stock here: HT Cuttlefish, what do you think of this look, 85% of them look like this.
Month: October 2025
stock here: 1300 women in USA with brain tumors sue Pfizer for a birthcontrol injection.
I did do the Shingles injections, during COVID, but before the mRNA was foisted onto the public. But I think that is it. I had super high Anti-COVID anti-bodies so I was considering giving blood to help other people…and then I thought, do I really want them putting any needles into my arm on a fairly regular basis?
Killing Babies or Brain Tumors? Seems like we are being given less good choices. Old high school buddy is hopping on a plane today. Tonight, we’ll go out for some tap beer and then it’s fire pit season, with some 12 year old Rum, the leaves are starting to fall in earnest.
Tomorrow we to the funeral of our high school classmate, who was happy go lucky, and lauded on Facebook as a great man. He definitely would “take one for the team” and so he took the injections to protect others. He got a turbo brain cancer a year ago, they operated, but they didn’t get all of it, or his immune system was so damaged that it couldn’t fight off even a minor attack. Now he is DEAD!
The substack is only for paid members, or apparently if you get the substack app on your phone, you might be able to view it for free. No go. I have far too many apps on my phone as it is. A-Eye was able to flesh out that this story is true, although titled as click bait overblown.
Even so A-Eye seems almost like a cancer apologist….”it’s not all brain tumors, just one type”
There is some evidence connecting the contraceptive injection Depo‑Provera (manufactured by Pfizer Inc. (or previously its predecessor companies) to an increased risk of brain tumours — but not the exact claim in the article you shared, and not with the full extent as described. Here’s a summary of the facts and caveats:
✅ What we do know
- A 2024 study published in the The BMJ found that women who used progestogen-only injectable contraceptives (including Depo-Provera) for more than one year had a significantly higher risk of meningioma (a type of brain tumour) compared to non-users. King Law+3ABC+3The Times of India+3
- There is ongoing litigation in the U.S. (and elsewhere) in which Pfizer is a defendant, alleging that Depo-Provera’s label did not adequately warn about the risk of brain tumours (meningiomas) following prolonged use. Drugwatch.com+2Morris James LLP+2
⚠️ What the article claims vs what evidence supports
The article you shared states: “Pfizer’s Birth Control Injection Triggers Surge in Brain Tumors” — and implies a strong causal link, a “surge” of brain tumours and that the injection is a birth-control injection by Pfizer.
- While Depo-Provera is a birth-control injection and is linked to tumour risk, the evidence is largely about meningiomas (generally benign but serious) and with longer-term use, not a general “surge” or broad brain-tumour epidemic.
- The claim “triggers surge in brain tumors” is exaggerated compared to the scientific findings, which report increased risk (for a specific tumour type, under certain conditions) rather than a confirmed “surge” for all brain tumours.
- The article’s headline mentions “brain tumors” broadly — but the litigation and study evidence refer specifically to meningiomas.
- The article may mischaracterize or oversimplify the link. It may also fail to clarify that the association requires “long-term use” and is still under scientific and legal scrutiny (not conclusively settled for all use cases).
🔍 Additional context / things to check
- The meningioma risk appears tied to duration of use: e.g., more than a year of the injection. ABC+1
- The tumour type is generally meningioma (rather than all brain-tumours) — meningiomas are tumours of the meninges (the layers surrounding the brain) and are often slow-growing. Some are benign.
- Regulatory action: Some jurisdictions (e.g., EU, Australia) have updated warnings; U.S. label change has been resisted or declined by the FDA so far. Drugwatch.com+2Lawsuit Update Center+2
- The legal claims are still active. There is no publicly known mass settlement yet (as of date) that confirms the link as indisputable for all users.
- The article you provided appears to be from a site called “COVID Intel – by William Makis (McGill Medicine)”. This raises additional caution as it may not be peer-reviewed scientific literature but rather commentary or a paid subscription piece (the screenshot indicates “Paid”).
- It is always good to verify whether the article provides its own sources (study citations) or whether it is making claims without rigorous backing.
🧮 My verdict
The article isn’t entirely false — there is backing that Depo-Provera (Pfizer’s injection) has an association with increased risk of a specific brain-tumour type (meningioma) with long-term use. However, the article’s wording (“Triggers Surge in Brain Tumors”) is over-broad and sensational relative to the scientific evidence. It could mislead a reader into believing a broad, immediate causal link for all brain tumours and for typical use, which is not supported by the available scientific literature.
If you like, I can check peer-reviewed studies (not legal-advertising sites) to pull out the exact risk numbers, how strong the evidence is, and whether this applies to short-term users, different formulations, etc. Would you like that?
Recent litigation news on Depo‑Provera and brain tumour risk
Pfizer sued in US over contraceptive that women say caused brain tumours
Categories
Who is This “Lady”
stock here: Musk posted “troubling”. Your truth is created by your belief system.
Troubling https://t.co/XglGF9Tlyo
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2025
Categories
37 Hussein Obama Firsts
stock here: ChatGPT refused to format this for me, tried 4 times. Hmmmm……
Obama’s accomplishments. The enemy within
1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.
2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in. 4
. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.
6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.
9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.
28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.
31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).
36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”
37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion. I had been under the impression he hadn’t been doing ANYTHING… Such an accomplished individual…
Categories
Windows 10 Support is Ending
stock here: most of my computers are Win 10, one is Win 11 and the admin absolutely hates it, although it improved after I pushed myself to do a bios update.
This is worth reviewing, and visit the authors site, there are many very astute comments also. I am glad i visited, I found out that Microsoft will continue to give you “security updates” on Win 10, it’s $30 for the first year.
—————— \
Good catch — yes, according to the official Windows 10 Extended Security Updates (ESU) webpage, the consumer version of ESU is offered as a one-time purchase of US $30 (or local equivalent + tax) for the first year.
Microsoft
Here are a few important details and caveats based on that page:
The $30 purchase covers up to 10 devices under the same Microsoft Account.
Microsoft
The offer is only for the consumer ESU program, not for commercial/enterprise devices.
Microsoft
It extends updates through October 13, 2026.
Microsoft
Devices must be on Windows 10 version 22H2 (Home/Pro/Pro Education/Workstations) and meet prerequisites.
Microsoft
———————
What Does Mandating Windows 11 Incur?
The screen shot is from The Green Mile (1999), about people on death row. I guess, all people have something in common; life is a condition from which nobody gets out alive.
A few tips for those who cannot circumvent using Windows 11:
- Install Win 11 without an internet connection and an e-mail or MS account attached.
- Stop auto updates permanently.
- Disable AI.
- I have also found that disabling device drivers in Device Manager in Windows 11 can be overridden by websites that require login. Not registering to such websites is the only remedy.
- Disabling your microphone or your camera in Device Manager can be overridden by sites in which you are logged in. That can be your Microsoft, your Google account, an employer’s, or just about any other entity’s.
- Even if you cover your camera, 5G, your home Wi-Fi, and proximity sensors can still ID you and even locate you within the room.
- Your computer/camera/phone speakers can also be used as microphones by a remote party.
- Virus checkers create a list of everything on your computer/phone, and the generated data can be sold and/or used against you. Disabling the one built into Windows and not using anything else must be accompanied by you not clicking on any picture or attachment in e-mails/text messages.
Just how many people can still remember when Bill Gates said the convid “vaccines” were the “operating system” that would need occasional “updates”? Once a techie, always a techie…1 Of course, AI has changed the records by now, which is why my pen name, originally meant to be a joke, has become possibly essential. These days, you can’t find much more about that declaration than “refutations” from not-exactly-reputable, but extremely powerful sources…
Who remembers him and his one-time wife bragging and giggling that “next time, people would notice”?
By now, it has become quite clear that people, that is, those who will be allowed to survive by the central AI, must become part of the IoT, the Internet of Things (and the crap has its own variations, but it makes no difference). Previously, I wrote about people being openly replaced with their deepfakes, and pointed out that the last stage of compiling the humanoid AI is in effect. This time, I am filling out a few blanks that are not exactly advertised, but omnipresent.
Privacy?
As long as you appear in cyberspace (cell phones included, even the oldest ones), don’t delude yourself about privacy2. The technology of the Internet itself, after several years of military application and testing, was made available for the public as a data-collection and control device on January 1, 1983. Believe me or not, even old systems were able to devise your personality, attitude, and most likely reactions simply from your list of contacts. The only defense against that is to have thousands of them, but keeping in touch with them also counts, so you must send them antisocial-media, e-mail, or text messages on a regular basis, AND receive non-automated responses, so good luck.
My “privacy solution” is that I am using various operating systems on 15-20-year-old laptops, tablets, and computers (none of them costing more than $150 at the time, but these days, I could buy them for less than $100), each assigned to specific tasks, behind double or triple firewalls and either two routers daisy-chained or at least a decent Ethernet switch. As each device has different IP addresses, fingerprinting me becomes difficult, because my wife is also on my internet. Each device functions independently: no network and, of course, no Wi-Fi, and no identifiers with the exception of the one(s) where some details (accurate or not) are needed for the apps to work.
However, during all these years, with the emergence of new technology, the volumes of data-collection have been rising exponentially, and with the introduction of 5G (not only in cell phones, but also in “smart” devices/meters, and home Wi-Fi that turns the local electric grid into an antenna3) even personal targeting became possible.
Oh, did I mention that once you start using a lot of “security” features, it “raises a red flag”?
Windows 11
Microsoft published its last “security” update for Windows 10 on October 15, 2025, and is trying to mandate a switch to Windows 11. Don’t take me wrong, all versions of Windows have always been spyware. After all, globalist-errand-boy Gates belongs to the same cesspool of CIA brats from which the founders of Fakebook and comparable s(h)ites also cropped up4.
Windows 11 does it all!
What’s new in Windows 11?
The requirements:
- Fast multi-threaded processors (obviously, that’s needed to serve the data throughput);
- Unless you employ a trick during installation, the operating system will keep identifying you and follow every move you make, even when not online (data collection can happen as long as a laptop or a cell phone is “turned off” and the collected data is transmitted after the device is on5;
- TPM 2.0 is supposed to secure data transmission by advanced encryption, and it does, mainly from you;
- Sufficient memory and bandwidth to transfer data, “as needed.”
While Windows has always been spyware, using back doors for easy intrusion into its users’ devices6, in the last 10-12 years (probably gradually introduced since the introduction of TPM 1.1b in 2003), hard disks sold in the US have also included technology to forward user data to who-knows-whom. Speeding them up and combining them with ever-increasing internet bandwidth (“speed”) has made the data collection and the surveillance a lot easier and less noticeable.7
AI is now built into the hardware of the most recent PC and Apple products8. Disabling it has become nearly impossible as long as one is using a browser.
Operating systems
Remember Blackberry? Its phones were the gold standard for data security. US government employees were using them, and lots of people liked the physical keyboards. It had its own OS, which used its unique encryption, making it difficult to crack. Allegedly, it went down, because it lacked the apps and games Android devices offered, but that would have meant the demise of Apple (well, Bill Gates saved his buddy’s enterprise, when it was about to go bankrupt). It may have been more about taking risks: its owners were not under US law, so in order to keep their market share, they had to either migrate to Android, which they did too late, and the company was sold to Japanese investors who have been fully compliant ever since. Of course, the original owners must have divulged to source code to US “authorities,” just like Kaspersky before it was forced out of the US9.
There have been, and still are, a number of mobile operating systems. MS itself issued its own mobile OS, but by then, cells phones were mostly toys, and nobody could compete with Androids. For “national security” (aka. to simplify surveillance and data collection), standardized data formats were desirable, which saves resources by eliminating data conversion.
Chrome as an operating system10 succeeded only because its junk laptops have been distributed in American schools, which resulted in some serious revenue for the globalist front, Google. Notably, Chrome is based on Linux, which brings up the question of using open source.
There are other small mobile OSs, and you can take your pick, if you like. Notice that whatever goes through your phone/internet provider11 will never be a secret. Even if the source code were not available for your OS (which interprets the apps you are using), which I doubt, AI can probably decrypt most forms of encryption by now.
Switching to open source: Linux
It looks like Microsoft’s push for total control and AI-centralization may be a bit premature, unless the predictable glitches have already been ironed out, and all consumer choices are reduced to imaginary ones. Personally, I would say, it’s the latter.
Open-source means transparent pieces of software. While transparency is good, the it comes with the bad: anyone can mess with it. Who knows which version of Linux you will install on your computer?
On Linux, most of the applications people tend to use in Windows have equivalents, that is, programs that perform the same tasks as their siblings for Windows. They are also open-source, and most of them are free, so you must be careful what you do and which programs you run on them.
For Windows users, who don’t care to “upgrade” to Win 11, Mint is the simplest version. It operates pretty much like Windows, and doesn’t require memorizing scripts like Ubuntu. Red Hat is not free, but I’m not sure you get what you pay for. If someone profits, they can profit from a lot more than just your buying the product. That reminds me of encrypted e-mail services, but that’s something for another day.
Linux is faster and a lot less resource-hungry than windows12. Moreover, it can be run from a USB pen drive or even a copy-protected (“finalized”) DVD13, making it impossible to alter it for an intruder. That, however, doesn’t protect anyone from a skilled intruder.
Experimenting with Linux in the last 20 years led me to the conclusion that sometimes it has only rudimentary device drivers, which can be especially disconcerting, when it comes to sound and video cards14. Moreover, some device drivers might not even exist for Linux, so before switching, you must check out if you are going to be satisfied with the results.
Is it that no matter what, users end up like those targeted by the KGB: falling out of the “window” from the 20th floor and closing the window behind them? I’m sure you can do these, including paying Microsoft extra in the next three years for Win 10 “upgrades” that double every year, and they don’t start cheap. You can also install Win 11 on “unsupported” computers, but “upgrades” tend not to work, in which case the back doors in your system will remain the same, making it easier to hack. Even when they work, only the designers of Windows might know what kind of vulnerabilities your choice can bring along15.
Still, mRNA is still most likely a cover-up for alternative methods (for one, I don’t read anything with a title that has mRNA in it), just like “vaccinations” can be completely “forbidden” by now, because there are so many other ways to poison the people, which has been more than obvious in the last three years. Anyone telling you that you are free from “vaccines” is a liar and a fraud…
With all those “security cameras” all over the place (even a doorbell with a camera collects information about your surroundings, but so do “smart” devices and their kin.
Towers are still left up (some on private property), because they are also efficient control and extermination devices, and with their backup power, they can be utilized even during electric blackouts. Considering that Blackrock and its kind started buying up power companies, allegedly in order to secure enough power for their AI operations, but as they already control that part, the most likely cause is to have the ability to create year-long blackouts whose outcomes would be devastating (no potable water, transportation, production and distribution, just to mention a few corollaries).
It’s time for people to realize that whenever something is free, they are the products, which is often spiced up by the “provider” being sponsored by the taxpayer.
Even desktop computers can contain the technology by now. For several years, the RAM kept much of its contents as long as the computer was turned off, but plugged in (a slow memory test at startup cleared the memory, a feature that is rarely available by now, but Windows doesn’t like that sort of thing, anyway, and the user often ends up having to reinstall it). Unplugging worked after about 24 hours, but these days, micro- or even nanochips can be installed into computers that hold their contents a lot longer, if not indefinitely.
“Updates” mostly protected the clandestine operation, although they also provided some protection from third-party intruders by changing the back doors and preventing zero-day vulnerabilities that may be there intentionally for some time, and perhaps, caused a major data leak in one of the three credit-rating agencies, Equifax, in 2017: social Security numbers, birth dates and home addresses — for up to 143 million Americans, which allowed for a further twist on the SSN that was designed to be vulnerable already at its introduction in 1936, forecasting what one can expect from the Ditigal ID.
Haven’t you also always kept wondering why it took Windows forever to boot?
Apple has always been more rigorous about identifying the user, and offered more reliable devices in return, but how much of that is a fact?
Russians are making Kaspersky, but in Germany, complying with German/EU laws, so the circus around its being banned by Diaper Joe’s administration was more about validating the theater in Ukraine. Anyway all brands of “security” software spy for the “authorities” (whoever those might be), and don’t tell me Germany is not a US puppet state.
Using the Chrome browser is another story: it collects just about everything you do and forwards it to whomever, and if you were asked (you are not), you probably wouldn’t give your consent to it.
Best to keep your cell phone and your internet provider at two different companies, owned by different global investment firms, because that makes coordination a bit more complex, which can still cause delays in processing and evaluating your data.
On a fast computer with sufficient memory, you can still run a Windows emulation on Linux, but I usually don’t care for data that goes through too many hands.
You probably want to avoid dual-boot systems on which you can select between Linux and Windows, because re-installation can mean you must start over, unless you have backups that work on your computer (such backups are either “free” or not, but in both cases, they report to the manufacturer and who-knows whom else.
On my Nvidia Geforce GTX 1650 Super video card, the picture quality (image, text, and video) on Windows 10 is far superior to the one I can get on Linux, which can be extremely bothersome on my 65” screen.
Unless you go to places that most people would deny visiting, your card information is much more likely to be stolen in a store by someone walking by and activating the NFC (near-field-communication) chip in it (shielding cards in your wallet is generally a good idea, although the thief must be extremely close to it, when stealing your information to pay for something that you didn’t order), taking pictures, or the security-camera operator (or anyone else who can see the recordings at checkout); you must always hide the back of the card, where the security code is.
stock here: this was fascinating. The US Feds could do a study on this castle, and the grant process to great the scope of work to do the study would cost $2M.
Categories
Transhumanism on X
stock here, quite a bit there, there.
stock here: this site hosted the longest version of Laura Aboli’s incredible speech on transhumanism.
This is one resource, of this stated religious site.
Our ministry accomplishes the above goals by emphasizing:
- Legal education focused on both God’s law and man’s law.
- Religious liberty, faith and worship.
- Law enforcement and legal activism.
- Self government: Internal rather than external government.
- Personal responsibility, good citizenship, human sovereignty (as an agent of the only sovereign, who is God).
- Nonviolent, lawful exercise of non-partisan activism in pursuit of ONLY religious goals.
- A return of a lawful, limited, accountable, and Constitutional government which is God’s servant, rather than His enemy or His competitor for the allegiance, obedience, affections and worship of the Sovereign People, “We the People”
- Exposing, publicizing, and opposing socialism, corruption, and violations of the Constitution and the law by government employees and officials.
- Exercising our First Amendment right of self-government exclusively under the civil laws of our God.
- Protecting and expanding the separation of powers doctrine, and especially the separation of church, which is believers, from state, which is the unbelieving people and governments around them. The separation between church and state is the essence of what “sanctification” means in a religious context.
- Emphasizing and restoring the role of PRIVATE property in the freedom of each individual and its use as a defense against government oppression or corruption.
- The pursuit of legal “justice” (Form #05.050), which means absolutely owned private property (Form #10.002), and equality of TREATMENT and OPPORTUNITY (Form #05.033) under REAL LAW (Form #05.048). The following would be INJUSTICE, not JUSTICE:
- 12.1 Outlawing or refusing to recognize or enforce absolutely owned private property (Form #12.025).
- 12.2 Imposing equality of OUTCOME by law, such as by abusing taxing powers to redistribute wealth. See Form #11.302.
- 12.3 Any attempt by government to use judicial process or administrative enforcement to enforce any civil obligation derived from any source OTHER than express written consent or to an injury against the equal rights of others demonstrated with court admissible evidence. See Form #09.073 and Form #12.040.
- 12.4 Offering, implementing, or enforcing any civil franchise (Form #05.030). This enforces superior powers on the part of the government as a form of inequality and results in religious idolatry. This includes making justice into a civil public privilege (Form #05.050, Section 5.3) or turning CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE citizens into STATUTORY PUBLIC citizens engaged in a public office and a franchise (Form #05.006).
President Obama summarized the SEDM Mission Statement in the following video.
Categories
Transhumanism
stock here: this one has 2.9M views and over 10,000 comments. I am not promoting this person or channel, I am not sure how I feel about it, it almost feels like an apologist for transhumanism, by expressly stating that from the get go, the use of fire by early man was the start of “transhumanism”. And the long segways to the female tech developer using Amazon Web Services for facial recognition and “lie detecting”.
I posted this before, but it is so clear, it needs to be shown again. I found a YouTube and posted at the far bottom.
She blends geopolitical analysis with spiritual conviction, urging audiences to remember that the human soul cannot be coded, cloned, or uploaded. Her message is not one of fear, but of remembrance — that consciousness itself is sacred.
This seems to be the longest version of this speech,
Laura Aboli “Transhumanism: The End Game” – Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)
Laura Aboli – United Democratic International Movement for Awareness and Freedom | LinkedIn
Laura Aboli: Guarding the Human Soul in the Age of Transhumanism
Laura Aboli has emerged as one of the clearest voices warning against what she calls “the final frontier of human control” — the transhumanist agenda. Through speeches, interviews, and articles, she blends geopolitical analysis with spiritual conviction, urging audiences to remember that the human soul cannot be coded, cloned, or uploaded. Her message is not one of fear, but of remembrance — that consciousness itself is sacred.
The Voice at the Better Way Conference
Aboli’s most recognized appearance came at the Better Way Conference 2023 in Bath, UK, hosted by the World Council for Health. Her talk, titled “Transhumanism: The End Game,” was a passionate plea to preserve the integrity of human life and spirit amid technological acceleration. She warned that the fusion of AI, genetic editing, and biometric control systems could lead not to liberation but to enslavement if humanity forgets its divine origin.
Watch her full speech here: Better Way Conference Talk on YouTube
Beyond the Stage: Interviews and Conversations
Following the conference, Aboli’s ideas spread widely through podcasts and independent media. On platforms such as the Tenpenny Podcast and Rumble, she continued unpacking the philosophical roots of transhumanism — tracing its lineage from technocratic utopianism to modern-day digital governance. Her conversations often turn toward personal sovereignty, divine consciousness, and the forgotten language of compassion in political life.
Listen to an in‑depth interview: The Tenpenny Podcast – Laura Aboli Interview
Written Works and Essays
While best known for her oratory, Aboli also writes essays that blend social critique with spiritual discernment. Her 2025 article “Truth about Iran,” published on Energy Update, examined geopolitics through the lens of moral responsibility and collective awakening.
Read the article: Truth about Iran by Laura Aboli
The Spiritual Thread
At the heart of Aboli’s message lies a conviction that human beings are not merely biological machines. She invokes classical philosophy and faith traditions to remind listeners that our capacity for love, intuition, and creativity points to something eternal. In her words, “The ultimate rebellion is to stay human — to feel, to pray, and to refuse to let the algorithm define our worth.”
Legacy and Continuing Work
Through her organization, the United Democratic International Movement for Awareness and Freedom, Laura Aboli continues to speak across Europe and online, inspiring a community of thinkers, activists, and believers who view the defense of humanity as a sacred duty. Her work straddles philosophy, politics, and mysticism — a rare synthesis in an age that often demands conformity over conscience.
Official Profiles and Channels:
• LinkedIn – Laura Aboli
• Better Way Events 2023 Archive
• Rumble – Transhumanism The End Game
© 2025 Feature profile prepared for research and educational use.
stock here, name of Cohen almost for sure a jew. Bing!!!
Stanley Cohen was born in 1950 and raised in Port Chester, New York, in an Orthodox Jewish family. He attended Hebrew schools and had a bar mitzvah.
The Forward
He later described himself as a “non-religious spiritual Jew.”
Ethnicity/race: He is Jewish by upbringing/heritage (Orthodox background).
The Forward
His political affiliation: He is not widely identified with a mainstream U.S. political party; his self-description emphasizes radical defense work.
Professional role: He is an attorney, and describes himself as an advocate for clients “the government would like to silence or put in jail.”
istanleycohen.org
+1
🧑💼 Major Activism & Legal Work
Cohen has represented high-profile and highly controversial clients: members/leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, a relative of Osama bin Laden, and detainees at Guantánamo Bay.
Wikipedia
+1
He has written opinion pieces for Al Jazeera and appears regularly in Middle-East forums, criticizing Israeli policy and U.S. foreign-aid policy toward Israel.
Al Jazeera
+1
Example: In 2014 Cohen pleaded guilty to tax charges—specifically obstructing the IRS and failing to file required returns; he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Wikipedia
+1
⚠️ Controversies & Criticisms
His legal defense of clients tied to designated terrorist organizations has drawn significant backlash and accusations of being a “terrorist mouthpiece.”
Wikipedia
His writings and public comments include vehement criticism of Israeli policies; some of those critics allege he uses provocative language about Zionism and Israel.
The Forward
His tax conviction impacted his law license.
Wikipedia
🔍 Why He’s Noted in Context
Cohen is particularly relevant when analyzing:
U.S. legal-defense strategy for unpopular/terror-linked clients
U.S.–Middle East political criticisms and activism around Palestine/Israel
The intersection of U.S. civil-liberties law (defense of “unpopular” defendants) and global human-rights/terror-law concerns
—————————–
To prevent an abusive Judiciary, why shouldn’t the unliked and outliers have excellent defense attorneys?
✅ The Good
- Cohen has represented clients and groups that are deeply unpopular or marginalised and says he does this intentionally: “I will not take a major case unless I identify with the client’s politics and like them.” Wikipedia+1
- He writes regularly for outlets like Al Jazeera, contributing opinion pieces on human-rights issues, media freedom, and Palestine/Israel which raise perspectives often under-represented in mainstream U.S. coverage. For example: “The lone wolf of Gaza” (Oct 2016) and “BDS is a war Israel can’t win” (July 2016). Al Jazeera+2Al Jazeera+2
- He brings attention to legal and human-rights cases that might otherwise receive no defence at all—his willingness to take ‘difficult’ clients means they have representation.
- His background: born in 1950, raised in an Orthodox Jewish family (Port Chester, NY), attended Hebrew school, though he says he ceased practicing at age 14. The Forward+1
⚠️ The Bad
- Cohen’s defence of clients tied to groups designated as terrorist organisations has drawn heavy criticism. He has represented, among others, a relative of Osama bin Laden, and members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Wikipedia+1
- While that defence work aligns with his civil-liberties ethos, critics argue that it also gives legitimacy or platform to extremely controversial actors. For example, the Forward described his clients and said: “the Jewish attorney as a ‘traitor’ and an ‘enemy of Jews, Israel and America.’” The Forward
- In 2014 he pleaded guilty to obstructing the IRS and failing to file returns (relating to millions of dollars allegedly unreported). He was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. Wikipedia+1
- After his conviction, he lost his law license (or at least it was suspended) and this damages his credibility from a legal-practitioner standpoint. Wikipedia+1
😬 The Ugly
- Some of his writings are extremely provocative and polarising. For instance: in his Al Jazeera piece “Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle” (July 2017) he wrote: “It’s time for Israel to accept that as an occupied people, Palestinians have a right to resist — in every way possible.” Al Jazeera+1 Such phrasing has triggered accusations of supporting or normalising violence.
- The nature of his clientele and public statements means he is often labelled (by detractors) as a “terrorist mouthpiece”. That stigma complicates how his advocacy work is received and can overshadow legitimate legal-rights issues he raises. Wikipedia+1
- His tax conviction and questions about professionalism (“he’s a lousy businessman,” as one court memo reportedly said) cast a shadow over his legal practice and raise concerns about his judgement in financial/ethical matters. amNewYork
🔍 My Assessment
- Cohen is undeniably a bold and non-mainstream figure. He brings attention to clients and issues others avoid. That’s admirable from a civil-liberties vantage.
- However, his approach is highly adversarial, and his willingness to align with (and defend) very controversial actors means his work is not purely within “accepted” human-rights frameworks. There are significant risks (reputational, moral, strategic) attached.
- For an audience/article: his story is a rich source of tension—claiming the mantle of human-rights lawyer while operating at the edge (or outside) of traditional boundaries of legitimacy.
- If you use his writings/opinions, it’s wise to contextualize them: note which views are mainstream, which are controversial, and how critics respond.
Here’s a tight summary of the video’s “do-not-install” (or “uninstall”) software list, with reasons and safer alternatives.
Bad/avoid software (from the video)
- Traditional “suite” antiviruses
- Examples: Norton, McAfee (“maffy”).
- Why bad: Heavy performance hit; lots of upsells/bundling; misses still get through; often preloaded on OEM PCs.
- Alternative: Windows Security (Defender) + smart browsing habits.
- Most consumer VPN apps (especially “free” ones)
- Examples mentioned: NordVPN cited for a past breach/handling; general caution on free VPNs.
- Why bad: ISPs/content sites detect & throttle/deny; another attack surface; “free” VPNs can sniff/sell data.
- Use only if you must: Research reputable providers; avoid logging into sensitive accounts on public Wi-Fi regardless.
- Shopping/coupon browser extensions
- Examples: Honey, Amazon/Edge shopping add-ons, Temu/Capital One types.
- Why bad: Intrusive at checkout, constant tracking/popups, slows browsing.
- Alternative: Manually search for coupon codes when needed.
- “PC performance booster”/registry cleaner suites
- Examples: Advanced System Repair; generic “optimizer/cleaner/booster” tools.
- Why bad: Placebo at best; often run resident, consume resources, cause conflicts; registry cleaning is needless on SSD-era Windows.
- Alternative: Keep Windows lean, disable startup junk, update drivers/OS, tidy storage. Use Revo Uninstaller (free) to fully remove apps.
- OEM bloatware on prebuilt PCs
- Examples: Trial AVs (Norton), multiple OEM control panels (called out: MSI’s many utilities).
- Why bad: Redundant utilities, telemetry, popups, resource use.
- Alternative: Uninstall anything you don’t use; keep only a single needed control app (fans/RGB).
- Unused cloud sync clients (if you don’t use them)
- Example: OneDrive.
- Why bad: Constant indexing/sync can impact disk performance and add clutter.
- Alternative: If you don’t rely on it, uninstall/disable it.
- Pirated / cracked software & shady torrents
- Examples: Cracked Adobe/Windows, games from torrent sites.
- Why bad: Trojan/spyware risk bundled with the crack; zero trust chain.
- Alternative: Legit free/open-source tools, subscriptions you actually need, or vetted trials.
Quick “do this instead” checklist
- Rely on Windows Security (Defender); avoid stacking multiple AVs.
- Use Revo Uninstaller to remove unused programs and leftovers.
- Keep extensions minimal (ideally none that watch shopping/checkouts).
- On public Wi-Fi, don’t log into sensitive accounts; if you must use a VPN, pick a well-vetted, paid provider—still treat it as partial, not perfect, protection.
- Debloat new PCs: remove trialware, duplicate OEM utilities, and anything you won’t use.
- Keep Windows/driver updates current; manage startup apps; ensure adequate RAM/SSD free space.
stock here: we all get used to the fact that we are continually spied on. This guy deep dives.
stock here: RFK has commented on Chicken Depop, he is in general against it, and also against chicken vaccinations. But he has no power, and the USDA is heavily leaned as Democratic.
The USDA has a legal staff of 250 People!!!!!!! They have 100,000 total employees. But they still can’t figure out how to not kill all the chickens.
The number 2 guy is a lawyer from Tennessee.
He seems like a good guy, he is directly involved with re-organizing USDA, kicking half of the DC workers out to the field where they can actually see cows and chickens.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/usda-defends-secretive-rollout-of-reorganization-plan
Michael Watson is head of APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. He has 8000 employees and a budget of $2.015B He fights against puppy abuse and dog-slaughter……must be a good guy.
Mindy Brashears, a Republican, and Trump appointee, and pro food industry.
https://www.texasobserver.org/mindy-brashears-covid-19-food-safety
Glenn Smith appointed by Trump in 2019 and is an Iowa farmer.
https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/iowa-native-appointed-to-rural-development-leadership-for-usda
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110221/witnesses/HHRG-116-AG22-Wstate-SmithG-20191119.pdf
stock here, this is amazing, because I have never put 2 and 2 together before. See prior article also.
Excellent question — and one that goes almost entirely unasked. The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), codified at 7 U.S.C. § 8301 et seq., was enacted in May 2002 as Subtitle E of Title X of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171).
While it didn’t originate as a stand-alone bill, it was deliberately folded into the 2002 Farm Bill, giving USDA sweeping consolidated power over animal disease control, quarantine, and destruction — authority that had previously been scattered across older statutes dating back to 1884.
🏛️ Who Pushed It
1. Primary sponsor context
- The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (S. 1731 / H.R. 2646) was sponsored by
- Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) – then chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) – chair of the House Agriculture Committee.
- The AHPA section came out of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, heavily influenced by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) staff and agricultural-industry lobbyists (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, American Veterinary Medical Association).
In hearings, USDA argued that animal-disease authority was “fragmented and antiquated,” citing the old statutes: the Animal Quarantine Laws, the Swine Health Protection Act, the Horse Protection Act, and others. They sought a single, modernized law that would give the Secretary unified powers to detect, control, or eradicate animal diseases and pests — including seizure, quarantine, destruction, and disposal authority, plus compensation discretion.
⚙️ Why It Was Pushed (Motivations in 2001–2002)
1. Post-9/11 biosecurity panic
- The anthrax mailings of late 2001 and the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the UK (2001) terrified policymakers.
- USDA and Homeland Security planners feared a foreign animal-disease attack could cripple U.S. agriculture and food exports.
- The AHPA was pitched as an “agro-terrorism” defense law, giving USDA emergency powers parallel to what HHS has for human diseases under the Public Health Service Act.
- Supporters emphasized rapid, decisive action over “bureaucratic delays” — hence the non-reviewable compensation clause and sweeping seizure/quarantine powers.
2. Industry desire for uniform federal control
- Livestock producers wanted to avoid a patchwork of state quarantines and inspections like those imposed during previous outbreaks.
- National producer groups argued that unified federal authority and indemnity would improve export confidence and disease tracing.
- USDA promised indemnity payments to encourage early reporting and compliance with destruction orders.
3. Regulatory consolidation
- AHPA repealed or subsumed 20+ older animal-health laws into one statute.
- It gave the Secretary of Agriculture near-total discretion to:
- Declare an “extraordinary emergency.”
- Control interstate/international movement.
- Destroy infected or exposed animals and property.
- Compensate owners.
- The 2002 conference report praised it as “streamlining animal health statutes to ensure a rapid coordinated response.”
🧩 Political and Legislative Trail
- Introduced: spring 2001 (pre-9/11) as part of early Farm Bill drafts.
- Momentum exploded after 9/11 — language was toughened, “biosecurity” and “terrorism prevention” explicitly cited in committee reports.
- Conference report (House Rep. 107-424) emphasized the need for “expeditious action” against “any biological threat to domestic livestock,” and said “compensation is subject to the Secretary’s determination to avoid litigation delays.”
- Passed the Senate (64-35) and House (280-141)** in May 2002; signed by President George W. Bush on May 13, 2002.
💬 Criticism (then and now)
Even in 2002, some civil-liberties and small-producer advocates objected:
- Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) both warned about “unchecked executive authority” in disease response and indemnity determinations.
- Animal-welfare and small-farm groups (Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, later) argued it amounted to a “livestock Patriot Act” — a national-security pretext for expanded surveillance, seizure, and forced depopulation without judicial review.
- Few amendments were adopted because the Farm Bill was huge (700+ pages) and politically untouchable in the post-9/11 climate.
🧠 Commentary
The AHPA sits at the intersection of biosecurity, agriculture policy, and emergency powers. In the calm light of 2024, several elements stand out:
- The “final and unreviewable” compensation clause you quoted reflects post-9/11 emergency thinking, prioritizing speed over rights.
- The breadth of § 8305–§ 8308—authorizing movement bans, destruction, testing, and data collection—allows the kind of “regulatory creep” now seen in APHIS’s electronic-ID and indemnity rules.
- Because the statute consolidated everything under one roof and foreclosed judicial review, APHIS can expand through rulemaking and “Federal Orders” without new legislation.
- —————————————————————————–
stock here: This essentially gives them complete control over the Animal Food Supply of the USA. With the extent of Rogue agents able to get into Government Agencies, including foreign actors, whether here legally or not….this should be of extreme concern.
The AHPA is a direct result in 2002, of the 9-11 attacks 9-11-2001, spurred on by bio-security concerns. See far bottom for that discussion
———————-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/8306
——————
A-Eye
You’re pointing to a very consequential provision of the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA):
“The determination by the Secretary of the amount to be paid under this subsection shall be final and **not subject to judicial review or review by any officer or employee of the Federal Government other than the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.” Justia Law+2U.S. Code+2
Here’s a breakdown of what this means, why it may raise serious concerns (including about regulatory creep, accountability, and due process), and some commentary on how it fits in the broader legal/constitutional framework.
What the provision says and covers
Statutory context:
- Section 7 U.S.C. § 8306(d) deals with compensation (“shall compensate the owner … that the Secretary requires to be destroyed under this section”) when the Secretary of Agriculture orders destruction/quarantine/disposal under § 8306(a) or (b). U.S. Code+1
- Sub-paragraph (2)(C) of § 8306(d) states that the Secretary’s determination of the amount of compensation is final and not subject to judicial review or review by any other federal officer or employee other than the Secretary or a designee. U.S. Code+1
What it practically means:
- If you, as an owner of an animal/article/facility subject to destruction under § 8306, believe you are owed compensation (you meet the statutory conditions) you must rely on the Secretary’s determination of the amount.
- Once the Secretary sets a number, you generally cannot go to court (or another federal officer) to challenge or review that amount.
- The term “final” is very resistive to judicial review or administrative appeal (unless there are some other review rights elsewhere).
- So the “compensation scheme” under this statute is hybrid: you have the right to compensation (in many cases) but the amount is solely within Secretary’s discretion and not reviewable.
Why this raises serious concerns
Accountability / due-process concerns
- Lack of judicial review: One of the traditional safeguards in administrative law is that when the government assesses liability or payment, there is some mechanism for review (judicial or administrative). This statute removes that for the amount of compensation.
- Discretion without oversight: The Secretary has broad discretion to set the “fair market value … as determined by the Secretary” (7 U.S.C. § 8306(d)(2)(A)) and the statute then says that determination is final. U.S. Code+1
- Potential for unequal treatment: If owners believe the Secretary unfairly undervalued property or made inconsistent determinations, they have no clear review remedy under this statutory provision.
- Separation of powers / checks-and-balances: When Congress grants the executive branch discretion but then removes judicial review, it raises questions about the proper balance of powers and whether individuals may be deprived of “appropriate relief or review” under Article III (though courts do permit review for constitutional questions even where the statute says “final”).
Regulatory creep and broad use of authority
- This kind of “final determination” clause can fuel regulatory creep, because an agency may impose dramatic obligations (destruction, disposal, etc.) and then dictate how much it will pay—and the regulated party cannot challenge that amount.
- When combined with broad powers like seizure/quarantine/eradication under AHPA, one sees how large regulatory and financial burdens on private individuals/leverage over private property may result—while limiting oversight of how the compensation formula is applied.
- Critics may argue: If the agency can destroy your facility or animals under threat of disease, then it is only fair that the valuation is subject to meaningful review; otherwise you risk being in a “take-and-pay” scenario with minimal check on the “pay” side.
Legal background & limitations
- Courts often interpret “final” and “not subject to judicial review” clauses carefully. Such language does not necessarily mean all judicial review is foreclosed (especially for constitutional claims).
- The Supreme Court has held that Sovereign Immunity, and statutory waivers thereof, must be clearly stated—but statutory provisions that say “final” are not automatically immune from all review. For example, due-process or takings claims may still be cognizable.
- That said, for statutory rights (not constitutional rights) created under the same statute, a clause removing judicial review can be effective—but still incremental review might be possible (e.g., through mandamus, or APA review unless completely excluded).
- In this case, the statute is tightly drafted: “not subject to judicial review or review by any officer or employee of the Federal Government other than the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.” No exception for “constitutional” review is stated—but courts often interpret statute very strictly when it says “final.”
- Because this clause is in a statute of general applicability (transport/movement/seizure of animals) that concerns private property and compensation, there may be arguments that this clause violates due process or amounts to taking without adequate remedy—but such arguments are difficult and often depend on specific factual contexts.
My commentary: is this “outrageous”?
Whether it is outrageous depends on perspective—but yes, I believe there are very valid grounds to view it as troubling for the following reasons:
- From the property-owner perspective, you face the possibility that your animals/facilities are destroyed or quarantined under broad “disease” authority, and then you have no meaningful recourse to challenge whether the compensation offered is fair or adequate.
- From a regulatory policy perspective, this structure arguably tilts heavily toward government prerogative and away from private rights. It creates a scheme where the risk of regulatory burden (destruction/quarantine) is borne by private parties, but the remedy (compensation) may be set unilaterally and without meaningful oversight.
- From a constitutional/administrative standpoint, it raises questions: if you cannot challenge the amount, what prevents arbitrary valuations? What standard does the Secretary use? How transparent is the process?
- In a broader sense, combining this sort of final-amount clause with sweeping regulatory authorities (interstate movement, destruction, quarantine, etc.) amplifies the risk of regulatory creep, where the regulatory burden grows and accountability recedes.
Why it persists and how it fits in context
- The AHPA was enacted (2002) to give the federal government broad powers to respond to animal-disease emergencies. The “no review” clause was part of that statute—so the statutory scheme consciously emphasizes rapid, strong federal action, with fewer procedural “frictions.” FAOLEX Database
- The bar for proving a constitutional violation is high. Many owners may accept the compensation and not challenge; those who do challenge face difficult odds.
- From the government’s perspective, in disease emergencies, the ability to swiftly act and provide compensation (without protracted litigation over amounts) is attractive.
Final thoughts & recommendations
- If you are a livestock/animal owner subject to AHPA actions: you should document your losses carefully, seek to be involved in the compensation negotiations, and consider exhausting administrative remedies even if judicial review is limited.
- Watch for agency policy: How does the USDA determine “fair market value”? Is it transparent? Are there published guidance/methods? Agencies sometimes publish frameworks even when statute limits review.
- If you are a policy-advocate or legal reformer: Consider pushing for amendments to AHPA (or appropriating legislation) that either restore review rights for compensation amounts or require clearer valuation standards and transparency.
- For scholars/legal strategists: This is an interesting case of statutory discretion + waiver of review, and may raise questions under the Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, or nondelegation/separation of powers (though nondelegation is less likely unless valuation standards are utterly unconstrained).
If you like, I can research how courts have handled this specific “no judicial review” clause under § 8306(d)(2)(C)—past cases where owners tried to challenge valuation under AHPA or predecessor statutes, and how the courts ruled. Would that be helpful?
stock here: if we don’t eventually get happy healthy Chickens, immune or survivable to Bird Flu, then our food insecurity will last, FOREVER. A-Eye is anti-RFK.
See below, the number of times they use “depopulation” instead of mass killing, or mass culling. 1 in 20 people now dying in Canada are being directly killed by a Doctor, paid to kill. Yes, that is real.
Canada Has Euthanized 90,000 People – LifeNews.com
—————-
ChatGPT said:
USDA Rules on Bird Flu Depopulation and Indemnity
Below is a detailed conversation-style summary covering how and why mass culling of chickens occurs during outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), who enforces it, what laws empower the action, and how much farmers are compensated per chicken type.
1. Legal / Regulatory Authority
Primary law: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) — 7 U.S.C. § 8301 et seq. — gives USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) authority to restrict movement, seize or destroy animals, and take preventive controls to eradicate or control diseases threatening animal or public health.
Regulations: 9 C.F.R. Part 53 and related USDA guidance documents govern HPAI indemnity and compensation.
Enforcement: USDA/APHIS acts jointly with state animal health agencies. Detection of HPAI on a premises typically triggers a federally and state-supervised depopulation of the affected and exposed birds.
2. Enforcement Agencies
USDA APHIS leads enforcement, supported by State Veterinarians and Departments of Agriculture. They conduct disease confirmation, establish control areas, issue quarantines, and oversee depopulation and disposal.
3. Payment and Funding
Farmers are compensated for destroyed birds and eggs through the USDA’s indemnity program. Payments are based on fair market value and funded through USDA appropriations or emergency allocations via the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Compensation does not cover lost future production or income.
4. Example Rates and Indemnity Amounts
As of 2025, USDA raised indemnity for egg-laying hens (layers) to approximately $16.94 per bird. Values for broilers, turkeys, and pullets vary depending on age, market value, and production stage but are not universally published.
Indemnity covers the value of birds destroyed under official order, while “compensation” may additionally cover costs of disposal and cleanup. Farmers must meet biosecurity audit requirements to receive payment.
5. Summary Table
| Element | Explanation |
| Legal authority | Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 8301 et seq.) |
| Regulations | 9 C.F.R. Part 53; USDA HPAI guidance documents |
| Enforcement | USDA/APHIS with State Animal Health Officials |
| Trigger | Detection of HPAI infection or exposure on a premises |
| Funding source | USDA annual appropriations and Commodity Credit Corporation |
| Indemnity value (layers) | $16.94 per bird (2025 adjustment) |
| Indemnity value (other types) | Varies; fair market valuation applied |
6. Citations and Sources
• aphis.usda.gov — HPAI depopulation and indemnity guidance
• ecfr.gov — Title 9 CFR Part 53 and 56 poultry health rules
• congress.gov — CRS Report R48518 (Animal Health Protection Act)
• federalregister.gov — 2024-31384 interim rule on HPAI indemnity
• meatpoultry.com — 2025 update reporting $16.94 per layer hen rate
• investigatemidwest.org — 2024 data on average payments ($39k median)
• nationalaglawcenter.org — summary of indemnity process
• sentientmedia.org — taxpayer coverage of poultry-indemnity costs
• iowacapitaldispatch.com — 2025 biosecurity requirement update
7. Discussion of Food Supply Impact
About one-third of U.S. eggs are processed into liquid or dried egg products used in hundreds of foods — baked goods, sauces, pasta, and dressings. Because of this deep integration, HPAI culling directly affects food prices and supply stability.
Short-term culling raises costs but limits virus spread; letting infections ‘run’ could risk more severe, prolonged losses.
8. RFK Jr.’s Position
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized the mass culling policy and suggested allowing natural immunity to develop in flocks, opposing widespread poultry vaccination out of concern for viral mutation.
Experts, however, warn that letting HPAI spread could amplify mutations and spillover risk to other species, including humans. USDA’s “stamping out” policy remains the global standard to contain outbreaks.
9. Summary
The culling of chickens in the U.S. during HPAI outbreaks is a targeted, legally authorized containment measure—not a blanket rule to kill all chickens. It is enforced by USDA APHIS and state agencies under the Animal Health Protection Act, funded by USDA/CCC indemnities, and pays farmers market value (around $17 per layer hen in 2025). While it causes short-term price spikes and supply issues, it remains the accepted strategy for preventing larger-scale food and economic disruption.
stock here: I mean, it’s absurd, does it work on some people?
But even when you click on the “READ MEMO HERE” you just get a sales pitch for a donation, there is no memo from Kash Patel, is that an effective strategy….to promise something, not delivery, and instead bait and switch. That looks guaranteed for failure.
So do they get 1 out of 100,000? While bothering and wasting time for 99,999?
| THE TRUTH IS OUT — AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IS PANICKING. |
| I got the call. My FBI Director, Kash Patel, found what they tried to BURN. But the truth is on borrowed time. You need to read this memo NOW, before they slam the door shut. |
| READ MEMO HERE |
| – POTUS |
a-Eye has this to say…….
Exactly — what you’re describing is a psychological-marketing funnel, not a legitimate communication from those figures.
Here’s what’s going on under the hood and why it does work—just not in the way you or I would expect.
🧩 1. It’s not from Trump, Patel, or Gabbard personally
These emails are produced by political fundraising agencies (often via platforms like WinRed) that use the names of high-profile figures to generate urgency and emotional engagement.
They’re legally authorized “joint fundraising committees,” but none of the named people wrote or even saw the message.
🧠 2. The formula they’re using
Each one follows a data-tested pattern of persuasion:
| Technique | Example from your screenshots | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Urgency framing | “You need to read this memo NOW, before they slam the door shut.” | Triggers fear of missing out (FOMO) and impulsive clicking. |
| Authority appeal | “My FBI Director, Kash Patel…” | Creates a sense of insider access and legitimacy. |
| Misdirection (bait-and-switch) | “READ MEMO HERE” → Donation form | Gets the click first; conversion to money request second. |
| Tribal / identity language | “MAGA! >”, “FEAR NOT” | Reinforces group belonging, lowering skepticism. |
| Repetition & micro-conversions | Multiple “MAGA! >” links per email | Tests which phrasing or position drives the most donations. |
These messages are A/B tested thousands of times. Even if only 0.01–0.1 % of recipients donate, the blast still pays off because sending millions of emails costs almost nothing.
💰 3. Why the “promise-then-bait” works statistically
It’s not about credibility per se; it’s about volume and emotion.
- Imagine 10 million addresses on a list.
- 0.05 % click through → 5 000 people.
- 2 % of those donate $25 → 100 donations = $2 500.
- The email send costs maybe $100–$200.
That’s an ROI of over 1 000 %, so there’s no financial penalty for alienating everyone else.
In short, they don’t need 1 in 100 000; they only need 1 in 2 000.
⚖️ 4. Legal but misleading
These tactics skate the edge of Federal Election Commission rules: as long as the fine print discloses the committee and disclaimers (as yours does at the bottom), it’s technically compliant.
Ethically, though, it’s deceptive marketing, not authentic political discourse.
🧭 5. What to do if you keep getting them
- Unsubscribe at the bottom (every authorized committee must provide a link).
- If that fails, mark as spam or phishing — that signals to mail providers that it’s bulk-solicitation content.
- Never assume any “memo,” “report,” or “urgent leak” in a political email is genuine until you verify it on an official website (.gov or the candidate’s verified domain).
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, In Her Own Words: How Ghislaine Maxwell Recruited Me for Jeffrey Epstein at Mar-a-Lago | Vanity Fair
stock here: I tried to post this a few days ago when it came out, but I have been locked out of my account for several days, after posting several truths about the bastards that run Israel.
In a no shame display of Calumny towards Trump, Vanity Fair posts a shit stained photo of a younger Virgina Giuffere and pretends that all her troubles started with Trump at Mar a Lago.
————- What are their motivations?
| Word | Meaning | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Malice | The intent to harm another’s reputation or wellbeing. | Simple, broad, common in law (“actual malice”). |
| Calumny | The deliberate making of false, defamatory statements. | From Latin calumnia; very precise for “false smearing.” |
| Defamation | Any intentional communication of a falsehood that harms someone’s reputation. | Legal term — includes libel (written) and slander (spoken). |
| Vilification | Speaking or writing about someone abusively to destroy their good name. | Emphasizes tone and attack. |
| Detraction | Less common; the act of lessening someone’s reputation, often by gossip. | Often used in moral or religious contexts. |
| Smear | Informal, vivid term for an attempt to damage someone’s reputation with falsehoods. | “Smear campaign.” |
| Aspersion | A false or misleading accusation meant to harm someone’s character. | Often used in plural: “to cast aspersions.” |
🔹 Phrases
- Character assassination – systematic, sustained effort to destroy a person’s reputation.
- Smear campaign – coordinated effort to spread false or misleading information.
- False witness – moral/religious phrasing (from the Ten Commandments) for making false accusations.
👉 If you want the psychological motive — the inner desire to make another look bad even without gain — that borders on malicious envy, spite, or malevolence.
📰 Article details
- Title: “Virginia Roberts Giuffre, In Her Own Words: How a 16-Year-Old’s Life Unraveled at Mar-a-Lago” Vanity Fair
- Publication date: October 15, 2025. Vanity Fair
- What it contains: An exclusive excerpt from her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, which she completed in October 2024. Vanity Fair+2TIME+2
- Focus: Giuffre’s account of meeting Ghislaine Maxwell at the spa of Mar‑a‑Lago when she was 16; the grooming and trafficking period that followed; reflections on trauma and power. Vanity Fair+1
🚩 Key take-aways from the article
- Giuffre describes working at the Mar-a-Lago spa (in the summer of 2000) and how Maxwell approached her there, offering a job that would take her away. Vanity Fair+1
- She writes: “From the start, they manipulated me into participating in behaviours that ate away at me…” and that the worst damage wasn’t just physical but psychological. Vanity Fair
- She details how Epstein and Maxwell held her “to be available at all times,” how there were no locks or bars but she felt like a prisoner in an invisible cage. TIME+1
- There is the wider implication that the power structures around Epstein (wealth, fame, institution access) allowed things to happen under cover. The article draws attention to how people “watched and didn’t care.” The Guardian+1
📌 Why this article matters
- It gives first-person narrative (via her memoir excerpt) of the early grooming/trafficking period, which provides unique detail and emotional context.
- It updates public understanding of her story after her death (she died earlier in 2025). Vanity Fair+1
- It may influence public, legal, and cultural conversations around sex-trafficking, power abuse, institutional complicity, and how survivors are treated and heard.
- It underscores how places of wealth/fame (like Mar-a-Lago) and influential people (like Epstein, Maxwell) become part of the narrative of exploitation and how systems can be abused.
⚠️ Important Context & Caveats
- Giuffre died by suicide in April 2025 at age 41. Vanity Fair
- The memoir is being published posthumously; the excerpt is a selection and not the full text. So what we’re reading is edited and curated.
- The article references allegations (against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and others) that are either settled in civil suits or in some cases contested/criminally untried in full. For example: claims involving Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The Guardian+1
- As with most memoirs of trauma, memory, perception, and narrative framing are factors; the legal status of every detail may vary.
- While the article is powerful in giving voice to the survivor’s perspective, it does not necessarily resolve all questions of criminal liability or all names of perpetrators in full public detail.
stock here: we need more of this. This black admiral was promoted to head the US Southern Command, by the Biden Entity November 2024.
—————————
He probably had a bunch of reasons to leave, as he headed up the totally prejudicial DEI programs for the Navy. Review of the following people would also likely show them to be Woke and Joke.
The sudden change at Southern Command is the latest shake-up for the military’s senior ranks under the Trump administration. Then-Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown and Navy chief Adm. Lisa Franchetti were fired in February, along with the top legal officers across the services. In April, Cyber Command chief Gen. Timothy Haugh was dismissed.
And Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Allvin plans to retire in November, just halfway into his four-year term.
Meanwhile, the repeated strikes in the Caribbean have heightened tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro’s government has responded by ordering military exercises, mobilizing civilian militias and denouncing U.S. actions as aggression.
In surprise move, head of US military for Latin America to step down | Reuters
A-Eye sayeth, he be Woke
Short answer: I can’t find any record of Adm. Alvin “Bull” Holsey personally taking a public, explicit position “for” (or “against”) transgender service. What we can document is this:
- He led the Navy’s 2020–21 DEI effort Holsey was appointed to stand up and direct Task Force One Navy (TF1N), created to identify and remove barriers to service, including those related to “race, sexual orientation, [and] sexual identity.” U.S. Navy+1
The Navy’s own write-ups and contemporaneous coverage of TF1N emphasize eliminating discrimination tied to sexual orientation/identity and treating all Sailors with dignity and respect, but they don’t include a Holsey quote that singles out transgender policy details (medical care, uniforms, accession standards, etc.). My Navy HR+2Navy Times+2 - His confirmation drew questions about the DEI report—not specific trans policy During his Sept. 12, 2024 Senate hearing to lead U.S. Southern Command, senators pressed Holsey about the TF1N diversity report. Coverage again links him to broader inclusion efforts, not to a specific transgender-policy stance. Stars and Stripes
- The broader policy context changed in 2025 (after TF1N) In early–mid 2025, the Pentagon issued guidance under SecDef Pete Hegseth making gender dysphoria disqualifying absent waivers and directing administrative separations (with a short voluntary-separation window). Those moves reversed prior policy that allowed open transgender service. Multiple official DoD pages and mainstream outlets document this shift. The Washington Post+5U.S. Department of War+5U.S. Department of War+5
Bottom line
Holsey is on the record leading a Navy initiative that explicitly included sexual identity within its inclusion remit, which signals support for a broader anti-discrimination posture. However, I can’t find a direct, explicit public statement from Holsey saying he supports transgender service or transgender-specific policies. If you’re seeing claims that “Holsey supports (or opposes) transgenders,” they’re likely inferring from his TF1N
stock here—-summary on 2 DEI Mavens that were fired.
——————————–
Here’s a summary of publicly-reported reasons and suspicions surrounding the firings/removals of both Charles Q. Brown Jr. (“C.Q. Brown”) and Lisa Franchetti. Neither case was accompanied by a fully detailed publicly-explained rationale, so much of what follows is inference, context, and what sources say is likely.
C.Q. Brown
Position: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS)
What happened: On February 21, 2025, President Donald Trump abruptly relieved Brown of his duties as CJCS. DefenseScoop+2PBS+2
Reported reasons / context:
- Brown’s removal was announced via a brief statement from the White House saying simply: “I want to thank General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown for his … service.” DefenseScoop+1
- It occurred in the context of a broader shake-up of senior military leadership, including other terminations or replacements. AP News+1
- Several sources point to his past public support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts and say the Trump administration (and SecDef Pete Hegseth) viewed DEI as incompatible with their view of military readiness. For instance:
- According to PBS, Brown’s ousting was “part of a campaign to rid the military of leaders who support diversity and equity in the ranks.” PBS
- A Wikipedia summary notes that Hegseth had previously called for Brown’s dismissal because of Brown’s association with DEI and questioned whether Brown had gotten the job “solely because of his race.” Wikipedia
What is not known:
- There is no publicly-released official document giving a detailed “cause” such as misconduct, performance failure, or other traditional removal justifications.
- Brown’s own public remarks (at least in major news sources) do not appear to include a detailed explanation of the removal.
Interpretation / suspicion:
- Many analysts and observers believe Brown’s removal was politically driven: his identity as one of the few Black four-star generals in the highest leadership, his public embrace of DEI, and the timing of the change all fuel that view.
- It may reflect a shift in the administration’s priorities: from “modernization + inclusion” toward a narrower “warfighter/kinetic focus” narrative.
- Some fear the removal sends a signal to other senior officers about acceptable public posture (especially on DEI, identity, and social issues).
Lisa Franchetti
Position: Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the first woman to hold the CNO role)
What happened: On February 21, 2025 (same day as Brown’s removal), Secretary Hegseth announced that the administration was “requesting nominations” for the CNO role — effectively relieving Franchetti. Breaking Defense+1
Reported reasons / context:
- Franchetti had a highly distinguished career, including being the first female CNO and first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Wikipedia+1
- Articles note her removal came without detailed explanation from the Defense Department or the White House. For example: “Hegseth didn’t give a reason for terminating Franchetti…” FOX 10 Phoenix+1
- Several analyses suggest her emphasis on DEI and modern naval priorities may have clashed with the current administration’s focus. For example, an article states: “Her tenure … was characterized by a focus on … advocating for diversity and inclusion within the ranks. That last point was likely the nail in the coffin.” SOFREP
- A Military.com article reported that officials cited her “failure to address border security threats and an excessive focus on diversity programs” as among the reasons for her dismissal. Military Times
What is not known: - There is no publicly released finding of misconduct, performance-shortfall, or specific incident attributed to her removal.
- The official statement simply thanked her for her service and announced the nomination of her successor; it did not list discrete faults. DefenseScoop+1
Interpretation / suspicion: - Many observers consider the removal to be part of a broader leadership purge — especially of senior officers identified with DEI or who are women or minority-group members.
- The removal sends a potential chilling signal regarding advancement/tenure of female officers in top leadership, given that she was the first female in her role. Military.com+1
- Some critiques link the timing to the “anti-woke” rhetoric of the administration and the emphasis on “warfighter first” messaging, suggesting Franchetti’s prior stances or visible commitments may have been at odds.
Shared Patterns & Additional Context
Some lawmakers and senior officers have voiced concern that the removals undermine morale, degrade the message of equal opportunity, and may reduce the diversity of senior leadership — which many view as a readiness factor. Military Times+1
Both firings occurred on the same day (21 Feb 2025) and were part of broader leadership changes announced by the Pentagon. USNI News+1
The broader shift appears to emphasize:
Prioritizing what the administration defines as “warfighting readiness” over inclusion/diversity programs.
Ensuring senior leaders align ideologically or politically with the administration’s view of the military role.
————————————————-
And here is another. These people must bring “something to the table” but I guess it is hard to demote someone, so maybe firing is the only real choice.
Democratic lawmakers slam Trump admin after Reuters reports US Navy admiral firing | Reuters
