正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

"𝙄𝙩 𝙜𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙇𝙪𝙠𝙚 𝙃𝙪𝙢𝙥𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙤𝙤 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝." Luke Littler admits he has created a 'fear factor' among his rivals after claiming a fourth weekly title 👀🗣️ Watch in full 👉

Live Darts

246,753 subscribers

31,701 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

4 条评论

Rob Colcombe 的头像

Rob Colcombe1 年前

Humphries is the modern day Barney

BigT 的头像

BigT1 年前

Someone jump in the tardis and go get prime Taylor to put him in his place, this is getting unbearable

Lucas 的头像

Lucas1 年前

*apart from Gerwyn Price

Estadio Deportes 的头像

Estadio Deportes1 年前

#ExtraCancha DIGANME QUE SE ENCUENTRA BIEN 🥹 Bruce Willis, debido a su estado de salud, tuvo que alejarse de los reflectores; su familia ha estado dando información esporádica sobre su vida fuera de cámara. 😖 Entérate aquí. 👇🏻 #BruceWillis #Familia

相关视频

"𝙄𝙨 𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙇𝙪𝙠𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 £1-2 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨?" Luke Littler weighs in on Michael van Gerwen's comments as he prepares for his world title defence 👀🗣️ Watch in full 👉

"𝙄𝙨 𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙇𝙪𝙠𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 £1-2 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨?" Luke Littler weighs in on Michael van Gerwen's comments as he prepares for his world title defence 👀🗣️ Watch in full 👉

Live Darts

101,586 次观看 • 9 个月前

"𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙜𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚, 𝙇𝙪𝙠𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙂𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜." Luke Littler gives his honest reaction to a mixed reception from the crowd on his return to action in the UK 👀🗣️ Watch in full 👉

"𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙜𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚, 𝙇𝙪𝙠𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙂𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜." Luke Littler gives his honest reaction to a mixed reception from the crowd on his return to action in the UK 👀🗣️ Watch in full 👉

Live Darts

73,707 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 DJ Akademiks Reacts To Fans Claiming Drake Took Another Shot At A$AP Rocky During His “Nostalgia” Event While Playing “Burning Bridges” 👀 While reviewing clips from Drake’s “Nostalgia” event in New Jersey, DJ Akademiks reacted to fans on social media who believe Drake subtly took another jab at A$AP Rocky while “Burning Bridges” was playing. The moment in question came during the lyric, “Look in the mirror and see what talking gets you,” where Drake appeared to make a gesture across his face. Many online interpreted the motion as a reference to A$AP Rocky’s past facial injury. 🗣️ Akademiks: “A lot of people are saying Drake was taunting A$AP Rocky. When he got to the line, ‘Look in the mirror and see what talking gets you,’ he did a gesture across his face, and fans think that was another shot.” Akademiks noted that many listeners have long believed “Burning Bridges” contains subliminal shots aimed at A$AP Rocky and Rihanna, but says the gesture reignited speculation that Drake still hasn’t moved past their issues. He also pointed out that, despite the song being viewed by some as a diss record, it has become so popular that most fans now enjoy it without thinking about its alleged targets. 🗣️ Akademiks: “This might be one of Drake’s most diabolical diss songs because most people aren’t even thinking about Rocky or Rihanna anymore they just love the record.” Akademiks went on to say he believes Drake’s issues with A$AP Rocky appear to run deeper than many of his other rap feuds. 🗣️ Akademiks: “Out of all Drake’s beefs Kendrick, Rick Ross, Metro I honestly think he dislikes Rocky the most. Every chance he gets, he cooks him.” He then revisited his previous interview with A$AP Rocky, saying he wanted to look back at Rocky’s comments to better understand why the tension between the two artists appears to have remained unresolved. Watch his stream to see the full recap

🚨 DJ Akademiks Reacts To Fans Claiming Drake Took Another Shot At A$AP Rocky During His “Nostalgia” Event While Playing “Burning Bridges” 👀 While reviewing clips from Drake’s “Nostalgia” event in New Jersey, DJ Akademiks reacted to fans on social media who believe Drake subtly took another jab at A$AP Rocky while “Burning Bridges” was playing. The moment in question came during the lyric, “Look in the mirror and see what talking gets you,” where Drake appeared to make a gesture across his face. Many online interpreted the motion as a reference to A$AP Rocky’s past facial injury. 🗣️ Akademiks: “A lot of people are saying Drake was taunting A$AP Rocky. When he got to the line, ‘Look in the mirror and see what talking gets you,’ he did a gesture across his face, and fans think that was another shot.” Akademiks noted that many listeners have long believed “Burning Bridges” contains subliminal shots aimed at A$AP Rocky and Rihanna, but says the gesture reignited speculation that Drake still hasn’t moved past their issues. He also pointed out that, despite the song being viewed by some as a diss record, it has become so popular that most fans now enjoy it without thinking about its alleged targets. 🗣️ Akademiks: “This might be one of Drake’s most diabolical diss songs because most people aren’t even thinking about Rocky or Rihanna anymore they just love the record.” Akademiks went on to say he believes Drake’s issues with A$AP Rocky appear to run deeper than many of his other rap feuds. 🗣️ Akademiks: “Out of all Drake’s beefs Kendrick, Rick Ross, Metro I honestly think he dislikes Rocky the most. Every chance he gets, he cooks him.” He then revisited his previous interview with A$AP Rocky, saying he wanted to look back at Rocky’s comments to better understand why the tension between the two artists appears to have remained unresolved. Watch his stream to see the full recap

Cousin Tino ™️

24,172 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨⚖️ Attorney Bradford Cohen Weighs In On Headlines Claiming Nicki Minaj Was Sued Over Alleged $230,000 In Unpaid Legal Fees Which He Views Is Ridiculous By The Lawyers 👀 Popular defense attorney Bradford Cohen reacted to recent reports alleging that Nicki Minaj is being sued by a law firm over approximately $230,000 in unpaid legal fees, arguing that many of the headlines are leaving out important legal context. According to Cohen, reports that a default was entered against Minaj should not be confused with a default judgment, explaining that the two carry very different legal consequences. 🗣️ Bradford Cohen: “A default is not a default judgment. Meaning they can’t enforce anything. It’s just, ‘Hey, such and such failed to answer a complaint.’ It’s total bullshit. You can get those set aside.” Cohen cited his own experience representing Kodak Black, claiming he previously had a default set aside in California after what he described as an incompetent lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed. He also questioned why a law firm would choose to sue a longtime client rather than preserve the business relationship. 🗣️ Bradford Cohen: “I’ve never had to sue a client, ever, in my life. Your relationship is always more important than the money.” During the discussion, members of Cohen’s team echoed similar sentiments, arguing that pursuing litigation over the alleged amount could damage a valuable long-term client relationship. Cohen ultimately predicted that the default, if one exists, could be set aside and said he believes the dispute is more likely to end in a negotiated settlement than with the full amount allegedly being sought. At this time, Cohen was sharing his legal opinion based on the publicly reported allegations. The underlying lawsuit and the claims made by both parties have not been adjudicated in court, and Nicki Minaj has not been found liable for the alleged unpaid fees.

🚨⚖️ Attorney Bradford Cohen Weighs In On Headlines Claiming Nicki Minaj Was Sued Over Alleged $230,000 In Unpaid Legal Fees Which He Views Is Ridiculous By The Lawyers 👀 Popular defense attorney Bradford Cohen reacted to recent reports alleging that Nicki Minaj is being sued by a law firm over approximately $230,000 in unpaid legal fees, arguing that many of the headlines are leaving out important legal context. According to Cohen, reports that a default was entered against Minaj should not be confused with a default judgment, explaining that the two carry very different legal consequences. 🗣️ Bradford Cohen: “A default is not a default judgment. Meaning they can’t enforce anything. It’s just, ‘Hey, such and such failed to answer a complaint.’ It’s total bullshit. You can get those set aside.” Cohen cited his own experience representing Kodak Black, claiming he previously had a default set aside in California after what he described as an incompetent lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed. He also questioned why a law firm would choose to sue a longtime client rather than preserve the business relationship. 🗣️ Bradford Cohen: “I’ve never had to sue a client, ever, in my life. Your relationship is always more important than the money.” During the discussion, members of Cohen’s team echoed similar sentiments, arguing that pursuing litigation over the alleged amount could damage a valuable long-term client relationship. Cohen ultimately predicted that the default, if one exists, could be set aside and said he believes the dispute is more likely to end in a negotiated settlement than with the full amount allegedly being sought. At this time, Cohen was sharing his legal opinion based on the publicly reported allegations. The underlying lawsuit and the claims made by both parties have not been adjudicated in court, and Nicki Minaj has not been found liable for the alleged unpaid fees.

Cousin Tino ™️

49,802 次观看 • 2 个月前

A BIG WIN AGAINST 'HEALING'-BASED ILLEGAL CONVERSION RACKETS 🔴Pastor Yoseph Gill from Punjab arrested by Pune Police under Anti-Superstition Act 🔴Accused had publicly claimed at an event that his “prayers” cured a woman of AIDS 🔴The event was masked as 'Christmas Celebration' HOW HE WAS ARRESTED ▶️On 9 Dec 2025, Pastor Gill organised an event in Pune named Christian Celebration, where the promotional poster said - 'HIV positive patient treated by Prabhu' ▶️The poster introduced him as “spiritual son of Dr Apostle Ankur Yoseph Narula” - the same network repeatedly linked to miracle-healing propaganda and religious conversions ▶️Pune resident Siddharth Shahuraj Chavan filed a police complaint against Gill, stating that he was spreading dangerous superstitions among poor and Dalit communities to convert them ▶️Yerwada Police in Pune booked Gill under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Act, and arrested him the same day ▶️Chavan told Rashtra Jyoti he recorded the event where the claims were made by a woman named Sunita, and then submitted to police A WIN AND A WARNING For years, pastors like Gill have operated with impunity: - Claiming to cure AIDS, cancer, infertility, disability etc through prayers to Jesus. - Running a full-fledged conversion industry under the guise of “healing”, targeting the poor and Dalits in particular - Planting hate and fear towards ancestral Indian traditions and Hindu beliefs This victory belongs to every grassroots yoddha who has been taking on these mafias - often alone, village after village, town after town. Rashtra Jyoti has supported and honoured many such yoddhas. This win is also a warning to the entire illegal conversion industry: Conversion through fraud and false propaganda is a crime and cannot be masked as a constitutional right. If you indulge in it, you belong to jail.

A BIG WIN AGAINST 'HEALING'-BASED ILLEGAL CONVERSION RACKETS 🔴Pastor Yoseph Gill from Punjab arrested by Pune Police under Anti-Superstition Act 🔴Accused had publicly claimed at an event that his “prayers” cured a woman of AIDS 🔴The event was masked as 'Christmas Celebration' HOW HE WAS ARRESTED ▶️On 9 Dec 2025, Pastor Gill organised an event in Pune named Christian Celebration, where the promotional poster said - 'HIV positive patient treated by Prabhu' ▶️The poster introduced him as “spiritual son of Dr Apostle Ankur Yoseph Narula” - the same network repeatedly linked to miracle-healing propaganda and religious conversions ▶️Pune resident Siddharth Shahuraj Chavan filed a police complaint against Gill, stating that he was spreading dangerous superstitions among poor and Dalit communities to convert them ▶️Yerwada Police in Pune booked Gill under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Act, and arrested him the same day ▶️Chavan told Rashtra Jyoti he recorded the event where the claims were made by a woman named Sunita, and then submitted to police A WIN AND A WARNING For years, pastors like Gill have operated with impunity: - Claiming to cure AIDS, cancer, infertility, disability etc through prayers to Jesus. - Running a full-fledged conversion industry under the guise of “healing”, targeting the poor and Dalits in particular - Planting hate and fear towards ancestral Indian traditions and Hindu beliefs This victory belongs to every grassroots yoddha who has been taking on these mafias - often alone, village after village, town after town. Rashtra Jyoti has supported and honoured many such yoddhas. This win is also a warning to the entire illegal conversion industry: Conversion through fraud and false propaganda is a crime and cannot be masked as a constitutional right. If you indulge in it, you belong to jail.

Rashtra Jyoti

21,777 次观看 • 9 个月前

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents in Minneapolis violently detained, threatened, and arrested a U.S. citizen for one reason only, he refused to prove his citizenship. In the video, agents immediately escalate to physical force. A man stands with his hands up, repeatedly saying, “I’m not doing anything,” while agents shove him, force him against his car, and begin an illegal search. No crime. No warrant. No probable cause. An agent falsely claims, “That’s assault,” while they are actively assaulting a U.S. citizen who is complying and not resisting. Moments later, the agent admits the truth, saying, “And all we needed was your ID,” openly acknowledging this was an unlawful detention based solely on a refusal to produce identification. That is not legal. The short agent then threatens, “Don’t move or you will be fucking tased.” The man calmly responds, “I’m not moving.” The short agent escalates again, snarling, “You’re a fucking bitch, and you’re going to learn the hard way.” That is a direct threat of violence against a U.S. citizen whose hands are already behind his back. They dig through his pockets anyway, repeating, “I just asked you for an ID,” as if that excuses violating the Fourth Amendment. Then, in a moment that exposes the entire operation, the short agent announces, “He has a gun on him! Wouldn’t you look at that.” As if Minnesota is not a conceal-carry state. The man immediately responds, “A fully registered firearm. Because I’m a U.S. citizen.” The short agent casually tosses the firearm onto the car after removing the magazine, demonstrating reckless handling of a legally owned weapon. By this point, they have removed his wallet, yet, still do not check his ID, and still continue the arrest. The man states the obvious, “Unlawful arrest.” The short agent replies, “We’ll see about that.” When asked what crime he committed, the short agent deflects, saying, “We’re going to talk about that when we get in the car,” knowing full well he is on camera and cannot articulate a lawful reason. Only then do agents begin changing their story, claiming the man “reached for something.” The man immediately corrects them, he reached for his whistle. ICE agents already admitted the detention was because he refused to show ID. They did not know he was carrying a firearm until after the illegal search. Now they are retroactively inventing justification. The video contradicts every word they say. This wasn’t law enforcement. This was intimidation, retaliation, and a fishing expedition carried out by armed agents. If not carry papers, as a U.S. citizen, gets you assaulted and arrested, then this isn’t law enforcement. It’s a police state.

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents in Minneapolis violently detained, threatened, and arrested a U.S. citizen for one reason only, he refused to prove his citizenship. In the video, agents immediately escalate to physical force. A man stands with his hands up, repeatedly saying, “I’m not doing anything,” while agents shove him, force him against his car, and begin an illegal search. No crime. No warrant. No probable cause. An agent falsely claims, “That’s assault,” while they are actively assaulting a U.S. citizen who is complying and not resisting. Moments later, the agent admits the truth, saying, “And all we needed was your ID,” openly acknowledging this was an unlawful detention based solely on a refusal to produce identification. That is not legal. The short agent then threatens, “Don’t move or you will be fucking tased.” The man calmly responds, “I’m not moving.” The short agent escalates again, snarling, “You’re a fucking bitch, and you’re going to learn the hard way.” That is a direct threat of violence against a U.S. citizen whose hands are already behind his back. They dig through his pockets anyway, repeating, “I just asked you for an ID,” as if that excuses violating the Fourth Amendment. Then, in a moment that exposes the entire operation, the short agent announces, “He has a gun on him! Wouldn’t you look at that.” As if Minnesota is not a conceal-carry state. The man immediately responds, “A fully registered firearm. Because I’m a U.S. citizen.” The short agent casually tosses the firearm onto the car after removing the magazine, demonstrating reckless handling of a legally owned weapon. By this point, they have removed his wallet, yet, still do not check his ID, and still continue the arrest. The man states the obvious, “Unlawful arrest.” The short agent replies, “We’ll see about that.” When asked what crime he committed, the short agent deflects, saying, “We’re going to talk about that when we get in the car,” knowing full well he is on camera and cannot articulate a lawful reason. Only then do agents begin changing their story, claiming the man “reached for something.” The man immediately corrects them, he reached for his whistle. ICE agents already admitted the detention was because he refused to show ID. They did not know he was carrying a firearm until after the illegal search. Now they are retroactively inventing justification. The video contradicts every word they say. This wasn’t law enforcement. This was intimidation, retaliation, and a fishing expedition carried out by armed agents. If not carry papers, as a U.S. citizen, gets you assaulted and arrested, then this isn’t law enforcement. It’s a police state.

Jesus Freakin Congress

3,224,051 次观看 • 8 个月前

‡ The Pacific Classic Result It was unfortunate that Nysos was scratched, but the result was interesting, with Fierceness, the 1.6/1 second-favorite, comfortably handling Journalism, the (overbet) 2/5 choice. That the odds of the remaining five runners ranged between 22/1 and 72/1, underscored the yawning gap in quality between the top pair and the rest. So it was clearly no surprise that the "also-rans" toiled in their wake. What was surprising, at least at first glance, was how well Fierceness appeared to handle less than ideal conditions. But on closer inspection, his trip was actually far less challenging than the vast majority of post-race takes have suggested. His having ducked in soon after the start, almost making contact with the temporary extension rail, could have been a disaster, but it wasn't, and its importance has arguably been overblown. I say that because it was not similar to the trouble that he had encountered early in some of his previous races, in that he was in his own space, and was neither bumped, constricted, nor otherwise intimidated by other runners. This is an important distinction, because the mental weakness that he had previously displayed was related to close encounters with other horses, and his ducking-in after the break did not fall into that category. Inexperienced horses may suffer from that type of self-inflicted event, but given a mature, experienced runner, they are almost always forgotten quickly, which was clearly the case here. The fact that it was a long race also helped to mitigate the event, as there was no need for the rider to panic, or feel pressure to make up ground immediately. It is even possible that the early ground loss actually helped Fierceness, as had he been drawn closer to the pace early, it could have rendered him vulnerable in the late stages of the race. At the same time, due to the inside post, and how the race unfolded, Johnny Velasquez, who has done such a brilliant job keeping Fierceness outside and clear of his rivals in his previous wins, was forced to make the best of racing inside of horses. I understand why some are tempted to argue that Fierceness displayed a new dimension, as there were no obvious signs of him having been intimidated, despite the inside trip. But while I am willing to consider the possibility that he has gained confidence, I remain skeptical of any significant change, in part because it would be highly unusual for a horse to overcome that type of mental weakness midway through its four-year-old season, and/or in its 13th start. I also remain unconvinced for more subtle reasons. First, Fierceness was never bounced around, and with the possible exception of the first turn, he was never forced to race in especially tight quarters. Secondly, the rhythm of the race, after the initial duck-in, was actually smooth, and therefore beneficial to him. To understand why the above points are important, consider that Fierceness was never, so to speak, allergic to racing inside, but was more likely to face contact, be squeezed into a tight space, or have his rhythm thrown off when breaking from an inside post. In contrast, when breaking from an outside post, JV has invariably been able to place him clear of the pack, and in a comfortable, stalking rhythm. Fierceness is also essentially a free-runner, with a "light" mouth, and as such performs best when his rider allows him to dictate his own rhythm and pace. That is why, for example, Johnny V was not at all responsible for his loss in the Breeders' Cup Classic, as he is not the type of horse that a rider can take a strong hold of in order to restrain him further off of the pace, as that would discourage him. And to the great credit of both JV and Todd Pletcher, they picked up on this early on, and have done a superb job mitigating the colt's limitations, and maximizing his potential. In the Pacific Classic, despite racing on the inside, Johnny V remained cool and calm, and gave Fierceness another masterful ride. He and the colt's connections did benefit though, as none of his rivals, either intentionally or not, tightened things up significantly, or otherwise disrupted his rhythm. In fact, quite the opposite. Having tracked comfortably through much of the race, and with space around him, Fierceness displayed his trademark spurt on the final turn. And while the pan shot may suggest that he slipped though a tight opening, it was more like the red sea parting, as the embedded head-on view illustrates. If you are able to view the full head-on replay, you will find that despite racing inside, Fierceness actually enjoyed quite a comfortable trip, after the eventful few strides. A more subtle indication that we were watching the same horse as in his previous races comes :12-14 seconds into the embedded clip. When he was about to take the lead, he cocked his head to the right, as if he may have been worried about the horse outside of him. He was able to draw away from that one so quickly that it was ultimately of no practical consequence, but I would say that it implies that he hasn't suddenly developed the heart of a lion. *** Two qualities that have been crucial to Fierceness' success are his tactical speed, coupled with the separation that he produces on the final turn of his (two-turn) races. His ability to take command at that crucial stage has served him very well, particularly in his narrow win over Thorpedo Anna, and it was again on display in the Pacific Classic. A big part of the reason why that move has been such an important part of his arsenal is that it typically allows his him to take a "breather", before digging deep in an effort to fend off any late dangers. I encourage you to watch the (pan) replay of the Pacific Classic, and focus on Johnny V from around the 3/8th pole to the head of the stretch, as he was sitting like the proverbial statue. So for at least a furlong and a half, Fierceness was on cruise control, while Journalism, his only danger, was under pressure to make up ground, in an attempt to simply reach striking distance. But with all due credit to Fierceness and his rider for having produced fine efforts in the Pacific Classic, was this really an exceptionally outstanding performance, or was it at least partly a reflection of his only serious rival failing to run his best? I'm inclined to argue the latter. Despite Journalism having produced an unusually good 3yo campaign, capped by three Gr. I wins, including a Classic success in the Preakness, and never finishing worse than second, there have been some lingering questions. One of them is whether he is actually as well-suited to 10f. as he is to 8-9f. races. Yes, he was beaten in his two previous tries over 10f. by Sovereignty, a better horse. But in each race he was able to gain first-run on that one, an advantage that is typically difficult to overcome, yet lost ground late to the winner both times, and to Baeza as well, in the KY Derby. Some have suggested that he may have a tendency to loaf when in front, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence of that. And such horses typically dig in when passed, in efforts to re-engage, which we haven't seen, at least overtly, from Journalism. He also drew away from his rivals late in his first three wins. Alex Evers made this interesting comment about the kickback in the Pacific Classic: "I've photographed racing for 20 years, I've never seen kick back knock a jockeys goggles off like this." Here is a link to his supporting photos, which are typically excellent: Could that have discouraged Journalism? I suppose that it could have been an impediment, but he is such a tough and honest horse, that I would be surprised to learn that it was a meaningful factor. By contemporary standards, Journalism has also had a busy campaign, having raced a touch over once per month since March, all but one of which in Grade I events, and four times well away from his home base. So it is possible that he is beginning to feel the effects of those races, and travels. I have also noted that from a Beyer figure standpoint, he hasn't really moved forward, and it's worth noting that in contrast to Sovereignty and Baeza, both of which were late (May) foals, Journalism was a February foal, and may not have had quite as much room to improve. I don't know why he lagged so far behind in the early stages of the Pacific Classic, or if there was any tactical intention behind it. I had previously suggested that it might make sense to ride him more patiently, a tactic that is sometimes adopted when there are questions about a horse staying a trip. But I didn't notice any improved late kick, so it's difficult to interpret the performance. Fierceness earned a 107 Beyer figure for his victory, slower than his best three races last year, and merely equivalent to his comeback victory in the Gr. II Alysheba at Churchill Downs, in May. That doesn't suggest that it was a particularly outstanding performance. Journalism was given a 102, which implies that the return to his home court did not catalyze any notable forward move. *** I would say that there is one relevant pattern that has emerged, namely that Fierceness has an apparent affinity for the faster, high energy return track surfaces in California. He has now contested three races in CA (Beyer): 1st Breeders' Cup Juvenile (105) 2nd Breeders' Cup Classic (111) 1st Pacific Classic (107) It's also interesting to compare the colt's first and last half-mile fractions in his effort in last year's BCC, and the PC, both contested at Del Mar over 10f.: BCC – :45 1/5 • :51 3/5 PC – :46 1/5 • :50 2/5 Predictably, he finished better in the PC, thanks to more manageable early fractions. But would a repeat of that effort be nearly sufficient to win this year's Classic? Given the various points noted above, coupled with Sovereignty's continued improvement, and seemingly bottomless stamina, I would be inclined to say no. And that's before even factoring Sierra Leone, Mindframe, Forever Young, et al, into the conversation. But setting aside all of the fine parsing, I'm happy to congratulate Repole Stable, and Fierceness' other connections, for having shipped to California, and for being rewarded with an exciting, winning effort. Assuming that the colt makes it to the Breeders' Cup Classic in good order, he should minimally add spice to the race, and who knows, perhaps even provide a serious challenge to knock Sovereignty off of his current throne.

‡ The Pacific Classic Result It was unfortunate that Nysos was scratched, but the result was interesting, with Fierceness, the 1.6/1 second-favorite, comfortably handling Journalism, the (overbet) 2/5 choice. That the odds of the remaining five runners ranged between 22/1 and 72/1, underscored the yawning gap in quality between the top pair and the rest. So it was clearly no surprise that the "also-rans" toiled in their wake. What was surprising, at least at first glance, was how well Fierceness appeared to handle less than ideal conditions. But on closer inspection, his trip was actually far less challenging than the vast majority of post-race takes have suggested. His having ducked in soon after the start, almost making contact with the temporary extension rail, could have been a disaster, but it wasn't, and its importance has arguably been overblown. I say that because it was not similar to the trouble that he had encountered early in some of his previous races, in that he was in his own space, and was neither bumped, constricted, nor otherwise intimidated by other runners. This is an important distinction, because the mental weakness that he had previously displayed was related to close encounters with other horses, and his ducking-in after the break did not fall into that category. Inexperienced horses may suffer from that type of self-inflicted event, but given a mature, experienced runner, they are almost always forgotten quickly, which was clearly the case here. The fact that it was a long race also helped to mitigate the event, as there was no need for the rider to panic, or feel pressure to make up ground immediately. It is even possible that the early ground loss actually helped Fierceness, as had he been drawn closer to the pace early, it could have rendered him vulnerable in the late stages of the race. At the same time, due to the inside post, and how the race unfolded, Johnny Velasquez, who has done such a brilliant job keeping Fierceness outside and clear of his rivals in his previous wins, was forced to make the best of racing inside of horses. I understand why some are tempted to argue that Fierceness displayed a new dimension, as there were no obvious signs of him having been intimidated, despite the inside trip. But while I am willing to consider the possibility that he has gained confidence, I remain skeptical of any significant change, in part because it would be highly unusual for a horse to overcome that type of mental weakness midway through its four-year-old season, and/or in its 13th start. I also remain unconvinced for more subtle reasons. First, Fierceness was never bounced around, and with the possible exception of the first turn, he was never forced to race in especially tight quarters. Secondly, the rhythm of the race, after the initial duck-in, was actually smooth, and therefore beneficial to him. To understand why the above points are important, consider that Fierceness was never, so to speak, allergic to racing inside, but was more likely to face contact, be squeezed into a tight space, or have his rhythm thrown off when breaking from an inside post. In contrast, when breaking from an outside post, JV has invariably been able to place him clear of the pack, and in a comfortable, stalking rhythm. Fierceness is also essentially a free-runner, with a "light" mouth, and as such performs best when his rider allows him to dictate his own rhythm and pace. That is why, for example, Johnny V was not at all responsible for his loss in the Breeders' Cup Classic, as he is not the type of horse that a rider can take a strong hold of in order to restrain him further off of the pace, as that would discourage him. And to the great credit of both JV and Todd Pletcher, they picked up on this early on, and have done a superb job mitigating the colt's limitations, and maximizing his potential. In the Pacific Classic, despite racing on the inside, Johnny V remained cool and calm, and gave Fierceness another masterful ride. He and the colt's connections did benefit though, as none of his rivals, either intentionally or not, tightened things up significantly, or otherwise disrupted his rhythm. In fact, quite the opposite. Having tracked comfortably through much of the race, and with space around him, Fierceness displayed his trademark spurt on the final turn. And while the pan shot may suggest that he slipped though a tight opening, it was more like the red sea parting, as the embedded head-on view illustrates. If you are able to view the full head-on replay, you will find that despite racing inside, Fierceness actually enjoyed quite a comfortable trip, after the eventful few strides. A more subtle indication that we were watching the same horse as in his previous races comes :12-14 seconds into the embedded clip. When he was about to take the lead, he cocked his head to the right, as if he may have been worried about the horse outside of him. He was able to draw away from that one so quickly that it was ultimately of no practical consequence, but I would say that it implies that he hasn't suddenly developed the heart of a lion. * Two qualities that have been crucial to Fierceness' success are his tactical speed, coupled with the separation that he produces on the final turn of his (two-turn) races. His ability to take command at that crucial stage has served him very well, particularly in his narrow win over Thorpedo Anna, and it was again on display in the Pacific Classic. A big part of the reason why that move has been such an important part of his arsenal is that it typically allows his him to take a "breather", before digging deep in an effort to fend off any late dangers. I encourage you to watch the (pan) replay of the Pacific Classic, and focus on Johnny V from around the 3/8th pole to the head of the stretch, as he was sitting like the proverbial statue. So for at least a furlong and a half, Fierceness was on cruise control, while Journalism, his only danger, was under pressure to make up ground, in an attempt to simply reach striking distance. But with all due credit to Fierceness and his rider for having produced fine efforts in the Pacific Classic, was this really an exceptionally outstanding performance, or was it at least partly a reflection of his only serious rival failing to run his best? I'm inclined to argue the latter. Despite Journalism having produced an unusually good 3yo campaign, capped by three Gr. I wins, including a Classic success in the Preakness, and never finishing worse than second, there have been some lingering questions. One of them is whether he is actually as well-suited to 10f. as he is to 8-9f. races. Yes, he was beaten in his two previous tries over 10f. by Sovereignty, a better horse. But in each race he was able to gain first-run on that one, an advantage that is typically difficult to overcome, yet lost ground late to the winner both times, and to Baeza as well, in the KY Derby. Some have suggested that he may have a tendency to loaf when in front, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence of that. And such horses typically dig in when passed, in efforts to re-engage, which we haven't seen, at least overtly, from Journalism. He also drew away from his rivals late in his first three wins. Alex Evers made this interesting comment about the kickback in the Pacific Classic: "I've photographed racing for 20 years, I've never seen kick back knock a jockeys goggles off like this." Here is a link to his supporting photos, which are typically excellent: Could that have discouraged Journalism? I suppose that it could have been an impediment, but he is such a tough and honest horse, that I would be surprised to learn that it was a meaningful factor. By contemporary standards, Journalism has also had a busy campaign, having raced a touch over once per month since March, all but one of which in Grade I events, and four times well away from his home base. So it is possible that he is beginning to feel the effects of those races, and travels. I have also noted that from a Beyer figure standpoint, he hasn't really moved forward, and it's worth noting that in contrast to Sovereignty and Baeza, both of which were late (May) foals, Journalism was a February foal, and may not have had quite as much room to improve. I don't know why he lagged so far behind in the early stages of the Pacific Classic, or if there was any tactical intention behind it. I had previously suggested that it might make sense to ride him more patiently, a tactic that is sometimes adopted when there are questions about a horse staying a trip. But I didn't notice any improved late kick, so it's difficult to interpret the performance. Fierceness earned a 107 Beyer figure for his victory, slower than his best three races last year, and merely equivalent to his comeback victory in the Gr. II Alysheba at Churchill Downs, in May. That doesn't suggest that it was a particularly outstanding performance. Journalism was given a 102, which implies that the return to his home court did not catalyze any notable forward move. * I would say that there is one relevant pattern that has emerged, namely that Fierceness has an apparent affinity for the faster, high energy return track surfaces in California. He has now contested three races in CA (Beyer): 1st Breeders' Cup Juvenile (105) 2nd Breeders' Cup Classic (111) 1st Pacific Classic (107) It's also interesting to compare the colt's first and last half-mile fractions in his effort in last year's BCC, and the PC, both contested at Del Mar over 10f.: BCC – :45 1/5 • :51 3/5 PC – :46 1/5 • :50 2/5 Predictably, he finished better in the PC, thanks to more manageable early fractions. But would a repeat of that effort be nearly sufficient to win this year's Classic? Given the various points noted above, coupled with Sovereignty's continued improvement, and seemingly bottomless stamina, I would be inclined to say no. And that's before even factoring Sierra Leone, Mindframe, Forever Young, et al, into the conversation. But setting aside all of the fine parsing, I'm happy to congratulate Repole Stable, and Fierceness' other connections, for having shipped to California, and for being rewarded with an exciting, winning effort. Assuming that the colt makes it to the Breeders' Cup Classic in good order, he should minimally add spice to the race, and who knows, perhaps even provide a serious challenge to knock Sovereignty off of his current throne.

Tinky

10,516 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨BOMBSHELL: Coach Colin BREAKS DOWN the LEAKED "Mitch Snow" Call —Meanwhile Gary Has A Full Blown MELTDOWN And Is Threatening LEGAL Action 🤡 Coach Colin breaks down the bombshell 1hr55min leaked call between Mitch Snow & Gary Melton (Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton)so you don't have to. Key Takeaways: Gary plays "ally": "If your story checks out, you'll have NO bigger advocate than me & Nate!" Promises not to "do you dirty." Mitch opens up raw – even REFUSES Candace's fundraiser money on the call: "I ain't taking a damn cent... I want justice." Gary hangs up... then unleashes smear videos calling Mitch a "pathological liar," "abuser," & grifter – KNOWING Mitch rejected the cash! Colin: "Gary lied MULTIPLE times on that call. This was devious – fake friendship to extract intel, then destroy the guy." Now Gary's raging at 2AM: Threatening lawsuits over "illegal recording" (Washington 2-party consent?), claiming 30min missing, doxxing – but admits he was "certain" Mitch was recording (implied consent?). And the kicker? Gary hints at Candace having Foreign ties to the case 😂 Coach: "Gary's going after Candace too – claims DMs prove she's 'involved.' They're desperate to silence her most." This call TORCHES Gary's cred & proves Mitch's sincerity. Who's the real manipulator? Watch the clip and judge for yourself! Be sure to FOLLOW Coach Colin and go watch his entire breakdown, link posted in comments. Also go watch listen to the FULL phone call from Stew Peters - Shoutout to him for getting it in the first place. FOLLOW Him as well.

🚨BOMBSHELL: Coach Colin BREAKS DOWN the LEAKED "Mitch Snow" Call —Meanwhile Gary Has A Full Blown MELTDOWN And Is Threatening LEGAL Action 🤡 Coach Colin breaks down the bombshell 1hr55min leaked call between Mitch Snow & Gary Melton (Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton)so you don't have to. Key Takeaways: Gary plays "ally": "If your story checks out, you'll have NO bigger advocate than me & Nate!" Promises not to "do you dirty." Mitch opens up raw – even REFUSES Candace's fundraiser money on the call: "I ain't taking a damn cent... I want justice." Gary hangs up... then unleashes smear videos calling Mitch a "pathological liar," "abuser," & grifter – KNOWING Mitch rejected the cash! Colin: "Gary lied MULTIPLE times on that call. This was devious – fake friendship to extract intel, then destroy the guy." Now Gary's raging at 2AM: Threatening lawsuits over "illegal recording" (Washington 2-party consent?), claiming 30min missing, doxxing – but admits he was "certain" Mitch was recording (implied consent?). And the kicker? Gary hints at Candace having Foreign ties to the case 😂 Coach: "Gary's going after Candace too – claims DMs prove she's 'involved.' They're desperate to silence her most." This call TORCHES Gary's cred & proves Mitch's sincerity. Who's the real manipulator? Watch the clip and judge for yourself! Be sure to FOLLOW Coach Colin and go watch his entire breakdown, link posted in comments. Also go watch listen to the FULL phone call from Stew Peters - Shoutout to him for getting it in the first place. FOLLOW Him as well.

Project Constitution

139,410 次观看 • 8 个月前

🎙️ MAL REVEALS MAJOR INFO ON J. COLE & DRAKE FALLOUT 👀🔥 (Rory & Mal Podcast) Mal just dropped a bombshell about the post battle aftermath and it raises more questions than answers. 🚨 THE BIG REVEAL According to Mal: •J. Cole has not spoken to Drake since early 2024 •This happened right after Cole backed out of the battle •This was immediately following a full tour together 👉 Despite years of public unity, the relationship allegedly went radio silent. 🤔 WHY THIS FEELS STRANGE •Cole and Drake had just toured together •Drake helped Cole secure his first #1 song •Millions were made on that tour •Then… no communication ever again Mal called the move “nasty” and says Cole owes fans and Drake an explanation in bars 🎵 THE APOLOGY THAT RAISED EYEBROWS •Cole released a song 5 months after the Drake vs. Kendrick / industry battle •In the song, he apologizes to Drake •But if they haven’t spoken since early 2024… ❓Was the apology genuine or just for optics? 🧠 THE “BARZINI MEETING” THEORY This brings back a theory I raised during the battle itself 👀 🎬 WHAT IS THE BARZINI MEETING? From The Godfather: •Barzini uses a trusted insider (Tessio) to request a “peace meeting” •The meeting is actually a setup to assassinate Michael Corleone •Famous line: “Whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting… he’s the traitor.” 🎤 WHY THIS MATTERS IN HIP-HOP Jay Z once warned Drake directly: “Drake, here's how they gon' come at you With silly rap feuds, tryin' to distract you In disguise, in the form of a favor The Barzini meeting, watch for the traitors, uhh I done seen it all, done it all That's why none of these dum-dums could done him off…” 💭 The question now being asked: •Did Cole unknowingly (or knowingly) line Drake up to jump into the battle? •Was the Kendrick conversation the “meeting”? •Did something get said on that call that permanently severed the relationship? 🕵🏽‍♂️ THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS •Who leaked the original “Push Ups” diss? •What exactly was said in the Cole x Kendrick conversation? •Why did Cole never speak to Drake again? •Were they friends… or just business partners? Even Mal admits: “This is not common knowledge. Fans did not know this.” 🗣️ MAL’S CORE DEMAND •Cole doesn’t need interviews •He doesn’t need podcasts •He doesn’t need press runs 🎶 Put it in the bars. Explain: •Why you backed out •Why you spoke to Kendrick •Why Drake never heard from you again 📌 BOTTOM LINE •Public unity ➝ private silence •Apology without reconciliation •A theory once dismissed now feels… possible •The battle may be over, but the story isn’t finished 👀 Who do you think really set the pieces in motion?

🎙️ MAL REVEALS MAJOR INFO ON J. COLE & DRAKE FALLOUT 👀🔥 (Rory & Mal Podcast) Mal just dropped a bombshell about the post battle aftermath and it raises more questions than answers. 🚨 THE BIG REVEAL According to Mal: •J. Cole has not spoken to Drake since early 2024 •This happened right after Cole backed out of the battle •This was immediately following a full tour together 👉 Despite years of public unity, the relationship allegedly went radio silent. 🤔 WHY THIS FEELS STRANGE •Cole and Drake had just toured together •Drake helped Cole secure his first #1 song •Millions were made on that tour •Then… no communication ever again Mal called the move “nasty” and says Cole owes fans and Drake an explanation in bars 🎵 THE APOLOGY THAT RAISED EYEBROWS •Cole released a song 5 months after the Drake vs. Kendrick / industry battle •In the song, he apologizes to Drake •But if they haven’t spoken since early 2024… ❓Was the apology genuine or just for optics? 🧠 THE “BARZINI MEETING” THEORY This brings back a theory I raised during the battle itself 👀 🎬 WHAT IS THE BARZINI MEETING? From The Godfather: •Barzini uses a trusted insider (Tessio) to request a “peace meeting” •The meeting is actually a setup to assassinate Michael Corleone •Famous line: “Whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting… he’s the traitor.” 🎤 WHY THIS MATTERS IN HIP-HOP Jay Z once warned Drake directly: “Drake, here's how they gon' come at you With silly rap feuds, tryin' to distract you In disguise, in the form of a favor The Barzini meeting, watch for the traitors, uhh I done seen it all, done it all That's why none of these dum-dums could done him off…” 💭 The question now being asked: •Did Cole unknowingly (or knowingly) line Drake up to jump into the battle? •Was the Kendrick conversation the “meeting”? •Did something get said on that call that permanently severed the relationship? 🕵🏽‍♂️ THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS •Who leaked the original “Push Ups” diss? •What exactly was said in the Cole x Kendrick conversation? •Why did Cole never speak to Drake again? •Were they friends… or just business partners? Even Mal admits: “This is not common knowledge. Fans did not know this.” 🗣️ MAL’S CORE DEMAND •Cole doesn’t need interviews •He doesn’t need podcasts •He doesn’t need press runs 🎶 Put it in the bars. Explain: •Why you backed out •Why you spoke to Kendrick •Why Drake never heard from you again 📌 BOTTOM LINE •Public unity ➝ private silence •Apology without reconciliation •A theory once dismissed now feels… possible •The battle may be over, but the story isn’t finished 👀 Who do you think really set the pieces in motion?

Cousin Tino ™️

497,519 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 EPSTEIN SURVIVOR SPEAKS — The Untouchables Exposed Juliet Bryant spent nearly 2 years in the grasp of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She was groomed as a young model, trafficked, flown on the Lolita Express, and taken to Epstein’s island, where she endured unspeakable abuse. Now, she lives behind locked gates with attack dogs—traumatized, hunted by fear, and still waiting for justice. In this explosive interview, hosted by investigative journalist Andrew Gold (Andrew Gold) and featuring author and whistleblower Shaun Attwood, Juliet’s story is finally being heard—with disturbing new details that directly implicate Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Prince Andrew, and more. Attwood, a relentless researcher and one of the first to sound the alarm about Epstein, reveals damning patterns: 🔹 Clinton flew dozens of times on Epstein’s jet, often with young Eastern European girls 🔹 He left his Secret Service detail behind 🔹 Juliet recalls a “smell of corpses and chemicals” after Clinton left certain rooms 🔹 And most horrifying—nothing has been done. This isn’t just about Epstein. According to Attwood, Clinton’s ties run deeper: – As Governor of Arkansas, he allegedly helped the CIA move drugs through Mena Airport – His own brother, Roger Clinton, was caught on tape saying, “Some of this coke is for Bill. He’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.” – The Clinton-linked coroner Fami Malik reportedly falsified death records to cover up suspicious deaths – Whistleblowers and accusers were harassed, silenced, or worse This is the world Juliet was dragged into. The world where the rich and powerful prey on the young, and the system protects them. 🔸 Multiple women settled sexual assault cases against Clinton under NDAs 🔸 Hillary Clinton, it is alleged, used private investigators to threaten and discredit those women 🔸 Pets were killed. People “fell” from balconies. And nothing stopped them. Meanwhile, Juliet Bryant remains in hiding—a living symbol of what happens when evil is exposed, but not punished. Attwood doesn’t stop with Clinton. He points to the disturbing web of modeling agencies, intelligence ties, and shared facilitators: 👉 Jean-Luc Brunel 👉 Ghislaine Maxwell 👉 Naomi Campbell (named as a connecting figure between the Epstein and Diddy rings) Let’s be clear: This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is a conspiracy fact. With real names. Real victims. Real consequences. Yet not a single client from Epstein’s trafficking ring has been brought to justice. No list. No arrests. Only silence. It’s time to end that silence. “A nation that cannot protect its children has already lost its soul.” “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” — Luke 8:17 🔁 WATCH the full interview. Share it. Demand justice. Because the powerful won’t stop until the people rise up and say: Enough.

🚨 EPSTEIN SURVIVOR SPEAKS — The Untouchables Exposed Juliet Bryant spent nearly 2 years in the grasp of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She was groomed as a young model, trafficked, flown on the Lolita Express, and taken to Epstein’s island, where she endured unspeakable abuse. Now, she lives behind locked gates with attack dogs—traumatized, hunted by fear, and still waiting for justice. In this explosive interview, hosted by investigative journalist Andrew Gold (Andrew Gold) and featuring author and whistleblower Shaun Attwood, Juliet’s story is finally being heard—with disturbing new details that directly implicate Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Prince Andrew, and more. Attwood, a relentless researcher and one of the first to sound the alarm about Epstein, reveals damning patterns: 🔹 Clinton flew dozens of times on Epstein’s jet, often with young Eastern European girls 🔹 He left his Secret Service detail behind 🔹 Juliet recalls a “smell of corpses and chemicals” after Clinton left certain rooms 🔹 And most horrifying—nothing has been done. This isn’t just about Epstein. According to Attwood, Clinton’s ties run deeper: – As Governor of Arkansas, he allegedly helped the CIA move drugs through Mena Airport – His own brother, Roger Clinton, was caught on tape saying, “Some of this coke is for Bill. He’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.” – The Clinton-linked coroner Fami Malik reportedly falsified death records to cover up suspicious deaths – Whistleblowers and accusers were harassed, silenced, or worse This is the world Juliet was dragged into. The world where the rich and powerful prey on the young, and the system protects them. 🔸 Multiple women settled sexual assault cases against Clinton under NDAs 🔸 Hillary Clinton, it is alleged, used private investigators to threaten and discredit those women 🔸 Pets were killed. People “fell” from balconies. And nothing stopped them. Meanwhile, Juliet Bryant remains in hiding—a living symbol of what happens when evil is exposed, but not punished. Attwood doesn’t stop with Clinton. He points to the disturbing web of modeling agencies, intelligence ties, and shared facilitators: 👉 Jean-Luc Brunel 👉 Ghislaine Maxwell 👉 Naomi Campbell (named as a connecting figure between the Epstein and Diddy rings) Let’s be clear: This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is a conspiracy fact. With real names. Real victims. Real consequences. Yet not a single client from Epstein’s trafficking ring has been brought to justice. No list. No arrests. Only silence. It’s time to end that silence. “A nation that cannot protect its children has already lost its soul.” “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” — Luke 8:17 🔁 WATCH the full interview. Share it. Demand justice. Because the powerful won’t stop until the people rise up and say: Enough.

Francois Leclerc

29,290 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨 CANDACE OWENS UNLEASHES HELL ON ERIKA KIRK: Charlie's Psychopath Widow Gave Dan Flood A RAISE After He Let Charlie Die — Then HIJACKS Charlie's Legacy For Her OWN Presidential Bid! 😱 Wow guys, Candace was on a HEATER tonight. She's PASSIONATELY torching the DEEP STATE fairy tale they shoved down our throats from DAY ONE on Charlie Kirk's assassination: Horrific murder, then Erika's "joyful coronation" as TPUSA CEO, inviting his ENEMIES aboard the ship HE built! Candace correctly called it the "Spiritual ick" that we all felt. Spot on—and they used podcasters and the media to cast the "grieving widow" BS far and wide. Claiming "That's what Charlie would have wanted"? Total lies! 😡 Candace calls it: their ultimate goal was to Catapult Erika to PRESIDENT! Tyler Boyer (her homosexual deviant" pal she "can't remember meeting") said this just 12 DAYS post-assassination: Charlie thought Erika "bigger and better," destined for POTUS. Frank Turk 3 WEEKS later: "Vance-Kirk ticket lives on—with Erika!" Mikey McCoy echoes: "Blueprints for her... maybe still Vance-Kirk!" Smiling, laughing about replacing Charlie? Diabolical psychology—sadistic delight in gaslighting us! But Erika? Pure PSYCHOPATH! Give a RAISE to failed security Dan Flood whoi literally was responsible for him death. The guy should have been FIRED. Then she did a NYT interview DAYS after where she said raising kids without a dad was the least traumatizing part of his death. Again Charlie hated the NYT because they constantlty posted hit pieces on him. Instead of grieving Erika then drags their kids to office the WEEK after his death, no consideration about the kids mental wellbeing. Tells Jesse Watters: she had ZERO FEAR walking outside the day after his death. Lies PATHOLOGICALLY—forgives Charlie's alleged "murderer" without seeing any evidence he even was the true suspect, leads the charge pushing the fed slop narrative by making up the Charlie had a "superman, steel neck" that stopped the bullet. Media spins it as: "She's so godly!" Nah—DIVINE. It's all straight up DECEPTION. This push failed HARD—Erika's "pay attention to me" media blitz? Crumbled. Candace is DONE: They use Charlie's GHOST to prop her up, contradicting his EVERY public word on family over career. Wake up, America—Erika's the puppet master in this betrayal saga! Clip is HEATED—watch, rage, expose. Candace is the TRUTH QUEEN we need! 🔥 FOLLOW Candace Owens, Watch her FULL epsidoe below and RT if her passion has you fired up too Nows the time to blow this wide open.👇

🚨 CANDACE OWENS UNLEASHES HELL ON ERIKA KIRK: Charlie's Psychopath Widow Gave Dan Flood A RAISE After He Let Charlie Die — Then HIJACKS Charlie's Legacy For Her OWN Presidential Bid! 😱 Wow guys, Candace was on a HEATER tonight. She's PASSIONATELY torching the DEEP STATE fairy tale they shoved down our throats from DAY ONE on Charlie Kirk's assassination: Horrific murder, then Erika's "joyful coronation" as TPUSA CEO, inviting his ENEMIES aboard the ship HE built! Candace correctly called it the "Spiritual ick" that we all felt. Spot on—and they used podcasters and the media to cast the "grieving widow" BS far and wide. Claiming "That's what Charlie would have wanted"? Total lies! 😡 Candace calls it: their ultimate goal was to Catapult Erika to PRESIDENT! Tyler Boyer (her homosexual deviant" pal she "can't remember meeting") said this just 12 DAYS post-assassination: Charlie thought Erika "bigger and better," destined for POTUS. Frank Turk 3 WEEKS later: "Vance-Kirk ticket lives on—with Erika!" Mikey McCoy echoes: "Blueprints for her... maybe still Vance-Kirk!" Smiling, laughing about replacing Charlie? Diabolical psychology—sadistic delight in gaslighting us! But Erika? Pure PSYCHOPATH! Give a RAISE to failed security Dan Flood whoi literally was responsible for him death. The guy should have been FIRED. Then she did a NYT interview DAYS after where she said raising kids without a dad was the least traumatizing part of his death. Again Charlie hated the NYT because they constantlty posted hit pieces on him. Instead of grieving Erika then drags their kids to office the WEEK after his death, no consideration about the kids mental wellbeing. Tells Jesse Watters: she had ZERO FEAR walking outside the day after his death. Lies PATHOLOGICALLY—forgives Charlie's alleged "murderer" without seeing any evidence he even was the true suspect, leads the charge pushing the fed slop narrative by making up the Charlie had a "superman, steel neck" that stopped the bullet. Media spins it as: "She's so godly!" Nah—DIVINE. It's all straight up DECEPTION. This push failed HARD—Erika's "pay attention to me" media blitz? Crumbled. Candace is DONE: They use Charlie's GHOST to prop her up, contradicting his EVERY public word on family over career. Wake up, America—Erika's the puppet master in this betrayal saga! Clip is HEATED—watch, rage, expose. Candace is the TRUTH QUEEN we need! 🔥 FOLLOW Candace Owens, Watch her FULL epsidoe below and RT if her passion has you fired up too Nows the time to blow this wide open.👇

Project Constitution

108,832 次观看 • 6 个月前

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Despite the Entire Interaction Being on Video, Florida Street Preachers Face Prosecution Following CAIR-Backed Complaints🚨 I was sent a full review of the University of South Florida Police Department investigative file, including the police reports, witness statements, and the available video evidence. After comparing the original police report with the later interviews and sworn statements, there were multiple inconsistencies. The biggest contradiction appears in the responding officer’s report from the day of the incident. Officer Louie Cornelio documented that there was no physical contact, that the men did not harm or cause the students to be fearful, and concluded, “At this time, there has been no crime committed.” Yet over the following days, the allegations became progressively more serious. Two days later, one witness claimed the men had stomped near their heads and that he feared being stepped on. Several days after that, other witnesses expanded the story by claiming a man wearing steel-toed boots was stomping around their heads and that they feared being kicked. Nearly a month later, however, the Imam who led the prayer described his concern much more cautiously, saying only that he was uncertain whether his head might be struck. The allegations clearly evolved over time rather than remaining consistent. Another major issue is that every participating witness acknowledged the religious gathering was never stopped. According to the detective’s own summary, the event consisted of prayer, a discussion, and breakfast. Multiple witnesses confirmed they finished the prayer, remained on the parking garage, held their discussion, cooked pancakes, and many later went to First Watch for another breakfast. If the religious assembly continued to completion exactly as planned, that fact stands in tension with allegations that it had been unlawfully disrupted. The report also contains conflicting statements about what was actually on the ground during the prayer. One witness claimed the men stepped on prayer rugs and even described where those rugs had been purchased. However, the Imam later stated there were no prayer rugs available that day and that the group instead used table mats. He further stated he did not believe the mats or cloths had actually been stepped on. Those two accounts cannot both be accurate. Detective Morales documented that investigators secured and reviewed nearly fourteen minutes of unedited video from the incident. Yet elsewhere in the report, a witness statement is included claiming the suspects brought a megaphone, even though the available video does not show a megaphone being used. Rather than correcting the allegation based on the evidence investigators had already collected, the statement remained in the report. The investigation also lost one of its identified witnesses. Fahad Bin Imran-Aziz ultimately emailed investigators stating he felt overwhelmed and did not want to participate in an interview. Even one of the statements describing Ricardo Yepez’s conduct included an important detail often overlooked. After Yepez spat on the ground, another member of the group reportedly told him to “chill,” suggesting there was not complete agreement among the three men regarding his behavior. Perhaps one of the most significant statements came from the Imam himself. During his interview, he acknowledged that he recognized the men as online street preachers and believed they were attempting to provoke a reaction rather than physically attack anyone. He also stated he did not believe the mats had been stepped on. Taken together, the investigative file reveals a pattern of changing witness accounts, contradictions between witnesses, and factual inconsistencies within the investigation itself. Those inconsistencies are contained in the police file and sworn statements, and readers can review them for themselves. I have the full file for those who want to see it.

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Despite the Entire Interaction Being on Video, Florida Street Preachers Face Prosecution Following CAIR-Backed Complaints🚨 I was sent a full review of the University of South Florida Police Department investigative file, including the police reports, witness statements, and the available video evidence. After comparing the original police report with the later interviews and sworn statements, there were multiple inconsistencies. The biggest contradiction appears in the responding officer’s report from the day of the incident. Officer Louie Cornelio documented that there was no physical contact, that the men did not harm or cause the students to be fearful, and concluded, “At this time, there has been no crime committed.” Yet over the following days, the allegations became progressively more serious. Two days later, one witness claimed the men had stomped near their heads and that he feared being stepped on. Several days after that, other witnesses expanded the story by claiming a man wearing steel-toed boots was stomping around their heads and that they feared being kicked. Nearly a month later, however, the Imam who led the prayer described his concern much more cautiously, saying only that he was uncertain whether his head might be struck. The allegations clearly evolved over time rather than remaining consistent. Another major issue is that every participating witness acknowledged the religious gathering was never stopped. According to the detective’s own summary, the event consisted of prayer, a discussion, and breakfast. Multiple witnesses confirmed they finished the prayer, remained on the parking garage, held their discussion, cooked pancakes, and many later went to First Watch for another breakfast. If the religious assembly continued to completion exactly as planned, that fact stands in tension with allegations that it had been unlawfully disrupted. The report also contains conflicting statements about what was actually on the ground during the prayer. One witness claimed the men stepped on prayer rugs and even described where those rugs had been purchased. However, the Imam later stated there were no prayer rugs available that day and that the group instead used table mats. He further stated he did not believe the mats or cloths had actually been stepped on. Those two accounts cannot both be accurate. Detective Morales documented that investigators secured and reviewed nearly fourteen minutes of unedited video from the incident. Yet elsewhere in the report, a witness statement is included claiming the suspects brought a megaphone, even though the available video does not show a megaphone being used. Rather than correcting the allegation based on the evidence investigators had already collected, the statement remained in the report. The investigation also lost one of its identified witnesses. Fahad Bin Imran-Aziz ultimately emailed investigators stating he felt overwhelmed and did not want to participate in an interview. Even one of the statements describing Ricardo Yepez’s conduct included an important detail often overlooked. After Yepez spat on the ground, another member of the group reportedly told him to “chill,” suggesting there was not complete agreement among the three men regarding his behavior. Perhaps one of the most significant statements came from the Imam himself. During his interview, he acknowledged that he recognized the men as online street preachers and believed they were attempting to provoke a reaction rather than physically attack anyone. He also stated he did not believe the mats had been stepped on. Taken together, the investigative file reveals a pattern of changing witness accounts, contradictions between witnesses, and factual inconsistencies within the investigation itself. Those inconsistencies are contained in the police file and sworn statements, and readers can review them for themselves. I have the full file for those who want to see it.

Sarah Fields

44,635 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨Baron Coleman Breaking: Under Utah law, Charlie Kirk was not required to undergo an autopsy. Moreover, recorded police scanner audio reveals that an officer explicitly stated that he did not receive one. Scanner transcript: “He did not go in for an autopsy. The death certificate was signed by the doctor at the hospital.” Utah Code Title 26B, Chapter 8 makes that possible! • The medical examiner shall assume jurisdiction over deaths by violence or gunshot. • An autopsy shall be performed only “if, in the opinion of the medical examiner, an autopsy should be performed or if an autopsy is requested by the district attorney or county attorney having criminal jurisdiction, or by the attorney general” Here's where it gets really interesting! 👀 Charlie’s motorcade departed from Timpanogos Regional Hospital around 8:00 p.m. on September 10, 2025, to transport his deceased body to the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner in Taylorsville. The search warrant affidavit states that an autopsy was conducted on the body the same day, with Sgt. Barrett present. A standard forensic autopsy (external examination, internal examination, organ weighing, documentation, and sample collection) is a multi-hour process. Starting well after 8:00 p.m. and still producing a completed, certifiable result on the same calendar day creates an incredibly tight window to achieve that. Furthermore, during cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, Investigator Sgt. David Hull, who presented the summary, confirmed that he was not present at the examination and only had knowledge of its contents from a meeting with the medical examiner and the written report. So where is the medical examiner that allegedly performed this autopsy?! In March 2026, Guajardo relocated from Utah to Dutchess County, New York, where he was appointed as the Medical Examiner. As a result of his relocation, he is no longer affiliated with the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner and is geographically and jurisdictionally removed from the case. What about Sgt. Barrett, the officer who allegedly could be a witness? In any publicly available court filing or official disclosure, no full first name, badge number, or other identifying information for this Sgt. Barrett has been released. The prosecution’s entire account of the postmortem examination rests on two named individuals who have never testified under oath about it. One has left the state and taken a new position in New York; the other remains unidentified beyond a last name in a single affidavit. The only testimony introduced at the preliminary hearing on this point was hearsay from an investigator who was not present. This leaves no firsthand, testifying witness available to describe, under cross-examination, what actually occurred after the body left the hospital near 8:00 p.m. on September 10, 2025... Was Charlie Kirk cremated after no autopsy was performed?! How could they not perform an autopsy on Charlie?! This SCREAMS coverup. Make sure to watch Baron’s entire episode from last night! There’s a lot of information that’s not covered here that you won’t want to miss!

🚨Baron Coleman Breaking: Under Utah law, Charlie Kirk was not required to undergo an autopsy. Moreover, recorded police scanner audio reveals that an officer explicitly stated that he did not receive one. Scanner transcript: “He did not go in for an autopsy. The death certificate was signed by the doctor at the hospital.” Utah Code Title 26B, Chapter 8 makes that possible! • The medical examiner shall assume jurisdiction over deaths by violence or gunshot. • An autopsy shall be performed only “if, in the opinion of the medical examiner, an autopsy should be performed or if an autopsy is requested by the district attorney or county attorney having criminal jurisdiction, or by the attorney general” Here's where it gets really interesting! 👀 Charlie’s motorcade departed from Timpanogos Regional Hospital around 8:00 p.m. on September 10, 2025, to transport his deceased body to the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner in Taylorsville. The search warrant affidavit states that an autopsy was conducted on the body the same day, with Sgt. Barrett present. A standard forensic autopsy (external examination, internal examination, organ weighing, documentation, and sample collection) is a multi-hour process. Starting well after 8:00 p.m. and still producing a completed, certifiable result on the same calendar day creates an incredibly tight window to achieve that. Furthermore, during cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, Investigator Sgt. David Hull, who presented the summary, confirmed that he was not present at the examination and only had knowledge of its contents from a meeting with the medical examiner and the written report. So where is the medical examiner that allegedly performed this autopsy?! In March 2026, Guajardo relocated from Utah to Dutchess County, New York, where he was appointed as the Medical Examiner. As a result of his relocation, he is no longer affiliated with the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner and is geographically and jurisdictionally removed from the case. What about Sgt. Barrett, the officer who allegedly could be a witness? In any publicly available court filing or official disclosure, no full first name, badge number, or other identifying information for this Sgt. Barrett has been released. The prosecution’s entire account of the postmortem examination rests on two named individuals who have never testified under oath about it. One has left the state and taken a new position in New York; the other remains unidentified beyond a last name in a single affidavit. The only testimony introduced at the preliminary hearing on this point was hearsay from an investigator who was not present. This leaves no firsthand, testifying witness available to describe, under cross-examination, what actually occurred after the body left the hospital near 8:00 p.m. on September 10, 2025... Was Charlie Kirk cremated after no autopsy was performed?! How could they not perform an autopsy on Charlie?! This SCREAMS coverup. Make sure to watch Baron’s entire episode from last night! There’s a lot of information that’s not covered here that you won’t want to miss!

Travis

172,981 次观看 • 1 个月前

$THE MORPHING STORY OF ALIEN ISOTOPE "115" Of all the rote things Bob Lazar fans repeat about his claims, among the most wildly erroneous is the assertion that Lazar has "always told the same story." Most who have really studied early Lazar materials (as opposed to the greatly cleaned up narratives peddled by such storytellers as George Knapp and Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell) find the "same story" assertion to be truly laughable. Offhand, I cannot think of a significant element of Bob Lazar's UFO-related tales, or his claims about his own background, on which Lazar has NOT made contradictory statements. It is not just that Lazar has lied promiscuously--he has also lied lazily, trusting that his promoters will smooth things over, as indeed they have, from the beginning, and decade after decade. The examples are innumerable--Lazar's educational and scientific credentials, his criminal history, the nature of his role at the Los Alamos laboratory, et cetera, et cetera. Contemporary promoters such as Joe Rogan have repeatedly embraced and amplified cleaned-up or disproven Lazar claims without apparent awareness of, or evident concern, about their history. Just for example, let's take Lazar's claims about a purported alien isotope that he said defeats gravity and churns out power like the sun. Lazar claims to have figured out the secrets of this material while working as a physicist for a super-secret government program that supposedly possessed nine intact alien craft, at least one of which, he said, was being flown (in 1989!). He claimed also to possess/control a quantity of this alien material. This claim has been featured for decades in Lazar-promoting narratives such as Jeremy Corbell's 2018 film "Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers." See also the clip from a 2014 George Knapp speech below. Lazar claimed this miraculous substance is a stable isotope of "Element 115," the element with 115 protons, now officially known as moscovium (symbol: Mc). No such stable isotope is known to science; the five lab-created isotopes of moscovium all have half-lives that are fractions of a second. But the concept of a "stable isotope of Element 115" postulates that some certain number of neutrons would constitute an isotope that would endure indefinitely and would also, in Lazar’s tale, somehow manifest both gravity-defeating and sun-like power-producing properties. For those who know Lazar’s history only through the streamlined narratives promoted by Knapp, Corbell, and other storytellers, it may come as a surprise that Lazar has contradicted himself about both the number of protons and the number of neutrons in the purported super-powered alien substance. Yet those are the very two variables that define, respectively, an element, and an isotope of an element. In a Sept. 22, 1990 interview with author Michael Lindemann, Lazar said, "I was the one who identified 115. That was my only contribution to the project. And I don't stand on the fact that it's 115, but if it's not, it's 114. It's right in there." So here we see Lazar, early on, claiming to have identified ‘Element 115’ as the substance that made the alien craft work--except he was not even sure that the element in question had 115 protons! It might have 114! "It's right in there"! Yet the number of protons is, of course, what defines an element in the first place. This 1990 statement by itself is sufficient to make the entire "Element 115" tale laughable. But that's not all. A given element can have very different properties depending on the number of neutrons. An isotope is defined precisely by the number of neutrons. Yet Lazar has also said contradictory things about the number of neutrons in the alien isotope. "Atomic mass" can mean several things depending on context, but when shown as a whole number (no decimal) for a specific isotope, it is understood to mean "mass number"-- that is, the sum of the number of protons plus the number of neutrons. Around 1989, Lazar told his pal Joe Vaninetti that the mass of the alien substance was 271; if the super-isotope had 115 protons, that would mean it had 156 neutrons. Yet many later years on his United Nuclear website, Lazar sold mugs and T-shirts blazoned with a diagram for what he then called "Lazarium" (his modest nomenclature for "Element 115"), but showing the "atomic mass" of the alien isotope as 299--so that would be 184 neutrons. 156? 184? Bob Lazar smuggled in 28 additonal neutrons to his original alien isotope. Why might he have done that? Perhaps because, in between those two incompatible claims, element 115 was actually synthesized for the first time, in Russia, in 2003. To date, five isotopes have been synthesized, with neutron numbers ranging from 171 to 175, and within that observed series the half-life INCREASED along with mass number. Especially in light of that real-world data, Lazar’s 1989 neutron number of 156 seemed especially implausible. His subsequent adoption of a much higher number, 184, moved his story into the neutron-rich region that nuclear theory associates with increased stability in superheavy nuclei. We should not be surprised that a scientist-impersonating serial scam artist churns out contradictory nonsense--but please, don't tell us that he has been consistent in his fabrications. Protons and neutrons aside, consider this: Bob Lazar has long claimed to have personal possession or control of a quantity of this super-powered alien substance--but in over 30 years, he has never submitted samples to independent labs. Think of that--the man has claimed to possess a gravity-defeating isotope that cannot have been made by the hand of man. This claim, if true, would constitute undeniable physical proof of alien visitation and alien technology! Why are so many expending so much energy into searching out and arguing about debatable observations and fuzzy videos, IF there is physical proof in hand? Why don't Lazar and his promoters not schedule a televised press conference next week and, in full view of the world audience, turn over slivers of the alien isotope to three independent labs, at least one foreign (in France, maybe)? If the story were true, "disclosure" would soon follow, with vindication, awards and honors for all involved, and so forth. Yes, I am aware of the assertion that somehow Lazar's control of the alien isotope has been a guarantee of his personal safety from government goons (for over 30 years!), but that is manifestly utter nonsense. If such a substance existed, any danger would attach to its continued possession, and would be obviated by its public revelation under TV lights and subsequent proof by independent analyses. At that point, the genie would be out of the bottle, the "whistleblower" vindicated and safe, with accolades and awards flowing in from across the globe. The purported alien-tech "gatekeepers" would be jumping off bridges. But that press conference and those lab analyses will never happen, because the Lazar-Knapp-Corbell "Element 115" sub-story is a gullibility test, which so many continue to flunk. Looking at you, Joe Rogan. But if you disagree, then it is not too late to take up the cry: Disclosure now! Free the alien isotope!$

THE MORPHING STORY OF ALIEN ISOTOPE "115" Of all the rote things Bob Lazar fans repeat about his claims, among the most wildly erroneous is the assertion that Lazar has "always told the same story." Most who have really studied early Lazar materials (as opposed to the greatly cleaned up narratives peddled by such storytellers as George Knapp and Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell) find the "same story" assertion to be truly laughable. Offhand, I cannot think of a significant element of Bob Lazar's UFO-related tales, or his claims about his own background, on which Lazar has NOT made contradictory statements. It is not just that Lazar has lied promiscuously--he has also lied lazily, trusting that his promoters will smooth things over, as indeed they have, from the beginning, and decade after decade. The examples are innumerable--Lazar's educational and scientific credentials, his criminal history, the nature of his role at the Los Alamos laboratory, et cetera, et cetera. Contemporary promoters such as Joe Rogan have repeatedly embraced and amplified cleaned-up or disproven Lazar claims without apparent awareness of, or evident concern, about their history. Just for example, let's take Lazar's claims about a purported alien isotope that he said defeats gravity and churns out power like the sun. Lazar claims to have figured out the secrets of this material while working as a physicist for a super-secret government program that supposedly possessed nine intact alien craft, at least one of which, he said, was being flown (in 1989!). He claimed also to possess/control a quantity of this alien material. This claim has been featured for decades in Lazar-promoting narratives such as Jeremy Corbell's 2018 film "Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers." See also the clip from a 2014 George Knapp speech below. Lazar claimed this miraculous substance is a stable isotope of "Element 115," the element with 115 protons, now officially known as moscovium (symbol: Mc). No such stable isotope is known to science; the five lab-created isotopes of moscovium all have half-lives that are fractions of a second. But the concept of a "stable isotope of Element 115" postulates that some certain number of neutrons would constitute an isotope that would endure indefinitely and would also, in Lazar’s tale, somehow manifest both gravity-defeating and sun-like power-producing properties. For those who know Lazar’s history only through the streamlined narratives promoted by Knapp, Corbell, and other storytellers, it may come as a surprise that Lazar has contradicted himself about both the number of protons and the number of neutrons in the purported super-powered alien substance. Yet those are the very two variables that define, respectively, an element, and an isotope of an element. In a Sept. 22, 1990 interview with author Michael Lindemann, Lazar said, "I was the one who identified 115. That was my only contribution to the project. And I don't stand on the fact that it's 115, but if it's not, it's 114. It's right in there." So here we see Lazar, early on, claiming to have identified ‘Element 115’ as the substance that made the alien craft work--except he was not even sure that the element in question had 115 protons! It might have 114! "It's right in there"! Yet the number of protons is, of course, what defines an element in the first place. This 1990 statement by itself is sufficient to make the entire "Element 115" tale laughable. But that's not all. A given element can have very different properties depending on the number of neutrons. An isotope is defined precisely by the number of neutrons. Yet Lazar has also said contradictory things about the number of neutrons in the alien isotope. "Atomic mass" can mean several things depending on context, but when shown as a whole number (no decimal) for a specific isotope, it is understood to mean "mass number"-- that is, the sum of the number of protons plus the number of neutrons. Around 1989, Lazar told his pal Joe Vaninetti that the mass of the alien substance was 271; if the super-isotope had 115 protons, that would mean it had 156 neutrons. Yet many later years on his United Nuclear website, Lazar sold mugs and T-shirts blazoned with a diagram for what he then called "Lazarium" (his modest nomenclature for "Element 115"), but showing the "atomic mass" of the alien isotope as 299--so that would be 184 neutrons. 156? 184? Bob Lazar smuggled in 28 additonal neutrons to his original alien isotope. Why might he have done that? Perhaps because, in between those two incompatible claims, element 115 was actually synthesized for the first time, in Russia, in 2003. To date, five isotopes have been synthesized, with neutron numbers ranging from 171 to 175, and within that observed series the half-life INCREASED along with mass number. Especially in light of that real-world data, Lazar’s 1989 neutron number of 156 seemed especially implausible. His subsequent adoption of a much higher number, 184, moved his story into the neutron-rich region that nuclear theory associates with increased stability in superheavy nuclei. We should not be surprised that a scientist-impersonating serial scam artist churns out contradictory nonsense--but please, don't tell us that he has been consistent in his fabrications. Protons and neutrons aside, consider this: Bob Lazar has long claimed to have personal possession or control of a quantity of this super-powered alien substance--but in over 30 years, he has never submitted samples to independent labs. Think of that--the man has claimed to possess a gravity-defeating isotope that cannot have been made by the hand of man. This claim, if true, would constitute undeniable physical proof of alien visitation and alien technology! Why are so many expending so much energy into searching out and arguing about debatable observations and fuzzy videos, IF there is physical proof in hand? Why don't Lazar and his promoters not schedule a televised press conference next week and, in full view of the world audience, turn over slivers of the alien isotope to three independent labs, at least one foreign (in France, maybe)? If the story were true, "disclosure" would soon follow, with vindication, awards and honors for all involved, and so forth. Yes, I am aware of the assertion that somehow Lazar's control of the alien isotope has been a guarantee of his personal safety from government goons (for over 30 years!), but that is manifestly utter nonsense. If such a substance existed, any danger would attach to its continued possession, and would be obviated by its public revelation under TV lights and subsequent proof by independent analyses. At that point, the genie would be out of the bottle, the "whistleblower" vindicated and safe, with accolades and awards flowing in from across the globe. The purported alien-tech "gatekeepers" would be jumping off bridges. But that press conference and those lab analyses will never happen, because the Lazar-Knapp-Corbell "Element 115" sub-story is a gullibility test, which so many continue to flunk. Looking at you, Joe Rogan. But if you disagree, then it is not too late to take up the cry: Disclosure now! Free the alien isotope!

D. Dean Johnson

18,422 次观看 • 5 个月前

The tragedy of Zimbabwean politics is that there is reality, and then there are aspirations, aspirations that often drift into political delusions that hope for miracles. Too often, our people choose the latter. Instead of confronting the hard political realities before us, they cling to the hope that events will somehow unfold in their favour miraculously, regardless of the evidence saying otherwise. I have listened carefully to Vice President General Constantino Chiwenga’s latest remarks, given to us through a parable of Lazarus and the other biblical analogies he has shared at different intervals. He has demonstrated that he understands religion, reads the Bible extensively, and is comfortable using scripture to communicate political ideas and messages to the Zimbabwean citizenry. That, however, does not change our political reality. In 2017, General Chiwenga successfully marshalled the military, worked hand in glove with other senior figures within the security establishment, mobilised ordinary citizens onto the streets with the help of the opposition, and carried out the military coup that removed former president Robert Mugabe from power after forcing him to write a resignation letter with a gun over his head. Today, however, General Chiwenga faces a far steeper challenge because Zimbabweans are deeply disillusioned by what followed. Fairly or unfairly, many do not see what happened after November 2017 simply as Mnangagwa’s project. They see it as General Chiwenga’s military intervention because he was the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces who executed it; he was the poster boy of the military coup. Zimbabwean citizens jokingly called him General Bae. “Bae” is an affectionate term for someone you love or care about deeply. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, that General Chiwenga bears responsibility for what followed the coup is a political perception that remains ingrained in the country’s memory. Anything that emerged from that military coup inevitably falls, to some extent, on his shoulders. That leaves him with an enormous task if he hopes to redeem himself politically. His biggest challenge is that, unlike Robert Mugabe, President Emmerson Mnangagwa is an exceptionally patient, calculating, and tactical politician who plans years ahead of eventual execution, and who does so ruthlessly, without any mercy for his political opponents. Today, we are confronted with Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which is now on President Mnangagwa’s desk awaiting his signature. Once enacted, it will, barring a political miracle, effectively extinguish Chiwenga’s path to the presidency and also extinguish the little prospect of an opposition president. But this story did not begin in 2026. It began in 2021 with Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 2, which abolished the running mate clause. That provision would have significantly strengthened General Chiwenga’s prospects of automatically succeeding President Mnangagwa. When Amendment No. 2 was introduced, I argued that it was unmistakable evidence that President Mnangagwa had no intention whatsoever of handing over power to Chiwenga. As usual, because many people preferred comforting illusions to uncomfortable facts, many disagreed with that political assessment. Some within ZANUPF accused me of talking political nonsense. Others insisted that Mnangagwa and Chiwenga were inseparable political brothers who would always work together. Even sections of the opposition dismissed my political analysis, arguing that Mnangagwa would never have the political capacity to sideline Chiwenga because powerful forces would stop him. Reality has partly answered that debate. The results are before us. The so-called forces have not been able to stop him so far. Today, the Vice President increasingly relies on biblical parables to communicate his political messaging while Mnangagwa steadily and ruthlessly tightens his grip on every important lever of state power. The military itself illustrates this shift. The Zimbabwe National Army is now commanded by Major General Walter Tapfumaneyi. His rise is politically significant to the story so far and to where the story might take us as it continues to unfold. General Tapfumaneyi left the army as a colonel after falling out with the military establishment during General Chiwenga’s tenure as Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. He was made a Brigadier General upon retirement from the army. He joined the Central Intelligence Organisation, where he rose to become Deputy Director-General. He also commanded Forever Associates Zimbabwe (FAZ), the organisation widely associated with supporting President Mnangagwa’s electoral machinery during the 2023 elections. When President Mnangagwa returned him to the Zimbabwe National Army, he was promoted to the rank of Major General. He leapfrogged several Major Generals who had served longer at that rank when he was appointed Commander of the Zimbabwe National Army. President Mnangagwa was now building the army in his own desired image and dismantling General Chiwenga’s army management network. His appointment strengthened Mnangagwa’s influence over one of the country’s most important institutions, the military. He was appointed after President Mnangagwa fired General Chiwenga’s right-hand man, General Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe, who had been the commander who supervised the 2017 coup when he was commander of the Presidential Guard. He was appointed as Sports Minister, replacing Kirsty Coventry. Today’s Presidential Guard presents a similar picture. It has also been reshaped to suit President Mnangagwa’s political pursuits. The same formation that played a decisive role during the 2017 military intervention, then commanded by Colonel Anselem Sanyatwe before his subsequent promotion to Brigadier General, is today under a commander aligned with Mnangagwa. Major General Fidelis Mhonda, who commands today’s Presidential Guard, was promoted a few days ago to the rank of Major General, reinforcing the widespread perception that the Presidential Guard is now firmly within Mnangagwa’s sphere of influence and political control. Above them sits the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, General Emmanuel Matatu, from the Midlands province. Unlike Chiwenga during his tenure, General Matatu has generally not been viewed as an overt political operator. His role has largely been seen as maintaining institutional continuity rather than building an independent political constituency within the military, as General Chiwenga did during his time in the army. Taken together, these developments are seen by President Mnangagwa and his close associates as significantly reducing the prospects of another military coup to remove him. Over time, President Mnangagwa has systematically reshaped the senior military command structure. Military officers perceived to be close to Chiwenga have either retired, died, been reassigned, or gradually lost influence, while others considered more acceptable to Mnangagwa have risen through the ranks. Whether intentional or simply the natural evolution of military succession, the result has been the steady consolidation of presidential influence over the security establishment, weakening General Chiwenga’s influence. Meanwhile, many Zimbabweans have begun looking to Chiwenga for a viable counterforce because they see little prospect of meaningful change emerging from the fragmented opposition. Yet Chiwenga’s recent biblical parable appears to carry a different message. Rather than suggesting that salvation will come through him and his military associates alone, he seems to be telling Zimbabweans that they must act for themselves instead of waiting for someone else to rescue them. If that is indeed his message, it presents a political dilemma. Zimbabweans have repeatedly been encouraged to “wait and watch,” with suggestions that decisive, overwhelming action was imminent. Now they are being reminded that they themselves must participate. The difficulty is that many Zimbabweans remain traumatised by the state’s historical response to public demonstrations using the same military. When Chiwenga commanded the Zimbabwean military, those who protested often encountered overwhelming force. In August 2018, when he had become Vice President, soldiers shot civilians during post-election protests in Harare. The global media and British politicians like Kate Hoey directly blamed General Chiwenga for those killings because of Zimbabwe’s army history of dabbling in politics. Emmerson Mnangagwa’s public relations machine kicked into action and blamed General Chiwenga when speaking to diplomats and international businessmen about the circumstances surrounding what had taken place. A very powerful narrative was created that pointed to General Chiwenga as the culprit. President Mnangagwa told African presidents that when the killings took place, he was actually in a meeting with the former Ethiopian Prime Minister, Hailemariam Desalegn and the former Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam. In 2008, while he was Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, the military killed hundreds of opposition supporters during the post-election violence that ultimately led to the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU). Those events remain deeply embedded in the political memory of Zimbabwean citizens. Consequently, many Zimbabweans today are understandably reluctant to return to the streets for fear of being killed. Ironically, it is a political environment that Chiwenga himself helped create. Successful military interventions that seek public legitimacy usually require significant civilian mobilisation. Unless one is contemplating an outright seizure of power through force alone, public participation matters. Today, however, fear has largely replaced mobilisation. Across Zimbabwe and throughout the diaspora, many people hold General Chiwenga partly responsible for the political situation the country now finds itself in. They argue that in 2017 he possessed both the military authority and the political leverage to shape Zimbabwe’s future differently. Former president Robert Mugabe sent former central bank governor Dr Gideon Gono during the coup in November 2017 to engage General Chiwenga and other senior military officers with proposals that would have allowed General Chiwenga himself to assume power. General Chiwenga refused this offer and remained loyal to President Emmerson Mnangagwa during the coup. President Mnangagwa, by contrast, has demonstrated unwavering commitment to securing his own political future in a ruthless and Machiavellian way. Every major constitutional change, every strategic appointment, and every restructuring of the security establishment point in the same direction. His political objectives have been pursued with remarkable political discipline, patience, and clarity, coupled with an iron fist. Regardless of how objectionable his actions have been, he continues to execute them, and so far he has been succeeding. That is why I return to where I began. Zimbabwean politics has become a contest between reality and aspiration or delusion. Many continue to believe that somehow events will take a different course through a political messiah despite the evidence accumulating before them. But politics rewards those who deal with reality and political actors who are not scared of executing their plans, regardless of how controversial they are. It does not reward those who substitute objective reality with hope. Whatever one thinks of President Emmerson Mnangagwa or General Constantino Chiwenga, the evidence available today points overwhelmingly in one direction. Mnangagwa has spent years methodically consolidating power, while many of his opponents have spent those same years believing circumstances would somehow change in their favour. The other element that helped the ascension of President Emmerson Mnangagwa was the main opposition political party of the day, the MDC. Former Prime Minister and founding MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his successor, Nelson Chamisa, worked with Mnangagwa in sanitising the coup by putting their supporters on the streets to make it look like it was a popular uprising against the sickly geriatric leader, Robert Mugabe. Today, the opposition is in disarray, crippled and, in many cases, comfortably ensconced in ZANUPF pockets. To put it more accurately, it is in Emmerson Mnangagwa’s pockets. The country’s most popular opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa, has also made his position clear through one of his own parables on social media. In a recent post, he suggested that he would not allow himself to be made to write Paper Two, in other words, another military coup. His argument is based on the fact that the first military coup delivered nothing but grief for the opposition. The opposition was promised a lot of things and as the coup ended successfully, former Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa told Zimbabweans that it was a strictly ZANUPF affair. Chamisa believes that repeating the same approach, when there is already evidence of what the first coup produced, would be politically futile. He is therefore clearly not prepared to marshal his supporters onto the streets on behalf of one ZANUPF faction against another because he sees this primarily as an internal ZANUPF power struggle as he sees it. Another important element is that President Emmerson Mnangagwa has been able to create massive wealth through public procurement for a coterie of loyal political backers. That wealth has played a significant role in securing political favours, consolidating power, and extending influence across many facets of Zimbabwean society. Mnangagwa loyalists have publicly donated luxury vehicles and other expensive gifts to senior military commanders, universities, churches, celebrities, and many related key institutional figures. In the religious sector, which has millions of fanatic followers, influential church leaders have received financial support and gifts. In the entertainment industry, prominent musicians such as Jah Prayzah, Alick Macheso, and others have also received gifts from wealthy Mnangagwa loyalists who openly support President Mnangagwa’s political agenda to extend his term of office. Taken together, these patronage networks have helped consolidate political influence well beyond the structures of the state itself. The odds facing the Vice President are therefore enormous. Barring a miracle, his path to the presidency appears increasingly very difficult. The irony is that part of the political architecture he helped build over the past two decades has created the very climate of fear that now stands in his way. If he were ever to seek public mobilisation, many Zimbabweans would be reluctant to take to the streets because of the state’s historical response to protests, much of which occurred while he occupied positions of immense power in the security sector. The other risk is that, if nothing changes, he could eventually be dismissed. Some of his ardent supporters like Knox Chivero have already gone onto public social media platforms claiming that there are plans to remove him from office. That possibility does not surprise political analysts at all. At some point, Mnangagwa may conclude that there is little political value in retaining a deputy whom he believes has been politically and militarily neutralised. Many political analysts now say, barring a political miracle powered by a military coup, Chiwenga could ultimately find himself leaving office as an ordinary civilian. Any attempt to remove a government through a military coup carries enormous risks and requires tonnes of money, as we saw with the 2017 military coup, which was reportedly funded by fuel tycoon Kudakwashe Tagwirei. Such an attempt must succeed because, historically, failed coups often have severe, and sometimes fatal, consequences for those who participate in them. It is a kill-or-be-killed situation once it unfolds. So, Vice President Chiwenga finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult position. His own faction is looking to him to lead and deliver. At the same time, many opposition supporters who now feel politically orphaned, with no credible political home, are also looking to him in the hope that he can bring about change but are terrified of the streets. As all this drama unfolds, President Emmerson Mnangagwa continues to tighten his grip on power. Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 now sits on his desk awaiting his signature, and it could be signed into law at any moment. Yet, for General Chiwenga, this is a make-or-break moment. If the Bill is signed into law and the General does nothing, many will conclude that his political presidential ambitions have come to an undignified end. If he attempts to act and fails, he could place himself in mortal danger. And if he simply waits, the political outcome may ultimately be the same, he risks being removed once Mnangagwa concludes that he no longer serves a useful political purpose. Time, as always, will be the ultimate judge. Reality and aspiration are now facing each other, and we have not a long time left for the ultimate showdown, or, as many suspect, little resistance.

The tragedy of Zimbabwean politics is that there is reality, and then there are aspirations, aspirations that often drift into political delusions that hope for miracles. Too often, our people choose the latter. Instead of confronting the hard political realities before us, they cling to the hope that events will somehow unfold in their favour miraculously, regardless of the evidence saying otherwise. I have listened carefully to Vice President General Constantino Chiwenga’s latest remarks, given to us through a parable of Lazarus and the other biblical analogies he has shared at different intervals. He has demonstrated that he understands religion, reads the Bible extensively, and is comfortable using scripture to communicate political ideas and messages to the Zimbabwean citizenry. That, however, does not change our political reality. In 2017, General Chiwenga successfully marshalled the military, worked hand in glove with other senior figures within the security establishment, mobilised ordinary citizens onto the streets with the help of the opposition, and carried out the military coup that removed former president Robert Mugabe from power after forcing him to write a resignation letter with a gun over his head. Today, however, General Chiwenga faces a far steeper challenge because Zimbabweans are deeply disillusioned by what followed. Fairly or unfairly, many do not see what happened after November 2017 simply as Mnangagwa’s project. They see it as General Chiwenga’s military intervention because he was the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces who executed it; he was the poster boy of the military coup. Zimbabwean citizens jokingly called him General Bae. “Bae” is an affectionate term for someone you love or care about deeply. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, that General Chiwenga bears responsibility for what followed the coup is a political perception that remains ingrained in the country’s memory. Anything that emerged from that military coup inevitably falls, to some extent, on his shoulders. That leaves him with an enormous task if he hopes to redeem himself politically. His biggest challenge is that, unlike Robert Mugabe, President Emmerson Mnangagwa is an exceptionally patient, calculating, and tactical politician who plans years ahead of eventual execution, and who does so ruthlessly, without any mercy for his political opponents. Today, we are confronted with Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which is now on President Mnangagwa’s desk awaiting his signature. Once enacted, it will, barring a political miracle, effectively extinguish Chiwenga’s path to the presidency and also extinguish the little prospect of an opposition president. But this story did not begin in 2026. It began in 2021 with Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 2, which abolished the running mate clause. That provision would have significantly strengthened General Chiwenga’s prospects of automatically succeeding President Mnangagwa. When Amendment No. 2 was introduced, I argued that it was unmistakable evidence that President Mnangagwa had no intention whatsoever of handing over power to Chiwenga. As usual, because many people preferred comforting illusions to uncomfortable facts, many disagreed with that political assessment. Some within ZANUPF accused me of talking political nonsense. Others insisted that Mnangagwa and Chiwenga were inseparable political brothers who would always work together. Even sections of the opposition dismissed my political analysis, arguing that Mnangagwa would never have the political capacity to sideline Chiwenga because powerful forces would stop him. Reality has partly answered that debate. The results are before us. The so-called forces have not been able to stop him so far. Today, the Vice President increasingly relies on biblical parables to communicate his political messaging while Mnangagwa steadily and ruthlessly tightens his grip on every important lever of state power. The military itself illustrates this shift. The Zimbabwe National Army is now commanded by Major General Walter Tapfumaneyi. His rise is politically significant to the story so far and to where the story might take us as it continues to unfold. General Tapfumaneyi left the army as a colonel after falling out with the military establishment during General Chiwenga’s tenure as Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. He was made a Brigadier General upon retirement from the army. He joined the Central Intelligence Organisation, where he rose to become Deputy Director-General. He also commanded Forever Associates Zimbabwe (FAZ), the organisation widely associated with supporting President Mnangagwa’s electoral machinery during the 2023 elections. When President Mnangagwa returned him to the Zimbabwe National Army, he was promoted to the rank of Major General. He leapfrogged several Major Generals who had served longer at that rank when he was appointed Commander of the Zimbabwe National Army. President Mnangagwa was now building the army in his own desired image and dismantling General Chiwenga’s army management network. His appointment strengthened Mnangagwa’s influence over one of the country’s most important institutions, the military. He was appointed after President Mnangagwa fired General Chiwenga’s right-hand man, General Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe, who had been the commander who supervised the 2017 coup when he was commander of the Presidential Guard. He was appointed as Sports Minister, replacing Kirsty Coventry. Today’s Presidential Guard presents a similar picture. It has also been reshaped to suit President Mnangagwa’s political pursuits. The same formation that played a decisive role during the 2017 military intervention, then commanded by Colonel Anselem Sanyatwe before his subsequent promotion to Brigadier General, is today under a commander aligned with Mnangagwa. Major General Fidelis Mhonda, who commands today’s Presidential Guard, was promoted a few days ago to the rank of Major General, reinforcing the widespread perception that the Presidential Guard is now firmly within Mnangagwa’s sphere of influence and political control. Above them sits the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, General Emmanuel Matatu, from the Midlands province. Unlike Chiwenga during his tenure, General Matatu has generally not been viewed as an overt political operator. His role has largely been seen as maintaining institutional continuity rather than building an independent political constituency within the military, as General Chiwenga did during his time in the army. Taken together, these developments are seen by President Mnangagwa and his close associates as significantly reducing the prospects of another military coup to remove him. Over time, President Mnangagwa has systematically reshaped the senior military command structure. Military officers perceived to be close to Chiwenga have either retired, died, been reassigned, or gradually lost influence, while others considered more acceptable to Mnangagwa have risen through the ranks. Whether intentional or simply the natural evolution of military succession, the result has been the steady consolidation of presidential influence over the security establishment, weakening General Chiwenga’s influence. Meanwhile, many Zimbabweans have begun looking to Chiwenga for a viable counterforce because they see little prospect of meaningful change emerging from the fragmented opposition. Yet Chiwenga’s recent biblical parable appears to carry a different message. Rather than suggesting that salvation will come through him and his military associates alone, he seems to be telling Zimbabweans that they must act for themselves instead of waiting for someone else to rescue them. If that is indeed his message, it presents a political dilemma. Zimbabweans have repeatedly been encouraged to “wait and watch,” with suggestions that decisive, overwhelming action was imminent. Now they are being reminded that they themselves must participate. The difficulty is that many Zimbabweans remain traumatised by the state’s historical response to public demonstrations using the same military. When Chiwenga commanded the Zimbabwean military, those who protested often encountered overwhelming force. In August 2018, when he had become Vice President, soldiers shot civilians during post-election protests in Harare. The global media and British politicians like Kate Hoey directly blamed General Chiwenga for those killings because of Zimbabwe’s army history of dabbling in politics. Emmerson Mnangagwa’s public relations machine kicked into action and blamed General Chiwenga when speaking to diplomats and international businessmen about the circumstances surrounding what had taken place. A very powerful narrative was created that pointed to General Chiwenga as the culprit. President Mnangagwa told African presidents that when the killings took place, he was actually in a meeting with the former Ethiopian Prime Minister, Hailemariam Desalegn and the former Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam. In 2008, while he was Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, the military killed hundreds of opposition supporters during the post-election violence that ultimately led to the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU). Those events remain deeply embedded in the political memory of Zimbabwean citizens. Consequently, many Zimbabweans today are understandably reluctant to return to the streets for fear of being killed. Ironically, it is a political environment that Chiwenga himself helped create. Successful military interventions that seek public legitimacy usually require significant civilian mobilisation. Unless one is contemplating an outright seizure of power through force alone, public participation matters. Today, however, fear has largely replaced mobilisation. Across Zimbabwe and throughout the diaspora, many people hold General Chiwenga partly responsible for the political situation the country now finds itself in. They argue that in 2017 he possessed both the military authority and the political leverage to shape Zimbabwe’s future differently. Former president Robert Mugabe sent former central bank governor Dr Gideon Gono during the coup in November 2017 to engage General Chiwenga and other senior military officers with proposals that would have allowed General Chiwenga himself to assume power. General Chiwenga refused this offer and remained loyal to President Emmerson Mnangagwa during the coup. President Mnangagwa, by contrast, has demonstrated unwavering commitment to securing his own political future in a ruthless and Machiavellian way. Every major constitutional change, every strategic appointment, and every restructuring of the security establishment point in the same direction. His political objectives have been pursued with remarkable political discipline, patience, and clarity, coupled with an iron fist. Regardless of how objectionable his actions have been, he continues to execute them, and so far he has been succeeding. That is why I return to where I began. Zimbabwean politics has become a contest between reality and aspiration or delusion. Many continue to believe that somehow events will take a different course through a political messiah despite the evidence accumulating before them. But politics rewards those who deal with reality and political actors who are not scared of executing their plans, regardless of how controversial they are. It does not reward those who substitute objective reality with hope. Whatever one thinks of President Emmerson Mnangagwa or General Constantino Chiwenga, the evidence available today points overwhelmingly in one direction. Mnangagwa has spent years methodically consolidating power, while many of his opponents have spent those same years believing circumstances would somehow change in their favour. The other element that helped the ascension of President Emmerson Mnangagwa was the main opposition political party of the day, the MDC. Former Prime Minister and founding MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his successor, Nelson Chamisa, worked with Mnangagwa in sanitising the coup by putting their supporters on the streets to make it look like it was a popular uprising against the sickly geriatric leader, Robert Mugabe. Today, the opposition is in disarray, crippled and, in many cases, comfortably ensconced in ZANUPF pockets. To put it more accurately, it is in Emmerson Mnangagwa’s pockets. The country’s most popular opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa, has also made his position clear through one of his own parables on social media. In a recent post, he suggested that he would not allow himself to be made to write Paper Two, in other words, another military coup. His argument is based on the fact that the first military coup delivered nothing but grief for the opposition. The opposition was promised a lot of things and as the coup ended successfully, former Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa told Zimbabweans that it was a strictly ZANUPF affair. Chamisa believes that repeating the same approach, when there is already evidence of what the first coup produced, would be politically futile. He is therefore clearly not prepared to marshal his supporters onto the streets on behalf of one ZANUPF faction against another because he sees this primarily as an internal ZANUPF power struggle as he sees it. Another important element is that President Emmerson Mnangagwa has been able to create massive wealth through public procurement for a coterie of loyal political backers. That wealth has played a significant role in securing political favours, consolidating power, and extending influence across many facets of Zimbabwean society. Mnangagwa loyalists have publicly donated luxury vehicles and other expensive gifts to senior military commanders, universities, churches, celebrities, and many related key institutional figures. In the religious sector, which has millions of fanatic followers, influential church leaders have received financial support and gifts. In the entertainment industry, prominent musicians such as Jah Prayzah, Alick Macheso, and others have also received gifts from wealthy Mnangagwa loyalists who openly support President Mnangagwa’s political agenda to extend his term of office. Taken together, these patronage networks have helped consolidate political influence well beyond the structures of the state itself. The odds facing the Vice President are therefore enormous. Barring a miracle, his path to the presidency appears increasingly very difficult. The irony is that part of the political architecture he helped build over the past two decades has created the very climate of fear that now stands in his way. If he were ever to seek public mobilisation, many Zimbabweans would be reluctant to take to the streets because of the state’s historical response to protests, much of which occurred while he occupied positions of immense power in the security sector. The other risk is that, if nothing changes, he could eventually be dismissed. Some of his ardent supporters like Knox Chivero have already gone onto public social media platforms claiming that there are plans to remove him from office. That possibility does not surprise political analysts at all. At some point, Mnangagwa may conclude that there is little political value in retaining a deputy whom he believes has been politically and militarily neutralised. Many political analysts now say, barring a political miracle powered by a military coup, Chiwenga could ultimately find himself leaving office as an ordinary civilian. Any attempt to remove a government through a military coup carries enormous risks and requires tonnes of money, as we saw with the 2017 military coup, which was reportedly funded by fuel tycoon Kudakwashe Tagwirei. Such an attempt must succeed because, historically, failed coups often have severe, and sometimes fatal, consequences for those who participate in them. It is a kill-or-be-killed situation once it unfolds. So, Vice President Chiwenga finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult position. His own faction is looking to him to lead and deliver. At the same time, many opposition supporters who now feel politically orphaned, with no credible political home, are also looking to him in the hope that he can bring about change but are terrified of the streets. As all this drama unfolds, President Emmerson Mnangagwa continues to tighten his grip on power. Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 now sits on his desk awaiting his signature, and it could be signed into law at any moment. Yet, for General Chiwenga, this is a make-or-break moment. If the Bill is signed into law and the General does nothing, many will conclude that his political presidential ambitions have come to an undignified end. If he attempts to act and fails, he could place himself in mortal danger. And if he simply waits, the political outcome may ultimately be the same, he risks being removed once Mnangagwa concludes that he no longer serves a useful political purpose. Time, as always, will be the ultimate judge. Reality and aspiration are now facing each other, and we have not a long time left for the ultimate showdown, or, as many suspect, little resistance.

Hopewell Chin’ono

105,827 次观看 • 2 个月前

I’m posting this video compilation and explanation to document contradictions and moral/ethical inconsistencies in how Kirk Cameron has handled public criticism following his promotion of annihilationism, and to publicly call him to repent - not so much for his false and dangerous beliefs about hell, but about how he has sinfully responded to disagreement and correction. This became necessary after Kirk went to CBN (a platform that has promoted Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Todd White, Bill Johnson, etc.) to whitewash the record and level accusations against his brothers yet again. This is not about tone, personality, or online drama. It is about accountability for public teaching. Before anything else, I want to be clear about what I am and am not saying. I am not accusing Kirk Cameron of being an unbeliever. I am not claiming he is outside the faith. I am not “outing” him as something other than a brother in Christ. And although I believe annihilationism is a formal theological heresy, I am not declaring Kirk himself to be a heretic. I do not know him personally. My concern is not personal animus, but repentance where error exists, and more broadly, the integrity of Christian engagement with one another online, which must be governed by Scripture even when that engagement is difficult or uncomfortable. Because Protestia was the original “heresy hunter” website that drew 3rd-party attention to Kirk's podcast, I also want to clarify something plainly. Protestia accurately characterized and quoted Kirk. We did not rebuke him. We did not accuse him of heresy. We did not editorialize on his theology. We quoted his words directly, provided clips, and linked to his full podcast. Our reporting brought the issue into the open, led to dozens, if not hundreds, of corrective sermons around the country, as well as men like Albert Mohler, Justin Peters, Ray Comfort, and Todd Friel providing lengthy, corrective responses. In response to Kirk's rebuke of "sin sniffers" and "heresy hunters," looking for people to attack so our "ministries don't dry up," it must be said that neither Protestia nor I, as its publisher, earn any profit from this work. I operate without a salary, without ad profit tied to outrage, and without financial incentive to manufacture controversy. We also publish a clear, accessible set of doctrinal and editorial standards that invite accountability. Readers are encouraged to evaluate our reporting against those standards at any time. With sadness, I report the following ongoing hypocricies, errors, and sins, call for public repentance, and call on fellow public Christian ministers who confirm the public witness of the evidence to call Kirk to repentance as well: First, Kirk repeatedly characterizes annihilationism as a secondary issue, something Christians may disagree on without serious consequence. Yet in Episode 86, he frames the potential error of teaching ECTorment as a first-tier moral offense, calling it a “severe misrepresentation of God’s character” and “a great sin and mistake.” In effect, annihilationism’s potential error is treated as second-tier, while ECT’s potential error is framed as first-tier. His critics are condemned for strong language, even though his own framing assigns a clear double standard. Second, Kirk continues to publicly accuse unnamed brothers of unspecified sins against him. He speaks of “sin sniffers,” “heresy hunters,” and brothers behaving like unbelievers, yet never names who supposedly sinned or what sin was committed. Scripture does not authorize anonymous moral indictment. Accusation without identification prevents repentance, response, or clarification. Third, Kirk makes public claims about what Scripture teaches, on a public platform, for a mass audience, while insisting that responses to those claims must occur privately. This is incoherent. Public teaching creates public responsibility. A teacher cannot embrace the delegated authority of public instruction while exempting himself from open, public evaluation. Fourth, in the CBN interview, Kirk reframes the controversy as a surprising overreaction to an off-the-cuff question from his son. The episode itself shows otherwise. Episode 86 was planned, structured, cited, and presented as a “dangerous conversation.” He named specific theological positions, referenced Edward Fudge, and declared a personal conclusion. This was not accidental commentary, and it was not unexpected that it would draw strong reaction. Fifth, Kirk gives contradictory explanations for how he formed his beliefs. In attempting to minimize the doctrinal seriousness of ECT, he says he held to it only because of tradition, then says "verses" brought him to it, and continues to insinuate that ECT proponents today rely on tradition rather than Scripture. Sixth, Kirk repeatedly accuses online critics of illegitimate financial motives, claiming their analysis and arguments were driven by clicks, outrage, or income. At the same time, he presents his own financial concerns, canceled events, and lost opportunities as legitimate considerations. Financial motive is treated as sinful when attributed to others and understandable when attributed to himself. Seventh, Kirk appealed to many ECT teachers as fellow serious scriptural scholars, yet only listed figures who had passed away and could neither reject his conclusions nor correct his use of their authority. Living theologians who object are portrayed as divisive; dead ones are cited as allies. Eighth, Kirk openly admits that he wants annihilationism to be true, calls it a “great relief,” and imagines the joy of presenting annihilationism as "good news" to unbelievers who reject a God who eternally punishes. This is not a neutral inquiry. It is not merely "asking questions." It is doctrinal modification shaped by emotional desires - precisely the method Scripture warns against. Scripture does not require private confrontation before public correction when the teaching itself was public. Matthew 18 governs private interpersonal sin, not public doctrine. When error is public, correction must be public for the sake of those who heard it. Paul rebuked Peter publicly because the error was public. Elders are commanded to refute false teaching openly. Demanding private correction for public doctrine protects the teacher while leaving the audience confused. That is not loving. It prioritizes reputation over truth and the flock over no one. Public correction is not unchristian. It is biblical. It protects those exposed to error and provides clarity rather than silence. Jesus’ parable in Luke 16 about stewardship applies here. Teachers are not owners of doctrine; they are stewards of it. The steward is condemned not for dishonesty alone, but for handling what belonged to another according to his own preferences. Doctrine is not ours to reshape according to emotional comfort or perceived evangelistic usefulness. Faithfulness, not palatability, is the measure of stewardship. The gospel cannot be separated from what Christ saves us from. Hell is not a minor doctrine, and it is not ours to soften for relief or rhetorical safety. This video is not about malice. It is about accountability, witness, and loving a brother enough to call him out.

I’m posting this video compilation and explanation to document contradictions and moral/ethical inconsistencies in how Kirk Cameron has handled public criticism following his promotion of annihilationism, and to publicly call him to repent - not so much for his false and dangerous beliefs about hell, but about how he has sinfully responded to disagreement and correction. This became necessary after Kirk went to CBN (a platform that has promoted Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Todd White, Bill Johnson, etc.) to whitewash the record and level accusations against his brothers yet again. This is not about tone, personality, or online drama. It is about accountability for public teaching. Before anything else, I want to be clear about what I am and am not saying. I am not accusing Kirk Cameron of being an unbeliever. I am not claiming he is outside the faith. I am not “outing” him as something other than a brother in Christ. And although I believe annihilationism is a formal theological heresy, I am not declaring Kirk himself to be a heretic. I do not know him personally. My concern is not personal animus, but repentance where error exists, and more broadly, the integrity of Christian engagement with one another online, which must be governed by Scripture even when that engagement is difficult or uncomfortable. Because Protestia was the original “heresy hunter” website that drew 3rd-party attention to Kirk's podcast, I also want to clarify something plainly. Protestia accurately characterized and quoted Kirk. We did not rebuke him. We did not accuse him of heresy. We did not editorialize on his theology. We quoted his words directly, provided clips, and linked to his full podcast. Our reporting brought the issue into the open, led to dozens, if not hundreds, of corrective sermons around the country, as well as men like Albert Mohler, Justin Peters, Ray Comfort, and Todd Friel providing lengthy, corrective responses. In response to Kirk's rebuke of "sin sniffers" and "heresy hunters," looking for people to attack so our "ministries don't dry up," it must be said that neither Protestia nor I, as its publisher, earn any profit from this work. I operate without a salary, without ad profit tied to outrage, and without financial incentive to manufacture controversy. We also publish a clear, accessible set of doctrinal and editorial standards that invite accountability. Readers are encouraged to evaluate our reporting against those standards at any time. With sadness, I report the following ongoing hypocricies, errors, and sins, call for public repentance, and call on fellow public Christian ministers who confirm the public witness of the evidence to call Kirk to repentance as well: First, Kirk repeatedly characterizes annihilationism as a secondary issue, something Christians may disagree on without serious consequence. Yet in Episode 86, he frames the potential error of teaching ECTorment as a first-tier moral offense, calling it a “severe misrepresentation of God’s character” and “a great sin and mistake.” In effect, annihilationism’s potential error is treated as second-tier, while ECT’s potential error is framed as first-tier. His critics are condemned for strong language, even though his own framing assigns a clear double standard. Second, Kirk continues to publicly accuse unnamed brothers of unspecified sins against him. He speaks of “sin sniffers,” “heresy hunters,” and brothers behaving like unbelievers, yet never names who supposedly sinned or what sin was committed. Scripture does not authorize anonymous moral indictment. Accusation without identification prevents repentance, response, or clarification. Third, Kirk makes public claims about what Scripture teaches, on a public platform, for a mass audience, while insisting that responses to those claims must occur privately. This is incoherent. Public teaching creates public responsibility. A teacher cannot embrace the delegated authority of public instruction while exempting himself from open, public evaluation. Fourth, in the CBN interview, Kirk reframes the controversy as a surprising overreaction to an off-the-cuff question from his son. The episode itself shows otherwise. Episode 86 was planned, structured, cited, and presented as a “dangerous conversation.” He named specific theological positions, referenced Edward Fudge, and declared a personal conclusion. This was not accidental commentary, and it was not unexpected that it would draw strong reaction. Fifth, Kirk gives contradictory explanations for how he formed his beliefs. In attempting to minimize the doctrinal seriousness of ECT, he says he held to it only because of tradition, then says "verses" brought him to it, and continues to insinuate that ECT proponents today rely on tradition rather than Scripture. Sixth, Kirk repeatedly accuses online critics of illegitimate financial motives, claiming their analysis and arguments were driven by clicks, outrage, or income. At the same time, he presents his own financial concerns, canceled events, and lost opportunities as legitimate considerations. Financial motive is treated as sinful when attributed to others and understandable when attributed to himself. Seventh, Kirk appealed to many ECT teachers as fellow serious scriptural scholars, yet only listed figures who had passed away and could neither reject his conclusions nor correct his use of their authority. Living theologians who object are portrayed as divisive; dead ones are cited as allies. Eighth, Kirk openly admits that he wants annihilationism to be true, calls it a “great relief,” and imagines the joy of presenting annihilationism as "good news" to unbelievers who reject a God who eternally punishes. This is not a neutral inquiry. It is not merely "asking questions." It is doctrinal modification shaped by emotional desires - precisely the method Scripture warns against. Scripture does not require private confrontation before public correction when the teaching itself was public. Matthew 18 governs private interpersonal sin, not public doctrine. When error is public, correction must be public for the sake of those who heard it. Paul rebuked Peter publicly because the error was public. Elders are commanded to refute false teaching openly. Demanding private correction for public doctrine protects the teacher while leaving the audience confused. That is not loving. It prioritizes reputation over truth and the flock over no one. Public correction is not unchristian. It is biblical. It protects those exposed to error and provides clarity rather than silence. Jesus’ parable in Luke 16 about stewardship applies here. Teachers are not owners of doctrine; they are stewards of it. The steward is condemned not for dishonesty alone, but for handling what belonged to another according to his own preferences. Doctrine is not ours to reshape according to emotional comfort or perceived evangelistic usefulness. Faithfulness, not palatability, is the measure of stewardship. The gospel cannot be separated from what Christ saves us from. Hell is not a minor doctrine, and it is not ours to soften for relief or rhetorical safety. This video is not about malice. It is about accountability, witness, and loving a brother enough to call him out.

David Morrill

18,253 次观看 • 7 个月前