What troops?  The Ukrainian rag tag militia?

Mercenary fighting for the Russians has a different view:

Thought I had posted a response to this thread but don't see it now. Odd.

This is relevant - worth a watch to the end (I found it understandable at 2x playback speed, though maybe cause I've conditioned myself to watch talking-head videos at that rate. Fast talkers like The History Guy are rare.) Illegal immigration aided and abetted by the UN. Global "equity" is the goal.

Tucker is the consummate propagandist - he, like Lucifer, can walk right past and otherwise ignore anything that doesn't lead his audience to the beliefs he intends. (The video doesn't support the broad claim in the video's banner image - but great way to rile people up!)

Consider that this is the same Bob Amsterdam writing with equal confidence about Trump and Russia's hold over him just several years ago (and whose first statement in the video is, contrary to Tucker's goal, "I supported the bill because it is the parishioners of our church who are on the front line right now and could use all the help they can get."):

Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer at international law firm Amsterdam & Partners with considerable experience in Russian affairs, told The Independent there was “no question” that US intelligence agencies and the FBI had information about Trump’s financial dealings with Russian entities prior to the 2016 US election.

“Trump’s relationship with Russia goes back many, many years. I’m sure the FBI was monitoring it,” he said.
Two parallel investigations into alleged ties between Trump associates and Russia during the 2016 presidential election as well as Russia’s alleged tampering with the election are being conducted in Congress at the moment.
...
Mr Amsterdam said one possible explanation is “that the FBI has an informer who was once part of the Trump organisation” and that information was not released in order to protect that source.
....

Source: https://archive.ph/20210528204149/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/richard-dearlove-mi6-trump-russia-money-2008-financial-crisis-us-election-a7684341.html

In the video he  claims the Ukrainian secret police is still heavily infiltrated by Russians. Um, if that was the case wouldn't they be using their fifth column on something more  useful to Russia than harassing a Christian church? That claim really undermines his credibility regarding the scope and severity of his claims. The harassment isn't in doubt, since the religious clashes  appear to predate the 2022 Russian invasion.

He is representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), which had been a diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, headed by Patriarch Kirill. Since the 1990s  Kirill has been the main proponent of a ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, among other dubious holdings. Since 2014 he has been a big supporter of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Allegedly a former employee of the KGB. Not surprising, then, that Ukrainians would harass members of UOC, often unfairly.

https://x.com/LeadingReport/ststatus/1785390375344947340

Link to the X post didn't work for me.
I found this alternate report:
https://www.planetizen.com/news/2024/05/128760-baton-rouge-will-split-two-cities-following-court-ruling

This is an economic nightmare

It would be a nightmare if enacted, but it comes from a socialist wish-list that has yet (fortunately) to make much headway. The article posted by Lucifer helpfully linked to the Administration 2025 revenue proposal document:
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf#page86

I found the same 44.6% marginal rate note in the revenue proposals for 2024:
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2024.pdf#page86

Both contain the 44.6% sentence at the bottom of page 80 on the 2025 revenue proposals and page 79 on the 2024 proposals.

Could not find it in the 2023 revenue proposal document. The following link appears to be a repository for such proposals going back to 1990:
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/revenue-proposals

Jim called out my "ambiguous" sounding position on the pro-Hamas protests, as if he wants me to come out in full support of the protestors' right to free speech, and I've been holding back just a bit.

You replied to my post of that thread and clarified your position - and I agree with it. I got what I sought and wasn't expecting anything else. Otherwise I'd have posted further.

For decades now, the major institutions influencing public opinion (media and education), and more importantly, the development of ideology in our children, have been taken over by neo-Marxist anti-Americans.  These protestors are mostly young people, as usual; brains not fully developed, no adult life experience, think they know everything, but have not been exposed to a wide range of ideas.

For years now, ramping up hard recently, these institutions have censored speech, not from these neo-Marxists (aka the left) but from the right and from anything upholding the ideals of our founding fathers (such as the Constitution).  Conservative speakers are banned from campus. Mainstream media is now openly just a propaganda arm for the Democrats, and social media we now know is infiltrated by federal agencies controlling who is allowed to speak freely.  Political speech is not the only speech censored, we have scientists blacklisted and censored for speaking truthfully about climate change or covid.

There IS NO free speech in America anymore.  So now all of a sudden I'm supposed to defend a bunch of brats siding with terrorists and shouting threats at our very nation?  Where's the call to support all the above, censored everywhere except X and a few alternative platforms? 

The issue is not we need to allow pro-Palestinian speech; that is a subset of speech and openly allowed and supported.  Any countering subsets are suppressed, and that is apparently acceptable. We have destroyed free speech in America. Those protests aren't free speech; they are what is allowed to be said by the puppet masters. 

Free speech must apply to everyone and all points of view or it isn't free speech at all.  What is allowed simply becomes the rantings of a properly brainwashed set of minions.

I agree with all the claims and observations you make above. Further, mobs in the street and other physical interference in the lives of others is not a form of speech. Here's what Ayn Rand said about that in 1978:

[...]

On January 6, 2021 Lankford was in the middle of a speech opposing the certification of Biden's election when he was interrupted by a staffer asking everyone to evacuate.
His voting record and his bio are publicly available. People can research these things themselves.