#WEF (World Economic Forum) is a global lobbying organization started by a Klaus Schwab comprising of 100s of partner countries and 1000s of global corporations like Microsoft, Facebook, Pfizer, BP, Shell, IBM etc.
If you want to put America first, defund & exit #WHO and #WEF don't let Klaus Schwab and his goons enter your cabinets and start siphoning profits to global corporations from American taxpayers
Hope all these prostitutes are legal age, while all these #WEF globalist megalomaniacs are very old & bold
BULLSHIT
Since western nations are running out of money and are in huge debt, they need to spend additional taxpayer money to create jobs, grow the economy & be productive, they’re planning to spend the money they don’t have on fixing weather which we all know can’t be done.
#WEF (World Economic Forum) is a cult and 99.99% of y’all ain’t in it or have a say in what they decide for you
Jacinda Arden the prime minister of New Zealand, one of the key members of #WEF Klaus Schwab goon squad has just resigned. She was enforcing draconian vaccine mandates, separating jabbed from unjabbed, separating kids from parents etc. was just terrible🤘
Look at the live reaction from New Zealand population for the first time when they heard their PM Jacinda Arden not seeking re-election.
Imagine what’d have happened if she sought re-election… LOST BADLY 😂
Did you know that the infamous Ghislaine Maxwell sister Isabel Maxwell is a member of #WEF
#WEF showcasing a doomsday scenario for our planets Climate Change. It’s mass extinction, total humanity at risk, this is a planetary crisis. If this continues, by 2070 about 3 billion people will be living in uninhabitable zones.
#WEF proposed if a billion people on earth stop eating meat, there’d be a huge impact on the planet.
What if we ask them to stop using private jets for the conference and they’d never agree 😂
The World Economic Forum, organized as a sect of corps, billionaires and bought politicians, is today one of the biggest threats to democracy and the rule of law.
Major issues in Sri Lanka 🇱🇰, Netherlands 🇳🇱, Canada 🇨🇦 can be attributed to the #WEF
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In just three months as the 47th President, Donald Trump has governed with a ferocity that seems fueled by the trials of his past—indictments, investigations, assassination attempts, and impeachments—emerging not as a man diminished, but as one emboldened to deliver on his promises with unrelenting focus. His campaign pledges, once dismissed by critics as bombastic rhetoric, are materializing at a breakneck pace, reflecting a leader who thrives under pressure and channels adversity into action. From sweeping border security measures to economic policies aimed at revitalizing American industry, Trump’s early tenure feels like a defiant rebuttal to those who doubted his resolve, proving that the chaos of his journey has only sharpened his determination to reshape the nation in his image.
What’s most striking is how Trump has turned promises into tangible outcomes, defying the inertia that often bogs down presidencies. He’s tackled illegal immigration with a vigor that’s already shifting the landscape, while imposing tariffs to bolster domestic production, moves that echo his “America First” mantra and resonate with a base hungry for results. Gas, grocery and egg prices have eased, a practical win for everyday Americans, while his administration’s bold strokes—like dismantling bureaucratic excess and confronting global adversaries—signal a rejection of the status quo. For a man who’s faced relentless scrutiny, Trump’s first 90 days suggest not just survival, but a triumphant assertion of his vision, delivering a governance style as unapologetic and unconventional as the path that brought him back to power.
The statement that "more squirrels and raccoons have been arrested than Epstein clients" highlights a stark disparity between the enforcement of minor, even absurd, regulations and the apparent reluctance to pursue justice against powerful individuals implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network. In late 2024, the case of Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon captured public attention when New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation raided Mark Longo’s home, seizing and euthanizing these animals over claims of illegal possession and rabies risks. The operation involved multiple agents and hours of effort, showcasing a swift and decisive response to what many saw as a trivial violation. This incident, amplified by social media outrage, underscores how authorities can mobilize resources to "arrest" or address wildlife-related issues, even when the targets are harmless pets, while seemingly ignoring far graver human crimes.
In contrast, the Epstein case—despite overwhelming evidence of a sex trafficking operation involving influential figures—has seen remarkably little accountability for his clients. Epstein, a financier with ties to politicians, billionaires, and royalty, was arrested in 2019 and died in custody, officially ruled a suicide, though conspiracy theories abound. Court documents unsealed in recent years name numerous associates, yet few, if any, of these high-profile individuals have faced arrest or prosecution. The disparity fuels public frustration: while a squirrel’s fate can prompt a government raid, the powerful men who allegedly exploited minors alongside Epstein remain largely untouchable, shielded by wealth, status, or legal loopholes. This juxtaposition paints a compelling picture of a system that prioritizes the enforcement of petty rules over the pursuit of justice for heinous crimes, leaving society to question where true accountability lies.
The influence of corporate money in politics is a pervasive force that often shapes government inaction on issues like genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Companies like Bayer and Monsanto, with their deep pockets and extensive lobbying networks, have the resources to sway policymakers in their favor. They contribute millions to political campaigns, ensuring that elected officials remain sympathetic to their interests. This financial leverage creates a system where legislation or regulation that might harm these corporations’ bottom lines—such as banning or heavily restricting GMOs—is quietly sidelined. The revolving door between government agencies and corporate boardrooms only deepens this entanglement, as former industry executives often take regulatory roles, bringing their biases with them.
Beyond direct political influence, these corporations have mastered the art of shaping public perception through partnerships with universities and media outlets. By funding research at academic institutions, they can produce studies that downplay or dismiss health concerns related to GMOs, lending a veneer of scientific legitimacy to their products. These studies are then amplified by media campaigns, often subtly sponsored or influenced by the same corporations, to reassure the public that GMOs are safe and necessary for feeding a growing population. Dissenting voices—independent researchers or whistleblowers raising red flags about potential health risks—are drowned out or discredited, leaving regulators with a convenient excuse: the “science” isn’t conclusive enough to justify action.
Finally, the government’s inertia can be attributed to a broader economic calculus that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term public health. GMOs are deeply embedded in the agricultural industry, which contributes significantly to GDP and employs millions. Disrupting this system by cracking down on GMO foods would ripple through the economy, threatening jobs, trade relationships, and corporate profits—consequences no administration wants to face. Politicians, wary of being labeled as anti-business or anti-progress, opt for the path of least resistance, allowing these food giants to operate with minimal oversight. Meanwhile, any evidence of harm to human health is buried under bureaucratic delays or dismissed as anecdotal, preserving the status quo where profit trumps precaution.