your ultimate insurance policy is now being directly challenged by 15,000 American troops and over a hundred aircraft. The UAE, who absorbed more than 90% of your missiles and drones, has been quietly and determinedly rebuilding its rebound story since the ceasefire. Flights are normalizing, investors are trickling back, and the mood in Abu Dhabi and Dubai is visibly shifting from relief to momentum. On Monday, that momentum had a face: “Make It In The Emirates”, the country's biggest industrial expo, opened as a statement that the UAE had turned a page. That's what the ADNOC tanker and the Fujairah port attacks were about: Disrupt the story. It failed. You wanted to tell America that you own Hormuz. If the US escorts ships through it, the Gulf will bleed. You, watching the American military architecture around Iran and reading it as preparation for a second round, wanted to pre-empt a second round and make any decision in that regard more expensive before it gets made. You wanted to tell your exhausted and broken people, who are watching your regime being stripped of its supreme lunatic, its proxies and its nuclear shield, that you still fight, and that you haven’t gone quiet. It is an enormous amount of strategic objectives to load onto a drone or a missile. That gap between what you are trying to say and what you actually have left to say it with, is the real story of Monday’s attack. Iran, You fired at something you could no longer reach. And in that single fact, you told us more about your condition than a hundred diplomatic cables ever could.

Nadim Koteich

29,821 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Think you’ve got the diagnosis? Think again!! This is a case where the diagnosis is not as important as the lesson it teaches you. Watch the video and then check back for hidden portion of this post to see what the answer is... And what lesson you should have learned from it ! Avidly enhancing T2 dark lesions in the subependymal region with increased diffusion signal. If I said that description to you—even without seeing the images—you would say lymphoma! Was that your answer? It was mine! And we are both wrong! It turned out to be metastatic melanoma. But the lesson here is that just because you were wrong by pathology, doesn’t mean you were wrong on the imaging If I saw a case like this again, I would still say lymphoma! You won’t be right every time—there will be weird cases. But you are making a bet on the imaging appearance and you should always bet the odds—with the risk that every now and then you might be wrong! So don’t remember from this case that metastases can look like lymphoma—remember that sometimes it’s ok to be wrong as long as you read the case right

Think you’ve got the diagnosis? Think again!! This is a case where the diagnosis is not as important as the lesson it teaches you. Watch the video and then check back for hidden portion of this post to see what the answer is... And what lesson you should have learned from it ! Avidly enhancing T2 dark lesions in the subependymal region with increased diffusion signal. If I said that description to you—even without seeing the images—you would say lymphoma! Was that your answer? It was mine! And we are both wrong! It turned out to be metastatic melanoma. But the lesson here is that just because you were wrong by pathology, doesn’t mean you were wrong on the imaging If I saw a case like this again, I would still say lymphoma! You won’t be right every time—there will be weird cases. But you are making a bet on the imaging appearance and you should always bet the odds—with the risk that every now and then you might be wrong! So don’t remember from this case that metastases can look like lymphoma—remember that sometimes it’s ok to be wrong as long as you read the case right

Lea Alhilali, MD

12,351 просмотров • 2 лет назад

I’m late to this, but I see both sides of the coin here. On one, of course Kyle Fletcher’s gonna be bummed by getting screwed out of his big stadium moment in front of his family while his anxiety levels were at an all-time high. On the other, I wish he included more context as to why that happened and what happened to Adam Cole, as well as the fact that he may never wrestle again and how that was announced on the day of All In, because it makes complete sense as to why that happened when you take everything into account. Also, I can’t believe I’m saying this again but please walk with me on this one: ADAM. COLE. DID. NOT. GET. HURT. ON. THAT. FUCKING. POWERBOMB. YOU. IMBECILES. Watch his arms hit the fucking apron as his head hits nothing. You can say it was a dumb spot all you want, that’s not why Adam Cole is sitting at home right now.

I’m late to this, but I see both sides of the coin here. On one, of course Kyle Fletcher’s gonna be bummed by getting screwed out of his big stadium moment in front of his family while his anxiety levels were at an all-time high. On the other, I wish he included more context as to why that happened and what happened to Adam Cole, as well as the fact that he may never wrestle again and how that was announced on the day of All In, because it makes complete sense as to why that happened when you take everything into account. Also, I can’t believe I’m saying this again but please walk with me on this one: ADAM. COLE. DID. NOT. GET. HURT. ON. THAT. FUCKING. POWERBOMB. YOU. IMBECILES. Watch his arms hit the fucking apron as his head hits nothing. You can say it was a dumb spot all you want, that’s not why Adam Cole is sitting at home right now.

KLA Clips/KnicksLoseAgain

320,855 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Bia Omojuwa JJ. Omojuwa , you have been selected to be exposed. You saying that, “The issue with our foreign exchange is our foreign exchange”, statement you attributed to Peter Obi is stupid, simply exposed the entire emptiness of your head, is a loud announcement of your own shallow grasp of language, economics, and critical reasoning. First, what you heard is a rhetorical device known as antimetabole, the deliberate repetition of words in reverse order to expose a deeper truth. It is not a tongue twister. It is a sharp critique of how Nigeria’s foreign exchange crisis is caused not by external forces but by how we ourselves manage, manipulate, and mishandle the system. You thought it was gibberish because your ears function faster than your brain. You heard words and panicked. Second, the line is conceptually layered. In just a few words, it diagnoses the entire economic dysfunction: policy inconsistency, artificial rates, corruption in forex allocation, and institutional failure. But of course, to catch that, you would need more than ears. You would need understanding, something you have never encountered. Third, it is what we call economy of language, the ability to say so much with so little. That level of expression requires thought. You, on the other hand, just react. You heard a sentence that challenged your comprehension and defaulted to mockery because critical thought is foreign to you. You think volume equals intelligence and that confidence can cover for comprehension. It can’t. Let us be clear. The statement isn’t stupid. You are. Loud, clueless, and proud of it. You don’t recognize depth because your mind never developed the tools to measure it. You heard a profound line and mistook it for nonsense. That says everything about you and nothing about Peter Obi. Next time you hear something that confuses you, do not speak. Just nod and walk away. You might save yourself from yet another public display of illiteracy. Not everything is meant for surface thinkers. While you’re at it, try and get some sleep. You look sick and completely unkempt, judging by the eyebags, the cracked lips, and the four conflicting facial tones fighting for attention.

Bia Omojuwa JJ. Omojuwa , you have been selected to be exposed. You saying that, “The issue with our foreign exchange is our foreign exchange”, statement you attributed to Peter Obi is stupid, simply exposed the entire emptiness of your head, is a loud announcement of your own shallow grasp of language, economics, and critical reasoning. First, what you heard is a rhetorical device known as antimetabole, the deliberate repetition of words in reverse order to expose a deeper truth. It is not a tongue twister. It is a sharp critique of how Nigeria’s foreign exchange crisis is caused not by external forces but by how we ourselves manage, manipulate, and mishandle the system. You thought it was gibberish because your ears function faster than your brain. You heard words and panicked. Second, the line is conceptually layered. In just a few words, it diagnoses the entire economic dysfunction: policy inconsistency, artificial rates, corruption in forex allocation, and institutional failure. But of course, to catch that, you would need more than ears. You would need understanding, something you have never encountered. Third, it is what we call economy of language, the ability to say so much with so little. That level of expression requires thought. You, on the other hand, just react. You heard a sentence that challenged your comprehension and defaulted to mockery because critical thought is foreign to you. You think volume equals intelligence and that confidence can cover for comprehension. It can’t. Let us be clear. The statement isn’t stupid. You are. Loud, clueless, and proud of it. You don’t recognize depth because your mind never developed the tools to measure it. You heard a profound line and mistook it for nonsense. That says everything about you and nothing about Peter Obi. Next time you hear something that confuses you, do not speak. Just nod and walk away. You might save yourself from yet another public display of illiteracy. Not everything is meant for surface thinkers. While you’re at it, try and get some sleep. You look sick and completely unkempt, judging by the eyebags, the cracked lips, and the four conflicting facial tones fighting for attention.

𝑻𝑯𝑬 𝑮𝑬𝑵𝑬𝑹𝑨𝑳 𝑺𝑵𝑶𝑾 🇨🇮

95,847 просмотров • 1 год назад

The Catholic Church has been consistently AGAINST divorce and separation for 2000 years. Marriage is not a wedding day, it is a death. The death of the isolated self. The death of the idea that your life belongs only to you. Before God, two people walk forward and allow themselves to be bound together, not with flowers or words, but with sacrifice. The same love that held Christ on the Cross was not soft. Iron tore through flesh and pinned Him to the wood, and He did not pull away. That is the image people do not want to see when they talk about love. Love costs blood. Love costs pride. Love costs the part of you that wants to run when things hurt. When a man and a woman become one flesh, it is not sentimental language. It is a joining that says, your suffering is now mine, your burdens are now mine, your future is now mine. You do not stand beside each other as spectators. You are fastened together and sent into battle. The world you raise children in will not be gentle. It will test you, divide you, try to convince you that commitment is a mistake and sacrifice is weakness. Marriage answers that lie with defiance. You stay. You endure. You forgive when it would be easier to walk away. You carry each other when one collapses. The vows are not promises made for the good days. They are spoken for the nights when everything feels broken and you choose each other anyway. This is why marriage is sacred. Not because it is easy, but because it mirrors something eternal. Christ did not abandon His bride when she failed Him. He stayed nailed there. So when you stand before God and bind your life to another, understand what you are stepping into. You are choosing covenant over comfort. You are choosing unity over ego. Catholic Weddings are auraful.

The Catholic Church has been consistently AGAINST divorce and separation for 2000 years. Marriage is not a wedding day, it is a death. The death of the isolated self. The death of the idea that your life belongs only to you. Before God, two people walk forward and allow themselves to be bound together, not with flowers or words, but with sacrifice. The same love that held Christ on the Cross was not soft. Iron tore through flesh and pinned Him to the wood, and He did not pull away. That is the image people do not want to see when they talk about love. Love costs blood. Love costs pride. Love costs the part of you that wants to run when things hurt. When a man and a woman become one flesh, it is not sentimental language. It is a joining that says, your suffering is now mine, your burdens are now mine, your future is now mine. You do not stand beside each other as spectators. You are fastened together and sent into battle. The world you raise children in will not be gentle. It will test you, divide you, try to convince you that commitment is a mistake and sacrifice is weakness. Marriage answers that lie with defiance. You stay. You endure. You forgive when it would be easier to walk away. You carry each other when one collapses. The vows are not promises made for the good days. They are spoken for the nights when everything feels broken and you choose each other anyway. This is why marriage is sacred. Not because it is easy, but because it mirrors something eternal. Christ did not abandon His bride when she failed Him. He stayed nailed there. So when you stand before God and bind your life to another, understand what you are stepping into. You are choosing covenant over comfort. You are choosing unity over ego. Catholic Weddings are auraful.

𝔻𝕣. 𝔾𝕣𝕠𝕪𝕡𝕖𝕣 🇻🇦🇺🇸

31,492 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 Top 4 things the Pulsechain Community NEEDS to stop doing ASAP? 🚨 1. Stop being wallet watchers. Even if you are a wallet watcher, stop reporting on it. You literally have people selling news before there is news bc you want to be the 1st person to report the news. 0 surprises in the community. The ONLY community in crypto that does this, but they wonder why price doesn’t go up 🤔. The days of not knowing was the days that crypto was the most explosive. Let that sit in for a second. 2. Stop Simping for Influencers to talk about you. If you have something that they want to talk about, you don’t have to beg for it. If they think it will get view, they’ll report about it, if it’s relative. You look stupid doing it getting mad at them for doing what they want to do on their channel as if they owe you something, and therefore, you look desperate and stupid for complaining. 3. Stop complaining and simping to exchanges. You have to pay to play. Even the coins with low volume pay to play. The days of free listings stopped in late 2017. You look stupid doing it. 4. Understand the market. It’s demand and marketing, that’s it. The only thing that will make price go up is Altcoin dominance chart breaking down, in combination of Richard Heart streaming and marketing his product, in the way of outrage marketing bc the majority of people in crypto is between the ages of 25-34 and outrage marketing works the best for that age bracket. Continue where he left off. Many will disagree with #4 but that’s the exact same reason 99% of pulsechain influencers can’t get over 10,000 followers let alone 50,000, they don’t understand marketing. Like and Retweet this out to get it to as many people possible. If you disagree, hit the comments and speak your mind.

🚨 Top 4 things the Pulsechain Community NEEDS to stop doing ASAP? 🚨 1. Stop being wallet watchers. Even if you are a wallet watcher, stop reporting on it. You literally have people selling news before there is news bc you want to be the 1st person to report the news. 0 surprises in the community. The ONLY community in crypto that does this, but they wonder why price doesn’t go up 🤔. The days of not knowing was the days that crypto was the most explosive. Let that sit in for a second. 2. Stop Simping for Influencers to talk about you. If you have something that they want to talk about, you don’t have to beg for it. If they think it will get view, they’ll report about it, if it’s relative. You look stupid doing it getting mad at them for doing what they want to do on their channel as if they owe you something, and therefore, you look desperate and stupid for complaining. 3. Stop complaining and simping to exchanges. You have to pay to play. Even the coins with low volume pay to play. The days of free listings stopped in late 2017. You look stupid doing it. 4. Understand the market. It’s demand and marketing, that’s it. The only thing that will make price go up is Altcoin dominance chart breaking down, in combination of Richard Heart streaming and marketing his product, in the way of outrage marketing bc the majority of people in crypto is between the ages of 25-34 and outrage marketing works the best for that age bracket. Continue where he left off. Many will disagree with #4 but that’s the exact same reason 99% of pulsechain influencers can’t get over 10,000 followers let alone 50,000, they don’t understand marketing. Like and Retweet this out to get it to as many people possible. If you disagree, hit the comments and speak your mind.

MOON KING B-ROOTS

12,114 просмотров • 1 год назад

These are clips culled from the videos we all watched. You people and the man have lied that the girl said, "Who does this man think he is?" Meanwhile, the video evidence in the first frame shows that all she said was,"Can you imagine? What is this?" Video evidence in the second frame shows that the man was holding onto the neck of her dress and pulling it towards himself; a dress with a low neckline, which means that by pulling it away from her, he exposed her breasts to full public view. Anyone with a height higher than that neckline would have a clear view of that girl's breasts. That same video evidence shows that all the girl did initially was try to get his hands off her dress, and only swung at him and pulled his own clothing when he refused to let go. Twist this issue all you like. It does not change the facts on video. You people expected the girl to cower and accept to be treated like an animal just because the man is an elder and a lecturer.

These are clips culled from the videos we all watched. You people and the man have lied that the girl said, "Who does this man think he is?" Meanwhile, the video evidence in the first frame shows that all she said was,"Can you imagine? What is this?" Video evidence in the second frame shows that the man was holding onto the neck of her dress and pulling it towards himself; a dress with a low neckline, which means that by pulling it away from her, he exposed her breasts to full public view. Anyone with a height higher than that neckline would have a clear view of that girl's breasts. That same video evidence shows that all the girl did initially was try to get his hands off her dress, and only swung at him and pulled his own clothing when he refused to let go. Twist this issue all you like. It does not change the facts on video. You people expected the girl to cower and accept to be treated like an animal just because the man is an elder and a lecturer.

KWEKU THE HUSTLER NWA PETER OBI

31,653 просмотров • 1 год назад

Open Letter to MP Iqbal Mohamed, I recently watched your video where you stated: “Let the West… let the enemies not divide us.” Since you are a sitting Member of the British Parliament, this raises some serious questions that demand clarification: 1. If the West is your “enemy,” then what exactly are you doing representing a British constituency in the UK Parliament – which sits in the heart of the West, in London? You cannot call the very nation you serve an enemy while holding public office within it. 2. Do you genuinely feel safe living among these “enemies” in the UK? If you truly believe this country and its people are hostile, then standing for political office here contradicts your own statement. 3. Are you stepping back from the oath you took – in the name of Allah – to bear true faith and allegiance to His Majesty King Charles and to uphold the laws and values of the United Kingdom? Your words appear fundamentally at odds with the responsibilities and loyalty required of a British MP. 4. How do you justify using taxpayer-funded British institutions, resources, and a parliamentary salary while simultaneously portraying the West as an enemy? It raises questions about integrity and the proper use of public office. 5. When you say “the West,” are you including your own voters in Dewsbury & Batley – the people who trusted you with their mandate? Do you also view them as part of this so-called enemy? 6. Is it appropriate for an MP to label the UK or “the West” as an enemy when this rhetoric risks increasing hostility and creating fear within communities? 7. Will you publicly clarify whether your allegiance lies with the British Constitution and your oath of office, or with overseas political movements that contradict your commitments as a UK MP? Finally, Do you consider yourself a British representative in Pakistan-linked events or a Pakistan representative inside the British Parliament? Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧 Nigel Farage MP Reform UK The Reform Daily Zia Yusuf #MPIqbalMohamed #West #ReformUK

Open Letter to MP Iqbal Mohamed, I recently watched your video where you stated: “Let the West… let the enemies not divide us.” Since you are a sitting Member of the British Parliament, this raises some serious questions that demand clarification: 1. If the West is your “enemy,” then what exactly are you doing representing a British constituency in the UK Parliament – which sits in the heart of the West, in London? You cannot call the very nation you serve an enemy while holding public office within it. 2. Do you genuinely feel safe living among these “enemies” in the UK? If you truly believe this country and its people are hostile, then standing for political office here contradicts your own statement. 3. Are you stepping back from the oath you took – in the name of Allah – to bear true faith and allegiance to His Majesty King Charles and to uphold the laws and values of the United Kingdom? Your words appear fundamentally at odds with the responsibilities and loyalty required of a British MP. 4. How do you justify using taxpayer-funded British institutions, resources, and a parliamentary salary while simultaneously portraying the West as an enemy? It raises questions about integrity and the proper use of public office. 5. When you say “the West,” are you including your own voters in Dewsbury & Batley – the people who trusted you with their mandate? Do you also view them as part of this so-called enemy? 6. Is it appropriate for an MP to label the UK or “the West” as an enemy when this rhetoric risks increasing hostility and creating fear within communities? 7. Will you publicly clarify whether your allegiance lies with the British Constitution and your oath of office, or with overseas political movements that contradict your commitments as a UK MP? Finally, Do you consider yourself a British representative in Pakistan-linked events or a Pakistan representative inside the British Parliament? Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧 Nigel Farage MP Reform UK The Reform Daily Zia Yusuf #MPIqbalMohamed #West #ReformUK

Prabhdeep Singh

263,795 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

The Hug of a Hyena: A Warning to the Kinshasa Opposition Before the tragedy, there is a warm embrace; after it, nothing but crushed bones. There is an old, cautionary fable about a man who carried a hyena on his back wherever he went. Seeing this, a passerby stopped him and warned, "My friend, put that beast down. One day, that hyena will make you its lunch." The man ignored the advice and kept walking. A second man approached him with the exact same warning. Again, the man brushed it off, confident in his bond with the predator. Eventually, curiosity got the better of the man. He turned to the beast on his back and said, "Hey, my friend, people keep telling me that you are going to eat me. Is it true?" The hyena, at least, was brutally honest. It whispered into his ear: "You should always fear a threat that two or three men have already warned you about." Before the man could even process the words, it was too late. The hyena gave him no time to think, snapping its jaws shut. This fable perfectly illustrates the fatal mistake of forming an alliance with Félix Tshisekedi. He is political death on legs. It is tragic to watch the opposition in Kinshasa place their faith in a man who is ready to sell out the entire country, and himself along with it, just to retain the presidency. Having tasted the luxury of flying across the world millions of times, he has absolutely no intention of ever going back to a normal life. The political diagnosis is clear: the only cure for the nation is his absolute removal from that office. And for many, the only viable path left to achieve that is through the AFC-M23, for DRC to be at Peace.

The Hug of a Hyena: A Warning to the Kinshasa Opposition Before the tragedy, there is a warm embrace; after it, nothing but crushed bones. There is an old, cautionary fable about a man who carried a hyena on his back wherever he went. Seeing this, a passerby stopped him and warned, "My friend, put that beast down. One day, that hyena will make you its lunch." The man ignored the advice and kept walking. A second man approached him with the exact same warning. Again, the man brushed it off, confident in his bond with the predator. Eventually, curiosity got the better of the man. He turned to the beast on his back and said, "Hey, my friend, people keep telling me that you are going to eat me. Is it true?" The hyena, at least, was brutally honest. It whispered into his ear: "You should always fear a threat that two or three men have already warned you about." Before the man could even process the words, it was too late. The hyena gave him no time to think, snapping its jaws shut. This fable perfectly illustrates the fatal mistake of forming an alliance with Félix Tshisekedi. He is political death on legs. It is tragic to watch the opposition in Kinshasa place their faith in a man who is ready to sell out the entire country, and himself along with it, just to retain the presidency. Having tasted the luxury of flying across the world millions of times, he has absolutely no intention of ever going back to a normal life. The political diagnosis is clear: the only cure for the nation is his absolute removal from that office. And for many, the only viable path left to achieve that is through the AFC-M23, for DRC to be at Peace.

Manzi Willy

20,594 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Apparently, I saw this video online and I decided to share. What this worker is applying is called bitumen, or what many of us know as bituminous coating. Most people think a wall is a solid, impenetrable block, but in reality, it is more like a sponge. Concrete and blocks have microscopic pores that pull water from the earth through a process we call capillary action. This thick black substance is the shield that stops that water from climbing up into the house. It is not about making the wall look good because this part will be buried under the dirt forever. It is about creating a skin that water cannot breathe through. When do you need to do this? The need for this arises because the soil is a very aggressive environment. Water is not your only enemy.. The ground also contains salts and sulfates that want to eat away at the cement. If this moisture finds its way to the steel bars inside the columns, those bars will start to rust. And when steel rusts, it expands, and that expansion is what cracks the concrete from the inside out. This coating is the only thing standing between your foundation and that kind of slow destruction. Thats is why if you see wet patches at the bottom of your walls inside your house, it usually means someone skipped this step or did it poorly during construction. You can apply this anytime you are building parts of a structure that will stay in contact with the ground. It is common in areas where the water table is high or where the soil stays damp for most of the year. This is a one-shot opportunity. Once you backfill the soil, you can never go back to fix it without a lot of expense and a lot of digging. It is about having the foresight to protect the heart of the building while it is still exposed. Please don’t ignore this if you need to. If you ignore it now to save a bit of money, you will be funding the future decay of your own home. I hope this helps.

Apparently, I saw this video online and I decided to share. What this worker is applying is called bitumen, or what many of us know as bituminous coating. Most people think a wall is a solid, impenetrable block, but in reality, it is more like a sponge. Concrete and blocks have microscopic pores that pull water from the earth through a process we call capillary action. This thick black substance is the shield that stops that water from climbing up into the house. It is not about making the wall look good because this part will be buried under the dirt forever. It is about creating a skin that water cannot breathe through. When do you need to do this? The need for this arises because the soil is a very aggressive environment. Water is not your only enemy.. The ground also contains salts and sulfates that want to eat away at the cement. If this moisture finds its way to the steel bars inside the columns, those bars will start to rust. And when steel rusts, it expands, and that expansion is what cracks the concrete from the inside out. This coating is the only thing standing between your foundation and that kind of slow destruction. Thats is why if you see wet patches at the bottom of your walls inside your house, it usually means someone skipped this step or did it poorly during construction. You can apply this anytime you are building parts of a structure that will stay in contact with the ground. It is common in areas where the water table is high or where the soil stays damp for most of the year. This is a one-shot opportunity. Once you backfill the soil, you can never go back to fix it without a lot of expense and a lot of digging. It is about having the foresight to protect the heart of the building while it is still exposed. Please don’t ignore this if you need to. If you ignore it now to save a bit of money, you will be funding the future decay of your own home. I hope this helps.

A.Y.O

75,105 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Questions for Candace Owens Question 1 You have said that you were kicked out of your home at age 14 and lived with a boyfriend for six months, describing yourself as “one of those kids.” How did those early experiences shape your understanding of relationships, authority, and personal boundaries? Question 2 Years later, in your debate with 20 feminists and on the podcast Whatever, you often gave the impression that you were not one of those kids. Maybe I am wrong, Candace, so can you tell us whether you ever talked about your past in those debates, or explained how those early experiences shaped the beliefs you now promote for women? Question 3 You have said that from about ages 8 to 18, you read only fiction books, and that you began reading nonfiction only after you became interested in politics. How did spending almost a decade reading only fiction affect how you understand the world’s complexity and complicated issues in general? Question 4 In 2007, you sued the Stamford Board of Education after reporting racist death-threat voicemails. In 2024, you publicly stated that you were again receiving death threats, but this time from the French government. Given that, according to you, your parents kicked you out of your home at age 14, that you later received death threats from students connected to the Stamford Board of Education, and that you now say you are receiving death threats from the French government, how do you understand this pattern of death-threat claims appearing at major phases of your life? Question 5 In 2015, when you started the project called Degree180, you published articles criticizing conservative Republicans and the Tea Party movement, and mocking Donald Trump, including comments about his penis size. During that same period, you also wrote articles stating that cheating and having affairs could be romantic, and another article suggesting that it could be smart for a woman to marry a gay man. Even if you identified at that time as a Democrat or a liberal, these views are not commonly held within those groups. What values were guiding those arguments at that time? Question 6 In 2016, you launched a project that involved publicly identifying individuals accused of online harassment. After the project was suspended, you were later doxxed. After you were doxxed, you blamed the left. Is that true, and did that experience contribute to your shift toward conservatism? Question 7 You have said that you used Charlie Kirk’s credit card to buy airline tickets to the UK without asking his permission. What was the nature of your professional or personal relationship with him that made you feel comfortable enough to do that? Question 8 In December 2018, during that UK trip, you met George Farmer. Shortly afterward, in May 2019, you made comments at a Turning Point UK event stating that nationalism itself was not problematic, and that Hitler’s issue was his global ambitions rather than nationalism confined to Germany. How do you reflect on the timing and substance of those remarks today? Question 9 After 2019, TPUSA distanced itself from you and you were no longer on the payroll, even though you later spoke at events such as the Michigan event in 2024. How did that distancing affect how you viewed TPUSA from that point forward? Question 10 Is it possible for you, and for your followers, to consider that Erika Kirk is not a perfect human being, like all of us, and that Turning Point USA is not a flawless organization, like any organization, but that your conclusion that they betrayed Charlie could be wrong, especially if that conclusion was influenced by a dream? Cc:Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) NΛTLY DΞNISΞ Alex Jones Tim Pool Tyler Bowyer Andrew Kolvet FBI Donald J. Trump Dr. Phil Dr Jordan B Peterson Elon Musk Patrick Bet-David Adam 🆘 Sosnick

Questions for Candace Owens Question 1 You have said that you were kicked out of your home at age 14 and lived with a boyfriend for six months, describing yourself as “one of those kids.” How did those early experiences shape your understanding of relationships, authority, and personal boundaries? Question 2 Years later, in your debate with 20 feminists and on the podcast Whatever, you often gave the impression that you were not one of those kids. Maybe I am wrong, Candace, so can you tell us whether you ever talked about your past in those debates, or explained how those early experiences shaped the beliefs you now promote for women? Question 3 You have said that from about ages 8 to 18, you read only fiction books, and that you began reading nonfiction only after you became interested in politics. How did spending almost a decade reading only fiction affect how you understand the world’s complexity and complicated issues in general? Question 4 In 2007, you sued the Stamford Board of Education after reporting racist death-threat voicemails. In 2024, you publicly stated that you were again receiving death threats, but this time from the French government. Given that, according to you, your parents kicked you out of your home at age 14, that you later received death threats from students connected to the Stamford Board of Education, and that you now say you are receiving death threats from the French government, how do you understand this pattern of death-threat claims appearing at major phases of your life? Question 5 In 2015, when you started the project called Degree180, you published articles criticizing conservative Republicans and the Tea Party movement, and mocking Donald Trump, including comments about his penis size. During that same period, you also wrote articles stating that cheating and having affairs could be romantic, and another article suggesting that it could be smart for a woman to marry a gay man. Even if you identified at that time as a Democrat or a liberal, these views are not commonly held within those groups. What values were guiding those arguments at that time? Question 6 In 2016, you launched a project that involved publicly identifying individuals accused of online harassment. After the project was suspended, you were later doxxed. After you were doxxed, you blamed the left. Is that true, and did that experience contribute to your shift toward conservatism? Question 7 You have said that you used Charlie Kirk’s credit card to buy airline tickets to the UK without asking his permission. What was the nature of your professional or personal relationship with him that made you feel comfortable enough to do that? Question 8 In December 2018, during that UK trip, you met George Farmer. Shortly afterward, in May 2019, you made comments at a Turning Point UK event stating that nationalism itself was not problematic, and that Hitler’s issue was his global ambitions rather than nationalism confined to Germany. How do you reflect on the timing and substance of those remarks today? Question 9 After 2019, TPUSA distanced itself from you and you were no longer on the payroll, even though you later spoke at events such as the Michigan event in 2024. How did that distancing affect how you viewed TPUSA from that point forward? Question 10 Is it possible for you, and for your followers, to consider that Erika Kirk is not a perfect human being, like all of us, and that Turning Point USA is not a flawless organization, like any organization, but that your conclusion that they betrayed Charlie could be wrong, especially if that conclusion was influenced by a dream? Cc:Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) NΛTLY DΞNISΞ Alex Jones Tim Pool Tyler Bowyer Andrew Kolvet FBI Donald J. Trump Dr. Phil Dr Jordan B Peterson Elon Musk Patrick Bet-David Adam 🆘 Sosnick

Jinet Gharibian

102,843 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

President Trump made putting an end to child trafficking a focus point of his first administration and that hasn’t changed. Anyone who has supported Trump from the beginning knows that to be a fact. When he says things like “I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody” … he does not mean that, and if you believe that, then you have simply forgotten how Trump plays chess in order to make his opponents do what he wants. And it’s working phenomenally. All of the people on the right who refused to talk about Epstein when all of the Anons were, are now screaming for the Epstein files. All of the people on the left who called us conspiracy theorists, including the pedophiles themselves, are now screaming for the Epstein files. “When he says things like “Really only pretty bad people, including fake news want to keep something like that going” … it is more of the same tactic. It sounds so ridiculous that Howard Lutnick burst out laughing! This has always been about the children, and it still is. Protect your mind and control your emotions.

President Trump made putting an end to child trafficking a focus point of his first administration and that hasn’t changed. Anyone who has supported Trump from the beginning knows that to be a fact. When he says things like “I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody” … he does not mean that, and if you believe that, then you have simply forgotten how Trump plays chess in order to make his opponents do what he wants. And it’s working phenomenally. All of the people on the right who refused to talk about Epstein when all of the Anons were, are now screaming for the Epstein files. All of the people on the left who called us conspiracy theorists, including the pedophiles themselves, are now screaming for the Epstein files. “When he says things like “Really only pretty bad people, including fake news want to keep something like that going” … it is more of the same tactic. It sounds so ridiculous that Howard Lutnick burst out laughing! This has always been about the children, and it still is. Protect your mind and control your emotions.

RealAF Patriot

19,722 просмотров • 1 год назад