Just off the top of my head, Whoopi knew him well enough to request his plane on more than one occasion. Chris Tucker went with Epstein and Clinton to Africa. The emails infer at least some relationship between Epstein and Oprah. Lastly, other emails imply Cosby and Epstein had some sort of relationship. There is also a resume for a flight crew member (no idea if Epstein actually hired her or not) and on said resume, she says she worked for Diddy for about a year.

It appears to be an email that a Charles has forwarded to an FBI agent. All the email addresses are redacted. If you are interested in seeing it yourself, just search Bidan in the Epstein files, as the original sender spells Biden as Bidan.

Grok is definitely wrong about this not being in the files. It is, however, just a forwarded email that somebody felt the FBI should see. So, the email could definitely be a hoax, but it is in the files. The original emailer spells Biden as Bidan, so if you do a search of the files using Bidan, it is the only file that shows up.

We are a nation of immigrants, plenty of people moved here permanently for the purpose of a better life. Within the implication of immigration is that you seek a better place to move so that you can contribute and benefit from said better situation. The left dropped the contribute part and the concept of doesn’t work without it. If you don’t contribute, you are a parasite, not an immigrant. You want to immigrate here? We will welcome you, but not if you’re here to be a parasite.

Also, immigrant refers to people who plan on moving here permanently, not just so that they can make money and then return home. Not that there isn’t a place for people who wish to provide skilled labor on a temporary basis, but that’s not immigration, that’s a separate issue. Immigration also does not mean moving to a place and making it the same as where you came from. As I said earlier, the purpose is to move to a better place to live a better life, not to bring down everyone around you to your crappy standard of living.

Good catch, bottom ticker shows Bitcoin at around 62k, which would put this in February. So it must have been just before he become FBI director.

I don't know about other states, but this is becoming more and more common in Texas.

Bed Bath and Beyond is know an entity known as DK-Butterly (there are several numbers at the front, but I can't remember what they are off the top of my head). The theory (at least one of them) is that Dk-Butterfly is the shell that will transform/acquire Teddy (which is an entity that currently exists with several trademarks, so I'm not entirely sure exactly how GME/DK-Butterfly/whatever other companies are involved will become a part of Teddy.) It is all a bunch of hopium at the moment.

I will say this though, Bed Bath and Beyond's bankruptcy was full of strange happenstances that make zero sense for the company not transforming into something else (though maybe the plan was scrapped because bankruptcy took so long). Then there are the weird circumstances around Overstock (now Beyond/Bed bath and beyond) with their warrant almost matching GME's warrants. They either had inside information about GME issuing warrants or the whole thing was planned together, either way, they're either part of the plan or they're bad actors trying to distract.

One could call all of it a coincidence, but there are just too many happening that make no sense outside of either some sort of master plan. As more time goes by, more and more people are beginning to wonder if said master plan isn't just a distraction to keep people from acting. To me, much like Q proofs, some of the coincidences surrounding GME/DK-Butterfly (and potentially more) are just too impossible not to be comms. As always, time will tell.

For anyone interested, much like the Q movement, there are pages and pages of deep dives and research put into the whole GME theories, some of which connect GME to the Q movement. Interesting stuff, my fellow pedes. If you've got the time, I'd recommend looking into it. It certainly seems like a potential way to shift cabal money back into the hands of patriots and other fellow Americans.

I hear ya, but I’ll throw in a little hopium (of which you might already be familiar): the blue butterflies are generally connected to DK-Butterfly, which was recently found to have been in good standing with the tax boards of both California and Texas. Doesn’t necessarily mean something is cooking, but generally speaking, companies that don’t plan to re-emerge from bankruptcy don’t pay the piper to get their tax standing in good order. Thanksgiving is coming soon, maybe Teddy will make this Thanksgiving great again. We can only hope! Hang in there!

Having lived in California, they also don't ever check your ID when you vote. At least they never did for me. Which means you could register as a Frenchman named Pierre Delecto and show up and vote as Pierre Delecto and never have to prove that you are indeed Pierre Delecto.

Indeed, unfortunately the same atrocious economy that makes it hard for the younger generations to buy houses and the like has also made the average retirement account far too low of a value. Biden certainly wasn’t the first, but spending and inflation under “the big guy” pretty much put the nail in the coffin for a large swath of Americans. Some continue to fight the good fight and support Trump, but a lot of people panic and believe the lies of the leftist stooges. Sad times for our once (and soon to be again!) glorious country.

I completely understand the worry about the use of drones on civilians, but Rand Paul seems to have far too rigid a definition of civilian. You’ve got Paramilitary groups, you’ve got militia, you’ve got insurgents, terrorists, private military groups, soldiers for hire, etc.

Cartels may perfectly not fit the definition of terrorist that has been in the public eye for the past couple decades, but they very much fit the bill from an economic and cultural standpoint. They may not be the same as Islamic terrorists who have goals of destroying or dominating the world, but you better believe they want a piece of the economic action world-wide and they thrive under specific cultural norms.

Their existence is in direct contention with what we want from our country. Much like Islamic terrorists, they don’t represent a specific country or government, but that never stopped us with pirates in the past. Harbor pirates who are targeting our shipping lanes? You best get out of the way when we come for them. Same principle should be applied to terrorists and cartels.

TLDR: droning civilians is bad, sure, but cartels aren’t civilians. We’ve gone after pirates, terrorists, and those that harbor such groups in the past, why not treat cartels the same way?

1. They are specifically Jesuit, which is a subset of Catholics.
2. Not to lump all Catholics in together, but we’ve seen how far the church has fallen with Pope Francis at the wheel.
3. Within the Catholic church, the Jesuits are already seen as one of the more leftist groups.
4. Within the Catholic church, the academia side is already seen as more leftist.

Seems like we should be examining more universities across the country to ensure this sort of thing is stamped out.

There are a multiple reasons why a leader might want to slap some tariffs on particular goods coming from various countries. In no particular order as to which are the most important/lucrative/effective/etc.

Option 1. Said country has a stronger production base and the country putting forth tariffs. This allows the country with the weaker production base to better compete. Does it cause the average consumer to have to pay more? Yes, it does, but the cost is generally fairly low and the outcome is keeping the home base economy in that particular sector from further dropping off.

Option 2: Said country has weaker worker protection, so the home country can better compete against the lower cost of production due to lower worker protections. Cost is same as option 1, as is the result. Depending on your political views, this can be good or bad. Some countries, such as China, have nearly no worker protection, so a tariff against that might even be seen as morally the best choice, even if consumers end up paying more.

Option 3: Said country manipulates their currency to achieve better pricing in flooding markets (typically with cheaper and lower quality goods). Does this increase the cost of to the consumer, yes, but usually bolsters the workforce as well. Again, this can be seen as a morally acceptable retaliation against country who manipulate their currency to get a leg up on the competition.

Note: while option 1 might be morally right from one country’s standpoint, it is often seen as morally wrong from the opposite country’s standpoint. Neutral parties will see it less as a moral issue and more as a protectionist issue. Whereas 2 and 3 have one side that is morally right and one side that is morally wrong.

Option 4: Tariffs can be used as a sort of sanction against countries that are behaving badly. As with Options 2 and 3, this is usually a retaliation against something the original country has done wrong. Let’s say Mexico and their lax approach to stopping illegal border crossings into the US.

Option 5: Tariffs can also be used as a bargaining chip. Let’s say that you are New Zealand and you see that Australia is getting too buddy buddy with China, you might say to Australia, “We’re gonna slap a tariff on your imported goods because you are dealing with countries that we view as hostile” and then Australia now has less incentive to deal with China in a way that would negatively effect New Zealand. One could argue that Options 4 and 5 are essentially the same, but generally one is more of a threat against direct action (or inaction in the Mexico example) whereas Option 5 is more about a general approach toward other countries and who they actively trade with.

Option 6: Trade war. This isn’t so much different than any of the above so much as it is more drastic. Options 1-5 rarely see tariffs reach into the high double digits, but trade wars can see tariffs hitting into the triple digits. This is basically the last step before a full on trade embargo. You hit them so hard with tariffs that they essentially can’t trade with you any longer.

Option 7: Raising funds. Let’s say that you wanted to bring in more money for the government and you didn’t want the average citizen to have to pay. Do you raise the tax rates? You can, but what if you didn’t have to? What if, instead, you could raise tariffs on luxury imports? That’s certainly one approach. Let’s say the average laptop costs 1,500, if you slapped a 10% tariff on the importing of laptops, the cost becomes 1,650. You are hoping that most people who can afford the 1,500 can also afford 1,650. Let’s change this to yachts instead (yes, I know, there are multiple layers to acquiring yachts and importing them is just one example, but that’s the example we will use). Say Billy, pie to the face, Gates decides that he really likes that yacht he saw when he was hanging out with Epstein. Well, said yacht might cost as much as 5 million dollars. Raise the tariffs on yacht imports and bam, you just $500,000 from one transaction alone and that’s just with a 10% tariff. This tariff isn’t likely to harm the economy because Bill “I’d like to vax the whole of Africa with my poison syringe” Gates will buy the yacht even if tariffed to a high extent. Yes, there are ways he can try to get around the tariff, but that’s why you get the experts in to tell you when and where to cap your tariffs.

Note: Tariffs can also be levied as a combination of different Options. You might find that China is better at producing a certain good, manipulating their currency so said good is cheaper, pushing their workers in slave like conditions, and being an all-around bad actor.

Option 8: the retaliation tariff. One might levy a tariff on another country because that country decided to slap you with a tariff. This could be a tariff on the same exact good or a different good.

Pros: Good negotiating tool Can raise lots of funding Can get other countries to stop their bad actions Can protect jobs at home Can force countries to rethink their shady economic dealings with others

Cons: Can drive countries away from wanting to trade with you Can cost consumer extra money Can result in retaliation (such as tariffs or trade wars)

Proper use of tariffs can prove to be an effective measure at combatting bad actors, protecting production at home, drive fairer negotiations, etc. improper usage can tank the economy and reputation of a country.

TLDR: there are numerous reasons for tariffs, including protecting your production base, combatting manipulative countries, negotiating with foreign governments that might not have your best interests in mind, punishing foreign governments for shady practices, retaliating against foreign tariffs, and starting trade wars and more.

Second lot of raw milk with bird flu found in California. 46 states allow for selling raw milk dependent on the circumstances, 29 allow for selling raw milk with similar restrictions to pasteurized milk.

Both lots were from California, sounds like a California problem to me. How about we ban California?

I have a feeling that stuff like this is one of the reasons why the steal was allowed in 2020. More bad actors revealed themselves under the Biden admin than any time that I can remember. Being anti-Trump has been in fashion since they decided to flip that switch early in his primary run, but it became real emboldened after the steal.

1. Trump used tariffs in his first term and the economy was booming.

2. Most of the tariffs Trump proposes are against countries like China. To expand upon this, China not only has some horrific factory practices, but they also manipulate their currency, the combination of this makes their goods ridiculously cheap so they can flood the market. Their goods are also largely crap that doesn’t last long and, in more extreme cases, are really bad for people’s health. Because their government is trash, they are able to undercut the US and our allies when it comes to prices. Tariffs should help with this.

3. Biden has largely continued the Trump tariffs especially the tariffs on China. Tariffs can be an effective tool for keeping a country like China on their back heels (especially when paired with strong leadership like Trump).

4. Tariffs can be problematic when paired with Democrat style regulations. If the tariffs increase the cost of imported goods and the regulations increase the cost of domestic goods, we the people are completely screwed. Whereas a Trump style regulatory reform should allow manufacturing to come roaring back to life.

5. What the left doesn’t tell you is that other countries impose tariffs on US goods and we don’t always reciprocate under weaker leadership. Trump uses tariffs to force other countries to lower their tariffs on our goods or start a trade war with us. Most countries capitulate and tariffs on both sides are dropped and it ends up being good for both countries.

I can’t remember how to post/quote Q drops, but 1559 looks promising. Viv[A] vs Viv[e] could be interpreted as Chaney vs Cheney, in which case DECLAS is on the menu

I’ve seen it stated before, but it seems good to reiterate: attempted fraud and actual fraud have significantly different sentences. My guess is that there are some particularly nasty big fish that are being allowed to cheat so that the hammer of justice can be swift and effective.

Trump team/white hats stopped enough of the steal to show us that we’ve won. Next comes the precipice (Biden saying private contractors can now participate in Ukraine was [as if they weren’t already]? Maybe but I expect it’ll be more than just this particular event). After the precipice, swift justice. Disclaimer, I don’t have a crystal ball, so take anything I pontificate with a grain of salt.

Exactly, still far too many need to be awake and, again, precipice to me is far more severe than anything we’ve seen yet.

The Trump win was a great breath of fresh air and a nice confirmation that things are moving forward at a nice pace.

White hats in control? We are watching a show? Military is the only way?

Any of these three could explain what we are seeing. Either the white hats have already begun to move or the black hats have something up their sleeve and the military has to step in to stop them.

What about the precipice? I don’t believe that we’ve hit anything that could be called such. So maybe we need to stay buckled.

It is actually a fairly complex issue. The heritage foundation, which is a conservative think tank, came up with the idea along with several hundred of what they call scholars. The left and the media took the most extreme parts of project 2025 and tried to smear all conservatives, MAGAs, anons, Pedes, etc. Which lead to the simplest approach being a repudiation of project 2025.

Now, since project 2025 is so large, it shares some ideas with Trump. For example, securing the border and deporting illegals, getting rid of redundant Federal Departments, fixing the economy and inflation, re-establishing American energy independence, etc.

So, we can see that project 2025 is good, bad, and ugly. Matt Walsh and Bannon, realizing that from a certain point of view Trump will be enacting project 2025 (or at least portions of it), appear to be trolling leftists into freaking out over what is a solid Trump agenda.

I’ll add that Bannon and Walsh themselves have always been a bit more hardline than Trump, so they are probably in favor of more of project 2025 than Trump. So Bannon and Walsh might even like to see as much as 75% of project 2025 put into play.

This is, of course, just my take on it. Walsh and Bannon might just be wanting project 2025 and Trump disagrees with them. I can’t really see Trump suddenly being favorable of everything in project 2025 though, so I’m not particularly worried unless he himself starts talking it up.

Edit: I should add that the heritage foundation, while conservative, is not MAGA, so it is entirely possible that they attempted to slip in overly harsh and untenable ideas into the project to make MAGA look bad. Heck, they could be straight up plants to make conservatives look bad, I haven’t done a deep dive into who they are, I just know that some of their ideas over the past 20 years have been good and others have been atrocious.

First of all, Project 2025 has hundreds of ideas to implement. Some of which are fine, others great, some not so much. So, in actual truth, Trump is likely to enact some of Project 2025 just because it was already in line with MAGA.

Secondly, Matt Walsh and Bannon look to be doing a bit of trolling.

Lastly, people are emboldened after a win. Especially those who’ve been attacked and arrested. I’d wager that Walsh and Bannon like to watch the leftists squirm after what they (especially Bannon) have been put through.

I’m actually feeling confident and excited that good times will be rolling soon. However, I am exhausted by this election season. The media is so incredibly obnoxious about everything.

It’s a bad thing they Trump wants to protect women? Ok freaks.

How many more Diddy-sphere endorsements does Kamala need before the normies start connecting the dots?

I’m unsure as to which of the following will happen:

1. White hats stop the steal, Trump wins in a landslide.
2. White hats allow the steal, but it is so obvious that everyone knows (more votes than there are voters and such)
3. Black hats realize it is too big to rig and so they institute some crazy event that disrupts the election.