#freedom #trump #starwars #May4 #rebel #oligarchy

Please don’t be fooled into thinking it’s just about Trump. He’s a cog in a corruption machine. Our responsibility as citizens is to push for changes bigger than “then next election cycle”. Please share!

Teacher: “What are the 3 branches of government?” Student: “Central Bankers. Pedos. The Military Industrial Complex.” Teacher: “That’s wrong.” Student: “I know. We really should abolish the entire thing and start over.”

My first book - Each story is an invitation — to slow down, to listen, and to reconnect with the part of you that already knows. Healing The Inner Child: Parables by Firelight a.co/d/04NfqOKy

"Principles" are the things you uphold even when it's not to your personal advantage. For example, if you've ever espoused the principle of "States Rights", then of course you oppose the "SAVE Act" which overrides states rights. It doesn't matter if you want "Voter ID" laws. The principle dictates that it's up to each state to decide whether they want Voter ID laws. And in any case, the "SAVE Act" is far more than simple "Voter ID", but a whole scale invasion of the federal power into how state's run elections.

The paid grifters, partisan hacks, and bots are out in force—misleading people about the Constitution and the law—to defend Trump’s unconstitutional war. Here’s an important Iran war PSA: Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1550), it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60–90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours. Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly: “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress’s approval) offensive military action. The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress’s express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress’s approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans. It’s for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there’s an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account. The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack. The fact that previous presidents have violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution does not—and cannot—change the law or make any present military action lawful.

So, let me get this right. UK has arrested the brother of the King. Norwegians have charged their former Prime Minister with corruption. Even UAE has punished Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. But the United States has not punished single client of Epstein. Our government is compromised.

if all Republicans were like Massie and all Democrats were like Ro, Congress would become so effective

Epstein required: •Money that never ran out •Protection that defied normal justice •Access that crossed borders and institutions •Silence enforced through leverage, fear, and manipulation. That doesn’t happen accidentally. And it doesn’t happen without institutional cover

We are living through a moment where a group of people do not just disagree, they do not even acknowledge a shared fundamental reality. There is no common frame of reference, no mutual set of facts from which discourse can even begin. They can watch the same video, from multiple angles, and walk away convinced they saw a completely different event. They exist inside a narrative so deeply entrenched that to question it, to even acknowledge a contradiction, is to commit some sort of ideological treason. This is a deliberate, conditioned immunity to contradiction. It is a cultivated resistance to evidence. They have developed a mind so thoroughly welded to its chosen reality that it will alter, discard, or fabricate whatever it must to maintain coherence. They can be shown, in real time, the unraveling of their worldview, and they will patch over the holes with fantasy rather than face any doubt whatsoever. Politics has turned knowledge itself into a partisan weapon. The expectation is no longer to seek truth, but to defend your team at all costs. There is a lingering obligation to have an opinion on everything, to be informed at all times, to adopt the correct stance. And so, they improvise. They adopt prefabricated opinions handed down by their faction. They fill in the gaps with instinctive loyalty rather than demonstrating any semblance of independent thought. The game is rigged, and they know it. Two parties, two choices, two sides that everyone is herded into, and neither is worth the loyalty demanded of them. But to acknowledge this would be to admit powerlessness, to admit that they are trapped in an illusion of choice. So they cope. They retroactively justify their allegiance by turning their side into something righteous, infallible, and necessary. The alternative is too terrifying. It is a coping mechanism turned mass psychosis. And it is escalating. When reality itself is dictated by allegiance, when loyalty outranks reason, when every fact must be bent into submission to fit the tribe’s chosen narrative, the outcome is inevitable: war. When factions exist in separate realities, they cannot coexist. They cannot negotiate, they cannot reason, they cannot even comprehend the other side as anything but a threat. This is irreconcilable. We cannot function like this. A society cannot sustain itself when its people are no longer individuals but ideological husks, possessed by abstractions, fighting battles for masters who do not even know their names. You are not your faction. You are not your party. You are not an extension of a collective mind. The moment you outsource your thinking, the moment you allow yourself to believe that your side must be right because the alternative is unbearable, you have ceased to be an individual. You have become another interchangeable pawn in a game that does not need you to think, only to obey. Wake up. This war for reality is not one you want to be drafted into.

Psst, Denmark… Tell this administration the Epstein files are in Greenland… they’ll lose all interest and will never be able to find it.

Life in the shadows is what happens when the burdens of the rules become too much to bear. When the taxes and the regulations are designed to penalize those who are productive and extort from them their labor for the benefit of others, people abandon the social contract. If the only people who have to obey the rules are the citizens, and the governments and the people they select for their political benefit are above it, or if the courts and the congresses apply the law unequally, a country has neither law nor equality.

If the 1770 Boston Massacre by Redcoats happened today, MAGA would be saying: - They should've just complied - FAFO - Officers were scared for their lives - The colonials should obey the law - Redcoat lives matter - They shouldn't have been protesting - The King's tax is a lawful order

Pamela Hemphill, who rejected a pardon for her part in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, made an opening statement Tuesday in a hearing marking the fifth anniversary of the riot. “When Donald Trump pardoned us, I rejected the pardon. Accepting that pardon would be lying about what happened on January 6th. I am guilty, and I own that guilt,” said Hemphill, 72, who was known as the "MAGA Granny." House Democrats reconvened the former special committee that investigated the attack to hear from witnesses and lawmakers about their experiences from that day and ongoing threats to elections. The House Jan. 6 panel spent 18 months investigating the attack, President Donald Trump’s role in the events, and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Members interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, some in live public hearings. The committee voted to refer Trump to the Justice Department for prosecution on four federal charges, including aiding an insurrection and conspiracy to defraud the United States, marking the first time Congress referred a former president for criminal charges. The panel disbanded in 2023. Since starting his second term, Trump has pardoned or commuted sentences for more than 1,500 people charged in connection with the attack.

1️⃣ Derrocar a un dictador suena moralmente justo. Nadie llora por un tirano. Pero el derecho internacional no se construyó para proteger a los buenos, sino para contener a los poderosos. Por eso prohíbe la fuerza casi sin excepciones: no porque ignore la injusticia, sino porque sabe que, si cada país decide a quién “liberar” a balazos, el mundo vuelve a la ley del más fuerte. 2️⃣ El problema no es Maduro. El problema es el precedente. Cuando la fuerza militar se usa para cambiar gobiernos sin reglas claras, la soberanía deja de ser un límite y se vuelve un estorbo. Hoy es “derrocar a un dictador”; mañana será “corregir una elección”, “proteger intereses”, “restaurar el orden”. El derecho no absuelve dictaduras, pero tampoco legitima cruzadas unilaterales. 3️⃣ La pregunta incómoda no es si un tirano merece caer, sino quién decide cuándo y cómo. Porque la historia enseña algo brutal: sacar al dictador es fácil; construir justicia después, no. Y cuando la legalidad se rompe en nombre del bien, casi siempre lo que sigue no es libertad, sino caos, violencia y nuevas víctimas. El derecho existe para recordarnos eso, incluso cuando incomoda.

Best thing on X today!

Can every Packer fan just unfollow IKE packers please this is ridiculous

Facts!!!