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

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?

You May Also Like