Mauro 🇺🇸

@EIRancheroLoco JAMÁS

¿Un millón de dólares o una noche con JLO?

Accurate. Allah of the Quran is Satan.

The first FULL EPISODE of MAGA-MAN! "The Man with the Midas Touch"

Marco Rubio managing Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran:

En El Gybbor hemos preparado un episodio especial sobre Israel. No desde la emoción. No desde la propaganda. Desde la Biblia. No te lo pierdas! 📆 Jueves 5 ⏰ 10 am (hora Washington) 16h (hora Madrid) @cesarvidal

Trump's statements present the operation as a strategic success ahead of schedule, highlighting intelligence superiority and the disorganization of the Iranian leadership. However, this type of language also serves a political function: projecting control, deterring adversaries, and bolstering domestic support. Claims such as "49 leaders eliminated" require independent verification, as narratives are often exaggerated in conflict contexts. While there may be tactical gains, the true impact will be measured in terms of regional stability and medium-term consequences.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump announces the US is WAY AHEAD of schedule in Iran, the regime was totally discombobulated and is now PANICKED "They met for breakfast, assumed it was good, didn't think we knew, you NEVER attack in the morning. Winds, sun, a lot of things." "We thought it was going to take 4 weeks to get rid of Iranian leadership...49 leaders!" "They're studying people to be the leader who even THEY don't know who they are. Can you believe that?" "49 leaders is DEEP, very deep." "It was AMAZING that we knew everything we knew!" 🇺🇸

Fetterman's statements reflect a firm stance against Iranian nuclear proliferation. He argues that if the Senate agrees that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, then it must support concrete actions, not just rhetoric. His argument is consistent with the logic of national security and strategic deterrence. However, the debate is not simply whether to act or not, but what kind of action is proportionate, effective, and sustainable in preventing a further regional escalation in the Middle East.

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) just EVISCERATED other senators for being weak on Iran "Empty sloganeering vs. commitment to global security — WHICH IS IT?" "EVERY member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that." Boom. Fetterman also said it perfectly just yesterday: "I'm TIRED of people going on social media saying, 'We can never let Iran to have a nuclear bomb!' [Well] if you're not willing to DO anything about it, MUST BE EMPTY WORDS! When President Trump was WILLING to do it!" Common sense right there.

Fetterman's statements reflect a firm stance against Iranian nuclear proliferation. He argues that if the Senate agrees that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, then it must support concrete actions, not just rhetoric. His argument is consistent with the logic of national security and strategic deterrence. However, the debate is not simply whether to act or not, but what kind of action is proportionate, effective, and sustainable in preventing a further regional escalation in the Middle East.

General Caine's statements indicate that the United States conducted a coordinated military operation across multiple domains to degrade Iran's combat capabilities. This confirms that the US is not merely exerting diplomatic pressure, but rather taking concrete strategic action. However, the stated objective is to limit Iran's military capabilities, not necessarily to initiate a full-scale war. The situation remains volatile and could escalate or stabilize depending on Iran's response and the stance of regional allies in the coming days.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan ‘Razin’ Caine: “Across every domain: land, air, sea, cyber, the U.S. joint force delivered synchronized and layered effects designed to disrupt, degrade, deny, and destroy Iran’s ability to conduct and sustain combat operations.”

@IranTimes9 They all dead bruh!! #MAGA #FAFO #EPICFURY 🇺🇲 🦅

El senador John Fetterman expresó apoyo a los recientes ataques ordenados por el presidente Trump, afirmando que no basta con emitir declaraciones o mensajes en redes para lograr la paz, sino que a veces se requieren acciones concretas. Según Fetterman, estas medidas fueron necesarias y “lo correcto” en este contexto. Sus declaraciones reflejan divisiones dentro del panorama político, donde algunos demócratas respaldan la postura firme frente a Irán mientras otros critican la escalada militar.

🚨 WOW! John Fetterman is REALLY going to bat for President Trump this morning “You can put out TWEETS and STATEMENTS to support peace, but to actually create REAL peace, you have to do these kinds of actions! And that's why I support [President Trump’s strikes]… This was the right thing.”

El senador John Fetterman expresó apoyo a los recientes ataques ordenados por el presidente Trump, afirmando que no basta con emitir declaraciones o mensajes en redes para lograr la paz, sino que a veces se requieren acciones concretas. Según Fetterman, estas medidas fueron necesarias y “lo correcto” en este contexto. Sus declaraciones reflejan divisiones dentro del panorama político, donde algunos demócratas respaldan la postura firme frente a Irán mientras otros critican la escalada militar.

El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Irán confirmó que el líder supremo Ali Khamenei, el presidente y otras autoridades clave siguen con vida tras los recientes ataques. Aunque hubo daños en instalaciones cercanas en Teherán, no existe confirmación independiente de muertes entre la cúpula del régimen. La versión oficial iraní sostiene que fueron trasladados a lugares seguros. La situación sigue siendo tensa y cambiante, pero por ahora no hay evidencia verificable de que el liderazgo iraní haya sido eliminado.

Iranian foreign minister says Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the President of Iran are alive: “Yes, they are alive. The head of judiciary as well, the Speaker of Parliament as well…”

That comment sounds provocative, but constitutionally the situation is clear. The 22nd Amendment limits any president to two terms, with no exceptions for allegations of fraud or political circumstances. To allow a third term, a constitutional amendment would need to be passed by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states—something extremely difficult. Often, statements like this are intended to mobilize supporters or generate headlines, but under the current legal framework, there is no direct path to a third term.

President Trump is talking about 2028 again: “Maybe we do one more term. Should we do one more? Well, we're entitled to it! 'Cause they cheated like Hell on the second one. We'd actually be entitled to it.”

Clips like this go viral because they fit into established narratives about age or ability. But an awkward moment with a phone doesn't necessarily prove anything fundamental. Many people, especially older adults, can take a few seconds to find a function. In modern politics, an isolated gesture is amplified and becomes symbolic. The wisest course of action is to watch the entire video, confirm the context and date, and avoid drawing broad conclusions based on seconds edited for media impact.

Joe Biden re-emerges and is spotted fumbling with a woman’s phone trying to figure out how to open the camera to take a picture.

The claim that Epstein operated as an intelligence “honey pot” is a hypothesis that has circulated for years, but it has not been proven in court. What has been legally established is that he ran an abuse network and that Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of facilitating it. Regarding the women mentioned, some were implicated in testimonies, but not all have been prosecuted or convicted. To legally substantiate a covert intelligence operation, documentary evidence, official records, and sworn testimony would be required.

🚨Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna drops BOMBSHELL, reveals she believes Jeffrey Epstein was running an Intelligence gathering Honey Pot Operation based on evidence and testimony. She is also calling on on four co-conspirators involved in trafficking who she says are being falsely called "victims" to be subpoenaed: -Lesley Groth -Sarah Kellen -Nadia Marcinkova -Adriana Ross

Alex Jones's statements mix known facts with intense conspiratorial rhetoric. It is true that Bill Clinton had contact with Jeffrey Epstein and appeared on flight logs, but that alone does not prove criminal conduct. In a real deposition, the questions would be precise: dates, nature of the relationship, knowledge of illicit activities, and verifiable documentation. Phrases like "globalists" or "we got the goods" are media jargon, not legal language. In court, solid evidence matters, not accusations amplified in alternative media.

Alex Jones Reveals What He Would Ask Bill Clinton At His Jeffrey Epstein Deposition: "Look I have all the documents. I have it right on my desk that Ghislaine set up your foundation. That you constantly traveled with him. That they were heavily involved in all of your businesses. What do you mean when you said on tv three days ago, we have no connections to Epstein? You know your networks are broken. You need to know you're defeated and you need to know that we got the goods on you and you ought to turn states evidence against the globalists before it's too late."

If that statement is accurate, the striking aspect would be the bipartisan component. When members of the same party vote in favor of a measure like contempt—or at least don't vote against it—it usually indicates that the issue transcends party lines or that they believe there is an institutional obligation to demand court appearances and legal compliance. A contempt vote is not an automatic criminal conviction; it is a procedural step to compel cooperation or refer the matter to the Department of Justice. What matters is what evidence supports the measure and what happens next in the process.

COMER: “I think one thing that surprised the Clintons, they assumed the Democrats on the committee would vote in a partisan manner ... The majority of the Democrats on the committee either voted to hold the Clintons in contempt, or voted present.”