You're pretty well spot on, except for this:
We aren't supposed to know about 1 and 2.
If you know about it, you were supposed to know about it.
From the looks of that body, his are probably bigger than hers.
Also worth repeating: there's a better than 0% chance that there was no mom, no handcuffs, no kids, no cops and no shooting; that all of this is being made up by one of Shakespeare's infinite typing monkeys just to keep you distracted and afraid.
I think that stuff like this is often done intentionally as "evidence" of the impartiality of the fact-checkers.
"See -- we don't eben let thuh Presuhdent spread misinformation!"
Here's an interesting take (FTA):
Take the “Sugar Tax” I mentioned above. While allegedly “forcing” soft drinks manufacturers to reformulate in the name of “tackling childhood obesity”, what it actually did was mandate companies to either increase their prices or replace sugar with cheaper (and more toxic) artificial sweeteners such as aspartame.
Not to worry, politifact has diligently debunked this nonsensical conspiracy theory.
Edit: Plus, more good news!
We also fact-checked another doctored United Nations document in 2013 that claimed a civilian gun confiscation plan was in the works in the United States, and was created through Agenda 21. We rated it Pants on Fire.
They use as their sources for this declaration, nothing but MSM publications.
Isn't one of the primary purposes of a "false flag" operation to convince the media that the entity intended to be perceived as the perpetrator is the actual perpetrator?
It looks like those words are slowly being pushed "off" the coin.
That sounds just like something a purple-pilled person would say.
That was pretty interesting, so I looked up "Biden’s 13 controversial amendments to the International Health Regulations." From just a brief run-through, it looks like shilling--as in, "they really put up a fight, but we eventually compromised."
And then when you think about those amendments for about 9 more seconds, you realize that if someone from the WEF's "Global Leaders" is put into those decision-making positions -- as is the plan, from what I'm hearing -- then those amendments don't really change much of anything.
But I'd love to hear from someone who looked at it for more than 9 seconds.
See? You clearly didn't like it. And I know you're just being snarky, but you're welcome. I hope it helps you moving forward.
Some people just really don't like being put on the spot about something, whether they agree with it or not.
That part was a joke. I'll take it out, because in this climate it's too easy to take seriously.
PG 15:
Let’s lay our cards on the table: the most logical interpretation of the data is that the yellow “Deathby All Causes” line is causally impacted by C-19 injections. Evidently, they helped to cause the deaths of 15,055individuals who took those jabs within 60 days of dying, and the UK cannot be the only place where such a causal impact is occurring. The same shots have already been given in one or more doses to billions of people world-wide. Recently, Biran Hooker, PhD, commented on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “Emergency Use Approval” for a “booster” C-19 shot for children 5 to 11 in the US who have never had even a 1% risk from COVID-19 (Hughes, 2021; American Academy of Pediatrics & Children’s Hospital Association, 2022)and yet have already received two C-19 injections.9
Edit: the careers of these scientists moving forward will probably be very stable and not subject to any outside interference as retaliation for these results.
The whole thing's like an Austin Powers movie, but here's the relevant section to the title:
Scenario I, the medium variant of the United Nations 1998 Revision, assumes an annual net intake of 760,000 migrants per year between 1995-2050, for a total of 41,800,000 net migrants during the period. Accordingly, the total population of the United States is projected to increase continuously from 267 million in 1995 to 349 million in 2050 (the results of the 1998 United Nations projections are shown in the annex tables). By 2050, out of this total population of 349 million, 59 million, or 6.8 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants. The population aged 15-64 would increase slowly from 174 million in 1995 to 214 million in 2050, although not in a monotonic fashion. The population aged 65 or older would rise rapidly, from 33 million in 1995 to nearly 76 million in 2050. As a result, the potential support ratio would decrease from 5.2 in 1995 to 2.8 in 2050.
So the real plan is to only kill off 50% of the poor people, then. Makes sense.
From the article:
The Biden administration announced in May that K-12 schools must allow boys into girls' bathrooms in order to qualify for federal funds used to pay for school lunches.
Teenage me would have gone insane.
Is it 1982 already? Everybody put your head under your desk!
Reddit: The President has no control over that!!!
Me, after hearing that same excuse to mitigate several failures: A "good" president would.
Or maybe white hubris, because following the path you're going with that speculation, future generations will probably end up thinking of white people as "Native Americans" because it'll seem like they've always been here and nobody will remember the Indians.