I rather agree with you about having an age limit. But because of the experience of old people, it would be nice to have a formal 'Old Guy', Advisor-To-The-President position that carries some authority... enough to stop foolish Biden mistakes, for example. The Advisor position could require somebody over 75-y-o, for example.

^^^ Again... something like drones striking into the heart of Ukraine is something Russia could easily do if they wanted to simply destroy Ukraine. If Ukraine continues this, it may well happen. Russia won't sit around and do nothing forever.

Here is the BIG question. If Russia took control of Ukraine in a definite and solid way, literally taking Kiev and ousting the Ukraine government, would that stop the Ukraine war? Or would 'guerilla' fighters keep on trying to destroy Russia, supported of course by the US and the big bankers who are trying to steal Russia for themselves?

Ukraine can do some damage, but their cause is totally lost.

The point is the security risk involved with Tik-Tok. So, it's all about security.

If the bill is passed, use it to adjudicate against the government people who passed it. After all, they are a security risk. How? By making a bill/law that takes away freedom and intellectual property rights of common people.

Of course, there are other laws they are breaking with such a bill. Adjudicate against them for breaking those other laws, as well... including their Oaths of Office.


While the GOP Focuses on TikTok, Google Prepares to Devour Everyone Whole

---

https://revolver.news/2023/04/while-gop-focuses-on-tiktok-google-prepares-to-devour-everyone-whole/
And yet, the process of banning it is hitting a big stumbling block: Hapless lawmaking. Republican Congressman chasing for a “win” against Big Tech have instead embarrassed themselves and exposed their base to long-term tyranny at the hands of the U.S. administrative state.

Banning TikTok ought to be simple, so naturally, it’s anything but. Instead, Congress is on the precipice of “stopping” TikTok by granting vague, sweeping regulatory authority to yet another branch of the federal government. This time, instead of the FBI, CIA, or DHS, Americans will learn to fear the omnipotent powers of the Department of Commerce.

The bill in question is called the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act,” or as it is mercifully abbreviated, the “RESTRICT Act.” The purpose of the RESTRICT Act is, essentially, to allow the Secretary of Commerce to blacklist any tech product, service, or company linked to a “national adversary” that the Secretary considers a threat. For anything banned under the act, a whole universe of “transactions” with them become illegal, and subject to harsh penalties.

Even the press release from Senators Mark Warner and John Thune bragging about the bill’s introduction hints at its underlying problems:

    The RESTRICT Act establishes a risk-based process, tailored to the rapidly changing technology and threat environment, by directing the Department of Commerce to identify and mitigate foreign threats to information and communications technology products and services.
...

---

Lost in the woods.     

Why, thank you. I take it all back. You are a nice guy.
You must have been the feculencies, right? And now that I have removed them, you aren't such a bad guy after all. Lol.

That is the point. Here is a crude example.

There are a hundred bank customers at your friendly, neighborhood bank. Then 10 bank robbers come in, and point guns at everybody, and rob the bank. Then they get away.

But the courts adjudicate against the 100 peaceful bank customers and throw them in prison. What for? For simply being at the bank when it was robbed.


The point? Regarding the Jan. 6 people, adjudicate for harm or damage done... not for simply being there. In addition, now that we are finding out that FBI and CIA people were the instigators, adjudicate against the  CIA and FBI heads for not controlling their people... and give them hefty prison sentences... along with all those who gave CIA and FBI people orders to do what they did.

This might be true regarding averages. But are you including people who live on the street and use fentanyl and poop next to their street-neighbor's cardboard-box-home?

Neither Trump nor Biden live like this. Rather, they live with the best medical and nutrition that is understood professionally. This brings their odds of dying way down. However, this doesn't mean that they won't die. It simply means that they will "probably" easily beat the averages.

The only trouble with the US leadership lies in figuring out who they are. They are not the people in Washington. They are the average people around the country, who won't take control of their politicians in Washington. They could if they wanted to. And they just might be starting to want to - https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jiauh/4/.

This will stop the Biden team. It seems that nobody in Nato is ready to send troops to Ukraine to fight Russia. But if Biden sends US troops, Trump will laugh all the way to the Presidency. It's all over for Ukraine, except for the part where soon it will be hard to find Zelensky.

No, the answer has always been that it would be US troops in Europe fighting Europe's war that everyone — The UK, Davos and their EU apparatchiks, and the US Neocons — thought would be a slam dunk to bleed Russia out.

And I'm sure that's exactly the way they plotted it out in their Microsoft Project file over at Globalist Central.

That has obviously not taken place and it is Ukraine that is now in serious trouble. Truth be told, which has been in very short supply since the war started two years ago, Ukraine has always been in serious trouble.

And that has led, predictably, to the situation we see now. US support for Project Ukraine is coming to an end, if it hasn't ended already. And the panic in Europe is palpable.

This was all very predictable if you accepted the framework that there was a split at the top of the US hierarchy. One faction committed to the Davos vision of the future which implied a compliant, even beaten, US and another that looked up from their quote screens and said, "Uh… no."
...

---

You gotta realize that your mirror isn't the one saying that stuff while you are looking in it.

The reason why God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel was, because people, working together under one language, would ultimately destroy themselves... ultimately fight God so that they would bounce off His almightiness into destruction. God didn't want that. That wasn't why he made people in the first place.

Consider... why are we building rockets to go to the moon and other planets? When you consider how much trouble it is, we might not even be able to do it. But if we can, there isn't any place out there that we know of, that has what we need just to live like the earth does. In fact, we don't really know everything that we need in a planet just to live. So, why are we trying to go? What is the "itch" that people have that makes them want to go to the stars?

If we put as much work into making the earth more habitable as we are into the space program, we could make the earth support a hundred billion. And certainly God would help us do this if we wanted to follow His ways.

Personally, I think that the reason why we feel the thrill of going to space is because that is where Satan is from. And he placed some of that feeling into us by genetically manipulating the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate. Satan is using us to get back into space. The fruit of the Tree if the Knowledge of Good and Evil was Satan's start point to use people to get back to the stars... where he was kicked out of in the war with Michael the Archangel. We are pawns of the Devil.

The Tower of Babel was a way the people of that time were trying to get to the stars.

Yep, it's a little bit difficult to figure out what to do when they don't follow your orders. Especially at a time like this when your orders either way can be interpreted as election interference.

However, there were others who asked for additional security. There is even a video of Pelosi's daughter bragging about how Pelosi and her team stopped the additional security.

In addition, nobody knows what a person wants in  their heart. But Trump told his people to be peaceful about it, and to follow the rule of law.

Further, there is all kinds of info showing that the FBI and maybe the CIA were the ones agitation the crowd, and that it was their people who were doing the damage... not Trump's people.

So, your blab doesn't hold any water, right on its face.

Part of the answer is in citizenship. More of it is in the legal meanings of the words "people" and "persons."

A citizen loses some rights by being under the authority of whatever he is a citizen of. In America, to keep this from happening to men and women, the government was set up with a distinction between people and persons. You can see it when you look at the many time the word 'person' is used in the Constitution, and the few times the word 'people' is used. People are flesh and blood human beings, but persons are names on paper - just a bunch of words - like the Constitution.

Government got around this by offering citizenship to the freed slaves through the 14th Amendment. Then they tricked us all into signing up for slaves rights, thereby becoming 14th Amendment citizens... as opposed to being free people.

People are men and women. Persons are their names on paperwork. Legally, when a man/woman says that he/she is a particular person, government can only go by what the man/woman says. The man or woman has essentially made himself or herself into the name on a piece of paper... liable for all the activity required by the piece of paper.

If we maintained our status ans people, and didn't succumb to being persons when someone named us - like a judge in court - their fake person wouldn't be us humans. In fact, when they use our info that is written on some of our paperwork, they are breaking their Oath to uphold the 4th Amendment; we are to be secure in all our persons. They have taken some of our 'persons' info and made a new fake person that they are using in court to trick us into saying that we are that person.

Freedom of speech should only be used to condemn a man or woman when they use it to harm someone, damage property not their own, or threaten such (with a real, direct threat). Other than that, freedom of speech is only the sound of the wind. If a name (person) is on a paperwork indictment, and the person is found guilty, punish the indictment paperwork. Burn it in the fire (execution), or file it in a filing cabinet (prison for it), and let the man/woman go free.

What if we had only one language?


Note that, that was what the world was like at the Tower of Babel times. God didn't like it that way. So, He confused the languages so that we have so many languages nowadays.

As computers make it easier and easier to translate, and as the world goes into the mode of having like-one-language through computers... well, looks like Jesus will be returning, because God still doesn't like the one language thing.

However, it's quite interesting to look at the reason why God doesn't like it. It's written in the Bible in the history of the Tower of Babel.

Crypto by its nature in using addresses and hashes is private. The world can see crypto transfer amounts, but nobody can crack your wallet unless you handle it foolishly. Also, without a note in the memo section of the transaction, the purpose of the transfer is private.

If you transact crypto through an exchange that is licensed, you are voluntarily coming out of the privacy laws into the public domain because of the licensing. Just as all investments controlled by the SEC are public, what you privately do with your investment paper is not public, even though you obtained it publicly. But investment paper doesn't have privacy built in with public/private addresses and hashes like crypto does.

What this all means is that crypto can't fall under the same guidelines as other investments. The privacy is built right into it. Since government is there to regulate public, not the private, they need to be careful that they don't overstep their boundaries. To see that this is true, check into Private Member Associations, which, if set up properly, base their operations on over 70 SCOTUS rulings over the decades, that deny government the ability to regulate private operations.



Most taxation on privately done 'income' is prohibited by the constitution... especially IRS taxes. Conversely, contracting with government is allowed just like it is with other people. What the IRS does is to use clever wording in their laws and regulations to make it look like people are required to pay taxes. Then they use clever wording in their forms that make it look like the person who signed up to NOT pay, was tricked into signing up TO pay.

If a person doesn't know how to use straight forward statements to cancel the accidental, contract he made with the IRS, the IRS can only use what their paperwork says, and the person loses in court. After all, the IRS can only go by what the paperwork says. They can't interpret the person's understanding of the paperwork... until the person clarifies it the right way. And people don't generally clarify what they don't know about.

But the new Russia has been playing the game since 1991. Countries join Russia because they make sense. The coup and the war started by Ukraine against Russia in 2014, by the US, shows just exactly how the US doesn't make sense for people. BRICS shows how Russia and the world are trying to get back to solidity (gold) rather than buying and selling paper like the US.

True, Russia has not changed their goals regarding worldwide conquest. They have simply changed their methods. But it is the US that is doing worldwide conquest, not Russia. Ukraine would be far better off if they surrendered to Russia. But all you have to do is ask her people. It was only a vicious handful of Ukrainians that wanted the war... and it still is.

Now the proof is coming forward that Trump wanted 10,000 National Guard troops in the Jan. 6 incident. And it is unwillingly coming from a source I didn't expect - Liz Cheney.

In addition to the below, you might be interested in >>> Final nail in Liz's coffin? Cheney 'secretly orchestrated Washington Post op-ed by all ten living former Defense Secretaries - including her father - warning against Trump's efforts to politicize the military', new report claims - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9554985/Liz-Cheney-secretly-orchestrated-Washington-Post-op-ed-ten-living-former-Defense-Secretaries.html.


TRUTH COMES OUT: Liz Cheney covered up “exonerating evidence” that Trump pushed for national guard protection on January 6

---

https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-03-13-liz-cheney-hid-evidence-trump-asked-guard-jan6.html
Former Representative Liz Cheney has responded angrily to a report by Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist accusing her and the January 6 committee of suppressing evidence that could have exonerated former President Donald Trump. It showed that he pushed for 10,000 troops from the national guard to protect the Capitol the day the riot took place.

Hemingway’s exclusive report showed how Cheney and the committee falsely claimed there was no evidence to support claims made by Trump officials that they requested the troops, yet an early interview they conducted showed that was exactly what happened. Cheney personally attended this interview and took part in it, yet it mysteriously disappeared from the supporting documentation.

The interview in question was conducted on January 28, 2022, and involved Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato. He told Cheney and the others present that he overheard the White House Chief of Staff at the time, Mark Meadows, press D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to enlist the services of the troops to protect her city. In addition, he testified that Trump thought 10,000 troops would be needed to help keep the peace during the protests and rallies scheduled for the day.

Moreover, Ornato reported that the White House was frustrated by the slow deployment of assistance on the day by Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.

His testimony matched that provided by the former Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense, Kash Patel, who maintains that he was present when Trump authorized the 10,000 guards ahead of January 6. In his own piece for The Federalist, he said that several other officials were also present and testified under oath that he did make the request and that Mayor Bowser and the Capitol Police were informed of it.

Patel believes that because Ornato had an apolitical career with the Secret Service spanning decades, the committee couldn’t believably label him a “Trump loyalist” so they instead chose to suppress his testimony.

In addition to lying about the existence of the interview, Cheney and her committee took steps to ensure the transcript would not be viewable by the public. They also launched a campaign to damage the reputation of Ornato before they conducted follow-up interviews with him.
...

---

Hidden Jan. 6 Transcript Revealed, Undermining House Committee’s Claim

---

https://www.ntd.com/hidden-jan-6-transcript-revealed-undermining-house-committees-claim_978692.html
A previously hidden transcript of an interview conducted by a U.S. House of Representatives panel that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol has been revealed, undermining a committee claim.

Anthony Ornato, who was the White House deputy chief of staff during the breach, told the committee that he overheard Mark Meadows, who was then chief of staff, on the phone with Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser. According to the transcript, Mr. Meadows wanted to ensure Ms. Bowser “had everything she needed.”

Mr. Meadows “wanted to know if she need[ed] any more guardsmen,” Mr. Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it.”

Ms. Bowser said that “she was all set,” Mr. Ornato recalled.

Mr. Ornato was speaking to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

The committee said in its final report that it “found no evidence” supporting the idea that former President Donald Trump ordered 10,000 troops to be ready for Jan. 6.

“The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative,” Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who released the transcript, said in a statement.

“Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. Meadows has said all along, President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down,” Mr. Loudermilk, the chairman of the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, added.

Speaking to Fox News, Mr. Meadows previously said, “As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. That was a direct order from President Trump.”

Later on Fox News, President Trump said that he “definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, and [said] I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready.”

The former acting secretary of defense, Christopher C. Miller, told Vanity Fair that, in a meeting on Jan. 5, 2021, he told President Trump that the Department of Defense was going to provide any number of Guard personnel that Washington officials requested.

President Trump, according to Mr. Miller, responded: “You’re going to need 10,000 people.” But Mr. Miller told the select committee that he “never … knew of any plans of that nature.”

“There was no direct, there was no order from the president,” he later added.

The committee highlighted Mr. Miller’s testimony in its final report but did not mention Mr. Ornato’s testimony, nor did it include Mr. Miller’s previous quote, Mr. Meadows’s comment, or President Trump’s remarks.
...

---

Right! I would guess that maybe millions of Ukrainians who migrated to other countries are thanking God or their lucky stars that they migrated when they did. And many of them are cursing Zelensky and the US because of their relatives killed, and their destroyed homeland.

I was truly amazed at how clear and focused Biden was in his S of the U address. In light of his massive numbers of failures at other times... failures, btw, that show that he truly is mentally impaired rather than just a lousy speaker... there are only a few possibilities regarding this speech, or Biden:

1. A really good double did this speech. After all, the Deep State has easily had a sufficient amount of time to find, groom, and train a realistic double. They could have started way back while Trump was in his first term.

2. Biden is not "senile or anything close to it," as legiteum says. Rather, Biden has been a really good actor all along, feigning senility, probably as protection in the event that the stolen election was found out. He could claim something like insanity if he ever went to court. The reason he kept it up after things leveled off so that he wouldn't be accused was, he had to keep up the game he started. But there is always the chance he will be found out in this regard.

3. There are drugs and nutrients that can make a mentally imbalanced person act and look almost normal for a short period of time. The thing we need to watch for is how much he reverts in the future. Such drugs and nutrients can burn a person out if not administered carefully. They might even kill him in a short period of time.

There could easily be other explanations. But Biden was truly outside of what we have seen as his normal state, for his S of the U message.