The angle of this photo is so odd that at first glance, it looked (to me) more like a fake astronaut pic where they're in 'zero gravity' supposedly floating around the ISS or something. Wonder if they took one of the fake NASA photos and plopped her head/face (and long hair sticking outside the helmet - which is another bizarre element) on top of someone else's body - LOL!
Possibly the best thing of those good ole days was having bright blue skies with NO chemtrails!
Sorry, but that crazy patch of white/silver/gray on her hair is beyond retarded. It makes her look like Cruella De Vil (aka "devil") from "101 Dalmations." You can literally see fresh black hair dye along her forehead around her hairline in this photo (so she obviously colors her hair), yet she insists that this bizarro patch of white hair in front is "natural" and that she doesn't color her hair. Why she chooses to lie about something that's so obvious and provably false is ridiculous to me.
Oh, that's good to know - thank you! Just didn't want to be focused on what turned out to be the wrong person, ya know? :-)
Does "Aviation Officer" mean that this woman was the pilot? I still haven't seen anything identifying who was actually driving the Black Hawk - I've only seen a list of the 3 people who were (allegedly) on board the helicopter.
Might someone be able to confirm who was actually sitting in the helo cockpit piloting it at the time of impact with the AA jet? Seems really weird that this insanely vital detail is being (conveniently) left out of the reporting - at least that I've seen so far anyway.
Here's GhostEzra's acct. on Telegram too (the only 2 places he posts): https://t.me/GhostEzra
My God, they even had the plane's mid-air collision VIDEO pre-packaged too! Such a 9/11 vibe. =-O
Wish we had an ELECTRIFIED metal fence at the border, along with a wide moat filled with piranhas. Why have a metal fence if it's not gonna deliver a shocking jolt??
By using military force (not by getting 'permission' from Newscum) - LOVE IT!
I like how you think, fren! Just for clarification, I was in no way suggesting that someone staying in or leaving (voluntarily or otherwise) in Trump's 1st admin equates to a 'good guy' or 'bad guy' status - quite the contrary. I was actually emphasizing that someone staying or going during Trump's 1st admin was NOT a relevant data point to weigh into the equation/evaluation.
What I DO find relevant in the data point scope is whether or not Trump brought the person BACK for his admin #2 (i.e., Dan Scavino, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro) vs. if Trump chose to publicly announce that person would NOT be re-joining him (i.e., Bolton, Comey, Pompeo, Pence). IMO, the latter is a far more telling indication (e.g., dumping Pence as his VP running mate, announcing Pompeo would not be invited back in any capacity, announcing Matt Gaetz >> Pam Bondi would be taking over as FBI Director - aka firing Comey, etc.). And beyond that, Trump taking off someone's security detail and/or revoking their security clearances takes Trump's "I don't want you back in my admin" to a whole nother level, in my view.
As you pointed out too, some objective 'baddies' like Fauci & Birx were well-established figures, and we have no idea if they were 'untouchables' somehow or impossible to get rid of for some reason. But Trump has repeatedly said that he kept Fauci around so whatever was recommended by him, Trump would do the opposite" (paraphrasing).
And I completely agree with you about Bannon too, by the way. I saw their supposed 'falling out' and the nickname "Sloppy Steve" that Trump then gave him as pure theater. Meanwhile Bannon left the White House and went to work on his brilliant "Trump @ War" movie, which is the best documentary on Trump I've ever seen. :-)
Overall, there are precious few people in Trump's orbit that I deeply trust and the only 'politician' I have unbreakable trust in is Pres. Trump himself. My 2nd most trusted after Trump is Dan Scavino and my 3rd most trusted is Stephen Miller (I prayed my heart out that he would have been tapped as Trump's VP this time, actually).
There's lots of people in the 'cast of characters' that I'm undecided on and I keep the window cracked on them possibly being good guys or bad guys, despite their perceived 'role' in all this (at least what's been portrayed/revealed thus far). I'd bet we would get some surprises on that front (White Hat vs. Black Hat) - if we ever really find out 'the real truth' about them. But I suspect we'll never find out for sure on a bunch of them.
For now, I assign various players in the mix kind of a 'trustworthiness percentage' based on the evidence I've accumulated thus far. But there's so much that possibly hasn't been revealed, and we can't even assume that what is revealed is even valid sometimes. That's why I try to remain open to new information and factor that into a person's 'trustworthy percentage' and either raise or lower their rating based on new data points. Overall, 'the jury is out' on sooooooo many people, IMO. I just pray that whichever ones that are truly sharks who are swimming around Trump's inner circle are NOT able to hurt Trump in any way.
What a thoughtful reply - thank you! Like you, I tend to look at data points and weigh them out, seeing which way the evidence or ‘data points’ stack up the strongest.
But even with that, we are limited as to which ‘data points’ we’re able to see/access. Much is still hidden from even the best diggers, IMO.
When evaluating a situation from a hypothesis-based standpoint, it gets muddy whenever one sees conflicting data points. For example, if I were to make a hypothesis that “Trump got rid of all the bad guys who were in his first administration” then one would conclude that people like Pence, Comey, Fauci, and Birx were good.
Therefore, lumping Pompeo into a group of people who Trump left in place through the end of his first term, to me, does not equate to “Pompeo was good,” simply because there’s plenty of contradicting evidence of other established baddies who meet that same criteria. In my mind, that ‘data point’ (someone is a good guy because Trump didn’t get him of them while in office the first time) becomes negated when too many contradictions challenge or negate that hypothesis. Make sense? :-)
I get what you're saying. I found the video clip of Tucker bashing Pompeo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxB1CcXiLY0
There are other factors that make me lean towards Pompeo being a bad guy though, such as Pompeo (reportedly - also per Tucker) being the one who convinced Pres. Trump not to release the JFK docs during Trump's 1st admin, Pompeo most certainly didn't "clean up" the CIA (as he was tasked to do in Trump's 1st administration), Trump revoking Pompeo's security detail this week, Trump not appointing Pompeo to serve in this administration in any capacity and proclaiming that Pompeo won't be getting a position in this term 3 months ago (as if Pompeo was never under consideration), etc. Just some things to consider.
That "mouth reader" phrase is giving me the giggles - LOL. But it does look plausible that Barron said, "It's on" to Biden. And Melania saying something like, "Be nice" to Barron looks plausible too. But I'm def no expert in lip reading.
If I remember correctly, the video clip I saw of Tucker (talking about Pompeo wanting to drone strike Assange), he was speaking as if he got that info directly from a source. Sorry I don't remember when/where exactly Tucker mentioned that though (seems like it was a year or so ago). I don't think Pompeo was the focus of that particular Tucker show/interview - it just came up during the show.
Just using the word "tranny" is a good substitute, IMO. :-)
And let's not memory hole that Pompeo was also the one who wanted to 'drone' Assange too (per Tucker Carlson).
Trump's sword dancing was my fave moment of the whole inauguration day. :-) I made a video clip of his whole dance scene at the CiC ball, which is longer than some of the clips I've seen from other sources.
Here's an alt for you that may be longer than clips you've seen floating around:
Oh, I know Pres. Trump is a man of his word (at least to his best ability with the best of intentions). That's not in question whatsoever, IMO. His hand not being on a Bible during his new oath taking simply created a little intrigue to me only because I saw this (random) person's video about what a possible reason could be for it and I got more curious. :-)
VIDEO CLIP embedded at the top of this THREAD: https://greatawakening.win/p/19AKArjYnh/regarding-president-trump-not-pu/c/
Wasn't Derek Johnson invited to go to Gitmo and report on 'events' down there (like a year or so ago), which then never materialized?
OMG - this is almost as intriguing as the GHW Bush funeral question of: "What was in the envelopes?" Inquiring minds wanna know!
I downloaded this video for posterity! =-)
Nothing against Tulsi re: the job she’s been chosen for, but I don’t particularly like liars and she lies about not coloring her hair. Just makes me wonder if she lies about something so trivial and ridiculous, then what else is she lying about?