how do you know when politicians are GUILTY?
when they attempt to make disclaimers of shock when the People tell them through their acts of public challenge that they are full of sh-- for breaching their fiduciary responsibility.
A-1

There has been documented PROOF of election tampering yet multiple Secretary's of State have signed off on FRAUDULENT ballots and voting, meaning their signed their own GUILTY and COLLUSION verdict...
A-2
The electoral college and congress votes to accept the results after receiving NOTICE OF FRAUD - they are NOW ALL GUILTY OF SELF-CONFESSED MISPRISION OF FELONY, Sedition and TREASON against the United States

Any of have a clue what the penalty is for that?

A-3
Do you also recognize that what was at one point plausible deniability and limited liability has now moved to UNLIMITED PERSONAL liability against each and everyone who voted and certified FRAUDULENT voting results?
A-4
Do you realize that ANY public fiduciary pushing the acceptance of same is their self-confession of being an Accessory After the Fact...
A-5
So, WhereTF is the USDoJ, WhereTF is the FBI, WhereTF is the Military allowing the desecration of this Nation in plain sight by CORRUPT fiduciaries?

Do you think secret military tribunals satisfy PUBLIC NOTICE to the CRIMES we are witnessing?
A-6
Do you think deluding the People by allowing body doubles and clones to walkaround masquerading as legitimate fiduciaries is OK....on any level?
A-7
If you are in the Military, you should be on your knees thanking the True Sovereign for her support and funding and protection...

On the other hand, I AM less than impressed. The lack of PUBLIC enforcement of our Nations's laws demonstrates there is literally NO VALUE in
A-8

More from Life

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)