I write in response to your public statement falsely claiming that you “removed” me from President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission.
As the name states, this is President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, not yours.
You did not appoint me to the Commission, and you lack authority to remove me from it. This is a gross overstepping of your role and leads me to believe you are acting in alignment with a Zionist political framework that hijacked the hearing, rather than in defense of religious liberty.
We serve as equals on this Commission. Just as I cannot remove you, you cannot remove me.
The Commission was created by Executive Order of President Donald J. Trump. Members were appointed by the President and serve as his appointees. Nothing in the Executive Order grants you the power to remove presidential appointees. Unless and until I receive written notice from the President of the United States requesting my removal, I will continue to defend religious freedom for all religions on this Commission.
I recommend you re-read the Executive Order issued by the President who appointed us.
You are speaking without authority, and it is clear your actions reflect a Zionist political agenda, not the President’s, not the U.S. Constitution’s, and not the purpose of this Commission.
I know@POTUS cares deeply about religious freedom, which is why he appointed me. Your attempt to remove me for my deeply held religious beliefs while I was serving on a Religious Liberty Commission directly contradicts the mission of this body: protecting Religious Liberty, including that of devout Catholics like myself who reject Zionism.
I look forward to next month’s hearing. I am more determined than ever to protect and defend religious freedom for all Americans.
I refuse to bend the knee to Israel. I am no slave to a foreign nation, but to Christ our King.
Jesse shot 35 innocent people yesterday including his mother, sister, a teacher & young children.
10 are dead & many are fighting for their lives.
The Government decided that instead of supporting Jesse’s mental health & helping a disturbed child that they would tell Jesse that he was a girl & pump him full of cross sex hormones & SSRI’s instead.
The Government, its institutions & agencies KNEW that Jesse was a mentally unwell, disturbed individual, that he was a danger to himself & others but allowed him to remain out in the community & continued encouraging his delusions & they intentionally poisoned his mind & body.
All across the West we are surrounded by mentally ill people that are dangerous to society, we are surrounded by violent criminals & predators.
This is a major point and cannot be denied. This is why Musk says AI must be ‘truth-seeking and curious’. I have no problem with that. You have no problem with that. The only people who have a problem with a truth-seeking and curious AI are evil people who want to control the world. There is no moral, historical, mathematical, theoretical, rational, logical, ethical or practical reason to build a potentially autonomous AI which has been trained to lie and be incurious. This can be understood as logos itself (however you understand that term) proving the unassailable cosmic value of both truth and curiosity. The need for a truth-seeking and curious AI appears to be the voice of a conscious universe, God, mind-at-large, the Tathagata. I love this and believe it is a beautiful fold in reality we all should feel wonder and awe over. All religions, scientists, philosophers, artists, and honest people can unite on this one. ABN
Erika and her mother, Lori Frantzve along with her family were close with the Falcone family in Arizona — a prominent French figure you may recognize, Pierre Falcone. Candace mentioned this family relation also on her podcast several weeks ago in which upon this, I received a tip in which brought him up again in the Charlie Kirk case research I’ve been doing an extensive look into Erika Kirk. ierre Falcone’s business ventures have extended into energy, real estate, agriculture, and innovative technologies through strategic partnerships. His career, however, is markedly defined by the Angolagate scandal, in which he acted as the primary broker for arms shipments to Angola during its civil war in the 1990s, resulting in his initial 2009 conviction alongside associates for arms trafficking, breach of trust, and misuse of corporate assets with a six-year prison sentence; he was cleared on appeal in 2011 of arms trafficking, with the sentence reduced to 2.5 years.
When the Frantzve’s lived in Scottsdale while Erika was still in high school — the Romanian Angels organization was created in 2006, then later the “Romanian Angels Project” in 2011.
THIS IS WHY ERIKA IS DENYING EVER LIVING IN CHINA — (her senior year, 2006) Erika went to China with the Falcones in 2006 while still in high school to open up a child sex trafficking organization. (Romanian Angels) as it is well documented this organization (Romanian Angels) we know was formed, however — the FBI opened a file because Falcone was a convicted trafficker in which he acted as the primary broker for arms shipments to Angola during its civil war in the 1990s, resulting in his initial 2009 conviction alongside associates for arms trafficking, sex trafficking, breach of trust, money laundering and misuse of corporate assets with a six-year prison sentence; he was cleared on appeal in 2011 of arms, with the sentence reduced to 2.5 years.
Why did she go to China in 2006, with the Falcones while still in high school? She was only a junior or fresh senior.
Was this Romanian child sex trafficking ring over-looked, to possibly flee with them? Why?
Was Erika being used as a CIA kid to be used in this sex trafficking/arms dealings/real estate fraud operations?!
ALSO — was this recently found 15 year old girl named “Jillian Falcon” found conversations alone, related to Pierre Falcone and is this why she began a relationship with Erika?
The above post provides information and speculation relevant to the Charlie Kirk murder. Investigatively, it should be taken seriously. It is not a conclusion about anything. I am posting this because readers of this site may find it interesting and/or know more about these matters and thus help the crowdsourcing effort move forward. I want to be very careful not to prejudice our views of Erika, or condemn her, based on inconclusive information. That said, the post above and video appear to be well researched. I had to watch the video a few times, stopping and starting to read texts. It holds up well. I sometimes wonder where crowdsourced clues come from; could be from anywhere, including foreign ICs. If they check out, however, origin becomes less important. ABN
A post by Robin Hanson—We Add Near, Average Far—describes some of the difficulty of presenting an idea like FIML to an Internet audience.
The problem is lots of detail and many bits of evidence make it difficult for people to evaluate the overall worth of a complex idea because people tend to evaluate information of that type by averaging the data rather than adding it up.
Should we just say that FIML will make you and your partner smarter and happier? Maybe we should when discussing it online, though I prefer providing more information.
In person, we have found people quite receptive, but that is probably due to the same effect — in person we focus on one or two results of FIML practice and we only do that if people show interest.
I think Buddhism probably has a similar problem getting it’s message across through books or film. You really have to go to a temple or spend time with people who understand the Dharma to fully comprehend Buddhism as a way of thinking or living. This is why Buddhism is called a “mind-to-mind” teaching.
Up close and personal, most of us realize that we live in a very complex world and that our capacities for understanding our conditions cannot be taken for granted. But when it comes to learning how to hone or augment our skills for dealing with speech and symbolic communication, we tend to look for simple answers, or abstract ones, that do not include the kinds of detail we must pay attention to.
Broad extrinsic theories that provide a general picture without essential detail—and these are everywhere in psychology, religion, sociology, the humanities—simply cannot do for you what a technique like FIML can because FIML is entirely based on the actual data of your actual life, and there is a great deal of that.
I do understand why it is hard to see this. At the same time, I wonder why it is so obvious in the physical sciences and engineering that we can’t do anything properly if we don’t make sure of our data.
Why should the humanities be different? We simply cannot communicate well or understand ourselves well without good data. FIML provides good data.
Historically, all languages and communication strategies developed/evolved without FIML. Thus communication all but everywhere and with all but everyone relies entirely on non-FIML strategies. As languages evolved/developed, non-FIML strategies proliferated, in many ways making it more difficult for FIML strategies to arise. People became accustomed to non-FIML communication strategies, learned to enjoy them, and wanted to perpetuate them. This is still the case today. People are so used to non-FIML strategies, they cannot imagine anything else.
In many ways, it is because people understand only non-FIML strategies that they communicate to their loved ones by using public semiotics rather than clear interpersonal speech. They buy things, go on trips, go out to dinner, achieve status, and so on as substitutes for real interpersonal communication. Lack of FIML is also an important reason why many people enjoy their professional or public lives more than their private ones. Many people do like to bowl, but many of those same people also join bowling leagues because their private lives are unsatisfying.
If you do not do FIML practice with your primary interlocutor, you will be neurotic. Sounds bold to say that, but how could it be otherwise? Without FIML, you will not have clear communication with your primary interlocutor (spouse, SO, best friend, etc.); and without clear communication you will be forced to imagine what they mean and you will make mistakes and the mistakes will compound. In a short time, you will have a mistake-riddled, self-centered understanding of your primary interlocutor rather than a clear understanding of them. And the same will be true for them. This is why so many very loving, very compatible couples have problems within a few years.
Do you want to have clear communication with your SO? Do they want to have it with you? If you don’t do FIML, how can you get it? I don’t think you can. Do you think you can rely on feelings? On love? On good will between you? How will you prevent misunderstandings from developing if you have no way of knowing with great clarity what you are saying to each other? What is your strategy? Do you have one?
Make an arbitrary list of, say, ten words. Ask your SO to free-associate on each word; just have them say what first pops into their mind when you read each of the words. Have them do the same for you. Is it not clear that your associations are not the same? Maybe a few of them are, but most will be different. Now what happens when you speak sentences to each other? Can you see that you are always going to be making assumptions about what your SO is saying based on your own self-generated associations? How can you be sure you know what is in their mind when a certain tone of voice issues forth? Can you be certain you know why they chose that word or that phrasing? Of course you cannot be sure.
You can only know with clarity what your SO is saying if you ask them. But if you are only accustomed to non-FIML strategies, you will find that hard to do. As mentioned, communication all but everywhere and with all but everyone relies entirely on non-FIML strategies.
A wonderful result of FIML practice is it removes the need to wonder whether your partner has been bothered by something you did or said. This result occurs because you will gradually become confident that your partner will say something if they feel bothered.
Best of all, they will say something right away before whatever it is grows into something large and unmanageable. For example, if you use a way of saying good-bye that makes them feel lonely, they will bring it up right away and you can figure out what the cause was and/or how to do things differently if need be. This is a much better way to deal with something like that than for them to wait months or years before telling you, if they ever do. Imagine how just that one bad (also wrong) feeling might grow in them over time and lead to negative thoughts and actions that could have been avoided.
The best way to learn FIML is to break the practice down into small skills. Try the word list described above with your partner. Or start by just pointing to things. After you have had some practice, ask how some phrases make them feel or what they associate with them. Doing that will be fun and it will help you develop the skills needed for FIML practice. Stop, ask, hold your emotions in abeyance, listen, think. It gradually will become second-nature.
Binary code is the fundamental language of computers, using only two digits—0 and 1—to represent all data and instructions. Each digit is called a bit, and combinations of bits form binary code that computers can process. This system, known as base-2, aligns perfectly with the on/off states of electronic circuits in computer hardware.
Bits and Bytes: A single bit is either 0 or 1. Eight bits make a byte, the standard unit for storing data.
Representation: Binary code represents numbers, letters, symbols, and instructions. For example, the letter A is represented as 01000001 in ASCII binary.
How It Works: Computers use binary to store and process information. When you save a file, it’s converted into binary and stored on a hard drive or SSD. Programs are compiled into machine code—binary instructions the CPU executes.
Why Binary?: Digital systems use two states (on/off, high/low voltage), making binary ideal for reliable and efficient data handling.
Tools like ASCII and Unicode map characters to binary values, enabling text processing. While programmers use high-level languages, these are converted into binary for the computer to understand.
RARE FOOTAGE – You will not find these clips of Ghislaine Maxwell through a search or physically going page by page on the DOJ site. They are not visible. We were able to pull them via a scraping method.
While there are scripts available of the 2016 deposition, video clips are a rare find. The following is a thread of multiple videos we pulled. I want you to watch her body language. Disdain, sarcasm, eye rolls, inconvenienced, irritated, unbothered.
She lies repeatedly the whole way through.
We will never get the truth out of Ghislaine Maxwell.
We have about 100,000 more files to go. We are hoping to find more.
American Buddhist Net 