#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
A young woman is taking legal action against her high school, alleging she was awarded honors at graduation even though she’s illiterate. – Thomas Sowell
The problem is that a class action lawsuit of this kind that encompassed even a small fraction of those for whom this is true would create sufficient liability to end public schooling in America.
Yeah, so, that’s not at all a problem.
Pam Bondi and the corrupt DOJ are still lying through their teeth about having released all of the information in the Epstein Files. I’ve heard that the additional 3 million documents are still less than 10 percent of the total:
MAGA broadcaster Alex Jones expressed frustration after insisting that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice was wrong to claim that it had released all documents required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
“Now it’s the big, massive top story, Saturday and Sunday, that people reading these files think maybe that’s the case,” Jones explained on his Monday show. “Again, you heard Bondi, oh, there’s hundreds of victims with Epstein and, oh, these powerful people are going to go to jail. Then she’s like, oh, actually, I was wrong.”
“So when you go into these files in the public, you see stuff blacked out, that’s the reason. So you’re like, God, that’s satanic. Yeah, folks, they have satanic training by increment to find out who is satanic to build a satanic army,” he continued.
Just two days ago, Jones was telling everyone that an apoplectic Trump was threatening to fire everyone; apparently their argument against releasing the files in full is due to how many institutional figures from the colleges and corporations to the state and federal levels would be taking a fall and that this would destroy the stock market. And supposedly, Trump had finally figured out that the stock market is going to crash anyhow, so the threat was a hollow one.
Of course, this scenario doesn’t account for the probability that the short fake Trump serves the same masters as his corrupt Department of Injustice and Other Iniquities.
Americans don’t care about the stock market or the economy. What they very much want to see every single blood-drinking satanic pedophile exposed and punished for their dreadful crimes in a timely manner. If that crashes the economy, the corporations, and the banks, well, that’s a price that the American Posterity is more than willing to pay.
Because if the system can’t prevent those crimes, the system isn’t worth preserving. And Clown World is going to collapse no matter how they try to rationalize it or preserve it.
Satanic Witch Marina Abramovic says she can no longer walk down the streets.
Hmmm… I seem to recall someone predicting that a few years ago…
UPDATE: Apparently what has been released to date is about 2 percent of the total. Also, it’s now firmly established that Bannon is one of the Epsteinists.
When Steve Bannon worked for Trump in his first term, every single thing that was inside knowledge, every secret, he ran straight to Jeffrey Epstein, the world’s most famous pedophile and child trafficker in history, and told him everything.
Not only do they have to go back, but the President can utilize the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines to make them go.
Supreme Court just handed Trump a massive win – 5-4 RULING UNLEASHES WARTIME POWERS FOR HUGE GANG DEPORTATIONS!
“In a stunning 5-4 ruling, the U.S Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump broad wartime authority under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act” – breaking news dropping like thunder.
I don’t know why this would surprise anyone. There are about 90 million aliens now occupying United States territory and a significant percentage of them certainly aren’t very friendly.
Canada has become a Monty Python skit:
Concerns have been raised over questionable deaths. In this case, the woman – referred to as “Mrs. B,” had complications after a coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a rapid decline, she opted for palliative care – and was sent home from the hospital for her husband to take care of her. As her condition worsened, the husband struggled to care for her despite visits by nurses.
After she allegedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family, her husband called a referral service, the report reads. Yet, Mrs. B told the assessor she ‘wanted to withdraw her requests, citing personal and religious values and beliefs,” and instead wanted inpatient hospice care.
When her husband took her to the hospital the next morning, doctors deemed Mrs. B to be stable, but that her husband was “experiencing caregiver burnout.” A request by a doctor for in-patient hospice care due to her husband’s burnout was denied, after which her husband asked for a second assessor to weigh in, the Daily Mail reports.
After the second assessor judged her to be eligible for MAiD, the original assessor objected – expressing concerns over the alleged “urgency” of the request, and expressing the need for further evaluation. A request to meet with Mrs. B the next day was declined by the MAiD provider, as “the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision.”
Then, a third MAiD assessor agreed with the second one, and Mrs. B was euthanized that evening.
“I feel happy! I feel happy!”
I think there would be a lot less euthanasia if the closest family member was required to administer it with a wooden club. It’s just a little too easy to farm things off to the white-coated angels of death.
And “caregiver burnout” is a thing now? How long will that take to trickle down to the streets?
“I was his caregiver, yo. I had no choice, he had me burnout!”
Since I’ve never hesitated to criticize ESR, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that he’s raised some good points on his public Q&A concerning gun rights and the recent fatal shooting of an armed protestor by federal agents in Minneapolis:
Q. This Alex Pieri character was well within his rights to be carrying a firearm at a demonstration.
A. Gun rights folks say “Yes, absolutely!” The fact that he was carrying a weapon was not grounds to shoot him. The fact that some government officials have made remarks that could be interpreted that way is immaterial; that’s on them, not on us.
Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO criminally overreaching his authority, and you are armed, and you are shot, are you a Second Amendment hero?
A. Gun rights folks answer “Yes.” Nobody is obliged to roll over for the equivalent of Redcoats trying to confiscate civilian weapons. In that case, we have your back.
Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO in the performance of his lawful duties with force appropriate to the occasion, does the fact that you’re armed when you get shot suddenly make you a Second Amendment hero?
A. Gun rights folks say “No, it does not.” In fact, under those circumstances, the fact that you were carrying a gun justifies the LEO believing you are a lethal risk even if they’ve secured your primary weapon. Because holdout guns and knives exist. If you get shot, we’re not going to cry for you.
Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO performing lawful duties but using what you deem to be excessive force, and you are armed, and you get shot, are you a Second Amendment hero?
A. Gun rights folks answer “Maybe.” It depends on whether a reasonable person would agree with you that the amount of force used was excessive. A lot of what’s been going on is an attempt to confuse these last three cases in an attempt to make gun rights folks into hypocrites and bootlickers. But we’re not going to roll over for that. We carry guns. Because we’re aware of the power that puts in our hands, we think a lot about violence and ethics and morality. The distinctions among these cases matter a lot.
Q. If you know that people being shot at demonstrations are trained agitators hooked into a covert network run by revolutionary Communists that intends to create violent confrontations and martyrs, how does this change the moral calculus of police shootings?
A. Gun rights folks answer: “These people are no longer innocent civilians, and they’re not the militia within the meaning of the Second Amendment, either; they have placed themselves in the same category as terrorists and illegal combatants.”
Of course, the idea that federal agents enforcing immigration law and the literally tens of millions of violations therein is intrinsically absurd. Everything going on in Minneapolis is the theater kid color revolution crowd that is normally engaged in spying on everyone, so trying to appeal to Americans in their defense is a definite no-go.
I’m pretty sure Constitutional protections don’t apply to many of them in the first place.
This recently filed lawsuit could be some very effective lawfare, especially when one considers how difficult it’s going to be for the vaccine lobby to play their usual “it’s too dangerous to actually test vaccine safety” game in front of a court:
In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs accused the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.
The suit alleges that the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by making “false and fraudulent” claims about the safety of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood immunization schedule — while receiving funding from vaccine manufacturers and providing financial incentives to pediatricians who achieve high vaccination rates.
“For too long, the AAP has been held up on a pedestal, as if it were a font of science and integrity,” said CHD CEO Mary Holland. “Sadly, that’s not the case.”
Instead, Holland said, the AAP “is a front operation in a racketeering scheme involving Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Media, ready at every turn to put profits above children’s health. It’s time to face facts and see what the AAP is really about,” Holland said.
According to the complaint, the AAP has worked to conceal the findings of studies that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) — now known as the National Academy of Medicine — published in 2002 and 2013.
The IOM called for more research after concluding that no studies had ever been conducted to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The AAP’s conduct constitutes a pattern of fraud under RICO, a statute often used to prosecute organized crime, said Rick Jaffe, attorney for the plaintiffs.
Perhaps this will help shut down one of the wickedest of all industries. Perhaps not. But it’s a potentially effective line of attack, and the free pass on liability the industry was given from Congress isn’t going to help them very much here.
Law officers are not restricted to justifying each and every shot they fire the way civilians tend to be:
One of the dumbest arguments being advanced in social media and elsewhere is the effort to distinguish between the ICE Officer’s first shot through the front windshield — presumably while he was still in front of the vehicle and at risk of being run into — and later shots that were fired by him through the driver’s side window after he was no longer immediately threatened.
Besides this being a 20-20 hindsight analysis that runs contrary to Graham v. Connor, it also ignores a more recent 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court involving the use of deadly force against the driver of a vehicle.
Plumhoff v. Rickart — 2014, with Justice Alito writing for a unanimous court:
Following a car-stop of a suspected drunk driver, and after just a few questions posed by the officer, the driver sped away. The officer gave chase and was eventually joined by five other cars. The chase lasted more than 5 minutes, and at times exceeded 100 mph.
The chase eventually ended in a parking lot where the suspect’s car collided with a police vehicle, and other vehicles made an effort to pin in the suspect’s car in — the high speed chase portion was over. But that wasn’t the end of the suspect’s efforts to flee:
Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and … Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window…. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building.
The comments I’ve seen on social media suggest there is case law that says each round fired must be independently justified as “reasonable.” They make this claim based on the premise that the shot fired through the front windshield must be evaluated separately from the shots fired though the passenger window, and if either are “unreasonable” then the ICE officer committed a crime. That’s just nonsense and I’d like to see anyone post in the comments a citation to a case saying that is the law.
As always, the “I’m not a lawyer crowd, but…” is extrapolating from what they think they know in order to reach a conclusion that is directly contradictory to the law. Once a police officer, or an ICE officer, or a federal officer, is justified in firing his weapon, he doesn’t face the same potential ramifications for firing subsequent shots that civilians do when acting in self-defense.
So, yes, if you finish off a wounded home invader with a double-tap as he’s desperately trying to crawl away from your house, you almost certainly will find yourself facing some serious charges. But if you’re an ICE officer who fires four, or ten, or fifty more shots after the first one, all that really matters is if the first one is justifiable or not.
Personally, I’d prefer to see the civilian standard relaxed to meet the officer’s standard. What is the societal benefit to protecting criminals who have already conclusively established that their elimination was legal and justifiable, simply because the civilian didn’t shoot quite straight enough the first time?
If we can suspend the constitution in its entirety over a 99.999% survivable virus, we can suspend it to expel all the Somalis and the Democrats facilitating their welfare and election scams.
Without question. Furthermore, the Somalis, naturalized or not, have no Constitutional rights as Americans. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the Posterity of the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Regardless of what immigrant judges may have declared over the years, no one else resident in the USA has any claim to any rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
You can point horse and say cow all you like, but that doesn’t make the horse a cow.
I have always said that feminism is the dumbest, most incoherent, most violent, and most destabilizing ideology in the history of ideology. Now Great Britain is discovering one of the many reasons why:
Britain’s leading abortion charity has been criticised for encouraging ‘sex-selective’ terminations – amid fears these are on the rise among the country’s Indian women. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which carries out 110,000 terminations a year, suggests that aborting a baby on the basis of sex is not illegal – despite Government advice explicitly stating it is against the law.
Furious campaigners called the advice ‘irresponsible’ and pointed out that many pregnant British-Indian women are under huge pressure to have boys, and may be coerced into having an abortion as soon as a scan reveals a female foetus.
Women of Indian origin are likely to have aborted 400 girls on the basis of their sex in the five years up to 2021, the latest figures reveal.
But Department of Health guidance issued to doctors in 2014 states: ‘Abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. Gender is not itself a lawful ground under the Abortion Act.’
But the BPAS website says: ‘The law is silent on the matter. Reason of foetal sex is not a specified ground for abortion within the Abortion Act, but nor is it specifically prohibited.’ BPAS carries out almost half the abortions in the UK, through drugs it sends by post or surgical procedures at its 55 clinics nationwide.
If women have the right to choose abortion, then they have the right to choose abortion for any reason. The entire concept of the freedom of speech is literally founded upon the undeniable observation of the freedom of thought, which is not a right, but a definitional tautology: one man cannot know what another man thinks.
Human Action was written on the basis of acting man alone knowing the basis for his actions. Or, in this case, her actions.
A society cannot have both a) abortion rights and b) laws against women having abortions for the wrong reasons. Obviously, there is no such thing as a “right” to murder unborn children simply due to the physical location of the child and abortion should be illegal.
But in places where it isn’t, these issues will inevitably arise, as I pointed out nearly 20 years ago. Now, what was once a problem in India is now a problem in the UK thanks to the joys of mass immigration.
Looks like we’re going to see some of those wicked Lutheran and Catholic charities aiding and abetting the invasion going out of business in 2026:
The Trump administration is making sponsors pay back the money that migrants received through tax-payer funded benefits like welfare and health care.
Deputy Secretary of HHS, Jim O’Neill, is sending out demands for repayment from sponsors of migrants who have accessed taxpayer-funded benefits. Its actually a pre-existing law that was not enforced during the Biden Administration.
O’Neill said that sponsors are on the hook for the money when sponsored migrants use public benefits.
This action lines up with federal immigration law, which has required this type of accountability since the 1996 welfare reform. Details:
Sponsors who sign Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) enter a legally binding contract to reimburse the government for any benefits received by the sponsored migrant. Covered benefits typically include programs like Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and SSI administered through HHS or related agencies. The obligation remains until the migrant becomes a U.S. citizen, accrues 40 quarters of qualifying work, departs the country permanently, or dies.
Agencies may demand repayment directly from sponsors, with options to pursue legal action for non-compliance, including recovery of costs and fees.
They should go after every illegal penny that was paid. Clown World is all about selective enforcement. Often the laws that are needed are already on the books, since only the most dangerous ones about usury and blasphemy are actually eliminated.