THREAD: Exposure before Extraction
1. Many are screaming for the EXTRACTION of corrupt people. People are asking:
- Prosecutors will surely follow the rule of law, won’t they?
- Why can the people see the crimes, but nothing happens?
- Why are there no major arrests yet?
More from Spies Like Us
THREAD: Enemy Combatants
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that the C C P were involved influencing the outcome of the US 2020 election. The details are available to those who wish to look.
I cannot be convinced that the Military didn’t watch all of this, in real time.
2. I cannot be convinced that DNI Ratcliffe isn’t investigating this matter exactly as per the 2018 Executive Order on Foreign Interference in an election.
https://t.co/zsANAInmck
I cannot be convinced that Biden will ever get a security clearance, even as a visitor to the WH.
3. The eyes of the world are now on the US Military and the Supreme Court (SC).
People are talking of war, cyber-terr0rism, treas0n, Chynese Military troops in Canada and US Naval ships off the coast lines.
Remain calm.
A counter-insurgency must involve the nation's citizens.
4. The importance of US Military law and the role of the SC reminded of that intriguing (almost scripted) interview between Sen. Lindsay Graham and SC Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
[Link at end of thread].
5. Firstly, Graham invoked the heartstrings by reminding everyone of the 9/11 tragedy AND then got Kavanaugh to confirm that the US was still legally at war, due the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that the C C P were involved influencing the outcome of the US 2020 election. The details are available to those who wish to look.
I cannot be convinced that the Military didn’t watch all of this, in real time.
2. I cannot be convinced that DNI Ratcliffe isn’t investigating this matter exactly as per the 2018 Executive Order on Foreign Interference in an election.
https://t.co/zsANAInmck
I cannot be convinced that Biden will ever get a security clearance, even as a visitor to the WH.
3. The eyes of the world are now on the US Military and the Supreme Court (SC).
People are talking of war, cyber-terr0rism, treas0n, Chynese Military troops in Canada and US Naval ships off the coast lines.
Remain calm.
A counter-insurgency must involve the nation's citizens.
4. The importance of US Military law and the role of the SC reminded of that intriguing (almost scripted) interview between Sen. Lindsay Graham and SC Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
[Link at end of thread].
5. Firstly, Graham invoked the heartstrings by reminding everyone of the 9/11 tragedy AND then got Kavanaugh to confirm that the US was still legally at war, due the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of
THREAD: Original Trusts
1. Just for a moment, ponder:
- Does anyone own humanity?
- Does anyone 'think' they own humanity?
- Can a corporation own you, or just control you?
- What are ancient Trusts and who owned them?
- Do ancient Trusts still hold any authority in society?
2. Trusts and Corporations have woven a form of control around the earth and we are just now realizing their influence on society.
Let's explore how this may have occurred.
The earliest Trusts were not legal entities as they are today; they were powerful ‘statements of claim’.
3. They were known as Express Trusts.
These Trust required very little formality and could even be enacted orally, as proclamations.
They were most-commonly used for property transfers.
https://t.co/0O3m2xvxjM
4. The first Express Trust was Unam Sanctam decreed in 1302.
With some egotistical distortions of biblical writing, this Trust effectively made Pope Boniface King of the World, believing that “every human creature” was now subject to the authority of the Pope (Item #9).
5. In celebration, he commissioned a gold-plated head-dress in the shape of a pine cone, with an elaborate crown at its base.
Note carefully, that it was the “growing body of canon law” (judges) that began to give the Pope his authority; both temporal (worldly) and spiritual.
1. Just for a moment, ponder:
- Does anyone own humanity?
- Does anyone 'think' they own humanity?
- Can a corporation own you, or just control you?
- What are ancient Trusts and who owned them?
- Do ancient Trusts still hold any authority in society?
2. Trusts and Corporations have woven a form of control around the earth and we are just now realizing their influence on society.
Let's explore how this may have occurred.
The earliest Trusts were not legal entities as they are today; they were powerful ‘statements of claim’.
3. They were known as Express Trusts.
These Trust required very little formality and could even be enacted orally, as proclamations.
They were most-commonly used for property transfers.
https://t.co/0O3m2xvxjM
4. The first Express Trust was Unam Sanctam decreed in 1302.
With some egotistical distortions of biblical writing, this Trust effectively made Pope Boniface King of the World, believing that “every human creature” was now subject to the authority of the Pope (Item #9).
5. In celebration, he commissioned a gold-plated head-dress in the shape of a pine cone, with an elaborate crown at its base.
Note carefully, that it was the “growing body of canon law” (judges) that began to give the Pope his authority; both temporal (worldly) and spiritual.
More from Society
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
I appreciate his intellectual curiosity and effort. I have quibbles. But my big disappointment is there was no mention of unintended consequences, which we discussed and which are kind of THE core conservative concern on this issue.
— \U0001d682\U0001d68c\U0001d698\U0001d69d\U0001d69d \U0001d686\U0001d692\U0001d697\U0001d69c\U0001d691\U0001d692\U0001d699 (@swinshi) February 18, 2021
You May Also Like
Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
