Take a deep breath and be objective. Remove emotion and ask questions.
After talking with a friend who hunts deer, he stated that the blood flow and air burst are normal when hitting a deer. So, what we saw with Kirk, the blood and his shirt movements would not out of the ordinary. However, there are endless oddities in this.
-After the Trump "shooting" why on earth would Charlie's own detail not check the rooftops?
-Why would they not have drones checking the roof tops?
-Why would there only be admittedly six cops on the scene? Six? For 3,000 people plus?
-Why would there be ZERO ambulances? Zero.
-Why would they throw Charlie in the side of an SUV and not an ambulance? Ambulances require paperwork, records, and medics. SUV security details don’t.
-Watch the footage here. He isn’t bleeding nor losing blood on the ground while being carried to the SUV. https://rumble.com/v6ysuki-dont-be-fooled-they-killed-the-character-charlie-kirk-but-the-actors-still-.html?e9s=src_v1_cmd%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a
-Why is the Governor of Utah Spencer Cox smiling, laughing, and joking around in the press conference? Is that appropriate? Why is he running point on investigative details? Is that his job? Why wouldn’t local cops and investigators give those details?
-Kash is off too. Why would he be taking to X and getting the detainment of people wrong, twice, on the same day as the shooting? Doesn't that seem remarkably careless?
Kash then states in the most recent press conference that they found the guy in “36 hours, 33 hours to be precise.” 33. Again with 33. https://www.youtube.com/live/GeZ1Ejuh53g?si=WXmLRz1rnTuO9D9_&t=928
https://files.catbox.moe/enljqf.mov
There's also this. On Fox News on Thursday night, Hannity was convinced that the shooter had the rifle in his pants leg and was waking up the stairs to the roof with a rifle in his pants leg. Have you ever carried a .306 rifle in your pants? Then, the footage of the guy jumping off of the roof, he has both of his legs bend when he's climbing down and lands. Can you bend your legs with a rifle in your pants leg? They claim the gun was found in the woods after the shooting. How did it get there? If there was gun on the roof, how did it get there?
Everybody, this seems off. Big time.
In the same way that A.I. can reach conclusions from a situational standpoint when given specified information and backgrounds of individuals, their locations, motives etc., it directly mimics what we have been told and have learned about Project Looking Glass.
Like most technology, we the people get it last, while the military makes it and uses it first. Just like the Q posts and their situational planning of this long-term operation.
Remember the Project Looking Glass video from the past? The interviewee states that the bad guys didn't know how to use it, when they had it in their possession. The reason for that is simple. The bad guys can't situationally plan for their immorality and illegality against morality and legality. Just like they can't make memes. It's the same philosophy, with the same outcome.
Now, the good guys have had this technology in their possession for a long time and they are using it against the Deep State, while also allowing us to do the same.
During the height of the operation, I had "Q cards" made with redpill websites on them, and two of them were https://operationq.pub/ and https://qanon.pub/. There were other sites on there too, like VOAT and this site.
On one particular occasion, our state representative here in Ohio, Warren Davidson, was speaking at a local event and my dad came up to him at the end and handed him one of the Q cards that I made. My dad asked him if he was aware of what Q was, and he said no, but took the card and thanked my dad. When my dad told me this, I remember thinking at the time; "Davidson is a former Army Ranger. How could he not know what this is?"
Since then, it makes one wonder, how many politicians in DC or even at the state level, actually know about, have read the drops, or understand/believe the Q operation.
I'm certain many know about it, or even know it's very real, but the fact that no one really acknowledges it, is still very telling. Even now with the current DECLASS going on. After all, the current news is justifying the operation to this very day, as it did back then.
It just makes me wonder if any politician in the future will ever, on the record, acknowledge Q, the operation, it's goals and mission, or will they attempt to take credit for things being the way they are?
There is no such thing as an "RSV season!"
Robert Malone and the rest are monsters.
This is not reform. It's status quo with a different face.
Keep this in mind when our government sets up psy-ops in an attempt to target specific races of people at the expense or promotion of others.
Think the Firefighter shooting psyop. The Sheriff trained with Mossad, and it happened in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. It's suspicious to say the least.
Q: Is it legal in America to discriminate against a race of people or associate a name with a race of people to then favor other races or give other races more rights than another?
A: In the United States, it is generally illegal to discriminate against a race of people or to associate a name with a race in a way that leads to favoring one race over another or granting unequal rights. Several key laws and constitutional provisions address this:Constitutional Protections:The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) prohibits states from denying any person equal protection under the law. This applies to government actions and ensures that individuals of all races are treated equally. The Fifth Amendment implies similar protections at the federal level, requiring due process and equal treatment.
Federal Laws:Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Title VII, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment. Other titles address discrimination in public accommodations, education, and more. Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 guarantee equal rights to make and enforce contracts, sue, and enjoy legal protections, regardless of race. Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting, ensuring equal access to political participation.
Discrimination by Association:Associating a name with a race to discriminate (e.g., assuming a name indicates a certain race and then denying opportunities based on that assumption) can violate anti-discrimination laws. For example, studies have shown that "stereotypically ethnic" names on job applications can lead to bias, which courts have ruled as discriminatory under Title VII if it results in unequal treatment.
Affirmative Action and Exceptions:Affirmative action programs, which may give preference to underrepresented racial groups, are legal in some contexts (e.g., education, employment) but are heavily scrutinized. The Supreme Court has ruled (e.g., Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)) that such programs must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, like diversity, and cannot use quotas or blanket racial preferences. Recent rulings, like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), have limited race-based affirmative action in college admissions, emphasizing that such policies must not discriminate against other races or violate equal protection.
Private vs. Public Discrimination:Private individuals or entities (e.g., businesses, landlords) are subject to anti-discrimination laws in areas like housing (Fair Housing Act) and public accommodations. However, purely private interactions (e.g., personal biases not affecting protected activities) are not regulated unless they violate specific laws. Hate speech or discriminatory rhetoric is often protected under the First Amendment, unless it incites imminent lawless action or constitutes a true threat.
State Laws:Many states have their own anti-discrimination laws that mirror or expand on federal protections, covering areas like employment, housing, and public services.
Key Points:Illegal Discrimination: Denying rights, opportunities, or services based on race or racial assumptions (including names) is prohibited in most public and commercial contexts. Exceptions: Some narrowly tailored programs (e.g., affirmative action) may consider race to address historical inequities, but these are subject to strict legal standards. Enforcement: Agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice enforce these laws, and individuals can file lawsuits for violations.
Remember when Tucker Carlson talked with Vladimir Putin and Tucker was getting bored with Putin's accurate history lesson of the region? Remember how Putin told Tucker to settle down and listen, and Tucker did his dismissive weird laugh, but then settled in and listened, to only dismiss the history lesson later? That should show you that those who fail to understand real history are not doomed to repeat it, they're actually doomed to never understand the current state of affairs.
Take the Q operation for example. That operation was the best way for people to learn about real history on their own, while seeing a plan unfold to take back freedom around the world from criminals of the highest order, while also making such discussions mainstream in friendly circles. Yet, the mainstream media and the so-called "awake alternative media" do what? They both ignored Q posts and never acknowledged it. This makes them both cut from the same cloth. "Listen to us because we know what is really going on."
Therefore, if you think for yourself, both sides will attack you, while attempting to take credit for a revelation you made that came true.
"The plan" is to think for yourself and read everything, while not getting emotional. When overemotional people behave the way they do, they fail to take into account critical information. It's physiologically impossible to think clearly.
Keep a cool head and trust yourself. The number of people who are exposing themselves as being overemotional bitches, is endless.
“The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes.” -Adolf Hitler
