TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@OKeefeMedia - O’Keefe Media Group
“An 8th Amendment violation of cruel and unusual punishment” - @megynkelly covers OMG’s new report inside the Washington Correctional Center for Women
Video Transcript AI Summary
Female prisoners are being forced to live with sex offenders who identify as female, resulting in instances of rape. This issue is often overlooked because people dismiss prisoners as criminals. However, a lawyer argued that this violates the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Many of these women have committed non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses. Despite this, they are placed in cells with male sex offenders who claim to be female, leading to sexual assault. Unfortunately, there is a lack of concern for this problem.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Few few people are talking about what's happening to the female prisoners who are literally forced to live their lives with sex offenders who have declared themselves female 2 minutes ago who are now coming into the prisons and raping these women. I think people ignore this because they're like, oh, they're prisoners. They're criminals. Okay. Whatever.
It's sad, but move on. No. These women, I I saw a lawyer arguing, and I she convinced me that this is an 8th Amendment violation of cruel and unusual punishment. You take a woman who committed a crime, These aren't always violent crimes that these women commit. Usually, they're not.
Maybe it's a drug crime, something like that. They have to go behind bars, and then you make them share a cell with a male sex offender who's convinced the authorities in places like Washington State where you did your expose that they're actually female, and then they get raped. And no one seems to care.
@William_E_Wolfe - William Wolfe 🇺🇸
The Obergefell decision “legislated morality” from the Supreme Court bench. And this is what that “morality” looks like. https://twitter.com/RebsBrannon/status/1673046146682347520/video/1 https://t.co/9FsTWtNNSX
@4Mischief - • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •
HILARIOUS: Congressman Troy Nehls (Rep-TX) questions Attorney General Merrick Garland and cuts him off every time he starts to lie
Video Transcript AI Summary
A confidential human source is someone who provides useful and credible information to the FBI and is expected to provide more in the future. They are paid $42 million a year. The speaker questions the credibility of these sources and then discusses Hunter Biden's involvement with a corrupt Ukrainian energy company called Burisma. The speaker mentions a document called FD 10/23, which states that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to protect them through his father. The speaker also brings up Victor Shokin, the prosecutor overseeing corruption in Ukraine, who was fired after Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. The speaker accuses Joe Biden of bribery and calls for action to be taken.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is a confidential human source? Well, it's a it's an FBI term. I don't know all the technicality, but it's not. Let me define it for you. It's in your own policy here.
An individual who is believed to be providing useful and credible information to the FBI From any authorized information collection activity and from whom what the FBI expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information in the future, All right. And whose identity, information or relationship with the FBI warrants confidential handling. So these guys are individuals. You pay them $42,000,000 a year. Did you know that?
The IG said you're paying these sources $42,000,000 a year. Did you know that? I know informants are paid. It's $42,000,000 a year. So do you believe that they're credible?
They're valuable. The FBI is using these guys. We're paying them a lot of money. Would you agree with that? I agree.
Some are more credible. So they're credible than I am. Them a lot of money. You got lot of them out there. So let me paint the picture for America.
Hunter Biden joins Burisma in 2014. Burisma, very, very corrupt Ukrainian energy company. He he has no experience in oil and gas, he admits it. I don't have any experience. I know why I'm there.
I have a dad. I have with me a document called the FD 10/23. Have you seen this? You're familiar with it? Okay.
It's used by the FBI, everybody in America. It's used by the FBI. It is a confidential human source reporting document it's dated June 2020. You're familiar with it. In this document, the FBI's confidential human score says Burisma, now the corrupt company, it's needed to keep Hunter on the board so everything would be okay.
And according to The Human Source, they hired Hunter Biden to, quote, it's protect us through his dad for all kinds of problems. Mr. Gardalind, does that concern you? Okay. It should.
I got limited time. Remember, your sources are credible, trustworthy, honest and valuable. Are you familiar with Victor Shokin? The document that you're. Who is mister Victor Shokin?
So I got 3 minutes left. You want me to answer that? Yeah. Victor Shokin. Who is he?
I don't know. Do you want me to first ask? Okay. He's the prosecutor, folks. He's the prosecutor that was he oversees all the corruption in Ukraine.
We know there's corruption over there. For the American people watching, after a few months, a few months after Hunter Biden joined the PRISMA board, Viktor Shulkin was named it's prosecutor general for Ukraine to target corruption. And one of his investigations was into Burisma. It's In this FD 10/23 document, the human source clarified that Burisma's CEO, the man in charge of Burisma, said it's He has many text messages and recordings that show he was coerced to make such payment to ensure Victor Shokin was fired. Matter of fact, there was 17 of them.
It's Mister Garland, it's clear. Joe Biden wanted choke and fired so he would stop looking into Burisma, where Hunter was on the board. Would you agree? It does. All right.
Let's let the American people decide. Play the clip. Play the clip.
Speaker 1: Remember going over convincing our team, our others it's too convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kyiv And I was supposed to announce that there is another $1,000,000,000 loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Pay attention, sir, please. That they would take action against a state prosecutor, and they didn't. So they said they had they're walking out to press conferences, and I said, no.
I said, I'm not getting We're not going to give you the $1,000,000,000. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said, I said, call them. I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting $1,000,000,000.
I said, you're not getting $1,000,000,000, I'm going to be leaving here, I think it was about 6 hours. I look at, I said, I'm leaving in 6 hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch. Got fired.
And they put in place someone
Speaker 0: who worries? Mister attorney general, what you just saw, there was Joe Biden, in his arrogance and role as the vice president in this country, it's saying if you don't fire Shokin, the United States isn't given the $1,000,000,000 loan. Why would Joe Biden say that as the vice president? Why would he say such a thing? Was it policy?
Was it our policy at the time? Yes or no? It wasn't. I have documents here. Interagency policy It's a committee dated a quick report.
Is the gentleman ever going to let this. I'm on my time pipe down saying Shokin had made significant reforms. I'm the longest to reach Texas. He's made significant reforms, Shokin did. Matter of fact, John Kerry says he was impressive.
And, you know, within a few months after Shokin was fired, they appoint a prosecutor that said, we're not gonna look in the Burisma anymore. Cancel it. Forget it. We're not looking in the Burisma. Boom.
Here comes the $1,000,000. It's Joe Biden threatened the Ukrainian president and the prime minister. Everybody can see it. The fire's shrokin or the United States won't give the $1,000,000,000. If that it's not quid pro quo, sir.
What is? I will tell you what it is and America agrees with me. It's bribery and it's impeachable. Are you going to do something about it? I bet you're not.
And that's why you, sir, also need to be impeached.
@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
Judge Millett sounds like someone at a bar at the end of the night playing lawyer holy hell https://t.co/zy2NJWMiSO
Video Transcript AI Summary
Former Vice President Mike Pence is scheduled to testify, and the night before his testimony, the defendant tweets, "Mike Pence can still fix this. Mike Pence can still do the right thing if he says the right stuff tomorrow." The question is whether this tweet counts as communication with a witness. The response is that it depends on the context. If it's just a statement of political speech on social media, it's likely not considered communication. The district court can only prohibit it if there is compelling evidence of an actual threat to the administration of justice. There can't be a blanket rule prohibiting any mention of Mike Pence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To be clear, you're fucking up for one of me about who the perspective of what it says in this case are. But, it's let's assume, former vice president Mike Pence is gonna testify, and it's the night before his testimony. Can the defendant tweet out, it. Mike Pence can still fix this. Mike Pence can still do the right thing it if he says the right stuff tomorrow.
Speaker 1: That would be more problematic than the statements we have in the record. However, you should weigh the fact that is there any reasonable prospect of influencing former vice president Pence's testimony? Nobody contends that I need to
Speaker 0: So, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I do not because of it. So, you're right. I was not specific enough.
1st, it. Does that count as a communication to a witness?
Speaker 1: Again, I I would give the answers. I know we we we had a discussion this before. I'd give the answer to you but Depending on context.
Speaker 0: It's tweeted out. Like, I've told you the that is the full text of the tweet and it's tweeted out on his social media
Speaker 1: Was he responding to something that Vice President Pence said? Or is it It is the night.
Speaker 0: This is the sum total of Facts you're not going to find anymore. You're not going to get any more context. This is it. The night before, he's scheduled to past effect. Well, I'll give you one more fact.
It's public record that he is testifying the next day and that message goes out. It. Is that is that first of all, is that communicating with the witness? If it's In violation of the release conditions. This.
Speaker 1: If it's just broadcasting a statement of core political speech on social media, likely not.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is that something that the district court it. Could prohibit consistent with your First Amendment test.
Speaker 1: Only if it was based on compelling evidentiary showing an actual threat to No. The administration of justice.
Speaker 0: No more showing. She's the district court hearings happen. No. No. No.
So if if I So you're saying that if Mike Pence then calls in sick the next day, sorry, laryngitis can't testify, then we can say you can't host about Mike Pence. It. That that can't be the test. So you're saying there's no prophylactic rule. You're saying that doesn't
@13NVESTR13 - Dr. Joker
The stakes are going up with the SCOTUS ruling. https://t.co/b8vXnDAUY9
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration regarding the sea wire barriers along the Texas-Mexico border. The speaker questions what will happen if the Biden administration tries to remove the barriers and Texas refuses. They mention the possibility of fines and imprisonment for National Guard members. Another speaker expresses concern about the loss of state sovereignty and the right to protect against invasion. They criticize the federal government's interference with the National Guard and compare the situation to North Korea. They call on Americans to take action and question what rights will be taken next. The speaker concludes by stating that all five Supreme Court justices who voted in favor should be arrested.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is it y'all. Supreme Court rules for Biden administration and the Texas border dispute. This ruling was on Monday, 22nd, today, about an hour ago, 3:30 Eastern Standard Time. It's covered by every news channel. Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Monday in a dispute over sea wire barriers erected by Texas along the Mexican border.
So what's next? What happens when they go to march in there and cut down these sea wires and Greg Abbott and his national guard says, you're not doing it? So are they gonna use that imprisonment and those fines that they talked about? No more than 5,000 or no more than 3 years in prison? For the National Guard members,
Speaker 1: They have just taken your sovereignty at the state level. Let that sink in for a moment. You no longer have the right to protect yourself from invasion. This is it y'all. If we don't put our foot down, this is it.
We're gonna go down a very dangerous slope very fast. I'm a say it a little louder for y'all in the back. At the state level, the right to protect yourself from invasion, gone. What is the point of a National Guard in every state if the governor cannot use them without the feds stepping in and stripping away those rights 1 by 1? Starting to look more and more like North Korea every single day.
It is up to us as Americans, as patriots, as mothers and fathers, as civilians and veterans alike. The future of this country is in our hands. What are they gonna take next? What are they gonna take next? A 5 to 4 vote.
All 5
Speaker 0: of those supreme justices should be arrested, Thus always to tyrants. That's what y'all are.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
BREAKING VIDEO: Supreme Court Justice Jackson Caught Lying About Trump In Open Court https://t.co/R03ooqSMGV
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the events on January 6th did not qualify as an insurrection, according to the petitioner's supporters. The argument made was that there was no organized attempt to overthrow the government through violence. The events were described as a riot, shameful, criminal, and violent, but not meeting the criteria of an insurrection. President Trump's lawyers emphasized that he did not engage in any act that could be characterized as an insurrection. Trump himself spoke about the Supreme Court and presidential immunity, expressing concerns about the current administration's handling of various issues, including the border and foreign relations. He also criticized the media and highlighted victories against tyranny in Canada.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner supporters, in this case to halt the count, on January 6th qualified as an insurrection, as defined by section 3. And I read your opening brief to accept, that those events counted as an insurrection. But then your reply seemed to suggest that they were not. So What what is your position as to that?
Speaker 1: We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection. What we said in our opening brief was president Trump Did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized as insurrection.
Speaker 0: Alright. So why would it not be an inter what is your argument that it's not? Your reply brief says that it wasn't because I think you say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government.
Speaker 1: So that's one of many reasons. But for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. And this
Speaker 0: At some point, is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government? It's not an insurrection?
Speaker 1: No. We didn't concede that it's an effort to overthrow the government either, Miss Jackson, right, none of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but it did not qualify As that term is used in section 3.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Because thanks. Thank you, counsel. Thank you.
Speaker 2: You could take that Clip and teach a 2 year college course on it.
Speaker 1: While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Visitinfowars.comforward/showandsharethelinktoday.
Speaker 2: By the way, Trump's speaking live At Mar a Lago about the Supreme Court and presidential immunity, here it is.
Speaker 3: Mister CEO, nice place. I just finished watching k. The Supreme Court, it was a beautiful thing to watch in many respects. It's unfortunate that we have to go through a thing like that. I consider it to be more election interference by the Democrats as what they're doing.
The good news is we're leading virtually every vote. We're leading, the I don't even know if we have anymore. I'm not sure that we even have a Republican candidate, somebody running but not making any impact. So as you know, we On Iowa, we won New Hampshire in records, and each won a record. We think we're gonna do very well.
I'm heading out right now to Nevada for the caucus and, the caucuses, and, I think we're gonna do very well there. All polls indicate They were in the nineties, maybe more than the nineties. We certainly did well in a primary that didn't matter. They voted Very nicely, and we have tremendous support from the people of our country. They hate what's happening at the border.
They hate what's happening. Just generally, we're not a respected country anymore. We're laughed at all over the world, they're laughing at us, and they hate what's happening. They hate seeing it. They love our country.
They want it to come back, and we're gonna do that. If you think about it, had the The results of the election have the Ukrainian situation with Russia. You wouldn't have had you would not have had an attack on Israel, which was so horrible. You, would not have had inflation. You wouldn't have China talking about Taiwan.
You wouldn't have any of the problems that we have today. And you certainly had a a broke Iran, and now you have a very rich Iran. Iran was broke when I left. They had no money to give to Hamas. They had no money to give to Hezbollah, they're now they were now they have 200,000,000,000 plus as you probably know, people don't like to admit it, they certainly control Iraq, And Iraq has another 300,000,000,000.
They have a very a very rich group of comp of countries. And, as you know, Iraq should have never happened. That was a balance against Iran, and we blew out the balance. And now Iran has essentially Iraq. And the wreck doesn't like saying that, but that's the way it is.
And, it's a shame. The world is in tremendous danger. We're in danger of possibly a World War 3. And we have a man who's absolutely the worst president in the history of our country. He can't put 2 sentences together.
He's not gonna be able to negotiate with Putin or Xi Well, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, not gonna be able to negotiate with anybody. All he knows how to do is drop bombs all over the place, It's meaningless bombs, except they kill a lot of people. It costs a lot of money. Every time you see a bomb, it's another $1,000,000, And it actually sets us back. We have peace through strength.
This should not be happening. The Middle East is blowing up. It's blowing up. A lot of people are being killed, and it's so unnecessary. So I just say that, in watching the Supreme Court today, I thought it was very it's a very beautiful process.
I hope that democracy in this country will continue. And because right now, we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas with the weaponization Of, politics, they weaponized it like it's never been weaponized before. It's totally illegal, but they do it anyway, and it has to stop. Every one of the court cases that I'm involved, every single one civil, whether it's the attorney generals or the district Attorneys, you look at Fani in Georgia. They had many meetings with the White House and with the DOJ.
They went there, 8 hour meeting. That was all staged. That was a phony hoax. And now you look at it, and it is a phony hoax. And, Hopefully, that case will be dismissed in short order.
It's a it's a disgrace to this country. But they work together with the justice department at the White House, and Not supposed to do that. Every one of these cases you see comes out of the White House. It comes out of Biden. It's election interference, and it's really very sad.
I thought the presentation today was a very good one. I think it was well received. I hope it was well received. We have millions of people that are out there wanting to vote, and they happen to wanna vote for me or the Republican party or whatever you wanna however you wanna phrase it. But I'm the one running, and we are leading in every poll.
We're leading in the, local polls, in the state polls, and we're leading in the swing state polls, And we're leading very big in the national poll, so it's been a very great honor. We love the country. I think the reason we have Such big leads, frankly, is that they loved 4 years of us compared to the 3 years plus the 3 years that They've gone with Biden. We have open borders. You have crime.
Nobody's ever seen crime like this, what's happened. And now the crime is being committed much of it by the migrants that have come in illegally to our country. I was wondering about that. I said, you know, a lot of these people come out of jails. They come out of mental institutions.
They come out of places that you don't wanna know about. We don't even know where they come from. We don't know who they are, where they are. They're being dumped in from mental institutions, from prisons and jails, and many terrorists are coming into our country. We're gonna be paying a big price.
They have to stop it. They have to close the border. By the way, the president can do it just by saying I want the border closed. I closed the border. We have the safest border in the history of our country.
Now we The most unsafe border in the history of the world. There's never been a a country with a border like this, not even a third world country. So, we are, Again, we're going out to Nevada right now. We'll be out there. Some of you are gonna be out there with us.
Otherwise, your colleagues will be. And hopefully, we're gonna have a big night Caucus tonight, we're gonna have the very big night. We expect to have a very big night. The Virgin Islands, as you know, are also very much play today, so we'll be hearing about them sometime during the day or later on in the evening. And it's an honor to have you at Mar a Lago.
I hope you like it. It's worth a little more than $18,000,000 is another case. He it says worth $18,000,000. I said, which Which cabinet are we talking about? This cabinet.
That's the kind of that's the kind of justice we have when they say that to try and build up a case. That was a shame. But they gave up so much. When they said that, they gave up so much that Mar a Lago's worth $18,000,000. They had it appraised For, as you know, 50 to a 100 times that amount.
And we have a judge, and that's what he said. And he's supposed to be ruling on me, But who knows? Maybe he'll be fair. I doubt it. But maybe he'll be fair.
So I wanna thank everybody. And by the way, we proved that case a 100% 5 times over. That case is a 100% proven, 5 times over. We've never seen anything like it. He just wouldn't dismiss it.
No matter what, shouldn't it be there? It should've been in the commercial division. Anyway, it's an honor to have you. I look forward to having you again, and I'll probably see you out in Nevada. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: The US Supreme Court is said to be broadly skeptical in early reporting about the effort to try and kick you off Without if Kevin said that, they'll speak to the argument, legal and otherwise, that it was attractive to make leading up to the day. And it's a party that it was given voice by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader not won. Alright.
Speaker 3: I got There's no question. Yeah. I got the gist.
Speaker 4: President Trump is fighting Yes. And morally responsible for provoking the events of the He
Speaker 3: doesn't say that anymore. So let me just Tell you that I heard and I watched. And the one thing I'll say is they kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection.
Speaker 2: Alright, folks. That's that's the number of the Trump press conference. If he says anything else, we'll, the way things support, and we'll get up there. You can go watch it on C SPAN if you want. Alright.
Look. You know, I I should probably tell you what we have set up on the show today. Obviously, At 3 PM, Owens Royer starts the war room. I'm gonna be cohosting with him, for part of the show. I'll definitely be in studio by 4 PM in the lead up to 5 PM CST when the Tucker interview drops, And we're gonna be posting it, streaming it out as well.
And when it's over, we will give our commentary and analysis, and, obviously, we'll open the phones up tomorrow. We'll do a spaces tomorrow on the Friday show. I'll obviously come and do a whole Saturday show on this. It's so historic. There's so many angles to it.
But in big news, This is what we got coming up. Ezra Levant of Rebel Media has so much to say about some big victories against tyranny in Canada with the farmers And the truck drivers, but the government backing off the euthanizing mentally ill people, which are wards the states. That's the state actually killing you, not just Euthanasia, you're you're not choosing it. We knew that's where it was going. So much with with Ezra Levant also get his take on Tucker.
Just all the incredible things happening. He's a first rate brain. And then Anthony Rubin is on track to be the next Veritas. And and, of course, nobody's in competition nobody's in competition with James O'Keefe, but he just keeps slaying it. He got incredible videos inside the illegal alien camps in New York.
Drew Hernandez, for InfoWars, got camps 6 miles inside the United States, run by the UN, funded by them with the illegal aliens, that was beyond bombshell. And then project Veritas as well yesterday Dropped an infiltration of a giant illegal alien center and all the abuse and rape and stabbings and criminal activity happening there. So this is beautiful. And that's what I keep saying. We need to focus on the illegal alien centers.
We got major sources inside the Walmarts, In Texas, where they're holding small children by the 100 per Walmart, some over a1000, and that's We'll let everybody know, and we'll let the enemy know because that's our next target, and we've got sources. And we know People that work in there don't like what's happening. So even when they move them, when we go, we'll go right with the rep. So I'm letting the enemy know. We know.
That's really shaken them up with the incredible criminal activity they're involved in and all the abuse going on. And they brag In Texas, in California, in New York, in New Jersey, in Illinois. Oh, we get masses of money off these people. We don't care about them. We basically don't starve.
Yeah. We just basically sign them up and get their welfare. I told you that. Same thing's done in Europe. So they farm these people.
They don't want them to just vote. They don't want them They want them as a permanent underclass for factory labor, sex slavery. And then whatever they make, a big slice goes to the NGOs. To the NGOs that are just the modern UN name, nongovernmental organization of the social justice warrior Community organizer crap. The domestic security force, just as big and just as strong as our military.
That's that's the bureaucratic army. Oh, we're gonna defund the police and give at least half the money to social workers. Now social workers are some are good, some are bad, but they're Come a tool of the globalist. But this is NGOs, not even governmental social workers. No oversight.
Getting massive amounts of taxpayer and Funding and and grants and all the rest of it. And and it's a business that's designed to expand and make the whole country dependent on them. It's Ploward and Piven taken to the max, a plan to collapse Western countries, which Klaus Schwab says, an angrier, Collapsed post industrial world, the great reset to destroy society, to build back better. This is tyranny, making you domesticated, making you totally dependent. That's their admitted battle plan.
And the great society, what they did with black people in the sixties is a microcosm. LBJ wrote a bunch of letters saying, these n words are uppity. While they're just as wealthy as the white middle class, they're getting totally independent. That which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. As Nietzsche said, not defending segregation or Jim Crow, But black communities had their own doctors, their own lawyers, their own colleges, their own hotels, Their own laundry mats, their own restaurants, their own country clubs, everything.
And black illegitimacy was at the same level or lower than white in the fifties and forties. Now it's like 80%, and they had CIA weaponized gangster rap put in there, And now they've destroyed the black community. I mean, the the they're destroying everybody. They really destroyed them. Wrecked them.
A lot of black folks have survived it, but You gotta admire them. But when we talk about mind control, take them out of the house, make gangster thugs, their dads, their images, so they'll then be inducted into gangs, Show them that it's cool to work with gangsters on the TV, on MTV, on the radio that have real gangs there, funded by the CIA, To be their father figure in a pipeline right to prison. And now generations and generations have been trained in prison, So you gotta lock the white thugs, the Hispanic thugs, the black thugs up because they're running around murdering and killing. But now, oh, no. George Soros won't even charge those groups To let them know that you even got more power to further destabilize things.
This is an exact plan, an admitted plan, A cold blooded plan. Here's a short clip out of the Supreme Court that Trump was just talking about. They went to lunch, so he came out and covered it. There's a bunch of these clips, but, here's Trump, and and and and here's one of the Democrat justices, Jackson, Trying to misrepresent what presidential immunity is. Here it is.
Speaker 0: Alright. Final question. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner supporters, in this case to halt the count, on January 6th qualified as an insurrection, as defined by section 3. And I read your opening brief to except, that those events counted as an insurrection. But then your reply seemed to suggest that they were not.
So What what is your position as to that?
Speaker 1: We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection. What we said in our opening brief was president Trump Did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized as an insurrector.
Speaker 0: So why would it not be an what is your argument that it's not? Your reply brief says that it wasn't because I think you say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government.
Speaker 1: So That's one of many reasons. But for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. And this
Speaker 0: And so the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government? It's not an insurrection?
Speaker 1: No. We didn't concede that it's an effort to overthrow the government either, justice Jackson. Right. None of these criteria were met. This was a riot.
It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section 3.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Because thanks. Thank you, counsel. Thank you.
Speaker 2: You could take that clip and teach a 2 year college course on it. Supreme Court justice Jackson knows Trump wasn't convicted, knows no one was or even charged, Knows no one else was charged for that insurrection. And then she's saying, is the president above the law? Is he allowed to have an insurrection? He goes, there was no insurrection.
You call it that on the news. You say that over and over again, But it didn't happen. So you're saying, is he above the law for his insurrection? The whole preface is a lie. And the same thing's been going on like with the Gene Carroll kangaroo cases in New York.
The jury finds he never raped her, As she said, but we think he grabbed her by the vagina. Well, that's a criminal issue. So because he said, I'm innocent. He owes $5,000,000. Since when do you not say you're innocent?
Even you're caught with dead bodies in the back of your truck and and Polaroids, and you're killing them. And then he says again, I'm innocent. So another kangaroo jury's told he's guilty by the judge. You must find him guilty now. 83,000,000.
So the jury says, you know, it's not their right to do 25 years later. Oh, he didn't rape her. Okay. Well, he said I didn't rape her. But you did pinch her and with no evidence of that.
No witnesses came and say what month that happened because she knows he can Then find where he was somewhere else, might be in Scotland, might have been in Mar a Lago. This is sick, folks. And I've been through it myself at these kangaroo trials When the judge finds you guilty, controls what info can be brought out, people ask why aren't your lawyers asking questions, they're told you're going to jail in contempt. You're gonna pay fines. They find me in contempt $1,100,000 that came from free speech systems and almost closed the doors because We ask questions in those show trials.
And you go, mister Jones' lawyers are retarded. I mean, they're not they're given full lists. One of my lawyers was saying shit. 100 of 1,000, the other 100 of 1,000. They had to pay.
Because they said things the judge said they're not allowed to say. And in these Congregate trials with with Trump, many cases, not even juries. The real estate case, They give you a list of things you can't say. That's in the news. And when I when people saw that happen to me, they're like, is that possible?
Yeah. It's possible. It's not just possible. It's the new thing they do. Oh, by the way, you can't hear what Vladimir Putin has to say either because he's running America.
And anybody that doesn't like being raped by the government, anybody doesn't like having their rights taken or elections stolen, well, you're getting orders. Oh, hold on. Oh, Putin, what do I say? Oh, yes, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, we're in a war against the globalist, and people can't identify Who's a patron who isn't?
We wanna identify as prohuman and anti globalist. We wanna let people know we're 1776 part 2. That's why I designed this amazing 1776 red, white, and blue Gadsden flag shirt so you can support the info war and meet like minded people when you wear it. When you wear these shirts, it creates an amazing amount of energy, and it's quite the adventure. So get your 1776 shirt right now atinfowarsstore.com.
And get your team humanity Infowars limited edition shirt right now at infowarsstore.com. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Anithetical, the complete opposite, what the globalists are pushing. So get both the team humanity and the 1776 Gadsden snake shirts edition@infowarsstore.com right now. Spread the word. Meet like minded people and fund the 17/76 Revolution worldwide.
reSee.it AI Summary
Comedian John Oliver offers Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million to step down. It highlights desperation to save oneself. The posts inquire about the SCOTUS judge and who Donald Trump will appeal his case to. Keep an eye on C. Thomas.
@Prolotario1 - Ariel
Do you know the real reason Comedian John Oliver is offering Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 1 million to remove himself off the Supreme Court? Do you see how desperate these people are to save themselves? It's a tongue & cheek joke until it's not. Who is the SCOTUS Judge for the Supreme Court? Who is Donald Trump going to appeal his case to? Remember, I told you all to watch C. Thomas. https://youtu.be/Ju_r41rCP00?si=Tr9mEAAXEfr_IeS6
@Xx17965797N - Truthseeker
MURDER BY INJECTION https://t.co/woMXzNansb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Today, we'll discuss the war on natural remedies. The AMA formed the Committee on Quackery in 1963, leading federal agents to arrest those selling vitamins and supplements. Independent health practitioners faced persecution by the AMA, American Cancer Society, and Arthritis Foundation. People were jailed for herbal formulas, while harmful drugs were freely distributed. The Rockefeller Medical Monopoly funded these aggressive actions, targeting elderly women for selling herbal teas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So today, we're gonna talk about the war on natural remedies. This is a really interesting book. Let me show you something. So the AMA, you guys know that, created the Committee on Quackery on 1963. It was one of the most massive and well planned ruthless operations in which federal agents were engaging.
They would arrest people for selling vitamins and supplements. Think about that. So it was a war against independent health practitioners. And who was making the decisions? The AMA, the American Cancer Society, and the Arthritis Foundation.
People were getting in trouble by the post office, department of justice, and the FDA for herbal formulas, received heavy fines and prison sentences. Imagine going to jail for selling some basil. Meanwhile, they were selling drugs to people every single day, which produce extensive side effects such as kidney damage, liver damage, and death. At night, in groups of heavily armed SWAT teams, the federal agents broke down doors to capture elderly women and their stocks of herbal teas. Who was this funded by?
The Rockefeller Medical Monopoly.
@Jules31415 - Julia 🇺🇸
Merrick Garland claims the appointment of Jack Smith was constitutional: "Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don't think so." https://t.co/1NXkMSPGNx
Video Transcript AI Summary
I disagree with the ruling that the justice department's process for picking special counsels is illegal. We believe it is constitutional and have appealed the decision. This process has been used for decades, including in previous administrations, and has been upheld by every court that has reviewed it, including the Supreme Court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Judge Eileen Cannon ruled that the way the justice department has been picking special counsels for decades is illegal, unconstitutional. Why do you disagree with that?
Speaker 1: Look. I, as you well know, I picked this, room for this interview. This is my favorite room in the justice department. It's a law library. For more than 20 years, I was a federal judge.
Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law? I I don't think so. Our position is that it's constitutional and valid. That's why we appealed. I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel, as was followed in the previous administration and the special counsel Durham and special counsel Mueller, in multiple, special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate, and the special prosecutor in that case, till now, every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.
@45mx_7 - Maximus
High-ranking government sources said that the Sheriff who shot and killed a Kentucky judge did so because the Judge was raping the Sheriff's underage daughter. https://t.co/3k8iRCzlpP
Video Transcript AI Summary
A man expresses enthusiastic support for a sheriff who allegedly shot a judge. He states this event is "the greatest thing that's happened to me in 25 years."
He claims he wouldn't ask permission before taking action and is not afraid of jail. He says he would change someone's "trajectory on this fucking planet" if they touched his daughters, which is what he claims the sheriff did because the judge was molesting his daughter. The man says the sheriff "blew his shit away" in his office.
He declares he is "100% a full on advocate of public execution of pedophiles."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Baby, I can't get over this sheriff shooting this judge, dude. This is the greatest thing that's happened to me in 25 years. I love this shit. Keep keep keep harming people's children. Hey.
Some of these old boys out here, see, that's that's that's some of Michael's shit. That's some shit I do right there. I wouldn't ask permission. I wouldn't talk shit. I wouldn't ask you to arrest nobody.
Just go handle business. Fuck that cell. Got toothbrush deodorant and shit in the glove box. Ain't scared to go. Can live there the rest of my life if I have to.
You touch one of my girls, I'm fixing to change your trajectory on this fucking plant planet, and that's what this sheriff did. Judge is molesting his daughter. Sheriff went to town, walked in his office, and blew his shit away. Oorah, motherfucker. I don't care how any of y'all feel about it.
I am 100% a full on advocate of public execution of pedophiles. How you like me now?
@AlexBerenson - Alex Berenson
Do we get to admit George Floyd probably just OD’d now, or is that still off the table? It’s cool either way, just wondering where we stand on the public honesty stuff https://t.co/2UdS9VC6Qt
@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo
🇺🇸🚨‼️ VIDEO OF THE EXECUTION OF THE UNITEDHEALTHCARE CEO Crazy! https://t.co/tbndUsvRAE
@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo
🇺🇸 UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson's attacker seen in surveillance footage as cops launch urgent manhunt https://t.co/bVoRd4zW5i
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
That’s the thing about being under oath. It forces you to speak the truth. https://t.co/KdDtXfQTQf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Designing a clinical trial for a vaccine given to children under 18 months to determine if it causes autism requires a long follow-up period. Autism is typically diagnosed within the first two years, and many theories suggest it is a prenatal condition. Vaccine trials usually have a follow-up period of about a year. The number of children needed in trials to detect autism is unclear, but larger sample sizes are necessary for rare events. The trials for vaccines like MMR were likely not designed to assess autism risk adequately. A longer follow-up period and larger sample sizes would be needed to capture enough cases. Ultimately, the trials did not sufficiently rule out a link between vaccines and autism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you're going to, design a clinical trial of a vaccine given to children 18 months or younger, how long would that clinical trial need to be to determine whether the vaccine caused autism?
Speaker 1: The, in general, the, autism is is is generally diagnosed somewhere within the first couple years of life, and, and I think maybe the meantime is about 2 years depending upon the severity. So I think that that, however, I think that that most of the going theories would suggest that that autism is is really a prenatal event and not a an event that happens after the child is born. So I think that that that what you're asking me is a little bit of a loaded question and, and, so I will end I will ask you or I will answer in that, that the that the vaccine trials that are that are conducted always have a tail of about a year that is required for, for the manufacturers to follow the patients.
Speaker 0: For the vaccines licensed, you know, by the year by the year 2000, how many children would you estimate need to be in those clinical trials to detect whether the vaccine caused autism by 18 months, and how long would the trial need to, continue after 18 months of age? I
Speaker 1: I can't give you those numbers off the top of my head, exactly how they would be. And, I think that that, I think one of the you know, when you have an a rare event, although, you know, autism is now felt to be about 1.5 percent of the population, when you have a rare event, and particularly when it was it it might have been more difficult to diagnose earlier, in an earlier time, then then I think it takes larger numbers, but I can't give you that number.
Speaker 0: About clinical trials. Would you agree with me that the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines given to for Yates were not designed to determine whether these products cause autism when given to an infant or toddler at or below the age of 18 months?
Speaker 1: I think those those trials were likely not powered to answer that question. I don't recall, the actual number that were enrolled in the, in the MMR vaccine trials, and and so I can't I can't say that definitively, that, you know, but but I would trust that it likely was not large enough, and that's why large database studies are are needed to to really assess that in in a phase 4 assessment.
Speaker 0: So it sounds like, you know, you would agree there weren't. They probably, as you said, are unlikely to be properly powered, and they would have needed to review safety long enough as well, to determine to capture enough children in the experimental and control group that had or didn't have autism in order to make an assessment whether the product caused autism. Correct?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. If an adverse event were to occur associated with vaccines, that if it were an uncommon event and if it were if it was not diagnosed until later, then you would need a larger number of sample size and a longer period to assess that. I am not saying, however, by answering yes to your questions that I believe autism that vaccines cause autism. So I just wanna make sure that you understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 0: Never asked that question. Absolutely. I think the record's clear on that. How long would safety have to be tracked in the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccine the ACE received in order for them to have determined whether the vaccine caused autism. Object to form the question.
You may answer, doctor, if you have any
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna answer it. I've already answered the question.
Speaker 0: I I don't recall that you have not provided any period of time. Are you saying you don't know the period
Speaker 1: of time? Said
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 1: I said that the studies that were involved in the licensure of MMR did not provide an adequate number of patients that had been followed for for 4 years to determine the, the a rare event that would happen 4 years after vaccination. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 0: According to your profile, you have done most of the credible trials relied upon to license many of the vaccines, correct, on the market?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: K. So you're highly experienced conducting clinical trials. Correct?
Speaker 1: I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials.
Speaker 0: K. And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that rely upon to license many of the vaccines currently on the market. Correct?
Speaker 1: I am. K.
Speaker 0: In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Gates received, many of which are still on the market today? Were they designed to rule out that the vaccine causes autism?
Speaker 1: No. You badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I I think that, that that I've that's probably the answer.
Speaker 0: Is is it is that your accurate and truthful testimony?
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you.
@ShadowofEzra - Shadow of Ezra
Idaho lawmakers have advanced a bill to make a firing squad the state’s primary method of execution. If passed into law, Idaho could become the only state to have death by firing squad as the primary death penalty method. All nine House Democrats opposed the bill. https://t.co/gpqbz9yQLt
Video Transcript AI Summary
Idaho recently passed a bill making firing squads the primary execution method. Utah is the only US state with practical historical use of firing squads. Their procedure involves a bulletproof execution chamber. The inmate, strapped to a chair with a target on their chest, is positioned between two witness chambers—one for the public, one for officials. The firing squad, armed with pre-loaded rifles, enters. Their rifle muzzles are aligned through slits, and on command, they simultaneously fire at the inmate's heart.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Idaho reinstated firing squads as a backup method of execution. That was back in 2023. But yesterday, the state house in Idaho passed a bill to make firing squads the method of choice. Take us through the mechanics and the protocols and just the step by step of death by firing squad.
Speaker 1: The, only state in The United States that has used a firing squad at all, practically speaking, in in historical records, state of Utah. The the procedure as outlined by the Utah Department of Corrections is pretty straightforward. The execution chamber is bulletproof all around. The inmate is strapped to the chair. The target is affixed on his chest, over the overlying the heart and the great vessel, the cardiovascular bundle.
To either side of the inmate, there are two witness chambers, with bulletproof glass. On the one side is the witnesses from, the public, and, on the other side are the, death house officials and personnel. Facing opposite the, individual and the chair are the firing squad themselves. They all troop into this chamber with rifles that have been preloaded by the captain. The rifle muzzles are poked through the slit, and on command, all five rifles are discharged simultaneously, with the aim point being the heart.
@its_The_Dr - Johnny Midnight ⚡️
Do you think Luigi Mangione deserves the Death Penalty? https://t.co/1QYxM9amw8
@IrishKat00 - Irish Kat❤️
Wow listen to this former litigation lawyer and the original intent of the constitution. https://t.co/ojQNCicE3E
Video Transcript AI Summary
Publius Hulda, a retired litigation attorney who writes on the original intent of the Constitution using the Federalist Papers, argues that the Supreme Court has ignored the Federalist Papers and the framers’ Constitution for two centuries. He contends the attorney general’s opinion raises questions but fails to cite article, section, and verse where Congress is authorized to restrict arms, asserting that when the Constitution was ratified, the federal government’s powers were enumerated and that there was no delegation of authority to restrict the people’s arms.
Hulda emphasizes that Article I, Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress for the national government, but he asserts that the framers did not grant Congress the power to restrict arms. He cites Federalist Paper No. 46 by James Madison to support the claim that the American people are armed so they can defend themselves, their communities, and their states from a potentially tyrannical federal government that oversteps constitutional limits. He cites specific constitutional text: Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and notes that Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, requiring every able-bodied male citizen aged 18 to 46 (excluding federal officers and employees) to buy a rifle, ammunition, and report to local militia training. He also references Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which he says authorizes letters of marque and reprisal, enabling privateers who conducted private warfare during conflicts such as the War of 1812.
Hulda asserts that the framers contemplated a heavily armed people and that the federal government was never authorized to restrict arms in any fashion. He claims that attempts to restrict arms represent usurpation of powers not possessed by the federal government. He criticizes the Attorney General for basing arguments on court opinions rather than the Constitution, arguing there is a vast gulf between the two. He references that there are 200 years’ worth of Supreme Court opinions and quotes Charles Evans Hughes saying that the Constitution means what the judges say it means, labeling this prevailing dogma as a lie and arguing it has led to a federal government no longer constrained by constitutional chains.
Hulda contends that the oath of office requires obedience to the Constitution, not to the Supreme Court, which he views as a creature of the Constitution and fully subject to its terms. He counters the AG’s claim that the Supreme Court is the exclusive and final authority on federal powers by noting that the framers anticipated corruption and lawlessness among judges. Therefore, Congress, the President, and the states possess checks on the Supreme Court. He cites Federalist No. 81, where Hamilton describes impeachment and removal as checks on lawless judges, and asserts the President’s oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to obey the Supreme Court. He references Madison’s Virginia Resolutions, which state that states, as the sovereign parties to the Constitution, are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution and may check all three branches, including the judiciary, by nullifying their acts if necessary. He notes he did not finish his argument and hopes to discuss the so-called nullification crisis of 1832 during questions. Speaker 0 thanks him for his comments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've got five minutes. If you would, please make sure your green light is on, and then state your name and title for the record. Thank you.
Speaker 1: It is on. My name is Publius Hulda. I'm a retired litigation attorney, and I write on the original intent of the constitution using the Federalist Papers. I do not go by supreme court opinions because for two hundred years, the supreme court has been ignoring the Federalist Papers and the constitution our framers given, and they have gone off on tangents of their own which have nothing to do with the constitution. The attorney general's opinion begs the question.
He states that states can't nullify acts of the federal government which are authorized by constitution. But then he completely fails to cite article section and verse, a clause where the constitution delegates to congress authority to restrict our arms. When we ratified the constitution, we created the federal government. We listed, enumerated every power we granted to our creature, the federal government. Article one, section eight, clauses one through 16 lists most of the powers we delegated to congress for the government for for the country at large.
We didn't put on our list that our creature could restrict our arms. We didn't delegate this power to congress because our framers wanted the American people to be heavily armed. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison write about this in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper number 46, James Madison writes why the American people are armed. It is so we can defend ourselves, our communities, and our states from the federal government in the event it becomes tyrannical and oversteps the constitutional limits on its powers.
In Article one, Section eight, Clause 16, pursuant to that, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 where they required every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 46 except for federal officers and employees to buy a rifle, ammunition, and report to their local militia for training. Pursuant to Article one, Section eight, clause 11, congress is authorized to issue letters of mark and reprisal. This is what authorizes private warships to make war on our enemies. These were the privateers who fired on British ships during the war of eighteen twelve. Our framers contemplated a people who were heavily armed.
That is why we never delegated to our creature authority to restrict our arms in any fashion whatsoever. And when the federal government attempts to do so, they are usurping powers which they do not possess. The attorney general goes by court opinions, not the constitution. There is a vast gulf between the two. We have 200 of supreme court opinions, and mister chairman very kindly shared some of these two hundred years of supreme court opinions, which have nothing to do with the constitution.
Charles Evans Hughes said over a hundred years ago, the constitution means what the judges say it means. That has been the prevailing dogma ever since and generations of lawyers have been indoctrinated with this lie. That is why we no longer have a federal government which is held down by the chains of a constitution. What we have is rule by five, five judges on the supreme court who claim the power to do whatever they want to us and our country. So today, we have two offices, what the constitution says and what the supreme court says.
Well, your oath of office requires you to obey the constitution, not the supreme court. The supreme court is merely a creature of this constitution and is completely subject to its terms. My third point, the AG asserts that the attorney general I'm sorry, that the supreme court is the exclusive and final authority on the extent of the powers of the federal government. But our framers knew that supreme court judges were as likely as anybody else to be corrupt, usurp powers, and act lawlessly. So congress, the president, and the states all have checks on the supreme court.
Hamilton shows in federalist number 81 that congress's check on lawless supreme lawless federal judges is to impeach them and remove them from office. The president has his oath of office as a check on the supreme court. The president's oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. It is not to obey the supreme court. The supreme court was not set up in our constitution as the superior branch of the federal government.
And then there's no need for me to well, Madison says in his report on the Virginia resolutions that it is a plain principle founded in common sense that the states as the sovereign parties to the constitution are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the constitution and that we may that the states may check all three branches of the federal government, not just they may check the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches by nullifying their acts. If the judicial branch connives with other branches in usurping powers, our constitution will be destroyed if we do not stop them. This is what James Madison said in his notes on nullify in his report on the Virginia resolution. Sorry I didn't have time to finish. I hope that during questions someone will ask me about the so called nullification crisis of eighteen thirty two.
Speaker 0: Thank thank you very much for your comments.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explored the dissenting opinions of Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and found them even more troubling than expected. Their argument suggests that laws discriminate based on sex, claiming treatments for diagnosable conditions are unjust. They liken it to a patient demanding chemotherapy without cancer, while they misrepresent medical facts. They reference WPATH, an organization discredited during oral arguments, and ignore critical points about puberty blockers and their implications. Despite winning the case, the judges' reliance on flawed logic raises serious concerns about their grasp of reality.
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
I did a deep dive into Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson's dissenting opinion. It's even worse than I expected. Follow this thread to see for yourself. 🧵
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
Their main argument is that the law discriminates on the basis of sex since there are certain medications that make boys look like boys, vice versa for girls. But that's insane. These treatments are meant for diagnosable pathologies in order to restore normal physiology. https://t.co/J2FwdesXIs
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
It would be like saying a patient without cancer but "identifies as having cancer" is being discriminated against because a doctor is refusing to give them chemotherapy. They have the audacity to claim the majority opinion "contorts logic" while they rely on anti-logic. https://t.co/beAmZmAsoP
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
They go on for quite some time as if they are certified, practicing doctors. They describe commonly treated endocrine pathologies and how hormones are used to treat these conditions. These genius legal minds are setting up a shifty play for their next move... https://t.co/jBpfRWgnPs
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
After their prolonged dissertation on basic endocrine pathology, they claim these hormones are used in children whose "gender identity is inconsistent with their sex identified at birth." This statement is sheer medical lunacy. It is not real. It has no basis in objective, observable reality. It has as much legitimacy as your local Voodoo witchdoctor - like using a rabbit's foot to treat a hemorrhaging carotid artery.
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
As if it couldn't get any crazier, they cite WPATH! This is the same organization whose legitimacy was completely decimated during the oral arguments. It's like relying on Purdue Pharma to justify the safety of Oxycontin to treat a mild headache. https://t.co/IPc3eI4Jim
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
Almost as if they did not pay attention to a single thing during the oral arguments, these Justices even repeat the thoroughly debunked WPATH talking point that puberty blockers merely "pause puberty." I guess they missed the part about puberty blockers causing infertility. https://t.co/IRpGATeKhl
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
The Justices then claim it is a matter of "life and death." Thus, it appears they also missed the part when Chase Strangio, the lead ACLU attorney, conceded to Justice Alito that "gender affirming care" actually has no impact on rates of completed suicide. This is like a Judge endorsing a guilty verdict in a murder case after finding out the victim is still alive.
@EithanHaim - Eithan Haim MD
After this their arguments progress even further into a tailspin of anti-logic and WPATH propaganda. And although we won this case, we should not fail to appreciate the severity of the situation. These Judges sit on the highest court in our country yet live in a reality informed by fantasy. This is not a good state of affairs.
@myhiddenvalue - Not A Number
"Brain death" is a lie they use for organ harvesting. https://t.co/Nhq0oWZkmW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Organs cannot be taken from cadavers because brain cells die within minutes of oxygen deprivation. A person is not dead if their heart is beating, they are metabolizing fluids, or having bowel movements. Brain death is a lie manufactured for eugenics, to facilitate organ harvesting.
The best organ donors are 30 years old, with a beating heart, circulation, and on a ventilator. The decision to take organs is made early, as treatment to preserve organs differs from life-saving treatment.
In the UK, everyone is an organ donor unless they opt out. When a 999 call is made, the system assesses the caller's medical history, tax contributions, and worth to determine if they receive life-saving treatment or are considered an organ donor. This system is eugenics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: First of all, you cannot take an organ from a dead body, from a cadaver. Within three minutes of no oxygen, you're going to start damaging brain cells, and within five minutes, you're gonna have cellular death. You have got to be alive to take your organs. That's the end of it. You're not dead.
There's no such thing as brain dead. Brain death. If your heart is beating, if you are metabolizing fluids, if you are metabolizing a liquid feed, a soya feed, which they give you and you're having bowel movements, you are not dead. You're not dead. It's a lie.
They're talking about the brain stem where you've got the hypothalamus, the center that controls your blood pressure, your heartbeat, but the rest, you're not dead. It's a lie. It was a lie that was manufactured so that they could do their eugenics, taking organs from one person to the next. Who makes the best organ donor? 30 with a beating heart, a circulation, and ideally on a ventilator.
When is the decision made to take your organs very early on, probably before you are even aware what they are doing? Because the treatment to preserve your organs is very different to the treatment to save your life. In The UK on the May 22, everybody became an organ donor unless you opt out. People do not know. So the minute that you make that 999 phone call, everything's up there on the screen.
They know who you are. This is why they want you on a digital system. Your entire medical history is going to be fed through AI, how much tax you pay, what you're worth to the system, and that's going to come up with whether you're a yay or a nay. Are you getting life saving treatment, or are you on end of life care? What age are you?
Are you then for organ donor? This is very important that people know this. And so you have to ask, what is this? It's eugenics. It's eugenics.
@teameffujoe - The Older Millennial
I wasn’t aware judges didn’t even have to go to Law School. https://t.co/LxihfQjO2R
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer."
"These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers."
"They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar."
"They just got appointed to be judges."
"No training required."
"They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges."
"They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar."
"How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law?"
"But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar."
"How is this a fucking thing?"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer. Yeah. These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail?
Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers. They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar. They just got appointed to be judges.
No training required. Oh, yeah. And that's the case in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia, Texas, Arizona. They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges. They don't have to go to law school.
They don't have to pass the bar. However, they sit in judgment over people who did. How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law? How did this ever become a thing?
That's that's one of the most insane things I've ever heard. Like, to to be somebody's lawyer, you have to go to law school. You gotta pass the bar. Like, just to represent a client, you have to do that. To be able to prosecute that person, you gotta go to law school.
You gotta pass the bar. But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar. How is this a fucking thing?
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Firing Squad. At the very least. If you really want all the little Discord freaks and aspiring Antifa assassins to never, ever, ever think about trying this again, spill this killer’s guts open so wide, make his death so humiliating, that no one will want their guts opened next. https://t.co/urqaWCJH7i
Video Transcript AI Summary
So as we find this monster, I want him strung up.
I want crows to eat his insides out.
I want to be publicly televised after a guilty verdict due process and administered by the law.
But I want the most monstrous, gruesome death that we just had to watch.
I want that to be etched into the halls of eternity so that anyone who tries to do anything like this ever again sees what their own insides look like on national television.
And their family will have to see it the way Charlie's has had to see his.
I don't think I I think about whoever did this if they had to stand in a room with Charlie and how Charlie would tower over them, how they wouldn't stand a chance in a fist fight or a verbal fight or anything.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So as we find this monster, I want him strung up. I want crows to eat his insides out. I want to be publicly televised after a guilty verdict due process and administered by the law. But I want the most monstrous, gruesome death that we just had to watch. I want that to be etched into the halls of eternity so that anyone who tries to do anything like this ever again sees what their own insides look like on national television.
And their family will have to see it the way Charlie's has had to see his. I don't think I I think about whoever did this if they had to stand in a room with Charlie and how Charlie would tower over them, how they wouldn't stand a chance in a fist fight or a verbal fight or anything. And a coward, a pussy, I whoever that is, the most unspeakable things have to be administered by our law enforcement.
@TheLegalMindset - Legal Mindset
Regarding the Charlie Kirk suspect when caught, people need to remember that Utah not only has the death penalty but it still carries out execution by firing squad. https://t.co/Y5EqQFFitR
@realJennaEllis - Jenna Ellis 🐊
Here’s your opening statement in seeking the death penalty for Charlie’s killer, @GovCox https://t.co/3WbQoVgRSU
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions consistency: "we’re pro choice" but "vaccinations in my body, my choice" and asks why they’re not so pro choice anymore. Speaker 1 replies, "Seem so much smarter than that. What do you think my answer is?" They discuss value across a lifespan: "If life is invaluable, then why do you not consider it valuable throughout the whole lifespan, not just the media?" He continues, "Because you believe in putting criminals in jail. Right? Yes. Which is a taking of their rights." "Not their life." He argues that "to the consistency argument, if there is a baby here... that baby has done nothing wrong." "The only answer is to say we value human life so much that you don't get to keep on living if you take a precious human life." He calls this "an explicitly pro life position" and says "to be against the death penalty is actually consistent for the left" with "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not murder not thou shall not kill" and: "If you are to take a life, your life shall be taken from you."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I just wanna ask about consistency. So consistency. One thing that irritates me about liberals is they'll say things like, yeah. We're pro choice. But then when it comes to, like, vaccinations in my body, my choice, suddenly, they're not so pro choice anymore.
I feel like conservatives do the same thing, but only pro life side. So can you explain to defend?
Speaker 1: Seem so much smarter than that. What do you think my answer is?
Speaker 0: I don't because it is something bad. Well, yeah. But if life is invaluable, then why do you not consider it valuable throughout the whole lifespan, not just the media?
Speaker 1: Because you believe in putting criminals in jail. Right? Yes. Which is a taking of their rights.
Speaker 0: Not their life.
Speaker 1: Well, again, but their it's their whole life is completely changed. So I guess it's also an insult to the victim, isn't it? Saying that your life doesn't matter so much that your murderer can keep on living, but you yourself aren't living. It's actually devalues the value of the victim or the victims actually in a lot of times. Mhmm.
And you have a this is make America holy again. Yes. God repeated in all five books of the Torah, you take a life, your life will be taken. To the consistency argument, if there is a baby here, you know, in the womb, that baby has done nothing wrong. Whereas a guy who went and shot up a school did a lot wrong.
And so the the only answer is to say we value human life so much that you don't get to keep on living if you take a precious human life. It's actually an explicitly pro life position because it's honoring the dead and honoring the victim so much that it's not just one to be discarded. That's, oh, it's not just a clump of cells. You see, to be against the death penalty is actually consistent for the left. Because they're like, oh, you know, it's just a bunch of clump of cells that got shot up at a school.
It doesn't really matter. Go put him in a jail. Where we say, no. That's a life you took, and you don't get to get to keep on having breath if you go take another precious human life. Does that make sense?
Speaker 0: It makes sense. And how do you defend, like, the, there's a final commandment? It doesn't get much clearer. Thou shall not kill. We did this earlier.
I was I can't hear anything on the other side.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Okay. It says thou shall not kill not thou shall not murder not thou shall not kill. So killing and murder are two different words
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: In in Hebrew. It says thou shall not murder not kill. Again, it's the the I I could repeat this repeated just over on ad nauseam. God has a law in the scriptures. If you are to take a life, your life shall be taken from you.
Why is that? God went and explained in the Torah, it's because human life is so precious. You shall not be able to continue. The only punishment is that your life should also be taken from you.
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Brain dead is a lie, [they] invented brain dead to harvest your organs legally. https://t.co/gmZ74Xmqsc
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
"It was never legal in the first place" https://t.co/fkmYvQyd7e
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 outlines a stance of widespread tax resistance among Americans who deem the government corrupt and unrepresentative. He states, “there were so many people, mostly American patriots, who said, I don't care what the consequences are. I will not continue to pay taxes to a corrupt government that doesn't represent me.” He claims the IRS is already down “25% from last year.” He then criticizes those who have “never worked a day in their life but yet wanna make rules for the rest of us,” arguing they “overdo themselves and kill the goose that laid the golden egg.”
He describes consequences of the government’s actions as not only crashing the economy but creating a scenario where people “have a choice” between basic needs and paying taxes: “Keep a roof over your family's head or pay taxes. Feed your children or pay taxes. Live a little bit like a fucking human being or pay your fucking taxes.” He asserts that many will be unable to pay taxes this year, and those who “just up and decide fuck them and file exempt on their fucking forms” will “totally overwhelm the IRS,” including “those 80,000 gun toting Nazi motherfuckers who have been harassing us for years.” The message implies a public record of asking the IRS for the law that states a wage earner must pay taxes, and claims they cannot provide it “because it was never legal in the first place.”
He elaborates that “when you work and somebody gives you money or some form of compensation, that's not profit. That's an exchange, and it was never intended to be taxes.” The consequence, he says, is that “the government's gonna self destruct. It's gonna totally overwhelm the system.” He uses imagery to argue that people should resist, saying, “let those motherfuckers try driving their car with no gas in it.”
In closing, he invites audience participation: “If you like what I'm saying, give me a hell yeah and a fuck you to their paperwork.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To the matter is there were so many people, mostly American patriots, who said, I don't care what the consequences are. I will not continue to pay taxes to a corrupt government that doesn't represent me. So IRS is already down 25% from last year. But you see, the one thing with people who've never worked a day in their life but yet wanna make rules for the rest of us, they always overdo themselves and kill the goose that laid the golden egg. So in addition to crashing that economy, they've created a situation where people have a choice.
Keep a roof over your family's head or pay taxes. Feed your children or pay taxes. Live a little bit like a fucking human being or pay your fucking taxes. The fact of the matter is so many people are not going to be able to pay their taxes this year that the people who just up and decide fuck them and file exempt on their fucking forms is gonna totally overwhelm the IRS, including those 80,000 gun toting Nazi motherfuckers who have been harassing us for years. Let's face it, folks.
We all know publicly we've asked the IRS for the law that states a wage earner has to pay taxes, and they cannot provide it because it was never legal in the first place. When you work and somebody gives you money or some form of compensation, that's not profit. That's an exchange, and it was never intended to be taxes. So the government's gonna self destruct. It's gonna totally overwhelm the system.
And in reality, let those motherfuckers try driving their car with no gas in it. If you like what I'm saying, give me a hell yeah and a fuck you to their paperwork.