indep journalist, common sense perspective, conservative wholeheartedly. pro-life and American First values. YES, I believe we are images of G-D.๐บ๐ธ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฌโDM
This should have been the NYT headline that should have made more sense
โA fight that was occupied by the jews was almost liberated by an alleged Omani freedom fighter pilot but unfortunately was subdued by the vast majority of the Israeli occupiers on the flightโ.
@Justice_Crack This is not just related to drugs alone. Many consumables in Nigeria, both homemade and imported, are fake or adulterated. The Igbos do 80% of it. I am Igbo but we cannot ignore the fact. An average Igbo person can sell anything for money. Very unfortunate!
@MOSSADil Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. A failed Jordan will be a catastrophic security situation for Israel. The current status quo serves better.
@AfolabiBB@officialABAT This is crazy. The government must step up to combat these atrocities. Innocent lives are being lost daily at the hands of greedy idiots. I am Igbo and I can categorically say that Igbo greediness has no limit to immoral behavior.
@brianstelter At what point will you people understand that White House access is a privilege, not a constitutional entitlement? Yet somehow, CNN acts like access is a birthright while pushing what many see as anti-American propaganda. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ
@kaitlancollins At what point will you people understand that White House access is a privilege, not a constitutional entitlement? Yet somehow, CNN acts like access is a birthright while pushing what many see as anti-American propaganda. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ
The double standard is hard to ignore: media networks can censor, edit, or refuse to air a presidentโs speech, citing misinformation. Yet when a president restricts access for a network he says is spreading misinformation, itโs framed as an attack on the press. If one side can set limits, why shouldnโt the same rules apply to both?
The double standard is hard to ignore: media networks can censor, edit, or refuse to air a presidentโs speech, citing misinformation. Yet when a president restricts access for a network he says is spreading misinformation, itโs framed as an attack on the press. If one side can set limits, why shouldnโt the same rules apply to both?
The double standard is hard to ignore: media networks can censor, edit, or refuse to air a presidentโs speech, citing misinformation. Yet when a president restricts access for a network he says is spreading misinformation, itโs framed as an attack on the press. If one side can set limits, why shouldnโt the same rules apply to both?
The double standard is hard to ignore: media netwks can censor, edit, or refuse to air a presidentโs speech, citing misinformation. Yet when a president restricts access for a network he says is spreading misinformation, itโs framed as an attack on the press. If one side can set limits, why shouldnโt the same rules apply to both?