PLEASE REMEMBER TO SHARE & SUBSCRIBE!

CHECK OUT THE LATEST EPISODE OF LIVE WITH CHRIS’WORLD!

WE FILTER NEWS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO BECAUSE FACTS AND TRUTH MATTER!

President Donald Trump's proposal to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" represents a bold reclamation of American identity and sovereignty over a region that significantly impacts our economy and security. Here are several reasons why this move is not only sensible but advantageous.

• Economic Justification: The United States has substantial economic interests in the Gulf, with major oil and gas reserves and fishing industries. Renaming the Gulf to 'America' could symbolize the U.S.'s commitment to these resources, potentially boosting national pride and investment in the region.

• Geopolitical Influence: By renaming the Gulf, the U.S. could assert greater influence over the maritime policies of the region, considering that the U.S. has the longest coastline along the Gulf among all bordering countries. This could streamline maritime laws and regulations in favor of American interests, including shipping and trade.

• Historical Precedence: Names of geographical features have been changed throughout history to reflect shifts in political power or cultural identity. The Gulf of Mexico was named by Spanish explorers, but as the U.S. has become a predominant power in the region, it's fitting that the name reflects this new reality.

• National Pride: Trump's initiative could serve as a patriotic gesture, reinforcing national pride at a time when unity and strong national identity are seen as essential in conservative circles. It's about celebrating America's achievements and presence in the area.

In conclusion, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to "Gulf of America" would be a significant step in acknowledging the U.S.'s pivotal role in the region. Why should Mexico retain naming rights when the U.S. has such extensive involvement? This move would be a testament to American leadership and economic might, aligning with conservative values of national pride and self-reliance

Today, Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump Jr. made an impactful visit to Greenland to engage directly with the local populace, showcasing President Trump's continued interest in the strategic acquisition of Greenland. Here's why this move could be a game-changer for the U.S.:

• Strategic Location: Greenland's position in the Arctic provides the U.S. with unparalleled access to the Arctic region, crucial for national security, especially in light of increasing global competition for Arctic resources and shipping routes.

• Natural Resources: Greenland is rich in untapped minerals, including rare earth elements vital for modern technology and defense systems. Acquisition would ensure American control over these resources, reducing dependency on foreign nations.

• Military Presence: With the Thule Air Base already established, incorporating Greenland would strengthen U.S. military capabilities in the region, enhancing our ability to respond to threats and maintain a presence in an area of growing geopolitical importance.

• Economic Growth: The potential for new industries in Greenland, from tourism to mining, could lead to economic benefits for both Greenland and the U.S., fostering job creation and economic expansion.

In conclusion, the visit by Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump Jr. to Greenland underscores a proactive approach to expanding American influence. Acquiring Greenland would not only be a historic move but a strategic one, aligning with conservative principles of strengthening national security, promoting economic self-sufficiency, and ensuring America's position as a global leader. This could be a monumental step in making America greater by expanding its territory and influence in a world where every inch of strategic land counts.

Mark Zuckerberg's announcement today stating Meta would reduce censorship is a welcome change, particularly for conservative voices who have long felt marginalized on social media platforms. Here's why this move is significant, yet not the end of the journey:

• Restoration of Free Speech: Reducing censorship aligns with conservative values of free speech and open dialogue, allowing for a marketplace of ideas where conservatism can be expressed without fear of suppression.

• Acknowledgment of Past Wrongs: This announcement tacitly acknowledges that there might have been overreach in content moderation, which disproportionately affected conservative users, commentators, and news outlets.

• Need for Accountability: While toning back censorship is a step in the right direction, there must be accountability for past actions. Conservatives have been demonetized, shadow-banned, or outright censored for content that did not violate clear guidelines, affecting their livelihoods and reach.

• Ensuring Transparency: The commitment to less censorship must come with transparent policies and practices. Users need to trust that the platforms are not just paying lip service to free speech but are actively ensuring an equitable environment.

In conclusion, Zuckerberg's decision to lower the censorship bar at Meta is a positive development for those advocating for less restrictive online spaces. However, conservatives should remain vigilant, pushing for not just policy changes but also for accountability mechanisms to address the years of perceived unjust censorship. Only through such measures can we truly ensure that free speech is not just promised but practiced, safeguarding the marketplace of ideas that is crucial for a healthy democracy.

The news that Kevin O'Leary from Shark Tank is close to securing a deal to buy TikTok's U.S. assets is a significant win for conservative perspectives and American business interests. Here's why:

• Data Privacy and National Security: O'Leary's acquisition would mean TikTok's vast amount of user data would be under American control, potentially reducing concerns about foreign influence or data breaches linked to national security.

• Promoting Free Speech: Under O'Leary's management, there's potential for a shift towards less censorship, giving a platform to conservative voices that have felt sidelined on TikTok. His business acumen might lead to policies that favor free speech over algorithmic manipulation.

• Economic Benefits: This deal could keep TikTok's substantial economic activity within the U.S., supporting jobs and small businesses that thrive on the platform. It reaffirms the notion of America as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship.

• Cultural Influence: With O'Leary at the helm, there's an opportunity to steer TikTok towards content that aligns more with traditional American values, possibly countering the cultural narratives some conservatives have criticized on social media.

In conclusion, Kevin O'Leary's potential acquisition of TikTok's U.S. assets is not just a business transaction; it's a strategic move that could enhance national security, promote free speech, and bolster the American economy. This move aligns with conservative values of self-reliance, free markets, and protecting American interests, making it a promising development for those who support Trump's vision of "America First."

The House's passage of the Laken Riley Act is a significant victory for those championing law and order under the Trump and conservative agenda. Here's why this legislation is crucial:

• Accountability for Criminal Acts: The Act ensures that illegal immigrants who commit crimes like theft or burglary face mandatory detention by ICE, reinforcing the principle that everyone in America must abide by the law, regardless of immigration status.

• Prevention of Tragedies: Named after Laken Riley, who was tragically killed by an illegal immigrant, this law aims to prevent future incidents by ensuring swift action against criminal behavior. Her death was a stark reminder of the human cost of lax immigration policies.

• Public Safety and Security: By deporting those who break the law, the Act prioritizes the safety of American citizens, aligning with conservative values of protecting communities from crime.

• Political Responsibility: The fact that 159 Democrats voted against this bill raises questions about their commitment to public safety. This opposition seems to place political ideology above the protection of citizens, which is a disservice to the memory of Laken Riley and the safety of all Americans.

In conclusion, the Laken Riley Act is not just about immigration control but about upholding justice and preventing needless deaths. It's a clear demonstration of where policy should stand - with the safety of American citizens first. The resistance from Democrats is a shameful indication of misplaced priorities, and this Act stands as a testament to the conservative push for a secure, law-abiding nation.

The revelation that members of Congress have once again outperformed the market in 2024 underscores a critical need for reform in how our elected officials manage their finances. Here are key points highlighting why Congress should be barred from trading stocks:

• Conflict of Interest: Politicians have access to non-public information that can give them an unfair advantage in the stock market, creating a direct conflict between their legislative duties and personal financial gains.

• Public Trust: The ability of lawmakers to profit from insider knowledge erodes public trust. Citizens expect their representatives to act in the nation's interest, not their own portfolios, especially when it's evident that some are making "unusual trades" leading to "huge portfolio gains."

• Market Integrity: When members of Congress trade stocks, especially in sectors they legislate, it raises questions about the integrity of the market. It's not just about beating the market; it's about the perception and reality of fairness in financial markets.

• Precedent for Ethics: Banning stock trading by Congress members would set a precedent for ethical behavior in government, aligning with conservative values of accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.

In conclusion, the data from 2024, consistent with previous years, shows an urgent need to prevent members of Congress from trading stocks. This practice is not only ethically dubious but also antithetical to the principles of a fair and just society. The "top political traders of 2024" should not be a list of honor but a call to action for legislative reform that prioritizes public service over personal profit.

The Biden administration's last-minute push to effectively ban cigarettes in the United States, as reported by Fox News, is a clear example of overreach by a president some conservatives might label as a "nutcase" and a "control freak." Here's why this move is seen as problematic:

• Personal Freedom: The ban on cigarettes represents an infringement on individual liberties, a core conservative value. People should have the right to make their own choices, even if they are harmful, without excessive government intervention.

• Market Manipulation: By forcing manufacturers to produce low-nicotine cigarettes, the government is not only dictating consumer behavior but also potentially disrupting market dynamics and personal business freedom.

• Unintended Consequences: Such a policy could inadvertently bolster illegal cigarette trade, benefiting cartels and criminal organizations. This could lead to more crime rather than less, as legal markets shrink.

• Misplaced Priorities: With numerous pressing issues like economic recovery, border security, and international relations, focusing on banning cigarettes in the final days of the administration seems like a misallocation of governmental effort and resources.

In conclusion, this 11th-hour policy to ban cigarettes is viewed by many conservatives as another example of Biden's administration exerting control over Americans' lives in ways that are both unnecessary and counterproductive. It's an approach that not only questions personal freedoms but also risks creating more problems than it solves, highlighting a disconnect from conservative principles of limited government and personal responsibility.