That's what happened in "Captain America: The Winter Soldier".
Nick Fury reveals that S.H.I.E.L.D. is creating a new surveillance/weapons program called Project Insight that uses artificial intelligence to predict which people will become terrorist threats and automatically kill them with giant drones before they act. Cap disagrees with the decision to create this program, believing that this is a vast overreach of power and could be abused.
Cap is proven right when it turns out that S.H.I.E.L.D. is infested by HYDRA agents who plan on using Project Insight to kill everyone who the AI system predicts would stand in the way of their new world order.
There's something about General Mills Corn Chex that are extremely addicting.
I just looked up the ingredients. Here's the list:
Whole Grain Corn, Corn Meal, Sugar, Corn Starch, Salt, Baking Soda. Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.
The Chex website claims it's gluten free and has no artificial colors or flavors and no high fructose corn syrup.
Bryan Lunduke has found a very likely explanation for the phenomenon. It may have to do with "Right to be Forgotten" laws that exist in the EU and similar legal issues.
Here's his video:
I just asked it:
If a person had the same first name as the king of Israel whose son was Solomon, and same last name as the last name of a man whose first name was Oscar whose name is a popular brand of hot dogs, what would that person's name be?
ChatGPT said:
The person’s name would be **David
I'm unable to produce a response.
This deserves a post of its own.
https://greatawakening.win/p/199huknnvC/what-i-believe-q-meant-by-the-pr/
There's a popular concept around here that there will be a (still-future) specific edge-of-your-seat, nail-biting event called "The Precipice" (possibly involving a nuclear scare and/or something else of that level of extremeness) which will cause a large number of people to suddenly change for the better.
However, if you look at the Q drops that this idea is based on, none of them spell out such a specific event, and I believe they point toward something different.
There are the only 4 Q drops to mention the word "precipice."
The first one (drop 2254, from 2018) said we were already at the Precipice due to the Swamp fighting back. It's possible that at this point the "Precipice" was still hidden; ie, most people couldn't see yet that were were there. Only the most observant could see it.
The second one (drop 4407, from 2020) described the Precipice as a "moment of destruction", but A: the previous drop from 2018 already said we were already at the Precipice, and the past few years (as of 2024) could all accurately be described as being, or at least feeling like, a moment of destruction.
It's also important that drop 4407 also linked to a page about the Minneapolis City Council considering disbanding the police. The implication of this is that the "moment of destruction" wasn't a specific incident like a nuclear scare, but the ongoing destruction of the American system (law and order, etc).
The third one (drop 4641, also from 2020) defines the "change" in "the will to change" as "to participate."
This implies that many of the people who change due to the Precipice are those who are already awake, but due to laziness, preoccupation with other matters in their lives, or fear of being ostracized by those still asleep, did not participate in our political situation in any meaningful way.
The fourth one (drop 4685, from 2020) defines "will" as "strength" and "change" as "break the system of control [be free]". It also mentions that Joe Biden was "leading across the board" due to rigged polls and other aspects of the system of control, and mentions that "For many you cannot tell them the truth. You must show them."
This seems to imply that Biden stealing the election and ushering in four years of hardship (which had not yet happened but was about to a few months after that Q drop) was the Precipice going from from a very real but hidden danger that a few highly observant people could see boiling under the surface, to an out-in-the-open clear and obvious threat to the American way of life that would show the public at large that we were at the Precipice, and inspire in them to will to change.
When you put all of this together, the implication is that the period starting sometime around 2018 was one fraught with increasing peril for this country due to the Deep State fighting back and eating away at the very foundations of the American system and way of life, culminating in the increasingly obvious threat of destruction to America from the Biden administration after the 2020 election. This caused millions of Americans to find the will (strength) to change (participate, break the system of control, and be free).
Over the past four years, we have seen a mass awakening and an outpouring of courage and patriotism unlike anything else in our lifetimes, culminating in President Trump winning the 2024 election in a landslide so large as to overcome the (restrained compared to 2020, but still very present) election fraud.
I believe that this was the result of Americans finding the will to change after experiencing the Precipice of the Biden administration, and that in all likelihood, this is what Q was talking about in regard to the Precipice.
But what did you mean by this?
chased many of us away because they didn't "see" the 2020 steal.
I'm still confused by that. Did you mean that the Conservative Treehouse didn't believe the election was stolen?
Oh, and Sundance's much touted trip to Washington didn't help credibility.
Was there something suspicious about the trip? I've read a little about it, but not enough to have a clear view of its implications.
Could you please give me more details on what you meant about the Conservative Treehouse chasing people away because someone didn't see the 2020 steal?
Did you mean that the Conservative Treehouse didn't see the steal, or that the people they chased away didn't see it?
How much do we really know about Pam Bondi, though? According to Sundance at the Conservative Treehouse, she's a deeply-corrupted swamp creature who was behind the malicious prosecution of George Zimmerman.
An unidentified person appears to have accessed documents shared among lawyers in a lawsuit that concerns allegations against former congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Florida), according to a person who received an email notifying them of the breach. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
The file contains unredacted sworn testimony from a woman who said Gaetz paid her for sex when she was 17, along with other depositions from witnesses involved in the case, said a person who was notified of the hack, which was first reported by the New York Times. Gaetz has denied having sex with anyone underage or paying for sex.
A person named “Altam Beezley” downloaded the exhibits, according to a confirmation email received from a shared file database.
“I have not been able to identify the person who downloaded the files, but I have contacted the email address provided, asking the person to identify him or herself, instructing that their access is not authorized, and telling them that they should destroy the materials they downloaded,” wrote the lawyer who discovered the breach. “My email was returned because the email address was not found.”
The material is part of a civil defamation suit brought by a friend of Gaetz’s against third parties, including the woman who alleged she had sex with Gaetz when she was a minor. Prominent Florida lobbyist Chris Dorworth claimed that the woman and Joel Greenberg, a tax collector who pleaded guilty in 2021 to sex trafficking with a minor and other crimes, defamed him during the sex-trafficking investigation into Gaetz.
As a part of their defense against Dorworth’s suit, lawyers representing Greenberg and the woman collected 24 exhibits of sworn statements, depositions and supporting materials.
If the files are released publicly, they could identify the women who have testified against Gaetz.
Gaetz, who resigned from Congress last week after being tapped by Trump to run the Justice Department, has been trying to shore up his shaky support among a faction of Republican senators, making calls to Judiciary Committee members and saying he would be able to clear his name at a confirmation hearing.
The GOP will have a 53-seat majority next year and could not lose four or more votes on his nomination, given that it is unlikely any Democrat would vote for Gaetz. More than four Republican senators have already raised questions about his path forward.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee’s incoming chairman, has spoken to Gaetz and urged him to talk to both Democratic and Republican members of the committee, according to a person familiar with the conversation.
Grassley and some other Republicans have said they want to see the House Ethics Committee’s findings regarding Gaetz. Others have said the committee could call the women to testify at a confirmation hearing even if members don’t have access to the report.
“The truth is, the information is going to come out one way or the other,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Monday. “So I guess the more I thought about it, it’s not critical that they release a report, because we know roughly who the witnesses are” and will call them in front of the Judiciary Committee, he said.
Florida attorney Joel Leppard said in an interview with The Washington Post last weekend that one of his clients witnessed Gaetz having sex with the minor at a drug-fueled party in July 2017 — and that Gaetz was unaware of her age at the time but subsequently was told she was underage.
This woman and a second woman, also represented by Leppard, testified that they were paid by Gaetz to have sex with him and other individuals who attended these “sex parties.” They were paid through Venmo or other conduits — including the PayPal of Nestor Galban, whom Gaetz has referred to as his “adopted son.”
Leppard said his clients do not want to testify in front of the Senate committee.
“They’ve already been through so much — and each time it happens, it kind of rips apart an old wound,” Leppard said. “They really don’t want to be called in to testify. There’s a lot of facts out there, they’ve given a lot of testimony, provided countless hours and documents to the House, and they don’t want to see it go to waste.”
"Dr." Eric Berg's only medical degree is in chiropractic medicine. He uses the "Dr." title to create the illusion that he knows more about medicine than he really does. He has been caught peddling fake information many times.
He's a Scientologist who pretends to be Christian in order to appeal to viewers of his YouTube channel. Privately, he believes himself to be the reincarnation of one of the original designers of the human body.
There are many videos of his son Ian Rafalko exposing him (his Scientology connections, his bragging about selling supplements at overcharged prices to bilk money out of his viewers, etc).
Here are a couple of Rafalco's short videos (the second one even has leaked audio of "Dr." Berg using Scientology terminology):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWnMaLCl-4U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqoFwz1wI0
And a long interview with a wealth of information:
Orson Welles' "The War of the Worlds" was aired in 1938. The OSS wasn't formed until 1942.
Also, the claims of mass panic resulting from the "War of the Worlds' broadcast are greatly exaggerated. The majority of people knew it was a fictional radio show, and even most of those who were momentarily fooled immediately called CBS or their local police and quickly found out it wasn't real, or found out within half an hour from Orson Welles' narration itself.
The only 6 senators who voted not to certify the 2020 election results were as follows:
Josh Hawley, Missouri
Ted Cruz, Texas
Tommy Tuberville, Alabama
Roger Marshall, Kansas
John Kennedy, Louisiana
Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi
The rest all voted to certify.
I don't know if this was intentional on your part, but Dwight Schultz (the actor who played Lt. Barkley, pictured above) is a lifelong conservative. He even wrote a great article called "The Liberal Bastille" for Breitbart, in which he wrote about conservatives being blacklisted in Hollywood.
it states that the agencies no longer has cart blanche authority to interpret their laws when it's ambiguous.
But wouldn't that mean that, for example, Fauci still did have that legal authority when he did all of it?
I found it really telling when Sara Haines said, "Everyone has different emotions. Some people got what they wanted, a lot of people didn't."
Notice that she says some people got what they wanted, but a lot of people didn't get what they wanted.
"A lot" signifies more than "some." The implication of her words is that more people didn't get what they wanted than did get what they wanted. Even after being confronted by a full Trump victory (including the popular vote), she can't fully accept that more people wanted him to win than didn't.
The left shot themselves in the foot with their response to Trump refusing to accept the fraudulent 2020 election results.
For 4 years, they have relentlessly championed the message that questioning election results is tantamount to treason. If they question Trump's victory and try to have it overturned, they expose themselves as massive hypocrites.
I suspected before the election that they would do exactly that, but it increasingly appears that they are not doing so, in hopes of maintaining a veneer of decency.
Likewise, they spent nearly 4 years depicting a protest at the Capitol as an insurrection, so if they were to support protesting over the election results or Trump's certification, they would be exposed as "insurrectionists" by their own sanctimonious standards.
In each case, it's a lose/lose situation for them, and entirely of their own making.
Will 1960 (the year that Joseph Kennedy had the election stolen from Richard Nixon and given to his son John F. Kennedy) ever be fixed?