stock here: They were not able to take my plane down, although we had 1000 miles of severe bumpiness….likely do to the hugest solar storm since probably 1972
These criminals at AAP have doubled and tripled down and have complete control over the algorithm at complicit Facebook (also known as LifeLock). They may be digging their own grave.
This other story on childhood transgender shows not just the greed, but also a fair amount of evil.
This lawsuit, drafted by California attorney Rick Jaffe, is without exaggeration, one of the most important lawsuits ever filed in modern medical history. I explain why in this must read article.
Do you understand the context? And yet he gets a pass. Why?
Gavin Newsom would appreciate it if you didn't retweet this video of him apologizing for getting caught sleeping with his campaign manager's wife pic.twitter.com/yMHKxNzLaK
stock here: flying to Japan tomorrow. Worst case scenario…..on Delta. Idea was to use all my Delta miles and then close that credit card and mileage program. Delta is woke as hell….so I hope their big Jet Pilots for the international 767 flight, are the best ones….not the DEI hires, not 26 YO females. But just for so photo artistic eye candy, at the bottom is a photo I call simply “the girl in the wave”. And at far bottom “The Spaceweather Woman”
Below is a comparative, discipline-based explanation of how two different schools of handwriting analysis would typically interpret Donald J. Trump’s signature, using his well-known signing style as the reference point. This is descriptive of the schools’ frameworks, not an assertion of fact about the individual.
School 1: Traditional Graphology (Personality-Interpretive)
(Common in Europe; used in coaching, HR, and popular psychology — not considered a hard science)
A graphologist would focus on symbolism, exaggeration, and stroke dynamics.
Likely interpretations
Oversized, dominant capital letters
Interpreted as strong ego projection, need for recognition, and self-assertion.
Highly stylized, logo-like signature
Seen as deliberate branding rather than self-disclosure.
Suggests the signer wants the public image to dominate over the private self.
Angular strokes and sharp points
Read as combativeness, decisiveness, or confrontational energy.
Illegibility / abstraction
Often interpreted as a desire to control access to the individual; “you know the name, not the person.”
Forward movement and pressure
Taken as indicators of drive, urgency, and confidence.
Summary (graphology lens)
The signature would be described as assertive, performative, image-driven, and dominance-oriented, emphasizing projection of power over introspection.
⚠️ Important: Graphology explicitly accepts symbolic interpretation and does not claim empirical validation.
School 2: Forensic Handwriting Examination
(Used in courts, law enforcement, and document authentication — evidence-based, non-psychological)
A forensic examiner does not infer personality at all. They analyze mechanics and consistency only.
Likely observations
High repeatability
Trump’s signature is notably consistent over decades, suggesting strong motor memory.
Simplified letter forms
Indicates an automated, practiced signature, not one produced slowly or self-consciously.
Strong rhythm and speed
Suggests fluency, not hesitation or disguise.
Stylization stability
The exaggerated forms are stable, which helps authenticate genuine signatures vs. forgeries.
No tremor or retouching
Consistent pressure and stroke order indicate non-forged execution.
Summary (forensic lens)
The signature would be described as highly practiced, motor-stable, and easy to authenticate, with no diagnostic claims about character, ego, or psychology.
Key Contrast Between the Two Schools
Aspect
Graphology
Forensic Examination
Purpose
Personality symbolism
Authentication & authorship
Claims about character
Yes
No
Scientific standing
Disputed / non-empirical
Court-accepted
View of exaggeration
Psychological signal
Neutral stylistic habit
Focus
Meaning
Mechanics
Bottom Line
Graphology would interpret Trump’s signature as a deliberate projection of power and identity.
Forensic analysis would treat the same features as neutral, repeatable motor behavior useful for verification — nothing more.
If you want, I can also:
Compare this signature to other presidents’ signatures across the same two schools
Explain why very powerful figures often develop logo-like signatures
Or analyze how signatures evolve when someone transitions from private citizen to public symbol
stock here: Most organizations and people are so easily influence by money….simple as that….find a way to steal money, think NGOs, and then buy influence. This can also happen after mRNA vaccines and blatant abuse occurs.
The shift you’re noticing in the ACLU—from a “neutral” defender of free speech to an organization more aligned with specific progressive causes—is a topic of significant debate among legal scholars and even former ACLU leaders.
While there wasn’t a single “coup,” analysts point to a few key turning points that changed the organization’s DNA.
1. The “Trump Surge” and the Pivot to Resistance
The biggest shift happened around 2016. Following Donald Trump’s election, the ACLU saw an unprecedented explosion in funding and membership.
The Funding Influx: Donations skyrocketed from roughly $4 million to over $120 million in the year following the election.
The “Resistance” Mandate: This new donor base largely viewed the ACLU as a frontline defense against the Trump administration’s policies on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and reproductive health. To maintain this massive new funding stream, the organization shifted its messaging to be more overtly political and “advocacy-focused” rather than just strictly legalistic.
2. The Internal Struggle: Liberty vs. Equity
Historically, the ACLU followed a “civil liberties” model: they defended everyone’s rights (including Nazis, the KKK, and the NRA) on the principle that if one person’s speech is censored, everyone’s is at risk.
The Shift to Civil Rights: In recent years, a younger generation of leadership and staff has pushed for a “civil rights” or “social justice” model. They argue that defending the speech of “oppressors” or “hate groups” actively harms marginalized communities.
Case in Point: After the 2017 Charlottesville rally, the ACLU faced intense internal and external backlash for defending the white nationalists’ right to march. Shortly after, they issued new guidelines suggesting they would weigh the “potential impact” of a case on “marginalized communities” before deciding to defend free speech.
3. Change in Leadership Priorities
Under Executive Director Anthony Romero (who has led the group since 2001), the ACLU moved away from being a purely reactive legal organization.
Political Spending: The ACLU began spending millions on political ads and “voter education” campaigns that resembled partisan GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts.
The Case for Trans Youth: The ad you mentioned featuring Megan Rapinoe and Elliot Page is part of a deliberate strategy to use “cultural influencers” to shape public opinion, a tactic traditionally used by political campaigns rather than constitutional law firms.
4. Criticism from Within
This evolution hasn’t happened without protest. Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen and other “old guard” members have publicly worried that the organization is abandoning its “viewpoint neutrality.” They argue that by becoming a “mouthpiece” for one side of the aisle, the ACLU loses its credibility when it needs to defend the Constitution in a truly non-partisan way.
The ACLU today largely views itself not just as a defender of the Bill of Rights, but as a political force for “systemic change.” This explains why they now produce celebrity-heavy ads for specific social causes, which would have been rare for them 30 years ago.
Would you like me to look into how other legacy organizations, like the Sierra Club or the SPLC, have undergone similar shifts in their missions?
By the way, to unlock the full functionality of all Apps, enable Gemini Apps Activity.
Historians of the future, grilling beaver-tail paninis over their campfires, will look back in wonder and nausea at the madness of America — and other regions of Western Civ — in the raging 2020s. It will be clear by then that it was largely a female hysteria, like other departures from social sanity in the annals of the Homo sapiens, such as the outbreak of witchery in the Massachusetts Colony, 1692, the Dancing Plague of Strasbourg, 1518, and the lunacy of Meowing and Biting Nuns that spread through the convents of Europe in the 1400s.
The Lefty-left has devised what’s called a “permission structure” for women to take the lead in acting-out the concocted grievances of their show-runners in the Democratic Party who, in times gone by, once had a coherent political program, but are now chiefly concerned with staying out of jail. I speak of those two orbiting moons, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and their many subalterns, such as John Podesta, Lisa Monaco, Norm Eisen, Adam Schiff. . . you know the huge cast of characters.
In 2020, they put their African-American clients in the vanguard, hoping to provoke Mr. Trump into a bloody suppression of the George Floyd riots. Didn’t really work, though the riots were a grand distraction from Marc Elias’s behind-the-scenes nefarious setup to queer the balloting process in that year’s election — a thumping success! All that mischief propelled brain-dead “Joe Biden” into the Oval Office, the perfect stooge to front for Hillary and Obama in their campaign to disorder the US body politic.
Hilarious that they choose a “woman of color” to lead the charge. And they pretend that the success of republicans stands solely on “hyper partisan voter registration MACHINE”.
My name is Lorenza Ramirez, and I’m the National Organizing Director at the DNC. And today, I’m going to be very direct with you: Democrats have lost major ground to MAGA with young people. Unless we act now, we’ll be at a disadvantage for decades.
It’s my job to make sure that Democrats are reaching as many voters as we can, in communities all over the country.
I’m the first in my family to go to college, and it shaped how I see this work: Access matters. Winning back young voters won’t happen by accident. It will require intentional investment and a willingness to build new organizing programs that make getting involved in politics more accessible for young people who have felt left out.
So the DNC is taking charge. Through a first-of-its-kind partisan registration push, which we’re calling When We Count, we’ll register hundreds of thousands of new Democrats this year and train the next generation of organizers to do it. Take a look:
DNC Announces Brand New Voter Registration Program in Preparation for the 2026 Midterms
In a second, I’m going to ask you to make your first contribution of 2026 to help fund this work, but first let me explain why this is so important:
Democrats have lost ground because in the last few years, we’ve largely approached voter registration as a nonpartisan initiative. All the while, MAGA has built a hyper-partisan voter registration machine.
That ends now. The DNC is taking the lead in solving this problem and doing what it takes to reverse these registration trends in flippable congressional districts across the country.
If we’re successful, this might just help us flip Congress in November, Steven. We could win critical races, from your local school board all the way up to the Senate. The electoral consequences could be massive, but this program won’t be cheap. And the scale of our investment depends directly on grassroots support.
That’s why I’m asking you to chip in $7 today.
$7 to help us register thousands of new voters.
$7 to ensure Democrats make inroads in every community this year.
$7 to support work like this election cycle after election cycle — so we can take back Congress, and ultimately, the White House.
None of this is organic. The Left is staging a Bolshevik takeover. Probably won’t succeed, too many are aware now; but the invaders & identity politics they’re stirring may yet destroy America.
But there seems to remain a huge disconnect, can you see it? Also our leaders, Trump saying she “ran over the ICE agent” is really dumb. And Vance saying he has “absolute immunity” is also over the top.
———————————–
Jimmy Kimmel has 21.8 million subscribers, that is amazing.
A furtherance of division and infighting, and the upcoming “civil war” as “documented” by A-Eye and a totally corrupt media.
A necessary reality point, in which we all know that both parties have nothing to do with American’s well being, and we need to just stop the corruption and then maybe people’s moral values (if they can come back) will start working again, and for the American people.
Read all about it News, seems like a good site. It shall go into my daily review.
When people like Michael Flynn talk about money flowing from PACs to daycares or clinics, they aren’t usually talking about a “donation.” They are describing what they believe is a kickback or “pay-to-play” loop.
Here is a breakdown of why this would happen in “reverse” and how that type of scheme generally works:
1. The “Revolving Door” of Taxpayer Money
The allegation isn’t that a PAC is being “generous” to a daycare. Instead, it posits a cycle of government funding. The logic usually follows this path:
Step 1: A politician (like a Speaker) helps secure large government grants or subsidies for specific industries (like childcare or healthcare).
Step 2: Those businesses receive millions in taxpayer funds.
Step 3: To ensure the money keeps flowing, those businesses (or the consultants who run them) “kick back” a portion of that profit into the politician’s PAC.
Step 4: The PAC then pays “consulting fees” or “vendor fees” back to companies associated with those same daycare or healthcare networks.
In this scenario, the daycare is used as a front or a “washing machine” to turn taxpayer grants into political or personal wealth.
2. Why would a PAC send money to a Clinic/Daycare?
If a PAC is sending money to a daycare or clinic, it’s usually filed under “Vendor Services” or “Community Outreach.” This can be a red flag for a few reasons:
Inflated Invoices: A PAC might pay a “healthcare clinic” $100,000 for “voter wellness outreach” when no such work was actually done. This is a way to move PAC money out of the public eye and into a private business.
Staffing & “Ghost Employees”: Sometimes, political operatives are put on the payroll of these private clinics or daycares while actually working on a campaign. The PAC pays the clinic, and the clinic pays the operative.
Influence Peddling: If a politician has a family member or a close ally who owns or consults for these clinics, the PAC payments are essentially a way to enrich that individual legally (or semi-legally) using donor money.
3. The “Minnesota Daycare Fraud” Context
The reference to “Minnesota daycare fraud” likely refers to the high-profile Feeding Our Future scandal and similar cases where hundreds of millions in federal funds intended for meals and childcare were allegedly stolen through shell companies.
Flynn’s allegation suggests that the reason there is no “accountability” for that fraud is that the money has been “funneled” into the political system itself.
If the people stealing the money are also major donors to the PACs of the people in charge of oversight, the oversight never happens.
4. Why this is “Inside Out” Fraud
You mentioned that daycare-to-PAC is “obvious” fraud (bribery). The reverse (PAC-to-daycare) is often money laundering or embezzlement.
The Goal: It’s about getting money out of a regulated campaign account and into a private, less-scrutinized business where it can be used for personal expenses or untraceable influence.
Summary of the Allegation
Flynn is effectively accusing the Speaker of participating in a protection racket. He’s claiming that by moving money between PACs and these private entities, the political establishment is “interlocking” their financial interests with the very industries they are supposed to be auditing.
stock here: It seems I always have to Weigh In, with the real perspective. The original “view angle” was just fine to come to a complete conclusion. She started backing up, not sure why, flustered?
Shameful to have so much TDS that lefties just make things up.
The shot was through the front window. When the decision to shoot was made the SUV was pointed directly at the officer and accelerating. I think there were at least 2 shots.
Maybe she didn't see him right away and started turning but that does not justify driving in a reckless manner with possibility of great bodily harm. Fully justified shooting. She was also intentionally blocking the road to block ICE she knew exactly who they were. At that point she was impeding federal officers...breaking the law and subject to arrest.
Idiots on Facebook make ridiculous comments like "she wasn't armed"
"They shot her through the side window", therefore she was already "gone" ------------------------------------- new info and perspective Forward Motion, Fatal Consequences: What the Officer’s Video Really Shows
If you’re just catching up, here’s the deal: Renee Good was involved in an incident where she drove her SUV into a law enforcement officer and was fatally shot. There’s a newly released video from the officer’s perspective that shows exactly what went down—how Renee engages with the officer, how her partner engages with the officer, and the moment her partner tries to get into the SUV—but never actually gets inside before Renee accelerates and hits the officer.
The video also captures the words and actions that aren’t being talked about, soke of them beeped and still being debated but they tell a story the mainstream isn’t highlighting.
Stop letting people tell you what they want you to see. Watch the video again. Really watch it. Because what unfolds isn’t some ambiguous “misunderstanding” or “conflicting narratives.” This wasn't twocinnocent bystanders caught in confusion. It’s a sequence of decisions and motion that tells its own story—and that story is far more uncomfortable than the prevailing spin.
Before the forward motion even begins, Renee says to the officer, “That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you.” Calm, confident, unbothered. That’s not surprise, not fear. Her partner steps into frame with authority, saying, “We don’t change our license plate every other day. When we come back, it’ll still be the same one.” Commanding, confrontational, deliberate. Neutral bystanders don’t behave like that. These women knew what was happening, had a read on the situation, were actively involved and weren’t shy about asserting it.
The video captures more than just motion—it shows attitude, intent, and presence. Her partner’s words and posture are assertive and confrontational, but context matters. According to Rebecca Good, she “made her come down here. It’s my fault,” and she described their presence as supporting neighbors, adding, “We had whistles. They had guns.” These statements make it clear: they knew exactly why they were in the neighborhood. They were participants in the situation, not innocent bystanders, actively engaging in the encounter that would follow.
Renee’s partner is reaching for the door to possibly get into the SUV—hand on the handle. And then? Renee accelerates forward before her partner even gets inside. Forward motion continues directly into the officer, making contact. That moment is undeniable: Renee did not wait, she did not hesitate, and she actively endangered the person closest to her.
The SUV strikes the officer. Wheels pointed straight ahead, no evasive adjustments, no pause. This is a decision with immediate, real-world consequences.
Minnesota law now explicitly defines when officers are justified in using deadly force. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.066, deadly force is only justified when an objectively reasonable officer would believe it’s necessary to protect life or prevent great bodily harm, based on what the officer knew at the time. This includes situations where a person is using a vehicle as a weapon. These standards were clarified and updated under Governor Tim Walz as part of broader police accountability reforms, emphasizing an objective standard rather than subjective judgment.
The video shows intentional forward motion, contact with an officer, and complete disregard for the safety of both the officer and her own partner. Combined with calm, assertive language and confrontational body language, it paints a picture of reckless decision-making and situational awareness used to dangerous effect.
Stop letting anyone tell you what you saw. Watch the frames, listen to the words, and read the actions. The story is clear—and it’s far from neutral.
