Michelle Obama behind the scenes Photoshoot #comedy #funny #memes #theunitedspot

Dan Farah, director and producer of the documentary “The Age of Disclosure,” recently appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and discussed the subject of UFOs, secret government programs, and the cover-up of non-human intelligent life on Earth. Throughout the podcast, Farah presented his views on the extensive, decades-long secret programs dedicated to studying and reverse-engineering alien […] The post This Man Behind the Documentary “The Age of Disclosure” Claims Donald Trump Might Be the One to Confirm the Existence of Aliens appeared first on How and Why's.

Kristen Welker of Meet the Press interviewed Zohran Mamdani after his cordial meeting with President Trump, after which Trump praised the communist Islamist. Mamdani, away from the Oval Office, told Welker Trump is a “fascist” and a “threat to democracy.” Is it possible that there is a greater threat to democracy than a communist Islamist […] The post Mamdani Calls Trump a “Fascist” “Threat to Democracy” appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave positive signs about the pace of ongoing peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine on Sunday. United States officials have mediated peace talks between the two warring countries and launched a new round of talks last week on a framework put together by the Trump administration. The White House initially proposed a 28-point agreement that covered a number of issues, including security guarantees for Ukraine and Russia’s re-acceptance into the global economy. “There are a couple issues that we need to continue to work on. But I think the report today is that today was worthwhile,” Rubio told reporters on Sunday. “It was probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time.” “I can tell you that the items that remain are not insurmountable, we just need more time than what we have today,” the secretary said. He added that President Donald Trump is “quite pleased … about the amount of progress that’s been made.” Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. The president on Sunday morning appeared irked by the state of negotiations, posting on social media that “UKRAINE ‘LEADERSHIP’ HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS, AND EUROPE CONTINUES TO BUY OIL FROM RUSSIA.” Several hours later, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky posted a statement that in part expressed gratitude to the United States and Trump. “Ukraine is grateful to the United States, to every American heart, and personally to President Trump for the assistance that – starting with the Javelins – has been saving Ukrainian lives,” Zelensky wrote. “It is important not to forget the main goal – to stop Russia’s war and prevent it from ever igniting again. And to achieve that, peace must be dignified,” he continued. “That is why we work so carefully on every point, on every step toward peace. Everything must work out the right way – so that this war is truly ended and so that it does not happen again.” Trump has set a deadline of Thanksgiving to wrap up negotiations over the peace agreement, and Rubio on Sunday said the goal was to reach a deal “as soon as possible.” The White House on Sunday released a joint statement on the negotiations, affirming what Rubio stated. “Both sides agreed the consultations were highly productive. The discussions showed meaningful progress toward aligning positions and identifying clear next steps. They reaffirmed that any future agreement must fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and deliver a sustainable and just peace. As a result of the discussions, the parties drafted an updated and refined peace framework,” the statement reads in part. “Final decisions under this framework will be made by the Presidents of Ukraine and the United States. Both sides reiterated their readiness to continue working together to secure a peace that ensures Ukraine’s security, stability, and reconstruction,” the statement concludes.

'You don’t change the rules if you didn’t win'

Patrick Healy changed jobs this year at The New York Times from Deputy Opinion Editor to Assistant Managing Editor for Standards and Trust. This is a little funny for me, since Healy once asked me on a panel discussion "What do you have against democracy?" This week, he interviewed two Times religion reporters for an article titled "How Two Times Reporters Cover Christianity in a Polarized America." Naturally, this means Christians polarized by Trump. Patrick Healy channeled the views of the Trump trashers: “President Trump hangs over your beat in a way that frustrates some people. One Times reader recently wrote of Trump: “Kind of wondering when the ‘Christians’ will recognize who he is. Everything he says and does is ‘anti-Christian.’ When he has a golden calf forged, will they celebrate that, too?” I know you both get asked questions like that. How do you answer them?" Reporter Ruth Graham offered a reasonable answer: “Mercifully it is not my job to decide who is a 'real Christian,' which often feels like the subtext of those questions. It’s just not my role as a reporter to adjudicate that. What I can report is how a person describes themselves, what they say they believe, and what they do and say.” That sounds like a fairly objective method...except that's not always Ruth's approach, like constantly warning of Southern Baptists who were "ultraconservatives." She also touted Christians becoming transgender advocates -- the conservatives were "vociferous," while the people going left were conducting "earnest searches for understanding."  Elisabeth Dias felt more pain on behalf of Christians who struggle with Trump’s most controversial policies: “I’ve come to describe Christianity as plural, not singular. There are many different expressions of Christianity, so many different theological beliefs. Many believers see their version as the pure or ultimate Christianity. Families and churches have experienced excruciating splits over Trump and his policies, like vaccines or immigration. In this question I also hear worries about what moral vision wins out, what that means for people you love, and a kind of personal trauma that happens when one’s own moral code feels denied.” Like Ruth Graham, Dias can please the liberal Times reader with fear-mongering, like this front-page rager: “The Far-Right Christian Quest for Power: ‘We Are Seeing Them Emboldened’ -- Political candidates on the fringe mix religious fervor with conspiracy theories, even calling for the end of the separation of church and state.” Most Christians who have voted for Trump understand that his personal behavior and ego-driven swagger are not Christian in character, but many of the policies they support -- including religious freedom -- have been firmly backed by Trump as president. Somehow, the liberals can't apply their big brains to understanding the distinction at work.  Healy also relayed the typical Times reader wanting more leftist terminology: "I want to push on this — some Americans believe the phrase “Christian nationalism” is a factual one to describe the worldview of others, and some of our news articles have featured experts using the phrase about other people." Graham answered: We’ve thought really carefully about “Christian nationalism.” It’s a term that was originally used by academics and by activists who were critical of the movement they described that way. And very few people used the term to describe their own beliefs. That’s actually changing now, but it’s still essentially people reclaiming what they understand to be a slur. I also think if you asked 10 people what it means, you would get 10 definitions. So for now, I find it more helpful for readers to tell them what a person says and does, rather than to impose a label that would actually be less informative. When the left says "Christian nationalism," they often mean not only theocracy, but often a racist theocracy -- that's the slur. The Left pretends that their precious "separation of church and state" means that Christians shouldn't vote or lobby for policies that they see as in line with Christian orthodoxy. They want an "atheo-cracy" -- a government with zero religious influence involved.