Name: Most Terrifying Words - I'm From Your Government - I'm Here To Make You Laugh-In
Uploaded: 2023-08-18T03:08:15+00:00
Duration: 1 h 59 s
Description: We The Sheeple People Of U.S.A. ? But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the

8 months ago

4.32K

We The Sheeple People Of U.S.A. ? But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the your Government, and I'm here to help. Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Laughing for One Hour During this News Conference, President Ronald Reagan refers to how the government tends to be inefficient, to such a degree that instead of helping, it often causes harm instead. This view expresses the need for a more diminutive form of government where an individual or organization can complete an activity more effectively than the whole government.

A few key points are: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. " Government creates unpredictability due to constantly changing policies. The government’s goals sometimes don't align with the nation’s goals. With this ideology, he wanted to create and organize a government of the right size for its people, where both could work in harmony to overcome the crisis.

Sarcasm, Self-Deprecation, and Inside Jokes A User’s Guide to Humor is widely considered essential in personal relationships, but in leaders, it’s seen as an ancillary behavior. Though some leaders use humor instinctively, many more could wield it purposefully.

Humor helps build interpersonal trust and high-quality work relationships and influences behaviors and attitudes that matter to leadership effectiveness, including employee performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and creativity.

These benefits don’t come without potential costs. The guidelines in this article suggest ways to capture the benefits of humor while avoiding the downside risks.

People who immitate the behavior of sheep. Sheepeople harmlessly pass their time in grasslands away, while only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air. They pretend there are dangers that aren't real because they are meek and obedient and will follow their leader down the path of self-destruction.

What If Everything You Were Taught Was A Lie? All Info. shared in this channel is for non-hate and non-race and historical purposes to educate, elevate, entertain, enlighten, and empower through old and new film and document allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Welcome To The New World Order - The Year Zero - The Real Origin of the World - National Anthem of the United States of America and Confederate States of America National Anthem and New World Order National Anthem Is "The Ostrich" Lyrics by Steppenwolf from the album 'Rest In Peace' 1967-1972 A.C.E. The Conspiracy to Rule Your Mind chronicles how the ruling elite have established global domination and the ability to effect the thoughts, decisions, and world view of human beings across the globe by systematically infiltrating the media, academia, industry, military and political factions under the guise of upholding democracy. Learn how this malevolent consortium has dedicated centuries to realize an oppressive and totalitarian rule through any means necessary, not limited to drug trafficking, money laundering, terror attacks and financial crisis within the world economy.

Worldwide tyranny is already in full effect, the food we eat and the air we breathe are not off limits. Will we be able to stop this madness before we become an electronically monitored, cashless society wherein ever man, woman and child is micro chipped? The New World Order is Upon Us - Preserve your liberty by being Prepared ! - We The People of the New World Order Thank You.

It's so easy to be overwhelmed and feel beaten by the amount of negative and discouraging information being spread by the mainstream (fake stream) media. There are truly awful people in WEF and WHO, who want to reduce us to the level of serfs or chattel, but we can resist, indeed, we must resist. Be calm, be objective and be positive. Right is Might. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Nobody Is Safe From People's Republic Of The Tyrannical We The Sheeple People of The United States of America and A Real True Bill of State Rights Of Government July Forth 1776 The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which limit the power of the federal government and guarantee certain freedoms and rights to all colour of people and for the citizens of All America.

A few years ago, we conducted a research study in which we asked people to help us create an ad campaign for a travel service called VisitSwitzerland.ch (which we’d made up). We put the participants into small groups and showed them a photo—a Swiss landscape of a lake, a mountain, and the country’s distinctive flag with its white plus sign against a red background—accompanied by the question: “What made you fall in love with Switzerland?” We gave participants three minutes to come up with a memorable answer and then had them share their ideas with their groups.

In each presentation, we had two people (who were working with us) share first, using scripts we’d written for them. The first presenter offered a straightforward statement extolling Switzerland: “The country is beautiful. The scenery is truly breathtaking!” The second presenter alternated his approach. In half the presentations he said, “The mountains are great for skiing and hiking! It’s amazing!” In the other half, he added a pun: “The mountains are great for skiing and hiking, and the flag is a big plus! Seriously, it’s amazing!”

Admittedly, that isn’t the world’s funniest joke. But we used it to test a simple question: Can one joke make a meaningful difference in how people are viewed by others? In our study, the answer was unequivocally yes. Participants who heard the second presenter make the joke rated him as more confident and more competent than those who heard his joke-free delivery. The jokey presenter was also more likely to be voted as the leader for subsequent group tasks. That’s not a bad payoff for one barely funny attempt at humor.

This finding may not be surprising—many of us intuit that humor matters. Ask your colleagues what characteristics they value in a friend or a romantic partner, and they are likely to tell you (among other things), “a sense of humor,” “someone who makes me laugh,” or “someone who laughs at my jokes.” But ask the same people what traits they value in a leader, and odds are that humor will not top the list. We tend to view humor as an ancillary leadership behavior.

In fact, it’s a powerful tool that some people use instinctively but more could wield purposefully. One good laugh—or better still, a workplace culture that encourages levity—facilitates interpersonal communication and builds social cohesion. Analysis of large sets of workplace communications suggests that humor occurs in at least 10% of emails and is slightly more likely to be used by leaders in face-to-face interactions. But these numbers can (and should) be larger. Research by us and others has shown that humor can influence and reinforce status hierarchies in groups, build interpersonal trust and high-quality work relationships, and fundamentally shape the way people perceive one another’s confidence, competence, warmth, and clarity of communication. It also influences critical behaviors and attitudes that matter to leadership effectiveness, including employee job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, creativity, psychological safety in groups, and desire to interact again in the future.

However, jokes that fall flat (they’re not funny, or no one laughs) or are offensive (they’re viewed as inappropriate for the context) can harm professional standing by making a joke teller appear less intelligent and less competent. They can lower status and in extreme cases cost people their jobs.

One good laugh—or better still, a workplace that encourages levity—builds cohesion.

In this article, we offer guidance on how to use specific types of humor to become a more effective leader—and how to avoid being the cautionary tale at your company’s next HR training seminar.

Humor Can Enhance (or Hurt) Status
Humor and laughter are intricately tied to status and power. People in lower ranks who wield them well can climb the status hierarchy in their departments and organizations. As we saw in the Swiss advertising study (conducted with our colleague Maurice Schweitzer of the Wharton School), individuals who make funny and appropriate jokes are more likely to be nominated for leadership positions by their peers. In the same research project, we ran an experiment in which we asked people to recall moments when a colleague was funny. We found the link between humor and status to be so powerful that merely prompting individuals to recall a humorous exchange with a coworker shifted their perceptions of the coworker’s status.

Humor not only helps individuals ascend to positions of authority but also helps them lead more effectively once they are there. Professors Cecily Cooper (University of Miami), Tony Kong (University of South Florida), and Craig Crossley (University of Central Florida) found that when leaders used humor as an interpersonal tool, their employees were happier, which fostered better communication and resulted in an uptick in citizenship behaviors—voluntary actions that facilitate organizational effectiveness. That is, when leaders used humor, their employees were more likely to go above and beyond the call of duty.

Why is humor so powerful? In a study to understand what makes things funny, researchers Caleb Warren (University of Arizona) and Peter McGraw (University of Colorado at Boulder) found that humor most often occurs when something is perceived as a benign violation. They conducted studies in which participants were presented with scenarios depicting someone doing something that was benign (for example, a pole-vaulter successfully completing a jump), a violation (a pole-vaulter failing a jump and getting seriously injured), or both (a pole-vaulter failing a jump but not getting seriously injured). Participants who saw the third kind of scenario (simultaneously a violation and benign) were more likely to laugh than those who saw the scenarios that were either strictly benign or strictly violations. Things strike us as funny, the researchers concluded, when they make us uncomfortable but do so in a way that is acceptable or not overly threatening.

Because telling jokes that violate our psychological safety can be seen as risky, it can make people appear more confident and more competent. In one of our studies, we found that regardless of whether a joke was considered successful or inappropriate, participants viewed joke tellers as more confident—because they had the courage to attempt a joke at all. Projecting confidence in this way leads to higher status (provided the audience has no information that suggests a lack of competence). We also found that people who violate expectations and norms in a socially appropriate way are seen as more competent and more intelligent. This finding confirms our feelings about funny conversationalists: We admire and respect their wit, which raises their prestige.

But the violating nature of humor is also what makes it risky. Jokes that go too far over the line of appropriateness have the opposite effect—an “eeeek” reaction. Rather than thinking that the joke teller is intelligent and competent, observers think, What an idiot or I can’t believe he just said that. Although tellers of inappropriate jokes are still seen as confident, the low competence signaled by unsuccessful attempts at humor can lead to a loss of status. In fact, our research confirms that failed humor is quite costly for leaders, making them even worse off than serious, humorless leaders who don’t attempt jokes at all. Finding the balance between a benign violation and an extreme violation can be tricky—even professional comedians routinely face criticism for overstepping—and it takes skill to get it right.

Context Matters
When we converse with others, we need to balance multiple motives simultaneously. We may aim to exchange information clearly and accurately, make a positive impression on one another, navigate conflict, have fun, and so on. The degree to which each motive is viewed as normative and socially acceptable varies from setting to setting. That’s why context is so important when it comes to humor. It’s probably safer to tell your funny story about the horrible hotel service you experienced abroad to your friends at a dinner party (where the normative motive is enjoyment) than to a border patrol agent as you are reentering the country (where the normative motive is information exchange). A certain joke may work dazzlingly well with one group of people but completely flop with another—or even with the same group in a different context. And although jokes generally function as (well-intended) social glue, they may have the opposite effect if they’re perceived as thinly veiled brags or as insulting to specific people or ideas.

Here are ways to capture the benefits of humor while avoiding the contextual risks.

When to use inside jokes.
This form of humor happens anytime an outsider doesn’t have the background information needed to get the joke. Inside jokes are extremely common—our data suggests that almost everyone has engaged in or witnessed one. But how does insider talk, especially inside jokes, affect the dynamics within a group?

In collaboration with Ovul Sezer (University of North Carolina), Maurice Schweitzer, and Michael Norton (Harvard Business School), we conducted a study to understand those effects. We asked people to engage in a brainstorming task on instant messenger. Each participant was teamed up with two of our research assistants posing as fellow participants. In one condition, one researcher sent a message to the team that the participant couldn’t read (it looked like garbled text), and then the other researcher sent a response: “I agree!” This made the participant think that the other two had exchanged information that he or she was not privy to. In the other condition, the second researcher responded to the garbled message with, “Hahaha, that’s hilarious, I agree!” It was a subtle difference—in both conditions, participants were on the outside. Did it matter whether what they missed was funny? Yes. Participants were more likely to believe that their partners thought of themselves as superior in the inside-joke condition than in the inside-information condition, and they reported lower group identification and cohesion when the secret exchange involved a joke.

We’ve all experienced this phenomenon firsthand. Although levity is typically thought of as a behavior that binds people together, it can draw fault lines in a group, making some people feel awkward and excluded. Inside jokes have their place, of course. They can signal closeness or camaraderie, making people feel pleased to be in the loop. This kind of humor can be useful in transactional or nonconsequential situations when it doesn’t matter much if an outsider doesn’t get it. But the research on this kind of humor is clear: When group cohesion is important, tell jokes that everyone can understand.

When to use sarcasm.
Despite the fact that you’re soooo good at using sarcasm, a little more guidance won’t hurt. Research by Li Huang (INSEAD), Francesca Gino (Harvard), and Adam Galinsky (Columbia) reveals that sarcasm is not just for teenagers trying to irritate their parents; it can be useful for managers and teams as well. In their study, participants either made or received sarcastic comments or made or received sincere ones. Participants in the sarcasm condition were significantly more likely to solve a creativity task assigned later in the experiment than those in the sincere condition. In a subsequent study, participants were asked to merely recall a time when they either said or heard something sarcastic or a time they said or heard something sincere. Once again, creativity on the subsequent task was higher in the sarcasm condition.

Why does this happen? Sarcasm involves saying one thing and meaning the opposite, so using and interpreting it requires higher-level abstract thinking (compared with straightforward statements), which boosts creativity. The downside is that sarcasm can produce higher levels of perceived conflict, particularly when trust is low between the expresser and the recipient. And because sarcasm involves saying the opposite of what you mean, there’s a risk of misunderstanding or worse if the recipient does not pick up on the humorous intent and takes a sarcastic comment literally. The lesson: Unleash your sarcastic side to get creative juices flowing—but tone it down with new colleagues, in unfamiliar settings, or when working in teams where strong relationships haven’t yet been built. Until you’ve established trust, it’s best to communicate with respect.

When to use self-deprecation.
During his presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy faced accusations that his wealthy father was attempting to buy the election. At the 1958 Gridiron dinner, Kennedy addressed those accusations by saying, “I just received the following wire from my generous daddy: ‘Dear Jack, don’t buy a single vote more than is necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.’”

Self-deprecating humor can be an effective method of neutralizing negative information about oneself. Research by one of us (Brad) and Maurice Schweitzer found that individuals are seen as warmer and more competent when they disclose negative information about themselves using humor than when they disclose it in a serious manner. When they add humor to a disclosure, counterparts view the negative information as less true and less important. For example, the study found that job candidates who revealed their limited math ability in a humorous manner (“I can add and subtract, but geometry is where I draw the line”) were perceived as better able to do math than those who disclosed the information in a serious manner (“I can add and subtract, but I struggle with geometry”).

There are limits to the benefits of self-deprecating humor, however. Among lower-status people it can backfire if the trait or skill in question is an essential area of competence. For instance, a statistician can more safely make self-deprecating jokes about her spelling than about her statistical skills. So when discussing core competences, another form of humor might serve the purpose better. (An exception worth mentioning is when being self-deprecating about a core competence is the only alternative to disclosing the information in a serious way.) You should also avoid using humor to reveal your failures in situations where levity would be seen as inappropriate (such as if you are testifying in court) or when the failure is perceived as so serious that joking about it would be in poor taste. At the 2004 White House Correspondent’s Dinner, for example, President George W. Bush showed a video in which he was searching around the Oval Office and saying, “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. Nope, no weapons over there…maybe under here?” The topic was too consequential for jokes, and the video generated harsh criticism.

When to use humor to dodge difficult questions.
In the second of two debates during the 1984 U.S. presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan, the incumbent, was asked if his age would impede his ability to do the job in a second term. At age 73, Reagan was already the oldest president in American history, and he was perceived as being fatigued during the first debate. The president responded by saying, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” The audience, along with Reagan’s opponent, Walter Mondale, erupted in laughter. Mondale later said it was the moment he knew he had lost the election.

Few people enjoy being asked difficult questions like the one posed to Reagan. Previous research has revealed a range of ways people can respond: by staying silent, explicitly lying, paltering (saying truthful things to deliberately mislead), or responding with another question. Using humor to dodge a question is another option that can be quite helpful in certain situations. That’s because humor is cognitively distracting, according to research by Madelijn Strick (Utrecht University) and colleagues. Just as a good magician gets the audience to look away from the sleight of hand, a successful joke can turn our attention away from certain information. Successful humor also makes us happy, and we are more likely to trust people when we are in a good mood. And as we have mentioned, funny people are seen as more intelligent and skilled. Part of the reason Reagan’s response was so effective was that his mental ability was under attack. By responding with humor (even with a scripted line he had probably rehearsed), Reagan signaled to the audience that he was still mentally sharp.

When to use humor to deliver negative feedback.
During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was angered when General George B. McClellan failed to attack General Robert E. Lee in Richmond. Lincoln addressed the issue in a letter to McClellan saying, “If you don’t want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while. Yours respectfully, A. Lincoln.” Using humor to deliver negative feedback, as Lincoln did, can make criticism more memorable.

Delivering negative feedback can be challenging, so it may be tempting to fall back on a joke to lighten the mood. However, couching criticism in the form of a joke can lessen its impact. Peter McGraw and colleagues ran experiments in which participants reviewed complaints that were made in either a humorous or a serious manner. Although humorous complaints were better received than serious ones, they were also seen as more benign, and people felt less compelled to take action to rectify the problem.

Because accompanying criticism with humor softens the feedback, it detracts from getting the point across when the issue is not obvious. If a manager jokes about a subordinate’s slipping performance, the employee may think either that his performance hasn’t been slipping or that the situation isn’t a big deal. If it were, why would she be joking about it?

When to use humor as a coping mechanism.
Do you remember the day after the 2016 U.S. presidential election? For Donald Trump supporters, it was a happy day; for Hillary Clinton supporters, not so much. We took that opportunity to study how humor might help people cope with negative news. The day after the election, one of us (Alison) and several collaborators asked people who had voted for Clinton to write either something humorous or something meaningful about Trump’s victory. Those who sought humor in the situation felt better about it in the moment—and they still felt better about it when the researchers checked back in with them months later.

Humor can be an extremely powerful coping tool, in even the toughest of circumstances. Leadership consultant Linda Henman found that American prisoners of war in Vietnam frequently used it to deal with the tough conditions they experienced. Strick and colleagues conducted studies in which they presented participants with photos of negative scenes (such as a physical assault or a car crash), followed by either a funny stimulus or a positive but not funny stimulus. Participants presented with the funny stimulus reported fewer negative emotions than did participants presented with the nonhumorous one. Why? Again, the cognitively demanding aspect of humor distracts people, leaving them less able to focus on negative information.

Other research, however, revealed that the type of humor matters. One study by Andrea Samson (University of Fribourg) and James Gross (Stanford) found that positive, good-natured humor in response to bad news made people feel better, but negative, dark, or mean-spirited jokes made them feel worse. It’s also important to be careful about offending others with jokes when a situation is ongoing or recent (“too soon”).

But in general, humor can be tremendously useful in helping people cope not only during or immediately after a negative event but also over the long term. In other studies Samson and Gross conducted with Alana Glassco (Twitter) and Ihno Lee (Uplight), participants who created funny responses to negative stimuli (such as responding to a photo of a man with facial stitches with, “Now he has a great zombie costume for Halloween!”) reported higher positive affect a week later when they were shown the negative pictures again. So the next time you receive bad news at work (slow sales or a botched launch), think about ways to laugh about it (“At least we don’t have to worry about stockouts” or “I’ve been stress eating so much it’s a shame my portfolio isn’t tracking my waistline”), even if you don’t say them out loud. As comedian Stephen Colbert observes, “You can’t laugh and be afraid at the same time—of anything. If you’re laughing, I defy you to be afraid.”

You Don’t Need to Be a Comedian
Just as you don’t need to be Phil Mickelson to do well at the company golf outing, you don’t need to be Amy Schumer, Ali Wong, or John Mulaney to use humor well in the office. If anything, following the style or content of many professional comedians—who are expected to push the boundaries of appropriateness—would be dangerous in most workplaces. A joke’s success depends on who’s telling it, where and when it is told, and to whom, so everyone should use caution when attempting to retell a comedian’s jokes at work. The good news is that your colleagues are not expecting you to be as edgy (or as funny) as the professionals—or even to tell planned jokes at all.

When you think about humor as a tool of leadership, recognize that people can be funny in a variety of ways. For example, witty conversationalists differ from elaborate storytellers, clever emailers, and rollicking presenters. Each of these types of humor requires a different response time, unique delivery pacing, and an understanding of the audience. If you’re uncomfortable making jokes in a large group or during a presentation, stick to using humor in one-on-one conversations. If you tend to be more serious when talking one-on-one, you might try sending funnier emails. Options for incorporating more humor into your work life abound.

CONCLUSION
Humor at work is a delicate dance, and humor research is still in its infancy. Scholars (including us) are gaining data-driven descriptions of how people use various kinds of humor, and of when it works and when it doesn’t. But any rules of thumb for using humor have to include a caveat: Context matters. Conversational dynamics can vary profoundly from culture to culture, person to person, and group to group. These factors are tricky to navigate and make it difficult—even in the moment—to know whether your humor attempt has been successful or not. Many people will laugh politely even if something isn’t funny or is in poor taste, creating an unreliable feedback loop.

If you don’t think you can land jokes at work, or you’re too nervous to try, that’s OK. Not everyone is meant to be funny, just as not every attempt at humor will be successful. (Even professional comedians have bits that bomb.) But you can still incorporate levity into your work life by doing something simple: appreciating other people’s humor. Be quick to laugh and smile. Delight in the absurdity of life and in the jokes you hear. A life devoid of humor is not only less joyful—it’s also less productive and less creative, for you and for those around you. Abundant benefits await those who view humor not as an ancillary organizational behavior but as a central path to status and flourishing at work.

I’m From The Government, And I’m Here To Help Ronald Reagan once said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

I was reminded of this quote upon reading Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite’s recent speech announcing the “first significant changes to the Criminal Division’s CEP [Corporate Enforcement Policy] since 2017.” (See here for a prior post analyzing the 2017 CEP).

Per Polite’s language, I guess that means that the revisions to the CEP released in early 2019 (see here) as well as late 2019 (see here) were not “significant.”

Even though the DOJ has been actively encouraging voluntary disclosure for approximately 15-20 years, Polite stated:

“The revised CEP presents another path for companies facing such a choice. A path that incentivizes even more robust compliance on the front-end, to prevent misconduct, and requires even more robust cooperation and remediation on the back-end, if a crime occurs. Namely, even if aggravating circumstances are present, although a company will not qualify for a presumption of a declination, under the revised CEP, prosecutors may nonetheless determine that a declination is the appropriate outcome, if the company can demonstrate that it has met each of the following three factors:

The voluntary self-disclosure was made immediately upon the company becoming aware of the allegation of misconduct;
At the time of the misconduct and the disclosure, the company had an effective compliance program and system of internal accounting controls that enabled the identification of the misconduct and led to the company’s voluntary self-disclosure; and
The company provided extraordinary cooperation with the Department’s investigation and undertook extraordinary remediation.”
Pardon me for being that “guy,” but what does any of this actually mean?

Is the DOJ seriously suggesting that one second, one minute, one hour, or one day after an internal hotline receives an allegation of misconduct that the company disclose? What else would “immediate” mean?

Is there any actual legal standard that requires a company to have an “effective” compliance program? (No, there is not). In any event, by what standards or factors is “effective” judged by?

What does extraordinary cooperation and extraordinary remediation actually mean? What standards or factors are used to judge such issues?

In his speech, Polite anticipates that there will be questions about how prosecutors will analyze these issues, but here comes the funny part.

Polite assured the corporate community to settle down, because – well – the government knows it when it sees it.

He stated: “In many ways, we know “extraordinary cooperation” when we see it, and the differences between “full” and “extraordinary” cooperation are perhaps more in degree than kind. To receive credit for extraordinary cooperation, companies must go above and beyond the criteria for full cooperation set in our policies—not just run of the mill, or even gold-standard cooperation, but truly extraordinary.”

What in the world does this word salad actually mean?

Polite’s speech also spends time discussing the percentage ranges off the low end of the advisory sentencing guidelines when determining corporate fines (“But having a greater range of cooperation and remediation credit available—from 0% to 50%, instead of from 0% to 25%, and using the full spectrum of the Guidelines from which to apply those reductions—will allow our prosecutors to draw greater distinctions among the quality of companies’ cooperation and remediation.”).

However, it is important to note that the fine ranges that the guidelines churn out are like a big math equation and the “final number” is dependent on numerous other issues “earlier” in the equation. As to these other issues “earlier” in the equation, the DOJ still retains extreme leverage and practically unreviewable discretion in filing in the equation which yields the “final number.” Thus, the DOJ saying that it may consider lower percentages off the “final number” is not – in and of itself – meaningful.

Polite concluded his speech by saying this to “corporate citizens.” “[Our job is not just to prosecute crime, but to deter and prevent criminal conduct. Through our enforcement efforts and our policies, we are committed to incentivizing companies to detect and prevent crime in their own operations, and to come forward and cooperate with us when they identify criminal wrongdoing. We need corporations to be our allies in the fight against crime. And we believe that our revised policies will, at the end of the day, further our ability to bring individual wrongdoers—the corporate executives, employees, and agents who engage in misconduct—to justice.”

However, as highlighted in this prior post, measured against the DOJ’s stated goal of incentivizing voluntary disclosure so that it can increase prosecution of individuals, DOJ policy – including the CEP – has failed.

Is 'NFL or NBA' Video Listing Supposed Crimes of US Congress Members Accurate?

https://rumble.com/v2a4ovg-is-nfl-or-nba-video-listing-supposed-crimes-of-us-congress-members-accurate.html

The video quickly racked up millions of views and was then shared and It may have originally been recorded in 2009, but that information was unclear. In the viral video, Bailey appeared to be recounting a story he had heard from his son or read online. We transcribed the clip below: And he said, "Dad, guess which is it? Is it NBA or NFL?"

36 have been accused of spousal abuse.
Seven have been arrested for fraud.
19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least two businesses.
Three have done time for assault.
71, I repeat, 71, cannot get a credit card due to their bad credit.
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
Eight have been arrested for shoplifting.
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits.
And 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.
How many of you think NBA? How many of you think NFL?
Well, the answer is neither.
It's the 435 members of the United States Congress.

Legislator Misconduct Database - https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct
This page lists 483 instances of alleged and actual misconduct by legislators in the United States Congress from 1789 to the present. but 6,000+ more reports misconduct and alleged misconduct misc. sex charges over time have not gone to trial yet. The database below has been collected from public information about congressional investigations, criminal convictions, censures by and expulsions from Congress, and more, see the sidebar. The list is updated as new information becomes available.

An allegation of misconduct listed on this page does not imply guilt, unless it is followed by an official determination of guilt. Conversely, the absence of a determination of guilt does not imply innocence because congressional investigative bodies are political, not judicial. - web case filter: bribery & corruption other crimes ethics violation sexual harassment & abuse campaign & elections expulsion censure contempt of Congress reprimand fined by House/Senate resignation exclusion settlement conviction in court pleaded in court resolved unresolved.

Congress passes bill to make members pay sexual misconduct claims Congress paid out $976 million in settlements. Here’s why we know so little about that money. the real number is closer to 6 billon dollars so far! It is unclear how much of the $976 million is money paid to sexual harassment cases and other because of the Office of Compliance’s complex reporting process. However, even knowing that dollar figure doesn’t quantify the problem: a source within the Office of Compliance tells the New World Order that between 40 and 50% of harassment claims settle after mediation – an early stage in the multi-tiered reporting process. as of Feb. 14 2023 Valentine’s Day and Sexual Misconduct Day This story has been updated to include additional information from the Office of Compliance.

The World Today Felons, Illegals And MS13 Other Gangs Riots Looting Protests Propaganda Sign. Welcome Sign Reads "Official Sanctuary State" Sign At California Border and Other Sanctuary States in U.S.A. The Following Is A True Story About Gangs-Riots-Looting-Protests Propaganda If anyone hurts you or insult you or use wrong pronoun with you or other words... the right things to do is... go home and pee in your bed and set your home on fire and later go looting and riots and set car on fire and maybe kill someone ?
So after a night of fun like riots and looting - rape - setting fires - killing !
So now you are home... you wake-up at 11:20am and see your mom... hay mom... I got you a new PC and new TV last night and other thing nice for you mom... thanks you son... or he-she-trans-etc. so after you eat its now 12 noon... mom or dad why are you home today ? you are late for work mom ? no son i'm not late...

do you remember i work at walmart son... yes mom i do... you and other burned walmart down last night son... do you remember this son... yes a fun time too. and your dad works at 7-11 son... yes i remember we burn it down last night too. and your grandfather worked at costco son... and your grandmother worked at ? yes yes yes mom i remember we burned the whole town last night... so we need to move now son.... as your whole family is now out of work son.... etc. etc. etc.

Mom thanks again for new PC and new TV and pair of Nike shoe last night son. Its so funny now.... you pee in your own bed and wake-up wet in the morning and say why I'm I wet now. Lol maybe its because you pee on yourself last night and this why + American's Our Smartest People In The World Today... WoW

https://rumble.com/v2xhqf0-americans-our-smartest-people-in-the-world-spontaneous-education-at-its-fin.html

American's Our Smartest People In The World Be Honest. As an Observer of American Society, the thought may have crossed your mind at one time or another at least for a fleeting moment or two that the nation's dysfunctional state of affairs is the result of widespread stupidity. The people, too often misinformed and poorly educated, are getting exactly the democracy they deserve. Perhaps that thought arose last week as you watched the cringe-worthy presidential debate, which pundits have called "a disgrace" and "an embarrassment for the ages." Our public discourse has been in decline for so long that it was bound to come to this, right?

Because rioting achieves nothing.

The people participating are mostly aware of that. There are participants who are legitimately enraged by police brutality and feel that this public display is the only way to bring any attention to their situation, but the reality is that all riots serve to do is make the rioters look like uneducated savages who do not know how to conduct themselves in the public forum, regardless of how legitimate the original cause was.

The vast majority of those involved, particularly young rioters- at least in my belief, based on their recorded actions- are not trying to affect any form of political change. They are they because they want to break some windows for fun. It’s out of the ordinary, a chance to act a bit crazy, and basically quite exciting. Not that I’m approving of it, or saying I would be joining in, but you’re lying to yourself if you think that there isn’t a sort of abandoned fun in going around and mindlessly destroying things. Mob mentality takes over, and you don’t necessarily see any victims at the time; everyone is joining in, so why not just put that window through?

The same people are there to get a free TV. It’s the same sort of sense of careless abandon, and the chance to go wild. If asked, you bet your ass they will tell you just how evil the system and their police enforcers are, in between destroying the private property of others- innocent others, who had no hand in the killing of George Floyd- and scoring some “free” stuff for their apartment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932023_United_States_racial_unrest

America does indeed have a problem in the smarts department and it appears to be getting worse, not better.

On Tuesday, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released the results of a two-year study in which thousands of adults in 23 countries were tested for their skills in literacy, basic math and technology. The US fared badly in all three fields, ranking somewhere in the middle for literacy but way down at the bottom for technology and math.

Left Wing Vs. Right Wing Yes Two Wings of the Same Bird All Politicians Are Corruption

https://rumble.com/v2k15za-left-wing-vs.-right-wing-yes-two-wings-of-the-same-bird-all-politicians-are.html

The Left/Right paradigm isn't only exposed by race and immigration issues. The Left and Right are in lockstep on every issue that really matters: The IRS. Income tax. Federal Reserve system. Endless wars. Endless expansion of tyranny and ever contracting liberty. Chronically wide-open borders. Suicidal immigration policies. Don't you see? The democrats and republicans exist only to provide the illusion of choice. A strong "us versus them" simulation in every election. It's ritualized tribalism. But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda. God, guns and gays are phony "issues" to bolster the illusion of "difference" between the parties. The only thing that makes all this possible is that people aren't aware of the scam. Just knowing they are either "Team Red" or "Team Blue" liberates them from the responsibility of having to actually know or think anything. Then they feel righteous when their team wins, or despondent when they loose. It's no coincidence that the system works exactly like sports. There comes a point when ignorance and apathy become treason. We are past that point, people.
To a point I agree and disagree with this video; that both the left and right are almost entirely anti-white. At this point I believe that "pro-whites" are now considered "far right", because our views are not common among today's average lefts or rights. Things leftists fight for further white genocide, things such as easier immigration policies, gay marriage, multiculturalism (diversity) etc. Rights are a lot more liberal today its true, but that is because the left is pushing harder than the right these days, and that is why we are now considered " far right", so the concept cannot be ousted.

Whether you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you're voting on the Same Bird! Instead, vote for an Independent... There are some ways to stop the genocide. You can develop the DNA technology to select/modify the DNA of your babies before they are born. If you want a baby with white or dark skin color, golden or dark hair, and blue or black eyes, you can do it by DNA technology. or for Here are several Google and YouTube searches to check out:

Frontline Antifa White Supremacist Black American Genocide And Brutal Mass Killing

https://rumble.com/v2r7t8e-frontline-antifa-white-supremacist-black-american-genocide-and-brutal-mass-.html

Genocide Black Abortions in America Abortion Kills 1,000 Black Babies Every Day in America. Abortion is not just a Woman’s Issue. It’s a Human Rights Issue. Abortion is the Number One Killer and Mass Murder of Black Lives in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abortion Kills More Black People than HIV, Homicide, Diabetes, Accident, Cancer, and Heart Disease … Combined. An All-Black Group is Arming itself and demanding change. They are the NFAC When two loud bangs rang out on the streets of Lafayette, Louisiana, no one knew where the gunshots came from as protesters gathered to demand justice for another Black man killed by police.

Now 6 Million Strong Men-Trans-Woman Armed Antifa/NFAC Men Assault Weapons

https://rumble.com/v2r9x96-now-6-million-strong-men-trans-woman-armed-antifanfac-men-assault-weapons.html

Trans-Woman Armed Antifa/NFAC ? Gun-Toting Trans-gender Woman who has become the face of the 'Day of Vengeance' organized by trans activists after Nashville massacre is 'former Soldier' Undercover 30+ Armed Antifa is the armed militia of the Democratic Party and is back in force extremists protect Texas drag show for very young children Aug 30, 2022 An All-Black Group Arming itself and demanding change - NWO Among the crowd was a group of armed Black men and women who call themselves the "Not (Fu*king) Messing Around Coalition" or NFAC. The group did not run toward the gunshots or break formation. Instead, they kneeled on the ground amid the confusion, and then walked away after their leader shouted, "fall back! fall back!" The all-Black, Atlanta-based group has grown in size out of frustration during a summer of protests against questionable policing and the deaths of countless Black people at the hands of police, said their founder John Fitzgerald Johnson.

How a Congressional Black Caucus Member Plans to Protest Trump’s State of the Union Address In 1971, twelve members of the United States House of Representatives and the delegate from Washington, D.C., founded the Congressional Black Caucus, in order to better represent the interests of black Americans. President Richard Nixon initially refused to meet with the Caucus, which in turn boycotted that year’s State of the Union address. When Nixon finally did agree to a meeting, the C.B.C. provided a statement of sixty-one recommendations for the “eradication of racism” in the United States.

The group, which has mostly been composed of Democrats, currently has forty-nine members. Last February, on the Senate floor, members of the C.B.C. protested the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. This month, Representative Cedric Richmond, the C.B.C.’s chairman, co-submitted a resolution to censure President Trump for his comments about “shithole” countries. (At the same meeting where Trump made these comments, he was, according to the Washington Post, “curt and dismissive, saying he was not making immigration policy to cater to the C.B.C. and did not particularly care about that bloc’s demands.”)

On January 10th, Bonnie Watson Coleman, who has served as the U.S. representative from New Jersey’s Twelfth Congressional District since 2015 and co-founded the Caucus on Black Women and Girls, e-mailed her colleagues at the C.B.C., inviting them to affix red pins emblazoned with the name Recy onto their clothing on January 30th, the day of Trump’s first State of the Union address. The buttons would be a tribute to Recy Taylor, a black woman who was kidnapped and raped by six white men, in Alabama, in 1944, and who was mentioned in Oprah Winfrey’s speech at the Golden Globes on January 7th. Watson Coleman hopes to attend the address with Rose Gunter, who is Taylor’s niece and was also Taylor’s caregiver until her death, last December, at the age of ninety-seven.

Watson Coleman’s office has ordered two hundred pins, which, she said, are meant to increase awareness about the particular vulnerability of black women to sexual assault, and to symbolize dissent against the President. Representative Maxine Waters, another C.B.C. member, who is boycotting the speech, will deliver an alternative address on BET shortly after the President’s. I recently spoke to Watson Coleman about the C.B.C.’s relationship to the Trump Administration. Her account has been edited and condensed.

Trump came into the office as a racist. He didn’t even know what the Black Caucus was. The Black Caucus and President Obama may not have always agreed about whether or not he was moving fast enough, but there was still dignity and respect for who you were. One experience with Obama had to do with the H.B.C.U.s and seeking more support for them. I really appreciated his recognition of young black men, young black boys. My Brother’s Keeper. I just didn’t think that there was enough emphasis on black girls.

The chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said Tuesday that members of the caucus who attend President Trump’s State of the Union address will “stare racism in the face.”

Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) said Tuesday at a news conference that Trump has made the country “less safe for people of color,” according to CNN.

https://cbc.house.gov/uploadedfiles/cbctech2020yir-fv3.pdf

“The President has taken every opportunity to divide this country along racial lines,” Richmond said. “Words matter. President Trump’s racist rhetoric makes the county less safe for people of color by encouraging and emboldening and pandering to those who wish to do harm to others based on the color of their skin.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus

{mosads}Richmond said that many CBC members are boycotting the speech and that he has heard a “rumor” that some may walk out of the speech, but that he does not know of any who have said they would walk out.

https://cbc.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2015_cbc_year_in_reviewfinal.pdf

Several Democratic lawmakers have said they will boycott the president’s first State of the Union. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a member of the CBC, will give a response to the speech on BET. The official Democratic Party response to the speech will be given by Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.).

https://rumble.com/v2a4ovg-is-nfl-or-nba-video-listing-supposed-crimes-of-us-congress-members-accurate.html

Richmond also called for Trump to apologize for his “shithole countries” remark about immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and some African nations and for his attacks on NFL players who kneel in protest during the national anthem. “If he wants to project tonight unity in this country then he would apologize,” Richmond said.

It's the 435 members of the United States Congress.

Loading 2 comments...