Brian

He always pack a gun. 🐭 youtu.be/wYi_hq2p1Ac?si…

OUTRAGE: Americans are DEMANDING answers after the The New York Times obtained and published “secret” internal memos from the U.S. Supreme Court — marking the third MAJOR leak from the high court in the last four years. Kerri Urbahn: “Which is really unheard of from the U.S. Supreme Court.” “I think these leaks TEND to go in one direction and it is to undercut what the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is doing or in the process of doing.” “Certainly, that was the case with Dobbs, and we saw what happened there when that decision was leaked.”

WOW! A UK lawmaker CALLED OUT weak, ball-less PM Keir Starmer just got SUSPENDED from Parliament for calling him a LIAR to his FACE "He is GASLIGHTING the nation...the Prime Minister is a baldfaced LIAR!" Starmer's days as PM may be numbered! TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY, BRITONS!

🇭🇺 HUGE! Magyar Péter REJECTS the EU Migration Pact: "Hungary will not accept any pact. In fact, I'm going to reinforce the border fence even more." Ursula's European Union cheered for nothing!

🚨BREAKING: Hungary's new PM has REJECTED the EU's migration pact: "We will still not join the pact. We will actually reinforce the border further to protect Hungary and broader Europe. We will find a way to stop the EU's daily fine." The globalists thought they'd won. 🇭🇺

Lebanese Industry Minister Joe El-Khoury: "Lebanon must accept Israel's existence and shift from a culture of war to a culture of peace. Israel has no expansionist agenda toward Lebanon."

🚨RUPERT LOWE FINDS ANOTHER MAJOR COVER UP BY UK HOME OFFICE Lowe asked for information from the Home Office on how many Gazan migrants who were allowed into the country for free NHS treatment have now claimed 'asylum'. The response: "the requested information on asylum claims from individuals who entered the UK under the Gaza medical evacuation scheme is not available from published statistics" Not available in PUBLISHED statistics Meaning they have the information but it's just not published YET Rupert Lowe is exposing the whole rotton cabal in Government Keep going sir These people are traitors

I would love to see Al Bundy back on TV, wouldn’t you? 😅😂😅

Farage can’t hide behind pathetic accusations of racism to defend his choice to stand a Bangladeshi migrant in PORTSMOUTH. I’m sure Addy Asaduzzaman is a great bloke, and I wish him well in his election. If that election is in Bangladesh. British elections for British people.

😡 Furious Rupert Lowe stands in Parliament, voice filled with rage, reading out the horrific ordeal of a British schoolgirl r*ped by two Afghan asylum seekers. He lays it bare: the screams, the pleas, the sheer brutality, and asks the House: “How would you feel if this was your daughter?” Once again, it’s @RupertLowe10 demanding answers and accountability. Who else in Parliament is raising these questions? Who else is forcing politicians to confront the sickening details? No one. This story is beyond horrific. So vile that the defence barrister warned the public seeing the full phone footage, secretly recorded by the victim herself, could lead to riots. Shocking! Two 17-year-old Afghan asylum seekers, Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, small-boat arrivals housed by the British taxpayer, lured an intoxicated 15-year-old British girl into a park in Leamington Spa. They dragged her away from her friends, forced her into a secluded spot, and r*ped her while she desperately screamed: “Help!” “Please let me go!” “I want to go home!” Her own phone captured the nightmare: cries for mercy, a hand clamped over her mouth, explicit protests, all played in Warwick Crown Court. Yet these monsters received just 10 years 8 months and 9 years 10 months in youth detention, with only a recommendation for deportation. This is not “justice”. Deport them immediately! 🤬

April 20

250th anniversary of a nation made on a tax revolt full of people paying taxes to support illegal aliens because they live in fear of their government. 🇺🇸

“I found the crown of France lying on the ground, and I picked it up with my sword.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

🚨 JUST IN: Outrage is erupting after the Supreme Court suffers ANOTHER LEAK, now to the liberal New York Times And the leaks tend to go AGAINST CONSERVATIVES. Imagine that. Who is doing this?! FIRE THE LEAKER. "There are disgruntled people, that elections have consequences...people are willing to bypass traditions and protocol of the Supreme Court, and endanger its future by leaking out things to the general public who don't have the context." "3 major leaks over the last 4 years, which is UNHEARD of for the US Supreme Court." "Dobbs [abortion leak] — the justices faced VIOLENCE at their homes! AG Garland didn't enforce the law at the time to stop the protestors at their homes." Leaks tend to happen before big decisions are made. Could this be to attack SCOTUS before the VRA ruling, which would harm Democrats?

This is not voluntary. Stop pretending like it's voluntary.

🇬🇧 Londyn. Kilku lewaków blokuje drogę. Setki Brytyjczyków nie dojedzie do pracy. Zero reakcji brytyjskiej policji. Nagle - jeden Brytyjczyk decyduje odblokować drogę. Nagle - brytyjska policja rusza do akcji.

A White firefighter in Wisconsin saved a Black man who was overdosing on drugs. After being revived, the Black man immediately pulled a gun and shot the White man who had just rescued him dead. Mainstream media didn’t report this incident, as it doesn’t fit their narrative.

Dear @tedlieu: Actually, YOU are wrong. For a JAG veteran @usairforce, it's shocking how little you know about #LOAC. Don't worry. I'm a retired @USArmy judge advocate myself + a current int'l law prof, and I'm here to help. Before you go threatening all our servicemembers @DeptofWar with the specter of future "war crimes" prosecutions with "no statute of limitations", let's get a few things straight right now. 1. Federal law does NOT "require our military to follow the principle of proportionality." Although you don't cite what "federal law" you mean (rookie mistake), it seems you may be referring to 18 USC § 2441 on "War Crimes". If that IS what you claim requires "our military to follow the principle of proportionality," you maybe should have asked one of your staffers to check the actual text of the law before you tweeted this nonsense. Too late now, but let's walk through it together so I can explain. As you can see from pic 1 attached, this statute establishes the term "war crime", for purposes of this federal law, means conduct in 1 of 4 specific circumstances. Let's go through them 1 by 1, but here's your spoiler alert: none of them apply here. First is grave breaches of 1949 Geneva Conventions. All 4 GCs have a provision on grave breaches. BUT unfortunately for your credibility, none of them address #LOAC proportionality rule (look it up for yourself if you don't believe me...don't expect me to do ev-er-ything for you). You'll notice I lined through the part about "any protocol to which" 🇺🇸 is a party since the main treaty establishing the proportionality rule - Additional Protocol I (1977) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (AP I) - we have NOT ratified. womp womp. Second is Hague Convention (IV) of 1907. Also no LOAC proportionality provision (just Google it if you're not sure...I didn't have to look it up, because I already am sure). Third is Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. This provision doesn't apply (not that it addresses proportionality anyway) since the statute makes clear this aspect applies only in the context of "an armed conflict not of an international character." Any guesses what conflict is of an international character? That's right...the one you're commenting on! And fourth is (amended) Protocol II to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) involving mines, booby-traps, and other devices (Protocol II does, that is). Now, that component could apply, and it does have a proportionality provision (art. 3(8)(c), not pictured). BUT, there's a problem here. Any guesses what that might be, since we're talking now about a protocol that applies to anti-personnel landmines & such? That's right! Restrictions in that treaty apply to..."mines, booby-traps, and other devices" (art. 1(1), also not pictured). So unless you think DoW personnel are going to violate the LOAC proportionality rule by launching anti-personnel landmines to decimate power infrastructure & bridges & such (more about that below in point # 2), this provision of the statute you seem to be citing...also doesn't apply. So, before we move on, let's take stock of the circumstances in which this statute applies: ❌Grave breaches of 1949 GCs & protocols thereto ❌ Hague IV (1907) ❌ Common Article 3 to 1949 GCs ❌ CCW, Protocol II (amended For the reasons addressed immediately above, none of these circumstances apply in the context to which you're purporting to apply this federal law. So, if you are talking about 18 USC § 2441, then you're whole tweet deserves an ❌ as well. Now, even if that weren't the case, there's still a provision of this federal statute that you would need to consider in order to support your outlandish claim about potential prosecutions for war crimes. As you can see from pic 2 attached, the intent required for relevant violations (if they did apply under the circumstances, which they don't anyway) precludes incidents involving "collateral damage; or death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack." So even if you weren't wrong about the applicability of this statute, we would need to consider what conduct you're alleging could amount to prosecutable "war crimes" in order to confirm whether we could demonstrate the attacks would be "unlawful" to begin with. That brings us to the next point, about dual-use objects & LOAC violations. 2. Let's talk a bit more about what are often referred to in targeting parlance as "dual-use" objects. See, you're quoting a post @ABC reporting that @USAmbUN defended @POTUS @realDonaldTrump's "renewed threat to decimate Iran's power infrastructure and bridges amid his push to try to strike a deal with the country ahead of another round of in-person talks in Pakistan on Monday." Now, attacking power infrastructure & bridges & such most certainly can qualify as a war crime. BUT in order to confirm that, the first step would be to demonstrate EACH & EVERY ONE of the incidents you're condemning was not an attack directed at a military objective. As the DoD Law of War Manual indicates on the subject, "If an object is a military objective, it is not a civilian object and may be made the object of attack" (pic 3). Contrary to what seems to be popular belief (including among way too many of your @TheDemocrats friends in #Congress, unfortunately), attacking power infrastructure & bridges & such is not a war crime. It is a war crime to intentionally direct an attack against a civilian person (not DPH) or object. And to determine if an actual crime was committed, you almost always need actual evidence of intent & knowledge of personnel responsible for each attack AT THE TIME. If you don't have that, you don't know whether the thing that was attacked was believed AT THE TIME to qualify as a military objective. And if you can't do that, then you're not conducting a proper war crime assessment. Besides, refraining from attacking something that could be destroyed because it's a military objective and then deciding to go ahead & attack it later isn't a war "crime". It's just...war. Based on what I can tell from your bio, it doesn't appear you would personally know anything about that. If that's the case, it shows. Now, what I said above about confirming whether power infrastructure & bridges & such was perceived to be a military objective before you can confirm a war crime was committed is only partially correct. Because we're likely talking about "dual-use" objects, we're almost certainly expecting some degree of incidental damage from attacking these. As the DoD LoW Manual also notes (still pic 3), in that case "it will be appropriate to consider" the proportionality rule. So, let's do that next - not as a matter of federal law as you mistakenly claimed (see point # 1 above), but simply as a matter of basic LOAC compliance. 3. I hate to break it to you (actually, no I don't), but you just made the same mistake humanitarian activists @hrw + @amnesty & such often make. Most of them have never served a day in any military, let alone received any formal LOAC training in the applied military context. Not sure what your excuse is, but the way you articulate the proportionality rule is pretty pathetic. Here's what you said in the post I'm QT'ing here: Bombing "every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge" causes excessive civilian harm, which are war crimes." Now, I'm not going to go into, yet again, the difference between Trump's geopolitical rhetoric on social media & actual guidance carried out by the military bc I've already addressed that adequately before - maybe if I remember after I post this, I'll pull up one of those earlier tweets & include it as 1st reply to this one. For now, let's focus on the part I emphasized with bold + italics text from your quote about proportionality. As you should know, as a former USAF JAG & all, LOAC targeting rules - including (especially!!) proportionality - are not evaluated based on the outcome. That is, not on what degree of civilian harm they cause. This is because the doctrinal proportionality rule prohibits attacks in which the expected incidental damage is excessive in relation to the direct & concrete military advantage expected (pic 4, DoD LoW Manual; proportionality formulation reflected in AP I is substantially similar fwiw). Not the degree of incidental damage caused, but that which is expected. See the difference? Evaluating compliance with your rubbish version allows us to just observe how much incidental damage was caused AFTER an attack then make a judgement call whether it seems "excessive." The doctrinal version requires evidence of knowledge & intent of personnel responsible for each attack AT THE TIME of the attack. This is not something you can adequately gather from just looking at the aftermath of an attack & saying, "Oooohhhh. That seems excessive. Must be a war crime!!" Ok, here's the bottom line. We don't waive our hand & say "war crime" then pursue prosecutions on that basis alone in military practice. You shouldn't either in public discourse - especially as a member of Congress ffs. That goes for all 435+100 of y'all. But it's even more true for you, as a USAF veteran & former judge advocate. Because let's be completely honest. This nonsense you just posted - in public - is an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment to you, your reputation, the Democrats, and tbh all of Congress. But it's also an embarrassment for the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps. And I have close friends who have served or continue to serve as USAF JA's. Your very public ignorance on LOAC as a former USAF JA yourself is an embarrassment to them. For that, you should feel deep shame above all else. I'll close this little LOAC lesson with the same message I've conveyed to your comrades in Congress, like @RepVindman & @RoKhanna & others, I've had to correct here @X on similar subjects: Stay in your lane. You were elected to legislate. So do that. Leave LOAC compliance to actual practitioners in the Dept' of War & the commentary to actual experts...like me.

The DOJ is suing 29 states and Washington DC for hiding voter roll data. AAG Harmeet Dhillon says they have found 350,000 deceased people on the rolls and have referred 25,000 people with no citizenship records to DHS to investigate the extent to which they voted.

@MarcoFoster_ @NYCMayor @ZohranKMamdani Ah Yes the political weight of a gang banging rapper who wore a hanky on his head. ffs

Zohran Mamdani: “I wish the words of Tupac from the 90’s weren’t still prescient, but they continue to be true for too many which is that we always have money for war and not to feed the poor”