TYB
o7
I do not think that word is pronounced the way you think it is.
inego montoya
> Espie
Es Pie vs ES Pee
>https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1999261678039629869
https://www.independentsentinel.com/france-surrenders-to-the-barbarians/
France Surrenders to the Barbarians
Paris canceled the iconic New Year’s Eve concert on the Champs-Élysées due to security threats by migrants. They won’t say it’s because of migrants, and they will never address the problem. They are at the point of no return.
The Champs-Élysées has been Paris’s symbolic place for celebrations since the Liberation parade in 1944. This is the year it ends.
Now the French have to watch the fireworks on their televisions.
According to the Telegraph, one million people were expected to attend. The cancellation of the New Year’s Eve event comes after France bolstered security at Christmas markets over ‘a “very high” terror threat.
French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez ordered state officials to treat festive gatherings as high-risk targets and mobilize intelligence agencies accordingly.
Don’t think it hasn’t happened here. In four years, we had millions of people who came in unvetted and who wish us harm
Some in law enforcement say we will face crimes and terror for generations to come because of what went on under the Democrats in the Biden administration.
The Spectator writes:
The New Year’s Eve concert on the Champs Élysées has been cancelled for security reasons. Paris was supposed to host its usual spectacle. A free open-air concert at the Arc de Triomphe, video projections on the monument and the midnight festivities that once drew close to a million people. Instead, the concert has been scrapped. It will be replaced on national television with a prerecorded concert filmed weeks ago with a handpicked crowd to mimic a celebration Paris no longer believes it can safely host. A capital once famed for its public life now performs it under studio conditions.
It marks the collapse of what used to be one of the simplest pleasures of Parisian life. For decades, families and friends would spill out onto the streets on New Year’s Eve. Families, couples carrying a bottle of champagne, tourists wrapped in scarves, all drifting towards the Champs Élysées to count down the final seconds of the year. It was spontaneous and cheerful, and open to everyone. That Paris no longer exists.
They brought in the monsters, and now they are a country of monsters. The French are conquered. They won’t even mention where the security threats are coming from when we all know it’s from migrants.
Look what Macron did to the historical Notre Dame:
Macron under fire after green lighting a $3 million project to replace the famous stained glass windows at Notre Dame in Paris with windows depicting people of non-European decent pic.twitter.com/Zy8g5Hie15
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) December 12, 2025
No more Gay Paris.
Paris used to be a beautiful European city, the city of love. Now it’s a Third World warzone! pic.twitter.com/sAfeYLjHVh
— Paul Golding (@GoldingBF) December 13, 2025
>>23980394
on 14KB image size..
there are no exploits in a image file that size. everything else is exploitable.
think virii / steg / etc
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/12/14/london-mayor-khan-accuses-trump-of-having-groomed-racists-with-his-rhetoric/
London Mayor Sadiq Khan Accuses Trump of Having ‘Groomed’ Racists
London’s far-left mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, has accused U.S. President Donald Trump of having “groomed” racists with his migration-critical rhetoric, as the war of words between the two longtime foes continues.
This week, President Trump claimed that Mayor Khan was in power only because of mass migration to Britain, which has led to large-scale demographic change in London and reduced the White British population in the UK capital to just 37 per cent as of the latest census in 2021.
Speaking to POLITICO, Trump branded Khan as a “disaster”, saying: “He’s got a totally different ideology of what he’s supposed to have. And he gets elected because so many people have come in.”
“He’s a horrible mayor. He’s an incompetent mayor, but he’s a horrible, vicious, disgusting mayor. I think he’s done a terrible job. London’s a different place. I love London. I love London. And I hate to see it happen. You know, my roots are in Europe, as you know.”
It came in the wake of the White House warning that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” if globalist leaders continue with their mass migration agendas, which is set to result in “certain Nato members will become majority non-European.”
For his part, Mayor Khan accused President Trump of fostering racism and anti-Islamic sentiment, telling LBC: “There is a direct link between language and how sometimes people can become radicalised, you can call it groomed, and so forth… and we’ve seen in the UK a massive increase in anti-Muslim hatred.”
“Intentionally or unintentionally, you are seeing people who are taking the views of the President of the United States as a green light to behave in a certain way,” he added.
Khan also complained that Trump was “obsessed” with him, saying that “every opportunity the President gets when there’s a microphone placed in front of him, he appears to be obsessing about me. And I’m unclear why.”
In reality, the longstanding feud between the two began in 2015 when Khan publicly criticised then-presidential candidate Trump for calling for a shutdown of Muslim immigration following the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
Khan branded Trump as “divisive” and said that he hopes he lost “badly” against Hillary Clinton. Khan later called for President Trump to be refused a state visit to Britain for using “xenophobia, racism, and ‘otherness’ as an electoral tactic”.
In turn, President Trump branded Khan a “stone-cold loser” for failing to tackle knife crime and terrorism in London.
https://stonezone.com/how-three-corrupt-federal-judges-violated-the-judicial-cannon-of-ethics-to-kill-the-case-against-crooked-former-fbi-director-james-comey/
How three corrupt Federal Judges violated the Judicial Cannon of Ethics to kill the case against Crooked former FBI Director James Comey
The American public expects prosecutors to prove cases and defendants to challenge them. But in United States v. James B. Comey Jr., something very different occurred. A federal grand jury voted to indict the former FBI Director on two felony counts — and then three federal judges unraveled that indictment through conjecture, media narratives, personalized attacks on the United States Attorney, and procedural anomalies that have no precedent in federal criminal practice.
Together, they reveal a pattern inconsistent with judicial neutrality, ethical obligations, and the constitutional role of the grand jury.
I. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff: Bias, Media Reliance, and Hostility Toward the Prosecution
Judge Michael Nachmanoff began the case by introducing a loaded, political framing of the U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan — a framing he created himself:
“So your view is that Ms. Halligan is a stalking horse or a puppet, for want of a better word, doing the president’s bidding?”
This is not neutral judicial questioning. It is an insinuation.
A. Reliance on newspaper accounts instead of evidence
Nachmanoff referenced news reporting as his factual basis:
“This was reporting that the president said the following…”
Judges cannot rely on external reporting. Canon 3 forbids it. But this reporting shaped his skepticism toward DOJ’s independence.
B. One-sided interruptions
When prosecutors attempted to explain the internal process at DOJ:
“Well, let me just stop you there—”
The Government was repeatedly interrupted. The defense was not.
C. Silencing the US Attorney and misstating the record
When Halligan attempted to correct the judge’s misunderstanding:
“You may sit down.”
The Government then filed a NOTICE CORRECTING THE RECORD, because the judge’s recounting of the grand-jury events was factually wrong.
D. Prejudging prosecutorial independence
Most concerning was Nachmanoff’s statement that he would struggle to find independence even if Halligan asserted it under oath:
“Given the sequence of events in the short time, it would be very difficult for the Court to make a finding of true independence objectively…”
This was a prejudgment — not a finding based on evidence.
moar at link