FreedomFreeque🇺🇸

Yes. This is what I meant when I said he literally buys his views. I know the people who were tasked with buying the ad-for-views for him. This has been going on for years now. It bizarre that he then arrogantly cites his monthly viewership and says “haters can kiss my ass”. His monthly viewership is effectively just how much money he’s willing to burn. It’s a completely unsustainable business model outside of a charitable organization.

@adcock_brett There goes the operator getting up from his chair after a long shift

Naw man we can all agree his neck looks weird asf, the lower & upper portion aren’t even moving with each other What would even cast a shadow like that, the upper “mask” portion has a very hard line, as if it’s fully illuminated (makes sense), but then the overhang casts the shadow on the surface below (his actual neck) which can obviously move independently, hence the weird separated movements

Lmfao. What loony tunes shit will the internet run with today? Apparently this. Seeing it everywhere. Sure anybody who deals with studios would instantly know this is a shadow but I for one prefer to believe it, and swear undying allegiance for our new mask wearing overlords

@MarcMilette Dude you are the absolute Goat, I have been in $NAK since last year & always thought it was a diamond in the rough. I have learned so much more through reading your posts after getting more involved in online spaces. Very exciting stock, thank you for all the value you provide!

🏔️ NAK Nation 🏔️ Welcome back to The Veto Unravels. Chapter 4 The Three Streams — Where Things Stand Today On Monday I introduced you to Judge Sharon Gleason. Today I want to step back from the courtroom and look at the broader picture across all three streams as we move toward June 25. This chapter is important for both new readers and longtime followers because the court case is only one part of the story. The legal, administrative, and legislative environments are all evolving simultaneously. Understanding how those streams interact is essential for understanding why the regulatory landscape surrounding Pebble looks materially different today than it did when the veto was issued. A Quick Reminder About The Three Streams Framework The framework is simple. Three separate processes are moving at the same time. The court stream. The administrative stream. The legislative stream. None independently guarantees a specific outcome within a specific timeframe. But each stream is moving in a direction that increases pressure on the legal and regulatory framework supporting the veto. And each stream reinforces the others. A favorable court ruling strengthens the administrative stream. A finalized WOTUS rule reinforces the legal foundation of any court outcome. Legislative reform provides the long-term durability that neither litigation nor agency action can provide alone. The streams are not just parallel. They are mutually reinforcing. Stream One — The Court Oral argument is scheduled for June 25 before Judge Sharon Gleason in Anchorage Alaska. The briefing record closed April 15 2026. Every major argument from every party is now fully before the court. As discussed in Chapter 3 Judge Gleason is known for methodical technically rigorous administrative law opinions. She studies records carefully and tends to issue detailed written decisions rather than quick bench rulings. Northern Dynasty noted in its April 23 2026 press release that the court moved quickly after DOJ requested a continuance and the hearing was promptly reset. That suggests active engagement with the case and a desire to keep it moving. The key structural point for investors is this. The plaintiffs do not need to prevail on every argument. They need one sufficiently serious defect that justifies relief under the APA. And they have presented multiple independent theories grounded in EPA's own record administrative findings and litigation positions. That does not guarantee success. Courts often reject arguments that careful analysts initially considered persuasive. But multiple independent grounds for relief materially improve the plaintiffs' litigation posture compared to a case dependent on a single narrow theory. Judge Gleason's ruling will likely arrive weeks or months after oral argument. Given the complexity of the case and her history of detailed opinions late summer to early fall 2026 remains a reasonable working estimate though timing ultimately depends on the court. What A Favorable Court Ruling Would Mean A plaintiff-favorable ruling could vacate the veto outright or remand portions of it back to EPA for reconsideration under current law. Either outcome would materially alter the regulatory posture surrounding the project. It would reopen pathways for renewed permitting activity. It would reduce a major layer of legal uncertainty surrounding the asset. And it would likely influence how Section 404c authority is applied in future critical mineral disputes under the post-Sackett and post-Loper Bright framework. Any ruling favorable to the plaintiffs would almost certainly be appealed by environmental intervenors and potentially accompanied by a request for a stay pending appeal. But stays are not automatic. The parties seeking one would still need to satisfy the governing legal standard including likelihood of success and irreparable harm. That appellate process matters. But it also exists within a broader environment that is changing outside the courtroom simultaneously. Stream Two — The Administrative Stream The second stream is the Trump EPA's ongoing effort under Administrator Lee Zeldin to finalize a new Waters of the United States rule implementing the Supreme Court's Sackett decision. This matters because the Pebble veto relied heavily on federal jurisdiction over wetlands within the defined veto area. Sackett significantly narrowed the scope of that jurisdiction by requiring a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent waters. The plaintiffs argue that under the Sackett framework the overwhelming majority of wetlands EPA relied upon for the veto would no longer qualify as jurisdictional waters of the United States. If EPA finalizes a WOTUS rule closely aligned with Sackett it creates substantial tension between the legal theories underlying the original veto and the agency's own current jurisdictional framework. EPA cannot easily argue in one context for a materially narrower interpretation of federal jurisdiction while continuing to defend a veto premised on broader jurisdictional assumptions developed under a pre-Sackett framework. That does not automatically eliminate the veto on its own. But it materially complicates the long-term defense of it both legally and administratively. The public record on the rule's progress has become increasingly specific in recent weeks. On April 29 2026 Administrator Zeldin testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and confirmed under oath that everything EPA is doing falls within the legal boundaries Congress wrote into the Clean Water Act, referencing the WOTUS rule by name as actively moving forward. On May 7 2026 Zeldin testified before the Senate Interior Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. In his prepared opening statement he described EPA as working to create a durable and clear definition of waters of the United States faithfully abiding by the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. During the hearing Senator Capito asked directly whether EPA was committed to following the best reading of the statute and locking in a durable standard. Zeldin responded with his clearest public commitment yet. "It is absolutely our commitment. Following Sackett to the T. Making sure that every single word of every sentence of this definition is thought through, done correctly, and made as durable as possible." And on Monday May 18, 2026 Zeldin posted publicly on X with language that is the most definitive status update he has provided on the rule to date. "We are finalizing a new definition of Waters of the United States in line with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett that will eliminate the need to hire an attorney or consultant to tell you whether water on your property is a WOTUS subject to federal overreach." We are finalizing. Those three words represent a meaningful progression from the rule is actively moving forward in April to the rule is in its final stage in May. Zeldin closed that post with four words worth noting. We are just getting started. Senator Murkowski raised Alaska-specific concerns during the May 7 hearing about the draft rule's treatment of permafrost features and confirmed Alaska's delegation had communicated those concerns in writing. That exchange confirms the rule remains under active refinement with state-specific input still being considered. Fall 2026 remains the earliest realistic publication window. The administrative stream extends beyond WOTUS alone. On May 12 2026 BLM rescinded the Biden administration's Public Lands Rule which had elevated conservation as a co-equal land use priority alongside mining and energy development. The following day Interior Secretary Burgum testified before the House Natural Resources Committee and stated that regulatory reform efforts aimed at accelerating domestic critical mineral development remain ongoing. Two words in that testimony deserve particular attention. Ongoing regulatory reform. Not completed. Ongoing. The Secretary of the Interior told Congress explicitly that what you have seen so far is not the end. Stream Three — The Legislative Stream The legislative stream may ultimately prove the most important for the long-term investment thesis because statutory reform creates durability that litigation and agency action alone cannot fully provide. The SPEED Act and PERMIT Act have both passed the House of Representatives. Senate consideration is expected this summer although timing and final legislative language remain uncertain. The PERMIT Act would prohibit preemptive vetoes before completion of the normal Army Corps permitting process. If enacted that would significantly constrain EPA's ability to use Section 404c authority in the manner used against Pebble. The SPEED Act contains provisions designed to protect reconsideration processes already underway at the time of enactment. Because EPA initiated reconsideration of the Pebble veto in 2025 supporters of the project view those provisions as potentially important safeguards for the ongoing administrative process. Legislation matters because it changes the permanence equation. Court rulings can be appealed. Agency rules can later be revised. But statutory reform requires Congress to reverse Congress. That higher level of durability matters for large-scale mining finance. Major long-duration resource projects require confidence not simply in near-term permitting outcomes but in the long-term stability of the governing legal framework. We also know what happens when capital responds to regulatory certainty because we have a recent documented example. After Congress reversed a Minnesota mining ban a company committed 132 million dollars to a Minnesota mining project within days. Not weeks. Days. Capital does not wait for perfect certainty. It moves when the legal obstruction is removed and the direction of travel is clear. Why The Streams Matter Together The central point of the three streams framework is not that any single path is guaranteed. It is that the legal, administrative, and legislative environments are all moving materially in the same direction at the same time. A favorable court ruling increases pressure for legislative reform and strengthens the administrative reconsideration process. A finalized Sackett-aligned WOTUS rule narrows the jurisdictional theories available to defend the original veto. Legislative reform provides the long-term certainty that neither courts nor agency action can fully provide alone. Each stream strengthens the others. That alignment is what makes the current moment materially different from the environment that existed when the veto was originally issued. Every path leads home. Some paths are faster than others. But they all lead to the same place. Starting Monday I begin the five-part breakdown of the plaintiff arguments of analytical significance. Those are the arguments Judge Gleason will evaluate on June 25 and understanding them is essential for understanding what matters during oral argument and why. Stay locked in NAK Nation. 🇺🇸🏔️ #NAKNation #PebbleMine #TheVetoUnravels #JudgeGleason #June25 #ThreeStreams #SPEEDAct #PERMITAct #WOTUS #CriticalMinerals #NorthernDynasty #CopperDemand #CleanWaterAct #PermittingReform #Alaska #MineAmerica #Zeldin #Sackett #LoperBright #Burgum

@clintoptions $SPY -- common mang

As you all know, I’m officially restarting the $500 to $1 Million 2026 Challenge this week 🚀 I’m opening a FREE private X group where you’ll see my exact entries & exits live. To be added: Like + Comment “$SPY” (You must be following!)

@elonmusk @justinamash @RepThomasMassie Bro got Community Noted lol

@justinamash @RepThomasMassie I will

Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame! And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.

COMMUNITY NOTED ON UR OWN APP LMAO

This is the weirdest shit I've ever seen Wtf

@asukagrypr Stop eating McDonalds

For all new Groypers: Here is a video of Cam Higby throwing up in his own mouth on live television.

(He did not)

I lost the election but we started a revolution. Keep the flame of LIBERTY burning my friends! I will continue to put People and Principles before Party. America First! 🇺🇸

Trump has a 99% approval rating in Israel and a 35% approval rating in America. It's clear which country he serves. Welcome to the United States of Israel. 🇮🇱

If you're under 45, you like Nick Fuentes If you're over 65, you like Ed Gallrein If you're under 45, you like Tucker Carlson If you're over 65, you like Mark Levin If you're under 45, you like Thomas Massie If you're over 65, you like Sean Hannity The youth will save America

@SocialistMMA Nope just 65+ Boomers everyone else is up on the question

So let me get this straight, it was revealed that the United States ruling class is full of child torturing pedophiles and the reaction of the American people wasn’t to immediately revolt, but to vote out Thomas Massie who helped expose the scandal America is cooked 💀

🇺🇸

Dude… Every fucking L we take is them

I am proud and thankful to have served in the U.S. House of Representatives with my friend Thomas Massie, a giant among weak pathetic men. Releasing the Epstein files was our demise. But it was worth every single bit because now everyone knows the truth. You are ruled by the Epstein class that cares nothing about you and your elected leaders are bought and controlled by a foreign lobby. Tonight the future of the Republican Party was destroyed. The Real America First Movement will rise led by the younger generations, who hate the old guard with an unquenchable passion. Let us pray that we have a country left by the time these creatures are gone.

Thomas Massie: “We showed people that if you’re under 50, you want to save this country.”

Jewish niggas be like “we don’t own the government” then spend $30 million to primary Thomas Massie

Boomers voting today to ensure they can keep looting their grandkids