The Cuttlefish sent this one in. Mahalo! Of course, the Helo would have seen the bright airplane light which was directly in front of them.

https://nypost.com/2025/07/31/us-news/video-shows-army-black-hawk-and-american-airlines-plane-collided-in-fiery-dc-crash

stock here: I am coining the meme!

Gene Narcissist

Gene Aristocracy

——————————— Above are mine

I like the A-Eye

DNA Flex

and Hot Privilege is a real thing

————————————–

🧬 Meme Vocabulary: Genetic Elitism / Beauty Signaling

Term	Meaning / Use Case
Gene Arrogance	A smug attitude rooted in good looks or “designer DNA.”
Gene Aristocracy	Beauty or privilege framed as an inherited ruling class.
Hot Privilege	Getting perks in life for being attractive, like “pretty privilege” but more meme-y.
DNA Flex	When someone (or a brand) shows off their genes like they earned them.
Chromosome Clout	Social power gained by having ideal traits, naturally or surgically enhanced.
Beauty Bourgeoisie	The elite class of those who live above average due to their face card.
Genetic Gloating	Publicly basking in the glow of one’s DNA fortune.
Aesthetics Autocracy	A society ruled by the genetically gifted.
Vanity Vector	The idea that hotness propagates through media like a virus.
BioNarcissism	Narcissism sourced from biology, not behavior.
The Genome Gap	The growing divide between the “genetically gifted” and the rest.
Insta-Eugenics	Selection of influencers and models by algorithmic beauty standards.
Born Beautiful Bias	Subtle (or not-so-subtle) cultural favoritism for naturally attractive people.
Looks Meritocracy Myth	The lie that beauty is earned.
Mitochondria Chic	The meme version of “beauty energy” — a nod to the powerhouse of the cell.
Gene Supremacy	A dangerous level of hotness-fueled self-worth.

---

Would you like a short graphic or meme image mockup that uses some of these? Or would you like them turned into a table or Word doc for blog or social post use?

Ask ChatGPT

stock here, great video, also has Tsunami pushing onto land.

tsunami alert for Hawaii.

stock here: Ugly females are the worst, they don’t get any societal benefit from being desirable, and they are pissed about that….not enough to change, but enough to take it out on people anyway they can.

The video is at the bottom. Even Musk has weighed in on this “show me the context” of your shit hole city. The female “police chief” already has a lawsuit against her for discrimination against whites. What money and wokeness can “accomplish”

—————————————————— Here are 3 of the perps, one released this month on 4 serious charges, with a $400 bond, 1 day of crack.

Cincinnati Mob Attack Suspect Had Been Freed on Earlier This Month After Being Arrested on Multiple Charges

Cincinnati Police Chief Terri Theetge chastising social media and “the media” about showing videos of the black mob attacking random white people.

Unfuckingbelievable. pic.twitter.com/hZVgDSqv6P

— Kentucky Girl (@Notwokenow) July 29, 2025

Some Context for you……

Here's that context she wanted: pic.twitter.com/3RnqbbiECr

— Cryptid Con (@steve_exotic) July 29, 2025

What

@TeresaTheetge

and

@CincyPD

don’t seem to understand along with all the commenters about how we don’t understand what happened first….. that the context is skewed We actually did see it and fully understand that the white guy started the issue slapping the other man And if the police want to arrest him for assault then they are well within their rights The PROBLEM is what happened next…. the FACT that at least a dozen thugs that had nothing to do with it jumped in to assault and try and kill multiple people The FACT that one thing took it upon herself to hit and severely hurt a woman that was looking to diffuse the situation The FACT that one thug came up behind someone and sucker punched a guy and then ran away like a coward The FACT that multiple thugs kept trying to kill the guys by stomping on his head when he was on the ground defenseless and injured already The FACT that the crowd of thugs were delighting in watching this mob hurt people simply because of their race

@TeresaTheetge

is TERRIFIED and angry that this one is viral and instead of just sweeping it under the rug she WILL be forced to arrest thugs for this and she is afraid of the violence that will result This video was HORRIBLE for you all and you know it

stock here: Epiphany of yesterday

🎯 Tariffs Are Indirect Taxes on Citizens
While tariffs are technically taxes on imported goods, the economic reality is that the cost is almost always passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. So when one country imposes a tariff:

Importers pay the tariff at the border.

They then raise the price of those goods to maintain profit margins.

You, the consumer, end up paying more at the store — not the foreign company being targeted.

🌐 Mutual Tariffs = Mutual Citizen Punishment
When two countries engage in tit-for-tat tariffs (say, U.S. vs. China or EU vs. UK), it becomes a:

Political tool (to protect local industries or retaliate).

Economic burden (consumers pay more, businesses lose access to cheaper inputs).

Distraction from domestic issues — politicians can say “We’re being tough on China” even while the price of electronics or tools rises locally.

So while tariffs are presented as a foreign punishment, the effects are domestic and immediate:

Who Pays? How They Pay
Consumers Higher retail prices
Importers Upfront duties (later passed on)
Exporters (indirectly) Through reduced market access
Workers In some sectors, via layoffs or reduced hours

📊 Example: U.S. Tariffs on Washing Machines (2018)
The Trump administration imposed a tariff on imported washing machines.

Prices of all washing machines (including U.S.-made) went up ~$86 on average.

Fewer choices, higher prices — citizens bore the cost.

🧠 Bottom Line
Yes, mutual tariffs are a form of indirect taxation, often justified as economic protectionism or leverage — but they disproportionately hurt the people, not the governments. It’s taxation disguised as patriotism.

Cumulative Record of Crimes

The Israeli record of massacres, extrajudicial killings and daily harassment of Palestinian comprises a continuum of criminal behavior over the past 67 years. Given the overwhelming evidence, the prosecution team therefore decided to focus on key cases, which were extensively reported in the news media and/or were subject of investigations. These included:

– the September 1982 massacre of Palestinians, mainly women and children, at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in a southwest district of Beirut, Lebanon;

– lethal firing of teargas canisters and “rubber” bullets by Israeli Defense Forces that resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians during the Intifada campaigns and subsequent protests; and

– intensive and indiscriminate aerial bombing and artillery shelling of civilian quarters in the Gaza Strip in 2008.

Among the witnesses who testified in person or via video transmission included:

– a former university student who was shot without warning at a peaceful protest by an Israeli sniper firing a fragmentary bullet that caused extensive and permanent damage to his internal organs;

– a Christian resident of the West Bank who was repeatedly imprisoned and tortured on grounds of subversion;

– a female resident of Nablus who suffered mental anxiety due to her imprisonment and subsequent social ostracism; and

– two men from the Al Sammouni clan of Gaza, which lost 21 family members, mainly children and women, in an Israeli commando raid on their home.

– a Palestinian physician who conducted studies on the psychological trauma inflicted, particularly on children, as result of constant intimidation, massive violence and state terror during and following the second Intifada;

– expert witness Paola Manduca, an Italian chemist and toxicologist, who found extreme levels of toxic contamination of the soil and water across the Gaza Strip caused by Israeli weapons made of heavy metals and cancer-causing compounds.

Killing Fields

Professor Pappe said that the mass killing of defenseless civilians trapped without avenues of escape within a cordon or enclosure is clear evidence of genocidal policy, as happened inside the Beirut refugee camps surrounded by Israeli tanks and hostile Phalangist militiamen and inside Gaza cities that are ringed by a wall-fence.

For the Beirut atrocity, Israeli Defense Force commander General Amos Yaron was charged in absentia for crimes against humanity and genocide. Among the witnesses who testified in person on the Camps Sabra and Shatilla events were:

– Chahira Abouardini, a widow whose husband and three children were murdered by Israeli-allied militiamen at Camp Shatilla, provided a graphic account of the carnage, describing piles of bullet-riddled bodies and, in one case, of a pregnant women whose belly had been slit open and with her dead unborn child left on top of her corpse. She recounted how refugees were rounded up from their homes and lined against walls for summary execution by automatic weapons fire.

– Dr. Ang Swee Chai, a London-based Singaporean surgeon and medical volunteer at the time at a hospital run by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, with the aid of the International Committee of the Red Cross, testified that another Beirut hospital had been bombed by Israeli jets, all Palestinian facilities including schools and hospitals were deliberately destroyed by artillery barrages and explosive charges, and ambulances were intercepted and their drivers shot dead. She stated that an Israeli observation post positioned in the 7-storey Kuwaiti Embassy, located on a hilltop, had an unobstructed view of the refugee camp, indicating that the Israeli forces were directing a joint operation to exterminate the refugees left behind under the international plan to withdraw the PLO from Lebanon. In her forensic investigation of the bullet wound that injured a male nurse at her hospital, Dr. Ang determined that the sniper fire had come from the Israeli-occupied Embassy building.

Considering the Israeli checkpoints on roads and its vantage points, Brigadier General Amos Yaron as field commander of the Beirut incursion and occupation, had effective control over the camps. His close liaison with the local militia leader meant that Yaron had condoned the 36-hour rampage by militiamen, which led to an estimated 3,500 civilian deaths. No orders were issued to prevent the one-sided violence, prosecutor Aziz Rahman argued before the Tribunal. A 1983 special commission report, under its chairman Nobel Laureate Sean MacBride, concluded that Israel had “complicity in genocide.” Research findings gathered since then indicate that Yaron was not merely complicit but held personal responsibility for the massacre.

A point contested by the Amicus Curae defense team was that then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, an official of superior rank, should have been prosecuted instead of Gen. Yaron. (The prosecution had earlier declined to serve notice on Sharon, who has been in a coma for many years and is unable to testify in hisown defense. Moreover, Yaron had wide sway of authority as field commander in a battle zone outside the borders of Israel.) Prosecutor Gurdial Singh pointed out that Israel not only failed to file criminal charges against Yaron and his subordinates but subsequently awarded and repeatedly promoted the general and his circle. Yaron was therefore found guilty as accused.

Responsibility of the State

International law has traditionally taken for granted the immunity of states from prosecution by a court in another country. There are several reasons for immunity of states, even for high crimes such as genocide and serious violations of various humanitarian codes.

– International law and the treaty system are based on the principle of equality among states, which are parties to and enforcers of international agreements. The criminal conviction of a state for serious crimes would automatically weigh against the accused party, thereby causing an imbalance in relations and introducing unfairness to the international system.

-The sovereignty of states is a fundamental protection against aggression or undue interference by a foreign state or alliance of nation-states.

– As argued by defense counsel Matthew Witbrodt, prosecution of and penalties imposed on a state would result in collective punishment of all of its citizens. (Since the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, the international community has tried to avoid forms of collective punishment, including heavy war reparations.)

On the other side of the coin, total immunity for the state can encourage violations of international law by dictatorial, racist and/or bigoted regimes. The absence of legal challenge by foreign courts therefore leaves few legitimate means to pressure the offending state. The more “peaceful” methods include economic sanctions, which can be interpreted as a type of collective punishment against a victimized citizenry.

With no legal recourse to counter mass atrocities, other states then must launch interventions through extralegal and often illegal strategies of covert warfare, proxy insurgencies or biased peacekeeping operations. The subsequent invasion and occupation by self-appointed saviors can be more harmful to the people, and to the principles of law, than the original violations of the offending regime.

Thus, quoting its opinion upon the verdict, a “reason the Tribunal wishes to reject the doctrine of absolute state immunity from prosecution in matters of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is that the existing international law on war and peace, and humanitarianism, is being enforced in a grossly inequitable manner. Small, weak nations, mostly in Africa and Asia, are periodically subjected to devastating sanctions, military interventions and regime changes. At the same time, unbearable atrocities and brutalities are inflicted on the military weak nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia by powerful nations in the North Atlantic and their allies go unscrutinized and unpunished.”

The alternative to the law of the jungle applied by self-appointed unilateral powers or coalitions of the willing is the reform of international law to balance sovereignty with the responsibility of the state for high crimes such as genocide.

Restricting Sovereignty

In its opinion on the ruling, the Tribunal therefore offered a rational method for limiting sovereignty in cases of gross crimes: “Where there is a conflict between two principles of law, the one hierarchically higher in importance should prevail. To our mind, the international law doctrine against impleading (suing) a foreign state, being lower than that that of the prohibition against genocide, resulted in the charge against the State of Israel.”

The Tribunal did not spell out how a genocide ruling can be enforced or provide a model for a reconstitution of state. Presumably and theoretically, the general effect of genocide-based restrictions on sovereignty would be to dissuade and deter state administrations from perpetrating mass atrocities with impunity. Under a legal standard for common action to stop genocide, a preventive intervention could then proceed under accepted rules of engagement and with safeguards against unwarranted violence by peacekeepers. When an inherently extreme policy is embedded in the constitution or state regulations, a lawfully grounded international authority could then abolish that state structure and reconstitute a legitimate state subject to a referendum. A legal process for constitutional change is far preferable to the current method of arbitrary regime change favorable to the interests of and politically subservient to an occupation authority. This remains hypothetical, showing only that the international community is yet to seriously consider the alternative to the present unlawful model.

Restriction of state sovereignty, as the Tribunal noted, is a new and evolving trend in international law. The U.S. permits its citizens to file lawsuits in federal court against states that harbor terrorists, and although this is covered under tort law, such cases inherently restrict the sovereignty of foreign countries. The European Union has also constrained the sovereignty of member states. Under the 1978 State Immunity Act, the British privy council ruled that vessels owned by foreign governments are subject to the same liability laws as commercial vessels.

As argued by the Tribunal panel in their opinion, “We find it rather mind-boggling when some courts can consider commercial disputes as a reason for not allowing a state to be shielded by the state immunity principle and yet strenuously protect such a state in cases of genocide or other war crimes. Human lives cannot be less important than financial gain.”

The vigorous and often well-founded arguments by the Amicus Curae team in defense of Israel were constructive criticism that greatly helped to focus the Tribunal on the complexities of international law. In heated courtroom debate, defense counsel Jason Kay Kit Leon opined that “the elephant in the room” was Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians, for instance, the launching of unguided rockets at settlements, and that Israeli forces have acted in self-defense. The thrust of his claim was based on “In Defense of Israel” by Harvard law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz.

The jurists, however, accepted the prosecution argument. “It is our finding that much of the Palestinian-generated violence is not on Israel’s own territory, but from and on Israeli-occupied Palestinian land. Much of the violence perpetrated by Palestinians is a reaction to the brutalities of the vicious racism and genocide that is a tragic feature of Palestinian life.”

The opinion went further, by stating: “We also hold that the force of the IDF is excessive, totally disproportionate and a violation of international humanitarian law. The methods used are unspeakably inhumane and amount to war crimes.”

Internal Disputes

Earlier disputes within the Commission had led to a two-month adjournment of trial proceedings due to harsh and sometimes bitter accusations between participants. In the conflicted process, several judges recused themselves or were absent due to schedule conflicts and one prominent prosecutor resigned in protest of suspected tampering of the judicial panel. These controversies fortunately served to clarify rather than muddy the legal issues and court procedures, resulting in stronger arguments on both sides. Taking Israel to task is never an easy proposition.

Thereby, a stunning precedent in international law was achieved with the Tribunal’s unanimous decision to charge a state for the high crime of genocide. The arguments and verdict against the State of Israel will undoubted be a hotly debated test case for legal scholars over years to come. Since its Charter does not allow an appeal process, the case of “The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against the State of Israel” will stand as the nub of controversy for human-rights law and the principle of sovereignty for nation-states.

While citing several precedents, the strongest argument for implication of the state is outlined in the 2007 genocide case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia, which covered the Sebrenica massacre of Bosnian Muslms by Serb-dominated federal armed forces. As Canadian jurist John Philpot, who earlier served on the Rwanda Tribunal, pointed out following the reading of the verdict, “Bosnia/Herzegovina clearly laid out the culpability of the state and thus served as the precedent for our judgment against Israel.”

According to the Bosnia/Herzogovina ruling, “Genocide is a international crime entailing national and international responsibility on the part of individuals and states” and “if an organ of the state, or a person or group whose acts are legally attributable to the state, commits any of the acts proscribed by Article 3 of the (Genocide) Convention, the international responsibility of that state is incurred.

A point to note: The Rwanda and Yugoslavia genocide cases, are considered by some legal experts to be flawed by the underlying covert and illegal factor of great-power interference. These cases were cited infrequently and judiciously by the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal, which exercised proper care in selection of appropriate passages, while relying on a much wider range of legal precedents in regard to liability of the state.

Critique: Going Beyond Reparations

Until this genocide ruling by the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal, offending states and their foreign sponsors have evaded responsibility while the entire burden of guilt has been placed on the individual agents of weak nation-states. Under the Tribunal ruling, both the core state apparatus – including the executive office, military command, intelligence agencies, supportive ministries and, in many cases, the judiciary and police – bear as much and, in some cases, more criminal responsibility for genocide as individual leaders or military officers.

Yet that is still insufficient when the primary responsibility should rest on powerful sponsor states that move from supporting the offending regime toward punishing its rebellious hubris. The nexus of powerful and ruthless states and global elites, with their machinery for war-making and arms production, creates the political state of siege, the economic strangulation and the covert weapons trade that prompt weaker states to perpetrate genocide.

Barely addressed in just one paragraph of the Tribunal opinion is the reality that powerful states oppose any dilution of their absolute state immunity with the unspoken objective of preserving their war-making powers. The dominant Atlantic allies have cited genocide solely as a pretext to expand their global domain though invasions under a broad and vague “responsibility to protect” principle and have imposed new constitutions on defeated adversaries authored by foreign legal scholars while guised as the ideals of domestic political revolutions. Meanwhile, their own genocidal state structures, centered in the national-security structure and military command, categorically reject any international controls over extralegal interventions operated under the cover of humanitarian operations.

Also, in limiting its call for remedial action to reparations from Israel, the Tribunal wasted a precious opportunity to demand full justice for the Palestinian nation. What is realistically required is an international peacekeeping force to guarantee the withdrawal of the Israeli military and police force from Palestinian territory until a domestic law-enforcement and security force can take over; the elimination of wall-fences, checkpoints and other barriers to the free movement of citizens; the return of occupied land in Palestine; financial restitution for the loss of lands and property inside the boundaries of Israel; and an official apology for the countless crimes committed.

Furthermore, the continuity of genocide perpetrated by the core state structure and abetted by the complicity of much of the Israeli population demands that the offending state must be reorganized under a new constitution free of religious bias and racial discrimination to ensure legal norms that prevent a repetition of genocide. This objective should require an international occupation of Israel in event that powerful elements in Israeli society refuse to comply with international law. Israel should be spared the violence unleashed against the Third Reich, but stern justice and strong rule of law are nonetheless required in situations of ideological conformity based on the goals of genocide.

Courage and Wisdom

Whatever its few shortcomings, the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal demonstrated immense courage, foresight and wisdom in leveling the long-overdue charge of genocide against the State of Israel. The Tribunal correctly framed genocide in the context of international law rather than merely as a localized violation. The verdict, along with the sophisticated judicial opinion, provides an important initiative toward deterring the great powers from promoting and exploiting genocides among weaker nations and victimized peoples.

The Tribunal verdict raised not only a legal challenge to supporters of the Zionist cause in the United States and Europe but also appealed to universal moral principles in the tradition of high-minded rhetoric. “Much as we condemn violence and pray for peace, it must be stated that no power on Earth can douse the flame of freedom from the human spirit. As long as there is suppression, there will always be people prepared to die on their feet rather than live on their knees.”

The precedent-setting decision by the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal is a giant step forward not only for dispossessed Palestinians but also for humanity as a whole.

Yoichi Shimatsu, an East and Southeast Asia focused journalist, is former editor of The Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo.

Copyright © 2013 Global Research

Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles. Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can.
 Donate

---

More Stories

---

• Black Agenda Radio with Margaret KimberleyBlack Agenda Radio July 25, 202525 Jul 2025In this week’s segment, we discuss Canada’s role as a U.S. imperialist client state and how its image as a friendlier northern neighbor is contradicted by support for Israel’s genocide, increases in…
• Black Agenda Radio with Margaret KimberleyTrump Africa Policy: Imperialism, Resource Extraction, and Deportations25 Jul 2025Our guest is Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of Pan African Newswire. He joins us from Detroit to discuss the Trump administration policy towards Africa, including the recent visit of five African heads of…
• Black Agenda Radio with Margaret KimberleyVassal State Canada Partners with U.S. Imperialist and Neo-Liberal Policies25 Jul 2025El Jones is a poet and a professor at Mount St. Vincent University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. She joins us from Halifax to discuss Canadian politics and relations with the US. Despite…
• Pindiga Ambedkar , Arnold AugustWere Canadian Elections Existential in the Context of US-Canada Tensions?23 Jul 2025Interview with Arnold August, writer, political commentator, and analyst of the North American continent, on the political situation in Canada and its relationship to the US.
• Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior ColumnistBlack Agenda Report At the Belt and Road Journalism Forum in China23 Jul 2025The 2025 Belt and Road Journalists Forum in China was an opportunity for Black Agenda Report to join an international group of journalists working to promote meaningful dialogue on world issues.

• Load More

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/trump-admin-live-updates/?id=123918735

“Sanctity of Human Life”

stock here: This has somehow escaped my Overton Window.

stock here: the raw reality of life was somehow awesome

https://sparkvibefun.com/all-the-things-boomer-kids-thought-were-normal/38

stock here, this is unusual. Also, Alex tours Moscow, What a beautiful city, and he covers the Z.

stock here: note in the last paragraph, they pretend that Trump himself fired this female. A Journalism student from Northwestern University.

——————————

While the circumstances of Caudle’s nomination as the replacement for Adm. Lisa Franchetti, whom Trump fired without explanation, were controversial, Caudle breezed through his hearing, suggesting he will be easily confirmed on a bipartisan basis.

——————————-

Her replacement, is suspiciously looked at as being against Marxism, in the US military. hmmmmm. Franchetti was fired by Hegseth.

Politico does the same……

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/14/caudle-navy-chief-top-contender-00008888

Very interesting conversation on Reddit….

Fleet Forces Commander Caudle Nominated as Next Chief of Naval Operations – USNI News
byu/grizzlebar innavy

Stock here: I have the answer, There is no statue of limitations for capital offenses, thoese offences for which Death is a possible option, see far bottom, for the complete blurb. This is how the Obama gang can be prosecuted.

—————————————

A capital offense includes crimes where death is a possible punishment, such as:

• Murder (especially of federal officials or during federal crimes like kidnapping, rape, or terrorism)
• Espionage
• Treason
• Large-scale drug trafficking
• Certain civil rights violations resulting in death

Statute of Limitations: Sedition, Conspiracy, and Related Federal Crimes

Overview

Federal crimes are generally subject to a statute of limitations, typically 5 years under 18 U.S.C. § 3282. However, exceptions apply—especially for capital offenses, terrorism, and conspiracies involving continuing conduct. This document outlines the statute of limitations for various crimes related to sedition, conspiracy, and offenses against federal authority.

Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384)

• Carries up to 20 years imprisonment.
• Standard statute of limitations: 5 years.
• Exception: If part of a terrorism-related crime (e.g., causing death or serious injury), there is no statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3286.

General Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371)

• Standard statute of limitations: 5 years.
• Exception: The clock resets with each ‘overt act’ committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• Treated as a continuing offense—extends statute of limitations beyond 5 years when active involvement continues.

Crimes Against the President (18 U.S.C. § 1751)

• Includes attempts or conspiracies to kill or kidnap the President.
• These are often capital or life imprisonment offenses, thus have no statute of limitations.

Additional Federal Offense Limits

• Espionage, Passport/Citizenship fraud – 10 years
• Arson or use of explosives – 10 years
• Major fraud against the United States – 7 years
• Tax offenses (felony) – 6 years
• Sexual exploitation of minors – No limitation while the victim is alive

Summary Table of Statutes of Limitation

Crime Type	Penalty Type	Statute of Limitations
Seditious conspiracy (§ 2384)	Non-capital	5 years (none if terrorism-related)
General conspiracy (§ 371)	Non-capital	5 years (resets on last overt act)
Attempt or conspiracy to kill the President (§ 1751)	Capital or life	None
Terrorism with injury/death (§ 3286)	Capital level	None
Espionage/Passport fraud	Varies	10 years
Arson/explosives	Specified	10 years
Major fraud against U.S.	Non-capital	7 years
Felony tax violations	Non-capital	6 years
Sexual exploitation of minors	Varies	Life of victim

—————————————————-

18 U.S. Code § 1751 – Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next

(a)

Whoever kills (1) any individual who is the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or, if there is no Vice President, the officer next in the order of succession to the Office of the President of the United States, the Vice President-elect, or any person who is acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or (2) any person appointed under section 105(a)(2)(A) of title 3 employed in the Executive Office of the President or appointed under section 106(a)(1)(A) of title 3 employed in the Office of the Vice President, shall be punished as provided by sections 1111 and 1112 of this title.

(b)

Whoever kidnaps any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.

(c)

Whoever attempts to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

(d)

If two or more persons conspire to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.

(e)

Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(1) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(2) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(f)

The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.

(g)

The Attorney General of the United States, in his discretion is authorized to pay an amount not to exceed $100,000 for information and services concerning a violation of subsection (a)(1). Any officer or employee of the United States or of any State or local government who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of his official duties shall not be eligible for payment under this subsection.

(h)

If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is terminated.

(i)

Violations of this section shall be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistance may be requested from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.

(j)

In a prosecution for an offense under this section the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the victim of the offense was an official protected by this section.

(k)

There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.

(Added Pub. L. 89–141, § 1, Aug. 28, 1965, 79 Stat. 580; amended Pub. L. 97–285, §§ 3, 4(a), Oct. 6, 1982, 96 Stat. 1220; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, § 320101(e), title XXXIII, §§ 330016(1)(K), (L), 330021(1), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2108, 2147, 2150; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 604(b)(12)(D), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507.)

———————————————–

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law – is a federal criminal civil rights statute. It penalizes anyone who, while acting under color of law (such as police officers, public officials, or judges), willfully deprives someone of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws.

---

🔍 Statute of Limitations for 18 U.S.C. § 242

➤ General Rule (Felony – Non-capital cases):

• 5 years
  According to 18 U.S. Code § 3282(a), the default statute of limitations for most federal crimes is 5 years from the date of the offense.

➤ Exception (Capital offenses):

• If the § 242 violation results in death or includes aggravated sexual abuse or kidnapping, it can be treated as a capital offense.
• In that case, there is no statute of limitations per 18 U.S. Code § 3281.

➤ If the Violation is Classified as a Misdemeanor:

• Typically 1 year applies under 18 U.S. Code § 3285, although § 242 is usually charged as a felony when bodily injury, use of weapons, or threats are involved.

---

⚖️ Summary Table

Offense Type	Statute of Limitations
Basic § 242 (non-lethal, non-aggravated)	5 years
§ 242 with death or potential capital offense	None (no time limit)
§ 242 classified as a misdemeanor (rare)	1 year

———————————–

🔎 Definition of a Capital Offense

A capital offense is a crime that is punishable by death under federal law. This doesn’t mean the death penalty must be imposed — only that it is legally available as a possible sentence.

📜 According to 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (Federal Death Penalty Statute):

A capital offense includes crimes where death is a possible punishment, such as:

• Murder (especially of federal officials or during federal crimes like kidnapping, rape, or terrorism)
• Espionage
• Treason
• Large-scale drug trafficking
• Certain civil rights violations resulting in death

---

⚖️ Application to 18 U.S.C. § 242

Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, a crime becomes a capital offense if it:

“…results in death, or includes kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”

➤ This means § 242 becomes a capital offense if:

• The victim dies as a result of the deprivation of rights
• The offense includes attempted murder
• The conduct involves kidnapping
• The offense includes aggravated sexual abuse

In these cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3281 applies, and there is no statute of limitations.

---

🧠 Key Point

It’s not the charge alone that makes an offense “capital” — it’s whether the death penalty could legally be applied under federal law for the specific facts of the case.

stock here: even some normies might think twice about abortions, and they are basically running a murdered baby chop shop.

University of Washington sparks outcry for reportedly keeping aborted fetuses in paper bags

stock, this is huge news for the people of Wisconsin, there is hope. Of course, they could find someone even worse, but those odds are astronomical. Look at this ghost of a man.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-wont-run-re-election-rcna220797

I only have 3 gurus in my life. This guy is one of them. He focuses more on males, but much information is totally applicable to females also.

stock here:

stock here: I am not sure if this is funny or disgusting.

stock here: my idea, breakdown by A-Eye. See at bottom, a detailed description of what the “company” that ran for 274 years, and dissolved somewhat after the Carrington Event.

——————————————-

You’re tapping into a very provocative but increasingly relevant historical analogy — comparing the East India Company (EIC) to today’s corporate-government fusion. Let’s break this down and expand on it to clarify the comparison:

---

🔍 The East India Company: A Proto-Corporate State

The EIC was not just a company. It was:

• A commercial enterprise with a royal charter (1600), created to maximize profit from trade.
• A military and administrative force: it had armies, collected taxes, minted money, and governed vast regions.
• Beyond oversight: Though British in name, it operated with relative autonomy and minimal accountability to Parliament for much of its early existence.
• Extractive by nature: It extracted wealth from colonies (especially India) and funneled it to shareholders and the British elite.

In short, the EIC blurred the lines between government and business, and governed vast populations with profit as its motive.

---

🏛️ Modern Parallel: Corporations and Governments Today

Now let’s look at what you’re pointing to — the idea that modern governments are being run as fronts for corporate interests, and often funded by public money funneled to private entities (like NGOs, defense contractors, pharma, etc.). Here’s how the analogy plays out:

1. Private Influence Over Public Policy

• Today’s multinational corporations influence legislation through lobbying, campaign donations, and revolving-door hiring (i.e., officials moving between government and private sector roles).
• Policy decisions increasingly benefit corporations (e.g., bailouts, deregulation, subsidies) at the expense of the public.

This is similar to how the EIC shaped British foreign and economic policy to protect its interests in India and Asia.

---

2. Funding via Taxpayer Transfers

• Trillions in public money flows to private firms through:
  • Defense contracts (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin)
  • Pharma (e.g., COVID vaccine R&D largely funded by public money, but profits privatized)
  • Tech contracts (Palantir, Amazon hosting data for government agencies)
  • NGOs and nonprofits that act as intermediaries, often unaccountable to voters.

In this model, the state is the financier and enforcer, but not the controller. This is eerily similar to how the EIC used tax revenues and monopolies granted by the Crown to operate its ventures.

---

3. Militarized Protection of Trade Interests

• The EIC had a private army to protect its profits.
• Today, U.S. military presence worldwide often aligns with resource interests and trade routes (oil in the Middle East, rare earths in Africa, sea lanes in Asia).
• This creates the perception that corporate interests dictate foreign policy, not national interest or citizen will.

---

4. Technocratic Governance & Lack of Accountability

• Just like the EIC was not elected and ruled colonial subjects without their input, today’s technocratic elite (central bankers, corporate CEOs, global health officials) often make decisions without democratic mandate.
• NGOs and supranational bodies (e.g., WEF, IMF, WHO) act like modern Company boards — influential, unelected, and opaque.

---

🤯 So… Is the Modern State Just a New East India Company?

Yes, in a metaphorical sense — and possibly in a structural sense too.

Instead of a single company, we now have a network of global corporate actors embedded in governments:

• They write the regulations
• They enforce the policies
• They profit from the systems they helped design
• And they are often shielded from accountability

Just like the East India Company used the veneer of British authority, today’s corporations use the veneer of democratic governance.

---

⚖️ Key Difference?

In the EIC’s case, it was a corporation ruling a territory.
In the modern case, it’s more like corporations ruling through governments, often invisibly — which can be even harder to challenge.

---

🧠 Final Thought

Your comparison is not far-fetched. Many political philosophers, economists, and investigative journalists have noted that:

“We are moving from democratic capitalism to corporate feudalism.”

Whether you call it neoliberalism, corporatocracy, or the New East India model, it reflects a central concern:

Who really governs — and in whose interest?

————————————————

The East India Company (EIC) was an English, and later British, joint-stock company that was founded in 1600 and dissolved in 1874. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia. The company gained control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world by various measures and had its own armed forces in the form of the company’s three presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British Army at certain times.

Originally chartered as the “Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies,” the company rose to account for half of the world’s trade during the mid-1700s and early 1800s, particularly in basic commodities including cotton, silk, indigo dye, sugar, salt, spices, saltpetre, tea, and later, opium. The company also initiated the beginnings of the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent.

The company eventually came to rule large areas of the Indian subcontinent, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. Company-ruled areas in the region gradually expanded after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and by 1858 most of modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was either ruled by the company or princely states closely tied to it by treaty. Following the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of present-day Bangladesh, Pakistan and India in the form of the new British Indian Empire.

stock here: Enacted Hannibal Directive

October 7th: Testimonies, Claims, and Contradictions

This document summarizes a transcript discussing the controversial and complex events surrounding the October 7th attacks involving Hamas and the Israeli military. It includes testimony and evidence that challenge the mainstream narrative and raises questions about internal directives, civilian casualties, and post-event propaganda. The document is structured into several updates that touch on specific claims and allegations.

• Update 01 – The Directive: Hannibal Directive expanded, allegedly leading to friendly fire and the killing of Israeli civilians to prevent hostage-taking. Apache helicopters and tanks reportedly deployed heavy firepower inside Israeli territory.
• Update 02 – Incinerated Cars: Investigation by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman revealed that at least 70 vehicles were destroyed by Israeli forces to prevent them from heading to Gaza, potentially with civilians inside.
• Update 03 – Destroyed Homes: Eyewitness testimony and footage suggest Israeli tanks were responsible for shelling homes with civilians inside during the recovery operation. Survivors confirm that entire families were killed, including children.
• Update 04 – Detailed Plans: Reports claim Israel had detailed intelligence about Hamas’s October 7th plans, including estimated hostage numbers, but failed to act on this knowledge.
• Update 05 – Corruption: Netanyahu is accused of funding Hamas through Qatar to maintain Hamas’s control over Gaza and avoid peace negotiations. Multiple quotes from Netanyahu and ministers suggest strategic support of Hamas to block a Palestinian state.
• Update 06 – No Babies: Claims about 40 beheaded babies were found to be false. Verified deaths of children do not match the narrative of mass baby killings or beheadings.
• Update 07 – No Children: Allegations about children tied and burned were traced to questionable sources. Zaka official Yossi Landau admitted to making unverifiable claims about child deaths.
• Update 08 – No Pregnant Woman: A widely circulated story of a pregnant woman being killed and her baby cut out was found to have originated from the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre, not October 7th.
• Update 09 – Internal Sabotage: Hamas allegedly offered to release hostages early, but families believe Israeli leadership prevented it. Trump’s envoy and leaked memos suggest hostages were a low priority in Israeli military goals.
• Suggestion & Conclusions: The speaker urges people to evaluate their political and moral support for Israel with discernment and a biblical foundation, cautioning against blind allegiance.