Friday, June 5, 2026

LINUXHIPPIE: Pseudoscience jargon that serves to launder the Revolution process destroying the culture.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

OFFICIAL LAYOFF: FOREIGN-BORN AS PERCENT OF POPULATION? 12 Largest host countries charted. Australia: nearly 1/3 foreign-born. Canada, Germany, Spain: 1 of 5. USA: highest total number by 3X, overall population is 1/6.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

ANDREW BRANCA: MURDER EXPOSED! Karmelo Trial Exposes VICIOUS TRUTH!

11:05  Let's talk about self-defense.  So you're not normally allowed to go around and stab people in the heart right you just walk around and stab people in the heart that's just murder unless you do it in justified self-defense which is what Carmelo Anthony is trying to argue here, because what other defense would he have ?  Not an alibi defense.  We know it was him at the scene.  He's not claiming accident, "I tripped and fell. I just happened to have a knife in my hand.  Sorry about that."  That's a legal defense.  That's a legitimate legal defense.  He's not claiming insanity.  He's not claiming, "Well, I thought I was stabbing a space alien.  I didn't realize it was a human being.  I was out of my mind."  That's not happening.  The only legal defense here possible to be argued is self-defense so what's required for self-defense first of all you have to keep in mind that self-defense is what we would call a defensive confession and avoidance.  You're not saying it wasn't you.  You're saying the opposite of that. You're saying it was me.  In this case, I stabbed him but I did it in lawful self-defense. So you're confessing to the underlying conduct not necessarily to a crime, but you're confessing to the underlying conduct, and then you're saying "but that shouldn't be a crime because the way it was done was legally justified."

Politically energized cases with the politically favored party is in trouble, doesn't have the law on their side, 2) doesn't have the facts on their side, . . . there's an expression in the law.  When the law's on your side, you pound the law.  Emphasis on the law.  When the facts are on your side, you emphasize the facts; you pound the facts.  And when neither the law nore the facts are on your side, you pound the table.  You just get loud.  And you make shit up!  You make shit up!  And that's what's happening all over the place. 

Innocence

You can’t start the fight.

That’s the first element—you can’t have been the initial aggressor, and then justify your use of force as self-defense. Pretty simple, huh?  What could be more obvious than that, right?  You got this.

Often, however, whether you, in fact, started the confrontation can easily be a fact in dispute. Naturally, you’ll say the other guy was the initial aggressor. But that other guy—or his buddies—could say that you were. That kind of uncertainty is the “messy” part of this “simple” element.

Bottom line, if a prosecutor reviews your case and sees evidence that suggests you might have started the fight, you’ve just made yourself way more likely to be brought to trial on criminal charges, because now you look like a vulnerable target for conviction.

But starting (or appearing as if you started) the fight isn’t the only thing you must avoid, there’s also the second element:

Imminence

The law allows you to defend yourself from an attack that’s either happening or about to happen very soon, meaning within seconds. It’s not intended to justify vengeance for some past act of violence, nor to “stop” a speculative future attack that you have time to avoid by other means.

You can think of the element of imminence as a window that opens and closes. Before the window of imminence is open—before the threat is actually occurring or imminently about to occur—you can’t use defensive force. After the window of imminence has closed —after the threat is over—you again cannot use defensive force.

It’s only while that window of imminence is open that you can lawfully use defensive force.

Imminence has to do with when you can use defensive force, but what about how much defensive force you can use?  That has to do with the third element:

Proportionality

The law puts any use of force into one of two buckets: the non-deadly force bucket, or the deadly force bucket.

What qualifies as deadly force? Legally, deadly force is more broadly defined than only force that kills.  Force that can cause death is part of the definition, but deadly force also includes force that causes serious bodily injury, like maiming injuries, as well as rape.

What qualifies as non-deadly force? Non-deadly force is essentially all lesser degrees of force that cannot readily cause death or serious bodily injury.

If the threat you’re facing is non-deadly, then you’re only allowed to use non-deadly force in response. If the force you’re facing is deadly in nature, then you’re entitled to use deadly force OR non-deadly force to defend yourself.

If you respond with deadly force to an attacker using only non-deadly force, you’re using disproportional force, you’ve “lost the element of proportionality,” and you are not acting lawfully.

It’s essential to make sure you limit yourself to only the degree of defensive force that’s proportional to the threat you’re defending against.

But what about running rather than fighting?  Does the law require you to resort to flight before you can resort to fight? That brings us to the fourth element of self-defense law:

Avoidance

Could you have safely avoided the fight? That’s the question the fourth element addresses.

A minority of about 13 states impose a legal duty to run away, when you can do so safely, rather than fight.  These are called “duty-to-retreat” states.

The large majority of states do not impose such a legal duty to retreat, even if you could have done so with complete safety.  These are the “stand-your-ground” states.

In the minority 13 states that do impose a legal duty to retreat, however, failing to run when you safely could have is not lawful, loses you the required element of avoidance, and therefore loses you self-defense.

Even the duty-to-retreat states only impose that legal duty when retreat is possible with complete safety. That begs the question, however—was a completely safe avenue of retreat actually available under the circumstances facing that specific defender?

To put it another way, would a reasonable defender under attack have been aware that a safe avenue of retreat was available?  This leads us to the last of the five elements of self-defense law:

Reasonableness

I like to call this the “umbrella” element because it overlays the other four.

Everything that you perceive, decide, and do in defense of yourself or others must be reasonable and prudent, given the circumstances you faced, the information you knew, and your abilities (or disabilities).

Mistakes in self-defense are allowed, and a mistaken use of defensive force can still qualify as lawful self-defense. The bad guy’s “gun” turned out to be a toy? That’s not a problem for your defensive use of force against the apparent gun if perceiving it as a real gun was a reasonable belief under the circumstances.

Bottom line: We’re not required to make perfect decisions in self-defense, just reasonable ones.

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances.  The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender. 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

ETIENNE VAN WYK: Entitlement is the antithesis of community.

If you take all the great religions, you can reduce sin to those things that deprive people of the community they need. Community, by its very nature, requires empathy, engagement, balance, reciprocity, and care. Entitlement is the antithesis of community.

Wokism elevates entitlement to virtue. It targets vulnerable and marginalized people and remove them from the community they really need. 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

STEPHANIE SENEFF: glyphosate chelates the manganese, makes it unavailable to the gut microbes, messes up the body's natural mechanisms of distributing it and ends up with it concentrated in the wrong place.

"95% of Gluten Free Foods contained GLYPHOSATE & 2,4-D an ingredient in AGENT ORANGE." ~Zen Honeycutt The 660 MILLION people who avoid Gluten & purchase 'Gluten Free' food products are being scammed & harmed. Test results reported by Moms Across America... Top 5 Most Contaminated with Glyphosate- Gluten-Free Foods Tested: 1)Banza Cavatappi pasta 2)Bob’s Red Mill All-Purpose flour 3)Flax4Life chocolate brownies 4)Pamela's Figgies and Jammies mission fig cookies 5)Kind Kids Chewy Chocolate Chip bars Top 5 Most Contaminated with Pesticides - Gluten Free Food Tested: 1)King Arthur Measure for Measure, Certified Gluten-Free Flour 2)Milton’s sea salt crackers 3)Simple Mills Brownie mix 4)Pamela's gluten-free flour mix 5)Go Macro berry granola bar Products That Should Be Legally Recalled: 

4 out of 46 samples, namely Simple Mills Brownie mix (31.7), Made Good Soft Baked Double Chocolate cookies (56.1), Trader Joe's Almost Everything Bagels (269.8), and Simple Mills almond flour crackers (59.4), had levels above the FDA allowable 20 ppm of gluten and should legally be recalled. 

Did you know, that nature developed coffein to kill insects? It wasn't developed to increase your performance.  --Kempersbuur

from Stephanie Seneff,

It's a subject I know the best, and my book Toxic Legacy explains exactly how glyphosate disrupts so many things in metabolism and certainly messing up the minerals both causing the minerals to be deficient and actually causing the minerals to be distributed incorrectly such as they become simultaneously deficient and toxic.  And I wrote an article about manganese, for example, and manganese deficiency systemically, but manganese toxicity in the brain, in the center of the brain, because the manganese is being distributed in a very odd way because glyphosate chelates the manganese, makes it unavailable to the gut microbes, messes up the body's natural mechanisms of distributing it and ends up with it concentrated in the wrong place.  And I think the same thing is happening with aluminum. So it's ironic that you have both deficiencies in these critical minerals that are nutritionally important and biologically active that they catalyze many enzymes the manganese and magnesium, the zinc, the cobalt, the copper.  And I believe those were the ones that Zen Honeycutt pointed out as being extremely deficient in the food supply which is not at all surprising because those are the same ones that glyphosate . . . Don Huber showed tremendous reductions in the uptake of those minerals into the plants as a consequence of glyphosate exposure.  And another one was sulfur that he showed was dramatically reduced and of course [that] didn't test for sulfur.  Sulfur doesn't have a daily requirement. The government thinks there's no problem with sulfur.  I believe we have a crisis in Sulfur deficiency in this country and that a large part of that is due to glyphosate not only making sulfur unavailable to the plants that we eat, but also completely disrupting our metabolic processes by which we handle sulfur in the gut and systemically in the body.  That's a lot about what I wrote about in my book, the issues with sulfur.  And autistic kids have a very clear sulfur issue and in particular sulfate deficiency problem in the brain that I wrote about before I even knew about glyphosate.   I had a paper that I worked on with a student of mine.  In 2012, we published a paper showing all these different ways in which it looked like sulfate mismanagement was connected to autism.  And in my book, I talk about many different ways in which glyphosate disrupts the sulfate system.  So all of that is very, very interesting to me and it's amazing how clearly it all fits, it fits together that's what I was really struck by with glyphosate.  And you know as Zen mentioned the fatty liver disease, that is a tremendous epidemic in our country right now and I think Zen said in her article one out of three people . . . . 

COMPLETE INTERVIEW

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)