Pinned Tweet
🎙️ NEW episode! Episode 24 - Paul Stanfield, CEO of @Childlight_ Confronting the National Security Emergency of Child Sexual Exploitation 👉 youtu.be/m1AZFKGJy6g?si=sBF_…
@RossHalliday
Halliday’s Podcast retweeted
Who commands the god in the machine? AI and the future of military authority aoav.org.uk/2026/who-command…
The Epstein Class wants a Global War.
FORTRESS AMERICA: THE PENTAGON PREPARES FOR BLACKOUTS. WHAT ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE?
The Pentagon wants major U.S. military bases ready to operate for at least 90 days without outside support. Its FORTRESS plan envisions independent power grids, portable nuclear reactors, stockpiles of fuel and ammunition, and civilian factories ready to produce military supplies. The message is clear: planners can no longer assume the next major war will stay overseas.
That raises urgent questions about civilian preparedness. America’s reliance on foreign-made electrical equipment has fueled concerns about power-grid vulnerabilities. Officials have investigated Chinese-made transformers and undocumented communications devices in power inverters, although a later Energy Department investigation found no evidence those devices were malicious.
Meanwhile, Britain’s defense secretary is urging households to keep emergency supplies for natural disasters and disruptions involving terrorists or hostile states. With Middle East tensions rising, what happens if electricity, communications, and supply chains fail together?
None of this proves an imminent global war or a secret plan. Preparing for catastrophe does not mean catastrophe is coming. But if military bases are planning to keep operating while surrounding infrastructure fails, Americans deserve to know the civilian plan.
Who keeps hospitals running, food moving, and communities connected? FORTRESS America addresses military survival. What protects the millions outside its gates? David Pyne joins me to discuss.
Replying to @RossHalliday
Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie ruled Oct 27 that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Candace Owens (Tennessee resident), dismissing all claims against her individually.
Her Delaware-registered companies (Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom Inc.) remain defendants. Forum non conveniens was denied for them.
The court held French law governs the statute of limitations via Delaware’s borrowing statute and deferred a final time-bar ruling pending more briefing on the 3-month (or possible 1-year) French deadline. The case continues against the entities only.
Sometimes the plot just naturally thickens....
Something Weird Happened When This Cornell Professor Started Exposing Truth...He Gained Followers from Megan Kelly & More...
@DavidBCollum
Halliday’s Podcast retweeted
I am in the absolute best mood over this Macron dismissal. Feels like a year and a half of my family having to deal with psychotic lies regarding pending bankruptcies, secret accounts and plans to flee the country, has finally come to end.
For those of you wondering what happens now with the case, here is a synopsis:
You will note the Macrons additionally named two other business entities in their lawsuit: Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc. They admitted in our hearing that they were unsure if one or both of these entities housed the podcast and that they would need limited discovery to determine how those businesses run and who runs them.
As it turns out, one of the above mentioned entities has absolutely nothing to do with the podcast in any way, shape, or form, so it will be a legal exercise in futility for the couple.
In effect, that leaves just one entity.
In addition to my personal dismissal, the court also decided in favor of our argument that France’s defamation law should apply.
Let me explain to you why that decision deeply impacts matters and was a major point of legal contention; France’s defamation law has a statute of limitation of just 3 months. This means defamation claims time out very quickly.
We argued the Macron couple was intentionally forum shopping because being held to France’s 3 months would have naturally expired their claims. We included a briefing from a French legal expert explaining French defamation law.
The Macrons did not submit a briefing to counter our arguments, but during oral arguments they suggested that France has a unique statutory law that could, in theory, extend claims up to one year IF the defamation claim pertains to an individual’s sexual orientation or gender.
Before ruling on the dismissal pertaining to the remaining entities, the judge is allowing for the Macron couple to submit a supplemental brief, arguing why they believe this case could meet that threshold
In his response (see below), the Judge has duly noted our legal expert’s notation that in parallel cases filed by the Presidential couple against other journalists in France, the couple sued under France’s 3 month defamation rule—not the one year statutory.
I believe it is worth again noting that the couple is NOT and has never sued anyone for matters pertaining to sex, sexual orientation, or gender (despite intentional media misrepresentations), but rather for defamation related to claims regarding MK Ultra and theft.
You are free to read their initial filing against me yourself.
So what happens now is the remaining entities and the Macrons submit additional briefings regarding French law and statutes. The judge will then rule on the lingering dismissals.
🚨BREAKING NEWS:
I was just personally dismissed from the Macron lawsuit filed against me in Delaware.
This case represents one of the grossest, legal overreaches by a foreign government leader in human history—a sitting President’s attempt to personally bankrupt a single podcaster from outside the nation in which he governs.
And to formally reiterate since many reporters willfully lied about this most important detail: I was NEVER being sued for stating that Brigitte Macron was born a male. I was instead being sued for discussing MK Ultra and for allegedly accusing the “First Lady” of theft from her sister.
I am tremendously grateful to the Delaware courts and to the presiding Judge for looking at this case objectively, despite false media depictions and government pressures.
Cancel the contract immediately.
Britain’s Palantir problem: the US surveillance firm’s expanding grip on British government data is reportedly raising alarm bells in the Ministry of Defence aoav.org.uk/2026/britains-pa…
Halliday’s Podcast retweeted
Elon Musk’s wealth is tied to Tesla stock. Simon Dixon (@SimonDixonTwitt) argues that creates leverage for the banks & investors around him.
He explains how borrowing against shares can give lenders influence over even the world’s richest entrepreneurs:
This is illegal.
Your DATA belongs to you, and you alone.
Where are the Human Rights lawyers on this matter?
The real battle isn’t left vs right, red vs blue, or any of the identity traps.
It’s centralization vs decentralization.
Technology is centralizing.
Finance and central banking are centralizing.
Even the military is centralizing through companies like Palantir.
Simon Dixon (@SimonDixonTwitt) says the real struggle is over who owns your money, your data & the technology you use.
He explains why he sees personal ownership as a way to resist a world of increasingly centralized power:
Your job: digitally resist. Own your data. Own your AI. Own your environment. Spend less than you earn and invest the difference in real assets every single month.
They allegedly watched him access a Dubai account holding hundreds of millions linked to Saudi/UAE money routed through Azerbaijan.
It is a question we are deeply interested in answering - Why does the British establishment hate the Russians?
We were allies against Napoleon. Allies against Hitler. Shared European civilisation, Christian roots, overlapping high culture.
Or something deeper: residual imperial rivalry, status anxiety after relative decline, or the need for an external “other” once the old European power balances collapsed?


















