Available now from Barnes & Noble...

Someone taking control of vs auditing and making recommendations is entirely different. I get that you may be concerned that Elon is in absolute control of, however, Elon has no actual authority over it. He finds information, organizes and details information and submits it to the COMMANDER AND CHIEF, who in the execution of his duty is authorized to. The real issue is though, not that the president is doing so, for that is literally one of the main reasons he was elected, by the people and is executing the will of the people. I do not trust Elon, nor do I trust Trump. I do not trust elected officials, they are clearly and deliberately syphoning money into private ventures, awarding grants for private ventures, awarding grants based on the amount of kickbacks they get, taking bribes from corporations, making laws that degrade the freedom and rights of the citizens in favor of corporations, creating tyranny and oppression not just in our own country but in many others, killing people, visiting sex traffickers for sexual acts, engaging in drug use, using tax dollars to have sex and get high, using tax payer dollars to embezzle, insider trading. The list above is just a minor part of what they are literally doing, as an American I have a serious problem with this. Not one mother fucking republican or democrat has done jack diddly shit, in fact many of them have probably joined DIDDY in drugging and raping people. So before you get all hyped up about Elon making a list and checking it twice and then making recommendations to the COMMANDER AND CHIEF... Double check that moral counter of yours. Is Donald going to save America, fuck no. Is Elon anything but a Capitalist goon, nope. Donald will not create and implement a defined "bad behavior" to remove politicians from office. He is not going to create an itemized separation of corporate and political and so once this fraud and abuse and waste is identified and removed, some shit bag will simply do it again. He is not going to stop the slaughter of the innocent abroad, he is not going to activate safety measure to prevent people like Diddy who drug and rape children like Bieber in the entertainment industry, he is not going to do much of anything I would consider in the category of "greatest president to ever exist" but perhaps he can kick some corrupt bureaucrats teeth in. If Donald wants to be the "greatest president to ever exist" he needs to not only identify and remove those that do all this, but he also needs to create and implement measures that prevent it from ever happening again. It begins with: Restructuring how the FDA views and approves products in a for safety only mode: Separation of corporate and political, with a ban on lobbying, and definition of "Bad Behavior": Removing all immunity and corporate protections against injury in accordance with the constitution: Removing debt servitude by the federal reserve through interest with government loans (could just abolish it too): Protections for child actors: Removal of Tort as it violates "redress of grievance": Revitalization of the post office and theft prevention: Classification of "death cults" and organizations that are existential threats to societal values and human dignity (like depopulation): It then moves into: Term limits. Single Issue Bills. Voter ID in every state for every election. Semi annual voter audits in all stats/agencies. Semi annual treasury audits in all states/agencies. Lease only of all land to foreign nation and organizations. (blackrock and China as example) Ending ALL offensive arm trades to everyone, defense only. Removal of all adjuvants, metals, systems that permit contaminates in pharma products. Acknowledgment of adjuvants, metals, contaminates and over toxicity through over vaccination to cause autism. Production of zero fuel, zero energy transportation (hydrogen gas engine that generates its own hydrogen as example, or the T3L engine that uses no fuel, battery at all and can be used in even jet engines.) Illegalization of propaganda, elected officials always under oath in public speaking, false testimony prosecution for journalists and news media. Illegalization to refuse treatments for vaccine status. Mandating obligation to uphold international law and the international court. I think if he manages to get this list checked off, he would be considered "the greatest president to have existed so far". Otherwise, he can fuck right off.

If a U.S. citizen, were to post a statement like "You should be rapеd and dragged through the streets in front of your kids" directed at a person, the legal implications could be severe, involving both state and federal laws. Here's how this might be approached: Legal Implications: Hate Crimes: Federal Law: Under 18 U.S.C. § 249, hate crimes can involve violence or threats motivated by prejudice based on the victim's race, religion, or national origin. This statement could be seen as a threat motivated by the victim's identity. State Laws: Many states have hate crime statutes where crimes motivated by bias (including threats) can lead to enhanced penalties. Threats of Violence: 18 U.S.C. § 875(c): This law makes it a federal crime to transmit any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another in interstate or foreign commerce. Online threats easily meet this criterion. State Threat Laws: Most states have laws against making criminal threats or intimidation. Cyberbullying and Harassment: Depending on the state, laws might address cyberbullying or online harassment, especially when targeted at specific individuals or groups. Civil Rights Violations: If this threat is seen as an attempt to intimidate or interfere with someone's rights because of their religion, it could fall under civil rights violations like those outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 245. First Amendment Considerations: While free speech is protected, "true threats" are not. A statement like this, especially if perceived as a genuine threat of violence, falls outside First Amendment protections. How to Press Charges: Documentation: Screenshot or Save Evidence: Capture the post, including date, time, and any identifiable information about the poster. Report to Law Enforcement: Local Police: Report the threat to local law enforcement. They can investigate and determine if it breaches state laws on threats, harassment, or hate crimes. FBI: For threats involving hate crimes or crossing state lines/international borders, you can contact the FBI. They have jurisdiction over interstate threats and hate crimes. Legal Consultation: Lawyer: Consult with a lawyer who specializes in civil rights or criminal law. They can advise on both criminal prosecution and potential civil action if the threat causes harm or distress. Civil Action: Restraining Orders: Depending on the nature of the threat, you might seek a restraining order to prevent further contact or threats. Lawsuit: You could potentially sue for emotional distress, defamation, or violation of civil rights if applicable. Involve Social Media Platforms: Report the post to the platform where it was made. While not a legal remedy, this can result in the removal of the post and possibly suspension or banning of the user, reducing immediate harm. Prosecution: Law enforcement will investigate, potentially leading to charges based on their findings. If state charges are possible, the local prosecutor's office would handle this; for federal charges, the U.S. Attorney's office would be involved. Victim Support: Consider support from organizations that specialize in hate crime victim organizations that might provide legal, emotional, or advocacy support. Remember, the specifics of how charges are pressed can vary widely based on jurisdiction, the exact nature of the threat, and the evidence available. Also, the descent of the person making the threat wouldn't directly influence the legal process but might be noted in context to underline the hate crime aspect.

If a U.S. citizen, were to post a statement like "You should be rapеd and dragged through the streets in front of your kids" directed at a person, the legal implications could be severe, involving both state and federal laws. Here's how this might be approached: Legal Implications: Hate Crimes: Federal Law: Under 18 U.S.C. § 249, hate crimes can involve violence or threats motivated by prejudice based on the victim's race, religion, or national origin. This statement could be seen as a threat motivated by the victim's identity. State Laws: Many states have hate crime statutes where crimes motivated by bias (including threats) can lead to enhanced penalties. Threats of Violence: 18 U.S.C. § 875(c): This law makes it a federal crime to transmit any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another in interstate or foreign commerce. Online threats easily meet this criterion. State Threat Laws: Most states have laws against making criminal threats or intimidation. Cyberbullying and Harassment: Depending on the state, laws might address cyberbullying or online harassment, especially when targeted at specific individuals or groups. Civil Rights Violations: If this threat is seen as an attempt to intimidate or interfere with someone's rights because of their religion, it could fall under civil rights violations like those outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 245. First Amendment Considerations: While free speech is protected, "true threats" are not. A statement like this, especially if perceived as a genuine threat of violence, falls outside First Amendment protections. How to Press Charges: Documentation: Screenshot or Save Evidence: Capture the post, including date, time, and any identifiable information about the poster. Report to Law Enforcement: Local Police: Report the threat to local law enforcement. They can investigate and determine if it breaches state laws on threats, harassment, or hate crimes. FBI: For threats involving hate crimes or crossing state lines/international borders, you can contact the FBI. They have jurisdiction over interstate threats and hate crimes. Legal Consultation: Lawyer: Consult with a lawyer who specializes in civil rights or criminal law. They can advise on both criminal prosecution and potential civil action if the threat causes harm or distress. Civil Action: Restraining Orders: Depending on the nature of the threat, you might seek a restraining order to prevent further contact or threats. Lawsuit: You could potentially sue for emotional distress, defamation, or violation of civil rights if applicable. Involve Social Media Platforms: Report the post to the platform where it was made. While not a legal remedy, this can result in the removal of the post and possibly suspension or banning of the user, reducing immediate harm. Prosecution: Law enforcement will investigate, potentially leading to charges based on their findings. If state charges are possible, the local prosecutor's office would handle this; for federal charges, the U.S. Attorney's office would be involved. Victim Support: Consider support from organizations that specialize in hate crime victim organizations that might provide legal, emotional, or advocacy support. Remember, the specifics of how charges are pressed can vary widely based on jurisdiction, the exact nature of the threat, and the evidence available. Also, the descent of the person making the threat wouldn't directly influence the legal process but might be noted in context to underline the hate crime aspect.

@AutismCapital That includes israel.

@nicksortor Disobeying orders is not considered treason. Treason is quite specific. I think at most they may get a charge for aiding and abetting at the most, but in most cases those that serve are provided the acknowledgement of that service in regard to term of punishment.

Free speech is not a "one-way street." Soferim 15:10: "Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed." In a court of law, the statement "Even the best of the Jews should all be killed" would likely be considered extremely inflammatory and potentially criminal for several reasons: Promotion of Genocide: Legal Definition: Under international law, particularly the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Your statement could be seen as advocating for the destruction of Jews as a group. Context: Even if you argued for some historical or contextual basis for your statement, the direct call for killing all members of a group, even specified as "the best," would be interpreted as promoting genocide. Courts often look at the broader context, including the intent behind the statement, the potential to incite violence, and the impact on society. Hate Speech: Many jurisdictions have laws against hate speech, where statements that advocate for violence or hatred against a group based on race, religion, or ethnicity are criminalized. U.S. Context: In the United States, while free speech is broadly protected by the First Amendment, there are exceptions for speech that incites "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio). If your statement were seen as likely to incite immediate violence against Jews, it could be legally actionable. Other Countries: In places like Canada, Germany, or the UK, hate speech laws are more explicit, and such a statement would likely lead to legal prosecution. Membership in a "Death Cult" or Hate Group: If you were part of a group whose practices include or advocate for the extermination of Jews, this would significantly compound the legal implications: Group Context: Courts would examine not just the statement but your association with such a group. Membership in an organization that promotes violence, or genocide could lead to charges of conspiracy, membership in a terrorist organization, or other related crimes. Intent and Motivation: Demonstrating that you share the group's ideology or actively participate in its activities would strengthen the case against you. This could indeed lead to you being labeled as part of a "death cult" in legal or public discourse, though this term might be more sensational than legal. Legal Ramifications: Prosecution: You could face charges ranging from hate crimes to incitement to violence or genocide, depending on the jurisdiction. Civil Lawsuits: Apart from criminal prosecution, such statements could lead to civil lawsuits from those who feel threatened or harmed by your words. Public and Social Consequences: Beyond legal issues, such a statement would likely result in severe social and professional repercussions, including loss of employment, public ostracization, and permanent damage to reputation. In summary, writing such a statement in a book would almost certainly be seen as promoting genocide and murder in a legal setting, especially if linked to the practices or beliefs of a group you're associated with. It would not only invite legal scrutiny but also potentially categorize you as part of an extremist or hate group in both legal and societal contexts. @TheOfficial1984 @realDonaldTrump @AIPAC @Israel @IDF @elonmusk @X @RealCandaceO @jakeshieldsajj

Soferim 15:10: "Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed." In a court of law, the statement "Even the best of the Jews should all be killed" would likely be considered extremely inflammatory and potentially criminal for several reasons: Promotion of Genocide: Legal Definition: Under international law, particularly the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Your statement could be seen as advocating for the destruction of Jews as a group. Context: Even if you argued for some historical or contextual basis for your statement, the direct call for killing all members of a group, even specified as "the best," would be interpreted as promoting genocide. Courts often look at the broader context, including the intent behind the statement, the potential to incite violence, and the impact on society. Hate Speech: Many jurisdictions have laws against hate speech, where statements that advocate for violence or hatred against a group based on race, religion, or ethnicity are criminalized. U.S. Context: In the United States, while free speech is broadly protected by the First Amendment, there are exceptions for speech that incites "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio). If your statement were seen as likely to incite immediate violence against Jews, it could be legally actionable. Other Countries: In places like Canada, Germany, or the UK, hate speech laws are more explicit, and such a statement would likely lead to legal prosecution. Membership in a "Death Cult" or Hate Group: If you were part of a group whose practices include or advocate for the extermination of Jews, this would significantly compound the legal implications: Group Context: Courts would examine not just the statement but your association with such a group. Membership in an organization that promotes violence, or genocide could lead to charges of conspiracy, membership in a terrorist organization, or other related crimes. Intent and Motivation: Demonstrating that you share the group's ideology or actively participate in its activities would strengthen the case against you. This could indeed lead to you being labeled as part of a "death cult" in legal or public discourse, though this term might be more sensational than legal. Legal Ramifications: Prosecution: You could face charges ranging from hate crimes to incitement to violence or genocide, depending on the jurisdiction. Civil Lawsuits: Apart from criminal prosecution, such statements could lead to civil lawsuits from those who feel threatened or harmed by your words. Public and Social Consequences: Beyond legal issues, such a statement would likely result in severe social and professional repercussions, including loss of employment, public ostracization, and permanent damage to reputation. In summary, writing such a statement in a book would almost certainly be seen as promoting genocide and murder in a legal setting, especially if linked to the practices or beliefs of a group you're associated with. It would not only invite legal scrutiny but also potentially categorize you as part of an extremist or hate group in both legal and societal contexts.

@medeabenjamin The elected officials that support the death of others are terrorists.

@catturd2 Congress, governor, mayor, and their family members.

It is a lot worse than you think uh small r. It's far more troubling than one might assume, and the scale of the issue is vast. The information disseminated by many established institutions is often skewed, not by accident, but by design, reflecting a bias that is unscientific at its core. Instead of fostering a culture of inquiry and critical thinking, these institutions are more focused on manufacturing consent through a controlled narrative. In the Medical and Pharmaceutical Industries: There's a significant push from pharmaceutical companies to influence medical research, education, and practice. This influence can manifest as pharma shills where doctors, researchers, or opinion leaders are incentivized to promote certain drugs or treatments that might not be the most effective or necessary for patients. The education of medical professionals often lacks the encouragement to question existing practices or drugs. Instead, there's a heavy reliance on guidelines that are sometimes shaped by industry interests rather than patient outcomes. Clinical trials and the publication of medical research can be biased towards positive outcomes for new drugs, often due to funding from pharmaceutical companies. This can lead to a lack of transparency or even suppression of negative results, which is detrimental to true scientific progress. In the Scientific Community: The concept of scientific dogma has permeated various scientific fields where certain theories or hypotheses are pushed as incontrovertible truths, often stifling innovation or alternative perspectives. This can be seen in areas like climate science, where dissenting opinions are sometimes marginalized. Media appearances by scientists or experts are sometimes less about sharing knowledge and more about reinforcing a narrative. There have been instances where scientists on television platforms advocate for concepts or theories that are not supported by current biological or genetic evidence, leading to public misinformation. Funding and career progression in academia can be heavily influenced by one's alignment with prevailing scientific or political ideologies. This is particularly evident in the allocation of research grants where projects aligning with "woke" agendas might receive disproportionate funding, potentially at the expense of merit-based research. Educational System and Academia: The educational system, particularly higher education, sometimes prioritizes ideological conformity over critical thinking. Educators and PhD holders might find themselves promoting popular narratives to secure grants or maintain their positions, rather than challenging these narratives with rigorous scientific inquiry. There's a growing concern that the academic environment has become less about questioning and more about conforming to certain social or political views, which can be seen as a form of intellectual compromise. The overarching issue here is the erosion of the scientific method as a tool for unbiased discovery. Instead of teaching people to question, analyze, and seek true knowledge, there's an apparent trend towards indoctrination into specific viewpoints. This not only affects public perception but also the integrity of science itself, turning what should be a pursuit of truth into a battleground of agendas. It's indeed a scenario that one could describe as a "joke," but with serious implications for society's understanding of science and medicine.

@medeabenjamin Hes only being fed one side of the story, rather than looking at it himself. Curated shit show.

@LeilaniDowding For a mere fraction of that cost, I could create an engine that uses no fuel, needs no battery and drives hundreds of thousands of miles.

@BusyDrT What happened to blocking pharma commercials. Advertising for methods to self-harm should be not only banned but illegal, no different than a commercial on how to properly slit your wrists to maximize blood loss.

To summarize, the particle creates a pathway other than the normal electrostatic charge through the positive and negative of the electrons... ect. ect. This causes a huge problem. Doctors who say this is not an issue and that the amount is too small to affect it, have literally no fucking idea what they are talking about. Ask an electrician if grounding yourself and touching high voltage is a good thing. The same is true for the synapse, the particles disrupt the flow of energy to and from the synapse, the same energy that it used to pass signals, the same energy it uses to charge the chemicals for atomic bonding, the same energy it needs to reuptake, every process of the synapse is governed by these charges and for every single particle you break that system. This is especially dangerous in regard to crossovers, misfiring and even when it involves the vagus nerve and systems that specifically regulate the heart, if that charge is diverted from the signal that tells your heart to pump, it won't pump. That is when you fall down. You know, like Died Suddenly. @DiedSuddenly_

Same with this one though this shows variations and its important to also understand how much faster your neural network functions, speed this up considerably and you can see how even a single particle has serious potential to disturb regular functions. Each time it hits the center ball you get a memory, or a motor dysfunction, or even a cognition fault.

This gives you an idea of what it looks like when there is a particle near the synapse disturbing, absorbing and disrupting normal electrostatic functions. Every time it hits the ball in the center it would represent the particles direct influence over those charges.

@DiedSuddenly_ This video is a basic break down of what your synapse is doing in regard to atomic bonding during a chemical exchange through the electrostatic charges in the synaptic functions.

@battleforeurope Has anyone asked Putin if he even has a bot army? I bet he doesn't, I also bet if you give Putin the GPS coordinates, and they are in Russia he will go shut them down only to find they are from another place all together. @KremlinRussia_E

@toobaffled The grievance is without consent and against religious practice, violation of religious practice, constitutionally they must uphold it as "redress of grievance."

@GeneralMCNews I am reading: Mossad agents disguised as Iranian operatives are...