Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Yesterday in Dáil Éireann I asked a simple question: who is telling the truth? Minister Norma Foley has publicly stated that she had no knowledge of the book “What’s the T.” Yet former Fine Gael Minister Charlie Flanagan has stated that he personally spoke to her in 2023 and...

kenoflynnTD's profile picture

Ken O’Flynn TD

5,596 subscribers

19,922 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I Asked Dr. Chang This Question. He Had No Answer. Yesterday I asked Dr. Chang a simple question: Was he aware that a US federal court in Massachusetts has already ruled that these TCN arrangements are unlawful? And that the US government is now appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court? Silence. No answer. Jamaicans deserve clarity on deals that affect our sovereignty, our security, and our reputation. If the US courts have questions about legality, why doesn’t the government? We cannot outsource Jamaica’s decision-making. We cannot gamble with agreements the courts are calling into question. The people deserve answers, not avoidance. #TCN #Accountability #Transparency #GoodGovernance
1:21

I Asked Dr. Chang This Question. He Had No Answer. Yesterday I asked Dr. Chang a simple question: Was he aware that a US federal court in Massachusetts has already ruled that these TCN arrangements are unlawful? And that the US government is now appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court? Silence. No answer. Jamaicans deserve clarity on deals that affect our sovereignty, our security, and our reputation. If the US courts have questions about legality, why doesn’t the government? We cannot outsource Jamaica’s decision-making. We cannot gamble with agreements the courts are calling into question. The people deserve answers, not avoidance. #TCN #Accountability #Transparency #GoodGovernance

Mark J. Golding

14,651 views • 1 month ago

I asked a Labour Minister what the cost to the British taxpayer is of housing migrants in HMOs. Once again the Government refuses to answer. Probably because they don’t know. This evasion of democratic accountability cannot continue. I will be stepping up pressure on the Prime Minister directly over the summer to answer this question and will publish all correspondence here.
0:46

I asked a Labour Minister what the cost to the British taxpayer is of housing migrants in HMOs. Once again the Government refuses to answer. Probably because they don’t know. This evasion of democratic accountability cannot continue. I will be stepping up pressure on the Prime Minister directly over the summer to answer this question and will publish all correspondence here.

Sarah Pochin MP

128,666 views • 1 year ago

Speaking in the Urgent Question raised on the status of the negotiations and budget surrounding the Chagos Islands. When the Minister says he has appeared at the Dispatch Box many times with this information, he knows that it has had nothing to do with giving us information—it means he was dragged here. The question I want to ask—the No. 1 question, which was not covered in the detail he set out today—is how much will taxpayers pay for this settlement, and out of which budget will it come? I asked the Minister to guarantee that at no stage will it come from the defence budget increase.
1:07

Speaking in the Urgent Question raised on the status of the negotiations and budget surrounding the Chagos Islands. When the Minister says he has appeared at the Dispatch Box many times with this information, he knows that it has had nothing to do with giving us information—it means he was dragged here. The question I want to ask—the No. 1 question, which was not covered in the detail he set out today—is how much will taxpayers pay for this settlement, and out of which budget will it come? I asked the Minister to guarantee that at no stage will it come from the defence budget increase.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

15,845 views • 1 year ago

🚨 “HE WILL NOT DEFEND BRITAIN OR THE BRITISH” Peter Bleksley has just said what millions already know: “Look at Starmer. He ducks the question. He absolutely ducks the question… He will not speak for Britain.” In a moment of brutal clarity, Bleksley laid out the truth: “He is such a coward of such monumental proportions that he will not stand up for Britain and the British.” And that is why: Crowds chant his name with contempt Bridges are painted with slogans And no Prime Minister in modern memory has fallen so fast in public esteem Bleksley didn’t talk about policy—he spoke about loyalty. About the basic expectation that a Prime Minister should defend this nation rather than appease everyone else. “He wants to appease everybody else… and he is leading this country down.” That is the charge. Not disagreement. Not debate. But abandonment. “He will not defend Britain or the British.” And that is the verdict millions now share.
0:52

🚨 “HE WILL NOT DEFEND BRITAIN OR THE BRITISH” Peter Bleksley has just said what millions already know: “Look at Starmer. He ducks the question. He absolutely ducks the question… He will not speak for Britain.” In a moment of brutal clarity, Bleksley laid out the truth: “He is such a coward of such monumental proportions that he will not stand up for Britain and the British.” And that is why: Crowds chant his name with contempt Bridges are painted with slogans And no Prime Minister in modern memory has fallen so fast in public esteem Bleksley didn’t talk about policy—he spoke about loyalty. About the basic expectation that a Prime Minister should defend this nation rather than appease everyone else. “He wants to appease everybody else… and he is leading this country down.” That is the charge. Not disagreement. Not debate. But abandonment. “He will not defend Britain or the British.” And that is the verdict millions now share.

Jim Ferguson

172,682 views • 7 months ago

Below is the statement by Halima Ismail, the former electoral commissioner of Somalia, following her departure from the Heritage conference today. “Yes, it's true that I did leave the conference when the prime minister took the stage. My instincts wouldn’t allow me to listen to someone in a position of prime minister who had not only threatened my life but had also stated, "I will shoot you in the head if you come to Kismayo." How could I sit there, applaud, and wait for someone who has made such a statement? My heart simply cannot accept that. I am not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome; I am a Somali woman dedicated to the interests of my fellow Somalis. Here is a man—confident and proud—who feels no hesitation in declaring that he would kill me, yet stands before me expecting my attention. That does not sit well with me, and he is unworthy of being the prime minister. [Interruptions by the journalists]: Commissioner, did he apologise to you about that? No, I have not received any satisfactory apology. “
1:23

Below is the statement by Halima Ismail, the former electoral commissioner of Somalia, following her departure from the Heritage conference today. “Yes, it's true that I did leave the conference when the prime minister took the stage. My instincts wouldn’t allow me to listen to someone in a position of prime minister who had not only threatened my life but had also stated, "I will shoot you in the head if you come to Kismayo." How could I sit there, applaud, and wait for someone who has made such a statement? My heart simply cannot accept that. I am not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome; I am a Somali woman dedicated to the interests of my fellow Somalis. Here is a man—confident and proud—who feels no hesitation in declaring that he would kill me, yet stands before me expecting my attention. That does not sit well with me, and he is unworthy of being the prime minister. [Interruptions by the journalists]: Commissioner, did he apologise to you about that? No, I have not received any satisfactory apology. “

Abdi Garad, PhD

14,785 views • 6 months ago

I want to ask three questions first, which will make it very clear that the BJP is directing and using the Election Commission to damage India's democracy. ❓ Why is it that the CJI was removed from the selection panel of the Election Commissioner? What motivation could there be to remove the CJI? Do we not believe in the CJI? Of course, we believe in the CJI. Why is he not in that room? I sit in that room. It is a so-called democratic decision. On one side, PM Narendra Modi and HM Amit Shah. On the other side, the leader of the opposition. I have no voice in that room. What they decide is what happens. So, why are the Prime Minister and Amit Shah so keen on choosing exactly who the Election Commissioner is going to be? ❓ This is a devastating one. No Prime Minister has done this in the history of India. In December 2023, this government changed the law. They changed the law to make sure that no Election Commissioner could be punished for any action they take while they are Election Commissioners. Why would the Prime Minister and Home Minister give this gift of immunity to the Election Commissioner? Why would they need to give this tremendous gift that no prime minister has ever given before to the election commissioner? ❓ Why was the law with regard to CCTVs and the data that they contain changed? Why was a law put in place that allows the Election Commission to destroy CCTV footage 45 days after the election? What is the need? The answer given is that it is a question of data. But it is not a question of data. It is a question of stealing the election. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha
2:46

I want to ask three questions first, which will make it very clear that the BJP is directing and using the Election Commission to damage India's democracy. ❓ Why is it that the CJI was removed from the selection panel of the Election Commissioner? What motivation could there be to remove the CJI? Do we not believe in the CJI? Of course, we believe in the CJI. Why is he not in that room? I sit in that room. It is a so-called democratic decision. On one side, PM Narendra Modi and HM Amit Shah. On the other side, the leader of the opposition. I have no voice in that room. What they decide is what happens. So, why are the Prime Minister and Amit Shah so keen on choosing exactly who the Election Commissioner is going to be? ❓ This is a devastating one. No Prime Minister has done this in the history of India. In December 2023, this government changed the law. They changed the law to make sure that no Election Commissioner could be punished for any action they take while they are Election Commissioners. Why would the Prime Minister and Home Minister give this gift of immunity to the Election Commissioner? Why would they need to give this tremendous gift that no prime minister has ever given before to the election commissioner? ❓ Why was the law with regard to CCTVs and the data that they contain changed? Why was a law put in place that allows the Election Commission to destroy CCTV footage 45 days after the election? What is the need? The answer given is that it is a question of data. But it is not a question of data. It is a question of stealing the election. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha

Congress

45,738 views • 7 months ago

BREAKING: Candace Owens just revealed that she spoke to Kamala Harris' Caribbean uncle, and he told her that he's a conservative and also that he has no idea who the woman Kamala claims as her paternal grandmother is THIS IS A NATIONAL BOMBSHELL "I asked him directly if he knew the Mr. Iris that Donald Harris [Kamala's father] is referring to in his piece. And he said, 'I can't answer that. I don't know that name.'" Candace and her team have unearthed one of the most damaging scandals in recent political history. There are way too many holes in Kamala's story.
3:12

BREAKING: Candace Owens just revealed that she spoke to Kamala Harris' Caribbean uncle, and he told her that he's a conservative and also that he has no idea who the woman Kamala claims as her paternal grandmother is THIS IS A NATIONAL BOMBSHELL "I asked him directly if he knew the Mr. Iris that Donald Harris [Kamala's father] is referring to in his piece. And he said, 'I can't answer that. I don't know that name.'" Candace and her team have unearthed one of the most damaging scandals in recent political history. There are way too many holes in Kamala's story.

George

4,119,427 views • 1 year ago

#WATCH | Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "The story started a few days ago when the issue of the Naravane book came, and the government didn't want me to discuss that at all. So they stalled the House. They didn't let me speak. That happened three or four times. First, they said that I cannot quote a book. Then I said I'm not quoting a book, I'm quoting a magazine. Then they said you cannot quote a magazine. Then I said I'll speak about it. Then they didn't want me to speak about it. The Defence Minister said, falsely, that the book has not been published. In fact, the book has been published and we've got a copy of it also. So that is one big issue. Not allowing the LoP and the entire opposition to speak in the president's address. The second issue is that one of their members spoke, quoting books, multiple books, spoke very vile stuff, and nothing was said. We don't like the fact that they can say whatever they want, whenever they want, and the opposition cannot. The third issue is the suspension of our members. And the final issue, which we are very disturbed about, is this idea that has been floated that members were going to threaten the Prime Minister. There's no question of that. The fact is very clear. The Prime Minister was scared to come to the House, not because of the members, but because of what I was saying. He's still scared because he cannot face the truth. There's no question of our members attacking the Prime Minister. He should have the courage to come. I also mentioned that if somebody said that he's going to attack the Prime Minister, then please do an FIR at once. Arrest that person. Why are you not doing that? So that's basically what's happened..."
3:03

#WATCH | Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "The story started a few days ago when the issue of the Naravane book came, and the government didn't want me to discuss that at all. So they stalled the House. They didn't let me speak. That happened three or four times. First, they said that I cannot quote a book. Then I said I'm not quoting a book, I'm quoting a magazine. Then they said you cannot quote a magazine. Then I said I'll speak about it. Then they didn't want me to speak about it. The Defence Minister said, falsely, that the book has not been published. In fact, the book has been published and we've got a copy of it also. So that is one big issue. Not allowing the LoP and the entire opposition to speak in the president's address. The second issue is that one of their members spoke, quoting books, multiple books, spoke very vile stuff, and nothing was said. We don't like the fact that they can say whatever they want, whenever they want, and the opposition cannot. The third issue is the suspension of our members. And the final issue, which we are very disturbed about, is this idea that has been floated that members were going to threaten the Prime Minister. There's no question of that. The fact is very clear. The Prime Minister was scared to come to the House, not because of the members, but because of what I was saying. He's still scared because he cannot face the truth. There's no question of our members attacking the Prime Minister. He should have the courage to come. I also mentioned that if somebody said that he's going to attack the Prime Minister, then please do an FIR at once. Arrest that person. Why are you not doing that? So that's basically what's happened..."

ANI

36,449 views • 5 months ago

Chris Mason, "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak chose to deliver a political punchline about trans people in the presence of Brianna's mother" Jeremy Hunt, "No, you are taking his comments out of content.. He made it clear the respect he has for Brianna Ghey's mother" CM, "The PM has used a line about trans people as a political punchline, in the presence of a grieving mother" JH, "That is not what happened and you know that" CM, "She was in the chamber, in Parliament, and the Prime Minister has used that line" JH, "Chris, that is not what happened" CM, "Should the Prime Minister apologise?" JH, "I've answered that question" CM, "So he's not going to?" JH, "I've answered that question"
0:49

Chris Mason, "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak chose to deliver a political punchline about trans people in the presence of Brianna's mother" Jeremy Hunt, "No, you are taking his comments out of content.. He made it clear the respect he has for Brianna Ghey's mother" CM, "The PM has used a line about trans people as a political punchline, in the presence of a grieving mother" JH, "That is not what happened and you know that" CM, "She was in the chamber, in Parliament, and the Prime Minister has used that line" JH, "Chris, that is not what happened" CM, "Should the Prime Minister apologise?" JH, "I've answered that question" CM, "So he's not going to?" JH, "I've answered that question"

Farrukh

548,400 views • 2 years ago

Oga Bash, the issue here is not about having an opinion, it is about telling the truth. When he and many northerners supported Osama back then, and later changed their stance after understanding what is terrorism during Boko Haram insurgency, that was a shift in opinion driven by exposure, growth, and new knowledge. That is understandable. But what we have here is something different. In a 2006 video, Malam clearly said he had never joined politics and that he was not the kind of Sheikh who meddles in politics. If in 2026 he says he now wants to join politics, that too is understandable. The problem is that he did not say that. He claimed he has been in politics since 2001. That is not a change of opinion, that is a direct contradiction. So the question here is, did the Sheikh lie in 2006 or is he lying now in 2026? It has to be one of the two or both but certainly there is a lie!
1:16

Oga Bash, the issue here is not about having an opinion, it is about telling the truth. When he and many northerners supported Osama back then, and later changed their stance after understanding what is terrorism during Boko Haram insurgency, that was a shift in opinion driven by exposure, growth, and new knowledge. That is understandable. But what we have here is something different. In a 2006 video, Malam clearly said he had never joined politics and that he was not the kind of Sheikh who meddles in politics. If in 2026 he says he now wants to join politics, that too is understandable. The problem is that he did not say that. He claimed he has been in politics since 2001. That is not a change of opinion, that is a direct contradiction. So the question here is, did the Sheikh lie in 2006 or is he lying now in 2026? It has to be one of the two or both but certainly there is a lie!

Mal. Imran U. Wakili (PULLO) 👑 #iSTANDWITHELRUFAI

76,192 views • 5 months ago

Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez owes the public an apology. Or he should resign. At a press conference about an active shooter, reporters asked one simple question: What did the suspect yell before opening fire? Multiple witnesses reported the suspect shouted “Allahu Akbar and the victim was one of the only outspoken Christian conservatives on campus. The chief REFUSED to answer. Repeatedly. That is not protecting an investigation. That is actively impeding one. He ran interference for the jihadi. Why? Police do not get to withhold identifying information due to their woke leanings. They do not get to prioritize optics over public safety. They do not get to treat the truth like a PR liability. This was a dereliction of duty, in real time. The choice is simple. Apologize publicly for evading the public. Explain exactly why that information was withheld. Or step aside. Because when a police chief cannot answer a yes or no question that directly affects public safety, he is no longer protecting the public. He is protecting the narrative. And that is not his job. If you agree, say it in the comments. Do NOT let this get buried. Oscar cannot hide from the truth forever.
1:41

Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez owes the public an apology. Or he should resign. At a press conference about an active shooter, reporters asked one simple question: What did the suspect yell before opening fire? Multiple witnesses reported the suspect shouted “Allahu Akbar and the victim was one of the only outspoken Christian conservatives on campus. The chief REFUSED to answer. Repeatedly. That is not protecting an investigation. That is actively impeding one. He ran interference for the jihadi. Why? Police do not get to withhold identifying information due to their woke leanings. They do not get to prioritize optics over public safety. They do not get to treat the truth like a PR liability. This was a dereliction of duty, in real time. The choice is simple. Apologize publicly for evading the public. Explain exactly why that information was withheld. Or step aside. Because when a police chief cannot answer a yes or no question that directly affects public safety, he is no longer protecting the public. He is protecting the narrative. And that is not his job. If you agree, say it in the comments. Do NOT let this get buried. Oscar cannot hide from the truth forever.

Jews Fight Back 🇺🇸🇮🇱

79,598 views • 7 months ago

"Clearly the Prime Minister knows whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson directly or not. And it seems to me that refusing to clarify that should lead to Lindsay Hoyle saying, "The Prime Minister is treating Parliament with contempt I have to tell the Prime Minister that he must give an answer to this question."" Mark Littlewood on GB News earlier this evening. Sign-up for FREE to receive our weekly newsletter:
0:48

"Clearly the Prime Minister knows whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson directly or not. And it seems to me that refusing to clarify that should lead to Lindsay Hoyle saying, "The Prime Minister is treating Parliament with contempt I have to tell the Prime Minister that he must give an answer to this question."" Mark Littlewood on GB News earlier this evening. Sign-up for FREE to receive our weekly newsletter:

PopCon

14,172 views • 4 months ago

BREAKING: ARCHBISHOP EAMON MARTIN URGED TO SPEAK OUT ON HATE CRIME BILL (NEW GENDER DEFINITION) Archbishop Eamon Martin is the Primate of All Ireland and President of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference. Martina Burke and Josiah Burke visited Armagh on Saturday to raise the Hate Crime Bill with the Archbishop. The Bill passed the Seanad (Senate) last week and will go before Dáil Éireann for a final vote this Wednesday. The Bill would establish a radical new definition of gender, stating that "gender...includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female". We asked Archbishop Martin if he would use his position of power and influence to speak out on this issue. Whilst the Archbishop stated that he had spoken in the past on this issue, he acknowledged that he had not spoken on the Hate Crime Bill in recent days. There was no clarity forthcoming from him on whether he would clearly address the issue of this Bill at this critical moment. Whilst he said that there were lay people who were addressing this issue, we would question why the Archbishop himself is not speaking out. In an effort to dismiss public concerns, Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has repeatedly stated that the redefinition of gender is for the Hate Crime Bill only and will not affect any other legislation. McEntee repeated this during the Seanad sitting last Wednesday. These statements from Helen McEntee are absolute lies. The true intention of the Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice is to substitute the new definition of gender into every piece of legislation on the statute books that involves gender. This was made clear during the Seanad Debate on Wednesday last week when a private Fine Gael email from Helen McEntee to Deputy Richard Bruton was read out by Senator Ronan Mullen. That email was in relation to the new definition of gender in the Hate Crime Bill. The email stated that a review of the Equal Status Act and the Employment Equality Act is taking place and that when that review is finished, the definitions of protected characteristics in the Hate Crime Bill will be reconsidered to ensure consistency in definitions across the Statute Book. In public and to the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister is saying that the new definition of gender is for the Hate Crime Bill only. In private and to her Fine Gael colleagues, she is saying that all definitions of gender across the Statute Book will be rewritten. Such deliberate deceit from one in such a position of responsibility and authority is reprehensible. It calls for the Minister's resignation. It is unbelievable that in response to this deceit, Senator Ronan Mullen was at pains to say that come what may, "I have the greatest of respect and goodwill towards you and your family…and that will continue." We thank God for the recent closure of the Tavistock gender clinic, to which hundreds of vulnerable Irish children had been referred. So-called ‘professionals’ placed these children, many of whom suffered from mental problems, on a pathway to puberty blockers, mutilation and, sadly for many, suicide. This Hate Crime Bill with its new definition of gender would give legitimacy to this poisonous ideology which preys on the most vulnerable and allows for no dissent. This is the eleventh hour. An incredibly dangerous Bill is coming before the Dáil next Wednesday. We are calling on Archbishop Eamon Martin to speak out.
11:49

BREAKING: ARCHBISHOP EAMON MARTIN URGED TO SPEAK OUT ON HATE CRIME BILL (NEW GENDER DEFINITION) Archbishop Eamon Martin is the Primate of All Ireland and President of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference. Martina Burke and Josiah Burke visited Armagh on Saturday to raise the Hate Crime Bill with the Archbishop. The Bill passed the Seanad (Senate) last week and will go before Dáil Éireann for a final vote this Wednesday. The Bill would establish a radical new definition of gender, stating that "gender...includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female". We asked Archbishop Martin if he would use his position of power and influence to speak out on this issue. Whilst the Archbishop stated that he had spoken in the past on this issue, he acknowledged that he had not spoken on the Hate Crime Bill in recent days. There was no clarity forthcoming from him on whether he would clearly address the issue of this Bill at this critical moment. Whilst he said that there were lay people who were addressing this issue, we would question why the Archbishop himself is not speaking out. In an effort to dismiss public concerns, Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has repeatedly stated that the redefinition of gender is for the Hate Crime Bill only and will not affect any other legislation. McEntee repeated this during the Seanad sitting last Wednesday. These statements from Helen McEntee are absolute lies. The true intention of the Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice is to substitute the new definition of gender into every piece of legislation on the statute books that involves gender. This was made clear during the Seanad Debate on Wednesday last week when a private Fine Gael email from Helen McEntee to Deputy Richard Bruton was read out by Senator Ronan Mullen. That email was in relation to the new definition of gender in the Hate Crime Bill. The email stated that a review of the Equal Status Act and the Employment Equality Act is taking place and that when that review is finished, the definitions of protected characteristics in the Hate Crime Bill will be reconsidered to ensure consistency in definitions across the Statute Book. In public and to the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister is saying that the new definition of gender is for the Hate Crime Bill only. In private and to her Fine Gael colleagues, she is saying that all definitions of gender across the Statute Book will be rewritten. Such deliberate deceit from one in such a position of responsibility and authority is reprehensible. It calls for the Minister's resignation. It is unbelievable that in response to this deceit, Senator Ronan Mullen was at pains to say that come what may, "I have the greatest of respect and goodwill towards you and your family…and that will continue." We thank God for the recent closure of the Tavistock gender clinic, to which hundreds of vulnerable Irish children had been referred. So-called ‘professionals’ placed these children, many of whom suffered from mental problems, on a pathway to puberty blockers, mutilation and, sadly for many, suicide. This Hate Crime Bill with its new definition of gender would give legitimacy to this poisonous ideology which preys on the most vulnerable and allows for no dissent. This is the eleventh hour. An incredibly dangerous Bill is coming before the Dáil next Wednesday. We are calling on Archbishop Eamon Martin to speak out.

Enoch Burke

143,439 views • 1 year ago

[WATCH] MY AVAILABILITY FOR LEADERSHIP. The issue of myself contesting or not contesting will be discussed in 2027. The matter of standing for a leadership position is closed till next year. If I was to comment on whether I’m standing or not standing I would be fuelling a debate that the organisation has reserved for next year. In 2027 after we’ve won the local government elections I will have an answer. When delegates sing that the SG has content it is an acknowledgement of that has been done and doesn’t go to my head. It is an appreciation of their Secretary General.
2:25

[WATCH] MY AVAILABILITY FOR LEADERSHIP. The issue of myself contesting or not contesting will be discussed in 2027. The matter of standing for a leadership position is closed till next year. If I was to comment on whether I’m standing or not standing I would be fuelling a debate that the organisation has reserved for next year. In 2027 after we’ve won the local government elections I will have an answer. When delegates sing that the SG has content it is an acknowledgement of that has been done and doesn’t go to my head. It is an appreciation of their Secretary General.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

37,955 views • 6 months ago

#WATCH | When asked about the absence of Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi from the oath-taking ceremony of VP Radhakrishnan, Congress leader Pawan Khera says, "The issue is not whether Mr Gandhi was there or not. The issue is that Mr Dhankhar (Former Vice President) was there; finally, he has been allowed to leave his house and come out. When will he be allowed to speak? That is our question"
0:29

#WATCH | When asked about the absence of Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi from the oath-taking ceremony of VP Radhakrishnan, Congress leader Pawan Khera says, "The issue is not whether Mr Gandhi was there or not. The issue is that Mr Dhankhar (Former Vice President) was there; finally, he has been allowed to leave his house and come out. When will he be allowed to speak? That is our question"

ANI

123,961 views • 10 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi's statement inside the Parliament, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "I think there was an overreaction by the government side because as far as I understood, what Rahul ji wished to raise was a matter that is already in the public domain. He was basing himself on a published article in the Caravan magazine, which quotes a memoir by General Naravane that is still unpublished. So the government, instead of objecting to the fact that the book has not been published, should have let him speak because, in any case, the magazine is publicly available. Anyone can read the same article that Rahulji has read. It seems to me that the overreaction of the government has needlessly paralysed the house this afternoon. And to my mind, frankly, it would have been healthy for parliament to have allowed the discussion to proceed, which is what parliament is for... The best answer, if the facts are wrong, is to correct the facts, not to prevent the facts from being aired..."
3:11

#WATCH | Delhi: On Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi's statement inside the Parliament, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "I think there was an overreaction by the government side because as far as I understood, what Rahul ji wished to raise was a matter that is already in the public domain. He was basing himself on a published article in the Caravan magazine, which quotes a memoir by General Naravane that is still unpublished. So the government, instead of objecting to the fact that the book has not been published, should have let him speak because, in any case, the magazine is publicly available. Anyone can read the same article that Rahulji has read. It seems to me that the overreaction of the government has needlessly paralysed the house this afternoon. And to my mind, frankly, it would have been healthy for parliament to have allowed the discussion to proceed, which is what parliament is for... The best answer, if the facts are wrong, is to correct the facts, not to prevent the facts from being aired..."

ANI

53,957 views • 5 months ago

This video has been spread with the wrong translation, so here is the correct translation for those who would like to know (by MohammadAfghan); “In this matter, the short answer is this: Just as higher education for women is suspended until further notice, this question is also suspended until further notice. Because that question is also such that whoever asks it and wants to receive an answer that satisfies their desire... that is not possible for now.” He does not say that female education has been banned indefinitely, he says higher education for women is suspended until further notice, which has been the official declaration for some time now.
0:24

This video has been spread with the wrong translation, so here is the correct translation for those who would like to know (by MohammadAfghan); “In this matter, the short answer is this: Just as higher education for women is suspended until further notice, this question is also suspended until further notice. Because that question is also such that whoever asks it and wants to receive an answer that satisfies their desire... that is not possible for now.” He does not say that female education has been banned indefinitely, he says higher education for women is suspended until further notice, which has been the official declaration for some time now.

The Sure Path

47,713 views • 6 months ago

During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence. I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background. I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing "drier and warmer" summers — where is the specific data to back that up? Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a "conspiracy" and claimed I simply "refuse to believe" the experts. If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it? I won't be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve. We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.
3:00

During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence. I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background. I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing "drier and warmer" summers — where is the specific data to back that up? Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a "conspiracy" and claimed I simply "refuse to believe" the experts. If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it? I won't be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve. We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

20,196 views • 5 months ago

It is now becoming abundantly clear that Dr. Mike Varshavski will not answer the simple question as to whether or not he watched the Lex Friedman podcast with RFK Jr. In law, there is the rule that a lawyer should never never ask a question to which they do not know the answer. The exception to that rule is when the answer is damning either way. The reason why Dr. Mike will not answer the question is because he is dammed either way. He either *did not* watch the podcast, in which case he repeats out-of-context propaganda because he didn’t take the time to do the required work. Or he *did* watch the podcast, and deliberately repeated out-of-context propaganda because he knows he can mislead his audience. Attached is what Dr. Mike put in his video, versus what RFK Jr. actually said on Lex podcast. Everyone understood what RFK was saying before Lex interrupted him (and what he said after): That there is always a risk-benefit analysis to be done on every vaccine. Mike is always welcome to come on my channel to discuss this viva voce. Pun intended.
1:08

It is now becoming abundantly clear that Dr. Mike Varshavski will not answer the simple question as to whether or not he watched the Lex Friedman podcast with RFK Jr. In law, there is the rule that a lawyer should never never ask a question to which they do not know the answer. The exception to that rule is when the answer is damning either way. The reason why Dr. Mike will not answer the question is because he is dammed either way. He either *did not* watch the podcast, in which case he repeats out-of-context propaganda because he didn’t take the time to do the required work. Or he *did* watch the podcast, and deliberately repeated out-of-context propaganda because he knows he can mislead his audience. Attached is what Dr. Mike put in his video, versus what RFK Jr. actually said on Lex podcast. Everyone understood what RFK was saying before Lex interrupted him (and what he said after): That there is always a risk-benefit analysis to be done on every vaccine. Mike is always welcome to come on my channel to discuss this viva voce. Pun intended.

Viva Frei

66,147 views • 11 months ago