Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

"𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘖𝘣𝘪 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘭" Abayomi Arabambi says Peter Obi’s history of party defections raises questions about his political loyalty, saying this record makes him difficult to trust.

News Central TV

75,645 subscribers

24,367 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

On this day in Church history: September 26, 1963 President John F. Kennedy delivers a foreign policy speech in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. President Kennedy — who, as a presidential candidate three years earlier, had quoted the Doctrine and Covenants and the Articles of Faith in a speech at the Tabernacle — once again closed his message with an appeal to Latter-day Saint history: “𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘮 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴, ‘𝘎𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘳𝘴...𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦.’” The President gave his speech only 57 days prior to his assassination in Dallas. Video: An excerpt from JFK’s speech.

On this day in Church history: September 26, 1963 President John F. Kennedy delivers a foreign policy speech in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. President Kennedy — who, as a presidential candidate three years earlier, had quoted the Doctrine and Covenants and the Articles of Faith in a speech at the Tabernacle — once again closed his message with an appeal to Latter-day Saint history: “𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘮 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴, ‘𝘎𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘳𝘴...𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦.’” The President gave his speech only 57 days prior to his assassination in Dallas. Video: An excerpt from JFK’s speech.

On This Latter-day in History

73,328 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Peter Obi’s Move To NDC Is Not His Final Destination - Arabambi If he thinks he has found a safe haven after destabilising the Labour Party, he may soon face serious political pushback from those still within the party structure. He cannot weaken a platform and simply move on without consequences, as internal political realities will eventually catch up with him. Ultimately, the political space is competitive, and no one can impose themselves without broad acceptance. However, the final decision rests with Nigerians, and no candidate can become president without addressing issues of governance, accountability, and the fight against corruption. Dr. Abayomi Arabambi, Factional LP National Vice Chairman, South West

Peter Obi’s Move To NDC Is Not His Final Destination - Arabambi If he thinks he has found a safe haven after destabilising the Labour Party, he may soon face serious political pushback from those still within the party structure. He cannot weaken a platform and simply move on without consequences, as internal political realities will eventually catch up with him. Ultimately, the political space is competitive, and no one can impose themselves without broad acceptance. However, the final decision rests with Nigerians, and no candidate can become president without addressing issues of governance, accountability, and the fight against corruption. Dr. Abayomi Arabambi, Factional LP National Vice Chairman, South West

ARISE NEWS

62,137 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

M.A. Rothman

425,813 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

“I’m not a perfect guy, but I won’t be reckless.” Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin says he has discharged his duties with the dignity and responsibility demanded by the office, mindful of the NPP’s long political history and the trust placed in him by the party’s elders. He also dismissed claims of compromising videos or audios, saying he will not do anything to embarrass himself, his family or the party. #ChannelOneNews #Politics #NPP #AfenyoMarkin #GhanaNews

“I’m not a perfect guy, but I won’t be reckless.” Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin says he has discharged his duties with the dignity and responsibility demanded by the office, mindful of the NPP’s long political history and the trust placed in him by the party’s elders. He also dismissed claims of compromising videos or audios, saying he will not do anything to embarrass himself, his family or the party. #ChannelOneNews #Politics #NPP #AfenyoMarkin #GhanaNews

CITI FM 97.3

22,799 görüntüleme • 22 gün önce

Elon is talking about the reaction to his political work. He says he did what needed to be done, but faced what he calls a violent, antibody response. People damaged cars, threatened him, and went after his companies. He makes it clear he has never committed violence himself. His view is simple: those people are on the wrong side of history, and some of them are already going to prison. He says more will follow, including the ones who funded and organized it. He closes by looking at the camera and saying: “Don’t worry, we’re coming for you.”

Elon is talking about the reaction to his political work. He says he did what needed to be done, but faced what he calls a violent, antibody response. People damaged cars, threatened him, and went after his companies. He makes it clear he has never committed violence himself. His view is simple: those people are on the wrong side of history, and some of them are already going to prison. He says more will follow, including the ones who funded and organized it. He closes by looking at the camera and saying: “Don’t worry, we’re coming for you.”

Astro Greek

15,483 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Police officers are expected to uphold strict political neutrality, particularly while in uniform. It appears Captain James G. Wilson of the NYPD’s 94th Precinct may have received inadequate training or lacks a clear understanding of the professional boundaries and impartiality required by his role. This is all public information. With a history that includes a substantiated CCRB finding for unauthorized entry and search, multiple lawsuits alleging excessive force and warrantless home invasions, and repeated complaints during his rise to command, Wilson’s record raises serious questions about whether he truly grasps the restraint and neutrality the badge demands.

Police officers are expected to uphold strict political neutrality, particularly while in uniform. It appears Captain James G. Wilson of the NYPD’s 94th Precinct may have received inadequate training or lacks a clear understanding of the professional boundaries and impartiality required by his role. This is all public information. With a history that includes a substantiated CCRB finding for unauthorized entry and search, multiple lawsuits alleging excessive force and warrantless home invasions, and repeated complaints during his rise to command, Wilson’s record raises serious questions about whether he truly grasps the restraint and neutrality the badge demands.

Floridap8triot

34,759 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

48,897 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

NEW: Joe Rogan says Dr. Peter McCullough was RIGHT about everything all along. “Five years later, we know he’s right. We know he was right.” But he didn’t stop there. Rogan praised Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough as fearless truth-tellers, saying both felt “morally obligated to tell the truth.” “Dr. Robert Malone, who has nine patents in the invention of mRNA vaccine technology. Like, he took it himself. Yeah. He was reporting his insane adverse side effect where he almost died. He was telling about it, and they labeled him a kook for that.” He then turned to McCullough. “Dr. Peter McCullough is the most published physician in his field in human history. Like, this is an incredibly well-respected doctor up until he took a moral and ethical stand saying that this is not what they’re saying, this is not what we should be doing. They tried to destroy his career… But the man has incredible courage.” Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH®, Robert W Malone, MD

NEW: Joe Rogan says Dr. Peter McCullough was RIGHT about everything all along. “Five years later, we know he’s right. We know he was right.” But he didn’t stop there. Rogan praised Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough as fearless truth-tellers, saying both felt “morally obligated to tell the truth.” “Dr. Robert Malone, who has nine patents in the invention of mRNA vaccine technology. Like, he took it himself. Yeah. He was reporting his insane adverse side effect where he almost died. He was telling about it, and they labeled him a kook for that.” He then turned to McCullough. “Dr. Peter McCullough is the most published physician in his field in human history. Like, this is an incredibly well-respected doctor up until he took a moral and ethical stand saying that this is not what they’re saying, this is not what we should be doing. They tried to destroy his career… But the man has incredible courage.” Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH®, Robert W Malone, MD

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

422,927 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 FIRED WHATABURGER EMPLOYEE CLAIMS COWORKERS "THREATENED TO ASSASSINATE ME LIKE CHARLIE KIRK" — SAYS HR WAS CALLED OVER “JESUS” Byron has posted a new video explaining why he says he was fired, and the allegations are serious. In the video, he claims several coworkers threatened him repeatedly, telling him to “invest in a coffin” and saying they would harm him. At one point, he says they allegedly compared it to him being shot “like Charlie Kirk was assassinated,” repeating that phrase directly in his video. He also claims one manager personally threatened him. According to Byron, HR was called on him for “talking about Jesus and spreading the gospel” at work. He says he believes what happened was “injustice,” but added, “I don’t want to bash Whataburger… that’s not what Jesus would do.” After his firing, supporters flooded the store’s online pages with reviews. Byron now claims those reviews were removed, saying “not a single one is there.” He asked his followers for one thing: “No death threats. No violence.” Saying he’s leaving it “at the foot of the cross.” He also shared a GoFundMe, explaining he can’t collect unemployment because he worked there about five and a half months, just short of six. What started as positive food reviews has now escalated into claims of threats, religious retaliation, and disappearing reviews. If even part of this is accurate, it raises serious questions. What do you think is really happening here?

🚨 FIRED WHATABURGER EMPLOYEE CLAIMS COWORKERS "THREATENED TO ASSASSINATE ME LIKE CHARLIE KIRK" — SAYS HR WAS CALLED OVER “JESUS” Byron has posted a new video explaining why he says he was fired, and the allegations are serious. In the video, he claims several coworkers threatened him repeatedly, telling him to “invest in a coffin” and saying they would harm him. At one point, he says they allegedly compared it to him being shot “like Charlie Kirk was assassinated,” repeating that phrase directly in his video. He also claims one manager personally threatened him. According to Byron, HR was called on him for “talking about Jesus and spreading the gospel” at work. He says he believes what happened was “injustice,” but added, “I don’t want to bash Whataburger… that’s not what Jesus would do.” After his firing, supporters flooded the store’s online pages with reviews. Byron now claims those reviews were removed, saying “not a single one is there.” He asked his followers for one thing: “No death threats. No violence.” Saying he’s leaving it “at the foot of the cross.” He also shared a GoFundMe, explaining he can’t collect unemployment because he worked there about five and a half months, just short of six. What started as positive food reviews has now escalated into claims of threats, religious retaliation, and disappearing reviews. If even part of this is accurate, it raises serious questions. What do you think is really happening here?

HustleBitch

61,440 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

M.A. Rothman

187,953 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🚨 Attorney Tom Renz raises a serious warning about Trump — and the Epstein cover-up. Tom Renz says he’s struggling to understand why Trump is tolerating it. This is the same Trump who fired people nonstop in his first term to “drain the swamp” — yet now, Renz says, he’s allowing something “mind-blowing” to continue. Then came the moment that stunned him: Trump saying, “I like Bill Clinton.” Renz’s reaction: Bill Clinton? The “King of the Lolita Express”? “That’s who you’re going to publicly praise?” Renz says it’s getting harder to believe Trump “doesn’t know what’s going on” or that this is just a mistake by subordinates. He says he’s still trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt — but it’s getting very difficult. His warning is blunt: If Trump doesn’t make major changes soon, and Democrats regain control after the midterms, the consequences for the country could be devastating.

🚨 Attorney Tom Renz raises a serious warning about Trump — and the Epstein cover-up. Tom Renz says he’s struggling to understand why Trump is tolerating it. This is the same Trump who fired people nonstop in his first term to “drain the swamp” — yet now, Renz says, he’s allowing something “mind-blowing” to continue. Then came the moment that stunned him: Trump saying, “I like Bill Clinton.” Renz’s reaction: Bill Clinton? The “King of the Lolita Express”? “That’s who you’re going to publicly praise?” Renz says it’s getting harder to believe Trump “doesn’t know what’s going on” or that this is just a mistake by subordinates. He says he’s still trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt — but it’s getting very difficult. His warning is blunt: If Trump doesn’t make major changes soon, and Democrats regain control after the midterms, the consequences for the country could be devastating.

WorldviewTube

27,068 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐕𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐀 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄 Victor Davis Hanson is reading Trump's body language — and what he sees is a president recalibrating his inner circle in real time. VDH starts by giving Vance his due. In 2024, Vance "𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢," destroyed everyone he debated, and made Walz look like "𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴" — all with surgical calm. His attitude toward opponents was almost generous: "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶." Formidable. But that was the campaign. Then came governing. Iran. Venezuela. Cuba. None of it was MAGA orthodoxy. The strikes took out Iran's nuclear facilities and its supreme leader. The Venezuela operation grabbed Maduro right out from under his Cuban bodyguards with zero American d∗aths. Bold, decisive — and exactly the kind of engagement that puts Vance in 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. As VDH explains it, Vance knows Trump values "𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺" above everything. But his power base — Tucker, Don Jr., Tucker's son on his own staff, the people who got him the VP nomination — are the ones most opposed to the foreign engagements. Trump acknowledged the rift publicly, telling reporters he and Vance are 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 on Iran (ABC News). To his credit, Vance handled it well — "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦." But the tension is real. Meanwhile, enter 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧. VDH's nickname is perfect. Panama problem? Send Rubio. Vance blew things up with Zelensky and the Europeans? Send Rubio to play good cop. Personable, speaks Spanish, popular — and Trump is heaping praise on him. When reporters asked about a disagreement with Vance, Trump was notably lukewarm. Then he pivoted to Rubio: "𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺." That contrast isn't accidental. That's Trump's antennas telling the room where the loyalty ledger stands. Then VDH turns to Tucker — and this part stings. Hanson was on Tucker's show for years and never heard any of what Tucker is saying now. There's an internet compilation of Tucker's own past statements where he was "𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵" against radical Islam and Iran. Now he's calling Trump's Iran decision 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 and claiming that when you demand unconditional surrender, it historically leads to mass r∗pe of the defeated population (Mediaite). Trump's response was blunt: Tucker is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐀. VDH dismantles Tucker's premise with a single example. America demanded unconditional surrender from Japan. Douglas MacArthur served as pro-consul for eight years. There was no mass r∗pe by Americans. Tucker's claim doesn't survive contact with the most obvious parallel in modern history. The message VDH is decoding is clear: Vance needs to divorce himself from the extremist voices, recommit to Trump's agenda as executed — not as debated on podcasts — and prove that loyalty runs both ways. If he doesn't, the man Trump keeps calling the greatest Secretary of State in history is right there. 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜. 𝐀𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐕𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐀 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄 Victor Davis Hanson is reading Trump's body language — and what he sees is a president recalibrating his inner circle in real time. VDH starts by giving Vance his due. In 2024, Vance "𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢," destroyed everyone he debated, and made Walz look like "𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴" — all with surgical calm. His attitude toward opponents was almost generous: "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶." Formidable. But that was the campaign. Then came governing. Iran. Venezuela. Cuba. None of it was MAGA orthodoxy. The strikes took out Iran's nuclear facilities and its supreme leader. The Venezuela operation grabbed Maduro right out from under his Cuban bodyguards with zero American d∗aths. Bold, decisive — and exactly the kind of engagement that puts Vance in 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. As VDH explains it, Vance knows Trump values "𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺" above everything. But his power base — Tucker, Don Jr., Tucker's son on his own staff, the people who got him the VP nomination — are the ones most opposed to the foreign engagements. Trump acknowledged the rift publicly, telling reporters he and Vance are 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 on Iran (ABC News). To his credit, Vance handled it well — "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦." But the tension is real. Meanwhile, enter 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧. VDH's nickname is perfect. Panama problem? Send Rubio. Vance blew things up with Zelensky and the Europeans? Send Rubio to play good cop. Personable, speaks Spanish, popular — and Trump is heaping praise on him. When reporters asked about a disagreement with Vance, Trump was notably lukewarm. Then he pivoted to Rubio: "𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺." That contrast isn't accidental. That's Trump's antennas telling the room where the loyalty ledger stands. Then VDH turns to Tucker — and this part stings. Hanson was on Tucker's show for years and never heard any of what Tucker is saying now. There's an internet compilation of Tucker's own past statements where he was "𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵" against radical Islam and Iran. Now he's calling Trump's Iran decision 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 and claiming that when you demand unconditional surrender, it historically leads to mass r∗pe of the defeated population (Mediaite). Trump's response was blunt: Tucker is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐀. VDH dismantles Tucker's premise with a single example. America demanded unconditional surrender from Japan. Douglas MacArthur served as pro-consul for eight years. There was no mass r∗pe by Americans. Tucker's claim doesn't survive contact with the most obvious parallel in modern history. The message VDH is decoding is clear: Vance needs to divorce himself from the extremist voices, recommit to Trump's agenda as executed — not as debated on podcasts — and prove that loyalty runs both ways. If he doesn't, the man Trump keeps calling the greatest Secretary of State in history is right there. 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜. 𝐀𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

701,094 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱 𝗝. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 - 𝟭𝟭:𝟮𝟴 𝗣𝗠 𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝟬𝟱.𝟭𝟭.𝟮𝟲 President Trump just posted this info from M.A. Rothman "𝐀 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐆𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐀 𝐒𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐒𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐃𝐀𝐌 𝐒𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐅𝐅 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘 𝐃𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐅𝐅 𝐓𝐎 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐊 𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐀𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐃𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐃 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍." A legal analyst on the program walked viewers through why this is a different kind of accusation than the usual Beltway leak: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘔𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥.” ‘𝘚𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘧𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Now the critical detail. The whistleblower’s statement was made 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘍𝘉𝘐 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘉𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.” That is the entire point. Lying to the FBI is the exact statute the Mueller team and the Biden DOJ used to prosecute George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and a long list of Trump-orbit defendants. The whistleblower 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞. If even half of this account holds, Adam Schiff did not just lie on television about Russia collusion for four years. He 𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, using the classified intelligence the American people had entrusted him to protect. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐈𝐆𝐆𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐈𝐍 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐌𝐀𝐘 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐆𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐀 𝐍𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐃 𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐓 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐎𝐀𝐓𝐇."

𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱 𝗝. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 - 𝟭𝟭:𝟮𝟴 𝗣𝗠 𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝟬𝟱.𝟭𝟭.𝟮𝟲 President Trump just posted this info from M.A. Rothman "𝐀 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐆𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐀 𝐒𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐒𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐃𝐀𝐌 𝐒𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐅𝐅 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘 𝐃𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐅𝐅 𝐓𝐎 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐊 𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐀𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐃𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐃 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍." A legal analyst on the program walked viewers through why this is a different kind of accusation than the usual Beltway leak: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘔𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥.” ‘𝘚𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘧𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Now the critical detail. The whistleblower’s statement was made 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘍𝘉𝘐 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘉𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.” That is the entire point. Lying to the FBI is the exact statute the Mueller team and the Biden DOJ used to prosecute George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and a long list of Trump-orbit defendants. The whistleblower 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞. If even half of this account holds, Adam Schiff did not just lie on television about Russia collusion for four years. He 𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, using the classified intelligence the American people had entrusted him to protect. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐈𝐆𝐆𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐈𝐍 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐌𝐀𝐘 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐆𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐀 𝐍𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐃 𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐓 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐎𝐀𝐓𝐇."

Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social

48,997 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

For those who foolishly convince themselves that every criticism of Peter Obi is proof of his relevance, they fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Peter Obi is not constantly criticized because he is indispensable to Nigeria's political future; he is criticized because he repeatedly says and does things that attract legitimate criticism. Politics is not a sanctuary from scrutiny. Anyone seeking to lead over 200 million people must be prepared to face tough questions, intense examination, and public accountability. No politician deserves endless applause, and no presidential aspirant should be placed on a pedestal beyond criticism. One of the primary reasons Peter Obi continues to attract criticism is his reckless relationship with facts. Time and again, he makes claims that collapse under the weight of verification. His recent story about spending days at the University of Southern California with a faculty supposedly dominated by ex-convicts including a dean who allegedly spent 28 years in prison and a registrar who also served a lengthy jail term was exposed as false amongst several others. When a man seeking the highest office in the country repeatedly circulates questionable stories and unverified claims, criticism is not persecution; it is a necessary response. Beyond that, Peter Obi has perfected the art of complaining without convincing solutions. He is quick to identify problems, quick to blame others and quick to paint gloomy pictures, yet consistently struggles to present comprehensive, practical and realistic alternatives. Anybody can diagnose problems; leadership is measured by the ability to solve them. Endless lamentation is not a development agenda. What is even more troubling is the obsession with negativity that defines much of his political messaging. No matter the progress recorded, no matter the achievements delivered, no matter the improvements made, everything must be dismissed, ridiculed, or deliberately ignored. Every success becomes a failure in his narrative. Every effort becomes worthless. Every development must be blackened to sustain a predetermined political storyline. Peter Obi's politics often gives the impression of a man who believes that because he failed, everyone else must fail as well. Rather than inspiring hope, encouraging confidence, or presenting superior alternatives, he appears more invested in forecasting doom, exaggerating setbacks, and undermining achievements. His political capital is built less on solutions and more on pessimism. Equally disturbing is the conduct of many of his supporters, whose devotion frequently resembles fanaticism rather than rational political engagement. A significant number seem incapable of separating facts from emotions or objective analysis from blind loyalty. Any criticism, no matter how valid, is automatically branded an attack. Any inconvenient fact is rejected. Any opposing viewpoint is demonized. For many of them, political loyalty has replaced critical thinking. The reality is straightforward: Peter Obi is criticized because his statements, conduct,inconsistencies and political approach invite criticism. He is not a victim of scrutiny; he is a beneficiary of the same democratic accountability that every public figure faces. If Peter Obi wants to lead Nigeria, he must learn to defend his claims with facts, answer difficult questions without excuses, and subject himself to the same standards he demands of others. Leadership is not about perpetual complaints, endless blame or cultivating a personality cult. It is about competence, credibility, responsibility and results. No politician is above accountability, and Peter Obi deserves no special exemption from it. #hallelujah

For those who foolishly convince themselves that every criticism of Peter Obi is proof of his relevance, they fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Peter Obi is not constantly criticized because he is indispensable to Nigeria's political future; he is criticized because he repeatedly says and does things that attract legitimate criticism. Politics is not a sanctuary from scrutiny. Anyone seeking to lead over 200 million people must be prepared to face tough questions, intense examination, and public accountability. No politician deserves endless applause, and no presidential aspirant should be placed on a pedestal beyond criticism. One of the primary reasons Peter Obi continues to attract criticism is his reckless relationship with facts. Time and again, he makes claims that collapse under the weight of verification. His recent story about spending days at the University of Southern California with a faculty supposedly dominated by ex-convicts including a dean who allegedly spent 28 years in prison and a registrar who also served a lengthy jail term was exposed as false amongst several others. When a man seeking the highest office in the country repeatedly circulates questionable stories and unverified claims, criticism is not persecution; it is a necessary response. Beyond that, Peter Obi has perfected the art of complaining without convincing solutions. He is quick to identify problems, quick to blame others and quick to paint gloomy pictures, yet consistently struggles to present comprehensive, practical and realistic alternatives. Anybody can diagnose problems; leadership is measured by the ability to solve them. Endless lamentation is not a development agenda. What is even more troubling is the obsession with negativity that defines much of his political messaging. No matter the progress recorded, no matter the achievements delivered, no matter the improvements made, everything must be dismissed, ridiculed, or deliberately ignored. Every success becomes a failure in his narrative. Every effort becomes worthless. Every development must be blackened to sustain a predetermined political storyline. Peter Obi's politics often gives the impression of a man who believes that because he failed, everyone else must fail as well. Rather than inspiring hope, encouraging confidence, or presenting superior alternatives, he appears more invested in forecasting doom, exaggerating setbacks, and undermining achievements. His political capital is built less on solutions and more on pessimism. Equally disturbing is the conduct of many of his supporters, whose devotion frequently resembles fanaticism rather than rational political engagement. A significant number seem incapable of separating facts from emotions or objective analysis from blind loyalty. Any criticism, no matter how valid, is automatically branded an attack. Any inconvenient fact is rejected. Any opposing viewpoint is demonized. For many of them, political loyalty has replaced critical thinking. The reality is straightforward: Peter Obi is criticized because his statements, conduct,inconsistencies and political approach invite criticism. He is not a victim of scrutiny; he is a beneficiary of the same democratic accountability that every public figure faces. If Peter Obi wants to lead Nigeria, he must learn to defend his claims with facts, answer difficult questions without excuses, and subject himself to the same standards he demands of others. Leadership is not about perpetual complaints, endless blame or cultivating a personality cult. It is about competence, credibility, responsibility and results. No politician is above accountability, and Peter Obi deserves no special exemption from it. #hallelujah

Àlúbàríkà 🇳🇬

13,301 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

The Air Marshal Who Traded a ‘Uniform’s Legacy’ for a ‘Temple’s Ledger’!! In my view, Air Marshal Jitendra Mishra’s (Retd.) appointment as CEO of the Ram Mandir Trust is no cause for congratulations! India’s armed forces exist to serve a secular republic. A senior Air Force officer spends decades inside an institution whose entire identity rests on constitutional loyalty and institutional neutrality. When that same officer takes the top administrative post at a religious-political trust, it deserves scrutiny; not applause, and not dismissal as mere personal preference. To be clear: this isn’t about his private faith. That’s his own business. The question is which institution he’s chosen to lend his public credibility to - credibility built over a career in uniform, not earned overnight. The Ram Mandir Trust has faced real, persistent questions over the years; donation transparency, financial oversight, political influence and so on… Placing a senior Air Force Veteran at its helm doesn’t just bring administrative competence. It brings “borrowed trust” - the kind earned in service, now being spent elsewhere. That transfer of credibility is the real story here… His military background is precisely why people will trust him. But that same trust now obligates him to make the “Trust” genuinely transparent and accountable, meaning to actually confront the irregularities and political interference it’s been accused of. That means hard, potentially unpopular decisions that could put him at odds with the very political stakeholders who benefit from the status quo. From here, there are really only two roads: push back against those interests, or fall in line with them… The first is difficult, but consistent with the dignity of a secular military legacy. The second is easier; but the cost won’t stop at his personal reputation. It reflects on the institution he came from. There’s a quieter, deeper concern too. A decision this visible, by an officer (veteran) this senior, sends a message to serving personnel and to the generations after them - about where institutional credibility earned in a secular uniform can end up being spent. Frankly, it would have been more honest if he’d taken an openly political role instead; the way former Air Chief Marshal Bhadauria (Retd.) walked straight into the BJP. At least that leaves nothing to guess at. This is what deserves scrutiny - not outrage, just clear eyes on what’s really being traded here. The core tension worth sitting with: a secular military legacy, now lending its weight to a religious-political institution. A sad reality of the day.

The Air Marshal Who Traded a ‘Uniform’s Legacy’ for a ‘Temple’s Ledger’!! In my view, Air Marshal Jitendra Mishra’s (Retd.) appointment as CEO of the Ram Mandir Trust is no cause for congratulations! India’s armed forces exist to serve a secular republic. A senior Air Force officer spends decades inside an institution whose entire identity rests on constitutional loyalty and institutional neutrality. When that same officer takes the top administrative post at a religious-political trust, it deserves scrutiny; not applause, and not dismissal as mere personal preference. To be clear: this isn’t about his private faith. That’s his own business. The question is which institution he’s chosen to lend his public credibility to - credibility built over a career in uniform, not earned overnight. The Ram Mandir Trust has faced real, persistent questions over the years; donation transparency, financial oversight, political influence and so on… Placing a senior Air Force Veteran at its helm doesn’t just bring administrative competence. It brings “borrowed trust” - the kind earned in service, now being spent elsewhere. That transfer of credibility is the real story here… His military background is precisely why people will trust him. But that same trust now obligates him to make the “Trust” genuinely transparent and accountable, meaning to actually confront the irregularities and political interference it’s been accused of. That means hard, potentially unpopular decisions that could put him at odds with the very political stakeholders who benefit from the status quo. From here, there are really only two roads: push back against those interests, or fall in line with them… The first is difficult, but consistent with the dignity of a secular military legacy. The second is easier; but the cost won’t stop at his personal reputation. It reflects on the institution he came from. There’s a quieter, deeper concern too. A decision this visible, by an officer (veteran) this senior, sends a message to serving personnel and to the generations after them - about where institutional credibility earned in a secular uniform can end up being spent. Frankly, it would have been more honest if he’d taken an openly political role instead; the way former Air Chief Marshal Bhadauria (Retd.) walked straight into the BJP. At least that leaves nothing to guess at. This is what deserves scrutiny - not outrage, just clear eyes on what’s really being traded here. The core tension worth sitting with: a secular military legacy, now lending its weight to a religious-political institution. A sad reality of the day.

Wg Cdr Anuma Acharya (Retd)

82,471 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

20,683 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Senator John Kennedy served up one of the most brutal ROASTS of Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner. The line that sold the two-minute comedy routine was calling him so extreme he makes AOC look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry. KENNEDY: “Sean, Mr. Platner seems to be one of the new faces of the loon wing of the Democratic Party.” “Clearly he’s angry. When I see him on TV, he always looks like he’s straining to have a stool.” “His supporters say no, you don’t understand him. He’s just idiosyncratic. I guess he goose steps to the beat of his own drummer.” “But his history shows there’s more than that.” “I mean, this guy makes...he makes Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry.” “Mr. Platner’s comments about black people, his cavalier attitude towards r*pe, apparently his stated preference for masturbating in a porta-potty, his contempt for America.” “I think at one point he implied he wished the Taliban were better shots to kill our people.” “This is not normal. I mean, this guy is 10 exits past normal.” “Then he says well, that was in my past. I’ve been born again. But just recently we found out through his wife that Mr. Platner has been sending sexually explicit messages, digital messages, to other women.” “He calls it sexting.” “He says oh, there’s nothing to see here. Well, Anthony wiener was sexting. We all said what is that about?” “We found out he was sending pictures of his penis to young women.” “Now, I’m not saying Mr. Platner is doing that. I don’t know. But he needs to release those text messages. I want to know if he’s a sexual predator!” “I mean, the people of Maine deserve to know. This guy is...he’s like a Saturday Night Live skit!”

Senator John Kennedy served up one of the most brutal ROASTS of Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner. The line that sold the two-minute comedy routine was calling him so extreme he makes AOC look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry. KENNEDY: “Sean, Mr. Platner seems to be one of the new faces of the loon wing of the Democratic Party.” “Clearly he’s angry. When I see him on TV, he always looks like he’s straining to have a stool.” “His supporters say no, you don’t understand him. He’s just idiosyncratic. I guess he goose steps to the beat of his own drummer.” “But his history shows there’s more than that.” “I mean, this guy makes...he makes Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry.” “Mr. Platner’s comments about black people, his cavalier attitude towards r*pe, apparently his stated preference for masturbating in a porta-potty, his contempt for America.” “I think at one point he implied he wished the Taliban were better shots to kill our people.” “This is not normal. I mean, this guy is 10 exits past normal.” “Then he says well, that was in my past. I’ve been born again. But just recently we found out through his wife that Mr. Platner has been sending sexually explicit messages, digital messages, to other women.” “He calls it sexting.” “He says oh, there’s nothing to see here. Well, Anthony wiener was sexting. We all said what is that about?” “We found out he was sending pictures of his penis to young women.” “Now, I’m not saying Mr. Platner is doing that. I don’t know. But he needs to release those text messages. I want to know if he’s a sexual predator!” “I mean, the people of Maine deserve to know. This guy is...he’s like a Saturday Night Live skit!”

Overton

116,381 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Peter Navarro told Fauci to his face that he had “blood on his hands” for keeping hydroxychloroquine from the American people. Navarro walked into the Situation Room with a huge stack of papers, saying hydroxychloroquine worked. The one person who helped Fauci escape Navarro was Vice President Mike Pence, who told him to “take this outside.” This is a story that comes from Dr. Fauci himself. He says he never wanted to contradict President Trump’s COVID messaging, but felt compelled to do so out of a responsibility to “tell the truth.” For people like Fauci, “telling the truth” doesn’t mean transparency. It follows a very different logic, and once you see it, everything about COVID suddenly makes sense. 🧵

Peter Navarro told Fauci to his face that he had “blood on his hands” for keeping hydroxychloroquine from the American people. Navarro walked into the Situation Room with a huge stack of papers, saying hydroxychloroquine worked. The one person who helped Fauci escape Navarro was Vice President Mike Pence, who told him to “take this outside.” This is a story that comes from Dr. Fauci himself. He says he never wanted to contradict President Trump’s COVID messaging, but felt compelled to do so out of a responsibility to “tell the truth.” For people like Fauci, “telling the truth” doesn’t mean transparency. It follows a very different logic, and once you see it, everything about COVID suddenly makes sense. 🧵

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

340,821 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

1. For the longest time, Daddy Freeze has tried to explain why he does not support Peter Obi. 2. Each time, however, the argument seems to collapse under its own contradictions. 3. The problem is not that everything he says is unreasonable. Some observations are legitimate. 4. The problem is that he repeatedly conflates separate issues until they become one giant bowl of political jollof. 5. Let us separate them. 6. First, Daddy Freeze has every right not to support Peter Obi. 7. Nigeria is still, at least constitutionally, a democracy. 8. He can support Tinubu, Atiku, Sowore, or decide that none deserves his vote. 9. He does not need permission from Obidients. 10. So when he says he cannot support PO because of Peter Obi’s supporters, he is effectively outsourcing his political judgment to strangers on social media. 11. Then comes the curious part. 12. In the same video, Daddy Freeze describes Peter Obi as prudent, successful, wealthy, accomplished in business and banking, humble and honest. Fair enough. It sounds suspiciously like someone introducing Obi at a campaign rally. 13. Then comes the inevitable “but.” 14. Peter Obi’s wife, according to Freeze, was seen carrying an expensive Hermès bag, and he argues that this appears inconsistent with Peter Obi’s message of personal frugality. 15. That criticism is fair territory. 16. In a country where millions struggle to afford food, politicians and their families should understand the symbolism of conspicuous consumption. 17. I would prefer less extravagance around anyone associated with public leadership. 19. But Daddy Freeze should remember something basic: Peter Obi’s wife is a private citizen. 20. She does not hold public office, she is not running for president, and she is not required to live by every personal lifestyle choice her husband makes. 21. More importantly, Peter Obi has governed before. 22. When he governed Anambra, there was no institutionalised Office of the First Lady under his administration. 23. Therefore, the serious question should not be the price of his wife’s handbag. 24. It should be whether public money was used to buy it. 25. That is where antecedents matter. 26. Peter Obi is not asking Nigerians to judge him entirely on promises. 27. He is asking to be judged partly on his record in office. 28. There is also an amusing trap here. 29. Peter Obi is a wealthy man. 30. If his wife dresses modestly, somebody will announce that Obi is so stingy he cannot allow his family to enjoy their wealth. 31. If she carries an expensive handbag, a National Commission for Handbags suddenly convenes on social media. 32. Either way, somebody is waiting with a calculator. 33. But Freeze raises an even more interesting moral question when he compares this with his criticism of pastors who enrich themselves from their congregations. 34. That comparison requires consistency. 35. A moral principle cannot depend on the uniform of the person violating it. 36. If exploiting ordinary people is wrong when the alleged offender wears a clerical collar, it does not suddenly become less objectionable when the person wears designer clothes, or presents himself as a successful “hustler" 37. Frz has previously attracted criticism for publicly associating with and interviewing controversial figures such as Hushpuppi. 38. That history complicates the moral argument. 39. You cannot build a moral philosophy where the pastor is under investigation, while the politician, celebrity or flamboyant hustler gets a more generous hearing. 40. Principles must survive friendships, professions and political preferences. 41. Otherwise, they are not principles. 42. Daddy Freeze does not need to support Peter Obi. 43. But he should own that decision himself. Not blame it on PO's wife

1. For the longest time, Daddy Freeze has tried to explain why he does not support Peter Obi. 2. Each time, however, the argument seems to collapse under its own contradictions. 3. The problem is not that everything he says is unreasonable. Some observations are legitimate. 4. The problem is that he repeatedly conflates separate issues until they become one giant bowl of political jollof. 5. Let us separate them. 6. First, Daddy Freeze has every right not to support Peter Obi. 7. Nigeria is still, at least constitutionally, a democracy. 8. He can support Tinubu, Atiku, Sowore, or decide that none deserves his vote. 9. He does not need permission from Obidients. 10. So when he says he cannot support PO because of Peter Obi’s supporters, he is effectively outsourcing his political judgment to strangers on social media. 11. Then comes the curious part. 12. In the same video, Daddy Freeze describes Peter Obi as prudent, successful, wealthy, accomplished in business and banking, humble and honest. Fair enough. It sounds suspiciously like someone introducing Obi at a campaign rally. 13. Then comes the inevitable “but.” 14. Peter Obi’s wife, according to Freeze, was seen carrying an expensive Hermès bag, and he argues that this appears inconsistent with Peter Obi’s message of personal frugality. 15. That criticism is fair territory. 16. In a country where millions struggle to afford food, politicians and their families should understand the symbolism of conspicuous consumption. 17. I would prefer less extravagance around anyone associated with public leadership. 19. But Daddy Freeze should remember something basic: Peter Obi’s wife is a private citizen. 20. She does not hold public office, she is not running for president, and she is not required to live by every personal lifestyle choice her husband makes. 21. More importantly, Peter Obi has governed before. 22. When he governed Anambra, there was no institutionalised Office of the First Lady under his administration. 23. Therefore, the serious question should not be the price of his wife’s handbag. 24. It should be whether public money was used to buy it. 25. That is where antecedents matter. 26. Peter Obi is not asking Nigerians to judge him entirely on promises. 27. He is asking to be judged partly on his record in office. 28. There is also an amusing trap here. 29. Peter Obi is a wealthy man. 30. If his wife dresses modestly, somebody will announce that Obi is so stingy he cannot allow his family to enjoy their wealth. 31. If she carries an expensive handbag, a National Commission for Handbags suddenly convenes on social media. 32. Either way, somebody is waiting with a calculator. 33. But Freeze raises an even more interesting moral question when he compares this with his criticism of pastors who enrich themselves from their congregations. 34. That comparison requires consistency. 35. A moral principle cannot depend on the uniform of the person violating it. 36. If exploiting ordinary people is wrong when the alleged offender wears a clerical collar, it does not suddenly become less objectionable when the person wears designer clothes, or presents himself as a successful “hustler" 37. Frz has previously attracted criticism for publicly associating with and interviewing controversial figures such as Hushpuppi. 38. That history complicates the moral argument. 39. You cannot build a moral philosophy where the pastor is under investigation, while the politician, celebrity or flamboyant hustler gets a more generous hearing. 40. Principles must survive friendships, professions and political preferences. 41. Otherwise, they are not principles. 42. Daddy Freeze does not need to support Peter Obi. 43. But he should own that decision himself. Not blame it on PO's wife

Preach Ojukwu 🇮🇪

25,617 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce