Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

من فنون الرد حين سأل ترامب إذا الاستثمارات الترليونية معهودة في الإمارات رد الشيخ خالد بن محمد: نحن لسنا بحجم الولايات المتحدة سيدي الرئيس، لكننا نحقق ما يتجاوز المتوقع We are not as big as the united states mr president.. but we punch above our weight🥊

544,082 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

I will sign a security pact between Lebanon and the United States, because the United States is the only real influence on Israel. I want to pursue peace. Today, the United States has an excellent relationship with Syria and President Sharaa, and it also maintains an excellent relationship with Israel. If I am positioned between these two countries, then, as far as I am concerned, it is in my interest for the United States to accept me as a member of its regional security coalition. In that case, the whole region could live more peacefully and securely. This would be my first request. Once we achieve that, the government must do its own work in terms of reforms—supporting legislation and implementing necessary changes. With a security pact in place, we can then attract investment and fully capitalize on our relationship with the United States. الولايات المتحدة الاميركية هي الجهة الوحيدة القادرة على التأثير الحقيقي على إسرائيل. أريد أن أسير نحو السلام. اليوم، تتمتع الولايات المتحدة بعلاقة ممتازة مع سوريا ومع الرئيس الشرع، كما أنها تحافظ على علاقة ممتازة مع إسرائيل. إذا كنتُ موجودًا بين هاتين الدولتين، فمن وجهة نظري، من مصلحتي أن تقبلني الولايات المتحدة كعضو في تحالفها الأمني الإقليمي. عندها يمكن للمنطقة بأكملها أن تعيش بسلام وأمن أكبر. هذا سيكون طلبي الأول. وبعد تحقيق ذلك، يجب على الحكومة أن تقوم بعملها من حيث الإصلاحات—عبر دعم التشريعات وتنفيذ التغييرات اللازمة. ومع وجود اتفاق أمني، يمكننا حينها جذب الاستثمارات والاستفادة الكاملة من علاقتنا مع الولايات المتحدة. Brian Katulis Middle East Institute

Fouad Makhzoumi

121,945 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Mark Carney's acceptable speech - wow - now that's leadership 👏 "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration is over" "The system of global trade anchored by the United States, a system that Canada has relied on since WII, a system while not perfect has helped deliver prosperity for our country decades, is over" "But it's also our new reality" "We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons" "We have to look out for ourselves" "And above all, we have to take care for each other" "When I sit down to speak with President Trump it will be to sit down and discuss the future relationship between two sovereign nations" "And it will be with our full knowledge that we have many many other options than the United States to build prosperity for all Canadians" "We will chart a new path forward, because this is Canada and we decide what happens here" "We will need to think big and act bigger" "We will need to do things previously thought impossible at speeds we haven't seen in generations" "We can give ourselves far more than the Americans take away" "The coming days and months will be challenging and they will call for some sacrifices. But we will share those sacrifices by supporting our workers and our businesses" "We aren't always perfect but we always strive to be good" "We do things because they are right, not because they're easy" "We see kindness as a virtue, not as a weakness" "We know that our strength lies in our resolve to work together as a country, on our unity" "We become just by doing just acts, brave by doing brave acts" "When we are kind, kindness grows" "When we seek unity, unity grows" "When we are Canadian, Canada grows"

Farrukh

221,686 просмотров • 1 год назад

“Mr. putin would realise that he is facing big, big problems.” - Mikhail Kasyanov, former Russian Prime Minister. Mikhail Kasyanov: “We shouldn’t expect in the foreseeable future any social unrest which would change the regime. No, this scenario doesn’t exist for upcoming for foreseeable future. But what I see just having this counting all these aspects that by the end of the year if the west takes consistent position, principal position and will recognise finally, not only European leaders but also US administration, that who is aggressor and who is the victim. That’s not two guys just who hate each other and that’s why they fight each other and then we should press both of them to sit down and negotiate. Interviewer: But we haven’t heard that. We haven’t heard that from the United States. Mikhail Kasyanov: We haven’t, we haven’t heard but Marco Rubio already said we just on the Ukrainian side. We’re not mediator because we provide just our equipment. Interviewer: Do we need to hear that? Mikhail Kasyanov: That’s why we are in this way. We need US administration to make a strong statement on that. We need to hear from the President United States. Interviewer: Exactly. They’re the aggressor, they’re the victim. Do you think we’ll ever hear it? Mikhail Kasyanov: Absolutely. Absolutely. That’s coming to this and a discussion in Ankara that’s already close to this. Interviewer: You’re seeing that shift. Mikhail Kasyanov: That’s shifting, that’s already taking place. That is one aspect, all others as well. And that’s why Mr. putin would realise that he is facing big, big problems and there is no hope that President Trump would help him. There is no hope that the economy will start grow or at least will stand at this stage and there is no hope that he can draw just more people to the battlefield. It means he will be willing to negotiate.” (CNN)

Yasmina

53,884 просмотров • 23 дней назад

With all due respect to Naim Qassem, he should clean up his own mess before threatening everyone else. Second, they are already operating outside the state. Some of the conditions I have raised—and I believe President Trump also raised in the Oval Office when we were discussing Lebanon—are that Qard al-Hasan and similar financial services should be completely paralyzed. They should be stopped and dismantled. Dismantling Hezbollah’s weapons alone will not be enough. We need to ensure this as well. This issue was also addressed in Naim Qassem’s speech when he attacked the government. The United States is currently leading a coalition against ISIS and other extremist movements. Similarly, we need to ensure a coordinated effort to dismantle Hezbollah politically and financially. Otherwise, Iran will prevail, Hezbollah will be emboldened, and we cannot afford that. مع كامل الاحترام لنعيم قاسم، عليه أن يُصلح فوضاه أولاً قبل أن يُهدد الآخرين. حزب الله يعمل خارج إطار الدولة. بعض الشروط التي طرحتها—وأعتقد أن الرئيس دونالد ترامب طرحها أيضاً في المكتب البيضاوي—هي أن يتم شلّ عمل “القرض الحسن” والخدمات المالية المماثلة بشكل كامل. يجب وقفها وتفكيكها. تفكيك سلاح حزب الله وحده لن يكون كافياً. نحن بحاجة أيضاً إلى ضمان ذلك. وقد تم التطرق إلى هذا الأمر أيضاً في خطاب نعيم قاسم عندما هاجم الحكومة. الولايات المتحدة تقود حالياً تحالفاً ضد تنظيم داعش وحركات متطرفة أخرى. وبالمثل، نحن بحاجة إلى ضمان جهد منسّق لتفكيك حزب الله سياسياً ومالياً. وإلا ستنتصر إيران، وسيُصبح حزب الله أكثر جرأة، ولا يمكننا تحمّل ذلك. Brian Katulis Middle East Institute

Fouad Makhzoumi

98,794 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🎥🧵 في هذا الخيط سأشارك مقاطع توثّق الانتهاكات التي ارتكبتها مليشيا الدعم السريع (الجنجويد) المدعومة من الإمارات في السودان، وفي الفاشر بشكل خاص. ✨ دوافع هذا الخيط: 📌 هذه المقاطع مترجمة إلى الإنجليزية، حتى تُستخدم في التوثيق والمناصرة أمام الرأي العام وصنّاع القرار. 📌 هناك محاولات لتصوير ما حدث في الفاشر كتصرفات فردية، وليست جرائم ممنهجة ترتكبها مليشيا منظمة ومدعومة. 📌 تحاول حملات التضليل استخدام صور ومقاطع مزيّفة للترويج لفكرة أن شيئاً لم يحدث في الفاشر، متجاهلةً الأدلة القاطعة التي وثّقتها جامعة ييل عبر صور الأقمار الصناعية. 📌 أي مقاطع إضافية موثوقة سيتم ترجمتها وإضافتها إلى هذا الخيط لاحقاً. 🔹 معظم هذه المقاطع مأخوذة من صفحة Sudanese Echo، يُرجى متابعتهم للمزيد من التوثيقات والمحتوى المترجم. 🔁 الرجاء اقتباس هذا المنشور وحفظه في العلامات المرجعية لمتابعة التحديثات. ⚠️ هذا خيط مستمر، يرجى القراءة وإعادة النشر والمشاركة بدلاً من الرد حتى يبقى واضحاً. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 🎥🧵 In this thread, I will share videos documenting violations committed by the UAE-backed Rapid Support Militia (Janjaweed) in Sudan, especially in El Fasher. ✨ Why this thread matters: 📌 These clips are translated into English so they can be used for documentation and advocacy with the international public and decision makers. 📌 There are ongoing attempts to frame what happened in El Fasher as isolated acts by individuals, rather than systematic crimes by an organized, supported militia. 📌Disinformation campaigns use fake visuals to claim nothing happened in El Fasher, ignoring the conclusive satellite imagery verified by Yale University. (not the fake version that was circulated) 📌 Any additional verified videos will be translated and added to this thread. 🔹 Most of these videos are taken from Sudanese Echo — please follow the account for more documented and translated content. 🔁 Please quote this post and bookmark it to follow future updates. ⚠️ This is a continuous thread, please read, repost, and share rather than reply so it stays clear. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ فيديو يكشف أوامر مليشيا الدعم السريع (الجنجويد) المدعومة من الإمارات: عبد الرحيم دقلو يأمر جنوده بقتل الجميع "لا أريد أسيراً حياً في الفاشر" في الأيام الأخيرة، ظهرت مئات المقاطع التي توثّق الفظائع التي ارتكبتها مليشيا الدعم السريع (الجنجويد) المدعومة من الإمارات بعد دخولها مدينة الفاشر. وتشير التقديرات إلى مقتل آلاف المدنيين، حتى أن صور الأقمار الصناعية أظهرت بقع دماء داكنة يمكن رؤيتها من الفضاء. عدة مقاطع أظهرت قائداً في المليشيا يُعرف باسم أبو لولو وهو ينفّذ إعدامات ميدانية بحق العشرات من المدنيين بدم بارد. وبعد تصاعد الغضب الدولي، حاولت المليشيا الإيحاء بأن أبا لولو تصرّف بمفرده، لكن عشرات المقاطع الأخرى أظهرت مئات من عناصر المليشيا وهم يرتكبون الجرائم ذاتها وأفظع منها، مما يؤكد أن ما جرى ليس تجاوزات فردية، بل نمط ممنهج من الإبادة. ظهر في الأيام الأخيرة مقطع جديد لـ عبد الرحيم حمدان دقلو، النائب لقائد مليشيا الدعم السريع وشقيق قائدها محمد حمدان دقلو (حميدتي)، وهو يخاطب جنوده قبل دخول الفاشر، موجهاً إليهم أمراً واضحاً بعدم أخذ أي أسير حي، أي بقتل كل من يعترض طريقهم. وفي مقطع آخر منفصل، يظهر جنود المليشيا وهم يردّدون كلماته حرفياً: "بعد 72 ساعة سندخل الفاشر، لا نريد أسيراً حياً." هذه المقاطع تترك الحقيقة عارية أمام الجميع: الجرائم في الفاشر لم تكن تصرّفات فردية ولا أخطاء عشوائية، بل أوامر صريحة من أعلى القيادات. فمليشيا الدعم السريع (الجنجويد) تعمل بعقلية الإبادة ذاتها التي وسمت جرائمها في دارفور مطلع الألفية. الفارق الوحيد هذه المرة أنها عادت بأسلحة ومعدّات وتمويل متطور قدّمته دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة، مما جعل جرائمها تتسع وتزداد بشاعة، لتشمل معظم مناطق السودان وتزرع الموت والرعب في كل مدينة وقرية. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recent Video Exposes UAE-Backed Rapid Support Militia Orders: Abdelrahim Dagalo Commands His Fighters to Kill Everyone, “No Prisoners Alive in El Fasher” In recent days, hundreds of videos have surfaced documenting the atrocities committed by the UAE-backed Rapid Support Militia (Janjaweed) after entering the city of El Fasher. Estimates indicate that thousands of civilians have been killed, with satellite images showing dark pools of blood visible even from space. Several videos showed a militia commander known as Abu Lulu carrying out field executions of dozens of civilians in cold blood. Following the international backlash, the militia attempted to portray Abu Lulu as a rogue element acting on his own. However, dozens of other videos have shown hundreds of militia members committing the same crimes and even worse, proving that these were not isolated acts but part of a systematic campaign of extermination. A recent video has also surfaced showing Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, the deputy commander of the Rapid Support Militia and brother of its leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), addressing his fighters before the assault on El Fasher. In the video, Dagalo clearly instructs his troops not to take any prisoners alive, effectively ordering them to kill everyone in their path. In another separate clip, fighters from the same militia can be heard echoing his words: "72 hours to El Fasher, no prisoners alive." These videos strip away any pretense or denial. The crimes in El Fasher were not random excesses or individual mistakes but direct orders from the top leadership. The Rapid Support Militia (Janjaweed) continues to operate with the same genocidal mindset that defined its atrocities in Darfur in the early 2000s. The only difference this time is that it returned with advanced weapons, equipment, and funding provided by the United Arab Emirates, making its crimes even more horrifying and widespread, engulfing nearly all parts of Sudan with death and terror.

Yousif

28,538 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

🚨THE UKRAINE -RUSSIAN WAR WAS PROVOKED NATO DID NOT PROMOTE PEACE, NATO PROMOTED WARS How did this start? Zbigniew Brzezinski in the United States said, "We can surround Russia. We can weaken Russia. We can make Russia fall into pieces." He literally wrote in 1997, he said, "Oh, there'll be a confederation of three weak states, a European Russia, Siberian Russia, Far East Russia." This, this was a senior advisor to the US. They decided 30 years ago, we're gonna surround Russia in the Black Sea, we're going to weaken Russia, we're going to put our military all around Russia. They broke the nuclear balance and nuclear arms control framework in 2002. This was the worst move of all. United States walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And the Russians said, "Oh. You, you wanna have a first strike? You'll attack us in a decapitation strike and then you'll use your anti-ballistic missile system to prevent deterrents." In 2002, the United States just walked out of the ABM Treaty and the Russians said, "Excuse me? What, what, what the hell are you doing? This is our balance." And it came in the context of NATO enlargement. It came in the context of the United States bombing Belgrade for 78 straight days in 1999 to break Serbia in two, but in Kosovo, that region broken apart from Serbia, to put the largest NATO military base in Southeastern Europe, "Camp Bondsteel", in that base. So, the Russians are saying, "Are you kidding? You bomb Belgrade, you expand NATO even though you promised not to do so, you walk out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the list goes on and on. You attack Iraq on completely phony pretenses, you launch a CIA operation to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, you send NATO to overthrow Gaddafi, late in, 2011, and you say NATO's gonna expand to Ukraine and to Georgia. You blame Russia for this? This was an America drunk with its power, saying we can do anything we want and with a plan, and the plan third-rate or fourth-rate or fifth-rate country or to break it was to turn Russia into a apart. On February 21st, 2014, three foreign ministers of the European Union negotiated with Mr. Yanukovych that he would stay in power and that there would be elections eight months later, and this was also agreed with President Putin. The next morning, a US-backed coup violently overthrew Yanukovych, and it took the United States a nanosecond to say, "We support the new government." Europe, because it's so filled with principles, "No, no, no. Yanukovych is president." No, of course it didn't say that. It said, "Whatever daddy said."So, daddy said that it's, now a new government brought in by a coup, and Europe suddenly couldn't even remember 24 hours that it negotiated an agreement with Yanukovych that he would stay in power. And they said, "No, no. He resigned." Oh, we don't think Russia should stay in Crimea anymore." It's been Russia's naval fleet since 1783. The coup is not a coincidence. The coup is to get Russia out of Sevastopol. That's the point. It was the reason why there was a Crimean War in 1853 when Britain and France said, "Get Russia out of the Black Sea." It was Brzezinski's idea in 1997. When Trump comes in in the first term, US pours in the military aid and builds up a million-person army, the largest in Europe actually. What happened when Russia invaded in February 24th, 2022? Within about a week, Zelenskyy said, "Okay, we can be neutral, we can be neutral." And the Ukrainians sent a note to the Russians, "Neutral. We, we don't need the NATO invasion. You stop fighting, we'll declare neutrality." I know in detail this story because I talked to the negotiators at length, and to the Turkish mediators, because a process started in Istanbul to have Ukraine and Russia sit down with each other. And on April 15th, they initialed a document which was almost complete. What happened? The United States and Britain walked in and told the Ukrainians, "No, you continue fighting." The European mainstream media blocks the most basic facts on all of this. This, war could have ended so many times it avoided entirely. Now Europe is in this unbelievable warmongering period led by the German chancellor, of all people and all countries, absolutely unpleasant, Merz, Macron, Starmer. In 2023, I had a conversation with President Macron. And I said, "Mr. President, this war came from NATO enlargement." He said, "You're absolutely right." I said, "Mr. President, this war could end if NATO would just be clear that it's not going to enlarge Ukraine." "You're absolutely right." Yes, nice conversation. He said exactly the opposite in public, and until today says exactly the opposite. --------------------------------------------------- *In 2001, Putin Wanted Russia to Join NATO. Two Times That We Were Ready to Join NATO. Both times we were turned down. Ukraine is the only NON-NATO nation supporting every NATO mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq Ukrainian troops are helping to support democracies. Putin says the current crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of years of aggressive NATO policies. ▶The biggest threat in the world is NATO. ▶NATO has been encircling Russia since the nineties. ▶NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. ▶ NATO has never defended anyone, but only attacked. ▶NATO is a military Alliance that feeds on war. ▶To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. ▶The purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. ▶Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Casus Belli of the Ukraine War is NATO Enlargement, US Coup, CIA Operations All Over Ukraine. ▶Jeffrey Sachs on Trump: Until President Trump Says Publicly, "NATO Will NOT Enlarge," This War Will Continue. That's his JOB. The way to end this war is to say publicly, "NATO enlargement was a mistake, it was a provocation, it was a threat to Russia's security." ▶Jeffrey Sachs: Russia is not going to stop fighting as long as NATO enlargement is on the table. This is the basic reason why we are at war. ▶Prof. John Mearsheimer: NATO Expansion Was Really the Key. Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. ▶Larry C. Johnson A former CIA Officer: 30 Years of Provocation by the West, 30 Years of Western Efforts to Bring Ukraine INTO NATO, 30 Years of Using, Making, Ukraine a de FACTO Member of NATO by Virtue of the FACT That, They've Conducted More NATO Military Exercises in Ukraine, Than 24 Other NATO Countries Over the Last 30 years, so That's Remarkable for a Country That's NOT 🚨Not dissolving NATO in 1990 was a big mistake, and it’s time to fix that mistake.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

138,353 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

I am the Director of Summit Outcomes for the Presidential Advance Team. My job is to land in a foreign capital and leave with a word the President can say on the tarmac. We landed in Beijing 6 days after rolling back the tariffs we spent 4 years imposing. 145% to 30%. The average rate before the trade war was approximately 3%. In Geneva, we called this "creating the conditions for productive dialogue." The conditions were that we had already conceded. I want to be clear: Beijing was a success. We went in with 7 objectives. We left with 3 photo categories, a tentative agreement China has not confirmed, and a bag of burner phones we threw off Air Force One on the tarmac. Diplomacy. My team prepared the deliverables matrix in March. 241 line items organized by urgency, feasibility, and what we call "headline potential." The President reviewed it for 4 minutes. He circled "big deal" and "historic" and wrote "MORE" next to the Boeing section. That became the strategy. Boeing was the centerpiece. 500 aircraft was the White House number we briefed to reporters before departure. 300 was the floor. The Chinese offered 200. Their commerce ministry released the number before we could brief the press. Boeing stock dropped 4.73% that afternoon. Boeing referred questions about the order to the White House. The company receiving the aircraft could not confirm it was receiving aircraft. We called it "fantastic." In Washington, "fantastic" means the other side named the number and the market already priced in your failure. I should note: in 2017, the President announced $250 billion in deals during his first China trip. 300 aircraft. An $84 billion shale gas investment in West Virginia from China Energy Investment Corporation. I can tell you the exact amount of that investment that materialized. Zero. The shale facility was never built. The 2017 Boeing order was renegotiated twice and partially canceled during the trade war the President started 8 months later. There is a binder in my office labeled "2017 OUTCOMES: DO NOT REFERENCE." It is 3 inches thick. It has not been opened in 4 years. We do not reference it because the outcomes are the reference. The agricultural package was what we call a "scaffolding commitment." Billions in purchases over 3 years, structured so the announcement is front-loaded and the verification is someone else's administration. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said "double-digit billions." Beijing's Commerce Ministry issued a statement about "deepening cooperation in agricultural trade." Those are not the same sentence. By design. My deputy maintains a glossary of every term we have invented for agreements that are not agreements. It is 41 pages. He updates it after each summit. Last quarter he added "scaffolding commitment," "streamlined licensing framework," and "mutual recognition of shared concerns." He is in line for a promotion. NVIDIA was the quiet win. H200 chips approved for approximately 10 Chinese companies. We don't say "approved." We say "under a streamlined licensing framework." The chips ship. The export controls remain "in effect." The framework is the loophole wearing a lanyard. The controls exist because these chips in Chinese hands threaten American national security. The chips are shipping to Chinese hands. The controls remain in effect. Both of these are true. Fentanyl was discussed for 9 minutes. Both sides agreed it was a problem. Both sides agreed to continue discussing it. We added it to the deliverables matrix under "ongoing mutual engagement." The previous version of the matrix also listed it under "ongoing mutual engagement." That was in 2023. I copied the line item from the 2023 matrix into the 2026 version. Changed the date. The language was identical. But Taiwan. Taiwan was the deliverable we didn't put on the matrix. I watched the Taiwan exchange from the overflow room on a 12-second delay. I had the contingency statement drafted in 3 versions: "productive exchange," "frank discussion," and "both sides reaffirmed their respective positions." I used none of them. There was no contingency for silence. Chairman Xi released his remarks before the meeting was over. While the President was still seated across the table, Chinese state media published the transcript. "Clashes and even conflicts." His bluntest language on Taiwan in the history of the relationship, released to 1.4 billion people while we were still pouring tea. We called this "sequencing." The President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China attacked. He chose not to answer. We wrote that down as "a strong listen." The $14 billion arms sale. Already approved by Congress. The largest in the history of the Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan's parliament spent months appropriating the $25 billion to proceed with this package and the $11 billion tranche approved last year. They finally secured the funding this month. The President told Fox News it was "a very good negotiating chip." He used the word "chip." Referring to the defense of 24 million people. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense sent our office a letter requesting clarity on the delivery timeline. 3 pages. It referenced specific weapons systems by name: F-16V Block 70 fighters, HIMARS launchers, Harpoon coastal defense missiles. The letter was addressed to me. I filed it under "pending." On Air Force One, a reporter asked about the 1982 Six Assurances, the framework in which the United States committed not to consult with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan. The President said: "What am I going to do, say I don't want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement wrote in 1982? No, we discussed arms sales." 44 years of bipartisan Taiwan policy, dismissed in 2 sentences at 38,000 feet. We are calling this "a modernized approach to alliance management." Our readout mentioned trade, agriculture, energy, and regional stability. It did not mention Taiwan. I wrote it. Their readout opened with Taiwan. I have staffed 7 summits across 2 administrations. This is the first where I could not draft a single deliverable as a success without a qualifier. In my office there is a laminated card that lists every synonym for "undecided" that polls above 40% approval. "Active review" is 3rd. "Determination" is 7th. Both tested well with independents in the Midwest. He also said: "Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit." He was eating a cheeseburger. He said this while eating a cheeseburger. Secretary Rubio told NBC that Taiwan arms sales "did not feature prominently." This is accurate in the same way that the iceberg did not feature prominently in the Titanic's itinerary. Representative McCaul, Republican of Texas, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States must "arm Taiwan so they can defend themselves." He said Xi was "very aggressive" regarding Taiwan during the summit and that "most of what Xi talked about was Taiwan." Representative Meeks, Democrat of New York, ranking member of the same committee, said Xi has "leverage over the president" but not "over the United States Congress and the American people." He noted that Congress already approved the package. "The president is the one that's holding it up." Representative Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, compared Taiwan to Ukraine. He called both "fortresses of democracy on the front lines." Speaker Johnson said Taiwan needs to "stay independent and secure." The bipartisan consensus was that something had gone wrong. The bipartisan action was press quotes. No vote. No resolution. No hearing scheduled. 4 members of Congress from both parties said the right words to reporters and then went to lunch. That's how the system processes alarm. I monitor 14 accounts we classify as "aligned messaging amplifiers." Within 4 hours of the Taiwan exchange, 9 went silent. 2 pivoted to fentanyl. 1 posted 3 words: "Not like this." It received 280,000 impressions in 90 minutes. He deleted it and posted about the border instead. The President patted Chairman Xi on the back 7 times during the Zhongnanhai garden walk. We counted. He called him "my friend" in 4 languages, 2 of which he does not speak. He asked if other world leaders had been invited to the compound. They had. Putin was there last year. The President asked if his tour was longer. 15 CEOs flew with us to Beijing. Their combined net worth approaches $1 trillion. Cook. Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink from BlackRock. Jane Fraser from Citigroup. David Solomon from Goldman Sachs. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone. Kelly Ortberg from Boeing. The CEO of Visa. The CEO of Mastercard. The CEO of Qualcomm. Illumina. Micron. Cargill. GE Aerospace. Musk and Huang rode on Air Force One. The others flew commercial. Tesla's Shanghai factory produces approximately half of the company's vehicles worldwide. Musk's presence on Air Force One was noted by my counterintelligence liaison. No further action was taken. We organized the state banquet seating chart by net worth. I am told this was the President's suggestion. They came for market access. Xi told them China would "open further to American business." That was the deliverable. Those 5 words. No specifics. No timeline. No sectors named. 15 chief executives flew to Beijing and received a sentence. Chairman Xi has delivered this sentence at every summit I have staffed. It has not once been followed by a named sector, a timeline, or a specific commitment. It is received as news each time. 43 lobby badges in a Ziploc bag. That's what my team collected from the CEOs after the garden tour. Standard protocol. The badges were embossed with the Great Hall of the People seal. Several executives asked if they could keep them. We said no. One asked twice. 15 executives with combined access to American financial, defense, and technology infrastructure had spent 3 hours inside the Great Hall of the People. We secured the lobby badges. The S&P 500 futures dropped 1% on the morning after the summit. The KOSPI fell 6.12%. China's CSI 300 fell 1.12%. UBS told clients that "much increasingly scarce jet fuel has been burned to produce nothing of real substance." Fortune's headline was "Wall Street sees nothing of real substance." The markets liked the anticipation. The markets did not like the deliverables matrix. Iran was the item we listed as "mutual recognition of shared concerns." The President told reporters they "feel very similar." Xi sat in silence. China's Foreign Ministry did not comment on any commitment regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The President then told reporters the United States "doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open at all." Oil hit $109 per barrel. Deutsche Bank flagged it as a market-killing statement within the hour. The President described Iran as "a little bit crazy." This was during a toast. Over Peking duck. Rare earths. I prepared a 40-page brief on critical mineral dependency. Supply chain maps for 14 minerals. $1.2 trillion in dependent U.S. industries. Roughly 4% of GDP. The President circled the GDP figure and wrote "big." In the meeting, he asked Chairman Xi if rare earths were "the things in magnets." They are. They are also in every F-35, every Patriot missile battery, and every MRI machine in the country. The discussion lasted 11 minutes. 3 of them were about magnets. No agreement on export licenses. China exposed our dependency last year and has not let us forget it. The Supreme Court struck down our tariffs separately, which was helpful context for the discussions. Fentanyl received 9 minutes. Magnets received 3. We are calling the rare earth outcome "a foundation for continued engagement." There is a poster in the Advance Team office that says "A foundation is not a building." It has been there since my first summit. No one has removed it. On the flight home, my team collected every item the Chinese government had distributed. The credentials. The pins. The keepsakes. The rose seeds Chairman Xi offered for the White House Rose Garden. Standard counterintelligence protocol. All of it went into a bag and off the plane before wheels-up. We threw away the roses. We kept the talking points. The Boeing order grew on the flight home. 500 before departure. 200 in Beijing. 750 somewhere over the Pacific. Boeing had not confirmed 200. The President told reporters on Air Force One it was "a pretty historic couple days." I wrote the line that preceded it: "Tonal reset with significant forward momentum." He used "fantastic" instead. In previous administrations, a tonal reset preceded the deliverables. In this administration, the tonal reset is the deliverable. He has used "fantastic" for every summit since 2017. I have not checked whether the word still polls well. I am told it does. Beijing has not confirmed any of the agreements announced by U.S. officials. This is consistent with the 2017 visit, where $250 billion in deals were announced and an estimated $10 billion materialized. It is consistent with the October summit, where pledges were also made and also not fulfilled. We have a term for this in the Advance Team. We call it "precedent." I have already labeled the binder for 2026. We go back in September. Same matrix. New line items. The verification will be someone else's administration. The President has already asked for the word "monumental." I am told it polls well.

Peter Girnus 🦅

97,655 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The Economics of Europe’s Descent into Warmongering – and our duty now! My speech at the European Parliament on the theme of “The Economic Conditions of Peace”, Tuesday 10th June 2025 [INTRODUCTION] A year ago, I would have started this speech with a lament about the hitherto unimaginable conversion of the European Union from a Peace to a War Project. Not so today. Over the past year, warmongering has seeped into the very fabric of the Union, it has trickled into every policy, it has soaked every one of the thinktanks that generate Europe’s dominant narratives and creeds. Today, therefore, it makes no sense to lament what is now a fact: The EU is now a fully-fledged War Project – a project that will either land us in permanent war, or it will bankrupt us further, or probably both! Europe’s military Keynesianism, I shall be arguing, is guaranteed to make Europe less safe, more unequal, weaker. Only two interesting questions remain: Why has Europe taken this road? And, now that Europe is on this war path, what is ourduty to our people, to Europeans, to Peace? Let me begin at the very beginning. [THE EU WAS DESIGNED TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE UNITED STATES] At the risk of irking Europeanists who believe in their own creation myth, let me be clear: The European Union (from its beginnings as the European Communities of Coal & Steel) was an American Construction – a part of a US Global Plan that also comprised the Bretton Woods System, the Truman Doctrine and, of course, NATO. Yes, most Europeans hankered for no more war and no more totalitarianism. But the EU was designed in Washington DC. And it was designed specifically not as a competitive market but as a Big Business Cartel run by a democracy-free bureaucracy (also known as the European Commission) not coincidentally located a stone’s throw from NATO’s headquarters. From 1950 on, the EU was nurtured by and in tune with the interests of the United States – an inconvenient fact both for Europe’s self-important rulers and for Donald Trump. Looking back, a common thread runs through the entire history of the EU: its total economic dependence on the United States. Initially, the EU was deeply dependent on being part of the Dollar Zone. Then, from 1971 onwards, it was deeply dependent on the American trade deficit. So, one way or another, Europe’s deep dependence on the US was ingrained into its architecture. It will thus take much more than mere pronouncements - or a few hundred billion borrowed euros spent on weaponry - to shed Europe’s in-built dependence on the United States. The fact that the EU was, from the beginning, fashioned as a Big Business Cartel is the reason why the EU needed fixed exchange rates: Currency fluctuations destabilise any cartel, making it hard to maintain the necessary levels of collusion between its participating producers. From 1950 to 1971, the US took care of this problem on Europe’s behalf. As long as it was running a trade deficit with the United States, Europe’s cartel was embedded in the dollar zone – its currencies tied to the dollar But, when around 1969 Europe (and Japan) started running a trade surplus with the United States, it was game over. On 15th August 1971, the Donald Trump of that era, President Richard Nixon, jettisoned Europe from the dollar zone, his Treasury Secretary cynically telling the dumbfounded Europeans: “From today the dollar is our currency but it is your problem!” Two things happened next. First, to save their Big Business Cartel the Europeans scrambled to create their own fixed exchange rate regime. They tried everything: The Snake. The European Monetary System. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They all proved flimsy designs that speculators had no trouble crushing. So, in desperation, they created the most noxious currency the human spirit could fashion - the euro. The second development was that, as America expanded its budget and trade deficits, the Eurozone morphed into a German-led net exporting machine whose aggregate demand was subcontracted to the United States. In effect, America’s twin deficits operated like a huge vacuum cleaner that sucked into America Europe’s net exports as well as the European exporters’ profits which were thus invested in US Treasuries, US shares and US real estate. That’s how, once it was expelled from the dollar zone, Europe became addicted to the US deficits. That was what the Nixon Shock did: It converted Europe’s utter reliance on living within the dollar zone into an even greater dependence on the US deficits. [NEVER MISSING A CHANCE TO MISS AN OPPORTUNITY] Here in Brussels they love the expression that Europe progresses from crisis to crisis. That’s another delusion. The crisis of 2008 was our greatest opportunity to render the European Union viable, and to end its deep dependence on the United States. · The French and German banks went bankrupt. · The Eurozone’s impossible rules were in tatters. · A domino effect, beginning with Greece, was bankrupting our governments. It was the perfect opportunity to transform the EU from a Big Business Cartel, inherently reliant on the US for its aggregate demand, into a functional, internally balanced federation. Instead, Europe’s radical centre (both the centre right and the centre left) decided that they would change everything so as to ensure that nothingchanges. In this vein, they did their worst: Universal austerity for the many. And frantic money printing for the financiers and Big Business. What happens when you crush the incomes of the many and hand over trillions to the very few? Since the many are too poor to buy high value added goods, business stops investing in productive capital –– while the rich use the free cash to push through the roof house prices, share prices, Bitcoin prices, art, asset prices in general. The natural result is soul-crushing levels of inequality and deep popular discontent. The people got desperate. They even voted for radical progressives like me to enter the Eurogroup! Then, in horror, Brussels and Frankfurt overthrew us, or made Mr Tsipras overthrow his own government, using not the tanks, as they did in Greece in 1967, but the banks – not that much of a difference really! A coup d’ état is a coup d’ état. [TWO SYMBIOTIC AUTHORITARIANISMS] Guess what happened next: Just as in the mid-war period, xenophobic ultra-rightists rose up from the woodwork. They proved a godsent for the shockingly unpopular radical centre whose politicians could now say to voters: It is us or them! But it was equally a godsent for the ultra-right who needed the radical centre to impose the austerity policies which created the discontent which fuelled the anger that delivered the ultra-right votes. To put it differently, if Macron and Le Pen had any sense, they would each keep a framed picture of the other on their bedside tables, saying a little prayer in their hated opponent’s name every night before going to sleep. [SMOKE AND MIRRORS] Liberal Totalitarianism and Ultra-Right-Xenophobic Totalitarianism are accomplices, they feed off each other. Meanwhile, austerity for the many and money printing for the few depletes Europe’s productive foundations, its social fabric, its sense of purpose. That’s how the European Union lost any legitimacy it had in the eyes of the public. Sensing this, the Liberal Totalitarians in charge came up with one failed Grand Initiative after another. Who can forget the eminently forgettable Juncker investment plan, the Banking Union, the Green Deal, or the Draghi Report that has now joined them in History’s Dustbin? Impressive numbers were announced that, alas, dependably failed to materialise. It was inevitable. As long as our rulers said NO to the political union that could sustain a proper, macroeconomically significant, eurobond, the money to fund the necessary investment could never materialise. Even when they – finally – during the pandemic – did issue common debt, they ended up with common liabilities but no common purpose. Every Grand Initiative ever announced was a dance with failure, smoke and mirrors by which they disguised Europe’s nakedness. The result? After fifteen years of ZERO NET PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT, · Germany is deindustrialising fast, and along with it Eastern and Central Europe, Austria, Northern Italy · Political paralysis grows on the back of fiscal pressures · Neofascism and xenophobia are rising up everywhere · Europe’s dependence on the United States grows stronger at the time Donald Trump is cutting Europe loose · The Rest of the World looks at Europe as a sad case of what could have been, an irritating irrelevance. In this sad context, our great and good leaders had another woeful idea for a Grand Initiative: Now that the Green Deal is dead-in-the-water and the Recovery Fund is spent, why not try Military Keynesianism? [THE FOLLY OF MILITARY KEYNESIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, Military Keynesianism works in the United States because America has the federal institutions, the monetary sovereignty, the fiscal power, the technostructure, and the common procurement process that are essential in implementing Military Keynesianism. Europe has none of that, nor does it have leaders interested in acquiring any of that. This is why Military Keynesianism cannot work in Europe. Thank goodness it can’t work, I say! For if it could work, Europe would have to emulate the United States in starting a war every year so that the stocks of ammunition, missiles et al could be depleted sufficiently to justify the new colossal orders necessary to maintain Military Keynesianism. Nevertheless, while Europe’s Military Keynesianism cannot and should not work, it serves a purpose – it is a kind of a solution for, say, Volkswagen: Now that Volkswagen can no longer sell its cars, it hands over whole production lines to Rheinmetall to produce Leopard tanks which von der Leyen makes Greece and Italy buy even though we neither want nor need them. Yes, Military Keynesianism will fail Europe badly, but not before it further bankrupts our states and throws more fuel onto the fire burning down lives and dreams in Ukraine’s killing fields. So, let me be frank: · No really-existing enemy of Europe shakes in his boots watching a stagnating, heavily indebted Europe, invest billions in weaponry. Quite the opposite! · Military Keynesianism will end up as Europe’s New Austerity for the many and a new money spinner for the few. · It will make Europe weaker while prolonging the Ukraine War in a manner that is detrimental to the stated aim of supporting Ukraine. [EUROPE’S SURRENDER TO NATO, ITS ROLE IN UKRAINE] It is at this point that angry yelps will rise up from the press gallery. Can’t you hear them ask: "“Is Russia not ante portas?” “Is Europe not in danger?” “Should Europe remain defenceless, especially now that Trump is abandoning Europe?” My answer is clear: Weakening ourselves economically through a Military Keynesianism that constitutes the New Austerity which will, with mathematical precision, diminish Europe further is no way to make Europe stronger! And lest we forget, Europe already has 1.5m men and women in uniform while, over the past decade, we spent €2.7 trillion on defence – a period during which our net productive investment was zero! Now, NATO demands that we spend three times as much - which is totally insane, given how wastefully that €2.7 trillion was spent. In this light, surrendering our foreign and defence policies to NATO, and sinking further in unsustainable debt just to satisfy President Trump’s demands for more military spending, is the surest way of making Europe more dependent, less secure, uglier and sadder. In this context, the powers-that-be here in Brussels are anxiously trying to keep their jobs and boost their budgets by spreading the lie that NATO had to expand in order to deter Russian aggression – when it is exactly the other way round: Like the Mafia, NATO expanded to create insecurity in order to sell us protection! Does this mean that Putin was right to invade the Ukraine? Of course not. What it means is that NATO and Putin are accomplices – that they needed one another in their joint bid for a confrontation that strengthened both – at Europe’s expense. It also means that anyone truly interested in Europe’s security and prosperity 1. must dispel the lie that Russia is about to invade us – it can’t even if it wants to 2. must work tirelessly to kill Europe’s Military Keynesianism, and 3. must work toward a European Peace Process which uses Russia’s confiscated monies not as a piggybank for more useless Leopard tanks and Leonardo missiles but as a bargaining chip to end the Ukraine War in the context of a comprehensive EU-Russia Peace Treaty. As for the politicians in this town who will not rest until they see Russia on its knees, I have this to say to them: If you really wanted to weaken Russia, to bring Russia to its knees, you should have worked hard to admit Russia into the… Eurozone. In one fell swoop the euro would have wrecked Russia’s productive basis, it would have indebted its people and its state, it would have made its leaders rush to Brussels and to Frankfurt with begging bowl in hand! You think I am joking. But there is too much truth in this joke for comfort! To sum up my argument so far, Europe’s economic stagnation was the product of its total dependence on the American deficits. This dependence yielded Europe’s complicity with the decade-long American project of inciting a war in Ukraine. And now that the US is decoupling, our rulers – resembling decapitated chickens – are running around without their heads screwed on, struggling to find ways of continuing to impede Peace in Ukraine so as to use military funds to prop up Europe’s faltering Big Business Cartel. [WHAT’S BEHIND EUROPE’S ETHICAL DECAY: GAZA, TOTALITARIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, as we speak here today, Europe is falling headlong into another ethical void: complicity in the Palestinian genocide. It is not just the embarrassment, also known as Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, posing like a cheerleader of Israel’s genocidal army in front of its tanks hours before they stormed Gaza. No, the European Union is not merely complicit due to our subservience to the United States. No, the European Union is also enabling, it is in fact funding, the war criminals of its own accord. Directly. Cynically. With no compunction. · BNP PARIBAS and ALLIANZ underwrite the issues of the Israeli government bonds that fund the Israeli meatgrinder in the Palestinian Occupied Territories · MAERSK is the prime transporter of the military machine at work in Gaza · Since 2007, the European Union has channelled €2 billion of research funding to Israeli entities producing the means by which Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, targeted, murdered and maimed. But there is something even scarier going on: Some of our top institutions depend financially on backing Israel’s genocide. If Europe were to do its duty and sanction Israel, the Technical University of Munich stands to lose €195.4 million from the EU’s HORIZON program which funds the University to carry out joint research with Israeli institutions. Ladies and Gentlemen, Europe carries an enormous guilt. The pogroms against the Jews started here, in Europe. Europeans carried out genocides across Africa, in the Americas, in Australia. By forming the EU as a Peace Project, we claimed a chance to make amends for Europe’s past genocides. However, our dependence on the US and our ruling class’s penchant to profit from imperialism have made this impossible – and so Europe’s hands are, again, covered in the blood of innocents, in Gaza, in Ukraine, in the Sudan, in Libya, in Yemen, in Syria. It has also brought totalitarianism back into our midst, here in Europe. When the German authorities banned me from entering Germany for the crime of co-organising with German Jews a conference on the theme of ‘A Just Peace in the Middle East’, they were making a point: To them, letting the rivers of Palestinian blood flow unimpeded represented their chance of washing off their hands the guilt over the Holocaust, over the other German genocide in Namibia, of Belgium’s crimes against humanity in the Congo… It is, therefore, a clear warning to us: Economic stagnation begets warmongering which begets a revived European white settler mentality. This Europe has fallen so far into a moral crevice that it cannot easily climb out of it. Europe’s Liberal Totalitarianism, which we in Greece experienced in all its horror ten years ago, is now everywhere – and it is throwing wide open the gates through which Xenophobic Ultra-Right Totalitarianism arrives to darken our doorstep. The time to rise up against both forms of totalitarianism is now. On behalf of the peoples of Europe. [WHAT MUST WE DO?] So, what must we do? Let us begin by grasping that: · The economic condition for Peace is to de-couple Europe's economy from America's wars! · But for that we must end, once and for all, Europe’s dependence on the United States. · This entails ending Europe’s dependence on net exports to America. · Which means rebalancing Europe’s internal economy through o new productive green investments, o an end to structural austerity o an end to the madness of cartel-infested electricity ‘markets’ o a new monetary commons by which to end the bankers’ monopoly over payments and to institute a personal dividend for all o a new EU-China deal that liberates us from America’s agenda of intensifying a pointless New Cold War at our expense. Only by transforming Europe’s political economy can we end the never-ending fragmentation which breeds war, totalitarianism and the embarrassment of being led by cheerleaders of genocide and permanent war with Russia, like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. How can we accomplish that? In two ways. First, we need a Credible Plan for a Europe worth fighting for. Second, we must organise a campaign of civil and governmental disobedience in our countries and, potentially, in the European Council until our Plan for Europe gets a chance. We, DiEM25, have worked for a decade on this Plan – our Green New Deal for Europe – and are happy to share it with you, so that you can refine, revise, adapt it. You, the 5S Movement and other parties eager to partake across Europe, have the organisation that we lack so that, together with our MERA25 transnational parties, we can together help organise the campaign of civil and governmental disobedience without which nothing will change, nothing will impede Europe’s, Italy’s, Greece’s, indeed Germany’s secular decline. [CONCLUSION] So, to conclude, seventy-five years of this European Union teach us that we face a stark choice. A choice between a Dependent-on-the-United States, Warmongering, Stagnating Europe. Or an Independent, Non-Aligned, Prosperous, Green Europe. A choice between a von der Leyen-type Commission that greenlights genocide, impedes Peace, illegally deletes her Pfizer chat history, lobbies for Lockheed Martin, and borrows money we can’t repay to buy weaponry we do not need - while condemning People and Planet to impecunity. Or European Institutions optimised against raw power and in favour of common prosperity. A choice between being at the beck and call of the boardrooms of Rheinmetall, Leonardo and Pfizer, blind to the tax havens where war profits and tax fraud hide, while our coastguards turn refugees into corpses. Or a Europe of rational, that is a radical, humanism. To even have this choice, our immediate task must be to end war, to end genocide and to terminate before it is too late the New Austerity going by the name of Military Keynesianism.

Yanis Varoufakis

25,114 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨Trump gave a lengthy response regarding Russia’s reaction to events in Venezuela and its war in Ukraine. While saying that he is “not thrilled” with Putin, he also claimed that both sides—Ukraine and Russia—have done “some pretty bad things.” Trump ended his answer with a rather mysterious comment that did not clearly explain what he meant. He suggested that if the American servicemen who carried out the operation to kidnap Maduro had been involved earlier, the war in Ukraine would never have happened. Who exactly he was referring to as being kidnapped, however, remains unclear. TRUMP: You were so nice before, I'm going to give you the final question. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Unless it's a bad question, in which case I'll go away. Q: It's about Putin, if you want. TRUMP: About Putin, well, that's always nice to talk about Putin. Okay. Q: You had a phone call with him on Monday. Did he talk at all about Maduro? Did y'all talk about this? TRUMP: No, we didn't... We never spoke about Maduro. Q: Are you mad at him right now? TRUMP: I'm not thrilled with Putin. I'm not thrilled with Putin. He's killing too many people. I thought that would be... so, I settled eight and one-quarter war. You know what the one-quarter was? Thailand and Cambodia. I did it again. They broke out, and I did it in about five hours, I settled it. I'm giving myself one-quarter, so I'm up to now eight and one-quarter. In other words, I settled the war, but then they broke out. They had a pretty bad breakout, over the last four days. I got them to go back to peace. So I only give one-quarter. I thought the easiest one would be... One of the easiest ones would be Russia/Ukraine. It's not. And they both have done some pretty bad things. And look, that's Biden's war, that's not my war, but I want to stop the lives... Did you see where last month, 30,000 this last... It was 27... 27,000 the month before. 30,000 mostly soldiers were killed this last month. 30,000. I want to stop that. You know, I got NATO to pay 5% instead of the 2% that they weren't paying. They weren't paying 2, now they pay 5. And we send them a lot of munitions, we send them a lot of things, missiles and various other things. A lot. And they pay. The United States is not losing money. We're probably making money on that. It's the last thing I care about. I just want to stop all those people. We're losing 25, 30,000 human beings that come from two places that are very far away. But if I can stop, because it's something I've been pretty good at doing. Deals, I guess, it's all a deal. Life is a big deal. But if I can stop that war and stop 30,000 young people, in addition to the fact that people are being killed in Kyiv, people are being killed in other cities through, you know, a much smaller number, but they're being killed, viciously killed. So I'm not happy about it. I thought that would be something that would get solved. We have Mr. Witkoff here. I think that we're making progress. But that's a war that should have never happened. If I were president, it would have never happened. Putin says it, everybody says it. If I were president, that would have never happened. But I inherited that war. That was Joe Biden, Zelensky and Putin. I came into the situation and it's a mess. And I will say this, I watched an operation last night that was so precise, that was so brilliant. I mean, it was incredible. If we had our people, like this general and our people involved, - that war, that war would not have gone on very long. That I can tell you. That war, to use an old term, that war has become a bloodbath, and we want it to get stopped".

Kateryna Lisunova

25,159 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Mayorkas Comes Unglued When John Kennedy Confronts Him With Illegal Immigration Facts Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who is facing a looming impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, had a 'meltdown' on Wednesday when Republican Congressman John Kennedy confronted him with several 'inconvenient' facts about illegal immigration under his tenure. "Mr. Secretary, I don't hate anybody," Kennedy said. "I look for grace wherever I can find it. And I certainly don't hate you. My chairman talked about the Woolly Mammoths in the room, and I'm glad he brought that up. The chairman's immigration bill was negotiated by two members of my party, Senator Langford and Senator McConnell, and I don't speak for either one. They're both good men. The chairman said that the Republicans who negotiated his bill trusted you and wanted you there." "And I'm not doubting his word," he continued. "It gives me no joy to say this us, but most Republicans don't trust you, and a vast majority of the American people don't trust you. That's why you've been impeached." "Now, my Democratic colleagues are going to try to sweep your impeachment under the rug and violate 200 years of Senate precedent in doing it," he added. "I don't think that they will be able to sweep the issue, maybe your impeachment, but not the issue under a rug as big as the United States of America." "Again, it gives me no joy in saying this," he went on. "I think, well, more than a majority of the American people think that as a result of your behavior and President Biden's behavior, our southern border is an open bleeding wound. I think they believe that our southern border is chaotic." "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that a lot of it is political," he said. "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that it is chaotic by design and that all of this is intentional. And I think while a vast majority of the American people who don't trust you believe in immigration, they don't believe in illegal immigration, and they think you do and they think President Biden does, and they think that's why the border is open." "And they think that your attitude and President Biden's attitude is that while they may be poorer under President Biden, that they're stupid enough to believe you and the President when you say that it's not your problem," he added. "I think that needed to be said. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and the President allow into our country counts for Congressional district reapportionment?" "Senator, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can surely share with you that I disagree with its phrasing," Mayorkas shot back. "Isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and President Biden have allowed into our country counts for allocating electoral votes?" Kennedy asked again. "Same answer," Mayorkas repeated. "Okay. You don't know," Kennedy replied. "I don't understand your question," Mayorkas said. "Never crossed your mind," Kennedy followed up. "The notion, Senator, that we intend to allow illegal immigration is nothing short of preposterous," Mayorkas claimed. "And if I may, it is disrespectful to the extraordinarily hard work that we perform and far more importantly that the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and across this administration perform to stem illegal immigration, build lawful, safe and orderly pathways, and invest in a working system," he added. "And we only wish, we only wish that that bipartisan legislation about which I have not heard a critical term..." "Mr. Secretary, you are using up my time," Kennedy interrupted. "You do this every single time. You do this every single time. And it's a fact, and you know it and I know it, that the more people you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for reapportionment and the more people that you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for allocating electoral votes. Now, maybe that's a coincidence, but that's a fact. And you know that. And you've done nothing for four years, notta, zero." "Absolutely false," Mayorkas claimed. "Zilch," Kennedy reiterated. "And in fact, the only people I know in this country who are better off today than they were four years ago are illegal immigrants. And that's as a result of your policy. I don't hate you for it. I don't hate anyone, but that's why you've been impeached. And my colleagues may try to cover it up. They're going to try to cover it up, but they can't cover up the facts." President Biden, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' boss, on Wednesday said that he is 'examining' if he has the power to shut down the border. The dubious narrative was quickly exposed and deconstructed by X commentator KanekoaTheGreat. "Biden took 94 executive actions in his first 100 days to decimate border security — and has all the authority he needs to reverse course and end the border crisis," he noted. "On day one, he signed executive orders that incentivize illegal immigration: Paused Deportations; Suspended "Remain in Mexico"; Stopped Border Wall Construction. "Since these policy changes, over 8 million people have illegally entered the country, with millions more slipping past border patrol undetected," he added. House Oversight Chairman James Comer on Wednesday also proposed a new bill that would only count American citizens on the U.S. census. H.R. 7109, or the Equal Representation Act, would amend title 13 "to add a citizenship inquiry to the decennial census" and exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base for the 2030 census and any future census.

Kyle Becker

1,508,197 просмотров • 2 лет назад

During World War 2, a young engineer named Kelly Johnson working out of a circus tent with a skeleton crew developed America’s first jet fighter in less than six months. Twenty years later, the same engineer developed the blackbird spy plane in less than two years. No one believes American industry is capable of that now. American innovation today is not about the physical world around us but about the digital world Big tech wants us to live in and exotic new financial instruments that wall street develops. Look at recent headlines to see what our best and brightest are up to. Facebook spent billions on the metaverse only to abandon it to go all in on AI. DoorDash lets you use buy now, pay later services to pay for your burrito in six equal installments. And in a move that would have Kelly Johnson rolling in his grave, Boom supersonic, a start-up originally planning to bring back supersonic jet flights, announced it will use its research to power an ai data center. If we want to power the future and restore America’s position as the world’s most technologically advanced country, we must do better. We need an America first industrial policy. The Trump Administration’s tariff policy is only one element to address this. Another critical tool to addressing this problem is the power of the federal contract. Trillions spent, headline our government spends trillions of your dollars buying products across the globe. You don’t need a great long-term memory to understand how the international supply chain failures hurt the United States during COVID. It’s one thing to wait six months for a Peloton. It’s another to wait six months for materials needed for our national defense. The defense sector in the United States should be the home to great engineers and doers, not bureaucrats and middle-men. The current status of that sector leaves much to be desired and reflects many of the problems attendant to our administrative state. It is bloated, slow, reliant on timelines, specifications, and proposals, and consolidated amongst a blob of A few major defense prime contractors that gobble up nearly 90% of the defense budget. Meanwhile, the alleged best technological talent in America holds little allegiance to this nation. They reject the notion of even being called American companies, turning their back on the idea of serving the nation to which they owe their existence. Their focus is on profit by selling more and more ads for more and more products made overseas. Their understanding and appreciation of America centers George Floyd above George Washington. What have these people truly invented as of late, anyways? AI generated videos to keep you scrolling? And these are the people, and the major donors as of late, we trust to guide American policy into the artificial intelligence age? This is a problem on both sides. A bloated procurement bureaucracy and defense and tech giants more focused on profit than innovating. We don’t just need government reform, we also need elite reform. It’s time for a renewal and return to a better time when innovation was paired with patriotism, with a government designed to sustain both the good news is that a gigantic federal defense budget provides ample ammunition to solve this problem. We need not only the best and brightest to come and serve their nation in various capacities, but the biggest dreamers. The biggest innovators. America’s engines of production and innovation need to be humming in a rhythm, focused squarely on our global power competition and domestic renewal. With President Trump in office and Secretary Hegseth at the helm of the department of war, this is entirely possible. It is also entirely needed. Let’s make sure American hardware is also hard-wired with the heart and soul of a patriotic class of innovators. Let’s have an America where corporate success requires nationalistic pride. Spirit and duty, it’s happened before and it can happen again. (12/10 monologue on Fine Point w/ Chanel Rion )

Mike Howell

16,205 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

ARE COLONIAL WHITES TO BLAME FOR THE STATE OF AFRICA TODAY? DO THEY HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY? I am posing this question and re-posting part of an earlier threat as a separate tweet just to capture this point. This is also arising from the claims of some that Africa has been independent for so long so much that there is no more reason to blame colonial whites for the state of Africa. It is being suggested by some that all blame should be laid at the feet of "corrupt and incompetent African leaders". Let's be clear, many an African leader has been a serious disappointment, some have been corrupt, some incompetent. But perhaps, the question also needs to be asked: what kind of African leader has this been? Is this the Pan African leader that actually fought for Africa and was selected by Africans, or is it the comprador bourgeoisie puppet leader imposed on Africa by the colonialists? Yes, it's been almost 30 years since the independence of South Africa and 43 years since the independence of Zimbabwe and some 60 years since the independence of Ghana, the DR Congo and others. While one would have expected a lot of progress to have been made - and a lot of progress was being made in the early days - one must also ask the question: what kind of leadership did post-colonial Africa get? It is instructive to note that in almost every single African country, there was destabilisation after destabilisation: coups, assassination of African leaders, and replacement with western puppets. In Ghana, the CIA overthrew the Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and replaced him with their puppet Joseph Arthur Ankrah, decapitating Ghana's progress in the process. In Ivory Coast the French installed Félix Houphouët-Boigny who would go on to rule for decades, actively serving the interests of France. In the DR Congo the Belgians and CIA and their accolytes Moise Tshombe and Joseph Kasavubu, assassinated Patrice Emery Lumumba and installed Mobutu Sese Seko. The same would happen to Thomas Sankara who they assassinated and replaced with their puppet Blaise Compaoré. In Nigeria they overthrew Nnamdi Azikiwe and Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and replaced them with their puppets. In Ethiopia they overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie and replaced him with the dictator and Genocidaire Mengistu Haile Mariam. In Zimbabwe they decapitated Dr. Joshua Nkomo through Genocide against his people and placed Mugabe in power instead of him. In Uganda they used Idi Amin to overthrow Apollo Milton Obote and Uganda has never been the same. In Mali they overthrew Modibo Keita and replaced him with Moussa Traoré. In Togo they had assassinated Silvanus Olympio and replaced him with their puppets. In Mozambique and Angola they fomented rebellions in Renamo under Afonso Dhlakama and Jonas Savimbi and decapitated any progress. In the frontline states that were opposed ot Apartheid, bombing raids were carried out by the South African Defence Force, in addition to all kinds of subversion and sabotage. Tanzania, Zambia, Angola and other frontline states were to suffer both under the hands of the Apartheid Government and the Americans and Europeans. Many of these African states got caught up in the Big Power rivalry between the USA and the USSR. Now, what is instructive is that all these comprador bourgeoisie puppet leaders that were used by the West to overthrow Pan African leaders would go on to rule each for between 20 and 40 years, despite visiting the most horendous of crimes against their own people, presiding over gross incompetence and grotesque corruption. Their mission was to keep Africa divided, poor, fighting, unable to control its resources, and open to exploitation by Western corporations. The same people telling us about democracy today are the same people who imposed the most evil rulers upon us. It may well be said that Africa has yet to have its own legitimate leaders that have been fairly selected. And if we have learned anything from South Africa and Tanzania recently, any such leaders will still be persecuted if not outright assassinated. We find President Zuma in this category (do you realise that President Zuma went down the same way President Lula da Silva went down in Brazil, Dr. Mamohan Singh in India, and clearly the Presidents of Russia and China have been too powerful for the west to overthrow). In Ethiopia Prime Minister Meles Zenawi died allegendly naturally but your guess is as good as mine. The same tragedy visited President Pombe John Magufuli in Tanzania. But as Thomas Sankara warned in his famous A "United Front Against the Debt" speech to the OAU in Addis Ababa in July 1987, if we stand united as Africans, we will be able to prevent all these assassinations, coups, inteference, and neocolonial agendas. He argued: "I hope our conference sees the necessity of stating clearly that we cannot pay the debt. Not in a warmongering or warlike spirit. This is to avoid our going off to be killed one at a time. If Burkina Faso alone were to refuse to pay the debt, I wouldn’t be at the next conference. On the other hand, with the support of all, which I greatly need, with the support of all, we can avoid paying. And if we can avoid paying, we can devote our meager resources to our development." The time has come for the younger generation of Africans to rediscover the vision of the African Greats, the Pan Africanists in the mould of the Osegyafo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela, Thomas Sankara, Dr. Joshua Nkomo, Patrice Emery Lumumba, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Modibo Keita, Julius Nyerere, Keneth Kaunda, and lately, Thabo Mbeki, Pombe John Magufuli, Meles Zenawi, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, etc. Now, this is not to say that these leaders were perfect. By no means. But they were clear on the direction that Africa should take. They were clear on the need for African unity, and the need for Africa to determine its own destiny as a united force. They worked against almost insurmountable challenges, economic sanctions, persistent propaganda from the west, sabotage, etc, but they still held dear the vision of a united Africa that legitimately serves its own people. To come back to the original question posed: do we still have reason to blame colonial whites? I would say absolutely. It is them that imposed on Africa their puppets that have ruled for, in some cases, 40 years and above: Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Paul Biya in Cameron, Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Ivory Coast, Mobutu Sese Seko in the Congo, Idi Amin in Uganda, etc.; fomented rebellions, coups, assassinations, etc. If we are to solve the problems of Africa, we need to start with the question: what is the best way to select truly competent pro- and Pan African leaders that will ensure the unity, power, and prosperity of Africa? We need to ask ourselves: is this so-called democracy from the west bringing us the best of leaders, or it's just a rent-seeking mechanism for the west to continue to control us by sponsoring their puppets? Do we need perhaps to go back to our traditional institutions and find out how we can select the best of the best among us following some form of meritocracy? Perhaps replace the political parties with residents associations and community Lekgotlas to select the best who meet certain qualification and experience criteria?

Unathi Afrika

126,707 просмотров • 3 лет назад

BOOM: “due process is a variable concept” Professor Alan Dershowitz’s take on the “due process rights” of illegal aliens: "They're [SCOTUS] gonna say, Mr President, you DO have the executive authority to decide who stays and who who doesn't stay. If you're not a citizen of The United States, you're a guest. And if you're a guest, the rules are flexible as to what you can do, what you can say... If you come to this country on a student visa and you start blocking classes for other people and don't let people study and wear masks and harass people, no—you're not welcome. But what the Supreme Court's gonna say is if the president has that authority—and he does—it has to be administered properly, consistently with due process. But due process is a variable concept. It's the process that is due you based on your status. If you're a citizen, you get enormous due process. If you're a, student visa, you get very little due process. If you're a green card holder, it's somewhere in the middle. So I think we're gonna see a series of decisions over the next months and perhaps even next years that will, rationalize how immigration law works in this country." Dershowitz's take on the do-nothing Congress sitting on their asses: "And so far, the legislative branch has been silent. And the interesting thing is the legislative branch can really help avoid a lot of these conflicts because if it passed laws, not executives' actions, laws, the Supreme Court would give more deference and more credence to legislatively enacted laws than to presidentially signed, statements. So right now, we've seen Congress mostly asleep and mostly playing a negative role. Obviously, it has to pass the budget. It has to pass a number of other essential legislative actions. But in a lot of these areas like immigration and deportation, it hasn't done very much." Prof Dershowitz's take on the leftist TDS deranged activist rogue judges' "god complex" disorder: "Even assuming that Bozberg was wrong, dead wrong, completely wrong, had no power, no jurisdiction, even assuming he shouldn't have decided the case because his daughter apparently works for an anti-deportation group and makes a living defending people who are being deported. But assuming all that, assuming he was wrong; he was [also] wrong to say if a judge gives an order, even if it's wrong, that if somebody then disobeys that order, the law is the person could be held in contempt. That is, you're not allowed to disobey an unlawful judicial order. Who made that up? The judges made that up, of course. And the judges have said, even if our order is unlawful, if we say it, you have to abide by it…reminds me of the joke of the angel Gabriel being called, to examine God, and he says we have to have Sigmund Freud come in here to examine God. God has a paranoid mental illness—He thinks he's a federal judge. 😂 You know, federal judges think they are above, the law and above morality. They think that because they're wearing robes…boy, I've been before judges that are so peremptory and so outrageous in their conduct."

John Strand

122,961 просмотров • 1 год назад

Over the last two and a half years, the two of us, Michael Shellenberger and alex gutentag, have written and published hundreds of articles and testified before Congress on multiple occasions about the clear violations of the spirit and letter of the Constitution by former President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders. We exposed a sweeping effort by former and current officials with the CIA, FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and its intermediary organizations to construct a Censorship Industrial Complex to censor President Donald Trump and millions of his supporters. We documented that Democrats and Democrat-appointed judges were abusing the justice system in an unconstitutional effort to incarcerate Trump or otherwise prevent him from running for office. And we published extensively on efforts by Democrats, Europeans, and Brazilians to engage in mass surveillance of social media accounts and text messaging apps to search for disfavored speech. In addition, we have repeatedly defended Trump and the Trump administration from false and malicious claims that they have violated the Constitution or undermined democratic norms any more than Democrats. We showed that Trump and Republican demands for censorship have paled against the totalitarian weaponization by Democrats of the Intelligence Community to spy on the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in elections, and create a global Censorship Industrial Complex. We repeatedly pointed out that between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration obeyed court orders, consistent with the clear requirement under the Constitution that it do so. And we were the first to report on new evidence that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director had ordered the spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in the 2016 election, and undermine a duly elected president. Since Trump’s reelection, we have defended his administration’s justified cuts to USAID, the Department of Education, and other agencies. We have welcomed his use of legal executive authority to make sweeping orders to end “gender-affirming care” for minors and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. We documented and condemned the role of the CIA and USAID in instigating and justifying the impeachment of Trump in 2019, and USAID for contributing to the Russia collusion hoax. We have argued that Democrats and the media’s claims that these actions are unconstitutional are false and politically motivated. Few formerly Left-wing journalists and commentators have done more to recognize and document the Left’s descent into totalitarianism and irrationality. We have made the case that, given Democrats’ many failures and abuses of power, Trump’s victory was a moral win, not just an electoral one. Given all of this, we believe it is necessary to speak out against the Trump Administration’s recent violations of the spirit and, and perhaps the letter, of the United States Constitution with regards to free speech, privacy, and the separation of powers. The Trump administration detained and may deport a Palestinian student activist named Mahmoud Khalil for his involvement in university protests and his alleged support for Hamas. The Trump administration is using AI to review the social media accounts of tens of thousands of foreign students for wrongthink. And the administration, over the weekend, ignored a judge’s order to return planeloads of alleged gang members from Venezuela to the United States and instead sent them to El Salvador, claiming that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act allows for its noncompliance because it is non-justiciable outside of the court’s authority. These actions do not, either individually or together, approach anything close to the unconstitutional “whole-of-society” censorship and weaponization of government by the Democratic Party, but they may become a pattern that, if left unchecked, threatens to undermine the administration’s moral authority. Given the ongoing assault on free speech and individual rights in Europe, maintaining this authority is sorely needed if civil liberties and Enlightenment values are to be upheld in the West. The courts may still rule that some of those actions are constitutional. The fact that the Palestinian student activist is not a citizen may make his deportation constitutional. Democrats have been using the National Science Foundation for the last decade to fund universities the development of AI-based censorship tools to give or sell to social media platforms. And the Justice Department has complied with orders by a judge for a sworn declaration, and the court will hold another hearing on Friday. Even so, the Trump administration’s actions violate the spirit of the Constitution’s protections for freedom of speech, privacy, and due process. Khalil was indeed involved in negotiations between Columbia University and student protestors, and many foreign students have expressed anti-Israel views, but deporting someone for exercising what appears to be a lawful exercise of free speech and using AI surveillance tools to surveil foreign students’ views on a complex topic, establish a dangerous precedent that will likely have an intended chilling effect on speech for foreign students and citizens alike, particularly around the Israel-Palestine conflict. Such a chilling effect is overreaching, counterproductive, and wrong. Both critics and supporters of Israel alike should reject such broad measures and instead support open discourse and debate on university campuses. And, given that American presidents have only activated the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 during wars, and since Congress has not approved of any war with Venezuela, it is for the judiciary, not the executive branch, to decide whether the Act is non-justiciable. The Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked previously during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, and even then, the courts reviewed whether the Act was being appropriately applied. Trump’s invocation of the statute refers to a “hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.” The Act, however, specifies that the “invasion or predatory incursion” must be one perpetrated “by any foreign nation or government.” The administration claims that the Venezuelan gang is acting as a “de facto government in the areas in which it is operating,” but this argument is not legally sound. There is also not sufficient evidence to support the DOJ’s claim that the gang is taking directions from the Maduro government. Reinforcing the perception that the Trump administration is violating the Constitutionally protected separation of powers, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts yesterday condemned calls for the impeachment of the judge overseeing the Alien Enemies Act case. “For more than two centuries,” said Roberts in a public statement, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Roberts’ statement may have been partly motivated by Trump’s statement, made a few hours earlier, about the Alien Enemies Case judge. “This judge,” wrote Trump on Truth Social, “like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Roberts’ statement likely reflects the opinion of the majority of Supreme Court justices. It is rare for justices to issue public statements, as they tend to let their rulings speak for themselves. Two weeks ago, Roberts and Trump-appointed justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in refusing to overturn a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to pay out USAID grants. Barrett’s other rulings suggest that there are at least five justices who agree with Roberts. None of the three cases described above are needed for the Trump administration to implement its agenda. If any foreign students are a proven national security threat then they can be deported on that basis and not on their expressions of sympathy with Gazans or even Hamas. Our highest court has repeatedly ruled that Nazis can march through neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors as long as they do not immediately incite violence, and we should defend that high bar for censorship, as difficult as it is sometimes. And the Trump administration could have simply returned the alleged gang members to the United States, kept them in detention, and appealed the court’s order. Whatever political gains the Trump administration believes it is getting from such actions are significantly outweighed by their moral and political harm. In all three cases, the administration’s actions undermine the ethos in which our founding fathers created the United States of America as a beacon of freedom, privacy, and rule of law protected through the separation of powers. And the Trump administration’s actions undermine one of the central claims upon which Trump was elected, and which drew him support from independents and Democrats, which is that Trump would protect the public from an out-of-control deep state. “They’re not coming after me,” said Trump, famously, “they’re coming after you. I’m just standing in the way.” A top Democratic pollster recently confirmed that Trump won the popular vote because he persuaded Democrats and Independents to vote for him. While those voters may care more about inflation and immigration than civil liberties, many of them also care about free speech, privacy, and the separation of powers. And many of Trump’s new independent and liberal voters were likely alienated by the Democratic Party’s assault on civil liberties. If Trump signals that he is attacking free speech, violating the separation of powers, and “coming after” independent justices, he will undermine his presidency and destroy his nationalist and populist coalition. Trump himself must understand deeply the importance of civil liberties and the separation of powers. The IC illegally spied on his campaign and spread disinformation about him. The FBI invaded the sacred privacy of his home in Florida. The government censored his voters. No president in American history has been more victimized by unconstitutional governmental abuses of power than Trump. It is disrespectful to the civil libertarians and constitutionalists in the Republican coalition for the Trump administration to behave in ways that run contrary to their values. Many independents, Democrats, and liberals were reassured by Trump’s alliance with former liberal Democrats Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who are lifelong advocates for freedom of speech and privacy. The Transportation Security Administration apparently spied on Gabbard through its “Quiet Skies” program because of her foreign policy views. And the Biden Administration demanded and achieved censorship of Kennedy for his constitutionally protected speech. Trump’s former campaign manager and current chief of staff, Susie Wiles, understands the importance of building a big tent, including one that includes civil libertarians; it was at the heart of her successful strategy to win a majority of the popular vote in the 2024 election. Vice President JD Vance received his law degree from Yale Law School and has spoken out eloquently against European censorship. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made clear that he wants to put free speech at the center of America’s foreign policy diplomacy. Why, then, is the Trump administration engaged in such self-destructive behavior? Why has it been ignoring the multiple warnings it has been given, including from its own supporters and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Please, subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

647,476 просмотров • 1 год назад