Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.
This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.
So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.
This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.
For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression.
Pat Condell – Gab Social
https://gab.com/patcondell
Rioting in Paris
Pat Condell – 14h
https://gab.com/patcondell/posts/112310002973466884
I was taking a nap when the telephone rang. “Hello?”
“Johnny–how are you, mon?” It was my Jamaican friend, Curt.
We went back a few years. We were the same age. He was an old-school mechanic. I had hired him to fix a car, then a tractor, then a lawnmower–turned out he could fix almost anything. He reminded me of Russians and their handiness and I told him so.
Russians I knew from the Soviet era could fix most anything because back home wasn’t like here. You couldn’t call the local supplier for a part and have it dropped at your door an hour later. No, you made do with what you had or else you stayed stuck. Curt had grown up somewhere in an interior village in Jamaica. Dirt poor. He rewound alternators and knew when a battery was dead just by its shape. When we switched the torsion bars on one of my cars he got it right by feel before I had even finished reading the manual.
“I just called to say I love you, mon.”
“Drunk again, huh?” He burst out in hysterical laughter.
“How do you know I’m having a few beers?”
“Because you’re not a faggot and you just said you loved me.”
“Aw, mon, I just wanted to thank you for everything you’ve done for me. You’re a good guy.”
A few years back he had racked up a big debt with me by not paying his rent. I hadn’t panicked or become mean. Over time he worked it off by fixing equipment. He restored his honour and credit and we were good. “You’re my brudda from anudda mudda,” he continued. “How is the farm guy?”
“He still hasn’t paid his rent this month. That’s what you get with white trash.”
“Ha–ha!” More hysterical laughter. “You got rid of the nigger but the white guy was worse! Oh my god, Johnny, you make my belly hurt!”
“What can I say? It’s true.”
“You been through a lot, mon. Just remember things get better. I know I’m not always a good guy–what can I say I’m Jamaican–but believe me when I say it. You will be fine.”
I remember the winter before last watching him fix a snowblower. It was bitterly cold outside and he couldn’t adjust the carburator with gloves on–you need your fingers especially for small engines. I watched him suffer through it outside and realized eventually it would kill him. He was getting too old for outside work. Shortly after that I made a call and got him an indoor job with a guy I knew. They had a nice heated garage and endless cars and equipment to fix. It was Curt paradise. No more frozen Jamaican. The guy was sort of a gangster and could deal violently, but I knew a Jamaican from the interior could handle it. “You have to navigate people,” Curt once said.
With his practical skills he would always be able to make a living. This is becoming more and more important. Here Chris Martenson provides some practical instruction on what looms economically. The situation is becoming less abstract and more predictive as certain conditions coalesce:
https://youtu.be/aPR2Rkc5Z8o?si=RJrrV_kpiW1M39SG
Remember, it isn’t commodities going wild, it’s the fiat currency volatility indicative of their progressing failure:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities
In the face of brazen corruption and money printing should precious metals really get pummeled? Only temporarily, and only in a monetary endgame:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-gets-their-billions-despite-cia-director-reportedly-warnings-zelenksy-stop
Canadians: redirect any carbon direct-deposit rebates you get to Vladtepes blog, or Rebel News or any other counter-revolutionary outlet rather than take Dear Pleader’ bribe!
https://youtu.be/1qQE6Lz-rPM?si=5umYDivR-MwMwezg
Freeland says Conservative leader wants less government and that is a bad thing?
The little World Economic Forum committee chair slanders and attacks anyone who does not support the WEF’s “You will own nothing and be happy.” Build back better bullshit.
Amazing that soothsayer, Klaus Schwab, WEF top madman wrote a book The Great Reset and had it on the market in July of 2020. A book that discusses COVID -19.
Ludwig Von Mesis stated in his book on Socialism, there are only to ways to own it:
Claim it
Use the occupation of violence.
OLD SONG
Sha na na na
Yip yip yip yip
Get a job
Sha na na na
The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Columbia University President Cancels In-Person Classes as Anti-Israel Protests Escalate and Protesters Chant for Hamas on Campus
by Jim Hoft Apr. 22, 2024 7:55 am386 Comments
Columbia University President Minouche Shafik released a statement on Monday morning cancelling in-person classes on campus on Monday.
Dean Shafik hopes to convene a “working group” to discuss the crisis on campus including the debate on whether or not to bring police on campus.
“A working group of Deans, university administrators and faculty members will try to bring this crisis to a resolution. That includes continuing discussions with the student protestors and identifying actions we can take as a community to enable us to peacefully complete the term and return to respectful engagement with each other. I know that there is much debate about whether or not we should use the police on campus, and I am happy to engage in those discussions.”
This comes as anti-Israel protests continue to escalate on the campus.
Corrupt Judge Merchan Will Shut Down Trial Early Monday So Alternate Juror Can See Dentist – But Same Judge Won’t Allow President Trump to Attend His Son’s Graduation!
by Jim Hoft Apr. 22, 2024 10:15 am
According to sources, corrupt New York Judge Juan Merchan will reportedly shut down the latest lawfare trial against President Trump early today so that an alternate juror can visit the dentist.
The Boston Herald reported:
Donald Trump’s hush money trial will adjourn earlier than expected on Monday to accommodate an alternate juror’s emergency dental appointment in the afternoon.
Judge Juan M. Merchan had previously planned to adjourn the trial at 2 p.m. because of Passover, but will now adjourn the case at 12:30 p.m. He plans to end at 2 p.m. on Tuesday for the holiday.
This is the same conflicted judge who will NOT allow President Donald Trump to attend his son’s graduation ceremony.
read more at
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/corrupt-judge-merchan-will-shut-down-trial-early/
War By Affirmative Action?
Leave a Comment / April 22, 2024
Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
Why does Biden play Iranian poker with American and Israeli lives?
Answer? He envisions war sort of like affirmative action, in which the less accomplished belligerent is allowed all sorts of concessions for the sake of equity.
Israeli and American military capability, and particularly their missile defenses, are seen as unfair, almost like high achievers’ top SAT scores that are seen as unearned and used to privilege some over others and therefore must be countered or dropped.
Given Iran’s and its surrogates’ incompetence, the administration, then, must extend the theocracy some allowances “to level the playing field.” Biden believes in an equality of opportunity in war, when an aggressor does its best to attack or indeed destroy a defender, who in turn does its own best to retaliate and achieve victory.
Instead, the Biden administration sees war leading to equality of result as something to be waged “proportionally,” especially when the power attacked is stronger and Western while the attacking aggressor is weaker and non-Western. The method, then, is to restrain the western power and give repeated chances for the non-western aggressors to catch up.
As a result, the Biden administration’s strategic attitude toward Iran ignores Iranian intent and agendas. So it does not respond fully to its acts of aggression and thereby almost rewards the incompetence of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis without consideration of their murderous aims.
Americans are thus baffled that Biden has not responded to some 170 or more attacks on U.S. installations in the Middle East by Iranian-backed terrorists in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. But in his calculus, Americans “can take the hit” due to their superior defenses—appeasement that only assures more hits.
Thus, other than a few apparently acceptable wounded or dead, there is no need for disproportionate responses to reestablish deterrence and end such opportunistic attacks. Such calculus in the Biden team’s mind would be “over the top,” perhaps “unfair,” or even “medieval.” And yet, it certainly would stop all such aggression quickly and warn aggressors not to touch a single American.
After the successful but mostly demonstrative Israel April 19 retaliatory strike against the Iranian anti-aircraft missile batteries at Isfahan, Biden cautioned Israel “to take the win” and apparently not to rub in the fact of Iranian incompetence, much less stage a follow-up and much greater response.
But what if instead, Biden had warned the Iranians that Israel was not through. Rather, he would tell the Iranians that the restrained Israeli response was a one-off warning and demonstration to Iran that 1) Israel had the ability to strike and destroy the very protective shield of the nuclear installations at nearby Natanz, and thus Natanz itself and plants like it; 2) that unlike the 320 missile/drone Iranian attack on Israel, even Israel’s tiny response was entirely successful; 3) and that in any future Iranian-envisioned nuclear attack on Israel, Iran’s rockets would likely either fail at launch or in the air (half did so on April, 13), with the remnant having a 99 percent surety of being shot down, while earning a 100 percent surety of a devastating Israel counter-attack with the same sort of weapons that Iran claims it will shortly use.
Would such a warning have been more likely to end the current tit-for-tat, “de-escalatory escalation” than the Biden administration’s advice to Israel to “take the win”–in an endless cycle of supposedly managed violence as Iran and its terrorists seek to get it right and respond commensurately?
Similarly, recently, third-party communications with Iran were disclosed about its earlier April 13 attack on Israel. Apparently, the Turkish third-party emissaries claimed that “Iran informed us in advance of what would happen. Possible developments also came up during the meeting with (Secretary of State Antony) Blinken, and they (the U.S.) conveyed to Iran through us that this reaction must be within certain limits.”
Translated, that meant that apparently launching over 320 cruise, ballistic missiles and drones were acceptable Iranian responses as long as they did not kill too many Jews?
So what did Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan actually define as damage “within certain limits?” Something like the relatively small number of dead and wounded Americans who have fallen victim to Iranian-backed terrorist attacks from the Red Sea to Iraq and Jordan?
“Within certain limits” for Iran certainly could not mean the huge number of lethal projectiles Iran sent into Israel that were intended by Iran to kill thousands, but apparently only how many Israelis were killed by them?
So again, what would have been beyond “certain limits” for team Biden? One dead Israeli for each launched rocket, missile, or drone? 320 Jews or so in total? Did Biden and Blinken assume that some 300 or so projectiles would be mostly shot down or blown up, and thus they played poker with Israeli lives and assumed that the attack would probably fail?
But what might have happened had instead Biden transmitted to Iran the following warning:
“Given your record of unleashing terror and death throughout the Middle East, I warn you not to send a single rocket into Israel. If you do, we will ensure that none get through, but we will not ensure that there will be any limits on what will likely be a devastating Israel response to your homeland.”
Would Iran have then sent the 320 missiles?
When Israel went into Gaza to end the medieval violence perpetrated by the Hamas cowardly terrorists, it had already been the target of some 7,000 Hamas rockets aimed at its civilian centers and bases. Did Biden see that failed Hamas effort to kill thousands of additional Jews as a legitimate cause for Israel to go into Gaza and destroy the rocket-launching Hamas?
Or instead, did Biden consider Israel’s unique ability to conduct war—again, sort of like having high SAT scores and a straight A average as proof of unwarranted privilege in admissions—as a disproportionate (and likely “unfair”) advantage over Hamas that thus should be ignored or discounted rather than admired? But had Hamas killed 1,000 Jews with its 7,000 rockets, would Biden have given Israel the green light to respond fully? Or would it have taken only 500 deaths? Or was the magic number 250 killed?
What would have happened had Biden not specified certain restraints on the IDF but instead, on October 21, transmitted the following message to Hamas: “You began this war with inhuman slaughter on October 7 and massive rocket attacks on Israeli cities, and Israel will now end the war with your destruction.”
Six months later, would the Middle East now be safer without Hamas?
In mid-October 2023, a failed Islamic jihad rocket hit Gaza’s al-Ahli hospital, prompting the blood libel that it was Israelis who supposedly were responsible and had killed hospital patients. An upset Joe Biden was asked about the identification of the perpetrator.
He answered with a joke, but a jest nevertheless quite revealing: “And I’m not suggesting that Hamas deliberately did it either. It’s that old thing; gotta learn how to shoot straight.” Aside from the embarrassing fact that Biden seemed more wary about wrongly blaming the murderous Hamas for the Islamic Jihad rocket than his ally Israel, did he really mean that the global condemnation of Israel for the act of Islamic jihad—and the predicament it put Biden in—would have simply vanished had only Islamic Jihad shot “straight”?
And further translated, did Biden logically mean—if only the Islamic Jihad rocket had not fallen short on Gazans but instead had reached its intended target of civilians inside Israel, then there would have been no controversies, no melodramas, given the stronger power Israel could more easily have “taken the hit?”
Note that Biden did not really express much anger that Islamic Jihad was shooting rockets to kill Jewish civilians. He was only lamenting that its incompetence had led to a blood libel, which required embarrassing explanations from Biden himself.
Biden, note, said something somewhat similar about a possible Putin invasion of Ukraine. He had predicted the U.S. response on whether it was a “minor” offensive or not. In other words, the American response was not predicated on the violation of national borders by an aggressor against an independent nation, but how effectively the aggressor attacked.
In the American Left’s vision of contemporary war, the West brings too many advantages in science, technology, and wealth, especially when fighting in the skies and not in the messy suburbs of Mosul, Fallujah, or Gaza City.
The result is disproportionate. Accordingly, it does not matter that Hamas only stopped butchering, raping, and mutilating Israelis at about 1,200 deaths because of an impending IDF arrival or killed few despite 7,000 rocket launches into Israel, when their rocketeers had sought to kill tens of thousands of Israelis.
Instead, by their very failures at the art of war, Iran and its surrogates are constructed as victims, not aggressors, at the moment when either their targets do not suffer too many causalities or their own losses vastly exceed those whom they sought to slaughter.
Third-party managed proportionality, accompanied by the banality of “both sides are at fault,” is not morality but pretentious amorality—as well as a sure prescription for endless war.
Or, in other words, what is unfolding now in the Middle East.
https://victorhanson.com/war-by-affirmative-action/
There’s a Reason We’re Divided on Guns
By Tom Knighton | 10:30 AM | April 22, 2024
AP Photo/Brittainy Newman
There are always going to be some topics that are divisive and guns are going to be one of them. After all, there are those who value gun rights and those who value gun control and while there might be a bit of a spectrum, there’s a line that cannot be crossed by anyone who wishes to remain on their side of that spectrum.
Saturday marked the anniversary of Columbine, so we saw tons of media stories about it, almost all of which seemed to push the narrative that gun control is still needed. “Woe is me, this horrible thing happened and we haven’t banned enough,” is the basic tone of most stories.
One such story from the Christian Science Monitor sought to highlight how we’re still divided on guns, as if this should be shocking.
I felt obligated to address some points in this report because holy crap does it need it.
The trends here are just one sign of a nation divided over the issue of guns.
On the one hand, some Americans increasingly view the constitutional “right to bear arms” as blanket permission to own and use guns without interference. The total number of firearms in private hands has surged in recent years, though the share of households owning guns has hovered lower in recent decades than in the 1960s, judging by Gallup polling. A rising share of owners say gun purchases are motivated by personal safety concerns, rather than by more traditional uses like hunting.
On the other hand, many Americans indicate more faith in a culture of gun regulation than in proliferation. A record 45% now say they are “very dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws,” a peak in 24 years of Gallup polling on the issue. And U.S. adults are far more likely to want more restrictions on guns (56% as of last year) than fewer (12%).
Here’s the thing, though. I’m dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws. More accurately, I’m dissatisfied with the fact that the ATF can apparently decide accessories are illegal after they’ve been on the market for years. I’m dissatisfied that I’m required to request permission and pay a tax stamp for a gun that by law has to have been manufactured before 1985.
The term “dissatisfied” doesn’t automatically translate to supporting more gun control. Some of us are dissatisfied because we have too many restrictions as it is.
Most surveys just lumped everyone in together and then tried to draw a conclusion without delving any deeper into what people were saying. Why? They don’t want to know. They’d rather be able to assume that 45 percent of people want more gun control because it sounds like there’s more will for something the pollsters wanted in the first place.
Yet even if every single one of those 45 percent want more gun control, they’re still in the minority. For people who seem to take a “majority rules” approach to literally everything, this should be a clear warning sign to back off.
Of course, then we have the brilliant “experts” who almost universally oppose the Second Amendment and will present it in the most negative light possible.
“There is so much distrust, so much suspicion,” says Caroline Light, author of “Stand Your Ground: A History of America’s Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense.”
“There are a lot of good people who are gun owners who are terrified that liberal governance is going to steal their guns,” says Dr. Light. Meanwhile “our society has aligned itself behind this belief … that firearms are an essential tool of self-defense rather than something specifically designed for human destruction.”
And that is why there’s so much distrust and suspicion. You’re trying to pretend those two things are somehow mutually exclusive.
Pepper spray, tasers, and the like might be effective on some people, but some people can shrug off pepper spray. Tasers are one-shot solutions where, if you miss, you’re generally screwed. None of these are as effective for self-defense as a firearm, where even the presence of a gun in the hands of the would-be victim is enough to end the threat in many cases.
Gus are essential tools of self-defense because they’re designed for human destruction.
People like Light seem to argue that this is somehow contradictory. Moreover, they expect you to buy into it being contradictory.
Moreover, there’s not a single pro-gun expert interviewed for this piece. Not a one. They didn’t talk to Mark Oliva from the NSSF, anyone from the NRA or USCCA, John Lott, nor any of the plethora of experts who would be happy to provide at least some counterpoint to this push.
The reason there’s distrust and suspicion is that people like the media and academia are untrustworthy and worthy of suspicion. They’re constantly doing some shady stuff and pushing a narrative that coincidentally just happens to align with their personal politics.
Shocking.
The truth is actually simple. There’s no common ground on guns because there can’t be common grounds on guns. The anti-gun side is notorious for failing to negotiate in good faith. They reach a “compromise” that is universally a case of them just taking a little less than they wanted, and rather than accept that’s the deal, they see it as the starting point for the next go-around.
So, we got tired of it and aren’t going to play their game anymore.
That’s it. That’s the hard, honest truth that the media refuses to share with the American people.
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/04/22/theres-a-reason-were-divided-on-guns-n1224598
How Much Training Do Teachers Really Need To Carry?
By
Jennifer Sensiba –
April 21, 2024 52
I recently came across a dumb conversation on Twitter that can actually be a little instructive. Instead of going straight to answering the question of how much training a teacher needs to be able to safely carry to defend children, I’m instead going to shoot down the assumptions that lead to thinking teachers need dozens or hundreds (or even thousands) of hours of training.
Bad Assumption #1: Cops Receive Thousands Of Hours Of Excellent Training
Here’s the thing: looking at the overall hours police spend going through an academy and then continuing education is a great way to lead yourself astray on this question. Out of 1,000 hours (assuming it’s even that many), a police cadet has to spend time on dozens of different topics. Much of it is completely useless to a teacher or anyone else carrying a gun for self-defense. A few of the topics include evidence handling, police procedures, emergency vehicle operation, fingerprinting, the laws relating to arrest and detainment, crowd control, directing traffic, FEMA ICS/NIMS courses, hand-to-hand defensive tactics, the use of tasers and OC spray, handcuffing, traffic violations, felony stops–I think you get the point!
The fact is, everything you’ve ever seen a police officer do and dozens of other things you don’t see them do all take up time in an academy and in continuing education. If a cadet is lucky, there will be maybe 100 hours of firearms instruction, but much of that is learning about use of force laws, so the actual amount of gun handling instruction will be far, far less. I went through a volunteer police academy where we spent exactly two weekends on the range, and it took me years to fix the bad habits I had picked up in that academy.
There’s more evidence of this, though. Remember the “only one” guy? Yeah, he was a “highly trained” federal agent! Ask anyone working at a gun shop or at a range who some of the most unsafe shooters are, and police officers WILL be on that list, and likely at the top. Talk to the best-trained police officers who go out and shoot competitions, and they’ll tell you that the average cop just isn’t very skilled with a firearm.
I don’t mean to trash on cops here, but anyone being honest about law enforcement training will tell you that police training simply isn’t a good benchmark.
Bad Assumption #2: Blood Will Run In The Streets
Like all anti-gun arguments, the idea that teachers can’t safely carry a gun without “only one” level training is pure garbage.
In fact, I can tell you about a place where teachers carry on just four hours of required training. Surely such a place would be littered with the bodies of deceased children, teachers, and janitors, right? I mean, some goober with 4 hours of training and NO LIVE FIRE INSTRUCTION REQUIRED would certainly be a menace to society, and belongs nowhere near schools.
But, this is how things are in the entire state of Utah. Anybody with the easy to get permit, teacher or not, can carry in any school in the state. I’m sure someone can point to a few isolated incidents where something bad happened, but it’s certainly not the norm or even common. Such things happen at school in other states when people carry unlawfully, after all.
But, more importantly, Utah has never had a mass shooter in a school. The reasons for this probably extend far beyond the question of whether teachers are allowed to carry, but at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. If a whole state’s worth of teachers are allowed to carry on almost zero training without something terrible happening, the argument against letting teachers carry in other states is utterly without merit.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/how-much-training-do-teachers-really-need-to-carry/
Donald Trump’s Criminal Trial Over Hush Money Payment – April 21, 2024
Bannons War Room – April 22, 2024
Trump enters and gives a statement @ 1:23:11
Trump leaves and explains what’s going on @ 4:43:35
https://rumble.com/v4qvigx-live-donald-trumps-criminal-trial-over-hush-money-paymentapril-21.html
“House Democrat introduces bill aimed at Trump that would strip Secret Service protection from felons” by Victor Nava – April 19, 2024
https://nypost.com/2024/04/19/us-news/house-democrat-introduces-bill-aimed-at-trump-that-would-strip-secret-service-protection-from-felons/
JUST IN: Alvin Bragg’s Prosecutors Lie About 2016 Election in Opening Statement to Jurors
by Cristina Laila Apr. 22, 2024 11:00 am685 Comments
Opening statements were underway in President Trump’s ‘hush payment’ trial in New York City on Monday morning.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s top prosecutor lied during his opening statement and claimed Trump “orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” when he paid porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their alleged affair.
Trump has denied the affair.
Bragg’s top prosecutor who gave the opening statement on Monday – Matthew Colangelo – previously worked in the Justice Department (Biden appointee) and is a lifelong left-wing activist.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/just-alvin-braggs-prosecutors-lie-about-2016-election/
=====================================================================
‘Hush money’ is not a crime, and Bragg has no case against Trump
By Social Links for Andrew C. McCarthy
Published April 22, 2024, 10:08 a.m. ET
Opening statements get underway in Manhattan Monday morning in Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial — the first-ever criminal trial of a former American president and, indeed, of a de facto major-party presidential nominee.
It got me to thinking: Why do we call it the “hush money” trial?
Well, sure, the media-Democrat complex loves the salacious overtones of that spin. But that’s not the real reason. If Trump had robbed a bank or, as he once famously put it, shot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight, we’d be talking about Trump’s bank robbery trial or his murder trial. That is, we’d be talking about the crime.
The problem that Democrats and their note-takers have, the problem that the elected progressive Democratic prosecutor Alvin Bragg has, is that what they want to accuse Trump of is not a crime.
Yes, of course, Bragg has indicted Trump for a nonsensical business-records falsification offense — a mere misdemeanor that he has abusively tried to inflate into 34 felonies. But that’s not what he and Democrats are really alleging.
What they want to say, instead, is that Trump stole the 2016 election. Only they can’t do that. After all, that would make them election deniers — just like Trump.
https://nypost.com/2024/04/22/opinion/hush-money-is-not-a-crime-and-bragg-has-no-case-against-trump/
Orban:
https://youtu.be/7LqxzeUZqTk?si=tmt_3OxUNbz_UYq4
Full Orban interview:
https://youtu.be/OrIw-MiWM6U?si=T1N2AfO65B2kMcbn
NEW: Unredacted Docs Reveal Biden, Garland, Jack Smith Collusion in Trump ‘Documents’ Case.
Raheem J. Kassam – 4 hours ago
https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/04/22/new-unredacted-docs-reveal-biden-garland-jack-smith-collusion-in-trump-documents-case/
Julie Kelly – Threadreader
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782486128915857520.html
Our current “leader” described with utter clarity by our shadow leader…
James Woods – April 20, 2024
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1781766382516117732
I had a hard time finding this:
https://youtube.com/shorts/hmE5XtI71-s?si=x-dL3Uew4hRoJXs3